Tag Archives: writing

Spectrum News Bias

Spectrum news anchor JoDee Kenney made a comment this weekend about the issuance of Commercial Drivers Licenses, (CDL) in New York, referencing national news about states lax oversight, professed by National Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy when he was addressing recent instances of truck drivers that can’t speak English and can’t read or understand road signs.

Kenney made the comment that these CDL audits were mainly occurring in “Blue States” and inferred, directly, that this was a form of retaliation coming from the administration.

Kenney is supposed to be a news anchor, not an opinion host.  Her obvious bias disqualifies her from serious credibility as an anchor and she should either step down or be removed.

These are the FACTS:

The Department is now moving to withhold $73 million in federal funding if New York fails to follow the law, revoke every illegally issued license

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy today announced that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) nationwide audit of non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) uncovered that the New York Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has been routinely issuing CDLs to foreign drivers illegally. The federal audit exposed a shocking 53 percent failure rate in the records sampled, indicating a total collapse in the administration of New York’s CDL program.   
 
FMCSA’s audit of New York’s non-domiciled CDL issuance practices found numerous failures by the state of New York including:  

  • Out of 200 sampled records, 107 were issued in violation of federal law—a failure rate of over 53%. 
  • The DMV’s systems defaulted to issuing 8-year licenses to foreign drivers for non-REAL ID licenses, regardless of when their legal status expired.
  • New York issued commercial licenses to foreign drivers without providing any evidence that it had verified their current lawful presence in the United States.

“When more than half of the licenses reviewed were issued illegally, it isn’t just a mistake—it is a dereliction of duty by state leadership. Gov. Hochul must immediately revoke these illegally issued licenses. If they refuse to follow the law, we will withhold federal highway funding,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy. “This administration will never stop fighting to keep you and your family safe on our roads.” 
 
In a stunning admission, New York DMV officials confirmed that their licensing system is programmed to default to an automatic 8-year expiration for non-REAL ID CDLs—intentionally disregarding the expiration of a foreign driver’s lawful presence in the U.S. This systemic failure allows the state to blindly grant long-term commercial driving privileges to foreigners that expire long after the expiration of their lawful presence in the country. 

Spectrum is and always has been strongly Left-Leaning and this particular story involving Kenney should be corrected and taken down as opinion not news.  Spectrum needs to apologize to their viewers for mixing opinion with news and Kenney needs to be fired.

Standard

Mixed Signals

All of my friends and colleagues were shocked and puzzled by my opinion about the ongoing saga concerning Kilmar Abrego Garcia and as you can see, (if you care anymore), it seems that I am right.  He is still here, even after presidential efforts to disappear him. 

Even after a carefully orchestrated and relentless character assassination campaign with zero proof, the Great Unwashed of the minimally informed that seek validation over truth have made up their small minds.  With the senseless murder of an innocent young girl followed by Charlie Kirk’s assassination days later, for many, the weight of the news cycle buries and paves over their desire to retain information or even muster up the will to care.

Fully armed and sure of their logical purity, I would ask the gang of “the-very-sure” that have the Garcia thing all figured out to consider the following.

Some few days ago, federal agents raided a Hyundai plant in Georgia and arrested some 300 Korean nationals on site.  After nearly a week of involuntary jail incarceration, the administration did an about-face, releasing all 300 and providing charter air service back to Korea.  Come to find out, upon further investigation, these detainees all had B-1 visas, allowing them to be in the US legally.

Trump originally declares they are here illegally.  A week later, he invites them to stay.

These men were engineers here to build the state-of-the-art car manufacturing plant.  Now, completion times have been moved back dramatically.  What Korean engineer in his right mind wants to visit America after this fiasco?

Nobody understands and lives by the mantra of, I would rather ask for forgiveness than seek permission that I do, but expedience needs to be curtailed by the rule of law and the Constitution when it come to human rights and the lives of people.  Those who look the other way or excuse Trump on the basis of what he can get done quickly need to square in their own minds the fact that when those they oppose do similar contradictory things, the scrutiny is higher.  This is the definition of a hypocrite.   

