Monday, February 17, 2025

Color Me Confused By The Left’s Unhinged Reaction To Trump


When people ask me, “How are you?” I answer, “Dazed, confused, and prone to wandering.” This flippant response is a way to avoid the common but meaningless “Fine” with a similarly unserious but likely humorous rejoinder. Unfortunately, as I read supposedly serious discussions by left-leaning legal scholars, my confusion turns to bewilderment. Today’s case in point is “,” by Neil H. Buchanan.

At its beginning, the title makes the essay seem like a serious thought experiment worthy of consideration. But for a thought experiment to have meaning, it must begin with facts. Anything else is an exercise in magical thinking, perhaps fit for a science fiction or fantasy novel. Buchanan begins with, “There is no escaping the fact that the United States is now being wrenched into a new reality that replaces the rule of law and democratic accountability with a naked version of autocratic rule.” With “facts” like that, who needs logic? Simply declare it to be so, and it will be!

The rule of law requires that there be a law that must be followed. Trump 45 established a pattern. He attempted to do something that made sense to him and his attorneys. Lefty plaintiffs rushed into the nearest Democrat judge (Yes, John Roberts, there are Democrat judges) and got a restraining order. So, Trump appealed or modified his action to answer the complaint. Ultimately, he won virtually every case that went to court. Even his “insurrection,” J6, and Mar-a-Lago indictments ran aground and fell apart when examined closely. We may be confident that the Georgia and three New York cases are similar houses of cards.

Trump 47 has been sued several times already, all based in one way or another on the actions of DOGE. And he has already stated that he will do whatever the courts tell him to do, just as he did in his first term. Trump will almost certainly win all the cases. The key is Article II, § 1, Sentence 1. “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

Put bluntly, while the President is to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (§ 3), he’s the ultimate authority over the Executive Branch. The Treasury is in the Executive Branch, so he’s the boss. If he sends someone to sort out where the money went, that’s his business, and no judge has jurisdiction to tell him “No.”

Congress wrote laws that said that confidential personal information cannot be revealed, but there’s no evidence that any was exposed. Of course, some IRS employee leaked Trump’s tax returns to the New York Slimes, but that had to be “within the rule of law” to use Buchanan’s language.

“…the new lawlessness is turning out in its particulars to be scarier than even my worst fears, especially in the speed with which the federal government is being dismantled,” wrote Buchanan.

One must wonder if Buchanan had looked at the list of things that USAID did. Had he seen the millions of dollars of food relief for Syrian refugees that was actually sent to designated terrorist organizations? I didn’t think so. His bubble can’t be penetrated by the $59 million diverted by FEMA from Hurricane Helene relief to pay for housing illegal aliens in New York.

But the core of the argument revolves around the central law that governs the US. That’s the US Constitution.

In our constitutional structure, the President is ultimately limited by the decisions of the Supreme Court. Of particular interest is the fact that Congress has to authorize federal spending. But Joe Biden (does anyone remember him?) happily forgave student loans with money no one had authorized. The Court slapped him down. Did he stop? No! He kept on in utter defiance.

Biden went full Jacksonian on America. Translating Jackson’s early American English for today, he roughly said, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Or in the more familiar vernacular, “Make me!” Do we have to ask who was more law-abiding? Didn’t think so.

Before we finish, we must consider a headline in the middle of Buchanan’s screed. “Prospects for Stopping or Slowing the Slide Toward Totalitarianism.”

That last word is important. Roughly translated it means, “Do as I say or you’ll very seriously regret it.” That’s what’s going on under Putin in Russia. Just ask Alexei Navalny or his wife. Oops. They’re dead. They are just two of a long list of opponents who suffered from Arkancide (Russian style).

What has Trump done to deserve such a slander? He has unleashed a group of sleuths who have revealed that up to a third of our federal expenditures (it’s not a budget) have been diverted to support leftist purposes. That massive fraud on the taxpayer is almost certain to lead to a change of address and loss of WiFi for some participants.

On the other hand, leftist prosecutors, FBI higher-ups, and judges kept people who had done nothing more criminal than walk between the velvet ropes in the Capital in prison for four years without trial. Those are acts of totalitarians.

