Sure he’s trolling them – but it is also a grand and noble gesture. The hate in America all stems from the Left. They have spent decades dividing people. Saying this group has to hate that. Telling this group they are inherently evil, that other group they can do no wrong. Their lies have bred intense mistrust amongst the American people. But here comes Donald Trump after a decisive victory offering them the olive branch.
While they might end up taking the money, they will reject the peace offer with scorn. Already Democrats are gearing up for another round of #Resist drivel. That is both foolish and wrong of them – it is morally wrong because there is nothing to resist (we aren’t actually bad guys) but it is also foolish. However you may think of Trump, the American people gave him a decisive victory. After nine years of Democrats throwing everything they can at him, the American people considered every point of view and every assertion and awarded a majority of their votes and 312 of their Electoral Votes to Donald Trump. It is done. Over. Finished. Sure, Democrats, start laying your plans for 2026 – that is just politics. But if you go obstructionist on grounds the American people just rejected, you’ll find that the normal mid-term snap back against the ruling party doesn’t happen. The American people want peace and prosperity…not interminable political trench warfare.
Another thing Trump announced as a desire to revive the New York City subway system. After all the evil things NY Democrats have done to Trump, this is something he cares about. Why? Because all patriots want things like the NY subway system to be first rate. If we never, ourselves, set foot in it we want the world to see the vitality and strength of America in our greatest cities. We don’t want it the breeding ground of rats and the abode of lunatics. The majority of the people of New York City voted directly against their own best interests last Tuesday. They are still our fellow Americans and even if they hate us, we want good things for them.
That is the difference between us and our opponents – we don’t hate. It takes too much energy and is a waste of time. We stand amazed at liberals putting up Instagram videos ranting and raving about how much they hate Trump and MAGA. Seriously, you got nothing better to do today? One of the rants becoming common is liberal woman raving about how they won’t have sex with us. This would be a serious threat if most of us weren’t married – and the women in question didn’t make their fashion and makeup choices at the I’m a Raving Nutter Feminist Boutique. I don’t like to comment on women’s looks as it is a sensitive subject: default is that all women are beautiful (and they all are, just by existing). But, woof, some of these liberal chicks would have been passed over at 2 am before the ship has to pull out for a six month deployment. For all I know, they might be pretty girls…but the purple hair, piercings, tattoos and foaming at the mouth kinda blocks that perception.
Yes, we do want our revenge – in fact, we must have our revenge. But not like the Democrats going after Trump and MAGA. We don’t want to falsely accuse people of crimes and drag them through a rigged judicial system. We want miscreants punished. There was a story yesterday about how staff at the Department of Defense is conferring about ways and means of thwarting Trump after he takes office. All of them must first be fired and then, for military, court martialed while the civilians face whatever criminal charges can be made. You can’t do this – that is, you can’t conspire among yourselves to develop the ways and means of undermining the Constitutional authority of the President. We only elected one person to hold Executive authority in the USA – Trump. You might not like it. You might think it was the worst decision ever made – but it was the decision. From 1/20/2025 to 1/20/2029 Donald Trump will be the only person with Executive power in the federal government. All others in the Executive branch can only act on Trump’s authority and may not in any way, shape or form thwart the will of Trump. If he does wrong, blow a whistle. If you can’t agree on the policy, resign. But you can’t refuse to carry out orders.
But that is not the only thing we need to correct. The J6 defendants were one and all unjustly prosecuted. At worst, a few of them should have faced fines or maybe jail sentences up to six months. This is in line with whatever actual law breaking was done that day. The Democrats ginned it up like it was an attempt to overthrow the government – that was just a lie and as the basis of prosecution was false, all convictions are false. Trump has pledged to pardon the J6 defendants and I’m sure he will – but every last person involved in prosecuting them needs to be punished. Everyone involved was engaged in a conspiracy to deny civil rights and everyone involved should go to jail…to sit in the cells they unjustly consigned people to for political purposes. This is done not just to give us satisfaction but because the only way to ensure justice is to make sure that the malicious know the axe comes for them, even if delayed.
