Just a quick word on all the wailing and gnashing of teeth we're seeing from the Democrat Party and all who stupidly side with them. Between the criminal assholes who warned criminal illegals of the oncoming justice (and may those "Americans" be found and arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law for obstructing it), to the clown show of House Reps haranguing a security guard for standing his ground (unarmed, it appeared) against allowing them entry, to the fools who think there is some "coup" afoot because Trump seeks to know where our money is going.
As I've stated to other lefty buffoons on a different platform, candidates from both parties run on the promise of doing this very thing. Now it's being done and because it's being done by Donald Trump, who outrageously dares to keep his campaign promises. This piece by the great Andrea Widburg provides an argument as to why the Moron Party is likely to lose this battle to prevent those promises from being kept:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/02/trump_s_attack_on_the_deep_state_is_spectacular_and_almost_certainly_legal.html
And there are those who are shocked at the danger of letting agents of the president having access to our personal info, as if that info is necessarily any more or less at risk in the hands of the Department of the Treasury. So here's something to be kept in mind: the Department and its Treasurer are subordinate to the Secretary of the Treasury. The Treasurer advises the Secretary and both of their signatures appear on all Federal Reserve Notes.
The Secretary of the Treasury appointed by the POTUS to the cabinet of the POTUS and advises the POTUS on financial and economic matters and is subordinate to POTUS. Thus, the Department of the Treasury is subordinate to the POTUS as well and subject to his orders. What are those orders? They're to comply with his agents (under the leadership of Elon Musk, who was chosen to head up DOGE) in determining how our money is being spent, as well as to increase efficiency of the various agencies they're tasked to audit. Ultimately, to find and eliminate as much waste as possible (the goal, I believe, is $2trillion) so as to lower our outrageous 36 trillion dollar debt. I'd like to see 10% cut, but that still leaves 32.4 trillion. Nonetheless, even just two trill...which at this point seems more doable than it did initially, will demonstrate what's possible if politicians had the actual will. And of course, some of this will be the result of departments closing or reductions in their staff. So much wasteful spending! So much spending on so many things the federal government has no authority to justify it.
This is what the Dems are whining about and pretending is an unConstitutional "coup".
And they wanted us to rehire Biden or put Harris in his place while pretending Trump would be a danger? Good gosh! The reality is that this action by Trump and Musk is exposing all which has been going on for a long, long time and the lefties know their opposition will expose them as unworthy of their positions in government.
So the pasted resistance...the old tomato...will be if Trump & Co can tie specific politicians to the most egregious examples of wasteful, corrupt spending so that replacing them will be a snap. How are these people going to defend sending our money to another country so they can further sexual immorality and perversion, or propping up foreign bad actors or any number of other abominations?
Also, on the ICE front, it's the same thing. Dumbasses trying to pretend there's a threat against legal immigrants or visa holders, when the point is to first round up the worst and most dangerous illegals and then move the next level of lawbreakers until eventually, most who are not entitled be here by virtue of their willingness to ignore our laws will be sent back to their home countries. Some leaders of those countries thought they can stymie the push to return their scum to them, but they've caved to Trump's abilities to demonstrate he knows what he's doing.
Yeah, Trump. The guy Louisville losers like to pretend is an idiot. If only we could keep the stupid from voting!
5 comments:
I believe that Feodor is a pedofile. Yes, I have no evidence for my belief. However, I believe it anyway. My First Amendment protects my right to believe that about him.
There's no law against holding a belief, regardless of how false it might be. Naturally, I have no care for how people regard the likes of feo, but I do care about people thinking they have a "right" to express unfounded beliefs about anyone else here, even about as vile an individual as feo proves himself to be. And just as I tell Dan, opinion requires substantive validation of some kind for holding it, especially if one wishes to express it in a forum like this one. feo's provided evidence enough to justly state he's contemptible. To suggest what you do requires evidence. To sing, "I don't know why, I just do" about something like this is contemptible as well.
So either make a case, retract the charge or go troll elsewhere.
Thank goodness for our first amendment that protects speech no matter how offensive or stupid it is. It's too bad that Dan and his parasite don't understand this.
I would just say that to accuse someone publicly, under the guise of personal opinion, is an abuse of the 1st Amendment, but I'm not going to get bent over it having been done. But I don't want nothing but. I insist on HARD DATA now and then as well and to accuse someone of being a pedophile demands an explanation for why one might hold such an opinion.
Furthermore, Dan and his troll most certainly understand the concept. It's just that it's another they reserve for their own benefit.
Art, as always Truth is a defense against libel or slander. That those in the public eye forego some protection against libel/slander is something that they accept along with everything else that goes with being in the public eye. Again, Truth is always a defense.
The first amendment protects (this is where the left has had problems recently) speech that is offensive and potentially false. 250ish years in and we've seen one exception to the protection of free speech (fire/theater) which covers speech that incites direct, predictable harm.
I agree that it's irresponsible to accuse someone of this without proof, yet we frequently see the left doing similar things.
Finally, the first comment makes a good point. Beliefs are protected under the first amendment. Believing that one should shout fire in a crowded theater is absolutely fine, acting on that belief is where you run into a problem.
The above is a childish, simplistic, attempt to make a foolish point (as near as I can tell), and isn't much beyond that.
Post a Comment