Search the Community

Is this an attempt at wit? It can be hard to tell with you. Maybe you have Lanier confused with someone else as you did George Scott and CC Sabathia.

Well yeah, at the federal level, but California issues cultivation licenses. I don’t think the Feds can outmuscle the states on this matter. I could be wrong, though. I’m only really familiar with the disaster that is NYSOCM. It’s a bad look to be sure. But when Tom Scott is openly saying he’s going to give agents the green light to spill protestors’ blood, people are only going to double down. Is there evidence they were “trafficked” or were they simply unaccompanied, as the news has reported? The raid on the farm was also horribly planned and executed. Sloppy.

From a fake Austrian passport to Iran contra associations. Interesting non Epstein island and client list stuff... Mike Benz lays out a case that Jeffrey Epstein was not only on the CIA’s radar since at least the early 1980s, but was intimately involved in covert operations, money management for CIA-linked figures, and broader intelligence restructuring following the 1970s scandals that supposedly neutered the Agency’s power. Key Points & Evidence: 1. Early Epstein–CIA Links (1981–1983) Post–Bear Stearns: Epstein leaves Wall Street and sets up Intercontinental Assets Group in his NYC apartment, pitching himself as an international “bounty hunter” for wealthy individuals. He helps recover assets from offshore accounts and shields money for royalty and elites. Fake Passport (1982): Epstein obtains a high-quality fake Austrian passport listing Saudi Arabia as his residence, discovered in 2019 by the FBI. Prosecutors presented it at the Maxwell trial; it passed multiple border checks. Client: Adnan Khashoggi: Khashoggi was the Reagan-era CIA’s main arms trafficker, central to the Iran-Contra affair. Epstein allegedly served as Khashoggi’s financial handler. Khashoggi himself confirmed to BCCI (a notorious CIA “proprietary bank”) that he worked for the CIA, and Epstein was his “money bundler.” 2. Iran-Contra and Deep State Operations CIA “Workaround”: After Congress banned official funds for Nicaraguan operations, the CIA turned to private arms deals and covert funding, using proxies like Khashoggi (and by extension, Epstein) to launder and move money. Epstein’s Role: The transcript claims Epstein was essential to structuring these operations... setting up offshore shell companies, using shadowy banks, and facilitating illegal arms sales and cash flows that the CIA could not touch directly. 3. Les Wexner Connection Wexner’s Empire: Epstein becomes close to Wexner (Victoria’s Secret founder), getting “durable power of attorney” over Wexner’s empire right after Wexner’s tax attorney, Arthur Shapiro, is murdered before testifying in an IRS case. Air America/Southern Air Transport: In 1993, Epstein negotiates the transfer of a CIA proprietary airline from Miami (busted for Iran-Contra smuggling) to Ohio for Wexner’s use. Southern Air Transport declares bankruptcy the same day the CIA finally admits Air America’s Iran-Contra role. 4. Extraordinary Privileges State Department Lease: Epstein becomes the tenant of the second-largest residence in NYC, property seized from Iran. The State Department (i.e., the U.S. government) rents it directly to him... an arrangement with no precedent for ordinary citizens. Criminal Defense Ties: Epstein subleases to a defense lawyer involved in major narco-trafficking cases with CIA connections, suggesting a pattern of high-level back-scratching and secrecy protection. 5. The Bigger Picture: Post-1970s CIA “Privatization”: Benz argues that the CIA, after the 1970s scandals and restrictions, shifted covert action to a network of front NGOs, private contractors, and financiers (like Epstein). Epstein, he claims, was “present at creation” of this system. No Way He Wasn’t On the Radar: Given the above, Benz insists it’s impossible the CIA did not have files and code names on Epstein. Blackmail vs. Deal-Maker Theory Benz Downplays Blackmail: He argues there’s little direct evidence Epstein ran classic sexual blackmail ops, despite the CIA’s history with this. Direct blackmail would compromise access to high-value targets, making the “access agent”/deal-broker role far more plausible. Role as a Connector: Epstein’s value was as a facilitator... greasing skids for international deals, moving money, keeping formal U.S. government hands “clean,” and possibly gathering intelligence passively via his elite network. Why Epstein Wasn’t Protected Forever Turf Wars: Benz details a precedent (Rolando Masfur, 1960s Cuba ops) where CIA assets got too big or went rogue, causing friction between agencies like State Department and CIA. Eventually, the need for secrecy collides with the need to maintain control. Cover-Ups & Compromise: In such cases, the DOJ may be pressured to prosecute, but only in ways that don’t expose CIA sources/methods. (E.g., judge restricts evidence at trial.) Epstein’s Fall: Benz theorizes that, as with previous CIA assets, Epstein’s exposure became a liability.. possibly due to pressure from foreign intel agencies, inter-agency rivalries, or simple operational risk. Final Notes “There’s zero chance there are no CIA files on this guy.” Benz repeatedly hammers that the narrative that Epstein was some rogue pervert, ignored by intelligence, is an insult to basic intelligence history and operational reality. Lack of Transparency: He is highly critical of the Justice Department’s failure to investigate CIA connections, framing the entire official response as a calculated cover-up. Epstein as Prototype: He casts Epstein as emblematic of the post-1970s CIA outsourcing/privatization model, not a freak anomaly. Mike Benz lays out overwhelming circumstantial evidence that Epstein was a career CIA asset, specializing in covert finance, arms, and backchannel diplomacy for U.S. intelligence. Blackmail is almost a sideshow... his real role was to broker dirty deals and move illicit money with plausible deniability. The official story is a whitewash, his connections to Khashoggi, Wexner, Southern Air, and the U.S. State Department all scream spook. The lack of accountability, cover-ups, and mysterious privileges prove Epstein was not just a “private citizen” but an essential tool in America’s shadow wars. The odds that the CIA had no files on him? Absolute zero.