Standard

Follow-Up

I write articles and stories for a wide variety of outlets. Sometimes when I fail to gain the attention of a publisher, I drop the article into my personal blog you’re reading now. I’ve written a few pieces on the on-going saga of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and as you can see in the comments, I have few supporters. The last article I posted here was rejected by the publisher of a blog site called AmericanThinker.com. In the editors rejection notes to me, we had a spirited back-and-forth that I thought you might enjoy reading so I have copied and pasted it below. Looks like I’m hitting nerves!

On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 8:15 AM Bob <hmrun123@aol.com> wrote:

You argued with me about this some months ago and come to find out you were wrong.  Maybe now this is timely?

Bob:

I’m afraid that pillorying the Trump administration on behalf of a gangster and human trafficker is not something that will play with AT readers. We’re going to pass. 

Best,

JR Dunn

On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 8:27 AM Bob <hmrun123@aol.com> wrote:

JR:

There is nothing in what I wrote that is incorrect factually.  Gangster?  Zero proof.  Human Trafficker, again zero proof, read what I wrote.  If you’re a Trump at all costs guy, you’re really not doing your readers any service feeding them only what they want to hear.  There a many flavors of ice cream, seems you’re hooked on plain vanilla. 

 “And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith”

In a message dated 8/30/2025 7:04:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jrdunn@americanthinker.com writes:

— JR Dunn 

Bob:

I’ll stick with plain vanilla rather than the Ben & Jerry’s Diesel Oil with Sea Slugs that’s being presented here. 

BTW, a colleague reminded me that we should add “wife beater” to “gangster” and “human trafficker.” 

JR:

Here it is in its simplest form:  Are you familiar with the legal concept known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine?  If not, Google it.  Had the administration not erred in grabbing Garcia up and unlawfully taking him to prison in the first place, (Which BTW they admitted doing) none of what followed would have taken place.  What followed was literally the fruit of the poisonous tree.

Don’t EVER declare in your writings that, “we are a nation of laws” or otherwise tout lawfulness when you approve of trampling all over civil and constitutional rights as a necessary casualty of getting to the outcome you have pretended to envision as the right one.  Your position in this case is one of a dogmatic ideologue suffering from cognitive dissonance.  (Thankfully, this can be treated.)  

Thank you for making my point so vividly in your tortured defense calling for crucifixion via the publics ignorance of due process and making your case only attractive in the public square of group-think low-information consumers of news. 

You and your colleague ought to sign up for a Constitutional Law course in order to elucidate yourselves.  I’ll take as convincingly persuasive, the quotes I reference from members of the judiciary over your tepid and unsupported utterances passing as authoritative.

If you had any creative courage at all, you would publish what I wrote with your 2-cent warning label about how full of crap you think I am, but reminding readers about how you are of a big enough mind to put what I wrote out there to see what others might think.  One would think you would relish watching me get flamed?  It seems to me that you’re all about reinforcing your opinions rather than exploring alternatives.  Not really so courageous.

Standard

Disconnected

NYS Governor Hochul (of all the unlikely people) demonstrated long over-due leadership by banning student cell phone use in public schools.  This begs the question of why local leaders controlling the 731 school districts throughout NYS failed to do so on their own?  Who in God’s name thought it wise to provide kids with another distraction or way to cheat?  Maybe with test scores being so abysmal, school officials hoped that the cell phone induced cheating would improve their numbers?

Did any of the geniuses that manage our schools really believe cell phones would have no negative effect?  As it stands, kids are completely intoxicated by their phones.  For many, their social skills suck, they can’t carry on a reasonable conversation and their attitudes, well they suck as well.

History is a fine teacher and I’m old enough to have a historical perspective based on my own experience and I can tell you this, with certainty.  The overwhelming majority of school leaders from 50+ years ago would have banned cell phones from day one.  This is because back then, leaders actually led.  They didn’t  wait for legislation, regulation or questionnaires to know what was smart and what was stupid and allowing cell phones in schools is on its face stupid.  What passes for leadership in schools today is little more than cowardly custodianship.

