Monday, November 3, 2025

Entertainment thread for Nov 3rd

 


Hope you're staying warm on these chilly nights.

Lawfare vs. law enforcement and Trump vs. Biden


The Dems are absolutely freaking out about the investigations and indictments of everyone involved in telling us we don’t get to elect whom we want.  In one of the most brazen examples of projection I have ever seen, the Dems are accusing President Trump of trying to be a king, for seeking retribution against members of “the resistance” who tried to prevent him from assuming and fulfilling the duties of his office.

Duh!  Of course he’s seeking retribution.  It’s what he’s sworn to do as our chief executive.  That’s what that whole “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” thingy in the Constitution means.  All legal punishment is retribution for harm done to an individual or to society.  It’s the “punishment” part of the crime-punishment equation that deters criminal behavior.  The Soros D.A.s must have skipped class on that day.

For any CNN viewers out there, who have been drinking the “retribution” Kool-Aid and thinking The Donald’s actions are starting to look a bit “Hitlery,” let me reassure you.  There is no equivalency between what the Biden/Garland DoJ did and what the Trump/Bondi DoJ is doing.  The former were practitioners of lawfare, and the latter of law enforcement.  One is the use of the law for politics, and the other is use of the law for justice.

In the movie Jesse Stone: Stone Cold, police chief Jesse Stone says, “I don’t box.  I fight.”  His companion asks, “What’s the difference?”  Jesse replies, “Rules.”  Trump is boxing.

In sports, rules make a game fair.  In criminal justice, rules make enforcement fair.  That’s why we have policies and ethical standards that the legal profession is sworn to abide by — and which the Garland DoJ ignored with reckless abandon starting about an hour after they took their oaths.  The rules put the “equal” in “equal justice,” by ensuring that laws are applied as intended, equally to everyone.

Let’s compare and contrast the Biden and Trump Justice Departments.  What the Biden/Garland DoJ did was lawfare: strategic use of the law as a weapon to achieve a political objective.  What the Trump/Bondi DoJ is doing is law enforcement: compelling compliance with duly passed legislation to achieve social order.  Let’s consider a few examples for comparison.

Performative Enforcement

The Garland DoJ dragged Roger Stone out of his home in his PJs to be arrested for a nonviolent crime, with network news crews broadcasting the performance.  The Bondi DoJ allowed James Comey to self-surrender and discreetly enter the courthouse through a side entrance.

Creative Interpretation

The Garland DoJ applied laws in ways never intended (January 6 prosecutions, which have been struck down by the Supreme Court).  The Bondi DoJ applies laws exactly as intended by the Legislature (Letitia James mortgage fraud).

Nullification

The Garland DoJ usurped the authority of Congress by refusing to enforce the laws it disagreed with (immigration), effectively nullifying laws by fiat.  The Bondi DoJ is honoring its duty under the Constitution by enforcing the laws passed by Congress (immigration).

Selective Enforcement

The Garland DoJ enforced laws based on political affiliation (charging Trump for classified documents possession and excusing Biden for classified documents possession).  The Bondi DoJ enforces laws equally regardless of political affiliation (charges were dropped against Eric Adams, a Democrat).

Fishing Expeditions

The Garland DoJ investigated people without a legal predicate (Arctic Frost), picking the person and looking for the crime.  The Bondi DoJ has investigated only where there is overt evidence of wrongdoing (in response to referrals with evidence for Comey, Brennan, James, and Schiff).

In every case, the actions of the Biden/Garland DoJ were done to achieve a political objective: lawfare.  In every case, the actions of the Trump/Bondi DoJ are being done to enforce duly enacted laws as they were intended: law enforcement.  See the difference?

Those on the political (and moral) right are gleefully tossing around the term “FAFO.”  It stands for “Eff” Around and Find Out.  The actual definition is somewhat different, and definitely NSFW.  Look it up if you’re curious.  What it means is that if people keep doing things they shouldn’t, A.G. Bondi may introduce them to the concept of “consequences.”

