DOLLY, PSYCHOKILLERS, AND THE PROBLEM WITH HIPPA

         The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 supposedly protects confidential health information from public disclosure.  That is one of its stated purposes.  Like many sinkholes of cumbersome federal law and regulations, it wastes millions of hours for doctors and patients every year, but it does the job it is supposed to do.  It is very hard to get someone else’s medical records unless you are their doctor, a parent, or an insurance company.

         Back in 1996, this seemed an important goal, and perhaps it was.  Since then, however, we have learned that public health authorities like state departments of health and the CDC, and private repositories of health information, like pharma companies and insurers, cannot be trusted to provide us with accurate and timely news on current health issues and crises.  They also routinely cite HIPPA and vague considerations of “confidentiality” as their explanation for keeping us in the dark, and there’s not much we can do about it. 

         A recent example occurred in Pennsylvania when Governor Josh Shapiro announced, with press in attendance, that two people in Lancaster County had died from the measles.  This was big news because, though there have been thousands of measles cases in the U.S. in 2026, there had been no measles deaths.  (There are, however, three confirmed deaths from the MMR vaccine this year.)

         Pushback was immediate.  The first response was from the Coroner of Lancaster County, who noted that the determination of a measles death in Lancaster County, and its public disclosure, was his job, and there had been no such event.  Based on this announcement, Secretary of HHS Robert F. Kennedy Jr. questioned Shapiro’s actions and suggested that the Pennsylvania governor had fabricated the story for political reasons.

         Then, despite repeated requests for details on the deaths, Shapiro clammed up and refused to divulge anything further, claiming it would violate some vague confidentiality concerns regarding the two dead people.  All this despite the fact he personally had started the whole controversy by stepping outside of his authority and expertise to grab a headline with the first two (supposed), measles deaths of the year.

         The invocation of HIPPA or other confidentiality concerns in this situation is, of course, absurd.  HIPPA does prohibit the disclosure of health information until fifty years after a person’s death.   However, literally NO ONE cares who these measles victims were---their names, addresses, religion, skin color….  The only thing anyone cares about is whether they had the measles and whether they died from it.  But “confidentiality” is always the explanation of Shapiro and others who suddenly want the story to go away and don’t want anybody to know anything the authorities choose not to share with us.

         HIPPA is routinely used this way by governments and pharma to conceal information of great interest to the public.  Without access to critical information, we are given no choice in the matter and are forced to take the word of the CDC, the Shapiros of the world, and other public health “experts” on matters where the public should have the final say. 

         Dolly Parton’s rather sudden departure raised similar questions to which we will apparently never get the answers.  We were only told she died after a “brief battle with cancer.”   It is also well known she was an ardent advocate for COVID vaccines, took the vaccine herself, and contributed a million bucks to the Vanderbilt University Medical Center to speed the development of Moderna’s product.  (She even changed the words of “Jolene, Jolene, Jolene” to “vaccine, vaccine, vaccine” to promote the jab.)

         For those of us (i.e., half the country), who want the COVID vaccine banned because of the deaths and injuries it has caused, the words “brief battle with cancer” raise instant red flags, suggesting Dolly Parton died of a turbo cancer.  These have not been definitively proven to be caused by COVID vaccines, but they did not exist before the mRNA vaccines were pushed on all of us.  Turbo cancers, which are often breast cancers or colorectal cancers, behave in ways that do not resemble cancers with which we are familiar.  They are so aggressive they can kill in days or weeks rather than months or years.  Also, they often attack people in their 20s.

         Whether Dolly Parton died of such a cancer is a matter of great public interest not because she was a superstar but because of the dangers we all may face from these vaccines.  I can understand the desire of the family for privacy about her cause of death, but the importance of this information outweighs any confidentiality concerns.  All of us have lived through a terrifying experience with COVID and COVID treatments that changed many lives and killed many people.  To the extent HIPPA prevents us from learning the truth about her cancer and any recent COVID booster history, it is bad law, and should be changed.

         Even more troubling was the secrecy that descended over the death of Hank Aaron.

         On January 5, 2021, when the COVID vax was just being rolled out to the public, Hank Aaron took the jab on TV in Atlanta with civil rights figures Andrew Young and Louis Sullivan.  Black people were especially suspicious of the vaccine, and the public inoculation was an attempt to allay some of the fears in that community.

         Seventeen days later, on January 22, Aaron died in his sleep.  He was 86 years old and had some health issues that 86-year-olds have, but he was not sickly or dangerously ill or suffering from any fatal disease.

