Democrat Faces Of Failure

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall 

Pity the poor Democrats – actually, don’t pity them because they are terrible people, and their sorry situation is purely of their own making. They got too used to being in charge, too used to ruling from their throne, and now that they have to get off it they have found that their spindly legs have withered and atrophied, so they hobble around, unable to stand fully upright. It’s funny for us, but it’s an existential challenge for them. What are the Democrats to do? Who do the Democrats have to try to do it with? Their bench is worse than the 2024 White Sox, which is a sportsball metaphor indicating that they’ve got nobody good on their team. And they’ve got no prospects for the future.

Now, this is all great for America, but we need to temper our gloating by remembering that we’re Republicans, and Republicans have a unique ability to squander any advantage they happen to have, so let’s not get too uppity just yet. Yet, we do appear to be in a rare interregnum when Republicans are making smart choices and ruthlessly pressing their advantage, so maybe this is when we run up the score. The Democrats are down, and I say kick ‘em in the gut.

The Democrats have the worst issue set ever. They’re still embracing the same nonsense that helped lose them the election. Complicating it is that they have an opponent with a supernatural power to make his opponents assume the least viable political position possible at any given time simply because it’s the opposite of where he says he stands. Trump has maneuvered these people into deciding that the hill they want to die on is USAID funding of bizarre social pathologies overseas and of the regime media here at home. If there are two things the American people dislike, it’s foreign aid and the pinko press, yet that’s where the Democrats decided to position themselves – as unapologetic Japanese soldiers 40 years after the war fighting to the death to take hard-working Americans’ money and give it to grubby, ungrateful foreigners and the reporters who hate them. The other issues they’ve decided to stick with are just as unpopular. DEI? Everybody outside of a faculty lounge and the Beltway hates it. Trans lunatics and perverts who want to hang out in girls’ changing rooms? Again, there are skin rashes that poll better. Where are the Democrats? All over them. And that was just last week.

But it’s the snarling, dead-eyed faces of the Democrats that’s their most pronounced problem. Who is their new leader? Who is the Democrat leader they expect America to rally around? Instead of putting up somebody America might embrace, they put up a cast of chumps who are collectively less attractive than the Wellesley lacrosse team.

They’ve tried the wrinkled faces of the past, and that hasn’t worked. The Democrats are a gerontocracy, most of them crusty relics from a bygone era. Nancy Pelosi’s been sidelined by her broken hip and raging love of Chardonnay. Al Green, not the singer, recently filed articles of impeachment against the president because why not and then went out in front of the USAID building to wave his cane in solidarity with the freeloading government drones he represents.

They wheeled out Maxine Waters to make some vague threats of violence, but all that came out of her mouth was dust. Several Democrats were up there threatening to take it to the streets. They should go for it. I was informed – by them – that this would be an insurrection, but with Pam Bondi as the new Attorney General, they’ve made the smart choice of not testing that out. It’s all fun and games until you realize that the government you weaponized is now in the hands of the guy you weaponized it against.

And then there’s Chuck Schumer, who only looks viable when standing next to the elderly Mitch McConnell. Remember, he’s the dude who puts Swiss slices on raw hamburger patties in his “I’m just like you stinking peasants” barbecue photos. The highlight of his appearance was when he tried to lead a chant from the audience of bureaucrats, paid activists, and other misfits. It was like a little-known opening band trying in vain to get the crowd to sing along when the crowd not only didn’t know the song but was waiting for the headliner. You had to have a heart of stone not to laugh. These crusty, fussy fossils generate all the searing excitement of a quilting bee, where they’re passing around Quaaludes.

The ones we were informed were the future have been passed over. Kamala is, well, Kamala. Hairstyle Newsom saw his future go up in flames. Josh Shapiro is wisely distancing himself from this ritual suicide pact. Governor, JB Pritzker makes Chris Christie look like Kate Moss.

So, who is the donkey’s great anti-white hope? That’s an important question because the latest Democrat the regime media has decided to swoon over is the aggressively loud and aggressively stupid Jasmine Crockett, all wild gesticulations, inarticulate howling, and gratuitous racial slurs. Crockett is like a political Netflix reboot – they took George Wallace and made him an obnoxious black woman. She decided it would be a genius idea to announce that the people who oppose her are “mediocre white men.” It’s an interesting choice of how best to claw back this enormous potential group of voters – voters who are often mirrored at the ballot box by the presumably “mediocre white” women who love them. Explicit racial hatred directed at the largest group of voters is either the most intellectually and morally bankrupt political strategy of all time or some 4D chess move by a political idiot savant. If you’re a betting man, woman, or non-binary, you’ll want to put your money on it being the latter, less the “savant” part.

Speaking of mediocre white men, the Democrat Party has plenty of them. What they lack in melanin and testosterone, they attempt to make up with girlish shouting and unseemly hysterics. Pete Buttigieg is still in the mix. He’s moved to Michigan because he apparently thinks people in Michigan are stupider than people in his actual home state of Indiana, and he plans on running for the open Senate seat in 2026. Imagine being so bereft of talent that you decide you’ve got to import Pete Buttigieg. 

There’s Rep. Dan Goldman, the senator from Levi Strauss. He’s very, very concerned about billionaires, probably because he’s only a multi-multi-millionaire, and he’s jealous. His list of accomplishments includes being born into a rich family, being gay, and being born into a rich family. Goldman likes to get on Twitter and say things. They are usually dumb things.

And there’s also Senator Chris Murphy, who likes to fulminate about how we are having a constitutional crisis because the guy who won the election gained the right to exercise constitutional powers is exercising his constitutional powers. He’s also very excited that he can slightly delay Donald Trump getting all his cabinet picks confirmed. Take that! The Democrats have set an ultra-low bar for success, and yet they seem able to limbo right under it.

Posturing and procrastination – that’s really all they have. It’s clearly not working. Every day brings new humiliations and subsequent new tantrums. One of the key factors in the Trump 2.0 administration’s plan is to simply ignore these people. Trump acts like they are not even there, and they aren’t. There’s nobody home. It’s all sham outrage and Potemkin antics. We’ve got unattractive people defending unattractive positions in unattractive ways. You almost pity them, but then you remember how evil they are, and you just want to savor their pain.

X22, And we Know, and more- Feb 13

 

No, Trump Does Not Have to Abide by a Mythical 'Judicial Supremacy'

posted by Selwyn Duke at American Thinker 

It’s an old story: When people are allowed to get their way for too long, when they’re never told “No!” they may get too big for their britches.

They may develop a sense of entitlement and even become narcissistic.

And proving that judges are no exception to this reality are a number of recent court “opinions” designed to scuttle President Trump’s agenda.

One disallows DOGE from scrutinizing Treasury Department data.

Another states that the Trump administration must unfreeze funding on grants and loans.

A different opinion puts a freeze on Trump’s buyout offer for federal employees.

And yet another ordered the administration to restore sexual devolutionary (on “gender” and “sex changes”) government web pages Trump’s team had rightly deleted. So Biden could create those pages but, somehow, the current president may not remove them. Yes, it’s insane.

There’s a little known reason, however, why the rogue judges in question could so confidently engage in such insane judicial overreach. To wit:

We long ago accepted the overreach known as “judicial supremacy.”

This brings us to the simple remedy. Trump could just paraphrase the paraphrase of Andrew Jackson and say, “The courts have made their decisions — now let the judges enforce them.”

A “Constitutional Crisis”?

Some say this is illegal, that it would create a “constitutional crisis.” A “legal analyst” and ex-federal prosecutor named Elizabeth de la Vega, for example, condescendingly stated Monday that someone taking this position should “at least read Marbury v. Madison.” That’s a deal.

Note here that Marbury was the 1803 SCOTUS opinion declaring that the judiciary must be the ultimate arbiter of laws’ and actions’ constitutionality and that, consequently, its rulings can constrain the other two governmental branches. Translation:

The courts gave the courts their trump card (and Trump card) power.

Not the Constitution — the courts themselves.

