Saturday, May 10, 2025

It's Time to Stop Counting Illegal Aliens in the Census


During his first term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the Census Bureau to add a question about citizenship status to the 2020 national survey.

There was good reason for this. The Census is used to count the population. Population numbers are then used to determine how many congressional seats are allocated to each state. Given illegal aliens aren’t citizens and ineligible to vote, they should not have representation in Congress and Democrats shouldn’t benefit from additional congressional seats based on an illegal population.

“If unauthorized immigrants were excluded from the apportionment count, California, Florida and Texas would each end up with one less congressional seat than they would have been awarded based on population change alone. California would lose two seats instead of one, Florida would gain one instead of two, and Texas would gain two instead of three, according to analysis based on projections of Census Bureau 2019 population estimates and the Center’s estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population,” Pew research details. “Alabama, Minnesota and Ohio would each hold onto a seat that they would have lost if apportionment were based only on total population change.”

“In addition to these states, 11 more would gain or lose seats based on population change alone, whether unauthorized immigrants are included or excluded. Five states would gain one seat each: Arizona, Colorado, Montana, North Carolina and Oregon. Six states would lose one seat each: Illinois, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia,” Pew continues. 

Democrats, whose congressional power is threatened by the citizenship question, sued in partnership with their leftist allies and the case made its way to the Supreme Court.

“The court's majority said the government has the right to ask a citizenship question, but that it needs to properly justify changing the long-standing practice of the Census Bureau,” NBC News reported at the time about the 5-4 decision. “The decision makes it difficult for the Commerce Department to justify the question and make it part of the census before the forms have to be printed in only a few weeks. But it leaves the door open for the government to try again, and some legal experts believe the government could succeed.”

The Trump administration complied with the ruling, but didn’t let it pass without pushback or explanation.

“Data on the number of citizens and aliens in the country is needed to help us understand the effects of immigration on our country and to inform policymakers considering basic decisions about immigration policy. The Census Bureau has long maintained that citizenship data is one of the statistics that is ‘essential for agencies and policymakers setting and evaluating immigration policies and laws,’’’ Trump said, disagreeing with the Court’s ruling.

“Today, an accurate understanding of the number of citizens and the number of aliens in the country is central to any effort to reevaluate immigration policy. The United States has not fundamentally restructured its immigration system since 1965. I have explained many times that our outdated immigration laws no longer meet contemporary needs,” he continued. “My Administration is committed to modernizing immigration laws and policies, but the effort to undertake any fundamental reevaluation of immigration policy is hampered when we do not have the most complete data about the number of citizens and non-citizens in the country.”

Now that Trump is back in the White House for a second term, it’s time to try again for the 2030 Census. That work is already underway and started on January 20, 2025. Counting illegal aliens to gain political power through congressional seats is a form of cheating and it must be stopped.



Red Pill News and Badlands Media- May 10

 



The Era of Great Pretending Looks Wobbly


Invoking George Orwell to describe the madness of our current age has become so common that doing so feels downright trite in 2025.  But the man understood the dangers lurking inside Western societies so well that Eric Blair’s pen name deserves to be at the tip of every thinking person’s tongue for quite some time!

War is peace.  Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is strength.  In the dystopia of Orwell’s 1984, these are the Uniparty’s official slogans — inscribed in giant letters on the towering white pyramid that houses the Ministry of Truth.  Could you devise better mottoes to encapsulate the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” or the basic tenets of the “New World Order” long pushed by the collection of Marxist globalists, warmongers, central bankers, bureaucratic authoritarians, pseudo-intellectuals, celebrity know-nothings, and assorted “elites” of our era?

