Was "Professor" Jonathan Anthony Caravello kidnapped at an anti-ICE Protest in Camarillo, California?

According to the California Faculty Association, Jonathan Anthony Caravelllo, "a respected educator" at  California State University Channel Islands, was "abducted" or "kidnapped" by federal authorities earlier this month at an anti-ICE protest in Camarillo, California. Caravello's employer, CSU Channel Islands, confirmed that "Professor" Camarillo had been arrested and that it was the university's "understanding" that  he had been "peacefully participating in a protest—an act protected under the First Amendment and a right guaranteed to all Americans."

The university's reference to Caravello as a "professor" implies that he's a scholar pursuing an academic career as a tenured or tenure-track academic. However, contrary to the CSU Channel Islands news release, Caravello is listed in the University  Faculty Directory as a Lecturer, not a Professor.

Of course, it doesn't make any difference in terms of his arrest whether Caravello is correctly described as a professor or a lecturer. Nevertheless, CSU Channel Islands apparently misrepresented Caravello's status, and the California Faculty Association incorrectly claimed that he had been "abducted" or kidnapped." Bill Essayli, the federal District Attorney in charge of the case, said Caravello was arrested for throwing a tear gas canister at federal agents, which is a serious offense.

Caravello denies the charges and may be innocent. One observer said that Caravello had merely been attempting to dislodge a tear gas canister from under the wheelchair of a lawful protester. 

Anti-ICE protesters can reasonably argue that law-abiding and hard-working immigrants who are illegally in this country should be given legal status and not deported. But no one has the right to throw tear gas canisters at federal agents. And no one should say that a man who was arrested for allegedly assaulting federal officers has been kidnapped.

Violence against law enforcement officers is on the rise. People have been throwing rocks and heavy objects at ICE agents and the police. It's only a matter of time before someone gets seriously hurt or killed. 

And when that happens, someone is going to go to prison for a long time, where people aren't living their best lives and prison guards don't know a preferred pronoun from a billy club. On the plus side, federal prisoners can probably get a deferment on their student loan payments while they're in stir.

Many Americans have strong feelings about the Trump administration's aggressive deportation policy, which is a legitimate topic of debate. But we all have a responsibility to debate this issue rationally and to discourage violence.

Bankruptcy Relief for Overburdened Student-Loan Debtors: The Democrats Could Be Heroes

The Democrats are in a funk. Donald Trump beat Kamala Harris handily last November despite being outspent 2 to 1. Then Trump affirmed all his cabinet nominations, even RFK Jr., which was a miracle. And finally, the President got the Big, Beautiful Bill through Congress by his arbitrary deadline--July 4th.

Democrats have responded to their reversal of fortune by returning to their three standard tactics: First, they've filed hundreds of lawsuits against the Trump administration before friendly judges. Second, some elected Democratic politicians have contrived to get restrained or arrested for impeding Trump's deportation actions--great photo ops! 

 Finally, several Democratic politicians have unleashed a torrent of profanity. In fact, Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett's status as the queen of gutter language is being challenged by several of her colleagues.

None of these tactics has increased the standing of the Democratic Party with American voters. Why not do something constructive?

I propose that Democrats engage with Republicans in a bipartisan effort to give bankruptcy relief to overburdened student-loan debtors. Our elected politicians need to acknowledge that the federal student loan program is an epic disaster that can't be fixed by income-based repayment plans or economic hardship deferrals. 

Distressed student borrowers need to be able to discharge their loans in bankruptcy like any other consumer debt. Currently, they are barred from relief by the "undue hardship" language in the Bankruptcy Code.

Not right away, of course. No one should obtain a lucrative undergraduate or professional degree and file for bankruptcy the next day.

No, every student-loan debtor should strive to pay off their college loans within ten years. Borrowers who are insolvent at the end of that period should be able to shed their debt in a federal bankruptcy court. And the same relief should be available to parents who took out Parent PLUS loans.

In other words, no more economic hardship deferments or income-based repayment plans. Instead, all student borrowers will be expected to pay off their college debt by the end of a decade. Those who fail to do so can walk over to the bankruptcy court and get relief.

Why hasn't Congress enacted this simple reform to the Bankruptcy Code? The explanation is simple.

Our elected politicians see the higher education industry as their most important constituency--not the millions of college students forced to take out burdensome loans to pay their outrageous tuition bills.

The colleges are okay with the status quo. They get juiced with federal student loan money year after year, regardless of whether their graduates can pay off the debt. 

If beaten-down student borrowers had access to the bankruptcy courts, millions would file for relief. Then, Americans would see just how much a college education is overpriced and how worthless those cheesy liberal arts and humanities degrees really are.

And, if the Democrats took the lead in getting bankruptcy relief for college borrowers, they would be heroes, instead of a bunch of bums, which is how they're perceived now.

Why Do Progressives Reject an Orderly Immigration Policy? LA Mayor Karen Bass Explains

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, with disarming candor, explained why California is fighting the Trump administration's efforts to deport illegal immigrants. If ICE removes undocumented workers, Bass revealed to journalist Katie Couric, Californians will lose their nannies, housekeepers, grocery store stockers, and hospitality workers.

Exactly. California progressives oppose an orderly immigration process because they enjoy cheap workers to clean their houses, pick up their kids after school, and mow their lawns. California businesses like having cheap construction workers, dishwashers, and grocery store stocking clerks.

Bass is correct when she says that most illegal immigrants perform vital services in the American economy. Nevertheless, all these people could be in the United States lawfully if we had an orderly process for granting work visas.

And if the U.S.had an efficient immigration system in place, we could admit hard-working people while excluding violent criminals, drug dealers, and child traffickers. Does anyone have a problem with that?

Apparently, some people do. Last month, rioters in Los Angeles forced California police officers to shelter under an overpass to protect themselves from rocks being thrown down on them--projectiles that would probably have killed them if they'd hit their mark. Earlier this month, ten people were charged with attempted murder after a police officer at an ICE facility was wounded by a bullet. Also, this month, a gunman opened fire at a Border Patrol post in McAllen, Texas, and was shot dead.

Anti-ICE violence is out of control, especially in blue state cities. President Trump recently called out the National Guard to protect federal officers and buildings in Los Angeles, which outraged progressive Democrats. 

If this violence is not brought under control soon, we will see more federal troops in American cities. Perhaps that's what progressive Democrats want--chaos, military intervention, and more chaos. 

California police huddle under a Los Angeles overpass

 

Who Are the Knuckleheads Charged in the Alvaredo ICE Attack?

Eleven young people were arrested in connection with a July 4th attack at the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvaredo, Texas. A twelfth person, Benjamin Hanil Song, is charged with attempted murder for allegedly shooting at ICE officers. Mr. Song is still at large.

The Alvaredo assault was a terrorist attack. The arrested suspects were dressed in black, military-style clothing and equipped with radios and body armor. Multiple gunshots were fired, and one police officer was wounded in the neck. If convicted on federal charges, all the defendants will serve long prison sentences.

What were these knuckleheads thinking? According to news reports, the group shot off fireworks to lure ICE agents into the open, and one or more of the suspects shot at the officers. Some of the assailants are said to have vandalized government vehicles and spray-painted anti-ICE epithets on them.

This doesn't make sense to me. If their purpose was to murder federal agents, why did this ragtag gang waste time by spray-painting cars?  

I found myself wondering whether all twelve suspects were on the same page. Did they all really plan to murder federal agents, or were some of them intent solely on vandalism?

I would like to know more about these individuals. How were these sad sacks radicalized? Did they attend college? If so, where? 

How have these young people supported themselves over the years? Did they have jobs?

Who procured the body armor, firearms, and radios for this project? Who paid for all this stuff?

If my ruminations suggest that I feel sorry for these clowns, it is because I do. If these miscreants did what they are charged with doing, then, like Charlie Manson's followers, they've thrown their lives away. 

Someone apparently talked these nitwits into embarking on a fool's errand. I hope the people who egged these alleged amateur terrorists on and bankrolled the Alvaredo escapade are found out and go to prison for a very long time.

In the meantime, we should remember that the allegations against the Alvarado 12 are just that--allegations. As more facts are revealed, we might conclude that none of the eleven people under arrest are guilty of attempted murder. Indeed, I hope that proves to be the case.

"People Will Die" is Not a Principled Response to the Big, Beautiful Bill

 President Trump signed the Big, Beautiful Bill, which had something in it for nearly everybody. Democrats didn't gripe about the expanded SALT tax exemption because rich people in the blue states were the primary beneficiaries. Instead, they focused their complaints on the modest cuts to Medicare, the supplemental food program, and other governmental services.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, who cadged her way into Harvard by claiming to be a Cherokee Indian, is leading the histrionic charge, saying, "People will die" as a result of the bill's passage. 

Other Democrats have joined her in waving the bloody shirt to stir partisan rancor. Senator Bernie Sanders, a doddering old fool, claimed the bill would kill 51,000 people a year. The leftist media slyly hints that we can blame the recent Texas flood fatalities on Trump's budget cuts, a contemptible bit of propaganda worthy of Joseph Goebbels, and sleazy Senator Chuck Schumer wants a federal investigation of that outrageous allegation.

The day is fast approaching when the nation's debt--$36 trillion and growing by the hour--will pull down America's economy. The Trump administration's efforts to trim the cost of government can be legitimately criticized, but shrieking "People will die" is not a principled response. 

The Democratic Party and its co-conspirators in academia and the media are no longer interested in civil debate on national policy issues. Their aim is to sow chaos, and chaos they will likely get. 

They will be surprised, however, by Flyover Country's reaction when the Heartland has had enough. The forces that long for chaos won't like it when that chaos shows up in Silicon Valley, Martha's Vineyard, the Hamptons, and Harvard Yard.

Senator Elizabeth Warren: "People will die!"

Trump is Playing Musical Chairs With the Democrats, and He's Already Lost

Say what you like about Elon Musk; he's right about the Big, Beautiful Bill. This legislation, which was approved by Congress on a party-line vote, will increase the national debt and lead to recession.

Ignoring the nation's mountainous national debt that grows larger by the day, Trump and the Republicans approved a 1000-page bill that does nothing to balance the national budget.

Democrats unanimously opposed the bill, putting them in a position to say "We told you so" when the American economy collapses. Nevertheless, they shrilly denounced the bill's modest cuts to Medicare and the food stamp program. Senator Elizabeth Warren, growing more deranged as she ages,  repeatedly yelled "People will die" as a result of the bill's passage. 

The United States, like Ernest Hemingway, is going bankrupt, slowly at first, "then suddenly." We're in the slow stage now, and no one knows when our economy will suddenly collapse under unmanageable debt. 

However, that day is coming when no one wants to buy U.S. Treasury bonds. We don't know when our house of cards will implode, but I predict it will be during Donald Trump's presidency. 

The Democrats will smugly explain that our coming Great Depression is due entirely to Trump's economic policies, and he will be left holding the bag. Trump will take the blame for our coming economic meltdown, even though this catastrophe was decades in the making. 

Put another way, Trump and the Democrats are playing musical chairs with the economy, but Trump doesn't know that's the game he's playing. The Democrats plan to have a seat when the music stops, leaving Trump outside the circle of inside players.

That being said, I'm glad Congress passed the Big, Beautiful Bill. It does nothing to get the nation's fiscal house in order, but at least it gives some tax relief to the people who need it most--older Americans and the struggling middle class. 

In other words, people like me.

 

Saddle Up Anyway : The Exciting Sequal to The Dixie Apocalypse

 

Saddle Up for the exciting sequel to the cult-favorite dystopian satire, The Dixie Apocalypse.

Willoughby Burns never planned on becoming the Secretary of State for a breakaway Texan republic—but then again, the world ended weirder than he expected.

As the Second Texas Republic braces for war with the swaggering forces of the California People’s Republic, Willoughby finds himself stuck between his past as a wandering outsider and his uneasy future as a national figurehead. The battles aren’t just fought with bullets and bravado—there are deeper skirmishes at play: between loyalty and identity, progress and tradition, truth and spectacle.

When he’s thrown together with a captured Californian officer—Lieutenant Sandy Beech, equal parts soldier, smartass, and accidental philosopher—Willoughby is forced to confront the blurry edges of his own beliefs. Friendship, feral hogs, fried food, and a woman with a killer enchilada recipe all converge as Willoughby searches for courage, purpose... and maybe a second chance at love.

Saddle Up Anyway is a riotous, heartfelt road trip through the fractured politics of a future America— equal parts satire, spaghetti Western, and sincere tribute to all things Texan.