A reader wrote: “My friend showed me his medical degree from Harvard. Now I’m a surgeon.”
In line with that joke about Trump’s “participation trophy” (even though he never participated), another friend came up with an absolutely brilliant idea:
Go into your attic, storeroom or wherever, and dig out all your old, useless trophies (especially any old participation trophies) and send them to Donald J. Trump, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C. 20004.
Or you can send them to Trump The Mar-a-Lago Club, 1100 South Ocean Boulevard, Palm Beach, Florida 33480
He wants participation trophies, give him participation trophies.
Do it! They can’t do anything about someone’s wanting to share his accomplishments with ol’ Yam Tits!
Even Milli Vanilli gets in on the growing wave of sharing:
And then, there’s this:
(Yeah, I know it’s all AI, but damn! Ain’t it fun!)
Louisiana Voice 
I’m lost for words!
Let’s drive that pathetic wannabe nuts by sending boatloads of castoff trophies from Goodwill. Drive home the message that he will never be as beloved, respected and capable as Barak Obama.
The rest of the world is begging us to stop. They’re laughing so hard they can’t catch their breath.
I thought it was Mar a Lago.
You are quite correct. Thanks for augmenting my weak old eyes for the typo. Correction made.
The Meaning of Trump leadership: America First Doctrine. America First as Restoration, Not Innovation. 1913 as the Yankee Constitutional Breaking Point; the transformation of the US Republic to a managerial bureaucratic government behind the government. The illegal Administrative State as a De Facto 4th Branch unconstitutional Main branch of the Federal government that has supplanted Congress like Truman’s turning to the UN to declare War causing the Korean crisis.
The Biden Era “Green Agenda” as dead as the mental capacity of Biden to think. The absolute disgrace of mass hysteria over ‘global warming’ or ‘government enforced socialist health care – like the mass Covid-19 injections – which treated humans as some ‘Western medicine corporate monopoly guinea pigs! Pie in the Sky mass hysteria – sucks.
Clearly Russia today does not compare to post WWII USSR; modern Europe does not in any way shape or form compare to post Oct 7th 2023 Gaza! The time has come for the US to pull its troops out of Germany and all Europe! European societies need to wean themselves from the American tits. The Trump Administration, by taking over S. American oil reserves and Greenland’s critical minerals serves to maintain post WWII American economic dominance, especially when challenged by BRICS counter-currency; competition the basis of economic health.
Europe a post Shoah cursed childless dying society that’s fast transforming its culture unto a Muslim dominated civilization. Actions have their consequences, the guilt of the Shoah disgrace has murdered the religion and good name reputation of Xtianity. The establishment of the EU a clear “over-reaction” to two 20th Century European Civil Wars. The “One Size Fits All” Soviet socialism collapsed in failure back in 1991. Restoration of European nation state political independence represents the European framers vision post the Napoleonic wars!
Western European states must respect post Napoleon and Hitler invasions of Russia through the Ukraine. Better to partition Ukraine like unto 19th Century Poland than assume that Russia post these two horrific Western European utterly crushed defeats of imperialism/invasion – to preach while standing on a soap box that Russia must accept the inevitable that the Ukraine joins NATO. Especially when the US intends to get out of NATO, in accordance with the founding Fathers of America which strongly advised not getting entangled into European alliances … but rather focus and maintain the Monroe Doctrine.
The “Big Three” explicitly agreed to respect Soviet security concerns. Hence the Great Powers established Eastern Europe as a buffer zone to protect from still another Western invasion attempts in the future. Stalin’s demand blunt: Never again allow a hostile military power to mass on Russia’s western frontier. The unification of Germany – began the negation and crooked Western chisel away from the West’s commitment to respect the concerns of Stalin post war. James Baker (US Sec. of State) famously said: “NATO will move not one inch eastward.”