Why must we fight the Russians for control of Ukraine?  Because only by killing hundreds of thousands of Europeans and risking a nuclear WWIII can we enjoy peace!  Why must central banks rig our markets and spy agencies read our emails?  Because only when we do everything that bankers, spies, and bureaucrats tell us can we be free!  Why must governments censor online speech and hunt down dangerous “disinformation”?  Because only when we are so ignorant that we believe everything the State says can we be strong!  Unapproved dissent leads to “extremism,” which is why every unsanctioned opinion is “malinformation” — or bad information!  Remember, citizens (and undocumented “citizens”), we’re all in this together!  So take your “thinking caps” off, plug into the State’s narco-drip of acceptable “narratives,” and let the Deep State lead you to salvation.   

I did it now!  I dared to question the caveman-like Uniparty mantra, “Ukraine = good; Russia = bad.”  That means Alan Stevens — who seems to have plenty of time to comment on articles that mention Ukraine but not enough time to fight on Ukraine’s frontlines — will invariably call me a “Russian propagandist.”  It couldn’t possibly be that I’ve seen enough of the world and digested enough of its history to use the organ between my ears to form my own opinions as to whether Americans should die over what is essentially a Ukrainian civil war involving local regions that have already voted to be a part of Russia.  Nope, the Uniparty told Alan that “war is peace” and that “Ukrainian dictatorship is democracy,” and he will surely tell me that my failure to believe the Uniparty’s favorite slogans only proves that I should schedule an emergency “re-education” lobotomy at the Ministry of Truth!

I think there’s enough propaganda going around these days for us all to keep open minds about the most pressing current events.  I’ve lived long enough to see friends become enemies and enemies become friends.  I’ve seen exposed government secrets totally upend consequential moments in history.  I’ve witnessed stories unfold in real time while government officials were busy spreading outrageous lies.  I’ve heard too many people screaming at the top of their lungs that something is unquestionably correct only to hear many of those same people later screaming at the top of their lungs that what they once regarded as laughably false is now demonstrably true.  

As a rule of thumb, whenever a government or similarly powerful institution says that something is true, it is best to assume the exact opposite until the facts of the matter are firmly hammered down.  “Conspiracy theories” frequently prove to be partially or wholly accurate in the long run.  People who dissent from popular “narratives” tend to be months — or even years — ahead of the corporate news talking heads when it comes to “breaking news.”  Because “conspiracy theorists” are often far ahead of the news cycle, some people rightly refer to them as “Fact Hoarders” (hat tip to Chuck L. for that beauty!).  Don’t be afraid to hoard facts.

Whenever political leaders reprimand citizens for doing their own thinking (Ignorance is strength!) and cheerlead for devastatingly costly and bloody wars (War is peace!), it is a particularly good time to question the dominant “narratives” running on loop in corporate newsrooms.  Questioning everything is a good first step toward liberating a mind.  Liberating minds is often the only way to prevent or conclude catastrophic wars.  No matter how much today’s Ministry of Truth objects, freedom of thought is not slavery!  Groupthink, on the other hand, is the mind’s most cumbersome ball and chain.

As Orwell warned humanity, the Deep State’s most effective weapon is language.  By manipulating the meaning of words, governments try to reverse-engineer our thoughts.  Here’s an example: Antifa.  By any measure of property damage and physical violence (including murder), Antifa is a major domestic terror group in the U.S. and across much of Europe.  Its members conspire to effect political change by threatening the safety of citizens.  Antifa cells commit arson, destroy public and private property, intimidate and harm civilians, and engage in all kinds of serious felonies that justify their designation as an international terrorist organization.  Instead, Western politicians, newsrooms, film studios, and even law enforcement agencies excuse Antifa violence and romanticize their criminal activities.

Joe Biden echoed claims from former FBI director Chris Wray when he routinely insisted that Antifa is “an idea, not an organization.”  But it wasn’t an “idea” that looted your store and set it ablaze; it was a terrorist organization.  It wasn’t an “idea” that dragged you out of your car and beat you on the side of the road; it was a member of a terrorist cell.  So how do prominent politicians in America, France, and Germany possibly excuse such blatant terrorist activity?  They simply point to its name and claim that Antifa can’t possibly be a domestic terrorist group because it’s anti-fascist.  

