Podcasts about article ii

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe US is now withdrawing from the GCF, the entire plan of the [WEF]/[CB] is imploding. Housing is going to boom, Trump has all the pieces in place. Supreme Court is suppose to make a decision on tariffs, if they rule against Trump he has another card up his sleeve.US trade deficit dropped by 40%. Trump just gave the [WEF] the middle finger and shutdown their entire agenda. The [DS] is doing exactly what Trump wants, they are building the insurrection right in front of the countries eyes. Trump has now set the trap of all traps, never interfere with an enemy while in the process of destroying themselves. Trump has the military, he has the law on his side, everything has been planned for, playbook known. Economy https://twitter.com/SecScottBessent/status/2009264006083522849?s=20 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/TKL_Adam/status/2009018778294927730?s=20 https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/2009298104764219475?s=20 The Supreme Court is expected to potentially rule on the legality of President Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as early as tomorrow, January 9, 2026, at around 10 a.m. ET.  The justices heard oral arguments in the consolidated cases (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.) on November 5, 2025, where they appeared skeptical of the administration’s position that IEEPA grants the president authority to impose such sweeping tariffs during declared national emergencies.  Lower courts had previously ruled against the tariffs’ legality, but they remain in effect pending the Supreme Court’s decision.    These options are drawn from existing trade laws and have been used by past administrations. Here’s a breakdown of the key alternatives: Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962: This allows the president to impose tariffs on imports deemed a threat to national security after an investigation by the Department of Commerce. There’s no cap on duty levels or duration, making it flexible for broad application, such as on steel or autos.  Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974: Through the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), this permits tariffs in response to unfair or discriminatory foreign trade practices that violate international agreements or harm U.S. commerce. No rate limit exists, but it requires an investigation and findings, which could target specific countries like China.  Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974: This enables temporary import surcharges of up to 15% (or quotas) for up to 150 days to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits. It’s seen as a quick interim option while longer-term measures are pursued, but extensions need congressional approval.  Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974: Known as “safeguard” measures, this authorizes tariffs if surging imports are causing or threatening serious injury to domestic industries. It requires a U.S. International Trade Commission investigation and recommendation, with tariffs potentially lasting up to four years (extendable to eight).  Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930: This allows duties up to 50% on imports from countries engaging in “unfair” practices that discriminate against U.S. exports. It’s less commonly used and could face immediate lawsuits due to its broad interpretation potential. The administration has signaled readiness to shift to these tools, potentially starting with Section 122 for rapid implementation. U.S. Trade Deficit Drops 40% in Latest Commerce Dept Report  As you review this latest data on trade, remember any drop in trade deficits has two big picture functions: First, lower trade deficits generally mean the accompanying GDP release will be stronger than anticipated because imported products are a deduction from the valuation of all goods and services created in the U.S. economy.  Lower imports mean less is deducted. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, a drop in the trade deficit created by diminished imports means more wealth remains inside the USA. We are not spending, sending money overseas, to import foreign goods at the same rate, and that money stays inside the U.S. economy. More wealth inside the U.S. provides the fuel for expanded domestic growth, more investment gains in USA manufacturing and USA industry and the ability to pay higher USA wages. The Commerce Department is reporting today that the U.S. trade deficit for October 2025 dropped to the smallest amount in 16-years.  A significant amount of the deficit drop was because a high value of physical precious metals (gold/silver) was exported, simultaneous with big offshore pharmaceutical companies dropping the prices of imported products (policy and tariff pressure).   Some may question whether internal consumer demand has declined, causing the significant drop in imports.  However, the U.S productivity rate is still very high – which generally means domestic consumer demand is still high and all units produced have a lower overall cost per unit. Economic analysis can get weedy…. so, a simple way to look at productivity is to think about baking bread in your kitchen. If you were going to bake 4 loaves of bread it might take you 2 hrs. start to finish. However, if you were going to bake 8 loaves of bread it would not take you twice as long because most of the tasks can be accomplished with simple increases in batch size, and only minor increases in labor time. Your productivity measured in the last four loaves is higher. Economic Productivity is measured much the same way, within what's called a production probability equation. Additionally, if two hours of your time are worth $40, each of four loaves of bread costs $10 in labor; but if you make 8 loaves in the same amount of time the labor cost is only $5/per loaf.   When we see higher productivity in direct alignment with GDP increases, the increased production indicates sustainable GDP growth. Source: theconservativetreehouse.com https://twitter.com/RealEJAntoni/status/2009314808332734604?s=20 Political/Rights https://twitter.com/lizcollin/status/2009046198314008954?s=20 DOGE   Geopolitical https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/2009287108796575807?s=20 https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2009306335087665208?s=20 These nine Republican lawmakers joined the Democrats: Fitzpatrick (PA), Bresnahan (PA), Mackenzie (PA), Lawler (NY), Salazar (FL), LaLota (NY), Valadao (CA), Kean (NJ), Miller (OH). Yes, for S.J. Res. 98 (the Venezuela war powers resolution referenced in the post) to become law and enforce limits on further U.S. military actions, it must pass the House of Representatives after its recent advancement in the Senate. If the House approves it, the bill would then go to President Trump, who has indicated he would likely veto it based on similar past actions.  If vetoed, Congress would need a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override.    Article II of the Constitution, as all Presidents, and their Departments of Justice, have determined before me. Nevertheless, a more important Senate Vote will be taking place next week on this very subject. https://twitter.com/DOGEai_tx/status/2009076665054277855?s=20  101’s 11-point democratization criteria – including releasing political prisoners and restoring National Assembly powers. The 2025 bill mandates strict oversight of any aid through Section 204’s safeguards against regime capture. Taxpayers deserve transparency: Will this embassy facilitate accountability for $150B in stolen oil revenues, or just greenlight more foreign aid slush funds? Strategic engagement only works if tied to verifiable reforms, not symbolic gestures. https://twitter.com/estrellainfant/status/2008948263916015793?s=20 Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth continue to expose Delcy Rodríguez and, at the same time, prevent the internal fissures of the regime from spiraling into an uncontrolled collapse. That is no coincidence: it is strategy. Rubio is not acting to provoke an immediate implosion, but to manage the decomposition of power. By exposing contradictions, routes, false narratives, and opaque movements, he weakens Delcy in front of the Chavista leadership, but without pushing the system toward a violent break that generates a power vacuum, chaos, or an unpredictable military reaction. This achieves several objectives at once: First, it isolates Delcy. Every time she is exposed, her room to maneuver shrinks in front of her “external allies” and the regime’s hardline elements. She shifts from being an operator to becoming a risk. Second, it deepens internal distrust. When sensitive information starts to align with U.S. actions, within the regime no one knows who is leaking what. That paranoia is corrosive and weakens more than a direct strike. Third, it preserves the minimum governability necessary for a transition. An abrupt collapse favors criminal actors, armed dissidents, and foreign powers. Controlling the pace of the erosion allows maintaining channels, containing damage, and preparing the ground for a subsequent political process. In that context, Delcy is trapped. If she cooperates, she exposes herself. If she doesn’t cooperate, she becomes isolated. Any move weakens her. And Rubio, aware of that, pressures her without touching the final detonator. That’s why this deserves attention: we are not seeing improvisation or personal revenge, but a calibrated operation of attrition, where the goal is not to humiliate for spectacle, but to dismantle the regime piece by piece, avoiding Venezuela paying the cost of an uncontrolled collapse. https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2008967791966376081?s=20 https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2009090766354960453?s=20 War/Peace Security Alert – U. S. Embassy Kyiv, Ukraine (January 8, 2026) Location: Ukraine, all districts Event: The U.S. embassy in Kyiv has received information concerning a potentially significant air attack that may occur at any time over the next several days. The embassy, as always, recommends U.S. citizens be prepared to immediately shelter in the event an air alert is announced. Actions to Take: Identify shelter locations before any air alert. Download a reliable air alert app to your mobile phone, like Air Raid Siren  or Alarm Map . Immediately take shelter if an air alert is announced. Check local media for breaking news. Be prepared to adjust your plans. Keep reserves of water, food, and medication. Follow the directions of Ukrainian officials and first responders in the event of an emergency. Review what the Department of State Can and Cannot Do in a Crisis . https://twitter.com/Geiger_Capital/status/2008991231507099730?s=20    tremendous numbers being produced by Tariffs from other Countries, many of which, in the past, have “ripped off” the United States at levels never seen before, I would stay at the $1 Trillion Dollar number but, because of Tariffs, and the tremendous Income that they bring, amounts being generated, that would have been unthinkable in the past (especially just one year ago during the Sleepy Joe Biden Administration, the Worst President in the History of our Country!), we are able to easily hit the $1.5 Trillion Dollar number while, at the same time, producing an unparalleled Military Force, and having the ability to, at the same time, pay down Debt, and likewise, pay a substantial Dividend to moderate income Patriots within our Country! 
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP Medical/False Flags [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/DerrickEvans4WV/status/2009097879106015609?s=20 https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/2009305173395415310?s=20 https://twitter.com/susancrabtree/status/2009271768121242054?s=20  years, which is happening this morning. This is the arrogant California corruption that has occurred under Newsom's watch and in this case —possibly his own direction or one of his top aide's —because the light was finally beginning to shine on why the Golden State has become so tarnished under his watch. https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2009188335873302712?s=20   She warned that the intimidation is systemic, and basically if you speak up, expect your life to be dismantled. Whistleblowers are supposed to be protected by law, and if they're being hunted for telling the truth, the system is being weaponized. @MarionONeill1 : “Retaliation has been going on for quite some time and it's now escalated. You're going to lose your job. You're going to lose your home. They'll track your children. They'll make sure you can't get a job anywhere Democrats control.  https://twitter.com/Peoples_Pundit/status/2009099844506501431?s=20 https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2009087403575947648?s=20 DHS Sec. Kristi Noem Drops Facts, Cooks Walz and Frey During Presser on MN Anti-ICE Incident https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/2009046495262110138?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2009046495262110138%7Ctwgr%5Ec2c616dd05bfbbc6e3cd4613990f826fb989a6af%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fsister-toldjah%2F2026%2F01%2F07%2Fkristi-noem-drops-facts-cooks-walz-and-frey-during-presser-on-mn-anti-ice-incident-n2197890   these federal law enforcement officers, they’ll say that when you call for back-up…it’s hit and miss.” https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/2009044827158007875?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2009044827158007875%7Ctwgr%5Ec2c616dd05bfbbc6e3cd4613990f826fb989a6af%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fsister-toldjah%2F2026%2F01%2F07%2Fkristi-noem-drops-facts-cooks-walz-and-frey-during-presser-on-mn-anti-ice-incident-n2197890 Noem also shared that the woman in the SUV had been “stalking and impeding” the agents during the course of the day: https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/2009050638232244548?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2009050638232244548%7Ctwgr%5Ec2c616dd05bfbbc6e3cd4613990f826fb989a6af%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fsister-toldjah%2F2026%2F01%2F07%2Fkristi-noem-drops-facts-cooks-walz-and-frey-during-presser-on-mn-anti-ice-incident-n2197890 Source: redstate.com Breaking: The same ICE agent appears to have been dragged roughly 300 feet while executing an arrest warrant on an illegal alien, resulting in 33 stitches just six months ago. Video and full details below. Thanks to @MWhitney93679 for bring this to my attention. @DataRepublican @elonmusk https://cbsnews.com/minnesota/video/shocking-footage-shows-driver-dragging-deportation-officer/?referrer=grok.com https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2009292194406895696?s=20 https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/2009044298486948261?s=20 https://twitter.com/warriors_mom/status/2009038176627876188?s=20   force by an ICE agent becomes unavoidable. And the local Minneapolis politicians decide it's the perfect opportunity to declare war against the federal government? https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2009142447905882188?s=20   to the deadly incident, leftists are urging vengeance and riots in Minneapolis. Rioters earlier surged to a federal building and smashed up the entrance. The shooting incident occurred in the context of the far-left and Antifa urging violence against ICE for months. It has led to an Antifa cell carrying out an ambush shooting in Texas on the Prairieland facility. At least seven have pleaded guilty to a federal terrorism charge. Then, in Dallas, an ICE facility was shot up by an anti-ICE activist, killing people. https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/2009040818896830650?s=20 BREAKING: The wife of Renee Nicole Good—the 37-year-old Minneapolis shooting victim who attempted to run over an ICE officer—appears to have been outside the vehicle filming as her wife blocked ICE vehicles. She is seen wearing a flannel shirt, walking around the vehicle and recording ICE officers. She later runs back to the vehicle to check on Renee. Afterward, she tells a nearby man, “That's my wife.” When he asks if she knows any of her wife's relatives she could call, she responds, “We’re new here. I don’t have people… I can't even breathe right now.” Why was she outside the vehicle filming while her wife was blocking ICE officers? Terrible https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/2009143305075097679?s=20 https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/2009103459019002182?s=20 https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2009270499398893758?s=20 https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2009132509607677966?s=20 https://twitter.com/iAnonPatriot/status/2009087576402219051?s=20 https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/2008995871724355652?s=20 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2009297640555503770?s=20 https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2009197905723216144?s=20   After about two minutes on scene, my security began wanting to bring me out of there due to the immediate threats of violence. I tried to shorten this video as much as possible but it's tough given all the BS that unfolded. As soon as I dialed 911, one of the leftist screamed “Minneapolis Police are on OUR side!” Turns out, he was right. – A vehicle began chasing us the wrong way down a one way and then threatened to kiII me (dispatch heard this and responded by asking for my last name?) – First dispatcher promised they'd respond, asked me if I was “White,” held me on the phone for the 10 mins, and then ended the call – Second one called back and gave me the runaround as the situation worsens – Third one calls me back and tells me to go fck myself, essentially We ended up being FOLLOWED out of town, and requested backup set to arrive in a few hours. We are NOT giving up. Leftists WILL NOT terrorize us into silence. See you in a few hours, Minneapolis. Stay tuned. Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? Before Jan 20, 2029 57% Before 2027 43% Before Jan 20, 2029 If the President of the United States has invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy the United States military and/or the federalized National Guard within the United States before Jan 20, 2029, then the market resolves to Yes. Sources from the White House, The New York Times, the Associated Press, Reuters, Axios, Politico, Semafor, The Information, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Minneapolis Public Schools Cancel Classes and Activities for Rest of Week  Minneapolis Public Schools announced Wednesday night that all classes and activities were canceled for the rest of the week and that students would not have to do ‘e-learning' at home while schools are closed. Protests are expected in the coming days after a woman driver was shot and killed by a federal officer when she allegedly tried to run him over during a protest against ICE in a Minneapolis residential neighborhood Wednesday morning. MPS statement: No school Jan. 8-9 due to safety concerns Source: thegatewaypundit.com Preplanned Riot patterns. https://twitter.com/TheSCIF/status/2009115663848362251?s=20 https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2009077478073979120?s=20 Do you think the criminals are trying to cover their tracks, with the riots are they going to burn down the many Somali daycares will they then file for insurance claims, loss of business revenue claims. https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2009131575724625972?s=20 https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2009009290518872568?s=20 https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/2009041195717284106?s=20 https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2009020845239533590?s=20 TAKE A LISTEN https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2009117399300362278?s=20 DHS makes over 1500 immigration arrests in Minneapolis, Secretary Kristi Noem says  https://twitter.com/Sec_Noem/status/2008718230039450008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2008718230039450008%7Ctwgr%5Ec51cd928497b686ddee7e7e639023089bf1f9b57%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthenationaldesk.com%2Fnews%2Famericas-news-now%2Fdhs-makes-1500-arrests-in-minneapolis-secretary-kristi-noem-says source:  wgxa.tv/  https://twitter.com/JDVance/status/2009090255908130994?s=20 https://twitter.com/jsolomonReports/status/2009278938019688755?s=20 President Trump's Plan https://twitter.com/StephenM/status/2009059590726627814?s=20  https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2009334017250996436?s=20 The saying “don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes” (or similar variations) is most famously associated with the Battle of Bunker Hill on June 17, 1775, during the early stages of the American Revolutionary War. American colonial forces, low on ammunition and facing British regulars advancing uphill, were reportedly instructed to hold their fire until the enemy was close enough for shots to be effective—maximizing the impact of limited powder and musket balls, which were inaccurate at longer ranges. BREAKING: Obama Judge Disqualifies Trump-Appointed US Attorney Overseeing Letitia James Investigations, Tosses Subpoenas Issued to James A federal judge on Thursday disqualified the Trump-appointed US Attorney for the Northern District of New York overseeing investigations into New York Attorney General Letitia James. US District Judge Lorna Schofield, an Obama appointee, disqualified acting US Attorney John Sarcone and quashed two subpoenas issues to Letitia James. Sarcone is the fifth Trump-appointed US Attorney to be disqualified by a rogue judge Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/2009025328065466665?s=20 WITHDRAWING FROM INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organizations that no longer serve American interests. The Memorandum orders all Executive Departments and Agencies to cease participating in and funding 35 non-United Nations (UN) organizations and 31 UN entities that operate contrary to U.S. national interests, security, economic prosperity, or sovereignty. This follows a review ordered earlier this year of all international intergovernmental organizations, conventions, and treaties that the United States is a member of or party to, or that the United States funds or supports. These withdrawals will end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over U.S. priorities, or that address important issues inefficiently or ineffectively such that U.S. taxpayer dollars are best allocated in other ways to support the relevant missions. RESTORING AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY: President Trump is ending U.S. participation in international organizations that undermine America's independence and waste taxpayer dollars on ineffective or hostile agendas. Many of these bodies promote radical climate policies, global governance, and ideological programs that conflict with U.S. sovereignty and economic strength. American taxpayers have spent billions on these organizations with little return, while they often criticize U.S. policies, advance agendas contrary to our values, or waste taxpayer dollars by purporting to address important issues but not achieving any real results. By exiting these entities, President Trump is saving taxpayer money and refocusing resources on America First priorities.  This is factually a much bigger deal, a bigger win, than most will initially appreciate. Each of the institutions carry “membership fees” or financial obligations each participating government pays into. Each organization consists of board members, stakeholders and other administrative offices which employ the friends and families of current and former politicians, world “leaders” and essentially well-connected and disconnected elites who run the agencies. It's like a massive network of NGOs, except the entities exist exclusively with government funding. Just like the United Nations itself, the USA always pays the dues, fees and largest portion of the operating expenses, which includes payrolls and travel benefits. Other countries participate, but it is the USA who picks up the largest portion of the financial obligations for the organization itself to exist. Like USAID, the designated “global” organizations (conventions, treaties, etc) operate as massive bureaucratic rule makers for global standards and practices. The organizations themselves employ a network of downstream entities, agencies, contractors, think-tanks, academic liaisons and internal government offices who collaborate with the goals and objectives of the parent organization.   Withdrawing the support of the U.S. means cutting that entire apparatus off from receiving funding from the USA. Europe and the USA are the largest funders of each of these World Economic Forum aligned agencies. It is not coincidental that President Trump and Secretary Rubio are making this move in advance of President Trump traveling to Davos, where the network associations congregate. President Trump is expected to deliver a bucket of ice water upon the heads of those who attend Davos annually. The GREAT RESET crew, who design the global government customs and norms, is being reset. Source: theconservativetreehouse.com (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

A pre-dawn post, a capital in darkness, and a president in cuffs aboard a U.S. ship—what started as a “one-night raid” is already morphing into something far bigger. We unpack how the strike on Venezuela unfolded, why the official story leaves key gaps, and what it means when the White House says, without hesitation, that we'll “run the country” until a “judicious transition.” If that sounds like regime change and occupation, it's because that's exactly how it's being sold. We walk through the mechanics of the operation—air defenses knocked out, a citywide blackout, special operators intercepting Maduro before a reinforced bunker—and the uncomfortable questions that raises about access and complicity. Then we pull the legal thread: the Article II claim that troops were inserted first and then “defended” with airstrikes, the decision to bypass Congress entirely, and the attempt to rebrand a cross-border assault as “law enforcement.” War powers aren't a suggestion, and treating sovereignty like a paperwork issue invites blowback that won't stop at Venezuela's borders. The promises don't get sturdier from there. “Oil will pay for it” clashes with reality: a battered energy sector, massive capital needs, sabotage risks, and the legitimacy crisis that follows any U.S.-installed authority. We map potential power paths—opposition figures abruptly dismissed, Delcy Rodríguez floated for continuity—and ask the hard question: if negotiation was possible, why bomb first? Along the way, we hit the regional shockwaves, from casual warnings aimed at Cuba and Colombia to the mismatch between cocaine narratives and the fentanyl crisis that actually kills Americans. Expect migration pressure, market risk, and a new precedent great powers will cite when it suits them.

