USAID Flacks Have Been Given Their Laughable Talking Points, Including a Fox News Reporter

Donald Trump’s war on the bureaucratic state has recently centered on USAID, a slush fund of taxpayer often money used to pay off NGOs, warlords, and anti-American states under the guise of “soft power.” In some cases, money was even funneled to left-wing domestic organizations claiming to promote “democracy.”

The drama began on Friday after Nick Gottlieb, USAID’s director of employee and labor relations, attempted to override the Trump administration’s order to place 60 officials on leave. As RedState reported, they were identified as trying to circumvent and undermine the newly inaugurated president’s executive orders. After Gottlieb refused, claiming due process rights, he too was placed on administrative leave, signaling that the White House wasn’t interested in playing games.

That was just the beginning, though. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) stepped in to start auditing USAID, leading to a freeze on all its spending. On Sunday, another attempt at a coup was made, with Musk’s team being locked out of the building. Within hours, the security officials involved in the decision were also put on administrative leave. Are you sensing a pattern?

Naturally, the developments at USAID have sent the press and their left-wing allies into a frenzy, and they’ve settled on a talking point: This helps Russia and China.

Continue reading “”

Plan Ahead: A firearm is only one part of an integrated defensive plan.

Bob and Sarah (not their real names) owned a small grocery on the edge of town, not far from the interstate highway. On the evening in question, Bob was behind the counter manning the cash register, while Sarah was in their little office. Bob looked up to see a masked man enter the store and point a gun at him. Bob put his hands up and took a step backwards. Just then Sarah fired a shot from inside the office delivering a load of buckshot from her 20 gauge to the armed robber’s neck and head.

That sounds like a lucky save, but there was a lot of planning done ahead of time to insure a successful outcome. When Bob and Sarah first bought the store, they had a carpenter come in and frame up a small office against the wall opposite of the front door, situated so that someone in the office could see the front door and the checkout counter. Next, they had a small button installed on the floor beneath the cash register that would buzz in the office when it was stepped on. Finally, they installed security cameras inside and outside the store.

In this particular case, Sarah saw the crook while he was still outside, putting his mask on. By the time that Bob saw the crook and stepped on the buzzer at his feet, Sarah had already dialed 9-1-1 and was reaching for the office shotgun. Knowing what was about to happen, Bob put his hands up and stepped back to make sure that his wife had a clear line of fire.

My point in all of this is that the firearm in question was just one integral part of the security system. This couple had discussed the dangers of running a store on the edge of town and took steps to make themselves a harder target.

I happen to think that a firearm, and the ability to use it well and wisely, is just one part of what guarantees our personal safety. Merely locking the doors in our vehicle and our house doesn’t keep the crook out, but it buys us time to react, arm ourselves, and notify authorities. Being a lifelong shooter, my hearing is not what it once was, so I also rely on my little dog to tell me when someone is around. And, after hearing Bob and Sarah’s story, I am in the process of looking at inexpensive security cameras.

My situation may not be exactly like yours or Bob and Sarah’s. We each have to ask ourselves … How do I spend my days?  What criminal acts am I likely to be confronted with, and how can I prepare for them? Yes, a defensive firearm, and the ability to use it safely and effectively, is important. But it is only part of the whole situation. You’d be wise to study your particular situation and plan ahead.

Which POTUS Trump is in the process of

Cynical Publius

Like so many modern American federal agencies and policies, the United States Agency for International Development (“USAID”) was born amidst America’s existential struggle of the Cold War against Communism.

USAID’S founding principles were solid: use America’s economic might to provide targeted foreign aid that promoted American values and opposed global Communism.

That worked fine when global Communism really was an existential threat of annihilation AND “American values” were coherently understood and held by the great majority of Americans.

But somewhere along the way the global Communist threat evaporated, and unelected American bureaucrats decided for themselves that “American values” consisted of promoting childhood gender “reassignment” and a host of other neo-Marxist ideals that are antithetical to the values held by the vast majority of Americans.

USAID became a tool of the very forces it was created to fight.

Now, in 2025, one of the best things we can do for America, for Americans, and for global freedom is to terminate this Cold War relic that has become a tool of our enemies.

Abolish USAID.

Border Crossings Down 93%.

White House Border Czar Tom Homan told Fox News on Sunday that illegal border crossings are down 93% since Donald Trump won his belated reelection in November. Speaking with Maria Bartiromo, Homan also promised, “When we find that criminal, he’s most likely with others, and they’re gonna go too. So if you wanna be a sanctuary city, you’re gonna get exactly what you don’t want. More agents in the community and more non-criminals arrested.”

“We got more work to do,” Homan concluded — and what a welcome change that is from the last four years.

