Sunday, February 9, 2025

X22, And we Know, and more- Feb 9

 



Worlds And Records Collide In Super Bowl LIX


To emerge as Super Bowl champs, Saquon Barkley and the Eagles will have to overcome a familiar face on the opposing sideline: Andy Reid.



Apparently, Howie Roseman and Nick Sirianni read The Federalist.

OK, perhaps that statement is a slight exaggeration. But before the 2023 NFL season, I wrote in these pages how creative coaches willing to experiment with innovative offenses could make running backs great again. One year later, Roseman, the Philadelphia Eagles’ general manager, and Sirianni, the team’s coach, helped deliver one of the best seasons by a running back in pro football history.

Saquon Soars

Roseman signed the running back in question, Saquon Barkley, away from the Eagles’ division rival, the New York Giants, over the past offseason. And in his first year in a Philadelphia uniform, Barkley eclipsed 2,000 yards rushing in the regular season, becoming only the ninth running back in NFL history to do so. With just 30 yards on the ground in Sunday’s Super Bowl, Barkley would eclipse Terrell Davis’ record for most rushing yards in a season, including the playoffs.

Barkley’s feats have helped revitalize interest in running backs and demonstrated a level of explosiveness that many football “experts” had long reserved for wide receivers catching deep passes. His seven touchdown runs of 60-plus yards set a new NFL record. And the combination of power and speed has dazzled teammates and opponents alike — witness Barkley’s now-famous backward hurdle over a Jacksonville Jaguars player earlier this season.

Ever a teammate, Barkley has readily shared credit with the Eagles’ offensive line, the largest ever to play in a Super Bowl. That offensive line helped key the Eagles’ ground game success in more ways than one, meeting with Sirianni during the team’s bye week in late September and asking to emphasize the run game more heavily. The offensive tweaks resulting from that meeting turned the Eagles into a run-focused team, allowing Barkley’s talents to shine.

My column 18 months ago notwithstanding, I will confess some initial skepticism upon learning of the Eagles’ signing of Barkley in March. I had followed Barkley’s career for years — he grew up 10 miles from my Pennsylvania hometown and played his college ball at Penn State University — but did not know whether he represented a major improvement over his predecessors. 

In recent years, the Eagles have had good running backs, among them LeSean McCoy, D’Andre Swift, and Miles Sanders, Barkley’s Penn State teammate, who helped lead the team to the Super Bowl two years ago. But Barkley has demonstrated the effects of signing a great running back. The combination of his talents and a powerful offensive line has made the whole much greater than the sum of the parts and left Barkley on the cusp of winning his first Super Bowl title — on his 28th birthday, no less.

Andy Reid, Grounded

But to capture the crown, Barkley and the Eagles will have to overcome a familiar face on the opposing sideline: Andy Reid, the Kansas City Chiefs’ head coach, who previously spent 14 seasons coaching the Eagles. Ironically, Reid holds franchise records for coaching wins for both the Eagles (130) and the Chiefs (143 wins entering the Super Bowl).

Another irony of Andy Reid’s career: He spent his tenure in Philadelphia combatting allegations that he “couldn’t win the big one.” His Eagles teams won four straight division titles and reached four straight conference championship games (which earn a team a berth in the Super Bowl). He won only one of those four conference title games and lost to the New England Patriots in that subsequent Super Bowl appearance.

But two decades later, Reid and the Chiefs stand on the verge of history, should they become the first team to win three straight Super Bowls. (The Green Bay Packers achieved two separate “threepeats,” but those came in the pre-Super Bowl era.) The explosiveness and elusiveness of Chiefs quarterback, and near-certain Hall of Famer, Patrick Mahomes, coupled with a stifling defense, have already allowed Reid to win the Super Bowl titles that eluded him in Philadelphia.

But when facing the press early in Super Bowl week, Reid made clear his focus. Dwelling on past glories, or looking ahead to the “call of history,” provides an easy trap that can become one’s undoing. Staying fixated on the present represents the only way to overcome past obstacles and achieve a brighter future.

Andy Reid also understands the importance of faith in his life. He noted that he attended Brigham Young University for a reason and has valued his religion as a source of stability in family turmoil. But he was quick to observe that those on the opposite sideline have similarly strong beliefs, and he should not and would not invoke the Almighty over something like a football game.

A player who has revitalized the importance of the running game in modern football on one side and a coach and a team pursuing history on the other — these are just two of the major storylines heading into Sunday’s Super Bowl LIX.




USA Today Uses Patrick Mahomes and Jalen Hurts to Lie About DEI


Recently, USA Today just had to lie about DEI in an embarrassingly bad editorial entitled: “These are Anti-Black times. Mahomes and Hurts are living counters.” Mike Freeman, a Race and Inequality Editor for the leftist news outlet, must have transported himself to a bygone era. The America he was describing is not one that exists in 2025. He wrote with all the alarmism he could summon from the depths of the Democratic Party’s playbook of victimhood: “We are in the midst of one of the most vicious anti-Black eras in decades. This might be the most anti-Black this country has been in decades.”

When I think of vicious, call me crazy, but I think of people of my complexion being hanged, simply for being Black. I think of American apartheid that cordoned off restaurants, movie theaters, water fountains, schools, and countless opportunities. I think of fire hoses being turned on peaceful protesters and dogs attacking activists and ripping at their flesh. Basically, I think of an America that was made possible through the anti-Black Democratic Party that went to war to protect slavery. Then along came the Democratic Jim Crow to divide a nation transitioning from shackles to segregation. I think of the violence codified at the state level that demeaned and dehumanized Black Americans and their White allies who stood in solidarity for justice. 

What does Freeman consider so “vicious”? What present-day heinous action against Black people in America caused him to lash out with such fear and anger? He blamed President Trump’s Executive Orders that dismantle the failed DEI regime of the previous Biden administration (here and here): “One of the most blatant anti-Black moves during this anti-DEI rush was the removal of training courses that included videos of the Tuskegee Airman.” Hold the fire hoses! A handful of videos were removed. Can you imagine anything more vicious? All sarcasm aside, these first Black American military airman were absolute heroes. They deserve to be celebrated, but not exploited by a woke news editor who seems to only see life through the broken lens of race. Freeman claimed that Trump’s “move caused outrage” (true, it did among the Left) and the “order was reversed” (not true). 

The order itself was never reversed. The Air Force’s temporary decision to delay the training was corrected by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, because it didn’t comply with Trump’s order. Trump’s EO simply required a review of all materials and training programs in the armed forces to make sure they weren’t polluted with DEI ideology. Tuskegee Airmen – courageous men who were considered to be the “cream of the crop” – are not woke propaganda. Three days before Freeman’s disinformation opinion piece was published, the Tuskegee training videos were back in use by the Air Force. 

But that didn’t stop Freeman from coloring the narrative. “The core of what Trump is doing is portraying Black Americans as incompetent and incapable,” he falsely accused a President endorsed by many famous Black politicians, athletes, intellectuals and entertainers. Perhaps that’s why so-called “anti-Black” Trump celebrated one of the last surviving Tuskegee airmen, Col. Charles McGee, during his 2020 State of the Union address. In a moving tribute that cheered on McGee’s great grandson, who wanted to be part of the Space Force, Trump promoted McGee to brigadeer general to thunderous applause in the congressional chamber. 

The leftist legacy media is obsessed with demonizing Trump and branding Republicans as anti-Black. It’s a lie, of course, but one they need to keep telling as their once monopolistic influence continues to wane. President George W. Bush, by the way, was the President who awarded the way overdue Congressional Gold Medal to Tuskegee Airmen back in 2007. What a racist!

“The notion that people who take advantage of DEI are unqualified has always been a lie,” Freeman protested. Well, that is a lie. Interestingly enough, so-called “diversity officers” are some of the most unqualified people on the planet. I’m just saying. Take, for instance, the $300k per year Los Angeles Fire Department DEI Deputy Chief, Kristine Larson, an obese Black lesbian. She said, in refusing to answer whether a female firefighter could carry a man out of a fire: “He got himself in the wrong place.” Or, how about the DEI that allowed less-than-stellar male athletes pretend they’re females and invade women’s sports? Even the far-left United Nations admitted in a 2024 reportthat females lost more than 890 medals to unfair competition from males.

DEI is dying. And I’m happy for it. Freeman invoking Kansas City Chiefs’ Patrick Mahomes (who is mixed Black/White) and Philadelphia Jalen Hurts as “Black excellence” and “living counters” to some mythical “wave of anti-Blackness” is just bizarre. How did these two amazing quarterbacks get to where they are in the NFL? Quotas? Color-based qualifications? Equalized outcomes? Of course not. They worked for it. That’s the beauty of professional sports. 

And what constitutes this nebulous anti-Blackness? Not voting for Kamala Harris? (There are a few slobbery articles from Freeman about Kamala Harris, herehere, and here.)  Guess Mahomes’ mom is anti-Black. She endorsed and voted for Trump. Guess his wife is anti-Black. She sort of endorsed Trump. Is Mahomes anti-Black because his mom and wife are both White? 

Then, there’s this moment in the sloppy op-ed where Freeman so severely contradicts himself that it makes his writing seem more like a satirical piece. He claims that the people who benefit most from DEI programs are…White women! So, then dismantling DEI programs isn’t anti-Black at all. It would be anti-White. Right?

The irony is that the USA Today editor’s last name is Freeman, yet he’s a slave to a derangement syndrome that prevents him from freely seeing the obvious. He, like so many others who embrace a color-first worldview, are in bondage to a never-ending victimhood.

This weekend, the Super Bowl will bring together nearly 125 million people from around the world, united by love of sport (and great commercials), not by color.  



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Conrad Black: Time to toughen up, Canada

Time to toughen up, Canada

  • February 8, 2025

By Conrad Black

Those of us who confidently stated that in waving about 25 per cent tariffs against Canadian goods, U.S. President Donald Trump was just playing poker and raising the ante, appear to have been vindicated. Those who were preparing for guerrilla war, such as the Toronto Star editorial board and the worrisomely incoherent and oddly malicious Andrew Coyne, have been left to self-sedate in a quiet place and return to normal life 

When they're ready, without rushing it or being over-ambitious. It was outrageous, as I and others have written, for the U.S. government to treat Mexico and Canada alike. As our capable ambassador to the United Nations, Bob Rae, pointed out on Fox News, when tourism and investment are taken into account, our trade relationship provides huge benefits for both Canada and the United States. 

And whatever grievances the Americans may think they have over the entry of undesirable people and dangerous drugs into their country across the northern border, we have at least as great a grievance over the flow of illegal firearms and migrants, who have fled across our border in fear of the new president’s threats to deport them. The United States has acknowledged that the flow of fentanyl from Mexico to the U.S. is nearly 500 times greater than the quantity that has come from Canada.

All of this is essentially nonsense, because it is up to each sovereign country to put whatever controls it judges appropriate on its own border. The United States and Canada are free countries that do not restrain people from leaving. One of the principal reasons for President Trump’s re-election was his predecessor’s insane decision not to take security at the southern border seriously, which allowed millions of illegal migrants to stream into the country. 

The number of people entering the U.S. illegally across southern border is orders of magnitude greater than those coming across the northern border; and where Mexico and China had been collaborating to entice manufacturing out of the United States and replace it with cheap labour fabrication and sell products back to the United States under the cover of the North American free-trade agreement, Canada has been a fair trading country throughout. It is no concern of ours that Trump has chosen to put Mexico and China in their place, but treating Canada as he did was unjust and seriously annoying.

Part of our problem has been Canadian sensitivity: we have, as a country, been so circumspect in our behaviour that we are not accustomed to disapproval. President Trump told me months ago that Canada had nothing to fear from the United States other than that, “Your trade negotiators are better than ours and we need to put that right.” Only a trade wonk could know if that is true, but if it is, the answer is not to wave tariffs around like six guns. 

Precisely because Canada is such a well house-trained country, we are acutely discomforted by aggressive treatment, particularly from a country we know as well as the United States. Not since French President Charles de Gaulle, on a state visit in 1967 to celebrate the centenary of the Confederation of Canada, took the opportunity to urge Quebec to secede from Confederation have we had such a great and legitimate grievance against the conduct towards us of a great power. 

On that occasion in 1967, we were for the first time left all alone to deal with what was a genuine, as well as an extremely provoking, challenge from the man who was then, along with Mao Zedong, the most eminent statesmen in the world, and one revered by the French-speaking population of this country. He said his reception in Quebec had reminded him of the liberation of France, as if the Canadian Army had not landed at Juno beach on D-Day as liberators.

Americans, and citizens of other countries that have been more assertive in more contentious areas than Canada, are accustomed to having their flags burned in public and their embassies attacked. In some respects, we suffer from being too gentle a country. My friend Frank Buckley, a distinguished public intellectual from Saskatchewan, when he moved to the United States about 20 years ago to take up an important academic posting, said: “I’m leaving the best country in the world to go to the greatest country in the world, but they are both great countries and they are both good countries.” 

These things are to some extent a matter of taste but that is a very defensible statement and we should keep it in mind and not jeer at each other’s national anthems or otherwise pillory our neighbouring country, with which we have had an almost unvexed relationship for over 200 years. No sane Canadian (or American) would have wished to change places with Poland or Korea in the last two centuries.

The most positive development to come from the tariff controversy is the flickering of patriotism that has occurred in this country and which, if followed up seriously, could assist us into growing fully into the psychology of a G7 country of worldwide importance. We should have at least three times the defence capability that we do. 

There is no more stimulative spending than on the high technology requirements of the military, no more efficient centre of mature higher education than the Armed Forces and no more readily available method of training up unemployed people. If we tripled our commitment in this area, we would rapidly discover we have three times the influence and credibility in the world than we have now, not because we would become warmongers, but because we would have greater influence within the western alliance and assist in building the deterrent capability of the democratic countries.

We must also abandon the green terror and the tax-and-spend policies of the Trudeau-Freeland negative economic miracle of comparative stagnation and loss of relative per capita prosperity, ramp up our oil and gas export and refinement capabilities as quickly as possible and comprehensively incentivize investment. I am one of that endangered minority who would favour increasing our commitment to public broadcasting and to the national film industry, as long as quality improved, in order to strengthen Canada’s international standing in those fields and, by constructive means, keeping as much of that talent as we can here rather than in Los Angeles, London or Paris. 

We should also look seriously at taking over American automobile production in this country and turning one of the European automobile manufacturers into a binational joint venture with this country. If Sweden and South Korea can have their own automobile industry, so can we. One topical matter we could approach is that of Greenland. Its population has the most in common with the population of Canada’s nearby Baffin Island. 

As part of an undertaking to pull our weight in the defence of the Arctic, in addition to reviving former prime minister Brian Mulroney’s plan to purchase 10 nuclear submarines and former prime minister Stephen Harper’s yet unrealized goal of building the super-icebreaker CCGS John G Diefenbaker, we could promote a closer association with the population of Greenland. Governor General Mary Simon, given her ethnicity and service as ambassador to Denmark, could play an important role in this.The negotiations with the Americans won’t be so painful. Let’s take this chance to flex benign muscles that we have shown no recognition that we have. The world is waiting for us.

 https://www.newenglishreview.org/time-to-toughen-up-canada/

Trump’s Tariffs Seek To Reverse Decades of Unfair Trade Deals That Made America’s Heartland a ‘Rust Belt’

 The levies are the last-gasp tools of American leverage used only after bipartisan diplomacy, summits, entreaties, and empty threats have all failed.

Hysteria has erupted here and abroad over President Trump’s threats to level trade tariffs against particular countries.

Both American and foreign critics blasted them variously as either counterproductive and suicidal or unfair, imperialistic, and xenophobic.

Certainly, tariffs are widely hated by doctrinaire economists. They complain that tariffs burden consumers with higher prices to protect weak domestic industries that, shielded from competition, will have no incentive to improve efficiency.

Their ideal is “free” trade. Supposedly a free global market alone should adjudicate which particular industry in any country can produce the greatest good for the world’s consumers, whether defined by lower prices or better quality, or both.

Even when “free trade” becomes “unfair trade” — such as Communist China’s massive mercantile surpluses — many neoliberal economists still insist that even subsidized foreign imports are beneficial.

Cheap imports, Americans were told, supposedly still lowered prices for consumers, still forced domestic producers to economize to remain competitive, and still brought “creative destruction,” as inefficient domestic industries properly gave way to more efficient, market-driven ones.

But many exporters to America are propped up by their own governments.

They may seem more competitive only because their governments want to dump products at a loss to capture market share, subsidize their businesses’ overhead to protect domestic employment or seek to create a monopoly over a strategic industry.

Yet when Mr. Trump threatened to level tariffs against Mexico, Canada, Colombia, Venezuela, China, or the European Union, they were not primarily aimed at propping up particular inefficient American industries at all.

Instead, an exasperated Mr. Trump threatened Mexico with tariffs for three reasons.

It refused to address its cartels’ illegal multibillion-dollar export of lethal fentanyl into the United States.

The cartels buy Chinese-supplied raw fentanyl with impunity, disguise it to resemble toxic drugs, and smuggle the product across a porous border.

The result over the last decade is more dead Americans from fentanyl than the total number of all American soldiers lost in the wars of the twentieth century.

Second, Mexico had stonewalled all American efforts to stop their export of millions of illegal aliens into the United States — 10 million to 12 million in the last four years alone.

Mexico adds insult to injury by raking in profits from some $63 billion in remittances sent from its former resident citizens now residing in the United States and often subsidized by American taxpayers.

Third, Mexico grows its American trade surpluses each year. The imbalance is now a mind-boggling nearly $170 billion.

Mr. Trump threatened Canada because it has so far refused to police its side of an open and increasingly dangerous border. And it has racked up a $50 billion surplus by leveling asymmetrical tariffs on lots of American products.

Canada also has refused to keep its North Atlantic Treaty promises to spend 2 percent of its gross domestic product on defense.

Canada’s pathetic 1.37 percent expenditure is predicated on American magnanimity. America alone protects Canada under the American North American nuclear shield and subsidizes NATO deadbeats like Canada by funding some 16 percent of the budget of the 32-nation alliance, as well as policing the international seas.

As for Venezuela and Colombia, both communist nations have deliberately emptied their prisons to send hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens into America — many of them violent felons. They do so either out of crass self-interest, hatred, or a strategic desire to weaken America.China is a special case.

Its entire 20th-century ascendance was based on stealing American technology, dumping its products on the United States market below the cost of production to capture market share, and forcing American corporations to relocate, offshore, and outsource — leaving our industrial hinterland a “rustbelt.”

The European Union runs a gargantuan half-trillion-dollar surplus with America.

How?

Because for nearly the last 80 years, America has subsidized its defense during the Cold War and afterwards.

Europe acts as if it is recovering from World War II, so it can hit up a supposedly limitless rich American patron with asymmetrical tariffs.

Consider the various Trump “tariffs” leveled by an exasperated, and now $36 trillion-indebted, America. Almost none of them meet the traditional definitions of an industry-protecting tariff.

Instead, they are the last-gasp tools of American leverage used only when decades of bipartisan diplomacy, summits, entreaties, and empty threats have all failed.

So, Mr. Trump is not a mercantilist.

Instead, he is trying to stop the multimillion-person influx of foreign criminals, the crashing of the border by millions of illegal aliens, the cartels’ export of American-killing drugs, the violation of past trade agreements, and allies from using America to subsidize their own defense.

The Trump tariffs are the last, desperate effort to reestablish global reciprocity and keep America safe.

And our “shocked” friends, allies, and enemies privately have known that all too well.

Tribune Content Agency

https://www.nysun.com/article/trumps-tariffs-seek-to-reverse-decades-of-unfair-trade-deals-that-made-americas-heartland-a-rust-belt

Tucker Interviews Mike Benz About USAID, NED and CIA Revelations


Tucker sits down with Mike Benz, one of the prominent voices who was speaking out about the corruption within the USAID, NED and CIA operation.  WATCH:



Chapters:
0:00 The USAID Rabbit Hole Runs Deep
5:29 Trump Is Performing Open Heart Surgery on the Country
9:50 Is USAID Truly a Humanitarian Operation?
19:41 What Is the Point of Funding Transgender Surgeries in Foreign Countries?
27:13 How USAID Secretly Organizes Riots Around the World 

46:23 Is The Blob a Necessary Evil?
52:24 Joe Biden and USAID’s Role in Social Media Censorship
1:07:20 USAID and Russiagate
1:17:08 How DC’s Economy Is Dependent on Foreign Aid Spending
1:22:40 Why USAID Created a Cuban Twitter
1:29:01 USAID’s Control of the Global Narcotic Empire
1:34:15 How Will the Fall of USAID Impact Our Position as Leader of the Free World?
1:38:28 How USAID Benefits Major Corporations
1:45:17 USAID and the Black Lives Matter Riots
1:55:42 The Stupidity of Our Foreign Policy Establishment
2:01:29 The Soros Prosecutors
2:04:17 How Do We Fix This?



Trump’s Budget Chief Neuters Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

 ‘I am committed to implementing the President’s policies, consistent with the law, and acting as a faithful steward of the Bureau’s resources,’ Russ Vought says in an email to CFPB employees.

President Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, has halted the operations of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after taking over as the agency’s acting chief. Mr. Vought has informed the agency will get no more money from the Federal Reserve.

Mr. Vought took over as acting director of the CFPB following his confirmation as director of OMB. In a directive to staff members, he said that the CFRB should no longer have the ability to investigate companies hit with complaints from consumers. Mr. Trump fired the previous director of the CFPB, Rohit Chopra, on February 1.

“I am committed to implementing the President’s policies, consistent with the law, and acting as a faithful steward of the Bureau’s resources,” Mr. Vought wrote in an email on Saturday night. “Effective immediately, unless expressly approved by the Acting Director or required by law, all employees, contractors and other personnel of the bureau shall … cease all supervision and examination activity.”

Conservatives have long objected to the CFBP’s existence, calling it unconstitutional and unaccountable. An agency intended to protect consumers from the excesses of banks, the argument goes, has expanded its authority over everything from automobile dealerships to payday lenders. In a recent appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast, venture capitalist Marc Andreessen said the agency exists to “terrorize financial institutions,” “prevent new competition,” and harass “new startups that want to compete with the big banks.”

The CFPB — a brainchild of Senator Warren launched by the Obama administration — has not been shut down entirely. Like with the U.S. Agency for International Development, which Mr. Trump and Secretary Rubio are trying to move into the State Department, the CFPB was established by statute and can only be abolished by an act of Congress. The agency has survived many legal challenges in the past, though Mr. Trump’s brewing fight with Congress over his impoundment powers could give him the opportunity to simply defund it on his own. 

Mr. Trump and his allies have advanced the legal theory that the president has the discretion to withhold federal funding if he believes it does not serve the interests of the American people. Under this theory, Congress sets the maximum amount of money a president can spend on certain issues, not an exact amount. Mr. Vought has said that impoundment is a critical part of executive functions, and that the law limiting those powers — the Impoundment Control Act — is unconstitutional. 

“Vought is giving big banks and giant corporations the green light to scam families,” Ms. Warren wrote on X in response to the administration’s actions. “The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has returned over $21 billion to families cheated by Wall Street. Republicans have failed to gut it in Congress and in the courts. They will fail again.”

Mr. Trump tried to weaken the agency during his first term, though never went as far as trying to close it altogether. His previous OMB director, Mick Mulvaney, took over as acting director in 2017 and ordered the agency to review investigations and stop hiring. In 2018, he requested zero dollars from the Federal Reserve for the CFPB’s budget, a move mirrored by Mr. Vought did on Saturday night.

The agency’s funding has been challenged in the courts as recently as last year, with one trade association claiming that the CFPB is unconstitutional because it receives its funds not from Congress, but from the Federal Reserve. In a 7–2 decision issued in May 2024, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the agency and its funding methods fit “comfortably” within the Constitutional structure. 

“I have notified the Federal Reserve that CFPB will not be taking its next draw of unappropriated funding because it is not ‘reasonably necessary’ to carry out its duties. The Bureau’s current balance of $711.6 million is in fact excessive in the current fiscal environment,” Mr. Vought said in a post on X. “This spigot, long contributing to CFPB’s unaccountability, is now being turned off.”

This is the latest attempt by the president and his staff to unilaterally cease funding for organizations that they deem unnecessary while legal battles about the president’s impoundment powers play out. The head of the Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk, who is leading this new shutdown process in the federal government, wrote on X, “CFPB RIP” with a gravestone emoji on Friday. 

Mr. Vought was confirmed as OMB director just days ago, after Senate Democrats held a 30-hour filibuster on the floor to try and block his nomination. They said that Mr. Vought was exactly the kind of bureaucrat that Mr. Trump would use to implement his agenda from the West Wing at lightning speed. 

“He was the architect of the federal funding freeze that happened last week,” Senator Schatz said as he and his colleagues were trying to delay the confirmation vote. “He’s got a lot more ideas for the American people, and none of them are good. He also, basically, views laws as optional.”

https://www.nysun.com/article/trumps-budget-chief-neuters-elizabeth-warrens-consumer-financial-protection-bureau

WATCH: Biden's military recruitment ad featured lesbian soldier with 2 moms—Trump's focus is on strength

 Since Trump took office, many have noticed a shift in the tone of US military.

The US military appears to be taking a drastically different approach in recruitment under President Donald Trump compared to the “woke” advertising that was seen during President Joe Biden’s administration.

During Biden’s presidency, an Army recruiting advertisement went viral for featuring a soldier named Emma who was raised by lesbian mothers and “marched for equality” as a child before joining the service. The advertisement received criticism from those who argued it was indicative of the military prioritizing things like diversity and LGBTQ+ themes over military readiness and strength.

Since Trump took office, many have noticed a shift in the tone of the US military. A recent US Army video posted on social media invited soldiers to participate in health and fitness training, featuring a sergeant lifting weights and declaring, “Strong people are harder to kill.”

The Army has also reported an increase in recruitment, which began before the election but has continued to climb under Trump’s administration. The military has struggled to meet its recruitment goals in recent years, but last week, the Army announced that December was its most productive recruitment month in 15 years, enlisting 346 soldiers per day. A report from Military.com indicated that the service has already reached the halfway point of its goal to enlist 61,000 active-duty soldiers for the fiscal year.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth weighed in on the recruitment surge, giving credit to the leadership of President Trump. In a post on X, Hegseth wrote, “BREAKING: In December 2024, the @USArmy had its best recruiting number in 12 years. In January 2025, the Army hit its best recruiting number in 15 YEARS. BOTTOM LINE: America’s youth want to serve under the bold & strong ‘America First’ leadership of @realDonaldTrump.”

“We’ve already seen it in recruiting numbers,” Hegseth also said last month. “There’s already been a surge since President Trump won the election.”


https://thepostmillennial.com/watch-bidens-military-recruitment-ad-featured-lesbian-soldier-with-2-moms-trumps-focus-is-on-strength


Why Elon Musk And DOGE Terrify Democrats


You may have noticed the absolute meltdown of the left over the existence of Elon Musk and the DOGE team doing exactly what Donald Trump was elected to do. I phrased it that way because that’s exactly what is happening – someone is finally going through the government’s books and records to figure out what people do, how much it costs, where the rest of the money is going and whether or not we can live without it since we’re more than $36 trillion in debt. Why would anyone meltdown over that? There’s a very simple reason: Democrats cannot afford for the American people realizing how much government they can live without. More than that, they can’t have the public recognize how much the government was actually getting in their way and impeding their success. The public doing either of those two things would be the end of the Democratic Party.

Not one single person in the Democratic Party, either elected or in journalism, has commented positively on anything the Department of Government Efficiency has uncovered and ended so far, nothing. No matter how wasteful, no matter how absurd, no matter how insane or stupid, Democrats are angry that DOGE exists, not that we taxpayers are being ripped off. That tells you something.

The most amazing part of all of it is how these people, who’ve spent decades milking taxpayers for their pet causes, for money to fund organizations that employ their children and fund their campaigns, that hire and pay them exorbitant amounts of money for no-show or symbolic jobs when they retire, that use insider information that make them more successful at stock trading than people who do it for a living, have the audacity to refer to what Musk and the crew are doing as somehow motivated by “greed.”

Under what circumstances would the richest man in the world risk prison for a little more? He’s not Mr. Burns, he’s an OCD kind of guy obsessed with determining what is absolutely essential to the operations of something and eliminating everything else involved in its creation and production. Read Walter Isaacson’s biography of him, for crying out loud.

The “kids,” as the left likes to belittlingly call them, who work with him are not in it for the money, either. Most have founded companies, won massive investments in their ideas, and don’t need anything to be more successful than anyone whining about them. What they want, what they crave is a challenge. 

People who’ve risked and accomplished nothing have no understanding of how successful people, at any level, need a challenge. Standing on top of a mountain is boring, climbing to the top of it is what life is all about. Get there, conquer, then move on to the next things.

We all know people who love to have a good time all the time, to the serial entrepreneur class the good time doesn’t involve booze, drugs, sex or money – all of which will come and are available – it’s the creation; the defying of expectations to bring about something new or a better way to do something old. 

Musk can buy literally anything on the planet, but he doesn’t. His largest purchase was a headache with Twitter – he bought a challenge and beat it. 

The biggest challenges we face as a species, he’s taken on: space, the brain, communicating with one another. The only challenges bigger are government and existence. 

But the idea of a smaller, better run government that does not get ripped off or lose hundreds of billions of dollars every year not only doesn’t interest Democrats, the very idea seems to scare them. 

There are only two conclusions that can be drawn from that fact: either Democrats do not care – they put their political power ahead of what is in the best interest of the American people – or they benefit, financially or otherwise, from the inefficient and corrupt management of government. Personally, I’ve always found it to be a lot from column A and a dash of column B, but that’s just me.

Whatever the case, the work of Musk and DOGE must continue. They are the financial intervention the drunken sailors who’ve been running up the credit cards need, whether they like it or not. It’s just an important side effect that the reaction to their work is exposing how paranoid the left is that their house of cards can come crumbling down if transparency and fiscal responsibility were to become a part of how the government operates. 



$4B Research Grant Agencies Prioritizing ‘Political Activism’ Over Excellence, Says Study on DEI in Canada

 IMO... Canada needs a DOGE ! Poilievre ?

A new report looking at the prevalence of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI and EDI) practices in federal research grant-funding agencies says the ideology has “come to dominate” the academia and government.

The report by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute studied how DEI appears in academic and research bodies, including three federal research granting agencies.

DEI has “taken root” at the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the report says. It adds that the agencies have a combined budget of $3.95 billion.

“Rather than prioritizing research excellence, they are too often promoting and even rewarding political activism,” the report says.

Author Dave Snow, associate professor in the department of political science at the University of Guelph, says one of the ways DEI prevalence is evident is in preferential hiring practices and grant awarding considerations.

“There is no ‘hidden EDI agenda’ at the federal granting agencies,” he said. “EDI is front and centre at SSHRC, CIHR, and NSERC.”

CIHR’s definition of research excellence uses activist DEI language that shows health and medical research funding has become “politicized,” he adds.

Snow says some of the other ways DEI is prioritized at the agencies include: rolling out a DEI “Action Plan,” specialized grants for DEI-related topics, grants that prioritize funding on the basis of race, gender, and other “identify characteristics,” defining research excellence as one that is “anti-racist,” mandatory diversity and bias training modules, and guidelines that nudge applicants toward including DEI considerations in their applications.

“The net effect has been to harm the perception of political independence and unbiased research that is crucial to any research funding agency. The harm is not yet irreparable—but reform is necessary,” the report says.

Recommendations

The report doesn’t ask for DEI-focused research to be banned by the government, saying it can “contribute to the marketplace of ideas.” Rather, Snow said, the playing field for research needs to be made level.

“EDI-focused researchers should be required to make the case as to why their research is deserving of scarce taxpayer resources dedicated to objective knowledge creation, just as all other researchers do,” he said.

The report offers several recommendations to reduce the amount of DEI-driven research and favouritism.

First, grant-funding agencies need to be neutral, Snow wrote.

“They should avoid any indication that ideologically motivated research will be more successful in terms of receiving awards.”

A second recommendation is to remove references to equity, diversity, and inclusion from granting agency websites and supporting materials.

The agencies should also be required to end DEI-focused grants, he said.

“Grants with application instructions that contain statements like ‘Which mechanisms perpetuate White privilege and how can such privilege best be challenged?’ have no place in an ideologically neutral research funding agency,” he wrote.

Grants with that sort of application criteria are more focused on activism than “knowledge creation,” he said.

The report also recommends:
  • Removing any application process DEI modules or statements;
  • Removing “equity targets” and awards based on identity characteristics;
  • Expanding the data that granting agencies collect from researchers looking for funding.
“They should collect information on other aspects beyond EDI-focused identity characteristics, such as religiosity, age, country of origin, province of origin, and even political orientation,” Snow wrote in the report.

His final recommendation is that DEI-driven research be “permitted” but not “promoted” as it currently is. “Activist-driven” researchers should be encouraged to apply for funding based on meritorious criteria such as commitment to research excellence.


https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/4b-research-grant-agencies-prioritizing-political-activism-over-excellence-says-study-on-dei-in-canada-5804387?&utm_source=MB_article_paid&utm_campaign=MB_article_2025-02-09-ca&utm_medium=email&est=kKmVpE2ORDqTx9reI%2BQ7T3boJF2pBLj%2B7h9Zq%2Fr1Vu%2B6PRus07qAUB0F9TEoSMkahE%2Bx&utm_content=more-top-news-1