You know, the original Francis Scott Key Bridge took 10–15 years to plan and another 5 years to build. Rebuilding it now isn’t a simple task - crews had to clear massive wreckage, navigate environmental reviews and federal permitting, and complete complex engineering prep. A design-build team was selected in late 2024, and full construction is expected to finish by late 2028. This 1.6-mile structure must meet standards for safety, ship clearance, and resilience. It’s not a quick fix - it’s a multi-billion-dollar, full-scale rebuild. But let’s be real - facts don’t matter to you. You dragged this thread back from the dead just to use the bridge as a cheap distraction from the catastrophic failures of Trump 2.0, you being conned once again, and to smear a governor who’s actually doing the work simply because he’s black. People see right through this garbage. It’s the same recycled outrage, fed by the same incel-driven fake news ecosystem designed to keep infected people like you completely divorced from reality.

It still amazes me that the Cult of Trump managed to spin the following established facts into a criminal conspiracy that TRUMP would reveal: - Trump had a long relationship with Epstein, who was a frequent guest at Mar-a-Lago - Epstein got a sweetheart plea deal from Alex Acosta, who was then offered a position in Trump's cabinet - Epstein was found dead while in the custody of Trump's Bureau of Prisons - Ghislaine Maxwell arrested, and Trump quips "I wish her well" - Trump hires Alan Dershowitz - Dershowitz's former accuser, Virginia Giuffre, weirdly recants and says maybe it wasn't he who raped her after all (she confused him with another yellow-toothed goblin?) - Virginia Giuffre kills herself. And now add: - Trump's AG/FBI Director have determined that there is nothing of interest in Epstein's files and that he did, in fact, commit suicide And somehow the Cult says it's all about ... Bill Clinton? Who was last president a quarter century ago? I mean, it isn't too difficult to construct a fine and simple conspiracy theory around those facts, right? And yet we have the bizarro Hillary Clinton baby-eating cult as the favored one.

