Tuesday, November 4, 2025

Of All The Scandals In The Last Nine Years, Is One Of Them ‘The Worst’?



On his weekday podcast (which I sorely miss), Dan Bongino would occasionally refer to a scandal as “the biggest of our time.” This raised questions in my mind, such as how big was it compared to the others? How big must a scandal be before it could be considered “the biggest scandal of our time”? How are scandals measured, anyway? You can’t easily assign a dollar value to loss of trust or societal division.

Evaluating the damage from these events requires considering multiple dimensions: economic costs, loss of life, social cohesion, political polarization, and erosion of trust in institutions. For example, while the COVID-19 pandemic was a global health crisis, others, such as Russiagate and the Biden Dementia Cover-Up/Autopen Scandals, are more explicitly political controversies. All have inflicted damage and contributed to division, but their scales differ dramatically. Let’s examine a few, in no particular order:

There were, of course, numerous other scandals: Clinton/Lewinsky, Obamacare, pallets of cash delivered to the “Death to America” crowd in Iran, the Afghanistan withdrawal, Hillary selling hypersonic missile tech to Russia, et. al.

Which was the worst? It may be a matter of opinion unless we can agree on objective metrics. Russia-gate and the Biden Dementia Cover-Up/Autopen Scandals were corrosive to America’s foundations, widening tribalism and cynicism. But these were confined to the political sphere and were less quantifiable.

While COVID-19 resulted in great loss of life, I submit that the response to COVID-19 was worse, as it reshaped daily life for every American. Investigations into the safety and efficacy of the “vaccines” themselves are ongoing and should be included in the tally of damage. Prolonged lockdowns, mandates, and inconsistent messaging have inflicted trillions in avoidable economic pain, shattered social bonds, and left a legacy of isolation and division, permanently scarred trust in experts and governments. It set a precedent for overreach that we’re still unpacking. Healing will take years, perhaps generations. But it also offers lessons for resilience—if we choose to learn from them.



Election night coverage for Nov 4th

 


Best of luck tonight.

What Election Day Means and Doesn’t


It’s election day in many states across the country, and the media will try desperately to tell you what the results “mean” in regards to President Donald Trump, Republicans, and the politics of the government shutdown. Get your boots on, it’s going to get thick and deep, plus it’s going to smell like you’d imagine the green room at MSNBC smelling – the kind of stench that haunts your dreams.

Allow me to save you all the time and hassle of listening to the analysis and tell you what it all means now: Either nothing or everything.

What the hell does that mean? It’s pretty simple, really.

The “big” races in New Jersey, New York City, and Virginia all heavily favor Democrats, so any wins there will mean Democrats still vote for Democrats. 

In NYC, it’s a matter of just how many New Yorkers favor a lunatic over a jerk. It’s hard for me to care, but I think it would be hilarious if Andrew Cuomo won. Think about the deflated left on election night in 2016 as Donald Trump was declared the President-Elect – all that footage of leftists in absolute shock and disbelief. Now square it, then cube it, and you start to get close. 

Democrats were more excited about which bathroom Hillary Clinton used than they were excited about her as a person. This was, of course, back when Democrats knew what a woman was. So the loss was less about her and more about identity politics and the concept of a female president. (Democrats have this weird belief that society prevents a certain type of person from doing things until they actually do them, which strikes me as having very low expectations of both the American public and those people, but whatever.)

If Zohran Mamdani wins, it won’t be a surprise, but if he loses, it will be a reckoning for the radical left. Don’t count on that; it is New York City, after all.

In New Jersey, on the other hand, there very well could be a shock. If Democrat Mikie Sherrill loses, or even barely wins, it will be a sign that the coalition President Trump put together last year to win his election is holding. Republican Jack Ciattarelli has run before and ended up a lot closer than anyone expected last time. After four more years of Democrats sucking and screwing up the state, will another bite at the apple be the one that does the trick. 

If Ciattarelli wins, it will give Republicans another 90-10 issue to campaign on: plastic bags. As leftists ban them everywhere, people are sick of the paper or reusable petri dish bags they force us to use now, something Ciattarelli has campaigned on. 

Jersey is a blue state that has been getting sick of the policies and the prices of policies from Democrats. It’s not quite red – the last Republican was Chris Christie, so….but that doesn’t mean it can’t flip. Maryland has elected Republicans to be 2 of its last 4 governors, so anything is possible.

