YouTube video by The Smothers Brothers - Topic Civil War Song

Here is a Battle Cry for America
youtu.be/BV8AZFvGGKQ?...

YouTube video by The Smothers Brothers - Topic Civil War Song

Reminds Me of: youtu.be/BV8AZFvGGKQ?...

YouTube video by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Full Interview: AOC Speaks on the Trump Government Shutdown| Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Full Interview: AOC Speaks on the Trump Government Shutdown
youtu.be/9KPifVxK92w?...

Bluesky members, I have never received an answer or comment from members of Congress, so I ask that you comment. Watch the video, then comment on the items Sen. Kennedy lists. Do you support them, or should they be eliminated?

YouTube video by Forbes Breaking News BREAKING NEWS: John Kennedy Points Finger Squarely At AOC As The Government Shutdown Rages On

@booker.senate.gov @corybooker.com @schumer.senate.gov @ocasio-cortez.house.gov @aoc.bsky.social @hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social
I agree with defending Medicaid and Medicare, but I must ask about:
John Kennedy Points Finger Squarely At AOC
youtu.be/MqHSl2wTjOQ?...
If these exist, I say eliminate them

"The 2013 shutdown stemmed from opposition to the Affordable Care Act."
The No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013 was introduced by Republicans.

Now, in 2025, we are fighting the same battle.
It's only fair that we bring back the No Budget, No Pay Act in 2025

While the 2028 Presidential election is a long way away,
would you rather see a ticket of @gavinnewsom.bsky.social and @aoc.bsky.social, or @ocasio-cortez.house.gov run as a Presidential candidate?

"The 2013 shutdown stemmed from opposition to the Affordable Care Act."
Now, in 2025, we are fighting the same battle.
The No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013 was introduced by Republicans. Specifically, it was proposed by Representative Kevin Hern (R-OK) in the House of Representatives.

The idea echoes historical proposals, such as the 2013 No Budget, No Pay Act, which temporarily withheld pay but faced veto threats over constitutional concerns.

It's time for the 2025 "No Budget, No Pay Act"
@schumer.senate.gov @hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social @sanders.senate.gov @crockett.house.gov

China is providing Russia with satellite intelligence data for missile strikes on Ukraine, including targets owned by foreign investors, — Ukraine's Foreign Intelligence Service.

@sleepycongressman.bsky.social
Should a new law be passed that mandates that Congressmembers do not receive their pay during a Government Shutdown, just like all Federal workers?
@schumer.senate.gov @hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social @repilhan.bsky.social @ocasio-cortez.house.gov @raskin.house.gov

Now this is really wild. I can't say for sure what this is, but it's interesting.
#UFO Sighting in Peru | Recent Encounter
www.msn.com/en-us/travel...

Rut-Roh! Another step on the Fascist Ladder @stephruhle.bsky.social
This rare-earth company may be the next Trump administration investment
www.msn.com/en-us/money/...
First, Lithium Americas Corp., then MP Materials Corp., now USA Rare Earth?
Where do the animals go when these guys "take & take"?

Yikes!!! patriotfront.us
WoW, they sure do put a glossy 'first impression' forward.
Except: I couldn't get past their front page.

www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch... via @allinwithchris.bsky.social

Should Americans Boycott BUDGET Rental for allowing ICE Agents to use their trucks to haul human beings during the ICE Raid in Chicago?
"All 50 states prohibit passengers from riding in unsecured or cargo-only areas of vehicles, including enclosed box trucks."

'Absolute madness': Fmr. FBI official reacts to firing of agent over gay pride flag FBI Director Kash Patel on Wednesday fired an agent in training for displaying a gay pride flag on his desk while appointed to a field office in California last year, according to three people familia...

'Absolute madness': Fmr. FBI official reacts to firing of agent over gay pride flag 🏳️‍🌈
msnbc.com/deadline-whi...
@msnbc.com
Can the display of a Christian cross be deemed similarly? ✝️
What about those Christian National Flags, like the one flown outside a Supreme Court justice's home?

YouTube video by Glenn Kirschner Trump's Speech to Military Leaders PROVES He's Dangerously Unfit as Commander In Chief

Trump's Speech to Military Leaders PROVES He's Dangerously Unfit as Commander-in-Chief
youtu.be/h824H2h8yA8?...
What actions can be taken regarding this issue? Anyone?

Details on Train v. City of New York Train v. City of New York (1975): Case Summary and Details Citation: Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975) Court: United States Supreme Court Background: Context: The case arose during the Nixon administration, which had a history of impounding (withholding) funds appropriated by Congress. In this instance, President Nixon directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), led by Administrator Russell Train, to withhold funds allocated under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (commonly known as the Clean Water Act). These funds were intended for municipal sewage treatment projects to improve water quality. Legislation: The 1972 Act authorized $18 billion over three years ($5 billion in FY 1973, $6 billion in FY 1974, and $7 billion in FY 1975) for grants to states and municipalities. Nixon ordered the EPA to allot only $5 billion total ($2 billion in FY 1973 and $3 billion in FY 1974), claiming executive discretion to control spending and address inflation concerns. Parties: The City of New York, joined by other municipalities and states, sued EPA Administrator Train, alleging that the refusal to allot the full appropriated amounts violated the Act and the Constitution. Legal Issue: Does the executive branch have the authority to withhold or reduce funds appropriated by Congress for specific purposes under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or does such action violate the law and Congress’s constitutional authority over appropriations under Article I, Section 9? Procedural History: The case began in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where New York City and other plaintiffs sought an injunction to compel the EPA to allot the full $18 billion. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding the impoundment unlawful. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed, rejecting the administration’s argument that it had discretion to withhold funds for policy reasons. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the dispute, which was one of several impoundment cases challenging Nixon’s practices. Supreme Court Decision: Date: February 18, 1975 Holding: In a unanimous decision (9-0), the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA (and by extension, the executive branch) lacked authority to withhold funds appropriated by Congress under the Clean Water Act. The Court ordered the EPA to allot the full $18 billion as mandated. Reasoning (authored by Justice Byron White): Statutory Interpretation: The Court examined the text of the 1972 Act, which used mandatory language (“shall allot”) for the appropriation of funds. The Act specified exact amounts ($5 billion, $6 billion, $7 billion) and set deadlines for allotment, leaving no discretion for the EPA to reduce or withhold them. Congressional Intent: The legislative history showed Congress intended to fully fund sewage treatment to address urgent water pollution issues. Nixon’s veto of the Act had been overridden by Congress, reinforcing its commitment to the full appropriation. Separation of Powers: The executive’s refusal to allot funds violated Congress’s constitutional “power of the purse” under Article I, Section 9. The Court emphasized that the president’s role is to execute laws, not to rewrite or nullify them through impoundment. Impoundment Authority: The administration argued it had inherent discretion to manage spending for economic reasons (e.g., inflation control). The Court rejected this, noting that any executive discretion to withhold funds must be explicitly authorized by Congress, which was not the case here. Key Precedent: The ruling reinforced that appropriations are binding obligations unless Congress explicitly grants the executive flexibility to defer or rescind funds. Impact and Legacy: Immediate Effect: The EPA was compelled to release the full $18 billion, enabling states and municipalities to proceed with sewage treatment projects. This benefited New York City and others reliant on the funds. Impoundment Control Act (ICA): The case was part of a broader push against Nixon’s impoundment practices, which led to the passage of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The ICA formalized procedures for impoundments, requiring presidential requests for rescissions or deferrals to be approved by Congress. Precedent for Future Cases: Train remains a cornerstone for lawsuits challenging executive withholding of appropriated funds, as seen in recent 2025 litigation against the Trump administration’s OMB for withholding funds during the government shutdown. It establishes that executive impoundment without congressional approval is unlawful. Modern Relevance: The case is frequently cited in disputes over executive overreach, such as the 2020 Ukraine aid impoundment (leading to Trump’s first impeachment) and 2025 lawsuits by Democratic-led states against OMB Director Russ Vought for freezing funds during the current shutdown. Relation to Current Context: In 2025, Democratic governors and state attorneys general are suing the Trump administration for withholding over $26 billion in appropriated funds for education, energy, infrastructure, and transit, citing violations of the ICA and Train’s precedent. The Train ruling supports their claims by affirming that the executive cannot unilaterally withhold congressionally mandated funds without following ICA procedures (e.g., notifying Congress of rescissions or deferrals). GAO reports in 2025 have already flagged similar OMB actions as unlawful, echoing the Train framework. Sources: Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975) (primary case text). Congressional Research Service, “Impoundment of Appropriated Funds” (2020), for historical context. Recent 2025 litigation references from X posts and web sources, including GAO findings on OMB’s actions. For further details on specific 2025 cases citing Train, I can search for updates or analyze related filings if you provide more specifics. Let me know if you want to dive deeper into any aspect!

Train v. City of New York (1975): Case Summary and Details
@schumer.senate.gov @hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social @governor.ny.gov
x.com/i/grok/share...
(I apologise for using Grok on X; CHATGPT doesn't offer links)

Can Democratic Governors sue the Trump Admin. for violating Congressional-mandated funding, such as is occurring now by OMB Sec Vought during the shutdown? Legal Framework for Challenging Withholding of Congressionally Mandated Funds The short answer is yes, Democratic governors (or more precisely, their states, often represented by attorneys general) can and do sue the Trump administration for violating congressional funding mandates, such as the current withholding of billions in appropriated funds by OMB Director Russ Vought during the ongoing government shutdown. This practice falls under the doctrine of impoundment, where the executive branch delays or refuses to spend funds that Congress has explicitly appropriated. Such actions are generally unlawful under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA), which was enacted specifically to curb presidential overreach after President Nixon's abuses. These lawsuits typically succeed if the withholding lacks congressional approval or exceeds statutory authority, as courts enforce Congress's "power of the purse" under Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. Key Legal Principles Impoundment Defined: Under the ICA, impoundment occurs when the president or executive officials (like OMB) withhold or delay spending appropriated funds without following strict procedures. There are two types: Rescissions (permanent cancellation): Requires a presidential message to Congress, which has 45 days to approve; otherwise, funds must be released. Deferrals (temporary delays): Allowed only for contingencies, emergencies, or efficiency, and cannot extend beyond the fiscal year without approval. Failure to comply makes the action illegal, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) can sue to enforce release. Standing for States and Governors: States have Article III standing to sue when they suffer a concrete injury, such as lost access to federal grants for education, energy, infrastructure, or health programs. Courts routinely recognize this, as states are direct recipients of these funds and rely on them for mandated services. Governors often join as co-plaintiffs, but suits are filed by state attorneys general on behalf of the state. For example, in Train v. City of New York (1975), a municipality (analogous to states) successfully challenged Nixon's impoundment of water pollution funds, with the Supreme Court ruling that appropriations create enforceable obligations. Separation of Powers: Withholding funds without ICA compliance violates the president's duty under Article II's Take Care Clause to "faithfully execute" laws, including appropriations acts. Courts view this as executive overreach into Congress's domain. Current Context: The 2025 Shutdown and Vought's Actions As of October 3, 2025, the U.S. government is in a shutdown that began on October 1 after Congress failed to pass a continuing resolution (CR). Democrats seek to include health care extensions (e.g., Medicaid and subsidies), while Republicans, backed by President Trump, demand a "clean" CR without them. Amid this, OMB under Vought has frozen or paused over $26 billion in congressionally appropriated funds, targeting Democratic-leaning states (e.g., California, New York, Illinois) for projects in energy, infrastructure, education, and transit. Vought has called these "reviews" to align with Trump priorities, but critics argue they are unlawful impoundments, especially since the funds were already awarded and obligated. This mirrors earlier 2025 actions, like a January OMB memo pausing federal grants (rescinded after lawsuits) and June/July freezes on $6-7.5 billion in education and energy funds, which prompted suits from Democratic AGs and governors. The Trump administration claims these are not impoundments but "policy reviews," but GAO has already ruled similar holds unlawful twice this year. Recent Examples of Successful Suits Democratic-led states have actively litigated these issues in 2025, often securing temporary restraining orders (TROs) or injunctions: | Case/Incident | Plaintiffs | Funds at Issue | Outcome | Citation | |---------------|------------|----------------|---------|----------| | Education Funding Pause (July 2025) | 24 state AGs and Democratic governors (e.g., CA, WA, IL) | $6B+ in K-12 and higher ed grants | Suit filed alleging separation-of-powers violation; ongoing, but OMB paused enforcement pending review. | | | Federal Grant Terminations (June 2025) | 21 Democratic AGs | Multi-billion in grants via OMB clause | Sought injunction; court declared terminations unauthorized without notice; funds partially released. | | | Energy/Infrastructure Freeze (Oct 2025 Shutdown) | States with Democratic governors (e.g., NY, CA, OR) | $7.5B+ in green energy and transit (e.g., NYC's Second Ave. Subway) | Terminations announced; appeals filed, with potential suits; 30-day appeal window before litigation escalates. | , , | | OMB Grant Pause (Jan-Feb 2025) | 22 states + DC AGs; nonprofits | Broad federal aid (grants, loans) | TRO granted by D.C. District Court; freeze halted as unlawful impoundment; extended pending injunction. | , , | | Broader Funding Withholds (Ongoing 2025) | 20+ states | $410B+ total (incl. DOE, HHS) | Multiple suits; GAO findings of violations; partial releases ordered. | | These cases show a pattern: Democratic governors and AGs file in federal district courts (often D.C.), claiming ICA violations and irreparable harm to state programs. Courts grant emergency relief quickly, as seen in the January TRO that blocked a nationwide freeze. Unions have also sued over related layoffs, arguing no authority for "reductions in force" (RIFs) during shutdowns. Potential Outcomes and Limitations Success Rate: High for clear ICA violations; lower courts rarely let these reach appeals, and the Supreme Court has upheld anti-impoundment rulings (e.g., Train). However, Trump allies argue the ICA is unconstitutional, though scholars and courts disagree. Remedies: Courts can order fund release, declare actions unlawful, and enjoin future holds. But enforcement relies on compliance; prolonged shutdowns complicate timing. Political Risks: Suits escalate partisan tensions but pressure Congress to resolve the CR. If the shutdown ends, some claims may moot. In summary, these lawsuits are a standard tool for Democratic governors to enforce congressional intent against executive withholding, with strong legal precedents supporting their viability. For specifics on pending cases, states like California and New York are leading current efforts.

@governorwalz.mn.gov @govpritzker.illinois.gov @governor.ca.gov @govwesmoore.bsky.social @govandybeshear.bsky.social
Can Democratic Governors sue the Trump Admin. for violating Congressional-mandated funding, such as is occurring now by OMB Sec Vought during the shutdown?
x.com/i/grok/share...

Jen Psaki blows the lid off Jared Kushner's multi-billion dollar 'donated time' Jen's Version: Jen Psaki addresses questions raised in the White House briefing room with real answers instead of the Trump administration's distortions and spin, including the bizarre claim that Dona...

Jen Psaki blows the lid off Jared Kushner's multi-billion-dollar 'donated time'
www.msnbc.com/the-briefing... via @briefingwithpsaki.bsky.social
How dare We question any improprieties between Jared receiving Billions from these Countries, while negotiating on behalf of the US?

New documentary 'Orwell 2+2=5' examines how authoritarians come to power Director and producer Raoul Peck and producer Alex Gibney join Morning Joe to discuss the new documentary 'Orwell: 2+2=5'.

@owlmirror.bsky.social
New documentary 'Orwell 2+2=5' examines how authoritarians come to power
msnbc.com/morning-joe/...
In Theaters Today

There will be Midterm Elections, but I believe Trump will send masked ICE agents to serve as voting poll watchers as an intimidation tactic, hoping to reduce citizen participation. That's why he's against mail-in voting.

While I agree with you on their dodging the issues,
the Republican Party was founded in 1854. (171 years)

POTUS Trump keeps saying Gov. JB Pritzker was thrown out of his family's business (Hyatt Hotels).

FACT: Pritzker was not thrown out of the family business.
He voluntarily stepped away in 1997 to launch his own venture capital firm, with his brother Anthony "Tony" Pritzker.

Trump is Lying, again

Donald Trump's "low-energy and rambling" speech to military leaders on Tuesday is raising new questions about his fitness for office.
www.msn.com/en-us/news/p...

What an Idiot
'You're A United States Senator!': Senate Hearing Plunges Into Chaos When Markwayne Mullin Gets Up From His Seat To Fistfight Witness
www.msn.com/en-us/news/p...

It took a day for Trump to say the quiet part out loud, but he eventually did.
www.msn.com/en-us/news/p...
"At Quantico, Trump Tells Military Leaders: #Loyalty or ‘You’re Fired’"

Dr. Jane Goodall, the renowned British primatologist, ethologist, and conservationist, born on April 3, 1934, died on October 1, 2025, at the age of 91 from natural causes while on a speaking tour in Los Angeles, California.
www.msn.com/en-us/news/w...

Another #BaitandSwitch tactic, promise future negotiations, if Democrats vote for this Spending Bill first.
Reminds me of Wimpy Wellington: