My parents are stupid sometimes. I wanted vacation money

 I spent $4000 on a 2008 Santa Fe from Laptop Chips paychecks and my dad donates it to Vehicles for Veterans for his tax credit. I couldn’t use that cash for Las Vegas or Orlando or Australia vacation to see Sydney or the blue mountains. What the fuck! Who the fuck donates vehicles and stays the fuck home for 26 years going on mediocre vacations to door county. Sometimes my parents are pure idiots. It’s like if I was against it, I be kicked out of the house. There should be laws against parents stupidity.

Rogue Judge Just Pulled Off Judicial Coup Against Trump's LA Riot Crackdown

 

A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that President Donald Trump’s decision to send the National Guard to quell the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles earlier this year was unconstitutional

In a 52-page ruling, US District Judge Charles R. Breyer, a Clinton appointee, argued that the Trump administration’s actions violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. 

Breyer’s ruling bars the White House and federal officials from continuing the deployment of National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles for immigration enforcement and to handle protests. Breyer stressed that “Congress spoke clearly in 1878 when it passed the Posse Comitatus Act, prohibiting the use of the U.S. military to execute domestic law.”

The judge further argued that there was “no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law.” Breyer characterized the Trump administration’s use of armed soldiers for law enforcement functions such as traffic blockades and crowd control as a violation of the 1878 legislation.

In his ruling, the judge noted that despite acknowledging that military forces were not supposed to be used for law enforcement, commanders still told troops they could carry out “security patrols,

Guess Which Judge Just Released a Woman Who Threatened to 'Disembowel' Trump

 

A federal judge released a woman who allegedly threatened President Donald Trump last week.

US District Judge James Boasberg ordered the release of Nathalie Rose Jones, 50, on bail on August 27. She will be subject to home detention, electronic monitoring, and is required to seek psychiatric help in New York City, according to Fox News.

This development comes after Cook's attorneys noted that a grand jury refused to indict her. Friends of Jones wrote letters to the court stating that she struggled with mental health problems, according to NBC News. 

Back in August, a federal magistrate ordered that Jones remain incarcerated without bond so she could undergo a competency evaluation. She allegedly posted multiple threats against the president on social media. In a Facebook post, she said she was ‘willing to sacrificially kill  this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea.”

In an email to government and corporate contacts, she said she was “available to kill this man.” 

Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya said, “I see some very troubling conduct combined with travel to the District of Columbia,” according to WUSA.

Your Firefox settings blocked this content from tracking you across sites or being used for ads.

During an interview that took place before her arrest, Jones told NewsNation that she opposed the government’s approach to the COVID-19 pandemic. She slammed the Trump administration’s policies as “authoritarian” and “fascist” and claimed its policies cost lives by not doing enough to get people vaccinated.

“We aren’t going to have a plastic regime just killing patients en masse, driving them away from their simple and effective health care. It’s unconscionable. It’s not a political issue,” she told the news outlet. “This should be health care. It never should have been made partisan. It’s a tragedy for the United States of America. This regime has to go, the whole administration.”

It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that Boasberg decided to release Jones on bail. He has repeatedly shown a bias against the Trump administration to the point that Attorney General Pam Bondi filed a complaint against him in July.

At the center of the complaint were comments Boasberg made while speaking before an audience at a Judicial Conference meeting. He expressed concerns that the Trump administration would “disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis.”

WWII Revisionists Went Too Far With ‘We Should’ve Sided With Hitler’ Claim

 

David Collum, that was sort of resonating what a prior blogger, Darryl Cooper, had said about World War II, in the vein of Diana West, Pat Buchanan, all the way back to Herbert Hoover.

The gist of it was: We should have never allied with the Soviet Union, and we should have either let Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin fight it out or, in the case of David Collum, he suggested that we might have wanted to fight with Hitler, or, in other words, he said we were on the wrong side. But he gave three examples—that’s all I wanna look at—three examples that I think disprove his thesis.

