Monthly Archives: September 2025

Leaks

Posted on by
1

Leading off a Wall Street Journal article alleging Pentagon internal lawyers’ concerns regarding the Trump administration’s targeting of drug boats in international Caribbean Sea waters, there’s this:

Some military lawyers and other Defense Department officials are raising concerns about the legal implications of President Trump’s expanding military campaign against Latin American-based drug cartels, according to people with knowledge of the discussions.

Leave aside the worries about the legality of destroying boats and the crews on them that are targeting American citizens with those poisons. Of course, there’s nothing illegal about destroying those attacks in progress.

The larger question is this: who are those people with knowledge? They’re speaking without authorization, discussing in public matters of national security, and they’re doing so in direct violation of their terms of employment by the government, and depending on who they are, perhaps in violation of their oaths of office.

Some defense officials and career military lawyers have provided written and verbal legal opinions to decision makers inside the Pentagon, but believe they are being ignored or deliberately sidelined, according to one of the people.

This is pretty dispositive—in the WSJ‘s own words—of these people’s deliberate violation of their employment parameters. And all because these wonders actually think they run the show, and are quite cross that they’re not being heeded on the spot.

These are people—these are leakers—who need to be identified and fired for cause.

A Compromise for the SEC?

Posted on by
Reply

A letter-writer to The Wall Street Journal‘s Wednesday Letters section offered a compromise for the SEC’s proposed change to company reporting from all of them reporting quarterly to all of them reporting semi-annually.

Large companies should continue to report quarterly so that stakeholders have timely signals for pricing and risk management. Micro-caps, by contrast, could move to semiannual reporting without leaving investors in the dark if a few safeguards stay in place. Material developments should still be disclosed promptly between reports; companies should provide a short, standardized mid-period update with such core metrics as sales trend, liquidity and interim financials. Whatever the frequency, they should retain a light auditor review to discourage aggressive accounting.

Aside from ignoring the myriad of companies whose sizes are intermediate between micro-caps and large, most of his suggestions are not materially different from the current quarterly reporting requirements. Quarterly reporting, after all, is quintessentially intermediate to semi-annual periods, and his standardized mid-period updates are those quarterly reports.

The only concrete suggestion, material developments reporting, already is required by law: that’s what Form 8-K is for.

And this from the letter-writer:

This approach targets the real pain point—fixed compliance costs that bite hardest at the smallest issuers….

Moving to semi-annual reporting would be a boon for all companies, large, micro, and intermediate. That large companies “can afford quarterly reporting” while smaller companies cannot is a tired and useless trope used to harry the rich and successful in too many milieus already. The trope doesn’t need to be expanded here.

Is He Worth the Money?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the question the nattering Left is asking about Elon Musk’s new pay package on offer from Tesla—a package that could aggregate to a trillion dollars over 10 years. Of course, we’d expect such a question from the Left—and from too many Progressive-Democratic Party politicians who disparage free market capitalism.

Of course, in one sense—a sense at the core of free markets—is by definition, Musk is worth the money: all the parties to the package voluntarily and of their own accord agreed to it, each satisfied that they’re better off after agreeing than before.

What the natterers carefully ignore, though, is this:

…the Tesla CEO will get richer only if workers and shareholders do too. Oh, and only if consumers like what Tesla is selling.
Tesla’s board recently proposed a pay package for Mr Musk worth up to $1 trillion over 10 years, contingent on the company achieving ambitious milestones.

Musk has actually to perform in order actually to earn that pay. That’s another aspect at the core of free markets: folks must earn their compensation; they’re not entitled to money just because they think they’re special.

Muddled Editor “Thinking”

Posted on by
Reply

This time, by the August Ones of The Wall Street Journal‘s board of editors. They’re upset because Attorney General Pam Bondi openly decried “hate speech,” and then said that when that speech clearly crosses a line, it becomes criminally actionable. Their lede:

Is a basic understanding of the First Amendment too much to expect from the nation’s Attorney General?

What Bondi said that drew their…attention:

There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place—especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society. We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.

Targeting someone with hate speech isn’t general hate speech; it’s making threats, and it’s incitement to violence, and that is illegal.

Bondi went on the next day, as…paraphrased without context by the editors:

“Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment.” But then she incoherently mixed in everything from “violent rhetoric,” to doxxing, to calling a SWAT team to the home of a Member of Congress.

Those all are forms of threats of violence or of actual violence. The only incoherence is in the imaginations of the editors.

And this from the editors:

The AG also didn’t recant her statement on Monday that the Justice Department might “prosecute” Office Depot or its ex-employee who refused to print a Kirk vigil poster.

Nor is there any reason to. What the editors omitted from this particular excerpt is that DoJ might prosecute on illegal discrimination grounds, not on speech grounds.

Apparently, basic reading/listening comprehension is too much to expect from opinion writers.

Patriotism is Intimidation

Posted on by
Reply

The subheadline tells the tale that’s been unfolding for far too long in the United Kingdom, the cradle, but no longer a home, of individual liberty and consensual government,.

For some it [the national flag of the United Kingdom] is a symbol restoring patriotic traditions. Others see it as vehicle for intimidation.

The British flag, and its sibling, the red cross on a white field that is the Cross of St George flag, are symbols of British culture and history, and especially of British national identity.

Yet there is a growing movement (only lately starting to be answered) that openly disparages those national symbols, risibly calling them bigoted, exclusionary, and divisive.

They’re sort of right on one, but the other two—the bigotry and divisiveness—are centered on and emanate from only those folks, mostly “immigrants” and their apologists, who do not want to assimilate into British culture, to become British citizens, or merely to accept British culture in their status as non-citizen legal residents.

The flags are exclusionary, though, in the sense that they’re symbols of nationhood for patriotic British citizens and subjects, folks who are proud of their national history and culture, warts and all, while working to improve a grand but humanly imperfect nation.

Different flags in the UK have different connotations. The Union Jack, or, more formally, the Union Flag, is meant to represent England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. It can be controversial among Scottish, Welsh, or Irish nationalists, but is often seen as a mild expression of patriotism in much of England. But the English flag—the Cross of St George—is sometimes associated with soccer hooligans and far-right protests, and has xenophobic connotations for some.

This is just foolish. There’s nothing controversial about the Union Flag—it symbolizes the union of the nation. Those who don’t want to be part of the union need to recognize that their view has lost repeated independence referenda and get over themselves. The only ones seeing the flag as in any way xenophobic are those immigrants who refuse to assimilate and the timid virtue-signalers who side with them to curry favor.

That some hooligans have chosen to wrap themselves in the English flag is in no way a reflection of what that flag represents—it only reflects the misbehaviors of the hooligans. Those who associate it with hooliganism need to leave off their Newspeak Dictionary-twisted definitions and return to British English dictionaries.

[A] local lawmaker called to remove the flags, whether British or English, saying they were being used by some “to rally those who suppress the rights of others and perpetrate acts of hate.” The local city council estimated it would cost £250,000 to take them down and has removed only a few.

This is disingenuous at best. Here, too, the lawmaker’s beef is with those who misuse—abuse—the flags, not with the flags themselves. It’s only the ones who rally those to hate who should be getting the lawmaker’s opprobrium. The position he’s taken, though, is akin to him actively supporting the unpatriotic over British patriots.

Don’t get too smug over the falling—and fallen—Brits, though. We have too many neighborhoods and news writers waxing hysterical about how divisive our own national flag is.

The same contempt for bigots and cowards in the UK applies to these so-called Americans, too. We have a chance, still, to decisively defeat those naysaying unpatriotic ones, and hopefully one good thing about our own Left’s murder of Charlie Kirk will wake us up and get us going.