For a hammer, everything is a nail. Carlson Tucker’s interview with Tom Homan shows a decent cop trying to enforce our immigration laws, which are as good and as unenforceable as Prohibition. The same politicians voted in both in the early 1920s. Eliot Ness did not make Prohibition work.

People wishing to live in the U.S. come to the country illegally because it is the easiest way to obtain legal residence. Even the best police work by the Border Czar will not change it. Many will get hurt, but maybe Americans will realize that ending illegal immigration could be as easy as ending the menace of Prohibition — by repealing our immigration laws.

The media noticed that the public shows solidarity with Luigi Mangione and has little sympathy for Brian Thompson, the killed CEO of UnitedHealthcare, and his family. Many criticize it on moral grounds, rightfully so. The wrath of Americans is righteous. But even half-way sincere support for the killer does not bring us closer to solving the problem. It shows desperate frustrations with the status quo. Also, it tells us that Americans have no illusions that our elites are willing and able to fix our dysfunctional healthcare. And this is the real problem.

The media noted that even Trump opponents see potential benefits of DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency. It is an illusion.

The government’s spending is like a hundreds-head dragon that can grow new heads faster than DOGE can cut them off. The federal government is drowning in the bog of healthcare obligations. Medicare and Obamacare are the causes. But Trump promised not to touch those.

Immigration is the next quagmire. Replacing it with a guest workers policy would cut illegal immigration, allowing cuts on enforcement. Also, it would bring laborers, boosting the economy. However, Trump says there is no spending limit on enforcing with the greater determination the immigration policy that has never worked so far and never will.

A Russian propagandist made a joke about Russia giving up nuclear weapons by sending them on rockets to the United States.
I remember a similar joke from 1971 when Leonid Brezhnev and Richard Nixon tested the newly upgraded hotline. Brezhnev said: “I saw the White House in my nightdream last night.” Nixon responded: ”What is unique about that?” “Above it was a red flag with a hammer and sickle on it,” Brezhnev replied. “It is an interesting coincidence,” Nixon said, “because, in my nightdream, I saw the Kremlin with the red flag above it and something written on that flag.” Curious, Brezhnev asked, “I understand the red flag, but what was written on it?” Nixon answered: “I could not figure it out because it was in Chinese.”
That joke is timely because, after the dust settles, China will be the real winner of the war in Ukraine. It might not rule in the Kremlin, but it could de facto control the big part of Siberia.

Putin always waved that he had atomic bombs. Now, he claims that he might use it if, thanks to the military help, Ukraine might defend itself from being conquered by Russia.
Putin needs to be told that the West is prepared. Our defense will most likely encounter rockets with nuclear weapons before they leave the Russian territory. But we are ready to accept that we might not intercept them all. However, our response will be swift and merciless. Russia, as we know it, will be no longer. In particular, it will be forever deprived of having any nuclear arsenal. I bet that in such a situation, even if Putin decides to press that red button, it will be after some reasonable people in Russia disconnect it from the launchpad. I hope our intelligence services have already arranged that.

At least, that is what the recent revelations about the behind-the-scenes American policy determining aid for Ukraine suggest. At the beginning of the war, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley asked his Russian counterpart, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, “Under what conditions would you use nuclear weapons?”

Russians responded that they reserve “the right to use tactical nuclear weapons in the event of catastrophic battlefield loss.” In plain language, if Ukraine will be able to defend itself efficiently, Russia feels entitled to turn the war into a nuclear one.

So, American support has been to keep the war going but not allow Ukraine to win. People are dying, but the military-industrial complex has its heyday.

Elon Musk claims that he is ready to serve as the chief of the Department of Government Efficiency in the Trump administration. He forgot what he did when he had to improve Twitter’s performance after purchasing it. He fired about 80% of employees, and Twitter did not collapse.
After taking office as president of Argentina in December of 2023, Javier Milei did not create the Department of Government Efficiency either. He did the opposite; he dissolved 11 ministries and fired 15,000 government employees. As of June 2024, 55% of Argentinians are OK with that.
One does not improve efficiency by creating a new bureaucracy but by eliminating the existing one.
Musk knew that at Twitter but forgot it when veering into politics.

Elon Musk warned us that “America is headed for bankruptcy.” The national debt, which is $34 trillion and growing fast, worries most reasonable Americans.

We do not have it during wartime when debt usually grows, but during relative prosperity, when public debt should go down. Looking closer, it is obvious that our inability to have candid conversations about our problems is the underlying cause of a political deadlock.

Politicians do not offer solutions; they vote to throw more money at our unresolved issues.

Elon Musk claims that he bought Twitter to invigorate public debates. So far, he is as bad as our politicians and the mainstream media that he criticizes so much; his $44 billion brought us louder moaning but no solutions.

That question comes to mind when reading critics of the recent Supreme Court decision weakening so-called Chevron deference. In that case, in 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that the agency executing the law can select the way to do that as long as it is reasonable within the law’s intention. Recently, in a similar case, the Court decided that citizens still can challenge rules issued by the executive branch in court. The critics claim that we should respect the decisions of experts and that judges might not be experts on very technical issues. That argument questions the very existence of the judiciary branch of government. The law is plainly wrong if an educated layman cannot comprehend it. During the trial, by listening to the experts’ testimony, a layman with some basic education should be able to learn and understand the issue in question.

I heard on BBC that assessment of the recent debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. People are still commenting. For example, the response to Trump bringing Hunter Biden’s conviction should be: “He does not run for president. Many Americans have criminal convictions, but only one criminal runs for president.” Having too many senior moments, Biden could not be as sharp as Reagan responding to Mondale about age.

Dana Bash asked Trump for the details of his intention to deport illegal immigrants in mass numbers. It was a good question, but Trump dodged it. There was no follow-up. Neither Biden nor the moderators pointed out that mass deportations would require the Soviet-style police state and would be inhumane and harmful to the American economy. Biden had senior moments, but why the moderators were not sharp is a mystery.