W³P Lives: 03/17/25

Monday, March 17, 2025

Boot the Ungrateful Foreigners the Hell Out of America

I am loving this uproar over that communist terrorist fluffer from Columbia University, Mahmoud Khalil, who the feds detained with an eye towards booting his sorry rear out of our glorious country. First, I love how the commies are crying about it, how suddenly they care about free speech even though they carried absolutely nothing about free speech when normal patriotic Americans were being rounded up for daring to oppose abortion and bogus elections. I love how they’re calling his totally legitimate arrest a “kidnapping” when this guy’s unseemly and eager onanism over his dirtbag Palestinian buddies' kidnapping of innocent Israelis is what got him busted in the first place. But mostly, I love this imbroglio because it shows that we Americans are not going to take any more guff from uppity foreigners.

We’re booting this tool out of our great country. It may take a bit of time to wind its way through the courts, but he’s gone. We should be booting his wife out, too, before she drops her kid – hey, a fetus leftists don’t want to kill! – and it gets American citizenship. In fact, we should boot out all these agitators and malcontents, deporting every single weirdo, loser, and mutation who hates America and thinks they have a free pass to try and gin up their Marxist revolution here on our sacred soil.

We’re done. We tried tolerance, and they attacked Jewish Americans. They would murder the rest of us too given the chance, so we're not giving them one. Get the hell out.

And they will get the hell out. The law is very clear, and it’s very clear that this guy is going to soon be on a one-way flight to whatever geographic zit he popped out of. So will a bunch of his fellow travelers. See, we’re done with ungrateful foreigners. We’re not taking it anymore. American idiots are bad enough. We don’t need to import any more idiots. In fact, we need tariffs, idiot tariffs. And idiot reparations from the garbage countries they come from, but that’s down the road.

For now, it’s enough to throw them on a plane and get them the hell out of here, and the Trump administration is doing just that. ICE isn’t stopping with this creep. There are plenty of other aspiring Bin Ladens on the list. Playtime is over. If you overstay your visa, get out. If you run around singing and dancing and supporting terrorists, get out. If you jaywalk, get out. No slack, zero tolerance.

Every time some loudmouth alien radical gets deported, a patriot gets his wings.

Why the hell are we letting all these useless foreigners into America in the first place? Don’t we have enough morons here already? Are these foreigners doing the jobs American traitors just won’t do? From the fussing and moaning we heard when Khalil got taken into custody, you might be excused for thinking he is some sort of combination of Albert Schweitzer and Jonas Salk. But then when you get the real story about what this guy really wants – which, not to put too fine a point on it, is to start a revolution that ends with you and everybody you ever loved being raped and murdered – and you start looking at mere deportation as the squishy compromise position.

We keep hearing from our terrible elite that we are under some amorphous moral obligation to allow entry and residence to anyone who hates us. It’s unclear what the source of that moral obligation is, but it’s probably their deep-seated hatred of other Americans. And a lot of foreigners hate us, too. Just the other day, Secretary of State Marco Rubio – who’s been awesome – told the South African ambassador to get the hell out of our country. This Hamas-hugging jerk had been going around talking about how Trump is a white supremacist and blah blah blah blah blah. Rubio just wasn’t having it, and we don’t need to have it. This clown represents one of the world’s biggest armpits, and he’s lecturing us? Buh-bye.

There’s no reason for us to put up with this. We keep hearing about the “Ugly American,” but I spent a lot of time overseas watching other Americans, and we Yanks are the nicest people there are. We’re generally polite, we’re very generous, and we’re willing to pretend that the foreigners are our equals. Maybe we need to be Ugly Americans. We definitely need to be Americans who aren’t going to take crap from alien schmucks who want us enslaved or dead. If that makes me an ugly American, okay foreigner, call me “Rosie O’Donnell,” and get the hell out.

Here’s the thing about foreigners – they are almost all way worse people than most Americans. I know, I know, I’m supposed to pretend that it’s a small world and everybody is wonderful and that we should teach the world to sing and share a Coke, but that’s nonsense. I spent years of my life overseas helping to referee European internecine squabbles, and I am completely devoid of any illusion that most people who are not Americans are worth more than a bucket of warm spit. They’re barbarians, monsters, savages, and that’s just the Europeans.

