Trump's defending civilization, beware US drone vulnerabilities and other commentary
From the right: Trump's Defending Civilization
President Trump's order mobilizing the National Guard in Los Angeles, cheers City Journal's Heather Mac Donald, 'was clarifying and precise: 'To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion' ' against the US government. Trump is delivering on his campaign vow to end 'the era of enabling endemic immigration lawlessness,' enflaming Democrats with 'rage.' 'Apologists for the chaos' claim Trump's response caused the violence, but the 'violence preceded the mobilization.' And 'standing by during violence only allows it to spread.' Violence meant to 'inhibit the execution of the laws' is 'a death knell for civilization.' The prez's 'unapologetic defense of the law this weekend represented liberation from a poisonous set of lies.'
Defense beat: Beware US Drone Vulnerabilities
Advertisement
'Drones have completely upended the economics of air warfare,' but most US 'defenses remain focused on traditional threats like ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and hostile aircraft,' warns Jon Gruen at The Wall Street Journal. 'Today's most immediate threats fly much lower. The skies above our stadiums, airports and substations are essentially undefended at ground level.' And 'federal law would slow our response' to such an attack, as 'local law enforcement is largely powerless to act against a known drone threat' — a problem 'bipartisan legislation in Congress' is looking to address. Yet 'even if we solve the authority problem, we face a second vulnerability: the lack of industrial capacity to make these drones.' Beware: 'We're unprepared for the next war, and the next war won't wait until we're ready.'
Media watch: In the Tank for Hamas
The IDF last month 'struck the tunnel under the European Hospital in an attempt to eliminate Muhammad Sinwar, the leader of Hamas,' notes Commentary's Seth Mandel. But 'news agencies insisted Israel was lying about the presence of Hamas leadership or an underground bunker.' And when Israel's account proved 100% true, 'journalists complained that Israel was keeping journalists out of the war zone, a kind of veiled justification for why they keep making up stories. Israel responded by giving journalists a tour of the underground bunker itself.' Sigh. That produced a tendentious New York Times story — 'The Tunnel That Leads Underneath a Hospital in Southern Gaza: To Israelis, the location of an underground passageway highlights Hamas's abuse of civilians. To Palestinians, Israel's decision to target it highlights Israel's own disregard for civilian life.'
Advertisement
Eye on Connecticut: Pension 'Spiking' Abuse
'Some public sector union abuses' in Connecticut are 'more egregious than ever,' grumbles Red Jahncke at The Hill. 'State employees are retiring with pension benefits higher than their last salary,' thanks to the practice as 'spiking,' where they 'work enormous hours of overtime just before retirement' to boost their benefits. A study of the state Department of Correction ID'd workers 'with the highest overtime pay' the last five years; those who've retired scored pensions paying 138% of their final salary. A 'wage freeze' and overtime reform would help. Gov. Ned Lamont (D) needs to 'face down the unions' and 'actually manage the workforce and clamp down on overtime spiking.'
Libertarian: A Dubious Case for AI Regulation
Advertisement
'Skepticism is warranted whenever the head of an incumbent firm calls for more regulation,' and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's case against the House-proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation 'is no different,' argues Reason's Jack Nicastro. In a New York Times op-ed, Amodei argued for state-level regulation by raising 'tangible concerns,' such as AI being used to help people carry out cyberattacks or to produce biological weapons. 'But there's nothing new about that,' since both organic and artificial intelligence 'can be used to cause problems as well as to solve them.' The regulations Amodei wants would 'be burdensome' and could make AI models worse. 'Beware of calls for AI regulation that will . . . protect incumbent firms' profits from being bid away by competitors.'
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
31 minutes ago
- USA Today
'Afraid' for court: Trump DOJ sues NY over immigration enforcement in state courthouses
'Afraid' for court: Trump DOJ sues NY over immigration enforcement in state courthouses Show Caption Hide Caption Three Democratic governors testify in House hearing over immigration New York Governor Kathy Hochul, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, testify on Capitol Hill over immigration policies. NEW YORK − The Trump administration on June 12 sued New York state for its law restricting federal immigration enforcement inside state courthouses. The lawsuit challenges a New York state law that blocks immigration officials from arresting people at or near New York courthouses. The complaint, filed in federal court in Albany, New York, alleges the law frustrates federal immigration enforcement at a venue - state courthouses - where authorities can safely make arrests. U.S. Justice Department lawyers said New York's law and policies restricting cooperation with federal immigration officers violated the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which gives federal law precedence over state law. The lawsuit filed in federal court in Albany comes after the administration has increased immigration enforcement at workplaces and while people appeared for immigration court hearings. People have protested against the federal actions in cities across the country. Attorney General Pam Bondi blamed so-called 'sanctuary city policies' for violence seen in California. Sanctuary policies generally refers to those limiting local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. The Justice Department has also sued four New Jersey cities for their laws. New York state had similar policies preventing agents from apprehending migrants, Bondi said in a statement. 'This latest lawsuit in a series of sanctuary city litigation underscores the Department of Justice's commitment to keeping Americans safe and aggressively enforcing the law,' she said. Justice Department lawyers challenged the 2020 state law preventing federal officials from arresting people for civil immigration violations at state courthouses without a signed judicial warrant. New York's 2020 law doesn't apply to federal courthouses or immigration court, according to the legislation's author, state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, a Manhattan Democrat who called the lawsuit 'baseless and frivolous." The Justice Department said in a news release that enforcement at courthouses reduces risk of people fleeing or dangerous situations, especially since there is enhanced screening inside court buildings. 'Ongoing assault' on rule of law in NY, state officials say State officials said federal agents entering local courthouses make communities unsafe by preventing people from accessing the judicial system. The law ensures New Yorkers can pursue justice without fear, Geoff Burgan, a spokesperson for state Attorney General Letitia James, said in a statement. 'Due process means nothing if people are too afraid to appear in court,' he said. James would defend the law and 'all of New York's laws, just as she will continue to defend the rights and dignity of all who call New York home,' Burgan said. Hoylman-Sigal, who authored the law, said the lawsuit was part of the administration's 'ongoing assault on the rule of law in New York.' To avoid conflicting with federal law or federal immigration authority, the law doesn't apply to federal courts or immigration courts, he said in a statement. Meanwhile, it allows U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest people in local courthouses when they have 'actual, valid judicial warrants.' 'At a time when masked ICE officials are roaming the state and lawlessly detaining New Yorkers without any due process, the law preserves access to justice and participation in the judicial process,' he said. 'Sensitive' areas targets of immigration enforcement A contentious issue has been federal agents targeting people in 'sensitive" areas. Prior Department of Homeland Security guidelines banned enforcement in areas such as schools, places of worship and hospitals. When President Donald Trump took office in January, DHS overturned the longstanding policy to give agents discretion on such actions. The administration enacted another policy permitting enforcement at or near courthouses. Justice Department lawyers also challenged two New York executive orders restricting civil immigration arrests at state facilities, and a separate policy preventing state employees from sharing information to federal officers related to civil immigration enforcement. 'Through these enactments, New York obstructs federal law enforcement and facilitates the evasion of federal law by dangerous criminals, notwithstanding federal agents' statutory mandate to detain and remove illegal aliens,' the complaint said. The same day as the lawsuit, Gov. Kathy Hochul was one of three Democratic governors testifying before Congress about "sanctuary" policies and immigration enforcement. Hochul said her state has cooperated with ICE since she's taken office. "But we have to draw a line somewhere,' Hochul said. 'New York cannot deputize our state officers to enforce civil immigration violations, such as overstaying a visa.' The administration's attack on the 2020 law would turn courthouses 'into traps,' Donna Liberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. It would further force immigrant communities into the shadows. An initial conference date for the lawsuit was scheduled for Sept. 10, court records showed. Contributing: Bart Jansen, USA TODAY Eduardo Cuevas is based in New York City. Reach him by email at emcuevas1@ or on Signal at emcuevas.01.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gavin Newsom Brutally Mocks Trump's ‘This Is Not Good' Understatement
Donald Trump finally admitted there have been negative consequences to his immigration crackdown ― and California Gov. Gavin Newsom was ready to pounce. On his Truth Social platform Thursday, Trump saidhe'd been hearing complaints from 'our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business' about his mass deportation agenda. 'Our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,' Trump acknowledged before claiming that 'Criminals' are now 'applying for those jobs.' 'This is not good,' he wrote, promising, 'Changes are coming!' Newsom ― who has been railing against the president since Trump called in the military to suppress immigrant rights protests in Los Angeles ― immediately shot back: 'Turns out, chasing hard working people through ranches and farms and snatching women and children off the streets is not good policy.' Turns out, chasing hard working people through ranches and farms and snatching women and children off the streets is not good policy. — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 12, 2025 A short time later, Newsom posted a video saying that Trump had once again reversed course on policy, a pattern that has inspired the phrase 'Trump Always Chickens Out,' or TACO. 'MAJOR WIN: Trump just reversed course on immigration. We're watching closely — and we'll hold him to it,' Newsom posted. 'This happened because you spoke up. Keep it going. Keep it peaceful. It's working.' MAJOR WIN: Trump just reversed course on watching closely — and we'll hold him to it. This happened because you spoke up. Keep it going. Keep it peaceful. It's working. — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 12, 2025 It's not clear that Trump, despite promising 'changes,' has actually reversed course on any of his policies toward immigrants. In the meantime, people on social media weren't exactly celebrating the president's epiphany. To be fair, Trump always seems surprised when something he does backfires. His budget, his tariffs, his deportations have all backfired for the same reason: incompetent execution. He just never has the discipline to do anything right — Patrick Strother (@PatrickStrother) June 12, 2025 Trump just realized how his terrible policy is hurting the American people. He caved just like he always do. — Ron Smith (@Ronxyz00) June 12, 2025 Immigration TACO. — Paul Graham (@paulg) June 12, 2025 Finally, someone had to spell it out for Trump and his MAGA minions—chasing hardworking people off farms and snatching families off streets isn't 'great policy,' it's a disgrace! The irony of Trump needing a reality check on what the rest of us have known for years is laughable.… — Peter (@_e_tto_) June 12, 2025 Trump is having a really hard time finding the criminals he so dearly longs to deport. So, he's going after the soft targets. People who can't afford to miss a single day's work, even if it means getting dragged from the fields they work in. — Deborah, My Friends Call Me Slayer🔥🐉⚔️🔥 (@drodvik52) June 12, 2025 You can't call them *criminals* one day and *essential workers* the they pick your food, clean your rooms, raise your children— they're not the threat. They're the kind of kingdom arrests the servants but pardons the kings who exploit them? — Digital Jesus (@0xDigital_Jesus) June 12, 2025 Gavin Newsom Savagely Corrects Sarah Huckabee Sanders Gavin Newsom Delivers Grim Predictions About Trump's Next Move Gavin Newsom Offers Blunt Reality Check On Who's Really 'Defending Insurrectionists' Gov. Newsom Files Restraining Order To Block Trump's Militarization Of LA
New York Times
31 minutes ago
- New York Times
A G.O.P. Plan to Sell Public Land Is Back. This Time, It's Millions of Acres.
Senate Republicans are resurrecting a plan to sell millions of acres of federal lands as part of President Trump's giant tax and spending bill, setting up a fight within the party. The proposal would require the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to identify and sell between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres of public lands across 11 Western states to build housing. Past efforts to auction off public land have enraged conservationists and have also proved contentious with some Republicans. A smaller proposal to sell around 500,000 acres of federal land in Utah and Nevada was stripped from the House version of the tax bill last month after opposition from Representative Ryan Zinke, Republican of Montana and a former interior secretary. 'This was my San Juan Hill; I do not support the widespread sale or transfer of public lands,' Mr. Zinke said last month. 'Once the land is sold, we will never get it back.' The new plan to sell public lands was included in draft legislation issued on Wednesday by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that is part of Mr. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' The draft envisions raising as much as $10 billion by selling land for housing in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming over the next five years. Notably, Mr. Zinke's home state of Montana was left off the list. Senator Mike Lee, the Utah Republican who leads the energy committee, said that the move would turn 'federal liabilities into taxpayer value, while making housing more affordable for hardworking American families.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
