Openings for the Grift Empire to Strike Back

 
  1.  SCOTUS, by 5-4 decision in Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (Chief Justice siding with liberals), chose not to fully rein in the political hack District Court Judge Amir Ali who had ordered Trump to keep paying the USAID grifter network.  SCOTUS sent back the case with ambiguous orders. If SCOTUS gives leeway to the Commie Grift Empire to delay and sandbag DOGE with lawfare, our joy will fade fast.  If the battle can be won with speed and rapid attacks, we win.  If, instead, it is multi-year protracted trench warfare across multiple elections, we lose.
  2. It is extraordinarily risky to do a tariff war. Both sides take hits, and there simply cannot be surprise economic repercussions before the mid-terms. Worse, will a show of patriotic Canadian opposition to Trump’s perceived bullying revive the political fortunes of Pierre Castro and his hard-left party?
  3. As nauseatingly brain-dead and openly evil as is the leadership of the Democratic Party and their media allies, they still have half the voters and now have enormous survival-driven incentives to organize cheat as never before.  Slogans and lines of attack that would make Josef Goebbels blush are likely.  Turnout by necro-Americans in Wisconsin and Michigan could be decisive. Will the GOP be fat, content and lazy, and lose in 2026?
  4. As a DC metro area resident, I already know firsthand of several high-salary individuals now jobless because of DOGE, and there is much talk of wide economic hits to local businesses of all kinds. This immediate area is already largely a GOP-free zone, so the net political effect is minimal, but only if it remains local.  There cannot be similar fears and losses in more electorally significant areas.  There absolutely has to be rapid economic and job growth to keep a dominant positive narrative.

We can still lose this war. The Germans are colder and hungrier than we are.  -Gen. George S. Patton Jan 4, 1945.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 34 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. She Member
    She
    @She

    Love the post.  Can we please distinguish, going forward, between “reign in” (as in what we might wish are the limits a sovereign could do to us) and “rein in” (as in what we might do to in a horse?)

    • #1
  2. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    She (View Comment):

    Love the post. Can we please distinguish, going forward, between “reign in” (as in what we might wish are the limits a sovereign could do to us) and “rein in” (as in what we might do to in a horse?)

    Oops.  sorry. Well noted.

    • #2
  3. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Alito dissent:

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a831_3135.pdf

    • #3
  4. Quintus Sertorius Coolidge
    Quintus Sertorius
    @BillGollier

    Excellent post!!

    No unforced errors. The Tariff battle with Mexico and Canada is foolish. Not against tariffs outs of hand…they have a place and also realize Canada and Mexico probably aren’t playing fair. However to go after your two neighbors one month in is silly…especially considering the silly rhetoric about a 51st state et al…take a year to negotiate and see where that leads. Furthermore using fentanyl as a reason is also over the top. I mean if I’m an alcoholic should I blame the liquor stores? Maybe pass some legislation etc to address the home causes and then see what remains to be done…going after Canada to start…unforced error. 

    Note: The drug cartels in Mexico are a separate issue in many respects as they are involved in so much more than the drug trade…but again…maybe address the desire for these illicit behaviors in the U.S. before blaming everyone else or at least in tandem….

    • #4
  5. Steve Fast Member
    Steve Fast
    @SteveFast

    Great post! All excellent points.

    • #5
  6. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    I am glad someone on ricochet has given the matter thought and then  posted an excellent take as far as what is going on.

    My take: There may be a need to have oversight of DOGE. But most people understand that in the USA, political attitudes and policies seem to have the pendulum swing far to the crazy this way, and then – Ahem – supposedly  in order to correct things, far to the other side of crazy.

    If there was some force, legal or political, that would keep all things in balance, for the past decades  that force has been locked away. (While we in the public  watched as the key was thrown away.)

    Although I am on the side of thinking DOGE has done some senseless chopping without important considerations being made, there are many changes that I loved. I knew all along how there was the strong possibility of huge amounts of government funding somehow leaking thru to prop up the dying traditional media. (Jon Stewart claimed over a decade ago that without being broadcast as the only news station being blared throughout airports, CNN could not claim more than a handful of viewers.)

