Israel, Iran, and the Trump Doctrine

 

Israel, Iran, and the Trump Doctrine

Brian T. Kennedy, American Mind 

President Trump is already engaged in an old war—and he wants to make sure the U.S. wins it.

President Donald Trump, like the American Founders, believes that this republic is constituted to protect the citizenry against all enemies, foreign and domestic. When it comes to foreign affairs, we are not obliged to fight and die for anyone but our fellow citizens. Our social compact is with one another as Americans. Whatever we do militarily and strategically is first and foremost to preserve the freedom and well-being of the American people.

President Trump thinks this is just common sense.

There is a disagreement now over what America’s role should be, if any, in supporting Israel after its preemptive strike on Iran. President Trump has authorized the use of American air defenses to stop Iranian attacks on American assets and citizens: our military bases in the region, our consulate in Tel Aviv, and the Americans living in the surrounding area. This is not an endorsement of the Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and personnel. It is designed to protect the lives of Americans; the U.S. is well within its right to do so. It should be noted that we do not have an embassy in Iran, and for good reason.

Responses by the American Left to condemn Israel were not unexpected, as the Left has long sympathized with the anti-Western, anti-American hatred propagated by the Islamic world. More surprising is the reaction of some in the America First/MAGA movement, who seem to perceive President Trump’s policy as a betrayal of his promise to keep us out of new wars. Some perspective is required, because two decades of endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have discredited the use of American military power and tarnished the strategic relationship between the United States and Israel.

Let us be clear: the idea that there will be no new wars, however attractive that may sound, misses the point. We are already in a “People’s War” that the Chinese Communist Party declared in May of 2019 when President Trump committed to stop their theft of America’s intellectual property. Communist China is in a strategic alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which includes massive contracts for oil—some 16% of China’s current imports. The CCP has been instrumental in both advancing Iran’s nuclear program through scientific cooperation with North Korea, and abetting Iran’s terrorist activities throughout the region, including Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel.

President Trump, therefore, has not endorsed the start of a new war. He is engaged in an old war—one that may well be seen, in retrospect, as World War III. He wants to make sure it is won by the United States.

Who is Israel to Us?

America has been friends with Israel since its inception in 1948. This friendship is founded in part upon our shared Judeo-Christian heritage, but mostly it arose pragmatically out of alliances formed during the Cold War. Israel was an outpost of the West—and still is. That doesn’t mean the Israelis are American or that we must die for them.

Separately from these calculations, Israel also evokes strong passions because of its status as the Jewish homeland. Many Americans—especially evangelical Christians—have a spiritual attachment to the Israelis that transcends mere politics. The Biblical teaching that the Jews are God’s chosen people lives in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans, including a substantial portion of the MAGA base. Yet there are other Americans who embrace varying degrees of the anti-Semitism that has been with us from time immemorial.

Nevertheless, the tension between these two groups has been defused throughout most of modern American history by our shared commitment to defy the Communist world. It was the goal of the Communists to break the will of the West to fight, and to strengthen those progressive elements within Western societies—and especially within the United States—that would ally with terrorist organizations such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization against Israel and America. Their purpose was to advance the cause of global Communism against the forces of freedom and Western Christendom, of which Israel is a part.

These bonds between Israel and America will not be broken easily, if ever. This does not mean that America’s strategic decisions do not begin and end with what is good, first and foremost, for America. What it means is that it is not a difficult call to wish the Israelis well in their attempt to permanently degrade Iran’s nuclear capability.

The Case of Iran

Many today suggest that American foreign policy is led by Israel. The U.S. experience with Iran tells a different story. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been at war with the United States for almost half a century. Its enmity for the U.S. was born of our cooperation in the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and the restoration of the Shah of Iran until his fall at the hands of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The overthrow in 1953 was part of a series of Cold War considerations that the United States made with our British allies to check the influence of the Soviet Union in the Middle East and ensure Western access to oil.

The Cold War, clearly misunderstood by so many young Americans today, was an existential contest between the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States was not engaged in the democracy promotion that came to characterize the discredited and failed efforts of the Global War on Terrorism. During the Cold War the United States and our NATO allies engaged in ruthless competition with the Soviet Union and its allies, such as Communist China, North Korea, and the terrorist movements represented by the PLO in the Middle East and Communist/terrorist groups in Europe such as Baader-Meinhof, Black September, and the Red Brigades. Communist China supported these groups every bit as much as the Soviet Union did. It was a global struggle for primacy. Such is the case in world affairs. Communist China’s current support of Communist groups in the United States such as “No Kings” is a reminder of this.

It was hoped that supporting the Shah of Iran would help create a pro-Western regime that could advance pro-Western interests. This held for a time, until the Shah was overthrown by a mixture of Soviet-backed Communists and radical Islamic clerics led by the Ayatollah Khomeini. The failure of the Shah, Reza Pahlavi, was in part due to his inability to maintain a regime that was authoritarian enough to suppress the Communists and the Islamists. Lacking a strong hand—the Shah, it was said, did not want to turn his guns on his own people, even if it meant his own downfall—Iran was a regime ripe for revolution.

The United States’s strategy during the Cold War was to promote stability in the Middle East through the hegemonic powers of Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. All of these were pro-Western regimes that, whatever animosity may have existed between them, would create a balance of power that benefited the United States and the West. This strategy would collapse over time. The Shah of Iran fell in the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Saudi Arabia, an economic power because of its oil exports, would come to support anti-Western Islamic movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood and its more violent offshoots such as Al Qaeda. And Turkey, a member of NATO, has come to see itself as the vanguard of a new Islamic caliphate, and has allied with Islamic forces in the region that might help them achieve this, including Iran. Although President Trump has established good relations with the Saudis and Qataris, this is a work in progress. The remaining power on the side of the West is Israel.

The fall of the Shah in 1979 led to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard seizing the U.S. Embassy and taking hostage 52 diplomats and staff. They were released on January 20, 1981, while President Reagan was being sworn into office. By all definitions, this was a textbook act of war against the United States. And it was an act of war that was never addressed. That the Iranian regime was not punished for their action confirmed in their minds that the war against the United States was just.

Likewise, there was no action taken in April of 1983 when the Iranians, intimate in the art of proxy war, used Hezbollah forces to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 63 people. Nor in October of 1983, when Iran used Hezbollah forces to blow up the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 U.S. service members. Both of these were, again, textbook acts of war that should have been met with decisive action—war if necessary—to establish the principle that American citizens cannot be killed with impunity.

As expected, such attacks did not assuage Iranian grievances regarding the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953. Far from it. The Iranian regime began the practice of having their schoolchildren recite, “Death to America and Death to Israel.” This is dismissed as mere Islamic rhetoric, the fervor of an oppressed people. In reality, it is a signal of a national commitment to wage war against the United States at the time and place of their choosing.

Iran undertook to couple this fervor with a large army, complete with advanced missilery and a developing nuclear weapons program. This was not a covert effort. It was well publicized in order to achieve the political effect of warning regional powers and the West that the Iranian military was lethal and not to be crossed.

During the war in Iraq following September 11, Iran regularly used various Shia forces to kill American soldiers using munitions made in Iran and coordinated by Iranian operatives. That our war in Iraq was misguided and badly executed does not obviate the fact that, once again, textbook acts of war were committed by Iran against the United States. Many on the America First Right today somehow dismiss all this as if it were irrelevant to how we should understand Iranian intentions. But the killing of Americans is wholly unacceptable, whether a war is widely supported or not.