Retribution is the “finding out” that hopefully deters future temptations to “eff around.”  That’s why what Trump and Bondi are doing is necessary, regardless of how it appears to the “can’t we all just get along” crowd.  The reality is that after the Biden crime wave, we need a bunch more “finding out” to change the risk-reward calculus for future oath-breakers who manage to con their way into office.  If Bondi stands down now because it “looks bad,” we’re going to see a lot more Mar-a-Lago panty raids in the future.



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

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. 


Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Discusses Disruptions from Govt Shutdown


With increased holiday travel season soon to take place, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy discusses some of the issues to federal transportation, specifically air travel, with CBS Margaret Brennan. Transcript and Video below:



[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to the Secretary of Transportation, Sean Duffy, who joins us this morning from Far Hills, New Jersey. Welcome to Face The Nation.

TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY SEAN DUFFY: Hey, thanks, Margaret, good to be with you.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So our CBS polling shows that there is real concern among Americans regarding the effect of the shutdown on all transportation. Should Americans also have safety concerns at this point?

SEC. DUFFY: I think that’s a great question. We work overtime to make sure the system is safe. And we will slow traffic down, you’ll see delays, we’ll have flights canceled to make sure the system is safe. But we have to be honest, when we have controllers, where we have shortages and towers and TRACONs doing two jobs, does it add more risk into the system? Sure, it does. But again, we’re always managing that. Again, we don’t- we don’t want crashes, we want people to go safely, and so we will slow and stop traffic if we don’t think we can manage it in a way that keeps people safe as they go from point A to point B.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I did see that the FAA said, up in New York, 80% of air traffic controllers were absent from New York area airports, and that same day, there was a near miss at LaGuardia Airport. One United plane clipped another one. Was that pilot error? Or was that linked to some kind of shortage?

SEC. DUFFY: Well, you mentioned the shortages of air traffic controllers in the New York airspace. We had a couple days ago, three hour delays throughout New York. And again, I haven’t got the readout yet on whether that was pilot error. And usually, when these planes are- are traveling very close to each other, it’s their job to stay away from one another. That’s not controllers, it’s usually pilot error. But again, I’ll have to look and see what directive was given by the air traffic controllers. But it’s normally the pilot’s responsibility to stay away from aircraft on the tarmac.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So if this shutdown continues, how- when does it become an emergency in terms of passenger safety and the safety of those who are trying to, for example, get home for Thanksgiving in a few weeks.

SEC. DUFFY: Well, does it become a flight emergency, a safety issue? No, we will stop traffic. So we’re not going to let that happen. I think the real consequence is, what kind of rolling delays do you have throughout the system, right? We’ve seen problems at LA, in Dallas, in DC, Boston, Atlanta. And so I think it’s only going to get worse. We have controllers who, some of them are new controllers. We have trainee controllers who are very helpful in the tower. They don’t make a lot of money, and they’re now confronted, they haven’t had a paycheck for over a month. They’re confronted with a decision: do I put food on my kids’ table, do I put gas in the car, do I pay my rent or do I go to work and not get paid? They’re making decisions. I’ve encouraged them all to come to work. I want them to come to work, but they’re making life decisions that they shouldn’t have to make. Let’s open the government up. Let’s pay these people, these young controllers. Margaret, it’s really important, I think you’ve covered this, we don’t have the best equipment in our towers and centers for air traffic control. But we have the safest airspace, we have the most efficient airspace because we have the best controllers in the world that work our skies and keep our people safe. They deserve a paycheck.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, given that they are so essential, is there any way the administration can find a pot of money like seems to be getting found for others, like the military, to pay controllers so they can show up to work? Why isn’t the administration able to do that?

