Just read that Macron has barred Marie Le Pen from running in the 2027 election. One site had it that she was also arrested, don’t know if that is true. In any event, look for some more massive protests in France soon. Candidates and political parties banned in several EU countries now. Will there be a EU revolution, French Style, coming? Don’t think so, but there will be a lot of unrest.
On today’s news from the EU: kind of makes you wonder why we bothered all those years (1945-2025). If the end result is national euthanasia at the hands of a new Soviet-style nomenklatura.
Elon Musk recently pointed out that DOGE had found that there were more than 5 million illegals added to the Social Security rolls in the last couple of years.
More importantly, Musk pointed out that this was all just one part of the Democrat’s deliberate and diabolical “Great Replacement” plan, a plan which those on the Left, of course, call absolutely false, just nonsense.
Thus, attract and allow tens of millions of illegal aliens to flood/invade the U.S., in numbers so great that they would overwhelm the current balance among the American voting public, and permanently increase the proportion of democrat voters to such an overwhelming extent that, once in office, the Democrats would remain permanently in power, the two party system would be destroyed, and democrats would have created, in essence, a dictatorship, ruling over a one party state.
More on Le Pen. I wrote the comment before noticing that others had already added the news to the open thread. Apologies for the repetition.
In any event, obviously big news.
Democrats must be envious of French lawfare.
Marine Le Pen has been sentenced to prison for the violation of an obscure and widely ignored EU regulation covering the transfer of EU funds to pay for parliamentary staff. Le Pen has also been banned from running for office. She’s been leading polls for the 2027 French presidential election.
Shocking, Russia invades another country, again, and Ukraine didn’t fold like a cheap suit. Shocking that this passes ad news. Poor, poor, Russia, I’m so sad for her.
One million casualties total by May 9, 2025. It takes a lot of eggs to rebuild an evil empire.
Thanks CornFlower. May I say the charges were Trumped UP? And corrupt judges. I wonder if Macron really thought this through.
Is Paris Burning? (Just had to bring in a Hitler reference)
It’s probably impossible to calculate the crosswinds at play.
Probably? Nevertheless, interesting read, and I’d recommend paying special attention to what he says about capital goods – goods used to produce other goods.
The “Laffer” curve is a mathematical theorem about any function with a maximum and has nothing to do with Laffer at all except that he is supposed to have sketched an example on a napkin once.
You know that a 0% tariff generates no revenue, and there is some tariff so extreme that it will also generate no revenue because no one will try to import that thing.
Somewhere between the two we know that a tariff generates a small amount of revenue.
Therefore, there is some tariff rate that if you go above it, you reduce tariff revenue, and if you stay below it, you increase tariff revenue, and that would be the maximum.
Current actions by their governments and political events in England, in France, and in Germany point, it seems to me, to the increasing possibilities for violent conflicts, if not civil wars, in the next couple of years in those countries.
The “Laffer” curve is a mathematical theorem about any function with a maximum and has nothing to do with Laffer at all except that he is supposed to have sketched an illustration on a napkin once.
You know that a 0% tariff generates no revenue, and there is some tariff so extreme that it will also generate no revenue because no one will try to import that thing.
Somewhere between the two we know that a tariff generates a small amount of revenue.
Therefore, there is some tariff rate that if you go above it, you reduce tariff revenue, and if you stay below it, you increase tariff revenue, and that would be the maximum.
Alysa Liu’s entry in Wikipedia says her father participated in the Tiananmen Square protests and immigrated to the U.S. in 1990. The CCP tried intimidation tactics to get her to join the “naturalization project” which had the purpose of recruiting overseas Chinese athletes to compete for China. Her father was hesitant to let her compete in Beijing because of fears for her safety, but agreed to let her compete after assurances by the State Department she would get added protection.
Les (1:41 pm) says, “[Alysa Liu’s] father was hesitant to let her compete in Beijing because of fears for her safety, but agreed to let her compete after assurances by the State Department she would get added protection.”
There is no conceivable way that I would trust the U.S. Government with Liu’s (or with my own) safety, particularly when traveling abroad, and particularly when the receiving nation is not friendly with us (which covers practically *every* nation right now).
EU should be treated as a totalitarian dictatorship.
So does that link answer the question regarding how in tarnation did Kamala Harris get as many votes as she did?