We go on: those who organized spying under FISA. Those who thwarted Trump’s orders in his first term. Those who orchestrated social media censorship. People who got a rake off from all the Biden Administration spending. There are very many people who need to be brought into court and punished. This isn’t looking back – it is laying the groundwork for the future. A future in which all Americans know that those who abuse power will not forever get away with it.
But, still, we mostly want to do the joyful things. Securing our border to end the abuse of foreigners in the new slave trade the Biden Administration orchestrated. Sending home those illegally in country. Reviving American manufacturing and energy production so that jobs can become plentiful while prices go down. Returning to the Moon and fostering Musk’s program to get to Mars. You know: start doing the grand, hopeful, American things again.
And we’ll do them for all Americans – including the haters and losers on the Left.
Blogs For Victory 
An addition to the “Why the Left lost” column: they are insane.
One example, in a comment on another post on X:
You can round up a lot of stupid votes from people like this, but if this is 95% of your base you’ve got nothing of substance to bring to the table.
Did he actually offer to give them any money? “whatever we can do to help them” isn’t very specific and doesn’t actually offer to give them any of the cash stockpiled on the Right.
Also, as you point out, You can’t do this – that is, you can’t conspire among yourselves to develop the ways and means of undermining the Constitutional authority of the President. Undermining/sabotaging your government is sedition, and trying to assume its powers is insurrection.
Lawfare and a prison sentence for the Republican, meh (yawn) for the Democrat.
Whatever can we do to help them during this difficult period, I would strongly recommend we, as a Party and for the sake of desperately needed UNITY, do. We have a lot of money left over in that our biggest asset in the campaign was “Earned Media”, and that doesn’t cost very much.
First, just because the left squandered HUGH amounts of money to beat their opponent, the money contributed by good people on the right wanting a better future should NOT be used to bail them out. I think that would reflect negatively on future fundraising if used to help the opposition. The responsibility of the shortfall should fall squarely on the shoulders of those who made bad decisions.
Second, we do need UNITY. However, unity can only be had if both sides work to that end. It can be seen by the fevered pitch of the left to do everything they can to thwart Trump wherever possible, even dreaming up highly questionable ways to do it, just as they’ve done since Trump hit the scene and even well before. They do NOT want unity but dominance, through force if necessary. That is NOT something that should be catered to. We’ve seen the eventual devastation far too often when maniacal power-hungry people are defeated and then dealt a soft hand by their opponents only to later regret it. Think WWI with Germany, and the confederates after the civil war, and Reagan after holding up his end of the amnesty bargain. If not dealt with in a manner that would remove their ability to rise again, they will do just that. Now I have no problem reaching across the aisle, but we MUST use this effort to also acquire a great deal in return, something that will solidify & advance our position.
The responsibility of the shortfall should fall squarely on the shoulders of those who made bad decisions. But the pain is not felt by them, but by the people they are stiffing.
I have seen some comments suggesting that some local businesses, many of them small businesses, are being hurt by the defaulting of the Democrat Party—that they are not necessarily Dem supporters but just doing business with the customers who hire them. And that it might make a powerful statement about the Republican Party being the party of the little guy, the middle class, to pick up some vendor bills.
I haven’t had time to think about this, and I’m not sure how it could be done—-a cutoff debt amount, a cutoff business size, ?????—or if it would be productive. But it would send a message to a lot of people, as well as a thumb in the eye of the Democrat Party.
To the party itself? Not a dime. But to help out those hurt by the party, with lots and lots of publicity for doing so? Mayyyyyyybe. This is a group whose opinions I respect, so I thought I would see what you think.
I understand the mindset of wanting to help those not directly responsible for leftist nonsense, when they were simply hired to do a job to provide goods and/or services. The best way to help them in most cases would be to remove unnecessary bureaucracy, taxes and red tape. That can only be done when good people are elected. Use this so called excess money for that purpose and I think the long-term effect will be much greater.
There may be strategic places to help individuals or unique organizations / businesses now, but spending money given in large part by hard working people needs to be considered carefully. I can see the “no good deed goes unpunished” coming into play in many ways.
I agree, particularly with the observation that people who donated to Trump did so to help him get elected, not to filter through to help Democrats, and also that changes in our entire system will benefit small business owners as well as everyone else.
