RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2025/02/09/trump-musk-and-the-deep-state-the-battle-over-transparency-begins/

Here we go again. At the beginning of his first term as president, Donald Trump issued an executive order temporarily banning travel from several countries—Yemen, for example, Sudan, Libya, and four others—that had been identified as major exporters of terrorism.  The left went nuts, excoriating Trump for his “racist” “Muslim travel ban.”

It wasn’t a “Muslim travel ban,” but try telling that to Seattle District Court judge James Robart. He sniffed the air, sensed the pleasing hysteria and press coverage, and issued a cursory restraining order against Trump’s executive order. The humorous part of Robart’s order came towards the end.  As I wrote at the time, Robart insisted that the “declaratory and injunctive relief” outlined in his order be applied immediately and on a “nationwide basis” (my emphasis).

Seattle has spoken, Comrades! Judge Robarts finds (where? how?) that his court has jurisdiction over … well, over just about everything: the president and the head of the Department of Homeland Security, for starters, but also “the United States of America (collectively).”

So all across the fruited plain, “Federal Defendants and all their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and persons acting in concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED and RESTRAINED” from enforcing the President’s executive order.

This may be the best place to pause and point out that Donald Trump, acting as the president of the United States, was perfectly within his rights to issue an executive order to suspend travel from particular countries.

And so it is now with Trump’s deputies in the Department of Government Efficiency.  Tasked with the daunting task of unscrambling the byzantine Rube Goldberg device that is the 21st-century administrative state for furthering corruption, illegal payments, and partisan influence at home and abroad, DOGE commander Elon Musk and his laptop-and-algorithm-toting lieutenants have been patiently uncovering the pyramid of waste, fraud, and abuse that is the foundation of the United States government in its twenty-first-century incarnation.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2025/02/07/why_trumps_anti-dei_order_is_both_radical_and_rooted_in_civil_rights_law_1089775.html

Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, convened a panel of civil rights leaders last month to assail President Donald Trump’s executive order on “ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit-based opportunity.” The so-called anti-DEI order, Morial claimed, was an effort to “reverse the gains of the last seventy years.” 

Marc Morial: His National Urban League has adopted the very types of discriminatory racial practices that were once condemned by early civil rights leaders seeking a truly colorblind society — notably Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his March on Washington (top photo). 
AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

“Diversity, equity and inclusion are aligned with American values,” declared Morial. To any critics claiming that DEI represents “some sort of preference program” that “divides Americans,” Morial scoffed. “We say, absolutely not.” Morial then argued that the organizations gathered there would crusade to protect DEI and “the notion that everyone has an equal opportunity.” 

This response of the civil rights establishment was more than simply a vow of resistance to the Trump order; it reflected opposition to a long-cresting sea change in racial politics in America.

In 1963, the Urban League was one of the groups that participated in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington, where King envisioned a nation for his children not “judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” During this period, non-white Americans faced legal and cultural barriers to full participation in civic life, from school segregation to rampant discrimination in employment and housing opportunities.

Much has changed over the years. The Trump executive order was issued to counter a new form of discrimination as the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction. Many organizations, in an attempt to address anger about historical injustices, have fostered bias against groups perceived as privileged – particularly white and Asian men – and have developed explicit policies designed to advantage those perceived as disadvantaged. 

The Supreme Court found that a bid to achieve diversity-related goals, Harvard had illegally engaged in racial discrimination. The Trump order builds on that.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/5133353-elon-musk-reduces-government/amp/

It appears that Elon Musk has incited the good townsfolk of Washington, D.C.

Across the internet, politicians and pundits are in a monstrous mood. The same people who spent the last year declaring the imminent death of democracy if Donald Trump were elected are now insisting that the real threat is the monster he has unleashed upon the federal bureaucracy.

For Washingtonians, Musk is the bogeyman they have long described to their children around campfires at night: An outsider who comes to town and lays waste to government waste, firing thousands and slashing budgets. Part Frankenstein, part Bigfoot, that creature never had a name, but would be beholden to no one and uninterested in the status quo.

The monster now has a name, and it is Elon Musk.

Democratic politicians are now claiming that reducing government is equivalent to destroying government. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) yelled dramatically to an outdoor crowd this week that Musk’s government efficiency efforts are “taking away everything we have.”

For decades, both Democratic and Republican presidents have run on reducing government and making it more efficient. But everyone knew that such campaign pledges would be quickly discarded after each election.

What is so terrifying this time is that Musk means it. We know that because he has done it before.

When Musk bought Twitter with the promise of dismantling its censorship system and culture, he started by firing virtually everyone. Critics immediately declared that he was a fool and did not understand how to run a social media company. Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich said that Musk’s firings meant the death of Twitter and triumphantly declared, “You break it, you own it.”

ttps://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/02/our_self_important_self_deluding_self_unaware_elites.html

Our self-appointed “ruling class” is insufferable.  Two-plus weeks into the restored Trump administration, and the Democrat/media outrage template has become utterly banal:

(1) Trump delivers on a campaign promise.

(2) Democrats collapse onto fainting couches and wail, “He can’t do that!,” and then

(3) those same sobbing sad sacks get back up, clutch their pearls, and collapse in anguish yet again.

It would be amusing if their funerary pantomime were not so exhausting.  

Unindicted “Russia collusion” co-conspirator and former acting director of the FBI Andrew McCabe ran to the Communist News Network to complain that all his old friends at the Bureau are terrified of being fired.  He reported to fellow Democrat traveler Anderson Cooper that FBI officials are worried about how they’re going to pay their bills and take care of their families.  “If you get fired,” McCabe explained energetically, like one toddler telling another toddler about the world, “you’re done.  That’s the end of your reputation, your ability to get any job.  You lose your pay, you lose your chance at a pension, you lose your health insurance.”  Baby Cooper agreed with Baby McCabe that those consequences sound scary.  

Yet neither had the requisite self-awareness to ponder, “Is this what J6 protesters felt like when the Gestapo FBI hunted down alleged trespassers as if they were America’s ‘Most Wanted’ criminals?”  Watching the two Democrat babies cry about FBI agents losing their jobs and reputations after we have seen the Bureau do the exact same thing to law-abiding Americans for years is absolutely surreal!  

https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-tariff-proposals-are-already-working-opinion-2026576

Newly reinstalled U.S. President Donald J. Trump looked askance at an Oval Office press conference on Monday when a reporter asked him about the presence of media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who was sitting awkwardly just outside of camera view. The previous Friday, Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal had vociferously criticized Trump’s plan to impose 25 percent tariffs on most Mexican and Canadian goods, as well as a 10 percent tariff on Chinese imports.

Trump intended the tariffs, which were scheduled to take effect on Tuesday, to equalize the U.S. trade balance with its neighbors and its largest competitor, and to punish Mexico and Canada for weak border enforcement, which has allowed large-scale crossings by illegal aliens and lax interdiction of shipments of fentanyl, a deadly synthetic opioid largely manufactured in China that claims tens of thousands of American lives every year.

Despite Trump’s well-documented position, the Journal declared the expected trade war “the dumbest” in history and predicted that the new administration’s economic protectionism would backfire. It was wrong. Just before the Monday press conference, where Trump declared his “great respect” for the 93-year old Murdoch while also saying his paper’s editorialists “didn’t have any idea what they were talking about,” the world learned that Trump’s protectionist inclinations were not so dumb after all.

Despite a lot of noisy grandstanding over the weekend, during which Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum and lingering Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau promised to retaliate against Trump’s tariffs on a “dollar-for-dollar” basis, on Monday morning Sheinbaum signaled in a phone call with Trump that she would back down. She offered 10,000 Mexican National Guard troops to patrol Mexico’s side of the border in exchange for a 30-day pause on the tariffs. During that period, Trump announced that he would lead high-level trade negotiations between the two countries, alongside his secretaries of state, treasury, and commerce.

