Category: Politics

  • Did Ilhan Omar marry her brother?

    Did Ilhan Omar marry her brother?

    In as Trumpian a fashion as it gets, the president has rekindled the years-long debate: Did progressive Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) marry her brother?

    Shortly after conservative icon Charlie Kirk was assassinated in cold blood by a deranged leftist, Omar reposted a video on X that called Kirk a “reprehensible human being” who was “spewing racist dog whistles” in his “last, dying words.” Republican lawmakers saw an opportunity to censure the “Squad” member and remove her committee assignments. The motion failed by a 214-213 vote.

    Nevertheless, some conservatives are demanding Omar’s denaturalization and deportation to Somalia. Denaturalization is allowed in cases of “concealment of a material fact or willful misrepresentation.” To be clear, Omar will not be denaturalized, nor deported.

    But amid Omar-gate, President Trump fumed that she was “SCUM,” derided her “Country of Somalia,” and asked, “Wasn’t she the one that married her brother in order to gain citizenship???”

    The accusation is nearly a decade old, prompted in part by court filings and a trail of murkier evidence.

    Public records show that Omar entered a religious marriage with a man named Ahmed Hirsi in 2002, separated in 2008, and then legally married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in 2009. Elmi, a British citizen who later attended college in the US. It is Elmi who some have suggested may be Omar’s brother, an allegation Omar has consistently denied. 

    The marriage with Elmi ended in 2011, but they did not obtain a legal divorce until 2017. In that same period, Omar reconciled with Hirsi, had another child with him, and even filed joint tax returns with him in 2014 and 2015, despite still being legally married to her alleged brother.

    In 2020, the Daily Mail quoted an old friend of Omar, Abdihakim Osman, who claimed Omar herself had described Elmi as her brother – and admitted she married him to get the papers he needed to study in the US. Osman claimed Elmi was introduced around Minneapolis as family, and that Omar told him explicitly she was helping her brother get student loans. Omar has flatly denied this, dismissing the story as “baseless,” but has refused to provide documentary evidence to settle the matter.

    In 2018, one conservative outlet discovered archived Instagram posts from 2012 that appear to show Ahmed Elmi calling Ilhan Omar’s daughter his “niece.” In 2015, photos from a London trip placed Omar alongside Elmi and relatives, all appearing under the shared surname “Elmi.” But these posts are no longer available and cannot be independently verified.

    The Star Tribune tried to confirm Elmi’s identity but ran into the same problem: Somali records are difficult to obtain, and Omar herself declined to clarify.

    While this scavenger hunt remains incomplete, what is beyond doubt is that Omar’s life today bears little resemblance to the humble origins she once invoked.

    Ilhan Omar was born in Mogadishu in 1982, the youngest of seven children. Her father, Nur Omar Mohamed, was a colonel in the Somali army who brought the family to a Kenyan refugee camp before they eventually resettled in Minneapolis, where Omar grew up in public housing and later entered politics.

    She built her brand as the daughter of refugees, a progressive outsider weighed down by student debt – the antithesis of a silver spoon Congressman. But her most recent financial disclosure revealed a net worth as high as $30 million — a staggering increase of 3,500 percent in a single year.

    The source of that fortune is her most recent husband, Tim Mynett. His venture capital firm, Rose Lake Capital, ballooned from under $1,000 in 2023 to as much as $25 million by the end of 2024. The firm’s board is stacked with powerful names, including former senator and ambassador to China Max Baucus.

    Rose Lake Capital’s website once bragged about structuring “legislation” before that word was quietly removed. It now claims $60 billion in assets under management. Around the same time Rose Lake took off, Mynett’s California winery, eStCru, jumped from being worth just $50,000 to as much as $5 million. Both companies have faced lawsuits alleging fraud, which have since been settled.

    The overlap with Omar’s official role is clear. After the launch of Rose Lake, Omar formed a congressional US-Africa Policy Working Group. She and Mynett have since appeared at events promoting investment in Africa – exactly the kind of opportunity Rose Lake now pursues. At face value the arrangement is indistinguishable from influence-peddling.

    The same Omar who has scorned politicians for leveraging their office for gain now appears to be doing it herself, handsomely. In America, the socialists have a funny way of always cashing in.

    So, back to Trump’s accusation. Did Ilhan Omar marry her brother? As it stands, it’s impossible to say one way or the other. Omar continues to deny the allegation as baseless.

    What is certain is that Omar has prospered enormously in America, moving from refugee housing to the halls of Congress to a personal fortune worth tens of millions.

    That story is perhaps the greater indictment. The congresswoman who speaks endlessly of justice and equity appears to have mastered the very Washington tricks she pretends to loathe.

