Feb 6, 2026
C'mon, Pete
Some of what Hegseth objects to:
Scout Oath:
On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country. To obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
Scout Law:
A Scout is:
TRUSTWORTHY
Tell the truth and keep promises. People can depend on you.
LOYAL
Show that you care about your family, friends, Scout leaders, school, and country.
HELPFUL
Volunteer to help others without expecting a reward.
FRIENDLY
Be a friend to everyone, even people who are very different from you.
COURTEOUS
Be polite to everyone and always use good manners.
KIND
Treat others as you want to be treated. Never harm or kill any living thing without good reason.
OBEDIENT
Follow the rules of your family, school, and pack. Obey the laws of your community and country.
CHEERFUL
Look for the bright side of life. Cheerfully do tasks that come your way. Try to help others be happy.
THRIFTY
Work to pay your own way. Try not to be wasteful. Use time, food, supplies, and natural resources wisely.
BRAVE
Face difficult situations even when you feel afraid. Do what you think is right despite what others might be doing or saying.
CLEAN
Keep your body and mind fit. Help keep your home and community clean.
REVERENT
Be reverent toward God. Be faithful in your religious duties. Respect the beliefs of others.
U.S. ready to cut support to Scouts, accusing them of attacking 'boy-friendly spaces'
The century-old partnership between the U.S. military and Scouting could be coming to an end.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is planning for the military to sever all ties with Scouting America, saying the group once known as the Boy Scouts is no longer a meritocracy and has become an organization designed to "attack boy-friendly spaces," according to documents reviewed by NPR.
In a draft memo to Congress, which sources shared with NPR but which has not yet been sent, Hegseth criticizes Scouting for being "genderless" and for promoting diversity, equity and inclusion.
The military has provided support to the Scouts for more than 100 years, assistance that was formalized in 1937. But in one memo, Hegseth says, "The organization once endorsed by President Theodore Roosevelt no longer supports the future of American boys."
The proposal calls for the Pentagon to no longer provide medical and logistical aid to the National Jamboree, which brings in as many as 20,000 scouts to a remote site in West Virginia. It also states that the military will no longer allow Scout troops to meet at military installations in the U.S. and abroad, where many bases have active Scout programs.
A source told NPR the documents were being prepared at the Pentagon to communicate Hegseth's decision to Congress, but that they had not been sent yet. The source requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the documents.
In response to an inquiry from NPR, the Pentagon sent a statement attributed to "a War Department official" saying they wouldn't comment on "leaked documents that we cannot authenticate and that may be pre-decisional."
Scouting America released a statement saying the organization is proud of its long affiliation with the military and will work to continue it.
"Scouting is and has always been a nonpartisan organization," the statement read. "Over more than a century, we've worked constructively with every U.S. presidential administration — Democratic and Republican — focusing on our common goal of building future leaders grounded in integrity, responsibility, and community service."
Congress requires the Pentagon to support the scouting program's Jamboree, a gathering of thousands of young scouts held every three or four years. The U.S. military lends trucks, ambulances and medical teams, and puts on aviation and skydiving demonstrations, all at no cost to the Scouts. For the military, it's both a training exercise and an opportunity to recruit highly motivated, civic-minded kids.
But the law includes an exemption: the Secretary of Defense can withhold support if he determines providing it would be "detrimental to national security."
Drafts of a report to Congress obtained by NPR show Hegseth invoking that clause — accusing Scouting America of fostering "gender confusion."
His memo to the House and Senate Armed Services committees argues the Scouts have strayed from their mission to "cultivate masculine values." It also claims that with international conflicts and a tight budget, sending troops, doctors and vehicles to a 10-day youth event would harm national security by diverting resources from border operations and protecting U.S. territory.
President Trump, the honorary leader of Scouting America by nature of his elected office, praised the crowd at the Jamboree in West Virginia in 2017. "The United States has no better citizens than its Boy Scouts. No better," the president told the crowd. He pointed out that 10 of his cabinet members were former Scouts.
Hegseth was never a Boy Scout, and has said he grew up in a church-based youth group that focuses on memorizing Bible verses. Last year, as a Fox News host, he complained about the Scouts changing their name and admitting girls back in 2018.
"The Boy Scouts has been cratering itself for quite some time," Hegseth said. "This is an institution the left didn't control. They didn't want to improve it. They wanted to destroy it or dilute it into something that stood for nothing."
What Hegseth says about the Scouts echoes his moves at the Pentagon, cutting DEI programs and firing some senior female and African-American officers, while suggesting diversity hires weaken the organization.
A draft memo to top Pentagon leaders about Scouting America, which was also shared with NPR, picked up on that theme. "Scouting America has undergone a significant transformation," the memo states. "It is no longer a meritocracy which holds its members accountable to meet high standards."
NBC first reported in April that the Pentagon was considering breaking with Scouting America, citing sources familiar with the move. In a statement to NBC, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said, "Secretary Hegseth and his Public Affairs team thoroughly review partnerships and engagements to ensure they align with the President's agenda and advance our mission."
Banning Scout troops from meeting on military bases in the U.S. and overseas troubles Kenny Grant. He's a retired Army Staff Sergeant who served as a sniper in Iraq and is the parent of three Scouts — two girls and a boy. Because of his military service, his family has moved frequently.
"We went from Louisiana to Alaska. From Alaska to Germany. From Germany to Texas," he said. But at every military base there was a Scout troop that could help ease the transition to a new home. "We don't have to say a word to them, let them go see the other kids, and they'll be immediately integrated in."
Grant was surprised by the proposal to cut all Pentagon ties with the Scouts.
"It's gonna be kind of harsh the way I say this… It's kind of like they don't care about us more than they care about their perceived message. Scouting… It probably is not a perfect organization, but … I can't even say how vast their benefits are, especially for military families."
Scouting has long been a part of military recruiting efforts. As many as 20 percent of cadets and midshipmen at the service academies are Eagle Scouts, according to statistics from Scouting America. Moreover, enlistees who've earned Eagle get advanced military rank and better pay. That practice would end.
The potential impact is causing friction at the Pentagon. In one memo sent to the department's Undersecretary for Policy Elbridge Colby, Navy Secretary John Phelan warns the proposed new policy might be "too restrictive." Up to a third of the Navy's officers in training, he writes, have some scouting background.
"Passive support to Scouting America through access to military installations and educational opportunities aboard said installations serve as a crucial recruiting and community engagement tool for the [Navy]," Phelan wrote in the memo, which NPR also viewed. "Prohibition of access could be detrimental to recruitment and accession efforts across the department."
Whether Hegseth's argument — that supporting the Jamboree and allowing Scout troops on military bases harms national security — will pass muster with Congress is unclear. But the statute also requires the report be submitted "in a timely manner." Planning for next summer's Jamboree is already well underway.
Included in the documents NPR reviewed is a draft letter to the head of Scouting America, informing him that the Secretary has disapproved the use of DoD personnel and equipment for the Jamboree - detailing what will not be available. It concludes, "You have our best wishes for a safe and successful National Scout Jamboree."
Calling His Bluff
Jagoff Congress Critters like James Comer seem to think their job is to make life shitty for people, and get a good video clip for DumFux News.
As Clintons prepare to answer questions about Epstein, Trump balks
Republican Rep. James Comer opened a door that has long been closed. His party might come to regret the decision.
It’s never been altogether clear why Rep. James Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, launched a crusade to get Bill and Hillary Clinton to testify as part of his panel’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation. But the Kentucky Republican did it anyway, even issuing first-of-their-kind subpoenas to compel the Democrats’ testimony.
When the Clintons resisted the cheap, partisan tactics, Comer upped the ante, scheduled a contempt hearing and set the stage for a possible criminal process. The former Democratic president and former secretary of state, left with little choice, ultimately acquiesced.
There’s still some question about how the next steps will unfold, though Hillary Clinton sent an interesting rhetorical shot across Comer’s bow on Thursday morning. “For six months, we engaged Republicans on the Oversight Committee in good faith,” she wrote online. “We told them what we know, under oath. They ignored all of it. They moved the goalposts and turned accountability into an exercise in distraction.”
“So let’s stop the games,” Hillary Clinton added. “If you want this fight, @RepJamesComer, let’s have it — in public. You love to talk about transparency. There’s nothing more transparent than a public hearing, cameras on. We will be there.”
The hapless committee chairman hasn’t yet responded, but in the meantime, there’s also a larger context to all of this. The New York Times reported that no former president has ever been compelled to testify to Congress under subpoena, and Comer has set a precedent his party might ultimately come to regret.
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told the Times that “like all powers of Congress or any other branch, these are powers that can be abused. We’re living in a period of spectacular abuse of power.”
That’s true, though it’s also true that now that the door is open, others can walk through it.
Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, told the Times: “There’s no question that Oversight Democrats will want to speak to Donald Trump and others. That is a precedent that has now been set by Comer and House Republicans.”
It was against this backdrop that NBC News’ Tom Llamas reminded the incumbent president: “Democrats are already saying if you bring President Bill Clinton and he has to testify, we’re bringing President Trump.” Before the anchor could finish his question about this, Trump interjected.
“Well, I think they might say that, you know? But they’ve already brought me. See, I’ve been brought,” the president replied. “They had me indicted, many, many times. Many, many times.”
Like so many of the president’s comments, this didn’t make any sense at all — congressional Democrats had nothing to do with the many criminal charges Trump has faced — though the response suggested he’s not at all eager to answer questions about Epstein, even if subpoenaed in future years, and even if the Clintons cooperate.
Watch this space.
With all the shit the Republicans have been piling on the Clintons for 35 years, they must believe the Epstein files thing is either just the latest thing they can use to embarrass them with, or to distract and deflect - "it's really all about Slick Willy!!!"
It's like they don't know who they're fuckin' with.
I expect not to be surprised if Bill and Hillary end up doing their thing via Questionnaire, or if Comer decides he really doesn't want to risk what happens if he opens that can of worms in public, and calls the whole thing off.
Republican Rep. James Comer opened a door that has long been closed. His party might come to regret the decision.
It’s never been altogether clear why Rep. James Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, launched a crusade to get Bill and Hillary Clinton to testify as part of his panel’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation. But the Kentucky Republican did it anyway, even issuing first-of-their-kind subpoenas to compel the Democrats’ testimony.
When the Clintons resisted the cheap, partisan tactics, Comer upped the ante, scheduled a contempt hearing and set the stage for a possible criminal process. The former Democratic president and former secretary of state, left with little choice, ultimately acquiesced.
There’s still some question about how the next steps will unfold, though Hillary Clinton sent an interesting rhetorical shot across Comer’s bow on Thursday morning. “For six months, we engaged Republicans on the Oversight Committee in good faith,” she wrote online. “We told them what we know, under oath. They ignored all of it. They moved the goalposts and turned accountability into an exercise in distraction.”
“So let’s stop the games,” Hillary Clinton added. “If you want this fight, @RepJamesComer, let’s have it — in public. You love to talk about transparency. There’s nothing more transparent than a public hearing, cameras on. We will be there.”
The hapless committee chairman hasn’t yet responded, but in the meantime, there’s also a larger context to all of this. The New York Times reported that no former president has ever been compelled to testify to Congress under subpoena, and Comer has set a precedent his party might ultimately come to regret.
Members of Congress don’t necessarily think that is a good thing; they want the ability to bring in former presidents when they are relevant witnesses and may have something meaningful to say. And Mr. Comer’s move was a rare power play by a Republican lawmaker at a time when the G.O.P.-led House and Senate have ceded much of their power to the White House.
But his accomplishment also amounted to a remarkable use of government power to target a political adversary — the kind seen more often in autocratic societies where a peaceful transfer of power is not a given because leaders fear ending up in prison after leaving office. And it was one that some experts said further chipped away at the country’s democratic norms.
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told the Times that “like all powers of Congress or any other branch, these are powers that can be abused. We’re living in a period of spectacular abuse of power.”
That’s true, though it’s also true that now that the door is open, others can walk through it.
Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, told the Times: “There’s no question that Oversight Democrats will want to speak to Donald Trump and others. That is a precedent that has now been set by Comer and House Republicans.”
It was against this backdrop that NBC News’ Tom Llamas reminded the incumbent president: “Democrats are already saying if you bring President Bill Clinton and he has to testify, we’re bringing President Trump.” Before the anchor could finish his question about this, Trump interjected.
“Well, I think they might say that, you know? But they’ve already brought me. See, I’ve been brought,” the president replied. “They had me indicted, many, many times. Many, many times.”
Like so many of the president’s comments, this didn’t make any sense at all — congressional Democrats had nothing to do with the many criminal charges Trump has faced — though the response suggested he’s not at all eager to answer questions about Epstein, even if subpoenaed in future years, and even if the Clintons cooperate.
Watch this space.
A Warning
AI is a real danger. And I'm fairly certain of that because the plutocrats are pushing hard to prohibit government from regulating it.
The big question is: Who's already doing this without our knowing about it?
Feb 5, 2026
Overheard
Imagine being so foolish that you look at that guy -
a treacherous, treasonous, totally corrupt
self-dealing, ignorant buffoon -
a racist, semi-literate dumbass -
a sexually assaulting, pathologically lying
feeble-minded, morally bankrupt
constitutionally ignorant simpleton -
this bloated nitwit, with his piss-colored cotton candy hairdo,
and skin that looks like radioactive slag,
obese, disheveled, and sitting in his own shit -
imagine all that, and thinking,
"Now there's a guy I can admire.
I want my kids to grow up and be just like him."
Keith
Fuck Jeff Bezos.
Whenever some schmuck like Dr Oz
argues any point regarding
the economy, it helps to mentally
substitute "my yacht money" for "the economy"
"Starting work younger,
and staying on the job longer
will be a boon to
my yacht money"
"We can't move towards
Universal Healthcare
because that would be
bad for my yacht money"
"We must cut the capital gains tax
because it's good for my yacht money"
"A tax code that's progressive and fair
would negatively impact my yacht money"
IF WE TAX THE RICH NOW
WE WON'T HAVE TO EAT THEM LATER
That Ballroom Thingie
- It pissed him off that Melania refuses to spend any more time in DC than she absolutely has to (ie: than she's contractually obligated to), so he tore it down out of spite
- It's a great opportunity to launder a shit load of bribe money - funny how the price tag has ballooned from the original $150-200M to over $400M now
White House ballroom: Judge signals skepticism of Trump administration arguments
The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued to stop the project.
The federal judge presiding over a challenge to the White House ballroom project signaled deep skepticism of the Trump administration's argument that the president has the legal authority to undertake the East Wing renovations and to fund them with private donations.
In a hearing on Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon pressed an administration lawyer on both of those issues -- as he questioned whether the president has the power to tear down part of what he called "an icon that's a national institution," and described the intent to fund it with private gifts as a "Rube Goldberg contraption" that would evade congressional oversight.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit last month seeking to stop the ballroom construction until the project completes the federal review process standard for federal building projects and the administration seeks public comment on the proposed changes.
White House ballroom architect says West Wing additions considered for 'symmetry'
The National Trust, the privately funded nonprofit designated by Congress to protect historic sites, was seeking a preliminary injunction.
At the end of the hour-long hearing Thursday, Judge Leon said he will likely not issue a decision this month, but "hopefully" in February. He said he expects the losing side to appeal.
In a statement provided to ABC News, White House spokesman Davis Ingle said: "President Trump is working 24/7 to Make America Great Again, including his historic beautification of the White House, at no taxpayer expense. These long-needed upgrades will benefit generations of future presidents and American visitors to the People's House."
The White House announced the construction of a 90,000-square foot ballroom in late July, and demolition began suddenly on the East Wing in late October, when workers were spotted tearing down the wing of the White House that contained the first lady's offices.
The size and cost of the project have increased since first being unveiled. In November, Trump said the project would cost $400 million, after an initial estimate of $200 million. The White House has said the project will be funded by private donations.
Judge Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, said the Trump administration appears to be making an "end run" around congressional oversight with the president's plan to privately raise $400 million for the ballroom project, and he admonished the Justice Department's lawyer to "be serious" in justifying a legal rationale for it.
National Trust for Historic Preservation sues to try to stop White House ballroom construction
While the case presents a series of complicated and overlapping legal issues, the judge spent much of the hearing focused on just two federal statutes -- one, which says that no "building or structure" can be built on any federal public grounds in the District of Columbia "without express authority of Congress," and another that calls for yearly appropriations for the "maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing [and] improvement" of the White House.
Leon noted that Republicans control both houses of Congress, and that the president could have gone to lawmakers to seek approval for the demolition and rebuild. He also suggested the $2.5 million Congress recently appropriated for White House maintenance was for "very small-size projects," not a ballroom.
Justice Department lawyer Yaakov Roth responded that Trump didn't want $400 million in taxpayer money to be used for the project, when he could solicit gifts to the National Park Service to fund it instead. Roth also noted that Congress was never asked in Gerald Ford's era to approve the building of a swimming pool, or a tennis pavilion during Trump's first term.
Trump says no plans to name White House ballroom after himself
Leon said he saw "no basis" in the legislative history of the park service's gift authority that would allow Trump to use it to raise $400 million to build a new White House ballroom. "None," Leon said. "Zero."
Arguing for the National Trust, attorney Tad Heuer described the president as a "temporary tenant of the White House, not the landlord." Leon suggested "steward" might be a more fitting term.
What we know about the donors funding the White House ballroom
As Roth took the podium to begin his argument on behalf of the administration, he attempted to convince the judge that the National Trust has no standing to sue. Leon abruptly cut him off.
"I'm very comfortable with standing in this case," Leon said. "Sorry to disappoint you. You'll get your chance at the Court of Appeals."
Roth warned the judge that an order halting construction at this stage could expose the existing White House structure to damage and potentially lead to security concerns, since it's widely believed that a replacement for a previously-existing underground bunker is part of the project. The National Trust has said it would not object to continued construction on the security portion of the work.
"It can't be divided out that way," Roth said of the security-related construction, "unless we want the court to be the project manager on site."
Leon declined to issue an order from the bench. He said the coming winter storm made it unlikely he would issue a ruling on the National Trust's motion for a preliminary injunction before the end of this month.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)