Oh, the Europeans, with their haughty attitude and maggot-like ability to live off the corpse of their continent’s past greatness. I’m so tired of them and their constant complaining as if I need to be lectured by some frigid Belgian woman with a hairstyle like a drill sergeant and a bolt through her nose about how I am awful for not wanting to pour my country's money and blood into some Slavic slugfest. It’s not that I care what they think or say because I don’t. It’s just that they’re irritating, like a ringing in your ears or a Taylor Swift song. It’s the grating pretension of these fussy nobodies daring to lecture us when their track record for the last hundred years or so has been nothing but one mammoth failure after another.

Europe is basically just a museum now, with empty cathedrals, art from centuries ago, and decent croissants. What have they created in the last 50 years? I guess they’re pretty good with Legos and cars, but not much else. It’s an exhausted, decadent culture. Europeans are a broken people, bereft of manhood, the best of them have jumped on ships to come to America or died in the trenches during Europe’s endless wars. Those remaining are the detritus at the bottom of the table-wine barrel. They believe in nothing, they care about nothing but the Eurovision Song Contest, and they can’t even be bothered to mate sufficiently to maintain their population. Instead, they allow hordes of Third World barbarians to sweep over what used to be their borders, and then they cry because they can’t walk around at night anymore without getting stabbed or worse. If they were men, they would stand up and fix the situation. They’re neither standing up nor fixing the situation, so what does that tell you about their gender identity?

The thought that they are somehow going to revitalize NATO with their newly reborn warrior spirit is absolutely hilarious. Richard the Lion-Hearted has given way to Greta the Non-Binary. Germany has less than a division ready to fight. Canada’s once fearsome military now marches with the same exactitude and precision as drunken white people at a Connecticut wedding busting a move to “Baby Got Back.” And Great Britain, well, it’s just sad what happened to this formerly great imperial power. They barely have an army or an air force, and the once legendary Royal Navy has been cut so deeply that they’ve got no lash anymore; all they have left is rum and some sodomy.

Let’s face facts. We Americans are better than everybody else and by a long shot. The beauty of Donald Trump is that he acts like it. For too long, we Americans were polite to foreigners and acted as though we respected them. This gave them the false impression that they matter. They don't. They are not our equals, and almost none of them deserve our respect. Are there some that do? Oh, hell, yes. The Israelis are completely badass. I’ve worked with Brit, Ukrainian, and even French soldiers who impressed me. But sadly, that was a long time ago. Today, Europe is just a bunch of feminine men and childless, middle-aged leftist women running their nations into the ground. One might hope there will be a revolution, but I’m not sure the Europeans could be bothered with one. They would have to get off their sofas and turn off the telly.

But those foreigners are overseas, and those foreigners’ problems belong to those foreigners. Our problem with foreigners here is easy to solve, and the Trump administration is solving it. If you aliens are not going to do exactly what we want you to do exactly how we want you to do it, get the hell out. We’re done with you. We owe you nothing. It’s a privilege to be here. And if you look at us cross-eyed, you’re on a plane back to whatever cesspool you crawled out of.

As we say here in the US of A, there’s a new sheriff in town, and we are his posse. We’re not the ugly Americans. We’re the Based Americans.

X22, And we Know, and more- March 17 🍀

Ep 3597a - Elon Explains The Magic Money Computers, The End Of The Fed Is Near

Victor Davis Hanson - What Are the Left’s Solutions for the Problems They Created?

The U.S. faces mounting trade deficits, immigration crises, and endless foreign wars, while critics of Trump's policies offer no viable alternatives to Biden-era failures.

The Wall Street Journal has consistently criticized Trump’s economic policies, particularly his ongoing “trade war” with Canada, over the past several weeks. And certainly, the tensions are regrettable. Trump’s trolling of the insufferable Justin Trudeau, with talk of Canada becoming the “51st state,” perhaps only galvanized the Canadian left. It unfortunately may ensure that the only real hope for a Canadian return to normality, the election of Pierre Poilievre, may be lost.

