Fascism, Racism, and Donald Trump

posted by Steve McCann at American Thinker 

With Donald Trump back in the Oval Office and fulfilling the promises he made to the American people, the inevitable accusations of Fascism and racismagain fill the airwaves, the pages, and the websites of the legacy media. These seemingly never-ending accusations also the underlie the lawsuits being filed in the courtrooms of radical left-wing judges in an unconstitutional effort to impede and stop Trump in his quest to make America great again.

The fact that the Marxist-inspired American Left, its political arm, the Democrat Party, and its “Ministry of Information,” the legacy media, has to once again rely on endlessly regurgitating these now threadbare epithets is an admission that they have not only failed to achieve their goal of transforming the nation but have nothing to justify their failed policies except to vilify Donald Trump and accuse 75% of the citizens of the United States of being inbred racists.

The American Marxists have long been confident that a substantial majority of Americans of European descent are easily gulled, susceptible to guilt and shame, and are, thus, willing to stand aside as they transform the nation.

Over the past sixty-five years, they have been monomaniacally determined to convince the citizenry that the United States is and always has been a malevolent and racist nation due its settlement by the European branch of the Caucasian race (or more contemptuously “Whites”)

According to their duplicitous agitprop, Whites have, since the dawn of recorded history, been the principal promoters and beneficiaries of slavery and repression throughout the world. Those members of this villainous race who settled in this country over the past 400 years are, thus, responsible for imposing never-ending racism and inequity on the American continent.

The American Marxists insist that the White population, which includes Hispanics of European descent, must openly confess their collective guilt and seek forgiveness. Additionally, and in light of this demonic legacy, every American of any race should be mortified to be a citizen of such vile and irredeemable country.

Not coincidentally, this cabal has declared that there is a path toward national redemption and a mechanism to forever erase the stain of “white privilege” and “systemic racism.” It is for the American Marxists to be unopposed in their seizure of the reins of power in order to transform the nation into a one-party secular socialist paradise.

The absurd assertion made by the American Marxists that the United States is the embodiment of evil because of ever-present “systemic racism” is defeated by the mere fact that they have had to resort to this specious and feeble argument in their bid to achieve their goals.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, the Left has been unable to transform the United States into socialist paradise by using the standard class warfare tactic that succeeded in many other nations. That strategy succeeded in those nations because there was an element of truth in the underlying allegations of rampant inequality due to rigid class structures and monolithic governments.

That tactic did not work in the United States as this is the first nation in annals of mankind to be created without a rigid class structure and with a recognition of the unalienable rights of the individual as well as a dramatically disbursed governmental framework. Further, it is also the first nation to create a written permanent Constitution with provisions to correct societal inequalities, which were used to end slavery, institute women’s suffrage, and eliminate of the last vestiges of institutional racism in the 1960s. It is the only nation in history that was willing to suffer the overwhelming death and destruction of a civil war to permanently end slavery. And it is the first and still only country created as a multi-ethnic nation.

Thus, the only tactic the American Marxists have is to foment guilt among the majority of the citizenry while falsely portraying the nation as irredeemably racist and dividing the country by race and ethnicity as well as labeling those of us in opposition to their megalomania as Fascists or Nazis.

The American Marxists have been taken aback by the reality that a rapidly growing majority of Americans, led by Donald Trump, will never roll over and meekly allow these wannabe autocrats and their dimwitted acolytes to transform America. Nor will we tolerate the accusations of Fascism or racism or wallow in collective guilt for who are.

I am of a member of the Caucasian race and of European descent, I am a naturalized citizen of the United States, and I am a Christian. I am extraordinarily proud of being all the above. Further, even if I knew who my ancestors were, I do not have a scintilla of guilt nor do I care about what they may or may not have done over the centuries.

I am grateful to be a part of western civilization with its roots in Christianity and Judaism. The only civilization in the history of mankind that ended slavery, initiated and promoted universal human rights, originated women’s equality, created parliamentary democracy, and recognized that as certain rights came from God and not man, they cannot be abrogated by the state,

Throughout countless millennia all races have enslaved, violently subjugated, and exploited others in and outside their racial group. In fact, it is estimated that a virtually everyone of European descent has an ancestor that was captured or sold as a slave. The same holds true for essentially everyone living on the planet today.

Slavery still exists to this day in multiple countries in Africa as well as in India, China, and Pakistan among other Asian countries and across the entirety of the Middle East. It is estimated that throughout the world today there are over 40 million human beings in slavery. More than triple the number that were enslaved during the nearly four hundred years of the transatlantic slave era (16th to 19th centuries).

