Republican News

This post was originally published on this site

Not every gripe that Europeans have with Donald Trump stems from his bluntness when he tells them the truth–Danish people aren’t wrong when they say Trump is being rude to demand that they hand over Greenland to the US, even if Trump believes that the Danes can’t defend the strategically-located territory. Still, the hatred for Trump has nothing to do with tariffs or bullying. 

European leaders hate him because he will tell them hard truths they desperately want to deny. German diplomats literally laughed when Trump warned them that they were too dependent on Russian gas, but after the invasion of Ukraine and the bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline (conducted by Ukraine with the assistance of the United States’ Joe Biden!) they were not laughing. 

Early in his first term, Trump began pushing NATO countries to at least honor their treaty obligations to increase defense spending to the 2% of GDP minimum. This demand was beyond the pale. An outrage! It was Trump breaking a sacred trust, even if that sacred trust was being broken daily and had been for decades by the Europeans themselves. 

How could Trump point out, quite rudely, that Europe wasn’t doing what it was both legally and morally obligated to do?! 

Sacre bleu!

Dovile Sakaliene, Lithuania’s defence minister, was said to have told her counterparts: “Russia has 800,000 [troops]. Let me tell you this, if we can’t even raise 64,000 that doesn’t look weak — it is weak.”

— Larisa Brown (@larisamlbrown) April 29, 2025

There is a lot of angst about Trump’s lack of enthusiasm for continuing the war in Ukraine until all Ukrainians of fighting age are dead or wounded, but his pressure to have Russia and Ukraine come to the peace table has exposed for all the world to see that he is right that Europe is a paper tiger and contributes almost little, aside from bases, to NATO defense. The Ukraine war has been mainly funded by the United States, which also provided the logistics and intelligence that kept Ukraine in the fight. 

Aside from Ukraine, of course, which has contributed the most in blood and treasure. The Poles have contributed much, compared to their economic capability and the size of their military, but for the most part, European contributions to the war effort have been symbolic or tangential to the military fight. 

Without the US, the war would have been lost. In fact, without the weapons that DONALD TRUMP gave Ukraine in his first term–Obama had refused to provide weapons to the country–Kiev would likely have been taken in weeks. 

Now that Trump is refusing to put boots on the ground, a “coalition of the willing” in Europe is trying to scrape together a peacekeeping force to be based there once the fighting ceases. 

And it sure looks like it’s an impossible task. And that task is impossible because, as is too often the case, Donald Trump was right when he said European military power is a joke with a pathetic punchline. 

Europe would struggle to collectively muster 25,000 troops to be part of a “deterrence” force in Ukraine because its armies are undermanned and underfunded, sources have disclosed.

The Times was given a rare insight into conversations between Europe’s defence ministers and military chiefs as they thrashed out plans for a “coalition of the willing” force.

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the British chief of the defence staff, is said to have asked his counterparts on the Continent if they could put together a 64,000-strong force to send to the country in the event of a peace deal.

He said Britain would be willing to send up to 10,000 personnel in a meeting earlier this month, it is understood.

However, in subsequent meetings, defence ministers across Europe said there was “no chance” they could reach that number and that even 25,000 would “be a push for a joint effort”, a source privy to discussions in Brussels said.

The potential commitment to the defense of Ukraine–a commitment meant only to deter Russia, not engage in long-term combat–of 64,000 troops from countries that together have a population greater than the United States–is pretty pathetic. To put that in perspective, the United States has 84,000 troops permanently based in Europe today. During the Cold War we had about 350,000 troops there. 

Europe has the potential to be a serious military power, and certainly outmatches Russia in military potential. It has a population 3x that of Russia’s and an economy 10x the size, but even against a power that the EU declares is an existential threat, they can’t muster enough troops to provide more than a speed bump to the Russian military. 

Pathetic.

That isn’t just my–or Donald Trump’s–judgment. Ask the Lithuanians who depend on NATO for their defense against the Russian Bear. 

The Times revealed last week that Britain and France are now more likely to send training troops to western Ukraine instead of a multinational ground force to protect key cities and critical infrastructure amid concerns about the risk involved.

Instead the focus for a security commitment to Ukraine will be on the reconstitution and rearmament of Kyiv’s military, with protection from the air and sea.

Defence ministers are understood to have raised concerns about Britain’s ambition for a force of 64,000 in a meeting of the “coalition of the willing” on April 10. Discussions then continued in Brussels with a smaller group of defence ministers after the coalition meeting, where allies were more frank.

Close allies made their doubts clear to John Healey, the defence secretary, and pointed out that a force of that size would require a total of 256,000 troops on the ground over two years, accounting for rotations.

Dovile Sakaliene, Lithuania’s defence minister, was said to have told her counterparts: “Russia has 800,000 [troops]. Let me tell you this, if we can’t even raise 64,000 that doesn’t look weak — it is weak.”

As angry as the Europeans are that Trump is drawing a line in the sand and saying “this far and no farther” with regard to their demands that we defend Ukraine and the entire continent, they really have no leg to stand on. They have chosen to be weak and defenseless, and now they are whining that we must protect them because they are weak and defenseless. 

They are the children on trial for killing their parents, who are demanding mercy because they are orphans. Yeah, well, you did that. 

To the extent that Russia genuinely threatens Europe militarily–I actually don’t think they want to take any NATO territory, but obviously NATO countries do think so–it is the Europeans’ fault that they have to worry about that. If a region can’t muster enough military power to deter a much smaller and poorer adversary, it is purely its own fault. 

The source pointed out that the British Army, which is steadily shrinking, was also suffering from an artillery shortage and problems with “enablers”, such as supply trucks and other equipment they would normally receive from America.

The reluctance among European countries to send ground troops to protect Ukraine is understood to have led to a shift in thinking about what the force would look like should there be a peace deal. There are also concerns about what the rules of engagement would be should Russia attack.

Under the most likely plans, British and French military trainers would be sent to western Ukraine, fulfilling a commitment to put forces inside the country. However, they would not be near the front line, guard key installations or be there to protect Ukrainian troops.

2025 is not 1985, 1961, or 1957. There is no world-historical struggle between communism and liberalism. Russian ambitions are national, not global, and the Ukraine war is a territorial dispute, not a land grab for Poland or East Germany, no less Paris. Vladimir Putin may be a bad guy and an autocrat, but he is not bent on world domination. Practically speaking, Iran presents a greater threat to Europe than Russia. 

Whatever. Europeans’ misunderstanding of the strategic playing field is hardly their biggest problem. Their inability to respond to any serious threat is. 

Trump has been warning them of this for years, and their resentment stems from his telling them the truth and demanding that they get their act together. They are no more in the right than an addict who complains that their enabler is no longer funneling them cash to feed their habit. Of course, they resent the tough love. 

But tough love is what they need. 

This post was originally published on this site

Closing the tabs …

President Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, former real estate attorney and investor Steve Witkoff, has left administration insiders distressed by his approach to negotiating with two of America’s greatest adversaries — with one calling the 68-year-old a “bumbling f—ing idiot” over his conduct.

