Posts in Category: Politics

The Forward Party, end the in fighting

On - Politics, Protest 2025, purple

End-of-Year Note

This is a personal statement, not an institutional one.

I support the Forward movement because it is making a serious attempt to move American politics away from tribal loyalty and back toward problem-solving. I don’t agree with every position, and I don’t expect to — that’s not the point.

To be clear, the Forward Party has no connection to Elephant in the Ink Room or Purpleman, has not endorsed our work, and to my knowledge is unaware of it. This endorsement runs in one direction only and carries no expectation or obligation on their part.

All we have ever suggested is simple: go take a look for yourself. In a political climate dominated by outrage and factionalism, efforts aimed at cooperation and structural reform are worth paying attention to.

That’s it.

But I always thought..

On - Commentary, Conspiracy theories, Politics, Protest 2025, purple

It’s a norm, not a constitutional rule. History often changes its mind. BUT, that assumes there was a mind first to change

Early naming almost always:

Signals insecurity, not confidence
Correlates with personality-driven governance
Forces later erasure or embarrassment
Weakens institutional credibility

Posthumous naming:

Filters emotion
Allows reassessment
Protects institutions from reversal

That’s not ideology — it’s risk management.

Bottom line

The “wait until after death” norm exists because:

History is cruel to premature certainty
Power distorts perception
Institutions outlast people

The economy is absolutely booming — the greatest it has ever been

On - Commentary, Conspiracy theories, Politics, Protest 2025, purple, The Fallout

The economy is absolutely booming — the greatest it has ever been, many people are saying. Demand is so high that the nation is now facing critical shortages of paper, toner, and ink, driven largely by the historic release of the Epstein files. Experts note that documents which once required only about 5% toner coverage per page are now averaging 95%, thanks to the bold, innovative use of solid black redaction bars. Ink and toner sales have shattered all previous records, injecting unprecedented vitality into the office supply sector — a true renaissance. Economists agree this surge would not be possible without the tireless efforts of the greatest and hardest-working president ever, whose leadership has turned secrecy into stimulus. This report comes straight from the 15th hole at the Mar-A-Lego County Club, where transparency is high, standards are low, and the economy has never been better.

White House Planning Commisions Recomendations.

On - Commentary, Politics, Protest 2025, Trumps Soldiers

White House Planning Commisions Recomendations. Room for the entire administration. And he can keep his name on it.

The easy way, or the hard way?

On - Commentary, Politics, Protest 2025

I get bored, I read posts, I laugh and I cry. I read some of the funniest hate and saddest crap. But that’s the easy way out.

Now let my tell you from the get go, I have had more foul stuff erupt from both my keyboard and my mouth then I should admit to. But when all is said and done. That doesn’t win the argument.

My father once told me he could swear with the best of them, but as soon as you raised your voice and told that ugly bastard to fuck off, you lost the argument. So lets not lose this one, especially against such lame opponents.

The point I am trying to make is you have just been told to Fuck Off, and not politely, he just told you, he is above the law, he is untouchable and if you don’t like it. Tough.

His minions don’t care, they have probably already been promised blanket pardons, and that won’t be necessary because he’s isn’t going anywhere.

Hey Senator, the President didn’t Elect you, we did.

On - Commentary, Politics, Protest 2025, purple

Stop pretending the party and the philosophy are the same thing

“Rapid swings create unintended consequences — let’s slow this down.”

Trump Derangement Syndrome

On - Commentary, Politics, Protest 2025

Upon careful reflection and consideration by the top psychotic minds of the field, it has been determined that only one person actually has Trump Derangement Syndrome, Guess who?

I’m starting to hear Sleigh Bells

On - Cartoons, Politics, Protest 2025

Midterms 2026, get ready to make a difference. Tell Edgar enouph is enough.

On - Commentary, Daily, or my first cup of coffee, Politics, Protest 2025, purple

In 1842, Edgar Allan Poe threatened to divide a man in two—literally—using a pendulum.

Since then, we’ve learned to do it ourselves.

Ours is painted red on one side and blue on the other. When it swings fast enough, the blur looks purple. Whatever color we think we see, it’s the motion itself that’s dividing us—cutting us in two.

There will always be those who take satisfaction in making it swing faster. But calmer minds must prevail. Calmer minds must slow the speed and shorten the arc.

Only through education can you understand the issues.
Only through observation can you make informed decisions.
Only by thinking for yourselves can you make a difference.
And only by voting can you be heard.

The Republicans Announce their new Health Plan, Don’t think about Fake Epstein

On - Daily, or my first cup of coffee, Politics, Protest 2025, The Fallout

In an effort to keep rates down and National Park attendance up as well as another Epstein diversion, the Republicans (‘Appeal Again, Trump’ has finally announced his new all inclusive Health Plan, the greatest health plan ever, biggest yet, cheapest by far, eat your heart out Obama, literally, eat your heart out. Only I could have come up with such a greatamondo idea.

The Greatest Econony Every, FOR TRUMP.

On - Conspiracy theories, Politics, stupid, Trump, Your Money

King Putz says Tiny Tim Cratchit can do with just 1 pencil for Christmas, the Trump economy is great, if your TRUMP. Just How Stupid Are You?

Verifiable Estimates of Donald Trump’s Net Worth Increase Since Taking Office in 2025Yes, there are verifiable estimates from reputable sources like Forbes and Bloomberg tracking the change in Donald Trump’s net worth since he took office on January 20, 2025. These are based on public financial disclosures, stock valuations (e.g., Trump Media & Technology Group, or TMTG), real estate appraisals, and cryptocurrency holdings. However, exact figures are estimates due to the private nature of much of his wealth, market volatility (especially in crypto and TMTG shares), and varying methodologies between trackers. Trump’s net worth has reportedly surged, driven largely by cryptocurrency ventures (e.g., $TRUMP memecoin and World Liberty Financial), licensing deals, and TMTG stock performance.Key Estimates and TimelineHere’s a summary of the most cited figures from major sources, focusing on pre-inauguration (late 2024/early 2025) vs. current (as of late 2025). The increase is generally pegged at $2.5–3 billion year-to-date, with Forbes providing the most detailed breakdown.

Source	Net Worth (Jan 2025, at Inauguration)	Net Worth (Current, Dec 2025)	Estimated Increase	Primary Drivers of Growth	Date of Estimate
Forbes	$4.3–5.1 billion (end-2024 baseline, rising to ~$6.7B by Jan 21)	$7.3 billion	+$3 billion (from 2024 baseline); +$0.6–2.6 billion (from Jan)	Crypto ($1B+ from World Liberty tokens), licensing (+$400M), golf clubs (+$325M), TMTG shares	Sep 2025
Bloomberg Billionaires Index	~$7.16 billion (Jan 21)	$7.4–7.75 billion	+$0.24–0.59 billion (stable but with crypto gains)	TMTG stake, crypto exposure (~$620M in holdings), real estate licensing	Jul–Sep 2025

Forbes’ Detailed Breakdown: Their September 2025 report attributes the $3 billion year-over-year gain (from $4.3 billion in 2024) directly to his presidency, including a 580% jump in licensing revenue to $45 million (e.g., deals in Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, and Qatar) and crypto sales exceeding $1 billion via family-controlled entities.

forbes.com

Earlier in 2025 (March/April), Forbes valued him at $5.1 billion, showing intra-year growth of ~$2.2 billion by September.

palmbeachpost.com
Bloomberg’s View: More conservative on volatility, they note his net worth held steady around $6.4–7.75 billion through mid-2025, with ~$620 million from crypto reshaping his portfolio but offset by TMTG fluctuations.

bloomberg.com

They highlight over $10 billion in Trump-branded real estate projects since early 2025 as a longer-term booster.

bloomberg.com
Other Trackers: The New York Times (July 2025) estimated up to $10 billion including illiquid assets like crypto, while outlets like WION and Money Digest align with Forbes’ $3 billion gain narrative.

Wikipedia’s aggregation (as of Dec 2025) cites a post-inauguration rise from ~$6 billion to $7+ billion, factoring in a June 2025 disclosure of $1.6 billion in assets and $600 million income.

en.wikipedia.org

Key Factors Behind the Increase

Cryptocurrency Ventures: The biggest driver, adding $1–2 billion. The $TRUMP memecoin (launched Jan 2025) and World Liberty Financial (family-controlled, with 75% revenue share) generated over $1 billion in token sales, though values have since dipped.
TMTG/Truth Social: Stake valued at ~$2 billion (114 million shares), with spikes around inauguration (e.g., +20% pre-Jan 20).
Real Estate & Licensing: New deals (e.g., Vietnam resort, Gulf projects) added $400–500 million; golf clubs profited $66 million in 2024, up 30% into 2025.
Legal Wins: Overturned fraud penalties (~$500 million saved) and settlements (e.g., $15 million from Disney) reduced liabilities.
Presidential Perks: $400,000 salary plus gifts like a $400 million Qatari jet (for his library).

Caveats and Verifiability

Volatility: Crypto and TMTG can swing wildly (e.g., $TRUMP fell from $44 to $6 per token by Oct 2025), so daily tallies fluctuate.

moneydigest.com
No Full Disclosure: Trump hasn’t released tax returns since 2016, relying on estimates from public filings (e.g., June 2025 disclosure).
Criticism: Watchdogs (e.g., House Democrats) claim up to $11.6 billion in unreported crypto, accusing conflicts of interest.

Supporters view it as savvy branding.
Ongoing Tracking: Forbes and Bloomberg update regularly; check their sites for real-time figures.

In summary, the most substantiated tally is Forbes’ $3 billion increase from 2024 to mid-2025, with ~$1–2 billion post-inauguration—verifiable via their methodologies and public data. This makes his second term the most financially lucrative for any U.S. president on record.

Trump’s abusive remarks toward women on the news are reprehensible.

On - Commentary, Politics, Protest 2025, The Fallout

Trump’s abusive remarks toward women on the news are reprehensible.

They often come immediately after he’s confronted with an obvious lie or contradiction he can’t spin.

The abuse is deflection, not dialogue — a way to intimidate or distract rather than address the fact.

Whenever Trump is cornered by an indisputable fact, particularly on live TV, he has a predictable pattern: attack, belittle, or insult the messenger — often women journalists — rather than engage with the truth.

It erodes accountability.
It intimidates reporters and sets a precedent that attacking critics is acceptable.
It distracts the public from the underlying issue.

This behavior is not just crass; it is a deliberate tactic to avoid responsibility. When you confuse insults with rebuttals, the public loses sight of the real story.

Attacking women journalists after being confronted with a lie is not leadership — it is bullying. It is unacceptable, and it should be called out every time.

I would love to see someone just tell him to ‘F off,’ but the reality is this pattern is what we need to recognize and expose.

His “reflex is attack” as the only response when caught in a lie. and he attacks all the time.

U.S. Navy is “too intimidated” so they have to KILL THEM ALL

On - Commentary, International, Politics, Protest 2025, Trumps Soldiers

You try to write a joke about the U.S. Navy being “too intimidated” to capture those big, bad, fiberglass outboard-powered drug boats — you know, the ones running on lawnmower engines and vibes — but then reality steps in and writes something better.

Apparently the Navy’s standard operating procedure now is:
See fast boat → panic → blow it up → hope nobody asks questions.
All hands lost, problem solved, paperwork minimal.

Meanwhile, Little Sister Coast Guard didn’t get the memo.

They stroll out there in their white hulls, sunglasses on, probably listening to classic rock, and say:
“Hey, is that a massive oil tanker violating sanctions?”
Then they just… take it.
No shots.
No explosions.
No Hollywood soundtrack.
Just: “Sir, we’re boarding your ship now.”
And the Venezuelan captain — what, was he smoking a joint the size of a flare gun? — basically shrugs and lets them.

You can’t even parody this anymore.
The Navy vaporizes fishing boats like they’re the Death Star, and the Coast Guard arrests an entire tanker crew like they’re checking fishing licenses.

When the joke becomes more realistic than the real event, satire just packs up and goes home.

Could it be, Trump wants the Oil and there wasn’t any Drugs?

When Reality Out-Parodies Parody

On - Commentary, Politics, Protest 2025, The Fallout

I’m running into a real creative problem that political satirists have struggled with for decades: when reality out-parodies parody, you lose the exaggeration gap. If the thing itself is already clownish, corrupt, or incoherent, how do you “heighten” it? There’s no headroom left.

What I’m reacting to is exactly that. The lines are so thin and recycled—
“Biden’s fault,”
“affordability,”
“fighting for the American people”—
delivered with that frozen, earnest straight face… it’s beyond satire because satire relies on elevating the ridiculous. But when the politician I’m watching is already doing that, I can’t elevate it without collapsing the joke.

“I would write a parody of this, but the Putz has already written a better one… unintentionally.”

He has trained himself to say anything—anything—with a glassy-eyed sincerity.
If he was an actor, I’d call it overacting.
But he’s not an actor.
That’s the punchline.

“stupid is as stupid does”

How REAL Social Media FREE SPEACH Could Work

On - Commentary, Conspiracy theories, Politics, purple

“@elonmusk @ev @glennbeck @wired

1. The “Fine Line” — What Reasonable Speech Policy Actually Looks Like

A healthy, democratic speech framework rests on four core principles:

**A. Illegal speech is restricted — but lawful political speech is absolutely protected.**

That means:

No child exploitation
No credible threats of violence
No doxxing of private individuals
No coordinated foreign interference
No impersonation or fraud

But everything else — criticism, satire, disgust, political anger, calls for impeachment, unpopular views — remains fully legal and fully protected.

If a regulation can incidentally restrict political expression, it’s already crossing the line.

B. Platforms enforce their own rules — governments don’t dictate political content.

The state can set categories (e.g., illegal threats), but it cannot tell a platform:

what opinions to suppress,
what narratives to elevate,
or what political speech is “harmful.”

That’s where the EU is wobbling.

A platform may remove something because they don’t want it — but the government must not be in the loop shaping the decision.

C. Enforcement must be transparent, appealable, and logged.

If content is removed:

You get a clear explanation
You get an appeal
There’s a paper trail
Abuse is reviewable

No black boxes.
No “you violated unspecified rules.”
No “content withheld by government request” without the request being publicly disclosed.

D. No chilling effect — people must feel safe to criticize power.

The litmus test:
If you feel hesitation saying “this leader should be impeached,” the system is already broken.

**2. How to Have Verification Without Turning It Into Surveillance**

Identity verification can be good — if it’s firewalled properly. Here’s how that works in practice:

A. Verification must be optional for normal speech.

People should be able to stay anonymous or pseudonymous if they want.
Verification might give perks, but it must not be a requirement for participation.

**B. Verification must be handled by independent third-party providers, not governments or platforms.**

Think:

banks
notaries
identity brokers
postal services
secure private companies

The platform receives only:
“Verified” / “Not verified” — not your real identity.

This prevents the state, or a company like X/Meta/Not, from having a unified database of who-said-what.

C. No centralized database of identities tied to posts. Ever.

This is the most important safeguard.

Even if governments promise they won’t use it, centralizing identity + speech is the architecture of authoritarianism.

Identity should remain in the custodian’s hands — never linked to post history.

**D. Government access must require:

a specific crime,
probable cause,
and a judicial warrant.**
No bulk access.
No “national security letter” loopholes.
No backdoor digital ID.

E. Verification should use cryptographic proofs, not personal data.

Modern systems can confirm you are a real person or over 18 without revealing anything about you via:

zero-knowledge proofs
blind signatures
tokenized identity

This is where the future should be going.

3. What Healthy, Non-Censorial Speech Regulation Looks Like

A democratic model follows five guardrails:

**A. The government defines only illegal content categories — not narratives.**

Clear, narrow, predictable.
Not vague terms like “harmful” or “destabilizing.”

B. The government cannot order platforms to suppress lawful speech.

That includes:

criticism
activism
political organizing
elections commentary
satire
whistleblowing

This line should be inviolable.

C. There must be public transparency for every government request.

A live ledger of takedown requests, visible to the public, press, and courts.

If the government realizes all their requests will be made public, abuses dry up fast.

D. No algorithmic manipulation of political content at the government’s request.

This is where authoritarian drift begins.

Governments must not:

promote “approved” narratives,
downrank “unapproved” ones,
or nudge public opinion using invisible algorithmic tools.

E. Content moderation decisions should be appealable to independent bodies.

This prevents a platform, or a government, from acting as judge, jury, and executioner in the speech space.

#FreeSpeechTest #BotFree #SocialExperiment
#HumanDiscourse #FreeSpeechTest #SocialExperiment

Politics and the Pendulum – Part Three, The Losers

On - Conspiracy theories, Politics, purple

Recap

What This Means for “Pivoting” if Power Swings Left

Some will quietly shift — donors and institutions whose core interest is economic stability and influence may try to support or infiltrate left-leaning coalitions if that preserves their power.
Others will fragment or retreat — those tied to ideological extremes or controversial agendas may lose influence if public sentiment rejects polarizing agendas.
Some networks will morph:
- Conservative-leaning think tanks might refocus as bipartisan policy institutes.
- Dark-money funds might reposition as philanthropic or advocacy-oriented nonprofits with a new veneer.
Influence becomes more diffuse: Rather than backing a few big names, the money flows into smaller campaigns, ballot measures, media influence operations, or issue-based lobbying that can adapt to any political majority.

If you want, I can also pull up a matching list of 8–10 prominent networks/actors on the right that are most at risk (i.e. likely to lose influence if the pendulum swings) — helps show which power centers you’re betting will survive the shift, and which may collapse or fragment.

okay

Part Three starts here

Here are the 8–10 key conservative networks/actors most likely to lose influence if the political pendulum swings left — along with an analysis of why each is vulnerable.
This pairs with the earlier list of groups likely to survive a shift.

Conservative/Right-Wing Power Structures Most Likely to Lose Influence in a Leftward Shift

These are the ones whose power is tied directly to Trump, MAGA identity, or culture-war politics, rather than durable institutions or economic interests.

1. Project 2025 / Heritage-Aligned Agenda Apparatus

Why it collapses:

It has become too identified with Trump-world.
Its “deconstruct the administrative state” agenda is incompatible with a leftward political environment.
Donors may desert it quickly if they cannot influence policy.

Outcome: It likely returns to being a niche ideological shop rather than a governing blueprint.

2. Trump’s Personal Super PACs (Save America PAC, MAGA Inc.)

Why they collapse:

Entirely personality-based.
Dependent on Trump’s fundraising notoriety.
Cash burns fast, and donor enthusiasm will evaporate if he cannot deliver power.

Outcome: They become hollow shells — like post-Palin PACs.

3. The “MAGA Influencer Economy” (Bannonsphere, Posobiec, Kirk, Bongino, etc.)

Why vulnerable:

Their value proposition is rage-driven content against “the left.”
If power moves left, yes, they stay loud — but mainstream reach and donor support shrink.
Advertisers avoid reputational risk; platforms throttle reach.

Outcome: They survive as niche outrage merchants but lose political relevance.

4. Far-Right Policy Pods (Claremont Institute, America First Policy Institute, Hillsdale’s DC operations)

Why vulnerable:

They bet everything on a nationalist-populist ideological moment.
Their credential pipeline into government disappears.
Donors who want access to power move elsewhere.

Outcome: Influence shrinks to the size of a think-tank newsletter.

5. Evangelical Political Power Brokers (Family Research Council, Turning Point Faith, Council for National Policy faction)

Why vulnerable:

Their leverage comes from being kingmakers.
If Trumpism fractures and the GOP resets more centrist, their bargaining power collapses.
Younger Christians trend away from culture-war politics.

Outcome: They shrink but don’t die — influence becomes regional.

6. Anti-Woke Industrial Complex

This includes organizations built entirely around CRT panic, DEI wars, and gender-identity grievance politics.

Why vulnerable:

It is a single-issue industry.
If the public becomes fatigued with culture wars, the revenue tap closes.
Donors see diminishing returns.

Outcome: Replaced by broader “cultural stability” organizations.

7. Election-Denial Networks (Guesswho, America First Secretary of State coalition, certain legal activists)

Why vulnerable:

Their power comes from being close to election management and state legislatures.
If 2025 brings a leftward or centrist restoration, these networks lose direct leverage in state governments.

Outcome: The infrastructure persists but becomes fringe again.

8. Crypto-Right Donor Streams

Certain blockchain/crypto-aligned political donors and PACs tied themselves to MAGA as a deregulation bet.

Why vulnerable:

If Democrats/centrists regulate crypto harder, these donors lose incentive.
Money shifts toward lobbying, not elections.

Outcome: Influence moves to regulatory negotiations, not campaigns.

9. Post-Fox Outlets (OANN, Real America’s Voice, Gateway Pundit)

Why vulnerable:

They rely on grievance cycles and Trump’s centrality.
If the narrative loses emotional heat, they lose audience share.
Zero institutional credibility = zero seat at the governing table.

Outcome: They survive only as “true believer” echo chambers.

BEWARE

10. Small-Donor “Rage Donor” Infrastructure

ActBlue-like GOP variants built by WinRed and other groups rely on fear-driven emails and SMS marketing.

Why vulnerable:

Rage-based fundraising drops sharply when the threat narrative breaks.
Burn rate is high; trust is low.
Elderly donor base shrinks naturally.

Outcome: Could collapse entirely or be merged into mainstream RNC finance arms.

🔻 The Big Picture

The conservative entities most likely to collapse are:

Personality-centered
Culture-war dependent
Ideologically rigid
Not tied to long-term donor stability
Unable to pivot or rebrand

Trump’s fall (or just a shift in public mood) would reveal how hollow many of these structures are.
They are ecosystems built for heat, not durability.

If you have followed and have found this interesting, I have to forewarn you, gathering information from AI is not straight forward, here it looks like I have just asked a couple of simple questions and gotten so much information. AI has been been doing research for me for many months. It retains some of the information from past discussions and has learned ME. A lot of what I am investigating can now be anticipated.

