Signs of the times--and of the future

1. On May 10th a district judge in the leftist stronghold of San Francisco barred the Trump administration from firing  thousands of federal workers, saying the Executive lacked the power to do that without the approval of Congress.

District Judge Susan Illston ruled for a group of unions, non-profit organizations and local governments that had sued April 28th.  Obtaining an injunction in 12 days--given that none of the plaintiffs mentioned had standing!--is an indication that she's totally in the tank for the government employee unions.
  It's San Francisco.  What would you expect?

"The President has the authority to seek changes to executive branch agencies, but must do so in lawful ways and, in the case of large-scale reorganizations, only with the cooperation of congress," she wrote. "Many presidents have sought this cooperation before; many iterations of Congress have provided it."

"Many have done this before" is hardly a sound legal argument.  Either the president has the power to fire Executive-branch employees or he doesn't.  And if he doesn't, congress most assuredly won't, since they're total whores whose main interest is being re-elected.

Only the president is term-limited, and thus the only elected federal official who is free to make decisions based solely on the long-term benefit of the nation.  By contrast, the overriding goal of congresswhores is their own re-election--the best interests of the nation be damned.  I hope this is clear to rational adults.

Here's the moronic leftist female judge again:

Nothing prevents the President from requesting [congressional] cooperation.  Indeed, the Court holds the President likely must request Congressional cooperation to order the changes he seeks.

Geez: "...likely must..."?  Wow, does that strike you as solid legal reasoning?  Think she researched the Constitution and case law to come up with this?

Plaintiffs said "the administration's unlawful attempt to reorganize the federal government has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation."

That's so sad!  Plaintiffs implicitly claim that once someone has been hired by the federal gummint they're guaranteed a lifetime job, because everyone knows congress will never approve firing tens of thousands of overpaid, underworked federal "workers"--because if congress did, they wouldn't be re-elected.  And who knows, maybe the SC will agree that the president can't fire fed employees as part of cost-cutting.  After all, the earlier court never overturned the Impoundment Act.  
   Of course that SC hated Nixon, and would have done literally anything to force him out of office.  Both congress and the SC hated Nixon, and the court's rulings reflect that.

Plaintiffs bleated that each of them "represents communities deeply invested in the efficiency of the federal government."  That's horseshit: Those groups have no interest whatsoever in efficiency.  Instead their goal is to keep their dues-paying members from being fired, since that would reduce the unions' income.

Illston scheduled a hearing for May 22 for a potential longer injunction. She wrote that plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm without the temporary restraining order, which she said preserves the status quo.  Which it certainly does.

"The Court here is not considering the potential loss of income of one individual employee, but the widespread termination of salaries and benefits for individuals, families, and communities," Illston wrote.

Irrelevant.  The number affected has no bearing on whether the Executive can downsize without asking congress.  If this leftist judge's rulings prevail, what we're left with is that for all practical purposes government can't be downsized, since if the chief executive can't fire federal employees at will to reduce deficits--at a time when this is the most pressing problem we have--then it will never be done, since congress will never do it.

Source.

2. A few days ago in the leftist stronghold of Worcester, Massachusetts, ICE agents arrested a female illegal.  Scores of people uploaded videos of the screaming woman and her daughter--link below.

Pictures and video can be catalysts for movements, and I think the dozens of videos of ICE arresting this female is one.  The first vid is here.  Note the screams from women--a real psychological hook for most people.  And note the woman forced face-down on the street by agents.  That's guaranteed to galvanize leftist/Dem opposition to ICE and Trump.

CBS broadcast a different vid of the same event--not nearly as emotionally wrenching but it got national airtime.  Again the screams from the women, and comments from witnesses that the agents "wore masks" and didn't have warrants.  [Leftists constantly wear masks, and the Media never finds this worrisome, but NOW...] 

CBS has made this national news.  I think this will later be seen as the watershed event that ended Trump and the GOP.   Chances are none of you saw these videos, but that doesn't matter: they reached their intended audience, on both coasts, and in shithole Dem enclaves like Chitcongo, Atlanta and Denver.

3. As you know, one Democrat congresscreep has already filed articles of impeachment against Trump.  You might think the Dems couldn't get 3 GOP reps to cross over and vote with the Dems to impeach, but I wouldn't bet on it.  They can't get 2/3 of the senate to convict but of course that won't matter.
   What matters--and why the Dems would proceed with impeachment knowing they can't convict/remove him--is to win the midterms.  The Narrative will be that Trump has "again violated federal law" by doing...something.  (Except the NY state convictions weren't federal, but who remembers such arcana, eh?)
   The Dems will scream "NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW," and that Trump is not a king.  The Mainstream Media will eagerly parrot that ad nauseum.  And all the Dems have to do is win 150,000 votes in the swing states to  control at least one chamber.
   And that'll prevent congress from passing even one law to cut spending and govt waste and fraud.  Which keeps us on my predicted timetable for bankruptcy.
   Democrats claim foreign nations will never stop buying U.S. bonds, saying "Where else are they gonna go?"  I get it: The U.S. may have a huge debt but at least it pays off bonds with interest, like clockwork.
   Problem is, the interest we have to pay to keep that faith is growing fast, and will continue to do so at a faster rate: Last fall the *interest* was a TRILLION dollars a year.  But now, just 4.5 months into 2025 it's $1.3 trillion--an increase of $300 billion in just 4.5 months.
   Five short years from now we'll be having to pay $2.8 TRILLION per year just in interest--all of which, of course, must be borrowed, adding to the debt

.Well educated Americans who have access to the Net should know the numbers that follow:
   In FY 2024, the federal government had $4.9 trillion in revenue but spent $6.75 trillion--a deficit of $1.8 trillion, of which almost a trillion dollars was interest.   
   For FY 2025, which began on October 1 of last year, revenue is projected to be $5.5 trillion, but proposed spending is $7.3 trillion, so a $1.9 trillion deficit.
   Any of ya wanna take a bet on whether actual spending exceeds that number?
   Worse yet, we're retiring T-bills at 2.5%  and having to replace those maturinng bonds with 4.7% debt, so the problem of rising interest is gonna quickly get WAY worse.  By 2040--just 15 years from now--we'll be having to spend half of total revenue just to pay the interest on the federal debt.
   Of course most of you don't believe a word of that, because it sounds utterly impossible.  "There are lotsa smaht pipo in congress, and they'd nevah allow dat to happen!"
   But of course they have allowed it, and did it cheerfully, without a care in the world about the future.  And..."smart people in congress"?  Are you kidding?
   You'd think a few staffers with "maff skills" would have told the moronic pols what the end result of their stupid policies would be, eh?  But either no one dared tell 'em, or else the pols never listened.  Same result either way, eh?
   Musk and the DOGE team believed they could cut govt waste and fraud by a trillion dollars a year.  That's now been blocked by leftist judges.  But even if it were possible, it wouldn't be enough to keep the debt from increasing: we'd still have to cut spending by *another* $900 BILLION a year to balance the budget.
   Theoretically that's possible, but the Left/Dems would scream so loudly, and the leftist courts would bar any efforts by the president.  And congress would never cooperate.  All of which makes the crash inevitable.  That will force the reckoning the pols don't have the will to avoid.
   Hell, the dumb sons of bitches are determined to repeal the limit on deductions for "state and local taxes" (SALT), which reduces federal revenue by allowing residents of Dem-ruled big cities to reduce their federal income tax.
   A good question is, what laws will a corrupt, moronic congress and a Dem president pass just before disaster to try to "avoid" (actually just delay) the crash.  Seize IRAs?  Taxes previously-untouchable entities like university endowments?  A ten percent tax on wealth (not income)?
   The only reason I mention all the above is that we have 18 months til the midterms.  Based on the trends I see in public sentiment--anti-Trump and anti-GOP--I think the GOP will lose at least one chamber, which means no chance of cutting government spending.  
   Frankly I don't think the GOPe in congress has the will to cut enough either, but the Dems absolutely won't, so it's the only chance.  We have to try to get voters to understand that unless drastic action is taken, a crash is unavoidable--and the consequences are likely to be harsh for all but the richest Americans.