Is I.C.E. A Bunch of NAZIS?

 

Is I.C.E. A Bunch of NAZIS?

They calI I.C.E. A Bunch of NAZIS?. NAZIS and WHITE SUPPREMACIST. 30% of I.C.E. is Latino. 50% of CBP is Latino. I realize Hitler tried to set up shop in Mexico during WWII, but I don't think any Latinos are true or wanna be NAZI. I'm not Latino or Nazi. I'm simply speculating.

"Trump Derangement Syndrome makes nice people mean, and makes  smart people dumb." ~ Some Smart Guy

The Slander of Law Enforcement: How Political Hysteria Betrays American Values

In the fevered landscape of modern political discourse, a revealing and corrosive tactic has become commonplace: the demonization of those who uphold our nation’s laws. A recent social media post highlighted this absurdity, noting the stark disconnect between the hysterical labels slapped on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—“Nazis,” “White Supremacists”—and the simple, verifiable reality that 30% of I.C.E. and 50% of CBP personnel are Latino. The poster’s bewilderment is warranted and points to a deeper malaise: a “Trump Derangement Syndrome” that, as they quote, “makes nice people mean, and makes smart people dumb.” This is not merely about one agency or one administration; it is about the left’s dangerous abandonment of principle in favor of a politics of emotive, destructive slander.

The historical reference in the post is poignant. The attempt by Hitler to establish influence in Mexico, via the Zimmermann Telegram in World War I and through espionage efforts in World War II, was a direct threat to the sovereignty and security of the Americas. It was ultimately rebuffed. To now equate the very American institutions tasked with defending that sovereignty—staffed in large part by the descendants of those who would have been targets of Nazi racial ideology—with that same evil is not just incorrect; it is a profound act of historical illiteracy and disrespect. It disrespects the Latino officers who serve with honor and it trivializes the actual, horrific crimes of totalitarian regimes. This rhetorical escalation is not an accident; it is a calculated strategy to dehumanize federal agents and dismantle the very concept of border integrity.

At its core, the conservative perspective holds that the rule of law is the bedrock of a free, orderly, and compassionate society. I.C.E. and CBP are not rogue entities; they are agencies charged by Congress with enforcing laws passed through our democratic system. Their missions—interdicting drugs, combating human trafficking, stopping the flow of illicit goods, and ensuring orderly legal immigration—are fundamentally benevolent. They protect American wages, public safety, and national security. When activists and certain media figures label these public servants as “Nazis,” they are not engaging in policy critique. They are engaging in moral terrorism, seeking to short-circuit rational debate by placing law enforcement beyond the pale of civilized society. This tactic is designed to make enforcement unworkable by destroying its moral legitimacy and making recruitment impossible, thereby achieving through intimidation what they cannot achieve through legislation.

The demographic reality of these agencies completely dismantles the “white supremacist” narrative. How does one reconcile the image of a monolithic, racist institution with the fact that half of the Border Patrol is Latino? These are men and women, often from border communities themselves, bilingual and bicultural, who have chosen a career of service. They are not cartoon villains; they are veterans, parents, and neighbors who believe in the mission of their agency. To call them Nazis is to spit in the face of their service and their heritage. It alleges that they are either dupes of a system that hates them or active participants in their own oppression—both of which are condescending, racist assumptions rooted in a leftist ideology that sees individuals not as autonomous beings but as avatars of group identity. When the group identity of the officers contradicts the smear, the smear is simply ignored, revealing that the labels were never about truth, but about power.

This is where the concept of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” proves useful as a diagnosis. It describes a condition of such visceral, all-consuming opposition to the 45th president that it overrides logic, consistency, and basic civility. The agencies themselves are not new; they were created under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, signed by President George W. Bush. While they were criticized under President Obama, the rhetoric was not routinely genocidal. The fever spiked with Trump’s election and his emphasis on border security. The left’s objection was never truly about the agencies’ structure or tactics *per se*, but about the man who championed their mission. In their hatred for Trump, they transferred that hatred to the institutions he prioritized, abandoning any pretense of nuanced reform in favor of cries for “abolition.” The syndrome makes smart people dumb because it forces them to argue that enforcing immigration law is inherently fascistic, a position that is both historically ignorant and politically unsustainable.

The consequences of this rhetoric are tangible and dangerous. It has fueled attacks on ICE facilities, countless death threats against officers and their families, and a corrosive culture where wearing the uniform is seen by some as a mark of shame rather than honor. This environment makes it harder to recruit and retain the best individuals for a difficult and vital job, directly undermining public safety. Furthermore, it poisons the civic well. If one side of the political debate believes the other is not merely wrong but literally Nazi-like, then compromise becomes impossible, and the normal mechanisms of democratic governance break down. The end goal of such language is not persuasion, but annihilation of the opposition’s standing in the republic.

From a conservative view, the defense of these agencies is a defense of sovereignty, law, and order itself. It is a recognition that a nation without controlled borders ceases to be a nation. It is an affirmation that the people who risk their lives to police those borders—whether they are named O’Reilly, Rodriguez, or Chen—are patriots. The alternative vision offered by the abolitionists is one of open borders, a policy that would disproportionately harm the working poor, overwhelm public services, and erode the social trust necessary for a functioning welfare state and a cohesive national community.

The social media post ends with simple, personal speculation: “I’m not Latino or Nazi.” It is a humble statement of fact from someone observing the madness. And therein lies the antidote to the derangement: a return to fact, to reason, and to a fundamental respect for the law and those sworn to uphold it. The Latino men and women of I.C.E. and CBP are not Nazis; they are Americans doing a difficult job. To slander them is to sabotage America’s security. It is time to reject the hysterical labels, condemn the dangerous rhetoric, and restore the dignity due to those who stand on the front lines of our sovereignty. Our nation’s safety and principle demand nothing less.

#ICE #NAZIS #NAZI #Latino

  

EMP Survival Guide: Your First 15 Steps & a Complete Plan

#Survival #EMP #Outdoors #Prepping #Prepper

From Conservative and Liberal Perspectives Why Social Security Disability Claims Take So Long?

From Conservative and Liberal Perspectives Why Do Social Security Disability Claims Take So Long?

From A Conservative Perspective Why Do Social Security Disability Claims Take So Long?

Good question. From a conservative perspective, the lengthy delays in Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claims are primarily viewed as the result of structural inefficiencies, perverse incentives, and a system strained beyond its original intent, rather than a simple need for more funding.

Here’s a breakdown of the key reasons from this viewpoint:

1. System Overload and Expanded Eligibility Beyond Original Intent

Conservatives often argue the program has expanded to cover conditions not envisioned when it was created.

Definitional Creep:

The definition of "disability" has become broader and more subjective over time, especially for mental health and pain-related conditions. This increases the volume and complexity of claims, as more people apply for benefits for conditions that are harder to medically verify than, say, total blindness or paralysis.

Moral Hazard and Perverse Incentives: The structure of the program, combined with the decline of other welfare programs in the 1990s, can create an incentive for long-term dependency. For individuals in low-wage, physically demanding jobs, navigating the lengthy disability process may become a rational alternative to struggling in a difficult labor market, especially during economic downturns. This floods the system with marginal claims.

2. Inefficient Bureaucracy and Lack of Innovation

A core conservative critique is that government agencies are inherently less efficient and resistant to modernization.

Outdated Processes:

The SSA relies on antiquated, paper-heavy procedures and legacy IT systems. While funding is part of this, conservatives emphasize that simply throwing more money at a bureaucratic system does not guarantee efficiency; it often requires structural overhaul and pro-competition reforms that are resisted.

Lack of Performance-Based Metrics:

The system is not designed to prioritize speed or customer service. Civil service protections and complex union rules can make it difficult to manage staff performance, reward efficiency, or remove underperforming employees.

The Appeals Bottleneck as a Safety Valve:

The high allowance rate at the ALJ level (often over 50%) is seen by some conservatives as a sign that the initial stages are too strict, but also that ALJ standards can be too lax and inconsistent. This inconsistency encourages applicants to automatically appeal initial denials, knowing a more sympathetic judge might approve them, thus clogging the system.

3. The Role of Legal and Advocacy Intermediaries

Conservatives point to the disability industry that profits from the system's complexity.

Attorney Contingency Fees: 

The fee-structure for disability attorneys (capped at 25% of back pay) incentivizes them to take on large volumes of cases and encourage clients to appeal all the way to the hearing stage, where back pay awards are largest. This significantly lengthens the process and adds adversarial complexity.

Congressional Pressure on ALJs:

In the past, oversight hearings have criticized ALJs for having high allowance rates, implying they are not gatekeepers. This creates a contradictory pressure on judges, slowing their decision-making as they fear being labeled either too harsh or too generous.

4. Fundamental Fiscal Constraints and Prioritization

This perspective is skeptical of claims that funding is the sole or primary issue.

Budget Realities: 

SSDI is part of the larger Social Security Trust Fund, which faces well-publicized long-term solvency issues. Conservatives argue that expanding administrative budgets without structural reform is fiscally irresponsible and merely speeds up claimants onto the benefit rolls, accelerating the program's insolvency.

Need for Prioritization: 

With limited resources, the focus must be on preventing fraud and ensuring only the truly disabled those who meet the strict statutory definition are approved. A careful, thorough review is seen as more important than a fast one. Delays, while unfortunate, are a byproduct of necessary scrutiny to protect the program's integrity and taxpayer dollars.

5. The Disincentive for Return-to-Work

The current structure is seen as a "cliff" that once on, people rarely leave.

Fear of Losing Benefits: 

The lengthy process itself creates a perverse outcome: once someone has waited 2-3 years for approval, they are often more medically degraded and financially dependent, making a return to work nearly impossible. The system lacks effective early-intervention or partial-disability options that could keep people connected to the workforce.

In summary, from a conservative perspective, the long wait times stem from:

A system strained by expansive eligibilit and incentive structures that encourage application.

Inherent government inefficiency and outdated bureaucracy.

A necessary, if slow, scrutiny process to guard against fraud and preserve fiscal solvency.

Legal and structural features (like the appeals process and attorney involvement) that intentionally prolong cases.

The proposed conservative solutions often include:

Strict eligibility reforms to refocus the program on its original purpose.

Work requirements and "ticket-to-work" reforms to encourage staying in or returning to the labor force where possible.

Block-granting funds to states to introduce competition and innovation in administration (a common proposal for welfare programs).

Modernizing systems and streamlining processes through private-sector contracting and technology.

Addressing the attorney fee structure to reduce incentives for unnecessary appeals.

The core philosophical difference is this: The liberal view tends to see delays as a failure of support for a vulnerable population, while the conservative view tends to see them as an inevitable byproduct of a strained and imperfect system* that must balance compassion with fiscal responsibility and program integrity.

From A Liberal Perspective Why Do Social Security Disability Claims Take So Long?

Again, excellent question. From a liberal perspective, the lengthy delays in Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claims are not an accidental bureaucratic flaw, but rather the result of systemic underfunding, structural choices, and ideological opposition to robust social safety nets.

Here’s a breakdown of the primary reasons from this viewpoint:

1. Chronic Underfunding and Staffing Shortages

This is the most direct and frequently cited cause.

Starved Budgets:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has seen its operating budget stagnate or shrink in real terms for years, despite a growing number of applicants (driven by an aging population, economic downturns, and medical advances allowing people with severe illnesses to live longer). Congress, particularly during periods of conservative control, has often refused to allocate sufficient funds.

Crippling Staff Shortages:

Underfunding leads to a hemorrhage of experienced staff (claims examiners, administrative law judges, support staff) due to high caseloads, burnout, and better-paying opportunities elsewhere. Fewer staff handling more complex cases inevitably creates backlogs at every stage.

2. The "Gatekeeper" Design and High Initial Denial Rates

The system is structurally designed to be skeptical, not facilitative.

The definition of disability is strict requiring proof that one cannot perform any substantial gainful activity and that the condition will last over a year or result in death. This sets a high evidentiary bar.

Routinized Initial Denials:

A significant percentage of initial claims (historically around 65-70%) are denied. This is often due to incomplete medical records or the subjective nature of many disabilities (e.g., chronic pain, mental illness). The assumption, from a liberal critique, is that the system is designed to deter potentially unqualified applicants, but it catches countless legitimate ones in a net of bureaucracy.

The Necessity of Appeals:

Most approvals happen at the appeals stage, particularly before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). This entire multi-tiered appeals process (Reconsideration, ALJ Hearing, Appeals Council, Federal Court) is where the most extreme delays (often years) occur. The system essentially assumes that a large portion of claimants will need to appeal to get a fair hearing.

3. Ideological Hostility to the Program

Liberals argue that conservative political ideology actively creates and exacerbates the delays.

Stigma and "Disability Doubt":

There is a persistent narrative, amplified by certain media and political figures, of widespread fraud and abuse in disability programs (despite evidence showing fraud is statistically minimal). This creates political pressure to make the process more arduous as a deterrent.

Using Delay as a Deterrent:

Long wait times themselves act as a de facto policy tool. Some applicants die, return to work out of desperation (even if harmful), or simply give up. This reduces the number of successful claims and holds down program costs, which aligns with a smaller-government ideology.

Privatization and Weakening the Safety Net:

Some liberals see the systematic defunding and resulting dysfunction as a strategy to undermine public faith in government-administered social insurance. A broken system fuels the argument that "government doesn't work," paving the way for proposals to privatize elements of social security or cut benefits.

4. Complexity of Medical Evidence and "The Paper Wall"

The process is immensely complex for vulnerable applicants.

Burden on the Ill:

The claimant bears the burden of procuring comprehensive medical evidence while often dealing with severe physical or mental impairments, poverty, and lack of healthcare. Navigating this "paper wall" is difficult without legal help.

Under-Resourced State Agencies:

The initial disability determinations are made by state-run Disability Determination Services (DDS), which are also underfunded. They must request medical records from providers, a process that can take months, and often face staffing shortages.

5. The Role of the Hearing Backlog

The ALJ hearing stage is the most infamous bottleneck.The queue for a hearing can be 18-24 months or more. This is directly tied to the number of ALJs and support staff. Political fights over hiring freezes and ALJ quotas have exacerbated this problem for decades.

In summary, from a liberal perspective, the long wait times are a policy outcome, not an accident.** They result from:

Political choices to underfund the SSA.

A structural design that assumes the need for multiple layers of appeal.

Ideological opposition to expansive social welfare programs, which uses complexity and delay as tools to limit access.

The proposed liberal solutions typically involve:

Substantial, permanent funding increases for the SSA to hire and retain staff.

Streamlining the process by reducing unnecessary steps (like the largely redundant Reconsideration phase).

Adopting a more holistic assessment model that better accounts for fluctuating and "invisible" disabilities.

Treating disability benefits as an earned social insurance program (which SSDI is) that deserves efficient administration, rather than a form of welfare to be viewed with suspicion.

#SocialSecurityDisabilityClaims #Disability #SocialSecurity

Minneapolis shooting: Governor Tim Walz condemns ‘sickening’ fatal shooting of man believed to be 37-year-old US citizen

[A RIOTER IN MINNEAPOLIS BIT THE FINGER OFF OF AN ICE AGENT]

Minneapolis shooting: Governor Tim Walz condemns ‘sickening’ fatal shooting of man believed to be 37-year-old US citizen

#TimWalz #Minneapolis #ICE

A Failure of Leadership: The Minneapolis Shooting and the Crisis of American Security

The recent fatal shooting in Minneapolis, described by Governor Tim Walz as “sickening,” is indeed a profound tragedy. A man, believed to be a 37-year-old U.S. citizen, has lost his life to an act of violence. As conservatives, we join in mourning this loss and extend our deepest sympathies to the victim’s family and community. Every life is sacred, and every death in such a manner is a blow to the civic order we strive to uphold.

However, our duty extends beyond offering condolences. We must engage in clear-eyed analysis of the causes behind such tragedies and reject the empty platitudes and failed policies that have created the conditions allowing them to fester. While Governor Walz is quick to condemn this single act—and rightly so—his political ideology and the governance he represents are deeply implicated in the broader landscape of lawlessness that made it possible.

This shooting did not occur in a vacuum. It happened in a state, and in a major city, that for years has been the epicenter of a radical experiment: the deliberate dismantling of police authority and the erosion of the foundational principle that the state’s primary duty is to protect its citizens. The “defund the police” movement, which found fertile ground in Minneapolis following the tragic death of George Floyd, was not a fringe idea but a policy position embraced and amplified by progressive leadership. While outright budget slashing was often walked back after crime spikes, the corrosive narrative persisted: that law enforcement is the problem, that arrest and prosecution are inherently suspect, and that societal ills are best addressed by weakening the instruments of public order.

