Posts in Category: Commentary

What’s With the Windmills?

Michael walker
Michael and Sarah Walker
What's With the Windmills?
Loading
/

Trump and the Windmill: A Case Study in Manufactured Enemies

Donald Trump’s bizarre vendetta against wind turbines might seem like comic relief—a sideshow of sound effects, bird-killing accusations, and cancer conspiracies—but it actually offers a telling window into how he operates politically. Like so many of his obsessions, the war on windmills began as a personal grievance, was inflated into a populist symbol, and has now become a permanent part of his rhetorical arsenal.

The origin is almost petty: Trump’s long, losing legal battle in Scotland, where he tried to block an offshore wind farm near his Aberdeenshire golf course. He claimed the turbines would ruin the view and diminish property values. When the courts and the Scottish government didn’t side with him, the issue metastasized into something larger. It was no longer about one golf course; it became about betrayal, liberal overreach, and the indignity of being told “no.”

And so, from that personal defeat, Trump built a narrative villain: the windmill. Not just a clean energy device—but a symbol of everything he resents: environmental regulation, international cooperation, changing technology, and a world where his preferences don’t automatically carry the day.

Windmills

Trump’s windmill rants are more than comic outbursts. They’re a blueprint for his political style. He takes something real (wind energy), attaches a lie or distortion (“they cause cancer”), sprinkles in some emotional bait (“your property values will collapse”), and then sells it as a righteous fight. Facts don’t matter—what matters is that his audience feels under attack and sees him as their champion. Even when the “enemy” is a giant fan.

By mocking wind energy, he also draws a line in the sand between traditional energy (coal, oil, gas—industries tied to his base) and the future he’s convinced his supporters to fear. It’s climate denialism packaged in slapstick, grievance dressed up as policy. His windmill routine is both absurd and strategic.

It also fits into a larger pattern: Trump doesn’t battle real problems; he invents ones he can beat. Immigrants are “invaders.” Journalists are “enemies of the people.” Wind turbines are death machines. These inflated threats allow him to present himself as a larger-than-life warrior defending the country—when in fact, he’s just tilting at windmills.

In Don Quixote, Cervantes gave us a man so lost in his own delusion that he charged at windmills thinking they were giants. In Trump, we’ve somehow elected the same archetype—with a gold-plated golf cart instead of a horse, and a microphone instead of a lance.

We laugh at his windmill tirades because they’re ridiculous. But underneath the absurdity is a political strategy: Create the enemy. Exaggerate the threat. Declare yourself the savior. Rinse and repeat. The windmill is just the punchline. The pattern is the warning.

The Trump Deflection Doctrine

Michael walker
Michael and Sarah Walker
The Trump Deflection Doctrine
Loading
/

“The Trump Deflection Doctrine”

Every time Donald Trump is cornered by truth, he doesn’t defend—he deflects.

The pattern is so consistent it might as well be strategy.

Epstein connections start surfacing?

Suddenly:

“Obama has been caught. Biggest scandal in American history.”

No evidence. No facts. Just noise—louder and louder—until headlines forget what they were originally chasing.

His mental sharpness gets questioned?

He rolls out the old story:

“I took the test. I aced it. No one’s ever done better.”

What he’s referring to is not an IQ test, not even a memory test—it’s a cognitive screening for early dementia.
Questions like:

  • “Name three words: cat, shy, kitchen.”

  • “Draw a clock: the big hand is on 12, the little hand on 11.”

It’s a test for Alzheimer’s, not aptitude.
And yet, he brags about it—because he knows the headline isn’t the truth. It’s his confidence in the lie.

And when even that doesn’t work?
It’s “Biden’s fault”.
Or “The election was rigged.”
Or “They’re coming after me because of you.”


The Game Isn’t Defense—It’s Distraction

It’s never about answering the question.
It’s about changing the subject so fast and so furiously, the public can’t keep up.
It’s political sleight of hand.
While we’re staring at the noise, the truth quietly disappears.

This isn’t incompetence.
It’s a formula.
And unless we start recognizing the pattern, we’ll keep falling for it.

He does it because it works for him, but this stuff gets old and we get tired of it. Call him on all of it, all the time, over and over. Let him know we aren’t as stupid as he thinks we are, and yes, he thinks everyone but him is STUPID.

