Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

“The Real Motive of Liberals have nothing to do with the welfare of other people. Instead, they have two related goals–to establish themselves as morally and intellectually superior to the rather distasteful population of common people, and to gather as much power as possible to tell those distasteful common people how they must live their lives.”
– Thomas Sowell

Attendees at AOC and Bernie Sanders Denver Rally Openly Threaten to Kill President Trump.

Attendees of a recent Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders rally in Denver were openly calling for the murder of President Donald Trump. We guess the Democrat Party has abandoned its ‘Joy’ message from the 2024 presidential election.

Have a listen, they’re not bashful. (WATCH – PROFANITY WARNING)

As ambassadors of the far left wing of the Democrat Party, this sentiment is in line with the socialism and Marxism the two advocate.

We’ll be hearing a lot more of this the closer we get to the midterm elections. Commenters say it’s bad for America.

Continue reading “”

 HUGE: Barack Obama Was Using USAID to Pretend to Send ‘Aid’ Overseas But Was Laundering It to Train ‘Rent-a-Riots’ Instead.

Mike Benz, the founder of the Foundation for Freedom Online, recently joined Joe Rogan on his very popular podcast The Joe Rogan Experience with over 19 million subscribers.

** The entire podcast is here.

The podcast was filmed several weeks ago but a clip from this discussion is making the rounds this week on social media.
During their conversation, Mike Benz shared how Barack Obama was using money to USAID to pretend to send “aid” overseas. In actuality, Obama was laundering the taxpayer dollars and using it to train “rent-a-mobs” instead!

This is a huge development but maybe not so surprising considering how Democrats believe they can do anything they please. With other people’s money.

Continue reading “”

Judge includes new USAID head in order against dismantling the agency

Days after a federal judge blocked billionaire Elon Musk and the U.S. DOGE Service from taking further actions to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development, he made clear in a separate ruling this week that the prohibition also applied to the agency’s new chief operating officer — a former DOGE team leader inside USAID who started his new role on the day of the first order.

Jeremy Lewin, a 28-year-old Harvard Law School grad on DOGE’s team dismantling USAID, joined the humanitarian agency Tuesday as its chief operating officer and deputy administrator for policy and programming, according to a court filing Wednesday by the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice asked the Maryland federal judge to clarify or modify his order so that it wouldn’t apply to Lewin.

U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang, in declining the request Thursday, added that he reserves the right to modify the preliminary injunction to expand who it applies to if “additional personnel actions have the effect of circumventing” it.

On Friday, the Department of Justice filed notice that it will appeal Chuang’s original ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Continue reading “”

Space Force General: Chinese Satellites ‘Dogfighting’ in Orbit.

The vice chief of the U.S. Space Force said Chinese satellites have been observed rehearsing “dogfighting” maneuvers in low Earth orbit, a display of the communist nation’s ability to perform complex maneuvers in orbit.

The maneuvers, referred to as rendezvous and proximity operations, involve not only navigating around other objects but also inspecting them, the Air Force Times reported Tuesday.

“With our commercial assets, we have observed five different objects in space maneuvering in and out and around each other in synchronicity and in control,” Vice Chief of Space Operations Gen. Michael Guetlein said Tuesday at the McAleese Defense Programs Conference in Washington, D.C.

A Space Force spokesperson told the Air Force Times the observation occurred in 2024 and involved three Shiyan-24C experimental satellites and two other Chinese experimental spacecraft, the Shijian-605 A and B. The Shijian-6 systems were believed to be on a signals intelligence mission, which could be used to determine the geolocation of a signal’s origin, which helps in identifying the location and movements of adversaries, according to the American Military Institute.

Guetlein’s comments came as the Space Force intensifies efforts to establish dominance in space, both by defending its satellites from enemy attacks and through offensive measures of its own, according to the Air Force Times.

“The purpose of the Space Force is to guarantee space superiority for the joint force — not space for space’s sake,” Guetlein said. “Space [operations] guarantee that, just like all the other domains, we can fight as a joint force, and we can depend on those capabilities.”

Guetlein used the satellite dogfighting demonstration among other concerning activities from “near-peer” U.S. adversaries. That included Russia’s 2019 demonstration of a “nesting doll,” during which a satellite released a smaller spacecraft that then performed several stalking maneuvers near a U.S. satellite.

Such operations indicate the space capability gap between the U.S. military and its closest adversaries is shrinking, a concern Space Force leaders have been raising for years, the Air Force Times reported.

