CIA

[AccessBlaster]

One week into Donald Trump's presidency the CIA quietly announces this.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The CIA now believes the virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic most likely originated from a laboratory, according to an assessment released Saturday that points the finger at China even while acknowledging that the spy agency has “low confidence” in its own conclusion."

Here's another Gem from the CIA:
"Moby Says CIA Agents Asked Him to Spread the Word About Trump and Russia". “They said, like, ‘Look, you have more of a social media following than any of us do, can you please post some of these things just in a way that… sort of put it out there.’”

Kind of blows up the whole "tin foil hat conspiracy theories" doesn't it?

 

[Pat Hartman]

Kind of blows up the whole "tin foil hat conspiracy theories" doesn't it?

People with TDS still believe them. The retractions are in small print. The accusations raged for EIGHT years.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If that isn't evidence for the need for a massive shake-up then nothing will ever be enough.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The deportations are proceeding apace. Haven't heard anything yet regarding firing the deep state folks.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The deportations are proceeding apace. Haven't heard anything yet regarding firing the deep state folks.

Can't so easily fire them because the bureaucrats are mostly in civil service. However, they are still subject to Executive Orders. It might require DJT to issue orders, let a little time pass, find those who have disobeyed said orders, and then fire those miscreants for cause (insubordination).

 

[Steve R.]

Now that Trump has assumed office once again, more suppressed facts are emerging into the public domain. The incremental accumulation of all these suppressed fact adds to the theory that the 2020 election was "rigged" in the sense the electorate was given a pro-Biden biased selective viewpoint of political reality.

Now the truth comes out: Reporters admit Politico snuffed out Hunter Biden laptop story to protect Joe in 2020

Lest anyone still have doubts, two ex-Politico reporters, Mark Caputo and Tara Palmeri, just confirmed how far the media went to protect Joe Biden prior to the 2020 presidential election.

nypost.com

Lest anyone still have doubts, two ex-Politico reporters just confirmed how far the media went to protect Joe Biden prior to the 2020 presidential election.

PS: Lately, I've heard this joke several times.
Question: What is the difference between a conspiracy theory and the news?
Answer: About one month. (However, in the case of the Biden administration it is closer to four years!)

 

[Isaac]

The deportations are proceeding apace. Haven't heard anything yet regarding firing the deep state folks.

I think the return-to-work mandate will cause a large amount of attrition, and probably even attrition of people that weights a little more heavily towards the crappy employees to begin with - thus achieving a similar goal

 

[Pat Hartman]

Makes you wonder how many of those "working" at home have second jobs. Even giving them generous severance benefits will save us hundreds of millions every year.

 

[Minty]

The deportations are proceeding apace.

You might want to read this.

US deportations under Biden surpass Trump's 2019 record

President Biden had pledged to pause deportations, but ended up expanding it following a surge in border crossings.

www.bbc.co.uk

I'll say this - Trump administration is much better at the PR and optics of deporting people than the Biden administration was.

In the story last week about the Columbians refusal to accept a military plane with migrants on it, was the detail that there were 124 planes of migrants accepted by Columbia last year. The Columbians objection this time is that the migrants are sent in the back of a C130 rather than the comfy seats of a 737. And of course Trump Admin would rather spend $700k (reportedly) on the military plane for the strong optics, rather than the $100k that a chartered 737 would cost. Wait till ol' Musky hears about that waste.

All sorts of people have been deported by Biden. These ICE agents you see on raids didn't just materialise out of thin air. They were in place and doing similar work before, just now they are doing it on TikTok with a TV doctor (Dr Phil) "embedded" inexplicably.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The border was "closed" under Biden. No one who crossed was "illegal" ICE was not conducting raids to get the criminals and get rid of them or Mayorkas would have told us that. The lines of people walking through Mexico and queued up crossing the Rio Grande were a figment of our imagination. So where the BBC is getting those numbers is a mystery. Perhaps, we will have clarity once the new Secretary gets her footing. The number the article quoted as being "deported" is the approximate number of people Biden "imported" using chartered planes so they wouldn't have to walk. Perhaps the author just got the words deported and imported confused

 

[Isaac]

I think Biden was mostly targeting criminals-only and also mostly near the border (recent cross-ers).
As far as the $ to do it on a military plane, there are a dozen reasons why that might have made sense - things that we have no way of knowing. One might be the military was already apportioned the money and resources, so MOVING some from whatever they were doing (hanging around a Base probably) to the border was 'free' in a sense, whereas chartering civilian flights would have cost new money. Another is he is already ordering the military around the border so using the planes they already have makes more sense. Another might be the optics, and good - we need to make other countries stop the caravans a little more thoroughly and message strongly to their people that illegal migration to the US is not a viable option for them. Biden's daily average was ~300, Trump exceeded 1900 in one day - but obviously, give them a chance to get going, he's only been in office a week or two.
Trump's stronger enforcement of the border will deter illegal immigration.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Can't so easily fire them because the bureaucrats are mostly in civil service. However, they are still subject to Executive Orders. It might require DJT to issue orders, let a little time pass, find those who have disobeyed said orders, and then fire those miscreants for cause (insubordination).

The Civil Service rules are an abomination. As is the fact that they are unionized. I agree, even though Trump is the "boss" of the Executive Branch he can't just fire union people but he can transfer them to Guam or Nome on non-family assignments and make them live in tents like soldiers have to and change their workhours to 6 pm to 3 am.

China has 5 time zones but all of China uses Beijing time. We could do the same.

 

[Minty]

 

[Isaac]

One of the two worst things I think Trump has done so far:

1) try to decree-away Birthright Citizenship
2) re-name the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America

Some of the two best things:
1) Show that he is tough on immigration to deter and detect
2) Ending DEI etc. etc. in government and strongly suggesting that civilian companies do the same, as hiring quotas based on race is illegal discrimination

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[Pat Hartman]

1) try to decree-away Birthright Citizenship
2) re-name the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America

1. You might want to reread the 14th amendment again and ask yourself WHY doesn't the first sentence end with "born or naturalized in the United States"? Period!!! What is the purpose of the clause that follows - "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ..."? "born or naturalized" seems pretty clear to me. Why did the amendment need to qualify that statement? You can't say that the additional words are necessary if birthright citizenship were actually intended as it is currently being interpreted. The additional clause would just add confusion. That is the question the Supreme Court will be asked to answer. And the answer will be - the law was specifically intended to apply to the children of slaves because certain states were trying to pass laws that deprived the children of slaves citizenship. I would have no problem interpreting this as "any mother in the country legally" unless of course the father were a citizen which would give the child citizenship automatically. I don't care if you're on a plane that had to stop and you give birth and the plane takes off immediately after the baby is born. Technically, you're in the country legally. But when you cross into the country illegally, YOU have no right to be here. You are not a citizen of the US but you are a citizen of some other country and THEY have jurisdiction. How do you handle the mini-industry in California where Asian women come here for the last 3 months of their pregnancy and live in group homes or hotels that cater to the practice of stealing citizenship? They are here legally but their intention is to steal citizenship and all that goes with it.
2. I don't like the name either. I'm generally not in favor of changing place names. Period. However, if I were to choose a different name, I would choose The Gulf of the Americas. It makes more sense because the gulf touches North, South, and Central America. Gulf of America seems to imply that it is only ours so I don't like that choice.

 

[Isaac]

1. You might want to reread the 14th amendment again and ask yourself WHY doesn't the first sentence end with "born or naturalized in the United States"? Period!!! What is the purpose of the clause that follows - "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ..."? "born or naturalized" seems pretty clear to me. Why did the amendment need to qualify that statement? You can't say that the additional words are necessary if birthright citizenship were actually intended as it is currently being interpreted. The additional clause would just add confusion. That is the question the Supreme Court will be asked to answer. And the answer will be - the law was specifically intended to apply to the children of slaves because certain states were trying to pass laws that deprived the children of slaves citizenship. I would have no problem interpreting this as "any mother in the country legally" unless of course the father were a citizen which would give the child citizenship automatically. I don't care if you're on a plane that had to stop and you give birth and the plane takes off immediately after the baby is born. Technically, you're in the country legally. But when you cross into the country illegally, YOU have no right to be here. You are not a citizen of the US but you are a citizen of some other country and THEY have jurisdiction. How do you handle the mini-industry in California where Asian women come here for the last 3 months of their pregnancy and live in group homes or hotels that cater to the practice of stealing citizenship? They are here legally but their intention is to steal citizenship and all that goes with it.
2. I don't like the name either. I'm generally not in favor of changing place names. Period. However, if I were to choose a different name, I would choose The Gulf of the Americas. It makes more sense because the gulf touches North, South, and Central America. Gulf of America seems to imply that it is only ours so I don't like that choice.

They are subject to our jurisdiction. I've never heard of a cop saying oh dear I can't arrest this person because they're here illegally.
Most likely the reason why it says and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is to allow for diplomats

 

[Isaac]

1. You might want to reread the 14th amendment again and ask yourself WHY doesn't the first sentence end with "born or naturalized in the United States"? Period!!! What is the purpose of the clause that follows - "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ..."? "born or naturalized" seems pretty clear to me. Why did the amendment need to qualify that statement? You can't say that the additional words are necessary if birthright citizenship were actually intended as it is currently being interpreted. The additional clause would just add confusion. That is the question the Supreme Court will be asked to answer. And the answer will be - the law was specifically intended to apply to the children of slaves because certain states were trying to pass laws that deprived the children of slaves citizenship. I would have no problem interpreting this as "any mother in the country legally" unless of course the father were a citizen which would give the child citizenship automatically. I don't care if you're on a plane that had to stop and you give birth and the plane takes off immediately after the baby is born. Technically, you're in the country legally. But when you cross into the country illegally, YOU have no right to be here. You are not a citizen of the US but you are a citizen of some other country and THEY have jurisdiction. How do you handle the mini-industry in California where Asian women come here for the last 3 months of their pregnancy and live in group homes or hotels that cater to the practice of stealing citizenship? They are here legally but their intention is to steal citizenship and all that goes with it.
2. I don't like the name either. I'm generally not in favor of changing place names. Period. However, if I were to choose a different name, I would choose The Gulf of the Americas. It makes more sense because the gulf touches North, South, and Central America. Gulf of America seems to imply that it is only ours so I don't like that choice.

Oh that's exactly what I told my family too, if he was going to change it it should be Gulf of the Americas. Great minds think alike

 

[Isaac]

One of the two worst things I think Trump has done so far:

1) try to decree-away Birthright Citizenship
2) re-name the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America

Some of the two best things:
1) Show that he is tough on immigration to deter and detect
2) Ending DEI etc. etc. in government and strongly suggesting that civilian companies do the same, as hiring quotas based on race is illegal discrimination

Add to that:

#3) Giving, or allowing the appearance of giving, Elon Musk too much inside access which very understandably has people up in arms, as he wasn't elected. Terrible move Trump! Think about the consequences bro - before churning ahead like a bull in a china shop with all this stuff

 

[Pat Hartman]

#3) Giving, or allowing the appearance of giving, Elon Musk too much inside access which very understandably has people up in arms, as he wasn't elected. Terrible move Trump! Think about the consequences bro - before churning ahead like a bull in a china shop with all this stuff

Neither were the people who were mis-managing the USAid agency. Why doesn't anyone care that they were filtering funds through so many intermediate organizations that very little was actually getting to the intended recipient? We won't even discuss whether the grant was rational or not. All we are talking about is ADMINISTRATION. Loosing 90% of the people's money en route to the recipient simply cann't be allowed to continue.

Just FYI Issac, Musk has no authority to shut anything down. His job is to recommend. Anyone with half a brain can understand that. The Dems and the people who believe their ranting apparently don't have the requisite half a brain. Trump made the decision to shut down the operation along with Marco Rubio who has recalled all foreign workers for the agency. Musk's team has read only access to the computer systems. Putting everyone immediately on paid administrative leave is an attempt to secure the computer records while the final decision is made.

The "appearance" is whatever the progressives say it is. They choose to interpret Trump and his team's actions in whatever they consider to be the most negative way. It is their intent to create dissent and chaos and then say that it is Trump who creates chaos, when in fact it is them. Musk is doing his job enthusiastically. Remember, he's on the "spectrum" so he is a "special" person who the Dems are always trying to promote. The problem is that he used to be one of them but has decided that it wasn't Trump who was the problem, it is and always has been the Democrats. Musk's problem is that he can't contain his glee at finding such a total mess (remember, he's "on the spectrum"). He loves fixing things and he found something really bad to fix and that makes him happy. He loves a good challenge. It makes me happy also - not that the USAid was so messed up but that Musk's team was able to uncover the problems and bring them to Trump's attention. I'm pretty sure that most of the aid being dispensed by this agency is idiotic, it should at least be getting to the recipient. Choosing the programs to support should be the task of Congress but I think it isn't. I'm getting the impression that this is primarily a slush fund and USAid is actually picking winners and losers. USAid should only be deciding on the best, most efficient way to distribute and manage the grant money and make sure it is achieving it's stated goals. I presume that is what the boots on the ground overseas people are there to do.