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/7YTU5Fh4wo5xPBhmxknuNN-1200-80.jpg

Reporting Under Fire: How Trump’s Lawsuit Against Murdoch Is Reshaping Political Journalism

Michael walker
Michael and Sarah Walker
Reporting Under Fire: How Trump’s Lawsuit Against Murdoch Is Reshaping Political Journalism
Loading
/

The most recent development in the lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump against Rupert Murdoch, The Wall Street Journal, and its parent companies, Dow Jones and News Corp, occurred in July 2025. Trump initiated a $10 billion defamation lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida federal court on July 18, 2025, following a Wall Street Journal article published the previous day. The article alleged that Trump sent a “bawdy” birthday letter and a sexually suggestive drawing to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003. Trump denies the authenticity of the letter, calling it “fake” and claiming it does not reflect his writing style or behavior, and accuses the defendants of acting with malicious intent to harm his reputation.

The lawsuit names Murdoch, News Corp CEO Robert Thomson, and reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo as defendants, alleging libel and slander. Trump’s legal action followed his direct warnings to Murdoch and the Journal’s editor, Emma Tucker, against publishing the story, which he claims they ignored. The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones have stated they stand by their reporting and will vigorously defend against the lawsuit.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles, who previously handled a 2023 lawsuit Trump filed against his former lawyer Michael Cohen, which Trump dropped before a scheduled deposition. Legal experts have expressed skepticism about the lawsuit’s merits, noting that Trump must prove “actual malice” to succeed in a defamation case, and the $10 billion damages sought are considered unusually high and potentially unrealistic.

The lawsuit has strained the long-standing, complex relationship between Trump and Murdoch, a media mogul whose outlets, including Fox News, have historically supported Trump but have also faced his criticism. Some reports suggest the suit serves as a warning to other media outlets, raising concerns about press freedom. There are no updates beyond July 2025 indicating further court proceedings or resolutions as of my last available information.

This isn’t just a defamation suit—it’s a tactic. Trump’s lawsuit is part of a larger pattern in which journalism isn’t merely questioned, but threatened—by legal firepower intended to force editorial compliance, intimidate sources, and discourage scrutiny. It tests whether a free press can operate freely when powerful political figures use litigation to police narrative boundaries.

1. Weaponizing Lawsuits to Regulate Truth

Trump’s case isn’t likely to succeed on legal grounds—New York Times v. Sullivan sets a high bar for defamation. But that may not be the point.
Like SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), this action imposes financial and legal burdens meant to:

  • Stall or chill investigative reporting

  • Shift editorial policies toward “safer,” less critical ground

  • Force outlets to weigh the legal cost of “getting it wrong” against journalistic boldness

What this implies:
A political figure can regulate journalism not with laws, but with lawyers.

2. Political Oversight Through Fear, Not Policy

Unlike traditional government censorship or regulatory control, this is oversight through intimidation:

  • Editors become risk managers

  • Reporters self-censor to avoid being the next target

  • Media companies weigh “is it worth it?” instead of “is it true?”

This form of “soft censorship” doesn’t require legislation—it requires deep pockets, loyal followers, and a willingness to attack institutions.

3. Eroding the Public’s Trust by Destabilizing the Source

When Trump sues The Wall Street Journal, it’s not just about setting the record straight. It’s a message to his base:

“Even your trusted conservative outlets are lying—only I speak the truth.”

This isolates his followers from any independent source of verification—making journalism itself the enemy.
The result?

  • Loyalty trumps objectivity

  • Tribal narratives override shared facts

  • Journalism is seen as either “ours” or “theirs”

4. The Long-Term Cost: Press as Political Risk, Not Public Service

The chilling effect doesn’t stop at WSJ. Smaller outlets, freelance journalists, even whistleblowers see what happens when you challenge political power with inconvenient facts.

If the new precedent is:

  • “Report on power at your own risk,”
    then journalism is no longer a civic tool—it’s a liability.

In an era where power no longer needs to pass laws to control speech, it simply needs to raise the cost of telling the truth. And that cost is now being paid in court.

And one more thought, just who do you think is paying for all this?

