It has been noted that we have 677 Federal District Court judges and if just one of them objects to a Trump action, it is stopped…and we are instructed that only the nine Justices of the Supreme Court can really do anything about it…when and if they decide to get around to it. This is not, however, how our Constitutional system works. Or at least is supposed to work. Another person has pointed out that the Covid response kinda showed the entire Constitutional system is gone – if they could lock us down for a bad cold, then what rights do we really have? This is a strong point – but I’m still going to stick with the Constitution.
We simply have to make it work – because the alternative is a Caesar and I don’t want that. I’d bequeath the next generation liberty, if I can. If pressed to it I will bequeath them mere sanity…but I’ll try for liberty. And that means we have to make this system work – make the Constitution do its job.
The more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that Trump must have a showdown with the judges. A direct defiance of a court ruling – written down as an Executive Order. No mistake about it – the ruling will not be enforced, all those charged with ignoring the ruling are granted a preemptive pardon. Basically telling the courts to jump in a lake – and challenging Congress to impeach and remove because that would be the only thing anyone could do about it. But it has to be done with care – and Team Trump is already setting the table for it…because the Constitutional crisis isn’t in a Trump defiance, but in the courts issuing rulings. It is the judges who are busting the deal, not Trump.
Some on the Right are still not getting this – and Chris Withans (@chriswithans on X and a definite must-follow; he’s a kid compared to us so you will get polls on which weird 2010 band is best, but he’s sharp as a tack on politics) gives the reason:
Literally the only reason why they think Trump is pushing the limits of the law too much is that the legal right has never fought as much as the legal left has, so we don’t see how fast-and-loose Obama and Biden play with the law and the Constitution.
I remember so many legal conservatives saying there was no point in challenging Biden’s student loan actions because of standing and the vagueness of the laws in question (which surprise surprise is meant to give discretion to the executive branch), but fortunately Missouri did so we ended up with a couple of key decisions to block it.
And then Biden of course violated the orders but because the legal right already undermined the case by saying we had no standing, they put themselves in a disadvantageous position to complain about Biden’s post-SCOTUS executive actions.
Nutshell: we’ve never really fought this out. Think about the 2000 election court cases – W naturally fought tooth and nail over Florida because that was the decisive electoral college State. Those EC votes decided who was going to be President. And Florida was as close as it was likely due to voter fraud…but so, too, were Iowa, New Mexico and Wisconsin. It is very likely, in my view, that a full audit of all 4 very close 2000 States would indicate W won all of them…and likely won the popular vote once you backed out the fraudulent votes. The 2000 election was the perfect time to fight out the overall issue of Democrats stuffing ballot boxes, which is something they’ve always done and GOP insiders always knew was done. There was zero chance we were going to lose Florida once the first recount was done as long as the W people kept an eye out for Democrat skullduggery (in this case, trying to post-facto manufacture just enough votes to get Gore over the top). But had it been fought out in all 4 close States, it would have exposed the Democrats then and there because such a fight would show that Gore did not come remotely close in Florida, either…that some late night ballot box stuffing was the source of the disputed election result…and this fight would have created a massive backlash against Democrat cheating and lead to a much more secure and honest election system. Nope. Nothing doing. W and his people accepted the stuffed ballots in Florida and held on to merely saying (in effect) that the Democrats didn’t cheat enough. The W team just wanted to get the power…not actually do something with it. That was the point of the Florida 2000 exercise…and that is the way the GOP has always fought legal battles: on the narrowest possible grounds.
We can’t be narrow – it has to be point blank we’re right, they’re wrong and our way will prevail. A district court judge does not have the power to issue a nationwide injunction and the Article II powers of the Presidency may not be taken away by any law or court ruling. The President may hire and fire at will and does not have to expend appropriated money. We have to make the battle the People vs the Judges. It is a fight we must have, it is a fight we can win – and by winning restore the actual Constitutional order. The judiciary is not a referee nor a last resort for the losers of the last election. Political matters are to be settled by politics. Period.
Blogs For Victory 
Trump Takes an Axe to Government Unions
This is a much needed step. Many public sector unions are coalitions that ultimately work against tax payers best interest. They often use their power & clout to garner support from politicians where all kinds of kickbacks and beneficial union contracts become standard, with little or no concern to the people who pay the bill.
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2025/03/28/this-is-war-trump-takes-an-axe-to-government-unions-n3801273?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=52ce413f6fb58c7873c6b911b92d704d389047e1deec5d09abd903754eeb0b1f&lctg=26664402
The solution to judicial activism is pretty simple.
The ONLY court established by the Constitution is The Supreme Court. All other federal courts are/were established by Congress. I would presume that to mean that those “Inferior” courts can also be DIS-established by Congress – or at the very least, regulated.
And I don’t think it was short-sightedness on the part of the founders that federal courts were not provided with an enforcement mechanism. I’m only amazed that, given all the horrible court rulings over the years, there haven’t been more Presidents who have defied the courts.
Or Congress could establish another tier of court, above the district courts, with more power, or some other alternative court system that could override activist judges.
Something has gotta be done, that is for sure. I mean, the District Court judges should understand that their job isn’t to second guess the President. IMO, most of these cases aren’t even properly before a Court – there is no Constitutional issue at stake in, say, the President deporting a foreigner. But let’s say “ok, you can hear a case”…fine, but you don’t get to make a decision for everyone; no TRO’s.
I would like to see it so that no one judge can issue a TRO…or, if we keep it so that one judge can, then it is held in suspension until an appellate court can hear the case. This might be sufficient to do the trick because the appellate courts aren’t going to want to spend all their time hearing requests for a TRO…so, a request for a TRO from a District judge would be fairly rare and only when there is some crucial Constitutional issue at stake.
It is this bit of Section 2 that I think we should work with:
“with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make”. In other words, Congress can regulate how and when cases can be filed in the federal Courts where the Supreme Court would have appellate jurisdiction. Like maybe making plaintiffs post a significant bond in case the Supreme Court shoots them down. Something, anything, to make sure that well-heeled Leftists groups can’t just use the Judicial system as a backstop when they lose elections.