Well, that’s like me crowning myself King of America and saying, “Now I get to rule — and you have to obey me.” Are you O.K. with that?

(And while we’re at it, off with those activist judges’ heads.)

As to this, there’s a reason Thomas Jefferson said in 1819 that if the judicial-supremacy opinion is valid, “then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se” (act of suicide).

There’s a reason a 5th Circuit judge pressed Barack Obama’s DOJ in 2012, after Obama had spoken dismissively of the courts, to submit a memo on the administration’s position on judicial supremacy.

And there’s a reason late Justice Antonin Scalia warned in his dissent against the outrageous 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges (marriage) opinion that with “each decision ... unabashedly based not on law,” the Court moves “one step closer to being reminded of [its] impotence.”

That is, judicial supremacy is not in the Constitution. That’s why Jefferson was incredulous about it, the 5th Circuit judge was insecure about it, and Scalia warned that the Court could be told to forget about it.

It’s an extra-constitutional power the courts enjoy at the other two branches’ pleasure. The moment they decide to stop playing the sub role in this master-servant relationship, the power goes bye-bye.

Method to the Madness

Now, it’s helpful understanding why, in a world in which arrogating power to oneself or one’s corps is status quo, the other two branches do play this sub role.

First, it’s a tradition, one so entrenched that pseudo-intellectuals will defend it as if it’s law.

But a very significant reason was epitomized by something then-Ohio governor John Kasich said in 2015 after the Obergefell decision.

“[T]he court has ruled,” he proclaimed — “and it’s time to move on.” He seemed almost gleeful. And why not?

Kasich no longer had to take a stand on this controversial issue and thus alienate part of the electorate.

And Kasich’s attitude is the norm.

It’s the same reason why, I can guarantee you, many Republicans got severe agita when Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022. Now they actually had to legislate, as they’re supposed to, on prenatal infanticide. So what legislators — and presidents often, too — get from judicial supremacy is the luxury of, like Pontius Pilate, being able to wash their hands of a matter: “The courts have ruled! Don’t look at me!”

Apropos here, just as legislators outsource their responsibility to judges, the latter outsourced their responsibility to bureaucrats with the now overturned Chevron opinion. What judges got from this was the benefit of lightening their case loads and not having to strain their gray matter trying to settle legislative ambiguities.

Regardless, whether the decisions are made by unelected judges or unelected bureaucrats, the result is identical: You don’t have a government of, by and for the people. In fact, it’s even worse than that.

If the courts can overturn law, contravening the will of the people’s duly elected representatives, then they’ve to an extent arrogated to themselves the legislative power. If they can dictate to the president what executive actions he may or may not take, they’ve to an extent arrogated to themselves the executive power. And, of course, they enjoy their judicial power.

Now consider something James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, wrotein The Federalist Papers, Number 47: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands” is “the very definition of tyranny.”

We have for ages been venturing too close to judicial tyranny. In fact, Jefferson warned that judicial supremacy would reduce us to an oligarchy — of judges.

How it’s Supposed to Work

Remember, too, federal and state officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

They do not take an oath to uphold judges’ opinions.

This means that if I’m a president or governor and a court issues a ruling I truly believe is unconstitutional, I have a duty to ignore it. Otherwise, I’m violating my oath.

“But what of rogue legislators or presidents?” some may ask. Well, what of rogue judges (who apparently are everywhere)?

The answer is the Founders’ one: No branch can intrude into the others’ spheres. This doesn’t mean there aren’t checks and balances. If, for example, a president believes a law is unconstitutional and refuses to enforce it, or takes an allegedly unconstitutional executive action, Congress can try to remove him; it can also impeach and remove renegade judges. As for House representatives themselves, the remedy is removal via the ballot box. This is why they must run for re-election every two years: Since they’re meant to be the most powerful branch (e.g., spending bills must originate in the House, and only it can file impeachment charges), they’re placed closest to the people’s reach.

Power means nothing, though, if not exercised. If congressional and executive powers are outsourced, it then can reduce us to what we’ve become: a government of, by and for judicial oligarchs.

