[YouTube] the source is a 12 minute discussion of the case post-verdict
the discussion is by the office of the US District Attorney for MN
including the two convicted today, those convicted earlier and those pleading guilty, about 40 people have been found guilty, another 2 dozen await trial
the fraud was over $250M of which, I think, about $65M has since been recouped
Gov Tim Walz and Att General Keith Ellison are guilty of allowing this and ignoring Minnesota state employees who reported the problem. Walz and Ellison have, to date, paid no penalty partly because of the dissimulation of the Star Tribune.
United States vs. Amy Bach and Salim Saeed. Feeding Our Future was a Somali immigrant effort. During the COVID shutdown they billed for meals, etc for poor Minnesota children that were not served.
[BREITBART] Several longtime sponsors, including the company that makes Bud Light, have pulled their funding from the annual the Socialist paradise of San Francisco ...where God struck dead Anton LaVey, home of the Sydney Ducks, ruled by Vigilance Committee from 1859 through 1867, reliably and volubly Democrat since 1964... Gay Pride Weekend.
For some reason, San Francisco Pride requires $3.2 million to cover its June weekend of events. Corporate sponsors were expected to pay $2.3 million of that. But after four declined, the organization will have to scramble to make up the $300,000 shortfall elsewhere.
San Francisco Pride's executive director, Suzanne Ford, told SFGATE that they expect to lose a few sponsors every year, but it was ''very abnormal'' for four sponsors who have been with them for years to suddenly bail out.
''I just interpreted that companies are making decisions that at this time it's not good to be sponsoring Pride,'' she said. ''I think in this political environment that they thought that was a risky decision. But that's just me reading the tea leaves. I think for a long-term sponsor not to sponsor us, they are responding to what we are.''
According to Ford, ''Comcast; Anheuser-Busch, the company behind Budweiser and Beck's beer; wine company La Crema; and Diageo, the beverage company that produces Guinness, Smirnoff,'' all declined to be a sponsor this year.
Anheuser-Busch, it should be noted, is the company behind Bud Light, the beer hit with a major backlash and damaging boycott after the company chose transvestite Dylan Stench of Death Mulvaney ...the transexual influencer who single-handedly trashed a major American beer brand owned by a Belgian company, tainted Maybelline and Condé Nast, and then demanded that anybody who called him/her/it a man be arrested... as a spokesperson.
From where I sit two things have changed—
The first is that much of the public's opinion of the so-called LGBTQ community has soured. A public that had come to sympathize with the bigotry and treatment of homosexuals no longer feels that same goodwill. After all, we were told that gay people just wanted to be left alone, to be allowed to live and let live. That turned out to be a big, fat lie. In about six seconds we went from, How does my same-sex marriage affect you, to openly targeting little kids with grooming, gay porn in elementary schools, drag queens reading to kids, boys playing in girls' sports, men barging into women's bathrooms and locker rooms, and this monstrous push to permanently mutilate children as sacrifices to the trans gods.
The second thing that happened is that with the reelection of President Trump, Normal People stood up and said, Enough of this fascist ...anybody you disagree with, damn them... , anti-science perversion! Emboldened with the knowledge we are on the 80 percent side after years of the corporate media making us feel alone, Normal People are finally pushing back against the Pronoun Nazis. Normal People are also letting corporations know that if they subsidize this grooming and child-queering, a price will be paid.
Normal People don't care what consenting adults do. That's not the issue. It's just a fact that too much of the so-called LGBTQ movement is targeting our children now, and that changes everything. And any corporation that aids and abets child predators should be shamed out of business.
#2
I remember Miller used to sponsor the Up your Alley or Folsom Street Fair. They dropped it I think due to Zombietime photos of the event..some nasty, nasty going on's
#3
Evidently Anheuser-Busch has finally responded to pain.
Actually, I have no problem with companies advertising to and supporting these groups, if they've got customers there.
It's when you throw those ads at me that I get upset.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
03/20/2025 9:15 Comments ||
Top||
#4
If they sold a good product it would sell on it's reputation and not have to cuddle up to perversion.
[ConservativeTreehouse] When you understand how Washington DC Judges view their role and responsibility, then you understand the scale of opposition that President Trump is facing. The false media framework of our "government" only makes the issues worse. So, here’s an explanation of Boasberg v Trump.
In 2016 the DOJ-NSD headed by Mary McCord filed a FISA application seeking a Title-1 search (full and unlimited) surveillance warrant against the leading presidential candidate, Donald Trump. The method to gain the surveillance authority was to use CIA informant Carter Page who had met with the Trump campaign and call Page an "agent of a foreign power."
The FISA Court knowingly and with specific intent approved the Title-1 surveillance warrant which was filed using false evidence (Clinesmith) and sketchy supporting documents (Steele Dossier), no Woods File was attached.
At the time of the application, Mary McCord was acting head of the DOJ National Security Division. McCord was responsible for filing the warrant application. The DOJ-NSD had no inspector general oversight. The targeting of candidate Donald Trump was entirely for political purposes and intents.
After President Trump won the 2016 election, he gave DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz authority to conduct oversight over the DOJ-NSD. IG Horowitz started investigating the FISA application. This is where things get interesting.
The FISA Court (FISC) was exposed by their willful blindness in allowing the Title-1 targeting of Donald Trump.
Justice John Roberts is in charge of the FISC.
The keystone point.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts then appointed Judge James Boasberg to the position of presiding judge over the FISA Court (FISC).
Judge Boasberg then selected Mary McCord to be an amicus or advisor to the court as Horowitz was investigating the fraudulent FISA application.
Boasberg put the person who was in charge of submitting the false FISA application in a position to filter the results of the Horowitz investigation of that same FISA application.
In essence, think of this as protecting the Judicial Branch. Justice Roberts appointed Boasberg to defend the FISC from scrutiny. Boasberg then moves Mary McCord into position to defend the FISC from scrutiny (McCord also protects herself).
At the time, Mary McCord’s husband Sheldon Snook was working within Justice Robert’s office.
That’s how John Roberts, James Boasberg and Mary McCord all connect. All the motives and intents go back to that original Title-1 FISA application.
Remember, this was a huge scandal all by itself. The FISA Court permitted a full-throated surveillance warrant against the leading presidential candidate, Donald Trump. The Judicial Branch was intentionally influencing the 2016 election. These are not stupid people; they were not duped, conned or fooled, they knew exactly what they were doing.
After appointing Mary McCord to take up a defensive position for herself and the FISA Court (cover), Judge Boasberg then becomes the presiding judge in the case against the FBI agent who falsified the FISA application, Kevin Clinesmith. Boasberg gives Clinesmith a slap on the wrist and a few months’ probation (more cover).
This is the same Judge Boasberg gave J6 FBI agent provocateur Ray Epps a sentence of probation. This is the same judge who, on his vacation, went to sit in the DC courtroom to observe defendant President Trump who was forced to appear in DC court. This is the same Boasberg who established a horrible precedent by forcing Vice-President Mike Pence to testify before a DC grand jury about his conversations with President Trump (breaking executive privilege).
♦ Now we go back to the John Durham investigation, because Bill Barr had to ask Presiding Judge Boasberg for guidance and direction as the Durham team looked at the FISA application (Title-1 surveillance warrant) against the backdrop of the Obama government targeting Donald Trump.
This is June of 2020, Bill Barr (who was running another cover-up angle) asked Judge Boasberg for guidance on five very specific issues centering around the Carter Page FISA application. Barr asked for legal guidance to assist John Durham in disclosing information in the FISA file & evidence attached to the FISA file.
The five issues all circle around the FBI/DOJ use of the Carter Page FISA application; and, more importantly, the underlying evidence that is attached to the FISA application. [source]
I. DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material due to FOIA demands. FISC gives legal opinion
II. DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material due to ongoing and anticipated civil litigation. The FISC gives legal opinion and expands to criminal litigation.
III. DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material to internal investigative units from the FBI inspectors division (INSD). FISC gives opinion and advice.
IV. DOJ requests guidance for distribution of non-minimized information, and/or, minimized information as part of the ongoing Office of Inspector General oversight. FISC gives opinion and guidance.
V. DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material to John Durham probe, both for criminal prosecution and possible evidence gathering attached to other ongoing investigative needs. FISC gives opinion and guidance.
Now, keep in mind, with hindsight we know the DOJ (Bill Barr) was essentially walking a fine line between uncovering information and trying to protect the DOJ as an institution. John Durham was never approved to investigate the government side of the Trump-Russia collusion nonsense.
At the same time, Judge Boasberg is trying to protect the FISC from their culpability and also protect the FISA Court as an institution. Everyone has an agenda here, and none of them are good.
That leads to Boasberg outlining a cautious approach toward distribution and/or sunlight on what took place. On this issue the court says allowing a target to escape prosecution is part of the penalty upon the DOJ for wrongful assembly; a nice way to cover the issue.
Judge Boasberg does not consider the DOJ is targeting the "assemblers" for their criminal conduct. Rather his response is general toward criminals who were targets of a FISA application assembled with corrupt intent. It seemed a little weird at the time, now notsomuch.
Pages #11 and #12 hit the topic of FOIA production. Boasberg says "some" FOIA requests might warrant document distribution, but not all. However, on the topic of Carter Page getting his FOIA fulfilled, the court supports expansive distribution to Mr. Page alone.
I find the arguments and issues in/around page #14 to be especially noteworthy. In this segment Judge Boasberg is responding to the underlying raw evidence that would normally be used to assemble a "woods file". The court notes the FBI Sentinel system would contain the minimized outcomes (redacted evidence) and this points to a bigger issue.
In response to this inquiry Judge Boasberg notes FBI investigators would have access to the minimized information within the Sentinel system; however, insofar as there was additional inquiry into the raw and non-minimized intelligence, a review and distribution would be permissible so long as there was a strong filter team in place to ensure statutes surrounding FISA securities (minimization requirements) were not violated.
Overall, Judge Boasberg gives permission and approval for all six aspects Bill Barr requested. However, he does so with several legal qualifiers and distinctions which the DOJ was told to observe. Those qualifiers were intended to protect the interests of both Main Justice and the FISA Court from sunlight upon their prior conduct in 2016.
SUMMARY — Judge Boasberg has been demonstrably political in all his determinations going all the way back to his position on the FISC when the FISA application was approved. Boasberg was then moved into position to protect the FISC from the outcome of their Title-1 search warrant approval.
Boasberg then used his position as Presiding FISC judge to protect the apparatus, while using his position as DC Circuit Court Judge to diminish, obfuscate and cloud the severe ramifications from all of the DC effort, including his rulings on the Kevin Clinesmith (FBI Agent) and Ray Epps (FBI Source) cases.
Judge Boasberg sits at the epicenter of a thoroughly corrupt and compromised DC court system.
I like this approach recommended by Hokkada:
..."It’s important to remind people that the inferior courts do not work for or report to the Supreme Court. CONGRESS creates the inferior courts and as such, Congress can eliminate courts, add courts, and control funding of the courts. Congress also can impeach. And a key element of impeachment is the hearings process.
A hearings process that subpoenas Federal district court judges to testify before Congress would cast a lot of sunlight on the corrupt Judicial-Lawfare-Complex. Could the end result be impeachment? Certainly.
But it could also lead to something better in the long run: descope of the Federal court system which has grown bloated, corrupt, and arrogant because it answers to nobody.
They’re the 3rd branch of government for a reason — they are not elected by anyone, and therefore hold the least amount of power when it comes to governance. SCOTUS doesn’t even control their own budget. They can’t levy taxes. They can’t declare war. They can’t decide what constitutes citizenship.
The answer to all of this is sunlight. Simply compel Biasberg to testify in open public hearings about his role in Lawfare and his interpretation of the Federal district court’s ability to direct the actions of the Commander in Chief, issue "nationwide injunctions" and so forth. Then let’s get into his direct role in Lawfare.
Roberts wants to pretend impeachment of Biasberg is about a "political disagreement". But it is not. This is a judicial coup d’etat we are witnessing. And the only way to stop it is to descope the judiciary and limit its ability to issue injunctions.
If crimes are discovered, such as aiding and abetting terrorist organizations, the judges should be removed. Judges can "obstruct justice" too. They are not Jesus in black robes. They are every bit as tempted by corruption — perhaps more so because they are deemed infallible by the Chief Justice — as any politician."...
[American Liberty] The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) is yet another example of an unaccountable, so-called independent agency created by Congress, a legislative Frankenstein that has evolved beyond its intended function. The very idea that there exist taxpayer-funded institutions dictating foreign policy outside the control of the elected president is nothing short of absurd. This latest confrontation between the Trump administration and the USIP reveals the deep structural flaws of the modern administrative state. If the president of the United States does not control an agency engaged in global regime-building, then who does? The answer to that question is as unsettling as it is opaque.
