[guest post by JVW]

A commonsense move:

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Virginia is entitled to remove noncitizen aliens from its voter rolls, siding with the commonwealth over lower courts less than a week out from the election.

The order comes two days after Virginia attorney general Jason Miyares filed an emergency application, requesting that the Court stay an injunction that ordered Virginia to restore some 1,600 suspected noncitizens who are ineligible to vote to the state’s voter rolls. A federal appeals court upheld the injunction on Sunday, quickly prompting the attorney general to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Court released the one-page order Wednesday morning, noting that liberal-leaning Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied Virginia’s emergency request for an appeal.

Virginia made this move 90 days before Election Day, which is the latest they are allowed to do so under the law. The injunction was sought by the Biden-Harris Administration’s Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Kristen Clarke, who argued that the removal of 1,500 noncitizens was systematic and thus fell afoul of both voting rights and civil rights statutes. Ms. Clarke has been described by National Review as a “radical leftist,” who harbors racist and antisemitic ideas and has the de regueur obsession with equity. And the courts tried to elide the clearly legal nature of Virginia’s act by arguing that meeting the proscribed deadline is in fact too late if it does not leave enough time for a myriad of legal challenges. The Supreme Court is apparently not swayed by this weird logic, and thus those 1500 noncitizen residents of Virginia will not be on the voter rolls this coming Tuesday.

– JVW

[guest post by JVW]

Lost in all the brouhaha about both the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post declining to endorse Presidential candidates this year is the reality that fewer and fewer newspapers are participating in the endorsement game these days. Both the LAT and the WaPo apparently cancelled pending endorsements of Vice-President Kamala Harris due to the direct intervention of the newspapers’ billionaire owners, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong and Jeff Bezos respectively.

At the LAT, the owner’s daughter, a left-wing activist who officially has no formal role at the newspaper but who is privately said to brazenly meddle in both news coverage and editorial content, claims that VP Harris lost the editorial board’s endorsement due to the Biden-Harris Administration’s participation in Israel’s so-called “genocide.” But that claim completely ignores the fact that the editorial board was all set to publish an entirely expected endorsement of Ms. Harris until her daddy pulled the plug, and her father has denied reports that the situation in Gaza played a role. During last week’s Radio Free California podcast, co-host David Bahnsen speculated that the cancelled endorsement was payback for a past beef that Dr. Soon-Shiong had with Ms. Harris when she was the Attorney General of California.

As for the WaPo, Mr. Bezos himself wrote an op-ed in his newspaper expressing his belief that candidate endorsements contribute to a “perception of bias” which affects how readers view the news pages. Even more provocatively, he places his finger squarely on the problem that self-regarding media refuses to acknowledge: “The Washington Post and the New York Times win prizes, but increasingly we talk only to a certain elite. More and more, we talk to ourselves.” You can imagine how this must enrage the average WaPo reader, and indeed, 200,000 subscriptions have allegedly been cancelled in the last few days which probably doesn’t augur well for a newspaper which lost $77 million of Mr. Bezos’s vast fortune in the most recent year.

Over at National Review Online, Ryan Mills follows up these major developments in the Presidential race by comparing how urban newspaper editorial boards are treating Senate races in battleground states. Unsurprisingly, those who choose to endorse are largely siding with the Democrat candidate:

While most small and mid-sized papers have given up on endorsements in all but an occasional local race, National Review identified 15 papers — mostly big-city dailies — that endorsed in their state’s Senate race. Thirteen of them backed the Democrat.

In many cases, the endorsement process has become so predictable (and likely lacking in influence) that Republican candidates have simply stopped participating.

Texas newspapers such as the Houston Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News, the Austin American-Statesman, the San Antonio Express-News, and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram all have backed Democrat Colin Allred over incumbent Ted Cruz in the race. In Florida, the Miami Herald and the Palm Beach Post both endorsed Debbie Mucarsel-Powell over Republican incumbent Rick Scott. Polls still favor both Republican incumbents to win, but the endorsements strongly suggest that even in red states the newspapers feel free to let their inner leftie freak fly. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether that’s because newspapers have determined that they only reach a niche audience these days and that this niche consists almost exclusively of twee urban progressives who are now largely inculcated from how anybody outside of their orbit lives, as Mr. Bezos suggested. Even a moderate Republican like Larry Hogan in Maryland was bypassed by the WaPo, who while praising his two terms as a Republican governor in a blue state decided that his younger Democrat opponent is preferable because she “has the potential to serve in the Senate for decades,” as if that were a desirable factor rather than a cause for dread.

What is interesting, though, is the number of newspaper editorial boards who have determined that there is no upside to endorsing candidates and have opted out of the process entirely. Newspapers in Arizona and Montana, the former a battleground state in the Presidential race and the latter a battleground state in a key Senate race, are sitting this one out, perhaps realizing that they need Republican subscribers too. The Alden Global Capital newspaper group announced that it would no longer endorse at the Presidential, Gubernatorial, or Senatorial levels, and Gannett, who owns USA Today as well as 200 regional papers, now advises its publishers to not only eschew endorsements but to cut back on opinion writing too. In an internal memo sent two years ago, they surveyed the scene bluntly: “Readers don’t want us to tell them what to think. They don’t believe we have the expertise to tell anyone what to think on most issues. They perceive us as having a biased agenda.” Truer words were never spoken. Do you think anyone at the New York Times is listening?

– JVW

[guest post by Dana]

What I learned from the Trump rally at Madison Square Garden last night is: not only is it okay to be a racist, which we already knew about Trump and friends, but it’s also okay to say the quiet part out loud. Anytime, anywhere. Because if calling Kamala Harris a “cunt” was red flagged and removed from the “comedian’s” set, then we can assume that everything else that was said, no matter how racist, had been approved:

“He had a joke calling [Vice President Kamala] Harris a ‘cunt,’” a campaign insider involved in the discussions about the event told The Bulwark. “Let’s say it was a red flag.”

A sample of some of the “jokes” made last night:

And we’re right there by a wide open border. Where are my proud Latinos at tonight? You guys see what I mean? It’s wide open. There’s so many of them! Absolutely incredible.Believe it or not, people. I welcome migrants to the United States of America with open arms. And my open arms. I mean, like this. (GESTURES FEARFULLY).It’s wild. These Latinos, they love making babies. Let’s know that they do. They do. There’s no pulling out. They cum inside. Just like they did to our country! HAHAHAHA!…. And, you know, there’s a lot going on. Like I don’t know if you guys know, this is. Literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. Yeah. I think it’s called Puerto Rico.

The Trump campaign has attempted to distance itself from the attacks on minorities, but given Trump’s own racist comments, the campaign trying to distance itself rings hollow:

Trump has said immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country” and called them “criminals” who will “cut your throat.”

Earlier this year, Trump repeated false claims about Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, eating the dogs and cats of the town’s residents.

—Dana

[guest post by Dana]

Let’s go!

First news item

The richest man in the world has been very, very busy:

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a linchpin of U.S. space efforts, has been in regular contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin since late 2022.

The discussions, confirmed by several current and former U.S., European and Russian officials, touch on personal topics, business and geopolitical tensions.

At one point, Putin asked the billionaire to avoid activating his Starlink satellite internet service over Taiwan as a favor to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, said two people briefed on the request.

While the U.S. and its allies have isolated Putin in recent years, Musk’s dialogue could signal re-engagement with the Russian leader, and reinforce Trump’s expressed desire to cut a deal over major fault lines such as the war in Ukraine.

At the same time, the contacts also raise potential national-security concerns among some in the current administration, given Putin’s role as one of America’s chief adversaries.

So both Trump and Musk have been in contact with Putin for at least two years. I’m sure there’s nothing to be concerned about. . .

But not so fast:

Before the inevitable wave of bullshit trying to wave this off, remember that Putin and his terrorist mafia state are avowed enemies of the United States and its allies and consider themselves in a war footing against them.

Like Trump, Musk cares only for his personal business dealings and his image. Putin, Xi, and other dictators always find such people easy to exploit because it’s also how they operate. No messy oversight, laws, or national interests, just quid pro quo.

MAGA’s regurgitation of Kremlin talking points was not a subtle clue. Whether Musk and the rest are really that ignorant & gullible or just that corrupt and treasonous will be for years of journalism and hearings to reveal. But it won’t happen if Trump wins & they write history.

Un-American? Traitorous? Certainly not a nothing burger.

Second news item

Fair game:

The US has said for the first time it had evidence that 3,000 North Korean troops were receiving training in Russia for possible deployment against Ukraine in “a very serious” escalation that would make them “legitimate military targets”.

. . .

The [South Korea] agency also said Pyongyang had sent more than 13,000 containers of artillery, missiles, and other conventional arms to Russia since August 2023.

Third news item

The sacrifice, as told by Alexie Navalny in his prison diaries:

I’m forty-five. I have a family and children. I’ve had a life to live, worked on some interesting things, done some things that
were useful. But there’s a war on right now. Suppose a nineteen-year-old is riding in an armored vehicle, he gets a piece of shrapnel in his head, and that’s it. He has had no family, no children, no life. Right now, dead civilians are lying in the streets in Mariupol, their bodies gnawed at by dogs, and many of them will be lucky if they end up in even a mass grave-through no fault of their own. I made my choices, but these people were just living their lives. They had jobs. They were family breadwinners. Then, one fine evening, a vengeful runt on television, the President of a neighboring country, announces that you are all “Nazis” and have to die because Ukraine was invented by Lenin. The next day, a shell comes flying in your window and you no longer have a wife, a husband, or children — and maybe you yourself are also no longer alive.

And from Navalny’s wife, Yulia Navalnaya, a warning, a caution, and wise words:

“I would say to American voters, don’t take everything like granted,” Navalnaya said in the interview when asked what her message is to Americans, less than two weeks before the 2024 election.

“You are still living in democratic country, and I still believe in American institutions, and just make the right choice,” Navalnaya said.

When asked, Navalnaya declined to say which candidate she supported in the U. S. presidential election.

Fourth news item

The Menendez brothers get a break:

Los Angeles County prosecutors are recommending that Erik and Lyle Menendez be resentenced for the 1989 killings of their parents in the family’s Beverly Hills home, providing the brothers with a chance at freedom after 34 years behind bars.

District Attorney George Gascón announced his decision at a Thursday afternoon news conference.

“We are going to recommend to the court (on Friday) that the life without the possibility of parole be removed and they would be sentenced for murder,” Gascón said.

That would normally mean a sentence of 50 years to life, he said. But because of their age — they both were under 26 at the time of the crimes — they would be eligible for parole immediately.

“I believe that they have paid their debt to society,” he said. “The final decision will be made by the judge.”

I’m sure the Menendez brothers will be sending flowers to celebrity influencer and criminal advocate Kim Kardashian for her work on their behalf.

Fifth news item

Just two weeks out from the election:

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are at a stalemate, 48 percent to 48 percent, according to the final poll from The New York Times/Siena College before Election Day.

The results are a shift from the last Times/Siena College poll in early October when Harris had a slight lead, albeit inside the margin of error, of 49 percent to 46 percent.

. . .

The poll was conducted among 2,516 registered voters between Oct. 20 and 23. The poll’s margin of error is plus-or-minus 2.2 percentage points among likely voters.

Sixth news item

Kamala on abortion concessions:

. . . when asked if she would be willing to make concessions, including “religious exemptions,” she declined, stating, “We should not be making concessions when we are talking about a fundamental freedom.”

. . .

However, the best question to ask Kamala Harris would be if she opposes the Church amendments. The Church amendments were passed in 1973 after the Roe v. Wade decision. They were part of the Health Programs Extension Act of 1973, which was passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate and was opposed by only one House member. The Church amendments protect the rights of individuals and entities that object to performing certain procedures “because of their religious beliefs or moral convictions.” Does Harris want to force religious health-care professionals to participate in abortions against their will?

Seventh news item

A courageous woman in France:

Gisele Pelicot, the 72-year-old victim of mass rape whose ordeal has shocked the world, told a trial in southern France on Wednesday that she was determined that making her case public should help other women and change society.

Dominique Pelicot, her husband, has admitted to inviting dozens of strangers over nearly 10 years to their house to rape her after he had drugged her. Fifty other men also stand trial, accused of raping her.

Gisele Pelicot. . . told the court she was destroyed by what happened to her. She said how “unbelievably violent” it was for her that many of the accused in the trial, which started on September 2, said they thought she agreed to the rapes or was faking sleeping.

To help rape victims, Pelicot made a bold move:

She said she had insisted the trial be held publicly, and not behind closed doors, as is often the case to protect rape victims, in the hope it would help other rape victims.

“They (rapists) are the ones who must be ashamed,” she said, adding that having videos, filmed by her husband, of some of her rapes, shown during the trial, was “very difficult but necessary.”

Eighth news item:

Better late than never:

President Biden is expected to issue a formal apology for the federal government’s Native American boarding schools during a visit to Arizona on Friday.

. . .

“I’m heading to do something that should have been done a long time ago, to make a formal apology to the Indian nations for the way we treated their children for so many years,” Biden told reporters on Thursday.

FYI:

Between 1819 and 1969, the federal government operated more than 400 boarding schools across the country and provided support for more than 1,000 others, according to the Interior department’s investigation. The goal was complete cultural assimilation.

While most people will say this doesn’t matter, to the still-living victims, their families, and tribal members, guaranteed it does.

Ninth news item

Tucker Carlson, at a Turning Point USA event, compared Trump to America’s “dad” and that the nation needs a “spanking”. . .from “dad”:

Tucker Carlson addressed a raucous crowd in Georgia on Wednesday, where he compared former President Trump’s prospective return to the White House to a dad returning home, adding that he would give the country a “vigorous spanking.”

“There has to be a point at which Dad comes home. Yeah, that’s right. Dad comes home. And he’s pissed. Dad is pissed,” Carlson said. . .

“He’s not vengeful. He loves his children. Disobedient as they may be, he loves them. Because they’re his children. They live in his house. But he’s very disappointed in their behavior. And he’s going to have to let them know,” Carlson continued.

“When Dad gets home, you know what he says? ‘You’ve been a bad girl. You’ve been a bad little girl, and you’re getting a vigorous spanking right now. And no, it’s not going to hurt me more than it hurts you. No, it’s not. I’m not going to lie. It’s going to hurt you a lot more than it hurts me. And you earned this.’”

(video)

Eew.

America doesn’t need a “dad”. America doesn’t need a “spanking”. American voters are not children. America needs a stable leader who has the peoples best interest at heart, not his own. American needs a leader who understands the importance of the Constitution and its contents, and would never, ever consider subverting it. America needs a president who respects the rule of law. America needs a leader who doesn’t care more about his personal brand than the people he serves. America doesn’t need a leader who is frustrated by limits on presidential power, and who promises retribution on his perceived enemies. America doesn’t need a president who believes that perceived “enemies within” pose a greater threat to the nation than our enemies around the world. America doesn’t need a president who is willing to use the military to stifle his in-house enemies. America doesn’t need a president who admires murderous thugs who rule their people with an iron fist. I could go on and on, but you get the picture: America doesn’t need Donald Trump.

Have a great weekend.

—Dana

[guest post by Dana]

John F. Kelly, a former Marine and then-President Trump’s longest serving chief of staff, was interviewed about Donald Trump by a New York Times writer. While his observations are not really surprising (after all, we’ve seen Trump in action for 9 years), having the very worst confirmed though, makes it all the more jarring. His revelations about the former president as seen behind closed doors, reveals that the disturbed individual who held the most powerful position in the world (and seeks to again), was (and is) disdainful toward the U.S. military, admires murderous dictators (including Hitler), wants a military that is loyal to him alone, and resents the limits on a president’s power.

Consider:

Kelly said that based on his experience, Trump met the definition of a “fascist.”

In response to a question about whether he thought Mr. Trump was a fascist, Mr. Kelly first read aloud a definition of fascism…“Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy,” he said.

Mr. Kelly said that definition accurately described Mr. Trump.

“So certainly, in my experience, those are the kinds of things that he thinks would work better in terms of running America,” Mr. Kelly said.

He added: “Certainly the former president is in the far-right area, he’s certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators — he has said that. So he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure.”

Kelly also discussed Trump’s frustration at his powers being limited:

“He certainly prefers the dictator approach to government,” Mr. Kelly said.

Mr. Trump “never accepted the fact that he wasn’t the most powerful man in the world — and by power, I mean an ability to do anything he wanted, anytime he wanted,” Mr. Kelly said.

Kelly revealed Trump’s criticism of the U.S. military, and his willingness to use them against his perceived domestic enemies:

Mr. Trump’s recent comments about using the military against what he called the “enemy within” were so dangerous, he said, that he felt he had to speak out…“And I think this issue of using the military on — to go after — American citizens is one of those things I think is a very, very bad thing — even to say it for political purposes to get elected — I think it’s a very, very bad thing, let alone actually doing it,” Mr. Kelly said.

Unbelievably, yet not:

Mr. Kelly confirmed previous reports that on more than one occasion Mr. Trump spoke positively of Hitler.

“He commented more than once that, ‘You know, Hitler did some good things, too,’” Mr. Kelly said Mr. Trump told him.

Moreover, Kelly discusses how he had to instruct the President of the United States that Hitler was not to be admired:

“First of all, you should never say that,” Mr. Kelly said that he told Mr. Trump. “But if you knew what Hitler was all about from the beginning to the end, everything he did was in support of his racist, fascist life, you know, the, you know, philosophy, so that nothing he did, you could argue, was good — it was certainly not done for the right reason.”

Dovetailing with the NYT report’s portion concerning Trump and Hitler, The Atlantic also reports that Trump wanted generals like Hitler’s:

“I need the kind of generals that Hitler had,” Trump said in a private conversation in the White House, according to two people who heard him say this. “People who were totally loyal to him, that follow orders.”

Kelly was compelled to provide Trump with a little history lesson regarding Hitler:

In their book, The Divider: Trump in the White House, Peter Baker and Susan Glasser reported that Trump asked John Kelly, his chief of staff at the time, “Why can’t you be like the German generals?” Trump, at various points, had grown frustrated with military officials he deemed disloyal and disobedient. (Throughout the course of his presidency, Trump referred to flag officers as “my generals.”) According to Baker and Glasser, Kelly explained to Trump that German generals “tried to kill Hitler three times and almost pulled it off.” This correction did not move Trump to reconsider his view: “No, no, no, they were totally loyal to him,” the president responded. [W]hen Trump raised the subject of “German generals,” Kelly responded by asking, “‘Do you mean Bismarck’s generals?’” He went on: “I mean, I knew he didn’t know who Bismarck was, or about the Franco-Prussian War. I said, ‘Do you mean the kaiser’s generals? Surely you can’t mean Hitler’s generals? And he said, ‘Yeah, yeah, Hitler’s generals.’ I explained to him that Rommel had to commit suicide after taking part in a plot against Hitler.” Kelly told me Trump was not acquainted with Rommel.

In the NYT interview, Kelly notes that Trump views personal loyalty to him outweighs loyalty to the Constitution, looks down on those who were disabled on the battlefield, and calls service members who were injured or killed “losers and suckers”.

But the greatest danger, I think, is Trump’s demand for loyalty to be toward him before the Constitution. In other words, he would like to see the removal of our nation’s ultimate guardrail. One just has to look around the world to see how destructive compelled loyalty to a fascist leader is, to a nation and its people. It’s therefore mind-boggling that there are voters who actually think this would be a good thing. Even if Trump is not successful at securing the ultimate loyalty, the mere fact that he wants it, demands it, and sees it as beneficial (TO HIM), should be a big enough red flag for voters to understand that he simply cannot be allowed to step foot in the Oval Office again. The danger he would present to our nation with this mindset must be considered un-American and unacceptable to the voters.

Kelly confirms that he is raising alarm bells now because the election is just two weeks away:

In many cases, I would agree with some of his policies,” he said, stressing that as a former military officer he was not endorsing any candidate. “But again, it’s a very dangerous thing to have the wrong person elected to high office.

Especially dangerous for a second time…

“You can take what John says to the bank,” Amb. John Bolton says regarding the denials and new interviews from Gen. John Kelly. “If John says that Donald Trump said them, then I believe them implicitly.” pic.twitter.com/zLRAxMr5wq

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) October 23, 2024

Trump reacted to Kelly’s comments tonight, posting on social media:

Thank you for your support against a total degenerate named John Kelly, who made up a story out of pure Trump Derangement Syndrome Hatred! This guy had two qualities, which don’t work well together. He was tough and dumb. The problem is his toughness morphed into weakness, because he became JELLO with time! The story about the Soldiers was A LIE, as are numerous other stories he told. Even though I shouldn’t be wasting my time with him, I always feel it’s necessary to hit back in pursuit of THE TRUTH. John Kelly is a LOWLIFE, and a bad General, whose advice in the White House I no longer sought, and told him to MOVE ON! His wife once told me, at Camp David, John admires you tremendously, and when he leaves the Military, he will only speak well of you. I said, Thank you!

–Dana

[guest post by JVW]

Not only does she want to codify Roe into national law, she would compel health professionals to violate their own consciences in pursuit of untrammeled abortion rights:

Vice President Kamala Harris said Tuesday night she would reject religious exemptions for abortion as president, effectively forcing health-care providers to perform the medical procedure in violation of their moral conscience.

The Democratic presidential nominee has been adamant about passing a bill that would codify Roe v. Wade into law, despite the Supreme Court overturning that decision in 2022. In an interview with NBC News anchor Hallie Jackson, Harris indicated she would refuse to compromise with Republican lawmakers on the abortion legislation.

“I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body,” Harris said when asked if she would consider religious exemptions for abortion in the likelihood of a divided government.

Sure, the Harris campaign will very likely now start to quietly walk back their candidate’s loose language: of course we won’t force a health care provider to violate his or her conscience. And it is better than even money that the mainstream media will accept this correction and chalk it up to the Vice-President’s “misunderstanding” of the question. But as we freely acknowledge the rather authoritarian impulses of the GOP nominee for President and his penchant for discomforting statements with respect to civil rights, let’s also recognize that his opponent is in fact no better than he is on those matters.

Bake that cake. Kill that child.

– JVW

[guest post by Dana]

Let’s go!

First news item

Trump blames President Zelensky for letting the war with Russia start:

Donald Trump blamed Russia’s war on Ukraine on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — an escalation of a pattern of sympathetic rhetoric toward the war’s aggressor, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“He should never have let that war start. The war’s a loser,” Trump said, referring to Zelenskyy, on a podcast with conservative commentator Patrick Bet-David published Thursday. The former president added that President Joe Biden had “instigated that war,” which he has repeatedly maintained “would never have happened” if he had been president.

Additionally,

So, Trump will blame President Zelensky and even President Biden for what’s happening in Ukraine, but you know who he won’t blame? The very person who began this war: his good buddy, Vladimir Putin.

Second news item

On the heels of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar’s death, President Biden spoke to Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu:

Biden called Netanyahu from Air Force One on his way to Germany and congratulated the prime minister on the elimination of Sinwar by Israeli soldiers operating in southern Gaza.

“The leaders agreed that there is an opportunity now to push for the release of the hostages and stressed they will work together to that end,” the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office said.

The White House said Biden and Netanyahu discussed “how to use this moment to bring the hostages home and to bring the war to a close with Israel’s security assured and Hamas never again able to control Gaza.”

Of course the $64 question is how to achieve those goals.

Third news item

President Zelensky and the bottom line:

“There are two choices. Or Ukraine will have nuclear weapons, or we should have some kind of alliance, and apart from NATO we do not know any functioning alliances today. We want to choose NATO, not nuclear weapons.”

He added that the Budapest Memorandum failed, and Ukraine is the only one affected by it.

“If Russia violated this document, although it is and was the guarantor of this memorandum, then how can we believe in this document? And how can we trust all the partners who guaranteed the preservation of our territorial integrity and sovereignty? These were not only agreements between Ukraine and Russia, but between Ukraine and all partners. Which of these great countries, of all the nuclear powers, are affected? All? No, just one. Ukraine. Who gave away the nuclear weapons? All? No, just one. Ukraine. And who is fighting right now? All? No, just one. Ukraine.”

This:

either Ukraine gets full NATO membership or it will have to pursue nuclear rearmament.

These are the only two scenarios that can guarantee Ukraine’s survival in the long run.

Fourth news item

Anne Applebaum on Trump speaking like Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini:

In using this language, Trump knows exactly what he is doing. He understands which era and what kind of politics this language evokes. “I haven’t read Mein Kampf,” he declared, unprovoked, during one rally—an admission that he knows what Hitler’s manifesto contains, whether or not he has actually read it. “If you don’t use certain rhetoric,” he told an interviewer, “if you don’t use certain words, and maybe they’re not very nice words, nothing will happen.”

His talk of mass deportation is equally calculating. When he suggests that he would target both legal and illegal immigrants, or use the military arbitrarily against U.S. citizens, he does so knowing that past dictatorships have used public displays of violence to build popular support. By calling for mass violence, he hints at his admiration for these dictatorships but also demonstrates disdain for the rule of law and prepares his followers to accept the idea that his regime could, like its predecessors, break the law with impunity.

Fifth news item

On the Christian vote in November:

The only way to justify voting for Trump as a Christian is to negate the importance of character in leadership, justify all sorts of immoral behavior, and believe that the ends you desire justify the means to get there.

Then you also have to pretend like he didn’t say all the racist and sexist things, display admiration for dictators around the world, alienate allies, accept that he is not pro-life, ignore all the lies, ignore all the tantrums, and ignore the fact that the only reason his first term wasn’t utterly catastrophic was because there were some principled conservatives serving in his administration at the time that restrained him from the chaos he could’ve unleashed.

And they also have to have a high tolerance for illegal and immoral behavior and scandal…

Sixth news item

Bad news for Trump:

The judge in Donald Trump’s election-fraud case has rejected all of the former president’s arguments for sealing evidence in the case.

Judge Tanya Chutkan will unseal the evidence appendix on Friday, despite Trump saying that it will be used against him by the Kamala Harris presidential campaign.

The Republican nominee is accused of conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights in connection with an alleged pressure campaign on state officials to reverse the 2020 election results.

Seventh news item

A few letters to the editor in the Washington Post make very clear that Kamala Harris shouldn’t expect Black men to vote for her because of race. As one writer said, “It is not the job of Black men to blindly vote for Ms. Harris; it is her job to earn our vote.”

A sample from one letter:

I came across former president Barack Obama’s recent statements admonishing Black men for not blindly supporting Vice President Kamala Harris in her quest for the presidency. I have to say: As a Black man, I was very insulted by his remarks, which were more condescending than anything former president Donald Trump has said about “Black jobs.”

Mr. Obama’s allegation omitted one obvious fact: Black men have already voted for a woman for president. In 2016, 81 percent of Black men voted for Hillary Clinton. She didn’t lose because of us; she lost because 47 percent of White women voted for Mr. Trump, slightly higher than the 45 percent of them who voted for Ms. Clinton. In 2020, an even higher percentage of White women, 53 percent, voted for Mr. Trump. I highly doubt that Mr. Obama would ever speak to White women in the same belittling tone that he spoke to Black men.

And from another letter:

Former president Barack Obama’s speculation that the reluctance of Black men to be enthusiastic about Kamala Harris’s candidacy is based on sexism misses the mark.

Black men have good reason to be skeptical of a Democratic presidential candidate who, as a prosecutor, participated in the acceleration of mass incarceration of Black people resulting from Democratic President Bill Clinton’s law-and-order legislation. They watched while Mr. Clinton also engaged in punitive “welfare reform” that bolstered the false stereotype of welfare recipients as Black people looking for a handout. Mr. Obama offered a message of hope, then bailed out Wall Street even as his inadequate response to the financial meltdown — another result of Clinton-era deregulation — caused untold millions in home equity in the Black community to evaporate. No major finance executive was held responsible for this devastation.

Have a good weekend.

—Dana

[guest post by Dana]

Per CNN:

Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, one of the masterminds of the October 7 massacre in Israel, has been killed, according to the Israeli military.