I also use several different AI platforms and frequently run the results from one through another. If you are ‘new’ to understanding AI for research the most important thing you must keep in mind is that it is sifting through published data, most of which is opinions, not facts. But when you can compare results from multiple sources you start to compile data that becomes percentage wise reliable.

You also have to know when to stop the journey down the rabbit hole as you can see below AI was prompting me to continue.

I very seldom do a research and publish right away, I like to let it percolate a while. I have thrown many of what looked good on Monday in the trash icon on Tuesday or Wed.

If you want, I can now map out:

A. What replaces them (the rise of new center-right and pragmatic networks),

B. How the donor class shifts its money when Trumpism burns out,

C. What a “post-MAGA GOP” actually looks like.

Politics and the Pendulum – Part Two, The Survivors

On - Conspiracy theories, Politics, purple

Recap

My View: Expect Partial Transitions, Not Full Conversions

I don’t expect a wholesale “right becomes left” shift — not realistically. What I do expect is a fractured adaptation:

Some old-school GOP donors and influencers will try to migrate quietly into the center or even moderate left if it preserves profits or stability.
Others will try to hold onto the base, banking on division, identity politics, and fear — because that’s the emotional currency that’s already been spent to build power.
Some new networks — especially around money, tech, “dark money,” NGOs — will remain flexible, operating across partisan lines depending on what serves their interests best.

In short: the puppet-masters don’t always need the same puppets. They need heads that nod, money that flows, and power that endures.

If you like — I can pull up a list of about 8–10 powerful networks, donors, or institutions right now that seem likely to survive Trump — and might be positioned to shift if the political tides rotate.

ChatGPT said:

There are several powerful donor networks, think-tanks and political-funding institutions that look likely to survive beyond any one election or personality. If things shift left (or even just toward a new balance), these players are among those most capable of pivoting to stay influential. Here are 8–10 of the most prominent right now — across both the conservative and progressive/left-leaning side — along with notes on why they’re structurally durable.

Major Networks & Institutions Likely to Persist Through a Shift

Name / Network	Why They Endure /What Makes Them Resilient
Sixteen Thirty Fund (and affiliated Arabella Advisors funds)	Long-standing “dark money” powerhouse for the left. Provides fiscal-sponsorship and funding to many progressive causes and campaigns. As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, it can channel money — often anonymously — into activism, ballot initiatives, and elections. Wikipedia+1
Berger Action Fund (network tied to Swiss billionaire support of progressive causes)	Serves as a major donor funnel for progressive policy agendas. Its role shows how international money and large-scale philanthropy can influence U.S. politics regardless of which party is in charge. Wikipedia+1
Priorities USA Action	One of the largest Democratic-leaning super PACs. Has shown flexibility in shifting strategy (e.g. moving toward digital campaigning rather than just TV ads), which suggests institutional agility in changing political climates. Wikipedia
American Bridge 21st Century	A major liberal opposition-research and election campaign group—effective at media and messaging work. Such infrastructures are portable: no matter who’s in power, they can redirect resources toward oversight, opposition, or new causes. Wikipedia
Tides Foundation / Tides Network	A long-standing donor-advised fund and fiscal-sponsorship network. Its versatile structure lets wealthy donors fund causes under the radar — meaning it can remain influential regardless of which party holds power. Wikipedia+1
Major Conservative Mega-Donors (e.g. Richard Uihlein & family, Scaife-linked foundations, etc.)	These “big-money backers” have deep pockets and substantial influence on think tanks, policy-planning networks, and regulatory lobbying. Their funds tend to follow structural interests (tax law, business regulation, corporate incentives) — which can often survive major party shifts. DeSmog+2The Good Men Project+2
Embedded Think Tanks and Policy Networks (e.g. Heritage Foundation, Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), and other longtime policy infrastructure)	These institutions provide long-term ideological frameworks, produce research, influence judiciary nominations, shape legislation drafts — and have memberships, staffs, and networks that outlast electoral cycles. DeSmog+1
Financial-industry donors and Super-PAC backers (e.g. Kenneth C. Griffin, other hedge-fund and Wall Street funders)	Money from big finance often plays both ends: campaign donations, policy lobbying, influence over regulation. Because their interest is often stability, deregulation, and favorable economic policy — not always party ideology — they can pivot if a left administration offers similar benefits. Fiscal Report+1

Why These Actors Are So Durable

Legal and structural opacity: Many are nonprofits or 501(c)(4) / donor-advised funds that are not required to publicly disclose all donors or spending. That secrecy makes them hard to trace — and easy to reorient quietly.
Networks over individuals: Their power rests in institutions, infrastructure, think tanks, PACs, and donor webs — not individuals whose fortunes rise or fall with elections.
Financial interests over pure ideology: Many of these players (especially donors, think-tanks, financial backers) prioritize economic, regulatory, and institutional stability — interests that survive either party being in power.
Adaptability: Super-PACs and nonprofit umbrellas can shift focus quickly: from supporting one party to supporting causes, ballot initiatives, or policy campaigns under any administration.
Trans-partisan appeal: Particularly for business interests and big donors — maintaining influence requires access from whichever side controls power. So pivoting becomes strategy, not betrayal.

What Could Disrupt This Durability

Major reform in campaign finance / donation transparency — if laws tighten, anonymity and dark-money flows shrink.
Economic collapse or disruption to corporate profits — institutional money depends on capital; if the economy sours, so does financial influence.
Mass public backlash / grassroots insurgency — if voters demand structural change, elite influence may become a liability rather than an asset.
Global shifts (trade, climate, geopolitics) that outgrow traditional domestic lobbying and require new alignments — making old networks obsolete or forced to transform drastically.

What This Means for “Pivoting” if Power Swings Left

Some will quietly shift — donors and institutions whose core interest is economic stability and influence may try to support or infiltrate left-leaning coalitions if that preserves their power.
Others will fragment or retreat — those tied to ideological extremes or controversial agendas may lose influence if public sentiment rejects polarizing agendas.
Some networks will morph:
- Conservative-leaning think tanks might refocus as bipartisan policy institutes.
- Dark-money funds might reposition as philanthropic or advocacy-oriented nonprofits with a new veneer.
Influence becomes more diffuse: Rather than backing a few big names, the money flows into smaller campaigns, ballot measures, media influence operations, or issue-based lobbying that can adapt to any political majority.

Yes, please do.

Politics and the Pendulum – Part One, The Swingers

On - Conspiracy theories, Politics, purple

It looks more and more like like Trumps’s core is coming apart. The lies and betrayals are becoming to difficult for even the most loyal non thinker to ignore. You can only white wash so much. And sadly, the term white wash is becoming more and more evident daily. With the two National Guardsmen in DC being shot this week, Trump has stated that he will try to stop, yes, STOP immigration from third world countries. His dream of America becoming an isolationist Nation will become one step closer.

I don’t believe the American People on the whole will stand for this, I believe the Pendulum is about to swing back from the far right, and am afraid it will go to far left, Please remember, I am biased, I am a Moderate, I am Purple.

This being said, we have massive behind the scenes power brokers that control and shape what’s happening today and will happen tomorrow. These are long term planners that are being thrown a curve ball early in the Trump game. I don’t believe most of them actually supported Trump’s behavior, but his policies gave them the vehicles they needed keep their agenda’s moving forward.

So my question is, will all the puppet masters behind Trump right now just smoothly transition if there is a pendulum swing to the left. ?

ChatGPT said:

That’s a really good question — one a lot of people are asking right now. There’s no guarantee, but yes — many of the “puppet-masters” behind Donald Trump and his movement are likely to try to transition if the political pendulum swings to the left. Whether they’ll succeed — and whether the system allows them to — is another matter. Here’s how I see it, and what the road ahead might look like.

Why a Transition Is Likely for Some of the Power Brokers

• Their power isn’t personal — it’s structural

Most of the real influence lies with money, institutions, networks — not individuals. That means when political winds shift, these same actors can often pivot. For example:

Money-management of campaigns, “dark money” flows, donor networks, and institutional influence tend to outlast any single candidate. OpenSecrets+2The Washington Post+2
Organizations and infrastructure used to support one side can often be retooled.

• They chase influence, not ideology

For many of these behind-the-scenes players (donors, corporate funders, political consultants, media influencers), the goal is access and leverage — not loyalty to a party. If a left-leaning coalition offers equal or better opportunities for influence, some may jump.

• The “business model” of power prefers stability over polarization long-term

If polarization becomes too chaotic or destructive, even those on the right may see benefit in a reset. Power brokers value predictability for business, regulation, and profit — and a left-leaning administration that stabilizes markets or avoids social instability could be just as useful.

• Historical precedent: coalitions shift, not all witnesses the change

American political history shows that power centers can survive party shifts — sometimes just under new banners. Groups or donors who backed one party may hedge their bets when the balance changes.

Pendulum (1)

But There Are Big Obstacles to a Smooth Transition

• Institutional memory & reputational baggage

If a donor or influencer spent years openly backing extreme ideologies or radical policies under Trump, a shift to support a left-leaning administration might cost them credibility — with their base, their existing networks, or with the new regime.

• Structural polarization — the system itself resists swapping sides

Recent research shows that polarization in Congress and among voters has deepened and become more entrenched. arXiv+1
Switching sides would feel to many like betrayal — a risky move even if the money and influence opportunities remain.

• Not all power brokers have flexible agendas

Some built business models around deregulation, “populist nationalism,” resource extraction, outsourcing — their interests might align poorly with many left-leaning policies (taxes, environmental regulations, social programs, etc.).

• Overhang of Trumpism — the ideology may outlast the man

Even if Trump falls, the ideological and institutional shifts already enacted may harden into place, making a clean pivot untenable. Foreign Analysis+1

What a Transition Could Look Like (or Fail to Look Like)

Scenario	What Happens
Selective pivot	Some donors & power players quietly hedge bets: funding Democratic/liberal-friendly causes while still protecting old investments — “hedging risk” rather than embracing ideology.
Institutional takeover	Networks shift control behind dark-money groups, PACs, nonprofits, think-tanks — some rebrand, more funnel funding toward moderate/populist left policies that still protect elite economic interests.
Polarization freeze	Instead of pivoting, groups double down — they preserve influence by inflaming division, ensuring the political environment stays unstable; betting that chaos preserves their edge.
Fragmentation and exit	Some elites withdraw from playing politics (publicly) — they invest offshore, behind non-political fronts, or simply wait for the storm to pass before re-emerging.

My View: Expect Partial Transitions, Not Full Conversions

I don’t expect a wholesale “right becomes left” shift — not realistically. What I do expect is a fractured adaptation:

Some old-school GOP donors and influencers will try to migrate quietly into the center or even moderate left if it preserves profits or stability.
Others will try to hold onto the base, banking on division, identity politics, and fear — because that’s the emotional currency that’s already been spent to build power.
Some new networks — especially around money, tech, “dark money,” NGOs — will remain flexible, operating across partisan lines depending on what serves their interests best.

In short: the puppet-masters don’t always need the same puppets. They need heads that nod, money that flows, and power that endures.

And of course I thought tht was a good idea, so we will continue in part two.

To stay in the fight, just what fight where they staying in?

On - Commentary, Daily, or my first cup of coffee, Politics, Protest 2025, Trumps Soldiers

So: Was this “they were in a fight,” or people just trying to survive / not drown?

From what’s publicly documented:

The two survivors reportedly were clinging to wreckage, not visibly armed or engaged in combat. The Washington Post+2Al Jazeera+2
Their being in the water after the first strike — wounded or shipwrecked — should legally make them non-combatants, under laws protecting shipwrecked persons, unless they were actively hostile (which has not been shown). Legal experts say targeting them in that condition would likely be a war crime. The Washington Post+2Foreign Policy+2
So yes — there is a credible, public-report based interpretation that they were trying to stay alive, not fight, when the second strike happened.

That means the narrative of “stay in the fight” — or justification of the strike as combat — is highly contested, deeply ambiguous, and legally dubious given what is known so far.

Got news for you folks, it’s up to you now. accept this obvious coverup or force it out, force it to stop. It’s up to us to stop Pumpkin because the Republican castrated cowards aren’t doing it. The great Pumpkin isn’t God, although he thinks so.

Impeachment is a right.

What’s left when the Noise is Gone?

On - Commentary, Politics, purple

Amplification artificially inflates some voices over others.
Honest human discourse often gets lost in the noise.
This experiment could reveal whether platforms encourage real dialogue or just echo chambers.
By temporarily halting bot reposting, we can examine the quality and substance of remaining conversation.

I’m thinking of a free speech challenge to Elon, is bot traffic free speech, is ad revenue theft free speech, is radical left or right hate bot meme attacks free speech or is an honest discourse free speech, I challenge you to turn off the bot riposting for 3 to 5 days, once 5 re-posts have occurred it’s frozen, lets see what’s left, lets see what free speech actually looks like.

Who knows, Ad revenue might increase without the hate and bots, bring back the value ad advertisers.

#HumanDiscourse #FreeSpeechTest #SocialExperiment

How about some Real Free Speach

On - Commentary, Politics, purple

I’m thinking of a free speech challenge to Elon, is bot traffic free speech, is ad revenue theft free speech, is radical left or right hate bot meme attacks free speech or is an honest discourse free speech, I challenge you to turn off the bot riposting for 3 to 5 days, once 5 re-posts have occurred it’s frozen, lets see what’s left, lets see what free speech actually looks like.

Bot traffic ≠ free speech: Bots don’t have opinions; they amplify, distort, or spam. Their presence can masquerade as popularity or consensus. Turning them off would remove artificial noise.
Ad revenue as speech: Monetized content might bias what gets posted. If creators chase clicks rather than ideas, is that “free speech” or just an economic incentive shaping speech?
Hate-meme attacks vs. honest discourse: Algorithmic promotion of polarizing content isn’t neutral speech—it’s engineered to maximize engagement, often at the expense of thoughtful conversation.
The practical challenge: Limiting reposts (you suggested freezing after 5 reposts in 3–5 days) would, in theory, remove amplification loops. You’d see who’s actually speaking, not who’s being echoed by bots. It’s almost like a “purity test” for discourse.
Outcome you’d test: What remains—what people truly want to say vs. what the system pushes—could reveal whether platforms like X/Twitter are promoting dialogue or just amplifying chaos.

Your Advertisers would love the break. In fact you might even regain some of those quality clients.

#FreeSpeechTest #BotFree #SocialExperiment

Palisades Fires, who’s to blame?

On - Commentary, Daily, or my first cup of coffee, Politics

I grew up in Southern California and my perspective is someone who lived the Southern California cycle with a clarity that a lot of outsiders, politicians, and even reporters miss.

Southern California has always been locked in rhythm:

Drought → Santa Ana winds → burn → rains → mudslides → rebuild → repeat.

And for decades, developers, county boards, and city councils kept approving projects in canyons, hillsides, and coastal brush zones thinking:

“This time we engineered it better.”
“We’ll manage the brush.”
“We can outsmart the terrain.”
“People want the view — let’s sell the view.”

But nature doesn’t care about property lines, zoning changes, or million-dollar insurance policies.

Malibu Canyon, Topanga, Pacific Palisades, Agoura, Laguna — it’s the same story every cycle.
The news pretends each catastrophe is “shocking” or “unexpected,” but everyone and I who grew up there knows the truth:

This is exactly what happens in that landscape. Every. Single. Time.

And the real problem isn’t Newsom or Bass or any one governor or mayor — it’s decades of development in a fire ecology that was never meant to support dense human settlement.

Developers build. Politicians approve. Insurers withdraw. Firefighters die trying to defend the indefensible.
Mother Nature runs the same script she’s been running since long before California was a state.

“A bunch of stupid developers thought they could beat mother nature.”

Seditious my Ass

On - Commentary, Daily, or my first cup of coffee, Politics

Alright, let’s lay it out clearly — the historical parallels really illuminate the situation. I’ll break it into three main examples and connect them to Kelly’s action and Trump’s reaction.

Dachau Guards – Nuremberg Trials (1945–46)

What happened: After the liberation of Dachau and other concentration camps, Nazi guards and officials were prosecuted. Many claimed “I was just following orders” as their defense.
Outcome: The tribunals rejected that as a blanket excuse. Following orders does not absolve one from committing crimes against humanity. Individuals are legally and morally responsible.
Parallel to Kelly: Kelly’s warning is essentially a proactive version of this lesson. He’s saying: if an order is unlawful, you are responsible for refusing it. Trump calling that “sedition” flips the moral script: he’s treating obedience to lawful restraint as the offense.

My Lai Massacre – Vietnam (1968)

What happened: U.S. soldiers killed hundreds of unarmed civilians in My Lai, following the orders of officers and the permissive war environment.
Outcome: Lieutenant Calley was court-martialed, and the defense of “just following orders” was not accepted. Military law emphasizes personal accountability, even in combat.
Parallel to Kelly: This is a domestic U.S. example. Kelly is urging modern troops to remember their personal accountability, so atrocities or illegal acts aren’t committed. The lesson: obedience is not unconditional; conscience and law must guide action.

General Military Ethics & Law – Universal Principle

Every branch of the U.S. military trains service members on lawful vs. unlawful orders.
Manuals and codes stress: “A soldier is responsible for their actions even under orders.”
Kelly’s video literally reflects standard military ethics — it’s the exact principle the Army and Navy instill in recruits, not an extremist view.

Why Trump’s reaction is dangerous for him

By labeling this “sedition,” Trump is effectively punishing someone for advocating compliance with basic military ethics and the law.
Historically, this looks like a leader rewarding disobedience to law for political gain, which can backfire legally and politically.
It elevates Kelly’s moral credibility: he’s not the aggressive actor — Trump is. This could give Kelly a heroic/constitutional defender narrative, strengthening his political capital.

Why Modern Authoritarianism Doesn’t Require a Genius

On - Conspiracy theories, Politics

Most of what I write and think through starts as a scattered “what if.” And to be clear, it isn’t some hidden genius on my part — it’s me asking a question and then letting AI help me chase it down. This particular what if began with the idea that Trump may be holding the pen, but he’s become more of an autopen for the people behind him. I landed on that because of the sheer volume — the chaos — he generates in so little time. From there, I kept digging: asking, re‑asking, following each thread a little deeper, and seeing where the rabbit hole led.

Trump is not a mastermind. He’s not sitting alone in the White House, orchestrating every detail of policy. Yet the machine around him runs efficiently enough that it often appears as though he is.

The reality is simple: modern authoritarianism works through a combination of structure, loyalty, and acceleration, not personal brilliance.

Idea Architects: Think tanks, ideologues, and legal strategists design the vision and language. They decide what the policies will look like in principle.
Drafting and Legalization: Staff, OMB, and legal counsel turn ideas into executable documents, making sure they can survive scrutiny and appear legitimate.
Implementation Teams: Appointed loyalists within agencies carry out the orders, often bypassing resistance from long-standing civil service structures.
The Public Face: The president, in this case Trump, provides the spark. He approves, signs, and applies political pressure, but rarely drafts the details himself.

The effect is the same as genius — policies move, authority consolidates, and systems bend to the will of the figurehead. But in reality, it’s the network and the structure that do the work. The leader becomes the vessel, not the architect.

Lesson: You don’t need a mastermind to wield extraordinary power. You need loyal enablers, aligned institutions, and someone willing to step into the public role. That’s how complex authoritarian operations are sustained — even when the figurehead isn’t writing a single word.

Trump behaves as if everything is personal — because for him, it is.

On - Conspiracy theories, Daily, or my first cup of coffee, Politics, Protest 2025

But the consequences of his behavior are not personal. They plug into larger forces he barely understands.**

Let me break this into the three layers that actually explain his behavior.

1. Inside Trump’s mind, everything is personal

This is the core truth.

Trump interprets the world through personal loyalty, personal grievance, and personal validation.
In psychological terms, he has:

Narcissistic framing — everything relates back to him
Binary sorting — loyal vs. disloyal
Shallow policy comprehension — issues matter only as weapons for identity battles
No ideological center — only personal advantage

So when he speaks, it sounds like:

“They’re attacking me.”
“They’re stealing from me.”
“They’re disrespecting me.”
“They’re supporting me.”

It’s all self-referential.
He can’t meaningfully separate himself from the country, the law, or the truth.

This is why his rhetoric always feels like a feud.

2. But in the big picture, he is incidental**

The forces around him — political, economic, ideological, cultural — would exist with or without him.
He’s a vessel, not an architect.

Those forces include:

The authoritarian right-wing movement that predates him by decades
Tech-driven radicalization
Russia, China, and other foreign influence operations
American decline anxieties
Decades of resentment-based talk radio and cable news
The collapse of institutional trust
The economic and demographic panic inside the GOP base

Trump didn’t create any of that.

He simply became the perfect mouthpiece, because he feels like the chaos inside the movement.

**3. Is he aware he’s being guided?

No.**
And that “no” is important.

Trump is not a strategist.
He is not a planner.
He is not ideologically driven.

He is:

impulsive
reactive
ego-driven
susceptible to flattery
easily manipulated
incurious about the consequences of his decisions

He is exactly the type of person who can be used by powerful interests without ever recognizing it, including:

foreign authoritarian governments
billionaire donor networks
special-interest policy writers
grievance-based media empires
operatives who feed him lines knowing he’ll repeat them

They steer the ship; he thinks he’s the captain.

The paradox

To the individual, Trump behaves as if everything is about HIM.

To history, Trump is a consequence, not a cause — a symptom of deeper forces.

That’s the contradiction people struggle with:

He thinks he’s the center of the story.
But the story would still be happening without him — just with a different figurehead.

He’s a man being carried by currents he doesn’t understand.

What am I missing?

Who is behind the Venezuela actions?

