"Trump Accounts" that provide IRA style accounts for children, go live.

 

CNN/Getty.

The "Trump Accounts" effort has gone live, giving parents the chance to create Investment Retirement Accounts for their children. CNN. The accounts are available for all children under the age of 18. However, the government has decided to give $1000 for infants born between January 1st 2025 and December 31st 2028. In addition to the government money, parents, relatives and friends can contribute to the accounts, along with employers. Private citizens have also given money to the fund to allow even more seed money to certain low or mid income families. Charitable and Government contributions are unlimited, but only $5000 a year can be contributed by others. Returns for the accounts will depend on how the stock market does. Once the child becomes 18, the accounts are treated as IRA accounts, with the appropriate penalties and taxes. However, if the holder of the account uses the money for college, buying a home, birthing or adopting a child, emergency expenses and even medical bills. If no contributions are made beyond the $1000 in government an infant could expect to see $3000 to $5500 depending on the stock market. 

My Comment:

I don't often use CNN as a source, but this was a good summary of how the Trump accounts work. Credit where credit is due. It's a good resource and if you want to know more about how to sign up for these accounts you should take a look. 

I think that these accounts are a good idea and you would have to be crazy to not do this if you have an infant born during the eligibility period. Even if the only money you contribute is the government issued $1000, you would give that child at least a little seed money to start their lives off. I know I would have been happy to have $3000 to $5500 to my name when I graduated high school. 

And there's a good chance that even if you don't contribute any money, you could get more money from the rich donors that are contributing to the fund. If you make too much money you might not get any from the philanthropists, but chances are you would get some money out of it. And any money you would get for your kids would be totally free. 

Plus, you and your friends and family could contribute as well. Employers could as well as an easy benefit they could offer, though I don't know how any contributions have been set up yet. If you were somehow able to max out the contributions at $5000 a year, your kid could end up with as much as $230,000, assuming a 10% return. That might be optimistic but that much money would pay for college or set up a real path to wealth for a child if they just keep that money in their IRA.

Do these accounts make sense for any other kids? Possibly. There are other kids IRA accounts they could use that could avoid some of the penalties or get higher returns. But I think the possibility of the rich donors giving a boost to these accounts is an obvious advantage if you aren't wealthy. If you are wealthy, the other options might be better, but the best solution might be a combination of both. 

I do fear that there are going to be a lot of liberal parents that aren't going to take advantage of these accounts. Part of me thinks this is funny because it's a stupid reason to not take free money. But I do wish that these folks could decide to do what is best for their kids and ignore the fact that President Trump likes to name things after himself. 

Maine Senate Candidate Graham Platner accused of sexual assault, may drop out of race.

 

Graham Platner. Politico.

Main Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner has been accused of rape and may drop out of the race. Politico. Platner was accused of rape by 41 year old Maine resident Jenny Raciot, who had previously accused him of reckless and disturbing behavior, but was uncomfortable with making the accusation. However, she decided to come forward after a New York Times report led to Democrats claiming another accuser, Lyndsey Fifield, was only doing it for political reasons. However, Raciot agrees with Platner politically. 

Raciot said that she had met Platner via the dating site Bumble, and had a consensual relationship with him. However, in 2021, Platner had walked into her house after being told not to come over. He was blackout drunk and raped her despite her saying no. After confirming she hadn't been impregnated due to the attack, she cut off all contact with him. Her story was backed up by statements from her therapists and a male acquaintance who she talked to about the assault. She also produced text messages with a female friend warning her off from contact with Platner due to him being "consensually careless" and that he "doesn't listen to you while drunk". Platner has denied accusations but has said he will pause to evaluate his campaign. 

My Comment:

These accusations seem pretty credible to me. The fact that Raciot was willing to go on the record for this and the fact that she had at least three people that would back up her story who knew about it before Platner was politically relevant means a lot. She also produced some text messages that support her story as well. It's probably not enough to convict Platner in a court of law, but it probably is enough to convict him in public opinion. 

Keep in mind that Platner had serious issues with his behavior. He had a Nazi tattoo, the Totenkopf, and his excuses for it were a joke. He also had a Reddit account where ha acted like an idiot. But he also cheated on his wife and had an account on Kik. 

Kik is, quite frankly, a very bad website. It's known to be a place with little moderation and predators use to not only share illegal content involving children, they also use it to groom and target children. The fact that Platner had an account there was a huge red flag for me and I even said back then that he would eventually be revealed as a sex pest. 

What Platner was accused of is very serious. It wasn't just a rape, he also broke into her house without her permission. This isn't just some sex that was regretted, it was an attack, and it's why I think this case may be legit. And I would not be surprised if more accusations come out. 

As for Platner, I think his political career is over. He was already on life support in his race against Republican Susan Collins. Though Platner had been leading in the polls, he was falling behind in some of the newer ones and keep in mind that Collins very consistently blows out her polls and wins. He was, in my view, very likely to lose regardless. 

But now? I fully expect him to drop out before the end of the week. There is a ticking clock, of course, as long as he is out by July 12th, he can be replaced, and I think that is the most likely outcome. A major sex scandal like this one, especially when the accusation seems credible, is not something you come back from when you are already in jeopardy. 

When that happens, and I think it's a matter of when, not if, he can be replaced, though who will do so is an open question. Some people are convinced that Governor Janet Mills, who dropped out before Platner won the primary, could be the candidate, but right now it's up in the air. Whoever it is is going to be in a major hole even ignoring the strength Collins has as a candidate, given this scandal and the fact that Platner's large war chest cannot be transferred to whoever the candidate is. 

I do think it's kind of BS that Platner can be replaced after the primary. The Democratic electorate in Maine knew that Platner was a toxic candidate and they voted for him over Mills by a huge margin. The red flags were there the whole time, but they ignored it. They should have to live with that decision, though that's not how it works. 

But now? Almost everyone is pulling their endorsements and Platner has almost no defenders, other than Cenk Uyger, who somehow believes this is all about Israel. It's obviously not, people are genuinely outraged by these accusations and at worst I see this as rational pragmatism by the Democrats. They absolutely should have known better...

ICE arrested 10,000 illegal immigrants in five days to close out June, in a major increase.

 

An ICE badge. AP.

ICE closed out June with 10,000 arrests of illegal immigrants in five days to close out June, a major increase. AP. The five day average was 2000 arrests a day, which is higher than any time in President Trump's first term. The closest was in December of last year when they were averaging 1293 a day. The spike in arrests may be due to a change in ICE tactics. Instead of high profile raids on blue cities like Minneapolis, ICE has focused on arrests nationwide. The new path, steered by new Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, has focused on being more efficient while also being less visible. 

My Comment:

ICE efforts have largely fallen out of the news, but it seems as though the efforts to deport illegal aliens have been redoubled, not abandoned. Indeed, these numbers, which have been confirmed by multiple news outlets, shows that the new tactics are working extremely well. 

What are these new tactics? Instead of high profile raids on blue cities that weren't cooperating with ICE, ICE has been focusing on going after convicted criminals. Many of those folks are picked up during routine police work and handed over to ICE by cooperating agencies. Around 70% of the illegals picked up are convicted criminals, and the 30% that aren't are largely getting swept up at the same time as the criminals. 

This is a massive sea change from the major high profile raids we had during the start of the year. Those raids were somewhat effective in removing illegal aliens, but the optics were not good. Antifa and other protest movements attempted to shut it down and there was violence caused by them that ICE was blamed for (even when it was Customs and Border Patrol that were the shooters in once of the cases). Though I have zero sympathy for the people caught up in the raids and actually despise the protesters and rioters, even I have to admit that the high profile raids were causing more issues then they were solving. 

At the time I didn't know if there was a better way, but it seems clear that Mullin's less visible actions are more effective now. If we can increase the number of people deported while at the same time cutting off the left's energy going into the midterms, than I am all for it. 

Not all of this is due to tactics. ICE underwent a major increase in hiring of personnel and many of those folks are now out of training and are on the job now. Obviously, with more ICE agents on the streets then more folks are going to get arrested and deported. 

There is an obvious downside for the lower profile deportation efforts. It means that many MAGA supporters aren't aware of what is being accomplished, unlike the major high profile raids earlier in the year. Indeed, I have seen some people on social media saying that the Trump administration "caved" on deportation. 

It's a double edged sword as the high profile raids were working as a rallying cry for the left, but also as one for the right. The optics were bad but at least they were optics. Now, a lot of folks on both sides think nothing is happening at all, when instead we are getting even more effective at removing illegal aliens. 

DOJ launches lawsuits against California and Virginia for unconstitutional gun laws.

 

Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger and a gun shop. Fox News/Getty.

The Department of Justice has launched two lawsuits against California and Virginia for unconstitutional gun laws. Fox News. California passed the Unsafe Handgun Act to ban Glock pistols, an extremely popular brand of firearms. Virginia passed Senate Bill 749 that made it a misdemeanor to possess, manufacture or sell a so-called "assault weapon". Both laws came into effect recently and could be overturned by the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to two other similar cases from Chicago and Connecticut 

My Comment:

More good news for the gun rights community. Both of these laws are plainly unconstitutional and do not reach the standards set by NYSRPA v Bruen and DC vs Heller. These are firearms in common use, AR-15's are the most popular rifles in the country while Glocks are among the most popular handguns and there isn't a historical precedence for banning these weapons under the Bruen test. 

