Trump’s Reckoning With the United Nations

Townhall 

For the first time in his second term, President Donald Trump returned to the United Nations General Assembly in New York City with a clear message about exactly what the failed global body represents. 

“Your countries are going to hell,” Trump said. "Not only is the UN not solving the problems it should, they're often times creating them...The UN is supposed to stop invasions, not create them and not finance them."

"You're destroying your heritage," Trump added, noting the UN is behind millions of fake asylum claims made by third-world, military-aged men flooding into Europe and previously, the U.S. under Joe Biden. "In the United States, we reject the idea that mass numbers of people from foreign lands can be permitted to travel halfway around the world, trample our borders, violate our sovereignty, cause unmitigated crime, and deplete our social safety net."

His remarks made clear Trump isn’t interested in coddling terrorists or treating them as legitimate partners. He wants to end wars, not start them, and protect the U.S. from the rampant corruption dragging down economies around the world. And while Europeans demanded for years the American taxpayer foot the bill for Ukraine’s defense against Russia, NATO countries were and still are fueling Putin’s efforts.

“Inexcusably, even NATO countries haven't cut off much Russian oil & energy products,” Trump said, calling out feckless European leaders. “They’re funding a war against themselves. Who the hell’s ever heard of that one?”

“It’s embarrassing,” he continued, hammering home the point. 

Perhaps most shockingly to the globalists in the room, Trump ended the U.S. coddling of “climate change” communism and trillions of dollars in leftist “green” grift by calling the concept out for what it has always been: a hoax. 

"Climate change? The greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world. The scientific consensus was created by stupid people. If you don’t get away from the green energy scam, your country is going to fail. Renewables don't work—they're unreliable, expensive, and a joke. China now produces more CO2 than all the other developed nations in the world combined, while lecturing us on the environment,” Trump said without flinching. “Hypocrisy! The entire globalist concept of asking successful, industrialized nations to inflict pain on themselves and radically disrupt their entire societies must be rejected completely and totally—and it must be immediate. Use traditional energy—oil, gas, coal—drill, baby, drill. That's how you power prosperity. America is energy independent again, exporting to the world, and our economy is booming because of it.”

Trump is optimistic that the UN has potential for good. His demands for accountability and nations to take responsibility for their own borders may get them there. 

"The UN has such tremendous potential...for the most part, at least for now, all they seem to do is write a strongly worded letter, and then never follow that letter up. It's empty words—and empty words do not solve war. The only thing that solves war is action," Trump said.

On the other hand, it is legitimate to argue that the UN is so saturated with corruption and evil "leaders" that it should be abolished completely. The UN is an anti-American, anti-West, Jew and Christian-hating cesspool deeply embroiled in corruption, sexual abuse, and conducting Islamic terrorist attacks. 

The U.S. provides the most funding to the UN of any country, and yet, it thanks hardworking Americans by undermining the sovereignty of functioning countries and is constantly embroiled in scandal. It’s long past time for this to change. With Trump back in charge, it just might. 

Entertainment and podcast thread for Sept 27

 

God is Good. Remember that.

The Revolution That's Led To Today's Counter-Revolution

American  Thinker 

On a recent news opinion broadcast, Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and social commentator from Stanford University and California State University, stated that we are now in a “counter revolution.” If his observation has merit, it would necessarily require a revolution in the first place. Dr. Hanson never identified what this originating event was, but a case can be made that it is the Revolution of 1913.

The Revolution of 1913?

Yes; a quiet revolution—a revolution that seeped into the fabric and institutions of American society and governance structures in originally such small doses and wrapped into acceptable ideas that no one noticed then, and few notice now. And yet, it is this Revolution that, over time and with persistent adherents, intellectually hollowed out founding governance concepts and is what we are just now “countering” vigorously.

What is your evidence of a Revolution of 1913 in America?