It’s absurd and not at all different than excusing a serial killer simply because he claims to be a humanitarian.  But that’s where we are right now.  Western governments are comfortable covering up the crimes of Antifa terrorists by pretending that they are peaceful.  In turn, violent Antifa terrorists operate as the unofficial street armies of Western governments.  They are the definition of an authoritarian government’s fascist shock troops but are protected by politicians who hide behind Antifa’s anti-fascist name.  This level of preposterous doublethink is now endemic throughout the West.

One of my favorite examples of these detestable government word games centers around NGOs.  For decades, Western governments have used NGOs as sources of supposedly independent research and objective analysis.  After all, they are non-governmental organizations, we are constantly told.  But, as the USAID scandal has made abundantly clear, many NGOs receive substantial funding from the government.  These government-funded non-governmental organizations are then expected to justify, echo, and magnify every important government policy.  

This has been going on for a long time.  A brilliant data analyst recently put together an excellent presentation detailing how George Soros helped build an army of NGOs over thirty years ago to recalibrate NATO’s mission after the collapse of the Soviet Union and channel Western resources toward the construction of a “New World Order.”  A very bright woman going by the handle “Insurrection Barbie” has detailed how Democrats have funneled trillions of dollars into NGOs meant to sabotage the Trump administration, fund domestic terror groups, and rig future elections.  Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission has paid NGOs billions of dollars to “smear political opponents and dissenting voices” and “lobby politicians for leftist causes.”  Emulating the much vaunted civic values of Western “democracies,” communist China has deployed an army of “pro-Beijing NGOs” to threaten critics.  

But rest assured: None of these NGOs works for the government!

How many times must governments lie before people understand that governments always lie?  The State is a falsehood factory, and it never changes its production line.  There is but one remedy: Question everything!



President Trump’s Bold Statement: Greenland as America’s Strategic Imperative


President Donald Trump has once again done the unthinkable: he spoke a strategic truth the establishment refuses to hear. Declaring that he “doesn’t rule out” military force to annex Greenland, the POTUS turned what others would whisper in Pentagon corridors into a national headline. Strip away the media outrage, and what remains is a coherent geopolitical instinct.

An Old American Impulse

U.S. interest over Greenland is not new. Secretary of State William Seward, fresh from buying Alaska in 1867, made overtures toward Greenland. He envisioned a broader American arc across the North, linking the Pacific to the Atlantic through a northern corridor of American influence. In the late 1860s, Seward initiated informal discussions about acquiring both Greenland and Iceland, seeing their value as coaling stations, naval outposts, and trade nodes essential for an emerging American maritime empire. His vision, often derided as “Seward’s Folly” in reference to the Alaska purchase, was actually part of a larger strategic blueprint—one that stretched the U.S. sphere of influence into the Arctic and beyond. Though Congress was not ready to endorse such a bold move at the time, the idea lingered in the corridors of American foreign policy. Seward’s failed attempts set the stage for an unfinished vision of Arctic control—one that would resurface in later years as geopolitical pressures grew, particularly as the world’s attention shifted toward the strategic value of the Arctic in the 20th century.

The Cold War Reappraisal

President Richard Nixon, during the Cold War’s deep freeze, instructed aides to explore purchase options for Greenland, seeing it as a critical outpost in the face of Soviet expansion. In 1946, under President Harry Truman but in a climate President Nixon would later inherit and amplify, the U.S. had already offered $100 million to Denmark for Greenland—an offer that set the precedent for future negotiations. Nixon’s administration revisited the strategic logic amid the Soviet naval buildup in the Arctic and the growing importance of early-warning systems and missile defense. Internal memos from the State Department and Pentagon from the late 1960s (Kissinger) and early 1970s (Schlesinger), now declassified, suggest political interest in securing permanent control over Greenland:  The discussions were framed by the escalating Cold War tensions, with Greenland seen as a linchpin for countering Soviet nuclear capabilities and ensuring U.S. strategic dominance in the North Atlantic. Today, the strategic implications have remained largely unchanged, with the added dimension of China’s growing influence in the Arctic complicating the geopolitical calculus.

