Thursday, March 6, 2025

What Zelensky Didn’t Get

The infamous February 28 meeting seems to have required more sophistication than Ukraine’s president can muster.



Seventy (70) years in the making, there was a multi-car crash in the Oval Office on February 28 with Ukraine’s president, Donald Trump, and J.D. Vance.  As with any multi-car pile-up, we cannot look away. 

The Zelensky-Trump meeting actually was a success, although we are admonished that no one should see legislation or sausage being made.  Despite a dysfunctional testosterone-choked machismo fog that filled the White House that day, the massive divide became crystal-clear on the most important issue.

President Zelensky does not want to end the war.  He wants to crush Russia completely and drive Russia out of all Ukrainian land.  And I am sure I would feel the same.  But I hope I would have the life experience and clarity to overcome those emotions with the life lessons of The Rolling Stones — “You Can’t Always Get What You Want.”  Yes, it hurts.  Life is often painful.  We cry out in our hearts against the wrongs and injustices of this fallen world.  But no perfection is found on this side of heaven.

Yet every European official, leader, diplomat, and military hack, and most of those in the USA — anyone with credentials as a supposed expert — has spent years infecting Ukraine with the delusional fantasy that Ukraine, with 38.76–50 million people (many parked in Europe during the war) can defeat Russia, with 145 million people.  Russia could send 10 million troops into Ukraine armed only with bows and arrows.  Ukrainians could kill 2–3 million, but Russian victory is guaranteed. 

Where did the establishment’s delusion come from?  Seventy years ago, planned as early as 1948.  See this CIA Memorandum, June 22, 1955: The CIA planned, organized, trained, and funded a Ukrainian separatist movement for the purpose of de-stabilizing the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 

The irrational delusion that hot-headed Ukrainian nationalists could overthrow the KGB and Soviet system was actually created by the United States of America through its intelligence services.

Again, those who hope to profit from the war will quickly attack this as Putin propaganda.  These are the CIA’s own documents.  Remember: At the time, the CIA and public officials were proud of their efforts. 

But really, the CIA was building on the “Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists” founded in 1929.  See Harvard Ukrainian Studies and The Holocaust Explained. 

The USA told Ukrainian extremists that they could topple the Soviet Union.  Worse, we implied that the USA would back them up — “back stop” is today’s term — and fight with them in their war against Russia.  Zelensky came demanding from Trump, “Where is the ‘back stop’ the USA promised us?”

Today, we have the “Let’s pillage Russia’s natural resources” war-mongers.  I heard them myself with my own ears, in the room, at meetings and speeches by “conservative” think-tanks starting in 1992.  We can defeat Russia once and for all, they loudly insisted.  (If I heard it, I suspect that Russia’s intelligence services might have gotten wind of it, too, and factored it into their assessment of trusting the West.)

The McCain/Cheney “Cold War Dead-Enders” made a fatal mistake.  No one cared about fighting for the Soviet Union anymore.  But if you threaten their homeland,   Russians may fight back ferociously.  The smash hit “Я Русский,”ecstatically celebrating that they are Russian, hardly tracks with the defeated backwater that Western war-mongers are portraying.

Donald Trump has clearly been negotiating to negotiate, discussing the shape of the table, so to speak, as clarified by secretary of State Marco Rubio.  We don’t know the specifics, and it appears there are none.

Trump is also engaged in “shuttle diplomacy.”  Do we really think Trump is going to put Vladimir Putin in the same room, around the same table, as Volodymyr Zelensky?  Seriously?  That would be a Western saloon brawl. 

But Trump’s plan to acquire mineral rights appears to have been a masterstroke.  One should remember that Trump thinks as a businessman.  So when Trump talks about “securing” repayment of the $350 billion the USA has allegedly provided (the amount is disputed) — Europe will largely be repaid — this has a precise meaning in business finance. 

When Trump mentions $500 billion, he is saying the USA would provide Ukraine $150 billion more — up to a $500-billion total.  So Zelensky could have another $150 billion to fight with.  When he says “secure,” this means as a last resort.  Security has precise meanings and procedures in business finance.  Thus, Ukraine could repay the USA (and Europe) any way it wants, with the mineral rights as collateral.

But here the genius part: Ukraine and Europe are screaming about “[military] security guarantees,” by which they clearly mean that the U.S. military should be posted on Ukrainian soil (while the Europeans frolic in the forests with wine and cheese and drag queens).

Putting armed U.S. and/or European soldiers in Ukraine will trigger World War III.  And it would be nuclear, if necessary for Russia to win.  Even if Putin doesn’t want war, like a street gang leader who is “dissed,” Putin will have no choice but to preserve his street cred.

But what about (unarmed) business managers, engineers, U.S. miners, transportation workers?   With a wink and a nod to a fully awake Vladimir Putin looking the other way to avoid a thermonuclear world war, the United States would have U.S. citizens inside Ukraine.  This would give Ukraine the only guarantee it can get.  Russia will not attack Ukraine with significant numbers of U.S. citizens in the country. 

Russia and Trump know what this means.  The gimmick depends upon biting their tongues and pretending they don’t see it.  So a reporter asked Trump how long would it take to mine the rare minerals — a decade?  Trump toyed obviously with the topic, saying things like “I don’t know, things can take a long time, you know?”  You go looking, and the metals aren’t where you think they are.  Who knows?  It could take lots of time.  So Trump was clearly telegraphing that this is a charade.  This is a security guarantee dressed up as a business venture.  Maybe we’ll keep doing it for 50 years.

But Zelensky couldn’t “hear” that over the noise of a sensation-hungry old-school news media establishment.  Zelensky lacks the sophistication to deal with a man-eating, bloodthirsty, clickbait Western news media establishment.

It was also a mistake for President Zelensky — it would be a mistake for anyone — to go into a high-profile event without his own translator.  Zelensky’s English is very good, but those of us who have done any business or professional activity across languages have learned that “good enough” quickly falls short when the content gets specialized or complex.  Zelensky badly fumbled by failing to understand nuances and explain himself precisely.



at

X22, And we Know, and more- March 6

 



Change Is Never Easy | On The Fringe
0:00 / 0:00

15 seconds

15 seconds

at

America Before Ukraine


By March 2025, the United States has poured over $175 billion into Ukraine’s war chest—a staggering sum that could have rebuilt every crumbling bridge in the Rust Belt, funded a decade of veteran care, or slashed the tax burden on families buckling under inflation’s weight. Yet here we stand, bankrolling a foreign conflict while our own house frays at the seams. It’s time to say it loud and clear: America before Ukraine. This isn’t isolationism—it’s stewardship. It’s not callousness—it’s clarity. It’s a conservative creed for a nation at a crossroads, and it demands we rethink our priorities with both heart and head.

The conservative soul has always prized sovereignty, thrift, and the sanctity of the American hearth. “America before Ukraine” isn’t just a slogan; it’s a distillation of those values in an age of overreach. For too long, Republicans and Democrats alike have treated our treasury like a global ATM, dispensing largesse to distant causes while constituents plead for relief. Ukraine’s fight against Russia stirs sympathy; its people’s grit deserves respect. But sympathy isn’t a blank check, and respect doesn’t mandate American sacrifice. Our government’s first duty is to us—the citizens who sustain it, not foreign borders.

Consider the arithmetic of neglect. That $175 billion could have seeded a renaissance at home: $1,000 checks to every household, a GI Bill-style reboot for trade schools, or a border wall finished twice over. Instead, it bought HIMARS rockets and Kyiv’s payroll—noble, perhaps, but not ours to bear. Conservatives champion limited government, yet this is limitless generosity with other people’s money. The Biden administration crows about “defending democracy,” but what of our own? When Flint’s water stays toxic and rural hospitals shutter, democracy here feels like a hollow echo. “America before Ukraine” isn’t selfishness—it’s accountability to those who elected us.

The counterargument rings loud: Ukraine’s fall risks a domino cascade—Russia emboldened, NATO tested, America’s credibility torched. Fair enough. But let’s flip the lens. Europe’s GDP dwarfs Russia’s; Germany alone could match our aid if it shed its pacifist skin. Why must America always foot the bill while allies dawdle? This isn’t leadership—it’s martyrdom. Conservatives don’t shy from strength, but strength isn’t squandering resources on a war we didn’t start. It’s building a nation so robust that no adversary dares test us. “America before Ukraine” means flexing muscle at home, not bleeding it abroad.

Extrapolate the stakes. Every dollar to Ukraine is a dollar not fortifying our grid against Chinese cyberattacks, not arming our shores against fentanyl floods, not lifting our poor from despair. The left cries “global responsibility,” but responsibility begins in our backyard. The neocons—once conservative kin—pine for empire, forgetting that empires crumble when foundations rot. Iraq taught us this; Afghanistan underlined it. Ukraine’s no quagmire yet, but it’s a slow bleed we can’t afford. “America before Ukraine” is a brake on hubris, a pivot to prudence.

Now, the moral knot. Ukraine’s civilians suffer—war’s brutality spares no one. Conservatives aren’t cold to that; we’ve hearts as big as our principles. But morality isn’t unilateral. If we save Ukraine at our own expense, what of the American widow choosing between heat and medicine? What of the veteran sleeping under a bridge while we fund foreign barracks? Charity starts at home, not because we’re insular, but because we’re entrusted with a nation first. “America before Ukraine” doesn’t abandon the world—it reorders the queue.

Culturally, this phrase taps a vein of exhaustion and pride. After decades as the world’s cop, we’re tired—tired of thankless wars, tired of lectures from allies who lean on us, tired of elites who prioritize Davos over Dayton. “America before Ukraine” is a reclamation: a middle finger to the cosmopolitans, a fist pump for the forgotten. It’s not about retreating from greatness but redefining it—not as a global babysitter, but as a beacon renewed by self-reliance. Conservatives once rallied to “Morning in America”; this is dusk’s resolve to fix our own dawn.

Rhetorically, it’s pure fire. “America before Ukraine” sings with alliteration and urgency—three words that sear into memory, a battle cry for bumper stickers and ballots. It’s not a plea; it’s a command. It frames Ukraine not as a villain but as foil—a specific, digestible stand-in for broader overstretch. Critics call it simplistic; I call it surgical. In a soundbite age, it cuts through the noise like a blade.

Balance demands we wrestle the risks. Pull aid, and Russia might roll deeper—Kharkiv today, Warsaw tomorrow. A stronger Putin could hike oil prices, pinch our wallets, test our resolve. True. But escalation’s no picnic either: $300 billion by 2030, troops on the ground, a draft whispered in Pentagon halls. “America before Ukraine” bets on containment through strength at home, not entanglement abroad. It’s a calculated roll—not reckless, but resolute.

Originality lies in reframing the fight. This isn’t just about Ukraine—it’s about us. Call it “Prioritism”: a conservative doctrine for the 21st century, where national interest isn’t a dirty word but a compass. It’s not isolationism’s cowardice nor interventionism’s arrogance—it’s a third way, a tightrope walked with eyes on our own soil. Imagine a 2030 where “America before Ukraine” birthed a policy revolution: aid slashed, allies stepping up, a homeland rebuilt. Or imagine its failure—a humbled America, a fractured West. Either way, it’s a pivot we must dare.

To my fellow conservatives, this is our moment. The left’s globalism is a siren song; the old guard’s war drums are a broken record. “America before Ukraine” is our anthem—unapologetic, pragmatic, rooted in the grit of our founding. It’s not about shirking duty but reclaiming it—duty to the farmer in Iowa, the machinist in Ohio, the single mom in Texas. Let Europe carry its load; let us lift our own.

To the skeptics: weigh the cost. Not just dollars, but destiny. Every tank shipped east is a school unbuilt, a border unsecured, a dream deferred. We can mourn Ukraine’s plight without owning it. We can lead the world by example, not by exhaustion. “America before Ukraine” isn’t a retreat from greatness—it’s a march toward it.

So stand with me. Say it loud. Write it bold. Vote it true. America before Ukraine. Because if we don’t put ourselves first, no one else will.



at

Is ‘Peace’ a Dirty Word?

The car keys, or in this case the enormous military arsenal of the United States, must be taken away before Zelenskyy will negotiate seriously.



Democrats in America and Europeans everywhere are delusional regarding the Ukraine war. They utter simplistic statements regarding the origin of the conflict, and jingoistic slogans regarding the likelihood of Ukrainian victory. A review of the facts reveals the fallaciousness of their claims.

What Caused the War?

Although Putin directly created this conflict by invading Crimea in 2014, and by invading eastern Ukraine in early 2022, serious provocations led to those interventions. Here are some of them.

1. NATO expansion to the border of Russia — “not one inch eastward”.

Several scholars (e.g., Jeffrey Sachs, Rajan Menon, John Mearsheimer) have documented the many assurances that were given to Russian officials regarding the boundaries of NATO expansion. Famously, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker assured Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO membership would go “not one inch eastward.” Despite that assurance, President Bill Clinton pushed for NATO expansion in the mid-1990s.

In 1999, NATO was expanded to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.

In 2004, the NATO expansion included Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Russia complained bitterly, but did nothing.

A breaking point was reached in 2008, when the NATO alliance considered the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine. Although they were not admitted, NATO members issued this statement: “These countries will become members of NATO.” In response, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Alexander Grushko, sternly warned:

Georgia’s and Ukraine’s membership in the alliance is a huge strategic mistake which would have [the] most serious consequences for pan-European security.

It is now clear that Grushko was correct.

To understand why this expansion was provocative, just consider the likely U.S. reaction if the old Soviet Union tried to make Mexico a member of its Warsaw Pact alliance.

2. Western “nonprofit” organizations acted like the CIA.

According to Victoria Nuland, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state, the U.S. gave more than $5 billion to Ukraine as of 2013 to help it achieve “the future it deserves.” Much of the money went to fund the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a nonprofit organization that sponsored at least 60 different programs, some of which created civil unrest in Ukraine. The organization does not have clean hands. Indeed, a co-founder of NED (Allen Weinstein) said in 1991: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

I doubt that Vladimir Putin found those words to be reassuring.

NED still boasts (on its website) that it financially supported the 2013–2014 “Revolution of Dignity,” which involved public protests that led to a violent coup d’état in Ukraine.  

3. The removal of a Ukrainian president.

Depending on the perspective, former Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych was either neutral or pro-Russian. In 2014, he was removed from power by political unrest that culminated in a coup d’état. As noted, that unrest was largely funded by western groups such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

Yanukovych was replaced by a pro-western president, a fact that caused great consternation among Russian leadership. A few days after Yanukovych was removed from power, Russia invaded Crimea.

Who Started the Conflict?

Trump has been criticized for saying that Zelenskyy caused the conflict that began in 2022. Although his statement is false and simplistic, it is not without support. Trump and others have argued that Zelenskyy could have ended the fighting, almost before it began. The invasion started on February 24, 2022, and a peace plan (an “off-ramp”) was available to Zelenskyy just three or four weeks later.

The “off-ramp” was in the form of a potential peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. It has been widely reported that the deal was scuttled by Boris Johnson in early 2022 (at the behest of U.S. leaders). Zelenskyy argues that this is false, but the reasons he gives are troubling.

Zelenskyy claims that Johnson could not have killed the plan because he, Zelenskyy, “never gave my approval for it.” By making that statement, Zelenskyy seems to acknowledge that a peace plan was available; however, he (not Boris Johnson) chose to reject it. Before Europeans promise security commitments for Ukraine, they should carefully investigate this matter to ensure that Zelenskyy is seriously seeking peace.

Can Russia Be Driven from Eastern Ukraine?

Many military experts believe that it is virtually impossible to drive Russia from all of Ukraine, even if the U.S. supplies massive amounts of military aid. As stated by Ukraine expert Anatol Lieven, “supporters of complete Ukrainian victory have engaged in hopes that range from the overly optimistic to the magical” (emphasis added).

Lieven notes that the Russian strategy has been to engage Ukrainians in,

prolonged battles for small amounts of territory...where they have relied on Russian superiority in artillery and munitions to wear them [Ukrainians] down through constant bombardment. They are firing three shells to every one Ukrainian….

The Russians also rely on their larger population of fighters. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated (undiplomatically), the U.S. has been,

funding a meat grinder, and unfortunately for the Ukrainians, the Russians have more meat to grind, and they don’t care about human life.

Recently, the BBC has reported that, in the last two years, Russia has increased its control steadily, gaining about 25 miles across the eastern parts of the region. The losses sustained by Ukraine may not be obvious to most Americans because (according to Anatol Lieven) Biden spent his last year in office trying to “...sustain Ukrainian defense until after the U.S. presidential elections....”

Is Zelenskyy Acting Rationally?

Understandably, Zelenskyy hates Russia and Putin, and this hatred has caused him to behave irrationally.

In the weeks and months before the contentious Oval Office meeting with Trump, Zelenskyy stated that he had not ruled out NATO membership, and that NATO membership should be offered to all of Ukraine — even the parts held by Russia. That is a delusional statement because any single NATO member can veto such an arrangement. Does Zelenskyy seriously think that Trump can be persuaded to welcome Ukraine into the alliance?

During the Oval Office meeting, Zelenskyy made more statements that seem unrealistic.  For example, he indicated that Putin would need to pay for the rebuilding of Ukraine. In response to a reporter’s question, Zelenskyy said:

They have to pay. This is the rule of the war during all the centuries all the history. This is the rule of the war. Who began, those pay. Those who began this war he has to pay all money for renovation. He has to pay.

Who exactly is going to induce Putin to make these payments?

Perhaps Zelenskyy believes that frozen assets (of the Russian nation and its citizens) can be used to rebuild Ukraine, but that is questionable. A Russian official said it would amount to “theft.” I suspect that most of the seized Russian funds will be returned to Russia as an inducement to gain Putin’s willingness to stop the fighting.

Should Trump Give Security Guarantees?

Much of the world views Trump as selfish and nationalistic because he does not want the U.S. to provide security guarantees to Ukraine. Although he is focused on U.S. self-interest, his policy is also best for Ukraine, Russia, and neighboring countries. As Trump says, the killing must stop.

After the contentious meeting with Zelenskyy, Trump made this statement on Truth Social:

I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE.

For three years, Biden gave Zelenskyy the keys to the car, so to speak. Perhaps Zelenskyy felt like superman because he was using the enormous military arsenal of the United States. I agree with Trump: The car keys must be taken away before Zelenskyy will negotiate seriously.

Trump should not give security guarantees to Ukraine.

When Russia “Wins,” Who Will Be Blamed?

Trump, of course!



at

🎭 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. 


at

Legal Watchdog: D.C. Police Demand $1.57 Million To Release Jan. 6 Bodycam Footage


The non-profit published a press release outlining the department’s demands in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.



The Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department is charging the conservative legal watchdog, Judicial Watch, more than $1.5 million to access bodycam footage of the Jan. 6 Capitol protests.

On Tuesday, the non-profit published a press release outlining the department’s demands following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed last summer. Judicial Watch filed the suit after local law enforcement refused to release the footage in August 2021.

“The DC Metro Police initially rejected Judicial Watch’s request because, it claimed, the videos were, at the time, ‘part of an ongoing investigation and criminal proceeding,'” Judicial Watch said Tuesday. “But since President Trumps [sic] pardons of January 6 defendants, the DC government will make public the videos (supposedly containing over one thousand hours of footage) if Judicial Watch agrees to pay over $1.5 million.”

President Donald Trump pardoned nearly every defendant charged with crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot immediately upon his second inauguration in January. The executive order granted “full, complete and unconditional pardons” to an estimated 1,500 people and commuted the sentences of another 14.

“We hope they come out tonight,” Trump said on the evening of his first night back in office. Many of those charged with misconduct just walked into the open Capitol building, and Jacob Chansley, infamously known as the “Q-Anon Shaman,” was even escorted around the building by law enforcement officials. Chansley was sentenced to 41 months in prison in the fall of 2021.

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson covered the saga by airing security footage from the Capitol before abruptly leaving the network in 2023:



Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in Tuesday’s press release, “There never has been a legitimate reason to withhold the January 6 police bodycam videos.”

“If they wanted the videos out for political reasons, they’d be public, but instead the DC government wants more than $1.5 million in order for the public to view its January 6 videos,” Fitton said.

Many questions remain unanswered about the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, after Democrats exploited their House majority to depict a partisan narrative with a Soviet-style inquisition, which both prosecuted political opponents and covered up former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s negligence.

Federalist Senior Editor John Davidson outlined what mysteries still remain about Jan. 6 in a speech earlier this year adapted for The Federalist. A primary question still open is the origins of the apparent pipe bombs discovered at the Republican and Democrat Party headquarters that were found to be “inoperable.”

“Why does the FBI still have no idea who planted the pipe bombs near the headquarters of the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee on the evening of January 5?” Davidson asked. Other questions include why the Capitol Police opened the doors to allow demonstrators in and why Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund was kept in the dark about the presence of federal informants in the crowd.

“Defenders of the official narrative accuse those who ask such questions of being conspiracists,” Davidson added. “But until those questions are answered, our understanding of January 6 — no matter our political leanings — will be incomplete.”


at

President Trump Notes Farmers Will Benefit Within U.S. Market from Strategic Price Advantage


As President Trump outlined the goals and objectives of the tariffs during his address to congress, President Trump noted how the American farmer will no longer have to compete unfairly within the U.S market against cheap imported food products.

President Trump notes U.S. food prices are positioned for major supply-demand changes that will benefit all American consumers.  What President Trump states in his speech to congress, is the reality we experienced in 2018/2019 as the result of national agriculture supply. WATCH:



This is what happens when the American food supply equation is modified to focus on domestic production to the benefit of domestic consumers.   The food supply chain will shift, slowly at first and then ultimately by around Thanksgiving of this year (fall harvest) we will see major price drops in the American food basket.

There are going to be major opposition forces, notably related to decades of Big Ag exfiltration, screaming that U.S. consumers will see higher prices.  However, as previously experienced/outlined these claims are entirely false. We will see major drops in food prices as a result of a more balanced U.S production-import/export dynamic.

In the short term, there will be some supply chain disruption as the import equation (total cost of goods) changes to reflect the tariff impact.  However, long term, we will see (example citrus) farm products returning to FL/CA farm production from Mexico.

Generally speaking, about 50% of the USA bulk food system is ‘one full harvest’ ahead of demand.  Grain silos, frozen product and processed food stuffs are generally a full harvest ahead.  Ex. the Frozen turkey you purchase in November is a product outcome of a production process that takes place all year. Canned foods, dried foods, spices and other derivatives follow the same supply chain background.  The length of this process is approximately 6 months.

On the fresh food side (think in terms of the perimeter of the grocery store), the supply chain is thin and holds less inventory in the supply system; the flow from field to fork is much faster.  Fresh seasonal foods come/go as this supply chain reflects the seasonal harvests – with a portion of those fresh products also entering the processed space as ingredients.

Our sunbelt farmers can produce everything that is imported from Mexico and central America, an import tariff resets the price structure permitting them to enter the production system with organic profits.  It may take a little time for the reset of pricing to travel to new fields and then ultimately to our forks, but it will happen if the USA holds strong in support of the rebalancing.



at

Biden Official Who Trump Fired and Was Reinstated by an Obama Judge Has Been Fired Again


streiff reporting for RedState 

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed President Trump to re-fire Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger pending the disposition of Dellinger's lawsuit for reinstatement. This is a very important decision as it overturns the order by District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson forcing the Trump administration to reinstate Dellinger (DC Circuit Court Judge Orders OMB, Treasury to Reinstate Legally Protected Official Who Trump Fired – RedState).

The backstory is that Dellinger, according to statute, can only be removed from office “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Trump fired Dellinger using a recent Supreme Court precedent as the rationale. Shortly after being reinstated, Dellinger began waging guerilla warfare against Trump's dismissal of probationary federal employees by pushing their cases to the Merit System Protection Board. The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court (see Trump Sends Scorching Appeal of DC Court Order Reinstating Biden Appointee to the Supreme Court – RedState). The Supreme Court sent the case to the DC Circuit for review without taking action; Supreme Court Punts on Trump Firing Legally Protected Official – RedState; and a three-judge panel ruled on that tonight.

The two-page ruling Wednesday from three judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals contained no detailed explanation. But it said lawyers for the Trump administration had met the legal standard to lift an injunction that U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued on Saturday.

IANAL, so I'll turn to friend and former RedState colleague Bill Shipley for analysis.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has just vindicated CJ Roberts. 

The Court has just granted the Motion to Stay the Order of Judge Amy Berman Jackson that Hampton Dellinger remain as head of the Office of Special Counsel while he litigates the legality of his dismissal without cause in alleged violation of the statutory requirement that he can be removed only "for cause."   

Chair of the MSPB Cathy Harris was allowed to join the proceedings as amicus -- the same issue applies to her, with Judge Contreras having ordered that she remain in her position while litigating her dismissal. 

This is "regular order".  Judge Jackson issued a ruling on the merits Saturday night, granting summary judgment for Dellinger.  The DOJ filed a Notice of Appeal, and a Motion to Stay Judge Jackson's order that Dellinger remain as head of the Office of Special Counsel. 

The Appeals Court has now undone her Order while the appeal is pending.  That means the TRO and Prelim Injunction are vacated and the firing of Dellinger is now back in effect. 

I expect the same will happen next to Cathy Harris. 

Cathy Harris was the head of the Merit Systems Protection Board, enjoying the same statutory protections as Dellinger, and whom Trump fired anyway. She has also been ordered reinstated; see Judge Orders Biden Appointee Fired by Trump Reinstated to Office – RedState. The appeals court allowed her to file an amicus brief in this case. 

The Supreme Court held a motion to vacate Judge Jackson's TRO "in abeyance" while she was considering the merits.  She acknowledged such during the hearing when she said she understood the Supreme Court was watching over her shoulder.

 BUT, the Appeals Court has now done its job -- meaning the decision by SCOTUS to respect "regular order" was the correct one.   

That said -- the panel granting the stay has two GOP appointees -- Judge Henderson (Bush 41) and Judge Waker (Trump).    DOJ was fortunate in the draw in that regard.

No matter how the appeals court panel rules, this is headed back to the Supreme Court. I think Dellinger is toast because he is the sole director in the Office of Special Counsel and his case is a nearly perfect analog for Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the 2020 Supreme Court ruling that permitted Trump to fire the head of the CFPB because he was a sole director who could not, according to statute, be fired.

The Harris case will be more interesting and significant. It will test the validity of the Humphrey's Excecutor precedent and the amount of control the president has over the administrative state; see Trump Declares War on the Administrative State – RedState.



at

Power Trio Vance, Hegseth, Gabbard Inspecting the Border Wednesday


Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

On Wednesday, the U.S./Mexico border had a visit from an American power trio: Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. This was, no mistake, a power play, intended not only to give these three, who share aspects of foreign affairs and our borders, a good look at the border, but also to send a message to Mexico, to the cartels, and to would-be illegal immigrants. That message? Playtime is over; the adults are back in charge.

We might note that all three of these officials are military veterans; all have served overseas, far from home, in dangerous places. You don't have to be John Rambo to know what it's like to be in a harsh place under harsh circumstances, and such a thing lends you some perspective that others, through no fault of their own, just don't understand. But mostly, officials who are in charge of the various aspects of this mess must see things for themselves. There's just no substitute for eyes-on.

While the primary purpose of the border visit is to give three key people a good look at things on the ground, it is also a message to the Mexican government. America, this message says, is taking this seriously enough to send senior officials, all of whom report directly to the President of the United States, to the border to see things for themselves.

Vice President Vance later spoke on their examination of the border:

The VP said:

We took the helicopter ride over here, and we saw a big chunk of border wall, and I said, "Is that the federal government's border wall?" And they said, "Well, it was ordered during teh first Trump administration but Joe Biden wouldn't let us actually build it. Governor Abbott (of Texas) was of course the one who actually helped us put a lot of that stuff up and of course that stopped the flow in a pretty profound way. 

We'll talk a little bit more at the press conference but as you saw the president said yesterday, I think it's really the most important part of his speech, is that we didn't need new laws to secure the border, we needed a new president, and thank God we have that. I've heard already from a number of the folks that I've talked to in (the) Border Patrol, that all we needed to do was to empower these guys to do their job, thank God they have done their job, we're thrilled that they've done it, and now we've seen just in this area, border crossings go from about 1,500 a day to 30 a day. That's simply the President of the United States empowering these professionals to do what they do so well.

It's working. It's all working. And all the pieces aren't even fully in place yet - but they will be.



at