DERELICTION OF DUTY: Chief Justice John Roberts Admits It’s His Job to Rein in the Judicial Insurrection—and He’s Not Doing It thumbnail

DERELICTION OF DUTY: Chief Justice John Roberts Admits It’s His Job to Rein in the Judicial Insurrection—and He’s Not Doing It

/in , , , , , , /by

By The Daily Signal

The deep state and its allies have launched a judicial insurrection against President Donald Trump, and Chief Justice John Roberts effectively just admitted he’s not doing his job to stop it.

Roberts made a rare public statement back in March, criticizing Trump and other Republicans who have suggested impeaching judges to prevent them from taking it upon themselves to make national policy through injunctions. Yet Roberts refused to address the underlying issue, and he dodged again in public remarks Wednesday.

“What do you think of these calls for impeachment of judges based on the decisions that they’ve made?” Judge Lawrence Vilardo asked Roberts in an interview in Buffalo, New York.

“Impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decisions,” the chief justice said, repeating the substance of his comments in March.

“That’s what you’re there for,” Vilardo responded.

“That’s what we’re there for,” Roberts agreed.

Again, Roberts overlooked the underlying issue. Republicans aren’t calling for the impeachment of justices because they disagree with one particular decision—they’re exasperated because judge after judge after judge is effectively usurping the president’s authority by issuing so many nationwide injunctions.



The Judicial Insurrection

When woke bureaucrats stared down the barrel of a second Trump term, they strategized about how best to tie the new president’s hands. Public-sector unions made new collective bargaining agreements to protect work-from-home perks. Employees changed their titles to hide “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Perhaps most importantly, bureaucrats and their allies outside the administration geared up to sue the Trump administration, targeting friendly judges.

Sure enough, the ink was barely dry on the president’s executive orders rooting woke ideology out of the government before public-sector unions (which represent federal bureaucrats) and leftist groups had taken the new administration to court. Many of these groups also hand-picked jurisdictions with judges more likely to give them the injunctions they seek.

According to the Congressional Research Service, judges issued 86 nationwide injunctions against President Trump in his first administration, with 36 of them involving immigration and 10 involving federal funding related to immigration. By contrast, judges issued only 28 nationwide injunctions against Biden. Between Jan. 20 and March 27 of this year, judges issued 17 injunctions—more than half of the number in Biden’s entire term.

Many of the unions and leftist groups filing these lawsuits also staffed and advised the Biden administration, as I expose in my book, “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government.” The ACLU, for instance, pushed the Biden administration to open the border, and now the ACLU is filing lawsuits to block Trump’s border policies.

The judges—many of them appointed by Democrats, surprise surprise!—have taken the opportunity to issue “nationwide injunctions.” While temporary injunctions allow a judge to protect one of the parties in a case from harm while the court considers the case, judges have weaponized this power, claiming to protect people across the country who aren’t parties to the suit.

This practice of “judge shopping” enables activist groups to succeed in early stages of litigation before ultimately failing when the case reaches the Supreme Court. This gives judges a chance to carry out a judicial insurrection. It also gives the case the appearance of success, motivating the leftist groups and their supporters, while tying up the government in the meantime—all in pursuit of a vain claim.



The Supreme Court Acts

For instance, judges blocked Trump’s order removing gender ideology from the military and ordered the government to re-hire probationary employees after they had been fired.

The Supreme Court rightly struck down these injunctions, but the judges only handled them on a case-by-case basis.

Judges have blocked the State Department’s move to restructure the U.S. Agency for International Development, ordered the administration to halt its freeze on federal spending, demanded the government restore deleted websites, and more.

This deluge of injunctions calls for a robust response from the nation’s highest court—or, at the very least, direction from the man who heads the entire U.S. judicial system, Chief Justice Roberts.

Trump, Congress Consider Other Solutions

Roberts only got involved after Trump expressed exasperation over the injunctions.

Trump has pledged to comply with the judges’ orders, though he has rightly contested them in court.

He responded angrily to a judge’s order directing him to turn around planes carrying alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, however. The president noted that he won the 2024 presidential election in part by promising to oppose illegal immigration.

“I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do,” Trump wrote. “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, introduced articles of impeachment against the judge in question, but Trump and other Republicans have taken efforts to address the systemic issue, as well.

The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the injunctions last month.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, introduced the Restraining Judicial Insurrectionists Act of 2025, establishing a three-judge panel to swiftly review injunctions or other forms of declaratory relief against the president and the executive branch, with a quick appeal process to the Supreme Court.

Lee said the judges “have presumed to run the military, the civil service, foreign aid, and HR departments across the Executive Branch—blatantly unconstitutional overreach.”

Meanwhile, Trump issued a memo in March directing the heads of executive agencies to request that judges follow the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), which requires the party requesting an injunction to put up “security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Rule 65(c) may not apply to every legal case, however.

John Roberts’ Job

Each of these efforts addresses one aspect of the problem, and Lee’s bill would likely address the issue most effectively. However, there is one person who has authority over the U.S. judiciary and could direct judges to be more circumspect before they issue nationwide injunctions that effectively make policy.

His name is… drumroll please… John Roberts.

When Roberts says reversing lower court mistakes is “what we’re there for,” he’s exactly right. In fact, as head of the judiciary, addressing major nationwide issues like the judicial insurrection is what he’s there for, specifically.

Perhaps, instead of complaining about Trump’s call to impeach judges, Roberts could solve the underlying problem himself by outlining how judges should act when considering temporary injunctions.

If he wants Trump and others to stop talking about impeaching judges, maybe he should step up and address the root problem.



AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

BETRAYAL: Chief Justice John Roberts Takes the Side of Deep State Swamp Creatures Against Trump

Trump Order Would Force the ACLU to Put Its Money Where Its Mouth Is on Lawfare

What Is Democrat Legality?

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

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

The post DERELICTION OF DUTY: Chief Justice John Roberts Admits It’s His Job to Rein in the Judicial Insurrection—and He’s Not Doing It appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

Data Cops Catching Data Gangsters

/in , , , , , /by

By Conlan Salgado

Written by Conlan Salgado

There is a particularly vicious cartel, growing in size and number in the United States: I call them the “data gangsters.” These criminally idiotic people are a subset of the larger, more notorious “Trend Ing Da Wrong Way” gang, who traffic large numbers of lies over international and national airways; their narratives–AAAHHH RUSSIA, Trump is trying to kill your trans son, Jan 6, Constitutional Crisis LOOMS, the Faux Pas blue suit fiasco, Trump rigged the 2016 election, Jasmine Crockett is not dumber than the sole of your shoe–emerge across different platforms tightly coordinated in a manner I just can’t help feeling should be prosecutable under RICO laws.

Jasmine Crockett’s ascent to superstardom is definitely some sort of racketeering on the part of the Media, and threatening the American public with an AOC presidential bid should qualify as unlawful intimidation.

The Democrat Party has fallen upon juvenile times: really, really dumb adolescent times. Their current strategy is called “dark woke”, which I suppose is a riff on dark MAGA. Unfortunately, they fail to understand that dark MAGA is popular because MAGA is popular. Woke is wildly unpopular, but never fear, for a transformation is in the works. Imagine: person X is thoroughly hateful, and is rightfully despised by others. Got any ideas about how to make him more lovable? How about criminality and curse words? Doesn’t seem so despicable anymore, does he?

Speaking of despicable, let’s return to our main topic. What is a data gangster? These are the people writing articles such as “The economic case against deportation”. . . “Don’t you know that you wouldn’t have food on your table without Jose and Eduardo” . . . “Illegals built everything, even the Border Wall” and other leftist brain popcorn. They have the NUMBERS, CHARTS and GRAPHS which indisputably show how Trump is ruining the economy, murdering Lady Liberty, and moving his mouth or twitching his eyes precisely the way Hitler did.

Now, on any given topic, we MAGA data cops can whip out any number of flattering statistics:

-The growing China trade deficit cost 3.7 million American jobs between 2001 and 2018

-Jobs lost in every U.S. state and congressional district

-Trade deficit in computer parts industry has lost 1.3 million jobs in that sector over 2001-2018

-70,000 factories have closed over 20 years, condemning many millions to unemployment 

-Loss of manufacturing jobs in trade exposed industries corresponded almost 1-for-1 to long-term unemployment, meaning hundreds of thousands lost jobs and did not find and/or seek other ones. This increases government pay-outs as well

-The collapse of local labor demand has caused 7 million prime age working men to despair. They no longer even seek employment

-Americans will do every job. We don’t need a giant population of slave labor, or illegal labor. The Democrats cling desperately to their racist notion, antebellum in origin, that the economy will collapse if we don’t maintain a large class of laborers working for slave wages

-“The higher cost of all the services provided to immigrants and the lower taxes they pay (because they have lower earnings) . . . implies that on a year-to-year basis immigration creates a fiscal hole of at least $50 billion.” Read further here

You catch the drift. Your beliefs are certainly backed up by facts, and you should be able to quote some of them. But you ought also to be able to think of first principles, which necessarily condition the truth or falsehood of any data set. In the spirit of neighborliness, below I’ve written a list of sorts, not of data or statistics, but axioms–basic truths–which you ought to utilize in interrogating any data set for truth or falsehood.

1) As members of a national community, we recognize that national sovereignty is a basic good. Without national sovereignty, the national community does not exist. Consequently, even if it were true that deporting millions of illegal aliens caused some negative economic reaction (it will not), it would still be a good and essential task to undertake, because it protects our national sovereignty–itself a basic good.

2) As members of the American community, we prioritize the well-being of the American workers, even at the expense of non-American workers. In a particularly distasteful article, David Harsanyi argued that American manufacturing is at an all time high, thus it is very silly to want to onshore what he implies are “low-skill” manufacturing industries (think, textiles). Never mind the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have lower lifetime earnings, prosperity, quality of life, etc. because they lost their high-paying, great-benefits local manufacturing job. Human lives and well-being are not nearly abstract enough topics to interest academics, I grant. But this is a critical point: the economic health of the American worker is a basic good.

3) Cheap prices are good, but they are not a basic good. It is an excellent thing that America manufactures cutting-edge technology; it is also incidentally good that our prices are cheap because products are made by enslaved Chinese people, but it is not essentially good. The good of dirt-cheap prices pales in comparison to the good of employing millions of non-college educated workers in manufacturing jobs with superb wage premiums and benefits. Who cares that manufacturing is “at an all time high”? I am not talking about statistics, but about human lives.

The millions in the heartland are not part of this all-time high; many thousands of American lives have cratered into an all-time low after their manufacturing jobs were lost to China. My argument is simple: if there is a solution which involves those people once again having premium-wage manufacturing jobs, that solution ought to be implemented. It never ceases to amaze me that this truth escapes us, even as we claim to live in a country “of, by, and for the people”: what of an economy of, by, and for the people? Products for Americans made by Americans? A good politician recognizes that well-being is local; individuals matter, especially when together they rank in the millions. To dismiss the need for on-shoring the industries we outsourced to China mocks the basic good that constitutes the health of the American worker.

4) As members of the American community, we recognize American citizenship as a basic good. In recent years, there has been a cheapening of citizenship, not merely in the widespread theft of it by foreign illegals, but in the notion and reality of what it is. Citizenship is, of course, belonging to a particular geography. More importantly, however, it is belonging to a particular history, form of government, set of values, economic situation, etc.

An American citizen is self-governing both locally and nationally, both personally and communally; he values the virtues of freedom, self-reliance, friendship, hard-work, gun-ownership, the right openly and viciously to criticize his government; he is aware of the origin of his country, its heroes and the appropriateness of trying to model them; he is also aware of its darkest moments and periods, and knows the policies and persons who most damaged its integrity and so can actively guard against such policies and persons in his own day. Most importantly, an American citizen shares these values, practices and awarenesses with other citizens and therein lies his bond with them, his love for them, and his willingness to sacrifice for them.

It is only in this definitional context can we understand the true intent of multiculturalism and its supplier: illegal immigration. Mass immigration was not only an attempt to import a cheaper labor force, or a new Democratic base, or an indigent and therefore compliant population, or any of the other retail theories of pundits and analysts. It was more properly an attempt to import a different history, a different set of values, a different form of government, and therefore to destroy, in whole or part, the American community.

It was an attempt to destroy citizenship and the possibility of feeling neighborly, or loyal, or self-sacrificial respecting your fellows. Why? Because limited government or any semblance thereof, as well as any population who values a limited government, poses a repugnant danger to those who seek to make the state–and their own power as its stewards–total. The elites never intended to adopt the values of their new subjects; they merely intended to foment a crisis of values and national coherence in order to justify a total state.

