Florida Governor Ron DeSantis Returns Nearly $1 Billion In ‘Unused’ Federal Funds After Meeting With Elon Musk thumbnail

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis Returns Nearly $1 Billion In ‘Unused’ Federal Funds After Meeting With Elon Musk

/in , , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis announced Friday that Florida has returned nearly $1 billion in federal funds after meeting with Elon Musk.

“For years, Florida has been trying to return federal funds to the federal government due to the ideological strings attached by the Biden Administration—but they couldn’t even figure out how to accept it,” the governor said in a post on X. “Today, I met with @elonmusk and the DOGE team, and we got this done in the same day.”

For years, Florida has been trying to return federal funds to the federal government due to the ideological strings attached by the Biden Administration—but they couldn’t even figure out how to accept it. Today, I met with @elonmusk and the DOGE team, and we got this done in the… pic.twitter.com/uWyloPAhBU

— Ron DeSantis (@GovRonDeSantis) March 21, 2025

“Other states should follow Florida in supporting DOGE’s efforts!”DeSantis said.

The post was accompanied by an email from DeSantis’ office to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The email noted after his visit with Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the state of Florida returned $878,112,000 in taxpayer dollars to the federal government.

The governor’s office said they will “also continue to identify other unused or surplus federal funding granted to Florida and determine if further refunds can be made.”

“Almost a billion dollars of your taxpayer money saved,” Musk said in response to DeSantis’ post. The announcement comes one month after DeSantis revealed the creation of the Florida DOGE task force which is set to “further eliminate waste within state government, save taxpayers money, and ensure accountability in Florida,” according to a press release.

“Florida has set the standard for fiscally conservative governance, and our new Florida DOGE task force will do even more to serve the people of Florida,” DeSantis said in a statement. “It will eliminate redundant boards and commissions, review state university and college operations and spending, utilize artificial intelligence to further examine state agencies to uncover hidden waste, and even audit the spending habits of local entities to shine the light on waste and bloat.”

The Florida task force is set to eliminate bureaucratic bloat and modernize the state’s government “to best serve the people of Florida.”

AUTHOR

Fiona McLoughlin

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE:Commerce Secretar Hyoward Lutnick Addresses Concerns DOGE Cuts Will Harm Economic Numbers

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: How DEI and Marxism Threaten U.S. Defense with Ronald Scott on The Truth & Liberty Show thumbnail

VIDEO: How DEI and Marxism Threaten U.S. Defense with Ronald Scott on The Truth & Liberty Show

/in , , , , /by

By Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services (STARRS)

STARRS President and CEO Col. Ron Scott, PhD, USAF ret, USAFA ’73 was interviewed on the Truth & Liberty Show to discuss the damaging effects of DEI and woke policies on the U.S. military, and the challenges America faces in defense readiness.

WATCH: How DEI and Marxism Threaten U.S. Defense

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Service Academies Must End Race-Based Admissions

Senator pledges to reinstate service members fired for refusing C19 vax

When will the Pentagon start taking left-wing extremism seriously?

U.S. Coast Guard Academy Jettisons Unvaccinated Cadets

EDITORS NOTE: This STARRS video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Egypt Now Willing to Take in Half a Million Gazans thumbnail

Egypt Now Willing to Take in Half a Million Gazans

/in , , , , , /by

By Jihad Watch

While both Egypt and Jordan initially rejected President Trump’s plan for Gaza, according to which both countries would take in more than two million residents of Gaza who would leave the Strip while its reconstruction was going on, it seems that Egypt is now willing to take in half a million Gazans “temporarily.” More on this offer, and why it was made, can be found here: “Egypt willing to temporarily absorb half a million evacuated Gazans – Lebanese report,” Jerusalem Post, March 21, 2025:

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi said that his country was ready to temporarily host half a million Gazans who would be evacuated from the Gaza Strip, according to a Friday report by Hezbollah-affiliated Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar.

According to the report, the Gazans would be allocated a city in the north of the Sinai Peninsula.

Does this mean these Gazans would be housed in a city that is already in existence, or would a new city be built to accommodate them? Would new housing be built for them, or would a brand-new city be constructed for them in northern Sinai, as Egypt has managed to do in building New Cairo in the Western Desert?

The comment reportedly came during a conference held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on the situation in the Middle East, in which the Egyptian leader was present, among other attendees.

According to the report, the temporary relocation offer has raised concerns with Jordan, which has previously taken a strong stance against such a move….

This offer by Egypt raises many questions. For Jordan, it is alarming, because it increases pressure on it to do the same, and to admit large numbers of Gazans whose increased presence would make the Palestinians, already more than 60% of Jordan’s population, rise to 70-75% of the total. This could threaten the rule of the Hashemite King Abdullah, who remembers how his father King Hussein had been challenged by Palestinians before, by the terrorists of Black September who tried to overthrow him in 1970.

It is also not clear what this offer means by “temporary” resettlement. Would it last the entire time that the reconstruction of Gaza is going on, or would the Gazans be expected to go back before then? Trump’s plan mentions a period of five years during which the Gazans would be expected to remain outside the Strip. For what period does El Sisi plan to house those half-million Gazans?

Was the offer made in good faith, or merely as a way for Egypt to curry favor with President Trump, with El-Sisi expecting no more than a handful of Gazans — certainly not half-a-million — to take up his offer?

Did the Trump administration put pressure on El-Sisi to make the offer, by threatening to cut off all aid to Egypt? Has it done the same with Jordan, or does it recognize that King Abdullah is in a different situation from El-Sisi, and worries about a still larger Palestinian population overwhelming the Jordanians in his kingdom?

Who would pay for the new housing in the northern Sinai? One assumes that the rich oil states of the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait, would be called on, rather than the United States. Trump has no interest in committing tens of billions of dollars to such a project. Has such a commitment from those states to provide necessary funds to Egypt been received?

Many questions remain. But it’s a sign that Trump’s plan for Gaza, though widely ridiculed when first proposed, is having a salutary effect.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Wait a Minute. THIS Group Got $7 Million in Taxpayer Dough?

Taliban release US hostage on ‘humanitarian grounds’ as Islamic State boasts that Trump won’t act against Taliban

Two men found guilty of plotting to murder Iranian dissident in New York City

One More Deportation Achieved: A Sympathizer with Hezbollah

Democrats Go All In On Killing Jews

Hamas-Linked CAIR Has Man Fired for Interviewing Robert Spencer

Former UNRWA top dog is now Hamas spokesman, calls on ‘every Muslim to rise up for Palestine and for Gaza’

RELATED VIDEO: Christian Gets Fired for Criticizing Islam Online (in America!)

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Lessons To Be Remembered From Washington’s Farewell Address thumbnail

Lessons To Be Remembered From Washington’s Farewell Address

/in , , , , , , /by

By Neland Nobel

Estimated Reading Time: 7 minutes

While reading an investment commentary from Brian Wesbury of First Trust, he mentioned he recently re-read Washington’s Farewell Address.  So, I decided to do the same and suggest you do as well.

I probably had not read it for 60 years or more, and it is terrific to reread books and speeches now that I am much older and hopefully wiser. It is interesting how the experience of life can alter the way one interprets things that were read long ago.

Washington’s speech was not given aloud but appeared in newspapers (1796).

ADVERTISEMENT

He starts by declining to run again, thus setting the tradition of just two terms for a President that was not violated until Franklin Roosevelt and Barak Obama’s autopen manipulation of the senile Biden Presidency.

He warns against factionalism and its threat to the Union, which would surface in just a few decades and culminate in the Civil War.

He also expressed concern about how foreign players and their intrigues could undermine the Union. He mentioned the tension between the North and South, coastal areas, and the interior. A cursory view of the voting patterns of US counties quickly demonstrates his insight’s wisdom even today.

ADVERTISEMENT

He expressed concerns about the extreme passions of political parties.  One the most famous passages is as follows:

“It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

He also cautions against the overreach of one branch of government into the jurisdictional lane of another. The Founders set up a system of checks and balances to address the question of power.  How can you harness power for an ordered state that protects liberty but prevents power from running amuck?  Washington advises each branch of government to stay within its sphere of control, something multiple Federal judges may want to consider in our own time.  Honor the divisions of powers and the Constitution.

ADVERTISEMENT

“It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others…”

While the upcoming section on “foreign entanglements” has perhaps received the most attention from historians, Washington’s view on public morality is exceptionally perceptive and largely ignored.

He basically says he does not think public morality is possible without religion and that without a strong public morality, the government will grow out of necessity to maintain order. The more people can control their own behavior, the fewer laws and intrusions by the state.

We thought of today’s “amoral autonomy” where individuals make up their belief system referencing only their narcissistic desires or psychosis and reject the idea that they are subject to any past practices or outside standards of behavior. Few young people study religion or philosophy very profoundly. Mostly, they make it up based on popular trends and practice hedonism. Today’s adherents ditch all reference to tradition or religion and claim new freedoms to express the “self.” They also go about their narcissism absent any talk of corresponding responsibilities inherent in exercising “freedom.”

The advantage of Judeo-Christian religion is that it has a higher authority, suggests what we owe God and our fellow man, extols each person as a child of the same God, and has a standard of behavior and written complex law to ponder and adhere to.  All of this evolved while adjusting (with tension) to the rise of scientific thinking.  It is unsurprising that modern liberty evolved out of these two great religions while liberty was absent under the sway of other faiths.  And it is a bit more than the average college student does in making up his own rules.

Within the context of his remarks, we surmise that Washington was talking to Jeffersonians who were flirting with the French Enlightenment (the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure,) forgetting both the English and Scottish Enlightenments that were Judeo-Christian-based.  In the French Enlightenment, we find the seeds of today’s confusion over morality’s nature and freedom’s limits, forgetting the corresponding requirements of responsibility. Much of our present difficulties started with the French Revolution, which was fundamentally different from the American Revolution.  The following passage is worth pondering:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness–these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Another passage that rings true today is the protection of public credit. As the nation faces the consequences of a direct debt of over $36 trillion and unfunded obligations of over $100 trillion, this issue takes on special urgency.

“As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives; but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate.”

Reading this, one thinks of Arizona’s idiot Senator Mark Kelly, who is selling his Tesla because Elon Musk and Trump are trying to reduce the deficit, not by cutting benefits but by cutting fraud and waste.  To him, eliminating waste is only done by “assholes” (his words, not ours).  Senator, you should “cherish the public credit” and quit signing on to endless deficits, money borrowed from our children and grandchildren.

Now we come to perhaps the most famous passages, but not necessarily the most important.  That is, the discussion of avoiding foreign entanglements by passionately attaching oneself to foreign causes or disputes. Indeed, the debate over Ukraine comes to mind, as do those that adhere to “the world order” or “the international community” as opposed to the interests of their own country. Some others might apply this to Israel.  Entanglements are somewhat in the eye of the beholder.

“So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence ( I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.”

At any rate, a studied reading of the Farewell Address is both educational and instructive. Take time to do it, and feel free to interpret it based on today’s events. However, the lesson seems quite clear on at least a few important fronts.

In summary, here is our quick takeaway:

Protect the Federalist system and the division of powers.  Oppose any branch of government that intrudes on the power of another. 

Be cautious of sectionalism, factionalism, or excessive political party passions. 

Preserve the Union and be cautious of people like Maxine Watters calling for a Civil War. 

While reason might deduce individual morality, it mostly has been a failure and a cover for amoral autonomy.    Public morality, however, is different, and it needs the glue of common religious belief. A people that cannot demonstrate considerable self-control will eventually create chaos and require extensive government control to the detriment of personal liberty. 

Political leaders and the public must “cherish the public credit.”  Borrowing should only be temporary, and debt should be paid down immediately. Neither Mark Kelly nor one generation has the right to steal from another.

Avoid permanent foreign alliances lest one get entangled in the interests of other nations and then the influences these foreign nations and alliances have on our national interests and freedoms.

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

Can America Be Tax-free Again? thumbnail

Can America Be Tax-free Again?

/in , , , , /by

By Paul Dragu

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

Americans are so used to paying taxes, so conditioned to believe taxes are necessary for the nation’s survival, that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick likens it to a form of collective Stockholm syndrome.

Lutnick recently told a CBS reporter that President Donald Trump’s goal was to eliminate taxes for people earning less than $150,000 a year. He made the case that Americans are the economic engine of the world and therefore most deserving of paying no taxes, adding that it is the nations benefiting from our consumption that should pay a “membership fee.” He said:

The way I think about it, we all are so used to paying taxes, we’re so used to it, we have, like, Stockholm syndrome. “Don’t stop the Internal Revenue Service, God forbid!” How ‘bout this?

The rest of the world leans on our economy, breathes off our economy. Not only is our economy $29 trillion GDP, but we consume $20 trillion a year. We are the buyer of everybody’s stuff — we buy everybody’s stuff! … Everything comes from us. Let them pay a membership fee. We all understand that model. … How about we — you and I and every single person we know — pay less? How about no tax on tips? How about no tax on overtime? How about [no tax] on social security? … These are the kind of thoughts that will change America. I know what [Trump’s] goal is: no tax for anybody who makes less than $150,000 a year. … And that’s what I’m working for.

Why Not Tariffs?

The membership fee Lutnick referred to was tariffs, taxes on imported products. Trump’s ping-pong tariff game has triggered screeching and gnashing of teeth among the mainstream media peanut gallery. However, for the majority of U.S. history, tariffs were the major source of income for the federal government; federal income taxes did not exist. The main argument against significant tariffs as the main source of national revenue today is that it wouldn’t be enough to pay for the laundry list of programs and agencies the government has created over time. Precisely.

ADVERTISEMENT

Many of today’s federal agencies didn’t exist until after 1913, and therefore did not need to be funded. At least 20 agencies were created after ratification of the 16th Amendment, which permitted Congress to impose and collect income taxes from the American people. We can start by eliminating the ones doing the most damage, including the departments of education, energy, environmental protection, drug enforcement, health and human services, emergency management (FEMA), national security (NSA), and central intelligence (CIA). Then we can eliminate the remaining agencies with no constitutional permission to exist.

While Lutnick’s comments in that excerpt did not explicitly mention abolishing the income tax, he has suggested the idea before. He has also noted Trump’s plan to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and establish an external revenue service for tariffs.

