Monday, November 28, 2022

The Case Against Everyone Else 2024 – Part 1


I have written about the cases for and against Donald Trump and for and against Ron DeSantis in 2024, and that leaves only the case against everybody else in the GOP who might run. There is no case for them. The debate in the Republican Party is between Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis and what they represent. Everybody else is just a distraction at best, at worst delusional or auditioning for vice president or some cheesy cabinet post. The 2024 election is just too important for this kind of self-indulgent nonsense.

Let’s review some of the potential candidates who, in another year, might have had a shot – as opposed to the total losers we will discuss in Part 2. These folks are not terrible – except Nikki Haley, who is flat-out terrible – but none of them can answer the big question: Why you, and why now?

Mike Pompeo was an Army officer and a congressman and the head of the CIA and the Secretary of State, and he lost a whole bunch of weight, and he would probably be a good president except for the fact that there’s no pressing need for Mike Pompeo to be president in 2024. Sure, I would vote for him if nominated, and the same with any of these. You would probably vote for him too. But that’s not going to happen because he’s not going to be nominated. He’s OK. There’s nothing wrong with him, at least compared to any of the Democrat nimrods. But, as we will see throughout this column, there’s no reason for him. He has not redefined the party like Donald Trump has, nor has he changed a purple state into a deep red one while presenting a future path forward for the party like Ron DeSantis. He just...is.

That’s the problem. The base will ask “Mike Who?” There’s nothing wrong with the guy. He’s just not going to win. You wonder who told him he could. Did he decide it himself? Are others around him whispering in his ear, “They want you? They need you. You!” 

Ted Cruz is a good guy too. He might run. Ted Cruz has run before. I know because I gave him money. But he lost. And then Ted Cruz also almost lost his last election in Texas to Beto the Furry, and his Senate reelection campaign will also be in 2024. Is he going to do both? That would not be good. Are we supposed to put a Texas Senate seat at (slight but possible) risk because Ted Cruz thinks he can be president? What’s the plan here? 

Ted Cruz would get all the policies right if he was elected. But of course, that’s the rub. Would he win in November? I’m not sure we want to see the whole general election revolving around his Cancun vacation. What is the plan for Ted Cruz to get elected? He’s done a great job as a senator, and it’s cool to have him in the Senate, but what is the path for him getting elected and installed in the White House? Can you imagine a scenario where Ted Cruz sweeps Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania? Me neither. And I like Ted Cruz’s policies, but we have to have some real talk. Until somebody can make the case that Ted Cruz can win the general election, maybe he should focus on staying in the Senate.

Then there’s Rick Scott. I like him too. But he also has a Senate seat to defend in 2024, and we would like to hold that Senate seat. He should probably do that. A lot of Republicans are mad at him because he led the 2022 Senate election to, if not defeat, then feat. There is no groundswell of support in the GOP base for him to run for president. In that way, he is like Ted Cruz. We like him where he is – do not risk a Senate seat on a pipe dream. If he wants attention, he can go in front of a Midnight Oil tribute band.

There’s Mike Pence. He’s doing a book tour now, which means he’s running. It also means he is delusional enough to think the GOP base wants him. What’s interesting is that someone is telling Mike Pence he might someday be president. Who is lying to him? Why are people misleading this poor man? 

I thought he was a good vice president and that Trump treated him badly. He’s a nice guy. He would probably give you a ride to the airport if he was your neighbor. But we do not need a nice guy as president. We need Conan, not Barney. I want a president who wants to destroy the institutions. We tried gentlemen with W and Mitt. They got rolled and then stabbed us in the back. Can you imagine just how hard this guy will get played if, by some miracle, he won? Hard pass. We tried failure already, and we found it leads to us failing.

Speaking of failure, Nikki Haley might run, because somebody has to run in the Jeb! lane. After all, the Establishment has got to establish. She’s on the cutting edge of 2005. I can just see her speech’s big applause line: “I support a strong America full of empowerment for entrepreneurial Americans who like America! Yeah, America!” Every one of her takes is basic; everything she says sounds like it was scripted by a committee of people who thought Romney lost in 2012 because he was a little too conservative. 

But her hack clichés are not the worst of it. She’s the poster gal for the GOP contingent that wants to pretend the last decade never happened. The minute she has to choose between the Establishment and us, she’ll choose the Establishment 100 percent of the time. She is one of those “We must work together to build bridges for a brighter tomorrow” people. That means she will do what our enemies say because she hopes the Washington Post will write nice things about her. She will be so upset to find that no matter how eagerly she licks the toes of the regime media it is still going to call her “Hitler.” 