SEC. DUFFY: Yeah, well, I think that’s a great question. So we have done all we can. President Trump has done all he can to minimize the pain of the shutdown on the American people. Again, you remember under Barack Obama’s shutdown, he was trying to gate off open air monuments in Washington, DC, and were shutting down parks just walking paths. President Trump has tried to make it less painful on the American people. So we’re looking for pots of money to pay essential workers, but there’s really strict rules around what money we can use and how we can use it, and we have to follow the law. And so we were able to fund a central air service, service to more rural communities. We’ve kept our academy up and running thus far. We don’t have a ton of time, a couple more weeks of that funding. But I don’t have the resources to do that, and the simple answer is, vote to open the government, negotiate your differences. That’s fine, that’s fair. But again, these people should be paid. And to say that it’s Donald Trump’s fault, to say he has to find money, when Democrats have said there’s no money for you because we’ve shut the government down, I mean, that’s a contorted analysis. And Democrats are trying to do that, and I don’t think it really works. Give the money and we’ll pay the controllers.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah, well, I saw reports that air traffic controllers only received partial pay mid-October, and this past week they missed a paycheck altogether. So practically speaking, for those who are in these jobs, would you advise them to pick up part time work elsewhere?

SEC. DUFFY: No, I’m clearly asking them, come to work. It is your job to come to work, and eventually you will be paid. But as I’ve traveled around the country and talked to air traffic controllers, they’ve told me that a lot of them can navigate missing one paycheck. None of them can manage missing two paychecks. And they’re like every American family, everyone watching your show today as they think about their own finances, how many paychecks can they miss before it becomes real stress, real strife in their life? And so they’re- at the- next week, they’re going to get a notice of what their next paycheck is going to be. And if the government doesn’t open, the notice will be another big fat zero, and you’re going to see more of them probably make the decisions of funding their families, putting food on their table, gas in their cars, versus coming into work. That’s not what I want, but I’m a realist as well, Margaret, these are the decisions of life and survival that these controllers have to make. By the way, it’s the technicians, also. We have old equipment. We have technicians that work in the towers that keep the equipment operational. They’re not getting paid. I have train inspectors who are working to keep our trains running and running safely. They’re working without pay. I have pipeline inspectors, same thing. Across the system. We have a number of people who are working without pay. We talk about the air traffic controllers, but I have thousands of employees who are showing up, doing the work and trying to keep this system safe for the American people all the while they don’t get paid to do it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood. So you said back on Fox Business on October 9 that “I can’t have people not showing up for work and that they may be let go.” There’s a shortage of 4,000 controllers already. You’re not firing people, are you? You can’t afford to.

SEC. DUFFY: No, so when- we’re 2-3,000 controllers short, but that’s a huge number. And you make an interesting point, because I’ve tried to surge air traffic controllers into the system through our academy. Margaret, we’re up 20% of controllers through the academy this year alone. It takes them about a year to two to get certified in a tower, but this shutdown is impacting my pipeline of controllers. And so as- when everyone forgets about air traffic control and the shutdown, I’m going to deal with the consequences of, again, delivering for the American people and getting more controllers in the towers, not less. And you bring up a good point. We’re already stressed in that we don’t have enough controllers in our system, and this shutdown, when we have staffing triggers where they’re not coming in because they’re funding their families and food on their tables, that makes it more difficult because we’re already short long. Long term consequences–

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you’re not going to fire them?

SEC. DUFFY: I don’t plan on firing control. No, listen, I have, no, I- again when they’re making decisions to feed their families, I’m not going to fire air traffic controllers. I have, I have loved them and supported them as they’re trying to go through this process and it’s challenging for them. They need support, they need money, they need a paycheck. They don’t need to be fired.

MARGARET BRENNAN: All right. Secretary Duffy, thank you for your time this morning. We’ll be right back.

[Transcript End]



John Brennan Loses It When Confronted by Former Tulsi Advisor About Laptop Letter and the ICA


RedState 

Former Obama CIA Director John Brennan was at a conference at George Mason University on Thursday when he had an experience he likely didn't expect. 

Thomas Speciale was also at the conference. Speciale is a national security consultant and a former senior advisor to the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. 

Brennan was not happy with Gabbard's actions after she became Director of National Intelligence, including when she cleaned house and declassified information about the Russia collusion hoax. 