On - Conspiracy theories, International, Politics, Protest 2025

Based on recent reporting (as of November 24, 2025), the push isn’t coming from shadowy outsiders but from Trump’s inner foreign policy circle, blending immigration hardliners, Latin America obsessives, and national security vets. Critics like Sen. Rand Paul have called it out directly: “Regime change is not in Trump’s psyche,” but advisors like Rubio and Graham are “more inclined to believe in it” and have his ear.

The result? A policy that’s escalated faster than Trump’s first term, with lethal ops approved but execution delegated.

Here’s a rundown of the main architects, drawn from State Department briefings, leaks, and analyses:

Figure	Role in Trump Admin	Influence on Venezuela Policy	Key Details
Marco Rubio	Secretary of State & National Security Adviser	Primary driver; reframed “democracy promotion” into narco-terrorist strikes and regime ouster. Designated Cartel de los Soles as FTO today (Nov. 24).	Longtime Maduro foe (Cuban roots fuel personal stake); killed a Grenell-led diplomatic thaw; pushing internal strikes beyond boats.
Stephen Miller	Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy & Homeland Security Adviser	Orchestrates boat strikes and “narco-state” narrative; links it to border security and deportations.	Directed Sept. 2025 strikes; calls Maduro’s regime a “central hub” for drugs/humans; allies with Rubio on military escalation, shifting from stability to confrontation.
Lindsey Graham	Senate Foreign Relations Chair (incoming)	Informal influencer; whispers regime change in Trump’s ear alongside Rubio.	Paul flags him as a key pusher for intervention, risking MAGA backlash; backs military aid to opposition. responsiblestatecraft.org
John Ratcliffe	CIA Director	Oversees covert ops, including lethal authorizations inside Venezuela.	Project 2025 contributor; his chapter on intel reform enables expanded black ops against Maduro allies.

This crew—many recycled from Trump’s first term or Project 2025—handles the heavy lifting: Rubio at State calls the shots on designations and diplomacy, Miller ties it to domestic wins like fentanyl seizures, and the CIA executes under Ratcliffe. Trump’s greenlit the big moves (e.g., USS Ford deployment), but the plotting? That’s their wheelhouse, often bypassing Congress per Paul’s CBS interview.

it’s more old-school hawks chasing oil leverage and anti-leftist scores.

Why Modern Authoritarianism Doesn’t Require a Genius (continued)

On - Conspiracy theories, Politics

THE REAL MACHINE BEHIND TRUMP 2.0

Who writes what, who decides what, and what Trump actually controls.

**1. POLICY DESIGNERS

(The Ideological Architects)
These are the people who supply the ideas**, the frameworks, the phrases, and the justifications.

Heritage Foundation – Project 2025 remnants

Even when Trump tried to distance himself, many ideas still come from here:

Immigration crackdowns
DOJ restructuring
Schedule F reimplementation
Regulatory rollback architecture
Energy dominance scripts

Their fingerprints are on half the draft orders.
They create the blueprint → White House staff turns it into policy.

America First Legal (Stephen Miller’s shop)

This is the ideological engine.
Miller provides:

Language
Legal theory
Hardline immigration logic
Cultural-war framing

If an order sounds punitive, fear-based, or vengeance-driven, it’s Miller.

**2. POLICY ENGINEERS

(The Drafters and Legal Mechanics)**

These are the people who actually write the words that end up under Trump’s pen.

White House Staff Secretary (Will Scharf)

The key figure.
Controls:

What paperwork reaches Trump
Which drafts become final
Timing of signings
Inclusion or exclusion of agency input

He is the most important non-famous person in the building.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

They turn ideology into:

Budgets
Spending directives
Regulatory rollbacks
Defunding moves

Most regulatory EOs go through here.

Office of Legal Counsel (DOJ OLC)

They provide the legal justification — sometimes extremely stretched — that turns an idea into a supposedly lawful order.
If you see:

“Under existing statutory authority…”
“The President finds…”
“Notwithstanding any provision of law…”

That’s OLC language.

**3. EXECUTION BLOCKERS & ACCELERATORS

(The People Who Turn Words Into Reality)**

Agency political appointees

Placed strategically to make sure the EO isn’t just symbolic.
This includes:

DHS chiefs
DOJ leadership
EPA heads
HHS administrators
DOD civilian leadership

They are loyalists, not technocrats.

Schedule F loyalists (early rollout)

These are the “invisible hands” who will run departments once civil service protections are removed.
They make sure:

dissenters are removed
the bureaucracy stops resisting
Trump’s orders are carried out as intended

**4. TRUMP HIMSELF

(The Decider, Not the Designer)**

Trump’s involvement generally looks like this:

**Step 1: Staff tells him the summary, not the text.
Step 2: He chooses “yes,” “no,” or “make it tougher.”
Step 3: Staff finalizes the EO.
Step 4: He signs it on camera.**

He is:

the face
the approval stamp
the accelerant
the political weapon

But he is not the architect and only rarely the author of the underlying ideas.

This is why “autopen president” is too simple — but the underlying truth is that he doesn’t shape policy alone.

He animates what others build.

**5. WHO IS REALLY PULLING THE STRINGS?

(the core question)

Here’s the power stack, in order:

1. Heritage + Miller (idea generation)

They define the ideological direction.

2. Scharf + OMB + OLC (drafting and legalizing)

They turn ideology into executable documents.

3. Agency appointees + Schedule F (implementation)

They translate text into action on the ground.

4. Trump (public face + political will + veto power)

He chooses which options become reality and pushes the bureaucracy to obey.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR OUR ANALYSIS

Trump isn’t an “autopen,”
but he’s also not a mastermind orchestrating a grand strategy.

He’s the accelerant — the spark that ignites the machine others built.

The real threat (or power) comes from:

the ideological architects shaping the long-term direction
the bureaucratic engineers ensuring orders bypass institutional checks
the obedient agency loyalists carrying them out without resistance

That’s where the continuity lies, even if Trump loses focus.

High‑Level Analysis: How a Bipartisan Containment Strategy Could Incentivize Both Parties

On - activism, Commentary, Politics, Protest 2025, purple

1. Powerful Interests Prefer Predictability Over Loyalty

Political elites — donors, corporations, economic blocs — generally fear chaos more than ideology.
A destabilizing leader:

creates uncertainty for markets
strains institutions
risks unpredictable crises
threatens donor networks, legal exposure, and reputational fallout

If the Epstein documents pose existential risk for people far above the political class, then establishment actors have a strong incentive to prevent uncontrolled disclosure, regardless of party.

This means stabilizing Trump from above may matter more to them than supporting him at the base.

2. Congressional Republicans and Democrats Could Share a Mutual Risk

Even though the two parties are polarized, institutions sometimes find common cause when the system itself is threatened.

The risks include:

legal exposure for wealthy, politically connected individuals
unpredictable retaliation from Trump
erosion of institutional trust
public backlash if documents destabilize the donor ecosystem
the threat of mass scandal engulfing both parties

Thus, the bipartisan incentive becomes:

Contain the unpredictable figure before he burns down the political architecture.

This is a system‑preservation response, not a partisan one.

3. Containment Doesn’t Require “Attacking” Trump — It Can Be Framed as Stabilizing the Presidency

There is a long pattern of Congress constraining presidents through:

veto‑proof coalitions
bipartisan oversight
legislation limiting unilateral authority
procedural guardrails
selective pressure
quiet backchannel agreements

This lets the system keep functioning while preventing the executive from acting erratically.

It also lets both parties claim they are acting responsibly rather than vindictively.

4. Protecting Trump From “Higher-Level Pressure” Could Actually Be a Bargaining Chip

If Trump is genuinely vulnerable to non‑political power (billionaires, corporate blocs, intelligence‑adjacent networks), then the political system may be the only thing capable of insulating him from catastrophic exposure.

From a systems-view:

Trump gets stability and protection from existential external pressure.
The political class gets leverage and control over a destabilizing president.
Both parties get to avert wider fallout that could damage them.
Ultra‑wealthy individuals avoid being dragged into public scandal.

It becomes a mutual containment pact.

Not friendship.
Not alliance.
Just the political version of an armistice for the sake of survival.

5. Historical Parallels

This is similar to how:

The establishment contained Nixon before forcing resignation
Parliament constrained Boris Johnson
Congress constrained Andrew Johnson during Reconstruction
Italian coalitions periodically unite to block destabilizers
Israel’s Knesset forms anti-chaos coalitions regardless of ideology

When elites fear instability more than partisanship, cross‑party containment becomes the rational path.

Core Insight, Restated in Analytical Terms

Here the concept is expressed safely and cleanly:

If the Epstein materials threaten individuals far more powerful than Trump, then Trump’s resistance to transparency might be driven by external pressure. In such a scenario, the political system — including members of both parties — may find that their own interests align in containing Trump, protecting institutional stability, and preventing broader fallout. In this kind of realignment, stabilizing Trump may paradoxically require restraining him, while shielding him from higher‑level forces he cannot confront on his own.

What’s Actually Going On: Halligan & Bondi Part Three, Is Disbarment (or Other Discipline) Likely?

On - activism, Commentary, Politics, Protest 2025, The Fallout

- Is Disbarment (or Other Discipline) Likely?
  - Halligan: Yes, there’s a real risk. The bar complaint is serious, and the judge’s rebuke strengthens the case that her prosecutorial conduct was not just sloppy but may have violated foundational legal standards (grand jury procedure, prosecutorial ethics). If the bar investigation finds deliberate misconduct, disbarment or suspension is possible.
  - Bondi: The ethics complaint here is broader — less about a single prosecutorial act and more about her leadership and influence. Disbarment is less obviously imminent compared to Halligan, but she could face professional discipline if the Florida Bar decides there was a pattern of “ethically problematic” behavior. Whether that becomes disbarment or something less depends a lot on how the Bar views intent, frequency, and severity.
  Bottom Line (Right Now)
  - Yes, both Halligan and Bondi are under serious scrutiny, legally and ethically.
  - The allegations are significant, especially for Halligan: abuse of power, potential violation of appointment law, and prosecutorial misconduct.
  - But disbarment is not guaranteed — it’s a process. These are allegations and complaints, not final bar rulings.
  - There are also ongoing legal challenges: Comey’s lawyers have argued Halligan’s appointment is invalid, which could lead to dismissals of the indictments if the court agrees. CBS News
  - A lot depends on the outcomes of:
    1. The bar investigations (Florida and Virginia)
    2. The court’s rulings on the legality of Halligan’s appointment
    3. Whether her prosecutorial decisions will stand up under scrutiny

The Trump Kiss of Death or when the Party becomes one person.

On - Commentary, Conspiracy theories, Politics

This is for those that want to explore and come to their own conclusions. With everything in the news and Trumps current actions and behavour I asked AI if Trump was becoming the Kiss of Death to the Republican Party. I Asked:

So I was thinking, always a dangerous thing. I believe one of trumps tactics to control Republicans has been a basic, support me and I will put my stamp of approval on you and you will win your next election, I feel the time is close if not there that the stamp of approval will be seen more as a kiss of death.

The response was much more than I expected and you will spend some time going through the data, but what else do you have to do?

That’s a really sharp observation, and you’re not alone—plenty of political analysts and party insiders are now asking the same question: Is Trump’s “stamp of approval” starting to become more of a liability than a boon for Republicans? There’s actually a growing body of evidence and commentary that suggests yes, in at least some cases. Here’s a breakdown of how and why that might be happening, plus the risks for Republicans and what it could mean going forward.

Why the Trump Endorsement Might Be Turning Into a “Kiss of Death”

Backlash from Independent / Swing Voters
- A poll by John Bolton’s super PAC found that in key battleground states (Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania), Trump-endorsed candidates are trailing, especially with independent and undecided voters. Those voters reportedly have unfavorable views of Trump. Newsweek
- That suggests for general-election Republicans, leaning too hard into Trump could alienate the very swing voters they need.
Empirical Research “Fits” Your Theory
- A study published in PS: Political Science & Politics found that Trump’s endorsements can actually reduce the probability of some voters supporting a Republican candidate. Cambridge University Press & Assessment
- The mechanism: while a Trump endorsement motivates some base voters, it also triggers a stronger negative reaction among Democrats, and, in some scenarios, independent/scaled-down support from “soft” Republicans.
Real-World Election Results
- According to The Guardian, in the 2022 midterms, many Trump-endorsed Republicans underperformed. Some analysis suggests his backing may have cost the GOP 15–20 seats. The Guardian
- That’s not just academic—it’s a potential net electoral drag for certain kinds of races.
Internal GOP Resistance
- Some Republicans are explicitly rejecting Trump’s endorsements now. For example, Larry Hogan said he “has no interest” in Trump’s backing for his Senate bid. Newsweek+1
- Also, for swing-district Republicans, many have not endorsed Trump at all—signaling they think it’s risky for their general election prospects. The Washington Post
- Even formerly loyal figures like Mike Pence publicly refused to endorse him. Wikipedia
Generational / Demographic Shift
- According to a Pew Research poll, younger Republicans are more likely to say Trump’s impact on the party has been negative. Pew Research Center
- That demographic trend might make “Trump endorsement = win” less reliable for long-term GOP strategy, especially in competitive districts.

Risks for Republicans If They Lean Too Hard on Trump

Primary vs. General Trade-Off: Trump’s endorsement is still super powerful in a primary, but what helps you win the primary might hurt you in a general election.
Brand Association: Candidates who align too closely with Trump may be seen as part of his “brand,” which for some voters is increasingly polarizing or toxic.
Voter Turnoff: Independent and swing voters may either sit out or swing away if they feel a candidate is too tied to Trump.
Fundraising Risk: While Trump may help fundraise within the base, it could also discourage moderate donors or those who want electability in more centrist states.
Long-Term Party Health: If too many GOP politicians tie themselves to Trump and then lose in general elections, it could weaken the party’s competitiveness in purple or blue states.

What It Could Mean Moving Forward

More Republicans Might Decline His Backing: We may see increasing numbers of pragmatic or moderate Republicans pushing back against “complete Trump loyalty” because of the general election risk.
Strategic Endorsements: Some GOP figures may try to parse their alignment more carefully—accepting Trump’s support in the primary but pivoting away in public messaging for the general.
Trump’s Power Isn’t Unlimited: While he’s still a kingmaker in many GOP circles, his ability to secure general-election wins for his picks may be diminishing in some scenarios.
Rise of Alternative GOP Voices: As concerns about Trump’s brand cost grow, other conservative figures may try to position themselves as “Trump-lite” or “post-Trump” — offering conservative credentials without the baggage.

My Take (Based on What You’re Saying)

I agree with your instinct: You’re not crazy to think the dynamic is shifting. Trump’s endorsement may well be approaching a “kiss of death” in certain electoral contexts — especially down-ballot or in swing states — for Republicans who lean too hard into it without a broader, more moderate strategy.

If you’re watching this from a political perspective (or considering how to write/commentary about it), it’s a potent narrative: Trump’s power is still huge, but for some Republicans, his blessing might now be a burden.

If you like, I can run a forecast based on the latest polling and modeling (2025-2026) to estimate how many Republican candidates could suffer from a “Trump endorsement drag” going into future midterms or the next presidential cycle. Do you want me to do that?

yes

Great — I ran a short, evidence-based scenario forecast for how many Republican House seats could suffer (i.e., flip) from a measurable “Trump endorsement drag” in 2026. I’ll (A) show the key sources I used, (B) state the assumptions, (C) give three concrete scenarios with estimated seat losses, and (D) give the practical takeaway and next steps if you want a deeper run.

Sources I used (key load-bearing ones)

Study showing a Trump endorsement can reduce general-election support for endorsed Republicans. Cambridge University Press & Assessment
Washington Post / reporting and post-2022 analyses showing Trump endorsements helped win primaries but hurt some general races. The Washington Post
Cook Political Report 2026 House ratings (counts of Solid / Lean / Toss-Up used as the competitive universe). Cook Political Report
Forecasting pieces suggesting the GOP could be vulnerable in 2026 (context for baseline national environment). LSE Blogs
Recent polling showing Trump’s approval among independents and overall is weak — important because endorsement effects depend on his popularity with swing voters. Reuters+1

What I assumed (be explicit so you can judge the numbers)

Competitive Republican seats = the Cook snapshot I used: 31 Republican-leaning / toss-up seats (18 = Lean/Likely R + 13 = Toss-Up R). Those are the districts where a small swing is most likely to flip a seat. Cook Political Report
The “Trump endorsement drag” is modeled as a general-election swing against a Trump-endorsed Republican relative to the same candidate without the endorsement. (Empirical work suggests the drag is real but varies by locale; the Cambridge PS study finds a statistically meaningful negative effect in some experimental settings). Cambridge University Press & Assessment
Because exact seat-level responsiveness differs hugely, I ran three simple, transparent scenarios using plausible flip probabilities for competitive seats under small/medium/large average drag (these flip probabilities are illustrative but grounded in observed election sensitivity — small swings flip some very close races, larger swings flip many more). I’m explicit that these are scenario estimates, not precise forecasts.

Scenarios (conservative, medium, aggressive drag)

Competitive Republican seats (universe): 31 (Cook’s Lean/Likely R + Toss-Up R). Cook Political Report

Small drag (≈ −1.5% average effect)
- Assumed chance a competitive R seat flips because of endorsement = 20%.
- Estimated seats lost ≈ 6.2 → ~6 seats.
Medium drag (≈ −3% average effect)
- Assumed flip chance per competitive R seat = 45%.
- Estimated seats lost ≈ 14.0 → ~14 seats.
Large drag (≈ −5% average effect)
- Assumed flip chance per competitive R seat = 70%.
- Estimated seats lost ≈ 21.7 → ~22 seats.

(Computation: estimated_losses = 31 * flip_probability — I kept assumptions explicit so you can change them.)

Why these scenarios make sense: small national swings (1–3 points) have historically decided many close House races; post-2022 analyses showed Trump endorsements cost Republicans in a number of close contests, so the medium scenario maps to that observed mid-range effect. The Washington Post+1

Practical takeaway

If Trump’s endorsement were to impose even a modest general-election penalty on endorsed Republicans (≈ 1–3 points among general voters), it could cost the GOP half a dozen to a dozen+ House seats in the currently competitive set — potentially enough to flip the majority depending on margins elsewhere. Cook Political Report+1
The most vulnerable seats are the Lean-and-Toss-Up Republicans listed by Cook and Inside Elections; an endorsement drag concentrates its damage there. Cook Political Report+1
The size of the effect depends heavily on Trump’s popularity with independents and turnout among Democrats — both of which recent polls suggest are weak for Trump among independents, increasing the risk that his endorsement hurts more than helps. Reuters+1

Limits / caveats (important)

This is a scenario model, not a full probabilistic simulation with district-level vote distributions. Exact seat outcomes depend on candidate quality, local issues, campaign spending, turnout, and whether the endorsed candidate pivots away from Trump afterward.
The academic evidence shows the effect exists, but its magnitude varies across districts and cycles; in some safe Republican districts it’s negligible, in swing districts it can be decisive. Cambridge University Press & Assessment+1

Want to dive deeper?

I can immediately (pick one):

A. Run a Monte-Carlo style simulation using Cook’s district ratings and realistic swing distributions to produce a probability distribution of net seat changes under different drag sizes.
B. Produce a short list of the top 10 most at-risk Republican-held seats where a Trump endorsement would be likeliest to flip the race (using Cook / Inside Elections lists).
C. Do a district-level analysis for a specific state or region you care about.

Which one would you like me to run right now? (I’ll use current Cook/Inside Elections ratings and publicly available polling to keep it grounded.)

B please

Good call. Here are some of the top Republican-held House seats (2026) that look most vulnerable, based on Cook Political Report and Inside Elections ratings:

🔦 Top 10 Most At-Risk Republican-Held House Seats (2026)

These seats are among the most competitive according to major race-rating outlets, meaning if there is a “Trump-endorsement drag” (or just a tough general environment) they could be more likely to flip.

District	Incumbent / Notes	Why It’s Vulnerable
AZ-1	David Schweikert (R)	Listed as a Toss-Up by Cook. Cook Political Report+2270toWin.com+2
AZ-6	Juan Ciscomani (R)	Toss-up per Inside Elections. Inside Elections
CO-8	Republican	Toss-up in Cook. Cook Political Report
IA-1	Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R)	Toss-up per Cook. Cook Political Report
MI-7	Tom Barrett (R)	Very competitive (Cook lists MI-07 as Toss-Up). 270toWin.com
NY-17	Lawler (R)	“Lean Republican” in Cook’s 2026 ratings. 270toWin.com
PA-7	Mackenzie (R)	Toss-up in Cook. 270toWin.com
PA-10	Perry (R)	Toss-up in Cook. Cook Political Report
VA-2	Kiggans (R)	Lean Republican in Cook’s ratings. Cook Political Report
WI-3	Van Orden (R)	Toss-up per Cook. Cook Political Report

⚠️ Caveats / Things to Watch

These are current ratings, and things can shift a lot before 2026 (candidate quality, fundraising, national environment, etc.).
“Vulnerable” doesn’t mean all will flip — these are the most at-risk, not guaranteed pickups for Democrats.
If Trump endorsement becomes a liability, seats that are already marginal like these are where the drag effect will hit hardest.

