Search This Blog

Friday, June 6, 2025

In Clawback For Ants, House Unveils Bill To Recover $9.4 Billion In Waste, Fraud And Abuse

 While the so-called Big Beautiful Bill may have killed the bromance between Elon Musk and President Trump, House Republicans released a bill on Friday that would rescind $9.4 billion in federal spending ahead of a floor vote next week - largely made up of waste, fraud and abuse found by DOGE. 

The U.S. Capitol building in Washington on June 3, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

The seven-page bill would rescind $22 million from the US African Development foundation, $15 million from the US Institute for Peace, and billions of dollars in bilateral economic assistance. It would also codify some of the cuts identified by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 

As the Epoch Times notes further, the White House sent the package to Congress last week under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

Under it, the president sends rescission requests to Congress, which has 45 days to take action on them.

It is not subject to the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the Senate.

Republicans have already expressed support for the package.

“Now that this wasteful spending by the federal government has been identified by DOGE, quantified by the administration, and sent to Congress, House Republicans will fulfill our mandate and continue codifying into law a more efficient federal government,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) wrote on social media platform X.

This is exactly what the American people deserve.”

Rep. Dan Meuser (R-Pa.) wrote on X: “These packages will be a key step toward codifying President Trump’s agenda and delivering lasting spending reductions in government.

“With nearly $7 trillion in annual federal spending, we need to prioritize the ’must-haves’ over the ‘nice-to-haves,’ to address our enormous national debt.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) told The Epoch Times: “I haven’t seen the USAID rescissions to know exactly where they are, because ... I don’t know what’s in the package to know what they’re exactly implementing rescissions on.

“I have no concern with [NPR rescissions]. I understand from my staff, it’s only about 1 percent of their funding today. I haven’t heard a lot of people reporting that consistently. But if, in fact, that’s the case, it seems like they should be able to manage that.

“And if that’s the president’s priority, we should move forward with it.”

White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller wrote on X why a rescission package was needed.

“DOGE cuts are to discretionary spending [for the federal bureaucracy]. Under Senate budget rules, you cannot cut discretionary spending in a reconciliation bill,” he said.

“So DOGE cuts would have to be done through what is known as a rescissions package or an appropriations bill.”

Nathan Worcester contributed to this report.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/clawback-ants-house-unveils-bill-recover-94-billion-waste-fraud-and-abuse

S&P Dow Jones Makes No Changes to S&P 500 in Rebalance

 


S&P Dow Jones Indices left membership in the S&P 500 unchanged in its latest round of quarterly rebalancing on Friday, according to a company spokesperson.

Wall Street analysts often estimate ahead of the announcement which companies will be added. This time around, brokerage firm Robinhood Markets, Inc. rose about 13% this week after firms including Bank of America Corp. and Barclays Plc speculated the company was a top candidate to join the benchmark index. Shares of Robinhood dropped 6% in after hours trading.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-06/s-p-dow-jones-makes-no-changes-to-s-p-500-in-quarterly-rebalance

This D-Day, Let’s Avoid WWIII

 


June 6 marks the eighty-first anniversary of D-Day, when Allied troops crossed the English Channel, landed under heavy fire on the beaches of Normandy, and launched the successful campaign to liberate Europe from Nazi control.  It was one of the riskiest amphibious assaults in military history — not only because of the size of the operation, but also because everyone on the continent knew that it was coming.  

The German High Command anticipated the timing and location of the Allies’ arrival; but for robust counterintelligence measures, brilliant logistical planning, and good fortune, June 6 could easily have become a day synonymous with demoralizing defeat rather than one remembered for heroic sacrifice and bravery.  On the other hand, had the D-Day landings failed, a German-controlled Europe might today be celebrating the Nazis’ successful efforts to repel the American, British, and Canadian invaders.  

There are moments in history when all the chips are pushed to the center of the table for one consequential hand, and the future is decided accordingly.  D-Day was such a gamble, and those who participated ensured Allied victory.