Event Summary (WATCH: PRESIDENT TRUMP PRESS CON HERE) The U.S. military executed a highly complex and precise operation in Caracas, Venezuela, to apprehend Maduro. The mission involved over 150 aircraft, advanced coordination across multiple military branches, and cyber and space operations. The operation was completed without any American casualties, which is emphasized as a major success. Geopolitical Context Venezuela’s significance stems from its vast oil reserves (largest in the world) and strategic location near the U.S. Maduro’s regime is portrayed as illegitimate, corrupt, and deeply involved in drug trafficking and alliances with U.S. adversaries (Russia, China, Iran, Hezbollah). The discussion highlights Venezuela’s decline from being one of the wealthiest nations in the 1950s to a failed state under socialist rule. Legal Justifications President Trump acted within his constitutional authority under Article II as Commander-in-Chief. References are made to historical precedents, notably the 1990 capture of Manuel Noriega in Panama. The legal basis includes: FBI’s extraterritorial arrest authority. Precedents like the Ker-Frisbie doctrine and United States v. Alvarez-Machain. DOJ opinions (including one by Bill Barr) affirming presidential power to authorize such actions. Anticipated legal challenges include head-of-state immunity and UN Charter arguments. Future Implications (WATCH HERE: Is Cuba Ready to Fall?) There will be geopolitical ripple effects in Latin America, especially Cuba and Colombia. Avoiding prolonged U.S. military occupation in Venezuela is key Discussion of possible democratic elections and leadership changes in Venezuela. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of The P.A.S. Report Podcast, Professor Nick Giordano breaks down the stunning takedown and arrest of Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro and why it may signal a major shift in U.S. power in the Western Hemisphere. Was this a smarter model than the failed regime-change disasters of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, or the beginning of a dangerous new era of presidential authority? Professor Giordano examines what happens next as President Trump says the U.S. will run Venezuela until a safe, competent transition is possible, the strategic stakes tied to oil and hemispheric control, and the constitutional and international-law arguments now colliding in real time. He also exposes the domestic political hysteria as Venezuelans celebrate while America's activist left rushes to defend Maduro, revealing how Trump Derangement Syndrome continues to warp reality.   Episode Highlights Maduro captured, Venezuela in play: why this operation was different, what comes next, and the risk of repeating past postwar transition failures Monroe Doctrine 2.0: how oil, energy leverage, and strategic denial of Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and proxy networks reshape geopolitics in the Americas Legality and backlash: Article II authority, Congress's war-powers abdication, "international law" myths, and the left's bizarre defense of Maduro driven by anti-Trump obsession

Maduro is in U.S. court, Trump says we're "running Venezuela," and the internet is screaming "Monroe Doctrine!" Today I break down what happened, what Trump/Rubio/Vance are claiming, and the real issue almost nobody wants to touch: constitutional authority. You can hate Maduro and still hate the precedent. Topics: Venezuela operation, Trump/Rubio/Vance clips, oil & expropriation debate, Monroe Doctrine myths, Article I vs Article II, War Powers Act reality, and why "ends justify the means" nukes liberty long-term. ➡️ Join the Fed Haters Club: joingml.com

Hello nerds.It's been a while since I sat down and did what Nerds for Humanity was originally built for. Not shorts. Not algorithms. Not rage bait. But long-form, structural analysis of how power actually works in this country, and why things that feel shocking in the moment are often the predictable outcome of rules written decades ago.This livestream was about Trump's military operation in Venezuela. But not in the way cable news framed it.I wasn't interested in relitigating whether Trump is reckless, authoritarian, or dangerous. If you're reading this Substack, you already know where you land on that. The more important question is this.How was he able to do it?How was a single president able to order a major military operation against a sovereign country, deploy massive air and naval assets, seize the country's leader from its capital, and then inform Congress afterward?The uncomfortable truth is that Trump didn't invent some new authoritarian power. He exploited one that has been sitting in plain sight for more than fifty years.And worse, he did so largely within the mechanics of existing law.The law that was supposed to stop thisIn 1973, in the shadow of Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution. Its purpose was simple. Presidents were not supposed to be able to drag the country into war on their own.The law created two central guardrails.First, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing US forces into hostilities.Second, unless Congress authorizes the action, those hostilities must end within 60 days, with an additional 30-day period allowed for withdrawal.At the time, this seemed reasonable. Military action moved slowly. Wars took time to prepare. You could not overthrow a government in a weekend. The assumption was that Congress would have ample opportunity to intervene before anything irreversible happened.As I said on the livestream,“At that time in 1973 the thinking was well, surely no one can invade a country and capture the head of state inside of 48 hours. They would need weeks to prepare for it.”That assumption is now dangerously obsolete.We are using 1973 traffic laws for modern warfareOne analogy I used resonated with a lot of people.Trying to govern modern warfare with the War Powers Resolution is like applying 1970s traffic rules to autonomous flying cars.The law was written for an era of B-52 bombers, carrier groups, and weeks-long mobilizations. It was not written for drones, cyber operations, special forces insertions, precision strikes, and operations capable of destabilizing or decapitating a regime in days or even hours.Today, a president can dramatically alter another country's political reality before Congress has even finished debating whether the notification email landed in the right inbox.The time-based trigger is the flaw. It assumes time equals restraint. That is no longer true.As I put it during the stream,“This time-based system is flawed. It doesn't work for a world where you can basically destabilize and replace a regime in a few hours.”Trump didn't invent this powerIt is tempting to treat Trump as a unique aberration. He isn't.Modern presidents of both parties have steadily expanded executive war-making authority.George H. W. Bush built up a massive military force in the Gulf before Congress voted, and then received authorization shortly before the 1991 Gulf War began.George W. Bush secured a separate 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force to invade Iraq, and the post-9/11 era normalized expansive readings of both congressional authorizations and Article II authority.The Obama administration conducted extensive drone campaigns and the Libya intervention without a formal declaration of war, arguing that certain operations did not meet the War Powers Resolution's definition of “hostilities.”Every modern president has pushed the envelope. Trump simply sprinted through it.As I said on the livestream,“This has been a loophole that's been used by many presidents. We just relied on them to exercise judgment and honor the office. That honor code is clearly gone.”A system that relies on voluntary restraint is not a system. It is a gamble.Language laundering: from war to “kinetic action”One of the most revealing shifts has been linguistic.Presidents learned that if you do not call something a war, you do not need a declaration of war.So we get euphemisms.“Kinetic action.”“Law enforcement operation.”“Targeted strike.”As I pointed out,“They don't want to say we are conducting warfare. If you don't call it a war, then you don't need a declaration of war.”This is how large-scale military action against a sovereign state becomes a “police-like operation.”If another country flew dozens of military aircraft into Washington, DC and seized the US president, we would call it an act of war without hesitation. Euphemisms only work when we are the ones using them.The public justifications kept shiftingThe administration's public rationale for the Venezuela operation evolved quickly.Initial statements emphasized fentanyl and drug trafficking. Analysts and critics noted that available trafficking data does not identify Venezuela as a significant fentanyl source, which raised questions about that justification.Subsequent messaging emphasized cocaine trafficking and broader security threats, but those claims were also contested.What became clearer over time was that the operation was aimed at exerting decisive pressure on the Maduro regime itself.As I said during the livestream,“What some messaging from inside Trump's orbit suggested was that this was really about regime change.”Trump later publicly discussed American oil companies entering Venezuela, reclaiming seized assets, and modernizing infrastructure as part of a post-Maduro arrangement.If that sounds familiar, it should.“That sounds a little colonial to me.”Because it does.The moral high ground is not abstractEvery time the US violates the sovereignty of another nation under contested legal theories, it weakens the norms it relies on to restrain other powers.As one viewer put it during the livestream,“I'm afraid the US just gave a license to Russia to take Ukraine and China to take Taiwan.”You cannot argue that international law matters only when it constrains other countries. Either it restrains power, or it doesn't.Trump's actions did not just affect Venezuela. They further eroded America's standing in a world already drifting toward a more unstable multipolar order.This is bigger than TrumpOne of my core arguments, and the reason this livestream mattered, is simple.Trump will not be the last president to exploit this structure.Even if Trump disappears tomorrow, the authority remains.History shows that presidents, particularly lame ducks, often become more willing to take foreign risks once electoral constraints disappear.As I said,“We can't rely on Trump or any president. Every president eventually realizes how much power this office has.”This is not about stopping one man. It is about fixing a system that assumes good faith in an era where bad faith is a governing strategy.How the law could actually be fixedThe War Powers Resolution does not need cosmetic reform. It needs modernization aligned with modern warfare.I outlined several possible approaches.First, scale-based triggers. Certain actions should automatically require prior authorization, regardless of duration, such as the use of specific aircraft types, large troop deployments, or major munitions thresholds.Second, target-based triggers. Actions aimed at heads of state, national command infrastructure, or critical civilian systems should never fall under a post-hoc notification model.Third, funding enforcement. If authorization is not granted, funding freezes. No money, no mission.As I argued,“Sometimes the US will have to use force. But introducing liabilities for the whole country should not be determined by one branch alone.”In corporate governance, CEOs cannot acquire companies without board approval. Presidents should not be able to remake countries without congressional consent.A simple test for candidatesThe good news is that this is a fixable problem.Congress can change this law.And elections create leverage.As I said on the livestream,“Now is a great time to ask every candidate one simple question. Do you support updating the War Powers Resolution?”Not a detailed proposal. Not a legal dissertation. Just whether they believe the current system is acceptable.If a candidate believes any president should have a 60-day blank check to wage war, they should say so plainly.The uncomfortable truthI said this near the end of the stream, and it bears repeating.“This is a known vulnerability in the system. It's just time to patch the bug.”We like to tell ourselves that American democracy is protected by norms, traditions, and good people.But systems that rely on virtue instead of constraints always fail eventually.Trump did not invent this power. He stress-tested it.And it failed.Support the channelIf you found this analysis useful and want Nerds for Humanity to keep doing long-form work like this, consider supporting the channel directly.You can become a YouTube channel member to help cover operating costs and get a shout-out on every livestream.Thanks for sticking with the long version.Bye nerds. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

On January 3, 2026, history was made.In this special episode of The Right Side, Doug Billings breaks down the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces — an operation that shocked the world and triggered immediate panic from the political Left and corporate media.This is not a rant. This is a step-by-step explanation of what actually happened.Doug explains:How the U.S. operation unfolded in CaracasWhat was happening behind the scenes long before the arrestWhy Maduro was a wanted criminal under U.S. lawThe federal indictments, narco-terrorism charges, and cartel connectionsAnd why this operation was legal, constitutional, and lawful under existing U.S. authorityMost importantly, this episode dismantles the false claims that the arrest was “illegal,” “imperialistic,” or “unauthorized,” and explains why those talking points collapse under even basic legal scrutiny.This is a defining moment — not just for Venezuela, but for the principle that criminal regimes do not get immunity when they poison nations and traffic terror.If you want facts, context, and constitutional clarity — not hysteria — this episode is for you.Subscribe to The Right Side on YouTube: @TheRightSideDougBillingsSupport the show

Another day, another federal appellate court victory for the great and powerful President Donald J. Trump, and another feckless ruling by an unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior, federal district trial court Biden judge who was raised to the federal bench only AFTER Trump's re-election but before he was sworn in has been hurled onto the rubbish heap of political history. Once again Trump's authority as the democratically elected Article II. Executive Branch President and Commander in Chief has been re-affirmed, after the unelected DC District trial court Judge Jia Cobb (Biden, Nov. 12, 2024) had taken upon herself to order Trump about as if he were a clerk in her court. A three judge DC Circuit court of appeals panel—consisting of two Trump judges and one Obama judge—UNANIMOUSLY found that Cobb's November 20 order enjoining Trump from deploying the National Guard to crime-torn Washington DC was a grotesque overreach of her limited Article III authority and stayed that order. 

A judge has been found guilty of felony obstruction of justice — and the implications go far beyond one courtroom.In this episode of WMXI we break down what this conviction says about judicial overreach, illegal immigration, and the growing tension between the courts, Congress, and the presidency. We discuss why many believe the judiciary has stepped outside its constitutional role, how immigration enforcement has been undermined, and why President Trump argues that executive power must be restored as written in Article II of the Constitution.Is the justice system enforcing the law — or rewriting it from the bench?Do we need constitutional amendments, term limits, and real accountability?This is a must-watch discussion on law, liberty, and the future of American governance. ▶️ Watch now and join the conversation

While earthly kings issued decrees for power, heaven wrote a decree of love. Into straw and shadow came the King who would bring peace, not by force, but by sacrifice. The manger is God's declaration that love moves first — love crosses the divide, love stoops low, love pays the cost. Here, wrapped in cloth, is the heart of God exposed: not distant affection, but embodied mercy. This is the Treaty of Bethlehem, inviting us to receive the peace that God came to give through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.Now, let's join Pastor Brian as he takes a look at Article 2 in our Advent Miniseries, The Treaty of Bethlehem: The King's Motive, from Luke 2, verses 1 through 7.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> The layoff number show no signs of a weakening labor market. Jobs are coming back to the US. The fake news will not admit that the economy is improving, but the people will feel it. The Fed cannot control employment or inflation with QE, they use it to keep their system alive. Banks are getting message, crypto will be included in the future economy of the US. The [DS] attacks will intensify as we get closer to the midterms, they will use division tactics with the people and the military. The [DS] is trying to muddy the water with the Epstein files, this has already failed. The [DS] is pushing war to keep their crimes from being exposed. Trump has initiated the cyber attack offensive strategy. Trump and we the people have the leverage and control. Economy (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Layoffs Show No Signs of a Weakening Labor Market If the labor market is weakening, it's on the job-creation side of the equation, maybe in part due to AI.     the four-week average, which largely irons out the week-to-week squiggles, and which ticked up to 216,750, seasonally adjusted, which is historically low, and in the same low range that it has been in for the past four years. This is administrative data, not survey-based data. Freshly laid-off people filed these applications for unemployment insurance at state unemployment agencies, which then reported them to the US Department of Labor by the weekly deadline, which then combined the data and published it today. In a longer timespan going back to the 1970s, initial claims are very low, despite the growth of nonfarm payrolls over the decades. They were lower only during the tight labor market of 2018 and 2019 and during the labor shortages coming out of the pandemic. Layoffs show no signs of a weakening labor market. If the labor market is weakening, it's on the job-creation side of the equation. So layoffs are low, but once laid off, it takes people longer to find a job as companies have slowed their hiring, but even that has improved since the summer. Source: wolfstreet.com   for having created, with No Inflation, perhaps the Greatest Economy in the History of our Country? When will people understand what is happening? When will Polls reflect the Greatness of America at this point in time, and how bad it was just one year ago? https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/1999141753442414645?s=20 https://twitter.com/TheCryptoLark/status/1999161790886711747?s=20 Political/Rights Tim Walz Vows to Bring More Somalis to Minnesota, Despite Growing Fraud Scandal Reaching Into the Billions Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is vowing to bring more Somali immigrants to his state, despite the massive fraud scandal that has unfolded in the Minnesota Somali community on his watch. The Washington Free Beacon reports: Tim Walz Pledges To ‘Welcome More' Somalis Into Minnesota as Evidence of Staggering Fraud Scheme Makes National Headlines CBS News reports: https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1999531988210909599?s=20 Source: thegatewaypundit.com Garcia. But immigration courts do not issue such a form, and Congress removed district courts from reviewing these cases nearly 30 years ago. By declaring the order “nonexistent,” she manufactured jurisdiction and granted release. Her six month obstruction of Garcia's removal shows exactly why Congress barred district judges from intervening in INA cases. Trump Admin Pulls 9,500 Truck Drivers Off The Road For Failing English Tests  https://twitter.com/SecDuffy/status/1998787357416501638?s=20 Source: zerohedge.com Democrat Rep. Attempts to Embarrass Kristi Noem by Introducing Her to a ‘Harmless' Veteran She Supposedly Deported – But the Move Backfires When the Actual Truth is Revealed (VIDEO) During the hearing, Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-MA) decided to ambush Noem, first by demanding how many US military veterans she had deported. When Noem responded that she had not, the congressman then pulled out his next nasty stunt. “We are joined on Zoom by a gentleman named Sae Joon Park. He is a United States combat veteran who was shot twice,” Magaziner announced. “Like many veterans, he struggled with PTSD, he was arrested in the 1990s for some minor drug offenses. “He never hurt anyone besides himself. He is a Purple Heart recipient; he has sacrificed more for this country than most people ever have,” he added. “Earlier this year, you deported him to Korea, a country he has not lived in since he was seven.” “Will you join me in thanking Mr. Park for his service?” Noem said she would, but reiterated that America's laws needed to be enforced, which displeased Magaziner. https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1999200511820763484?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1999200511820763484%7Ctwgr%5E71b314ce22abe6b529570dbbaed5501f8b066bd1%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F12%2Fdemocrat-rep-attempts-embarrass-kristi-noem-introducing-her%2F  Park had a removal order over felony drug charges and bail jumping – and was NOT a citizen, but a green card holder. Democrats lie, lie, LIE. https://twitter.com/TriciaOhio/status/1999207164603433210?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1999207164603433210%7Ctwgr%5E71b314ce22abe6b529570dbbaed5501f8b066bd1%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F12%2Fdemocrat-rep-attempts-embarrass-kristi-noem-introducing-her%2F  controlled substance In 2010 an immigration judge issued him an order of removal. Park's appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals that same month was dismissed by the Board in April 2011. With no legal basis to remain in the U.S. and a final order of removal, Park was allowed to self-deport to Korea. President Trump and Secretary Noem have been clear: criminal illegal aliens are not welcome in the U.S. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/RedWave_Press/status/1999451592903282965?s=20 2.5 Million Illegal Immigrants Deported Under Trump Admin: DHS More than 2.5 million illegal immigrants have left the United States under the Trump administration, a “record-breaking achievement” in a year, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a Dec. 10 statement. The 2.5 million figure includes more than 605,000 individuals deported as part of DHS enforcement operations and around 1.9 million illegal immigrants who have voluntarily self-deported since January. The rapid decline in the illegal immigrant population is showing effects nationwide, such as a “resurgence in local job markets,” DHS said. In October, 12,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy, which followed 431,000 additions in September. Source: zerohedge.com https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/1999506355548299518?s=20 DOGE    In other words, AI has far more Electricity than they will ever need because, they are building the facilities that produce it, themselves. We are leading the World in AI, BY FAR, because of a gentleman named DONALD J. TRUMP! Geopolitical Unelected EU Commissioner Ursula von Der Leyen Warns Trump To Keep Away From ‘European Democracy' – But the Patriotic Wave Is Upon Her https://twitter.com/SprinterPress/status/1999360985753174112?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1999360985753174112%7Ctwgr%5Ea460cf825346c02faf408dfdd2869c8b434de5e3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F12%2Funelected-eu-commissioner-ursula-von-der-leyen-warns%2F Politico reported: “Donald Trump should not get involved in European democracy, Ursula von der Leyen said Thursday, days after the U.S. president launched a stinging attack on Europe. ‘It is not on us, when it comes to elections, to decide who the leader of the country will be, but on the people of this country. That's the sovereignty of the voters, and this must be protected', the European Commission president said in an interview at the POLITICO 28 gala event in Brussels.   https://twitter.com/JnglJourney/status/1999294487781326880?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1999294487781326880%7Ctwgr%5Ea460cf825346c02faf408dfdd2869c8b434de5e3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F12%2Funelected-eu-commissioner-ursula-von-der-leyen-warns%2F Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/iAnonPatriot/status/1999198852717424957?s=20 https://twitter.com/Defence_Index/status/1999348521120698795?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1999348521120698795%7Ctwgr%5E4d8309aa196b50542667c5dfcee40655f2883cf0%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F12%2Fmad-maduro-after-declaring-christmas-october-embattled-venezuelan%2F War/Peace    accident, but Thailand nevertheless retaliated very strongly. Both Countries are ready for PEACE and continued Trade with the United States of America. It is my Honor to work with Anutin and Hun in resolving what could have evolved into a major War between two otherwise wonderful and prosperous Countries! I would also like to thank the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim, for his assistance in this very important matter. Zelensky Floats Holding Referendum On Giving Up Land For Peace “I am definitely in favor of elections,” Ukraine’s President Zelensky said Thursday. “The most important thing is that they are held legitimately.” He’s presenting a position of willingness to compromise amid the increasing pressure from Trump. Is this but a ruse to buy time?  Ceding territory by vote? WSJ continues… Zelensky has long said that as president he can't unilaterally decide the fate of Ukrainian territories, which must be approved by the Ukrainian people. In early fall, 54% Ukrainians opposed ceding land, even if it meant continuing the war and risked the country's independence, compared with 38% who were open to some territorial concessions, in a poll conducted by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. Source: zerohedge.com Zelenskyy: Holding Elections in Ukraine Requires Ceasefire  President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said  that holding elections in Ukraine during wartime would require a ceasefire. “There must be a ceasefire – at least for the duration of the election process and voting. This is what needs to be discussed. Frankly speaking, here in Ukraine, we believe that America should talk to the Russian side about this,” he told a meeting of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ group of nations. Wartime elections are forbidden by law but Zelenskyy, whose term expired last year,  Source: newsmax.com NATO’s Rutte warns allies they are Russia’s next target  NATO chief Mark Rutte   urged allies to step up defence efforts to prevent a war waged by Russia that could be “on the scale of war our grandparents and great-grandparents endured”. FRANCE 24’s Dave Keating reports Source: france24.com NATO Secretary Rutte: “NATO Must Prepare for War Against Russia”  Source: theconservativetreehouse.com https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1999270361414729766?s=20   remarks: “Things like this end up in Third World Wars, and I told that the other day. I said, you know, everybody keeps playing games like this, you’ll end up in a Third World War, and we don’t want to see that happen.” Trump’s essentially telling NATO, Ukraine, and Russia to stop the brinksmanship before proxy war becomes direct conflict. When the U.S. president is publicly warning about World War III, that’s not hyperbole, that’s acknowledgment of how close we’ve gotten to catastrophe. https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1999499056133898497?s=20 The Trump administration is preparing to enlist private businesses and cybersecurity firms to conduct offensive cyberattacks against foreign adversaries, including criminal hackers and state-sponsored groups that target U.S. critical infrastructure, telecommunications, or engage in ransomware activities.  This approach, detailed in a draft national cyber strategy from the Office of the National Cyber Director, aims to expand U.S. cyber capabilities by leveraging private sector expertise, allowing government agencies to focus on unique tasks.  An upcoming executive order is expected to define roles for these firms and provide legal protections, though additional legislation may be needed to mitigate risks for companies traditionally focused on defense. Medical/False Flags https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1999176473723191554?s=20 [DS] Agenda BREAKING: Grand Jury *AGAIN* Declines to Indict Letitia James For Mortgage Fraud  A federal grand jury in Virginia declined to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James for mortgage fraud on Thursday. This is the second time federal prosecutors have failed to secure an indictment against Letitia James. “Federal prosecutors on Thursday failed to convince a majority of grand jurors to approve charges that James misled a bank to obtain favorable loan terms on a home mortgage, according to sources,” ABC News reported. Source: thegatewaypundit.com BREAKING: Executive Director of Black Lives Matter Oklahoma Charged with Wire Fraud and Money Laundering – 25 Counts Total – Facing DECADES in Prison  An executive director of Black Lives Matter Oklahoma was charged with wire fraud and money laundering. A federal grand jury on December 3 returned a 25-count indictment against Tashella Sheri Amore Dickerson, 52. Dickerson was charged with 20 counts of wire fraud and five counts of money laundering. “On December 3, 2025, a federal Grand Jury returned a 25-count Indictment, charging Dickerson with 20 counts of wire fraud and five counts of money laundering. For each count of wire fraud, Dickerson faces up to 20 years in federal prison, and a fine of up to $250,000. For each count of money laundering, Dickerson faces up to ten years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 or twice the amount of the criminally derived property involved in the transaction,” the DOJ said. According to the charging documents, Dickerson, through BLMOKC, raised more than $5.6 million, but rather than using the money to bail out George Floyd rioters, she used millions to fund her lavish lifestyle. Federal prosecutors said Dickerson funneled over $3.5 million to her personal accounts and spent it on vacations, six properties in Oklahoma City, retail shopping, and food. Per the DOJ: https://twitter.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/1999235340620497058?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1999235340620497058%7Ctwgr%5E9f29cdaa88d5635542427963418842d100b04bdd%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F12%2Fblack-lives-matter-executive-charged-wire-fraud-money%2F Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/DataRepublican/status/1998944940865503255?s=20 https://twitter.com/Patri0tContr0l/status/1999164831652315320?s=20 JUST IN: House Overwhelmingly Rejects Al Green's Impeachment Effort Against Trump – 70 Democrats Kill Measure (VIDEO) The House of Representatives voted on a Motion to Table Texas Democrat Al Green's resolution to impeach President Trump on Thursday, effectively killing the resolution, with many Democrats even voting against impeachment. Green has already tried several times to impeach Trump since he took office in January. Green first introduced articles of impeachment against Trump in February, just weeks after he took office. Source: thegatewaypundit.com Schumer Erupts After Senate Blocks Democrat Bill to Extend Expiring Obamacare Subsidies — Desperately Blames Republicans for the Disaster Democrats Created  The Senate delivered a major blow to Democrat leadership Thursday night after rejecting Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's last-minute attempt to extend expiring Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies, subsidies Democrats themselves voted to terminate in Joe Biden's so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” of 2022. The subsidies are set to expire on December 31, 2025 because Democrats wrote the expiration date into their own bill. Yet now, as the political consequences close in, Schumer is scrambling to pin the blame on Republicans.  Democrats locked the subsidy expiration date into law in 2022. They knew this would happen. They planned for it to happen. They voted for it to happen. Now, in an election year—Schumer is trying to retroactively pretend Republicans created a crisis that Democrats engineered from the beginning. Recall that in 2014, Chuck Schumer himself admitted Obamacare was a mistake and confessed that Democrats sold out the middle class to get it passed. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1999178360082301396?s=20 The Dems who voted against this SUPPORT BIG INSURANCE. UNBELIEVABLE. One GOP “no”: Rand Paul (KY). Paul says he wants the ACA gutted even further. Needs 60. DEMOCRATS = PARTY OF BIG, RICH INSURANCE. https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1999233530694418762?s=20 President Trump's Plan   Elections. Democrats have been relentless in their targeting of TINA PETERS, a Patriot who simply wanted to make sure that our Elections were Fair and Honest. Tina is sitting in a Colorado prison for the “crime” of demanding Honest Elections. Today I am granting Tina a full Pardon for her attempts to expose Voter Fraud in the Rigged 2020 Presidential Election! https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1999403926316069209?s=20   Ticktin’s nine-page letter dated December 7, 2025, accuses a “criminal conspiracy” involving Dominion Voting Systems, Colorado officials like Secretary of State Jena Griswold, and foreign influences, while arguing that Peters preserved election data in compliance with federal law (52 U.S.C. § 20701). He positions her as a key witness for future investigations into election integrity, leveraging her status as a 70-year-old Gold Star mother to evoke sympathy. A core (and controversial) element of Ticktin’s legal theory is the untested claim that the U.S. Constitution allows presidents to pardon state-level convictions—a position not supported by precedent, as presidential pardons are explicitly limited to federal offenses under Article II, Section 2. This strategy aims to challenge the boundaries of executive power, potentially setting up a court battle if pursued further, while amplifying the narrative through media and conservative outlets to build public pressure. , this pardon is largely symbolic and legally ineffective because Peters was convicted and sentenced in Colorado state court on charges like attempting to influence a public servant, conspiracy, and official misconduct—not federal crimes. It doesn’t vacate her nine-year prison sentence or require her release; only Colorado’s governor (currently Democrat Jared Polis) could grant clemency for state offenses, and there’s no indication he plans to do so.   the pardon could indirectly help Peters in several ways: Political and Public Pressure: It elevates her case nationally among Trump supporters and election skeptics, potentially leading to fundraising for her legal defense, public campaigns for her release, or even influencing her ongoing state appeals (e.g., by highlighting perceived bias in her trial). A federal magistrate recently denied her release pending appeal, but this symbolic gesture might bolster arguments about unfair prosecution. Narrative Framing: Ticktin can use it to reinforce claims of her innocence in the court of public opinion, portraying the pardon as validation from the president that her actions were justified. This aligns with broader Republican efforts to question 2020 election security. Potential Federal Angle: If any federal investigations arise from her case (e.g., related to Dominion or election data), the pardon could preemptively shield her from future federal charges. Ticktin’s strategy also includes pushing for a DOJ review of her conviction, which Trump directed earlier in 2025. https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/1999284588955468129?s=20 This refers to the DOJ’s decision, under Bondi’s leadership, to rescind regulations enforcing disparate impact liability. This action implements an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in April 2025, eliminating the use of disparate impact metrics to prove discrimination against entities receiving federal funding. What is Disparate Impact Liability? It’s a legal doctrine originating from the 1971 Supreme Court case Griggs v. Duke Power Co., which interprets Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Under this theory, policies or practices that disproportionately harm protected groups (e.g., based on race, even without intentional bias) can be considered discriminatory. Over decades, it expanded into a regulatory tool that penalized unintentional disparities, often requiring institutions like employers, schools, or housing providers to track and adjust for racial outcomes to avoid lawsuits or loss of federal funds.  Critics (including the poster and the article) argue it incentivized racial quotas, DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) mandates, and “reverse discrimination,” straying from the Civil Rights Act’s original focus on intentional discrimination. Ending disparate impact liability is framed as restoring “equality under the law” by focusing DOJ enforcement solely on provable intent, rather than statistical outcomes. Bondi stated: “This Department of Justice is eliminating its regulations that for far too long required recipients of federal funding to make decisions based on race.” this is a blow against overreaching government coercion, promoting individual liberty and meritocracy over enforced equity. They suggest skeptics “pay closer attention” to appreciate its impact on freedom from such policies. Texas Showdown: GOP’s Wesley Hunt Now Dares Dem Crockett to Face-Off  The 2026 election cycle is working its way up through the gears. Candidates are announcing their intent to run for various seats; some are sure-wins, some are sure to be fights to the finish, and some are sure to be inexplicable. One of the latter is surely Democrat Representative Jasmine Crockett (TX-30) announcing for a Texas Senate seat, the same seat being sought by Republican Representative Wesley Hunt (TX-38). My money’s on Mr. Hunt. Even more so now, that the Republican Congressman has challenged Rep. Crockett to a duel – or, rather, a debate. She may wish she’d picked swords at sunrise instead of a verbal exchange with Wesley Hunt. Texas Senate candidate Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Texas, challenged House colleague Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, to a debate after Crockett entered the race earlier this week. Hunt, who faces incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a competitive Republican primary, was quick to challenge Crockett to a debate, saying that if the new contender agreed it would be “must-see TV.” Source: redstate.com https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1999519791527207239?s=20 https://twitter.com/TheStormRedux/status/1999143399631282641?s=20 get the right people in place. VANCE: “Eventually you are gonna see prosecutions. Not just Arctic Frost related, but on a whole host of other issues. Eventually we need certain subpoenas that have to be issued by a court. Eventually you need local prosecutors, US Attorneys to go after some of these people in a court of law. If you can't get a U.S. Attorney appointed because the Democrat wont give you a blue slip. Or you can't get a judge confirmed… Republicans have gotta open up their perspective a little bit.” Everyone can complain all they want, but the DOJ would be stupid to bring charges without the right people in place. Blame the worthless Republican Senators! Frustrating, but I am confident President Trump will figure it out because he is the best problem solver I've ever seen in my life. (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Richard Epstein does a deep into the Supreme Court's latest showdown: Trump v. Slaughter, a case that could redefine presidential removal power and the future of independent agencies like the FTC. Epstein walks through the constitutional history — from the Founding to Humphrey's Executor to modern administrative courts — and explains how the Court's interpretation of Article II has evolved, splintered, and in some cases contradicted itself. The conversation covers everything from the steel-seizure precedent to the Federal Reserve, the structure of the administrative state, and the unresolved tension between originalism and the practical realities of modern governance. Epstein explains why this case could be one of the most consequential constitutional questions of our time.

