Vance Speech: A Rhetorical D-Day LandingAnd: David Starkey, Unreformed; Letter From An Angry Soldier; Wheaton's Travails
Good morning from London, and the first day of the ARC conference. Big opening dinner for speakers and donors last night; as a speaker, I got to go. Was so, so great to see many old friends there, Ran into Jonathan Pageau last night standing around talking to folks after dinner (had to filter the party pic selfie; the original was even more orange, thanks to the lighting):
Just now, after breakfast, I walked out of the hotel restaurant, and there sat two of my favorite people in all the world, James Orr and Martin Shaw, kibitizing. Oh happy day! Oh happy next three days! Everybody from this side of the pond last night was talking about the J.D. Vance speech, I only heard one negative comment, and that was from an eminent writer and speaker who thought Vance said the right thing, but delivered it too bumptiously. (My response: “There is no way to say what needs saying to these European elites without coming upside their collective head with it.”) Everybody else — and I mean everybody — was over the moon with joy. The basic attitude from the Brits and the Europeans I talked to last night was, “Finally, someone is going to shake our ruling class out of its complacency.” I cannot say it often enough or strongly enough: if you are depending on the mainstream media to give you an accurate impression of how the speech was received in Europe, you are deceived. They will tell you how European officials, policymakers, and talking heads received it — but that’s not at all the same thing as how ordinary Europeans do. Matt Taibbi takes apart the way American elite journalists, and some UK and European ones, characterized the speech. The NYT, in particular, glommed on to the “Vance normalizes Nazis” line. Here’s Taibbi:
I watched the damn thing. You can too, right here — and I hope you will, so you can see and hear for yourself the difference between an event that happened, and the same event as filtered through the mainstream media. More Taibbi:
These people have no credibility anymore. I don’t think they are intentionally lying at all. This is truly how they see the world. This is why Europe is in the awful state that it is: its ruling class, in country after country, and across borders, lives in a bubble. I don’t remember if I posted this the other day, but an English expatriate friend and reader of this newsletter sent me this short-ish commentary by an American man, summing up where Britain went wrong. The Englishman said this is the best single explanation for the crisis that has gripped his homeland: In it are strong echoes of what the woke in power have done to America too, though the sickness is much further advanced in Britain. Similar stories can be told about the major countries of western Europe. The ARC conference is designed to come up with a better story, a life-giving story, to stimulate cultural and social recovery. Listening to J.D.’s landmark speech, and assessing the hysterical negative reaction to it from the European leadership, I thought of that famous line by historian Arnold J. Toynbee: “Civilizations die by suicide, not from murder.” This is what the prophetic French writer Renaud Camus has been trying for many years to say to his fellow Frenchmen. For his trouble, he has been roundly vilified by the ruling class, including the media. But he was right, and he is right, about the Great Replacement. It’s not even mostly about ethnic replacement. It’s about generations of postwar European political and cultural leadership wishing to erase all cultural particulars and cultural memory from the European mind, to replace it with a placeless, progressive, Houellebecqian pudding.
More:
As I wrote the other day — and as many European fans of the Vance speech with whom I spoke last night agreed — the philosophical core of the vice president’s address was in these lines:
That’s exactly right! Europe doesn’t know what it’s for, only what it’s against (namely, everything that came before, everything that is not progressive, that is not an expression of managerial liberalism. Along those lines, here is an interesting Free Press essay from the retired CIA analyst Martin Gurri, writing about masculinity. Excerpts:
Sure — but another way of saying this is: what are men supposed to protect? Gurri meditates on unfiltered masculinity, and the figure of the Hero. The Hero is messy. It is he who confronts the “Man-Beast,” the nihilistic and violent figure that is masculine energy unbound. Gurri:
The Hero became domesticated into the Gentleman — and this, says Gurri, was a good thing. More:
Yet since mid-century, the Gentleman has become an object of contempt. Our culture has lost sight of the important distinction between the Gentleman — the civilized form of the Hero — and the Man-Beast. The Gentleman stood condemned as an archaism. Daniel Penny was a New York hero and gentleman who protected fellow subway riders by restraining a violent and insane black predator. Yet the state put him on trial, and the progressive cretins of Black Lives Matter turned him into a villain. So, the Gentleman was sent away. Then, says Gurri:
If you won’t have the Gentleman, you will get eventually the Man-Beast. And in that case, only the Hero will save you. The core problem of contemporary Europe is that it rejected both the Hero and the Gentleman, and has accommodated itself to the welfare state and managed therapeutic liberalism. Result: No young man in Europe will fight for Brussels, or for a social and political order that believes in nothing higher than shopping, screwing, and DEI. It was possible for Europeans to live in denial about this as long as the United States military was willing to play the Heroes manning the front lines against the Soviet Man-Beast. In its long descent into decadence, Europe became entirely feminized, in the sense of preferring safety, care, and its own idea of compassion over all. And it won’t even stand up for itself against the Man-Beasts it has invited to live within its borders: Muslim male fanatics who stab people in the UK and across Europe almost every day now. Its decadent leaders — Viktor Orban an honorable exception — won’t lift a finger to stop the madness (this happened over the weekend in Austria). When figures like Giorgia Meloni in Italy try to do something meaningful, the ideologically charged courts stop them on “human rights” grounds. Pope Francis is eager for Europe to roll over and die for the sake of “compassion”. Doing something meaningful about this crisis would force Europe to reckon with the bankruptcy of its own progressivism. One gets the idea that most of its leadership class would sooner die than abandon its ideology and fight for the survival of its own civilization. The chairman of the Munich Security Conference cried like a baby over Vance’s speech! C.S. Lewis saw it all coming many decades ago. In The Abolition Of Man, he wrote:
Europe is now a Man Without A Chest. And the new government in Washington is telling the Continent: Man up, become the heroes of your own story. J.D. Vance’s speech was the rhetorical equivalent of the D-Day landing. Now European patriots are preparing to fight to save their civilization from the enemies within. David Starkey, Irrepressible As Ever
Here’s how Tim Stanley’s wonderful Telegraph interview with the irascible historian David Starkey begins:
“Impertinent old bugger” is funny because Starkey is gay. He is also infamously politically incorrect, which got him massively cancelled a few years ago for an unwise racist remark.
Well, it was an obnoxious remark — but then, as Stanley avers, this is how Starkey always rolled. His acidic judgments are part of what made him such a provocative and popular broadcaster and public intellectual. As I see it, this is why it was so great to see J.D. Vance push back hard at Rep. Ro Khanna a couple of weeks ago, when Khanna demanded that Vance seek the firing of a young DOGE Wunderkind who was discovered in the past to have made a racist remark about Indians (Vance’s wife Usha is Indian, and, of course, their children are half-Indian.) Vance obviously didn’t like what the kid had tweeted, but he said we have to quit driving otherwise talented people out of public life for stupid and ugly things they might have said. What Vance did not say, but could have, is that for many years now the Left has not only tolerated figures from its side who say extremely bigoted things, but even valorized that bigotry. Seems to me Vance was simply arguing for common-sense tolerance: yes, when someone says something ugly, call them out on it — but don’t demonize them and make them unemployable. If we do that, we will deprive ourselves of the wisdom and talent of worthy people who are, like everybody else, flawed, but still worth having around. Letter From A Fed-Up SoldierA reader who is active duty in the US military, and who comes from a “very blue milieu,” socially and intellectually, writes to say that watching what wokeness has done to so many institutions of American life — including the armed forces — has driven him rightward. “I am just at the absolute end of my patience with what the left has done to once-vital institutions that may or may not retain the capacity to sustain and transmit civilization,” he e-mails me. “I'm still center-left on some social issues, but my 'lived experience' has caused the scales to fall from my eyes regarding the postmodern, identitarian left.” He gave me permission to share this with you, on the condition that I obscure certain identifying details, which I have done (I shared this with him first, to make sure it passed muster for protecting his identity. I know his name.) Take the matter of women in combat.
N. says that most people outside the military have no real idea of how physically intense the infantry is. The women he observes in his military life “get injured at much higher rates and are in an impossible situation because they do not want to draw attention to themselves but simply can't keep up.” He goes on: “The cost of gender integration is not worth any benefit, and any benefit is entirely ideological.” N. mentions that men in the military skew more conservative, the opposite is true for women, especially female officers. He mentions one unit that he knows in which a female was given the top NCO position. This person leapfrogged over more competent males, and has proven to be grossly incompetent. Her continued presence — she apparently is not being allowed to fail — is causing tremendous moral problems. “It’s terrible for morale and, frankly, the legitimacy of the command's authority,” N. says. More broadly, says N., every time women are moved into combat infantry, “the level of drama and interpersonal conflict ramps up and creates distractions.” It is especially difficult for infantry members who are mothers.