Folks, channel Tom Cotton, who wisely passed on in 2024. In another year, all of these folks who are not named “Nikki” might be fine. But the 2024 election is going to be between Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis and their alternative visions of what the Republican Party should be. That is the primary we need. If you are just trying to get some spotlight time to be the VP pick, don’t – Rick Grenell should be the VP. The 2024 GOP primary needs to be serious, and if your name ain’t Ron or Don you just ain’t serious. 

In Part 2 Thursday, we shall look at the other potential candidates – the ones whose sole purpose in running seems to be to screw up the GOP’s chances.




And we Know, On the Fringe, and more- Nov 28

 



Well, head is no longer hurting, and I finally have my full energy back. Except, I still have a low appetite. 😞 Sigh. And NCIS LA is once again spewing more untruths about Hetty while she's still not around to defend herself (very cowardly move!).

Here's tonight's news:



Was Trump Our Captain Queeg? ~ VDH

And will NeverTrumpers finally be exposed to have been as contemptible as NeverQueegers were in The Caine Mutiny?


The Left, the NeverTrump Right, and many independents are tiring of Donald Trump’s recitations of prior, however justified, grievances at the hands of the media, the Democratic Party, the administrative state, and hard-core Left.

The conventional wisdom runs that Trump’s whines and victimization recitations reveal deep paranoias, and increasingly to an obsessive degree. We are told that his near neurotic obsessions with the unfairness of his critics are alienating the independent voter, who finds Trump’s strolls down 2020-21 memory lane the same-old, same-old ad nauseam.

True, Trump’s occasional recklessness contributed to many of his misadventures. At least at some point, friendly critics suggest, he might have realized that his nationalist/populist agenda, his orphaned outsider status, his lack of prior political experience, and his estrangement from the Republican political hierarchy, bipartisan Washington, D.C. media and government fixtures gave him no margin of error—despite what prior presidents and our current commander-in-chief have been accorded.

The haters would have hated Trump regardless, But his tweets and ad hominem retorts served to disguise their peremptory venom while instead highlighting his own retaliatory crudity.

“Fact-checkers” doted on every Trump statement, nitpicking them to find some exaggeration, or untruth. Fine. But then these same hypercritics simply went comatose during the Biden Administration, with little care that Biden spins fantasies daily, from a son lost in the Iraq War to insulting claims that he passed his student loan amnesty in the Congress by a close vote, and on and on. With Trump, voters got real achievement with coarseness, with Biden utter failure with near senility.

The media lied about supposed felonious behavior of the two Trump sons during the Russian collusion mania. The same reporters snoozed when Hunter Biden all but served up a guilty writ of felonious behavior on his laptop. Yet Hunter and the Biden accomplices were given de facto exemption by the Department of Justice and “50 former intelligence officials” who were willing to lie about the laptop’s authenticity rather than risk the chance of seeing Trump reelected.

What, then, are we to make of Trump’s endless tales of maltreatment? Is he a genuine victim or a “victimized” near-neurotic, or neither, or both? The question again is apart from what he accomplished and what now is in Trump’s self-interest. Clearly it would be more advantageous for him to move on, speak of his plans for a second term, contrast his own past record with the Biden catastrophe, and refer to balloting only in terms of reform to increase greater scrutiny and audit—but not replay the injustices done to him in 2020.

Target Trump

Yet the truth is that Trump was a victim, no matter how much or how tiresome it is that he recites the endless script of injustices. And his victimizers have far more to answer for than their victimized target.

The record is clear: no president in U.S. history has ever been impeached twice. None has ever been impeached and then tried as a private citizen out of office.

Remember, in both rush-to-judgment politicized efforts, there was no special counsel’s report, and no lengthy cross-examination of witnesses. The first impeachment writ was based on a clumsy phone call in which Trump suspended aid to an often compromised Ukrainian government until it investigated the Biden family’s corruption and collusion with members of the Kyiv apparat and state-related corporations.

Trump did not cancel the approved aid in quid pro quo fashion, but eventually greenlighted a package that included offensive weapons, ironically vetoed by the prior Biden Administration.

His allegations of Biden family illegality were not just part of partisan pressure, but prescient given what we know of the Biden family syndicate from Hunter’s former associates and his own self-incriminating laptop.

Trump’s Justice Department certainly did not go after candidate Joe Biden, much less raid his home, or otherwise harass a potential rival to his reelection. By such impeachment standards, Joe Biden would be in the danger zone by railing at American ally Saudi Arabia, and radically altering long-standing U.S. foreign policy, because he was angry the kingdom would not flood the world with cheap oil before the midterm election. Ditto his pre-midterm selfish efforts to beg enemies like Venezuela and Iran to help assuage his unpopular and self-created energy crisis.

Trump was certainly reckless in cheering on volatile demonstrations on January 6, 2021. But he did not plan or condone the violence. The act of unarmed but often violent buffoons trashing the Capitol building was sordid, but they were clowns, not insurrectionists. There has been so much misinformation and disinformation about that riot that we will have to await a disinterested investigation. In the meantime, recall that Officer Brian Sicknick did not die by the hands of violent protestors as is still alleged by Joe Biden and many members of the media.