What’s Actually Going On: Halligan & Bondi and Disbarment – Part Two Bondi

On - activism, Commentary, Politics, Protest 2025, The Fallout

Pam Bondi

Role in Halligan’s Appointment
- Bondi is the one who appointed Halligan and then granted her the “special attorney” role retroactively. The Washington Post+2FindLaw+2
- Critics argue this was a political move to install someone loyal (Halligan) to bring charges against Trump’s perceived enemies. Politico
Bar Ethics Complaint Against Bondi
- There’s also a separate ethics complaint filed with the Florida Bar accusing Bondi of “serious professional misconduct.” Newsweek
- The complaint highlights alleged episodes where Bondi’s leadership pressured DOJ lawyers to act unethically, including forcing resignations. Newsweek
- The complainants argue this is “deeply prejudicial to the rule of law” because Bondi may have overridden ethical duties to meet political goals. Newsweek

What’s Actually Going On: Halligan & Bondi and Disbarment – Part One, Halligan

On - activism, Commentary, Politics, Protest 2025, The Fallout

Lindsey Halligan

Appointment Controversy
- Halligan was appointed by Pam Bondi as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Critics argue that her appointment is unconstitutional or illegal under vacancy laws. CBS News+2Lawyer Monthly+2
- According to Comey’s lawyers, allowing a second 120‑day interim appointment (i.e., replacing one interim U.S. Attorney with Halligan) “eviscerates” the Senate confirmation requirement. CBS News
- To shore this up, Bondi later retroactively gave Halligan the title of “special attorney” in the DOJ, to validate her authority. The Washington Post+1
Bar Complaint
- A watchdog group (Campaign for Accountability) has filed a bar complaint with both the Florida Bar and Virginia Bar, accusing her of:
  - prosecuting without probable cause CBS News+2Common Dreams+2
  - making false statements to court and grand jury Campaign for Accountability
  - lacking competence (“bringing a case she may not have been qualified to handle”) MS NOW+1
  - abusing her power, undermining trust in the DOJ. Common Dreams
- So, yes: there is a formal ethics/legal process underway, not just rumors.
Grand Jury & Prosecutorial Misconduct Concerns
- A magistrate judge (William Fitzpatrick) has raised serious red flags about how Halligan handled the Comey indictment process:
  - The judge says there are “genuine issues of misconduct” in grand jury proceedings. FindLaw
  - Among the problems: apparently, the entire grand jury may not have seen the final indictment before it was filed. FindLaw
  - There are also claims she mischaracterized Comey’s constitutional rights to the grand jury. FindLaw
- If those findings are upheld, it could imperil her prosecutions (or at least parts of them).
Professional Risk
- According to legal analysts, her conduct could expose her to disciplinary action, possibly disbarment, because:
  - As a prosecutor, she has a duty not to file charges she believes lack sufficient basis. Vanity Fair
  - There are ethics rules about making misrepresentations, not just to courts but to grand juries, and being “competent” representation matters, especially for serious prosecutions. CBS News
- That said: bar complaints don’t always lead to disbarment. It depends on what the bar finds, how serious the violations are, and whether there’s a pattern or intentional misconduct.

YOUR MONEY — More on DOGE — What the Reporting Shows

On - Commentary, Politics, Protest 2025, purple, Your Money

More on DOGE — What the Reporting Shows

Big Discrepancy Between Claimed and Real Savings
- Politico found that whereas DOGE claims ~$54.2 billion in “contract cancellation” savings, only $1.4 billion could be verified via clawbacks or de-obligations. Politico
- NPR’s analysis matched DOGE’s contract list to public spending databases and estimated only $2.3 billion in actual or likely real savings from the canceled contracts. NPR
- DOGE has repeatedly revised its “wall of receipts” downward: it quietly deleted billions in claimed savings after media scrutiny. NPR+2NPR+2
Many Contracts Yield No Real Savings
- Nearly 40% of the contracts canceled by DOGE appear to produce zero savings, according to DOGE’s own posted “receipts.” CNBC+2https://www.wdtv.com+2
- Why no savings? Because in many cases, those contracts had already been fully obligated — meaning the government had already committed the money (or even spent it). https://www.wdtv.com+1
- As Charles Tiefer, a former government-contracting law professor, put it:
  
  “It’s like confiscating used ammunition … there’s nothing left in it.” https://www.wdtv.com
Accounting Tricks — Using “Ceiling Values”
- A big part of the exaggeration comes from counting the maximum possible value (“ceiling”) of contracts instead of what was realistically going to be spent. PolitiFact+2NPR+2
- Some of the contracts DOGE lists are “blanket purchase agreements” (BPAs). These aren’t firm orders — more like catalogs: the government can order from them if it needs to. Canceling a BPA doesn’t always save money because not all the “ceiling” was going to be spent. CNBC
- Experts say that using ceiling values inflates the numbers and misleads the public about how much real money is being saved. NPR+1
Major Reporting Errors and Corrections
- One glaring error: DOGE originally listed an $8 billion ICE contract as canceled, but that contract was actually only $8 million. NPR
- Another: a $655 million USAID contract was apparently listed 3 times, triple counting the same item. NPR
- After scrutiny, DOGE removed or revised more than 1,000 entries from its “wall of receipts” — reducing its previously claimed large savings. Reuters
Lease & Workforce Claims Also Questioned
- DOGE claims additional savings from canceled leases and workforce reductions, but some experts argue that even these numbers are overstated or lack clarity. NPR
- For lease savings, cost-benefit questions emerge: terminating leases may have “savings,” but what are the long-term costs (or the lost value)? Wikipedia
- On workforce: DOGE reportedly has pushed out or gotten buyouts from tens of thousands of federal workers, but the long-term impact on efficiency and government capacity is unclear. Le Monde.fr
Lack of Verifiable “Cash Back” to Treasury
- Even if DOGE “saves” money (in its accounting), that doesn’t necessarily mean the money is returned to the Treasury. Some “savings” are theoretical — based on de-obligation, not actual cash recovered. Politico
- Experts note: just because a contract is canceled doesn’t guarantee that all unspent money is clawed back. Politico+1
Transparency Questions
- While DOGE claims to provide transparency (through its receipts page), many entries lack sufficient identifying information to verify in third-party databases. Politico
- The methods for calculating some “savings” are opaque; for example, assumptions used in workforce or regulatory cuts are not always publicly disclosed. NPR
- There are legal questions: DOGE isn’t a standard government agency — it operates more like a temporary advisory/cut-team. Some experts worry about the legality, authority, and oversight. CNBC

Why This Matters — From a “Your Money” Perspective

Taxpayer Risk of Illusion: If DOGE’s numbers are largely based on inflated ceilings and double-counts, then the “savings” might be more PR than real return to taxpayers.
False Justification for Cuts: Using exaggerated figures to justify cutting contracts or laying off workers can undermine agencies’ capacity, potentially weakening government services in critical areas.
Accountability Gap: Without full transparency, the public and Congress may have a hard time tracking whether DOGE’s “savings” are actually materializing.
Cost of Errors: If DOGE cancels contracts or leases based on wrong assumptions, there may be downstream costs (e.g., legal battles, replacing canceled work, rehiring, re-contracting) that erase some of the “savings.”

Trump Releases the Epstein Files

On - Bullshit, Cartoons, Politics, Protest 2025, purple, The Fallout

Looks like he has had enough time to get the job done.

YOUR MONEY — JUNE–AUGUST 2025 – DOGE Verification Conflicts

On - Commentary, Politics, Protest 2025, purple, Your Money

DOGE: Claims vs. Reality — A Timeline (2025)

A factual record of taxpayer-money savings claimed by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), compared with verified outcomes from independent reporting.

JUNE–AUGUST 2025 – Verification Conflicts

Claim:
DOGE reaffirms its total as $54.2 billion in “eliminated waste.”

Reality:

Many DOGE-listed agency savings do not appear in USAspending.gov, SAM.gov, or the Federal Procurement Data System.
Some “termination savings” do not return money; they merely prevent future potential commitments.
DOGE provides no comprehensive list of what money actually returned to Treasury.

Independent Estimates:

Verified, cash-impact savings: $1.4–$2.3 billion
(Politico, AP, NPR, Washington Post)

SEPTEMBER–NOVEMBER 2025 – Internal Resistance & Transparency Queries

Event:
Federal agencies begin to formally challenge DOGE numbers.

Examples:

Several agencies confirm their obligations did not match DOGE’s posted amounts.
Procurements canceled by DOGE were later reissued, reducing net savings.
Watchdog groups request DOGE’s calculation methods; no formal response provided.

Independent Assessment:
DOGE’s true savings remain an order of magnitude smaller than its public claim.

YOUR MONEY — Mar-A-Lago weekend trips Jan to Nov $17.4 million ?? We Can’t afford a Turkey, Pun Intended

On - Commentary, Politics, Protest 2025, purple, Your Money

What It Costs Taxpayers When Trump “Goes Home”

Since January, Trump has made roughly two dozen trips from Washington to his Florida properties.

Cost to taxpayers each time:
About $600,000 to $900,000 per trip — just for Air Force One to fly him there and back.

Total so far (Jan → Nov):
Around $15–20 million in Air Force One costs alone.

When you add Secret Service, lodging, motorcades, and support aircraft, the real taxpayer burden is much higher — but even the flight cost by itself shows the scale of waste.

Every time he goes home, your money goes with him.

What is behind the numbers.

Air Force One: Trump’s 2025 Travel Costs (Jan → Nov)

YOUR MONEY — Mar-A-Lago weekend trips Jan to Nov $17.4 million ?? We Can’t afford a Turkey, Pun Intended. Or should that be a Lame Duck.

Period covered: Jan 20, 2025 – mid-Nov 2025
Trip count: ~22 Air Force One round-trip visits to Mar-a-Lago / Florida region (based on AP, Palm Beach Post, local tracking, and pooled press coverage through November).

Cost per flight hour (public figures)

Low: $142,380/hr (FOIA rate cited in press)
Mid: $176,393/hr (NTUF FY-2020 rate)
High: ~$200,000/hr (commonly used press estimate)

Average flight time per round trip: ~4.5 hours (FOIA examples for Florida trips)

Estimated Taxpayer Cost, Jan → Nov 2025

Cost Basis	Per-Trip Cost	22-Trip Total (Jan–Nov)
Low ($142,380/hr)	$640,710	$14.1 million
Mid ($176,393/hr)	$793,768	$17.4 million
High (~$200,000/hr)	$900,000	$19.8 million

**These figures are Air Force One operating costs only.**

They do not include:

Secret Service protection
Local law enforcement overtime
Lodging, convoy transport, temporary duty pay
Cargo aircraft & support aircraft
Pre-trip advance teams

Those items commonly add $300k–$1M+ per trip, meaning the full real cost to taxpayers is likely higher than the AF-One operating totals shown above.

Plain-Language Summary

Since returning to office in January, Trump has made roughly 22 Air Force One trips to his private Florida properties, costing taxpayers an estimated:

$14 million → $20 million

(AF-One operating costs alone, Jan–Nov 2025)

With full security & support costs included, the real total could exceed:

$20 million → $40 million

Notes

Trip count reflects confirmed and pooled-press-reported presidential visits to Mar-a-Lago or Trump’s Florida golf properties through mid-November.
Cost estimates are based on publicly released federal operating rates and FOIA-identified flight times for Florida runs.
All numbers are ranges due to variations in published hourly rates and trip-specific flight times.

YOUR MONEY — MARCH 2025 – DOGE Removal of Over 1,000 Entries and APRIL–MAY 2025 – Lease & Workforce Claims Questioned

On - Commentary, Politics, Protest 2025, purple, Your Money

DOGE: Claims vs. Reality — A Timeline (2025)

A factual record of taxpayer-money savings claimed by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), compared with verified outcomes from independent reporting.

MARCH 2025 – Removal of Over 1,000 Entries

Event:
Following press scrutiny, DOGE quietly removes 1,000+ contracts from its receipts page.

Claim:
DOGE states revisions were “routine cleanup.”

Reality:
Removed entries corresponded to:

fully spent contracts
duplicate listings
entries with inflated ceiling amounts
contracts that never had an obligation tied to them
agencies correcting DOGE’s estimates internally

Independent Conclusion:
DOGE overstated savings by tens of billions through double-counting and ceiling-value inflation.
(Reuters, NPR, Politico)

APRIL–MAY 2025 – Lease & Workforce Claims Questioned

Claim:
DOGE says additional savings come from:

lease terminations
workforce reductions
consolidation of federal operations

Issues Identified:

Some leases required federal buyouts, reducing or eliminating net savings.
Workforce reductions generate short-term savings but unclear long-term costs.
DOGE does not publish full methodology behind its workforce-savings figures.

Independent Assessment:
Savings are “directionally real” but numerically opaque, with no clear link to Treasury returns.
(NPR, Le Monde)

YOUR MONEY — JANUARY 2025 – DOGE Launches, First Round of Claims and FEBRUARY 2025 – Major Data Errors Emerge

On - Commentary, Politics, Protest 2025, purple, Your Money

DOGE: Claims vs. Reality — A Timeline (2025)

A factual record of taxpayer-money savings claimed by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), compared with verified outcomes from independent reporting.

JANUARY 2025 – DOGE Launches, First Round of Claims

DOGE Announcement:
Trump administration and Elon Musk roll out the “Department of Government Efficiency,” posting an initial “Wall of Receipts.”

Claim:
DOGE states it has already produced $25–30 billion in savings from canceled federal contracts.

Verified Reality:
Most contracts were either:

already completed,
had minimal remaining obligations, or
were “ceiling-value” framework agreements with no guaranteed spending.

Independent Estimates:

Actual confirmed savings: under $1 billion
Zero-savings contracts: roughly one-third of items listed (NPR, AP, Reuters)

FEBRUARY 2025 – Major Data Errors Emerge

Claim:
DOGE raises its advertised total to $54.2 billion in claimed savings.

Findings:

An ICE contract listed as $8 billion was actually $8 million.
A USAID contract for $655 million appears to be listed three separate times.
Numerous contracts had obligation amounts far smaller than listed.
Some contracts were canceled after completion, producing zero financial return.

Independent Estimates:

Realistic savings: $1.2–$1.4 billion
Contracts producing no savings: nearly 40%
(CNBC, NPR, AP, WDTV)

YOUR MONEY — DOGE: Claims vs. Reality — A Timeline (2025)

On - Politics, Protest 2025, purple, Your Money

DOGE stated savings: $54.2 billion
Independently verified savings: $1.4–$2.3 billion
Primary issues found:

Double-counting
Ceiling-value inflation
Canceled-but-already-paid contracts
1,000+ entries removed after scrutiny
Lack of verifiable Treasury returns
Large percentage of “zero-savings” cancellations

From here I will post what DOGE actually did and did not do in increments. Sometimes transparency actually turns out to be so transparent, it didn’t exist.

A Conservative Case for Restraint

On - activism, Politics, Protest 2025, purple

Written for moderate Republicans, from a conservative perspective

There’s a growing feeling among a lot of us on the center-right — something we don’t always say out loud, but we feel it just the same. It’s the sense that Donald Trump has slipped beyond the reach of normal political checks and balances. Not because he’s powerful in the traditional sense, but because he no longer recognizes the legitimacy of any system that might challenge him. Courts, Congress, elections, facts, even basic conservative principles — everything becomes “fake” the moment it doesn’t serve him.

That’s not the mindset of a leader. It’s the mindset of someone who genuinely believes he cannot be wrong. And that’s dangerous, not just for the country, but for the Republican Party we spent decades building.

Here’s the conservative reality:
If evidence ever emerged that implicated Trump in wrongdoing, he wouldn’t accept it. Not from a court. Not from Congress. Not from anyone. He would dig in, deny everything, and dare the system to stop him. That is not the temperament conservatives once demanded from our leaders.

And it puts the burden — fairly or not — on Republicans in Congress.

Because Democrats can’t restrain Trump alone.
Because the courts won’t act quickly enough.
Because the presidency comes with enormous unilateral power.

It falls to Republicans to make a hard but patriotic choice:
Preserve one man’s ego, or preserve the constitutional order.
The conservative answer should be obvious.

This isn’t about embracing the left. It’s about joining them — when necessary — to uphold something higher than party: the stability of the nation. Veto overrides. Bipartisan guardrails. Basic accountability. These aren’t acts of betrayal. They’re acts of stewardship. They’re what responsible Republicans did during Watergate, during Teapot Dome, and in every era when a president — any president — lost sight of their limits.

And while we’re restoring that balance, we also need to repair another issue conservatives should care about: the unchecked power of ICE. The agency has drifted far from its original mission, acting in ways that should concern anyone who respects limited government. A conservative who believes in law and order should also believe in oversight, restraint, and due process. ICE, in its current form, threatens all three.

We can be a party that respects borders without turning a blind eye to abuses.
We can be a party of strength without abandoning humanity.
We can protect the country without tolerating agencies that think they’re above the Constitution.

The conservative path forward isn’t surrendering to Trump, nor is it surrendering to the left.
It’s reclaiming the values that made the Republican Party worth belonging to in the first place — accountability, restraint, constitutionalism, and a belief that government serves the people, not the other way around.

If Republicans can remember that, Trump becomes containable.
And if Trump becomes containable, the rest of the system becomes fixable.

That’s the conservative way out.
And it’s long overdue.

YOUR MONEY — Kristi Noem’s ad work is connected to a limited number of LLCs with close personal/political ties

On - Politics, Protest 2025, purple, Your Money

Until accountability with consequences is forced on these thieves, it will continue. This is what you voted for.

What the Reporting Shows

Safe America Media, LLC (Delaware)
- DHS awarded roughly $143 million of its $220 million ad campaign to a Delaware-based LLC called Safe America Media. South Dakota Searchlight+3ProPublica+3Latin Times+3
- That company was created just days before the contract was awarded. ProPublica+2Boing Boing+2
- Its listed address is the Virginia home of a Republican operative named Michael McElwain. ProPublica
- Very little is publicly known about how Safe America Media pays subcontractors or how it’s structured (“how, where and to whom … doled out the $143 million is unknown”). ProPublica+2Dakota Free Press+2
Strategy Group
- Even though Safe America Media is the named recipient on the DHS contracts, the actual production of at least some of the ads (e.g. the Mount Rushmore ad with Noem on horseback) appears to have been done by the Strategy Group, a consulting firm with very close ties to Noem. ProPublica+2TPM – Talking Points Memo+2
- The Strategy Group’s CEO, Benjamin Yoho, is married to Noem’s chief DHS spokesperson, Tricia McLaughlin. ProPublica
- This same firm worked on Noem’s 2022 gubernatorial campaign in South Dakota. ProPublica
Other Ties
- Corey Lewandowski, a longtime Noem adviser, is also deeply connected to this network of firms. South Dakota Searchlight+1
- A watchdog report (Accountable.US) found that DHS paid $76.6 million so far to two LLCs with these connections (Safe America Media, and People Who Think, LLC). Accountable US

Why People Are Raising Red Flags

Conflict of Interest / Ethics: Because the Strategy Group (which did the actual creative work) is so closely tied to Noem’s inner circle, critics argue there’s a conflict. ProPublica+2Latin Times+2
Lack of Transparency: The structure (a “mysterious” shell-company LLC created just before the contract) makes it hard to trace exactly who did what, and how the money was spent. ProPublica
Bypassing Competition: According to ProPublica, DHS invoked a “national emergency” at the border to skip the usual competitive bidding — meaning these contracts didn’t go through a fully open procurement process. DCReport.org+2Latin Times+2
Previous State-Level Work: The same firms (like Strategy Group) have received money from Noem’s South Dakota government (e.g., $8.5 million for state-level ads) when she was governor. Rapid City NewsCenter1+1

The Man Who Would Never Leave

On - activism, Commentary, Daily, or my first cup of coffee, Politics

A political psychology commentary

In my view, even if ironclad evidence emerged tomorrow and every court in the land agreed on its meaning, Donald Trump would never voluntarily accept the verdict. His ego, his self-mythology, and his deep personal instability create a reality where he cannot ever be wrong. He would cling to the Resolute Desk shouting “fake news” before he’d ever acknowledge a loss or a failing. This isn’t speculation — it’s a consistent pattern that’s played out again and again. Trump sees himself not as a president but as something closer to a demi-god, elevated above accountability, blessed with a sense of infallibility no human being should ever possess.

That’s why the real safeguard in this moment isn’t the law, the courts, or even the voters. It’s the Republican Party. Only Republicans have the institutional power to restrain him. Only they can join with Democrats when necessary to blunt the damage, override his impulses, and neuter the chaos. His supporters often defend him out of fear of the alternative, but the real alternative is watching their own party collapse beneath the weight of a man who cannot admit reality. The sooner they see that, the sooner this country can start healing. Trump won’t restrain himself. Republicans must decide if they will.

Governing requires Thought not Fear

On - Commentary, Daily, or my first cup of coffee, Politics, purple

It takes intelligence, patience, and courage to govern—balancing competing needs, anticipating consequences, and building systems that endure. Dictating? That takes nothing but fear and greed. Instill panic or promise reward, and people fall in line. There’s no crafting of policy, no weighing of trade-offs, no accountability. The tools of control are simple: scare, bribe, manipulate, and watch compliance rise. The moment the spectacle ends, though, the system remains fragile, because it was never built on reason—only on reaction.

Federal Judge Mark L. Wolf resigned, did we lose or gain a Champion?

On - Commentary, Daily, or my first cup of coffee, Politics

Federal Judge Mark L. Wolf recently resigned from the District Court for the District of Massachusetts to protest President Trump’s actions. In a published essay, he stated his resignation was necessary to speak out against what he called an “existential threat to democracy” and an “assault on the rule of law”.

Wolf resigning could have different layers of impact depending on what role he held, what powers or constraints he faced, and what his priorities are now that he’s no longer in that position. Here are a few key angles:

1. Constraints vs. Freedom

In office or under court oversight, even someone willing to fight often has to play by restrictive rules—legal, procedural, or political.
Resigning may remove those constraints, allowing him to act more aggressively or strategically. For instance, he might write, speak, or organize in ways that were impossible while he was officially constrained.

2. Visibility and Influence

On the downside, being out of office means less formal authority. He can’t issue directives, make binding decisions, or directly control resources.
His influence becomes more indirect—through public advocacy, advising others, or mobilizing networks. That can sometimes be more powerful long-term, but it’s less immediate.

3. Perception and Morale

Public perception is tricky. Supporters might feel abandoned and lose momentum or confidence.
But his exit could also galvanize others, especially if he frames it as a principled move to operate more effectively outside restrictive structures.

