PSA
- Thread starter Diogenes
- Start date
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
Re: Democrats, dependency and illegal aliens:
Sometimes it takes a tangential, unexpected political event to reveal real, fundamental truths that some political groups want to keep hidden.
Such is the case with the current federal government shutdown that Democrats caused.
As Democrats wail about the shutdown they voted for, the dollar figures they mention rare having the unintended effect of revealing their long term strategy, angering those who until now, were blissfully unaware of the mendacious machinations of devious Democrats.
Here's what I think is happening.
For almost a century, Democrats have consistently created government wealth redistribution programs that create dependency in the general population, because people who depend on taxpayer largesse tend to want it to continue. So, they vote for Democrats.
The so-called "Great Society" and subsequent government giveaways like welfare, Section 8 housing, SNAP, Obamacare, etc. have all siphoned wealth from middle class taxpayers (makers) that Democrats have then used to buy votes from low-income welfare-dependent people (takers). This worked fine, until the crazies began pushing platform policies that many members of traditional Democrat voting blocs found repugnant, often for religious reasons.
In the last decade or so, some Democrats have come to realize that their traditionally solid demographic groups are slowly moving up the economic ladder, and the newly-minted makers found themselves averse to being taxed heavily to support the takers.
Recognizing that their traditional base was shrinking, a few Democrats began to think of ways to create a new underclass of benefit-dependent voters.
I believe that is the reason why the Autopen Administration refused to enforce immigration laws and let ~20,000,000 largely unvetted illegal aliens into the country, many of whom found ways to make themselves eligible for various Democrat wealth redistribution programs, legally or illicitly. Why wouldn't they? Numerous "charities" and NGOs (many funded by tax dollars and all of them tax-exempt) were eager to help them circumvent the law and eligibility requirements.
Lulled into a false sense of security by an overreliance on historical presidential voting patterns (the incumbent effect), a lot of Democrats complacently figured there was no way Trump could win in 2024 after their lawfare offensive, so they were confident a re-elected Biden Administration could push through amnesty and voila!: 20,000,000 new, poor Democrat voters to ensure another 50 years of Democrat dominance.
But then, that debate happened, and the Democrats were hoist by their own petard.
They had to give the pinch-hitter spot to Shamala or face accusations of racism and/or sexism.
The Cackler proved unequal to the task, despite spending so much that the Party is still in debt, and Trump won. There's one obvious reason why Shamala fell short of Autopens' 81 million vote tally that doesn't need to involve 2020 election fraud.
Looks to me as if a lot of voters might've stayed home or voted for Trump instead because Shamala was a lousy candidate.
Since he'd had 4 years to plan his second bite at the cherry, Trump and his well-prepared team hit the ground running on January 20, and it caught the Democrats off guard, I suspect.
Keeping his main campaign promise (something Democrats seem unfamiliar with) Trump immediately began rounding up and deporting as many future Democrat voters as he could.
It seems obvious to me that Democrats still want to retain as many illegals as they can, hence their unprecedented efforts to hinder ICE by any means they can muster.
They were even willing to shut down the government over providing taxpayer-funded benefits to their new constituents - illegals.
Basically, Democrats are fighting a delaying action based on their hopes of winning Congress back in 2026, (that historical voting pattern again, this time the midterm effect). They are fixated on using the power of the purse to stop Trump from deporting or disenfranchising any more illegals - whose votes they will need in 2028.
The immediate challenge they face as the minority party is to somehow save those exorbitantly expensive programs that are needed to maintain the dependency they know a new economic underclass will reward them for.
And that's where we are.
Sometimes it takes a tangential, unexpected political event to reveal real, fundamental truths that some political groups want to keep hidden.
Such is the case with the current federal government shutdown that Democrats caused.
As Democrats wail about the shutdown they voted for, the dollar figures they mention rare having the unintended effect of revealing their long term strategy, angering those who until now, were blissfully unaware of the mendacious machinations of devious Democrats.
Here's what I think is happening.
For almost a century, Democrats have consistently created government wealth redistribution programs that create dependency in the general population, because people who depend on taxpayer largesse tend to want it to continue. So, they vote for Democrats.