It is not controversial among U.S. policymakers that Iran tested its ability to launch a ballistic missile from a ship twice, in the Caspian Sea in the early 2000s. The test missile launched had a non-nuclear warhead that created an explosion in the high atmosphere and simulated an electromagnetic pulse attack. There would be no other reason to test the explosion of a conventional warhead in the high atmosphere. This test was meant to relay to the United States that such an attack—an attack that could destroy the U.S. power grid and ultimately bring death upon hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens—could be executed against America. It beggars belief that anyone could believe Iran’s nuclear program is some kind of political theater rather than a program to wage war. Iran sits on one of the world’s largest reserves of natural gas. They don’t produce nuclear power for any other reason than enriching uranium that they will process for use in nuclear weapons.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said in March that “the [Intelligence Community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” However, she noted an increase in Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, describing it as “at its highest levels and unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.”

This has been seized on by some as proof positive the Israeli attack was unwarranted. But the Intelligence Community that Director Gabbard leads was inherited from the Biden Administration, which was and is highly politicized and historically not pro-Israel. What confidence can there be that the CIA or the DIA is right about this? These are the same agencies that promoted the idea that President Trump is a Russian agent.

It is not as if the creation or acquisition of a nuclear warhead is an impossible achievement. The Iranians are an extremely resourceful people, with a large military and very capable intelligence services. They have been working closely with the North Koreans for over 40 years on their nuclear weapons program. The aforementioned Scud III missile tested in the Caspian Sea was built on the North Korean Nodong missile design. That Iran could have acquired one or more warheads from North Korea is not inconceivable. Nor is the possibility that Iran acquired two warheads from Pakistan in the 1990s. Iranian scientists, working alongside Chinese and Russian scientists, must be at least as capable as those of the hermit kingdom.

Let it be said of Iran that for a nation that does not have nuclear weapons, it certainly behaves as if it does. What Prime Minister Netanyahu finds himself up against today is an Iran that is emboldened against the West, backed by Communist China, and unafraid to give financial and logistical support to assaults such as the October 7 Hamas attack and the subsequent Houthi attacks on U.S. sea power.

It would appear obvious that Netanyahu will never get a better U.S. president than Donald Trump. Although President Trump wishes for world peace, he understands we are in a conflict between great powers that will determine the future of the world. President Trump has also said unequivocally that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. If you are Netanyahu, you will have three-and-a-half more years of President Trump’s leadership with which to reconstruct the Middle East politically. And the president understands well the asymmetric capabilities of an Iranian nuclear missile, as indicated by their tests in the Caspian Sea. His Golden Dome missile defense system includes an open architecture to account for such possibilities, and he has urged that they be deployed as soon as possible.

Proponents of an immediate attack to finish the Iranian nuclear program point often to Iran’s millenarian version of Shia Islam, which holds that there will be a return of the 12th Imam in the course of an apocalyptic event; it is certain some hold this view. Whether they are in power at this moment in Iran is unclear. Claremont Institute scholar and International Relations professor Angelo Codevilla would often say that the Iranians may be crazy, but they are not stupid. It will be amply clear to many in Tehran that the age of the Mullahs has come to an end.

The Persians may be an ancient people and the possessors of a once great empire, but they were conquered in the 7th century by the Arabs, who imposed Islam upon them. After 1,400 years, regular attendance at Friday Mosque services ranges from a high of 12% to perhaps as low as 1.5%, the lowest in the Middle East. That the Iranians could be liberated from this Islamic Republic and could live at peace with the West would be a highly desirable thing. To bring that about, however, will be the job of the Iranian people.

As we Americans consider what is good for us, we should calculate that a nuclear attack by Iran on Israel seems less likely than an attack on the United States from a ship-launched ballistic missile, or the importation of a nuclear device by terrorists who would wish our destruction. After all, an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel—which may be fatal for Israel—will certainly be met with the nuclear annihilation of Iran. An attack on the U.S. from Iran—the strategic ally of Communist China—may well be hard to trace in the scenario just described. Retribution will not therefore be swift in coming. The need for the Golden Dome missile defense system in the U.S. is ever more clear.

Whatever decision President Trump makes during the next days, weeks, and months will be arrived at with the best intelligence at the time and with his signature resolve to put America first. Let us pray for God’s blessing on his decisions and on these United States.

Brian T. Kennedy is Chairman of the Committee on the Present Danger: China, President of the American Strategy Group, and a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute. Follow him on X at @BrianTKennedy1 and on Gettr and Truth Social at @BrianTKennedy.

Neville Singham Funding Anti-ICE and Pro-Hamas actions

 

Amazing how many faces are identified from demonstrations coast to coast

Funding Anti-ICE and Pro-Hamas actions

House Oversight Committee Launches Investigation into Neville Singham, the Maoist Millionaire Funding Anti-ICE, Pro-Hamas Demonstrations

Debra Heine, American Greatness 

The House Committee on Oversight and Reform is about to focus its investigative powers on Neville Roy Singham, the pro-China Marxist multimillionaire behind many of the destructive far-left demonstrations plaguing the United States in recent years.

The Committee is reportedly issuing a formal document request to Singham over his alleged financial support of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)—an extremist Marxist group that has been helping to organize violent anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles and elsewhere.

As the main funder of The People’s Forum, Singham, 71, has also bankrolled the “Free Palestine” protests that erupted after 1,400 innocent Israelis were slaughtered by Hamas on October 7, 2023. The People’s Forum works closely with other organizations in Singham’s network, including PSL and the ANSWER Coalition, all of which have been involved in the anti-Israel protests and anti-ICE riots.

PSL describes itself as a revolutionary socialist party that believes “only a revolution can end capitalism and establish socialism.”

The group supports the Communist Party of China (CCP) and argues that “militant political defense of the Chinese government” is necessary to stave off “counterrevolution, imperialist intervention and dismemberment.”

As part of their national anti-Israel mobilization efforts, ANSWER and PSL have promoted slogans such as “Intifada revolution” and “resistance is justified.”

A prior member of the PSL, Elias Rodriguez, opened fire outside of the Jewish Museum in Washington DC on May 21, resulting in a Jewish couple being murdered.

A witness at the scene of the attack stated the shooter chanted “there’s only one solution, Intifada revolution,” raising concerns about PSL’s radical messaging and documented connections to Iran.

The group is currently helping to organize anti-ICE demonstrations in LA, San Antonio, Oakland, Chicago and other U.S. cities.

Singham, a Maoist who lives in Shanghai with special permission from the Chinese government as a “friend of the Party,” works closely with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and state media to help spread pro-Chinese government propaganda, according to a the New York Times investigative report in August 2023. Singham reportedly manages this by donating to various groups and news organizations through his non-profit groups and shell companies.

Following the NYT report, then-Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wrote to then-U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, asking him to open an investigation into Singham’s dark money operations for potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Biden’s Justice Department took no action.

The American-born tech entrepreneur reportedly helped finance the pro-Hamas encampments and student uprisings that began at Columbia University and spread to other campuses last year.

Over the weekend, data expert @DataRepublican reported on X that Singham has funneled over $20 million into far-left organizations in the U.S. though his dark money network.

“Thanks to the investigative work of Data Republican, House Oversight will issue a formal document request to Neville Singham regarding his funding of a communist group linked to the LA riots and the CCP,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) wrote on X Tuesday evening. She added: “IF HE REFUSES TO APPEAR, HE WILL BE SUBPOENAED, AND IF HE IGNORES THAT HE WILL BE REFERRED TO THE DOJ FOR PROSECUTION.”

In a short video posted on social media, Luna asserted that the PSL is only using the immigration issue as a political wedge to promote its Communist agenda.