The results have been predictable and devastating. Minneapolis, like many cities under progressive control, has suffered soaring violent crime rates. Police departments, demoralized by vilification, burdensome restrictions, and a lack of political support, have seen mass resignations and plummeting morale. Prosecutors, often elected on platforms of “restorative justice,” routinely downgrade or dismiss charges for serious offenses. This creates a revolving-door justice system where career criminals operate with impunity, knowing the consequences for their actions will be minimal. In this environment, where deterrence collapses, is it any surprise that disputes are more frequently settled with firearms? The individual who pulled the trigger in this incident bears ultimate moral responsibility, but he acted within an ecosystem of permissiveness engineered by the Left.

Furthermore, Governor Walz’s focus on the symptom—this single shooting—while ignoring the disease highlights a critical conservative critique of modern liberal governance: its commitment to symbolism over substance. Issuing a strong statement is easy. Taking concrete, often politically difficult, steps to restore order is hard. Where is the governor’s forceful advocacy for fully funding and staunchly supporting police departments? Where is his demand for prosecutors to do their jobs and keep violent offenders off the streets? Where is his commitment to upholding the rule of law against the anarchic elements that have been allowed to grow?

Conservatives understand that the cornerstone of a free and prosperous society is public safety. Without it, nothing else functions. The small business owner cannot thrive, children cannot play safely, families live in fear, and the social contract disintegrates. The Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves becomes not just a liberty but a grim necessity in places where the state has abdicated its monopoly on legitimate force. This tragedy in Minneapolis is a stark reminder that the first obligation of government is to protect life and property. When it fails in that duty, it fails in all others.

This incident also brings us to the broader national crisis at our southern border, a crisis conservatives have been warning about for years. While the victim here is reported to be a U.S. citizen, we cannot ignore the terrifying context of rising violent crime fueled by cartel activity and the influx of millions of undocumented individuals, including dangerous criminals, due to the Biden administration’s open-border policies. Cities across America, including Minneapolis, are feeling the strain of this unchecked immigration. It places immense pressure on social services, law enforcement, and community cohesion. A conservative approach demands secure borders, not as an expression of nativism, but as the most basic requirement of national sovereignty and domestic security. We cannot have safe streets in Minneapolis if we have a lawless border.

Finally, we must address the decay of the civic and familial structures that prevent violence. For decades, the Left has waged war on the institutions that form character and instill virtue: the traditional family, religious communities, and schools that teach respect for authority and American history. They have been replaced by a culture of grievance, victimhood, and moral relativism. When young men are raised without fathers, when they are taught by popular culture and academic elites that America is an oppressive force, and when they are denied the moral framework that condemns violence as a solution, we reap a bitter harvest. Building a healthy society requires promoting strong families, faith, and patriotism—pillars that conservatives champion and the Left systematically undermines.

In conclusion, the “sickening” shooting in Minneapolis is a direct consequence of a philosophy of governance that prioritizes radical social experimentation over the mundane, essential work of keeping citizens safe. Governor Walz’s condemnation rings hollow against the backdrop of policies he and his ideological allies have promoted. Conservatives offer a different path: one of unwavering support for law enforcement, of prosecutorial accountability, of secure borders, and of the cultural renewal that builds respectful and lawful citizens. We mourn this latest victim of violence, but we will not shy away from naming the failed ideas that led to his death. The only true tribute to his memory is to restore the rule of law and reclaim the promise of security for every American in every community.

The Winter Storm Weather

 

The Winter Storm Weather:

The Weather, Is It Really That Bad??? (It's Only Bad If You Are Hitler Trying To Invade Russia In The Mide Of WINTER ... Just Sayin' ...

This Winter Blast is called 'FERN' When I was a kid we just called it 'WINTER'. Then it warmed up and we called it 'SPRING'. Then when it started to get 'HOT' it was called 'SUMMER' aka SUMMA' TIME. Then it cooled down and we called it 'FALL' or 'AUTUMN'. Then it got 'COLD' again. Then we were back to 'WINTER'. 

All of my Science Teachers have passed away. Even Don Woods, Channel 8, Tulsa, OK, ABC, didn't talk this crazy mess.

As far as the crazy Environmentalists try to say that storms are increasing in strength are lying. I remember when Tulsa got DOPLAR RADAR. Now they have DOPLAR II Radar. They can see more now than ever before. More storms can be seen more.

GET OUT THERE ...ON FOOT!!!

Weathering the Storm: A Conservative Case for Common Sense Over Climate Alarmism

There’s a winter blast moving across the country, and the television tells us its name is “FERN.” A social media post, dripping with the wry, grounded skepticism of a bygone era, cuts through the noise: “When I was a kid we just called it ‘WINTER’.” This simple observation is more than just nostalgia; it’s a potent symbol of a broader conservative pushback against a culture—and a political movement—that has lost its grip on proportion, history, and basic reason. From a conservative perspective, the modern obsession with branding every weather event as a catastrophic portent of climate doom represents a dangerous departure from facts, a surrender to political hyperbole, and an insult to the resilience and good sense of the American people.

The post’s author recalls a simpler time, marked by the straightforward rhythms of nature and the trusted, local voice of a television weatherman like Don Woods of Tulsa’s Channel 8. This memory points to a foundational conservative principle: trust in local knowledge, practical experience, and observable reality over abstract, politicized models from distant elites. The weatherman was a community figure, accountable to his viewers. He explained the storm coming this week, not a hypothetical crisis decades hence. His tools were barometers, historical patterns, and a duty to inform, not to terrify into compliance with a pre-ordained political agenda.

Today, that localized, practical relationship with weather has been supplanted by a nationalized, apocalyptic narrative. Every named winter storm, every summer heatwave, is presented not as a natural occurrence but as conclusive proof of an irreversible, human-caused catastrophe. This represents what conservatives see as the core tactic of the modern progressive left: the seizure of any and all events as vehicles for expanding government control. If a blizzard can be framed as “climate change,” then the solution inevitably involves crippling regulations on domestic energy, radical “green” mandates that transfer wealth and sovereignty to unaccountable international bodies, and a fundamental restructuring of the American economy and way of life.

The author’s second crucial point tackles the science directly, and with a common-sense clarity that defies the complex jargon of the alarmists: “As far as the crazy Environmentalists try to say that storms are increasing in strength are lying.” He correctly identifies the technological illusion at the heart of the panic. “I remember when Tulsa got DOPLAR RADAR. Now they have DOPLAR II Radar. They can see more now than ever before. More storms can be seen more.”

This is not climate denial; it is scientific literacy. Conservatives understand that our ability to detect and measure phenomena has increased exponentially. We have satellites, advanced radar, millions of smartphone cameras, and a 24/7 global media ecosystem that broadcasts every tornado, hurricane, and flood instantaneously. We are comparing the detailed, real-time data of 2024 with the incomplete, often anecdotal records of 1924 or 1824 and declaring a “new normal.” This is a profound statistical error. It confuses improved observation with an actual change in frequency or intensity. Historical records are replete with storms of terrifying power—the Great Hurricane of 1938, the Blizzard of 1888, the Dust Bowl droughts—events that occurred long before the industrial carbon emissions blamed for today’s weather. To claim today’s storms are uniquely powerful is to ignore the vast, turbulent history of our planet itself.

This leads to the post’s final, emphatic command: “GET OUT THERE ...ON FOOT!!!” This is the quintessential conservative ethos of resilience, self-reliance, and engagement with the real world. It is a rebuke to the sheltered, digital pessimism of the climate alarmist who views humanity as a destructive plague upon a fragile, static Earth. The conservative view is the opposite: humanity is a resourceful, adaptive force, capable of thriving in all climates. Our ancestors settled this continent without central heating or air conditioning, building communities from the swamps of Florida to the tundra of Alaska. They understood weather as a fact of life to be prepared for and endured, not as a political cudgel.

The environmental left, by contrast, promotes a philosophy of fragility and retreat. Their solution to weather is not better infrastructure, more resilient power grids, or continued technological innovation in energy. It is less human activity. Less driving, less consumption, less economic growth, fewer children. It is a dreary, anti-human vision of managed decline, justified by a relentless stream of alarmism about the weather. They have taken the natural, awe-inspiring power of a winter storm and turned it into a source of guilt and a pretext for control.

Furthermore, this alarmism directly undermines national strength and energy security. While American conservatives champion an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy that utilizes our vast natural resources—oil, natural gas, nuclear, and yes, emerging renewables—to ensure affordability and independence, the climate agenda seeks to deliberately make traditional energy scarce and expensive. It kneecaps American industry, surrenders our advantage to adversarial nations like China and Russia (who cheerfully ignore their own carbon commitments), and makes everyday life harder for working families. To watch a winter storm named “FERN” roll in while policies are advocated that would make heating your home unaffordable is the height of ideological hypocrisy.