Part of what captures my heart near D-Day’s anniversary is the thought of its terrifying uncertainty.  War-planners spent years preparing for the Battle of Normandy, but much was out of their hands.  Smart, capable generals appreciated the tremendous risks involved with moving the bulk of their fighting forces in one fell swoop.  The troops understood that they might never return home.  Boys who had seen little of the world beyond their farms, towns, or boroughs parachuted out of aircraft and jumped out of landing craft to fight and die on foreign soil.  

It simply takes the breath away to consider how so many found the courage to meet danger head-on, knowing that they would likely never see their families again.  What an awful yet awe-inspiring thing it is for a man to sacrifice himself, so that others might continue living.

And though the historic significance of D-Day is unique, every soldier, sailor, and marine who struggled through the carnage of WWII endured its perils.  The average high school student alive today might have seen enough of Saving Private Ryan to understand why we take time to remember those lost on June 6, 1944, but most have only a vague awareness of the even larger amphibious landing during the Battle of Okinawa that began nearly a year later on April 1, 1945.  

Along with the bloody fighting of the Guadalcanal Campaign, the Battle of Saipan, and the Battle of Iwo Jima, Japanese resistance around Okinawa included some of the most ferocious hand-to-hand combat of the entire war.  In fact, the barbarity in the Pacific War and the realization that an invasion of mainland Japan would come with heavy casualties were major factors in President Truman’s decision to drop two atomic bombs.  Imagine how hellish war is to conclude that the use of nuclear weapons is preferable to fighting soldiers and civilians across the Japanese archipelago.

To me, D-Day is a chance to think about not only those we lost during the Battle of Normandy but also those we lost during the entirety of the Second World War.  Over 400,000 Americans died in the conflict.  Another 700,000 were wounded.  As terrible as those numbers are, the global numbers are even more shocking.  Some eighty-five million died during WWII.  More than fifty million civilians died from military actions, disease, starvation, and crimes against humanity.  The absolute depravity required to achieve such numbers is horrifying.

After the surrender of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the survivors looked around at the utter ruin that dotted the map from Europe to the Pacific and concluded that such mass death and suffering could never be permitted again.  They witnessed the instantaneous destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and concluded that there must never be a third world war because it would surely be our last.  Then, just to make certain that the next war would definitely be our last, the United States and the Soviet Union spent the next fifty years building nuclear arsenals capable of killing everyone on Earth.

Yet here we are eighty years after WWII, and we’re galloping down that black road toward oblivion faster than ever.  Apparently too much of the world has been enjoying the comforts of peace for too long to worry about what comes when peace ends.  This is difficult to believe.  After all, much of the planet has been in a state of war rather recently.  

It’s hard to find ground in Africa or the Middle East where the blood of one tribe or another has had a chance to dry.  Myanmar’s civil war has been raging in fits and starts since the country first gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1948.  After millions of deaths, the Korean conflict has persisted for seven decades.  The Yugoslav Wars brought a decade of bloodshed to Europe in the ‘90s.  Since the last Great War, Americans have fought in Central and South America, Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East.  Independence movements, terrorist cells, communist revolutions, ethnic genocides, religious conflicts, covert proxy wars, and so-called “cold” wars have added to humanity’s butcher’s bill every single year.  We humans just can’t stop killing each other, even though we all know where this ends.

Right now much of the West seems desperate to transform the Russia-Ukraine War into a much larger conflagration.  This march toward mass death has been at least ten years in the making.  European globalists blamed Brexit on “Russian bots.”  After President Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton, Democrat operatives, the corporate news media, and Barack Obama’s espionage chiefs similarly blamed “Russian bots.”  While working to elect Joe Biden, fifty-one American Intelligence “experts” lied to the American people by claiming that Hunter Biden’s incriminating laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”  The European Union is quick to blame popular support for conservative political parties on “Russian disinformation.”  Ignoring the unifying spirit of athletic competitions, the International Olympic Committee has continued to ban Russian athletes unless they first repudiate the actions of their own government.  Romania annulled last December’s presidential election by blaming “suspected Russian interference.”  Whenever citizens in the West push back against illegal immigration, rising crime, censorship, or bureaucratic overreach, the leftist-globalists who control the Western news media and Western capitals all blame Russian “Internet trolls.”

At the same time, U.S.-NATO and the European Union have moved closer to Russia’s borders for the last thirty years.  As the West blames Russia for interfering in foreign elections, Western NGOs and espionage agencies have repeatedly done the same thing.  In 2014, U.S. and European political leaders explicitly endorsed the removal of the legitimately elected Ukrainian president.  Today’s war in Ukraine centers around regions that have repeatedly voted to become a part of Russia and whose people have engaged in fierce fighting against the Ukrainian military.  The Ukrainian government could only control these regions in the future by imposing strict and brutal martial law.  Still, Western politicians pretend that this regional civil war is about protecting “democracy” and “self-determination.”  

I find these arguments unconvincing.  When Ukraine targets Russia’s long-range nuclear-capable bombers, I find the West’s partnership with Ukraine imminently dangerous.  Although Russian news media have so far placed the blame entirely upon Ukraine’s government, there is plenty of online chatter that Western Intelligence services might have assisted in the operation.  If that doesn’t fill you with enormous dread, it should.

With D-Day here to remind us about the extraordinary cost of war, please take a moment to pray for peace.  Thoughtful people will disagree.  But we should all wish to avoid the Armageddon of WWIII.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/06/this_d_day_let_s_avoid_wwiii.html

The Hour Was Now: Eisenhower, the Supreme Gamble, and the Note in His Pocket


“If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone.” — General Dwight D. Eisenhower, undelivered statement, June 5, 1944

The message was never broadcast. Never printed. Never heard. And yet it remains one of the most remarkable documents of World War II—a plain slip of paper, scribbled in pencil, misdated “July 5,” and folded into a shirt pocket by a man shouldering the weight of freedom’s gamble.

Had D-Day failed—had the beaches been bloodbaths without a breakthrough—General Dwight D. Eisenhower was prepared to take full responsibility.

Not with a press conference or a military tribunal. But with a handwritten note accepting all blame. Not naming subordinates. Not mentioning the enemy. Not even attempting an explanation.

He wrote, “The troops, the air, and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone.”

That was the kind of man Eisenhower was.

Born in Texas, raised in Abilene, Kansas, with a manner as unassuming as the plains that shaped him, Eisenhower was not the most obvious military commander in an age of brash tacticians and battlefield showmen. His pre-war career, by many accounts, was unremarkable.

He had never commanded troops in battle. He spent much of his time as a staff officer—drafting plans, supervising training, and writing reports that bore the names of others. Promotions came slowly. But behind the scenes, he was absorbing everything—men, method, machinery, and morale.

And yet, by June 1944, he stood at the helm of the largest seaborne invasion in human history—nearly 160,000 troops, thousands of ships, and more than 11,000 aircraft ready to hurl the full force of the free world across Hitler’s Atlantic wall.

He did not blink.

There is a certain fog of war that touches everything within its reach. In victory—and with the passage of time and now generations—the line of sight begins to crystallize. But clarity can be deceptive. We often miss what was obscured in the moment.

Eighty-one years on, it is easy to forget just how precarious it all was. One bad decision—one shift in weather, one error in judgment—and the free world might have faltered.

That burden, in full, fell to Eisenhower.

Ike’s genius was not in dramatic field movements or thunderous oratory. It was in orchestration.

He held together an alliance that strained at every seam—British doubt, French suspicion, American impatience, and a chorus of generals with differing agendas, stratagems, and personalities that often started but rarely ended in agreement.

Montgomery wanted more troops—and headlines. Patton wanted more risk—but more than anything, he wanted to be the tip of the spear. Churchill, ever cautious about casualties and continental commitments, wanted assurance. Stalin—relentless in his demands and ruthless in his aims, but for the moment an ally—wanted action.

Eisenhower gave them unity.

By sheer will and balance, he united the Western Allies into a single force—British divisions, American battalions, Canadian armor, Free French brigades, and resistance networks, all united by a single banner: freedom.

He soothed egos without surrendering ground. He absorbed political pressure without compromising military clarity. And when it came time to choose the day—when tides and moonlight and cloud cover all collided in a narrow 24-hour window of fate—he made the call.

The hour was now. That was the feeling in the room—the moment of decision had come, and there would be no turning back.

On the night of June 5, he walked the flight line of the 101st Airborne, shaking hands with paratroopers who would jump into the dark and likely never walk again. He asked their names. They joked about their gear. Patted shoulders and posed for a photo that would become a legend. These were not staged moments. He knew what he was asking—and what it might cost.

But they could see it in his face—the weight, the gravity, the burden of command. Men started to pipe up, trying to cut the tension: “Quit worrying, General. We’ll take care of this thing for you.”

Years later, Eisenhower admitted he might have had tears in his eyes as he walked away. “Well, I don’t know about that,” he told Walter Cronkite with a faint smile, “but it could’ve been possible.”

And then he added what only a man who had borne it could say: “The hours before a major battle is joined are the most terrible time for a senior commander. You know the losses are going to be bad. And goodness knows, those fellas meant a lot to me.”

They were the vanguard of victory, and the burden to go or to wait fell to him—and him alone.

Eisenhower also knew what the enemy expected. For months, the Germans had been watching the wrong man. In a feat of military deception worthy of Shakespeare and Sun Tzu, the Allies had crafted Operation Fortitude—a two-pronged campaign of illusion.

Fortitude South conjured the ghost of an invasion force: the First U.S. Army Group, a fictitious formation that had begun as an administrative shell under General Omar Bradley—then, quite plausibly, grown to full strength under the command of General George S. Patton. With inflatable tanks, scripted radio traffic, and headquarters near Dover, this phantom army appeared ready to strike at Calais.

Meanwhile, Fortitude North hinted at a second blow aimed at Norway. The Germans believed it all. And so they held back their strongest units—waiting for an attack that would never come.

And Hitler bought it.

The real invasion came across the Normandy beaches: Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno, and Sword. Some landings were light. Others were infernos. At Omaha, entire companies were cut down before they reached the shingle. The sea ran red; the air was thick with sand and steel. But they pushed forward—over bluffs, through hedgerows, into history.

That morning, Eisenhower received reports that suggested catastrophe. He kept his calm amid chaos. Chain-smoking, scanning maps, resisting premature triumph or despair. When the tide turned and beachheads were secured, he didn’t celebrate. He ordered the next phase.

There was no time for indulgence.

Because Eisenhower knew what followed. D-Day was not the end. It was the breach—a crack in the fortress of tyranny, made possible by those who leaped, climbed, crawled, and bled. And at the center of it all was a man prepared to shoulder the blame—one reason he was so well suited to carry the burden of victory.

Years later, on the windswept cliffs above Omaha Beach, Eisenhower stood beside Walter Cronkite and reflected on the events of D-Day. He humbly deflected credit, emphasizing that it was the bravery and initiative of the American G.I.s that secured victory. 

But he left out the indispensable truth: they did it—because he led them.

That was all, and it was enough.

Charlton Allen is an attorney and former chief executive officer and chief judicial officer of the North Carolina Industrial Commission.


https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/06/the_hour_was_now_eisenhower_the_supreme_gamble_and_the_note_in_his_pocket.html

Colorado man’s family vacation

 


They came on tourist visas. They overstayed them. They applied for asylum. And now, after federal officials moved to deport them, the family of the accused Boulder terrorist is claiming victimhood—with the help of a federal judge and the ever-ready lawfare machine.

Welcome to the United States immigration system—where the only thing more durable than a visa overstay is the manufactured outrage that follows it. And maybe the baseless lawsuit that tries to sanctify it.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Gordon Gallagher temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deporting Hayem El Gamal, wife of Mohamed Sabry Soliman—the Egyptian national accused of attacking a pro-Israel vigil with incendiary weapons.

ICE detained her and her five children after they overstayed their visas. This should not be controversial. It’s how immigration law is supposed to work: when the government determines that foreign nationals have overstayed their welcome, the next step is simple—they go back to the country they came from.

But according to their lawyer, Eric Lee, deporting them isn’t immigration enforcement—it’s fascism.

“Punishing individuals for the alleged actions of their relatives is a feature of premodern justice systems or police state dictatorships, not democracies,” Mr. Lee told The New York Times with maximum indignation and zero self-awareness.

Mr. Lee continued, “The detention and attempted removal of this family is an assault on core democratic principles….”

Ah, yes—the “core democratic principle” of ignoring visa limits and squatting indefinitely in Colorado Springs while your husband hurls Molotov cocktails at peaceful Jews.

Let freedom ring.

You have to hand it to Mr. Lee and his faithful amplifier at The New York Times—they manage to deliver this hair-on-fire “democratic principles” routine with straight faces and Ivy League punctuation.

The problem, of course, is that this fatuous flibbertigibbet fails to understand the meaning of any of the words over four letters long. His rhetoric isn’t so much an argument as a cascade of logical fallacies, stacked one atop the other like bad legal kindling.

And before you know it, Soliman will be “Colorado Man” and his family will be portrayed as The Waltons.

Let’s set the record straight. Hayem El Gamal and her five children entered the United States in 2022 on tourist visas. Not refugee status. Not asylum. Not any path to permanency.

A tourist visa is a six-month courtesy—not a blanket invitation to build a family compound in Colorado and wait for DHS to forget you exist. That’s more than enough time to hike Pike’s Peak, endure nine innings of Rockies baseball (penance enough), and still have time to road-trip the country in the Wagon Queen Family Truckster.

Simply put, their visa term ended. Years before. They stayed. That’s unlawful.

Sidebar: I’ve traveled the world—and some of the seven seas. Not once did I consider lingering for years after my visa or right of entry expired. But if I had, I’m reasonably sure I’d realize within seconds it was a bad idea. Why? Because bad things tend to happen to people who do that. Like being picked up by the local constabulary without warning—followed by a swift descent into bureaucratic hell. But that’s just me.

Back to the case at hand. Now, the accused’s family’s endless summer is ending after all, and they were to be removed under the law. That’s how sovereign borders are supposed to work.

But to the activist legal class, removal for overstaying a tourist visa is tantamount to persecution—provided you can find a sympathetic judge and a fanboy reporter.

The Department of Homeland Security, under Secretary Kristi Noem, moved swiftly to detain the family and initiate removal proceedings. But Judge Gallagher intervened—citing “irreparable harm” if the deportation were to proceed.

To whom, exactly?

To the U.S. immigration system? To the rule of law? To Jewish citizens increasingly at risk from radicalized networks shielded by judicial activism? Since when does it become grounds to stay years past the expiration of a tourist visa because Pops decides to lob incendiaries at innocent people?

The family’s lawyers claim they were “shocked” by Soliman’s arrest. Perhaps. But the law doesn’t care—rather, shouldn’t care—about feelings. It cares about facts. And the truth is: they’re here unlawfully. It’s well past time they returned to Cairo—taking their activist lawfare strategy and see-no-evil, hear-no-evil routine with them.

Another gem buried in the lawsuit: the family is allegedly “part of Soliman’s asylum application.” That’s right—asylum-by-association. The man accused of launching Molotov cocktails at Americans during a vigil for Israeli hostages had a pending asylum claim—and now his family insists they’re legally piggybacking on his bid for refuge.

It’s hard to say what’s more offensive: the legal argument itself, or the notion that it entitles the family to remain here while the courts sort out his alleged terrorism.

Even more galling?

Mr. Lee wants it both ways—he claims the family’s legal right to stay hinges on their connection to Soliman’s asylum application, then spins around to insist they had nothing to do with his actions.

It’s remarkable how quickly the relationship toggles between a legal tether and moral distance, depending on which one yields a better outcome in court.

But then again, this is the same legal-industrial complex that believes 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) doesn’t mean what it says, and that due process is something you invent by certifying imaginary classes and ignoring Rule 65 bond requirements.

Eric Lee claims that deporting Hayem El Gamal and her children would be “an assault on core democratic principles.” But the real assault came when the immigration cartel turned the Constitution into a suicide pact—and the courts into sanctuaries for bad legal arguments.

In a healthy republic, visa overstays are deported. Full stop. But in modern America, the courtroom has become the last refuge of the unlawful: file a lawsuit, allege “harm,” shout “democracy,” and hope the judge confuses your expired tourist visa with a civil rights crusade.

And speaking of assaults on democratic principles, Mr. Lee—who won the last election? Wasn’t swift immigration enforcement on the ballot? How exactly does flouting the duly enacted law of the land demonstrate fidelity to democracy—rather than open defiance of it?

The vacation from immigration enforcement must end. The Molotovs were real. So is the damage to the rule of law—ironically inflicted by those who claim to defend it. And it’s time the courts stopped mistaking performative litigation for legitimate law.

Charlton Allen is an attorney and former chief executive officer and chief judicial officer of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. He is founder of the Madison Center for Law & Liberty, Inc., editor of The American Salient, and host of the Modern Federalist podcast. 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/06/colorado_man_s_family_vacation.html

Democrats make fools of themselves in the wake of the Elon-Trump rift

 


Republicans were pained to see the quarrel between Elon Musk and Donald Trump over the "Big Beautiful Budget" given our affection for both men, and admiration for each of their sacrifices and achievements.

Musk was right to question the rise in government spending after all he put in to cut it, and after all he did to elect Republicans, but made some below-the-belt hits on Trump that probably ruined a full reconciliation -- phony Epstein claims that would have been exposed long ago if true, and impeachment calls. Trump, who had a lot to work with around Elon's assorted babymamas and reputed drug use, was able to restrain himself from throwing any of that into the argument, so he comes out looking better, and it's likely most Americans will rally around him as a result. I chalk up Elon's tantrum to his reported Asperger's syndrome and forgive him, but ugh, don't ever do that again, Elon.

The fight was a gift to the left, of course, which foams at the mouth in hate of both men. But being the left, it was satisfying to see that they found a way to blow it, losing any political advantage they might have taken from it:

I checked out how bad it was on Bluesky:

Kamala Harris posted this on her X page last night. We could've had this amazing and inspiring woman as president right now but we got corruption and chaos with Donald Trump and JD Vance instead. 💔

[image or embed]

— Joyful Trouble (@mini-marshmallows.bsky.socialJune 6, 2025 at 5:39 AM

Umm, that's not gonna change any votes, lady. We all remember what she was like.

There also was this charmer, still boiling in his Trump Derangement Syndrome:

Here's the thing. Trump doesn't care about policy, Republicans, his own cabinet, or JD Vance. He doesn't care if they become collateral damage in his war of egos with Musk. He'll do everything to destroy Elon for betraying loyalty, damn the fallout. Trump has no grand plan. Just idiotic rage.

— Cap'n Jack Fights Fascism (@capnjackresists.bsky.socialJune 6, 2025 at 7:01 AM

He was joined by the Lincoln Project, still focused on image over content:

Our nation is currently a Jerry Springer episode with a WWE intermission. https://t.co/UXnUccsYa2

 

— Ryan Wiggins 🏴‍☠️ (@Ryan_N_Wiggins) June 6, 2025

Here's where they started to get ridiculous:

Meanwhile, over at Bluesky. https://t.co/AyUERm46tE

— Christina Hoff Sommers (@CHSommers) June 6, 2025

I know posting "the girls are fighting" seems funny, but it's actually insensitive and shitty. My father died in a girl fight. He tried to break it up and the girls pulled him apart like freshly baked bread. He didn't even scream. One moment he was there, the next just a spray of dad viscera.

— Johnny Normality (Feral Mode) (@probgobl.inJune 5, 2025 at 5:43 PM

It's a head-on crash between the gloaters and the politically correct thought police, going about their rounds to police the leftists on the Bluesky-sphere.

And speaking of conspiracy theorists -- they've got some impressive ones:

Let's not forget Peter Thiel in all of this. Thiel is the man who put Pope-killer JD Vance into the VP seat. Elon says he has the dirt on Diaper Donnie, making Vance his "unnatural" successor. Basically, it's going just as Thiel planned. See also.

[image or embed]

— Max B #FBPE 💙 🔶 🇺🇦 🇬🇧 🇪🇺 (@maxbrockbank.comJune 6, 2025 at 4:04 AM

And herein lies the closing act of the tech billionaires’ plot. Dump the useful idiot (Trump). Replace him with Thiel’s groomed puppet (JD Vance) Complete the tech coup. Danger! Danger! Danger!

— linlukey.bsky.social (@linlukey.bsky.socialJune 6, 2025 at 12:31 AM
Calm down, little goofus. Your imagination is running away from you. But you do you.

This one is shareable but only visible with a Bluesky account, for obvious reasons:

bluesky tweet

A Russian plot to Get Trump? We thought Trump was tight with the Russians, as lefties assured.

That's a new one!

The contradictions and hypocrisies were impressive:

JD Vance enters the realm of “no, I swear to God, he really tweeted this”-level ridiculous social media posts.

[image or embed]

— Will Harris (@willharrisinva.bsky.socialJune 6, 2025 at 6:03 AM

This, from the people who assured us Joe Biden was as sharp as a tack?

Sure thing, loser.

And this one, too:

If Elon Musk mysteriously dies at any point in the next week it is because Trump had him killed just like Trump had Jeffrey Epstein killed in 2019. pic.twitter.com/sLpQAhYsrf

— Jake Broe (@RealJakeBroe) June 5, 2025

Sorry, dork, Trump was the one who was the target of assassination attempts -- and smears, lawfare, lying, phony narratives, whisper campaigns, and more. You're doing the leftist thing here -- you're projecting.

This one projects the same kind of idiocy:

And just like that, Democrats are calling for the release of the Epstein files, thanks to Elon Musk and Donald Trump

Well played pic.twitter.com/Fhu8OWrPYf

— TaraBull (@TaraBull808) June 5, 2025

Funny, they never wanted those Epstein files released -- until now. They always opposed it.

This could get good.

No, they're not going to win with insipid reactions like these. From nutty talk, to Trump derangement, to crazed conspiracy theories, and a heaping helping of hypocrisy, they are amazing at seizing defeat from the jaws of victory and running with it.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/06/democrats_make_fools_of_themselves_in_the_wake_of_the_elon_trump_rift.html

FDA urges lawmakers to reauthorize OTC drug program



The FDA is urging lawmakers to reauthorize a key user fee program that could expand access to over the counter medications, reducing barriers to treatment.

At a recent hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, FDA officials highlighted the success of the over-the-counter Monograph Drug User Fee Program, first authorized in 2020, according to hearing testimony reviewed by Becker’s.

First enacted under the CARES Act in 2020, the program has helped modernize the regulatory process for nonprescription drugs, helping to speed up approvals and improve transparency and safety, Jacqueline Corrigan-Curay, MD, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in her testimony. She pointed to the example of over-the-counter naloxone, which can reverse opioid overdoses.

The proposed five-year reauthorization of the program to 2030 would include additional resources for faster reviews, improved product safety oversight and expanded transparency around FDA decision-making.