First, it was Russia! Russia! Russia! Now, it's Social Security! Social Security! Social Security!

 Democrats have morphed from being the Party of Chaos to the Party of Chicken Little. For years, the Dems accused Donald Trump of colluding with Russia, in a desperate attempt to kill him politically.

That didn't work because Trump, rising like a phoenix, was elected President for a second term. So, Trump haters switched tactics. Like Chicken Little warning the barnyard that the sky is falling, they're hysterically accusing Trump of destroying Social Security.

This gambit may be working. Last week's anti-Trump rallies featured thousands of oldsters holding signs proclaiming "Hands Off Our Social Security."

It would indeed be a calamity if Social Security collapses. Four out of ten retirement-age Americans rely on Social Security as their sole source of income. If their monthly benefit checks stopped coming,  they'd be in the soup lines within a week. That's a scary thought.

Moreover, it is theoretically possible that Social Security will go belly up in 1935, when SS trust funds are depleted. That's another scary thought.

Why is Social Security on shaky ground financially? First, Americans live longer than they did when the program was introduced, so they're drawing benefits for longer periods. In 1940, the life expectancy of a 65-year-old was 14 years. Today, a 65-year-old can expect to live 20 more years.

 Secondly, the ratio of workers making Social Security contributions to the people receiving benefits has decreased dramatically from 16 to 1 in 1940 to 2.7 to 1 today.

According to the legacy media and leftist think-tank wonks, Trump's policies are further threatening Social Security benefits for millions of Americans. But that's not true.

On the contrary, Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is working hard to reduce the national budget deficit, which is expected to be $2 trillion this year. That's on top of the cumulative national debt, now topping $36 trillion. 

If the U.S. doesn't get government spending under control, myriad government services will be reduced or eliminated--not just Social Security.

It seems evident that eliminating waste, mismanagement, and fraud in the federal government is essential to balancing the nation's budget. Part of that effort must include trimming the number of federal employees, including nonessential Social Security Administration workers.

Sadly, that means the federal government will have less money for housing illegal aliens in 5-star hotels and less cash for promoting transgender sports.

Image credit: Portsmouth Herald

Matt Taibbi sues Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove for defamation: She should apologize pronto

Over the past several months, Congressional Democrats have descended into demogagery, profanity, and clownisness as a way of expressing their hatred and contempt for President Donald Trump and his political agenda.

Representative Al Green disrupted a joint session of Congress to wave a cane and rant against the President. The House of Representatives censured him for his behavior by a vote of 224 to 198.

Remarkably, only ten Democratic representatives joined in the censure. The rest all voted no, and a few sang "We Shall Overcome" in the House Chamber during the censureship proceedings.

More recently, Representative Jimmy Gomez degraded a congressional hearing by asking CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Homeland Security Director Tulsi Gabbard if Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had been drinking during a high-level security discussion.  This was a gratuitously offensive question that Ratcliffe initially refused to answer.

Green's behavior and Gomez's interrogatories were rude and unprofessional, but not actionable in a court of law.  They enjoy a legal privilige to behave like jackasses when acting in their official capacities.

However, a Congressperson who defames a member of the public through social media can be sued, as Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove (SKD) found out this week. During a congressional hearing last Tuesday, Kamlager-Dove described Matt Taibbi, a nationally renowned journalist, as a serial sexual harasser. Specifically, she said this: "To distract from the dumpster fire this administration is pursuing,[the majority is] elevating a serial sexual harasser as their star witness." 

Kamlager-Dove went further by introducing materials into the Congressional Record that implied Taibbi had a history of sexual misconduct, and she repeated her reckless charges through social media.

Unfortunately for Kamlager-Dove, Taibbi is not a sexual harasser, and no woman has ever accused him of being one. Yesterday, Taibbi sued the congresswoman for defamation.

To prevail in the courts, Taibbi must prove that Kamlager-Dove's words were false and were made maliciously, which he can probably do. He's seeking $10 million in damages, which he may receive.

Here's my advice to Kamlager-Dove. If Taibbi's charges are accurate, then you should quickly and publicly apologize for what you said about him and put your apology in the Congressional Record. Saying you're sorry may not get Taibbi to drop his lawsuit, but it may reduce the damages award he will receive.

Alternatively, you can double down and repeat your accusations on MSNBC and The View. If you do that, you should consider contacting George Clooney, Julia Roberts, and Oprah and ask them to organize a fundraiser to cover your litigation expenses. I'm sure the pious billionaires in Silicon Valley will be more than happy to contribute.

Time for a Silicon Valley fundraiser?

Removing a biased federal judge from a case: The need for a streamlined appeal process

 Donald Trump and his supporters have repeatedly been battered by biased or hostile judges in the DC Circuit--a rat's nest of hacks for the Democratic Party. The January 6 protesters were treated horribly by some of these judges, and the Trump administration is routinely knocked about by federal judges intent on denying the Executive branch the ability to carry out the People's business.

What can be done? Litigants who believe their judge is unfair can file a motion in federal court, asking a judge to reassign a case to another judge due to bias, but such motions are routinely denied. Few judges will admit having prejudicial views toward the Trump team, and most are cunning enough to conceal their political views.

