Poison Ivy is God's Message to be More Careful

 I live off a gravel road in the floodplain of the Mississippi River. No levee protects my side of the river in southwest Mississippi, and floodwater inundates my property every spring with melted snow and rainwater from up north. 

When the Mississippi River is at flood stage in Cairo, Illinois, my neighbors tell me, my four-acre yard will be flooded ten days later. So far, my neighbors have been right.

However, my patch of earth was dry last February, and I decided to build a fire in the fireplace to ward off a slight chill rising from Lake Mary. I selected sticks and twigs from the kindling basket on the hearth and constructed a small pyramid of dry wood that became the foundation for a crackling fire of oak and pecan logs.

All went well, and my living room was soon suffused with a warm glow and the pleasant aroma of woodsmoke. Ah, the country life!

Unfortunately, my kindling basket contained a chunk of poison ivy. When I acquired my little corner of southern Mississippi two years ago, many of the trees on my property were strangled by poison ivy vines.  These vines can grow 15 feet high in the alluvial soil and are as thick as my wrist.

I severed these monstrous vines from their roots with my mini chainsaw, and all the poison ivy died. Problem solved, I told myself, and watched the dead vines drop from my trees over the coming months.

On the ground, however, these dead vines look like tree branches. I carelessly sawed them up for kindling along with branches from the oak, hackberry, and pecan trees that populate my woodlot. Then I put these noxious vines in my kindling basket along with the other sticks and twigs.

As I built my fire one winter night, a poison ivy branch brushed my right leg. By the end of the evening, my leg looked like it had sustained a second-degree burn. And my leg itched maddeningly, causing me to involuntarily scratch so hard that I broke the skin, which drew blood and made the poison ivy burn worse.

That was February 1st. The next day, I visited Our Lady of the Lake urgent care center, where an able doctor gave me a steroid shot and prescriptions for an anti-itching pill and a medicated ointment.

My problems are over, I told myself as I drove home. Indeed, the itching subsided, and the medications allowed me to sleep. 

I was wrong. The blistering spread to my left leg, and two months later, my poison ivy burn has yet to completely heal.

God made the world, and I'm ever grateful for the beautiful Lake Mary sunsets and the flocks of waterbirds that gather in the sloughs along Lake Mary Road--the great blue herons, snowy egrets, ibises, and the fantastic pink roseate spoonbills. 

But did God go too far? Did he have to create alligators, moccasin snakes, and poison ivy? If so, why?

As my poison ivy burn gradually fades away, I've concluded that God made poison ivy to remind us to be careful as we make our way through this troubled world.

Evil is everywhere, and the most vicious evils don't come from God. They come from the hearts of men and women driven by the lust for fame, power, and money.

I'm provincial enough to believe that a lot of the evil that plagues America comes from Washington, DC, and the urban lairs of the coastal elites. I'm not so naive as to think I can escape this evil by dwelling on Lake Mary Road in rural Mississippi.

No, evil can reach me anywhere. Thus, God left me a message in the form of poison ivy to watch my step.

Gene Lyons, Esteemed Columnist, Calls It Quits Over Trump: My Flyover-Country Response

In an op-ed essay that appeared in my local newspaper yesterday, Gene Lyons wrote that he is retiring mainly due to Donald Trump, whom Lyons described as an "incompetent sociopath and career criminal."

Lyons believes President Trump "will bring the American experiment to ruin," and he doesn't want to spend any more of his life writing or thinking about the President.

Although I disagree, I'm not shocked by Mr. Lyons's views about Trump. I have several friends who have gone further in denigrating the President--calling him an insurrectionist, a rapist, and a fascist.  Merely calling the President a sociopath and a criminal is mild by comparison.

However, I take umbrage at Lyons' description of the people who voted Trump into office. He quotes Amanda Arcotte, another columnist, who describes "median [American]voters," by which she means Trump voters, as having "a pathological aversion to reality" and an addiction to "BS".

Basically, Lyons is criticizing the millions of voters in the Heartland who cast their ballots for Trump last November. Whom does Lyons think they should have voted for?

Should they have embraced the presidential candidate that the Democratic Party hacks endorsed, the same hacks who pushed Joe Biden over the finish line in 2016, a brain-dead, geriatric grifter? Should the good-natured and practical people of Flyover Country have voted for Kamala Harris, an incoherent sluggard?

