The Democratic Shutdown Strategy Is Having Disastrous Consequences

"Trump MASS FIRING Federal Workers In TOTAL MASSACRE" 

Source:Secular Talk with a look at the President of the United States and some of his protestors.

From Kyle Kulinski

This is the point that Kyle Kulinski made that I want you to concentrate on: 

"They already completed 48% of Project 2025 and now they're going to put it into overdrive. Now, you do need to understand though... they were going to do this anyway. They did it with Elon Musk with DOGE illegally, right. They were going to do this anyway. So Democrats were correct to put up a fight over health care for the American people. But you need to understand that that these people are legislative terrorists. And its incumbent on the media and the Democrats to explain to the American people exactly what they're doing". 

But as I wrote 3 weeks ago (and feel even stronger about it today): 

"So, under The Anti-Deficiency Act, when the government shutdowns, the executive branch, under The White House and Office of Management Budget, gets to decide who is essential and who is nonessential, when it comes to the federal workforce. Meaning, who gets to show up to work, who has to stay home, who has to show up and work for free, during the shutdown. 

In case anyone who sees this, was born last night, (and if you are able to read before you even reach 1 day old, I'm fairly impressed) Donald John Trump is currently President of the United States and Russell Vought is currently the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Do you really want these two "gentlemen" in charge of what stays open and is closed, who gets to go to work, who stays home, who has to work for free, during a government shutdown? 

Mr. Vought is 1 of the chief authors of Project 2025, which is a document that lays out how a President Trump could claim and use more executive authority, then the Constitution currently gives the President of the United States. And how they could essentially get away with that. Is this who you want in charge of the government shutdown in Washington? 

At least if Congress passed a government funding bill, (whatever you actually think of the actual bill) there are laws there that the courts can protect, requiring the executive branch to spend this amount of money, with this amount of workers in place enforcing those spending requirements. But put Trump and Vought in charge, thanks to your shutdown, there's no one left in place who could even try to hold the President and OMB accountable during a shutdown...

From The New Democrat

So look, the Kyle Kulinski's, the Ron Filipkowski's, MSNBC talk can argue all they want that "they were just going to do this anyway" when it comes to the mass Federal layoffs, firings, forcing people to work for free, etc. But what they don't understand, or won't admit, is because of Chuck Schumer's led government shutdown here, Congress has just given The White House permission and Congressional authority, to do what Kyle Kulinski says they would've done anyway. 

But if the government was fully funded right now, the The White House wouldn't legally be able to fire, layoff, and force work for no pay all these workers, people making maybe $50,000-100,000 a year, without Congressional authorization. 

Imagine being a not so bright bank robber (which is not uncommon with bank robbers) and you have the bank held up and maybe you have 10 hostages there and the police are outside telling you to release the hostages or this, that, and the other thing will happen to you and the lead bank robber says something to the effect: 

"We might as well just kill them all now. We're already going to prison for life for bank robbery and kidnapping. What more could they do to us?" 

When an intelligent person might say: "We shouldn't have done this in the first place. But now that we're here, the sooner this is over, the less trouble we'll be in and maybe we can escape from life sentences in prison". 

Not the best analogy for what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and is Democrats are doing here with their government shutdown. I'll be the first to admit that. But it makes my point. 

The smart political play here (which I argued for 3 weeks ago) was to let the House funding bill pass. Not to vote for it, but just let it come up for a vote and for it to pass. But that obviously didn't happen, so we're here where we are (to state the obvious) and plan b now would be, for the Senate Minority Leader to end his shutdown by calling for a vote on the House bill and letting it pass. Tell his members they can vote for it and there won't be any negative consequences coming from him because of that vote. But I don't see that happening, at least for a while. Senate Democrats are going to have feel some political heat from their own constituents, first.  

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Secular Talk: Senator Tom Cotton First U.S. Senate Floor Speech

Source:The New Democrat

I saw about twenty-minutes of Senator Tom Cotton’s first U.S. Senate floor speech. (Thank God for C-SPAN) And twenty-minutes was about all as I could take from the freshman Senator, who sounded like a freshman in his first ever Senate speech. You would think a military veteran who served in the Iraq War, would have a hell of a lot more intelligence and knowledge about American foreign policy and national security. But maybe that is a topic of a different debate. But his first speech was about American foreign policy and national security. Which is perfectly legitimate especially from a military veteran. But all he had I guess thanks to the Heritage Foundation, was neoconservative talking points. Which I’m about to get into.

I’ve argued before that the Neoconservative is not conservative. Conservatives move cautiously and shows a lot of restraint, especially fiscally. One of the big points about being conservative is that you move, you know conservatively. The Neoconservative is right-wing Utopian. With all sorts of grand utopian ideas about how how great the world would be if America just ran it. And tends to see money as no object that their grand world strategy is such a wonderful thing that you don’t even have to pay for it. Because if anything it will pay for itself. The Iraq War and the Afghanistan War are excellent examples of that. For the first time America decided not to pay for its war operations upfront. And we’ve paid for it ever since on our national debt card.

The Neoconservative judges military strength by the size of the military budget. Doesn’t sound very conservative does it. That the more you spend on your military the stronger your military is. That it is not about what you spend when it comes to your military budget and what you spend it on and what you get from that spending, but how much you spend. And the Neoconservative also judges military strength by the size of the military budget in relation of gross national product. So the Neoconservative would say, “ten years ago we spend six-percent of our GDP on the military and now we spend 3.8%. So based on that our military is now weaker, because the budget is smaller.” Instead of judging the military by the capability of the military. What we are capable of doing now, as opposed to back when. Are we stronger and more capable in these areas, based on what we are actually able to do.

Senator John McCain, whose also a military veteran and a decorated one, is called and criticized by the Left, especially the Far-Left as a Neoconservative on foreign policy. And part of that is accurate as for as his belief in the use of force and military strength. But one of the reasons why he has so much bipartisan respect in Congress and on the outside is because he’s also one of the first members of Congress to point out military waste in the budget. Like when a senator or representative sticks in funding for a plane that can’t fly, that the military didn’t ask for, he’ll point that out and even name the member who put in that amendment on the Senate floor. That is why he can get away with a lot of his neo-con positions on the military, because he’s someone who knows what he’s talking about.

According to the Neoconservative, there’s no such thing as military waste. That every part of the military budget is sacrosanct. And even if there’s something not working properly with the military budget, it’s because its underfunded. I mean they almost sound like Social Democrats or Socialists even when it comes to how they prioritize the spending that they love. If a public school is not working well, or a social program is not performing well, the Socialist will automatically say, “it’s because its underfunded. That if we just spend more money on it and raise taxes that will fix the program.” The Neoconservative takes that same logic, but implies it to military spending instead of social welfare spending.

Just look at Senator Cotton’s speech and I suggest you watch the whole thing. That you could do either on C-SPAN’s website or go to the Senator’s website and you could watch it there. He goes through the military budget and how little we are spending here and there. And as a result we are now weaker when it comes to our national defense. Because back in the day we spent more money on this defense program or that one. According to Senator Cotton, instead of laying how capable we are here and there and what are military is physically capable of doing now. I’m sure a lot of Neoconservatives love him, Dick Cheney and others may encourage him to run for president in 2020. But that is not how you judge government budgets military or otherwise. You judge them based on capability and results. Not by how much you spend.

Secular Talk: Governor Rick Perry: Decriminalize Pot

Governor Rick Perry a true Federalist at least when it comes to marijuana and not one of these fake Conservatives who like to nationalize social and cultural issues which they see marijuana as one of those issues that must be defeated at all costs. But what Governor Perry is saying as a Federalist that this is an issue that the states can deal with. Since they are closer to their own people and their needs than the Feds and that the Feds should get out of the way. He’s not saying that he’s in favor of marijuana or that he’s suggesting that all states should legalize or decriminalize it. But what’s he’s saying is that this should be left up to each individual state. And states that decriminalize marijuana, the Feds should get out-of-the-way and not try to take over the marijuana enforcement there.