That said, does the WSJ truly believe that the current $1.7 trillion budget deficit stacked on top of $36 trillion in national debt and an annual $1 trillion trade deficit are sustainable in any fashion? Do they believe any Republican president would have survived the midterms if he cut or “reformed” Social Security? If so, consult the fate of the recommendations of left-wing Barack Obama’s 2010 Simpson-Bowles commission (“The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform”).

DOGE, the effort to demand either symmetrical or no tariffs, closing the border, the rare minerals agreement, etc., are all controversial, even desperate efforts to stave off insolvency.

NAFTA was sold on the promise of trade equilibriums, eventually leading to no tariffs and rough parity. Yet Canada currently runs a $60 billion surplus largely because of its energy sales and selective tariffs on U.S. agriculture and some manufactured goods. That sum might be tolerable from a friend and not worth the acrimony, even with the present massive trade and budget deficits—if it had occurred in isolation.

But it did not. The Canadian surplus is force multiplied by its chronic refusal to spend a measly 2 percent of its GDP on defense. Canada could have easily offered a partnership with the U.S. to explore joint missile defense or shared Arctic Ocean naval patrols with a new fleet of Canadian and American icebreakers.

But it did nothing of the sort.

Worse still, no Canadian leader can offer any defense of their policies, such as: “We believe a $60 billion surplus with our free-trade American partner is justified, and we also believe we are further correct in not spending our promised 2 percent of GDP on defense.” Their veritable retort of “Trump is a monster” is no defense at all.

And there is wider context still. Mexico currently siphons off $63 billion in remittances from the U.S. economy, most of it from illegal aliens. Most of them enjoy some sort of subsidy from the American local, state, and federal governments.

Its trade surplus has ballooned to over $170 billion, largely because of opportunistic partnering with the Chinese to avoid US duties on imported Chinese-produced goods.

No one truly knows the full cost of an open border paid in American blood and treasure to Mexican cartels—70,000 lives and $20 billion annually?

Add up our northern and southern neighbors’ various surpluses and one could argue that $300 billion flows out of the U.S. to our so-called best friends and supposed partners in a so-called free-trade agreement supposedly designed to promote “free,” if not truly “fair,” trade.

Did any of the appeasements from the prior somnolent Biden administration—printing money, open borders, kindred socialist and green programs, USAID reckless generosity, and no concern over massive trade deficits—have any effect on either Canada or Mexico?

Or was Biden’s appeasement interpreted as weakness to be exploited rather than magnanimity to be reciprocated?

All Mexico has to do is promise to reduce its surpluses down to say $20-30 billion, patrol its side of the border, and bar the importation of raw fentanyl product from China. It could also stop its citizens from swarming the border and accept a 20 percent U.S. tax on remittances. But once reciprocity is lost, any attempt to restore balance is often mischaracterized as aggression, allowing the former victimizer to recast themselves as the blameless victim.

We are also currently watching massive demonstrations in New York to protest the ongoing deportation effort of Mahmoud Khalil. He is not a U.S. citizen, currently residing in the U.S. as a green card holder/former student visa resident alien.

He has led protests, often turning violent, at Columbia and in New York on behalf of radical Palestinian groups, including Hamas, which is designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.

Surely, he knew that, as a guest on American soil, he has no inalienable right to enter and remain in the U.S., especially if the State Department believes there is “a reasonable ground to believe that [his] presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”

It would be difficult to imagine a more anti-American group than Hamas, which currently holds several U.S. hostages and openly boasts of the mass murders it carried out on October 7, 2023. That awful date sparked mass protests from both Americans and Middle Eastern students in support of Hamas killers. The slaughter and, along with Israel’s response to it, ignited the worst epidemic of anti-Semitism in a hundred years, predominantly driven by American campuses and, in particular, tens of thousands of guest students from the Middle East.

When the ACLU and liberal congressional representatives protest and work on behalf of Khalil, what is their rationale? Are they at all worried that Hamas murdered American hostages and still holds several? Is it really in the U.S.’s best interest to welcome students from radical, anti-American countries, such as Syria, Iran, or Gaza, to American campuses, to see them champion anti-American terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and help fuel a climate of anti-Semitism and attacks on Jewish-Americans? Does the ACLU realize that our elite universities are fanning the worst anti-Semitic outbursts in memory? If black students were targeted in the same manner as Jews, would it remain similarly silent?