Let’s set the historical stage. By 1900, America was a wealthy nation. We had begun as an agricultural exporter of rice, tobacco, and then, after 1800, cotton. We embraced the mercantile and then industrial revolution with vigor and invention under the auspices of an economic system brought to us, in part, by Adam Smith. After the Civil War, the tycoons of the North controlled the economics of the nation.

We, as a nation, were restless. Teddy Roosevelt represented this restlessness perfectly, talking President McKinley into the Spanish-American War for the sake of our “manhood”, and setting about conquering another nation—the Philippines—and secretly promoting another—Japan—over a long-time ally, Korea. Conquering, waterboarding, mass graves, and secret treaties—all of these would have been opposed by the Founders and out of sync with our constitutional system and moral core.

In addition, America had fought the tentacles of the international banking cartel (a small group of banking families)—known as central banking—from 1812 until 1913, relying on state banks and larger national banks to service an expanding nation’s financial needs. Lincoln was worried the banking cartel was funding the Confederates and would finance the breakup of the United States.

The cartel became wealthy by funding all sides of war and then making loans to nations, paid back through taxes, to create a peace. America wanted no part of it, though a few important American families joined the scheme. Unfortunately, Teddy decided to run for a third term, split the Republican vote, and allowed Woodrow Wilson to become President of the United States. Wilson was not a fan of the Constitution of the United States, so he proceeded to implement the Revolution of 1913, with the help of a small group of intellectuals as well as some prominent business leaders.

America succumbed to the banking cartel by creating the Federal Reserve, a major component of the Revolution.

Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act, allowing this quasi-American institution to exist without audit as an “independent” and special agency of the federal government. It sets our monetary policy through a Board made up of representatives of Regional Federal Reserve Banks (banks and holding companies owned by other nations), prints our currency for a fee, and monitors and controls the amounts of capital available in our economic system by tightening and loosening interest rates. Its decisions may or may not be in the best interests of the United States.

In any regard, the Federal Reserve has never been audited. Many scholars feel the positions taken by the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression. WWI is thought to have been encouraged and prolonged by the international banking cartel to protect loans to the Allies by influential American financiers. America’s entry into WWI is thought to have been promoted for this reason. All of this information is available to the serious and the thoughtful. Much of this history, however, has been obfuscated from the public. What we do know is:

America has continuously been at war since 1913, for the benefit of the international banking cartel

America is bankrupt

The Great Depression was completely unnecessary

The wealth in gold by individual Americans was confiscated in 1933 with the support of the Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve cannot be audited by law, and no Congress has changed the law in 112 years

The counter revolution Victor Davis Hanson was talking about involves returning to our original founding constitutional system, including a complete audit and reconsideration of our foray into central banking and its aftereffects; understanding the reasons America fell in love with and supported the ideology of Karl Marx in its many forms; and relearning what constitutes our Rule of Law and the founding philosophies that undergird our original governance system and Moral Law.

It has been over a century since America rejected its Founding system. The Founders themselves knew some of the pitfalls we would face to keep it. To reclaim it, we must first understand clearly how it was lost and what must be done to retrieve its essence now.

The Democrat Freakshow Freakout Is All About Desperation

Townhall 

I guess the Bard must be MAGA because he sure knew how to assess the left’s current hysterical media meltdown: “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Everywhere you look, it’s over-the-top hyperbole from every Dem legislator,

Dem pundit, and Dem mutant, with lots of high-pitched squealing about fascism and racism and how Trump is trying to be a king and how he is a Nazi and blah blah blah blah blah. Obviously, it’s all nonsense. Obviously, it’s all coordinated. Obviously, the memo went out that the social media interns need to turn it up to 11, and the cable commies need to pump up the volume as well. But here’s a question, and it’s an important one.

Does it even matter?

