[Daily Mail, were America gets its news] President Donald Trump scored a huge win in his efforts to deport migrants living in the United States illegally with a major Supreme Court ruling on Monday.
The country's highest court, in an unsigned 5 - 4 ruling, ruled that the Trump administration can invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.
Trump had declared that members of the Tren de Aragua gang were terrorists, and his border czar Tom Homan spectacularly rounded up suspected gangsters across the United States last month to send them back to 'hell hole' prisons in Venezuela.
But the president's efforts were halted on March 15 when Obama-appointed US District Court Judge James Boasberg issued an injunction blocking the deportations.
That injunction has now been lifted under the Supreme Court's ruling - allowing the president to once again send suspected gang members to their home countries.
Trump hailed the ruling as a 'GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE IN AMERICA' in a post on his Truth Social page Monday night.
'The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law in our Nation by allowing a President, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our Borders and protect our families and our Country, itself,' he wrote.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi similarly hailed the court's decision on Monday as 'a landmark victory for the rule of law' and criticized Boasberg as an activist judge who exceeded his powers.
'The Department of Justice will continue fighting in court to make America safe again,' she said in a social media post.
Trump had invoked the Alien Enemies Act last month to swiftly deport the alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, attempting to speed up removals with a law best known for its use to intern Japanese, Italian and German immigrants during World War Two.
He had claimed that members of the gang were 'conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States' with the goal of destabilizing the nation.
But Boasberg quickly fought back - ruling that the Alien Enemies Act 'does not provide a basis for the president's proclamation given that the terms invasion, predatory incursion really relate to hostile acts perpetrated by any nation and commensurate to war.'
The liberal judge also said that he needed to issue his order immediately because the government already was flying migrants it claimed were newly deportable under Trump's proclamation to be incarcerated in a notorious El Salvador prison called the Terrorism Confinement Center.
The Trump administration, though, has claimed that the flights had already left US airspace by the time Boasberg issued a written order and were therefore not required to return.
Lawyers with the Justice Department dismissed the weight of Boasberg's spoken order calling for any planes carrying deportees to be turned around.
In court documents urging the Supreme Court to overturn Boasberg's order, the Trump administration also argued that Boasberg's temporary ban encroached on presidential authority to make national security decisions.
It said the judge had 'rebuffed' Trump's immigration agenda, including the president's ability 'to protect the Nation against foreign terrorist organizations and risk debilitating effects for delicate foreign negotiations,' Fox News reports.
'This case presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national security-related operations in this country - the President, through Article II, or the Judiciary, through [temporary restraining orders],' lawyers for the Justice Department wrote in their March 28 application to Chief Justice John Roberts - who handles emergency litigation coming out of DC.
'The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the President. The republic cannot afford a different choice,' they argued.
Opposing the government's application were a group of Venezuelan men in custody of US immigration authorities.
They argued that if Boasberg's injunction were to be lifted they 'will suffer extraordinary and irreparable harms - being sent out of the United States to a notorious Salvadoran prison, where they will remain incommunicado, potentially for the rest of their lives, without having had any opportunity to contest their designation as gang members,' NBC News reports.
The plaintiffs' family members have denied their alleged gang ties - with lawyers for one of the deportees, a Venezuelan professional soccer player and youth coach, saying U.S. officials had wrongly labeled him a gang member based on a tattoo of a crown meant to honor his favorite team, Real Madrid.
But in Monday's decision, the court's majority said it was not resolving the validity of the administration's reliance on the 18th century law to carry out deportations.
The plaintiffs in the case 'challenge the government's interpretation of the Act and assert that they do not fall within the category of removable alien enemies. But we do not reach those arguments,' the majority wrote.
It instead emphasized that it was deciding that any challenges to deportation under the Alien Enemies Act must be brought in the federal court district where the migrants are detained, meaning that the proper venue for challenges would be Texas - not DC.
At the same time, the majority placed limits on how deportations may occur - emphasizing that judicial review is required.
It said that detainees 'must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act.
'The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.'
Those who dissented with the court's decision were conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the court's three liberal justices.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called her colleague's conclusion 'suspect.'
She said the court granted the government 'extraordinary relief' and did so 'without mention of the grave harm Plaintiffs will face if they are erroneously removed to El Salvador or regard for the Government's attempts to subvert the judicial process throughout this litigation.'
