Psychic news? Theoretical news? Thought-crime news?

Stupid theory news?

Maggie Haberman, the unethical and biased Times reporter who, often with her colleague Jonathan Swan, diligently devises news angles that will cause gullible Americans to fear and hate their President, has a new “scoop.” “Frustrated by Courts, Trump Weighed Suspending a Constitutional Right” the story is headlined. Let’s begin with the fact that as is so often the case with the Times, the headline is misleading and deceitful. When I read it, I assumed that the President had considered suspending a Constitutional right guaranteed to all Americans. Wouldn’t that be how you would read it? But the subhead makes it clear that the headline is scare-mongering: “Secret memos show that the White House debated last year, to a greater degree than previously known, whether to limit habeas corpus rights for undocumented immigrants.” Wait, the Times is playing language games again—undocumented immigrants? What the Times means is illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are people who have no right to be in the country at all. The U.S. generously (and unwisely, in my opinion) extends the constitutional rights all citizens possess to non-citizens, but that doesn’t mean that a strong argument can’t be mounted (as it has been and should be) that under certain conditions, people who are here illegally can have those rights suspended.

Maggie’s hit job story goes on to describe how a White House lawyer circulated a“confidential” memo explaining why this would be a bad idea, and as a result, the option of attempting to lock up illegal immigrants without due process of law was abandoned. In other words, nothing happened. The “news” is that the President and his advisors and lawyers discussed a possible solution to the deep and dangerous problems caused when the previous administration did not enforce U.S. laws, and decided against it. Oh, but see, it was “debated” to a “greater degree” than “previously known.” Hmmmm. At what point is debating an out-of-the-box policy too much debate when the end result is…nothing? Is a policy consideration not news when someone says, “We could do this!” and everyone says, “Nah. Are you nuts?” but suddenly is news when they say, “OK, let’s think about that” but soon someone delivers a memo that says “The idea is nuts” and then the idea is abandoned?

Taking their cue from Democrats, who seem hell-bent on proving that American voters are too stupid, inattentive and trivial to be entrusted with a Republic, here is an AI TV campaign attack video in the Alabama Lt. Governor race. Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen approved the head-exploding ad against John Wahl, the former Chair of the Alabama Republican Party to gain an advantage in the party’s runoff for the position. Trump endorsed Wahl, who finished in first place in the primary earlier this month but short of the 50% of votes necessary to win outright. Apparently he has a pet raccoon that sleeps on or in his bed with him. Now me, I would automatically vote against any candidate who would insult my intelligence with such an ad.

Meanwhile…

1. And now, the rest of the story.…Last August, EA told the story of Shannon Joslin, a Yosemite park ranger fired for mounting a Pride banner on El Capitan. Poor Shannon! “I’m devastated, said Joslin, “We don’t take our positions in the park service to make money or to have any kind of huge career gains. We take it because we love the places that we work. I have a Ph.D. in bioinformatics, and I could be making a lot more money in Silicon Valley, which is only a few hours away, but I made career choices to position myself in Yosemite National Park, because this is the place that I love the most.’” I asked, “Then why did you use your position to make an unauthorized political statement while marring the natural beauty that tourists expect to see in National Parks?”

Well, Shannon sued the Park Service (the lawyer who came up with the theory should be sanctioned), claiming that his/her First Amendment rights were breached—you know, because any other employee gets to put up political signs in the middle of their workplace without approval or permission, right? No? The dismissal was “vindictive” and “retaliatory” and meant to “communicate disapproval of a particular point of view”? Really? Uh, no. The stupid suit was dismissed last week.

In a side Great Stupid issue of continuing annoyance, the New York Times begins its report announcing that Shannon is non-binery and uses “they and them” pronouns, so it feels required to confuse readers by using plural pronouns to describe a single idiot throughout the story. Typical section: “To me this ruling isn’t a ‘win’ for the federal government,” they added in a text message. “This just slows down the process of allowing justice to be served for the American people and slows down allowing National Park Service employees to be effective stewards of public lands.” And the way to be stewards of public lands is to allow rangers to mar them with Pride flags. Brilliant! “Right now, it is unclear whether Dr. Joslin will ever have their day in court,” “their” lawyer said. Awww. What a shame that would be!