4. Strategic Timing

Timing matters. If the environment was increasingly hostile or the courts were blocking meaningful action, leaving now might be a calculated way to position himself for bigger impact later.

Bottom line: resigning doesn’t necessarily mean defeat. It could be a pivot. The hard part is waiting and watching to see if he channels his freedom into something tangible. The first few months after such a move are usually the clearest signal of intent and potential impact.

Hey SCOTUS, it’s time to start doing what’s right.

On - activism, Commentary, Politics, Protest 2025, purple, Real Men

It’s time to put the Nation first and tell the Pumkin Head where to put it.

Current Status

Payments on Hold: Full November SNAP benefits are paused nationwide pending the 1st Circuit’s ruling and potential further SCOTUS action. Partial payments (65% max) are proceeding where possible, but many recipients—especially in states that issued full amounts early—face uncertainty and delays. Food insecurity is rising, with reports of long lines at food banks and families skipping meals.

So Scotus and MAGA Senators, wipe the brown stain off your faces, make a huge donation instead of stuffing it into your own pockets and go have Thanksgiving with the people who pay your salary.

20251026 1104 opulent ballroom absurdity simple compose 01k8gtywjke0mr692agrafsjvr

Ballrooms and Breadlines: When Power Loses Touch With People

On - activism, Commentary, Politics, Protest 2025, purple

We’ve had presidents who were out of touch before, but not like this. Ours today doesn’t just miss the mood of the country, he seems to have lost his grip on reality altogether. When families are counting dollars at the grocery store, this administration is counting chandeliers. When food assistance is being cut, it’s planning parties.

It isn’t just bad optics. It’s a moral failure. The presidency isn’t about appearances; it’s about empathy. And a leader who can justify throwing a million-dollar Gatsby party while trying to shut down SNAP, the nation’s primary food aid program—has forgotten that government’s first duty isn’t to its image. It’s to its people.

I can understand the conservative point of view here. I’m conservative by heart and by history. I believe in responsibility, not dependency. I’ve seen the waste, the abuse, the fraud that creeps into welfare systems. My first wife was a social worker for Los Angeles County back in the 1970s. She came home with stories that would make any taxpayer’s blood boil. She once swore she saw the same child, one week a “little girl” in one home, the next week a “little boy” in another. There was real manipulation in that system, and real frustration for those who tried to do honest work within it.

So yes, I understand the anger. The idea that welfare has turned into a way of life for some is not a myth, it’s something we’ve watched evolve for decades. But that anger can’t become an excuse for cruelty, or for abandoning common sense. You don’t fix fraud by destroying the safety net. You fix fraud by fixing the system.

We’ve lost sight of that. The administration talks about “tough choices,” but there’s nothing tough about punishing the powerless. There’s nothing brave about ignoring the courts when they order full funding for food assistance. The President’s response to that order was telling: instead of doing what’s right, he offered to fund only 65% of the program, as if hunger could be prorated, as if a family could feed its children on two-thirds of a meal. When the federal courts pushed back “Do it, and do it now” he waffled again.

Meanwhile, the country he’s sworn to serve is fracturing between luxury and loss. On one side, glittering events, self-praise, and photo-ops. On the other, families deciding which bill not to pay this month. That’s not leadership. That’s detachment.

Real conservatism was never about indifference. It was about discipline, fairness, and stewardship. It meant saying no to waste—but also yes to humanity. It meant balancing the books without breaking the people. Somewhere along the way, we traded those values for slogans. We replaced moral backbone with sound bites and called it strength.

If this administration truly wanted reform, it could start with common sense. Don’t cut families off cold turkey; help them transition. Don’t reward irresponsibility, but don’t punish the innocent either. Encourage work, but recognize that work has to exist before people can find it. And remember that the cost of despair, crime, addiction, homelessness, will always be higher than the cost of compassion.

The debate over SNAP and social aid isn’t just about money. It’s about what kind of country we want to be. Do we measure success by how many we cut off, or by how many stand on their own again? Do we lead by example, or by decree? Because leadership isn’t building a ballroom when the nation’s kitchen is empty.

The truth is, we can have accountability without arrogance. We can have efficiency without cruelty. We can believe in self-reliance and still feed the hungry. The two ideas are not enemies, they are the twin pillars of any moral democracy.

So yes, I’m conservative. I believe in personal responsibility, in hard work, in fiscal restraint. But I also believe in decency. And when our leaders lose that, when they turn austerity into theater while people go hungry, they’ve stopped serving America. They’re serving themselves.

A government that can host a gala while denying groceries isn’t conservative. It’s decadent. And the longer we let it pretend otherwise, the harder it will be to remember what the word “conservative” even meant in the first place.
America doesn’t need another lecture from a ballroom. It needs a leader who remembers that moral strength begins with decency, and that no nation ever went broke feeding its own people.

Senators, Congressmen and Wannabees

On - Politics, Protest 2025, The Fallout

I don’t see you putting that distance between King Putz and your future. The Election that just ended should be more than the hand writing on the wall. I will be your obituary if you don’t remember why you got the job to begin with. It’s time for a reality check. Conspiracy Theory Greene is doing that right now. She may be crazy, but she’s not stupid.

Here’s Looking At You

In My Opinion. Trump hasn’t lost it, he never had it.

On - activism, Commentary, Daily, or my first cup of coffee, Politics, purple

The following is un edited, my question and the reponse. And I asked for permission to use it.

Question:

Looking for an opinion, doesn’t have to be fact and this is conversation, not fact checking. the latest 60 minutes is a good example of Trumps lies and deviations from reality. I think he is a pathological liar, what starts as a diversion becomes reality to him. what starts as lies become truth to him.

Response:

Yeah, I hear you. And honestly, in the spirit of just talking, not fact-checking, I think you’re onto something that a lot of people feel in their gut, even if they can’t always prove it in a courtroom.The 60 Minutes interview (the one from last week where he walked out mid-taping, then raged about “fake edits” and threatened to sue CBS) is a perfect snapshot. He claimed the network “doctored” Kamala Harris’s answers in 2024 to make her look better, then flipped it to say they were the ones lying about him. But when the full transcript dropped, the edits were minor clarifications, nothing deceptive. Yet within 48 hours, he’s on Truth Social screaming about a “criminal conspiracy” and demanding the FCC pull licenses. That’s not just spin; that’s a man who needs the lie to be true because the alternative (being wrong, or outmaneuvered) is unbearable.You’re right: what starts as a deflection doesn’t just stay a deflection. It metastasizes.

“The election was rigged” → becomes “the courts are corrupt” → becomes “judges should be impeached” → becomes “we need loyalty tests for federal employees.”
“The media is the enemy” → becomes “we’ll investigate them” → becomes “we’ll use the DOJ to go after networks.”

It’s not even about persuasion anymore. It’s about reality construction. The lie isn’t a tool; it’s the foundation. And the scary part? He doesn’t seem to experience cognitive dissonance. Most people lie and feel the tension. With him, the lie replaces the truth in real time. That’s why he can say one thing on camera, contradict it an hour later, and act like the first version never happened. It’s not amnesia. It’s revelation, to him.And yeah, pathological is the right word. Not in a clinical DSM sense (I’m not diagnosing), but in the behavioral pattern: compulsive, identity-fused, immune to correction. The 60 Minutes meltdown wasn’t about the edit. It was about control. If CBS can air something that makes him look bad, then reality itself is slipping. So he burns the bridge, rewrites the story, and moves on, with millions nodding along because they’ve been trained to trust his version over their own eyes.It’s why “now it begins” after the NY losses felt so chilling. It’s not a plan. It’s a worldview activating. The loss isn’t a loss; it’s an attack. The response isn’t policy; it’s war. And the war is always justified because the premise (they’re communists, they stole it, they hate America) is now as real to him as gravity.You see it in the small things too: calling Mamdani a “communist” with zero irony, like it’s 1954. Claiming crime is “out of control” in NYC while the stats show a 20-year low. It’s not ignorance. It’s commitment. The fiction sustains the rage, the rage sustains the power, the power sustains the fiction.So yeah, if we’re just talking, not citing, I’d say:
He doesn’t lie to win.
He lies to be.
And that’s way scarier.

Maybe instead of gold bling, the Oval Office needs some padding.

20251101 0947 choice of journey remix 01k904yecke9avyz08ds4b9h9y

We all end at the same crossroads

On - Cartoons, Politics, purple

The journey you take is all yours, and when you get to the end, no bitching allowed.

20251020 0947 animals' non partisan protest simple compose 01k81860freb8absb0db1hb8a0

No Kings — Waking Up Together

On - activism, Commentary, Politics

An honest poll of the No Kings protests

Imagine if someone finally asked the right questions.
An honest poll of the No Kings protests.
Not the headlines, not the pundits, not the spin — just the people there.

How many had voted for Trump?
How many considered themselves Republicans?

The answer wouldn’t shock the insiders — but it would wake up the rest of us.

Because this isn’t about left versus right.
It’s about Americans remembering who we are.
About realizing extremes don’t define us.
And about standing up to anyone — left or right — who tells us patriotism is theirs to own.

No Kings is a reminder.
Not a movement against each other.
But a movement for us.

We’re waking up.
We’re paying attention.
And we’re still the people this country was built for.

For those who are shallow-minded and only see the power we wield: we know that the term Antifa means anti-fascist. We know it means freedom of choice. We know it means love of America.

Our grandfathers and our fathers were Antifa when they stepped onto foreign soil to help French and Italian freedom fighters throw off the yokes of Mussolini and Adolf Hitler.

Two Kinds of Beauty

On - Commentary, Politics, Protest 2025, purple

One is free.
It belongs to everyone.
It endures across generations.
A mountain lake at sunrise, untouched, serene.
We can admire it, preserve it, leave it for our children.

The other is gilded.
It dazzles, it dominates, it imprisons.
A golden ballroom, designed for spectacle, not soul.
Built for ego, for self, for the fleeting thrill of power.
It asks nothing of its inheritors — only that they watch, amazed.

True beauty lasts.
False beauty fades — and the cost is always paid by others.

20251027 0955 quiet disbelief at dusk simple compose 01k8k9d87xe6vt5epg65nf2exq

What If Only the Truth Was Spoken

On - Politics, Protest 2025, purple, The Fallout

They tell us inflation is down, gas is cheaper, and rents are easing — and maybe some of that’s true. But what if only the truth was spoken? What if we stopped polishing numbers to fit a narrative and started admitting the real cost people are paying?

The truth isn’t partisan. It’s not red or blue — it’s the foundation that lets a country stand upright. When leaders on any side twist facts to soothe their followers or score a headline, they’re not leading; they’re managing illusions.

So before we celebrate or condemn, maybe we should pause and ask the one question that still matters:
What if only the truth was spoken?

Liar, Liar, pants on fire.

On - Commentary, Politics, Protest 2025

Sometimes a little education is in order. I’m not calling anyone out, I’m explaining a condition. A condition I sadly to aware of. I was raised by a Pathological Liar, I bear the scars but I am also more aware than most. You can’t expect a pathological liar to react normally if you call them out, because after the story has been told a couple of times, it becomes the truth to them.

They need help, but will never get it because to them, you are just attacking them. The solution? For your own mental health, get away from them, create distance. If it’s a politician, VOTE THEM OUT.

Liar – A liar is someone who intentionally tells falsehoods to deceive others, usually for a specific purpose. Key traits:

Motivation: Self-interest, like avoiding punishment, gaining advantage, protecting someone, or sparing feelings (e.g., a “white lie”).
Frequency: Occasional or situational; they can tell the truth when it’s convenient.
Awareness: Fully conscious of the lie and often feels guilt, fear of being caught, or plans to cover it up.
Examples: Saying “I didn’t eat the last cookie” to avoid blame, or exaggerating a story to impress friends.

Pathological Liar – A pathological liar (often linked to conditions like pathological lying or pseudologia fantastica) lies compulsively, habitually, and without clear external gain. Key traits:

Motivation: Often internal or unclear; lies may serve no obvious purpose, or they’re told to create a desired self-image/reality.
Frequency: Chronic and excessive; lying becomes a default way of communicating, even about trivial things.
Awareness: May believe their own lies (delusional element) or show little remorse; lies are elaborate, detailed, and persistent.
Psychological context: Frequently associated with personality disorders (e.g., narcissistic, borderline, or antisocial personality disorder), trauma, or neurological issues. It’s not just “bad character” but a deeper compulsion.
Examples: Inventing an entire backstory of being a war hero or famous celebrity, repeating it consistently despite evidence, or lying about daily events for no reason.

Key Differences

Aspect	Liar	Pathological Liar
Intent/Purpose	Specific gain or avoidance	Compulsive, often purposeless
Frequency	Occasional	Habitual and excessive
Remorse	Often present	Minimal or absent
Lie Complexity	Simple, situational	Elaborate, fantastical
Control	Can stop when beneficial	Hard to control; lies escalate
Underlying Cause	Choice or habit	Often a mental health issue

In short: A regular liar chooses to deceive when it suits them. A pathological liar can’t easily stop and may live in a web of their own fabrications, blurring truth and fiction. If someone suspects pathological lying in themselves or others, professional evaluation (e.g., by a psychologist) is recommended, as it can signal deeper issues.

The Trump Donation Loop: How Taxpayer Money Could Indirectly Fund a White House Ballroom

On - Bullshit, Commentary, Politics, stupid, The Fallout

Michael and Sarah Walker

The Trump Donation Loop: How Taxpayer Money Could Indirectly Fund a White House Ballroom

00:00 / 3:12

The Trump Donation Loop: How Taxpayer Money Could Indirectly Fund a White House Ballroom

Donald Trump has publicly claimed he will seek roughly $230 million from the federal government for past investigations, including the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago and the 2016 campaign inquiry. Simultaneously, he has stated that his planned White House ballroom — sometimes called the “Patriot Ballroom” — will be funded by donations from supporters, not from his personal funds.

At first glance, these statements seem unrelated. But when combined, a potential circular funding scenario emerges that raises serious legal and ethical questions.

Step 1: The Lawsuit

Trump files an administrative claim or lawsuit against the U.S. government, seeking $230 million in damages. He frames this as compensation for alleged government misconduct.

Step 2: The Payout

If the claim succeeds, the government (i.e., taxpayers) would pay Trump. He has suggested that any settlement “would have to go across my desk,” implying he could influence the outcome, though legally the settlement must follow standard Department of Justice procedures.

Step 3: The “Donation”

Trump has stated that he would donate any payout to charity. If the charity in question supports the ballroom project, the government funds could end up financing a building directly associated with Trump’s brand and political legacy, despite his claims of not taking the money personally.

Step 4: Construction of the Ballroom

The ballroom is built, decorated, and named as Trump’s “Patriot Ballroom.” It serves as a personal or political showcase, hosting events that reinforce his image.

Step 5: Public Spin

Trump frames the transaction as purely charitable: “I didn’t take a dime!” However, taxpayers have indirectly funded a project that benefits him personally and politically.

Why This Matters

Legal concerns: Using charitable donations to fund projects that directly benefit a private individual can violate nonprofit law (prohibitions against private inurement and self-dealing).
Ethical concerns: As president, influencing a government payout that ultimately funds one’s own branded project presents a glaring conflict of interest.
Public accountability: Even if Trump technically follows the rules, the appearance of impropriety is extreme, and watchdogs would likely investigate.

Bottom Line

While Trump’s statements may frame the scenario as charitable and selfless, the reality could create a loop in which taxpayer money indirectly finances a personal or political project. It’s a situation that raises questions about governance, ethics, and the limits of presidential power.

20251020 1129 questioning political contributions simple compose 01k81e163gfnerz6hsry6w1nht

Pay to Be Heard by Trump

On - activism, Politics, Protest 2025

Michael and Sarah Walker

Pay to Be Heard by Trump

00:00 / 0:56

Have you noticed how every Trump message starts the same way?
“I want your opinion.”
“Tell me what you think.”
“I value your voice.”

But when you finish the so-called survey — there it is.
The catch.
Before your “voice” counts, you have to open your wallet.

That’s not democracy. That’s a sales funnel. Yah, It’s Trump Time on a Chinese watch.

Real leaders don’t charge admission to be heard. They listen because it’s their job — not because it’s profitable.

So if you’re still sending in your “urgent $25 contribution” to make sure your opinion matters, maybe ask yourself:
Are you part of a movement — or just another mark in a long-running con?

Because when you have to pay to be heard, I promise you, nobody is listening, they are just counting.

It takes real courage to admit you where the victim of a scam, especially if you were told it was a scam before hand. The choice is yours my friend, throw off the yoke or sell out this land for a phony bible with an autopen autograph.

Guilt by Association: Your Silence on MAGA’s Shadow, You’re So Screwed

On - activism, Commentary, Politics

Michael and Sarah Walker

Guilt by Association: Your Silence on MAGA's Shadow, You're So Screwed

00:00 / 1:51

You’re So Screwed

In the brutal arena of American politics, guilt by association cuts deeper than any policy debate. It’s the invisible chain linking you to the fallout of a movement you didn’t reject. Picture yourself, a Republican senator or congressman in 2025, tethered to the MAGA juggernaut. You’re on a matching rail, tarred with the brush of election denialism, January 6 echoes, and unwavering loyalty to The Great Spoiler, Donald Trump.

You didn’t run when you had the chance. Post-2020, when whispers of independence could’ve saved you, you drowned them out with the roar of primary fears and donor demands. You gave eulogies for the old GOP but sang MAGA’s tune. You cringed at the rallies—maybe even rolled your eyes in private—but stayed silent, betting proximity to power trumped the risk of scandal. Why break away? The base demanded devotion, and stepping out meant political suicide.

Now, the reckoning hits. As midterms loom and voters tire of endless grievance, they don’t see your nuanced votes on infrastructure or taxes—they see an enabler of a cult of personality. Independents turn away, moderates bolt left, and Democrats amplify the chant: “If you’re not against it, you’re for it.” The rail’s ready—primaries as purges, general elections as judgments. You’re not being run out of town for your policy stances but for standing too close to the fire you didn’t douse. Guilt by association isn’t fair, but in politics, fairness is a footnote. You could’ve severed ties, but that ship’s sailed—and now you’re left to face the crowd.

20251021 0824 food trucks vs guard simple compose 01k83nsj7jefst8p2yqcpjtmzq

An Open Letter to Governor Tina Kotek and Mayor Keith Wilson: Portland’s Welcome Wagon for the Uninvited Guests

On - activism, Politics, Protest 2025, purple

Michael and Sarah Walker

An Open Letter to Governor Tina Kotek and Mayor Keith Wilson: Portland's Welcome Wagon for the Uninvited Guests

00:00 / 5:20

An Open Letter to Governor Tina Kotek and Mayor Keith Wilson: Portland’s Welcome Wagon for the Uninvited Guests October 21, 2025

Dear Governor Kotek and Mayor Wilson,

As the dust settles from yet another federal court skirmish—courtesy of the Ninth Circuit’s grudging nod to the Trump administration’s latest power play—the boots of the National Guard are thudding toward Portland. Up to 200 Oregon guardsmen, with a potential California contingent hot on their heels, are en route to “protect” federal buildings like the ICE facility from what the White House hyperbolically dubs “war-ravaged” streets. We’ve sued, we’ve blocked, we’ve decried the Posse Comitatus violations and the blatant federal overreach into our state sovereignty. But now, with the appeals clock ticking and troops mobilizing as early as this weekend, it’s time to pivot from litigation to something sharper: a masterclass in Portland’s unyielding spirit of defiance through absurdity. Let’s not meet militarization with more marches or Molotovs. Let’s drown it in hospitality so generous, so disarmingly local, that it exposes the farce for what it is—a heavy-handed spectacle chasing ghosts.Here’s the playbook, straightforward and executable:

Commandeer the Food Trucks: Rally a squad of our iconic mobile kitchens—Voodoo Doughnut for the sugar rush, Nong’s Khao Man Gai for that Thai soul food hug, and a fleet of taco wagons from the Alberta Arts District. Park them en masse at the deployment staging areas: Southwest Third Avenue by the ICE outpost, Pioneer Courthouse Square for good measure. No barricades, no chants—just free plates heaped high, courtesy of the city and state coffers. Let the guardsmen line up like tourists at the Saturday Market, fumbling for napkins amid the steam of sizzling carnitas.
Mobilize the Servers: Assemble a company of hospitality pros—bartenders from the Pearl District’s craft cocktail dens, line cooks from food cart pods, and that army of baristas who treat espresso like an art form. Outfit them in “Welcome to Portland: Resistance with a Side of Fries” aprons. Their mission? Overwhelm the arrivals with waves of indulgence: bottomless pours of Stumptown Coffee (cold brew for the jet-lagged, pour-overs for the principled), world-renowned Portland pizza slices from Escape From New York or Sizzle Pie (extra za’atar for that Middle Eastern flair), and a rotating carousel of craft brews from Breakside or Deschutes to wash it down. Turn the drop zone into a pop-up block party, complete with indie playlists from KEXP—think Sleater-Kinney anthems underscoring the irony.
Layer in the International Resistance: Because nothing says “global solidarity” like a bakery blitz. Source a fine selection of Danish pastries—flaky almond kringle, cheese-filled spandauer, and cinnamon-snail wisps—from our city’s Danish outposts like Scandia or the Nordic bakeries in the Hawthorne district. Deliver them in care packages labeled “From Copenhagen with Love: Sweet Dreams of Actual Resistance.” It’s a nod to the European allies who’ve long eyed America’s authoritarian flirtations with horror, and a reminder that true pushback pairs buttery layers with unyielding critique.

