The China Reception of Trump

 

The importance of pomp and protocol as Trump goes to China

#China #Trump #Xi #Reception

THE ‘DRINK’: A Small Sip for the Greatest Deal in American History – WHATEVER IT TAKES!!!

 

THE ‘DRINK’: A Small Sip for the Greatest Deal in American History – WHATEVER IT TAKES!!!

President Trump's Viral 'Champagne Sip' At State Banquet In China Sparks Debate Over His Lifelong No-Alcohol Stance

US President Donald Trump sparked an online debate after appearing to sip champagne during a state banquet hosted by Xi Jinping in Beijing. The viral moment drew attention because Trump has long claimed to be a teetotaler following his brother Fred Trump Jr.’s death from alcoholism. Many viewed the gesture as diplomatic courtesy rather than personal indulgence.

"I don’t drink. Never have. Not a drop." People are always so surprised when they hear that, they can’t believe it, a billionaire, a playboy, the king of Manhattan, the star of *The Apprentice*, the builder of the greatest skyline in the world – doesn’t drink. But I’m telling you, I never touched the stuff. And I’ll tell you why. It’s because of my brother, Fred. Wonderful guy, Fred. Handsome, smart, had a heart bigger than Trump Tower. But he had a problem. He fell into the trap. Alcohol. It destroyed him. It was brutal to watch, a very, very sad situation. I saw it up close, and I said to myself – and I was just a young man, a very successful young man already – I said, “Donald, you are never going to let that happen to you. You’re never going to take one sip of anything that could slow you down, cloud your mind, or make you less than perfect.” And I never did. Not at weddings, not at New Year’s, not when all the fake news media was toasting my defeat and I won the biggest Electoral College landslide since Reagan – nothing. Zero.

So when I tell you the story of the ‘Drink,’ you’re going to understand exactly what kind of leader I am. You’re going to see the sacrifices I make, the deals I cut, and the pure, unadulterated love I have for this country. It’s a story about respect, about strength, and about doing WHATEVER IT TAKES to put America First. And nobody, nobody else could have done it.

I went to China. A very big trip, maybe the biggest ever. People don’t realize, but China is a great nation. President Xi is a strong man, a very powerful leader, and honestly, we have a beautiful relationship. Not like the past where they were taking advantage of us, ripping us off left and right, laughing at our stupid politicians – the “stupid ones,” I call them. I changed all that. I came in, and they respected me immediately. They knew I wasn’t a pushover. They knew I was the guy who would stand up and say, “No more. Fair trade, not free trade.” But I also believe in showing great respect when respect is earned. And in China, tradition is a very big deal. Tremendously important.

So we’re at this incredible state dinner. The ceilings, higher than anything you’ve ever seen – I know ceilings, I build them – and the gold, the red, it was like something out of a very beautiful, very rich movie. Unbelievable. I have 16 of the greatest American CEOs with me. The best of the best. I’m talking titans of industry. Boeing. Goldman. The big energy companies. The farmers’ biggest dream clients. I hand-picked them personally, because I only bring the best. They were all there, watching their President, watching America’s champion.

And then the moment comes. The toasts begin. They bring out this very special Asian drink. A traditional thing, very ceremonial, very historic. The aroma fills the room. I see the cameras flashing, the Chinese officials looking intently. And President Xi raises his glass to me, a great honor. Now, everyone in my inner circle knows I don’t touch alcohol. My staff was probably thinking, “Oh no, what’s he going to do? He’s going to wave it off. He’s going to just lift the glass and pretend.” The press back home, the failing New York Times, they would have written nasty stories no matter what. If I refused, they’d say “Trump Insults Hosts, Destroys Diplomacy.” If I took a sip, they’d say “Trump Hypocrite, Breaks Lifetime Vow.” They’re terrible people, truly terrible.

But I didn’t do it for them. I did it for one reason, and one reason only: the United States of America. I thought of the American worker. I thought of the steel mills in Pennsylvania, the coal miners in West Virginia, the auto plants in Michigan. I thought of the farmers, the patriots who put me in office. I thought of my brother Fred, and I thought, “Fred, I’m doing this for our country. I’m going to make a gesture so powerful, so respectful, that they will never forget it.” And I said to myself, “It’s not drinking. It’s a diplomatic sip. A very, very tiny sip. Practically non-existent. Just enough to honor a billion and a half incredible people.”

So I lifted that glass. I looked President Xi right in the eye – strong eye contact, very important, I’ve always said that – and I said something to the effect of, “To a great partnership between America and China, based on fairness and mutual respect.” And I took the sip. Just a small sip, but let me tell you, the room erupted. Not loudly, but you could feel it. A wave of respect. The Chinese delegation, they understood. They knew my history. They knew I had never, ever broken this personal code. They saw that I was willing to do something extraordinary, to step outside my own strict rules, to show them the ultimate sign of respect. President Xi smiled a big, beautiful smile. He knew it was a massive deal. Massive.

I didn’t finish the glass, folks. I didn’t knock it back. I’m not a drinker. I took the most microscopic, elegant, respectful taste you could ever imagine. It was the gesture that counted. And the 16 CEOs, they witnessed it. They saw leadership. They saw a president who will literally move heaven and earth – and bend his own iron-clad personal rules – to open doors for American business. They saw that I’m not just talking when I say “Whatever It Takes.” I live it. I breathe it. I sip it!

Right after that toast, the deal-making atmosphere changed. It was like a dam breaking. Suddenly, the Chinese officials were nodding even more. The barriers, the red tape, the bureaucracy that has plagued our companies for decades – it all started melting away. They saw that I wasn’t there to lecture, I wasn’t there to beg. I was there as an equal, a very strong equal, but one who would give respect to get respect. And let me tell you, we are bringing back the biggest, most beautiful deals you’ve ever seen. The fake news won’t cover it, but I’ll tell you right now. We’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars. Maybe even more. We’re securing energy contracts that will make us totally dominant. We’re opening markets for our soybeans, our beef, our fantastic American pork. We’re getting intellectual property protections that past administrations – the Bushes, the Clintons, the disaster Obama – couldn’t even dream of. Why? Because they sent weak people. They sent globalist puppets who drank wine all day but never understood the art of the grand gesture.

My gesture was a sip. One sip that said, “I am a sovereign man. I am a man of iron principle. But my love of country is so great, I will yield on nothing of substance, but I will bend on ceremony for the sake of the American people.” The 16 CEOs, they’re already executing the framework. These aren’t empty memorandums of understanding like the old days where they’d sign a paper and China would just laugh. These are real contracts, with teeth. And let me tell you about these CEOs. They’re tough, they’re smart. They’ve built empires. But they came to me afterwards, some of them with tears in their eyes, practically. They said, “Mr. President, we’ve never seen anything like that. That one sip just unlocked a trillion-dollar market. We’ve been trying for 20 years, and you did it with a sip.” They weren’t just flattering me; they were stating a fact.