N. says you will hear from progressives that this is just the natural extension of the principle that led to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and the subsequent normalization of gays in the military. N. believes that was the right thing to do.
As N. sees it, the US armed forces have traditionally been a “true meritocracy.” In his part of the infantry, a large number of soldiers, even in leadership positions, are non-white — and are entirely deserving of their positions, because they are good at what they do. But now that the social engineers have gained control of the Pentagon, that’s all changed.
What Is Wheaton College For?Some of you will have heard of the controversy raging around Wheaton College, long the standard-bearer of Evangelical higher education. Recently the college issued an anodyne congratulation to Russ Vought, a Wheaton alumnus who just rose to a prominent position in the Trump administration. When progressive alumni screamed bloody murder, the school backed down. Daniel Davis writes in First Things:
Davis goes on to cite several examples, concluding:
Well, a group of alumni have launched For Wheaton, an initiative calling on the trustees of their alma mater to repent.
If you are a Wheaton alumnus or parent of a Wheaton student, I encourage you to read and sign the open letter. |
At Padre's
Your Digitial Neighborhood - A place on connection, community and conversation. Come listen, laugh and join us for random discussions, cultural issues, personal stories. pets, cooking, politics and just about anything else. ALWAYS INVITED - NEVER EXPECTED!
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
Fr. Tom Miller@Padre
June 20, 2024
Deconstructing the LGBTQ+ Backlash
Deconstructing the LGBTQ+ Backlash
Conflating identity groups based on a shared sense of victimization doesn't promote tolerance or understanding
MONICA HARRIS JUN 20
I’ll never forget the first Pride parade I attended in West Hollywood 24 years ago. I was overwhelmed with excitement and a profound sense of relief, as if I’d spent my young life wandering in a wasteland and had finally stumbled upon my tribe. I was stoked to be part of a community that was unapologetically and authentically diverse — white, black, and every color in between; young, old, and middle-aged; “bears,” queens, lipstick lesbians, and baby dykes; teachers and lawyers; firefighters and Marines; hairdressers and masseuses.
More than anything else, I remember feeling giddy with joy. Almost euphoric.
It’s easy to forget that there was a time when being “gay” not only described sexual orientation, but also reflected how an entire community moved through the world. We weren’t angry or resentful; we were fun-loving and proud of what we had accomplished. We were thrilled to express ourselves and the way we chose to live our lives.
Once upon a time, those were the feelings that Pride evoked in me. But now June brings a sense of unease.
This isn’t a confession I make lightly because it feels almost blasphemous. What self-respecting gay person will admit that Pride Month now feels like the mildly nauseating, holiday-drenched stretch between Thanksgiving and Christmas? But there’s also the nagging sense that much of the celebration has started to feel gratuitous, even performative. Having my sexual orientation “celebrated” when I check my account balance or settle in for a flight isn’t empowering or affirming; it actually feels awkward and weirdly inappropriate.
As awkward and inappropriate as Pride-mania often feels to me, I can’t help but wonder what goes through the minds of hundreds of millions of people who aren’t sex or gender “diverse.” Do they question why veterans, mothers, and fathers (whose impact and contributions to society are far-reaching and selfless) warrant only a day of celebration, while those who publicly affirm their sexual orientation or gender identity are gifted with an entire month?
I suspect most Americans set these concerns and questions aside because they accept that living in a free society carries the risk that some freedoms might make us uncomfortable. They’ve learned to tolerate a certain degree of unease. But as Pride-mania has ramped up in tandem with the social justice movement, I sense their unease mounting.
Last year, Pride was marked by “unprecedented backlash.” If recent events are any indication, the backlash is intensifying. Colorado’s GOP has called for Pride flags to be burned. In Carlisle, Massachusetts, 200 Pride flags were stolen from the town center. In Missoula, Montana, vandals destroyed Pride flags at a business that has supported Pride Month for years and never had “an incident like this” happen before.
For the first time in a decade, non-LGBT Americans told pollsters that they’re “less comfortable with their LGBT neighbors.” While many are shocked by these developments, I’m part of a minority who have feared and expected what we’re seeing now.
