Post

More from @DefiyantlyFree

Insurrection Barbie

@DefiyantlyFree

Mar 22

🧵🧵 Suggestions for desperately needed judicial reform

We need to start figuring out which one of these, or all of these, we want to implement and put pressure on Congress to get it done. These are not things that would only help conservatives, these are completely unbiased and imp partisan solutions to a very partisan problem.

1. Congressional Reforms (Legislation-Based)

These can be passed by Congress without constitutional amendments.

A. Jurisdiction Stripping

What it does: Congress has the constitutional power to limit the types of cases lower federal courts (and in some cases the Supreme Court) can hear.

Example: Prevent federal courts from hearing certain election-related or immigration cases.

Goal: Prevent judicial overreach in politically sensitive areas.

Term Limits for Lower Court Judges

What it does: Impose fixed terms (e.g., 10–15 years) on federal district judges.

Goal: End de facto lifetime appointments that create unaccountable legal fiefdoms.

Note: This would likely require some reinterpretation of Article III or a constitutional amendment.

C. Creation of Judicial Review Boards

What it does: Independent (or congressional) boards to review repeated instances of unconstitutional rulings or injunctions with no basis in law.

Goal: Apply pressure and public accountability for rogue judges.

Could be modeled on: Office of Congressional Ethics or internal DOJ oversight bodies.

D. Venue Reform

What it does: Change the rules for where federal cases can be filed to avoid “judge shopping.”

Example: Prohibit filing nationwide injunction cases in ultra-partisan districts (e.g., Northern District of California or DC Circuit).

Goal: Prevent partisan legal teams from always landing sympathetic judges.

2. Supreme Court Accountability (Legislation + Political Pressure)

A. Supermajority Override for Nationwide Injunctions

What it does: Require at least a panel consensus (e.g., 2 of 3 judges on circuit courts) for any ruling that results in a nationwide injunction.

Goal: Curtail single district judges blocking federal policy for the entire country.

B. Judicial Transparency Act

What it does: Force judges to disclose financial interests, affiliations with activist legal organizations, and conflicts of interest.

Goal: Prevent judges from ruling on cases where they are ideologically or financially compromised (e.g., involvement in political cases tied to donors or NGOs).

Read 6 tweets

Insurrection Barbie

@DefiyantlyFree

Mar 22

🧵🧵 The Law Firms that Run DC

I see a lot of articles saying how President Trump is attacking law firms in Washington DC because he is vindictive. When in fact, it has nothing to do with being vindictive, and everything to do with the fact that they are acting like an extension of the Democratic Party.

This web shows how elite law firms in DC have become de facto political actors, coordinating with bureaucrats, Democratic campaigns, and activist groups to advance one side’s agenda while insulating allies from legal consequences.

1. Perkins Coie

Partisan Alignment: Strongly Democratic

Key Players: Marc Elias, Michael Sussmann

Involved In:

•Russiagate:

•Hired Fusion GPS on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC to create the Steele Dossier.

•Michael Sussmann was indicted for allegedly lying to the FBI about the source of Alfa Bank/Trump server claims (acquitted, but case exposed coordination between Clinton-linked lawyers and the intelligence community).

•Through Marc Elias, aggressively litigated to change election laws in battleground states pre-2020 (e.g., mail-in ballot rules, signature matching, ballot curing).

•Litigated against voter ID laws and redistricting efforts favoring GOP, using courts to alter rules under the guise of civil rights.

2. Elias Law Group

Partisan Alignment: 100% Democratic

Key Player: Marc Elias (founder, formerly at Perkins Coie)

Involved In:

•Election Lawfare:

•Filed hundreds of lawsuits between 2020–2024 aimed at changing ballot deadlines, preventing voter roll purges, and invalidating state-level election reforms.

•Sued states that passed voter integrity laws (Georgia, Texas, Arizona).

•Legal and strategic support for efforts to disqualify Trump from ballots under the 14th Amendment (Section 3).

Read 10 tweets

Insurrection Barbie

@DefiyantlyFree

Mar 21

🧵🧵The media is lying to you about everything DOGE. Bookmark this thread and send it to people who keep telling you that DOGE is dangerous, destructive and an assault on the government.

Narrative # 1: DOGE’s "slash-and-burn" approach has eliminated thousands of federal jobs, causing hardship for workers, including veterans, and creating "tremendous anxiety" (CBS News, Business Insider).

Truth:

1. Reports like Newsweek cite 18,000 IRS and 10,000 USPS layoffs, but this is a fraction of the 2.3 million federal workforce— less than 5%. This isn’t a gutting but a trimming of excess.

2. Anecdotal "anxiety" (e.g., Murkowski’s quote) lacks data showing widespread economic ruin. Federal workers often receive severance or transition to private roles, cushioned by a strong job market.

3. Claims of veteran harm are unproven—Energy Department layoffs spared critical nuclear staff, and no mass veteran layoffs are documented.

4. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has long flagged duplicative roles—e.g., 94 programs across 11 agencies for STEM education cost $3 billion annually with little coordination (GAO, 2018). DOGE’s cuts target such redundancies.

5. With interest on the $35 trillion debt exceeding $1 trillion yearly (CBO projections), each redundant job—say, $80,000/year—compounds the burden. Cutting 100,000 jobs could save $8 billion annually, a small but critical dent.

6. Streamlining bloated agencies like the IRS, which struggles with backlogs despite staffing, ensures taxpayer dollars fund results

Cuts are modest and justified by rampant overlap and fiscal pressure.

Narrative #2: Claim: DOGE operates with "unprecedented authority" and "unusual secrecy," lacking oversight (The Guardian, POLITICO).

Truth:

1. DOGE publicized terminating 3,489 grants and Social Security cleanups refuting total secrecy. The White House calls it "incredibly transparent.”

2. As an advisory body DOGE’s power is limited, and judicial oversight ensures accountability.

3. Opaque bureaucracies hide inefficiency—e.g., $1.7 billion in improper payments annually (GAO, 2023).

4. Delayed transparency during reform is a trade-off for speed. With debt growing $4 billion daily, waiting for perfect disclosure risks paralysis while interest accrues.

5. Historical cuts (e.g., Clinton’s) also faced opacity critiques mid-process but delivered savings—DOGE’s pace is a feature, not a flaw, given the crisis.

6. Waste and Fraud: Opaque bureaucracies hide inefficiency—e.g., $1.7 billion in improper payments annually (GAO, 2023). DOGE’s rapid action, even if messy, exposes and corrects this.

7. Debt Context: Delayed transparency during reform is a trade-off for speed. With debt growing $4 billion daily, waiting for perfect disclosure risks paralysis while interest accrues.

8. Practicality: Historical cuts (e.g., Clinton’s) also faced opacity critiques mid-process but delivered savings—DOGE’s pace is a feature, not a flaw, given the crisis.

Overstated. Imperfect transparency is a byproduct of urgent reform, not evasion.

Read 4 tweets

Insurrection Barbie

@DefiyantlyFree

Mar 21

🧵🧵How Obama Made the Intelligence State Untouchable

1/ Barack Obama didn’t create the U.S. intelligence leviathan — but he perfected it.

Under his leadership, intelligence became decentralized, privatized, and embedded so deeply into the state that no one — not even the President — could fully control it again. Here’s how it happened:

After 9/11, Bush built the post-Patriot Act security architecture. But Obama normalized it. He expanded it. And he protected it from consequences.

His actions didn’t just preserve the system — they sanctified it as the new status quo.

Let’s start with surveillance:

When Edward Snowden revealed illegal NSA mass surveillance in 2013 (bulk metadata, PRISM, etc.), Obama didn’t dismantle the system. He:
•Defended it publicly
•Prosecuted leakers
•Refused to prosecute architects of the programs
•Renewed the Patriot Act in 2011 (despite a Democratic majority in Congress)

Read 13 tweets

Insurrection Barbie

@DefiyantlyFree

Mar 20

🧵🧵Politico released an article titled "USDA halts millions of dollars worth of deliveries to food banks"

Let’s break it down to show how the corporate media uses conjecture and innuendo, instead of verified sources and facts to push false narratives.

To be an informed citizen, you have to learn how to consume information. Let’s break down the claims the article makes, examine the people making the claims and determine if this is reporting the news or selling a narrative that they know is not based in facts.

Summary of the article:

The Politico article claims that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), under the Trump administration, has halted millions of dollars in food deliveries to food banks through The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).

They specifically cite that $500 million allocated for fiscal year 2025 was canceled.

It states that this follows a separate $1 billion cut to programs supporting schools and food banks purchasing food from farms.

The article suggests these cuts are part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to redirect funds, possibly from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), to other priorities, leaving food banks in a lurch amid rising hunger needs.

Ok narrative: Trump is evil and purposefully cutting food bank programs so people starve while his billionaire friends get richer.

Let’s examine the first claim: USDA halted $500 million in TEFAP deliveries for FY 2025.

The article specifies that $500 million was intended for TEFAP, a program historically funded through a mix of farm bill appropriations and USDA commodity purchases.

It notes that last month (February 2025), the USDA canceled solicitations from suppliers, per an email from Feeding America cited in the article.

A USDA employee, speaking anonymously, allegedly said the Trump administration was clawing back CCC funds previously allocated by the Biden administration.

This entire claim hinges on secondary sources only. An email from an organization that gets government grants and one anonymous employee at USDA.

No USDA press releases, budget documents, or named officials.

On March 20, 2025, an entire month since the email to cut funding, one would expect an official statement if such a significant cut occurred, especially given the public backlash this story is getting on X.

The CCC is a real entity with a flexible budget (historically capped at $30 billion annually but adjustable by administration priorities) used to support agricultural programs, including food assistance.

Redirecting funds is within the executive branch’s discretionary authority over such programs, especially if Congress hasn’t explicitly locked the funds.

However, the article doesn’t provide concrete evidence (e.g., official USDA statements or budget documents) beyond the Feeding America email and an anonymous source.

Without these, the exact amount ($500 million) and the full cancellation remain unverified.

This is just an allegation. Not a declaration.

Read 6 tweets

Insurrection Barbie

@DefiyantlyFree

Mar 17

🧵🧵Sadly, because people are incapable of critical, thinking I have to debunk this— no Israel is not behind 9/11 🙄

Below are the three favorite “claims” in support of that and why they are wrong.

“The Dancing Israelis"

One widely cited story involves five Israeli men detained in New Jersey on 9/11 after reportedly being seen celebrating or filming the attack. Apparently they are Mossad.

The men were employees of Urban Moving Systems, a company owned by an Israeli, Dominik Suter.

The FBI investigated them due to suspicious behavior (e.g., filming the burning towers) and found cameras, cash, and foreign passports in their van.

After extensive interrogation, including polygraph tests, the FBI concluded they had no prior knowledge of the attacks. They were deported for visa violations, not espionage or terrorism.

Their behavior—filming a major event—was not unique; many people documented 9/11.

The "celebration" claim stems from unverified witness accounts that were never substantiated.

There is zero evidence that links them to Mossad or the attacks’ planning.

The story was sensationalized by outlets like ABC News but clarified by subsequent FBI findings.

“No Jews Died in the Attacks"

Jewish employees at the World Trade Center were warned to stay home, implying Israeli foreknowledge.

Again lol false.

2,977 victims, estimates suggest 270–400 were Jewish, roughly 9–15% of the total. This aligns with the Jewish population in New York City at the time (about 9–10%).

The rumor originated from a misreported claim that "4,000 Israelis" didn’t show up to work, which conflated a news report about Israel checking on its citizens in the area. No such mass absence occurred.

Read 6 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Insurrection Barbie

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @DefiyantlyFree

Insurrection Barbie

Insurrection Barbie

Insurrection Barbie

Insurrection Barbie

Insurrection Barbie

Insurrection Barbie

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!