Answer: Not inflationary. Explanation: "Inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon"- Milton Friedman. Inflation happens when the issuer of the currency counterfeits his own currency. That is, like any good counterfeiter, he successfully makes more of it. That's it. Inflation isn't due to people's poor morals and spending their own money irresponsibly. That is a convenient way for the government to sidestep it's culpability. I do remember that line as a pretty young child in the 1970's. I do. And it was 100% bullshit. Inflation is the supply and demand thing of too much money chasing too few goods. Yes. Due to overprinting it. It is not due to Tarriffs. Why? Let's literally just take a few minutes to think it through. By the way, a tariff and a tax, these are the same. An example: Congestion pricing in NYC and the story of 2 parking garages Some weeks ago a new rule, Congestion Pricing, came into effect. If you drove below 60th street, in the sweetest part of the city, you would get charged $9. This was said to be something to reduce congestion but it didn't do that. It was just another money grab from the people- most of whom were guilty of trying to do business and provide a service- a punishment that they didn't deserve. So what happened? The story of 2 parking garages- Prior to the congestion pricing, there were 2 garages, one on 61st street and one on 59th st. Both charged the same- the exact same. After the congestion pricing the garage below 60th street charged less- exactly the amount of the congestion pricing was deducted from their fee. So who did the congestion pricing punish? The businesses below 60th Street. Just like any good democrat edict, it was anti capitalism and anti hard work. It punished those whose only crime is the desire to work hard and get paid for their efforts. So let's consider Canada. Soon they will have to pay a 25% tariff. Knowing what we know from the example above we can imagine that the Canadian company will have to eat some or most or all of the 25% tariff. Not the country of Canada. Not the taxpayers of Canada or the taxpayers of the US. Not the US customer. Please do not forget that to the extent that the Canadian company does not reduce their prices and their profit to compensate for the tariff, the would be US consumer is not forced to buy the Canadian product at gunpoint. If the price is higher, the consumer can just choose not to buy it. The tariff or tax on an item produced outside of this country is a better way to raise money for the government than income tax in my opinion. And it doesn't have a damn thing to do with inflation. The opposite actually. Taxes take money out of circulation and to the extent that a new tariff or tax is created and paid for, that money is being taken out of circulation- if it is used to pay down debt, that is (as opposed to printing money to pay down the debt). If it is used to fund more government jobs and to grow government, then the money is not taken out of circulation. Now, if the tariff is on something that is a necessity, then the consumer is punished. Like oil at this time. Perhaps that is why Trump only put a 10% tariff on Canadian oil but 25% on everything else. But the anti-Trump news media yells that the sky is falling and that Tariffs will equal inflation and that is touted on financial news stations as well. Shame on them. They should know better (and likely do).
It's funny, typically, for me, I am not so comfortable giving a simple answer to what looks like a simple question. I like to mine the question and travel through all the parts, like an ENT putting a scope up your nose or in your ear and you find out that you have sensations in real estate in twists and turns that you didn't know existed but now you always knew existed. And then after the exercise you feel better and cleaned out. Maybe I can give you an ENT nostril and outer ear cleaning and you'll feel all cleared up on this topic as well. First question. What is inflation? When ppl say this, what do they mean? a. inflation in prices b. inflation in money supply And why does it matter anyway? Prices As a child I remember our father telling us about prices when he was a kid. And now I can do the same. Granted, I can't say that I remember when a loaf of bread was a nickel. But I do remember when I could get lunch in New Orleans for $4.50 and now what is lunch in NYC? 20? It keeps going up. By the time someone reads this in a few months from now, it could be $25 or $30. It also depends on what you buy. But whereas when I was in med school in the 90s the difference between a cheap lunch and a fancy one might have been a dollar, today the percentage difference may be the same but the actual dollar amount is more. People don't care about an abstract like increase in money supply. Leave that to the math people. They care about what they have to pay. Back to my dad- how do you encapsulate a lifetimes worth of memories? Basically only the great ones, the dramatic ones or odd ones stick out. We probably talked about money a lot, like anything else that comes into one's direct purview. I think boys in particular, around ages 6 through 10 are very interested in this. This is the age of collecting- be it stamps, baseball cards, stickers, Pokemon cards, etc. It is the age of interest and memorization of facts and statistics. It is the age of counting and saving. It is also the age of interest in rules based games and competition. Money falls well into all of these categories. School lunch was an example. It cost 75c. With the last quarter you could get an ice-cream. I stopped eating ice-cream because as a little boy I was fat. I remember in 1st grade playing Santa Claus in the school play, for example. So I would only spend 75c. At some point it was brought to my attention that I was missing the extra quarter and I realized that I was throwing it out with the garbage on my lunch tray. So I started saving those quarters. I put them in the lid of a box of a board game. At