A population which does not value together, sacrifice for each other, protect each other, know and love the same stories, despise the same villains, admire the same heroes will instead hate each other, prey on each other, vandalize each other’s homes, cars, and houses of worship, and come up with histories which villainize each other while valorizing themselves: nation shall rise against nation, sister against mother, son-in-law against father-in-law.

Mass illegal immigration was supposed to be the apocalypse which called forth the total state under the guise of savior, rather than oppressor. After all, it is only a state which is big enough to control all human activities and invasive enough to supervise your thoughts which can prevent a population of enemies from engaging in constant warfare.

It is perhaps the peculiar privilege of the American citizen that his citizenship requires him to be a Christian in practice to be an American in practice, for it was Christ who established a community of friends, not on the basis of sex, or race, or color, or class, but on love and loyalty to the best good. It was Christ who told them: love one another. It was Christ who said: No greater love hath a man than to lay down his life for his friends.

If I could identify the textual basis of American citizenship, the moment when it was established, I might recognize the final line of the Declaration of Independence, which demands that “greater love” of all Americans for each other: “For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Republican Arizona Congressman Backs Bills On Silencers

/in , , , /by

By Chris Woodward

Written by Chris Woodward

Editors ‘ Note: At the risk of seeming picky, we don’t like to use the terms “silencers” and “suppressors” interchangeably.” The reason is that the term “silencer” suggests that a firearm emits hardly any noise at all. This conjures up Hollywood movie scenes of assassinations and murders where the gun in question makes a barely audible “thipping” noise allowing the crime to be committed without anyone being made aware. Why would anyone need a quiet gun, except for nefarious reasons, like those shown in the movies? That’s the problem of confusing reality with Hollywood’s creative license. Suppressors only reduce the sharp noise from a firearm that can damage hearing and is otherwise quite audible on the range. They suppress but do not silence the sharp report of a discharged firearm. In addition, except for some subsonic ammunition, the bullet’s flight makes a sharp cracking noise as it breaks the sound barrier. The suppressor can do nothing about that at all, as the bullet is out of the barrel and in flight. So, we don’t want to leave the impression with the uninformed that anyone is suggesting the public routinely acquire the means to make guns silent. All that is being asked is to suppress the loud report so that it does not damage hearing or unduly disturb others who may not wish to hear the noise. While it is true that the firearm operator can wear protective ear muffs, that does not stop the noise from going elsewhere. A suppressor does. In addition, to own a suppressor, the buyer must go through a specific procedure with the ATF, including background checks and fingerprinting, and pay a $200 fee per suppressor. A buyer may often wait up to six months to complete all the legal requirements. 

U.S. Rep. Abe Hamadeh, R-Arizona, is urging Democrats and other lawmakers to join him in supporting bills that involve gun suppressors.

One such bill is the Protecting Americans’ Right to Silence Act. Hamadeh said the legislation makes commonsense changes to the definition of “silencer” and ensures that parts like end caps, adaptors and wipes are not misclassified as silencers.

“It is pretty basic but essential,” Hamadeh told The Center Square. “It is unfortunate that in a country where our basic rights should not be infringed, over the years bureaucrats have done just that.”

U.S. Reps. August Pfluger, R-Texas, and Jared Golden, R-Maine, introduced the PARTS Act. The representatives argue that it is necessary to clarify what they call the ATF’s “poorly written suppressor rule.”

“We can’t have people who want to safely exercise their Second Amendment rights to unknowingly violate some arcane bureaucratic rule or end up on the wrong side of the government because of some unreasonable regulation,” Hamadeh said.

Another bill supported by Hamadeh is the Hearing Protection Act, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Ben Cline, R-Virginia. Hamadeh said this too is simple.

“Right now, it is harder to buy a suppressor than it is to buy a gun,” said Hamadeh. “That makes no sense. All this does is reclassify suppressors so that they are regulated like a gun.”

Meanwhile, the Silencers Help Us Save Hearing Act supported by Hamadeh “eliminates excessive regulations around firearm suppressors,” something he said will reduce bureaucratic red tape and ensure every American deals with the same rules about suppressors regardless of where they live.

This bill is from U.S. Reps. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.

Hamadeh said he’s heard from Arizona’s hunters, recreational shooters and law enforcement officers, all of them “concerned about their health” as well as the “unclear rules and misguided policies surrounding suppressors” that put them at risk.

“These are bills aimed at the health of those people who are legally exercising their Second Amendments rights, nothing more,” said Hamadeh. “No matter what political party you belong to, the health of Americans should be a top priority.”

*****

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

Image Credit: YouTube screenshot

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

The Shot Heard Round the Web: Freedom Fighters Across Many Aprils

/in , , , , /by

By Catherine Salgado

Written by Catherine Salgado

From Lexington to Warsaw, from Dublin to Concord, freedom lovers throughout history chose the month of April to stand up to tyranny and make the choice for liberty or death. We could benefit from their dauntless spirit today.

Passover began this past weekend and Easter this upcoming weekend, a time for new beginnings and moral redemption. Indeed, on April 21, we mark the 753 BC anniversary of the founding of Rome, the Empire that executed Christ only to become the conduit for the spread of Christianity. And we also remember several uprisings of freedom fighters against murderous tyrants. Some of the freedom fighters survived to see their dream realized, and others died. For just as Christ died that we might live, so Patriots and heroes must some of them sacrifice their lives that a new generation might live in freedom. The question is whether we are willing to risk being the Patriots who have to pay the ultimate price.

On April 19, 1775, the shot heard round the world rang out on Lexington Green, and its echoes reverberate to this day. At Lexington and Concord that fateful day, the American Revolution began, and the world would never be the same. Some Patriots died that day, while others, including Peter Salem and John Buttrick, lived to fight another day. All of them were heroes, without whom this nation would not exist. Ever since America launched her revolution, peoples around the world have sought liberty. Some of them gravely misunderstood freedom (see the French Revolution), and others understood and championed it admirably. But the world was changed that day in 1775, and, forever afterwards, tyrants and aristocrats have had to contend with the thirst for freedom inspired by American Patriots.

Among the men inspired by the Americans and the Declaration of Independence to take on their own oppressive overlords were the Irish Republican fighters who captured the Dublin General Post Office during the brief Easter Rising of 1916. The British ended up causing so much bloodshed that the leaders of the Rising surrendered to stop it, and were subsequently killed. But no brave death is in vain, and Padraig Pearse and his fellow Irish patriots sparked a wave of Irish nationalist fervor that later in the century would bear fruit in Irish independence.

Likewise, the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of Jews against the Nazis was ultimately unsuccessful, but it has inspired thousands of people since then, and the brave fighters were rewarded by the God of Israel in the next life. While April 19 is the anniversary of Lexington, the Warsaw Ghetto Jews chose that day to launch their rebellion because it was the eve of Passover, when God saved the Israelites from slavery and slaughter in Egypt (Exodus). Great men might lose the battle against a certain evil for the present, but other great men will take up the task and accomplish the dreamed-of victory.

 

 

We saw just such a lengthened struggle against slavery in America. While the Revolution that created our nation began in April, the Civil War that saved our nation from an early death ended in April. It was the bloodiest war in American history, and the Confederates committed egregious war crimes, and often the future must have looked dire indeed. “Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether,’” said Lincoln. And at last the war did end.

On April 26, 1865, rebel Confederate Gen. Joseph E. Johnston surrendered at Bennett Place to Union Gen. William T. Sherman, the largest Confederate surrender of the war and one that effectively ended the war. Sadly, Lincoln did not live to see it, as he had been assassinated April 14, but though he and many other patriots died, the United States would live and countless slaves would taste longed-for freedom.

Jews and Christians, Europeans and Africans, Asiatics and Americans, all have had a dream of freedom and fought for it during the Aprils of bygone eras. Let us vow that their sacrifice will not be in vain, and that we too will fight the cultural, moral, political, and military battles of our time with the heroism of all those freedom fighters gone before us. The first step is spreading the stories of the heroes of our past, for, as Jesus Christ said two millennia ago (Jn.8:32), “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

*****

For more excellent content, visit Pro Deo Et Libertate

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

The Prickly Pear Announces A Strategic Alliance with Patriot Mobile

/in , , , , , /by

By Neland Nobel

Written by Neland Nobel

The Prickly Pear, an online news and opinion magazine, has entered into a strategic alliance with Patriot Mobile.

We made this decision based on what would be a good deal for our readers, what provides the best cellular coverage for customers, and Patriot Mobile’s values.

As to the deal, we are confident that you, the readers, will receive a substantial discount from what you are paying the major carriers. They have plans that can fit any budget. As for The Prickly Pear, this alliance may provide a modest cash flow to support the growth and maintenance of our site.  So, while you get a good deal, your dollars also help to maintain independent citizen journalism.

In addition, Patriot Mobile offers a Contract Buy-Out. This offer allows new customers to buy out a current device from their departing carrier and receive up to $500 per device applied as a credit to their phone bill. Patriot Mobile also offers competitive business plans for companies of any size.

Concerning the best coverage, they provide you with the best options.  We did some research, and there seems to be a consensus that AT&T has the widest coverage ( 64% for the state) for 4G in Arizona.  But as you likely know, coverage may vary where you live. Patriot Mobile is unique in that you can choose towers from AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile.  Whatever works best for you in your state or locale.  If you later find your choice of towers is not to your satisfaction, you can select another tower system at any time at no charge.

We mentioned earlier the question of values. When you become a Patriot Mobile member, your dollars will help fund and support our God-given rights and freedoms. A portion of every dollar earned by the company is given to organizations that support our First Amendment rights of speech and freedom of religion, our Second Amendment Rights  which support all other rights, the Sanctity of Life, and the needs of veterans and First Responders. This is much better for liberty-loving Americans than giving your dollars to a huge corporation that have supported DEI, CRT, and other current dangerous left-wing fads.

It is incumbent on all Conservatives that, wherever possible, their dollars should go to organizations that support our Judeo-Christian values, smaller government, the free enterprise system, and our Constitutional Republic.

It is easy to make the switch to Patriot Mobile, keeping your same phone number and you will save money.  It is a Win-Win for all parties concerned.

Click here, and be sure to use the promo code PEAR.

 

LEARN MORE

 

 

 

 

 

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

The Left’s Assault on the Second Amendment: A Threat to Our Freedoms

/in , , /by

By The Editors

/by

Published by The American Conservative | March 11, 2023

The left’s relentless attack on the Second Amendment continues, with progressive activists pushing for gun control measures that would strip law-abiding Americans of their constitutional rights. From banning so-called ‘assault weapons’ to imposing universal background checks, these radicals are hell-bent on disarming the citizenry. As Rod Dreher argues in his latest piece, the left’s ultimate goal is to create a police state, where only the government has the power to use force. It’s time for conservatives to stand up and defend our God-given right to bear arms, before it’s too late.

Key Takeaways

  • The left is pushing for gun control measures that would strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights.
  • The ultimate goal is to create a police state where only the government has the power to use force.
  • Conservatives must defend our right to bear arms before it’s too late.

Read the Original Article

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!

0 0 The Editors 2025-04-14 20:23:00The Left’s Assault on the Second Amendment: A Threat to Our Freedoms

The Other Side Of The Story thumbnail

The Other Side Of The Story

/in , , , /by

By David (Cowboy Dave) Segall

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

Prescott, Arizona, is a small town in Yavapai County. It is rich with the heritage of our Western ancestors and is known as “Everyone’s Hometown USA.”

On this particular morning, of April 5, 2025, many Prescott residents were gathering around the courthouse, as is common during our enjoyable spring weather. The air was cool, and the skies were clear. It was very peaceful.

But wait, what do we see coming from around the corners and blocks away? Like tiny marching ants, a throng of people suddenly appeared and started to invade the courthouse square. They occupied not only the courtyard but also the steps to the courthouse.

ADVERTISEMENT

Surely, they cannot all be Prescott residents. You see, here in Prescott, we are respectful and cordial to our neighbors and friends. This mutual respect and the beauty of our area help create the desire we share as just a couple of reasons to choose to live here. In Prescott, we are proud to practice our conservative values and G-d-given rights.

Still, where are all these people suddenly coming from? Why are they here? What are those pitchforks, (I mean signs) they are carrying?

Suddenly, on this quiet and serene day in our peaceful town, as the courthouse clock struck high noon, you could hear the mournful cries coming from this gathering of individuals. This gathering has now turned angry and mob-like. You can hear the screeching chants of “Hands Off” “Hands Off”. Then, miraculously, just as quickly as they had appeared earlier, by the stroke of 1:00 pm, just an hour later, almost every person who gathered for this “Hands Off” rally had all but disappeared. The courthouse square was once again quiet. The steps of the courthouse were empty. Our beloved Prescott was once again peaceful. Was I dreaming this? This can’t be happening here in Prescott. Sadly, it did!

But wait, there’s more!

This past Saturday, April 5, 2025, was the nationally organized protest day from the left against President Trump and Elon Musk. According to some leftist social media and the local news here in Prescott, “The Daily Courier”, they would have you believe that there were anywhere from 1000 to upwards of 1600 residents participating in this rally. They gathered to protest our duly elected President and the great work his administration is doing to discover the fraud, abuse, and waste throughout our government. Why they are protesting is beyond logical comprehension.

Some of the reporting from the left would have us believe that they were being threatened or, at the very least, concerned for their lives and needed protection from local conservatives who were here to show strength and support in favor of our 47th President and Elon Musk.

ADVERTISEMENT

The left claims they hired the Arizona Rangers: protection and security for themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, we are an open-carry city here in the great state of Arizona. We are also law-abiding citizens and residents. We respect one another and know we are safe with one another. So much for what the leftists want everyone to believe, at least those who are willing to listen to them.

Let’s take a much deeper dive into the factual issues of the day and this “Hands Off” event. Let’s start with the fact that the organizations, Prescott Indivisibles and Yavapai County Democrats, the two primary organizations that coordinated this event, apparently did so illegally. According to the website for Yavapai County, which issues special event permits, no permit was ever issued for this event on Saturday, April 5, 2025.

Since they never had a properly approved permit to hold a rally and occupy the courthouse square and steps, one can only conclude that this rally was illegal. I spoke with Mary Mallory and Kris Kuknyo, Yavapai County supervisors, on this permit matter, and they both confirmed that a permit was required.

On Monday, April 7, 2025. I reached out to both the Indivisibles of Prescott and the Democrat Party of Yavapai County for their response on Not having an approved permit for this event. I have not heard from either organization at the time of my submittal to The Prickly Pear. 

Holding a rally without a properly issued permit is terrible enough. However, this leads to another significant question: As you can clearly see from this attached media release, the Arizona Rangers in attendance were under the impression that an approved permit existed for this event. It is disgusting for anyone or any organization to be so low and mislead our Arizona Rangers.

Who secured the agreement with our beloved Arizona Rangers and caused them to believe an adequately issued permit had been secured for this event? At this point, someone apparently went out of their way to dupe the Arizona Rangers. I spoke with the Arizona Rangers on Monday, April 7, 2025, and I was informed that they are seriously considering their involvement and participation in this event.

I was informed by Mary Mallory that Mr. Jay Ruby, a former Democrat candidate for Yavapai County and now City Council candidate for the City of Prescott, had attempted to secure a permit for this date, Saturday, April 5, 2025, for this “Hands Off” rally. I spoke with Mr. Ruby, who confirmed he attempted to secure a permit for this event but was unsuccessful. My follow-up questions to him were: Knowing there was no permit secured, for this event, the Prescott Indivisibles and Yavapai County Democratic party also knew there was no permit.

1. Mr. Ruby – who decided to hold that event anyway? He referred me back to the Prescott Indivisibles and the Yavapai County Democratic Party.
2. Also, do you, (Mr. Ruby), know who arranged to secure the agreement with the Arizona Rangers? At that point, he would not provide any more information and referred me back to the Prescott Indivisibles and the Yavapai County Democrat party yet again.

Having personally spoken with Mr. Ruby, there is no doubt that the Prescott Indivisibles and the Yavapai County Democrat party knew there was no permit for this rally, and they didn’t care. They went forward with this rally knowing they didn’t have the right to do so. Perhaps they need a reminder: No one is above the law!

Now let’s turn our attention to the left’s claim that they were marching, or lapping, on the public sidewalks. Obviously, they are attempting to give the impression that they did not occupy the square. From this attached photo, the truth is self-evident. Not only did they not confine themselves to the public sidewalks, but if you were present at this event, you could clearly hear the abusive language, the hateful rhetoric, all directed at those in support of President Trump. Some Trump supporters, I was told, were spat upon and pushed out of the way by this less-than-so-called peaceful group of rallygoers.

Personally, I question the claim by Chris Ortiz, writing for the Daily Courier, that those in attendance for this “Hands Off” rally were from the Quad City area. Many of those supporting President Trump and Elon Musk said they witnessed buses bringing people in for the rally. If one is from the Quad-City area, one doesn’t need a bus for a fifteen- or twenty-minute drive. However, being bused in from a much more significant distance might explain why so many people immediately disappeared upon the stroke of 1:00 pm when the rally was officially over. Was it that they had a bus to catch?

According to the left, as we keep hearing them say “No One is Above the Law,” yet as we continue to see, it does not apply to them. This rally, for all indications, was an illegal gathering. “But no one is above the law”. Someone associated with this rally lied to the Arizona Rangers, and apparently didn’t care. The anger and vitriol of the left were abundantly apparent and on full display.

In my opinion, those on the left are the fascists, not all, just those in the hierarchy. The rest are simply unwitting pawns. The elites on the left will continue to lie, misrepresent, and give the middle finger to anyone who will not take a knee to them and the left’s woke ideology and demands. Unfortunately, this applies to their own rank and file followers as well.

It is sad to see so many people no longer willing to think for themselves and simply fall prey to the victim’s mentality and only parrot the talking points of the left. When I asked three of them to provide me with one, just one law President Trump had violated or is violating, sadly, their only response was to turn and walk away.

Conservatives have always believed in living and letting live. We have not always been the most vocal group. This is why we are referred to as the silent majority, as again evidenced by this last election.

Yet make no mistake: When the chips are down and the threat is at its greatest, at the end of the day, Yavapai County and the City of Prescott are still RED!

That’s the other side of the story!

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!

Florida’s Red Flag Law thumbnail

Florida’s Red Flag Law

/in , , , , , /by

By Royal A. Brown III

The below article is a good follow-up of presentation I made at Winter Haven 912 meeting on that portion of Florida Red Flag Law allowing unconstitutional Risk Protection Orders to seize firearms, ammo, permits from someone accused of being a threat to themselves or others, e.g. based on something that has not happened yet, with no Due Process as a hearing is only provided after the seizure occurs. The few district court actions on this process which have been conducted so far upholding RPOs as constitutional are just wrong — period !

There are already existing laws/procedures on books which could authorize weapons seizures as needed e.g. Baker Act, Marchman Act and Court injuntions — the RPO is not needed.

How Do Red Flag Laws Work

Robert Sadowski — 

A red flag law is the common name given to Extreme Risk Protection Orders, Emergency Substantial Risk Orders, Firearm Restraining Orders, and a number of other official names that vary from state to state.

Essentially, red flag laws allow a civil court—a judge—to temporarily remove firearms from a person who is considered a threat to themselves or others. Other items deemed dangerous weapons can also be seized depending on the state. Red flag laws were enacted to protect people as a suicide-prevention tool, a method to stop domestic violence, or averting a potential mass shooting.

I think we—gun owners and non-gun owners—are all in favor of laws that protect our family, friends, and communities, but when the government, in this case, the state government, seizes our property, is that a violation of the 4th Amendment against unlawful search and seizure? What about the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms?

What States Have Red Flag Laws?

The following states have enacted Red Flag Laws:

  • California
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • Delaware
  • Florida
  • Hawaii
  • Illinois
  • Indiana
  • Maine
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Nevada
  • New Jersey
  • New Mexico
  • New York
  • Oregon
  • Rhode Island
  • Vermont
  • Virginia
  • Washington
  • District of Columbia

Other states are considering adopting a red flag law.

The first state to enact a red flag law was Connecticut in 1999. A shooting at the Connecticut Lottery headquarters in 1998, where an employee shot and killed four of his supervisors and then killed himself, was the act that caused Connecticut to pass the law.

In 2022, under the Biden administration, the federal government created the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to encourage states to adopt red flag laws. The act offers states grants if the state enacts and enforces red flag laws.

How Red Flag Laws Work

Each state has its own procedures on starting the process to seize a gun owner’s firearms, but generally operate the same way. Law Enforcement and/or family members petition a judge for an emergency order. That order would temporarily remove firearms from a person found to be at risk of harming themselves or someone else.

In all 21 states where red flag laws exist, law enforcement is allowed to petition a judge for an order. In New Mexico and Florida, law enforcement is the only one eligible to petition a judge. In states like California, Colorado, and Hawaii, family members, teachers, and medical professionals can also petition a judge.

Here’s how the scenario plays out. Someone is threatening to harm themselves or another person or people. Law enforcement, family members, teachers and medical professionals know or believe that person has access to a firearm, so they submit a petition to a judge.

The judge has the final word on whether the situation warrants an immediate order and evaluates it based on the specificity of the person’s threats and that person’s access to firearms. If the judge deems the risk of violence high, the judge can issue an emergency ex parte order, which goes into effect immediately without the person being present or notified in advance. An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the dispute to be present.

The burden of proof on which the judge bases his or her decision is remarkably low for the initial seizure hearing, especially when you consider that no crime has been committed.

The length of time the guns are kept away from their owner varies by state and situation, but typically, a set time is established, and then the guns are returned unless other court hearings extend the period of confiscation.

The person named on the order can request their guns back and fight the order in court, at the person’s own expense, where they can present their side to the story. When guns are returned, law enforcement may conduct a background check before returning the firearms.

Do Red Flag Laws Work?

There is no central database that collects information on the effectiveness of red flag laws, but states like Connecticut credit the laws with a decrease in suicide. California touts that the law prevented mass shootings targeting schools.

On the other side of the coin, 42 states have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries where law enforcement will not enforce gun policies that it believes violate the 2nd Amendment.

Do Red Flag Laws Violate the 2nd and 4th Amendment?

In recent years, red flag laws have been challenged and failed, with courts ruling that they are constitutional.

We should all understand how red flag laws work in the state we live.

Every law has loopholes that could potentially weaponize it against an unsuspecting person, even if the law was enacted in good faith.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

The Shot Heard Around the Web: Liberty or Death thumbnail

The Shot Heard Around the Web: Liberty or Death

/in , , , , , /by

By Catherine Salgado

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

“Liberty or death!” Patrick Henry thundered out that stark alternative to his fellow Patriots at the Second Virginia Convention 250 years ago on March 23, 1775. His words echoed across the colonies, which rose up and demanded independence. And his challenge has rung out in our nation ever since, inspiring countless Patriots over the centuries to fight for liberty, including in the Vietnam War.

I highlight the Vietnam War in particular because March 29 is Vietnam Veterans’ Day, a holiday founded in 2017 by Donald Trump to honor the brave veterans who too often came home to harassment, hatred, and outright violent attacks because of the media’s egregious and unpatriotic lies. “Disrespect for Vietnam vets is fact, not fiction,” wrote Vietnam veteran Bob Feist. He described spitting, egging, insults; he bought a wig to hide his military haircut. And these weren’t isolated incidents. “I am not aware of many Vietnam vets who were not subjected to some disrespect, either personal or from the culture that called us ‘baby killers.’”

In fact, my great-aunt was treated just as horribly by “peace” activists after her husband was killed in Vietnam, and I personally witnessed a young punk scream epithets in an elderly Vietnam veteran’s face. The U.S. media was happy to spread lies about Americans, but try finding any articles on the widespread and unspeakably horrendous murders, tortures, and other war crimes of the Communist Viet Cong, who slaughtered at least a million civilians on top of the U.S. and free Vietnamese soldiers it killed (read some details here, but be aware of highly graphic content).

ADVERTISEMENT

The veterans of WWI, WWII, and previous U.S. wars went through hell, but at least a grateful nation heralded them as heroes when they came home. Such recognition was lacking for the much-maligned Vietnam War vets, the overwhelming majority of whom were not guilty of the “crimes” the media screamed they had committed. And yet our Vietnam vets no less than our veterans of any other war answered the clarion call of Patrick Henry and heeded his warning, “Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! … Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Some, like my great-uncle Bruce Webb, did indeed suffer death as the price of their heroism. Others survived, like Silver Star recipient Terry Ohlemeier, who flew one of the last helicopters out of Saigon (perforce leaving millions of Vietnamese behind to the mercy of Viet Cong butchers, a tragedy from which he never fully recovered). You can read more stories of courage and daring here. But even those who survived bore the scars, physical or emotional, till their dying days.