The name and identity of the officer who shot and killed an unarmed Ashli Babbitt were suppressed for months. Reporters and leakers alike attest that numerous FBI informants were ubiquitous among the protestors. And the January 6 committee deliberately banned questions about lax security. Ditto communications between Capitol security and Nancy Pelosi’s office.

In any case, the day’s violence did not compare with the still uninvestigated 120 days of largely non-stop looting, arson, assault, and death, all orchestrated by BLM and Antifa that were often contextualized and excused by Democratic mayors, governors, and congressional officials. And there were plenty of iconic targets such as the torching of a federal courthouse, a police precinct, and an historic church across from the White House.

Storming the Capitol is a mortal sin, but so is attempting to rush the White House grounds to injure a president and his family. That failed leftwing mob effort was cheered on by the New York Times, with its snarky headline “Trump Shrinks Back.”

For 22 months the media cheered on leaks from Robert Mueller’s special counsel dream team. House Intelligence prevaricator, Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) habitually offered outright lies concerning the culpability of the president, without a single retraction or apology when they were exposed as utterly untrue.

Collusion was better defined as either the Obama-Clinton disastrous reset policy that appeased a thuggish Putin, or Hillary Clinton’s efforts to destroy the Trump campaign, transition, and presidency with the false charge of Putin partnership.

No one in retrospect can seriously argue that Trump colluded with the Russian government to corrupt an election. In fact, the truth was far worse than that false allegation. His projectionist accuser Clinton most certainly did collude through Christopher Steele’s use of Russians, or Russian-based sources that fed him a litany of lies he then turned around and built upon with his own concoctions. In a just world, Clinton would be indicted for hiring foreign nationals to work for her campaign, by using stealth DNC funds to hire opposition contractors to frame the innocent, and for lying about her own role in forging such a conspiracy.

In this entire sordid process, the obsessed FBI disgraced itself through doctoring writs, losing subpoenaed records, and leaking to a toady press. Its dream team included the amorous members Peter Strzok and Lisa Page who were either fired or resigned from the team in disgrace. Mueller himself proved either non compos mentis or untruthful in his final testimony before Congress. His lieutenant Andrew Weissmann confirmed right-wing allegations that he was a rank partisan out to get Trump.

No Speaker of the House has ever torn up a president’s State-of-the Union Address on national television as did Nancy Pelosi in an act of historical disgrace. CNN ruined its reputation and was rendered inert by its fixations with Trump that were nightly manifested through exaggeration, hearsay, smears, rumors, and lies.

Do we remember not just “Anonymous,” but the deification of this unnamed and self-described member of the “resistance” who bragged on the pages of the New York Times that he was deliberately trying to undermine the Trump Administration’s duties to execute the laws? He was hardly a “senior official” as reported, but one Miles Taylor, a minor bit player at the Department of Homeland Security, who after his media role as useful pawn, faded back into deserved obscurity.

Before Trump took office, there was an organized effort to destroy his designated administration, by calls for his impending impeachment in Congress, by an influential essay calling for a possible military coup to remove him from office, by FBI efforts to ambush his national security advisor designate, and by the continuance of campaign lies of Russian collusion.

Before he even had established a record to oppose, leftist iconic denialists like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Jimmy Carter had pronounced the elected president illegitimate.

A Confederacy of Connivers

We forget that far before 2020, the original election deniers were led by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic hierarchy. The former urged Joe Biden never to concede in 2022 should he lose the popular vote. Leftist journalists have outlined how the voting process was warped by changing voting laws, vast infusions of dark money to absorb state responsibilities in key precincts, and modulating the street protests of Antifa and BLM to wax or wane depending on Joe Biden’s electoral fortunes.

Major U.S. institutions were corrupted by their obsessive loathing. James Comey and Andrew McCabe, FBI directors, disgraced themselves by either lying under oath or feigning amnesia. Their bookends, Robert Mueller and Christopher Wray, reminded the nation that Comey and McCabe were emblematic of deeper FBI pathologies. Retired four-star military officers systematically violated codes of military conduct in comparing their commander-in-chief to Nazis and fascists.

Trump’s lieutenants such as Vice President Mike Pence, Attorney General Bill Barr, or former National Security Advisor John Bolton, along with a host of others have sometimes leveled legitimate worries and grievances about Donald Trump. Some rightly point out that his personal excesses often weakened implementation of and support for his otherwise cogent and necessary policies.

But sometimes lost in their frequent book tours and media appearances is that Trump not only had a singular record of accomplishment, but that he brought them either out of retirement or career stagnation and gave them opportunities that ultimately explain their current ubiquitous profiles.

