Illegal Asian Immigrant Assaults Five-Year-Old in Southwestern Mississippi: Assailant Still At Large

 An Asian illegal alien assaulted a five-year-old child at Lake Mary in southwestern Mississippi on Sunday. 

An Asian carp weighing approximately 18 pounds leaped out of the water and struck the child tubing with his father on the remote lake. The family reported the incident to Mississippi wildlife authorities, who were on the scene within minutes.

An anonymous ranger who was not authorized to speak publicly said the carp was a member of an invasive species originating in Eurasia. The ranger added that the carp's gender identity and preferred pronoun are unknown.

President Trump was briefed on the incident over the weekend. In a prepared statement, the President said that large gangs of Asian carp had entered the United States illegally, flown in by NGOs funded by George Soros, and were making their way up the Mississippi River to the Great Lakes. 

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced that he had deployed National Guard units from six states to Chicago, where the carp is believed to be headed. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker opposed the move, pointing out that Chicago is a sanctuary city where approximately 150 million unhoused Asian carp are residing in the Ritz Carlton.

Krisi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, expressed confidence that the assailant will be captured soon. "Once apprehended," she stated at a hastily arranged press conference, "the carp will be transported to a secure facility at Angola Prison in neighboring Louisiana, which makes Alligator Alley look like Disneyland."

The child, identified as Adrian Moffatt, experienced a noise bleed but is expected to make a full recovery.

I got hit by a fish that was THIS BIG!

Robert F. Kennedy Jr Testifies Before the Senate Finance Committee: The Democrats Broughgt a Knife to a Gun Fight

A gaggle of U.S. senators questioned HHS Secretary RFK Jr. at a Senate hearing yesterday, and Kennedy's performance was masterful.  

Democratic senators tried to discredit  Kennedy, asking a barrage of zinger questions that Senate staffers had prepared in advance. Unfortunately for Kennedy's inquisitors, the questions were so convoluted that the Senators had to read them, which made their indignant tone seem feigned and insincere.

At times, I felt like I was watching a Jason Statham movie. Kennedy punched, kicked, pirouetted, and bobbed like an action hero set upon by a gang of street thugs.

Kennedy told Senator Maggie Hassan that she was "just making stuff up," and he dismissed Senator Ben Ray Lujan's rambling questions as "gibberish." And he defanged Senator Warren's nasty questions by reminding her she had taken $855,000 from pharmaceutical companies. Warren was so taken aback that all she could do was shriek.

It would be hard to say which Senator was most humiliated at the hearing. My vote goes to Senator Lujan of New Mexico, who was clearly outmatched intellectually by Trump's Health Secretary. Luhan ended his questioning by saying he wouldn't give Kennedy a lapel pin because the Secretary didn't deserve it. Luhan's statement was so bizarre that Kennedy, a masterful public speaker, was briefly speechless.

Public health policy is a complicated topic, particularly as it pertains to the COVID-19 vaccinations. It's easy to get bogged down in obscure and esoteric discussions about what "the science" says. 

Kennedy's detractors sought to frame him as an irrational madman, whose administration of the Department of Health and Human Services would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans. But their attacks fell flat.

Kennedy's responses to hostile interrogation were so clear and succinct that most objective observers will conclude he is a knowledgeable and civic-minded public servant dedicated to making Americans healthier. As he has said repeatedly, the United States is the sickest nation in the developed world. No one disagrees with him.

If the Democratic Senators hoped to discredit Kennedy at yesterday's hearings, they failed miserably. Indeed, his "up yours" performance before a band of buffoons endeared him to the American people.  The Dems brought a knife to a gunfight, and RFK Jr. blew them away.

* * *

Note: I found the brilliant image of Kennedy in an adapted Norman Rockwell painting on X. I don't know who to credit, but it is an inspired artistic expression.

What if the Russians Don't Want to End the Ukraine War?

 Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig just loves it. 