That leads us to Virginia, where the current Governor is a Republican and won largely because the Democrats nominated an awful person in the former Governor Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton family money man. He was so horrible the first time, and so tone deaf on the issues that mattered to voters (parental rights, boys in girls' bathrooms) that a pretty conservative guy beat him. 

Can his Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears beat a Democrat that the entire left-wing establishment is desperate to elect so they can redistrict the state in their favor? Maybe. 

It’s kind of funny watching Barack Obama stump for Abigail Spanberger a year after lecturing black men on how they had to vote for Kamala Harris because of her skin color, campaign against a black woman on behalf of someone so white they could easily pass as a missing sister to Johnny and Edgar Winter (look it up). Identity politics matters…until it doesn’t, it seems.

Democrats are expected to win all of these and, if they do, they will pretend it is some kind of rejection of Donald Trump and Republicans, when the reality is, in those states anyway, it will be as predictable as the Harlem Globetrotters beating the Washington Generals. 

But sometimes the Washington Generals do win. Be realistic, but always hope. 



It Was The Best Of Filibusters, It Was The Worst Of Filibusters


I hate the filibuster. But I love the filibuster. It depends on the day and whether I need to call a tradesman to the house. Or simply a day to be “Papa Fix.” Who knows?

The filibuster is the spoiled child’s tirade against his mother, who sent him to clean up his room. Or it’s a sesquipedalian effort to prevent the majority from running roughshod over minority rights. It all depends on your vantage point. As a patriotic American—but I repeat myself—I see the current Democrat filibuster as a child’s temper tantrum.

Republicans passed the One Big Beautiful Bill under “reconciliation,” a process that allows federal finances to be handled by a simple majority. Now Democrats are demanding that the Republicans give back the marbles they won fair and square.

With no sign that either side is going to budge, perhaps it’s worth looking at how we got here. First, a century before Christ, Cato the Younger happily filibustered the Roman Senate, forcing it to abandon various proposals since new laws had to be passed during the day. Over millennia, the practice popped up again and again. Basically, it was a way to kill a bill by talking it to death. You had to get the opposition to shut up to get a vote up or down.

The Senate and the House operate under their own distinct procedures. This means that anything can pass the House by a simple majority. However, beginning in 1806, the Senate rules required a supermajority to shut off debate and move to a vote. This “cloture” procedure once needed 75 of the 100 senators, but has been reduced at present to 60.

Because more than 40 Democrats oppose cloture, the Senate cannot even vote on the Continuing Resolution to fund the federal government. In the House, the Republicans got the CR through, and a majority, almost all Republicans, in the Senate have voted for it over a dozen times. So, this is clearly the “Schumer Shutdown.”

Present practice simply has the minority declaring a filibuster, sustaining it against a cloture vote, and then the Senate moving on to other tasks. There are advantages to this, in that routine business is not obstructed, but it takes the optics out of the process.

Democrats are claiming that Republicans are to blame for the pain resulting from the shutdown, while the Dems themselves are the ones preventing a vote that would re-open the government. Just imagine how the news would cover the Democrats talking around the clock against paying any government benefits. At the same time Republicans would be on all the news shows pointing out that a simple vote to open the government is being blocked by Dems. All those people not getting SNAP benefits might begin to see who their friends are. Or aren’t.

But it wasn’t until 2013 when Dem Harry Reid used a procedural move to block the tactic for nominees to Executive Branch and inferior Court positions that the “nuclear option” became a fact. Having opened the door, Mitch the Turtle crawled through it to remove the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, enabling Trump to place three excellent Justices on the Court.

The next move is the big problem. While I love having lots of our frivolous and toxic government shut down, there are core constitutional duties that must be performed, and we have to pay people to do them. Article I §9 clearly says that you can’t spend money that Congress hasn’t appropriated, hence the shutdown.

But this is clearly in tension with the unwritten (in the Constitution) need to defend the US against “all enemies foreign and domestic” (written in the Naturalization and Military Oaths). How can the President meet that demand when he can’t pay the military or law enforcement? It’s pretty clear that the Supreme Court would have a difficult question to answer there.

