Today’s date: a whole lot of sixes and a whole lot of twos.
And then there’s that lonely zero.
Update on the Venezuela earthquake
We’re nowhere near knowing the true toll. But here’s an update:
At least 188 people have died and more than 1,500 are injured …
Many people are missing or still trapped beneath rubble as rescue efforts stretch into Thursday night. Many residents have nowhere to go after their homes were flattened in the port city of La Guaira, the capital Caracas and surrounding areas. …
The US is deploying elite rescue teams to Venezuela, though it’s not yet clear when they’ll arrive, and pledges of foreign aid are pouring in. Venezuelans living abroad are anxiously awaiting updates from loved ones.
There’s more news at the link.
Here’s an interesting changer – actually, two interesting changers
When I first saw an excerpt from this guy’s message, I thought he might not be for real. I tend now to think he is for real, although I’m not 100% sure. At any rate, his point is a good one.
The commentary on what he’s saying is by Amala Ekpunobi, a woman whose own political change experience happened a couple of years ago. I’ve watched quite a few of her videos, and I think she’s quite good.
On immigration and the law: SCOTUS decides that “temporary” means temporary and that the Trump orders were not based on race
Here’s the ruling, in a 6-3 opinion with Alito authoring:
In these cases, we consider whether respondents, who challenge the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for aliens from Syria and Haiti, are entitled to orders postponing the terminations during litigation. We hold that they are not.
The TPS statute plainly bars consideration of respondents’ non-constitutional claims. It allows “no judicial review of any determination . . . with respect to the . . . termination” of a TPS designation. 8 U. S. C. §1254a(b)(5)(A). The term “determination” can be used to describe either an individual decision or the whole process leading to a final decision, and under either understanding of the term, §1254a(b)(5)(A) squarely bars all of respondents’ non-constitutional claims.
The sole constitutional claim before us will likely fail. Citing statements made by President Trump and former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, one set of respondents advances an equal protection claim that Haiti’s TPS designation was terminated because of the racial makeup of that country’s population. But, ironically, one of respondents’ other arguments undermines the equal protection claim by offering a strong, race-neutral explanation for Haiti’s termination: namely, that the current administration, which has terminated every TPS designation that has come up for renewal, simply opposes the TPS program, at least as it has been implemented in the past. For these reasons, the District Courts erred in granting interim relief.
The opinion points out that these “temporary” exceptions often last for many decades.
NOTE: SCOTUS should be issuing a ruling on birthright citizenship soon. If I had to guess, I’d say they will uphold the present interpretation of how it functions. But I simply don’t know. Personally, I think the arguments against the current construction of the law are strong. But there’s room for ambiguity and it would be such a big change to make it more restrictive that I don’t think it will happen.
Democratic Socialism: workers of the blue cities, unite!
Yesterday I wrote a post about the socialist victories in New York’s primaries on Tuesday. In it, I quoted from this City Journal article about the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America), as follows:
Earlier this month, the Democratic Socialists of America’s top leadership met for an in-person meeting of their National Political Committee (NPC), the DSA’s governing authority. The result of the meeting was “Workers Deserve More!”, a rebooted platform for the organization featuring a host of radical proposals. The document commits DSA to scrapping the U.S. Senate, “abolishing the carceral forces of the capitalist state,” defunding the Department of War, amnesty for all immigrants, and “replac[ing] the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.”
That’s not all they want, but it’s a start. It also gives you a hint about why they call themselves democratic socialists: they use what they call “democracy” as a tool. First it’s just the ordinary “democracy” we have today – that is, a republican form of government with checks and balances. The most “democratic” organ of the legislature is the House, because the Senate gives power to states as entities rather than by population numbers. Leftists are angry that in the Senate low-population states like South Dakota (which tend to be red) count for as much as the populous blue enclaves of New York or California. They plan to remedy that flaw. And then they plan to make other branches of government subordinate to the House, which would reign supreme.
Of course, this is at present a dream. But look how far they’ve come in just a few short years.
Also, the whole thing would fall down if the House ends up taken over by the right. If these Democratic Socialists ever get sufficient in numbers, however, they plan to make that impossible any way they can. Whether or not elections are “rigged” or outright fraudulent in blue cities and states, if you don’t believe the left wants to do it and will do it if possible, you don’t understand their drive for power.