  • Retribution looms for the NeverTrumpers

    Retribution looms for the NeverTrumpers

    “My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump,” says James Comey, the former FBI director, in a video statement on – naturally – Bluesky. “We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn’t either.”

    The Resistance is strong in that one. To a dwindling number of hardcore NeverTrumpers, Comey is a sort of godfather figure. He seems to love the attention, too. He wrote a self-aggrandizing memoir called A Higher Loyalty, about his fall-out with Donald Trump and the start of the Trump-Russia, Russia, Russia business. Earlier this year, moreover, he was even accused of elliptically threatening Trump’s life, when he posted and then deleted on Instagram an image showing the numbers “86 47” written in seashells on a beach. (The number 86 is code for “get rid of,” or “kill” in gangster-speak, and Donald Trump is currently serving as the 47th President of the United States.)

    Now it’s Team Trump that’s threatening Comey – with imprisonment. Yesterday, Trump’s DoJ indicted him on two counts: for making a false statement and for obstructing a congressional proceeding. Reports of the indictment are full of sources suggesting it is wafer-weak, in terms of legal power. Yet the Trump administration seems to be relishing its opportunity to use the legal system to exact revenge on the legal system and the various “resistance” heroes such as Comey who spent years trying to condemn Donald Trump on any number of fronts.

    Kash Patel, the new FBI director, insists his Bureau is merely calling “balls and strikes,” focusing on the mission rather than revenge. But nobody believes that. This is what the “retribution” Trump promised looks like. This is what many Trump supporters voted for.

    Other NeverTrumpers will be next. John Bolton, Trump’s former national security advisor, who also wrote a pompous memoir about the awfulness of the Donald, is next in the DoJ’s sights. The FBI searched his downtown office in DC last month and reportedly seized various classified documents.

    On another front, too, Attorney General Pam Bondi is pursuing the George Soros Foundation, for allegedly supporting terrorism, in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

    Critics will continue to moan about the erosion of civilized politics and a slide toward authoritarianism. This can’t be happening in America! Over and again, however, the Trump administration’s response is: “Let’s see about that.” Or, to borrow from the vulgar pro-Trump meme, “WAGTFKY” (“We Are Going To Fucking Kill You.”)

    Trumpists in Washington hope that the American public will spot the way in which the Democratic media machine, which cheered on every act of lawfare against Donald Trump, now pours scorn on Bondi, Kash Patel, and Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, for pursuing Trump’s enemies. Trump insiders also think that figures such as Comey, Bolton and others are so contemptibly self-important that people can’t help but oppose them.

    And there’s no doubt that the double-standards and sanctimonious hypocrisy of NeverTrumpers are deeply galling to the President’s supporters.

    It’s notable, however, that, as his administration’s lawfare operation has ramped up in recent weeks, Trump’s approval rating has dipped. That might have more to do with broader concerns about the economy. But most American voters don’t seem to like the weaponization of justice, no matter who is doing it.

    .

  • Why is Apple hosting an assassin’s app?

    Why is Apple hosting an assassin’s app?

    ICEBlock is an app that uses real-time information to pinpoint the location of ICE agents in the field. Launched in April in response to Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, it now boasts more than one million users across the country.

    Among them, until recently, was self-styled “anti-fascist” sniper Joshua Jahn, who killed one person – a detainee – and critically injured two more at an ICE facility in Dallas. The FBI has discovered that Jahn used the app, or one like it, to track his intended victims. In a handwritten note, Jahn, who took his own life, wrote, “Hopefully this will give ICE agents real terror.”

    ICEBlock claims that its purpose is to help illegal immigrants evade arrest by alerting them to the presence of ICE agents. But its far more wicked use as an assassin’s tool has for a long time been all too easy to predict with the left’s prolific and incendiary rhetoric around “Nazis” and “fascists,” the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the new record-high of left-wing terror attacks.

    And it is almost inevitable that another targeted attack based on data from the app will happen again.

    That’s because Apple is still hosting ICEBlock and apps like it on its App Store. The big tech platform that notoriously removed the conservative social media app Parler for far more nebulous claims of harm after Jan. 6. seems perfectly content to aid future would-be assassins. Apparently, Big Tech is more worried about censoring conservative grannies for wrongthink than it is actual real world violence.

    ICEBlock was developed by Joshua Aaron, a tech bro and former indie musician from Texas. It allows activists to drop a pin on a map wherever they spot ICE agents, which then sends a notification to all other users in a five mile radius.

    “We don’t want anything being discoverable,” Aaron said in a gushing profile for CNN earlier this year. “And so, this is 100 percent anonymous and free for anybody who wants to use it.”

    Of course, ICEBlock would never explicitly incite violence, it would like you to know. Upon log-in, a legal disclaimer states, “Please note that the use of this app is for information and notification purposes only.”