SHIREHOME:
That may have been local to you, because I haven’t had anyone else report a problem today and I was connected the whole time. That said, thanks for reporting it because I definitely need to keep an eye on such things.
The blog was very slow loading for me earlier today.
@Barry Mesilin:So does that link answer the question regarding how in tarnation did Kamala Harris get as many votes as she did?
No. Harris’ vote total is not very mysterious. She got 75.0 million votes, and 9.3 million of them came from California, which is extremely lax on voting and allows ballots to be submitted and counted weeks after Election Day.
CA: 9.3 million (59%)
TX: 4.8 million (42%)
FL: 4.7 million (43%)
NY: 4.6 million (56%)
PA: 3.4 million (49%)
Everywhere else: 48.2 million
Biden’s 2020 total is pretty mysterious, if you ask me. There were 3.2 million more votes in 2020 than in 2024, and Biden got 6.2 million more than Harris, so apparently 3.2 million Biden voters stayed home (or never existed) and 3.0 million Biden voters switched to Trump in 2024.
I had the “Too many requests” error for a couple of hours.
Same.
Agreed on that Hot Air story about Social Security and vote fraud. No wonder Harris was shocked when she lost.
I guess there really was a problem with the blog today, even though I didn’t experience it. Things had been a lot better for the last week or two, though.
“…or never existed…”
Er, um, “OR”?, eh?
@Barry Meislin: Er, um, “OR”?, eh?
Er, um, yeah, eh. Turnout in 2020 was still only 66.6% so I can’t say that any of the 3.2 million definitely didn’t exist, and neither can you, though you can snark about it monosyllabically as much as you like, that’s your right as an American.
I’d be surprised if every single ballot cast for Biden was legitimately cast by an eligible and registered voter, but I think ballot harvesting probably explains a lot of the 2020 election. In 2024 there was less of that.
This was the first time I’ve heard the Open Borders strategy discussed from a high platform as a blatant Democrat effort to shift US demographics in favor of Democrats. Nothing more, nothing less.
I have trouble recalling anything comparable in US history.
Well huxley. To be fair, the CPUSA has decided NOT to run a candidate for US President. And instead endorsed the Democrat — ever since 2004. That makes 5 Commie Party endorsements of the Democrat.
It is therefore no coincidence that their members or supporters figure strongly in the army of domestic Tesla vehicle attacks of arson and every manner of mayhem.
TJ:
I’m just expressing my wonderment that Democrats could open our borders without any discussion and pretended that was just the way it was.
None of the Republican leadership, as I recall, pointed out that it was a blatant fraud to shift US demographics in favor of the Democrat Party.
Perhaps my memory is faulty.
huxley wrote about
the Open Borders strategy discussed from a high platform as a blatant Democrat effort to shift US demographics in favor of Democrats. Nothing more, nothing less … None of the Republican leadership, as I recall, pointed out that it was a blatant fraud to shift US demographics in favor of the Democrat Party.
Republicans blathered about “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” and “Our Broken Immigration System,” and accomplished nothing. I think that Rubio was part of the Gang of Eight who preserved the status quo. Businesses (who finance campaigns) liked cheap labor, and Big Labor wanted illegals to grow their membership. GWB’s administration was focused on loosening immigration controls while Al Queda was setting 9/11 in motion.
Huxley, Dax,
I can’t provide a specific incidence right now, but I recall it was semi common thinking from the earliest failures of the Biden admin to control the border, and as it became more and more apparent they were doing so purposefully, the illegal immigrant =Dem voter thesis was often mentioned.
And of course this was following all of the action and commentary by Trump about “you don’t have a country if you don’t have a border” etc.
But the R’s could not do much about it (if they even wanted to do so) with a Dem controlled congress.
[I think you know this already, so maybe I am misunderstanding you? Your maybe view is limited to the R leadership? ]
@R2L:But the R’s could not do much about it (if they even wanted to do so) with a Dem controlled congress. I think you know this already, so maybe I am misunderstanding you? Your maybe view is limited to the R leadership?
There were times when R’s had majorities in both houses and the Presidency and did not control the border, or spending, or the national debt…. It’s really a both/and on leadership and rank-and-file.
There are never “enough” R’s no matter how many there are. If R’s have a Senate majority, they need a filibuster-proof majority. If R’s have a House majority, it’s always too slim, or they need the Senate too. If they have the Senate too, they don’t have 60 or they don’t have the President or both. If they have both houses and the Presidency it’s now the Supreme Court’s fault.