This triumph of “democracy” – “our democracy” – is the process part of it. The content is indeed things like the abolition of prisons (except perhaps for their political prisoners), open borders (the better to get more third-world denizens here), hatred of Israel and Jews (and probably for those Christians who aren’t with the DSA program) – and the destruction of Western Civilization.
You think I made that last part up? I did not; see this:
The socialist backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani who won Tuesday night’s primary election in New York’s 13th Congressional District founded a group in college that called for the total destruction of the West.
Darializa Avila Chevalier, 32, a Democratic nominee for U.S. Congress who made career out of “community organizing,” wrote in her biography for an opinion piece in independent news outlet The Electronic Intifada that she “helped launch the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign Columbia University Apartheid Divest.”
“We are Westerners fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization,” the group said in a now-deleted 2024 Instagram post.
In May 2024, eight years after she graduated from Columbia, Chevalier was back on campus advocating alongside the group she founded, known as CUAD, wearing a keffiyeh and a t-shirt emblazoned with the group’s name.
This isn’t ancient history for Chevalier.
She co-founded Columbia University Apartheid and Divest (CUAD), an organization that did not merely oppose the state of Israel but also celebrated terrorism outright. After the death of Yahya Sinwar, CUAD’s Substack published a glowing eulogy of the Hamas terrorist who masterminded the October 7 attack on Israelis. CUAD hailed him as a “hero of the revolution” guided by “pragmatic optimism.” The group called on its followers to “reflect on how we can make ourselves more like him.”
Avila Chevalier was also involved with the related group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which explicitly celebrated the October 7th terrorist attack as a “historic win.”
We cannot count on the people of New York to stop her from becoming a member of the House of Representatives. After all, she’s got a “D” after her name now as the official Democrat nominee in the 13th District:
She wants to abolish not just the police but the very concept of policing entirely. For good measure, she views interracial relationships with suspicion, thought COVID-19 originated in France, and thinks white people are not hygienic.
In an interview with The New York Editorial Board from earlier this month, Avila Chevalier declined to walk back her most controversial statements. She refused to say, for instance, that murderers belong in prison.
There are two ways in which the right is reacting to Chevalier and the other Democratic Socialists who won their primaries recently (it’s not only in NYC). The first way is to be happy, because this signals that the left has gone too far and will be rejected. The second – and I’m in this camp – is to take it as an extremely serious sign, and to believe that they will not fade away in some natural fashion. Too many people in the US now – too many voters – are ignorant of history, economics, and common sense. Too many live in a la-la land where ideas like abolishing the police are not seen as lunatic. Too many think socialism would be just peachy keen. Too many have succumbed to the poisonous virus of Jew-hatred, especially when couched in the language of anti-Zionism backed up by lies about apartheid and genocide.
Way too many.
NOTE:
I know that some of you objected last time I posted a Ruthless podcast video, because they use the f-word a lot. This session also contains language of that sort. Don’t listen if that bothers you too much; I don’t consider it any sort of deal-breaker, because their content is good. They have a lot to say about the Democratic Socialists, and I think it’s well worth listening to:
[ADDENDUM:
And although I think this is totally obvious and goes without saying, it’s still refreshing to hear someone like New York City DSA cochair Gustavo Gordillo be so honest about methods and goals:
“We’re using the Democratic Party as a ballot-access vehicle, not because we share its goals,” Gordillo boldly stated. “We build our own organization, get elected under the Democratic label, caucus with Democrats when it’s useful, and push our own agenda from the inside.”
Here’s the kicker — the line that should have House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries losing sleep at night and/or wetting himself: “We see the Democratic establishment as an obstacle, not a home.”
As I said, this has been quite obvious for some time.
Also, the NY DSA is coming for Kathy Hochul, who is obviously not radical enough.]