The LGBT community has always had vocal detractors, mostly political conservatives and those with firmly-held religious beliefs. But over the past twenty years they’ve been pushed to the fringes. As more people have “come out” of the closet, marched in Pride parades, and celebrated their unions, our community has become more visible. By 2016, 87% of U.S. adults knew someone who was gay, lesbian, or bisexual. This exposure had an incredible impact. In 1996, 68% of Americans opposed gay marriage; by 2023 the number had dropped to 28%.
Martin Luther King Jr. taught us that the key to overcoming hatred is human connection. When people are exposed to others of different races, cultures, or lifestyles, they’re more likely to become tolerant of their differences. They realize that human beings are defined not by labels and singular characteristics, but rather the bundle of other traits that make us textured and unique. The last twenty years have proven the vast majority of Americans are tolerant and sensible people. But even sensible people have their limits.
The question is, are these limits being tested? And if so, why is it happening now?
During Pride Month last year, podcaster Joe Rogan summed up the collective frustration outside the LGBTQ+ community: “People are going, ‘Enough, enough.’ Stop shoving this down everybody’s throat.” I don’t want to give too much credit to Rogan’s armchair psychology, but he might be onto something. While most people are comfortable being exposed to ideas or lifestyles they may not support or condone, they tend to resist what they feel is being forced upon them. Admittedly, it’s a fine line, but it’s one the LGTBQ+ community may have tripped over its aggressive efforts to promote visibility. Even the most tolerant heterosexual may question why they’re seeing Pride flags at their local hardware store or plastered on a bag of Doritos.
Last week, one of my “straight” friends (and a long-time LGBTQ+ supporter) was greeted with a panoply of Pride swag when she visited her 92-year old mother in a nursing home: banners in the atrium, flags at dinner tables, and an “entertaining” afternoon of “Drag Bingo.” It left her feeling perplexed and uncomfortable.
“I totally get the need to acknowledge Pride,” she said. “But is this something that really resonates with people facing end-of-life challenges?”
Throat-shoving has its limits.
There may be something else at play, too. What’s rarely discussed is that the growing unease with Pride might not be directed against the entire LGBTQ+ community, but rather a subset of it—specifically, the caravan of letters that follow “LGB.”
The gay and lesbian movement was spawned in the wake of the 1969 Stonewall riots that galvanized the community to establish venues to openly express sexual orientation without fear of reprisals. Initially, bisexuals (“part-time gays”) were added to the mix. And while the community has always been sympathetic to and supportive of the rights of transsexuals and transvestites, it wasn’t until the late 90s that transgender, nonbinary, and other groups—classifications based on gender identity, not sexual orientation—fused with the LGB movement. Since then, the movement has morphed into an unwieldy behemoth.
To be clear, the only thing these recent additions have in common with the LGB community is that they, too, have been historically underrepresented and marginalized. Yet from a contemporary social justice perspective, the common bond of victimization is apparently sufficient to justify “force-teaming” these groups. This reductive mindset pressures victims to slavishly support one another, even if their interests are not closely aligned.
According to gay rights advocate John Aravosis, “the trans revolution was imposed on the gay community from outside, or at least above.” Many gay Americans “who weren’t running national organizations, weren’t activists, or weren’t living in liberal gay enclaves… accepted de facto that transgendered people were members of the gay, lesbian and bisexual community, but only because our leaders kept telling us it was so.”
It doesn’t take someone with a PhD in sociology to realize that tossing disparate groups into the same victim basket ignores critical differences and diminishes their individual needs and interests. Would it be appropriate to add “Hispanic and Asian Lives” to the Black Lives Matter and rebrand the movement as BHALM? Of course not. Just as a Black person cannot relate to the “lived experience” of a Hispanic or Asian person, a gay person who identifies with their natal sex cannot relate to the challenges and needs of a person who questions their gender. As transgender writer Katie Glover observed nearly a decade ago: “The simple point that everyone seems to be missing here is that being transgender and being gay are two entirely different things and they should never be confused.”
Share
Not surprisingly, fractures have emerged within a LGBTQ+ alliance that’s been “force-teamed.” And herein lies the core of the problem with conflating victim groups: it risks misrepresenting their individual values and perspectives, which can have devastating effects within—and outside—the community.