Witkoff, who has become Trump’s de facto personal ambassador to Russian President Vladimir Putin in addition to taking on the Middle East portfolio, takes part in high-level meetings alone — and is said to have even occasionally leaned on Kremlin translators — in a break with longstanding diplomatic procedure, multiple sources told The Post. …

“His assumption that actors like Hamas or Iran are primarily motivated by a desire to live — and can therefore be reasoned with through direct engagement — reflects a dangerous misunderstanding of their long-term ideological goals,” said Shiri Fein-Grossman, the former Head of Regional Affairs at the Israel National Security Council said.

Ed: I am equally concerned that Witkoff is getting outmatched. He fell for Hamas’ rhetoric the last time, and does not appear to be presenting a formidable figure with Russia or Iran. I understand Trump’s reluctance to rely on “deep state” insiders, but he needs someone with a more realistic understanding of Hamas, Iran, and Russia. And it seems notable that administration figures are getting frustrated enough to leak to the New York Post.

===

Excellent response, particularly on weapons and the West https://t.co/QEHjhoNYpX

— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) April 30, 2025

===

Yale University officially revoked the registration of its Students for Justice in Palestine chapter after members defied university warnings and staged an unauthorized encampment protest that allegedly included anti-Semitic harassment.

The protest, which took place on the night of April 23, saw activists erect eight tents and chant radical slogans demanding Yale cut ties with Israel. Demonstrators formed a barricade around the area, blocking Jewish students from passing through and verbally harassing them, according to footage shared on social media. …

“Last night, when I should have been completing my senior thesis, I instead found myself being physically blocked—along with other Jewish peers—from walking through sections of Yale’s Beinecke Plaza.”

“Our non-Jewish classmates were allowed to pass freely through the newly formed pro-Palestinian encampment while we were shoved, pushed, and called ‘scum,’” he added.

Ed: Yale must have figured it would be next on Trump’s list for crackdowns on Academia — and they should be, if they don’t expel the students who participated in this intimidation campaign. This is precisely the conduct that should trigger Title VII sanctions by the federal government, especially the suspension of federal funds. The Free Beacon has more on this, too. 

===

This is NUTS: Secretary Rubio just announced that he found DOZENS of files kept by Joe Biden’s State Department that classified American citizens as “vectors of disinformation” — with the intention of censoring them.

That’s not all.

Marco Rubio says that there’s someone in… pic.twitter.com/Q8FcrNp9M9

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) April 30, 2025

Ed: I bet it was Elon. He was the one who stopped this nonsense on Twitter and then exposed the corrupt efforts at State and HHS to censor Americans who debated and dissented from the official narratives of the pandemic. If it was Elon, expect to see the dossier on X. 

===

This morning, the Ethics and Public Policy Center released the results of a new study on the health risks of chemical abortions. Obtaining data from a private health insurance registry, they were able to analyze health outcomes from over 800,000 women who obtained chemical abortions between 2017 and 2023. They found that over 4 percent of these women visited an emergency room and that nearly 11 percent suffered a serious adverse event. These risks are far greater than the health risks reported by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This study is important for several reasons. First, it considers relatively recent data on the health outcomes of women who obtained chemical abortions. Most of the previous research on the safety of chemical abortions analyzed older data. Prior to 2016, women obtaining chemical abortions had to make multiple in-person visits to a medical professional. Additionally, only pregnant women at less than seven weeks’ gestation could obtain chemical abortions.

Ed: This is good analysis from Michael New. Be sure to read it all. 

===

I’m not sure this is a winning message! https://t.co/hU9GIeq07Z

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) April 30, 2025

Ed: Uh … it’s not. It’s the same thinking that led Barack Obama to declare, “At some point, you’ve made enough money.” Shortages and austerity don’t sell where austerity REALLY matters, and especially not for children’s toys. 

===

Since being sworn in this month, civil rights director Harmeet K. Dhillon has redirected her staff to focus on combating antisemitism, the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports and what Trump and his allies have described as anti-Christian bias and the Democrats’ “woke ideology.” …

More than 100 division attorneys have already said they will leave their jobs, Dhillon told conservative podcaster Glenn Beck during an appearance on his show Saturday. Many departed because they disagree with the division’s new direction, she said.

The division had about 380 attorneys when Trump began his second term in the White House. Approximately half have left or said they will leave, according to people familiar with the division, and Dhillon told Beck she had no problem with their departures.

Ed: The “woke ideology” in question has resulted in race-based discrimination in hiring, higher-ed admissions, access to grants at the state and local levels, and now even in the application of justice in Minnesota and elsewhere. If attorneys in the Civil Rights Division don’t see that as a problem, then … well, bye! 

===

The Obama administration literally had an (unannounced) policy that it would not take cases in which the victims of civil rights laws violations were white. It stacked DOJ’s CRD with lawyers who were on board with this. Good riddance. https://t.co/ciMtzADQKv

— David Bernstein (@ProfDBernstein) April 29, 2025

Ed: David put it better!

===

As a millenniums-old symbol of Christian faith, the cross would seem somewhat immune to trendiness. But cross necklaces and pendants have been in vogue before and may be again as some feel more comfortable embracing their faith and seek community with others.

On red carpets, on social media, at protests by high-ranking Democrats and in the White House, necklaces with cross pendants are appearing with renewed prevalence. Chappell Roan wore an oversize one to the MTV Video Music Awards in September, and one dangled from Sabrina Carpenter’s neck in the music video for her single “Please Please Please.” The trendy online store Ssense sells them in nearly 50 variations, and mainstream jewelers like Kendra Scott and Zales carry numerous designs.

Ed: File this under “Headlines from 1984.” Didn’t we cover this “the cross as a fashion item” with Madonna? 

===

This is hilarious.

Yes, Tim, saying men need tampons is totally bro code.

What a fraud. https://t.co/raDfdvONLn

— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) April 30, 2025

Ed: I already covered this in my post early this afternoon, but Katie’s comment is pure gold. Plus, I didn’t have the video of Walz making these remarks. And what great progressive policies have improved lives in Minnesota? Letting riots burn out the urban cores of Minneapolis and St. Paul?

This post was originally published on this site

Last month the NY Times looked at corporate filings and tried to gauge how they had handled DEI issues over time. What they found was that mentions of DEI really accelerated in 2020 and peaked in 2022 but were now on the way down.

By 2022, over 90 percent of the S&P 500 had language about D.E.I. in their annual filings. Uber, for example, “committed to becoming an anti-racist company.” Best Buy wrote in a quarterly regulatory filing that “in the wake of George Floyd’s death” the company would strive to “address racial inequities.”…

Seventy-eight percent of companies — 297 out of the 381 that have filed their reports so far this year — continue to discuss various diversity and related initiatives, according to the Times analysis, which examined a decade of financial filings known as 10-Ks that public companies submit each year to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But many of them have softened or shifted previous language, by removing the word “equity,” for example, or emphasizing “belonging” rather than D.E.I.

The Washington Post must have thought this was a good approach to try to measure the corporate adoption of DEI because today they published a very similar report. They found the same basic pattern. Mentions of DEI are still present but at much lower levels than at any time since 2020.

Last year, members of the S&P 500 recorded the fewest DEI references in their 10-K filings since 2020 — when companies were under pressure from investors and the public to use their considerable resources to effect social change — according to an analysis by The Washington Post. The index represents approximately 500 large companies across 11 industries and is considered the benchmark gauge of the U.S. stock market.

