The Truth Is Out There

Posts tagged ‘politics’

Don Lemon Announces He’s Leaving X, But Doesn’t Get The Response He May Have Been Hoping For


Don Lemon speaks onstage during the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's 53rd Annual Legislative Conference National Town Hall at Walter E. Washington Convention Center on September 12, 2024 in Washington, DC.

Don Lemon speaks onstage during the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s 53rd Annual Legislative Conference National Town Hall at Walter E. Washington Convention Center on September 12, 2024 in Washington, DC. – Congressional Black Caucus Foundation

And another one bites the dust.

In the latest case of a pundit or reporter leaving the walled garden of establishment media and failing in the new media landscape, former CNN anchor Don Lemon announced he was leaving X — which he still calls Twitter — effective immediately.

Lemon’s stated reason was that the platform was too conservative for him, although many noted that basically nobody noticed he was still around.

“I’ve loved connecting with all of you on X, but it’s time for me to leave the platform,” Lemon said in a Wednesday morning message.

“I once believed it was a place for honest debate and discussion, transparency, and free speech, but I now feel it does not serve that purpose.”

Lemon also cited new terms of service which require all disputes to be heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas or Tarrant County, Texas courts.

“As the Washington Post recently reported on X’s decision to change the terms, this ‘ensures that such lawsuits will be heard in courthouses that are a hub for conservatives, which experts say could make it easier for X to shield itself from litigation and punish critics.’

“I think that speaks for itself,” Lemon said.

Of course, it’s worth noting that the one pushing for censorship when Lemon and X impresario Elon Musk sat down for an interview was … Lemon: *that video below

And, as the reaction to Lemon’s departure seemed to indicate, the motive factor probably had a lot more to do with the fact nobody really cared:

Just in case you’ve forgotten how we got here — and how Lemon is an object lesson in how old media stalwarts tend to fail when they try their hand at new media — let’s go through a brief history of Don Lemon’s recent career arc.

In April of 2023, after months of behind-the-scenes drama at CNN’s morning show, Lemon was fired by the network after 17 years there.

It’s unclear whether it was because of the show’s low ratings, or his frequent dust-ups with his co-hosts, or a series of controversial comments — particularly a cheap shot at Nikki Haley in which he claimed that women over 50 aren’t in their prime anymore.

Perhaps Lemon could have parlayed his way into a weekend show on MSNBC or something; after all, if Katie Phang and Al Sharpton can keep gigs there, surely Lemon could, right?

But no: He decided it was time for him to become the next Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson and venture out into the world of social media broadcasting/podcasting.

And, it initially looked like Musk was going to hire him, even with a series of exorbitant demands. Then, Elon realized Lemon basically just wanted to do his old job.

“His approach was basically just ‘CNN, but on social media’, which doesn’t work, as evidenced by the fact that CNN is dying,” Musk said in an X post.

“And, instead of it being the real Don Lemon, it was really just [former CNN president] Jeff Zucker talking through Don, so lacked authenticity. All this said, Lemon/Zucker are of course welcome to build their viewership on this platform along with everyone else.”

And he tried to — with not a whole lot of success, since most of us didn’t even notice he was going. Now, he’s blaming it on the conservative bent of social media.

It’s worth noting that, yes, conservatives and heterodox political thinkers tend to do better in the podcasting and social media arena. Figures like Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, and Tim Pool have made their names that way, and former establishment media types like Carlson and Megyn Kelly have seen a career renaissance since leaving their respective networks.

That’s not because the deck was supposedly stacked in favor of the right on social media, despite what many on the left claim.

Instead, it’s because establishment types like Lemon simply want to keep on doing the same thing they were doing before, just on a different platform where more and more people are turning for news. Except the reason they’re turning to those platforms for news is because establishment media types like Lemon keep on doing the same thing on networks like CNN.

Nor is Lemon the first person to find this out. When Chris Wallace left Fox News over disagreements regarding the network’s 2020 election coverage, he decided to try streaming with CNN’s digital service, CNN+. That was so abysmal it lasted about a month, and the quality of Wallace’s show didn’t help any; think of a more boring version of Charlie Rose without an alleged sexual predator hosting and you’ll get an idea just how bad it was.

Wallace apparently still hasn’t learned, because after a few years on CNN proper he’s announced a move into independent streaming and podcasting, one which will doubtlessly go just as well as the CNN+ gig did.

What personalities like Lemon and Wallace are discovering is that people aren’t just leaving traditional media because new technologies and platforms have emerged. It’s that those new technologies cut out the sclerotic gatekeeping middlemen who have set the narrative from the dawn of the mass media era. Without that in place, there’s no reason to seek out Lemon or his ilk.

Don’t let the door(s) hit you in the posterior on the way out Don.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Rats Fleeing Sinking DOJ Ship


The scales of justice have a chance to recalibrate following Donald Trump’s resounding victory and the departure of key figures at the Biden/Harris Department of Justice

The New York Times today confirmed Special Counsel Jack Smith and his team of prosecutors plan to resign before Donald Trump takes office in January. In what must have been a painful article to write, Devlin Barrett and Glenn Thrush, two reliable mouthpieces for the Department of Justice, said Smith’s office is “drawing up its plan for how to end the cases” against the incoming president. It is also unclear whether Smith will file a confidential report summarizing the special counsels’ work, a requirement under the DOJ special counsel rules.

Smith further “finds himself on the defensive,” according to the Times, as House Republicans prepare to investigate the investigators. “Republican lawmakers told Justice Department officials who had worked on the Trump cases to preserve all of their communications for investigators,” Barrett and Thrush wrote. “That is a sure sign that a new balance of power in Washington will make Mr. Smith among those being hunted by congressional investigators and others.”

Declassified with Julie Kelly is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Smith’s double-barreled pursuit of Trump—he filed unprecedented federal indictments against the incoming president in Washington for the events of January 6 and in southern Florida related to Trump’s alleged hoarding of national defense secrets—ends with a whisper not a bang, a result the regime media and Democrats in Washington never envisioned. For two years, cable news hosts and self-described “legal experts” hung on Smith’s every move in court, salivating over the vision of the war-crimes prosecutor hauling their longtime nemesis off to the gulag in handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit.

Not only did that scenario never come to fruition, Smith himself is now the target of a potential criminal investigation. Representatives James Jordan (R-Ohio) and Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) sent a letter to Smith last week demanding the preservation of all records; Jordan further indicated during a recent interview that as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, he may ask Smith to publicly testify.

That, of course, is a no-brainer. The tight-lipped Smith—who insisted he would do all his talking through court documents, only speaking twice when announcing both indictments—must be forced to explain himself to the American people. It won’t be a pretty sight; in contrast to the confused almost sympathetic Congressional appearance by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller in 2019, Smith instead will lay bare his sense of superiority and air of imperviousness for all the world to see.

All the Way Down the Line

Smith, however, should not testify alone. Jay Bratt, who has been accused of threatening a defense attorney in the classified documents case in an attempt to get his client to flip on Trump among other instances of misconduct, should explain his involvement in the matter from the beginning. Bratt’s tiny fingerprints are all over the bogus case dating back to 2021 when he visited the Biden White House at least twice. Bratt also joined three FBI agents during a voluntary search of Mar-a-Lago in June 2022 for government papers then fought “aggressively,” as one former FBI official described it, behind the scenes to pursue the armed FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago in August 2022.

Bratt, it appears, also plans a hasty exit from the DOJ, where he has served in top positions for decades.

But panic at the DOJ isn’t contained just to the special counsel’s office. Politico’s Josh Gerstein reports that DOJ employees are “terrified” over Trump’s return to the White House; one DOJ attorney told Gerstein the department’s prosecutors “are losing their minds.”

“The fear is that career leadership and career employees everywhere are either going to leave or they’re going to be driven out,” the unnamed attorney told Gerstein.

Savor that sweetness for just a moment

Even rank-and-file prosecutors involved in high-profile January 6 cases appear distraught at the possibility they might be held accountable for their conduct.

From CNN:

“One Justice employee told CNN that people inside the department are ‘safety planning.’ Another told CNN that some are considering whether they should hire lawyers. A third official told CNN that there is a ‘general sense of depression’ among attorneys who worked on legal cases that some Republican lawmakers have spoken out against, saying those attorneys are concerned their years of work will be ‘flushed down the drain.’”

Their fear is justified. In case after case, defense attorneys determined prosecutors had withheld exculpatory evidence, required under the Brady rule, and violated due process rights of J6 defendants. Prosecutors also systematically misused a post-Enron document-shredding statute to turn otherwise nonviolent protesters into lifelong felons. In June, the Supreme Court concluded the DOJ unlawfully applied 18 USC 1512(c)(2), obstruction of an official proceeding, in J6 cases but not before hundreds were charged and over 100 sent to prison.

In fact, the entire “Capitol Siege” investigation, as the DOJ calls it, represents an egregious example of selective prosecution since no other group of political protesters in U.S. history has been subjected to the type of federal charges levied against J6ers.