The LGB Alliance, which has been especially vocal in asserting the rights of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men, claims that lesbians face “extinction” because of LGBT’s “‘disproportionate’ focus on transgender identities.” On X, #LGBdroptheT captures lesbian, gay, and bisexual users who want to distance themselves from transgender activists who have “crossed a line”:
“Not wanting men in our spaces or to have sex with certain genitalia does NOT make us transphobes,” one user wrote.
“You took advantage of our good will. It’s gone too far,” tweeted another user.
This disconnect played out publicly in 2022 when Fred Sargeant, a veteran gay activist who participated in the Stonewall riots, was assaulted at a Pride parade for carrying a sign critical of gender ideology.
It’s not even the case that all transgender people support gay rights. When Caitlyn Jenner transitioned to female nearly a decade ago, she expressed ambivalent support for gay marriage because she believed that marriage is between “a man and a woman.” It turns out gay rights aren’t necessarily a trans person’s turf; it’s estimated that the number of trans people who identify as gay is roughly the same as in the wider population.
This misalignment of values and interests sowed the seeds of discontent that has been simmering quietly and is now spilling over into broader society.
LGBTQ+ advocates attribute the recent spike in hostility to the community’s increased visibility. According to one activist, “[T]he louder and prouder the LGBTQ community gets, the angrier people get.” Yet LGBTQ+ activists conveniently forget that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals have been “loud and proud” for at least the past two decades, and during that time our heterosexual counterparts have grown to accept us. Notably, while 80% of Americans approve of gays and lesbians living as they wish, only 67% feel this way about transgender and nonbinary people.
LGBTQ+ activists also fail to recognize that the cavalcade of gender identities has brought an aspect to advocacy efforts not previously part of the LGB movement: an emphasis on educating children about sexual orientation and gender.
As the LGBTQ+ movement has become louder, a dramatic shift has occurred in schools. Students are encouraged to express their preferred pronouns in an effort to embrace transgender and nonbinary identities. Several states now require schools to teach LGBT history. Drag queens have become the focus of “kid-oriented pride events,” and local libraries offer drag queen story hour for children.
In response, states have introduced a record number of anti-LGBTQ legislation targeting gender affirming care for minors and public school curricula. Florida’s now infamous “Don’t Say Gay” law came under fire for prohibiting teachers from “intentionally” instructing students on sexual orientation or gender identity. Montana became the first state to ban drag queens from reading books to children in public schools and libraries.
While LGBTQ+ activists see these developments as signs of right-wing intolerance and hate, they ignore the fact that these concerns are not confined to conservatives or heterosexuals.
Increasingly, gay activists fret that the LGBTQ+ movement is drawing many young gay people “into social and medical transition.” Gays Against Groomers, a “coalition of gays, lesbians and others” with more than 400,000 followers on X, advocates against the sexualization, indoctrination and medicalization of children under the guise of LGBTQIA+.” Detransitioner Oli London expressed alarm that gender ideology is being pushed on “children and vulnerable teenagers,” citing thousands who have fallen “victim to a social contagion” and placed on “irreversible puberty blockers and hormones.” London also lamented that Pride events have become “sexualized fetish parades” with men “showing off their genitalia, sometimes even in front of children.”
More broadly, polls show that most Americans feel the same way. Although a majority support teaching classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender to high school students, 70% oppose introducing these concepts to elementary and middle school children. Similarly, two-thirds of Americans favored laws to protect the ability of transgender or nonbinary adults to receive gender-affirming care, but the number fell to 50% when asked about care for transgender or nonbinary children.
Put it all together, and a picture emerges that transcends sexual orientation and politics: most people aren’t comfortable accepting ideologies that deviate from their understanding of scientific reality, and they’re even less comfortable exposing young minds to such ideologies or any discussion of sex. As the LGBTQ+ community struggles to find its footing amidst growing resentment, it should be mindful that the freedom to express sexual orientation or gender identity does not guarantee the right to expose children to these nuanced topics.
The reckless conflation of LGB interests and values with those of TQ+s not only threatens to undermine the valuable progress made by the gays, lesbians, and bisexuals; it also unnecessarily alienates heterosexuals and others who embrace the binary nature of sex and feel compelled to protect children from subject matter they lack the developmental grounding and maturity to digest. Unless and until LGBTQ+ advocates adopt a more measured approach that respects moral sensitivities and common sense social boundaries, the backlash we are seeing will continue—and intensify.