The typical S&P 500 company mentioned DEI four times in 2024, The Post’s analysis found. That’s well off the nine mentions, on average, recorded in 2020, and the peak of 12.5 in 2022.

If you’re wondering about how often DEI was mentioned in corporate filings prior to 2020, the answer is rarely if at all. All of this was an attempt to jump on the Black Lives Matter bandwagon in 2020.

Before 2019, major corporations rarely, if ever, referenced DEI in regulatory filings, The Post’s analysis found. From 2015 to 2019, the term garnered less than one mention per company, on average, though some did use “diversity.”…

The topic has been on corporate radars since demographic shifts in the 1990s and 2000s prompted companies to seek out overlooked talent and start considering how identity affects people in the workplace, said Janet Stovall, a longtime inclusion consultant who works with large companies…

The introduction of “equity” considerations and the subsequent rise of the acronym “DEI” unfolded at a rapid clip after the 2020 murder of George Floyd sparked a national conversation about race, Stovall said, as corporations forged ahead with major monetary commitments and policies despite having relatively hazy ideas about what achievement would look like within their ranks.

The fever for DEI finally broke when the Supreme Court put an end to Affirmative Action in college admissions in 2023. That didn’t directly impact corporate DEI practices, but many companies felt the writing was on the wall that discriminating against one race to benefit another was potentially grounds for a lawsuit (as it should have been all along).

Still, what we’re seeing so far is a lot of corporate rebranding. DEI is out and has been replaced with “belonging.” That’s basically a synonym for inclusion which is the element of DEI most critics find the least objectionable. The D and E in DEI are different because diversity and especially equity are more likely to be tied to promotion and hiring practices that are objectionable or simply illegal.

Tension has been most intense around initiatives tied to the “D” and “E,” such as workforce representation goals, and fellowships and mentorships tied to gender or race, said Paolo Gaudiano, an adjunct professor at New York University’s business school and founder of Aleria, a data-driven inclusion consultancy. The equity piece has become particularly contentious among those who contend that DEI programs’ focus on equity results in unfair preference to those of certain backgrounds, he noted.

There are some excerpts from corporate filings that show how the language was adjusted between 2023 and 2024. Here’s one for Johnson and Johnson:

Underpinning these focus areas are ongoing efforts to cultivate and foster a culture built on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), innovation, health, well-being and safety, inclusion and belonging where the Company’s employees are encouraged to succeed both professionally and personally while helping the Company achieve its business goals.

There are several more like that. It’s a clear sign that corporations are getting the message that some of this language suggests practices they probably don’t want to have to explain in court.

This post was originally published on this site

I was all set to get worked up over this one, but I think I’ll wait until some uber Lefty judge hears about it, steps up, and shuts it down.

Who cares if truck drivers hauling thousands of tons at highway speeds can’t speak the King’s English?

Trump is a monster.

WAAHMACITO

“IT’S AN AWFUL LAW.”

Spanish-speaking trucker in Miami says he knows drivers who are selling their rigs after Trump EO now requires them to learn basic English. pic.twitter.com/7kfxmY5j1a

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) April 30, 2025

So, lemme get this straight.

The president has signed another executive order, and this one is directed at ensuring those folks behind the wheels of big rigs, dump trucks, whatever requires that big time license, can actually read and understand the traffic signs, communicate with law enforcement or transportation officials and obey other rules of the road that they need to do their job safely.

As this is America, those are in English.

…A White House document on the expected executive order, reviewed by Breitbart News, aims to ensure those operating a commercial vehicle in the United States are qualified and proficient English speakers.

“President Trump believes that English is a non-negotiable safety requirement for professional drivers, as they should be able to read and understand traffic signs, communicate with traffic safety officers, border patrol, agricultural checkpoints, and cargo weight-limit station personnel, and provide and receive feedback and directions in English,” the document notes.

Under the anticipated order, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy will be directed “to rescind and replace guidance to strengthen inspection procedures for compliance with English proficiency requirements,” per the White House document.

President Trump believes such a skill is ‘non-negotiable’?

Why, the heartless bastard. Doesn’t he realize that many Maryland-type men or other such visitors who drive trucks might not necessarily have English language skills, having only recently pole-vaulted into the tender embrace of this welcoming country? They can’t be expected to sign up for a Duolingo course the feds won’t pay for, or use Google Translate.

WHERE’S THAT JUDGE?

The sad thing is, this is already what’s known as ‘the law.’ President Trump is using the power of an Executive Order to finally make sure it’s enforced, which it hasn’t been for years, while costing lives on American roads.

I’m not just pinging on Hispanic truck drivers, either. According to Breitbart, there has been a huge influx of foreign drivers on American highways because it’s been all too easy to skirt the regulations. 

A highway disaster in Texas has exposed the growing number of dangerous foreign truck drivers on U.S. roads, and advocates are using a legislative debate in Arkansas to jump-start federal changes to loopholed trucking regulations.

“We’re trying to make a statement so that the feds will do something,” said Shannon Everett, a cofounder of American Truckers United. The foreign truck drivers — including many illegals — are killing American drivers, slashing truckers’ income, and pushing companies out of business,” he told Breitbart News.

Freight Waves described the March 13 Texas disaster when a truck slammed into the back of a traffic jam:

A man has been arrested as authorities continue to investigate the cause of a crash that killed five people Thursday on Interstate 35 in Austin, Texas.

Authorities said 17 vehicles were involved, including a tractor-trailer hauling goods for Amazon, in the accident that happened around 11:30 p.m. in the southbound lanes of I-35. Five people were pronounced dead on the scene, including a child and an infant. Eleven others were taken to hospitals.

Solomun Weldekeal Araya, 37, the Dallas-based driver of the tractor-trailer, was arrested Friday by the Austin Police Department and charged with five counts of intoxication manslaughter and two counts of intoxication assault.

Another example is this guy who can simply wave his arms around the carnage.

Another recent crash. Driver unable to speak English. pic.twitter.com/BTma88lC4U

— American Truckers (@atutruckers) April 27, 2025

The smug, insufferable, progressive AWFLs are schooling – practicing their chants of ‘RACIST!’ and ‘SIGNS ARE PICTURES!’ forgetting every time they’ve seen a mobile highway construction sign warning of a slowdown or sudden stop, or the electronic warnings above freeways, all of which are in English and meant to save lives by preventing accidents with their warnings.

It’s racist until your family is killed by a non English speaking driver who couldn’t read the sign that warned of stopped traffic ahead. These people just don’t get it. pic.twitter.com/tqOz3OxGli

— The Disrespected Trucker (@DisrespectedThe) April 29, 2025

The Department of Transportation released the details of two such accidents to put the exclamation point on the reason for Trump’s EO.

…The first crash mentioned by USDOT happened in slowed traffic on I-70 near Lakewood, Colorado, on April 25, 2019. Truck driver Rogel Aguilera-Mederos was hauling a load of lumber when he reportedly hit speeds of 85 m.p.h. in an area where trucks are limited to 45 m.p.h and lost control of his brakes before crashing into slowed traffic. The resulting pileup involved 24 passenger vehicles and four semi trucks. Video captured before the crash showed that Aguilera-Mederos bypassed a runaway ramp prior to slamming into slowed traffic, killing four and injuring several others.