Barbarians at the Gaetz

One can only assume the exodus from the DOJ will accelerate after Trump announced he will nominate Florida Representative Matt Gaetz as attorney general. The nomination appeared to shock even Trump insiders; Gaetz’s name never surfaced as a possible contender.

Gaetz is a Pitbull with a long record of confronting bad actors in the DOJ including FBI Director Christopher Wray. (He also reportedly will resign before he is fired on January 20.) He has been an outspoken defender of J6ers and likely will champion the cause to pardon them next year.

If anyone can chase more rats out of the DOJ, it is Gaetz.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

The Harris Refund Mystery: Buyer’s Remorse Or Something Sinister?


Buyer’s remorse or something more sinister? That’s the question hanging in the air as we examine the peculiar and stunning pattern of refunds issued by the Harris campaign. In contrast to the Trump campaign, which issued a mere 31 refunds, the Harris campaign processed an astonishing 10,821 refunds. These contributions were all handled through the Democrats’ preferred fundraising platform, ActBlue, which has a glaring lack of KYC (Know Your Customer) protocols. The absence of any real verification raises serious concerns: were these donations genuine, manipulated or something even more troubling?

Consider the curious case of Lane MacWilliams, who tops the charts with an astounding 101 refunds. Lane, a California resident, engaged in a peculiar cycle of giving and requesting money back—often on the same day. On November 30, 2023, Lane received multiple refunds, a pattern that continued into early 2024, culminating in the final set of refunds on February 25, 2024. What could explain this behavior? Is it an indecisive donor, or is it something more calculated? Lane isn’t alone. Diane Gregory from Texas (91 refunds) and Donald Matteson from Washington (85 refunds) also demonstrated similar patterns. Something here just doesn’t add up.

In total, $5,234,305.33 was refunded by the Harris campaign, with an average refund of approximately $483.72. The largest single refund? $21,700, sent back to Joseph Boyle of Oregon. Compare that with the smallest positive refund of just $1, refunded to Jim Wendelken of Massachusetts. The scale and range of these transactions are both impressive and unsettling. Refunds spanned from one dollar to tens of thousands, yet the system facilitating these transactions lacks any robust donor identity checks. ActBlue, unlike other platforms, has no mechanism for verifying the legitimacy of donations—meaning anyone with a pre-paid debit card can make a contribution using whatever name, address or employer they choose.

Revisorweb, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

With over 5,478 unique individuals receiving refunds, and some receiving massive amounts, one must wonder why so many people supposedly had a change of heart—if that’s even what happened. No one, least of all ActBlue, can definitively say whether these donations came from actual American citizens or were funneled through by foreign entities or wealthy domestic players breaking campaign finance limits. Lane MacWilliams alone received $183,633.88 in refunds. This is not an isolated issue or an anomaly—it’s a systemic pattern that raises serious questions about the integrity of campaign financing.

When comparing refunds state by state, California (Lane’s home) unsurprisingly takes the lead with 2,261 refunds, followed by New York (837) and Texas (752). The widespread nature of these refunds, both geographically and numerically, demands answers. In an era when we can track even the most mundane transactions, how is ActBlue allowed to operate as if it’s still the Wild West of campaign finance? The need for reform in ActBlue’s practices is urgent to prevent what seems to be an open invitation for fraud.

The potential ramifications are serious. There are currently no specific laws requiring Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols for political fundraising platforms like ActBlue. This absence presents a glaring loophole that undermines the credibility of campaign finance regulations. Without mandatory KYC, the system can easily be exploited by wealthy donors exceeding contribution limits using false names and pre-paid debit cards—or worse, by foreign powers wishing to interfere in American democracy. As it stands, a foreign actor could contribute to a campaign without anyone knowing. How can we ensure our elections are secure when our fundraising systems lack fundamental checks on donor identity? The need for regulation to impose KYC standards on platforms like ActBlue is urgent. By closing this loophole, we could bring much-needed accountability and transparency to campaign finance.

This isn’t simply partisan conjecture; the sheer volume of data tells a different story. The Trump campaign, in stark contrast, issued only 31 refunds, while the Harris campaign issued an astonishing 10,821 refunds. To put this into perspective, Harris processed over 34,800% more refunds than Trump. Are we to believe that Harris supporters had buyer’s remorse at such an astronomical rate, or is something more sinister at play?

In dollar terms, the disparity is equally striking. The Harris campaign refunded a total of $5 million, whereas the Trump campaign refunded $74,608.64. That’s over 6,600% more refunded dollars from Harris compared to Trump. Moreover, when considering the total amounts raised—$1 billion for Harris versus $400 million for Trump—the Harris campaign still refunded a significantly higher proportion of contributions. Approximately 0.5% of Harris’s funds were refunded compared to just 0.019% for Trump. The contrast could not be more stark, raising serious questions about what is really happening behind these numbers.

While no one is directly accusing the Harris campaign of fraud, the questions beg asking. Who were these contributors? Why so many refunds? And why does ActBlue—a platform that processes millions in political donations—have no mechanism for ensuring the legitimacy of these donations? The Federal Election Commission’s rules are supposed to prevent improper influence, but when campaigns rely on a platform with zero accountability, those rules become meaningless and easily circumvented.

At day’s end, the campaign likely recognized that these donors had exceeded their legal contribution limits for the cycle and refunded the excess—nothing nefarious there. However, this incident underscores a major flaw in how ActBlue operates: the lack of meaningful safeguards to protect election integrity. Reform is urgently needed.

The very fundraising platform that the Democrats use so effectively may be enabling illegal activities, either by laundering excessive contributions from wealthy donors or by accepting foreign money—all while maintaining plausible deniability. The FEC must address this, and ActBlue must reform. If American elections are to retain their integrity, this cannot continue.

The American public deserves transparency in campaign finance, not a black hole of questionable transactions. Whether it’s genuine buyer’s remorse or something far more sinister, we need answers—because democracy depends on it.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

The First 100 Days: Elon Musk, DOGE And The Drive To Streamline Government


As we enter President Trump’s second term, we have a rare chance to make real, lasting changes to the federal government. Since Trump isn’t running for reelection, he has the freedom to take bold action without worrying about political fallout. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), potentially led by Elon Musk, could be a game-changing initiative. Just as he transformed Twitter (now X), Elon can cut through the bloated inefficiencies of federal agencies. Imagine Elon and a team of sharp minds—Vivek Ramaswamy, Ron Paul, David Sacks and others—teaming up to eliminate waste and make the government work better for its citizens. This is our moment to do more than trim excess—we have the opportunity to overhaul the way the executive branch operates. We need to grab this chance to strip away what doesn’t work and create a government that genuinely serves the people.

The Problem of Federal Bloat: A Historic and Present Crisis

Under the Biden administration, the federal workforce has ballooned, possibly reaching three million non-military employees. Many of these workers are more focused on perpetuating bureaucratic red tape than delivering real results, while others openly work against the president’s agenda, as they did during Trump’s first term. The irony is that these very employees are the ones who write the rules that make it nearly impossible to fire them, creating a significant conflict of interest. Biden and the Democrats have bolstered public sector unions, making many federal jobs nearly untouchable. Even though the courts have weakened Chevron deference, it’s clear that we need more than just legal tweaks to address this—it’s time for a complete overhaul, starting with Schedule F.

Streamlining Government with Schedule F: The Key to Efficient Governance

To truly tackle bureaucratic inertia, reinstating Schedule F is not just desirable—it is essential for reclaiming efficiency and accountability in the federal workforce. Schedule F, which could impact up to 500,000 federal positions, reclassifies policy-making jobs, putting them back under direct executive control. By strategically reclassifying these roles, the President can cut through bureaucratic red tape and remove the procedural barriers that have historically made it nearly impossible to fire underperforming or obstructive personnel. This reclassification allows the president to appoint officials who align with his vision, ensuring that policy-making roles are filled by those committed to delivering on the administration’s goals rather than preserving the status quo.

The modern federal government is bloated, with overlapping responsibilities and positions that often obstruct reform rather than serve the American people. Schedule F would directly address these inefficiencies by giving the president the authority to make impactful, strategic downsizing decisions—eliminating redundant roles and focusing on merit rather than tenure. The goal is not simply to reduce the workforce but to streamline operations, restore accountability, and align the federal body with the elected mandate.

This alignment is crucial because one of the biggest obstacles to effective governance is the ideological resistance entrenched within the bureaucracy. Federal employees often outlast any single administration, creating an environment inherently resistant to change. Schedule F allows the president to ensure that influential roles are filled by those who support the administration’s vision, eliminating entrenched barriers to reform. Critics argue that this could politicize the workforce, but in reality, it depoliticizes policy implementation by removing ideologically-driven obstructionism. The result is a government that functions as intended—an extension of the president’s vision, responsive, efficient and focused on achieving tangible results.

Beyond ensuring ideological alignment, Schedule F can help foster a culture of accountability similar to that of the private sector. Federal employees in key positions would be subject to performance standards, and incompetence or resistance to reform could be addressed without bureaucratic delays. Imagine a federal workforce where job security is based on performance—not outdated protections—where high performers are rewarded and those who fail to deliver are replaced. This shift is essential for fostering a culture that values effectiveness, transparency, and purpose, ultimately making the government accountable to taxpayers. By reinstating Schedule F, the president can take meaningful steps to dismantle a bloated bureaucracy and create a leaner, more responsive government that delivers real results for the American people.

