Archives
If you think Trump's Executive Order creates DOGE out of thin air, and that he is exceeding his authority by doing so, you should really read the article "Trump’s DOGE Order: A Legal Masterstroke That the Media Lied About".
So yes. He can. I'm not saying he should, but he can.
OK... yes, I am also saying he should.
But the question is can he? And yes. He can.
Read up on what a sovereign wealth fund is. Do you really think this will end well? Not a chance in hell.
I sure hope this is a trial balloon, but given that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is moving forward with this, I expect it is not.
I've opposed Bessent's nomination from the start, given his connection to George Soros, so I'm only mildly surprised at how fast Bessent is moving to implement Soros' New World Order.
I still do not regret my vote for Trump, because however much I disagree with this move of Trump's, I believe Harris would have moved even faster and in even more worrisome ways to align the U.S. with the NWO.
It remains to be seen if this is just a show or if it’s for real. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Scheinbaum called this guy’s boss and asked for permission to offer him up as tribute to Trump. Perhaps she just said “You gotta give me someone. Who do you want to replace?” And El Ricky was the answer.
On the other hand, it’s possible that Trump explained the new rules to her and she got the message.
Either way, I expect repercussions here in the U.S. The cartels are not going to go quietly into the night. I think I’m going to have to reread Tom Clancy’s Clear and Present Danger. Buckle up. It’s gonna be a bumpy ride.
I believe Trump and Trudeau spoke yesterday or this morning, and they’re going to speak again at 3:00 this afternoon. I think Trump explained the new rules to Trudeau and is waiting for his answer, too.
OK… for all my lib friends and Never Trumper friends, here’s my first “call out” of President Trump. But I want to be clear… this is one of the things I knew about him before I voted for him, and I don’t regret having done so because I think it would have been just as bad, if not worse, if Harris had won. It's less a Republican vs. Democrat thing than it is a human thing.
So what am I calling him out on? He’s high on AI. But with regard to this issue, he’s just in line with what’s been a problem in society for decades: we never seem to take the time to ask the questions “Yes, we can do this, but ought we? And if so, what are the risks and foreseeable unintended consequences? What restrictions should we put on this? Is it even possible to restrict? What can we put in place to protect against it being misused?
I think I’m more concerned about where this technology will take us than almost any other issue, despite the obviously good things it can bring. Humans do not have a very good record of refraining from using powerful tools for evil, even if their record is better on using them for good.
This is something that should concern everyone, regardless of your politics.
Oh, yeah... there's this prediction from Larry Ellison, one of the technocrats Trump fêted in his announcement yesterday of a $500 Billion (with a 'B') investment into developing AI.
All that being said, Trump is right in his belief that we can't let other nations get "there" before us. Wherever "there" is, is what scares me.
Without any comment on the need or appropriateness of Biden's pardon of Fauci et al, he has certainly given cover for any pardons Trump gives to the J6 prisoners.
Perhaps this gives us an opportunity for a new start.
However, just for full context and to pre-emptively avoid any comments to the contrary, the Supreme Court decided long ago that granting a pardon imputes guilt, and accepting it admits guilt.
This is why a pardon has no effect unless the person to whom the pardon was granted actually accepts it. Further, accepting a pardon means that the person can no longer invoke the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, since there is no longer any risk of punishment. See:
I've been seeing the word "decimated" being used in various news reports about the fires in California, as in "the entire neighborhood has been decimated," when the context and the photos show that the neighborhood has been devastated. I think that would have been a better word to use. But I've seen "decimated" used repeatedly.
It kind of reminds me of the time I became conscious of how centralized and incestuous the news media really are.
It was 2000 and George W. Bush had just selected Dick Cheney to be his VP. I heard a commentator say how it was a great pick for Bush, as Cheney added "gravitas" to the ticket. I had never heard that word before, but its meaning was clear from the context and from my rudimentary exposure to Latin, and I thought "what a great word to use for the situation." Apparently others thought so too, as there was an explosion of commentators using the same word to describe Bush's choice. It was absolutely comical. But the part of my brain that is made of tin foil began to tingle. Still, the more mainstream part of my brain chalked it up to other commentators admiring the use of the word, too, and thinking they could look smarter if they used it in their own commentary. A kind of homage to the original heavy hitter commentator (I don't remember who it was), or a minor plagiarism that could never be proven. But it ruined the word for me.
Over the years, that same tin foil part of my brain would be activated repeatedly, to the point where I could no longer just brush it off. Something was definitely going on. And then, last summer, it started to not just tingle, but to actually burn. The occasion was before Biden's fateful debate with Trump. If you will recall, before the debate, there was a deluge of left-leaning commentators, all using virtually identical language, trying to convince us of how Biden was "sharp as a tack." You can easily find YouTube montages that go on for 10 minutes with commentators all using that exact phrase or variations of it, to describe Biden's mental acuity.
And then the debate happened. I watched the debate, and I guess my expectations of Biden's performance were so low that I thought he actually did pretty well. But instantly, EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. of those same left-leaning commentators turned on him and said how shockingly badly he had done. So badly that the Democrats would probably have to replace him. It was like Biden had been set up to fail, and a memo went out with the new party line, and they all got with the program. The 2 minutes of hate was extended to weeks, until all the pieces of the plan fell into place.
I'm NOT saying there is some conspiracy about these wildfires. The tin foil part of my brain is very quiet on this. It's just that when I do see the same unusual phraseology being used by multiple news sources, or the same mistaken use of a word, my tin foil lobe tingles at least for a moment.
Take as much time as you need.
"Who needs policies when you have Trump to hate?" One of the best lines I’ve heard! And it comes from a Kennedy, no less!
He is, in many ways, the most credible and serious candidate in the race, so of course he has no chance of actually, you know… winning.
He skewers Kamala and the Democrats, endorses Trump, and refuses to be a spoiler.
Since he’s not coming off the ballot in Maryland, I may actually vote for him, despite his position on abortion.
At the very least, any honest voter needs to hear him out before deciding to vote for the candidate they’ve already settled on.
He’s not the wacko the MSM have convinced you he is because of their hatred and fear of Trump.
Watch his address to the American people in which he explains his reasons for suspending his campaign. You owe it to him. And you owe it to yourself.
Gotta watch this interview.
About...
Terms and Conditions...
If you continue to view this site or any content on it, you agree to be subject to our Terms and Conditions. Be sure to check them out, because there are some unusual terms and conditions that could dramatically affect your financial future. Your failure to read or understand these Terms and Conditions does not relieve you of your obligations, nor lessen our rights under them. You have been warned.