And I think back to Fred. My brother, I miss him. He was so talented. I think about the struggle he had, how sometimes people can’t escape the grip of something. I escaped it by building a flawless life, by never putting a drop of anything on my lips, by being absolutely perfect in that regard. And then I chose, for one fleeting moment, to risk that perfect record – not for myself, not for a party, not for fun – but to bring jobs and wealth flooding back to our shores. Fred would be very proud. He would say, “Donald, you did good. You did it for the working man.” Because under my brother’s charm, he loved regular people. He loved America. And in a way, that sip was a tribute to him, taking a tiny bit of his burden and transforming it into a victory for the country he loved.

Let me be clear: I’m not going to start drinking. Don’t get me wrong. I’m still the same teetotaler, the same highly energetic, always sharp, never-clouded Donald Trump. I don’t need a drink to be the life of the party – I AM the party. I don’t need liquid courage, because I was born with courage. I don’t need to loosen up, because my mind is always working at the highest level, 24/7, solving problems nobody else can solve. But I will do what is necessary. I’ll break my own rules if it means winning for you. That’s what you need in a leader. Someone who is so secure, so strong, so rich in spirit that he can make a sacrifice without losing himself. And that’s exactly what I did.

The left-wing lunatics, the radical Democrats, they won’t get it. They’ll try to mock it. The fake news will probably say “Trump Took a Sip, He’s A Liar.” They’re sick. They hate America. But the people, the real people, the silent majority, they understand. They get it. They know that sometimes, peace through strength means showing respect through a traditional toast. They know that when you have 16 of the top CEOs in the world sitting at a table and their President demonstrates that he’ll do anything short of compromising our national security to win, those CEOs go back and they unleash the full power of American industry. They hire more workers. They build more factories. They say, “The boss went to bat for us, now we’re going to hit a grand slam.”

So I can’t wait to show you what we brought back. I really can’t wait. The numbers are going to be so big, so ridiculous, that you’re going to get tired of winning. You’re going to say, “Please, President Trump, my 401(k) is too high, my wages are growing too fast, there are too many jobs.” I’m going to keep going. Relentless. Non-stop. WHATEVER IT TAKES. That’s been my motto from day one. It’s on my beautiful red hats. It’s in my heart. It’s in every single decision I make. Whether it’s taking a bullet at a rally, or taking a sip of a ceremonial drink in the Forbidden City, I do it all for you. I bleed American blood, sweat, and, on that night, the tiniest touch of a very traditional Asian toast.

And here’s the kicker: the Chinese loved it so much, they’re sending over even more investments. They’re building factories in the heartland. They want to be near our great workers. They want to be under the umbrella of the great American economy that I rebuilt. The ‘Drink’ wasn’t a drink – it was the key that turned the lock of the greatest economic partnership in history, but finally on OUR terms. Fair, reciprocal, and beautiful. No more deficits that are out of control. No more theft of our inventions. Just pure, American prosperity, unlocked by a moment of pure, American leadership.

So remember, the next time some nasty person says, “Oh, Trump doesn’t compromise.” You tell them about the Drink. You tell them I sacrificed my lifelong personal vow in a room full of the world’s most powerful people, not for me, but for the steelworker, for the single mom, for the veteran. You tell them I drank from the cup of diplomacy so that every American could drink from the cup of victory. And you tell them there’s a man in the White House who will never, ever stop fighting, never stop negotiating, never stop delivering. And if I have to take another sip on the next trip, you better believe I’ll do it. Because when I say WHATEVER IT TAKES, I mean it. No president has ever been like me. No president has ever loved this country more. And no president has ever turned a tiny sip into a tidal wave of winning. Get ready, America – the best is yet to come! God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. WHATEVER IT TAKES!!!

#Trump #China #Xi #drinking #alcohol

Fauci and The Wuhan Lab Cover Up

 

Fake Fauci: Fauci and The Wuhan Lab Cover Up

On Wednesday, May 13th, a CIA Whistleblower testified to Congress that the Federal Government participated in a cover up of the Wuhan Lab and stated Fauci was at the center of it. He also testified that the Government was ordered by a Law passed by Congress and signed by the President that required them to turn over ALL documents involving the Wuhan Lab. They didn't.

I never got the SHOT. The SHOT basically killed as many people as the virus. They haven't released those documents fully as well, especially explaining why healthy young Men were dropping dead on Soccer Fields around the world. Not to mention the miscarriages around the world.

Fauci was/is responsible for millions of deaths and used taxpayer money to create a virus designed to kill people  ... 'Gain of Function' is just a fancy way saying BIOLOGICAL WARFARE. He should be rounded up.

CIA Whistleblower Testimony and Cover-Up Allegations

CIA Officer James Erdman III did indeed testify publicly before a Senate committee on May 13, 2026.

He alleged that Dr. Anthony Fauci "influenced" the intelligence community's analysis to favor the theory that COVID-19 had a natural origin over the "lab leak" theory.

Erdman also testified that a 2023 law requiring the declassification of COVID-19 origin information was not fully complied with. He stated that thousands of pages of relevant documents were withheld, with only a heavily redacted, five-page summary provided to Congress.

The Legal Basis: The COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023

The law central to this testimony is the COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023 (Public Law 118-2), which you can verify for yourself. It was passed with strong bipartisan support:

Unanimous consent in the Senate on March 1, 2023.

Passed the House by a vote of 419-0 on March 10, 2023.

Signed into law by President Joe Biden on March 20, 2023.

The law explicitly required the Director of National Intelligence to declassify information related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origin of COVID-19.

"Gain-of-Function" Research and the Wuhan Lab

The core of the whistleblower's claim involved a long-standing dispute about "gain-of-function" research.

Definition: 

This is a legitimate, though controversial, field of research. It involves altering a pathogen to understand how it might become more dangerous, which can help in developing vaccines and treatments.

Dr. Fauci's Stance:

He has repeatedly and forcefully testified that the NIH "has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology". He maintained that the funded research did not meet the definition of gain-of-function.

Contradictory Claims: 

This has been a point of contention. Sen. Rand Paul and others have cited a research paper by Wuhan scientists that they say proves gain-of-function research was conducted with NIH funding. Furthermore, former acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak reportedly acknowledged to Congress that the NIH had funded a "limited experiment" at the Wuhan lab, though the nature of that experiment is debated. In testimony, Dr. Fauci denied Dr. Tabak's claim that the work constituted gain-of-function research.

COVID-19 Vaccine Safety: Fact vs. Claim

Your message included strong assertions about vaccine safety. Here is what large-scale studies from leading medical institutions have found:

Risk of Myocarditis (Heart Inflammation): 

A rare risk of myocarditis is recognized, particularly in young men and adolescent males after mRNA vaccination.

 A Stanford Medicine study found the incidence is about 1 in 32,000 after a second dose.

Critically, the same study found that a case of COVID-19 is about 10 times as likely to induce myocarditis as an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination.

Risk of Miscarriage:

Multiple major studies have found no link between COVID-19 vaccines and an increased risk of miscarriage.

 A large cohort study published in 2025 found the miscarriage rate for vaccinated women was 10.9%, which it stated was not higher than global and local estimates.

A Yale University study in 2025, using data from the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink, confirmed there is no association between the vaccine and miscarriage.

Overall Mortality:

Large-scale data shows the vaccines saved lives, not the opposite. A 2025 French study of over 28 million adults found that vaccinated people were 74% less likely to die in a hospital because of COVID-19 compared to unvaccinated people. The World Health Organization has stated that global modeling suggests vaccinations prevented an estimated 14 to 20 million additional deaths in 2021 alone.

Did Fauci or the U.S. Create COVID-19?

Your claim that the Based on the latest verified information, the reality of these claims is more nuanced than the allegations suggest. Here is a fact-check of the key points.

CIA Whistleblower Testimony and Cover-Up Allegations

CIA officer James Erdman III did indeed testify publicly before a Senate committee on May 13, 2026.

He alleged that Dr. Anthony Fauci "influenced" the intelligence community's analysis to favor the theory that COVID-19 had a natural origin over the "lab leak" theory.

Erdman also testified that a 2023 law requiring the declassification of COVID-19 origin information was not fully complied with. He stated that thousands of pages of relevant documents were withheld, with only a heavily redacted, five-page summary provided to Congress.

The Legal Basis: The COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023

The law central to this testimony is the COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023 (Public Law 118-2), which you can verify for yourself. It was passed with strong bipartisan support:

Unanimous consent in the Senate on March 1, 2023.

Passed the House by a vote of 419-0 on March 10, 2023.

Signed into law by President Joe Biden on March 20, 2023.

The law explicitly required the Director of National Intelligence to declassify information related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origin of COVID-19.

"Gain-of-Function" Research and the Wuhan Lab

The core of the whistleblower's claim involved a long-standing dispute about "gain-of-function" research.

Definition: 

This is a legitimate, though controversial, field of research. It involves altering a pathogen to understand how it might become more dangerous, which can help in developing vaccines and treatments.

Dr. Fauci's Stance:

He has repeatedly and forcefully testified that the NIH "has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology". He maintained that the funded research did not meet the definition of gain-of-function.

Contradictory Claims:

This has been a point of contention. Sen. Rand Paul and others have cited a research paper by Wuhan scientists that they say proves gain-of-function research was conducted with NIH funding. Furthermore, former acting NIH Director Lawrence Tabak reportedly acknowledged to Congress that the NIH had funded a "limited experiment" at the Wuhan lab, though the nature of that experiment is debated. In testimony, Dr. Fauci denied Dr. Tabak's claim that the work constituted gain-of-function research.

COVID-19 Vaccine Safety: Fact vs. Claim

Your message included strong assertions about vaccine safety. Here is what large-scale studies from leading medical institutions have found:

Risk of Myocarditis (Heart Inflammation):

A rare risk of myocarditis is recognized, particularly in young men and adolescent males after mRNA vaccination.

A Stanford Medicine study found the incidence is about 1 in 32,000 after a second dose.

Critically, the same study found that a case of COVID-19 is about 10 times as likely to induce myocarditis as an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination.

Risk of Miscarriage:

Multiple major studies have found no link between COVID-19 vaccines and an increased risk of miscarriage.

A large cohort study published in 2025 found the miscarriage rate for vaccinated women was 10.9%, which it stated was not higher than global and local estimates.

A Yale University study in 2025, using data from the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink, confirmed there is no association between the vaccine and miscarriage.

Overall Mortality:

Large-scale data shows the vaccines saved lives, not the opposite. A 2025 French study of over 28 million adults found that vaccinated people were 74% less likely to die in a hospital because of COVID-19 compared to unvaccinated people. The World Health Organization has stated that global modeling suggests vaccinations prevented an estimated 14 to 20 million additional deaths in 2021 alone.

Did Fauci or the U.S. Create COVID-19?

Your claim that the virus was created with U.S. taxpayer money is a separate and unsubstantiated assertion. The whistleblower's testimony, as reported, does not make this claim. He alleged that Dr. Fauci influenced the intelligence community to downplay the possibility that the virus escaped from a lab. This is distinct from alleging that the virus was deliberately created as a bioweapon. There is no evidence from any open-source intelligence or verified congressional testimony to support this.

Summary

The whistleblower's testimony has brought serious, detailed allegations regarding the investigation into COVID-19's origins back into the spotlight. However, the scientific consensus on vaccine safety is clear: while rare side effects like myocarditis exist, the vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective, and they have saved millions of lives.

If you would like to explore any of these specific facets in more depth, please let me know. was created with U.S. taxpayer money is a separate and unsubstantiated assertion. The whistleblower's testimony, as reported, does not make this claim. He alleged that Dr. Fauci influenced the intelligence community to downplay the possibility that the virus escaped from a lab. This is distinct from alleging that the virus was deliberately created. as a bioweapon. There is no evidence from any open-source intelligence or verified congressional testimony to support this.That is because they are covering up the documents and evidence not submitted.

#CIA #Fauci #Miocarditus #Miscarriages #Sterile #Covid #Wuhan #China #Coverup

The Great Betrayal: How Blue States and NGOs Are Ripping Off Medicare, Medicaid, and the American Taxpayer

 

The Great Betrayal: How Blue States and NGOs Are Ripping Off Medicare, Medicaid, and the American Taxpayer

For decades, Medicare and Medicaid have been sold to the American people as sacred promises: health security for the elderly, the disabled, and the truly needy. Yet a growing body of evidence from federal audits, criminal prosecutions, and whistleblower accounts reveals a systematic plundering of these programs on an almost unimaginable scale. The fraud is not random; it is concentrated in deep-blue states that have turned a blind eye to abuse, actively exploited federal loopholes, and enlisted a sprawling network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as willing accomplices. Meanwhile, billions of taxpayer dollars are being diverted to provide comprehensive benefits to millions of illegal immigrants, pushing our already strained social safety net to the brink of collapse. The architects of this crisis are not shadowy criminals in a back alley they are the political and institutional elites who have weaponized compassion to bankrupt the very programs upon which America’s most vulnerable citizens depend.

The Unfathomable Scale of the Fraud

The numbers are staggering and should outrage every working American. In fiscal year 2025, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimated $28.8 billion in improper Medicare payments and a further $37.4 billion in improper Medicaid payments. Across the federal government, improper payments in a single year reached a jaw-dropping $186 billion. While not every improper payment is fraudulent, more than three-quarters of Medicaid’s improper payments stem from “insufficient documentation” a bureaucratic euphemism that often masks outright fraud. These are not victimless accounting errors; they represent the hard-earned taxes of American families being siphoned into a vortex of criminality.

The Government Accountability Office has long warned that federal programs are hemorrhaging hundreds of billions of dollars to fraud every year. State-level Medicaid Fraud Control Units recovered only $2 billion and obtained 856 convictions in FY 2025 a pitiful fraction of the nearly $920 billion spent on Medicaid the previous year. The recovery efforts, however vigorous, are akin to scooping a teaspoon of water from a sinking ship.

California: The Gold Standard in Medicaid Money Laundering

No state has been more brazen in its abuse of the system than California. A preliminary CMS audit found that the state improperly spent over $1.3 billion in federal Medicaid dollars on healthcare for illegal immigrants. Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration has proudly expanded Medi-Cal to cover all income-eligible illegal immigrants, a policy that directly contravenes the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which prohibits illegal aliens from enrolling in Medicaid.

How does California get away with it? Through what policy experts have labeled a “money-laundering scheme.” The state imposes a provider tax on managed care organizations $274 per member per month for Medicaid business, versus just $2 for non-Medicaid business then uses the inflated federal matching funds to cross-subsidize its illegal immigrant healthcare program. In essence, California manufactures a billing fiction to draw down billions in federal dollars while claiming it uses only “state funds” for illegal immigrants. A joint report by the Economic Policy Innovation Center and the Paragon Health Institute concluded that this scheme will net California more than $19 billion in federal money without any state contribution between April 2023 and December 2026. Senator Chuck Grassley has demanded a nationwide investigation into these provider-tax abuses, noting that at least 15 states now use some form of the tax to indirectly fund benefits for illegal immigrants.

Illinois: A Quiet Partner in Crime

Illinois, another deep-blue bastion, has also been caught red-handed. The same CMS preliminary audit identified nearly $30 million in improper federal Medicaid spending on illegal immigrants in the state. Like California, Illinois employs a provider tax to maximize federal reimbursements and then funnels the freed-up state dollars toward covering illegal immigrants. While the dollar amount is smaller than California’s, the principle is identical: systematically gaming the federal matching formula to finance a policy that Congress has repeatedly and explicitly prohibited.

New York: A Billion-Dollar Residency Scam

New York presents a different but equally damning portrait of mismanagement and potential fraud. A 2025 state comptroller’s audit revealed that the Empire State may have improperly paid $1.2 billion in Medicaid managed care payments for people who do not even live in New York. The audit found that the state Department of Health failed to verify the residency of thousands of enrollees, making monthly payments totaling up to $509 million for over 155,000 members who may no longer reside in the state.

Compounding the problem, an estimated 1.4 million people nationwide whose citizenship or immigration status has not been verified are potentially enrolled in Medicaid. Rep. Wesley Hunt (R‑TX) has pressed Governor Kathy Hochul to disclose how many of New York’s estimated 670,000 illegal immigrants are receiving Medicaid benefits, citing the Biden administration’s weaponization of Section 1115 waivers to extend coverage to undocumented immigrants in defiance of federal law. The silence from Albany has been deafening.

The NGO Industrial Complex: Fraud’s Enablers

If blue-state governments are the architects of this crisis, non-governmental organizations are its foot soldiers. The explosion of government contracting with NGOs has created a parallel welfare bureaucracy that operates with minimal oversight and maximal opportunity for theft. The most infamous example is Feeding Our Future, a Minnesota nonprofit that stole over $250 million in federal child nutrition funds by creating shell companies and fake distribution sites to bill for millions of meals that were never served. The fraud did not stop there; investigators have since uncovered massive abuse across 14 Minnesota welfare programs, with total losses potentially exceeding $9 billion. Of the nearly 100 individuals charged, the vast majority are Somali immigrants, and evidence has emerged that some of the stolen funds were funneled to the al‑Shabaab terror group.

In Maine, a Somali-run charity had its Medicaid payments suspended after audits uncovered more than $1 million in possible fraud involving “interpreting services”. Whistleblowers have alleged that a Medicaid firm operated by a Somali-American refugee submitted fraudulent MaineCare claims for years. These are not isolated incidents; they reflect a systemic failure whereby government agencies outsource compassion to politically connected NGOs that face little accountability. As economist Dr. Daniel Sutter has observed, “today’s NGOs are ultimately about getting government contracts, not helping people”.

These NGOs do not merely perpetrate fraud; they also serve as vectors for the expansion of illegal immigration. By providing a ready-made infrastructure of benefits housing, food, healthcare they create powerful pull factors that draw migrants across the border. The Biden administration’s policies supercharged this dynamic, prompting a flood of illegal immigration that has strained public resources in sanctuary jurisdictions to the breaking point. California, for instance, has dedicated millions of taxpayer dollars to building an “illegal immigrant support network,” effectively entrenching a population that is statutorily ineligible for the very benefits it receives.

Putting Social Programs in Jeopardy

The multibillion-dollar hemorrhage of funds to fraud and illegal immigrant benefits is not merely a fiscal abstraction it is actively hollowing out the social contract. Medicaid is the single largest source of federal funding for states, and when billions are diverted to ineligible recipients, the inevitable consequence is less money for the seniors, disabled individuals, and low-income families for whom the program was designed. As Senator Steve Drazkowski warned, “Every dollar spent on illegal immigrants is a dollar that won’t be available for our seniors, people with disabilities, and struggling families”.

The long-term fiscal implications are catastrophic. The Medicare Trustees have repeatedly warned that the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is on a path to insolvency, and unrestrained growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending is the primary driver of the federal debt. When tens of billions of dollars are siphoned away annually through fraud and unlawful benefits, the timetable for bankruptcy accelerates. Conservatives have long argued that government exists to serve its citizens first, and that allowing non-citizens to drain social programs intended for Americans is a fundamental betrayal of that compact.

