39 thoughts on “News/Politics 2-1-25”

  3. This is the way. When you target your political enemies, and undermine the President, a steep price must be paid.

    https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1885480751938081114?t=p613ORA6ETwHR77EnVNx2A&s=19

    “President Trump’s the Deep State BLOODBATH in the past 24 hours:

    – All federal prosecutors handling January 6th cases fired, computers locked and marched out of their offices by security.

    – David Sundberg, the FBI Assistant Director at the helm of the January 6th investigations, has been fired.

    – 20 leaders of FBI field offices have been escorted out of FBI buildings around the country

    – The 51 intelligence officers who spread misinformation about Hunter Biden’s laptop and interfered in elections are now banned from entering federal properties.

    – Federal employees are now required to return to the office, with non-compliance leading to termination.

    – John Bolton and John Brennan have been permanently banned from government buildings.

    – Jarold Harold Rogers has been indicted for compromising U.S. trade secrets to China

    – Ban on all use of pronouns in government communications

    – All 2 million Feds sent a resignation offer

    This purge marks the beginning of the end for the corrupt tyrants in Washington.

    “11 days in and the swamp has been drained.”

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  6. I am happy to see the promises made being kept. One of my biggest issues was the J6ers. I am glad for the pardons.

    Now, let’s get a reasonable budget passed and out of funding the war in Ukraine.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  7. wow

    I have been praying for years that light will be shined in the darkness and that truth would come out

    I didn’t and don’t know anything just praying for light

    jo

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

  8. Two paradigm shifts I would like to see:

    1. The word abortion is never spoke without the word adoption attached as an option.
    2. Deportation should be coupled with immigration reform. The INS is a broken agency that makes it almost impossible for poor immigrants to enter the country legally. Go back to quotas if that will solve the problem, but what we have in ace now is not working.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  9. Those are good ideas, rk. Sometimes it’s not enough to just say “don’t abort” or “don’t come illegally” even though those are certainly the outcomes we want. It’s also helpful to provide positive alternatives, especially when the culture has largely legitimized poor behavior which leaves many vulnerable people without guidance for good choices.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  16. “Is there a shortage and air traffic controllers? Yes there is.

    How long does it take to train to be an air traffic controller and get assigned to one of the busiest locations in America? Way longer than eight days.

    Therefore, the hiring freeze instituted by the Trump administration had absolutely nothing to do with any potential shortages of air traffic controllers that night.

    As an aside, the Biden administration knew for an entire year that there was a shortage of air traffic controllers, and they put out commercials, inviting people from Native American reservations, and gay or Lesbian or transgender or people of color to apply for the position while ignoring white people who applied. That is a well documented fact by the New York Post.

    So in the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion they let white candidates slip through the cracks because they wanted people that fit into their hierarchy chart.

    If you were blaming Donald Trump, you are a completely totally disingenuous hack.”

    https://x.com/DefiyantlyFree/status/1885453945922896033?t=xS7DyYQcLKF1qfX6VtjheQ&s=19

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  17. rkessler, 1:02: I’d be happy just to see “abortion” delinked from “abortion rights.”

    BTW, HRW, I’ve mulled over a response to your assessment that it would be a more pro-life position for the government to pay for more child-rearing expenses. I think I do understand the argument, but I think it is going the wrong direction, for several reasons.

    One (not the most important reason), everything government does is too expensive and impersonal, and I’d rather see private charity, offered to those who actually need it.

    More important, however, is simply this: The more we see children as the responsibility of government, and the less we see them as the responsibility of parents and families, the more children lose. I have relatives who have faced poverty, yet refused government aid that their family qualifies for, in the belief that children are their own responsibility. For example, I think most families qualify for free lunches today, but that wasn’t true when I was growing up. My mom told me once (when there were still three of us children at home) that we’d qualify for free lunches even if we had just two minors in the household. But we packed our own lunches, buying school lunches as a treat once a month. (We’d check the menu at the beginning of the month and choose a day.) But the more a family farms out responsibility to the government for financing their children, and rearing their children, the less responsibility the parents take. And being hands-off with one’s own children can certainly result in neglect and even abuse. Also, philosophically, children are the responsibility of their own parents (and broader family in some instances) except in actual crisis situations. Obviously if the parents die, become handicapped, or become incarcerated, someone still needs to care for the children, but it’s better for children if their parents are at least attempting to care for them.