For decades, the USIP has operated under the veneer of bipartisan consensus, quietly steering foreign policy initiatives with little public scrutiny. It claims a mandate for peace, but in reality, it plays a pivotal role in deciding which foreign governments are deemed acceptable and which must be destabilized. Who sets these policies? Who ensures accountability? Congress may have formed this entity, but few legislators even know how it operates, let alone exercise any real oversight. This is an affront to the Constitution’s separation of powers. The idea that the legislative branch should have its own de facto foreign policy operation, separate from and untouchable by the executive, is beyond reason. Worse, this organization has a well-documented history of producing and distributing manuals designed to teach activists how to subvert and overthrow governments. Some of these same materials surfaced during the Occupy Wall Street movement, the BLM/Antifa riots and the recent pro-Palestinian campus takeovers. The American taxpayer is footing the bill for an organization that actively undermines both U.S. interests abroad and domestic stability at home.
Democrats, predictably, will argue that USIP was designed to function outside presidential control—that it was meant to be an independent entity promoting global peace. But let’s be clear: no part of the federal government should be operating as a rogue state-within-a-state.
There is no justification for a government-funded body engaging in foreign influence campaigns and tactical subversion without direct oversight from the duly elected head of the executive branch. This ongoing conflict between the Trump administration and the USIP presents a critical test case for the Supreme Court in addressing the unchecked proliferation of independent agencies. The Court must decide whether Congress has the authority to create organizations that function independently of presidential authority in matters of international relations.
[DailyWire] Employees of DOGE's latest target spent taxpayer money on exotic vacations, portraits, and more.
One of the seven small federal agencies that President Donald Trump ordered downsized or eliminated on Friday was rife with corruption, with its employees hiring friends and relatives, commissioning paintings of themselves, and using government credit cards to indulge in constant luxuries.
The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) occupied a nine-story office tower on D.C.’s K Street for only 60 employees, many of whom actually worked from home, prior to the pandemic. Its managers had luxury suites with full bathrooms; one manager would often be “in the shower” when she was needed, while another used her bathroom as a cigarette lounge. FMCS recorded its director as being on a years-long business trip to D.C. so he could have all of his meals and living expenses covered by taxpayers, simply for showing up to the office.
FMCS is a 230-employee agency that exists to serve as a voluntary mediator between unions and businesses. As an “independent agency,” its director nominally reports to the president, but the agency is so small that in effect, there is no oversight at all — and it showed, becoming a real-life caricature of all the excesses that the Department of Government Efficiency has alleged take place in government.
This reporter spent a year investigating the agency a decade ago, and I found egregious and self-serving violations of hiring, pay, contracting, and purchase card rules. One thing I could not discover is why the agency actually existed, other than to provide luxurious lifestyles for its employees. Endless junkets to resort destinations, which employees openly used to facilitate personal vacations, were justified as building awareness of the agency in the hopes that someone would actually want to use its voluntary services.
FMCS seemed, quite clearly, to exist for the benefit of those on its payroll, and not much else. One employee told me: “Let me give you the honest truth: A lot of FMCS employees don’t do a hell of a lot, including myself. Personally, the reason that I’ve stayed is that I just don’t feel like working that hard, plus the location on K Street is great, plus we all have these oversized offices with windows, plus management doesn’t seem to care if we stay out at lunch a long time. Can you blame me?”
Posted by: NoMoreBS ||
03/20/2025 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11136 views]
Top|| File under: Tin Hat Dictators, Presidents for Life, & Kleptocrats
#1
Sounds like a living example of a sinecure. Leeches, ticks, and parasites. Begone.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
03/20/2025 3:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Under which administration was this boondoggle authorized or allowed?
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/20/2025 8:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Couldn't they have found a judge who would block the closure? Surely there must be a district Court Judge who would find that the closure was unconstitutional.
[JustTheNews] "Congress should reassert its constitutional authority and rescind its vast, unconstitutional delegation of power to independent agencies" like NLRB and SEC, watchdog says.
As the Trump administration battles the courts over the president's far-reaching orders and animus toward individual judges, earning a rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, the Biden administration's four years of alleged censorship via Big Tech collusion and coercion — sporadically blocked in court — continues to unravel.
Ninety federal agencies and components were involved in 57 "distinct" Biden-era censorship initiatives through direct actions, policies or rulemakings, partnerships and grants, according to a report by the Media Research Center, whose prior documentation of news-rating service NewsGuard's alleged bias played a role in subsequent congressional and agency investigations.