…The second crash mentioned by USDOT appears to reference a fatal crash on Cheat Lake Bridge in Monongalia County, West Virginia, that occurred amid severe winter weather conditions on January 19, 2025.

According to the Monongalia County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), New York-based truck driver Sukhjinder Singh was driving at an unsafe speed when he jackknifed and struck a passenger vehicle driven by 59 year old Pennsylvania resident Kevin C. Lataille. The crash knocked the passenger vehicle into the lake below the bridge, and Lataille was considered a missing person for several days before his vehicle was pulled out of the lake with his body still inside on January 26.

But RACIST, am I right?

According to American Truckers United, there’s been an alarming rise in the number of accidents caused by and involving truck drivers who did not speak English. Not only do the practices cause tragic personal losses, they impact the entire trucking industry.

The American trucking industry is at a crossroads, facing unprecedented challenges that threaten the livelihoods of American truckers and the safety of our roads. Over the past eight years, an alarming rise in fatal truck crashes coincides with the influx of unqualified, untrained, and unvetted drivers, a direct result of illegal drivers and open borders. This practice, heavily facilitated by brokerage operations, not only undermines the advanced safety technologies designed to make our highways safer but also exploits drivers, forcing down wages and compromising road safety.

American Truckers United is dedicated to advocating for reform, pushing for transparency, accountability, and fair labor practices to restore dignity, safety, and economic justice for American truckers. Join us in this movement to reclaim our roads, ensuring they are driven by those who meet American standards, for the safety and prosperity of all Americans.

In mid-April, Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed a new Arkansas English proficiency bill into law which codified the already existing federal commercial driver’s license (CDL) regulations.

It’s official: Any truck driver operating in Arkansas who cannot exhibit English proficiency will get hit with a fine of up to $1,000.

On Monday, April 14, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed HB1745 into law. Now officially Act 604, the law requires English proficiency among truck drivers and turns improper documentation into a felony for foreign-domiciled drivers.

Specifically, truck drivers must show that they can read, write and speak English. Law enforcement will look at four factors to determine if a driver has exhibited English proficiency:

• Converse with the general public
• Understand highway traffic signs and signals in English
• Respond to official inquiries
• Make entries on reports and records

Drivers who cannot display English proficiency can be fined $500 for the first offense and $1,000 for all subsequent offenses.

It also has substantial penalties for jacked up paperwork.

…In addition to addressing English proficiency, Act 604 goes further in punishing foreign-based drivers with improper or false documents. If a driver possesses a valid foreign CDL but cannot immediately present a valid work permit or work visa, he or she faces Class D felony charges. Those charges can be downgraded to a Class A misdemeanor if drivers can show they have a valid permit or visa. An invalid foreign CDL will also result in a Class D felony.

I don’t know that Trump’s EO will go anywhere that deep, but it will put teeth back into regulations that were loosened way up in 2016.

Non Citizen Trucker Unable to Speak English is Suspected Of Causing I-80 Crash That Killed Another Trucker pic.twitter.com/SO98fbdM50

— American Truckers (@atutruckers) March 19, 2025

RACIST

Another non-English speaking semi-driver causes an accident. The left is upset that Trump is reinstating the requirement for truck drivers to speak English. In June 2024 illegal hired in CO had no trucking experience, barely spoke English, and killed one American and injured five pic.twitter.com/BjdUsqAyKn

— Robyn Rodriguez (@RRodriguez87985) April 30, 2025

It’s about time to enforce the laws on the books.

Trump is set to sign an E.O requiring all Truckers have to speak English

As a Truck driver, I encounter people who can’t communicate to a shipper or consignee w-o the babble app

You can’t speak English drive a taxi, but you can’t drive one of these pic.twitter.com/olNOgyEjPv

— @Chicago1Ray (@Chicago1Ray) April 28, 2025

Hey – I voted for that, too.

This post was originally published on this site

It was all the way back in January of 2024 that Harvard President Alan M. Garber announced a presidential task force on antisemitism and Islamophobia. Yesterday, more than a year later, those two reports were finally released. 

This comes at a somewhat inconvenient time for Harvard which has taken the lead among US universities in objecting to the demands of the Trump administration. But the conclusions of the antisemitism report in particular seems to confirm that there as a serious problem at Harvard, one which warranted the attention that was given to it by Republicans in Congress and later by the Trump administration.

The full report on antisemitism is over 300-pages-long but I’m going to pull out some of the highlights, which are really lowlights for the school. From the executive summary here’s a description of how anti-Israel activism became toxic on campus as pro-Palestinian groups took every opportunity to make their issue a focus of attention on campus.

At Harvard, student lifecycle events that are meant to build a common civic identity as Harvard students (such as First-Year Convocation at Harvard College, and residency “Match Day” at Harvard Medical School) have become sites of pro-Palestinian protests as protestors seek to inject “the question of Palestine” into areas of student life. At a student-led conference in 2024, pro-Palestinian students at one School ensured that Palestine was a major topic, and the pro-Palestinian “virtual tote bag” given to participants contained an “action toolkit.” (This School’s leadership responded admirably to this event, acting promptly and decisively to remove the irrelevant material and re-focusing the event on its intended purpose.) Some faculty at Harvard and elsewhere have sought to support and inspire students to engage in these types of protests by excusing them from class, by signaling support with symbolic clothing, or by saying so directly or indirectly. As we discuss in Chapter 4, we found evidence that certain faculty were injecting highly partisan discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and of American Jewish groups in courses that had no direct connection with these subjects, apparently even before October 7th…

At their most extreme these tactics tend to reflect a conceptual framework that can be summarized as follows: Israel is not a sovereign state so much as a “settler colony” created and sustained by Western colonial powers and that, for all its military strength, can be broken and dismembered. As Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine (HOOP), a pro-Palestinian student group at Harvard that is not recognized by the University, said on October 8, 2024, a year after the Hamas invasion of Israel, “[Israel] is a genocidal regime [that] has exposed itself as an illegitimate state with no concern for life, its very foundation being the dehumanization and subjugation of Palestinians, aided and abetted by our own government’s and University’s callous disregard for Palestinian life … Make no mistake: The Zionist entity is crumbling and grasping for regional war as its only path towards survival.” 

On campus, this attitude becomes an effort to shame and socially isolate Israeli or pro-Israel students.

We came to understand that this effort by some students to block Israelis at Harvard from building bridges and friendships could be seen as an attempt to practice what pro-Palestine activists have termed “anti-normalization.” Across Harvard, non-Jewish students unconnected to Israel told our Task Force that they had come under social pressure to end friendships with Israeli students. American Jewish students told us similar stories, where they felt pressure to condemn Israel to prove they were “one of the good ones” (meaning, an “anti-Zionist Jew”), and faced social consequences when they refused. This is best understood as an attempt to deny the humanity of Israelis, by treating them as pariahs unworthy of respect as fellow humans rather than fellow Harvard affiliates.

All of this escalated after the 10/7 attack on Israel by Hamas. Suddenly the hostility went to 11. Here’s how one grad student described it.

My experience has been different before and after October 7th. Before October 7th, being Jewish was largely irrelevant. It was not a barrier. I was proud to be Jewish. When it came up, it was positive. After October 7th, I experienced the following in this order: first there was pressure, then there was chaos, then hostility, and in certain spaces, the normalization of subtle discrimination like, “We’ll welcome you in this space if you align in a certain way. If not, you can’t come here.” This has to do with the enforcement of rules.

Suddenly, “Zionists” are enemy #1 on campus and some Jewish students feel this is just being used a substitute word for Jews. Here’s what an undergrad said about it.

There’s a tendency to replace the word Jewish with Zionist. “All Zionists should burn in hell” — it’s very frightening, there’s an incongruency between how different sides would define the term Zionist. People are proudly referring to themselves as anti-Zionist but there’s a strong overlap and it feels like this is an excuse to use a different term to make the point that they are anti-Jewish.

And Israeli students got the worst of it. This is from another undergrad:

The social exclusion and shunning of Israeli students lies at the core of the Harvard experience for many. From my first days on campus, I noticed students in pre-orientation avoiding conversation with me, simply out of fear of being associated with an Israeli. My friend has been told that others would not attend social gatherings if I was present, as they couldn’t risk the social consequences of being seen with an Israeli. Students have also chosen not to join an organization I led simply because I served in the IDF. Like other Israeli students currently at Harvard, I was excluded from the invitation list to comp for a final club, with members openly stating that IDF soldiers do not align with the club’s values. Israeli students at Harvard are not merely subjected to implicit bias but instead face explicit, deliberate discrimination.

Students also noted the clear double-standard in how anti-Zionist speech was treated.

Hearing the “river-to-the-sea” chants on campus is troubling. I approached an administrator about this, and their response was that these words could have multiple meanings. If I were part of the LGBTQ community and complained about offensive language, no one would tell me I was wrong to be upset because the language could be interpreted in multiple ways. The same would be true if I were Black and someone used offensive language around me. Why am I being told what is and isn’t antisemitism by an administrator?

One faculty member even described being surveilled when they visited the encampment on campus to listen to the speakers.

I was surveilled, identified by name, and profiled as a “Zionist” threat in a chat that reached far enough that an alum not at the protest, who I had no idea was even involved, knew exactly where I was and reached out with concern. I have not shared any of my views (complex and ever-changing) with students or in any public setting save for asking a question at a “teach in.” I have no idea what I did to end up on a blacklist, but whatever the reason I was profiled, beliefs about me that are inextricable from my Jewishness seem to have made me a potential target. 

There’s a great deal more in this report but hopefully you get the gist of what was going on there. Anyone who refused to denounce Israel, which included a lot of Jewish or Israeli students, was treated like a criminal.

There’s also a similar report about Islamophobia. Here’s how the NY Times summed up that report:

A similar task force held hundreds of conversations with Muslim, Arab and Palestinian students, staff and faculty members about anti-Muslim bias. That task force summed up the feelings expressed by many of those people in two words: “abandoned and silenced.”

Some of the students interviewed expressed a constant fear of having their pro-Palestinian views revealed along with their identities, which they worried would lead to revoked job offers. They reported being called slurs like “terrorist” and “towelhead” for wearing kaffiyehs.

Palestinian students said they felt unsupported by Harvard administrators as they mourned loved ones who had died in Gaza.

“The feeling over and over again for Palestinians is that their lives don’t matter as much,” one student told the task force.

You can read that full report here.

This post was originally published on this site

It has been a running joke (or running conspiracy theory for many) that Michelle Obama is a man who cosplays a woman. 

I have never taken that claim particularly seriously because it seems like hiding that fact for decades would be a pretty tall order. While not being on the order of faking the moon landing, which would have required hundreds of thousands of Americans to conspire together, and for even our enemies abroad to help us cover it up, it would still be a tall order for a person as prominent as Michelle Obama to carry off this deception. 

Michelle Obama: “You’re raising a trans kid. That warms my heart, as a black man.” pic.twitter.com/Kjvg8ncwNz

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 30, 2025

We have been treated to videos that appear to show Michelle with a long, flappy organ under her dress, and love letters from Barack’s early years revealed that he regularly fantasized about gay sex, but even with these tantalizing bits of evidence the whole thing is so bizarre, so unlikely, and so difficult to hide that to me it is a joke, not a genuinely interesting theory. 

Let me be clear.

Michelle Obama has a penis. pic.twitter.com/nkDQ1OA62d

— Stew Peters (@realstewpeters) May 24, 2023

But you do have to hand it to Michelle Obama. In her otherwise tedious podcast, she has revived the conspiracy theory and given it new life. 

“That warms my heart, as a black man.”

If you are inclined to give credence to the claim that Michelle is a man in a woman’s dress, this will be an “aha!” moment. See, she is caught!

Of course, she could also have simply not chosen the right words. She was, after all, praising a black man for embracing his transgender child. The implication being that black men are not generally known for progressive social attitudes, and as an alphabet ideologist, Michelle Obama is praising him for not being a neanderthal or something. 

Or, to be perfectly honest, this could be a “cheap fake”-an edit to make it look like Michelle was saying something she wasn’t. 

Yep, it WAS a cheap fake. The “black man” in question was Marlon Wayans, not Michelle Obama. 

The irony is that this exchange took place in a conversation between Obama and the Wayans brothers, Damon and Marlon, who seem like wholesome guys and good parents. Damon has an adult child who identifies as trans, and he explained how he adjusted to the new reality and how, as a parent, he embraces his child for who they are. He didn’t go into a riff on alphabet ideology, but on how his role as a parent of an adult child is to love her. 

Not a bad message. We can quibble about some of the things he said, but parents who don’t love their children are monsters, and Damon is clearly not that. 

Speculation about Michelle’s natal sex is like a parlor game, and not a matter of serious import. Michelle doesn’t want to be president, and if not, then why would it matter? Even if she ran, the issue wouldn’t be her sex, but her attitude to forcing alphabet ideology on kids and adults. 

Personally, I don’t care much one way or another if Barack is gay, Michelle a woman or a man, or anything personal like that. No doubt, Obama would be celebrated if he came out as gay, and Michelle would be hailed as the first “trans” First Lady, but what really matters is what they did to or for the country.

And, on that score, the record looks pretty bad. Since Obama was elected, race relations have become infinitely worse, and he bears much of the blame. He drastically increased health care costs for millions of Americans, and his administration pushed the Russia collusion hoax into the spotlight, devastating the country and creating divisions that may take generations to heal. 

Which genitals either has or what they do with them is nothing compared to that. 

This post was originally published on this site

The Supreme Court held oral arguments this morning in a case that all people concerned with religious liberty and school choice care very deeply about. It’s called Oklahoma Charter School Board V. Drummond, and could be the final nail in the coffin of public officials desperate to keep religious discrimination alive and well. 

The case involves what would have been a 200-student Catholic institution, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, who applied for state and federal funding to become a charter academy. The Oklahoma Supreme Court intervened, denying the previous approval as unconstitutional on the grounds of the separation of church and state. 