By late Monday afternoon, Trudeau caved in his own call with Trump, also pledging 10,000 “frontline personnel” to ramp up border security while implementing a $1.3 billion border security plan that will include technological upgrades, helicopter deployments, and cooperative measures with American law enforcement specifically directed at preventing fentanyl from crossing the U.S.’ northern border. Canada, too, will have a 30-day pause of tariffs while negotiations take place.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/usaid-sent-over-18-billion-to-islamic-terror-states/

“It is really, really a sad day in America,” Rep. Ilhan Omar declared at a rally by Democrats outside USAID headquarters protesting President Trump’s reconstruction of the aid agency.

It wasn’t a sad day for America, but it was so for Somalia.

Over the last two years, USAID had funneled $2.3 billion in “humanitarian assistance” to Omar’s native Somalia. Last year it reported a request for $1.6 billion in aid and even with the Biden administration on the way out the door, it sent an additional $29 million in December 2024.

USAID support for Somalia had doubled under the Biden administration and with $3.3 billion from USAID allocated in the last 5 years, the end of the USAID gravy train for the Islamic terrorist state of Somalia must have been a painful blow for Omar, who is very close to the Somali regime. Former Somali Prime Minister Hassan Khaire had reportedly celebrated that “the interest of Ilhan are not Ilhan’s, it’s not the interest of Minnesota, nor is it the interest of the American people, the interest of Ilhan is that of the Somalian people and Somalia.”

It’s unknown if any of Omar’s Majerteen clan members benefited from the billions in American money, but considering the prominence of the clan in Somali politics, it’s likely to be the case.

Somalia, along with other Islamic terrorist entities, including the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas in Gaza, were among the top beneficiaries of USAID cash.

USAID boasted of having sent $2.1 billion to Gaza and the West Bank since the Hamas attacks of Oct 7. In 2024 alone, $917 million was programmed for the terrorist areas occupying Israel.

USAID provided over $3.7 billion to Afghanistan since the Taliban took over with $832 million in the previous fiscal year alone. The money was so unaccountable that USAID refused to cooperate with the U.S. Government’s Afghan War watchdog tracking money going to terrorists.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/02/07/wait-you-mean-theres-corruption-in-washington/

How many Americans had even heard of the U.S. Agency for International Development just a month ago? Now in the third week of the second Trump administration, the country is learning that USAID apparently has been running a racket that has propped up the Democratic political machine, which includes the usual big-media players, with tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars.

As political scandals go, this one could be the grubbiest of all.

Democrats are already reeling. Polls show they have become as popular as a pineapple on a pizza. This country would be well served if the party collapsed and the remaining reasonable and sane voters Democratic formed a new group.

The Democratic Party of the 21st century has revealed itself through its radical, nonsensical positions to be a party that no longer can be stomached by most of America. A recent Quinnipiac University survey found that 57% of voters have an unfavorable opinion of Democrats, “the highest percentage of voters having an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party since the Quinnipiac University Poll began asking this question.”

Meanwhile, The New York Times’ own polling shows that Americans feel that Democrats are out of touch, and don’t see the party “as an appealing alternative.”

Hastening the downfall might be the scandal that is roiling the waters of the Potomac right now. A nest of corruption, it seems, has been rooted out. And those who have relied on its success are squealing the loudest and longest.

Ostensibly an agency that shuttles financial and other resources for humanitarian reasons, the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, looks and acts more like a political slush fund that has kept the political left rich with taxpayers’ dollars than a global development agency.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/usaids-long-track-record-of-wasteful-left-wing-spending-made-it-an-obvious-first-target-for-musk/

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has come under scrutiny after tech billionaire Elon Musk chose the agency as the first target in his campaign to reduce ballooning government costs and root out progressive ideology from within the executive branch.

Musk’s decision to first declare war on USAID in his role as head of the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency should come as no surprise, given the agency’s long history of wasteful, ideologically driven spending.

Established in 1961 under the Kennedy administration, USAID is meant to oversee humanitarian, development, and security programs, doing so in over 100 foreign countries. As originally conceived, the agency was meant to distribute aid in a way that advances U.S. interests, ideally without antagonizing the local population.

But, for decades now, the agency has apparently strayed from that mission.

In 1994, whistleblower Paul Neifert revealed that the agency was distributing U.S. aid based on race in violation of federal law.