While the initiatives happened "behind closed doors," readers should view them "in the context" of President Biden's bully pulpit, MRC said, which promoted censorship of political opponents, called platforms un-American for "declining to contract with censorship outfits" and famously accused Facebook owner Meta of "killing people" for insufficient censorship.
The conservative watchdog emphasized that Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland "refused to prosecute any of the perpetrators" for illegal censorship and his Department of Justice "refused to even launch a single investigation" after a federal judge compared the whole-of-government effort to an "Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth.'"
Building on Trump's executive orders on free speech and artificial intelligence means "learning the extent of the harm the last four years have inflicted – and understanding how easily and swiftly censorship could come roaring back if the American public does not remain more vigilant," MRC said.
The conservative watchdog, whose report systematically organizes and diagrams initiatives but does not appear to have surfaced any previously unknown, is unofficially tag-teaming probes with the House Judiciary Committee.
Last month's subpoena by committee Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, prompted FBI Director Kash Patel to turn over documents related to the Biden Justice Department's alleged weaponization scandals that targeted parents, Catholics and pro-life activists.
The report showed that DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security appeared in a whopping 15 and 13 initiatives respectively, such as DHS's "collusion" with the U.K.'s Counter Disinformation Unit to "target speech in each other’s countries" and DOJ's "imaginary, alternative version of antitrust law" that requires artificial intelligence developers to collude on "anticompetitive censorship."
One of MRC's more notable reminders is how the prior administration used the cover of fighting antisemitism to coordinate censorship of "hate" through AI.
AI shows up in five initiatives, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken's Partnership for Global Inclusivity with Big Tech firms that dedicated $3 million in taxpayer money to "train AI to favor certain ideologies (and thus censor disfavored ideologies)" and censor purported misinformation, disinformation and hate.
Going the other direction, the Federal Communications Commission sought to regulate political speech that uses AI, a proposal MRC called vague enough to punish "automatic color grading or voice amplification."
The FCC was also involved in five initiatives, including what MRC called "perversion" of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act by imposing antidiscrimination rules on Title II-regulated common carriers "and then making the bizarre and incongruous choice to exempt firms like Amazon, Apple and Google … de facto blessing Big Tech censorship."
Elon Musk joined the five-timers club as a target, with special prosecutor Jack Smith gagging his social media company X from telling users – including then-GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump – that Smith was reading their private messages and the State Department was funding a Ukrainian group that sought Musk's censorship for his antiwar views.
The National Labor Relations Board repeatedly harassed Musk before and after he purchased Twitter, including an order to delete a post criticizing the United Auto Workers and warning Tesla employees what unionizing could mean for their stock, the report says.
NLRB blocked companies from "even verbally discouraging" misconduct by employees who support the Biden administration's COVID-19 policies, in MRC's view, when it punished Trader Joe's for firing an employee who "scream[ed] at her managers in front of customers" for removing its mask mandate, skipped shifts and kept agitating for mask mandates.
Much as the second Trump administration's enforcement actions in the name of antisemitism have drawn criticism as attacks on free speech, MRC's report notes the Biden administration used antisemitism to justify sweeping control over online speech.
State's Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor & Combat Anti-Semitism hosted an online symposium – attended by White House official Neera Tanden and U.K. Labour Party-tied Center for Countering Digital Hate – in which "domestic and foreign government officials colluded directly with Big Tech" to censor purposed harms.
The Biden White House promoted "AI algorithms to censor speech and debate" through its National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, which also called on Congress to punish platforms that insufficiently censor undefined hate, "creating a nebulous standard that would make it easy for government officials to coerce platforms into silencing their critics," the report says.
Secretary Blinken makes the first of several appearances in what MRC calls "The Framework for Censorship" – the Global Engagement Center's Framework to Counter Foreign State Information Manipulation, which roped in countries including Canada, the U.K. and even tiny Montenegro to fund "censorship organizations" and direct platforms to censor.
He's mentioned in the funding of NewsGuard by agencies and components including State and its Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights & Labor, Defense and its Air Force and Army, and the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy.
The prior administration "covertly defied" the non-reauthorization of GEC by Congress in December, MRC said, by seeking "to hide career bureaucrats doing censorship work in various sub-cabinet agencies," including a new Counter Foreign Information Manipulation & Interference Hub and State's DHRL, where some GEC staff were tasked with "information integrity."
