The Economist paints a Rosy, If Not Heroic, Portrait of Soros, Depicting His Adversaries as Little Better than Racist

Of course, you can count on a mainstream media outlet like The Economist to write a (mostly) flattering, or at least positive, portrait of George Soros, referred to as the "Canary in the global mine".

Not a word about such things as the Hungarian quietly buying District Attorneys' seats (köszönöm to Instapundit)…

An appetite for risk made George Soros a billionaire, but also made him enemies, as has his congenital philanthropy. In recent months these resentments have reached a new, alarming pitch. Two strands of criticism, in America and abroad, seem to have fused, a confluence epitomised by a pair of obscure letters sent by Republican politicians. A group of senators wrote to Rex Tillerson, the secretary of state, and a clutch of congressmen to the comptroller-general, taking aim at the same detail: the role of USAID, America’s foreign-aid agency, in Macedonia, specifically its collaboration with the local arm of Mr Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF).

Mr Soros has supported democratic reform in central and eastern Europe since he distributed photocopiers among activists in the 1980s. His programmes avowedly promote free media, fair elections and clean government, rather than opposition parties, but local autocrats often miss the distinction. The Kremlin, which blamed Mr Soros for peaceful uprisings in Russia’s ex-Soviet neighbours in the 2000s, kicked his affiliate out in 2015. Belarus and Uzbekistan have also given him the push.

His political views and hefty donations have led to vitriol in America as well. Denunciations of George W. Bush and the Iraq war made him a bogeyman among right-wing fulminators and conspiracy theorists. His support for Hillary Clinton and disparagement of Donald Trump—an “impostor” and “would-be dictator”—have reinvigorated his assailants. Recently he has developed a controversial sideline in local prosecutorial races, from Louisiana to Illinois, betting that reformist prosecutors can help change the criminal-justice system. Sometimes the candidates he backs seem as baffled by his interest as their rivals, but 12 out of his 15 picks have won.

 … In any case, Mr Soros’s infamy from the bayous to the Balkans is odd. He is certainly no saint. Some of his wealth comes from currency speculation, as when, short-selling the pound in 1992, he “broke the Bank of England”. He has a French conviction for insider trading in 1988. Yet he has given billions to worthy causes. Michael Vachon, a longtime adviser, points out that Mr Soros derives no personal benefit from his advocacy of, say, the rights of Roma or the abolition of the death penalty. In politics, Mr Vachon says, unlike many big-time donors he “is always lobbying for a public purpose, never for private gain”. Often he promotes policies, as on tax, that could cost him.

 … Whatever the causes, as Soros-bashing spreads—the idea of his global meddling gaining a meretricious credibility with repetition—so do other troubling views. One is the cynical claim that peaceful protesters, whether against Mr Trump’s policies or corruption in Romania, take to the streets only if they are bribed: usually, run the calumnies from Bucharest to Washington, by Mr Soros. “If we’d paid all the protesters they say we have,” jokes Laura Silber of OSF, “we’d be bankrupt many times over. It’s an insult to people standing up for their beliefs.” Second, ever-more supposedly democratic leaders are relying on external adversaries to bolster their positions, confecting them if necessary.

In its final paragraph, The Economist basically calls everyone opposed to "Public Enemy Number 1" a racist or an antisemite if not outright a Nazi.

Finally, there is the particular kind of foe that Mr Soros is made to embody. Portrayals of him as an octopus, or, as in a Hungarian billboard, as a puppet-master, inevitably recall the last century’s anti-Semitic propaganda. Some such echoes may be accidental, the conspiracists unconsciously defaulting to ancient tropes, but they are striking. In a tweet praising Mr Orban, for example, Steve King, a Republican congressman, called Mr Soros a “Marxist billionaire”. That chimes with the old slur against Jews whereby, as Tivadar Soros says in his book, “at one and the same time they held in their hands…the Western capitalist countries and Russian Bolshevism.” “He survived the Nazis,” Mr Vachon says of Mr Soros’s current situation, “and he takes a long view.” No doubt, but in some ways this must be depressingly familiar.

 

Double Standards: The left's activists and their “our money good, their money bad” propaganda

Four hundred protesters associated with the Democracy Spring movement were arrested in Washington, DC last week after demonstrators descended upon the US Capitol

writes Benny Huang.

They spoke out against money in politics, the Koch brothers, and the Citizens United ruling that overturned key provisions of campaign finance law. The demonstration was clearly a statement against corporate influence in politics.

The protesters aren’t entirely wrong. Yes, political influence is unequally distributed because money begets power and vice versa. A guy who changes oil for a living doesn’t have as much pull as a guy who owns an oil company. But what can be done about it?

Societies that have experimented with radical egalitarianism have yielded horrific results—and none of them can even claim to have achieved their purported goal of leveling the playing field for everyone.

We’re left to ponder why efforts to equalize political power always fail. Could it be that even those who demand equal voices in government don’t really want it? From observing Democracy Spring in action I can only conclude that the answer is yes. They’re neither class warriors nor small-“d” democrats; they’re just hacks.

Take, for example, Democracy Spring’s fixation on the libertarian Koch brothers, the Left’s new Emmanuel Goldstein. I’m sure that Democracy Spring would have you believe that they simply want the Koch brothers to butt out of politics because their substantial fortune buys them outsized influence; but that can’t be the real reason because they don’t want all filthy rich political donors to butt out. Tellingly, there’s no Two Minutes Hate against George Soros.

George Soros is exactly the kind of unscrupulous hedge fund manager that the Left should despise by default—and yet they don’t. Gee, do you think it’s because he’s their sugar daddy? A 2010 report from Opensecrets.org contrasting the Koch brothers’ contributions to Soros’ contributions revealed that both sides dump money into politics by the truckload. Trying to calculate who spends more is difficult because they spend differently.

"Ever since Americans were old enough to crawl in front of a television set," adds Kyle Becker,

they’ve been told that Republicans are the party of rich white guys, and Democrats are the champions of the poor. Prepare to flip that thinking upside down. … 20 of the top 32 donors lean Democrat, while only 6 lean Republican. The rest are on the fence. … if you factor in all the indirect benefits the Democrat Party gets from the non-profit sector, left-wing activism, public and private sector unions, Wall Street banks, universities, and superfund contributors, it has been estimated by Dr. David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin in their book The New Leviathan that the Republican Party is outspent in politics by a factor of 7-to-1by a factor of 7-to-1. Bear this in mind when the left goes off on a tirade about the Koch Brothers bogeymen, who come in 59th on a list of top contributors. Public and private sector unions leave the Koch Brother’s measly $18 million over 25 years in the dust.

Benny Huang continues:

But Democracy Spring, while claiming that it only wants to eradicate money’s corrupting influence, doesn’t mention Soros’s substantial contributions. Is it because Soros is funding Democracy Spring? Campaign Director Kai Newkirk says Soros hasn’t “given us a dime,” but the same cannot be said of its supporting organizations. Democracy Spring’s website boasts of endorsements from more than one hundred groups, some of which are funded with Soros money. The political titan MoveOn.org, for example, is listed as a Democracy Spring endorser and has received funding from Soros. Other endorsing groups that have taken Soros money include People for the American Way and Demos.