         Questions arose immediately about the vaccine, and the Moorehouse Medical Clinic, which had organized the public event, stated: “His passing was not related to the vaccine, nor did he experience any side effects from the immunization.”   This added to the problem, of course, since the Moorehouse Medical Clinic had no apparent basis for either assertion.  Other public health authorities in Atlanta then stated that Aaron had died of “natural causes,” but no actual cause of death was ever announced.

         Aaron’s death occurred at a time when the COVID vax had just been given an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), but people all over the world were concerned about its safety.  Complete and accurate information about Aaron’s death and the effect of the experimental vaccine would have been immensely helpful to those of us trying to decide whether the shot was safe for us and our families, but the response of politicians and health authorities and pharma companies was simply, ”Trust us.  Nothing to see here.  We will tell you what’s best for you.”  And they had HIPPA to fall back on.  The information the world wanted would be sealed for fifty years.

         During the COVID madness, public health authorities and pharma companies routinely used HIPPA to prevent any effective examination of their claims that millions were dying from the disease rather than from other conditions or from the vaccine.  If you had COVID, or had had it recently, or had one of the multitude of false-positive PCR tests, and you died, COVID was the official cause of death and that was that.  “But wasn’t he 93 years old with congestive heart failure?” you might ask.  “Yes, but the death certificate says COVID, you see.  No further information will be forthcoming.”

         And then there was Bronny.

         Bronny James, eldest son of LeBron James, was a student and basketball player at USC when, at a basketball practice on July 24, 2023, he collapsed from a cardiac arrest.  Bronny survived, and the attack was later attributed to an unspecified congenital heart defect, but none of the obvious questions about the incident were ever answered.

         One of the more well-known, and terrifying, side-effects of the mRNA vaccines is myocarditis, especially in men.  During the pandemic, recently-vaccinated young male athletes collapsed and died on soccer pitches and other sports venues around the globe.  So it was natural to wonder whether Bronny had recently gotten a COVID booster, especially since USC had imposed a vax mandate on every student.  Sorry, we were never going to get an answer to that one.  Just asking the question marked you as a kook.

         The same questions arose when Damar Hamlin, a safety for the Buffalo Bills, suffered a heart attack on January 2, 2023, in a Monday Night Football game against the Cincinnati Bengals.  And again, not only did the questions never get answered, but the people asking the questions were mocked as anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists.

         And the COVID vaccines are not the only area where governments and pharma companies (but I repeat myself), use “confidentiality” to conceal critical information from the public.

         Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI) drugs have been around for almost forty years, since Prozac (from Eli Lilly) hit the market in 1988.  Pfizer’s Zoloft and GSK’s Paxil soon followed.  Supposedly, these anti-depressants could do almost anything and were marketed as being capable of changing fundamental aspects of one’s personality.  Lose your shyness!  Demand a promotion!  Stop smoking!

         Pharma companies were criticized for the hype, and for failing to investigate possible side-effects, especially when studies emerged that showed a link between SSRIs and homicidal urges.  Lawsuits followed, with SSRIs found legally responsible for several specific killings.

         One of the first involved an Australian man who killed his wife after he was prescribed Zoloft---a judge found the man not guilty because he acted under the influence of the drug.  In a Wyoming case, a man killed his wife, children, and himself 48 hours after being put on SSRIs, leading to an award of damages from GSK.

         (A brief aside here.  We all watch drug commercials with long lists of side-effect warnings ranging from heart problems to vision loss to joint soreness to memory issues, and I don’t take them any more seriously than you do---“Oh, it’s just the lawyers talking.”   But one of the side effects of SSRIs, almost from the beginning, was that people who take them MAY KILL OTHER PEOPLE!  And I know it doesn’t happen very often, but if it happens once, isn’t that a reason to stop selling the damn things???  I mean, it’s not an upset tummy.  It’s not the runs.  It’s not insomnia.  Yet somehow the SSRIs are still out there because…because…well, I guess innocent people being murdered is just one of those occasional side-effects we all need to accept---sort of like diarrhea, only more permanent.)

         Yet despite the proven link between SSRIs and violent crimes, we are never told whether a particular psycho-killer was taking these drugs when he went on his spree.  HIPPA protects his confidential health information for fifty years after his death (usually by suicide).  Coincidentally, HIPPA also protects the manufacturers and the prescribers of SSRIs from any responsibility to the victims or their families.

         On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho perpetrated the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history when he killed 32 and wounded 17 before killing himself at Virginia Tech University.  Cho had had numerous visits with mental health professionals and had been diagnosed with severe anxiety problems.  And though some of his health records were released two years after his rampage, his treatment and medications (or lack thereof), were never revealed.

         The question may legitimately be asked about any recent mass killer.  Was there a prior mental health history (often there was), and was the killer taking SSRI anti-depressants?  Yet the information is never released to the public.  

         Why not?

         Today, there is a particular group of troubled people---transgenders---and we are not permitted any information about their prescriptions and drug intake even after they have committed multiple murders.

         A study of gender dysphoria patients from 2005 to 2021 found that 40% of them had been put on SSRIs at one time or another.  About individuals, however, we know nothing.

         Harvey Marcelin killed three people, in 1963, 1986, and 2022.  Audrey Hale killed six at the Covenant School in Nashville in 2023.   Snochi Mosely killed three co-workers at Rite-Aid in 2018.  All were known transgenders and potentially on SSRIs.  But were they?  And if so, could the drugs have driven them to violence?  Under current law, we will never know.

         The motives behind the passage of HIPPA may have been noble at the time, and even justifiable, but we have since learned the dangers of giving government officials and their allies tools to keep us ignorant of data we need to make decisions on critical issues of public health.  One of the primary lessons of the COVID debacle was that the power-hungry will use their lock on information to control us, punish dissenters, and enrich themselves and their allies.

         I am not here to present a comprehensive plan on how parts of HIPPA should be repealed and other parts amended, and I don’t deny that individuals can have legitimate privacy interests in their medical information.  However, these interests should largely disappear upon the death of the individual, and they should disappear entirely if the person died while committing murders or other violent crimes.  In addition, when there is a case like Dolly Parton or Hank Aaron, whose deaths raised serious issues of public health, there must be a procedure available for the public, or journalists, to argue that a compelling public interest overrides the desires of the family for silence.

         HIPPA, like many massive programs borne of federal legislation, has become a system where the unintended consequences now overwhelm its original innocent-sounding purposes.  It was supposed to protect you and me.  Instead, it protects pharma companies, nameless bureaucrats, and insurance companies from any liabilities for their lethal mistakes. 

Copyright2026MichaelKubacki      

  

FIXING THE WNBA

         Almost all of the ranting and controversy in the WNBA at the moment concerns transgender issues:  NBA star Enes Kanter submitting himself for the  draft, Sophie Cunningham arguing boys should not be allowed in women’s sports, and the league holding meetings on what the “W” stands for.

         It’s a diverting topic for social media pontification, but it’s not a very serious issue.  However the rules get written or re-written, biological men, or trans women or men “identifying” as women, or whatever you want to call them. will not be allowed to play in the WNBA.  Nobody would watch.  The league would close up shop in a month.

         The real problem is the violence fueled by racism and other identitarian hatred.  The league stars have mostly been black women, many of whom are gay, and they hate Caitlin Clark because she is now not only the WNBA’s best player, but she is white and heterosexual as well.  This year, the hatred has also devolved onto Sophie Cunningham, Caitlin’s friend and teammate, who is also white and straight.

         There is no other reasonable explanation for the behavior of Alyssa Thomas, Jacy Sheldon, Brittney Griner and others in recent weeks, but Cathy Engelbert, the WNBA Commissioner, has been unable or unwilling to deal with the problem or even address it.   Racism, violence and hatred, however, do not go away until they are named, confronted, and punished.

         Since Engelbert has not dealt with it, the WNBA needs a new commissioner.  He or she must be black and must be a respected figure in the world of basketball.  He must make it clear to all that vicious play will be punished by fines and suspensions, and that any hint that the violence is motivated by hatred (e.g., tweeting “white privilege” after attacking a white player), will result in season-long or lifetime bans from the league.

Copyright2026MichaelKubacki   

                   

UNPOPULAR POLITICAL OPINIONS

         1.     People Should Not Be Encouraged to Vote

The mayor of Las Vegas, Shelley Berkley, recently lamented the less-than-20% turnout in our recent primaries, and described voting for elected officials as "the most sacred right of being an American citizen.”  She is wrong about that.  The most sacred right of our citizens is to be left alone if they choose not to participate in politics.

 

You hear this complaint frequently, usually from do-gooder politicos like The League of Women Voters and such.  When people stay home, it’s a disgrace, you see, and a plague upon our democracy.  How can we increase turnout?  Why can’t we get more people to vote?  Maybe we should give them a lottery ticket for voting.  Maybe we should require it, and punish those who don’t show up.  Some countries do.

