Praying for Assad's assassination before Tulsi can find a way to attack Syria's new government.

The Telegraph understands that there is also deep disquiet at senior levels of the UK security services over the prospect of her appointment, which would give her access to the most sensitive secret intelligence. One senior security figure has expressed hope that Ms Gabbard’s appointment will be blocked by the US Senate, which is Republican-held and can vote down her nomination.

Another figure with clearance to access British intelligence told The Telegraph: “She is completely unfit for the role.” The source added: “The main concerns are on Russia. She comes over as an apologist. One thing we need at the moment is a united front.”

If security chiefs wanted to restrict her access, one source said they could expand the definition of “UK Eyes Alpha”, a security classification for material that is not to be shared with other nations. But given that intelligence sharing is the bedrock of the US-UK “special relationship” and could trigger a retaliation, this step would be a measure of last resort. The scale and quality of US intelligence also means the UK would be reluctant to compromise its own reciprocal access.

Tulsi Gabbard: British Intelligence Alarmed Over Trump Spy Chief

Don't share a damn thing with this woman about Ukraine.

• TikTok Exhibited Pro-Republican Bias During 2024 Presidential Race, Study Finds
• Trump and Musk Demand Termination of Federal Office Leases Through General Services Administration
• FBI Turns Over Details of 5,000 Employees Who Worked on January 6 Cases to Trump Justice Department, As Agents Sue
• White House Preparing Executive Order to Abolish The Department of Education

He can't do the last one but it won't stop him from trying, as he always said, he loves the poorly educated.

Pretty sure he can't gut the USAID office either, but he did.  

While I wish that was the case but the USAID department was established by a executive order by JFK and therefore do not have the same legal protection of a department that was created by a law.

On the other hand the Department of education was established by the department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88) which mean Trump can't legally eliminate it since it was created by a law not a executive action like USAID.

So since the congress did dictate the creation of some department to oversee foreign aid does this mean that Trump can get rid of USAID but he by law has to establish a replacement?

edit: not that the law is going to stop him from doing whatever he feels like by I'm curious. 

Assuming he follow law which is a big if with trump any money obligated by law to a specific thing require to be spent on that thing including foreign aid.  He should be required to put someone in charge of spending those funds that been obligated by congress that USAID use to oversee.  It dont need to be a new department he could also put an existing department which is what the current plan is I believe.  The State Department will be in charge of any mandatory spending that the USAID department use to be in charge of.  

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/usaid-merged-into-state-department/

El Salvador Offers To House Violent US Criminals And Deportees Of Any Nationality In Unprecedented Deal With Trump Administration

Trump Backs Sending ‘Dangerous’ American Prisoners To Other Countries

W.T.F.

The bigger win would be if they simplified the tax code.  The tax system has a crazy amount of complexity and it drains billions from the system in waste and lost revenue.  

Lost revenue- an easier system would be less of a discouragement for those not want to declare and file taxes

Drains millions --  A tax accountant with his masters degree is loose fat.  If the system was easier to calculate then the average HS grad would be able to do it with no help necessary.  

Trump: "The US will take over the Gaza Strip."

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 5 February 2025 at 00:00

Trump on sending US troops to Gaza: "If it's necessary, we'll do that. We're gonna take over that piece. And we're gonna develop it."

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 5 February 2025 at 00:12

Bro...

"I feel very differently about Gaza than a lot of people. I think they should get a good, fresh, beautiful piece of land, and we get some people to put up the money to build it and make it nice and make it habitable and enjoyable," said Trump, who called the Gaza Strip "a demolition site" unfit for habitation.

He added: "If we could find the right piece of land, or numerous pieces of land, and build them some really nice places with plenty of money in the area ... I think that would be a lot better than going back to Gaza, which has had just decades and decades of death."

===

So they're basically going back to the quiet ethnic cleansing like Israel has been doing for the past dozen years.

Israel bombs the shit out of Gaza, destroys all the infrastructure, makes it near inhospitable. Trump comes in and brings "peace" to the region, meanwhile Israel goes back to their old ways of a more quiet ethnic cleansing which the media goes back to largely ignoring. Now Trump wants America to take over that area, force Palestinians from their homes.

We fucking destroyed that area by helping Israel to destroy that area, the Palestinians shouldn't be leaving, instead we and Israel should be helping to restore it and rebuild their homes, instead America and Israel will jointly force them from their homes that they destroyed all so Trump can build hotels on the corpses of the tens of thousands of dead women and children. Sick freaks.

Ready for the next ISIS/Al-Qaeda/Hamas to be formed due to more American fuckery?