Unconstitutional Income Tax

While most people today may not know it, the amendment that allows the government to loot at least 20 percent of citizens’ hard-earned income was once considered destructive and unconstitutional by the highest court in the land. In 1819, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the case McCulloch v. Maryland that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” And in 1895, more than a century after the nation’s founding, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company that directly taxing Americans’ income was unconstitutional.

Before 1913, tariffs were put on imports. Excise taxes, which are like modern sales taxes, were added to certain items like horses and carriages. As Jack Kenny pointed out in a 100-year-anniversary article on the income tax, these were taxes on consumption rather than income, which gave citizens the freedom to control their tax burden. This also prevented the government from making first claim to individuals’ wealth, “effectively deciding how much income the people would be allowed to keep.”

In 1848, Karl Marx published The Communist Manifesto, which advocated for a graduated income tax as a way to build a classless society. Marx’s ideas caught on in Europe and, eventually, in America. The U.S. used a federal income tax temporarily to fund the Civil War, but ended it in 1866. Nevertheless, the movement for a graduated income tax gained momentum as the 20th century approached. As Kenny noted, “The Socialist Labor Party advocated a graduated income tax in 1887, and the Populist Party demanded the same in its 1892 platform.”

Soak the Rich — or the Middle Class?

The key to passing such a tax was convincing the American people. They did so by pointing to the wealth that was indeed being amassed by the industry titans of the day, including the Rockefellers, Carnegies, and Vanderbilts. The American people were told that a federal income tax would “soak the rich” and not affect Average Joe. By the 1912 presidential election, all three candidates — Progressive candidate Teddy Roosevelt, Republican William Howard Taft, and Democrat Woodrow Wilson — supported the tax.

ADVERTISEMENT

Historians note the interesting fact that even the rich themselves supported a tax that was supposed to affect only them. How come? Here’s Kenny:

Senator Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island, for example, a man widely known to be John D. Rockefeller’s “inside man” in the Senate, was a principal proponent of a federal progressive income tax made legal by an amendment to the constitution. This is not surprising, for although the “progressives” who championed the income tax claimed that it would be a tax on the rich and that it would help the little guy, in reality it was largely a tax on the middle class. This is mainly because the wealthy, through the use of trusts and tax-exempt foundations, are able to escape much of their tax burden yet still have great influence and power over business, banking, and government. There was a significant difference between the propaganda and the reality; the populism championed by the progressives and populists was not the “share the wealth” program they portrayed it to be, but a control-the-wealth program.

Opposition

Congress eventually passed the tax, and 42 of 48 states ratified the 16th Amendment, but not before those opposed to it spoke their piece. During ratification debate on March 3, 1910, Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates Richard E. Byrd said the tax would take revenue from the state and give it to the federal government. He warned it would extend the power of the federal government into the lives of ordinary citizens:

A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man’s business; the eye of the Federal inspector will be in every man’s counting house. … Under it men will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the taxpayer. An army of Federal inspectors, spies and detectives will descend upon the state.

He also warned the tax would dictate forms of bookkeeping and force citizens “to disclose the secrets of their affairs.” Nevertheless, Byrd’s prophetic warnings went unheeded.

Once ratified, the federal income tax slowly but surely slithered into American citizens’ lives, becoming the burden it is today. Of course, the wealthy continue to figure out ways to pay less. After passage of the 16th amendment, annual income below $20,000 (or about $460,000 in 2012) was taxed at one percent. With an exemption of $3,000, most Americans didn’t pay anything.

But by 1920, 12 percent of the adult population was paying income taxes. By 1940, that percentage had doubled. In 1942, the “temporary measure” of automatic withholding was implemented — but it became permanent. Less than two decades later, more than two-thirds of American adults had to pay income tax. By the 1980s, that number had crept up to 75 to 80 percent. Then, taxes on income amounted to about 25 percent of all earnings. Taxes from all sources — federal, state, and local — moved above the one-third mark.

Why Do Americans Defend the Income Tax?

Lutnick’s statement at the beginning of this article is tragically true. Just as victims of Stockholm syndrome develop a bond with their captors based on deluded positive feelings, Americans view favorably the very mechanism that robs them of economic power and freedom, and they do so because their captors have brainwashed them.

It is especially astounding that there is anyone left in America who still defends this un-American looting tool, given the most recent findings by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

While regular citizens struggle to pay $5 for a dozen eggs, the federal government has dedicated valuable resources to the salaries of degenerate National Security Agency employees who discussed all form of lurid details related to transgenderism while on the clock. Numerous federal government departments brought in race-baiters and paid them piles of cash to teach other government employees that this country, the people who pay their salaries, are awful and racist. And just recently, senior advisor at the U.S. Agency for Global Media Kari Lake revealed that the federal government entered into a $250 million lease for a lavish skyscraper for the agency, a federally funded propaganda apparatus that has become anti-American. But it gets worse. The agency already had a building — and it was all paid off.

We also learned that piles of cash were doled out for benefits and hotel stays for illegal aliens. We learned intelligence agents burrowed into social media companies to silence Americans who held unapproved views on the origins of Covid, the safety and efficacy of the Covid “vaccine,” or the legitimacy of the 2020 election.

In short, the American people are paying for their own destruction.

Restoring the Founders’ Vision

Eliminating the federal income tax is one of the most important ways Americans can begin restoring the Founders’ original vision for what was not too long ago the freest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world.

*****

This article was published at The New American, and is reproduced here with permission.

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

Do Not Count on the Arabs to Rebuild Gaza or Help Palestinians thumbnail

Do Not Count on the Arabs to Rebuild Gaza or Help Palestinians

/in , , , /by

By Khaled Abu Toameh

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

The Arab countries have finally come up with a plan for the Gaza Strip that aims to address the humanitarian crisis, restore essential services and rebuild. The $53 billion plan, announced in early March after an extraordinary meeting of the Arab League in the Egyptian capital of Cairo, did not come out of a genuine desire to help the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, but as a counterproposal to US President Donald Trump’s vision of relocating the residents of Gaza and turning it into the Rivera of the Middle East.

If the Arab leaders really wanted to assist the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, they would have held a meeting immediately after the Hamas-Israel war, which erupted on October 7, 2023, when the Iran-backed Islamist group and thousands of ordinary Palestinians invaded Israel, slaughtering 1,200 Israelis and wounding thousands. Another 251 Israelis were kidnapped into the Gaza Strip, where 59 – alive and dead – are still being held as hostages.

It took the leaders of Arab states 18 months to hold a summit to discuss a plan for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. The only reason they met was because of Trump’s plan, according to which Egypt, Jordan and other Arab countries would absorb Palestinians from the Gaza Strip. The Arab leaders have rejected the idea of receiving Palestinians in their countries on the clear pretext that such a move would be seen as helping in their permanent displacement.

ADVERTISEMENT

The truth, however, is that most of the Arab countries have always refused to receive Palestinians. Most Arabs view the Palestinians as ungrateful. The turning point in Arab-Palestinian relations occurred in 1990, when Palestinians supported Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait – a country that had provided residency and employment to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. When Kuwait was liberated a year later by the US-led coalition, the Kuwaitis and other Gulf states responded by deporting most of them.

Since then, the Palestinians have been almost entirely dependent on financial aid from the US and the European Union. All they have seen from their Arab brothers, apart from Qatar, are empty promises of financial aid and rhetorical support.

Qatar has funded every Islamist extremist group from the Muslim Brotherhood to the Taliban to Al Qaeda, both with donations and through its broadcasting empire Al Jazeera. Qatar was the only Arab country that provided direct financial aid to the Hamas-rulers of the Gaza Strip over the past two decades. The Qataris did not do so out of love for the Palestinians, but to ensure that Hamas remains in power, in order to eliminate Israel and replace it with an Islamic state. October 7, 2023 was the result. Now Qatar is negotiating to preserve its client, Hamas.

The latest Arab plan does not even include a commitment from the Arab regimes to contribute to the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. Instead, it states that the sources of funding would come from the United Nations, international financial institutions, and donor countries, as well as foreign direct investments and private sector contributions.

The Arab plan, notably, also does not call on Hamas to lay down its weapons. Do the Arab leaders really believe that Western donors would rush to invest tens of billions of dollars in the Gaza Strip while terrorists belonging to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other groups continue to roam the streets? Allowing Hamas to maintain its military capabilities means that it is only a matter of time before the terrorist group launches more massacres against Israelis, as its own leaders have vowed.

MEMRI reported on November 1, 2023:

ADVERTISEMENT

“Ghazi Hamad of the Hamas political bureau said in an October 24, 2023 show on LBC TV (Lebanon) that Hamas is prepared to repeat the October 7 ‘Al-Aqsa Flood’ Operation [October 7 attack,] time and again until Israel is annihilated.”

Hamad stated:

“Israel is a country that has no place on our land. We must remove that country… The Al-Aqsa Flood is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth… “

Hussein Abdul Hussein, a research fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, wrote on March 4, 2024:

“The Arab plan for Gaza is dead on arrival. It does not demand the disarmament of Hamas, the biggest hurdle to any post-war plan, and puts disarmament of Palestinian terrorist groups after the sought-after creation of a Palestinian state — which is contrary to how the two-state solution was conceived decades ago.”

The Arab plan also invites the Palestinian Authority (PA) to return to the Gaza Strip to govern it instead of Hamas. The Arab leaders seem to have forgotten that between 1994 and 2007, the PA had already governed the Gaza Strip, before they were violently overthrown by Hamas. When they were in control of Gaza, PA security forces did nothing to crack down on Hamas or prevent it from manufacturing and smuggling weapons. The assumption that the PA would be able to rein in the terrorists without the prior disarmament of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other armed groups, is false.

Hamas, in the meantime, has repeatedly emphasized that it has no intention of laying down its weapons. Recently, Hamas leader Sami Abu Zuhri warned that disarming is out of the question for his group and other Palestinian terrorist factions. “Any talk about the resistance’s weapons is nonsense,” he said. “The resistance’s weapons are a red line for Hamas and all resistance factions.”

For Hamas, holding onto its weapons is far more important than rebuilding the Gaza Strip.

For the Arab countries, the new plan just another attempt to avoid responsibility towards their Palestinian brothers and shift the blame onto Israel.

The Arab leaders did not even bother to condemn Hamas’s October 7 massacre of Israelis or hold the terrorist group fully responsible for initiating a war that has brought death and destruction on the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

The Arab leaders, as pointed out by Dalia Ziada, an Egyptian political analyst, chose to vilify Israel rather than develop a practical roadmap for Gaza’s future:

“The Arab League’s emergency summit on Gaza on March 4, 2025, was never about the future of Gaza, but about the Arabs’ Gaza dilemma and the interplay between Arabs, the United States, and Europe. The emergency summit, organized by Egypt in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s Gaza-Riviera statements, was a carefully staged political maneuver designed to whitewash the hands of Arab leaders from their responsibility to shelter Gazans and gaslight the international community into believing that a viable solution is possible for the chronic Gaza crisis, which is the most aching core of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, without addressing the crux of the problem – Hamas….

“The reality is that the Arab emergency summit was also about demonizing Israel and throwing the Gaza hot potato into its court. A closer look at the summit’s final statement reveals its true purpose: attacking Israel rather than addressing Gaza’s future. For example, Article 18 of the summit’s Cairo Declaration proposes forming a legal committee to classify Israel’s military actions, and the U.S. calls for ‘displacement of Gazans’ as acts of genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention.

“Playing the ‘genocide’ card once again was a cynical attempt by Arabs to weaponize international law against Israel and, this time, against the United States too. They purposefully ignored the fact that Hamas deliberately embedded its military infrastructure within civilian areas and purposefully used the people of Gaza as human shields….

This focus on vilifying Israel rather than developing a practical roadmap for Gaza’s future is precisely why the Arab League summit failed. Rather than offering real solutions, Arab leaders reverted to their old strategy of using Gaza as a diplomatic tool against Israel and the West. This approach does nothing to help the Palestinian people and only ensures that the conflict continues indefinitely….

“Until Hamas is removed, every so-called ‘peace plan’ will be nothing more than another chapter in an endless cycle of destruction.”

*****

This article was published by The Gatestone Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

ELECTION VICTORY: Federal Judge Upholds the Right to Inspect Maryland Voter Rolls thumbnail

ELECTION VICTORY: Federal Judge Upholds the Right to Inspect Maryland Voter Rolls

/in , , , , /by

By Judicial Watch

Maryland is finally learning what other states have learned: federal law requires transparency in the voting process.

District Court Judge Matthew J. Maddox of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland struck down a Maryland State Board of Elections regulation that restricted and criminalized the use of voter registration lists for voter fraud and other “investigations.”

Citing a separate Judicial Watch court victory in Maryland that opened up voter rolls to public scrutiny under federal law, the court recognized that restricting the use of the state’s voter rolls presented an obstacle to upholding federal voter roll maintenance as required by the National Voter Registration Act’s (NVRA).

This ruling comes in the case Katherine Strauch Sullivan, et al., v. Michael G. Summers, et al., (No. 1:24-cv-00172), in which we filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in support of the Maryland voters who challenged the new rule:

One of the many necessary documents in order to determine whether a jurisdiction is in compliance with the NVRA’s list maintenance provisions are the voter registration list with voter history for prior general federal elections. These records were at issue in 2017, when Judicial Watch sued in this Court alleging that the state law requirement to be a Maryland registered voter was unlawful and preempted by the NVRA’s public disclosure provision…. This Court agreed, finding that both the records requested in the voter registration list were subject to disclosure under the NVRA and the state’s requirement to be a registered voter frustrated the purposes of the federal law and was preempted by it.

As several federal courts have recognized, the public records provisions of the National Voter Registration Act were intended to enhance the ability of private groups to monitor whether states are removing ineligible voters from their voter rolls. In August 2019, a federal court in Maryland noted that organizations “such as Judicial Watch” have “the resources and expertise that few individuals can marshal. By excluding these organizations from access to voter registration lists,” the purpose of the federal law is undermined. That court ordered Maryland to produce the voter registration list, with fields indicating name, home address, most recent voter activity, and active or inactive status. In April 2020, the same court ordered Maryland to provide Judicial Watch with the dates of birth.

Judge Maddox notes in his opinion: “On or around June 2023, the SBE [Maryland State Board of Elections] adopted the regulation restricting the use of voter registration lists by Maryland voters who request them.”