None of these countries or regions are populated or controlled by the “evil” white race. Further, by 1863 all nations inhabited or governed by the ancestors of the current members of the white race had abolished slavery in perpetuityand turned their attention to guaranteeing the rights of former slaves. It is the only race, on a collective basis, to ever do so. And it is also the race that has long been in the forefront of movements to end modern slavery.

Every American should be proud of being a member of whatever racial or ethnic group they may belong to, but more importantly they should be extraordinarily proud of being a citizen of the most unique, successful, and tolerant nation in the annals of mankind. Further, they should accelerate the inevitable relegation of the American Marxist cabal to the ash heap of history by telling them to take their unconstitutional attempts to thwart Donald Trump and their vile manipulation of the citizenry and shove it.

X22, And we Know, and more- Feb 14 💌

 

OF COURSE THEY ARE!

.

Valentine's Day - A real thing or corporate folderal ?

ADL and Feminists react in horror ! 

Encourages heteronormality romance !!!

LGBT couples aghast! Cisgenders left out !... 😂 

Help! The Establishment’s Fallen and Can’t Get Up!

posted by J.B. Shurk at American Thinker 

The Senate’s confirmation hearings for President Trump’s political appointees have been gladiatorial spectacles.  Tulsi Gabbard; Kash Patel; and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. followed Pete Hegseth’s example in demonstrating fierce determination and an unwillingness to have their honor questioned by dishonorable Democrats.  

Gabbard told the Intelligence Committee that the Russia collusion hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, and her own experiences as a Biden regime surveillance target proved that the CIA and its sister agencies had become politicized weapons endangering the Republic.  Kennedy admonished Senator Bernie Sanders for being a bought-and-paid-for stooge of the pharmaceutical industry.  When Senator Adam Schiff (who should be a defendant, not a lawmaker) accused Patel of betraying law enforcement officers, the next director of the FBI stared back intently and reminded inveterate liar Schiff that those who police our streets know who has their backs.  

These types of hearings have gotten increasingly combative over the last thirty years, but this aggressive jousting between nominees and lawmakers is something new.  What we’re watching is not just rhetorical gamesmanship or made-for-TV fireworks meant to capture distracted Americans’ attention.  Like their boss in the White House — whose mug shot from the Fulton County Jailhouse in Atlanta, Georgia, two years ago only added to Trump’s legend as an everyman hero — these nominees have approached their confirmation hearings with a stoic seriousness befitting an administration whose every move conveys a simple message: “There’s a new sheriff in town.”  When Patel gave Schiff the “evil eye” and calmly asserted that his friends in blue had his six, I thought the corrupt California senator wet his pants.

Will the nominees be confirmed?  If the proceedings were done entirely in secret, they would not.  As more Americans have steadily realized, the U.S. Senate is not divided between Republicans and Democrats.  Almost all senators are stalwart members of the same Uniparty.  The Senate is a privileged chamber of egomaniacal “nobles” who work for the Intelligence Community, protect the permanent bureaucracy, and remain loyal only to their Establishment Club.  Most Senate “Republicans” oppose Trump and his nominees.  

As but one example of their virulent duplicity, the Wall Street Journal reported that North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis actively worked to sink Hegseth’s nomination by promoting scurrilous eleventh-hour hearsay that might have given him enough political cover to join consummate RINO-turds McConnell, Collins, and Murkowski in voting “no.”  President Trump and Vice President Vance managed to identify the late-breaking ambush and prevent the RINO saboteurs from dynamiting Hegseth’s confirmation.  With some help from concerned MAGA voters in North Carolina and across the country, they brought Two-Faced Tillis to heel.  After Tillis’s cowardly betrayal was exposed, the pusillanimous politico not only introduced Kash Patel at his later confirmation hearing to become director of the FBI but also bent over backwards to offer Patel his full-throated endorsement.  Tillis’s sudden U-Turn from MAGA quisling to champion in a matter of days suggested that he had learned a valuable lesson.

Unfortunately, we will never be so lucky.  Two-Faced Tillis can’t change his stripes, and the Republican wing of the Uniparty has no intention of trading its Establishment Club perquisites for the red MAGA hats popular among the “riffraff” our political “nobles” abhor.  President Trump has given a voice to a long-ignored, fed-up, and growing share of the American electorate, and the political “elites” who have occupied D.C. for far too many decades will never forgive him.