Cutting bureaucratic fat through Schedule F ensures that each role within federal employment serves a purpose. It eliminates redundant positions, aligns the workforce with executive priorities, and reinstates accountability, making federal jobs subject to performance reviews rather than bureaucratic immunity. Such a change would restore taxpayer confidence and dismantle the entrenched bureaucracy—a legacy of the unchecked growth of the administrative state since World War II.

Reclaiming Presidential Authority: Impoundment and the Unitary Executive Theory

Another crucial tactic is reasserting presidential power over federal spending through impoundment, a power that was severely weakened by the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974. In response to President Nixon’s bold use of impoundment to control federal spending, Congress passed the ICA to limit the president’s ability to withhold or delay funding, effectively stripping future Presidents of this essential authority. Before the ICA, presidents from Jefferson to Kennedy exercised impoundment to prevent wasteful spending, aligning expenditures with their executive priorities. The ICA’s restrictions transformed the president from a steward of taxpayer funds into a mere bookkeeper, obligated to spend every dollar as Congress dictates, regardless of necessity or effectiveness.

The Unitary Executive Theory provides the constitutional basis for reclaiming impoundment authority. At its core, this theory emphasizes that all executive power rests solely with the president, as articulated in Article II of the Constitution. This authority allows the president to execute laws with judgment, including managing federal funds prudently. Without this discretion, the president’s ability to effectively oversee the executive branch is compromised. The Supreme Court’s decision in Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) further reinforces this idea, asserting that certain powers belong exclusively to the president, especially in areas central to executive function.

By embracing the Unitary Executive Theory, President Trump could argue for the restoration of impoundment authority as a legitimate tool for ensuring fiscal discipline. This move would allow the president to halt unnecessary spending and rein in agency budgets that have far exceeded their original scope, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It’s about prioritizing the efficient use of taxpayer dollars and aligning federal spending with the administration’s vision, rather than letting bureaucratic inertia dictate national priorities. Reclaiming this power is not only practical governance but a necessary reassertion of constitutional authority to prevent Congress from overreaching into executive responsibilities.

A Trump administration committed to impoundment could curtail unnecessary spending within federal agencies, using judicial precedents such as Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) to assert that Congress cannot micromanage executive action, especially in managing government resources. Reclaiming impoundment not only saves taxpayer money but ensures that every federal dollar spent reflects executive intent—an essential step in reversing the unchecked expansion of regulatory agencies that stifles both liberty and efficiency.

Utilizing Budget Reconciliation to Achieve Workforce Reduction

One of the most effective strategies for shrinking the federal workforce within the first 100 days is through budget reconciliation—a powerful legislative tool that allows budget-related bills to pass the Senate with a simple majority, bypassing the 60-vote filibuster threshold. Given that the Democrats have enough votes to block almost all legislation through a filibuster, budget reconciliation is the only realistic way for President Trump to get major workforce reduction legislation through the Senate, as it allows the GOP to pass bills with just 51 votes. The budget reconciliation process, established by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, was specifically designed to facilitate adjustments to federal spending, revenue and deficits, removing barriers to enact changes efficiently. By framing a workforce reduction bill to focus strictly on budgetary impacts, the Trump administration can navigate the Byrd Rule, which prevents non-budgetary provisions from being included, and thus avoid partisan gridlock.

To comply with reconciliation guidelines, the proposal would need to focus exclusively on reducing personnel-related costs, such as payroll, benefits, and administrative expenses. Structuring the legislation around specified cuts to agency budgets or mandatory percentage reductions in headcount would ensure compliance with reconciliation’s fiscal parameters. This approach would avoid challenges under the Byrd Rule, which blocks provisions where the budgetary impact is deemed ‘merely incidental’ to broader policy changes.

Historically, reconciliation has been used to enact substantial fiscal reforms, and leveraging it to reduce the federal workforce would underscore a commitment to fiscal discipline. This strategy aligns perfectly with Trump’s promise to streamline government, reduce unnecessary spending, and rein in bureaucratic overreach—an endeavor that resonates strongly with his supporters. The early days of Trump’s term are ideal for implementing such bold action, as the momentum of a new administration provides a political advantage, allowing for swift passage of priority legislation. Utilizing budget reconciliation to reduce the workforce would set a powerful precedent and demonstrate the administration’s determination to achieve meaningful change without the burden of partisan obstruction.

Mandating the Return to Office: Enforcing Accountability

The pandemic brought about a shift to remote work that persists across the federal government, with less than 30% of federal workers attending the office five days a week and many working far fewer than 40 hours. To restore accountability, we must require federal workers to return to their desks—five days a week, eight hours a day. It is estimated that enforcing such a requirement could lead as many as 20% of federal employees to quit. With an estimated 2.5 million workers, a 20% resignation rate could see 500,000 federal employees voluntarily leave their posts, resulting in massive savings in payroll, benefits and operational costs. Over 10 years, the potential savings would be monumental, freeing billions that could be redirected toward paying down the national debt or reinvested in infrastructure.

Decentralizing Federal Agencies: Moving Agencies Outside of D.C.

Washington, D.C. has become an entrenched power center, far removed from the people it is supposed to serve. One effective method of reducing federal workforce size—while simultaneously breaking the culture of bureaucratic stagnation—would be to decentralize federal agencies, moving them to other states. The Department of Agriculture in Kansas City, or the Bureau of Land Management in Utah, would not only make the federal government more responsive to regional needs but would likely see many employees unwilling to relocate, thereby effectively reducing the workforce. Additionally, decentralization creates significant cost reductions by utilizing cheaper office space outside of the D.C. bubble while fostering a workforce more attuned to the needs of the nation as a whole, rather than the self-contained interests of the capital.

Other Ideas

Conservative think tanks offer no shortage of innovative approaches to assist the Trump administration in achieving workforce reduction goals. One key strategy involves reducing regulatory duplication—streamlining agencies with overlapping mandates. By consolidating their operations, administrative overhead can be reduced while enhancing overall effectiveness. Instituting zero-based budgeting across all federal departments would force agencies to justify every dollar of proposed spending rather than relying on previous budgets as a baseline. This ensures each agency is scaled efficiently to its current mission, rather than simply expanding year after year.

Another approach suggests prioritizing private sector outsourcing where appropriate. By transferring non-critical services to private firms, the Trump administration could introduce competition, thereby driving down costs and improving service quality—a win-win for taxpayers. Finally, creating a personnel database of vetted, trained, and ideologically aligned staff would allow for rapid deployment to ensure alignment in critical roles from day one.

Conclusion: A Call to Action for Lean Government

The first 100 days of the Trump administration must be bold, determined, and focused on reshaping the federal government into a leaner, more efficient body. With Elon Musk as the unofficial czar of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), this transformative effort has the potential to deliver real results. Musk’s history with ventures like Tesla, SpaceX and his rapid restructuring of Twitter (now X) demonstrates his ability to disrupt inefficient systems and optimize operations. He has repeatedly shown that he is willing to make tough decisions and push for bold restructuring—exactly what is needed to overhaul the federal bureaucracy.

The DOGE initiative, with Musk and a team of sharp reformers like Vivek Ramaswamy, Ron Paul and David Sacks, is uniquely positioned to bring the same level of disruptive innovation to the federal government that they have successfully brought to the private sector. By applying principles of accountability, performance metrics and efficiency, Musk and his team can help transform the DOGE initiative into a vehicle for real, lasting government reform.

To achieve these reforms, the administration can implement several key strategies: reinstating Schedule F to streamline bureaucracy, reclaiming impoundment to regain presidential control over runaway spending, using budget reconciliation to reduce workforce size, mandating a return to in-office work and decentralizing agencies. The DOGE team, under Musk’s leadership, can be instrumental in this transformation. Musk’s success with SpaceX, which revolutionized the stagnant and costly government-run space program, exemplifies how private-sector innovation can breathe new life into outdated government structures. Before SpaceX, launching rockets was a bureaucratic, slow and incredibly expensive government monopoly. Musk changed that by implementing cost-saving measures, promoting rapid innovation and prioritizing efficiency.

The same principles that drove SpaceX’s success—accountability, performance-driven metrics and relentless innovation—can be applied to federal operations to create a lean, agile government focused on serving the American people. By leveraging expertise from outside reformers and private-sector leaders, President Trump’s efforts to reduce the federal bureaucracy will ensure that the government serves the people efficiently, transparently and effectively. This is a unique opportunity to shape a government that reflects its founding principles—lean, responsive and truly accountable to the citizens it serves.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Draining the Swamp: Trump’s 10-Part Plan to Dismantle Deep State Should Shake DC to the Core


With the fires of war raging in Europe and the Middle East and an invasion of illegal immigrants swamping the American homeland, it might look like the new presidency will have enough on its plate.

But Americans looking at the future of President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming administration have already gotten a preview of his plan to overhaul the federal bureaucracy.

And it’s the deep state’s deepest fear.