In fact, a recusal motion is likely to do nothing more than outrage the judge. How dare you accuse me of being unfair!

Of course, a party whose case is assigned to a hostile judge can appeal the denial of a recusal motion; however, appellate courts are reluctant to rule that a trial judge is unfair, especially the DC Circuit, where judicial abuse is most rampant.

We should look to the federal bankruptcy courts for a solution to this serious problem. Parties wishing to appeal an unfavorable ruling by a federal bankruptcy judge have two avenues for appeal. They can appeal to a federal district court judge, who may have limited familiarity with bankruptcy law.

  Alternatively, a losing party can appeal an unfavorable bankruptcy court decision to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP).  These panels exist in some federal circuits and consist of three federal bankruptcy judges.

I followed student-loan bankruptcy litigation for many years. I observed that the BAP courts were more likely than federal district judges to rule in favor of insolvent student loan debtors.

Why? I think the bankruptcy judges are more sympathetic to college-loan borrowers than the district court judges, who often know nothing about the student loan crisis and have little sympathy for a debtor who took out loans to get a worthless degree and winds up owing two or three times the amount borrowed due to penalties and accumulated compound interest.

How about a similar panel to hear appeals from litigants who believe their cases have been assigned to an unfair judge?

This is how it would work. After a motion for recusal is denied, the litigant is given ten days to appeal the denial to a Recusal Denial Appellate Panel (RDAP), composed of three federal district judges. The panel would decide the appeal promptly, within ten days, based solely on the appellant's written brief.

To further ensure a fair review, an RDAP would only hear recusal motions coming from outside the panel's own circuit.

For example, President Trump's administration is fighting an attack on the Department's deportation efforts, and the case has been assigned to Judge James Boasberg, whom Trump believes is unfairly prejudiced.

The Department of Justice lawyers defending the Trump team's deportation efforts can file a motion asking Judge Boasberg to reassign the case to another judge. Still, he would likely deny such a motion.

If a Recursal Denial Appellate Panel existed, Trump's lawyers could appeal on the issue of bias, and the matter would be heard by a panel of federal district court judges from another circuit, such as the Fifth Circuit of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

This reform won't completely solve the problem of bias among the judges of the First Circuit, but it would help. 

Judge James Boasberg: What, me biased?

Judgegate and the DC Circuit: Alaska has the solution for the problem of biased federal judges

This week, the House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the problem of biased federal judges in the D.C. Circuit. The Trump administration has fared poorly before several DC Circuit judges, and there is ample evidence that some judges are biased in favor of the Democratic Party. 

James Howard Kunstler identified five judges as the prime suspects in the Judgegate scandal: James Boasberg, Amy Berman Jackson, Tanya Chutkan, Beryl Howell, and Amir Ali. All five judges were appointed by Democratic presidents, and some have family members who are active in Democratic Party politics.

Assuming the Judiciary Committee concludes that the DC Circuit is a nest of Democratic Party hacks, how do you break up the cabal? After all, federal judges are appointed for life. It is true that federal judges can be impeached; however, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, impeachment is an inappropriate means of addressing biased judges.

Justice Roberts said that the appellate process is the appropriate way to seek redress from politically motivated judicial decisions, but I disagree. Appeals to federal appellate courts can take years to rectify the injustice caused by a politically corrupt judge, and the appellate process is often expensive. 

Of course, a party can file a motion before judges they believe are biased, requesting that they recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest. But who rules on such motions? The judges themselves, and they seldom admit that they are unable to be fair.

Alaska may have a solution to this problem. In the Land of the Midnight Sun, attorneys in the state courts have the right to preemptively request a judge's recusal if they believe the judge might be biased against their client. An attorney isn't required to give a reason for the request, which is automatically granted.

Allowing litigants one free bump of a federal judge won't solve the problem of biased judges in the DC Circuit, but it would be a solid step toward ensuring fairness in the federal courts. After all, if the judges aren't fair and impartial, there is no point in having a judicial system.

Alexander Hurst trashes "Maga-Land" for the Trump-Deranged Guardian

 Of all the Trump-hating media outlets that hate Trump--and there are dozens of them--the Guardian is the most brazen and unprincipled. Thus, I was not surprised to find Alexander Hurst's Trump-bashing opinion piece on the Guardian's website. 

Actually, Hurst wasn't bashing Trump so much as the regions in America where Donald Trump is popular. Hurst was trashing Flyover Country, which he labels as MAGA-land.

Hurst's essay was inspired by a road trip he took with a friend from Washington, DC to New Orleans. He didn't like what he saw: the box stores, convenience stores, and gas stations —miles and miles of sprawl.

Indeed, Hurst despises America's urban and suburban sprawl, which he diagnosed as an expression of Trumpism. "Trumpism, too, has an aesthetic," Hurst writes. "Allow me to pretentiously, subjectively declare it not beautiful. The aesthetic of Trumpism is sprawl."