That fact does not mean their criticisms, warnings, and worries are necessarily inaccurate or even should be ignored. But their current prominence does demand some perspective. A president of supposedly such dubious character nevertheless resurrected former officials like themselves to re-enter government service at the highest levels and achieve successful records working with Trump, when it was most likely that their trajectories were over, and they would not or could not serve under subsequent Republican presidents.

The point is not that Trump was not a wounded fawn, obsessed with his own hurt and wallowing in his victimization. But he was also a genuine victim of a despicable effort of permanent government officials, the media, and the Left to destroy a presidency before it had even begun. Again, much of Trump’s crudity was retaliatory rather than preemptory.

Trump’s political future now hinges on his ability to forget all that, to move ahead, to unite his party, to win back independents, to get out the vote and to advance a concrete agenda for America. But if he often cannot do that, it may well be because he is understandably all too human. 

Trump Was What?

All sort of fictional characters come to mind in understanding the enigma of Donald Trump, from Rodney Dangerfield’s role as the boisterous, uncouth but talented and underappreciated Al Czervik in “Caddyshack” or the archetypical ostracized Western gunslinger whose one-dimensional methods eventually alienate the vulnerable homesteader community that called upon and benefited from his unorthodoxy. I’ve noted in the past that Trump is a combination of John Ford’s tragic hero and a stubborn, flawed, but unyielding and competent character on the Sophoclean stage.

Yet perhaps another referent is found in Herman Wouk’s 1951 prize-winning novel The Caine Mutiny (far more complex than even its superb film treatment). The book charts the wartime neurotic, flawed career of an old Navy captain (with less talent than, and without the record of achievement, of Trump) serving mostly in the backwaters of World War II. The martinet Captain Queeg’s self-assured subordinate officers focus solely on his character shortcomings and insecurities, rather than either ignoring them or helping him address them for the good of the ship and crew—if for no other reason than to unite to defeat the enemy.

Instead, the NeverQueegers grow consumed by their hatred of the erratic Queeg. And they finally succeed in extremis in relieving the paranoid and often lapsing Queeg—but at what cost and for what in exchange?

Wouk offers the dilemma of whether the blemished Queeg, who once dutifully served in the underfunded and forgotten peacetime Navy when most others would not, might not have been so phobic had his officers only navigated Queeg’s shortcomings, rather than been consumed by them.

Later in court, the conspirators find ostensible justification, as their astute lawyer Barney Greenwald (played brilliantly in the film version by José Ferrer) mercilessly dissects Queeg’s neuroses to the point that the shattered captain implodes on the stand into catatonia.

Queeg ends up as a disgraced captain as the mutineers go free. Case closed?

Not quite. Wouk offers the warning that such self-righteous denigrators may be the true nihilists. In their clubby, black-and-white fixations on their commander’s obvious frailties, they miss the totality of a man and the importance of seeking to aid their captain rather than destroy him in a time of war.

As the novel closes, the promoted and chief NeverQueeger proves no better in battle and on rough seas, but perhaps even worse. And in a final twist while Queeg’s career is destroyed, he is eventually exonerated by the Navy. Most of the mutineers fare badly in their circular firing squad. Wouk reminds us that for all their self-righteous rhetoric about patriotism, legality, and duty, they nevertheless did a great disservice to themselves—and to their country.




Why Anti-Trump Zealots Might Help Trump Win the Primaries

Don’t say Democrats won’t do the opposite of 
what they say they want. They do it all the time.


For Democrats, Trump’s 2024 presidential candidacy announcement presents a dilemma. When they interfere in the 2024 Republican primary process as they have so effectively demonstrated the capacity for doing, will they work to stop Trump or stop potential candidate Ron DeSantis? 

Stopping Trump seems like the course of action more consistent with the wrap-around narrative that spews from every institutional outlet. But there’s an even more tempting alternative. Why not help Trump defeat the up-and-coming Ron DeSantis? The oligarchical forces have severely wounded Trump and still have the get-Trump apparatus they have been building over the last six years. Democrats have reason for confidence, if not overconfidence. Their improved ballot-gathering techniques deflected the 2022 red wave after securing record ballots for candidate Biden in 2020. The raw power of the Democratic machine elected a senator with a severe mental handicap and a congressman whose death presented no obstacle to his reelection. Trump derangement and the relentless propaganda against Trump played an undeniable role in both elections.

DeSantis, in contrast, has already demonstrated the ability to reach the ears of people Democrats normally rely on to be in their coalition. Even the liberal stronghold of Miami-Dade county voted for DeSantis in the last election. DeSantis won after facing down the corporate woke agenda. He pushed back against the efforts to confuse public school children with a gender fluidity curriculum. He shrugged off the accusations of intolerance and phobia. That’s not what well-behaved Republican politicians do. They’re supposed to shrink in fear in the presence of the Left’s outrage. While the corporate/Left alliance can certainly spin up a new DeSantis derangement syndrome, essentially they would have to start over. The get-Trump infrastructure has already been built. Why abandon it by letting Trump fade away in the primary process?