A voter requesting access to the voter registration list, including voting history, must provide a signed and sworn statement that the list is not intended for commercial solicitation or any other purpose “not related to the electoral process.” …

As they have done in the past, Plaintiffs [Sullivan] anticipate using the registered voter list from the SBE [State Board of Elections] and voting histories for registered voters to conduct statewide investigative canvasses to identify and analyze what they believe are potential errors, irregularities, or anomalies within MDVOTERS [voter database going back to 2006].

Judge Maddox’s opinion concludes:

In sum, the Court concludes as a matter of law that the Use Restriction in COMAR [Code of Maryland Regulations] … presents an obstacle to accomplishing and executing the purposes and objectives of the NVRA [National Voter Registration Act] and is, therefore, preempted.

This new federal court ruling affirming a transparency requirement for voter registration lists is an important victory for Maryland voters and election integrity. It was truly outrageous that Maryland election officials tried to criminalize voters asking questions about election integrity.

As you know, we are a national leader in voting integrity and voting rights. As part of our work, Judicial Watch assembled a team of highly experienced voting rights attorneys who stopped discriminatory elections in Hawaii, and cleaned up voter rolls in California, Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, among other achievements.

Earlier this month, we sent a notice letter to Lt. Governor Deidre M. Henderson, notifying her that Utah is currently in violation of federal NVRA public disclosure requirements. The notice letter warns of a lawsuit after 90 days if the issues are not resolved.

In July 2023, we filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, supporting the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, which struck down Maine’s policy restricting the use and distribution of the state’s voter registration list. The lawsuit is now in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. According to a national studyconducted by Judicial Watch in 2020, Maine’s statewide registration rate was 101% of eligible voters.

Also in July 2023, we settled a federal lawsuit against the Illinois State Board of Elections, requiring it to grant access to its centralized statewide list of registered voters. State officials had refused to allow the nonprofit Illinois Conservative Union and three lawfully registered Illinois voters to obtain a copy of the state’s voter registration list, despite their lawful request for those records under federal law.

In recent years, Judicial Watch’s analysis and use of voter registration lists has led to lawsuits and legal actions that have resulted in the removal of four million names from voter rolls in nearly a dozen states and localities, including Los Angeles County and New York City.

Full Appellate Court Takes Historic Step to End Counting of Votes Received after Election Day

This is an important victory for Judicial Watch. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to rehear its previous ruling, in which it agreed with Judicial Watch that it was unlawful for Mississippi to count ballots that arrived after Election Day. The full Circuit declined to hear the case by a vote of 5 to 10.

We filed a civil rights lawsuit in February 2024, challenging the Mississippi election law on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi (Libertarian Party of Mississippi v Wetzel et al. (No. 1:24-cv-00037)). The suit was consolidated with one filed by the Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and other complainants.

(We filed the first challenge to require all ballots to be received by Election Day in 2022 against Illinois.)

The October 25, 2024, Fifth Circuit appellate opinion at issue found:

Congress statutorily designated a singular “day for the election” of members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors. Text, precedent, and historical practice confirm this “day for the election” is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials. Because Mississippi’s statute allows ballot receipt up to five days after the federal election day, it is preempted by federal law. We reverse the district court’s contrary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Earlier this month, we filed a federal lawsuit against California on behalf of U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa to prevent state election officials from extending Election Day for seven days beyond the date established by federal law. California counts ballots received up to seven days after Election Day.

In an Illinois “Election Day” lawsuit in November 2024 we filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court challenging the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the case filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors from Illinois to prevent state election officials from counting ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day.

This Fifth Circuit action is a historic victory for honest elections. Federal law sets “Election Day” not “Election Week.” California and the 17 other states should take notice. Our lawsuit just filed against California for counting ballots received for up to seven days after Election Day has even more urgency and strength.

Judicial Watch Sues for DHS Records on Trump Assassination Attempt at Butler, PA

Why is there so much secrecy surrounding the assassination attempt on Donald Trump?

To find out, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for records related to security provided for the July 13, 2024, rally in Butler, PA, during which there was an assassination attempt on President Trump (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:25-cv-00704)).

The lawsuit was filed after the agency failed to comply with a July 15, 2024, FOIA request for:

All records, including emails, email chains, email attachments, text messages, video or audio recordings, photographs, outlook calendars, meeting minutes, correspondence, statements, letters, memoranda, reports, briefings, presentations, notes, summaries, requests for assistance, agreements, travel records, receipts, or other form of record, regarding providing support or manpower to President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign rally that was held in Butler, PA, on July 13, 2024.

The request specifically sought records from the agency’s Homeland Security Investigations, which is believed to have helped provide security at the Butler event.

On July 13, 2024, at a campaign rally in Butler, PA, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks attempted to assassinatePresident Donald Trump. After the attempt on President Trump’s life, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas named a bipartisan panel to conduct a 45-day independent review of the planning for and actions before, during, and after the rally.

Federal agencies need to come clean on the events that led up to the assassination attempts on President Trump. It is now  eight months since the first attempt, and the American people have yet to receive any answers under FOIA on the failures of the Biden administration to protect President Trump.

We are extensively investigating the assassination attempts on President Trump.

In August 2024, we received Secret Service records that showed the Secret Service has made it a top priority that “diversity and inclusion is not just ‘talked about’ – but demonstrated by all employees through ‘Every Action, Every Day.’” [Emphasis in original]

We also uncovered records from the district attorney’s office in Butler County, PA, detailing the extensive preparation of local police for the rally at which former President Trump was shot, including sniper teams, counter assault teams and a quick response force.

In response to a separate open records request, we obtained bodycam footage of the July 13 assassination events from the Butler Township Police Department.

We reported that the FBI withheld information on a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information about its coordination with the U.S. Secret Service regarding the July 13 Butler, PA, rally.

On July 31, we reported that the United States Secret Service completely denied multiple FOIA requests for documents about the assassination attempt on former President Trump.

Judicial Watch Sues for Files on Former Trump Lawyer Christina Bobb

We’re taking another step to expose the Biden administration’s legal persecution of Donald Trump.

We filed lawsuits against the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security for records regarding Christina Bobb, a former lawyer for President Trump.

We also announced that Bobb has joined the litigation team at Judicial Watch.

We sued the Justice Department after the FBI failed to respond to a January 24, 2025, FOIA request for records about Bobb (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:25-cv-00588)).

Among other records, the lawsuit seeks all related investigative reports, intelligence products, or similar records, as well as all records of communication between any official or employee of the FBI and any official, employee, or representative of any other branch, department, agency, or office of the federal government mentioning or referring to Bobb.

We sued Homeland Security after the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) failed to respond to January 24, 2025, FOIA request for all records regarding Bobb’s enrollment in the TSA PreCheck Program and any cancellation or suspension of that enrollment, as well as all records of communication between any official or employee of TSA and any official, employee, or representative of any other branch, department, agency, or office of the federal government mentioning or referring to Bobb (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:25-cv-00834)).

Bobb was an attorney for President Trump from 2022-2024 before joining the Republican National Committee to assist election integrity efforts for the 2024 election.

She was a part of Trump’s legal team during the Biden Justice Department’s pursuit of the classified documents case.

On August 8, 2022, FBI agents executed a search warrant at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida. Bobb was Trump’s custodian of record at the time and was at Mar-a-Lago during the raid.

The classified documents case was ultimately dismissed by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in July 2024.

Bobb, a former on-air host for One America News Network, is also the author of Stealing Your Vote: The Inside Story of the 2020 Election and What it Means for 2024.

Bobb joins the Judicial Watch team after working for President Trump and his campaign to secure the 2024 election. In 2022, she joined President Trump’s PAC Save America to help secure America’s elections and ensure President Trump received a fair opportunity to win the White House again.

Bobb has been a long-time friend of Judicial Watch and an advocate for government accountability.

Shortly after she began working for the president, the Department of Justice and FBI embroiled her in both Jack Smith investigations of the Mar-a-Lago documents and January 6. She saw firsthand how partisan government operatives abuse their authority to eliminate political opposition, and she’s now determined to eliminate partisan threats from the government.

Prior to working for President Trump, Bobb held executive level positions in the Department of Homeland Security, served in the United States Marine Corps as a Judge Advocate, practiced civil litigation in San Diego, and now returns to her litigation roots with Judicial Watch in Washington, D.C.

Bobb commented: “I am thrilled to be joining the litigation team at Judicial Watch. There is no better organization to hold government officials accountable for their actions. At this time in history, there is no greater mission than to root out government corruption. I’m grateful to be on the team.” Christina’s unique experience and dedication make her a perfect fit for our mission. We’re happy to have her join the team and look forward to having her skills and expertise help expose the full extent of anti-Trump lawfare and government corruption.

U.S. Global Media Agency Fired Journalists Behind Newscast Critical of Soros

The tax-funded agency meant to proclaim U.S. values to the world was turned into an anti-American propaganda machine, which the Trump administration is now moving to shut down. Our Corruption Chronicles blog explains.

The government-funded media syndicate being dismantled by President Trump spreads anti-U.S. propaganda, covers news with a distinct leftist bias and even utilized Stalinist techniques to retaliate against journalists and producers behind a newscast—that cited Judicial Watch as a source—critical of leftwing billionaire George Soros. The taxpayer-funded news agency also ordered staff to refrain from calling Hamas terrorists, suppresses negative stories about Iran, has been infiltrated by anti-American, pro-Islamic state interests and employed a Russian anti-U.S. propagandist. This history indicates that scrutiny of the public conglomerate, known as U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), was long overdue. The president’s recent executive order to gut it will save American taxpayers around $900 million a year that could easily be applied to a myriad of domestic programs.

Five international media networks—Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB), Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting—operate under USAGM and reportedly reach 345 million people worldwide in 59 languages. The global media agency was created to counter disinformation spread by oppressive regimes abroad. The USAGM website states that its mission is “to inform, engage and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.” The editorial objective of this government-funded media was developed during the Cold War and is supposed to support the national strategic objectives of the United States. It was specifically created to provide people in communist nations, via outlets such as Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe, with information about the free world that is prohibited by their totalitarian rulers.

It makes no sense for American taxpayers to fund anti-U.S. propaganda that gets broadcast and published worldwide. That apparently is what has been occurring for many years at USAGM, which has a workforce of around 3,500 and an $886 million budget in 2024. The agency requested a substantial budget increase of $950 million for fiscal year 2025. In its Congressional Budget Justification, USAGM touts its Diversity and Inclusion Initiative with the appointment of an inaugural Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) who will collaborate closely with the Office of Civil Rights to align Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) training with a focus on crucial conversations, cultural diversity, and inclusivity. In the document, the agency assures that the new diversity chief will implement greater visibility and awareness of USAGM’s DEIA initiatives, identify new opportunities for DEIA initiatives agency-wide, and advance equity for underserved communities.

Since Trump ordered USAGM’s shutdown, the administration official charged with the job, senior adviser Kari Lake, has found a multitude of problems, including massive national security violations in which spies and terrorist sympathizers infiltrated the agency, eye-popping self-dealing involving contracts, hundreds of millions of dollars spent on fake news companies, and obscene overspending on building leases with no broadcasting facilities. Lake’s team even uncovered a $9 million commission to a private real estate agency with connections. “Waste, fraud and abuse run rampant in this agency and American taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund it,” said Lake, a former television news broadcaster. She has determined that, from top to bottom, the USAGM is a giant rot and burden to the American taxpayer as well as a national security risk. It is not salvageable, and Lake’s team will clean it up so it can meet the “core mission of telling America’s story throughout the world in a meaningful, impactful and effective way.”

Liberals have long been in charge at USAGM, and the previously mentioned Soros broadcast is just one of many examples. The Spanish-language segment, which focused on the Hungarian philanthropist’s efforts to cripple sovereign governments in Latin America, aired on Television Martí (which operates under OCB) and was available for months online before a scandal-plagued Democratic senator discovered it and demanded an investigation. The disgraced veteran lawmaker, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, was recently sentenced to 11 years in prison for bribery, extortion and conspiracy. At his request, Obama’s USAGM chief, John F. Lansing, fired eight reporters and editors involved in the Soros broadcast. Judicial Watch was cited as a source because it investigated State Department funding of Soros groups in Colombia and published a report on Soros’ initiatives to advance a radical globalist agenda in Guatemala.

Chief Justice Roberts Can Avert an Impending Constitutional Crisis — But Will He? thumbnail

Chief Justice Roberts Can Avert an Impending Constitutional Crisis — But Will He?

/in , , , , , /by

By Family Research Council

For nearly a decade, Democrats have campaigned on little more than the message that President Donald Trump is Adolf Hitler reincarnated. Although Trump won both the electoral and popular votes in November, effectively having been given a mandate from the American people to govern the nation, the old cries of “Dictator!” may soon be heard again from the progressive corners of the nation — unless the U.S. Supreme Court steps in and averts a rapidly approaching constitutional crisis.

As this writer previously noted, Trump was elected in order to carry out the agenda that he promised he would: gutting the swollen federal bureaucracy, eliminating the waste and fraud plaguing the American taxpayer, ending the woke stranglehold suffocating key federal institutions, and initiating the mass deportation of millions of illegal immigrants who have violated the laws and disregarded the sovereignty of the United States of America.

However, a spate of unelected, largely-partisan federal judges — almost exclusively at the district court level — have issued sweeping restrictions against many of the president’s executive orders and actions. Some recent examples include a U.S. district court judge halting the Trump administration’s virtual shutdown of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), another district court judge blocking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from reclaiming roughly $20 billion hastily spent by the previous administration on climate hysterics, and yet another district court judge preventing the U.S. military from barring transgender-identifying individuals from enlisting, citing the musical “Hamilton” in her order.

One of the most egregious examples of this recent judicial overreach came when District Court Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order demanding that U.S. planes deporting 250 members of the criminal terrorist organization Tren de Aragua return the violent gang members to the U.S. In concert with his top immigration advisor, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, Trump had invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a war-time measure allowing the president to arrest and detain or deport any male over the age of 14 who comes from a foreign country which has been designated an enemy. The Alien Enemies Act has actually been used on several occasions throughout U.S. history, including during the War of 1812 and both the First and Second World Wars.