the end of the year, we counted the quarters and, actually, it added up to $20! My parents gave me a $20 bill for all the quarters and apparently that left an impression on my younger brother. Next year suddenly my brother was rich. He always had money. A lot. How did that happen? Well, it turned out that he wasn't eating lunch in school. Instead of saving the quarter at the end, he saved the whole dollar each day. This began the identity of my brother being rich. Of course, once my parents found out, I think that they tried to make him eat lunch or gave him special shakes in the morning for him to maintain caloric intake (which backfired because they gave him diarrhea because he was lactose intolerant). Anyway, the identity stuck and his wealth was always inflated compared to the other kids. That's a good kind of inflation. And as it formed his identity, or maybe because he liked being active, or both, as we got older, he always worked harder than other kids. I remember one summer in high school we both worked as life guards. But he also worked as a valet parker. By the end of the summer he had saved 10K, which was a lot in 1990 and he used that money to buy a used BMW, stick shift, which was in awesome condition and was still the new model. Then in college he ran a flower business the week of Valentine's Day each year and killed it. But I am digressing from the topic of inflation. So the point- what is inflated? Prices? Back to a memory of my father- so, once, during a conversation on inflation, he said that it didn't really matter because everyone got inflated together. Even if bread was more expensive today, the money that you made was greater as well. I think he might have been repeating something that some respected economist said at the time. Ah, silly man, if only you knew... Today we are well aware of fake news and bullshit dressed in a suit and tie and a degree. He was gaslit as he himself was experiencing the effects of inflation his whole life. Wages do not keep up with inflation in other areas, generally speaking. Especially when you accept medical insurance in your practice. It is like that line from Matthew McConaughey in "Dazed and Confused", when he is talking about High school girls, "I keep getting older and they keep staying the same age." Except here, inflation keeps going up but you, the doctor accepting insurance for the past 20 years keeps staying at the same reimbursement. This may not sound like a big deal but at 7% yearly inflation as a rough estimate that is reductive because inflation in a price doesn't only apply to one thing but many things at different percentages- using the rule of 72 for compound interest, after 20 years you are making about 25% in real terms of what you were making originally. It is eviscerating. And the 2 to 3% inflation that the Fed tells you is occurring is just them gaslighting us, as we know. By the way, the 7% inflation rate holds if looking at the price of lunch example above. A doctor accepting insurance in his practice is a very bad gig, not because they chintz you on the reimbursement, which they do, or because they delay paying you, which has happened. The real problem is that they don't keep up with inflation. Other people do a better job of keeping up with inflation. It is a matter of whether you ride the wave or get drowned by it. Remember, if you are the one inflating, well, that's fine with you. People like lawyers can ride the wave. Dentists who were boxed out of the insurance coverage world can also ride the wave, ironically. That's an example of what seems like a punishment initially ends up being a blessing. On the other hand, they all may tell you that, sure, their top line may be that they charge a high fee but then most people can't afford that so they end up offering a reduced fee. In a world of inflated costs, people are relatively poorer and cannot afford to pay the top line request for service. By the way, whose to say that a doctor deserves to make a certain wage? Why should a doctor's hour be worth more than a ditch digger's? Maybe he should get paid the least of all careers because he is receiving other benefits like fulfillment, etc. If anything, this brings me back to the idea that as long as you are in the zero sum game where a service provider's financial benefit is the customer's financial loss, you will never be able to achieve financial lift off. Anyway, back to tariffs. OK. Let's say I want to buy an American car in Europe and let's say the cost of the car is 2x what it would be in the US. Now does that mean I can't drive? No. It just means that I am less likely to drive that tariffed item. That's why you don't see American cars in Europe, or in most other countries outside of the US and Canada for example. So, as long as I can get my basics, food, energy- I will be OK. Designer things can become more designer, in essence, as they become more expensive due to tariffs, i.e. Italian leather or French wine or a German car. But I am not obligated to buy those things. I'm just not. One might argue in that instance that a tariff is a fairer tax than income tax which is non-voluntary. It is the lesser of 2 evils because it is voluntary. Tariff wars A concern with tariffs is, "What if it leads to tariff wars? The answer is that the country that imports more from the other will win. And the individual in the winning country will lose. And the companies of both countries that export will lose (and the share holders in those companies will lose). But what the individual loses is the opportunity to purchase certain goods. And, because we are talking about individuals, the question is, what do you spend money on and how will it affect you, personally? If you spend your days in your mother's basement watching youtube then this is all meaningless to you. However, if you do that and eat (which we all do) then you have to figure out which foods you eat and if any of those will be more expensive after the tariffs, or not available all together. If