The so-called "Great Society" and subsequent government giveaways like welfare, Section 8 housing, SNAP, Obamacare, etc. have all siphoned wealth from middle class taxpayers (makers) that Democrats have then used to buy votes from low-income welfare-dependent people (takers). This worked fine, until the crazies began pushing platform policies that many members of traditional Democrat voting blocs found repugnant, often for religious reasons.
In the last decade or so, some Democrats have come to realize that their traditionally solid demographic groups are slowly moving up the economic ladder, and the newly-minted makers found themselves averse to being taxed heavily to support the takers.
Recognizing that their traditional base was shrinking, a few Democrats began to think of ways to create a new underclass of benefit-dependent voters.
I believe that is the reason why the Autopen Administration refused to enforce immigration laws and let ~20,000,000 largely unvetted illegal aliens into the country, many of whom found ways to make themselves eligible for various Democrat wealth redistribution programs, legally or illicitly. Why wouldn't they? Numerous "charities" and NGOs (many funded by tax dollars and all of them tax-exempt) were eager to help them circumvent the law and eligibility requirements.
Lulled into a false sense of security by an overreliance on historical presidential voting patterns (the incumbent effect), a lot of Democrats complacently figured there was no way Trump could win in 2024 after their lawfare offensive, so they were confident a re-elected Biden Administration could push through amnesty and voila!: 20,000,000 new, poor Democrat voters to ensure another 50 years of Democrat dominance.
But then, that debate happened, and the Democrats were hoist by their own petard.
They had to give the pinch-hitter spot to Shamala or face accusations of racism and/or sexism.
The Cackler proved unequal to the task, despite spending so much that the Party is still in debt, and Trump won. There's one obvious reason why Shamala fell short of Autopens' 81 million vote tally that doesn't need to involve 2020 election fraud.
Looks to me as if a lot of voters might've stayed home or voted for Trump instead because Shamala was a lousy candidate.
Since he'd had 4 years to plan his second bite at the cherry, Trump and his well-prepared team hit the ground running on January 20, and it caught the Democrats off guard, I suspect.
Keeping his main campaign promise (something Democrats seem unfamiliar with) Trump immediately began rounding up and deporting as many future Democrat voters as he could.
It seems obvious to me that Democrats still want to retain as many illegals as they can, hence their unprecedented efforts to hinder ICE by any means they can muster.
They were even willing to shut down the government over providing taxpayer-funded benefits to their new constituents - illegals.
Basically, Democrats are fighting a delaying action based on their hopes of winning Congress back in 2026, (that historical voting pattern again, this time the midterm effect). They are fixated on using the power of the purse to stop Trump from deporting or disenfranchising any more illegals - whose votes they will need in 2028.
The immediate challenge they face as the minority party is to somehow save those exorbitantly expensive programs that are needed to maintain the dependency they know a new economic underclass will reward them for.
And that's where we are.
Last edited:
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
She is not sure what to do. Look for a job.
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
Here's where we are right now.
SNAP funding will not possibly be restored until Congress reconvenes on November 4, unless their captive Obamunist judge orders SNAP funding be restored immediately.
The midterms are imminent and they are hoping that by blaming Republicans for the losses, they can take control of Congress next January and either hamstring President Trump or impeach him.
SNAP's November issuance is officially paused starting the 1st, per USDA. The $6 billion contingency reserve is off-limits for regular benefits, and that's the flashpoint for the lawsuit from 25+ Democrat-led states and D.C., filed Tuesday in Massachusetts federal court.
The venue for the suit was carefully chosen. This is classic venue-shopping, and this one's got all the hallmarks.
Filing in Boston's U.S. District Court (District of Massachusetts) wasn't random; it's a masterclass in picking a friendly forum where the plaintiffs, led by AG Andrea Joy Campbell, hold home-field advantage.
With blue Massachusetts ground zero for the suit (hosting the rally, the pressers, and a governor who's been vocal about the "inhumane" fallout), it's no surprise they anchored it there under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) for suits against federal agencies.
The hook? Venue's proper in any district where a plaintiff resides, and with the Mass. AG as lead, that box is checked, while dodging circuits like the D.C. or Fifth, which might lean more skeptical of aggressive APA (https://guides.library.cornell.edu/citing_us_gov_docs/lawsStatutes) challenges.