Cert was accepted by the Supreme Court, and in the wake of a few other similar cases – 2021’s Fulton V. Philadelphia, 2017’s Trinity Lutheran V. Comer, 2022’s Carson V. Makin, and 2020’s Espinoza V. Montana Department of Revenue, especially with the 6-3 conservative makeup of the Court, this seems on the surface to be a case of discrimination on the basis of religion, which you cannot do. It’s clearly unconstitutional. 

The Attorney General of Oklahoma, a Republican named Gentner Drummond, who is a candidate for governor in 2026, is hostile to religious entities being part of the public education system. His political career in Oklahoma, even though about as red a state as it gets, is probably over after this case. 

Why this case is very interesting, though, is because Amy Coney Barrett recused herself. She did not give a reason why, but it’s pretty obvious when one does a little research. One of her dearest friends in the world is a woman named Nicole Stelle Garnett, who clerked for Clarence Thomas at the same time Barrett clerked for Sam Alito. They’ve been friends ever since. Garnett went on to be a professor at Notre Dame, and was an early legal advisor for St. Isidore school. Barrett likely didn’t want the conflict of interest to taint the decision. 

So with an 8-seat Court hearing argument, it gets interesting, and the game of reading tea leaves in the questioning of the justices takes on another level. 

The key exchanges all came when Gregory Garre, the attorney representing Attorney General Drummond, tried to make the claim that charter schools were a creature and creation of the state all on their own, and no other case law applied. It’s a thin argument, and Justices Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas did not appear to find it very compelling. Here’s a few examples. 

Chief Justice Roberts recognizes Garre’s biggest problem is in having to argue how this case shouldn’t fall under the Fulton precedent. 

The answer was pretty muddy and wandering. The best case Drummond and his legal team can make to justify discrimination against Catholics from participating into charter schools is because Jews and Muslims would be allowed at some point, too. Justice Kavanaugh noticed that Garre didn’t directly answer the Chief’s premise and redirected.

Garre tried to carve out educational institutes from any other business or enterprise in society as the reason why you can discriminate on religion. Chief Justice Roberts wasn’t buying it. 

The reason he doesn’t understand Garre’s argument is because it doesn’t make a lick of sense. 

The boom moment came from Brett Kavanaugh, who called the defense what it is – rank discrimination. 

I get the folly of reading too much into questions by justices, but it seems pretty hard to imagine Kavanaugh being in the maybe camp. 

Neil Gorsuch had his turn. 

There really isn’t a good legal test. 

Justice Alito made his presence known as well. 

Clarence Thomas did weigh in at times throughout the entire oral argument, and has never missed on a religious liberties case. He doesn’t seem to indicate he’ll throw a spoke on this one. I count at least a 5-3 decision, with the possibility of Elena Kagan making it 6-2. 

Even though in Oklahoma politics, this case is essentially Republican on Republican crime, Drummond is learning fairly quickly that the party’s tent has edges, and he’s out in the cold here. Current Governor Kevin Stitt was on Fox News to preview how important a case this is. 

 
Oklahoma’s State superintendent of schools, Ryan Walters, piled on a little later. 

AG Drummond is siding with the left, pushing anti-Christian and anti-Trump agendas that go against Oklahoma values.

Oklahoma went 77 out of 77 counties for President Trump. That wasn’t a coincidence, it was a mandate. Oklahomans voted for religious liberty and school choice. pic.twitter.com/IiadSgElg1

— Ryan Walters (@RyanWalters_) April 30, 2025

Worst case scenario is a 4-4 tie, but I’m not seeing it. You simply cannot offer public accreditation as a charter school to everybody except a school run by a religious group. You just can’t, and Kavanaugh’s counter argument hung in the air as the gotcha moment.

It’s actually ridiculous a case like this had to come before the Court. Let’s hope that the majority decision is sweeping enough to end more discrimination cases like it in the future. 

This post was originally published on this site

Looks like the Vatican may have scored a diplomatic victory in the Russia-Ukraine war. During the funeral for Pope Francis, the Holy See arranged for Donald Trump and Volodyyr Zelensky to talk one-on-one in St. Peter’s Basilica. Neither side outlined the discussion, but many presumed it rested in large part on the mineral-rights deal that Trump offered as a way to signal Russia that America had significant interests in Ukrainian sovereignty.

And just a few minutes ago … voila:

BREAKING: UKRAINE MINERALS DEAL SIGNED, TREASURY CONFIRMS pic.twitter.com/HXrTh2cS6c

— Jacqui Heinrich (@JacquiHeinrich) April 30, 2025

Earlier in the day, it appeared that last-minute demands had snagged negotiations, although the Ukrainians sent their envoy to Washington anyway. They told reporters that they expected a final draft ready for signatures within a day:

“We are finalizing the last details with our American colleagues. As soon as all the final details have been finalized, I hope that the agreement will be signed in the near future, within the next 24 hours,” Shmyhal told the Ukrainian Telemarathon.

Despite hopes that the deal would be finalized, sources familiar with the talks told CNN that there were differing views on the signing of the documents.

Shmyhal said earlier on Wednesday that Ukraine was ready to sign the deal, and then continue to work with the US to “finalize” two “technical documents” outlining the details of the deal at a later date.

A source familiar with the Ukrainian position said that while the US “offered” to sign all three documents on Wednesday, Ukraine believed more work was needed on the technical side.

Meanwhile, a source familiar with the US position told CNN that all three documents needed to be signed on Wednesday, and that the Ukrainians were trying to reopen terms which have already been agreed upon as part of the package.

ABC News reported shortly afterward that the differences on the fund language had been resolved:

“The Fund will be replenished with contributions from the United States and Ukraine. The Fund’s profits will be reinvested exclusively in Ukraine,” Shmyhal said in the post.

Ukraine had planned to separate the signing dates, as the creation of the fund agreement was still being finalized, the source added.

“Now they’ll be rushing to finish it,” the source said.

And rush they did, apparently. It has taken Zelensky and his government a long time to get to yes, but at least they finally got there. And they’re more enthusiastic about it now than Zelensky appeared when he misjudged the meeting at the White House in February:

“This is truly a good, equal and beneficial international agreement on joint investments in the development and recovery of Ukraine,” Shmygal said on national television.

In a post on Telegram, Shmygal said that the two countries would establish a Reconstruction Investment Fund with each side having 50 percent voting rights.

“Ukraine retains full control over its subsoil, infrastructure and natural resources,” he said.

Meeting a key concern for Ukraine, he said Ukraine would not be asked to pay back any “debt” for the billions of dollars in US weapons and other support since Russia invaded in February 2022.

That might be a tough sell to Trump’s supporters, who want some accountability for the vast sums already spent on Ukraine over the past three years. Trump has to know, however, that Ukraine can’t possibly pay that back, and that the US is better off getting into a stronger commercial relationship with a rebuilding Ukraine than dealing with a broke Ukraine, even putting aside the issue of the war. 

This puts Russia in a tougher position, as the agreement was intended to do. Trump now has invested in Ukrainian sovereignty as a key American commercial interest, a signal that makes clear to Putin that we will not back away from Ukraine, even if we aren’t going to militarize the relationship any further. The Russians already suggested today that they aren’t ready for a deal, not without knowing its “nuances”:

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov warned Wednesday that “a whole series of nuances” needs to be addressed before Russia will agree to any U.S.-brokered peace deal to end Moscow’s 3-year-old invasion of Ukraine.

Speaking with journalists, Peskov appeared to downplay hopes of a quick peace agreement — which President Donald Trump said this weekend he wants to secure within two weeks.

President Vladimir Putin, Peskov said, “said that he supports this initiative — the establishment of a ceasefire, he supports it, but before going for it, a whole series of questions need to be answered and a whole series of nuances need to be resolved,” as quoted by the state-run Tass news agency.

Well, the “nuance” here is that Putin’s attempt to frustrate Trump enough to dump Ukraine didn’t work. That doesn’t mean that Putin will immediately order a cease-fire, but it does mean that Trump and the EU are aligned again on support for Ukraine and guarantees for its sovereignty with whatever borders get settled in talks. 

The ball is now in Moscow’s court. We will see whether Putin wants to return serve, or just find a way to call off the game. 

Update: The Senate may send its own signal to Putin:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a close ally of President Trump, is forging ahead on a plan to impose new sanctions on Russia and steep tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil, gas and uranium, as Trump struggles to fulfill his campaign promise to end the war in Ukraine.

The South Carolina Republican said in an interview that support for his bill crossed the critical threshold of 60 co-sponsors on Wednesday, meaning it has enough votes to overcome a Senate filibuster. By the end of the week, Graham predicted, the bill will have at least 67 co-sponsors, enough to override a potential presidential veto.

The list of co-sponsors is evenly divided between senators from both parties and notably includes Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R., S.D.), as well as other members of the Senate Republican leadership team.

Thune’s endorsement is no guarantee of a vote on the Senate floor, if Trump were to oppose one. Graham said Thune made him no promises. Still, the backing of at least 64 senators sends a message to the White House—and to Russia—that the Senate is strikingly united and poised to act, should peace talks fail. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) also became a co-sponsor Wednesday.

Trump might be inclined to push this, given his remarks following Putin’s escalation over the last few days. It at least increases his leverage in talks with Russia. 

This post was originally published on this site

One week ago, Muslim separatists crossed the border from Pakistan into India’s idyllic Pahalgam area in the disputed Kashmir region. They ruthlessly and methodically executed 26 people – some of the honeymooners, others with family they hadn’t seen in ages, and all of them for the sin of being Hindu.

India blamed Pakistan for the attack immediately, as that country has never made a concerted attempt to clamp down on the separatist Islamicist terror groups roaming the Kashmir region, preying on Hindus who live there or are visiting.

India blamed Pakistan on Wednesday for a militant attack that killed 26 people in Indian-held Kashmir, downgrading diplomatic ties and suspending a crucial water-sharing treaty that has withstood two wars between the nuclear-armed rivals.

The spray of gunfire at tourists Tuesday in a scenic, mountain-ringed valley was the worst assault in years targeting civilians in the restive region that is claimed by both countries. The unidentified gunmen also wounded 17 other people.

…India describes militancy in Kashmir as Pakistan-backed terrorism. Pakistan denies this, and many Muslim Kashmiris consider the militants to be part of a home-grown freedom struggle.

In a series of retaliatory actions, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government announced harsh measures against Pakistan on the afternoon of the attack. The most immediate and severe was the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty of 1960.

1. The Indus Water Treaty of 1960 held in abeyance immediately

2. The Attari Integrated Checkposts are closed immediately – those who have already crossed over have until 1 May to return to Pakistan

3. Pakistani nationals will not be permitted to travel to India under certain exemption visas. Any such visas previously issued are considered cancelled and any Pakistani nationals in India on those visas have 48 hours to get out

4. Pakistani defense officials in the High Commission in New Delhi are declared persona non grata. They have a week to get out

5. India will be withdrawing its defense officials from the Indian High Commission in Islamabad

…The most immediate of these to impact Pakistan is the Indus Water Treaty abeyance.

…The boldest move has been to suspend the decades-old Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan indefinitely. With this, the water supply from the Indus river and its distributaries – the Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Satluj will be stopped. These rivers are the water supply for Pakistan and impacts tens of millions of people in that country.

Some of the results of turning off the tap to Pakistan are already visible by satellite, while others are still showing flow heading south, attributed to snow melting and the runoff.

India Pakistan water wars:

Satellite images show the consequences of the Indus River Treaty in abeyance – Chenab River near Sialkot runs nearly DRY.

Flow has drastically diminished. pic.twitter.com/1hTv4ZqX8o

— Indo-Pacific News – Geo-Politics & Defense (@IndoPac_Info) April 30, 2025

Not helping the situation were rumors that the Turks had sent six planeloads of weapons to Islamabad, which the Turkish government tried to quickly snuff.

WASN’T US

Amid escalating India-Pakistan tensions and the looming threat of war, the arrival of a Turkish C-130E military transport aircraft in Pakistan has triggered speculation that one of Islamabad’s closest allies might have made an urgent arms delivery to the country. 

Multiple reports circulating on social media claimed that a Turkish C-130E Hercules landed in Karachi, allegedly to deliver military equipment. The reports were based on flight-tracking data published by open-source intelligence (OSINT) trackers. The aircraft was seen flying over the Arabian Sea on April 28.

…However, the claims were refuted by the Presidency’s Directorate of Communications. “A cargo plane from Türkiye landed in Pakistan for refueling. It then continued on its route. Speculative news made outside of the statements of authorized persons and institutions should not be relied upon.”

Yesterday, Pakistan began floating the story that they had ‘credible intelligence’ that the Indians planned to attack them within the next few days. 

Pakistan’s information minister says that the country has “credible intelligence” that India intends to launch a military strike within the next 24 to 36 hours.

Attaullah Tarar’s comments come after India accused Pakistan of supporting militants behind an attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 tourists last week. Islamabad rejects the allegations.

Tarar said that India intends to use the attack as a “false pretext” for a strike and that “any such military adventurism by India would be responded to assuredly and decisively”.

The BBC has contacted the Indian foreign ministry for comment.

The attack near the tourist town of Pahalgam was the deadliest attack on civilians in two decades in the disputed territory. Both India and Pakistan claim the region and have fought two wars over it.

Troops from both sides have traded intermittent small-arms fire across the border in recent days.

Pakistan said Wednesday it had “credible intelligence” that India is planning to attack it within days, and vowed to respond “very strongly,” as soldiers exchanged gunfire along borders and Pakistanis heeded New Delhi’s orders to leave the country… https://t.co/UYLNEQSBCi

— Washington Times Local (@WashTimesLocal) April 30, 2025

Even as Pakistani and Indian troops kept up sporadic gunfire exchanges over the Kashmir border, known as the ‘Line of Control.’

“The report clarified the significance of firing across the international border: “While the International Border is a boundary separating India and Pakistan, the Line of Control is a ceasefire line agreed upon during bilateral attempts to keep the peace. Firing across the… https://t.co/jjwewJTSC9

— Alberto Miguel Fernandez (@AlbertoMiguelF5) April 30, 2025

…Firing across the international border is very rare and particularly provocative…”

There have been a fair number of those incendiary clashes.

A great map from @detresfa_ showing the active sectors of clashes between the militaries of India & Pakistan along the LoC (Line of Control) and also on the international border, following the terror strike in Pahalgam, India. (Left side map).