I think the Left has gone well beyond using the judicial system as a backstop and has moved into using it as a primary weapon, not just to remove or disable those who actually win elections but to impose and enforce political agendas.
Sort of off topic, but Robert Malone has a 2-part guest essay today that is a must read. Part one is here, and part two is here.
Mark in March 2017, at almost exactly the same point in Trump’s first term as we are now in his second:
“I’m just about ready for Trump to go Andy Jackson on them…the story is that when the Courts ruled against him, he said, ‘the Court has ruled: now, let them enforce’.”
https://blogsforvictory.com/2017/03/18/weekend-open-thread-27/
In Mark’s world, the president should get to do what he wants regardless of pesky things like laws or the Constitution. That is, if the president wants to do things that Mark agrees with. He would never accept it from a Democratic president.
The left has made a science out of distortions, fabrications and flat out lies. You imply Mark feels the President should ignore laws & the constitution. I can’t seem to find that. What I do see him state is quite the opposite; “This is a strong point – but I’m still going to stick with the Constitution”. He clearly noted, that because a good deal of political and judicial maneuvering is/has taken place, likely beyond the scope of their intended and/or constitutional authority simply by self-appropriating it, they need to be challenged to determine where the line is and push back any overreach. Maybe it’s a reading comprehension thing but I’m guessing it’s nothing but a stupid game of leaving a messy diaper hoping to score a gotcha.
Thank you so much, JDGE, for that polite response.
Did you read what Mark wrote above?
“The more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that Trump must have a showdown with the judges. A direct defiance of a court ruling – written down as an Executive Order. No mistake about it – the ruling will not be enforced, all those charged with ignoring the ruling are granted a preemptive pardon. Basically telling the courts to jump in a lake – and challenging Congress to impeach and remove because that would be the only thing anyone could do about it.”
Do you honestly think he would urge a Democratic president to directly defy court rulings? To tell the courts to jump in the lake? I think not.
This is all about Mark wanting to get his way, laws and the Constitution—you know, the things the judiciary branch adjudicates—be damned.
Next, if Democrats regain control of the House, and possibly the Senate, in 2026, then Mark will urge for ignoring the legislative branch. And ultimately, he will urge that we ignore voting.
In case you haven’t heard, Mark is a monarchist. Things like laws and elected representatives get in the way, so they must go.
rule by UNELECTED judges is not ‘elected representatives’ it’s unelected nonrepresentatives taking power away from elected representatives. By blatantly ignoring the law.
And that is the core of Leftism—-authoritarian control by unelected political appointees in lifetime job appointments. Whether it is in bureaucracy or the judiciary, the Left rejects actual representative government (in spite of ear-splitting howling about “muh DEMOCRACY”) because its power lies in the Appointment Branch of the government—-bureaucrats and judges.
Mark is pretty good at expressing what he actually thinks….he doesn’t need someone to interpret for him, much less restate what he says to fit a radical Leftist template for the sake of bickering.
Spook said it very well: “I don’t think it was short-sightedness on the part of the founders that federal courts were not provided with an enforcement mechanism.”
Mark said it very well: “I’m still going to stick with the Constitution”
Again, Mark said it very well: “And that means we have to make this system work – make the Constitution do its job.”
The sad rather desperate efforts to lure us into bickering fail again.
(BTW, going back to 2017 for a quote indicates quite a, shall we say “passionate”, obsession with this blog and those who post on it. Most of us would not immediately remember something posted 7 years ago. It definitely prompts the old “get a life” response.)
And here I will point out that while the rest of us are discussing policy and matters of actual government, Rocks is still focused on a PERSON, and on frantically trying to stir up some basis for a new bickerfest.
There is a difference between mentioning individuals in the context of discussing actual politics—that is, the nuts and bolts of governance—and just obsessing about people themselves. It seems to be a difference understood by those of us who think of politics as the blueprint for how to govern a nation, rather than an excuse for sniping at individual people to exhibit personal pathologies.
(BTW, going back to 2017 for a quote indicates quite a, shall we say “passionate”, obsession with this blog and those who post on it.)
I had the same reaction. What normal person does that?
I think we, and history in general, have established that Rocks, in all of his aliases over the years/decades, is far from “normal”. His obsession with this blog and those of us who have formed its core constituency is well documented, and his narcissism, evidenced by his determination to be the center of any discourse on any topic as shown by his efforts to draw attention to himself, are illustrated time and time again.
rule by UNELECTED judges is not ‘elected representatives’ it’s unelected nonrepresentatives taking power away from elected representatives.
First off, the Constitution defines a judiciary branch and it doesn’t specify that the judges of that branch being elected. Do you believe we should be governed by the Constitution?
Second, consider a case in which the federal government imprisons a graduate student at an American university for co-authoring an op-ed in her student newspaper that is critical of the university and the governments of foreign countries. Most people would consider the government’s actions in such a case to be a violation of the First Amendment, which reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Now, how do we as a people determine if the actions of the government violate the Constitution? According to Mark, such things are political matters to be settled by politics. If that’s truly the case, that is, if laws are whatever with political power decide they are, then why have laws at all? Why have a judiciary at all? Were the Founders mistaken in creating such a branch?
First off, stupid effort to get a gotcha
Second, consider a case in which the federal government imprisons people for petitioning the Government for redress of grievances, for indefinite periods of time in conditions deemed by Amnesty International as inhumane, in violation of the Constitutional right to a speedy trial, and then eventually tries them and imposes egregiously severe sentences for nonviolent behavior, alleging attempted “insurrection” though no reference was ever made to overthrowing the government and assuming its powers.
Consider a case where “even nonviolent J6ers charged with conspiracy or obstruction with no criminal record could be held in a federal prison—often hauled cross country to the DC gulag—because as part of the “mob that attacked the Capitol,” they represented a danger to their community.” That is, deemed guilty by association with a group deemed guilty of unstated “crimes” without a trial for any of them.