In March 2023, when his return to office was still just a dream for his millions of supporters, Trump released a video detailing a 10-point plan to tame the leviathan of the United States’ sprawling federal government.

The words are clear — free of bureaucratic jargon and likely to resonate with Americans who are furious with being treated like subordinate spectators to the government they are supposed to control.

And they should be terrifying to the kind of arrogant operatives who bedeviled Trump’s first term in office.

Conservative commentator Colin Rugg resurfaced the video in a post on the social media platform X published Friday.

What’s notable is that No. 1 on the list is an item relatively few Americans, even among Trump supporters, would consider the No. 1 problem facing the country.

But Trump’s announcement that he would bring back his executive order from October 2020 to make it easier to rid the government of employees pursuing their own political agenda versus carrying out the orders of the administration elected by the American people.

This is no minor matter of job reorganization — it will shake Washington, D.C. to its core.

As the first Trump administration showed, the federal government is rife with personal fiefdoms — from high-profile high priests of pomposity like former FBI Director James Comey and his successor, Christopher Wray — to the activist faceless moles buried in the offices of the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Education.

The self-described “resistance” operated as a fifth column inside the Trump administration, aiming to foil the duly elected president of the American people, running out the clock on his years in office until the rightful rule — in their view — of regulators and progressive pencil pushers could be restored.

Trump’s order, known as “Schedule F” is aimed right in their direction. It wouldn’t solve all of the government’s problems. It wouldn’t address leadership at the FBI for instance, for instance, but it would go a long way toward restoring some sanity to the situation.

As the swelling of the federal government in the decades since World War II has shown, there may be no greater threat to the republic envisioned by the Founders than the metastatic multiplication of petty tyrants empowered by offices they hold without accountability to the people who are paying their salaries.

Virtually all of the rest of Trump’s plan is a variation on No. 1, in that he’s aiming to tame a government that has become ruinously powerful over the citizenry — from law enforcement and intelligence offices that have become blatantly politicized (see Trump impeachment No. 1) to the courts established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which are supposed to protect Americans but made a mockery of that role in the “Russia collusion” hoax.

That goal is included with No. 10 on the list, in which Trump vows to push for a constitutional amendment to impose (the Rugg X post incorrectly uses the word “oppose”) term limits on members of Congress.

Regardless of whether term limits are a good idea — their adoption is well beyond the powers of a presidency.

It would require amending the Constitution, which would need a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress (the very men and women whose government careers could be cut short by the proposal) or the convocation of a constitutional convention. And while a constitutional convention isn’t impossible, it hasn’t happened since ratification.

And while there’s little doubt that the sclerotic nature of the federal government is fed by the fact that election to federal office in many cases amounts to a lifetime appointment for an undeserving hack (e.g. Waters, Maxine: 33 years and counting), there’s plenty of reason to doubt term limits are ever going to happen.

And it’s no small thing to note that Founders could have included term limits in the Constitution if they’d thought it necessary. If James Madison & Co. didn’t think so, contemporary conservatives should at least have their doubts about the wisdom of it. (Messing with Madison is more of a leftist idea.)

Trump and his advisers clearly know all of that. But they’re making a bigger point.

The goal here is to restore the government to its constitutional role as a servant of the people and not their master.

The goals is making federal agencies accountable to the administration elected by the people, not to their own political agendas.

The goal, in short, is to bring the leviathan to heel.

And that’s the deep state’s deepest fear of all.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Judge Revives Controversial 9/11 Plea Deal


Judge Revives WORST Plea Deal In US Criminal History

A military judge is reconsidering a controversial plea deal involving 9/11 terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two co-defendants.

An anonymous official informed The Associated Press on Wednesday that the decision to reinstate the deals was made by Air Force Col. and Judge Matthew McCall. The U.S. military has not announced the ruling yet.

The defendants are currently incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the deals were approved by the top official of the Guantanamo military commission.

Fox News reported that if the plea bargains succeed, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is suspected of being the principal architect of the 9/11 terror attacks and two co-defendants would avoid the death penalty in exchange for guilty pleas.

The plea deals which were revoked by the Pentagon at the direction of Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in July have been widely condemned by 9/11 victims and U.S. politicians.

“Effective immediately, in the exercise of my authority, I hereby withdraw from the three pretrial agreements that you signed on July 31, 2024,” a letter from Austin stated.

“Joe Biden, Kamala Harris have weaponized the Department of Justice to go after their political opponents, but they’re cutting a sweetheart deal with 9/11 terrorists,” Sen. J.D. Vance said.

Terry Strada, the national chair of 9/11 Families United, condemned the plea bargains to Fox News Digital earlier this year.

“[The terrorists] committed this heinous crime against the United States,” Strada said. “They should have faced the charges, faced the trial and faced the punishment. Since when do the people responsible for murder get to call the shots?”

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Sure, Vice President Kamala Harris is on her way out of Washington, D.C. — at least in an elected role. But for many Democrats — including a prominent liberal pundit and party operative — this could be only the beginning for the failed presidential candidate, should Joe Biden be so bold.



CNN Guest Floats Plan That’ll Make Kamala Even More Powerful Before Trump Is Back

During a segment on Donald Trump’s transition on CNN, Bakari Sellers, a political analyst for the network, offered up a possibility that many online have been talking about: Supreme Court Justice Kamala Harris.

Again, this isn’t a new idea, as a look around X will quickly confirm:

Now, these are just voices on social media — and, as anyone who’s looked at that side of the internet since Donald Trump won on Tuesday can likely corroborate, there are still bitter clingers who believe that Kamala still somehow has a chance at the Oval Office.

However, there’s some logic — poor logic, but logic nonetheless — to the decision. For right now, the Democrats control the White House and the Senate, which would allow them to confirm a justice.

Sotomayor, one of the three remaining liberal votes on the court, is 70 and has a history of health problems, including type 1 diabetes. Harris is 60 and has no known health problems. She’s also a lawyer and former prosecutor, which means she has legal experience.

However, for the most part, this is just a weird cross between pie-in-the-sky thinking and Chicken Little-ism about the future of the Supreme Court, which will almost certainly see the older conservative justices — 76-year-old Clarence Thomas and 74-year-old Samuel Alito — retire for younger nominees once Trump takes office, lest they become the new Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Sellers, however, became one of the most prominent Democrats to actually give voice to this theory during a CNN segment Friday.

“I think it’s something that should happen,” Sellers said of swapping out Sotomayor during the lame duck months.

“You know, Justice Sotomayor has been a more than able justice. I know that she may be having some personal issues that she contends with while serving on the bench. But, you know, I don’t want Justice Sotomayor to be another Ruth Bader Ginsburg in terms of staying too long.

“What does this mean for the for the dynamic of the court? The court is six three now. If we’re able to replace it with a Biden justice, there will still be six three. The possibility of Justice Sotomayor having to resign or retire in the next four years is extremely high.”

As for her replacement: “And you know, one more thing, John, is you have a hell of a vice president right there who has a legal pedigree to sit on a Supreme Court. And let Republicans go crazy, ape, I’m even mentioning that option.”

“You’re floating – are you floating this? – you know, 7:39 a.m. on the East Coast? Did Bakari Sellers just float Vice President Kamala Harris as a potential Supreme Court nominee?” host John Berman, slightly disbelieving, asked.

“Not only am I floating it, but I want to stir up everything. I want people’s heads to explode this morning so we go into the weekend just knowing that the chaos has not ended just yet,” he added.

Now, let’s just get the positives out of the way: Thanks to the fact that she’s been through two presidential campaigns — one of which didn’t even get to the primaries — and one vice presidential campaign, she’s been as thoroughly vetted as it gets. That’s where the pros end.

As for the cons, where do we begin? I could go on endlessly, but I think two points stick out above all else regarding why this is an abysmal idea.

First and foremost, while technically anyone can be nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court, generally one has to be a judge at some level — usually a very high one — to be considered.

Harris has never held a judgeship. She was, once upon a time, the attorney general of California. That’s it. I understand that we’ve lowered the bar a bit when Biden’s sole appointee to the bench couldn’t even tell Congress what a woman was, but this is ridiculous.

And that brings us to the second point: This would destroy all illusions about the left viewing the Supreme Court as anything more than a political tool to accomplish legislation that can’t pass the legislature by bypassing Congress.

Does this have anything to do with Harris acumen in the arcana of constitutional precedent? No, in bolded, underlined italics. She’s just a reliably liberal vote sent there to create as much “chaos” as possible. And just wait to read her decisions! “This case is big, because it’s a big case. And because it’s a big case, we must use big legal reasoning. We must be unburdened by small cases, because this is big, right? Insert cackle here.”

Realistically, this won’t happen; it would be such a naked power grab that even some Democrats would likely be turned off, realizing how terrible for America this would be.

However, it’s indicative of just how desperate the left is: Even in defeat, they don’t seem to be learning any lessons other than that the American people just don’t understand how great they are, and the Democrats will just keep causing “chaos” until voters get it through their thick skulls. Remember the chaos quote in the above paragraphs?

