Watched Trump and King Chuck give their speeches before the State dinner – Trump was in good form, clearly enjoying himself. And Charles also seemed pleased as punch. This ultimately stems from both men simply knowing who they are and further knowing that nobody can take it away from them. I have many disagreements with Charles and I’m horrified at his going along with Islamists in the UK…but he has that self-confidence which is supposed to be the supreme mark of the gentleman. Trump has it, too. It is a crucial aspect of leadership – knowing who you are. Not having to pretend and not wanting to, either. People like Biden and Clinton have faked it their whole lives. Obama, too. They have to say the enormous lies because it is their way of establishing dominance…to lie to our faces and defy us to do anything about it. Charles may be wrong about things – heck, Trump may be wrong about things – but they’re going to say what they want to say and not try to bamboozle us. It seems clear that Charles and Trump get along – because they recognize each other.
And that is the way it is supposed to be. We will not all agree. Not ever. At least, not this side of every knee bending and every tongue confessing that Jesus is Lord. But we’re supposed to meet each other on the level. Even war with each other on the level. That is what is really missing in modern society – it is so stuffed with cowards and cheats who lie to cover up that the whole world stinks. Everything is a crisis. Nothing gets solved because the liars and cheats won’t let us – fearful that if we fix things, we’ll start to ask why the liars and cheats are living so well.
But that is changing. Sure, Comey’s indictment might not lead to any jail time – but it is an indictment. It is a statement that a lying weasel is just that – and should be treated as such. We’re going after the fraudsters. We’re exposing the liars. We’re bringing reality back…and in reality, those who are truly worthwhile start to emerge, as from the shadows..and at times in quite terrifying forms because we’re simply so unused to it.
You think about the great leaders of the past – Caesar, Napoleon, Lincoln and Bismarck…towering figures who dwarfed all those around them. But, also, not terrifying because they rose out of reality. Napoleon beat Francis II time and time again…but never once did Francis lose his nerve or throw in the towel…he bided his time, built his army, forged his alliances and went to work with a will when the time came. Because Francis was as real as Napoleon. Grant as real as Lincoln. But who is as real as Trump? Vance. Hegseth. Rubio. But keep in mind these men, too, were initially dismayed by Trump…they, too, had bought the fraud that to be great was to be to at least some degree a liar and a cheat…all the liars and cheats said so. But under Trump’s auspices, these men – and many others – have come to firm ground, and they are becoming real, too. All of us who haven’t gone insane with TDS are simply better at it than we were pre-Trump. Less afraid to speak. More willing to risk. Quickly penetrating the fraud. We might disagree with each other. We might be mistaken. Even gravely so. But we’re all real – we’re all thinking and doing and trying to get to the truth as best we can.
I, for one, am glad go be in the real world.
Blogs For Victory 
Unfortunately, the “real world” these days is so disconnected from actual reality that something like 20% of Dems think the latest assassination attempt was staged.
About the same percentage believes men can get pregnant.
OTOH, the SC just ruled they can’t use racism to determine legislative districts. The VRA still exists – and Congress does have the power to enact such a law to ensure equal protection of the laws in voting – but the racially gerrymander is now officially ruled unconstitutional. Because, no duh. But, think about it – for 40 years the entire Establishment of the USA went about pretending that drawing districts so they’ll be majority black – just so they can ensure a black Representative – was ok. As if this is anything like what America is about…as if it is at all different from “whites only” signs in the Jim Crow South.
But, now its done – and not only will Red States gleefully redraw districts…but a lot of Blue States have racial gerrymanders in place and they will have to go. They will go – eventually, someone is going to sue. It isn’t just a dozen Southern House seats the Democrats can lose…it is probably an equal number (or more) in the Blue States.
I think what it comes down to is whether or not the law ensures equal protection for individuals in voting, or if it creates identity-based collectives which are then collectively protected as composite entities. And this brings us to the core of Leftism–the rejection of individualism in favor of collectivism.
Look at how the Left got its nose under the tent—it was by promoting unions, the most visible example of collectivism. And unions had their place, providing the power of the collective by creating entities composed of many people. But the Left has built on that, and especially in the last couple of decades has succeeded in creating groups, and sub-groups, of collective identities and then pitting them against anything outside those collectives, to generate conflict and chaos and to destabilize our culture and government.
The entire structure and political philosophy of the Left is based on collectivism, and hopefully this ruling will provide a crack in that structure. By denying the Left the ability to create an entity by grouping people by race and then using that collective identity to gain political power, instead of leaving politics to individuals the inherent power structure of the Left is diminished.
Yep – they are so deep in lies they can’t even perceive truth when its right in front of them. Complete disconnect from reality…and fury if reality comes barging in.
I just want to say, for the record, that I’m PROUD to belong to the political persuasion that DOES NOT assassinate its adversaries. And for those of you who do, it’s going to suck to be you when the dust settles.
With all of the attempts at gun control in the US, it seems a bigger hill than the average person might realize, and that hill keeps growing. Yet, the left keeps chipping away at gun ownership. Should they succeed, all they’ll do is make the US more vulnerable, both from inside and outside. As successful as Israel has ben in defending themselves from external threats, part of the reason for the infamous Oct. 7 attack by Hamas was because the average citizen in that region were mostly unarmed. Interestingly, according the chart below, of the roughly 850 million total civilian firearms worldwide, the US has almost 400 million of those.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-ownership-by-country
“Progressive lawmakers in Washington D.C. introduced legislation Tuesday that would increase the federal minimum wage to $25 per hour.”
I’m guessing the never-ending push by politicians to raise minimum wages has many reasons, first and foremost would seem to score votes. But there are other reasons some might not be initially aware of. For example, higher income means more taxes, and progressives love the thought of more money to spend. What the progressives fail to understand (or intentionally pushes to implement) is, significant changes in wages notably disrupts the cart of everyday living and when the dust settles, it ultimately results in things returning to par but with additional obstacles and adjustments to deal with. Earning 3x more money is worthless if the goods and services purchased ends up costing 3-4x more.
Back in 1965 the federal minimum wage was $1.25. Today it stands at $7.25 though in many states it’s much higher. In NY it’s $16-$17 per hour. In the restaurant industry server wages used to be less than the stated minimum but was largely offset by tips. Nowadays, servers are often paid at the same minimum wage as everyone else. Does that suggest tips are no longer relevant of should be considerably less than the typical 15-20% of what they used to be? Do people even take that into consideration or just continue with the long-followed tradition?
The typical price of gas in 1965 was $0.31 per gallon and the average cost of a new car was $2,200 – $3,200. According to Kelly Blue Book the average cost of a new car today is $49,191. With a minimum wage of $1.25 it would take 2,160 work hours (not considering income taxes and wage deductions) to pay for a new $2,700 car. Today, with the minimum wage at $7.25, the work hours needed to pay for a new $49.191 car is 6,785. While today’s vehicles have many more bells & whistles, the strain on the average person for a car purchase is 3-fold. The typical car loan back in the 1960’s was for 24-36 months. Today, most people have difficulties making payments on a 60-72 month payment schedule.
The labor costs for most industries make up a significant amount of a company’s overall expenses. When wages jump even a small amount, it becomes inevitable the company adjust to compensate. That adjustment would often mean things like, loss of employee hours or less employees altogether, higher costs passed on to consumers, closed businesses, etc. It seems the historical fallout of forced wage increases is never a part of the leftist politician’s thought.
https://headlineusa.com/congressional-progressives-introduce-25-federal-minimum-wage-plan/?utm_source=HUSA_EMAIL_NSP_AM&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=HUSAemail
“Reps. Ro Khanna, D-CA, Rashida Tlaib, D-MI, and Greg Casar, D-TX, all said rising costs of living as a reason they think the wage needs to be increased. Tlaib took the blame one step further, saying capitalism as a whole is at fault for increased cost of living.”
And there you have it, in a nutshell. (In Tlaib’s case, the shell of a nut) It’s a thinly disguised attack on capitalism, and an effort to move the needle farther to the Left in giving control over the means of production to the government.
One thing that seems to be lacking here is the dismissal of the Constitution. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Isn’t an effort by Congress to pass laws intended to countermand a Constitutional right an actual de facto effort to rebel against the Constitution, and therefore the authority of the United States (which is created and defined by the Constitution) and its laws thereof?
I’d like to see the promoters of this bill forced to explain and defend their determination to simply ignore and thereby violate the Constitution by implementing a federal law that is in direct contradiction to the 10th Amendment. Ask them to point out where, in the Constitution, the right to dictate payment for labor is a delegated right or duty of the federal government. And then ask if their efforts are not, in fact, de facto rebellions against the authority of the Constitution.
Trump continues to up his 5D chess game while the Iranians haven’t even mastered checkers. (hat-tip – Jeff Childers)
I’ve made a lot of posts regarding the abuses of power by judges, and today Kurt Schlichter has a great column on this. (Side note: if you click on the link and see the heading photo of “Judge” Boasberg, you will see why I think it shows him thinking “Uh-oh, that wasn’t really a fart”.)
As Kurt explains:
To use a humorous phrase, “it’s not really rocket surgery.” And it really is becoming so prevalent and apparent that even those who are not political junkies are starting to notice.
Kurt refers to Article III in the Constitution (“Article III is going to go away if Chief Justice John Roberts doesn’t rein in these clowns on the federal bench, and if the states don’t rein in their own”) —though naturally from now on it might be referred to as Article One Hundred and Eleven, thanks to Ilhan Omar.
But the existence of district and federal courts seems to be less than absolute and guaranteed. The article states: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
That seems to me to be a statement that the courts are established by Congress, and therefore can be un-established by Congress. If that seems too extreme, then it seems that Congress could establish, for example, a new tier of courts specifically created to take appeals of judicial overreach out of the Appeals Court system, which is slow, and put them into an immediate evaluation of their constitutionality and compliance with the law and the scope of authority of the lower court.
That is, Congress appears to have the authority to stop the current battle between different judges and courts: “I said so” —“But you don’t have the authority to say so”—“Yes I do”—“No you don’t” while the issue languishes and the problem is never solved, or continues unabated during the delaying tactics enacted by the Leftist judges. Such a ruling could then be adjudicated by the Supreme Court, if it was appealed to them, but it seems that a court or panel given the authority to issue an interim ruling that, for example, a District Court judge does not have the authority to override a decision made by the Executive Branch of the government would have a chilling effect on the posturing and ego-strutting of so many Leftist judges. Knowing that a rogue ruling will be slapped down immediately might make these rulings less attractive because of the embarrassment factor.
Article III also states:
In other words, there seems to be a variety of approaches to judicial overreach and abuses depending on Congressional decisions. Article III seems to give Congress the authority to make regulations excepting some of the authority of the Supreme Court, as well as to make regulations regarding judicial acts.
We tend to think the authority of the judiciary is absolute, but a closer reading of the Constitution shows that this is not true, and that when necessary everything goes from political appointment back to elected representation. This could be a version of my repeated assertion that the judiciary should be restrained by commitment to an oath of office that is binding, meaning that it is much the same as an employment contract and that violating it would result in losing the job and its associated benefits.
Better yet, have a regulation that any ruling against any action by any other branch of the government cannot be made public until after review and acceptance as legitimate. Give the review panel or court the authority to make such decisions, with the allowance for appeal only to the Supreme Court if there is a serious dispute. Take away the opportunity to preen and posture in front of the base and then reap the reward of assumed victimhood for being slapped down and all of a sudden these virtue-signaling efforts will stop.
Shut down pronouncements of alleged rulings until the process is completed and slap a lid on leaks with major penalties for leaking, and the whole thing will come to a screeching halt.
Off the top of my head:
In other words, if a judge seriously believes he has both the legal and moral authority to challenge any action of Congress or the Executive Branch he has the right and ability to argue his case in front of the Judicial Review Board—but can’t legally make his desired ruling public until it has passed muster by the Board. If he does, he is liable for immediate dismissal. If he enables anyone to act on his behalf to make this public, he faces the same penalty. If anyone with access to the record makes leaks this proposed ruling he faces severe penalties.
And if there is a true belief that the proposed ruling is both legitimate and in furtherance of Constitutional governance, he has the ability to petition SCOTUS for an immediate ruling.
Yes, this does depend on the moral authority of the Review Board, but any decision would have to be supported by case law, Constitutional citations, etc. and the criteria for sitting on the Board could be quite severe regarding partisanship and abuse of authority. The Board would not usurp the authority of SCOTUS but merely act as a screening mechanism and it would act as a speed bump to discourage posturing for the press and a political base.
Excellent idea – and very much in line with my idea of a Citizen’s Review Board.
The makeup of the Judicial Review Board would be key – because of course the Commies will try to staff it. Off the top of my head the membership must be randomly chosen and only for strictly limited terms. Perhaps some combination of random citizens, a former federal judge, a former P/VP, a couple former Congresscritters. Something like that.
Maybe they would first have to pass a test on the Constitution, or have to take seminars on the Founders, the arguments they made to support their decisions, etc.
Not a fan of King Charles, for several reasons, but I like his relationship with Trump (who also had a great relationship with Charles’ mother, the Queen) and this was a complete class act:
King Charles Gifted President Trump Something Incredibly Thoughtful
I had an appointment in Boulder County this afternoon and had to drive through two small cities to get there, and both had “No Kings” demonstrations. No traffic was disrupted—in one town they were on an overpass, with signs hanging down, waving and cheering, and in the other they were on a street corner.
And my impression was that I never saw a bigger collection of faces that showed no intelligence. They were all happy, but they looked stoned, just wearing blissed-out goofy grins They were absolutely giddy. They seemed to think they were basking in approval, though I didn’t see any signs of that—no honking in support or waving or any signaling of support. Even in Boulder County they were for the most part simply ignored.
I am happy for them. They feel good about themselves and they are on a major virtue signaling high. But it’s hard to imagine that any of them thinks, for one minute, that they are doing anything productive. I didn’t even get the impression that changing minds or influencing attitudes was the goal. The performance was the goal. They got to spend some time outside on a beautiful day, hanging out with like-minded peeps in an orgy of mutual stroking and smugness, and it was the most shallow, superficial, utterly simple-minded thing I have ever seen.
When I was a restaurant manager in Denver many years ago we had a lot of busboys and girls who were in one of the current cults—some pseudo-Indian nonsense led by a white guy who called himself Vijay and spouted distorted dumbed-down India philosophy. But the kids were enthralled—in the literal sense of the word. They were entranced, and had the same mindless glow of utter devotion I saw on faces today.
We tend to think of PETA as a Leftist-oriented group, and we are constantly being told how Leftists are kind, compassionate, loving, tolerant, and against any form of animal abuse.
Yet it is Liberals who tolerate this: This Barbaric Abuse by ‘Homeless’ Druggies Is Happening on LA’s Skid Row
Not only are the homeless giving drugs to dogs to see if they die due to fentanyl, they are being allowed to keep animals in cages in the hot sun, breeding them to have puppies to sell (or experiment on) and in general be part of systemic animal abuse–condoned, evidently, by Los Angeles and its Liberal policies.
For some reason my phone now dumps Facebook “notifications” on me, and it has been a revelation. OK, I have to admit, I do love the talking goldendoodles and some of the cat videos (there is some Eastern European guy who loves cats and does lyrical AI cat videos, some of them heartbreaking and poignant about cats in war) but one of my favorite discoveries (an actual reason to thank Facebook) is the regular Andrew Klavan clip.
This is a great example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBMR0UX-uw0