” if laws are whatever with political power decide they are (sic) then why have laws at all?”-–a question often asked of the J6 Committee as it alleged “insurrection” though no action taken by anyone associated in any way with the J6 protests even referenced overthrowing the government and assuming its powers, and of the courts responsible for violations of the Constitutional rights to free assembly and petitioning the government for redress of wrongs, based on arbitrary disapproval of the means employed. (The answer from Constitutionalists is to severely restrict the size, scope and powers of the federal government and to keep most authority in the hands of the states, or the people, as opposed to the Leftist goal of consolidating power in a massively powerful Central Authority which then imposes its own laws and interpretations of those laws on the public.)
“Why have a judiciary at all? Were the Founders mistaken in creating such a branch?” What stupid pseudo-questions, in yet more pathetic efforts to stir up bickering in a transparent effort to posture as a political debater but really to be the center of a bickerfest.
(BTW, going back to 2017 for a quote indicates quite a, shall we say “passionate”, obsession with this blog and those who post on it. Most of us would not immediately remember something posted 7 years ago. It definitely prompts the old “get a life” response.)
I typed “defy judges” in the search box of this blog. Took me all of thirty seconds.
Well, good for you. You seem to think that thirty seconds was well spent, letting you find another thread to try to pull to find another bicker point. But then you do seem to have perfected a template for bickering, including tracking down whatever you think you can use to prompt a new spate of same.
There is a difference between mentioning individuals in the context of discussing actual politics—that is, the nuts and bolts of governance—and just obsessing about people themselves.
Oh. So now it’s okay to discuss people in some contexts. Got it. But since you insist that all discussion be about political philosophy, then feel free to discuss monarchism and how it relates to the form of government in the United States.
Nope. Passing on the pathetic effort to engage bickering.
(And BTW, this is a transparent effort to just “discuss” Mark.)
Amazona beat me to it.
If that’s truly the case, that is, if laws are whatever with political power decide they are, then why have laws at all? Why have a judiciary at all? Were the Founders mistaken in creating such a branch?
Really?? That drivel just about sums up what I’d expect from the left. Repeating talking points ad nauseum doesn’t change the answer. Challenging the intrusion of powers by individuals (judges) or groups (bureaucracy) trying to usurp those powers by self-appropriation, becomes necessary to retain legitimacy of that authority.
jdge, you said this a lot more eloquently than I did.
Basically, as we dissect the catch-phrases like “Deep State” or “the Swamp” what we find is the appropriation of what should be legislated power by political appointees, whether in federal agencies or the judiciary.
President Trump recognized this back in his first term. He started to dismantle this, but did so rather tentatively, anticipating a second term in which he could act more forcefully, but he telegraphed his awareness and his intent and this terrified the Left as they saw the prospect of losing the very core of their political power in the reestablishment of actual Constitutional governance. It was this panic, as the Left recognized its first truly powerful adversary, that made the extremes of Leftist activities so essential.
So we saw federal agencies openly acting in concert to defeat and even destroy a political opponent. We saw the Complicit Agenda Media discarding any pretense to actual journalism as they joined together in a uniform attack mode broadcasting approved narratives. We saw implanted military officers openly defying their Commander-in-Chief and working to undermine the efficiency and even underlying purposes of their branches. We saw elected and appointed officials from the White House down all acting to openly defy and violate federal laws in opening our borders, inviting people to come here illegally, providing not just protections but incentives to do so, to overwhelm and cripple our system and hopefully provide the means to rig elections through various means (from affecting census counts to add House seats to some districts to encouraging and enabling illegal voting and more). Now we are seeing the judiciary openly enlisted as active participants in this war on the efforts of this administration.
We have been seeing an all-hands-on-deck effort across the entire spectrum of government and much of private enterprise mobilized for the sole purpose of protecting the power base of the Left.
Really?? That drivel just about sums up what I’d expect from the left. Repeating talking points ad nauseum doesn’t change the answer.
Falling back to claiming another person is repeating talking points is the real drivel here. Come on, JDGE, you can do better.
Mark is the one who wrote that adherence to the law is merely a political matter, that “Political matters are to be settled by politics. Period.” That “it has to be point blank we’re right, they’re wrong and our way will prevail.”
Mark also wrote that “the District Court judges should understand that their job isn’t to second guess the President.”
Heaven forbid we have a judiciary that considers whether the president of the United States is following the law and preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States.
Apparently, you agree that such matters are best dealt with through brute political power. Again, if that’s the case, then why have laws and a Constitution? Just admit that you want a dictator (or a king) and stop pretending to claim otherwise.
Not taking the bicker-bait. Go play with yourself.
Nope. Passing on the pathetic effort to engage bickering.
To which I reply, no one is surprised by that response. You insist that we must discuss political philosophy, but when asked directly to discuss political philosophy, you consistently decline.
Next you will claim that no leftist has ever been able to define a political philosophy to your satisfaction.
Not taking the bicker-bait. Go play with yourself.
I typed “defy judges” in the search box of this blog. Took me all of thirty seconds.
I’m not sure if you didn’t think one of us would check, or if you’re just a liar and don’t care (actually the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive). I typed “defy judges” into the search box, and it yielded 2 results, an open thread dated 3/19, and Opening Day Open Thread dated 3/27. Wanna try again?
We have already discussed the possibility that poor Rocksy is so dementedly focused on us that he might well have archived bits and pieces of posts he can then go back to and dig out to obsessively fondle and hopefully weave into yet another narcissistic effort to be noticed.
I’m not sure if you didn’t think one of us would check, or if you’re just a liar and don’t care (actually the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive).
Sorry! It was “defy the courts”. I went back to my browser history and checked.
And actually, I did think that you of all of the posters here would check. I should have double-checked myself to get it right the first time. My bad.
https://blogsforvictory.com/?s=defy+the+courts
It’s not as if anyone cares……….
Strike two. Here’s what you get when you type “defy the courts” into the search box”
Nothing Found
Sorry, but nothing matched your search terms. Please try again with some different keywords.Search for:
Wanna try for strike three?
Strike two. Here’s what you get when you type “defy the courts” into the search box”
Nothing Found
Don’t know what to tell you Spook. Did you click the link I provided above, which is URL that gets generated when searching for defy the courts (as you can tell from the URL itself)?
If it’s that important to you, I can upload a screenshot of the search results.
NOBODY CARES
Come on, Rocks; quote the whole thing:
Just as back in 2017, so today: the Courts are doing things they aren’t supposed to do. They don’t have the authority to do. Article II is as much a part of the Constitution as Article III. We can’t exist under a system were 1 out of 677 Federal District Judges has a liberum veto (I’ll let you look that up rather than explain it – it’ll give you something useful to do today).
And you clearly have no idea what a Monarchy is – it isn’t just the King’s will. Sure, Louis XVI went that route (l’État, c’est moi) but that was a disastrously bad thing and the wiser part of France recognized it at the time…they just weren’t willing to press the issue for fear of reawakening the various religious and civil conflicts in France which had only ended with the Fronde in 1653. But Monarchy, properly understood in its Christian context, is what St Louis IX had going…the man wouldn’t dream of interfering with the common law rights of the people of France…nor their varied local laws and customs. In fact, the crisis of France in the first half of the 17th century stemmed from secular efforts to steamroll local powers and bring them all under a central authority. Sort of the first Liberals.
What I want – what America must have – is the Judiciary reduced to its proper functions. A Federal district judge’s concern is the proper enforcement of Federal law in that particular district…not second guessing Executive Branch actions. And if Trump does have to go Andy Jackson to force the Judiciary to surrender its usurped powers, then that is what will have to happen.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Mark. Even given your examples of monarchs, it seems to me that whether the monarch in question assumes dictatorial powers is a matter of which monarch we are talking about. I personally prefer a system of government in which we don’t leave that to chance—or at least reduce the chances of that happening as much as possible. Clearly, today, Donald Trump is attempting to assume as much power as possible. We have a severely weakened legislative branch and he is also trying to weaken the judiciary branch.
I have asked you before, but I think this would be an excellent topic for a longer post here on B4V if you ever get around to it. I would especially be interested in how you square your support for monarchism with the US system of government as created by the Founders. Perhaps you take the view that the president of the United States is in fact a monarch “in the Christian context.”
Oh, dear, another fake question designed to attract the kind of answer that might be spun into more bickering.
Some of us, BTW, remember President Trump, irritated with the lack of energy in Congress, scolding it with the admonition to “do your damned job”. Which evidently, in Leftspeak means “weakening the legislative branch”.
I do give you credit, though, Rocksy, for admitting that you prefer not to leave to chance which “monarch” will assume dictatorial powers. Given your apologia for Biden, you always made that pretty clear.
My support for Monarchy is based upon my bleak understanding that only a certain percentage of the population is fully capable of participating in government. This is distinct from self-governance – people are to do as much on their own hook as consistent with well-ordered liberty (ie, I won’t tell you how to live your own life); but participating in government – that is, making the laws which we live and die by – is something a high number of the people are incapable of rationally deciding over the long term. This is especially true when a significant portion of the population is dependent upon government for their daily bread…welfare recipients and government employees (except military personnel) should not be able to vote as their vested interest is more government. But this is all rather academic – I won’t get there. Not even to a restriction of the franchise. As per usual in human affairs, I have to work with what I’ve got – and what I’ve got is the Constitution which is a sublimely brilliant document that, if obeyed, gives me all I need.
And that is where you lack the fundamental understanding of our situation…a district judge issuing a nationwide TRO is an abomination against the Constitution. No American should support it – every American should be disgusted by it. The quicker this particular unconstitutional situation is dispensed with, the better.
We can’t even agree that voting should be restricted to people who can pass even a minimal civics test or exhibit the slightest idea of even the basic fundamentals of this nation. The “man on the street” interviews in which people, presumably native-born Americans, don’t know who the vice president is or how many states we have or which country we fought to gain our independence are not cherry-picking the populace but are pretty good cross-section of Americana. But they choose our leaders.
I was encouraged by our last election because it was the first in the last 30 years or more in which it seemed like about half of the country had at least some idea of what it was voting for. Even the least articulate Trump voter seemed to understand that he was voting for a nation run according to its Constitution and against a tyrannical Central Authority, and fortunately outnumbered those voting purely on tribal inertia or skin color or some vague incoherent concept of Orange Man Hitler Bad.
There is a basic common sense available…the trouble is that most politicians don’t try to reach it. Trump did, and won because of it.
And, as usual, the Left (or today’s mindless minion of the Left) can only focus on WORDS. Usually, “monarchy” is a word for a massively powerful Central Authority, which is the beloved wet dream of the Left. Funny to see a Lefty fret about the word, given its resonance with Leftist governance.
They don’t do nuance, but they sure do whining. That, and desperately begging for someone—-ANYONE—-to pay enough attention to silly bogus questions to play the bicker game.
Interesting, Musk sold X.
Not to fret thought, it was bought by his own xAI company. Not sure what that all means but I’m sure the long term strategy has been well thought out.
While Rocks In Head is engaging in yet another temper tantrum, squealing LOOKATMELOOKATMELOOKATME as he continues his posturing as a political pundit, transparent as it is in its pathetic need to focus attention on him by any silly means possible, there are some interesting things to think about.
One is the use of pay-to-play “protests”. We have caught on to the significance of allegedly grass-roots “protesters” all carrying pre-printed signs, and some people have commented on the recent Tesla “demonstrations’ abruptly ending at precisely noon. Every now and then, especially at the height (depth?) of the violence in 2018-2024, there was the observation of professional rioters going from city to city to stir up violence, and the obvious fact that someone was picking up the bills for these activities.