Sure, Vice President Kamala Harris is on her way out of Washington, D.C. — at least in an elected role. But for many Democrats — including a prominent liberal pundit and party operative — this could be only the beginning for the failed presidential candidate, should Joe Biden be so bold.

During a segment on Donald Trump’s transition on CNN, Bakari Sellers, a political analyst for the network, offered up a possibility that many online have been talking about: Supreme Court Justice Kamala Harris.

Again, this isn’t a new idea, as a look around X will quickly confirm:

Now, these are just voices on social media — and, as anyone who’s looked at that side of the internet since Donald Trump won on Tuesday can likely corroborate, there are still bitter clingers who believe that Kamala still somehow has a chance at the Oval Office.

However, there’s some logic — poor logic, but logic nonetheless — to the decision. For right now, the Democrats control the White House and the Senate, which would allow them to confirm a justice.

Sotomayor, one of the three remaining liberal votes on the court, is 70 and has a history of health problems, including type 1 diabetes. Harris is 60 and has no known health problems. She’s also a lawyer and former prosecutor, which means she has legal experience.

However, for the most part, this is just a weird cross between pie-in-the-sky thinking and Chicken Little-ism about the future of the Supreme Court, which will almost certainly see the older conservative justices — 76-year-old Clarence Thomas and 74-year-old Samuel Alito — retire for younger nominees once Trump takes office, lest they become the new Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Sellers, however, became one of the most prominent Democrats to actually give voice to this theory during a CNN segment Friday.

“I think it’s something that should happen,” Sellers said of swapping out Sotomayor during the lame duck months.

“You know, Justice Sotomayor has been a more than able justice. I know that she may be having some personal issues that she contends with while serving on the bench. But, you know, I don’t want Justice Sotomayor to be another Ruth Bader Ginsburg in terms of staying too long.

“What does this mean for the for the dynamic of the court? The court is six three now. If we’re able to replace it with a Biden justice, there will still be six three. The possibility of Justice Sotomayor having to resign or retire in the next four years is extremely high.”

As for her replacement: “And you know, one more thing, John, is you have a hell of a vice president right there who has a legal pedigree to sit on a Supreme Court. And let Republicans go crazy, ape, I’m even mentioning that option.”

“You’re floating – are you floating this? – you know, 7:39 a.m. on the East Coast? Did Bakari Sellers just float Vice President Kamala Harris as a potential Supreme Court nominee?” host John Berman, slightly disbelieving, asked.

“Not only am I floating it, but I want to stir up everything. I want people’s heads to explode this morning so we go into the weekend just knowing that the chaos has not ended just yet,” he added.

Now, let’s just get the positives out of the way: Thanks to the fact that she’s been through two presidential campaigns — one of which didn’t even get to the primaries — and one vice presidential campaign, she’s been as thoroughly vetted as it gets. That’s where the pros end.

As for the cons, where do we begin? I could go on endlessly, but I think two points stick out above all else regarding why this is an abysmal idea.

First and foremost, while technically anyone can be nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court, generally one has to be a judge at some level — usually a very high one — to be considered.

Harris has never held a judgeship. She was, once upon a time, the attorney general of California. That’s it. I understand that we’ve lowered the bar a bit when Biden’s sole appointee to the bench couldn’t even tell Congress what a woman was, but this is ridiculous.

And that brings us to the second point: This would destroy all illusions about the left viewing the Supreme Court as anything more than a political tool to accomplish legislation that can’t pass the legislature by bypassing Congress.

Does this have anything to do with Harris acumen in the arcana of constitutional precedent? No, in bolded, underlined italics. She’s just a reliably liberal vote sent there to create as much “chaos” as possible. And just wait to read her decisions! “This case is big, because it’s a big case. And because it’s a big case, we must use big legal reasoning. We must be unburdened by small cases, because this is big, right? Insert cackle here.”

Realistically, this won’t or should not happen; it would be such a naked power grab that even some Democrats would likely be turned off, realizing just how terrible for America this would be.

However, it’s indicative of just how desperate the left is: Even in defeat, they don’t seem to be learning any lessons other than that the American people just don’t understand how great they are, and the Democrats will just keep causing “chaos” until voters get it through their thick skulls.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

The Colorado Voting Machine Fiasco: A Case For Paper Ballots and Same-Day Voting


The Colorado voting machine security breach under Secretary of State Jena Griswold‘s watch is an epic in incompetence and deceit, a calamity born not out of malice but sheer, unchecked ineptitude. This debacle is yet another compelling reason for the United States to move to paper ballots and same-day voting, at least for federal elections, to ensure the integrity and security of our electoral process. Four months. Four full months of a ticking time bomb, and yet no one seemed to notice the system BIOS passwords posted online for all to see. It was like a “Help Yourself” buffet for anyone with an internet connection.

This isn’t merely a local administrative error. It is a significant threat to the very foundation of electoral integrity—a threat fostered by a combination of bureaucratic negligence, lax security protocols and Griswold’s dogged refusal to take meaningful action. Not only was the BIOS password exposed, but it was maintained unencrypted, sitting vulnerably in an Excel spreadsheet stored on state network drives. One might think these officials were desperate to be hacked. And when it comes to passwords—let’s just say their approach violated even the most basic CISA guidelines, rules that have been around for more than fifteen years. Apparently, securing voting systems is a task too advanced for those in charge.

Contrary to Griswold’s initial reassurances that this was a minor, isolated error, it later emerged—through the admissions of Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Beall—that more than half of Colorado’s counties were affected. One cannot help but marvel at the level of ineptitude required to let a disaster like this go unnoticed for so long. If you leave your house door wide open for a few minutes, you should assume that something may have happened inside. Griswold and her merry band of public servants managed to leave the door open for four months and then acted surprised when people noticed.

If there is one thing clear about basic cybersecurity, it is that you cannot be this reckless without consequences. Any compromise of BIOS passwords in a critical infrastructure computer requires assuming that the entire system has been compromised unless proven otherwise. We are talking about passwords that give direct access to the foundational layer of a voting machine—and by extension, the very process by which we select our representatives. If that isn’t the definition of critical infrastructure, then what is?

And it wasn’t just the BIOS passwords. Once one voting system component is compromised, anything connected to it—LAN cables, HDMI cables, even air-gapped systems using removable media—must be assumed compromised as well. It’s Cybersecurity 101. CISA, the lead federal agency for election infrastructure security, lays out clear standards and procedures for handling such incidents. The very least Colorado could have done is follow them. Instead, they opted for a comedic routine of denial, delay, and deception.

The immediate actions taken by Griswold’s office can best be described as an exercise in performative futility. Day 1: they found out (through their vendor, no less), scrambled to remove the .xlsx file from the web after a leisurely four-month gap, and reported it—to CISA, naturally. Did they bother telling Colorado election officials or the public? Of course not. Why trouble the plebeians with such trivialities?

Days passed, and when the state GOP learned of the breach and the media caught wind, Griswold finally came out of her bunker. Her strategy? A classic: evade, obfuscate and pretend everything was under control. Griswold claimed that each voting machine required two separate passwords, with different people or groups entrusted with only one password each, making it supposedly impossible for the machines to be compromised. This claim was false. Even if it were true, the group not supposed to have the BIOS passwords could have simply downloaded them from the internet, meaning that multiple individuals certainly had complete and unfettered access to the machines. They dispatched people to change a handful of passwords, and Griswold went on a media blitz, making a futile attempt to gloss over the enormity of the breach. Day 9 saw Governor Jared Polis attempt his own desperate act of damage control, ordering a broader, albeit equally ineffective, response to ensure password changes. Apparently, it takes helicopters to change passwords in Colorado.

But what Griswold and Polis both failed to do was address the real danger: the integrity of the voting systems themselves. The affected machines were still in use, election officials continued to tabulate votes with them, and—most damningly—no real forensic analysis was ever conducted to determine the scope and impact of the compromise. At no point did anyone pause and take a breath to say, “Maybe we should actually stop using these machines until we’re absolutely sure they’re safe.”

A proper response would have been as follows: first, halt the use of all affected systems; second, image the compromised machines to preserve the evidence; third, bring in qualified cyber forensic experts to determine if, when, and how the systems were breached; fourth, address the timing and impact of any compromise, especially since this breach was active during the Colorado primary election. And fifth—and only after all other steps were satisfactorily completed—remove any malicious influence, if possible, and restore functionality. None of this happened.

White House

What did happen, instead, was a spectacle of bureaucratic incompetence that would be almost humorous if it weren’t undermining the sanctity of Colorado’s elections. The public was told, “Nothing to see here, folks, move along,” as if we’re all too stupid to understand the ramifications of a four-month breach that affected a majority of the state’s counties. Anyone insisting today that Colorado’s voting systems are secure, or that citizens can rest assured their votes have been accurately counted, is either woefully ignorant or has a vested interest in upholding the false narrative of a “swift response.”

Consider, for comparison, the case of Tina Peters. The former Mesa County Clerk, convicted in October 2024 for allowing access to her county’s voting systems to a security consultant in 2021, received a nine-year prison sentence. Nine years for trying to determine if voting machines were secure—yet Griswold’s office escapes unscathed after spilling the keys to half the state for four months. How is it that Peters is demonized while Griswold and her team, despite being blatantly negligent, get a pass? It seems there are different rules for those in power, especially if they have the right political connections.