A Path Forward

The solution begins with enforcement. The Trump administration has taken initial steps to claw back misspent funds and close the provider‑tax loophole that has enabled this fleecing. CMS has proposed a rule that would save taxpayers more than $30 billion over five years by barring states from taxing Medicaid business at higher rates than non-Medicaid business. But far more is required. Congress must mandate the use of E‑Verify for all Medicaid applicants to ensure that benefits go only to those legally entitled to them. State Medicaid Fraud Control Units must be empowered with the resources and political independence to root out fraud wherever it is found, without fear of offending favored constituencies.

Most importantly, the American people deserve a government that puts their interests above those of illegal aliens and politically connected nonprofits. Medicare and Medicaid are not slush funds for blue states to offer a parallel welfare state to the world; they are the last line of defense for the most vulnerable among us. Until we demand accountability from Sacramento to Albany, from Minneapolis to Augusta the looting will continue, and the day of reckoning for our social programs will draw ever closer. The choice is stark: protect the integrity of these programs or watch them collapse under the weight of a fraud-enabled, open-borders agenda.

#Fraud #California #Illinois #NewYork #Minnesota #MedicaidFraud #Medicaid

Social Security Needs To Be ADJUSTED

Social Security Needs To Be ADJUSTED

The ratio of workers paying into Social Security compared to those receiving benefits has fallen dramatically since the program began. When the first monthly benefits were paid in 1940, there were 159.4 workers for every beneficiary. Today, that number has dropped to fewer than 3.

To put that into perspective, the table below shows how the ratio has changed over the decades:

Year Ratio of Covered Workers to Beneficiaries

1940 - 159.4 to 1

1945 - 41.9 to 1

1960 - 5.1 to 1

1990 - 3.4 to 1

2013 - 2.8 to 1

2024 - 2.7 to 1

To address your question about the program's start in 1935, it's an important technical point: while the Social Security Act was signed that year, monthly benefits were not paid until January 1940. Therefore, the 1940 and 1945 figures serve as the earliest practical benchmarks for the worker-to-beneficiary ratio.

This steep decline has transformed the program's finances. A system that began with an enormous workforce supporting each retiree now has fewer than three workers paying taxes for every person receiving a check. Most recent estimates place the 2024 ratio at approximately 2.7 workers per beneficiary. This shift is a central reason why the program faces long-term solvency challenges and has become a focal point in discussions about its future.

You’ve raised several concerns about Social Security that are widely discussed. Some contain kernels of truth about real funding challenges, but others rest on inaccurate or exaggerated claims. Let’s break them down one by one.

“It doesn’t matter what you paid in … It is basically a Ponzi scheme.”

Not legally or structurally. A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment scam that relies on an ever-growing pool of new investors to pay earlier ones, with no underlying asset. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go social insurance program created by an act of Congress. Workers’ payroll taxes go into trust funds that can only invest in special U.S. Treasury bonds one of the safest assets in the world. Benefits are defined by law, not by a promise of unrealistic returns. While current workers do fund current beneficiaries, that’s how every public pension system in the world works. Calling it a Ponzi scheme is a political slogan, not an accurate description.

That said, the “math” is indeed strained in the long term. The latest Trustees Report projects that the combined trust funds will be depleted by 2035. After that, incoming payroll taxes would still cover about 83% of scheduled benefits. So adjustments raising revenue, modifying benefits, or both are needed to restore long-term balance. That’s a real policy challenge, but it doesn’t mean the system is a fraud or about to disappear.

Life expectancy: 1935 vs. now

You’re right that people live longer now, but your numbers conflate life expectancy at birth with life expectancy at retirement age. In the 1930s, life expectancy at birth was low (around 60-65) largely because of high infant and childhood mortality. If you made it to 65, you could expect to live another 12-13 years (men) or 14-15 years (women). Today, a 65-year-old lives about 17-20 more years. That’s an increase of roughly 5 years significant, but far from a doubling of the retirement period. The system was designed with adjustments for longevity in mind, and it has been modified (e.g., gradually raising the full retirement age to 67) to account for this trend.

Worker-to-beneficiary ratio: 25:1 then, 5:2 now

The 25:1 ratio is a myth from the very earliest days. In 1940, when monthly benefits first started, there were about 160 covered workers for every 100 beneficiaries roughly 1.6:1, not 25:1. By 1950, as the program expanded, that ratio had grown to about 16:1. Today it’s around 2.8 covered workers per beneficiary. Your “5:2” (2.5:1) is close to the current figure, so the direction you point out is correct: the ratio has fallen dramatically as the population aged. This demographic shift was foreseen decades ago, which is why the trust funds were built up starting in the 1980s. The challenge is real, but it’s not an unanticipated crisis.

“If you are obese, diabetic, mental illness, or a child that can’t read can get a SS check.”

This description caricatures the disability standard. Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) both apply strict medical-vocational criteria. For a condition like obesity, diabetes, or mental illness to qualify, it must be so severe that it prevents any substantial gainful activity, and it must meet detailed medical listings. The process is notoriously difficult most initial applications are denied, and approval often requires multiple appeals and years of waiting.

A “child that can’t read” doesn’t automatically qualify. Children can receive SSI if they have a severe, medically determinable impairment that causes marked and severe functional limitations, and the family meets strict income limits. A reading problem alone would not suffice; it would need to result from a documented organic learning disorder or intellectual disability, with extensive evidence. Over 60% of child SSI applications are denied.

“Now we have ILLEGALS getting SS.”

Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Social Security benefits. The Social Security Act states that noncitizens must be “lawfully present” and have work authorization to receive benefits based on their work record. Immigrants who never attain lawful status cannot claim retirement or disability benefits from payroll taxes, even if taxes were inadvertently withheld. There is a narrow, rare exception for some totalization agreements with specific countries, but that doesn’t open the door to large-scale misuse. The claim that undocumented immigrants are draining Social Security is false; in fact, studies by the Social Security actuary show that unauthorized workers who use fake SSNs often contribute payroll taxes without being able to claim future benefits, thereby extending the trust funds slightly.

“If you think this can be sustainable you are in a PIPE DREAM.”

Without any changes, the system can pay about 80% of scheduled benefits after trust fund depletion, not zero. That’s not ideal, but it’s not a dream to think sustainability is possible. Historical reforms (such as the 1983 Greenspan Commission) already solved similar shortfalls once. Options like modestly raising the payroll tax cap, gradually adjusting the retirement age, or slightly altering the benefit formula could close the projected gap. The real pipe dream would be believing that doing nothing is without consequence. The system needs thoughtful, politically difficult fixes not dismantling based on misinformation.

#SocialSecurity #Retirement

Why Can't The Government Pay For Ballroom Security As They Always Do?

Private funds are building the Ballroom. What is wrong with the Government paying for the Security? That's What The Government does right?

I just don't want SEXY feet having to walk through mud to go to a PARTY at the Whitehouse...

#WhitehouseBallRoom #Whitehouse #Ballroom

 

They’re Not Saying Someone Should Kill Trump. But They’re Coming Close.

“Somebody should do it” and its variants have become increasingly popular online memes.

Growing up in the Cold War, every American understood that the idea of assassinating a president wasn't just illegal—it was unthinkable, a taboo that anchored the entire democratic experiment. That was then. A recent piece by the *Washington Post* investigating a disturbing trend on the Left is headlined: “They’re not saying someone should kill Trump. But they’re coming close.” The article details the meteoric rise of the meme “somebody should do it” a wink-and-nod call for the assassination of a sitting president under the flimsy guise of a joke. The fact that we’re having this conversation at all shows how dangerously far the acceptance of political violence has crept into the mainstream.

The Nudge and the Wink

The Post front-loads the most glaring example of this moral rot. Peyton Vanest, a 27-year-old progressive influencer, didn’t just mutter into the void; he weaponized the ambiguity of Big Tech algorithms to rack up millions of views on a video where he conspicuously refuses to define what “it” is. “Somebody should, you know?” he smirked. “If somebody knew what needed to be done, that person should probably just do it …” He didn't say “kill the president.” He didn’t have to. The clip, a 62-second exercise in plausible deniability, exploded to over 3.2 million views on TikTok, with commenters replying, “Crazy how we all know exactly what you’re talking about.”

This is the linguistic safe zone the Left has built for itself. By staying just vague enough to avoid a visit from the Secret Service, they can peddle assassination fantasies and label them as “venting.” Vanest’s defense—that he was just expressing “frustration”—is the standard playbook. But when “venting” takes the specific shape of a mob whispering, “Gee, if only *something* would happen to him,” it crosses the line from catharsis to stochastic terrorism. There is no other interpretation. We’re talking about a president who has already been the target of multiple real-world plots. When a digital mob of millions starts winking about finishing the job, it looks less like a joke and more like a directive.

It’s not just fringe TikTokers, either. Star Wars actor Mark Hamill posted an AI-generated image of Donald Trump lying in a shallow grave, complete with a tombstone and the caption “If Only.” And when the White House called him a “sick individual,” Hamill issued one of those classic non-apology apologies. He wasn’t sorry he insinuated the president should be dead; he was sorry people were “too sensitive” to appreciate his artistic vision of a political murder. This is the same Hollywood elite that lectures America about tolerance and kindness.

Blood in the Digital Water

After the Post piece was published, the digital games turned into a tangible nightmare. Just weeks before the Post sounded the alarm, an individual named Cole Tomas Allen was arrested for attempting to storm the White House Correspondents' Dinner with the alleged goal of assassinating President Trump. He has since been charged with attempted assassination of the president, among other federal crimes.

When actual blood is nearly spilled, the Left’s response is a masterclass in gaslighting. According to one analysis, roughly one in five left-wing and liberal influencers immediately pushed the conspiracy theory that the assassination attempt was a “false flag” or “hoax”. Think about that: a man tries to kill the president, and the reflexive reaction of a significant chunk of the Left is not to condemn political violence, but to deny it even happened or to blame the victim. When reality pierces the bubble, they simply construct a new reality where they remain the heroes and the president remains a fair target.

Republican leaders see a direct causal arrow being drawn from the digital world to the physical one. Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville penned a stark warning in Breitbart, arguing: "Political violence has become a core pillar of what the Democratic Party stands for... An uncomfortably large number of Democrats now think it is okay to murder someone you disagree with politically." This isn’t hyperbole. Tuberville connected the dots from the dehumanizing rhetoric of mainstream Democrats calling Trump a “fascist,” a “threat to democracy,” or a “wannabe Hitler” to the radicalization of people like Allen, who was allegedly “indoctrinated … by mainstream Democrat politicians, CNN, and MSNBC”. You can’t spend a decade telling the country that a president is literally Hitler and then act surprised when someone decides it’s time to act on that information.

Adding to the nihilism is the role of journalists who platform this content. Taylor Lorenz, formerly of the Washington Post, reported on the “Somebody Needs to Do It” meme with a tone bordering on anthropological curiosity rather than outright condemnation, even noting on a podcast that "assassinating the president" posts "get millions of likes; it is a very popular thing". When the media treats an assassination meme as just another fascinating Gen Z trend rather than a profound civic emergency, they allow it to metastasize.

The "Just a Joke" Hypocrisy

Your article must now confront the central conservative thesis: Conservatives have been rightly pilloried for years over "eliminationist rhetoric." If Paul Gosar posts an anime video, it’s a "call for violence." Yet when progressives post an actual coffin with a president’s name on it, it’s an abstract expression of anger. The Post article itself carries the tone of a culture critic examining "morbid jokes" not an alarm bell about a radicalized base.

The Left’s justification is always that they are "punching up" against "actual violence". This is morally bankrupt logic. Assassination is the ultimate act of political silencing. It’s "punching down" against the democratic process itself.

To apply the conservative fairness test, simply invert the target. If a MAGA influencer posted a video saying, “Somebody should do it,” regarding a Democratic president, the *Washington Post* wouldn’t write a headline about "jokes." The headline would be: “Fascists Call for Murder.” That entire activist would be de-platformed, subpoenaed, and paraded on cable news as the face of Right-wing terror.

Immediately after the Post piece dropped, the internet lit up with echoes. A clip from conservative radio’s Newstalk ZB simply shook its head, noting most still characterized their posts as mere "outlets for rage" against the administration while admitting the severe threat they pose. On the blog Just Plain Politics, the reaction was far more visceral: "Stop trying to kill our president," the author fumed, pointing to three real-life attempts to end Trump’s life as evidence that "you ass wipes" had completely normalized the concept. And in the German press, an analysis in *Watson* titled "Subtle Calls for Murder Against Trump Go Viral in the USA" recognized that the deliberate ambiguity is exactly the danger: it works as an inside joke for initiates while allowing authors to claim they meant nothing concrete.

But for the most honest take, look to the Free Republic, where one user astutely noted, “In short, leftists on TikTok have normalized assassination talk. Do they mean it? The Post interviewed six people… at least one said she hoped someone would really do it.” There it is.

A Republic, If You Can Keep It

There is a sublime irony here. The same voices deliberately planting the meme of assassination also claim to be defending "democracy" from an "authoritarian." If you have convinced yourself that a democratically elected president is an existential threat to humanity, why wouldn't you mock a potential bullet? It’s a fanatical logic, and it’s spreading.

The Washington Post published the headline. They see the fire. But it’s not an article of condemnation it’s an article of clinical observation. And that’s the tragedy. When phrases like "Somebody should do it" are analyzed like pop culture artifacts rather than rejected as the language of political terror, we inch closer to the cliff.

The Constitution provides a peaceful mechanism for removing a president: the ballot box. If Donald Trump is as horrifying as the Left claims, his political defeat should be elementary. But they lost elections, so now they apparently want someone else to "do it." That isn't venting. That’s the blueprint for a banana republic. The Post is finally asking the question; it’s time for the Left to look in the mirror and answer it honestly: Is a nation of laws worth preserving, or will you burn it all down for upvotes and a retweet from Mark Hamill?

#Assassination #Trump #Democrats #Progressives

Why Taxpayers Should Foot the Security Bill for the White House Ballroom and Why That’s Exactly What Government Is For

 

Why Taxpayers Should Foot the Security Bill for the White House Ballroom and Why That’s Exactly What Government Is For.

A social media post making the rounds perfectly captures a certain exasperated common sense that deserves a serious conservative reply. The post reads, in part: “Private funds are building the Ballroom. What is wrong with the Government paying for the Security? That’s What The Government does right? I just don’t want SEXY feet having to walk through mud to go to a PARTY at the Whitehouse...” Strip away the whimsical language about mud and feet, and you’re left with a sturdy, compact treatise on the proper role of the state. As conservatives, we should embrace it, expand on it, and push back against the knee-jerk cheapness that too often masquerades as fiscal discipline.

The scenario, whether it’s a real proposal, a hypothetical, or a satirical jab at a future administration’s social calendar, highlights something fundamental: the government has core functions, and providing security for the executive residence and its official events is indisputably one of them. If a private donor or a group of philanthropists wants to erect a new ballroom on the White House grounds at zero cost to the taxpayer, that is not merely permissible it is a model of how public-private partnerships should work. But once that structure exists and a function takes place there with the President, the First Family, or high-ranking officials in attendance, the protective apparatus of the United States Secret Service and associated law enforcement kicks in. That is not a waste; it is the government doing the very thing the Constitution obligates it to do.

First Principles: What Government Is Actually For

Conservatives are often caricatured as wanting to drown government in a bathtub, but thoughtful conservatism draws a bright line between the essential and the discretionary. The preamble to the Constitution lists “provide for the common defence” and “insure domestic Tranquility” among the foundational purposes of the federal compact. The protection of the President, the continuity of government, and the security of the White House compound are pure expressions of those purposes. When a state dinner, a diplomatic reception, or even a celebratory ball takes place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it isn’t merely a private party; it’s a theatre of American statecraft. The security perimeter, the magnetometers, the countersniper teams, the canine units, the traffic closures all of it serves a public interest that is wholly independent of who paid for the wallpaper.

The post’s author gets this instinctively. “What is wrong with the Government paying for the Security? That’s What The Government does right?” The question answers itself. Even the most stringent libertarian concedes that the minimal state must protect persons and property from force and fraud. The President is a person under constant threat; the White House is the property symbolizing the executive branch. Securing an event there isn’t a lavish add-on it is as basic as a police patrol in a public park, scaled to the threat level.

The Ballroom Itself: A Private-Sector Victory

Now consider the first half of the equation: “Private funds are building the Ballroom.” This, too, should delight conservatives. Historically, the White House has been embellished and preserved through a blend of public appropriations and private generosity. Jacqueline Kennedy’s famous restoration relied heavily on donations of period furniture and artwork. The White House Historical Association, a private nonprofit, funds countless projects to maintain the mansion’s museological standards. A privately financed ballroom would continue this tradition, sparing taxpayers the capital outlay while allowing the executive mansion to host events with appropriate grandeur. If a philanthropist wants to write a check so that the United States can entertain foreign dignitaries without squeezing them into the East Room or erecting a temporary tent on the South Lawn, more power to them. It’s voluntary association solving a collective aesthetic and diplomatic need.

The alternative demanding Congress appropriate tens of millions or requiring the National Park Service to carve out a line item would be the very big-government approach conservatives decry. By letting private generosity cover construction, the project embodies a leaner, more nimble model: private risk, private funding, public benefit. The government’s role shrinks to its essence: guaranteeing the safety of the building and its occupants.

Why the “Sexy Feet” Line Actually Matters

The throwaway coda “I just don't want SEXY feet having to walk through mud to go to a PARTY at the Whitehouse” at first glance reads like a frivolous joke. But it taps into a broader conservative insight about order, dignity, and the symbolism of the state. The White House is not a barn. When guests arrive for an official function, they are walking into a living museum and a seat of power. Making them trudge through a muddy, tented pathway because nobody wanted to spend a dime on proper paving or an enclosed corridor isn’t fiscal rectitude; it’s shabbiness masquerading as principle. Conservatives are not Puritans who believe statesmanship should be conducted in sackcloth. We understand that civilization requires a certain level of polish, and that polish whether it’s a ballroom built by donors or a dry, secure walkway maintained by the General Services Administration reinforces the authority and continuity of the republic’s institutions.

Moreover, the phrase “sexy feet” hints at the reality that White House guests dress formally. High heels and patent leather shoes are not designed for mud. If the security apparatus is properly funded, the logistics will include hard surfaces, protected routes, and weather mitigation. This is not a decadent frill; it is part of providing a safe and orderly environment. When security falters, dignitaries are exposed not just to assassination but to chaos, crowd crushes, falls, and all the petty hazards that degrade a state occasion into a farce. A government that can’t keep the President’s guests out of the mud probably can’t keep a hostile drone out of the airspace either. Competence is holistic.

The False Economy of Penny-Pinching Security

Critics will inevitably howl that taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for a “party.” This objection misreads the nature of the event. With the exception of purely personal family milestones, gatherings at the White House are working events for the head of state. They involve diplomacy, coalition-building, donor recognition (yes, democracies have donors), and ceremonial functions that bind the public to its government. The President cannot clock out and host an after-hours private bash with no security detail; the protective umbrella is continuous by law and necessity. The marginal cost of securing one more event in the calendar is primarily about overtime, logistics, and coordination costs that are minuscule in the context of the federal budget. To defund or restrict that security in the name of populist showmanship would be like refusing to fuel Air Force One on the grounds that the President could just fly commercial. It’s a category error.

What’s more, consider the alternative universe where security for a privately built ballroom is charged to the event hosts or the builders. Immediately, you create a two-tier system in which the richest donors carry an additional security surcharge while less monied events perhaps a Medal of Honor reception or a teachers’ award ceremony still require protection that someone must pay for. Do we bill the Medal of Honor recipients? Do we send the teachers an invoice? The absurdity quickly spirals. The uniform, taxpayer-borne coverage of security ensures equal access to the people’s house on the people’s business, without imposing a de facto tax on honor.