A psychosis is defined by the presence of a major defect in reality testing. Let’s listen to Buchanan to identify whether he is psychotic.

“All of this means that there will be loads and loads of very bad news over the coming weeks, months, and most likely years. Much of the gratuitous harm that Trump will inflict is going to be irreversible, as people die unnecessarily from diseases and disasters that the government will no longer contain (and might even make worse), all while many people’s livelihoods will be ruined…

“Trump’s time on this planet is quite limited (given … his already evident mental decline, and his poor health)…”

We have medication to help with those voices…



X22, And we Know, and more- Feb 17

 



Freedom Is on the March


The plan was simple.  If Western governments controlled the “narrative” and censored dissent, those with power would retain power forever.  If they spied on citizens and threatened uncooperative parties with imprisonment, nobody would dare resist.  If they fashioned their labyrinthine bureaucracies into regulatory weapons targeting ideological enemies, opposition leaders with the most to lose would be the first to cower in silence.  Own the message.  Monopolize the means of messaging.  Neutralize competing messengers.  This is how totalitarianism rises and freedom dies.

However, as nineteenth-century Prussian military commander Helmuth von Moltke warned, no plan survives contact with the enemy.  The globalists did not foresee Brexit.  They could not imagine the election of President Donald J. Trump.  They underestimated the public support for Bolsonaro, Orbán, Farage, Wilders, and Le Pen.  They did not anticipate the return of eloquent defenders of freedom such as Canada’s Pierre Poilievre, Argentina’s Javier Milei, and America’s J.D. Vance.  As is true of all ruling classes whose reigns appear unbreakable right before shattering, hubris will be globalism’s undoing.   

For many years we’ve watched as the West’s would-be executioners tightened the noose around civilization’s neck.  Open borders have dampened wages, strained welfare systems, exacerbated crime, incited cultural conflict, and diluted citizens’ votes.  Propaganda has become the only finished good that globalist governments mass-produce.  Bureaucrats have seized the authority to decide what is true, and they have used this stolen authority to label dissent as “false,” “dangerous,” or “hateful.”  As governments have criminalized “misinformation” and “hate speech,” they have transformed political opponents into “criminals.”  This is what the Enlightenment’s descendants have wrought: they have murdered free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience.  They have thrown liberty’s corpse on a funeral pyre and set it ablaze.

Yet out of the ashes, something now walks.  Can you see what’s taking shape?  If your eyes are still too weak from decades of blinding lies, open your ears and listen.  Whispers of resistance have grown into shouts of outright defiance.  Rusty voices from the past are clearing their throats and making noise.  New voices are speaking loudly about a future that values human liberty over government intimidation.  What was long dying is coming back to life.

I have no interest in luring people down the path of false optimism.  There is plenty of rough terrain ahead, and the journey will require everything we have.  I picture the contest for freedom as something akin to what many of our ancestors faced when they chose to leave towns on the East Coast and settle the American frontier on the other side of the Appalachians and the Mississippi.  Imagine packing up your family on a horse-drawn wagon and traveling a thousand or more miles over jagged, wild terrain.  There were no paved roads.  There were no bridges transecting the hundreds of streams and rivers.  There were no signs, stores, or first responders.  There was only self-resilience and the allure of a powerful idea — that if a family could push hard enough and survive long enough despite numerous dangers along the way, freedom and prosperity could be won.  

As is humanity’s wont, we forget how much effort the struggle for freedom requires soon after it is achieved.  We honor the soldiers who sacrificed their lives for its cause, but we rarely take the time to consider their grueling day-to-day existence.  We remember that our ancestors spent months onboard cramped, disease-laden ships to cross the Atlantic, but we fail to appreciate that such tremendous hardship was the price for religious freedom and self-determination.  We know that millions of Americans trekked the continent in search of land and opportunity, but we neglect to notice the multitudes buried in unmarked graves along overgrown and forgotten trails.  