Richard Epstein does a deep into the Supreme Court's latest showdown: Trump v. Slaughter, a case that could redefine presidential removal power and the future of independent agencies like the FTC. Epstein walks through the constitutional history — from the Founding to Humphrey's Executor to modern administrative courts — and explains how the Court's interpretation of Article II […]

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe [CB][DS] are trying to convince the world high electricity costs are coming from AI and Crypto mining, it is not, its coming from the green new scam. Gas prices are coming way down. The new system Trump is building is getting stronger and stronger. The [CB] will fight back against Trump’s tariff system. The [DS] is pushing back, they want war and they do not want the peace deal. Corruption is being exposed in Ukraine which is putting a lot of pressure on Zelensky, the EU is now funding Ukraine. Soon he will be pushed out or he will sign the peace deal. Trump says its time for election in Ukraine. The [DS] criminal syndicate that they setup in DC under threat by the SC. They will rule that Trump as the right to remove the agencies and people, they are not independent of the Executive Branch, game over. Economy https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1997946755116359938?s=20 thanks to bad energy policy, not data centers. He slammed subsidies for unreliable sources like offshore wind, saying some projects cost $11B for 1GW of intermittent power, versus $1–2B for 24/7 reliable supply. Burgum laid into what he called “climate extremists,” accusing them of prioritizing flashy green experiments over building energy systems that actually work. The result is sky-high bills for electricity that cuts out when the weather does, while lawmakers pat themselves on the back for feel-good “net zero” policies that don't add up. Burgum: “A lot of the higher prices that you’re seeing are not related to the AI data centers. The policy choices of the last 5 years, driven by sometimes climate extremists, were the ones that are driving up the prices you’re seeing.” (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");   That is why I have authorized documentation to impose a 5% Tariff on Mexico if this water isn't released, IMMEDIATELY. The longer Mexico takes to release the water, the more our Farmers are hurt. Mexico has an obligation to FIX THIS NOW. Thank you for your attention to this matter! Gas Prices Drop To Lowest Level In Nearly 5 Years Across US Gasoline prices have dropped to their lowest levels in nearly five years and stand at around $2.90 per gallon on average as of Monday, according to data from GasBuddy, a company that tracks gas prices. “The national average has just slipped below $2.90 per gallon for the first time since May 2, 2021,” GasBuddy analyst Patrick De Haan wrote in a Sunday post on X.   Source: zerohedge.com https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1998037849539846303?s=20 ADP Weekly Employment Report Signals Rebound In Labor Market  the US labor market turned up for the four weeks ending Nov. 22, 2025, private employers added an average of 4,750 jobs a week., according to ADP’s new weekly employment data This week's positive number hints at an upswing in the labor market after four straight weeks of negative pulse estimates, after four straight weeks of losing jobs. This follows the almost unprecedented decline in initial jobless claims last week (which some have argued was impacted by Thanksgiving Week irregularities). Source: zerohedge.com https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/1998369537851346975?s=20   “degraded” products that nobody wanted, a terrible idea that slowed Innovation, and hurt the American Worker. That Era is OVER! We will protect National Security, create American Jobs, and keep America's lead in AI. NVIDIA's U.S. Customers are already moving forward with their incredible, highly advanced Blackwell chips, and soon, Rubin, neither of which are part of this deal. My Administration will always put America FIRST. The Department of Commerce is finalizing the details, and the same approach will apply to AMD, Intel, and other GREAT American Companies. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!  Political/Rights https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/1998069235734520159?s=20  putting American lives at risk. There are another 4,015 aliens in the custody of an Illinois jurisdiction that ICE is seeking to arrest. Criminal illegal aliens should not be released back onto our streets to terrorize more innocent Americans. https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1998407499884511706?s=20 https://twitter.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/1998416601050161442?s=20 https://twitter.com/FBIDDBongino/status/1998135848546746381?s=20  daily to dismantle the network and all those criminal actors associated with it. https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1998400657217257829?s=20 DOGE https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1998127452195852468?s=20   don’t see how they can do that!” “I’ll speak about it later. I’ll get a FULL report on it.” “Europe has to be VERY careful…Europe is going in some BAD directions.” @ElonMusk will win this! Geopolitical https://twitter.com/PM_ViktorOrban/status/1998044051203928212?s=20  Hungary will not implement the measures of the Migration Pact. The rebellion begins! War/Peace https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1998163342465306883?s=20 https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1998082649425125715?s=20  amid uncertainty about future U.S. involvement. Zelensky met with Macron, Merz, and Starmer to align Europe's position on Ukraine peace talks. The message? If the U.S. steps back, Europe is ready to step up. Macron spoke of “convergence” between Europe, Ukraine, and the U.S., code for: we're not waiting for Trump. Starmer promised “a just and lasting settlement.” Merz framed Ukraine's future as “the destiny of Europe.” This isn't just about Ukraine anymore, it's about Europe's ability to act without Washington.aa the subtext is clear: Europe knows Trump may walk away, and they're preparing for it. Ukraine is only part of the equation, the real test is whether Europe can act without Washington. For the first time since 2022, the center of gravity on Ukraine is shifting eastward, to Paris, Berlin, and London. If Trump wins, the burden of leadership falls on Europe. Today may have been the first test of whether it’s ready https://twitter.com/BRICSinfo/status/1998299398456131611?s=20 What’s The Likelihood Of A NATO-Russian Non-Aggression Pact? Putin recently proposed providing Europe, the majority of whose countries are part of NATO, with formal guarantees that it won't attack. In connection with this, he also assessed that those who fearmonger about Russia are serving the interests of the military-industrial complex and/or trying to bolster their domestic image, which exposed their ulterior motives. In any case, his proposal could hypothetically lead to a NATO-Russian Non-Aggression Pact (NRNAP), but only if the political will exists on both sides Source: zerohedge.com  https://twitter.com/TheOtherSideRu/status/1998356606119981155?s=20   it's not a democracy anymore” https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1998356214384611652?s=20   hold an election, but I would think the Ukrainian people should have that choice. And maybe Zelensky would win. But they haven't had an election in a long time. They talk about a democracy, but it gets to a point where it's not a democracy anymore,” Donald Trump said. As of December 2025, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s approval (or trust) rating in Ukraine has reportedly plummeted due to a major corruption scandal involving leaked “Mindich tapes” tied to his inner circle and energy sector graft. Multiple sources, including Ukrainian media and lawmakers, indicate the rating has dropped by about 40 percentage points in a single week, now sitting at or below 20-25%. Medical/False Flags [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1998187351026348280?s=20 WATCH: Crockett Launches Senate Campaign By Posting Bizarre Compilation of Trump Repeatedly Calling Her ‘Low IQ' FBI Agents Sue Kash Patel After Being Fired Over BLM Support — Claim Kneeling ‘Saved American Lives'   The FBI agents who kneeled during the George Floyd BLM riots were fired on Friday by the FBI. A group of former FBI agents has filed a lawsuit against Director Kash Patel and the federal government after being fired for supporting the Black Lives Matter movement. The dozen agents complained that almost immediately upon becoming director of the bureau, Patel began working to terminate all agents who had kneeled in support of the movement. The lawsuit also claims the agents would not have been fired had they had the same perceived political affiliations as those involved in the January 6th protests. Source: thegatewaypundit.com The FBI, as a U.S. federal law enforcement agency under the Department of Justice (DOJ), is required to maintain political neutrality and impartiality in its operations and public actions. It does not take official political stands or engage in activism, as its mission focuses on enforcing federal laws without partisan bias. Individual FBI employees (including agents) are subject to strict restrictions under the Hatch Act, which prohibits most forms of partisan political activity to ensure a neutral federal workforce. FBI personnel are classified as “further restricted” employees, meaning they face additional limitations compared to most other federal workers. Key Prohibitions for FBI EmployeesThese apply at all times (on or off duty) unless otherwise noted, with the goal of preventing any appearance of political influence or coercion: Taking a partisan political stand: They may not endorse or oppose candidates for partisan office or political parties in advertisements, broadcasts, campaign literature, speeches at partisan events, or similar materials if done in coordination with a candidate, party, or partisan group.     Pushing partisan activism: Active participation in partisan political management or campaigns is banned, including organizing rallies/caucuses, promoting/selling tickets to fundraising events, addressing partisan gatherings in support of/opposition to candidates, or driving voters to polls in coordination with partisan entities. They cannot use their official authority to interfere with elections or solicit/discourage political activity from individuals with business before the DOJ/FBI. Permitted Activities for FBI EmployeesWhile heavily restricted, some non-active or non-partisan actions are allowed, primarily off-duty: . https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1998131089542713808?s=20   million in fees from Fani Willis's office after she was disqualified for an improper relationship with a special prosecutor. The Georgia Supreme Court removed her permanently in September, opening the door for all 19 defendants to file similar reimbursement claims. The total cost could dwarf Trump's alone and stands as a humiliating rebuke of Willis's partisan prosecution. The blowback is now financial as well as legal. https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1998354564790284308?s=20 notice. 18 of them are still actively covered. September 2025. Monthly payout: over $10,000. GAO’s just…monitoring them. Because apparently nobody at HHS has. No SSN? Fine. No proof of citizenship? Whatever. No income documentation? Come on in. GAO literally wrote in their report: “[We] did not provide documentation yet received coverage.” They’re not even hiding it – they got benefits with nothing. The system just said yes. Now check the real-world damage. In 2023, 29,000 Social Security numbers somehow got used for multiple full-year coverage plans. By 2024? That jumped to 68,000. Someone’s running the same number through the machine twice, three times, however many times it takes, and the alarms aren’t going off. Then there’s the $94 million that went to dead people in 2023. Not “accounts tied to people who died recently and the paperwork hasn’t caught up” – straight up deceased recipients. Death certificates filed, funerals held, checks still clearing. But here’s the really wild part: GAO tried to track $21 billion in subsidies from 2023 back to actual Social Security numbers. Couldn’t do it. 21 billion dollars just floating out there with no clear connection to who’s supposed to be getting it. The system allows multiple enrollments per SSN “to help ensure actual SSN-holder can enroll in cases of identity theft or data entry errors.” In other words: we built in workarounds so generous that fraud looks identical to legitimate use. Now Congress is fighting over whether to extend these enhanced COVID subsidies past December 31. Cost to keep them? $30 billion annually. 24 million people enrolled, over 90% getting subsidies. Without extension, premiums spike overnight and 22 million people might lose coverage. Republicans looking at GAO’s findings saying: this is exactly why we shouldn’t pour another $30B into a system that can’t tell fake accounts from real ones. Democrats saying: you’re going to kick 22 million people off insurance because less than 1% is fraud? Both sides kinda have a point. Yeah, the fraud’s under 1% of total enrollees. But when you’re burning $30B yearly and literally cannot verify where $21B went, “less than 1%” stops sounding so minor. Senate vote coming this week. Expected to fail. Which means scramble for short-term extension, fight continues into 2026 budget battles, and absolutely nothing changes about fraud controls. Because here’s what nobody wants to say out loud: the system isn’t designed to catch fraud. It’s designed to maximize enrollment. When your mandate is “get people covered,” asking too many questions becomes the enemy. Verification slows things down. Documentation creates barriers. Better to let a few fake accounts slip through than risk denying real people who need coverage. So GAO’s 18 fictional enrollees will keep collecting their $10K monthly until someone at HHS manually shuts them down. Which requires someone at HHS to actually read GAO reports. Which requires someone at HHS to care more about fraud than enrollment numbers. Don’t hold your breath. By next year, GAO will run the same test. Find the same results. Write the same warnings. And Congress will have the same fight about whether feeding money into a system that can’t track where it goes is compassionate policy or expensive theater. Meanwhile, somewhere in America, a completely imaginary person just got their subsidized premium renewed for 2026. https://twitter.com/chad_mizelle/status/1998194850324222006?s=20  clown show. Ignore him. In the meantime, Congress needs to start acting like a co-equal branch and initiate its own inquiry into Boasberg. President Trump's Plan Alina Habba Resigns as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey After Courts Rule Against Her Appointment Alina Habba, President Donald Trump's pick to serve as U.S. attorney for New Jersey, has resigned from her role following a federal court's ruling to uphold a lower court's decision that she was not “lawfully” appointed to the office. The news was announced Monday by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who said she was “saddened to accept Alina's resignation”: https://twitter.com/AGPamBondi/status/1998102734680318084?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1998102734680318084%7Ctwgr%5E61a3e334e8e6099ea26f7cf5005134be5bf746cd%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Ft%2Fassets%2Fhtml%2Ftweet-5.html1998102734680318084 Habba intends to return to the U.S. attorney's office if that occurs, Bondi added, noting that she will be continuing with the DOJ as a senior advisor. Source: breitbart.com Do Not Mistake Compliance For Surrender” – Alina Habba Steps Down As Acting US Attorney For New Jersey    Habba's statement Monday said “do not mistake compliance for surrender”. https://twitter.com/AlinaHabba/status/1998101999024550125?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1998101999024550125%7Ctwgr%5Ec3b83e0f57525961eabb9975a6e4dab69d0d73c0%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fdo-not-mistake-compliance-surrender-alina-habba-steps-down-acting-us-attorney-new-jersey Source: zerohedge.com https://twitter.com/JoeLang51440671/status/1998202248636072142?s=20  Ketanji Brown Jackson claimed the president should have no power to fire expert bureaucrats. She said economists, PhDs, scientists, & transportation officials should operate beyond presidential reach. Such a view would carve the heart out of Article II & cement rule by permanent insiders rather than elected leadership. Jackson's theory elevates the deep state over the voters who choose a president. That is a constitutional revolution in plain sight. https://twitter.com/AwakenedOutlaw/status/1998116399190036973?s=20   Furthermore, the same logic would apply to the Federal Reserve, IMO. In fact, that’s almost certainly where this is going. Justice Kavanaugh: “I want to give you a chance to deal with the hard hypothetical. When both Houses of Congress and the President are controlled by the same party, they create a lot of these independent agencies or extend some of the current independent agencies into these kinds of situations so as to thwart future Presidents of the opposite party https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1894547479367938142?s=20 https://twitter.com/Rothbard1776/status/1998162884455522528?s=20 https://twitter.com/MJTruthUltra/status/1998149963835191541?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1998129151857848575?s=20   where you have Dem Senators, they won’t approve him! This gentlemen’s agreement [blue slip] has lasted TOO LONG. It means you can’t appoint a GOP US Attorney!” “In VA, NJ, CA, a US Attorney or judge…the only people you can get by are Democrats because they put a HOLD ON IT!” “It only takes one senator! If they are Democrat, they won’t approve it.” “All because GRASSLEY with his BLUE SLIP stuff won’t let anybody go by! And by the way, Democrats have violated blue slip!” Susie Wiles: Trump Will Campaign for 2026 Midterms ‘Like It's 2024 Again' White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles revealed that President Donald Trump will get out and “campaign like it's 2024 again” for the 2026 midterm elections. Wiles went on to explain that “in the midterms, it's not about who's sitting at the White House,” but about localizing the election and keeping “the federal officials out of it.” “We're actually going to turn that on its head,” Wiles shared. “And, put him on the ballot because so many of those low propensity voters are Trump voters. And, we saw, a week ago Tuesday, what happens when he's not on the ballot and not active. So, I haven't quite broken it to him yet, but he's going to campaign like it's 2024 again.” Source: breitbart.com (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, most of the media are criticizing U.S. attacks on Venezuelan drug boats as illegal with cherry picked experts who don't specify what law was violated or rely on vague arguments. It's an act of war when Venezuela sends in toxic drugs to America. It's odd that the Democrats and some RINO's first instinct is to attack Pete Hegseth and not the enemy. The more they hate you the more effective you are. Later, Rep Chip Roy calls in with an update on his race for Texas Attorney General. He also argues that the President of the United States has the constitutional authority under Article II powers to preemptively strike a boat carrying drugs operated by narco-terrorists from Venezuela. Afterward, Qatar is ramping up a charm offensive amid scrutiny over its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood following the October 7 attacks, hosting House Republicans and influencers. Also, Dinesh D'Souza calls in and reveals that Qataris view themselves as the true chosen people due to their effortless oil wealth, freeing the nation from labor. Instead, they pursue financial jihad by deploying resources to purchase influence. For decades, they've targeted American universities, funding entire departments like political science rather than isolated events. Recently, they've shifted to infiltrating the conservative movement to foster divisions within the right, achieving some success with substantial funding that many are yielding to, and people should recognize this as a paid influence operation. Finally,  there's a new Democrat Party confederacy, where sanctuary cities and states unconstitutionally nullify federal immigration laws under the Supremacy Clause, akin to secession since the Civil War. Democrats disregard the law and Constitution, destroying the country by supporting communities pushing Sharia law and Islamist enclaves to influence states like Texas, with figures like Zohran Mamdani embodying their power-driven ideology. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Notes: Constitution Law 2025 – Full Outline Understanding Executive Power: A Deep Dive into Constitutional LawThis conversation delves into the complexities of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, focusing on the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. It explores the historical and judicial interpretations of presidential power, the role of the Supreme Court in checking executive overreach, and the implications of recent doctrines like the Major Questions Doctrine. The discussion emphasizes the ongoing struggle for power and the evolving nature of constitutional law in the context of American governance.In the realm of constitutional law, the separation of powers is a cornerstone principle that defines the boundaries and interactions between the branches of government. This blog post delves into the complexities of executive power, particularly focusing on Article II and the ongoing tension between presidential authority and congressional checks.The Maximalist vs. Narrow ViewAt the heart of the debate is the interpretation of the vesting clause in Article II, which grants executive power to the President. The maximalist view, rooted in the unitary executive theory, suggests a broad, inherent authority for the President, especially in foreign affairs. In contrast, the narrow view, inspired by James Madison, limits presidential power to explicitly enumerated duties, emphasizing the President's role as an enforcer of laws.Key Judicial InterpretationsThe Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in shaping the understanding of executive power. Landmark cases like United States v. Curtis Wright and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer highlight the evolving judicial stance on presidential authority. Justice Jackson's tripartite framework from Youngstown remains a critical tool for analyzing executive power, categorizing presidential actions based on congressional support or opposition.Modern Challenges and DoctrinesIn recent years, the major questions doctrine (MQD) has emerged as a significant check on executive overreach. This doctrine demands clear congressional authorization for executive actions of vast economic and political significance, reinforcing the separation of powers. The MQD, alongside the non-delegation doctrine, underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that executive actions align with legislative intent.The ongoing debate over executive power is not just a theoretical exercise but a living, evolving conflict that shapes American governance. As future constitutional lawyers, understanding these dynamics is crucial for navigating the legal landscape and ensuring the balance of power remains intact.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest insights in constitutional law and governance.TakeawaysThe separation of powers is a living, evolving conflict.The maximalist view of presidential power suggests inherent authority.Youngstown's framework is essential for analyzing executive power disputes.The president's control over the bureaucracy is a contentious issue.The Appointments Clause distinguishes between principal and inferior officers.Foreign trade agreements often blur the lines of congressional and presidential powers.The Major Questions Doctrine serves as a check on executive overreach.Judicial tools are crucial for maintaining the balance of power.Article II, separation of powers, presidential power, constitutional law, executive orders, Supreme Court, Youngstown, Curtis Wright, major questions doctrine, federal bureaucracy

This is the fourth episode of our ongoing series breaking down the U.S. Constitution.This month, Roman and Elizabeth turn to Article Two, which establishes the executive branch, alongside former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. Elizabeth also explains why Trump administration's attacks on Venezuelan boats defy even the broadest interpretation of the president's war powers. Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of 99% Invisible ad-free and a whole week early. Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Trump administration's attacks on Venezuelan boats defy even the broadest interpretation of the president's war powers. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The great and powerful President Donald J. Trump just scored two YUGE federal court wins.  The first was a body check of the rulings of the unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior, federal district court judge Sarah Ellis, who imposed insane restrictions on the ability of ICE officers to defend themselves against mob violence while carrying out their official duties. The second was a body check of the order of unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior, district trial court Judge Karin Immergut, who had denied the democratically elected Article II. Executive Branch President & Commander-in-Chief the authority to federalize the National Guard. I also have updates on yesterday's firestorm of a dissent in the 5th Circuit Texas redistricting case, Federal Magistrate shenanigans in the prosecution of disgraced and fired FBI Directo James Comey, more hilarity from the Democrats in Congress who continue to step on Epstein racks as well as find themselves charged with felony crimes, and more!

In one of the biggest cases of the Supreme Court term, the justices are weighing President Trump's sweeping global tariffs and the future of presidential power in trade policy.At issue is whether Trump can continue relying on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs without congressional approval. The core constitutional question: Are tariffs a “tax,” which fall under Congress' Article I powers — or, as a key foreign policy tool, are they best left to the President under Article II of the U.S. Constitution? The Court's answer will determine not only the fate of Trump's tariff policies but also the boundaries of presidential power for years to come. 

Political Scientists Jack Greenberg (Yale University) and John Dearborn (Vanderbilt University) have a new book that focuses on the idea of presidential self-restraint and the ways in which the U.S. Congress has tried to design Executive positions with an eye towards making real this dimension of presidential norms. The concept of presidential self-restraint is a component of how the president uses his/her executive powers: that the president has a certain expanse of power and chooses, based on a variety of reasons or outcomes, to husband some of that power, or restrain its use. Because presidential self-restraint is particularly hard to divine, especially in how presidents think about the execution of their powers, Greenberg and Dearborn turned to congressional considerations that essentially take into account this idea. Congress has spent quite a lot of time over the past fifty years (since Watergate) in designing appointed positions within the Executive branch in such a way as to flesh out a kind of restraint on the president's part. In so doing, Congress has attempted different means to insulate individuals/positions from potential abuse by a president. Congressional Expectations of Presidential Self-Restraint integrates a number of case studies of congressional action on presidential appointments to examine this push and pull between the legislative and executive branches. As the issue of self-restraint has become more pressing, Greenberg and Dearborn sketch out three foundational shifts that provides the framework for the way that Congress has tried to insulate executive positions, and the ways in which Congress has acknowledged the tension around depending on presidential self-restraint. The issues of political polarization, especially as demonstrated by congressional co-partisans with the president, the Supreme Court's growing commitment to constitutional formalism and unilateralism in the Executive, and Congress's unwillingness to defend its own powers and assert those powers all contribute to this conundrum of a reliance on presidential self-restraint that is often caught up in an expansion of the use of executive powers. The case studies provided demonstrate this conundrum and help us to see just how Congress tried to structure self-restraint into a number of different appointments and how presidents have tried to work around those constraints, some more successfully than others. This is a brief but complex analysis of the current dynamic between the president and Article II powers, the U.S. Congress's evaporating powers, and the Supreme Court's complicit role in fortifying an expansive understanding of presidential power. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume I: The Infinity Saga (University Press of Kansas, 2022) and The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume II: Into the Multiverse (University Press of Kansas, 2025) as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Political Scientists Jack Greenberg (Yale University) and John Dearborn (Vanderbilt University) have a new book that focuses on the idea of presidential self-restraint and the ways in which the U.S. Congress has tried to design Executive positions with an eye towards making real this dimension of presidential norms. The concept of presidential self-restraint is a component of how the president uses his/her executive powers: that the president has a certain expanse of power and chooses, based on a variety of reasons or outcomes, to husband some of that power, or restrain its use. Because presidential self-restraint is particularly hard to divine, especially in how presidents think about the execution of their powers, Greenberg and Dearborn turned to congressional considerations that essentially take into account this idea. Congress has spent quite a lot of time over the past fifty years (since Watergate) in designing appointed positions within the Executive branch in such a way as to flesh out a kind of restraint on the president's part. In so doing, Congress has attempted different means to insulate individuals/positions from potential abuse by a president. Congressional Expectations of Presidential Self-Restraint integrates a number of case studies of congressional action on presidential appointments to examine this push and pull between the legislative and executive branches. As the issue of self-restraint has become more pressing, Greenberg and Dearborn sketch out three foundational shifts that provides the framework for the way that Congress has tried to insulate executive positions, and the ways in which Congress has acknowledged the tension around depending on presidential self-restraint. The issues of political polarization, especially as demonstrated by congressional co-partisans with the president, the Supreme Court's growing commitment to constitutional formalism and unilateralism in the Executive, and Congress's unwillingness to defend its own powers and assert those powers all contribute to this conundrum of a reliance on presidential self-restraint that is often caught up in an expansion of the use of executive powers. The case studies provided demonstrate this conundrum and help us to see just how Congress tried to structure self-restraint into a number of different appointments and how presidents have tried to work around those constraints, some more successfully than others. This is a brief but complex analysis of the current dynamic between the president and Article II powers, the U.S. Congress's evaporating powers, and the Supreme Court's complicit role in fortifying an expansive understanding of presidential power. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume I: The Infinity Saga (University Press of Kansas, 2022) and The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume II: Into the Multiverse (University Press of Kansas, 2025) as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Political Scientists Jack Greenberg (Yale University) and John Dearborn (Vanderbilt University) have a new book that focuses on the idea of presidential self-restraint and the ways in which the U.S. Congress has tried to design Executive positions with an eye towards making real this dimension of presidential norms. The concept of presidential self-restraint is a component of how the president uses his/her executive powers: that the president has a certain expanse of power and chooses, based on a variety of reasons or outcomes, to husband some of that power, or restrain its use. Because presidential self-restraint is particularly hard to divine, especially in how presidents think about the execution of their powers, Greenberg and Dearborn turned to congressional considerations that essentially take into account this idea. Congress has spent quite a lot of time over the past fifty years (since Watergate) in designing appointed positions within the Executive branch in such a way as to flesh out a kind of restraint on the president's part. In so doing, Congress has attempted different means to insulate individuals/positions from potential abuse by a president. Congressional Expectations of Presidential Self-Restraint integrates a number of case studies of congressional action on presidential appointments to examine this push and pull between the legislative and executive branches. As the issue of self-restraint has become more pressing, Greenberg and Dearborn sketch out three foundational shifts that provides the framework for the way that Congress has tried to insulate executive positions, and the ways in which Congress has acknowledged the tension around depending on presidential self-restraint. The issues of political polarization, especially as demonstrated by congressional co-partisans with the president, the Supreme Court's growing commitment to constitutional formalism and unilateralism in the Executive, and Congress's unwillingness to defend its own powers and assert those powers all contribute to this conundrum of a reliance on presidential self-restraint that is often caught up in an expansion of the use of executive powers. The case studies provided demonstrate this conundrum and help us to see just how Congress tried to structure self-restraint into a number of different appointments and how presidents have tried to work around those constraints, some more successfully than others. This is a brief but complex analysis of the current dynamic between the president and Article II powers, the U.S. Congress's evaporating powers, and the Supreme Court's complicit role in fortifying an expansive understanding of presidential power. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume I: The Infinity Saga (University Press of Kansas, 2022) and The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume II: Into the Multiverse (University Press of Kansas, 2025) as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Political Scientists Jack Greenberg (Yale University) and John Dearborn (Vanderbilt University) have a new book that focuses on the idea of presidential self-restraint and the ways in which the U.S. Congress has tried to design Executive positions with an eye towards making real this dimension of presidential norms. The concept of presidential self-restraint is a component of how the president uses his/her executive powers: that the president has a certain expanse of power and chooses, based on a variety of reasons or outcomes, to husband some of that power, or restrain its use. Because presidential self-restraint is particularly hard to divine, especially in how presidents think about the execution of their powers, Greenberg and Dearborn turned to congressional considerations that essentially take into account this idea. Congress has spent quite a lot of time over the past fifty years (since Watergate) in designing appointed positions within the Executive branch in such a way as to flesh out a kind of restraint on the president's part. In so doing, Congress has attempted different means to insulate individuals/positions from potential abuse by a president. Congressional Expectations of Presidential Self-Restraint integrates a number of case studies of congressional action on presidential appointments to examine this push and pull between the legislative and executive branches. As the issue of self-restraint has become more pressing, Greenberg and Dearborn sketch out three foundational shifts that provides the framework for the way that Congress has tried to insulate executive positions, and the ways in which Congress has acknowledged the tension around depending on presidential self-restraint. The issues of political polarization, especially as demonstrated by congressional co-partisans with the president, the Supreme Court's growing commitment to constitutional formalism and unilateralism in the Executive, and Congress's unwillingness to defend its own powers and assert those powers all contribute to this conundrum of a reliance on presidential self-restraint that is often caught up in an expansion of the use of executive powers. The case studies provided demonstrate this conundrum and help us to see just how Congress tried to structure self-restraint into a number of different appointments and how presidents have tried to work around those constraints, some more successfully than others. This is a brief but complex analysis of the current dynamic between the president and Article II powers, the U.S. Congress's evaporating powers, and the Supreme Court's complicit role in fortifying an expansive understanding of presidential power. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume I: The Infinity Saga (University Press of Kansas, 2022) and The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume II: Into the Multiverse (University Press of Kansas, 2025) as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Political Scientists Jack Greenberg (Yale University) and John Dearborn (Vanderbilt University) have a new book that focuses on the idea of presidential self-restraint and the ways in which the U.S. Congress has tried to design Executive positions with an eye towards making real this dimension of presidential norms. The concept of presidential self-restraint is a component of how the president uses his/her executive powers: that the president has a certain expanse of power and chooses, based on a variety of reasons or outcomes, to husband some of that power, or restrain its use. Because presidential self-restraint is particularly hard to divine, especially in how presidents think about the execution of their powers, Greenberg and Dearborn turned to congressional considerations that essentially take into account this idea. Congress has spent quite a lot of time over the past fifty years (since Watergate) in designing appointed positions within the Executive branch in such a way as to flesh out a kind of restraint on the president's part. In so doing, Congress has attempted different means to insulate individuals/positions from potential abuse by a president. Congressional Expectations of Presidential Self-Restraint integrates a number of case studies of congressional action on presidential appointments to examine this push and pull between the legislative and executive branches. As the issue of self-restraint has become more pressing, Greenberg and Dearborn sketch out three foundational shifts that provides the framework for the way that Congress has tried to insulate executive positions, and the ways in which Congress has acknowledged the tension around depending on presidential self-restraint. The issues of political polarization, especially as demonstrated by congressional co-partisans with the president, the Supreme Court's growing commitment to constitutional formalism and unilateralism in the Executive, and Congress's unwillingness to defend its own powers and assert those powers all contribute to this conundrum of a reliance on presidential self-restraint that is often caught up in an expansion of the use of executive powers. The case studies provided demonstrate this conundrum and help us to see just how Congress tried to structure self-restraint into a number of different appointments and how presidents have tried to work around those constraints, some more successfully than others. This is a brief but complex analysis of the current dynamic between the president and Article II powers, the U.S. Congress's evaporating powers, and the Supreme Court's complicit role in fortifying an expansive understanding of presidential power. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume I: The Infinity Saga (University Press of Kansas, 2022) and The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume II: Into the Multiverse (University Press of Kansas, 2025) as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social

Oregon-based Federal Judge Karen Immelgut, already ruled against once by her 9th Circuit Court of Appeals superiors, has once again ruled after a three day kangaroo court “trial,” that it is she, an unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior district court judge who has the constitutional authority to determine whether calling out the National Guard to defend federal personnel and property is warranted—rather than the US President, to whom Article II of the Constitution assigns the entirety of the Commander in Chief authority, and the Congress, which has delegated its own Article I Militia Powers to the President for precisely these purposes. Even as these National Guard cases from the 7th Circuit (Chicago) and 9th Circuit (Oregon) are being considered by the US Supreme Court, these insurrectionist unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior district trial court judges afflicted with rabid Trump Derangement Syndrome continue to act in “Bad behavior” in violation of their Article III obligations for employment on the federal bench.  In addition, their repeated partisan rulings are more than sufficient grounds for impeachment by the House—which should be happening TODAY—as well as the threat of conviction and removal by the Senate. 