Others have argued that Trump's order exceeded his powers because the Alien Enemies Act authorizes removals only when war has been declared or the United States has been invaded.
The law specifically authorizes the president to deport, detain or place restrictions on individuals whose primary allegiance is to a foreign power and who might pose a national security risk in wartime.
Amid the questions over the legality of the Alien Enemies Act, Trump called for Boasberg's impeachment by Congress - a process that could remove him from the bench - drawing a rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts.
Trump on social media called Boasberg, who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2011 in a bipartisan 96-0 vote, a 'Radical Left Lunatic' and a 'troublemaker and agitator.'
Meanwhile, Boasberg is continuing to weigh whether to bring potential contempt charges against administration officials for sending the plane of alleged gangsters to El Salvador despite his order.
A preliminary injunction hearing in that case is set for Tuesday.
#3
A closer reading is that the court punted, saying the DC court lacked jurisdiction and the plaintiffs should have filed in Texas where they were detained.
I suspect the court is starting to get nervous about its integrity getting bashed with all the TROs which have no basis in Article III nor federal statutes but rather a power it granted itself.
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was upheld by SCOTUS in Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948) which recognized the Alien Enemy Act precludes judicial review of a removal order.
Given that the gangs are on the official State Department list of Terrorist Organizations, their incursion is no different that that of the Apache or Poncho Villa from Mexico, aka acts of war.
#4
"The Alien Enemies Act granted the government additional powers to regulate non-citizens that would take effect in times of war.Under this law, the president could authorize the arrest, relocation, or deportation of any male over the age of 14 who hailed from a foreign enemy country. It also provided some legal protections for those subject to the law."
I see quite a few problems here. The United States is not at war with Venezuela. If it were it could technically deport ALL (male) Venezuelan citizens including those who reside in the U.S. legally. The United States would still have to establish that those people are indeed Venezuelan citizens who fall under this act.
The argument now is that Tren de Aragua is sort of a terrorist force sponsored by Venezuela "invading" the U.S., and this would trigger the Alien Enemies Act.
Does this equal war with Venezuela hence justifying the deportation of ALL Venezuelan citizens (inclusing those residing in the U.S. legally, with a Green Card)?
Or does it only concern (presumed) members of TdA? If so, wouldn't the government need to establish that those to be deported are IN FACT members of TdA, as it would have to establish that Venezuelan nationals are indeed Venezuelan nationals?
Because if it is not required to do that, it could deport ANYONE it wanted without any due process, including ANY foreigner of ANY nation who lives in the U.S. legally. And if "errors" occurred, the government would just say: Oops, not my bad?
Do you really want this?
Posted by: European Conservative ||
04/08/2025 9:41 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The official site classification for terrorist organizatoins. Scroll, to find Legal Criteria for Designation under Section 219 of the INA as amended -
1. It must be a foreign organization.
2. The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)),or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)), or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
3. The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.
Legal Ramifications of Designation
1. It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide “material support or resources” to a designated FTO. (The term “material support or resources” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1) as ” any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(2) provides that for these purposes “the term ‘training’ means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(3) further provides that for these purposes the term ‘expert advice or assistance’ means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.’’
2. Representatives and members of a designated FTO, if they are aliens, are inadmissible to and, in certain circumstances, removable from the United States (see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182 (a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)-(V), 1227 (a)(1)(A)).
3. Any U.S. financial institution that becomes aware that it has possession of or control over funds in which a designated FTO or its agent has an interest must retain possession of or control over the funds and report the funds to the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
#6
I get that. So let's establish that TdA is in fact a foreign terrorist organization.
What consequences does this have for Venezuelans residing in the U.S. legally?
Posted by: European Conservative ||
04/08/2025 10:42 Comments ||
Top||
#7
^ Don't commit crimes, terror attacks, or spoil your welcome. Otherwise, GTFO
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/08/2025 10:50 Comments ||
Top||
#8
That goes without saying. But the Alien Enemies Act was actually designed for people who weren't guilty of anything, just that they had the citizenship of a country at war with the U.S.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
04/08/2025 11:23 Comments ||
Top||
#9
This conversation cannot continue until all involved understand that those are not skin decorations like some 90's girlie getting a tramp stamp, but actual uniforms complete with unit, location, rank, accomplishments, and citations.