Seeking the Truth as opposed to Affirmation

Emma walker
Michael and Sarah Walker
Seeking the Truth as opposed to Affirmation
Loading
/

In an age of rampant misinformation, understanding the distinction between genuine fact-checking and merely seeking evidence to support a preconceived notion is crucial. While both involve reviewing information, their fundamental goals and methodologies are worlds apart. Actual fact-checking is a process of impartial verification, while searching for supporting documentation is often an exercise in confirmation bias.

The Goal: Truth vs. Affirmation

Truth012

The primary objective of fact-checking is to determine the accuracy of a claim, regardless of the outcome. A fact-checker starts with a question: “Is this statement true?” They then embark on a comprehensive and unbiased investigation, gathering all relevant evidence, both for and against the claim. The ultimate goal is to present a verified and accurate picture to the public.

Conversely, the principal aim of searching for supporting documentation is to find evidence that validates a pre-existing belief or argument. The starting point is not a question, but an assertion. The individual is not seeking to test the validity of their claim, but rather to find proof that they are correct.

The Process: Investigation vs. Advocacy

The methodologies employed by fact-checkers and those simply seeking support differ significantly.

Fact-checking is a meticulous and often lengthy process that includes:

  • Identifying verifiable claims: Not all statements can be fact-checked. Opinions, for instance, are not subject to this process.

  • Gathering diverse evidence: Fact-checkers consult a wide array of sources, including primary documents, expert opinions, and data from reputable institutions. They actively look for conflicting information to ensure a well-rounded view.

  • Evaluating sources: A critical component of fact-checking is assessing the credibility and potential bias of each source of information.

  • Synthesizing and concluding: After weighing all the evidence, a conclusion is drawn about the veracity of the claim, often with a nuanced explanation of the findings.

Searching for supporting documentation, on the other hand, is often characterized by:

  • Cherry-picking data: Individuals may selectively choose evidence that aligns with their views while ignoring contradictory information.

  • Ignoring source credibility: The reliability of a source may be overlooked if the information it provides is favorable to the individual’s argument.

  • Avoiding contradictory evidence: There is no active effort to find information that might challenge the initial belief.

The Mindset: Objectivity vs. Confirmation Bias

At its core, the difference between these two activities lies in the mindset of the individual. A fact-checker approaches a claim with a healthy dose of skepticism and a commitment to objectivity. The goal is to be a neutral arbiter of facts.

In contrast, someone searching for supporting documentation is often operating under the influence of confirmation bias. This is the psychological tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values. This can lead to a skewed and inaccurate understanding of an issue.

In essence, a fact-checker’s loyalty is to the truth, wherever it may lead. For someone simply seeking to support their own views, their loyalty lies with their pre-existing beliefs.

The song “Love Makes the World Go Around”, On X it’s HATE.

Hate03

Sometimes you just wake up and the first thing you see is some Troll posting something they found and out of ignorance have fact checked it while cruising X dot Com while having their morning constitution sitting on their porcelain throne and ….. Get the idea?

Okay, so what got me going? The Muslims, those horrid decapitators of the innocence.

So to start off, here it the image posted showing how evil the Koran is.

Gws874gwoaank8v

My goal is to encourage you to think critically and formulate your own questions. To preserve your freedom, rely on intelligence as your primary tool, supported by strength, because oppressors depend on force paired with ignorance.

All of this was done while my Pot of Coffee was brewing, (Yah, because you all are to cheap to buy me a cup).

Since I was on X I took a copy of the image and asked Grok to analyze it.

‘Grok, can you analyze and fact check this image?’

Yes, I can analyze the image you provided. The image contains a list of alleged Quranic verses (Koran 2:191, 3:28, 3:85, 5:33, 8:12, 8:60, 8:65, 9:5, 9:30, 9:123, 22:19, 47:4) with interpretations suggesting violent or intolerant actions toward non-believers, Jews, Christians, and others, framed under the question “A religion of peace?” The image appears to be designed to provoke or challenge perceptions of Islam.However, without the ability to perform a web search at this time, I cannot fully fact-check the exact wording or context of these verses against the Quran. Based on my general knowledge, some of these citations may be taken out of context or inaccurately quoted. The Quran, like many religious texts, contains a range of verses that can be interpreted in different ways depending on historical context, scholarly analysis, and translation. Many of the verses listed are associated with specific wartime situations or defensive measures, and mainstream Islamic scholarship often emphasizes verses promoting peace and tolerance, such as “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256).For a precise fact-check, I would need to consult the original Arabic text and authoritative translations, which I cannot do without searching. I suggest you provide the specific verses or context you’d like me to address further, or I can offer to search for more detailed information if needed. Would you like me to proceed with a search?

‘YES’

Thank you for confirming. I have analyzed the image and fact-checked the listed Quranic verses using available information. The image provides interpretations of verses (Koran 2:191, 3:28, 3:85, 5:33, 8:12, 8:60, 8:65, 9:5, 9:30, 9:123, 22:19, 47:4) that suggest violence or intolerance, but many of these are either misquoted, taken out of context, or lack complete translation.

  • 2:191: The verse mentions killing those who wage war against Muslims and expelling them from where they expelled Muslims, but it specifies this is in response to aggression and oppression, with a call to cease if they stop (2:192-193).
  • 3:28: This advises not taking disbelievers as allies during war, not a general prohibition on friendship.
  • 3:85: States that Islam is the only acceptable religion in the sight of God, but this is a theological claim, not a call to violence.
  • 5:33: Describes punishment for those who wage war against God and the Prophet, including crucifixion, but applies to specific crimes like highway robbery or sedition, not all non-believers.
  • 8:12: Refers to striking the necks of enemies in battle, a wartime context, not a general command.
  • 8:60: Encourages preparing military strength to deter enemies, not to terrorize indiscriminately.
  • 8:65: Urges Muslims to urge others to fight, but in the context of defending the community.
  • 9:5: Known as the “Verse of the Sword,” it calls to kill polytheists who broke treaties, but is limited to a specific historical context and followed by offers of peace (9:6).
  • 9:30: Criticizes Jews and Christians for certain beliefs, calling them accursed, but does not mandate fighting them.
  • 9:123: Instructs fighting disbelievers near Muslims, again in a defensive or wartime context.
  • 22:19: Describes punishment in hell for disbelievers, not an earthly command.
  • 47:4: Permits striking disbelievers’ necks in battle, with instructions to release or ransom them if they surrender.

These verses often relate to specific historical conflicts (e.g., battles during the Prophet Muhammad’s time) and are moderated by other verses promoting peace, such as 2:256 (“No compulsion in religion”) and 60:8 (kindness to non-hostile non-Muslims). The image’s interpretations exaggerate or omit context, presenting a skewed narrative. For a deeper understanding, consulting a full Quran translation (e.g., Sahih International) or Islamic scholars is recommended. Would you like me to search further or focus on a specific verse?

Compare Quran and Bible

‘YES’

Thank you for confirming. I have analyzed the image and fact-checked the listed Quranic verses using available information. The image provides interpretations of verses (Koran 2:191, 3:28, 3:85, 5:33, 8:12, 8:60, 8:65, 9:5, 9:30, 9:123, 22:19, 47:4) that suggest violence or intolerance, but many of these are either misquoted, taken out of context, or lack complete translation.

  • 2:191: The verse mentions killing those who wage war against Muslims and expelling them from where they expelled Muslims, but it specifies this is in response to aggression and oppression, with a call to cease if they stop (2:192-193).
  • 3:28: This advises not taking disbelievers as allies during war, not a general prohibition on friendship.
  • 3:85: States that Islam is the only acceptable religion in the sight of God, but this is a theological claim, not a call to violence.
  • 5:33: Describes punishment for those who wage war against God and the Prophet, including crucifixion, but applies to specific crimes like highway robbery or sedition, not all non-believers.
  • 8:12: Refers to striking the necks of enemies in battle, a wartime context, not a general command.
  • 8:60: Encourages preparing military strength to deter enemies, not to terrorize indiscriminately.
  • 8:65: Urges Muslims to urge others to fight, but in the context of defending the community.
  • 9:5: Known as the “Verse of the Sword,” it calls to kill polytheists who broke treaties, but is limited to a specific historical context and followed by offers of peace (9:6).
  • 9:30: Criticizes Jews and Christians for certain beliefs, calling them accursed, but does not mandate fighting them.
  • 9:123: Instructs fighting disbelievers near Muslims, again in a defensive or wartime context.
  • 22:19: Describes punishment in hell for disbelievers, not an earthly command.
  • 47:4: Permits striking disbelievers’ necks in battle, with instructions to release or ransom them if they surrender.