Is anybody listening to these people? Certainly, they’re all over my timeline, promiscuously promising an authoritarian apocalypse while Trump continues to deliver what he promised. If you remember correctly, DJT promised, for example, that he was going to deport illegal aliens, and, lo and behold, he’s actually doing it. Maybe the fact that he’s keeping his word is what really offends the politicians, not the substance of that keeping. He also promised that he was going to seek righteous retribution against the people who wronged him through lawfare, as that looming doofus found out –Comey has got to be so happy that the feds don’t release booking photos because there’s no way he would’ve looked as iconic as Trump did glaring back at the bastards who tried to put him in jail for the rest of his life, and, failing that, gave the green light to their acolytes to try to murder him.

It goes without saying that their claims are substantively nonsensical and hypocritical, and, in fact, it’s kind of uncool to dwell on that. I mean that it hurts our dignity to be focused on pointing out all the ways in which Trump is not literally Hitler, or complaining about the Democrats’ refusal to admit the link between their unrelenting campaign of legal slash and burn against Donald Trump and those associated with America First and their current karma overload. Instead of crying about the injustice of it all, we should focus on bringing justice, the unlubed payback they are just beginning to feel, and will certainly feel a lot more in the future – what will happen next is not going to be ribbed for their pleasure.

We all know the score, and we’re beyond arguing that Dems are deceitful or hypocritical. We’re into the territory of just kicking their butts. But normal people still need to hear it. Normals have actual lives that usually don’t include politics, so we must continue to highlight pinko hypocrisy and supply the missing facts for normals who might not know all the details of exactly why the Democrats are full of it. Let’s just not pretend we’re scandalized and shocked because if, after over a decade of this, you’re still scandalized in shocked instead of coldly furious and dedicated to defeating them, you are weak and soft and belong not in the front ranks with the warriors but in the rear with the camp followers. If so, you do have a function, but it’s not being part of the fight. Your function is more like washing the figurative blood off our tunics.

But do the normals fall prey to the rhetorical spasms of our enemies? Is the Dem plan of attack, which seems to be screaming at the top of their lungs about everything all the time, an effective strategy? There’s no real polling on that point, but Trump’s polls at this juncture seem pretty good compared to comparable presidents, to the extent there have ever been any. Anecdotes are evidence only of anecdotes, but that’s all we really have at the moment. What do the normals in your world say? I have yet to encounter anybody who looked at me with a straight face and said, “Well, Trump’s clearly trying to be a king.”

Nor do I encounter normal people getting upset over the designated outrage du jour. These outrages don’t seem so outrageous, and they just don’t hit the way the Dems hope. Recently, some woman put her hands on an ICE agent and he knocked her on her Schumer; Dems expected normals to be scandalized, but normals know that if you start putting hands on people, they’re going to put hands on you. Wizened wine woman Mikie Sherrill, who is running for governor of New Jersey and always reminds me of Billy Jack’s girlfriend who teaches at the Rainbow School, was recently fulminating about how the federal government released her previously hidden military records, which revealed an honor violation at the Naval Academy. There was a lot of teenage girl screaming, “I can’t believe you came into my room and read my diary!” energy. And normal people had to wonder why Jake Tapper, who is what Brian Stelter would be if Brian Stelter weren’t a potato, was claiming that Jimmy Kimmel getting a paid week off was the greatest assault on free speech in the history of ever just a couple of weeks after one of his ideological fellow travelers murdered Charlie Kirk for talking. And, of course, there is the aforementioned Comey, who not only sent Martha Stewart up the river for the same crime he’s been indicted for, but got all sanctimonious about it. Normal people like Martha Stewart. They don’t like goofy nerds inclined to brag about taking her scalp.

It’s just so pathetic. They’ve got nothing else. They don’t have the White House. They don’t have Congress. They don’t have SCOTUS. They don’t have a media monopoly. Worst of all, they don’t even have the extra-constitutional fourth branch of government, the deep state, the way they used to because Trump 2.0 knows exactly what time it is and has ruthlessly sought to gut it. Every time you see the regime media highlighting some GS-11 who quit because Orange Man Bad, celebrate. That’s one less loser inside the tent, and nobody cares that a bunch of other losers clapped their flippers together as he walked out of the tent and into the scary world of the private sector. All of this reeks of desperation. All of this is the best they can come up with as they face total defeat. And if you really want to be cruel, and you should want to be cruel, remind them that they’ve got at least three-and-a-half more years of this agony ahead.