Like the Revolutionary Patriots and Founding Fathers, they suffered and fought and bled and died for freedom. That is a debt we can never repay, but we can at least honor Vietnamese veterans and all veterans not only on March 29, in person or online, but on every other day of the year. And may each one of us also vow that should we face the choice, we will always cry out with Patrick Henry, “As for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

*****

Image credit: 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!

While Dems Flounder, GOP Speeds toward More Wins thumbnail

While Dems Flounder, GOP Speeds toward More Wins

/in , , , , , , , , /by

By Family Research Council

Just how bad are things for the Democratic Party? Apart from the quiet mutiny against Senate leadership, the party of Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is staring down its worst approval ratings in the history of NBC polling. Only a quarter of voters (27%) have positive views of the party, and a microscopic portion (7%) say those views are “very positive.” Making matters worse, the panic is blinding Democrats to their biggest threat — a Republican Party that keeps on winning.

At this point, pollster Jeff Horwitt shook his head, “The Democratic Party is not in need of a rebrand. It needs to be rebooted.” CNN’s grim numbers confirm it. Like NBC, the outlet found that the party’s favorability was also at a historic low, dropping 20 points (to 29%) since Joe Biden won the White House. But the problem staring down the grassroots is the same one facing headquarters: who should lead?

Most voters had trouble rallying around any one person who they felt “best reflects the core values” of the party. Managing just 10% of the vote, the Squad’s Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) just barely edged out former Vice President Kamala Harris (8%) as a possible standard-bearer. Ironically, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) who isn’t even a Democrat clocked in at 6% with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) tying him at 6%. Four percent named former President Barack Obama and Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), and the current persona non grata, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), in the basement at 2%. Perhaps more telling, more than 30% of participants couldn’t say. “No one,” one respondent answered. “That’s the problem.”

The Democrats’ identity crisis exploded on Thursday when Schumer shocked both sides by announcing his support for the GOP bill to keep the government open. Hardline leftists melted down, urging, as Crockett did, for Democrats “to decide whether or not Chuck Schumer is the one to lead in this moment.” Former Obama advisor Van Jones invoked former Senate Minority (and Majority) Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) as the kind of sandpaper Democrats need. “I remember when Obama had all the cards, Mitch McConnell drove Obama nuts — twisted his pinky, broke his kneecaps, and got stuff done for Republicans when they shouldn’t have gotten an inch. They got miles. We have a Senate majority leader who is beloved in this party, but we want somebody who’s gonna stand up to this bully.”

Others, like the only House Democrat to vote for the Republicans’ bill to extend government funding — Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) — believe the American people want a party that will stop “shift[ing] into full resistance” to Donald Trump and get something done. Asked if his party was any closer to finding a “cohesive message and strategy,” the Mainer bluntly replied, “No.” In fact, he told NBC, the party is farther than ever from finding a solution to the blowout of last November. I think it’s very important that Democrats not forget to focus in on ourselves, why the American people voted, not just for President Trump, but for a Republican-led Congress in both the Senate and the House. And we better figure it out,” he warned.

While Golden’s party is scrambling, congressional Republicans seem more galvanized than ever. Fresh off their miracle government funding win, Johnson’s team is full speed ahead on the next big-ticket items on the docket: appropriations, rescission, and reconciliation. While the Democrats quarrel, the GOP is moving on an “aggressive timetable,” the speaker insisted to Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Saturday’s “This Week on Capitol Hill.” The goal? Getting that “one big beautiful bill” on tax cuts, border security, defense, and the debt ceiling to the president’s desk by Memorial Day. “It’s going to take a lot of hard work around the clock,” Johnson stressed, “quite literally.”

Before the spat over a government shutdown, Johnson pulled off another stunner — squeaking the House framework for reconciliation through his chamber by a 217-215 vote. Now that his party agrees on the blueprint, they’ll get to work on the particulars of this process which would essentially roll all of Trump’s biggest legislative priorities into one package that can be passed by a simple majority. As Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) reminds everyone, this strategy is how most modern presidents have won their most transformational agendas. “They passed Obamacare through reconciliation. They passed the Inflation Reduction Act through reconciliation,” he said referring to Democrats under Obama and Biden. “It [would] be a political malpractice for us not to do it,” he argued on Thursday’s “Washington Watch.”

Right now, Johnson said, conservatives are looking at a “floor of $1.5 trillion in savings” through reconciliation. “But many of us would like to go much higher than that,” he stressed. “So that’s where all the details, all the negotiation, all the deliberation over the coming weeks will come in.”

But that’s just one part of a three-track train. On top of reconciliation, Republicans are already hard at work on budgeting for the federal agencies, which they’ll have until September 30 to finish. Now that the continuing resolution is in effect, the House is teeing up appropriations for FY 26, “which is the much more exciting prospect,” Johnson believes. “That’s when we will codify all the DOGE cuts of fraud, waste, abuse, [and tap into] the new revenue streams that President Trump and the administration are bringing about. It’s going to be a very different budgeting and appropriations cycle than we’ve ever seen,” he promised. In part, because it could be the first time Congress passes a federal budget through regular order in about 20 years.

In the meantime, the White House is zeroing in on its own basket of cuts that it will send over for congressional approval. “It’s a bit wonkish,” Graham agreed, “but rescission allows [the president] to cut the discretionary budget without 60 votes.” In other words, all of these boondoggles that Elon Musk is identifying can be rolled back legislatively if a simple majority of both chambers agree with the president’s request. “We’re very excited about that,” Johnson said, “because this is the point that we’ve been trying to get to most of our careers. We finally have a White House that is willing to work with conservatives in Congress to scale down government.”

“All of the crazy stuff,” Graham pointed out — the transgender comic books and birth control in Afghanistan and so many other absurd projects — could be erased. “The White House needs to give us the top 10 or 20 examples of wasteful spending that DOGE found, send them over to the Senate and the House — and within 45 days, we have to act. I want the American people to see … that we’re going to clean the underbrush and take the garbage out of the budget. And I want them to see that we’re going to rebuild our military and secure our border” — and still spend less than Biden.

When it comes to waste, “We’re going to qualify it, quantify it, and then codify it,” the speaker declared. And there’s no time like the present, Graham agreed. “We’ve had the House, the Senate, and the White House as Republicans four times in the last hundred years.” This is our chance, he urged. “We should take it.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Polls Show Massive Shift Away from Transgender Political Agenda Since 2022

‘Plot Against America’: Trump Admin Deports Venezuelan Terrorists Despite Judge’s ‘Screwy’ Order

Dept. of Ed Launches Investigations after Warning 50+ Universities to Get Rid of DEI

‘We Have to Protect Our Jewish Students’: Johnson Applauds Trump’s Anti-Semitism Crackdown

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.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ State of the State Address for 2025 thumbnail

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ State of the State Address for 2025

/in , , , , /by

By Royal A. Brown III

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis gave the State of the State address on March 4th, 2025. The following excerpts are of great interest to those of us who support the 2nd Amendment, including Constitutional Carry and rescinding Risk Protection Orders, part of Florida’s Red Flag Law.

Governor DeSantis is spot on with both.

“We need to be a strong Second Amendment state so let’s get some positive reform done for the people of Florida,” DeSantis said.

Some GOP lawmakers have filed bills to repeal that provision in recent years, but they haven’t passed. Moreover, Albritton has said he opposes a move for open carry – allowing firearms to be carried openly in public – because law enforcement officials are against it. DeSantis, though, has said he’ll sign such a bill if it passes the Legislature.

At a press conference immediately after the State of the State speech, DeSantis said he wanted to re-evaluate the state’s red flag law, for example. It allows law enforcement to remove guns from someone who is deemed a threat to themselves or someone else.

DeSantis said he has a problem when the law puts the burden on the person to convince a court they are not a threat. The burden should be on the government, he said: “I think it’s a huge due process violation.”

TALLAHASSEE Fla.—Today, Governor Ron DeSantis delivered the 2025 State of the State address to the joint legislative session from the Florida House of Representatives chamber in Tallahassee. Watch the full address here. You can find a full transcript of his State of the State address below:

Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, members of the cabinet and Legislature, and fellow citizens:

Florida leads.

We lead with purpose and conviction.
We lead with determination and strength.
We lead with faith, and we lead with hope.

Anyone can hold the helm while the sea is calm.

Leadership matters when it is hard.

Florida is the leader among the states because we lean into challenges, tackle the big issues, and deliver results for the people we serve.

In these endeavors we are mindful of the adage from an American philosopher:

“If you don’t know where you are going, you might wind up some place else.”

Yogi Berra was right to articulate—as only he could—the need for clear direction.

We are guided in our efforts by a strong commitment to the principles on which our country was founded and that have endured for centuries:
That our rights come from God, not government.
That constitutional limitations on government’s power are essential to preserve liberty.
That ours is a government of laws, not of men.
That government derives its power from the consent of the people.

The sturdy foundation of American principles is the guide that the free state of Florida must never abandon.

We have stood in the breach and protected our people from noxious ideologies and trendy—but empty—social fads.

We chose freedom over fear; education over indoctrination; law and order over rioting and disorder.

We are proud of our state’s accomplishments while we recognize the work that lies ahead.

Our rudder is set.
Our compass is in hand.
True north is our destination.

We can—and we must—continue to lead.

We are convening for the regular Legislative session having already enacted groundbreaking legislation to fulfill the historic mission of delivering on President Donald Trump’s mandate to end the illegal immigration crisis once and for all.

No state has done more, and no state did it sooner than we did in Florida.

Thanks to the recent legislation, it is now a crime to enter Florida illegally, the days of catch and release are over, and all state and local law enforcement have a duty to assist in interior immigration enforcement efforts.

The voters have spoken—and Florida has responded—we will be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Joining us today are two great leaders in this effort: Immigration Czar Larry Keefe and Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey.

With leaders like Larry and Wayne, Florida will get the job done.

We are not a sanctuary state; we are a rule of law state!

Florida has also led the way in creating a strong economic environment.

For the past two years, Florida’s economy has ranked #1 in these United States.

We also rank #1 in entrepreneurship, #1 in new business formations, #1 in GDP growth among large states, and have an unemployment rate that is lower than the national average for more than 50 months straight!

We represented the refuge for freedom and sanity during the coronavirus pandemic, not just for the rest of the country but for the entire world.

People moved here. Businesses flocked to our state. And investment in Florida surged.

We continue to set tourism records. 2024 saw more than 142 million visitors to our state.

This includes 3.3 million visitors from Canada. Not much of a boycott.

Maybe they wanted to get a glimpse of what a Stanley Cup-winning hockey team looks like!

The Legislature has enacted historic reforms that have improved economic conditions and addressed difficult issues like insurance.

Because of these reforms, automobile insurance rates are finally coming down—between 6 and 10.5% average reductions for the three largest companies—even as rates continue to skyrocket nationwide.

And our homeowners’ insurance market is seeing stability:

  • 1 new companies have entered the market.
  • 130,000 new private policies over the past year.
  • In 2024, Florida had the lowest increase in rates of all 50 states.
  • 73% of citizens homeowners in Miami-Dade are scheduled to receive a decrease on average of 6.3%.

The fact is that the Legislature has devoted more time and effort to address insurance reforms over the past few years than at any other time in the history of Florida.

I hope that the Legislature continues these efforts by providing funding for those on the My Safe Florida Home waitlist—these grants have helped tens of thousands harden their homes and generate rate relief.

The program is a testament to the Legislature’s commitment to helping homeowners—it has made a difference and can do so again.

Our economy is strong in part because our spending and budget policies are sensible.

We are actually spending less money in the current fiscal year than we did in the previous year. Where else have they actually reduced spending?

We have the lowest number of state government workers per capita in the country.

Over the past six years, we have more than tripled our state’s rainy day fund.

Florida just celebrated its 180th birthday and I’m happy to say that just since 2019, we have paid off 41% of the debt accumulated over those 180 years.

Our state has among the lowest per capita state debt in America.

The share of Florida’s debt for each citizen is about $660; the share of the national debt for each US citizen is more than $100,000.

Can the Congressmen in Washington, D.C. please take a page out of Florida’s fiscal playbook?

Florida is a free state in part because we are a low tax state.

We have one of the top five tax environments in the nation, have no income tax, and have enacted billions of dollars in tax cuts over the past six years.

We must continue to be a friend to the taxpayer.

In addition to our traditional tax holidays, I am proposing we add holidays for marine fuel to help our boaters and anglers and a Second Amendment summer for the purchases of firearms, ammo and accoutrements.

Florida remains the only state in America to tax business rent—and while we have reduced the rate of the tax it is time to eliminate it.