Today's sponsor is Piedmont Master Gardeners: Now accepting applications for their 2026 training class. Apply by December 1, 2025No study of American history or macroeconomics would leave out the impact played by the Great Crash of the New York Stock Exchange of 1929 which culminated on Black Tuesday, 96 years ago today. Stock prices had continued to increase throughout the Roaring Twenties but would generally decline until 1932, marking the era of the Great Depression. This edition of Charlottesville Community Engagement does not have the time or resources to delve into the causes of a financial panic that transformed the United States. I'm Sean Tubbs, and I think people should look back on their own time.In this edition:* Earlier this year, President Trump asked officials in Texas to redraw the Congressional maps to give the Republican Party an advantage in the 2026 midterms* Other states with Democratic majorities such as California have countered with redistricting proposals of their own* This week, the Virginia General Assembly is meeting in a special session to take a first step to amend the state's constitution to allow for a mid-Census redistricting* The podcast version features an audio version of yesterday's story on 530 East Main Street (read the story)Charlottesville Community Engagement is the work of one person and that one person sometimes neglects the marketing. You can help fill the gap by sharing with friends!First-shout: The new WTJU mobile app is here!WTJU is pleased to announce our brand new mobile app! You can download a version from either the Apple App Store or Google Play Store. Here are the links to both:* iPhone version* Android versionThe WTJU app is the place to tune in and listen live to WTJU, WXTJ, and Charlottesville Classical. Aside from the live stream, listen to archived shows, view recent songs, playlists, and program schedules, check out videos of live performances, stay up-to-date on WTJU's most recent news and articles, and more!Live chat with your favorite hosts, share stories with your friends, and tune into your community all in the palm of your hand.Virginia General Assembly takes up redistricting amendment during special sessionThe second presidency of Donald Trump has introduced many novel approaches to governance in the United States, including pressure on legislators in Texas to break from precedent to redraw Congressional districts in advance of the 2026 mid-term elections.Traditionally redistricting happens every ten years as mandated in Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. States can determine the method of how they draw districts but for many years Southern states were required to submit boundaries for review to ensure compliance with civil rights legislation such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.The Republican Party currently holds a narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives with 219 members to 213 Democrats with three vacancies. One of those vacancies has been filled in a special election in Arizona won on September 23 by Democrat Adelita Grijalva but Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has so far refused to swear her in until he calls the full House of Representatives back into session.According to the Texas Tribune, redistricting in Texas is expected to create five additional safe seats for Republicans. The state's delegation of 38 Representatives consists of 25 Republicans, 12 Democrats, and one vacancy. Governor Greg Abbott signed the new Congressional map on August 29 with no need for voters to approve the measure.In response, California Governor Gavin Newsome, a Democrat, suggested legislation called the “Election Rigging Response Act” in direct response to the new maps in Texas, and a voter initiative to redraw maps in the nation's largest state mentions efforts underway by Republicans to redistrict in Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nebraska, and South Carolina. Proposition 50 is on the ballot on November 4.Last week, the Virginia Political Newsletter reported that Democrats who control a narrow majority in the General Assembly are seeking to follow California's lead. On Monday, the House of Delegates agreed to take up House Joint Resolution 6007 which would amend the Virginia Constitution to allow the General Assembly to make a one-time adjustment.The General Assembly is able to meet because a special session from 2024 was never technically adjourned. To allow consideration of the Constitutional amendment, the joint resolution that sets the rules for the special session had to be changed and agreed to by both the House of Delegates and the Virginia Senate.One adopted on February 22 of this year lists six items of acceptable business including memorials and resolutions commending people or businesses. A seventh was added to House Joint Resolution 6006 which was introduced by Delegate Charniele Herring (D-4) on October 24. This would allow a “joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia related to reapportionment or redistricting.”Both the House of Delegates and the Virginia Senate convened on Monday, October 27.As the debate in the House of Delegates began, Delegate Bobby Orrock (R-66) made a parliamentary inquiry.“My first inquiry would be given that special sessions have by their very nature only occurred for specific reasons. Ergo, we have resolutions controlling what can be considered during them. And subsequently, to my knowledge and experience here, they've never extended for more than a one year period.”Orrock said the 2024 Special Session was continued to allow progress toward adopting a budget that year. He said that had taken place and the stated reason for the special session was moot.The amendment itself was not made available until Tuesday afternoon. More on that later.Delegate Jay Leftwich (R-90) read from §30-13 of the Virginia Code which lays out what steps the Clerk of the House of Delegates has to take when publishing proposed amendments to the Constitution.“It goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the House of Delegates shall have published all proposed amendments to the constitution for the distribution from his office and to the clerk of the circuit court of each county and the city two copies of the proposed amendments, one of which shall be posted at the front door of the courthouse and the other shall be made available for public inspection,” Leftwich said.Delegate Herring countered that that section of code predates the Virginia Constitution of 1971 which does not have those requirements. Leftwich continued to press on this note but Speaker of the House Don Scott ruled that his questions were not germane to the procedural issue.Delegate Lee Ware (R-72) said the move across the United States to redraw districts mid-Census to gain partisan advantage was a bad idea no matter what party was proposing it.“Just because a bad idea was proposed and even taken up by a few of our sister states such as North Carolina or California, is not a reason for Virginia to follow suit,” Ware said. “ For nearly two and a half centuries, the states have redistricted following the decennial census, responding to the population shifts both in our country and in the states.”A motion to amend HJ6006 passed 50 to 42.The House of Delegates currently only has 99 members due to the resignation of Todd Gilbert. Gilbert had been named as the U.S. Attorney for Western Virginia but lasted for less than a month. Former Albemarle Commonwealth's Attorney Robert Tracci was appointed to the position on an interim basis.Charlottesville Community Engagement is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Second-shout out: Cville Village seeks volunteersCan you drive a neighbor to a doctor's appointment? Change an overhead lightbulb, plant a flower, walk a dog for someone who is sick, visit someone who is lonely? If so, Cville Village needs you!Cville Village is a local 501c3 nonprofit organization loosely affiliated with a national network of Villages whose goals are to help seniors stay in their own homes as long as possible, and to build connections among them that diminish social isolation. Volunteers do small chores for, and have gatherings of, professors and schoolteachers, nurses and lawyers, aides and housekeepers. Time and chance come to all – a fall, an order not to drive, failing eyesight, a sudden stroke. They assist folks continue living at home, with a little help from their friends.Cville Village volunteers consult software that shows them who has requested a service and where they are located. Volunteers accept only the requests that fit their schedule and their skills.Volunteering for Cville Village can expand your circle of friends and shower you with thanks.To learn more, visit cvillevillage.org or attend one of their monthly Village “meet-ups” and see for yourself. To find out where and when the next meetup is, or to get more information and a volunteer application, email us at info@cvillevillage.org, or call them at (434) 218-3727.Virginia Senators pre-debate the amendment on TuesdayThe Virginia Senate took up the matter on Monday as well. Democrats have a 21 to 19 majority and were unable that day to suspend the rules to immediately consider an amendment to HJ6006. They had a second reading on Tuesday.The initial discussion of the Constitutional amendment took place during a portion of the meeting where Senators got to speak on matters of personal privilege. As with the House of Delegates, many inquiries from Republican legislators happened because the document itself was not yet available for review.Senator Bill Stanley (R–20) rose to remind his colleagues that the General Assembly passed a bipartisan Constitutional amendment to require that redistricting be conducted by a nonpartisan committee.“We listened to Virginians who were tired of the gerrymandering,” Stanley said. “In 2019, polls showed 70 percent of Virginians supported redistricting reform. Not 51 percent, not 55 percent, [but] 70 percent. The Mason Dixon poll showed 72% support. And crucially, over 60 percent of Republicans and Democrats alike supported this amendment. Equally when it came to a vote in the Commonwealth. This was not partisan.”Senator Mamie Locke (D-2) served on the bipartisan redistricting committee and reminded her colleagues that the process broke down in October 2021, as I reported at the time. The Virginia Supreme Court ended up appointing two special masters to draw the current boundaries.“There was constant gridlock and partisan roadblocks,” Locke said. “[Those] Were the reasons why the Supreme Court ended up drawing the lines because the commission ended up discussing things as tedious as which university could be trusted to provide unbiased data.”Locke said the proposal in Virginia would still have a bipartisan commission draw new maps after the 2030 Census and that voters in Virginia would still have to approve the amendment.Senator Scott Surovell (D-34) said the amendment is intended to step in when other branches of government are not exercising their Constitutional authority to provide checks and balances. He echoed Locke's comment that the redistricting commission would continue to exist.“There's no maps that have been drawn,” Surovell said. “There's no repeal of the constitutional amendment. The only thing that's on the table or will be on the table later this week is giving the General assembly the option to take further action in January to then give Virginia voters the option of protecting our country.”Senator Richard Stuart (R-25) said he thinks President Trump is doing a job of bringing manufacturing back to the country and dismissed Surovell's notion that democracy is at threat.“I'm not seeing any threat to democracy,” Stuart said. “I heard the word king, and I would remind the Senator that if he was a king, he would be beheaded for what he just said. But in this country, we enjoy free speech. We get to say what we want to say, and that is a valued right and privilege.”Senator Barbara Favola (D-40) said many of her constituents are concerned about cuts to federal programs due to the recent passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill including threats to Medicaid. She explained why she supports her Democratic colleagues in Congress in the current state of things.“We are in a shutdown situation because the Democrats are standing up and saying we must extend the tax credits that are available on the health marketplace so individuals can afford their insurance,” Favola said. “Health insurance. This is not going unnoticed by the Virginians we represent.”Senator Mark Peake (R-22) said Republicans were entitled to govern how they want because they are in control of the federal government.“The current president won an overwhelming majority in the Electoral College and he won the popular vote by over 4 million or 5 million votes,” Peake said. “That is called democracy. That is what we have. And the Republicans won the Senate and they won the House of Congress. We will have another election next year and it will be time for the citizens to vote. But we are going under a democracy right now, and that's where we stand.”The points of personal privilege continued. Senator Schuyler VanValkenburg (D-72) said elections are a chance for citizens to weigh in on a presidency that started the process of mid-Census redistricting.“The key point is this,” VanValkenburg said. “The president's ideas are unpopular. He knows it. He's going to his ideological friends, he's asking them to carve up maps, and now the other side is upset because they're going to get called on it in elections.”The Senate adjourned soon afterward and will take up a third reading of HJ6006 today.Democrats file Constitutional Amendment for first referenceEarly discussions about a potential constitutional amendment in the House of Delegates and the Virginia Senate this week did not include a lot of details about how a mid-Census Congressional redistricting would take place.House Joint Resolution 6007 was filed with the Virginia Legislative Information System on Tuesday, October 28. As of this publication it is in the House Privileges and Elections Committee because the Senate has not yet given itself permission to take up the matter.The amendment would amend Article II, Section 6, of the Virginia Constitution to insert language into the second paragraph.Here is the full text, with italicized words indicating new language.The Commonwealth shall be reapportioned into electoral districts in accordance with this section and Section 6-A in the year 2021 and every ten years thereafter, except that the General Assembly shall be authorized to modify one or more congressional districts at any point following the adoption of a decennial reapportionment law, but prior to the next decennial census, in the event that any State of the United States of America conducts a redistricting of such state's congressional districts at any point following that state's adoption of a decennial reapportionment law for any purpose other than (i) the completion of the state's decennial redistricting in response to a federal census and reapportionment mandated by the Constitution of the United States and established in federal law or (ii) as ordered by any state or federal court to remedy an unlawful or unconstitutional district map.Take a look at the whole text here. I'll continue to provide updates. Stories you might also read for October 29, 2025* Charlottesville Ale Trail brings people to craft beverage makers, Jackson Shock, October 27, 2025* U.Va. leaders defend Justice Department deal in letter to Charlottesville legislators, Cecilia Mould and Ford McCracken, Cavalier Daily, October 28, 2025* Council agrees to purchase $6.2 million office building for low-barrier shelter, Sean Tubbs, C-Ville Weekly, October 29, 2025* Republican legislators slam Virginia redistricting proposal, Colby Johnson, WDBJ-7, October 27, 2025* Democrat Abigail Spanberger backs Virginia legislature's redistricting push, Steve People and Olivia Diaz, Associated Press, October 27, 2025* Va. Democrats roll out redistricting amendment to counter GOP map changes in other states, Markus Schmidt, October 28, 2025* Virginia Republicans Sue to Block Democratic Redistricting Push, Jen Rice, Democracy Docket, October 28, 2025* Redistricting session to resume Wednesday, WWBT, October 29, 2025Back to local again shortly after #947This is a unique version based on me wanting to go through the General Assembly recordings myself. I have a lot of local stories to get back to in the near future and I'm working extra this week to make sure I get back to them.They include:* Coverage of the discussion of 204 7th Street at the October 21, 2025 Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review* Coverage of last night's Albemarle Planning Commission public hearing on Attain on Fifth Street* Coverage of two discussions at last night's Greene County Board of SupervisorsAs expected, I work longer hours when I'm out of town on family business because I don't have the usual places to go. This is okay. Summer is over and it's time to hunker down and get to work. Today's end video is The Streets: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit communityengagement.substack.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Nixon Vetoes War Powers ResolutionOn October 24, 1973, President Richard Nixon vetoed the War Powers Resolution (H.J. Res. 542), a landmark piece of legislation passed by Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over decisions to deploy U.S. armed forces abroad. The resolution came in the wake of growing public and congressional frustration over the Vietnam War and secret military actions in Southeast Asia. The law required the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and prohibited armed forces from remaining in conflict for more than 60 days without congressional authorization. Nixon, in a written veto message, declared the measure “unconstitutional and dangerous,” arguing that it infringed on the President's Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief.Despite Nixon's objections, Congress overrode the veto on November 7, 1973, with bipartisan support, thereby enacting the War Powers Resolution into law. This override marked a rare and forceful assertion of legislative authority over foreign military engagements. The resolution aimed to correct what many in Congress saw as decades of executive overreach in matters of war and peace. However, its constitutional legitimacy has remained contested. Presidents from both parties have often complied only in part—or ignored it altogether—asserting that the resolution unlawfully limits executive authority.While the War Powers Resolution was intended to prevent unilateral military action, it has had limited practical effect in restraining presidents from engaging in hostilities without express congressional approval. Legal scholars continue to debate its enforceability and the constitutional balance it attempts to strike. The 1973 veto and subsequent override encapsulate enduring tensions between the executive and legislative branches over control of U.S. military power.Two federal judges—Julien Neals of New Jersey and Henry Wingate of Mississippi—recently admitted that erroneous rulings issued from their chambers were the result of law clerks or interns improperly using AI tools. The judges revealed in letters to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts that the flawed opinions contained fictitious citations or parties due to unvetted generative AI research. Judge Neals said a law school intern used ChatGPT, which led to nonexistent case quotes in a June 30 order, violating his chambers' unwritten policy against AI use. He has since formalized that policy. Judge Wingate reported that a law clerk used Perplexity AI to help draft a July 20 restraining order, which contained completely inaccurate case details. He acknowledged the draft “should have never been docketed” and is now requiring dual reviews of all drafts and hard-copy verification of cited cases.Legal scholars were critical of the situation, arguing that the use of AI does not relieve judges of their duty to verify citations and legal reasoning. Professors Stephen Gillers and Bruce Green both questioned how such oversights could occur and whether this reflects a broader trend of judges signing off on unverified drafts. Senator Chuck Grassley, who initiated an inquiry into the incidents, urged the judiciary to develop robust AI policies to prevent similar breakdowns in judicial accuracy. Interim guidance from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts now cautions against using AI for core judicial tasks and emphasizes user accountability.Judges Admit to Using AI After Made-Up Rulings Called Out (1)Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) has filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the House of Representatives to officially swear her in, and the case has been assigned to Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Washington, D.C. Grijalva, who won a special election on September 23 to succeed her late father, Raúl Grijalva, has not yet been seated, and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has delayed scheduling her swearing-in. Her formal entry into Congress would reduce the Republican majority and enable Democrats to trigger a vote on releasing Jeffrey Epstein-related documents.Judge McFadden is known for conservative rulings, though his record includes some independent decisions, such as restoring the Associated Press' White House access. Grijalva's legal team is examining the implications of his assignment to the case.Grijalva argues that the delay is not just procedural but prevents her from doing the basic work of a representative. Without a formal swearing-in, she lacks an office budget, staff, constituent services, and a working phone line. The number for her late father's office still routes to outdated voicemails. In contrast, Speaker Johnson downplayed the significance of the delay, suggesting Grijalva can still serve constituents informally. The case, Ariz. v. House of Representatives, now centers not only on procedural norms but also on the balance of political power in a narrowly divided House.Grijalva's Lawsuit to Force House Swearing-In Draws Trump JudgeNew York Attorney General Letitia James is expected to plead not guilty today in federal court to charges of bank fraud and making a false statement to a financial institution. The indictment accuses her of misrepresenting a 2020 Norfolk, Virginia property as a second home to secure a lower mortgage interest rate—saving nearly $19,000—when she allegedly used the home as a rental investment. James denies wrongdoing and plans to challenge the charges, calling them baseless.The case marks a dramatic turn for James, a Democrat who last year won a $450 million civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump. Although the monetary penalty was overturned on appeal, the court upheld the underlying fraud finding. James is one of several public figures who have clashed with Trump and are now facing criminal charges under his administration, alongside former FBI Director James Comey and former National Security Adviser John Bolton.Critics, including a third of Republicans according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, believe Trump is weaponizing federal law enforcement to target perceived enemies. The lead prosecutor in the James case, U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, was appointed by Trump after he replaced a prior prosecutor who raised concerns about the strength of the case. James' team argues Halligan is unlawfully serving in the role and has already moved to dismiss the charges. The case will be heard by U.S. District Judge Jamar Walker, a Biden appointee.NY Attorney General Letitia James, a Trump adversary, to plead not guilty to mortgage charge | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Strauss, Jr.This week's closing theme features Johann Strauss Jr. and a spirited dive into the Wiener Klänge im Walzertakt mit Johann Strauss – I (”Viennese Sounds in Waltz Time with Johann Strauss – I”). Known as the “Waltz King,” Strauss Jr. was born on October 25, 1825, in Vienna and became the most celebrated composer of light dance music in the 19th century. While his father, Johann Strauss Sr., founded the family's musical dynasty, it was Strauss Jr. who elevated the Viennese waltz to international acclaim, transforming what had been a lively but modest ballroom dance into a glittering art form.Strauss Jr. composed over 500 works, including waltzes, polkas, and operettas, many of which captured the charm and social energy of Habsburg Vienna. His most famous pieces—like The Blue Danube, Tales from the Vienna Woods, and Vienna Blood—remain fixtures in concert halls and New Year's galas to this day. The selection in Wiener Klänge im Walzertakt offers a snapshot of this legacy, blending elegance, momentum, and melodic wit with unmistakable Viennese flair.Beyond their musical appeal, these waltzes represent a cultural moment: a fading empire still wrapped in gilded pageantry, danced into memory by the music of Strauss. They also underscore Strauss Jr.'s gift for orchestration—light but never shallow, sentimental yet never saccharine. His music invites listeners not just to hear, but to move, swirl, and feel the rhythm of a society twirling on the edge of modernity.As we close this week, let the shimmering 3/4 time of Johann Strauss Jr. remind us of both the power of beauty and the politics of public joy. In the same way his music bridged popular entertainment and sophisticated art, so too does this moment ask us to consider how culture can move between courts, crowds, and chambers alike.Without further ado, Viennese Sounds in Waltz Time with Johann Strauss, the first movement – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

JOIN US FOR THE MEMBERS-ONLY BONUS SHOW IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS MAIN SHOW: INSERT HERE:   https://youtube.com/live/mZt0gAL-PowJOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~16 cents/day! $5/month! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join The great and powerful President Donald J. Trump has ordered the firing of Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission, and of course she has sued in federal court and received an injunction against her firing from an unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior federal district trial court judge.  The dispute over Trump's power to fire the heads of so-called independent agencies will now be argued to SCOTUS.As we all know, SCOTUS has so far tossed out ever injunction in every similar firing case involving Trump's exercise of his core and plenary Article II powers, and we have every reason to expect that will be the outcome here.To flesh out the arguments in support of Trump's firing authority, I'll be breaking down a friend-of-the-court (amicus) brief filed by America First Legal, the conservative public interest organization founded in 2021 by the great and powerful Stephen Miller, senior advisor to President Donald J. Trump himself. Join me LIVE at 4 PME T as I break it all down!I also invite each of YOU to join me in our desperate but worthy mission to save our great nation. The easiest way to do that? SUBSCRIBE! SUBSCRIBE! SUBSCRIBE! EVEN BETTER, BECOME A CHANNEL MEMBER! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join : -)Episode 1051

JOIN US FOR THE MEMBERS-ONLY BONUS SHOW IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS MAIN SHOW: INSERT HERE:   https://youtube.com/live/lpiNTk7fEgMJOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~16 cents/day! $5/month! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join TRUMP WINS AGAIN IN FEDERAL COURT!  This time the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals—traditionally recognized as the MOST LIBERAL of the federal court circuits, has handed Trump a RESOUNDING VICTORY on his authority to call out the National Guard and deploy it to Portland OR.In a 2-1 vote this three-judge panel ruled to toss out the temporary restraining order issued against Trump by an unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior federal district trial court Judge Karin—not kidding, Karin—Immelgut, citing reasoning error after reasoning error in her TRO against Trump.  The two judges in the majority—Judge Bridget Bade and Judge Ryan Nelson—were both appointed by Trump. Even better, Judge Nelson wrote a concurrence not only supporting the reasonableness and lawfulness of Trump's deployment of the National Guard, he also argued strenuously that such this exercise of Article II authority by the President simply was not subject to judicial review AT ALL. There was also a histrionic dissent by 76-year-old Judge Susan Graber, a Clinton appointee, class of 1997. Join me LIVE at 11 AM ET as I break it all down into plain English!NOTE: I previously covered Judge Immelgut's unconstitutional TRO decision here:  "Lawless Democrat Rogue Judge VIOLATES Constitution AGAIN!" https://youtube.com/live/IrjYOD-gvSII also invite each of YOU to join me in our desperate but worthy mission to save our great nation. The easiest way to do that? SUBSCRIBE! SUBSCRIBE! SUBSCRIBE! EVEN BETTER, BECOME A CHANNEL MEMBER! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join : -)Episode 1050

In this episode, I chat with Tom Luongo, a well-known macro expert and a returning five-timer on the show, about the power games behind markets and politics. If you want a hard-hitting map of the current geopolitical and cultural battlefield, this one's for you. ––– Support My Work ––– Paypal: https://www.paypal.biz/BitcoinMatrix Strike/Bitcoin: BitcoinMatrix@strike.me Cash App: https://cash.app/$BitcoinMatrix Venmo: https://venmo.com/u/bitcoinmatrix PO Box: The Bitcoin Matrix, P.O. Box 18056, Sarasota, FL 34231 ––– Offers & Discounts ––– MicroSeed is redefining seed phrase security. Check out https://microseed.io/shop/ and use code MATRIX at checkout. Theya is the world's simplest Bitcoin self-custody solution. Download Theya Now at theya.us/cedric Get up to $100 in Bitcoin on River at river.com/matrix The best Team Bitcoin merch is at HodlersOfficial.com. Use the code Matrix for a discount on your order. Become a sponsor of the show: https://thebitcoinmatrix.com/sponsors/ ––– Get To Know Today's Guest ––– • Tom Luongo on X: https://x.com/TFL1728 ––– Socials ––– • Check out our new website at https://TheBitcoinMatrix.Com • Follow Cedric Youngelman on X: https://x.com/cedyoungelman • Follow The Bitcoin Matrix Podcast on X: https://x.com/_bitcoinmatrix • Follow Cedric Youngelman on Nostr: npub12tq9jxmt707gd5vnce3tqllpm67ktr0mqskcvy58qqa4d074pz9s4ukdcs ––– Chapters ––– 00:00 - Intro 03:10 - The “three strata” of power and the unseen high table 10:02 - War frame, funding flows, and Trump's multi-front strategy 24:56 - Is this a perpetual war? Systems vs. psychopaths  28:05 - Money is changing  33:35 - OMB cuts and the 60-day clock on federal firings 43:10 - Article II power, Chevron deference fallout, and dollar “plumbing”  45:04 - Gold & silver drains; Bitcoin as U.S. collateral asset  54:04 - Property taxes as “serfdom” and the DeSantis debate  56:05 - Why Fannie & Freddie matter; the 30-year mortgage explained   1:04:24 - 2008 redo: conservatorship, AIG, and Dodd-Frank hurdles  1:23:25 - Final rallying cry I want to take a moment to express my heartfelt gratitude to all of you for tuning in, supporting the show, and contributing. Thank you for listening! The information in all The Bitcoin Matrix Podcast episodes and content is based on hypothetical assumptions and is intended for illustrative purposes only. PAST PERFORMANCE DOES NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE RESULTS. This video is provided for entertainment purposes only. The information contained herein represents temporary, changing views and subjective impressions and opinions regarding the inherently uncertain and unpredictable issues discussed. The reader, user, and/or viewer must not assume that these contents are accurate, complete, timely, or up to date. Market conditions change rapidly and unpredictably. Nothing herein should be interpreted as any kind of offer, solicitation, commitment, promise, warranty, or guarantee whatsoever relating to any of the contents of these videos. DISCLAIMER: INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE BITCOIN MATRIX PODCAST IS PROVIDED “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND FREEDOM FROM INFRINGEMENT. The viewer of this video assumes the entire risk of any acting on any information contained herein. No representation is made that any regulatory authority has passed on the merits, adequacy or accuracy of this information. The viewer assumes all liability.

