The Buck Stops at the Desk of President Anonymous

The Ticker Guy comments on a truly terrifying story published by The New York Times.

Apparently, US military interventionism in Ukraine in 2024 almost resulted in catastrophe. From the referenced New York Times story:

The unthinkable had become real. The United States was now woven into the killing of Russian soldiers on sovereign Russian soil.

So, according to the NY Times, we were brought to the brink of World War III in 2024.

But do we know by whom?

We know Putin was the President of Russia. We know Zelensky was the President of Ukraine. But who was calling the shots in The White House?

We all know it wasn't Biden. He was a barely functioning, babbling fool at the time who couldn't be trusted to sign his name without the help of an autopen.

So, who?

Karl Denninger warns us in the comment section of his article that leadership is critical should a nuclear war begin:

We could stay out of it if somebody else starts it and we have the advantage of oceans on both sides. The problem is the hard part is recognizing that your ego has to be put away when that kind of **** begins. If you get sucked into it, you're ****ed.

So, if a nuclear World War III had erupted in 2024, whose "ego" in The White House would have had "to be put away?" Exactly who in the White House would have been acting in the President's crucial, leadership position to keep us from getting "sucked into it."

If there was ever a reason to investigate and prosecute those in The White House who propped up Biden and commandeered the power of his Presidency, this is it.

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"- Lifelong Bureaucrat and Shrieking Karen, Hillary Clinton

Karl Denninger at the Market Ticker discusses Signal-gate, the latest leftist Karen-moment designed to scare stupid citizens into believing that amateurish Trump cretins are spoiling their finely tuned federal expertocracy. As usual, Karl sees through the crap and suggests a way to put Humpty Dumpty back together again:

This incident, beyond the actual person who added (or changed) the recipient so that reporter was in the list, is directly chargeable against CISA and their recommendation.  Since it is their job to put forward such standards for the government this is a fatal failure and every individual involved in that process, no matter how small their involvement, must be both publicly identified and expelled.  As there was apparently no classified data breached as a result of this, criminal sanction is not appropriate -- but permanent severance from any government employment now and in the future, along with summary and permanent revocation of any clearance held by said persons is not just advisable -- it is mandatory.

Security is a process, not a product.

What's wrong here is the assumption that you can make things work in Washington DC by tightening up the rules and getting rid of a few rotten apples. The truth is the entire orchard is rotten. There is no way to make things work in the Washington bureaucracy. The only sane policy is to destroy it from top to bottom.

That includes CISA, a $3-billion per year bureaucracy that employs over 4,000 bureaucrats, probably 90% of them leftist Democrats. Garbage in. Is it any wonder a few Trump bureaucrats got screwed by the CISA garbage out?

Now consider that the federal government is a $6-trillion leviathan with 450,000 leftist bureaucrats ensconced in the Washington DC landfill. What are the odds Trump or Musk or any sane conservative can make that trash work for us?

Zero.

The federal bureaucracy is not our friend. It will never be our friend. It CANNOT be our friend. Garbage is garbage.

Elon Musk is on the right track, although he must come to the understanding that the workings of the federal leviathan are not IMPAIRED by waste and fraud. The federal leviathan IS waste and fraud. Musk's mission should be to eliminate federal spending and terminate federal employees, wherever he finds them. CISA should be his next stop.

UNSTOPPABLE Financial Crisis - Great Depression 2.0 Coming with Peter Sc...

ECONOMIC DOOMSDAY IS AROUND THE CORNER!

 

According to the Associated Press:

The House passed legislation Tuesday to avert a partial government shutdown and fund federal agencies through September, providing critical momentum as the measure now moves to the Senate, where bipartisan support will be needed to get it over the finish line.

Folks, our representatives in Washington DC are not playing a political parlor game or engaging in a cute, partisan competition. If passed by the Senate, this measure would continue current levels of federal spending through September, 2025!

What does this mean, and why is it so important? It means out-of-control federal deficit spending will continue at unprecedented levels for another six months. It means the federal government will continue to spend at record levels while only off-setting a fraction of this spending with revenue.

Why is this so important to you and me? If nothing is done to stop this looming disaster, caused primarily by monopolistic medical costs, we will all experience dire, life-threatening consequences. 

Karl Denninger, a respected and experienced economic forecaster, has just published an article which gets into the specifics of the BIG TROUBLE heading our way. It ain’t pretty. I would encourage you to read Karl’s entire article.

Karl writes:

It is not possible to stop this in-process trainwreck now without serious disruption to our economy…. $296 billion in all revenues and $603 billion spent last month…. If we do not stop it now the consequences literally grow by the day and risk fiscal and possibly even civil collapse… …this foolery must be stopped with finality so that NEVER AGAIN can a federal department [Health and Human Services] find itself collecting only sixteen percent of its spend in taxes and being a full THIRD of every dollar the government spends; there is no way we will get through the next couple of years without this blowing up the economy.