As a candidate, Joe Biden sent the message loud and clear that America would be open for… anything, really… for illegal aliens. Need a job? Want to sell drugs? Cartel or gang member? Terrorist? No problemo! The surge of illegals began virtually the moment Biden was declared the winner.

And for four years of record-busting waves of illegals, Biden and his Chief Enabler at DHS, Alejandro Mayorkas, swore up and down that the border was secure.

So here’s Homan, only in office at DHS for a couple of weeks, overseeing a 93% decline and admitting, “We got more work to do.”

The rapid decrease began before Trump was sworn in, before another foot of border wall was erected, and before a single soldier was ordered to the border.

So what changed?

The incentives.

Trump’s simple promise to begin mass deportations was probably enough, but Homan’s strong language — going back to before Trump appointed him — underscored Trump’s point with firm authority.

Now we have the DOGE boys stopping the flow of taxpayer dollars to the NGOs that worked so hard under the Biden cabal to incentivize illegal crossings and, frankly, widespread settlement with negative incentives for assimilation.

Continue reading “”

SAAMI Announces Acceptance of New Cartridges

The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute ®Inc., (SAAMI®) has announced the acceptance of three new rifle cartridges for SAAMI standardization, according to The Outdoor Wire.

SAAMI is the organization at the forefront of promoting firearm safety by creating standards that ensure safety, reliability and interchangeability of firearms, ammunition and components.

Click on the cartridge name to open the introduction package.

7mm Backcountry – The 7mm Backcountry (7mm BC) was introduced by Federal Premium Ammunition (The Kinetic Group) with a 170-grain bullet traveling at a velocity of 3,000 fps and a Maximum Average Pressure of 80,000 psi.

25 Creedmoor – The 25 Creedmoor (25 CM) was introduced by Hornady Manufacturing Company with a 134-grain bullet traveling at a velocity of 2,810 fps and a Maximum Average Pressure of 62,000 psi.

338 Advanced Rifle Cartridge – The 338 Advanced Rifle Cartridge (338 ARC) was introduced by Hornady Manufacturing Company with a 175-grain bullet traveling at a velocity of 2,050 fps and a Maximum Average Pressure of 52,000 psi.

For further information on these new cartridges please visit https://saami.org/technical-information/cartridge-chamber-drawings/.

Argentinian TCOB

A 78-year-old retiree shot and killed a 15-year-old boy who tried to rob him outside of his home in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

The teenager quickly leaps out of the car before it can even come to a full stop next to the white car, with the boy seen aiming what appeared to be a handgun at the Toyota driver. As the teen goes to open the driver’s seat door, the 78-year-old man pulls out a .357 Magnum pistol and fires at the boy, killing him, police said.

The teenager, who was described by a friend online as a “great person,” was holding a fake gun meant to resemble a grey 22-caliber mini Bersa Thunder, Page 12 reported.

Investigators said they are still on the hunt for the two people who were in the van at the time of the attempted robbery. The Departmental Investigations Directorate is treating the case as an aggravated robbery conducted by suspected gang members, officials added.

Local Prosecutor Diego Rulli, who is in charge of the case, will not seek charges against the 78-year-old man, who he said acted in clear self-defense with a weapon that he has a license to carry and use.

What did I say?

Comment O’ The Day
Beege Welborn
BWAHAhahahaha!
I will lay a big, fat donut on the bet that Trump just threw that out there to prove the point that there ain’t NOBODY wantin’ these homicidal psychopaths anywhere near them.
And now that we’ve established they’re absolutely incorrigible, untrustworthy savages, plans can move forward from here how to deal with them.

Arab nations reject Trump’s suggestion to relocate Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt and Jordan

CAIRO (AP) — Powerful Arab nations on Saturday rejected U.S. President Donald Trump’s suggestion to relocate Palestinians from Gaza to neighboring Egypt and Jordan.

Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, the Palestinian Authority and the Arab League released a joint statement rejecting any plans to move Palestinians out of their territories in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

Trump floated the idea last month, saying he would urge the leaders of Jordan and Egypt to take in Gaza’s now largely homeless population, so that “we just clean out that whole thing.” He added that resettling most of Gaza’s population of 2.3 million could be temporary or long term. Some Israel officials had raised the transfer idea early in the war.

“It’s literally a demolition site right now,” Trump said, referring to the vast destruction caused by Israel’s 15-month war with Hamas, now paused by a fragile ceasefire.

The Arab statement warned that such plans “threaten the region’s stability, risk expanding the conflict, and undermine prospects for peace and coexistence among its peoples.”

The statement followed a meeting in Cairo of top diplomats from Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, as well as Hussein al-Sheikh, a senior Palestinian official who serves as the main liaison with Israel, and Arab League chief Ahmed Aboul Gheit.

They said they were looking forward to working with the Trump administration to “achieve a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East, based on the two-state solution,” according to the statement.

They called for the international community to help “plan and implement” a comprehensive reconstruction plan for Gaza to ensure that Palestinians stay on their land.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi rejected Trump’s suggestion in a news conference last week, saying that he transfer of Palestinians “can’t ever be tolerated or allowed.”
Continue reading “”

Spoiling for a fight: Why challenging birthright citizenship is a win-win for Trump.

This week, the Trump administration doubled down in its fight against birthright citizenship. The usual alliance of pundits, professors and press lined up to declare any challenge to birthright citizenship as absurd. Yet the administration seemed not only undeterred, but delighted.

There is a reason for that euphoria: They believe that they cannot lose this fight.

The legal case against birthright citizenship has always been tough to make, given the long-standing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in federal courts and agencies. Many in academia and the media have shown unusual outrage toward anyone questioning the basis for birthright citizenship as a legal or policy matter.

This is perhaps best evinced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe’s profane tirade the last time Trump raised this issue years ago: “This f—ing racist wants to reverse the outcome of the Civil War.”

Putting aside that the Civil War was fought over slavery, not immigration, many at the time would have disagreed that this was one of the outcomes of either the Civil War or the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment starts and ends as a model of clarity, stating that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” are “citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” However, sandwiched between those two phrases, Congress inserted the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Those six words have perplexed many since they were first drafted.

For some, the line must be read as a whole and guarantees that anyone born within the United States becomes an American citizen. For others, the six words cannot be read out of the amendment as superfluous. They argue that this indicates that the parents must be here in a legal status, either as citizens or legal residents.

This division was evident at the very birth of the amendment. Some of those debating the question clearly believed that the amendment did cover anyone born on our soil regardless of the status of the parents. During the debates, Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania asked: “Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child born of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?” Senator John Conness of California answered this in the affirmative.

Others indicated the opposite understanding. Senator Jacob Howard, coauthor of the Fourteenth Amendment, said it was “simply declaratory” of the Civil Rights Act to protect freed slaves.

Howard assured senators, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Likewise, Senator Lyman Trumbull, author of the 13th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act and a drafter of the Fourteenth Amendment, said that the six words included only those “not owing allegiance to anyone else.”

This debate has raged for decades. While Democrats today portray anyone supporting the narrower interpretation as a racist or nutty, it was not long ago that many Democratic leaders opposed birthright citizenship, including former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). He later denounced his old position with the same passion.

The Supreme Court itself seemed conflicted in the relatively few cases that touched on this issue. In 1872, in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the court interpreted the words “subject to its jurisdiction” as “intended to exclude from its operation” children of “citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.” A few years later, in Minor v. Happersett, the court unanimously expressed “doubts” that citizenship would apply for “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”

Then, in 1884, the Supreme Court handed down Elk v. Wilkins and held that parents must not merely be “subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and not subject to any foreign power” To claim citizenship, they must owe the U.S. “direct and immediate allegiance.”

Supporters of birthright citizenship can cite countervailing authority to support their position. In 1898, the court ruled in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that “the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.”

Anti-birthright advocates stress the court’s additional emphasis that the parents had to have “a permanent domicil[e] and residence in the United States, and [be] there carrying on business.”

Yet in 1982, in Plyler v. Doe, the court voted 5-4 that the Fourteenth Amendment required Texas to provide public schooling to the children of illegal immigrants, noting that there is “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”

There are strong arguments in favor of the broader interpretation to include birthright citizenship, and the case law favors the conventional interpretation. Indeed, it is not clear whether the Trump administration could secure a majority of the court to adopt the narrower interpretation, including potentially skeptical conservatives such as John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

What is clear is that such an interpretation would likely need to be made by the Supreme Court (rather than lower courts) given the existing precedent in favor of birthright citizenship.

So what makes this a win-win proposition for the Trump administration? The politics are stronger than the precedent.

Even if the administration loses before the Supreme Court, it will force Democrats again to fight against a tougher stance on immigration issues. Democrats maintained that position in the last election despite polling showing that 83 percent of Americans support deportations of immigrants with violent criminal records and almost half support mass deportation of all undocumented persons.

On birthright citizenship, roughly half of the country now opposes it, according to a recent Emerson poll. That is consistent with much of the world. The U.S. is actually in the minority on the issue.

Our closest allies in Europe reject birthright citizens and follow the common practice of “jus sanguinis,” or right of blood. We are part of a smaller number of countries following “jus soli,” or right of soil.

That is why the Trump administration may win either way. It will either secure a new interpretation from the high court or it could spur a campaign for a constitutional amendment. All of this could unfold around the time of the midterm elections, when incumbents of the president’s party are generally disfavored. This is a wedge issue that many in the Republican Party might welcome.