On the right side, Pakistan issues… pic.twitter.com/QfiCWWLVPt

— Indo-Pacific News – Geo-Politics & Defense (@IndoPac_Info) April 30, 2025

Ratcheting up tensions even further, Pakistan closed its airspace to Indian flights the day before yesterday.

Pakistan shoots itself in the foot — closes airspace to Indian flights, but ends up losing millions in fees while its economy crumbles@mollygambhir gets you this report pic.twitter.com/J15vKO3mVl

— WION (@WIONews) April 28, 2025

Naturally, the Indians followed suit shortly thereafter.

BREAKING NEWS

India has issued a NOTAM, effectively SHUTTING DOWN its AIRSPACE for Pakistan-registered, operated, or leased aircraft, airlines, and military flights. pic.twitter.com/v5gqemLnhs

— Megh Updates ™ (@MeghUpdates) April 30, 2025

Our State Department has been running their fannies off, working the phones and contacts. They are trying to get everyone talking, and to back down before tempers flare and something really bad happens between the two nuclear-armed adversaries.

The US is pushing to calm tensions between India and Pakistan as signs mount of an imminent clash after militants last week killed dozens of tourists on the Indian-controlled side of the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio plans to speak with the foreign ministers of both countries in a bid to de-escalate the situation, US State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce told reporters in Washington on Tuesday. Rubio is also encouraging other nations to reach out as well, she added.

“We of course are encouraging all parties to work together for a responsible solution,” Bruce said. “The world is watching this.”

Ties between the nuclear-armed nations have rapidly deteriorated in the wake of the attack, which India has called an act of terrorism. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has accused Pakistan of involvement and vowed to punish those responsible. Pakistan has denied any links to the attacks and warned of retaliation if India takes military action.

Rubio’s had the parties on the phone with him. That’s a start.

…On Sunday, Washington said it was in touch with the nuclear-armed Asian neighbors at multiple levels while urging them to work towards what it called a “responsible solution.”

As there have been recent reports of movement on both sides…

According to India Today, Pakistan has forward-deployed air defense systems, electronic warfare assets, and radar installations in the Sialkot sector.

These deployments are aimed at closely monitoring Indian troop movements and enhancing early warning capabilities to detect and… pic.twitter.com/XnsjC76fwK

— GMI (@Global_Mil_Info) April 30, 2025

…getting this thing calmed STAT is in everyone’s best interest.

This post was originally published on this site

What prompted a system-wide failure in Spain’s power grid on Monday? Thus far, officials in Spain and Portugal remain tight-lipped, leading to a free-wheeling speculation market for armchair sleuths. Was it sabotage? Incompetence? Or bad public policy that made the grid unable to adjust to variables?

Jim Geraghty has a great round-up this morning at NRO, some of which will be covered here, but he also sets the scale of the failure in stark terms. The Spaniards claim that 15 gigawatts of supply suddenly dropped out twice in two seconds, forcing the grid to shut down rather than suffer catastrophic damage. How much is 15 gigawatts? Jim explains:

Even if you’re not that familiar with electricity, you probably remember Doc Brown gasping about “1.21 gigawatts” in Back to the Future, and what an enormous amount of electrical power that was in 1955. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, to generate one gigawatt, you would need nearly 2 million solar panels, 294 wind turbines on land, 103 offshore wind turbines, 1.3 million horses, or half a Hoover Dam. With one gigawatt, you could power 100 million LED Bulbs, 2,627 Tesla Model 3s, or almost one time-traveling DeLorean.

In other words, in an instant, Spain and Portugal lost seven-and-a-half Hoover Dams’ worth of electricity.

Needless to say, that scope of disaster hardly sounds like an organic failure. Spain’s judiciary isn’t buying that either, and launched a major investigation into its causes. They want all records submitted within ten days, and despite the reassuring words from the Spanish government, the court is specifically looking into the possibility of a cyberattack. Jim is skeptical of that explanation, mainly because neither Spain nor Portugal are particularly relevant to the main villains of cyberattacks — Russia, Iran, and China, although Jim mainly focuses on Russia.

If it wasn’t overt malice or unbelievable incompetence, then what was the cause? Even the New York Times wonders whether Spain’s energy policies might have created the failure, thanks to an overreliance on solar and wind power:

Spain’s power company, Red Eléctrica, proudly declared on April 16 that enough renewable energy had been generated to cover demand. “The ecological transition is moving forward,” it said.

Less than two weeks later, Spain and Portugal experienced an 18-hour blackout that disrupted daily life, shutting down businesses and schools and crippling trains and mobile networks.

Officials have given few details on the cause of the outage. But the incident exposed how Spain and Portugal, promoted as success stories in Europe’s renewable energy transition, are also uniquely vulnerable to outages, given their relative isolation from the rest of the continent’s energy supply.

Frankly, the real direction that green-energy policies create is backward. More on that in a minute, but first, the NYT also supplies a technical reason for the inflexibility of solar and wind compared to traditional fossil fuel and nuclear sources:

Old-line generation sources like gas turbines and nuclear plants have a spinning momentum known as inertia, which helps buffer the fluctuations that are more common with intermittent sources like wind and solar power.

When the Spanish grid became unstable about midday on Monday, it might have been easier to keep the system functioning if conventional power sources like natural gas or nuclear turbines had a larger presence, analysts say.

That’s certainly one reason, but the issue with “green” energy is more systemic. Turbine systems, whether operated by fossil fuel or nuclear reactors, produce a scalable output. In a properly balanced system, they wouldn’t normally run at full capacity for any significant period of time. When a failure in the grid occurs, those sources can usually be ramped up to cover the loss. Furthermore, when demand starts challenging potential capacity, additional supply can be built efficiently in terms of land use and connection infrastructure.

None of that applies to green energy sources. They produce full output at all times and lack any sort of scalability. The only way to generate more energy from those sources is to build more facilities, which take up vast swaths of land at any usable scale. Green energy provides no flexibility even in normal use, and is next to worthless when crises require more supply to the grid in a short period of time. 

In that sense, it doesn’t really matter what caused the failure in the acute sense. Whether it was cyberterrorism, incompetence, or equipment-related breakdowns, the whole system is designed to fail outside of perfect operating parameters. Green-dominant power systems lack enough scalable output to rescue the grid in a supply crisis, especially one on the 15-gigawatt scale. 

This is what I meant by going backward. Modern power systems were designed for fault tolerance by building scalable supply capacity at enough scale to keep momentary faults from taking down the whole grid. The shift to renewables, along with environmental activists fighting the addition of scalable supply based on fossil fuels and nuclear power, has sapped much of the flexibility from the US grids. That’s part of the reason the Texas grid failed in 2021, and a big part of the reason that California routinely experiences brownouts every year and has to buy fossil-fuel-produced electricity from its neighbors to keep the grid operating. 

The whodunit in the acute sense doesn’t matter. What does matter are the public policies designed to fail, and fail spectacularly. There is nothing wrong with green energy as a plus-up to a properly engineered power system (except for the massively inefficient land use), but any system that relies on ‘renewable’ energy for core demand service is a system designed for an eventual third-world status for its region or nation. Those populations had better plan for the Dark Ages, because that is where green-energy-reliant systems will take them … literally.