No. 1, he said the Soviets had killed 15,000 to 20,000 prisoners of war when they inherited them after freeing them—American POWs—from German prisoner of war camps in the East. That’s not true. There was a joint Soviet-American commission. There were agreements that the Soviets would return American prisoners.

There were disagreements about whether the Allies would return Russian prisoners to Russia because some of them had been captured fighting, most of them, for Germany, and Stalin wanted to kill them or work them to death, and they wanted asylum.

But other than that, eventually, most of the Americans found their way back to Allied lines and were repatriated.

Were there some that we don’t know about today? Yes. But over a four-year period, there were a lot of Americans that were captured and held in German prisoner of war camps, were shot on the battlefield, were blown—we didn’t know what happened to them. But the idea that we would allow 15,000 to 20,000 American POWs in Russian hands to die is not true. It can’t be substantiated. It’s just a suggestion. Another reason why we shouldn’t have allied, according to Collum, we shouldn’t have allied with Russia.

The other thing he said, very interesting, was Gen. George Patton wanted to fight with Hitler against Stalin. He did not.

At the end of the war on May 9, 1945, George Patton was exhausted. He’d been up every single day for almost a year, with about three hours of sleep. He was tired. He had been fighting over the Falaise Gap. He’d been fighting over the Bulge. Everything he fought—for gas, for food, for Third Army—didn’t come easy.

And he said at various times, as proconsul of Bavaria and in charge of a whole state of Germany that was near starvation, that “I can’t operate as a proconsul unless I use German bureaucrats to run the power, to run the water, to run the electricity, to run the sewage. And they’re, no doubt, all Nazis. But I’m going to do it anyway.”

That led to further statements. He said—as the Red Army violated the Yalta agreements and the Potsdam agreements and did not hold free elections or free communications and transportation and intercourse between occupied Russian territory and occupied allied territory. A new proto—I guess you would call it—a proto-Iron Curtain had already emerged.

And Patton, at one point, said to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and others, “I know we’re going to be in a war, cold or hot, with the Soviet Union. We’re here. Let’s not go back the United States. Let’s confront them, militarily, to make them honor their agreements. And if we don’t have the manpower or the wherewithal”—Russia had 500 divisions, the Allied had about 200—“we can always use veterans from the German army.”

That’s about as close to lunacy as he said. It was an unfortunate remark. But he didn’t say, “While Hitler was alive, we should have joined the Nazis to fight Stalin.”

The other thing that he said, Mr. Collum, was that we in the United States should have allied—or we had the wrong ally. We should have joined Hitler. And that might have precluded the Holocaust.

I don’t think anybody in the United States—Stalin was a monster. He killed 20 million people. We understood that he was the enemy of our enemy. We made a real politic decision to help Stalin kill Hitler, and then we’d deal with Stalin later. You could argue it was an Iran-Iraq 1980-1989 war dilemma. That we armed Saddam Hussein to stop the Iranians. Except, these are not good things to do, but they’re part of real politics. But Hitler was a special case.

As far as the Holocaust, the moment he went into Poland, Day One, he started rounding up and killing Jews. There were probably, in occupied Europe and Poland, somewhere between 50,000 to 80,000 Jews that were rounded up and killed, as the ghetto system started to emerge. Hitler killed 50,000 people who had cognitive debilities, they had mental debilities. They were what the Nazis called “retarded.” Fifty thousand killed. When he went into Russia in June 1940, the first thing he did was unleash the Einsatzgruppen to kill Jews.

My point: Well before the organized death camps at Auschwitz or Breitenau or Treblinka, he was killing Jews. They were the logical succession to this ad hoc Holocaust, before it was the formal Holocaust that industrialized the mass death project.

So, the idea that we would ally ourselves with Hitler, and if we did ally ourselves with Hitler, it would’ve stopped the Holocaust, is absurd.

With No Assimilation, Migrants Threaten Europe

 

Almost weekly in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France, and Germany, a sensational assault committed by an illegal migrant—often enjoying some sort of state support or with prior arrests for the same crime—surfaces.

Until recently, European politicians and the media sought to either ignore such news or accuse those who clamored for tighter borders, more police protection, and stiffer penalties of being “racists” or “xenophobes.”

