The Federal Courts have overstepped.

 Last week the federal appeals courts in Washington agreed to halt the Trump admin's deportation of members of Tren de Aragua. In spite of it being a temporary order, it still ventured into the executive domain of government concerning war and national security. A federal court has never overruled the decision of a president or Congress that the United States has suffered an attack of invasion. Ever. The Department of Justice has petitioned the Supreme Court to review, which it is expected to do. The Court should intervene with action that prevents trial judges from interfering with the elected branches authority over war and national security. 

On March 15, President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to send members of TdA to a prison in El Salvador. TdA has been designated a foreign terrorist organization and Trump claimed they were conducting an invasion or predatory incursion through "irregular warfare" such as drug trafficking and mass illegal immigration into the US. The Act requires that the enemy be a "hostile nation or government". Trump claimed this standard was met as TdA is "closely aligned with and integral to the Venezuelan government."

While it may be difficult to prove that a gang integral to a hostile foreign government is conducting an invasion or incursion in the US, at this point it remains a judgment call. Are the federal courts the right governing body to make that judgment? Judicial review does not extend to every constitutional question. The Constitution itself has committed the final decision to the president or Congress on matters of national security for which there are no legal standards the courts can apply. Chief Justice John Marshall admitted that  "the president is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion. For his decisions, he is accountable only to his country and to his own conscience. His choices cannot be questioned in court because the subjects are political. These issues respect the nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive". 

In the past, federal judges has refused to rule on the legality of not only the Iraq and Afghanistan wars but every war in American history, including the Guantanamo Bay cases. The courts deferred to the decision of George W. Bush that the 9/11 attacks had started a war. In the Prize Cases of 1862, the Supreme Court refused to judge whether President Abraham Lincoln had properly invoked the nations's war power in response to secession. The Court declared they could not question the merits of his decision and left the decision to "the political department of the government to which this power was entrusted". In the War of 1812, the Supreme Court also recognized that courts could not review decisions of other branches regarding war. Justice Joseph Story concluded "the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the president, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons." The court stressed that delay and confusion could arise in the ranks if questions arose over the presidents authority. The court also observed that "the evidence upon which the president might decide that there is imminent danger of invasion, might be of a nature not constituting strict technical proof, or the disclosure of the evidence might reveal important secrets of state, which the public interest and safety might require they be kept in concealment." 

In the Appeals Court stay, the court ignored the judiciary's traditional deference on questions of war and invasion. Judge Karen Henderson's opinion concluded "there must be hostilities." Judge Henderson, check with the families of the numerous Americans killed by TdA. They'll clue you in on the hostilities. 

Federal judges do not have the capability, knowledge and understanding, or access to the information to make sensitive decisions on whether a foreign actor represents a national security threat, not can they judge the harm that may come from action or inaction. Courts at any level are not designed or tasked with making policy decisions involving probabilities and risks, which are characteristic of war and national security. Analysts and investigators have asserted that the Maduro regime in Venezuela has purposely sent TdA to the US to destabilize our political system. They have trained several hundred members for that work and assumed operational control of them. 

Such is not the domain of our judicial system. The constitution is quite clear in assigning this responsibility and accountability to the executive and legislative branches. Venezuela is capable of and positioned to damage US interests in the Caribbean. China has been a longtime ally of Venezuela, dating back to the Hugo Chavez regime. To repeat, there are risks involved that the judicial branch are not qualified for nor do they have the constitutional delegation to consider matters of national security. There is basis and precedence and the Supreme Court needs to instruct them to stand down. 

#trendearagua # appealscourt #federalappealscourt #federalcourtoverreach #nationalsecurity #supremecourt

The #Tesla Takedown Affair

 So, some voters are miffed about what Elon Musk is doing through DOGE. He is being labeled as  Nazi, a fascist, and a host of other unprintable slurs. Recently, nationwide protests have been organized literally across the country, some drawing hundreds of protesters. Protests were planned in Canada and Europe as well during the day being called "a global day of action."A left-wing advocacy group, "The Action Network" claimed "Tesla Takedown' is a peaceful protest movement. We oppose violence, vandalism and destruction of property. We are simply exercising our First Amendment right to peaceful assembly. "Indivisible", another left-wing group said "Rally attenders must be peaceful and nonviolent." 

In the US the protests planned for Saturday were promoted by actors, filmmakers, various members of Congress, activists and academics who led rallies last week to support the planned protests. They were described as 'grassroots' protests to thwart Trump and Musk's agenda and to tank Tesla's stock. The protests were billed as nonviolent and included people line dancing outside Tesla dealerships and holding anti-swastika and anti-Musk and 'don't buy swastikacar' signs. 

Tesla locations everywhere have encountered violence and vandalism recently. Tesla owners have been hit with countless occurrences of vandalism to their cars. Tesla dealerships have been vandalized and many vehicles torched and fire-bombed. 

Yet the protests are purportedly peaceful, non-violent, grassroots protests. Truthfully, none of the three adjectives apply. Open the pages of any major news source to see photos of rows of unsold Teslas burning and exploding on dealership lots. Of miscreants keying and spray-painting swastikas on privately-owned cars. As has been the case in past protests and movements, these are not grassroots campaigns. They often are funded, planned and coordinated by national, political organizations like the Indivisible Project, Move-On.org, and professional protest firms. Many of the protesters seen at the events are being paid to do so. Those shouting through bullhorns were holding the bullhorn with one hand and a script in the other. The professional protest industry in the US was working overtime Saturday. This kind of organizing/protesting has become known as 'astro-turfing'. According to Asra Nomani in an article in the FairFax Times, "critics say these operations mislead the public, distort the media narrative, and erode trust in genuine democratic movements by masking partisan objectives behind a veneer of local outrage." So now we can add 'fake protests' to 'fake news'. At one of the protests, a protester was seen parking near a van with a sign "Poster Lending Library." These groups use digital platforms, pre-scripted chants, pre-printed signs, and prepared toolkits to manufacture the appearance of grassroots activism.They're not even trying to be discrete. 

Jasmine Crockett, who you have no doubt heard of recently, is working with the Soros-backed paid protest group "Indivisible' to organize protests at Tesla stores across the country. She was quoted as saying, "Let's take down Elon Musk for my birthday." Tesla protesters protesting at a dealership in Texas immediately stopped what they were doing and left at precisely at 12pm. Colin Rugg, co-owner of Trending Politics noted in a post on X, "This was odd..." Leaving at a precise time is indicative of someone who is 'on the clock', when the pay stops, the work stops. 

A particular point of irony I'd like to point out, is a number of promoters, advocates, sponsors, activists and members of Congress who speak freely against Elon Musk, Tesla and DOGE recently have been and continue to purchase Tesla stock. You'd be surprised how many democratic members of Congress own Tesla stock. Gil Cisneros (D-NY) called Trump and Musk 'atrocious' and that DOGE was 'causing destruction'. Days after making these claims, he bought thousands of dollars of Tesla stock. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) in a public rant said "The risk to Americans privacy and financial security from Musk's unchecked access are not only unacceptable, but outright dangerous. At about the same time, Gottheimer disclosed he purchased $45,000 in Tesla stock. Vicente Gonzalez (D-TX), who said "DOGE's action is incredibly concerning" this month bought over $100,000 of Tesla stock. During the Biden administration the Democratic controlled Congress was passing laws putting the country on the path to phasing out combustion engines. Now, they're actually 'combusting' them. Liberal Democrats are consistently hypocritical if anything...

#Teslatakedown #moveon.org #elonmusk #DOGE #JasmineCrockett #Indivisible #teslaprotests #teslahypocrisy

Does it matter where you were born?

 The US District Court for the District of Columbia, where many of the cases interfering with the Trump administrations' authority have been presented, has 15 judges, five of them were born outside of the US. Country of origin isn't a factor in most jobs, but it does beg the question if judges with ties to foreign nations and cultures are the best choices for making decisions affecting the US military, immigration or foreign policy. One cannot say it's completely irrelevant, since the authors of the constitution itself stated that one must be a US born citizen to qualify for the position of US president. Until Donald Trump became president, decisions regarding national security and foreign policy were the exclusive domain of the president. The liberal resistance has taken it upon themselves to undermine the presidents' executive authority in the only way they know how, weaponization of the judicial system. And we thought that ended with Alvin Bragg... They have filed a chain of lawsuits suing the administration and have 'chosen' courts in known liberal districts in which to file. The district court of DC is Lalaland for these suits. 

Surprisingly, the DC district does not have a history of foreign-born judges. It includes 10 senior judges who still occasionally hear cases in the district. This group of 10 judges date as far back as the Reagan administration in the 1980's, all were born in the US. Starting in 2014, Barry Obama appointed Judge Tanya Chutkan who was born in Jamaica. She attended law school at George Washington University. Before her appointment to the federal court, she had no experience as a judge. None. She is currently overseeing the legal challenge to DOGE's work to cut excess government spending. Obama also appointed Judge Amit P. Mehta to the DC court. Mehta also had no experience as a judge. None. Mehta was born in India, his parents immigrated to America when he was one year old. Mehta will oversee four civil cases related to events from January 6 that purport to blame Trump for injuries, which will undoubtedly detract from presidential duties, or at least attempt to do so. 

The other three foreign born judges were nominated by Joe Biden, aka Brandon. Judge Ana Cecelia Reyes was nominated in 2021, who also had no prior experience as a judge. None. She was born in Uruguay, lived in Spain and later immigrated to Kentucky where she grew up. Shew is the first openly LGBTQ Latina to be appointed to this court. Reyes presided over the case objecting to Trumps' executive order declaring 'gender dysphoria' as a disqualifier for troop readiness. The first Muslim Arab American in the DC district court is Judge Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali. He was born and raised in Canada to Egyptian parents. Ali only became an American citizen in 2019. Ali obtained a degree in software engineering in Canada then graduated from Harvard Law school in 2011. He worked as a volunteer in the Biden presidential campaign and various nonprofits. He had no experience as a judge (or any other legal experience...) prior to being appointed by Biden. None. Ali, with no supervision, oversight or collaboration restored $2 billion in USAID spending to foreign nonprofit contractors that had been paused by the Trump administration for 90 days. 

The newest judge on the DC district court is Judge Sparkle Sooknanan. She was sworn in on January 2, 2025. Born in Trinidad-Tobago in 1983, she attended college and law school in Brooklyn NY, graduating in 2010. She clerked for Justice Sotomayor and was deputy assistant attorney in the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ. Biden appointed her as district judge in the DC district. She had no experience as a judge, ever. None. 

None of the cases impeding the Trump administrations' agenda have gone in front of conservative judges in conservative states. They have all landed in the DC district or the SDNY (southern district of New York). All of the judges that have heard these cases have ruled against Trump or his policies in the past. 

Any arguments regarding constitutionality, legal interpretation or precedence are moot at this point. If American citizens are guaranteed a fair and impartial judgement, then why shouldn't the president be guaranteed such? During the Biden administration there were 14 negative district court judgments. For Obama, 12. For Bush, 6. During the administrations of the entire 20th century there were approximately a dozen. 65 days into the Trump administration there are already 15. Is this bias, resistance, revenge, lawfare, or corruption? Or some or all of the above? What it is not, is what the authors of the constitution intended...

Is this due process, or something else?

 Today in a 2-1 decision, an appellate court sided with the federal district judge who ruled against the Trump administrations' right to deport violent Venezuelan gang members without a due process hearing. Trump invoked the two centuries old Alien Enemies Act as the basis for his actions. Apparently, the appellate court deliberations were dominated by an Obama appointee, a Patricia Millett. The debate centered on whether the administration violated the constitutional due process protections which might have provided habeas protections. Habeas corpus protections are rights that protect citizens against unlawful detention. Note the keyword 'citizens'. The illegal criminal deportees were not American citizens. While they are subject to our laws while in America, legally or otherwise, they are not automatically afforded the same constitutional rights and protections as American citizens. Tren de Aragua has been declared a foreign terrorist organization, no one or no organization (or political party) has contested that. So far, anyway... Had the deportees been members of al Qaeda, or ISIS, would the same resistance be occurring? I suppose, given the state of affairs we are experiencing today, anything is possible. The offenses of this foreign gang of terrorists while in our country are known and documented. They are on video taking over an apartment building in Aurora Colorado. They are known for violent crimes against American citizens, including children. Let me say it one more time, they are not American citizens. I'm not a lawyer, as most of us aren't. But being a lawyer isn't a requirement for standing up for what's right. How wonderful the world would be if more lawyers actually did that... Is allowing violent, illegal immigrants, and foreign terrorists on the streets right? Is the right answer yes, no, or only after they are protected by our, not their, constitutional rights? 

Agreed, we are not at war with Venezuela. Is that required before we can protect ourselves against all the active and sleeper TdA cells on our soil? What sleeper cells you say? TdA comes from a country ruled by a savage dictator. Venezuela held a free election a couple of  years ago and he was duly elected? No, he wasn't. When it became apparent he was losing the election he had his opponent silenced forcing him into exile. Maduro declared himself the winner and president of the country. The Venezuelan people didn't. The US doesn't recognize him as the valid Venezuelan head of state. TdA has long-standing ties to a Maduro crony who  is now one of his administrations' leading lackeys. The center of gravity of the cocaine industry shifted from Columbia to Venezuela in the past few years. Instrumental in the current operations is, you guessed it, TdA. Maduro has long been an ally of Russia and China. Not to mention that he holds a deep-seated hatred of the United States. What better vehicle than TdA to flood the US with illicit drugs. TdA aren't just drug smugglers and dealers. They're also murderers, rapists, and just all-around thugs, full-service providers for a dictator. In a nutshell, they're here doing Maduros' bidding. Here in America. 

Americans are not unaware of this. For at least four years, actually longer, we have seen what is going on in the streets. Untold numbers of Americans have lost their lives or loved ones to illegal drugs from South America and Asia. The tsunami of fentanyl which has abated somewhat recently, has destroyed countless American families. Last November the American people spoke in a truly free election that we wanted something done about it. The majority decided that our best shot at that was to elect Donald Trump. Though he won by a significant margin, not every American voted for him. Yet never in any election in history has any president won by getting 100% of the votes, popular or electoral. And we have had multiple political parties since George Washington was elected, and it's still called the United States of America. Now, we have a president who is willing to do what needs to be done. To deport those who are here illegally and are depriving American citizens of their constitutional rights, and in many cases, their lives. Are those illegal immigrants entitled to due process rights? Were the 9/11 terrorists entitled to due process rights? We were not at war on September 11, 2001 either. How many federal district judges filed TROs on September 12, 2001? How many Americans must die before Congress or the Supreme Court step up and protect the separation of powers doctrine? And let the executive branch do what the American people asked them to do?... There is not one single federal district judge anywhere in the United States that was elected by anyone, anywhere, at any time. Any nowhere in the Constitution does it say that executive actions are subject to the oversight and control of federal district judges. That power rests exclusively with Congress. I might point out that federal district judges are the lowest level of the federal judiciary. Their jurisdiction covers their 'districts'. In the case of the flood of TRO's blocking the executive actions since Trump was elected, these 'districts' have exclusively been in blue states. What a coincidence... Why has Congress been silent? Or is the bear about to be awakened?...

#separation of power #federaljudiciary #trump #dueprocess #trendearagua #constitutionalcrisis #politico

So divided, and so much at stake.

 Humans are very adaptive. When we are fatigued, we get a second wind. When fear overcomes us, adrenaline rushes into our bloodstream and we are instantly capable of things we could never do otherwise. When something, anything, annoys, irritates, irks, peeves, riles, or galls us we have this ability to compartmentalize it, which I suppose is another way of saying ignore it. Whatever that 'something or anything' was, we don't agree with it, or don't like it so we simply ignore it. This strategy can be strangely effective at times, if one ignores something long enough it will just go away. At least from one's personal perspective anyway. 

To say that our country is 'divided' would hardly get an argument from anyone these days. Metaphorically, that divide may have once been a morass, but at some point it became a crevasse. A big, wide, deep chasm that appears to be a breech not only in political ideology but in civility as well. Now and then someone will attempt to bridge the fissure only to be criticized and lambasted for such an attempt (Chuck Schumer and the CR to keep the government running...). When it comes to politics, we can't even agree to disagree anymore. 

When the George Floyd incident occurred in 2020, the destruction from rioting destroyed multiple inner cities. The death of George Floyd began a period of unprecedented civil unrest. Racial undertones have been the theme of civil unrest since the days of the civil rights movement. They still are but we have gone far beyond racial divides. 

We certainly haven't moved past it, we have only added to it. It's no longer only racial issues, it's liberal versus conservative, it's lawfare, it's election interference, it's lying when the truth is obvious, it's ignoring the fact that the national debt is not sustainable, it's incessant attempts to stymie the president's agenda because of TDS. Trump derangement syndrome, I actually believe that's a real thing now, sad to say... And more, much more. 

'We' doesn't quite have the same meaning anymore. There was a time when an American said 'we', that meant Americans. All of us. Not so much anymore. Now when one says 'we', if it's a liberal talking, then it doesn't necessarily include conservatives. And vice versa. We are a democracy, a nation where majority rules. That is in fact true. In essence, it's not true. Last November Trump was elected president by a significant margin of American voters. His platforms, promises and ideals were what the majority of Americans wanted and stated as much at the ballot box. Now that he's in office, the 'resistance' doesn't miss an opportunity to thwart his actions and agenda given any opportunity. They're relentless in spite of being leaderless and unconscionable. There is no  agree to disagree. They want Trump and his agenda to simply 'go away'. That crevasse I mentioned earlier is wide and deep and apparently it isn't going away either. If anything, it's getting wider and deeper. 

I am not a fatalist, as I believe most people aren't. I don't believe we are headed for another civil war. We're better than that, now. This 'divide' might exist for a long time. It may span several generations. It can and will be managed. But, just as most of us wanted change and elected Trump because he best represented the change we wanted, we, and this time I mean ALL Americans will endure the next four years and emerge better off than we are today. Not only can we compartmentalize and ignore what we dont like, we can prioritize and push for what we do like. And the majority will always rule...

#realpolitics #trump #politico #r/politics #politicalideology #electioninterference #trumoderangementsyndrome

Tariffs will be the greatest thing ever?... No, they won't Mr. President.

 When President Trump began talking about tariffs as a means of balancing trade with other nations and eliminating our trade deficit, making such claims as "We're going to have so much money we won't know what to do with it...", a question mark popped into my head. Wait a minute, what am I missing? That's not how it works, I thought. One of the things I remember from my study of economics at Texas A&M some years ago was that tariffs are paid by the importer, which would be us. Consumers and firms in the US would be on the hook for tariffs on imported goods, not foreign exporters. Tariffs are an import tax added to the price of the goods. Trump insists that other nations or foreign companies will pay the full costs of the tariffs that the US collects on imports. "It's a tax on another country," he says. 

The way things have worked in the past, for a very long time, is tariffs are paid by the importer. There are actually three possibilities for who will ultimately pay, or share, the tariffs. The foreign exporter could reduce their cost to cover the tariff to maintain their previous volume of sales to the importer. If the exporter adds the tariff to his selling price, the importer could absorb the price. They could maintain their prices and accept a lower margin. If between them, if the exporter and importer absorb the tariff, the cost would not fall on the consumer. However, in practice, that's not how it works according to studies of real-world impact of past tariff increases. In a paper on the Trump tariff regime of 2018 published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, economists analyzed the effect of the tariffs from Trumps' first term. The review found that for steel, exporters actually dropped their prices to US importers fully offsetting the tariffs. However, steel was an outlier. Overall, prices for targeted goods rose 22% on average. The study found that excluding steel, US consumers paid all of the costs of tariffs. For cars and food items consumers shouldered a 100% pass through of the tariff tax. 

A second analysis of the Trump first term tariffs from the National Bureau of Economic Research reached a similar conclusion. In most sectors of the economy, they found that tariffs has been completely passed on to US firms and consumers. 

Though Trump hasn't explicitly claimed that tariffs would accelerate economic growth, the laws of economics say they won't. From Trumps first term, tariffs did stimulate increases for domestic producers in sales. But they would have benefitted much more if not for lost sales due to retaliation from foreign producers. On the bottom line, tariffs decreased the annual GDP from 4.9% to 4.75%. The tariff increases from 2018 were a fraction of what Trump is proposing today, as would be the resulting effects.

As far as reducing the trade deficit, the Presidents' plan does not align with a basic law of economics. The annual trade deficit must match the difference between all US savings and all US investment. For years, American taxpayers and businesses haven't been saving nearly enough to support the demand for stocks and privately issued bonds, new factories, data centers, housing projects, and other profit-generating ventures. The reason they haven't, gigantic budget deficits. The government is 'taking' a huge share of America's savings that would otherwise flow into private investments to pay for the deficit. Last year, the shortage of savings to investment was equal to the trade deficit. The trade deficit, which is money in the hands of foreign nations, send that money back to the US to fund the investments we can't cover. The big influx of cash from abroad allows the US to spend a lot more than if we had to balance our own federal budget. We are in effect, financing our deficits with money from abroad. This allows us to consume more than we produce. So Trump's theory of foreigners causing our trade deficits by taking advantage of us, not true. Any country posting a savings-investment deficiency will post a trade deficit the exact same size. 

Tariffs will not shrink the federal budget deficit. Estimates say the Trump tariffs would raise around $300 billion in 2026 and shave about $2 trillion from what the annual GDP would be without them. That drag on economic growth would reduce tax receipts more than the tariffs would collect. Tariffs are known to not raise much revenue unless they are high. And high tariffs encourage smuggling. Yet another problem...

Trumps' view that we are being taken advantage of by trade partners profiting from Americas' markets doesn't align with the data. While it is true that foreign nations have high charges and technical barriers to protect certain products. But the US does the same. Prior to Trumps' second term, the EU charges an average of 1% on US imports, the exact same rate we charge. Last year the EU bloc collected $3 billion in tariffs from the US, less than half what we charged the EU. 

The facts dont support the Presidents' position on tariffs, assuming that he doesn't change the laws of economics. The long term costs of Trumps' tariffs will be immense, in terms of impact to the nations' GDP. GDP is the big cahuna. When it suffers, so does economic growth, employment, investment, tax revenue, and the federal deficit.  You might want to take another long, hard look at it, Mr. President...

#trumpstariffs #budgetdeficits #politico #tariffs #tradedeficit #GDP

Russian leadership leaves much to be desired...

Vladimir Putin is a stupid cretin. He's about as contemptible as a homo sapien can get. There's the old lawyer joke, 'how do you know when a lawyer is lying? When his lips are moving.' Some, maybe, but I know a bunch of good lawyers. There are no good Putins. And indeed, if his lips are moving you can bet he's lying. 

Today, Putin dismissed the Trump administrations' cease-fire proposal with Ukraine and demanded further concessions. Including of course, that the US and Europe cease all arms shipments to Ukraine before Moscow will agree to any ceasefire. "We agree to proposals to cease hostilities in Ukraine, but the cessation must lead to a long term peace and eliminate the root cause of the initial crisis," Putin said. He did not elaborate on exactly what the root causes were. So, Vlad, you really are interested in a long-term peace agreement? And the root cause of the conflict must be eliminated? Vladimir, do you really think the world is stupid and you're not? Or is it the other way around?... Listen closely, you vodka-slurping moron. The root cause of the conflict for which you are so eager to see long-term peace, is you. Let me repeat, it's you. For whatever your geopolitical aspirations were, whatever historical mishaps you are trying to correct, wherever your blind ambition may be leading you, you and your little band of green clad robotic minions invaded Ukraine. Remember? Or are you suffering the same malady as our former president? 

There's your root cause Vladdy. Ukraine, before you started acting like a fool, and still is, a sovereign country. Had it been any other self-respecting sovereign country on earth, we would probably be engaged in World War III now. But like every other mush-headed bully you thought you could pick on the little guy and get away with it. Only, it hasn't worked out quite the way you thought it would. You have lost almost half, yes half of the available troops and reservists in your defenses remaining. 850,000 troops. What in the sam hell was going through that little KGB-trained mind of yours? 

And now, you are demanding that Europe and the US stop providing arms to Ukraine so you can consider a long term peace deal? Why, so you can pounce on them as soon as that happens? That would be the only way you could win the war. Were the conflict to continue, as is, you run a significant risk of losing. Your troops are almost half depleted, your economy is in shambles, 20%+ inflation. Your 'country' could collapse, Vladdy. Your namesake, 'Vladimir' Lenin would be so ashamed of you. Our president is being very nice to you. Trying to compromise, and achieve peace. Most Americans, were they in Trumps' shoes would tell you to pound sand. Actually, I believe that's what the citizens of most countries in the free world would tell you. We know that you don't care. You're a KGB-trained, hardened iconoclast. Apparently, you're also a solipsistic asshole. In spite of being in the position of being a statesman, you're not one to take advice from anyone. So, here's a directive, go pound sand...

#Ukrainewar #putin #politico # r/politics #putin # politicalscience #ukraine #zelensky

The Biggest Threat to Democracy that No One Ever Suspected...

 The US is categorized as a "Constitutional Democracy". To be more accurate, it is a 'constitutional federal republic'. However, one may choose to describe it, the word constitutional will undoubtedly appear. Without exception the constitution is considered the 'supreme law of the land'. All laws passed by Congress since the inception of the country are based on the essence and parameters of the constitution. In the course of human events and the development of the nation, inevitably situations have arisen that require 'interpretation' of the constitution. The clear intent of the constitution as it would apply to these unique events isn't always crystal clear. The profession whose ordained purpose is to interpret the law on the basis of the constitution is, of course, attorneys. I think most Americans take for granted that lawyers are trained to interpret the law based on the constitution. To an extent, that is true. Or at least, it is supposed to be true. Let me explain.

Lawyers, like other professionals matriculate through university programs then obtain advanced degrees in law. If you have been following the political winds in the US for the past fifty years or so, you are no doubt aware that university staffs, and students for that matter, have become increasingly quite partisan. And for the most part, which I can't explain, they are quite liberal. Academics tend to lean to the far left. This idealistic orientation isn't confined to the liberal arts and philosophy by any means. If anything, idealism is ingrained in law schools more than any other discipline. 

Once out of law school, lawyers' careers are supremely affected by the American Bar Association. Lawyers must be licensed by the ABA in order to practice their profession. The control and influence the ABA has on lawyers' careers doesn't start upon graduation from law school. The ABA is the de facto governing body that accredits law schools, rating judges, and weaponizing lawyer discipline. Academicians, especially legal academicians have long been known to be far left in political ideology. So too, are the elders of the ABA. Recently, a Senate and White House legal liaison to the ABA advocated for the Trump administration to stop using the ABA to prescreen judicial nominees. "The activist organization has taken a partisan role in America's legal system since it began evaluating judicial nominees in 1953", he said. Multiple studies of ABA ratings have documented systematic bias against Republican nominees. For example, the ABA rated as 'qualified' Charnelle Bjelkengen who, at her confirmation hearing was unable to tell Senator John Kennedy the purpose of Article V of the Constitution. Bjelkengren was nominated to be a federal judge in the eastern district of Washington. 

The ABA's public actions grew increasingly partisan throughout the Biden admin and into the early days of Trump's second term. The ABA claimed that bar associations had a First Amendment right to engage in racial discrimination. Seriously?... During previous democratic administrations the ABA adamantly installed DEI training in all university law programs. For many years the ABA has had a virtual monopoly on entry into the legal profession. Through the organizations' dominance of the legal profession far left extremism has become the theme of legal practice in the US. More importantly, Americans have been deprived of lawyers and justices dedicated to the US Constitution. The Trump admin has halted DEI mandated university programs, which the ABA has temporarily suspended. 

For a long time, leftists have controlled the American legal system. Publicly available data shows that lawyers are huge Democratic Party financiers, at both the state and federal levels. Since Trump took office, countless executive actions have been halted through orders from liberal leftist federal judges (like Bjelkengren almost was...), who are issuing rulings on executive matters over which they have no constitutional jurisdiction whatsoever; such as foreign affairs. The legal profession is a critical part of American politics, and even American life. We depend on it to deliver fair and impartial justice. Unbeknownst to most Americans, that has not been happening... The ABA needs to be dissolved and discarded and added to the scrap pile of American hubris. The US Supreme Court has some housekeeping it needs to do. 

#jurispridence #federaljudges #americanbarassociation #legalsystem #americanjurisprudence

Are you protesting, being indignant, or being stupid?...

 Last night President Trump addressed the nation in a speech. Several minutes into it, his speech was interrupted by a congressman from Texas, Al Green. Trump, stated owing to a significant margin of voters said he had a mandate to deliver promises made to the voters. Al Green stood and boisterously shouted, "You don't have a mandate!" He was warned by the Speaker of the House to cease the interruption, nevertheless he continued the babble and was ordered to be removed from the chamber by the Sargent-at-Arms. And he was. Today, he was duly censured by the House of Representatives. As he should have been. 

Throughout Trumps' speech the Democrats' side of the chamber remained seated, stoically ignoring any enthusiasm. Even when items were mentioned that were positive steps for everyone, economically, politically, what have you, they remained seated and motionless. On one occasion, Trump recognized a 13 year old boy suffering from life-threatening cancer his entire life, who aspired to a career in law enforcement. The director of the Secret Service presented the young man with honorary credentials as an agent of the Secret Service.  Myself, as I would think to most Americans, this was a heart-wrenching moment, devoid of political bent. To die-hard democrats it was a politicization of something. I'm not sure of what, nor do I think democrats know of what, either. For this, they did not stand or applaud. Disgusting, despicable, and appalling. 

To Al Green, and the rest of the democrats, trying to shame you is pointless. You dont care and everyone knows you dont care. Trump could cure every cancer patient on the planet and you'd still hate him. He could snap his fingers and inflation would be 1%, you'd still hate him. He could make a dozen eggs cost 98 cents, and you'd still hate  him. We have a framework of government that encourages debate and consensus. But we seem to have reached a point that one side wants to talk yet refuses to listen. One side hates the other no matter what they say or do. One side is on a sinking boat and seems intent on blaming the other side for the boat sinking instead of saving themselves. 

To say it's an historic low point is an understatement. To say it's sad and pathetic is accurate. As I have said in previous posts leadership is critical. It's necessary. Even when one party has effective leadership and is making progress, if the other party is going down with the Titanic, we're all getting wet. We're all on the same boat. Some have the sense to get in the life boats instead of running around the decks of a sinking boat panicking... Come on, democrats, get it together...

#alGreen #trumpspeech  #pasrtisanpolitics  #trumpspeech

Trumps' Tariffs.Let's have a look...

Tonight is Trumps’ first speech in his second term. It’s not a State of the Union speech as he has only been in office two months. He has a couple of topics on which discussion is  widely anticipated, such as tariffs and immigration. But, Trump being Trump will bang his gong on just about everything he has touched. 

I have mixed feelings about his tariff philosophy, in general I dont expect it to be the miracle cure he touts it to be. Sometimes, actually often times I’m not sure Trump understands a lot of things. Through all the bluff and blunder he convinces a lot of people that he knows a lot more than he really does. Even though he concedes that there will be ‘a little pain’ initially with the tariffs, I think he is greatly underestimating the pain. He won’t feel it, but an awful lot of Americans will. On the other hand there is much potential and rationale for tariffs. America has long been taken advantage of by our trading partners. There is little doubt about that. For instance, China dumping cheap goods here for decades, including infrastructure critical goods such as steel. Forcing American suppliers to lower prices to the point of being nonprofitable. Which of course eliminates American jobs. So there are some very deserving targets for tariffs that should have been placed long ago. As for for tariffs across the board, I dont think so. Consider housing costs in the US right now. Slapping tariffs on Canadian lumber imports will only add to the costs of housing pushing them even further into the unaffordable range. Inflation is bad, unaffordable housing is terrible. During your campaign you touted ‘common sense’ Donald. Use it. 

I also agree that Trump is pushing the envelope on invoking legislative authority in the executive branch. There is a fine line here that is being stomped on. Our constitution is clear on maintaining separation of power. The power to enact laws rests purely with the legislative branch. Though allowances have been made which enable the president to enact laws on an emergency basis. These executive orders enacting the tariffs are possible through a law passed by Congress called the IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act). If not for IEEPA, tariffs could only be imposed by Congress. Are these tariffs necessary as an emergency action? That would be a difficult position to defend. Congress could override these executive orders, but at the risk of defying the president... At present it would be hard to find volunteers for that.

We are putting both executive and legislative power in one persons’ hands by allowing this. In the long run it could be beneficial for the country. Or, it may not. If the latter turns out to be the case, is Congress willing to take the bull by the horns, and take this specified legislative power away from the president? This is precisely what our framers feared, too much power in one persons’ hands. Checks and balances and separation of power...

#tariffs  #trumptariffs #executiveoverreach #constitutionalcrisis

The Oval Office Fiasco, Who's Fault was it?...

 Last Friday in the Oval Office, there was a televised meeting with Trump, Vance and Zelenskyy with the obvious presumption that there was going to be a 'deal' made. Trump prides himself on making deals. Thinks he's the best dealmaker in the history of the world. If you don't believe him, just ask him. This was purported to be a deal that would end the Ukraine-Russia war. In exchange for rights to rare-earth minerals in Ukraine, the US would get an agreement from Russia to end the war of aggression. The Ukrainian borders would not revert to pre-2022. The white elephant in the room, though it wasn't white at all from Zelenskyy's perspective, was security guarantees from the US. On this, Zelenskyy was insistent, his rationale being that Putin cant be trusted to honor a truce. The whole world knows this, why dont you Mr. President? JD Vance kept harping on how ungrateful Zelenskyy was, "You should be thanking the president." He actually has, JD. Many times. Sit down and shutup. 

The president then admonishes Zelenskyy by stating "You're messing with World War III." If what he was suggesting was that by obtaining security guarantees from the US and were Russia to renege on any truce and continue the invasion forcing the US to engage, then yes, World War III would be a definite possibility. Two nuclear superpowers, face to face. Do we really have that much skin in the game at this point? No. Should we? No. Who should? Europe. Continued aggression would bring Russia to another countrys' doorstep. Should the world assume that once Ukraine was part of Russia's domain they would be content to call it a day? Sure. And if you believe that I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona for you. 

So, who was out of line in the Oval Office on Friday? Trump was. By having some conversations with Putin and believing that they had some sort of 'bond' and believing that Putin would honor his word, Trump is entering the same Lala-land that Biden is hosting. Trump has a bevy of really smart people advising him, has the cat got their tongues? Shooting the shit with Putin and actually believing he will honor critically important obligations is akin to believing Kamala Harris would have been a great president. What evidence is there to support this? None. Not one iota, shred, speck, nothing. Go back as far as you wish, there is nothing. Russia is aligned with such rogues as Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, China, North Korea, Hamas, the world's premier bad actors. I really want to believe that Trump knows this and is simply 'playing along'. You know, keeping his cards close to his chest. If that's not the case, we're in big trouble. 

#trump. #jdvance  #putin  #ovalofficefiasco  #worldwarIII  #diplomacy