#12
Any sovereign nation can kick anyone out that isn't a citizen. If I was a jerk in Germany, I would fully expect to be hurled out of that country. Same applies to the US.
#16
The United States is not at war with Venezuela.
Depends on how you define war. You might be excused from thinking that a formal declaration by Congress is required. But our congress critters don't have the guts to declare war anymore. The last time they did it was in 1941 and we have fought a lot of wars since then.
IIRC, they called the Korean War a "police action". Ask any veteran of that war what they think it was.
Lyndon Johnson never got a formal declaration of war against North Vietnam. Instead, he got Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. He used that fig leaf to wage a full scale war in Vietnam.
Further, many wars these days are asymmetrical in nature. Often, non-state actors will commit acts of terrorism against the civilized world as the Houthis are doing in Yemen. You think we should allow Houthis to remain in our country?
We have the Chinese conspiring with Mexican drug cartels to smuggle fentanyl into our country causing upwards of 100,000 overdose deaths a year. You can call it crime if you want. Of course the Chinese and Mexican governments won't admit complicity but I'd call it war.
Then you have chickenshit dictators like Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela who could never win on a conventional battlefield against the United States so they send gangsters into our country to wreak havoc with illegal narcotics and other criminal activity.
When Biden was president and Texas governor Abbot was resisting the influx of illegal aliens across the Rio Grande River, one news report included pictures of a gang waving a Venezuelan flag on the Mexican side of the river and just waiting for a chance to cross it. I'm no lawyer but it looked like war to me.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
04/08/2025 13:08 Comments ||
Top||
#17
A person with a green card is not a visitor. This person has rights. If you want to kick this person out, it should be with due process.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
04/08/2025 13:09 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Yeah, and we don't have the time or money to give millions of illegal aliens their day in court. We just don't. And when a problem gets too big for the judicial system, it seems reasonable to treat it as a war.
Just because they're not invading our country with assault rifles, tanks and war planes doesn't mean it's not an invasion.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
04/08/2025 13:24 Comments ||
Top||
#19
If you have a Green Card and you behave yourself you'll probably be OK. But we have people here with visas who were stirring up trouble on college campuses, violating our laws and the rights of our citizens. We don't have to tolerate that. We can revoke the visas and send those people home. It is a privilege for people to come here with Green Cards or visas, not a right.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
04/08/2025 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
As a permanent resident (Green Card holder), you have the right to:
Live permanently in the United States provided you do not commit any actions that would make you removable under immigration law
Work in the United States at any legal work of your qualification and choosing. (Please note that some jobs will be limited to U.S. citizens for security reasons)
Be protected by all laws of the United States, your state of residence and local jurisdictions.
I agree that GETTING a green card is a privilege, not a right. KEEPING it is a different manner. Since I'm protected by all laws of the United States, my state of residence and local jurisdictions, the United States is required to make its case to prove that I violated "any immigration law". And I have the right to my day in court.
Would you agree with that?
Posted by: European Conservative ||
04/08/2025 13:52 Comments ||
Top||
#21
If you clicked on site classification in #5 it is the State Department official list of Terrorist Organizations. If you read that, it shows Tren de Aragua and the Cartels are there for all to see. No different than ISIS. They have no judicial appeal per the Alien Enemies Act. Period.
#22
The Tren de Aragua soldiers did not suddenly go bad after they arrived here legally and got a permanent residency green card. Rather, they lied on their application about their affiliation. It’s my understanding that once that significant falsehood has been determined by the immigration authorities, the approval is invalidated, making them resident in the country illegally and subject to expulsion. That’s very different than being arrested for driving drunk once here, or even for murder or rape after permanent residency has been approved, which do indeed merit a proper trial and conviction.
#24
No, that's not what the Act says. It says this (emphasis mine):
"Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies."
Now it's quite a stretch to define the existence of TdA as an "invasion by any foreign nation or government", but if - for the sake of the argument - we accept this as a fact, then not only members of TdA are removable without judiciary review, ALL citizens (or "natives") of Venezuela are removable without judiciary review, even legal residents who've never broken any law. And they could be deported to a Salvadorian prison in the middle of the night.
And if you declare Mexican drug cartels as terrorist groups perpetrating an invasion, the Act would apply to all Mexican citizens.
And let's say it did, would the government be entitled to deport ALLEGED Venezuelan or Mexican citizens, or would it at least have to prove that you actually are a citizen of Venezuela or Mexico?
But if the Act only applied to members of TdA or a Mexican drug cartel, would it also apply to ALLEGED members of said groups? Without giving the person to be deported the right to contest this allegation at court?
If you say such a right doesn't exist, then no right exists. For nobody. The government decides that you are what it thinks you are, and off you go to a prison in a foreign land.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
04/08/2025 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
#25
@tw
"Rather, they lied on their application about their affiliation. It’s my understanding that once that significant falsehood has been determined by the immigration authorities, the approval is invalidated, making them resident in the country illegally and subject to expulsion."
Are you saying that the immigration authorities may just "determine" that without the individual having the right to challenge this determination legally?
Posted by: European Conservative ||
04/08/2025 15:02 Comments ||
Top||
#26
EC, I admire your commitment to truth and the rule of law. That said, exigent circumstances can exist that require swift executive action, prior to scheduled and often slow judicial process. Ex post facto proceedings may then remedy a wrong that lacked specific malice, and maintain the overall rule of law. Surely you can conceded the illegal immigration threat to American economic well-being and sovereignty is a dire one that requires broad, sweeping action that will have, sadly, individual mistakes requiring remediation afterwards? Perhaps this is just such a case?
#28
Are you saying that the immigration authorities may just "determine" that without the individual having the right to challenge this determination legally?
Certainly they might challenge, European Conservative. They may just have to do it from outside the country — bureaucracy versus police. It is no trivial thing to lie on a visa application. Or even just to be suspected of telling less than the complete truth. I once wanted to bring our Czech Haustochter with us on a vacation to America, a matter of some two or three weeks. When I went to the embassy in Frankfurt a.M. to get her a tourist visa, the clerk mistakenly concluded that Hana meant to run off illegally after arrival, and not only refused to issue the thing but put a note in her file that kept her out of America until she married an American citizen whom she’d met at a professional conference in Canada some years later.
#29
@tw
With all respect, but this is a different matter, right or wrong. You have no "right" to enter the U.S., but once you have been granted the right to enter and stay, you must be able to defend that right. And I quoted the info given by U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services who say exactly this.
So if the U.S. government at some point thinks you may have lied to them, it should be possible to challenge this in a U.S. court, not at some point later outside the country, when all the damage has already been done.
Which also answers the thoughtful question of NoMoreBS. I think a state adhering to the rule of law cannot allow legal shortcuts claiming some "emergency". Even the worst offender is entitled to the rule of law. Because if he isn't, nobody is.
And in the case of that Salvadorian "erroneosly" deported into that megaprison, the government even seems to say: Oops, nothing we can do about it.
We certainly agree that murder or rape are grave problems. That doesn't mean we should just convict anyone we suspect of having committed murder or rape and, well, if some people turn out to be innocent, we can correct this later (maybe). No, we insist on "beyond any reasonable doubt", not on "he probably, likely did it".
Immigration law may have standards which are somewhat less strict, but deporting someone into a Salvadorian prison (which btw is a lot different from just sending someone back to his home country) without giving him the possibility to legally challenge this decision is a very dangerous slippery slope.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
04/08/2025 16:13 Comments ||
Top||
#30
Illian Gonzales was hoping the Supreme Court said the President could not deport illegal aliens…. Oh wait he was not illegal
#31
EC, I think you are putting too much emphasis on the Green Card situation...just like our own main stream media. They go on and on about one guy who might have been deported mistakenly but they don't have much to say about Laken Riley and she's not the only victim of Joe Biden's border policies. Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is the people getting deported are here illegally which means they don't have Green Cards. Those guys with the shaved heads and full body tattoos are not here to do honest work.
Mistakes might be made but how about, if for the sake of national security, we err on the side of safety?
For one thing, like I said, we have untold millions of people in this country right now who don't belong here. Most of them are probably decent people but we just don't know and it is not practical to process them all through the judicial system. Just imagine the outcry if we incarcerated all those millions of people while they wait for their day in court. When problem is too big for the judicial system, whether you admit it or not, it's war.