 

But what exactly is the argument, Mayor Berkley?   How does it benefit the body politic if people who choose to know nothing about the candidates and issues are pressured to vote anyway?   And why is it any of your business how citizens prioritize their interests and activities so long as they live lawful and productive lives?

 

It is especially annoying for elected officials themselves to encourage increased voting.  They sometimes even use public money for “Get Out the Vote” campaigns, even though there is a fundamental conflict of interest when they do so.  For some politicians, more votes will increase their chances of victory; others benefit when turnout is lower.  The ones who push for a higher turnout mostly seek to increase their own electoral prospects; their pleas have nothing to do with the civic responsibilities they may claim to espouse.

 

Some citizens listen to speeches, read brochures, and research the candidates.  Then they vote.  I’m that kind of guy.  But other people have other views and other lives.  They may feel they don’t have time, or they have more important things to do, or the candidates they are offered are not worth their time or trouble.  In a country like ours where the government grows bigger and bigger every day, it is easy to forget that one of our basic rights is to be left alone to live our lives in peace, as we see fit.  And that may mean avoiding, to the extent possible, the intrusions and collectivism that surrounds us. 

 

 

2. The Age of Consent is Far too High

 

Beginning in 1880, a revolution occurred in age of consent (for sex) laws in America.  There is no federal law of consent, but in 1880, most states set the consent age between 10 and 12.  By 1920, almost every state had raised the age to at least 16.  Today, all 51 jurisdictions (including D.C.) have set it to at least sixteen.  Eleven jurisdictions have the age of consent at eighteen.

 

Many of these laws have “close-in-age” exemptions concerning sex between people who are bothbelow the statutory age. Thus, two fifteen-year-olds having intercourse is not a crime anywhere.  However, when a 19-year-old boy jumps in the sack with his 17-year-old girlfriend, there are places where he is committing a felony, even if she asked him to and she is a freshman at Harvard.

 

The raising of the age of consent conflicts with the reality that teens are much more sophisticated and knowledgeable than they were in the past.  Without speculating on what 12-year-olds in 1880 knew about sex, 12-year-old girls today know exactly what it is and they have seen it on the internet.  In other words, when a teenage girl decides to have sex with a 22-year-old guy, she knows exactly what she is doing.  Consent laws are not designed to protect her from predators, but rather to prevent her from making “bad decisions” the government or her elders disapprove of.  It’s a power play, and in a free society, it’s oppression.  She owns her body just as much as you own yours and she should have just as much right to do with it as she pleases. 

 

Then there are other scenarios that require more thought than the how-old-are-you-and-how-old-is-she laws involving the age of consent.  What if he’s fifteen and she is his twenty-eight-year-old English teacher?   Well, we can all agree that she should expect a pink slip from the school principal, but do any of us feel in our hearts that jail time should be an option?  I’m sorry if this shocks you, but boys and girls are different, no matter what the 1964 Civil Rights Act says.

 

And what about the boy who is fifteen and wondering if he is gay and wondering what to do about it?  Suppose there is a man in the neighborhood who everybody says is “queer” and the boy is polite to him and they become acquainted and sex happens? Again, the question is not whether “good decisions” have been made, or whether the behavior itself may be distasteful to many.  The question is whether anyone should be fined or imprisoned or labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life. 

 

From these examples, it may have occurred to you that there is a fundamental problem with the way these laws are constructed.  They are black and white rules, but they cover human situations with many possible variables.  If she is 18, she’s legal.  If she’s 17, you are a felon.  You are a felon even if she told you she is 22 and she looks like she is 22 and she has a driver’s license that says she is 22 and you genuinely believe she is 22.

 

There are situations where it may be fair to draw legal lines this way.  If you misinterpret an income tax regulation and you wind up underpaying your taxes by $10,000, most of us would understand a prosecutorial approach featuring strict liability.   Pay your taxes or you’re on the hook.  Period.  Check your returns.  Hire an accountant.  Whatever.  Unlike the age of consent issue, there’s no morality involved in paying your taxes---nobody likes it but everybody has to do it--- so there is little objection if there are hard and fast rules, with no backtalk allowed. 

 

Refusing to recycle your beer cans is another example.  You may believe recycling laws are stupid, and you may be correct, but if your town has a recycling law you will get a ticket.  We don’t care what you think.  If you don’t like the recycling law, you can always move. 

 

But two people deciding to have sex with each other is nothing if not nuanced and complicated and morally complex.  Why do we REFUSE to listen to any explanation about what he thought or what she thought or who they are or what their motives were?

