Friday, May 16, 2025

The Real first 100 Days ~ VDH


Pundits are confused about what to make of the first 100 days of the second Trump administration.

Supporters talk of "flooding the zone," believing President Donald Trump is making so many changes so quickly that his opposition is reduced to deer-in-the-headlights infancy.

They must be right when the nation suffers daily Democratic pottymouth videos, vandalism of Teslas, infantile meltdowns at congressional witnesses, rioting against federal agents to protect illegal alien felons, protesting on behalf of women beaters, M-13 gangbangers, human traffickers, and assaulters, and visa-holding violent students praising Hamas terrorists.

In contrast, opponents either claim that Trump's first three months are either directionless chaos or a Hitlerian nightmare or both.

But what is really happening?

One, Trump is finally addressing the problems that proverbially "cannot go on forever, and so they won't go on."

When, if ever, would the left have closed the southern border? After 10, 30, 50 million illegal aliens?

How many more criminal illegal entrants was the Biden administration willing to allow into American neighborhoods -- 500,000? 1 million? 3 million?

How long was the world simply going to ignore the human destruction on the doorstep of Europe?

Would former President Joe Biden or former Vice President Kamala Harris have sought a ceasefire? Or would it have taken another 1.5, 3, or even 5 million more dead, wounded, and missing Ukrainians and Russians?

Nor did past administrations ever seek a solution to the massive national debt, much less the uncontrollable budget and trade deficits.

All prior presidents passed the day of judgment on to some vague future presidency, assured that their money printing would at least not blow up on their watch.

All moaned that China was piling up huge trade surpluses while denying its own population the usual modern safety net. They knew Beijing's aim was to use the trillions of dollars in trade surpluses to build a new massive military, a greater arsenal of nuclear bombs, and a new imperial Belt and Road overseas empire.

Yet no administration did anything but greenlight American outsourcing and offshoring while ignoring Chinese trade cheating and technology theft.

Indeed, prior presidencies appeased and enriched China on the foolish belief that such indulgence would lead to Chinese prosperity, and with such Western-style affluence, soon a globalized, democratic, and supposedly friendly China.

In sum, we just witnessed all at once a 100-day, 360-degree effort to address all the existential challenges that we knew were unsustainable but were either afraid or incompetent to address.

Second, the administration apparently wants to confront the source of these crises and believes it is the progressive project.

The left maintains real political power not by grass-roots popularity, but rather by unelected institutional clout. The party of democracy uses anti-democratic means to achieve its ends of perpetual control.

It wages lawfare through the weaponization of the state, local, and federal courts.

It exercises executive power through cherry-picked federal district and circuit judges and their state and local counterparts.

The permanent bureaucracies and huge federal workforce are mostly left-wing, unionized, and weaponized by a progressive apparat. Their supreme directive is to amalgamate legislative, judicial, and executive power into the hands of the unelected Anthony Faucis, Jim Comeys, and Lois Lerners of the world -- and thus to override or ignore both popular plebiscites and the work of the elected Congress.

Over 90 percent of the media -- legacy, network, social, and state -- are left-wing. Their mission is not objectivity but, admittedly, indoctrination.

Academia is the font of the progressive project. Ninety percent of the professoriate are left-wing and activist -- explaining why campuses believe they are above the rules and laws of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the U.S. Congress.

Add into the mix the blue-chip Accela corridor law firms and the globalized corporate and revolving-door political elite.

The net result is clear: Almost everything the vast majority of Americans and their elected representatives did not want -- far-left higher education, a Pravda media, biological men destroying women's sports, an open border, 30 million illegal aliens, massive debt, a weaponized legal system, and a politicized Pentagon -- became the new culture of America.

So, Trump is not just confronting unaddressed existential crises but also the root causes of why, when, and how they become inevitable and nearly unsolvable.

His answer is a messy, knock-down-drag-out counterrevolution to reboot the country back to the middle where it once was and where the Founders believed it should remain.

His right and left opponents call such pushback chaotic, disruptive, and out of control.

But the counterrevolution appears disorderly and upsetting, mostly to those who originally birthed the chaos; it certainly does not to the majority of Americans who finally wanted an end to the madness.



at

And we Know, On the Fringe, and more- May 16

 



at

The Great Simmering in the West


People all over the world are worried about the future. While regional wars continue to fester, the prospect of global war weighs heavily on many.  However, likely belligerents are not all foreign aggressors. Nearly a century of globalization has erected a web of clunky international institutions that wield tremendous power while disregarding sovereign borders. Concomitantly, mass immigration has transformed once-homogenous national populations into stews of many competing cultures and religions.  Battle lines forming inside nations are  than those forming among them.

Self-described “futurists” such as Bill Gates and  believe that artificial intelligence will soon replace most humans in the workforce and that a small cadre of global “elites” must centrally manage humanity’s transition to general “uselessness.”  With A.I. entities independently running machines and becoming exponentially smarter and more competent in their tasks,  will transition from human to synthetic labor until all industry surrenders to A.I.  

As emerging robotics programs have , no profession will be immune to the next generations of A.I.-equipped machines.  Robots will pick the fields, , and perform complex medical surgeries.  A.I. can already write legal briefs that pass muster and screenplays that are at least as interesting as anything Hollywood produces these days.  Engineers, architects, and chemists are competing against machines that can process a thousand lifetimes of computations before their human counterparts finish morning coffee.

Men such as Gates and Harari see this future galloping toward us and view its implications as self-evident.  As human producers are replaced, human “value” will dwindle.  No longer sustaining even a fraction of their cost through their own labor, human beings will become extraneous to the creation of wealth and permanent drains on the global State.  

The task of the global State, in turn, will be to construct a system capable of selecting a small number of “elites” to oversee the system from one generation to the next, while maintaining control over a rump of “useless eaters” permitted to live in State-designed shelters and survive on State-allocated rations.  For those parts of the population not chosen to live as wards of the State, life will be hard.  War, famine, and disease will make survival difficult.  Those struggles, combined with global programs discouraging childbirth and exacerbating infertility, will induce a Malthusian “solution,” in which much of the world simply dies off.

This is a dark vision.  No matter how much globalist “elites” paint this future as “progress,” it is nothing less than a carefully planned planetary genocide.  As with all terrible genocides, it targets not just the human body, but also the human mind and soul.  It means to wear down the “useless eaters” until they hate themselves and pity their tormentors for having to put up with them.  

Have you read about any of the  involving vulnerable individuals who have been encouraged to commit suicide by taking advantage of Canada’s legalized “Medical Assistance in Dying”?  Often patients’ only ailments are loneliness and depression.  Before they die, many apologize for being burdens on society.  The Canadian government has the gall to applaud victims for their selflessness!  Eighty years after the Nazis summarily executed the physically and mentally disabled for being “drains” on the State, the Canadian government lacks the requisite historical literacy to feel shame!

Yet the Canadian government is hardly alone in embracing policies that deny the innate value of human life.  All Western nations have been busy cultivating a culture of death.  Abortion, once considered the unlawful taking of a life and morally condemnable, is celebrated as some kind of twisted civil right that empowers the strong to kill the weak.  Transgenderism, a mental illness that indulges self-hatred, has mutated from a rare psychological condition into a euphoric movement with fashionable promoters intent on silencing worried parents, hypnotizing medical professionals, and grooming children toward a depressing future involving castration and bodily mutilation.  Young people — particularly women — are encouraged to forgo families and concentrate on professional careers.  

Marriage is demeaned as a “patriarchal” and “homophobic” institution of the past.  Monogamy is ridiculed as unnatural, while promiscuity is encouraged.  Having children is criticized as a “selfish” act that will only exacerbate man-made (i.e., fake) “climate change.”  Central bank–engineered inflation has made the cost of rearing a child so exorbitant that even healthy married couples often put off parenthood until it’s too late.

Under the mutually reinforcing guises of protecting civil rights, advancing feminism, protecting the environment, and dismantling forms of oppression, the West has ushered in a disorienting era in which biological reality, marriage, motherhood, parenthood, and the family unit are under sustained attack.

The devastating results of such policies were entirely predictable.  Birth rates have plummeted.  The Sexual Revolution fundamentally reoriented Western culture away from values that promote and cherish life.  Government welfare programs are now insolvent and headed toward total financial ruin because the youngest generations are too small to support the oldest.  If planetary depopulation was the goal, post-WWII Western globalists mostly succeeded in crippling their own nations.

A century-long experiment that has undermined family values and extolled a hedonistic culture of death has made Western nations much weaker today.  Rather than admit failure, the same Western globalists have chosen to flood their nations with millions of foreigners to make up for crushing population loss.  In order to “fix” one colossal mess of their own making, they have simply created another.

Even so-called “conservatives” have spent the last several decades ignoring immigration laws and defending the resettlement of tens of millions of foreigners.  A number of years back, George Will caught my attention during a segment on Fox News when he scolded Americans who are fed up with illegal immigration by warning them that their Social Security retirement checks would dry up unless the government aided and abetted criminal aliens on a massive scale. 

The moral vacuity of Will’s argument was astonishing.  Since the days of FDR’s dramatic expansion of the welfare state, freedom-minded Americans have long resisted government entitlement programs that tax personal income and redistribute those taxes to other citizens.  Such programs have pushed America toward a form of soft socialism and prevented workers from keeping their own hard earned money to spend or invest as they see fit.  Decades of higher taxes have left most Americans dependent on some form of government welfare.  

Will effectively told conservatives that if they ever wanted to see a dime from all the earned income confiscated in the form of entitlement taxes over their lifetimes, their only answer is to welcome illegal aliens with open arms.  In other words, to save socialism, we must destroy America with open borders!  No wonder freedom-minded Americans no longer listen to George Will. 

For much of the last century, this noxious brand of Establishment “conservatism” has infected Western politics.  Whatever monstrosity the political left constructs today, “ruling class conservatives” work breathlessly to conserve tomorrow.  The West’s collapse has been a bipartisan effort.  That’s why lowly citizens in America, Britain, Holland, France, Germany, Austria, Poland, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere no longer see competing political parties.  They recognize one Establishment Uniparty working against them.

That’s bad news for Western “elites.”  They have built a miserable world in which pornography, social media voyeurism, and online “likes” have replaced individual purpose, real relationships, and growing families.  National pride and cultural traditions have given way to open borders and contradictory multiculturalism.  Despite decades of technological abundance, the future still looks bleak and dangerous.  “Art” is all the same because “artists” and “intellectuals” have been conditioned to think and say the same things.

In this great simmering throughout the West, most citizens have no interest in fighting foreign wars.  Their bubbling anger faces one direction: toward domineering, destructive, and unrepentant “elites.”



at

End the 'Nationwide' Injunction Racket Once and for All


On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Trump v. CASA, Inc. Though the case arises out of President Donald Trump's January executive order on birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment, Thursday's oral argument had very little to do with the hotly contested substantive issue of whether the children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil must automatically be conferred American citizenship. Instead, the argument mostly focused on a procedural legal issue that is just as important as the underlying substantive issue itself: whether lower-court federal judges possess the legitimate power to issue 'nationwide' injunctions to bring laws or executive orders to a halt throughout the entire republic.

There is a very straightforward answer to this question: No, they don't. And it is imperative for American constitutionalism and republican self-governance that the justices clearly affirm that.

Let's start with the text. Article III of the Constitution establishes the "judicial Power" of the United States, which the University of Chicago Law School professor William Baude argued in a 2008 law review article is "the power to issue binding judgments and to settle legal disputes within the court's jurisdiction." If the federal courts can bind certain parties, the crucial question is thus: Who? In other words, what is the legitimate "jurisdiction" of who is strictly bound by a federal court issuing an injunction?

In our system of governance, it is only the named parties to a given lawsuit that can truly be bound by court's judgment. As the brilliant then-Stanford Law School professor Jonathan Mitchell put it in an influential 2018 law review article, an "injunction is nothing more than a judicially imposed non-enforcement policy" that "forbids the named defendants to enforce the statute" -- or executive order -- "while the court's order remains in place." Fundamentally, as Samuel L. Bray observed in another significant 2017 law review article, a federal court's injunction only binds "the defendant's conduct ... with respect to the plaintiff." If other courts in other districts face a similar case, those judges might consider their peers' decision and follow it, but they are not strictly required to do so. (For truly nationwide legal issues, the proper recourse is filing a class-action lawsuit, as authorized by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.)

One does not need to be a legal scholar to understand this commonsense point.

Americans are a self-governing people; it is We the People, according to the Constitution's Preamble, who are sovereign in the United States. And while the judiciary serves as an important check on congressional or executive overreach in specific "Cases" or "Controversies" that come before it (as Article III puts it), there is no broader ability to decide the "law of the land" by "striking down" a law or order for all of the American people.

As Abraham Lincoln warned in his first inaugural address: "The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by" the judiciary, "the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."

Simply put, the patriots of 1776 did not rebel against the tyranny of King George III only to subject themselves, many generations later, to the black-robed tyranny of today. They fought for the ability to live freely and self-govern, and to thereby control their own fates and destinies. Judicial supremacy and the concomitant misguided practice of "nationwide" injunctions necessarily deprive a free people of the ability to do exactly that.

It is true that Chief Justice John Marshall's landmark 1803 ruling in Marbury v. Madison established that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." But it is also true, as Marshall noted in the less frequently quoted sentence directly following that assertion: "Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule." Note the all-important qualifier of "apply the rule to particular cases." Marbury is often erroneously invoked to support judicial supremacy, but the modest case- and litigant-specific judicial review that Marshall established has nothing to do with the modern judicial supremacy and "nationwide" injunctions that proliferate today. It is that fallacious conception of judicial supremacy that was argued Thursday at the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts, one of the swing votes in CASA, is not always known for judicial modesty. On the contrary, in clumsily attempting to defend his institution's integrity, he has at times indulged in unvarnished judicial supremacist rhetoric and presided over an unjustifiable arrogation of power to what Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, referred to as the "least dangerous" of the three branches.

Suppose Roberts and his fellow centrist justices -- namely, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett -- have any sense of prudence. In that case, they must join their more stalwart originalist colleagues in holding that "nationwide" injunctions offend the very core of our constitutional order. Such a ruling would not merely be a win for Trump -- it would be a win for the Constitution and for self-governance itself.



at

America, the Juristocracy


The list is growing of judges who moonlight as the president of the United States.  These “judges” have reversed executive orders, prevented the firing of federal employees, and even ordered deported gang members returned to the United States.

No one should be surprised at this judicial insurgency.  For decades, Democrats have “judge-shopped” to get their cases before “friendly” judges.  The openly corrupt part of this tactic is having “friendly” not impartial judges.  But the crazy stuff eventually got overturned, and the system worked.  So how did we get to this place where the system no longer works?

Well, for anyone who didn’t notice, there was a silent coup in 2020.  A pandemic and the resulting tsunami of mail-in ballots were used to illegally remove a sitting president.

So President Trump was out, and the Biden regime was in.  But unlike Brazil, where courts banned President Bolsonaro from running for office in upcoming elections, the Biden regime lacked the legal muscle to keep Trump from running in 2024.  This is why Biden stacked the courts with his judges during his occupation.  As Chuck Schumer bragged, Biden confirmed 235 judges.  And, he added, “they are ruling against Trump, time after time after time.”

Maybe, maybe not.  The Democrats did add 235 judges, but if any of them was commissioned with an autopen, then probably not so much.

Legitimate or not, these judges are indeed ruling against the president “time after time after time.”  And it’s not just district judges.  SCOTUS joined the insurgency with its recent decision to block President Trump’s deportations.

In his dissent, Justice Alito slammed the majority, saying they lacked jurisdiction “given that the case is still being litigated in lower courts.”  The Court “acted literally in the middle of the night, without full information or proper process, based solely on applicants’ submission with no response from government.”

Translation: SCOTUS issued this decision not based on jurisdiction, evidence, or process to sanction the Judiciary overriding the Executive Branch, though clearly unconstitutional.

“Each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action.”

—Thomas Jefferson

So how are courts repeatedly ruling against the Constitution?  Enter “judicial review”: “the power of the courts of a country to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of the government and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the constitution.”

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the U.S. Supreme Court declared an act of Congress unconstitutional.  This ruling served as “precedent” for future courts to override the Legislative and Executive Branches.

This is the exact outcome James Madison warned against.

“As the courts are generally the last in making the decision, it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character. This makes the Judiciary department paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended, and can never be proper.” 

—James Madison 

The check on the Judiciary is the Constitution, but as Marbury demonstrated, the court can rule on a power not explicitly stated in the Constitution.  And even an extraconstitutional ruling will not only survive as precedent, but will become accepted law.

So is precedent absolute?  If the Supreme Court rules that free speech can be limited, is censorship then “accepted law”?  If they rule that there are restrictions on gun ownership, is gun control then “settled law”?

But if we’re going to defer to precedents as rule, then President Trump can just ignore these court orders using presidential precedent.

President Biden openly defied the Supreme Court’s ruling on student loan forgiveness.  He even bragged that SCOTUS didn’t stop him.  This defiance of the High Court was without consequence — no contempt of court charges, no constitutional crisis, nada.  Yet the media, the Deep State, and lawyers now band together to say President Trump cannot ignore the court.

From an article stressing the president’s inability to defy the court:

Open defiance of the judiciary by a President would violate the fundamental concept that no branch can unilaterally override another’s constitutional role.

Even when defending judicial tyranny, these people trip over the Constitution.  If no branch can “unilaterally override another’s constitutional role,” then the Judiciary cannot override Executive actions, full stop.

These rogue judges, including SCOTUS, are a shot across the bow of our constitutional republic.  The Constitution of the United States is the one true test to establish law — not extraconstitutional court interpretations, but actual written text and probable meaning.

Meanwhile, as Congress endlessly mulls impeachment of these rogue judges, members should ask themselves if they ultimately have the power to impeach judges.  If impeachments are challenged and courts overrule Congress’s action (again), what will be their recourse?  And if they’re subordinate to courts on this issue, what other powers will Congress have conceded?

“Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. However, where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny.”

—Patrick Henry

Since “judicial tyranny” is already underway, maybe Congress could take some time off from vacation and actually impeach some of these judges.  Maybe members could look into defunding some of these corrupt courts.  Maybe they could do something, anything before it’s too late and our beloved Republic becomes a juristocracy, before liberty is subject to a court order.

“But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

—John Adams



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

WSJ Pretends Trump, Not Biden, Wrecked ‘Sober-Minded’ Pardon Process


What the WSJ wrote as an alleged concern actually suggests a startling admission.



The Wall Street Journal published an article on Wednesday complaining that President Donald Trump has “turned the pardon process into the Wild West” without hardly addressing the unprecedented pardon rampage that dominated President Joe Biden’s White House tenure.

“What had long been a sober legal proceeding done by career officials in the Justice Department increasingly resides in the White House and depends on the whims of a president who is receptive to arguments of political persecution,” the article states.

“Sober-minded” is not a fair or accurate description of the recent get out of jail free frenzy led by an obviously mentally declining president who issued the largest number of pardons (some allege using an autopen). to date.

Biden’s rushed end-of-term pardons included unprecedented preemptive forgiveness for family members such as his brother James Biden and reckless bureaucrats such as Mark Milley and Anthony Fauci, essentially confirming their guilt. More notably, the Democrat exculpated his son of several tax evasion and federal gun convictions mere weeks before his scheduled sentencing, even though he repeatedly insisted his offspring would not get a free pass for his alleged crimes.

Biden also quietly commuted the sentences of Chinese spies, including one who was convicted after “police found more than 47,000 images and videos of child pornography in his computer.”

The authors, all WSJ reporters, devoted just one of their more than three dozen paragraphs to acknowledge that “Biden also skirted the pardon system.” They immediately followed that small admission with a paragraph criticizing Trump for issuing “more pardons than any of his predecessors at this stage of a presidential term.”

The placement of that factoid was deliberately designed to redirect negative attention away from Biden’s elbow-rubbing pardon frenzy back to Trump. Even after one term and counting, however, Trump issued only a fraction of the 8,064 pardons Biden initiated over his four years in office.

Would the Founding Fathers, who warned that “the benign prerogative for pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed,” be happy about the significant increase in presidential pardons since George Washington’s days? Probably not. They would, however, likely understand Trump’s attempt to rectify the nation-destroying harms Democrat-led lawfare wreaked on Americans during Biden’s term through the lens of Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 74.

The quality of the pardons granted by Trump versus those granted by Biden, however, is also wholly ignored by the authors. In fact, Trump’s sympathy towards “defendants he believes have been wrongly prosecuted” such as pro-lifers and J6ers was lamented by the WSJ writers as just another way convicted criminals “use lobbyists, personal connections to president” to obtain clemency.

“Traditionally, the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney has played a key role in the clemency process,” the article continued. “The office was sidelined after Trump took office, according to Liz Oyer, who had been the pardon attorney until she was fired in March.”

What the WSJ wrote as an alleged concern actually suggests a startling admission. If the DOJ, which few U.S. adults say they have confidence in, truly “played a key role in the clemency process” during the Biden administration by aiding and abetting the president’s attempt to wash away his family’s alleged sins, then it is corrupt and deserves to be circumvented — if not dismantled.



at

FBI Director Confirms Foiled ISIS Attack on U.S. Soil

Katie Pavlich reporting for Townhall 

FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed Thursday that an ISIS plot to murder Americans in Michigan was foiled. 

"I can now confirm reports that our FBI teams and partners foiled an attempted ISIS attack on one of our U.S. military bases in Warren, Michigan," Patel announced on X. "The individual, Ammar Abdulmajid-Mohamed Said, plotted a mass shooting at the U.S. Army’s Tank-Automotive & Armaments Command (TACOM) facility before multiple undercover law enforcement officers obtained information of his plans."

"Said was arrested this week and will now face charges of supporting a foreign terrorist organization, among others," he continued. "Our agents, intelligence teams, and partners acted quickly — and they saved lives. Well done to all on executing the mission."

According to the Department of Justice, Said was a former member of the Michigan National Guard. 

“This defendant is charged with planning a deadly attack on a U.S. military base here at home for ISIS,” DOJ National Security Division Director Sue Bai added in a statement. “Thanks to the tireless efforts of law enforcement, we foiled the attack before lives were lost. We will not hesitate to bring the full force of the Department to find and prosecute those who seek to harm our men and women in the military and to protect all Americans.”

During his first term in office, President Donald Trump eradicated the ISIS caliphate in the Middle East but instances of the ideology and radicalization remains inside the U.S. and all over the world. 



at

DOJ Embeds Fight Back – Ethics Complaints Filed Against Outgoing DC U.S. Attorney Ed Martin


If you listened to Ed Martin naming the people within the lawfare community of DC operatives who are actively working to weaponize the legal system to block and attack reform efforts within the DOJ, then you likely understand the origin of these latest maneuvers.

Outgoing USAO Ed Martin, and current head of the DOJ ‘weaponization working group’ has revealed that Lawfare operators have filed ethics complaints in an effort to challenge his legal license.   This is what happens when the U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi, doesn’t face down the internal lawfare operation within Main Justice severely enough.

(VIA REUTERS) – The lawyer President Donald Trump tapped to serve as Washington, D.C.’s top prosecutor and then dropped in the face of Senate opposition, said on Wednesday he is facing a professional ethics investigation, according to a letter seen by Reuters.

Interim Washington U.S. Attorney Ed Martin said in the letter sent to his staff on his last day on the job that he is under investigation by the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The office is in charge of investigating and bringing misconduct proceedings against attorneys in the district.

Martin alleged that Hamilton “Phil” Fox, the attorney investigating his conduct, had breached the confidentiality of the investigation by sharing a copy of the complaint with the department’s Civil Division.

