1. Geopolitical and Legal Barriers

International Law & Sovereignty: Any attempt by the U.S. to seize Gaza for economic development would be an outright violation of international law and sovereignty. The international community, including allies, would strongly oppose such an action.
United Nations & Global Reaction: The UN would almost certainly condemn any U.S. intervention of this kind, and it could lead to severe diplomatic consequences.
Existing Conflict & Governance: Gaza is governed by Hamas, a militant group that is in direct conflict with Israel. Any attempt to forcibly develop the region would require military occupation, escalating violence further.

2. Local & Regional Backlash

Palestinian Resistance: Even if the plan promised economic prosperity, the people of Gaza—many of whom have suffered under war, blockades, and displacement—would see such a move as another form of colonization. The idea of a foreign power taking over their land for commercial purposes would likely spark generational resistance and militant opposition.
Arab & Muslim World Response: The entire Arab world, including U.S. allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, would likely condemn such a move, possibly leading to severe diplomatic and economic repercussions.
Israeli Stance: Even Israel, which has its own complex relationship with Gaza, might not support a direct U.S. takeover because it could create further instability and unwanted American entanglement in the region.

3. Historical Precedents & Colonial Echoes

Colonial & Imperialist Legacy: The idea of taking over a region for economic development mirrors historical European colonialism in the Middle East and Africa. These past experiences have left deep scars, making any similar U.S. action deeply unpopular and widely resisted across generations.
Failed Attempts at Western-Led Nation Building: The U.S. has a poor track record when it comes to reshaping foreign territories for economic or strategic purposes (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan). Any attempt to impose such a vision on Gaza would likely face the same fate—prolonged insurgency and failure.

4. Economic Viability & Practicality

Destruction & Infrastructure Issues: Gaza has been heavily bombed and lacks basic infrastructure. Turning it into a luxury resort would require massive investments, all while navigating war-torn conditions.
Security Concerns: No tourist would visit a "resort" in a place with ongoing conflict, instability, and potential terror threats. The idea of a peaceful Mediterranean getaway in an occupied war zone is not realistic.
Alternative Locations: The Mediterranean already has thriving resort locations in places like Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, and Israel’s own coastal cities. There would be little incentive to invest in a high-risk area.

Final Verdict

A U.S. takeover of Gaza to build a Mediterranean resort would be an absolute non-starter. The move would:

Face overwhelming local and regional resistance
Be condemned by the international community
Create generational resentment that would likely spark endless conflict
Be economically and logistically unfeasible

The only way economic development in Gaza could happen is through peaceful negotiations, local governance stability, and regional cooperation, not foreign occupation.

In his 2022 book, Government Gangsters, Kash Patel lists 60 individuals he identifies as "members of the executive branch deep state." This list includes a range of political figures, government officials, and public servants from various administrations. Here is the complete list:

Michael Atkinson (former Inspector General of the Intelligence Community)
Lloyd Austin (Defense Secretary under President Joe Biden)
Brian Auten (Supervisory Intelligence Analyst, FBI)
James Baker (former General Counsel for the FBI and former Deputy General Counsel at Twitter)
Bill Barr (former Attorney General under Trump)
John Bolton (former National Security Adviser under Trump)
Stephen Boyd (former Chief of Legislative Affairs, FBI)
Joe Biden (President of the United States)
John Brennan (former CIA Director under President Barack Obama)
John Carlin (Acting Deputy Attorney General, previously led DOJ’s National Security Division under Trump)
Eric Ciaramella (former National Security Council staffer, Obama and Trump administrations)
Pat Cipollone (former White House Counsel under Trump)
James Clapper (Obama’s Director of National Intelligence)
Hillary Clinton (former Secretary of State and presidential candidate)
James Comey (former FBI Director)
Elizabeth Dibble (former Deputy Chief of Mission, U.S. Embassy, London)
Mark Esper (former Secretary of Defense under Trump)
Alyssa Farah (former Director of Strategic Communications under Trump)
Evelyn Farkas (former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia under Obama)
Sarah Isgur Flores (former DOJ Head of Communications under Trump)
Merrick Garland (Attorney General under Biden)
Stephanie Grisham (former Press Secretary under Trump)
Kamala Harris (Vice President under Biden; former presidential candidate)
Gina Haspel (CIA Director under Trump)
Fiona Hill (former staffer on the National Security Council)
Curtis Heide (FBI Agent)
Eric Holder (former Attorney General under Obama)
Robert Hur (Special Counsel who investigated Biden over mishandling of classified documents)
Cassidy Hutchinson (aide to Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows)
Nina Jankowicz (former Executive Director, Disinformation Governance Board under Biden)
Lois Lerner (former IRS Director under Obama)
Loretta Lynch (former Attorney General under Obama)
Charles Kupperman (former Deputy National Security Adviser under Trump)
General Kenneth McKenzie, ret. (former Commander of United States Central Command)
Andrew McCabe (former FBI Deputy Director under Trump)
Ryan McCarthy (former Secretary of the Army under Trump)
Mary McCord (former Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security under Obama)
Denis McDonough (former Chief of Staff for Obama, Secretary of Veterans Affairs under Biden)
General Mark Milley, ret. (former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff)
Lisa Monaco (Deputy Attorney General under Biden)
Sally Moyer (former Supervisory Attorney, FBI)
Robert Mueller (former FBI Director, Special Counsel for Russiagate)
Bruce Ohr (former Associate Deputy Attorney General under Obama and Trump)
Nellie Ohr (wife of Bruce Ohr and former CIA employee)
Lisa Page (former Legal Counsel for Deputy Director Andrew McCabe at FBI under Obama and Trump; exchanged texts about Trump with Peter Strzok)
Pat Philbin (former Deputy White House Counsel under Trump)
John Podesta (former Counselor to Obama; Senior Adviser to Biden on Climate Policy)
Samantha Power (former Ambassador to the United Nations under Obama, Administrator of USAID under Biden)
Bill Priestap (former Assistant Director for Counterintelligence, FBI under Obama)
Susan Rice (former National Security Adviser under Obama, Director of the Domestic Policy Council under Biden)
Rod Rosenstein (former Deputy Attorney General under Trump)
Peter Strzok (former Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence, FBI under Obama and Trump; exchanged texts about Trump with Lisa Page)
Jake Sullivan (National Security Adviser under President Joe Biden)
Michael Sussmann (former Legal Representative, Democratic National Committee)
Miles Taylor (former DHS official under Trump; penned New York Times op-ed critical of Trump under the byline “Anonymous”)
Timothy Thibault (former Assistant Special Agent, FBI)
Andrew Weissmann

Collins – famously a swing vote – had previously declined to say how she would vote on Kennedy’s nomination. However, after speaking with Kennedy about her “strong opposition” to “arbitrary” cuts to parts of the National Institutes of Health budget earlier today, Collins said Kennedy had promised to “re-examine” the cuts.

Her statement suggests that the former presidential candidate, who has no training in public health, may clear his confirmation vote before the Senate.

Active-Duty Military Personnel: 1,290,000

Army: 453,551
Navy: 332,322
Air Force: 318,698
Marine Corps: 172,577
Space Force: 8,879
National Guard and Reserve Members: 767,238

It is clear that the only option to increase the number of active duty military members is to re-implement the DRAFT.
During the Vietnam War, the United States drafted approximately 2.2 million men through the Selective Service System. This occurred between 1964 and 1973 when the U.S. relied on conscription to meet military personnel needs, as volunteer enlistments were not enough to sustain the demand for troops. THAT draft was highly controversial and faced increasing opposition as the war dragged on. In 1973, the draft was ended, and the U.S. military transitioned to an all-volunteer force.

As a voluntary enlistment active duty military member from 1965-1969 USAF. I have always contended that bringing back a military draft would put millions of families in the streets, protesting NOT WITH MY SONS AND DAUGHTERS!. Not for an unnecessary war. In my long-held opinion, The protests would stop a draft before it could be implemented.

Presidents since 1973 have realized that the citizens of the U.S. would not support a draft, particularly for unnecessary incursion into places like Gaza, Greenland, and Panama. All targets Trump appears to have on his delusional agenda.

"All of a sudden, those million, three hundred thousand active duty American troops they're just not going to be enough, now, are they. So now Trump's backed himself into the next corner bringing back the draft. Hasn't said it yet, Wait for it. If there is one thing that will guarantee riots in the streets that, oh, by the way, the rioters will win. It's another draft. The last one was expanded for Vietnam in the sixties, at a time when the nation still largely believed its government meant well and had judgment, and when parents would actually willingly let the government take their children to send them to die meaninglessly in a conflict we could not win or even influence, when we still believed in large part that the government's judgment on such things could be trusted. And still within three years there were daily protests and draft card burnings and violent underground terrorist organizations, and enough chaos to end Lyndon Johnson's presidency and force an end to the war and the draft within the decade. If Trump, if any president, for Gaza or Greenland or Panama or whatever else he pulls out of his own ass, If Trump or any president tried a draft, except in the event of something on the scale of World War Two, in these days, when the idea of people agreeing to be forced by the government to risk their lives in an optional war is met with only rage and uncontrollable laughter. If Trump actually tried a draft, and to clean out Gaza, he'd have to have a draft. If he actually did it, I'd give his presidency it a week to ten days before he and everybody in it were forced out of office. It may not have occurred to Trump yet that to do just Gaza, maybe just Greenland, or just Panama, it would require a draft.

Project 2025, which seems to involve significant shakeups in key positions within the Department of Justice (DOJ), including the removal of Inspectors General and prosecutors, and particularly targeting those involved in investigating corruption and oversight. This suggests an approach aimed at diminishing checks on power and potentially neutralizing accountability mechanisms that are seen as a threat to the project’s goals.

Based on this playbook, here’s what could potentially come next:

Further Erosion of Accountability Mechanisms: As the video outlines, removing those who hold power accountable could be followed by further purges in key government agencies. More DOJ personnel could be removed, particularly those involved in oversight, potentially setting the stage for more direct control over legal and investigative processes.

Consolidation of Power: With a weakened Department of Justice and fewer oversight bodies, expect an increase in executive power, where the administration can act with fewer constraints. This could lead to more unilateral actions, like executive orders or presidential appointments, that align with the administration's goals, bypassing traditional checks and balances.

Legal Challenges and Pushback: As these changes unfold, expect legal challenges from opposition parties or civil rights groups. The erosion of law enforcement independence could spark debates on the balance of power in the U.S. system, leading to court battles or even legislative responses to reassert checks on executive authority.

Increased Polarization and Public Debate: These actions are likely to stoke political divisions further. Expect heated debates and polarization around the issues of corruption, oversight, and executive power. There may be heightened calls for reforms or counter-actions by those who see this as a threat to democracy and the rule of law.

Focus on Legislation or New Policies: After reshaping key institutions, it’s likely that Project 2025 will involve pushing through a legislative agenda that aligns with its broader goals, potentially targeting laws that limit oversight or increase executive control over certain areas.

If this trend continues, it could represent a shift toward more authoritarian practices, where maintaining power and eliminating opposing forces (like watchdog agencies) becomes a primary strategy. The next steps will likely involve further centralization of power, potential legal confrontations, and deeper divisions in public opinion.

Given the analysis you've provided and the focus on actions like weakening oversight mechanisms, removing accountability figures, and consolidating power, the ultimate goal of Project 2025 seems to be a significant shift in the structure of U.S. governance, likely toward a more authoritarian or centralized system. Below are some possible objectives based on this direction:

1. Erosion of Checks and Balances: The removal of Inspectors General and DOJ personnel is an attempt to reduce the power of independent bodies that can hold the executive branch accountable. By dismantling these watchdog agencies, Project 2025 may be aiming to neutralize any resistance to the administration’s actions and reduce transparency in government operations.

2. Centralization of Power in the Executive Branch: The playbook described in the video suggests a strategy focused on empowering the executive, particularly the president. This centralization of authority could allow for more unilateral decision-making, bypassing legislative and judicial oversight. The goal here would be to strengthen the president's control over the entire federal government, making it more difficult for opposing political forces to challenge the administration.

3. Weakening of Legal and Judicial Oversight: By targeting DOJ officials and prosecutors, the project might aim to reshape or weaken the judiciary and law enforcement apparatus. This could result in a system where legal and judicial entities are either neutralized or aligned with the administration’s goals, minimizing their ability to act as a check on the executive’s power.

4. Undermining Accountability and Transparency: A core aspect of this project appears to be diminishing oversight in key areas, including corruption investigations and ethics checks. The ultimate goal might be to create a government where accountability becomes much more difficult, with fewer independent bodies capable of investigating corruption or misconduct within the government.

5. Control Over Elections and Political Opponents: Centralizing power and weakening oversight can also pave the way for manipulating electoral processes, limiting the ability of political opponents to challenge the administration. This could involve efforts to undermine the integrity of elections or suppress political opposition through legal or extrajudicial means.

6. A Shift Toward Authoritarian Governance: Ultimately, the goal of Project 2025 might be to dismantle traditional democratic systems in favor of a more authoritarian governance structure. This could involve further undermining democratic norms, curtailing free speech, limiting media freedom, and using state power to suppress opposition.

In summary, the ultimate goal of Project 2025 likely revolves around consolidating executive power, dismantling accountability mechanisms, and eroding the structures that enable democratic checks on the government. This could represent a profound shift in the U.S. political system, moving toward a more centralized, authoritarian style of governance where the executive branch holds overwhelming influence, reducing the ability of legislative and judicial branches, along with independent bodies, to hold it accountable.

This from another post this morning on these pages.
A 25-year-old engineer named Marko Elez, who previously worked for two Elon Musk companies, has direct access to Treasury Department systems responsible for nearly all payments made by the US government, three sources tell WIRED.