One endorser, an organization calling itself The Other 98%, even has a handy infographic on its website to explain why the billionaire Koch brothers are bad but billionaire George Soros is good. I could find no evidence that The Other 98% is funded by George Soros though its infographic wreaks of agitprop. It depicts Soros as a public-minded philanthropist and the Koch brothers as greedy, evil tycoons who use their money to advance the devil’s agenda. It’s more “our money good, their money bad” propaganda—and that is why these people lack credibility. Despite their rhetoric, it’s not “We the People” versus the corporations, nor is it the 98 percent versus the super-rich 2 percent. It’s their favorite billionaire against yours.

Once you understand the endorsing organizations’ support from (and for?) George Soros it suddenly becomes clear why these crusaders against money in politics don’t protest his influence-peddling. Even if the leaders of this Democracy Spring movement are completely sincere in their desire to drive all the big donors from politics (and I’m not sure that they are) their endorsing organizations are not. There’s almost an unspoken agreement—the endorsing organizations will continue to support Democracy Spring as long as their own donors are shielded from criticism. Democracy Spring accepts this condition because it wants their support.

If Democracy Spring wants to end the corporate corruption of our democratic process they might want to focus their efforts on the troubling trend of corporations threatening states with economic sanctions. This tactic appears to work well because large corporations can inflict real pain upon the populations of states that refuse to do their bidding.

For example, the Walt Disney Company recently threatened Georgia that it would pull all film production from that state if the governor signed a religious freedom bill. The bill, which really shouldn’t be necessary in a country that already has the first and thirteenth amendments, protects private business owners from homosexuals who want to make them unwilling participants in same-sex weddings.

 … Why are these anti-corporate activists not raising hell? Disney is an enormous, out-of-state media conglomerate that issued an ultimatum to a state governor to veto a bill that was passed overwhelmingly by the people’s elected representatives—and the governor complied. A huge corporation said ‘jump’ and a Governor Deal said ‘how high?’ Sadly, I think nearly all of our state governors would have done the same.

I can hear the objections now—that the bill was terrible, awful, discriminatory, practically Jim Crow all over again. That’s nonsense of course, but it’s also irrelevant. What matters is that the people of Georgia wanted that bill and presumably still do but they can’t have it because the corporations sounded a resounding “No!”

The Left’s support for these corporate boycotts tells me that they don’t always side with the people against the corporations. When the people are “bigots” they like to see corporations thrash them into line. They can’t say unequivocally that the will of the people should prevail when it collides with the will of corporations. It depends, really. Are the corporations progressive? Are the people backwards hicks? These details matter.

If that’s your position you are neither anti-corporate nor pro-democracy. You’re not leading a People’s movement against corporate interests. Stop lying to yourselves and the rest of us. Hacks like you don’t get to claim lofty ideals because you don’t have any. You have an agenda, nothing more.

Other states have had fights with corporations over other bills, most of which involve protecting people of faith targeted by homofascist bullies. That’s because homosexuals, far from being the underdogs they pretend to be, are well-organized, well-connected, and extremely well-funded. When people try to defend themselves the homofascists unleash the corporate hounds. Works every time.

Walmart, for example, exerted a lot of political pressure on Arkansas’s governor to veto a religious freedom bill in that state. The governor signed a watered-down version. So it’s official—liberals took the side of Walmart over religious freedom. Walmart! Hating Walmart is reflexive for liberals, almost like breathing. The aforementioned Other 98% has even started its own Walmart boycott, though not because Walmart hates religious freedom or because it used its political clout to overrule the will of the people. They’re boycotting Walmart because it doesn’t yet pay its employees $15 an hour. Liberals would rather waterboard a baby seal than shop at Walmart but clearly they don’t hate Walmart as much as they hate Christians. That’s a special kind of hate.

It’s undeniable that people with big checkbooks exert more power than the rest of us. That’s a truism that will probably never change. But the people who complain the most about it should get real and admit that they aren’t really concerned about corporate influence or money in politics. That’s a pose, not a position. What they don’t like is when it’s used against them, to thwart their policy goals and block their legislation. That’s understandable, I suppose, but it shouldn’t be confused with principle.

The New York Times: where is the George Soros for the Middle East and North Africa?

Sometimes the conventional wisdom is right

notes Chrystia Freeland in an International Herald Tribune article that starts out well and logically and common-sensically, but later turns out to be a… Soros love-fest… One of the professors at the Budapest university praised as "one of the intellectual centers of the region’s political and economic transition" tells Freeland that “I may be the only academic in town who didn’t study on a Soros scholarship”.

The Arab Spring really is the most important political event since the 1989 revolutions in Eastern Europe. So it makes sense to find out what the East Europeans make of the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa and to ask what they think it will take to transform the promise of these rebellions into a lasting political transformation.

…The scholars and activists who gathered [in Budapest to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Central European University] spent a lot of time debating the lessons of their revolution for the Arab Spring. Here are four of them:

The first is that selling democracy has become harder now than it was 20 years ago. That’s because, as Aryeh Neier, the human rights activist and head of the Open Society Foundations, explained, the equation of prosperity and democracy, which was universally acknowledged in 1989 and the period that followed, has broken down today.

… A second big idea was that while technology has probably made it easier to rebel against authoritarian governments, it has also made it tougher to build enduring, deeply rooted democratic polities to replace them.

… The third big idea was a historical one. Wanda Rapaczynski was one of the leading creators of Poland’s vibrant free press. But she identified a critical external force in her explanation of what made the revolutions in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic succeed: Europe and the promise of membership in the European Union.

… The fourth lesson of Central Europe for the Arab Spring came from the founder and chief benefactor of Central European University — George Soros. Mr. Soros, who fled Budapest as a teenager and made his fortune in the United States, suggested that the history of his homeland offered an example for the Arab revolutions that was both cruelly realistic and ultimately inspiring.

… Listening to these friends and patrons of Central Europe’s successful revolutions prompted one big question. It was left unspoken — and that is probably appropriate, since it is most properly asked on the banks of the Nile, not the banks of the Danube. It is this: Where is the European Union and where is the George Soros for the Middle East and North Africa?

…where is the George Soros for the Middle East and North Africa?

George Soros, the State of the Roma in France, and an Old Case From the French Judicial System

Le milliardaire philanthrope américano-hongrois George Soros en a fait une affaire personnelle. A 80 ans, le spéculateur n'a jamais digéré sa condamnation par la justice française, en 2002, pour délit d'initié dans l'affaire du "raid de la Société générale" de 1988. L'unique incident de parcours judiciaire de sa carrière.

Because he was pronounced guilty by the French justice system in 1988 — the billionnaire's only judicial condemnation — George Soros never seems to have forgiven France, writes Claire Gatinois in Le Monde. Perhaps that helps explain why he is now fighting so strongly for the rights of the Roma in France, although his Roma Education Fund has exists for all Europe. The subject of the "raid de la Société générale" is never broached in Le Monde's interview by Sylvain Cypel.

Vingt-deux ans après les faits, M. Soros obtiendra-t-il réparation ? Ce n'est pas impossible. Après avoir épuisé les recours devant les juridictions françaises, le financier avait fait appel devant la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme (CEDH). Celle-ci a jugé, mercredi 15 septembre, sa requête "recevable". Cette décision ne préjuge en rien d'une éventuelle remise en question de la condamnation pénale de M. Soros, mais son avocat, Ron Soffer, se dit "confiant".