“It is an outrage how they treat us and I will continue the fight against the weaponization of our law licenses against us,” Martin wrote in an email.
“I am taking on Mr. Fox head on. His conduct is personally insulting and professionally unacceptable.”

Fox declined to comment on Martin’s claims, citing confidentiality rules.

In the email, Martin attached a copy of a May 9 letter he sent to Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals asking her to investigate and suspend Fox, and to dismiss the complaint filed against him. Martin’s letter did not specify the nature of the ethics allegations filed against him.

There have been at least five formal ethics complaints filed against Martin that were made public by nonprofit watchdog groups, ethics experts and members of Congress during his brief tenure as interim U.S. attorney.

At least one of those complaints has since been closed, after Fox concluded that Martin did not technically violate disciplinary rules when he filed a motion to dismiss a case against a person charged with taking part in the January 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol whom he had previously represented in private practice. (read more)


at

Dems Stunned by Trump's Accomplishments: 'Wish I Could Work for an Admin. That Could Move That Quickly'


The Trump Whirlwind presidency has taken the world by storm, and with virtually each new day since January 20, news breaks out over his latest bold move. When Biden was in office—seemingly a lifetime ago—the big news of the hour was often, “Where did Joe wander off to now?”

The tsunami of action is so powerful that even Democrats are begrudgingly impressed, if not outright jealous. They might not like a lot of what he’s doing, but they sure can’t help but be blown away by how fast he’s doing it.

Even left-leaning outlet Axios has to admit it: 

President Trump's recent series of audacious foreign policy moves have astounded even some of his harshest critics.

The big picture: Just in the Middle East and just in the past week, Trump has met with a leader the U.S. officially considers a terrorist, announced he'll lift all sanctions on Syria, and cut a truce with the Houthis plus a hostage deal with Hamas, both of which excluded Israel.

What they're saying: Biden administration veterans who spoke with Axios raised questions about Trump's motivations but grudgingly saluted his boldness.

  • "Gosh, I wish I could work for an administration that could move that quickly," one admitted.

That poor guy sounds so melancholy. Switch to the winning team, fella, and get busy! 


Not convinced that he’s done all that much? Watch Townhall Media’s  documentary, “Trump's Triumph: First 100 Days,” and you might come to a different conclusion: 


The Democrats interviewed in the Axios piece expressed concern over Trump’s bold moves, because all good Dems know that they must reflexively hate everything the president does, even if it’s good for the country, but they also seemed in awe:

"He does all this, and it's kind of silence, it's met with a shrug," says Ned Price, a former senior State Department official under President Biden. "He has the ability to do things politically that previous presidents did not, because he has complete unquestioned authority over the Republican caucus."

"It's hard not to be simultaneously terrified at the thought of the damage he can cause with such power, and awed by his willingness to brazenly shatter so many harmful taboos," says Rob Malley, who held senior posts in three Democratic administrations, including handling Iran talks under Presidents Obama and Biden.

Here are just a few things he's done in the past few weeks:

Zoom out: On issue after issue, Trump is taking steps no recent president would have even considered.

  • He abandoned the unified Western position to back Ukraine "as long as it takes" by negotiating directly with Vladimir Putin and declaring that Kyiv will never get Crimea back and must cut a deal now.
  • He inserted himself directly in the recent Kashmir crisis, something past administrations have avoided so as not to antagonize India.
  • He endorsed direct talks with Iran and shrugged off hawks at home and abroad who tied the Obama and Biden administrations in knots. It helps that many of them, like Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, are loath to cross Trump.

It can't be fun to be a Democrat right now. You're out of power in the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office, your approval ratings is around  27 percentpercent, your former leader Biden and his lackeys in the Dem-media lying complex are being exposed for their massive "mental decline" coverup on a daily basis, and meanwhile you're watching your nemesis do more things in a day that are good for regular Americans than Joe managed to do in four years. 

It's got to be a little depressing, to be honest. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost. 

Trump is a walking tornado. The Dems can fret and whine all they want, even as they admit to being impressed by some of it, but this is what we voted for. Deal with it.



at