The reaction to Trump, like the reaction to COVID, has proven 1,000 times more of a plague than the original problem ever could have been. Nobody will forget the immediate reaction to his last candidacy announcement speech that enraged liberals and establishment Republicans alike. Trump said what you could never say without provoking reflexive accusations of racism and xenophobia: that mass illegal immigration harmed working families by diluting bargaining power for wages and contributing to an environment of lawlessness. Whether you agree or not with Trump’s 2015 speech, it’s been impacting the direction of history ever since. 

Anti-Trump reactionaries so often told us how they felt “triggered” by Trump’s words, as though rioters and anti-democratic resisters within the government were mere inanimate objects (like guns) who bear no moral responsibility for the discharge of their outrage. This is the argument Democrats increasingly make to support censorship of the Right. If your words make me angry, then my violence is your fault

We forget that the media played a cynical game in 2016. Legacy media ushered Trump through the primary process by starving his many opponents of any serious coverage. We forget that in 2016, the Democrats and the media, who were caught coordinating political strategy, held back the infamous “Access Hollywood” audio recording until after Trump had secured the nomination. Nobody could survive a scandal like that, they assumed. It was a foolproof plan to elevate the Republican contender then-candidate Clinton felt most confident in opposing in the general election. If the “Access Hollywood” bombshell didn’t sink Trump, Clinton held the Russia Collusion Hoax in reserve, just in case.

Trump hatred has operated as a get-out-of-jail free card for the elites ever since. Fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried recently explained why so many of the rich and powerful signed up for the political armor the movement provided, admitting he feels “bad for those who get” harmed by “this dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right [political platitudes] . . . so everyone likes us.” FTX used the get-Trump mania to deflect all effective oversight as it perpetrated its schemes. It famously bragged, “on the balance sheet of FTX is ‘Trump lose.’” Trump hatred became a justification for the obvious double standard employed by the Justice Department. The Department of Justice literally knelt before BLM rioters while savagely punishing January 6 vandals and trespassers. 

Biden has made it crystal clear that he has no intention of allowing Trump to contend for the White House. And Merrick Garland, easily the most politically corrupt attorney general in U.S. history, has already worked to weaken candidate Trump’s prospects. It’s what the Iranians and the Russians do before their own elections. Only candidates approved by the party in power are permitted to run doomed election campaigns. After the FBI raid on Trump’s private residence for laughably dubious justifications, Trump may have seen a quick announcement following the midterms as the best way to emphasize the obvious electoral motives of the Justice Department.

Garland, who can’t seem to find anything wrong with the Biden family’s cash-for-influence dealings with Ukraine and China, has now appointed a special counsel to harass Trump over presidential documents and an obviously sketchy theory that Trump somehow organized the January 6 incursion into the Capitol. In case you doubt whether the Biden Administration aims to use the Justice Department to stop Trump from mounting an electoral rematch of 2020, Biden admitted exactly that during a November 9 press conference.

So why wouldn’t the Democrats want Trump to gain the nomination for president in 2024? Their operatives in the Justice Department are poised to indict the former president for cooked up charges. Trump derangement has proven an effective motivator to generate huge counter-historical masses of ballots. Obedient NeverTrump Republicans maintain significant control over the Republican infrastructure. Under the banner of get-Trump, the Left has advanced on all fronts. Why stop the gravy train now?

I can already visualize the bumper sticker, “NeverTrumpers for Trump!” Don’t say the Democrats won’t do the opposite of what they say they want. They do it all the time. 




Weary Taxpayers Can Thank This Legal Doctrine For The Death Of Biden’s Student Bailout Scheme

Biden doesn’t have the legal authority to forgive people’s student loans, and the courts are making sure he knows it.



The Biden administration suffered a major blow earlier this month when a federal court in Texas struck down the president’s student loan “forgiveness” program. Judge Mark Pittman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas made mincemeat of Biden’s decision to discharge billions in debt without congressional authorization: “In this country,” he admonished, “we are not ruled by an all-powerful executive with a pen and a phone.” Taxpayers can thank the “major questions doctrine” for saving them from potentially billions in future tax increases.

Invoked last term to kill an attempt by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the major questions doctrine looms large in today’s age of expansive regulation. By requiring elected representatives in Congress rather than unelected bureaucrats to tackle major policy issues, this judicial doctrine polices the boundaries of our constitutional separation of powers and bolsters democratic accountability. In practice, as Justice Neil Gorsuch explained, this means that when it comes to “decisions of vast economic and political significance” — that is, major questions — “administrative agencies must be able to point to clear congressional authorization.”