    Aaron says he’s the good guy, someone who wants to “fight back” against the rising tide of Nazism in America. He only cares about “keeping people safe,” he told The Guardian in another fawning interview.

    And playing the victim in an interview with USA Today, he claimed it was “insanity” to link his app with the Texas shooting and that the DOJ was merely “trying to bully [him].” Indeed, he has seemed much more concerned that his wife was let go from her job as a forensic auditor at the Department of Justice because of her ties to the app.

    Most tech founders would sell their first-born to mirror ICEBlock’s growth: it boasted just 20,000 users in June, but as of September Aaron says there are 1.1 million active users across the country – all of whom seem perfectly happy to help would-be assassins find their next victim.

    The app has come under fire from both ICE agents on the ground as well high-ranking Trump officials for putting a very real target on agents’ backs.

    “The DOJ’s looking at it, and they need to throw some people in jail,” Border Czar Tom Homan said of ICEBlock over the summer.

    But little if anything beyond some angry letters and statements has so far been done.

    With the implicit endorsement of mainstream media and big tech, ICEBlock has enjoyed a stamp of institutional legitimacy along with all the impunity that affords. But the days of normalizing leftist agitators with a wink and a nod are over.

    Aaron can cry peaceful resistance as much as he wants, but violent attacks against ICE agents become inevitable in a climate where they’re deemed Nazis and any lunatic is free to track their real-time movements. Denying this reality beggars belief; anyone who does so is stupid, or more likely, lying, and indifferent to violence against agents.

    Attorney General Pam Bondi warned Aaron to “watch out” in July, but it’s time for her office to initiate a real crackdown. Whether through cultural or government pressure, Apple must no longer allow apps like ICEBlock to proliferate, and the full force of the federal government must be used to scrutinize Aaron’s activities. Or these attacks are only going to keep happening.

    This isn’t a matter of free speech, but a matter of very real harm as we saw in Texas.

    Yet it’s an even deeper question of what kind of country we want to live in: one where ICE agents are seen as brownshirts for enforcing basic U.S. law, or one where law, order, and common sense receive the unanimous respect necessary for a functioning nation?

    We can’t have a country without borders. Those who claim otherwise have enjoyed more than enough time dominating the Overton window, and deserve to go back to the fringe.

  • Trump’s new pharma tariffs will punish Americans

    Trump’s new pharma tariffs will punish Americans

    Donald Trump has punished European pharmaceutical companies by imposing 100 percent tariffs on their branded products unless they are prepared to set up a manufacturing plants in the US. That is one way of putting it, but why is the issue of tariffs so often seen from the point of view of the producers and so rarely seen from the position of the consumers? Besides punishing drugs companies, the President has also whacked the American public – or at least that section of the population which relies on patented medicines made outside the US. The cost of treatment for many of these patients will soar as a result. Does Trump think that people will somehow fail to realize this?

    If he had imposed punitive tariffs on imports of generic medicines – those whose patents have expired and can be manufactured by any company, anywhere in the world – while leaving branded medicines alone, it would have made some kind of sense. It wouldn’t have left consumers untouched, because they would no longer be able to source medicines so cheaply from India, where many generic drugs are made, but US producers would be able to step up production of generic medicines and hope to compete with overseas competition. It wouldn’t cause mass upheaval for consumers. But instead Trump has done the opposite: he has left generic medicines untouched, while whacking tariffs on patented medicines. Patented medicines can only be manufactured by the company which holds the patent, or by anyone who is licensed by that company.

    Will drugs companies which currently make patented drugs overseas shift production to the US, as Trump intends? Maybe some will, but it is almost certain that some will not, forcing Americans who are seriously unwell to pay a punitive tax to the US government for the right to continue to use life-saving drugs. Some drugs companies will make the calculation that Americans are a captive market for their products and that consumers will simply have to pay whatever it costs to obtain them – so why go to the expense of building a manufacturing plant in the US to sidestep the 100 percent tariffs? In any case, Trump has shown himself to be so inconsistent on tariffs – and other policies for that matter – that deciding to invest in the US in response to this week’s announcement would present a serious commercial risk: Trump might well have changed his mind by the time you get your plant open, making your investment pointless.

    The same is true of all the tariffs which Trump has announced since “Liberation Day” in April. They are good news for some producers, who are now better able to fend off foreign competition. But that only comes at the price of punishing consumers, who face less choice and more expensive goods as a result. And it is not just end-of-the-line consumers who suffer, either – many manufacturers rely on imported components, tariffs on which drive up their costs.

    We might appreciate the double-sided effects of tariffs a bit more if we started calling them by what they really are: import taxes. That would refocus minds on their effect on the consumer, and make it harder for Trump, or any other protectionist, to present them as a win-win solution to a country’s economic malaise. 