Speciale confronted Brennan twice during an event at the conference that included Michael Hayden, another former director of the CIA. Speciale put Brennan on the spot, asking about the inclusion of the infamous Steele dossier in the intelligence community assessment (ICA). Brennan had a meltdown. 

Warning for graphic language: 

"I don't know who put you up to this," he ranted. "I don't know who you are, but it's a bunch of bullsh**t that you just passed on."

Speciale replied, "The emails are clear, sir." 

That prompted Hayden to start shouting, "Next! Next! Next!" Brennan then began waving his hand to dismiss Speciale and called what he said "disinformation." 

Speciale later asked Brennan another question in a face-to-face confrontation about why Brennan signed the infamous intel letter signed by 51 former intelligence officials about the Hunter Biden laptop.  

“Why sign that?” Speciale asked Brennan. Brennan then moved toward him and began stabbing his finger toward Speciale's chest. 

“And you misrepresented that. We never said it was disinformation. We said it was Russian influence operations, which is what they do. There’s a big difference between influence operations...," Brennan insisted. But he walked off when Speciale brought up former FBI Director James Comey. 

Speciale told the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF), “I wanted answers to basic questions for my own personal interest. These are the people that as career intelligence people we looked up to. Why would you do these things?”

I think Brennan is looking like he's nervous. 

As we reported, Republican House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (OH-4) made a criminal referral to the Department of Justice, alleging he made false statements to the committee, including denying that the CIA relied on the Steele dossier. 


According to Jordan's letter: 

Brennan’s assertion that the CIA was not ‘involved at all’ with the Steele dossier cannot be reconciled with the facts. As the newly declassified documents show, a CIA officer drafted the annex containing a summary of the dossier; Brennan made the ultimate decision, along with then-FBI Director James Comey, to include information from the dossier in the ICA; and, as discussed further below, Brennan overruled senior CIA officers who objected to the inclusion of the dossier material. 



Senator Eric Schmitt Outlines What He Wants to See Next Following Initial “Arctic Frost” Information


Nine sitting U.S. Senators, dozens of President Trump’s staff and thousands of Americans were targeted as part of the FBI investigation known as “Arctic Frost.”  Senator Eric Schmitt, a former attorney general from Missouri, outlines his perspective on what should happen next.

The information to congress about the Arctic Frost investigation is coming from FBI whistleblowers, not from Director Kash Patel or Deputy Director Dan Bongino, and the depth of the targeting evidence held within the FBI is apparently hidden from leadership review – or they would be releasing it.  So, Senator Eric Schmitt wants to extract all of the pertinent information from inside the DOJ and FBI and then launch congressional Watergate style hearings about it.  WATCH:



Hegseth Replaces Two More Senior Pentagon Generals As He Continues to Reshape the Military Hierarchy


RedState 

Two flag or general officers have been replaced in the Pentagon in less than a week. I believe they left for markedly different reasons, but they demonstrate the way Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is reshaping the military bureaucracy.

First up is Lieutenant General Joseph McGee who is director for Strategy, Plans, and Policy on the Joint Staff, also known as the J5. According to the Joint Chiefs of Staff website, the J5 "proposes strategies, plans, and policy recommendations to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to support his provision of military advice across the full spectrum of national security concerns to the President and other national leaders and to ensure those recommendations are informed by a larger strategic context--coordinated with interagency and alliance partners--account for the view and requirements of the combatant commanders, and assess risk in executing the National Military Strategy."

As a soldier, McGee is no slouch. He commanded companies in 1st and 2d Ranger Battalions, something few men could do without having an ulcer the size of a cantaloupe. He commanded a battalion, 1st Battalion, 327 Infantry, in the 101st Airborne and later commanded a brigade combat team in the same division. He has more "scare badges" than Audie Murphy and served 10 deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan.

The crisis came when McGee decided, or it was decided for him, that he couldn't or wouldn't support the vision of Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine. His departure was announced with a terse, “Lt Gen. JP McGee will retire after nearly three years of outstanding leadership and service on the Joint Staff. We are grateful for his 35 years of honorable and dedicated service to the Nation. We owe him a great debt for his service and it is regrettable anonymous sources would put the focus anywhere else.”

The backstory, according to CNN, is his disagreement with Hegseth and Caine over strategic priorities. McGee, it was said, had frequently “pushed back” against Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine on issues ranging from Russia and Ukraine to military operations in the Caribbean. 

Another source told CNN that McGee has been a marked man for a while. He was promoted to three-star in May 2024. In December, Joe Biden renominated him to three-star rank, which means the J5 position was just a holding pattern until something better opened up. That nomination expired with the end of the 118th Congress, and President Trump has not renominated him. That was a sure sign that he was headed toward retirement.

His close relationship with the disgraced former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, and Secretary of Defense and Unauthorized Absences Lloyd Austin, more likely than not, had a lot to do with the decision to forego his renomination. The "push back" was probably fed by the knowledge that his career was basically over.

The second replacement of a FOGO involved Rear Admiral Kurt J. Rothenhaus, head of the Office of Naval Research. Rothenhaus, a 33-year veteran, was replaced by a 33-year-old partner from McKinsey & Company, the consulting behemoth. Rachel Riley comes to the job after ten months as a senior advisor at the Department of Health and Human Services, part of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Contrary to what top-shelf publications like The Daily Beast claimed (Pentagon Pete Purges Decorated Admiral for DOGE Goon, 33), Rothenhaus was not purged. He moved laterally to command Naval Information Warfare Systems Command or NAVWAR. I am not sufficiently familiar with the organization of the Naval Secretariat or the Chief of Naval Operations to say anything definitively, but NAVWAR was without a commander, it is the same grade, and it is at approximately the same level on organization charts.

Much is being made of Riley not being a "scientist." Truth be told, none of the four top military positions at ONR are held by scientists. Rothenhaus has a Ph.D. in Software Engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School. One of the military positions is filled by an MBA, one holds a Master's in Systems Analysis, and the third does not have an advanced degree. Riley doesn't have military experience, but neither do any of the top civilians at ONR.

Rarely do the heads of military research organizations have an office in a lab. Their job is to allocate resources, make value judgments on which technologies to pursue, and ensure the trains run on time. They are supported by a staff that are scientists or engineers. A background as a McKinsey partner is a good match for the job. A background at DOGE ensures a lean, efficient, and productive organization.

Hegseth and Cain have not been reticent about reshaping the military leadership. "More than a dozen senior military officials have been fired, forced to retire or moved to less visible roles since the start of the year, including former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. CQ Brown; the first female chief of naval operations, Adm. Lisa Franchetti; the directors of the National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency; the former director of the Joint Staff; the head of U.S. Southern Command (Southcom); and the top uniformed lawyers for the Army and Air Force."



A classical foundry in Paris, on its way to building a new Rome. FRANCE

 

After months of hard work, we’re proud to unveil the statue we’ll build to honor the 250th anniversary of the United States. The Guardian of Liberty. What you see here is just the scale model. The real one will be gigantic, the tallest statue in the West. So many people have offered to fund it, but the real challenge will be getting visas so we can build it on American soil. Finishing it in less than a year won’t be easy… but as Napoleon once said, “Impossible is not French!”  

 

 

DNI Gabbard Remarks and Answers Questions During IISS Manama Conference, Bahrain


Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard addressed the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Manama Dialogue, in Manama, Bahrain. The transcript of her prepared remarks is below – The Q&A Session is not transcribed.

It should be remembered that Bahrain was the second nation to erupt following the 2009 Cairo, Egypt speech of then President Barack Obama.  Tunisia was the first, Egypt was the third.  The government of Bahrain barely survived the Islamist Spring and later formed a coalition with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE against the extremists within the Muslim Brotherhood then supported by Qatar.

DNI Gabbard speaks to the changed geopolitical environment in the era of U.S. President Donald Trump; the elimination of seemingly endless conflict driven by old guard establishment entities and influence agents around the world.  The Director highlights her personal journey toward supporting President Trump and the America First agenda that seeks genuine friendship and national partnerships based on mutually beneficial transactions.



[TRANSCRIPT] – “Thank you, distinguished guests, excellencies, friends, and fellow peacemakers. It’s a privilege to join all of you here this evening. Your Highness, thank you very much for your kind hospitality and welcoming us in hosting this important event. To IISS and your team, thank you for yet again putting on a phenomenal dialogue. It’s an honor to be able to address you here in the Kingdom of Bahrain at this pivotal time in global history.

As we gather here, we’re reminded that true security, true stability, and peace cannot be forged in isolation, but in the common collection of peacemakers working towards that common purpose. Today, I want to speak plainly for myself as a veteran and a soldier who has seen firsthand the high cost of war. As someone who serves under President Trump’s leadership, I have experienced the promise of peace. His vision is about delivering real wins, not just for America, but for our collective cause of peace and prosperity, and doing so through a very principled realism, rooted in shared goals, interests, and values.

The old Washington way of thinking is something we hope is in the rear-view mirror and something that has held us back for too long. For decades, our foreign policy has been trapped in a counterproductive and endless cycle of regime change or nation-building. It was a one-size-fits-all approach of toppling regimes, trying to impose our system of governance on others, intervening in conflicts that were barely understood, and walking away with more enemies than allies. The result: trillions spent, countless lives lost, and in many cases, a creation of greater security threats, the rise of Islamist terrorist groups like ISIS.”

“We’ve heard President Trump and Vice President Vance speak just last week about their hope that the Abraham Accords will continue to grow and expand to allow for a true lasting regional stability and peace. This is what President Trump’s America First policy looks like in action, building peace through diplomacy, with an understanding that there cannot be prosperity without peace. President Trump de-escalated tensions on the Korean peninsula through direct talks. During his first term in office, he opened lines of communication with North Korea that had been frozen for generations. He did what no other president had been willing to do: engage directly to speak about peace. He restored American leadership abroad. He brokered economic normalization between Serbia and Kosovo, promoting stability and peace in the Balkan region.

And now just nine months into his second term, President Trump’s America First agenda is supercharging these efforts and securing peace on a scale that we haven’t seen in decades. He secured ceasefires between India and Pakistan, Israel and Iran, a peace agreement between Rwanda and the DRC, a peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Cambodia and Thailand, and averted conflict between Egypt and Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. As was mentioned previously and is very much in focus for so many of us, he negotiated the release of all living hostages from Hamas. While fragile, a historic ceasefire and peace plan is moving forward. It is doing so with integral support from many of our partners here in this room.

So, what ties all of this together? A simple and revolutionary idea: Pursue joint interests. Find those win-win solutions where they align and recognize that yes, we will have differences, and we will work through them.

President Trump understands that not everyone shares our exact values or our system of governance, and that’s okay. What’s most important is finding where our shared common ground exists and building those partnerships and progressing on those common grounds. Things like energy independence that stabilizes global markets, things like countering terrorism, something that continues to grow in different parts of the world, strengthening trade partnerships to boost economic growth and innovation. These are the components, the glue of enduring partnerships and friendships. So, America First is not about isolating ourselves. As President Trump has shown, it’s about engaging in direct diplomacy, being willing to have conversations that others are not willing to have and finding that path forward where our mutual sovereign interests are aligned.

And that’s really why we’re all gathered here today in Manama. We can commit to this path ourselves and put it into action with Bahrain’s own leadership. Year after year, hosting these critical dialogues shows us the way forward, convening nations from around the globe, amplifying shared stakes and strengthening partnerships and lines of communications that allow us to resolve our differences and deliver results for our respective people.

Under President Trump, the United States is your partner in executing this vision as a deal maker who is committed to peace. And together we look forward to continuing this path towards peace, to ending wars that have defined too many generations, unlocking prosperity for millions, and helping support the future of a Middle East where security is a dividend of cooperation, not a cost of conflict.

Thank you very much. God bless you. God bless the pursuit of peace.”