It’s also so tiresome. Their plan is to put the pedal to the metal, but that means very different things when you’re driving a Yugo as opposed to driving a Ferrari. They are driving a crappy Schiffbox from behind the Iron Curtain held together with duct tape and spit, covered in bumper stickers that say things like, “Defund The Police,” “Some Women Have A Penis,” and “Take That, JewsZionists.” They howl and bay about how Trump is the worst thing ever was, and yet the freakshow factions that make up their base force them to offer an unappealing alternative. What they offer is a bunch of Third World predators imported to take our jobs and rape our women, for which they won’t be prosecuted, and whom we get to subsidize with our taxes.

Obviously, they don’t want to dwell on that, so it’s fascist, fascist, fascist 24/7. I’m not sure if they intended to make “fascism” look good, but they seem to be having a “Starship Troopers” problem because the things they expect us to be repelled by— in this case, closed borders, foreign enemies too scared to get into another war with us, an economy that favors American workers, and the removal from power of bureaucrats and sexually unsatisfied white women who hate our guts— seem pretty awesome.

Remember, none of what they’re doing now, with their kicking and screaming like a 10-year-old brat with a gentle parenting mom lying on her back having a tantrum in a Kroger’s, is what winners do. Winners win. Losers whine.

🎭 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. 

Have This Conversation with Your Family and Friends

posted by Sundance at CTH 

A recent video was shared where you see Will Wilson, co-founder of Antithesis, an AI contractor for Palantir say: “It’s very possible that we’re entering a world where very soon any kind of cognitive labor, any kind of reason, any kind of thought… It’ll be a thing that weirdos do.”

Will Wilson is not wrong and he frames a context for a discussion that needs to happen. Beyond the intellectual analysis of the problem he is outlining, is the disconnect away from God that also permeates the conversation. What exactly is it that makes us human?

This issue is not coming, it’s very much here and current. There is a reason why CTH maintains the position that AI arguments should not be engaged as assists or used in discussion of our topics.

A reminder, our discussing this race to the future and who was creating it was in 2011. Fourteen years ago, we first broached the topic. At the time of our first discussion in 2011 we theorized we would approach the point of no return in approximately 20 years. We are two-thirds of the way through the timeline.

The conversation continues….

Retribution Isn’t A Dirty Word. It’s Imperative

The  Federalist 

It’s always been weird the way Democrats and the dying news media refer to President Trump’s plans for “retribution,” both before and after he was elected. It’s like they never bothered to look up the word.

Merriam-Webster defines it as “the act or an instance of responding to an injury with an injury.” More fittingly, Dictionary.com has it as “requital according to merits or deserts, especially for evil.” In other words, repayment.

After news broke Thursday that former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired by Trump in his first term, was indicted on charges related to lying to Congress under oath, the “retribution” line was back on repeat.

New York Times: “Trump Gets the Retribution He Sought …”

Associated Press: “Trump escalates retribution campaign …”

PBS: “… as he ramps up retribution campaign.”

Every news article and cable news segment on the topic is naturally accompanied by a Democrat who ominously declares Trump an “authoritarian” who has “weaponized the Justice Department.” (Imagine a president using the Justice Department to prosecute his opponents.)

Sure thing. But what the president’s supporters should have to say about “retribution” is — you’re damn right. Comey, a proud Taylor Swift fangirl, is a proven liar who maliciously manipulated the public by making classified leaks to the media in order to make Trump, his former boss, look bad. Criminal, even.

To the extent that the president is guided by anything personal in his administration holding criminals and otherwise corrupt individuals to account, whatever. Those people endlessly investigated him over fake accusations he was a Russian agent, had him impeached, almost bankrupted him, tried to put him in prison, and, ultimately, got him shot. I’d say he’s earned the right, and not just because voters granted him the power to do it.

Speaking of the voters, Trump told them in advance, “I am your retribution.” And they elected him. There should be no mistake that the scores to settle are not his alone. They are for the millions of people who supported him and who almost saw the third election in a row stolen from them.

The first one was effectively stolen after 2016, when the entire Washington bureaucracy worked to thwart the agenda Trump was elected to enact, by way of character assassination and then an attempt to remove him from office. The second one was hijacked by Covid hysteria, with Democrats and the dying media laying every single death caused by a highly contagious, airborne virus at one man’s feet, plus violent race riots threatening to burn down entire cities if Democrats didn’t get their way. The third one — well, you saw what happened.

Now Trump’s voters finally have a chance to see things set right. This is what it looks like.

‘Political Retribution’: Former AGs Slam DC Bar’s ‘Dangerous’ Crusade Against Jeff Clark

‘This case involves an unprecedented attempt to punish purely internal and deliberative discussions that took place at the highest levels of the Department and the White House.’

The  Federalist 

Former U.S. attorneys general are throwing their support behind Trump 45 Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, calling out the corrupt D.C. bar for attempting to strip him of his law license.

In August, the D.C. bar recommended that Clark, who now leads the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the White House, be disbarred for drafting legal advice regarding voting irregularities that was not distributed in 2020.

For that, a member of the bar’s disciplinary counsel said it was the “‘second greatest internal threat’ to democracy, behind only the Civil War.”

In their 23-page amicus brief supporting Clark, former Attorneys General William Barr (George H.W. Bush and Trump 45), Jeff Sessions (Trump 45), and Michael Mukasey (George W. Bush), said that while those words were “undoubtedly spoke[n] from the heart,” they show that “something is off the hinges here.”

The brief was filed with the D.C. Court of Appeals, which ultimately will make the decision on whether to remove Clark’s law license.

“This case involves an unprecedented attempt to punish purely internal and deliberative discussions that took place at the highest levels of the Department and the White House,” the trio wrote. “Disciplining Mr. Clark would open the door to charging federal lawyers with ‘dishonesty’ or ‘attempted dishonesty’ for statements made during oral arguments, theories in briefs, legal advice provided in memoranda, or even (as here) proposals in privileged internal draft documents and discussions.”

Noting that the bar intended to punish Clark for drafting legal advice that was “never intended to be released publicly,” and that doing so would “set a dangerous precedent,” the attorneys general added, “Such acts of political retribution would severely discourage lawyers from serving in the federal government and invite extraordinary dysfunction as federal lawyers constrain the advice they provide for fear of political retaliation by the Bar.”

Disciplining Mr. Clark sends an obvious message that agency lawyers should keep their mouths shut — even in the Oval Office, DOJ conference rooms, and other places reasonably viewed as sanctuaries for candid opinions and advice — at least if they think their opinions might offend the disciplinary counsel of a bar to which they belong. This will lead federal attorneys to self-censor their views on crucial matters like the credibility of allegations, the sufficiency of evidence, and the need for additional investigation. It is grossly naïve to believe, as the Board apparently does, that in a fast-moving, high-pressure environment, where there was a multitude of claims related to the 2020 election, what is “fact” and what is “true” is so obvious to all honest lawyers as to preclude differing views.

Law firm Boyden Gray PLLC submitted the brief on behalf of the former attorneys general.

“Can you imagine disbarring a lawyer for a first draft of potential legal arguments and internal debates with their own colleagues?” the law firm said in a social media post. “Punishing federal lawyers for confidential advice would discourage candor, politicize the bar, and cripple executive decision-making.”

The attorneys general said the bar would effectively be trying to assert itself into official deliberations in presidential administrations, threatening punishment if its political preferences were not followed.

“The District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility (Board), as an adjunct of the District of Columbia judiciary, has no business — indeed, no authority whatever — in policing internal deliberative discussions and documents exchanged within the federal Executive Branch for containing purportedly ‘dishonest’ (yet somehow also ‘sincere’) ideas or assertions,” they wrote. “Disciplining Mr. Clark will send a biting chill throughout the federal government, causing federal attorneys to improperly restrain the advice they provide their clients for fear of offending Disciplinary Counsel’s political sensibilities.”

Fundamentally, the attorneys general say that the punishment of Clark would violate the separation of powers between branches of government, as it would allow the board and the appeals court, “both of which are ultimately creatures of Congress,” to “police the internal discussions of Executive Branch lawyers … while brandishing the power of disbarment.”

Executive branch discussions are protected from disclosure because officials would not be able to communicate candidly if they feared those communications being discovered.

“Without sufficient assurances of continuing confidentiality, Presidents and their advisers would be chilled from engaging in the full and frank deliberations upon which effective discharge of the President’s duties depends,” the trio wrote, quoting Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The brief also noted the remarkable dichotomy between how the D.C. bar treats favored and disfavored attorneys. While it weaponized its own process to attack Clark, it barely disciplined Russiagate felon Kevin Clinesmith, who was convicted of lying on a FISA warrant to illegally spy on Carter Page.

“Indeed, this proceeding itself strongly suggests that something other than disinterested administration of justice is at play when compared to another recent high-profile political disciplinary matter, that of Kevin Clinesmith,” they wrote. “Despite admitting to ‘a criminal act that reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer,’ deemed ‘a serious crime …’ and ‘engag[ing] in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation,’ the Board retroactively suspended Mr. Clinesmith for just one year and restored his license even before he completed his term of probation.”

“The contrast with Mr. Clark’s case is striking,” the former attorneys general continued. “The Board seeks to disbar Mr. Clark, not merely suspend his license, despite the absence of any criminal conviction or false statement made to any court,” while “Mr. Clinesmith … was welcomed back in ‘good standing’ with the Bar for his service as a loyal foot soldier against President Trump.”

The attorneys general said they could not find a comparable case anywhere in which official internal discussions were the subject of discipline.

“Politicizing, or appearing to politicize, disciplinary proceedings will be noticed. Public trust in ostensibly neutral institutions is hard to build but easy to lose,” the trio said. “And if others perceive that the District of Columbia Bar uses disciplinary proceedings as a political weapon, then state bars with different ideological perspectives will predictably follow suit.”

No, It's Not Your Imagination—Study Shows Leftist Violence Shoots to Historic Highs

RedState 

We’ve witnessed the tragic assassination of Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk, we watched in horror as two attempts were made on Donald Trump’s life in 2024, we’ve seen countless attacks on ICE, and we recoiled in disgust at the depraved outpouring of support for Luigi Mangione, the alleged cold-blooded killer of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. That is a very partial list of the leftist violence we have seen in the age of Trump.

We also see liberal pundits and Democrats opine about “bothsidesism,” and how both the left and the right are equally culpable in what we’re seeing in this country.

A new report from the D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, however, pours water all over that narrative and shows that you’re not imagining things:

Our analysis of terrorism trends in the United States shows that, indeed, left-wing violence has risen in the last 10 years, particularly since President Donald Trump’s rise to political prominence in 2016, although it has risen from very low levels and remains much lower than historical levels of violence carried out by right-wing and jihadist attackers. 

The Center claims to be unbiased, but you can see that they lump in those on the right with jihadists. Meanwhile, its president and COO, John Hamre, served in the Department of Defense under Bill Clinton and was a member of Obama’s transition team. The chairman is Thomas Pritzker, executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels and the Pritzker Organization, and cousin of Illinois’ far-left governor JB. You decide.

My guess is that they really didn't like reporting on their findings. 

But they couldn’t escape one very clear fact (emphasis mine):

More contentious politics in the United States and the expansion of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement appear to have reenergized violent left-wing extremists. The left-wing movement as a whole has not returned to its violent heights of the 1960s and 1970s, but the number of terrorist incidents involving left-wing extremists so far this year puts 2025 on pace to be the left’s most violent year in more than three decades. 

What about the “Whataboutism” narrative favored by the leftist chattering class? You won't hear this on CNN or MSNBC:

Indeed, the increase in left-wing attacks is particularly noticeable because attacks from right-wing perpetrators have sharply declined in 2025. This decline is striking, and explanations are speculative. 

Scenes like this have become an almost daily occurrence, and there are no MAGA hats to be found:

It’s true that there are crazies on both sides, and people of many different political ideologies have committed acts of violence. However, at this juncture in history, it is clearly left-wing violence that is on the rise, and the corrupt politicians and biased press are not helping the problem—in fact, they’re exacerbating it—by pretending it doesn’t exist.

US Atty. Essayli Throws Down Gauntlet, Tells CA to Think Twice Before Trying to Enforce 'No Masks for ICE' Law

RedState 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has been ramping up the incendiary anti-ICE, anti-Trump rhetoric to 11 recently—he even compared a top Trump administration official to a Nazi SS officer—but he took things even further: he signed a law that would ban law enforcement officials, including federal agents, from wearing masks while carrying out official duties.

As we’ve discussed, he seems to be forgetting something in the Constitution called the “Supremacy Clause,” which, according to Cornell Law School, “refers to the foundational principle that, in general, federal law takes precedence over any conflicting state law.”

The Department of Homeland Security has already told Newsom and the Golden State that the law is DOA, but now U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli has put them on notice in writing that he will instruct federal officers to continue as they were—and anyone who tries to interfere will face serious problems.

California's law to "unmask" federal agents is unconstitutional, as the state lacks jurisdiction to interfere with federal law enforcement.

---

DHS Tells California What They Can Do With Their ICE Mask Ban

---

Essayli didn’t mince words, telling the elaborately coiffed governor that he was way out of his league and simply had exactly zero authority in the matter:

I have directed federal agencies to disregard this state law and adhere to federal law and agency policies.

What’s that old saying? “Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Newsom.”

Essayli continued with his memo, warning California that if they try to enforce their ban and/or interfere with ICE operations, there will be much more severe consequences than just strongly-worded memos—there will be arrests and prosecutions. I don’t think the governor would like these optics as he prepares what many observers feel is an almost certain presidential run.

We’re not playing by your rules, Essayli wrote:

Because California cannot direct and impede the actions of federal law enforcement, and federal law enforcement has determined that protecting the identity of federal law enforcement officers is necessary in some circumstances for their safety while enforcing federal law, I direct federal law enforcement to continue to comply with federal law and follow their agency policies on the appropriate or wearing masks when conducting federal law enforcement operations.

And here’s the kicker (emphasis mine):

Any state official or private individual that unlawfully interferes or impedes federal law enforcement operations should be referred to my office for prosecution.

Your move, Mr. Newsom.

US Dusts Off War Plans Against Venezuela As Caribbean Troop Build-Up Gains Velocity

RedState 

The Trump Department of War is drawing up plans for kinetic operations against drug traffickers inside Venezuela, according to a thinly sourced NBC News story. Those strikes could begin in a "matter of weeks." The strikes would be primarily carried out by drones and would target drug cartel members and leadership, as well as drug labs.

Putting aside the brittleness of the story, there are some considerations that move it from the "totally freakin unlikely" category to "slightly plausible." First, a disclaimer. The U.S. military has plans for just about any contingency. This dates back to at least the 1930s, when the U.S. developed a series of color-coded war plans that envisioned conflicts with Great Britain, Australia, and China, as well as with Germany and Japan. This kind of plan is useful. For instance, OPLAN 1002 envisioned countering a Soviet strike into central Iran. Norman Schwartzkopf took the same basic plan as a starting point for the First Gulf War because the logistics were essentially the same. A war plan focused on Venezuelan cartels would work equally well for Colombian, Central American, or Mexican cartels. So just because a plan is being developed, it doesn't follow that anything else will happen.

The Plus Factors

President Trump wantsNicolás Maduro gone. In his UN speech, this is what Trump had to say: "MS-13 and Tren de Aragua. Tren de Aragua is from Venezuela, by the way. Such organizations torture, maim, mutilate and murder with impunity. They're the enemies of all humanity. For this reason, we've recently begun using the supreme power of the United States military to destroy Venezuelan terrorists and trafficking networks led by Nicolas Maduro to every terrorist thug smuggling poisonous drugs into the United States of America." 

The FBI has labeled Tren de Aragua as an arm of the Venezuelan government, and the U.S. has placed a $50 million bounty on Maduro.

In August, Trump signed a still-secret order authorizing the use of military force against drug smugglers. Since then, Trump has authorized the sinking of at least four Venezuelan drug-running ships.

The new National Defense Strategy is reportedly a very inward-looking document, focusing on homeland and hemispheric defense to the exclusion of Europe and China. A Maduro government playing footsie with Russia and China is directly opposed to that strategy.

There has been a buildup of U.S. military forces in the Caribbean over the last two months; see Trump Sends the Navy, Marines Down the Venezuelan Coast - Here's Why – RedState. This deployment includes "[t]he Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group — including the U.S.S. San Antonio, the U.S.S. Iwo Jima and the U.S.S. Fort Lauderdale, carrying 4,500 service members, sailors — has been steaming near Puerto Rico. So has the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, with 2,200 Marines." 

Four Arleigh Burke-class Aegis guided-missile destroyers have recently joined that force.

Also heading south are Special Operations Forces:

This is quite possibly the 2d Ranger Battalion from Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington.

If a decision were made to force an entry into Venezuela, then a Ranger Battalion would be the logical choice to seize an airfield, as was done in Grenada and Panama. There are definitely enough aircraft moving to the region to support such an operation.

Also spotted is this item:

This would indicate the presence of at least a SEAL platoon.

The Venezuelans are taking the threat seriously.

So forces are in position to take out anything the TdA has and thoroughly thump whatever forces Venezuela might muster.

But it is a huge leap from "can" to "will."

I think Trump is placing psychological pressure on Maduro, and that seems to be working on a superficial level.

No one believes he's changed, even if they think he might throw his TdA homies under the bus.

Earlier this month Maduro sent a letter to Trump about opening a dialogue, according to a social media post by the Venezuelan government. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed Trump received the letter but condemned it.

“Frankly, I think there were a lot of lies that were repeated by Maduro in that letter, and the administration’s position on Venezuela has not changed,” Leavitt said at a White House press briefing Monday. “We view the Maduro regime as illegitimate, and the president has clearly shown that he’s willing to use any and all means necessary to stop the illegal trafficking of deadly drugs from the Venezuelan regime into the United States of America.”

The real prize is prying Venezuela's elites away from Maduro and letting them do the heavy lifting of replacing him. Ending the "temporary protected status" of 600,000 Venezuelans in the U.S. obviously figures into this scheme; see Despite Supreme Court Stay, Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Revoking TPS for Thousands of Venezuelans – RedState. There is no better way to destabilize Maduro than a massive influx of very pissed off expatriates who aren't happy with Maduro's rule.

Personally, and I stand ready to be proven wrong on this, I don't think military strikes are in the cards. Trump won the election by promising to end "forever wars," not by starting them. Absent a full-scale invasion of Venezuela and the ensuing insurgency, there is no way to suppress the TdA, as they are basically part of the regime. I don't believe there is the Congressional or domestic political support to do that. It could happen, but I'd put the likelihood as extremely low.