Althouse: Sunrise at Lake Mendota, 6:48, and later, around 1:30, warm sun near Lake Wingra.

Nobyembre 15, 2025

Sunrise at Lake Mendota, 6:48, and later, around 1:30, warm sun near Lake Wingra.

Write about whatever you want in the comments.

151 komento:

FullMoon ayon kay ...: With the daily concerns, news, and rumors about underage sex, how many here have had sex prior to being of legal age?
More rare for the boomers, I imagine.; 11/15/25, 6:48 PM
john mosby ayon kay ...: Fullmoon: yup, I thought it was a tenet of the left that teens should have free love. Standing ovations for Roman Polanski and all that. Yet they wag their fingers like the Church Lady at sex with teens on Epstein Island. Is it Fen’s Law that the left doesn’t really believe the things they say they believe? CC, JSM; 11/15/25, 6:55 PM
Inga ayon kay ...: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/marjorie-taylor-greene-blasts-trump-for-fueling-threats-against-her-the-man-i-supported-and-helped-get-elected/

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) accused President Donald Trump of fueling and egging on “threats” against her as she said she’s having discussions with private security firms amid her escalating rift with the president.

“I am now being contacted by private security firms with warnings for my safety as a hot bed of threats against me are being fueled and egged on by the most powerful man in the world,” Greene posted to X on Saturday. “The man I supported and helped get elected.”

In a Saturday post, Trump called Greene a “traitor” and “disgrace” to the Republican Party.

“Aggressive rhetoric attacking me has historically led to death threats and multiple convictions of men who were radicalized by the same type rhetoric being directed at me right now,” Greene wrote on X. “This time by the President of the United States. As a woman I take threats from men seriously.”

Greene added she has a “small understanding” of the “fear” Epstein’s victims felt now.

“I now have a small understanding of the fear and pressure the women, who are victims of Jeffrey Epstein and his cabal, must feel,” she wrote. “As a Republican, who overwhelmingly votes for President Trump‘s bills and agenda, his aggression against me which also fuels the venomous nature of his radical internet trolls (many of whom are paid), this is completely shocking to everyone.”🍚

Trump is losing some of his once most loyal supporters.; 11/15/25, 6:57 PM
Inga ayon kay ...: How might underage girls being trafficked to powerful middle aged billionaires differ than underage sex between minors?; 11/15/25, 7:02 PM
FullMoon ayon kay ...: Answer the question Inga.; 11/15/25, 7:02 PM
FullMoon ayon kay ...: Never mind, I see you already did.; 11/15/25, 7:04 PM
FullMoon ayon kay ...: How many women were groomed by their future husband taking them on dates, showering them with affection and free gifts?; 11/15/25, 7:13 PM
rehajm ayon kay ...: bobcat in the yard today. wandering around front and back, ate somebody in the front yard, probably a squirrel. Set off the front porch light and camera a few minutes ago…; 11/15/25, 7:23 PM
Kakistocracy ayon kay ...: Trump cuts agricultural tariffs in bid to bring down grocery prices ~ WSJ

A tacit admission from Trump that tariffs directly increase prices for US consumers.

Tariffs were always going to be inflationary.

The math don’t math, as they say!; 11/15/25, 7:28 PM
LibertarianLeisure ayon kay ...: Beautiful pictures! Looks like a lovely, sunny, fall day.; 11/15/25, 7:31 PM
john mosby ayon kay ...: FullMoon: "How many women were groomed by their future husband taking them on dates, showering them with affection and free gifts?"

You're headed toward "now we're just haggling over the price" territory....CC, JSM; 11/15/25, 7:32 PM
rehajm ayon kay ...: …all the Presidential white paint reminds me of that Jimmy Carter comedy album…Hail to the Teeth? I can’t remember bit one of the tracks was the Carters making improvements to The White House like lining the drive with tires cut in half. ‘…and paint them white…’ was the repeated punch line. ‘we wouldn’t want it to look tacky…’; 11/15/25, 7:33 PM
n.n ayon kay ...: Inflation occurs when fiscal policies are mismatched with productivity.; 11/15/25, 7:38 PM
n.n ayon kay ...: How might underage girls being trafficked to powerful middle aged billionaires differ than underage sex between minors?

Sexual exploitation through a superior position.

You're headed toward "now we're just haggling over the price" territory

All's fair in lust and abortion.; 11/15/25, 7:41 PM
Inga ayon kay ...: “Increased Foreclosures: In late 2025, reports indicated that foreclosures had jumped significantly compared to the previous year. Data from Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) showed a 23% jump in foreclosure starts in the third quarter of 2025 compared to a year prior.

Affordability Crisis: The primary driver for these trends is the ongoing housing affordability crisis. The typical household earns significantly less than what is needed to afford a home, due to high home prices, elevated interest rates (which have generally stayed above 6% since September 2022), and rising costs for insurance and property taxes.”

Forbes; 11/15/25, 7:42 PM
Breezy ayon kay ...: How many young children were trafficked along the southern border by the open borders loving democrats? Trafficking is horrible no matter where and who — don’t call out one avenue and ignore or actively stifle the others. Have some integrity.; 11/15/25, 7:46 PM
Inga ayon kay ...: “How many young children were trafficked along the southern border by the open borders loving democrats?”

Why do you think that child trafficking by foreign(or domestic) people was ok with Democrats? Your premise is flawed.; 11/15/25, 7:50 PM
Inga ayon kay ...: Also, do you think that Americans should not defend or care about these women, many who were trafficked as underage girls by powerful men because children were trafficked at the border? Do two wrongs make a right? Maybe you should have some integrity first before accusing Democrats of not caring about sex trafficked children at the border.; 11/15/25, 7:55 PM
Ann Althouse ayon kay ...: The obsession with this subject is unwholesome.; 11/15/25, 7:56 PM
Breezy ayon kay ...: “Why do you think that child trafficking by foreign(or domestic) people was ok with Democrats? Your premise is flawed.“

Because the Biden administration enabled it. That’s why.; 11/15/25, 8:00 PM
Mason G ayon kay ...: "Sunrise at Lake Mendota, 6:48..."

Sunrise 'round these parts is an hour later than that, and it'll get to be as late as 8:30 before it starts getting earlier again.

Which is why I have no interest in year-round DST. Sure, it gets dark earlier, but who wants a 9:30 sunrise?; 11/15/25, 8:02 PM
Inga ayon kay ...: “Because the Biden administration enabled it. That’s why.”

“Policies following federal law: Legal experts have stated that the exemption for unaccompanied minors in Biden's asylum policy is consistent with federal laws designed to protect children from trafficking. They note that President Trump's administration also had this exemption.”

Gemini; 11/15/25, 8:05 PM
Kakistocracy ayon kay ...: Naalis ng may-ari ang komentong ito.; 11/15/25, 8:11 PM
n.n ayon kay ...: How many boys were groomed by trans? First, by homos in the closet, now with social progress by couplets, by men in feminine gender mockumentaries, too.; 11/15/25, 8:19 PM
n.n ayon kay ...: Tariffs compensate for arbitrage. Prices increase when regulatory indiscretion is aborted or otherwise changed.; 11/15/25, 8:22 PM
Kakistocracy ayon kay ...: "The obsession with this subject is unwholesome."

Trump and his own aides spread the Epstein conspiracy during the 2024 campaign and even earlier.

Of course there are conspiracies involved in the Epstein case. How else did Epstein get a slap on the wrist when he was convicted the first time? If it weren't for the Miami Herald, the whole Epstein affair would have been hushed up.

MAGA opened Pandora's box without realizing their Dear Leader was in there too.; 11/15/25, 8:23 PM
Breezy ayon kay ...: So, Biden obviously didn’t follow immigration laws by the millions, but he obviously definitely followed child trafficking laws… Got it.; 11/15/25, 8:31 PM
Aggie ayon kay ...: And just like that, all of the accusations of Trump's supposed serial sexual transactions with underage girls as the bestest pal of Jefferey Epstein at his various properties, have completely evaporated, and now nobody ever heard of Epstein. Epstein who?; 11/15/25, 8:34 PM
Inga ayon kay ...: “And just like that, all of the accusations of Trump's supposed serial sexual transactions with underage girls as the bestest pal of Jefferey Epstein at his various properties, have completely evaporated, and now nobody ever heard of Epstein. Epstein who?”