Is there a fix? Obviously, the Democrats would love for us to abolish the filibuster so they can blame Republicans for everything that passes. But their ultimate goal is to use it to pass Mamdani communism the next time they’re in power. While that’s a legitimate fear, what’s to stop them from doing it themselves if they regain a Senate majority?

On the other hand, if the current Republican majority looked at the current “reconciliation” rule, it would be very simple to remove the filibuster for everything that involves financing the government. This would leave all substantive changes in law alone, but remove the obstruction to continuing resolutions.

It would also get rid of the idea that we only have one financing bill that can be passed per year without being blocked by obstructionists. Under “regular order,” every single department funding bill could be passed by itself without obstruction.

But since we’re looking at the major choices, let’s consider heading the authoritarians off at the impasse by complete abolition of the filibuster. Dems would now be looking at some major law changes that would remove their electoral advantages. Imagine an election integrity law that requires:

  • Voter Photo-ID
  • In-person voting unless the voter simply cannot vote in person
  • No ballots received after election day
  • Early voting limited to seven days
  • No ballot harvesting
  • Citizenship verification
  • Compact, regularly shaped Congressional districts defined by simply identifiable boundaries such as roads and physical geographic features
  • Nobody establishing Congressional district boundaries may take into account any factor other than the total number of voting-age citizens residing therein.

Add in your favorite wish list item I missed. The result would be simple. Democrat election cheating would be almost eliminated. And that would reduce the chances of the communist party ever regaining a majority in the House. This would be a major benefit of completely eliminating the filibuster.

So Donald Trump may not be wrong. If the Dems ever get a Senate majority, they’ll probably eliminate the filibuster anyway, just to remove any influence pesky Republicans have by any means necessary. I guess that means that the next step needs to be a repeal of the 17th Amendment.



🎭 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. 


Remember the Cybertruck Explosion Outside Trump Tower? More Details Have Been Released


The final investigative report was released on the Army special forces soldier who detonated his cybertruck outside of Trump Tower in Las Vegas, Nevada, only furthering questions about his motives.

The 70-page dossier was released on Monday, confirming that Matthew Livelsberger, 37, was an active member of the Army Green Beret, and had a "manifesto" on his phone, which was classified by the Department of War.

Livelsberger loaded the truck with fireworks, gas tanks, and camping fuel, and set it ablaze while "simultaneously" shooting himself on January 1, 2025. The fire resulted in a massive explosion. 

Six people inside the hotel were injured.

While his manifesto will not be released, the Las Vegas Metro Police Department report provides several clues about his possible motives. 

Livelsberge left behind a message in his Notes app that claimed the attack was not a terror attack, but a way to "cleanse" his mind while sending a message to the "feckless leadership" of the United States, which was "near collapse."

“This was not a terrorist attack, it was a wake up call. Americans only pay attention to spectacles and violence. What better way to get my point across than a stunt with fireworks and explosives," the message read.

One note was sent to Shawn Ryan, a former Navy SEAL, CIA contractor, and host of a popular podcast. That note has not been released in its entirety.

The police report describes the explosion as “a premeditated attack involving a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device, with the potential to cause mass casualties and extensive structural damage.” Several questions still remain on what prompted the soldier to take his own life in such a spectacular way.



The Atlantic Says It’s Trump Officials’ Own Fault They Have To Flee Homes For Safety


Trump officials are fleeing their homes in the face of left-wing threats, but The Atlantic says the problem is actually Trump’s rhetoric.



The threat of left-wing violence against senior members of the Trump administration is so severe that families with young children are being forced to vacate their homes and live on military bases. According to The Atlantic, they had it coming.

Officials such as top adviser Stephen Miller, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, and an unnamed senior White House official have been forced to live in military housing, far more than in previous administrations, the Atlantic’s Michael Scherer, Missy Ryan, and Ashley Parker noted in a Thursday piece.

The authors have some thoughts about why, facing a dramatic uptick in threats and assassination attempts by leftists against conservatives, these officials might be uprooting from their family homes. The culprit, they declare, is “the nation’s polarization, to which the Trump administration has itself contributed.” Stephen Miller basically invited kooks to show up at his house and terrorize his wife and kids, see, by advocating for an immigration policy that hurts leftists’ feelings. (The irony is lost on The Atlantic writers that the group warning the Millers their kind will “not be tolerated” calls itself Arlington Neighbors United for Humanity.)

