The Pentagon Must Go on the Offensive to Defeat Politicized Officers.

That Space Force colonel in command in Greenland – well, formerly in command in Greenland – who ran her fool mouth to undermine her commander-in-chief demonstrates an all-too-common problem with today’s senior military officers.

We keep seeing these passive-aggressive, and not so passively aggressive, officers acting out and throwing childish tantrums of resistance to the President that the people of the United States elected. It’s inconceivable to those of us from the military who won the Cold War; we stayed the hell out of politics. Somehow, they must have missed that civilian control block of instruction; non-partisanship is a vital principle of our officer corps.

To be political on duty is a violation of our oaths. It’s a violation of our ethos as officers. And it’s got to be brutally crushed – even Barack Obama understood that when he properly canned General Stanley McChrystal for having a staff that thought it was okay to diss the President to reporters (incredibly, after this massive leadership failure, McChrystal has gone on to sell his leadership insights to eager civilian suckers, but that’s another story).

We simply cannot have a functioning military that tolerates individuals putting their own personal prerogatives ahead of the mission – and that’s exactly what this political posturing is.

Continue reading “”

How Democrats used NGOs to end-run voters: A ‘parallel government.’

I’m often darkly amused by common examples of inherently false nomenclature: “Jumbo shrimp.” “Government ethics.” “Unbiased news media.”

And one of our society’s biggest falsehoods-in-a-name: “Non-governmental organizations.”

Until recently these groups have been widely seen as international, idealized versions of domestic non-profits.

We thought of them as do-good organizations set up by people who really care — about the environment, or poor people, or children, or freedom.

We imagined they raise money, help the downtrodden, send out press releases and engage in other private activities to promote the causes they favor.

Trump is deworming Washington — now to keep the parasites out for good
They’re not government entities, we thought — the very name says that — but a species of private charity whose good intentions deserve the benefit of any doubt.

Perhaps some NGOs do operate in that way.

But as we’ve learned recently, partly as the result of Department of Government Efficiency digging, many “non-governmental” entities are really just fronts for government activities that Americans would never stand for if Washington attempted them directly.

For example, America’s border crisis was funded in large part by Joe Biden’s government, which sent large sums of money in the form of grants to various NGOs that helped train migrants on how to get to the United States — and how to claim asylum when they arrived.

NGOs helped the illegal immigrants with expenses on their way, and then provided legal resources and more than $22 billion worth of assistance for them — including cash for cars, home loans and business start-ups — once they got in.

This was US taxpayer money, laundered through “independent” organizations that served to promote goals contrary to US law, but consistent with the policy preferences of the Biden administration.

Under President Donald Trump, this funding halted — and, unsurprisingly, the flow of illegal immigrants did, too.

Likewise, the weird wave of sudden global enthusiasm for “trans rights” and novel ideas about gender turns out to have been largely funded by the US government through USAID grants.

Federally funded NGOs spent millions on everything from a transgender opera in Colombia, to a campaign promoting “being LGBTQ in the Caribbean,” to an LGBTQ community center in Bratislava, Slovakia.

As data expert Jennica Pounds (“DataRepublican” on X) put it, “Over the last few months, we’ve come to a realization that should have landed much harder: NGOs weren’t just adjacent to government.”

They were tools of government, “the parallel government,” Pounds wrote, specifically doing things that Washington bureaucrats knew full well they couldn’t easily do themselves.

The big surprise is that we’re so surprised this has been going on.

The lack of accountability also made NGOs a perfect conduit for funneling money to Washington insiders.

It’s been a profitable cycle: Politicians fund agencies; agencies make grants to NGOs; NGOs hire politicians’ wives and offspring — and sometimes the politicians themselves, once they’ve left office.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), for example, voted to award $14.2 million to Ocean Conservancy since 2008, Fox News reported — and the NGO, in turn, paid his wife Sandra Whitehouse and her firm $2.7 million for consulting work.

No wonder the Washington establishment went crazy when Trump and DOGE started cutting off such funds.