Karl adds that if the President and Congress continue to kick the Health and Human Services deficit-spending can down the road and do nothing now “all assets will collapse in price, [interest] rates will soar irrespective of The Fed cutting off consumer and corporate borrowing and unemployment will shoot to the moon concurrent with real shortages and perhaps worse.”

Karl argues that the American healthcare system, as it currently stands, is essentially a monopoly which must be busted up now in order to prevent total, economic ruin. Karl explains in detail how this must be done. In essence, Karl is saying we must do what it takes now to stop monopolistic costs and out-of-control spending, endure the inevitable, economic depression as the system clears, or suffer total economic collapse and destruction a few months down the road.

Everything I know about economics supports Karl's opinion. I completely agree with him.

Look, we are all reasonable adults. Most of us understand that something is gravely wrong with our current economic situation. We know instinctively that we are being fleeced by grifting, powerful elites in Washington DC. We can feel ourselves being slowly suffocated by the multi-$-Trillion runaway, federal government leviathan. 

Some of us will regard Karl's article as a call to action. We will send Karl’s article to our representatives in Washington and demand immediate action. 

Some of us will sit on our hands. We will laugh off Karl’s article as Chicken-Little doomsaying or fear mongering or cheap political partisanship. 

Some of us will tighten our belts and prepare for the runaway train that is coming down the tracks straight at us from the east.

Whatever some of us may do or may not do, there is one thing we all cannot do. When that runaway train smashes into us -- destroying our savings and wrecking our very way of life -- we cannot say we weren’t warned!

Why Are Americans Forsaking Ukraine and Their Western European Allies?

President Trump's press conference with Volodymyr Zelenskyy has triggered Karens across the globe. And the fact that Trump intends to stop all present and future US subsidies of the Ukrainian war machine has left Europeans in a state of utter alarm and confusion:

"This latest change of direction in American foreign policy which entails abandoning old allies and siding with the most vile dictatorships in the world is perplexing. What good could possibly accrue to Americans? Trump's actions make Europe weaker, but they make America weaker still. Moreover, his actions make the so called "West" weaker. The resultant fall of Western hegemony ultimately plays directly into the hands of China which is eager to take up the role of geopolitical leader in the world. Why is Trump acting as he is?" 

If Europeans are truly and sincerely interested in an answer to their question, they will read Washington's Farewell Address at the end of this post. President George Washington, the first President of the United States, gave a clear and direct answer on 19 September, 1796. Europeans should pay particular attention to the text in the speech which I have emphasized.

The debate in the United States over foreign entanglements is not a new one. Americans more or less followed Washington's advice until the start of the 20th century when a series of internationalist Presidents rejected American neutrality.

You see, Americans have heard these European questions and arguments before. President Wilson led the US into World War I by hook and crook, promising it would be the war to end all wars, if only we allied ourselves with the forces of lasting peace in Europe. 

President Franklyn Roosevelt maneuvered the US into World War II because he was convinced Adolph Hitler was a vile dictator with ambitions to rule the world. So he allied the US with Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union! 

President Johnson decided the US should go to war in Vietnam lest the vile dictators of the USSR and China topple the dominoes and spread their vile rule across Asia and, eventually, the world. As the dominoes fell, Johnson argued, so would western hegemony. 

Today we hear there exists yet another vile dictator in the world. Russian President Vladimir Putin, it is claimed, is intent on felling deadly dominoes across Europe. Therefore, he must be stopped. Therefore, Americans must side with our European allies and go to war in Ukraine to prevent the fall of Western hegemony.

American participation in past wars, spawned by interventionist Presidents, resulted in the loss of millions of American lives. For what? The opportunity to fight more endless wars to end all war.

Millions of Americans now believe George Washington was right. Millions of Americans have always believed Washington was right. These Americans argued for American neutrality, resisted these ginned up wars and rejected the very concept of siding with European allies and creating "coalitions of the willing."

Europeans must understand that Americans, until relatively recently, have never put much stock in collectivism, either in politics or in foreign policy. In the 18th century Americans broke away from Europe because we were a nation of rugged individualists who believed in taking care of our own and we expected others to do the same. A good many of us still think that way. So, Europeans shouldn't try to lay a guilt trip on Americans for minding our own business and ignoring the shrieking Karens in Europe and the Ukraine.

George Washington's Farewell Address...

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions [and] obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel

Why forgo the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

Tax Season: Enough Is Enough!

How many federal taxpayers live in an average American neighborhood?

Let's say 100.

The average American taxpayer pays about $13,000 per year in federal income taxes. That means you and your neighborhood friends send a total of about $1,300,000 to Washington DC each and every year.

What does the federal government do with your money?

Here, per the US Senate, is a partial list of how the federal government spent the money you and your neighbors sent it in 2024:

The federal government spent $10 billion on maintaining, leasing, and furnishing almost entirely empty buildings

The Department of the Interior (DOI) spent $12 Million on a Las Vegas Pickleball Complex 

The Department of State (DOS) wasted $330,000 to fund censorship of non-liberal and conservative media

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) awarded a $2 million grant to study kids looking at Facebook ads about food 

The Department of State (DOS) spent $108,272 on a non-functioning hotel

Congress spent $15 million to turn the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) into an unconstitutional force to prepare, file, and audit your hard-earned money

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) spent $419,470 to determine if lonely rats seek cocaine more than happy rats

The Department of Energy (DOE) spent $15.5 billion to push Americans toward electric vehicles they don't want

The Department of State (DOS) squandered $4,840,082 on influencers

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) spent $365,000 to promote circuses in city parks

The Department of State (DOS) spent $3 Million for ‘Girl-Centered Climate Action’ in Brazil

The Department of State (DOS) paid the Royal Film Commission $873,584 for movies in Jordan

The Department of State (DOS) spent $345,434 on football engagement to counter terrorism

The United States Department of the Treasury (USDT) granted a failed trucking company a $700 million pandemic-era loan

The National Science Foundation (NSF) spent $288,563 to ensure bird watching groups have safe spaces aka “Affinity Groups”

Americans are paying $892 billion in fiscal year 2024 on the interest on Uncle Sam’s Credit Card

The Department of State (DOS) spent $500,000 to expand the U.S. Embassy in Ethiopia’s #USInvestsInEthiopians social media campaign to a larger national public relations campaign

The federal government spent $7,026,689 on various magical projects

The Department of State (DOS) spent $2.1 million for Paraguayan Border Security

Since 2015 the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has awarded $385,000 for art displays on the High Line

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is spending $20 million on the Fertilize Right Initiative to advance fertilizer use in Pakistan, Vietnam, Colombia, and Brazil

The Department of State (DOS) is spending $123,066 to teach Kyrgyzstan youth how to go viral

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) spent $1,513,299 on a study of waste and cruelty

The Department of Defense (DOD) spent $10,851,439 on Orwellian cat experiments

The Department of the Interior (DOI) spent $720,479 on wetland conservation projects for ducks in Mexico

The Agency for International Development (USAID) is spending $20 million on “Ahlan Simsim” a new Sesame Street show in Iraq

The Department of State (DOS) sent $253,653 to Bosnia to fight “misinformation”

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) awarded the Bearded Ladies Cabaret a $10,000 grant to support a cabaret show on ice skates focused on climate change

The Department of State (DOS) allocated $32,596.12 for breakdancing

Cut out just a couple of these spending boondoggles and you personally wouldn't need to pay a dime in federal taxes.

Eliminate them all and your neighborhood -- and probably all the neighborhoods in your town or state -- wouldn't need to pay income taxes. 

How much better off would you have been in 2024 if the federal government had allowed you to keep your $13,000 to spend on yourself and your family? How much better off would your neighbors and your neighborhood and your town be if they were allowed to keep their hard-earned money rather than send it to Washington DC?

Now hold that thought while you consider the billions and billions of federal tax dollars being poured down the drain by USAID each year.

Next, consider the fact that the US federal government collects about $5-trillion in taxes each and every year and spends it all. This is money taken directly out of the pockets of American taxpayers. 

And for what?

The only thing worse than paying taxes is paying taxes at gunpoint to fund some politician's wet dream.

On Immigration

As they say, we are a country of immigrants. Yes, the immigrants of today are different racially and culturally as compared to the immigrants of yesteryear. However, there is another factor to be considered, and it might be the most significant factor of all: our country today is not the same country that it was years ago.

Immigrants coming to our country years ago had to have skin in the game in order to survive. They asked for nothing; they were given nothing. The country operated by the rule of law, not by the rule of men.

Now, not only the illegal immigrants but also the elites who invite them in survive rather nicely on government largesse, obtained by fleecing productive, taxpaying citizens like you and me. 

US Federal Budget Percent of GDP 1789: 2%

US Federal Budget Percent of GDP 2023: 37%

 

Average Federal Outlays Per Capita 1789: $34

Average Federal Outlays Per Capital 2023: >$25,000

 

US Executive Departments 1789: STATE, TREASURY, WAR

US Executive Departments 2024: STATE, TREASURY, DEFENSE, INTERIOR, AGRICULTURE, JUSTICE, COMMERCE, LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, TRANSPORTATION, ENERGY, EDUCATION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, HOMELAND SECURITY

What's wrong with this picture? It's not fixable by changing the names of the bureaucrats in charge of the Washington power structure. Restore the rule of law, then eliminate the problem at its source. Cut the federal government back to what it was years ago, and the immigration problem will take care of itself.