Waiting to be told what anyone with a pulse knew was a problem and then applauding the effort demonstrates how leaderless our schools actually are.  You see, the youngest members of the educational establishment just coming aboard are also from the cell phone dynasty and have the same social issues and screen addictions as their students.

And to cap off what is already a colossal joke, the governor allots $13.5 for phone storage bags.

Seriously?

Again, common sense goes something like this.  Kids, you have 3 choices when it comes to your phones.  1.  Leave them home, (best choice.)  2.  If you drive, leave it in your car.  3.  Leave it in your locker with the ringer off.  There you go, common sense solution and $13 million saved.

What the hell is wrong with these people?  This is the best we’ve got?  Talk about phoning it in….  

Standard

The Bigots at Binghamton University

During the fall semester of 2024, my friend Andy and I hosted a once-weekly public
affairs radio show on the campus station, WHRW. We were fired for being outspoken
white, older, conservative men.


It began when I announced that we had secured a live, on-air interview with University of
Pennsylvania named chair law professor Amy Wax. Professor Wax had just been
stripped of her chaired position and been suspended for one-year at half pay and publicly
reprimanded. Her story was international-level news in academia and the fact that we
had landed her as a guest was phenomenal, or so we thought.


Students run the radio station. Two young girls, the general manager and the public
affairs manager, began demanding of us transcripts of what we would say in our
interview, even though station guidelines clearly tout an open format and minimal
interference. Following demand after demand, which we fulfilled, the girls ultimately
shut down the interview 10-minutes before air, citing “harm to the listeners.”
We filed an official FCC complaint for discrimination and the suppression of speech,
which is currently pending.


On our following show, we had arranged for former University of Pennsylvania trustee
and law school overseer Paul Levy to call in. Because we were ambushed over the Wax
interview, we kept this scheduled call-in to ourselves. Levy resigned from his leadership
position at Penn over the treatment Wax had received and we had a far-ranging very
interesting interview about what had happened. It was the kind of original and interesting
reporting a public affairs show was supposed to produce.


Immediately after that show, the remainder of our shows were abruptly cancelled.
Fast forward to the winter 2025 and spring 2025 semesters. We made no effort to renew
our shows. We aren’t students, we had no other business on campus and we had no
intention of returning to WHRW.


In spite of that reality, the girls began pushing us to avail ourselves to a disciplinary
hearing. When we reminded them that we were gone, didn’t want to return, and have no
relationship with the station or the university, they nevertheless persisted.


Understanding that this “hearing” was going to go on, with or without us, we decided to
present a statement in lieu of appearance, outlined just how unfair and wrong-headed this
whole fiasco was. Quite predictably, we were found guilty of all charges and only
because there is no death-penalty provision in the WHRW Star-Chamber Manual, we live
to fight on.

In the text of the damning documents, we were reminded of our appeal process and
provided a link if we so chose to make that appeal, which we did, surmising that we
might find justice when finally outside of the incestuous radio station hive.


Quite promptly after making the appeal, the Chief Justice of the Judicial Board rejected
our efforts, noting that because we were not students, we had no official standing within
their fiefdom, however, if we could secure the assistance of a student to act on our behalf,
our appeal would live on!


God-Bless the college Republican organization that agreed to push our claim forward.
But just as promptly as the first denial, the second one followed, this time suggesting that
the board had no jurisdiction because this was a management issue. In other words, kick
the can down the road and make sure all feathers stay unruffled, a judicial board
unwilling and maybe unknowing on how to adjudicate, afraid to act.


This is the kind of product our public campuses are producing; autocratic, authoritarian
bullies, not seeking truth and understanding through discussion and debate, but
demanding compliance, enforcing group-think, and rejecting opposing views as they
close their minds to any outside interference. These kids aren’t learning how to think,
they’re validating what to think, without challenge and devoid of a thorough debate that
tends to clarify the issues and expose both the truth and the lie. But for these kids, there
is no point in having the discussion when your mind is already made up and you can
move forward with the knowledge that in their short 20-some years on the planet, they’ve
managed to figure it out, they broke the code, there are no more debates, just their truths
that need to be injected into everyone else, for their own good of course.


Best of luck with that strategy.