tariffs on Mexico mean that you won't be able to get guacamole and Corona beer anymore, as Genius Senator Chuck Schumer showed us on live TV recently, I think you as an individual can still have a fairly full and fairly happy life. Really, I think that people's fear of the unknown is wreaking havoc on them and stocks are using this narrative to sell off. I do run the risk of being overly simplistic in my understanding of things. As Milton Friedman once famously showed on one of his videos, a pencil may have many parts from many different places, all of which are needed in the assembly of something so simple. Also, we have to realize who is talking about tariffs. It isn't a Nazi who is saying something about other countries being inferior and having inferior products. And it isn't an Islamist who hates everything not under the umbrella of Islam. Trump is not a hater. He wants a better deal. He wants to win. He wants to be remembered favorably and to be praised or at least appreciated. And I think he wants to do good. And I think he does have a sense of fairness and right and wrong. And if you look at reality, other countries have had enormous tariffs on American made products and that is anti-free trade. So the real beneficiaries of a trade war, based on reciprocity of tariffs, if it is resolved, would be the individuals of the country we beat and the American companies who export to them (and their stock holders). The individuals of the winning country would neither lose or make. For example, if the US is able to, through threats or exercise of tariffs then lead to a resolution where countries like China and others drop their long held tariffs on us, then the Chinese citizens would have more affordable options and companies like Tesla would sell many more cars in China and Tesla stock holders would see their shares skyrocket. Meanwhile, the individual consumer in the winning country would lose nothing in the end. If, however, the point of the tariffs is to raise revenue for the country and there is no interest in using them as a bargaining tool, then foreign item prices could go up and stay there. You may not be able to get guac and corona. But then, possibly, the revenue generated could offset government costs and result in less need for internal revenue. So you may lose certain specialty goods but it may save you thousands in income taxes- a trade that I think many of us would like to make. Also remember: American companies that export- in the case of a trade war, they would eat their own profits as well, leading to lower earnings and lower stock prices. Elon himself would take the greatest hit in that scenario. What would also most likely happen in many situations is that the companies based in foreign countries would take a beating on their profits but still provide their goods. Also, as we are now seeing, many companies that are foreign based or are American but based in foreign lands, are starting to relocate a substantial part of their company state-side so as to avoid the potential tariff, which they will. Also, that will provide more jobs for the local economy here as well. This is another benefit of tariffs. Another benefit of tariffs is that it is another avenue to fight in prior to having to go to war. If you can use the stick to incentivize someone's behavior, better for it to be through trade (or threat in trade) than in actual physical war. This is another useful option in a peacetime leader's repertoire of tricks. Effective Amount of Tariff as a behavioral incentive Trump is talking about 25%. I am guessing that the threat of this is big enough to incentivize a change in behavior. If it were 5%, the recipient nation wouldn't care enough and it would be a revenue maker only. Also, if the tariff goes above a certain percentage it would probably become too high for the recipient nation's company to eat and it would become too expensive for the individuals from the nation giving the tariff to afford. Effectively, it would raise no money for the tariffing country because it would simply halt trade all together. I am not a prophet. But what I guess may profit you nonetheless. My guess is that the tariff thing is a work in progress. I think it is very flexible. Thus far I have seen Trump put them on, take them off, put them on again, change them. I think he is trying to use it as an incentive to get countries to behave in certain ways. I think he is using them as a tool and less as a revenue stream. But in order for the threat of tariffs to be effective, he must say how beautiful they are and how much revenue we will make. In the end I think he will use this as a way to get more work state side and get other countries to drop their tariffs, both of which are great for the US and for individuals in the US who are both workers and share holders. And, I do think that there will be some stubborn leaders who will not or cannot drop their tariffs, in which case we will probably have some income from tariffs as well. I don't think Trump is anti- capitalism. I think he wants Americans to do well, which means everybody. I think we will go through a rough patch which may last for months but not years. I think once things get better in Trump's estimation, then we will really be up up and away like one of Elon's rockets. "It's the economy, stupid." - James Carville, Democrat strategist for Bill Clinton, 1992. Trump's plan: 1. Decrease Government expenditures- waste, fraud, abuse- therefore saving 1T, thus decreasing the need for inflation to monetize the debt and decreasing need for tax revenue. 2. Decrease tax revenue- this stimulates growth 3. Decrease the rate of increase in debt will decrease inflation --> decrease in interest rates, thus making houses, cars, etc more affordable. 