So, is this really what the left is fighting for? Why doesn’t the new Democratic Party and its street brigades simply be honest and say, “We support the efforts of radical Palestinian foreign students even when they openly champion Hamas and intimidate Jews, and so welcome their constructive presence and protests on American campuses”?

There are many problems with leftist-inspired immigration protests. The foremost is hypocrisy, usually couched in anti-Americanism. In places like Los Angeles, protestors burned the flags of the country they demanded to remain in while waving the flags of countries to which they seemingly refuse to return.

If America is such an intolerable place, why did 12 million knowingly break the law to enter it? The entire theme of today’s ethnic studies programs on U.S. campuses is a story of how awful America is, was, and will always be. And yet these are the very university loci that are the most strident about welcoming into the U.S. illegal aliens. Should they not be down at the border warning of the white toxicity that awaits any illegal migrant?

There is another sort of hypocrisy at work.

Left-wing elites in Washington, on campuses, in the media, and among the foundations and NGOs are rarely subject to the consequences of their own open-borders philosophies. It is one thing to virtue signal a world without borders that welcomes in millions of its impoverished, but quite another to help feed and house them when they show up in Martha’s Vineyard or Malibu rather than in the Rio Grande Valley, the San Joaquin Valley or the inner city.

The latter places do not traffic in cheap rhetoric but deal with swamped healthcare faculties, housing shortages, insolvent social service budgets, spiking crime, overcrowded schools, increased gang activity, and overtaxed infrastructure—issues one would expect with the sudden addition of 12 new San Franciscos in just four years under Biden.

Finally, regarding Ukraine, Trump is receiving a lot of criticism for the hot-cold treatment of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. He used both verbal and policy leverage in hopes of forcing Ukraine and Russia towards negotiations—a task that has historically proven to be impossible without U.S. coercion. One can easily criticize Trump for being overly naive about Vladimir Putin’s ultimate intentions or any strategic resolution of the war that only Trump seems to wish to end.

But again, what is the alternative to his efforts?

Is to keep feeding the ongoing current Stalingrad desolation where 1.5 million dead, wounded, and missing Ukrainians and Russians have fought for three years without any end in sight? Do we really want an endless war that has created a new alignment of anti-Western Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and, at times, a number of Middle Eastern, South American, and Asian opportunists?

What is the European alternative plan to Trump’s?

The old Biden notion “as long as it takes”—as if the Europeans may finally mobilize and send two million soldiers the way the U.S. did in 1917-18 to break up the deadlock of the World War I Western Front?

Do Ukrainians have a secret reserve of manpower to send another 10 divisions to the front?

A new wave of 5,000 drones to hit Moscow and do the sort of damage it is now suffering?

Non-U.S. NATO fighter aircraft number around 2,000. So, is it the plan of France and the UK to spearhead some 1,000 European jets and send them to Ukrainian bases, where they will fly ground support missions and conduct strategic attacks on Russian infrastructure to stop the stasis?

The answer is no.

There is no other plan but the current one of a 500-million-person proximate Europe screaming at the 335-million-person distant U.S. for not doing more to aid the now 30-million-person Ukraine fighting against the 145-million-person Russia.

Before one can fault the herky-jerky, art-of-the-deal Trump effort to find a stable peace and stop the slaughter, his critics must at least chart a plan for victory, explain the cost in lives and treasure, and outline exactly the eventual goals of reclaiming all the 2022 borders or the 2014 borders. Instead, we hear only ‘this won’t work,’ ‘that can’t work,’ ‘this is stupid,’ ‘that is naïve,’ but never a comprehensive defense of the EU/Biden/Zelenskyy policy or some enlightened replacement for it.

On matters of trade, immigration, and foreign policy, we are witnessing a counter-revolutionary effort to erase the madness of the Biden revolutionary years. Then unnamed and largely unknown radicals, under the veneer of a waxen effigy president, hijacked the country and imposed upon it the most radical and nihilist agenda in the past century.

