Trump Pulls Funding to World Trade Organization

Boasberg on deck.

Proud to be on page 1 and inside the 30 upvote mark.

The winning is still happening.

This is an example of the WINNING that has taken place almost daily since 1/20/25 that has me scratching my head when some people act like they're jumping ship because "they aren't moving quickly enough" on some front. Or, God forbid, they do something that I might not like.

Hell, I personally encountered one of those situations yesterday. I would love to see Lindsey Graham get primaried in 2026, but President Trump just endorsed him. I'm sure Trump has some reason for doing this (slight margin in the Senate?), but it's not what I wanted to hear.

But am I going to overlook all the great things that are already happening, and great things I think will happen in coming days, weeks, and months, simply because one decision didn't go my way? HELL NO.

Imo, that would constitute the epitome of stupidity. I'm riding the MAGA Train all the way and expecting multiple victories for increased freedom and opportunities for all of us, along with hopefully realizing the goal of having a clean, streamlined government at some point.

You would think that totally legit Libertarians like TDSFP and LiberalHank would support a POTUS that pulls the US out of the WTO.

But, it's almost like they're...oh, what's the word... Democrats.

Wish I had more than 1 up vote

quote:

---

Serious question though, if Congress doesn't make the cuts and continues with the CR nonsense, will things like this continue to get funded whether the money is spent or not?

---

This is where restoration of the Impoundment Act, including the repeal of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 becomes vital.

It's not coincidence that shortly after Nixon took the US off the gold standard (1972) and completely rendered us beholden to the western central banking cartel's US-based branches (aka the Federal Reserve), that the DC swamp passed a law curtailing POTUS' ability to strike items from the federal budget. Congress could appropriate the funds, but the President was the Chief Executive who determined if that appropriated money actually went out.

I asked The Machine to outline the differences:

quote:

---

Original Impoundment Act

Historical Context:
Refers to the practice of impoundment dating back to the early U.S. government, where presidents withheld appropriated funds for various reasons (e.g., efficiency, policy disagreements). There wasn’t a single "Impoundment Act" initially; it was more of a customary power with legal backing from early statutes like the Anti-Deficiency Act of 1905 (later amended).

Presidential Power:
Presidents had broad, discretionary authority to impound (refuse to spend) funds appropriated by Congress. This was often justified as a managerial tool to control spending or avoid waste.

Lack of Congressional Oversight:
No formal mechanism existed to challenge or limit impoundments. Presidents like Jefferson, Grant, and Nixon used this power extensively, sometimes to defy Congress (e.g., Nixon impounded billions in the early 1970s, sparking the push for reform).

Legal Basis:
Relied on implied executive authority and vague statutory language, leading to disputes over separation of powers.

Impoundment Control Act of 1974

Legislative Response:
Enacted as Title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, largely in reaction to Nixon’s aggressive impoundments, which Congress saw as an overreach undermining its "power of the purse."

Presidential Power Restricted:
Eliminated the president’s unilateral ability to permanently withhold funds. It introduced two specific categories:
Deferrals: Temporary delays in spending, subject to Congressional disapproval via a simple majority vote in either chamber.

Rescissions:
Permanent cancellations of funds, requiring explicit Congressional approval within 45 days (if not approved, the funds must be spent).

Congressional Oversight:
Established a structured process where the president must notify Congress of any impoundment via special messages, giving Congress the power to act (e.g., pass a rescission bill or disapprove a deferral).

Legal Framework:
Codified and clarified the rules, shifting control back to Congress and limiting executive discretion to align with the Constitution’s appropriations clause (Article I, Section 9).

---

In a world where we're fully aware of the schemes of career DC swampers, you can see how the ICA of 1974 emboldened Congress to get crazy with their money laundering plans. It allowed the US Treasury to become their private slush fund via appropriations they draw up by/for themselves.

Pair that with unfettered "borrowing" from the Fed's magic money machines that will crank out $1T at the stroke of a pen and the only mystery is how it only took 50 years to get $35T in debt.

quote:

---

How is this still a thing? They gotten aid now for 30 years and still have no control?

---

Look up African dry sex