     

    • #6
  7. DonG (¡Afuera!) Coolidge
    DonG (¡Afuera!)
    @DonG

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    Alito dissent:

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a831_3135.pdf

    I heard the ruling described as saying zero payment is probably not right, if there is work completed, but also the whole amount is probably not right either and that the judge needs to be specific about what is to paid what damages.    Sounds reasonable, but if the people did not sue for that, they should get nothing and bring a new lawsuit.

    • #7
  8. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    We need to do something about the jurisdiction problem. How can we rein in these arrogant judges who insist their opinion should reign in places outside their remit?

    • #8
  9. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Barfly (View Comment):

    We need to do something about the jurisdiction problem. How can we rein in these arrogant judges who insist their opinion should reign in places outside their remit?

    That one judge with the AIDS thing is actually in DC, which is pretty unusual for these things.  As Dennis Miller noted, the trouble-makers are usually like that “strip-mall judge in Hawaii.”  

    But I suppose if the AIDS thing is NOT in DC, then that judge was still acting beyond his jurisdiction.

    ALL of them are likely beyond their AUTHORITY, but that’s a different issue.

    • #9
  10. DonG (¡Afuera!) Coolidge
    DonG (¡Afuera!)
    @DonG

    Barfly (View Comment):

    We need to do something about the jurisdiction problem. How can we rein in these arrogant judges who insist their opinion should reign in places outside their remit?

    Easy.  Congress invented district judges, Congress can define their jurisdiction. 

    • #10
  11. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    If Republicans don’t fight with Trump to get this agenda done, there won’t be another chance.

    • #11
  12. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Double click. I never do that.

    • #12
  13. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    DonG (¡Afuera!) (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    We need to do something about the jurisdiction problem. How can we rein in these arrogant judges who insist their opinion should reign in places outside their remit?

    Easy. Congress invented district judges, Congress can define their jurisdiction.

    Hopefully Mr. Johnson has it on the calendar. 

    Of course, it’ll be challenged. How will Roberts and Rabbit rule?

    • #13
  14. Juno Delta Whiskey Coolidge
    Juno Delta Whiskey
    @Cato

    Better to do this stuff early than wait. Mid-terms are still 20 months away. Most of this should be resolved by the end of the summer.

    • #14
  15. Subcomandante America Member
    Subcomandante America
    @TheReticulator

    Barfly (View Comment):

    We need to do something about the jurisdiction problem. How can we rein in these arrogant judges who insist their opinion should reign in places outside their remit?

    Remember the battles over “standing” when Trump supporters were trying to get justice in the 2020 election battles?  Be careful not to cut off the branch we are standing on.    

    • #15
  16. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Subcomandante America (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    We need to do something about the jurisdiction problem. How can we rein in these arrogant judges who insist their opinion should reign in places outside their remit?

    Remember the battles over “standing” when Trump supporters were trying to get justice in the 2020 election battles? Be careful not to cut off the branch we are standing on.

    Or, it’s another tit-for-tat.  If we can’t have “standing” then they can’t either.

    • #16
  17. Subcomandante America Member
    Subcomandante America
    @TheReticulator

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Subcomandante America (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    We need to do something about the jurisdiction problem. How can we rein in these arrogant judges who insist their opinion should reign in places outside their remit?

    Remember the battles over “standing” when Trump supporters were trying to get justice in the 2020 election battles? Be careful not to cut off the branch we are standing on.

    Or, it’s another tit-for-tat. If we can’t have “standing” then they can’t either.

    Or we could exercise a little care in what we ask for to make sure it’s what we really want.   

    • #17
  18. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Subcomandante America (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Subcomandante America (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    We need to do something about the jurisdiction problem. How can we rein in these arrogant judges who insist their opinion should reign in places outside their remit?

    Remember the battles over “standing” when Trump supporters were trying to get justice in the 2020 election battles? Be careful not to cut off the branch we are standing on.