What? Is this supposed to make sense?; 11/15/25, 8:37 PM
Lazarus ayon kay ...: Don't we all sort of know that the "Epstein Files" are kept under wraps because of national security, international politics and "sources and methods"? No administration of either party is going to release them. The Democrats are just playing political games.; 11/15/25, 8:56 PM
Gospace ayon kay ...: Reports are coming in that the Mexican Presidential Palace has fallen to the mob. The government hasn't fallen- yet. But things are getting interesting down there.; 11/15/25, 9:05 PM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi ayon kay ...: “The obsession with this topic is unwholesome”

The mental derangement is breathtaking.; 11/15/25, 9:08 PM
Peachy ayon kay ...: Oh My: Dem Received Texts from Epstein During 2019 Congressional Hearing - and It Gets Worse; 11/15/25, 9:42 PM
Peachy ayon kay ...: A 2023 Business Insider investigation showed that Epstein donated large sums of money to U.S. Virgin Islands politicians, including to Plaskett(D).

After Epstein’s arrest in 2019, Plaskett’s office initially said she was unlikely to return her campaign donations from the disgraced financier, but reversed course after public backlash.

"In 2023, six Epstein accusers sued government officials from the U.S. Virgin Islands, including Plaskett(D), alleging that they helped and benefited from Epstein’s sex-trafficking enterprise in the U.S. territory. The lawsuit against Plaskett(D) was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice earlier this year.; 11/15/25, 9:45 PM
Jupiter ayon kay ...: Here's something to ponder on. The inconceivably brutal political system called the Soviet Union deployed coercive measures almost beyond comprehension in the service of its determination to bring about the only truly just and moral possible state of human affairs. I am reminded, in particular, that people were sealed in barrels, with nails pounded through the sides, that were then kicked down a staircase in the Lubyanka. People were left tied on a cot in a prison cell, for days, with a towel in their mouth tied to their feet, which were drawn up behind their heads. The doctrine of this regime held that any sympathy for its victims was a deviation from moral truth, and deserved a punishment even more devastating than that visited upon its hapless victims. People were elevated to high positions who had no especial capabilities, and who therefore owed the entirety of their preferment to the machine that they served, and hence were constitutionally unable to to oppose it in even its most clearly insane measures.

Such were the dreadful weapons that the Soviet State brought to bear upon all who offered it the least opposition, or merely happened to find themselves in its juggernaut path. One has to suppose that such measures must lead to what Orwell foresaw; A boot, stamping on a human face, forever.

And yet, in only three generations, this awful machine brought to power a group of men who lacked the will to deploy these awful weapons. Stalin's faithful and capable servant, Krushchev, found himself unable to excuse the hideous atrocities in which he had been complicit. If this is not a miracle -- and I think it is not -- then surely it is a caution to anyone who hopes to impose perfection on this crooked timber.; 11/15/25, 9:54 PM
gadfly ayon kay ...: Since September 2, Donald Trump has summarily executed 76 civilians suspected of drug trafficking in 19 separate airstrikes in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean.

But the administration admitted in a closed-door briefing to Congress that they don’t even know the identities of the people they’ve killed.

Two people who survived boat bombings were released back to their home countries because the Trump administration lacked sufficient evidence to even arrest them.

In the words of one member of Congress who attended the briefing, “This is just murder.”; 11/15/25, 10:00 PM
Jupiter ayon kay ...: Perhaps the difficulty, is that the boot must have a foot inside. Which would certainly explain why certain malefactors of great wealth are so determined to deploy robotic feet, controlled by "artificial intelligence". Meaning, -artificial amorality -- a willingness to perform atrocities that is simply a mechanical inability to perceive that some actions are atrocious.; 11/15/25, 10:08 PM
Achilles ayon kay ...: Inga said...

“How many young children were trafficked along the southern border by the open borders loving democrats?”

Why do you think that child trafficking by foreign(or domestic) people was ok with Democrats? Your premise is flawed.

ICE documented hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied minors who entered the country during the 4 years of the Biden administration.

These children showed up in court, were processed, then released inside the country to illegals who were not their parents.

I know you are a really stupid person so let me help you out: Child trafficking is bringing a child into the country and releasing them to the care of people who have no familial connection to them.

Since Trump has taken over ICE has found thousands of these children who were being abused and used for child labor.

You supposed hundreds of thousands of children being trafficked. But we already knew you were a piece of shit.; 11/15/25, 10:12 PM
Achilles ayon kay ...: gadfly said...

Since September 2, Donald Trump has summarily executed 76 civilians suspected of drug trafficking in 19 separate airstrikes in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean.

Maybe they shouldn't get on a boat in a foreign country full of guns and drugs and try to land on our shores in an armed invasion of our borders.; 11/15/25, 10:14 PM
Achilles ayon kay ...: Inga said...

“And just like that, all of the accusations of Trump's supposed serial sexual transactions with underage girls as the bestest pal of Jefferey Epstein at his various properties, have completely evaporated, and now nobody ever heard of Epstein. Epstein who?”

What? Is this supposed to make sense?

Only to people with an IQ above 80.; 11/15/25, 10:15 PM
Jupiter ayon kay ...: 'In the words of one member of Congress who attended the briefing, “This is just murder.”'
Despite the fact that it is gadfly who brings this up, it is an issue. Obviously, if the US were officially at war with Venezuela, and the Venezuelan government was deploying military assault craft against our frontiers, it would be legitimate, within the laws of nations, for the US to use military force to oppose those craft, up to and including their utter destruction, and the death of their crews. Such is war.

The problem, is that such actions are predicated upon the claim, that these watercraft are "fentanyl missiles" launched against the US by the Venezuelan regime, in order to damage the US by deracinating our population. If these are merely private Venezuelan citizens, smuggling drugs in violation of the laws of both nations, then we might call upon the Venezuelan government to suppress them, and we might arrest them, with all due process, pomp, and circumstance, when they arrive in our waters. But it is illegal to simply obliterate them with military munitions.

It turns out, that according to a lot of people, the US Constitution was a suicide pact.; 11/15/25, 10:19 PM
Jupiter ayon kay ...: If someone is trying to kill you, and you refuse to take efficacious measures against him because it would be illegal ...; 11/15/25, 10:24 PM
Jupiter ayon kay ...: "If the law believes that, then the law is a ass!"; 11/15/25, 10:28 PM
Maynard ayon kay ...: The obsession with this subject is unwholesome.

The obsession is all about smearing non-lefties. It's the same bs as the Russia collusion hoax, among other hoaxes.

Igna, gadfly and Kaki are obsessed nearly to the point of insanity, as we all know. They represent the base of the Democrat party.; 11/15/25, 10:50 PM
Prof. M. Drout ayon kay ...: The "international law" that so many people like to invoke without reading treats traffic in narcotics on the high seas using the same language as is used when discussing piracy. Every nation is required to cooperate to the fullest extent in the repression of piracy, and ANY nation can seize or destroy a pirate vessel.
If a vessel NOT engaged in piracy and was seized or destroyed, the U.S. would be liable for loss or damages caused by the seizure or destruction. So all Venezuela would need to do is to demonstrate that the ships weren't engaged in narcotics trafficking on the high seas.
Seems like it would be pretty easy for them to do so if it was true--you'd have on-shore evidence like contracts to buy bait or ice or nets and other equipment, or you'd have cargo manifests and schedules, right?
But are these vessels flying the Venezuelan flag? In those night-vision images it would be hard to tell WHICH flag they were flying, but no worries, because they aren't flying any flags at all in any of the ones I've seen.
So they are unflagged vessels on the high seas and the state they came from has made no effort to claim specific losses or damages.
Also, the boats we've blow up could only be confused for fishing boats by complete idiots. Where are the nets stowed? Where are the fish stored? If you go OUT of port with the entire boat filled with big blue oil-drums, where are you going to put all the fish you catch with the nets you can't fit into the boat because of the blue containers?

(We haven't even mentioned the NYT article that interviewed neighbors and relatives, who all said things to the effect of 'well yeah he was running drugs, but he really didn't want to and he's a really nice guy, not an active terrorist.' Ok then).

What I find most annoying is that the performative bullshit of whining about this don't actually believe that the U.S. is blowing up honest fishermen trying to make a living. They know that these are drug-running boats, and that they're unflagged vessels in international waters, and that the military isn't picking the boats at random. Everybody knows all this, but some feel a need to pretend that they don't so as to try to appear morally superior. It's not working.; 11/15/25, 11:17 PM
Jupiter ayon kay ...: I'm thinking about a hypothetical, in which Mexico indicts Eric Holder for various crimes associated with the "Fast and Furious" fiasco, which resulted in numerous deaths of Mexican citizens. Would we extradite his criminal ass?