So, no, President Trump doesn’t have to obey blatantly unconstitutional court opinions. This said, with how he’s shaking up the system and busy draining the bureaucratic swamp, it’s perhaps politically prudent to remedy the current judicial adventurism through the higher courts, as he’ll almost assuredly win on appeal. At some point, though, it will be time to drain that fetid judicial swamp and address the real constitutional crisis: the rule of judges who would be kings.

Where Are the Protests and Riots Over Trump, Musk and DOGE?

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall 

Every time a Republican sneezed in the last decade there was a mob of Democrats there to protest it. Whenever a Republican called for an end to the genital mutilation of children or a Hamas terrorist murdered Jews somewhere, a gaggle of progressive goons tried to murder police officers, burn down a courthouse somewhere or call for the completion of Hitler’s work of wiping out the Jews. The rent-a-mob was always at the ready, with tents and signs ready to go and the ability to show up pretty much anywhere in the US at a moment’s notice. Where are they now? 

Isn’t it odd that the only “protests,” insofar as they can be called that, are happening in Washington, DC? New York City streets aren’t being marched down. Seattle isn’t burning. Neither Portland is under siege. Where are they?

Well, I have a theory. 

We always knew these mutants were paid. Not all of them – there are just a lot of people who are desperate to be led, scrambling for some sort of “purpose” in life, who get hoovered up by the progressive left and become grist for the mill. But their leadership and organizers don’t work for free. They won’t pay their own airfare to an event; they have mortgages and lives. If you notice, being a leftist leader pays well.

It's the same as it ever was. The political left is a Ponzi Scheme that makes Social Security look like a sound investment. The drones on the streets are the eunuchs willing to throw bricks at cops, knowing it’s what their masters want, and in return their bail will be paid and some tattooed, unshowered girl will talk to them about the revolution. As long as the drones were supplied, the bail money rolled in.

Actually, as long as USAID was handing out billions to left-wing organizations around the world, the bail money rolled in. 

The USAID money is not rolling in anymore, which means the bail money isn’t guaranteed. More importantly, the leadership and organizers – many of whom don’t even show up to the destruction they create, pulling the strings and transferring funds to where they’re needed from the comfort of their very nice homes – aren’t getting paid, and they don’t run a charity. 

Without the money, our money, flowing into the accounts of progressive organizations around the world, there’s nothing to launder back to the United States to operate the goon squads. Democrats can’t get a crowd without that laundered tax money.

That, I suspect, is why the laughable “protests” we’ve seen in DC consist exclusively of government union members and Democrat hill staffers and party grunts. That’s all they are, that’s all they have: people required by their employers to show up.

And the crowds are tiny. Why would federal workers show up to a protest when they barely show up to work? Moreover, why would they show up to support a union that is actively suing to prevent them from being able to take advantage of a buyout that gives them 8 months off, fully paid, and the chance to retire early? Have you ever seen ANY federal bureaucrat so in love with their job that the idea of retiring early would offend them, spurring them into the streets to protest? Of course not.

That leaves only union staffers – of which there are a lot, because unions (like Democrats) enjoy spreading other people’s wealth around – and Democratic staff from Senate and House offices. 

Technically, those staffers are barred from engaging in political work while on the clock, but who’s going to hold them to account? Republicans won’t hold a hearing on it, as Democrats would do everything to obstruct any inquiry. So it goes unremarked upon by the press, which would be playing “spot the staffer” on MSNBC to get people fired if it were Republicans doing it.

But Republicans don’t do it. Republicans don’t have goon squads at the ready because Republicans don’t use government money to send overseas to advance their agenda while filtering back large chunks of it through countless “charities” to pay for their activists. That’s what Democrats do, all the time.

Well, not all the time. Once President Donald Trump and Elon Musk shut off the spigot on USAID, these “charities” that passed US grant money from one group to another – all wetting their beaks through “overhead” – so only pennies on the dollar ended up actually “helping” the people the grants were designated for, the left-wing industrial complex came to a halt. Weird, right?