We should remember.  We should gather friends and families together and recall how our forefathers left their native lands on the other side of the ocean for merely the chance at freedom.  We should put ourselves in their shoes and ask why they would risk so much for nothing more than a glimmer of an inchoate dream.  We should think about all of our relatives who died during the journey.  We should ask ourselves why freedom from religious persecution was worth the cost.  We should ask why so many settled in strange, untamed lands to escape established European institutions.  We should ask why so many gave so much to break free from the chains of social caste.  We should contemplate our ancestors’ suffering in great detail, until we learn this lesson: freedom is precious and never obtained cheaply.

Not a day goes by when I don’t see some prominent public figure mocking the idea of freedom.  Celebrities, pundits, and politicians denigrate Americans for owning guns, expressing unpopular opinions, or wanting the government to stay out of their private affairs.  Lawmakers who swore oaths to uphold the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) falsely claim that the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments have limits.  If the government has a really good reason to censor, disarm, or spy on Americans, they argue, the Constitution’s protections for Americans’ natural liberties should never get in the way.  Lawmakers who see exceptions and loopholes in the Bill of Rights are not only ignorant but also dangerous.  They have forgotten the sacrifices our ancestors bore for freedom, and they refuse to believe future generations would do the same.

Democrats and neoconservatives (who, as it turns out, were always just Democrats running the Republican Party) often speak about the War in Ukraine as a great struggle for human freedom.  Yet those same rhetorical defenders of Ukraine’s freedom ridicule Americans who defend freedom at home.  They send weapons to Ukraine (a country whose population was largely disarmed before the war) but demand that Americans give up their own.  In passionate speeches, they describe Ukraine’s borders as sovereign and sacred but strangely expect Americans to accept tens of millions of foreign nationals flooding into the United States.  They pay lip service to the invaluable blessings of “democracy” but look the other way as Ukraine cancels elections, locks up political opponents, and censors online speech.  They describe Ukraine’s soldiers as heroes for liberty but fail to acknowledge that many were captured, conscripted, and forced to fight on the front lines.  

In other words, the Establishment Class in D.C. uses the language of liberty to convince Americans to support overseas military operations, yet it feigns shock when patriotic Americans demand liberty for themselves.  Television commentators sneer at small towns covered in red, white, and blue.  Agencies make watchlists filled with drivers who fly Gadsden or Culpeper flags from the backs of their trucks.  Democrats regularly express fear and loathing of Old Glory.  Elected representatives openly describe the Constitution as not only “antiquated” but also “patriarchal,” “racist,” and even “dangerous.”  Government officials who have a duty to protect and defend Americans’ God-given freedoms instead undermine those freedoms daily.

We are in a pivotal moment in history when human freedom will either slip away for centuries or return to the forefront of our thoughts.  With the national security surveillance state expanding all around us and the ascendancy of artificial intelligence accelerating, we have every reason to be apprehensive about the future.  Those who wish to be our perpetual “rulers” are building economic and technological cages for our imprisonment, and many “inmates” like their new cells.  I can promise this, though: there will be a jailbreak.

The fight for freedom rarely begins before freedom is nearly snuffed out.  That’s when lofty ideals transform into something more than pretty words.  They become reasons for living and breathing. 

Change is in the air.  Leaders are speaking out.  The sound of purposeful footsteps is getting louder in much of the West.  Once againfreedom is on the march.



No More Mr. Nice Guy


During his first term, President Trump amassed a remarkable record of achievements.  In so doing, he also infuriated the swamp because he demonstrated how much better off Americans were without the swamp’s constant intrusions into every aspect of their lives.  He was like the new CEO in a company where the employees had been embezzling for years — which, as we’re finding out now, was pretty close to the truth.

Trump 45 likely expected resistance from the Democrats while naïvely imagining that Republicans would back him up.  We all know how that worked out.  There were quite a few instances during his first term in which the left condemned him for acting too harshly, while at the same time he disappointed his supporters, who desired that he take stronger actions.

The differences between Trump 45 and Trump 47 are remarkable.  Those on the left are still complaining, but Trump 47 is acting so quickly that they can’t keep up.

One of the major differences between Trump 45 and Trump 47 lies in his personnel choices.  It’s been said that “personnel is policy,” and there could not be a starker difference between the rosters of his first and second terms.

Pres. Trump fired FBI director James Comey in May of 2017 because of how Comey mishandled the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and illegal servers.  At the time, the FBI was also investigating claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election with possible ties to the Trump campaign, and so leftists claimed that Trump was obstructing justice.  Trump replaced Comey with Christopher Wray, who not only did nothing to reform the FBI, but presided over multiple scandals himself, the raid on Mar-a-Lago being a prime example.

Trump 45’s appointment of Jeff Sessions as attorney general (A.G.) was first met with approval by conservatives.  In a stunning turn of events, Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, which was seen by conservatives as a betrayal.  While Trump publicly criticized Sessions on a few occasions, he didn’t remove him from office until later in his term.  Many Trump-supporters found this too lenient.   

Trump 47 nominated Pam Bondi for A.G., and one of the first things she did was to file lawsuits against N.Y. governor Kathy Hochul and N.Y. A.G. Letitia James for their roles in encouraging illegal immigration.  Where A.G. Sessions was timid and reclusive, A.G. Bondi is boldly taking action to carry out Trump’s America First agenda.

In his first term, Pres. Trump frequently referred to hostile media outlets as the “enemy of the people.”  Leftists interpreted this as an attack on the 1st Amendment, an attempt to delegitimize journalism, and another example of the oft-cited “danger to democracy.”  Meanwhile, conservatives desired more formal actions, such as revoking press credentials or even pursuing defamation lawsuits.

Trump 45 had four press secretaries.  Sean Spicer and Stephanie Grisham were able but unremarkable, the latter leaving under inauspicious circumstances.  On the other hand, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kayleigh McEnany deftly and gracefully handled hostile media questioners.

Trump 47 appointed the youngest White House press secretary in history.  Twenty-seven-year-old Karoline Leavitt quickly rearranged the Brady Press Room, granting access to more independent news outlets.  She’s also proven to be just as quick on her feet as Sanders and McEnany as she easily answers questions, often without referring to notes.

Trump 45 revoked the security clearances of some intelligence officers who had been critical of him, claiming national security concerns and alleged partisan behavior.  His political adversaries saw this as retaliation.  His supporters, meanwhile, were hoping for a restructuring or an overhaul of the FBI and the DOJ along with a purge of his political adversaries.  These did not happen.

Trump 47 revoked the security clearances of all 51 intelligence officials who signed the Hunter Biden laptop letter as well as numerous other officials, such as Anthony Fauci and John Bolton.

The Senate recently confirmed John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard as CIA director and director of National Intelligence, respectively.  Ratcliffe, a former DNI himself, swore to re-establish “apolitical” intelligence-gathering at the CIA and said he would rid the CIA of agents with “political or personal biases.”  As DNI, Ms. Gabbard has vowed to “increase information-sharing, collect and analyze apolitical and unbiased information, end the politicization of the intelligence community and rebuild trust through transparency and accountability.”

Kash Patel reportedly has interesting plans for the FBI, basically letting “cops be cops.”  Hopefully, the Senate will confirm him.

One of the most contentious issues of Trump’s first term was border security. He campaigned on this issue in 2015 and again in 2024.  His “zero tolerance” policy has always been criticized by the left as harsh and punitive against aliens seeking asylum.  Conservatives have responded that many of the asylum claims are suspicious and that most foreigners are drawn by our generous welfare programs.

Trump 45’s administration took some steps against sanctuary cities, although conservatives argued that the response was not as forceful as it could have been.  They felt he should have pushed harder for legislation or executive actions to withhold federal funds from these jurisdictions.

Back in 2019, Jeh Johnson, DHS Secretary under President Obama, commented on encounters with illegal aliens at the border: “If it was above 1,000 that was a relatively bad number and I was going to be in a bad mood the whole day. ... I know that a thousand overwhelms the system.  I cannot begin to imagine what 4,000 a day looks like, so we are truly in a crisis.”  Under Joe Biden, on December 18, 2023, that number reached 14,509.

In his second term, Pres. Trump is taking this issue even more seriously.  He appointed longtime law enforcement officer Tom Homan as “border czar” and has promised mass deportations.  For his part, Mr. Homan has said, “Public safety threats and national security threats will be the priority. ... They pose the most danger to this country.”  Referring to mayors and governors, he said, “If they openly impede us, that’s a violation of federal law.  It’s a felony.  If they knowingly harbor and conceal an alien, that’s a felony.  The Trump administration will hold them accountable through prosecution.”

True to form, Trump 47’s Department of Justice announced lawsuits against New York’s Hochul and James over “sanctuary” status.  A.G. Pam Bondi said, “This is a new DOJ.  New York has chosen to prioritize illegal aliens over American citizens.  It stops.  It stops today.  As you know, we sued Illinois,” she added.  “New York didn’t listen.  So now you’re next.”

It’s worth mentioning that Trump’s actions in his first term had various justifications and were often framed as responses to perceived corruption or inefficiency, whereas his critics argued that these actions undermined democratic institutions or were motivated by personal vendettas.  It is to be expected that the same criticism will be leveled against him moving forward.

When all is said and done, however, there are substantial and welcome differences between Trump 45 and Trump 47.  Pres. Trump appears to have grown into the presidency, having learned a great deal from the mistakes of his first term and Joe Biden’s catastrophic “reign of error.”  The near-fatal assassination attempt of July 13, 2024 seems to have sobered him, and he has spoken of his belief that God intervened on his behalf on that fateful day.

Buckle up.  The next four years promise to be glorious.



🎭 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. 


NEC Director Kevin Hassett Informs a Stunned Margaret Brennan that “Chickens Don’t Fly”


I enjoy Kevin ‘Sid‘ Hassett very much.  He was awesome in Trump’s first term as an economic advisor, and he’s even better in term two as the Director of the National Economic Council (NEC).

When the people who controlled Joe Biden lost the 2024 election, they were angry.  They wanted to leave President Trump with as big a mess as possible and all actions were taken to create chaos that Trump would have to deal with.  Intellectually honest people noticed.

Part of their chaos operation was to drive up the cost of food, intentionally create inflation that Trump would have to handle.  The “bird flu” issue was part of the plan.  After the 2020 election the U.S. Dept of Agriculture ordered millions of chickens to be killed.  Simple quarantine process was dismissed in favor of a ridiculous slaughter.

During a CBS interview today, Margaret Brennan asked Kevin Hassett what the Trump administration was going to do about food inflation, and specifically the astronomical cost of eggs.  Hassett outlined the plan by first reminding Brennan that regarding spread, chickens don’t fly; ducks and geese do.  I almost spit out my coffee.  I enjoy Kevin Hassett.  Video and Transcript Below:



[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We want to turn now to the economy and inflation, which, compared to last January, ticked up about 3% last week. Kevin Hassett is the director of the National Economic Council, and he joins us now. Good morning to you, Director.

KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: Good morning, Margaret, good morning.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, I don’t have to tell you, but the rest of the country saw their egg prices at the grocery store go up. We’re now at a record high due to that bird flu outbreak, but also labor costs, and that’s contributing to food costs overall. When will the administration get that outbreak under control?

HASSETT: Right, well, what’s going on, right, as you know, is that there is an inflation problem that’s very large. We saw the consumer price index come out, and we found out that the stagflation that was created by the policies of President Biden was way worse than we thought. Over the last three months, across all goods, including eggs, the average inflation rate was 4.6%, way above target, and an acceleration at the end of the Biden term. And, you know, this is really not just us. You could go look at Jason Furman, Larry Summers, economic advisers of President Biden kept saying, don’t do this. You’re going to cause massive inflation. In fact, Jason Furman has a very thought provoking peace in “Foreign Affairs” right now, calling the Biden economic record a tragedy. And this is them, not us, right? It’s- so, now we’ve got a lot of things that we’re doing to get ahold of it–

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re talking about fiscal spending there.

HASSETT: Excuse me? Yeah, that’s right.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You were talking about fiscal spending there. But–

HASSETT: Well, where does inflation come from, right? And so what we’re doing now is, we’ve- we’ve got, really, a multi- multi-faceted plan to end inflation, and I’ll go quickly, because I want to end with what we’re doing with egg prices, but we’re going to have a macroeconomic change that has supply side tax cuts so we have more supply, and we’re going to reduce government spending, both through what DOGE is doing, and through congressional action. And so therefore, the macroeconomic forces that Jason Furman said were a tragedy are going to be reversed. That’s a good thing. Then we’re also going to have a lot of energy production, a lot of deregulation. And then finally, when needed, we’re going to focus on the individual thing-by-thing pieces. And so, for example, you mentioned avian flu. President Biden didn’t really have a plan for avian flu. Well, Brooke Rollins and I have been working with all the best people in government, including academics around the country and around the world, to have a plan ready for the president next week on what we’re going to do with avian flu. In fact, I was editing the thing with them tomorrow, but- but the final thing- and then I’ll give it back to you, I promise not to filibuster- that, the question is like, why did we do this? Why did we do this? That’s what everybody’s talking about. But the thing that I always start with when I’m looking at what we’re doing, what the President wants us to do, is, why did they do that? Why did they do that? And- and there are too many times where it feels like nobody thought about that in the press, or maybe–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Oh, gosh–

HASSET: –the left wing “Economist,” why did they do that? Why did Biden print so much money and cause so much inflation? Why did he do it?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Oh, Kevin–

HASSETT: That’s- that’s what I’m thinking about.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Kevin, you know, we talked about that on “Face the Nation” quite a lot. Quite a lot.

HASSETT: I don’t mean to criticize you. Okay, good for you.

MARGARET BRENNAN: No, no, no. So next week, we’ll see the plan on how to get avian flu- how to get bird flu, under–

HASSETT: I could talk about it right now if you’d like to, yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: –well, sure, what- what is the plan you’re going to- what are you going to do?

HASSETT: Yeah, so- so again, the- the Biden plan was to just, you know, kill chickens, and they spent billions of dollars just randomly killing chickens within a perimeter where they found a sick chicken. And so you go- I just went to the grocery store. I shop for our family, in part because I love to look at prices. And there were no eggs at the store yesterday, just a few. And- and so that happened because they killed all the chickens. And so what we need to do is have better ways, with biosecurity and medication and so on, to make sure that the perimeter doesn’t have to kill the chickens. Have a better, smarter perimeter. And so having a smart perimeter is what we’re working on, and we’re finalizing the ideas about how to do that with the best scientists in government. And that’s the kind of thing that should have happened a year ago, and if it had, then egg prices would be, you know, a lot better than they are now. But the avian flu is a real thing–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

HASSETT: –and by the way, it’s spread mostly by ducks and geese. And so- think about it, they’re killing chickens to stop the spread, but chickens don’t really fly. The- the spread is happening from the geese and the ducks. And so, why does it make any sense to have a big perimeter of dead chickens, when it’s the- the ducks and the geese that are spreading it?

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the Department of Agriculture policy has been to kill those chickens, as you know, but we’ll watch the details of that.😂 But let’s get back to something the president said. Higher interest rates, as you know, are part of that battle against inflation that the Federal Reserve has been waging, but this past week, the President called for interest rates to be lowered. Why does he think that’s going to lower your grocery prices?

KEVIN HASSETT: Well, first of all, I- I want to say that- I, just this weekend, have arranged to begin, once again, regular lunches with Jay Powell at the Federal Reserve. And Jay and I have a long and collegial relationship, and I’m going to go over there with him and the other governors. So we’re going to talk about our views about what’s going on, and listen to his and that collegiality has been going on for four years when I was here before, and the President very much values that. I think that the- the thing about–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But that’s not to influence–

HASSETT: –lower interest rates, no, I’m going to talk about- well, Jay is going to- Jay is an independent person. The Fed- independence is respected. And- and the point is, the President’s opinion is also- can be heard. He’s the president of the United States. But here’s the thing that I think is interesting, that if we get inflation under control, then that takes the pressure off the Fed. And one way to tell whether markets think, are we getting inflation under control, is to look at longer term interest rates that the Fed doesn’t affect directly. And if you look at it, the 10 year treasury rate has dropped about 40 basis points over the last couple of weeks while we announced our plan to control inflation. That saved the American people about $40 billion, about $40 billion, just from talking about the stuff that we’re about to do.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay.

HASSETT: It’s pretty good.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. But the President’s statement contradicts economic policy, as you know–

KEVIN HASSETT: No, inflation- no, inflation rates are already- I’m saying the interest rates are already lower by 40 basis points. So, in- interest rates are lower. The one that matters–

MARGARET BRENNAN: You’re briefing the president on it. Okay–

HASSETT: –the most for the economy is maybe the 5 or 10, year rate. Those the ones that matter the most. So those are down already. So the President’s right about that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Before we run out of time, I really want to make sure I get to you on tariffs–

HASSETT: Okay, sure.

MARGARET BRENNAN: –because there’s concern that that will add to prices, because they’ll be added on to consumers and what they pay. How are these reciprocal tariffs going to work? The President was tweeting he wants to put them on, like 175 different countries that have a VAT tax, a value added tax.

KEVIN HASSETT: You know, we’re talking to leaders of other countries all the time. Last night into the wee hours of their morning and kind of a late night for me, I was talking to Minister Reynolds from the UK about this very matter. But here’s the way I’d like to think about it, that right now, U.S. companies are spending, are paying, foreign governments about $370 billion a year in tax, and foreign comp- companies are paying the U.S. government about $57 billion in tax, and a lot of it is because of the VAT. But if we didn’t have to pay the foreign government’s tax, over 10 years, it’d be about $5 trillion of tax that U.S. citizens don’t have to pay. That would more than pay for the tax cuts that we’re debating right now. And so if we get some of that money back, either through tariffs, or for, obviously, if they reduce the tariffs of that, that that’s good for Americans, it’s going to put more money in their pockets, and- and that’s what President Trump is trying to do.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Kevin Hassett, I’d like to have you come back, sit at the table and talk through this in- in more detail at another time. We have to leave it there for today.

HASSETT: Thanks. Happy, happy to be here.

[End Transcript]


Hakeem's Bad Dream: Deer in Headlights Jeffries Left Speechless When Faced With Trump Approval Numbers


Bob Hoge reporting for RedState 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) appeared on ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday and proceeded to blame Donald Trump for every problem the United States faces despite the fact that the new commander-in-chief has been in office less than a month and the Democrats were in power for most of the last four years. OK, Hakeem.

After describing how Jeffries droned on about the high cost of living and how it was Trump’s fault, my colleague Becca Lower wrote:

Trump has been in office for just over three weeks. Unless someone invents a time machine for him to hop into and correct the liberals' mismanagement and malfeasance, what Dems are suggesting is fantasy on its face. As innovative as Elon Musk is, I wouldn't suggest holding your breath for him to get that sort of contraption on the assembly line at Tesla or SpaceX. 

Perhaps the most priceless moment in the interview came when host John Karl read some reality to Jeffries in the form of cold, hard numbers—approval numbers. Watch as the New York congressman’s face falls... and falls...  as he is delivered his own fact-filled fevered nightmare:

The tweet continues (as Hakeem continues to sweat):

60% favor deporting illegals

60% favor expanding O&G production

59% favor declaring emergency at southern border

Trump has put Democrats in the position of opposing his massively popular positions — “defending the indefensible” — and they have no coherent answers.

My favorite part about this whole clip is the expression of utter shock on Jeffries' face. He looks like a deer in the headlights on a dark highway. I was half expecting him to splutter, "But, but… CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS! THERE’S A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!” 

(To be fair, he did finally regain his composure and go back to gaslighting, but that priceless moment will live on nontheless.)


Jeffries Continues to Beat the Same Tired Drum That Lost Dems 2024

Jeffries Touts 'Rapid Response Task Force' While Calliope Music Plays


It can’t be fun being a Democrat right now. Let me see if I can find my violin… nope, sorry, it’s nowhere to be found.

Poor Jeffries. Imagine if you had to face the camera, tell the people at home that the last four years of malaise were actually great, Biden was a genius, and the Democrats are going to take back the country… when you’re constantly seeing unambiguous news that President Donald Trump is restoring America’s pride with each passing day—and the people are loving it.


“Trump is responsible for Bidenflation” just isn’t going to cut it, Hakeem.