I have to say, that Eric Holder is a disgusting exemplar of just how far DNA can go wrong. He is a sickening display of shameless criminality, and it is painful to recognize any hint of shared humanity with such a wretched pond of genetic dysfunction. Why do things like this exist? Because we have somehow failed.
And yet; imagine that Eric was extradited to Mexico! Who can deny, that he would be an ornament to any prison in that admittedly imperfect jurisdiction. It is true, Mexico does not have any freezing cold prisons at 12,000 feet, like Peru. Still, I can't help but feel, that a place could be found for Eric. The 21st Century is not over yet, and Eric Holder may still encounter justice. The arc of history ...; 11/15/25, 11:19 PM
Jim at ayon kay ...: They know that these are drug-running boats, and that they're unflagged vessels in international waters, and that the military isn't picking the boats at random.

If the Obama/Biden Administration was doing it, you'd see the left celebrating it. And the right - while not being fans of said admin - appreciating whatever it took to at least make a dent in the problem.

Again, if Trump cured cancer ... the left would bitch about all the oncologists out of work.; 11/16/25, 12:12 AM
gadfly ayon kay ...: According to the Chicago Tribune:

The Trump administration on Friday released the names of 614 people whose Chicago-area immigration arrests may have violated a 2022 consent decree, and only 16 of them have criminal histories that present a “high public safety risk.”

The newspaper reports that of the 16 people arrested with criminal histories—representing just 2.6% of the total listed in the filing— “five involved domestic battery, two were related to drunken driving, and one allegedly had an unidentified criminal history in another country.” None had criminal backgrounds that included worst-of-the-worst offenses like rape or murder.

During Wednesday’s hearing, the judge suggested many of those who remain in detention likely have no history of criminal conduct and were targeted by federal agents simply for fitting a specific profile.

Being brown will put you down.; 11/16/25, 3:55 AM
john mosby ayon kay ...: Jupiter: your Holder hypo was almost beautiful, Why ruin it with "genetic dysfunction?" CC, JSM; 11/16/25, 4:41 AM
Humperdink ayon kay ...: From Hillary to Christopher Steele to the FBI to the Commies impeachment to the FBI to Judge Boalsberg … and not a soul in jail.; 11/16/25, 5:57 AM
Humperdink ayon kay ...: Re: Zero Palisades homes rebuilt. Several years ago an Amish home was destroyed by fire. It was a Thursday. The debris was cleared on Friday. Construction on the new home started on Saturday. The family moved in to their new home on Monday night. We’ve come a long way!; 11/16/25, 6:12 AM
Achilles ayon kay ...: Jupiter said...

I'm thinking about a hypothetical, in which Mexico indicts Eric Holder for various crimes associated with the "Fast and Furious" fiasco, which resulted in numerous deaths of Mexican citizens. Would we extradite his criminal ass?

My problem with that is he is our responsibility. It was our honor the he impugned.

Mexico is Mexico's problem.

If we were a decent people who had any honor at all Eric Holder would have been executed publicly.; 11/16/25, 6:26 AM
Achilles ayon kay ...: Jim at said...

Again, if Trump cured cancer ... the left would bitch about all the oncologists out of work.

Oncologists would be delivering the cure. They would still have a job.

The drug companies however do not want to cure cancer. They want to manage it for about $2000 a month. That is what they would complain about.

Trump really needs to stop playing fuck fuck games and deal with Obamacare.; 11/16/25, 6:41 AM
Achilles ayon kay ...: Jupiter said...

But it is illegal to simply obliterate them with military munitions.

It turns out, that according to a lot of people, the US Constitution was a suicide pact.

Why is it illegal to blow up a boat full of men with guns trying to sneak into your country and attack your people?; 11/16/25, 6:43 AM
Achilles ayon kay ...: Prof. M. Drout said...

The "international law" that so many people like to invoke without reading treats traffic in narcotics on the high seas using the same language as is used when discussing piracy. Every nation is required to cooperate to the fullest extent in the repression of piracy, and ANY nation can seize or destroy a pirate vessel.
If a vessel NOT engaged in piracy and was seized or destroyed, the U.S. would be liable for loss or damages caused by the seizure or destruction. So all Venezuela would need to do is to demonstrate that the ships weren't engaged in narcotics trafficking on the high seas.

They would also have to fly a Venezuelan flag and they would have to respond to maritime radio broadcasts.

It is really interesting to me that people think international law protects armed gangs using boats to sneak between countries.; 11/16/25, 6:47 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: The same lefties that carried the water for ksm the planner anf trainer of 9-11; 11/16/25, 7:12 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: Now these are minor figures in the orbit that i'll agree not the crew chiefs but those would be officials in the venezuelan navy and security services; 11/16/25, 7:20 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: The chicago tribune is the mob paper; 11/16/25, 7:23 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: Naalis ng may-ari ang komentong ito.; 11/16/25, 7:23 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: Holded who represented the Purdue syndicate whose firm represented 17 yemeni terrorists including the one we had to blow up in 2012 seven years after he was released; 11/16/25, 7:25 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: https://johnkassnews.com/riding-a-good-horse-in-the-snow-part-2/ the last good reporter; 11/16/25, 7:26 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: Holder was also the fill in for becerra for california atty general when the former proved unable to do the job; 11/16/25, 7:30 AM
Ronald J. Ward ayon kay ...: “How might underage girls being trafficked to powerful middle aged billionaires differ than underage sex between minors?”

“How many young children were trafficked along the southern border by the open borders loving democrats?”

“ How many women were groomed by their future husband taking them on dates, showering them with affection and free gifts?”

“If Trump cured cancer……”

There it all is, the movie that keeps repeating itself- they all do it, pedophilia really isn’t all that bad, and they were all going to blame Trump no matter what.

It’s the harvest of the rabbit hole groomers should ugliness of Trump reappear. You can see the puppet strings from the balcony.; 11/16/25, 7:32 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/11/trump_as_b_rer_rabbit.html; 11/16/25, 7:34 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: And a midlevel figure in election fraud carrying elias water; 11/16/25, 7:36 AM
Achilles ayon kay ...: Ronald J. Ward said...

There it all is, the movie that keeps repeating itself- they all do it, pedophilia really isn’t all that bad, and they were all going to blame Trump no matter what.

Actually only a really stupid person like you would come to that conclusion.

We are pointing out that there is absolutely no evidence at all that Trump is a pedophile and that dishonest pieces of shit like you are making things up.; 11/16/25, 7:47 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: He is removing all doubt isnt he; 11/16/25, 7:50 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: It would take the possums getting off their duff

He can do some admjnistrative upgrades; 11/16/25, 7:55 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: What is the house agenda this year anyone know?; 11/16/25, 8:04 AM
Peachy ayon kay ...: Ron Ward -
Pedophilia is bad, Trump is not one - Epstein hated Trump, and your side is successfully infiltrating public schools in an effort to groom our young children.; 11/16/25, 8:12 AM
Peachy ayon kay ...: All hive-cult leftists need is a lie - and they can manage, loyally, to get a shit ton of mileage out of it.; 11/16/25, 8:13 AM
Kakistocracy ayon kay ...: Trump owned and operated the Miss Universe Organization—which included the Miss Teen USA, Miss USA, and Miss Universe pageants—from 1996 until September 2015.

I wouldn't suggest that Trump operated his pageants as a feeder system for his good friend Jeffery Epstein ("terrific guy who likes women on the younger side". Coincidence maybe....

There are plenty of bad actors in politics, however, on balance, most don't go on vacations or develop long-term relationships with a child sex-trafficker who has been credibly involved in hundreds if not more than a thousand cases of abuse. The fact that the trafficker also had ties to at least one intelligence agency and was effectively protected for years by major political figures is another issue. This isn't like some politician steering a few million dollars to friends, families, and political supporters, or engaging in more routine acts of political patronage. When we talk about a violation of the public trust, there are degrees of difference that matter.

The reality is that sometimes conspiracies are also true and there are "hidden power networks". Anyone who even spends a little time looking at the Epstein case — seeing how things were reported not just in one moment — but over the course of decades has to wonder. Maybe it was just an incredibly coincidental turn of history that the person who was initially involved in overseeing the case -- Bill Barr — who was involved in a sleazy cover-up involving Iran-Contra, also happened to have a father who helped Epstein get his first job at the Dalton School forty years earlier (at a time when Epstein only had a high school degree). These are documented facts.

Epstein's association with Robert Maxwell's daughter -- another person with close ties to intelligence agencies — is another one of those "coincidences" that just seems way too rich to be a historical accident.

Do rich and powerful people engage in egregious misbehavior and then use their social networks to protect themselves? Is that a "conspiracy" or is it just a fact? In this particular instance, why were rich and powerful people around Epstein willing to put their names and reputations on the line to ensure that Epstein received incredibly lenient treatment? e.g. actions that the DOJ even flagged in its review of the Epstein case in 2020.