I don’t expect it to hold indefinitely – there’s simply too much money in play, and someone like a Soros will open their wallets wider to get the gears moving again, if only a little. But the money has to be laundered, to some degree. Anyone seen as directly funding violence and terrorist activities runs risk of a RICO charge, and the Trump Justice Department, unlike any run by Democrats, won’t sit idly by as cities burn. The people paying for it will be made to pay. 

USAID was the buffer the left-wing industrial complex needed to not only launder US taxpayer money to the Democrats’ Brownshirts, but the left-wing billionaire class too. Killing it and rolling anything worthwhile directly into the State Department may end up being the most important, most pro-American move any President has made in the last 100 years. 

Now you see why DOGE, Trump and Musk are constantly under attack for the simple act of trying to make sure we don’t get ripped off – the entire left exists because we get ripped off.

Democrats, Republicans Panic As Trump Brings World To Brink Of Peace

 Democrats, Republicans Panic As Trump Brings World To Brink Of Peace

Politics·Feb 13, 2025 · BabylonBee.com

Consolidated News Photos, Shutterstock.com

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The reign of terror perpetrated by the Trump administration looked to continue this week, with Democrats and Republicans alike going into panic as President Donald Trump looked to bring the world to the brink of peace.

Just over three weeks into his term, Trump reported that he had spoken to both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to initiate negotiations and finally bring much-needed peace to the region, causing American politicians to sound the alarm.

"Our world is dangerously close to descending into all-out peace," warned Senator Chuck Schumer. "These measured and recklessly diplomatic moves by the Trump administration have brought us closer than we've ever been to a complete lack of large-scale bloodshed and amicable relations among all countries around the world. I've been unable to sleep at night due to the looming threat of peace."

Politicians across the aisle agreed that Trump's efforts have created an existential threat to the prospects of a world war. "We tried to warn the American people that this would happen," said Senator Lindsey Graham. "All of Trump's talk during his campaign about bringing an end to conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East weren't just empty posturing. He's serious. He may actually get Putin and Zelenskyy to sign a peace agreement. My colleagues and I shudder to think what might result from that, and we're looking for ways to stop it."

At publishing time, Democrats and Republicans were reportedly in an emergency closed-door meeting to fast-track World War 3 before Trump could usher in a new era of peace and prosperity around the world.

https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-republicans-panic-as-trump-brings-world-to-brink-of-peace

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

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. 

How Vance’s ‘Do You Hear Yourself?’ Moment Helped Me See The Propaganda Press For What It Is

J.D. Vance asking Martha Raddatz, ‘Do you hear yourself?’ 

was the political reality check I desperately needed.

posted by Hana Kabele Gala at The Federalist

The way Donald Trump and J.D. Vance talked to the media on the campaign trail was one of the reasons a lot of people eventually turned away from the Democrats and into the arms of MAGA. I am one of them. 

About 10 years ago, I started noticing the ever-expanding delta between what I saw with my own two eyes as reality and what the media presented. There is a 2016 standup bit by Dave Chappelle that captured this chasm beautifully. In it, Chappelle recalls the first presidential debate with Hillary Clinton in which Trump said, “The whole system is rigged!” and everybody on the stage who was a beneficiary of the system calmly responded, “No, it’s not,” yet Chappelle thought: “Now wait a minute, it’s what HE said!”

The cognitive dissonance we’ve lived through over the last several years cannot be overstated. When the regime keeps telling us we must acquiesce and join the chants that men can be women, that it’s a noble idea to defund and kneecap the very people who exist to protect us, or that we must put face masks on toddlers, the thought incongruence is harder and harder to reconcile. This must be the “lived experience” for many Democrats too, whether they admit it or not.

I am very familiar with such a duality. I grew up in Communist Czechoslovakia and was taught from the time I could remember that there were things we discussed at home that we absolutely could not share at school. From as young as kindergarten, I knew I couldn’t mention anything about my relatives who defected to the West. I knew I could not speak about the books my parents read or that I knew the word “samizdat.” I knew I could not reveal, not even to my friends, that my family would crouch around a small black transistor radio on the weekends at our cabin and listen to “Voice of America.” 