Russia sees NATO expansion as encirclement, no different than Arab State encirclement of Israel. Post 1991 NATO kept expanding without integrating Russia. NATO expansion violates the spirit of the Big Three agreements. Russia will never accept NATO on its borders, most especially Ukraine. While the Big Three agreements not a formal treaty, my grand father taught me: if a Man’s word: no good, the Man no good.
Post WWII America can never return the released genie from its bottle of 1930s American Isolationism any more than post Napoleon and Hitler invasions Russia will ever willingly permit Western European domination. This post war reality will only change if and only if Europe defeats both the US and Russia in a third World War!
American Industries cannot “compete” if they flee to foreign lands with cheap labor costs like as happened under Post WWII bureaucratization “Sovietization” of Washington bureaucracies! The government establishment of Corporate monopolies – starting with the Federal Reserve abomination under Wilson in 1913 requires immediate uprooting. Not the place of Washington to manage a controlled economy like both LBJ and Nixon “managed” the Vietnam defeat from DC! This means Washington must restore the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment – States Rights – which the Trump Supreme Court started with revoking Roe vs. Wade; the abortion industry only the States of the Republic should regulate. The same holds true with Agriculture, Healthcare, Insurance in all shape manner and forms starting with the Social Security fraud.
To maintain US economic growth and dominance, especially post WWII wherein the US supplied the oil and gas etc to the Allied war effort against the Central and Axis alliances, America First must never forget the post Andrew Jackson independent banking established in 1825 and the British Hong Kong free banking models.
America prior to Wilson’s socialism did not require an IRS direct taxation of the American people. Washington taxed the States not the individuals living within the States of the Republic. The inherit corruption of Pelosi and lifetime politicians not as easily tolerated when State Legislatures appointed their two Senate “ambassadors” sent to DC. Pre-WWI US joining the WWI Allied alliance occurred chiefly because Central Bank (private monopoly Federal Reserve) made huge loans to England and France without Congressional oversite and consent! Had Washington joined the Central Alliance in 1917 Britain and France would have negated their debt obligations to America much like post Bolshevik Russia did with its loans made with European central banks.
In the 19th Century Washington relied primarily upon imposing protective tariffs upon foreign governments industrial competition with American goods and services. Obviously during the American Civil War Lincoln’s ‘greenbacks’ modified Jackson’s ‘free banking’ by forcing banks to hold US treasury bonds. The first federal income tax was a temporary wartime measure during the Civil War (Revenue Act of 1861), imposing a 3% flat rate on incomes over $800, later graduated to 5% on higher earnings.
The 16th Amendment, ratified in February 1913 (just before Wilson’s inauguration), explicitly allowed Congress to levy income taxes “without apportionment among the several states.” This enabled the Revenue Act of 1913, creating a graduated federal income tax (1% on incomes over $3,000, up to 7% on over $500,000) and expanding the Bureau of Internal Revenue (precursor to the IRS). Critics at the time, and since, viewed this as enabling “socialism” by centralizing fiscal power, shifting from state-apportioned burdens to direct individual taxation. This change marked a key expansion of federal authority, aligning with Progressive Era reforms but diverging from the Founders’ emphasis on limited central government.
The early 20th Century post Civil War shift away from the States-Rights American Republic unto direct elections “democracy” ignores the basic facts of Confederate concerns of Central Government domination over the State, like as exemplified by the The post Civil War Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 negated the States Rights Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. This Act, according to the popular rhetoric propaganda (Obamo like “change” political slogan) sought to curb the monopolistic practices of railroads, particularly the unfair pricing strategies and discrimination against certain customers and promote competition.
Bunk. Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), the first federal agency established to regulate economic activity across the board! Not simply limited to Railroad monopoly abuses!
The Interstate Commerce Act marked a critical shift in the balance of power between state and federal authorities. By regulating interstate commerce, the federal government asserted its authority over economic activities that previously fell under state jurisdiction, challenging the States’ Rights perspective that had been a significant aspect of the U.S. political landscape.
The Interstate Commerce Act laid the groundwork for future federal regulation of various industries beyond railroads, influencing later legislation related to telecommunications, airlines, and more. It set a precedent for the federal government’s role in regulating interstate commerce, establishing a framework for ongoing regulatory bureaucratic State behind the State revolving door bureaucrats with Corporate monopoly “experts”, commonly known today as the Industrial military complex.
By the 1820s–1830s (e.g., Tariff of 1828, the “Tariff of Abominations”), rates rose to protective levels (averaging 40–60% on dutiable imports) to foster domestic manufacturing. This system reflected Hamiltonian ideas of using tariffs for industrial development. Post-Civil War, high protective tariffs (e.g., Morrill Tariff of 1861 and later acts) persisted, funding Reconstruction and industrial growth while generating surpluses in peacetime. This tariff-heavy model kept federal power limited—no need for a permanent income tax or large bureaucracy—aligning with states’ rights and limited government visions.
Lincoln/Secretary Chase’s National Banking Acts (1863–1864) centralized the Greenback fiat monopoly money/currency to finance the Civil War Yankee imperialism. States do not compare to counties within States as Lincoln sought to dictate. Lincoln’s creation of nationally chartered banks which required all banks to hold U.S. Treasury bonds as backing for their notes, this standardization of US currency stabilized the US dollar during the Civil War crisis. It taxed state banknotes heavily (10% tax in 1865) to drive them out.
This approach not only helped manage the economic chaos but also laid the foundation for Wilson’s corrupt IRS/Centralized Bank standardized currency system. Greenbacks complemented this by providing immediate liquidity. By taxing state banknotes, Washington effectively encouraged a shift towards federal currency, thereby consolidating control over the monetary system and minimizing the risks of inflation.
Greenbacks (Legal Tender Act, 1862): Issued $450 million in fiat currency (backed by future taxes, not gold) to fund 60% of war costs (~$3.2 billion total). Forced banks to accept them and hold U.S. Treasury bonds (National Banking Acts, 1863–1865), creating the First National Bank system. This centralized banking ~1,600 national banks by 1865, crowding out state banks via a 10% tax on their notes. Inflation hit 80% by 1864, but greenbacks were redeemed in gold by 1879 (Specie Resumption Act).
The Supreme Court’s 1886 Wabash decision, which invalidated state regulation of interstate rail rates as violating the Commerce Clause (exclusive federal domain) compares to how Roe vs Wade made Washington Big Brother so completely dominant over States economic autonomy. The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) – interpreted by Yankee victors to allow federal preemption when activities crossed state lines or affected interstate flow. This challenged Southern/Confederate-era states’ rights concerns about central domination, as railroads symbolized Northern industrial power post-Civil War.
Initially, the Act applied only to railroads—the first industry federally regulated. The ICC’s scope expanded later via amendments (e.g., Hepburn Act 1906 added pipelines, terminals; Motor Carrier Act 1935 added trucking/buses). In the 1880s–1890s, it was railroad-focused, though it set the template for future agencies (e.g., FCC for telecom, CAB for airlines). Critics argue it birthed the “regulatory state,” with bureaucrats often drawn from (or returning to) the industries they regulated—creating capture and monopoly entrenchment rather than true competition.
Rep. William Bourke Cockran called the 16th Amendment and Revenue Act of 1913 (the post Civil War Yankee ‘Progressive Centralization pivot) “Socialism”!!! Because it shifted the burden of Washington raising money away from foreign competitors in business to US citizens. It funded Wilson’s corrupt ‘New Freedom expansion rhetoric propaganda (e.g., FTC, Clayton Act). Madison in Federalist No. 10 warned against factions using direct taxes for redistribution of US citizen wealth. By their fruits you shall know them: By 1920, income tax raised 58% of Federal revenue, enabling welfare state growth like LBJ’s Great Society rhetoric propaganda. Passage of the
17th Amendment (1913) compounded this, replacing state-legislature Senate picks with popular vote—eroding states appointing Federal Senators as ambassadors of State legislatures sent to negotiate with Washington. Establishment of the ICC “Obama-like ‘change’ birthed the first independent Federal regulatory agency octopus monster illegal 4th Branch of the US Government in direct violation of the 3 branches of the US Government established by the Constitution.