Still, something big is going on.  The RINO-turds don’t like us, and they despise President Trump.  Yet they need us now.  In effect, their political survival depends upon the American people — particularly the abused MAGA coalition — deciding not to burn the whole Deep State down.  The lies and corruption emanating from Washington have driven our country to its breaking point, and a plurality (if not an outright majority) of Americans are on the cusp of tossing the failing federal government into the dustbin of history and returning to the Constitution’s blueprint for building a functioning Republic from the ground up. 

Obviously, if we were to return to the U.S. Constitution as our guide in a kind of American “mulligan,” we would not repeat our mistakes by turning a blind eye to the construction of an all-powerful and unaccountable Intelligence Branch, the empowerment of a vast and unelected bureaucratic blob, or the underhanded transformation of our system into a money spigot for multinational corporations and central banks.  If Americans one day choose fidelity to the Constitution over the monstrosity that is the federal government, they will do everything they can to make sure that limitations upon the government’s powers are actually enforced this time around.  A chain will be wrapped tightly around Leviathan’s neck, and the American people will stand forcefully upon its back.  As we approach America’s sestercentennial, we have relearned a lesson our Founders tried desperately to teach us: unchecked government never stops growing and never yields to the people any control.

What does all this have to do with President Trump’s nominees?  If they are ultimately confirmed, their success will not reflect a general willingness among Senate Republicans to support Trump’s “America First” agenda.  Two-Faced Tillis’s covert efforts to scuttle Hegseth’s nomination and Senator Joni Ernst’s ham-handed attempts to position herself as his replacement demonstrated how much RINO-turds would love to tank Trump’s trusted leadership and substitute members of their own club into his administration.  Heck, Mitch McConnell — one of the three RINO relics who voted to deliver Pete Hegseth’s head as a trophy to Democrats — led Senate Republicans for nearly twenty years.  McConnell’s latest double-cross is simply a fresh reminder that our elected “representatives” have habitually chosen not to represent us.

Rather than reflecting a movement of Uniparty RINOs toward MAGA, the success of President Trump’s nominees should be understood as the Establishment’s reluctant acknowledgment that the entire federal government is skating on thin ice.  Major aviation disasters have become a regular occurrence.  USAID has been exposed as a criminal slush fund, propaganda organ, and global censorship front.  Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” has determined that Treasury Department officers regularly disbursed taxpayer funds to known terrorist groups.  Public health institutions not only covered up COVID’s origin in an American-funded Chinese lab but also unconscionably mandated an experimental gene therapy that has caused unknown deaths and other serious harms.  Biden’s DOJ and FBI spent the last four years persecuting the Uniparty’s ideological enemies.  Americans are keenly aware that “invalid votes procured by fraud” continue to compromise state and federal elections.  The signs of America’s economic and social decline have become impossible to ignore.  

While Democrats use “global warming” as a bogeyman to excuse government malfeasance, floods in North Carolina and fires in Hawaii and California have destroyed entire communities.  Food processing plants explode without explanation.  Ships crash into bridges without explanation.  Government drones spy on Americans without explanation.  Planes crash without explanation.  Meanwhile, China takes control of the Panama Canal right under the federal government’s nose, and UN-allied organizations direct fentanyl and illegal immigrants into the United States.  The Chinese Communist Party even operates criminal tribunals inside our borders.  

A rational American surveying the monumental damage either ignored, condoned, or inflicted by the U.S. government upon its citizens would logically conclude that the costs of such institutional malice far outweigh any nominal rewards.

However much the Uniparty protests otherwise, it is desperate for President Trump to save it from itself.  Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell’s recent public stumbles are the perfect metaphor for a declining Establishment wriggling and screaming, “Help!  We’ve fallen, and we can’t get up.”  The Trump administration should look the other way and keep working.

🎭 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. 

Trump And Vance Aren’t Defying The Constitution, They’re Following It

Democrats and pundits have exaggerated Vice President 

J.D. Vance’s remarks into a ‘constitutional crisis.’

by John Yoo & Robert DeLahunty for The Federalist

Under the Constitution, “the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion.” For his decisions, “he is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience.” His choices cannot be questioned in court because “the subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive.”

Who penned these outrageous words? Democrats and many pundits might answer Vice President J.D. Vance. Over the weekend, Vance provoked an onslaught of criticism for suggesting that federal district judges “aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”

But the usual suspects would be wrong. The right answer is John Marshall, the greatest chief justice in Supreme Court history. And he did not squirrel this view away in a private journal. Instead, Marshall publicly explained that courts could not review presidential decisions on “political” subjects “entrusted to the executive” in a Supreme Court opinion.

He announced this principle not just in any case, but in Marbury v. Madison, the greatest opinion in Supreme Court history. The very same Marbury that concluded that federal judges should reject unconstitutional statutes, also recognized that courts could not intrude into the president’s exercise of his constitutional — dare we say “legitimate” — powers. Marshall’s opinion has given rise to the “political question doctrine,” which prohibits courts from reviewing decisions vested in the Constitution in the other branches, such as making war, prosecuting cases, and conducting impeachments.

Nevertheless, Democrats and pundits have exaggerated Vance’s remarks into a “constitutional crisis.” They claim that the Trump administration is threatening to defy court orders before overthrowing the constitutional structure, governing by presidential decree, and ruling without regard to the law. To be sure, all of us ought by now to be accustomed to such bizarre and overwrought reactions from Trump’s and Vance’s critics — and to write them off. Marshall himself would have seen these claims as a deliberate misrepresentation of the separation of powers. Americans should today as well.

Separation of Powers

Here is what Vance said:

If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.

Vance’s words do nothing more than explain the separation of powers at work. Under the Constitution, the president has his sphere of authority and the judges have theirs. The Constitution grants the president “the Executive power,” requires him to execute the laws faithfully (of which the Constitution is the highest law), and charges him to protect national security. Among other things, these constitutional authorities give him the power to supervise the personnel in the executive branch, from Cabinet officials on down. Neither the federal judiciary nor Congress can “control the executive’s legitimate power” (as Vance put it) within that sphere, just as the president cannot dictate to the Supreme Court how to decide a case or controversy.

An obvious example is the one Vance provides: war. The Constitution vests the president with the role of commander-in-chief of the armed forces, while it gives to Congress the power to declare war. The courts have no power to direct the president in the exercise of his wartime authority.

During the Vietnam War, Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman sued to stop the bombing of Cambodia (which President Richard Nixon had ordered). Holtzman obtained an injunction from a district court. The court of appeals promptly stayed the district court order. Holtzman petitioned Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, who oversaw that court of appeals, to vacate the stay. Marshall properly refused, writing “the proper response to an arguably illegal action [by Nixon] is not lawlessness by judges charged with interpreting and enforcing the laws.” Holtzman then reapplied to liberal Justice William Douglas, an outspoken critic of the war, who rejected the executive’s argument that reimposing the ban on the bombing would cause a “constitutional confrontation.” Douglas then ordered the military to stop the bombing. The military ignored Douglas’ order. Douglas’ colleagues on the court immediately overturned his unconstitutional order. No federal court has ever attempted to stop military hostilities, or — for critics of Vance would have to accept this possibility — ordered them to begin.

Vance also correctly recognizes that courts cannot direct the president’s exercise of the power of prosecution. The Constitution grants the president broad discretion over what cases, criminal or civil, to bring or not to bring, and what level of federal resources to dedicate to the enforcement of federal law. The Supreme Court affirmed the breadth of prosecutorial discretion in the 1985 case of Heckler v. Chaney. Supporters of the Biden administration should be the last people to question the breadth of the president’s prosecutorial discretion. Biden virtually suspended control of the border by claiming the right not to enforce immigration law. The Biden administration claimed that same discretion to pursue not just the Jan. 6 rioters, but even the past president and the leading opposition candidate for the same office, Donald Trump.

Prosecutorial discretion is not absolute. Prosecutions begun on the basis of race violate the Fourteenth Amendment, as recognized by the Supreme Court in the 1886 Yick Wo v. Hopkins decision. Prosecutors also cannot target defendants because of their speech, political views, or religion. But these are not separation of power principles — these rules apply to the courts and Congress too.

Authority over Executive Branch Personnel

Second, critics say that Vance is claiming the courts have no business interfering with the president’s personnel policies. Vance did not in fact say or imply that. But even assuming that he did, his critics would be mostly wrong. The president’s constitutional responsibility to see that the law is faithfully executed gives him general supervisory authority over executive branch personnel, from Cabinet officials and heads of federal agencies on down. The Supreme Court has held as long ago as Myers v. United States in 1926 (authored by former president, Chief Justice William Howard Taft) and as recently as Seila Law v. CFPB in 2020 (authored by Chief Justice John Roberts) that this authority gives the president the authority to fire Senate-confirmed officers, including those who by statute are given protection from removal.