    In short, I don’t think that the government paying for child-rearing expenses is overall a family-friendly policy or a child-friendly policy. But I do think that the extended family, the neighbors, or the church helping out in an emergency can be extremely helpful.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  18. “Now it’s the “Lutheran” faith (this use of “religion” as a money laundering operation must end): Lutheran Family Services and affiliated organizations receive massive amounts of taxpayer dollars, and the numbers speak for themselves. These funds, total BILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars.

    Here are just a few of the recent grants awarded (pre @RobertKennedyJr ) by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):

    LUTHERAN IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE SERVICE INC: $367,612,906

    LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF THE SOUTH, INC: $134,190,472.95

    LUTHERAN SERVICES FLORIDA, INC.: $82,937,819.95

    There are MANY more organizations cashing in on our hard-earned money. These entities are receiving huge sums, which raise serious questions about how taxpayer funds are being spent and who’s benefiting.

    It’s time to hold these organizations accountable. American taxpayers deserve transparency. Enough is enough!

    And there is much more where these screen shots below came from.”

    https://x.com/GenFlynn/status/1885872007062892568?t=9s_PRx2keowtfbMfIixQNg&s=19

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  20. Viewing Trump’s actions over the last week, I wonder if those applauding would have the same reaction under a different presidency. Imagine if you did not know who the president was – call it a veil of ignorance. And then view their actions — firing civil servants, starting investigations, etc. Would you be okay with it. And then when the great reveal occurs and the president was AOC would you be okay with her actions? Maybe Bernie Sanders? Rand Paul? etc

    Many of Trump’s actions will be contested — breach of contract, legislative right, etc. Is an expanded executive power something you really want. Many here opposed Biden’s plan to forgive student loans (belongs to the legislature) but were okay with Trump freezing student loans and grants despite the budget passed in the legislative and the right of the “purse” belonging to the legislature.

    Heads of agencies are usually appointed to terms that overlap presidencies and have to be confirmed by congress. They act as part of the checks and balances on unencumbered power. Do you really want every president to tear a part the bureaucracy every four years? It leads to a dysfunctional state?

    hrw

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  21. The American state has been in the process of hallowing out ever since the Reagan era. Subsequent Democratic and Republican presidency either did nothing or continued to hallow it out. My impression has been overall Biden is probably the only one who tried to rebuild some of it and even then he didn’t accomplish much in terms of rebuilding the state apparatus. Certainly Trump’s first presidency did nothing in this regard.

    And air traffic control is quite symbolic of this hallowing out as it was the defining moment of Reagan’s first term — firing the air traffic controllers. To blame one particular president or policy misses the point and its especially obvious here — the neoliberal/con (Chicago school or whatever you want to call it) disdain for government’s role in the socio-economic acts of the nation has been an utter failure. You need a viable, skilled and trained civil service. And this is not case in a country where Reagan once said the worst words to say were “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”.

    Trump will not improve this — he is continuing the neoliberal/con onslaught against the civil service. Hopefully his admin will reconsider his initial actions in the FAA but I remain doubtful. And then there’s his actions with the CDC — cutting of communication with WHO while there’s a bird flu crisis and a TB crisis. Not to mention developing next winter’s flu vaccine. Gov’t agencies actually do good work — they defend the country, they regulate air traffic, they maintain law and order and they maintain public health.

    hrw

    Like

    Reply

  22. Cheryl – I agree children are ultimately the responsibility of the parents. However, the government can establish pro-life policies to help and encourage parents.

    I find your school lunch example a good starting point since its actually quite an American idea. Canadian elementary schools do not have cafeterias and what food programs we have are morning snacks for those who didn’t get breakfast at home. In eastern Europe schools do have cafeterias and all students are fed — its free and considered part of going to school. For me its either you feed everyone or no one, there shouldn’t be a cash register at a school cafeteria. In Canada, most of the time the gov’t just gives parents the money and expects them to do the right thing and prepare a bag lunch to take to school. Obviously, that’s far too optimistic but it actually works the vast majority of the time. Depending on income, parents actually get money from the gov’t per child — from 0$ to 400$ a month (obviously you’re buying more than lunch with this money)

    But aside from school lunch, there’s other ways the gov’t can set up the economy so parents can be responsible. Set a high minimum wage — preferably a “living wage”. Until the 1970s minimum wage was roughly equal to a living wage — we need to return to this. In my city, a living wage is about $23/hr while the minimum wage is $17.20/hr. With higher wages, parents should have the money to be responsible parents and maybe have a parent stay home. Or the gov’t can have a paid paternity leave program (the US is the lone holdout is this respect)

    For profit health care is ludicrous. There is no other word to describe it — well there’s crazy, insane, stupid etc but you get the idea. Its definitely not pro life. Parents are more responsible when they can provide proper pre and post natal care to their children. Regular check ups with vaccines should be encouraged and free. Paediatricians should be available when needed. If abortions are cheaper than child birth, you have a problem.