The current correctives are not easy or pretty. But the alternative to the prior status quo was not the status quo at all, but a Jacobin nihilism that had led only to insolvency, civil strife, the destruction of the southern border, at least two theater-wide wars abroad, and the end of the U.S. as we once knew it.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/03/17/what-are-the-lefts-solutions-for-the-problems-they-created/

Pam Bondi Moves To Bury Jack Smith’s Mar-a-Lago Dossier on Trump

‘Under No Circumstances Should the Court Order the Release’

The Department of Justice calls the special counsel an ‘unconstitutionally appointed prosecutor’ as it aims to keep the volume out of the public eye.

The Department of Justice’s position against releasing Jack Smith’s final report on his Mar-a-Lago prosecution could mean that the dispatch on the secret documents never sees the light of day.

The DOJ on Friday joined President Trump’s two co-defendants in the case, his valet, Waltine Nauata, and a property manager, Carlos De Oliveira, in urging Judge Aileen Cannon to block the volume’s release. Mr. Smith’s report on his prosecution of Mr. Trump for January 6 has been published — and in it the special counsel contends that “but for” presidential immunity, he would have secured a conviction of the 47th president.

Now, the DOJ writes to Judge Cannon that “under no circumstances should the Court order the release of Volume II of Jack Smith’s confidential Final Report.” It was Attorney General Garland who hired Mr. Smith, and it is now Attorney General Bondi who argues that the “decision to release Volume II to outside the Department of Justice should rest with the sound discretion of the Attorney General of the United States.”

The special counsel regulations appear to grant that discretion to the attorney general, who may “determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest.” The DOJ explains that “it is the Attorney General’s prerogative to determine whether the release of Volume II ‘would be in the public interest.’” Judge Cannon initially reasoned that because the cases against Messrs. Nauta and Oliveira were outstanding on appeal after Mr. Trump’s was dropped, releasing the report would injure their due process rights.

Soon after Mr. Trump took the oath, though, he ordered the Department of Justice to drop the cases against his two employees. Now, they write to Judge Cannon that Ms. Bondi “has given no indication that she intends to release the Report, and that the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida does not intend to revive the charges brought by former alleged Special Counsel Jack Smith.”

Messrs. Nauta and De Oliveira observe, though, that the statute of limitations for the charges that were handed up against them has not yet run out. That means that even though the charges against them were dismissed “with prejudice,” related ones could conceivably be filed. They therefore ask Judge Cannon to extend her “supervision over this exceptionally complex case and continue to enjoin the release of the Report.”

Attorneys for both the DOJ and Messrs. Nauta and De Oliveira write that the two men “endured approximately a year-and-a-half of rampant pretrial publicity and vilification after their indictments were sought by an unconstitutionally appointed prosecutor with unconstitutionally limitless funding, who then went on to use the materials he collected in his unlawful investigation (at continued unconstitutional expense) to craft the Report.”

The determination that Mr. Smith’s appointment was unlawful was first made by Judge Cannon over the summer, when she ruled that his appointment by Mr. Garland was not authorized by statute and that he was unlawfully exercising the powers of a prosecutor. Mr. Smith was never confirmed by the Senate, and was prosecuting war crimes at the Hague when he was hired by Mr. Garland.

Judge Cannon also found that the monies spent by Mr. Smith’s office — more than $50 million all told — were unlawful because of the defect in Mr. Smith’s appointment. She also dismissed the charges, a ruling that was appealed to the 11th United States Appeals Circuit. Ms. Bondi dropped that appeal with respect to Messrs. Nauta and De Oliveira, ending the case.

Mr. Trump took the opportunity during his Friday address at the Grand Hall of the DOJ to reflect: “We had an amazing judge in Florida, and her name is Aileen Cannon.” He added that he thought her “decorum was amazing and that she was brilliant, she moved quickly. She was the absolute model of what a judge should be, and she was strong and tough.” He noted that critics “were hitting her so hard, public relations wise.”

https://www.nysun.com/article/under-no-circumstances-should-the-court-order-the-release-pam-bondi-moves-to-bury-jack-smiths-mar-a-lago-dossier-on-trump

Do We Have 677 Unelected Presidents?

posted by Clarice Feldman at American Thinker

There are almost 700 federal district court judges. I say “almost,” because while officially there are 677 of them, some retired judges have taken senior status and may sit from time to time on cases, so the figure is inexact on any given day. Since President Trump was sworn in for a second term, there has been an avalanche of cases seeking relief from executive actions. Last month alone, district court judges issued 15 temporary restraining orders. “That’s more nationwide injunctions than there were issued for the first three YEARS of the Biden Administration. District court judges are out of control.“

A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is designed to maintain the status quo after a claim is made that there is an emergency requiring the court to maintain the matter in a holding pattern -- usually for 10-14 days -- until a hearing on the issue can be held. A TRO can be granted ex parte, that is with only the plaintiff being present and without a hearing on the issue at all. The plaintiff must show the likelihood of success on the merits of the claim and that the harm to him outweighs any potential harm to the opposing party. To get one, the plaintiff has to show the likelihood of irreparable injury if the court fails to act. After a hearing, the court may issue a Preliminary Injunction (PI) directing some action or continuing the initial restraint until a full trial on the matter is held. To obtain a PI that lasts throughout the course of litigation, the plaintiff must meet a higher standard of proof. “A TRO requires the applicant to show a substantial likelihood of success and immediate harm, while a preliminary injunction involves a more rigorous evaluation of the merits, balance of equities, and public interest.”

There are 94 district courts and 12 federal courts of appeals, which hear and decide appeals from district courts. Generally, TROs are not appealable, but preliminary injunctions are. Some of the TROs issued against the administration read more like preliminary injunctions, and no matter how they are titled, if they do more than maintain the status quo for a short period, the appellate courts should step in and assert jurisdiction.

I agree with Bill Shipley: Most of these injunctions will not survive appeal.

I think SCOTUS is going to end up staying several of these, take up a small number, and then issue a small number of decisions that will force District Judges to reconsider and rethink their rulings. But they are unlikely to take a lot of these cases up individually to decide them on the merits. They will rely on district judges to change their decisions, and the Appeals Courts to smack down those who don't.

In fact, one just did.

Friday the Fourth Circuit smacked down a universal injunction. “On Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the much-covered nationwide injunction imposed by U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore regarding ending federal support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The three-judge panel ruled that Judge Abelson had gone “too far” in seeking to enjoin the federal government across the country.

The Fourth Circuit recognized that the executive orders “could raise concerns” about First Amendment rights that might have to be addressed down the road. However, it found Abelson’s “sweeping block went too far.” It also pointed out that the orders were not nearly as unlimited and sweeping as suggested by the district court or the media.”

The more urgent question is, what right does a district court (which handles the matters in a designated geographic area) have to issue a nationwide injunction, and that matter is now being raised to the Supreme Court by the Administration in a case challenging the President’s order on birthright citizenship which district court judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington have blocked nationwide.

According to Benjamin Weingarten:

The Trump Administration is taking the fight to end universal injunctions to the Supreme Court. "...[T]he government comes to this Court with a 'modest' request: while the parties litigate weighty merits questions, the Court should 'restrict the scope' of multiple preliminary injunctions that 'purpor[t] to cover every person * * * in the country,' limiting those injunctions to parties actually within the courts' power.... Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current Administration. Courts have graduated from universal preliminary injunctions to universal temporary restraining orders, from universal equitable relief to universal monetary remedies, and from governing the whole Nation to governing the whole world." ..."This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched."

Justice Neil Gorsuch has been critical of them and the Harvard Law Review notes how this practice politicizes the law.

Morley said a single judge's power to enter a nationwide injunction incentivizes "extreme forum shopping," in which plaintiffs strategically bring their case in a specific court before a judge who will be most favorable to their arguments.
"There are outlier judges on all sides," he said. "You can go to that outlier judge and are systematically having the most controversial, cutting-edge, hot-button constitutional issues being settled and resolved by the ideological outliers rather than a more representative cross section of the judiciary."
In fact, the examination of nationwide injunctions published in the Harvard Law Review found that 92% were entered by judges appointed by Democratic presidents during the Trump administration. For the Biden administration, that portion grew to 100% imposed by judges named to the federal bench by Republican presidents.
"If you see that kind of pattern, it cannot help but call the judiciary into disrepute," said Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan. "It doesn't look like they're applying the law in a clear way. It will erode the judiciary's legitimacy, no question about it."
Bagley, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about these injunctions in 2020, pointed to one key factor behind their rise: Politics.