Miller, whom leftists like this guy publicly and casually fantasize about murdering, is “known for his inflammatory political rhetoric” and “regularly derides Democrats with inflammatory language,” the authors remind us. He was probably wearing a short skirt, too.

The Atlantic even found a source to blame the military for providing protection for Cabinet officials and their families. Keeping them safe on bases is “problematic,” says Johns Hopkins prof Adria Lawrence, because the military of a “robust democracy” should be “for the defense of the country as a whole and not just one party.” (Lawrence looks, let’s just say, exactly how you might expect.)

Another academic conveniently told The Atlantic’s readers that yes, political violence is a problem, but it’s an issue for Both SidesTM. To demonstrate this claim, the authors cited an example of Biden Secretary of State Antony Blinken being harassed by protesters who camped out at his house and “spattered fake blood on cars as they passed by.” Awkwardly for the Atlantic, these protesters were leftists angry that the Biden administration was not pandering enough to terrorist-run Gaza.

Lest you risk feeling sorry for the Millers’ three small children, The Atlantic reassures us that being run out of your home and onto a military base is actually a “status symbol” that confers “a certain sheen of importance” upon the displaced family.

“The isolation of living on a military base, at least for civilians, has also created a deeper division between Trump’s advisers and the metropolitan area where they govern,” the authors continue. “Trump-administration officials, who regularly mock the nation’s capital as a crime-ridden hellscape, now find themselves in a protected bubble…”

Did you catch that? Trump officials deserve no peace at their homes because they’re fascists. As evidence of their fascist tendencies, just look to the fact that they’re living on military bases and not among normal Democrat voters who want them murdered! Too bad the Trump administration has, um, shown no interest at all in addressing the rampant crime problem in Democrat-controlled Washington.

The authors go on to stress how ridiculous it was for the Trump administration to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization after the assassination of conservative powerhouse Charlie Kirk and multiple attempted assassinations of federal immigration agents. (Kirk’s very-online shooter engraved his cartridges with language calling Kirk a fascist, and the July 4 attack on a Texas ICE facility was allegedly carried out by an Antifa cell.) The authors downplay the move by noting that “the category of domestic terrorist organization has no meaning in federal law.” They must have forgotten that in 2020, their paper ran a piece urging the creation of a “Domestic Terrorist Organization” designation to fight racism.

Just as bad as the Atlantic piece is a writeup by The New York Times, which frames the story not as one of Democrat violence driving families from their homes but of “Trump administration officials taking over military residences.”

“It is unclear why so many Trump administration officials have sought to live on military bases,” John Ismay and Hamed Aleaziz write in the Times. Why might people who saw their friend assassinated in broad daylight, saw the president survive at least two assassination attempts, and saw a Republican-appointed Supreme Court justice survive an assassination attempt after left-wing protesters swarmed justices’ homes, want to minimize the risk to their families? It’s just impossible to say, really.

Either Ismay and Aleaziz are wilfully ignoring the obvious threat of left-wing violence, or they possess the collective observational skills of a box of rocks — both disqualifying traits for self-styled reporters.

It’s just so baffling, they continue, because Obama Defense Secretaries Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel “felt secure in their homes” when they were in office. What could possibly be different for Trump officials? If Panetta wasn’t scared of Tea Party grandmas, surely the Millers can shrug off the threat of antifa mobs and leftists like Virginia Democrat Jay Jones calling for the murder of Republicans?

Remember kids, political violence is a Both SidesTM problem.



It Looks Like Nancy Pelosi Is Being Pushed Out of Congress by the Far Left


RedState 

If the scuttlebutt is correct, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will finally be stepping down from Congress after the 2026 midterm elections. It's long been rumored that the octogenarian will be retiring, and potential successors have been building their brands and fundraising structures. Now NBC News is reporting that after Tuesday's elections, Pelosi will announce that she's not seeking re-election to her own seat, but there's more to it than the story Team Pelosi is spinning.