Miller and the White House have spent the past several days defending the president’s use of the Alien Enemies Act — which Trump pledged on several occasions to invoke while campaigning. In an interview this week, Miller took a particularly strong stance against Boasberg’s ruling, explaining, “The Alien Enemies Act, which was passed into law by the founding generation of this country — men like John Adams — was written explicitly to give the president the authority to repel an alien invasion of the United States.” He continued, “That is not something that a District Court judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, to enjoin, to restrict, or to restrain in any way. … There’s not one clause in that law that makes it subject to judicial review, let alone District Court review.”

The Alien Enemies Act, which is part of Title 50 of the U.S. Code, explicitly bars federal courts from curtailing the president’s use of the Act. In fact, Title 50 § 23 addresses the jurisdiction which federal courts do or do not have over the president’s exercise of Title 50: federal courts are allowed to detain or deport “any alien enemy resident” within their jurisdiction or district, even if the president’s terms for invoking the Alien Enemies Act does or would exempt that individual from detainment or deportation. What a federal court is most certainly not allowed to do, according to the clear terms established in Title 50, is prevent the president from invoking the Alien Enemies Act or rescind his proclamation of invocation. “Under the Constitution, who makes that determination? A district court judge elected by no one? Or the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy?” Miller asked regarding the Alien Enemies Act. He answered, “The president and the president alone makes the decision of what triggers that.”

Since then, Miller has continued to warn of the dangers posed by an unchecked, unelected cabal of partisan judges who are empowered to effectively shape — via restrictive court order — the policy of the executive branch of the federal government and prevent the administration from enacting the policy that the American people overwhelmingly voted for. “There are nearly 700 unelected district court judges. If the most extremist of these judges on any given day decides he is in charge of the executive branch then Article II, democracy[,] and government itself cannot function,” Miller observed in a social media post.

He added, in another post, “Currently, district court judges have assumed the mantle of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security[,] and Commander-in-Chief. Each day, they change the foreign policy, economic, staffing[,] and national security policies of the Administration.” He warned, “It is madness. It is lunacy. It is pure lawlessness. It is the gravest assault on democracy. It must and will end.”

This is where the U.S. Supreme Court comes in — or, rather, where it should come in but has so far refused to. As The Washington Stand previously reported, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene in a case where a district court judge forced the administration to pay $2 billion, erroneously labeling his order of compulsion as a temporary restraining order. The Supreme Court refused to intervene in the matter, accepting, as did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the district court’s temporary restraining order “at face value,” as Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito put it in a scathing dissent. “Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” Alito asked, in his dissenting opinion, with which Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined. He continued, “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.”

The justices’ majority in rejecting the Trump administration’s petition was comprised of Obama appointees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, Biden appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson, Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by George W. Bush. The fact that Roberts sided with the Supreme Court’s left-leaning trio (Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson) is not much of a surprise, as the nominally conservative jurist has sided with the court’s more liberal wing on numerous occasions, seemingly in an effort to maintain some form of consensus. What was only slightly more surprising was that Roberts publicly rebuked the president for calling for Boasberg’s impeachment.

Following the district court judge’s order demanding that hundreds of already-deported terrorists be returned to the United States, Trump suggested that Boasberg should be impeached. “I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!” the president declared over Truth Social.

In a relatively rare public statement, Roberts replied, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” He added, “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.” This is, once again, not the first time that Roberts has seemingly been at odds with Trump, although his public statements on such subjects are a relative rarity. In 2018, after Trump disparaged a federal judge as an Obama appointee, Roberts told the media, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges, or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

Of course, the recent rash of overreaching temporary restraining orders and the years-long partisan lawfare campaign aggressively waged against Trump stand themselves as rebukes against Roberts’s 2018 claim. While “Bush judges” and even “Trump judges” may not see themselves as levers of power for one ideological faction over another, “Obama judges” and “Clinton judges” — and especially Biden judges — are largely blatant activists. Therein lies a crucial part of the problem: if the president is to do his job and carry out the agenda that the American people elected him to carry out, then he cannot be hampered by activist judges who are willing to bend, misconstrue, reinterpret, and misinterpret the very U.S. Constitution which they were sworn to uphold.

Trump has a very limited period of time in the White House, a very limited period of time in which to enact his agenda; he should not have to waste months or even years working his way through a federal court system at least partly run by the very activist judges erroneously and (in many cases) disingenuously thwarting his executive efforts in the first place. As, once again, Miller noted, “Unelected rogue judges are trying to steal years of time from a 4 year term. It’s the most egregious theft one can imagine: robbing the vote and voice of the American People.”

Yet Roberts is unwilling to intervene. While his siding with left-leaning justices is par for the course and his public rebukes of the president are not thoroughly shocking, his refusal to intervene is something of a surprise. Despite numerous decisions Roberts has made (some of which he has himself authored) that have disappointed conservative Americans, he has long been a strong and clear proponent of the separation of powers.

One of his most consequential rulings, in Trump v. United States, is typical of the Chief Justice’s bent for preserving not only the integrity and power of the federal judiciary but the integrity and power of the executive branch of the federal government too. In that case, Roberts penned a landmark opinion defending the core constitutional duties and powers of the presidency, clarifying that a president is entitled to absolute immunity for any of his actions which fall within the scope of his core constitutional duties and powers, as delineated in Article II of the Constitution, and is entitled to presumed immunity for all of his official acts.

“Appreciating the ‘unique risks’ that arise when the President’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him ‘unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,’ the Court has recognized Presidential immunities and privileges ‘rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history,’” Roberts himself wrote in July. He continued, “Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.” In other words — again, as Roberts himself noted — there is a fundamental urgency inherent in the office of the president and the president himself is empowered by Article II of the Constitution to make bold decisions for the good of the nation. When it comes to the exercise of his core constitutional duties and powers as established in Article II, the president should not be able to be enjoined nationwide by activist judges who are, frankly, acting outside their jurisdictions.

This line of reasoning is one which Roberts should readily reach, particularly given his robust defense of the executive branch and the separation of powers over the course of his jurisprudential career. Yet he has still declined to intervene in these urgent cases wherein the Trump administration has sought the Supreme Court’s ruling. The very fact that Trump and his White House officers have repeatedly beseeched the Supreme Court for relief is demonstrative of the fact that the president will abide by the Supreme Court’s decision, as he has numerous times in the past.

As recently as this week, Trump insisted that he does not, at present, intend to openly defy court orders. “You can’t do that,” he said, affirming that he expects the Supreme Court to make a just and reasonable decision, once his cases reach that level. That is, of course, if one of Trump’s numerous petitions is taken up by the Supreme Court. Thus far, the record reflects that Roberts and Barrett, at least, are not inclined to allow the president to make his case. But the refusal of the justices to act may precipitate a constitutional crisis on a scale not seen in the U.S. in over 160 years.

Should the Supreme Court refuse to examine the question of whether activist judges are maliciously — and, more than likely, unlawfully — stepping outside their jurisdictions to bombard the Trump administration with a bevy of temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, court orders, and other such, the president will be faced with a gravely difficult decision.

On the one hand, in the absence of Supreme Court intervention, the president could simply waste the next four years attempting to battle these multitudinous court orders, effectively allowing unelected activist judges to throttle the executive branch of the federal government. He may prevail in a Court of Appeals or even at the Supreme Court, but by the time the cases are litigated, argued, decided, and appealed over and over again, Trump will be on his way out of the White House, having achieved very little of what he was elected to achieve. In essence, national policy for the next several decades will be shaped not by elected officials, but by a judicial mafia appointed by agenda-driven Democrats in the first quarter of the 21st century. More crucially, the judicial branch will have managed to subdue the executive branch, shattering that barrier hailed as the “separation of powers” and choking the vitality and potency from the presidency. Such a situation would, clearly, be a constitutional crisis, and even the oft-assailed authority and legitimacy of the Supreme Court may not prove a strong enough force in such times to check the power-snatching of the district courts.

On the other hand — again, in the absence of Supreme Court intervention — the president may choose to continue exercising the powers clearly granted to his office in Article II of the Constitution, even in seeming defiance of the lawless orders of activist judges. There is a dangerous sort of precedent for such a course of action, no doubt made all the more appealing to a man of Trump’s character by the “Great Man of History” theme associated with it. President Andrew Jackson’s infamous line, “The Chief Justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it,” comes readily to mind, as does Napoleon Bonaparte’s maxim, “He who saves his country violates no law,” which Trump himself recently quoted. Following such a course of action, the president would be flagrantly violating the letter of the law, as contained in the host of court orders assailing his administration, but would still be able to present a strong case for upholding the law and saving his country. This, too, would be an obvious constitutional crisis and would certainly see a resurgence of wailing progressives crying, “Dictator!” and “Hitler!”

The Founding Fathers designed America’s federal government — and the crucial separation of powers — in such a way to ensure that no one state and, even worse, no one man could force his will on the entire nation. Yet that’s exactly what these unchecked activist judges are doing, defiling the very Constitution which they swore to uphold and corroding the nation they purport to safeguard. If the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice continually refuse to intervene, a constitutional crisis of near-unrivaled magnitude will decimate the nation. If Roberts continues rejecting the president’s pleas for order and clarity, then Jackson’s quote may be amended to read, “The Chief Justice has made his decision. Now let him live with it.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Weekend Read: On Giving Back The Statue Of Liberty thumbnail

Weekend Read: On Giving Back The Statue Of Liberty

/in , , , /by

By Neland Nobel

Estimated Reading Time: 7 minutes

Recently, a French member of the European Parliament named Glucksmann (whose name doesn’t sound too French) made headlines by suggesting that since the United States no longer appreciates liberty, we should return the Statue of Liberty, a gift from France in 1884. In this context, he seems to think that “liberty” means paying for the Ukraine War with no end in sight or plan for victory.

Of course, if the French felt so strongly about the issue, they could send troops to defend Ukraine. What do you think are the chances of that?  Besides continuing a war that Ukraine can’t win, what is the French plan? What happened the last time France invaded Russia? What about Germany’s previous attempt? It is easy to criticize caution until you realize the size of Russia, its bitter weather, and, yes, its nuclear weapons.

It was calculated as a snide remark and is part of a general attack on the US for President Trump’s effort to bring an end to the Ukraine/Russian War and his dressing down of Europe for their lack of contribution to NATO.  The reason they are so upset is they don’t have a plan and would not continue to support Ukraine if the US pulled out.  So, some Europeans resort to being facetious. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The snarky comment earned a sharp rebuke from White House Spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt, who suggested that the French politician would likely be speaking German without the United States’ past efforts. It raises the question: What have been the past efforts of the US to secure the liberty of France?

In researching for this article, we found many mentions of “the sacrifice” we have made for France and Europe in general, but we could not find any accounting for what that sacrifice has actually been. So, this short article is not a scholarly dissertation but a journalistic  “rough estimate.”

It is hard to tally up all the sacrifices the US has made on behalf of France. How do you account for it? The number of dead soldiers? Do you sort out combat deaths as opposed to those from disease? Would they have died from disease if they were not sitting in wet trenches for months on end? What about the wounded?  What about those missing? How about those so maimed by poison gas or other injuries that they came home only to die early in life because of their wounds? How about helping others like Britain, who were, in turn, assisting France? Do we count just direct help in manpower and treasure or indirect help as well?

It is almost impossible to accomplish, but an attempt needs to be made for the sake of history and friendly relations.

In World War I, the US mobilized about 4.7 million men. About two million were in the American Expeditionary Force that went to fight, mainly in France. The effort disrupted our domestic tranquility and brought vicious inflation, leading to a severe recession shortly after the war. But just in terms of casualties, the US lost 116,516 men. Some indeed were not combat deaths, but as mentioned before, would they have died had they stayed home? When you die in war, you die, and both your family and your nation lose both the kinship and productivity of a long life.

In terms of military expense, despite the short duration of the war, the US spent about $334 billion in today’s dollars, defeating the Kaiser. How much of that should be assigned to France? Probably most of it was because the center of the fighting was in Northwest France and Belgium. Unlike the next World War, the Allies did not invade Germany in the first go around.

ADVERTISEMENT

In terms of financial aid, the US was the most significant wartime creditor, lending a total of $7 billion, of which $3.7 billion went to Britain and $1.9 billion to France. In total, the U.S. lent approximately $4.07 billion to France during and shortly after World War I (up to November 1920), with about $2.97 billion advanced before the Armistice in November 1918 and $1.1 billion after, according to Treasury records. They repaid an estimated $200 million of that before defaulting in 1932. 

In short, France paid back slightly less than 5% of what was lent to them. Yes, you read that right. They paid back only 5% of what we lent them. That is about a $90 billion loss in today’s dollars, which does not include the time value of money.

So, direct help to France for World War I could likely be over 100,000 men and about $90 billion in loans. Then, there should be a hefty allocation of the $334 billion in today’s dollars for direct combat costs.  We will let you pick a number.  Something like 75% seems reasonable.

In addition, after World War I, the US spent an estimated $5 billion in today’s dollars on famine relief, an effort that made Herbert Hoover’s reputation. The funding was a mixture of private and public, spreading over many nations, so we limited our estimate to US government aid.  Again, this was aid for Europe in general, although France did benefit.

It would appear the Statue of Liberty is getting a bit expensive. But wait! There’s more! We have the costs of World War II and the liberation of France.

Not all European theatre of operations expenses were for France alone, and it isn’t easy to separate that from the overall effort. However, according to research conducted by GROK  AI, about 250,000 overall casualties and about 60,000 dead seem like reasonable estimates for the major battles fought in France.

Direct aid and” lend-lease” transfers come to about $60 billion in today’s dollars.

Combat costs are a little more difficult because the US fought worldwide. The war against Germany, however, was given priority. Most historians think about 60%-70% of the total costs of the war should be assigned to the European theatre of operations and about 30-40% to the war against Japan. Total costs for World War II are estimated at $4.1 Trillion in today’s dollars, so a reasonable number for the war in Europe would be in the range of $2.5 to $2.9 trillion.

(As an interesting aside, to give you a scale of the wild spending under the Biden Administration, just the fiscal deficits of the last three years of his term were equivalent to $4.87 trillion, not quite a trillion dollars more than the entire expense of fighting World War II! That is how much fiscal stimulus he put into our economic system during so-called peacetime prosperity.)

Getting back to France, that statue is getting even more expensive.

But wait, there’s more! Under the post-war Marshall Plan, the US granted France money worth about $36 billion in today’s dollars.

Yes, there is even more! In today’s dollar terms, we gave another $18 billion in direct military aid for the French-Indochinese War in today’s Vietnam from 1950-1953.