These verses often relate to specific historical conflicts (e.g., battles during the Prophet Muhammad’s time) and are moderated by other verses promoting peace, such as 2:256 (“No compulsion in religion”) and 60:8 (kindness to non-hostile non-Muslims). The image’s interpretations exaggerate or omit context, presenting a skewed narrative. For a deeper understanding, consulting a full Quran translation (e.g., Sahih International) or Islamic scholars is recommended. Would you like me to search further or focus on a specific verse?

Compare Quran and Bible

Comparing the Quran and the Bible involves examining their origins, content, structure, and theological perspectives. Here’s a concise overview:Origins

  • Quran: Revealed to the Prophet Muhammad in Arabic over 23 years (610–632 CE) in Mecca and Medina. Considered by Muslims to be the literal word of God (Allah) as dictated by the angel Gabriel.
  • Bible: Comprises the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible, completed by ~100 BCE) and New Testament (written 50–100 CE). Compiled over centuries, it includes writings by multiple authors inspired by God, according to Christian belief.

Structure

  • Quran: 114 chapters (surahs) of varying lengths, arranged roughly by size (longest to shortest), except the opening chapter. Written in poetic Arabic, with verses (ayahs) revealed in different contexts.
  • Bible: 66 books (in Protestant versions), divided into Old Testament (39 books) and New Testament (27 books), including historical narratives, poetry, prophecy, and letters. Organized by genre and chronology.

Content Themes

  • God: Both affirm monotheism. The Quran emphasizes Allah’s oneness (Tawhid) and transcendence, rejecting the Trinity. The Bible presents God as one but with a Trinitarian nature (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) in Christianity.
  • Prophets: Both recognize figures like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. The Quran views Muhammad as the final prophet, while the Bible ends with Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy.
  • Jesus: In the Quran, Jesus (Isa) is a prophet and messenger, born of the Virgin Mary, but not divine or crucified (4:157). In the Bible, Jesus is the Son of God, crucified, and resurrected for humanity’s salvation.
  • Law and Morality: The Quran provides legal and ethical guidance (e.g., Sharia), including dietary laws and prayer. The Bible includes the Mosaic Law (Old Testament) and Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Sermon on the Mount) emphasizing love and forgiveness.
  • Violence: Both contain verses on warfare (e.g., Quran 9:5, Bible Deuteronomy 20:10-18), often tied to historical contexts like defense or conquest, though interpretations vary widely.

Key Differences

  • Revelation: The Quran is seen as unaltered and final; the Bible’s texts evolved through translation and canonization.
  • Afterlife: Both describe heaven and hell, but the Quran details physical rewards/punishments (e.g., 22:19), while the Bible focuses more on spiritual states.
  • Scriptural Authority: Muslims believe the Quran supersedes previous scriptures (including the Bible), which they view as corrupted. Christians see the Bible as the complete revelation.

Similarities

  • Both promote faith, prayer, charity, and moral living.
  • Shared stories (e.g., Noah’s flood) reflect a common Abrahamic heritage.

For a deeper comparison, specific topics (e.g., specific verses, ethics) could be explored. Would you like me to focus on any particular aspect?

“NO”

When Truth Is a Liability and Laughter a Crime

When Truth Is a Liability and Laughter a Crime

There was a time in America when satire was celebrated — a necessary pressure valve in a democracy, a mirror that reflected uncomfortable truths through the safety of humor. But today, that mirror is being shattered, not by mobs or movements, but by boardrooms and political power.

The recent cancellation of The Late Show — conveniently following an administration’s sustained pressure campaign — is more than a programming change. It’s a warning shot across the bow of every parent company, streaming platform, and publication: comedy that speaks truth to power is no longer good for business. Or rather, it’s no longer safe for business.

Colbert01

Why did Paramount fold? Why now? And who’s next?

We are witnessing a quiet but forceful reshaping of the public square. Instead of government censorship, we get corporate compliance. Instead of storming newsrooms, leaders merely have to hint — threaten a lawsuit here, suggest regulatory pressure there — and truth buckles under the weight of liability.

Donald Trump’s threat to sue The Wall Street Journal if it published an article linking him to Jeffrey Epstein isn’t just a blustering headline — it’s an attempt to preemptively kill reporting that may be factual, inconvenient, or worse: undeniable. Whether or not the story sees daylight, the chilling effect already spreads.