Further, you argue that the invasions are not being perpetrated by foreign governments. Maybe we can't prove that Claudia Sheinbaum and Nicholas Maduro are deliberately sending these people into our country. But we don't know for certain that they're not. Here again, it's gotten to the point that we must act as if they are and if we're wrong we err on the side of safety. The safety of our own citizens is more important than the safety of illegal aliens. Our sovereignty is more important.
You remember seeing reports of all those caravans? Thousands of people moving in groups through Mexico on their way to our country. Somebody organized those caravans and paid lots of money so those people could eat and sleep while in transit. Maybe the governments of Mexico and Venezuela didn't pay for it. Hell, it might have been George Soros. I even heard reports that some of the money comes from the UN. It doesn't matter. Again, I'm no lawyer. But as far as I'm concerned, that's an act of war and we have a right to fight back.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
04/08/2025 18:10 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Abu Uluque, it's getting late here but I will pick up on what you said in a new thread (maybe tomorrow). Good night.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
04/08/2025 18:37 Comments ||
Top||
#33
I think it is a pretty easy case to make that TdA is a government, which puts itself if not above then certainly apart from the government of Venezuela, making its members citizens of TdA, something different than citizens of Venezuela, and being designated a terrorist organization by the USA, the USA is at war with TdA therefore Tda citizens can be sent off.
I mean, to call all Mexicans cartel members is a bit much, a bit cringe. Not all Syrians are ISIS members, right? But ISIS is a bit different than the government of Syria, its own rules and laws and taxes and behavioral understanding and law enforcement, so forth.
#34
EC, we're dealing with entities that operate was independent bodies in actions that amount to war, pirates, criminal cartels, international criminal organizations, terrorist groups. We'd ship out a member of ISIS or Al-Qaeda in the same manner. Just don't get your organization formally identified as such.
Look back at Egypt not too long ago; Obama sent some 'NGOs' to 'influence' their elections, and Egypt said "Go Home Or Else", and those 'NGOs' went home to the USA. This would be the "Or Else", or as the kids say, "Find Out".
And, I quest, is if Russia is an officially declared terrorist organization, disturber of the peace if you will, of the EU?
That's a helluva lotta money to have to pay to incarcerate these people so they can have their day in court. I assume it's for run-of-the-mill illegal aliens and not the violent gangsters. So it seems they will not be deported without a trial. That's a heavy burden for any country to bear, especially one that's already $36 trillion in debt.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
04/08/2025 20:58 Comments ||
Top||
While by some measures I am considered a tail-end Baby Boomer, by others I am a Gen X. Perhaps because I am the eldest child of my family, or because my parents arrived in this country as adults, or because I grew up without a television, which disconnected me from many of the touchstones of an American childhood of the period, I am certainly by experience a Gen X-er, and this is the song of my people.
[RedState] I'm not sure if any of you caught the goofy "Hands Off" ragefests that took place this past weekend, but I took a gander to see what the left was fussing about this time. Other than their tiresome "orange man bad" refrain. Sure enough, it was more of the same, with a dash of DOGE and a twist of Musk Derangement Syndrome thrown in for dramatic effect.
What struck me, though, was how very Boomer the crowds looked (see the accompanying photo captured this past weekend by our own Jennifer Oliver O'Connell). It's as if every retired librarian who identifies as a coastal elite, which seems to be most of them, had dragged their Birkenstock-clad spouses out to the spectacle and shoved a silly sign in their hands. In short, the protestors were very old and very white.
The stereotypical Boomer, anyway. The generational cohort was actually two — the quiet, uncelebrated other half being mostly as sensible and lovely as one could want.
Like many Gen-Xers, and especially those of us who were born right on the heels of the Boomers, I've always held a healthy amount of disdain for the group that came before us. As a group, they come off as incredibly self-righteous, smug, and completely un-self-aware, and despite having enjoyed the best years of America, they're still mad and are now complaining about those of us who have to clean up their messes.
Then, after logging onto X to see the latest "discourse" around the tariffs, I see this:
A good friend of mine who is conservative / right-wing / Republican just sent me this.
