JK22

Sorry; bare disse med klarering i tråd med gjeldende lov er tillatt, så hvis Trump gir Musk fullmakt har han - for hundre ganger - overgått hans mandat - eller hvis Musk gjør det på egen initiativ, er det ulovlig. Det er 6 trillion dollar som det handler om, under kongressens mandat.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/utterly-terrifying-poll-reveals-elon-musk-effect-pushing-far-right-afd-closer-to-power-in-germany/ar-AA1yeZwm?ocid=BingNewsVerp&cvid=78e78f5290224819a0eb3a05027992a5&ei=12 Det er horribelt. Musks misbruk av sosiale medier risikere nå å kaste oss ut i katastrofen, for flere og flere tyskerne vil nå stemme på AfD som er kommet på annenplassen bak CDU, mens SPD er sterkt fallende - hele 25 %vil stemme på AfD som er anti-EU, og 35 % vil ha AfD-lederen som kansler.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-and-elon-musk-just-pulled-off-another-purge-and-it-s-a-scary-one/ar-AA1ycBKd?ocid=BingNewsVerp&cvid=ba407062e5344f82a4a245524aa78e21&ei=33 President Donald Trump has granted Elon Musk unprecedented power to carry out his war on the “deep state.” The justification for this is supposed to be that the government is corrupted to its core precisely because it is stocked with unelected bureaucrats who are unaccountable to the people. Musk, goes this story, will employ his fearsome tech wizardry to root them out, restoring not just efficiency to government, but also the democratic accountability that “deep state” denizens have snuffed out—supposedly a major cause of many of our social ills. The startling news that a top Treasury Department is departing after a dispute with Musk shows how deeply wrong that story truly is—and why it’s actively dangerous. The Washington Post reports that David Lebryk, who has carried out senior non-political roles at the department for decades, is leaving after officials on Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, sought access to Treasury’s payment system: Lebryk had a dispute with Musk’s surrogates over access to the payment system the U.S. government uses to disburse trillions of dollars every year, the people said. The exact nature of the disagreement was not immediately clear, they said. The news raises a complicated question: WTF??? Why is Musk’s DOGE trying to access payment systems inside the Treasury Department? It’s not clear what relevance this would have to his ostensible role, which is to search for savings and inefficiencies in government, not to directly influence whether previously authorized government obligations are honored. Another question: Did Trump directly authorize Musk to do this, or did he not? Either answer is bad. If Trump did, he may be authorizing an unelected billionaire to exert unprecedented control over the internal workings of government payment systems. If he did not, then Musk may be going rogue to an even greater extent than we thought. I contacted a few former officials at the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to try to gauge what this means. What was striking is the level of alarm they evinced about it. Here’s how the Post describes these systems: Typically only a small number of career officials control Treasury’s payment systems. Run by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, the sensitive systems control the flow of more than $6 trillion annually to households, businesses and more nationwide. Tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people across the country rely on the systems, which are responsible for distributing Social Security and Medicare benefits, salaries for federal personnel, payments to government contractors and grant recipients and tax refunds, among tens of thousands of other functions. Former officials I spoke with were at a loss to explain why Musk would want such access. They noted that while we don’t yet know Musk’s motive, the move could potentially give DOGE the power to turn off all kinds of government payments in a targeted way. They said we now must establish if Musk is seeking to carry out what Trump tried via his federal funding freeze: Turn off government payments previously authorized by Congress. The White House rescinded the freeze after a national outcry, but his spokesperson vowed the hunt for spending to halt will continue. The former officials are asking: Is this Treasury power grab a way to execute that? “Anybody who would have access to these systems is in a position to turn off funding selectively,” said Michael Linden, a former OMB official who is now director of Families Over Billionaires, a group fighting Trump’s tax cuts for the rich. “The only reason Musk wants to get himself in there must be because he wants to turn some things off.” These officials describe these systems as almost akin to a series of faucets. Congress, by authorizing payments, fills the tanks and decides where the water will ultimately flow. The team overseen by the now-departing Lebryk in effect is in control of the spigots, these officials said. What also alarms these officials is that this is unfolding even as a debt ceiling crisis looms. When the government is on the verge of defaulting on its obligations, these officials tell me, it’s Lebryk and his team who carefully monitor the situation to determine, to the greatest extent possible, on what date it will no longer be able to meet its obligations. This team monitors the water levels, these officials say, noting that this is how Treasury knows what to say in those letters that periodically warn Congress that a breach is approaching. As it happens, this is precisely why we want career, non-political civil servants to be in charge of the spigots. To put it delicately, this is some really complicated shit, and we want the process to be administered in a totally non-politicized way. Letting someone like Musk anywhere near it risks corrupting it quite deeply. “The payment systems are controlled by a small number of career officials precisely to protect them and the full faith and credit of the United States from political interference,” said Jesse Lee, who was a senior adviser to the National Economic Council under President Joe Biden. Or as Linden put it: “This is exactly the kind of thing you do not want political appointees getting involved in.” All of which is why it’s critical to know whether Trump directly authorized this move by Musk. Trump’s executive order creating DOGE orders agencies to give it access to “all” unclassified records and systems. As the Post notes, that would appear to include these Treasury ones. But we need to know whether Trump was aware of or directly authorized this particular effort by DOGE to access Treasury’s payment systems. Even if a relatively innocent explanation for this is possible—maybe DOGE merely hopes to study how efficient they are—the move clearly alarmed this longtime government veteran enough to prompt his resignation. Did Trump want Musk to have this access, and if so, for what purpose? “Is this something that has authorization and approval from the White House and specifically the president?” asked Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer, in an interview. “Or is this Musk going rogue within the federal bureaucracy?” If Trump did greenlight it, Moss said, it would mean he’s “authorizing Elon to shove his weight into the most crucial parts of our financial mechanisms,” and “exposes the basic functions of government to the whims of a non-governmental employee.” If Trump did not, it would represent a “complete abuse of authority and discretion” on Musk’s part: “He has no possible need for access to those systems.” Whatever more we learn, this saga already demonstrates exactly why we want an apolitical, professionalized civil service, one in which career officials enjoy a variety of protections to safeguard their independence. As Jonathan Chait points out at The Atlantic, the whole point of the civil-service system is precisely that it ensures that challenging, consequential government jobs go to people who are actually qualified to execute them. Whatever Musk intends with this new effort, this isn’t part of any war on the “deep state.” We’re witnessing a broad assault on that genuinely meritocratic achievement—one that could enable right-wing elites to corruptly loot the place, or install a highly “personalist” government marked above all by loyalty to Trump himself, or some combination of the two. And by all indications, that larger war is fully backed by the president himself. Norge har helt presist det samme systemet som USA, med en viktig endring; det er under kontroll av Stortinget med et sett av forskjellige lover som skal hindre innblanding og manipulering, selv om den norske tradisjonen med dobbeltstandard gjør at det er akkurat i denne delen av statsforvaltningen de fleste skandaler skjer, og som de norske mediene er sterkt opptatt av som vaktbikkjer med stor glød. Uvedkommende og utenforstående er nærmest tabu - så det som skjer i USA er noe som kan oppfattes å være svært kjettersk som hvis å banne med gudspotting i nærheten av paven under den viktigste seremonien i selve Peterskirken. Uansett vekker det meget stor uro. Fryseordren har i det minst blitt dels skrinlagt, men det var gjennom et legalt inngrep som må fornyes inntil kongressen gjør noe, hvor demokratene sliter med å samle seg mens republikanerne er i rådvillhet mellom MAGA og ikke-MAGA. I slutten kan dommerstanden bli nødt til å gripe inn om kaoset bare skulle forverre seg.

Så Trump ønsker å tvinge alle 505,000 venezuelanske flyktninger som hadde fått TPS-status som midtetidige beskyttede flyktninger av Biden-administrasjonen, rett tilbake til det brutale Madurodiktaturet i Venezuela. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/outrageous-trump-administration-move-to-scale-back-protections-for-venezuelans-in-us-sparks-concern-in-south-florida/ar-AA1y9lDU?ocid=BingNewsSerp “It’s outrageous that President Trump rescinded the extension of TPS that President Biden issued,” Wasserman Schultz said. “The people who have fled the Maduro regime fled for their lives. Maduro uses oppression and funds from his oil sales to the United States and other countries to engage in terrorism. he aligns himself with the access of evil — Russia, China and Iran — and he is illegally in office,” she said. “TPS is designed to make sure that people who would fear for their lives and their safety if they return to their country, that we can keep them safe here for a period of time,” Wasserman Schultz said. “It is dangerous for anyone to be returned to Venezuela, and Trump canceling the TPS for Venezuelans who are here sends them to almost certain harm if he starts deporting them.” Wasserman Schultz also condemned Noem for the language she used during the "Fox & Friends" announcement, appearing to refer to Venezuelans in the U.S. as “dirtbags.” “In fact, the secretary of Homeland Security called those Venezuelans that are my neighbors and friends dirtbags — dirtbags. The disrespect and the vulgarity and the condescension with which Trump and his administration look at people who have fled countries where there’s oppression to make a better way of life for themselves and keep their families safe is revolting,” Wasserman Schultz said. Noem said that the “people of this country want these dirtbags out,” referring to “the Venezuelans that are here and members of TDA.” TDA is a reference to the Tren de Aragua, a gang based in Venezuela. Disse venezuelanske flyktningene hadde sterk republikansk støtte fordi de kom fra et marxistiskinspirerte regime og dermed faller under kategorien som "frihetssøkende migranter" i øyne på den latinspråklige delen av republikanerne, spesielt kubaneramerikanerne som står sterk i Florida, hvor venezuelanerne var ønsket velkomne. For øyeblikket vil republikanerne i Florida beskytte venezuelanerne i egne delstat, så det kan oppstå åpen konflikt om Trump skulle deportere disse TPS-beskyttede flyktninger, spesielt fordi disse inneha verdi i form av høyutdanning i ung alder (14 % - mot bare 9 % i USA - !) og dermed er ettertraktet i arbeidsmarkedet. Det er knapt overraskende at Maduro sier ja, det er hans mål å tvinge flyktningene tilbake under hans kontroll.

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/India/very-dangerous-trump-dumps-billions-of-gallons-of-water-farmers-were-counting-on-for-summer/ar-AA1ydrCb?ocid=BingNewsSerp&cvid=64e0860650e84e11b8e401efa6dec193&ei=20 Å, gud... han er gal. Han hadde på egenhånd uten å konsultere med eksperter eller lokalmyndighetspersoner beordret frislipp av reservevannet. Ja, du leser riktig; reservevann! Vi vet hvor viktig det er, man må alltid ha vann i reserve for strømproduksjon, vannregulering og flomkontroll som vanning av jordbruk. De to store demningsanleggene, Terminus Dam i Lake Kaweah og Schafer Dam i Lake Success som ligger i Tulare County i San Joaquin-dalen har blitt åpnet i vintertid slik at dette kom som et stort sjokk på bøndene som realisert at de måtte berge så mye vann som mulig for sommeren når det er lite tilgjengelig vann! Skal vedde på at bøndene som stemt republikansk, ikke innså dette. In a post to his official X account, Trump tweeted a "photo of beautiful water flow that I just opened in California," writing: "Today, 1.6 billion gallons and, in 3 days, it will be 5.2 billion gallons." He suggested that the water release would help officials in the Golden State fight wildfires in Southern California. Galskap! Galskap! Dette er reservevann som trenges for den tørre sesongen i året 2025, som vil vare i mange måneder - i en oppvarmingsperiode som kan varer i flere tiår, om ikke århundrer! (klimaet i California er syklisk, våt/kald-periode (1800-2020) og tørr/varm-periode (startet siden 2020- ) California har allerede dårlig med vann fra før. “Every drop belongs to someone,” Kaweah River Watermaster Victor Hernandez told SJV Water. “The reservoir may belong to the federal government, but the water is ours. If someone’s playing political games with this water, it’s wrong.” "A decision to take summer water from local farmers and dump it out of these reservoirs shows a complete lack of understanding of how the system works and sets a very dangerous precedent," Vink said. "This decision was clearly made by someone with no understanding of the system or the impacts that come from knee-jerk political actions." Climate scientist Peter Gleick — who specializes in water issues — lamented on Bluesky that water resources farmers had been "relying on" were effectively "thrown away" by the Trump administration all for the sale of "a photo op & a bragging media post." "This water will not be captured, will not be useful for cities or farms or firefighting," Gleick wrote. "It is now lost."

Ja og nei; det finnes mange lover, men presidentskapets natur gjør det meget problematisk fordi det finnes ikke ministerier som kunne konfronteres, fordi det er i praksis en enmannsregjering hvor det bare er en enslig mann som fordele oppgaver til hans rådgivere og administrative med minimal innblanding utenom nomineringsprosesser i kongressen. Musk har ikke kongressens tillatelse, og det samme kunne sies om flesteparten av inngrepene i det amerikanske statsbyråkratiet som er kommet under et voldsomt angrep som minner om utrenskningen av Baath-byråkratiet i Irak i 2003. Nemlig at det skje uten kongressens tillatelse og dermed ikke er lovlig. Men da er det i gråsonen mellom presidentskapet og kongressen. Det er sterk kritikk for tiden, mange reagere voldsomt på sluttpakkestrategien rettet mot flere millioner ansatte som er vitalt for den føderale statens funksjoner. Selv hvis bare 5 til 10 % skulle akseptere, vil det få store konsekvenser. På toppen hadde Musk grepet inn og sabotert for alle, slik at statsansatte som er i besittelse av uerfarne kunnskap, følt at de er kommet under angrep fra meget aggressive fiender som helt ignorere viktigheten av statesfunksjonene. Hvis bare lojalister settes inn, vil det i virkeligheten underminerte den føderale staten inntil punktet at den ikke kan fungere under forskjellige administrasjoner i fremtiden - da har man i virkeligheten innført et partibyråkrati etter samme modell som i Sovjetunionen. Som betyr at nye regjeringer og nye kongresser ikke kan overta etter "republikanerne" fordi staten vil da motarbeide dem.

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/a-new-era-of-anti-intellectualism-and-what-all-senior-trump-officials-have-in-common-opinion/ar-AA1y7rJb?ocid=BingNewsSerp The many controversial people appointed to the Trump administration, from Elon Musk to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have at least one thing in common: They dislike and distrust experts. While anti-intellectualism and populism are nothing new in American life, there has hardly been an administration as seemingly committed to these worldviews. Take President Donald Trump’s decision to nominate Kennedy, a well-known vaccine skeptic, to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy, whose Senate confirmation hearing is Jan. 29, 2025, epitomizes the new American political ethos of populism and anti-intellectualism, or the idea that people hold negative feelings toward not just scientific research but those who produce it. Anti-intellectual attacks on the scientific community have been increasing, and have become more partisan, in recent years. For instance, Trump denigrated scientific experts on the campaign trail and in his first term in office. He called climate science a “hoax” and public health officials in his administration “idiots.” Skepticism, false assertions This rhetoric filtered into public discussion, as seen in viral social media posts mocking and attacking scientists like Dr. Anthony Fauci, or anti-mask protesters confronting health officials at public meetings and elsewhere. Trump and Kennedy have cast doubt on vaccine safety and the medical scientific establishment. As far back as the Republican primary debates in 2016, Trump falsely asserted that childhood vaccines cause autism, in defiance of scientific consensus on the issue. Kennedy’s long-term vaccine skepticism has also been well documented, though he himself denies it. More recently, he has been presenting himself as “pro-vaccine safety,” as one Republican senator put it, on the eve of Kennedy’s confirmation hearing. Kennedy has mirrored Trump’s anti-intellectual rhetoric by referring to government health agency culture as “corrupt” and the agencies themselves as “sock puppets.” If confirmed, Kennedy has vowed to turn this anti-intellectual rhetoric into action. He wants to replace over 600 employees in the National Institutes of Health with his own hires. He has also suggested cutting entire departments. During one interview, Kennedy said, “In some categories, there are entire departments, like the nutrition department at the FDA, that are – that have to go.” Populism across political spectrum In lockstep with this anti-intellectual movement is a version of populism that people like RFK Jr. and Trump both espouse. Populism is a worldview that pits average citizens against “the elites.” Who the elites are varies depending on the context, but in the contemporary political climate in the U.S., establishment politicians, scientists and organizations like pharmaceutical companies or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are frequently portrayed as such. For instance, right-wing populists often portray government health agencies as colluding with multinational pharmaceutical companies to impose excessive regulations, mandate medical interventions and restrict personal freedoms. Left-wing populists expose how Big Pharma manipulates the health care system, using their immense wealth and political influence to put profits over people, deliberately keeping lifesaving medications overpriced and out of reach – all of which has been said by politicians like Bernie Sanders. The goal of a populist is to portray these elites as the enemy of the people and to root out the perceived “corruption” of the elites. This worldview doesn’t just appeal to the far right. Historically in the United States, populism has been more of a force on the political left. To this day, it is present on the left through Sanders and similar politicians who rail against wealth inequality and the interests of the “millionaire class.” In short, the Trump administration’s populist and anti-intellectual worldview does not map cleanly onto the liberal-conservative ideological divide in the U.S. That is why Kennedy, a lifelong Democrat and nephew of a Democratic president, might become a Cabinet member for a Republican president. The cross-ideological appeal of populism and anti-intellectualism also partly explains why praise for Trump’s selection of Kennedy to head the Department of Health and Human Services came from all corners of society. Republican senators Ron Johnson and Josh Hawley lauded the move, as did basketball star Rudy Gobert and Colorado’s Democratic governor, Jared Polis. Even former President Barack Obama once considered Kennedy for a Cabinet post in 2008. Anger at elites Why, then, is disdain for scientific experts appealing to so many Americans? Much of the public supports this worldview because of perceived ineffectiveness and moral wrongs made by the elites. Factors such as the opioid crisis encouraged by predatory pharmaceutical companies, public confusion and dissatisfaction with changing health guidance in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the frequently prohibitive cost of health care and medicine have given some Americans reason to question their trust in science and medicine. Populists have embraced popular and science-backed policies that align with an anti-elite stance. Kennedy, for example, supports decreasing the amount of ultra-processed foods in public school lunches and reducing toxic chemicals in the food supply and natural environment. These stances are backed by scientific evidence about how to improve public health. At the same time, they point to the harmful actions of a perceived corrupt elite – the profit-driven food industry. It is, of course, reasonable to want to hold accountable both public officials for their policy decisions and scientists and pharmaceutical companies who engage in unethical behavior. Scientists should by no means be immune from scrutiny. Examining, for example, what public health experts got wrong during the COVID-19 pandemic would be tremendously helpful from the standpoint of preparing for future public health crises, but also from the standpoint of rebuilding public trust in science, experts and institutions. However, the Trump administration does not appear to be interested in pursuing good faith assessments. And Trump’s victory means he gets to implement his vision and appoint people he wants to carry it out. But words have consequences, and we have seen the impact of anti-vaccine rhetoric during the COVID-19 pandemic, where “red” counties and states had significantly lower vaccine intent and uptake compared with the “blue” counterparts. Therefore, despite sounding appealing, Kennedy’s signature slogan, “Make America Healthy Again,” could – in discouraging policies and behaviors that have been proven effective against diseases and their crippling or deadly outcomes – bring about a true public health crisis. Dominik Stecuła, Assistant Professor of Communication and Political Science, The Ohio State University; Kristin Lunz Trujillo, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of South Carolina, and Matt Motta, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Boston University Denne artikkelen knytter antiintellektualismen med populistismen og at den ikke er beregnet til bare høyre- eller venstresiden. Men det er et langt og utilgivelig stort sprang til antivitenskap som i virkeligheten er altfor farlig for menneskeheten.

https://www.msn.com/en-in/politics/government/inside-the-gop-s-60-year-conspiracy-to-kill-our-democracy-opinion/ar-AA1yewLx?ocid=BingNewsSerp Inside the GOP's 60-year conspiracy to kill our democracy In Wednesday’s Daily Take I mentioned Russell Kirk and the origins of today’s hard right GOP. A few people replied with, “Who’s that?” and similar questions; others were incredulous that Republicans actually believed the middle class created by FDR’s New Deal was a bad thing. So, here’s the backstory to what I mentioned. I was thirteen years old in 1964 when my dad, a Republican activist, gave me a copy of John Stormer’s book “None Dare Call It Treason.” The Goldwater campaign had sent it to him, and its claim that the State Department was filled with communists intent on handing America over to the USSR had his friends buzzing. Ironically, Stormer’s book and the movement it ignited within the GOP is largely responsible for that party today standing on the precipice of fully endorsing fascism as an alternative to democracy in the US. And it was started by morbidly rich men (it was all men back then) who wanted to use the threat of a “communist menace” to gut the union movement to increase their own corporate profits and CEO pay. The founding premise of the modern conservative movement tracks back a generation before Stormer’s book to a Republican thought leader named Russell Kirk. He laid it out in his 1951 book The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot, as I detail in The Hidden History of American Oligarchy. Kirk argued that the middle class was becoming a threat to America; without clearly defined classes and power structures — essentially without the morbidly rich in complete control of everything — he worried that society would devolve into chaos. The opening chapter of his book was about Edmund Burke, the Irish conservative who wrote, in 1790, that hairdressers and candlemakers should not be allowed to run for political office or even to vote: “The occupation of a hairdresser or of a working tallow-chandler cannot be a matter of honor to any person — to say nothing of a number of other more servile employments. Such descriptions of men ought not to suffer oppression from the state; but the state suffers oppression if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule. In this you think you are combating prejudice, but you are at war with nature...” Kirk and his followers essentially predicted in 1951 that if today’s “hairdressers and working tallow-chandlers” — college students, women, working-class people, and people of color — ever got even close to social and political power at the same level as wealthy white men, there would essentially be a communist revolution in the US, handing us over to Stalin and his Politburo. (Keep in mind, this was when racial segregation was legal and brutally enforced, the voting age was 21, campuses were almost entirely all-male, both abortion and birth control were illegal in most states, and women couldn’t open checking accounts or get credit cards without a husband’s, brother’s, or father’s signature.) Throughout the 1950s, Kirk and his warnings of the dangers of an activist middle-class developed a small following; the most prominent of his proponents were William F. Buckley Jr. and Barry Goldwater. Most Republicans, though, considered him a crackpot. But when the birth-control pill was legalized in 1961 and the Vietnam War heated up a few years later, those marginalized groups Kirk had warned his wealthy white male followers about began to rise up in protest. Kids were burning draft cards, women were burning bras, and Martin Luther King Jr. was leading a movement for racial justice that the white power structure blamed for American cities burning. Gay liberation was also having a moment. Meanwhile, the Arab Oil Embargoes of the 1970s had lit the flame of inflation, and unionized workers were striking all over America for wage increases to keep up with the rising cost of living. Wealthy white conservatives freaked out as the morbidly rich promoted the idea that America was experiencing a “moral decline” that could only be fixed by ending the union movement and other “liberal” causes that shared the union movements’ populist goals. They became convinced that they were seeing Kirk’s prophecy play out in real time on their television screens every night: the “communists” — those uppity racial minorities, women who’d forgotten their “rightful place in society,” students who objected to Vietnam, unionized workers, and gender minorities — were on the verge of “taking over” America. These five movements all hitting America at the same time got the attention of conservatives and Republicans who had previously ignored or even ridiculed Kirk back in the 1950s. Suddenly, America’s most powerful and well-known conservative commentators (like William F. Buckley Jr.) were telling Republicans that Russell Kirk was, indeed, a prophet. They’d finally found a politically acceptable “hook” to destroy the wealth of working-class people and transfer trillions into their own money bins: fear of communism and a prophesied social decay caused by an activist middle class. The Republican/Conservative “solution” to the “crisis” these five movements represented was put into place in 1981 when Ronald Reagan was sworn into office: the explicit goal of the morbidly rich white men funding the so-called Reagan Revolution was to take the middle class down a peg to end the protests of the ’60s and ’70s, restore “social stability,” and increase corporate profitability. Their plan was to declare war on labor unions so wages could slide back down again, end free college across the nation so students would live in fear rather than be willing to protest, and increase the penalties Nixon had already put on drugs so they could use those laws against their scapegoats, particularly the hippy antiwar protesters and Black people demanding an end to police killings. They also wanted to outlaw abortion, to put women “back in their place.” Thus, Reagan massively cut taxes on rich people and raised taxes on working-class people 11 times. For example, he put income taxes on Social Security and unemployment payments, and put in a mechanism to track and tax tips income, all of which had previously been tax-free but were exclusively needed and used by middle-class people. He ended the tax deductibility of credit-card, car-loan, and student-debt interest, overwhelmingly claimed by working-class people. At the same time, he cut the top tax bracket for millionaires and billionaires from 74% to 25%. (There were only a handful of billionaires in America then, in large part because of previous tax policies; today’s democracy-destroying explosion of billionaires followed Reagan’s, Bush’s, and Trump’s massive tax cuts on the rich.) Reagan declared war on labor unions, crushed PATCO in less than a week, and over the next decade the result of his war on labor was that union membership went from about a third of the American workforce when he came into office to around 10% at the end of the Reagan/Bush presidencies. It’s just now beginning to recover from its low of 6% of the private workforce. He and Bush also husbanded the moribund 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades (GATT, which let Clinton help create the WTO) and negotiated NAFTA, which Clinton signed and thus opened a floodgate for American companies to move manufacturing overseas, leaving American workers underemployed while radically cutting corporate labor costs and union membership. And, sure enough, Reagan’s War on Labor cut average inflation-adjusted minimum and median wages by more, over a couple of decades, than anybody had seen since the Republican Great Depression of the 1920s and ’30s. The billionaire’s investment in taking the middle-class down a peg was paying off by orders of magnitude. Had Reagan not destroyed the nation’s unions, the median American income today would be well over $100,000 a year, minimum-wage households would have a family income of $86,000, and a single wage-earner would still be able to buy a house, a car, send the kids to college, and have a decent retirement (as my dad did, working a union job for 35 years in a tool-and-die shop). Instead, CEOs today keep all that money for themselves and their investors. And Reagan’s War on Colleges jacked up the cost of education so high that an entire generation is today saddled with more than $1.5 trillion in student debt: as predicted, many aren’t willing to jeopardize it all by “acting up” on campuses. The key to selling this campaign of impoverishment to the American people to help out the billionaire class was the idea that the US shouldn’t protect the rights of workers, subsidize education, grant women equal rights, or enforce Civil Rights laws because, conservatives said, all of those things were aspects of “socialism.” And if America embraced socialism, we may as well be ruled by the Soviet Union. As Reagan told us in his first inaugural, government “socialist” programs were not the solution to our problems, but instead were the problem itself. He ridiculed the formerly-noble idea of service to one’s country and joked that there were really no good people left in government because if they were smart or competent they’d be working in the private sector for a lot more money. He even told us that the nine most frightening words in the English language were, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” Following Lewis Powell’s 1971 memo, throughout the 1970s and 1980s Republican billionaires built a massive infrastructure of think tanks and media outlets to promote and amplify Reagan’s message that government supports of any sort for poor or working-class people were simply gateway drugs to socialism and, inevitably, communism. It so completely swept America that by the 1990s even President Bill Clinton was saying things like, “The era of big government is over,” and “This is the end of welfare as we know it.” Limbaugh, Hannity and other right-wing radio talkers were getting millions a year in subsidies from billionaire-funded groups like the Heritage Foundation. Billionaire-owned Fox “News” today carries on the tradition. It had been a pretty good scam for the billionaires who owned the GOP and wanted, back in the 1950s, to stop the union movement that was forcing them to share their profits with their workers. First, they terrified Americans about communism and socialism, then convinced about half of us that those things came straight out of “liberal” social and economic movements. Unions, feminism, acceptance of the queer community, civil rights, minimum wage increases, and even regulation of corporate behavior would, they told us, all lead to Soviet-style tyranny. So, to save America from herself, Reagan gutted the American middle class, transferring over $50 trillion in wealth from working class people into the money bins of the morbidly rich. By 2016, Americans were starting to figure out that they’d been screwed — and that Hillary Clinton’s husband had been in on it by continuing Reagan’s policies and doubling-down on free trade — and were loudly demanding change. Into this maelstrom walked Donald Trump, proclaiming himself the savior of the country. In the GOP primary he pointed out how corrupt his opponents were, particularly Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, and destroyed them, one after the other. For the general election in 2016, he changed his tune and ran on what was traditionally a Democratic platform, saying he was going to bring jobs home, end so-called “free trade” policies, raise taxes on the rich so much that “my friends won’t talk to me anymore,” and make sure every American had free or low-cost healthcare and access to an affordable college education. They were all lies — something Trump had become adept at during his business career — but they worked and sucked in disaffected workers who knew they’d been screwed but weren’t sure who did it to them or why. So here we are. We have an open fascist and apparent friend of authoritarian Russia as president after being convicted by a jury of his peers on 34 felony charges, having previously been adjudicated as responsible for sexual abuse (the judge called it “rape”) and fraud. He’s putting into place people and policies that could turn America into an authoritarian nation like Russia or Hungary, and apparently wants to re-align the United States away from NATO and the EU and toward Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. We are literally facing the authoritarian future that John Stormer was warning us about back in 1964. Only instead of “communists” in the State Department, it’s a billionaire president with the avowed goal of ending union rights and locking up or using the Army with live ammunition against those who protest his policies. And it all tracks back to wealthy conservatives funding a project in the 1960s to scare Americans about socialism and communism so they could stop the union-fueled growth of wages that were cutting into their profits. Perhaps none dare call it treason. But I do. Dette er i samsvar med mine egne observasjoner av det republikanske partiets politikk og mønster i de siste tjue år, spesielt etter Gingrich kom inn i kongressen i 1994, en kontrarevolusjonær anti-progressiv bevegelse som tar fordel av en doktrineforvirring omkring konservatismen ved å skape "falsk konservatisme" med liberalprogressive og libertarianske innslag for å opprettholde fordommer, skape eksklusjonsstemning og oppmuntre polarisering som selvsabotasje, som ved å stenge colleget fremfor å la "undermennesker" komme inn. Dette holder i livet den strukturelle rasismen som etter hvert ikke er lenge snakk om hudfarge, men også om sosialøkonomisk rangordning og kulturell identitet. De har fordel av den utdaterte konstitusjonens mangler ved at den opprinnelig var ment for et valgbart oligarki med sterke plutokratiske anføringer som hadde midten av 1800-tallet blitt dels tilsidesatt, dels omkonstruert for å skape et liberaldemokratisk system som begynte å fungere i "den progressive æren" 1900-1914 og fullføres i 1965 etter borgerrettighetsloven og liberalisering av det amerikanske lovverket hadde blitt gjennomdrevet. USA ble et "ekte" demokrati i dette året. Inntil da var demokrati bare for de utvalgte som lykte med å få innpass i det politiske systemet, først og fremst de anglosaksiske-protestantiske. Selv latinos, degos og wooks var ikke likestilt med de hvite fram til 1960-årene. Fremveksten av middelklassen som skjøt fart i mellomkrigstiden, er essensielt for USAs nasjonaløkonomi, men i 1929 hadde det blitt innlysende at kjøpekraften ikke hang med produksjonstakten fordi middelklassen var for liten til å opprettholde etterspørselen. Så Roosevelt gikk inn ikke bare for å reparere skadene, men også berge og styrke middelklassen som vokser for hver tiår som gikk siden 1933. Den amerikanske middelklassen ble en idealmodell for hele verden, ja endog i Sovjetunionen hvor man drømte om å oppnå den samme suksessen - uten hell. Et samfunn i sterk balanse hadde oppstått, selv om rasehygienske holdninger og sterk rasisme var sterk den gang. USA var ufattelig mektig, svært avansert og dermed i sannheten Fremtidens Stat som det hadde vært forestilt som, selv da Vietnam, rasefordommer, den andre rekonstruksjonen og ekstrem ulikhet sprang fram i 1960-1970. Amerikanerne var stolt av det de hadde oppnådd. Så begynte fallet, dixiekratene med deres nærfascistiske holdninger inkludert ettpartistatsidealer gikk over til det republikanske partiet som allerede i slutten på 1950-tallet bli et parti for de rike under kontroll av amoralske skurker som Nixon, som den rettskafne Warren mislikte meget intenst. En "konservativ vekking" tok seg til i vakuumet som oppsto etter fjerningen av Nixon, som tross alt var en karrierepolitiker med hang på kompromisspolitikk, i 1974-1981. Ford var en noksagt, og Carter var dessverre for snill for embetet i 1976-1981, slik at Reagan kunne vinne på hans naivisme - og på det amerikanske folkets manglende viten. For de var i en overgangstid da man trengte å bryte med fortidens fordomsfylte innhold og takle meget krevende omstendigheter knyttet til væremåte, teknologi, etc. etc. - og dermed evnet mange ikke å skue langt og bakover, som vi nå er i stand til å gjøre. Men amerikanerne hadde fram til 1994 alltid stemt på demokratene, som dermed siden 1932 hadde huset eller senatet under egen kontroll. I 1994 begynte det å skjære seg; republikanerne fikk mer makt - og det var ikke lenge en vilje for å straffe disse som gikk over strekningen. Republikanerne har nå tatt det for langt; det vil bli en borgerkrig i USA. For den omfattende misnøyen er så sterk, at man hittil var i stand til å distrahere den med kulturkrig, løgn og fordommer - men styrken er blitt for stor, for ukontrollert slik at et beist i form av MAGA med antikapitalistiske stemning har oppstått samtidig som den progressive delen av folket føres mot bristepunktet. Kommunismen vil vinne i slutten om dette vanviddet ikke stanses, for det Russell Kirk mente vil skje, vil i virkeligheten bli framprovosert. Enten kommunisme eller føydalisme. Techmilliardørene med Thiel og Musk tar sikt på å skape en neoføydal verden, sannsynlig med teknokratiske anføring.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/many-many-casualties-panama-officials-fear-war-with-united-states-over-control-of-canal/ar-AA1yer5U?ocid=BingNewsVerp&cvid=7b51bf4c2a5e45fd92e97522ec999ce4&ei=23 Panama forberede seg på det verste scenarioet om å forsvare seg mot et amerikansk angrep. De har sagt nei til enhver forhandling omkring kanalområdets suverenitet, de gjort det meget klinkende klart at 1970-traktatenes gyldighet er gjeldende som utgangspunkt for enhver disputt man har med USA. Amerikanske krigsskip skal ikke ha fortrinn over krigsskip fra andre land i tråd med nøytralitetsbestemmelsen som gir USA rett til å intervenere fordi all trafikk må behandles likt. Det panamanske militæret er knapt mer enn suverenitetspoliti bokstavelig talt med rundt 80,000 trente menn, av dette 30,000 heltidsansatte, de eneste med militærstrening er grensevokterstyrkene mot den colombianske grensen - som er i to løse organiserte brigader. Det betyr da at de panamanske styrkene kan ikke reise et forsvar, langt mindre i et demilitarisert område. Men det kan åpne for geriljakrig, og Panama kan regner med sterk støtte av andre land som Costa Rica og Colombia for å bryte med USA, som vil få seriøse trøbbel med shippingmakter som Japan og Sør-Korea. Mye av trafikken er knyttet til USA fremfor til resten av verden, slik at amerikanerne vil bli skadelidende. Det er ikke mulig å se noe mening i alt denne stupiditeten omkring Panama og Grønland.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-is-reversing-the-justice-department-s-civil-rights-policies/ar-AA1yaCfV?ocid=BingNewsVerp&cvid=f09853d32d8e43bfb33aaa0a6e42b52b&ei=40 Donald Trump kicked off his second presidential term with dozens of executive orders, many of which focus on hot-button culture war issues, from transgender and abortion rights to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The job of enforcing the administration’s position on those issues will largely fall to the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. During past handovers between Democratic and Republican administrations, the Civil Rights Division has undergone major policy shifts. During the George W. Bush administration, for example, the division focused resources on fighting religious discrimination. After Barack Obama took office, the division prioritized preventing racial and ethnic discrimination. The scale of the expected civil rights policy changes between the Biden and Trump administrations may eclipse those of past transitions. Former Justice Department officials and advocates told NBC News they expect the new administration to swiftly carry out sweeping reversals of most major Biden administration civil rights policies. Already, the Trump-run department has issued a memo freezing all action in civil rights cases, including filings and settlements, and withdrawn from multiple cases filed during the Biden administration. As it has in other parts of the Justice Department, the Trump administration has made personnel changes in the Civil Rights Division. The top two officials in its appellate section have been reassigned to a new task force that will prosecute officials from sanctuary cities who do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts, according to a DOJ official familiar with the matter. Conservative California attorney To lead the charge, Trump nominated California lawyer Harmeet Dhillon, 56, who has alleged fraud in the 2020 election, accused Google of discriminating against white men and spoken out against state laws to protect doctors who perform gender-affirming surgery for transgender minors. Justin Levitt, deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division under Obama, expressed concern over Dhillon’s nomination, saying most of her casework has focused on “cultural grievance issues.” He argued that Dhillon largely hasn’t focused on the traditional mission of the Civil Rights Division, which was established by the passage of the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination against all people in the United States, with a focus on vulnerable groups. “Many of the country’s civil rights statutes were passed in order to preserve and protect the civil rights, particularly of underrepresented and underprivileged groups,” said Levitt, who added, “There is still, unfortunately, no shortage of discrimination in America today.” Dhillon, who is awaiting Senate confirmation, declined to comment. The Justice Department didn’t respond to a request for comment. Jesse Panuccio, who was an acting associate attorney general in the Justice Department during Trump’s first term, praised Dhillon and Trump for their aggressiveness. “Other Republican administrations have either not had the experience or the courage to make these moves, and it appears President Trump in his second term — after all he’s faced — is going full throttle this time,” Panuccio said. “There’s no adjustment period. They are starting Day One to implement the agenda he campaigned on, and they expect career officials to faithfully execute those policy decisions.” Panuccio added, “They aren’t going to pull any punches this time around, and I think they’re going to make sure the Civil Rights Division is consistent with the president’s priorities.” Targeting DEI One of the most visible aspects of Trump’s first week in office has been the elimination of government DEI initiatives that sought to expand opportunities for underrepresented groups. Last week, Trump signed an executive order abolishing the initiatives and directing agency heads and the attorney general to identify private-sector targets that the Civil Rights Division could sue as part of a plan to “deter DEI programs or principles that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.” One person eager to see DEI policies abolished is Edward Blum, who has, for years, initiated lawsuits arguing that affirmative action programs are discriminatory. His legal campaign culminated with his 2023 victory before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Harvard case, which outlawed the use of race-conscious admissions policies in higher education. Blum and his organization, the American Alliance for Equal Rights, have since then pursued new claims against private companies to stop race-based DEI policies. “The American Alliance for Equal Rights would welcome the United States Department of Justice to voice their support for the colorblind legal covenant that binds us together as a multiracial nation,” Blum said. Rolling back LGBTQ protections The Justice Department is expected to release new guidance on transgender workers and students, which would affirm the LGBTQ rights reversal Trump initiated last week. He tasked the department last week to “correct” the Biden administration’s “misapplication” of the Supreme Court’s Bostock ruling, which found that federal law prohibits workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. “The phrase ‘gender’ has been hijacked to mean something that was infused with complete ideology,” said Roger Severino, a vice president at the conservative Heritage Foundation who spent seven years as a career lawyer in the Civil Rights Division. “It has confused matters, and we need clarity, because we’re dealing with real human beings.” The Biden administration leaned on the 2020 ruling when it released new Title IX regulations on protections for LGBTQ students, spurring pushback from conservatives who alleged they could endanger females and allow transgender athletes in girls’ sports. “Title IX was passed by Congress to protect women’s rights, not the rights of men pretending to be women, in sports and equal treatment in our educational institutions,” Dhillon said in a 2024 television interview. The Civil Rights Division, meanwhile, can change course in several transgender rights cases prioritized by the Biden administration, including a statement of interest filed in rebuke of a West Virginia law banning transgender athletes from participating in women’s and girls’ sports. The state has a request for review pending before the Supreme Court. “It would send the message that the Trump administration is concerned about women’s sports,” said Jim Campbell, chief counsel of the Alliance for Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group. Inaction on voting rights The Civil Rights Division plays a role in protecting the right to vote, an area that has become more contentious since Trump claimed that the 2020 election was stolen and that undocumented immigrants are illegally voting for Democrats. In the run-up to the 2024 general election, the Civil Rights Division and immigrant rights organizations sued Virginia, alleging the state was illegally purging its voter rolls within 90 days of an election, a violation of the National Voter Registration Act. A federal judge put a halt to the purges, but the ruling was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, which allowed them to continue up until Election Day. The Justice Department withdrew from the case, which remains active, on Tuesday evening, days before Civil Rights Division lawyers were due in court to defend their position. “We’re disappointed,” Brent Ferguson, a lawyer for the Campaign Legal Center who argued the case on behalf of the immigrant rights groups, said of the move. “The DOJ represents the United States and the American people, and having them withdraw from a lawsuit like this is a problem, because it shows that the government is less willing to enforce our voting laws,” Ferguson said. The Civil Rights Division has additional cases still pending against various states alleging discriminatory violations of the Voting Rights Act. Hans Von Spakovsky, counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights from 2001 to 2005, said the Justice Department should reverse course and dismiss the pending cases. “They need to look at those cases, and based on the evidence we now have from how turnout wasn’t affected, they need to dismiss them and not continue to litigate what I consider to be abusive cases,” Von Spakovsky said. Backing abortion-rights opponents Former Justice Department officials, including Von Spakovsky, said the new administration has the ability to determine whether ongoing cases in which abortion-rights opponents were charged under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act have merit. During the Biden administration, Von Spakovsky said, many anti-abortion-rights advocates were charged under the 1994 law, which preserves access to reproductive health clinics, crisis pregnancy centers, faith-based facilities and churches. At least a dozen cases involving anti-abortion-rights defendants have been filed since 2020, according to federal court records tracked by NBC News. Trump last week pardoned nearly two dozen abortion-rights opponents, several of whom were involved in a recent blockade of a reproductive health clinic in Washington, D.C. As of Monday, the Civil Rights Division had dismissed two civil cases that were filed against defendants accused of obstructing access to reproductive health clinics in Florida and Pennsylvania. Von Spakovsky praised Dhillon’s arrival. “The most important factor of getting someone in that position is that you get someone who actually believes in the rule of law,” he said. “Harmeet Dhillon is a fighter and has been very strong in opposing discrimination of all kinds.” Det blir verre og verre. Trumpadministrasjonen er fast besluttet på å fjerne grunnleggende rettigheter for seksuelle minoriteter, minoritetsfolk som utsettes for rasistisk diskriminering, kvinner som utsettes for diskriminering, åpne opp for trakassering og angrep mot tjenester som abort og stemmefjerning ved å tillate en gjentagelse av Jim Crow-lover som flere republikanske delstatsregjeringer er i full gang med å tvinge gjennom. Det vil også åpne opp for korrupsjon i fremtiden. Kort sagt; USA vil settes tilbake med 70 år som et resultat.

Så Trump er villig til å tvinge flere millioner som hadde flyktet fra politisk undertrykkelse og sosial nød tilbake til et dels ruinert land? Det er som hvis alle vietnamflyktninger skulle sendes tilbake i 1980-årene! Dette tror jeg kommer til å bli meget godt mottatt; ikke! Det er et mønster i alt dette; Trump angrep USAs allierte med full styrke mens han nærmere seg USAs fiender, 10 % toll på kinesiske varer fra et fiendeland mot 25 % på varer fra vennskapsland?!! Dette er i total brudd med politisk skikk og bruk i uminnelige tider, mer et "hohenzollernmirakel" fra den europeiske sjuårskrigen da Preussen var reddet i det siste øyeblikket av et russisk troneskifte med en ny tsar som brått stoppet krigen og endog sluttet seg til prøysserne (han ble styrt og drept av hans hustru Katarina etter kort tid). Trump snur 180 grad helt om på USAs politikk. Dessuten har det vist seg, som da Pistorius fra Tyskland innrømt, at Trumps 5 %-kravet virker ikke i land med for små statsbudsjetter uten bevilgningsevne - slik at det setter NATO under stor tvil i fremtiden. Norge er heldigvis ikke et av disse NATO-landene med mindre statsbudsjett enn gjennomsnittlig. Uansett er det klart at forholdet mellom USA og dens allierte har på rekordtid forsuret seg, i likhet med Trumps kunnskapsløshet gjør at det er meget mye som har blitt uklart mellom de vestlige hovedstedene. Markedet som lenge hadde vært i la-la-la stemning ved å tro "det vil ikke skje, det vil ikke skje", har fått et stort sjokk i fredag da det blir klart at Trump aktet å innføre 25 % toll mot nabolandene og bare 10 % (slik at det blir dyrere for varer flyttet ut av Kina enn disse fra Kina!) mot Kina, varsler toll mot EU og deretter toll på olje og gass fra 18. februar - som fikk mange økonomieksperter til å vakle i sterk sjokk. De VET dette er galskap. Det finnes olje som ikke produseres innenfor USA, spesielt tungolje! Nordsjøolje, iransk olje og venezuelansk olje har viktige egenskaper som ikke finnes i de nordamerikanske oljefeltene selv om Albertaoljen kom i nærheten av nordsjøoljen. Den amerikanske industrien trenger tungolje, og det er også manko på vanlig olje - skifteolje duger ikke. Ennå virker det som at det ikke finnes en eneste økonomiekspert i det hvite huset. Og ikke bare det, det hersker kaos omkring statsforvaltningen som nå er kommet så langt, at føderale dommerne har begynte med å gripe inn mens republikanerne i kongressen er kommet under voksende angrep fra sine velgerne, samtidig som det kom ut at mange velgerne som hadde stemt republikansk og på Trump, har begynte å få seriøse betenkninger - men som sagt; de vil bare holde ut fremfor å stoppe opp. Trump har brutt så mange lov at han har forbrutt seg mot den konstitusjonelle forpliktelsen knyttet til embetet om å opprettholde respekten for lov og dom, med et uante stort antall presidentordrer - og han har ambisjoner om å tvinge til seg kontroll over statsfinansene. Hvis det skje, VIL DEN AMERIKANSKE REPUBLIKKEN OPPHØRE MED Å EKSISTERE. Et så massivt brudd på konstitusjonen vil betyr at USA kan ikke eksistere. Det kommer til å presse seg på i løpet av den nære fremtiden. Dessuten har republikanske MAGA-bevegelser i flere delstater begynte å tilsidesette demokratiske og politiske rettigheter som et lovforslag i delstaten Tennessee som gjør det forbud å stemme/protestere mot Trumps politikk - dette er politisk undertrykkelse, diktaturpolitikk! Borgerkrig er nå garantert, kaos kommer til å herske og hele verden vil bli sterkt rammet. Når den tar slutt, vil vi se kjeppjakt på alle trumpkultmedlemmer over hele verden.

På dette punktet har Trump demonstrert fiendtlige fordommer som ikke passer seg for en president. Det har vært transkjønnede til enhver tidspunkt i militære fordi disse utgjør en meget forsvinnende liten andel i likhet med den generelle befolkningen, uten at disses kjønnsidentitet gikk over deres pliktfølelse, lojalitet og ferdigheter. Dessuten er dette ikke bare brudd på loven, det er også ringakt for den føderale høyesteretten som i 2020 hadde sagt at diskriminering av transpersoner er kjønnsdiskriminering. Det begynner å bli for mange presidentordrer som utsendes i brudd på det amerikanske lovverket og forskriftene knyttet til styre og stell. Dessuten har alle disse noe til felles; mangel på penger. Da Trump undertegnet presidentordrer omkring deportasjon, våpenanskaffelse og så mye annet er det uten dekning i det føderale budsjettet. Hans ønske om et "Iron Dome-missilforsvar" vil koste flere billioner dollar - ikke en eneste cent har blitt avdelt for akkurat et slikt prosjekt, av kongressen som har enerett på å utarbeide det føderale budsjettet i tråd med konstitusjonen. De folkevalgte kongressmedlemmer uansett parti har funnet seg i en situasjon hvor de få inn en flom av regninger uten dekning som må godkjennes, uten å ha hatt en finger i sakene. Hvilken er et grovt brudd på konstitusjonen - og på amerikanske tradisjoner. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-is-claiming-powers-that-even-king-george-iii-didn-t-have/ar-AA1y69Lf?ocid=BingNewsVerp&cvid=9265bf9e052248e389e9931dd1991116&ei=25 In the first nine days of his return to the White House, Donald Trump has said and done a great many shocking things. The four most dangerous are his pardons of the Jan. 6 insurrectionists (a topic I have addressed elsewhere); his effort to transform the Department of Justice from an independent, neutral law-enforcement agency to an instrument of partisan revenge; his attempt to reverse 150 years of laws and regulations designed to ensure a professional, apolitical federal civil service; and his freezes on broad categories of congressionally authorized expenditures across the federal government. These initiatives are all part of a unified effort to transform the government of the United States from a democratic, constitutional republic into a presidential dictatorship. It’s worth focusing on all these components separately, but the budgetary-freeze component of the scheme has demanded particular attention in recent days. Although on Wednesday the White House Office of Management and Budget rescinded without explanation its memo of two days before freezing “all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by [Trump’s previous] executive orders,” additional, more limited freezes, such as on expenditures for domestic refugee resettlement programs and virtually all foreign aid, seemingly remain in effect. Therefore, it’s worth comparing what’s going on in Washington with the history of the English monarchy and how it shaped the founding generation’s decisions about how American government was to operate. The United States of America is neither a monarchy nor a dictatorship. We have agreed from our beginnings that kings and dictators are bad, not merely because they offend the high-minded principle that sovereignty ought to reside in the people rather than in any single person, but also because we believe that rule by the collaborative effort of separate, intellectually independent, and mutually checking government branches representing a spectrum of societal interests will best protect us all from tyranny and produce objectively better policy. This foundational premise was both written into the U.S. Constitution and engrained in the national fabric by more than two centuries of American practice. It is especially evident from a comparison of the many specifically defined and sweeping powers entrusted to Congress by Article 1 of the Constitution and the parsimonious grant of few, and those mostly consultative, presidential powers in Article 2. The strained efforts of modern “unitary executive” theorists to stretch the surpassingly modest presidency actually authorized by Article 2 into the domestically unconstrained, globe-straddling colossus they prefer (at least when he’s a Republican) are at their least convincing when presidents claim authority to usurp Congress’ undoubted power over raising and spending money. The two indispensable powers of legislatures in all Anglo-American constitutional systems are the complementary powers to tax the people and to authorize expenditure by the executive. The rule that kings could not levy taxes without legislative consent has its origins in the Magna Carta of 1215 and was made definite by 1300. But over time, Parliament became equally insistent that the king could not spend the revenue raised by Parliament however he pleased. In the five centuries that preceded the American Revolution, parliamentary control of the national purse was the primary weapon in preventing royal absolutism. The matter was so important that became was a central issue in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, when Parliament and its allies forced the abdication of King James II and installed in his place King William and Queen Mary. The ascension of the dual monarchs was contingent upon their accepting the English Bill of Rights. The preamble of the Bill of Rights was a list of complaints against James. It alleged that the monarch had suspended the operation of laws he did not like, had employed a so-called dispensing power to grant special prospective exemptions from the law for favored persons, and “did endeavour to subvert and extirpate … the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome … By Levying Money for and to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative for other time and in other manner then the same was granted by Parlyament.” In other words, the legislative body accused James of unilaterally nullifying statutory law both generally and for particular people; of collecting taxes without legislative consent; and of spending money in ways not authorized by Parliament. The operative portion of the 1688 Bill of Rights declared that it was illegal even for a king to do any of those things. The Americans who revolted against Britain and later wrote the U.S. Constitution looked upon the relationship between executive and legislature codified in the English Bill of Rights not only as fundamental to maintaining the traditional liberties of Englishmen but as central to the new American constitutional order. They thought it central, most particularly, to their emphatic rejection of monarchy. Accordingly, they rejected the idea that a president could unilaterally suspend the operation of statutory law either generally or as to particular people. And in Article 1 of the Constitution, they expressly conferred on Congress, not the president, the power to raise money (whether by taxation or borrowing) and to authorize its expenditure. To be sure, the president participates in the legislative tax and appropriations process by signing bills that raise money and designate how it shall be spent. But the only legal effect of presidential acquiescence in such legislation is to make its provisions law—binding not merely on the president who signs a bill but on his or her successors. If a statute is permissive, saying that funds “may” be expended for a stated purpose up to a statutory cap, then a president may employ judgment and discretion in deciding how much to spend in aid of that purpose. And if a president can accomplish a statute’s stated objectives by spending less than congressionally authorized, so much the better. But a president lacks the power to simply refuse to carry out a statutory directive to use congressional appropriations to create an agency or program or to spend money in amounts and for purposes statutorily commanded by Congress. Presidents have tried to assert such authority under the benign-sounding term impoundment. In recent days, multiple constitutional experts have explained why Trump’s “freezes” amount to impoundments and why they violate the Constitution and express statutory prohibitions. In Train v. City of New York, the Supreme Court held unanimously that presidents have no general power of impoundment. And in 1974, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act, which forbids impoundment—including a total refusal to spend appropriated funds, as well as postponements of mandated expenditures—except under limited and carefully defined conditions, which the Trump freeze orders do not meet. Indeed, the Monday OMB decree ordering the freezes expressly declared that vast swaths of expenditures are frozen pending determination of whether they are consistent not with congressional intent or even the express language of authorizing statutes, but with the “priorities” of the Trump administration. But the big point here is not the technical one, that general impoundments are illegal. Nor is it the question of whether the current Supreme Court will do a backflip and hold otherwise. Nor is it even that freezing and ultimately incapacitating or destroying innumerable congressionally authorized domestic and foreign programs is objectively terrible policy. The big point is that Donald Trump is openly, baldly trying to reverse some eight centuries of Anglo-American constitutional tradition as well as the express commands and fundamental design of the U.S. Constitution. If a president can ignore direct statutory commands about whether—and if so, how—money will be spent, then Congress is denied its most basic authority and becomes a toothless and essentially advisory body. If Congress meekly accedes to Trump’s attack on its prerogatives—as the body’s Republicans, led by House Speaker Mike Johnson, seem to be signaling they are inclined—it will confer on him power not even King George III would have dared to assert. The weakness in the grand edifice of American constitutionalism is that it depends on the determination, in every generation, of those in positions of authority to uphold it. The most terrifying aspect of the national response to Trump’s comprehensive freezes is the complete silence or, in some instances, enthusiastic endorsement of the Republican congressional majority. A few congressional Republicans may either believe in what Trump is doing or be so staggeringly ignorant that they know no better. But most are perfectly aware that the Trump freezes will do immense damage to the national interest and are a direct challenge to the constitutional authority of their own body. The Constitution gives Congress an immense number of levers to check an overreaching president. But there is so far no suggestion that congressional Republicans have the least disposition to use any of them, or even to criticize the commander in chief’s power grab. Some Republicans doubtless privately hope that somebody else—perhaps the courts—will take a stand. But the predominant emotion among GOP politicians in Congress seems to be terror that the least expression of dissent, even in defense of their own constitutional prerogatives, will draw a frown or, worse, a Truth Social post from the Great Man. So they either scramble over one another to find a camera before which they can perform stomach-turning genuflections to the Dear Leader’s infinite wisdom or scurry into their office burrows and sit, quivering, like rabbits paralyzed by the passing shadow of a bird of prey. Donald Trump’s attempt to seize from Congress its power of the purse is one key element of his bid for dictatorial power. The refusal of the congressional majority to resist bodes poorly for us all. Kort sagt; Trumps presidentskap er ukonstitusjonelt og må avbrytes av den lovgivende makten, kongressen, som har konstitusjonelle mekanismer som kan tas i bruk. Men disse republikanerne som ikke lenge kan på et rent teknisk grunnlag kalles "republikansk" selv etter Trump skulle forsvinne, har begått et kollektiv svik mot den amerikanske konstitusjonen og den angloamerikanske lovtradisjonen. De vil akseptere et ulovlig regime på prinsippet om "folkets valg", selv om grunnlovsfedrene aktuelt er antidemokratisk som vil avverge det de kaller "pøbelkrati" ved å skape et system omkring et valgbart oligarki basert på borgerlige idealer og egalitære doktrine. Argumentene omkring Trump ville ha fått dem til å eksplodere. Det er ikke noe tall på hvor mange brudd Trump har begått på så liten tid. Det er bare i bananrepublikker den slags kunne observeres. Så langt ser det ut at den grove uforstanden i det amerikanske folket ikke ennå er ført mot bristepunktet. Som jeg dessverre tror vil skje først når Trump gjør noe helt utilgivelig.

De illegale migrantene utgjør en viktig del av den amerikanske nasjonaløkonomien ikke bare fordi de tar jobber andre ikke vil ha og oppfylle bestemte nisjer som stimulere andres arbeid, men også fordi de betalt skatt, kjøpe tjenester og varer og deretter bidrar meget sterkt, slik at både legale migranter og arbeidsfolk har stor nytte av disse. Ved å ta upopulære, arbeidsintensive og sensitive arbeid sørger de for at andre arbeiderne ta fordel av disses innsats, ved at hele arbeidsmarkedet fungert riktig som en velsmurt maskin. Det er hvorfor det har vært så høy etterspørsel etter illegale migranter som egentlig burde ha fått statsborgerskap etter en årsperiode. Forsvinne de, vil bunnen - som disse utgjør - tømmes for disse ovenpå.

Det er ikke disse på gata jeg vil være bekymret for hvis Trump skulle klare å ødelegge det amerikanske demokratiet. Det er etablissementet. Som har makt for å kaste landet ut i borgerkrig hvis det skulle kastes ut i åpen konflikt. Alle borgerkriger skjer mellom minoritetsgrupperinger med utgangspunkt i etablissementet, selv den syriske utløses av omfattende misnøye hvor mange hadde mistet penger og innflytelse pga. urbaniseringen og økonomisk vekst. Det er for mye verdi knyttet til demokratistyret og det republikanske idealet til man vil bare la dette forsvinne av seg selv.

Dette er bare gjennom indirekte kilder på israelsk hold som Joshua Landis har fått rede på. Det var ikke Trump, men medlemmer av hans administrasjon som hadde i fordekte kanaler informert israelerne om at en tilbaketrekning kan bli en realitet. Og; vet du hva? Trumps presidentordre om å "fryse alt" betyr nemlig at flere tusen ISIS-fanatikerne som er fengslet, og som kurderne mener opprørsregjeringen kunne finne på å løslate, ikke får mer mat eller ly fordi kurderne kan ikke bekoste de store fangeleirene. I verste fall vil disse komme seg på frifot - og setter Midtøsten i stor fare samt utløse stor fare for blodig terroristangrep i USA og Europa. Jeg mente bestemt at man skulle ha en no-prisoner politikk i møte med disse fanatiske gærningene den gang.

"Lenken kunne ikke bli inkludert fordi det er ingen tvitring på den URL-en" Dette må løses, eller må vi slutte med å bruke X/Twitter poster. Det brenner ganske godt.

Kort sagt; hvis den amerikanske republikken ødelegges, vil det utløse borgerkrig fordi dette kan ikke majoriteten av det amerikanske etablissementet og de politiske kreftene utenom MAGA og den føderale GOP akseptere.

Presidentordren måtte stanses ettersom den har tilsidesatt lov og krenket konstitusjonen samt satt samfunnsfunksjonene i fare ved å utløse kaotiske tilstander som måtte opphøre med øyeblikkelig virkning i et land hvor det er nødstrengende hele tiden. Det hjelpe ikke med hetskampanjer eller løgn som manipulerte "nyhetserklæringer" som MAGA har kommet med, for disses velgerne vil bli skadelidende i det lange løpet. Demokratene som nå reagert, gjør det disses plikt forlanger mens flesteparten av republikanerne virker forvirret eller skremt, selv om mange eks-republikanerne kom med kritikk - som tyder på at Trumps kontroll over partikassa må fjernes. Og kanskje idiotdommeren Roberts burde informeres at hans valg om å gi Trump absolutt immunitet har gjort at politikere, mediekanaler og milliardærer ikke våget å opponere mot en mann som loven ikke kan berøre - han hadde sannsynlig aldri forstått konsekvensene av hvor meget skadelig absolutt immunitet er for et demokratisk - spesielt et republikansk system. For et republikansk system mene at det er majoritetsrepresentasjonen som har makten ved å besitte institusjonene og ansvaret for statsfinansene som det er nedfestet i 1789-konstitusjonen, som fungere ved å velge en likemann som deres statsoverhode for den utøvende makten - som ikke skal ha noe fortrinn i forholdet til resten av maktsystemet. Det er denne holdningen den føderale høyesteretten har, for da Nixon begynte å fuske og jukse med statsbudsjettet for å tillate uautoritert bombing i andre land, ignorere kongressvedtatte bevilgninger og tilsidesette betydelige finanser utenfor kongresskomiteenes oversikt var dette i klar konflikt med prinsippet. Da et massiv lovvedtak som tidlig opplyst kom, hadde hele etablissementet sluttet seg bak den skjerpende loven. Presidenter tradisjonelt skal opplyse kongressen om hans bestyrelse av statsfinansene som stilles til rådighet av kongressen gjennom vedtatte lov om skatt, avgift og toll - for dette er folkets penger og dermed underlagt representantenes autoritet i et republikansk representasjonssystem slik de amerikanske grunnlovsfedrene hadde sagt skal være regelen. Alle pluralistiske maktsystemer verden rundt bygges på det samme prinsippet. Vought har kunngjort - selv om republikanerne burde ha brutt med ham - at USA er i en "post-konstitusjonell tilstand", dvs. at den amerikanske konstitusjonen ikke lenge har sin virkning. https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-s-budget-pick-russ-vought-is-starting-to-upend-washington/ar-AA1xNkBV?ocid=BingNewsSerp Det virker som at de republikanske kongressmedlemmene, spesielt senatorene, ikke klarer å fatte at Vought narrer dem ved å bruke besparingsønsket som et skjerm for hans egne hensikter om å skape en ny virkelighet hvor den konstitusjonelle maktfordelingen settes ut av spill. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trumps-effort-withhold-federal-funding-will-trigger-imminent-legal-act-rcna189583 Og det ser ut at disse idiotene hos Trump tror de kan få den føderale høyesteretten, som er i meget hardt uvær for tiden fordi disse hadde nylig - akseptert en sak om religiøse skoler og offentlig skolestøtte, selv om dette er en ikke-sak i tråd med konstitusjonen - til å ØDELEGGE 1789-konstitusjonen. Hvis Roberts tillatt dette, er det SLUTTEN PÅ DEN AMERIKANSKE REPUBLIKKEN. For da er kongressen blitt maktløst og et ekte DIKTATUR - har blitt etablert med MER MAKT ENN DEN ENGELSKE KONGEN fordi de engelske kongene måtte ha parlamentets velsignelse for å få penger de trenger for maktutøvelsen! Da er ENHVER amerikanerne hadde kjempet for helt FORGJEVES! For det er tilgang på pengene som er vitalt for den amerikanske statsforvaltningen. WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s attempt to withhold federal funding is fueling a long-brewing legal battle over the core constitutional principle that Congress gets to decide how to spend taxpayer money. And like President Donald Trump’s early executive order on birthright citizenship, the fight is leading to immediate litigation that could quickly end up at the Supreme Court. A lawsuit filed by nonprofit groups has already led a federal judge to temporarily put Trump's plan on hold. Trump’s Office of Management and Budget sparked the showdown with a memo issued Monday that ordered an immediate block on spending related to federal aid and programs. The administration said the aim is to evaluate those programs to ensure they are aligned with Trump’s agenda, despite the the fact such funding was approved by Congress and signed into law. In a new memo issued by OMB on Tuesday, the administration said the order did not constitute a funding freeze and is not subject to the Impoundment Control Act. “It seems clear to me that the Trump administration is aching to get this issue to the Supreme Court,” said Sam Bagenstos, who served as OMB general counsel under then-President Joe Biden. “The Trump administration clearly thinks they have a favorable court.” The Constitution specifically states that Congress has the job of imposing taxes and spending money, giving it what is colloquially known as “the power of the purse.” It is the principle authority Congress has in separation of powers showdowns with the president. “If you take it away, you’ve got a Congress that really can’t do much of anything in the face of an intransigent president,” said Josh Chafetz, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center. In addition to the nonprofit groups' lawsuit, more than 20 Democratic attorneys general quickly announced a lawsuit seeking to block the proposal from going into effect. New York Attorney General Letitia James told reporters Trump is defying a co-equal branch of government and has no authority to do so. "Not only does this administration’s new policy put people at risk, but it is plainly unconstitutional. The president does not get to decide which laws to enforce and for whom. When Congress dedicates funding for a program, the president cannot pull that funding on a whim," she said. Other lawsuits could follow. Challengers to Trump’s actions to withhold funding are likely to cite the Impoundment Control Act, a law passed in 1974 to regulate the president’s control over the budget. That followed efforts by then-President Richard Nixon to withhold spending on programs he did not support, like Trump has indicated he intends to do. Under that law, the president can temporarily withhold funds — but must notify Congress first, and the decision cannot be based on policy grounds. The president can also ask Congress to rescind spending decisions, which can also be grounds for a pause in spending. Trump’s nominee to run the OMB, Russ Vought, repeated during his recent Senate confirmation hearing his belief that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional, foreshadowing a potential legal argument. Vought has not yet been confirmed. A key supporter of Vought’s legal argument is Mark Paoletta, whom Trump has appointed to be OMB general counsel. Before the election, Paoletta co-wrote an article advocating for broad presidential powers, including the authority to withhold funding. “Just as the President has discretion to not enforce every criminal law to the fullest extent, the President may make judgments on the extent to which to expend appropriations,” the article stated. Among other things, the article cited the Supreme Court ruling last year that found Trump had broad immunity from legal prosecution as evidence of presidential dominance over the other branches of government. Litigation could also focus on a provision in the Constitution that requires the president “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Jed Shugerman, a professor at Boston University School of Law, said that although there have been previous fights between presidents and Congress over spending on specific issues, what makes this one different is that it is so broad. “The part that is abnormal is the flagrant and across the board impoundment of allocated funds,” he added. The Trump proposal constitutes "a dangerous and unconstitutional power grab," said Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School. It is possible a potential case on the issue could reach the Supreme Court quickly should a federal judge prevent the Trump administration from carrying out its plans. Although the court has a 6-3 conservative majority, including three Trump appointees, legal experts say this could be one of several uphill legal battles the administration has picked. Supreme Court precedents have also acknowledged restrictions on presidential power when it comes to how money is spent. In 1974, around the time the Impoundment Control Act was enacted, the court ruled against the Nixon administration in an attempt to withhold funding aimed at reducing water pollution. On a related issue, the court in 1998 invalidated a law that allowed the president to issue “line item” vetoes of laws enacted by Congress — that is, vetoing specific items within legislation, instead of taking or leaving the full text. Bagenstos said the Trump administration may be “overestimating" its odds when it comes to the Supreme Court. “It’s more likely the court will rule the Impoundment Control Act is constitutional,” he added. “But it’s up for grabs in some ways.” Her sies det rett ut at det er Roberts` idiotavgjørelsen om å gi Trump absolutt immunitet som utløse den alvorlige krisen som vil ødelegge den amerikanske republikken, for det betyr at presidenten er "overlegent alle andre institusjonene" og dermed kan fritt gjøre som han vil - en mann som mente en presidentordre har større autoritet enn en lov, et poeng som flere eks-administrative fra 2017-2021 hadde hentet fram og var kjent i 2020. Hvis Roberts tillatt dette - det er tydelig at Thomas og Alito, som er dypt korrupt og dypt uegnet som høyesterettsdommer - vil han bli kjent som mannen som dreper den amerikanske republikken og ødeleggeren av 1789-konstitusjonen. Vought aktet å skape en ny USA "frikoblet fra konstitusjonen" mens mektige krefter med den nyreligiøse Mike Johnson ønsker en "fornyelse" - dvs. en ny politisk virkelighet. Og; hvis GOP tillatt dette - kan de ikke lenge kalle seg republikanere. Da har de begått høyforræderi mot idealene bak partiet.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-50-year-old-law-trump-is-challenging-to-create-chaos/ar-AA1y13BX?ocid=BingNewsVerp&cvid=13eb39589e1a47568c4afa0890d8dc19&ei=58 In July 1974, then-President Richard Nixon, weakened by the Watergate scandal and only weeks away from becoming the first president to resign, signed the innocuously titled “Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act.” He didn’t have much of a choice: The bipartisan bill passed the Senate 80 to 0 and 386 to 23 in the House. More than 50 years later, though, that decision is still reverberating through Washington after President Donald Trump’s Office of Management and Budget issued a memo late Monday night asking agencies to identify all forms of “federal financial assistance” through grants and loans and pause them while the administration reviews them. That was exactly what the 1974 law, which also created the Congressional Budget Office, was supposed to prevent, critics of the Trump administration say. The law was meant to keep the White House from picking and choosing what programs it wanted to fund over what programs Congress had funded, with its “power of the purse” appropriations authority in the U.S. Constitution. Broadly, the law forbids impoundment — withholding approved funds from being used — in all but a few minor circumstances. The administration can ask Congress to take back its approval of the spending, rescinding the authority, and withhold the money for up to 45 days. But unless Congress approves the rescission, the funding has to be released after the 45-day period. The administration can also defer spending the money, but only if they send a message to Congress outlining why they want to defer it, the legal authority for doing so and the things that went into the decision-making process. Monday’s memo did not appear to invoke either of those circumstances, raising the likelihood of a successful legal challenge. A prolonged court fight, though, or one that makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court, may be exactly what the administration wants, however. Russ Vought, Trump’s former OMB director who has been nominated to again lead the budget office, told senators in two confirmation hearings that he would follow the law but added that he and Trump thought the 1974 law was unconstitutional. “The president and his team is going to go through a review with our lawyers, if confirmed, including the Department of Justice, to explore the parameters of the law with regard to the Impoundment Control Act,” Vought said at his Senate Budget Committee hearing. Vought also said delays in funding authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law passed under former President Joe Biden were not impoundments but “programmatic delays,” an exception not found in the anti-impoundment law. “Those [executive orders] were, again, pauses to ensure that the funding that is in place is consistent and moves in a direction along the lines of what the president ran on, unleashing American energy, away from the Green New Deal,” Vought said. Vought grounded his opposition to the 1974 law in history. “The reason the president ran on this is that 200 years of presidents had this authority to manage taxpayer resources,” Vought told Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who is the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate committee that determines annual funding for federal agencies and programs. While the 1974 law has not been subject to much litigation, the underlying idea that impoundment is illegal is rooted in a Supreme Court ruling that grew out of the activities that caused Congress to pass the law. In a 9-0 decision that included then-Justice William Rehnquist, a conservative, the court ruled against the administration in a case called Train v. City of New York. In that case, the Nixon administration had sought to spend only $2 billion of $5 billion in funds approved for water and sewer improvement for 1973 and only $3 billion of $6 billion approved for 1974. The brief opinion by Justice Byron White in 1975 said even though Congress may pass language in spending bills saying totals should not “exceed” specific amounts, the amounts specified were the binding numbers for spending, and the administration did not have the power to unilaterally spend less. Mer og mer tyder på at det er Vought som står bak kaoset, og han er ikke engangs godkjent for stillingen han besitter i den første plassen. Dessverre for ham virker det som at han og Trump ikke fattet at det er en situasjon som ikke kan hentes til rettssalen, for det er en alvorlig nødssituasjon som innbar øyeblikkelig inngrep - som kan få kongressen til å reagere. Høyesteretten ment meget bestemt på at det er den lovgivende makten som har ansvaret for statsfinansene basert på skatt, toll og avgift slik at den utøvende makten ikke kan fritt gjøre som de vil uten kongressens viten. Det er ikke tillatt å stoppe kongressvedtatte budsjettposter uten forvarsling eller klarering. Men ved å ramme skole, sykehus - samfunnsfunksjonene vitalt for mange millioner hvis liv kan stå i fare fra AIDS-medisin til assistanse ved fødsel - er det ikke mulig å ta tiden til etterretning. Det må derfor stanses. Ingen hadde ønsket å se Vought i det hvite huset.

Denne "feilen" leder nå til stormstemning for tiden som tilspisse seg for hver minutt som går, spesielt etter det har gått mange timer siden nedstengningen rapporteres. Dette kan ikke kongressmedlemmene fra høyt til lavt tolerere fordi det er disse velgerne som trenger medisin og helsetjeneste, tar kontakt med når disse ikke kom noe vei med myndigheter som selv rapporteres å være i sterk forvirring og demoralisering.

Leavitts svar besvarte nemlig ikke om det er noe forbindelse mellom Trumps ordre og nedstengningen av betalingstjenesten i Medicaid, det spekuleres om at det hadde hendt på initiativ av Russell Vought som er i ledertog med Kennedy. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/reads-like-a-hostage-note-trump-order-flagged-as-massive-fraud-by-ex-official/ar-AA1y0l2t?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=62a211078283455aaee878d19abb512c&ei=40 For det er mye som tyder på at det hadde kommet ulike "memo" som gjort de ansvarlige forvirret om hva de skulle gjøre etter ordren tre i kraft tirsdag denne uken. https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-s-funding-freeze-triggers-worry-democrats-says-hits-medicaid-program/ar-AA1y1aJL?ocid=BingNewsVerp

https://x.com/Archer83Able/status/1884320292555874543 Det er noe feil her, for mange X/Twitter lenk falt ut, og det blir for mange varsler om "twitring ikke på URL". Dette kan ikke fortsette, tror forumsansvarlige har fått tekniske problemer som må fikses. Ukrainerne sier at de har "små" radarvarslingssystemer med rekkevidde på opptil 4 km som kan oppdage små droner som disse fiberoptiske droner som er meget enkle bytte for FPV-droner. I mellomtiden er det blitt tydelig at Trump og Putin står meget langt fra hverandre - det virker som at den utilregnelige amerikaneren har oppdaget den uansvarlige russeren, tross alle feilene må det sies at Trump misliker å gamble som Putin har for vane å gjøre. Putin satser på at han kan smiske og skremme side om side som sett med Merkel i møte med Trump, og satt opp hans ambisjonstak ganske høyt - ved å åpne for direkte forhandling uten innblanding, slik at NATO, europeerne og ukrainerne skulle ha ingenting å si - og at Ukrainas eksistensgrunnlag er lik null. Selv en barnslig idiot kan se dette på mils avstand. Det som er så farlig med Putin er ikke hans blotte mangel på konsekvensvurdering, hans psykopatiske natur eller hans arrogante selvbetraktning, men hans meget uansvarlige gamblingstendens som gjør at han gamble og gamble uten stans uten av stand til å takle plutselige bevegelser og uten av stand til å se hvor grensene står. Nå gamble han på hans forholdet med Trump, som så noe av hans far i russeren - og dermed har noe farskompleks mot ham. Ikke at det hjalp Putin, for Trump frykte, akte - og hate hans far... I mellomtiden har Polen tatt ledelsen i støttekoalisjonen for Ukraina, ved å sette Orban under voldsom press mens Fico i Slovakia er i nedsmeltingstilstand fordi både opposisjonen og krefter i egne parti er mektig frustrert over hans dumhet om å ikke sikre alternativer i energidekning. Man skal være ganske dumt å ikke se signalene i lang tid.

Nok en gang svært ubekreftet, dette er utrangerte Patriot utstyr som har vært nevnt en rekke ganger, som Israel ikke trenger fordi de har dårlig kapasitet mot sist nytt innenfor ballistiske missilvåpen, spesielt hypersoniske missiler. Her sies det at 90 Patriot-missiler sendes til Ukraina, hvor det er minst tre batterier fra før.

"26 millioner dømt til døden" https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/trump-is-sentencing-26-million-people-to-death-and-counting-opinion/ar-AA1y0PGI?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=9244a8104b474b49be1834a4d0371ded&ei=13 Trump hadde uventet beordret halt av medisinassistanse for et amerikansk helseprogram ment for bekjempelse av AIDS globalt sett - et republikansk program startet av Bush junior i 2003, "President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)". Dette er blant annet svært viktig for det afrikansk-amerikanske forholdet fordi AIDS-bekjempelse er vitalt for at mange afrikanske regjeringer skulle ha et vennligstemt forhold med USA - i et kontinent gjennomsyret av generell mistro mot europeisk makt, og USA i deres øyne er ikke mindre europeisk. "Eksil for dømte amerikanerne" https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/trump-threatens-exile-for-americans-who-are-repeat-offenders-and-violent-criminals/ar-AA1xXJPk?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=0a6863f4f53244a784ab53f7dda4d365&ei=33 Under et intervju kom Trump i hans barnslighet på at man burde utvide amerikanske statsborgerne ut av USA. Trump unveiled his plan to exile Americans as he spoke to House Republicans during a dinner for them at his Doral, Florida golf resort, discussed his administration’s operation implementing mass deportations of undocumented immigrants. He boasted that his administration was “tracking down the illegal alien criminals” and “detaining them and we are throwing them the hell out of our country” with “no apologies.” He then pivoted to discussing the alleged relative viciousness of foreign criminals versus native-born American lawbreakers. “I used to say these are more violent than our criminals. In fact, the best part about them is they make our criminals look quite nice, actually, by comparison,” said Trump. In fact studies have shown that undocumented immigrants break the law far less than American-born citizens. Trump acknowledged that the U.S. also has “many violent people” who “did not necessarily come here illegally, but have been arrested 30 times, 35 times. 41, 42 times.” They have been arrested for crimes such as “murder and other heinous charges such as pushing people into subways” or striking people with baseball bats, or “punching old ladies in the face, knocking them unconscious and stealing their purse,” he noted. “I don’t want these violent repeat offenders in our country any more than I want illegal aliens from other countries who misbehave,” Trump said. “They’re repeat offenders by many numbers. I want them out of our country. I also will will be seeking permission to do so,” he vowed. “We’re going to get approval, hopefully, to get them the hell out of our country, along with others. Let them be brought to a foreign land and maintained by others for a very small fee, as opposed to be maintained in our jails for massive amounts of money, including the private prison companies that charge us a fortune. Let them be brought out of our country and let them live there for a while. Let’s see how they like it,” he said. Trump then repeated a false assertion that foreign countries have deliberately emptied prisons and “sent” criminals to the United States to reduce crimes, and suggested American crime rates would fall by implementing his proposal to exile Americans. Trump correctly noted that “approval” to throw American convicts out of the U.S. would be needed in the form of legislation authorizing the practice. It’s unlikely that such a plan would ever be authorized by Congress or approved by the courts. For one thing, the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.” Med andre ord, han vil sende kriminelle ut av landet og antyder at disse ikke vil ha amerikansk statsborgerskap i verste fall, under en tro om at andre land med full overlegg sendte sine kriminelle til USA. Han tror på hans løgnene. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/breaking-medicaid-portals-down-in-all-50-states-after-trump-s-federal-funding-pause-says-us-senator-ron-wyden/ar-AA1y1769?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=3b6513bdba65474cab6ed7b3ab52313b&ei=35 Flere millioner får ikke lenge medisin gjennom Medicaid-systemet fordi Trump har forbudt alle føderale utgifter som lån og givelse - dermed kan ikke pleietrengende få kjøpe eller endog overtrekke deres medisin, som i mange rekker er livsviktig - og leger som pleiefolk har opplevd at de får ikke betalt for verken vare eller tjeneste. Dette har fulgt til at flere senatorer begynte å komme på banen. "My staff has confirmed reports that Medicaid portals are down in all 50 states following last night's federal funding freeze," Wyden wrote on X (formerly Twitter). "This is a blatant attempt to rip away health insurance from millions of Americans overnight and will get people killed." "Can confirm. Connecticut’s Medicaid payment system has been turned off. Doctors and hospitals cannot get paid. Discussions ongoing about whether services can continue. Medicaid covers health care for millions of seniors and covers 40% of births in America." Dette skal ha kommet som en overraskelse på Trumps mediasekretær som fant seg uten av stand til å svare konkret på spørsmålene, og i kongressen begynte folk å få inn en tsunamiflom av telefonsamtaler fra bekymrede velgere, kolleger og toneangivende personer. Det hendt akkurat mens den meget kontroversielle Kennedy kan velges som helseminister, og det er tegn på at han allerede har en finger i det som skje. Flere millioner vil dø. Både i andre land og i USA. Dette beviser at Trump-administrasjonen og folk bak Prosjekt 2025 er IDIOTER AV FØRSTE KLASSE. Og, om det ikke er nok, kunne flere hundretusener, om ikke millioner, finner seg i fare om å bli sendt i eksil ut av USA til resten av verden...

Sant, men det er langt mye høyere potensialitet for opprør i USA enn i de nevnte landene - Orban hadde kunne holde på makten fordi viktige sekundærpartier hjalp ham, Erdogan opplevd kuppforsøk og har problem med sviktende oppslutning fordi uten ham er AKP ingenting, og Putin hadde fordelen ved å ha statsapparatet fra Sovjetunionens tid - spesielt KGB og fryktmaktmentalitet (ved å tro at makt er frykt, at frykt bekrefte makt). Allerede nå har det vitenskapelige miljøet tatt avstand, og det er liknende tegn overalt i den høyutdannede USA som tross alt har mye makt fordi makteliten trenger dem. Det som i virkeligheten står i vegen er den meget utdaterte 1789-konstitusjonen basert på ideer fra 1600-tallet. Så snart legalismen og konstitusjonstroen forsvinne er enhver fritt fram. Danskene sender nå militære til Grønland samtidig som EU, som merket at Trump har tatt opp et anti-EU politikk mot dem, vil overføre betydelige ressurser til Danmark og Grønland hvor grønlenderne er i daglige møter med representanter fra Danmark og EU - hvor det har sunket ned at dansk overadministrasjon hadde vært lite positivt, spesielt den kontroversielle Tom Høyem som avslørt at de danske borgerlige partiene hadde vanskjøttet grønlenderne i fortiden. Høyem nektet for spiralskandalen og kom med en påstand som ikke nevnes i skandinaviske nyheter, at Storbritannia har førsterett på Grønland om danskene skulle selge den etter en avtale fra 1917. Høyem var grønnlandsminister i 1980-årene. Inuittene har sagt fra; mens de så at Canada gav inuittfolk selvstyre og representasjonsrett akkurat som de selv har i det danske kongeriket, liker de ikke det som kom fra deres brødrefolk i Alaska, som hadde advart dem mot å tillate en amerikansk overtagelse - fordi USA er et av de siste landene i verden som har koloniadministrasjon i oversjøiske territorier og statsløse territorier. Inuittene i Alaska har generelt vært dårlig behandlet av amerikanerne i Alaska. De vil aktuelt heller lar Canada ta Grønland i verste fall, men deres mål er selvstendighet under andres beskyttelse.