Until recently, that is.

Mass protests are now common in Britain against the Labour Party’s open borders policies and generous welfare entitlements for immigrants who arrive illegally and without authentic “political refugee” status.
Greek officials, also swamped by illegal immigration, now cite President Donald Trump’s secure border policies as new models for their own.

The majority of European immigrants now come from majority-Muslim countries in the Middle East and North Africa. Yet many arrivals seem angrier at their newfound liberal hosts than at the dictatorships they fled back home.

Europe’s immigration policies will not work in a multi-ethnic democracy.

Too many immigrants are arriving too quickly, without sufficient diversity, language fluency, skills, or familiarity with the customs and culture of their host nations. They often enter with separatist religious and cultural values antithetical to the very place they seek refuge.

Yet, there is no European plan of civic education to assimilate immigrants and teach them the rules, laws, and culture of their hosts.

It is then no surprise that what follows is ghettoization, resentment, and loud attacks on the very nation in which they seek sanctuary, denouncing it as decadent and godless.

In the past, Europe’s anemic military budgets, reliance on borrowed money, socialism, and a once-strong economy papered over these existential challenges of illegal immigration.

Or, as left-wing former German chancellor Angela Merkel once inanely said of massive illegal influxes into Europe, “Wir schaffen das” (“We can do this”).

But, of course, Merkel could not.

She offered zero plans on how to integrate, assimilate, and acculturate millions of Europe’s illegal aliens. Now, some 15% of Germany’s population are foreign nationals.

Unfortunately, the statist economies of high-cost Europe are stagnating.

Massive welfare outlays, coupled with a shrinking and aging native population—with a birth rate sinking below 1.4—are finally slowing economic growth.

Current German Chancellor Friedrich Merz put the dilemma bluntly: “The welfare state as we have it today can no longer be financed with what we can economically afford.”

Yet the more socialism ossifies, the more popular culture still demands free benefits that a shrinking number of taxpayers can no longer provide.

The United States is finally taking the opposite approach of cracking down on illegal immigration, deregulating the economy, and unleashing high technology to fast-track new frontiers of artificial intelligence, robotics, cryptocurrency, and genetic engineering.

Often, Europe’s best and brightest—and frustrated—are migrating to greater opportunities and freedom in the U.S., further hampering European research and development.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

Europe foolishly adopted a self-defeating energy policy to achieve net-zero emissions by subsidizing inefficient wind and solar power while ignoring or shutting down far cheaper natural gas, nuclear, and coal-powered electrical generation.

Meanwhile, China, grinning like a Cheshire cat and caring little about its carbon footprint, is eagerly exporting wind and solar systems to the suicidal West.

Yet China itself is busy building about two massive coal-fired plants a month, and the largest and most environmentally disruptive hydroelectric projects in the world.

No wonder average European electricity costs are even steeper than those in failing California. European consumers often cannot afford to turn their heaters and air conditioners on, while businesses cannot compete with industries abroad that enjoy far cheaper power.

Trump has declared that the 80-year postwar order is calcified and that the U.S. will no longer run huge trading deficits with European Union nations. Instead, it will demand symmetrical tariffs, further challenging past European mercantile profitability.

The days of Europe disarming and relying on the United States for defense are also over, given that Russian leader Vladimir Putin, for the third time in 15 years, invaded a neighboring country.
Yet Ukraine is not Chechnya or Georgia, but instead on the doorstep of Europe.

So in panic, a perennially delinquent NATO is not only promising to spend the required 2% of gross domestic product on defense but also increasing arms budgets to 5% of GDP, a higher rate even than that of the U.S.

No one knows how Europeans will afford such massive rearmament.

To do so would require opening up their economies, adopting far more flexible and traditional energy policies, securing their borders, ending illegal immigration, pruning the welfare state, increasing their fertility rates, and dropping the diversity, equity, and inclusion salad bowl while re-embracing the melting pot of integration and acculturation.

We will soon see whether Europeans can adopt such needed reforms, or find the necessary medicine worse than their current crippling continental disease.