Doomscroll News

Category: Politics

  • This “Beautiful Bill”? A Recipe for Disaster.

    This “Beautiful Bill”? A Recipe for Disaster.

    The recent unveiling of the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” demands a critical eye, not a rubber stamp, especially from those who champion fiscal responsibility and effective governance. While packaged with appealing promises, a closer look reveals a proposal that misses the mark on several fundamental issues and unwisely bundles disparate policies into a take-it-or-leave-it behemoth.

    Let’s start with the much-touted tax cuts. The claim of putting more money in Americans’ pockets rings hollow when we consider the crushing weight of our national debt. As Rep. Thomas Massie has rightly pointed out, the annual federal interest burden alone equates to losing a full IRA for every citizen. This doesn’t even factor in the hidden tax of inflation, exacerbated by out-of-control spending and unfunded liabilities in states like California, which silently devalues every dollar we earn. Barking up the “tax cut” tree while the fiscal house is on fire is a distraction. Frankly, many Americans would likely pay more in taxes if it meant a serious crackdown on rampant fraud. Where are the arrests? We see endless talk, perhaps even obscure “DOGE research” initiatives, yet tangible results in holding fraudsters accountable are conspicuously absent. This needs to change.

    (more…)
  • Seeking Visual Clarity on Voter Registration Data: A Suggestion for Judicial Watch

    Seeking Visual Clarity on Voter Registration Data: A Suggestion for Judicial Watch

    It is possible that a data visualization similar to the one proposed below, or one that addresses these specific points, has already been produced by Judicial Watch or other analysts. If so, my apologies for any redundancy. The intent of this article is to contribute constructively to the public understanding of voter registration data by suggesting a clear and informative method of visual presentation.

    Judicial Watch’s 2020 report identified 353 U.S. counties where their analysis indicated that total registered voters exceeded the estimated citizen voting-age population. To foster a more comprehensive understanding of these findings and the scale of the reported discrepancies, a detailed visual representation of this data would be highly beneficial for public discussion and analysis.

    (more…)

  • Before RussiaGate: Unanswered 9/11 Questions & the Figures Who Later Targeted Trump

    The official 9/11 story has always been shadowed by intense political maneuvering and questions about the integrity of the investigation. TDS figures involved Robert Mueller and Jeff Sessions then became central to later political firestorms, like the Trump-Russia probe, leading critics to question if patterns of bias or “sketchy” behavior were present from the start. Add the chaos of the post-9/11 Anthrax attacks targeting leaders like Sen. Tom Daschle, and you have an environment ripe for suspicion. Here are the really interesting, specific questions that remain, viewed through that critical lens:

    Questions About the Investigation’s Integrity & Key Players:

    1. The Mueller FBI’s Actions: Robert Mueller led the FBI during 9/11 and its immediate aftermath. Considering his later controversial role heading the Trump-Russia investigation (labeled the “Russia Hoax” by critics), specific questions about his FBI’s handling of 9/11 gain new scrutiny for some observers: Why did the Phoenix Memo warning die within his FBI? Why was the WTC steel evidence removed and disposed of so quickly under his FBI’s jurisdiction? What were the full findings and actions taken regarding the Saudi flights authorized post-9/11? How effectively was the Anthrax investigation (targeting Sen. Daschle) handled by his FBI, and were its ultimate conclusions fully verified?
    2. The Zelikow Conflict & Commission Bias: How could the 9/11 Commission claim independence when its director, Philip Zelikow, had such tight links to the Bush White House (Condoleezza Rice), as highlighted in 2004 reports (CNN)? Did this connection, slammed by critics at the time, effectively allow the White House to steer the investigation?
    3. Political Pressure & Information Control: Were findings, like the “28 pages” on potential Saudi links, kept secret for years due to political pressure (perhaps involving figures like Jeff Sessions in his Senate role then, whose later actions as AG raised questions for critics) rather than legitimate security concerns? Did the White House improperly limit the Commission’s access or scope, as alleged during the 2004 hearings (CNN)?
    (more…)

  • The MADC ‘Defense Pact’: A Playbook for Evading Accountability

    Universities, nudged by faculty groups and unions primarily within the Big Ten, are floating a plan for a “Mutual Academic Defense Compact” (MADC). The idea is to create an alliance where member schools pool resources to defend each other against what they term “political attacks.” While presented as a shield for academic freedom and institutional autonomy, the MADC looks more like a coordinated strategy to sidestep accountability to elected governments, taxpayers, and the public, particularly regarding controversial programs and policies.

    Breaking Down the Goals: A Pattern of Evasion

    Examining the stated aims reveals a consistent thread of trying to avoid oversight and consequences:

    1. “Collective Defense”: This isn’t about protection in the usual sense. It’s about creating a shared war chest—funded by tuition, endowments, or potentially taxpayer money—to fight back against governmental investigations, audits, or legislative actions. It’s a mechanism designed explicitly to resist accountability measures imposed by elected bodies.
    2. “Resisting Political Interference”: This frequently serves as code for resisting laws, regulations, and oversight that university administrations or faculty dislike. It suggests an attempt to operate outside the normal democratic process where institutions are subject to political (i.e., governmental) direction, especially public universities. Shielding specific research agendas or programs, like contested DEI initiatives, from scrutiny under the guise of fighting “interference” is a direct dodge of public and governmental accountability.
    3. “Protect Academic Freedom”: While crucial, this principle can be misused. In the context of the MADC, there’s a risk it becomes a justification for insulating specific, often left-leaning, ideological viewpoints or controversial scholarship from legitimate criticism and external review, thereby evading intellectual and public accountability.
    4. “Support Vulnerable Communities / Uphold DEI”: The push to use pact resources to defend DEI programs is particularly telling. These programs face significant legal challenges and public criticism as discriminatory, promoting division, and chilling speech. The MADC aims to provide a financial and legal shield to prevent these programs from facing accountability through courts or legislatures, essentially using collective power to protect contested initiatives from consequences.
    5. “Mitigate Financial Pressure”: This goal is perhaps the most blatant attempt to avoid accountability. If a university faces funding cuts due to legislative decisions, declining enrollment, or public disapproval of its policies, the MADC seeks to use funds from other (potentially out-of-state) universities to cushion the blow. This undermines the basic principle that institutions should be accountable for the consequences of their actions and policies, including financial ones.
    (more…)