    Or, it’s another tit-for-tat. If we can’t have “standing” then they can’t either.

    Or we could exercise a little care in what we ask for to make sure it’s what we really want.

    Yes care is needed. If Trump can have the DOGE team eliminate funding overnight for things we think are superfluous and/or a mis-use of government funding, what is to prevent a Democrat president from axing the military budget to the point that service people no longer get paid?

    Right now much of what DOGE is doing meets with Trump supporter approval. But he can only serve this term and then we may be back to Dems or worse.

    • #18
  19. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Mexico has agreed to Trump’s wishes. Tariffs paused.

    • #19
  20. Subcomandante America Member
    Subcomandante America
    @TheReticulator

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):
    what is to prevent a Democrat president from axing the military budget to the point that service people no longer get paid?

    You don’t have to wait for Democrats to do it.  

    • #20
  21. Subcomandante America Member
    Subcomandante America
    @TheReticulator

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Mexico has agreed to Trump’s wishes. Tariffs paused.

    I’ll betcha Donald Trump told you that, right?  

    What did Mexico say?  

    • #21
  22. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Subcomandante America (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):
    what is to prevent a Democrat president from axing the military budget to the point that service people no longer get paid?

    You don’t have to wait for Democrats to do it.

    I’d love to see the military budget face significant cut backs, not that I think  it would occur in my lifetime.

    But to realize that a Dem-run DOGE team could abolish the military is not a thought that I find pleasant.

    • #22
  23. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Subcomandante America (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Subcomandante America (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    We need to do something about the jurisdiction problem. How can we rein in these arrogant judges who insist their opinion should reign in places outside their remit?

    Remember the battles over “standing” when Trump supporters were trying to get justice in the 2020 election battles? Be careful not to cut off the branch we are standing on.

    Or, it’s another tit-for-tat. If we can’t have “standing” then they can’t either.

    Or we could exercise a little care in what we ask for to make sure it’s what we really want.

    Yes care is needed. If Trump can have the DOGE team eliminate funding overnight for things we think are superfluous and/or a mis-use of government funding, what is to prevent a Democrat president from axing the military budget to the point that service people no longer get paid?

    Right now much of what DOGE is doing meets with Trump supporter approval. But he can only serve this term and then we may be back to Dems or worse.

    But you think the Dims wouldn’t do that anyway if that’s what they wanted?  You think they just never thought of it, or something?  Seems more like they’re okay with military spending as long as the “military” is “queer” etc.

    • #23
  24. Subcomandante America Member
    Subcomandante America
    @TheReticulator

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):
    I’d love to see the military budget face significant cut backs, not that I think  it would occur in my lifetime

    Sounds like Hegseth plans to make it happen sooner rather than later. 

    • #24
  25. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Barfly (View Comment):

    We need to do something about the jurisdiction problem. How can we rein in these arrogant judges who insist their opinion should reign in places outside their remit?

    The only viable solution is to ignore the Court.  How will the Court enforce their ruling?   What are the damages?  Are they going to hold Trump in contempt?  But they’ve already ruled that he has immunity.  

    Usually the Court is very careful about issuing rulings that can be easily ignored.  They usually do not want to risk appearing to lack power.  In this case, if Trump is able to keep lower officials from having the ability to disburse funds, then game is over.

    If you strike a king, you must kill him.  Trump is going after democrat funding and the democrats are terrified.  If he can’t limit this illegal and fraudulent funding, then they will be able to use their our vast wealth against him and us.  The only way is all the way in.  No camel noses under the tent, we need a bull in the china shop and he needs to smash everything.

    • #25
  26. Subcomandante America Member
    Subcomandante America
    @TheReticulator

    Skyler (View Comment):
    The only viable solution is to ignore the Court.  

    I’m opposed to “only viable solutions.”  All three words are wrong.   

    • #26
  27. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    We need to do something about the jurisdiction problem. How can we rein in these arrogant judges who insist their opinion should reign in places outside their remit?

    The only viable solution is to ignore the Court. How will the Court enforce their ruling? What are the damages? Are they going to hold Trump in contempt? But they’ve already ruled that he has immunity.