The child abuse aspects of this case are not in dispute either. Why did this one person receive such an absurd level of protection and such lenient treatment? Let's begin with that fact. Why were so many people involved in that lenient treatment rewarded with future political advancement, rather than having their careers absolutely destroyed, as would be the case in any other normal professional sphere?
It is pretty obvious why this case hits close to home for Trump. Bondi was Attorney General in Florida at a time when Epstein's activities were open and notorious, and she did nothing. In Trump's first up term, he rewarded Alex Acosta with a cabinet position (Acosta was involved in the initial prosecution of Epstein when he was a U.S. Attorney and provided an agreement with incredibly favorable release terms for Epstein that was largely seen as a farce).

Only a fool would believe that Trump has any interest in "protecting the innocent". The same is true with other politicians who maintained a close relationship with Epstein through the years. I'm sure there are Trump supporters who will try to rationalize what is going on. But I suspect this is one of those cases where there are going to be many who start to see Trump with clearer eyes going forward. Trump has always been sleazy, which is one reason he was able to maintain a close relationship for years with Epstein. He and Bill Clinton probably maintained the same close relationship for years for the same reasons. Even if they didn't actively engage in the kind of abuse Epstein was involved in, they were almost certainly aware of what was going on. Trump even alluded to it as well in previous comments about how Epstein "liked them young”.; 11/16/25, 8:15 AM
Peachy ayon kay ...: Kak -a -phony -
All those hidden networks are just fine with you - up until the point you can find a way to smear Trump.; 11/16/25, 8:21 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: University presidents leading universities tech moguls had no problem with epstein even after the conviction; 11/16/25, 8:22 AM
Peachy ayon kay ...: PJM:
"House Oversight Committee Democrats rolled out their latest stunt this week, releasing three carefully cherry-picked emails designed to suggest Trump knew about Epstein's abuse of underage girls, which PJ Media debunked here.

Republicans on the committee immediately called them out for what they were, a manufactured hit job meant to generate headlines and nothing more, and promptly released the entire tranche of Epstein emails, more than 20,000 of them.

Yeah, Democrats weren’t happy about that.

The GOP accused Democrats of withholding documents that name Democrat officials while selectively leaking materials to friendly media outlets. Democrats redacted the name of Virginia Giuffre, a prominent Epstein accuser who has repeatedly stated Trump was not involved in any wrongdoing and was nothing but friendly to her during their limited interactions.

So much for transparency."; 11/16/25, 8:24 AM
Peachy ayon kay ...: more..
"Rep. Jasmine Crockett from Texas took the charade to absurd new heights Thursday on CNN's The Arena. She made wild, unsubstantiated claims about Trump obstructing subpoenas and blocking transparency, admitting she had no idea what the Department of Justice actually has or plans to do. She then speculated, without any evidence, that Trump might have personally ordered investigations into Epstein shut down. When host Kasie Hunt pressed her for proof, Crockett admitted she had none. But that did not stop her from doubling down, literally making a sick accusation against Trump.

And then she went for the most outlandish accusation of all: accusing Trump of being a pedophile."

wow - just like every loyalist leftist cultist, here.; 11/16/25, 8:26 AM
Peachy ayon kay ...: "This is what Democrats have turned into. They make accusations without any evidence to support them because that’s what their radical base wants to see happen. Never mind the fact that the Biden administration had four years to release the Epstein files and did nothing, and Democrats had zero desire for transparency then."; 11/16/25, 8:31 AM
Peachy ayon kay ...: Running a beauty pageant = automatic "you're guilty of something!"
According to the cultists.; 11/16/25, 8:35 AM
Saint Croix ayon kay ...: Fred and Daphne are Republicans.

Velma and Shaggy are Democrats.

Scooby is a Democrat because he's a dog and cannot vote and the Democrats registered him anyway.; 11/16/25, 8:35 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: That was lame nine years ago; 11/16/25, 8:36 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: Scooby is probably smarter than shaggy zoinks; 11/16/25, 8:41 AM
Kakistocracy ayon kay ...: For years, MAGA influencers claimed that Biden and the Democratic establishment were concealing Epstein’s master list of fellow abusers of underage girls.

Four of the conspiracy theorists later secured roles in the Trump administration: Vance as VP, Bondi as AG, Patel as FBI director, and Bongino as his deputy. With MAGA “truth tellers” now in power, they had the opportunity to expose the alleged Epstein conspiracy. Yet, these same figures now assert there was no “client list” after all. Nor was there evidence that Epstein was murdered in jail, let alone by the Clintons. In a memo, Bondi and Patel concluded that Epstein "took his own life". Trump has dismissed the Epstein topic — signaling to his MAGA base to drop the issue.

Let me offer two seemingly contradictory observations. First, Trump’s base was fed a steady diet of unfounded claims about a deep-state conspiracy protecting sexually abusive liberals, alongside other baseless narratives like the Comet Pizza pedophile ring and the stolen 2020 election. Second, America deserves a nonpartisan investigation into how and why a serial abuser like Epstein operated with impunity for over 30 years.

In another universe, the scales would now be falling from MAGA’s eyes, and Trump’s base would realize they’ve been misled for years. In our universe, however, Trump is counting on MAGA’s gullibility.; 11/16/25, 8:42 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: Letting loose that army of roving truck drivers bringing ruin; 11/16/25, 8:44 AM
Kakistocracy ayon kay ...: Over the past few days, some MAGA influencers have been posting, “Does Trump think we’re stupid?” Well, he just answered them: Yes, he does, and he always has.

“Even though there are unanswered questions about Epstein, it is indeed time to move on.” ~Dinesh D’Souza

It’s amusing to watch these influencers fall in line, behaving exactly like loyal cult members.; 11/16/25, 8:46 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: They put sheila jackson lee in charge of aviation oversight; 11/16/25, 8:48 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: Thats how far up jazzie wants to fall; 11/16/25, 8:50 AM
Peachy ayon kay ...: "Which brings us to the obvious question: why does Crockett stand behind Joe Biden despite the disturbing material in Ashley Biden’s diary? Biden defenders like to say that his name hasn’t appeared in any Epstein documents. Fine. Nothing damaging about Trump has shown up either, yet that hasn’t stopped Democrats from inventing conspiracies. Meanwhile, the diary contains something they can’t explain away.

The diary, which Ashley Biden confirmed as authentic, contains passages where she reflects on traumatic, hyper-sexualized experiences at a young age. She mentions showering with her father and describes it as "probably not appropriate.”She also suggested she might have been molested, though she cannot recall specifics. These are troubling revelations that should have sparked concern, especially given years of accusations about Joe Biden's inappropriate behavior around women and children."

PJM; 11/16/25, 8:52 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: Where did they find her, there had to be a prog who was not thaf embarassing for houstonites; 11/16/25, 8:56 AM
Kakistocracy ayon kay ...: It turns out that people who caught Trump Derangement Syndrome got herd immunity from stupidity.; 11/16/25, 8:56 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: I am being charitable; 11/16/25, 8:57 AM
Ronald J. Ward ayon kay ...: Achilles, @ 7:47, you can yackety yak a streak and waste your time of day- but you never mentioned the very selling points from this page that I mentioned-

“How might underage girls being trafficked to powerful middle aged billionaires differ than underage sex between minors?”

“How many young children were trafficked along the southern border by the open borders loving democrats?”

“ How many women were groomed by their future husband taking them on dates, showering them with affection and free gifts?”

“If Trump cured cancer……”

Yes, I understand you and your fellow tribesmen are still in the “Trump didn’t do it” phase but what I’m pointing out is a familiar pattern of unknowingly being groomed by your handlers to defend Trump just in case evidence points otherwise.

Remarkably, Narciso links the propaganda AmericanNonThinker with a post loaded with metaphors, hypotheticals, intentional omissions- all designed to instill exactly what I claimed while concluding that the real issue isn’t Epstein — it’s the unfairness toward Trump.

I get it that you don’t believe you’re being programmed but there it is.

And Kelly Magen seems to be selling some”old enough to bleed, old enough to breed” defense. This is being picked up by other QAnon influencers.

What I’m reading here is tribal obedience.; 11/16/25, 9:01 AM
bagoh20 ayon kay ...: People who ignore facts to arrive at their preferred conclusions assume everyone else does it too.; 11/16/25, 9:06 AM
Kakistocracy ayon kay ...: Teenagers are old enough to have sex with middle aged men. They are not old enough to be trans. ~ Megyn Kelly; 11/16/25, 9:07 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: Naalis ng may-ari ang komentong ito.; 11/16/25, 9:08 AM
Iman ayon kay ...: Keep gummin’ that bone, kak, you tired old mutt.; 11/16/25, 9:35 AM
Kakistocracy ayon kay ...: Honestly even the folks on the far-right MAGA media are having a tough time swallowing this pill. I don’t think they’ll do anything, but they aren’t forgetting what they thought a year ago like they do on every other issue (tariffs, deficit, etc).