4. Bringing more work stateside --> decrease unemployment. This decreases the chance of "stagflation" which is inflation in a stagnant economy, which happened in the 70's, which sux. 5. Saving the dollar. using the Bitcoin reserve. Elon's contribution: 6. The benefit of D.O.G.E isn't just about eliminating expenses but it is also about eliminating useless regulations/ improving regulations. This will allow for growth including: safe growth in robotics, AI and getting us to Mars. Imagine a world where we aren't in debt as a nation? What if you didn't have to pay taxes anymore? And what if you could have a car drive you everywhere safely and comfortably for a fraction of the cost of an uber? And what if you had a very affordable robotic servant, that you could lease for $250/mo? It might not cost much more than your cell phone bill. Remember the days when a flat screen TV cost 20K and now a big beautiful one costs what? $400? Imagine having a servant who will walk your dog, go to the grocery store, buy your food, bring it back, cook it as the best chef would, clean the house, set the table, serve you and 20 friends dinner, pour your wine, play the piano for you like a concert pianist, for your listening pleasure while you eat, and clean up afterwards, walk your dog again and then charge itself at night? You could talk to it if you were lonely. It could teach you about art, philosophy, physics. It could be your music teacher. It could be your primary front line doctor. It could take your weight, blood pressure, heart rate and temperature. It could do a full body skin check on you. It could do a full physical exam (including breast exam and prostate- I'm ready for the jokes). It could remind you to take your medications. You could live longer because the robot would be the first to observe a sign or symptom that you had that you might not have been aware of. This is what Elon is talking about. The future doesn't need to be about restriction. It can be about boundless optimism, freedom, creativity and fun. It could be about great improvement in QOL (quality of life) and expansion of our consciousness into the universe.
In 1861, Abraham Lincoln – supposedly America’s greatest president – destroyed the union created by the Constitution when he declared and then waged war against those States that had constitutionally seceded from that union. Lincoln’s actions were treason according to Article 3, Section III of that document. But he also nullified the Constitution when, as President, he both declared war and suspended the writ of habeas corpus, both acts limited to the Congress. And when Chief Justice Taney attempted to block these unconstitutional actions by the President, Lincoln threatened military arrest and confinement of any Justice ~ as well as any American ~ who made any attempt to interfere with his tyranny. Needless to say, both the Legislative and Judicial branches of the formerly federal government were effectively silenced while the President successfully pursued his war to make that government all-powerful. In 2008, American leaders of the leftist/communist-New World Order cabal managed to put into the presidency a change-agent in Barack Hussein Obama. Obama was totally ineligible to run for, never mind occupy that office being a foreign-born non-citizen* whose father had been a citizen of Great Britain, the colonial power ruling over his father’s country of origin (*Obama’s American mother was 17 at the time of his birth, thus her American citizenship did not devolve on him as she had to be 18 for that legally to happen). Many different groups and individuals brought these facts to the High Court only to have their efforts dismissed with the ruling that they “lacked standing;” that is, that the plaintiff(s) did not have the legal right to bring suit in the first place. As a result, the facts in these cases were never examined or ruled upon. Rather, the matter was simply thrown out. As a result of this judicial chicanery, this Marxist “change agent” spent eight years doing terrible damage to every aspect of America and her government. In 2016, it was believed that seditious, murderous communist change agent Obama would be followed into the presidency by equally communist and even more dishonest (if that were even possible!) former “First Lady,” then Senator Hillary Clinton, but here the plan hit a snag. To the great distress of both political parties and the “Deep State,” a man ran for the candidacy in the Republican Party who was not an insider or a politician, but a businessman, Donald J. Trump! Trump won the nomination and immediately, the inner workings of that same “Deep State” began to plot his destruction, a strategy that moved into high gear immediately after he astonished the entire nation by gaining the White House in the election of 2016! And so, for the first time in over two and a quarter centuries, political power was not smoothly transferred to a new administration! The secret war against Donald J. Trump that began with his candidacy never ended during his term in office. He was harassed, denied the constitutional mandates for a President, twice impeached and actively sabotaged virtually from the moment he was nominated. Under the then existing circumstances, nobody with any brains believed that the election of 2020 would be honest or fair – and, of course, it wasn’t. Cheated of another huge victory, Trump tried his best to have this dishonest election – and few with any real knowledge denied that it was dishonest! – set aside. In doing so, he went to America’s courts only to find that those attempting to undo what was a true communist coup again “lacked standing!” In 1861, Abraham Lincoln was in the wrong but his crimes were not overcome by the Supreme Court. He achieved this judicial “non-interference” by threatening to use the military to imprison any judge who attempted to thwart him. He prevailed in that threat and the Court did nothing despite the magnitude of his crimes. In 2020, Donald Trump was in the right but, alas, could find no support in the judiciary that was created to uphold the Constitution and the nation’s laws. Then came the election of 2024 and against all odds (or so it seemed to many Americans) Mr. Trump