    Even outside parenting, there is room for gov’t in a pro-life philosophy. A well run and staffed public health department – you need to keep TB and bird flu under control. You need to develop new flu vaccines as the flu changes yearly. Transportation needs to be safe — the FAA needs to be staffed appropriately for example.

    Pro-life then is more than just no abortions.

    hrw

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  23. We Re aware of that, HRW, we just don’t think the government should be taking that on.

    to which you respond, then let people decide for themselves about abortion. And we say there is another human, not being heard. We speak for them.

    mumsee

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  24. Well, I definitely disagree that minimum wage needs to be a “living wage.” Who decides what that even means? I’m not in favor of minimum wage at all, actually. But insisting it needs to be a living wage is insisting that there be no such thing as a job that isn’t. But if we consider minimum-wage jobs as an entry point for unskilled workers, for example for teenagers and for mothers who just want to work part-time while their children are in school, then they don’t need to offer a “living wage.” Higher wages of necessity mean higher unemployment, and an individual should be free to make the decision whether to take this job for only ten dollars an hour or hold on for something better. My own first job was far and away the worst job I’ve ever had, working at McDonald’s in 1986 for $3.35 an hour and not many hours a week even though I was a very dependable employee (enough so that they didn’t give me many hours scheduled because they knew they could call me to fill extra shifts at about half an hour notice). It wasn’t a living wage, but it was enough to allow me to save up for a very old used car and get a bit of job experience, and then my next job was full-time, 20% higher wages, and benefits. It wouldn’t have paid full living expenses for a household either, but it allowed me to rent an apartment with my sister and save money for college.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  25. While I was doing some other things, I watched the Kash Patel committee hearing yesterday (about 5 hours). Ii didn’t know much about him and was mildly sceptical. But I ended up really respecting his knowledge and temperment. Some of the senators were obviously favorable, some were non-committal, and some against. Of those against, by far the most disgusting performance was Adam Shiff. Cali you can do much much better.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  26. HRW, I think we will always disagree about abortion. But I like the idea of school lunches being for everyone and included as part of education. I think there are many family friendly policies the government can pursue that won’t be as costly as what we’re doing now.

    I think RFKj would actually implement some of them.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  27. If the state is there to protect the fetus/human why aren’t they paying for their health care? At a minimum protection would include basic nutrition and health care.

    And once the child is born, why isn’t the state still protecting the child? Why not supply money (based on need) to the parents so they can be responsible?

    The Catholic church and the Christian political parties in Europe are fairly consistent here. Abortion should only be allowed in minimal cases or not at all and the state has to provide a basic level care for a child. Most North Americans don’t realize the extent abortion is regulated in Europe and not just in Catholic countries like Poland. Even places like Germany place some restrictions. Yet those same Christian parties will fund health care and food programs. Poland has one of the best maternal health policies in the world. A low maternal death rate is pro-life

    We can debate when life begins and women’s rights, but surely we shouldn’t argue that society has a responsibility to take care of children?

    hrw

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  28. I never understood individual objections to a “living wage”. I understand the corporate objections but on a personal level no.

    Students are already paid a lower rate although my daughter and her friends refused to work for “student” rate. After awhile, the restaurants in the neighbourhood started paying minimum wage to the students. Their argument was simple; at 17 we are providing the same level of work as we would at 18 or 19 so we should get paid the same.

    Similarly, when we differentiate between jobs we are saying some jobs are more important or better than others. Other than skill level, education and responsibility, there shouldn’t be a difference. In countries where education is free, wages then to be closer because of it. What is the difference between a cleaning lady and a garbage man — gender and union representation and about $15 more an hour.

    When an employer pays less than a living wage, they are telling their employees that their lives are worth basic living standards. That is, they are saying their employees deserve to live in poverty. In my view that is no way to treat another human being.

    There are numerous organisations and government agencies which figure out a “living wage”. Basically its the idea that a person who works 40 hours per week will be able to afford rent, clothes, utilities, and food. Here’s one developed by MIT

    https://livingwage.mit.edu/

    To me, making sure an working person can afford the basics of life is pro-life. To pay less than poverty wages is to devalue human life.

    hrw

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  29. Debra — I was interested in RFK in terms of food safety etc. However, his hyper focus on vaccines left me disappointed. And the picture of him eating McDonald’s with Trump made me question his convictions.

    AJ — I was puzzled by your references to the Treasury department but then my newsfeed blew up with stories of Treasury officials being harassed by DOGE to reveal passwords, and other information. Apparently Musk’s underlings want more information on gov’t spending and are demanding access to department computers. However, there’s strong privacy concerns/rules here. Do you really want non government individuals (DOGE is advisory as is Musk; there’s no Congressional oversight) gaining access to government payments to American citizens along with organisations both domestic and foreign?

    Congress and the president have passed a budget. The Treasury department bureaucrats are merely processing this budget, so yes all payments should be approved by them. To not approve a payment means going against Congress and their budget. This is all basic rule of law here.

    Again think a viel of ignorance — if you didn’t know who was the adviser in DOGE would you approve? What if it was Soros and not Musk? No oligarch or his underlings should have access to this information.

    hrw

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  30. lol. Note to self: never confess to cheating on my diet lest others question my commitment or convictions.

    HRW, I expect RFKj to help a great deal with public health. Re vaccines, I WANT all vaccines to have vigorous testing before being pushed out the door. And if for some reason they don’t, I surely don’t want to be required to take them. People deserve all the credible information that is out there so they can make informed decisions. I saw at least a couple of hours of his confirmation hearing too. The people in the senate committee most opposed to him were the ones with some of the highest contributions from pharma. Enough said.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  31. Re Elon Musk– I was a little uncomfortable with him seeming to call the shots just like I have been uncomfortable with seeing Soros DAs prosecuting Trump. Since Musk’s response a week or so ago to Trump supporters disagreeing with him over H1B (‘go f yourself’ basically) I have intensely disliked seeing him in any advisory capacity. That being said, I’m not aware of actual damages he’s done–not saying he hasn’t or won’t. And I was always aware that cleaning out the bureaucracy was never going to be easy or pretty, but the sooner he’s gone the better.

    Like

    Reply

  33. This is an odd memo. But it appears to be an attempt at a family friendly policy. Maybe it makes sense?

    WASHINGTON ― The federal Department of Transportation has issued a memo ordering programs supported by the agency to prioritize funding projects for communities with “marriage and birth rates higher than the national average.”

    The unusual four-page memo also directs thousands of employees to give special priority to projects and activities that improve transportation for “families with young children.” The directive applies to all Transportation Department-supported grants, loans and contracts, including existing agreements.

    “I’ve never seen a memo like this before,” said one congressional aide who works on transportation policy and requested anonymity to speak freely.
    Advertisement

    “Considering fertility rates when prioritizing federal grants? We obviously have no idea what the full impact of that will be,” said this aide. “It’s absolutely creepy. It’s a little ‘Chinese government.’ [The Trump administration] would hate that comparison, but I don’t know where else I’ve seen a policy of ‘we need to incentivize baby-making.’”

    A Transportation Department spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

    Here’s a copy of the memo:…..

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/dot-memo-directs-funds-communities-005246509.html

    Like

    Reply

  34. HRW, the objection to a “living wage” for everyone is actually quite simple: economics.

    When I was 18 I was still living with my mother, working part-time at McDonald’s and not getting anywhere near enough hours at work. I also occasionally babysat for a family down the street who were barely making ends meet. They had their first child just under a year after they got married, and their second (born two months prematurely) just nine months later. Usually a neighbor of ours was their babysitter, but when she wasn’t available they called on me. They could only afford to pay me a dollar an hour, which wasn’t nearly enough, but I loved the children and I knew they were poor, so I babysat when they asked me to.

    One day they came to me with a proposition. The wife wanted to take a new job, but they needed full-time babysitting because she’d be working the same hours as her husband. They offered me 50 hours a week at $40 per week, which wasn’t much less than I was earning at McDonald’s since McDonald’s was only giving me about 15-20 hours a week, but I saw McDonald’s as temporary, and a 50-hour commitment would be huge, for a really tiny paycheck. I briefly considered it only because I did love the family, but there was no way I could make that work. But I wasn’t insulted by the offer: They were offering me what they could afford. And I turned it down because it wasn’t enough.

    Likewise, while I was earning minimum wage at McDonald’s, I was paying a small amount of rent to my mother, but I didn’t have high living expenses; I put nearly everything I earned into savings to buy a car. They didn’t need to pay me, or their mostly teenage (high-school student) workforce a living wage, because most of us were not supporting households. And probably most of their employees weren’t WORTH a living wage. High-quality employees could become managers or move on to better-paying jobs . . .

    But economically an employer simply cannot start with “How much money do my employees think they need to earn?” An employer figures out his costs, what he can charge the customer, and so forth. I’ve actually seen people argue, “If a company owner can’t pay a living wage, then he shouldn’t be in business in the first place.” But that’s just silly. Let’s say I decide I could use some help in my work. I want to pay someone to go door to door handing out flyers advertising my work. I decide that an employee can go to 100 homes in an hour, and that I can afford to pay six dollars an hour. Let’s say no one is willing to work for six dollars an hour; I raise my offer to eight dollars, and I hire someone. It turns out he can consistently take flyers to 120 homes per hour, so after a couple of months I raise his pay to nine dollars an hour because he’s a good worker and I want to keep him. But I hire a second employee and he only manages to do 80 flyers per hour. If the first employee is worth nine dollars per hour, this one is only worth six.

    The law of supply and demand should say that I attempt to pay a good worker enough money that he will want to continue to work for me, but I also need to make a profit. If I pay people more than they are worth, I will go out of business. It is their job, and not mine, to make sure they earn enough to pay their bills. (It’s my job to pay what I agreed to pay them.) In a pro-business economy, there will be enough jobs available that good employees can have their choice of where to work. Bad employees have less choice, so they either take bad wages or they improve their ability to work and get better jobs. But setting a minimum level of pay above what businesses can afford to pay mostly guarantees that most businesses won’t survive in your area.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  35. I have a problem with school lunches. Perhaps they should be offered for all and there should be a credit for those who provide their own foods from home for special diets. We always carried our lunches because my brother had diabetes. School lunches should be like insurance that no children go without. We had healthier meals from home than those served in the cafeteria, although back then I did not realize it and felt deprived and different. Live and learn and appreciate.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  36. Janice all public school kids in CO get free lunches.
    During Covid the lunches were still handed out even though kids did online school…not at the school house. The lines of cars … some 100,000 dollar luxury SUV’s and most new cars… grabbing lunches through their rolled down windows for their kids. 🥲

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  37. Ours get free lunch, breakfast and snack. Hardly any time left for academics. And the Covid lunches were delivered by school bus. And because they stopped having the farm women cooking real food, most of it is destined for the waste bucket while children pull out snacks and monster drinks.

    mumsee

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  38. I’m afraid it’s the most vulnerable, the children, who are getting harmed the most by bad parenting, lack of education, drugs, bad government policies or lack of good ones. I remember when we lived in CT husband came home and told me about his meeting with a school administrator in Hartford. The official couldn’t make the meeting so he went to her office. There was a sofa outsider her office filled with several young obese children. Very obese. They were swaying and seemed about to pass out. The administrator said they were going into a diabetic coma. Husband thought an ambulance should be called to take them to the hospital immediately, but administrator said it would be faster to wait for the nurse who was on the way to give them insulin shots. She said it was not an unusual occurrence.

    Just leaving everyone alone to go their own way libertarian-styled is not a good righteous option. Government policies toward families matter. Righteous policy matters. What does that look like?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  39. Good job, Sec’y Rubio. This will at least ease the tension between US and Panama.

    “Secretary of State Marco Rubio succeeded in convincing Panama’s President José Raúl Mulino to opt out of renewing its agreement with China regarding the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

    Mulino confirmed on Sunday, after meeting with Rubio during his visit to Panama, that Panama would not be renewing the BRI agreement, according to Baha Breaking News.

    During the meeting between Rubio and Mulino, the two “discussed Panama’s sovereignty, security, and economic relations” with the United States. While Rubio reportedly “informed Mulino that President Donald Trump see’s China’s influence over the Panama Canal as a potential violation of the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal,” Mulino was reported as having “emphasized that Panama’s control over the canal was non-negotiable,” according to Baha Breaking News….

    Finally, the two leaders also agreed to strengthen cooperation on regional security, curb illegal migration through the Darian Gap, and enhance investment opportunities for US companies.

    Reuters also reported that Mulino had confirmed that “a broad agreement between Panama and China to contribute to China’s silk road program,” was not being renewed.

    “We’ll study the possibility of terminating it early,” Mulino said, according to the outlet….”

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/02/02/marco-rubio-succeeds-convincing-panama-exit-belt-and-road-initiative-with-china/

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

Leave a comment