One Le Monde readers's reaction is to reply thus:

Le nouvel Obs et le Monde qui prennent la parole de M SOROS pour parole d’évangile ! On aura tout vu ou tout lu. Quand je pense ce gars la a ruiné des milliers de gens par ses spéculations, permettez moi de ne lui accorder aucun crédit ! Qu’il mettent ses milliards au service du peuple Rom serait plus intelligent que se positionner en donneur de leçons. A l’avenir, puissent les journalistes nous épargner de tels interviews !

Is What We Are Witnessing Soros's Formula for Killing America?

The American Association of Evangelicals has produced A Brief Guide, for Americans (as well as for foreigners?), called Soros's Formula for Killing America. All that can be said is, let us hope (let us pray?) that the AAE is paranoid or wrong if not both.

Incorporating recent leaks and IRS documents, this short video best explains the dangerous agenda, strategy and tactics of the Soros network, in America. Stand with Christian patriots, for the world God so loves. Produced by: the Awareness Project.

Please join us at AmericanEvangelicals.com — to sign our letter, “A Call to Repentance and Renewal." See endorsements below.

“What if this conspiracy stuff were true? God help us, because this much of it really IS true. Please watch this video. Our country hangs in the balance.” 

 ~ Eric Metaxas, author of Bonhoeffer; and, If You Can Keep It

“Two ‘Georges’ — but oh so different! George Soros is selfishly trying to destroy what George Washington sacrificially founded: America. Thank God for these fearless producers exposing one of the most sinister, destructive forces to the Republic. Listen to this. Listen carefully. Your nation depends on it.” 

~ Pastor James Garlow, Skyline Church, San Diego 

Asked Whether He Might Think of Himself as American or as Partly American, George Soros Answers Proudly and Defiantly: "I Am European!"

Vous êtes né à Budapest mais vivez aux Etats-Unis. Vous sentez-vous européen ?

Je suis européen !

In an exclusive interview with Cécile de Corbière and Claire Gatinois, George Soros admits — or he doesn't admit, he states proudly, he states defiantly — that although the Budapest-born Hungarian has lived for years, for decades, in the United States — he has been in America for over half a century (!) and is a naturalized citizen — his identity is fully and exclusively European.

Insofar that George Soros has any love for America, therefore, it seems like it is only, like Barack Obama's, to transform it "fundamentally" into a European-style welfare state.

Otherwise, the main focus of the interview is the weak state of the Euro, and the fact that this puts the EU in danger, along with George Soros's dissing of the Germans for their demanding balanced budgets from all member states of the EU and his dissing of the ("simple-solution"-demanding) American people for opposing more state "stimuli" and other types of intervention.

Faut-il autoriser des pays à sortir de la zone euro ?

Oui. L'euro peut survivre à la sortie de pays comme la Grèce ou le Portugal, de taille modeste. Mais l'Union éclaterait si c'était le cas de l'Italie ou de l'Espagne. Il faut donc distinguer les petits pays des grands. Mais même si un petit pays comme la Grèce abandonnait l'euro, cela provoquerait un chaos, l'effondrement de son système bancaire. Autoriser un pays à quitter la zone euro réclame donc une préparation minutieuse. Il faut s'assurer que les prêteurs ne sont pas spoliés, garantir les dépôts des épargnants et faire en sorte que les banques restent debout. Tout cela doit être écrit noir sur blanc.

… Si vous ne pouvez augmenter le déficit, alors vous êtes piégés.

Que faire ?

En Grèce comme en Espagne, il faut mettre en place des réformes structurelles ; rendre plus flexible le marché du travail et gagner en compétitivité. Mais la demande intérieure doit aussi être stimulée. Il faut établir des règles qui autorisent les pays dont le chômage est élevé à rester déficitaire. Le problème est que l'Allemagne a des idées fausses à ce sujet. Elle aimerait que tous les pays aient des budgets à l'équilibre.

Les Etats-Unis aussi ont un problème de dette et de croissance…

Le problème est d'ordre politique. Il faut mettre en place des stimuli pour accroître la productivité et redémarrer la machine. Mais les pressions politiques contre une hausse des dépenses publiques empêchent ce type de mesures. Dès lors la Réserve fédérale américaine (Fed) peut être le recours. La banque centrale peut déployer un nouveau "QE3", pour injecter plus d'argent dans le système. Cela ferait baisser le coût du crédit, encouragerait les investissements et la consommation. Mais c'est moins efficace. L'argent pourrait rester dans les banques ou se nicher hors des Etats-Unis. Finalement, le blocage est politique comme en Europe. C'est plus grave.

Que voulez-vous dire ?

Les problèmes sont complexes mais les gens veulent des réponses simples. Cela conduit certains à être frustrés et à adopter des positions antieuropéennes comme en Finlande ou en Allemagne où certains se disent opposés aux transferts financiers. Nous devons être unis. Nous n'avons pas le choix.

For our part, we'll take Rush over Soros

[A] Fox poll taken Jan. 16-17, 2007, asked respondents about the surge in Iraq: "Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?" An astounding 34% said they did not want the surge to succeed. Among Democratic Party leaders the percentage was probably close to 100%.

Thus reports Investor's Business Daily (which added, regarding Newsweek's Rush Limbaugh cover, "So much for disagreeing with what you say but defending to the death your right to say it [—] Voltaire could never be a contributor to Newsweek").

If, as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel says, Rush Limbaugh "is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party," it is only fair to ask: Who is his Democratic counterpart?

Our nominee is George Soros, the Hungarian billionaire and former Nazi sympathizer who helped fund MoveOn.org, the radical group that smeared Gen. David Petraeus with its "General Betray Us" ad last fall.

Through his Open Society Initiative and personal contributions Soros has funded many liberal causes and many Democratic candidates with the intent of undermining democracy and capitalism. His ultimate goal is to create a global socialist collective where we hand over our money and/or freedom and sing "Kumbaya."

For our part, we'll take Rush over Soros.

When Demonizing Billionaires, Leftists Like Paul Krugman Conveniently Ignore the Left-Leaning Statists Who Donate (Far More) Millions to the Left

Paul Krugman implicates all billionaires as smug, selfish, pathological and Republican

notes James Gerard, referring to the New York Times columnist's “Privilege, pathology and power” (Jan. 2-3).

Hence they are without empathy, out of touch, and use their money and power to influence elections. What about George Soros, Eli Broad, David Geffen and Tom Steyer? Are they without gobs of money, ego or the desire to inject their own “statist” principles into elections? Have they not sworn to spend countless millions in an effort to “re-shape” America? Mr. Krugman would do better to write about both sides of the billionaires’ battle.

This is how Jonah Goldberg puts it (thanks to Instapundit):

To listen to the Left, [those old devils, Charles and David Koch] are the closest thing we have to real-world James Bond villains. So what is their agenda? Is it to retreat to their orbiting harems, populated with fertile females, as they wipe out humanity below so that they can return to repopulate the planet? Or is to dupe the Russians and Americans into a nuclear squabble so that the Kochs can rule the ashes? 

Well, here’s [Jane] Mayer’s explanation of their dark and sinister ambitions. 

  “What people need to understand is the Kochs have been playing a very long game,” [the author of Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right] told NPR’s Steve Inskeep. “And it’s not just about elections. It started four decades ago with a plan to change how America thinks and votes. So while some elections they win and some elections they lose, what they’re aiming at is changing the conversation in the country.”

Dear God, it’s worse than I thought! They want to change the conversation! They want to persuade Americans to vote differently! The horror, the horror. 