R’s and especially their leadership are used to being in the minority and their primary motive for being in Congress is to appropriate, not to legislate.
Since January 2023 the Republican House could have shot down every dollar of spending with no need of a Senate majority. But that would mean their cronies didn’t get paid, so they rolled over to the Dems and got their spending out. They really only want to appropriate, not to change anything.
The House was in Republican hands from January 2011 to January 2019. In that time, the national debt went from $14.2 trillion to $22.0 trillion. The House did not have to allow one dime of that additional spending. But if they didn’t allow the Dems to get their share, they couldn’t get their own share, and here we are. Granted that the Dems from 2019 to 2023 ran it up to $31.4 trillion, which was another $9.4 trillion. But I think we should expect better of Republicans than to be 60% less bad than the Dems, and since January 2023 the Republicans have run it up to $36.2 trillion, which is almost exactly as bad.
So to review:
Republicans 2011 – 2019: $7.8 trillion in 8 years, $0.98 trillion per year
Democrats 2019 – 2023: $9.4 trillion in 4 years, $2.4 trillion per year
Republicans 2023 – 2024: $4.8 trillion in 2 years, $2.4 trillion per year
What can’t go on, won’t. We fix the GOP so that it actually starts to reverse the problem, or math will fix it all for us in a way we won’t care for. Trump and DOGE can’t do it all, and continuing to make excuses for the GOP just won’t get us their. The magnitude of the coming fiscal disaster will make moot whether we blame the red lizards or the blue lizards for it.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Retrotech: Sending Photographs Under the Ocean, in 1925
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/73505.html
Just read that Macron has barred Marie Le Pen from running in the 2027 election. One site had it that she was also arrested, don’t know if that is true. In any event, look for some more massive protests in France soon. Candidates and political parties banned in several EU countries now. Will there be a EU revolution, French Style, coming? Don’t think so, but there will be a lot of unrest.
On today’s news from the EU: kind of makes you wonder why we bothered all those years (1945-2025). If the end result is national euthanasia at the hands of a new Soviet-style nomenklatura.
Elon Musk recently pointed out that DOGE had found that there were more than 5 million illegals added to the Social Security rolls in the last couple of years.
More importantly, Musk pointed out that this was all just one part of the Democrat’s deliberate and diabolical “Great Replacement” plan, a plan which those on the Left, of course, call absolutely false, just nonsense.
Thus, attract and allow tens of millions of illegal aliens to flood/invade the U.S., in numbers so great that they would overwhelm the current balance among the American voting public, and permanently increase the proportion of democrat voters to such an overwhelming extent that, once in office, the Democrats would remain permanently in power, the two party system would be destroyed, and democrats would have created, in essence, a dictatorship, ruling over a one party state.
More on Le Pen. I wrote the comment before noticing that others had already added the news to the open thread. Apologies for the repetition.
In any event, obviously big news.
Democrats must be envious of French lawfare.
Marine Le Pen has been sentenced to prison for the violation of an obscure and widely ignored EU regulation covering the transfer of EU funds to pay for parliamentary staff. Le Pen has also been banned from running for office. She’s been leading polls for the 2027 French presidential election.
Associated Press: https://tinyurl.com/32y9mw3k
Just the News: https://tinyurl.com/yfymsxac
Sky News: https://tinyurl.com/2p9ssxuu
The National Pulse: https://tinyurl.com/3n8ab24y
Le Lawfare…
(Well I hear that Jack Smith’s looking for a job…)
FULL VIDEO – Elon Musk Holds a Town Hall in Green Bay, Wisconsin
https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2025/03/full-video-elon-musk-holds-town-hall-in.html
Oopsie…(if true**):
“Key Takeaways From NYT’s Secret History Detailing US ‘Shocking’ Involvement In Ukraine War”—-
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/key-takeaways-nyts-secret-history-us-shocking-level-involvement-ukraine-war
**It is, after all, the NYT…
Shocking, Russia invades another country, again, and Ukraine didn’t fold like a cheap suit. Shocking that this passes ad news. Poor, poor, Russia, I’m so sad for her.
One million casualties total by May 9, 2025. It takes a lot of eggs to rebuild an evil empire.
Thanks CornFlower. May I say the charges were Trumped UP? And corrupt judges. I wonder if Macron really thought this through.