 

There is a simple reason.  The courts and the government don’t want to hear about it.  If explanations or excuses were permitted, every prosecution would be disputed.  Jury trials would be demanded.  Witnesses would be called to testify about intimate and embarrassing facts and histories.  Age of consent laws allow no explanations because, if they did, judges and juries would have to listen to them for hours, and they don’t want to.  Who would want to listen to that crap all day long?

 

The reason age of consent laws are enforced so strictly is understandable, but it remains unfair to the “criminals” who get snagged by them.

 

But there is a solution.  Lower the age to a point where reasonable people will not object to harsh enforcement.  If the law allows consent at age 12 and the girl is actually only 11, no one will be swayed by the defense of: “Hey!  It’s not fair.  I thought she was 13.” 

 

 

 

3.    Felons Should Not Have Gun Rights Taken Away

 

      Federal law, in 18 U.S.C. 822 (g)(1), prohibits anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison (the fed definition of a felony), from possessing any firearm or ammunition.  It is a lifetime ban, and it includes long guns.  Note that these crimes are punishable by one year in jail.  You may get probation and never spend a day in chokey, but if your crime might have been punished by a year in jail (e.g., lying to an FBI agent even though you were not under oath), you are a felon.   All fifty states also impose restrictions on felons possessing or owning guns.

 

In 1828, Webster’s Dictionary defined a felony as a crime punishable by death.  Today, with our current definitions, there are about 17 million felons in the U.S.  Harvey Silverglate’s famous 2009 book, “Three Felonies a Day,” makes the case that under state and federal laws, each of us routinely and unknowingly commit about three felonies a day.  There are hundreds of state and federal laws the violation of which is punishable by one year or more.

 

There are many other disabilities applied to convicted felons.  They are often barred from voting or holding political office or obtaining various commercial licenses.  And these prohibitions apply to all felons, whether their crime involved the use of a gun or whether it was violent at all. There are bribe-takers and drug users and swindlers and tax-evaders who, upon conviction, become second-class citizens for the rest of their lives.

 

These laws date to a time when there were only a handful of felonies on the books and all of them were serious crimes of violence.  At that time, 200 years ago, barring a tiny group of truly bad people from having guns or exercising other rights may have been justifiable.  But today, these laws alter our society by creating a subclass of citizens who cannot fully participate in it.  In addition, the laws prevent a large group of people, many of whom are not violent at all, from exercising fundamental human rights like the right of self-defense.  Some felons live in very dangerous neighborhoods and are unable to protect themselves and their families.  Nothing is ever gained by rendering potential victims of violence defenseless against the real dangers in the world. 

 

Copyright2026MichaelKubacki  

Does Anybody Really Want An EV?

          The NYT Magazine had an (unintentionally) humorous article Sunday on the recent history of the electric car market.  “The American EV Has Been Crushed,” NYT Mag, 7-26-26.

         It is impossible to report on electric vehicles without at least mentioning the hefty subsidies governments provide for these products because—you know---climate change, so the article discusses the subsidies in passing, but attributes the rise and fall of EVs around the world to consumer preferences for this or that model or for this or that manufacturer or for this or that technology. 

         Reading the article, however, there is only one conclusion a rational person can draw: that subsidies are the ONLY reason people buy EVs.  Here in the US, for example, the $7500 purchase subsidy from the federal government ended last year and the domestic market for EVs has crashed.  This happened even though huge government subsidies remain.  EV owners, for example, are exempt from state and federal gasoline taxes because they don’t buy gasoline, but even that has not prevented the US EV market from falling apart.

         In Europe, on the other hand, the subsidies remain and they are much higher.  The article notes that in Norway, 92% of new cars are EVs.  With gasoline there at $8.50/gallon, even I would have to give up my 1963 Cadillac.

         I have wondered for thirty years whether consumers WANT electric cars.  But we will never find out until consumers have to pay their own money for them.

 

Copyright2026MichaelKubacki

BOAT RACE

I’ve watched a good bit of the World Cup, mostly for the drama and pageantry and excitement.  I was in Philadelphia’s Reading Terminal Market at noon on the day Brazil played Haiti, and the scene was full of fun and energy, with hundreds of yellow-jerseyed fans lining up for pork sandwiches and cheesesteaks and soft pretzels, and singing their team songs.  I can’t say I follow the game or root for a particular team, but I was prepared to be a soccer fan for a couple of months.

 

In other words, I wanted to like the damn thing, and I did at first, but the tournament, as run by FIFA, will offend any real sports fan.

 

I will not dwell on the suspension of U.S. star Folarin Bologun, and his reinstatement following a phone call from Donald Trump to FIFA President Gianni Infantino, except to point out the only conclusion one can draw from the incident---that FIFA and Infantino really don’t care what the world thinks of their integrity and honesty.

 

Regardless of the merits of the Balogun suspension, there was only one possible response to Trump’s plea that would preserve some hint or intimation or soupcon or suggestion that FIFA and Gianni were on the square---the appeal HAD TO BE DENIED, perhaps with an explicit statement that FIFA had been reviewing the suspension but that the process was terminated when the American President attempted to intervene in FIFA’s internal deliberations. 

 

Instead, Infantino, the guy who invented the FIFA Peace Prize and presented it to Trump last December, rolled over.  He didn’t care what his actions said about FIFA and himself.  Or perhaps, in a perverse way, he did.   There is a dictatorial, boss-man mindset in some dictatorial bossmen that doesn’t want to be viewed as fair or impartial.  They just want the world to know THEY are in charge and if you don’t like it, the hell with ya.  Maybe that is the explanation. 

 

But that’s the executives, and bureaucrats, and Trump, and politicians.  It’s not what happens on the field, right?  The problem is that what happens on the field is even worse.

 

Results of games have been pre-arranged, either by refereeing or by agreement of the teams.  The Algeria-Austria match, for example, occurred in the final round of the group stage where a draw would give each squad a single point and allow both to proceed to the elimination rounds.  With Algeria leading 3-2, the final minute of the game featured an absurd spectacle where seven Algerians gathered near the left sideline while an Austrian was permitted to head the tying goal into the net.  The refs then whistled the game over before any more action could occur.

 

Then there was Iran’s surprising elimination when they had taken a 2-1 lead with seconds left in their final match against Egypt.  Their winning goal would have advanced them into the elimination rounds, but it was taken down based on an offsides alert from the Video Assistant Referee (VAR).  The on-field referee did not make the call himself, and the VAR “proof” is still being disputed.  But taking down the goal sent Iran home, which is all anyone wanted, apparently.

 

And that is the fundamental problem with the officiating.  The goal removals and delayed penalty calls only benefit the good guys, the teams FIFA likes and that are “supposed” to advance.  Nobody wanted Iran in the tournament in the first place, and somehow they wound up getting screwed.  Coincidence?

 

And no one is “supposed” to win more than defending champ Argentina with its beloved aging superstar Lionel Messi.

 

In the round of 16, the Argentines faced Egypt, and with the clock ticking away in the second half, the Egyptians forced a turnover in their own end, took the ball all the way down the field and scored to go up 3-0, which would have been an impossible margin for Argentina to overcome.  The referee then reviewed the VAR footage from the other end of the field and decided Egypt had to be penalized for the steal that had happened 40 seconds before the goal was scored.   This took down the goal and allowed the Argentines to execute their “miracle” comeback.

 

In the next game, the quarter-final match against Switzerland, Argentina took a 1-0 lead into the second half.  The Swiss, however, began to dominate play and scored a goal to tie.  IMMEDIATELY after the tying goal, the ref threw out one of the Swiss players, leaving Argentina with an extra man advantage for the remainder of regular time and overtime.  With the Swiss offense hamstrung, Argentina won easily.

 

Defenders of world soccer and the status quo will tell you that VAR, with its embedded cameras and lasers, allows much more accurate officiating.  But as we have seen, that is not what it is used for.  Since the on-field ref maintains complete authority to use VAR suggestions or reject them entirely, the video is used only as CYA evidence by a referee who wants to go back in time to make a call he didn’t make when it happened.  The Egypt penalty that was discovered only after the team had driven the length of the field and scored a goal is ample proof of that.

 

“Boat race” is an archaic bit of slang that only ancient horseplayers like me remember.  Nobody uses it anymore, not even horseplayers.  It means a fixed horse-race.   For many years, the race after the Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs was reputed to be a boat race, and it may have been.  It was the perfect time to cheat since, after the Derby, nobody was paying much attention. 

 

As a sports fan, I am appalled by the World Cup.  It appears to be a boat race for Argentina.   That doesn’t mean they will necessarily win it all, since France and Spain and England will probably not cooperate.  (It’s not like pro wrestling where the loser knows he is supposed to lose.) It does mean that FIFA and its officiating will do everything in their power to send Messi and company out in a blaze of glory.

 

Copyright2026MichaelKubacki

THE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASE---CLARENCE THOMAS MISSES ONE

         “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”  ---Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1

 

         On June 30, the Supreme Court released its decision on birthright citizenship, with Justice Roberts writing for the majority in upholding the interpretation that has been generally accepted for the past 160 years.  In a 91-page opinion by Clarence Thomas, three justices dissented.

 

         Commentary on both sides has been harsh, especially from the losing side.  I have seen Roberts’ opinion described as “absurd,” and Thomas’s dissent called “brilliant” and a “tour de force.”  I don’t think either opinion is especially insightful or wise, and I’ll tell you why.

 

         First of all, the proper interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is not that complicated or open to varied meanings.  If we are “originalists,” which is supposedly what most of the Court is, all we do is look to the plain meaning of the words when they were written.  “Born or naturalized in the United States” is not at all fuzzy or ambiguous, and it means the same thing today as it did 160 years ago.  “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is also as clear as an azure sky despite the extraordinary efforts to muddy its meaning.

 

         We are talking about babies here, remember, because babies are the ones who get born.  We are not talking about their parents or the parents’ DNA or their nationality or homeland.  The ONLY question is whether the baby, the little guy or gal who got born here, is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the USA.  And of course the answer is yes.  He gets a birth certificate here instantly, and a social security number a few days later.  From the moment of his first breath, he is a tax deduction for somebody on their 1040.  If he is destitute, he is immediately eligible for welfare benefits here.  In a few years, he will be claimed by authorities in the education bureaucracy.

 

         In addition, there is no other jurisdiction with a claim on him.  Even if his parents are Guatemalan citizens, Guatemala will not even know he exists.  His parents may someday inform Guatemala they have a kid, and Guatemala may recognize the baby as one of theirs, but that may or may not ever happen.  All we know at the moment of birth is that the baby is a “person born…in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

 

         That should have been the Roberts opinion.  He should have taken my last three paragraphs and called it a day.  But Roberts blithers.  He often blithers, and it gets him into trouble.  Here, Roberts wanders off into an analogy about the English Common Law and what it meant to be a “subject” of the sovereign in 1608.  He has gotten endless grief and mockery for this, and he deserves it because, well, being a subject of the king of England in 1608 has nothing whatever to do with being a citizen of the US under the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

         Of course, Clarence Thomas does the same thing in his dissent.  Most of his “authority” is from academic articles and remarks by Congressmen (rather than from case law), but one case he cites multiple times is The Pizarro, 15 U.S. 227 (1817) which involved, believe it or not, the interpretation of a 1795 treaty with Spain and whether the ship was actually “Spanish” when it was seized by privateers.  It is certainly arguable that Thomas’s analogy is even less relevant than Roberts’ who-is-a-subject-of-the-king musings.

 

         The most troubling part of Thomas’s dissent, however, comes just after his citation of The Pizarro when he completely mischaracterizes the holding of The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, a very important and often-cited Supreme Court opinion from 1873.

 

         First, Thomas writes, “This Court agreed: The Citizenship Clause ‘exclude[d] from its operation children of…citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.’  Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73 (1873).”  Thomas Dissent, p.4.

 

         Interesting!  The ellipsis by Thomas conceals a world of meaning.  The actual language of the Slaughter-House opinion is this: “The phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.” Thus does Justice Thomas subtly try to score points for his side with a proposition that no one really disputes: children of foreign ambassadors or consuls do not become US citizens just by being born here.

 

         Worse than this, however, is Thomas’s omission of the next paragraphs from the Slaughter-House Cases, which nail down the OPPOSITE of what Justice Thomas claims the case holds: 

 

         

“The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established.

 

Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union. (Emphasis added.)

 

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.”

 

Slaughter-House Cases, 83 Wall. 73-4.

 

         There is one rather obvious reason to exclude these paragraphs---because they demolish Thomas’s argument that a person born in the USA must also be “domiciled” here to be a citizen.  According to the Slaughter-House Cases, the legal meaning of the 14^th Amendment could not be more clear: if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen.  It doesn’t matter where your domicile is. 

 

         This error is more than a little disturbing.  Claiming a case says the opposite of what it actually says is not a little thing.  This is the sort of mistake one might expect from an AI-addled first-year law student, but never from a man regarded as one of America’s greatest legal authorities.  I can only hope this misstatement is brought to Justice Thomas’s attention, and that he takes whatever steps he can to rectify the situation.

 

         Following the six pages of introduction, which concludes with the mistakes noted above, Justice Thomas presents a 45-page argument that citizenship under the 14^th Amendment REQUIRES that the person be domiciled in the United States.  I think the fact that this screed rolls on for 45 pages is itself evidence of its fundamental weakness, but there is a much bigger problem.  Not only do the Slaughter-House Cases explicitly hold that there is no requirement of domicile for citizenship to exist, but the 14^th Amendment itself includes no hint that domicile has any relevance at all. 

 

         The word “domicile” has been around for hundreds of years.  It appears in statutes and legal writings that long pre-date the 14^th Amendment.  Every person in Congress and in state legislatures who debated passage of the 14^th Amendment knew the meaning of the word.  I don’t know whether there was any debate over using the word in the text of the Amendment, but there could have been.  In any event, the people who wrote the 14^th Amendment could have used the word “domicile” and, for whatever reason, they chose not to.  Instead of “domiciled” in the United States, they said “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and that makes all the difference.  “Subject to the jurisdiction” is a very different standard from “domiciled.”  Justice Thomas is demanding that we import a different standard into the 14^th Amendment than the standard that is there.

 

         Being “subject to the jurisdiction” of a place is very easy. Almost everyone present in a place for any period is subject to the jurisdiction thereof.  (Exception: diplomatic immunity.)  Being “domiciled” there is much more difficult.

 

         To be subject to the jurisdiction of a place, you need merely pass through it.  If you run through a stop sign while driving through Florida, you may have to pay Florida a fine.  If you spend a night in Nevada and impregnate a woman there, you may be subject to Nevada law for purposes of child support.  You may even be subject to the jurisdiction if you never physically enter a place, but enter into a contractual relationship with someone there.  As the Slaughter-House Cases informs us, “subject to the jurisdiction” excludes almost nobody.  Simply being born here is usually enough to make you a citizen.  “[i]t is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.“   Slaughter-House, 83 U.S. at 74.

 

         Thomas’s proposed “domicile” standard would exclude a large percentage of Americans who have been treated as citizens since birth.  Being “domiciled” somewhere is not easy.  “Domiciled” means you live there, for at least a substantial portion of your time.  You pay taxes there.  If you want to drive, you need a license from the government there.  You may be called for jury duty.  If there is a military draft, you may have to fight for the place.  Justice Thomas would change the common understanding of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and suddenly demand an enormous commitment of time and money and effort from those we have regarded as citizens for the past 160 years.   And all because he feels the word “domicile” should appear somewhere in the 14^th Amendment. 

         

             I think of myself as Clarence Thomas’s biggest fan.  Over the years, I’ve probably read half of his opinions.  His dissent in Gruter v. Bollinger, the affirmative action case, brought tears to my eyes.  I have told friends many times that 250 years from now, his opinions are the only ones that will still be read.

 

         This dissent, however (and I hate to say this), looks suspiciously like a results-oriented piece where the justice decides in advance what he wants the opinion to conclude and then drafts an argument to reach that conclusion.  I have never before seen a Clarence Thomas opinion that made me suspect such a thing.  The leftists on the Court do this all the time, of course.  Roberts also does it often, and he may have done it in this case.

 

         Thomas has certain prejudices, as all of us do, but they are not political in nature, and I’ve never read an opinion of his where I thought his political views tilted his legal judgment.  It would be a shame if, as we approach the end of his brilliant legal career, that began to happen.  

 

Finally, let’s go back to the beginning.  How did we get here?

 

         President Trump’s Executive Order, signed on January 20, 2025, put forth the most extreme position he could possibly have adopted on birthright citizenship.  For 160 years, Congress, courts, and presidents had understood and accepted that Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment meant that babies born in this country (with a few exceptions), were citizens.  Trump attempted to change that history by edict.

 

         There is nothing in our laws that permits a president to change unilaterally the meaning of a Constitutional provision.  Section 5 of the 14^th Amendment states that “The Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”  But Trump wasn’t interested in that.  He decided he could personally reverse generations of legal meaning because he didn’t like the accepted interpretation.  And he probably believed that once his views became law, hundreds of thousands of people who thought they were American citizens would have to go “home” to places they had never even visited, like Mexico, Pakistan, and Syria. 

 

         If the concern is “birth tourism” or anchor babies, there is still nothing that prevents Congress from enacting “appropriate legislation” to address those issues and further the aims of the 14^thAmendment.  It is even possible that Trump alone could nibble around the edges of current law by Executive Order.  What he CANNOT do is what he did.

 

 This Supreme Court decision is no surprise.  What is surprising is that the decision was not unanimous. 

 

Copyright2026MichaelKubacki