  • James Comey is not above the law

    James Comey is not above the law

    Days before the five-year statute of limitations was due to expire, the long arm of the law finally has caught up with the slippery former FBI Director James B. Comey. A federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, has indicted Comey for leaking and lying about his role in the Russian hoax that President Trump’s enemies tried to hang around his head like a noose even before he was inaugurated in 2016.

    Count one of the federal indictment charges Comey with making a false statement during a September 30, 2020 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Specifically, Comey claimed he had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports” regarding FBI investigations into President Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The indictment describes this Comey claim as a false statement.

    Count two of the federal indictment charges Comey with obstruction of a Congressional proceeding, “by making false and misleading statements before” the Senate Judiciary Committee on the same date.

    The subject of the hearing, of course, was the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation, prompted by a Democrat operative, of the Trump campaign’s purported ties to Russia during the 2016 election as well as the Bureau’s failure to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private server to store secret government communications. Career prosecutor and special counsel John Durham conducted a three-year investigation into the origins of Crossfire Hurricane, and he concluded the investigation was so ill-founded it should never have been initiated.

    In a press release, FBI Director Kash Patel stated, “Today, your FBI took another step in its promise of full accountability. For far too long, previous corrupt leadership and their enablers weaponized federal law enforcement, damaging once proud institutions and severely eroding public trust… Nowhere was this politicization of law enforcement more blatant than during the Russiagate hoax, a disgraceful chapter in history we continue to investigate and expose.”

    Comey responded on Instagram this evening, “I’m innocent. So let’s have a trial.”

    Critics already have begun recycling arguments that (i) the President is persecuting his political opponents, just as they viciously hunted him for over a decade; (ii) Lindsey Halligan, the newly minted interim U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virgina, overrode the recommendations of career prosecutors in seeking this indictment; and (iii) Comey’s alleged crimes amount to applesauce.

    The chutzpah of the President’s critics who invested vast resources in weaponizing the justice system against him, coast to coast, could not be overstated. True, he has a penchant for speaking his mind in ways that sometimes frustrate even his supporters, but the President simply had no role before today’s grand jury.

    It is also true that someone in the orbit of the U.S. Department of Justice leaked information to the press that suggested one or more career prosecutors displayed skepticism regarding bringing Comey to justice. Leaks are loathsome, and may be criminal, when coming from a source within the leading law enforcement agency in the nation, as this very case demonstrates. Regardless of the internal politics that swirled within the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the final decision was not made by line prosecutors, the U.S. Attorney, or even the Attorney General of the United States. The final vote on Comey’s fate, at this stage and at trial, remains in the hands of the American people. Today, a grand jury, not a politician, indicted Comey.

    Recognized as early as the Magna Carta in 1215 A.D., the grand jury has long served as a cornerstone of Anglo-American law. A grand jury consists of sixteen to twenty-three U.S. citizens registered to vote who generally serve 18-24 months. At least twelve members of the grand jury must vote in favor of an indictment before a true bill is returned. Service requires a serious commitment. The defamation that twelve to twenty-three randomly selected voters would trade their integrity so cheaply reflects ignorance of the careful process that marks grand jury deliberations, an outsized regard for the influence of any given public official on a private process, and a very jaundiced view of American justice.

    This brings us to the actual substance of Comey’s alleged crimes. Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe publicly and repeatedly claimed that Comey had authorized him to leak information through high-ranking FBI officials to The Wall Street Journal about FBI investigations. Comey denied authorizing the leak. The question before the petit jury that will decide Comey’s fate at the trial he very clearly now seeks is the same question with which Senator Ted Cruz confronted Comey at that now infamous Senate Judiciary Committee hearing nearly five years ago: who is lying? Once again, the American people will decide, based on the facts and the law. And as Attorney General Pam Bondi reminded us this evening, “No one is above the law.”

  • Trump, Soros and a weaponized DoJ

    Trump, Soros and a weaponized DoJ

    In 2013, the IRS targeted the Tea Party and other conservative organizations for special scrutiny. Four years later, the federal government reached a settlement and the IRS apologized. Is it about to be déjà vu all over again?

    The Trump administration is embarking upon a major campaign against leading liberal organizations. The first shot came in late August when President Trump demanded that the liberal billionaire George Soros and his son, Alex, be charged under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act for supporting violent protests across America. The libertarian CATO Institute, a redoubt for decades of free speech advocates, promptly observed that “the call to prosecute may be bluster.”

    Wrong.

    The New York Times reports that a new Justice Department directive suggests targeting Soros and his Open Society Foundations for a gallimaufry of sins, including arson and material support of terrorism. Like his ally Viktor Orbán, who has demonized Soros, a survivor of the Holocaust, as a dangerous international banker who poses a threat to Hungarian sovereignty, Trump appears intent on quashing him by whatever means necessary. Whether he will succeed is another matter.