You start messing around with people’s investments and 401(k)s and you’re going to lose support — fast. pic.twitter.com/GEBcYxMGcx
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) April 7, 2025
Reading the Twitter thread, the conclusion appears to be that the good friend is imaginary because the tweet he shared is manufactured, not real. Which makes the whole thing a metaphor of a whole bunch of things…
I don't even have to know the person involved to know they are a Millennial. This sentiment oozes, "I like my fat 401(k) and cheap consumer goods and I'll give up all of my freedoms to have them!" Hey, we all like those things, but you're kidding yourself if you think there's not a steep price to pay for them. Did "new math" make an entire generation financially illiterate?
While our generational bookends are engaged in their tariff and Trump tantrums, we Gen Xers are over here wondering how so many of our fellow citizens thought the gravy train was going to go on for forever. The signs have sure been there for a long time that we'd eventually pay the price for things like printing money and selling our farmland to China. And here we are.
Generation X has always known there'd be a day of reckoning for the United States. We've been told for decades we'd best save our pennies because there sure as heck wasn't going to be any Social Security left for us when we hit retirement age. When I was handed my college diploma in the early 90s, it came with a message of: "Congratulations, sure hope you can find a job in this economy. Oh, and you'll never have it as good as your parents."
Not a great note on which to start adulthood, but it's okay to live in reality and not on tired slogans and scaredy-cat doomsday scenarios. My generation has learned some hard lessons along the way, having experienced the Cold War, stagflation, Black Monday 1987, high mortgage rates in the 90s, the tech stock bubble burst of the early 2000s, two terror attacks on the World Trade Center, the war on terrorism, the financial crisis of 2008 and, of course, COVID. We've weathered these things, having grown up in an America that valued freedom, was proud of the "Made in America" label, and celebrated patriotism.
For goodness sake, we were forced to listen to the bloviating of Boomers like Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp, and Billy Joel as they lamented the loss of middle America and our manufacturing base. And now that generation is ticked off that Donald Trump wants to return our country to some of its past glory? Spare me.
Now, it's too easy to blame all of today's problems on Boomers, and the truth of it is that it's been generations of both Republicans and Democrats who have used the American taxpayer as a limitless credit card and doing their best to suck freedom dry. But, the truth is also that Generation X is staring down retirement while wrestling with a Boomer generation that is hanging for dear life onto a lot of our country's resources and Millennials who don't seem to have the backbone to deal with an economic downturn that history has proven will be temporary.
The funny thing about all of this is that the object of these two generations' ire, Donald Trump, may turn out to be the most Gen X president this country ever gets. Our tiny group may never get one of our own into the White House, but Trump, who's on the older side of the Boomer cohort, seems to have begun the fight we always knew was headed our way.
Gird your loins and saddle up, my fellow Gen Xers. We've got a country to save.
#3
Mrs. TW: I too am on the cusp. From my point of view, much of the bitching in today's politics is a continuation of the Vietnam War.
Maybe Trump will get Hanoi Jane for treason. That'd let the "quiet, uncelebrated" vets have the final say. Yea!
The one good thing about the Boomers is that when they are gone, there will be a surplus of assisted living facilities and memory units, which might make them affordable for those in their wake.
[Daily Mail, where America gets its news] A sunken 'pyramid' near Taiwan may rewrite everything we thought we knew about the ancient world.
Sitting just 82 feet below sea level near the Ryukyu Islands of Japan, a mysterious object called the Yonaguni monument continues to stump and astonish researchers since its discovery in 1986.
This giant structure with sharp-angled steps stands roughly 90 feet tall and appears to be made entirely of stone, leading many to believe it was man-made.
However, tests of the stone show it to be over 10,000 years old, meaning that if a civilization built this pyramid by hand, it would have taken place before this region sank under water - more than 12,000 years ago.
That would place it further back in history than most other ancient structures by several thousand years, including the Egyptian pyramids and Stonehenge.
Currently, scientists believe that the ability for ancient humans to construct large structures like temples and pyramids evolved alongside the development of agriculture 12,000 years ago.
If an advanced society was already building giant step pyramids long before this time, however, it could change the history books forever and reveal another lost tribe of humans - just like the myths of Atlantis.
In fact, Yonaguni monument is often called 'Japan's Atlantis,' but skeptics continue to poke holes in the theory that this structure was actually built by human hands.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