Sorry, back to the pronouns; the sheer stupidity of this whole episode got me off track. The duty of a news source is to make the facts clear to readers, not to accommodate all the political correctness hoops the subject of the story insists everyone jump through. Don’t know whether you’re male or female? Too bad. Pick one. Or be prepared for the singular pronoun “it.”

A recent participant in the comment wars asked if EA was going to have any further comments on the Los Angeles mayoral election, which is an ethics lemon in about every way imaginable. Thinking about it, I suppose I have…

1. In the end, it may be that the predictable result of Democrats rigging the primary and election process to ensure that two unqualified extreme leftist women-of-color oppose each other will not be what is remembered, but the emergence of Spencer Pratt as a rising force in American politics. He was in the cast of the brain-dead reality show The Hills, and his main qualification to be mayor was that he was wiped out by the L.A. wildfires that current mayor Karen Bass allowed to rage in her incompetence and then lied about it. That’s like claiming that being mugged qualifies one to be chief of police. Pratt and his reality show actress wife own Pratt Daddy, “an exclusive crystal company,” whatever that means. In L.A., though, not being a woke idiot may be a qualification all by itself.

Like Ronald Reagan half a century ago, Pratt can speak persuasively in complete sentences, and has sufficient acting chops to project intelligence and gravitas. He mopped the stage with both of his Democratic adversaries, Bass and councilwoman Nithya Raman in their debate. He also had deft, humorous, and effective online ads that may be the beacon of what campaign ads will become.

Pratt has refused to concede despite being ejected from the final race by the Democratic machine in a, shall we say, dubious but not surprising manner. As you can see in his most recent ad, he intends to expose the corruption and incompetence in L.A. politics, although I might ask what more needs to be exposed.

Today Elon Musk, already the world’s richest person, became its first trillionaire as the result of a record-setting initial public offering from SpaceX, his rocket and artificial intelligence company. As the company ended the day valued at more than $2 trillion, Musk’s wealth jumped to $1.2 trillion.

Good for him. Bravo!

The abuse being hurled his way for earning money commensurate with his contributions to civilization and the United States particularly is unusually foolish and unethical even for the political and ideological Left, from whence it is coming. Musk is a trillionaire now because he is an innovator, he is gutsy, he spends his money wisely, he takes big risks less wealthy people will not, and he has provided jobs aplenty in new industries. He is almost certain to accomplish much more going forward; it’s exciting to speculate. What’s not to like?

Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York City wrote on X (because he’s a Communist and has never built a business in his life), “Reason #1,000,000,000,000 why we should tax the rich.” Would somebody please tell the Mayor that we do tax the rich? It is estimated that Musk has paid about 11 billion dollars in state and federals taxes over the years, and even more internationally. Senator Elizabeth Warren posted on social media that the average U.S. household would have to work more than 11 million years to attain Musk’s level of wealth. That is the epitome of “missing the point.” I read even dumber complaints about Musk on my Facebook feed.

Maybe something is wrong with me: never in my life did what someone else made, possessed or have in the bank make me envious of him or her, resentful, or feel anything at all, frankly. Maybe it is because I figured out early in life that someone making more money than me doesn’t cause me to make less unless we are both line items in a limited budget.

Musk deserves more than a trillion dollars: he deserves a heroic statue next to Miss Liberty, because his purchase of Twitter, something only he could do because he had money to burn, rescued free speech in the U.S. and open political discourse from censorship by the totalitarian Left.

Those who attack Musk because he has made a great fortune doing great things don’t comprehend liberty, capitalism, genius, risk-taking, innovation, problem-solving, oh, lots of wonderful things. And they vote for barely employed oyster-seekers who have Nazi symbols on their chests and abuse women.