    Over the past several months, Trump has been systematically targeting what he sees as his internal foes. They include his former national security adviser John Bolton, New York attorney general Letitia James, and former FBI head James Comey. So fixated is Trump with prosecuting James and Comey that he drummed out longtime Republican prosecutor Erik Siebert from his post in Virginia, replacing him with Lindsey Halligan, a confidante with no experience as a prosecutor. Presumably, she has been installed to do Trump’s bidding, which is to ensure that Comey is busted for lying to Congress. The prosecutors in the Virginia office have already indicated that insufficient evidence exists for an actual conviction, but that is a mere detail for Trump. Trump’s approach seems redolent of Stalin’s henchman Lavrenti Beria who declared, “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”

    But even with Trump’s elastic interpretation of legality, it may prove difficult to persuade a grand jury of the malfeasance of Soros or James or Comey. The cases appear to be more than a little rickety. Comey is a drip, but hardly the type to try and bamboozle Congress. It was his moral vanity that prompted him to declare that the FBI was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails on the eve of Election Day – a move that helped push Trump over the top in 2016.

    How the inexperienced Halligan is supposed to proceed in the face of defiance from her own prosecutors is a pertinent question. For its part, the Open Society Foundations avers that the accusations directed against it are “politically motivated attacks on civil society, meant to silence speech the administration disagrees with and undermine the First Amendment right to free speech.”

    As the Trump administration gins up lawfare, it is also putting the American military in its gunsights, so to speak. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has summoned several hundred generals and admirals to meet at a military base in Quantico, Virginia, where they will be told… what? Speculation ranges from mass firings to a speech from Trump demanding their personal loyalty.

    Trump does not wish to govern America. He wants to rule it. He is upping the ante almost by the day as he targets his real and perceived foes.

    Still, he is encountering opposition, whether it is from Soros or from Senator Ted Cruz who recently likened Federal Communication Commission head Brendan Carr to a mob boss for trying to evict Jimmy Kimmel from the airwaves. The Economist has pronounced that Trump is trying to silence his critics, but “he will fail.” Will he?

  • Don’t execute my mother’s killer, I forgive him

    Don’t execute my mother’s killer, I forgive him

    I was 11 years old in 1997 when Geoffrey West shot and killed my mother, Margaret Parrish Berry, while robbing the Attalla gas station where she worked. Mr. West was sentenced to death. His execution date is set for tonight, September 25. He is due to be killed by nitrogen gas. But I do not want the state of Alabama to kill him. That won’t bring my mother back; it will only add to the pain I have lived with since the night she was shot. I believe there is a better way.

    My mother was the person I loved most in the world. Her absence, and the senseless way she died, has cast a long shadow over my life. Even so, the weeks since I learned that Governor Ivey set an execution date for Mr. West have been some of the most unsettling I can recall. My dearest wish is to meet with Mr. West. Yet, it’s not clear who has the power to make that happen or how to ask them directly.

    I was a child when Mr. West took my mother’s life – old enough to understand what had happened but too young to process it. I had no say at the trial, and I’ve had no say since then. No one from the Alabama attorney general’s office called me in April to say they had requested an execution date. No one from the governor’s office called in July when Governor Ivey set it. If my wife hadn’t stumbled across an article on Facebook, I’m not sure when I would have learned.

    I believe in the teachings of Jesus and in His words on the Mount, “For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins” (Matthew 6:14-15). My faith teaches that every trial we endure brings us closer to salvation. It teaches submission to God’s will.

    I believe that in seeking to execute Mr. West, the state of Alabama is playing God. I don’t want anyone to exact revenge in my name, nor in my mother’s. I believe life without the possibility of parole is just punishment. I believe there is an ending to this story where Mr. West and I find comfort in each other and in the healing power of forgiveness.

    I want to tell Mr. West that I forgive him. And I want to ask questions, both about what happened that night and about who he is as a man. In some ways, I suppose I just want to be in a room with him. Through his legal team, Mr. West has agreed to my request. Even in what may be the last hours of his life, he is willing to spend time with me and reckon with the harm he caused. I believe that speaks well of him, despite the deadly mistake he made the night he killed my mother. I know that she forgives him and that she would want me to sit down with him.

    The criminal justice system is not built with victims’ needs, wishes, and well-being in mind. I know that as well as anybody, because what is being done in my name is not what I need or want. I know that clemency is a lot to ask for. But having spoken with a restorative justice specialist who is also in communication with Mr. West, I feel hopeful there could be a future where he and I might sit down together. Where we might pray together.

    But time is working against us. Whether or not she can see her way to granting clemency, at the very least I hope Governor Ivey will grant a reprieve, which she has the authority to do. That time would allow Mr. West, his family, and mine to engage in vital healing conversations. I need time to heal.