Continue reading “”

Reformers Gain Ground in National Rifle Association Board Election

The National Rifle Association holds an annual election for their board of directors. 25 directors–who serve three years each–are selected by voting members. The 2025 BOD election results were just released, as reported by the “American Rifleman.”

Previously reported–Part One and Part Two–there are two different slates or camps eyeing or occupying spots on the board.

One group self-describes as NRA 2.0, colloquially referred to as “reform candidates,” or “reformers.” The other, an “old guard” of several incumbents and newcomers alike, call themselves Strong NRA. NRA 2.0 accuses Strong NRA of being a so-called “Cabal.”

In the wake of turmoil caused by former CEO and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and a lawsuit filed against the Association by New York Attorney General Letitia James, already skeptical members started to get more vocal. This led to an organized cadre of four reformer candidates getting elected to the BOD in 2024. For 2025, NRA 2.0 had 28 candidates.

What were the results of the election? Who came out on top? Were there any disappointments?

According to the “American Rifleman,” these are the election results:

Continue reading “”

ATF Deputy Director Marvin Richardson Forced To Retire

Marvin Richardson, long-time Deputy Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), has been fast-tracked to the unemployment line after he was given the option of voluntary retirement or forced removal. Richardson had been with the ATF for decades, serving under numerous administrations with his record stretching back to the 1993 conflict in Waco, Texas, leaving seventy-six Branch Davidians dead, including over twenty children, a massacre for which he was awarded the Treasury Department’s Hostile Action Medal.

Richardson is the latest holdover to part ways with the ATF as the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) under Pam Bondi seeks to clean house at the agency after its political weaponization by the Biden administration. Earlier this year, ATF Chief Counsel and fellow anti-gun sweetheart Pam Hicks received her walking papers and was subsequently replaced by Second Amendment scholar and professor, Robert Leider, but not before doing her fair share of damage alongside Richardson by targeting the firearms industry and American gun owners with unconstitutional regulation and prosecution for years.

Richardson, who saw pistol stabilizing braces as an affront to his beloved infringement, the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), was an instrumental force behind the ATF’s declaration of war on Americans who had equipped firearms with them based on the agency’s previous rules declaring braces a non-NFA accessory. He was also one of the key tools in the Biden administration’s attack on privately manufactured firearms, for which the left has now attached the made-up moniker, “ghost gun.”

Continue reading “”

Colorado Enacts Sweeping Gun Law: What SB25-003 Means for Firearm Owners

On April 10, 2025, Colorado’s Senate Bill 25-003 was signed into law by Governor Jared Polis on April 10, 2025. The passage of this bill represents one of the most significant changes to gun regulations in the state’s history. This legislation establishes a first-of-its-kind permit-to-purchase system for certain semiautomatic firearms while prohibiting rapid-fire conversion devices.

SB25-003, officially titled “Semiautomatic Firearms & Rapid-Fire Devices,” fundamentally changes how Coloradans can purchase certain types of firearms. The law criminalizes the manufacture, distribution, transfer, and purchase of specific semiautomatic weapons without proper permitting. It specifically covers the following firearms:

  • Semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines
  • Semiautomatic shotguns with detachable magazines
  • Gas-operated semiautomatic handguns with detachable magazines[

Importantly, the legislation does not affect most handguns (which are typically recoil-operated), shotguns with fixed magazines, or semiautomatic firearms with fixed magazines holding 15 rounds or less.

Rather than imposing an outright ban, Colorado’s SB25-003 introduces a detailed permitting process for individuals seeking to purchase certain semiautomatic firearms. Under the new law, prospective buyers must first apply to their county sheriff for a course eligibility card. This application requires a government-issued photo ID, a name-based background check, and a signed affirmation that the applicant complies with all relevant firearm laws.

Once eligibility is established, applicants must complete a firearms safety course. Those who already hold hunter education certification may take a basic four-hour course. Those without such certification must complete an extended 12-hour course conducted over at least two days. After completing the training, applicants are required to pass a final examination with a minimum score of 90 percent.