Since this is an extremely safe seat in the most liberal part of California (regardless of whether Prop 50 passes on Tuesday or whenever they finish counting ballots), conservatives should keep their celebrating to a minimum. Part of the reason that Pelosi is retiring is her age; she will be 86 on Election Day in 2026. But she's also being credibly challenged by two far-left figures who've already amassed followings and dollars: California state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Saikat Chakrabarti, a tech millionaire who founded Justice Democrats and served as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (D-NY) chief of staff. The emergence of Wiener and Chakrabarti could pose a problem for Pelosi's succession plan: it's well known that she wants her daughter, Christine, a documentary filmmaker and Democrat activist, to essentially inherit her seat.

As RedState readers are aware, Wiener is the state legislator best known for passing pedophile-friendly, anti-parent legislation. 

Wiener announced his candidacy on October 22 via video and, of course, made it about "Trump and his MAGA extremists," saying:

"I'm running for Congress to defend San Francisco, our values, our people, and the Constitution of the United States with everything I have. I've stood up to violence and hate my entire life. Trump and his MAGA extremists don't scare me."

During AOC's first term in Congress, Chakrabarti stoked conflict between his boss and Pelosi, and Pelosi won that round, forcing Chakrabarti and Corbin Trent, AOC's then-comms director, out. Chakrabarti tweeted things like, "All these articles want to claim what a legislative mastermind Pelosi is, but I'm seeing way more strategic smarts from freshman members like @AOC, @IlhanMN , @RashidaTlaib and @AyannaPressley. Pelosi is just mad that she got outmaneuvered (again) by Republicans," and "Pelosi claims we can't focus on impeachment because it's a distraction from kitchen table issues. But I'd challenge you to find voters that can name a single thing House Democrats have done for their kitchen table this year. What is this legislative mastermind doing?" According to Politico, Chakrabarti deleted a series of tweets as part of a peace agreement between the Democrat caucus's "moderate and progressive factions."

But he hasn't forgotten his animus toward Pelosi, and he has the money and the infrastructure to do something about it. From Politico:

“I tried to do this as a staffer last time,” he says, a note of frustration in his voice. “It’s hard. It is the kind of thing where you need to be a member of Congress. And I’m thinking once we’re elected or some number of us are elected, you actually need a member of Congress who’s going to be organizing the group. Like what our political strategy is, which we honestly did not have in 2018 with the squad and all that.”

. . .

Money will not be an issue for Chakrabarti. He’s worth somewhere north of $100 million, having helped build the payment processor Stripe back in 2011, an experience he describes as “winning the start-up lottery.” He’s already put $700,000 into his own campaign. Chakrabarti can afford to spend much of his day organizing because he doesn’t need to worry about wooing donors.

Wiener seems a little salty that Chakrabarti has thrown his hat into the race, since Wiener has been angling to replace Pelosi for years, telling Politico:

“Saikat is doing smart things — for example, spending enormously on digital — to try to make up for having zero history or track record of working in the San Francisco community.”

Wiener has raised over $1,000,000 and was waiting to formally announce his candidacy until there was an official retirement announcement from Pelosi, but after he heard that Chakrabarti had over 800 people at an early campaign event, he decided to make things official.

Pelosi's team says she's only thinking about Tuesday's Prop 50 election in California. Her spokesman Ian Krager issued the following statement to NBC News:

“Speaker Pelosi is fully focused on her mission to win the Yes on 50 special election in California on Tuesday. She urges all Californians to join in that mission on the path to taking back the House for Democrats.”

And Pelosi herself told the San Francisco Examiner last month that any decision about whether to run again in 2026 would be made after the Prop 50 election. Pelosi really hasn't had much to do with the Yes on 50 special election; she's stood beside Gavin Newsom on occasion at his astroturfed events, but it's really Newsom's baby. But it's a convenient story to detract from the fact that the far left faction of the party is not giving up and refuses to allow Pelosi's safe Democrat seat to go to what they consider an establishment Democrat.



John Roberts And Congress Need To Immediately Stop Gross Ethical Violations By Federal Judges


Judges have life tenure to insulate them from political pressure, not so they can act like politicians in robes.



In a recent New York Times article, dozens of inferior court judges violated the Code of Conduct for United States Judges by taking pot shots at the Supreme Court’s emergency docket.

Some judges called Supreme Court reversals “demoralizing,” while others whined that the Supreme Court’s reversals at the very least created the perception of partisanship on the justices’ part, as the Supreme Court mostly has been reversing rulings that had gone against Trump administration policies. One judge compared the relationship between the justices and that judge’s district to “a war zone.”