Calculating what we have spent on defending France since the founding of NATO would be even more difficult because, in part, we were defending France when we defended NATO. But what portion should we assign to that?

Based on NATO’s expenditure trends and inflation adjustments, the U.S. has likely contributed approximately $60-$65 trillion in today’s dollars (March 18, 2025) to NATO since 1949. This includes direct budget payments and the indirect value of U.S. military spending supporting the alliance.

As for NATO, France was a founding member but withdrew for a period. However, France has consistently paid about 5% of the total NATO budget, which includes the US contribution. If you look at what France has contributed to the budget among the European nations, it is around 15%. So, if we take 15% of total expenditures of $65 trillion, you could reasonably intuit that protecting France in NATO has cost the US $9.75 trillion. If you take the 5% number, it comes to about $3.25 trillion.

Either way, 76 years of protection has not come cheap.

We admit that is a guestimate, but do you have a better method?

Take a moment to ponder the total expense of supporting NATO.  If we had not spent that $65 trillion, we arguably would not have a national debt of almost $37 trillion. And, think of the interest expense we would have saved had we not been running deficits. Moreover, think of the opportunity cost as well. When we spent $65 trillion on European defense, we could have spent that money on research and development or infrastructure or left the funds in the hands of the most productive citizens on earth, the US taxpayer. What would they have done with the money?

To be sure, we are not blaming France for the stupid budgetary decisions made by our political leaders. NATO may have avoided another war; in that case, the money may have been well spent. But let’s not kid ourselves about the expense we have incurred protecting France and Europe.

Exact amounts are likely impossible to determine with precision. Still, the point is that if you add up all the costs of World War I and World War II, loans defaulted on, Marshall Plan aid, military aid for Indo-China, and all the years of NATO protection, interest paid on our national debt, and the opportunity cost of money: under any accounting method;  the “free” Statue of Liberty” they gave us has cost multiple trillions of dollars and many American lives.  Our love affair with Lady Liberty and France has been a high-maintenance relationship.

After grinding through these numbers, it is clear that the general MAGA assumption that our political class does not get a good deal for the American people is reinforced. We have spent immense amounts of blood and treasure protecting Europe, and it is long past time for those nations to carry more of the burden. It is also past time that we have been treated equally regarding trade policies. We deserve to be treated fairly in trade, as a matter of principle, and for all our sacrifices in life and money. That might be appreciated even more than gratitude from French politicians. 

True, all these aforementioned expenses were not always just “for France.” We were doing what we felt was in our interests, but they did benefit from our aims to free Europe and keep its peace.

Most people in France are vaguely aware of the sacrifice, and likely, most Americans are even less aware of it.  However, we candidly were surprised when we started digging into the numbers just how much money has been spent protecting Europe over the past 100 years or so.   

Given our vast sacrifice on their behalf, seeing the decline in personal liberty in England, France, and Germany is disheartening.  We successfully protected them from the Soviet menace but can do little to protect them from their own crazy domestic policies. With an imploding birth rate coupled with mass migration of Muslims, the Europe we sought to protect is fading.  In the words of Professor Gad Saad, they are imploding because of their own suicidal empathy.

Our domestic Left-wing professors and politicians are just as ignorant of this sacrifice as they often paint America as a greedy, aggressive hegemon. Glucksmann simply proves that Left-wing politicians are ungrateful wretches wherever they exist.  He represents the Left-wing view of America but coincidentally happens to be French.

We should not fault the people of France for that, except for the fact they elected this idiot.

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

‘Lot Of Nonsense’: Kari Lake Announces Voice Of America Is Dumping Legacy Outlets thumbnail

‘Lot Of Nonsense’: Kari Lake Announces Voice Of America Is Dumping Legacy Outlets

/in , , /by

By Hailey Gomez

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Special Adviser for the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) Kari Lake announced Friday that Voice of America (VOA) will terminate its contracts with The Associated Press, Reuters, and Agence France-Presse.

VOA, an international broadcasting state media network, is funded by USAGM, with former President Joe Biden requesting in March 2024 a budget increase for the 2025 fiscal year to further support the radio network. In an X post on Friday, Lake announced USAGM will end its “expensive and unnecessary newswire contracts,” adding that some of the major agreements included “tens-of-millions of dollars in contracts” with AP News, Reuters and Agence France-Presse.

(RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: GOP Rep Demands Taxpayer-Funded Voice Of America Stop ‘Carrying Water For The Left’)

ADVERTISEMENT

“USAGM is an American taxpayer funded News Organization with an 83-year history. We should not be paying outside news companies to tell us what the news is—with nearly a billion-dollar budget, we should be producing news ourselves,” Lake wrote. “And if that’s not possible, the American taxpayer should demand to know why.”

During a meeting with VOA staffers Friday, employees were reportedly told to “stop using wire service material for their reports,” according to Newsmax. Notably, audio, video, and text reports have often been used to supplement coverage from locations where reporters are not present, the outlet reported.

In an interview with Newsmax prior to the official contract cuts, Lake discussed how the agency was finding “a lot of nonsense that the American taxpayer shouldn’t be paying for.”

“Today, I started the process of terminating the agency’s contracts with the Associated Press, Reuters, & the Agence France-Presse. This will save taxpayers about 53 million dollars. The purpose of our agency is to tell the American story. We don’t need to outsource that responsibility to anyone else,” Lake wrote in an X post regarding the interview.

Disputes between The AP and the White House began in February after the corporate media outlet was revoked press access for refusing to call the Gulf of America by its new name. The AP filed a lawsuit on Feb. 21 against White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich for injunctive relief.

Lake was sworn in as USAGM’s special adviser on March 3, saying she’s “looking forward” to serving America and “streamlining” the agency. The cuts from the agency follow President Donald Trump’s push for his second administration to review the government’s wasteful spending.

ADVERTISEMENT

*****

This article was published by the Daily Caller and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: YouTube Screenshot New York Post

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

Breitbart Business Digest: The Case for Strategic Tariffs from Ricardo to Reagan thumbnail

Breitbart Business Digest: The Case for Strategic Tariffs from Ricardo to Reagan

/in , , , , , /by

By Editors of Breitbart News

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Trump’s Tariffs Could Pave a Path to Global Prosperity

Donald Trump is convinced that tariffs can make the U.S. a wealthier country with a stronger economy. He may be underestimating just how much his trade policies can accomplish.

Trump’s trade policies could make not only the U.S. economy more prosperous. They can lead us to a more prosperous world.

ADVERTISEMENT

For centuries, the great economic minds have taught us that free trade is the foundation of prosperity. The case is built on one of the most enduring ideas in economics: comparative advantage. The British economist David Ricardo first laid out the principle in 1817, arguing that even if one nation is better at producing everything, trade can still be mutually beneficial if each country specializes in what it produces at the lowest opportunity cost.

The classic example comes from Ricardo himself: Imagine England produces cloth more efficiently than Portugal, but Portugal can produce wine with less effort than England. Even if Portugal were superior at making both goods, it benefits Portugal more by focusing on wine and trading it for English cloth, and vice versa.

The power of comparative advantage is that it isn’t about absolute strength—it’s about relative efficiency. When each country focuses on its most advantageous industries, trade allows for a more efficient global division of labor, expanding total output and making the world wealthier. For over two centuries, this logic has guided trade policy, convincing free-market thinkers that tariffs and trade barriers do nothing but reduce efficiency and shrink prosperity. In a world where every nation played by the same rules, that argument would be unassailable.

But what happens when trade doesn’t reflect comparative advantage? What if the current structure of global trade isn’t a natural outgrowth of market forces, but rather a consequence of deliberate political distortions? If one country doesn’t allow comparative advantage to operate freely—if it subsidizes its industries, restricts imports, manipulates its currency, and engages in economic warfare—then global trade no longer functions as Ricardo envisioned. When that happens, treating tariffs as an automatic economic loss isn’t just naive. It’s self-destructive.

How to Be a Free Trader in a Mercantilist World

On the chalkboards of an Econ 101 class, tariffs reduce efficiency by artificially redirecting resources toward industries that aren’t the most productive. But in a world where trade is already distorted by foreign government intervention, a tariff isn’t introducing inefficiency—it’s counteracting it.

This is the foundation of the second-best theory in economics: When the conditions for the first-best solution (free trade based on comparative advantage) are absent, then certain interventions—far from making things worse—can actually move us closer to an efficient outcome. A world in which one country dominates key industries not because of natural advantages, but because of mercantilist policies, is a world that is poorer than it should be. A properly structured tariff restores trade to something closer to its true potential, ensuring that resources are allocated according to economic fundamentals rather than government manipulation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Now, let’s reconsider Ricardo’s famous example. Imagine if Portugal, instead of specializing in wine, used industrial policy to dominate both wine and cloth production by artificially boosting its textile industry with government subsidies, currency manipulation, and trade barriers. The result? England’s textile industry collapses, and its national income falls—not because Portugal was naturally better at cloth, but because it stacked the deck. Meanwhile, global output of both goods declines because resources are not being allocated efficiently. The world is left with less wine and less cloth, and total economic welfare suffers. If England imposes tariffs on Portuguese cloth, not to protect inefficiency but to prevent distortion, it forces Portugal to return to its true comparative advantage—making both countries, and the world, richer.

In other words, it is worth asking: If Ricardo were alive today, would he really be defending a system where one nation rigs the game to crush competitors through state intervention? The argument against tariffs assumes that trade is driven by market forces. But when trade is driven by industrial policy, then tariffs aren’t an interference in a free market. They are a necessary response to its absence…..

*****

Continue reading this article at Breitbart.

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

Elon Musk’s Dragon Rescue Starliner Saves Astronauts Abandoned by NASA thumbnail

Elon Musk’s Dragon Rescue Starliner Saves Astronauts Abandoned by NASA

/in , , , , /by

By Editorial Board – DrRichSwier.com

It is amazing that some are actually fact checking the rescue of the two astraunauts abandoned by NASA.  and  from FactCheck.org wrote:

During a Fox News interview with host Sean Hannity on Feb. 18, Trump said he gave Musk the “go-ahead” to accelerate a mission to retrieve the astronauts, claiming that they had been abandoned on purpose by former President Joe Biden to avoid political backlash. Trump said, “They didn’t have the go-ahead with Biden. He was going to leave them in space. I think he was going to leave them in space. … He didn’t want the publicity. Can you believe it?”

[ … ]

Several leaders at NASA said they were unaware of Musk’s offer to bring the astronauts home sooner.

WATCH: Elon Musk just Exposed SpaceX OFFERED Rescue Starliner Astronauts But NASA Refused

Who do you trust more a NASA bureaucrat or Elon Musk?

WATCH: Rescued Astronauts Stun the Internet with Unexpected Message

So, the two rescued astronauts thank Elon Musk and President Trump for saving them after being abandoned in space for 9 months!

WATCH: Elon Musk Just Declared this after Dragon rescue Starliner Astronaut Return…

TRANSCRIPT

“Elon Musk saved the U.S. space program…If it weren’t for Elon Musk, we would not be able to fly U.S. Astronauts from U.S. soil to the International Space Station. There is no doubt about it.”

These are huge words of praise from former NASA astronaut Charles Camarda for Elon Musk, recognizing what he and SpaceX just have accomplished.

And it’s absolutely true! The story of the Starliner astronauts has finally come to an end—they have returned home safely.
What did Elon Musk declare after this mission?

Let’s find out more on today’s episode of Alpha Tech!

Elon Musk Just Declared this after Dragon rescue Starliner Astronaut Return…

NASA’s Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore — who gained international attention as their planned short stay in space stretched into a more than nine-month, politically fraught mission — are finally home.

Williams and Wilmore, alongside NASA’s Nick Hague and cosmonaut Aleksandr Gorbunov of Russia’s Roscosmos space agency, safely splashed down off the coast of Tallahassee, Florida at 5:57 p.m. ET Tuesday.

The crew’s highly anticipated return came after the crew climbed aboard a SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule and departed the International Space Station at 1:05 a.m. ET Tuesday.
Elon Musk Just Declared this after Dragon rescue Starliner Astronaut Return…

The quartet is part of the Crew-9 mission, a routine staff rotation jointly operated by NASA and SpaceX. The Crew-9 capsule launched to the space station in September with Hague and Gorbunov riding alongside two empty seats reserved for Williams and Wilmore, who had been on the orbiting laboratory since last June, when their original ride — a Boeing Starliner spacecraft — malfunctioned.

Safely reaching Earth concluded a trip that, for Williams and Wilmore, has garnered broad interest because of the unexpected nature of their extended stay in orbit and the dramatic turn of events that prevented them from returning home aboard the Boeing Starliner vehicle.

Then President Trump does this!

BTW, the fake news doesn’t want you to see this clip. President Trump just said he will pay the two stranded astronauts overtime pay for the 286 days that they were stuck in space — out of his own pocket.

WATCH: President Trump will pay the abandoned astronauts out of his pocket!

We are truly in the Gloden Age of America. We have a loving and caring President in Donald J. Trump and an American hero in Elon Musk.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

Netanyahu: Leftist Deep State ‘Weaponizes’ Justice System to Undermine Right-Wing in U.S., Israel thumbnail

Netanyahu: Leftist Deep State ‘Weaponizes’ Justice System to Undermine Right-Wing in U.S., Israel

/in , , , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

Indeed. Radical Leftist judges are the greatest threat to democracy in America, Israel, and elsewhere.

Netanyahu: Leftist Deep State ‘Weaponizes’ Justice System to Undermine Right-Wing in U.S., Israel

By Breitbart, March 19th, 2025

“The leftist Deep State weaponizes the justice system to thwart the people’s will,” according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who warned that such tactics are being used against right-wing leaders in both Israel and the United States.

In a post shared on X on Wednesday, the Israeli Premier suggested that judicial institutions are no longer acting independently but are instead being manipulated to serve a political agenda.

“In America and in Israel, when a strong right-wing leader wins an election, the leftist Deep State weaponizes the justice system to thwart the people’s will,” Netanyahu declared, emphasizing that such tactics are being used both in Israel and the United States.