    I have observed the process around other executions in Alabama. I know the attorney general would welcome me at Holman Prison to watch as Mr. West is killed. I know I would be invited to speak at a press conference afterward. But that is not what I want. When I go to Holman, I want to speak with Mr. West heart to heart. I want to tell him I forgive him, that my mother forgives him, and that God loves him.

    My life has been very hard. I hope that Governor Ivey will see her way to granting me this measure of comfort, and I pray that she will find it in herself to spare Mr. West’s life.

    This commentary first appeared on Alabama Reflector, part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

  • The internet has turned us all into accidental witches

    The internet has turned us all into accidental witches

    Two days before Charlie Kirk was murdered, Jezebel writer Claire Guinan paid witches on Etsy to hex him.

    When I first read Guinan’s article, my thought was that it was quintessential Jezebel: clickbait that might have interested 19-year-olds in 2011, back when witchcraft still had a frisson of feminist rebellion. She bought curses from sellers like “Priestess Lilin.” She imagined Kirk’s socks sliding down, his blazers shrinking, his thumb growing too big to tweet. The piece was meant to be funny, a way to channel political rage into something absurd, petty and hopefully entertaining.

    Forty-eight hours later, Kirk was dead.

    Jezebel first added an editorial note condemning political violence, then removed the piece entirely on their lawyers’ recommendation. Guinan doesn’t deserve hysteria or —worse— legal repercussions for a warmed-over blog post about Etsy witchcraft. But the editorial note wasn’t out of left field, maybe surprisingly, for those of us who grew up in a world where the media was overwhelmingly atheistic.

    The article drew significant criticism across media. Megyn Kelly condemned both Etsy and Jezebel in a segment on her show. Commentator Peachy Keenan characterized the hex article as “solicitation of murder.” Rod Dreher and other religious pundits described it as an act of “spiritual warfare.”

    This last characterization – spiritual warfare – is worth examining, though perhaps not in the way these commentators intended.

    Aleister Crowley defined magick (with a “k” to distinguish it from stage magic) as “the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.” This definition – perhaps ironically to some, given the source – strips away supernatural window-dressing and reveals what magic really is: the deliberate use of consciousness to attempt to reshape reality. Every time we imagine a possible future, we’re doing magic.

    This is what visualization means in magical practice. You create a detailed mental image and hold it, return to it, feed it with emotion and repetition until it becomes more real than physical reality itself. Your brain starts filtering the world through this image. You notice every piece of evidence that confirms it and dismiss what doesn’t. You’ve reprogrammed your perception. That’s what “The Secret,” of Hollywood trend and Oprah fame, is (you’re welcome – saved you twenty bucks).

    When Utah students petitioned to ban Kirk from campus days after the hex, when someone tweeted his head looked bigger, Guinan saw evidence of magical success. The ritual had influenced her attention, making her sensitive to negative news about Kirk. Paying $15 – or $50 – to Etsy witches like “Priestess Lilin” for a hex seems harmless, even ridiculous.

    But Guinan’s Etsy purchase is just a more obvious version of something we all do, all the time: dwelling on negative thoughts about people we dislike. Whether it’s buying a curse online or mentally wishing someone would fail repeatedly, we’re doing the same thing – focusing our mental energy on someone else’s pain. And that focus has real effects.

    There are two ways to understand this.

    The first possibility is that hexes work through supernatural means – that somehow our thoughts can reach across space and actually affect someone. Religious conservatives like Rod Dreher might call this demonic influence or, if the focus is positive instead of negative, compare it to the power of prayer. People into New Age spirituality might say it’s “the universe” responding, or talk about “energy,” “manifestation” and “vibes.”

    The basic idea is the same: our focused intentions somehow influence reality in ways science can’t explain. It works in both directions, positive and negative.

    The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab spent 28 years documenting how focused human consciousness seems to influence random number generators. Over millions of trials, they found a tiny but statistically significant effect when people concentrated on specific outcomes. Art Bell, the late-night radio host, ran experiments where millions of listeners simultaneously directed attention toward a single issue. In a July 1998 episode, he urged his listeners to focus on bringing rain to drought-stricken Northeast Florida. Allegedly, it worked.

    The second possibility is more mundane but no less powerful – and one we should pay attention to. Hexes, or manifestation (or prayer) reshape social reality. The most dangerous curse is making someone believe they’re cursed. It’s especially effective on the internet – where magic seems to become real. When thousands simultaneously focus negative attention on someone, each person becomes primed to see that individual negatively. They feel permitted – even encouraged – to attack. The hex becomes self-fulfilling through thousands of small actions: unfollows, harsh comments, canceled invitations, hostile interpretations. And in the darkest cases, it creates an atmosphere where violence becomes more thinkable – where someone already on the edge might feel the collective “permission” to act.