I’m lost.
Do you have any interests in this subject?
Trump leadership stands tall.
In 2026, Donald Trump revisited his interest in Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark. Previously, in 2019, he proposed purchasing Greenland, a suggestion that was met with resistance from not just Denmark but also the global community. At the World Economic Forum in January 2026, Trump and NATO officials discussed a framework for a future deal regarding Greenland. This did not imply ownership transfer, but rather a cooperative framework addressing security and potential military bases.
The framework aims to allow the U.S. to build additional military bases on Greenland for missile defense purposes, particularly in line with Trump’s “Golden Dome” project. The U.S. seeks access to mineral rights, particularly for rare earth minerals, which are essential for technology and defense sectors. Danish sovereignty over Greenland remains intact, as emphasized by Danish officials who insist on the respect of the self-determination of Greenland’s people.
Trump has backed down from threats to impose tariffs on European countries opposing his Greenland proposal, indicating a softening of his stance to mend transatlantic relations. The framework introduced at Davos is more about strengthening cooperative security measures in the Arctic region rather than an outright sale or transfer of sovereignty over Greenland. The situation as a potential “squirrel” tactic for deflecting main stream media propaganda anti Trump rhetoric or as a maximalist demand for negotiation appears to hold merit, given the context of Trump’s approach and the complexities surrounding the territory’s status. Based upon the recent developments which reveal a diplomatic approach focusing on security collaboration and resource sharing, rather than a unilateral demand for territorial ownership.
This framework signifies a focus on enhancing security measures in the Arctic rather than asserting territorial claims. The ongoing dialogue suggests a diplomatic path centered on security collaboration and resource sharing rather than unilateral demands for ownership.
This Greenland “art of the deal” possibly linked to broader geopolitical strategies, including challenges posed by BRICS nations to the U.S. dollar’s dominance. The Greenland deal primarily revolves around security collaboration between the U.S. and Denmark, particularly concerning military bases and resource access. The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) have been increasingly vocal about reducing their dependency on the U.S. dollar for international trade.
Establishing military bases in Greenland could enhance U.S. capabilities in the Arctic, potentially countering Russian influence and securing key shipping routes, which is critical amidst rising geopolitical tensions related to BRICS. Access to Greenland’s resources, including its rare earth minerals, could bolster U.S. supply chains that are crucial in maintaining technological and military superiority. Strengthening U.S. positions globally (like in Greenland) may serve as a counterweight to any moves by BRICS to establish a currency that could undermine the dollar, reinforcing U.S. economic interests.
Greenland’s strategic importance is connected to U.S. interests in Venezuela, particularly regarding oil reserves, involves several key geopolitical factors. As an autonomous territory of Denmark, Greenland’s geographic location in the Arctic is strategically vital for U.S. military operations, especially in countering rival influences from Russia and China. Venezuela is home to some of the largest oil reserves in the world, making it a significant player in global energy dynamics. The capture of Venezuelan leadership by U.S. interests could be seen as a move to secure energy supplies while simultaneously diminishing the influence of countries like Russia and China that have vested interests in Venezuela.
While the direct links between Greenland’s status and the U.S. strategy toward Venezuela may not be immediately apparent, both are part of a larger framework of U.S. geopolitical maneuvers aimed at securing strategic resources and asserting influence in key regions. The dynamics of securing energy resources from Venezuela and ensuring military readiness in Greenland illustrate the interconnected nature of global political and economic strategies. This multifaceted approach highlights how countries navigate complex international landscapes to protect their interests.