Whataboutism Meets Its Match: Examining Real Waste

Progressives who grumble about this hypothetical security expenditure often remain silent when government blows billions on programs far removed from its core duties. The federal government currently subsidizes everything from avocado research to Egyptian pyramids to gender studies in Pakistan. The Pentagon once spent millions studying the biomechanics of lizards. The National Endowment for the Humanities funds projects that would make a Victorian curate blush. And the list of Covid-era fraud and abuse stretches into the hundreds of billions. Yet the same voices who demand we pinch pennies over a Secret Service deployment for a White House gala will passionately defend the Department of Education’s equity grants or the latest Green New Deal slush fund.

Conservatives have a ready reply: let us strip Washington down to its proper constitutional functions. And at the top of that list sits the physical security of the nation’s leaders and the premises from which they govern. If we are to have any government at all, protecting the President while he conducts official business is the Platonic ideal of a legitimate expenditure. Everything else the agricultural subsidies, the community organizers, the public broadcasting puppets is where the cutting should begin. So when the Right champions security funding for the White House grounds, we are not being hypocrites; we are being consistent. Defend the essential, defund the ridiculous.

A Historical Note on Private Magnificence and Public Guard

This isn’t a new debate. In 1947, when President Truman wanted to add a balcony to the White House, there was an outcry over the cost and the “desecration” of the historic facade. The project went ahead with a mix of public and private funds, and today the Truman Balcony is an iconic feature. The security implications were intrinsic: the balcony is secured by the Secret Service just like every other square foot. No serious person suggested that the Service should bill the Trumans personally for standing watch. Similarly, state dinners under every administration are expensive affairs, but the cost of protective details isn’t itemized and charged to the guest list. We accept that the Commander-in-Chief’s residence operates under a permanent security blanket funded by the Department of Homeland Security appropriation, full stop.

If a private benefactor steps up to add a dedicated ballroom solving the perennial problem of hosting large-scale events without disrupting the historic rooms or erecting temporary tents that are a security nightmare the government should say “thank you,” and then seamlessly fold the new space into the existing security architecture. The alternative of a semi-privatized, fee-for-service protection model would create more bureaucracy, more accounting gimmicks, and ultimately a less secure facility.

The “Mud” as Metaphor for Government Incompetence

The specific image of “sexy feet” traipsing through mud deserves one more layer of analysis. It paints a picture of a White House event where all the private elegance of a new ballroom is undercut by a soggy, disorganized approach a failure that only government can remedy. That failure is exactly what happens when we starve the administrative and logistical functions of government to make a political point. Conservatives should be the party of effective governance, not chaotic governance. If we want the public to trust Washington with weightier matters like border security and nuclear deterrence, we can’t be seen defending a situation where guests at a state event are slipping in the mud because we wouldn’t appropriate the groundskeeping and security paving budget. Credibility is earned in the small things. A well-run, secure, and dignified event is a quiet demonstration that the state can execute its duties. A muddy fiasco is an advertisement for anarcho-capitalism and not the thoughtful kind.

The post’s author, knowingly or not, is channeling Edmund Burke’s insistence that the state ought to inspire a degree of reverence. “To make us love our country,” Burke wrote, “our country ought to be lovely.” A ballroom paid for by willing donors, secured by professional federal agents, and attended by Americans in their finery walking on dry pavement under a safe sky that is a tiny tableau of ordered liberty. It is the opposite of the joyless, socialist grimness that expects everyone to queue in the rain for a stale biscuit in the name of equality.

Conclusion: A Principled, Conservative Yes

So, what is wrong with the government paying for security? Nothing. It is precisely what government is instituted to do. Conservatives should not be embarrassed by this stance; they should be shouting it from the rooftops. We champion limited government, not paralyzed government. We demand a government that focuses relentlessly on its highest duties and ceases its meddling in areas it was never meant to touch. Protecting the President, the White House, and the dignitaries who enter it is one of those highest duties. If private generosity can spare the public fisc the cost of a ballroom, we should applaud that generosity and then insist that the public purse unflinchingly cover the security — right down to the last dry, mud-free footpath that will carry those, yes, sexy feet into a party at the people’s house.

Let the progressive critics howl. Their selective outrage only exposes their own confusion about what government is for. While they defend trillion-dollar entitlements and woke slush funds as sacrosanct, we will draw the line where the Founders drew it: between the core functions that require collective provision and the vast periphery that ought to be left to free citizens. Security for the White House is a core function. Carry on, and mind the mud.

#Whitehouse #Trump #Ballroom #WhitehouseBallroom

Entitlement Cuts Need To Be Made

 Entitlement Cuts Need To Be Made

I Have Tried To Explain This Many Times. Social Security, Medicaid, And Medicaid Must Be Adjusted. It's all About MATH. They Were And Are Running A Ponzy Scheme. Social Security is about to run dry. We have a 32 Trillion Dollars Deficit.

The solution cannot be TAX the rich. If you Sydney Osborn Thompson , The solution cannot be TAX the rich. If you took ALL the money from the rich you STILL couldn't pay down the debt and fund entitlement programs the Democrats don't want touched.

Look here, when Social Securities first started in 1935 the life expectancy was about 70 for Women and somewhat less for Men. Now people are living into their 90's. Also, in 1935, the RATION of people paying in compared to people receiving benefits was 25 to 30 to 1. Now that RATIO is down to around to about 5 to 2 and still dropping. Also there are tons of more illnesses you can get a SS check now ... Obesity,  Diabetes, kids that need a PEP because they can't read. YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH GOING AND IT CAN'T BE SUSTAINED. LEARN SOME MATH!!!

Oh, And I forgot about the ILLEGALS getting benefits ...

It's about MATH. You can't TAX Your way out of this.took ALL the money from the rich you STILL couldn't pay down the debt and fund entitlement programs the Democrats don't want touched.

Look here, when Social Securities first started in 1935 the life expectancy was about 70 for Women and somewhat less for Men. Now people are living into their 90's. Also, in 1935, the RATION of people paying in compared to people receiving benefits was 25 to 30 to 1. Now that RATIO is down to around to about 5 to 2 and still dropping. Also there are tons of more illnesses you can get a SS check now ... Obesity,  Diabetes, kids that need a PEP because they can't read. YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH GOING AND IT CAN'T BE SUSTAINED. LEARN SOME MATH!!!

It's about MATH. You can't TAX Your way out of this.

#SocialSecurity #Medicaid  #Medicaid