Ghislaine Maxwell: Lying Her Head Off For a Pardon

"Kristy Greenberg, former top prosecutor and host of Courtside with Kristy Greenberg, breaks down the transcript of the interview Todd Blanche had with Ghislaine Maxwell." 

Source:Talking Feds With Harry Litman with a look at Ghislaine Maxwell and her "friend" Donald J. Trump.

From Talking Heads With Harry Litman

"The Client List Cover-Up: Why Maxwell’s Story Doesn’t Add Up" 

Source:Nancy Grace with a look at Ghislaine Maxwell's story.

From Nancy Grace

From what I wrote about this story last week relating to the Epstein files: 

"The speculation (and I'm sure it's true) is that the reason why President Trump doesn't want his Attorney General Pam Bondi, to release the Epstein files, because he knows he's all over them and it would be very embarrassing for him. Even though there's probably nothing in them that could probably incriminate him of anything relating to Jeffrey Epstein. 

But my point is, for reasons that I've already laid out, is Donald Trump literally has nothing to lose here in releasing them. He's already the most unpopular 2nd term President, at least in the television and internet age. People who dislike and hate him now, won't dislike and hate him more after those files are released to the public... 

From The New Democrat

I'll tell you what I personally think of this story. (Even if you are completely not interested in what I have to say about this) But before I do that, there are 2 excellent points that David Axelrod and Kristy Greenberg have made about this story, that I want you to focus on, first. 

CNN political analyst David Axelrod, who is a longtime Democrat, including Democratic political strategist, is also perhaps the best Democratic analyst and political analyst in general, when it comes to tossing out the garbage (to put it mildly) and laying out "what's what and who's who" and just putting it out there. I think he had the best social media post about Ghislaine Maxwell and the word "inappropriate", when he said: 

"Two questions:

1) What does a convicted sex trafficker consider "inappropriate?"

2) If she WERE trying to win a parole or commutation--or a transfer to a minimum security, "Club Fed" prison camp--aren't these precisely the things she would say?" 

From David Axelrod

I think Kristy Greenberg hit a home rune (or, should I say "grand slam" since that word has something to do with both baseball and tennis and the US Open is going on right now) when she was talking about Ghislaine Maxwell and the word "inappropriate". Greenberg was talking about the interview that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche (who still seems to think that he's Donald Trump's defense lawyer) and he asked Maxwell: 

"Did you ever hear Mr. Epstein ever say or do anything that President Trump did anything inappropriate with anybody in your world?" 

And Maxwell responded with: 

"Absolutely never in any context."

So Kristy Greenberg's point here is that you don't let the defendant (or in this case convict) get to decide for you what is "inappropriate" and what is "appropriate". She's been in prison for 5 years now because she was convicted of a lot of inappropriate actions. (And based on the evidence, did some really inappropriate things) And we're not talking about serial jaywalker, (if you are a serial jaywalker, stay out of Washington and Chicago right now) or a shoplifter, who only steals because they are addicted to gum. 

In Ghislaine Maxwell's case, we're talking about a sex trafficker, who was involved with Jeffrey Epstein in this criminal enterprise, for 20-25 years, before they finally got caught in 2019. But according to Deputy Attorney General Blanche, she qualifies as someone who knows the difference between "appropriate" and "inappropriate". If Ghislaine Maxwell knows anything about "inappropriate", she knows how to behave very badly. And even how to get way with it, up to a point. She was a woman behaving very badly, for. a very long time. 

And if the Deputy Attorney General of the United States is going to make Ghislaine Maxwell a spokesperson for what's "appropriate" and "inappropriate"... why stop there? Why not he invite the Idaho college serial murderer Bryan Kohberger to give a series of speeches on the importance of human life and being pro-life? He could give those speeches from his prison cell since we all know how private of an individual he his and doesn't like coming out of his closet very often. 

I don't want to make too much light of Bryan Kohberger, (even though I have already done that) but and I think this is Kristy Greenberg's point here, when you give the power to the defendant, to decide what's "inappropriate" or "appropriate" and you are a government attorney, (like I don't know, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States) you are no longer acting as the attorney for the people here. You are now acting like a defense attorney, who wants to make the convict here (Ghislaine Maxwell) a friendly witness for some other case that you are working on here. The only thing that Mr. Blanche is trying to do here, is to clear his client, Donald Trump, of having anything inappropriate to do with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. 

We have an expression... or joke, here at The New Democrat about liars. And it goes something like: "She has the credibility of a compulsive liar". And if we were talking about a man here... replace "she" with "he" in our little expression. If the Southern District of New York didn't have Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein dead to rights on the sex trafficking, where Epstein is probably looking at life in prison, if he didn't take his own life and went to trial and Maxwell got 20 years, she would be a convicted perjurer right now, as well.