Trump’s 'Take It or Leave It' Tariff Blitz Is Bigger Than Monday David Manney Need another example of 'this isn't your grandfather's president"? Forget quiet, back-channel diplomatic communications. President Trump grabbed a bullhorn, walked into the center of a mass of people, and blasted five words that reverberated off the walls: "Take it or leave it!" Twelve countries will receive letters from the president tomorrow, notifying them that their 90-day grace period is about to expire, much like a person realizing too late that their coffee was not decaf. If they miss their July 9 cutoff, tariffs of up to 70 percent will hit them like a falling piano on a sidewalk. The FO'd, and now they will FA. A soft handshake of sorts was shared in April in the form of a 90-day grace period. This was the quiet warning that's been in diplomatic circles for generations. Except those circles have been made irrelevant. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent cut to the chase: Those countries will be staring at that letter the way I used to when receiving service interruption notices without having a job. The president isn't pressuring them; he's simply following through on what he said he'd do. Instead of wanting to play fair with our country in trade, some of those countries seem like they're "going to the mattresses." Australia is sending warnings about increasing prices. Dairy farms in Canada are holding their breath. Manufacturers in Mexico have been holding emergency meetings. With industries totally depending on American buyers, it seems that nobody wants to be on the receiving end of a 70 percent slap. Rebalancing trade imbalance should have taken place a long time ago. One penny at a time, we've been bled dry over decades, resulting in a $12 trillion deficit. That amount isn't abstract; over time, it was factory shut-downs, pensions disappearing, and vibrant towns dependent on "the mill" being quiet. {snip} This isn’t Grandpa’s diplomacy. It isn’t a slow-burn compromise. This is fast, intentional leverage. This is American comeback energy. Whether they sign by July 9 or not, the message is the same: we’ve noticed the imbalance. We’re not silent anymore. And we expect fair play, because we built the market that enables the world. Trump just stopped waiting. And, like it or not, the rest of the world will. https://pjmedia.com/david-manney/2025/07/06/trumps-take-it-or-leave-it-tariff-blitz-is-bigger-than-monday-n4941481

GP asks the Court for the list in 2022. A mysterious John Doe appeals demanding it not be released. Court sides with John Doe the CLIENT LIST cannot be released. If There Was No Epstein Client List Then Why Did NY Courts Refuse The Gateway Pundit’s Request for the List Based on an Anonymous ‘John Doe’ Who Was On the List? Back in July 2022, The Gateway Pundit lawyers Marc Randazza and Jay Wolman of the Randazza Legal Group, along with GP General Counsel John Burns filed a motion to intervene in the Guiffre v. Maxwell case in the United States District Court for the District of New York. GP asked the Court to unseal all records identifying Epstein’s sex clients. TGP lawyers moved to intervene in the Ghislaine Maxwell case in the Southern District of New York. However, in August 2022, something truly bizarre and unexpected happened. An anonymous John Doe—literally styled by his lawyer as “John Doe”—filed an objection to TGP unsealing the sex client list … and the Court SIDED WITH THE JOHN DOE over the interests of the press and public to know what happened in one of the most remarkable court cases in US history. This brings us to today… How can the courts deny our request for the Epstein client list in 2022 based on the wishes of an anonymous John Doe and then today the DOJ tells us there is no Epstein client list? https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/07/wait-what-if-there-was-no-epstein-client/

Scott: "There are almost 5 million able bodied people on Medicaid who simply choose not to work. I don‘t want to pay for your welfare." Host: "I don't know where you're getting those numbers." Scott: "CBO" The CBO does in fact estimate that 5 million able bodied people are enrolled in Medicaid or other health benefits.

There rural red state voters are gonna love this Americans who comprise the bottom fifth of all earners would see their annual after-tax incomes fall on average by 2.3 percent within the next decade, while those at the top would see about a 2.3 percent boost, according to the analysis, which factors in wages earned and government benefits received. On average, that translates to about $560 in losses for someone who reports little to no income by 2034, and more than $118,000 in gains for someone making over $3 million, the report found. Martha Gimbel, the co-founder of the budget lab, described the Senate measure as “highly regressive.” The disparity owes largely to the fact that Republicans aim to pay for their tax cuts by slashing programs for the poor, including Medicaid and food stamps. The cuts amount to one of the largest retrenchments in the federal safety net in a generation. But the savings they generate only offset a fraction of the total cost of the bill, which is expected to add more than $3 trillion to the federal debt by 2034. Republicans have continued to defend the package as a win for all Americans. On Tuesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described the bill as a “deal for working people,” saying on Fox News that it would protect Medicaid. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office previously found that nearly 12 million more Americans could become uninsured by 2034 if a recent version of Senate Republicans’ bill were to become law. That includes Medicaid recipients, who could lose benefits because of how Mr. Trump and his party aspire to retool the program’s funding structure.

Good points. Despite the blatantly racist characterizations of Jackson's dissent, there is a critical point there. Let's say there's a President Bernie or AOC. Day One: an EO banning "assault rifles." Guy in WY who wants to buy an AR runs to court; federal judge finds the EO unconstitutional. Maybe that only applies to him; every other prospective AR-15 purchaser also has to file his or her own lawsuit. Maybe the court finds it applies to everyone in WY. Then people in the 93 other federal districts need a similar ruling in their cases. But they're not gonna get it in, say, SF. So let's let the cases "percolate" through the courts until the Supreme Court hears it in two years. The Supreme Court ultimately finds that the EO violated the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. So for two years a large group of people have been denied their constitutional rights. Kind of a big deal, right? Kavanaugh wrote his own opinion recognizing the big dealness of all of this. He said the Supreme Court has to be ready, willing, and able to hear these constitutional challenges to EOs on an expedited basis. In the birthright citizenship case, that would mean a merits decision right now. Otherwise the ultimate decision by the Supreme Court (next June? June 2027?) may be that the EO is unconstitutional, and there will be a whole slew of babies and toddlers subject to deportation if they travel from California to Texas to visit relatives. Not good. So the Supreme Court did a legal half-assed decision that is full-assed from a political (make a point about anti-Trump injunctions) perspective. That kind of thing is the Dred Scott kind of thing - a decision that creates an untenable situation on the ground. The kind of thing they are supposedly trying to avoid as the highest Court in the land. Meanwhile, Barrett decides that we've got to look at what federal courts thought was allowed in 1789 in order to decide if a nationwide injunction is kosher. Yeah, let's all go back to 1789 when men were men and Amy couldn't vote.

We're not entirely sure how Scott Jennings was able to sit next to Cornel West barking at him like a crazy person for as long as he did ... but woof. Hey, we get it, this is entertaining TV. People watched, and duh, we're writing about it. Crazy brings in the views. What makes this even better, though, is that this interaction has created what we think may well be the meme of the year. Definitely of the month. First, watch this (and keep an eye on Scott's face): And here is the meme of the year: https://twitchy.com/samj/2025/06/24/scott-jennings-pic-new-perfect-meme-drops-n2414669

Explaining ‘America First’ to Dolts, Dummies, and Democrats. Scott Pinsker Ah, from Orwellian “Newspeak” to the P.C. excesses of modern-day feminism: The English language is constantly evolving. It’s why middle-aged guys need a decoder ring to understand what the hell teenagers are saying. (Teenagers: “Uh, what’s a decoder ring?”) “Mansplaining” is one of our most recent Frankenstein-language creations. In the annals of feminism, few misdeeds are greater than the crime of mansplaining. It’s mostly defined along the lines of “explaining something to a woman in a condescending way that assumes she has no knowledge about the topic.” Yet oddly enough, these same liberals are absolutely delighted to tell MAGA voters what MAGA is all about: what it is, what it stands for, and what we should think about foreign policy. ( you really see this silliness here on PPP) “Mansplaining” is an evil, awful crime against humanity; “Libsplaining” is bravely speaking truth to power… something, something. Sensing an opportunity to split the MAGA base, the mainstream media has been working overtime to redefine “America First.” Consider the headlines from just the past week: (13 examples at the link) Well, garsh! I mean, who’s better qualified than Al Jazeera, MSNBC, and Vanity Fair to really understand all the nuances of the MAGA movement? (And not to mention, the inner workings of Donald Trump’s brain?) Clearly, these are the guys we should turn to for an unbiased, even-handed, fair-and-balanced analysis of the man they’ve been swearing was “literally Hitler” for over a decade. But, like many things, there is a kernel of truth to the media’s contention. “Greatness” — i.e. “Make America Great Again” — is an abstract standard: What one man considers great, another considers mediocre. And given the enormous complexities of foreign policy, the Middle East, and competing risk/reward calculations, there are ample opportunities for conflicting opinions. That’s not necessarily a bad thing: A good, stable movement isn’t threatened by debate; it’s strengthened by it. For a political movement to survive, it needs to adapt, evolve, and grow with its target audience. https://pjmedia.com/scott-pinsker/2025/06/23/explaining-america-first-to-dolts-dummies-and-democrats-and-sadly-to-tucker-carlson-n4941082

If I identify as a seiral killer, am I scott free?

AWESOME! The one next to NYU! I go there a couple times a month just for the upstate NY nostalgia! Zohran picked up the Bernie Sanders endorsement yesterday, so now he’s ready to roll for this coming Tuesday. It will be an all-hands-on-deck canvassing adventure over the final weekend. We still need volunteers in the Bronx, FYI…for any progressive PPP lurkers out there… My official ranked-choice top-5 vote for Tuesday: 1. Zohran Mamdani 2. Brad Lander 3. Zellnor Myrie 4. Scott Stringer 5. Adrienne Adams It’s super strategic if you’re a progressive: Zohran #1, all 5 spots filled, no Cuomo listed, and Adrienne Adams as an emergency anti-Cuomo centrist rally candidate.

Make sure to take a pic of Scott Bessent's house. Charleston is nice, but it is kind of the classic "from extraordinary wealth to abject poverty within one mile" place.

Update to my top-5 ranked-choice vote: 1. Zohran Mamdani 2. Brad Lander 3. Zellnor Myrie 4. Scott Stringer 5. Adrienne Adams I removed Jessica Ramos and replaced her with Adrienne Adams. As it turns out, Jessica is indeed a FILTHY RAT and was also running an incompetent campaign. Adrienne is widely perceived to have strong centrist support, which makes her the most competitive challenger to Cuomo should Zohran and the progressives falter. So if you despise Cuomo at all costs but don’t think Zohran can make the final ranked-choice elimination round, then you’ll most likely want Adrienne somewhere on your top-5 list so that you’ll at least have a voice in the final say. Yeah, but the 2020 NYC lockdown occurred because there was evidence of a pandemic and because NYC is one of the most densely populated places in the world. There is no legal justification for an imposition of Sharia law. And besides, pics I’ve seen from Zohran’s recent wedding show a well-assimilated American Muslim with a new wife (Rama Duwaji) not practicing Sharia law. The actual criticisms surrounding Zohran are related to his inexperience and to his potential naivete about what he could realistically accomplish. Cuomo is also hitting him hard for his anti-Israel stance, bizarrely enough, in a U.S. mayoral race. Within wonky progressive circles, social democrats like myself might lightly challenge him on rent freeze details or on his “$30 by ‘30” minimum wage plan (FWIW: it’s currently $16.50 in NYC, $15.50 in NYS, and $7.25 in the US).

nothing to see here... https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-uses-epstein-s-lawyer-as-human-shield-against-musk-s-really-big-bomb/ar-AA1GfttG Trump had a long, documented relationship with Epstein through the late 1980s to the early 2000s and appears in numerous photographs alongside him and his convicted partner, Ghislane Maxwell. In a 2002 interview, Trump even praised Epstein as a “terrific guy.” In 2017, Epstein described himself to author Michael Wolff as Trump’s “closest friend for 10 years,” although the pair appear to have had a falling out in the early 2000s. “He’s a horrible human being,” Epstein later said of the president in the same interview.

For any PPP lurkers voting in the NYC mayoral primary…I will share with you my official top-5 ranked-choice vote, after much contemplation: 1. Zohran Mamdani (Queens) 2. Brad Lander (Brooklyn) 3. Zellnor Myrie (Brooklyn) 4. Jessica Ramos (Queens) 5. Scott Stringer (Manhattan) Adrienne Adams (Queens) is AOC’s second choice and also Julia Salazar’s fourth choice. Adrienne comes across as super “meh” to me, so I’m not sure what the ranked-choice strategy might be here. Neither AOC nor Julia chose to rank Jessica Ramos. Since I’m not privy to any of the drama surrounding Jessica’s sudden decision to endorse Cuomo, I just put together my own ranking with a heavy emphasis on policy. FWIW: I’m your basic social democracy progressive, to the left of a liberal and to the right of a socialist. You’re asking why Zohran hasn’t publicly declared his stance on Sharia law? Simply because no media people in the city have bothered to ask him. Everyone here assumes that he won’t enforce it on NYC if elected mayor because, well, it would be really really weird for a DSA member to want to do that! I’m not even sure how a mayor could go about imposing such a policy on all NYC’ers. Everyone at the moment is more focused on practical issues like public transportation costs, rent controls, child care availability, minimum wages, and grocery store worker co-ops in “food deserts.” Multiculturalism has its benefits: higher tolerances of others, increased levels of professional creativity, better food options, etc… But I also think you’re putting too much stock in my diversity pride remark. It was a frivolous thought, similar to how a native Buffalonian like myself might take pride in the Bills or the snowy climate or the large concentration of Polish-Americans there. The ethnic, national, and religious diversity within NYC is a unique feature. People oftentimes take pride in uniqueness. Having said all that…I’m probably overstating what most NYC’ers actually think about pride in diversity. Most probably don’t bother thinking about it because they’re so accustomed to it.