Trump and the Pentagon’s Quiet Agreement

In 2019, President Trump’s first offer to purchase Greenland was met with Danish indignation and European mockery. However, beneath the headlines, Washington’s national security establishment quietly aligned with his strategic instincts. The U.S. Department of Defense had already signaled a shift in its Arctic posture. In 2019, the Pentagon released a new Arctic Strategy that emphasized increased competition with China and Russia, citing newly-opening maritime routes and focusing on enhancing military capabilities in the region.

This strategic pivot was further underscored by the establishment of the Office of Arctic and Global Resilience within the Department of Defense in 2022, highlighting the region’s growing importance to U.S. national security. Later, the Pentagon's 2024 Revised Arctic Strategy, released in July 2024, outlined steps to ensure the Arctic remains a secure and stable region, emphasizing the need for enhanced military presence and modernization of infrastructure.

Central to this strategy is Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), located in northwestern Greenland. The base serves as a critical node in the U.S. missile warning system and space surveillance network, providing early-warning radar capabilities and supporting space situational awareness. In recent years, the U.S. has invested in modernizing the base’s infrastructure and expanding its operational capabilities to counter emerging threats from adversaries in the Arctic region.

Thus, while President Trump’s public statements may have been controversial, they mirrored a broader, bipartisan consensus within the U.S. defense establishment regarding the strategic importance of Greenland and the Arctic.

Greenland’s Strategic Geography

Greenland is not just a snow-covered wasteland but a pivotal chess square in the new great game for the Arctic. It sits astride the GIUK gap—Greenland, Iceland, United Kingdom—a strategic maritime bottleneck vital to NATO. Pituffik is the U.S.’s northernmost installation. Built as Thule Air Base during World War II as part of a secret agreement with Denmark—then under German occupation—the base was later expanded dramatically during the early Cold War to track Soviet ICBMs and serve as a refueling stop for nuclear bombers. Pituffik hosts several advanced systems, such as the AN/FPS-132 Upgraded Early Warning Radar (UEWR), a solid-state phased-array radar system capable of detecting and tracking ballistic missiles and space debris over vast distances. It is part of the U.S. Space Force’s global missile warning network; and the Pituffik Tracking Station (Detachment 1), operated by the 23rd Space Operations Squadron, to track and command high-priority government satellites, making it the northernmost station in the U.S. Satellite Control Network.

The Importance of Greenland to U.S. Power

Beyond missile defense, Greenland offers the U.S. critical leverage over the increasingly navigable Arctic. As ice melts and new shipping lanes emerge, control over Greenland’s coastline allows Washington to project power across the Arctic Ocean, monitor traffic along the Northern Sea Route, and constrain Russian and Chinese naval activity. Its mineral wealth—rare earth elements, uranium, and strategic metals—is increasingly essential to U.S. efforts to diversify supply chains away from China. Greenland also enhances America’s geospatial advantage, offering basing options for hypersonic and ISR platforms in the High North and supporting U.S. space and satellite operations. In strategic terms, it is the unsinkable aircraft carrier of the Arctic.

Protectorate in All but Name

The U.S.-Denmark Defense Agreement of 1951 which formalized the American military presence, effectively transformed Greenland into a U.S. strategic asset under nominal Danish sovereignty. That is, Greenland has long functioned as a U.S. protectorate. Its external security is guaranteed by the United States, its most important economic and logistical partner. Danish sovereignty persists, but under strategic conditions largely defined in Washington.

Meanwhile, internal political currents on the island are shifting. In March 2025, the pro-business Demokraatit party won the largest share of seats in Greenland’s parliament, championing a platform of economic diversification and eventual independence. Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has indicated that a referendum on independence is under consideration—though no date has been announced. The movement builds on the 2008 self-rule referendum that expanded Greenland’s autonomy and recognized its people as a distinct nation under international law.

Strategic Logic vs. Respectability Politics

The Arctic contest is intensifying. China is already investing heavily in the Arctic periphery, from Russian gas fields to Icelandic infrastructure. Russia has reopened old Soviet bases and expanded its nuclear sub presence in northern waters. In this light, Greenland is no longer an icy outpost but an Arctic Gibraltar.

Trump’s tone may rile polite society, but his instincts are prescient. The Arctic is becoming the next theater of strategic competition, and Greenland is its front-row seat. Denmark may control it on paper, but the long arc of geopolitics favors powers willing to assert their interests.

The idea of annexation by force remains far-fetched, but the strategic logic behind asserting influence in Greenland is sound. Mock Trump all you like—but in the coming contest for the Arctic, it’s his map everyone will be using.



🎭 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. 


White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett Gives Updates on “Two Dozen” Trade Deals


White House NEC Director Kevin Hassett gives an update on the current status of trade negotiations around the world.  After finishing a CNBC interview (also linked below) Director Hassett noted that Asia was likely to be the next place for an announcement following the completion of the United Kingdom deal.

Hassett outlines that approximately “two dozen” bilateral free trade agreements are completed within the reciprocity framework, and the sequencing of announcements is up to President Trump.  Japan, South Korea and ASEAN nations would be candidates for the next deal as announced. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and USTR Jamieson Greer are currently in Switzerland and will be meeting with their Chinese counterparts to begin the first point of discussion. WATCH:



The press availability above comes immediately following a more extensive CNBC interview which is outlined below.

Director Hassett is always very professional and careful not to step on the toes of the primary trade negotiators: Secretary Lutnick, Secretary Bessent and USTR Jamieson Greer.

The U.K. deal helps to structure the parameters of expectation for all other trade agreements.  Second to China, India is perhaps the most complex and the sequencing plays a key part of the strategy.  Happy warrior Hassett also discusses the tax policy negotiations that are taking place between the White House, the House and Senate.

No tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on U.S. auto loans is all campaign promises that are priorities for President Trump.




Scott Jennings Squashes at Ana Navarro's Claim About Biden, Implies Something Big About to Drop on Dems


Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

As we reported, Joe Biden appeared on "The View" on Thursday, and it was a train wreck. 

Biden's speech was garbled, and he had incomprehensible moments. He also claimed that had he stayed in the race, he would have won (despite his obvious issues). 


Biden Struggles to Explain His Cognitive Decline Before Jill Comes to the Rescue


But that didn't stop host Ana Navarro from defending him on the show and then again during a panel discussion on CNN about the interview. 

As Rebecca Downs at our sister site Townhall reported, Scott Jennings nuked Biden's appearance and indicated something big was coming.

"I will just say watching [Biden] over the last few days reminded me that a whole bunch of people were telling us with a straight face that this man was capable of serving another four years as president," Jennings offered, while Navarro listened with a smug look on her face. "And that these appearances coupled with what I understand is going to be the equivalent of a nuclear bomb dropped on the Democratic Party when Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson's book come out next week, I don't know that the Democrats have fully internalized what's about to happen to them between what he looks like today and what they're about to report, get ready," he warned.

Even host Abby Phillip acknowledged that Biden might have "deficits" that he doesn't realize, which is "part of the problem." 

Of course, we reported day after day on Biden's issues while a lot of the liberal media weren't, and were, instead, covering it up. But if they want to put some truth out there, even now that will further expose what the Democrats were covering up, feel free and drop away. 

Navarro then got in a tussle with Jennings over the reported claim that Joe Biden told Kamala Harris there should be "no daylight" between them as she ran. Navarro claimed that couldn't be true because Joe Biden said it wasn't during his earlier interview on "The View." Jennings teased her, asking if she was questioning the reporting. Then she insisted that Biden doesn't "tell many lies," and that brought down the house. Even the usually collected Jennings laughed his head off at that one. There are few people who lie like they breathe, and one of them is Joe Biden. 

