The Second Term of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States of America

1748393220752.png

Occupy Democrats

oreStopsndt2tl518ltu7cg5311hct72t10ff50716g29610u2chf0c6782g ·

BREAKING: National Public Radio (NPR) hits Donald Trump with a massive lawsuit after he issues an authoritarian executive order targeting public broadcasting funding — a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

And it gets even better...

"NPR will never agree to this infringement of our constitutional rights, or the constitutional rights of our Member stations, and NPR will not compromise our commitment to an independent free press and journalistic integrity," stated NPR CEO Katherine Maher, calling the order "unlawful."

Trump signed the order earlier this month, directing his Republican-controlled Congress to gut funding from NPR and PBS because he despises their fact-based approach to reality.
Any outlet that refuses to magnify MAGA lies is a viewed as a threat.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Washington D.C. and argues that the order in question "flatly contravenes statutes duly enacted by Congress and violates the Separation of Powers and the Spending Clause by disregarding Congress’s express commands. It also violates the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press."

"The Order’s objectives could not be clearer," it reads. "The Order aims to punish NPR for the content of news and other programming the President dislikes and chill the free exercise of First Amendment rights by NPR and individual public radio stations across the country."

This must be the line in the sand. If we allow Trump to dismantle free speech like this and terrorize any outlets that refuse to push his Republican view of the world we will never recover as a democracy. Make your voice heard.
 
Folks need to know about this.

1748431847235.png

Mark Sandlin

rSoeosdtnpc2h4a31m707f6hg248c4i0a6c1ghg53t3828illmc71mi5h1lt ·

This is how democracy dies.

Not with a bang, but with a clause buried in a bill.

Buried in the latest House bill is a quiet little clause that would make it nearly impossible for federal courts to enforce their own rulings.

Read that again.

They want courts to give orders they can’t enforce.

Like calling 911 – and getting a dial tone.

Like installing a security system – and leaving it unplugged.

This isn’t about streamlining government.

This isn’t about the budget.

This is about power. Raw. Unchecked. Unrestrained.

And it's tailor-made for a certain twice-impeached, 34-times-convicted wannabe king.

You remember how Trump kept breaking the law and then saying, “So what?”
This bill makes “so what?” the law of the land.

It means injunctions (those court orders that protect our rights, stop deportations, halt discrimination, and block overreach) could just be ignored if there wasn’t a bond posted.

In other words, they become suggestions.

And here’s the kicker: courts almost never require bonds in civil rights cases.

Because, you know, justice isn’t supposed to be pay-to-play.

But now?

Now they want to change the rules. Retroactively.

So that even past court orders can be tossed in the trash.

Let’s stop pretending this is subtle.

This is a full-on power grab by people who are scared of accountability.

They want the courts to look like they still function – but only when they’re serving the throne.
If your faith values justice.
If your politics value democracy.
If your spine still works…
It’s time to stand up.

Because once kings stop fearing the courts, the people are the only ones left to fear.

Here’s what you can do:

The bill still has to pass the Senate.

That means there’s time to stop it – but we have to move now.

Even if your Senators have already made up their minds.
Call them anyway. Email them anyway. Be loud anyway.

Make it uncomfortable to support a bill that handcuffs the courts and hands the keys to a strongman.

Use this link to contact your Senators right now: https://5calls.org
Click on “Oppose Cuts to Contempt of Court Enforcement in the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill.’” It’ll walk you through the rest.

Democracy doesn’t survive by staying polite.
It survives because we refuse to be ruled.
 
I can't begin to keep up with this ....

1748438473159.png

Occupy Democrats

Srodetpnso01fgtguf6hcgl7g1m7598109t65uif4ghl1tit613au7galia6 ·

BREAKING: Donald Trump gets caught in a jaw-dropping scandal as it's revealed that he pardoned a man who pleaded guilty to tax crimes just one month after his mother attended a $1 million a head MAGA fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago.

And it gets so much worse...

According to a new report from The New York Times, a pardon application was submitted for Paul Walczak around the time of Trump's inauguration. The request specifically mentioned actions by his mother, Elizabeth Fago, to support Trump and the Republican Party.

The request also absurdly claimed that Walczak's prosecution was the result of a political witch hunt. In reality, he pleaded guilty to failing to pay employment taxes and not filing individual income tax returns. He withheld a staggering $7.5 million from his workers but did not pay them to the IRS.

Like so many right-wingers (Trump included) he believes that he's entitled to cheat the system while the rest of us dutifully pay our taxes.

Walczak was sentenced to 18 months in prison, two years of supervised release, and ordered to pay over $4 million in restitution. Now that he's been pardoned, he will be spared that jail time and will no longer have to pay the fees. Justice has been derailed.