was able to win again. The reasons for this are many and complicated but as they do not matter here, they will not be addressed. And so, in a replay of the Grover Cleveland presidency, Trump regained the office of which he had been deprived four years earlier! This time, after he was inaugurated, Mr. Trump hit the ground running and is attempting to make a real difference in the present condition of this country as quickly as possible! But, as in 2020, he finds that much of what he is attempting to achieve as President is being resisted in America’s severely compromised justice system. Judges in the wrong courts are making rulings in cases in which they have no jurisdiction, preventing a sitting President from fulfilling his constitutional duties. Oh, occasionally a good jurist will point out to the parties involved that they are in the wrong judicial system – criminal rather than civil etc.! – but often even if, for instance, a judge knowingly hears a state matter in his federal court, the rulings still come down and failure to obey produces threats of legal penalties! All that matters to these criminals robed in the ermine of justice is the victory of their agenda. This, of course, is nothing new. Mr. Trump has been assailed by “lawcraft” – political war waged through the judicial system – since he entered the political arena. As a result, one of his promises to the electorate is to stop the “weaponization” of American jurisprudence so that it can be used to support the policies of the Left. But will he be able to do it? Will this last election be enough to keep the Ship of State afloat? Or will the icebergs and mines created by the New World Order end the vision of America’s Founders! Only time will tell, but there is little hope for us if America cannot rescue its judiciary from the hands of the enemies of justice.
As I sometimes do, I watched an interview online and took notes. This time it was Jordan Peterson interviewing the somewhat controversial Canadian journalist Ezra Levant, earlier this month of February, 2025. They met in Winnipeg, Manitoba for the interview. Both Ezra and Jordan are somewhat pessimistic about what lies ahead for Canada. It appears that Canada is completely captured by World Economic Forum figures. It also is not clear when and if another election in Canada will EVER happen. Mark Carney, the character who looks like he might replace Justin Trudeau, appears to be even worse than Trudeau, if such a thing is possible. He might very well take office, possibly for life, without ever having campaigned or being elected. My notes and a link to the interview follow. The War on Speech—and Those Who Dare to Fight It | Ezra Levant (Rebel News) https://x.com/JBPpod/status/1895232479902244975 -blade runners take down surveillance cameras in the UK -Canadian politicians Christa Freeland and Mark Carney are board members of the WEF [So is Canada's governor general, the King's representative.] -Carney believes in hydrogen energy economy -fascism means to bind together -the WEF buys up every hotel room in Davos to keep outsiders from visiting or staying there -the airport at Davos makes its entire year's profit for this one event a year, only -there is not room to park the planes at Davos, so they have to fly to another airport to park, so this is very carbon intensive -Poomba meal worm bars given out free at Davos, but the suspect nature of these bars is "hidden" -masters of the universe at Davos talking about humanity but they hate people -Mark Carney book Value(s) -policy is "you will own nothing, and you will not get to complain" -Swiss police are gentle police with a light touch, particularly compared to Canadian police who have become politicized and more and more brutal and violent. -CBC stopped being reasonable about 15 years ago -Schellenberg broke the WPATH story/scandal -how did Canada become a place where muckracking journalists are necessary? -CBC videos get only hundreds of views -Trump did not let Trudeau stay overnight at Mara Lago -Canada only a few years ago was more wealthy than the US, now it is 40% poorer on average and getting progressively poorer -Trudeau calls Canada a genocidal country -Trump made a trillion dollar deal with the Japanese PM, who had just been to Canada and was sent packing by Trudeau who did not want to be involved in any economic deals -Carney is a leader and Trudeau is a follower; Carney looks like he has gravitas and claims to be an outsider -Carney announced his candidacy in NYC on a foreign network -Carney is deep in bed with China -Carney might have ties to Iran -Canadians displayed the "ever-present enjoyment of ratting on your neighbors about masks" during the pandemic. -Canadian government harassed the Amish and fined them for not having smart phones (6000 dollars a person, per encounter)
A matter long believed has recently been claimed by some who served in the Biden Administration during the last four years; that is, that Sleepy Joe was never mentally competent to serve in that office. The same Party that claimed Ronald Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer’s during his tenure as President (he wasn’t!) failed to disclose that Joe Biden actually was mentally incapable of serving during his “presidency.” Of course, Biden’s ability or lack thereof was never a problem as his “presidency” was actually intended to be the third (and fourth) term of Barack Obama! It was a real-life replay of the throne room scene in the Wizard of Oz with Biden as the Big Head on the throne and Obama the man behind the curtain. Unfortunately, it is possible that the puppet master(s) didn’t understand just how “out to lunch” Sleepy Joe actually was – or became – as he took office. Yet even that may not be the case, for now, with Donald Trump in office, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has requested that the Justice Department investigate the legality of Biden’s many Executive Orders. Why? Because the conservative Heritage Foundation’s “Oversight