In the wake of the breach, the Libertarian Party of Colorado filed a lawsuit against Griswold, demanding she step aside from her election responsibilities, remove compromised devices from service and order ballots to be hand-counted in affected counties. Yet Griswold’s lawyers, in a performance of unrepentant arrogance, argued that such actions would create “chaos” with Election Day looming. It’s always chaos that’s to be avoided, never accountability.

During the subsequent court hearing, it became clear just how deep the rot went: 46 counties had systems with the passwords exposed, and 34 of those still had active passwords. The court dismissed the testimony of expert Clay Parikh, an election systems analyst for nearly a decade, because—wait for it—he supposedly wasn’t qualified to discuss Colorado’s specific voting systems. The absurdity of the objection would be laughable if it didn’t have real-world consequences. It’s akin to saying an automotive engineer couldn’t testify about a car because it was built in a different state. Yet this is where we are: justice obstructed, integrity compromised and those responsible for safeguarding democracy performing nothing but a hollow pantomime of action.

The Colorado voting machine breach reveals a deeper problem than just passwords. It is a vivid illustration of an administration that is either grossly incompetent or willfully misleading—a regime more concerned with optics and PR than with the actual mechanics of secure elections. It is an indictment of a system where a blatant error can go ignored, where citizens are left in the dark, and where those tasked with protecting democracy seem more interested in protecting themselves.

Griswold and Polis’ swift action? Hardly. This was no more a “swift response” than a glacier moving to the sea. It was, at its heart, a lesson in deception, designed to mask the fact that those entrusted to secure our democracy were asleep at the wheel, dreaming of positive headlines, while anyone with half a brain could see the road to disaster unfolding right in front of them. And disaster it was—for the integrity of Colorado’s election system, for the voters who depend on it, and for anyone who still believes in a modicum of accountability in government. This entire failure underscores the necessity of adopting paper ballots and same-day voting for federal elections, eliminating the vulnerabilities inherent in electronic voting systems and restoring confidence in our democratic processes.

*Thanks given to Amuse and Shawn Smith @ShawnSmith1776 on X as sources

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Explaining Trump’s Victory To Europe: The Values That Defined The Election


For Europeans who find themselves “shocked” and “surprised” by President-elect Donald Trump‘s sweeping victory alongside Republican gains, allow me to explain. Much of this reaction stems from European media coverage, which has often painted Trump as unelectable and his policies as extreme. Political attitudes in Europe, shaped by a preference for consensus politics and a skepticism towards populism, further contributed to the surprise at his success. My explanation draws from both personal observation and the raw truth of hard data. This analysis is inspired by Konstantin Kisin’s insightful ten-point summary of the current American political landscape—a summary I find not only persuasive but foundational. With his structure as a starting point, I will provide expanded commentary enriched with the viewpoint of a Trump-supporting Texan.

The American Love for Strength and Winning

Konstantin rightly emphasizes that Americans love their country with a fervor that defies cynicism. This love is deeply rooted in the nation’s history. In contrast, European national sentiment often emphasizes a cautious pride shaped by historical challenges and a preference for collective unity. Leaders like Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron, for example, have often spoken of European strength in terms of unity and reconciliation rather than triumphalism, reflecting a different approach to national identity that is less about conquest and more about managing the legacy of past conflicts. From the pioneers moving westward during the era of Manifest Destiny, to the Apollo missions that extended American ingenuity beyond Earth’s confines, there exists an innate drive to conquer and excel. Unlike the often self-effacing tone of many European leaders, American leaders like Trump, who exude confidence and speak in triumphalist terms, find a ready audience. When Trump speaks of “Making America Great Again,” he taps into an elemental instinct—the rejection of decline and a yearning for resurgence. This spirit of innovation is reflected in America’s unmatched investment in startups and technology. In 2023 alone, the United States saw over 72,000 early-stage startups founded, while Europe lagged behind with only about 27,000, primarily concentrated in countries like Germany, the United Kingdom and France. Investors in the U.S. poured more than $330 billion into these startups, compared to Europe’s $80 billion. The wealth generated by American innovation dwarfs that of Europe—with companies like Apple, Amazon and Google leading global markets. Furthermore, the U.S. consistently welcomes more legal immigrants than any European nation, admitting over one million legal immigrants annually, compared to Germany, the largest recipient in Europe, which accepted roughly 300,000 in 2023. This combination of robust innovation, investment and an open approach to legal immigration has allowed the United States to maintain its dynamism and national pride while Europe contends with post-national ideologies that have left many feeling detached and disempowered. America’s enduring national pride refuses to let such sentiments prevail.

Rejecting Managed Decline and Embracing Energy Independence

Europe has adopted a policy of “managed decline,” a notion embodied in their relentless pursuit of Net Zero policies, often at odds with economic survival. Meanwhile, Americans—led by Trump—rebuffed this notion in favor of energy independence. Under Trump’s leadership, America became a net energy exporter for the first time in over sixty years. The U.S. produces vastly more natural resources than Europe, including oil, natural gas and coal, with significant contrasts between the U.S. and specific European countries like Germany, France and the United Kingdom, which rely heavily on imports for their energy needs. In 2023, the United States produced approximately 18.9 million barrels of oil per day, compared to Europe’s production of under 3 million barrels per day. Natural gas output also starkly contrasts, with the U.S. producing over 934 billion cubic meters annually, while Europe remains heavily dependent on imports, producing less than 300 billion cubic meters. The shale revolution, particularly driven by advancements in fracking technology, unlocked massive reserves in the U.S., such as the Permian Basin, which alone contains more recoverable oil than all of Europe. The shale boom created millions of jobs and reduced energy costs across the country. While Europe succumbed to reliance on Russian energy and was left vulnerable, Trump’s doctrine of “energy dominance” made economic growth and national security two sides of the same coin. American voters instinctively understand that prosperity and sovereignty are intertwined—a lesson Europe seems to have forgotten.

Inflation and the Price of the American Dream

Under the Biden-Harris administration, inflation surged, with basic grocery prices increasing by over 20% between 2021 and 2024. The Federal Reserve’s initial characterization of this inflation as “transitory” was a significant misjudgment. Americans witnessed their savings diminish and purchasing power decline. Trump and the Republicans, rather than merely assigning blame, acknowledged this reality—a reality many voters were experiencing firsthand. In a nation where the cost of the American Dream—the house, the car, the kids—is closely tied to economic stability, this message resonated deeply. Americans will not abide by leaders who dismiss their struggles or fail to safeguard the basic aspirations of the middle class.

A Culture of Merit, Not Envy

Elvert Barnes from Baltimore, Maryland, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0

Konstantin draws a clear distinction between American and European perspectives on wealth. Unlike Europe’s turn towards socialist ideals and the promotion of egalitarianism at any cost, America remains fundamentally a meritocracy. Americans celebrate the drive to succeed, no matter how high the ambition. In 2023, private wealth per adult in the U.S. averaged around $580,000, while in Europe, it averaged significantly less, at approximately $230,000. This disparity highlights the immense individual wealth Americans enjoy compared to Europeans. Moreover, Americans have far greater access to credit and debt markets; the total household debt in the U.S. reached over $16 trillion in 2023, indicating a robust financial system that allows for significant borrowing to fuel growth and entrepreneurship. In contrast, European households have more limited access to debt, which restricts economic mobility. Additionally, the tax burden on individuals in the U.S. is generally lower compared to most European countries. In the United States, the top marginal income tax rate stands at around 37%, whereas in many European nations like France and Germany, it exceeds 45%. The combination of greater wealth, access to credit and a relatively lower tax burden underpins a culture that not only values success but provides the means to achieve it. Trump’s own wealth served as an aspirational symbol—proof that success is within reach for anyone willing to seize it. His policies, aimed at tax reduction and deregulation, sought to preserve and enhance these opportunities for all.

Pro-Immigration, But Pro-Law

Americans are, as Konstantin points out, pro-immigration. This nation was built by immigrants who sought a better life, and its mythology is one of welcoming the “huddled masses.” From 2000 to the present, the United States consistently accepted significantly more legal immigrants than Europe. In the 20-year period from 2000 to 2020, the U.S. admitted over 20 million legal immigrants, averaging about one million per year. By contrast, Europe, even including its most open countries, admitted less than half that number annually, with around 10 million immigrants in total during the same period. Economically, these legal immigrants have been instrumental in driving U.S. growth. Between 2000 and 2020, immigrants added approximately $2 trillion to the U.S. GDP, boosting entrepreneurship and filling critical roles in industries like technology, healthcare and agriculture. In Europe, while immigrants contributed to the economy, the overall economic impact was more modest—estimated at around $600 billion over the same period—due to higher unemployment rates among immigrants and more restrictive labor markets. Americans also cherish the rule of law. The chaos unleashed by the Biden-Harris regime’s open border policies, which saw over 7 million illegal crossings between 2021 and 2024, was intolerable to a populace that believes in both compassion and order. Trump’s insistence on “building the wall” was never about anti-immigrant sentiment—it was about ensuring that America remains a place of opportunity, not lawlessness. For instance, the strain on social services in border states like Texas and Arizona has been immense, with local hospitals and schools struggling to accommodate the surge of undocumented immigrants. The cost of providing emergency health care, education and law enforcement in these areas has placed a significant burden on state budgets, illustrating the economic impact of unchecked illegal immigration. Legal immigration enriches the nation; illegal immigration undermines it, threatening both security and cohesion.