MRC's recommendations for Trump include removing officials involved in censorship, such as National Science Foundation Director Sethuraman Panchanathan for overseeing the "Track F" grants that target misinformation or disinformation, and defunding "censorship outfits" such as the Poynter Institute, whose fact-checker deemed the COVID-19 lab-leak theory a lie.
It called on Congress to "provide justice for victims of censorship" such as through a bill by Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyoming, that resembles last session's Censorship Accountability Act, which created a private right of action to sue federal officials for First Amendment violations.
"Congress should reassert its constitutional authority and rescind its vast, unconstitutional delegation of power to independent agencies like the National Labor Relations Board and Securities & Exchange Commission," MRC said.
[Daily Mail, where America gets its news] Donald Trump demanded the Federal Reserve 'do the right thing' and cut interest rates after Chair Jerome Powell said they were going to hold steady.
The president believes lower rates will help ease the transition to his tariffs against Canada and Mexico. Retaliatory tariffs are coming from the United States on April 2.
Trump criticized Powell and the Federal Reserve in a post to Truth Social on Wednesday night.
'The Fed would be MUCH better off CUTTING RATES as U.S. Tariffs start to transition (ease!) their way into the economy. Do the right thing. April 2nd is Liberation Day in America!!!'
On April 2, Trump will implement 'retaliatory tariffs' to offset the import taxes and non-tariff barriers of all trading partner countries.
Lower rates make it cheaper for businesses to borrow money but crucially it also cuts borrowing costs for ordinary Americans, who then have more to spend on goods and services.
Trump believes that this combined with his tariff plans will make the American economy soar to new heights.
Powell did say on Wednesday that they planned to cut rates twice later this year but not in time for Trump's proposed 'Liberation Day.'
Since taking office, Trump has moved to radically redraw global trade flows, already imposing a 20% increase in import duties on goods from China and 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico that do not comply with U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement trade rules.
He has also fully restored 25% tariffs on global steel and aluminum imports.
At the moment, the policy signal from Trump's tariff plans is unclear, but much would depend on how quickly any tariff-related inflation moved through the economy, and whether inflation expectations stay well-anchored.
He said recent strong inflation readings during the last two months were unexpected but may be due to people buying ahead of tariffs.
The Fed will try to trace those effects, but there is a lot of 'noise' surrounding announcements of tariffs being put on and delayed.
The Federal Reserve has held interest rates steady, but said it still plans to cut them twice later in 2025.
But officials said they inflation is still not under control, and they also revised down growth forecasts - in both cases blaming Trump's policies such as tariffs.
The central bank's decision keeps the benchmark rate between 4.25 percent and 4.5 percent, as analysts expected.
#1
Since the Fed Reserve seems to answer the DC Swamp Deep Pockets. Powell’s term as chair runs until May 2026.
So I don't expect any serious reductions in interest rates until 2026... after the mid terms
With that said, why should a US Citizen Fund the Fed (tax $$) to borrow $$$ thru a Bank that uses our Tax $$$ to jack up the Interest Rate to buy a family house.
If DC wants to reduce homeless #'s and build families, then how about Direct Home Loans, for approved housing?
Eliminate the Banks and their rule of 78 that drives up prices?
“You know that announcement might lower the 10-year rate on interest rates because people [would] say ‘Wow, these guys got it covered and they have a plan on how they’re going to be able to pay down this debt and they’re actually in really good shape.'”
[FoxNews] A federal judge ruled in favor of the Trump administration on Wednesday, after a government-funded nonprofit organization filed a lawsuit protecting itself from "ongoing destruction" from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
The U.S. Institute for Peace (USIP) filed a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) on Tuesday, claiming that DOGE had committed "literal trespass and takeover by force...of the Institute’s headquarters building on Constitution Avenue."
The organization also accused the anti-waste initiative of "ongoing destruction of the Institute’s physical and electronic property."
"Defendants have been and are at this minute engaged in conduct that will cause the Institute irreparable harm that will prevent the Institute from performing any of its lawful functions and is likely to utterly destroy it," the lawsuit stated.
In a decision on Wednesday, Judge Beryl Howell motioned to deny the USIP's request for a TRO.
"I think there is confusion in the complaint that make me uncomfortable," Howell said.
"I would say I am very offended by how DOGE has operated in the Institute in treating American citizens.... but that concern about how this has gone down is not one that can sway me in the consideration of factors for TRO, which is emergency relief, which is exceptional," she continued.
Howell, who was appointed as a senior judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2024, also said she was "particularly concerned about plaintiffs’ likelihood of success."
[THECENTERSQUARE] The House Subcommittee for the Department of Government Efficiency is calling the leadership of National Public Radio, a news operations that receives taxpayer funding, to testify before Congress, it said Wednesday. Go ahead, refuse to testify
The House subcommittee was created to operate similarly to DOGE, the Trump Administration's federal effort to cut waste, fraud and abuse in the government. NPR is under scrutiny for its left-leaning political coverage while receiving taxpayer funding.
The hearing is expected March 26, and the leadership of the Public Broadcasting System has also been asked to testify.
''I want to hear why NPR and PBS think they should ever again receive a single cent from the American taxpayer,'' U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who leads the DOGE Subcommittee, said.
Defenders of the groups point out that most of their funding is not from the government and that they offer a public service. PBS said it receives about $500 million a year from Congress.
Katherine Maher, CEO and president of NPR, and Paula Kerger, CEO of PBS, were personally asked to testify at the hearing, which has been called ''Anti-American Airwaves: Holding the Heads of NPR and PBS Accountable.''
The hearing comes as Trump seeks to make cuts to government agencies and contracts across the federal government, leaving no institution safe from possible defunding.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/20/2025 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11134 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I have heard that NPR is only funded 10% by the feds. I bet the number is higher if you count the money going from the Feds through leftist NGOs to NPR. I would be satisfied to just turn the money spigot off to both of them including the pass throughs. No need to shut them down directly.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/20/2025 4:15 Comments ||
Top||
#2
SIMPLE LOGIC APPLIES
When any MEDIA - NEWS or Social Media accepts the DC Swamp
$$$$M's.
It loses impartiality.
Why?
Because DC given that $$$$ to buy allegiance.
Knowing the takers always be wanting to get more $$$$ and the various DC protections that come with it.
eg. Facebook censoring real technical data at the direct request of the Biden Controllers.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/20/2025 14:00 Comments ||
Top||
#7
1 suggested Welfare Fraud fix. - Require every single mother ID provide a list of possible dad's for any child covered.
Then ID and make the DAD pay his child support fair share. As a Taxpayer, why am I having to cover the costs for his multiple Sperm Donations.
Also require the voter plantations and Section 8 users adhere to strict tenant control policies.
In other words, the Baby Daddy should pay his part of the RENT and not stay free.
[FOXNEWS] As aspects of President Donald Trump ...The Hero of Butler, Pennsylvania... 's agenda are stymied by judges amid legal challenges, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has suggested that Congress could strip federal courts of jurisdiction.
"Congress has the authority to strip jurisdiction of the federal courts to decide these cases in the first place. The sabotaging of President Trump's agenda by 'resistance' judges was predictable — why no jurisdiction-stripping bills tee'd up at the onset of this Congress?" DeSantis wrote in a Wednesday post on X.
When someone responded by asking how such a move could pass when 60 votes would be needed to push it through the Senate, DeSantis replied, "Attach it to a 'must pass' bill—"
Posted by: Fred ||
03/20/2025 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11133 views]
Top|| File under:
With simple majorities you could, as I’ve previously suggested, bring back the requirement for three-judge district courts when the legality of federal statutes is challenged, and expand that requirement to include challenges to executive orders.
Another thing you could do with simple majorities ... is to strip federal courts of jurisdiction to issue Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions in the class of cases that we’ve been seeing. Or, indeed, to strip them of jurisdiction to hear any complaints regarding the internal administration of the Executive. Or stripping courts of jurisdiction to issue any order in such cases until an appeals bond has actually been posted by the moving party.
Also:
These are all things that could be done with the existing legislative majorities, and that would do more to address existing problems than impeachments, with less of a downside.
Unfortunately my understanding of Senate rules about filibusters means 60 votes are necessary to stop debate and vote on a bill, for which (at that point) a simply majority would then be necessary to pass the bill.
In addition, getting Congress to do anything substantial along these lines seems an immense task.
Only 593 days until the next Election Day when the entire House and 1/3 of the US Senate is up for reelection or replacement. If enough would-be voters make Congressional action an imperative during the nomination and primaries, it could happen. Otherwise the dictatorship of the federal judiciary will drag on and on and on.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
...where God struck dead Anton LaVey, home of the Sydney Ducks, ruled by Vigilance Committee from 1859 through 1867, reliably and volubly Democrat since 1964...
...The Hero of Butler, Pennsylvania...