Share
We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.
The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism or its employees.
In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diversity of voices and encouraging compassionate and good-faith discourse.
We are actively seeking other perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send drafts to [email protected].
A guest post by
Monica Harris
As an author, speaker and changemaker, I reflect on the social, political and economic challenges of our times; advocate for an awakening to the forces that divide and distract us; and search for meaningful solutions that serve our shared interests.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
00:01:07
Voltaire's birthday 11-21-1694 - A brief essay by Steve Weidenkopf
Today marks the three hundred and thirtieth birthday of the Frenchman François-Marie Arouet, better known by his nom de plume, Voltaire (1694-1778).
Born into a bourgeois family during the reign of Louis XIV, the “Sun King” (r. 1643-1715), Voltaire suffered tragedy at a young age when his mother died. Never close with his father or brother, Voltaire exhibited a rebellious attitude toward authority from his youth. His brilliant mind was fostered in the care of the Society of Jesus, who introduced him to the joys of literature and theater. Despite his later criticisms against the Church, Voltaire, throughout his life, fondly recalled his dedicated Jesuit teachers.
Although he spent time as a civil servant in the French embassy to the Hague, Voltaire’s main love was writing—an endeavor where he excelled in various genres, including poetry, which led to his appointment as the royal court poet for King Louis XV. Widely recognized as one of the greatest French writers, and even hyperbolically referred to by ...
Local's Lounge - All are welcome
Padre - Tom Miller invited you to a Microsoft Teams Meeting series:
The Local's Lounge with the ADD Irregulars - Home of Coffee Talk, Speakeasies, Schmoozes, Tea Times, Afterhours and other gatherings.
Coffee Talk - 6:00 AM Central - Daily
Afternoon Chats - Tuesdays, Friday & Sundays at 2:00 PM Central
Other Chats as scheduled by the community.
Please look for notifications for Speakeasies, Tea Times, Schmoozes & Afterhours for gatherings of the gang. New comers welcome, become an Irregular today!!
Wednesday, January 1, 2025
6:00 AM - 8:00 AM (CST)
Occurs every day starting 1/1 until 12/31
Meeting link: https://teams.live.com/meet/9392334144614?p=4Lr3AcWswEWjbzgHsZ
Rod Dreher on Vance and other things
Trump's Chess Game Is Improving
February 10, 2025
Trump’s Chess Game Is Improving
By Ted Noel
Does Chucky Schumer really believe that $20 million for Sesame Street in Iraq will somehow benefit the U.S.? Or $7 million to promote LGBT advocacy in Jamaica and Uganda? Uganda enforces the death penalty for gays.
The list goes on and on and on. I don’t need to bore you with the recitation. But it is extremely important to understand that $1.5 million promoting DIE in Serbia isn’t about DIE. It’s about something much more sinister.
President Eisenhower coined the term “military-industrial complex,” referring to a revolving door between the Defense Department and manufacturers of bombs and bullets. This revolving door saw the DoD ask for munitions and shovel the money to manufacturers, and those manufacturers made handsome profits. Gratitude for those profits led the war industry to reward its patrons with campaign contributions and other “private” benefits.
World War II filled this feed trough to overflowing. Of course, after the war, the profits of the defense industry would shrink as the money in the feeder dried up. Is it any surprise that the Korean War started not long after V.J. Day? Given this obvious fact, it’s not hard to make a case that the U.S. has been in a nearly constant state of war for a very long time. And it’s even more obvious why certain political persons (NeverTrumps? RINOs? pro-war lefties?) are so adamant that we need to support the cause du jour with our hard earned wealth. The war industry in their state would suffer if they didn’t, and they might lose votes. That may also be why Joe Biden and the Democrats were somewhat “soft” in their opposition to Israel’s war of liberation from Hamas in Gaza. Their patrons in the war industry would be harmed by full opposition, while paid protests would be enough to establish their Jew-hating bona fides.
USAID was created by President Kennedy through Executive Order 10973, after the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 allowed him to do so. Notice that key fact. USAID was optional. Left-wing apologists claim that the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (also here, not identical!) turned it into a congressionally mandated organization. A text search of both versions of the act revealed a pot full of “Agency for International Development” instances. And a curious thing failed to show up. All of those pointed to various funding and management prescriptions for USAID. Not one of them said, “We establish USAID as an agency of the State Department” or something to that effect.