Is Paris Burning? (Just had to bring in a Hitler reference)
On the video, what a beautiful performance!
https://asiatimes.com/2025/03/tariffs-have-a-laffer-curve-too/#
Probably? Nevertheless, interesting read, and I’d recommend paying special attention to what he says about capital goods – goods used to produce other goods.
The “Laffer” curve is a mathematical theorem about any function with a maximum and has nothing to do with Laffer at all except that he is supposed to have sketched an example on a napkin once.
You know that a 0% tariff generates no revenue, and there is some tariff so extreme that it will also generate no revenue because no one will try to import that thing.
Somewhere between the two we know that a tariff generates a small amount of revenue.
Therefore, there is some tariff rate that if you go above it, you reduce tariff revenue, and if you stay below it, you increase tariff revenue, and that would be the maximum.
Current actions by their governments and political events in England, in France, and in Germany point, it seems to me, to the increasing possibilities for violent conflicts, if not civil wars, in the next couple of years in those countries.
The “Laffer” curve is a mathematical theorem about any function with a maximum and has nothing to do with Laffer at all except that he is supposed to have sketched an illustration on a napkin once.
You know that a 0% tariff generates no revenue, and there is some tariff so extreme that it will also generate no revenue because no one will try to import that thing.
Somewhere between the two we know that a tariff generates a small amount of revenue.
Therefore, there is some tariff rate that if you go above it, you reduce tariff revenue, and if you stay below it, you increase tariff revenue, and that would be the maximum.
Alysa Liu’s entry in Wikipedia says her father participated in the Tiananmen Square protests and immigrated to the U.S. in 1990. The CCP tried intimidation tactics to get her to join the “naturalization project” which had the purpose of recruiting overseas Chinese athletes to compete for China. Her father was hesitant to let her compete in Beijing because of fears for her safety, but agreed to let her compete after assurances by the State Department she would get added protection.
https://rumble.com/v6rfgqs-depressed-dems-blinding-the-data.html
Neo, just had a hard time connecting to the site. Finally did.
it might apply to any thread
https://x.com/proteinwisdom/status/1906767333043130533
https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2025/03/31/what-the-dogers-keep-finding-at-social-security-explains-the-progressive-spasms-n3801328
==
Here’s a ye gods moment.
Les (1:41 pm) says, “[Alysa Liu’s] father was hesitant to let her compete in Beijing because of fears for her safety, but agreed to let her compete after assurances by the State Department she would get added protection.”
There is no conceivable way that I would trust the U.S. Government with Liu’s (or with my own) safety, particularly when traveling abroad, and particularly when the receiving nation is not friendly with us (which covers practically *every* nation right now).
EU should be treated as a totalitarian dictatorship.
So does that link answer the question regarding how in tarnation did Kamala Harris get as many votes as she did?
SHIREHOME:
That may have been local to you, because I haven’t had anyone else report a problem today and I was connected the whole time. That said, thanks for reporting it because I definitely need to keep an eye on such things.
The blog was very slow loading for me earlier today.
@Barry Mesilin:So does that link answer the question regarding how in tarnation did Kamala Harris get as many votes as she did?
No. Harris’ vote total is not very mysterious. She got 75.0 million votes, and 9.3 million of them came from California, which is extremely lax on voting and allows ballots to be submitted and counted weeks after Election Day.
CA: 9.3 million (59%)
TX: 4.8 million (42%)
FL: 4.7 million (43%)
NY: 4.6 million (56%)
PA: 3.4 million (49%)
Everywhere else: 48.2 million
Biden’s 2020 total is pretty mysterious, if you ask me. There were 3.2 million more votes in 2020 than in 2024, and Biden got 6.2 million more than Harris, so apparently 3.2 million Biden voters stayed home (or never existed) and 3.0 million Biden voters switched to Trump in 2024.
I had the “Too many requests” error for a couple of hours.
Same.
Agreed on that Hot Air story about Social Security and vote fraud. No wonder Harris was shocked when she lost.
I guess there really was a problem with the blog today, even though I didn’t experience it. Things had been a lot better for the last week or two, though.
“…or never existed…”
Er, um, “OR”?, eh?
@Barry Meislin: Er, um, “OR”?, eh?
Er, um, yeah, eh. Turnout in 2020 was still only 66.6% so I can’t say that any of the 3.2 million definitely didn’t exist, and neither can you, though you can snark about it monosyllabically as much as you like, that’s your right as an American.
I’d be surprised if every single ballot cast for Biden was legitimately cast by an eligible and registered voter, but I think ballot harvesting probably explains a lot of the 2020 election. In 2024 there was less of that.
Snow on Pine, SD:
I too was impressed by Musk’s townhall:
https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2025/03/full-video-elon-musk-holds-town-hall-in.html
This was the first time I’ve heard the Open Borders strategy discussed from a high platform as a blatant Democrat effort to shift US demographics in favor of Democrats. Nothing more, nothing less.
I have trouble recalling anything comparable in US history.
Well huxley. To be fair, the CPUSA has decided NOT to run a candidate for US President. And instead endorsed the Democrat — ever since 2004. That makes 5 Commie Party endorsements of the Democrat.
It is therefore no coincidence that their members or supporters figure strongly in the army of domestic Tesla vehicle attacks of arson and every manner of mayhem.
TJ:
I’m just expressing my wonderment that Democrats could open our borders without any discussion and pretended that was just the way it was.
None of the Republican leadership, as I recall, pointed out that it was a blatant fraud to shift US demographics in favor of the Democrat Party.
Perhaps my memory is faulty.
huxley wrote about
Republicans blathered about “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” and “Our Broken Immigration System,” and accomplished nothing. I think that Rubio was part of the Gang of Eight who preserved the status quo. Businesses (who finance campaigns) liked cheap labor, and Big Labor wanted illegals to grow their membership. GWB’s administration was focused on loosening immigration controls while Al Queda was setting 9/11 in motion.
Huxley, Dax,
I can’t provide a specific incidence right now, but I recall it was semi common thinking from the earliest failures of the Biden admin to control the border, and as it became more and more apparent they were doing so purposefully, the illegal immigrant =Dem voter thesis was often mentioned.
And of course this was following all of the action and commentary by Trump about “you don’t have a country if you don’t have a border” etc.
But the R’s could not do much about it (if they even wanted to do so) with a Dem controlled congress.
[I think you know this already, so maybe I am misunderstanding you? Your maybe view is limited to the R leadership? ]
@R2L:But the R’s could not do much about it (if they even wanted to do so) with a Dem controlled congress. I think you know this already, so maybe I am misunderstanding you? Your maybe view is limited to the R leadership?
There were times when R’s had majorities in both houses and the Presidency and did not control the border, or spending, or the national debt…. It’s really a both/and on leadership and rank-and-file.
There are never “enough” R’s no matter how many there are. If R’s have a Senate majority, they need a filibuster-proof majority. If R’s have a House majority, it’s always too slim, or they need the Senate too. If they have the Senate too, they don’t have 60 or they don’t have the President or both. If they have both houses and the Presidency it’s now the Supreme Court’s fault.
R’s and especially their leadership are used to being in the minority and their primary motive for being in Congress is to appropriate, not to legislate.
Since January 2023 the Republican House could have shot down every dollar of spending with no need of a Senate majority. But that would mean their cronies didn’t get paid, so they rolled over to the Dems and got their spending out. They really only want to appropriate, not to change anything.
The House was in Republican hands from January 2011 to January 2019. In that time, the national debt went from $14.2 trillion to $22.0 trillion. The House did not have to allow one dime of that additional spending. But if they didn’t allow the Dems to get their share, they couldn’t get their own share, and here we are. Granted that the Dems from 2019 to 2023 ran it up to $31.4 trillion, which was another $9.4 trillion. But I think we should expect better of Republicans than to be 60% less bad than the Dems, and since January 2023 the Republicans have run it up to $36.2 trillion, which is almost exactly as bad.
So to review:
Republicans 2011 – 2019: $7.8 trillion in 8 years, $0.98 trillion per year
Democrats 2019 – 2023: $9.4 trillion in 4 years, $2.4 trillion per year
Republicans 2023 – 2024: $4.8 trillion in 2 years, $2.4 trillion per year
What can’t go on, won’t. We fix the GOP so that it actually starts to reverse the problem, or math will fix it all for us in a way we won’t care for. Trump and DOGE can’t do it all, and continuing to make excuses for the GOP just won’t get us their. The magnitude of the coming fiscal disaster will make moot whether we blame the red lizards or the blue lizards for it.