You might be forgiven for thinking that this is pretty much exactly what democracy is about. But no. For you see, only Hollywood, college professors and administrators, the ACLU, People for the American Way, the Human Rights Campaign, NARAL, Emily’s List, the Ford Foundation, Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, MoveOn.org, the NAACP, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace, Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, Steven Spielberg and, of course, publications such as the New York Times [including Paul Krugman], The New Republic, The Nation and Mayer’s own The New Yorker are allowed to try to change conversations and argue for people to vote differently.

For you see, only Hollywood, college professors and administrators, the ACLU, People for the American Way, the Human Rights Campaign, NARAL, Emily’s List, the Ford Foundation, Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, MoveOn.org, the NAACP, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace, Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, Steven Spielberg and, of course, publications such as the New York Times, The New Republic, The Nation and Mayer’s own The New Yorker are allowed to try to change conversations and argue for people to vote differently.

Ah, but those voices are open and honest — and progressive! — about it, while the Kochs are secretive, sinister denizens of the stygian underworld of “dark money” and the “radical right.” Except for the fact that the Kochs have been out in the open for nearly a half-century.

  … How, then, are the Kochs members of the radical Right? 

• They are pro-gay marriage. 

• They favor liberal immigration policies. 

• They are passionate non-interventionists when it comes to foreign policy. 

• They are against the drug war and are spending a bundle on dismantling so-called “mass-incarceration” policies. 

• They’ve never seized a national park at gunpoint. 

They are members of the radical Right for the simple reason that they don’t like big government and spend money to make that case.

 … And that’s their great sin. Liberals are constantly talking about how we need an “honest conversation” about race or guns or this or that. But what they invariably mean is, they want everyone who disagrees to shut up. (That’s why they hate Fox News, too.) 

The best working definition of “right wing” today has almost nothing to do with the ideological content of what right-wingers say or do. 

A right-winger is someone who disagrees with the liberal narrative, has the temerity to say so, and dares to actually try to change the conversation.

Former Mobster Compares Obama's Thugs and Soros to the Mafia

Mafia Mobster Compares Obama's Thugs and Soros to the Mafia (thanks to Valerie)…



…While Newt Gingrich Says "This is Starting to Look Like a Dictatorship."

Soros Shows He Knows Who His Friends and Foes Are

Left-wing billionaire and Bush-hater George Soros was not content to spend millions to thwart a Bush victory in last November's presidential election

writes Insight's Kenneth R Timmermann in the New York Post (Merci à Grouik).

Now his Open Society Institute in New York is joining forces with pro-Tehran lobbying group to promote the interests and the viewpoint of the Islamic Republic of Iran …

Meanwhile, John Vinocur discusses the fading neocon ideology in Bush's second cabinet;

Mikhail Khodorkovsky writes a letter from a Russian prison;

and Elisabetta Povoledo reports that Italy's ban on smoking is getting off to a fuming start:

Regarding the "tough new law that bans smoking in public places — one of the strictest in Europe", Andrea Pinketts, a Milan-based crime writer and pro-smoking activist, said

Looking at human history, intolerance has caused more damage, even death, than smoking ever did

He forgot the one shaped like his favorite Paris backroom	Il a oublié la prison sous forme de son backroom préféré dans le Marais
The anti-Semite Willem shares one thing with the self-loathing George Soros: drawing a link between 9-11 and Abu Ghraib. Hey Willem, stick it in your glory hole, and break it off!	L'antisémite Willem partage quelque chose avec George Soros qui lui, pratique la haine de soi: établir un lien entre le 11-9-2001 et Abu Ghraib. Eh dis-donc Willem, enfoncez-le bien profond dans ton 'glory hole', et cassez-le net!
After the destruction of Abu Ghraib, what should the new Baghdad prison look like? The White House, the Roissy airport terminal, or the Twin Towers?

The Imperial Judiciary: The Constitution A) does not authorize judges to veto a president and B) it is not a suicide pact: The rights of citizens are sacrosanct; The rights of spies, terrorists, and illegal aliens are nonexistent

Power corrupts. … the judiciary is an overreaching monster in black robes, hellbent at overturning the 2024 election one unwarranted TRO—temporary restraining order—at a time.

What is going on right now, writes Don Surber, can be described as Trump v. the imperial judiciary. (Thanks to Mark Tapscott, who adds that Don "takes apart the federal judiciary’s illegal immigrant deportation insanity more effectively and completely than I’ve read anywhere else.")

District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts issued an order that prevents President Trump from using one of the nation’s oldest laws—The Alien Enemies Act of 1798—to deport of MS 13 and other terrorist illegal aliens. The law was written and approved by Founding Fathers such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson who realized the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The rights of citizens are sacrosanct. The rights of spies, terrorists and illegal aliens are nonexistent.

Murphy is one of 677 district judges who have taken it upon themselves to veto any and all presidential actions that George Soros does not like. The same people who turned and looked the other way when Biden was calling a protest at the Capitol an insurrection now refuse to allow the deportation of violent criminals who are here illegally.

They want El Salvador to send one of their citizens back. Imagine if Putin said, you know, I changed my mind. Send Brittney Griner back.

There are three branches of government and we are told they are equal. The legislative branch has stopped legislating, instead deferring to career government employees to write the rules, enforce them and then adjudicate them. Protected by Civil Service, they bob in the bowels of government like a fatberg and are accountable to no one.

The judiciary also writes laws, legalizing gay marriage, abortion and taxpayers paying for tranny surgery for military men with fetishes. No one holds them accountable. Oh, sure, we can amend the Constitution to get around the justices. The only time the politicians did that was to impose an income tax on us.

The lack of accountability in the bureaucracy and the imperial judiciary gunning for President Trump are why Erez Reuveni, Assistant Director of the Office of Immigration Litigation, felt he could get away with lying in court and saying the government made a clerical error in deporting of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran, back to El Salvador.

 … Judge Murphy in Massachusetts’ call for hearings and appeals before we deport anyone is an absurdity to the power of bizarre. The only process due them are two questions: Do you have a passport and a visa? If the answer is no, buh-bye, fella. You just won a one-way ticket home—or El Salvador, whichever Trump chooses.

As Chris Matthews said, 

“I think the country is going to get really ticked off at a government that won‘t do what they tell them to do. A country without borders is not a country. If you don’t have a border—I‘ve never heard of a country in the world that doesn’t have a border. That‘s what defines a country. If you don’t enforce it, you’re a joke.”

But that was nearly 20 years ago when liberals at least bothered pretending they supported the border. Now they want our country to be a joke—and it was under Biden.

We are in an emergency. Untold millions illegal aliens are wandering around the nation.

But the imperial judiciary’s actions eclipse the danger of this emergency by demanding that every one of these millions of criminals be granted a trial and the appeals that follow. Much to the delight of Democrats, the illegal aliens crisis has led to a showdown between the courts, which they control, and the president, whom they hate.

The 677 district judges are not the only threat. The Supreme Court is siding with the liars inside the government and the lying media.

 … Sundance called the attacks on Trump enforcing immigration law lawfare on steroids

  … But the ones breaking the rule of law are in the judiciary. And not just with illegal aliens but in the false insurrection cases, rejecting out of hand claims of fraud in the 2020 election, allowing Obama to spy on Trump, allowing Biden to raid his home, 91 counts in 4 indictments and trying to order military planes to turn around in midair.