The Glock law in California is probably the more impactful and dangerous one. The ban isn't because the Glocks are dangerous due to malfunctions or because they are a threat, it's because they can be modified to fire in full auto. Glock "switches" are commonly used to do so by criminals, but almost all semi-auto firearms can be modified this way. Indeed, all you need to do so with a lot of AR-15's is a small piece of metal, called a full auto sear. 

The same argument could be used to ban most firearms. Short barrel shotguns and rifles are illegal federally but the argument for the California law would apply here too. Because you can easily use a hacksaw to saw off a barrel on a shotgun or rifle, they could be banned as well. It doesn't matter in either case that would be committing a serious felony by modifying your weapon this way. Simply being modifiable can't be the standard because almost all firearms can be modified in some way. Of course, I don't think full auto or short barreled weapons should be illegal in the first place, but that's neither here nor there. 

I'd also argue that a modified Glock with a Glock switch is actually dramatically less dangerous than a normal Glock. Full auto is for suppression and isn't useful for much else. A full auto pistol, especially one that isn't designed to be one, is hard to control and the vast majority of bullets will not hit there targets. A semi skilled shooter with a semi-auto handgun will always beat out a guy spraying and praying with a Glock switch. 

Regardless, it's clear what the play is here by the DOJ. The general prediction is that SCOTUS will rule in favor or removing these bans and once that happens next year it will be useful to have these cases spun up already. The laws will be overturned a lot quicker that way and I am guessing that is the whole point of these lawsuits. It's even possible that the DOJ will be able to get an injunction to prevent these laws from being enforced. 

It's a pretty good time to be a gun rights supporter. It seems like we are absolutely heading towards a world where gun rights is a settled questions and things like assault weapon bans will be nothing but a memory. A lot can happen, of course, but it really does seem like victory is at hand. For gun control advocates, I would say they are quickly approaching irrelevance. 

SCOTUS says they will review so called "assault weapon" bans that ban America's most popular rifle.

 

A group prays in front of the Surpreme Court. AP.

The Supreme Court says they have granted certiorari for two consolidated cases challenging Illinois and Connecticut bans on so-called "assault weapons" including America's most popular rifle, the AR-15. AP. The case will be the largest gun rights case since 2022's NYSRPA v Bruen, which set the Bruen test for gun laws, which requires there to be a historical precedent for those laws.  The current Court has been highly supportive of the 2nd amendment, with two major rulings on gun rights this year, including striking down Hawaii's de facto ban on concealed carry and federal laws banning marijuana users from purchasing or possessing firearms. 

My Comment:

The big news today is, of course, the birthright citizenship case, that did not go the way many people have wished. But these cases being heard before the Supreme Court is likely to be a more impactful case. Should the AR-15 ban be revoked in these states, it would be close to a final victory for the gun rights movement and the ultimate defeat of gun control in the United States. 

After today's ruling on birthright citizenship and yesterday's ruling on mail in ballots, I would understand if folks were concerned that this ruling could actually uphold the bans. People have been very critical of Roberts and Barrett, given how they ruled today. 

But it's important to note that both of them voted in favor of gun rights this term and in previous cases. Indeed, it would be shocking if they didn't both side with the four justices, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh that are chomping at the bit to overturn these gun laws. The most likely outcome here is a 6-3 or 5-4 ruling in favor of overturning the bans. 

Indeed, I think that the fact that the case was granted certiorari at all is a strong signal that one or both of Roberts and Barrett have been brought on board. The four pro-gun justices would not risk losing the case and it's pretty rare for the court to take cases like this if there isn't a strong chance of a favorable outcome. Who knows what will happen during arguments, but it would be shocking to me for this case to fail. 

The legal argument for overturning these bans is extremely strong. There isn't a historical precedence, so the Bruen test is already a failure. But the ruling in DC vs Heller that said that firearms in common use are protected by the 2nd amendment. Given that the AR-15 is America's most popular rifle and these so called "assault weapons" even outside AR variants are extremely popular, it's failing that case as well. 

Should the case rule in favor of overturning the bans, we would likely see the collapse of many attempts by states to attempt to end run the Bruen and Heller rulings. It would be pretty explicit rejection of the modern gun control movement and states that have these kinds of assault weapons bans on the books would either have to repeal them or face court cases they would almost certainly lose. Either way, I'd say within a year or two of the decision, most or even all AR-15 bans will be gone and the lower courts would be a lot more reluctant to try and support more gun control laws. 

The case will be heard during the October SCOTUS session and will likely be decided around this time next year. Indeed, I would expect it to be the last case to be revealed, like the birthright citizenship case was decided today. I'd say there's more than an 80% chance that the case will be overturned and the AR-15 will be protected.