“They won’t win in either place! We stand strong together,” he added, reinforcing solidarity between right-wing movements in both nations.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Geller Report Staff

RELATED ARTICLES:

SYRIA: Jolani’s Army of Islam Marches to Genocidal Chant of Annihilating the Jews (VIDEO)

ERDOGAN’S LAST DAYS? Huge Uprisings in Turkey to Overthrow Jihadi Dictator Recep Erdogan

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

JFK Files Reveal New Depths Of CIA Incompetence thumbnail

JFK Files Reveal New Depths Of CIA Incompetence

/in , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

Newly declassified documents related to John F. Kennedy’s assassination shed additional light on the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) surveillance of Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin, in the weeks leading up to JFK’s death.

Documents reveal that the CIA tapped the phones at Cuban and Soviet diplomatic facilities in Mexico City, according to journalist Steven Portnoy. Oswald traveled there multiple times to meet with officials just weeks prior to the assassination. It was previously known that the CIA was aware of Oswald’s travels — a fact they withheld from the Warren Commission — but details about CIA wiretapping were classified until Tuesday.

“The docs dropped last night add more specifics about the CIA’s operations, namely in Mexico City, where Oswald met with Cuban and Soviet Officials in Sept. 1963,” he said. “These docs reveal how the CIA tapped phones of the Cuban and Soviet diplomatic facilities, information that had been classified until now.”

Kennedy was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963.

Oswald lived in the USSR from October 1959 to June 1962. Soviet spies, however, did not want him in the country permanently, particularly after his suicide attempt, according to a previously released CIA document. His trips to the embassy in Mexico City were allegedly to try to obtain a visa to return to the USSR, documents show.

The newly-released documents also reveal how a JFK advisor issued a warning to Kennedy about the CIA’s influence over foreign policy. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., JFK’s nephew, previously discussed how his uncle was “at war” with his military and intelligence community over his desire to keep the U.S. out of regime-change wars.

Jefferson Morley, a JFK assassination expert, noted that one memo from Arthur Schlesinger Jr. told JFK that “CIA encroachment on the traditional functions of state” affected his ability to direct foreign policy without the CIA’s influence.

Schlesinger was a historian and served as Special Assistant to JFK from 1961 to 1963, according to his biography in Foreign Affairs.

Schlesinger warned JFK that “CIA encroachment on the traditional functions of State” undermined his abilit to conduct his own foreign policy independent of CIA.

See pp.4-5 for what the CIA didn’t want you to know.https://t.co/FDvXekWAAm

— Jefferson Morley (@jeffersonmorley) March 19, 2025

Schlesinger argued that the “CIA has, in effect, ‘made’ policy in many parts of the world.”

In another letter from Schlesinger, he called the agency a “state within a state.”

“The contemporary CIA possesses many of the characteristics of a state within a state,” he wrote.

Another previously redacted memo was released Tuesday without redactions. It demonstrated that a CIA source, Samuel Cummings, owned the International Armament Corp, and Intercarmo. Interarmco reportedly was a supplier for the sporting goods store at which Oswald allegedly purchased the firearm used to kill JFK.

Cummings was the largest private weapons dealer in the world, and he sold arms to Cuba’s Fidel Castro, among others, The Washington Post reported in 1981. A lawsuit by Armco Steel forced him to change Interarmco to Interarms, the outlet noted.

“These items were to remain the property of the CIA, and their cost was to be returned to the Agency after they were sold,” the CIA document revealed.

Worth noting: the Trump admin did release the memo today but without redactions. The redactions weren’t about JFK though – instead, the CIA admitted that they owned the arms dealer Interarmco, which sold weapons around the world and were the original exclusive agent for ArmaLite. https://t.co/ZLvxKQDcXt pic.twitter.com/ZwgWAkyVTx

— Damin Toell (@damintoell) March 19, 2025

Morley revealed that he reached out to the CIA regarding the popular “Who Killed JFK?” podcast the week prior to the March 18 document release. Morley said a spokesperson called him and spoke to him off the record on March 18 and then sent him a statement.

“The notion that CIA was involved in the death of John F. Kennedy is absolutely false,” the statement read.

President Trump is ushering in a new era of maximum transparency. Today, per his direction, previously redacted JFK Assassination Files are being released to the public with no redactions. Promises made, promises kept. https://t.co/UnG1vkgxjX pic.twitter.com/XBbkQfz4Bx

— DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) March 18, 2025

On Monday, President Trump said “80,000 pages” of documents would be released. Over 60,000 pages and more than 2,000 files were published Tuesday night.

Trump signed an executive order in January mandating the declassification of the assassination files of JFK, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.

AUTHOR

Eireann Van Natta

Intellegence state reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

House Task Force Seeks To Declassify JFK Files, Epstein’s List, COVID Origins Docs And’ Other ‘Government Secrets

‘Previously Unrecognized’: FBI Confirms It Discovered 2,400 Other Records Related To JFK Assassination

Karoline Leavitt Says DOJ ‘Working Diligently’ On Epstein Files After Daily Caller Question

JFK FILES: JFK, Jr. Warned that Joe Biden was a ‘Traitor’ to the U.S.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Democrat Elitism, From Calhoun to Schumer thumbnail

Democrat Elitism, From Calhoun to Schumer

/in , , , , /by

By Catherine Salgado

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

The Democrat Party has always been elitist, exploitative, and anti-American, while somehow successfully propagandizing many Americans into seeing them as the party of compassion, patriotism, and pro-labor policies. But from the slave owners of the 1800s to the socialist authoritarians of 2025, the Democrats have a core evil philosophy that hasn’t changed from Andrew Jackson to Joe Biden, from John Calhoun to Chuck Schumer.

On “The View,” where brain cells go to die, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), whose net worth is $81 million+, mystifyingly bashed the Republican Party as being run by “a small group of wealthy, greedy people.” Then sneeringly, practically oozing elitist disdain, Schmucky Schumer snarked of us taxpayers who fund his salary, “And you know what their attitude is? ‘I made my money all by myself, how dare your government take my money from me? I don’t want to pay taxes.’ Or ‘I built my company with my bare hands, how dare your government tell me how I should treat my customers, the land and water that I own or my employees?’ They hate government, government’s a barrier to people, a barrier to stop them from doing things, they want to destroy it, we are not letting them do it and we’re united.” And Democrats wonder why they lost the 2024 election.

But then again, an oligarchical sense of entitlement to other people’s labor and money has always been a key feature of Democrat policies. John Calhoun, the Democrat senator and VP whose birthday was on this date in 1782, had much in common with Schumer in that sense. Democrats started a Civil War over slavery, and, when they lost their slaves, they turned to cheap foreign slave labor and illegal alien labor, or impoverishing U.S. citizens, for their own power and profit.

ADVERTISEMENT

Share

Compare for yourself Schumer’s outrageous outburst above to the following speech from Democrat racist-in-Chief, John C. Calhoun, in 1837:

I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good—a positive good. . . I hold then, that there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other.

Calhoun was in fact wrong—not only (obviously) in despising black men, but also in claiming slavery was necessary; indeed, the USA never experienced such economic growth as it did in the century following the abolishment of slavery.

Yet do we not also see the same sense of entitlement, the same insistence that exploitation is compassion, from the Democrats of our own day? The Democrat Party has always survived on tyranny, oppression, thievery, injustice, and lies, as much in 2025 as in 1837.

*****

This article was first published on Pro Deo Et Libertate, and is reproduced here with permission

ADVERTISEMENT

Image credits: Catherine Salgado

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

The Judicial Insurrection Is Worse Than You Think thumbnail

The Judicial Insurrection Is Worse Than You Think

/in , , , /by

By John Daniel Davidson

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

The point of all the injunctions and restraining orders is to preserve the supreme rule of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

At this point it’s not too much to say that the federal judiciary has plunged us into a constitutional crisis. The fusillade of injunctions and temporary restraining orders issued by district court judges in recent weeks against the Trump administration — on everything from foreign aid to immigration enforcement to Defense Department enlistment policy to climate change grants for Citibank — boggles the mind.

More nationwide injunctions and restraining orders have been issued against Trump in the past month that were issued against the Biden administration in four years. On Wednesday alone, four different federal judges ordered Elon Musk to reinstate USAID workers (something he and DOGE have no authority to do), ordered President Trump to disclose sensitive operational details about the deportation flights of alleged terrorists, ordered the Department of Defense to admit individuals suffering from gender dysphoria to the military, and ordered the Department of Education to issue $600 million in DEI grants to schools.

ADVERTISEMENT

On one level, what all this amounts to is an attempted takeover of the Executive Branch by the Judicial Branch — a judicial coup d’état. These judges are usurping President Trump’s valid exercise of his Executive Branch powers through sheer judicial fiat — a raw assertion of power by one branch of the federal government against another.

But on another, deeper level, this is an attempt by the judiciary to prevent the duly elected president from reclaiming control of the Executive Branch from the federal bureaucracy — the deep state, which has long functioned as an unelected and unaccountable fourth branch of the government. This unconstitutional fourth branch has always been controlled by Democrats and leftist ideologues who, under the guise of being nonpartisan experts neutrally administering the functions of government, have effectively supplanted the political branches. Unfortunately, to large extent the political branches have acquiesced in the usurpation of their authority.

Trump, with a strong mandate from the American electorate, has resolved to wrest control of the government from the deep state. The deep state in turn has been forced to fall back on its last line of defense: the courts.

What we’re seeing, in other words, is the return of the political (in the classical sense) to American governance. The political never really went away, of course. The idea of a neutral, nonpartisan class of experts and bureaucrats was always a fiction, a thinly-veiled scheme for implementing the Democrats’ agenda and neutralizing the effect of elections on actual governance. The voters could elect whomever they liked, but it would not much change what the bureaucracy did. This scheme has been the greatest scandal of modern American government, and the crisis unfolding now is a direct result of Trump’s efforts to dismantle it.

Why are the courts willing to defend the deep state? One reason is simply the unabashed partisan hatred of Trump by specific federal judges, like U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the D.C. circuit, who this week arrogated to himself the authority to command federal law enforcement and military personnel overseas in a failed attempt to halt the Trump administration’s deportation of hundreds of alleged foreign terrorists.

There is also the encouragement that judges like Boasberg have received not only from the Supreme Court’s refusal to step in and check these abuses of power but also from Chief Justice John Roberts’ unprecedented statement this week attacking the president for suggesting that Boasberg should be impeached (which he should).

ADVERTISEMENT

The larger cause of this judicial insurrection, however, is structural and historical, going back more than a century to the emergence of the theory of the administrative state. As a practical matter, the modern administrative state was created by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, which in the 1930s established a federal bureaucracy powerful enough to actually govern. But its intellectual and conceptual roots go back to Woodrow Wilson, an academic and unabashed progressive. Long before Wilson’s political career, he studied what he called “the science of administration” and looked to the imperial bureaucracy of Prussia in the 1880s as a template for how to transform American governance.

Wilson’s goal was to overcome what he saw as the needless inefficiencies and limitations of constitutional government. The role of government in society, according to Wilson (and contrary to the Founding Fathers), should adjust to meet the demands of the moment. At the turn of the 19th century, Wilson believed the moment demanded a government not bound by outdated concepts like rule of law or separation of powers. “Government,” he wrote in 1889, “does now whatever experience permits or the times demand.”

To accomplish this, Wilson (along with other pioneers in administrative law and politics at the time, like Frank Goodnow) believed it was necessary to create a realm of neutral administrative authority totally shielded from political influence and the vicissitudes of the ballot box. Above all, Wilson wanted to separate the business of governing from public opinion. “Wherever regard for public opinion is a first principle of government, practical reform must be slow and all reform must be full of compromises,” he wrote in 1886. “For wherever public opinion exists it must rule.” The crucial thing, then, was to separate politics from governance.

But if you take politics out of governance, where does that leave public opinion? How do you maintain a democratic form of government in which the people are supposed to have a say in how they’re governed? You don’t, actually. It would be, and is, impossible. Indeed, the entire point of the administrative state is to render elections largely meaningless. Whether it’s a change of president in the White House or a shift in the congressional majority, the goal is to strip the authority of the political branches to adjudicate political questions and place that authority in the hands of so-called experts inside the bureaucracy.

After generations of this sort of rule, we can see what it produces: a bloated and unaccountable deep state controlled by partisan ideologues who wield massive policymaking power, answerable to neither the president nor the Congress. Whatever you call this system of government, it isn’t the republican constitutionalism that our Founders set up, and it isn’t accountable to the American people. Voters can twice elect a president like Trump, who openly ran on dismantling the deep state, only to find that the deep state is not controlled by the elected president. It is a power unto itself, indifferent to the wishes of the people.

All of this directly relates to the judicial coup now underway. The injunctions and restraining orders coming out of the federal courts are a result of the complete takeover of the administrative state. Indeed, they are one of the deep state’s last lines of defense against the reassertion of actual political power in the person of Trump.

Take for example something like immigration and asylum policy, which is inherently a political question that in a properly functioning republic should be decided by the elected representatives of the people. Instead of passing clear laws that settle the political question of who is allowed into the country and who isn’t, Congress created an elaborate immigration bureaucracy that purported to transcend the political nature of the question in favor of fake process neutralism.

This immigration bureaucracy was housed in the Executive Branch, but as we can see now it was only ceremonially under the control of the president, and only so long as the president did not interfere with the bureaucracy. Presidents and members of Congress would inveigh against illegal immigration and promise to secure the border. But this was just political theater. In practice, the immigration bureaucracy implemented mass immigration by flooding the country with millions of illegal immigrant “asylum-seekers” who had no valid claims to asylum but were nevertheless allowed to remain in the U.S. as their cases wended their way through the system, a process that takes years.

That is to say, a political question was answered with a political decision. But because Congress abdicated its duty to settle that political question, it was settled instead by the unelected bureaucrats of the deep state, who had their own policy preferences.

It wasn’t until Trump came along and attempted to reassert political governance that the reality of administrative rule became so obvious that anyone could see it. Trump wants to change how we run our immigration system, and he has a mandate from the voters to do so. He tried to change it but was immediately challenged by the deep state, which is now relying on the judiciary to uphold its authority over and against the president.

The good news is that by attacking the deep state, Trump has forced it to fight back and expose its true nature, which isn’t that of neutral experts but of politically and ideologically motivated actors. Trump has also exposed the collusion and corruption of the judiciary in upholding the authority of the deep state. Radically partisan judges (who are also supposed to be neutral arbiters of the law) are now resorting to increasingly outlandish injunctions and restraining orders to maintain the deep state’s hold on power.

This state of affairs cannot continue. Thus far, Trump has shown remarkable restraint in how he has responded to judicial usurpation of his legitimate executive authority. But he’s running out of ways to show deference to these federal judges, who have only been emboldened by his restraint.

The plain reality is that this fight with the federal courts is really a fight against the entire progressive scheme of administrative rule, and it’s one that Trump has to win if we ever want to restore the role of politics — that is, of public opinion and the consent of the governed — to its rightful place in America.

*****

This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

Montenegro Forms Ad Hoc Committee To Investigate Hobbs For ‘Gross Fiscal Mismanagement’ thumbnail

Montenegro Forms Ad Hoc Committee To Investigate Hobbs For ‘Gross Fiscal Mismanagement’

/in , , , , /by

By Matthew Holloway

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

On Monday, Arizona House Republicans revealed that the Department of Child Safety’s (DCS) Congregate Care program is bound for bankruptcy in a week’s time and announced the creation of a House Ad Hoc Committee to investigate the responsibility of Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs for a series of fiscal failures.

Arizona House Speaker Steve Montenegro, joined by Majority Leader Michael Carbone, Majority Whip Julie Willoughby, Speaker Pro Tempore Neal Carter, and members of the House Republican Majority called out the governor directly. “This is not a simple oversight—it is gross financial mismanagement at the highest level,” said Speaker Montenegro. “Governor Hobbs has made a habit of overspending, ignoring reality, and then sounding the alarm only when disaster strikes. The difference here is that Arizona’s children will be the ones to suffer for her failures. That’s why I’m taking immediate action.”

The Speaker continued, “This is a pattern. Congregate Care is set to go bankrupt next week. The Governor’s mismanaged Developmental Disabilities program will collapse by the end of April. Her administration failed to budget for formula growth in AHCCCS for two years straight—racking up hundreds of millions in unaccounted costs. The list goes on. This is not leadership. This is incompetence.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“The people of Arizona didn’t elect us to stand by while the Governor manufactures crisis after crisis. House Republicans will ensure accountability and enforce responsible budgeting, but we expect the Governor to take ownership of her failures. That starts with making her staff available to the Legislature so we can fully understand the depth of this mismanagement and pursue the right solutions. Governor Hobbs may be comfortable with chaos, but we are not.”

As reported by AZ Free News in February, Treasurer Kimberly Yee reported on the allegations against the Hobbs administration in a letter to Chairman of the Arizona House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David Livingston.

In a statement at the time, Livingston said, “I appreciate Treasurer Yee’s clarity in addressing the financial mess Governor Hobbs has created. The issue isn’t ‘missing money’—it’s blatant mismanagement.”

“Under the Governor’s feckless leadership, state agencies are making massive spending decisions with zero legislative oversight, ballooning costs, and expecting taxpayers to foot the bill. This kind of incompetence cannot stand.”

The release from Montenegro detailed that the House Ad Hoc Committee on Executive Budget Mismanagement will examine “how the Governor has consistently mismanaged the budget, ignored financial reality, and allowed critical services to reach the brink of collapse before taking action.”

The Speaker also directed the Chairman of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to summon the Committee to order and instruct Governor Hobbs to redirect existing funds to handle the crisis and prevent harm to the children in DCS custody noting, “The Governor’s administration failed to spend wisely, and it is their responsibility to fix this situation—not the Legislature’s job to bail them out.”

ADVERTISEMENT

*****

This article was originally published at AZ Free News, and is reproduced here with permission.

Your Support is Critical

The Prickly Pear is focused on delivering timely, fact-based news, and citizen opinion that reflects our mission to “inform, educate and advocate about the principles of limited government and personal liberty.”

To achieve that mission, Prickly Pear often engages with like-minded contributors and organizations who share our values. We encourage to support these partners in any way you can, as these partners make our efforts possible.

Direct support of the Prickly Pear can be made at the link below. Every dollar is greatly appreciated!

Political violence on the rise across America as the left SWATTs reporters in conservative media thumbnail

Political violence on the rise across America as the left SWATTs reporters in conservative media

/in , , , , /by

By Leo Hohmann

The pressure cooker is heating up with several brazen attacks on conservative news reporters in recent weeks, amid calls for Trump admin to ‘do something’ to stop the aggression from the left. 

Trump’s attorney general is not playing around with whoever is behind the politically motivated attacks on Tesla dealerships and other properties connected to President Trump’s DOGE director Elon Musk.

AG Pam Bondi released a statement last night in which she used the “T” word, terrorism, to describe the attacks.

“The swarm of violent attacks on Tesla property is nothing short of domestic terrorism. The Department of Justice has already charged several perpetrators with that in mind, including in cases that involve charges with five-year mandatory minimum sentences. We will continue investigations that impose severe consequences on those involved in these attacks, including those operating behind the scenes to coordinate and fund these crimes.”

But Bondi is coming under fire for not responding quite as aggressively to another series of incidents that have gone down lately in which the victims are not as well-known or well-connected as Elon Musk.

Members of America’s conservative media are getting “swatted” at an alarming rate in recent weeks and one was murdered.

The latest victim was Infowars reporter Owen Shroyer, whose house in Austin, Texas, was swatted last night.

Last week, conservative talk-radio host Joe Pags got SWATTed at his home in Comal County, Texas, near San Antonio.

His security camera recorded one of the numerous deputies who responded with weapons drawn. Watch report below.

The week before that, Infowars reporter Jamie White was murdered under questionable circumstances in the parking lot at his apartment complex.

Shroyer called out Bondi for not taking action.

He posted a video detailing the chilling moment, thanking the Austin Police Department for doing their jobs and calling for the Democrat Party’s street thugs behind these terrorist acts to be brought to justice.

https://x.com/OwenShroyer1776/status/1902291740641390680

He then focused his attention on Attorney General Bondi, asking, “What is it gonna take? Is somebody going to have to die before you actually do something?”

The longtime Infowars reporter also revealed he’s still barred from possessing firearms due to his presence at the January 6th Capitol riot, where he was arrested even though he never entered the Capitol or engaged in any violent acts. Despite being pardoned by Trump and informing a federal judge that he frequently receives credible death threats, he’s still not allowed to possess a firearm.

Infowars founder Alex Jones posted a video just hours after the Shroyer swatting to condemn the blatant far-left attacks on conservative reporters and commentators.

https://x.com/RealAlexJones/status/1902320614179790999

While Shroyer may be unhappy with the response from the Trump administration to date, it does appear that the administration is aware of what’s happening and, hopefully, ready to put an end to this form of political terrorism.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the agency’s website, DHS.gov, “has the ability to trace phone numbers and track location information. We will use it to hunt these cowards down. This is an attack on our law enforcement and innocent families and we will prosecute it as such.”

But until some arrests are made and we see some of these operatives perp walked, many of us in conservative media will be sleeping with some extra firepower at our bedside. That’s not a safe situation for us or the local police who are purposely sent to our homes under false pretenses by evil left-wing terrorists.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

Please visit Leo’s Newsletter substack

Republicans Continue to Bolster Election Integrity Nationwide thumbnail

Republicans Continue to Bolster Election Integrity Nationwide

/in , , , , /by

By Family Research Council

Following President Donald Trump’s sweeping victory in November’s presidential election, Republicans are still pursuing election integrity measures to ensure that midterm and future presidential elections are conducted fairly and squarely. Courts have handed a series of election integrity wins to the Republican National Committee (RNC) recently, including in swing states Arizona and Georgia.

The RNC filed a lawsuit last year challenging rule changes made in 2023 by Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) to the state’s Election Procedures Manual. The RNC argued that the rule changes diluted safeguards preventing noncitizens from voting, placed unlawful restrictions on challenges to early voting ballots, and even violated state law. Earlier this month, an Arizona Court of Appeals agreed with the RNC and ruled that Fontes failed to “substantially comply” with the state’s laws and rule-making process.

In Georgia, a federal court sided with the RNC in another election integrity lawsuit. A union representing theater workers sued Georgia state election officials and the RNC last year in an effort to expand the deadline for submitting absentee ballots by mail. The RNC skewered the union’s lawsuit, noting that the union lacks standing to sue, does not demonstrate irreparable harm, and cannot link any hypothetical harm to Georgia’s election officials or the RNC. Additionally, the RNC pointed out that once the deadline for absentee-by-mail ballots expires, Georgians can still submit absentee-in-person ballots ahead of Election Day. Earlier this month, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed the case, citing a lack of standing on the part of the union.

In another election integrity success, Washington’s state Supreme Court ruled in favor of the RNC and state Republicans in a case concerning signature verification. In a brief filed in 2023, the RNC observed that Washington’s voting process allows voters numerous opportunities to correct mistakes such as incorrect or illegible signatures on mail-in ballots but, because errors sometimes still persist that would classify incorrectly signed mail-in ballots as invalid, a handful of left-wing organizations had sued to eliminate the state’s signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots. Washington’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled earlier this month that the state’s signature verification process is constitutional and will therefore be upheld.

Ahead of November’s historic presidential election, the RNC filed hundreds of lawsuits across the country, seeking to ensure election integrity and thwart activists’ efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the election. Victories in states including Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin resulted in noncitizens being purged from voter rolls, ballot counting being carried out instead of paused and resumed the following day, and Republican poll-watchers being returned to polling places after having been kicked out.

In comments to The Washington Stand, FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter said, “It’s great to see election integrity continue to gain steam. With Republicans in control of Congress and the White House, there was a real possibility that complacency would set in and securing the vote would be forgotten. Fortunately, that’s not the case.” He continued, “The RNC and red states have been active on this issue, and it’s not just good policy: politically, it’s a winner as well. Voters overwhelmingly agree noncitizens should not be allowed to vote, unmonitored drop boxes are a problem, voter identification requirements are good, and we should be able to expect election results quickly.”

In addition to the RNC’s efforts, a number of Republican state officials have been working to bolster election integrity at the state and local levels. In West Virginia, for example, the Republican-led state legislature has introduced nearly 100 election integrity bills this legislative session alone, including measures designed to prevent noncitizens from illegally voting and to clear noncitizens, felons, and deceased people from voter rolls.

On April 1, voters in Wisconsin will also cast their ballots for or against a constitutional amendment legally requiring voter identification be presented when voting. While Democrats and progressive activists have long claimed that voter I.D. requirements disenfranchise voters or stifle voter turnout, a recent report from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty shows that voter I.D. requirements actually have no adverse impact on voter turnout.

Carpenter commented, “Ultimately, the reason election integrity is so important is because it improves the legitimacy of the republic. When our election laws are fair and implemented properly, voters can trust in the results. If voters can trust the results, they can be assured the government is legitimate.” He added, “Even if their side lost, they at least know the election system did its job.” Carpenter further stated, “We all have a stake in ensuring our elections make it easy to vote, but hard to cheat. The time to make progress on election integrity is now.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEO: PROMISES MADE, PROMISES KEPT: Leavitt Says Trump Delivering on Making America Safe

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Time for Some Green Card-Holding Muslim Leaders to be Deported thumbnail

Time for Some Green Card-Holding Muslim Leaders to be Deported

/in , , , , , , /by

By Jihad Watch

In an earlier article, I wrote about a report I had completed looking at statements coming from various leaders in the Muslim American community that were hostile toward Jews and Christians, the United States and Israel, and supportive of terrorists and terrorist organizations.[1]  In this article I am focusing on particular statements made by seven of the individuals mentioned in that report. I have been able to verify that six of those seven were born outside the United States[2]; I have seen no evidence that any of the seven are American citizens:

  • Ayman Aishat (a Jordanian citizen[3])
  • Sheikh Abdullah Alhajj
  • Imam Amro Elaswalli (born in Egypt[4])
  • Imam Sheikh Mongy El Quesny (born in Egypt[5])
  • Imam Yassir Fazaga (born in Eritrea[6])
  • Imam Alhajie Jallow (born in Gambia[7])
  • Dr. Fadi Kablawi (born in Jordan[8])

Recently we have seen that statements in support of terrorists and terrorist organizations can have consequences when it comes to individuals who are in the United States by virtue of having a visa or a Permanent Residence Card (green card); such individuals can be deported.  As Secretary of State Marco Rubio said of such individuals,

…if you are in this country, to promote Hamas, to promote terrorist organizations…We never would have let you in if we had known that and now that we know it, you’re going to leave.[9]

With regard to a matter involving support for the terrorist group Hezbollah, a Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman stated,

“A visa is a privilege not a right,” the spokeswoman, Tricia McLaughlin, said in a statement to The New York Times. “Glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa issuance to be denied. This is common-sense security.”[10]

As we can see in the statements arranged alphabetically by speaker in the latter part of this article, five of the above individuals have expressed support for terrorists: Aishat, Alhajj, Fazaga, Jallow, and Kablawi.

There is another section of federal law that allows for the deportation of visa or green card holders: 8 USC 1227 (4)(C)(i).  This section states:

An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.

This was the basis for the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, the leader of the pro-Hamas demonstrations at Columbia University, who was arrested for allegedly circulating “pro-Hamas propaganda flyers.”[11]

So how does this pertain to our seven individuals?  Among them, five of those individuals (Aishat, Elaswalli, El Quesny, Jallow, and Kablawi) have called for the killing of Jews/Israelis, Christians (Crusaders), and Arab and Muslim rulers.  In terms of our foreign policy, how could it not have an adverse effect on our relations with the people of Israel and Arab leaders when we passively allow certain leaders in the Muslim American community to call for their killing? And how can we discuss human rights with other nations when we passively allow certain leaders in the Muslim American community to call for the killing of certain groups of people?

It is time to ask our federal officials when the deportation of certain green-card holding leaders in the Muslim American community will begin.

Statements

Ayman Aishat

On May 3, 2024, Ayman Aishat, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Director of Mosque Engagement, live streamed a Friday Sermon on the YouTube channel of Masjid Hawthorne, in Hawthorne, CA.  In this sermon, he called for Allah to annihilate the “plundering Zionists” and support Hamas:

For us to understand the current circumstances, we don’t have to go thousands of years back. Just go [back] a hundred years ago, and see what happened when the Zionist movement went ahead and wanted to get a small piece of land in the heart of the Muslim nation in Palestine…

Oh Allah, annihilate the plundering Zionist aggressors. Oh Allah, annihilate them and drive them out of Gaza defeated. Oh Allah, support our brothers in Gaza, stand by them and accept their martyrs, support them against our enemies, Your enemies, the enemies of Islam. Oh Allah, we can see the glad tidings of victory. Oh Allah, we ask that You allow us to pray in the Al-Aqsa Mosque when it is liberated from these criminals.

On January 12, 2024, Ayman Aishat delivered a Friday Sermon at a mosque in Harrisburg, PA.  In this sermon, Aishat expressed support for Hamas and called for the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem to be liberated “from the plundering Zionist aggressors”:

Oh Allah, grant us victory over our enemies, Your enemies, the enemies of Islam, for they are no match for You. Oh Allah, stand by our family, our brothers, the oppressed Muslims in Palestine. Oh Allah, stand by them in Gaza, and grant them your support. Annihilate their enemies, our enemies, the enemies of Islam, and those who are hostile towards Islam and the Muslims, wherever they are. Oh Allah, liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque from the plundering Zionist aggressors, and allow us to pray there before we die.

Sheikh Abdullah Alhajj

On August 9, 2024, Sheikh Abdullah Alhajj gave a Friday Sermon in Highland, IN.  In this sermon, he praised Ismail Haniyeh, a leader of Hamas who was killed on July 31, 2024 :

Allah be praised, we had a big hit, a painful strike last week, when the mujahid Sheikh Ismail Haniyeh was attacked or slaughtered or… Huh… Assassinated… He was assassinated by the enemies of Islam in a Muslim country. And he was a doctor. He was a mujahid since he was a child. When you look at some of his videos when he was like 10-12 years old, Someone asked him: ‘What do you want to be?’ He said: ‘I want to be a martyr’…

Palestine has been and is still and will continue to bring and to give birth to martyrs for the sake of Allah, to defend Islam and the Muslims, and the holy sites of the Muslims…When they assassinated him, it was a big hit, it hurt so much, and the entire world felt that, and thousands of mosques prayed for him, and we continue to supplicate to Allah: May Allah accept him as a martyr. Yet Palestine will continue to bring and feed… and to replace martyr after martyr. Allah willing. This is the fight that Allah told us would continue.

Imam Amro Elaswalli

On October 13, 2023, Imam Amro Elaswalli gave a Friday Sermon at the Muslim Association of Greater Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania.  In this sermon, he referred to the hadith about Muslims killing Jews who are hiding behind trees and rocks[12] and called on Allah to “annihilate the Israelis”:

… We always have hope, the Prophet gave us the promise that is in an Al-Bukhari [Hadith collection] that there will be a day – and the Day of Judgment will never come until that day comes – when the Muslims will fight against the combatant Jews, and they will hide behind trees and rocks, and on that day the trees and rocks will speak and say: ‘Oh, Muslims, there is a combatant[[13]] Jew behind me, come and kill him’… Oh Allah, grant victory to our oppressed brothers in Palestine. Oh Allah, destroy their enemies, the enemies of Islam. Oh Allah, annihilate the Israelis, remove them from the land of Your Prophet. Oh Allah, remove them from the land of Your Prophet’s Night Journey. Oh Allah, purify the Al-Aqsa Mosque from their filth. 

Imam Sheikh Mongy El Quesny

On November 10, 2023, Imam Sheikh Mongy El Quesny gave a Friday Sermon at the Northwest Indiana Islamic Center in Crown Point, IN.  In this sermon, he praised the actions of Hamas, and he called for Allah to “bring annihilation upon the plundering and criminal Zionists, the hateful Crusader [Christian] aggressors…”:

 What is happening to Gaza is a victory. People think that victory is [when] you defeat your enemy – no…Victory is when people stand firm, and adhere firmly to what they believe and they die for that…

We have here in the United States sending special forces and special agents, and they are the ones telling the Israelis what to do, because they know that the Israeli army is the most cowardly army on the planet. With all these weapons and this technology, they run away from young men, who are fighting with sneakers on their feet, AK-47s in their hands, nothing else, but they run like rats…They have no mercy, they know what happened to their ancestors. They keep bugging us about six million Jewish people burned in the Holocaust. What are you doing to the Palestinians? What are you doing? That is what Allah said: ‘Their heart became hardened’…Oh Allah, bring annihilation upon Your enemies, their enemies, and our enemies. Oh Allah, count them, kill them one by one, and do not leave a single one of them alive. Oh Allah, bring annihilation upon the plundering and criminal Zionists, the hateful Crusader aggressors, and the treacherous Arab and Muslim rulers. Oh Allah, demonstrate upon them the wonders of Your might. Oh Allah, seize them with a crushing grip.

On December 8, 2023, Imam Sheikh Mongy El Quesny gave a Friday Sermon at the Northwest Indiana Islamic Center in Crown Point, IN.  In this sermon, he asked Allah for victory for Hamas and called for Allah to “bring annihilation upon the aggressor Zionists, the criminal and spiteful Crusaders, and the treacherous Arab and Muslim rulers”:

America is the one fighting Palestinians, not Israel. As one Israeli scholar said, Israel is not a state—it is a project. Israel is a project of all those Christians. The Crusaders, the West, they failed. So they are using all of this, preparing for the last war [Armageddon], for the return of Jesus. So Israel is a project, it is not a state…We ask Allah for a speedy and perfect victory for our brothers and sisters in Gaza. This is our central issue—Palestine and Jerusalem, that is our main issue…Oh, Allah, bring annihilation upon the aggressor Zionists, the criminal and spiteful Crusaders, and the treacherous Arab and Muslim rulers. Oh, Allah, count them, kill them one by one, do not leave a single one alive.

Imam Yassir Fazaga

On November 1, 2024, Imam Yassir Fazaga gave a Friday Sermon at the Memphis Islamic Center in Tennessee.  In this sermon, Fazaga lauded Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas who was killed on October 16, 2024:

In Gaza, we just saw one of the beautiful – if not the most beautiful – Gazan leaders. We have seen these people sell their own selves for the sake of their people to please Allah. May Allah have mercy on his soul, oh, Lord of the Universe. You know, this idea of living like a man and dying like a man… And this man has demonstrated what it means to die honorably, and that it is to live my life fighting you, and the very last action in my life was an act of rebellion. Do you know how many people nowadays look at somebody like [Yahya] Sinwar and they say that man is a legend. The man is a hero, the man is brave – he not only talked the talk, but walked the walk.

Imam Alhajie Jallow

On October 13, 2023, Imam Alhajie Jallow gave a Friday Sermon at the Madinah Community Center in Madison, WI.  In this sermon, Jallow praised the Hamas fighters and said that Muslims would kill all the Jews:

Our brothers in Gaza are heroes! By Allah, they are warriors, heroes, they are men, just like the Companions. They do not fear death…

Oh Jews, you unjust, criminal, corrupt oppressors – stop! You will all most definitely be killed. The Jews, the aggressors, the evil… You describe them, what they do.  By Allah, all of them will be killed by Muslims. They all will be executed by Muslims. They will all be killed, this is a divine promise that will inevitably be fulfilled. This is a promise from Allah and it is going to happen. They will all be killed. They will all be killed, and on that day, the believers will rejoice in Allah’s victory.

Dr. Fadi Kablawi

On November 24, 2023, Dr. Fadi Kablawi gave a lecture at Masjid As Sunna An Nabawiyyah in North Miami, FL.  In this lecture (at 28:23), he expressed support for Hamas, called for Allah to support Hamas against the “tyrannical Jews,” and called for Allah to annihilate the Zionists:

My major warning to myself and to everybody is we go back to prior of October 7th…that we go back to what happened before October 7th to think that we can trust these people, to think that these people will not do it again. To think that these people are going to leave our land. To think that these people are not oppressive…We, as Muslims, need to keep our mind and our eyes toward the prize…From the river to the sea. From the river to the sea…[Following statements translated from Arabic by MEMRI:] Oh Allah, support our brothers in Palestine against the tyrannical Jews. Oh Allah, support our brothers in Gaza against the tyrannical Jews. Oh Allah, bring annihilation upon the Zionists, for they are not match for you. Oh Allah, bring annihilation upon them, for they are not match for you. Oh Allah, shake the ground under their feet. Oh Allah, shatter their unity, disperse their gathering, and make their hearts quake.

On March 8, 2024, Dr. Fadi Kablawi spoke at the Masjid As Sunna An Nabawiyyah in North Miami, FL.  During this talk (at 30:24), he accused the “Nazi Zionists” of murdering over 30,000 people, supported by the “Zionist regime in Washington.”  He called for Allah to support the mujahideen[14] and annihilate the “accursed Zionists”:

What happens in Gaza, I promise you, gonna propagate…Over 30,000 people already murdered by Nazi Zionists supported by Zionist regime in Washington. All Zionist Nazis. There is no difference between them and Hitler or anybody else who behaved like that…No difference between Republicans and Democrats. They’re all same idea [unintelligible] Satan. That’s all what rules them…[Following statements translated from Arabic by MEMRI:] Oh Allah, support their mujahideen. Oh Allah, guide their shooting. Oh Allah, support them with your soldiers. Oh Allah, bring annihilation upon the enemies of Islam. Oh Allah, bring annihilation upon the accursed Zionists. Oh Allah, curse them and then curse them some more…Oh Allah, bring annihilation upon the Zionists, the hypocrites, and the enemies of Islam…Oh Allah, support our mujahideen.

On April 26, 2024, Dr. Fadi Kablawi gave a Friday Sermon at the Masjid As Sunna An Nabawiyyah in North Miami, FL.  In this sermon (at 26:10), he accused the Israeli army of harvesting human organs, and called for Allah to “support our oppressed brothers in Palestine” and “annihilate the tyrannical Jews”:

[Referring to Israel’s army] The most immoral army, Nazis, worse than Nazis, and I apologized to Nazis last week, because these people have proven to be worse than the Nazis…They steal the skin of the Palestinians. Not enough they stole their land, now they steal their skins. Organs missing, from children, from adults, organs are missing. Go and find who is behind organ trading in this country or in this world. Go ask the Haitians, when they had the earthquake, what happened there with these Israeli organizations going under medical help…The guy will come limping into their tents for treatment. He will walk out, he will be carried out dead, organs missing. All that is because there is no God for these people. All that because these people look at you as nothing but a mistake. Or the best, you were created for their service. That’s what they believe, that’s what they say…[Following statements translated from Arabic by MEMRI:] Oh Allah, support our oppressed brothers in Palestine. Oh Allah, annihilate the tyrannical Jews. Oh Allah, annihilate them for they are no match for you. Oh Allah, annihilate the brothers of apes and pigs…Oh Allah, cut off their seed. Oh Allah, break up their fellowship. Oh Allah, disperse them and render them asunder.

AUTHOR

Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of six books and numerous articles about Islam. His latest book is Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials.

SOURCES:

[1]           “What is Going On at Muslim American Mosques and Events?” Jihad Watch, March 10, 2025, https://jihadwatch.org/2025/03/what-is-going-on-at-muslim-american-mosques-and-events.

[2]           According to a 2020 study of mosques, 68% of the imams in the United States were born outside the United States.  See: Dr. Ihsan Bagby, “Mosque Administration,”  “The American Mosque 2020: Growing and Evolving,” https://ispu.org/report-1-mosque-survey-2020/#participants.

[3]           Ted Rosner, “CAIR Appoints Pro-Hamas Lawyer as Ambassador to American Mosques, Focus on Western Islamism, August 1, 2024, https://www.meforum.org/fwi/fwi-news/cair-appoints-pro-hamas-lawyer-as-ambassador-to-american-mosques.  See hyperlink in Paragraph 2 regarding Aishat being denied citizenship.

[4]           See Elaswalli’s Resume: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52729fa3e4b08767362364a2/t/55da0e84e4b072906c9b88e5/1440353924605/elaswalli_cv_july2015.pdf.

[5]           https://www.darelsalam.ca/Our-Religious-Advisors#SheikhMongyElQuesny

[6]           https://nabic.org/sh-yassir-fazaga/

[7]           https://madisonmuslims.org/imam-alhagie/

[8]           https://altayyib.com/biography/

[9]           “ Transcript: Secretary of State Marco Rubio on ‘Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,’ March 16, 2025,” CBS News, March 16, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marco-rubio-secretary-of-state-face-the-nation-transcript-03-16-2025/.

[10]         Dana Goldstein and Jenna Russell, “D.H.S. Sheds Light on Why It Deported Rhode Island Doctor,” The New York Times, March 17, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/17/us/rasha-alawieh-brown-university-doctor-deported-hezbollah.html.

[11]         George Fishman, “Is It Constitutional to Deport the Ringleader of Columbia University’s Pro-Hamas Demonstrations?” Center for Immigration Studies, March 12, 2025, https://cis.org/Fishman/It-Constitutional-Deport-Ringleader-Columbia-Universitys-ProHamas-Demonstrations.

[12]         Muhammad taught that the end times would come when Muslims fight against and kill the Jews.  During that battle, even the rocks and trees would call out if a Jew was hiding behind them:

Abu Huraira reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) had said: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them will [sic] the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

Abu’l Hussain ‘Asakir-ud-Din Muslim bin Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naisaburi, Sahih Muslim, trans. ‘Abdul Hamid Siddiqi (New Delhi, India: Adam Publishers and Distributors, 2008), Vol. 8, No. 2922, p. 349.

On another occasion Muhammad just referred to Jews hiding behind the stones:

Narrated Abu Hurairah: Allah’s Messenger said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight against the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, ‘O Muslim!  There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’”

Muhammad bin Ismail bin Al-Mughirah al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 1997), Vol. 4, Book 56, No. 2926, p. 113.

[13]         In neither of the authoritative hadiths above is the word “combatant” used to describe the Jew.

[14]         Mujahideen are Fighters in the Cause of Allah (Jihad).  They are promised Paradise if they become martyrs by dying while fighting in that Cause.

Muhammad stressed the importance of martyrdom and stated that martyrs would be admitted to Paradise:

Narrated Abu Hurairah: The Prophet said, “Allah assigns for a person who participates in (holy battles) in Allah’s Cause and nothing causes him to do so except belief in Allah and in His Messengers, that he will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr).”  The Prophet added: “Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any Sariya (an army-unit) going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah’s Cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His Cause.”

Muhammad bin Ismail bin Al-Mughirah al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 1997), Vol. 1, Book 2, No. 36, pp. 72-73.

In Koran Chapter 9, Verse 111, Allah also promised Paradise to the martyrs:

Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties for (the price) that theirs shall be Paradise.  They fight in Allah’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed…

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.