Article III of the Constitution establishes a judicial hierarchy. At the top is the Supreme Court. It is the final arbiter and head of the judicial branch, just as the sitting president is the head of the executive branch. The Framers, understanding that the Supreme Court could not alone manage all cases, provided for the creation of inferior courts by Congress. Through statutes, Congress has created these, providing for nearly a thousand judgeships on district courts and courts of appeals spread across our country. These inferior courts must follow Supreme Court precedent and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Among other things, the code prohibits judges from making political comments or even comments that a reasonable observer could view as such.

The griping of inferior court judges stems from about two dozen rulings on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket. This docket allows justices to pause orders from lower courts while the litigation proceeds. Radicals trying to grind to a halt President Donald Trump’s electoral mandate repeatedly have run to district courts in leftist hellholes like the District of Columbia, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, and Boston. The judges there are overwhelmingly radical leftists. Even the Republican appointees are, for the most part, milquetoast because home-state Democrat senators can veto quality conservative nominees thanks to a Senate tradition known as the blue slip. The Supreme Court has correctly reversed absurd inferior court orders issued by judges who refuse to accept that President Trump is implementing an agenda for which the American people voted.

Revealing Their Partisanship

Every judge who responded to questions from The Times did so anonymously. This refusal to come out publicly is cowardly, but the judges hid in the shadows for one reason: ethics enforcement. Putting their names to comments trashing the Supreme Court would rightly have subjected these inferior court disgraces to a torrent of ethics complaints. These judges fail to see the obvious: their accusing the Supreme Court of partisanship in such a blatantly unethical way explicitly reveals their own partisanship. The biased authors of the article make sure to underscore that nearly half of the Republican-appointed judges who responded to questions about the Supreme Court were critical. But the authors do not tell us, for instance, where these Republican appointees sit. If these judges are in blue bastions like Massachusetts, Illinois, California, or Oregon, they do not remotely resemble judicial conservatives.

The article is grossly biased in several other ways. Judge William Young, a virulently anti-Trump district judge in Massachusetts, in recent months both inserted a gratuitous footnote into one opinion to bash the Supreme Court’s monumental decision on presidential immunity and wrote a 12-page screed against President Trump as part of another opinion. The authors make sure to hammer home that Judge Young was an appointee of President Reagan. When President Reagan first nominated Judge Young in 1984, the two Democrat Massachusetts senators were Ted Kennedy and Paul Tsongas. When the Senate confirmed Judge Young in 1985, another hardcore leftist, John Kerry, had replaced Tsongas. In other words, notoriously leftist Massachusetts senators helped pick Young. Young may be a Reagan appointee, but he is no judicial conservative.

The article authors also make sure to highlight Republican former judges who are critical of the Supreme Court. For instance, J. Michael Luttig, rejected multiple times for a Supreme Court nomination, receives lots of attention in the article. The authors highlight that Luttig served under President George H.W. Bush. Luttig in recent years has suffered several legal humiliations, most notably in Trump v. Anderson. There, the Supreme Court reversed an absurd decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that had thrown President Trump off the ballot under the Insurrection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Luttig had called the Colorado decision “masterful and unassailable.” The Supreme Court’s 9-0 reversal of that ludicrous decision proves otherwise.

Roberts Must Rebuke These Judges

Chief Justice John Roberts needs to get his judicial house in order. This latest New York Times drive-by shooting by anonymous federal judges is the most recent blatant example of out-of-control rogue judges sabotaging the federal judiciary, the presidency, and American voters. Out of more than 400 judges who received requests for comment, nearly 20 percent responded. This is shameful, unacceptable, and startling — our federal judiciary has been politicized and weaponized.

Judges have a modest, but crucial, role. They resolve cases and controversies of the parties before them with redressable claims. That is their Article III power. Nothing more; nothing less. Their job is not to run crying anonymously to reporters because the Supreme Court is acting in a way that these inferior court snowflakes despise. Chief Justice Roberts must issue an order to judges to stop talking to the media, either on the record or anonymously.

Congress also must levy severe consequences against these judicial embarrassments. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees should open oversight inquiries to find out which anonymous and cowardly judges disgraced the bench through their pathetic public whining. If judges take off their judicial robes, climb into the political arena, and throw political punches, they should expect political counterpunches.

Judges have life tenure to insulate them from political pressure, not so they can act like politicians in robes. Sadly, several dozen judges do not understand this basic tenet of our republic, and they must face public shaming.



Senate Leader John Thune Tells President Trump, “There aren’t enough Republican votes to end CR filibuster”


Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters he informed President Trump, “The votes aren’t there” to kill the filibuster.  Ergo, the govt shutdown will continue.

The issue is somewhat frustrating for those who have followed DC events closely.  The Democrats hated the Big Beautiful Bill budget and spending legislation, so the Republicans had to suspend the filibuster to pass it.  However, the Democrats are blocking the BBB budget and spending legislation by shutting down government, and the Republicans will not suspend the filibuster to open it.

WASHINGTON DC – Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Monday there’s not enough support among Republican senators to eliminate the filibuster as President Donald Trump ramps up pressure to change the chamber’s rules to allow the simple-majority passage of legislation. “The votes aren’t there,” Thune told reporters.

Thune said he had spoken to Trump about the issue — he didn’t specify when — and questioned whether his campaign against the filibuster should come as a surprise. (more)

The Moonbat leftists are not the biggest problem; they never have been. They are ideologues, mostly. Insufferable, stupid, violent at times, but easy to spot.  Remember, Democrats quest for power; Republicans quest for money. Always underline this, because it’s really important.

The Moonbat leftists seek power, seek control of your life, and they are open in their insufferably stupid arguments to get there. When they start to lose, they turn violent. This is their history.

That said, they are not the most dangerous.

The professional Republicans are more dangerous, because their priority is money. As a result, their approaches, goals, objectives and arguments can be purchased.

Republicans have no interests, goals or objectives, nor allegiances, that supersede their primary objective – getting money, and growing their wealth.

Democrats will come at you with a knife, a gun or a baseball bat. You can see them. The professional Republican guy standing beside you, however, is willing to take a payment to shoot you in the ear when you don’t see it coming.

This is also why it seems like Democrats stick together, and Republicans split. Democrats are chasing a common goal, a collective goal – power. Republicans are chasing a commonality, yes, but an individual goal – money, their wealth.

Donors contribute to the Democrat agenda because their interest is to benefit from power. Republicans modify their agenda to benefit donors, because their goal is money.

Democrats stay on task, power. Republicans are flexible, money.

You enter a war against Leftists with extreme danger. However, the danger is not the war in front of you, it’s the army beside you waiting to get a payment from the enemy in front of you.

Out of a group of 1,000 Democrats, 900+ will join in to defend a weakened Moonbat leftist (see Kimmel).

Out of a group of 1,000 Republicans, you will find, maybe, 5 willing to cover your back regardless of how much bribery is put in front of them.

Remember this, understand this, and the reality of who presents the most danger to us is accurately framed.

Republicans do not simply snatch defeat from the jaws of victory; they sell defeat to the highest bidder!

It is interesting to watch Senate Republicans proclaim how agencies like the DOJ and FBI have lost the institutional trust of the American people due to corruption, while simultaneously the same Senate Republicans never note the trust loss within their party as a result of their willful blindness to it.

Wax on….  Wax off.   Today is another Monday.


When Regulation, Not Capitalism, Creates Fake Jobs

When Regulation, Not Capitalism, Creates Fake Jobs

Alexis SΓ©manne for Mises.org


In Graeber’s Paradox, Graeber captured something real: many workers today feel trapped in positions they know serve no clear purpose. Yet he located the cause in capitalism/neoliberalism rather than in bureaucracy. He imagined a world where elites deliberately maintain wasteful employment to keep people docile. But the modern West is not a laissez-faire system; it is a dense web of monetary interventions, taxes, subsidies, and regulations.

From an Austrian perspective, most “fake jobs” appear precisely where the market test is suspended by government intervention, where profit-and-loss signals are muted, and where coercive funding shields inefficiency from discovery.

For the reader, let me briefly recall David Graeber. Graeber (1961–2020) was an American anthropologist and social theorist, a leading figure in the Occupy Wall Street movement, and one of the best-known academic critics of capitalism in recent decades. His book Bullshit Jobs: A Theory(2018) argued that much of modern employment consists of meaningless, socially useless roles produced by capitalism itself. His diagnosis resonated widely, yet his explanation was ideological rather than economic.

The essay below summarizes my article published in Economic Affairs, “Beyond David Graeber: How State Intervention Creates ‘Bullshit Jobs,’” in which I propose, for me, the most robust alternative reading on this phenomenon, rooted in Austrian economics and classical liberalism. My central claim is simple: state intervention, not capitalism, is the actual engine behind the proliferation of meaningless jobs.

Regulatory Inflation: How Paperwork Replaces Production

Every new rule converts productive effort into compliance. Hospitals now employ more administrators than nurses; universities more managers than teachers. These people work hard, but at activities created by legal mandates, not consumer demand. Ludwig von Mises warned in Bureaucracy (1944) that once regulation replaces entrepreneurship, success depends on satisfying procedures rather than customers. Regulatory inflation thus breeds armies of “box tickers” and auditors whose function is to exist.

Distorted Economic Calculation

In competitive markets, unproductive roles tend to vanish. But the market test collapses when subsidies, tax privileges, or political contracts intervene. Firms and public agencies can afford to retain roles that generate no value because their funding is guaranteed. Mises identified this as the calculation problem: once money and prices are distorted, society cannot tell which activities create wealth or merely consume it. BS are the labor-market face of that problem.

Symbolic Labor and the Politics of Appearance

Graeber accurately described the alienation of well-paid professionals who feel useless. Yet the cause is not capitalist exploitation but bureaucratic symbolism. When law and politics dictate who must be hired, promoted, or reported on (through quotas, equity mandates, or CSR requirements), organizations reward appearances over outcomes. Workers sense the hollowness of tasks performed for compliance rather than service. The result is a culture of status without substance, the moral fatigue of pretending to produce.

Monetary Distortions and the Compliance Economy

Easy-money policies intensify the problem. Decades of artificially low interest rates and central bank bailouts push capital (and human talent) into finance, legal risk, and administrative control. Graduates who might have founded firms or engineered products become compliance officers or ESG consultants. Cheap credit softens budget constraints, allowing corporations and governments to hire for optics rather than innovation. In Hayek’s terms, monetary intervention distorts the structure of production (and with it, the structure of employment).

Why Graeber Misdiagnosed the System

Graeber saw inefficiency and assumed capitalism caused it. But, in genuine markets, inefficiency is punished. Fake jobs thrive only where competition is dulled (namely, in public bureaucracies and regulated monopolies). Consider the Spanish civil servant who drew a salary for six years without showing up, as he does in his book, a story Graeber himself cites. Such absurdity survives not because of a profit motive but because no profit motive exists. The absence of market feedback, not its excess, sustains waste.

How Markets Measure Value (and Bureaucracy Destroys It)

Graeber claimed we can’t objectively determine a job’s social worth. Austrians agree that value is subjective but emphasize that prices aggregate subjectivity into an objective signal. A job sustained by voluntary exchange proves its value; one sustained only by coercion or subsidy does not. Markets may err, but they self-correct. Bureaucracies cannot, because their funding never depends on consent.

The Geography of Meaninglessness

If this Austrian hypothesis is correct, BS jobs should concentrate in highly regulated, high-spending economies. Indeed, France (where government outlays exceed 57 percent of GDP) shows some of the densest administrative employment in the developed world. By contrast, leaner economies, such as Switzerland or Singapore, with smaller states and freer markets, exhibit higher productivity and stronger reported job satisfaction. When the state expands, it means contracts.

Restoring Meaning to Work

Graeber was right that people long for purpose. He was wrong about where it comes from. Meaningful work arises from freedom, not from bureaucratic design. To shrink the universe of fake jobs we must:

  • Simplify and stabilize legal codes;
  • Eliminate subsidies and mandates that reward non-productive sectors;
  • Reinstate hard budget constraints in public institutions;
  • Allow creative destruction to cleanse inefficiency;
  • End monetary manipulation that fuels compliance industries

In short: deregulate meaninglessness away.

Conclusion

Graeber’s work captured a genuine malaise but inverted its cause. Such jobs are not the offspring of markets but of interventionism, of governments that mistake paperwork for progress and regulation for morality. If we want work to matter again, we must let individuals freely create, exchange, and fail. Only then will labor recover its dignity and society’s vitality.