The question whether the president can fire heads of “independent” agencies such as multi-member commissions is still debated, but the clear trend of recent Supreme Court decisions indicates that the president can remove these officers if they refuse to carry out presidential orders. No doubt Trump’s recent removal of members of the National Labor Relations Board are intended to set up a case to settle this question at the Supreme Court. Our prediction is that Trump will win that dispute — decisively.

What about lower-ranking federal civil servants who, by statute, enjoy tenure protections and can only be dismissed for cause? That question is more complicated, because under Supreme Court cases, statutory protections for federal employment create a “property” right of a kind, and under the Fifth Amendment, a federal employee can only be deprived of such property if provided with “due process.” (The relevant Supreme Court case here is Lachance v. Erickson (1998)). What process is “due” is variable and dependent on a host of factors. And Congress has provided procedures (which may or may not satisfy Fifth Amendment standards) for terminating federal employees from their jobs.

Whether mass layoffs of tenured civil servants within a particular federal agency would meet applicable statutory and constitutional standards is a question that may soon be litigated. So too are the distinct questions about agency-wide buyouts and agency-wide paid administrative leave. We shall see what ensues from such litigation. But there is nothing in Vance’s remarks to indicate that the administration would defy the judicial rulings in such cases.

Defying Injunctions

Third, did Vance’s remarks hint that the administration intended to defy any of the recent district court injunctions against implementing Trump’s executive orders? Of course not: just read Vance’s statement. That doesn’t mean, however, that a single district judge’s order is the last word on the matter. At least when the order is a “preliminary injunction” (as distinct from a “temporary restraining order,” which simply freezes the situation), the administration can seek review of the district court’s order in a federal court of appeals. At least some of the current crop of adverse district court orders against Trump’s executive orders seem to have serious legal flaws and would likely be overturned on review.

For example, Judge Paul Engelmayer’s Feb. 8 order barring Trump’s political appointees from having access to Treasury Department payment systems would appear to preclude even the secretary of the Treasury from having such access. It is of course possible that Engelmayer’s order was unconsidered and poorly written: he issued it after an ex parte hearing at which no one from the administration was present. But as written, the order is simply too cursory and one-sided and should be reversed on appeal.

Vance has another issue on which to challenge the raft of injunctions on the Trump administration. A federal court has authority only within a specific judicial district (there are 94; some states have more than one). Judges can grant relief to the plaintiffs who appear before them in that territory. But the trial judges who have issued stays against the Trump administration believe they have the power to grant relief everywhere in the nation, even for those who do not appear before them in court.

Trump can, and should, challenge this practice of nationwide (or universal) injunctions, which has no support in federal statutory law or the Constitution. This is not a partisan issue. Conservative district judges also stymied Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama’s initiatives with nationwide injunctions — and their use of them seems to us equally mistaken. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion in Hawaii v. Trump (2018), questioned the legal authority of such injunctions. “I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions,” he wrote. “These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding. And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts.” Justice Thomas’ concurrence calls upon the executive branch to challenge the practice of nationwide injunctions at the Supreme Court. If such injunctions are considered lawful, the administration should ask Congress to rein them in.

No Constitutional Crisis

Far from presaging a constitutional crisis, Vance’s argument only represents the workings of the separation of powers. Presidents from Thomas Jefferson, through Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, up to Franklin D. Roosevelt, have believed that each branch of government has the right to interpret the Constitution in the execution of its unique duties. They claimed, correctly in our view, that the separation of powers prohibits a branch from imposing its views on the others.

Trump has the right to adopt an independent interpretation of the Constitution and to attempt to persuade the court to adopt it; likewise, the court is free to adopt its own opinion and enforce it through its cases. As long as the Trump administration executes the judgment of the federal courts — whether the plaintiff or defendant wins or loses — it does not have to adopt the judiciary’s reasoning.

“If the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court,” Lincoln said in his first inaugural address, “the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” Presidents can advance their own visions of the Constitution, which the Supreme Court can choose whether to adopt or reject. Trump is only following in the footsteps of his predecessors in continuing this essential political and constitutional dynamic.

Despite Democrats Kicking And Screaming, Kash Patel’s Nomination To Direct FBI Advances

‘This agency should be above politics,’ Sen. Dick Durbin said, while making it about politics.

Beth Brelje reporting for The Federalist

Tone deaf and powerless, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee ran out of stall tactics and finally had to submit to a vote Thursday on the confirmation of President Donald Trump’s FBI director nominee, Kash Patel.

“We have a pretty good idea of what the outcome will be today, and I am appalled that my Republican colleagues are prepared to confirm a man so publicly hostile to the agency, its people, its goals, its mission, that he intends to lead,”  Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said.

Yes Dick, we all did. Last week. When Democrats delayed the vote for a week, and again Thursday morning when Democrats forced two more hours of pointless rehashing of last week’s discussion.

The committee voted along party lines, Republicans 12 and Democrats 10, to advance Patel to the Senate floor for full confirmation.

Democrats never had the votes to block Patel, so they spent time smearing his reputation.

Patel is “extremely dangerous” because of “all of his wild MAGA behavior,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., warned.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., called Patel an “inexperienced loyalist.”

“This agency should be above politics,” Durbin said, while making it all about politics. “I will not be surprised when my Republican colleagues again claim that the Democrats have weaponized the FBI.”

Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said the American people are tired of two tiers of justice.

“While my colleagues may be upset for today, I think it’s important to note that they sat silently while you had parents and people of faith and so many that were being confronted [by the FBI].,” Blackburn said. “I know they’re trying to stall and obstruct, but it is important to note that the American people, on Nov. 5, voted to see change. They want transparency and accountability. They want the end of two tiers of justice, and they want to restore faith in our American institutions now.”

Democrats were concerned about saving the jobs of establishment FBI employees.

“I don’t think the American people were up in arms about purging the Department of Justice or the FBI,” Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said. “I don’t think they were up in arms wanting a stop to or freeze to federal grants to states. I don’t think they were up in arms calling for the [National Institute of Health] to take action that will result in the halting of medical research. No, what they were up in arms was, let’s lower the price of food, milk, bread. They’re still waiting.” 

Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa opened the voting meeting with a lengthy, admonishment of Democrats and the FBI.  

“Mr. Patel should be considered our next FBI director, because the FBI has been infected by political bias and weaponized against the American people. Mr. Patel knows it. Mr. Patel exposed it, and Mr. Patel has been targeted for it,” Grassley said. “The FBI has fallen into really old habits and is long overdue for massive reform. Mr. Patel is the man to do it, and that’s why he’s being attacked so viciously right now. Before we even had a hearing, committee members called Mr. Patel by these adjectives: dishonest, untrustworthy, lacking in character, a wolf at the door, a conspiracy theorist, a staunch political loyalist, and lastly, a nightmare. Since his nomination was announced, committee Democrats have sent at least 11 letters to 11 different agencies and parties demanding records and urging investigation into Mr. Patel. Each letter breathlessly accuses Mr. Patel of something new, often citing ‘highly credible anonymous sources’ that don’t fit the facts.”

“We’ve examined every detail of his life, and he’s been subjected to relentless attacks on his character during this whole period of time. Now what we’ve learned from this committee process is what we knew from his resume. Mr. Patel has spent his whole career fighting for righteous causes.”

Shrieking Leftist Women Can’t Boss Trump’s Nominees Or Anyone Else Around Anymore

Unfortunately for screeching women, but fortunately for the rest of us, their sway over our culture is waning.

posted by Carrie Gress at The Federalist

About 15 years ago, my infant daughter and I went to Mass in the Washington, D.C., area at one of the oldest churches in the country. It wasn’t furnished with a cry room or even a window in the vestibule where the Mass could be viewed apart from the congregation. I stood just inside the church with my cooing babe-in-arms, trying to make sure I could make a quick getaway if she started crying.

My daughter made the usual baby noises — nothing loud, but the kinds of sounds happy babies make. I noticed a woman near us immediately move away but thought little of it as Mass progressed. Then, when the homily started, this woman, wild-eyed and with her jacket swinging for dramatic effect, rushed past me, barking in her best whisper, “I can’t believe you would bring a baby to church!” and stomped out.

Unnerved as any mother would be, I felt terrible, but it was also clear this was a broken woman with major issues. After Communion, I returned to where I had been standing at the back of the church and realized it was right in front of a statue of St. Anthony holding the baby Jesus. “How dare he bring a baby to church?” was the thought that brought a smile to my face.

Unhinged women, like this woman at Mass, have been having a moment — like a 50-year moment. Most of us have gotten so used to their strong emotions that we think this is just how women are: highly volatile, often malicious, spiteful, and calculating. If someone does something a woman doesn’t like, she throws a tantrum, much like a child, to get her way. Like the placated toddler, the cycle continues. This cycle is most pronounced in power corridors like Washington, D.C., where political authority and lapdog journalists meet, and few women of the preferred political stripes are ever confronted with real pushback. Anger and tears have always supplanted real arguments and debate.

Few men or women have the courage to just let the tantrum run its course and give the unhinged woman a strong NO or, better yet, tell her it’s time to put her childish tactics away and make a real argument, sans tears or terror. Not only have these outbursts benefited angry women by giving them what they want, but they know everyone fears them. A woman can warn those around her with a look, a raised eyebrow, or a curt turn on the heel, putting everyone on notice.

That is, until now.

Like a sliver of light at dawn or a violin’s first notes in a symphony, at long last, the old tactics are being neutralized. The once-powerful raging faces of Karens — and now Margarets — can no longer command the same effect. Men have finally decided they have had enough and are just not taking it anymore.

The confirmation hearings for several of President Trump’s Cabinet picks have provided evidence that the era of shrieking women is coming to an end. Viral memes show woman after woman in politics and the media trying to roll out the tired, 50-year-old vitriol, and instead of taking the bait, or looking like a deer in the headlights, men are riding through it unfazed or even using it to score points of their own.  

Both Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Elizabeth Warren directed their venom against Pete Hegseth in his hearing to become secretary of defense, with Gillibrand saying he had made hurtful and mean comments. “You will have to change the way you see women to do this job, and I don’t know if you are capable of that,” she added. Warren picked up the same thread, cutting off the nominee’s response about lowered standards for women with, “Mr. Hegseth, let’s just stop! Let’s just stop! Let’s just stop right there!” She sounded like a higher-octane version of Kamala Harris’ “I’m speaking” schtick from the 2020 vice-presidential debate — that is, until Hegseth eventually made Warren look like a fool with a calm, cool, and collected correction about not being a general.

J.D. Vance also deftly handled his first interview as vice president on CBS’s “Face the Nation” with Margaret Brennan. Vance disarmed Brennan repeatedly but left a real mark when she suggested that an allegedly properly vetted Afghan, who planned a terrorist attack, may have been radicalized after he arrived in the U.S. “I don’t really care, Margaret. I don’t want that person in my country, and I think most Americans agree with me.”

My favorite, however, is the security guard at the Department of Education, now nicknamed Captain Doge, who stood unbothered as a screeching bunch of congresswomen and men demanded to be let into the building.

It isn’t just men in politics who are done with the female drama. Young men have had enough of their boomer grandmothers’ behavior and are choosing a different kind of woman for their future. They aren’t voting like their feminist-beaten or cowed fathers and are rejecting the culturally confected shame of “toxic masculinity.” They want to be men, not Pajama Boy.

The dismantling of the USAID slush fund to left-wing media will have its own snowball effect, as the journalists who manage to keep their jobs realize that they can no longer just cheerlead for their favorite (and lucrative) Democrat causes but have to do the work of scrutinizing the very public figures they have propped up for decades.

How did we get to this point anyway, where it seems the most natural thing in the world is for a woman to throw a fit? It started in the ’60s when women were informed they were victims, a status that meant they could do no wrong. Slogans like “believe all women,” “the future is female,” and “hear me roar” became rallying cries. It is a powerful thing to be told not only that you are a victim who deserves special status but that what you think is unimpeachable. Women moved forward confidently in a politically manufactured sense of self-righteousness.

Personal rage poured out into the public square, with the proliferation of women’s marches to make sure people were listening. Women’s anger was emblazoned on crude signs and vulgar hats, with shirts optional. (I once got stuck in my car in the ’90s, surrounded by a sea of topless and angry women at a march in Portland, Oregon … It was not pretty.) The virtue signaling of these marches went well beyond the actual march routes, communicating to Western women everywhere that this is how you get what you want: become a childish vulgar tyrant.

We’ve spent 50 years encouraging women and girls to be the most vicious and immature form of female. It seems that now, however, women are also waking up to the reality that maybe there isn’t anything wrong with a woman who is lovely, warm, kind, and competent; who can have a discussion without throwing a fit or an inanimate object; who wants to love her children, respect her husband, and worship God; and who is mature, thoughtful, elegant, and fair, no matter what her education level, income, or even political leanings. These are the kind of women who can start filling in the expanding-by-the-minute gap left by the screeching elites.

Unfortunately for shrieking women, but fortunately for the rest of us, the whole world is now seeing in real time that their sway over our culture is waning. Some invisible switch has been flipped, and the hoi polloi are no longer under their thumb. Truly, America is being unburdened by what has been.

Mythologies About Musk - Victor Davis Hanson

 Musk's role in DOGE is misunderstood: he's an appointed auditor with legal authority to find waste, not cut programs, and foreign aid isn't ending, though USAID's inefficiencies may be restructured.

Here are some of the untruths told about Elon Musk and DOGE.

“Musk has no right to cut USAID.” 

Elon Musk and his team are not cutting any federal programs.

They are auditors. They were given legal authority under a presidential executive order creating the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Its mandate is to identify waste, abuse, fraud, and irrelevance in the federal budget at a time when the U.S. is $37 trillion in debt.

The agency will expire on July 4, 2026.

Ultimately, Musk can propose program cuts, but Trump holds the authority to approve or reject them. He may or may not act on all, some, or none of the DOGE recommendations.

“No one elected Musk.” 

Like hundreds of government officials, Musk was appointed by an elected president to run an agency that does not require Senate confirmation.

Musk is as legally legitimate as the national security advisor and his National Security Council, none of whom require Senate confirmation.

Does the left believe former national security advisor Jake Sullivan, who made decisions far more pivotal than Musk, had no authority to do so because he too was neither elected nor confirmed by the Senate?

“It is a dangerous precedent to give a private citizen billionaire like Musk so much power.”

In fact, Musk has far more legal authority than did FDR’s best friend Harry Hopkins. He moved into the White House and de facto set U.S. foreign assistance policies toward Stalin’s Russia.

Musk’s position is more akin to past captains of industry like Henry Ford, Henry Kaiser, and William Knudson appointed by FDR to run the wartime economy.

None of them were either elected or confirmed by the Senate. All of them helped to save a poorly armed US after the debacle of Pearl Harbor.

“Foreign aid is ending.”

Hardly.

Foreign aid, which in all its manifestations in various cabinets and agencies is reaching nearly $80 billion per year, is not ending.

One of its distribution centers, USAID, may be vastly curtailed or bundled into the State Department. But the important bulk grants to allies like Israel or friends like Egypt or aid in times of famine relief and natural disasters to the needy abroad will remain. And these programs will be strengthened and saved precisely because they will be trimmed of skimmers and scammers.

“It is illegal to end USAID.”

USAID was created by an executive order in 1961 by then President John F. Kennedy in response to congressional legislation codifying foreign aid and allowing the president to execute the statute at his discretion.

Nearly four decades later, in 1998, Congress passed another law reifying Kennedy’s USAID as a formal agency but still within the executive branch.

But neither law mandates that Trump bundle all or even most foreign aid in USAID. He can disperse money as he sees fit throughout the cabinets. And he can keep whatever funds or programs he chooses under the aegis of USAID should he wish.

“Trump cannot impound any USAID money legislated by Congress.”

That legal question apparently depends on whose ox is gored.

Neither Congress nor the courts have ever, in blanket fashion, either approved and sustained a line-item presidential veto or outright banned any form of presential impoundment.

But recently Joe Biden, as both vice president in 2016 and president in 2021, set a precedent that an administration most certainly can impound or delay congressionally passed funding as it pleases.

Infamously, Biden publicly bragged that on a trip to Ukraine, he had threatened that government by withholding $1 billion in approved US foreign aid unless it immediately fired Biden enemy prosecutor Viktor Shokin.

That condition was never discussed in any congressional aid authorization (and was the sort of act the left would impeach Trump for in 2020).

More flagrantly in 2021, Biden abruptly and permanently stopped all construction on the border wall. And he impounded those congressionally approved construction funds through a variety of gimmicks.

Biden, remember, without Congressional approval, gratuitously canceled student loan obligations, issued blanket loan amnesties, and promised to ignore or work around court prohibitions of his illegal acts.

“China will be delighted by USAID cuts.”

False. China will be likely upset by the Trump cuts.

Beijing finds its own concrete development projects far more effective than USAID imposing American cultural agendas abroad. Beijing likes self-destructive American aid like LGBTQ activism, transgender chauvinism, and anti-conservative American media.

Does anyone believe China was angry that the USAID created a vast gender studies program at the University of Kabul or had the U.S. embassy there advertise its pride activism, or itself snagged $40 million to engineer deadly viruses?

So, China will be quite unhappy that organs like the New York Times and the BBC are having their USAID subsidies ended. After all, they, along with China, so often vilified their shared existential nemesis—Donald J. Trump.