But to bring it down from the macro to the micro, so to speak, let’s say each Harris rally hired local companies in each town to print the signs that were held by those at the rally. If these are small local print shops they can be badly hurt by a default of, say, $10,000. If the campaign went to a large national print chain to order their signs, the default amount would be larger, but the ability to absorb the loss would be greater as well.
I don’t even know what vendors would be used in a rally or how efficient the campaign managers were in setting up a rally. But let’s say they hired a local tech company to set up the Zoom calls for that Oprah thing. That would be a big contract for a small company, and a default could put them out of business. It’s already paid the employees, bought the equipment, blocked out time that could have been spent on non-deadbeat clients. No future regulations could make up for that. Once employees are laid off, equipment sold, leases canceled, whatever form the damages might take, there is no coming back from that. The only solution is a quick infusion of cash, cash that was counted on because of a contract specifying that it would be paid by a certain date.
Now I know this is all blue sky. I have no way of knowing which vendors are being stiffed, or to what extent. I have no way of knowing if the Harris people tried to use local businesses or just signed on with big national companies and paid no attention to local economies. This is all purely hypothetical. And I’m sure the bulk of the debt is for big expenses, perhaps renting a large facility or signing a contract to pay a celebrity, areas where a default might sting but not be fatal.
But I also know that perception is king. Donald Trump never sold a Big Mac, but his stint at McDonald’s helped shore up the perception of him being “one of us” and part of mainstream America, as opposed to the Liberal elites who dine at the French Laundry. These are the people who elected him. So I think that possibly a well publicized $10,000 check to a small local party company for balloons bought for a rally, to keep it from going out of business, would be a productive use of the money.
This is all 100% speculation but it is an interesting idea, and one brought up by Trump himself, whether in jest or with a hint of seriousness. It’s just that since November 6 I have been thinking in terms of how to start our next campaigns to establish more and better foundations for 2026 and 2028. It might not even be legal to use campaign funds for something like this, but maybe there is a way to use the financial recklessness of the Harris campaign and by extension the whole Democrat Party as the first volley fired in the next stage of the conflict and it could be kept alive and in the minds of the public by doing well publicized bailouts not of big national companies but little local companies hurt by the big-footing Left trampling on them. If small vendors ARE being hurt by this, we are missing a great opportunity by not making the most of it.
I understand the negative impact possibilities on businesses not being paid for work done.
From what I’ve read there are efforts by the democrats and/or Harris’s group to raise more money for this responsibility. I know it’s rather difficult to do when you just lost the election but it will be interesting to see how that plays out. I’m not even sure at this point, who’s responsible for this debt – the DNC, Harris’s election organization, someone else?? That might make a difference.
Having experienced something like this would seem to make it more likely, places effected will want to establish business practices that helps protect against this kind of loss. For example, when receiving an order for printed material, require enough of a down payment such that if you’ve not paid the remainder, it’s not devastating. Also, all such orders should have a signed contract where the ramifications of not paying the full amount in the specified time will initiate notable deterrents, such as lawsuits, where court costs in disputes taken that far along with other potential penalties are paid by the customer, if they are found in default. Often just the threat of such lawsuits can make a difference.
How many businesses will want to take that kind of a risk going forward, doing work for a political party that has a problem paying their bills. It wouldn’t bother me one bit if the left had to pay a premium for their campaign needs and/or find it difficult to find someone to fulfill those needs, because of poor payment history.
You do bring up a good point of whether this money can even be used for that purpose. Though it appears just an initial thought Trump had in relation to this, I do think his intent was more than just words. I imagine, how he proceeds depends on things like the question you asked along with other potential things yet to be looked at. Either way, it would seem this could certainly be used to hinder the DNC going forward.
All excellent thoughts and ideas. But I still come back to the giant “IF”—which is that, IF this were to be implemented in some way it could have an impact on perceptions of both parties that would far exceed the value of the amount actually spent.
I’m not hearing much chatter about radical Leftists burning the country down as a result of Trump’s win. Still, I hope one of the transition contingency plans is to have a good supply of Skunk water on hand, possibly mixed with some kind of permanent dye.