Project” has revealed that Biden’s signatures on numerous EOs, pardons and other documents of national consequence appear to have been “machine-generated.” The “auto-pen,” a mechanical means of producing someone’s signature when great numbers are required, may be used in “unofficial” correspondence but in matters of law and the President’s duties, such documents must actually be signed by the individual holding that office at the time and in the place indicated on the document. Oversight Project Executive Director Mike Howell stated, "The main legal question here is who was the president over the last four years. That's what we are aiming to uncover. The prolific use of (the) autopen by the Biden White House was an instrument to hide the truth from the American people as to who was running the government." The watchdog group noted that "every document" they could find with Biden's signature” — with the exception of the announcement indicating that he was dropping out of the 2024 presidential race — "used the same autopen signature." Howell also noted that the repeatedly used autopen signature appeared on the pardons for a murderer and five other criminals issued while Biden was vacationing in the U.S. Virgin Islands though all reportedly claimed that they were signed "at the City of Washington." This discovery, coupled with the former president's alleged admission to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) that he did not remember signing a January 2024 order to pause decisions on exports of liquefied natural gas, prompted the Oversight Project to once again cast doubt on whether Biden was ever actually fulfilling the office of the President of the United States, clearly suggesting that "WHOEVER CONTROLLED THE AUTOPEN CONTROLLED THE PRESIDENCY!" Critics of the Administration, enraged by yet a further indication that unelected ideologues may have secretly controlled the Executive Branch for the past four years, are now questioning the legitimacy of all documents bearing the autopen signature in the belief that all orders so signed are void on their face. Thus, as noted, seeking definitive answers to this newly found situation, Missouri AG Bailey wrote to the Department of Justice last week requesting a full investigation into the legality of Biden's presidential actions in light of his apparent mental decline, which was made especially clear to special counsel Robert Hur, who, upon investigation, found Biden as possibly too senile to legally charge with any wrongdoing! "Under the 25th Amendment, his (Biden’s) inability to make decisions should have meant a succession of power," Bailey noted in his letter. "Instead, it appears staffers and officers in the Biden administration may have exploited Biden's incapacity so they could issue orders without an accountable President of sound mind approving them." President Donald Trump told Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck in October before the election that Joe Biden was likely little more than a figurehead for a "committee" of unnamed bureaucrats. Lindy Li, a former Democratic strategist and fundraiser who served as a surrogate for failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris and worked for the 2020 Biden campaign, recently shed some light on potential members of that supposed committee. Li told podcaster Shawn Ryan that Hunter and Jill Biden, and a handful of other unelected senior advisers effectively combined to serve as a shadow president. AG Bailey also suggested that a number of pardons Biden supposedly signed were suspicious, including the unconditional 10-year pardon Biden supposedly gave his son after repeatedly vowing he would not do so and just months after declaring without qualification, "No one is above the law." "It is black-letter law that a document is void, ab initio, when the person signing it lacks mental capacity," wrote Bailey. "Staffers and the Vice President cannot constitutionally evade accountability by laundering far-left orders through a man who does not know what he is signing (or, in the case of the auto-pen, it is represented that he signed). If in fact this has been occurring, then all those orders are void." The Oversight Project suggested that in order to determine whether Biden ordered the signing of key documents or was even mentally capable of doing so, investigators must "determine who controlled the autopen and what checks there were in place." The watchdog group also indicated that Biden's efforts to undermine the White House "executive privilege" shield in their attacks against then former President Donald Trump will make such determinations achievable. "There is a constitutional process to deal with an incapacitated POTUS and it doesn't contemplate giving someone else his autopen and authority," tweeted Howell. "It's called the 25th Amendment and the conspiracy not to invoke it in order to keep whatever they were doing going is a big problem." The New York Post reported that representatives for Biden had not responded to requests for comment regarding the use of the autopen. Of course, that is to be expected as God knows what a finding of mental incompetency of the former President while he was in office especially given admissions already made that he was incompetent before he took office, will mean for what was done during the last four years!
I have one cousin who is an "outlier" and is, horror of horrors "a liberal". Now if one is paying attention, a lot of the MAGA movement (if not most) consists of former Democrats (including Trump himself). So MAGA is not REALLY Republican at all. Lots of old school Republicans loathe the MAGA movement, obviously. But the previous labels and associations still sort of remain for many people, and they cannot quite understand what is going on. Even though I was raised as a "far right" conservative in Canada (So-Cred) and my parents and grandparents and family members were mostly So-Cred, the Social Credit movement is/was actually LEFT of American Democrat Party, for the most part. So it is confusing. If one looks at Jordan Peterson, he got his start as part of the far Left in Canadian Politics, the "NDP" (New Democratic Party), but now Peterson is associated more with American conservatives. Even Bernie Sanders supports a LOT of what DOGE and MAGA are doing. This was at least true until DOGE and other events started to reveal Bernie's corruption. So, these things are complicated. Even Michael Moore, the "massive" leftist, has a sort of "right wing" movie, "The Planet of the Humans". MAGA is kind of what H. Ross Perot wanted to create in the early 90s. And he almost succeeded. Or what Ralph Nader attempted to create. I voted for both Perot and Nader. The division in American politics is really no longer between "left" and "right" or "conservative" and "liberal" or "Democrat" and "Republican". It is more of a division between "sanity" and "insanity" or between "corrupt" and noncorrupt". So what do party labels even mean at this point?
Outdated Clause or Vital Protection? In March 2024, Ireland held a referendum on removing the Constitution’s reference to a woman’s “duties in the home.” Article 41.2 of the 1937 Constitution famously states that “The State shall… endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home” (Referendums on Family and Care — Electoral Commission). The government proposed deleting this language — widely seen as sexist and outdated — and replacing it with a gender-neutral clause recognising the importance of care provided by all family members (2024 Irish constitutional referendums — Wikipedia). All major political parties and many civil society groups campaigned Yes to amend the text (2024 Irish constitutional referendums — Wikipedia), arguing it was a symbolic step toward equality. However, the public response was stark. Voters overwhelmingly rejected the change: nearly 74% voted No to scrapping the “women in the home” clause (2024 Irish constitutional referendums — Wikipedia). This landslide result — one of the highest No votes in Irish referendum history — meant the constitutional commitment to protect mothers from economic pressure remains intact. For many, the outcome signaled that while the wording may be old-fashioned, the underlying principle of supporting mothers at home still resonates strongly with the electorate.Dramatic Decline in Stay-at-Home Mothers The referendum’s context is a society where women’s roles have shifted significantly. New figures from the Central Statistics Office (CSO) reveal a 60% plunge in the number of women describing themselves as full-time homemakers. In 2010, about 520,500 women reported their status as “engaged in home duties.” By 2024, that figure had fallen to just 208,200 (Key Findings Women in the Labour Market 2023–2024 — Central Statistics Office). This marks a dramatic decline in stay-at-home mothers over little more than a decade. Over the same period, female employment has climbed to record levels. The CSO report notes that even in the last five years alone (2019–2024), the number of married women in paid employment jumped by 21.5% (Key Findings Women in the Labour Market 2023–2024 — Central Statistics Office). In other words, far more Irish women — including mothers — are now in the workforce, and far fewer remain exclusively in the home. Economists cite multiple reasons for this shift, from the rising cost of living necessitating dual incomes, to changing social norms and greater career opportunities for women. Whatever the cause, the trend is clear: the traditional stay-at-home mother has become far less common in Ireland today than a generation ago.What Irish Mothers Say They Want Despite the move toward paid work, many Irish mothers express a strong preference for being at home with their children — if only it were financially feasible. A 2024 Amárach Research poll (commissioned by the Iona Institute) found that 69% of mothers with children under 18 would choose to stay at home to raise their kids if they could afford to do so (Vast majority of mothers want to be at home not work says new poll | The Iona Institute). This suggests that for a large majority of women, employment is often a financial necessity rather than a preferred choice during their children’s early years. The survey illuminated mothers’ feelings about the trade-offs between work and home life: 69% of mothers would prefer to stay home with their children rather than go out to work, if they could afford it (Vast majority of mothers want to be at home not work says new poll | The Iona Institute).76% say women who work in the home are undervalued by society compared to women in paid employment (Vast majority of mothers want to be at home not work says new poll | The Iona Institute).Over 70% feel that society does not truly value their work as mothers and homemakers (Vast majority of mothers want to be at home not work says new poll | The Iona Institute). These findings, consistent with similar polls in recent years, underscore a notable gap between mothers’ personal aspirations and their economic reality. “A woman’s place is wherever she wants it to be,” Children’s Minister Roderic O’Gorman has said — encapsulating the ideal that mothers should be free to choose either career or home without judgment. But the poll results indicate many mothers don’t feel they genuinely have that choice. Instead, they often feel pressure to earn income, and they perceive that the role of a full-time mother is culturally undervalued in modern Ireland.Policy vs. Promise: Is the State Supporting Choice? The Irish Constitution’s promise not to force mothers into work by economic necessity is a high bar for policymakers to meet. In practice, government policies have largely focused on enabling mothers to join the workforce — arguably more than enabling them to remain at home. Successive governments have introduced measures like improved parental leave and universal child benefit, but the most significant investments have been in childcare. Public spending on daycare and early education has soared in recent budgets. For example, Budget 2023 injected an extra €121 million into the new National Childcare Scheme, allowing childcare fees for parents to be cut by about 25% on average (Republic of Ireland Budget 2023 announces increased funding for childcare — Employers For Childcare). The annual state budget for childcare reached €1 billion in 2023 — five years ahead of government targets (Republic of Ireland Budget 2023 announces increased funding for childcare — Employers For Childcare) — reflecting a massive financial commitment to subsidising day-care and crèche facilities. The aim of this spending is to make it easier for parents, especially mothers, to afford childcare and therefore to take up paid employment. Indeed, affordable childcare is often cited by policymakers as key to increasing female labour force participation and giving women “choice” to work. Critics, however, point out a contradiction: by concentrating support on helping mothers work, the state may be neglecting the Constitution’s call to support those who choose home-making. Apart from a modest tax credit for stay-at-home parents, Ireland offers little direct financial support to mothers (or fathers) who opt to care full-time for their children at home. Professor Patricia Casey of the Iona Institute argues that the State has “failed to live up to the promise of the Constitution” in this regard (Vast majority of mothers want to be at home not work says new poll | The Iona Institute). Despite Article 41.2’s guarantee, she says, government policy has “made it almost impossible for most mothers to stay at home with their children if that is what they want” (Vast majority of mothers want to be at home not work says new poll | The Iona Institute). In her view, the push for moms to enter the workforce — driven by economic policy and a booming jobs market — leaves those who would prefer home-making without adequate support or real choice.Childcare Investment Yields Limited Gains Interestingly, even on its own terms, the state’s heavy investment in childcare has so far produced only modest increases in mothers’ workforce participation. A recent analysis by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) examined the effects of Ireland’s childcare subsidy schemes on maternal employment. It found that the introduction of generous subsidies in 2019 led to only a slight uptick — about 0.5 of a percentage point — in labour force participation among mothers (Will childcare subsidies increase the labour supply of mothers in Ireland? | ESRI). Most women who wanted to work were likely already doing so, and many others still chose not to enter the workforce despite childcare becoming a bit more affordable. Even after the major expansion of subsidies in 2023, the ESRI study projects only a minimal impact: roughly a further 1 percentage point increase in mothers joining the labour market (Will childcare subsidies increase the labour supply of mothers in Ireland? | ESRI). By contrast, the subsidies did significantly change how children are cared for — with many families switching from informal care (such as grandparents or unlicensed childminders) to formal childcare centres when fees dropped (Will childcare subsidies increase the labour supply of mothers in Ireland? | ESRI). In short, the state’s spending spree on childcare has eased the cost burden and shifted childcare arrangements, but it has not triggered a large influx of stay-at-home mothers into paid employment. This limited effect suggests that many mothers’ decisions about working or not working hinge on personal and financial factors beyond just childcare costs.Conclusion: Do Mothers Have a Real Choice? The fallout from the referendum and the latest data highlight a central question for Irish society: Are mothers truly free to choose between staying at home and pursuing paid work? The constitutional clause protecting mothers at home remains in place — backed by a public vote — but its spirit seems at odds with economic trends. A huge decline in stay-at-home parenting and surveys of mothers themselves both point to finances being a decisive factor in whether women work outside the home. If nearly seven in ten mothers would prefer the home over the workplace given the choice (Vast majority of mothers want to be at home not work says new poll | The Iona Institute), the reality that most of them are now in paid employment suggests that, for many, it isn’t really a free choice at all — it’s a necessity. Government officials maintain that their policies aim to give women options, by removing barriers to employment and promoting equality. There is no doubt that opportunities for women in the labour market have expanded, and those who want or need to work are being supported through childcare subsidies and other measures. But the flip side is whether equal support is extended to those who would choose full-time caregiving. The evidence so far indicates a mismatch: society extols choice in theory, yet economic and policy realities push mothers in a particular direction. The state’s constitutional duty to ensure no mother is “obliged” to work for economic reasons (Referendums on Family and Care — Electoral Commission) is difficult to reconcile with a system that provides far greater aid for entering the workforce than for opting out of it. As Ireland digests the referendum result, there are growing calls for a more balanced approach — one that truly values the work of caring for children, whether done for pay or in the home. That could mean new policies, from direct financial supports for stay-at-home parents to workplace flexibility for those balancing both roles. The central outcome of the recent debate is a heightened awareness that mothers want a real choice, not an imposed one. The Constitution may uphold that ideal, but the challenge ahead is turning it into reality, so that “a woman’s place” can indeed be “wherever she wants it to be.”