Rejecting DEI as Racist, Not Progressive

Konstantin rightly identifies the discomfort many Americans feel toward DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) initiatives. The American historical narrative, with its chapters of slavery, Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement, underscores the necessity of equality. But DEI—by enforcing quotas and obsessing over racial identity—is a huge step backward. Americans fought a Civil War to end race-based discrimination, and they find it difficult to accept policies that institutionalize racism. The American ethos celebrates individual merit, not group identity. Trump’s rejection of these policies spoke to a broad swath of Americans who see DEI as an ill-conceived attempt to correct past wrongs by inflicting new ones.

Evidence of the negative impact of DEI policies is apparent in recruitment struggles faced by the U.S. military. Recent reports indicate that the Army and Navy both failed to meet their recruitment goals in 2023. In fiscal year 2023, the Army achieved only 76.6% of its recruitment goal, enlisting 50,181 individuals out of a target of 65,500. Similarly, the Navy and Air Force fell short of their objectives, while the Marine Corps and Space Force met theirs. The implementation of DEI initiatives played a significant role in these recruitment challenges. According to documents obtained by The Daily Caller in 2024, the Air Force explicitly aimed to reduce the number of white male candidates joining officer ranks, instead seeking to prioritize minority and female officers. This intentional shift has made it increasingly difficult for qualified white men to be accepted into officer candidacy programs. Such directives have exacerbated the perception that the military is more concerned with meeting diversity quotas than maintaining operational excellence, leading to decreased morale and recruitment struggles.

In the corporate world, backlash against DEI policies has also gained traction. Boeing, for example, dismantled its DEI department this year, citing a desire to refocus on performance-based hiring and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. Other companies, such as Disney and Netflix, have similarly scaled back their DEI initiatives in response to shareholder concerns and declining employee satisfaction. This trend illustrates a growing sentiment that DEI, rather than fostering inclusiveness, has become a divisive force within organizations. Americans value fairness and opportunity for all, but the enforcement of DEI policies is increasingly viewed as antithetical to the meritocratic principles upon which American success is built.

The Memory of 9/11 and the Rejection of Jihad

Americans are among the most pro-Israel people on Earth, and Konstantin underscores this point effectively. The events of October 7, 2023—when Hamas launched a coordinated attack on Israel involving rocket barrages and incursions into civilian areas—were a jarring reminder of the ongoing threats posed by jihadist ideologies. This attack resulted in significant loss of life and highlighted the persistent dangers faced by Israel from militant groups. For Americans who vividly recall September 11, 2001, the face of jihad is unmistakable, and there is no equivocating between aggressor and victim. Trump’s unflinching support for Israel, coupled with his willingness to call out radical Islam, resonated with voters who were tired of politically correct platitudes in the face of genuine evil. The pro-Hamas rallies that swept European capitals following the attacks left many Americans incredulous, but what was even more shocking was the apparent division within the Democrat Party itself. Roughly half of the Democratic leadership seemed to side with narratives that were sympathetic to the terrorists, which stood in stark contrast to the overwhelming condemnation from both the American right and much of the left, who united against radical Islam. This only served to make Trump’s strong stance more appealing to voters seeking unambiguous leadership in the fight against terror.

Pragmatism Over Rhetoric

As Konstantin notes, Americans are far less concerned with political niceties than their European counterparts. Trump’s rhetoric, often bombastic and blunt, lacks the polish that European voters might expect. European leaders like Emmanuel Macron, who has often presented polished but ultimately deceptive narratives around issues such as pension reform—such as his controversial handling of the 2023 pension protests, which saw widespread strikes while Macron downplayed the unrest—and Olaf Scholz, who has used vague reassurances while avoiding concrete actions on energy dependency, particularly during the 2022 energy crisis when Germany struggled to reduce reliance on Russian gas, exemplify this difference. But Americans are results-oriented. Under Trump, the economy grew, energy prices fell, and America’s adversaries knew where they stood. Voters value effectiveness over elegance. The genteel debates and theoretical musings so cherished by European intellectuals are less appealing when juxtaposed with the practical concerns of putting food on the table, securing the border, and deterring foreign adversaries. To Americans, Trump’s brand of directness signals sincerity—they would rather have an honest fighter than a well-mannered deceiver.

Conclusion

Trump’s sweeping victory and the Republican gains can largely be attributed to a resurgence of traditional American values—strength, independence and a staunch defense of meritocracy. These values were reinforced by policies promoting energy independence, economic growth, lower taxes and a strong stance on immigration control. Trump’s success is a reflection of American voters seeking leadership that emphasizes pragmatic solutions over empty promises, champions national pride and remains steadfast in defending the core tenets of opportunity and merit. Unlike Europe, America refuses to accept managed decline, focusing instead on growth, energy independence and preserving the American Dream. The failures of the Biden-Harris regime, exemplified by inflation, chaotic immigration policies and divisive DEI initiatives, created fertile ground for Trump’s return. The American people, driven by a desire for pragmatic leadership, have chosen a path that rejects empty rhetoric and demands results. This election was not merely about party loyalty; it was about a vision for America that champions opportunity, security and unapologetic national pride. The message from American voters is clear: they are ready for a leader who will stand strong for their values, protect their interests and restore their confidence in the future of the nation.

Konstantin Kisin is a British-Russian comedian, author and social commentator known for his sharp critiques of political correctness and his insightful analyses of cultural and political issues. He gained prominence as co-host of the podcast ‘TRIGGERnometry,’ where he engages in discussions on free speech, politics, and societal trends. Kisin has also authored books exploring the nuances of Western society and has become a prominent voice in debates around culture and immigration, offering perspectives that blend humor with serious commentary. His background gives him a unique vantage point to understand the cultural and political dynamics at play in both Europe and America. This essay was based on a thread he posted on X on November 6th, 2024.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Trump Just Curb-Stomped the Uniparty


Donald Trump just curb-stomped the uniparty.

Because the GOP is now on an irreversible path to populism.

Meaning the uniparty is no longer a done deal. Its schemes are now out in the open for democratic debate.

Where they will lose.

Libertarian economist Murray Rothbard actually dreamed of this 30 years ago: A pro-freedom firebrand populist who skips the elite and speaks directly to the people.

Donald Trump pulled it off.

Trump’s Revolution

Donald Trump has just pulled off one of the greatest upsets in American political history, facing an assembled army of nearly every institution, every corporation, every lever of power and public opinion from Big Tech to Hollywood to the news media.

He won because he masterfully converted an elite-dominated GOP into a grassroots populist movements that finally speaks to the American people.

In contrast, Dems stuck with the uniparty script, appealing to donors, corporations, the financial elite, and our ruling bureaucracy.

Voters were ready. Because when the pendulum swings a little bit and you’ve got controlled opposition, the reaction is regime apologists like Mitt Romney and John McCain.

But when the pendulum swings a lot and you’ve built a grassroots movement, you get Donald Trump.

Rothbard’s Grassroots Populism

My favorite economic historian Murray Rothbard actually dreamed of this 30 years ago in an essay called A Strategy for the Right.

Rothbard goes through the effete opposition of post-FDR establishment conservatives, who wasted decades doing cleanup for the left’s revolution.

As Michael Malice put it, establishment conservatives were progressives going the speed limit.

This, of course, is the famous uniparty.

According to Rothbard, instead of cleanup, we need a populist firebrand who can unite small-government economic and social conservates to hack the federal government to oblivion — what they take, what they spend, what they control.

For Rothbard, this means engagement in the culture wars, in kitchen-table economic issues, reaching out to form alliances with fellow travelers of either party.

Rothbard stressed intellectual guerilla warfare, talking directly to the people. Not using universities to influence the elite but going directly to voters on issues they actually care about, demystifying and delegitimizing state power.

Above all, talking to the working-class, who are both the most patriotic and the most skeptical of faculty-lounge leftism.

Trading the Bowtie for the McDonald’s Apron

In short, Rothbard advocated trading the pipe and bowtie of elite engagement for the McDonald’s apron.

That is Trump.

The firebrand style. The war on woke. Alliances with fellow travelers from RFK to Tulsi to former Democrats Elon Musk and Joe Rogan.

Trump treated the universities — indeed, the entire left-wing intellectual elite — with utter disdain.

And they still hate him for it.

Contrast with a Mitt Romney who deeply cares about getting invited to the good cocktail parties.

Trump, instead, gave them the middle finger.

And he loved every minute of it.

Trump has converted Republicans forever into exactly what Rothbard dreamed of: A grassroots, people-first movement, not an errand-boy for the left-wing elite.

Republican *politicians, of course, are a work in progress: Congress rigs the rules so once you’re in you stay in. So it’s a slow process replacing obsolete RINO’s with America-First Republicans.