I would think that a bright orange dye would be appropriate. Make it neon for greater night time visibilty.
You and I are on the same page.
I’ve been advocating for that for years now. Non-lethal, yet taking a lot of fun out of rioting.
Professional rioters would be easily identified as they try to go from one riot venue to another, and their masters would be out of pocket to re-outfit them to keep them active. Even new clothes would not make it possible for people to be around them till the skunk spray wore off. I agree with Tim that orange would provide great visibility, but I like the imagery of them being blue, and therefore visually associated linked to the Left.
There is a very fine powder, nearly invisible, that glows under a black light. It is used to try to catch people who take money from petty cash drawers in small businesses, for example. I always thought a drone spraying the very first cadre of rioters, which is going to be the agitators, the instigators, the professionals, with this powder would then make it easy to spot them in airports, bus stations, etc as they try to leave to go to their next venues. Very low-tech, very inexpensive, but an easy way to track them as they cross state lines to riot in other cities and therefore trigger federal charges.
Then hit the next stage of rioters, most of whom I categorize as Recreational Rioters, who join in the fun for various reasons, with skunk spray and permanent dye. Those people think they are so clever with their face shields and so on but the spray will still hit skin, and ruin the clothes. Riot gear ain’t cheap, and neither are the North Face jackets and so on that the youth crowd wears. The advantage to these deterrents is twofold: one, of course, is to perturb the rioters and make rioting a whole lot less fun and a whole lot more miserable, and the other is for identification of the rioters.
If we were to arrest and prosecute the professional rioters, arrest and prosecute those who fund them by paying for their plane tickets and rental cars and hotels and restaurant bills and riot materials like pallets of bricks sent to riot sites, we would within a couple of weeks cut off riot organization at the knees. And I predict that there would be very few people interested in becoming pariahs due to their smell, and being readily identified due to the dye on their skin, and having to burn what they wear to any riot, after the first or maybe second event where steps like this were taken. It has always been within our ability to control riots but for some reason we have not.
As I wrote that I realized that “we” have not because usually “we” are Leftist governments in the states where the riots have taken place. Funniest thing, when Florida arrested people blocking highways and said they would arrest rioters, rioting in Florida pretty much stopped. So it might call for an early EO by President Trump declaring rioting to be a national defense issue, or something to that effect, so federal authority would trump, so to speak, local preferences for having violent riots.
40% of women under the age of 30 (Gen Z) voted for Trump. That’s gotta sting for the Democrats. Getting rid of abortion as a national issue was brilliant and cut Democrats off at the knees
Thinking about the ability of the president to override local authority to impose consistent riot control across the country, I did a little research into what is known as the “Take Care Clause” of the Constitution, and Cornell Law has a really interesting analysis of this. emphasis mine
While I think it obvious that Biden violated the Constitution and his oath regarding the part of the clause I highlighted, I am looking forward to what powers this gives the president. The analysis goes on: again, emphasis mine
Cornell has examples of case law regarding the application of the Take Care clause by presidents in various circumstances and it appears that there is precedent for a president to ensure that laws be enforced.
I take this to mean that there is already at least one SCOTUS ruling that the president has not just the power but the duty to ensure that laws be enforced, and can accomplish this by directing “the head of the appropriate department” to take actions which, if within the law, are “the President’s acts” and therefore not just allowed but decreed by the Constitution. However, the authority of the President is limited to merely instructing the appropriate people to take action, although in the case of dealing with violent uprisings the authority of the president would probably be as “the supreme commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States”—the “militia of the several States” being the state National Guard.
In other words, any effort (such as we have suggested) to deal with rioters would be at the discretion and control of the governor of the state where the riot is taking place, unless a preemptive legal authority had been established shifting this authority to the president as the Commander in Chief of “the militia of the several States” which would require the declaration of these riots as dangers to national security.
And, of course, the use of the National Guard then bumps into the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the military to enforce civil law.
So it’s not cut and dried, and appears that without some extensive legal wrangling and interpretation any riot control will be in the authority and at the discretion of state governors. If there is a reasonable decision that riots interfere with peoples’ civil rights, or that they are violations of federal authority and law, then perhaps the National Guard could be sent in by the president to control a riot even under the objections of a Leftist governor.
There would always be a legal wrangle, but I’d go this route: these rioters always show up on command, don’t they? Someone is paying to organize them…we know this because of what is targeted. When there was alleged anger over the police treatment of George Floyd did the rioters burn down the police station? The courts? The mayor’s house?
No. They burned down privately owned businesses (after looting them). This isn’t an accident. This is directed. Someone paid for it and someone at some level of government authorized it either directly or passively. To me, that is a conspiracy to deny civil rights – the rights of persons to be secure in their property (the business owners) and the right of the people to peacefully go about their business (can’t do that when savages are burning and looting your city). If I were (poof!) magically made President in 2020, I would have called out the National Guard to shoot the rioters and arrest the local authorities and my grounds for doing so would be to enforce the Civil Rights Act as well as the Constitutional requirement that the federal government ensure a republican form of government in the several States.
And, of course, the use of the National Guard then bumps into the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the military to enforce civil law.
This is something I’ve given a great deal of thought to lately. There have always been militias, but very few, if any, sanctioned by individual states. There are some good people who are members of militias, but a great many who are misfits who just like to go out in the woods and shoot guns. I wonder if there is some way that Individual state governors could re-designate a portion of their state’s National Guard as a state militia that would not be bound by the Posse Comitatus Act.
I think the term “the militia of the several States” would mean that “militia” would already mean the National Guard. I would never use a civilian militia for something like this and don’t know if it would be necessary to go through an extra step of trying to get a radical Leftist governor to approve something that might already be defined by “sanctioning” a civilian group. I always thought that the National Guard IS a state militia.
I think the National Guard probably did come out of the original state militia concept, but control is shared by the governor and the respective military command (Army or Airforce). I don’t believe there is a Marine Corps or Navy National Guard, only Reserves. The original militia concept was civilian only, all able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 45, IIRC.
I’m sure you are right about the origins of the National Guard and its command structure. I just don’t think a civilian force could be called upon.
I found what appear to be conflicting opinions on the use of military or military-like force to quell riots. One says this:
Members of the National Guard are rarely covered by the Posse Comitatus Act because they usually report to their state or territory’s governor. That means they are free to participate in law enforcement if doing so is consistent with state law. However, when Guard personnel are called into federal service, or “federalized,” they become part of the federal armed forces, which means they are bound by the Posse Comitatus Act until they are returned to state control.
But then there is this, which seems to say that either the Guard even when federalized or any other military entity can be called upon:
The Insurrection Act allows the president — with or without the state government’s consent — to use the military to enforce federal law or suppress a rebellion against federal authority in a state, or to protect a group of people’s civil rights when the state government is unable or unwilling to do so.
So it looks like the way to allow the federal government to step in for riot control would be to first invoke the Insurrection Act. Given the federal law 18 USC 2101 which covers the interstate travel to engage in riots as well as the use of any form of interstate communication among rioter to plan or execute riots, there is one “federal authority” that would qualify under the Insurrection Act but it is limited, leaving violation of civil rights as a justification for some intervention.
A person would be charged under federal law if the following are true:
Rioting occurs on federal lands, federal government buildings, VA hospitals, military bases, etc.
The person traveled between states or countries to participate in a riot (though the law specifically states it is not intended to prevent travel for legitimate purposes)
The person used interstate or foreign commerce (internet, mail, telephone, radio, television, or social media) to communicate intent to:
Incite a riot
Organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot
Commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot
Aid or abet any person in inciting, participating in, or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot
In most cases, a person can be prosecuted for committing the same criminal acts in both state and federal court.
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this view in its ruling in Gamble v. United States (2019), upholding the dual sovereignty doctrine. That doctrine states there is no violation of double jeopardy because the state and the federal government are separate sovereigns.
But, sometimes, a statute will say a person cannot be charged in both federal and state court. In the case of rioting, the federal statute specifically states that a judgment, conviction, or acquittal under state law bars federal prosecution for the same act. This statute creates protection from federal prosecution that would not typically exist.
In other words, there are myriad legal speed bumps for federally-ordered riot mitigation, and this might usually be left to the states. However, the laws seem to be overlapping and sometimes contradictory and it could very well be a case of asking for forgiveness instead of permission and just dealing with the problem and handling fallout later in the courts. The professional rioters would have no defense as they so blatantly fall under 18 USC 2101. Proof of electronic communication between participants in a riot, planning or talking about joining the riot, would also put these people under federal authority. The rest could probably be lumped together as violating civil rights.
I would just flat out revive the Militia – as part of a complete military reorganization to end the National Security State.
1. Army is reduced to 100,000 active troops organized into seven 10,000-man divisions (2 armored, 3 mechanized infantry, 2 airborne); the “other” 30,000 are support, command and Special Forces. No Corps or Army structure during peacetime.
2. Marines reduced to 10,000 active troops organized into ten 1,000-man regiments. No divisional structure during peacetime.
3. Navy increased to 600 active combat ships including 15 active carrier battle groups. Revive the Battleship class with large, missile- and gun-armed ships for fleet defense and shore bombardment.
4. Air Force doubles in size for fighter, ground attack and strategic bombers.
The idea here is reduce the ability to engage in ground operations. The Army and Marines ufficient to handle second rate enemies and to provide a framework for a much larger military organism in a major war. The Navy and Air Force become our primary means of global defense and power projection. As long as we rule the seas and the skies we’ll have all the time we need to build a ground force large enough to defeat any enemy power.
And then revive the Militia – make it so that it can only be called to foreign service in a declared state of war but in such a situation it would provide a reserve of several million at least partially trained allowing us to rapidly expand the Army and Marines during wartime.
And then revive the Militia
But be very selective in doing so, at the very least, only prior miliary with honorable discharges and former and retired first responders with good records. Accountable ONLY to the state governor.
We really do need some sort of armed, trained Americans in every state. I want armed, trained people in schools, and don’t know how or if that would fit in with the militia concept
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Amazona and I are the only ones here who have seen an actual photo of Casper. So, to Amazona, do you see the same resemblance (to the possum) as I do?
Not unless he has been on a diet but the facial expression is familiar
Agreed.
Kamala said and did a lot of things that contributed to her humiliating loss, but this one was probably the clincher.
It very well could be, but then there are so many that could have been turning points for her.
I just learned from a Jesse Watters clip that she had to pay a million dollars to Oprah for that fake “interview” with its embarrassing use of photos to imply that there were a lot of attendees and the claim that these were all live “Zoom callers” who wanted to participate but couldn’t be there in person though none of them ever seemed to move throughout the whole event.
I think even the most ardent Trump haters will have to admit the Lady has class.
I remember really hateful things said about her by the Left the last time around, including that she was stupid. Someone at the time pointed that she is fluent in something like six languages and that shut that down.
They are very normal people – I mean, as far as a billionaire and a super model can be. Face the fact that people who have as much money as Trump or look as good as Melania are going to have a different life experience from the average run. But allowing for that, still just very normal human beings.
No kidding. It is hard to believe/remember that we actually do have a president, and a vice president, already/still in office.
And they’ve done SO MUCH DAMAGE; it’s time to cut our losses.
I get the impression they are trying to cut their losses. Jack Smith is suddenly backing off and on his way to a burrow where he hopes the new DOJ won’t go looking for him. Letitia is talking tough but has to realize she is going to be up against a real Department of Justice, not the hand puppet of Garland’s with Biden’s hand up his butt. The preservation demand to keep all evidence has to have rattled those who subverted justice in their pursuit of Trump.
The same Substack article has an interesting piece by a guy who voted for Kamala but is happy and relieved that she lost.
Maybe the best explanation for what’s happening to the Democrat party, a true-life travelogue tracking that political cartoon, was summarized in a very thoughtful Substack penned last week by Ben Appel, a young, married, gay Democrat. The title is, “I Didn’t Vote for Trump. So Why Do I Feel Hopeful?”
Some of the comments echo this—people who actually voted for her but are thrilled that Trump won. The prevailing emotions expressed are relief and hopefulness. Those are pretty good testimonials.
From the comments section of Robert Malone’s Sunday Strip yesterday:
Giant Electoral Asteroid Strikes America’s Intellectual Class, Which Fails to Notice
Now that the resident trolls are off licking their wounds we can get back to what we enjoy, which is spirited debate on ideas.
The comments are for the most part reasonable approaches to this basic idea. They generally prefer one year to two, and there is a hint of finding a stick to back up the carrot but with no ideas other than holding pensions out as inducement to leave.
Musk makes a good point, which is that suddenly dumping thousands of people into the unemployment system would be a mess, creating great harm to the people and the economy and generating a huge amount of anger and resentment. Maybe a temporary lowering of the retirement age to let the older employees just retire and take their pensions would be one idea, and the ability to retain health insurance for a year or so would also be something to soften the blow.
If the cut in the number of federal employees is part of a plan to also slash the size of each agency and eliminate some, there will be savings to offset the severance period.
It’s a version of my idea to pay illegals to leave, which BTW Hannity also suggested last week. That is, pay for transportation back to point of origin with a little cash in the pocket as the carrot, with the stick behind it being jail time and forced deportation. Voluntary self-deportation could leave the door open to future applications for legal reentry, while involuntary would slam that door shut.
This is the best, most comprehensive and easily understood analysis of the Deep State and Trump’s original plan to deal with it that I have seen. It’s an old article, from 2022, but I missed it the first time around. If Trump plans to pick up where he left off with Schedule F this will go a long way to helping explain and defend it.
The old Spoils System did have the terrible weakness of a President appointing someone as a political favor rather than seeking the best qualified person…but now we see career bureaucrats supposedly hired and promoted based on merit gives us a FEMA executive ordering her people to skip the MAGA houses. So, Civil Service Reform did not have its long-term intended effect. Because, of course, it never could: human beings being human beings there is no way to produce the perfect bureaucratic instrument which will just efficiently carry out policy. Better to return to the Spoils System because at least then the President can immediately fire anyone who screws up or is rated surplus to needs. Accountability is the only way to efficiency. Unless a person knows it is their a** on the line, performance will suffer and political favoritism will creep in. As I’ve noted before, under our Constitution only one person is vested with Executive authority – the President, who rises to this office after being approved for the post by the American people. All persons in the Executive branch must serve at the pleasure of the Executive.
The whole project here was based on the notion that if we could just find Experts to run things, all would be well – smart, educated people who know what best even if the people don’t. This notion was given a boost by the apparent success of the Experts in navigating the Great Depression and World War Two but underneath the supposed glittering victory was the fact that the Experts had done a terrible job and only got their chestnuts pulled out of the fire by people outside the Expert class…people, in fact, that class was overtly hostile to.
Kamala is making one last-ditch effort to assume some pretense of relevance, evidently thinking that a title (47th President of the United States FIRST BLACK WOMAN PRESIDENT) will override the awareness that it is achieved only by pathetic maneuvering to get a pity “promotion”.
This is sad, goofy, irrational and unrealistic. The claim that a pity promotion would “allow the Democrats to display “drama and transparency” in a way that aligns with what the public “wants to see” is pure hogwash. If the public wanted to see a President Harris they would have voted for her and made her a legitimate president, not a sad grasping pretense of a president.
I think the alleged “rebranding” would not be a big problem. The real “rebranding” would be two Democrat “presidents” in a row marked by * after their names.
And there is no way Biden or Harris could nominate a SCOTUS appointee. First of all, there is no vacancy. (Is he implying that after kicking Joe out of the campaign to make room for Kamala they could just kick Sotomayor off the Court to make room for her? That would be a record for a sense of entitlement.) Second, there is an agreement that a lame duck president can’t nominate a new justice, but that the process has to wait for the incoming president. Third, the very idea of anyone trying to defend Harris as qualified for such a position is so laughable there is no way they could subject her to a confirmation hearing. She would make Jackson look smart by comparison.
This frantic scrambling to try to give Harris some semblance of relevance and credibility is really just calling attention to the fact that she is a complete loser, identified as such by her own party in its real primary and by the voters in an election in which she lost Democrat votes in every precinct.