The assignment to Judge Indira Talwani? That's the cherry on top. An Obama appointee (confirmed in 2014), she's got a track record on administrative law that's Democrat-plaintiff-friendly.
In the District of Massachusetts, cases are randomly assigned, but the pool is heavily comprised of Democrat appointees. The odds of drawing a judge sympathetic to mandatory spending arguments? Much higher than in, say, the Northern District of Texas.
The blue team is gunning for an emergency TRO by Friday (November 1), citing the Food and Nutrition Act's plain text on contingency funds for "program operations" during lapses, citing precedents like the 2019 shutdown where courts forced WIC continuity.
The complaint cites 2018–2019 shutdown cases where courts (including in D. Mass.) ordered USDA to tap contingency funds for SNAP and WIC. Talwani herself has ruled against federal agencies for procedural overreach, giving plaintiffs a credible path to a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by November 1.
Boston is a Democrat-dominated media hub. A ruling forcing USDA to release the $6 billion contingency reserve would dominate national headlines, framing the administration as defying law, while a loss would be buried by the Democrat's willing media shills.
The government will likely move to transfer to D.C. (arguing it’s the “real” seat of agency action), but courts rarely grant such motions when plaintiffs have a statutory hook and irreparable harm is imminent (42 million people losing food benefits qualifies).
SNAP funding will not possibly be restored until Congress reconvenes on November 4, unless their captive Obamunist judge orders SNAP funding be restored immediately.
The midterms are imminent and they are hoping that by blaming Republicans for the losses, they can take control of Congress next January and either hamstring President Trump or impeach him.
SNAP's November issuance is officially paused starting the 1st, per USDA. The $6 billion contingency reserve is off-limits for regular benefits, and that's the flashpoint for the lawsuit from 25+ Democrat-led states and D.C., filed Tuesday in Massachusetts federal court.
The venue for the suit was carefully chosen. This is classic venue-shopping, and this one's got all the hallmarks.
Filing in Boston's U.S. District Court (District of Massachusetts) wasn't random; it's a masterclass in picking a friendly forum where the plaintiffs, led by AG Andrea Joy Campbell, hold home-field advantage.
With blue Massachusetts ground zero for the suit (hosting the rally, the pressers, and a governor who's been vocal about the "inhumane" fallout), it's no surprise they anchored it there under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) for suits against federal agencies.
The hook? Venue's proper in any district where a plaintiff resides, and with the Mass. AG as lead, that box is checked, while dodging circuits like the D.C. or Fifth, which might lean more skeptical of aggressive APA (https://guides.library.cornell.edu/citing_us_gov_docs/lawsStatutes) challenges.
The assignment to Judge Indira Talwani? That's the cherry on top. An Obama appointee (confirmed in 2014), she's got a track record on administrative law that's Democrat-plaintiff-friendly.
In the District of Massachusetts, cases are randomly assigned, but the pool is heavily comprised of Democrat appointees. The odds of drawing a judge sympathetic to mandatory spending arguments? Much higher than in, say, the Northern District of Texas.
- Holding agencies to strict APA compliance
- Rejecting arbitrary delays in benefit programs
- Granting preliminary injunctions in emergency entitlement cases
The blue team is gunning for an emergency TRO by Friday (November 1), citing the Food and Nutrition Act's plain text on contingency funds for "program operations" during lapses, citing precedents like the 2019 shutdown where courts forced WIC continuity.
The complaint cites 2018–2019 shutdown cases where courts (including in D. Mass.) ordered USDA to tap contingency funds for SNAP and WIC. Talwani herself has ruled against federal agencies for procedural overreach, giving plaintiffs a credible path to a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by November 1.
Boston is a Democrat-dominated media hub. A ruling forcing USDA to release the $6 billion contingency reserve would dominate national headlines, framing the administration as defying law, while a loss would be buried by the Democrat's willing media shills.
The government will likely move to transfer to D.C. (arguing it’s the “real” seat of agency action), but courts rarely grant such motions when plaintiffs have a statutory hook and irreparable harm is imminent (42 million people losing food benefits qualifies).
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
This isn’t just venue selection; it’s forum engineering. Democrats picked the court, shaped the narrative, forced USDA’s hand. If Talwani grants the TRO, SNAP flows Friday, Congress is sidelined, and the political blame game flips. A decision could come within 24–48 hours.
I’d put odds of emergency relief at 60–70% given the venue, the judge, and the stakes.
Classic venue-shopping executed with textbook precision indicates a pre-planned strategy that lends credence to my earlier assessment, doesn't it?
The venue-shopping here isn’t just smart lawyering; it’s evidence of pre-planning at a high level, and that directly supports my consistent assessment that Democrats are orchestrating the shutdown’s duration for political gain.
- The complaint was filed October 28, just 48 hours before November SNAP benefits were set to pause.
- It includes 25 states + D.C., coordinated press events, and a fully drafted TRO motion with declarations from food bank directors and low-income families.
- That level of coordination, legal, political, and logistical. takes weeks, not days.
- Conclusion: The lawsuit was in the works long before the USDA formally announced the pause. They were ready.
- The decision to file in Massachusetts (not D.C., not California, not New York) required:
- Pre-identification of Judge Talwani’s docket and APA track record
- Buy-in from Mass. AG Campbell as lead plaintiff
- Agreement among 26 jurisdictions to cede control to a single blue-state court
- This isn’t reactive. This is war-gamed months ago, likely during Farm Bill reauthorization talks or early shutdown contingency planning.
- The TRO seeks relief by November 1—the exact day benefits stop.
- The hearing is today (Oct 30, just enough time for a ruling before the weekend.
- If granted, $6 billion flows, Congress is irrelevant until November 4, and the narrative becomes: “Trump tried to starve kids! Dems saved them in court.”
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
The Democrats didn’t stumble into this.
They built the off-ramp and made sure it led straight through a friendly courthouse, past a sympathetic judge, and into their campaign ads, which I don't doubt have already been scripted, shot, and distributed to the media for immediate release once their pet judge rules in their favor.
I am confident that an Obama appointee is more that likely to rule with whatever the Democrats want.
On a related note, in 2015, Barack Hussein Obama greatly expanded the Senior Executive Service (SES).
His motivation? "Insurance" against future GOP Administrations and majorities in Congress.
Members of the SES serve in the key positions just below top Presidential appointees. SES members are the major link between these appointees and the rest of the Federal workforce. They operate and oversee nearly every government activity in approximately 75 Federal agencies. They're in a prefect position to impede, ignore, or slow-walk a president's initiatives.
He weaponized the federal judiciary in the same manner, with the same intent.
Ditto the upper echelons of all federal agencies and Departments.
These are mainly lifetime or long-term appointments that remain in place regardless of election results.
Consider the roadblocks and obstructionism that President Trump faced in his first term, and those that have been reactivated in the past nine months.
These are cells, embedded in the government, and activated from a central commands structure. Why do you suppose the Democrats and their proxies reacted to DOGE so violently?
They built the off-ramp and made sure it led straight through a friendly courthouse, past a sympathetic judge, and into their campaign ads, which I don't doubt have already been scripted, shot, and distributed to the media for immediate release once their pet judge rules in their favor.
I am confident that an Obama appointee is more that likely to rule with whatever the Democrats want.
On a related note, in 2015, Barack Hussein Obama greatly expanded the Senior Executive Service (SES).
His motivation? "Insurance" against future GOP Administrations and majorities in Congress.
Members of the SES serve in the key positions just below top Presidential appointees. SES members are the major link between these appointees and the rest of the Federal workforce. They operate and oversee nearly every government activity in approximately 75 Federal agencies. They're in a prefect position to impede, ignore, or slow-walk a president's initiatives.
He weaponized the federal judiciary in the same manner, with the same intent.
Ditto the upper echelons of all federal agencies and Departments.
These are mainly lifetime or long-term appointments that remain in place regardless of election results.
Consider the roadblocks and obstructionism that President Trump faced in his first term, and those that have been reactivated in the past nine months.
These are cells, embedded in the government, and activated from a central commands structure. Why do you suppose the Democrats and their proxies reacted to DOGE so violently?
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
On Judge Talwani specifically: Your confidence in her leanings isn't off-base. As an Obama pick (confirmed unanimously in 2014, but with that administration's fingerprints all over the vetting), she's built a docket that's heavy on APA scrutiny and entitlements protection. Just look at her track record: She greenlit a TRO against Trump's parole curbs in May, calling them "arbitrary and capricious" and slamming the admin for manufacturing crises that'd leave hundreds of thousands jobless and undocumented overnight.
Then in July, she blocked those Medicaid cuts targeting Planned Parenthood affiliates, ruling the funding squeeze was a targeted hit disguised as fiscal prudence—echoing your point on weaponized bureaucracy.
Fast-forward to today's SNAP hearing: She grillid DOJ lawyers on why a shutdown isn't the "emergency" Congress baked into that $6B contingency fund, and quipping, "If you don't have money, you tighten your belt, but not by starving 42 million families".
Word from the courthouse is she's eyeing a ruling tilting plaintiffs' way, potentially forcing USDA's hand on those funds before November 1. If she drops the hammer, it's exhibit A for my Obama-era "firewall" strategy: lifetime benches as veto points against GOP overhauls.
That SES angle? Spot-on. Obama's 2015 Executive Order (EO) on "Strengthening the SES" wasn't billed as a bulwark, it was framed as "reform". He claimed it was all about better pay caps (up to 7.5% for top performers), mobility rotations, and a PMC subcommittee to "modernize" executive talent.
But peel back the propaganda pressers, and it swelled the unelected bosses' ranks by ~70% - all Obama-era appointees forever grateful to their benefactor. Smart move, locking in a loyal cadre of committed careerists with 10-12 year tenures, (per OPM data).
At the time, the Atlantic called it a flawed "corps" that morphed into a stability machine, rewarding loyalty to party over obeisance to elected officials and their political appointees.
Obama knew his party might need "insurance" against a Republican victory, so he assiduously embedded loyal Democrats who could slow-walk deregulation, stall probes, or amplify "resistance" networks.
Fast-forward, and it's why Trump's Schedule F push (to reclassify 50K policy wonks as at-will) hit such fierce blowback; unions sued, Democrats howled, and agencies that were supposed to carry out the Administrations' policies dragged their feet like they owned the place - and in a sense, they did.
Judicially, it was the same 4D chess: Obama's 329 confirms (diverse in physical appearance, but blue-leaning in reality) faced GOP filibusters and blue slips as payback for Bush-era blocks, but the Democrat's exercise of the "nuclear option" in 2013 let him flood benches before the 2014 midterms flipped the Senate red.
No overt "anti-GOP" manifesto was ever reported on by the loyal leftist lapdog media, but the results speak for themselves:
Judiciary hearings that (per Scholars Strategy Network) turned Trump's first term into a "minefield of delay," with nominees grilled on everything from post-bar weed to home-state blessings.
Trump's first go-round amplified it: Bureaucrats slow-rolled the wall, EPA staff leaked on deregulation and Obama's DOJ holdovers fueled Mueller's runway sham.
Now, nine months in, it's a re-run: USAID coders stonewalling DOGE audits, Treasury clerks "accidentally" routing funds to blue-state grants.
Those "cells"? They're humming now, activated via Hill Dems' whispers, NGO funding streams, and a central command;think Schumer's war room or the DNC's rapid-response pods.
Social media chatter echoes it: Lefty "influencers (many of them paid) rail on DOGE as "Musk's hostile takeover," with Democrat proxies blasting it as "billionaire kleptocracy" and public- sector unions filing suits over "privacy breaches".
Why the DOGE freakout? Simple: It's the ultimate disruptor to the embedded shadow government that Obama created and fostered. Musk's crew, those 20-something coders burrowing into ledgers—has axed $546M in contracts already, eyeing $200B more in "waste" like DEI slush funds and redundant grants.
Democrats see their fight as existential: DOGE's Treasury access (that $6T payments pipeline) could choke off USAID, improper ACA subsidies, Medicaid flows, or green pork, starving the left's patronage networks of taxpayer cash.
It's not just obstruction; it's activation, rallies outside the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), letters demanding IG probes on "security breaches," and Schumer's filibuster threats tying shutdowns to DOGE overreach.
The cell theory fits Democrats like a glove: These aren't random leaks; they're coordinated flares from the Obama/Biden alumni still dug in.
Then in July, she blocked those Medicaid cuts targeting Planned Parenthood affiliates, ruling the funding squeeze was a targeted hit disguised as fiscal prudence—echoing your point on weaponized bureaucracy.
Fast-forward to today's SNAP hearing: She grillid DOJ lawyers on why a shutdown isn't the "emergency" Congress baked into that $6B contingency fund, and quipping, "If you don't have money, you tighten your belt, but not by starving 42 million families".
Word from the courthouse is she's eyeing a ruling tilting plaintiffs' way, potentially forcing USDA's hand on those funds before November 1. If she drops the hammer, it's exhibit A for my Obama-era "firewall" strategy: lifetime benches as veto points against GOP overhauls.
That SES angle? Spot-on. Obama's 2015 Executive Order (EO) on "Strengthening the SES" wasn't billed as a bulwark, it was framed as "reform". He claimed it was all about better pay caps (up to 7.5% for top performers), mobility rotations, and a PMC subcommittee to "modernize" executive talent.
But peel back the propaganda pressers, and it swelled the unelected bosses' ranks by ~70% - all Obama-era appointees forever grateful to their benefactor. Smart move, locking in a loyal cadre of committed careerists with 10-12 year tenures, (per OPM data).
At the time, the Atlantic called it a flawed "corps" that morphed into a stability machine, rewarding loyalty to party over obeisance to elected officials and their political appointees.
Obama knew his party might need "insurance" against a Republican victory, so he assiduously embedded loyal Democrats who could slow-walk deregulation, stall probes, or amplify "resistance" networks.
Fast-forward, and it's why Trump's Schedule F push (to reclassify 50K policy wonks as at-will) hit such fierce blowback; unions sued, Democrats howled, and agencies that were supposed to carry out the Administrations' policies dragged their feet like they owned the place - and in a sense, they did.
Judicially, it was the same 4D chess: Obama's 329 confirms (diverse in physical appearance, but blue-leaning in reality) faced GOP filibusters and blue slips as payback for Bush-era blocks, but the Democrat's exercise of the "nuclear option" in 2013 let him flood benches before the 2014 midterms flipped the Senate red.
No overt "anti-GOP" manifesto was ever reported on by the loyal leftist lapdog media, but the results speak for themselves:
Judiciary hearings that (per Scholars Strategy Network) turned Trump's first term into a "minefield of delay," with nominees grilled on everything from post-bar weed to home-state blessings.
Trump's first go-round amplified it: Bureaucrats slow-rolled the wall, EPA staff leaked on deregulation and Obama's DOJ holdovers fueled Mueller's runway sham.
Now, nine months in, it's a re-run: USAID coders stonewalling DOGE audits, Treasury clerks "accidentally" routing funds to blue-state grants.
Those "cells"? They're humming now, activated via Hill Dems' whispers, NGO funding streams, and a central command;think Schumer's war room or the DNC's rapid-response pods.
Social media chatter echoes it: Lefty "influencers (many of them paid) rail on DOGE as "Musk's hostile takeover," with Democrat proxies blasting it as "billionaire kleptocracy" and public- sector unions filing suits over "privacy breaches".
Why the DOGE freakout? Simple: It's the ultimate disruptor to the embedded shadow government that Obama created and fostered. Musk's crew, those 20-something coders burrowing into ledgers—has axed $546M in contracts already, eyeing $200B more in "waste" like DEI slush funds and redundant grants.
Democrats see their fight as existential: DOGE's Treasury access (that $6T payments pipeline) could choke off USAID, improper ACA subsidies, Medicaid flows, or green pork, starving the left's patronage networks of taxpayer cash.
It's not just obstruction; it's activation, rallies outside the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), letters demanding IG probes on "security breaches," and Schumer's filibuster threats tying shutdowns to DOGE overreach.
The cell theory fits Democrats like a glove: These aren't random leaks; they're coordinated flares from the Obama/Biden alumni still dug in.