It turns out that at least one of these enablers of social passion and/or false support has become confident enough to go public with the manipulation of public perception by hiring mobs to create the impression of massive support for a cause or agenda. Crowds on Demand is one such company, bragging in its website that it can provide, among other things, “passionate protests” complete with bused-in crowds waving signs and chanting scripted slogans and (possibly inadvertently) telegraphing the fact that these “spontaneous” eruptions of fake enthusiasm call for big bucks to finance them.
Wonder where Kamala, Timmy, AOC, et al get their “audiences” and “crowds”? Well, they can spread around a little donor money to companies like this: “We even put together large-scale paparazzi and fan displays to celebrate or raise buzz for high-profile and up-and-coming figures and brands.”
The founder and CEO, Adam Swart, says “We create advocacy groups and staff them with suitable leadership.” Yes, they create advocacy groups and then they staff them with suitable leadership. He started this business because “he understood the power of a crowd to shape people’s perceptions.” (Dr. Robert Malone has been writing about psy-ops for quite a while now, and several others have started to sound the alarms on the issues of manipulation of emotions, which is BTW the core of Leftist appeal.)
As for who pays the bills, that is a great question we need to start asking and answering. The website states: Please note that we generally do not take on customers with an event or campaign budget under $20,000, and the range of cost categories is:
There are plenty of comments and opinions on the bused-in-crowd phenomenon that is only recently getting more attention, mostly due to the Harris campaign’s heavy-handed dependence on poorly executed efforts to appear to attract legitimate crowds of sincere supporters, but so far there hasn’t been much of an effort to explain how this works.
The next step is to identify the financial backers who pay for these rent-a-mobs.
In what might have been a plot line in a movie, the same company that openly recruits and pays people to pretend to be “passionately protesting” certain agendas now offers a different service. That is, it is now possible to pay the same company to provide counter-protesters, in opposition to the positions taken by the other paid protesters.
“Crowds on Demand can assist subjects of demonstrations and hostile PR campaigns with forming appropriate responses. Having organized thousands of demonstrations and advocacy efforts, we are well positioned to provide defensive services to clients struggling with how best to interpret and respond to these actions. “
YCMTSU
(I wonder if both sides ride the same buses to the same “protests”. The presence of both sides in a “protest” being paid by the same company leads me to imagine them engaging in “dance fights” like we saw in West Side Story, lots of performative conflict with choreography.)
Herer’s the narrative:
I have to link this narrative with my recent posts about rent-a-mob companies and efforts.
The story, titled Tesla ‘Global Day of Action’ Leads to Arrests, asserts that the mobs represent “a decentralized grassroots movement” although it also references “a group” which indicates coordination and organization, and in a different place in the article the author refers to a “coordinated effort”. In other words, it’s a poorly written article full of internal inconsistencies that does nothing to advance actual factual knowledge about what is going on.
The author suggests that “The escalating unrest raises concerns about the growing influence of radical groups who are willing to disrupt public order in their crusade…” but I suggest that this might not be the fact at all, that there is a coordinated and well-funded effort to create the illusion that there is a large number of “radical groups” when it is more likely that there is a substantial pool of money being directed at creating that perception.
“This coordinated effort appears to send a crystal-clear message of opposition to Tesla CEO Elon Musk” but I think the key word here is “appears”. Oh, I don’t doubt that there are enough feeble-minded virtue signaling wannabe Lefties out there (“wannabe” because they are really totally ignorant of the actual ideology of the Left and are only attracted to the performative aspect of association with it) to provide some photo ops, but I think the comments of people watching the “protests” at the Southlake Texas Tesla building, who noticed that the “protest” abruptly stopped at exactly noon, more accurately describe both the beliefs of these crowds and their commitment to anything real. Evidently the rent-a-mob companies don’t pay overtime, and no one wants to miss the bus.
I’m going with a “coordinated effort” between a funding group and a rent-a-mob company.
Here’s the actual narrative. Your article, titled, Tesla ‘Global Day of Action’ Leads to Arrests, is dishonest. What arrests? It doesn’t cite any. Where are the news reports of rampant violent behavior leading to arrests that took place at “Global Day of Action” protests yesterday?
According to you, the protesters were so weak and feeble that they couldn’t miss lunch. A violent mob, indeed.
Not taking the bicker-bait. Go play with yourself.
In other words, you couldn’t find any arrests that took place at Global Day of Action protests. Got it.
Because describing the article thusly… “a poorly written article full of internal inconsistencies that does nothing to advance actual factual knowledge”…didn’t adequately point out its defects, you had to chime in with sniping about it?
OK–you do you, we ignore you. On the other hand, you appear to be taking my advice and playing with yourself, as you certainly aren’t responding to anything anyone else said.
Because describing the article thusly… “a poorly written article full of internal inconsistencies that does nothing to advance actual factual knowledge”…didn’t adequately point out its defects, you had to chime in with sniping about it?
And yet that paragon of journalistic excellence—Townhall, a source you frequently cite—publishes it. Maybe Townhall shouldn’t be trusted to provide news or commentary of any kind. Clearly their editorial standards are non-existent.
Well, you see, on the Right it’s OK to criticize even when it involves a site or person we usually like. It’s almost worth it to see you jump on it like a duck on a June bug with yet another petty snipe.
For a drug with little testing, reviewable data or studies – then forced on the general population with severe threats for non-compliance. People need to be held accountable.