Still, politics is the art of finding a parade and getting in front of it, and 95% of Republicans just chose Trump.

So the politicians will evolve or they’ll be replaced

What’s Next

Donald Trump has vindicated Rothbard’s dream of a grassroots populist movement speaking directly to both economic and cultural conservatives.

He has forever transformed the Republican electorate into populists who will, with time, transform the entire party.

Over time, that new populist GOP will cripple the elite uniparty that’s spent a century crippling America.

This would transform our elections from uniparty play-fight into true contests of people versus elite. As they used to be before the Progressives seized both parties in the 1910’s.

Dare we dream, if the new populist GOP succeeds, even the Democrat party will question its loyalty to an elite rather than the people they serve.

That means we could be on the first steps towards liberating both parties — and therefore the nation — from the elites who have tried their best to gut this country.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Kamala Harris Admits That Everything She Said About Trump Was A Lie


Vice President Kamala Harris concedes

Failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris admitted on Wednesday that she knew every single attack she launched against President-Elect Donald Trump and his presidency was a bald-faced lie.

More than twelve hours after Trump delivered a stunning blow to the regime and swept both the popular vote and Electoral College, Harris took the stage at Howard University to begrudgingly concede. She could have conceded in the wee hours of the morning, but that would have required showing up when it mattered — something she clearly doesn’t do (see her disastrous handling of Afghanistan).

But it wasn’t her hollow speech about “unity” and “joy” that stood out. It was the moment she openly confessed to spreading egregious falsehoods about Trump for months, all in a desperate attempt to sway the election.

“To the young people that are watching, it is okay to feel sad and disappointed,” Harris said. “But please know it’s going to be okay.”

It’s going to be okay?

How can it be okay when Harris told us that her opponent is a fascist? She said a Trump victory would be “dangerous” and a “huge risk for America.” Harris claimed that Trump “wants to send the military after American citizens” and that “he is out for unchecked power.” She painted him as an existential threat to “democracy” itself.

But now it’s “going to be okay”?

The truth is, it’s easy for her to say that “it’s going to be okay” because it will be okay. And it will be okay because everything Harris said was just a lie. The attacks, the smears, the fearmongering — it was nothing more than a political stunt designed to scare voters into supporting her because her policy positions weren’t enough to drag her across the finish line.

Harris banked her entire electoral victory on her supporters being ignorant about who Trump really is and what his presidency could achieve. And now, after losing, she can admit the truth — but it’s too little too late. Her divisive rhetoric, alongside the hate-filled narrative pushed by her party and the propaganda press, did more than just tarnish Trump’s reputation — it demonized half the country. It fostered an atmosphere of hate that contributed to the first two assassination attempts against Trump.

But now she wants to say it’s “going to be okay”?

Sure, things will be okay — thanks to Trump’s leadership and America-first policies. But the damage Harris did by stoking division, fear, and hatred for political gain will never be “okay.”

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Hit the Road, Jack. But Don’t Go Too Far


After spending at least $50 million in tax dollars to bring two unprecedented indictments against Donald Trump, Special Counsel Jack Smith should get his turn under prying eyes.

Jack Smith lurched into a Washington courtroom in September, fully aware all eyes had turned to him.

Declassified with Julie Kelly is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Surrounded by a team of federal prosecutors and guarded by a government-paid security detail, Smith, a lanky man with a scruffy beard and ill-fitting suit, stood behind the government’s table with arms folded. He slowly turned around with a partial scowl to appraise the audience—mostly reporters and D.C. residents eager to watch the restart of his January 6-related case against Donald Trump—to make sure he was noticed. He did not speak during the proceedings.

That appearance, perhaps unbeknownst to him at the time, looks like Smith’s last time in a federal courtroom as the special counsel prosecuting Trump. Citing Department of Justice rules that prohibit the prosecution of a sitting president, Smith reportedly is working with his bosses at the DOJ to figure out how to drop both the D.C. case and the classified documents in case in Florida; Smith has appealed Judge Aileen Cannon’s order dismissing the indictment based on the special counsel’s unconstitutional appointment.

The move represents another political fatality tied to Trump’s resounding victory on Tuesday. It also represents another humiliating defeat for the man the media portrayed as a steely war-crimes prosecutor plucked off a high profile international trial at the Hague by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022 to finally realize a longtime DOJ dream: put Donald Trump behind bars.

Stone Cold Loser Loses Again

But the hagiography about Smith—reporters swooned over the silent-type injured triathlete, even covering his stop at a DC sandwich shop in 2023 as “breaking news”—never matched his record. The Supreme Court in 2016 unanimously vacated the bribery conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell, a case brought by Smith when he led the DOJ’s public corruption office during the Obama administration. Following Smith’s appointment, McDonnell told Mark Levin that Smith would “rather win than get it right.”

Smith, however, usually does neither. In fact, his prosecutorial resume is a long list of courtroom losses, which makes one wonder why Garland chose him for the job. (More here).

Smith failed to win a single conviction in his prosecution of former Senator John Edwards on campaign finance charges in 2012. One DOJ watchdog group slammed Smith for using an “overly aggressive approach” in pursuing Obama’s 2008 Democratic primary rival and for relying on a “novel interpretation of campaign finance laws” to put Edwards behind bars.

It is an approach he repeated in his two unprecedented criminal indictments of Trump. The four counts in his J6-related case rely on vague conspiracy and obstruction statutes; two of the charges involve 18 USC 1512(c)(2), the post-Enron tampering with documents statute. In June, the Supreme Court reversed how the DOJ had applied that law in hundreds of January 6 cases and the court would have reached the same conclusion about Smith’s interpretation of the law if the case ever made it there.

In fact, the court this year rebuked Smith twice—by denying his highly unusual request to bypass the D.C. appellate court to immediately consider the presidential immunity question and by rendering its landmark decision in Trump v US, which largely gutted the J6 indictment.

Evidence of Misconduct in Classified Docs Case Demands Investigation

Smith’s classified documents case consisted of a hodgepodge of allegations about Trump’s possession of alleged national defense papers after he left office and accusations that he and two aides attempted to obstruct the investigation, which began in February 2022. But the DOJ’s handling of the case represents the best opportunity for a Trump DOJ to turn the tables and investigate main Justice and Special Counsel’s office for numerous offenses.

The case was tainted from the start. Although the alleged crimes occurred in Palm Beach, the DOJ conducted the entire investigation in the Trump-hating courthouse in Washington. This permitted unabashed Trump hater Chief Judge Beryl Howell to act as a rubber stamp for the DOJ’s requests including authorizing grand jury subpoenas and piercing attorney-client privilege claims between Trump and his lawyer, Evan Corcoran, under the rarely-used crime fraud exception.

Smith transferred the case to the proper jurisdiction in southern Florida at the last minute to get an indictment and then ran into a buzzsaw named Judge Aileen Cannon.

Thanks to Cannon’s fierceness—her concerns over the dirty nature of the case dates back to September 2022 when she appointed a third party to vet the items collected during the FBI’s armed raid of Mar-a-Lago the month before—the special counsel’s office was forced to disclose instances of tampering with and perhaps destroying evidence, intimidating witnesses, withholding discovery, and misleading the court. 

Court proceedings also revealed egregious misconduct related to the unprecedented armed raid of Mar-a-Lago; agents working out of the Washington and Miami FBI field offices breached the broad terms of the search warrant by ransacking the bedrooms of Melania and Barron Trump. The FBI’s plan included the bureau’s use of lethal force policy, underscoring the excessiveness of the raid, which was altogether unnecessary considering Trump and his lawyers had been cooperating with authorities for months.

Prosecutors later admitted in court that some of the records seized during the raid were not properly handled by investigators; defense attorneys claimed documents were missing.

Defense attorneys also obtained communications between the DOJ, the National Archives, and the Biden White House that demonstrated a behind-the-scenes effort to concoct a documents case as early as May 2021. A Trump DOJ should haul before a grand jury everyone from Biden’s general counsel Jonathan Su to deputy attorney general Lisa Monaco and top NARA officials involved in the scheme.

Conspiracy to defraud, anyone?

Show Us the Money

A full-blown audit into the special counsel’s expenditures should be conducted by either a Trump DOJ or a Republican Congress. Smith’s prosecutors often bragged about “the permanent, indefinite appropriation for independent counsels” allowed under 28 U.S.C. § 591 note, a claim Judge Cannon also doubted.

According to required financial reports, Smith’s team spent at least $35 million in the first 14 months of his investigation, a figure that includes additional support from main Justice. But those costs only cover the period from November 2022 through March 2024; it’s likely Smith blew through another $15 million or so over the last several months, bringing the total to over $50 million.

Expenses include a protective detail for Smith; travel expenses; and millions in unspecified “contractual services.”

Time to see who and what companies profited off the special counsel grift.

Weak Republicans in Congress undoubtedly will resist efforts to investigate and audit Smith but Trump should ignore them.

The American people—as well as Trump himself and his co-defendants—deserve a full accounting of this dirty, rogue, secretive process. And Smith and his accomplices need to be held accountable.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with: