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  Federalist 

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.

The  Federalist 

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”

Conservative  Treehouse 

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 Sémanne 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.

♦️𝐖³𝐏 𝐃𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝

 

W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

posted by DarkGoldenMan

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. 

 

Trump Rejects Tomahawk Missiles for Ukraine: Bold Aid Block

RedState 

The Tomahawk missile, while a piece of Cold War technology, remains a very effective long-range cruise missile. It can carry a significant 1,000-pound payload and has a range of over a thousand miles. So, it's easy to imagine why embattled Ukraine may want some of these. 

The Pentagon has given the White House the go-ahead to decide on any sales of Tomahawks to NATO nations who would then provide them to Ukraine, on the basis that the sales wouldn't dangerously deplete America's stocks of this key weapons system.

The Pentagon has approved sending long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine — giving President Trump the final say on whether to arm Kyiv with them, according to a new report.

The Pentagon gave the White House the green light on Saturday after an assessment found that transferring the missiles would not impact US stockpiles, US and European officials told CNN.

Trump had previously said he would be hesitant to give “away things that we need to protect our country,” but the Pentagon’s assessment appears to clear away that hurdle for Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has pleaded with Trump to provide Kyiv with Tomahawk missiles, which could really hit Vladimir Putin where it hurts.

These missiles would enable Ukraine to strike deep into Russia, potentially even hitting targets in Moscow, which has not been under enemy fire since World War 2. That's a capability that Ukraine's President Zelensky would doubtlessly love to have, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. On Sunday, while on Air Force One bound for Washington, President Trump indicated he wasn't in favor of sending these missiles through NATO to Ukraine.

President Donald Trump said on Sunday that, for now, he is not considering a deal that would allow Ukraine to obtain long-range Tomahawk missiles for use against Russia. 

Trump has been cool to a plan for the United States to sell Tomahawks to NATO nations that would transfer them to Ukraine, saying he does not want to escalate the war.

His latest comments to reporters aboard Air Force One indicate that he remains reluctant.

"No, not really," Trump told reporters as he flew to Washington from Palm Beach, Florida, when asked whether he was considering a deal to sell the missiles. He added, however, that he could change his mind.

Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte discussed the Tomahawk idea when they met at the White House on October 22. Rutte said on Friday that the issue was under review and that it was up to the United States to decide.

It wouldn't be surprising at all if the president remains cool to this idea.

Most of the American-built weaponry supplied to Ukraine has been tactical systems, including artillery, anti-armor missiles, air-defense systems, tanks, and other vehicles, along with munitions. Ukraine is operating some American aircraft, including F-16 fighters, but most of the American weapons supplied to Ukraine have not had strategic capacity. The Tomahawk does. 

This would represent a significant escalation in the level of American aid, providing Ukraine with a way to strike directly at the Russian capital. It's a fair point to note that the Russians have more than enough capacity to strike Ukraine's capital, and they have done so, but they did so with their own weapons.

There are good arguments for and against providing these weapons to Ukraine. For the moment, President Trump appears to be erring on the side of caution, choosing to avoid causing any Russian escalation, which would almost surely ensue if Ukraine struck directly at Moscow.

USDA Will Exhaust All Emergency Funds to Pay Food Stamp Benefits at 50% for November, After That No Money

No amount of judicial activism can get blood from a stone.  After the Rhode Island judge demanded the USDA pay food stamp benefits from an emergency/disaster fund, Deputy Under Secretary of the Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services (FNCS) at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Patrick Penn, files a court response saying all funds distributed.

Approximately 50% of the normal distribution for 42 million recipients will be transmitted and most states should begin disbursing on Wednesday. 

[SOURCE DOCUMENT]

DOJ Responds to Comey Motion to Dismiss – Provides Receipts

Conservative  Treehouse 

USAO Lindsey Halligan has responded to James Comey’s motion to dismiss the charges against him in a lengthy response and multiple attachment filing [Full COURT FILE HERE] – [Response MOTION HERE].

In addition to refuting the effort by Comey’s lawyers to challenge the appointment of USAO Halligan [See Response Here], the USAO office also provides evidence of James Comey’s extensive use of Daniel Richman to act as a cut out for leaks and communications with the media [Attachments HERE].

Beginning on January 2, 2015, James Comey hired Daniel Richman to be his conduit to the media for all things around the Clinton investigation.  Exhibit #3 highlights Richman emails to Office of Legal Counsel, Patrick Findlay, to begin the process of officially working for Comey as a special government employee. [Attachment #3 HERE].

There are multiple exhibits highlighting emails between James Comey (aka Reinhold Niebuhr7) and Daniel Richman [HERE-4 and HERE-5 and HERE-6 and HERE-7] proving the former FBI director did intentionally direct Daniel Richman to contact media persons on his behalf and leak investigative background information, or instruct them on information, James Comey provided. The evidence on this issue is overwhelming.

Daniel Richman, working directly on the instructions of James Comey, worked closely with New York Times journalist Mike Schmidt, husband of MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace, to publish material [ex. Exhibit #8].  Richman then coordinated the FBI director’s message with dozens of national journalists, writing the scripts for them to publish on behalf of James Comey [ex Exhibit #9].   Again, the evidence on this collaborative endeavor is overwhelming.

Interestingly, [Govt Exhibit #12] is the criminal complaint stemming from the FBI investigation which began on July 21, 2025.   The investigative summary notes the purposeful use of Room #9582 at FBI headquarters, intended to destroy classified evidence concealed in five burn bags.

[SOURCE Exhibit #12, page 2]

I’m still reviewing the information.

More to come…