Open thread 6/25/2026
I’ve cued up a clip about two and a half minutes long. It contains some facts I probably ought to have realized but never knew till I listened to the video:
Magnitude 7.5 earthquake in Venezuela near Caracas
That’s big, and it is feared that the damage and loss of life is great. What’s even worse is that it wasn’t just one earthquake; it was two about a minute apart, the first at 7.1 and the second at 7.5. The only good thing about it was that people had a little bit of time to evacuate:
The earthquakes struck shortly after 6 p.m. local time. People evacuated swaying buildings in Caracas and remained outside, many visibly shocked as they saw entire walls that had collapsed, making furniture visible from the street. Dust columns could also be seen in two neighborhoods of the capital, where restaurants and other businesses are typically busy. People remained on the streets after sunset. Some sat on the ground hugging their pets as dust gathered around them.
“It started off gently and then gradually grew, and in the end, we all had to leave our houses, go outside and gather together,” Caracas resident Hector Ricci said.
I wonder how many of the buildings in Caracas are designed to withstand quakes. This was apparently the biggest one there in about a century. My guess is that the buildings aren’t designed for a big one, and this is why:
Strong earthquakes are unusual in Venezuela.
While the country sits near multiple fault lines, its position straddling the South American and Caribbean plates makes earthquakes much less common than in other parts of Latin America.
It was felt in Colombia and parts of the Caribbean. I very much hope the death toll isn’t high, but I fear it is.
[NOTE: I wasn’t at my computer or on my phone when the first news came, so I just heard about it close to 9:30 PM. But earlier today I had heard the news of a thankfully-much-smaller earthquake near the Fort Bragg area of California: a magnitude 5.6, which was the biggest in that area of California in the last forty years. It’s a beautiful place I know well, and I have relatives and friends all over the state.
I’ve been to California at least 75 times in the last 50 years, and have probably been in five or six earthquakes there myself. However, mercifully, I’ve never been in a very serious one – although a person doesn’t know that at the time until it’s over. I’ve been in ones that are gentle and ones that begin with a harsh jolt, ones that seem to be over quickly and ones that seem to go on for quite some time. They are always frightening, every single one of them.
Northern California and Caracas are very far from each other and on different tectonic plates, and so these earthquakes on the same day were almost certainly coincidental. But if it’s a coincidence, it’s certainly an eerie one.]
Foreign visitors ♥ America
You can see the videos all over the internet: foreign visitors for the World Cup, enjoying the US – especially the food, the free refills on soda, and the friendliness.
You can read a description here, and YouTube is filled with reports such as this one, a compilation which I’ve chosen pretty much at random:
One theme that repeats itself is shock and wonder at the sheer size of America. Similar clips have been on YouTube for years, featuring foreign tourists reacting – mostly positively – to trips to the US. So it’s not just something about the World Cup visitors.
But I’ve noticed one topic lately that I’ve never seen before in this genre of videos. It’s about seeing yellow school buses:
Tucker Carlson announces something that was already clear: he’s not a Republican
And he does it with his usual narcissistic flair:
Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson says he’s “out” of the Republican Party moving forward, arguing the GOP no longer reflects his views. …
“And if I’m out, then I think a lot of other people are out.”
He fancies himself a thought leader. And you know what? He most definitely does have followers and a huge digital audience. The question is about the composition and range of that audience. There is some evidence that a large number of them live abroad, particularly in Pakistan, and that many are of the bot persuasion. But I happen to think that a significant number are real live voting-age Americans, although I’ve read extremely variable estimates of their numbers
Whatever Tucker’s influence, I’d wager many of his followers left the GOP long ago.
I’ve written a great many posts on Carlson in the last year or two, ever since he left Fox and began his very visible political “turn.” I’ve described it in some depth, especially in this, which is the first part of a three-part series I wrote, and contains links to parts two and three of the series.
This political change of Carlson’s resulted in – among other things – his current emphasis on Israel and Jews as the source of most of the world’s problems. It’s an old story, but everything old is new again.
From his recent farewell to the GOP:
Carlson said, adding that the GOP has “betrayed” voters by prioritizing Israel’s national security over America’s.
I think this short clip is a good analysis of some of Carlson’s rhetorical tricks:
Carlson also says he “is unsure how he’ll vote moving forward” but that he’s not a Democrat.
But Tucker already has been supporting Democrats by allying with them in being obsessed with the unique evil he – and they – think Israel is. He also supports Democrats by having worked to split the right for several years now, first on Ukraine but especially after 10/7 and escalating much more after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. He would not have dared had Kirk been alive.