The judges are the ones who should respect their authority first by recognizing the boundaries. The Constitution does not authorize judges to veto a president. District judges have taken it upon themselves to expand their districts to include the entire nation and in the case of Boasberg, El Salvador too.

We often hear that justice delayed is justice denied but this order underscores another saying: Time plus no answer equals no. A president has 4 years to fulfill his promises to the American people. Lifetime appointed judges can wait him out. They did that in his first presidency. 

The press is hunky-dory with judge-shopping by the Soros Left to block Trump from upholding immigration law and the like. 

 … Federal judges are not the only rogue elephants using their power to prevent elected officials from doing their job and enforcing laws. PJ Media reported, “Judge temporarily blocks Mayor Adams' administration from allowing ICE onto Rikers Island.”

 … I sure hope Tom Homan starts living up to his warnings about arresting officials who aid and abet illegal immigration.

There is hope. The Supreme Court is extending its schedule (delaying its three-month summer vacation) according to Fox

 … Make no mistake, this is an attempt to stifle the president and blunt his presidency. Elections have consequences? Hah! John Roberts has enabled the district judges to veto Trump over and over again. 

 … Some people advocate having the president ignore the courts. That reflects the corruption of the courts. 

In response to Don Surber's article, a reader by the name of Tmitsss quotes one of its lines as he goes on to refer to the Declaration of Independence:

“Do you have a passport and a visa? If the answer is no, buh-bye, fella.”

Due process applies to deprivation of life, liberty and property. Foreigners without a visa have no protected right to remain.

Scott Walker's Recall Vote in Perspective: A Massive Victory for America's Taxpayers

My article explaining the Scott Walker recall to the French is up at Le Cri du Contribuable (The Taxpayer's Cry), with background and context related to the Tea Party movement (if you have the time, and the inclination, please give the article 5 stars).

Grande Victoire des Contribuables aux USA

Erik Svane

Beaucoup de Français ne semblent pas s’en rendre compte — tant les médias, américains comme français, se sont montrés discrets sur le sujet — mais le 5 juin, les contribuables américains ont remporté une grande victoire.

Ce jour-là, la tentative, de la part des syndicats nationaux et de leurs alliés parmi les pouvoirs retranchés (et particulièrement au parti démocrate), de mettre fin à la vie politique d’un réformateur au Wisconsin a échoué. Le Gouverneur Scott Walker, visé par les syndicats pour avoir décidé de remettre de l’ordre dans les dépenses de l’État, se confronte à une élection de « rappel » (a recall election, normalement réservée pour des affaires criminelles) et la remporte, haut la main.

Rappelons que Scott Walker fait partie du mouvement de protestation adoubé Tea Party (leur devise pourrait être « non, nous ne sommes pas des vaches à lait ») dont les membres sont de fait les contribuables américains qui, finalement, en ont eu assez de l’argent jeté par les fenêtres — la goutte qui a fait déborder la vase arrive lorsque Barack Obama dépense plus pendant sa première année à la Maison Blanche (2009) que George W Bush ou Bill Clinton pendant leurs huit ans à la tête du pays — provoquant le raz-de-marée des révoltés pendant les élections de mi-mandat en novembre 2010 qui décime la majorité démocrate. Le Tea Party est tant contre le parti démocrate (naturellement de gauche) que, dans les primaires du parti républicain (plutôt conservateur), contre les dinosaures qui se sont laissés scléroser par l’usure.

N’oublions pas que la mauvaise réputation dont jouissent parfois les Tea Partiers, tant en Amérique qu’en France — ils ne seraient autre chose que des abrutis réactionnaires, voire des racistes, etc —, est due à une volonté expresse et délibérée de la part de la classe politique installée (tant de gauche comme de droite, et des deux côtés de l’Atlantique) de les diaboliser, car les politiciens professionnels savent que si les idées de ces trouble-fêtes ( »ça suffit ! cessez de jeter de l’argent par les fenêtres ! ») triomphent, la « fête » dont ils jouissent depuis des vingtaines d’années risque de prendre fin. (Pour plus de détails, lire « Tea Parties : La révolte des contribuables américains » de Charles-Henri d’Andigné dans Le Cri nº 90.)

[INTERTITRE] Le Nouveau Gouverneur Ose s’Attaquer aux Fonctionnaires

Aussitôt élu, le Gouverneur Walker réduit les impôts et s’attaque aux avantages des fonctionnaires : il ne s’agit pas seulement de réduire les pensions et les avantages sociaux (pour qu’ils soient plus proches de leurs équivalents dans le privé), il veut aussi laisser aux employés de l’État le choix de payer ou non des cotisations syndicales tout en supprimant la possibilité pour les syndicats de négocier collectivement leurs conditions de travail.

Pourquoi ne devrait-on pas laisser les employés publics former un syndicat ? (Franklin Roosevelt, le président qui était à l’origine de l’État-providence à l’américaine, avait dit que ce serait de la folie de ce faire.) Parce que, contrairement au syndicat d’une entreprise privée, il n’y a personne pour opposer ce qui est un monopole, pas de contre-pouvoir pour assurer que leurs demandes restent raisonnables, pas de PDG pour assurer que son argent ne soit pas utilisé n’importe comment. Surtout, les politiciens n’assumeront pas ce rôle, puisqu’ils seront « récompensés » par le syndicat (en espèces, en contributions, et en votes) s’ils acquiescent à leur ouvrir les robinets des deniers publics, alors que, à l’inverse, ils seront punis s’ils s’y opposent — exactement comme c’est le cas pour Scott Walker.

En effet, les boucliers se lèvent au Wisconsin et c’est une véritable fronde syndicaliste qui prend forme en défense du statu quo et de l’état nourrice. Dès février 2011, l’ensemble des sénateurs d’État démocrates quittent Madison, la capitale, pour se réfugier dans l’État voisin (l’Illinois de Barack Obama), dans l’espoir d’empêcher les partisans des réformes d’atteindre le quorum. Pendant ce temps, des centaines de milliers de manifestants et de grévistes descendent sur Madison avec slogans, chants et tambours pour noyer, jour après jour, la capitole dans un boucan incessant (préfigurant le mouvement Occupy Wall Street). Plusieurs Républicains, réformateurs ou non, reçoivent des menaces de mort. Une première vague de recalls a lieu pendant l’été 2011, visant six sénateurs républicains (les Républicains riposteront en organisant des élections recalls contre trois Démocrates), qui se soldera par des échecs sauf pour deux républicains. N’oublions pas la tentative d’élire une juge d’extrême gauche à la Cour Suprême de Wisconsin. Enfin, en janvier 2012, la réunion de plus de 900.000 signatures pour demander le recall de Scott Walker ainsi que de son lieutenant-gouverneur et de quatre sénateurs républicains.

Rien n’y fait. Grâce à la politique de Scott Walker, le Wisconsin a atteint, en moins d’un an et demi, un taux de chômage inférieur à la moyenne nationale et un budget en équilibre, ainsi qu’une diminution de la criminalité. Par ailleurs, les citoyens ne veulent pas que les États-Unis continuent de se comporter comme la Grèce ou de l’Espagne ou qu’ils subissent leur sort. Enfin, faire appel au recall, alors qu’il n’y a eu ni affaire criminelle ni preuve d’incompétence (le recall est une procédure rarissime, utilisé seulement trois fois depuis le début de l’histoire des USA), n’est pas du goût des électeurs, qui voient (avec raison) d’un mauvais œil le fait de faire appel au recall simplement parce qu’on n’a pas digéré le résultat, légitime, d’élections non contestées.