In conclusion, the post about “FERN” is a small manifesto for sanity. It calls for a return to perspective, to trust in tangible progress over dystopian speculation, and to the enduring American spirit that meets a challenge head-on. Conservatives believe in prudent stewardship of our natural resources—clean air and water are conservative values. But we reject the weaponization of weather. We believe in data over dogma, resilience over alarmism, and human ingenuity over controlled despair. The weather isn’t “that bad.” It’s just weather. It was winter when we were kids, it’s winter now, and with the grit, innovation, and common sense that built this nation, we’ll be just fine. The real storm to watch out for isn’t brewing in the atmosphere; it’s the one of political overreach, dressed up in the clothing of a season we used to just call “winter.”

#Spring #Summer #Winter #FALL #Weather #NOAA

Trump threatens Canada with 100% tariffs over China trade deal

#Trade #Canada #China #Tariffs #Trump

Ryan Wedding, a former Olympic snowboarder on the FBI’s ‘Most Wanted’ list, has been arrested

Since Kash Patel has been running the FBI the have caught 6 of the 10 most wanted in one year. "That is 2 more than the previous Administration arrested in 4 years." ~ Kash Patel

Ryan Wedding, 43, former snowboarder who represented Canada at the 2002 Olympics, is accused of running an international drug trafficking operation and orchestrating multiple murders. (Photo courtesy of the FBI)

By ERIC TUCKER, ALANNA DURKIN RICHER and MIKE BALSAMO, Associated Press

• Associated Press
• PUBLISHED: January 23, 2026 at 7:28 AM PST | UPDATED: January 23, 2026 at 7:33 AM PST
• Categories:Crime & Public Safety, News, Olympics, Sports

#CANADA #RYANWEDDING #FBI

• Categories:Crime & Public Safety, News, Olympics, Sports

Do People Really Want A Career Politician Back In The Whitehouse?

 

Do People Really Want A Career Politician Back In The Whitehouse?

It amazes me how so many people all of a sudden want a career politician in the Whitehouse. Now we have the first President since George Washington to never had held any prior public office. Venezuela, peace in the Middle East, lower gas prices, food prices, INFLATION DOWN,  no tax on tips/OT/Social Security ... not a single ILLEGAL has crossed the border in 8 months. Not a single Democrat supports any of this progress. Not a single Democrat supported the tax cuts. They feel as though the Government can spend your money better than you.

The Outsider Imperative: Why Career Politicians Fail and Citizen Leadership Succeeds

The question hangs in the political air, a potent challenge to the established order: Do people really want a career politician back in the White House? For decades, the American political landscape has been dominated by a professional class of lawmakers men and women who ascended from local office, to state office, to Congress, crafting their entire identities and livelihoods within the hermetic bubble of government. Yet, the presidency of Donald J. Trump, the first president since George Washington with no prior political or military office, has thrown this paradigm into stark relief, forcing a fundamental re-evaluation of what we value in our leaders.

From a conservative perspective, the answer is a resounding no. The desire for a career politician is not a resurgence of faith in the system, but often a symptom of media-driven nostalgia for a “return to normalcy” a normalcy that conservatives argue was a slow-motion crisis of managerial decline, unaccountable bureaucracy, and stagnant leadership. The conservative case for the outsider is not one of mere anti-establishment frustration, but a principled argument rooted in practical results, a different theory of governance, and a profound understanding of where true expertise lies.

The proof, as the social media post rightly highlights, is in the tangible outcomes. Consider the record: before the global pandemic disruption, we witnessed historic energy independence, with the United States becoming a net exporter. This wasn't an accident; it was the policy result of an outsider unleashing American industry from the suffocating regulations championed by career politicians. Middle East peace agreements, like the Abraham Accords breakthroughs that eluded multiple administrations staffed by foreign policy lifers were brokered by an unconventional approach that prioritized direct national interest over worn-out diplomatic platitudes. On the economic front, before unprecedented global shocks, we saw record-low unemployment for minority groups, a revitalized manufacturing sector, and tax cuts that put money directly back into the pockets of families and small business owners, not into the coffers of federal agencies.

This underscores a central conservative belief: the career politician’s expertise is in the process of government, not in the creation of prosperity. Their metric for success is the passage of legislation, the expansion of programs, and their re-election within the system. The outsider’s focus is on the health of the nation *outside* of Washington on factory floors, in small business ledgers, and at kitchen tables. When the post cites “no tax on tips/OT/Social Security” and highlights that “not a single Democrat supported the tax cuts,” it touches on the essential philosophical divide. The career political class, particularly on the left, operates from a core conviction that government is the primary engine of societal good and that centralized planners can allocate capital and opportunity more wisely than the decentralized decisions of millions of citizens. They see tax cuts not as returning resources to their rightful owners, but as a “cost” to the Treasury your money, which they believe they can spend better than you can.

The border offers the most glaring example of this disconnect. The claim that “not a single ILLEGAL has crossed the border in 8 months” may be polemical, but it points to an undeniable truth of the previous administration: a policy focus on sovereignty and enforcement that was categorical and unambiguous. For years, career politicians from both parties talked about border security while perpetuating a system of de facto open borders, driven by a mix of corporate desire for cheap labor and progressive ideology opposed to national boundaries. The outsider president treated the border not as a complex political puzzle to be managed, but as a fundamental responsibility of the federal government to be executed. The result was a dramatic shift in operational control, proving that the “unsolvable” problems of Washington are often just problems the political class lacks the will to solve.

This brings us to the second major conservative argument against the career politician: their captivity to the permanent bureaucracy. A person who spends decades in Washington becomes inextricably woven into a network of lobbyists, staffers, agency officials, and party functionaries. Their worldview is shaped by the echo chambers of Capitol Hill and the Georgetown salon. They come to see the immense federal bureaucracy not as a potential adversary to the people’s will, but as their natural partner in governance. Consequently, they are often incapable of truly challenging or reforming it.

The outsider, by contrast, enters the Oval Office with no debts to this system. Their allegiance is not to the customs of the Senate cloakroom or the sensitivities of the State Department, but to the electorate that hired them to do a specific job. This is why such presidencies are inevitably decried as “chaotic” by the establishment; they represent a direct assault on the unaccountable power of the administrative state. The outsider seeks to impose the priorities of the voter onto the bureaucracy, while the career politician is often content to let the bureaucracy implement its own priorities, with congressional oversight being a gentle, perfunctory dance.

Furthermore, the conservative embrace of the outsider is a rejection of the cult of résumé. The media and political elite fetishize a specific pedigree: a law degree, a stint as a congressional aide, maybe a governorship, followed by a long Senate career. This, they insist, is “preparation.” But conservatives ask: preparation for what? For navigating parliamentary procedure? Or for understanding the struggles of a single mother balancing two jobs, the anxieties of a tradesman whose industry is being regulated out of existence, or the innovative spark of an entrepreneur? The career politician’s life is one of privilege, insulated from the very economic forces their policies create. The outsider’s experience whether in business, entertainment, military leadership, or other fields provides a real-world grounding that no amount of committee hearing time can replicate.

The visceral opposition from the left to the outsider’s agenda, as noted in the post “Not a single Democrat supports any of this progress” is not a bug in the system, but a feature. It confirms that the outsider’s successes are victories *against* the established political consensus. Lower regulation, border enforcement, tax relief, and a foreign policy of peace through strength are anathema to the progressive project, which requires a dependent citizenry, porous borders for demographic change, high taxes for redistribution, and a diffident America on the world stage. The career Democrat politician is the agent of that project. Their unanimous opposition is a badge of honor for the outsider’s policies, proving they are effectively dismantling a failing status quo.

In conclusion, the question “Do people really want a career politician back in the White House?” is answered by looking at the results of the alternative. The American experiment was never intended to be managed by a permanent political class. It was designed for citizen-leaders individuals with lived experience in the real economy, who would serve and then return to their lives, not make government their life’s work. The conservative case is clear: the career politician offers more of the same managed decline, elevated rhetoric, and a government that grows ever more distant from the people it is supposed to serve. The outsider, for all their unorthodox methods, offers a tangible record of putting America first, challenging entrenched power, and delivering real-world results that improve the lives of everyday citizens. The choice is not between experience and inexperience; it is between the experience of governing within a broken system and the experience of succeeding outside of it. The American people, conservatives believe, have seen the fruits of the latter, and they have no desire to return to the barren tree of the professional political class.

#Whitehouse #Politics #GeorgeWashington #Trump