What we’re left with is a hollowed-out discourse. Facts are rebranded as attacks. Jokes become “fake news.” And networks — fearing backlash more than boredom — simply choose silence.

It’s not about whether you liked Colbert or hated him, whether you trust the Journal or cancel your subscription. This is about whether we still believe truth matters. Whether satire still has a place. Whether comedy, critique, and inconvenient reporting are signs of a functioning democracy — or symptoms to be suppressed.

Because when power no longer fears the truth, it doesn’t argue with it. It simply erases it.

Do some elites or movements support depopulation — quietly or not?

Do some elites or movements support depopulation — quietly or not?

Yes, in the shadows of policy — though rarely called that:

  • Through environmental Malthusianism: “Too many people, not enough resources.”

  • Through selective policy neglect: Cutting public health programs or social safety nets knowing full well which populations will suffer.

  • Through experimentation: Historically, there’s a dark record — from Tuskegee to forced sterilizations — where “health” was used to justify control or reduction.

RFK Jr.’s rhetoric around detoxing children, rejecting vaccines, and elevating “natural immunity” taps into those old, unscientific veins — and when implemented from a position of power, they do carry population-level consequences.

It’s not always a Bond villain with a red button — sometimes it’s slow, ideological erosion of protections that keeps the vulnerable… vulnerable.

Epstein Files Are a “Hoax” = Trump is a “Hoax”

On July 15–16, 2025:

  • Trump publicly dismissed ongoing interest in the Epstein case, calling the allegations and push for file releases a “Jeffrey Epstein hoax”, and described this as a “scam” by Democrats TIME+11The Guardian+11New York Magazine+11ABC News.

  • He targeted members of his own MAGA base, using terms like “stupid people,” “foolish Republicans,” and “weaklings” to describe those demanding transparency AP News+2New York Magazine+2The Guardian+2.

  • Trump said he had received a “very quick briefing” and downplayed any personal connection: “No, no… she’s given us just a very quick briefing” regarding whether his name appeared in the files ABC News.

  • Calls within his administration, including from AG Pam Bondi, might release credible documents, but Trump insisted that the issue was boring and not worth attention The Independent+15AP News+15New York Post+15.


Trump epstein

Why This Shift Matters

  • Reversal of tone: Trump, who once encouraged speculation about Epstein’s “client list” and celebrated potential revelations, has now pivoted to complete dismissal AP News+9Wikipedia+9New York Magazine+9.

  • Base fracture warning: Conservatives like Laura Loomer, Michael Flynn, and Steve Bannon have criticized Trump for side‑stepping the issue and are demanding transparency or resignations TIME+1AP News+1.

  • House Speaker Mike Johnson and others have urged Bondi to release documents, showing internal party pressure diverging from Trump’s dismissal New York Magazine+12AP News+12The Guardian+12.

Summary Table

What Trump Said Media & Public Reaction
Called the Epstein revelations a “hoax,” “scam,” “bulls***” News outlets report strong backlash from MAGA influencers and internal dissent The Sun+2CBS News+2ABC News+2People.com+2The Guardian+2The Sun+2.
Labeled those pressing for transparency “stupid” or “weaklings” Some Republican leaders (e.g. Mike Johnson) continue to call for transparency .
Supported Pam Bondi’s handling of the case Despite promises, Bondi hasn’t released much—raising questions about credibility .
Claimed disinterest: “sordid, boring,” “I don’t understand the fascination” Many see this as a strategic retreat from previously embracing Epstein conspiracy theories .

Trump has effectively shifted from stoking interest in the Epstein case to condemning it as a partisan hoax, admonishing his own supporters in the process. This shift highlights core tensions between his rhetoric and that of some of his most vocal allies.

My Comment: When everything is a lie, then you can’t believe anything.

 

 

Project 2025 and Donald Trump

Michael & sarah logo design
Michael and Sarah Walker
Project 2025 and Donald Trump
Loading
/

What I am interested in is project 2025, key points and what Trump has done thats aligns with the project.