This is nothing new. Nearly 200 years ago, Chief Justice John Marshall differentiated “important subjects which must be … regulated” directly by Congress from matters of “less interest” that Congress can delegate to the Executive Branch. This dynamic follows simply from the constitutional text: Article I vests “legislative Powers … in a Congress of the United States.” Article II, in turn, vests the “executive Power … in a President of the United States of America,” under whom and pursuant to whose authority today’s administrative agencies function. In other words, so long as Congress makes the principal policy judgment, power remains in the hands of the people, and our constitutional separation of powers remains intact. The president’s debt forgiveness program grievously runs afoul of these core constitutional tenets.

At the stroke of a pen, and knowing full well he lacked the votes in Congress to do so lawfully, Biden moved to eliminate billions in student debt. As his source of authority, the president invoked the HEROES Act, an early 2000s-era statute empowering the secretary of education to “waive” debt obligations he “deems necessary in connection with a … national emergency.” On its face, the act may seem to authorize mass loan forgiveness amid emergencies such as pandemics. Read in context, however, the secretary’s authority is likely more modest than the president would have us believe. 

As highlighted by Judge Pittman, the Congress enacting the HEROES Act contemplated relief for “affected individuals,” defined as those employed “in an area that is declared a disaster” or has otherwise “suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency.” Congress provided, moreover, that the relief be “necessary in connection” with said emergency. The context, therefore, suggests Congress sought to authorize targeted relief for narrow subsets of borrowers — not blanket forgiveness for millions.

Statutory context aside, the Biden administration reasoned that the act’s language was so “flexible and capacious” as to justify a discharge of billions in debt, a decision vested in the secretary and thus “beyond the scope of judicial review.” In other words, the administration has not sidestepped Congress; it has merely invoked an almost 20-year-old ambiguous statute, which — unbeknownst to anyone, Congress included — authorized hundreds of billions of dollars in discretionary spending two decades down the line.

Judge Pittman wasn’t buying it. With over $400 billion at stake and “robust debates” surrounding the policy, only clear congressional authorization could justify such a drastic expense. Because the HEROES Act “does not mention loan forgiveness,” let alone “supply a clear statement” to authorize the discharge of debt on a society-wide scale, the debt forgiveness program violates the major questions doctrine and cannot stand. Indeed, it would be farcical to conclude that Congress approved such an expense — larger than the GDP of Singapore — without expressly stating as much.

Debt forgiveness might be a good idea. But a policy so expensive, far-reaching, and politically charged deserves a vote in Congress, where our elected representatives — in consultation with and at the mercy of voters — tailor policy to the public will. By putting the onus on Congress to tackle the major policy questions of the day, the major questions doctrine keeps the people at the helm of Washington’s vast administrative state. In a republic — “a thing of the people” — it’s non-negotiable.




Texas Gun Store Owner Sues Biden’s ATF for Cracking Down on Legal Gun Ownership


Jeff Charles reporting for RedState 

As President Joe Biden pushes his public agenda to curtail legal gun ownership, his administration has been taking steps behind the scenes to threaten the Second Amendment by targeting gun stores. This has been an issue that has not received much attention since the White House began trying to make life harder for owners of establishments that sell firearms.

But now, at least one business is fighting back.

Michael Cargill, a gun dealer who owns Central Texas Gun Works in Austin, TX, and the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), is suing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) for allegedly “misusing the 1968 Gun Control Act, which regulates gun sales by focusing on inadvertent errors – such as mistaking ‘county’ for ‘country’” on paperwork,” according to the Washington Times. The suit accuses the ATF of using these clerical errors as an excuse to shut down gun stores.

Nate Curtisi, an attorney with the TPPF said:

The administration has begun revoking licenses based on a handful of these inadvertent mistakes among thousands of Form 4473s that do not result in criminals or prohibited possessors obtaining guns. There’s just one problem: The administration’s enforcement policy ignores the text of the Gun Control Act.

The plaintiffs allege that the ATF under President Biden is unfairly targeting gun dealers by leveraging record-keeping measures intended to prevent criminals from purchasing firearms.

The Trace reported in October that the ATF revoked three times as many gun dealer licenses in 2022 as they did the previous year. This is the result of the Biden administration’s “zero tolerance” policy on establishments that sell firearms.

From the report:

Altogether, the agency revoked 92 licenses in 2022 — roughly 1.3 percent of all the dealers inspected. The total more than triples the number of licenses revoked in 2021, when a similar number of dealers were inspected. Another 136 dealers received warning conferences, the steepest penalty inspectors can recommend without revocation.

David Chipman, a former ATF agent and an advisory board member for the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins University, celebrated the data. “The trendline is good,” he said. “I think we have to applaud the agency for holding the industry accountable — for doing its job.”

Anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature knows that despite Chipman’s bloviating, this has nothing to do with holding anyone accountable. Shutting down gun dealers over silly clerical errors won’t make anyone safer. It will only make it more difficult for responsible citizens to exercise their right to bear arms. The ATF’s ostensible role is to stop illegal gun trafficking. This “zero tolerance” policy is not geared toward that purpose. Instead, it is a naked attempt to infringe on the Second Amendment by trying to eliminate entities that sell firearms.

The Biden administration is currently urging Congress to pass anti-gun legislation during its lame-duck period before Republicans take control of the House next year. It is not likely that this effort will bear fruit. But this does not mean the White House isn’t set on using executive power to hamper gun ownership in any way possible. Hopefully, Cargill and the TPPF will be successful in using the legal system to hold the administration accountable.




Study Finds Number of Americans Carrying Handguns Has Doubled in Four Years


Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

With murder and other violent crime rates across America continuing to skyrocket, is there any wonder why an increasing number of law-abiding gun owners are exercising their Second Amendment rights by regularly carrying loaded handguns? No, of course not — and the gun grabbers be damned.

According to a study published in mid-November by the American Journal of Public Health, the purpose of which was to determine the frequency of loaded handgun carriers among U.S. adult handgun owners overall, and – by state – concealed carry law status, the number of Americans who carry a loaded handgun every day doubled in just four years. Approximately 6 million Americans legally carried daily in 2019, compared to 3 million in 2015. Moreover, 16 million adults carried a handgun in the past month, compared to 9 million in 2015.

The study also found that gun owners have shifted the main reason for owning at least one firearm from hunting to personal protection. In 1994, 46 percent of gun owners used their weapons for protection. The number soared to 65 percent by 2015, 73 percent by 2019, and 83 percent in 2021 — and I’d bet a dollar that the percentage in 2022 is even higher.

Data from the American Journal of Public Health backs the study results, as transcribed by Blaze Media:

Of handgun owners who carried, 4 in 5 carried primarily for protection, 4 in 5 had a concealed carry permit, 2 in 3 always carried concealed, and 1 in 10 always carried openly.

The prevalence of handgun carrying was similar in states with permitless carry laws and states with shall issue carry laws. By contrast, the prevalence of carrying was notably lower in states with may issue carry laws.

This isn’t rocket science. I’ve grown weary of saying it, but the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. And guess what, gun grabbers? If law enforcement arrives two minutes after you’ve been killed by a madman with a gun, you’re still dead.

The obvious question: Why has the number of Americans carrying increased so dramatically?

The obvious answer: Because record numbers of Americans no longer feel safe, including from random murders and other violent crimes, as Democrat “justice” has intentionally failed to protect — through policies and laws protecting convicted felons and repeat offenders — the citizenry of this country.

The study heavily cited the U.S. Supreme Court 6-3 ruling in June that struck down a New York state gun-control law that required firearm owners requesting a concealed carry license to demonstrate “proper cause” — which was insane from the outset. How about, “My ‘proper cause’ is to protect my loved ones and me from getting shot and killed”?

On a personal note, a wonderful woman who worked for me years ago was in a horrendous marriage, resulting in the need for several restraining orders against her husband. One day she told me, “Michael, they won’t do anything to him until he kills me.” Guess what? She was right; he followed her to her mother’s house after a particularly ugly incident, broke through the sliding door, and shot her to death.

Would Betsy have had “proper cause”? Do people riding the subways of New York City or walking the streets minding their own business who end up dead have “proper cause”?

Yes. SCOTUS ruled against New York, as cited by the study:

On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.

Incidentally, Alabama on January 1, 2023, will become the 22nd state that will not require a permit or background check to carry a concealed weapon. In a perfect America, that law should be on the books in all 50 states, which will never happen as long as Democrats control multiple states.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden and other gun grabbers rush to TV cameras or issue statements calling for additional bans on firearms by law-abiding citizens without fail after every high-profile shooting. Go figure.




Here’s How Conservatives Can Dominate on Twitter in the Musk Era


Jeff Charles reporting for RedState 

Now that Elon Musk has taken over Twitter, he has made it clear that he is following through on his promise to create a more even playing field for the expression of political views. While he promised not to transform the site into a “free-for-all hellscape,” it is evident that the days of politically-biased censorship will become a thing of the past.

Now that we are in the Musk era, the question is: How should conservatives take advantage of this new digital paradigm? If the new CEO has his druthers – and he most likely will – the platform will provide new and exciting opportunities for content creators, influencers, politicians, and even casual users who wish to contribute to the national conversation.

For starters, conservatives must level up their content creation game. We have to continue making compelling arguments and exposing the machinations of the progressive left. Use the platform to its fullest. Since we don’t have to worry as much about censorship, we will soon be able to go against the leftist narrative with impunity.

