Apr
27
2026

Not All Caltech Grads…

The headline writers all seem to make it a recurring theme:

Well, I'll stop there. Somewhat more serious is Hot Air's diagnosis of Cole Allen's motivation: He Believed All the Lies the Democrats Now Claim They Never Said. Just one example out of the many presented:

Maximum warfare! You would think that the primary criticism people like Jeffries would level at Allen is that he didn't recruit a platoon of similar-minded Caltech grads to overwhelm the Secret Service detail.

You can argue that Hot Air was cherry-picking their examples; a fair criticism, but it appears those cherries were extremely easy to find and pick.

Finally: People with slightly longer memories might recall a ten-year-old essay in the Claremont Review of Books: The Flight 93 Election by "Publius Decius Mus" (Michael Anton):

2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.

Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.

I looked at Cole Allen's "manifesto", and it seems pretty clear he saw himself as charging the cockpit, just from the left side of the plane.

Also of note:

  • Serfin' USA. The WaPo editorialists take a look at Mark Kelly’s 180 days of socialism. (WaPo gifted link)

    Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Arizona), likely to run for president, has made his opening bid in the 2028 ideas primary. It’s a doozy.

    He recently proposed legislation with Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pennsylvania) that would form a commission, add six presidential advisers, create seven task forces and require the writing of at least 162 reports, all in the name of “affordability.” And there’s some socialism as the cherry on top.

    Commissions! With advisers! And task forces! All makin' reports!

    Only a True Believer in the Church of Bureaucracy could take this seriously. But don't worry, statists! There's a Visible Fist involved too:

    Tucked deep into this otherwise pointless bill to encourage paper-pushing comes what can fairly be called socialism. Section 7 mandates that the president use the Defense Production Act to expand the supply of “basic household necessities.” That law is supposed to be for defense products in times of war, but Kelly’s bill lets the government seize the means of production without the the pretext of a national security crisis.

    He defines “basic household necessities” to include whatever the Bureau of Labor Statistics categorizes as owned or rented housing, gasoline, medical services, utilities and food at home. That means President Donald Trump would get the power to command the portion of the economy corresponding with 57 percent of the consumer price index.

    Yeesh.

    As usual, the comments (over 1,200 as I type) are predictably apoplectic. The AI summarizes:

    The conversation explores a strong defense of Mark Kelly, with many participants expressing admiration for his character, intelligence, and potential as a presidential candidate. There is significant criticism of the Washington Post's Editorial Board, with accusations of bias and attempts to undermine Kelly by labeling his ideas as "socialism." Commenters highlight the perceived hypocrisy in the use of the term "socialism," pointing out various government programs and actions that could also be considered socialist. Many express frustration with the editorial's tone and content, suggesting it lacks reasoned arguments and serves as a hit piece against Kelly. Overall, the discussion reflects a divide between support for Kelly's approach to addressing affordability issues and skepticism towards the editorial's portrayal of him.

    Of course, the commenters have a point: if we're already halfway down the Road to Serfdom, how can you argue against driving down a few more miles?

  • Take it away. Andrew C. McCarthy suggests some Constitutional tinkering: Pardon Power: Don’t Mend It, End It. (NR gifted link)

    I am a longtime advocate for the position that the Constitution should be amended to repeal the pardon power. My views are informed by up-close, personal experience.

    Between 1998 and 1999, I had a lengthy litigation as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York in which I finally persuaded a federal judge to rule that a Weather Underground terrorist, Susan Lisa Rosenberg, should be forced to serve as much of her 58-year bombing sentence as federal law would allow at the time.

    That sentence, imposed in the District of New Jersey (DNJ), had been exacerbated due to conduct in the SDNY for which, though it was heinous, Rosenberg had not been convicted: As a member of the May 19th Communist Organization, she participated with the Black Liberation Army and other Weather terrorists in the 1981 Brinks robbery, in which two Nyack police officers and a Brinks guard were murdered.

    Rosenberg had been a fugitive during the SDNY Brinks trial. When she was arrested in New Jersey in 1984 — in the midst of a bombing plot and in possession of over 750 pounds of explosives — the SDNY opted not to proceed against her on Brinks charges, figuring they’d be factored into her sentence on the DNJ bombing conspiracy. By then, Rosenberg was about 30 and looking at decades of incarceration.

    After the SDNY judge finally rejected Rosenberg’s motion to be released, I was shocked to learn, on opening a newspaper on January 21, 2001, that President Clinton had pardoned Rosenberg and another terrorist, Linda Sue Evans, on his last day in office.

    Andrew cites other egregious examples of presidential pardoning, involving both misfeasance and malfeasance. From both sides, unfortunately. He makes a strong case for undoing this particular bit of the Founding Fathers' unwisdom.

  • Clowns to the left of him, jokers to the right. I'm sure I've abused that lyric in the past, maybe more than once, but it's appropriate for Jonah Goldberg's look at a speech derided by the Daily Beast as an "unhinged rant": Jonah observes that Clarence Thomas Punches Left—And Right. (Dispatch gifted link)

    Last week Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas gave a speech at the University of Texas (which you can watch here) in which he denounced, in one way or another, the evils of slavery, Jim Crow, eugenics, Nazism, and communism. He lionized Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson and harshly criticized the court he sits on for upholding segregation. He declared forthrightly, and at times movingly, the idea that all people, regardless of the color of their skin or the circumstances of their birth, are endowed with dignity and are equal before God and government.

    And a chorus of progressives was outraged. They mocked him. A writer for Slate said Thomas’ comments were “jaw-dropping” and “cause for alarm” not least because it was proof that Thomas suffers from “Fox News brain rot.”

    One reason Thomas’ comments infuriated these progressives is that fury at Thomas is their default mode. But the specific trigger was that Thomas singled out the progressivism of Woodrow Wilson and his contemporaries for criticism.

    It really is a tenet deeply held by modern-day "Progressives". You may recall the debate that ensued when both Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama uttered variants on "You didn't build that". Enraging conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals, while "Progressives" said "Eh, what's the big deal? Everyone knows that."

    Anyway, Jonah's article is wide-ranging, and highly recommended. And the Dispatch seems to have finally gotten around to allow their subscribers (like me) to provide gifted links, so check it out.

Recently on the movie blog:


Last Modified 2026-04-27 9:46 AM EDT