I see that the DEI tart in charge of the Secret Service has resigned, no doubt to take a highly-paid job at CNN or something.
That’s all well and good; but I want to see who replaces her.
If his (HIS!) name is “Jake Rockjaw, former Army Rangers/USMC Scout Sniper” or similar, I might feel reassured.
But if it’s some other dickless Tracy (man or woman), it’ll just be the same old shit in a different wrapper.
Here’s a story which is quite heartening:
The people in question are with the American Accountability Foundation in Kentucky, and they are busily engaged in a project that I’ve been hoping to see all throughout the current presidential campaign. Tom Jones of the AAF received a $100,000 grant from the Heritage Foundation to do some important research work. They are poring through the backgrounds of federal workers, starting with the Department of Homeland Security. They are checking public comments and social media posts, looking for swamp dwellers who may be opposed to the policies of Donald Trump should he return to office next year. They plan to publish a list of as many as 100 names later this summer, and those people may have to rethink their future career prospects if Trump returns to the White House.
There are, however, a couple of things which make me do a Lemon Face. Firstly, while “accountability” is all well and good, what I’d really like to see is some kind of awful consequences for the disloyal (and perhaps criminal and treasonous both) government stooges, especially those who proudly proclaimed that they were doing their best to undermine the Republican administration.
I’ve always said that the State Department implements the foreign policy of the Democratic Party, regardless of which party is in power. It’s a mordant comment, good for an amused smile, perhaps.
The time for that accommodation is over, or should be.
Just as Trump came to power in 2016 with a pre-vetted list of federal judges ready to be nominated and sworn in, I want him to arrive in the Oval Office in 2025 with a similar list of judges, to be sure — but with another list of Swamp apparatchiks who need, at best to lose their jobs, but preferably with some kind of legal censure — e.g. prosecution — and not just the prospect of losing their little place at the poxy government trough.
That little totalitarian cocksucker Anthony Fauci, for example, needs to spend his last years on earth in some dank federal prison for causing — and admitting he caused — untold harm to American society by his actions as a federal employee. And he’s just the most egregious example. There are a lot more than “100 names” who need to be kicked out of government and punished for their disgusting behavior. Losing one’s job is a pointless “punishment” if all it means is a well-paid talking-head job on NBC or any of the other alphabet soup socialist-supporting media companies. These bastards need to be punished. At the very least, they should forfeit their government pensions: they abused their positions, and don’t deserve to reap any benefits.
I know, I know: this is not a good precedent to set because it will make people leery of working on government. That, my friends, is a feature and not a bug.
What I’d like to see in Trump’s very first week as POTUS is a head-of-state summit with Argentina’s Javier Milei, both as an amicable confirmation of shared principle, and an exchange of ideas as to implementation of policy.
It appears that the Socialists — people like Kathy Griffin, Joy Behar and Rachel Maddow — are scurrying around like frightened mice at the prospect of Trump throwing people in jail when he comes to power. I would advise Trump and his advisors to do precisely that; just not to waste time with irrelevant nonentities like the above harpies, but to get serious with the actual bad agents like James Clapper, the entire upper management of the Justice Department and the Pentagon, and the authors of this document — for starters. The State Department, EPA and so on can wait until Year Two of the 47th President’s term.
We don’t need an accounting; we demand a reckoning.
…or however they say it in French. This story made me howl with laughter, although I still think the paras should just have turned their little Fairburn-Sykes stickers on the bureaucrats.
If they’re still allowed to carry them, that is.
I see that the above is actually a replica, the FOX Fairbairn-Sykes FX-5934. I love Fox knives, already have their 685 bush knife, and now I want this one really badly.
If anybody else is interested (and who wouldn’t be?) it’s apparently on sale here (as above) and here (in “tactical” black).
Actor James Woods is a well-known conservative, despite his profession and location, and in this case he’s right on the money, as usual:
Specifically, here, is the fact that Democrats make it almost impossible for small companies to survive, weighing them down with not only horribly-burdensome but hostile regulations (as above) like minimum wage dictates.
Then, when the inevitable happens and the small companies go out of business or sell out to larger ones, the socialists like Warren moan about the concentration of trade and the need for “more competition”. (“Price gouging” as referenced by Warren here is meaningless and a red herring.)
May we remind ourselves of food rationing, endless lines formed to get what little food there was, and fixed pricing which led to the ford shortages in the first place? Where was this so prevalent… wait, it’s all coming back to me…
Ah yes, in the Soviet Union, where the State owned all means of production and likewise the entire food chain.
And Warren, lest we forget, is an outright Stalinist whose remedy for the current situation here would involve State control of pricing (and of course of production and the entire food chain), just to make the market more “efficient”.
Do people like this ever experience cognitive dissonance between what they think and say, while constantly seeing evidence that completely repudiates their worldview?
Clearly not, and Woods has the absolute truth of it.
Here’s the background to the question below:
Argentina just elected a new president, Javier Milei, and his first act upon being sworn in? He signed an executive order reducing their government departments from 21 down to NINE.
As Twitchy points out, we have only(!) fifteen FedGov departments (but innumerable sub-departments).
My question to my Readers:
You can eliminate three Cabinet-level federal government departments (to start off with) and all their sub-departments. Which three would you eliminate first?
Mine: Environment (an agency, not a department in the strictest sense of the word), Education (in toto) and Homeland Security (all their sub-departments to be reallocated to their original departments, e.g. Secret Service to Justice, Coast Guard to Defense, etc.).
I don’t know how it works in Argentina, but here in Murka, federal government departments exist at Cabinet level at the President’s pleasure — Richard Nixon, for instance, elevated the EPA’s chairman to Cabinet level by executive order — but departments can only truly be eliminated by Congress defunding them. Nevertheless, play the game.
I see that the medical scaremongers and charlatans are now mumbling (soon to be shouting, no doubt) about how the latest ‘n greatest Covid variant is going to kill us all unless we do all that shit that didn’t work the last time.
I might as well get it off my chest now:
Others may join me in this, or not — it is a matter of complete indifference to me, as this is a purely personal position.
Corollary:
We know what you’re trying to do, and it’s not going to work.