It’s clear that the curtain must fall on the notion that hundreds of unelected district court judges of often outlying political beliefs and of various levels of judicial temperament and legal ability should be permitted to act as Chief Executive.

The Democrat Party: The Enemy Within?

posted by Amil Imani at American Thinker

The Democrat party is not simply irrelevant. Rather, it is America’s greatest adversary, driven by globalist priorities and divisive policies — a decaying shell scheming to undermine the nation that Donald Trump revived. From the Rio Grande to the Rust Belt, patriots see the truth: This is a radical mob set on tearing apart our borders, our jobs, and our freedoms. Republicans — especially in Texas, where the battle feels personal — must defeat this threat before it drags the whole country down. This is war — for America, not just Austin.

Once a cornerstone of American political life, the Democrat party has morphed into something unrecognizable — a force that now threatens the fabric of the nation. Historically a party of working-class advocacy and progressive reform, it has abandoned its roots in recent years to embrace a radical, anti-American agenda. This transformation demands scrutiny.

The Democrats once waved the blue-collar flag — FDR, JFK, all that jazz. Now? They’ve betrayed the working man. Newsweek nailed it post-2024: They lost the heartland — Pennsylvania, Michigan, and even Texas saw ranchers and oilmen switch to red. Why? Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) pushed her “Jobs for All” bill in January 2025, promising jobs but delivering billions to green-energy fat cats while rig workers in Odessa barely get by. Trump’s tariffs rebuilt steel towns; Democrats promote solar panels that nobody asked for. America First means jobs, not handouts.

The Democrats’ border policy hits hard, especially in Texas, where illegal crossings overwhelm towns like Del Rio. Since 2021, Biden’s administration has allowed in over 10 million, according to Politico, flooding the streets with drugs and crime. Kamala Harris, the laughable “border czar,” smirked on CNN in 2024, cooing, “We’re a nation of immigrants.” Tell that to the ranchers dodging cartel bullets. Now, in 2025, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is pushing through his “Pathway to Citizenship Act,” a February amnesty bill aimed at securing blue votes nationwide. Trump’s wall helps stop the bleeding; Democrats tear it wide open.

Foreign policy is in disarray under the Democrats. They’ve aligned themselves with the Islamic Republic of Iran since the 2015 nuclear deal; Trump terminated it because it funded terrorism. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) tweeted in 2023, “Sanctions are economic warfare,” advocating for leniency toward Tehran while it attacks Israel. In contrast, Trump’s Abraham Accords advanced peace through strength. In 2025, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt., essentially a Democrat) criticized Trump’s China tariffs in a March speech, calling them “regressive” while Beijing continues dismantling American factories. From Houston to Harrisburg, Democrats betray us to tyrants.

Democrats oppose law and order — end of story. San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin, regarded as a puppet of George Soros, released felons until voters pushed back in 2022. That’s their playbook: defund the police and embrace criminals. ABC News revealed GOP ads in 2024 criticizing blue cities for it — think Chicago, not just Dallas. Now Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) promotes her 2025 “Community Safety Act,” which cuts police budgets for “restorative justice” rhetoric — because feelings can prevent carjackings. Trump’s firm approach succeeds; Democrats encourage chaos.

The Democrats cater to globalists, not to Americans. Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act funneled $369 billion into climate initiatives, according to The Guardian, while Texas drillers and Ohio miners received nothing. In February 2025, House speaker Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) promoted the “Global Climate Partnership,” tying U.S. energy to U.N. authorities. Forget that — we’ve got oil in Midland. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) criticized Trump’s China tariffs in a March op-ed, lamenting that they “hurt consumers,” oblivious to the fact that they preserved jobs from Laredo to Lansing. It’s always elites over workers, every single time.

Democracy? They rig it!

Don’t fall for their “save democracy” tears. The Journal of Democracy reported that 20% of Democrats supported violence in 2021 — less than the GOP’s 30%, but still despicable. They cheered the riots of 2020. Harris tweeted support for bail funds — then cried when Trump defeated them in 2024. Now Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) proposes his Electoral College “reform” bill in 2025, a blatant power-grab aimed at eliminating red states like Texas. Trump won big; they can’t stand it.

The 2024 election proved one thing: Trump flipped Nevada, according to Newsweek, as voters nationwide turned away from Harris’s woke rhetoric. Pew Research reported Democrats at 31% approval in 2023 — lower than a snake’s belly. From Schumer’s amnesty to AOC’s disdain for law enforcement, their actions reflect contempt for America.

Texas feels the strain at the border, but this is a battle for every patriot — our kids, our flag, our future. Trump is draining the swamp again; Republicans must leave these traitors behind. No mercy, no retreat.

🎭 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.

Democrats Form A Circular Firing Squad And It’s Awesome

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall

When your enemies are destroying themselves, let them. There’s no point in firing on your enemy when your enemy is busy firing on themselves, and that’s what Democrats are doing. And it is glorious.

Circular firing squads used to be a staple on the right, which can happen when you’re dealing with a group of individuals who think for themselves. On the other hand, the collectivist Borg are not known for dissent. That’s why even a little bit of disagreement has them crumbling like a mud hut in an earthquake.

When New York Senator Chuck Schumer changed his mind and voted for the continuing resolution, averting a government shutdown, Democrats were broken. They were already a group held together by hate and ignorance, and that glue fell apart.

Nancy Pelosi, the lady who got richer than most towns in the country while engaging in “public service,” released a statement encouraging Democrat Senators to oppose their leader. She released a statement reading, in part, “Democratic senators should listen to the women. Appropriations leaders Rosa DeLauro and Patty Murray have eloquently presented the case that we must have a better choice: a four-week funding extension to keep government open and negotiate a bipartisan agreement. America has experienced a Trump shutdown before - but this damaging legislation only makes matters worse. Democrats must not buy into this false choice. We must fight back for a better way. Listen to the women, For The People.”

As far as “following the women” goes, the women in question are idiots, you should follow them to the mailbox, let alone off the cliff.

Think what you will of the people involved, I do love watching these people fight amongst themselves. It’s like watching a power struggle in a terrorist organization – it couldn’t happen to a nicer, more deserving group of people.

Democrat and former Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema had a laugh at the expense of her own party, many members of which spent a lot of time stabbing her in the back for refusing to kill the filibuster, by pointing out how many of her former colleagues who wanted to end the filibuster because it had “racist” roots, tried to use it to block the CR. “Who has made the sprdsht showing: - senators/candidates on record to eliminate the filibuster - same senators who voted to filibuster today - bonus points for add’l column listing April 7, 2017 signers of letter to @SenMcConnell saying preserve the filibuster,” she asked on X.

Well, it seems someone did. “Turns out, someone HAS made the spreadsheet. Bless this platform,” she replied to herself, adding the spreadsheet showing pretty much every Democrat was a complete fraud.

They truly are gross people, aren’t they?

The corporate media is beside itself – they hate seeing Democrats fighting the way kids hate watching their parents fight. They’re more used to what you might stumble upon at a 1970s “key party” than a disagreement.

Rachael Bade, who is somehow a “journalist” and a columnist (which, honestly, editorial standards should not allow since one is supposed to be unbiased and the other is, by its very nature, the opposite), posted, “The Trump administration must be loving this. Stocks are tanking because of tariffs… Polling suggests the public is turning on DOGE And yet… the biggest story in Washington right now is that Hakeem Jeffries is dodging questions about whether Chuck Schumer should be leader. ... Something I've never seen in my tenure covering Congress.” (As you can see, she desperately needs an editor.)

Stocks are tanking? They’re down, sure, but that’s what happens when you shut off the government spigot of inflationary spending and stop cooking the books as far as unemployment numbers go – the Biden administration’s policies of building a house of cards is as dead as Joe’s brain – but it is nothing new. Market corrections happen all the time. They’re only ever an issue among the corrupt, desperately trying to score political points in the short-term with people who have the attention span of a gnat.

I do so love watching Democrats fight with each other, like a horribly ugly Jell-O wrestling match – the participants are gross, but you watch hoping someone lands a serious, knock-out blow. When your enemy is bloodying themselves, get out of the way and enjoy the view.