How Will Trump Determine Who "Contributed to This Atrocity" of Charlie Kirk's Assassination?

In responding to the news of Charlie Kirk's assassination on Wednesday night, I expressed the following concern:

As of this writing, Utah Republican Governor Spencer Cox has announced "a person of interest" is in custody. If this is indeed the person responsible for killing Charlie Kirk, then that person should be prosecuted and sentenced to the fullest extent of the law.

With that being said, I fear that President Trump and his allies will use Kirk's assassination as a justification to use our military to suppress political speech they dislike up to and including shutting down media outlets and imprisoning (and even executing) people they deem to be subversive. 

Well, the "person of interest" did not turn out to be the suspect. However, the alleged shooter is now in custody with family having urged him to give himself up. In which case, charges will be forthcoming. The accused will have his day in court and, if convicted, will very likely be executed.

However, it would seem that President Trump is not content with that outcome. Posting a video on Truth Social from the Oval Office before the suspect was in custody Trump declared:

My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country. 

So, who exactly will Trump blame for the atrocity which resulted in Charlie Kirk's death? Will this be based on the suspect's online habits? Or will Trump simply pick a scapegoat? What organizations will be held responsible for the killing of Kirk? Will they be criminally charged? Or will their offices simply be shut down by the Department of War?

What exactly Trump will do to those who he deems guilty of having "contributed to this atrocity" isn't exactly clear. But what is clear is that he intends to make an example out of somebody. Perhaps a lot of somebodies.  

The Trump Administration Should Not Take Over The 9/11 Memorial

 

As we remember the 2,977 who lost their lives 24 years ago today, mostly at the World Trade Center in New York, my thoughts turn to the 9/11 Memorial and Museum. 

My Dad and I went there shortly after it opened in 2014.

The memorial is at it should be. A somber yet dignified place where one can remember, reflect and think about among the darkest days in American history. 

Last Friday, the Trump Administration confirmed that it is seeking to take over the memorial which is currently run by a public charity on land owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

When it comes to the Trump Administration, especially the man who leads it, there is nothing somber or dignified. A federal takeover would remake the memorial in Trump's image just as is happening with the Kennedy Center and the Smithsonian. 

Let me put it this way. Would you want the 9/11 Memorial and Museum taken over by a man who declared his buildings to be tallest in NYC after the Twin Towers fell?

Would you want the 9/11 Memorial and Museum to be taken over by a man who attempted to eliminate a federal program for 9/11 first responders? 

Would you want the 9/11 Memorial and Museum to be taken over by a man who only a year ago who was accompanied by a woman who claims 9/11 was an inside job?

I shudder to think what would happen if the Trump Administration is successful in taking over the 9/11 Memorial and Museum at this time next year when we commemorate the 25th anniversary of the attacks.

If Harris Thought Biden's Re-Election Bid Was "Recklessness" She Should Have Resigned or Declined to Run

In an excerpt from her forthcoming book 107 Days, former Vice-President Kamala Harris states that President Biden's decision to seek a second term was one of "recklessness" and that such a decision should not have been to "left to an individual's ego."

This is plain sour grapes. It is also disingenuous.

If Harris honestly thought that Biden seeking a second term was an act of "recklessness" then she ought to have either resigned her office or declined to remain on the ticket. Failing to take either action would render her just as guilty of "recklessness" as Biden. 

As for her additional claim that seek re-election should not be "left to an individual's ego" it too is disingenuous. Had Harris prevailed against Trump last November, you can bet your life she would have jealously guarded her own prerogative to seek re-election. And if it ought not be up to the President to choose to run for a second term then to whom? Harris does not say. 

Well, with friends like Harris, who needs enemies? After all, Harris infamously assailed Biden in their first primary debate over his commitment to civil rights. Perhaps Biden picked Harris as his running mate in a classic case of "keep your friends close, your enemies closer". But, in the end, it bit him in the ass.

With that, I don't regret voting for Harris. But should she run again in 2028, I don't think I will cast a ballot for her. 

A Few Thoughts for Charlie Kirk

(Tess Crowley/The Deseret News, via Associated Press)

For starters, despite his prominence within the American conservative movement and American politics at large, I have written very little about Charlie Kirk over the years.

However, given today's tragic events, a few words are in order.

Charlie Kirk did not deserve the manner of his final fate while speaking on a university campus in Utah. A young man struck down a month shy of his 32nd birthday leaving behind a widow and two small children.

Even if one believed his views to be repugnant, the First Amendment permits such speech. A free people can choose to accept, reject or ignore it. 

What happened to Charlie Kirk today is every bit as wrong as what happened to Minnesota Democratic State Senator Melissa Hortman last June. No one should lose their life for expressing their point of view, right or wrong.

As of this writing, Utah Republican Governor Spencer Cox has announced "a person of interest" is in custody. If this is indeed the person responsible for killing Charlie Kirk, then that person should be prosecuted and sentenced to the fullest extent of the law.

With that being said, I fear that President Trump and his allies will use Kirk's assassination as a justification to use our military to suppress political speech they dislike up to and including shutting down media outlets and imprisoning (and even executing) people they deem to be subversive. 

Following the attempt on then GOP nominee Donald Trump's life last year, JD Vance made holding Democrats responsible for the actions of an individual who would have been every bit as content to assassinate former President Biden. The only difference now is that Trump and his minions have virtually unlimited power.

While we can and must condemn the act which ended the life of Charlie Kirk, we must not whitewash his legacy. As previously mentioned, I did not write a great deal about him but when I did write about him it was not to lavish him with praise. However appalling the circumstances of Charlie Kirk's death, it doesn't change the fact that he judged African Americans by their color of their skin instead of the content of their character. I will lament his death, but I won't ignore his bigotry and hatred of others. R.I.P.

Gillibrand Condemns "Globalize the Intifada" But Won't Condemn Mamdani

Last night, I yet again took NYC Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani to task for his weasel words on "globalize the intifada".

In an interview with Al Sharpton on MSNBC, Mamdani claimed the "intent" of the term was disconnected from its impact. I disputed that notion:

What Mamdani is trying to do here is to claim that the term "globalize the intifada" is about the ending "Israeli occupation of Palestinian land" and that Jews are misunderstanding the intent of the language and to refrain from using it.

But the genie is out of the bottle and cannot be returned. The rabbi who told Mamdani about the bus bombings in Haifa and restaurant attacks in Jersualem can now tell him about the murder of six Jews by Palestinian gunmen at a bus stop in Jerusalem today. 

The gunmen who murdered those six Jews today surely want to globalize the intifada as much as the Hamas terrorists who killed Jews enjoying a music festival, the man who executed 2 Israeli embassy staff at the D.C. Capital Jewish Museum and the man who threw Molotov cocktails at Holocaust survivors in Boulder, Colorado. 

There is no gap between intent and effect. To globalize the intifada is about targeting Jews and Jewish institutions. I can add vandalizing a Jewish museum with red spray paint in Philadelphia, throwing red paint on a Jewish singer in Warsaw and red paint on Jews in Frankfurt in a vigil for the hostages. Mamdani should stop pretending otherwise.

It would seem that NY Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is agreement up to a point. During a gathering with Jewish leaders in Brooklyn on Monday, Gillibrand had this to say about "globalize the intifada" according to The Forward:

“The nature of some of the rhetoric that comes out of various protests globally, various protests on college campuses, is so damaging,” Gillibrand said in a seven-minute monologue when asked to address Jewish concerns over a potential Mamdani mayoralty and perceived waning support for Israel among Democratic politicians. “When they say words like ‘river to the sea,’ when they say words like ‘globalize the intifada,’ it means end Israel. It means destroy Jews.”

“No matter what words they intend to be saying, that is the meaning of these simple phrases,” she continued. “Having suffered through two intifadas, Israelis know how deadly an intifada is. It’s terrorism. It’s not a social movement. It’s terrorism, it’s destruction, it’s death.”

I agree with Gillibrand wholeheartedly concerning the above. However, when Gillibrand was pressed by an unidentified leader of the Orthodox Jewish community to oppose Mamdani, she would not do so. 

Mind you, Gillibrand has not endorsed Mamdani. While Gillibrand may oppose the term "globalize the intifada" she cannot bring herself to publicly oppose the man who uttered it. No doubt Gillibrand is reluctant to publicly criticize Mamdani after she was compelled to publicly apologize to him back in July after she erroneously claimed he had spoken of "global jihad" rather than "globalize the intifada". 

However, from where I sit, it is a distinction without difference. Ending Israel and killing Jews is every bit as much part of a global jihad as it is part of a call to globalize the intifada. 

Notwithstanding Gillibrand's apology, she has more than enough space to criticize Mamdani. After all, she was elected to her third term in the Senate only last year. Gillibrand is not subject to re-election until 2030 assuming she would seek another term. The fact that she will rightly condemn "globalize the intifada" without condemning the man who promoted "globalize the intifada" is deeply troubling. 

Mamdani Hasn't Evolved on "Globalize the Intifada"

New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani claimed that his views on the term "globalize the intifada" have changed since winning the Democratic Party nomination in an interview with Al Sharpton on MSNBC:

In the meetings I've had since that moment, I've met with Jewish elected officials, with rabbis, with community leaders. And there was one rabbi who spoke to me about how that phrase, for her, brought back memories of bus bombings in Haifa, of restaurant attacks in Jerusalem. I knew from what she was sharing with me that she had a fear, as she said, that that could come home to New York City.

So, in having that conversation with her, I understood that the gap between the intent I've heard some New Yorker shared with the use of that language - of calling for the end of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land - was disconnected from the impact it was having in that same conversation I was having with that rabbi.

And so I have said, after having that conversation, that this is language I would discourage. 

In reality, nothing has changed since July when he told New York business leaders in a closed-door session that he would not use the phrase but wouldn't discourage the ideas behind it.

What Mamdani is trying to do here is to claim that the term "globalize the intifada" is about the ending "Israeli occupation of Palestinian land" and that Jews are misunderstanding the intent of the language and to refrain from using it.

But the genie is out of the bottle and cannot be returned. The rabbi who told Mamdani about the bus bombings in Haifa and restaurant attacks in Jersualem can now tell him about the murder of six Jews by Palestinian gunmen at a bus stop in Jerusalem today. 

The gunmen who murdered those six Jews today surely want to globalize the intifada as much as the Hamas terrorists who killed Jews enjoying a music festival, the man who executed 2 Israeli embassy staff at the D.C. Capital Jewish Museum and the man who threw Molotov cocktails at Holocaust survivors in Boulder, Colorado. 

There is no gap between intent and effect. To globalize the intifada is about targeting Jews and Jewish institutions. I can add vandalizing a Jewish museum with red spray paint in Philadelphia, throwing red paint on a Jewish singer in Warsaw and red paint on Jews in Frankfurt in a vigil for the hostages. Mamdani should stop pretending otherwise.

And what exactly does Mamdani consider to be "Israeli occupation of Palestinian land". Does Mamdani wish for Palestine to be free from the river to the sea? If so, then how else would this come to pass without killing every last Jew in Israel?

And what of Jews in New York who see fit to cast a ballot for him? I can only say that either that particular group of Jews hates their fellow Jews so much that they would prefer we be murdered in the name of opening a few government-owned grocery stores or whatever passes for progress these days in order to assuage whatever white liberal guilt they happen to be feeling.

Jim Marshall Spent 70 Years in Professional Baseball

 

Former MLB player, coach and manager Jim Marshall passed away yesterday at the age of 94. 

Marshall spent 70 years of his life in professional baseball highlighted by playing parts of five seasons in MLB from 1958 to 1962 with the Baltimore Orioles, Chicago Cubs, San Francisco Giants, New York Mets and the Pittsburgh Pirates before spending three seasons in Japan with the Chunichi Dragons. However, Marshall spent a lot of time in the minor leagues. Enough time to hit more than 200 career HRs in the minors.

After returning stateside, Marshall rejoined the Cubs organization in 1967 as a minor league manager. He would join the big-league club in 1974 as its third base coach. By mid-season, Marshall was the team's manager after Whitey Lockman's dismissal. Marshall spent 2½ seasons at the helm of the Cubs going 173-218 before being dismissed at the end of the 1976 season in favor of Herman Franks.

Marshall would return to the minor leagues in 1977 joining the Montreal Expos organization as the manager of its Triple-AAA affiliate the Denver Bears who he would lead to an American Association championship. The following year, Marshall joined the Oakland A's organization managing the Vancouver Canadians, their Triple-AAA affiliate.

In 1979, Marshall would be given one more chance as a big-league manager with the A's. But this iteration of the A's was far removed from the clubs which won three consecutive World Series earlier in the decade. The A's would finish dead last in the AL West with a 54-108 record in what proved to be Charlie Finley's final year as owner. The only team which fared worse that year were the Toronto Blue Jays who went 53-109 under Roy Hartsfield. 

The lone bright spot on that 1979 A's team was the MLB debut of Rickey Henderson who stole 33 bases in his rookie season. The A's would dismiss Marshall in favor of Billy Martin who would return the team to winning form with "Billy Ball" in 1980 and in 1981.

Marshall would return to manage in the minor leagues with stints with the Nashville Sounds, then a Double-AA affiliate of the New York Yankees and later with the Buffalo Bisons, then a Triple-AAA affiliate with the Chicago White Sox. For nearly a quarter century, Marshall worked with the Arizona Diamondbacks as a spring training instructor while also serving as the organization's director of its Pacific Rim operations in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Australia. Marshall finally retired from baseball at the end of the 2021 season.

Earlier this year, Marshall was interviewed by USA Today before he was honored this past May as the oldest living member of the 1962 New York Mets when the D'Backs hosted the Mets. During the interview, Marshall reminisced about scouting Ichiro Suzuki:

When I was scouting the Pacific Rim, I saw Ichiro [Suzuki] a lot, and he told me that his dad was a huge Chunichi Dragons fans and actually has a picture of me in their house. Ichiro was such a great guy, a great kid. He would always call me gaijin, which means foreigner in Japanese. So, the first time I see him when he gets to Seattle, I walk into their clubhouse and say, “Well, you’re the gaijin now.’ He says, 'Oh, grandfather, don’t tease me.’

I remember how he wanted to come to America so bad, and he used to come and swing the bat right in front of me, and then we'd go have dinner together. He was my favorite player, my absolute favorite player. The dedication. The discipline. The speed. The arm. My God, he had it all.

Jim Marshall had 70 years of baseball memories. We should all be so lucky. R.I.P.