 Attributed to George Bernard Shaw

 When Donald Trump was campaigning for president, he promised to end the Ukraine war within two weeks after taking office. I thought he could do it.

After all, the battle front had stabilized with Russia holding Crimea, the Donbas, and other portions of eastern Ukraine--about 12 percent of the country. If Ukraine made modest territorial concessions, surely the Russians would make peace.

Trump gave it the old college try--drawing on all his considerable negotiating skills. He leaned on Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, urging him to make territorial concessions. And he leaned on Russian President Putin,  alternating between flattery and veiled threats. The President even arranged a one-on-one meeting with Putin in Anchorage, Alaska. 

Pundits and commentators assured Americans that the Russians are paying a heavy price for their invasion--a million casualties, growing unrest in the civilian population, and an economy nearing collapse. Surely, Putin was ready to throw in the towel and stop fighting. 

Yet the carnage continues. 

Perhaps the Russians don't want the war to end. Maybe Putin is content to grind down the Ukrainian national identity, no matter how long it takes.

This is the view of an essayist on Zero Hedge, who goes by the name of Armchair Warlord (AW). AW posits this theory: "[M[aybe the killing itself is the point of all this."

AW argues that the Russians are fully capable of capturing large swaths of Ukrainian territory, but have not done so. Instead, [t]he Russians have . . . consistently forgone breaking the front and taking swaths of ground in favor of killing the largest possible number of Ukrainian soldiers on the existing front under the existing attritional combat dynamic."

AW maintains that the Ukrainian army has sustained massive casualties--1.7 million dead, wounded, captured, or missing. This number is far higher than the figures given by the mainstream, pro-Ukrainian news media.

So what is Putin's long-term objective? According to AW:

Putin wants to make Zelensky put on a suit, come groveling to the Kremlin, and sign a treaty that will see the Maidanite government surrender its arms, disgorge massive amounts of territory, and reverse every single anti-Russian policy position it ever had.

Is AW's assessment correct? I don't know. Nevertheless, the mainstream Western media has not reported accurately about what's going on in Ukraine. Contrary to what Americans have been told, the Russian economy is not nearing collapse. In fact, its GNP has grown since the war began, and the Russian ruble has gained in value against the U.S. dollar.

And Ukrainian casualties are surely higher than the Ukrainians are reporting. And let's not forget the millions of Ukrainians who are refugees from the war. 

America's progressive politicians--the Democrats--support continued American involvement in the largest military conflict since World War II. Unlike President Trump, they're not thinking about ways to stop the fighting or the consequences for our country or for Europe if the war drags on for several more years. 

It's time for our political leaders to confront reality, and these are the facts. Either the U.S. and NATO will have to make a long-term investment in propping up Ukraine, or they will be forced to accept the fact that Ukraine is slipping back into the Russian orbit. 

And this much is certain. Russia wants more than Crimea and the Donbas to stop the killing--and that is a chilling realization.

Image credit: Mauricio Lima for The New York Times

 

The Texas Congressional Redistricting Battle: Rep. Jasmine Crockett Ain't Goin' Nowhere

 Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett is the Democratic politician whom Texas Republicans love to hate. Who can blame them? 

Crockett called President Trump "a piece of shit" and a "wannabe Hitler." She compared Republicans to neo-Nazis and accused the U.S. Supreme Court of bribery.

Crockett's public speeches occasionally skirt the edge of racism. Indeed, Texas Republic Governor Greg Abbott believes she's crossed that line, recently observing, “It would not be a day that ends in the letter Y if Jasmine Crockett didn’t say something racist.” 

Crockett represents the Texas 30th congressional district, where she is wildly popular. District 30 encompasses the South Dallas metropolitan area, where Crockett garnered 85 percent of the vote in the 2024 election.

The Republican-dominated Texas Legislature recently revised the state's  Congressional district boundaries. One might think they would redraw Crockett's district so that she would lose the next election.

But that's not what the Texas Legislature did. District 30's boundaries were adjusted so Crockett's residence is outside the district, but the district is still overwhelmingly Democratic.