“This is the beginning of the day after Hamas,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, while calling on those holding Israelis captive in Gaza to lay down their weapons and return the hostages, pledging whoever does so will be allowed to “go out and live.”

Sinwar’s body was spotted in the rubble of a building struck by an Israeli tank in Gaza, according to a radio station run by Israel’s military. The Israel Defense Forces confirmed Sinwar was “eliminated” after Israeli officials ran DNA tests and used dental records to confirm his identity.

Reportedly, there are conflicting views regarding how this will impact the hostages. Some officials say that Sinwar’s death will open up negotiations for the release of hostages while others are saying this will likely complicate, well, everything. There is also the suggestion that Sinwar’s brother may fill Sinwar’s shoes, with regard to Hamas.

President Biden’s reaction to the news:

Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar is dead.

This is a good day for Israel, for the United States, and for the world.

Here’s my full statement. pic.twitter.com/cSe1czhd9s

— President Biden (@POTUS) October 17, 2024

As for Gazans’ reaction to the news of Sinwar’s death, here is a sample. I think we can reasonably assume that the individual speaks for many, many Gazans:

”He humiliated us, started the war, scattered us and made us displaced without water, food, or money,” Mohammed said, speaking on condition of anonymity, for fear of reprisals from Hamas members. “He is the one who made Israel so this.”

—Dana

[guest post by Dana]

A voter asked the former president why he should support him in the November election. This was the best the former president could come up with:

Voter: I am a Republican that’s no longer registered. Your inaction during your presidency was a little disturbing to me. What happened during January 6th and the fact that you waited so long to take action while your supporters were attacking the Capitol. Coronavirus, I thought… pic.twitter.com/Z6JFVUouZX

— Acyn (@Acyn) October 17, 2024

Given that this was a golden opportunity for Trump to vigorously explain why he is worth the man’s vote, do you think he was successful in his efforts? Do you think the man was convinced by Trump’s half-truths and flat-out lies as he avoided answering the specific questions he was asked??

If you do, please explain the “how” and “why” of your view.

Oh, and about that “day of love” Trump blathered about, consider reality:

They almost loved me to death.

— Staff Sergeant Gonell, Aquilino (@SergeantAqGo) October 17, 2024

—Dana

[guest post by Dana]

Just how much of an impact is the misinformation being disseminated by Donald Trump and other Republicans having on the ground in post-hurricane areas? Well, it’s having enough of an impact to compel FEMA instruct all federal responders to evaucate a region in need:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency said it made “operational adjustments” in North Carolina over the weekend and temporarily paused aid in parts of the state amid concerns that an armed militia is threatening government workers.

The Washington Post reported that FEMA had advised federal responders in Rutherford County to “stand down and evacuate the county immediately” on Saturday, citing an email from an official with the U.S. Forest Service, which is supporting recovery efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene.

The email said National Guard troops had encountered trucks of “armed militia saying they were out hunting FEMA.”

A “armed militia hunting workers”??? This is abhorrent. Residents bought into the lies being told them by someone who only cares about their vote. And that man is cunning enough to understand how to play on the vulnerabilities of people in distress, as well as fanning the flames of their anger. Of course it’s the agency that seeks to help that is the target of that frustration.

That the misinformation was countered by FEMA with actual facts did not matter to Trump. It didn’t matter because, as we already know, Trump doesn’t care about anyone but himself. The safety and welfare of hurricane victims does little more than provide Trump with a means to an end:

Though Trump’s Thursday claim about FEMA money and migrants had already been debunked by Friday, Trump repeated the claim to reporters at least twice on Friday — and then said it again at a Friday night town hall event in North Carolina.

Trump, who is desperate to become our next president, in no way met the moment after the two natural disasters wreaked their havoc. All he did was to foment anger and frustration and instill a paranoia in the victims. He could have disseminated correct information from the get-go. He could have encouraged people to seek help. He could have explained where and how FEMA would be helping. But instead of painting the distributors of aid as good guys, he chose to paint a negative and untruthful picture of them.

And some of you still want to vote for this guy. . .

—Dana