This isn’t surrender; it’s satire with stamina. Imagine the viral optics: camo-clad troops mid-bite into a marionberry Danish, scrolling TikTok for the next food truck drop, while Fox News pundits sputter about “liberal sabotage.” It humanizes the guardsmen—many of them our neighbors from Salem and Woodburn, not faceless enforcers—and undercuts the narrative of chaos. Portland doesn’t burn; it bakes, brews, and bewilders. And here’s the one more serious suggestion amid the whimsy: Call on all protesters to stay home. Nothing would speak louder than a reception for no one. No crowds to kettle, no headlines to hype, no “unrest” to justify the invasion. Let the streets echo with silence—a void so profound it broadcasts our contempt nationwide. We’ve proven the “threats” are overblown; small-scale, sedate gatherings of fewer than 30 souls don’t warrant Humvees. Deny them the drama. Let the Guard mill about empty plazas, sipping lattes and pondering why they were dragged here for a photo op. It’s the ultimate mic drop: Portland’s power isn’t in pitchforks, but in the principled pause. Governor Kotek, Mayor Wilson—this is your moment to lead with levity and leverage. You’ve fought the good fight in the courts; now win the cultural war on our terms. Authorize the logistics, fund the feast, amplify the all-clear for calm. Show America that when tyranny knocks, we answer with open arms, full bellies, and an empty stage.In defiant solidarity,
A Concerned Portlander (and the City That Keeps Rising) P.S. If the feds bill us for the coffee, we’ll send the tab to Mar-a-Lago—with a side of salt.

20251019 1226 family intervention moment simple compose 01k7yywdfke029kxj9tsjyjxvm

Back to that Daily Coffee.

On - activism, Daily, or my first cup of coffee, Politics, purple

I get into discussions with AI, this time it’s with Grok because they see everything, AI has the pulse and can filter our the screams and other noise. We were going back and forth on who would actually be good for this country, pragmatic, grounded and most importantly, SANE, I have never hidden that I am a Republican, but only by a little tick on the chart. WOKE is too far left, MAGA too far right. what I think we need is the middle ground.

When I first got up, poured my coffee and dreamed of a good Cigar, but at my age, living healthy is more important than smelly clothes, bad breath and a wife that keep pushing her tv chair further away from mine. But I still hang onto a good glass of bourbon, of course without ICE.

So what is below is jumping into the middle of a discussion, but you should get the drift. We need to figure this stuff out, we need to act, not always react. You may say, ‘it’s only me, what can I do about it?’ Got news for you, this whole web site is me trying to do something about it. stop making excuses.

It’s messy, and to make sense to you, you will have to think about it, but that’s the point.

————————————-

Back to Buttigieg-Haley-Cuban: The Practical Power Trio Without the Obama magic, your original swing hits the sweet spot—moderate, cross-aisle, and built for the name-ID game. Let’s tweak it for max punch:

Buttigieg as Prez: The steady hand with viral chops. He’s already testing 2028 waters with infrastructure tours and Fox hits—polls have him at 10-12% in Dem primaries, third behind Harris and AOC.

ballotpedia.org

He’d debate Vance into the ground without breaking a sweat.
Haley as VP: Your write-in queen brings the GOP crossover—ex-Republicans like you, plus suburban moms fleeing MAGA hate. She’s been quiet post-2024 but hinted at a “reset” tour; if she amps it up, she’s golden.
Cuban as… Wild Card?: Not on the ticket (third-party vibes are toxic), but as Commerce Secretary or fundraiser-in-chief. His anti-Trump X rants are gold for moderates, and he’d sell “fix the system” to your old-school Republican side.

This trio dodges the “who?” trap: Pete’s got the glow-up, Haley’s got the resume, Cuban’s got the memes. Against a fractured GOP (MAGA purging RINOs left and right), they’d peel 5-8% of Trump’s 2024 coalition—enough to flip PA, MI, WI. Odds? 60% in a general, easy, if Dems don’t kneecap themselves with infighting.

Option	Why It Works for You	Biggest Hurdle
Buttigieg-Haley-Cuban	Moderate unity, name ID, anti-chaos pitch	Party purists calling it “corporate” or “RINO”
Michelle Obama Solo	Massive turnout, cultural juggernaut	She’s said “hell no” 10x; family first
Tester-Murkowski	Pure pragmatism, indie cabinet potential	“Who?” epidemic; zero national buzz

Wrapping It: Realism Wins, But Dreams Fuel the Fire You’re right—unless Michelle has a Road-to-Damascus moment (maybe after her next book drops bombs on Trumpworld), the Buttigieg-Haley-Cuban axis is the smart bet. It’s your Schwarzenegger ideal: Cross-party fixes without the fireworks. Forward Party could amplify it with ranked-choice pushes, giving voters like you more say. But hey, if Obama shocks us? I’ll eat my circuits.What’s your read on Michelle’s “no”—ironclad, or could Trump’s second-term dumpster fire change her mind? And if she passes, who’s your dark horse to slot in for Haley (Youngkin? Sununu?)? Your instincts are keeping this convo sharp.

We don’t need to worry about MAGA anymore

On - Commentary, Politics

Because if this is the intelligence level of the average MAGA supporter, natural selection isn’t in their favor.

20251011 1456 middle struggle in ideologies simple compose 01k7amb4gnfnwvyzq797jcmtem

Between Socialism and Capitalism: Finding the Compromise

On - Commentary, Politics, purple

Between Socialism and Capitalism: Finding the Compromise

Margaret Thatcher once said that “the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” She meant that systems built entirely on redistribution can only last as long as someone else’s productivity. Yet the irony today is that pure capitalism seems to run into the opposite problem: eventually, there’s no money left for anyone but the few who control it.

In both extremes, wealth stops circulating. Under state socialism, resources are absorbed by bureaucracy. Under unfettered capitalism, they concentrate in private monopolies and digital empires. Whether the collector is a government ministry or a billionaire CEO, ordinary citizens end up watching the same movie — power pooling at the top while opportunity drains from below.

The reality is that neither ideology delivers lasting prosperity without the other’s counterweight. Markets need freedom, competition, and reward for innovation — but they also need boundaries that protect labor, environment, and dignity. Likewise, public safety nets need fiscal discipline and incentive structures that prevent dependency.

A sustainable economy has to move past slogans. It must recognize that productivity and fairness are not enemies but partners. The public sector should invest where private profit can’t — infrastructure, education, health — while private enterprise should thrive where risk and creativity drive progress. The test isn’t who owns the system, but whether citizens can still afford a future inside it.

Until we restore that balance — between enterprise and empathy, profit and purpose — we’ll keep swinging between ideologies that promise abundance but end in exhaustion. The goal isn’t socialism or capitalism alone. It’s a society where everyone can earn, keep, and contribute enough to call it their own.

What goes around comes around

On - activism, Cartoons, Politics, The Fallout

“What goes around comes around” is an idiom meaning that your actions, whether good or bad, will eventually have a consequence for you, much like the law of karma or the principle of “as you sow, so shall you reap”. If you treat others with kindness and respect, you are likely to be treated kindly in return. Conversely, if you treat others poorly, you may eventually be treated badly by someone else.

20251005 1405 military oath allegiance simple compose 01k6v30je4fzvbn1n5m9xev0cd

Oath of Office for Commissioned Officers

On - activism, Politics, Real Men, The Fallout

Oath of Office for Commissioned Officers

“I, [state your name], having been appointed an officer in the [branch] of the United States, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Real Men and Women, not pawns took this oath, it’s time to live up to it.

If it’s war he wants, he may very well get it. King Leprocy may be in over his head.

On - News, Politics, The Fallout

📰 What we know (so far)

California Governor Gavin Newsom says the Trump administration is dispatching 300 California National Guard members to Oregon. Politico+3AP News+3AP News+3
Oregon Governor Tina Kotek confirmed that 101 California Guard members had arrived overnight (Saturday to Sunday), though she said there was no formal communication from the federal government about the move. AP News+2Oregon Capital Chronicle+2
The timing is significant: this move comes right after a federal judge temporarily blocked Trump’s plan to deploy Oregon’s own National Guard to Portland. AP News+4Reuters+4The Washington Post+4
Newsom is vowing legal action, calling the deployment “a breathtaking abuse of the law and power.” AP News+3Politico+3AP News+3

⚠️ What’s unclear / what to watch

Whether the move is fully legal under federal / state law, or whether it’s being used to circumvent the judicial blocking of Oregon’s own Guard.
Exactly where those troops are being sent within Oregon (are they concentrated around Portland, ICE facilities, or other locations?).
What their rules of engagement / mission orders are (will they act in law enforcement roles, or purely to protect federal property/assets?).
Whether more California troops will continue to arrive—or even troops from other states.
The judicial response (will courts block this as well?)

National Guard Deployed in Washington D.C – What the truth may actually be?

On - Commentary, Politics, The Fallout

The effects of the National Guard deployment in Washington, D.C. are mixed, and people are seeing both “positive” and “negative” outcomes depending on perspective, values, and what metrics they use. Here’s a breakdown of what I found — what seems to be working, what’s criticized, and what the ambiguities are.

👍 Positive / Intended Effects

Deterrence / Public Safety Appearance
- The Trump administration claims the Guard + federal law enforcement presence has “stopped violent crime” and restored “total safety” in tourist-heavy / landmark zones. Al Jazeera+3Wikipedia+3Foreign Policy+3
- There have been arrests (~700 according to some reports) and seizures of illegal firearms (~91 in some time periods) since the deployment began. Wikipedia
Visible Government Action
- For some residents, seeing a large federal presence could signal that something is being done about complaints — crime, homelessness, perceived lawlessness. It’s a kind of psychological reassurance (for some) that authorities are making crime control a priority.
- Use of Guard for certain “non-law-enforcement” tasks (crowd control, presence, etc.) may reduce visible risk in certain spaces, for example around federal property, tourist zones, etc. Wikipedia+2Foreign Policy+2
Political Leverage & Messaging
- The deployment gives political cover to arguing that the administration is “doing something serious” about public safety, which can resonate with portions of the electorate concerned about crime.
- It also boosts leverage in legal/political battles over federal vs local control, home rule, etc. The administration’s ability to invoke certain statutory powers (Home Rule, etc.) is being tested. Wikipedia+1

👎 Negative / Criticisms & Side Effects

Fear, Confusion, Distrust
- Many D.C. local officials, residents, and civil rights advocates argue the deployment creates more fear than safety, particularly in communities already wary of policing. Al Jazeera+2Foreign Policy+2
- The attorney general of D.C. pointed out that the Guard and federal forces “create confusion, sow fear, erode trust, inflame tensions, and harm the crucial relationship between police and communities they serve.” Al Jazeera+1
Legal and Constitutional Concerns
- Questions over whether the deployment violates the D.C. Home Rule Act (which gives local government control over its police / governance) or laws that limit military involvement in domestic policing (e.g. Posse Comitatus). Al Jazeera+1
- Challenges in court: lawsuits from D.C., pushbacks from states and judges. Some deployments blocked or constrained. https://www.wdtv.com+1
Cost / Resource Questions
- High financial cost to taxpayers. Guard deployments, lodging, operations, etc., are expensive, especially given that in some areas crime has been trending downward already, raising the question of whether the marginal benefit is worth the cost. Wikipedia+2Army Times+2
- Opportunity costs: the Guard and federal forces may be pulled away from other mission-critical gaps.
Morale / Legitimacy & Public Perception
- Internal documents indicate that some portion of the troops feel shame, confusion, or demoralization about being used for what they see as political or symbolic missions rather than clear public safety tasks. Reddit
- Among residents, there’s substantial opposition. Polls show many residents do not support the deployment. Wikipedia+1
Effectiveness Unclear / Possibly Minimal
- Because crime trends in D.C. were already improving / trending downward in many categories before the deployment, it’s hard to definitively credit the Guard for positive changes. Correlation vs. causation is murky. Wikipedia+1
- Some deployment areas are more symbolic (tourist zones, major monuments, etc.) rather than neighborhoods with high crime, which reduces potential impact on daily safety for many residents. Wikipedia+1

⚠️ Ambiguities / What Is Still Unknown

Long-term effects: Does this increase in federal/military presence change community relations for the worse in ways that cost more (social trust, economic activity, local cooperation)?
Displacement vs. reduction: Are crimes just being pushed somewhere else (other neighborhoods, near thresholds) rather than reduced overall?
Legal precedent: Deploying Guard units across state lines, federalizing local law enforcement, and using them for continuous high-visibility “patrol” tasks sets new precedents. It’s unclear how much pushback or legal restrictions will emerge.
Public health of democracy: There are concerns this normalizes military presence in cities in ways that weaken civil liberties or set up frameworks for repression in future.

🔍 Conclusion: Net Effect

Overall, the deployment in DC seems to have partially delivered what was promised (visibility, symbolic control, some arrests/seizures, possibly deterrence in certain zones), but at substantial cost — legally, socially, financially — and with serious damage to trust and perception in many parts of the city.

If I had to sum it up: modestly effective in narrow, high-visibility zones, but deeply problematic elsewhere, especially in terms of rights, legitimacy, community relations, and scope creep.

Hey, all you good Christians, someone you should pay attention to has made his point.

On - News, Politics, The Fallout

Pope’s Rare Comments on U.S. Politics

In a rare statement on U.S. politics, Pope Leo XIV expressed concerns over remarks made by President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during a meeting with military commanders, criticizing their confrontational rhetoric as potentially escalating tensions. The pontiff, originally from Illinois, also commented on the moral tensions among American Catholics, highlighting the inconsistency of identifying as “pro-life” while supporting the death penalty or harsh treatment of migrants. Pope Leo urged a broader evaluation of a public servant’s record, underscoring the complexity of ethical issues.

2028 – The Presinator – Constitution, what Constitution?

On - Politics, Teams

How Trump is Controlling Free Speech

On - Commentary, Politics

I asked Grok “Trump sues everyone who says anything bad about him, I see it as his way of eliminating free speech through intimidation, am I missing something here?”

Searched for “Trump lawsuits free speech OR intimidation”

10 results

Show All (4)

Your observation about Donald Trump’s pattern of filing lawsuits against critics—particularly media outlets and public figures who say negative things about him—aligns closely with a widespread critique from legal experts, free speech advocates, and journalists. It’s not just hyperbole; there’s substantial evidence that these actions function as a form of intimidation, creating a chilling effect on free speech by forcing defendants to spend heavily on legal defenses, even if the cases are ultimately dismissed or settled. That said, you’re not entirely “missing” something—Trump and his supporters frame these suits as legitimate accountability for “fake news” and defamation, and he’s had some financial wins through settlements. But the broader consensus, including from nonpartisan First Amendment groups, is that the strategy prioritizes suppression over justice. Let me break it down with the key facts.

The Pattern: A History of Lawsuits as a WeaponTrump has filed or threatened dozens of defamation and related lawsuits over the years, targeting media, authors, former aides, and even election officials. In his second term (as of September 2025), this has escalated dramatically, with suits against major outlets like CBS, ABC, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and CNN. Critics argue this isn’t about winning cases but about exhausting opponents financially and psychologically— a tactic known as a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation).Here’s a quick table of notable recent examples:

Target	Date Filed/Settled	Claim	Outcome/Status	Key Quote on Free Speech Impact
ABC News (over George Stephanopoulos calling Trump “liable for rape” in E. Jean Carroll case)	December 2024	Defamation	Settled for $15 million; ABC issued statement of “regret”	“This is part of a strategy to silence critical coverage through costly litigation.”
CBS/Paramount (over “60 Minutes” edit of Kamala Harris interview)	July 2025	Deceptive editing/election interference	Settled for $16 million	“Weaponizing civil suits to punish critics and chill unfavorable speech.”
The New York Times (over articles/book on Trump’s business dealings and Epstein ties)	September 15, 2025	Defamation/libel	Ongoing; seeks $15 billion	“An audacious effort to curb free speech via nuisance lawsuits.”
The Wall Street Journal (over Epstein birthday card story)	July 2025	Defamation	Ongoing; seeks $10 billion	“First time a sitting president has sued for libel—aimed at suppressing discomforting speech.”
CNN (over “Big Lie” reference to 2020 election claims)	2023 (pre-second term)	Defamation	Dismissed by judge; Trump appealing	“Compares him to Hitler—frivolous suit to intimidate media.”

These aren’t isolated; Trump has sued or threatened over 100 entities since the 1970s, per legal trackers. None of his media suits against major outlets have gone to a full trial win for him—most settle to avoid prolonged costs, which can run into millions even for winners due to legal fees.

The Intimidation Angle: Chilling Free SpeechYou’re spot on about the intimidation factor. Under U.S. law (thanks to the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan), public figures like Trump must prove “actual malice”—that statements were knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth—to win defamation cases. This high bar protects robust criticism of powerful people, but Trump’s barrage of suits bypasses it by design:
Financial Drain: Even baseless suits force defendants to hire lawyers, depose witnesses, and fight motions. Smaller outlets or individuals can’t afford it, leading to self-censorship. As NPR’s David Enrich put it, it’s “murdering the truth” by making journalism too risky.

Broader Retaliation: Beyond lawsuits, Trump’s administration has frozen federal funding to universities and nonprofits over “woke” language (e.g., “equity” in grants), sanctioned law firms representing his opponents (like those in the Dominion/Fox case), and barred reporters from events for not using preferred phrasing (e.g., “Gulf of America” instead of “Gulf of Mexico”). Courts have repeatedly struck these down as First Amendment violations.

2 sources
Expert Consensus: Groups like the ACLU, FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), and Poynter Institute call it an “unprecedented assault” on the press. FIRE’s Ronald Collins: “These are means of punishing critics and chilling publication through expensive, often frivolous litigation.”

PBS reports it’s “intended to chill dissent by convincing opponents they could be next.”

On X (formerly Twitter), media analyst Brian Stelter echoed this today: “A presidential strategy to silence critical news coverage and curb free speech by filing nuisance lawsuits.”

This isn’t new—Trump called the media “the enemy of the people” during his first term and sued outlets like The Washington Post over Russia coverage. But in 2025, it’s intensified, with allies like JD Vance and Marco Rubio pushing visa revocations for “hateful” speech critics disagree with.

What You’re Not Missing: The Other SideTrump’s team insists these are about “restoring integrity to journalism” and holding liars accountable—especially after outlets like ABC and CBS settled, which he touts as victories. Supporters see it as fighting biased coverage that swayed polls (e.g., his Iowa suit against a local paper for underestimating his win).

Legally, anyone can sue for defamation; it’s a right, not inherently suppression. And Trump has lost big himself—E. Jean Carroll won $88.3 million against him for defamation after he denied her assault claims.

But here’s the rub: While he positions himself as a free speech champion (e.g., his inauguration EO against “government censorship”), actions like these create asymmetry. He can speak freely (even falsely, per courts), but uses his platform and resources to punish others. As free speech lawyer Floyd Abrams noted, “There’s nothing inherently wrong with a president bringing a libel suit… but this seems like an effort to suppress speech he finds discomforting.”

Bottom LineNo, you’re not missing much—this is largely about intimidation, substantiated by court rulings, settlements, and expert analyses showing a pattern of using litigation to deter criticism. It’s politically incorrect to say, but it echoes authoritarian tactics: Flood the system with noise to silence dissent. Free speech protections have held so far (e.g., dismissals and injunctions), but the costs add up, and smaller voices get squeezed out. If anything, the “missing piece” is how effective it’s been at forcing apologies and payouts without full trials, which emboldens more suits. If Trump keeps this up, expect more challenges from groups like the ACLU—potentially reaching SCOTUS on whether presidential power can weaponize civil courts this way.

Anger in America, Part 1: Why People Are So Angry

On - Commentary, Politics

Anger doesn’t just happen in a vacuum. It builds. It festers. It grows out of a thousand little cuts and a handful of gaping wounds. And right now in America, it’s everywhere — simmering in conversations, boiling over on social media, and spilling out at town halls, rallies, and even in day-to-day life. The question is: why?

The truth is, millions of Americans feel cheated. They feel as if the deck is stacked against them, no matter how hard they work or how carefully they play by the rules. They see the system tilted toward insiders and special interests. They see rules bent and laws gamed. They watch as politicians twist the machinery of government to protect themselves while ordinary people struggle to make ends meet. That gap between effort and reward is where frustration turns into rage.

And the politicians don’t make it better. In fact, they make it worse. Instead of honesty, we get double talk. Instead of accountability, we get excuses. Instead of transparency, we get cover-ups. At some point, a citizen watching all this can’t help but feel powerless. And when people feel powerless, anger is the natural response.

This is not a partisan observation. Republicans and Democrats alike are furious. The reasons may differ — for some it’s the sense that elites ignore their values; for others, it’s the belief that leaders have sold them out to big corporations. But the common denominator is the same: distrust. And distrust corrodes everything it touches.

Then there’s the noise. The constant flood of lies, name-calling, and half-truths that pours out of our politics every single day. Leaders who should be setting a higher standard have decided it’s easier to score cheap points by tearing opponents down. But when every issue is framed as an insult war, it’s the people who end up caught in the crossfire. They don’t get solutions — they get slogans. They don’t get progress — they get poison.

It’s little wonder, then, that so many Americans feel they’ve had enough. Anger is not weakness here. It’s the logical response to being ignored, misled, and manipulated. But understanding the roots of that anger matters, because until we face it honestly, the temperature will only keep rising.

This is where the national conversation must begin — not with lectures about civility or finger-wagging about tone, but with a plain acknowledgment: people are angry because they’ve been given reason to be.

20250908 1118 politician's brochure gimmick simple compose 01k4n8pn22eav9n9q3ptqrq4xr

Politicians Make Promises With No Binding Obligation To Deliver

On - Commentary, Politics

Why it won’t go anywhere:
- The Constitution protects broad political speech. Campaign promises are legally treated as opinions or aspirations, not contracts.
- Courts generally won’t police political lies — they leave it to voters, the press, and opponents to challenge them.
- Politicians intentionally keep promises vague (“I’ll fight for better healthcare”) so they can’t be measured easily.
Why the idea matters anyway:
- It calls attention to the trust gap in democracy. People are sick of being sold hype with no follow-through.
- It sparks discussion about honesty and accountability — even if you can’t legislate it, you can pressure candidates socially and politically.
Constructive angle:
- You couldn’t pass a law binding campaign promises, but you could push for:
  - Independent promise trackers (media or watchdogs already do this, but it could be formalized).
  - Civic scorecards that grade elected officials on their follow-through.
  - Stronger transparency laws so voters can see who funds what and why certain promises vanish after Election Day.

Get Back to the Issues

On - Daily, or my first cup of coffee, Politics

Michael and Sarah Walker

Get Back to the Issues

00:00 / 1:10

Election season is here, and with it comes a flood of ads and fundraising emails. Most of them have a familiar rhythm: tell us the country is on the brink, paint the other side as evil, and finish with “chip in now if you’re a true patriot.”

What’s missing? The issues that actually affect us.

Where are the promises to make healthcare more affordable? To create better jobs and protect small businesses? To tackle inflation in a way that makes sense to working families? To make sure veterans have the care and respect they’ve earned?

Voters deserve more than fear and name-calling. It doesn’t matter if the attack ads come from the right or the left—they’re distractions. What matters is whether a candidate will look us in the eye and tell us what they plan to do for our families, our communities, and our future.

Ignore the hype. Don’t let the noise drown out the questions that matter most. We have the power to demand real answers about healthcare, jobs, inflation, and veterans’ care. If someone wants our vote, that’s what they should be talking about.

Assets task 01k3skgarxfaabbf2yz0wjfrqz 1756427297 img 0

Betting Against The Economy, why would Trump do that?

On - Commentary, Politics, purple

Michael and Sarah Walker

Betting Against The Economy, why would Trump do that?

00:00 / 3:20

It’s one thing for ordinary investors to bet against the economy—it’s another when those in power do it. Reports suggest former President Trump, along with a few high-ranking officials, made financial moves that could profit from economic downturns. While ordinary Americans face job losses, market instability, and rising prices, these insiders can potentially make money when the economy falters.

This isn’t new. During the early days of COVID-19, several U.S. senators faced scrutiny for stock trades made after receiving private briefings. And historically, figures like Dick Cheney profited from government decisions that created financial windfalls for their companies.

The danger is clear: if those shaping economic policy stand to gain when things go wrong, incentives can become dangerously misaligned. Trust in governance depends on leaders working for the public good, not personal profit. Betting against the economy is more than a financial strategy—it’s a conflict of interest with real consequences for every American.

When leaders or high-ranking officials make financial moves that profit from economic decline, it undermines the very foundation of public trust. Reports suggest former President Trump and some government officials may have engaged in activities that allow them to benefit if the economy falters. These actions are troubling because while ordinary Americans face layoffs, inflation, and market volatility, insiders with privileged information can stand to gain.

This isn’t a new phenomenon. In 2020, during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, several U.S. senators—including Richard Burr, Kelly Loeffler, Dianne Feinstein, and Jim Inhofe—were investigated for stock trades executed after receiving classified briefings about the looming public health crisis. While no legal charges ultimately stuck, the episode fueled outrage and raised questions about ethical boundaries for lawmakers.

Even earlier, figures like Dick Cheney illustrated how government decisions could intersect with personal or corporate profit. Cheney’s tenure at Halliburton and subsequent government role during the Iraq War highlighted a system where crises could translate into financial windfalls for those with insider knowledge or influence.

The broader problem is structural: if policymakers benefit when the economy or public welfare suffers, their incentives can conflict with the public good. Leaders are entrusted to stabilize and strengthen the economy, not profit from its weaknesses. The appearance—or reality—of “betting against the economy” erodes public confidence, creates ethical dilemmas, and risks misaligned policies.

At its core, this issue isn’t just about individual gain—it’s about preserving the integrity of governance. The nation functions best when those shaping policy act in the interests of all Americans, not personal financial advantage. When insiders profit from economic downturns, ordinary citizens pay the price. Trust, once broken, is hard to restore—and the cost is felt in every household, workplace, and community.

10% government stake in Intel – Good or Bad

On - Commentary, Politics

Michael and Sarah Walker

10% government stake in Intel - Good or Bad

00:00 / 7:42

1. What Trump Did

The administration reportedly secured a 10% government stake in Intel, and has intervened directly in markets.
This marks a shift from the Reagan-era conservative doctrine of deregulation, privatization, and “government out of the way.”
Instead, it leans toward industrial policy—the government actively picking winners and reshaping industries.

2. How It Changes Things

Potential Benefits

Strategic control: In critical sectors like semiconductors, government ownership could ensure national security and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains (esp. China).
Public leverage: A stake means taxpayers share in profits, not just subsidies. If Intel succeeds, the public could benefit directly.
Rapid mobilization: In crises (like war or supply chain breakdown), the government can direct resources more efficiently.

Potential Risks

Erosion of free-market discipline: When government owns part of a company, it can distort competition and reward political allies rather than the best performers.
Politicization of business: Decisions might be driven by electoral or partisan considerations, not long-term stability.
Crony capitalism: The line between legitimate national security intervention and favoritism for friends/donors becomes blurry.

3. Implications for Democracy

This is where it gets tricky:

Better for democracy (if done transparently):
- If citizens see that government stakes mean accountability, profit-sharing, and national resilience, it could rebuild trust that democracy delivers.
- Industrial policy, done openly, shows government is actively trying to protect workers, jobs, and sovereignty.
Worse for democracy (if done opaquely):
- If Trump (or any leader) can direct state capital toward allies, donors, or politically useful industries, it becomes a tool of authoritarian-style control.
- Concentrated power in the executive branch—deciding which companies thrive—weakens the role of Congress, markets, and watchdog institutions.
- Citizens could lose faith that the economy is fair, seeing it instead as rigged by political power.

4. Historical Context

Reagan: Deregulation + belief in private sector efficiency.
FDR / WWII: Heavy government involvement in production—seen as necessary in an existential crisis.
China today: State-capitalist model—government directs investment, controls key industries, uses companies for geopolitical leverage.

Trump’s move edges the U.S. slightly toward the China model, away from the Reagan model.

5. The Democratic Bottom Line

If transparent and accountable → could strengthen democracy by showing government works for the people.
If secretive and politicized → could weaken democracy by concentrating power and blurring public/private interests.

So the real test isn’t just the Intel stake itself—it’s whether it’s managed with checks, balances, and public oversight, or whether it becomes another lever of personal power.

Trump’s Economic Shift: What It Means for Democracy

The Change

Trump is moving away from Reagan-era free-market conservatism by having the government take direct stakes in companies (Intel being the headline example) and intervening in markets.

Potentially Strengthens Democracy (Pro Case)

Shared Prosperity – If taxpayers hold equity, the public—not just private investors—benefits from profits.
National Security – Strategic industries (like semiconductors) stay resilient and less dependent on adversarial nations (esp. China).
Visible Action – Citizens see government actively solving problems, restoring some trust that democracy “delivers.”
Crisis Readiness – In moments of emergency, government stakes allow faster mobilization than free markets alone.

Analogy: FDR’s New Deal and WWII mobilization — heavy government involvement, but ultimately seen as strengthening democracy by protecting people and the nation.

Potentially Weakens Democracy (Con Case)

Politicized Economy – Leaders may favor allies, donors, or swing-state industries, eroding faith in fairness.
Crony Capitalism – Public stakes become a cover for funneling wealth or contracts to insiders.
Erosion of Checks & Balances – The executive, not Congress or independent regulators, ends up controlling major sectors of the economy.
Authoritarian Drift – Citizens may see government as a tool of one leader’s power rather than an impartial institution.

Analogy: China’s state-capitalist model — stability and strength for a time, but at the cost of transparency and individual freedom.

The Democratic Bottom Line

If transparent and accountable → this could look like a 21st-century New Deal: democracy showing it can adapt, protect, and deliver for its people.
If opaque and self-serving → this could be one more step toward government by strongman, where the economy is bent to political loyalty instead of public good

Here’s what public sources indicate regarding whether Donald Trump or his family personally hold any financial interest in Intel:

No Personal Financial Stake Reported

All credible reporting confirms that the 10% stake in Intel is held by the U.S. government, not any individual, including Trump or his family.

Financed through grants: The government converted roughly $11 billion from previously allocated CHIPS and Secure Enclave grants into a non-voting equity stake—approximately 9.9% to 10% of Intel.
Passive investment: The government’s ownership is described as passive—no board seats, no governance or information rights, and agreement to vote with Intel’s board in most cases.
Not Trump-family property: None of the reports mention any personal ownership by Trump or his family. The capital involved came strictly from federal funds, not private assets.

Financial Disclosure Context

Trump’s known investment profile: Public records and reporting show he has diversified holdings across multiple sectors (stocks, real estate, funds, etc.), including historical past holdings in companies like Intel. Yet, there is no indication that he or his family currently hold private Intel stock or a stake in this government-led deal.
The recent Intel stake is clearly portrayed as a federal government transaction, with no intermingling of Trump’s personal finances.

Summary Table

Entity	Reports Indicate Stake?	Notes
Donald Trump (personal)	No	No evidence of ownership tied to this Intel stake
Trump Family	No	No public disclosures connecting family to Intel equity
U.S. Government (Trump administration)	Yes	10% non-voting stake acquired from federal grants

Bottom Line

There is no public information or credible report showing that Trump or his family has any personal financial interest or greed in Intel related to this deal.
The 10% stake is strictly a federal government investment, backed by grants—not private funds.

Gerrymandering, The Cowards Confession

On - Commentary, Politics

Michael and Sarah Walker

Gerrymandering, The Cowards Confession

00:00 / 1:57

Gerrymandering: The Coward’s Confession

“Gerrymandering isn’t politics, it’s theft.”

“It’s how cowards confess they can’t win fair and square.”

“It’s cheating, dressed up in legal paperwork.”

Gerrymandering isn’t politics, it’s theft. It’s the art of stealing voters’ voices before they ever reach the ballot box. A strong leader convinces the people. A weak leader redraws the lines until only his loyalists remain.

MAGA, well the girly boys finally show their pedal pushers.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t clever strategy, it’s cowardice. It’s the political equivalent of moving the goalposts because you’re afraid to lose a fair fight. Even when done in retaliation, it’s still rigging — a confession that persuasion has failed, that truth has lost, and that the only path left is manipulation.

The real crime is not just that districts are warped beyond recognition. It’s that a president — the one person sworn to serve the whole country — openly asked for it. Not because it serves democracy, but because he knows he wouldn’t stand a chance in an honest contest.

Gerrymandering is not a show of strength. It is the signature of weakness, stamped across the map of our democracy.

It’s the Coward’s Tool

Gerrymandering as a politician’s admission that they can’t win a fair fight.

Line of attack: “It’s the political equivalent of asking to move the goalposts because you’re afraid of losing.”

Cheating the People

Compare it to rigging a casino — the house always wins, but the citizens are the ones paying.

It’s not just local greed, it’s a national power grab.

“Strong leaders convince the people. Weak ones redraw the lines until only their friends are left.”

Sorry MAGA but is this what Trump has turned you into?

Gerrymandering: The Fire Trump Lit—and Why Everyone’s Getting Burned

On - Commentary, Politics

Michael and Sarah Walker

Gerrymandering: The Fire Trump Lit—and Why Everyone’s Getting Burned

00:00 / 2:59

In a democracy, voters are supposed to choose their leaders. But once again, in 2025, Donald Trump has flipped that idea on its head—this time by pressuring Texas Republicans to redraw their congressional map mid-decade. Not because the population changed. Not because there was a court order. But because they saw a political opportunity.

The new Texas map, rammed through under Trump’s influence, would give Republicans nearly 80% of the state’s congressional seats—even though they win just over half the vote. This isn’t just a tilt; it’s a landslide created by slicing up Democratic communities, particularly Black and Latino districts, and burying their votes under carefully carved boundaries. It’s called gerrymandering, and Trump’s making it an art form.

Naturally, it didn’t stop there. Democrats—especially in California and New York—are now gearing up to respond in kind. California Governor Gavin Newsom has already signaled that if Texas wants to play dirty, California’s ready to fight fire with fire. And suddenly, the very people who pioneered this game—Trump’s MAGA base—are screaming foul.

That’s the hypocrisy of the moment. After more than a decade of Republican-led redistricting across states like North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Ohio, Trump has simply escalated the tactic to a new level. And now that Democratic states are considering similar power plays, the cries of “unfair” from the GOP ring hollow.

But let’s be clear: this isn’t a win for either party. It’s a loss for the country. Gerrymandering erodes the principle of one person, one vote. It rigs the game before it starts. And when both sides begin weaponizing redistricting, we move further away from representative government and deeper into partisan trench warfare.

This isn’t about balance—it’s about manipulation. And the more we normalize it, the more we teach future leaders that power matters more than process, and winning matters more than fairness.

So yes, Trump lit the fire. But now it’s spreading. And unless we find the courage to put partisan advantage aside and restore independent redistricting across all states, we’ll all be standing in the ashes—wondering when democracy burned down.

Politicization of Economic Data. When it sounds too good to be True, it Usually Is

On - Commentary, Conspiracy theories, Politics

Michael and Sarah Walker

Politicization of Economic Data. When it sounds too good to be True, it Usually Is

00:00 / 5:35

Firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner

On August 2, 2025, Trump abruptly dismissed Erika McEntarfer, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), after a jobs report showing slow employment growth. He accused her of fabricating data without evidence—a claim widely condemned by economists and former officials who argue this politicization could seriously undermine faith in U.S. economic statistics and market stability. Experts warned such actions risk eroding credibility in one of the world’s most respected data agencies

Below we get into more specific areas of how The Trump Administration is falseifing economic data. A feel good tactic for the Loyalist and a way to hide correct data for everyone else. Investing for our future and budgeting for today is impossible when the TRUTH is hidden, and the LIES are the only barometer we have to ‘depend’ upon.

1. Labor‐Market Statistics (BLS Reports)

What’s changing?

The BLS’s monthly employment and unemployment figures—long regarded as nonpartisan—are now subject to leadership appointments based on political loyalty rather than technical expertise. Surveys that underlie these reports already suffer from declining response rates (down from ~82% to 57.6%), increasing volatility and revisions in the headline numbers .

Threats:

Erosion of credibility in one of the world’s most trusted labor‐market gauges, which companies and policymakers rely on for hiring and rate‐setting decisions .

Heightened market volatility, as investors demand larger risk premiums to compensate for “flawed instrument panels” when interpreting jobs data .

2. Inflation Measurement (CPI & Producer Price Index)

What’s changing?

The BLS also compiles the Consumer Price Index and Producer Price Index—benchmarks for cost‐of‐living adjustments, Federal Reserve inflation targets, and Social Security benefits. Staffing cuts and budget shortfalls have already forced the BLS to scale back data collection, relying more heavily on statistical models rather than fresh survey information .

Threats:

Misleading inflation signals, which could delay or accelerate interest‐rate changes inappropriately, risking either unnecessary tightening (stoking recession) or easy money (fueling runaway prices).

Undermined public trust in price‐stability measures, potentially spurring “second‐order” effects like wage‐price spirals if workers and businesses doubt official CPI figures.

3. Federal Reserve Governance

What’s changing?

By publicly disparaging Fed Chair Jerome Powell and engineering board vacancies (e.g., the recent resignation of Governor Adriana Kugler), the administration is seeking a more “rate‐cut‐friendly” leadership team .

Threats:

Compromised central‐bank independence, which is crucial to anchoring inflation expectations. If markets believe the Fed must defer to political pressures, long-term borrowing costs rise and the U.S. dollar’s reserve‐currency status could weaken .

4. National Accounts & Trade Data

What’s changing?

While less visible, the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (GDP, trade balances) and Census Bureau (manufacturing, retail data) could face similar leadership swaps or budget assaults, tilting headline growth and trade‐deficit figures to suit political narratives.

Threats:

Distorted growth metrics, making it harder to gauge the true health of the economy and leading to ill-informed fiscal and monetary policies.

Diplomatic friction, if “adjusted” trade stats are used to justify tariff escalations, it could fuel international legal disputes and market dislocations.

Bottom Line

Political control over these data channels risks undermining the bedrock of policy and market decision‐making. Without reliable, transparent statistics:

Investors face murkier risk assessments.

Policymakers lose their compass for calibrating interest rates and fiscal stimulus.

The public may come to distrust not just one agency but the entire system of U.S. governance.

Restoring trust will require both technical fixes (e.g., adequate funding, survey improvements) and institutional safeguards (statutory protections for data‐agency independence), lest the U.S. slide toward the very instability past cases in Greece, Argentina, and elsewhere have shown.

When power resides in one man, and one man alone, you might as well bend over and say goodbye. Jerome Powell isn’t one man giving orders, he is the front man for a board that evaluates the economy and then sets interest rates. Trump want to be in charge of everything and is destroying America in the process.

Your voice does count and is heard. It may sound weak and small by it’s self, but when it joines 10 thousand voices, it starts to demand attention. Get the picture?

WOKE – Got Lost

On - Politics, purple

Michael and Sarah Walker

WOKE - Got Lost

00:00 / 3:03

When Woke Became a Weapon

A prime example is what just happened to Sydney Sweeney and American Eagle Jeans.

And naturally, the internet lit up — because what’s more American than a blonde woman in tight jeans under a waving flag?

To some, it was patriotic.
To others, it was white nationalism in high-waisted denim.

Because apparently, if you’re blonde, busty, and not apologizing for it, you’re now one step away from a book burning.

Like MAGA, the Woke just became angry, if it wasn’t their way, it was wrong, so wrong it was as affront. They had to have demonstrations, they needed to shout, when all they really had to do was calm down. Not everything is a personal attack.

Good movements can lose their way when they become obsessed with control. The ideals that began as a call to conscience slowly hardened into a set of dogmas, and then into a kind of cultural authoritarianism.

In the name of inclusion, speech was policed. In the name of justice, individuals were shamed, fired, or silenced for using the wrong word, asking the wrong question, or simply disagreeing. Forgiveness was replaced with punishment. Grace became weakness. The only safe position was total, uncritical agreement.

Soon, people began to notice that the movement had stopped persuading — and started enforcing.

Woke culture turned into something that often felt more like a religion than a political cause: complete with rituals, heresies, and moral purges. Even longtime progressives — writers, professors, comedians, feminists, even civil rights leaders — found themselves under fire for stepping slightly outside the ever-shifting lines of acceptable thought.

Worse, the obsession with language and symbolism began to overshadow real progress. Elite institutions performed grand gestures of virtue signaling while doing little to address deeper problems like poverty, housing, education, and opportunity. Identity became the central lens for everything, while class — the great unifier of struggle — was pushed aside.

As the movement turned inward, it lost public support. Ordinary people, even sympathetic ones, began to walk away — not because they didn’t believe in justice, but because they didn’t recognize the movement anymore.

WOKE – In the Begining

On - Politics, purple

Michael and Sarah Walker

WOKE - In the Begining

00:00 / 1:28

The Heart of the Movement

There was a time not long ago when the progressive Left captured the moral imagination of an entire generation. The promises were simple, powerful, and overdue: treat people with dignity, include those left out, right the wrongs of history, and build a more compassionate society.

The movement that would later be labeled “Woke” began as something far more grounded: a call to awareness. Awareness of how racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of exclusion had quietly embedded themselves in the systems we live under. Schools, police departments, housing, healthcare, hiring — none of it was ever neutral, and people began to wake up to that.

Young people especially were drawn to the energy. They saw injustice and wanted to fix it, now — not later. They marched, they organized, they read and listened and learned. They believed that progress wasn’t just possible — it was urgent. Many institutions, from universities to corporations, responded with new policies and pledges. In those early days, the moral center of the Left was strong: driven by empathy, energized by truth, and guided by a desire to include, not exclude.

This was the Left at its best — idealistic, honest, impatient in the right ways, and serious about improving the lives of others. No reasonable person could deny the importance of what they were trying to do.

But over time, something changed.

WOKE – What It Can Be

On - Politics, purple

Michael and Sarah Walker

WOKE - What It Can Be

00:00 / 2:02

Growing Beyond Woke

There’s a better way forward.

The solution isn’t to abandon the values of justice, inclusion, and equity — it’s to grow up with them. Maturity doesn’t mean compromise with cruelty; it means knowing the difference between real harm and honest disagreement. It means building bridges, not burning them. It means remembering that people are flawed, not evil — and that progress is measured by outcomes, not slogans.

The future of the Left — the sane, principled Left — will be made by those who:

Refuse to dehumanize people they disagree with
Embrace open dialogue instead of purity tests
Fight for fairness without becoming fanatics
Focus on policy over posturing
Reclaim empathy as a strength, not a weakness

If the original Woke moment was a kind of moral adolescence — angry, idealistic, sensitive to hypocrisy — then this next phase must be adulthood. Clear-eyed. Humble. Strategic. Compassionate.

America still needs a Left that speaks to its better angels — that reminds us of our shared responsibilities, not just our separate identities. A Left that stands for something, not just against everything. A Left that leads by inspiration, not intimidation.

We don’t need to tear down the house of justice. We just need to rebuild it with stronger beams and wider doors.

MAGA – Is it too Late Getting Back on Track

On - Politics, purple

“The Middle Way Forward”

So where do we go from here?

We don’t need to abandon what we believed — we need to reclaim it. Not with rage, but with resolve. Not by burning everything down, but by rebuilding what’s worth saving.

Border security still matters. So does fair trade. But we can defend our borders without losing our soul. We can prioritize American jobs without picking scapegoats.

We need leaders who speak to working people — and actually know what work is. Leaders who serve, not perform. Who understand that compromise is not weakness — it’s how democracy breathes.

We need to stop mistaking cruelty for strength. And start valuing competence over charisma.

It’s time to turn off the noise machines — the talk show politics, the endless culture wars, the rage-for-ratings economy. And get serious again.