[INTERTITRE] Lamentations des Médias

Suite à la victoire de Scott Walker (plus de 53.1%, mieux que ses résultats dans l’élection de 2010), les rares récits que les médias français produiront sur l’affaire seront larmoyants pour les nobles syndicats, leur échec dû à l’injustice du monde capitaliste : « Pour le monde syndical, les enseignants et les fonctionnaires qui se sentent montrés du doigt comme les fauteurs de déficits, c’est un coup dur » regrette Corine Lesnes dans Le Monde. Comme ses homologues américains, le journal de référence accuse le capitalisme, mentionnant les contributions, soi-disant anti-démocratiques, de ces « milliardaires républicains … des frères Koch … aux Texans Harold Simmons et Bob Perry » — tout en oubliant pertinemment l’existence de George Soros et d’autres milliardaires démocrates…

On avance les chiffres de « 45,6 millions en faveur de Scott Walker [contre] 17,9 millions pour Tom Barrett » (le maire de Milwaukee, adversaire démocrate du gouverneur dans le recall) ; à la Maison Blanche, le porte-parole de Barack Obama regrette une « compétition dans laquelle l’un des adversaires a huit fois plus d’argent que l’autre » ; tandis qu’un un manifestant à Madison sanglotera : « C’est la fin de la démocratie ». Or, tous ces chiffres sont trompeurs, vu que les statistiques ignorent plusieurs données. Par exemple (et avant tout), ils ne tiennent pas compte des contributions des syndicats (aussi opaques, voire plus, aux USA qu’en France) qui atteindraient — au moins — le chiffre de 21 millions de dollars.

Par ailleurs, on notera que la gauche, américaine comme française, est beaucoup moins scandalisée quand c’est la gauche qui dépasse la droite en dépenses, comme c’était le cas en 2008 (la campagne de Barack Obama a dépensé le double de celle de John McCain), ou en 2012 quand il s’agissait de vanter (!) le fait que la campagne de réélection d’Obama allait dépenser plus que toutes les campagnes antérieures de l’histoire des États-Unis, et atteindre, pour la première fois, le chiffre rond d’un milliard de dollars.

Le combat et la victoire de Scott Walker risquent fort d’être source d’inspiration pour les gouverneurs d’autres États (tant démocrates que républicains), ainsi que pour les maires des villes surendettées (des réformes similaires sur les pensions publiques ont été votées dans les villes californiennes de San Diego (maire républicain) et de San José (maire démocrate)). Mitt Romney, le candidat du parti républicain qui a promis d’être pro-contribuables et pro-business s’il était élu président en novembre 2012, a aussitôt réagi : « Les résultats de ce soir auront un écho au-delà des frontières du Wisconsin … Le gouverneur Walker a montré que les citoyens et les contribuables peuvent l’emporter sur les coûts incontrôlés de la fonction publique imposés par les syndicats. »

Erik Svane

Le Gouverneur du Wisconsin Scott Walker, visé par les syndicats pour avoir décidé de remettre de l’ordre dans les dépenses de l’État, a remporté les élections du 5 juin haut la main.

Beaucoup de Français ne semblent pas s’en rendre compte — tant les médias, américains comme français, se sont montrés discrets sur le sujet — mais le 5 juin, les contribuables américains ont remporté une grande victoire.

Ce jour-là, la tentative, de la part des syndicats nationaux et de leurs alliés parmi les pouvoirs retranchés (et particulièrement au parti démocrate), de mettre fin à la vie politique d’un réformateur au Wisconsin a échoué. Le Gouverneur Scott Walker, visé par les syndicats pour avoir décidé de remettre de l’ordre dans les dépenses de l’État, se confronte à une élection de « rappel » (a recall election, normalement réservée pour des affaires criminelles) et la remporte, haut la main.

Rappelons que Scott Walker fait partie du mouvement de protestation adoubé Tea Party (leur devise pourrait être « non, nous ne sommes pas des vaches à lait ») dont les membres sont de fait les contribuables américains qui, finalement, en ont eu assez de l’argent jeté par les fenêtres — la goutte qui a fait déborder la vase arrive lorsque Barack Obama dépense plus pendant sa première année à la Maison Blanche (2009) que George W Bush ou Bill Clinton pendant leurs huit ans à la tête du pays — provoquant le raz-de-marée des révoltés pendant les élections de mi-mandat en novembre 2010 qui décime la majorité démocrate. Le Tea Party est tant contre le parti démocrate (naturellement de gauche) que, dans les primaires du parti républicain (plutôt conservateur), contre les dinosaures qui se sont laissés scléroser par l’usure.

N’oublions pas que la mauvaise réputation dont jouissent parfois les Tea Partiers, tant en Amérique qu’en France — ils ne seraient autre chose que des abrutis réactionnaires, voire des racistes, etc —, est due à une volonté expresse et délibérée de la part de la classe politique installée (tant de gauche comme de droite, et des deux côtés de l’Atlantique) de les diaboliser, car les politiciens professionnels savent que si les idées de ces trouble-fêtes ( »ça suffit ! cessez de jeter de l’argent par les fenêtres ! ») triomphent, la « fête » dont ils jouissent depuis des vingtaines d’années risque de prendre fin. (Pour plus de détails, lire « Tea Parties : La révolte des contribuables américains » de Charles-Henri d’Andigné dans Le Cri nº 90.)

Le nouveau gouverneur ose s’attaquer aux fonctionnaires

Aussitôt élu, le Gouverneur Walker réduit les impôts et s’attaque aux avantages des fonctionnaires : il ne s’agit pas seulement de réduire les pensions et les avantages sociaux (pour qu’ils soient plus proches de leurs équivalents dans le privé), il veut aussi laisser aux employés de l’État le choix de payer ou non des cotisations syndicales tout en supprimant la possibilité pour les syndicats de négocier collectivement leurs conditions de travail.

Pourquoi ne devrait-on pas laisser les employés publics former un syndicat ? (Franklin Roosevelt, le président qui était à l’origine de l’État-providence à l’américaine, avait dit que ce serait de la folie.) Parce que, contrairement au syndicat d’une entreprise privée, il n’y a personne pour opposer ce qui est un monopole, pas de contre-pouvoir pour assurer que leurs demandes restent raisonnables, pas de PDG pour assurer que son argent ne soit pas utilisé n’importe comment. Surtout, les politiciens n’assumeront pas ce rôle, puisqu’ils seront « récompensés » par le syndicat (en espèces, en contributions, et en votes) s’ils acquiescent à leur ouvrir les robinets des deniers publics, alors qu’à l’inverse, ils seront punis s’ils s’y opposent — exactement comme c’est le cas pour Scott Walker.

En effet, les boucliers se lèvent au Wisconsin et c’est une véritable fronde syndicaliste qui prend forme en défense du statu quo et de l’état nourrice. Dès février 2011, l’ensemble des sénateurs d’État démocrates quittent Madison, la capitale, pour se réfugier dans l’État voisin (l’Illinois de Barack Obama), dans l’espoir d’empêcher les partisans des réformes d’atteindre le quorum. Pendant ce temps, des centaines de milliers de manifestants et de grévistes descendent sur Madison avec slogans, chants et tambours pour noyer, jour après jour, la capitale dans un boucan incessant (préfigurant le mouvement Occupy Wall Street).

Plusieurs Républicains, réformateurs ou non, reçoivent des menaces de mort. Une première vague de recalls a lieu pendant l’été 2011, visant six sénateurs républicains (les Républicains riposteront en organisant des élections recalls contre trois Démocrates), qui se soldera par des échecs sauf pour deux républicains. N’oublions pas la tentative d’élire une juge d’extrême gauche à la Cour Suprême de Wisconsin. Enfin, en janvier 2012, la réunion de plus de 900 000 signatures pour demander le recall de Scott Walker ainsi que de son lieutenant-gouverneur et de quatre sénateurs républicains.

Rien n’y fait. Grâce à la politique de Scott Walker, le Wisconsin a atteint, en moins d’un an et demi, un taux de chômage inférieur à la moyenne nationale et un budget en équilibre, ainsi qu’une diminution de la criminalité. Par ailleurs, les citoyens ne veulent pas que les États-Unis continuent de se comporter comme la Grèce ou l’Espagne et qu’ils subissent leur sort. Enfin, faire appel au recall, alors qu’il n’y a eu ni affaire criminelle ni preuve d’incompétence (le recall est une procédure rarissime, utilisé seulement trois fois depuis le début de l’histoire des USA), n’est pas du goût des électeurs, qui voient (avec raison) d’un mauvais œil le fait de faire appel au recall simplement parce qu’on n’a pas digéré le résultat, légitime, d’élections non contestées.

Lamentations des médias

Suite à la victoire de Scott Walker (plus de 53,1%, mieux que ses résultats dans l’élection de 2010), les rares récits que les médias français produiront sur l’affaire seront larmoyants pour les nobles syndicats, leur échec dû à l’injustice du monde capitaliste : « Pour le monde syndical, les enseignants et les fonctionnaires qui se sentent montrés du doigt comme les fauteurs de déficits, c’est un coup dur » regrette Corine Lesnes dans Le Monde. Comme ses homologues américains, le journal de référence accuse le capitalisme, mentionnant les contributions, soi-disant anti-démocratiques, de ces « milliardaires républicains … des frères Koch … aux Texans Harold Simmons et Bob Perry » — tout en oubliant pertinemment l’existence de George Soros et d’autres milliardaires démocrates…

On avance les chiffres de « 45,6 millions en faveur de Scott Walker [contre] 17,9 millions pour Tom Barrett » (le maire de Milwaukee, adversaire démocrate du gouverneur dans le recall) ; à la Maison Blanche, le porte-parole de Barack Obama regrette une « compétition dans laquelle l’un des adversaires a huit fois plus d’argent que l’autre » ; tandis qu’un manifestant à Madison sanglotera : « C’est la fin de la démocratie ». Or, tous ces chiffres sont trompeurs, vu que les statistiques ignorent plusieurs données. Par exemple (et avant tout), ils ne tiennent pas compte des contributions des syndicats (aussi opaques, voire plus, aux USA qu’en France) qui atteindraient — au moins — le chiffre de 21 millions $.

Par ailleurs, on notera que la gauche, américaine comme française, est beaucoup moins scandalisée quand c’est la gauche qui dépasse la droite en dépenses, comme c’était le cas en 2008 (la campagne de Barack Obama a dépensé le double de celle de John McCain), ou en 2012 quand il s’agissait de vanter (!) le fait que la campagne de réélection d’Obama allait dépenser plus que toutes les campagnes antérieures de l’histoire des États-Unis, et atteindre, pour la première fois, le chiffre rond d’un milliard $.

Le combat et la victoire de Scott Walker risquent fort d’être source d’inspiration pour les gouverneurs d’autres États (tant démocrates que républicains), ainsi que pour les maires des villes surendettées (des réformes similaires sur les pensions publiques ont été votées dans les villes californiennes de San Diego (maire républicain) et de San José (maire démocrate)). Mitt Romney, le candidat du parti républicain qui a promis d’être pro-contribuables et pro-business s’il était élu président en novembre 2012, a aussitôt réagi : « Les résultats de ce soir auront un écho au-delà des frontières du Wisconsin … Le gouverneur Walker a montré que les citoyens et les contribuables peuvent l’emporter sur les coûts incontrôlés de la fonction publique imposés par les syndicats. »

Erik Svane, journaliste, auteur de La Bannière étalée

When you criticize the alt-left, it’s hate speech; When they criticize you, it’s speaking truth to power

Suddenly the alt-left is very concerned about the First Amendment rights of people

writes Howie Carr in the Boston Herald

– some people, anyway.

Specifically, George Soros et al. care about those useful idiots in shoulder pads whom they want to use in their unending attempts to overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election.

As for the First Amendment rights to free speech of everyone who isn’t a card-carrying fellow traveler – what rights do those deplorables have?

What about the Christian bakers in Oregon who were sued out of business for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Or the clerk in Kentucky (a Democrat by the way) who refused to marry a gay couple?

Don’t they have the same First Amendment rights as the Beautiful People?

Haven’t we been told by innumerable squirrelly adjunct professors of womyn’s (CQ) studies that conservatives need not apply to speak on college campuses because “free speech” does not apply to “hate speech?” Think Middlebury, UC Berkeley, Evergreen State, Oberlin and so forth.

 … The Democrat operatives posing as journalists on CNN-MSNBC-ABC-CBS etc. are shocked, shocked that Trump would insert himself in NFL politics. But when Obama demanded that the Redskins change their name, he was a Profile in Courage. They wanted to give Barry another Nobel Peace Prize.

Which just goes to prove that being a billionaire doesn’t necessarily protect you from a left-wing anti-free-speech crusade – or should I say jihad. Just ask ‘Skins owner Dan Snyder.

You know how it works. When you criticize the alt-left, it’s hate speech. When they criticize you, it’s speaking truth to power.

“Divisive” – any statement the alt-left disagrees with.

“Dogwhistle” – any word they don’t like but don’t want to specifically call “racist,” I mean, “white supremacist,” their new term for the r-word.

How about YouTube demonetizing videos from conservative bloggers, and social media sites like Facebook and Google suppressing posts from right-wing users.

 … I could go on… and on… and on. So could Donald Trump. And he will, you know.

The resistance to DOGE, aka the sheer entertainment of clownworld's clueless clowns' beclownments

Q: What is best in life? 

A: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you,
and to hear the lamentations of their women.

It turns out that our ol' friend, Damian Bennett, has a few choice comments about the reaction, and about the resistance, to the DOGE bulldozer, to the DOGE onslaught, and to the DOGE blitzkrieg:

Let's start here:

Judge Blocks Elon Musk, DOGE, Access To Treasury Department Data February 9, 2025

U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer: “[Defendants Trump, POTUS, and Bessent, Treasury Secretary] are restrained from granting access to any Treasury Department record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees, other than to civil servants with a need for access to perform their job duties within the Bureau of Fiscal Services.”

I'm no lawyer, but it seems obvious that the first-order 'civil servants' with a need to know would be POTUS and the Treasury Secretary, who are charged with both oversight and management of said department. Next order would be any 'civil servant' they duly designate. Regarding Trump’s Chess Game Is Improving, here is the original complete Tom Renz TRO analysis (somewhat fractured because original is an X thread):

'GARBAGE': Lawyer Takes Order Blocking DOGE From Treasury APART Point-By-Point February 9, 2025

The analysis details there's so much wrong here. The judge will certainly be subject to a mandamus writ OR...

[Rep. Eli Crane (AZ-R)] Drafting Articles Of Impeachment Against Lawless Anti-Trump Judge February 11, 2025

...and the TRO will certainly be dissolved or thrown out. But this will be the left's template for the next four years: kitchen sink litigation, shop a judge, lose on merits or law, appeal, appeal, appeal, till SCOTUS spanks them, litigate something else, repeat. Of course this is a retooling of Biden lawfare -- but without the luxury of the immense resources of the DOJ at its disposal. The dispirited left is having a big sad... 

Mental health experts are seeing an increase in patients, largely Democrats, citing burnout and despair [due] in part to the energy required to keep up with Trump's rapid-fire policies.

...and has neither the money nor personnel -- nor time before mid-terms -- to endlessly litigate a Trump administration that is impressively capable and prepared to take on all comers. THE LEFT ALSO DOESN'T HAVE THE SMARTS. Chuck 'Grillmaster' Schumer, Nancy 'Amateur Theologian' Pelosi, Jamie 'Pardon Me' Raskin, Maxine 'Let Me In' Waters, Adam 'Pardon Me' Schiff, Ilhan 'Brother Love' Omar, the whole of the DNC, the whole of the Soros universe, are simply overmatched by the one Pam Bondi. 

Further the left is playing defense. It is behind the news, not in front. The cats -- stampeding -- are out of the bag. DNC media in order to explain all the Democrat agita has been compelled to report the specifics of the DOGE findings. OH NOOoooes! The public has been informed! Senator John Kennedy (LA-R) has suggested a read out of each USAID grant on the Senate floor followed by the opportunity for anyone to stand and support it.  

The left no longer has the force of argument. So like all good Nazis do, they have donned their rumpled wash-n-wear brown shirts, black ties, and Mützen and are openly calling for violence. The only thing holding them back is that the left are inherently cowards. Don't expect Antifa to man the barricades and risk being J6'd by the Trump DOJ. They are psychopathic brown shirts kitted out in ninja black tact, which is to say, cosplay thugs, which is to say, bullies, which is to say, cowards.

I am enjoying all this immensely. [Louder.] EEE-MENCE-LEEEEEE. Alas, it has me back chasing headlines -- not as previously for daily fear of new Constitutional abuses and threats, but for the sheer entertainment of clownworld's clueless clowns' beclownments.

Clowny #1

[Princeton Professor Eddie] Glaude: There’s An Idea Underneath The Constitution That America Must Always Be A White Nation February 10, 2025

Glaude: “[W]hat’s interesting about the current moment, we have a second gilded age. We have a reassertion of U.S. imperial power, and we have the latest articulation of white supremacy at the same time.”

Oh, Eddie, PAH-PUH-leeeze. They don't make lachrymatories big enough for your ocean of tears.

Clowny #2

Sen. Chris Murphy (CT-D): Trump Has US ‘Staring Death Of Democracy In The Eyes’ February 11, 2025

Nutmeg Murphy: “Listen, I mean, this isn’t hyperbole to say that we are staring the death of democracy in the eyes, right now. The centerpiece of our democracy is that we observe court rulings. Criminal court rulings, civil court rulings and constitutional court rulings. No one is above the law. ... This is a really dire moment. And no, so far, they’ve been talking tough, but I think largely have complied with these court orders.”

CNN: “But you’re saying we’re not there yet, basically?”

Nutmeg Murphy: “Well, listen, on this specific question of whether or not [Trump administration] are prepared to openly violate a court order? We are not there.”

Not there yet, ah, just dire-moment-death-of-democracy staring for now. Ever vigilant because the courts are sacrosanct, because 'no one is above the law™'. [Needle scratch.] Wait.

• Biden's Rebuff To Supreme Court On Eviction Ban Will Backfire August 4, 2021
  It’s not only bad constitutional law. It’s bad constitutional politics to spurn Justice Kavanaugh’s sensible judgment.
  
• Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-D): ‘The Biden Administration Should Ignore’ Court Abortion Pill Ruling April 7, 2023
• Biden’s Student Loan Boast: The Supreme Court ‘Didn’t Stop Me’ February 23, 2024
• Biden Pardons Son Hunter In Bombshell U-turn As He Claims He Was 'Unfairly Prosecuted' On Gun And Tax Crimes In Effort To 'Break Him' December 2, 2024
  Biden: “Here's the truth: I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice [Ahem. See below highlighted.] - and once I made this decision this weekend, there was no sense in delaying it further. I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision.”
  [No, actually, I'm a little confused after all the adamant denials.

Biden Insists He Will Not Pardon Hunter OR Commute His Sentence For Gun Crimes June 13, 2025

Biden repeated his vow not to pardon his son...[and] also said he was satisfied his son got a fair trial and reiterated his support for him.]

• Biden Warned Against Trump Preemptively Pardoning Family After 2020 Election, Then Did It Himself Minutes Before Leaving Office January 21, 2025

The Democrats have not an inkling of self-awareness how their end-of-times woke democracy spew doesn't play in Trump's best-of-times democracy. The DNC and the left instead blaze a path forward to oblivion with ankle biting, 'big mad' threats, fantasy revolution, 'big sad' therapy, bench lawfare, and losing forever and ever till kingdom come.

Clowny #3

Pope Francis Slams U.S. Immigrant Deportations: Illegals Are Not Criminals February 11, 2025

Franny: “I have followed closely the major crisis that is taking place in the United States with the initiation of a program of mass deportations. The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality.”
[Ahem. 'Illegal status' is prima facie 'criminality'. Oh. Ahem again.]

• Vatican Promises Stiff Penalties For Illegal Aliens Crossing Its Border January 16, 2025
  [Oh. Ahem. Hat trick.]
• Jesse Kelly On X February 10, 2025: I just visited the Vatican for the first time last month. It was freezing. While in line outside, there was a homeless man with no shoes or socks on begging right outside the Vatican gates.
  Then I walked through Vatican security.
  No more homeless people to be seen.
  

This Pope, such a baseline intelligence embarrassment. Hypocritical. And heretical.

Of course, chasing headlines also provides the daily entertainments of winning.

• The NCAA Officially Caves To Trump, Won't Let Men Play Women's Sports February 6, 2025
• Trump To NCAA: Strip Awards From Athletes Who Didn't Rightfully Earn Them February 11, 2025
• Trump—Flying Aboard Air Force One On Way To Super Bowl—Proclaims It 'Gulf Of America' Day February 9, 2025
• Over 65,000 Federal Workers Reportedly Accept Trump Administration Buyout Offer February 10, 2025
• Judge Denies CBS Motion To Dismiss Trump 60 Minutes Lawsuit As [Trump] Demands $10 Billion More [= $20B] February 11, 2025
• PBS Caves To Trump: ‘We Have Closed Our DEI Office’ February 11, 2025
• Top CFPB Leaders Dismissed As Trump Team Begins To Dismantle Agency February 11, 2025
  [The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is Elizabeth 'No Penis' Warren's unConstitutional junk bureaucracy & consumer privacy albatross.]
• Trump To Nix Biden Restrictions On Water-using Appliances, Lightbulbs: ‘Common Sense Standards’ February 11, 2025
  [F*ck hazardous mercury-laden curly bulbs!]

And that, dear reader, that is only February. February so far.