The Epstein files were a big story when people thought maybe some Democrats were in them. But now that Trump is refusing to release them, possibly because of his own appearance in them, it's not such a big story anymore.; 11/16/25, 9:44 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: Yeah you cant out crazy the left; 11/16/25, 9:47 AM
Hey Skipper ayon kay ...: gadfly said...
Since September 2, Donald Trump has summarily executed 76 civilians suspected of drug trafficking in 19 separate airstrikes in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean.

But the administration admitted in a closed-door briefing to Congress that they don’t even know the identities of the people they’ve killed.

Two people who survived boat bombings were released back to their home countries because the Trump administration lacked sufficient evidence to even arrest them.

Here is a hypothetical, which may very well be real, but I'm not going to bother looking up references:

The Darian Gap is not impassable, but it is very difficult. Smuggling through airports major sea ports is not impossible, but it is risky.

So drug smugglers resort to loading drugs onto very fast boats to get from South America to various Caribbean islands so the drugs can be dispersed among numerous, small boats that blend in with pleasure and fishing boat traffic.

Since the boats crossing to the islands are very fast, they are difficult to intercept with patrol ships. Should the boats actually be intercepted they can quickly dump their cargo overboard, thereby destroying the evidence.

Meaning interception with the goal of arrest is unlikely.

Given all that, what is your alternative, other than the previously existing status quo?; 11/16/25, 10:10 AM
Ronald J. Ward ayon kay ...: Skipper, returning such lethal-authority decisions to Congress is an alternative to the status quo, and it’s one the Constitution actually requires.; 11/16/25, 11:23 AM
Gospace ayon kay ...: Prof. M. Drout said...
The "international law" that so many people like to invoke without reading treats traffic in narcotics on the high seas using the same language as is used when discussing piracy. Every nation is required to cooperate to the fullest extent in the repression of piracy, and ANY nation can seize or destroy a pirate vessel.

A point many have made who actually know admiralty law. The constitution doesn't apply outside the 12 mile limit. Nor does the law of any individual nation. There are some agreed upon rules between nations. As Prof. Drout mentions. Display a flag, monitor a specific radio frequency, have home port and nation of registry displayed, and- HEAVE TO when ordered to by a warship. The last is very important for the vessel's survival. Warning shots aren't required, kill shots are totally acceptable.; 11/16/25, 11:52 AM
narciso ayon kay ...: 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 on X: "My latest @FoxNews piece: MIKE DAVIS: Reagan-appointed judge driven from bench by TDS is a wolf in wolf's clothing https://t.co/4TNurjnwl2" / X https://share.google/ZzpPHgvQRdYe730Ym; 11/16/25, 12:13 PM
narciso ayon kay ...: Scott Jennings So INFURIATES Miles Taylor That He Goes FULL Rage-Donkey, Admits Something CRAZY (Watch) – Twitchy https://share.google/BHABYTMesgS6CEXcN; 11/16/25, 12:28 PM
narciso ayon kay ...: Naalis ng may-ari ang komentong ito.; 11/16/25, 12:30 PM
Hey Skipper ayon kay ...: Ronald J. Ward said...
Skipper, returning such lethal-authority decisions to Congress is an alternative to the status quo, and it’s one the Constitution actually requires.

Really? Where?

I suspect there are precedents suggesting otherwise.; 11/16/25, 12:35 PM
narciso ayon kay ...: They will twiddle their thumbs at best; 11/16/25, 12:39 PM
Hey Skipper ayon kay ...: RJW: Oh, and you completely missed the point. The necessity or otherwise of Congressional approval aside, what is the alternative to the administration's tactic of interdicting drug boats?; 11/16/25, 12:39 PM
narciso ayon kay ...: Jamie Raskin in SERIOUS Cover His Butt Mode After (Illegally?) Obtaining Ghislaine Maxwell Emails (Watch) – Twitchy https://share.google/jTgq6BGk9DCyVURa6; 11/16/25, 12:50 PM
Mason G ayon kay ...: "Oh, and you completely missed the point."

The only point the left recognizes is "Orange Man Bad".; 11/16/25, 12:53 PM
narciso ayon kay ...: Look at the mangy pole cats they put atop our military last time; 11/16/25, 1:09 PM
Ronald J. Ward ayon kay ...: Skipper, I didn’t miss the point at all. You’re presenting a false choice between “bomb them” and “do nothing.” The real alternative is to run a lawful interdiction program with congressional authorization, clear evidentiary thresholds, and oversight.

If the administration believes lethal force is necessary because normal interdiction fails, then the correct path is to have Congress authorize a specific framework for rules of engagement, identification standards, capture vs. kill authority,
and reporting requirements.

That’s the alternative: a legal, accountable system—not an ad hoc kill program where we can’t even identify the people we’re killing.; 11/16/25, 1:33 PM
narciso ayon kay ...: https://twitchy.com/warren-squire/2025/11/16/scott-jennings-bananas-children-girlfriends-last-nights-debate-president-obliterating-narco-terrorists-n2421744; 11/16/25, 1:38 PM
Kakistocracy ayon kay ...: Naalis ng may-ari ang komentong ito.; 11/16/25, 1:49 PM
Kakistocracy ayon kay ...: US military to ‘intensify exercises’ in Trinidad and Tobago ~ FT

‘Dual-island nation has supported American operation against alleged drug traffickers in contrast to neighbors in region’

"US military to intensify distractions, day after release of more of the Epstein Files"

The largest US aircraft carrier will have mock exercises with rowboats and longboats.; 11/16/25, 1:50 PM
Ronald J. Ward ayon kay ...: Scott Jennings has one purpose- slurp Trump butt. I didn’t realize (but granted, should have) that anyone took him seriously on policy.; 11/16/25, 1:57 PM
Hey Skipper ayon kay ...: RJW: Skipper, I didn’t miss the point at all. You’re presenting a false choice between “bomb them” and “do nothing.” The real alternative is to run a lawful interdiction program with congressional authorization, clear evidentiary thresholds, and oversight.

You are making a category mistake.

What does that putatively lawful interdiction campaign *look like*, in order to be effective?

Invoking some sort of Congressional approval doesn't address that in any way.

Oh, BTW, Congress has no role in establishing rules of engagement, identification standards, etc.

I guess you are happy letting the drugs into the country, and are in a position to argue that is preferable to interdiction.; 11/16/25, 2:01 PM
Ronald J. Ward ayon kay ...: Skipper, the “why do you want drugs in the country?” line tells me you’re out of substantive arguments. Wanting constitutional oversight, confirmed identities, and transparency isn’t the same thing as “wanting drugs.” It’s wanting the government to stay within the law.

When you say Congress has no role in authorizing or constraining lethal force on the high seas, you’re actually proving my point: you’re assuming Trump – and Trump alone – should have unchecked authority to kill unidentified people with no evidence and no accountability. That’s not interdiction. That’s secrecy and trust-me governance.

You’re also assuming the issue is drugs. I’m looking at the bigger question:

Do we give one man the power to kill unknown civilians in international waters without proof, oversight, or even knowing who they were?

That’s not a “category mistake.” That’s the entire category.

As for what a lawful interdiction program looks like:

– Congress defines the scope.
– Congress authorizes force.
– Congress sets reporting and oversight requirements.
– The Executive carries out the mission under those limits.

That’s how every lawful use of force works. Your position seems to be that none of that should apply because “drugs.”

It’s interesting that the argument boils down to:

Trust Trump. Don’t ask questions. Don’t request transparency. Don’t verify.