Lyons needs to understand that the people of Flyover Country no longer listen to the moribund legacy media about politics.  The media elites aren't respected, they're not trusted, and they're not believed.

So, Gene, you picked a good time to retire. I hope you take some of your buddies with you--all the self-righteous and arrogant blowhards who work at CNN, MSNBC, The View, WaPo, and The New York Times. Their time in the sun is over, and Americans are looking elsewhere for journalistic integrity.

Does Gene Lyons have Trump Derangement Syndrome?

Towing Our Lifeless Kubota to High Ground as the Mississippi Floods for the Second Time This Spring

Millions of Americans are worried about the stock market, which tanked last week. People saw their retirement accounts shrink dramatically, which is scary.

However, no one is thinking about the stock market on Lake Mary Road this week. Instead, our minds are focused on a more immediate threat. The Mississippi River is flooding for the second time this spring, and my neighbors are fleeing to high ground. 

Hour after hour, I watched guys in trucker hats driving pickup trucks by my home, towing trailers loaded with household cargo. Nobody wants to be trapped on low ground when the river overflows and covers Lake Mary Road, cutting off our only route to safety.

My family was one of the last to leave. Nevertheless, we knew we had a few hours before the mighty river overflowed into our yard--plenty of time to execute our escape plan.

At first, all went well. Charlie towed our party barge to the parking lot at the Lake Mary Store, where it would be safe. Then we loaded the four-wheeler and my beloved Toro lawnmower (a Time Cutter Max model) onto our utility trailer.

We still had room on the trailer for the Kubota all-terrain vehicle, but the damn thing wouldn't start. 

Leave it, I suggested. After all, its engine had suffered some mysterious breakdown several months ago and was just a pile of junk. If the river inundates it with filthy flood water, what's the harm? We can repurpose it as Mississippi yard art.

But I was overruled. This family doesn't abandon its wounded, someone sternly reminded me. Indeed, we were experiencing a Blackhawk Down moment and were honor-bound to extract our inert Kubota from the river's voracious maw.

Plan A. We hitched the four-wheeler's winch to the Kubota's front bumper and attempted to pull the dead beast onto the trailer. No go. The Kubota was too heavy for the winch and didn't move.

Plan B. Using the pickup truck, we towed the Kubota to the top of a brushpile in the yard, hoping to get it elevated enough to be above the waterline when the floodwater arrived.

Again, no go. The Kubota's weight flattened the brushpile, and our moribund recreational vehicle sank all the way back to ground level.

Plan C. We decided to tow the Kubota to Lake Mary Store, a four-mile journey. With some trepidation, I volunteered to steer the Kubota as it was being pulled behind the truck. 

Could I do it? After all, I'm partially incapacitated by a stroke and wasn't sure my left arm was strong enough to manage the steering wheel, which is very hard to turn when the engine isn't running.

We would soon know. Charlie pulled out on the gravel road in his truck, doing about 20 miles an hour, dragging me and the Kubota at the end of a tow rope.

By this time, night had descended, and I rolled along in the darkness, unable to see anything other than the tailights of the truck.

It was an exhilarating experience. The Kubota steered easily after it got moving, and I effortlessly maneuvered around the potholes. My vehicle glided through the darkness in perfect silence.

This, I thought to myself, must be what it feels like to drive a Tesla. When the engine's off, the Kubota is as quiet as an electric vehicle, and of course, it gets great mileage when it's being towed.

In a few moments, we arrived at the Lake Mary Store. We unhitched the tow rope and rolled the Kubota downhill until it nested safely next to our party barge.

Success! Once again, our family outfoxed the Mississippi River, and we celebrated with a few Bud Lights.

No one gets left behind.

First, it was Russia! Russia! Russia! Now, it's Social Security! Social Security! Social Security!

 Democrats have morphed from being the Party of Chaos to the Party of Chicken Little. For years, the Dems accused Donald Trump of colluding with Russia, in a desperate attempt to kill him politically.

That didn't work because Trump, rising like a phoenix, was elected President for a second term. So, Trump haters switched tactics. Like Chicken Little warning the barnyard that the sky is falling, they're hysterically accusing Trump of destroying Social Security.

This gambit may be working. Last week's anti-Trump rallies featured thousands of oldsters holding signs proclaiming "Hands Off Our Social Security."

