First, let me start out with a warning: these things didn’t come out as quick as I’d planned them to be, but frankly, I’m not sure what I’d cut.
Hey — it’s not my fault. This could be a 25 Quick Things column, there’s so much going on.
And now, on with the show.
I’m going to try to do this diplomatically, for fairly obvious reasons.
A long time ago, I dated a girl pretty seriously who was a knockout. Gorgeous. And when she wanted to be, sweeter than honey. I really liked her.
But she’d been spoiled/abused in what can only be described as a toxic household growing up, and that made her…
Let’s just say “unreliable.”
I was young at the time, and so my thought was that I could fix her. All I had to do was treat her with a little respect and a lot of love, and she’d come around. And she’d be really grateful that she’d have gotten from her boyfriend what she didn’t get from her folks. No problem.
Like I said, I was young at the time.
The fun/awful part was that my theory on creating a successful relationship out of that situation didn’t fall apart right away. Initially, it produced some very solid results. So much so that I thought I was really on to something. I was Scott “The Crazy-Girl Whisperer.”
But not for long.
And what I found was that she relied on me to be that guy who’d have her back when nobody else would. That sounds great, except it got abused.
You don’t want to be the guy who’ll have her back when she then thinks that creates a license to start trouble with basically everybody because you’re there to defend her.
Once that happens, you’re then in a position of telling her, “Hey, could you please knock it down with the conflicts? You’re basically causing chaos all over town, and I don’t have enough energy to put all these fires out.”
And what you get back is an accusation of betrayal. And an outpouring of abuse, not to mention even worse public behavior than you objected to in the first place.
At this point, you need an exit strategy.
I found one. It wasn’t easy, but I did, and all these years later I thank God that I did before I ended up married to that girl.
And just so you know, we’re talking about politics here.
1. Trump Needs to Break Up With the Euros. Now.
Emmanuel Macron just essentially turned into Kim Jong Un in front of your very eyes.
Essentially, this guy — whose party took a shellacking by the French people in the last election and who, by all rights, ought to be out of power by this point — is now running his mouth about supplying a nuclear shield over all of Europe while also trash-talking the Russians.
Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, wasn’t very gracious in response…
This isn’t good.
But Macron turns out not to be the only crazy NATO girlfriend America has. Here’s the prime minister of Denmark…
European leaders are retarded.
Danish PM Mette Frederiksen: “Peace in Ukraine is more dangerous than the ongoing war.”
She won’t end the war because Putin might attack someone else in the future.
Under that logic, there is no end to the war ever.pic.twitter.com/KdNzKnwIcO
— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) March 5, 2025
And then there was the incoming German chancellor who wants to massively re-arm his country while demanding America “stay in Europe.” And the Brits are still talking about how the Ukraine war can be won if Europe were to fully jump in.
This is an untenable situation.
By now, you’re surely aware of the fact that these same countries spent more money last year buying Russian oil and gas than they did helping the Ukrainians fight against Russia. Now, they’re talking about nukes and keeping the war going forever.
While at the same time babbling about “security guarantees,” which is French (or Danish or German or whatever) for “U.S. troops deployed to Ukraine.”
They’re doing everything they can to start World War III, and none of them are even remotely prepared to fight such a conflict. (RELATED: Trump Tells Zelenskyy He’s Gambling on World War III)
This is why I brought up the analogy of the crazy girlfriend who starts fights with people. Right now Europe is screaming at some mean-looking guy at the bar and the other patrons are backing away, and we’re calmly trying to settle her down while she’s getting more and more wound up all the time.
Eventually, you start to realize that regardless of what an SOB the mean-looking guy is, it’s the screaming girl who poses the larger threat of turning the situation into a massive bar brawl.
And you also recognize that the screaming girl might not be marriage material.
Mike Lee and Anna Paulina Luna are two of the conservatives on Capitol Hill now calling for a U.S. exit from NATO. There ought to be a lot more people doing it. Every one of these countries runs Latin American elections at best, and they treat their citizens as badly as Vladimir Putin treats his people in some respects — as Vice President Vance noted in his Munich speech. (RELATED: Vance in Munich and Foreign Policy Realism for the Modern World)
We can’t break up with these people fast enough.
As John Hawkins noted at Culturcidal this week, “NATO was formed in 1949, and the idea was to, ‘keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.’ Well, none of that is relevant anymore. America could just as easily pull out of NATO, sign a treaty with the Brits, cut a deal for base rights in a few other countries, and have far fewer obligations.” Hawkins was talking about what these countries are investing in their own defense, but with the outbursts of these weirdo leaders in the last couple of days, the situation is a lot direr than that.
George Washington famously admonished us to “make no permanent alliances.” You’re beginning to see why.
2. Lindsey Graham and Male Prostitutes? Oh, No! Anyway…
So this is now a thing, apparently…
BREAKING: Sen. Lindsey Graham is accused of ‘having sex with gay sex workers’ pic.twitter.com/LN6EzK4a7P
— PoliticsVideoChannel (@politvidchannel) March 5, 2025
That account is apparently a Democrat and anti-Trump outlet with a not-infinitessimal audience (just under 230,000 followers on X), so this is intended as some sort of Democrat flex, I guess.
Except I’m not sure a Lindsey Graham gay sex scandal would have the effect they expect.
It’s not exactly earthshaking news to hear that Lindsey Graham might be gay, you know.
And there have been rumors about this sort of thing for quite some time. Not to mention there have been rumors of Graham being compromised by the military-industrial-intelligence complex for quite some time.
Which means the only thing especially interesting about this, if it turns out to be something that seriously affects Lindsey Graham’s political career, is the timing. Graham popped out in front of the cameras on Friday and denounced Volodymyr Zelenskyy for his antics at the White House and then battled the Ukrainian president for a couple of days on social media, and the next thing you know, there is this stuff.
What’s funny is that anybody thinks the Right would be upset if Lindsey Graham got taken out by a sex scandal.
Let’s remember that in the last election Graham ran in, the Democrats threw $100 million against him — in South Carolina! — with Jaime Harrison, the recently-discharged former DNC chairman, as their candidate. And Graham still won that race 55-45. South Carolina isn’t electing a Democrat to the Senate any time soon.
And virtually anybody that South Carolina’s Republican governor, Henry McMaster, would appoint to fill that seat if Graham were to resign would be at least as conservative as Graham.
So it’s like Jeremy Clarkson’s famous line, which has turned into one of the internet’s best-known memes…
3. Jasmine Crockett and the Continuing Death of the Democrat Party
I’m trying not to relive too much more of Tuesday night’s Donald Trump speech because you’ve seen wall-to-wall coverage of that.
Though I will hit you with this…
And then I’ll hit you with this, which is about as cringe as it gets…
It’s like they’re trying to destroy the Democrat party forever. 😂 https://t.co/3EJ52FwYNJ
— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) March 6, 2025
You’ll notice that Jasmine Crockett, who seems to be doing her best to personify every ugly and negative stereotype the worst racists in America have of black women, keeps featuring prominently as one of the Democrats’ messengers.
Why?
It’s not that she’s a black woman. That’s the excuse some of her defenders seem to be throwing out there — “you just don’t like her because she’s a strong black woman.” No, actually, we’ve seen lots of black women in politics. The Democrat ones are almost universally bad, but that’s because they’re Democrats more than because they’re black women. And besides, you can’t put people through several years of a Lori Lightfoot or LaToya Cantrell or Muriel Bowser or London Breed or Karen Bass and then call people racist because they groan at this political style.
No. It’s because she’s utterly obnoxious.
And absolutely fake.
Here you go…
Unearthed video shows Jasmine Crockett talking with a much different accent than the one she has now in Congress.
Interesting. pic.twitter.com/HzI16Gbjqg
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) March 6, 2025
Here’s perhaps the biggest problem the Democrats have: They think obnoxious is good.
One of the things you’ll pick up pretty heavily from The Revivalist Revolution, the book I’ve got coming out later this spring, is that the Democrats are dying as a political party because they operate under a structure built for them by Barack Obama which depends not on seeking public consensus but attempting to cry-bully the public into accepting the radical politics of the disaffected fringe of society.
And that works until it doesn’t. Once it doesn’t, you find out that the core of your party, the active ingredient which has won you elections by turning out to vote when the more marginal members probably wouldn’t, is the disaffected fringe. So, to fix yourself, you have to jettison your core.
And good luck with that.
Only hard-core Democrats can stand Jasmine Crockett. To everyone else, she’s as poisonous as Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Adam Schiff. But to the hard-core, she’s a queen. (RELATED: Isn’t It Time for Jasmine Crockett to Shut Up?)
In a way that somebody on the Right like Marjorie Taylor-Green can’t be.
We like MTG because she’s willing to fight the Jasmine Crocketts on their level. If it weren’t for these crazies on the other side, we might be embarrassed by MTG. Since they exist, she’s necessary, and we’re OK with winding her up and sending her into battle. But to the hard-core Democrats, Jasmine Crockett is like one of those liquid-metal Terminator models, the ones who look like a young Robert Patrick. She’s the greatest thing EVER.
A party with a future would be trying to tone her down. But the Democrats are not such a party.
You go, Jasmine. Don’t ever change.
4. Will the Left Be Rooting for Dead Astronauts in a Couple of Weeks?
If you watched Joe Rogan’s interview with Elon Musk from last Friday (if you haven’t, and you have the three hours to watch it, it’s here), one of the more interesting parts came when Rogan started asking him about SpaceX.
Lots of very interesting nuggets of information sprang forth from that, among them being Musk’s description of SpaceX’s major challenge of trying to build heat-shield panels that would allow for his Starship rockets to become immediately reusable. The logistical and technological difficulties inherent in that are daunting, but when that’s solved — and Musk thinks they’re a year or so away from solving the problem — the cost of running a space program drops to a tiny fraction of what it currently is, and then his Mars project starts rolling downhill.
Another interesting nugget was that Musk said SpaceX is no more than four weeks, now three weeks, from sending a rocket to pick up the astronauts who have been stranded at the International Space Station for eight months.
He expanded on that in an X post Wednesday…
The astronauts were only supposed to be up there for 8 days and now have been there for 8 months.
SpaceX could have sent up another Dragon and brought them home 6 months ago, but the Biden White House (not NASA) refused to allow it.
President Trump asked to bring them back as… https://t.co/BVsHRn2Ocf
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 5, 2025
So here’s a thought — the Democrats have put on a full-court press demonizing Elon Musk over his DOGE efforts. He’s literally the personification of Alinsky’s Rule 13 at this point (that’s the one about picking the target and then freezing, personalizing, and polarizing it). They’ve thrown every insult possible at him, and the result has been that some of the same kinds of crazies they incited against Donald Trump last year are being incited against Musk. He noted in the Rogan interview that he gets death threats all the time now.
Anyway, they’re doing that to him, and it’s pretty much their most prominent message right now.
And then he’s going to save those astronauts? Astronauts who will come home and say “Yeah, it was cool going to space for a while, but thanks a lot for stranding me up there for eight freaking months I wasn’t prepared to be away from home for, guys.”
And that will be … the Democrats’ fault courtesy of their hospice-patient president and the DEI-hire veep they ran against Trump.
These are the people who couldn’t applaud D.J. Daniel. How are they going to handle the astronauts coming home to haunt them, much less Elon “The Unelected South African Apartheid Nazi” being the one who saved the day?
Prediction: you will see some idiot on MSNBC or in some other Democrat fever swamp confess that they’re not-so-silently hoping that rocket crashes on the way home — a sentiment that won’t immediately be shouted down on the Left.
Let’s hope that’s the worst we see from them.
5. On the Supreme Court’s Dumb 5-4 Ruling Wednesday
Our buddy John Daniel Davidson put a piece up at The Federalist ripping John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett for siding with the Democrats in a case where a Biden-appointed federal judge with very dubious jurisdiction took it on himself to order the Trump administration to send $2 billion of your tax dollars out to some vendor for a contract to do DEI things.
So here’s what happened. As part of an administration-wide effort to crack down on fraudulent and wasteful federal spending, President Trump ordered a review of all federal grants, and also ordered that payments on all grants should be paused while the review is ongoing. Some of those grant recipients sued, and in a 5-4 decision handed down Wednesday, the Supreme Court denied a request by the Trump administration to vacate a recent ruling by D.C. District Court Judge Amir Ali (a Biden appointee) that ordered the State Department and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to disburse about $2 billion in federal grants to nongovernmental groups for “work already completed.”
…
The high court’s decision came down Wednesday, 5-4, with Roberts and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the court’s Democrat appointees to deny the Trump administration’s request. The majority didn’t give a reason for this denial, which is too bad, because the ruling should trigger a constitutional crisis.
In a blistering dissent, Associate Justice Samuel Alito slammed the majority for giving a green light to the lower court’s judicial overreach. “Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” Alito wrote. “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.”
Alito is right to be stunned. Here is a case in which a district judge, Ali, is explicitly claiming for himself executive authority to disburse federal funds and determine the time and manner in which the funds will be disbursed — powers clearly vested not in the judiciary but in the executive branch, that is, with President Trump. Ali simply brushed aside the Trump administration’s argument that sovereign immunity barred the enforcement order and arrogated to himself the right to exercise executive powers.
This on its own should be reason enough for the Trump administration to ignore the Supreme Court’s decision to let the lower court’s order stand. But there’s other problems too, like the fact that the lower federal court in this case lacks jurisdiction. Contract disputes with the federal government are only supposed to be heard by the Court of Federal Claims, not a D.C. district judge. Among other things, this means Ali’s order requires President Trump to violate existing federal law.
I could excerpt a lot more from Davidson’s column, but you should go and read the whole thing. It’s excellent.
What I will say, though, is this might not be as catastrophic as you’ve heard. Bill Shipley, the famed former federal prosecutor who more recently represented some 91 Jan. 6 defendants and goes by “Shipwreckedcrew” on X, had this to say about the ruling…
A couple of truth bombs about today’s decision by SCOTUS on the TRO issued by Judge Ali:
The DOJ never appealed the original TRO entered by him. Rather than do that, they opted to “maneuver” around thru a hole he left in his order that allowed them to rely on statutes/regs/…
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) March 5, 2025
If you’re persuaded by Shipley, you see this thing as curable and less of a disaster than most of us are making it out to be.
Still, this was a missed opportunity, and Davidson isn’t wrong in his fury over it. The correct ruling would have been a sharp rebuke of the district court on jurisdictional grounds and an unmistakable signal that these restraining orders are all null and void, and it’s time for the courts to stop granting them. It was an act of cowardice and dereliction by the constitutional court not to provide a clear statement of constitutional law when given an opportunity.
Do better, dammit.
READ MORE from Scott McKay:
Trump Now Stands Astride American Politics Like a Colossus
The Evil People Surrounding Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Five Quick Things: The Broken Centrifuge That Won’t Stop Spinning