 And Crockett is not legally obligated to live inside District 30. She can reside anywhere in Texas and represent her loyal Dallas constituents in Congress. 

So what's going on? As the Texas Tribune explained:  

Republicans have proposed to pack more Democratic voters into districts in the state’s blue urban centers, giving Democrats even bigger margins in districts they already control, such as those represented by Crockett . . . 

In other words, Texas Republicans' scheme to create more Republican-leaning congressional districts may make Representative Jasmine Crockett unbeatable in her congressional district.

Potty-mouthed Crockett is in her forties and serving her second term in Congress. If Republicans think she is insufferable now, what do they think she'll be like when she is in her fifties and in her tenth term?

 

Labor Day at Lake Mary: Serenity in the Midst of Climate Change and the Trump Derangement Syndrome

 My home sits on the banks of Lake Mary in southwestern Mississippi. Shaped like a ten-mile bratwurst sausage, Lake Mary is an oxbow lake formed when the Mississippi River changed course long ago--in the eighteenth century, I've been told.

Unlike my region's recreational lakes and waterways, Lake Mary is undeveloped. Even on Labor Day, when other watery playgrounds are packed with boaters, skiers, and jet ski enthusiasts, Lake Mary is virtually deserted. I saw only three boats pass by all day.

Lake Mary is only 90 minutes from Baton Rouge, a leisurely weekend drive. Why aren't there more lakefront homes here?

Climate change is the primary reason Lake Mary has been passed by, leaving it a Southern Living Brigadoon. In the mid-twentieth century, Lake Mary and nearby Lake Foster were a famous duck hunting paradise, and hunters came from near and far to hunt ducks and geese. A few lodging houses near the lakes catered to these seasonal visitors, but now they are largely devoid of guests.

What happened? Global warming changed the fly routes of migratory birds. Now, ducks are more likely to spend the winter farther north--in Oklahoma or Arkansas. 

Thirty years ago, Lake Mary was a reliable fishing spot where anglers could catch largemouth bass. No longer. Now the lake is stocked with Asian carp, an invasive species that swam into the lake from the Mississippi River. Wildlife officials along the Mississippi drainage system are fighting to keep the carp from extending their range, but Lake Mary lost that battle long ago, and the Asian carp have taken over.

 Alligator gar, a needle-nosed prehistoric-looking species, has also muscled its way into the lake, and together the carp and gar have pushed out the sport fish. Both species are edible, but few people want to eat them.

Another sign that the ecosystem is changing: alligators are moving north, and my family occasionally spots a gator sunning on the lake bank. Swimming in Lake Mary has become less inviting.

Feral hogs have also grown in numbers in southern Mississippi, and climate change may explain this expansion. These beasts roam the woods in large sounders--20 pigs or more-- and compete with the deer for forage.

Given all these disadvantages, why would I want to live on Lake Mary? Several reasons. First, I cherish the serenity and the solitude. 

My neighbors occasionally pass by my homestead on the gravel road that borders my property-- people in 4-wheel drive pickups or all-terrain vehicles. But there are no traffic jams or road rage, no carjackings.

I also love my Mississippi home for the abundant bird life: snowy egrets, great egrets, white ibises, blue herons, tricolored herons, kingfishers, and the occasional stork and bald eagle. Late in life, I've become a hack birdwatcher.

Even so, living on Lake Mary has a significant drawback. My property floods yearly when spring rains flow down from the upper Mississippi Valley, depositing as much as eight feet of water under my house.

Climate change? Many of my neighbors think so. According to the oldtimers, the Mississippi River hardly ever flooded this region until 30 years ago. People speculate that extreme weather events have caused more torrential rainstorms and that the excessive water has triggered soil erosion, silting up the Mississippi River and its tributaries.

No matter. My home sits on steel piers 15 feet above ground level. It would take a flood of biblical proportions to threaten my habitation.

So, as Waylon Jennings put it, "Let the world call me a fool." I'm content to live out my days in a backwater of southern Mississippi, where the sunsets are gorgeous and no one suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

The Texas Redistricting Battle: Representative Al Green's Congressional District is Going Republican

 The Texas Legislature, dominated by Republicans, recently redrew congressional district boundaries to disadvantage Democrats in the next election. This political maneuver, called gerrymandering, is as old as the Republic.

For example, Al Green, a Democratic congressman and a perpetual burr under the Republican saddle, represents Texas Congressional District 9, a historically safe district for Democrats. No doubt, Green felt confident enough about his congressional seat to disrupt President Trump's address to Congress last spring. His Democratic constituents undoubtedly loved his buffoonish behavior. That's our boy!

Then things changed. The Texas legislature drastically altered District 9 to encompass voting precincts that are reliably Republican. The district's stalwart Democratic neighborhoods were shoved into District 18, and Green's congressional sinecure was wiped out. He will lose if he runs for reelection next year in District 9. 

Indeed, unless the Republicans' gerrymandering maneuver is overturned by the courts, Texas will probably send five additional Republicans to Congress after the next federal election. No wonder that Democratic Texas legislators fled the state in August to stall a vote on the Republicans' redistricting scheme. 

Of course, the Democrats didn't take the Republicans' gerrymandering scheme lying down. California Governor Gavin Newsom, self-appointed leader of the increasingly deranged Democratic Party, signed gerrymandering legislation countermanding the Texas action by gerrymandering the Golden State's congressional districts to favor the Democrats. 

Now, gerrymandering battles between Republicans and Democrats have broken out in other states. It seems likely that all this political turmoil will have to be sorted out by the U.S. Supreme Court.

No one can predict the outcome of the gerrymandering war. Nevertheless, Americans are waking up to the fact that congressional districts have been gerrymandered nationwide and that most of it has benefited Democrats. 

New England's six states have no Republican-held congressional seats, even though the region has many Republican voters. Illinois is the poster child for corrupt Democratic gerrymandering. No wonder that 33 conservatively leaning counties want to join with Indiana to escape the state's oppressively corrupt, Democrat-dominated political system.

All this sturm and drang over congressional redistricting highlights the fact that numerous congressional representatives are lunatics who behave childishly and irresponsibly because they are in safe districts where their constituents prefer to be entertained rather than governed. 

Congressman Al Green's fans need not mourn the loss of their wingnut representative. Although he is being pushed out of District 9, he will probably run again in District 18, where many of his supporters were placed due to redistricting. If Green runs in District 18 in 2026, I predict he will win.

Gerrymandering for me but not for thee.

All School Shooters are Deranged Males, Including Robin Westman

 Robin Westman, a 23-year-old male who identified as transgender, killed two children at Assumption  Catholic School in Minneapolis earlier this week. Armed with an assault rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol, he wounded fifteen other children and three adults while the victims were celebrating Mass. 

With his mother's support, Robert Westman changed his name to Robin when he was 17 and declared he identified as female. Later, he regretted that decision.

The New York Times deferentially referred to Westman as "Ms. Westman," and darkly observed that "some conservative activists [had] seized on the shooter's gender identity to broadly portray transgender people as violent or mentally ill . . ."

Two observations about the Times's characterization of Robin Westman. First, all American school shooters are young men. There is not a single school shooting perpetrated by a female. 

Second, all schoolground assassins suffer from severe mental illness and a psychopathic disregard for human life--including their own lives. 

Westman's writings suggest he was antisemitic and anti-Catholic, but basically, he was just nuts. For the legacy media to insinuate that his transgender ideation had nothing to do with his homicidal rage is disingenuous. 

How would I feel if I were a 23-year-old man who'd changed my sexual identity as a teenager and realized I'd made a mistake? The prom I missed, the girl in my algebra class I didn't date, the varsity track team I didn't try out for.

I would be furious at anyone who encouraged me to identify as a woman and at the school that tolerated this charade. Indeed, I might be angry enough to start shooting people--although not so angry that I would shoot a child.