[END Prepared Remarks TRANSCRIPT



Exclusive: New Report Shows Red State Institutions Are Just As Left-Wing As Their Blue Counterparts

 

Exclusive: New Report Shows Red State Institutions Are Just As Left-Wing As Their Blue Counterparts

BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD for The Federalist 



‘Without aggressive institutional reform and principled policymaking, [red states] will follow the same trajectory as their blue peers.’

Acommon trope trotted out in defense of the modern GOP is that, for all its shortcomings, electing Republicans to positions of power is better than electing Democrats. If that argument is true, then why are the institutions in so many so-called “red states” just as left-wing as their blue state counterparts?

A new report authored by the State Leadership Initiative (SLI) and obtained by The Federalist reveals how many Republican-run states “remain deeply entangled in the same bureaucratic bloat, cultural drift, and economic stagnation” that are features of those run by Democrats. While red and blue states often differ on major political issues (ex. gun rights and tax policy), the 2025 State Leadership Index shows how the implementation of these policies — specifically those in red states — “often operate within a [left-wing] framework that remains fundamentally unchanged.”

“State Leadership Initiative was founded to do the legwork to get Red States to live up to the campaign promises their elected officials made to their citizens when asking for their votes. This report shows that in huge aspects of governance — red states need to be more than blue states with lower taxes,” SLI Founder Noah Wall told The Federalist. “This report is a call to action to change that.”

The SLI index scores and ranks states based upon various metrics that are divided up into three primary sub-categories. These sub-categories include governance, which “measures the effectiveness and ideological alignment of a state’s bureaucracy;” economic vitality, which “measures whether a state is advancing material prosperity and building a sustainable foundation for long-term strength;” and cultural strength, which “evaluates the health and resilience of communities.”

When examining the governance of U.S. jurisdictions, SLI found an “alarming” level of federal dependency among red states. According to the analysis, “7 of the 10 most federally dependent states are red,” with federal dollars comprising “nearly 40% of [the] state budgets” of states such as Mississippi and West Virginia.

“This is not sovereignty; it is soft capture,” the index reads.

Upon further analysis, the conservative group found other governance similarities shared by many red and blue states. Notably, the report shows that a significant number of red states boast a disproportionate amount of public school, university, and other government bureaucrats.

On the economic vitality front, the index found that overregulation continues to be a big problem in many red states, with SLI noting, “excluding outliers, there is hardly a difference between the average number of regulations in red states vs blue ones.” The report’s sub-category included additional discoveries, such as that “[s]tate budget growth (per capita) is comparable between Red and Blue states” and “[i]ndustrial strength in red states is fragmented and inadequate.”

SLI also flagged numerous concerning factors after examining the cultural strength of U.S. states. Notably, the organization highlighted that while “[r]ed states outperform blue ones on marriage rates and fertility … In most red states, fewer than half of teenagers are raised in intact families.”

“Family stability is disintegrating, and no amount of higher fertility can compensate for a culture where children grow up without both parents. A revival of family formation must be a deliberate priority of red state policy,” the index reads.

The index also cited high violent crime rates (driven by blue cities) and home ownership and affordability issues as persistent cultural problems in several red states.

SLI concludes its index with a list of action items Republican lawmakers can take to fix these outstanding issues in their respective states.

Among them are recommendations to downsize the bureaucracy (including in K-12 and higher education) and “[i]mplement mandatory sunset provisions” that force state lawmakers “to revisit and reauthorize programs rather than let them expand unchecked.” The group also advised GOP politicians to “[m]ake family policy a central economic agenda,” ensure law and order — “especially in blue cities,” and more.

“For years, conservatives kept their eyes on Washington, missing the quiet decay in their own state governments,” SLI Senior Economic Strategist Thomas Murray told The Federalist. “Red states are full of voters who believe in limited government — but the bureaucracies running those states often serve very different values. This index is the first to connect the dots.”

“The point here isn’t to score rhetoric —it’s to audit power,” he added.


♦️𝐖³π πƒπšπ’π₯𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 π“π‘π«πžπšπ

 


W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Welcome to the W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Post whatever you got in the comments section below.

This feature will post every day at 6:30am Mountain time.