I saw the headlines for Baltimore and Cleveland which are definitely for 2025, I also looked up Dallas. https://mayor.baltimorecity.gov/news/press-releases/2025-05-01-mayor-scott-highlights-continued-historic-decline-homicides https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cleveland.com/news/2025/03/cleveland-homicides-down-48-in-first-quarter-of-this-year-compared-to-2024.html%3foutputType=amp https://www.axios.com/local/dallas/2025/05/12/dallas-homicides-declining-in-2025

The Mohamed this time By Scott Johnson Students of ancient history may recall the arson attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and his family at the governor’s mansion this past April. The following month we saw the anti-Semitic murders of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim at Washington’s Capital Jewish Museum. Yesterday brought us an attack on Jews supporting the return of Israeli hostages held by Hamas in downtown Boulder. The perpetrator of the Boulder attack used an improvised flamethrower and Molotov cocktails to inflict injuries on some eight victims, ages 52 to 88. A Holocaust survivor is reportedly among the victims. The perpetrator was shouting “Free Palestine” and filmed in the act. His name is Mohamed Sabry Soliman. He is a 45-year-old Egyptian national who overstayed his visa and remained illegally in the United States. After the expiration of his visa, according to the Post, Soliman was “cleared for work authorization by US Citizenship and Immigration Services on March 29, 2023, which expired this March, according to the outlet.” We are suffocating in the lies and cliches of the Hamas supporters who have emerged in the United States since October 8. Mohamed appears to be too old for a student visa to pursue studies at the University of Colorado, but he would have fit right in with the crowd on campus. What was he doing in the United States to begin with? After the Capital Jewish Museum murders I quoted Will Sussman: This didn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s the inevitable result of more than a year of anti-Israel and antisemitic hatred that has been tolerated and even encouraged in our institutions. From college campuses to the halls of Congress, this hatred has been allowed to fester unchecked. To[day]’ tragedy will [should?] be a wake-up call for many. But for those of us who have been watching closely, the alarm bells have been ringing since October 7. This is what it means to “globalize the intifada.” https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/06/the-mohamed-this-time.php

Are these the savings they claim to make only to walk back later? Does it include the people they fired and paid to sit home and do nothing and then to try to force them back to work when they realized they needed them? Does this include Musk shoving Scott bessent when he called Musk out for not saving the trillions Musk promised? You don't believe that happened? That blonde press secretary admitted it. Look it up. Or it's this that Maga knows all and I just have TDS? It sounds to me like you are they one who can't read facts. $175 billion is nice but only a drop in the bucket of what this govt spends and will be quickly wiped out by the big dumb bill that took from the poor to pay the rich and will add trillions to the deficit. Clown show.

The Democrats Declare War on the Obama Boys Scott Pinsker FTA: This morning — at 5 a.m. on the flippin’ dot! — NBC News dropped a triple-bylined, 40+ paragraph bombshell: “Obama world loses its shine in a changing, hurting Democratic Party” (I think there’s a typo in the title? Maybe they meant “Obama world loses its shine in a changing climate,” or something like that. Nonetheless…) Folks, NBC News was obviously working on this story for a very long time. They had three journalists collaborating on it, including Jonathan Allen and Natasha Korecki, their “senior national political reporters.” They name-dropped 50 or so people in the first 30 paragraphs. Donors, activists, and big-time operatives were all interviewed. Pro Tip: When liberal journalists use a phrase like “high priests of their party’s politics,” you KNOW it’s gonna be followed by an angry slam. When your default setting is hostility to religion, you’re not using a phrase like “high priest” out of reverence, but out of snark. The Democrats are furious. The Democratic Finger-Pointing Game continues: At first, it was all Kamala Harris’s fault, but her people (correctly) pointed out that Biden’s ineptitude torpedoed her chances. Then the finger was pointed at Biden, but his people (correctly) pointed out that he’s just a sick old man who did the best he could. So now, they’re blaming the people who put Biden in power: The Obama boys. https://pjmedia.com/scott-pinsker/2025/05/27/the-dems-declare-war-on-the-obama-boys-n4940178

You are inadvertently making my point. Even if Biden was wholly out to lunch, people were in place who knew their fields and made generally sound decisions. You might not like the political bent of those decisions but they were rational and consistent. Compare Peter Navarro vs Scott Bessemer, Pete Hegseth, RFK, Howard Lutnick, Tulsi Gabbard, Pam Bondi…