Some time after the pardon application was submitted, Fago attended a fundraising dinner at Mar-a-Lago with a ticket price of $1 million per person. Throwing all subtlety to the wind, Trump then proceeded to pardon Walczak less than three weeks later.

Fago also helped host at least three Trump campaign fundraisers and attended events at both of his inaugurations. Some reports suggest that she was connected to the right-wing smear campaign to leak the diary of Joe Biden's daughter in 2020.

This is blatant quid pro quo and the kind of thing that would have led to any other president being impeached and removed from office. With Trump, it's unfortunately par for the cours
 
"Buried in the latest House bill is a quiet little clause that would make it nearly impossible for federal courts to enforce their own rulings." #725
This is a key legislative strategy for Trump. If each rule were a separate bill, this specific provision could be voted down directly. BUT !
Trump's / GOP's bloated omnibus is ideally suited to making such poison pills a little less unpalatable.

"Here’s what you can do:" #725
The legislation at issue hasn't passed the senate. It's a bill, not a statute.
None the less Trump has been ignoring both lawful court orders, and Constitutional enumerations.

Trump was party to insurrection, is thus ineligible to hold presidential office.
Trump was ordered to turn the plane around, yet Abrego Garcia arrived at the El Salvador prison anyway.

I oppose the legislation Sandlin / #725 reports here. But in practical terms, what difference would it make?

BREAKING: Donald Trump gets caught in a jaw-dropping scandal as it's revealed that he pardoned a man who pleaded guilty to tax crimes just one month after his mother attended a $1 million a head MAGA fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago.
And it gets so much worse... #726
a) In my lay opinion this is exceedingly bad form. I consider it unethical. BUT !!

b) Is it illegal?
If it's illegal it would have to violate a law. What law?
The U.S. president's pardon power is:
b1) Constitutionally enumerated,
b2) as a capacity to pardon federal crimes, unlimited.

note:
We may not yet have seen the worst of this.
example: "hypothetically" Trump could put up a hit list, an accumulation of names and addresses of persons Trump disfavored, and merely publish it as he so often does via Internet.
Trump wouldn't even have to command his minions to murder those listed. Think of it as akin to the way Trump assembled his Jan. 6 insurrection mob. Same thing.
Then they murder those listed on Trump's hit list, and then Trump pardons them.

"We the People" are in monumental, unprecedented peril.
 
..... in practical terms, what difference would it make?


a) In my lay opinion this is exceedingly bad form. I consider it unethical. BUT !!

b) Is it illegal?
If it's illegal it would have to violate a law. What law?
Emoluments Clause?
 
Emoluments Clause?

ARTICLE 1. SECTION 9. 8
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

ARTICLE 2. SECTION 1. 6
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased [increased] nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the united States, or any of them.

Problem is, politicians have been beneficiaries of $100,000.oo a plate luncheons for generations. I suspect by now it's considered a tradition.

I DO NOT like it S2.
But I'm not aware of anything that can / will actually make Trump stop it, or even slow it down a little.
 
1748451361157.png

BREAKING: Billionaire Elon Musk enrages MAGA world by tearing into Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" because it blatantly "increases the budget deficit" and completely undermines his DOGE initiative.

The Republican scam has finally been exposed...

"I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing," Musk told CBS.

"I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don’t know if it can be both," he added.

Musk has publicly stepped back from the administration in recent weeks, supposedly to focus on his flailing companies. Many observers have speculated that he's distancing himself in an effort to salvage his destroyed reputation and mitigate the damage inflicted on Tesla and SpaceX by widespread public backlash.

For once, Musk is right. Trump's bill, which has passed the House but not the Senate, is an unadulterated disaster. Not only does it skyrocket the debt by handing out massive tax cuts to the rich and ballooning the Pentagon's budget to over $1 trillion, it hurts average Americans in countless ways.

To pay for those unneeded tax cuts, Republicans are slashing Medicaid. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that roughly 8 million Americans will lose health care coverage over the next ten years as a result of the legislation.

Even with those brutal cuts, the CBO estimates that the bill will add $3.8 trillion to the deficit, totally dispelling the lie that Republicans care about the national debt. The truth is that they use it as a political talking point to attack Democrats and then turn around and ignore their own hysterical warnings.
 
Seems TACO's now come in orange wearing a red cap??

1748459823440.png

Occupy Democrats

orsdteonpS7i7f11t3ca119gca15u30ithh4146am339133hm61t0ia76f01 ·


BREAKING:
Donald Trump melts down after a reporter humiliates him on camera with the "nastiest question" by bluntly asking about the fact that he "always chickens out on tariffs."

She really went for the jugular with this one...

"Mr. President, Wall Street analysts have coined a new term called the TACO trade. They're saying Trump always chickens out on the tariff threats and that's why markets are higher this week," said a reporter. "What's your response to that?"

"I kick out?" responded the 78-year-old Trump, apparently mishearing.

"Chicken out," corrected the reporter.

"Oh... Isn't that... I chicken out. I've never heard that," said Trump.

The term "TACO trade" recently appeared in The Financial Times and stands for "Trump Always Chickens Out." The term refers to the idea that Trump will implement tariffs, the markets will start to crash, and he will then quickly backtrack and attempt to claim a win.

Trump was predictably upset by the reporter's question—

"You mean because I reduced China from 145% that I set down to a hundred and then down to another number?" he said. "I said you have to open up your whole country and because, uh..."

"I gave the European union a 50% tax, uh tariff, and they called up and they said 'Please let's meet right now. Please let's meet right now,'" Trump rambled on. "And I said 'Okay, I'll give you till July—' I actually asked them, I said 'What's the date?' Because they weren't willing to meet and after I did what I did they said 'We'll meet any time you want.' And we have an end date of July 9th."

"You call that chickening out?" Trump asked. "Because we have $14 trillion now invested, committed to investing... When Biden didn't have practically anything. Biden... This country was dying."

"You know we have the hottest country anywhere in the world? I went to Saudi Arabia," Trump went on. "The king told me. He said 'You've got the hottest—' We have the hottest country in the world right now. Six months ago this country was stone cold dead. We had a dead country. We had a country, people didn't think it was going to survive and you ask a nasty question like that?"

"Uh, it's called negotiating," he continued. "You set a number. And if you go down... You know if I set a number at a ridiculously high number and I go down a little bit, you know a little bit, they want me to hold that number. 145% tariff."

"Even I said 'Man that really got up.' You know how it got up? Because of fentanyl and many other things..." Trump said. "And you added it up. I said 'Where are we now? We're at 145%' I said 'Woo, that's high. That's high.'"

"They were doing no business whatsoever and they were having a lot of problems. We were very nice to China," he went on, clearly animated by the question. "I don't know if they're going to be nice to us but we were very nice to China. And in many ways I think we really helped China tremendously."

"Because you know they were having great difficulty because we were basically going cold turkey with China," he claimed. "We were doing no business because of the tariffs because it was so high. But I knew that. But don't ever say what you said. That's a nasty question! To me that's the nastiest question."

The truth is that Trump's tariffs have been an unalloyed disaster. They've accomplished nothing for the American people while injecting instability into the market, skyrocketing consumer prices, and causing layoffs. At the same time, they make the United States a less safe place for foreign investments and advertise the fact that America is an unreliable partner.

Trump always chickens out. For the sake of us all, let's hope he continues to do so.
 
"Don't know where to put this but ..." S2 #731
Prominently in the minds of every U.S. voter.
Excellent start.

Thank you S2, yet another sharp point, landed squarely here @CV.us

" 145% tariff." #732
Trump is a bumbling ...
Larry the Cable Guy would be a better president.

"Trump always chickens out." #732
... and is therefore our most fowl president?
Birds of a feather are a real mother-clucker?
 
The Honor Code is real (and means something). Either that or this is a last minute attempt to lay the blame on the cadets and say that it's not Trump's fault that he didn't stay to shake hands.

Now that is awesome, honour and duty, something Mr. Bone Spurs doesn’t understand or comprehend!

I say well done Academy and Cadets! Well played!
👏

In the halls of West Point,
in the classrooms,
and the dorms,
the story will be told,
and told again,
and forever rembered,
as the walk of scorn,
by the President without a brain!
👍
🇨🇦


Robert Hawks

ooSpsrndte7l5h6336h2mt0048a118ff4hc61u6lf7ac7aa6lu1lh49cat8i ·

“West Point Cadets’ Silent Revolt—Anonymous Graduates and Faculty Reveal Why President Trump Didn’t Shake Their Hands”
By Robert Hawks
May 28, 2025

WEST POINT, NY — In an unprecedented turn of events that unfolded with all the subtlety of a brass band playing “Taps” backwards, President Trump declined to extend his stay at the graduation ceremony of the United States Military Academy, leaving the newly minted second lieutenants’ hands as unsullied by presidential sweat as the honor code itself.

The mainstream media, ever allergic to nuance and eager to maintain their symphony of static, hasn’t said a peep about the real reason for the snub.

But through a series of clandestine interviews with anonymous graduates and equally reticent Academy faculty members, I have unearthed the hidden story of this ceremonial duck-and-cover.

The reason, dear reader, lies within the very marrow of West Point’s ethos: the Honor Code.

For those unfamiliar (or who haven’t been paying attention since the dawn of the republic), the Honor Code stands stark and absolute:

“I will neither lie, nor cheat, nor steal, nor will I tolerate the actions of anyone who does.”

One newly minted officer, who would only identify themselves as “Second Lieutenant K,” offered a hushed explanation:

“We realized that by shaking the hand of a man already convicted of 31 felonies, we’d be tacitly tolerating those actions. It’s not just semantics—under our code, we can’t wink at dishonor and call it ceremony.”

Faculty members, equally cryptic yet unwavering in their adherence to the Honor Code, found themselves wrestling with the potential fallout of the traditional handshake.

“Cadets approached me after final drills,” admitted an anonymous instructor. “They were genuinely concerned. ‘Sir, if I shake his hand, am I violating the code?’ They weren’t being flippant. These are people who signed up to die for principles if called upon—don’t underestimate how seriously they take them.”

Another faculty officer, known only as “Major T,” put it bluntly:
“Look, you can salute the office.
“That’s tradition and lawful.
“But to physically clasp the hand of a man who has lied, cheated, and stolen—when our code demands zero tolerance? That’s not a handshake. That’s an ethical trap.”

The consensus among these sources was clear: A handshake would have become a symbolic endorsement of the very actions the Honor Code forbids.

And it wouldn’t be a momentary lapse either—cadets feared it could haunt their entire careers.

“Years from now,” explained a cadet, “someone might claim that our commissions were tainted—born in an act that violated the very code we swore to uphold.”

Thus, an extraordinary decision was made behind closed doors, framed in the same ironclad logic that has guided this institution since the days of Benedict Arnold’s ghost: better to forego the handshake altogether than compromise the moral backbone of the Corps of Cadets.

The decision, while sparing the graduating class an ethical quagmire, also spared the nation a broadcast spectacle that would have further underlined our national rift:

“Can you imagine,” mused Major T, “an entire line of newly commissioned officers refusing to shake the President’s hand, yet saluting him? It would’ve been the perfect image of our times—honor intact, but unity fractured.”

And so, President Trump’s decision to depart swiftly wasn’t born of political cowardice or personal pique, but of a carefully orchestrated plan to protect the very soul of West Point.

After all, in a world where handshakes can be loaded weapons, even the Commander-in-Chief had to recognize that the Honor Code brooks no compromise.

Or perhaps he simply realized that he’d be exposed.

As for the graduates, they walked away with their honor unsullied, commissions secure, and a story to tell that would never appear on cable news but will echo down the halls of the Academy long after the brass bands fall silent.

In the end, what’s a handshake, really, when compared to the weight of an oath sworn under the long shadow of the Hudson?

After all, even the president can’t break the spine of an honor code written in blood, sweat, and the quiet resolve of those who know that a commission earned in truth must never be tarnished by the stains of another man’s lies.

1748518505271.png
500767408_10228801207479940_1554562257438942388_n.jpg
500769197_10228801208159957_9083524976195218478_n.jpg

-
 

Attachments

  • 1748518176841.png
    1748518176841.png
    522.7 KB · Views: 0
k5svNIK.png

okQwCa6.png


Federal judges are blocking Trump at every turn, but he's auctioning off American democracy faster than they can stop him.

While courts desperately defend constitutional protections for immigrants and strike down illegal tariffs, Trump hands out pardons to donors, extracts settlements from terrified corporations, and fires civil servants who won't play ball. The Constitution is losing to the cash register.
 
‘Big beautiful’ judgement from the Federal Court of International Trade!
👍


47 loses again…no more tariffs from a president who doesn’t have the constitutional authority and never has!
👏
👏
👏


PS, of the three judges on the court, one is a Reagan appointee and a second was appointed by guess who, 47! So no partisanship!

1748528937721.png
 
Thank you S2!
I find this inspirational.
The 24 hour news cycle has become a cesspool of cyclic gloom. Here, a glimmer from the U.S. Army academy named West Point:
West Point’s ethos: the Honor Code.

“I will neither lie, nor cheat, nor steal, nor will I tolerate the actions of anyone who does.”

One newly minted officer, who would only identify themselves as “Second Lieutenant K,” offered a hushed explanation:

“We realized that by shaking the hand of a man already convicted of 31 felonies, we’d be tacitly tolerating those actions. It’s not just semantics—under our code, we can’t wink at dishonor and call it ceremony.”
Splendid. BUT !
These young military officers are about to enter military service wherein they will be obliged to obey orders.
If their honor prevents them from shaking the hand of their commander in chief in ceremony,
how shall they respond to an order with potentially lethal consequences?

PS
... "nor will I tolerate the actions of anyone who does.”

McDonald's is hiring.
 
These young military officers are about to enter military service wherein they will be obliged to obey LEGAL orders.
Had to make a minor correction - actually it's not so minor

If their honor prevents them from shaking the hand of their commander in chief in ceremony, how shall they respond to an order with potentially lethal consequences?
Depends - is that order legal?
 
Back
Top