Musk has indicated he wants to have Twitter become a competitor to YouTube by expanding its video offerings. This will provide even more opportunities for those seeking to reach a wider audience. I, for one, am excited by this prospect even though it means more people will have to see my ugly mug on Twitter. It seems that as long as we are wise about how we get our points across, shadowbans and other forms of suppression will not be a hindrance.

Secondly, we should continue engaging with Musk on the platform. Since taking over, he is inserting himself into the conversation even more and has shown he is open to feedback. In fact, some progressives have whined about the fact that he is interacting with right-leaning accounts like Catturd and others. We would be fools not to take advantage of this.

When Musk makes a decision with which we disagree, conservatives should make our opinions known in a tactful manner. At this moment, progressives on the platform are scolding, badgering, attacking, and insulting the CEO, which is not likely to persuade him to see things their way.

By way of contrast, we can be the adults in the room, which will go a long way toward getting him to continue taking us seriously. If we play our cards right, we can help to influence the direction of the company. This would be unheard of under Twitter’s previous leadership. Engaging with the organization’s new leader could open up a world of possibilities for people of all political stripes.

Twitter is about to become even more interesting going forward, especially since the 2024 campaign is already starting. With Musk creating an even playing field, conservatives have a chance to have more of an influence on the national conversation. The question is: Are we going to take advantage of this opportunity?




Tulsi Gabbard Names Those Responsible for Child Mastectomies Increasing by Nearly 400 Percent


Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

Even though I wrote the above headline, even I shake my head in disgust when I read it. Mastectomies performed on children have increased by 389 percent over the last five years, while the overall number of so-called “transgender” children has doubled. So how and why is this abhorrent trend exploding?

“This is not an accident,” says Tulsi Gabbard, and she’s naming names of those she says are responsible.

On a recent edition of her podcast, the former Hawaii Democrat talked about the staggering rise in the number of young girls having double mastectomies, citing a research paper published by a prominent medical journal detailing the spike, and the results of a UCLA study showing the overall number of “trans” kids has doubled over the last five years, as well. Those numbers are as troubling as they are staggering.

According to a research paper that was recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association of Pediatrics, there has been a 389 percent increase in children receiving mastectomies from 2016 through 2019.

I wanna say that again: children receiving mastectomies. The UCLA School of Law, Williams Institute, published a study that found the number of transgender youth has doubled in just the past five years.

I’m not sure which is worse: that this happening at all, or the number of adults who promote it.

Again, who should we blame, according to Gabbard?

This didn’t just happen. This is very intentional and it’s the consequence of this radical agenda that is being pushed on our kids. They’re rejecting the existence of objective reality by rejecting this most fundamental truth of the differences between a biological male and female.

Now, even as there are no long-term studies on the effects of these dangerous treatments on our kids, those in power in government and so-called medical professionals continue to push them.

“Many of the standard protocols that they are pushing include puberty blockers, and hormones,” the former Democrat noted, “some of which were just recently flagged by the FDA because of their plausible link to serious brain disorder, cognitive problems.” She then took a direct shot at Joe Biden:

Now that hasn’t stopped President Biden from going and telling parents that quote, ‘Affirming your child’s identity is one of the most powerful things you can do to keep them safe.’

Let’s go straight to the horse’s a mouth as he mumbles through the following, shall we?

To everyone celebrating Transgender Day of Visibility, I want you to know that your president sees you. … our entire administration sees you for who you are, made in the image of God and deserving of dignity, respect, and support.

But we know it’s hard when there are those out there who don’t see you and don’t respect you.

For example, the onslaught of anti-transgender state laws attacking you and your families is simply wrong. This administration is standing up for you against all these hateful bills.

Uh-huh — and that’s not all.

And Biden is also standing up for irreversible mutilation of children’s bodies; not only previously-mentioned double mastectomies but hysterectomies and castrations, as well. A White House press release at the time even worked in “systemic,” one of the Democrats’ favorite buzzwords:

Today, the Biden-Harris Administration recognizes Transgender Day of Visibility, an annual celebration of the resilience, achievements, and joy of transgender people in the United States and around the world.

Every American deserves the freedom to be themselves. But far too many transgender Americans still face systemic barriers, discrimination, and acts of violence.

This mind-numbingly repetitive nonsense would be systemically boring as hell if it wasn’t so horrific.

Incidentally, as I reported in late October, the National Health Service in the U.K. warned doctors that even social transitioning, such as changing a child’s name and pronouns or the way he or she dresses is not a “neutral act” and could have “significant effects” in terms of “psychological functioning.”

And in the U.S., nearly 80 percent of voters oppose so-called gender-reaffirming surgery for minors. The question is, why do Joe Biden and  Democrat Party continue to refuse to listen?