First, for @sherpa: it's often called a "classification of officers," but perhaps more accurately is a "classification of leadership potential." The idea is actually fairly sound in any organization. The Quadrant 1 folks - clever and hardworking - are the ones who make policy/strategic decisions, but often are a too studied in their decision-making to serve in the highest ranks. The clever and lazy are what von Hammerstein thought were the best suited to high leadership. They use their "laziness" to come up with shortcuts to making sound decisions, relying, of course, on the clever/industrious below them. The dumb and lazy are, well, most employees. Give them basic tasks and count on them to not have any ambitions to be some kind of chief strategist. And the dumb and industrious? Well, they're dangerous because they have no idea of their own limitations and they do what the great John Wooden warned against: "Never confuse activity with achievement." So where do I put our recent presidents: - Trump: dumb and hyperactive. Not classically "industrious," but will never put his trust in someone long-term who actually knows what he's doing. We see that now with the ping-ponging between being swayed by Peter Navarro vs. Scott Bessent. If any advisor threatens his absolute power, he gets fired. Has to constantly be doing something when very often doing nothing is preferable. - Biden: dumb and lazy. - Obama: clever and lazy. Tried to sell himself as a policy wonk; he wasn't really one of that group. - Bush 43: dumb and lazy. Dumb can mean getting swept away by some clever advisor (Cheney/Rumsfeld), so obviously the Biden/Kamala/Bush types aren't ideal. - Clinton: clever and industrious. Yeah, that can get you in trouble, which is why von Hammerstein didn't find it ideal for the top. - Bush 41: kinda dumb, kinda industrious. I find it hard to classify him. I used to think Reagan fit in the dumb/lazy category. I've changed my mind over the years. I really think he was quite clever, but generally intellectually lazy. But ultimately very successful. It was, as Von Hammerstein would say if he were around today, a feature of Reagan, not a bug. - Carter: smart and industrious, probably a victim of that overthinking things quadrant 2 guy who wasn't suited for top leadership. - Ford: dumb and lazy, refreshing in retrospect, given who he was bracketed by Nixon - largely before my time - is the prime example of the dangers of the smart/industrious type. Always scheming, always trying to outmaneuver someone, ultimately his downfall. Have we had another dumb/hyperactive president? Not that I know of. That's why in modern America Trump stands alone. The Dunning-Krueger poster boy. The von Hammerstein "avoid at all costs" guy.

Justice Thomas Destroys the Case for Nationwide Injunctions With One Devastating Question Matt Margolis During Supreme Court oral arguments in the Trump v. CASA, Washington, and New Jersey cases, Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a surgical takedown of the legal rationale for nationwide injunctions, using just one line. The case centers around whether lower courts can issue sweeping injunctions that block federal policies nationwide, even when only a handful of plaintiffs are before the court. Representing the United States, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that such broad orders violate established legal norms and Supreme Court precedent. “We believe that the best reading of that is what you said in Trump against Hawaii, which is that Wirtz in 1963 was really the first universal injunction,” Sauer told the Court. “There’s a dispute about Perkins against Lukens Oil going back to 1940. And of course, we point to the Court’s opinion that reversed that universal injunction issued by the D.C. Circuit and said it’s profoundly wrong.” Sauer continued, listing key precedents that have rejected expansive injunctive relief. “If you look at the cases that either party cite, you see a common theme. The cases that we cite — like National Treasury Employees Union, Perkins, Frothingham, and Massachusetts v. Mellon, going back to Scott v. Donald — in all of those, those are cases where the Court considered and addressed the sort of universal — well, in that case, statewide — provision of injunctive relief.” He emphasized, “When the Court has considered and addressed this, it has consistently said, ‘You have to limit the remedy to the plaintiffs appearing in court and complaining of that remedy.’” That’s when Justice Thomas stepped in and cut through the legal weeds with a devastatingly simple observation. “So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunction?” he asked. Sauer didn’t hesitate: “That’s exactly correct. And in fact, those were very limited, very rare, even in the 1960s.” He went on to explain that nationwide injunctions didn’t truly explode until 2007. “In our cert petition in Summers v. Rhode Island Institute, we pointed out that the Ninth Circuit had started doing this in a whole bunch of cases involving environmental claims.” Thomas’s concise question — “So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunction?” — hit the heart of the issue. With that simple question, he challenged the idea that such drastic judicial remedies were historically essential, even during one of the most tumultuous and morally urgent periods in American history: the civil rights era, a time when federal courts began issuing broader remedies to dismantle Jim Crow laws and enforce desegregation. https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/05/15/justice-thomas-destroys-case-for-nationwide-injunctions-with-one-devastating-question-n4939815