Pfizer just released its list of side effects of its COVID-19 vaccine… and the list of some side effects of the Pfizer-Biotech Covid-19 vaccine
Blood thrombosis
Acute kidney injury
Acute flaccid myelitis
Positive antisperm antibodies
Brainstem thrombosis
Brainstem embolism
Cardiac arrest
Heart failure
Cardiac ventricular thrombosis
Central nervous system vasculitis
Cardiogenic shock
Neonatal death
Deep vein thrombosis
Brainstem encephalitis
Hemorrhagic encephalitis
Frontal lobe epilepsy
Foaming at the mouth
Epileptic psychosis
Facial paralysis
Gastrointestinal amyloidosis
Generalized tonic-clonic seizure
Hashimoto’s encephalopathy
Hepatic vascular thrombosis
Herpes zoster reactivation
Hepatitis Immune-mediated
Interstitial lung disease
Jugular myoclonic epilepsy
Liver damage
Low birth weight
Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children
Myocarditis
Neonatal seizure
Pancreatitis
Stillbirth
Pneumonia
Tachycardia
Temporal lobe epilepsy
Testicular autoimmunity
Thrombotic stroke
Type 1 diabetes mellitus
Neonatal venous thrombosis
Pericarditis
Sudden death
How many people would have taken the jab if this had all been made public before millions obeyed King Biden and took it, many repeatedly? More to the point, would there have been a revolt against the government if this were known to the people when they were also told they would have to submit to the jabs to keep their jobs, their military positions or to be able to travel freely?
I have been saying for years that this would turn out to be the biggest and most deadly human rights violation in history, as it has spanned every continent and affected hundreds of millions of people. AND WE PAID FOR IT. Not willingly, not purposely, but Biden funneled billions of dollars to Pfizer while forcing people to inject this dangerous drug—while using the government to protect Pfizer from liability for damages from the drug and being complicit in lying about its effects.
We can go back to the country paying Fauci and his cronies to develop the virus, we can wonder if it was released on the public as a bioweapon, we can even speculate about the penalties due Fauci for his role in this. But without the active complicity of Biden, it never would have gotten as far as it did.
Yes, Trump did fast-track the drug’s development, but he no longer had control over its distribution, its funding or the requirement that people inject it after the Left took control of the country after the 2020 “election”.
And then there are the parallel damages from the panic over the idea that Trump might get some credit for suggesting some therapeutic treatments, leading to the cascade of totally INSANE actions, including banning tested drugs from sale and persecuting doctors who tried to use them to save lives. Governors banned the sale of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine in their states, pharmacists took it upon themselves to reject legitimate prescriptions for the drugs even for people who had been taking them for years, doctors were not just threatened with prosecution and loss of their licenses but some actually did lose the ability to practice medicine, hospitals actually kidnapped sick people and isolated them from their families while forcing “treatments” like ventilators on them, and people died. Hundreds of thousands of people died unnecessarily, solely for political reasons.
Solely to prevent the perception that President Trump had offered good advice to try to help people deal with this virus.
It is an evil so profound it makes the forced starvation of millions of Ukrainians by Stalin seem like just another page in the Leftist playbook.
We know how to deal with inflammation—we use steroids. We know how to handle cytokine storms, the abrupt overreaction of the autoimmune system that floods the lungs and suffocates people—-we use hydroxychloroquine to deal with the autoimmune response after the steroids have reduced the inflammation. Yet doctors were forced by a new American Stasi to withhold these treatments, with many of them going underground and secretly treating the people who were able to find them through secret communication channels. For political reasons.
This list doesn’t include the “turbo cancers” that are suddenly popping up, clusters of cancers in one person developing so rapidly that in some cases death follows diagnosis by weeks, if that. It doesn’t include the concerns about permanent damage to the reproductive organs in males and females, especially when children were forced to take this drug in the years those organs were rapidly developing.
It will take decades to fully realize the damages done not just by the drugs themselves but by the arrogant tyranny that forced people to take them.
I get daily updates on vaxx injuries from Mark Crispin Miller:
Further indications of the global toll of COVID “vaccination,” based on the reports collected by our worldwide team of researchers.
It was beyond horrific what the political left did in relation to Covid, especially the FDA & CDC. But more than that, much of the medical society (AMA) joined in lock-step with them. Hospitals received additional reimbursement for pushing certain treatments, regardless of ongoing negative results. Conflict of interest anyone?!? Extensive long term lockdowns, closed & ruined businesses, some which were multigenerational, worthless and even detrimental mask mandates, religious worship restrictions, even outdoor services in individual cars, religious exemptions denied, mandating sick patients into elderly nursing homes, etc… One good thing that resulted from forced school closing is many parents became more intimately involved with the child’s education and learn just how much indoctrination was taking place.
TBF, they are required to list anything that happened after the drug was administered no matter how tenuous the connection to the drug…OTOH, that’s one heck of a long list!And not something they highlighted at the time, which would have been useful.
I took the first two jabs because at the time I thought it was a vaccine – then I caught COVID and knew it wasn’t a vaccine. For all I know, it was just some sort of weird placebo…We were definitely sold a load of BS.
When I learned that this was not a true vaccine I refused to take it. I figured I had already had Covid in its earliest days—three days of debilitating fatigue followed by three days of muscle aches, followed by some very weird changes in taste, hardly a health crisis—-I figured I had natural immunity anyway.
And I was extremely suspicious of the way the government was forcing it on people, and the more intense the efforts became the more skeptical I became. The mask thing was so freaking crazy I figured I couldn’t trust anyone who demanded masking.
We had some very big forest fires that summer and were under a huge pall of smoke for many days. People thought “well, at least the masks will help” till the CDC announced that the masks would not protect against the smoke. That is when I ordered a custom mask that said: “Will stop tiny viruses. Will not stop large smoke particles. Because science.”
The saddest thing was seeing the look of panic and fear in the eyes of the masked—which I still see sometimes. The other day a friend pointed out a masked person alone in a car, driving along, and every now and then a masker will show up at the supermarket or airport. I’d see masked people on bicycles, even on motorcycles. Their eyes telegraph their fears. What this government did to terrify the public is unforgivable, and I think it may have helped get Trump elected, as people started to realize that they needed protection from their own government.
As for the list, many of these conditions were showing up immediately after getting the shot, or within weeks. Yes, there might be some conditions that are vaguely possibly linked, but most have been well identified for years, particularly those linked to the nervous system or circulatory system, and that is most of them.
The only sane masking I saw was last week at the supermarket, when the masked checkout clerk explained that she thought she might be catching something so wore a mask to protect everyone else.
I posted this partly because it is funny, but mostly because when I first saw it the comments from Lefties were so hysterical. Basically, they griped because this is not a photo of a real IRS building. Yes, that’s what they got from it. Outrage that the Bee said an abandoned Post Office building was “misgendered” or something as an IRS building. HOW DARE THEY!
So it’s a funny post on different levels, both of them making fun of Lefties. Well worth it.
While Rocksy mourns the fact that no one cares about his frantic efforts to direct attention to him, the NYT seems to be going through something of an identity crisis of its own. I won’t pay to read the Slimes but in NARRATIVE WHIPLASH Jeff Childers (AKA Big Liar-Guy, per Rocksy) gets paid to do the dirty work and he has an article that will probably result in even more revelations I won’t have to pay to read when they show up in other places, about the US involvement in the war in Ukraine.
Yesterday, the New York Times dished out the biggest narrative pivot in history, completely shattering the existing Ukraine war narrative and replacing it with something much closer to being true. It changes everything. It’s probably also another grenade tossed into the deep state’s bunker. Either way, it is literally unbelievable. But we’ll try. Today’s bonus edition is a special C&C Proxy War edition, just for you.
While Rocksy mourns the fact that no one cares about his frantic efforts to direct attention to him…
You have such an active imagination, it’s quite funny. Maybe use it for something productive.
In the least surprising news of 2025, Childers uncovers that the United States helped Ukraine defend itself Russian invaders. Did Childers include this part of the Times article?
Now, with negotiations beginning, the American president has baselessly blamed the Ukrainians for starting the war, pressured them to forfeit much of their mineral wealth and asked the Ukrainians to agree to a cease-fire without a promise of concrete American security guarantees — a peace with no certainty of continued peace.
As far as Childers lying, all I know is the very first piece of his that I read, about the supposed unknown but large number of dead people receiving Social Security, he absolutely did lie when he wrote the “number of zombies having checks scattered over their gravesites remains unquantified.” It was quantified in the same Social Security report from which he quoted. He just didn’t bother read the footnotes. Or worse, he did read the footnotes but they didn’t fit his narrative, so he kept that information from his readers.
Childers said nobody knows how many of the fraudulent SS numbers are being used specifically to get cash benefits from SS. And this has Rocksy’s panties in a twist. (“Unquantified = “not quantified; not expressing or denoting quantity”)
It is kind of fun, though, to keep adding to his list of people he has to obsess about. It’s just so easy. And the funny thing is, NOBODY CARES
STOP THE PRESSES! The NYT has declared something it does not like as “baseless”! For only about the millionth time, though that is an unquantifiable number. Suffice it so say it can be replaced with “a whole bunch of times”. And suffice it to say that such editorializing is why the NYT is no longer considered to be a source of actual journalism.
And the funny thing is, NOBODY CARES
And the truly funny thing is, you’re the only one who keeps responding!
See my comment: “Sometimes I play along because he inadvertently opens doors to chances to make legitimate points, like the fact that on the Right we are not in mindless lockstep and can criticize people (and sites) we usually agree with, unlike the sycophantic Left which does not tolerate any deviance from the dictated narrative.”
The other day Rocks accused me of posting childish memes. It got me to thinking, why don’t we ever see any Liberal memes? Maybe it’s because they’re nasty and they’re not funny.
Not just nasty and not funny, but stupid. But then, look at the target audience.
Mental and emotional incontinence comes to mind.
Yeah, but then Rocksy makes it a trifecta with his narcissism. LOOKATMEPAYATTENTIONTOMEPAYATTENTIONTOMEEEEEEEEE
Here you go, Spook.
https://imgur.com/Mkt7j7y
I can’t thank you enough.
Because his silly petty bickering is soooooo important, right?
Apparently it is to him. He almost has to be getting paid because no sane person would do what he does for as long as he’s done it for free.
Well, you have to consider the intangible rewards of being scorned and rejected (but any attention is better than none!) and then there is the thrill of trying to slip back in using VPNs and new aliases, which would not appeal to anyone with a shred of personal dignity but then look who we’re talking about.
I can’t completely discount the possibility that he is on some sleazy social media platform where he gets some kind of credit for how many click he can get—-which would be one explanation for the pathetic efforts to draw us into his bickerfests—-but every possible explanation still comes up as a version of Low-Rent Loserville with a side of Pathetic.
Sometimes I play along because he inadvertently opens doors to chances to make legitimate points, like the fact that on the Right we are not in mindless lockstep and can criticize people (and sites) we usually agree with, unlike the sycophantic Left which does not tolerate any deviance from the dictated narrative.
He accused me of lying. The honorable thing would be for him to admit he was wrong about that.
Lying on purpose or just parroting lies—–tomayto tomahto and NOBODY CARES
What I said was: “I’m not sure if you didn’t think one of us would check, or if you’re just a liar and don’t care (actually the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive)” If I was going to call you a liar, I would have just said, “you’re a liar.” I typed in what you said you searched on and got nothing, then you said, oops, that’s not what I searched on. I typed in your new search string and got a “Not found” message. The you said I needed to click on the URL you posted and not the search string. And then you have the chutzpa to suggest I need to apologize to you. Go fuck yourself!
First of all, I made a simple mistake regarding the search phrase in my first post, which I happily corrected. Second, I didn’t say you had to click the URL. I asked you to try it to see if you got the results of the search. In other words, I was trying to be helpful. Who knows if you tried it. But as the screenshot shows, searching this blog does in fact work whether you’re willing to admit it or not.
We accuse you of lying all the time—because you are a liar. You misquote people, you misstate what was said, you offer wackadoo “interpretations” of statements and events, and you use different aliases to slip back in here after being banned. There is nothing honest about you.
Have we had enough of Rocky’s incessant demands to be NOTICED? (Not admired or respected—those have obviously never been criteria—but just the center of attention?)