    No supernatural forces required – just the aggregate effect of collective imagination turned toward a single person or group.

    Neuroscience research shows the brain treats imagined interactions as practice runs for real ones. Studies on forgiveness reveal that people who release grudges have better cardiovascular health, improved sleep, reduced inflammation. Those who nurture grievances through mental rehearsal show chronic stress responses, disrupted sleep patterns, persistent inflammation. Your body can’t tell the difference between symbolic and real conflict. Brain imaging shows that people who spend time mentally rehearsing negative outcomes for others develop stronger neural pathways for threat detection and weaker ones for empathy.

    Traditional magicians developed rules because they understood these dangers. Don’t cast spells when emotional – performing magic in a heightened state locks that emotion into the working. If you hex someone while enraged, you’re not just sending anger outward but crystallizing it within yourself. Protect yourself from backlash by creating psychological barriers between you and the intention. Ground yourself after working through physical activity, eating or meditation. Without this, practitioners report staying trapped in the magical mindset, seeing signs everywhere.

    This is part of why some magical paths, like Wicca, which is largely based on Crowley’s magick, emphasize “harm none,” not just as ethics but as self-preservation.

    The internet has turned us all into accidental witches.

    When someone starts trending on X, millions of us do the exact same thing at the exact same time: we screenshot their post, imagine our perfect comeback, fantasize about them getting “destroyed” by the replies, then share it to make sure more people join in. Every group chat where friends tear apart someone’s posts is like a coven casting a spell together – everyone focusing their (negative) energy on the same target. We’ve created a massive system where millions can wish harm on someone simultaneously, but unlike traditional magic practitioners, we have no protection rituals and we put very little thought into what we’re doing to ourselves and others. Every time you imagine someone getting “ratio’d,” every time you mentally compose the perfect takedown, every time you rehearse someone’s cancellation, you’re performing the same ritual Guinan paid those Etsy witches to do. You’re just doing it unconsciously, without protection, and without recognizing the price.

    Regardless of which mechanism is true – supernatural forces or social psychology – there’s damage to the practitioner and the environment around them. Whether you’re a real magician or just training your brain for hostility, you’re still hurting yourself and others.

    Kirk is dead – and I don’t want to suggest it’s the “fault” of Etsy witches burning his pictures.

    We may never know all the factors that led to this atrocity. But we do know that the climate of ritualized hostility creates conditions where the unthinkable becomes possible. The magic we perform carelessly, contributes to an atmosphere thick with malice. And sometimes, in ways we can’t predict or control, that malice finds its expression in the physical world.

    Kirk’s death might have been random chance, and certainly a great tragedy. But we should still use it as an opportunity to ask: what kind of reality are we willing into being? The irony is that those panicking about Etsy hexes are missing how we all participate in this dark practice every day online – no crystals or candles required.

  • After Comey, who’s next?

    After Comey, who’s next?

    Cockburn has awakened from his Russiagate slumber with the news that the Trump administration is seeking to file charges against former FBI director James Comey in federal court within the next few days. The statute of limitations on Comey’s September 30, 2020 testimony about ties between Russia and Trump’s second campaign for president is about to expire, meaning we’re set to re-litigate the Mueller Report. While we’re at it, why not take a look at Solyndra, yellowcake uranium, Whitewater, Iran-Contra, Watergate and Credit Mobilier?  

    Russiagate is a bit more current, though, and Trump is flinging his prosecutors all over the room. There’s no guarantee that a grand jury will deliver a Comey indictment, but if it does, it will unload a whole clip of blasts from the past onto the headlines. John Bolton, the warmonger with the walrus mustache, already woke up one recent summer morning to a raid of his home office. The feds say they found classified documents in his possession, though the content of those documents remains, unsurprisingly, classified.  

    Former National Security Agency director Mike Rogers, who once said he didn’t have “sufficient access” to intelligence regarding Russia and that he wasn’t “100 percent comfortable” making claims, should be safe. Not so James Clapper, former director of National Intelligence, and former CIA director John Brennan. Clapper, who always did enjoy talking to Jake Tapper, is now a “national security analyst” for CNN, while John Brennan delivers what Cockburn is certain are completely unbiased political takes for MSNBC. Cockburn isn’t sure exactly what they’ll be saying about a potential Comey indictment in the coming days, but it’ll likely be many thousands of words of blather along the lines of “not my movie.”  

    Also returning from the dead letter office into the sights of the Crossfire Hurricane will be former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, charged with investigating Hillary Clinton’s email server and Russia election interference back in the previous decade. Strzok and Page provided the smoking gun, according to an Office of the Inspector General Report. Page texted Strzok, “Trump’s not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” and Strzok replied, “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Page resigned. The FBI fired Strzok, who sued the FBI for wrongful termination, but a court threw out that suit this month.  