I found much of Hurst's essay incoherent, despite his inclusion of esoteric references to various sages, including Keats, Saint Augustine, Plato, John Dewey, and Plotinus. However, the essence of his thesis is contained in this condescending passage:

Perhaps there is something authentic to suburban sprawl when experienced as spectator and anthropologist. But as everyday life, sprawl is deadening, ugly, fake. Devoid of art, beauty and truth alike.

To all this blather, I have this to say: Get off the fuckin' Interstate. Yes, the gas stations and convenience stores clustered along the Interstate are unappealing, but where else can I get gasoline and beef jerky?

In any event, anyone who gets off the Interstate highways will find a lovely America, overflowing with charm, authentic regional culture, good food, and fascinating historic architecture. 

Suppose Hurst had explored the Heartland's byways and small towns. In that case, he might have visited William Faulkner's home in Oxford, Mississippi, the birthplace of Elvis Presley in Tupelo, or the site of the Vicksburg siege, where Grant split the Confederacy atwain.

If he had wandered into Texas, he might have viewed the eighteenth-century missions—great examples of Spanish Baroque architecture. Before leaving this old Texas City, he could have eaten barbecue on San Antonio's River Walk or Mexican food at Mi Tierra in the El Mercado District.  

Apparently, Hurst doesn't get out much. He needs to get in his Tesla and explore Flyover Country, which is the real America.

Elvis at 13

Atlantic Editor Inadvertently Included in Top Secret Group Chat of Trump Officials: A Mistake of the Head and not the Heart

If it is a mistake of the head and not the heart, don't worry about it. That's the way we learn.

Earl Warren

 In the evening of my life, I am painfully aware of the mistakes I made when I was young, and I've grown more tolerant of mistakes made by others.

A few weeks ago, someone in the Trump administration. Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of The Atlantic, was inadvertently included in a group chat attended by President Trump's top administrative advisors, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President J.D. Vance, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, National Security Director Tulsi Gabbard, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

This elite inner group of Trump's senior advisors was discussing military attacks on Yemen's pesky Houthis, and Goldburg had no business listening in. Oops!

This was a serious mistake, and Trump's enemies pounced. Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democrats' chief jackal, described the error as a "stunning" breach of military intelligence, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called for a congressional investigation. Jeffries also accused Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of being "the most unqualified person to lead the Pentagon in American history."

Like most Americans, I can distinguish a mistake of the head from a mistake of the heart. Someone obviously goofed in granting Jeffrey Goldberg access to a secret intelligence discussion, but good people occasionally make mistakes in military matters. The United States sent a ship packed with mustard gas to Italy during World War II, which was bombed by the Germans, leading to hideous injuries to American soldiers. Winston Churchill made lots of errors during that war, including a military misadventure in Greece.

When mistakes are made, we must soldier on. President Trump is on the edge of success in bringing the Ukraine war to an end, something President Biden never could have done. And he got American hostages out of Gaza. 

At the end of the day, what's more important, the security breach that allowed a Trump hater to listen in on sensitive military discussions or peace in Eastern Europe?

Slimy Chuck Schumer has one answer to that question, but I have another.

Note: Most of the information cited in this essay is from a Racket News report written by Greg Collard and James Rushmore, titled "Timeline: The Houthi Attack Chat on Signal That Includes a Journalist."

"Social Security is beaking down," claims the Washington Post: Ain't necessarily so

 "Social Security is breaking down," the Washington Post cried out yesterday, and the Democratic National Committee joined in the alarm. "Long waits, waves of calls, website crashes," reads the WaPo subheading. Chaos reigns is the implicit message, all inflicted by Elon Musk.

The WaPo article was an exercise in fear-mongering, intended, I believe, to undermine public support for Elon Musk's efforts to make the federal government more efficient. As one of the millions of older Americans who rely partly on Social Security, I can attest that Social Security is not breaking down.

My wife and I receive our Social Security checks on time every month, and we can easily check our account status on the government's website. What's the problem?

Earlier this month, the Social Security Administration demonstrated its efficiency by the speed with which it implemented the Social Security Fairness Act (SSFA), which Congress passed last December. 

My wife and I are among the 3.2 million retired Americans who contributed to state-sponsored pension plans that did not participate in the Social Security program. Consequently, we were both unfairly penalized when we started drawing our Social Security benefits. 

The Social Security Fairness Act canceled those penalties, and the Social Security Administration distributed our refund checks earlier this month, depositing them directly into our checking accounts. Next month, my wife and I will be receiving our enhanced benefits. 

I was pleasantly surprised by the SSA's alacrity in implementing the SSFA, which was apparently accomplished with a reduced staff.

Some Americans have occasionally been irritated when dealing with the SSA's bureaucracy. Still, I doubt that their frustration was any greater than that of many Americans who stand in line at the Post Office during the Christmas season. All in all, the Social Security Administration probably functions as well or better than other federal agencies.

That is not to say that the Social Security program is without problems. As many commentators have pointed out, the SSA faces a massive funding shortfall in the coming years because Americans are living longer than they did when the Roosevelt administration created the program in 1935.  Sooner or later, Congress will need to find new sources of revenue to support the program.

Nevertheless, the Social Security program is not breaking down, and it was irresponsible for Washington Post reporters to suggest otherwise. 

Image credit: Right at Home