I also believe that Tucker knows pretty much what he’ll do “moving forward.” The question is not how he’ll vote; he’s just one vote, after all. It’s whom he will endorse, whom he’ll choose to interview and about what, and whether he’ll run for office himself. He doesn’t have to do the latter to split the party by endorsing some third-party candidate, either, which he might do.
Or maybe it’s Vance he’ll focus on and support, depending on whether Vance is truly allied with some of Tucker’s worst impulses or whether Vance is just pretending to be Tucker-adjacent the better to keep the party together for 2028. I don’t know which it is and I can’t read Vance’s mind.
Mamdani’s picks win their primaries in New York
And winning the Democratic primaries in these House districts leads to virtually certain victories in November.
That’s the beauty of a deep blue district. Win the primary and you’re in. And what you might imagine of Mamdani’s picks is true: they are fellow “progressive” leftist Democratic Socialists, and are supported by the same voters that liked Mamdani. That group is highly motivated and fed up with incumbents for the most part – a phenomenon similar to the one that propelled AOC into her seat in the beginning of her career:
When campaigning Tuesday, Mamdani said it was not a question of electing more Democrats, it was a question of electing “better Democrats.”
CBS News New York political reporter Marcia Kramer says that in effect, he was tapping into recent a poll finding that New York voters were fed up with politics as usual and were ready to clean house.
The winners will be going to the US House. Then again, even if more moderate Democrats had won the primaries (although “moderate” is a relative word these days), they probably would be voting exactly the same as these far leftists. However, this seems to be the direction of the Democratic Party in safe blue enclaves: to nominate the most radical candidate possible.
In the 13th District, nominee Chevalier “won’t say murderers should go to prison, won’t support deporting illegal immigrant convicted rapists, and won’t condemn Hamas or 10/7.” What’s more, it seems to have been white voters who supported her and black and Hispanic voters who supported her opponent:
Espaillat led w/ older, lower income, Black, & Hispanic voters. “Socialist” Chevalier led w/ younger, college-educ., higher income, i.e. gentrifiers.
In the 10th District, the main difference between the winner and the 2nd-place loser was that the latter was the incumbent, Dan Goldman. Oh, and the winner is anti-Israel:
Lander’s knock-out of two-term Rep. Goldman delivers one of the night’s biggest intraparty upsets. Lander, who enjoyed the backing of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), defeated Goldman in a race that became a proxy battle between the party’s progressive wing and its more establishment faction.
Both candidates are Jewish, so that was not the issue. But Lander said he wanted to join “that fight to end occupation, and apartheid and genocide.”
This is definitely the wave of the future for Democrats. Although they will run less obviously leftist candidates in more purple areas, if such candidates win they will vote with the others.
And what is the plan of the Democratic Socialists? They’ve got one, and it’s nothing less than revolutionary. The left might not be able to win a presidency, but they would like to fix it so that they don’t need to:
Earlier this month, the Democratic Socialists of America’s top leadership met for an in-person meeting of their National Political Committee (NPC), the DSA’s governing authority. The result of the meeting was “Workers Deserve More!”, a rebooted platform for the organization featuring a host of radical proposals. The document commits DSA to scrapping the U.S. Senate, “abolishing the carceral forces of the capitalist state,” defunding the Department of War, amnesty for all immigrants, and “replac[ing] the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.”
As more and more members seek election to local and national positions, the platform represents a clear statement of the DSA’s views. Its radicalism, therefore, gives a glimpse into how the equivalent of the DSA’s board of directors—some of whom have appeared to moderate—actually think about politics.
It’s “our democracy” all right; the sort of thing the Founding Fathers worked so hard to avoid. It is also the fruit of the long Gramscian march through our institutions, especially that of higher education. I suggest you read the whole thing; I may write more about it in a future post.
Open thread 6/24/2026
Iran again. Or not.
I’m not planning to write anything lengthy on the Iran talks until something definitive happens. If it ever does. For example, this sort of back-and-forth dueling narratives has happened over and over, and has happened again:
The U.S.-Iran summit in Switzerland has run into trouble on its third day, with both sides making conflicting claims. A day after Vice President JD Vance hailed a ‘major milestone’ in talks, declaring Iran had agreed to allow United Nations inspectors back into the country, the Iranian negotiators denied the claim.
There’s much more at the link, if you’re interested.