“As far as I’m concerned, Mr. Musk is quite correct in calling USAID a criminal organization,” Neifert told National Review. “Their misconduct goes back years in my case and is not surprising to those familiar with USAID methods. This apple is indeed rotten.”

Stationed in South Africa three decades ago, Neifert accused senior USAID officials of violating procurement laws and the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act that authorized U.S. assistance to the country following the end of apartheid in 1990. On top of being illegal, it was also a self-defeating policy, Neifert explained.

“In bizarre fashion, it was in conflict with the non-racial ideals of pre- and post-Mandela South Africa, which held that abolishment of the raced-based system of apartheid was for the benefit of all members of its ‘rainbow’ coalition,” he said.

“USAID instituted its twisted version of a race-based, spoils system, which required its staff to circumvent U.S. procurement laws by providing USAID funding on a racialized basis to USAID’s favored recipients both in the U.S. and South Africa.”

https://amgreatness.com/2025/02/06/are-trumps-tariffs-really-tariffs/

Hysteria has erupted here and abroad over President Trump’s threats to level trade tariffs against particular countries.

Both American and foreign critics blasted them variously as either counterproductive and suicidal or unfair, imperialistic, and xenophobic.

Certainly, tariffs are widely hated by doctrinaire economists. They complain that tariffs burden consumers with higher prices to protect weak domestic industries that, shielded from competition, will have no incentive to improve efficiency.

Their ideal is “free” trade. Supposedly a free global market alone should adjudicate which particular industry in any country can produce the greatest good for the world’s consumers, whether defined by lower prices or better quality, or both.

Even when “free trade” becomes “unfair trade”—such as China’s massive mercantile surpluses—many neoliberal economists still insist that even subsidized foreign imports are beneficial.

Cheap imports, Americans were told, supposedly still lowered prices for consumers, still forced domestic producers to economize to remain competitive, and still brought “creative destruction,” as inefficient domestic industries properly gave way to more efficient, market-driven ones.

But many exporters to the U.S. are propped up by their own governments.

They may seem more competitive only because their governments want to dump products at a loss to capture market share, subsidize their businesses’ overhead to protect domestic employment or seek to create a monopoly over a strategic industry.

Yet when Trump threatened to level tariffs against Mexico, Canada, Colombia, Venezuela, China, or the European Union, they were not primarily aimed at propping up particular inefficient U.S. industries at all.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm-plus/did-big-government-pull-us-out-of-the-great-depression/

The conventional wisdom is that the Great Depression that began in October 1929 was the fault of Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, and Republicans in general. Big business was out of control, and big government should have reined it in with regulations that would have prevented the crash from happening in the first place. Herbert Hoover’s disastrous presidency (1929-1933) is generally presented as evidence of this: most establishment historians echo the charge that Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Democrats began making in 1932, that Hoover’s inaction and trust in the power of the economy to right itself only deepened the crisis and lengthened the Depression. Then Roosevelt’s New Deal smorgasbord of government programs put Americans back to work and finally provided the economy the stimulus it needed to recover.

Virtually every aspect of that conventional wisdom is false. As Rating America’s Presidents shows, if Coolidge had been president in October 1929, he would have without any doubt followed the precedent established by Van Buren, Grant, Cleveland, and Theodore Roosevelt that Hoover explicitly rejected in his memoirs: do nothing, recognizing that economic relief was not the federal government’s responsibility, and let market forces heal the economy. What Hoover doesn’t mention is that in all four of those earlier cases, the president’s policy worked, and the economy eventually righted itself, although in some cases it took longer to do so than some would have liked.

In contrast, Hoover and then Roosevelt oversaw the massive expansion of the federal government in response to the Great Depression, and it became the longest-lasting economic crisis in American history, not definitively ending until 1941. Government intervention didn’t end the Depression; it prolonged it. Hoover’s programs only added to the burden ordinary Americans had to carry, especially when he increased taxes in 1932. The tax increases were unavoidable, however: contrary to the assumptions of many Americans today, big government programs don’t magically pay for themselves.