I thought so. So this is the kind of thing the grown-ups are thinking about, while the squealing and wall-kicking goes on in the other room:
DEI at Sea: Why the Coast Guard Still Has No New Icebreakers
The first time I was aware of this kind of government stupidity was back in the Obama years, when Michelle’s buddies at CGI Group (CGI Federal, CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc. et al) were handed billions of dollars, ostensibly to produce a peachy, marvy, groovy and spectacular (or even just marginally functional) website and portal to Obamacare.
Hint: They did not just fail, they failed spectacularly, but didn’t give back any of the money.
And that explains why Trump is looking to Finland for icebreakers.
And think about this – the contract we had was $745 million for the first icebreaker…but that ballooned up to 1 billion (because of course).
Meanwhile, Trump is asking the Finns to build us icebreakers…and the Finns have an excellent design, the Polaris Class. Only one has been built and while it is smaller than the Polar Security Cutter class the price tag, even allowing for inflation and such, is about 20% of the cost of our Cutter. Another thing – the Finnish ship was laid down in March of 2015 and commissioned in September of 2016. Eighteen months. The Finns can build a ship and its freaking humiliating that we have to go hat in hand to them to get an icebreaker. I mean, we have to – we’d be stupid to spend a billion dollars on one. Have the Finns build us one or two so we can have them a couple years from now and then license building us more here in the USA.
Well, all four number one seeds are in the Final Four for only the second time since the NCAA Tournament field was expanded in 1985. The most accurate seeding in recent memory: all 1, 2, 3, & 4 seeds survived the initial round, and the Elite 8 consisted of four 1s, three 2s, and a 3.
They finally got it right!
STRONGLY recommend watching this video. It’s a careful analysis of quantifiable and quantified numbers of illegal immigrants holding current SS cards, how the government gave them those cards, and the steep rise in these numbers. Many are registered to vote and many did vote and tens of thousands are already on Medicaid.
One of the things that bothered me is that Border Patrol would just accept a claim of seeking asylum (you tell them you’re afraid) when asylum is technically, legally, restricted to proven political persecution due to political or religious reasons—and the law used to say applications for asylum had to be made before arriving at the border.
Saw that – it is huge; and IMO is means Trump likely won ME at large, MN, NE-2, NH with VA, NM and NJ possibly being his in an honest vote. In other words, a full on landslide was Trump’s if the Democrats hadn’t cheated…and if they had won last year, this would have been put on steroids for 2028.
Outside of that, I’m starting to think that we don’t have a crisis of SS funding but a crisis of SS funds being stolen.
Exactly. And what the howling mobs of Loony Lefties don’t understand is that every dollar pulled out of fraud and theft will go back into the Treasury to be applied where it is SUPPOSED to go. Those billions of stolen SS dollars will go back into the SS fund to be distributed to legitimate SS recipients. Which makes us wonder why some people object to this. Could it be because this will cut off their own revenue stream? Do ya think?
I think/hope that the next few years will see more, lots more, of this kind of analysis of the shenanigans that have affected this country for the last few decades. The reason this will look like a massive conspiracy theory is because it will reveal a massive conspiracy theory.
Take the stolen 2020 election, for example. It was not just stolen at the ballot box, though certainly there was a lot of that going on. (Isn’t it funny that even though the Postal Service finally admitted that yes, it did send thousands of completed ballots overnight from New York to Pennsylvania in an undocumented trip, in a trailer that then “disappeared”, nothing has been said about where those ballots when after they were delivered? Who got them? Were they counted? Where? Why?)
The election rigging started with government intelligence and law enforcement agencies gaming the system and committing fraud on the FISA court to enable surveillance of American citizens, with the goal of finding something that could be used against them to have a negative impact on the Trump campaign. It folded in the eager-to-help Complicit Agenda Media, which obediently flooded the nation with approved narratives negative to Trump, while many of his supporters were targeted and persecuted to keep them out of the game as well as to intimidate anyone else who might be inclined to step up and be part of his team.
That means that so far the web included: The DNC, Hillary Clinton, a British spy, a Russian agent, the FBI, the CIA, and the entire American network news system in addition to CNN and MSNBC, plus the New York Times and the L.A. Times—just to name the most prominent players. And that’s not even getting up to the laptop coverup, or the physical manipulation of ballots.
Then there is the element of illegal aliens affecting our elections. From padding census rolls to add House members to selected districts to giving them “government issued photo IDs” to then forcing government (state) officials to offer to enroll them to vote, we can’t ignore the effect of illegal immigration on the outcome.
But wait—we are overlooking the Covid Panic! The excuse to manipulate the election laws in many states, the changes in how ballots could be delivered, the use of a government-created (and possibly government-released) pathogen and its use to terrify, intimidate and control the voting public
This is a tangled, intertwined and incomplete web of different agencies, actors and policies, all designed to take control of our electoral process and install a desired symbolic Head of State that could then be controlled by a cabal of political masters.
And that only takes us up to November of 2020, and doesn’t even touch on the abuses-on-steroids that the success of these efforts allowed.
And it doesn’t address the billions upon billions of dollars controlled by the Deep State/Bureaucratic State–whatever you want to call it—-that either directly or indirectly financed this takeover of our entire government.
And they called the J6 protesters insurgents, while going through the very definition of insurgency—the overthrow of a government and assumption of its powers.
Can’t be emphasized enough how important Covid was to the 2020 steal – do note that supposedly 3 million fewer people voted in 2024 against 2020…meaning we’re supposed to believe that Joe Biden was such a beloved figure that without him on the ballot 3 million people decided to stay home. Just ridiculous. That 3 million was the fraud they couldn’t do without Covid and post various changes at the State level: for-instance, in 2020 Nevada had a Democrat governor and in 2024 a GOPer…who used to be Clark County sheriff and simply wasn’t going to put up with the level of shenanigans we had in 2020. My guess is that at least 5 million fraudulent ballots were cast in 2020 and maybe as high as 10 million.