And BTW Joe has already made it clear what he thinks of Kamala and the idea that he would step down to toss her a pretend presidency is ridiculous. He now owes her, and the party, absolutely nothing.
Along with carrying out mass deportations, Trump has promised to sign an executive order on his first day in office to prevent agencies from giving automatic American citizenship to children who are born of illegal immigrants who are in the United States, known as birthright citizenship.
This is something long overdue, but I thought this would have required some sort of congressional action. Or maybe, that is only if this policy is to be held perpetually instead of just until another President changes it with an EO.
I always thought this would require a SCOTUS ruling on the intent of the 14th Amendment but perhaps an EO like this is necessary to trigger a SCOTUS review and ruling. I hope it is not limited to illegal “immigrants” given the proliferation of what is called “citizenship tourism” where women, especially from Asia, come here specifically to give birth.
Trump to Nominate NY Rep. Elise Stefanik as UN Ambassador
I’m thrilled for her. She has been always a staunch Trump supporter, even when he was being trashed by some on the right. Given the slim marginal lead in the US House for the upcoming term, this could throw a few hiccups in the equation but her jurisdiction trends strong red for the special election to fill that seat.. It wouldn’t surprise me to see a few more House Reps / Senators being nominated for positions within the Trump administration, all with an eye on keeping the majority in both houses.
4D Chess: Democrats Admit Trump Actually Won In 2020 And Is Now Unable To Serve Third Term
They are the worst liars, most conniving schemers, most distrustful people in existence. How anyone would trust them ever again when they spent 4 years denying election fraud while at the same time prosecuting people who publicly pushed that theme, then… after the term is nearing its end openly admit voter fraud did in fact occur to the point where Trump actually won in 2020, and then… attempt to equate that revelation with actually having served a 2nd term thereby making it unconstitutional for Trump to serve a 3rd. They will do WHATEVER they can to remain in power and should not only never be trusted again, but prohibited from ever holding any position of power or influence.
If these admissions are true my next question is, who’s going to jail?
https://babylonbee.com/news/4d-chess-democrats-admit-trump-actually-won-in-2020-and-is-now-unable-to-serve-third-term
Nancy Pelosi Begins Drafting Articles Of Impeachment
https://babylonbee.com/news/nancy-pelosi-begins-drafting-articles-of-impeachment
The reason the Bee is so funny is that it comes so close to what COULD be–like this, which sounds exactly like what Pelosi might say as well as echoing the actual philosophy of the Dems: “This is an urgent matter. We don’t have time to deal with citing actual reasons why he should be impeached. That’s not necessary. The important thing is to make sure he gets impeached for… something.
I think that is a wonderful poke in the eye for the Left. The thing is, they are so crazy and so desperate that this could almost be true, which is what makes it so funny.
But go with that, just for grins. Now the DNC will be billed for rent for Joe, rent for Kamala, and every penny spent on Air Force One and Two, overseas trips, etc. Every EO signed by Joe is automatically rescinded as invalid, and he personally or the DNC will be held responsible for the costs associated with his Covid mandates, including those resulting from his ongoing protection of Big Pharma from damage claims due to the drugs he forced people to take. And then there are the criminal charges for fraud.
What would really be funny would be a followup explaining the costs, as outlined above, to the DNC, and the reaction of the Republicans, which would be to make Vance the new president, who would then appoint DeSantis as his VP, while the Republican House appoints Trump as Speaker of the House. Added to the Mike Lee suggestion of having the Vice President (in this fantasy scenario that would be Ron DeSantis) who is the legal, Constitutional, President of the Senate also be the Senate Majority Leader, it would be a glorious example of “be careful what you wish for”.
The Bee could take this and run with it, to really freak out the poor sad delusional humor-deficient Left.
What makes it funny is not only the obvious results of such an effort, if successful, but the lack of foresight in trying it, which is really typical of the Dems. They will run off a cliff without considering the fact that they will have a landing to deal with.
Note: For anyone not familiar with the babylonbee, you probably shouldn’t read these articles.