While Florida property values have surged in recent years, this has come at a cost to taxpayers squeezed by increasing local government property taxes.

Escalating assessments have created a gusher of revenue for local governments—and many in Florida have seen their budgets increase far beyond the growth in population.

Taxpayers need relief.

You buy a home, pay off a mortgage—and yet you still have to write a check to the government every year just to live on your own property?

Is the property yours or are you just renting from the government?

I know members of the Legislature are studying the issue in anticipation of formulating a proposal to place on the 2026 ballot to provide constitutional protections for Florida property owners.

Please know you have my support.

Oh, and one other thing—don’t let anyone tell you we will seek to raise state taxes, because we will not.

We are—and will remain—a taxpayer-friendly state!

Florida has also led on education—and has been ranked #1 in America for the past two years.

We are the top state in America for school choice. This has changed lives.

Joining us today is Harli McCullough, whose son, Thorne, is a recipient of Florida’s family empowerment scholarship for unique abilities.

Thorne attends the Jacksonville School for Autism because of the scholarship. He can now pursue an education that fits his unique needs instead of being forced into a one-size-fits-all approach.

Our universal school choice program works—families and students have benefitted, and the academic bar has been raised throughout the state.

It is a great testament to the Legislature that Florida was the first state to enact such an ambitious and far-reaching choice program.

We recognize the importance of recruiting and retaining great teachers.

We have enacted a teachers bill of rights, provided protection against coerced union dues, and invested a record $4.6 billion to raise teacher salaries.

I’m pleased to be joined by Hernando County teacher Jaime Suarez, who has been selected as Florida’s Teacher of the Year. Jaime is a High Impact teacher, is the grade team lead and mentor, and serves on the district’s textbook selection committee.

Thanks for making a difference, Jaime!

I am again recommending an increase in money dedicated to increasing teacher salaries, as well as continuation of the civics bonus program that gives a $3,000 bonus to all teachers that complete our civics seal of excellence training course.

Our universities have earned strong commendations—we currently have four state universities ranked in the top 50 public universities in the nation.

Universities must be dedicated to the pursuit of truth, the promotion of academic rigor and integrity, and the preparation of students to be citizens of our republic.

We led the way in being the first state to eliminate DEI from our higher education system.

We continue to lead by holding the line on tuition. We have not allowed a tuition increase since I’ve been governor and Florida has the lowest in-state tuition in America.

Florida families deserve state universities that provide education, not indoctrination. And that education must be attainable regardless of financial status. I’m happy to report that, in this regard, we are delivering.

Florida has led on some of the most intractable issues, ranging from substance abuse to child welfare.

Hope Florida was devised by our First Lady, Casey DeSantis to transform the way government agencies provided services to our fellow citizens in need.

Rather than perpetuate dependence on a Great Society-style bureaucracy, Hope Florida seeks to use government to connect individuals and families to more than 5,600 faith-based, community and private sector partners.

Ginger Faulk illustrates Hope Florida’s impact. Ginger was struggling to make ends meet and her goal of becoming a physical therapist seemed like an elusive dream. Thanks to the help of a Hope Florida navigator, Ginger was connected to resources that helped her complete a physical therapy program. She is now a Physical Therapy assistant and has achieved her dream.

By the end of 2024, Hope Florida has helped nearly 30,000 participants reduce or eliminate their reliance on government assistance, netting the taxpayers over $108 million in annual savings.

In the aftermath of Hurricanes Debby, Helene, and Milton, Activate Hope—the emergency relief arm of Hope Florida—helped over 57,000 Floridians with essential supplies and provided more than 33,000 with referrals to overcome disaster-related hardships.

The Hope Florida model is now being replicated by other states around the country.

Thanks to Casey for her leadership and ingenuity!

We are fortunate to live in a naturally beautiful state.

We promised to leave Florida to God better than we found, and we are doing just that.

The Florida Wildlife Corridor—established in 2021—now spans 18 million acres, with 10 million acres already protected. Last year, we directed FDOT to enhance connectivity within the corridor. Since 2019, we have approved over $129 million for 38 crossings, ensuring safer passage for species like the Florida panther.

We have shattered records for state support for Everglades restoration, for water quality improvements, and for beach renourishment.

While our efforts have been strong, the federal government has lagged in its responsibilities regarding Everglades restoration. I am happy to report that the Trump administration is receptive to block granting money to us so that we can complete these projects ourselves.

Florida time is faster than Army Corps of Engineers time.

Our Florida paradise was interrupted by a series of hurricanes over the past year. These storms brought major destruction but also witnessed a strong emergency response across state and local governments.

Utility lineman were pre-staged and millions of customers who lost power were restored in record time.

Massive amounts of debris were removed, including a round-the-clock emergency effort to marshal state assets to remove Hurricane Helene debris in advance of Hurricane Milton.

The search and rescue effort was momentous. This includes the rescue of a dog that had been abandoned on the side of I-75 in advance of Milton. FHP Trooper Orlando Morales rescued the dog as water was rising to the dog’s neck. The dog has ben renamed “Trooper” and is now in a safe and loving home.

Thank you, Trooper Morales!

We have utilized available levers—from the Florida Disaster Fund to the small business loan program—to help individuals and businesses get back on their feet.

We are joined by Cainnon Gregg, the Founder of Pelican Oyster Co. His farm was devasted by Hurricane Michael and, after rebuilding, was hit again by Helene and Milton. Mr. Gregg will be a recipient of grant funds to support his rebuilding efforts and to get his business back to normal.

The recovery efforts after major hurricanes persist long after the cameras leave. I know more needs to be done and you can count on me to be supportive of future legislative support for these important recoveries.

We know we have other issues to address:

  • Petition/amendment fraud
  • Condos
  • Second Amendment

Before I conclude I would be remiss if I didn’t remind everybody of some of the other accomplishments that, together, we have achieved over the past six years:

We banned China from purchasing land in Florida.

We enacted a digital bill of rights.

We protected Floridians against the imposition of a central bank digital currency.

We instituted the death penalty for pedophiles.

We created a program to accelerate the repayment of state debt – saving hundreds of millions of dollars in interest costs.

We enacted protections for the sanctity of life.

We codified parental rights in education.

We created a law enforcement bonus and scholarship program to recruit and retain great police officers.

We divested state financial holdings from Chinese banks and investment firms.

We kneecapped so-called ESG in our pension fund, in the workplace and in financial institutions.

We brought transparency and accountability to pharma companies to lower drug costs.

We initiated the Moving Florida Forward program to accelerate over 20 infrastructure and congestion relief projects across the state.

We provided billions of dollars in tax relief, including the permanent elimination of sales tax on essential baby items.

I could go on, but in the interest of time I’ll just say that, working together, we have amassed a record that is without peer anywhere in the country.

To our presiding officers, Speaker Perez and President Albritton, I look forward to work together to advance our shared goals.

Speaker Perez represents the busy, fast-paced modern Miami, the gateway to the Americas—a unique place not just in our state but in our country.

President Albritton represents the Florida heartland that is sometimes overlooked but that has served as the backbone of our state for generations.

While coming from differing backgrounds, these leaders have a strong desire to make Florida a better place. Congratulations on earning this opportunity to lead your respective chambers.

To our Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis—thank you for your service to our state as you prepare to get called up to the big leagues to serve in Congress. My advice is stay true to Northwest Florida values and don’t catch Potomac fever. Oh, and if you can get them to handle the budget up there like we do down here you will be doing a great service to the country!

Commissioner Simpson, you will soon be the most tenured member of the cabinet. Your department has made significant improvements since you’ve taken over from your predecessor. You have stepped up as part of our state immigration board to assist in the state’s effort to combat illegal immigration and I thank you for it.

Our new Attorney General James Uthmeier has been instrumental in many of the successes I’ve outlined today. I was happy to appoint him to be the state’s top law enforcement officer and he is already off to a great start!

To the members of the Legislature, you are entrusted by your constituents to exercise sound judgment on their behalf. You have been more productive than any Legislature in America over these past six years. You should be proud of that work and of your willingness to serve.

As Teddy Roosevelt famously said:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while doing greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

My friends, we have great opportunities over the next sixty days.

The people of Florida are watching.

Let’s work together to solidify our successes and address the challenges before us.

Our voyage is not yet complete.

Our goal is to one day say, in the words of Walt Whitman:

“O Captain! O Captain! Our fearful trip is done,

The ship has weather’d every rack, the prize we sought is won.”

Good luck and God bless!

©2025  . All rights reserved.

The Democratic Fork in the Road and the Woke Repudiation Imperative thumbnail

The Democratic Fork in the Road and the Woke Repudiation Imperative

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

By The Daily Signal

Yogi Berra, the mid-century New York Yankees Hall of Fame catcher known for his pithy and often humorous life observations, once famously quipped: “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” It was sound advice, perhaps, for a traveler on the go and in search of a quick meal. But the modern Democratic Party, rudderless and confused and reeling from a pitiful collective performance during Tuesday evening’s presidential joint address to Congress, now confronts a fork in the road that’s no joke.

On the one hand lies the path of least resistance: doubling down on the status quo—the progressive culture-warring, woke/identity politics-driven agenda that has dominated the party ever since Barack Obama upset Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. On the other hand lies the more difficult but ultimately more promising path: repudiation of that post-2008 legacy and a conscientious return to a politics of the prudential center. Which path Democrats choose from here will go a long way toward determining their relevance as a national political party for the foreseeable future.

Obama’s shocking upset over the madam-president-in-waiting was an inflection point for the institutional trajectory of the Democratic Party. Voters rejected the cultural centrism that was a Clinton-era hallmark in favor of the “hope” and “change” promised by Obama’s “coalition of the ascendant.” Initially, perhaps, that may have looked like a smart bet: Obama trounced John McCain in the 2008 presidential general election. But the one-time “coalition of the ascendant” transmogrified into an identitarian and deeply off-putting “coalition of aggrieved interests.” Culturally militant wokeism eventually reached its pernicious apex during Joe Biden’s presidency—which saw the first explicitly “DEI” Supreme Court justice selection (Ketanji Brown Jackson, after Biden vowed to nominate a black woman) and a diversity, equity, and inclusion vice presidential running mate (Kamala Harris, after Biden was pressured to choose a black woman).

This version of the Democratic Party, which featured the progenitor of wokeism, Obama himself, as the leading presidential campaign trail surrogate for Harris, was thoroughly rejected in November by the American people. It turns out that voters didn’t really know what they were signing up for when they embarked on an extended political journey of “hope” and “change.” They weren’t interested—and aren’t interested—in legitimizing the juvenile genital mutilation and chemical castration that has been euphemistically sold as “gender-affirming care.” They weren’t interested—and aren’t interested—in assenting to wide-scale importation and resettlement of foreigners whose cultures and customs are antithetical to our own.

Some leading Democrats do finally seem to get the memo. Former Clinton strategist James Carville, for instance, has called for Democrats to distance themselves from the excesses of woke civilizational arson. But many others disagree. There is no indication at all, for instance, that the ladies of “The View” have done any introspection: Shortly after November’s electoral shellacking, cohost Sunny Hostin attributed Harris’ loss to Donald Trump to “racism” and “misogyny.” Surveying the left-of-center punditocracy scene, it often seems that there are far more Hostin-like voices of escalation than there are Carville-like voices of sobriety.

Democratic elected officials are also deeply split. California Gov. Gavin Newsom made headlines this week by repudiating certain facets of wokeism during an interview with Charlie Kirk, but congressional Democrats attending Trump’s joint address to Congress on Tuesday evening took the opposite approach, beyond refusing to applaud: Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, obnoxiously heckled the president and was kicked out of the House chamber within the speech’s first few minutes–deservedly so. In general, their conduct was positively buffoonish.

In what world do Democrats think they do themselves any political favors with these antics and, more important, these underlying substantive political stances? One guest of Trump on Tuesday, Payton McNabb, is a female former high school athlete who was grievously injured during a match against a team with a biological male player. On this issue, recent CNN polling indicates that roughly four-fifths of Americans oppose biological male participation in female athletic competitions. Even Newsom, in his podcast episode with Kirk, called the practice “deeply unfair.”

Newsom seems to be reading the tea leaves—unlike congressional Democrats. There is a similar divide on the issue of illegal immigration and so-called sanctuary jurisdictions; consider, for instance, New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ high-profile flip on the issue, which has brought him into line with Trump.

To make matters even worse, a majority of Democratic elites too often now come across not merely as schoolmarmish and excessively self-righteous—but as heartless and lacking compassion, to boot. Party leaders undoubtedly think of themselves as “compassionate,” especially for those perceived as being “oppressed” (on the neo-Marxist intersectional scale of victimization status). But where is the compassion for McNabb? Where is the compassion for the family of Laken Riley, the Athens, Georgia, student whose life was tragically cut short by an illegal alien who never should have been on our soil?