    Now we’re set to revisit the FBI comedy duo of Strzok and Page, and all their greatest hits. What did James Comey know, and when did he know it? Did he lie? Was it an accident or on purpose? Trump has installed one of his personal lawyers, Lindsey Halligan, as the US attorney for Eastern Virginia, withdrawing the nomination of Erik Seibert because “two terrible SLEAZEBAG Democratic Senators supported him.”  

    “I fired him, and there is a GREAT CASE, and many lawyers, and legal pundits, say so. Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “What about Comey, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell.” Halligan, 36, has been part of Trump’s legal team since 2022 and was present for the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago raid. She also twice attempted to become Miss Colorado in college.

    Comey, for his part, hasn’t posted a tweet since June, which was when Mysterious Press posted his latest legal thriller FDR Drive. The book’s major theme is internet extremism on, you guessed it, the right. It got a nice review from Publisher’s Weekly. Cockburn suspects that Comey is about to live his own real-life legal thriller, but he’s not going to be able to choose the ending.  

  • Is the cult of Obama finally over?

    Is the cult of Obama finally over?

    Everyone wanted to get close to the president. For three hours outside the O2 Arena in London, a line of admirers pawed at and posed with a fifteen-foot-tall billboard of Obama’s face. All of the marketing for yesterday’s event, titled “An Evening with President Barack Obama,” had used his official presidential portrait from 2012 in the Oval Office. It was a reminder of the good old days – before Trump ever happened. “I’m just looking forward to being in the same room as him,” said a woman called Fran who had taken a photo with the billboard, leaning on it for support. She started crying. “I’m looking for a little bit of hope.”

    All Obama’s life people have staked their hopes on him. His white mother was the first. When he was a child she played him recordings of Mahalia Jackson and the speeches of Martin Luther King, and told him that his destiny was to carry their glorious burdens. Then his grandparents. In 1971 when Obama moved to Hawaii to live with them, he realized that they had given up on their own ambitions and put their dreams onto him. “So long as you kids do well, Bar”, his grandmother told him, “that’s all that really matters.” In time, the whole liberal world would lean on Obama. Ten months into his first term, he was presented with the Nobel Peace Prize. In his memoir A Promised Land, he records his reaction: “For what?”

    Now in London he came on stage as a reluctant messiah. The crowd had been made hyper by a montage of powerful snippets of his speeches, set to cinematic music, but when he arrived in the flesh he was diminutive and physically far away. He said “Hello, London!” and sat in a too-big chair opposite the British historian David Olusoga, who was hosting the evening. Obama kept talking over the applause until it stopped. He drank from a takeaway coffee cup.

    Olusoga began by asking Obama what he now spends his time doing, squinting and quietly straining his voice when he spoke, feigning poignancy as he tried to meet the promised specialness of the evening. Obama replied that he has been trying to “dig myself out of a hole with Michelle,” using almost identical wording to the answer he gave when he was asked the same question at the Jefferson Educational Society in Pennsylvania a fortnight ago. Even the garbled punchline – “I’m almost level” – was copied. (Michelle never wanted Barack to run for president, but he did so anyway, he’s said before, not for his own reasons, but because he wanted black kids and Hispanic kids and “kids who don’t fit in” to “see themselves differently.”)

    Obama can turn it on when he wants, but at the O2 he did not. Olusoga asked for his analysis of current affairs and his response was boring and wrong. After World War Two, he said, it was clear that “blood and soil nationalism” and “castes and hierarchies” did not work, and so new ways of politics emerged. “Things kept getting better,” he said, aside from a war in Vietnam, a genocide in Rwanda, millions of deaths from conflicts in the Middle East, and “terrorism.” Then “we got complacent, we got smug,” he said, and liberalism failed to create “a language that made everybody feel like they had a stake.” In Obama’s telling of the 21st century, America pre-Trump was consistently going the right way. The country’s good course was not altered by 9/11 or the financial crisis of 2008. No, things only went bad after 2016. 

    For people like Fran who wanted answers, Obama gave none. He just seemed depressed. He said that Britain, like America, is at a “fork in the road.” He said that we’re too materialistic, and have lost two historic defenses against consumerism: religion and counterculture. (Hip-hop used to have a purpose, now rappers just talk about money.) He said there was a “significant risk” that AI becomes a tool of oppression and censorship, and said that Donald Trump has committed “violence against the truth.” “Old men hanging on who are afraid of death” cause 80 percent of the world’s problems, he told the audience, with exasperated frankness. His world view had lost.

    After an hour-and-a-bit he was done. Olusoga said “Mr President, thank you for your leadership,” and Obama smiled, waved and left. People ran for the doors. To get the train home, to rush to their friends and loved ones, to proclaim that their king was dead.