ChatGPT said:

Project 2025 is a comprehensive plan developed by the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank, to reshape the U.S. federal government if a Republican—likely Donald Trump—returns to power in 2025. It’s officially called “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise.” The project is a 900+ page policy and staffing blueprint aiming to overhaul the federal bureaucracy, expand presidential power, and implement far-right conservative policy across all agencies.


Key Points of Project 2025

  1. Presidential Power Expansion

    • Dismantle the “administrative state” (career civil servants) and replace them with loyal political appointees.

    • Use the Schedule F executive order (briefly enacted by Trump in 2020) to reclassify tens of thousands of federal workers and fire those deemed disloyal.

  2. Departmental Overhauls

    • Eliminate or consolidate federal agencies viewed as obstacles to conservative goals (e.g., Department of Education, Department of Energy).

    • Replace leadership and staff at agencies like the FBI, DOJ, IRS, CDC with political loyalists.

  3. Rollbacks of Social Programs and Regulations

    • Roll back climate initiatives, LGBTQ+ protections, DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) programs.

    • Reverse clean energy policies and environmental protections.

    • Privatize social safety net programs and reduce federal oversight.

  4. Immigration Crackdown

    • Mass deportations using expanded military powers.

    • Restore and expand the travel ban and public charge rule.

    • Push for ending birthright citizenship through executive action or reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.

  5. Education

    • Ban “critical race theory” and DEI from public education.

    • Promote school choice, religious schooling, and parental control over curriculum.

  6. Culture War Agenda

    • Advance anti-abortion policies (including national restrictions).

    • Use federal agencies to promote “biblical” values.

    • Restrict rights of transgender individuals.

  7. Foreign Policy Shift

    • Dismantle globalist institutions and alliances.

    • Favor unilateral military action and protectionist trade policies.

  8. Law and Order

    • Expand policing and surveillance powers.

    • Curtail protest rights and restrict civil liberties in the name of “order.”

  9. Media & Censorship

    • Investigate and potentially prosecute journalists or tech platforms accused of “bias.”

    • Defund or dismantle public media (like NPR, PBS).


Project2025 2

How Trump Already Aligns with or Has Acted on Project 2025 Goals

  1. Schedule F (Civil Service Purge Tool)

    • Trump signed this executive order in October 2020. Though it was never widely implemented before Biden rescinded it, Trump has promised to revive it on Day One of a second term—Project 2025 heavily relies on it.

  2. Loyalty-Driven Appointments

    • Trump has already shown preference for personal loyalty over qualifications—Project 2025 calls for a “deep bench” of vetted loyalists ready to take over federal positions.

  3. Agency Overhauls

    • Trump previously tried to slash the budgets or eliminate agencies like the EPA, NEA, and even the Department of Education. These goals are reiterated in Project 2025.

  4. Immigration

    • He implemented family separations, “Remain in Mexico,” and tried to end DACA. Project 2025 recommends going further, including using the military for mass deportations.

  5. Anti-DEI & Anti-Trans Policies

    • Trump banned diversity training in federal agencies and military.

    • Project 2025 would expand these efforts system-wide and implement national restrictions on transgender healthcare and visibility.

  6. Abortion

    • Trump appointed the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. Project 2025 advocates using the Comstock Act (an 1800s anti-obscenity law) to ban abortion pills nationwide.

  7. Climate and Energy

    • Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement, slashed EPA regulations.

    • Project 2025 calls for ending all “green energy” subsidies and fast-tracking oil and gas drilling.

  8. Election Law and DOJ Interference

    • Trump repeatedly pressured DOJ to support false election claims; Project 2025 wants to remove independence from DOJ and make the Attorney General fully answerable to the President.

  9. Christian Nationalism

    • Project 2025 openly aligns with Christian nationalist language. Trump has embraced this in speeches, portraying himself as a protector of Christian values against secular liberalism.