The totalitarian communist regime demonstrated very clearly to me that just because something is repeated often doesn’t mean it’s true (“The five-year plan is a great success again!”) and that just because the propaganda machine uses terms such as “democracy” and “free elections” to describe itself, that does not mean there is a democracy or free elections. 

The experience made me revere the United States and its foundational principles. Most Americans are lucky to be born and raised in the land of the free, and they grow up without the constant questioning of reality I internalized. As such, they are not inculcated in the importance of vigilance in comparing their experiences with what the media are presenting. They don’t automatically develop that sixth sense of, “Now wait a minute, it’s what HE said!” 

But even I was not expecting the level of gaslighting I was experiencing in my new country. It started simply enough, with my colleagues insisting on diversity yet watching me get in trouble for standing up for diversity of thought. Like millions of others, I was told over and over again that taking the Covid shot would make me immune — because “Science!” The kids around me lost almost two years of school because my state of Washington had the longest school closures in the nation.

I kept reading about the “mostly peaceful” Black Lives Matter protests when, as a Seattleite, I knew that a police precinct downtown was demolished and dozens of stores were vandalized by Antifa. I drove by the so-called “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” and saw the militia chanting “black lives matter,” even though a young black man was killed inside CHAZ and the murderer was apparently never found. I watched as the Democrat Party abandoned women and sided with men pretending to be women. I was being lectured about “hate speech” and told the state should be trusted to decide what that means. 

I am not proud to admit, but it still took me a minute to accept that the media and government were saying things that were polar opposites of my own experience. Even I, with my strong suspicions of any official dogma, could not believe this would happen in my beloved new home. How could this be America? 

Then about a year ago, during a conversation with my son about the multiple self-proclaimed “nonbinary” students and “furries” at his middle school, I caught myself saying: “Son, you know you can’t repeat any of this at school.” 

The flashback to my childhood and consequent whiplash was terrifying. I felt deep in my core that my new country was in big trouble. How was it even possible that I thought and experienced the very same thing in America in 2023 that I did back in Communist Czechoslovakia in the 1980s? 

When Vance spoke to ABC News’ Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz on the campaign trail last fall, she scolded him for exaggerating about the Venezuelan gangs taking over apartment blocks in Colorado. She cut him off, smugly, to proclaim that it’s only “a handful of apartment complexes,” to which Vance incredulously retorted: “Martha, do you hear yourself?” 

It’s hard to describe that moment and what I experienced as a viewer. It was like hearing an angel’s choir from above giving us permission to tell the truth. And it was a signal that what I know as reality and what is described to me by politicians can be aligned. 

No, my city is not safer than it used to be. Yes, the last president seemed sick and cognitively impaired, and we didn’t know who was running the country. A man dressed up as a woman is not a woman. And a governmental agency tasked with policing free speech is not, in fact, a safety measure that protects me or democracy. To call Vance’s appearances in the media “refreshing” would be a monumental understatement. His concise and direct words every time he speaks are proof we can call a spade a spade. 

Trump voters, especially those who voted for him back in 2016, knew all this already. But many of us had a hard time with him as a political figure. For years, I could not imagine voting for Trump. I found his love for gold interiors tacky, his career in television and rejection of self-described intellectuals suspicious, and, most importantly, I thought some of what I saw in the news was real. 

Even though I knew the corporate media leaned left and had an agenda, I simply could not fathom that they would straight-up lie and fabricate. The Russia-collusion hoax, the “fine people” farce, and the complete rewriting of the Biden years put a massive end to that belief. Yes, even in America, people experienced cognitive dissonance on an unprecedented scale. 

It was exhausting feeling like I was back to the sickening dual reality of growing up under a communist regime. Luckily, with the new administration, with people like J.D. Vance and Stephen Miller, the language of those representing us aligns with the language we use when speaking to each other. The reality they talk about is the one we know. 

J.D. Vance is a gift that keeps on giving. I hope to see more bangers such as, “I don’t really care, Margaret,” which has since been turned into a bunch of fun T-shirt designs. I like them, but I would pay serious money for some merch emblazoned with the one slogan that I will never stop repeating and that made me so happy to cast my vote last year: “Martha, do you hear yourself??”

FENTANYL - CANADA - TWO STORIES LINKED

Blinken’s Warning Two Years Ago: U.S. ‘Losing Faith’ in Canada’s Ability to Combat Industrial-Scale Fentanyl

BC Mayor Warns of Asian Organized Crime’s Surprising Access to Canada’s Political Class, Echoing US Agency Concerns

.

PORT COQUITLAM, Canada — In a high-level meeting in 2023—one participant representing the head of state of the world’s most powerful nation, the other a popular small-town mayor in British Columbia—candid warnings emerged about Canada’s capacity to confront the industrial-scale production of fentanyl. Mayor Brad West, a longstanding critic of transnational drug networks in his province, recalls Secretary of State Antony Blinken stressing that Washington believes Beijing is effectively weaponizing fentanyl against North Americans—and that Canada stands out as a worrisome weak link in the global supply chain.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government moved to address growing U.S. alarm by appointing former RCMP deputy commissioner Kevin Brosseau as Canada’s new “fentanyl czar.” Announced as part of an agreement to forestall potential American tariffs in a tense trade dispute, the position mandates “accelerating Canada’s ongoing work to detect, disrupt, and dismantle the fentanyl trade,” according to the Prime Minister’s Office.

 Brosseau, who most recently served as deputy national security and intelligence adviser to Trudeau, will work closely with U.S. agencies to tackle a crisis that has claimed tens of thousands of lives across North America. Still, questions remain about whether he has the standing in Washington—and the authority in Ottawa—to enact meaningful reforms.

West, reflecting on his encounter with Blinken, doubts that incremental measures will suffice. He argues that only bold legislative change, coupled with a willingness to challenge entrenched legal barriers, can dispel the U.S. government’s unease over Canada’s approach. “Secretary Blinken specifically noted the lack of a RICO-style law in Canada,” West said. “He talked about how, in the United States, that law had been used to take down large portions of the mafia. Then he looked at us—one of America’s closest allies—and saw a very concerning weak link.”

According to West, Blinken pointed to China’s role in funneling precursor chemicals into fentanyl labs. He warned that China’s government, if inclined, could stem the flow but has little interest in doing so. “He was incredibly candid and very serious about the threat fentanyl poses to North America,” West recalled. “He confirmed the connection between the Chinese Communist Party, the triads, and the Mexican cartels, telling me these groups are working together—and it’s Canada where they’re finding a safe operating base.”

West says American frustration revolves around high-profile law enforcement stumbles in Canada, notably the E-Pirate investigation into Silver International, an alleged underground bank in Richmond, B.C., believed to have laundered more than a billion dollars a year for global syndicates. Touted as a signal that Canadian authorities could clamp down on transnational money laundering, the case nevertheless collapsed with no convictions. “He expressed genuine dismay that we haven’t secured meaningful convictions,” West said, paraphrasing Blinken. 

“When our most prominent laundering case ends with zero prison time, you can see why the Americans are alarmed.”

Blinken also conveyed to West that U.S. agencies have grown hesitant to share certain intelligence with their Canadian counterparts.
“He told me that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement are withholding some evidence because they don’t believe we’ll act on it,” West explained. “They’ve lost confidence.”

West added that in ongoing communications, he has learned American officials are shocked that major figures in Asian organized crime “seem to have so much access to our political class. They’re basically saying, ‘What’s going on in Canada?’”

A major concern, according to West, is how known criminals manage to appear at political events or fundraisers with little oversight.
“It’s not necessarily that politicians are complicit, but our political structures have weak guardrails,” West said. “The Americans see pictures of transnational criminals mingling at official gatherings and find it baffling.”

West insists that Canada must enact a legal framework akin to the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to truly “detect, disrupt, and dismantle” the fentanyl trade. “We don’t have anything like it, and until we do, I worry the new czar’s hands could be tied by the legal status quo,” West said. “Ottawa might resist, but we need it. We should have enacted it yesterday.”

He also decries what he calls “egregious rulings” that free major traffickers or launderers on technicalities. West cites a prominent British Columbia case in which a suspect found with more than 27,000 fentanyl pills was released because a police dog had not fully performed its required sitting motion before searching a vehicle. “When a decision like that happens, we’re letting criminals exploit minutiae while countless people die,” he said. “We need a government that has the courage to challenge those judicial outcomes.”

In pursuit of that goal, West is willing to suggest the targeted use of the notwithstanding clause, a rare constitutional tool allowing governments to override parts of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for up to five years. Typically employed in language or education disputes, it has scarcely been used in criminal proceedings. “When the Charter is being weaponized by sophisticated organizations, the government should consider all tools,” he insisted. “The right of Canadians not to be killed by a drug of this scale ought to supersede a procedural glitch.”

The severity of the fentanyl crisis in British Columbia, which has seen the majority of Canada’s overdose deaths, offers a striking backdrop for West’s urgings. He emphasizes that the torrent of precursor chemicals from China has supercharged local labs, embedding crime syndicates in global narcotics pipelines. Profits from these vast operations, in his words, flow through real estate, casinos, and underground banks with little interference.

Whether Ottawa has the political will to implement measures as sweeping as a RICO-style statute or invoke the notwithstanding clause remains uncertain. Both actions would require confronting powerful interests and explaining why existing laws have failed to secure convictions against top offenders. But West argues that mounting American impatience has changed the equation. “This is no longer just a Canadian domestic issue,” he said. “Secretary Blinken made it clear that the Biden administration sees fentanyl as an existential threat. They’re building a global coalition and need Canada fully on board. If we don’t show real progress, the U.S. will protect itself by any means—tariffs or otherwise.”

“People have been calling for something like RICO in Canada for years,” West added. “Silver International was the textbook illustration of why we need it. We had it all—massive money laundering, triads with direct links to Mexican cartels tied to fentanyl labs—and it collapsed because our system couldn’t handle a case of that complexity. That can’t keep happening, or else we’ll remain the hub of a deadly trade.”

West also revealed he would have accepted the fentanyl czar position himself if asked. “I love being mayor, but this is one of the biggest challenges facing our country,” he said. “I’d pour my heart into it. It demands relentless follow-through: legislation, expanded police powers, educating the public, and yes, taking on the courts if necessary.”

Whether Brosseau wields enough clout remains to be seen. West hopes the appointment signals a turning point from what he calls “a fragmented, complacent approach” to one that confronts the crisis on all fronts. “I’ve seen too many half-measures,” he said. “But maybe this time it’ll be different. The Americans have made their position crystal clear, and we need to demonstrate that we can protect ourselves. Otherwise, we fail both our citizens and our closest ally.”

West still recalls Blinken’s direct plea: “He basically said, ‘We need a partner we can trust, one that can disrupt these networks and secure convictions,’” West noted. “If Canada doesn’t step up, I believe the Americans will respond in ways that damage our relationship—and meanwhile, we’ll continue losing people to a drug that’s tearing families apart. We just can’t let that happen.”

https://www.thebureau.news/p/blinkens-warning-two-years-ago-us?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1444443&post_id=157076637&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=rd3ao&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Exclusive: Secretary of State Warned B.C. Mayor U.S. Agencies Are Withholding Evidence Due to Canada’s Legal Loopholes and Lack of Fentanyl Prosecutions

Mayor Brad West Describes U.S. Government Concerns with Canada, 

Says He Would Serve as Fentanyl Czar if a New Government in Ottawa Calls

.

In this explosive interview, B.C. Mayor Brad West reveals sensitive details from his 2023 meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, including Blinken’s unsettling claim that American agencies are holding back intelligence from Canada. “They’ve lost confidence,” West says, adding that U.S. officials are stunned by how much access major figures in Asian organized crime have to Canada’s political class.

Video Interview Here:

https://www.thebureau.news/p/exclusive-secretary-of-state-warned?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1444443&post_id=157073238&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=rd3ao&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email