Tune in here to this Monday's edition of the Brett Winterble Show! Brett kicks off the program by talking about the historic peace deal in the Middle East and the release of the remaining hostages from Gaza. He frames the moment as a major diplomatic win, attributing the success to former President Donald Trump’s leadership and deal-making abilities. Brett sharply contrasts this with President Biden’s foreign policy approach, blaming Biden for both the war in Ukraine and the October 7th Hamas attacks. He argues that Trump’s efforts, like the Abraham Accords, planted the seeds for peace and stability in the region. Later, Brett turns his focus to a recent exchange between Senator J.D. Vance and ABC's George Stephanopoulos. He plays a clip from the interview in which Vance defends the president’s constitutional authority, even in the face of potential Supreme Court rulings. The conversation centers on the limits of judicial power and executive authority, with Vance arguing that certain rulings could be considered illegitimate if they interfere with the president’s Article II powers. Stephanopoulos presses Vance on whether a president can defy the Supreme Court, Listen here for all of this and more on The Brett Winterble Show! For more from Brett Winterble check out his YouTube channel. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

MEMBERS! JOIN US FOR THE BONUS SHOW IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS MAIN SHOW: INSERT HERE:  https://youtube.com/live/5O8bjulfflUJOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~17 cents/day! $5/month! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join This week the unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior district trial courts issued yet another feckless, sure-to-be-reserved, obstructionist Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) against our great and powerful elected Article II Executive Branch President Donald J. Trump in the exercise of his core and plenary powers as Commander in Chief of US military forces.This time the feckless and obstructionist order was issued by Federal Judge April Perry, class of Biden 2024, and raised to the federal bench on November 22, 2024, after Trump's election as President on a 51-44 Senate vote.  As is common to Biden federal bench nominees, Perry has zero prior judicial experience, and her background consists mostly of working for various left-wing organizations.Perry is obliged to simultaneously apply a tortured reading to the relevant statute that authorizes Trump's activation and deployment of the national guard, as well as simply override the Commander in Chief's judgment on whether the circumstances warrant calling out the guard—the combination resulting in a grotesque overreach far beyond the legitimate Article III authority of a federal court judge as well as being an obvious violation of the Constitution's separation of powers and infringement of the core and plenary Commander in Chief powers of the Article II. Executive Branch president. Join me LIVE at 11 AM ET as I break it all down!I also invite each of YOU to join me in our desperate but worthy mission to save our great nation. The easiest way to do that? SUBSCRIBE! SUBSCRIBE! SUBSCRIBE! EVEN BETTER, BECOME A CHANNEL MEMBER! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join : -)Episode 1043

Leah is joined by guest co-host Skye Perryman, president & CEO of Democracy Forward, to discuss the week's news, including the continued pushback on the shadow docket from the lower courts and Trump's boundless abuse of Article II. Then Kate, Melissa, and Leah — along with special guest Sherrilyn Ifill — take a look at the impact of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, three years into her time on the Supreme Court.Favorite things:Skye: Sierra FerrellLeah: The Summer I Turned Pretty (Amazon); Charlie Kirk, Redeemed: A Political Class Finds Its Lost Cause, Ta-Nehisi Coates (Vanity Fair); Miolin Bakery, Brooklyn; L'Appartement 4F, Brooklyn & Manhattan Kate: Pennsylvania Supreme Court election (get involved at Vote Save America) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesGet tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.comFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This Day in Legal History: Final Draft of the US Constitution EngrossedOn September 16, 1787, the final draft of the United States Constitution was signed by the Constitutional Convention delegates in Philadelphia. Although the official signing date was September 17, the 16th was the day the finished document was ordered to be engrossed — meaning it was written in its final, formal script on parchment. This step marked the culmination of four months of intense debate, compromise, and drafting by delegates from twelve of the thirteen original states. The Constitution replaced the failing Articles of Confederation and established a stronger federal government with distinct executive, legislative, and judicial branches.Debates on September 16 included last-minute details such as how amendments could be proposed and the extent of federal power over the militia. The delegates had already resolved key issues like the Great Compromise (creating a bicameral legislature), the Electoral College, and the Three-Fifths Compromise regarding the counting of enslaved individuals for representation. One of the final acts on the 16th was the approval of the letter that would accompany the Constitution to Congress, urging ratification by the states.Though the Constitution would still need to be ratified by nine of the thirteen states, the events of September 16 set the stage for the formal adoption the following day. The engrossed copy would be signed on September 17 and later become the foundation of American law and governance.Maurene Comey, a former federal prosecutor and daughter of ex-FBI Director James Comey, has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over her sudden termination in July. She alleges that her firing was politically motivated, stemming from her father's adversarial relationship with Donald Trump. The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court, names both the Justice Department and the Executive Office of the President as defendants and claims Comey was given no reason for her dismissal. According to the suit, Comey had received strong performance evaluations, including one in April signed by Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton.Comey had played key roles in high-profile prosecutions, including the sex trafficking case against Ghislaine Maxwell and the recent conviction of Sean “Diddy” Combs on prostitution-related charges. She was fired just two weeks after the Combs trial ended. The email she received from DOJ human resources cited presidential authority under Article II but offered no specific explanation. When she asked Clayton about the decision, he allegedly said, “All I can say is it came from Washington.”The lawsuit challenges the administration's ability to remove career, non-political prosecutors and raises concerns about politicization of the Justice Department, particularly in cases involving Trump or his allies.Former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey sues Trump administration over firing | ReutersElon Musk's company X Corp has settled a trademark dispute with legal marketing firm X Social Media over the use of the “X” name. The case, filed in Florida federal court in October 2023, stemmed from Musk's rebranding of Twitter to X, which X Social Media claimed caused consumer confusion and financial harm. As part of the resolution, both parties asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be reopened. The founder of X Social Media, Jacob Malherbe, confirmed the settlement and announced the company will now operate under the name Mass Tort Ad Agency.The terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and X Corp did not issue a comment. The lawsuit was one of several Musk's company has faced over the “X” name, which is widely used and trademarked by numerous businesses, including Microsoft and Meta. In its defense, X Corp argued that many companies have long coexisted with similar “X” trademarks and accused X Social Media of trying to exploit the situation for profit. This settlement follows another earlier agreement in which X Corp resolved a separate trademark claim brought by the firm Multiply.The dismissal brings closure to a case that raised questions about branding overlap and trademark dilution in an increasingly crowded digital landscape.Musk's X Corp settles mass-tort ad agency's trademark lawsuit over 'X' name | ReutersTwo U.S. law firms, Bartlit Beck and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, are requesting $85 million in legal fees after securing a $700 million settlement with Google over alleged antitrust violations tied to its Play Store. The settlement, which is still pending approval by U.S. District Judge James Donato, resolves claims that Google overcharged Android users by restricting app distribution and imposing excessive in-app transaction fees. Under the agreement, $630 million will go to a consumer fund, with another $70 million allocated to a state-managed fund shared by all 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.Consumers are expected to receive a minimum of $2, with additional compensation based on their Play Store spending from August 2016 to September 2023. Google also agreed to ease restrictions on app developers, allowing them to inform users about alternative payment methods and enabling easier direct app downloads from the web. The fee request amounts to approximately 13.5% of the consumer settlement fund, and the firms say they invested nearly 100,000 hours over more than three years.While Judge Donato previously raised concerns about the scope of the deal, no U.S. state has objected to the fee request so far. Google has not admitted any wrongdoing as part of the settlement, and users will still have the opportunity to raise objections before final approval.Lawyers behind $700 million Google settlement ask for $85 million fee award | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at Norway's recent national election, which effectively became a referendum on one of the last remaining wealth taxes in Europe. Despite having a $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund and no immediate fiscal need for a wealth tax, Norwegians narrowly backed the Labour Party, signaling that voters still care about fairness in taxation—even when the government doesn't need the money. In a global landscape where wealth taxes have mostly disappeared, this was a small but potent victory for the principle of equity.I argued that this matters beyond Norway. Wealth taxes used to be common across Europe, but most were abandoned due to fears of capital flight and elite lobbying. That Norway held the line—even amid billionaire threats and a populist surge—suggests that wealth taxes can survive politically when fairness becomes a central electoral value. It also underscores that symbolic wins can shape broader policy debates by proving what's administratively and politically possible.In the U.S., we lack Norway's fiscal cushion, yet we've persistently avoided taxing wealth. Policymakers often justify this inaction with fears about capital mobility, but I question whether we're really more vulnerable to capital flight than Norway is. The deeper issue is political will. Americans have long treated wealth taxation as politically toxic and bureaucratically unworkable, but that may be more a product of narrative than necessity.Norway's voters showed that fairness can be enough to win—even narrowly. But I emphasize that such policies require ongoing public defense; they don't sustain themselves. If we continue dodging the issue in the U.S., we'll be doing so not from a place of strength, but from a place of illusion. If Norway can defend taxing wealth despite not needing to, we have no excuse not to even try.Norway Wealth Tax Victory Shows Visible Fairness Still Matters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On this episode of Reaganism, host Roger Zakheim sits down with Matt Waxman, a professor at Columbia University Law School. Roger and Matt discuss the Trump administration's recent strike against the Tren de Aragua gang in the Caribbean. Matt outlines the constitutional and international legal hurdles the president faces authorizing the strike. Matt and Roger discuss the intricacies of the authorization for the use of military force, and the distinctions between Al Qaeda and cartel groups like Tren de Aragua. Roger and Matt explore the White House's use of the president's Article II powers to justify the strike against Tren de Aragua. They conclude the conversation with an evaluation of Israel's strike against Hamas in Qatar, Matt finds the strike was justified under international law, but draws important distinctions between Israel's strike and how the US would conduct a similar strike. Roger and Matt finish the episode by concluding Israel's strike was escalatory and opens a new chapter in the Israel-Hamas war.

The “Autopen Pardon Scandal” House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer announced that the committee is wrapping up its investigation into President Joe Biden’s alleged use of the autopen to issue thousands of pardons. Records suggest Biden’s aides, including Chief of Staff Jeff Zients, authorized pardons using the autopen without Biden’s direct involvement. Critics, including Donald Trump and constitutional attorney Mark Smith (on Fox News), argue this raises questions about presidential authority, legitimacy of pardons, and executive power under Article II. Defenders claim the use of autopen is legal and Republicans are politicizing the issue. US Military Build-up in Puerto Rico Amid Venezuela Tensions Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Kane made an unannounced visit to Puerto Rico. The visit coincided with rising US-Venezuela tensions following a US military strike on a Venezuelan cartel vessel. The Pentagon is considering Puerto Rico as a hub for counter-narcotics operations, deploying F-35 jets, Marines, and multiple warships to the Caribbean. Officials emphasize the move is not for regime change but to combat narco-terrorism and drug trafficking networks. Puerto Rico’s strategic location is highlighted as key for intercepting drug routes. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast and Verdict with Ted Cruz Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Ford Grants Nixon PardonOn September 8, 1974, President Gerald R. Ford granted a full and unconditional pardon to former President Richard M. Nixon for any crimes he may have committed while in office, specifically those related to the Watergate scandal. The announcement came just one month after Nixon resigned in disgrace, becoming the first U.S. president to do so. Ford, who had only recently assumed the presidency, delivered the pardon via a televised address, explaining that he hoped to heal the nation's wounds and end the "long national nightmare." The decision was met with swift and widespread controversy.Critics accused Ford of striking a backroom deal with Nixon—trading the presidency for a guarantee of legal immunity. The move damaged Ford's credibility and likely contributed to his loss in the 1976 presidential election. Supporters, however, argued that the pardon was necessary to move the country forward and prevent a divisive, prolonged legal spectacle. Legally, the pardon was grounded in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the president broad clemency powers for federal offenses. Importantly, Nixon had not been formally charged at the time of the pardon, making it a preemptive act.The pardon set a precedent for the scope of presidential pardon powers, later cited in legal arguments involving other controversial figures. It also fueled lasting debates about executive accountability and the limits of legal immunity for high-ranking officials. Public opinion at the time was largely against the decision, but historical reassessment has yielded more nuanced views. Ford later received the Profile in Courage Award in 2001 for the pardon, which some historians came to see as a politically costly but morally principled decision. The moment remains a defining one in the legal and political legacy of both Nixon and Ford.Luigi Mangione, accused of murdering UnitedHealth Group executive Brian Thompson, argued in a court filing that federal prosecutors unfairly prejudiced potential jurors by linking him to a separate mass shooting. Prosecutors had previously claimed Mangione inspired Shane Tamura, who killed four people and himself at the offices of Blackstone and the NFL. Mangione's attorneys countered that there is no evidence Tamura was influenced by either Mangione or his anti-health-insurance-industry writings. They accused the government of deliberately trying to bias jurors and undermine Mangione's right to a fair trial.The government cited Tamura in response to Mangione's request for more details on what prosecutors might argue during a potential capital sentencing phase. Prosecutors claimed that Mangione's alleged ability to inspire vigilante violence demonstrates his dangerousness and supports their pursuit of the death penalty. However, Mangione rejected any link to Tamura and called the connection politically motivated. His legal team reiterated its demand for more information on the government's death penalty theory. U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett will determine whether the prosecution must share additional details at this stage.Luigi Mangione Says Linking Him to Blackstone Killer Biases JuryThe Trump administration has announced plans to deport Kilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran migrant at the center of a high-profile immigration case, to Eswatini, a country in southern Africa with which he has no ties. Abrego is currently detained in Virginia and previously faced deportation to Uganda, but the destination was changed after he claimed fear of persecution there. A Department of Homeland Security official dismissed his claims, citing that he has alleged fear of persecution in over 20 countries.Abrego was initially deported to El Salvador in March despite a court order blocking the move, prompting criticism of the administration's handling of his case. He was later returned to the U.S. in June to face federal charges of transporting undocumented migrants, to which he has pleaded not guilty. His attorneys argue that the prosecution is retaliatory and aimed at coercing a guilty plea. They also revealed that the government offered to send him to Costa Rica if he accepted a plea deal, or to Uganda if he refused.Abrego, who had been living in Maryland with his American wife and children, has become a symbol in the broader debate over immigration enforcement. The administration previously used deportation flights to Eswatini for people labeled too dangerous for their home countries to accept, raising further concerns about Abrego's treatment.Trump administration says migrant Abrego could be deported to Eswatini | ReutersThe Trump administration has officially ended its legal defense of a rule, created under President Biden, that banned employee noncompete agreements. These agreements prevent workers from joining competing businesses or starting their own in the same industry. On Friday, the Justice Department moved to dismiss two appeals in federal courts that challenged rulings striking down the 2024 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) rule. The decision was widely expected after Trump-appointed FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, a critic of the rule, indicated earlier this year that the agency was reviewing its legality.The dropped appeals mean courts will not rule on whether the FTC has the authority to implement broad nationwide bans under its antitrust mandate. The original FTC rule had cited evidence that over 20% of U.S. workers are bound by noncompete clauses, which it argued restrict worker mobility and depress wages. However, Ferguson and other Republicans maintain that the FTC lacks the rulemaking power to impose such sweeping bans.The legal challenges were brought by a marketing firm, a real estate developer, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other business groups. During Trump's first term, his administration held that although some noncompete clauses might be illegal, the agreements as a whole were not. Meanwhile, the FTC announced a new enforcement action against a major pet cremation company, accusing it of using unlawful noncompetes, including for low-wage workers.Trump administration drops defense of ban on employee 'noncompete' agreements | ReutersThe Trump administration is preparing backup plans to continue imposing tariffs if the Supreme Court rejects its current legal basis for doing so. After losing in lower courts, Trump is asking the Supreme Court to uphold his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1970s national security law that appellate judges ruled does not authorize tariffs. In the meantime, White House officials have been quietly exploring other legal tools for months, anticipating potential judicial pushback.Two key alternatives under consideration are Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 232 allows the president to raise tariffs if certain imports are found to threaten national security—many of Trump's existing tariffs fall under this provision and wouldn't be directly affected by the IEEPA ruling. Section 301 permits the U.S. trade representative, under presidential direction, to take action in response to unfair trade practices. However, neither law offers the speed and flexibility that IEEPA provided, and each comes with legal and logistical hurdles.Trump's legal team and advisers remain confident that the Supreme Court, with a conservative majority that includes three of his appointees, might still side with him. But regardless of the legal outcome, the administration is determined to maintain a public and political case for Trump's tariff powers, framing them as essential to national security and foreign policy goals. These legal uncertainties are complicating U.S. trade negotiations, as foreign governments remain cautious and unconvinced that the court case will significantly shift the U.S. position.The White House is exploring how to keep Trump's tariffs if the Supreme Court strikes them down This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On this episode of the Chuck ToddCast, the conversation turns to the political battles shaping 2025. From the issues Democrats should lean into—and the ones they should avoid—to Trump's trolling of Chicago and his administration's push for a showdown over crime and “terrorism,” the stakes are high. Chuck dives into how the White House is setting the stage for possible military action against cartels and even Venezuela, with flimsy constitutional justifications that have sparked pushback from voices like Rand Paul. Meanwhile, Democrats face their own identity struggles, from the risks of being tied to “socialism” with Latino voters to Bernie Sanders' refusal to formally join the party. Plus, a look ahead to the Michigan Democratic Senate primary, where three strong contenders could reshape the party's futureThen, physician-turned-politician Abdul El-Sayed joins Chuck to discuss why he left medicine for the rough-and-tumble of politics. From the challenges of running for office with a foreign name to centering his campaign on improving life for children, El-Sayed argues that healthcare isn't just about access—it's about fairness. He pulls back the curtain on a system where insurers and hospital CEOs collude to inflate prices, pharmaceutical companies raise costs simply because they can, and Americans are tricked into thinking “choice” in healthcare actually benefits them.The conversation doesn't stop at healthcare—it spans the crisis of trust in public health, the lessons El-Sayed learned from his 2018 gubernatorial run, and the corrosive role of money in politics. He weighs in on Gretchen Whitmer's record, Trump's overreach beyond Article II, and what sets him apart in Michigan's Senate race. And in a moment of global reflection, El-Sayed takes on the politics of genocide—from Israel and Gaza to China's treatment of the Uighurs—arguing that calling atrocities by their name is a test of values, even when nuance is hard to find in today's polarized climate.Finally, Chuck gives a history lesson on Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon and its impact on modern politics, recaps the weekend in college football, and answers listeners' questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment.Timeline:(Timestamps may vary based on advertisements)00:00 Introduction04:00 The issues Democrats should run on, and issues they should avoid05:15 Trump's trolling of Chicago got the reaction he wanted06:30 The administration wants a showdown over Chicago08:30 The administration's aggressive application of the term “terrorism”10:15 The Democratic base wants fight, government shutdown likely12:15 Trump administration setting the stage for war with Venezuela13:30 Administration needs to justify designating cartels terrorists16:45 Trump's justification to congress for military action against cartels 19:00 Trump's justification was lacking, and didn't mention Venezuela 20:15 Trump ignoring the constitution in rationalizing action against cartels 21:45 Vance says fighting cartels is best use of military 23:15 JD gets into back and forth with Rand Paul on X 24:45 Venezuela story should be consuming Washington 26:15 Rand Paul has been willing to be combative with administration 29:00 The progressive left won't succeed if they're associated with socialism 30:45 "Socialism" isn't rebrandable with Latino voters 31:45 Bernie Sanders still hasn't joined the Democratic party 33:15 Michigan Democratic senate primary has 3 great candidates33:45 Abdul El-Sayed joins the Chuck ToddCast 35:30 What made you choose politics when your background is medicine? 37:15 The challenge of running for office with a foreign name 38:15 Centering politics around improving the world for children 39:15 Disparities in access to health care based on money and connections 40:45 Health insurance is getting worse despite rising cost 42:00 Insurers and hospital CEOs collude to raise prices 44:00 What should be the cost expectation for pharmaceuticals? 45:30 Pharma companies raise prices because they can 46:30 RFK Jr. shouldn't be anywhere near healthcare 47:30 The impact of the internet on public health 49:30 The crisis Kennedy is creating at HHS and CDC 50:15 How can we restore trust in public health authorities? 52:30 MAHA's appeal is the idea you can control your health future 53:45 Parallels between public health and education 55:30 Health relies on both the individual and public health 56:30 Healthcare industry has tricked the public using concept of "choice" 58:15 Would you keep a semi-privatized system under medicare for all? 1:00:45 Health networks curtail choice and raise prices 1:02:15 What did you learn from your 2018 run for governor? 1:04:45 The disease of our political system is money buying politicians and policy 1:06:00 Trump spoke to economic pain and was able to reach voters 1:07:30 Assessment of Gretchen Whitmer's governorship 1:09:30 Whitmer tried to work with Trump at times, will you? 1:11:30 Trump is exercising far more power than Article 2 permits 1:13:15 Differences between you and your opponents for MI senate? 1:14:00 Taking corporate money is a major philosophical difference 1:16:30 Reforming public health will require healthcare pros in D.C. 1:18:15 The trend of public health officials running for office 1:20:30 How much will Israel/Gaza factor into the election? 1:21:45 Calling something a genocide when you see it is a values test 1:23:00 Was Israel justified in going after Hamas? How much was justifiable? 1:24:00 The extremes on both sides of the war strengthen each other 1:25:00 We aim, arm and abet Israeli leaders who don't want two states 1:26:00 Tax dollars should benefit taxpayers, not foreign militaries 1:27:00 It's difficult to find nuance in our current politics 1:29:15 Money in politics make it difficult to have an honest conversation 1:30:00 Having a nuanced conversation around the world genocide 1:32:15 The holocaust can't set the bar for use of the term "genocide" 1:33:45 Is China committing genocide of the Uighurs? 1:35:00 Using the word genocide can just "switch off" voters1:42:45 Chuck's thoughts on interview with Abdul El-Sayed 1:44:15 This week in history - Chuck's history lesson 1:45:15 Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon on September 8th, 1974 1:47:00 The case for pardoning Nixon 1:49:15 The case against pardoning Nixon 1:52:00 Ford's decision implied the country couldn't handle a trial 1:53:15 A majority of the country thought the pardon was wrong 1:55:00 Nixon never got his due process 1:56:15 Pardon was a stain on presidential decision making 1:56:45 College football update 2:00:45 Ask Chuck 2:01:15 Why Putin won't grant Trump a ceasefire 2:04:15 Why do Epstein victims face dehumanization when Trump doesn't? 2:08:00 Thoughts on the political salience of this season of South Park?

What does the Bible say about Jesus descending into hell? The Rev. Brady Finnern, President of the LCMS Minnesota North District and host of KFUO Radio's Concord Matters, joins Andy to talk about the Formula of Concord reading plan he created for 2025, including the questions concerning The Descent into Hell that are addressed in September's readings. What does the Bible say about Jesus descending to hell? Why did Jesus descend into hell? What are the ideas and theories about what 1 Peter 3:18 means by “he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison”? What do we do with the questions not answered by God's Word? Find the full reading plan from The Lutheran Witness at witness.lcms.org/2024/reading-plan, and find correlating Concord Matters episodes at kfuo.org/formulaofconcord. September | The Descent Into Hell WEEK 1: Ep IX 1–4 (p. 495) SA Part I (p. 262) SC Part II, Article II (p. 329) WEEK 2: LC Part II, Article II (p.401–402) WEEK 3: SD IX (p. 596–597) WEEK 4: 1 Peter 3:18–22; Heb. 10:10–13; Psalm 16 As you grab your morning coffee (and pastry, let's be honest), join hosts Andy Bates and Sarah Gulseth as they bring you stories of the intersection of Lutheran life and a secular world. Catch real-life stories of mercy work of the LCMS and partners, updates from missionaries across the ocean, and practical talk about how to live boldly Lutheran. Have a topic you'd like to hear about on The Coffee Hour? Contact us at: listener@kfuo.org.

Sam Harris speaks with David French about Trump's assault on American democracy. They discuss Trump's persecution of political opponents, abuse of the pardon power, Congress's ineffectiveness, David's proposed change to Article II of the Constitution, whether democracy in the U.S. has passed the point of no return, the future of election integrity, Trump's threats against Elon Musk, the weaponization of ICE, the dangers of deploying the National Guard in American cities, white evangelical support for Trump, Republican infighting and why only Trump can hold the MAGA coalition together, Trump's unique political talents, the prospect of him remaining in power beyond two terms, and other topics. If the Making Sense podcast logo in your player is BLACK, you can SUBSCRIBE to gain access to all full-length episodes at samharris.org/subscribe.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe D's are panicking, they cannot lose control over the Fed or worse have the Fed shutdown, which is going to happen. Trump is setting the precedent and he wants the court to make the ruling so there is not question of what authority he has. The Fed is trapped, no inflation, Trump is forcing them into a position that they will not be able to get out of. The [DS] is battling evidence that is coming out against them, the evidence is getting worse and they need to distract from this and keep the news cycle clogged with other stories. Every time news breaks against the [DS]/[D's] some type of event occurs. Trump is now exposing Soros. Soros funds the riots and antifa. Antifa mapping started a long time ago.   Economy (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1960524710342746224 https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1960494829236052013 https://twitter.com/RepJasmine/status/1960343560756056539 Lisa Cook committed a crime and nobody is above the law You don't get special privileges based on the color of your skin   NEW: Lisa Cook to File Lawsuit After Trump Fires Her as Federal Reserve Governor….Fed Says It Will Abide by Court Decision Lisa Cook is preparing to file a lawsuit after President Trump fired her as Federal Reserve Governor. President Trump on Monday evening fired Biden-appointed Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook amid mortgage fraud allegations. “Pursuant to my authority under Article II of the Constitution of the United States and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, as amended, you are hereby removed from your position on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, effective immediately,” President Trump wrote in a letter to Lisa Cook. “I have determined that there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position,” Trump added as he cited housing regulator Bill Pulte's criminal referral on Lisa Cook for mortgage fraud – specifically occupancy fraud.   Source: thegatewaypundit.com What Fed must do now after Jerome Powell's Jackson Hole epiphany Last Friday in Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell finally – and grudgingly – admitted what the Trump team has been saying all along: tariffs don't fuel inflation. At most, tariffs create a one-time adjustment in prices, not the kind of runaway spiral that demands punishing rate hikes. And even that one-time bump may be negligible if, as we have long argued, foreign exporters – not American consumers – shoulder most or all of the burden. The implication is clear: whether the impact is zero or merely a one-time step-up in prices, there is absolutely no justification for the Fed to hide behind "tariff uncertainty" as an excuse for overly restrictive interest-rate policy.   Soure: foxnews.com Political/Rights  https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1960481691606376666 https://twitter.com/AsraNomani/status/1960407636446175597 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1960714129783546232  FAILED promises. https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1960729811099308460 Obama Judge Says MS-13 Gang Member Kilmar Abrego Garcia Cannot be Deported Until At Least October 

In a letter posted to Truth Social on Monday night, President Donald Trump ordered the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from her position for alleged mortgage fraud. Citing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and his powers under Article II of the Constitution, Trump stated that he was removing Cook “for cause.” Cook responded by saying that “no cause exists under the law” and that the president did not have the authority to fire her.Tangle LIVE tickets are available!We're excited to announce that our third installment of Tangle Live will be held on October 24, 2025, at the Irvine Barclay Theatre in Irvine, California. If you're in the area (or want to make the trip), we'd love to have you join Isaac and the team for a night of spirited discussion, live Q&A, and opportunities to meet the team in person. You can read more about the event and purchase tickets here.Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: Do you think Trump has legal cause to fire Cook? Let us know!Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The DC Court of Appeals has handed President Trump yet ANOTHER YUGE court legal victory in affirming the authority of the President to cut off funding from Progressive money laundering operations like USAID and various corrupt NGOs, which had been stealing US taxpayer dollars by the trillions—all to line the pockets of Progressive politicians, court followers, and their privileged families. The unelected, black-robed, tyrannical federal district court Judge Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali, the first Muslim and Arab DC district court judge, raised to the bench on November 20 2024 by the Democrats AFTER Trump's re-election, by a mere 50-49 vote, who was also a past leader of a radical left-wing group that called for defunding the police, had issued an injunction freezing Trump's Article II Executive Branch authority.  This was at the behest of a gaggle of plaintiff USAID/NGO thieves looting the US Treasury for their own fattening. The court of appeals had initially paused much of Judge Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali's injunction, and today that same three-judge panel issued Judge Ali's injunction the death blow, making clear that if anyone could check Trump's Article II authority to freeze spending it was the Article I and Article II branches of government—and not some mere Article III judge, and certainly not some gaggle of USAID/NGOs who had been eating fat at the trough of stolen taxpayer moneys. The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble​➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.​➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examplesGet Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook

Donald Trump is bungling the Jeffrey Epstein scandal in real time. The Trump-Epstein connection is the politics news of the month, with no end in sight to further developments about the extent of the so-called “Epstein files” that may or may not be in the administration's possession. Trump's MAGA base is openly angry at him for seemingly the first time over the course of two administrations. Some Republicans have demanded answers, even as GOP leaders have shut down the House to stop Democrats from pursuing the release of further information. Both parties are using the scandal to their advantage, to the detriment of Epstein's real-life victims and survivors. This week, Katelyn and Christine interview independent journalist Ken Klippenstein about the Epstein discourse that split MAGA and might finally, finally stick to Teflon Don.Watch the full episode on Cancel Me, Daddy's YouTube channel.Links:Follow Ken Klippenstein on Bluesky @kenklippenstein.bsky.socialSubscribe to Ken's newsletter: www.kenklippenstein.comNPR's “Morning Edition”: A timeline of the controversy over the administration's handling of the Epstein filesMarianna Sotomayor and Kadia Goba for The Washington Post: House largely grinds to a halt over Epstein filesKatelyn Burns for Vox (2020): “At a news conference in 2019, [Trump] lied so often — about everything from Labor Secretary Alex Acosta's involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein case to whether Article II of the US Constitution gives him unlimited power — that Vox's Aaron Rupar called it a “master class in gaslighting.”Landon Thomas Jr. for New York (2002): “I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”In this episode, we cover:• The documented Trump-Epstein connection timeline• Political psychology of scandal immunity• How conservative media frames controversial stories• Progressive analysis of MAGA loyalty dynamicsThis isn't just another Trump scandal breakdown - it's a deep dive into American political tribalism and the media narratives that shape public opinion.

From April 12, 2019: Julian Mortenson, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, is the author of a remarkable new article entitled "Article II Vests Executive Power, Not the Royal Prerogative," forthcoming in the Columbia Law Review and available on SSRN.Recently, Benjamin Wittes spoke with the professor about the article, which Mortenson has been working on for years—as long as the two have known each other. The article explores the history of exactly three words of the U.S. Constitution—the first three words of Article II, to be precise: "the executive power."Huge claims about presidential power have rested on a conventional understanding of these three words. Julian argues that this conventional understanding is not just partially wrong, or mostly wrong, but completely wrong, as a matter of history. And, he tries to supplant it with a new understanding that he argues is actually a very old understanding of what those words mean.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: 4:05pm- Listeners react to the Trump Administration's decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Is there concern that Iran and its allies—China, Russia, and terror organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—could retaliate? 4:30pm- John Yoo—The Emanuel Heller Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley—joins The Rich Zeoli Show and dismisses Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's (D-NY) suggestion that President Donald Trump violated Article II of the Constitution and should be impeached for authorizing strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. 4:50pm- While appearing on Fox News, Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) praised the U.S. military's strikes on Iran and President Trump's decision—explaining “it was a very limited military exercise” and did not amount to a declaration of war.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (06/23/2025): 3:05pm- On Saturday night, seven U.S. B-2 bombers dropped a total of fourteen 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs on Iranian nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. In a press conference following the strategic strike, President Donald Trump called the mission a “spectacular military success.” 3:10pm- On Monday, Iran responded to U.S. strikes on key nuclear development facilities by launching missiles at an American base in Qatar—the largest American military installation in the Middle East. The Defense Department has said the air defense systems intercepted the missiles and there were no U.S. casualties. 3:20pm- During a press conference Sunday night, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Dan Caine revealed that Iranian air defense never spotted the American B-2 bombers over Iranian airspace and, consequently, never fired a single shot during Saturday night's strategic bombing. 3:30pm- Deputy Head of Russian President Vladimir Putin's Security Council Dmitry Medvedev called America's strike on Iranian nuclear facilities a “dangerous escalation” and suggested other countries may supply Iran with a nuclear weapon—though, he did not say which nations. 3:40pm- Secretary of State Marco Rubio has warned Iran not to shut down the Strait of Hormuz with mines. China, an ally of Iran, has echoed a similar sentiment. According to estimates 84% of the crude oil that moves through the Strait goes to Asian markets. 4:05pm- Listeners react to the Trump Administration's decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Is there concern that Iran and its allies—China, Russia, and terror organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—could retaliate? 4:30pm- John Yoo—The Emanuel Heller Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley—joins The Rich Zeoli Show and dismisses Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's (D-NY) suggestion that President Donald Trump violated Article II of the Constitution and should be impeached for authorizing strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. 4:50pm- While appearing on Fox News, Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) praised the U.S. military's strikes on Iran and President Trump's decision—explaining “it was a very limited military exercise” and did not amount to a declaration of war. 5:00pm- Dr. EJ Antoni—Chief Economist at the Heritage Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to breakdown potential financial repercussions related to the strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. Could Iran respond by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, and what would that mean for oil prices globally? 5:20pm- While appearing on Fox News, Trump Administration Border Czar Tom Homan discussed potential Iranian sleeper cells in the United States—explaining that the Biden Administration's relaxed border security policies resulted in “1,272 nationals of Iran released” into the U.S. 5:40pm- Breaking News: The Supreme Court has stayed a lower court order and will allow the Trump Administration to deport illegal migrants swiftly to countries where they don't have citizenship. 5:50pm- Did Mel Gibson and Pierce Brosnan turn down the role of Batman? 6:05pm- Dr. Victoria Coates—Former Deputy National Security Advisor & the Vice President of the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show and reacts to the United States's strategic strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Plus, BREAKING NEWS: Israel and Iran have agreed to a ceasefire. Dr. Coates is the author of the book: “The Battle for the Jewish State: How Israel—and America—Can Win.” 6:30pm- In a post to Truth Social, Preside Donald Trump wrote: “CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYONE! It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE (in approximately 6 hours from now, when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in progress, final missions!), for 12 hours, at which point the War will be considered, E ...

LA: ARTICLE II. @ANDREWCMCCARTHY @NRO @THADMCCOTTER @THEAMGREATNESS.   1944 C IN C, PEARL HARBOR

The Pope is dead which means it's Pope Picking season. We've got all the top contenders for fanciest hat in the land. The Judicial Branch of government is trying to impose on Article II. Which is to say judges think they have more power than the president. We uncover the judicial coup.The Karmelo Anthony/Austin Metcalf case has taken a new turn. As Anthony accumulates allies and advocates, the media refuses to do due diligence. So here's everything you need to know about the twists and turns of the Karmelo Anthony case.GUEST: Josh FirestineLet American Financing help you regain control of your finances. Go to https://americanfinancing.net/crowder or call 1-800-974-6500. NMLS 182334, http://nmlsconsumeraccess.org/Link to today's sources: https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/sources-april-22-2025DOWNLOAD THE RUMBLE APP TODAY: https://rumble.com/our-appsJoin Rumble Premium to watch this show every day! http://louderwithcrowder.com/PremiumGet your favorite LWC gear: https://crowdershop.com/Bite-Sized Content: https://rumble.com/c/CrowderBitsSubscribe to my podcast: https://rss.com/podcasts/louder-with-crowder/FOLLOW ME: Website: https://louderwithcrowder.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/scrowder Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/louderwithcrowder Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/stevencrowderofficialMusic by @Pogo