When the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was split in 1980 under President Carter, it was accomplished by the Department of Education Organization Act, which says, “There is established an executive department to be known as the Department of Education.” No such language exists anywhere regarding USAID. Arguing that an act of Congress is required to get rid of it is like saying you can’t pull out that tree you planted without first getting my permission. The fact that I gave you the fertilizer is irrelevant. You chose to plant it, and now you want to get rid of it. It’s in your power, not mine.
DOGE is another case of gaslighting by the left. Tom Renz (@RenzTom on X) has done yeoman work exposing this scam by the frightened swamp. It seems that DOGE is not a new government entity at all. Trump’s executive order masterfully changes the name of the “United States Digital Service” into the “United States DOGE Service.” It doesn’t even change the letters of the government software development agency created under Obamacare. It just changes it into something useful.
Of particular importance, because DOGE is inside the government, it doesn’t have to answer questions about how its employees have access to government computers. President Trump has full authority under Article II, Section 1, Sentence 1, to give access to anyone he wants. Being inside at the beginning just makes it easier. But wait! There’s more!
Trump and Musk had to have carefully planned every step of this. Recall that Elon dismissed the majority of the workforce for X and still gets everything done. I’m sure that the whiz kids who are doing the algorithmic audits all over the government had their software all refined by doing the same job at X. So when it took them hours to expose all the corruption in USAID, that was no surprise. They had refined their skills, allowing their computers to collate and reorganize the financial records into meaningful results. And no one’s personal data were revealed...yet. If money for USAID programs was diverted, the term for that is “misappropriation of funds,” punishable by up to ten years under 18 USC §641. I’m certain that there will be many songbirds who will prefer supervised freedom to three hots and a cot with monthly visitation.
Finally, federal employee unions are screaming that Trump’s buyout offer is illegal. The fact that he can eliminate the unions entirely with a stroke of his pen is lost on them. But the judge issued his temporary injunction under the rule that the plaintiff’s lawyers’ presentations are presumed true at the outset. But once each case is properly briefed, any honest judge (Will we find one?) will find for Trump.
Let’s go back through the key issues. First, DOGE is inside the Executive Branch of the government, with full access granted by the president. Unless its employees reveal privileged information, as that IRS employee did with Trump’s tax returns, they aren’t breaking any laws when they do their automated audits. The screaming about “Who elected Elon?!” goes nowhere. Who elected the two million or so employees of the federal government? Are you upset because they aren’t your guys? Thought so.
Second, because USAID was created by an E.O., it can be uncreated by an E.O. I know, this one will have a bit longer arguments in front of a judge, but there is no “establishment” language for USAID in any statute that I know of. Without that, the swamp is just ooze.
Third, we have the issue of standing. Article III §2 starts with “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity ...” The key for those in Rio Linda is the word “Controversies,” which pops up several times a bit later in the same section. For a legal controversy to exist, at least two parties must have a “cognizable” disagreement. That other word identifies an argument that the Court has authority to settle. And this is where the swamp must take the bull squarely by the tail and face the situation (apologies to W.C. Fields). Trump’s attorneys really did their homework.
None of these “cases” gives any federal employee or Congress any cause to complain. Congress is boxed out because these are policy decisions by the Executive, and no Congresscritter was harmed in the making of the decision. No federal employee has a property interest in the existence of his job. The Civil Service Act provides procedural protections for firing from a job, but if the job no longer exists, the employee is simply out of luck. Pressing “Delete” on USAID is that sort of situation. Offering someone a buyout is even harder to challenge. When you get to decide whether to check or not check the box, there is no case. You either did or did not. End of story.
I’m skipping the popcorn on this one, going straight for the cake and ice cream. Celebrations are in order.
Trump 2.0
Trump 2.0: The Swamp’s Worst Nightmare Becomes Reality
What a weekend for real justice in America. The Left is reeling, grasping for their fainting couches as President Trump does what every Republican before him was too cowardly to attempt: firing the entrenched bureaucrats who think they run the country.
Trump doesn’t have to play nice anymore. There’s no “bipartisanship” charade. This time, he’s not just draining the swamp—he’s demolishing it.
The Great Purge: Trump’s Not Here to Babysit Swamp Rats
Remember how every Republican administration since Reagan kept Democrat holdovers like prized antiques? That’s over. The so-called ‘uniparty’ was a revolving door, swapping out figureheads while the real power stayed put. But Trump? He’s tossing these relics onto the street like yesterday’s garbage.
Jen Psaki had a meltdown over the latest firings, calling it an “unprecedented purge.”
But that’s false. It’s just unprecedented for a Republican to have the backbone to clean house. Democrats have done this for decades. Obama didn’t hesitate to purge Bush-era officials. The difference? Trump is making sure the ones who stayed to sabotage him are gone for good.
One of his most strategic moves? Firing the highest-ranking remaining FBI officials—the very people who led the witch hunt against Trump and persecuted January 6 protesters. David Sundberg, the FBI Assistant Director for Washington, D.C., is out. Sundberg led the phony J6 ‘investigations’ while conveniently failing to solve the mystery of the pipe bomber. Who could have predicted that?
A total of 88 FBI agents, the same ones who worked on Trump’s cases, were physically escorted out of the Washington Field Office. These weren’t routine resignations. These were operatives caught red-handed, trying to turn America into a banana republic. If they had any dignity left, they’d walk themselves straight to a confessional.
Meanwhile, a whistleblower dropped a bombshell to Senator Chuck Grassley’s office, revealing that Jack Smith’s federal investigation into Trump’s 2020 election case was launched by a fired FBI official who violated the Hatch Act. His name? Timothy Thibault. A rogue bureaucrat who had no authority to start criminal investigations yet somehow orchestrated a federal case against Trump.
The very foundation of Jack Smith’s investigation was laid by someone who wasn’t even allowed to open a criminal probe. You can’t make this up.
And what about these “sedition hunters”?
The 51 Intel Officials: Exiled From the Gravy Train
Remember the 51 former intel officials who falsely claimed Hunter Biden’s laptop was “Russian disinformation”? Their reward for brazen election interference? A permanent ban from entering federal buildings.
No more cushy consulting gigs. No more lobbying paychecks. They’ll have to go grift somewhere else. Maybe MSNBC needs more “experts” to push conspiracy theories.
USAID: The Globalist Slush Fund Meets Its Reckoning
One of the most delicious eliminations? 50 bureaucrats at USAID.
For years, USAID has been a thinly disguised money laundering operation for the Left. Here’s how it works:
- Activists create a fake “humanitarian” NGO.
- Democrats funnel tax dollars into it.
- The NGO does nothing useful (or actively works against American interests).
- The activists get paid and donate back to Democrats.
It’s a brilliant scam—until someone like Trump pulls the plug. Now, USAID, which helped flood our country with illegal immigrants and pushed radical gender ideology abroad, is being gutted.
The Left is terrified that Trump will shut it down entirely. And he should. If it’s such a noble organization, why do its alumni keep showing up as Biden donors?
No More Backstabbers: The GOP’s RINO Problem Ends Here
Trump’s new hiring policy is simple: No traitors. The banned list? GOP establishment hacks who betrayed him. So anybody associated with the following won’t work in the Trump administration:
- No Nikki Haley.
- No Mike Pence.
- No Liz or Dick Cheney.
- No Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan.
- No Bush-era holdovers like John Bolton, James Mattis, or Mark Esper.
Trump put it bluntly on Truth Social:
“In order to save time, money, and effort, it would be helpful if you would not send, or recommend to us, people who worked with, or are endorsed by [the above] … or any of the other people suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, more commonly known as TDS.”
Translation: If you’ve ever spent time at a Lincoln Project fundraiser, don’t bother sending your resume.
The Coup Backfires: Trump’s Revenge Tour Has Just Begun
The Left’s coup against Trump may go down as the biggest political miscalculation in history.
They thought they could remove him in 2020 and secure permanent power. Instead, they unleashed something far worse: Trump 2.0. A Trump unshackled, unfiltered, and unwilling to tolerate the saboteurs who hijacked his first term.
With four more years, the destruction of the Deep State will end on a note of brutality. And they never saw it coming. Even if they manage to see it now, they can’t stop it.
This time, there’s no do-over for Democrats. Trump is playing for keeps.