Permits issued under this process are valid for five years. Once expired, individuals must repeat the entire application, training, and testing process to obtain a new permit.

Continue reading “”

Just my personal opinion, but I’d add that knowing how to use that strength and knowing how and when to proficiently use your preferred firearm(s) are more important than merely being strong.


Training: You are the Operating System for Whatever Firearm You Choose to Use.

“Strength makes everything better.” Ryan “Matt” Reynolds said to the group of students gathered for the “Fight Strong” class in Camden, Tennessee at the Tactical Response headquarters. A couple of weeks prior, James Yeager had called me and said, “Matt Reynolds is coming up to do a strength class. You and Jarrad need to get your asses up here.” Having complete respect for James, I told him that we would be there.

At the time I was working out regularly in the gym that Jarrad and I were running in Biloxi, Mississippi. I would run on the treadmill, do heavy bag work, lift dumbbells, and even spar often, despite being well north of forty. I wondered, based upon my decades of exercise experience, if there was much I could learn in the class. Nonetheless, I parked my ego and made the trip. It would turn out not only to be truly beneficial, but it quite literally saved my life.

Strong People are Harder to Kill

The quote comes from Mark Rippetoe and was from an article he wrote for the Crossfit Journal, of all things. The full quote is, “Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general.”

Continue reading “”

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
– H. L. Mencken

1775-
Massachusetts Colonial Governor General Thomas Gage receives instructions from Lord Dartmouth, King George’s Cabinet Minister as Secretary of State for the Colonies, authorizing the use of military force in Massachusetts and directing him to arrest leaders of the rebellion.

The Door Gun
Keep your friends close, and your defensive firearm closer.

When I was a kid just about every country home had what we called a “kitchen-door gun.”  That was an old .22 rifle or maybe a single-shot .410. It was used to dispatch unwanted critters from the porch or yard. Poisonous snakes would be a good example. Of course, the kitchen-door gun occasionally came into play when dealing with even more dangerous, and bigger, critters.

In today’s society, having a long gun safely stored near your external doors is really a good idea. Even though you may be wearing a defensive handgun, getting your hands on a long gun really increases your chances of surviving a criminal attack. In my own case, my door gun has evolved into a 12-gauge pump shotgun with an 18-inch barrel.

And I really don’t think the door gun has to be a shotgun. It should be whatever rifle or shotgun the individual handles best and feels most confident with. It might be a good idea to have a light attached to it and it is certainly a good idea to have extra ammunition attached. I also like the idea of the door gun being as short as legally possible in order to be more handy in working around a door or a confining foyer.

Living in the country, I have often thought that one of the modern coach guns would be an excellent idea. A short, double-barreled 12 gauge…or 20 gauge…with exposed hammers so that it can sit loaded without any springs being depressed. One barrel would hold a field load of #6 shot for little varmints and the other barrel would contain a full load of 00 buck for big varmints. Also, I’d want a butt cuff attached to hold some extra ammo.

Another good choice might be an AR with a collapsible butt stock because it is short and easy to handle in close confines. Again, a light and extra ammo carrier is a good idea.

The biggest challenge, should you decide to have door guns is finding a way to keep them out of sight and secure. The real challenge is to do that and still have them available on very short notice, while keeping them safe from unauthorized access. The individual will just have to study his own dwelling and situation to work out a solution. Of course, it is important that every family member authorized to use the door gun be trained in its safe operation and know how to handle it safely.

When properly thought out, the door gun is a country tradition that is just an awfully good idea regardless of where a person resides.

We actually have one of, if not the, largest known deposits of these strategic minerals right here in the U.S. We’ve just been too politically lazy, letting the foreign controlled econutz and business owners overly motivated by the bottom line to develop the mining

China’s New Weapon Isn’t a Missile. It’s a Magnet.

On April 4, the Chinese government issued sweeping new export controls on critical rare earth elements in response to the Trump Administration’s reciprocal trade plan. And while the categories of rare earths included — samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium, and yttrium — are unknown to most Americans, they are embedded in everything from smartphones to stealth bombers.

These new restrictions are not just a new volley in the ongoing back-and-forth between Washington and Beijing. For those paying attention, this is a strategic maneuver that puts pressure directly on the backbone of U.S. national defense and the broader high-tech economy.

While the move is couched in the language of national security and non-proliferation compliance, its timing and scope are not accidental. China is leveraging its near-total dominance over the global rare earth supply chain to shape geopolitical outcomes and force the U.S. to respond.

To better understand the government’s options, it’s helpful to know more about what these rare earth elements do. Dysprosium and terbium are used to produce high-temperature-resistant magnets essential for electric motors in guided missiles, aircraft, drones, and naval propulsion systems. Samarium-cobalt magnets power everything from F-35 jet actuators to targeting systems. Gadolinium is a key component in military-grade sonar. Scandium-aluminum alloys reduce weight while maintaining strength in aerospace structures. Lutetium is increasingly used in advanced radiation detection and positron emission tomography (PET) systems.

These are not luxury materials. They are irreplaceable components in mission-critical systems. It is impossible to build an advanced hypersonic glide vehicle, a submarine-launched cruise missile, or a battlefield drone swarm without them.

China dominates the pipeline for these materials entering the rest of the world, controlling approximately 70 – 85% of their global production and processing capacity. In many cases, such as with dysprosium and terbium, China is not just the dominant supplier, it is the only economically viable one.

The implications of the new restrictions extend far beyond defense. These same elements are foundational to industries that define modern civilization: consumer electronics, factory automation and robotics, health care, electric and hybrid vehicles, wind turbines, medical imaging, semiconductors, appliances, and more. Now Beijing is threatening to block them from those it considers its adversaries.

China has a history of leveraging their advantage in this sector. In 2010, China restricted rare earth exports during a territorial dispute with Japan. In 2023, it imposed curbs on gallium, germanium, and graphite (important in semiconductor production) in response to U.S. chip export bans. Last year, it strengthened restrictions on gallium and germanium and added antinomy and superhard materials.

This latest move is most expansive yet. It targets a broader array of elements, and the regulatory language is sweeping, covering metals, oxides, alloys, compounds, magnets, and even mixed-material targets used in thin-film manufacturing. China is proving that it is willing to endure economic blowback to assert long-term strategic control, and as tensions with the U.S. rise, the boundaries of a new materials Cold War are being drawn.

The Trump Administration is watching this carefully and has already begun taking aggressive steps toward putting the U.S. in a greater position of rare earth and critical mineral self-sufficiency. But American progress in this area over the past 20 years has been sluggish. Building rare earth processing plants is capital-intensive and geopolitically challenging.

Fortunately, the U.S. can access its own rare earth resources within its borders. The Mountain Pass deposit in California is now scaling up production, although it still sends a substantial amount of its mined ore to China for processing. It also largely lacks the heavy rare earths dysprosium and terbium. Another very large resource, located in Nebraska, can produce these defense-critical rare earths in additional to establishing global U.S. dominance in production of the rare earth scandium. That project could move to construction immediately, given adequate financing.

But China’s dominance in midstream processing, the chemical separation and purification that turns mined rock into usable materials, remains unrivaled.

To address this challenge, the U.S. must treat rare earth independence not as an industrial policy footnote but as a core national security imperative. That means accelerated investment in mining, extraction, refining, and recycling capacity, all backed by government dollars, loans and loan guarantees, and streamlined permitting. Importantly, as President Trump’s recent Critical Minerals Executive Order proposes, the Defense Production Act should be fully leveraged to jumpstart rare earth projects on U.S. soil.

Further, any domestic investment must be met with greater cooperation between Washington and allied nations that can counter China’s monopoly. Japan, South Korea, Canada, and Australia should be part of a coordinated, supply-secure bloc for critical materials.

The wars of the future may not start with missiles, but with minerals. And unless the U.S. invests in securing access to the elements that power our technologies, we may soon find ourselves on the wrong side of a digital and defense divide.