On April 4, the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged another 2,000 points, the S&P 500 fell another 322 points, the Nasdaq index officially entered “bear market” territory, and global markets continued to react predictably to US president Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” trade war insanity.

On April 4, the bodies of four US soldiers killed in a training exercise on Lithuania’s border with Belarus — part of the US government’s continued posturing in support of Ukraine in its ongoing war with Russia that Trump had pledged to end “within 24 hours” of taking office  —  arrived at Dover Air Force Base.

On April 4, Israeli forces, armed with American weapons and enjoying Trump’s support and approval, killed at least 60 Palestinians, most of them civilian women and children, in Gaza.

Trump had more important things to attend to than any of those matters, though. He headed for Trump National Doral Golf Club to enjoy a golf tournament. Not just any golf tournament, mind you: A foreign import (Saudi-owned LIV) that competes with American-made golf (PGA). Naturally, he followed up his day of expensive imported recreation with an appearance at a $1 million dollar per person fundraiser for the MAGA Inc. super PAC.

As always, I strongly approve of presidents leaving the White House to partake of golf and gladhanding. A president focused on such things may be temporarily preoccupied and thus momentarily less able to wreck the American economy, get US troops and foreign civilians killed, etc.

My complaint here isn’t with Trump, really. He is what he is, and I knew he was a snake when you picked him up. It’s with Trump’s enablers, and more specifically with those enablers who’ve been getting on my last nerve lately with a particular five-word chorus heard daily across the fruited plain:

“I didn’t vote for THIS!”

Yes. You. Did.

Nearly three months into Trump’s second presidency and after three consecutive presidential campaigns, none of his supporters have any excuse for not knowing his record of keeping bad promises, breaking good promises, and hitting the links or headlining a “friendly crowd” event whenever putting on a suit and answering tough questions might get embarrassing.

At least the supporters who continue to make excuses for him — “he’s playing 6D chess and you just don’t understand,” “the DEEP STATE is making him do all the bad things he does,” etc. — can be explained:  Half of Americans possess below-median intelligence.

And those who, at any point, have finally admitted to themselves and others that they fell for a scam should be supported, commended, and consoled.

But the “I didn’t vote for THIS!” crowd? They clearly follow current affairs. They clearly know their votes enabled this craziness. Now they want absolution without first accepting responsibility for what they did.

One variant: “The choice was Trump or Harris. I just went for the lesser evil.” Nope. Every state ballot except New York’s (where you could write in) offered AT LEAST three choices … and no one forced you to vote at all.

Own your actions. Then go and sin no more.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Fights between individuals, as well as governments and nations”  Nikola Tesla wrote in 1905, “invariably result from misunderstandings in the broadest interpretation of this term. Misunderstandings are always caused by the inability of appreciating one another’s point of view.”

The quote strikes me as apt and applicable to the recent wave of vandalism, arson, etc. against the cars named for the man.  There’s a lot of misunderstanding involved, and  Elon Musk, owner of Tesla, Inc., correctly addresses the matter:

“That’s somebody else’s car. Leave it alone.”

You may not like Elon Musk very much, and I won’t try to convince you that your dislike isn’t justified.

He became one of the richest men — some say THE richest —  on Earth in large part due to his keen eye for corporate welfare opportunities. Even if you’ve never bought one of his products, you’ve been paying him with your tax dollars for years.

Now he’s wormed his way into a direct government role, taking a fire ax to programs and institutions you may consider good or even necessary through the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) while, unsurprisingly, his own take from the government till seems to be increasing rather than decreasing.

If you don’t like Musk, you can and should avoid buying/using the products and services he offers: Not just Tesla’s vehicles, but social media platform X (formerly Twitter) and Internet Service Provider Starlink.

You might also do what you can (very little, I’m sorry to say) to oppose his corporate welfare take via government contracts for SpaceX, tax credits for purchases of Tesla vehicles, etc.

What you shouldn’t do, because it’s both wrong and stupid, is vandalize or destroy any of the more than 4 million Tesla vehicles currently on the road worldwide.

Why it’s wrong: They’re not yours.

Other people bought them. Other people own them. Even if vandalizing or destroying Musk’s property is a reasonable form of self-expression (it isn’t), vandalizing or destroying the property of someone who’s never done you any harm, just because they once bought something from Elon Musk, isn’t.

Why it’s stupid: Setting someone else’s Model 3 or Cybertruck on fire won’t stop Musk from doing things you dislike. In fact, it may actually help him continue doing things you dislike.

US president Donald Trump has already slapped the label “terrorism” on such vandalism. That probably presages yet another welfare revenue stream for Musk in the form of making Tesla’s in-house insurance company whole for any claims arising from the attacks.

Trump’s “base” is already turning out at Tesla dealerships to counter anti-Musk protesters … and maybe buy one of his cars.

The silliness of keying, crashing into, or burning someone else’s Tesla lets Musk run the perennial Trumpian play: Using other people’s misfortune to paint himself as “the victim.” He can probably ride that self-serving whine all the way to the financial and political bank.

Even if acting in a counterproductive manner doesn’t bother you, being wrong when Musk is right should. That’s somebody else’s car. Leave it alone.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Since Donald Trump’s second presidential inauguration on January 20, the news cycle keeps coming back around to two questions.

Every time Trump issues, or federal agencies attempt to implement, an unconstitutional executive order — one or both of which happen on a near-daily basis — journalists and pundits want to know:

First, will the courts order a halt to the executive branch’s latest   roughshod running over of the US Constitution?

Second, if the courts do so rule, will the administration comply with those rulings?

I find that line of questioning rather odd, since history’s already answered it for us many times over the Constitution’s 230-odd years of supposed rule.

The answer to both questions is “maybe, maybe not.”

American government — legislative, executive, and judicial branches alike — point to the Constitution when it supports their desires and ignores it when it thwarts those desires.

The Supreme Court in particular boasts a long record of changing its mind, reinterpreting the Constitution’s usually fairly clear commands based on deference to both popular opinion and the immediate goals of the other two branches, rendering the interpretation of law most favorable to government actors even in contradiction to that law’s own text, and hiding in chambers when its occasional ruling the other way gets ignored or “worked around.”

We need look no further back than March 26 for an example of how well we can expect the Constitution to fare versus when the Supreme Court weighs its requirements against executive edicts contradicting those requirements.

In Vanderstok v. Bondi (formerly Vanderstok v. Garland — Trump’s appointee to the office of US Attorney General took the case over from Biden’s), the court ruled that:

1. A rogue federal agency (the  US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) may
2. Apply an unconstitutional federal law (the Gun Control Act of 1968) to
3. Objects which that law’s text does not cover and never has covered.

The objects at issue are “ghost gun” kits. They’re not guns. They’re just collections of parts that, with some work and possibly additional components, can be made into guns.

The text of the GCA didn’t cover “ghost gun” kits and, as Justice Neil Gorsuch openly admits in the majority ruling, had no reason to: “[T]he milling equipment, materials needed, and designs were far too expensive for individuals to make firearms practically or reliably on their own.”

Beyond magically reinterpreting the text, meaning, and intent of the GCA, the court also just ignored the plain language, and the clear and unambiguous meaning, of the Second Amendment: “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In noting that it refers to “a right of the people,” the Constitution’s proscription applies not just to the federal government and all its agencies, but to state and local governments as well.

In addition to being stupid and evil, “gun control” legislation, of any kind, at any level of government, violates the “Supreme Law of the Land.” Period.

Don’t expect the courts to protect your rights. They quit that job long ago.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY