U.S. House Votes to “Defund” Planned Parenthood in Budget Bill 

#PlannedParenthood #Abortion #ProLife #BigBeautifulBill

The Tariff Act of 1789: Foundation of American Economic Policy

 

The Tariff Act of 1789: Foundation of American Economic Policy

In the nascent years of the United States, the federal government faced a daunting challenge: establishing its authority and stabilizing a fragile economy. The Tariff Act of 1789, signed into law by President George Washington on July 4, emerged as a cornerstone of this effort. As the first major legislative achievement under the new Constitution, the act not only addressed urgent fiscal needs but also laid the groundwork for the nation’s economic identity. This article explores the context, provisions, debates, and enduring legacy of this pivotal legislation.

Historical Context: A Nation in Search of Stability

The ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788 marked a turning point for the young republic. Under the preceding Articles of Confederation, the federal government lacked the power to levy taxes, relying instead on voluntary contributions from states—a system that proved disastrously ineffective. By the late 1780s, the U.S. was mired in debt from the Revolutionary War, its credit in ruins, and its ability to fund basic operations in jeopardy. The Constitution’s Framers sought to rectify these weaknesses by empowering Congress to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises" (Article I, Section 8), setting the stage for the Tariff Act of 1789.

Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, appointed by Washington in September 1789, championed the act as part of his broader vision for a robust federal economy. Hamilton’s financial plan emphasized centralized fiscal authority, debt assumption, and the promotion of domestic industry—all themes reflected in the tariff legislation.

Objectives and Provisions: Revenue and Protection

The Tariff Act had dual aims: to generate revenue and to protect emerging American industries. Revenue was the immediate priority. The government needed funds to pay wartime debts, finance operations, and secure international credit. However, the act also introduced moderate protectionist measures, aligning with Hamilton’s belief in fostering self-sufficiency to reduce reliance on European imports.

Key Provisions:

1. Duties on Imports: The act imposed specific duties (based on quantity) and ad valorem taxes (based on value) on a range of goods. Luxury items such as wine, coffee, and tea faced higher rates (up to 50% for certain spirits), while essentials like salt were taxed minimally or exempted. Manufactured goods, including steel, glass, and textiles, were taxed at 7.5–15%, aiming to shield nascent industries from British competition.

2. Tonnage Taxes: The act levied taxes on shipping tonnage to bolster the American merchant marine. U.S.-owned ships paid 6 cents per ton, foreign-built but American-owned ships 30 cents, and foreign vessels 50 cents. This differential incentivized the use of domestic ships, strengthening maritime trade.

3. Compromises: To secure passage, the act balanced regional interests. Southern agrarian states, reliant on imported goods and fearful of export retaliation, accepted moderate tariffs in exchange for federal assumption of state debts—a later component of Hamilton’s plan.

Debates and Divisions: Seeds of Sectional Conflict

While the Tariff Act passed with relative ease, it foreshadowed enduring regional tensions. Northern states, home to budding industries, supported protectionist measures. Southern states, whose economies depended on exporting cash crops like tobacco and cotton, opposed high tariffs, fearing increased costs for imports and retaliatory duties abroad. James Madison, then a Virginia congressman and key sponsor of the act, navigated these divisions by emphasizing revenue over overt protectionism.

The debate also reflected broader ideological clashes. Hamilton’s Federalists advocated for a strong central government and industrialized economy, while Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans favored agrarianism and states’ rights. Though the 1789 tariff avoided extreme measures, it set a precedent for future conflicts, such as the Nullification Crisis of 1832, when South Carolina challenged protective tariffs.

Impact: Stabilizing the Economy

The Tariff Act achieved its primary goal: by 1790, tariffs accounted for over 95% of federal revenue, generating approximately $4.4 million annually. This influx enabled the government to fund operations, service debts, and establish financial credibility—a critical step in Hamilton’s plan to assume state debts and create a national bank. The act also provided modest protection to industries, though its success here was limited compared to later tariffs.

The tonnage tax bolstered the merchant marine, contributing to a tripling of U.S. shipping tonnage by 1800. This growth enhanced trade efficiency and reduced dependence on foreign vessels, aligning with Hamilton’s vision of economic independence.

Legacy: A Blueprint for Economic Policy

The Tariff Act of 1789 left an indelible mark on U.S. policy. It established tariffs as the federal government’s primary revenue source for over a century, until the 1913 income tax amendment. More importantly, it demonstrated the federal government’s capacity to enact effective economic legislation under the Constitution, reinforcing its authority and setting precedents for future interventions.

The act also highlighted the tension between revenue generation and protectionism—a duality that shaped 19th-century politics. Subsequent tariffs, such as the controversial 1828 "Tariff of Abominations," intensified sectional strife, underscoring how economic policies could exacerbate regional divides. These conflicts ultimately contributed to the Civil War, illustrating the far-reaching implications of the 1789 act’s legacy.

Conclusion: A Foundation for the Future

The Tariff Act of 1789 was more than a fiscal measure; it was a declaration of the federal government’s role in shaping the nation’s economic destiny. By balancing immediate fiscal needs with long-term industrial goals, it reflected the pragmatic compromises necessary to unite a diverse and fledgling nation. As the first Congress’s signature achievement, the act underscored the viability of the Constitution and laid the groundwork for America’s rise as an economic power. Its legacy endures in ongoing debates over trade, taxation, and the balance between federal authority and regional interests—a testament to its foundational role in American history.

#Economy #History #Tariff #Tariffs #GeorgeWashington

Tarrifs: I learned something about History this morning

 

I learned [The Tariff Act of 1789] about History this morning:

Signed by George Washington, The Tariff Act of 1789 was the first major piece of legislation passed by the United States Congress after the Constitution was ratified. It was signed into law by President George Washington on July 4, 1789. The act aimed to raise revenue for the government, protect domestic industries, and encourage the development of manufacturing. There was no INCOME TAX then. Federal money all came from tariffs. Now it comes from YOU. 

Hamilton created the COAST GUARD to catch ships trying to avoid the Tariffs. They uses fast boats called CUTTERS.

The Socialist, FDR, started taking Fed tax directly out of the paychecks directly to pay for debt from WWII. Abe Lincoln started an Income Tax, that was temporary, because during the Civil War most of the ports were in the South. Lincoln needed money to fund the war.

#Trump #Tariffs #GeorgeWashington #CoastGuard #Madison #JamesMadison

How Marilyn Monroe Silenced a Rude Journalist — With a Potato Sack

 

"How Marilyn Monroe Silenced a Rude Journalist — With a Potato Sack 💥🥔

Over 75 years ago, a young, rising star named Marilyn Monroe walked into a party wearing a stunning dress. The cameras loved her. The crowd was enchanted. But not everyone was impressed…

A snarky journalist wrote a bitter piece, claiming Marilyn’s charm came only from her expensive gowns. “Put her in a potato sack,” she wrote, “and no one would even notice her.”

Well, guess what?

Marilyn heard about it — and laughed.

With that signature mischievous smile, she said:

“A potato sack? Let's see about that.”

📸 The Iconic Potato Sack Photoshoot

Instead of getting offended, Marilyn turned the insult into pure magic. She posed — confident, radiant, iconic — in an actual potato sack dress. And the result? History.

She didn’t just clap back.

She made it fashion.

A deeper story: When sacks were survival

This moment wasn’t just witty — it echoed a real chapter in American history. During the Great Depression, many women couldn’t afford fabric. So they made dresses from flour and potato sacks. Manufacturers even began printing patterns — floral, stripes — just so women could feel stylish while surviving hard times.

👗 One dress made for a 17-year-old girl from flour sacks now lives in the Smithsonian Museum. Proof that resourcefulness is timeless.

Marilyn’s Lesson?

Elegance isn’t about price tags.

Confidence doesn’t need approval.

And the best comeback? Being so good they can’t ignore you — even in a potato sack.

💡 Next time someone throws shade, channel a little Marilyn:

Smile, own it… and make it iconic."

More Information:

Marilyn Monroe and the Potato Sack Dress: A Timeless Tale of Beauty and Wit  

Marilyn Monroe, the quintessential Hollywood icon, remains an enduring symbol of glamour, sensuality, and charisma. While her filmography and personal life have been endlessly dissected, one of the most captivating chapters of her legacy revolves around an unexpected object: a potato sack. In 1951, Monroe posed for a photograph wearing a burlap potato sack, transforming a mundane agricultural item into a cultural touchstone. This moment, both playful and profound, encapsulates Monroe’s shrewd understanding of her public image and challenges conventional notions of beauty.  

The Backstory: A Challenge from the Potato Fields  

In the early 1950s, Monroe was ascending Hollywood’s ranks but had yet to achieve superstardom. Her roles were often minor, yet her magnetic presence began attracting attention. During this period, a critic reportedly dismissed her allure as a product of designer gowns, implying that without luxurious fabrics, her appeal would vanish. Monroe, ever quick-witted, retorted, “I don’t know who said stars can’t wear potato sacks, but I’d like to try. Maybe I’ll start a new style.”  

The Maine Potato Growers Association seized this quip as a marketing opportunity. They mailed Monroe a 40-pound burlap sack used for potatoes, challenging her to prove her claim. Monroe accepted, collaborating with renowned photographer Philippe Halsman to stage a photoshoot that would become legendary.  

The Photoshoot: Crafting Elegance from Simplicity  

Halsman, celebrated for his portraits of celebrities like Albert Einstein and Audrey Hepburn, captured Monroe in March 1951. The burlap sack, emblazoned with “Maine Potatoes” in bold lettering, was cinched at the waist with rope. Monroe’s head and arms emerged from crude slits, yet her pose—chin tilted, hips swayed, and hands clutching the neckline—transformed the sack into a garment of improbable elegance.  

The contrast between the coarse fabric and Monroe’s radiant confidence was striking. Halsman’s composition highlighted her hourglass figure, while her playful smirk suggested self-awareness. The image, shot in black and white, emphasized texture and form, turning a promotional gimmick into art.  

Public Reaction: A Triumph of Personality Over Fabric  

When the photo circulated, it solidified Monroe’s reputation as a woman who transcended material trappings. Newspapers and magazines marveled at her ability to “make a potato sack look like a Paris original,” as one headline proclaimed. The image resonated with a post-war America increasingly fascinated by celebrity culture. Monroe’s defiance of the critic’s jab—proving her beauty required no embellishment—elevated her from starlet to icon.

The photoshoot also showcased Monroe’s media savvy. By embracing the potato sack, she disarmed critics and endeared herself to the public as approachable and self-assured. The stunt was mutually beneficial: the Maine Potato Growers Association gained national exposure, while Monroe reinforced her brand as a relatable yet unattainable goddess.  

Cultural Significance: Redefining Beauty Standards  

The potato sack photo arrived at a time when Hollywood glamour was synonymous with opulence. Starlets were draped in silks and sequins, their allure magnified by meticulous costuming. Monroe’s choice to pose in burlap subverted this narrative, suggesting that true beauty stemmed from confidence and individuality rather than fabric.  

This moment also reflected Monroe’s complex relationship with her image. Though often typecast as a “dumb blonde,” she wielded her persona with calculated intelligence. The potato sack, a symbol of humility, became a tool for her to control her narrative—a reminder that her appeal was innate, not manufactured.  

Moreover, the image inadvertently touched on themes of body positivity. Monroe’s curvaceous figure, accentuated by the sack’s drape, celebrated natural femininity in an era dominated by rigid beauty ideals. Decades before movements embraced diverse body types, Monroe challenged the notion that elegance demanded conformity.  

Legacy: From Gimmick to Iconography  

The potato sack dress endures as a testament to Monroe’s enduring mystique. It has been referenced in fashion editorials, parodied in pop culture, and analyzed by scholars. Designers like Jean Paul Gaultier and Jeremy Scott have drawn inspiration from its juxtaposition of ruggedness and allure, echoing Monroe’s ability to blend vulnerability with power.  

The photo also symbolizes Monroe’s transformative touch—an alchemy that turned the ordinary into the extraordinary. Just as she imbued film roles with depth and humor, she elevated a potato sack into a statement on self-perception and authenticity.  

Conclusion: More Than a Dress  

Marilyn Monroe’s potato sack dress was more than a publicity stunt; it was a cultural manifesto. In a single image, she dismantled critiques of superficiality, championed self-assuredness, and cemented her status as a legend. Today, the photo remains a poignant reminder that beauty is not worn—it is embodied. Monroe, ever the enigma, continues to captivate, proving that even a potato sack could not dim her luminous legacy.  

As we revisit this moment, we see not just a star in a sack, but a woman rewriting the rules of glamour on her own terms—a lesson in wit, resilience, and timeless allure.

#MarilynMonroe #Marilyn #Monroe

Debunking FDR: The Man and the Myths

Debunking FDR: The Man and the Myths

 "Mary Grabar, fellow at the Alexander Hamilton Institute and author of the book Debunking FDR: The Man and the Myths, talks to Shaun about the parallels between the Biden health scandal and FDR's own health scandal."

#ShaunThompson #FDR #MaryGrabar #Cigars #AlexanderHamiltonInstitute #Books

GET THE BOOK

Debunking FDR: The Man and the Myths

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd President of the United States, is widely regarded as one of the most influential figures in American history. He served for four terms, from 1933 until his death in 1945, guiding the nation through two of its most significant crises—the Great Depression and World War II. Roosevelt's policies, leadership, and legacy are subjects of considerable debate, with some praising him as a savior of the American economy and a beacon of hope during World War II, while others criticize him for overstepping the bounds of presidential power and undermining the principles of democracy.

Despite the varying views, much of the mythology surrounding Roosevelt’s presidency has been propagated by partisan rhetoric and historical distortions. This article seeks to debunk some of the most prevalent myths about FDR, exploring the man behind the myths, the complexities of his presidency, and the legacy he left behind.

Myth 1: FDR Ended the Great Depression

One of the most common myths about Franklin D. Roosevelt is that he single-handedly ended the Great Depression. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs—an array of government initiatives aimed at stabilizing the economy—are often credited with pulling the United States out of the Depression. Programs such as the Social Security Act, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and the Public Works Administration aimed to provide jobs, regulate financial markets, and offer relief to struggling citizens.

However, it is important to consider the broader context in which the Depression ended. While the New Deal played a crucial role in alleviating the immediate hardships faced by millions of Americans, the true catalyst for the end of the Depression was World War II. The war effort required an enormous increase in industrial production and mobilization of the workforce. This massive demand for goods and labor created jobs and revitalized the economy in ways that New Deal programs alone could not have achieved.

Roosevelt’s policies helped stabilize the economy and reduce unemployment, but it was the war that truly transformed the economic landscape. As historian Robert Higgs notes, “the Great Depression did not end because of Roosevelt’s programs. It ended because of the demands of total war.”

Myth 2: FDR Was a Defender of Democracy

Another myth surrounding FDR is that he was a steadfast defender of democracy, both in the United States and abroad. Roosevelt’s rhetoric often emphasized his commitment to democratic principles, particularly during the lead-up to World War II, when he portrayed the war as a battle between democracy and fascism. However, Roosevelt's actions did not always align with his lofty ideals.

Internally, Roosevelt’s presidency was marked by an erosion of civil liberties. The most notorious example is the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. In 1942, Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which led to the forced relocation and internment of over 100,000 Japanese Americans, the majority of whom were U.S. citizens. This action was justified by the administration as a wartime necessity, but it was a clear violation of constitutional rights. Roosevelt, who once championed the protection of civil liberties, failed to prevent or even openly criticize this grave injustice.

Additionally, Roosevelt’s foreign policy record reveals contradictions in his commitment to democracy. While he spoke out against fascist regimes in Europe and Asia, he maintained diplomatic relations with authoritarian regimes when it suited U.S. interests. For instance, Roosevelt offered support to Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union during World War II, despite Stalin’s brutal repression of political dissidents and his totalitarian rule. The alliance between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the war was based on military necessity, not a shared commitment to democratic ideals.

Myth 3: The New Deal Was a Revolutionary Success

The New Deal, FDR’s signature domestic policy program, is often hailed as a revolutionary success that fundamentally reshaped American society. Indeed, the New Deal introduced important reforms in banking, labor rights, and social welfare. However, the claim that the New Deal was a complete success is misleading, as many of its long-term effects were mixed, and some of its policies were far from revolutionary.

While the New Deal did provide critical relief to millions of Americans, its most ambitious reforms—such as Social Security—were limited in scope and failed to address the root causes of economic inequality. For example, the Social Security Act excluded farm workers and domestic workers, a large proportion of whom were Black Americans. The New Deal also failed to address issues of racial discrimination and segregation, which were rampant in the South. New Deal programs such as the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) often segregated workers by race, and Black Americans were frequently excluded from the benefits of many programs.

Moreover, the New Deal did not bring about the wholesale transformation of the American economy that many proponents hoped for. While it provided relief and some structural reforms, it did not fundamentally alter the capitalist system or eliminate the cyclical nature of economic crises. The New Deal's emphasis on government intervention in the economy did not represent a radical break with the past but rather an effort to stabilize the existing economic system.

Myth 4: FDR Was a Champion of the Working Class

Franklin D. Roosevelt is often portrayed as a champion of the working class, particularly through his advocacy for labor rights and his creation of programs that provided jobs for millions of Americans. While Roosevelt did support some labor reforms, the reality of his relationship with organized labor was more complicated.

Roosevelt’s relationship with unions was often strained. Early in his presidency, FDR was wary of the growing power of organized labor and sought to balance the demands of unions with the interests of big business. For example, while he supported the Wagner Act of 1935, which guaranteed workers the right to unionize and engage in collective bargaining, he also took a hands-off approach when labor disputes threatened to disrupt wartime production. During World War II, Roosevelt's administration often sided with management in labor disputes, particularly in industries critical to the war effort.

Moreover, while the New Deal created jobs through programs like the WPA and CCC, these jobs were not always well-paying or permanent. Many workers in these programs were subjected to poor working conditions and low wages. The New Deal did provide some relief to struggling Americans, but it did not fundamentally challenge the economic hierarchy or ensure long-term improvements in the conditions of the working class.

Myth 5: FDR Was a Master Politician Who Always Got His Way

FDR’s reputation as a master politician who could navigate the complexities of Washington and bend Congress to his will is largely accurate. He was a master of political strategy and knew how to use his political capital effectively. However, the myth that Roosevelt was always able to get what he wanted overlooks the many instances when he faced significant resistance from both within his own party and from his political opponents.

One of Roosevelt’s most significant setbacks came in the form of the opposition to his court-packing plan. In 1937, Roosevelt proposed a controversial plan to expand the Supreme Court by adding additional justices, a move widely seen as an attempt to gain control of the Court and secure approval for his New Deal programs. The proposal was met with fierce resistance from both Democrats and Republicans, and it ultimately failed. This defeat marked a rare political misstep for Roosevelt, demonstrating that he was not invincible in his political maneuvering.

Additionally, Roosevelt faced challenges in securing the passage of some of his most ambitious New Deal proposals. For example, his attempts to regulate business and financial markets through the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Glass-Steagall Act were met with considerable opposition from both conservatives and members of his own party who feared that the reforms would interfere with free-market capitalism.

Conclusion

Franklin D. Roosevelt was undoubtedly one of the most consequential presidents in American history, and his legacy is complex and multifaceted. While he is often credited with saving the American economy and leading the nation through the greatest crises of the 20th century, it is important to question the myths surrounding his presidency. FDR’s New Deal did not end the Great Depression, his commitment to democracy was often compromised by political expediency, and his championing of the working class was not as radical as many would like to believe.

FDR was a pragmatic leader who navigated a tumultuous period in American history with a mix of bold initiatives and calculated compromises. His achievements should be evaluated with a critical eye, acknowledging both the successes and the shortcomings of his presidency. In the end, Roosevelt’s legacy is not that of a flawless hero but of a leader who, through a combination of vision, pragmatism, and political savvy, reshaped the American political and economic landscape in ways that continue to reverberate today.

HELICOPTER AND PLANE CRASHES

 CRASHES:

Hey, last week a medical helicopter crash landed in a front yard in Pennsylvania. This morning a plane crashed into a Military Neighborhood in San Diego. Ya .ay wanna look up every once in a while.

‘It's a miracle': Medical helicopter makes emergency landing on yard of Pa. home

Several people dead after small plane crash in San Diego neighborhood

#planecrashes #helicoptercrashes #planecrash

The First MAHA Report On The Health of Kids

The First MAHA Report On The Health of Kids

5 Key Points of Interest

1.Poor Diet - Including Ultra Processed Foods

2.Too Many Meds Prescribed To Kids

3.Too Much Exposure To Environmental Chemicals

4. Lack Of Movement/Exercise

5. Corporate Influence 

5 key takeaways from the MAHA commission report

#MAHA #RFKJR #Health #Kids #Children #Food

The SALT Tax Issue

 

The SALT Tax Issue: Only 9% use it ... Also, none of the Republican Senators are from Blue States. They don't need the votes. That cap will change. Stay tuned ...

300 Billion Dollars ... that is what the Current SALT tax levels will cost the US over 10 years if the current Funding Bill (Big Beautiful Bill). Only 9% of the public takes that deduction.

California,  New York, New Jersey, and Illinois really need that. They need the rest of the country to subsidize their GREEN NEW DEAL policies, their high Government salaries and pensions, and their SANCTUARY STATE policies-They gotta pay for the ILLEGALS they allow to take their money.

The folks in Washington need to tell the LOCALS to STOP RAISING TAXES!!!

#Politics #SALT #BigBeautifulBill #Congress

Don't Try To 'Out Trump' Trump

Don't Try To 'Out Trump' Trump

See, you can't build anything in New York unless you deal with City Hall, the Unions, and the Mob. Trump dealt with all 3. So when those world leaders and those crooked Democrats show up thinking they're gonna 'Out Trump' Trump, it reminds me of Judas Priest, "You Got Another Thing Coming"...

Don't run your mouth to long because you'll have the lights turned down and possibly get kicked out before lunch.

He should carry a BIG ASS MIC around with him...

#Trump #PressConference #Zelensky #Putin #SouthAfrica #CyrilRamaphosa

MUST SEE TV

 MUST SEE TV

Megan Kelly

I've seen 2 things this week were 'Must See TV'... Megan Kelly taking Jack Tapper to the Wood Shed over is 'Book'. She let him know she was reporting on Biden years ago while he was on CNN running cover. 

The other was the press conference between Trump and the South Africa President. Trump dimmed the lights, rolled the tape, showed the pictures, and told the NBC reporter he was an Idiot. Then he told him he couldn't ask anything else.