It would indeed be a calamity if Social Security collapses. Four out of ten retirement-age Americans rely on Social Security as their sole source of income. If their monthly benefit checks stopped coming,  they'd be in the soup lines within a week. That's a scary thought.

Moreover, it is theoretically possible that Social Security will go belly up in 1935, when SS trust funds are depleted. That's another scary thought.

Why is Social Security on shaky ground financially? First, Americans live longer than they did when the program was introduced, so they're drawing benefits for longer periods. In 1940, the life expectancy of a 65-year-old was 14 years. Today, a 65-year-old can expect to live 20 more years.

 Secondly, the ratio of workers making Social Security contributions to the people receiving benefits has decreased dramatically from 16 to 1 in 1940 to 2.7 to 1 today.

According to the legacy media and leftist think-tank wonks, Trump's policies are further threatening Social Security benefits for millions of Americans. But that's not true.

On the contrary, Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is working hard to reduce the national budget deficit, which is expected to be $2 trillion this year. That's on top of the cumulative national debt, now topping $36 trillion. 

If the U.S. doesn't get government spending under control, myriad government services will be reduced or eliminated--not just Social Security.

It seems evident that eliminating waste, mismanagement, and fraud in the federal government is essential to balancing the nation's budget. Part of that effort must include trimming the number of federal employees, including nonessential Social Security Administration workers.

Sadly, that means the federal government will have less money for housing illegal aliens in 5-star hotels and less cash for promoting transgender sports.

Image credit: Portsmouth Herald

Matt Taibbi sues Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove for defamation: She should apologize pronto

Over the past several months, Congressional Democrats have descended into demogagery, profanity, and clownisness as a way of expressing their hatred and contempt for President Donald Trump and his political agenda.

Representative Al Green disrupted a joint session of Congress to wave a cane and rant against the President. The House of Representatives censured him for his behavior by a vote of 224 to 198.

Remarkably, only ten Democratic representatives joined in the censure. The rest all voted no, and a few sang "We Shall Overcome" in the House Chamber during the censureship proceedings.

More recently, Representative Jimmy Gomez degraded a congressional hearing by asking CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Homeland Security Director Tulsi Gabbard if Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had been drinking during a high-level security discussion.  This was a gratuitously offensive question that Ratcliffe initially refused to answer.

Green's behavior and Gomez's interrogatories were rude and unprofessional, but not actionable in a court of law.  They enjoy a legal privilige to behave like jackasses when acting in their official capacities.

However, a Congressperson who defames a member of the public through social media can be sued, as Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove (SKD) found out this week. During a congressional hearing last Tuesday, Kamlager-Dove described Matt Taibbi, a nationally renowned journalist, as a serial sexual harasser. Specifically, she said this: "To distract from the dumpster fire this administration is pursuing,[the majority is] elevating a serial sexual harasser as their star witness." 

Kamlager-Dove went further by introducing materials into the Congressional Record that implied Taibbi had a history of sexual misconduct, and she repeated her reckless charges through social media.

Unfortunately for Kamlager-Dove, Taibbi is not a sexual harasser, and no woman has ever accused him of being one. Yesterday, Taibbi sued the congresswoman for defamation.

To prevail in the courts, Taibbi must prove that Kamlager-Dove's words were false and were made maliciously, which he can probably do. He's seeking $10 million in damages, which he may receive.

Here's my advice to Kamlager-Dove. If Taibbi's charges are accurate, then you should quickly and publicly apologize for what you said about him and put your apology in the Congressional Record. Saying you're sorry may not get Taibbi to drop his lawsuit, but it may reduce the damages award he will receive.

Alternatively, you can double down and repeat your accusations on MSNBC and The View. If you do that, you should consider contacting George Clooney, Julia Roberts, and Oprah and ask them to organize a fundraiser to cover your litigation expenses. I'm sure the pious billionaires in Silicon Valley will be more than happy to contribute.

Time for a Silicon Valley fundraiser?

Removing a biased federal judge from a case: The need for a streamlined appeal process

 Donald Trump and his supporters have repeatedly been battered by biased or hostile judges in the DC Circuit--a rat's nest of hacks for the Democratic Party. The January 6 protesters were treated horribly by some of these judges, and the Trump administration is routinely knocked about by federal judges intent on denying the Executive branch the ability to carry out the People's business.

What can be done? Litigants who believe their judge is unfair can file a motion in federal court, asking a judge to reassign a case to another judge due to bias, but such motions are routinely denied. Few judges will admit having prejudicial views toward the Trump team, and most are cunning enough to conceal their political views.

In fact, a recusal motion is likely to do nothing more than outrage the judge. How dare you accuse me of being unfair!

Of course, a party whose case is assigned to a hostile judge can appeal the denial of a recusal motion; however, appellate courts are reluctant to rule that a trial judge is unfair, especially the DC Circuit, where judicial abuse is most rampant.

We should look to the federal bankruptcy courts for a solution to this serious problem. Parties wishing to appeal an unfavorable ruling by a federal bankruptcy judge have two avenues for appeal. They can appeal to a federal district court judge, who may have limited familiarity with bankruptcy law.

  Alternatively, a losing party can appeal an unfavorable bankruptcy court decision to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP).  These panels exist in some federal circuits and consist of three federal bankruptcy judges.

I followed student-loan bankruptcy litigation for many years. I observed that the BAP courts were more likely than federal district judges to rule in favor of insolvent student loan debtors.

Why? I think the bankruptcy judges are more sympathetic to college-loan borrowers than the district court judges, who often know nothing about the student loan crisis and have little sympathy for a debtor who took out loans to get a worthless degree and winds up owing two or three times the amount borrowed due to penalties and accumulated compound interest.

How about a similar panel to hear appeals from litigants who believe their cases have been assigned to an unfair judge?

This is how it would work. After a motion for recusal is denied, the litigant is given ten days to appeal the denial to a Recusal Denial Appellate Panel (RDAP), composed of three federal district judges. The panel would decide the appeal promptly, within ten days, based solely on the appellant's written brief.

To further ensure a fair review, an RDAP would only hear recusal motions coming from outside the panel's own circuit.

For example, President Trump's administration is fighting an attack on the Department's deportation efforts, and the case has been assigned to Judge James Boasberg, whom Trump believes is unfairly prejudiced.

The Department of Justice lawyers defending the Trump team's deportation efforts can file a motion asking Judge Boasberg to reassign the case to another judge. Still, he would likely deny such a motion.

If a Recursal Denial Appellate Panel existed, Trump's lawyers could appeal on the issue of bias, and the matter would be heard by a panel of federal district court judges from another circuit, such as the Fifth Circuit of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

This reform won't completely solve the problem of bias among the judges of the First Circuit, but it would help. 

Judge James Boasberg: What, me biased?

Judgegate and the DC Circuit: Alaska has the solution for the problem of biased federal judges

This week, the House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the problem of biased federal judges in the D.C. Circuit. The Trump administration has fared poorly before several DC Circuit judges, and there is ample evidence that some judges are biased in favor of the Democratic Party. 

James Howard Kunstler identified five judges as the prime suspects in the Judgegate scandal: James Boasberg, Amy Berman Jackson, Tanya Chutkan, Beryl Howell, and Amir Ali. All five judges were appointed by Democratic presidents, and some have family members who are active in Democratic Party politics.

Assuming the Judiciary Committee concludes that the DC Circuit is a nest of Democratic Party hacks, how do you break up the cabal? After all, federal judges are appointed for life. It is true that federal judges can be impeached; however, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, impeachment is an inappropriate means of addressing biased judges.

Justice Roberts said that the appellate process is the appropriate way to seek redress from politically motivated judicial decisions, but I disagree. Appeals to federal appellate courts can take years to rectify the injustice caused by a politically corrupt judge, and the appellate process is often expensive. 

Of course, a party can file a motion before judges they believe are biased, requesting that they recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest. But who rules on such motions? The judges themselves, and they seldom admit that they are unable to be fair.

Alaska may have a solution to this problem. In the Land of the Midnight Sun, attorneys in the state courts have the right to preemptively request a judge's recusal if they believe the judge might be biased against their client. An attorney isn't required to give a reason for the request, which is automatically granted.

Allowing litigants one free bump of a federal judge won't solve the problem of biased judges in the DC Circuit, but it would be a solid step toward ensuring fairness in the federal courts. After all, if the judges aren't fair and impartial, there is no point in having a judicial system.