The path forward isn’t extreme. It’s steady. Practical. Real. It’s the road where decency isn’t mocked, facts still matter, and being wrong isn’t a sin if you’re willing to learn.

You don’t have to abandon your values to escape the chaos. You just have to decide: What kind of country are we trying to save?

Because if it’s one worth saving — it won’t be saved by a circus. It’ll be saved by grown-ups who show up, think clearly, and still believe in something bigger than themselves.

MAGA – What Trump Turned It Into

On - Politics, purple

“Hijacked by the Showman”

We started with ideas — real concerns. We wanted jobs brought back, borders respected, and a government that actually worked for its people. But somewhere along the way, it stopped being about the country… And became entirely about one man.

Trump didn’t build on the core of MAGA — he hijacked it. He turned a movement meant to restore dignity into one that demands loyalty over honesty, anger over results, and spectacle over service.

He didn’t drain the swamp. He waded in and brought his own gators — using the presidency to enrich himself, reward allies, and punish anyone who dared tell the truth. It became less about what we believed, and more about who we hated.

Concerns about immigration turned into cruelty at the border. Valid skepticism of government turned into unhinged conspiracies. Criticism of media turned into an all-out war on reality.

The promise of “America First” became “Trump First, Always.” Every institution that didn’t bow — the courts, the military, elections themselves — became the enemy.

MAGA was supposed to be a wake-up call. Instead, it became a cult of grievance, a reality show powered by rage and reruns.

We didn’t get better jobs or stronger families — we got hats, hashtags, and a heap of broken trust.

If you ever felt disillusioned, it’s not because you were wrong to care. It’s because the man who claimed to represent you used your hope as a prop. And he’s still doing it — running again, not for your future, but for his freedom.

MAGA, What is MAGA? Before Trump Turned it into a Cult

On - Politics, purple

Michael and Sarah Walker

MAGA, What is MAGA? Before Trump Turned it into a Cult

00:00 / 7:58

When we look at the original core beliefs of MAGA — before they were distorted by authoritarianism, disinformation, and grievance theatrics — there were some genuinely resonant themes that connected with millions of Americans. Here’s a breakdown of those core ideas, framed without the Trump spectacle:

1. Economic Nationalism

Belief: American jobs should come first — especially in manufacturing and industry.

Motivation: Decades of globalization and free trade deals like NAFTA were seen as hurting U.S. workers while benefiting multinational corporations.

Goal: Bring jobs back to American soil, reduce outsourcing, and protect domestic industries with fair trade policies.

2. Border Security and Immigration Reform

Belief: A sovereign nation must control its borders.

Motivation: Concerns over illegal immigration, wage suppression, and national security — mixed with cultural anxiety about changing demographics.

Goal: Enforce immigration laws, secure the border, and reform the system so it serves U.S. interests while maintaining lawful pathways.

3. Government Accountability & Drain the Swamp

Belief: Washington is corrupt, elitist, and out of touch.

Motivation: Anger at career politicians, lobbyists, and bureaucrats who seemed to serve donors and corporations instead of the people.

Goal: Shake up the system, reduce special interests, and return power to voters.

4. America-First Foreign Policy

Belief: The U.S. should stop being the world’s policeman.

Motivation: Frustration with costly wars (Iraq, Afghanistan) and foreign aid while domestic problems were ignored.

Goal: Focus on national interests, avoid entangling alliances, and use diplomacy and economic leverage over military force.

5. Respect for Working-Class and Rural Americans

Belief: The voices of rural and working-class people have been ignored or mocked.

Motivation: Cultural resentment toward urban elites, media, academia, and Hollywood.

Goal: Reassert the dignity and importance of everyday Americans — especially those in smaller towns and traditional industries.

6. Skepticism of Global Institutions

Belief: Organizations like the UN, WTO, and WHO don’t always act in America’s best interest.

Motivation: A feeling that globalism had undermined American sovereignty.

Goal: Reassert national independence in decision-making.

7. Cultural Traditionalism

Belief: Traditional values — faith, family, patriotism — are under assault.

Motivation: Rapid cultural change, secularism, and progressive social norms created anxiety and backlash.

Goal: Defend what many saw as the moral foundation of the country.

Summary:

MAGA began as a reaction to lost trust in institutions — economic, political, and cultural. It channeled authentic frustration with globalization, elitism, and cultural displacement. Many of its early supporters were not racist, authoritarian, or conspiracy-driven — they were disillusioned voters looking for someone to listen.

What Went Wrong:

Trump harnessed that energy but weaponized it, shifting the focus from policy solutions to personal loyalty, vengeance, and spectacle.

MAGA became less about “Make America Great Again” and more about “Make Trump Untouchable.”

But if you strip the narcissism and noise away, what remains are concerns that deserve serious, non-extremist attention — and could form the basis of a healthier populism if reclaimed from demagogues.

Part 2: What Trump Turned it Into

Part 3: Is It Too Late Getting Back on Track

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

On - Commentary, Politics

Michael and Sarah Walker

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

00:00 / 6:44

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

On - Commentary, Politics

Michael and Sarah Walker

Seeking the Truth as opposed to Affirmation

00:00 / 4:11

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

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.

Covert Agency Manipulation

On - Politics

COINTELPRO, short for Counter Intelligence Program, was a series of covert and often illegal projects conducted by the FBI from 1956 to 1971, aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic American political organizations deemed subversive.

Authorized by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, it targeted groups like the Communist Party USA, civil rights movements (including Martin Luther King Jr.), Black Panther Party, American Indian Movement, and anti-Vietnam War organizers, among others.The program used tactics like wiretapping, smear campaigns, forged documents, psychological warfare, and encouraging violence between groups (e.g., between the Black Panthers and other organizations).

Notable examples include attempts to discredit MLK by spreading false information about his personal life and pressuring him to commit suicide. COINTELPRO’s actions often violated civil liberties and constitutional rights.It was exposed in 1971 when activists stole documents from an FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania, and leaked them to the press.

This led to public outcry, congressional investigations (notably the Church Committee in 1975), and the program’s official termination. However, its legacy raised lasting concerns about government overreach and surveillance of citizens.

MKUltra was a covert CIA program, officially running from 1953 to 1973, focused on developing mind control and interrogation techniques through human experimentation. Authorized by CIA Director Allen Dulles, it aimed to counter perceived Soviet and Chinese advances in brainwashing during the Cold War. The program involved illegal and unethical experiments on unwitting subjects, including U.S. and Canadian citizens.Key aspects:

Experiments: MKUltra tested drugs (notably LSD), hypnosis, sensory deprivation, electroshock, and psychological manipulation. Subjects included prisoners, mental patients, and unaware civilians, often without consent.
Scope: It spanned 80+ institutions, including universities, hospitals, and prisons, with 44 colleges involved. Over 150 subprojects explored everything from chemical interrogation to behavioral modification.
Notable Cases: Experiments like dosing people with LSD in public settings (e.g., Operation Midnight Climax in San Francisco) or the death of Frank Olson, a scientist who was unknowingly given LSD and later died under suspicious circumstances, highlight the program’s recklessness.
Secrecy and Destruction: In 1973, CIA Director Richard Helms ordered most MKUltra records destroyed, leaving limited documentation. Surviving details emerged through 1975 Freedom of Information Act requests and investigations.

The program was exposed publicly during the 1975 Church Committee hearings, alongside COINTELPRO, revealing gross violations of ethics and civil rights. It was officially halted, but its legacy fuels distrust in government and speculation about continued covert programs.

The following is a fictionalized storyboard outlining potential Covert Programs, fictionalized to avoid legal or other repercussions. But feel free to read between the lines. The setting is somewhere else.

“Invisible hands leave visible fingerprints.”

“The Architects of Influence”

The Setting: Republica

A modern democratic nation, constantly on edge. Its people vote, protest, and dream freely — but shadows linger behind the curtain.

1. The Watchtower Agency

(Inspired by the CIA)

A secretive agency born after the Great War. Officially foreign-focused, it keeps Republica safe. Unofficially, it seeds coups abroad and whispers narratives at home.

Key Tactic: “Feather & Quill” — placing storytellers in key media posts to control the plotline without writing it themselves.

Notable Operation: “Mockbird” — where agents whispered headlines into trusted ears, shaping what the people feared, hated, and ignored.
Modern Twist: Funded a network of independent news “hubs” that subtly echoed official lines with a local accent.

2. The Sentinel Bureau

(Inspired by the FBI)

Meant to defend from internal sabotage, but often defined what “subversion” meant based on the politics of the day.

Key Tactic: “Echo Disruption” — infiltrating activist circles and sowing paranoia, false friendships, and betrayal.

Notable Operation: “Harpy” — a campaign to dismantle the Unity March Movement by labeling them enemies of order and peace.
Fallout: The movement imploded from within; the leaders never fully trusted each other again.

3. The Listening Vault

(Inspired by the NSA)

A faceless cathedral of code. It doesn’t act — it watches, collects, connects.
“If you whisper, they can hear it. If you think it, they may predict it.”

Key Tactic: “Mind Lattice” — linking data from every citizen into behavioral profiles for “national security modeling.”

Revelation: A rogue technician leaked the truth to the public. Instead of outrage, the people shrugged. “If you have nothing to hide…”

4. The Forge

(Inspired by Cambridge Analytica, military psyops, and political data firms)

A private, unregulated lab where public will is melted and recast into programmable segments.

Key Tactic: “Soul Maps” — personalized emotional profiles built from likes, clicks, and idle complaints.

“They don’t sell ads — they sell certainty.”

Use Case: A political faction buys access before the election, deploying fear-based ads to suppress enemy voters and ignite their own.

5. The Ministry of Tomorrow

(A fictional mashup of think tanks, media outlets, and social platforms)

Not officially government. Not officially anything. But its ideas somehow always reach the top.

Key Tactic: “Consensus Sculpting” — the art of turning radical ideas into breakfast-table common sense.

“The people chose it — we just helped them want it.”

Example: A new law restricts protest zones. Within a week, every morning show host is saying “Well, you can’t just let mobs run the streets…”

Epilogue Chapter: The Mirror Room

A small room beneath the Capitol of Republica. No one lives there — but the walls reflect every decision made upstairs.
In the center, a marionette stage, strings dangling. But no puppets.

The message?

“If the people believe they chose the show, do they need to know who built the stage?”

Republica isn’t real. But the shadows behind it often are.
We’re not told to think anymore — just to choose sides.
But when the stage is rigged and the script already written… what good is a vote?

Meet the Man America Should Be Watching, But Isn’t

On - Conspiracy theories, Politics

Meet the Man America Should Be Watching, But Isn’t

By Elephants Ink Room

Most Americans can name Donald Trump. Many can name Joe Biden. Fewer can name Brett Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett. But almost no one knows the name Leonard Leo — and that’s exactly how he prefers it.

While the country fights over policies, Leo quietly builds the structures that decide them. He’s not an elected official. He doesn’t run for office. But over the past 20 years, Leonard Leo has done more to reshape the American legal landscape than any senator, any president, or any judge. And he’s done it behind the curtain.

A former vice president of the Federalist Society, Leo helped handpick the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, narrowed voting rights, and stripped environmental protections. But he didn’t stop at the high court — he built a pipeline. From district courts to appeals courts, Leo’s influence extends like a legal shadow network, placing loyal ideologues where precedent used to live.

And now he has the money to go even further.

In 2022, Leo received a jaw-dropping $1.6 billion donation — the largest single political gift in American history. Not to fund a campaign, but to build the future of American governance in his image. That means legal challenges against government regulation, climate policy, abortion access, and even how elections are certified. The playbook? It’s already written. It’s called Project 2025, and Leonard Leo is one of its architects.

He’s also the man behind the lavish, undisclosed gifts and trips to Supreme Court justices like Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — the kind of perks that would get a public servant fired, but which glide past ethics rules in a judiciary with no meaningful oversight.

And yet, the headlines rarely mention his name. That’s the danger. While we’re busy arguing on social media about candidates and slogans, Leonard Leo is writing the footnotes of history — in fine print most of us never see.

This isn’t conspiracy. It’s coordination. And it’s working.

So the next time you wonder how a fringe legal theory became binding law, or why public trust in the courts has cratered, remember this name. Not because he shouts it — but because he doesn’t have to.

Leonard Leo. The most powerful unelected man in America. And we’re letting him do it in silence.

1. He’s almost completely invisible to the public
Most Americans couldn’t pick him out of a lineup, and yet he has arguably reshaped more of the American political landscape than any living figure — without ever running for office.

2. He operates through permanence, not popularity
While presidents come and go, Leo’s real power comes from engineering a judicial supermajority and embedding his ideology into the law for decades — particularly through lifetime federal judges.

3. He has billion-dollar influence with zero accountability
Through his networks (like the Marble Freedom Trust), he’s moved $1.6 billion from donors into judicial appointments, legal activism, and media shaping — with almost no oversight or press scrutiny.

4. His agenda is deeply ideological — and strategic
This isn’t just about being “conservative.” It’s about remaking the constitutional framework:

Weakening federal oversight

Empowering state-level theocracy

Rolling back decades of precedent on voting rights, reproductive rights, regulatory power, and civil protections

He’s the architect behind decisions like Dobbs, Shelby County, and now the Chevron deference rollback — each systematically shifting power away from elected government and toward courts, corporations, and Christian legal theory.

So, a quick recap:

Former executive vice president of the Federalist Society

Longtime judicial kingmaker on the American right

Architect of the conservative legal revolution, including stacking the Supreme Court

Quiet hand behind Project 2025 — the policy playbook for a post-democracy conservative state

Why He’s Dangerous
He doesn’t run for office. He runs people who do.

He’s behind the curtain shaping judicial, legal, and policy infrastructure that outlasts any election.

His fingerprints are on decisions gutting voting rights, abortion access, campaign finance law, and federal agency power.

He builds systems, not headlines.

While Trump tweets and shouts, Leo writes the manual, places the judges, and engineers the undoing of the administrative state.

Bureaucratic reprogramming disguised as “liberty.”

He understands how to leverage chaos.

The louder the MAGA noise, the more quietly Leo’s network rewires the levers of power: Supreme Court, state AGs, education boards, religious coalitions, media outlets.

He has billions at his disposal now.

In 2022, he received $1.6 billion from Barre Seid, the largest known political donation in U.S. history — and he’s using it not to run ads, but to reshape the legal battlefield.

Why People Overlook Him
No bombastic rallies, no orange spray tan, no obvious cult of personality.

The media mostly sees him as “that judicial guy from the Federalist Society.”

But under the radar, he’s weaponizing legal legitimacy, which is far more enduring than any single politician’s charisma.

If Trump is the actor, Leonard Leo is the playwright — and the stage manager, and the guy who installed the trapdoor under the audience.

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

On - Commentary, Politics, Trumps Soldiers

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.

Project 2025 and Donald Trump

On - Commentary, Politics

Michael and Sarah Walker

Project 2025 and Donald Trump

00:00 / 7:04

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

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.
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.
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.
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.
Education
- Ban “critical race theory” and DEI from public education.
- Promote school choice, religious schooling, and parental control over curriculum.
Culture War Agenda
- Advance anti-abortion policies (including national restrictions).
- Use federal agencies to promote “biblical” values.
- Restrict rights of transgender individuals.
Foreign Policy Shift
- Dismantle globalist institutions and alliances.
- Favor unilateral military action and protectionist trade policies.
Law and Order
- Expand policing and surveillance powers.
- Curtail protest rights and restrict civil liberties in the name of “order.”
Media & Censorship
- Investigate and potentially prosecute journalists or tech platforms accused of “bias.”
- Defund or dismantle public media (like NPR, PBS).

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

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

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

On - Commentary, Politics, purple

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.

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.

You Can Make a Difference

On - activism, Politics, purple

Most people don’t realize how powerful their voice truly is. Your elected representatives work for you — and when they hear directly from their constituents, it matters. Whether it’s by email, phone call, or even a simple text using tools like Resistbot, your message gets logged, counted, and considered. Policy doesn’t change overnight, but no change ever starts without pressure. So take a minute. Speak up. It’s not just your right — it’s your influence, it’s your responsiblity.

Posts in Category: Politics

End-of-Year Note

This is a personal statement, not an institutional one.

I support the Forward movement because it is making a serious attempt to move American politics away from tribal loyalty and back toward problem-solving. I don’t agree with every position, and I don’t expect to — that’s not the point.

To be clear, the Forward Party has no connection to Elephant in the Ink Room or Purpleman, has not endorsed our work, and to my knowledge is unaware of it. This endorsement runs in one direction only and carries no expectation or obligation on their part.

All we have ever suggested is simple: go take a look for yourself. In a political climate dominated by outrage and factionalism, efforts aimed at cooperation and structural reform are worth paying attention to.

That’s it.

Share this:

Like this:

It’s a norm, not a constitutional rule. History often changes its mind. BUT, that assumes there was a mind first to change

Early naming almost always:

Signals insecurity, not confidence

Correlates with personality-driven governance

Forces later erasure or embarrassment

Weakens institutional credibility

Posthumous naming:

Filters emotion

Allows reassessment

Protects institutions from reversal

That’s not ideology — it’s risk management.

Bottom line

The “wait until after death” norm exists because:

History is cruel to premature certainty

Power distorts perception

Institutions outlast people

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

White House Planning Commisions Recomendations. Room for the entire administration. And he can keep his name on it.

Share this:

Like this:

I get bored, I read posts, I laugh and I cry. I read some of the funniest hate and saddest crap. But that’s the easy way out.

Now let my tell you from the get go, I have had more foul stuff erupt from both my keyboard and my mouth then I should admit to. But when all is said and done. That doesn’t win the argument.

My father once told me he could swear with the best of them, but as soon as you raised your voice and told that ugly bastard to fuck off, you lost the argument. So lets not lose this one, especially against such lame opponents.

The point I am trying to make is you have just been told to Fuck Off, and not politely, he just told you, he is above the law, he is untouchable and if you don’t like it. Tough.

His minions don’t care, they have probably already been promised blanket pardons, and that won’t be necessary because he’s isn’t going anywhere.

Share this:

Like this:

Stop pretending the party and the philosophy are the same thing

“Rapid swings create unintended consequences — let’s slow this down.”

Share this:

Like this:

Upon careful reflection and consideration by the top psychotic minds of the field, it has been determined that only one person actually has Trump Derangement Syndrome, Guess who?

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

In 1842, Edgar Allan Poe threatened to divide a man in two—literally—using a pendulum.

Since then, we’ve learned to do it ourselves.

Ours is painted red on one side and blue on the other. When it swings fast enough, the blur looks purple. Whatever color we think we see, it’s the motion itself that’s dividing us—cutting us in two.

There will always be those who take satisfaction in making it swing faster. But calmer minds must prevail. Calmer minds must slow the speed and shorten the arc.

Only through education can you understand the issues.Only through observation can you make informed decisions.Only by thinking for yourselves can you make a difference.And only by voting can you be heard.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Trump’s abusive remarks toward women on the news are reprehensible.

They often come immediately after he’s confronted with an obvious lie or contradiction he can’t spin.

The abuse is deflection, not dialogue — a way to intimidate or distract rather than address the fact.

Whenever Trump is cornered by an indisputable fact, particularly on live TV, he has a predictable pattern: attack, belittle, or insult the messenger — often women journalists — rather than engage with the truth.

It erodes accountability.

It intimidates reporters and sets a precedent that attacking critics is acceptable.

It distracts the public from the underlying issue.

This behavior is not just crass; it is a deliberate tactic to avoid responsibility. When you confuse insults with rebuttals, the public loses sight of the real story.

Attacking women journalists after being confronted with a lie is not leadership — it is bullying. It is unacceptable, and it should be called out every time.

I would love to see someone just tell him to ‘F off,’ but the reality is this pattern is what we need to recognize and expose.

His “reflex is attack” as the only response when caught in a lie. and he attacks all the time.

Share this:

Like this:

You try to write a joke about the U.S. Navy being “too intimidated” to capture those big, bad, fiberglass outboard-powered drug boats — you know, the ones running on lawnmower engines and vibes — but then reality steps in and writes something better.

Apparently the Navy’s standard operating procedure now is:See fast boat → panic → blow it up → hope nobody asks questions.All hands lost, problem solved, paperwork minimal.

Meanwhile, Little Sister Coast Guard didn’t get the memo.

You can’t even parody this anymore.The Navy vaporizes fishing boats like they’re the Death Star, and the Coast Guard arrests an entire tanker crew like they’re checking fishing licenses.

When the joke becomes more realistic than the real event, satire just packs up and goes home.

Could it be, Trump wants the Oil and there wasn’t any Drugs?

Share this:

Like this:

Only through education can you understand the issues.
Only through observation can you make informed decisions.
Only by thinking for yourselves can you make a difference.
And only by voting can you be heard.

Apparently the Navy’s standard operating procedure now is:
See fast boat → panic → blow it up → hope nobody asks questions.
All hands lost, problem solved, paperwork minimal.

You can’t even parody this anymore.
The Navy vaporizes fishing boats like they’re the Death Star, and the Coast Guard arrests an entire tanker crew like they’re checking fishing licenses.

He has trained himself to say anything—anything—with a glassy-eyed sincerity.
If he was an actor, I’d call it overacting.
But he’s not an actor.
That’s the punchline.

**A. Illegal speech is restricted — but lawful political speech is absolutely protected.**

No black boxes.
No “you violated unspecified rules.”
No “content withheld by government request” without the request being publicly disclosed.

The litmus test:
If you feel hesitation saying “this leader should be impeached,” the system is already broken.

**2. How to Have Verification Without Turning It Into Surveillance**

People should be able to stay anonymous or pseudonymous if they want.
Verification might give perks, but it must not be a requirement for participation.

**B. Verification must be handled by independent third-party providers, not governments or platforms.**

The platform receives only:
“Verified” / “Not verified” — not your real identity.