“That capability gap used to be massive,” Guetlein said. “We’ve got to change the way we look at space or that capability gap may reverse and not be in our favor anymore.”

The Only “Constitutional Crisis” is That Democrats Lost, Now They’re Trying To Govern from the Courtroom

My Hot Take on Democat Lawfare: “There is no constitutional crisis other than the Democrats lost. They are trying to create a constitutional crisis by having the judiciary and the federal district courts assume control of the executive branch.”

Democrats have launched a pre-planned, well-organized lawfare campaign against the Trump administration.

The NY Times reported in late November 2024 on the massive effort which was two-years in the making and in the immediate post-election period focused heavily on finding plaintiffs and lining up legal groups to challenge expected Trump policies:

More than 800 lawyers at 280 organizations have begun developing cases and workshopping specific challenges to what the group has identified as 600 “priority legal threats” — potential regulations, laws and other administrative actions that could require a legal response, its leaders said. The project, called Democracy 2025, aims to be a hub of opposition to the new Trump administration….

Democracy Forward has spent the last two years working to identify the possible actions the new Trump administration could take on issues they see as key priorities to defend, the group’s leaders said, using as a blueprint Mr. Trump’s first-term actions, his campaign promises and plans released by his allies, including the Heritage Foundation and its Project 2025 agenda….

The flotilla of lawyers is preparing to challenge new regulations released by the Trump administration, even beginning the process of recruiting potential plaintiffs who would have legal standing in court.

We have seen the fruits of the lawfare planning in the opening three weeks of the Trump administration, with several dozen lawsuits filed, and many (not all) district court judges willing at least to grant temporary restraining orders, incuding one ex parte TRO issued by an emergency duty judge at 1 a.m. last Saturday morning that by its terms removed political appointee control of Treasury payment systems. (That TRO was scaled back by the judge permanently assigned to the case, and is under review by her in a ruling expected soon.) It may be that the short-term TROs are not extended to longer-term preliminary injunctions, and if that happens the “crisis” may solve itself, but I’m not hopeful.

Here is my ‘hot take’ on how the lawfare, not the Trump administration, is creating the real ‘constitutional crisis’. This is a short excerpt from my much longer (almost 20 minute) explanation as part of the podcast we just posted.

Continue reading “”

For A Party Of ‘Joy,’ Democrats Are Awfully Miserable

In the months leading up to the 2024 election, Democrats had convinced themselves that they’d settled on the perfect campaign message. Not content with simply slandering their chief political rival as a Hitler-loving Nazi to distract from their disastrous policies, they arbitrarily declared themselves the party of “joy.”

“Forget the bad economy and border invasion, we’re all about the good vibes!” — or so went your typical Kamala Harris campaign appearance.

If it wasn’t obvious already (it should’ve been), it’s clear to any casual observer that tagline was nothing more than a facade.

Since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, Democrats have come down with a strong case of misery. No matter the policy or how much success it might reap for the American people, Democrats have treated nearly every action the president has taken as if it’s a world-ending crisis.

Case in point: Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

On Wednesday, Harris’ weird vice presidential pick threw a hissy fit before local media, in which he dramatically bemoaned Trump’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education and return the issue to the states where it belongs. In his incoherent screed, Walz fearmongered that laying off agency employees would harm children’s learning and produce devastating consequences for America’s educators.


But the Minnesota governor’s tantrum is a microcosm of the blind rage displayed by Democrats since Trump’s comeback.

Earlier this week, a Massachusetts Democrat had a meltdown at a House subcommittee hearing after his Republican colleague correctly referred to Rep. Tim “Sarah” McBride, D-Del. — a trans-identifying man — as “Mr. McBride.” The childish display came a week after another House Democrat got kicked out of Trump’s address to Congress for repeatedly interrupting the president’s speech.

These actions don’t even include those undertaken by the party’s unhinged base, whose behavior has been equally — if not more — despicable.

Continue reading “”

Elon Musk Drops New Info About Massive Cyberattack Against X

There were some major outages on the social media platform X on Monday, with X owner Elon Musk saying it was due to a “massive cyberattack” that went on throughout the morning and afternoon.

“We get attacked every day, but this was done with a lot of resources,” Musk explained. “Either a large, coordinated group and/or a country is involved.”

He went on to say they were “tracing” the attack.

Musk later appeared on Fox Business with Larry Kudlow where he was asked about the cyberattack and about whether it was “foreign sourced.”

“Well, we don’t we’re not sure exactly what happened, but there was a massive cyber attack to try to bring down the X system with IP addresses originating in the Ukraine area,” Musk said.

Now it should be noted that IP addresses showing as Ukraine doesn’t necessarily mean Ukrainians did it when the people behind the action might be using VPNs. Would Ukraine really leave a trail back to themselves if they did it? That would seem a bad move.

The folks who truly have a lot to lose from Musk’s actions are the people whose power he is disrupting here in the U.S. Those are the folks who want him out of government. But Musk may have more information and he’ll likely find out even more as he continues to look into it. Chances are they will run these characters to ground when they make such a huge attack.

The day before, some were spreading a false story that Musk wanted to cut off Starlink to Ukraine. Both he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio scotched that story. But that further hyped the “Ukraine anger” against Musk.

 

A lot of people faced outages, and there still seem to be issues with such things as embedding tweets and things.

Meanwhile, a group called Dark Storm Team claimed credit for the attack.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
So in conclusion, please: Stop politicizing everything. Stop looking for counterfactual counter-narratives. Give credit where credit is due.
And most importantly, stop posting legal arguments that are completely devoid of law. You have a responsibility to the people of this country.
Do better.

Mark Goldfeder

Dear @Senate Judiciary Democrats 🇺🇸 (🦋 now on bsky) , You are so incredibly wrong, and I can prove it. A thread, in response to yours. The only difference? Mine has citations. Let me explain:

Just to recap… Mahmoud Khalil exercises his First Amendment rights. But, Donald Trump and Marco Rubio didn’t agree with what he said.


To begin, the Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(a)(3) contains a number of activities for which a person can be deemed ineligible based on security and related grounds. Subsection (B)(i) has nine grounds related to terrorism. uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req

Most of the nine are not controversial at all- people engaging in terrorism, etc.

The one that has you all indignant is ground number (VII): [Any alien who] endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;

You say you are concerned that this ground would violate the First Amendment rights of someone like Mahmoud Khalil. Let’s examine that contention.

First, let us be clear that you are not arguing that he has not endorsed or supported terror. I say this because if only you expressed any concern about the people he has been terrifying for over a year, maybe I would have some sympathy for your crocodile tears now. You didn’t.

So the question becomes: Are his First Amendment rights the exact same as a citizen’s First Amendment rights? The answer may surprise you: Not exactly, but it does not matter.

At least some First Amendment protections do apply differently to aliens than they do to citizens. Ready for those citations? See, for example. Citizens United v. FEC 558 U.S. 3 I0, 419-424 & n.51 (2010)

“The Government routinely places special restrictions on the speech rights of students, prisoners, members of the Armed Forces, foreigners, and its own employees. When such restrictions are justified by a legitimate governmental interest, they do not necessarily raise constitutional problems…the constitutional rights of certain categories of speakers, in certain contexts, “ ‘are not automatically coextensive with the rights’ ” that are normally accorded to members of our society, Morse v. Frederick , 551 U. S. 393, 396–397, 404 (2007) (quoting Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser , 478 U. S. 675, 682 (1986)).”

Now, my dear Dems, are there any cases discussing the types of ways in which speech rights might be applied differently to foreigners who do specific things, including advocating for certain group that for good reason, considers dangerous and a threat to national security?

Why yes! Thank you for asking. In fact, there is over 120 years of Supreme Court precedent! See Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279 (1904)

(This case was about anarchists who wanted to violently overthrow the government, but you can substitute Hamas affiliated anti-West agitators who want to…violently overthrow our institutions):

“…Congress was of opinion that the tendency of the general exploitation of such views is so dangerous to the public weal that aliens who hold and advocate them would be undesirable additions to our population, whether permanently or temporarily, whether many or few; and, in the light of previous decisions, the act, even in this aspect, would not be unconstitutional, as applicable to any alien who is opposed to all organized government…

We are not to be understood as depreciating the vital importance of freedom of speech and of the press, or as suggesting limitations on the spirit of liberty, in itself, unconquerable, but this case does not involve those considerations. The flaming brand which guards the realm where no human government is needed still bars the entrance, and as lone as human governments endure, they cannot be denied the power of self-preservation, as that question is presented here.”

So our first conclusion is this: The First Amendment might apply with some conditions to foreigners, and based on Supreme Court precedent this is literally one of those conditions.

Continue reading “”

The demoncraps thought they had him pinned down, but like Antaeus who regained his strength when he touched the earth, Trump grew more powerful. He has mentally broken them.
The problem is that the insane often are quite dangerous

Democrats Locked in Their Own Hell

What is the Democrat message? Do they even know?

Is the Democrat message pure Jacobin hatred for anything pro-American and anything that could be considered pro-President Donald Trump?

They’re feral creatures now, lonely, isolated, frightened without leadership, desperate for relevance, without any cogent message, terrified at what’s to become of them.

And quite mad, like inmates in Victorian lunatic asylum.

The other day Democrat pundit Chris Matthews appeared on a “Morning Joe” panel on left-wing MSNBC. He skipped the old Trump is Hitler shtick, ranting instead that Trump was Mussolini. He might as well have channeled the lunatic Renfield from an old Dracula movie, laughing maniacally, chanting “the blood is the life! the blood is the life!”

Some kind soul might tell Matthews and other MSNBC attention seekers that the blood of rats and birds and flies are not the life. Nor is jabbering paranoia. For political parties, votes are the life. And they keep losing them. Americans appeal to common sense, not to mad ravings.

Long ago, the Democrat Party had a choice:

Cleanse themselves of their Barack Obama infection, cleanse themselves of Obama’s racist and radical addiction to racial preferences that we now know as DEI, amputate any limbs that had become sodden with jacobin  gangrene and become what they had been: a patriotic American party of the American working class.

Or, they could continue following the discredited Clintons and Obamas down the sewer.

The Democrats chose the sewer.

Continue reading “”

New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Governor’s ‘Emergency’ Carry Ban

The U.S. Constitution declares that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but on Thursday a divided New Mexico Supreme Court gave its stamp of approval to an egregious infringement on the right to carry when it upheld Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s emergency public health declaration that included the creation of new “gun-free zones” by executive fiat.

Grisham’s original public health order suspended the right to carry in all of Albuquerque and across Bernalillo County, but after a federal judge issued an injunction barring enforcement Grisham revised her order limiting the carry ban to parks and playgrounds. That was the declaration challenged in state court by a host of citizens, lawmakers, and both the Republican and Libertarian parties, and in a 3-2 decision the state’s highest court declared that Grisham’s orders were within her authority.

At the heart of the case, the 3-2 ruling by the Supreme Court found Lujan Grisham’s orders did not overstep a state law that grants governors broad powers in response to the “occurrence or immediate threat” of serious public emergencies.

Justices Brianna Zamora and Michael Vigil dissented with the court’s other three justices in the ruling, with Zamora saying the ratification of broad emergency executive powers could lead to misuse.

“While the governor’s desire to combat gun violence and drug abuse appears to be well-intended, there is nothing in the majority’s opinion that would restrict a future governor from taking actions that would be substantively more troubling,” Zamora wrote in her dissent.

However, Lujan Grisham spokesman Michael Coleman said the ruling affirmed the governor’s administration had acted within its legal authority in declaring gun violence and drug abuse as public health emergencies.

“The court has provided important clarity on the executive branch’s responsibilities during public health crises,” Coleman said in a Thursday statement.

“We appreciate the court’s thorough consideration of these important constitutional questions, and we remain focused on building safer, healthier communities across New Mexico,” he added.

Now, it’s important to note (as the justices on the state Supreme Court did in the majority opinion) that the plaintiffs did not “challenge Section 1 of the first Amended PHEO under the state or federal right to bear arms,” so the court largely bystepped any real investigation about whether Grisham’s carry ban violated the Second Amendment rights of New Mexicans who were suddenly barred from bearing arms while watching their kids at a park or playground; places the governor indicated were so incredibly dangerous that all firearms needed to be banned from their premises.

Instead, the majority simply noted that a federal judge rejected a request for a temporary restraining order against Grisham’s revised carry ban, saying they “read the federal district court’s ruling as supporting that the firearm restrictions in the first Amended PHEO are not unreasonable.”

Even though the plaintiffs didn’t really mount a Second Amendment argument in their bid to take down the governor’s emergency orders, Thursday’s decision could have an enormous impact on the right to carry going forward. Grisham has allowed her declared “emergency” over gun violence to expire, but there’s nothing stopping her from now re-imposing a carry ban that once again goes far beyond the scope of her amended order that was limited to parks and playgrounds.

There have been half-hearted attempts to curb the governor’s emergency powers over the past couple of years, but Grisham’s threat of a veto has sidelined those efforts. I doubt we’re going to see her fellow Democrats in charge of the statehouse in Santa Fe try to buck her authority now, but this should be a primary issue for Republican legislators and candidates in 2026. We can only hope that the governor doesn’t give them another court-sanctioned egregious violation of our Second Amendment rights to point to between now and then.

Thomas Jefferson had some things to say about goobermint gone tyrant:

When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.

When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.

and last, but not in anyway least:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

Rep. Jamie Rankin Beclowned Himself in Opening Remarks at Gun Hearing

Rep. Jamie Rankin isn’t going to be on the Christmas card list of any gun rights group you care to name. He’s a vehement anti-gunner and that’s where his bread is buttered. That’s not going to change.

Which is fine, I suppose. He’s in the minority right now, so all he can do is bloviate and then sit there and be impotent in his gun rights animosity.

But bloviate he shall, and he did.

In opening remarks in a subcommittee meeting on Tuesday, Rankin decided to display his burning stupid for the entire world to see, then sent out a press release with his remarks.

Awfully swell of him, really.

The problem is that my Republican colleagues have completely deformed the Second Amendment. They say it gives you the right to overthrow the government. Our former colleague, Matt Gaetz often claimed that the Second Amendment “is about maintaining within the citizenry the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government, if that becomes necessary.”

This purported right to overthrow the government means that the people must enjoy access to munitions equivalent to that of the government’s arsenal. As our colleague, Representative Chip Roy, argues, the Second Amendment was “designed purposefully to empower the people to resist the force of tyranny used against them.” And my friend Representative Lauren Boebert says that the Second Amendment has “nothing to do with hunting, unless you’re talking about hunting tyrants, maybe.”

Despite all of this pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric about how the Constitution provides a right of civil insurrection, the actual Constitution, in a half-dozen different places, treats “insurrection” and “rebellion” not as protected rights but as serious and dangerous offenses against our government and our people.

And yet, our Founding Fathers also made it very clear that when the government became tyrannical, it was the duty of the people to throw off the chains of oppression and fight back, not just with words but with weapons.

I mean, they’d just engaged in their own rebellion, their own insurrection, and thrown off those precise chains. They knew that no government could be created that couldn’t, in time, come to oppress the people. They wanted to prevent that, which includes the right to keep and bear arms.

Continue reading “”

No, Mr. Secretary, generals do not have civil service protection or tenure. They serve at the pleasure of the president.
And if you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas.

Five of the ten living former Secretaries of Defense ratcheted up the warfare against President Trump when they signed what they called an “Appeal to Congress.” The gist of their complaint is that they want to veto the President’s choice of his principal military advisor and other senior officers who serve at the pleasure of the President. They like their guys, and they don’t like the President’s choices. The conclusion that the five signers seek to foist on the American public is in their third paragraph: “We, like many Americans — including many troops — are therefore left to conclude that these leaders are being fired for purely partisan reasons.”

Their “Appeal” is nonsense, but dangerous nonsense. It combines historical ignorance with their own partisan attempt to attack President Trump in a way that would weaken civilian control. If their “Appeal” were granted, it also would further the politicization of the military by plunging Congress into disputes relating to military matters that the Constitution entrusts to the President.

Five Resistors’ “Appeal to Congress”

“The Army is a dangerous instrument to play with.”

I shall begin at the end — with the rebellious former secretaries’ conclusion: They sum up by charging the members of Congress to “do their jobs” by “urging them to take George Washington’s warning to heart.”

I wonder how many of the signers knew the historical background and significance of George Washington’s advice which they quote to close their Appeal: “The Army is a dangerous instrument to play with.” When he wrote that in February 1783, Washington was warning Hamilton against trying to use the military to further political ends and undercut civilian control of the military. It was one of Washington’s many affirmations of the necessity for civilian control of the military.

And if the President — any president — does not have the sole power to relieve senior military officials, and if he is required to report to both the House and the Senate to “justify each firing” as the Appeal advocates, then the president no longer has full control of his senior military officers or of the Army.

Washington’s warning fully supports civilian control over the military, including — especially — over those whom the signers refer to as “senior U.S. military leaders.” And our Constitution reposes that civilian control in only one man — the President. By trying to usurp this presidential control of the military, these former secretaries are attempting to weaken the bedrock principal that the military must be controlled by its civilian masters.

Thus, General Washington’s warning most certainly does not support these rebellious signers’ efforts to hamper civilian control over the military. Just the opposite; Washington refutes them.

Aside from this example of historical ignorance, there are many other reasons to repudiate the rebellious signers’ “Appeal.” Let us consider some of them.

Continue reading “”