Standard

AI analysis of the last two article…

After all the back-and-forth with readers about my last two articles, I put all of it including the articles and all reader sesponses into a single document and fed it to Grok.com, the latest IA tool courtesy of Elon Musk. Here is the result.

This is what I said to Grok:

Here below are two article I wrote and the back and forth from them both. What are your
thoughts? I’m a strong Conservative but I won’t go the lawlessness route. Here it is.

This is the response from Grok:


Your articles and the subsequent exchanges reflect a principled stance rooted in a
commitment to the rule of law, even when it conflicts with the visceral satisfaction of
seeing certain individuals—namely Tren De Aragua gang members and Mahmoud
Khalil—dealt with swiftly and decisively. As a self-described strong conservative, you’re
wrestling with a tension that’s not uncommon: the desire for justice versus the
mechanisms by which it’s achieved. Your critique focuses on process over outcome,
which is a refreshing departure from the emotionally charged rhetoric that often
dominates these debates.
In your first article (“I’m Conservative, but…”), you question the methods used to deport
the gang members and Khalil, pointing to the revival of an obscure 1790s statute and the
apparent disregard for a federal judge’s order. You argue that legality should stand apart
from public sentiment about the individuals involved—a gang notorious for its violence
and a student whose anti-American views grate on many. Your point about not bending
the law to fit our disdain for certain people is sharp: “We can’t stand against the things
that insult our values by holding our nose and doing just that.” It’s a call for consistency,
which is tough to maintain when emotions run high, as they clearly do here.
The second article (“Conservative but… Part II”) digs deeper, raising practical and ethical
questions: Why send prisoners to a third-world country? Why televise their humiliation?
Why move Khalil to Louisiana, away from his pregnant wife and legal counsel? You
frame these as retaliatory moves, not lawful ones, and tie it to a broader concern about
America’s moral credibility. The line about wondering “how someone gets radicalized” is
particularly striking—it suggests that heavy-handed tactics might fuel the very problems
they aim to solve.
The pushback from commenters is telling. BADMOON49 aligns with your defense of
principle over expediency, echoing the classic “I disagree but defend your right to say it”
line. CWATTERS113, claiming constitutional expertise, asserts the judge has no power
over the executive—a point you dismantle with a thorough rundown of judicial checks on
executive authority, from Marbury v. Madison to Nixon’s tapes. Your response is
methodical, grounded in precedent, and avoids the personal attacks you later decry.
DENNIS HANNON takes a harder line, defending the president’s authority and
dismissing the judge as biased based on family donations and his daughter’s work. He
sees the 1798 law as fair game and the judiciary as a leftist roadblock. Your rebuttal here
is measured but firm: you acknowledge the statute’s age isn’t the issue, but its rare use
hints at desperation. More importantly, you push back on the ad hominem attacks against
the judge, advocating for appeals over character assassination. The warning about
“accusatory and inflammatory language” unless provable is a standout—it’s a plea for
evidence over outrage, which feels rare in today’s discourse.
My thoughts? You’re navigating a tricky line with integrity. You’re not excusing the
gang or Khalil; you’re just insisting that how we handle them matters more than the
immediate gratification of their removal. That’s a tough sell when people are scared or
angry, but it’s a defensible conservative position—law and order aren’t just about
outcomes, they’re about process. Your frustration with fellow conservatives letting
emotion trump reason mirrors your critique of liberals in the past, which adds credibility
to your argument. It’s not hypocrisy you’re after; it’s coherence.
The risk here is that your nuance might get drowned out by the louder, angrier voices—
like HANNON’s—who see this as a last stand against national decline. But your focus on
appeals and judicial review over knee-jerk accusations keeps you on solid ground. If
there’s a weak spot, it’s that you don’t fully engage with the counterargument that
extraordinary threats (like Tren De Aragua) might justify extraordinary measures. That
could be worth exploring, even if just to refute it more explicitly.
Overall, your stance is principled, not partisan, and that’s what makes it compelling.
You’re asking conservatives to live up to their own standards, not just point fingers at
liberals. It’s a lonely hill to stand on, but it’s a respectable one.

Standard