And yet this is the person that Trump.Inc wants to use as their character witness to prove that Mr. Trump wasn't seriously involved with either of these distinguished individuals. Back in 2017, President Trump said he thought the U.S. Department of Justice was his own personal law firm. 8 years later, looks like he's gotten that wish. 

You can follow me on Threads and Facebook.

You can also se this post on WordPress.

News Nation Now: Donald Trump Goading JB Pritzker Into Confrontation: Geraldo Rivera

"As President Donald Trump and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker continue to trade barbs over the possibility of National Guard troops in Chicago, NewsNation contributor Geraldo Rivera says Pritzker may be taking Trump’s bait." 

Source:News Nation talking to longtime talk show host and TV anchor, Geraldo (don't ever call me Gerry, if you know what's good for you) Rivera. 

From News Nation

At risk of sounding like Chris Cuomo (who is also a News Nation anchor) and sound like I'm trying to have it both ways and agree with both sides here, or argue that "both sides are at fault", etc... I'm going to take that risk anyway and for this reason: Geraldo Rivera is right that this Federal takeover of big cities when it comes to their law enforcement, is a distraction for Democrats. But I just wouldn't use the language that he would used here. 

I think the best way to describe Donald John Trump as a politician, is that he's a machine gun politician. Because the President is a machine gun politician, he can do so much damage, to so many people and things, including our most valuable and important institutions, that his opponents never have the time and resources to focus on every important bad thing that he does. 

That's 1 way you can govern in this country with a 40% (give or take) approval rating and a 55% (give or take disapproval rating) because the people (at least anyone who pays attention to all his irresponsible nonsense) see 1 bad thing, or several at a time and simply don't have the time to get all the information that they need about every bad action that Machine Gun Trump takes. 

The President can strike so many people and things and the exact same time, that his opponents, including Republicans, don't have the time or resources to focus on everything and leave out important issues, like the Federal takeovers of municipal police departments, when Democrats should really just be talking about Donald Trump's tariff driven, weak economy and his attempted coverup up the Epstein files. If Democrats leaders, including governors, were politically smart (and it never snowed in Chicago again) they would not put this police takeover aside... but what they would essentially say is something like: 

"Our crimes rates are actually lower than what you see in rural red states and small towns. (On a per-capita base) We completely disagree with this Federal overreach here and we're going to see President Trump to court on this". 

And move on to bigger and more important things, like the bad Trump economy and the coverup of the Epstein files. 

But since since a lot of these Democratic politicians are so politically inept, (stupid, would be more accurate) and perhaps can only get elected in deep blue states like Illinois and can sound like dishwashers trying to give a lecture on how to perform brain surgery, or Donald Trump trying to give a lecture on aviation (which he actually tried to do) as far as how they practice politics, they get the media talking about how they much they dislike President Trump, as well as crime in big, blue cities... but also calling him every name in the book that they can possibly think of, while they're doing live press conferences. Which might be good for the left-wing, partisan base of the Democratic Party, but hurts them everywhere else, perhaps even with their own voters. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Nick Gillespie: Did MAGA Kill The Tea Party?

"Former Rep. Justin Amash and Fox News’ Kennedy join Nick Gillespie to examine how MAGA populism reshaped the Tea Party’s limited-government mission, why Congress no longer acts as a check on power, and what it will take to spark a new libertarian revival... 

From Reason Magazine

"In 2008, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) ran for the Republican presidential nomination and did surprisingly well with a campaign focused on stopping the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, ending the Federal Reserve, and reducing the size and spending of the federal government. Two years later, the Tea Party movement burst on the scene, bringing people like Paul’s son Rand to the Senate and one of today’s guests, Justin Amash, to the House of Representatives. In 2012, Ron Paul again ran for the GOP nod, finishing second to the eventual nominee Mitt Romney, and helping to usher in what The New York Times called “the libertarian moment.”

What happened to the Ron Paul Revolution’s and Tea Party’s promise to shrink government, especially once Donald Trump and the MAGA movement emerged in 2015? Did the broad-based alliance that rose to cut spending and limit power transmogrify into one that prizes wielding the state instead of restraining it?

Today’s episode was recorded live on Saturday, August 9 at Ron Paul’s 90th Birthday BBQ in Lake Jackson, Texas. The guests are former Rep. Amash and Fox News personality Kennedy. They talk with Nick Gillespie about how the MAGA movement grew out of the Ron Paul Revolution and the Tea Party and redirected the right’s anti-establishment energy toward expanding government power rather than limiting it. They also discuss why Congress refuses to legislate, whether social media has expanded freedom or increased anxiety, and if Gen Z is libertarian or conformist." 

Source:Reason Magazine talking to former U.S. Representative Justin Amash & Reason Magazine anchor Lisa Kennedy. 

From Reason Magazine

From Britannica about the early days of the 20th Century Tea Party: 

"Tea Party movement, conservative populist social and political movement that emerged in 2009 in the United States, generally opposing excessive taxation and government intervention in the private sector while supporting stronger immigration controls...

From Britannica

The Tea Party at it's best, (I guess from a Liberal Democratic perspective) was movement of lots of ordinary Americans, who were literally getting screwed by the Great Recession and were very angry at Washington for that, during a time when the national debt was growing out-of-control, when trillion-dollar budget deficits were now the norm. And you had all these constitutional and fiscal conservatives in this movement who got reelected to Congress because they were against big government, high debt and deficits. 

But then Donald Trump runs for President in 2015-16, wins in 2016 and now all the sudden debt, deficits, and big government, are no longer concerns with the Tea Party, because their man is now in-charge and those things don't matter to them, as long as they're in charge. 

You can blame MAGA for a lot of things, but most of their members either at the activist level or who are in public office, are politicians at heart. If running against high debt and deficits, and shrinking the size of the Federal Government, we're popular and winning issues for them, they would still be running on those issues. 

It's 1 thing to go after the national debt and deficit, when the other party is in power and you don't expect anything to ever be done about that, as long as the other party is in power, or at least controls The White House. But it's another thing when you are now in complete control of government and now have the power and responsibility to deal with those fiscal issues and then have to run on the fact that you've just cut all these government programs or reformed them, to help deal with the deficit and debt. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Robert Reich: Donald Trump’s “State Capitalism”

"It would be communism under any other dictator

If “state capitalism” were proposed by Democrats or progressives, it would be considered socialism or communism. Done by a neofascist president — as chronicled by the The Wall Street Journal — it’s simply considered inefficient (as the Journal concludes).

But Trump’s state capitalism is already large and growing, and it’s profoundly altering what we once thought of as the private sector. Consider what Trump has done in recent weeks:

Allowed Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices to license artificial intelligence chips to China on condition they pay the United States 15 percent of the money they make.

Demanded that Intel’s CEO resign (the CEO met with Trump yesterday to plead his case).

Proposed that the Defense Department take a 15 percent stake in MP Materials, which mines critical minerals.

Allowed Nippon Steel to take over U.S. Steel on condition that Nippon pay a “golden share” of the proceeds to Washington.

Reserved the right to personally direct some $1.5 trillion of promised investment from America’s trading partners into the United States.

Never before in peacetime has the United States owned so many critical businesses. Never since World War II has the American public owned as much of the private sector.

Karl Marx might have been thrilled. Is the proletariat finally becoming the bourgeoisie, owning the means of production? Not a chance.

It’s unclear what the “United States” means when the deals Trump has struck give the United States ownership rights in corporations, but it’s certainly not the people.

How do America’s ownership rights get exercised? By whom? Who holds the equity, and where is it held? It appears that all this is up to the whims of Trump.

In reality, Trump’s state capitalism is just another part of Trump’s growing fascist state, extending his personal arbitrary control into what had been the private sector of the U.S. economy.

Recall that in Trump’s first term, CEOs spoke out when they disagreed with his policies on immigration and trade. After his bigoted “you had some very fine people on both sides” response to the violence in Charlottesville, CEOs resigned from his business advisory panels. After he orchestrated an attempted coup in 2021, they shunned him.

Now, CEOs are showering him with donations and praise. They can’t kiss his derriere enough. Jeff Bezos won’t run editorials critical of Trump in his Washington Post. CBS won’t allow “60 Minutes” or Stephen Colbert to oppose him (when Colbert’s contract runs out). The bros of Silicon Valley don’t dare say a word against him (look what happened to Musk).

As with other aspects of Trump fascism, Trump has extended his power by exploiting greed and fear.

Much of the public is playing along because he has also tapped into a deep vein of distrust in the system we previously had. American free-market capitalism has done wonderfully well for a few at the top, but most working families are less secure than in living memory, and their real (inflation-adjusted) wages have barely risen for decades.

At least since the bailout of Wall Street, most Americans have concluded that the economic game is rigged against them — and they’re right. So when Trump promised he was on their side, they believed him. (He wasn’t, of course.)

In addition, China is eating our lunch in what are considered the industries of the future — solar cells, semiconductors, batteries, super-computers, and AI — creating another opening for Trump to assert power over the private sector by arguing that national security requires it.

Rubbish. Several of the deals noted above are likely to compromise national security.

Trump’s state capitalism has nothing whatever to do with public ownership, socialism, helping the working class, or improving national security.

It’s all about centralizing ever more control over America in the Oval Office. It’s simply another power grab by Trump — just like his usurpation of Congress’s authority over spending and tariffs, and his new threat to occupy Washington, D.C., with federal troops.

Make no mistake. Trump’s ever-increasing power is an ever-growing threat to the rule of law and democracy.

This is what fascism looks like."

Source:Robert Reich actually arguing against socialism. Perhaps the Atlantic Ocean has finally run out of water as well. 

From Robert Reich

From CNN's reporting today about the U.S. Government getting $10 billion from Intel to have an official stake in that company: 

"President Donald Trump said on Friday he reached an agreement with Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan that would involve the struggling chipmaker giving the United States a company stake worth $10 billion, a deal model that Trump said he hopes to revisit with other companies.

“I said, I think you should pay us 10% of your company,” Trump said of his conversations with Tan. “And they said yes.”

Trump said the deal will was a win for both sides.

“I think it’s a great deal for them. And I think it’s a great deal,” Trump said in the Oval Office on Friday. “He walked in wanting to keep his job, and he ended up giving us $10 billion for the United States.”

Two weeks ago, Trump called for Tan’s immediate resignation following reports about his alleged connections to China.

The agreement Trump announced is part of an effort to help boost semiconductor manufacturing in the United States, although it is not immediately clear how involved the Trump administration aims to be in strategic decision-making at the company.

Trump also said he would do more of these types of deals. His administration has been weighing opportunities to take similar stakes in various US companies in critical industries, two people familiar with the White House discussions on the matter told CNN last week.

Intel declined to comment following the Trump announcement. The chipmaker’s stock (INTC) rose 7% on Friday." 

From CNN

From what my colleague Rik Schneider wrote about President Trump back in May, responding to Conservative columnist Kevin Williamson's argument that Donald Trump is a Socialist: 

"I could give you old cliche to talk about whether or not Donald Trump is a Socialist or not, by saying: "If it quacks, like a duck, walks like a duck.. but hopefully you want to hear something more interesting than that. I sure as hell want to say something even more original and interesting (ha, ha) than that. 

I think what's going on here, is the President and The White House know they're in trouble: 

House Republicans are freaking out about not just losing the House in 2026, but getting blown out and not having much of an opportunity about winning it back in 28. 

Senate Republicans are even worried that maybe even their majority will be at risk in 26, because of what House Republicans are worried about as well, which is who unpopular the President is, especially as it relates to his economic policy. 

And The White House is out of believable, positive spin, The Donald himself has even run out of decent lies in how to spin his bad economy, (I guess the Trump tariffs have even hurt TrumpLies.Inc) so they're desperate and are trying to come up with anything that they can think of at the time, to try to justify (because they can't spin) the weaknesses in the American economy right now. 

So Donald John Trump: the Manhattan real estate mogul, the self-proclaimed billionaire, the "king of reality TV", sounding like a Socialist, because he's talking about sacrifice and the need for Americans to cut back. When no one in his White House, including himself, would ever even consider cutting back anything that they enjoy in life, to benefit someone else who isn't doing as well... I don't think there's anything more to it then what I just laid out. Donald Trump is not a Socialist... but he's a desperate politician, to the point if sounding like a Socialist is what he needs to do to improve his political fortune, that's exactly what he will do." 

From The New Democrat

And from what Rik Schneider wrote about The Socialist Don yesterday: 

"My real point here is it's not Democrats (at least not left-wing Democrats) who are freaking out about the Trump Administration's using the U.S. Government to purchase a stake in Intel. Most of the opposition is coming from the Right, in some cases, even the far-right, especially if you look at where Erick Erickson has been on cultural issues the last 20 years or so. 

So if you are a die hard MAGA follower, who has been living in this political cult the last 10 years or so... you are so lost in space, that you might be able to make 1 of Charlie Manson's followers seem very sane and sober. But if I were try to talk to you anyway, (perhaps like some dedicated shrink who simply wants to try to help as many of my patients as possible) and even use reason (which is very out-of-style right now) to try to get you to see the light here, I would tell you too look at the Kudlow's, the Erickson's, the Steve Moore's, because they would tell you why this is such a horrible idea. 

As Erick Erickson's said on his blog post: 

"When the federal government took control of General Motors, GM no longer engaged in risk assessed based on shareholder value and economic value, but in political risk... 

I would add to that, once the Feds become part of a private company, that company starts taking more bad risks because they now know they have the taxpayers there to bail them out. Unlike if they are completely in private hands, there's no guarantee of even a private buyout if they go under or pile on so much debt from their own bad investments, that they either have to be bailed out, or go into public bankruptcy... 

From The New Democrat

As Robert Reich said so himself: 

If “state capitalism” were proposed by Democrats or progressives, it would be considered socialism or communism. Done by a neofascist president — as chronicled by the The Wall Street Journal — it’s simply considered inefficient (as the Journal concludes).

But Trump’s state capitalism is already large and growing, and it’s profoundly altering what we once thought of as the private sector. Consider what Trump has done in recent weeks... 

Take out the word "Progressives" and replace it with "Socialists", Mr. Reich is 100%, damn right about this. If this were Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, (or God forbid) Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, or Alex Cortez proposing this in the future, as President, the Republican Party (or what's left of the Republican Party) would immediately be calling for the impeachment and removal by Congress, of that President, because they would say that person is a Socialist or Communist. 

But since its Manhattan, New York, real estate/reality TV mogul, Donald John Trump, they call this "state capitalism", or economic nationalism. I guess in their far-out in outer space, warped view, "state capitalism" and "economic nationalism", sounds more patriotic to them. 

As we've said before, when even Conservatives are arguing that what you are doing is socialist, or you are acting like a Socialist, and you are a registered Republican, (whether you are actually a Republican in reality, is a different question) wouldn't you at least listen to those folks?

Does anyone whose currently not institutionalized, or off their medication, who isn't high or drunk... who wan't born last night, seriously want to argue that Kevin Williamson, Larry Kudlow, Steve Moore, and Erick Erickson, (just to name a few economic Conservatives opposed to President Trump's "state capitalism") are (as Rik Schneider said yesterday) radical Hippies or flaming Socialists? 

Seriously, I challenge anyone who currently meets the mental condition that I just laid out, to try to argue that these men are radical Hippies or flaming Socialists. And no, your word alone won't be good enough on that. If you think you can, feel free to comment on this post on The New Democrat's Blogger or WordPress pages, or reply to us on our Threads and Twitter pages.

Again, The New Democrat is a center-right, classical liberal (if you don't like liberal) JFK Democrat blog, in philosophy. That's what my personal politics are as well. So of course we're not fans of socialism, or what the Nazi-Right would call "state capitalism". But if our word is not good enough, you should listen to real-life Conservatives who oppose this as well. Unless you are currently drunk, high, institutionalized, or off your medication. For competent, sober people, who are open to President Trump's "state capitalism", but are open to another viewpoint on this, listen to the Conservatives on this. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Larry Kudlow: 'This Idea Makes Me Very Uncomfortable'

"'Kudlow' panelists Steve Moore and Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., discuss a potential U.S. government stake in Intel and 2026 tax cuts." 

Source:FOX Business anchor Lawrence Kudlow.

From FOX Business

Erick Erickson has weighed in on the Trump Administration's state socialism proposal as well: 

"Time and time again, when the government gets involved, the leviathan grows and both the Middle Class and small businesses get the shaft. Innovation stalls and economic growth slows. Go back to the buckets. As the government issues more debt, more people buy public debt instead of investing in the public sector. The government’s bucket fills up with money that does not go to shareholders, workers, investors, innovation, or growth.

The Trump Administration is now bragging that over $150 billion has been generated from tariffs. Some of that comes from American businesses. But some of that comes from American consumers. More of it will come from consumers soon as companies raise prices. That is more money in the government bucket, not the private sector bucket.

Now, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is urging the government to become the largest shareholder of Intel. Some defend it by citing national security reasons, ignoring the government does not own shares in other defense contractors. Others defend it because Trump is in charge, so damn the principle. But like with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, General Motors, etc. all this will do is increase burdens on American taxpayers, decrease efficiency in the private sector that will slow growth, and puts a major American microchip company in the position of doing what the government wants, not what is best for the company...

You can read Erick Erickson's full blog post.

Austrian-British economist Friedrich Hayek I believe has always had the best quote about socialism: 

"If socialists understood economics, they wouldn't be socialists".

I'm going to give you a little background on both Larry Kudlow and Erick Erickson before I weigh on what the Trump Administration is trying to do here with their state socialist proposal here. 

From what I wrote back in May in response to what Conservative columnist Kevin Williamson wrote arguing about President's Trump's... let's say socialist tendencies: 

"I could give you old cliche to talk about whether or not Donald Trump is a Socialist or not, by saying: "If it quacks, like a duck, walks like a duck.. but hopefully you want to hear something more interesting than that. I sure as hell want to say something even more original and interesting (ha, ha) than that. 

I think what's going on here, is the President and The White House know they're in trouble: 

House Republicans are freaking out about not just losing the House in 2026, but getting blown out and not having much of an opportunity about winning it back in 28. 

Senate Republicans are even worried that maybe even their majority will be at risk in 26, because of what House Republicans are worried about as well, which is who unpopular the President is, especially as it relates to his economic policy. 

And The White House is out of believable, positive spin, The Donald himself has even run out of decent lies in how to spin his bad economy, (I guess the Trump tariffs have even hurt TrumpLies.Inc) so they're desperate and are trying to come up with anything that they can think of at the time, to try to justify (because they can't spin) the weaknesses in the American economy right now. 

So Donald John Trump: the Manhattan real estate mogul, the self-proclaimed billionaire, the "king of reality TV", sounding like a Socialist, because he's talking about sacrifice and the need for Americans to cut back. When no one in his White House, including himself, would ever even consider cutting back anything that they enjoy in life, to benefit someone else who isn't doing as well... I don't think there's anything more to it then what I just laid out. Donald Trump is not a Socialist... but he's a desperate politician, to the point if sounding like a Socialist is what he needs to do to improve his political fortune, that's exactly what he will do." 

From The New Democrat

This is what I wrote about Mr. Kudlow back in March: 

"The title of this video is: "Karoline Leavitt: Trump is Working 24/7 To Bring Down The Cost of Living". But if you bothered to watch the video (and I don't blame you if you didn't) nothing in there about bringing down the cost of living in America. Which by the way, Donald Trump promised he would "eliminate inflation on day 1 of his presidency". You got of a lot of talking points and claims from Karoline Leavitt about what the Trump Administration is doing, with no facts to back her up. And Larry Kudlow as well Ms. Leavitt blaming the current problems with the economy on Joe Biden. But nothing in there about what the Trump Administration is doing to bring down the cost of living. 

And after announcing new tariffs on Canada and Mexico today, which will just make groceries more expensive, along with deporting farm workers, which affects the price of eggs and milk in America, you would think Kudow & Company would want to talk to the White House Press Secretary about how the President plans to make the cost of living in America more affordable, since it's now more expensive since he became POTUS 6 weeks ago." 

From The New Democrat

This is some of what I wrote about Mr. Kudlow back in June: 

"Like a lot of other people and things that Donald John Trump has touched right before they died, (to paraphrase Rick Wilson) Larry Kudlow before Donald Trump took over the Republican Party and turned it into the MAGA Party... was a neoconservative, supply-side, business oriented and economics oriented, Northeast, country club, Republican and political commentator. But now he acts like Donald John Trump is God himself and backs everything that he does and goes out-of-his-way to make it 100% that he always backs The Don 100% of the time, regardless of what the President is doing and saying. 

The President could call for nationalizing private universities and banks because he doesn't like their politics and Kudlow would claim: "The President is standing up for real Americans". 

I would love to know who kidnapped Larry Kudlow and who they got to replace him. The guy on FOX Business looks like Kudlow, but he sure as hell no longer sounds like him." 

From The New Democrat

And here's a little background on Erick Erickson: 

"Erick Woods Erickson (born June 3, 1975) is an American conservative talk radio host, blogger, and former politician. He hosts a three-hour weekday talk show on WSB 95.5 FM and 750 AM in Atlanta, which is syndicated to other radio stations around the U.S. He also writes a political blog called The Resurgent. Prior to this, he was editor-in-chief and CEO of another conservative political blog called RedState.[2] He was a political contributor for CNN from 2010 to 2013, and afterwards was a contributor to the Fox News Channel before leaving the network in 2018... 

From Wikipedia

I give you all of this background, profile information of both Larry Kudlow and Erick Erickson, because I think there's a runaway pandemic as it relates to insomnia and I think if people just read this stuff, they'll fall asleep and immediately start to catch up on the last 6 months or so that they've gone without any real sleep. Actually, I have another reason for doing this. Some might even argue that it's even better than the first 1. 

My real point here is it's not Democrats (at least not left-wing Democrats) who are freaking out about the Trump Administration's using the U.S. Government to purchase a stake in Intel. Most of the opposition is coming from the Right, in some cases, even the far-right, especially if you look at where Erick Erickson has been on cultural issues the last 20 years or so. 

So if you are a die hard MAGA follower, who has been living in this political cult the last 10 years or so... you are so lost in space, that you might be able to make 1 of Charlie Manson's followers seem very sane and sober. But if I were try to talk to you anyway, (perhaps like some dedicated shrink who simply wants to try to help as many of my patients as possible) and even use reason (which is very out-of-style right now) to try to get you to see the light here, I would tell you too look at the Kudlow's, the Erickson's, the Steve Moore's, because they would tell you why this is such a horrible idea. 

As Erick Erickson's said on his blog post: 

"When the federal government took control of General Motors, GM no longer engaged in risk assessed based on shareholder value and economic value, but in political risk... 

I would add to that, once the Feds become part of a private company, that company starts taking more bad risks because they now know they have the taxpayers there to bail them out. Unlike if they are completely in private hands, there's no guarantee of even a private buyout if they go under or pile on so much debt from their own bad investments, that they either have to be bailed out, or go into public bankruptcy. 

As I've said before, (or something close to this) Larry Kudlow, Erick Erickson, and Steve Moore, are no one's radical Hippies or flaming Socialists. Pre-Trump, both Kudlow and Moore would be what you would describe as Northeastern, country club, neoconservative, supply-side, Republicans. They were people who believed that government should be out of the private sector and just let companies operate freely in what they would call a free market. 

Erick Erickson, perhaps a little to the left (key word being little) but he's basically the Gen-X, male version of someone like a Phyllis Schlafly from the 1960s and 70s. Very radical as a right-wing culture warrior, but not a racist or an ethnic bigot. But someone you could describe as a true believer when it comes to what has been called Christian Nationalism. But someone who combined his radical, right-wing cultural war politics, with a more conservative-libertarian view of government when it comes to economic policy. 

So when even have people who are true Conservatives when it comes to economic policy, tell you that state socialism is a really bad idea and you are also on the Right, you should at least listen to them. Unless you are not a Conservative, and more of a State Socialist and someone who thinks: 

"Nazism wasn't that bad. Maybe we should try that here so our companies could be pro-American again". 

Or however you would phrase that yourself. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Marc Defant: The Contradiction At The Heart of Gender Debates

"Gender identity has become one of the most pressing–and polarizing–topics in today’s cultural landscape. Major medical associations have embraced a variety of gender-affirming treatments, ranging from counseling sessions to lifelong hormonal therapies and even surgeries. Their rationale is that these interventions help alleviate severe distress among people who experience a disconnect between the sex they were born with and the gender they identify as. In the same breath, however, many of these organizations and prominent voices also describe gender as largely a “social construct”–something molded by cultural norms rather than by biology.

That claim raises a fundamental paradox. If gender truly rests on external expectations, why do some advocates support irreversible medical procedures–especially in children–as a primary response to gender-related distress? On the flip side, if there is a strong biological basis for gender identity, then why do we invoke social factors so frequently? For parents, policy-makers, and health professionals trying to do right by patients, these questions create a tangle of uncertainty. Even more critically, children and teenagers lie at the center of an ethical storm that involves decisions about their bodies, their long-term health, and whether or not they should receive life-changing medical treatments before they’ve reached adulthood.

The Rise of Gender-Affirming Care 

Over the past decade, a growing number of adolescents have presented to clinics with gender dysphoria–a term describing psychological distress that arises when someone’s gender identity does not align with their biological sex. Many point to increased visibility on social media platforms, greater cultural acceptance, and shifting diagnostic criteria as drivers of this trend. More public conversations have lowered the stigma that once surrounded topics of gender identity, thereby encouraging more families to seek out professional help... 

Source:Marc Defant with an article for Skeptic Magazine.

From Skeptic Magazine

So what Marc Defant is talking about here is the difference between what people define themselves as when it comes to their gender and what people actually are when it comes to their DNA and their physical equipment... the sexual components that they were born with that separates males from females. 

Most people, I'm sure most Americans, (at least) define their gender based on what it is. They define their gender as male, because they were born male, or female because they were born female. Or this is how straight people tend to define their gender. But for the 5-10% of us who aren't straight, it's not as easy. 

I wouldn't say this person was a friend, because we were somewhat friendly growing up in the few years that we went to school together and it turns out he was sort of friendly with a guy I hanged out with growing up as well and they grew up in the same neighborhood. 

And then the first guy that I mentioned here (let's call him Joe) and I got reconnected after going a few years without seeing each other, on Facebook, when I first joined FB back in 2009. To make a long story shorter (and I'm not going to mention his name, because he doesn't even know that I'm writing this) he came out to me as gay shortly after we reconnected on Facebook back in 09. And we exchange phone numbers, email addresses and started talking about a lot of different things, discovered that we had a lot in common, other than our sexualities. 

Joe for whatever reasons, seemed very comfortable talking about his own sexuality and what it was like being gay, with me. Maybe he knew I'm not a homophobe, and he was familiar with my liberal politics and how much I support individual's freedom of choice. But I always got the idea from Joe that he didn't equate one's sexual preference with one's sexuality. That they were 2 different things, that there was nothing related between both a gay man and a feminine man. That just because because you are gay doesn't mean you are also feminine as a man. And that's true in the sense... I mean Joe is what you could call a "bear" or a "masc" as a gay man. I mean he's 6'0, 300 pounds, looks like he could've been an NFL nose tackle, a very butch, looking and sounding, but gay man. 

But and I'm sure pop culture and social media has something to do with this, but when most people think of gay men, they don't think of Hollywood action stars, or tough cops, or private detectives, military drill sergeants, pro football players, etc. They think of guys who work at hair salons, who are fashion designers... they think of the queens (if I can use that word) that they see on those Bravo "reality TV" shows. 

And because of this, as far as how at least some gay men are so sensitive about how their sexuality is portrayed, or parodying, especially if they're either still in the closet, or they are like Joe and are a "bear" and hate the idea that they themselves, or gay men like them, are automatically seen as queens, (again, if I can use that word) just because they're attracted to men, instead of women, you have this new, left-wing political correctness movement, that apparently ignores science, or never took in school, failed every year of it, (to put it bluntly) who say there aren't really any genders anymore. Or there's more than 2 genders. 

So all those people who've transitioned from male to female and vice-versa... that didn't actually happen, if you bothered to take the no gender movement seriously on this. And while you are doing that, you might as well take every "UFO spotter" seriously as well. 

As I mentioned before, I'm a Liberal because I believe in freedom of choice... just as long as it comes to personal responsibility as well. Not the only reason why I'm a Liberal, but my belief in free choice and free speech, are at the top of my list. If men who don't see themselves as men, they have the right to do that and could go transition to a female, or live as a queen. (Again, if I can use that word) 

But let's not try to convince intelligent, sane, sober, people (who are more unique in America as everyday passes) that men aren't men and women aren't women, or there's some new gender going on, or genders don't even exist. Unless you are looking to become the newest members of the UFO Spotters Society. 

You can follow me on Threads. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: MAGA FINALLY CAVES on EPSTEIN FILES?

"Harry breaks down a breaking development in the Epstein File saga. The Justice Department has agreed to share with the House Oversight Committee documents from the Epstein investigation. " 

Source:Talking Feds With Harry Litman with a look at Jeff, Don, and Pam. Perhaps you can tell for yourself who is who.

From Talking Feds With Harry Litman

From CNN: 

"The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform intends to make public some files it subpoenaed related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, though it will first redact them to shield victims’ IDs and other sensitive matters, a committee spokesperson said Tuesday.

The panel is expected to start receiving materials from the Justice Department on Friday, though it appears the public release will come some time after that. The spokesperson said the committee would work with the Justice Department on the process.

“The Committee intends to make the records public after thorough review to ensure all victims’ identification and child sexual abuse material are redacted. The Committee will also consult with the DOJ to ensure any documents released do not negatively impact ongoing criminal cases and investigations,” the spokesperson said.

Many Republicans have called for more transparency surrounding the case and the release of records related to the matter – and the issue has roiled the House... 

From CNN

The New Democrat has been thinking about this story for about a month now (give or take) which is why we haven't weighed in on this at all, except from what you see on our members social media pages, including the official page for The New Democrat on Threads and Twitter. But if you want to know what I think about this, I'll tell you anyway and I have a slightly different perspective from what you see from other commentators who also want to see the Epstein files as well. 

When you think of Donald Trump's base, at least if you took a stereotypical view of his base, you would think his voters are nothing but rural, country bumpkins, who are Anglo-Saxon-Protestants, who only live in the smallest towns in America. And that's a part of his base, no question.

But there's another part of DJT's base, including in New York City... Manhattan, even, out in Los Angeles as well, who also like him, or at least his lifestyle and how he presents himself to the public. And those folks are about as white-collar, well-educated, upper class, metropolitan, professional celebrity types, who are more interested in someone's cultural "brand" and how they appear in pop culture, then anything to do with their morality. These are people where bad boys and bad girls are considered cool. And honest, hardworking people are considered to be so "old school" and so "yesterday" with this professional celebrity community. 

Thanks to Donald Trump and his political reality TV and professional celebrity movement that he personally launched 10 years ago, along with social media, we are way past the days when a sex scandal, and adulterous affair... having kids with your mistress, when you are married, even a serious criminal scandal, can bring down 1 politician. Especially if that politician has a loyal following. 

Professional celebrities today are more popular. when they have a bad boy or bad girl image and have been involved in criminal activities, even have done time in prison, then they would be if their records are completely clean. I think we are going to see that with Sean Combs and others as well and before Mr. Combs. The current President of the United States, is literally a convicted felon, who if he wasn't reelected President, would probably be getting ready for 2 different criminal trials and looking at serious prison time. Who only ran for President in 2024, to tay out of prison and get back at his political opponents.

The speculation (and I'm sure it's true) is that the reason why President Trump doesn't want his Attorney General Pam Bondi, to release the Epstein files, because he knows he's all over them and it would be very embarrassing for him. Even though there's probably nothing in them that could probably incriminate him of anything relating to Jeffrey Epstein. 

But my point is, for reasons that I've already laid out, is Donald Trump literally has nothing to lose here in releasing them. He's already the most unpopular 2nd term President, at least in the television and internet age. People who dislike and hate him now, won't dislike and hate him more after those files are released to the public. 

When the far-right of the Republican Party was talking about "family values", morality and character, the need for these things in our government, that was just something they used to attack Democrats. That's not what they care about. Someone could literally be a convicted felon, a serial liar and adulterer... if that person is on their side and represents their political values. And Mr. Trump's professional celebrity base, would probably just view him as a bigger "rockstar" and "badass", after the Epstein files are released. 

The main lesson from Watergate that both Republicans and Democrats have failed to learn the last 50 plus years, that once a bad story is about to break, or has broken, is that the worst thing that you can do is to try to cover it up. What you do, is what a good lawyer would do in court: get the bad information and evidence about your side out, before the opposition and the media does it for you. Get ahead of the story and put your own spin on it, before you lose the narrative of it. 

As long as The White House and Trump DOJ try to cover up this story, the longer it will be in the news, along with the slowing economy, rising prices, everything else that has gone wrong since Donald Trump became President again. And that's not where you want to be going into an election year. So of course they should release the redacted portions of the Epstein files to Congress and the public as soon as possible. 

You can follow me on Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.