Project2025 3

Why This Matters

Project 2025 is not just a policy document—it’s a staffing and execution plan for a second Trump term. It represents the culmination of efforts to institutionalize authoritarian tendencies, weaken checks and balances, and reorient federal power toward a hard-right ideological agenda. Trump has endorsed its ideas indirectly through campaign promises, and many of his allies are directly involved in the project’s creation.🇺🇸 Trump vs. Project 2025: Policy Comparison Chart

Issue Area Trump 2016–2020 Project 2025 (Heritage Plan) Trump 2025 Campaign Promises
Federal Workforce Tried to “drain the swamp,” fired Comey, but most bureaucracies remained intact Replace 50,000+ civil servants with loyalists via Schedule F Reinstate Schedule F, purge “Deep State” on Day One
DOJ & FBI Pressured DOJ to investigate enemies; fired AGs Place DOJ under direct White House control Pledge to prosecute political opponents
Civil Liberties Banned DEI trainings, proposed protest crackdowns Expand surveillance, restrict protests, remove agency independence Restore “law & order,” crack down on “radical left” groups
Climate Policy Left Paris Agreement, deregulated emissions Eliminate EPA powers, end green energy programs “Drill baby drill,” withdraw climate funding
Abortion Appointed justices who overturned Roe v. Wade Use Comstock Act to ban abortion pills nationwide Open to national restrictions, vows to punish “blue states”
LGBTQ+ Rights Banned trans military service, cut protections Erase federal recognition of trans people, ban gender care Reverse Biden-era LGBTQ+ protections
Immigration Family separation, travel ban, built parts of wall Use military to carry out mass deportations Deport millions, end birthright citizenship
Education Pushed school choice, downplayed CRT fears Eliminate Dept. of Ed, ban CRT & DEI, increase parental control Promote Christian curriculum, cut “woke indoctrination”
Media & Free Press Called press “enemy of the people,” revoked CNN credentials Investigate journalists, defund public media Threatens major media outlets with legal action
Foreign Policy “America First,” left global treaties, embraced autocrats Gut international alliances, increase military autonomy Leave NATO if not “paid up,” realign with strongmen
Military Use Used military for Lafayette Square photo-op Use military for domestic law enforcement & immigration Send military into blue cities for “crime cleanup”
Christian Nationalism Courted evangelicals, referenced “God” often Promote biblical values via federal policy Declares fight is “between good and evil”
Elections & Voting Claimed 2020 was rigged, tried to overturn results Reduce federal oversight, allow state purges of rolls Vows to end mail-in ballots, restrict early voting
Agency Control Tried but failed to shrink government Consolidate/dismantle agencies, remove independent commissions Staff entire government with loyalists only

Summary of the Evolution

  • 2016–2020: Trump disrupted norms, tested legal limits, but was often restrained by courts, staff, and institutions.

  • Project 2025: Turns Trumpism into a systematic roadmap with legal and staffing tools to prevent resistance next time.

  • Trump 2025 Promises: Closely follow Project 2025—his campaign adopts many ideas almost verbatim but adds rhetoric promising vengeance and retribution.

Electorial College or Popular Vote

Public Opinion (2023–2024 polls):
~60% to 65% of Americans support deciding presidential elections by popular vote.

~35% to 40% prefer keeping the Electoral College.

Source: Pew Research, Gallup, Axios/Ipsos, and others.

Partisan Divide:
Democrats: Around 80% favor the popular vote.

Republicans: Around 60–65% prefer the Electoral College.

Independents: Lean toward popular vote, but less strongly (~55–60%).

This split has grown since 2000 and 2016 — both years where Republicans won the presidency while losing the national popular vote.

Why People Support Popular Vote:
Simpler and more democratic: each vote counts equally.

Avoids “swing state” bias — candidates currently focus on a handful of battlegrounds.

Prevents outcomes where the Electoral College winner loses the popular vote.

Why People Defend the Electoral College:
It protects smaller states from being ignored by big population centers.

It forces candidates to build broader coalitions across regions.

It’s part of the federalist structure — states choose electors, not individuals directly.

Compromise in the Works?
Yes — the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is a workaround gaining traction:

States agree to give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote — once enough states join to reach 270 electoral votes.

So far, 17 states + D.C. have joined (totaling 205 electoral votes as of 2025).

Summary:
Most Americans support a national popular vote.

But political self-interest and structural inertia keep the Electoral College firmly in place — for now.

The path forward may come through the NPVIC, not a constitutional amendment.

Popular vote vs electoral college

Here’s the chart showing support for the Popular Vote vs. Electoral College across major political groups. As you can see:

  • Democrats overwhelmingly favor the popular vote.

  • Republicans strongly prefer the Electoral College.

  • Independents lean toward the popular vote but are more divided.

  • Overall, most Americans favor switching to a popular vote system.