    Usually the Court is very careful about issuing rulings that can be easily ignored. They usually do not want to risk appearing to lack power. In this case, if Trump is able to keep lower officials from having the ability to disburse funds, then game is over.

    If you strike a king, you must kill him. Trump is going after democrat funding and the democrats are terrified. If he can’t limit this illegal and fraudulent funding, then they will be able to use their our vast wealth against him and us. The only way is all the way in. No camel noses under the tent, we need a bull in the china shop and he needs to smash everything.

    Hey, if FJB can ignore SCOTUS on “forgiving” student loans, Trump should get a freebie too.

    • #27
  28. Brickhouse Hank Contributor
    Brickhouse Hank
    @HankRhody

    Old Bathos: As a DC metro area resident, I already know firsthand of several high-salary individuals now jobless because of DOGE, and there is much talk of wide economic hits to local businesses of all kinds. This immediate area is already largely a GOP-free zone, so the net political effect is minimal, but only if it remains local.  There cannot be similar fears and losses in more electorally significant areas.  There absolutely has to be rapid economic and job growth to keep a dominant positive narrative.

    See this? This is funny. We’ve been talking for years that they should move the various departments out of DC. Well, if we had, then we’d pay a larger price for cutting them. Imagine if all these cuts were coming out of the Pennsylvania economy. But no, everything had to be stuck in 97% leftist DC, so when these folks lose their jobs there’s no voter blowback. They can’t vote D any harder than they already were.

    Okay, but the actual concern. There may be some cuts to programs that hurt swing districts before the next election. Fair enough. I’d rather cut more and faster and hurt those districts than to be overly careful as to who and where we’re trimming.

    Why did Biden shove 20 billion out the door to the EPA when he knew Trump could cancel the grants? Because those cancellations take time, attention, and effort, and hey, maybe Trump can’t claw it all back. The flip side is also true. Trump cuts funding to the sex change clinic in India (and I’m not even trying to parody here; there’s too many good examples.) Suppose that the house flips in two years. For two years we’ve had fewer butcheries in India. That’s worth something. The incoming congress would have to fight to get their perversions back in place. That’s worth something too. And maybe India decides that getting some sweet, sweet USAID grift isn’t worth chopping up their population and declines the incoming offer. Politics may be an infinite game, but there’s still reason to grab at possibly ephemeral prizes.

    We’ve tried not cutting spending in order to not lose congressional seats. I’d like to try the opposite strategy, see how that turns out. 

    • #28
  29. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Brickhouse Hank (View Comment):

    For two years we’ve had fewer butcheries in India. That’s worth something. The incoming congress would have to fight to get their perversions back in place. That’s worth something too. And maybe India decides that getting some sweet, sweet USAID grift isn’t worth chopping up their population and declines the incoming offer.

    Those surgeries aren’t happening to any great extent.  That money isn’t ultimately intended to help perverts. It is money meant to fund communists and fellow travelers. That money is mostly coming back to propagandize in the US, pay radicals for spontaneous protests, pay politicians money.  The surgerical transvestites are just a twisted way to hide or launder that graft.

     

    • #29
  30. Brickhouse Hank Contributor
    Brickhouse Hank
    @HankRhody

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Brickhouse Hank (View Comment):

    For two years we’ve had fewer butcheries in India. That’s worth something. The incoming congress would have to fight to get their perversions back in place. That’s worth something too. And maybe India decides that getting some sweet, sweet USAID grift isn’t worth chopping up their population and declines the incoming offer.

    Those surgeries aren’t happening to any great extent. That money isn’t ultimately intended to help perverts. It is money meant to fund communists and fellow travelers. That money is mostly coming back to propagandize in the US, pay radicals for spontaneous protests, pay politicians money. The surgerical transvestites are just a twisted way to hide or launder that graft.

    The point stands. If the proceeds of the grift are propaganda, paid protests, and politician’s payola then all that is worth while to shut down in the short term. Make ’em scramble to set up new scams.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.