Given the number of unanswered questions already emerging, blind trust is the last thing anyone should be asking for.; 11/16/25, 2:12 PM
FullMoon ayon kay ...: Hmm, beginning to change my mind re: Trump and the files. AI says
"Yes, Donald Trump has donated money to both Bill and Hillary Clinton in the past. From 1989 to 2010, he contributed more to Democrats, including the Clintons, before shifting his donations primarily to Republicans after 2011"

Is Trump protecting his pal, Bill? There are dozens of pictures with Trump and Bill Clinton. While it is understood and accepted that Bill was provided with young women for sex, it has rarely been suggested he had sex with 14 year old girls. Is the proof in the files?; 11/16/25, 2:14 PM
narciso ayon kay ...: there are so many gate keepers university presidents, bank executives, high government officials, who rose as high as CIA director subsequently, not to mention high profile figures in other countries as ehud barak, the leader of the 'color revolution' against netanyahu for instance, as with certain other consultants who may or may not have intel ties in the national health service, the latter is informed speculation

epstein could reasonably infer he was untouchable till he was no longer useful, one recalls that abc reporter amy robach who subsequently fell into scandal, who pointed out how the network had deepsixed a long profile of the elusive financier, when they did issue their long deferred 'pillow piece' her contributions were not acknowledged,

(his reputation was such that it informed the portrait of le chiffre in casino royale; 11/16/25, 2:27 PM
Peachy ayon kay ...: Scott Jennings is often surrounded by democratic-Soviet Media Hacks who do nothing but lie.; 11/16/25, 2:28 PM
Ronald J. Ward ayon kay ...: Here you go Fullmoon,

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/14/teen-models-powerful-men-when-donald-trump-hosted-look-of-the-year; 11/16/25, 2:30 PM
narciso ayon kay ...: for a practical matter, the method the Sun Cartel seems to be using doesn't seem very effectiive one even a few boats doesn't seem to serve the purpose,

of course the former was employing a Hezbollah network previous headed by Ali Antar, the subject of operation cassandra, an op curtailed in the 00s, that routed their merchandise through West Africa, and then into Western Europe, but that option might not be very viable,; 11/16/25, 2:31 PM
Peachy ayon kay ...: most of the Epstein docs have already been released.
many of the rest face legal challenges due to privacy laws.
(probably surrounding the victims)

Just because someone's name is in a phone book - does not make that person a automatic pedo.; 11/16/25, 2:32 PM
narciso ayon kay ...: these stories seem to be written in crayon, honestly tell me a better story,; 11/16/25, 2:32 PM
Peachy ayon kay ...: As far as my opinion of Epstein being murdered V his killing himself - I still don't buy that he killed himself.
Nothing new.

the "right" was more conspiratorial minded -because Biden did nothing.
Now the left demand that Trump BE a Pedo - because they need it. bad. Like a drug. Does not matter that it's not true.; 11/16/25, 2:34 PM
Gospace ayon kay ...: There are clear rules of engagement. Been around for centuries. Stateless vessels- aka pirates- get blown out of the water. Clear and easy to understand.; 11/16/25, 2:43 PM
Mason G ayon kay ...: Obama ordered drone strikes in order to kill people. I don't remember hearing complaints from the left.; 11/16/25, 2:48 PM
Original Mike ayon kay ...: "most of the Epstein docs have already been released."

Do the "Epstein files" as a distinct, identifiable entity even exist? What, exactly, are the democrats asking for? Do they even know? I doubt it.; 11/16/25, 2:53 PM
narciso ayon kay ...: I also don't know how the supposed discharge petition would work, Congress doesn't seem to have most of the files, Raskin see earlier link, might have purloined some, recall that judge down in S Florida, who ruled against their disclosure,; 11/16/25, 3:02 PM
Mason G ayon kay ...: "What, exactly, are the democrats asking for? "

They want to imprison or kill Trump.; 11/16/25, 3:08 PM
Original Mike ayon kay ...: "They want to imprison or kill Trump."

Well, yeah…; 11/16/25, 3:14 PM
narciso ayon kay ...: we've already seen that movie, bring in some new material; 11/16/25, 3:23 PM
Hey Skipper ayon kay ...: RJW: Skipper, the “why do you want drugs in the country?” line tells me you’re out of substantive arguments.

That amounts to felonious use of quote marks in the first degree.

And you continue to miss the point. Do you have an alternative to interdiction? I can't think of one. And if you can't either, then you, by definition, prefer the entry of those drugs into the US over sinking the boats carrying them.

Now, there may be an argument for that position, but you need to make it.

When you say Congress has no role in authorizing or constraining lethal force on the high seas, you’re actually proving my point: you’re assuming Trump – and Trump alone – should have unchecked authority to kill unidentified people with no evidence and no accountability. That’s not interdiction. That’s secrecy and trust-me governance.

Stop putting words in my replies. But at least you didn't abuse quote marks, so there is that.

There is plenty of precedent for Presidents unilaterally using military force. Lots more precedent for that than Congress authorizing force.

Congress could authorize force, or it could avail itself of plenty of ways to prevent it. It has done neither.

Oh, following "interdiction" with "trust me governance" is a non-sequitur for the ages.; 11/16/25, 3:32 PM
Kakistocracy ayon kay ...: As noted earlier: Trump owned the Miss Universe Organization from 1996 to 2015, which included the Miss Teen USA pageant. In a 2005 radio interview with Howard Stern, Trump bragged about entering dressing rooms at his pageants stating: "I'll go backstage before a show, and everyone's getting dressed... no men are anywhere, and I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant and therefore I'm inspecting it... You know, they're standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible-looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that."

Trump is Trump. He likes girls. So what? Nothing to see here. Move on. ~ MAGA; 11/16/25, 3:33 PM
narciso ayon kay ...: since the late 70s during the Carter administration, when there was rather lax regard about distribution and consumption of drugs, that was when the Medellin cartel got it's start,; 11/16/25, 3:41 PM
Ronald J. Ward ayon kay ...: Skipper, you keep insisting on a binary: either endorse blowing up unidentified people on suspicion, or “prefer drugs in the country.” That framing is the problem. It substitutes emotional pressure for policy thinking.

I’m not putting words in your mouth; I’m pointing out that your logic leads to only two choices — kill or allow — while ignoring the entire spectrum of lawful interdiction between those extremes.

You say I haven’t offered an alternative. I have, repeatedly:
A lawful, accountable interdiction framework where: Congress authorizes the use of force, standards for identification are established, evidentiary thresholds are clear, reporting requirements exist, and lethal force is limited to imminent threats

That’s not an abstraction. That’s the standard structure for every lawful use of force abroad, from counterterrorism to piracy suppression. “Interdiction” isn’t synonymous with “bomb them based on suspicion.” Interdiction can include pursuit, seizure, disabling fire, boarding, arrest, and yes—when there is an imminent threat—lethal force.

Your reply reduces all those options to “nothing.” That’s your binary, not mine.

You also claim there is “plenty of precedent” for unilateral Presidential force. Yes—in time-limited emergencies, imminent threats, or under existing authorizations.

What you’re defending here is something else: Routine, elective, pre-planned lethal operations against unidentified civilians with no oversight and no known identities.

If that’s the position you want to defend, defend it plainly. Don’t imply that every historical use of force is carte blanche for the President to run an unbounded kill program in international waters.

Congress has two roles here, regardless of whether it exercises them: It authorizes or constrains the scope of force, and it oversees how that force is used.

Your argument seems to be that Congress hasn’t acted, therefore the President’s authority is unlimited. That’s backwards. Congressional silence doesn’t create new Presidential powers.

Finally, the “you must prefer drugs entering the country” line isn’t an argument; it’s a pressure tactic. You’re trying to force a conclusion by eliminating every realistic alternative except the one you favor.

I’m arguing for lawful, transparent, accountable use of force.
If your position is that the President should have none of those constraints, then the burden is on you to justify why.; 11/16/25, 4:05 PM
Rusty ayon kay ...: So here's what happened. It has nothing to do withy underage girls or boys or Epstein or Trump.
The was a squirrel that was storing his/her nuts in my gutter. In the morning the creature would stomp around on the roof and keep me from sleeping. So I bought a live trap. Baited it with walnuts and went about my day. Later that evening I came home and sure enough there was a squirrel in the trap.
No worries I'll take care of him in the morning.
The next morning I get intending to take care of my furry captive and to my surprise the trap and its content were gone. I cast about the area looking to see in a coyote wanted his meal to go and took the trap. No sign of the trap. The only other alternative is that one of the neighborhoods early walkers took the trap. For whatever reason. I'd just like my trap back. I didn't even own it for 24 hours. They can keep the squirrel.; 11/16/25, 4:45 PM
Hey Skipper ayon kay ...: RJW: Skipper, you keep insisting on a binary: either endorse blowing up unidentified people on suspicion, or “prefer drugs in the country.” That framing is the problem. It substitutes emotional pressure for policy thinking.

No, I'm not. I provided what I believe to be a reasonably accurate description as to how drug smuggling has long been carried out from South America, to Caribbean islands, and then into the US.

I have never boiled it down to a binary; rather, given the state of play, what are the options for stopping, or greatly reducing drugs coming into the US via that means?

You are imposing legalisms in an arena where they don't exist: Venezuela is either abetting, or unable to prevent, the drug smuggling. There is no effective means of enforcing the law on the high seas.

Presuming you wish to stop unilateral Presidential action against the drug smugglers until such time as Congressional approval arrives, then by definition you prefer doing nothing we hadn't been doing until Congress deigns to address the problem.

Assume that Congress authorizes interdiction, provided standards, thresholds, requirements and imminent threats (whatever the heck that means).

Regardless of whether those are in the remit of Congress. They aren't. Those are executive decisions.

Then you would get what we have now, which is very good at identifying drug runners, and has plenty of oversight all the way from the war fighter through SECWAR, the President, and no doubt members of Congress.

Your assertions in that regard are just flat wrong.

You also claim there is “plenty of precedent” for unilateral Presidential force. Yes—in time-limited emergencies, imminent threats, or under existing authorizations.

Korea. Panama. Barbary Pirates. Grenada. Etc.

I wish Congress would finally act against a threat that has been plaguing us for decades. Paralysis isn't the correct response — forcing the issue is.; 11/16/25, 4:52 PM
Ronald J. Ward ayon kay ...: Skipper, you’re pulling in two very different directions at once, and that’s where your argument keeps folding in on itself.

On the one hand, you seem to be saying this is business as usual using Korea, Panama, the Barbary pirates, Grenada, etc. as precedent. But none of those involved ongoing lethal strikes against unidentified civilians outside any declared conflict with no imminent threat and no statutory authorization. All were either congressionally authorized, part of declared war or responded to immediate threats with identifiable actors. None of them justify a standing kill program in international waters based on suspicion alone. The comparison actually underlines how unprecedented this really is.

On the other hand, you argue that the situation now is so urgent and unmanageable that it overrides Congress entirely — meaning norm-breaking is justified because paralysis isn’t the correct response.

That’s the exact pattern I’m pointing to: conflate a chronic issue with an emergency, then use the “emergency” to justify unilateral executive expansion. It’s the same structure Trump uses frequently- exaggerate a long-running problem into an immediate crisis, declare that normal constitutional processes can’t respond in time, insist that the only rational option is to let him act without constraint.

You’re defending the result while denying the mechanism.

And the binary is baked into your argument. You keep saying that unless lethal strikes continue now, with no congressional authorization, I must prefer doing nothing and thus prefer drugs entering the country. That is a binary, even if you don’t say the word.

What’s missing in your model is everything between “bomb” and “do nothing”—pursuit, seizure, boarding, disabling shots, arrest, intelligence coordination, sanctions against state actors, and the entire legal framework that governs the use of lethal force at sea.

You also keep insisting that Congress has no role in setting thresholds or oversight, but that simply isn’t true. Congress did exactly that in the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, multiple piracy statutes, the War Powers Resolution, the AUMFs, and every major use-of-force authorization in modern history.

Congress sets the framework. The Executive operates inside it. That’s not optional.

Right now, Trump is operating outside any authorization, while admitting he can’t identify the people being killed — then releasing suspects because there wasn’t enough evidence to arrest them in the first place.

That is not an interdiction problem. It is an accountability problem.

You say you “wish Congress would act.” But the moment Congress is mentioned as a necessary check, you call that insistence “paralysis.” That contradiction is doing a lot of work: you want congressional legitimacy without congressional involvement.

That’s why your argument feels like you’re trying to assure everyone an authoritarian expansion isn’t happening while justifying the exact conditions that enable it.

Trump isn’t forcing Congress to act.

He’s acting instead of Congress — and asking people to accept that as normal.

That’s the core issue.; 11/16/25, 6:04 PM
narciso ayon kay ...: we came to know this crisis I described above in the spring of 1980, actuallly the dadeland shooting of 1979 was the opening round, it was carried out by a relatively minor figure, in the import business, trying to break in, Griselda Blanco, who cut a bloody swath through Miami, and as such earned a notorious rep,

the figures behind this current initiative of the Venezuelan military are rather more murky, some leaks to the Times suggests they don't exist, but there is a method to that madness as well, that the Sun Cartel doesn't exist,; 11/16/25, 6:18 PM
Kakistocracy ayon kay ...: Worrying about legality seems so pre-2024 nowadays ...

It is not complicated. The US is murdering people on the high seas like a pirate. The armed forces are quite capable of intercepting and detaining suspected drugs transports and nobody would have a problem with that. The perpetrators could be tried, convicted, and imprisoned.

Worse still, the murder tactic is guaranteed to be ineffective. Thousands of years of history show that gangs will be replaced by other gangs faster than you can say Jack Robinson. The problem that needs addressing is the market in US and that is much more complicated than lighting up speedboats.

Machismo displays from self-styled War Chiefs are contemptible. His latest and greatest aircraft carrier should be patrolling close to the Arctic where Putin is assembling his nukes, or China even, not Venezuela.; 11/16/25, 6:45 PM
Hey Skipper ayon kay ...: RJW: On the one hand, you seem to be saying this is business as usual using Korea, Panama …

No. I'm saying there are many instances of Presidents unilaterally using military force absent any of your imposed conditions. Citing this as something unusual is wrong.

As is this: None of them justify a standing kill program in international waters based on suspicion alone.

Seriously, do you think there is nothing but a suspicion? No pattern of activity, no other explanation, no humnint, no detailed video?

On the other hand, you argue that the situation now is so urgent and unmanageable that it overrides Congress entirely — meaning norm-breaking is justified because paralysis isn’t the correct response.

This is where you lose me completely, again. I never said "urgent" or "unmanageable", or override Congress, or "emergency", or "without constraint".

There is a chronic issue with drug smuggling. You wish to hide behind legalisms instead of coming to terms with that problem, and then engage in endless question begging. Your assertion that all the instances I cited were "congressionally authorized …" is just flat wrong.

And the binary is baked into your argument. You keep saying that unless lethal strikes continue now, with no congressional authorization, I must prefer doing nothing and thus prefer drugs entering the country.

Quote me. Words that I said, not what you say I said. When debating progressives, I find it nearly universal that I am confronted with what you say I said, and not what I ever actually said. I am not your straw man.

I have previously stated that everything done before interdiction was wholly ineffective, completely inadequate to the problem. Look up thread, I made it perfectly clear.

You also keep insisting that Congress has no role in setting thresholds or oversight, but that simply isn’t true.

Don't tell me what I said, quote what I said. I try to avoid argumentum ab auctoritate, but with regard to what *I actually said*, not what you made up, have no small amount of direct experience in this area. Law of Armed Conflict, rules of engagement, planning and execution.

Right now, Trump is operating outside any authorization, while admitting he can’t identify the people being killed — then releasing suspects because there wasn’t enough evidence to arrest them in the first place.

There you go with legalisms again. Did the military correctly identify the activity? Did it occur outside the legal sphere of the US? If so, then the ability to identify perpetrators is irrelevant. Legalisms only apply within the rule of law. This isn't.

You must note that Congress, instead of acting, is acquiescing. It is neither endorsing, nor condemning, interdiction. The dog is not barking.

Congress has long ceded a great deal of authority to the President in employing military force, never mind your imagined constraints. This is yet another instance.

The armed forces are quite capable of intercepting and detaining suspected drugs transports and nobody would have a problem with that. The perpetrators could be tried, convicted, and imprisoned. 

No, they aren't. This is what both you and RJW miss. Interception requires far more assets, and the intercepted craft can dump the evidence before being boarded.

Meaning the perpetrators can't be detained, tried and convicted. This is just wishful thinking.

But they can be vaporized. We aren't trying to replace gangs, but rather to dissuade drug runners.

Totally different.; 11/16/25, 10:56 PM
Rusty ayon kay ...: Apparently RJW is a drug dealer.; 11/17/25, 7:26 AM
Ronald J. Ward ayon kay ...: Skipper, Fair enough on misinterpretations but you’re not exactly making it easy.

At 10:10 AM you said; “Should the boats actually be intercepted they can quickly dump their cargo overboard, thereby destroying the evidence.

Meaning interception with the goal of arrest is unlikely.”

You again reinforce that with; “Interception requires far more assets, and the intercepted craft can dump the evidence before being boarded.

Meaning the perpetrators can't be detained, tried and convicted. This is just wishful thinking.

But they can be vaporized. We aren't trying to replace gangs, but rather to dissuade drug runners.”

Not your quote but what I’m interpreting is; “they might dump the cargo before we can arrest them, so killing them as saying they were guilty becomes the fallback,” which is a pretty radical shift in what interdiction is supposed to be.

Because in reality, getting them to dump the cargo is already a successful interdiction. The drugs don’t enter the country. Mission accomplished.

So if the next step is, again, my interpretation, “Well, since we can’t arrest them, we should kill them as a deterrent”, that crosses into something very different. That’s not law enforcement or interdiction—it's using lethal force not to stop drugs, but to punish unnamed people on unverified suspicion.

And that’s where the legality becomes questionable. The U.S. can use force to stop an imminent threat or an active attack. But using deadly force because someone might be a smuggler, without evidence, without identification, and without judicial or congressional oversight, under the premise of deterrence, that’s not supported under U.S. law, maritime law, or the law of armed conflict.

Stopping drugs is legal.

Killing people because you failed to collect evidence in time is not.

If you meant something different, please advise.; 11/17/25, 8:03 AM
Gospace ayon kay ...: Kakistocracy said...
Worrying about legality seems so pre-2024 nowadays ...

It is not complicated. The US is murdering people on the high seas like a pirate.

You're almost there. They are pirates. On stateless ships refusing to heave to and evading pursuit. Classic definition of pirates.; 11/17/25, 8:19 AM
Rusty ayon kay ...: We're lucky RJW wasn't around when Jefferson created the US Navy.; 11/17/25, 10:11 AM
Ronald J. Ward ayon kay ...: Rusty the resident ankle biter.

Someone toss him a fish.; 11/17/25, 10:47 AM
Hey Skipper ayon kay ...: RJW: But using deadly force because someone might be a smuggler, without evidence, without identification, and without judicial or congressional oversight, under the premise of deterrence, that’s not supported under U.S. law, maritime law, or the law of armed conflict.

But there is plenty of evidence. Drug running boats are distinctly different from everything else out there. How much else is needed?

Judicial and congressional oversight of military operations. When has that ever happened?

As for not being supported under US law, maritime law, or LOAC, please cite chapter and verse.

It has been awhile since I've had LOAC training, but from what I remember, it is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.; 11/17/25, 12:51 PM
Ronald J. Ward ayon kay ...: Skipper, I keep noticing you’re avoiding the central point I’ve raised several times now: If the traffickers dump their cargo, the mission is accomplished. The drugs don’t reach the U.S.
Your own comment at 10:10 AM admitted that interception causes them to dump the cargo, which “destroys the evidence,” and therefore makes arrest unlikely.

But if the goal of interdiction is to stop drugs from reaching U.S. shores, then you’ve already achieved the objective.

So the only reason to escalate from “successful interdiction” to “lethal force” is to punish or deter — not to stop those drugs.

And that’s the part you never address directly.

You keep insisting there’s “plenty of evidence” because the boats “look different,” but appearance is not guilt.

U.S. law doesn’t allow killing people because they might be committing a crime — whether on land or sea.

That’s why I say the justification would be extrajudicial.

As for the legal authorities:

U.S. law: The Coast Guard and Navy can stop or board vessels under 14 U.S.C. §522 and 46 U.S.C. §705. They can use force only when necessary to enforce compliance. Nowhere does the statute authorize killing people because they may be smugglers.

Maritime law: UNCLOS and the High Seas Convention allow interdiction of stateless vessels, but the permitted force is “reasonable and necessary.” Not punishment, not extermination.

LOAC: LOAC applies when engaged in armed conflict. You yourself say this isn’t war. If it’s not war, LOAC doesn’t authorize killing noncombatants.

But let me pull you back again, because this is where the dodge keeps happening:

You said dumping the cargo prevents arrest. Fine — but dumping the cargo also accomplishes the interdiction objective.

So what exactly is the additional objective that warrants killing the people on the boat?

If you think it’s deterrence, say so plainly.

If not, then we’re back to the fact that the drugs are stopped—and nothing more is legally justified.; 11/17/25, 1:46 PM
Hey Skipper ayon kay ...: RJW: Skipper, I keep noticing you’re avoiding the central point I’ve raised several times now: If the traffickers dump their cargo, the mission is accomplished. The drugs don’t reach the U.S.

I don't think it does. The cargo is low-cost, high-value, so it is easily replaced. The boat — with four expensive engines — and crew are quickly available to give it another go.

This is why this limited form of interdiction never worked — it amounted to nothing more than slightly higher overhead for the smuggling operation.

To repeat: what we were doing was not working. Either we tolerate the continued flow of drugs through this channel into the US, and the consequent money to cartels, or we do something different.

What we are doing instead is adding the substantial costs of replacing the boat to the loss of the cargo, and encouraging future crews to find a different line of work, or forcing overhead costs even higher by the cartels having to pay way above existing rates to get crews to overcome their reluctance.

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think 46 USC says what you think it does. It allows for prosecution of drug crimes on the high seas. It doesn't prohibit other actions.

Similarly with maritime law. It doesn't prohibit destroying smuggling boats if that is what is necessary (and by definition reasonable) in order to stop the smuggling. Maritime law doesn't isn't a requirement for a country to put up with drug smuggling and its attendant consequences.; 11/17/25, 5:18 PM
Ronald J. Ward ayon kay ...: Skipper, this is a very different argument from where you started.

You began with: “What’s the alternative?”

Now you’re openly framing lethal force as a way to increase “overhead,” destroy assets, and scare crews into “finding a different line of work.”

That’s not interdiction.

That’s punitive, extrajudicial killing for economic deterrence.
And it’s important not to lose sight of that, because it’s the core point I’ve been raising the whole time.

You’re now arguing that dumping the cargo doesn’t accomplish the mission because: the drugs are cheap,
the boats are valuable, the crews are replaceable, and therefore the only effective strategy is to kill the people and destroy the vessels.

In other words: economic deterrence via lethal force.

If that’s your position, just say it plainly.

But let’s not pretend that’s “standard practice” or “business as usual.” It’s a major escalation, and the legal bar for using intentional, lethal force by the U.S. military is not “the statute doesn’t specifically forbid it.”

That’s not how U.S. force authorization works.

You said: “46 USC doesn’t prohibit other actions.”
But that’s backwards.

The U.S. military doesn’t get to kill people simply because a statute fails to prohibit killing them.

It needs affirmative authorization for lethal force outside war.
That’s true in maritime law, U.S. law, and LOAC.

Maritime law allows;

Stop,
Board,
Search
Seizure,
Arrest.

It does not authorize lethal force to destroy vessels for the purpose of raising “overhead” or deterring future attempts. And international law isn’t based on “well, it doesn’t explicitly say we can’t.”

But let me ask the question directly so we’re not talking past each other: Are you now arguing that the U.S. should kill suspected smugglers because economic pain is a more effective deterrent than stopping the drugs themselves?

Because that is the position you’ve just articulated — not “interdiction,” not “evidence,” not “rules of engagement,” and certainly not “business as usual.”

If that’s what you believe, then it deserves to be stated clearly and defended on its own terms.; 11/17/25, 7:07 PM
Hey Skipper ayon kay ...: Now you’re openly framing lethal force as a way to increase “overhead,” destroy assets, and scare crews into “finding a different line of work.”

That’s not interdiction.

Yes, it is. From AI: Military

Definition: The act of intercepting and blocking an enemy's movement or supplies.

Purpose: To disrupt, delay, or destroy enemy assets and operations.

Destroying these smuggling boats and their crews is the very essence of interdiction. We are resorting to this because all other means have failed, and will continue to fail.

It needs affirmative authorization for lethal force outside war.
That’s true in maritime law, U.S. law, and LOAC.

You make many claims that aren't true, and terms undefined. The military does have authorization — from the President. So that strikes maritime law, which doesn't prohibit using force to stop drug smuggling when other means have failed, and US law, because both because of the President's authorization, and because (I'm not a lawyer, but I do listen to legal podcasts) extending the reach of the US legal system into international waters doesn't mean that the executive is therefore prohibited from using military force instead.

Oh, and the LOAC is no help to your argument.

But let me ask the question directly so we’re not talking past each other: Are you now arguing that the U.S. should kill suspected smugglers because economic pain is a more effective deterrent than stopping the drugs themselves?

Your question is based upon a false premise: prior efforts to stop oceanic drug smuggling did not stop the drugs because they couldn't.

Stop, board, etc have proven to be completely ineffective. There is nothing in maritime law that prohibits a nation state from taking more extreme measures in the face of this kind of activity.

That means a different interdiction tactic is required.

You may wish that Congressional approval is required, but it isn't. Just as you might wish that USC, etc prohibited destroying these boats. They don't.

Congressional acquiescence and complete silence on all legal fronts are pretty good signs that your assertions are incorrect.

Of course, if you had an effective interdiction tactic that didn't involve destroying the boats and crews, then specify it.

I sure can't think of one.; 11/18/25, 10:05 AM

Mag-post ng isang Komento

Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.

Althouse

Nobyembre 15, 2025

Sunrise at Lake Mendota, 6:48, and later, around 1:30, warm sun near Lake Wingra.

151 komento:

Mag-post ng isang Komento

Encourage Althouse by doing your Amazon shopping...

Amazon

Encourage Althouse by making a donation:

Blog Archive

Althouse

Nobyembre 15, 2025

Sunrise at Lake Mendota, 6:48, and later, around 1:30, warm sun near Lake Wingra.

151 komento:

Mag-post ng isang Komento

Encourage Althouse by doing your Amazon shopping...

Amazon

Encourage Althouse by making a donation:

Subscribe To Althouse

Blog Archive