DOGE says it dug up another $1.9 billion in taxpayer money 'misplaced' by Biden admin
Announcement comes a day after HUD Secretary Scott Turner announced the creation of a DOGE Task Force at his agency

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the Elon Musk-led group tasked with eliminating wasteful spending, on Friday said it found $1.9 billion that was misplaced by the Biden administration.

The funds were from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and have been recovered.

"$1.9 billion of HUD money was just recovered after being misplaced during the Biden administration due to a broken process. These funds were earmarked for the administration of financial services, but were no longer needed," a DOGE post on X stated.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doge-says-dug-another-1-9-billion-taxpayer-money-misplaced-biden-admin

War Pig Rachel Maddow is completely wrong & pushing a conspiracy theory about her political enemies again?!?

Yeah, That’s what she does for a living.

U don’t get a $35million contract from the establishment for telling the truth.

You get $35 million for pushing Russiagate & pushing pro war propaganda, & false Covid propaganda as well.

She’s a garbage person,

WAIT FOR IT -- HIGHLY EMBARRASSING FOR RACHEL MADDOW.

Biden gave the military contract to Tesla. Trump cancelled it.

https://x.com/jimmy_dore/status/1890575111033614678

Jesse Watters February 14, 2025

Elon Musk’s rockets are goddamn monstrous, fucking blasting off to Mars, while AOC’s "rockets" are a one-pump chump—shit goes soft faster than her promises, and her parallel parking’s a sloppy, limp-dick mess! 🚀🍆

Sorry can't help it! 🙇‍♀️

Congress and @doge should obliterate grants that claim to combat "mis-," "dis-," or "malinformation." These Orwellian terms identify government censorship.

Americans shouldn’t be funding government efforts to deprive them of their own right to speak freely.

https://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1890553788517294132

"Finding Harmony: Balancing Minority Inclusion with Majority Coexistence"


Commentary: Balancing Accommodation and Coexistence in a Diverse Society
In an increasingly diverse society, the push for inclusion—whether for cyclists, transgender individuals, or other minorities—has sparked important conversations about equity and fairness. However, when advocacy for these groups feels excessive or overly loud, it risks alienating the majority, creating resentment rather than fostering mutual understanding. This tension raises a critical question: How do we balance accommodation with coexistence, ensuring that "live and let live" applies to everyone?

The sentiment that minorities should adapt to the majority, rather than the majority being forced to "live like the minority," reflects a frustration many feel when changes seem disproportionate. For example, adding bike lanes in areas with few cyclists can frustrate drivers who lose parking or car lanes, making them question why a small group’s needs seem to override theirs. Similarly, transgender-inclusive policies, such as gender-neutral bathrooms or sports regulations, can feel like overreach if they’re poorly explained or seem to prioritize one group at the expense of another. When advocacy becomes loud and confrontational—shaming those who hesitate or disagree—it can blur the line between fair accommodation and imposition, fueling resentment.

This doesn’t mean accommodations are inherently problematic. Bike lanes, ramps for wheelchair users, and inclusive policies are essential for ensuring minorities can participate in society without exclusion or harm. A wheelchair user can’t "adapt" to stairs, and a cyclist shouldn’t risk their life on car-dominated roads. These accommodations don’t force the majority to change their lifestyle—they create space for coexistence. For instance, bike lanes let cyclists and drivers share roads safely, and gender-neutral bathrooms offer an option without mandating use.

The key is balance. Accommodations should be tailored to actual needs, not symbolic gestures that feel excessive. Adding bike lanes where there’s demand makes sense, but imposing them everywhere can alienate drivers. Similarly, transgender-inclusive policies should focus on equity (e.g., safe bathroom access) without creating unnecessary tension, such as in sports where fairness concerns arise. Advocacy, too, must strike a balance. Explaining the shared benefits of inclusion—bike lanes reducing traffic congestion, inclusive policies fostering safer communities—can build support, while accusatory tones risk backlash.

Resentment often stems from poor implementation or communication, not the concept of accommodation itself. When changes feel unfair or disproportionate, the majority may feel their needs are ignored, undermining the mutual tolerance central to "live and let live." To avoid this, society must prioritize thoughtful, transparent solutions. For example, offering gender-neutral bathrooms alongside gendered ones ensures access without imposing change. Emphasizing coexistence over conflict—framing bike lanes as a way to share roads, not take them away—can reduce friction.

Ultimately, "live and let live" means both minorities and the majority should thrive without unnecessary interference. Minorities should be free to live authentically, whether that’s riding bikes or expressing their gender identity, without facing exclusion. The majority should be free to live as they choose, without feeling pressured to adopt practices that don’t apply to them. Thoughtful accommodations bridge this gap, allowing everyone to share public spaces safely and equitably.

If we want to avoid resentment, we must move beyond loud, divisive advocacy and focus on practical, balanced solutions. By respecting both groups’ needs and fostering dialogue, we can build a society where inclusion strengthens coexistence, not undermines it. After all, true tolerance means making room for everyone—not forcing anyone to conform.

Why did the bike lane and the gender-neutral bathroom start a band?

They wanted to sing about "sharing the road" and "room for all," but the crowd got mad—turns out, even their music was accused of taking up too much space!

The Cost of Censorship: Blocking Wisdom and Stalling Progress

Wisdom begins with experience, a "library of past behavior" that grows as we age, offering clarity on past mistakes. This insight, hard-earned by older generations, is a treasure for the young—lessons they can learn without enduring the same struggles. But what happens when censorship blocks this transfer of knowledge? The wisdom of the past becomes inaccessible, leaving the next generation to repeat avoidable errors.

Censorship doesn’t just silence voices; it cuts off the young from the lessons they need to innovate and build on history. When we suppress open dialogue—whether it’s misinformation, conspiracy theories, or uncomfortable truths—we limit critical thinking and force society to stagnate. The education system, meant to foster growth, becomes a barrier when it restricts free speech, trapping us in cycles of repetition rather than progress.

Free speech is the lifeblood of advancement. Without it, we risk remaining stuck in the "Stone Age," unable to evolve. The cost of censorship isn’t just lost wisdom—it’s lost potential. Let’s protect open dialogue and ensure the lessons of the past fuel the innovations of the future. #FreeSpeech #Wisdom #Progress

Posted on X to spark conversation about the dangers of censorship and the need for intergenerational learning. Share your thoughts!