In order to recover their standing and regain lasting relevance as an electorally feasible national political party, Democrats are going to have to repudiate the entirety of their post-2008/post-Obama cultural legacy. That is the simple truth. The American people want a stable pocketbook, a stable border and a stable world stage. They’re not interested in the Obama-Biden-Harris Democratic Party’s idiosyncratic conception of waging a culture war.

Are Democrats up to such a challenge? The intraparty civil war is on—but I certainly have my doubts. Unless and until they do repudiate their cultural militance, however, Democrats will continue to flounder about in irrelevance. Perhaps they’ll need to get their clocks cleaned at the ballot box a few more times. That wouldn’t be the worst thing.

COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

AUTHOR

Josh Hammer

Josh Hammer, a syndicated columnist, is senior editor-at-large at Newsweek and a research fellow with the Edmund Burke Foundation. He also is counsel and policy adviser for the Internet Accountability Project and contributing editor for Anchoring Truths. Josh on X: @josh_hammer.

RELATED ARTICLES:

What’s Wrong With Democrats?

After DEI, What’s Next?

Here’s Why Democrats’ Feeble Attempts to Moderate Are Doomed to Fail

RELATED  VIDEO: Bill O’Reilly: Donald Trump is bringing the Democratic Party “on the verge of COLLAPSE.”

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

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

‘Remember the Alamo’: The Freedom Fighters Who Inspired Millions thumbnail

‘Remember the Alamo’: The Freedom Fighters Who Inspired Millions

/in , , , , /by

By Catherine Salgado

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Today, March 6, marks the anniversary of one of the most famous fights in American history, the 1836 Battle of the Alamo. While the Mexican troops under brutal and dictatorial Gen. Santa Anna seized the Alamo and massacred its American and Mexican defenders, the legacy of the Alamo continues to inspire Americans even today.

“Remember the Alamo” was the rallying cry for Americans in the Texas Revolution and beyond. Why was that? What is the Alamo, and what happened there? The Alamo was originally the Spanish Catholic Mission San Antonio de Valero. Later, the church was turned into a fortress, and that’s what the Texan and Tejano defenders of the Alamo decided to use it for in 1836.

So why was there conflict? After Mexico gained independence, many Mexicans and some Americans enjoyed a fairly independent and autonomous life in the area of what is now the state of Texas. All that changed when Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna won the presidency of Mexico, abolished the 1824 Constitution, and attempted to impose centralization. In October 1835, the Texas Revolution began, with early victories for the revolutionaries against the Mexican Army, including at San Antonio de Bexár (modern-day San Antonio). The revolutionaries fortified the Alamo, including with 18 or more cannons, and garrisoned it with about 150 men.

ADVERTISEMENT

But a Mexican army led by Mexican President Santa Anna was marching to take Bexár back and crush the Texas Revolution. The Siege of the Alamo lasted 13 days, during which time Texas declared its independence and help was sent to the Alamo—which, sadly, would not arrive in time. The Alamo historic site explains:

‘On February 24, 1836, with the garrison surrounded and the Texan Army at the Alamo outnumbered, one of the most famous letters in American history was written by William B. Travis. It was addressed, “To the People of Texas and All Americans in the World.” This letter was a passionate plea for aid for the Alamo garrison. He ended the letter “Victory or Death” – the only outcome this battle could have. That letter left the Alamo and the siege continued.

On March 1, 1836, 32 men from the town of Gonzales arrived to aid the Alamo. This brought the number of defenders up to almost 200 men.’

Statue of Davy Crockett with the Alamo in the background

Again, it is important to note that the defenders of the Alamo not only included such famous Americans as W.B. Travis, Davy Crockett, and James Bowie, but also a number of Tejanos. While some moderns try to pretend the Alamo defenders were fighting for slavery or that it was a struggle of white Americans against Mexicans, the truth is that there were Mexicans on both sides—with the freedom lovers inside the Alamo (in fact the Tejanos started the Revolution).

Share

ADVERTISEMENT

Two sides of the San Antonio monument to the Alamo defenders. Photos taken by me.

The diverse group of Irish, English, German, Scottish, American, and Hispanic freedom fighters knew they would either conquer the Mexican troops, or die trying.

‘At dawn on March 6, 1836, the 13th day of the siege, the Battle of the Alamo commenced. Fighting lasted roughly 90 minutes, and by daybreak all the Defenders had perished, including a former congressman from Tennessee, David Crockett. The loss of the garrison was felt all over Texas, and even the world. The Defenders were from many different countries, including some Defenders who were native-born Mexicans. Following the battle, Santa Anna ordered the Defender’s remains burned.’

But the tragic deaths of the Alamo defenders did not prove an end of the conflict, as Santa Anna no doubt intended. In death, the Alamo’s defenders became larger than life, their heroic sacrifice spurring other men to take up the cause and fight for liberty.

Items owned by individuals connected with the Alamo, including Sam Houston’s sword, Travis’s ring, and Davy Crockett’s rifle, tin box, brush, and knife.

On April 21, 1836, the Texan Army led by Sam Houston launched an attack on Santa Anna’s army. The Texans charged the enemy on the banks of the San Jacinto River, shouting, “Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad! God and Texas!” The brief battle—a mere 18 minutes long—was a decisive Texan victory. “The following day, Santa Anna was captured and brought to Sam Houston,” The Alamo notes. “An agreement was made and the Republic of Texas was born.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Share

The men who fought and died at the Alamo did not live to see the victory and independence they dreamed of, but their defeat proved, in the long run, a powerful weapon against Santa Anna and his attempts to impose centralized authoritarianism. As the San Antonio Alamo monument says, “From the fire that burned their bodies rose the eternal spirit of sublime heroic sacrifice which gave birth to an empire state.”

Just like Houston’s Texans at San Jacinto, let us determine to fight our political and societal battles in honor of the memory of the Texan and Tejano heroes, vowing always to “Remember the Alamo!”

*****

Catherine Salgado is an accomplished writer and investigative reporter who publishes daily at her Substack column, Pro Deo et Libertate (For God and Liberty). This superb column provides news and opinion pieces from an honest, common sense perspective in the spheres of culture, politics, liberal arts, and religion. The Prickly Pear is grateful for her permission to reproduce her public writings and recommends that our readers subscribe to Catherine’s superb Substack column. Please consider a paid subscription for full access to all of her excellent and informative writings

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!

Teenage boy confronted by two armed home invaders and guess what happened? thumbnail

Teenage boy confronted by two armed home invaders and guess what happened?

/in , , , , , /by

By Leo Hohmann

Things did not turn out well for the two middle-aged men who thought they’d rob a soft-target household while the child’s parents were not home. 

A 14-year-old Kentucky boy protected his home from two armed intruders during a brazen pre-dawn home invasion that occurred around 4:24 a.m. on Feb. 15 in the sleepy little town of Manchester, population 1,500.

According to Kentucky State Police (KSP), the boy was home alone when two men, identified as Roger Smith, 44, of McKee, Ky, and Jeffrey Allen, 51, of Manchester, forcibly entered the residence with guns drawn.

The two men reportedly wanted to steal firearms from the family safe. The teenage boy immediately confronted the intruders, who were each holding pistols, and acted swiftly to protect himself and his home.

Faced with the immediate threat, the 14-year-old retrieved a handgun and fired multiple shots at the intruders before escaping through a bedroom window.

Smith was transported to Advent Health Manchester but later succumbed to his wounds, while Allen was pronounced dead at the scene.

Police determined the boy acted in self-defense and will not face any charges.

Manchester Police Chief Jeff Couch told NBC News it is unclear how the teen was able to find the handgun, which belonged to his father.

However, I think the chief and NBC News missed the point. The issue wasn’t how did he find his dad’s handgun, it’s how did be become so adept at using it?

This boy could not have taken out two armed criminals, who were likely pretty gun savvy themselves given their ages and line of work, if he had just “retrieved” his dad’s gun and started firing away at the intruders. He had to have been well trained, probably by his dad. I could see getting lucky with one shot, but not when outgunned two-to-one and you still hit both of your targets with kill shots before they’re able to hit you. That takes real skill, especially under the stress of the moment that this child faced.

The pro-Second Amendment website GunsAmerica.com hit closer to the issue at hand than NBC, stating:

“This incident shows why it’s important to teach responsible kids how to safely handle firearms. When faced with real danger, this young man’s knowledge and quick thinking helped protect him and his home.”

Imagine if Kentucky had laws in place like some blue states that require citizens to keep their firearms unloaded and stored in a safe. This boy would likely not be alive right now because he would not have been able to confront and stop the threat if he’d had to go to the safe, remember the combination to unlock it, and then load a gun.

Question: How young is too young to train children in the proper use of firearms? I’m guessing it depends on the child and the family situation. Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

Please visit Leo’s Newsletter substack.

IDF Reveals 10-Month-Old Baby, 4-Year-Old Brother Beaten To Death By Hamas Terrorists thumbnail

IDF Reveals 10-Month-Old Baby, 4-Year-Old Brother Beaten To Death By Hamas Terrorists

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

Daniel Hagari, the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) spokesperson, announced that the dead children returned Thursday to Israel from Gaza were beaten to death by terrorists.

“We can confirm that baby Kfir Bibas, aged just 10 months old, and his older brother Ariel, aged four, were both brutally murdered by terrorists while being held hostage in Gaza no later than November 2023,” the spokesperson said. “Contrary to Hamas’ lies, Ariel and Kfir were not killed in an airstrike. Ariel and Kfir Bibas were murdered by terrorists in cold blood. The terrorists did not shoot the two young boys. They killed them with their bare hands.”

BREAKING:

Spokesman of the Israeli Army Daniel Hagari just announced that the forensic examination of the bodies of 9-month-old Kfir Bibas and his 4-year-old brother Ariel were beaten to death by Hamas.

They weren’t killed in an airstrike, they were brutally murdered pic.twitter.com/YdcoAbFBZK

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 21, 2025

The two boys were taken hostage by Hamas along with their mother, Shiri and their father, Yarden, during the Oct. 7, 2023 terror attack against Israel. Yarden was released on Feb. 1. Hamas paraded the coffins of the dead children in a ceremony accompanied by a cheering crowd Thursday where they handed the remains of the hostages to the Red Cross.

They were expected to hand over the remains of Shiri as well but the body they handed over was not hers, the Institute of Forensic Medicine (IFM) said, The Jerusalem Post reported. The IFM and Israel Police jointly performed forensic analyses to identify the remains. Officials said the act violated the agreement between Israel and Hamas, adding that the organization was under an obligation to return the bodies under the ceasefire agreement that took effect Jan. 19

“Not only did they kidnap the father, Yarden Bibas, the young mother, Shiri, and their two little babies. In an unspeakably cynical way, they did not return Shiri to her little children, the little angels, and they put the body of a Gazan woman in a coffin,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrote on social media in Hebrew.

מדינת ישראל מרכינה ראש על שני ילדים קטנים, תינוקות רכים, אחים – אריאל וכפיר ביבס זכרונם לברכה, ועל עודד ליפשיץ זכרונו לברכה, ממייסדי קיבוץ ניר עוז.

שלושתם נרצחו באכזריות איומה בשבי החמאס בשבועות הראשונים של המלחמה.

האכזריות של מפלצות החמאס אינה יודעת שום גבול.

לא רק שהם חטפו… pic.twitter.com/MSglg9zNcO

— Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו (@netanyahu) February 21, 2025

The IDF identified Oded Lifshitz, who was among the remains Hamas handed over Thursday, according to The Jerusalem Post.

AUTHOR

Ilan Hulkower

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: BBC Says It’s Really Sorry For Featuring Terrorist’s Son In Documentary, Swears It Was Accident

RELATED VIDEO: Who kidnaps a little boy and a baby and murders them? Monsters. That’s who.

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

The First Indian-Origin FBI Director and a New Chapter in U.S. Law Enforcement thumbnail

The First Indian-Origin FBI Director and a New Chapter in U.S. Law Enforcement

/in , , , , , , , /by

By Amil Imani

Kashyap “Kash” Patel has made history as the first Indian-origin Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a role he achieved after a contentious and politically charged confirmation process. On February 20, 2025, Patel secured his position as the head of the FBI with a narrow Senate vote of 51-49. This vote highlighted deep political divisions, setting the stage for a leadership marked by promise and controversy. Patel’s rise to this significant role is a personal victory and a landmark achievement for the Indian-American community, merging cultural heritage with an unwavering pursuit of professional ambition.

Born in New York to Gujarati Indian parents who immigrated from Uganda in the 1970s, Kash Patel’s background exemplifies the immigrant experience in America. His parents sought better opportunities, fleeing ethnic discrimination in their homeland, and Patel grew up with a strong sense of cultural identity. Despite facing challenges as the child of immigrants, Patel excelled academically and professionally, embodying the immigrant narrative of determination and success.

Patel pursued his education with a distinct focus on law and public service. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in Criminal Justice and History from Richmond University in 2002 before obtaining a Juris Doctor (JD) from Pace University School of Law in 2004. His dedication to advancing his legal education took him to University College London, where he earned a certificate in international law. This academic foundation would become the cornerstone of his outstanding career in law enforcement and national security.

Patel’s professional journey began in Florida, where he served as a public defender for the state. This role gave him invaluable courtroom experience by managing complex cases, including murder and financial crimes. His early exposure to the criminal justice system significantly shaped his understanding of the law and the complexities of defending individuals within the legal framework. It wasn’t long before Patel’s skills were recognized, leading him to transition to federal positions within the Department of Justice (DOJ), where he took on the responsibilities of a trial attorney, focusing on counterterrorism cases.

In 2017, Patel’s career experienced a major shift when he became the senior counsel for counterterrorism on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). Here, Patel gained recognition for his close connections to former President Donald Trump, promoting transparency and questioning the FBI’s handling of politically sensitive investigations. His vocal criticisms of the FBI, particularly in the inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, earned him both praise from conservatives and backlash from liberals, cementing his status as a polarizing figure in Washington.

In 2019, Patel became the senior director of the Counterterrorism Directorate at the National Security Council, where he oversaw U.S. intelligence operations and special forces. His tenure in this position earned him a reputation for emphasizing national security, particularly counterterrorism efforts. Later, he enhanced his influence by serving as chief of staff to the acting Secretary of Defense under President Trump. His work within national security circles and rising reputation as a strong conservative voice positioned Patel for his prominent role as FBI Director.

Patel’s appointment as FBI Director was far from smooth. His confirmation faced intense scrutiny and opposition due to his perceived partisanship and controversial ties to former President Trump. The Senate vote of 51-49 highlighted the deep divides in Congress over Patel’s qualifications and the direction he would take the FBI.

Critics of Patel, particularly Democrats, raised concerns about his lack of traditional law enforcement experience. They questioned his impartiality, accusing him of aligning too closely with Trump’s political agenda. Democratic Senator Dick Durbin called him “dangerous” and “inexperienced,” citing his outspoken criticisms of the FBI during politically charged investigations. His past involvement in drafting the Nunes memo, which criticized the FBI’s actions during the Russia probe, further fueled suspicions that Patel might use the FBI for political purposes.

The confirmation process also included fierce questioning during Patel’s hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senators scrutinized his history of public advocacy, particularly his outspoken support for Trump and controversial stances on law enforcement. Despite the partisan divide, Patel received significant support from Republicans, who praised him as a reformer capable of restoring accountability to an agency that had become politicized.

As the new FBI Director, Patel’s vision for the agency centers on transparency, accountability, and a commitment to justice. His statement, “Let good cops be cops,” captures his approach—highlighting the need to restore public trust in law enforcement agencies that have faced considerable scrutiny in recent years. Patel also clarified that national security would be a top priority, accompanied by a stern warning to criminals: “We will hunt you down in every corner of this planet.”

Supporters of Patel’s appointment argue that he will reform the FBI, especially after years of criticism regarding the agency’s handling of politically sensitive cases. However, his lack of traditional law enforcement experience and the controversies surrounding his ties to Trump have led to significant concerns about the politicization of the agency under his leadership.

Patel’s appointment is a milestone not just for the FBI but also for the Indian-American community. As a Hindu leader in one of the country’s most influential law enforcement positions, Patel represents a significant cultural achievement. His rise to the top of the FBI showcases the growing presence and influence of Indian-Americans in high-profile roles within U.S. society. For many in the Indian diaspora, Patel’s success inspires, signaling that individuals from diverse backgrounds can reach the highest echelons of American power.

Kash Patel’s journey from the son of immigrants to becoming the first Indian-origin Director of the FBI exemplifies ambition, resilience, and controversy. His career, marked by a blend of legal expertise and national security experience, has equipped him for the significant challenges of leading one of the world’s most powerful law enforcement agencies. As he navigates the delicate balance of rebuilding trust, addressing national security threats, and preserving the FBI’s independence, Patel’s leadership is set to influence the agency’s future. At the same time, his appointment will continue to ignite discussions about race, politics, and the role of law enforcement in modern American society.

Kash Patel will be closely watched in the coming years as he strives to uphold justice and integrity within the FBI. His capacity to reconcile his controversial past with his new leadership role in a federal agency will likely shape his legacy within the FBI and the broader realm of American governance.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

President Eisenhower and President Trump Both Strategic High IQ Thinkers thumbnail

President Eisenhower and President Trump Both Strategic High IQ Thinkers

/in , , , , , , , /by

By Geoff Ross USN retired Surface Warfare/Air Warfare

The massive corruption, fraud, waste and abuse of our tax money, illegally confiscated from our paychecks and retirement accounts then laundered through the U.S. Treasury to fund unconstitutional expenditures is finally getting exposed by President Trump and his superior high IQ DOGE team led indirectly by Mr. Elon Musk.

Let’s not forget though that in July 1954, President Eisenhower initiated the same initiative or investigation of government waste and abuse but he directed his attention directly on parts of the operational readiness of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

President Eisenhower requested that General Doolittle oversee a group of consultants and investigate the effectiveness and efficiency of various covert operational activities of the aforementioned CIA.

President Eisenhower classified this operation as Top Secret and all results of this investigation were to be routed directly back to him considering the nature of the clandestine work.

He wanted a broad range of study to see if the CIA can be ran more efficiently with less money much like what the Trump and DOGE team are uncovering in 2025.

Eisenhower directed and implemented the following plan:

  1. recommending methods and procedures for reducing expenditures to the lowest amount consistent with the efficient performance of essential services, activities and functions;
  2. eliminating duplication and overlapping of services, activities, and functions;
  3. consolidating services, activities, and functions of a similar nature;
  4. abolishing services, activities, and functions not necessary to the efficient conduct of Government;
  5. eliminating nonessential services, functions, and activities which are competitive with private enterprise;
  6. defining responsibilities of officials; and
  7. relocating agencies now responsible directly to the President in departments or other agencies.

This plan by former President Eisenhower in 1954 mirrors the current Trump approach to downsizing our federal government but Eisenhower focused on a single operational entity within the CIA.

The Trump plan is restructuring our entire system of governance to save our republic from a catastrophic economic financial collapse created by years of abuse and out of control spending by an incompetent criminal enterprise operating in our Congress and more recently under Biden’s watch.

The basis for Eisenhower’s request was focused upon the growing influence of global Communism in the former Soviet Union and China. President Trump could claim the same strategic position but our Communist infiltration is within the halls of our very own Congress.

It looks like our republic is going to be saved from this internal Communist Marxist infiltration by a man whose face needs to be sculpted alongside other great presidents on Mount Rushmore National Monument in South Dakota.

We the people just need to help Trump finish the job by voting out those left wing Marxist canker sores infested in our Congress.

Let’s start by stripping Congresswoman and Hamas sympathizer Ilhan Omar of her fraudulently obtained U.S. citizenship and deport her ass back to Somalia.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

Trump Moves On Ukraine, Euros Panic thumbnail

Trump Moves On Ukraine, Euros Panic

/in , , , , , , /by

By Kenneth R. Timmerman

Isn’t this a great time to be alive in America! We finally have a president who cares for this country, who puts our interests first, and who is willing to tell the truth as he sees it, not as our “allies” or adversaries want to hear it.

This week, of course, it was Ukraine. As I have said before in this space, we have finally reached what Churchill called the “end of the beginning.” Now the real negotiations begin.

Of course the Europeans were upset that Trump didn’t include Zelensky in the opening round of exploratory talks with the Russians in Saudi Arabia. So what did the Z-man do? He flew to Turkey hoping to enlist the Islamist Erdogan to make his case to the Europeans.

Trump’s demands are not complicated. First, he notes that the United States has given Ukraine $350 billion in assistance, and that Zelensky himself has acknowledged that half of it has gone “missing.”

Missing? Really? I saw it last week while skiing at Courcheval. So many BMW 700-series sedans and Mercedes G-wagons with Ukrainian license plates, whole families enjoying the slopes – on our dime.

You and I are currently paying the salaries of Ukrainian civil servants, as well as their pensions, and we don’t have a lot to show for it. The Euros have provided the Ukes with $200 billion in loans, which they expect to get paid back. Trump found that unfair.

So he sent Treasury Secretary Scott Beeson to Kyiv to make an offer: you pay us back with access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals, uranium, and iron. The Z-man flat out refused. Big mistake.

Now Trump is calling for the Ukrainians to hold presidential elections, which were initially scheduled for May 2024 — until the Z-man canceled them. After all, we are supposed to be supporting “democracy,” right? Isn’t that what we’ve been told this is about? The Z-man is now REALLY worried.

So Zelensky’s next step was to trot off to Munich and propose creating a pan-European army to defend Ukraine and presumably the rest of the continent from Russian aggression. President Macron of France (aka “Little Cookie”), has been calling for the same for several years, as have earlier French presidents.

Some have even offered to place Europe under a French nuclear umbrella. That was a proposal dragged out of the dustbin of history this week by Friedrich Merz, the CDU party leader who is currently leading in the polls to become Germany’s next chancellor in elections to be held on Sunday.

My advice to Mr. Merz: be careful what you wish for. A French nuclear umbrella, or even a British-French one, would be a very leaky umbrella. Do you really think the French are going to sacrifice Paris or Lyons to defend Kyiv? I sure don’t.

Deterrence is a fragile thing. For it to work, it must be credible. A Franco-British nuclear umbrella over Ukraine and Europe is not.

President Trump’s Ukraine-Russia envoy, Lt. Gen. (ret.) Keith Kellogg, was also at the Munich security conference (along with Sec/Def Pete Hegseth and JD Vance, whose speech I wrote about in this space last week). He suggested that the US was hoping “to force” Putin into actions he was “uncomfortable with,” including disrupting Russia’s alliances with Iran, North Korea, and China.

Given that Russia formalized a 20-year military and security treaty with Iran in January, and that China also has such a deal, such a development would be a huge win for President Trump and for Americans.

There was also talk in the media this week about “Track 2″ diplomacy in Geneva, off-the-record discussions between Americans and Russians close to their respective administrations.

Parallel diplomacy – half-blessed, but off-the-record – has been going on for years. If you have purchased my latest book, The Iran House, you will find an amusing account of my own involvement in Track 2 talks at an Italian seaside resort with Iranian officials in Chapter 8, “Becoming a Target.”

As usual, the President encapsulated his thoughts on the Ukraine-Russia negotiations in a tweet. Legacy media commentators see “chaos” in Trump’s approach. I see absolutely brilliance.

I discuss these issues on this week’s Prophecy Today Weekend. As always, you can listen live at 1 PM on Saturday on 104.9 FM or 550 AM in the Jacksonville, Florida, area, or by using the Jacksonville Way Radio app. If you miss us live, you can listen to the podcast here.

Yours in freedom.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

DEI Wall Crumbling in U.S. Military thumbnail

DEI Wall Crumbling in U.S. Military

/in , , , , , /by

By Royal A. Brown III

The Center for Military Readiness does great work. Our military should never have been subjected to Marxist CRT/DEI pushed by Obama3/Biden and their clones DOD Secy Lloyd Austin and the equally bad JCS who supported him.

DOD has put into place a total opposite of a merit based system at the cost of combat readiness, loss of fear by our enemies, recruiting, morale, etc.

In a December 2024 CMR Policy Analysis titled How to End Wokeism in the Military, the Center for Military Readiness predicted:

“Dismantling the Pentagon’s DEI infrastructure won’t be easy, but there was a time when the Berlin Wall appeared impregnable too.  Leadership and focused political pressure could cause the Diversity Industrial Complex to crack and fall sooner than anyone thinks.” 

A blizzard of Executive Orders and Memoranda from the newly inaugurated Commander-in-Chief and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have targeted harmful policies and reinforced the best qualities of military culture: merit and non-discrimination, readiness, morale, cohesion, and lethality in war.

This CMR Policy Analysis provides excerpts from consequential Executive Orders that President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have issued as of February 14, 2025, and summarizes key directives:

CMR Policy Analysis: DEI Wall Crumbles Under Pressure from New Commander-in-Chief

Taken together, these Executive Orders and mandates deliver on promises to directly address Wokism in the Military – defined as progressiveness taken to extremes and imposed with coercion, even if it hurts the institution.

Still, as this detailed CMR Special Report explained last December, Congress must act legislatively to make President Trump’s Executive Orders permanent.  The U.S. Constitution assigns to Congress the power and responsibility to make sound policies for our military, and commonsense personnel policies enjoy widespread public support.

This brief outline and excerpts are encouraging, but there is no time to rest:

I. MERITOCRACY “YES,” DIVERSITY, EQUITY & INCLUSION (DEI) “NO” 

A.    Executive Order: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, Jan. 20, 2025.

“Americans deserve a government committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect, and to expending precious taxpayer resources only on making America great.”

B.  Executive Order: Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions, Jan. 20, 2025.

“[I]t is the policy of the United States to restore common sense to the Federal Government and [to] unleash the potential of the American citizen.”

C.  Executive Order: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, Jan. 21, 2025.

This EO repeals eight previous orders, including President Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 EO 11246.  In its 2023 opinion in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard & University of N. Carolina, the U. S. Supreme Court noted how the 1965 Executive Order was stretched beyond its original, limited purpose.  As a result, officials imposed the full range of arbitrary preferences and mandates favoring some demographic groups at the expense of others.

D.  Executive Order: Restoring America’s Fighting Force, Jan. 27, 2025.

“As Chief Executive and as Commander in Chief, I am committed to meritocracy and to the elimination of race-based and sex-based discrimination within the Armed Forces of the United States.  No individual or group within our Armed Forces should be preferred or disadvantaged on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, color, or creed.”

E.  Memorandum of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth: “Restoring America’s Fighting Force,” Jan. 29, 2025.

“The DoD will strive to provide merit-based, color-blind, equal opportunities to Service members but will not guarantee or strive for equal outcomes.”

II.  GENDER IDENTITY, DYSPHORIA, AND COMMONSENSE DEFINITIONS

A.  Executive Order: Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, Jan. 20, 2025

“‘Sex’ is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’”

 B.  Transgenders in the Military

Executive Order: Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness, Jan. 27, 2025.

“Success in [the military’s] existential mission requires a singular focus on developing the requisite warrior ethos and military excellence, which cannot be diluted to accommodate political agendas or other ideologies harmful to unit cohesion.”

C.  Memorandum – Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to Senior Pentagon Leadership, Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness, Feb. 7, 2025.

“The Department must ensure it is building ‘One Force’ without subgroups defined by anything other than ability or mission adherence.” 

D.  Executive Order: Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, Jan. 28, 2025.

“[M]edical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child’s sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions.  This dangerous trend will be a stain on our Nation’s history, and it must end.” 

      III.  AFFIRMING SOUND PRIORITIES, NOT CRITICAL RACE THEORY (CRT)

A.  Executive Order, Jan. 29, 2025, Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling

“In many cases, innocent children are compelled to adopt identities as either victims or oppressors solely based on their skin color and other immutable characteristics.  In other instances, young men and women are made to question whether they were born in the wrong body and whether to view their parents and their reality as enemies to be blamed.  These practices not only erode critical thinking, but also sow division, confusion, and distrust, which undermine the very foundations of personal identity and family unity.”

B.     EO “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, Jan. 21, 2025, cited above also states:

“Success in [the military’s] existential mission requires a singular focus on developing the warrior ethos and military excellence, which cannot be diluted to accommodate political agendas or other ideologies harmful to unit cohesion.”

C.    News Release, Guidance from the Secretary of Defense: Identity Months Dead at DoD, Jan. 31, 2025.

“We are proud of our warriors and their history, but we will focus on the character of their service instead of their immutable characteristics.”

D.    Executive Order, Jan. 24, 2025, Enforcing the Hyde Amendment

“It is the policy of the United States, consistent with the Hyde Amendment, to end the forced use of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion.”

E.  Executive Order, Jan. 27, 2025, Reinstating Service Members Discharged Under the Military’s COVID-19 Vaccination Mandate

“The vaccine mandate was an unfair, overbroad, and completely unnecessary burden on our service members.  Further, the military unjustly discharged those who refused the vaccine, regardless of the years of service given to our Nation, after failing to grant many of them an exemption that they should have received.  Federal Government redress of any wrongful dismissals is overdue.”

     IV.  ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS OF INTEREST

     V.  WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NEXT

The Trump Administration has done an excellent job addressing issues of concern to CMR with Executive Orders and Memoranda, but the administration cannot act unilaterally to repeal statutory language.

The new 119th Congress should take advantage of what may be a once-in-a- lifetime opportunity to eliminate statutory barriers, and to write well-defined legislation that restores sound priorities and establishes durable, high standards that will withstand legal challenges in court.

Major topics should include meritocracy as the sole consideration in personnel decisions, clear definitions and allowances for situations requiring exceptions, prohibitions on the use of Defense Department funds for questionable policies that deny reality and common sense, and defunding of the Diversity Industrial Complex infrastructure, which has been promoting wokeism in our military regardless of the consequences.

As Defense Secretary Hegseth stated in his February 7 Memorandum:

“The strength of the DoD comes from our unity and our shared purpose.  We will focus on lethality, meritocracy, accountability, standards, and readiness.  Providing Servicemembers an equal opportunity to excel will help us remain the strongest and most lethal fighting force the world has ever known.”

ABOUT THE CENTER FOR MILITARY READINESS

Prepared by the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public policy organization, founded in 1993, which reports on and analyzes military/social issues.  This CMR Policy Analysis is not intended to promote or oppose legislation.  More information is available at www.cmrlink.org, and tax-deductible contributions to CMR can be made by clicking here.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

What is RFK Jr’s real job as Secretary of Health and Human Services? thumbnail

What is RFK Jr’s real job as Secretary of Health and Human Services?

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

By MercatorNet – A Compass for Common Sense

Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s confirmation as the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the US is the ultimate repudiation of the Covid policy response.

The scheme of lockdown-until-vaccination was the biggest effort of government and industry on a global scale on historical record. It was all designed to transfer wealth to winning industries (pharma, online retail, streaming services, online education), divide and conquer the population, and consolidate power in the administrative state.

By 2021, RFK Jr had emerged as the world’s most vocal, erudite, and knowledgeable critic of the scheme. In two brilliant books – The Real Anthony Fauci and The Wuhan Cover-Up – he documented the entire enterprise and dated the evolution of the pandemic industry from its postwar inception to the present. There was simply no way to read these books and think about the corporatist cabal in the same way.

The circumstances that led to his appointment at HHS are themselves implausible and remarkable. Perceiving President Biden to be a weak candidate – one who had forced masks and shots on the population and brutally censored tech and media – he decided to make a run for president, presuming that there would be an open primary. There wasn’t one, so he was forced into an independent run.

That effort was chewed up by the usual political dynamic that befalls every third-party effort – too many ballot-access barriers plus the usual logic of Duverger’s law. That left the campaign in a difficult spot. At the same time, two huge political shifts had become clear. The Democratic Party had become a vessel and a front mainly for the administrative state with a veneer of woke ideology, while the Republican Party was being taken over by refugees from the Democrats, in effect creating a new Trump party out of the remnants of the other two.

The rest is legendary. Trump linked up with Elon Musk to do to the federal government what he did when he took over Twitter, taking the company private, gutting the place of embedded federal assets, and firing 4 out of 5 workers. In the midst of this, and faced with a terrifying flurry of legal attacks, Trump dodged an assassin’s bullet. That triggered terrible memories of RFK, Jr.’s father and uncle, and thus sparked discussions about coming together.

Within a matter of weeks, we had a new coalition that brought together old antagonists, as many people and groups seemingly in the same instant realized their conjoined interests in cleaning up the corporatist cartel. With the newly freed platform of X to reach the public, MAGA/MAHA/DOGE was born.

Trump won and chose RFK Jr to lead the most powerful public health agency in the world. The barrier was Senate confirmation, but that was achieved through some incredible triangulation that made it extremely difficult to vote no.

In the big picture, you can measure the size of this titanic shift in American politics by the way the votes in the Senate lined up. All Republicans but one voted for the most prominent scion of the Democratic Party to head the health empire while all Democrats voted no. That alone is striking, and a testament to the power of the pharma lobby, which, during the hearings, was exposed as the hidden hand behind the most passionate opponents of the confirmation.

Is our nightmare over? Not yet. Writing not even a month into the second presidential term of Donald Trump, it is still unclear just how much authority he truly exercises over the sprawling executive branch. For that matter, no one can even agree on how large this branch is: between 2.2 million and 3 million employees and somewhere between 400 and 450 agencies. The financial bleed in this realm is unthinkable and far worse than even the biggest cynic can imagine.

Five former secretaries of the Treasury took to the pages of the New York Times with a shocking claim. “The nation’s payment system has historically been operated by a very small group of nonpartisan career civil servants.” This has included a career employee called “fiscal assistant secretary—a post that for the prior eight decades had been reserved exclusively for civil servants to ensure impartiality and public confidence in the handling and payment of federal funds.”

There is no reason even to read between the lines. What this means is that no person voted into office by the people and no one appointed by such a person has access to the federal books since 1946. This is startling beyond belief. No owner of any company would ever tolerate being barred from the accounting offices and payment systems. And no company can offer any public stock without independent audits and open books.

And yet almost 80 years have gone by during which time neither has been true for this gigantic enterprise called the federal government. That means that US$193 trillion has been spent by an institution that has never faced granulated oversight from the people and never met the normal demands that every enterprise faces every day.

The usual habit in Washington has been to treat every elected leader and their appointments as temporary and transitory marionettes, people who come and go and disturb little to nothing about the normal operations of government. This new administration seems to have every intention to change that but the job is inconceivably challenging. As much public support as MAGA/MAHA/DOGE enjoy for now, and as many people from those groups are getting embedded in the power structure, they are outnumbered and outmaneuvered by millions of agents of the old order.

This transition will not be easy if it happens at all.

The inertia of the old order is mighty. Even on the issue of health and pandemics, there is already confusion. CBS News has reported that Fauci-loyalist and mRNA pusher Gerald Parker will head the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response or OPPR. The report cited only unnamed “health officials” and the appointment has been celebrated by Scott Gottlieb, the Pfizer board member who nudged Trump into backing lockdowns in 2020.

All the while, this appointment has not been confirmed by the White House. We do not know if OPPR, created by Congressional charter, will even be funded. The reporter will not reveal his sources – raising the question of why any appointment having to do with health should be surrounded by such cloak-and-dagger machinations.

If Dr. Parker becomes ensconced in this position and another health emergency is declared, this time for Bird flu, HHS and Robert F. Kennedy Jr will not be in any kind of decision-making position at all.

The larger problems have to do with a broader question: is the president really in charge of the executive branch? Can he hire and fire? Can he spend money or decline to spend money? Can he set policy for the agencies?

One might suppose that the whole answer to these questions can be found in Article 2, Section 1: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” And yet that sentence was written almost 100 years before Congress created this thing called the “civil service” that nowhere appears in the Constitution. This fourth branch has grown in size and power to swamp both the presidency and the legislature.

Courts are going to have to sort this out, and already an avalanche of lawsuits has hit the new administration for daring to presume control over agencies and their activities of which the president is and must necessarily be held accountable. Lower federal courts seem to be demanding that the president be that in name only, while the Supreme Court might have a different opinion.

The much-ballyhooed “constitutional crisis” consists of nothing other than an attempt to reassert the original constitutional design of government.

This is the background template in which RFK Jr takes power at HHS, and oversees all the sub-agencies. These agencies played a huge role in covering for the attack on liberty and rights over five years. His confirmation is a symbolic repudiation of the most egregious public policies on record. And yet, the repudiation is entirely implicit: there has been no commission, no admission of error, no one truly held responsible, and no real accountability.

The trajectory on which we find ourselves affords many reasons for champagne celebrations, but sober up quickly. There is a very long way to go and enormous barriers in place to get us to the point that we are really safe again from the marauding corporatist/statist complex and their plots and schemes to rob the public of rights and liberties. In the meantime, to invoke a common phrase, keep these new appointees in your thoughts and prayers.

Does this analysis of the need for MAGA convince you?   

AUTHOR

Jeffrey Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

This article has been republished from the Brownstone Institute under a Creative Commons licence.

EDITORS NOTE: This Mercator 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.