In response to Data Republican’s posts, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a member of the House Oversight Committee, signaled what questions could be asked of the Marxist multi-millionaire.

“Is this war on ICE and America being funded by Neville Singham. Is it being funded by China? Was BLM riots funded by China? Are Antifa Communists funded by China? Are the cartels linked? This is an actual war being waged against our country,” Greene wrote on X.

Singham  is married to Marxist antiwar agitator Jodie Evans, 70, who co-founded Code Pink with Medea Benjamin in 2002 to protest the Iraq War.

In 2020, Evans launched a “China Is Not Our Enemy” campaign, leading a series of webinars on Code Pink’s YouTube page where she praised China’s “beautiful history” and Communist political structure.

Singham was once “a big fan” of Venezuelan Communist dictator Hugo Chavez, describing the beleaguered country under his rule (February 2, 1999 to April 11, 2002 and April 14, 2002 to March 5, 2013) as a “phenomenally democratic place.”

On Wednesday, several leftist groups, including PSL, planned to hold “ICE-OUTs”  in American cities, including Eugene, Oregon and  Seattle, Washington.

Debra Heine is a conservative Catholic mom of six and longtime political pundit. She has written for several conservative news websites over the years, including Breitbart and PJ Media.

Trump Should Crush the L.A. Riots

 

Trump Should Crush the L.A. Riots—with a Subtle Hand

How the president can restore order and win the war for visual symbolism

Christopher F. Rufo, City Journal 

Los Angeles is burning. Earlier this year, seasonal fires ripped through the Southern California city, but now, the fires are entirely manmade. In response to the Trump administration’s deportation policy, left-wing activists and opportunistic rioters have taken to the streets to vandalize property, incinerate automobiles, and assault law enforcement officers. The images emerging from the city are shocking: thugs hurling rocks from an overpass onto police; men spinning motorcycles around burning debris; a masked, shirtless rioter waving a Mexican flag atop a burned-out autonomous car.

In short, the Left is giving President Trump all the visual symbolism he needs to advance his immigration agenda. Most Americans see chaos in the name of a foreign flag and find it repellent. Though Trump’s language about a migrant “invasion” has sometimes been dismissed as hyperbolic, it seems that the Left is intent on turning it into a material reality.

The question: How should the president respond? Many on the right may feel an instinctual reaction to “send in the troops.” While this concern for law and order is natural and merited, it must be pursued in a way that maximizes the chance for success and minimizes the chance for blowback. As the president considers his options, he might keep in mind a number of strategic points that, if implemented, will increase his leverage in the fight for large-scale deportations.

The administration must deny the Left a strong visual counterargument. It’s easy to see how scenes of militarization, abuse of demonstrators, or a violent death could reverse public sympathies and present the administration as abusing its authority. The language of politics is visual—and therefore emotional, which means that a single mistake can reverse the flow of opinion and imperil the president’s immigration agenda. Left-wing tacticians have trained their foot soldiers to bait law enforcement into confrontation and to play victim for the press, to great effect.

To prevent this scenario, Trump has a number of strategic options available to him. First, rather than sending in more troops to stop the fires, the president might be better advised to hold off. Right now, California governor Gavin Newsom has sided with the demonstrators, but if the riots spread further, this stance will cost him in public opinion, and eventually, he will have to assume the mantle of authority. The public will expect Newsom to restore order, and he’ll have to incur the risk of using force.

Second, the president should pressure local leaders to buy in to the task of quelling the riots. He could wait for Governor Newsom to request the National Guard or appear at a press conference with Los Angeles County officials, bringing state Democrats into the risk-reward calculus and creating the option for the president to shift the blame in the future if they fail to respond effectively. California Democrats are anticipating that Trump will assume all the authority and, therefore, relieve them of any responsibility. He should resist the temptation to be the only player on the field with skin in the game.

Third, the president should direct federal agencies to create a hard-soft, or visible-invisible, approach to riot control. In public, the National Guard should mobilize with enough manpower to smother the protests and avoid protracted conflict or hand-to-hand combat, which carries with it the highest level of risk. At the same time, as we saw demonstrated in Portland, Oregon, during the George Floyd riots, the agencies should dispatch unmarked vans to follow key agitators and snatch them from the streets while the media are not looking. The most effective riot control is to take movement leaders off the field, infiltrate their networks, disrupt the flow of funding, and roll them up in federal investigations. Denying the Left trained protest leaders now will create a strong precedent for the rest of the president’s term.

President Trump has often tweeted “law and order” in all capital letters. This is a powerful formulation—half a century ago, it won Richard Nixon a landslide reelection—but especially in today’s media environment, it must be carried out subtly and with an eye toward visual language. To reestablish order on the streets but lose the war for public opinion would constitute an empty victory and a real danger to the president’s agenda. The desire to quell rioting is a noble one, but the president should remember that, ultimately, California is responsible for California’s streets.

The president’s approach to the rioting and lawlessness should be guided by a higher goal: enacting his immigration agenda. The mayhem in downtown L.A. represents his first real test in that effort.

Christopher F. Rufo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and the author of America’s Cultural Revolution.

Trump’s Battle With Watchdog Agency

 

Trump’s Battle With Watchdog Agency

What to Know About Trump’s Battle With Watchdog Agency Over Federal Spending

The president can decline to spend money appropriated by Congress, with restrictions. Trump wants to reduce or clear away those restrictions.

Joseph Lord, congressional reporter for The Epoch Times 

The stage is set for a constitutional battle between President Donald Trump and a federal watchdog over the extent of presidential authority on spending, as Trump seeks to make sweeping federal spending and personnel cuts.

Trump and administration officials want to reduce existing restrictions on the president’s impoundment power, which allows a president to decline to spend money appropriated by Congress.

According to Trump, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974—which requires the president to seek permission to rescind, or officially end, funding—violates the Constitution and the separation of powers.

Specifically, Trump argues that the chief executive has broad authority to interpret and make decisions about congressionally mandated spending—including the decision not to disburse funding.

His critics, meanwhile, say that the White House is transgressing Congress’s power of the purse.

Since taking office, Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have sought to identify and implement budget cuts, through actions such as shuttering or reorganizing federal agencies, mass staff reductions, and blocking funds.

In response, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)—the watchdog that oversees the Impoundment Control Act—has opened dozens of investigations into the executive branch.

The office issued its first finding on May 22, saying that the Department of Transportation had violated the impoundment law in its directive to revoke electric vehicle-related funding that had been mandated by Congress.

A series of lawsuits related to the issue is also pending in federal courts, meaning the issue could make its way to the Supreme Court.

Here’s what to know about the legal conflict and the potential court showdown.

Impoundment Use

In legal terms, impoundment refers to a situation in which the president declines to spend money appropriated by Congress.

It has been used often by presidents throughout history, beginning with President Thomas Jefferson.

In that instance, Congress called for the construction of 15 new gunboats at a cost of $50,000. Jefferson decided against it. In October 1803, in his third annual address, he informed Congress that the boats remained unconstructed and the money unspent.

The legislation had “authorized and empowered” Jefferson to build “a number not exceeding fifteen gunboats.”

Devin Watkins, an attorney at the right-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute think tank, wrote that this was entirely within Jefferson’s power as Congress had not explicitly required him to spend the money or build the boats.

Supporters of presidential impoundment point to the unilateral decision as the basis for the practice in U.S. law.

In Kendall v. U.S. ex Rel. Stokes, the Supreme Court ruled that there were limits to the doctrine, however. The president could not unilaterally refuse to delegate funding when Congress’s intention was clear, the court found.