Jennings then flagged the people who reported the "no daylight" story who stood by their reporting. 
One reporter even noted "The View" called the reporting "deeply sourced." So, Navarro may fall for what Joe has to say, but I don't think too many other people are falling for it. And beyond that, however you slice it, Harris was a horrible candidate. That's why the Democrats lost. 


DNI Tulsi Gabbard Discusses Ongoing Internal Investigations into Intel Community Leaks to Media Allies


One of the least understood dynamics about how the DC silos operate, pertains to review and investigative work done by government officials into government misconduct.  In essence, special counsels, special investigators and appointed special prosecutors do not look at government activity if that activity can be framed as political.  The silos protect themselves from external review.

As a consequence, the only administrative review of government misconduct happens when the silos look internally at their own agency.  In this short video below Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard outlines that 11 internal investigations are ongoing to target Intelligence Community officials, staff and employees who are leaking classified information to the media.

After the internal review, the DNI then sends (criminal) referrals to Main Justice and the FBI if warranted.  Currently three criminal referrals have been sent to the FBI/DOJ as eleven investigations continue.  WATCH: 


TRANSCRIPT … […] “as I said, the politicization of our intelligence community needs to end—to even begin to start to earn the trust of the American people. The actions that we’ve taken—unfortunately—there continue to be significant leaks coming out of the intelligence community. Not only my organization, but the CIA and others—again, by those who are very directly trying to undermine the agenda and actions of President Trump. Once again, the President who was elected by the American people with an overwhelming mandate.

The way that we start to end this is by bringing about transparency and accountability. In these cases, we conducted our own internal investigation. In three cases, we referred them to the Department of Justice. As you know well, Matt, sometimes—or historically—we could refer things to the Department of Justice, and they would sit on a desk somewhere or get lost in the paper shuffle. And you end up having to wait and you wonder, Well, is anything ever going to happen?

Well, I can tell you, with the leadership we have there now, not only has there been action taken, but they have been actioned by the FBI and are going through immediately to investigate these cases with the intent of bringing about prosecution.

We have 11 other internal investigations ongoing now within ODNI, and we intend to continue to carry them out to completion—to hold those who are illegally leaking classified information, trying to undermine the President, politicizing intelligence—hold them accountable. Because this has got to end.”

DNI Tulsi Gabbard is following a frustratingly slow process.  However, if she is successful the DC apparatus will target her for removal.



John Roberts Is The Judicial Supremacist The Founders Warned Us About


If courts can ‘strike down’ the other branches’ actions, 
as Roberts claims, then that isn’t ‘co-equal.’ 
It’s judicial supremacism.



It’s a sad day in America when the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court ignores the basic framework of the Constitution he’s supposed to interpret.

That’s what happened on Wednesday, when Chief Justice John Roberts took it upon himself to subtly thumb his nose at President Trump and conservatives during a rare sit-down interview in his hometown of Buffalo, New York. In addition to rebuking calls to impeach activist lower court judges for overstepping the confines of the Constitution, the chief justice had this to say about the subject of “judicial independence”:

In our Constitution … the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president. That innovation doesn’t work if … the judiciary’s not independent. Its job is to, obviously, decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or of the executive. And that does require a degree of independence.

To quote Vice President J.D. Vance, does John Roberts hear himself?

The chief justice begins by claiming that the judiciary is a “co-equal” branch of government. Then, in the very next breath, he asserts that the courts can “strike down … acts of Congress or acts of the president.”

If the courts can unilaterally “strike down” actions by the legislative and executive it believes to be unlawful or finds unfavorable, as Roberts maintains, then that isn’t “co-equal.” It’s judicial supremacism.

What Roberts is conveying is his apparent belief that the Supreme Court and judicial branch writ large are wholly supreme to the other branches of government. That is, regardless of the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives, it is judges who have the final say on matters of law and public policy.

While courts play an important role in American society, this is the exact opposite of the system the Founding Fathers established in the Constitution. If anything, the judiciary was viewed by framers like Alexander Hamilton to be the weakest branch, as it lacked “influence over either the sword or the purse” and “must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”

The founders were not shy about sharing their fears of what would occur should the views of judicial supremacists like Roberts become reality.

According to The Heritage Foundation, Anti-Federalist Robert Yates “foresaw the possibility — and warned against the danger — of a Supreme Court with the vast discretion and outsize role often attributed to the Court by many contemporary Americans.” He “feared an expansive version of judicial review that would empower the Court not just to interpret the Constitution but to determine its meaning on the basis of the judges’ own opinions about the spirit of justice.”

“Yates further contended that the Supreme Court would not only be supreme over all other courts, but that it would, in fact, be the supreme power in the government to be created by the Constitution. This supremacy, Yates contended, would follow from the Court’s power of settling for all other political actors the authoritative meaning of the Constitution,” the Heritage report reads. “This authority would render the Supreme Court effectively superior to the other branches of the federal government.”

Thomas Jefferson was also among those to express concerns about the judicial branch amassing virtually unchecked power. In an 1819 letter to Virginia Judge Spencer Roane, the nation’s third president espoused fears that the Constitution would become “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” In other words, Jefferson worried that judges would become so emboldened that they would manipulate the Constitution and law to produce outcomes they find to be personally favorable.

Unfortunately, the founders’ fears have been realized in the form of John Roberts.

During his roughly 20 years as chief justice, Roberts has regularly abandoned all sense of proper jurisprudence. Opting to instead play dress-up as a politician, the Bush appointee’s rulings on high-profile cases often depend on which way the current political winds are blowing rather than what the Constitution and law call for.

The chief justice’s latest remarks are a further indication that he has no intention of stopping the judicial coup taking place in the lower courts or restraining the overreaching power of the Supreme Court. Instead, he will likely continue to advance the notion of judicial supremacy, leaving America’s constitutional order and its people to suffer in the process.




JD Vance Demolishes Biden Gripes About Ukraine With Perfect Policy Response


Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

During the interview that Joe Biden did with the BBC, he attacked President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance over the meeting they had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the White House in February, saying that it was "beneath America" the way the meeting was conducted. 

On Thursday, Fox's Martha MacCallum asked Vance during an interview about Biden's remark and what he would say in response. Vance's reply was textbook. 

"Well, I think it's rich for Joe Biden to comment on anything that we're doing when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, because of couese under Biden's administration, Russia launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine," Vance retorted.  

"And, if we wanted to take advice from anybody on foreign policy, especially foreign policy, especially foreign policy in Europe, it would not be Joe Biden. [....]

I don't really care what he has to say about American foreign policy because so much of what he actually did was a total disaster. If we just did the opposite of what Joe Biden did, I think we'd have one of the most successful foreign policy administrations in a very long time. So he can spend his time on the beach or doing whatever Joe Biden does. We'll continue trying to fix the problems that he created."

What a perfect enumeration of a good foreign policy approach: do the opposite of what Biden did. We saw "inverse Cramer," doing the opposite of everything CNBC host Jim Cramer recommends doing with the market. As even Barack Obama's Secretary of Defense Robert Gates observed, when it came to foreign policy, Biden had been wrong for40 years. So "Inverse Biden" sounds like a great idea. Why would anyone listen to anything Biden has to say, given his record? 

To be fair, what relevance does Biden have on anything, since his time in the Oval Office was such a failure? At least he was consistent--consistently awful. 

Russia invaded Ukraine after watching the mess Joe Biden made of the Afghanistan withdrawal. Biden also infamously suggested that he wouldn't have much of a response to a "minor incursion." No wonder Russia invaded, they saw the glaring weakness. It's one of the reasons the Democrats lost in 2024, Biden's numbers took a nose dive after the botched Afghanistan withdrawal; they never recovered because the American people saw what a failure things were. 

Meanwhile, Trump and Vance have been working hard to end the war, something Biden didn't seem very concentrated on doing. He seemed content just to pour out our money to Ukraine and have it go on forever, with people continuing to be killed.