Is Anyone Paying Attention?

[Tig58072]

The U.S. government's fiscal year ends on September 30, and so far, Congress has not passed a bill to keep it funded. While the Democrats and Republicans are busy pointing fingers and accusing each other of being responsible for a government shutdown, few people are noticing what else is happening at the White House.

The New York Times published a newsletter entitled, On Shutdown, Democrats Turn to Simple Strategy: Do Something.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/26/us/politics/democrats-government-shutdown.html 🔗

In that article was an interesting bit:

But the Trump administration has made clear that this is a shutdown like no other.

Typically, presidents want to avoid shuttering the federal government, fearing negative effects on the economy, in no small part because millions of federal employees would be put out of work — plus a litany of other wide-ranging consequences.

For the Trump administration, the shutdown is not a problem but an opportunity. By forcing a shutdown Democrats will be handing Trump the ability to push one of his major goals: A total gutting of the federal government.

Since he entered his second term, Trump has been trying — and been repeatedly blocked by the courts — to slash federal jobs, cut services and abolish agencies. He's planning to use the shutdown go even further.

A memo released by the White House this week instructed federal agencies to prepare for mass firings in the event that the government runs out of funding on Sept. 30, the close of the fiscal year.

---------------------------

September 30th is Tuesday, the day when all of the 800+ senior military officers and their enlisted advisers are to meet with Secretary of Defense Hegseth in Quantico, Virginia, for a mysterious meeting. Some speculation (misinformation/propaganda releases) has indicated that the Secretary will be giving a rallying speech about the new "Warrior Ethos" of the War Department.

He will be making a video of the speech to be released a few days later...

So, why do all of the top brass need to be there in person?

Wouldn't that be a security risk to have all of the Generals, Command Sergeant Majors, and Admirals in one location together?

If the government shuts down, what will our military be ordered to do?

It wouldn't surprise me if he fired a lot of them.

[Lori Dee]

And now we know.

Trump calls for using US cities as a 'training ground' for military in unusual speech to generals
https://apnews.com/article/trump-hegseth-generals-meeting-military-pentagon-0ecdcbb8877e24329cfa0fc1e851ebd2 🔗
Associated Press - BEN FINLEY, KONSTANTIN TOROPIN and EVAN VUCCI
Updated 4:10 PM MDT, September 30, 2025

President Donald Trump on Tuesday proposed using American cities as training grounds for the armed forces and spoke of needing U.S. military might to combat what he called the "invasion from within."

The dual messages underscored the Trump administration's efforts not only to reshape contemporary Pentagon culture but to enlist military resources for the president's priorities and for decidedly domestic purposes, including quelling unrest and violent crime.

"We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military," Trump said. He noted at another point: "We're under invasion from within. No different than a foreign enemy but more difficult in many ways because they don't wear uniforms."

He said military leaders should "do the honorable thing and resign" if they don't like his new approach.

Trump encouraged the audience at the outset of his speech to applaud as they wished. He then added, "If you don't like what I'm saying, you can leave the room — of course, there goes your rank, there goes your future."

Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the meeting "an expensive, dangerous dereliction of leadership."

-----------------------

My concern with this behavior is "Why now?" He didn't do this during his first term. But he learned from his first term.

He wants military troops "training" in major (Democrat) cities; he wants them now, so that people will become accustomed to seeing armed soldiers patrolling the streets. And then, when the mid-term elections do not go his way, he will once again declare the elections were rigged. There could be massive protests, and he might need military force to stay in power. He is staging the resources that he may need.

In any other country, we would call that a "coup".

[Lori Dee]

North Carolina governor calls for passage of red flag law after deadly mass shooting
https://www.npr.org/2025/10/02/nx-s1-5559639/north-carolina-governor-calls-for-passage-of-red-flag-law-after-deadly-mass-shooting 🔗 (TRIGGER WARNING)
NPR - Nikolai Mather
October 2, 20254:45 AM ET

Authorities identified victims of a mass shooting over the weekend at a beachfront restaurant in Southport, North Carolina. And now the state's governor is calling for tighter restrictions on who can own a gun.

Authorities detained a suspect that night - Nigel Max Edge, a Marine veteran who once served as a scout sniper in Iraq.

Authorities say Edge didn't have a significant criminal history, but his neighbors say that he has an extensive gun collection. Edge also told officials he sustained a traumatic brain injury in Iraq. North Carolina Republicans recently passed a crime bill that places new restrictions on defendants suspected of having a mental illness. It's called Iryna's Law after the brutal stabbing of a Ukrainian refugee in Charlotte that drew attention from the White House. The suspected killer has a history of mental illness. Democrats wanted to add a provision which would allow authorities to temporarily seize firearms from potentially dangerous individuals.

There are people in our community who people know are a risk - a risk to others, a risk to themselves - and they should not have firearms.

-------------------

We see this time and again, where people think banning guns will stop violent crime. It won't. Violent crime is already illegal, with extra penalties if using a firearm.

I have had a few discussions with Senator Thune (South Dakota) about red flag laws. They are unconstitutional and can be abused to strip people of their right to defend themselves.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that your right to defend yourself can be taken away, your property confiscated, because your neighbor thinks you are "potentially dangerous".

The 2nd Amendment is clear: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Period.

There is no requirement to attend a class, obtain a permit, submit to a background check, or mental evaluation. It is only through "due process" (a legal hearing) and a court order signed by a judge that any rights can be restricted.

Taking the word of some disgruntled person and using that to justify "temporarily" confiscating your personal property is unconstitutional. We are innocent until proven guilty, not before.

And now, with this Administration obsessed with mental illness as an excuse to strip away transgender rights to defense, we need to pay attention.

As we saw earlier this year, the White House says they are thinking about something, and lackeys in the State Houses start passing laws along those lines.

As other states follow suit, it can rapidly spread until there is no need for a federal law because a majority of states have already enacted one, even if it is illegal, unconstitutional, or outright discriminatory.

We have seen this with transgender sports bans, bathroom bans, and gender-affirming care for minors.

[Karen_A]

We see this time and again, where people think banning guns will stop violent crime.

Fewer guns in society would mean fewer heat of the moment shootings and fewer accidental shootings, if nothing else.

Red flag laws are common sense IMO. In this day and age in the US, very few actually NEED guns after all.

- Karen

[Lori Dee]

Fewer guns in society would mean fewer heat of the moment shootings and fewer accidental shootings, if nothing else.

Red flag laws are common sense IMO. In this day and age in the US, very few actually NEED guns after all.

- Karen

I respect your opinion. Removing the tool only means they will use something else. We saw this in the UK when guns were removed and stabbings increased. Removing guns only decreases gun violence, not violence overall. Accidental injuries are rare and usually due to the operator failing to follow basic safety instructions.

It is not a matter of need. People don't need cars or alcohol, and yet no one calls for bans when a drunk driver kills an entire family.

It isn't even about guns, per se. Humans have an inherent right to self-defense, by whatever means. The Supreme Court rulings have made it clear that the 2nd Amendment does not only apply to firearms, but to any form of "bearable arms". That could be a pistol, a knife, a broken beer bottle, or a chainsaw.

I respect your and others' right to dislike guns. Not everyone likes them. The right does not say you must have one, but you can if you want to. It is a freedom of choice.

Don't blame the tool. I have handled hundreds of weapons over 50 years, and not once did any of them injure a single person. They don't load and fire themselves. Blame the person responsible. Hold them accountable. That's what our legal system is for.

Thanks for chiming in. Your opinion matters.