The issue has been barely litigated since then—meaning that many of the questions involved still haven’t been defined by the courts. Those questions primarily have to do with the separation of powers.

The Impoundment Control Act

Impoundment gained more attention during President Richard Nixon’s tenure in office.

The Clean Water Act of 1972 authorized federal funding to municipalities including New York City to combat water pollution.

Nixon initially vetoed the legislation. Congress overrode his veto by a two-thirds vote.

After the law was enacted, Nixon sought to block funding to New York City, prompting the city to sue.

In Train v. City of New York, the Supreme Court ruled 8–0 that Nixon had superseded his authority in refusing to disburse the funding.

Congress said that Nixon’s actions had crossed from the executive function into the policy-making function—a prerogative of Congress.

In response, it passed the Impoundment Control Act. It was the first legislative effort to define the limits between Congress and the president on the impoundment issue.

“[Impoundment] wasn’t an issue until Nixon made it an issue,” Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, told The Epoch Times.

Watkins said that the perception of policy-making through impoundment was the main driver behind the 1974 law, in which Congress imposed new limits on the president’s power.

The law requires the president to send a rescission request to Congress if he wishes to reduce or alter spending previously required by Congress. Congress then has 45 days of continuous session to respond to the request.

Within that time, Congress must vote to either approve the president’s request and rescind the funding, or reject it, in which case the president is obligated to spend the funds as originally appropriated.

GAO Investigations and Lawsuits

The GAO says it’s investigating various moves made by Trump that may violate the legislation.

U.S. Comptroller General and GAO head Gene Dodaro told a Senate panel in April that 39 investigations into impoundment violations are currently open.

If any of those investigations yield evidence of violations of the Impoundment Control Act, the GAO could bring a suit against the administration.

In the past, Watkins said, Impoundment Control Act disputes have often arisen between the GAO and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): “A lot of times, what you see is this jousting between OMB and the GAO.”

Russ Vought, Trump’s director of the OMB, has been an outspoken critic of the Impoundment Control Act, vowing to work to strengthen the president’s impoundment power in Trump’s second term.

It’s rare for an impoundment issue to make it all the way to trial, however.

In the 1970s, the GAO brought a suit against President Gerald Ford for his use of impoundment in Staats v. Ford. However, the case was resolved before being litigated.

In Trump’s first term, he faced challenges from the GAO over his handling of federal funding related to the temporary impoundment of $214 million in military aid to Ukraine.

That act was referenced during the first impeachment proceedings against Trump, though the GAO didn’t file a lawsuit.

The GAO’s May 22 report marks the first escalation of the dispute.

That report centers around a Feb. 6 Transportation Department (DOT) announcement of a freeze on new electric vehicle infrastructure grants under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021. That legislation appropriated $5 billion toward constructing new charging stations and other electric vehicle infrastructure as part of President Joe Biden’s push to phase out gas-powered vehicles.

The GAO said that the move to cancel funding appropriated by Congress is in violation of the 1974 law. It said the 2021 infrastructure law included a “mandate to spend,” so the department “is not authorized to withhold these funds from expenditure and DOT must continue to carry out the statutory requirements of the program.”

The report said the administration needs to resume funding to comply with the law, but proposed that the department could also send a rescission request to Congress.

Responding to the findings, Vought posted on X that over the next few months, the GAO is “going to call everything an impoundment because they want to grind our work to manage taxpayer dollars effectively to a halt.”

Other agencies besides the GAO have also brought suits against the Trump administration’s spending cuts and federal worker firings, arguing they are unlawful uses of impoundment.

Most of these have failed to result in court action.

One exception is State of Rhode Island v. Trump, an ongoing case involving a suit from 21 attorneys general, who argue that Trump’s sweeping executive moves to shrink the federal bureaucracy violate the Impoundment Control Act and other separation of powers laws.

A judge granted a preliminary injunction in the case.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sued on similar grounds, contending that a Jan. 24 State Department notice suspending federal funding for refugee and asylum programs violated the Impoundment Control Act.

Both a temporary restraining order and an injunction were denied in this case.

Purse Strings and Executive Authority

Trump has made the case for broad presidential impoundment authority, saying it is simply a means for the president to exercise oversight on taxpayer funding.

“This disaster of a law is clearly unconstitutional—a blatant violation of the separation of powers,” Trump said in a 2024 campaign video. He vowed to attempt to overturn the Impoundment Control Act during his second term.

However, Democrats and other critics say that Trump’s use of impoundment transgresses congressional authority.

“From day one, President Trump has unilaterally frozen or contravened critical funding provided in our bipartisan laws,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said during the April Senate hearing in which Dodaro testified.

“That is really not what the Constitution envisioned. Congress has the power of the purse period, our presidents cannot pick and choose which parts of a law that they can follow.”

Rahmani echoed Murray’s perspective, saying he disagrees with the argument that the Impoundment Control Act unfairly intercedes on executive authority.

“The bottom line is … Congress passes a law. The president can’t choose to ignore the law, especially when it comes to the appropriation of funds. So this is a pretty clear issue,” Rahmani said.

He suggested Republicans wouldn’t be as open to a Democrat exercising such power over funding.

In contrast, Watkins argued for a more expansive interpretation, noting that presidents throughout American history have refused to spend appropriated money for a variety of reasons.

The 1974 legislation could be interpreted as making changes to the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches, he said—which could render some components of the bill unconstitutional.

Congress foresaw this concern, stating in the opening to the legislation that nothing in it “assert[s] or conced[es] the constitutional powers or limitations of either the Congress or the President.”

Watkins argued that the 1974 law was a legislative overcorrection “with significant interpretive challenges,” and proposed that the criteria for impoundment be based on whether Congress explicitly set terms around the use of funding.

Often when Congress appropriates funds, it doesn’t “specify either the amount of money or who that money should be going to, or when that money should be spent,” he said.

In less clear cases, he said, the presumption should be in favor of presidential authority.

Several congressional Republicans, meanwhile, are currently pursuing legislation that would repeal the Impoundment Control Act altogether.

However, that faces long odds in the Senate, where at least seven Democrats would need to sign on for the legislation to pass.

Trump Revokes Harvard’s Ability to Enroll

 

Trump Admin Revokes Harvard’s Ability to Enroll International Students

The DHS secretary posted the announcement on X.

Aaron Gifford, The Epoch Times 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has revoked certification of Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced on social media platform X on Thursday.

The decision prohibits Harvard from enrolling international students.

“This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,” Noem wrote.

“It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunities to do the right thing. It refused. They have lost their Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification as a result of their failure to adhere to the law. “

Noem’s May 22 statement said a combination of infractions by Harvard, including collaboration with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and fostering an atmosphere of anti-Semitism, violence, and “pro-terrorist conduct from students on its campus,” led to this action.

The revocation also means existing foreign students must transfer to another school or lose their legal status, the statement said, adding that many of the agitators who harassed Jewish students, hosted and trained members of the CCP, and were complicit in the Uyghur genocide were from other nations.

“It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments,” Noem said.

Harvard University called the federal government’s action in this matter unlawful.

“We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard’s ability to host our international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the University—and this nation—immeasurably,” Harvard University spokesman Jason Newton said in an email to The Epoch Times.

“We are working quickly to provide guidance and support to members of our community. This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard’s academic and research mission.”

The DHS terminated $2.7 million in grants to Harvard last month. Noem said university administrators refused to comply with her April 16 demands requesting information about “criminality and misconduct” of foreign students on its campus.

And, finally, Comey

And, finally, Comey

Byron York, Jewish World Review 

There has been a certain escalatory logic in the resistance to Donald Trump‘s rise to the presidency. In the very beginning, when few took him seriously, they laughed at him. Then they tried to defeat him in the 2016 election. Then, some frantically searched for a way to prevent him from taking office.

Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies spied on his campaign and opened an investigation into him. Then, they hoped the investigation would lead to impeachment, which would then lead to his removal. Then, when the Trump-Russia investigation conducted by former Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller went bust, they turned on a dime and impeached Trump for something else.

Then, after Trump left office — he departed still awaiting trial on a second impeachment — a Democratic attorney general in New York filed a lawsuit to destroy his business empire. Then, a Democratic prosecutor in New York filed criminal charges over his businesses. Then, a Democratic prosecutor in Georgia indicted him over the 2020 election. Then, a prosecutor appointed by his successor's administration indicted him twice, once over the 2020 election and once for his handling of classified information.

Trump's adversaries dearly hoped the legal attacks, known as lawfare, would work — and by "work," they meant prevent him from becoming president again. But they didn't work, and Trump was elected again in 2024.

So, where could the escalatory logic go from there? They tried to stop him with ridicule, then at the ballot box, then with investigations, then with impeachment, then with lawsuits, then with indictments — and none of it worked. It wasn't brought up much in polite company, but everybody knew in the back of their minds that the next step was to kill him.

And so on July 13, 2024, a would-be assassin in Butler, Pennsylvania, fired several shots at Trump. It was an absolute miracle that he was not killed. He was saved by a last-second turn of his head that meant the high-powered bullet clipped his ear but did not otherwise harm him. Had he turned his head any other way, he would have died instantly. One man in the audience was killed, and others were wounded. Secret Service agents killed the would-be assassin, about whom little is known, even after nearly a year.

Then, in September 2024, a man who had been planning for months to kill Trump was arrested in Florida after lying in wait with a rifle in the bushes by the course where Trump was playing golf. A Secret Service agent took a shot at him, he fled, and he was arrested later.

That brings the story to James Comey. In early 2017, when he was head of the FBI and when Trump was president-elect, Comey ambushed Trump with the false story that Trump watched, and was recorded on videotape, as prostitutes performed a kinky sex act in 2013 in a hotel room in Moscow. Comey worried, with good reason, that Trump would think he was "pulling a J. Edgar Hoover" on him. Indeed, that is exactly what Trump thought, after getting over his initial surprise. The Trump-Comey relationship went downhill from there, and Trump fired Comey in May 2017. Since then, Comey has been a pretty open resistance sympathizer.

On Thursday, Comey posted a picture on social media of shells arranged on a beach to make the number "8647." Comey wrote, "Cool shell formation on my beach walk."

The "8647" formulation is a resistance thing — the "86" being slang for dump, get rid of, or kill, and the "47" being Trump, the 47th president. In Trump's first term, when he was the 45th president, resistance types liked "8645." Back then, you could buy stickers and other stuff printed with "8645" on Amazon. There is a picture on social media of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) with an "8645" sign on her desk. Now, people can do the same thing with "8647."

In his post, Comey seemed to pretend that the photo was just a "cool shell formation," but he must have known what it meant. In any event, Trumpworld jumped into action, accusing the former head of the FBI of threatening to assassinate the president. Donald Trump Jr. posted an image of Comey's post with the comment, "Just James Comey casually calling for my dad to be murdered. This is who the Dem-Media worships. Demented!!!!"

Then, the president himself weighed in. "He knew exactly what that meant," Trump told Fox News. "A child knows what that meant. If you're the FBI director and you don't know what that meant, that meant assassination, and it says it loud and clear."

So was Comey actually calling for Trump's assassination? He says no. He took down the "8647" post and wrote, "I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assume were a political message. I didn't realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down."

Comey seemed to be saying yes, he knew the shells were an anti-Trump message, but he thought it was a dump-Trump sort of thing and not a call to assassination. Indeed, that is how many in the resistance would view it. So, assume, even though after the things he did as FBI director, he doesn't really deserve the benefit of the doubt, that Comey was not calling for Trump to be killed.

On the other hand, in the context of last summer's assassination attempts, one could also say that "8647" has a new, and even darker, meaning. One can't casually call to "get rid" of Trump without the knowledge that there are some out there, resistance sympathizers, who would like to accomplish that with a gun. So using "8647" today has a sinister, post-Butler feel to it — more so than before an assassin took shots at Trump. In any event, it is remarkably irresponsible for a former head of the FBI to do something such as that.

Okay to Deport Venezuelan Illegals

 

SCOTUS Lifts Injunction on Deporting Venezuelan Illegals

State of the Union: The lower-court injunction staying deportations affected 350,000 Venezuelan nationals in the U.S.

Joseph Addington, The American Conservative 

The Supreme Court handed down a brief order Monday staying an injunction that prevented Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem from revoking the Temporary Protective Status (TPS) that prevented Venezuelans illegally living in the U.S. from being deported. 

The injunction was issued by Senior District Court Judge Edward Chen, an Obama appointee, who agreed with the plaintiffs—the National TPS Alliance—in finding that Noem’s order to revoke was motivated by racial animus. “Acting on the basis of a negative group stereotype and generalizing such stereotype to the entire group is the classic example of racism,” Chen wrote.

The government is appealing the decision and requested a stay of injunction from the Supreme Court, which granted the stay pending appeal. The court’s order will allow the Trump administration to begin deporting the more than 350,000 Venezuelans currently living in the country illegally.

Marco Rubio To Close Palestinian Embassy

 

Marco Rubio To Close State Department's

De Facto Palestinian Embassy

The Office of Palestinian Affairs, a Joe Biden creation, urged Israel not to respond to Hamas's October 7 attack

Adam Kredo, Free Beacon 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio will dissolve the State Department’s Office of Palestinian Affairs (OPA), a Biden-era creation that elevated relations with the Palestinian Authority, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

Rubio directed newly installed U.S. ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee to merge the independent diplomatic office and its responsibilities, including outreach to the Palestinians, with the American embassy in Jerusalem, U.S. officials and congressional sources briefed on the matter confirmed to the Free Beacon. The decision is meant to restore the Trump administration’s first-term vision for a unified U.S. diplomatic mission in Israel’s capital that reports directly to the ambassador.

The office repeatedly earned the ire of Republican lawmakers for its anti-Israel advocacy during the Biden-Harris administration. In the early hours of Hamas’s October 7 attack, the OPA called on Israel to stand down and forgo any retaliation. Subsequent legislation sought to rein in the office, mandating it periodically report on its public diplomacy and advocacy efforts.

The Biden administration created the OPA in June 2022 against Israel’s wishes, endowing it with the power to operate independently of the American embassy. It has come under fire in the past for its potential violation of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which mandated that a single U.S. embassy be established in the Israeli capital.

As a senator, Rubio helped lead the charge against the Palestinian affairs office and the Biden administration’s efforts to ramp up diplomacy with the Palestinian government in the years prior to Hamas’s October 7 attack.

He and a coalition of more than 80 lawmakers raised concerns that the diplomatic outpost was meant to erode President Donald Trump’s decision in his first term to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital and move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv.

By opening the Office of Palestinian Affairs, the Biden-Harris administration signaled that Jerusalem could again be divided under a future peace deal between the Palestinians and Israel

"Let there be no misunderstanding: this unprecedented arrangement—to turn the Palestinian Affairs Unit into a ‘U.S. Office of Palestinian Affairs’ that will no longer report to the U.S. Ambassador to Israel but instead report directly to the State Department in Washington, D.C., and to appoint a Special Envoy to the Palestinians—is an effort to open an unofficial and de facto U.S. consulate to the Palestinians in Jerusalem," Rubio and his colleagues wrote June 2022 letter to the Biden administration.

Rubio will eliminate the position of Special Envoy to the Palestinians alongside the OPA.

Senator Bill Hagerty (R., Tenn.), who partnered with Rubio in the 2022 push to shutter OPA, described the decision as key to enforcing Trump's vision of a unified Jerusalem.

"I welcome Secretary Rubio's efforts in the second Trump administration to reinforce President Trump's historic first-term decision to fully implement the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 and relocate the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel's eternal and indivisible capital of Jerusalem," Hagerty told the Free Beacon. "During the Biden years, I was proud to defeat the Biden administration's inflammatory plan to reverse President Trump's decision and their effort to undermine the sovereignty of our ally Israel by turning the U.S. Embassy's Office of Palestinian Affairs into a second U.S. mission in Jerusalem."

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R., La.) also told the Free Beacon he approves of the move.

"I was a strong supporter of President Trump's decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and was outraged when the Biden administration sought to undermine President Trump's historic move," he said. "I am glad to hear that the Trump administration plans to reverse course and restore the vital role of Ambassador Huckabee and important policy coordination in Jerusalem. I am grateful to Secretary Rubio for taking this step to support our great ally and friend, Israel. Under President Trump's leadership, the United States is once again a nation that promotes democratic values, stands up for our allies, and projects strength on the world stage."

Huckabee will implement Rubio’s order in the coming weeks, according to those briefed on the matter.

The OPA is one of many diplomatic outposts being shuttered or restructured as part of a massive overhaul meant to ensure the State Department aligns with Trump's foreign policy aims.

CCP cash flows to Berkeley

 

CCP cash flows to Berkeley 

UC Berkeley Received Six-Figure Donations From CCP Officials, Records Show

Alana Goodman, Free Beacon 

The University of California, Berkeley, received donations from a blacklisted Chinese research university, Chinese Communist Party officials, and a Beijing state-owned chemical company, according to records obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The news comes days after the Trump administration launched an investigation into UC Berkeley for allegedly failing to disclose funding from China, including a $220 million government investment in Berkeley’s joint research institution with Tsinghua University.

Donor records obtained through a California public information request provide new details on Berkeley’s financial relationship with China and foreign government-linked donors.

Section 117 of the Higher Education Act requires that American universities disclose the names and locations of foreign donors to the federal government. For four years, the Biden administration failed to strictly enforce the law and withheld donor names from the American public. As the Free Beacon reported, President Donald Trump signed an executive order last month requiring more thorough disclosures.

The Berkeley records demonstrate that the administration’s more aggressive approach to foreign higher education donations appears likely to reveal unsavory financial backers.

One of the university’s donors is the University of Science and Technology of China, which gave Berkeley $60,000 for its chemistry program in 2023. A year after the donation, the U.S. Department of Commerce added USTC to its sanctions list for "acquiring and attempting to acquire U.S.-origin items in support of advancing China's quantum technology capabilities, which has serious ramifications for U.S. national security given the military applications of quantum technologies."

Berkeley also received $336,000 for its "research units" in 2023 from Vincent Cheung Sai Sing, a longtime member of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference for Shanghai City, an advisory body to the Chinese Communist Party.

The GS Charity Foundation Limited, the charitable arm of the Glorious Sun Group, gave $160,000 to Berkeley for international studies research in 2023. The Glorious Sun Group’s chairman, Charles Yeung, was also a member of the CCP national people’s committee.

Duane Ziping Kuang, the founding managing partner of China-based venture capital firm Qiming Venture Partners, gave $75,000 to Berkeley’s business school. His firm was an early investor in ByteDance.

Several universities have listed gifts from China-linked donors as coming from other countries, as the Free Beacon has previously reported. Berkeley reported numerous donations from PRC-associated individuals as originating elsewhere.

Li Ka-shing, the Hong Kong billionaire founder of CK Hutchison, donated $5.7 million to Berkeley’s biological sciences division in 2023.  The funding was reported as coming from Canada, where Li Ka-shing has a foundation.

Li, whose business empire has deep ties to the Chinese government, is at the center of the U.S.-China trade dispute over the Panama Canal.

President Trump has cited CK Hutchinson’s ownership of the waterway’s port operations as evidence that China is "operating the Panama Canal," and vowed to take it back. The Chinese government, meanwhile, threatened to cripple Li’s business interests if he went forward with a plan to sell his Panama Canal operations to a consortium led by BlackRock.

In 2023 and 2024, Berkeley reported receiving $50,000 from Sky9 Capital Fund V in the Cayman Islands. Sky9 Capital, a China-focused venture capital fund, has financed ByteDance, TikTok, Meituan, and other companies closely associated with the CCP.

Syngenta, a Chinese state-owned company, donated $21,000 to Berkeley’s Rausser College of Natural Resources in 2022. The university listed the money as coming from Switzerland, where Syngenta is headquartered.

A spokesman for Berkeley declined to comment on the specific donations. He said the university is "reviewing the Department of Education inquiry and will cooperate with its federal partners as has long been our practice. The university prioritizes direct communications with legislative committees and governmental agencies when responding to their questions and inquiries."

Toward Restoring Meritocracy

 

Trump Takes His Biggest Step Yet Toward Restoring Meritocracy

The administration’s executive order eliminating disparate-impact theory restores the 1964 Civil Rights Act to its original meaning.

Heather Mac Donald, City Journal

Measured in Trump time, it took them eons to get around to it, but the White House has finally taken the most important step it can to restore meritocracy to American society: eliminating disparate-impact theory from civil rights analysis and enforcement.

Disparate-impact theory holds that if a neutral, colorblind standard of achievement or behavior has a disproportionately negative effect on underrepresented minorities (overwhelmingly, on blacks), it violates civil rights laws. It has been used to invalidate literacy and numeracy standards for police officers and firemen, cognitive skills and basic knowledge tests for teachers, the use of SATs in college admissions, the use of grades for medical licensing exams, credit-based mortgage lending, the ability to discipline insubordinate students, and criminal background checks for employees and renters. It has been used to eliminate prosecution for a large range of crimes, including shoplifting, turnstile jumping, and resisting arrest; to end police tactics such as proactive stops (otherwise known as stop, question, and frisk); and to purge safety technologies like ShotSpotter and speeding cameras from police departments.

In none of those cases has it ever been demonstrated that the disfavored standard was implemented to exclude blacks or other minorities from a position, opportunity, or right. The genius (if a diabolical one) of disparate-impact theory was that it obviated any need to show discriminatory intent on the part of a targeted employer or institution. Discrimination was inferred simply by the effect of the colorblind standard.

Disparate-impact theory preserved the hegemony of the civil rights regime long after the original impetus for that regime had all but disappeared. One would be hard-pressed today to find any mainstream institution that discriminates against blacks in admissions, hiring, or promotion. The reality, in fact, is the opposite: every mainstream institution is desperate to hire and promote as many remotely qualified blacks as possible; it is white males who are disfavored and excluded from positions based on their skin color.

If those black-welcoming institutions continued to employ a single standard of achievement, and that standard disqualified blacks at a disproportionate rate, civil rights enforcers would declare that they had uncovered yet another redoubt of white supremacy. The diversity bureaucracy in universities and the corporate world would send out the message that blacks continue to face discrimination at every turn and that they should take refuge in a victim identity.

Disparate-impact analysis was the linchpin of the “systemic racism” argument, since the only present-day proof of racism in American society is the underrepresentation of blacks in the professions and their overrepresentation in the criminal-justice system.

Meantime, the real cause of disparate impact—the yawning academic skills and crime gaps—was kept assiduously offstage.

Now all that may be changing. The presidential Executive Order of April 23, 2025, “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” sets out the policy of the United States to “eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.”

To that end, it starts the process of repealing disparate-impact regulations accreted to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by subsequent administrations and requires the cataloguing of state laws that impose disparate-impact liability, among other actions.

Most momentously for law enforcement, the executive order initiates the review of federal consent decrees that rely on disparate-impact analysis (i.e., almost all of them), with the implied goal of dissolving those decrees. (A consent decree is a negotiated settlement, overseen by a judge and his representative, binding a government entity to an elaborate set of reforms.) Dissolving such decrees will not only liberate police departments from a costly yoke of superfluous red tape but will also defund the federal monitor racket, whereby monitors earn millions of dollars declaring for years on end that the overseen police department has yet to comply punctiliously with an average of 200 or so mandated reforms, often regarding paperwork.

Left-wing groups are understandably up in arms. They charge the administration with a “fundamental shift in legal philosophy.” That is true, but it was disparate-impact theory itself that constituted a radical departure from the premises of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. President Donald Trump merely restores the 1964 law to its original understanding. That pioneering legislation banned intentional discrimination only; disparate-impact theory was a judicial amendment made six years later in response to how, even in 1971, finding invidious intentional discrimination was becoming too difficult to satisfy the advocates.

The Left complains as well that Trump’s’ executive order embraces a “formalist, colorblind conception of equality.” Yes—and so does the Constitution.

President Trump and his Cabinet must move quickly. His executive order can be reversed by a hostile successor administration; the disparate-impact regime can be resurrected with another flip of the presidential pen. The White House needs to persuade Congress to clarify that civil rights mean freedom from discrimination—not the legitimization of “reverse discrimination.” Congress must amend 1960s-era statutes to confirm explicitly their original colorblind intent.

Such a process of congressional clarification will trigger a long overdue debate: Is the United States still disfigured by systemic racism that requires the dismantling of meritocratic standards? Or are we ready to live in a nation where we can be confident that the doctor who walks through an emergency room door is there because of his medical expertise, not his race?

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Cronyism Galore

 

$$$  Cronyism Galore  $$$

Theodore R. Malloch, One America News  

Where have you heard this name before? John Podesta…

Most recently Podesta was senior advisor to President Biden for International Climate Policy, a job he took over from the arrogant, super elitist, John Kerry. You saw him pictured lobbying for the Green New Deal and at those fancy, far away COP conferences, playing climate diplomat and czar.

Podesta indeed, has a very long career as a Democrat operative.

He was White House Chief of Staff to Clinton and Counselor to Obama. He had many jobs previously in the Clinton Administration and of course, he Chaired Hillary’s losing 2016 campaign.

You may remember his emails were hacked and exposed which made him look rather idiotic. He was president of the extreme leftist think tank, Center for American Progress (CAP) funded by George Soros, the Open Society Foundations, and labor unions such as the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Most notably perhaps, if you “follow the money,” as in the movie with that memorable line, Podesta oversaw the disbursement of about $783 billion dollars in clean energy tax credits and incentives which were authorized under the Democrats so-called, Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which in fact had little to nothing to do with inflation—except that it caused more of it. 

This story line asks one curious question: how did Podesta get so rich and where did all those funds he distributed actually go?

This government “slush fund” raises serious questions about transparency and accountability. Much of the money apparently went to his cronies that were listed as NGO’s and tax-free charities. But they lacked both sufficient visibility and raise concerns about how the money was spent; on what it was spent; and who and how they got it in the first place.

The massive funding was opaque, to say the least.  Bluntly, its effectiveness and integrity are questionable to fraudulent.

Were the funds monitored? Was there any oversight? By whom? Public trust out the window, this huge sum of taxpayer money had almost zero to do with sustainability or clean energy.  The cash seemingly went to cronies as payback — and even pay forward.

Example #1 is Stacey Abrams, the leftist Democrat from Georgia who twice ran for Governor and lost convincingly.  Her organization got $2 billion in a grant from this fund which was later frozen. This for a social justice organization that went from having $100 in donations to $2 billion in just one day. It had no record or experience in clean energy or technology, whatsoever. Podesta made the award regardless.

Lee Zeldin, Trumps’ EPA Administrator and DOGE need to track all of these IRA funds—all of them, and claw them back. The DOJ needs to subpoena said, John Podesta and others involved and make them testify under oath putting all of them on the hot seat. Shouldn’t Congress have hearings?

Now frankly, it has been a tough year for Mr. Podesta. The 76-year-old has taken the No.1 spot on People with Money’s Top 10 highest paid politicians in the world list with an estimated $96 million in earnings. His actual net worth is now estimated at $275 million. How did that happen, you must be asking.

How did that enormous wealth come to be? Smart insider trading? Property holdings? Sale of luxury homes and expensive belongings? Lucrative endorsement deals? Restaurant ownership? A football team? All of those and more. Even a top-selling perfume with the name—With Love from John, and his own private brand of vodka, all putting money in the political hack’s pockets. Any graft or kickbacks?

The textbook definition of cronyism is a specific form of in-group favoritism, the spoils system practice of partiality in awarding jobs, contracts,  and other advantages to friends or colleagues, especially in politics and between politicians and supportive organizations.

It appears Podesta may be one of the biggest cronyists of all time.

He excels at payola.

A much needed response.

 

The following is a Facebook post submitted by a Palm Springs High School friend.

Susan Smith Cogliano 

"So I get into it with a friend on another platform who keeps spewing the same propaganda as if anyone who voted for Trump lost their minds and rely on him like God to make our lives better. He also accused me of being willing to sidestep democracy to get the things I want. "

I may have lost a friend because my correction was as follows:

“You folks and your propaganda are nauseating. You think it’s about making my life better?  It’s all about me? 

You know what I wanted out of Trump?

The same damn thing I wanted out of Obama, Biden, Bush, Big Bush, and Clinton. 

Those things are the following: 

- Transparency 

- A secure border

- Honesty

- Common sense leadership 

- Doing exactly what you campaigned on

- A strong military 

- An end to political indoctrination  in our schools

- Respect for personal freedom 

- And someone who would think about America first before giving everything to the world while his own people suffer. 

Not one of them came through. Each one of them failed. Most didn’t even try. They just faked it well enough that you are still pining for their pipe dream. But guess who did come through? As flawed as he is as a person, it was freaking Trump.  A man I was never a fan of personally but respect because he does the hell what he says he’s going to do or tries. 

That’s what I voted for. Not some polished fake politician who pretends to be an angel but is doing the devils work as we are distracted by their platitudes and symbolic gestures that get us absolutely no where. 

No one is side stepping democracy, genius. By the way, we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. 

But let’s go with your twisted idea of democracy. 

Was it democracy when Biden coerced Big Tech into silencing millions of Americans for their opinions and thoughts? 

Was it democracy when that old man lied to you and told you he didn’t know about his sons dealings and that the laptop didn’t exist? Because for many that may have changed their vote in the 2020 election if they knew then candidate Biden was compromised. 

Was it democracy when he got 51 intelligence agents who we are supposed to trust, to go along with the lie and call it Russian disinformation? 

Was it democracy to force people to choose between feeding their damn family and a damn shot in the arm that is causing damage to a lot of people?

Was it democracy when Biden flew in hundreds of thousands of migrants in the middle of the night without telling us and also opened the borders?  Did we the American people have a say in that?  No the heck we didn’t. 

Was it democracy when if we question elections or vaccines that we get silenced and are forced to self sensor just to survive? 

It that’s your democracy? You can keep that crap bro, respectfully.  

Trump is no God or saint but it’s a damn shame it took a flawed man to do right by the American people. He’s showing you how corrupt your government truly is and I’m here for it. No regrets whatsoever.”

Now They Tell Us

Who has my ice-cream cone?

Now They Tell Us:

How Top Democrats Changed Their Tune on Biden's Decline After the Election

In a cruel twist of irony, Hillary Clinton may have been the only one

who wasn't lying

Andrew Stiles, The Free Beacon

Mainstream journalists spent the last four years "speaking truth to power" by helping Democrats lie to the American people about the extent of Joe Biden's cognitive decline. The truth can finally be told now that the election is over.

The first of several books about the Democratic Party's scandalous cover-up, Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, came out earlier this month. Excerpts from the upcoming titles, such as Uncharted: How Trump Beat Biden, Harris, and the Odds in the Wildest Campaign in History by Chris Whipple, have leaked to the press in an effort to juice sales. The revelations contained in these works of postelection journalism reveal the alarming disparity between what leading Democratic politicians and White House aides felt privately about Biden's cognitive health (very concerned) and their public comments defending the president from criticism.

Ron Klain

After serving as White House chief of staff from 2021-2023, Klain returned in 2024 to help Biden prepare for the now infamous CNN debate. Klain was "startled" by the president's condition during their first meeting, Whipple writes in Uncharted. "He'd never seen him so exhausted and out of it. Biden was unaware of what was happening in his own campaign. Halfway through the session, the president excused himself and went off to sit by the pool." Klain was "struck by how out of touch with American politics" Biden was, and after watching the president appear "fatigued, befuddled, and disengaged" during limited prep sessions, he "feared the debate with Trump would be a nationally televised disaster."

Klain offered a remarkably different account several days after the debate in July 2024. "As the president said, he had a bad night, his practices were better, and he was tired from all the back and forth travel around the world, and was suffering from a cold that really constrained his voice and constrained his ability to be forceful in the debate," Klain said on MSNBC. "But the president is absolutely sharp, fit, on top of his game. People can see that for themselves. You don’t have to take my word for it."

Mike Donilon

The longtime Biden adviser "swears he never saw the president mentally diminished," according to Whipple. It sounds absurd because it is. Few people interacted with Biden more than Donilon. He was among the small group of advisers who, according to Allen and Parnes, "formed a cocoon around Biden that tightened and hardened with each passing month" during the 2024 campaign. He attended the same debate sessions that had "startled" Klain. The most charitable explanation, Whipple writes, is that Donilon and others in Biden's inner circle "believed what they wanted to believe" out of a "desire to cling to power."

The authors of Fight report that Donilon was indeed desperate to maintain his White House perks. "Nobody walks away from this," Donilon told a prominent Democrat. "No one walks away from the house, the plane, the helicopter." Another Biden ally recalls: "Donilon was one hundred percent. All of the people around him. They’re my friends but for a lot of them, this was job security and this was as good a job as they’re ever gonna get." Donilon's attitude toward the Democrats, who called on Biden to drop out of the race, Allen and Parnes write, "amounted to 'Fuck them.'" Now that the perks are gone, a bitter Donilon has accused Democratic leaders of sabotaging Biden's campaign. "Lots of people have terrible debates," he said at a Harvard event in February. "Usually, the party doesn’t lose its mind. But that’s what happened—it just melted down."

Jamal Simmons

While serving as Kamala Harris's communications director in 2023, Simmons "developed an entire messaging plan" to prepare for the possibility that Biden could die in office. He compiled a spreadsheet of federal judges and their place of residence that Simmons carried with him while traveling with Harris. The goal was to be able to get Harris sworn in as president as quickly as possible in the event of Biden's demise. "Anything can happen to any president, Simmons thought. But the likelihood of Biden dying is greater," Allen and Parnes explained in Fight.

Simmons, who left the VP's office later that year for a commentator gig at CNN, was among the many Democrats who defended Biden by accusing Republicans of promoting "fake" videos and other forms of misinformation about the president's health. "The president of the United States' body moves a little slower, but his mind is just as quick as ever," Simmons said on CNN several days before the disastrous debate. "So these [videos of Biden wandering around like a dementia patient] are cheap fakes—what the White House and Biden people call them—I think we all need to be a little careful about what it is that we put out there." Alas, his prediction that Biden's upcoming debate performance would prove that the president was capable of serving another term did not pan out.

Barack Obama

The former president was "shocked" but "not surprised" when Biden bragged about finally beating Medicare on the debate stage, according to Allen and Parnes. "Obama knew from experience how the job aged a man, and he could see the effects when he watched Biden on television and in their rare joint appearances." One of those appearances was at a Hollywood fundraiser that made headlines after a video clip showed Obama gingerly leading Biden off stage after the president appeared to freeze up. In their first conversation after the debate, Obama tried to "subtly guide Biden toward his own conclusion that there was no light at the end of this tunnel."

Obama did not share these views publicly. Instead, he meekly offered support for the president like a total coward, a move that undermined his own desire to see Biden leave the race. "Bad debate nights happen," he wrote on X. "Trust me, I know. But this election is still a choice between someone who has fought for ordinary folks his entire life and someone who only cares about himself. Between someone who tells the truth; who knows right from wrong and will give it to the American people straight — and someone who lies through his teeth for his own benefit. Last night didn’t change that, and it’s why so much is at stake in November." 

After Biden dropped out, Obama campaigned passionately for Harris despite telling Democrats in private conversations that she was a bad candidate who would "lose to Trump."

Nancy Pelosi

The former House speaker knew Biden wasn't in great shape. "In between roll call votes on the House floor several hours before the debate, lawmakers confessed their fears of a Trump romp to Pelosi," Allen and Parnes write. "Biden did not look sharp. Some suspected that his limited contact with them—and avoidance of the media—suggested an even steeper decline." Pelosi had been among those urging Biden not to debate Trump because she wasn't confident in his ability to avoid public humiliation.

Nevertheless, Pelosi persisted in praising Biden. Three weeks prior to the debate disaster, she attacked the Wall Street Journal for reporting that Biden "had shown signs of slipping." Pelosi slammed the "hit piece" and insisted that Democrats in Congress were impressed by the president's "wisdom, experience, strength and strategic thinking." She continued to applaud Biden's intellectual fortitude, albeit in more muted terms, in the days following the debate. "When I debate with him about legislation—and not debate, but discuss it with him, he’s right there," Pelosi said on CNN. "It was a bad night. It was a great presidency."

Hillary Clinton

Ironically, the notorious liar may have been one of the only Democrats telling the truth when she defended Biden's initial decision to stay in the race. She appears to have genuinely believed that Biden was perfectly healthy and capable of serving another four years. Hillary hadn't spent much time with the president, but her own narcissism compelled her to sympathize with the octogenarian (and fellow) narcissist. She "saw herself in the Republican attacks and TV punditry focused on Biden's condition," according to the authors of Fight. "She certainly didn’t think there was anything wrong with him," one Clinton ally said. "She is someone who has had her health questioned for twenty years and knows that this kind of stuff is bullshit."

The morning after the debate in June 2024, Hillary leapt to the president's defense. "The choice in this election remains very simple," she wrote on X. "I'll be voting Biden." Hillary and her nominal husband, accused rapist Bill Clinton, privately urged Democratic donors to stick with Biden, according to a CNN report published on July 20, 2024. Biden dropped out the next day.