The Girlfriend

Hey Jerry, we finally agree on something!

*cough cough* BS *cough cough*

Dude should learn his place AMIRITE?

Didn’t read it, huh?

ORRRRRR ORRRRRR Mayyybeee you could just say "Hey, I didn’t get it, or It wasn’t for me." Then maybe make an attempt to understand before declaring it the biggest POS performance at a Super Bowl. Your lack of intellectual curiosity says a lot here. As for your last statement, you keep missing the point, but "OMG a bunch of old white dudes didn’t understand"

Clearly, it was for you either. https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/opinion/column/kendrick-lamar-halftime-show-super-bowl-5IZX3BQUOVEP7IHV6I73BQKRSQ/

Here’s the thing- If you think this was a POS halftime show, you might want to do a little self reflection. Thinking everything needs to revolve around what you care about or enjoy is the epitome of a pretty sh!try attitude.

Loved it! MAGA in here about it makes it even better.

He’s getting sued into oblivion. None of this is legal.

Different Wendy’s.

Not the gotcha you think. USAID functions solely as a tool of U.S. foreign policy created by statute, and it does not possess those constitutional powers.

By creating USAID through the Act, Congress set it up as an independent agency with its own statutory authority. This independence meant that USAID was not merely an arm of the State Department but a separate entity tasked with planning and executing U.S. development and foreign assistance programs around the world. This structure was intended to ensure that development policies could be managed with a degree of flexibility and specialization distinct from traditional diplomatic efforts. While USAID operates independently, it still works closely with other parts of the government, especially the State Department, to align its programs with overall U.S. foreign policy goals. However, the statutory foundation provided by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 ensures that any significant changes to its structure or mission would require legislative action, thereby protecting its independent operational framework.

You might want to visit the Foreign Assistance act of 1961, you dope.

Some of you people should be on anti-psychotics.

My source is Wendy’s.

Yes, the answers are there if you actually have any brain activity left. Maybe try reading and re-reading 1&3 until it sinks in. Any changes have to go through Congress.

AI is coming for governments information

Technically, brick houses are held together with mortar…

https://www.10tv.com/article/news/local/musk-threatens-to-pull-federal-funding-lutheran-social-services-central-ohio/530-f813a6ef-cfcc-48d2-81a4-699f67063c45

Isn’t is about time for Wapner, RainMan?

Under the United States Constitution and the principles of separation of powers, the President does not have unilateral authority to dismantle or cut funding to USAID (the U.S. Agency for International Development). Here are the key reasons: 1. Congressional Power of the Purse: The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive authority to appropriate federal funds. This means that decisions about the budget and funding for federal agencies like USAID must be made by Congress through the appropriations process. The President can propose a budget or suggest changes, but only Congress can authorize and allocate the money. 2. Separation of Powers: The U.S. government is divided into three branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. This system is designed to prevent any one branch from accumulating too much power. While the President heads the executive branch and can influence policy and administration, he cannot unilaterally change the structure or funding of federal agencies because that power resides with the legislative branch (Congress). 3. Agency Independence and Statutory Authority: USAID was established by law and its mission and structure are defined by statutes. Any significant changes to its mandate, organization, or funding levels would require legislative action to amend these laws. The President cannot unilaterally alter these statutory provisions. 4. Checks and Balances: The system of checks and balances ensures that any attempt by the executive branch to make sweeping changes without congressional approval can be challenged in court. If the President were to try to dismantle or cut funding to USAID without going through the proper legislative channels, such actions would likely face legal challenges and could be reversed by the courts. In summary, while the President can influence policy and suggest changes, the power to dismantle or defund a federal agency like USAID lies with Congress, as part of the constitutional checks and balances designed to prevent any branch of government from acting unilaterally on issues of national funding and organizational structure.

Reports now have them inside the VA, Medicaid/Medicare and the NOAA systems.

Sycophant might be a term.