Donald Trump

#megankelly #jaketapper #Trump #SouthAfrica

There has never been a Palestine

 

ISRAEL EMBASSY STAFFERS SHOT BY CHICAGO MAN IN D.C.

"There has never been a Palestine:

SAD STORY: In Case You Didn't Know Already

Some Idiot from Chicago traveled to D.C. and shot the young couple last night.The were shot several times in the back. They were staffers at the Israel Embassy. The young Man had just bought a ring and planned on proposing next week in Jerusalem. While being arrested he was yelling "Free Palestine!" The shooter is a member of some Socialist Group with some fancy name.

The LEFT cannot debate. They rage, loot, riot, storm buildings, take and claim property, shoot, use anger as political motivation, want to spend other people's money, and MAKE UP STUFF. 

Everytime here about something like this I post this:

"There has never been a PALESTINE!

1) Before the modern israel state, there was a British mandate, not a Palestinian state.

2) Before the British mandate

The Ottoman Empire existed, not the Palestinian state.

3) Before the Ottoman Empire, there was a fully Islamic state of Egypt, not the Palestinian state.

4) Before the Islamic State of Egypt, the Empire of Ayubid existed, not the Palestinian state. Gofri IV of Bolansky, known as Godfrey de Bullion, conquered Jerusalem in 1099.

5) Before the Empire of Ayubid there was the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, not the Palestinian state.

6) Before the Kingdom of Jerusalem there were Umayad and Fatimid empires, not the Palestinian state.

7) Before the empires of the Umaid and Fatimid, there was the Byzantine Empire, not the Palestinian state.

Before the Byzantine Empire, there was the Roman Empire, not the Palestinian state.

9) Before the Roman Empire, the Hasmone state existed, not the Palestinian state.

10) Before the state of Hashmansk, it was a Selbakid state, not the Palestinian state.

11) Before the Slavic Empire, the empire of Alexander Macedonia existed, not the Palestinian state.

12) Before the empire of Alexander of Macedonia, the Persian Empire existed, not the Palestinian state.

13) Before the Persian Empire, the Babylonian Empire existed, not the Palestinian state.

14) Before the Empire of Babylon there were kingdoms of Israel and Judea was not the Palestinian state.

15) Before the kingdoms of israel and Judah was the kingdom of israel , not the state of Palestine.

16) Before the Kingdom of israel there was a theocracy of twelve tribalism of israel , not of the Palestinian state.

17) Before the the theocracy of twelve generations of israel , there was an agglomeration of independent Canaan cities, not the Palestinian state.

In fact, in this corner of the earth there was everything except the Palestinian state."

#staffersshot #Chicago #Palestine #terrorists #DCterroristattack #Israel #Jerusalem

What Is Necklacing?

 

'Necklacing': What Is It?

I learned a new word this morning. It's call 'Necklacing'. It refers to putting a tire around someone's neck and setting it on fire. A witness said the group that terrorized a family of farmers in South Africa did that to a Woman.

Sad thing, the people that take the land don't know what to do with the land. One guy had 10 business in South Africa. The Government took 9 of them without any compensation. The only reason they didn't take the 10th is because it operates off world patents. If they took that business then they would lose that business entirely. That entire situation is barbaric.

OFFICIAL DEFINITION: 

Necklacing

Necklacing is a method of extrajudicial summary execution and torture carried out by forcing a rubber tire drenched with gasoline around a victim's chest

#southafrica #Africa

THE SCOTUS CHEVRON DECISION and WHY IT’S WAS IMPORTANT

THE SCOTUS

CHEVRON DECISION 

WHY IT WAS

 IT’S WAS IMPORTANT

#scotus #CHEVRON #CHEVRONDECISION

The Democrats New Game Plan

 

The Democrats New Game Plan...Play The 'Trump Card' 

Play the TRUMP CARD ... GET ARRESTED and raise money ... and hope you grow your base. However, Trump never went OUT of his way or trespassed, or put his hands on people to make a scene. Today’s Democrats are causing a scene to get on camera.

Every Democrat is trying to get arrested nowadays so they can claim LAWFARE.  Think since Trump got elected over their antics they can too later on. They need to be careful. Pam Bondi and Kash Patel ain't playin'.. I don't think Tulsi Gabbard is playin' either.

Why weren't the following people arrested:

Looking back in recent years Democrats have done some things that should be bigger scandals than Watergate.

1. The recent situation with Joe Biden - The cover-up. We need to know who was running the country, because he wasn't.

2. Russia Collusion - That fake crap derived by the Clinton Campaign tore families and the nation apart for 3 and a half years because people are stupid. No one in the Clinton Campaign went to jail, even after the government spent 33 Million Dollars on a bogus investigation.

3.COVID-19 and Dr. Fauci: They lied to us over Covid. They kept families apart. They kept people from seeing dying loved ones. They kept people from going to church. Kids were set back in education and may never recover. Businesses were lost. No one has had to answer up.

4. Obama and the IRS - Obama used the IRS to go after the TEA PARTY groups from trying to get 501C3 status. He did what Nixon did. He told Lois Lerner, who led the IRS division that approves and dealt with 501C3 applicants, to scrutinize Conservative groups, or deny them, or slow walk their applications. See, for decades Democrats were Kings at organizing, rallying, singing strange songs, and so forth. Obama, being a Community Organizer new this. They never imagined Conservatives doing the same. So when he saw whT the TEA PARTY was doing and how they were going and gathering momentum, he had to do something. If they couldn't get approved for 501C3 status it would make it harder to organize, raise money for office space and office equipment, and support candidates. Basically, Obama hamstrung a movement. Nothing happened to him like Nixon. Lerner was called to testify to Congress and she basically snubbed them while testifying. Nothing happened to her.

#Biden #Clinton #Trump #Democrats #Lerner

Nick Adams On The Shawn Thompson Show

Nick Adams On The Shawn Thompson Show

Nick Adams, author of the new book From Mar-a-Lago to Mars: President Trump's Great American Comeback, tells Shaun how the Democrats are still peddling lies within the lies they have already been caught in.

He Explains How American Companies Helped China Build Their Technical Workforce.

#China #ShawnThompson #NickAdams #Podcast

BUY THE BOOK

#Trump

House Republicans to zero in on autopen use as part of investigation into Biden's health

House Republicans to zero in on autopen use as part of investigation into Biden's health

The probe comes amid renewed scrutiny around Biden’s mental and physical fitness while in office.

#autopen #Biden #Forgery #Investigation

Elon Musk Confronting USAID

 

Short Opinion:

Elon Musk Confronting USAID

Elon Musk asked USAID to show us who they help with aid. They couldn't provide any. Basically they were paying off Dictatorships, Beaurocrats, and Regime change.

WHO GOT THE MONEY? A bunch of fake NGO's peddling money back to Democrats. That is why they MAD! The Governor of Illinois has 64 NGO's. WHY?

#ngo #ngos #usaid #Musk #Elon

Elon Musk lashes out at US judges as they rule against Doge

This article is more than 1 month old

Musk lambastes judges as leftwing activists in more than 20 posts as Trump administration’s judiciary clash intensifies

America’s College Towns Go From Boom to Bust

Story by Konrad Putzier, Douglas Belkin, Anthony DeBarros

#College #Education #CollegeTowns #Economy

US top court allows Trump to use wartime law for deportations

US top court allows Trump to use wartime law for deportations

#Scotus #Trump #Illegals 

The Supreme Court just cleared the way for Trump to deport illegals

 

BREAKING: The Supreme Court just cleared the way for Trump to deport illegals even faster. The court ruled that trump can use the "Alien Enemies Act" to send Venezuelan gang members to a megaprison in El Salvador. Karoline Leavitt reacts live on Primetime.

The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the FAKE Steele Dossier against Trump. They were CROOKS!!! WE TOLD YOU!!!

  The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the FAKE Steele Dossier against Trump. They were CROOKS!!! WE TOLD YOU!!!

The Clinton Campaign, the DNC, and the Steele Dossier: Unpacking the Controversy

The claim that the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) funded the “fake” Steele Dossier to undermine Donald Trump during the 2016 election has become a rallying cry for critics of the Russia investigation. Supporters of Trump often frame the dossier as a fabricated smear campaign orchestrated by political opponents, encapsulated in phrases like “CROOKS!!! WE TOLD YOU!!!” This article examines the origins, funding, credibility, and legacy of the Steele Dossier, exploring the factual basis of these claims and their impact on U.S. politics.

1. Origins of the Steele Dossier 

The Steele Dossier refers to a series of memos authored by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, between June and December 2016. Steele was hired by the private intelligence firm Fusion GPS to investigate Donald Trump’s ties to Russia during the presidential campaign. The dossier gained notoriety for its explosive allegations, including claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, as well as salacious personal details about Trump. 

Key points:  

- Purpose: Initially funded by a conservative website (The Washington Free Beacon) during the Republican primary, Fusion GPS’s research was later financed by the DNC and Clinton campaign through their law firm, Perkins Coie, after Trump became the GOP nominee.  

- Content: The dossier alleged that Russia had compromising material on Trump (“kompromat”) and described a coordinated effort by Russian intelligence to interfere in the election.  

Critics argue the dossier was politically motivated opposition research, while defenders claim it was a legitimate attempt to uncover potential national security risks.

2. Funding and Political Context  

The Clinton Campaign and DNC’s financial role in the dossier’s creation is well-documented but was initially obscured. Perkins Coie, representing both entities, paid Fusion GPS $1.02 million for research in 2016, with $168,000 allocated to Steele’s work. This arrangement was revealed in late 2017, fueling accusations of hypocrisy: Democrats had condemned Trump’s alleged Russia ties while secretly funding research that relied on foreign sources (Steele).  

Controversies:  

- Campaign Finance: Conservatives argued the payments violated disclosure laws, as they were labeled as “legal services” rather than opposition research. However, no charges were filed.  

- Foreign Involvement: Steele, a foreign national, gathered information from Russian contacts, raising ethical questions about outsourcing political research abroad.  

The Clinton campaign defended the effort as standard opposition research, comparable to practices by both parties.

3. Credibility of the Dossier: Fact vs. Fiction  

The dossier’s accuracy remains hotly debated. While some claims were corroborated, others were disproven or remain unverified:  

Corroborated Elements:  

- Russian Interference: The dossier correctly identified that Russia sought to aid Trump’s campaign, later confirmed by U.S. intelligence agencies.  

- Contacts Between Trump Associates and Russians: Some individuals named in the dossier, such as Paul Manafort and Carter Page, were indeed scrutinized for their Russia ties.  

Unverified or Debunked Claims:  

- The infamous “pee tape” allegation remains unproven.  

- Specific details about Trump-Russia collusion lacked concrete evidence.  

The Mueller Report (2019) concluded that while Russia interfered “sweepingly” in the election, there was insufficient evidence to charge Trump’s campaign with criminal conspiracy. Steele himself admitted the dossier was raw intelligence, not verified facts.

4. Political and Legal Repercussions  

The dossier’s release had far-reaching consequences:  

For the FBI:  

- The dossier was used to secure a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to monitor Carter Page, a Trump adviser. A 2019 DOJ inspector general report found the FBI made significant errors in its FISA applications by omitting context about Steele’s credibility and his anti-Trump bias.  

For the Clinton Campaign and DNC:  

- Republicans accused Democrats of exploiting the dossier to delegitimize Trump’s presidency. The House Intelligence Committee, under GOP control, called the dossier a product of “Clinton-approved disinformation.”  

- Legal fallout was minimal. Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Russia probe criticized the FBI’s haste but did not charge Clinton allies with crimes related to the dossier.  

5. Public Perception and Legacy  

The Steele Dossier became a symbol of the hyper-partisan divide in U.S. politics:  

Trump’s Base: Viewed the dossier as “fake news” central to a “Deep State” plot to sabotage Trump. The “CROOKS!!!” narrative resonates here, portraying Clinton and the DNC as corrupt actors.  

Democrats and Liberals: Argued the dossier, while flawed, highlighted genuine concerns about Russian meddling. They note that Trump’s campaign welcomed Russia’s help (e.g., the 2016 Trump Tower meeting) even if collusion wasn’t criminally proven.  

Media’s Role: Outlets faced backlash for overhyping the dossier’s most lurid claims. Retractions and lawsuits (e.g., against BuzzFeed for publishing the full dossier) followed.  

6. Conclusion: A Complex Legacy  

The Steele Dossier is neither wholly “fake” nor entirely credible. Its creation reflects the cutthroat nature of political opposition research, while its flaws underscore the dangers of relying on uncorroborated intelligence. The Clinton Campaign and DNC’s involvement, though legal, deepened distrust in institutions and amplified conspiracy theories. 

For Trump’s supporters, the dossier epitomizes partisan skullduggery. For critics, it’s a cautionary tale about foreign interference. Regardless of perspective, the saga underscores the enduring impact of the 2016 election on America’s political discourse—a legacy of division that continues to shape elections today.  

#Trump #Election #Democracy

Two Tier System of The Law: Why Clinton Got Fined and Trump didn't and Why Trump Got Charged and Hillary Didn't

Two Tier System of The Law: Why Clinton Got Fined and Trump didn't and Why Trump Got Charged and Hillary Didn't 

Trump did the right thing. It was a legal expense, not a campaign expense. The FEC said there was no case. It was an NDA, that is a LEGAL agreement (Non Disclosure Agreement). If NDA were illegal half of Congress would be locked up.

However,Hillary Clinton and the DNC got fined by the FEC because they paid for that FAKE Steel Dossier and listed it as LEGAL EXPENSE.  NOPE ,it was 'OPPOSITION RESEARCH. However, she didn't face a FELONY.

If Trump had listed those payments as CAMPAIGN expenses he would have been in REAL Trouble. The FEC didn't fine him. The former Manhattan DA even left it alone.

If this makes it to SCOTUS it should be tossed.

#Clinton #Trump #AlvinBragg #Election

OPINION

The assertion of a two-tier legal system in the cases involving Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton hinges on several legal and procedural distinctions. Here's a structured analysis:

1. Trump’s NDA Payments: Legal vs. Campaign Expenses

- Context: Payments to Stormy Daniels via Michael Cohen were structured as a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). 

- FEC Action: The Federal Election Commission (FEC) declined to pursue charges, partly due to internal deadlock and insufficient evidence to prove the payments were primarily campaign-related. NDAs are generally legal, but if intended to influence an election, they could qualify as campaign expenses.

- State Prosecution: The Manhattan District Attorney charged Trump under New York state law for falsifying business records (a misdemeanor), elevated to a felony by alleging the falsification concealed a federal campaign finance violation. This does not require a federal conviction, only intent to commit or conceal another crime.

- Key Distinction: State prosecutors argue the payments were election-related, not personal, making them unreported campaign expenses. The FEC’s inaction does not preclude state charges, as jurisdictions and standards differ.

2. Clinton/DNC and the Steele Dossier

- Context: The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton’s campaign funded the Steele Dossier, labeling it as “legal services” in filings.

- FEC Action: The FEC imposed a civil fine ($113,000) for misreporting payments as legal expenses instead of opposition research. This was a non-criminal violation, resolved administratively.

- No Criminal Charges: The Department of Justice (DOJ) did not pursue criminal charges, likely due to lack of evidence of willful intent to violate campaign finance laws, a higher bar than civil violations.

3. Legal Differences and Perceived Double Standards

- Jurisdiction: 

  - Trump’s case involves state criminal law (New York), while Clinton’s involved federal civil law (FEC). These are separate legal realms with different burdens of proof.

  - The FEC handles civil campaign finance violations, whereas state prosecutors can pursue criminal charges under state statutes.

- Intent and Evidence: 

  - Prosecutors in Trump’s case alleged intent to defraud (e.g., disguising a campaign expense as a legal payment). 

  - In Clinton’s case, the FEC found no evidence of deliberate concealment beyond mislabeling, which warranted a civil penalty but not criminal prosecution.

- Prosecutorial Discretion: 

  - The Manhattan DA’s decision to pursue charges reflects local priorities, while the DOJ under Trump’s administration declined to prosecute Clinton in 2016–2017.

4. SCOTUS Considerations

- Potential Issues: If Trump’s case reaches the Supreme Court, justices might scrutinize:

  - The novel use of state law to address federal campaign finance allegations.

  - Whether falsifying business records to conceal a federal crime (even if unprosecuted) is a valid basis for a state felony.

  - Federalism concerns (state vs. federal authority over election-related conduct).

- Precedent: SCOTUS has historically deferred to state prosecutions unless they conflict with federal law or constitutional rights. The outcome would depend on the specific legal arguments presented.

Conclusion

The perceived “two-tier system” arises from differing legal frameworks, jurisdictional boundaries, and prosecutorial decisions—not necessarily partisan bias. Trump’s case involves state criminal charges for alleged concealment of a federal violation, while Clinton’s involved federal civil penalties. Whether this constitutes unfair treatment is debatable, but the distinctions are legally substantive. The ultimate resolution, particularly at SCOTUS, will hinge on interpretations of state law’s interaction with federal election rules.

#Clinton #Trump #Justice #Election

Who Was In Charge Under Biden?

Who Was In Charge Under Biden?

Word has it 5 unelected people were running the country while Biden was in office. 

The DOJ is actually considering investigating Dr. Jill Biden for ELDER ABUSE. Democrats want everyone to move on. These are the same people who lies about Russia Russia Russia, Jessie Smollet, George Floyed, the 3 hour protest at the Capitol when they called it an 'Insurection, they lied about Charlottesville, they lied about the border, and they lied about Afghanistan. They described Joe Biden as just being a MEMBER OF THE BOARD.

Then, when they get caught they try to convince you it's YOUR shoes that stink after watching walk through Bull**** then walk into the room and point at YOU.

BTW, I bet these 5 were in charge:

1. Obama

2. Jill Biden

3. Antony Blinkin - A Liar

4. Jake Sullivan - A Liar

5. Susan Rice - Sneaky - Faded away when it was really looking like Biden was going downhill. She was Obama’s UN Ambassador, and Biden's Domestic Advisor.

Biden didn't talk to Russia for the last 3.5 years in Office. Kamala wasn't competent enough. Antony Blinken was the Secretary of State and through Russia under the bus by blaming them for the Hunter Biden Laptop along with 51 former Intelligence Officials. He had no credibility with Russia.

Jake Sullivan worked in the Clinton Campaign.  He was the one that Tweeted Trump was colluding with the Russians. He through them under the bus so the Russians didn't trust him either. The Russians surely didn't trust any of the Russian hold overs.

We gave Ukraine 250 Billion over 4 years and only talked to the Russians for 6 months of it.

They say Putin isn't honest. Look what he has had to deal with over the past 16 years, a bunch of lying Democrats. 

I hope they all get called in ... I'll pray for Biden as a citizen, but as CITIZENS we deserve to know what's up.

#Biden #Obama #Blinkin #Sullivan #Rice #Dementia #Cancer

How Long Has Joe Biden Had Prostate Cancer?

 

How Long Has Joe Biden Had Prostate Cancer?

 ANALYSIS 

It takes 10 years for Prostate Cancer to advance to stage 4 Cancer. They didn't just find out. They hid it and lied. They can't be trusted. These are the same people who tried to jail anyone that supported Trump. I still feel sorry for Biden, but there are some staffers, Doctors, and media folks need to be held accountable. As a matter of fact, Jake Tapper was one of the main media people defending Biden’s cognitive ability. He slammed anyone that questioned Biden’s mental issues. Now Jake Tapper is about to release a book on Biden’s cognitive issues. 

They Knew:

Remember back when Biden dropped out of the race, his Brother said he wanted to spend more time with his family and (paraphrasing) "We want to enjoy him for as long as we have him" ...

They Knew ...

SCANDAL!!!

OPINION/COMMENTS

Unpacking Claims of Medical Cover-Ups, Political Conspiracies, and Media Accountability: A Comprehensive Analysis  

Recent social media posts have sparked intense debate with claims of a medical cover-up regarding prostate cancer progression, political persecution, and media hypocrisy surrounding President Joe Biden's cognitive health. This article examines these allegations, separating fact from fiction and exploring the broader implications for public trust.

1. Prostate Cancer: Understanding the Timeline  

Prostate cancer is known for its variable progression. Medical institutions like the American Cancer Society note that while some cases advance slowly, potentially over a decade, others can be aggressive. The claim that it "takes 10 years to advance to stage 4" is a generalization. Factors such as Gleason score, PSA levels, and individual health influence progression. There is no evidence of a systemic cover-up by medical authorities. Critics argue that oversimplifying cancer timelines risks misleading patients about personalized treatment needs.

2. Political Context: January 6 and Trump Supporters  

The post references legal actions against Trump supporters, likely alluding to prosecutions following the January 6 Capitol riot. These cases involve charges like trespassing and insurrection, not political persecution. Conflating these legal processes with unrelated medical conspiracies lacks substantiation and exemplifies a broader trend of mistrust in institutions.

3. Biden’s Cognitive Health: Scrutiny and Speculation  

Questions about President Biden’s cognitive abilities have circulated in media and political circles. While Biden’s gaffes and moments of confusion are public, his annual medical reports cite him as “healthy” and “vigorous.” Critics argue these reports are insufficiently transparent, fueling speculation. Staffers and doctors face accusations of downplaying concerns, though no concrete evidence of malpractice exists.

4. Jake Tapper and Media Dynamics  

CNN’s Jake Tapper has previously defended Biden against cognitive decline allegations, emphasizing respect over speculation. The post claims Tapper is now releasing a book on Biden’s cognitive issues—a claim unverified as of October 2023. If true, it would raise questions about media integrity; however, without confirmation, this remains speculative. This highlights the need for critical evaluation of sources and the dangers of misinformation.

5. Accountability and the Role of Media  

Calls for accountability often arise in scandals, but they must be evidence-based. Allegations against medical professionals, staffers, and journalists require rigorous proof. The media’s role in shaping public perception is crucial, emphasizing the importance of ethical journalism that prioritizes fact over sensationalism.

6. Broader Implications: Trust and Conspiracy Theories  

The post reflects deepening societal divides and mistrust in authority. Conspiracy theories often emerge from real anxieties but can distort reality. Addressing these issues demands transparency, education, and dialogue to rebuild trust.

Conclusion  

While skepticism toward institutions can drive accountability, unsubstantiated claims risk undermining legitimate discourse. The prostate cancer timeline, Biden’s health, and media practices each warrant nuanced discussion grounded in evidence. As society navigates complex information landscapes, critical thinking and verified facts remain essential guides.

They Knew

#Biden #Prostate #Cancer