Integrity in DC is as hard to find as a good barber, mechanic, or as some women have told me, gynecologist.
We all know what integrity should mean: doing the right thing when no one’s looking, standing by your principles even when it costs you. Unfortunately, in politics, integrity is more of a suggestion than a requirement—like speed limits in California or CNN’s commitment to the truth.
The problem? We need integrity in government. We’re supposed to elect representatives to do our bidding, not use our tax dollars as a personal slush fund. But somewhere along the way, the Left decided “public service” was just a fancy way of saying “enrich yourself while gaslighting the peasants.”
And now, they don’t even bother hiding it.
Presidential Love at First Felony
If integrity were a person, it would have packed its bags and left the White House the minute Joe Biden was inaugurated. And nowhere is that clearer than in his full-blown Godfather-level protection of Hunter.
We were told for years that Hunter was just a “misunderstood artist” with a heart of gold (and a nose full of something else). Every crime, every scandal—swept under the rug faster than that cocaine Hunter dropped at the White House. But when even the DOJ couldn’t keep the charade going, Daddy Biden stepped in.
We all knew he would pardon Hunter. Sure, Biden and the media played it cool for a while, but let’s be real—Biden would pardon Hunter for murder if he had to. “My son’s the smartest guy I know,” he slurs, which is a terrifying statement considering Hunter’s laptop fiasco. Smart guys don’t leave their laptop with incriminating evidence at a repair shop.
The media, of course, pretended a presidential pardon of a literal crackhead influence peddler is totally normal. “It’s about love,” they said, just like how Hillary deleting 33,000 emails was about convenience and Epstein’s cameras mysteriously stopped working.
The Media’s Integrity: Somewhere Between Bigfoot and Honest Politicians
Speaking of people who wouldn’t recognize integrity if it hit them in the face, let’s talk about the media.
These are the same people who spent four years screaming that Trump was a Russian agent because some Clinton-funded fantasy book said so. But Biden being bought and paid for by China? “No evidence,” they say, as Hunter’s emails read like a CCP payroll spreadsheet.
And let’s not forget what the media said about the aforementioned infamous laptop. They all swore in unison that it was “Russian disinformation” right before the election. Turns out, the laptop was more real than Biden’s hair. But by the time they admitted it, their job was done—America had already been duped into electing a guy whose brain resets mid-sentence.
Integrity in journalism is supposed to mean exposing corruption, holding the powerful accountable. Instead, today’s media are more like government PR agents. Frankly, I have more respect for North Korea’s state news.
Trump, Zelenskyy, and the Left’s Selective Outrage
Here’s a fun game: take anything Trump does, replace his name with Biden, and watch the media response do a full 180.
Take Trump’s meeting with Zelenskyy. President Trump wanted to end the war and get an answer to the obvious question—where’s all our money going? The Left lost their minds.
“Trump’s undermining democracy!” they shrieked, as if questioning billions in unaccounted-for cash is somehow treasonous and ending the war is a bad thing. But when Biden sends blank checks to Ukraine faster than Hunter burns through coke dealers, silence.
No calls for accountability, no tough questions. Just a whole lot of “Slava Ukraini” bumper stickers from people who couldn’t find Kyiv on a map.
Because in Washington, integrity isn’t about what you do—it’s about who does it. Zelenskyy reneged on the agreed mineral deal three times, and Leftists want to canonize him.
Integrity Is Making a Comeback… And That’s a Problem for the Left
The truth is integrity is dangerous to the people in charge. It exposes their schemes, shines a light on their corruption. That’s why they attack anyone who has it—whether it’s Trump, whistleblowers, or even regular Americans who ask too many questions.
But here’s the good news: people are waking up. The lies aren’t working like they used to. Every DOGE revelation, and dot connecting the criminals sounds yet another alarm.
Integrity isn’t dead—it’s just been out of fashion for a while. But like bell-bottoms or basic math in schools, it might just be making a comeback. And that’s the Left’s worst nightmare.
For years, the mantra on the left was “reimagining” everything from policing to free speech to defense. Reimagining often was a synonym for defunding or limiting the subject matter. Now, Georgetown Law Professor Sherally Munshi and others are attacking border enforcement as “ethically indefensible.” Munshi calls it “defamiliarizing” the whole concept of borders, which she and others in higher education now find morally reprehensible.
Munshi’s talk, “Unsettling the Border,” is an example of how radical many law faculties have become. She is by no means a standout in such theories. While schools have purged their ranks of conservative, libertarian, and dissenting faculty, there is no limit to faculty writing on the far left.
Munshi insists that “there is nothing natural or inevitable about the United States’ contemporary borders.” She mocked the whole notion of “the so-called border crisis.” Millions of unvetted people just walking over the border is not a crisis… at least not for the country. It is failure in ourselves; “a crisis of imagination.” Accordingly, she is calling for reimagining or defamiliarizing borders:
“Our task, as I put it, is to unsettle the border, to defamiliarize, disenchant, and recontextualize it by critically evaluating the historical processes, the legal developments, the discursive formations that naturalize and legitimate the border.”
It is, of course, racist to want to have secure borders:
“Rather than redress the fact that the international border regime is practically unsustainable [and] ethically indefensible, majorities in the whitest and wealthiest nations are embracing an increasingly authoritarian form of nationalism and exclusion.”
Borders, according to Professor Munshi, are just a construct “within the American imaginary, the southern border divides white from indigenous, purity from heterogeneity, civilization from savagery, settler from Indian.”
Of course, this reimagining of borders will have to extend back a tad further than the American founders. The concept of the nation-state with sovereign borders was recognized in documents like the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. It was credited with maintaining a Westphalian peace with nations able to maintain their own territory and governing systems. That, in turn, allowed nation-states to form international bodies and further stabilize global relations.
I have heard other faculty present papers along these same lines, dismissing the very concept of border enforcement as racist, privileged, or archaic. It is far rarer to hear conservatives on campuses arguing for border enforcement and deportations. It is even less common to find such advocates on both faculties.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Zelensky would like to see U.S. troops in Ukraine but is unwilling to move toward peace. Trump is seeking a path to peace and is reluctant to throw American troops into the meatgrinder that has killed nearly 2 million Ukrainian and Russian people.
“America Will Not Put Up with It For Much Longer!” – President Trump Puts Zelensky on Notice After His Latest Insane Statement on War with Russia
By Cristina Laila – The Gateway Pundit – Mar 3, 2025
President Trump responded to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s latest statement on his war with Russia. Zelensky does not want peace with Russia and President Trump has absolutely had it. Trump responded to Zelensky’s claim the end of war with Russia is ‘very, very far away.’ “This is the worst statement that could have been made by Zelenskyy, and America will not put up with it for much longer! It is what I was saying, this guy doesn’t want there to be Peace as long as he has America’s backing and, Europe, in the meeting they had with Zelenskyy, stated flatly that they cannot do the job without the U.S. – Probably not a great statement to have been made in terms of a show of strength against Russia. What are they thinking?” Trump said on Truth… READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
•Bishop Says Pro-Abortion Politicians in Mexico Will be Excommunicated • Texas Abortions Drop to 0, Law Saves Women and Babies • Pro-Life Groups Ask Congress and Elon Musk to Defund Planned Parenthood •Court Upholds El Salvador’s Abortion Ban, Nation Can Keep Saving Babies
It’s official, folks—being a violent criminal in a Democrat-run city is a pretty sweet gig. You can terrorize innocent people, get shot while trying to stab someone, and the mayor will roll out the red carpet with thoughts and prayers for YOU. Welcome to Woketown, where the law-abiding are an afterthought, and the bad guys get sympathy cards. Why? Because there can never be any positive spin on guns being used to protect people!
Over the weekend, an off-duty Boston police officer became an absolute hero when he stopped a knife-wielding maniac inside a Chick-fil-A. The suspect had already chased two terrified individuals into the restaurant, attempting to stab them. The officer ordered him to drop the weapon, and when the lunatic refused, the officer did what any rational person would do—he eliminated the threat.
But instead of praising this officer for saving lives, Boston’s woke Mayor Michelle Wu and her leftist cronies leaped to comfort the criminal’s family. Because in today’s twisted reality, criminals deserve compassion, and law enforcement deserves suspicion. Sickening.
Boston’s Mayor: Champion of Criminals
Let’s talk about Michelle Wu, the queen of misplaced priorities. This is the same mayor who proposed giving illegal immigrants and even 11-year-olds the right to vote in city budgeting decisions. Because, of course, nothing says “competent governance” like letting pre-teens and people who aren’t even citizens have a say in how tax dollars are spent.
And now? She’s mourning the loss of a knife-wielding attacker, while barely acknowledging the heroism of the officer who prevented what could have been a mass stabbing inside a fast-food restaurant. Instead of standing with the people who keep Boston safe, Wu bends over backward to humanize violent criminals while law enforcement gets nothing but scrutiny.
Here’s what Wu had to say after the shooting:
“My condolences and all of our thoughts are with the family of the individual whose life has been lost.”
Unbelievable. Not a word about the officer. Not a word about the victims who were almost stabbed to death. Nope—just heartfelt sympathies for the would-be killer.
Meanwhile, Suffolk County District Attorney Kevin Hayden joined in on the nonsense, offering “thoughts and prayers” to the attacker’s family while suggesting there’s a bigger “chaotic situation” to investigate. The only “chaos” here is the left’s absolute unwillingness to stand behind the brave men and women in law enforcement.
Soft-on-Crime Lunacy is Destroying Our Cities
This isn’t just a Boston problem—it’s a national crisis in every leftist-controlled city. The same soft-on-crime policies that Wu champions are turning American cities into lawless wastelands. Just take a look:
New York City: Career criminals with dozens of prior arrests walk free within hours, only to commit more crimes.
San Francisco: A shoplifter’s paradise where stores are shutting down because law enforcement is basically optional.
Chicago: Violent criminals get slaps on the wrist while law-abiding citizens are treated like the real problem.
Wu’s leadership is just another version of this insanity. Instead of backing the blue, she’s part of the growing chorus of woke politicians who treat law enforcement like the enemy.
And who suffers the most from this madness? Regular Americans. The people just trying to live their lives, go to work, and enjoy a meal at Chick-fil-A without being chased by some knife-wielding lunatic.
The Officer Did His Job—And He Deserves Praise
Let’s be clear: This off-duty officer did EXACTLY what he was trained to do. He saw a threat, identified himself, issued a command, and when the criminal refused to comply, he neutralized the danger. That’s what policing is supposed to look like.
But in Wu’s Boston? Officers are villains while the criminals get eulogies.
Here’s an idea, Mayor Wu: Instead of sympathizing with violent criminals, how about standing up for the people who actually keep your city from descending into anarchy? How about praising the brave police officer who saved lives? How about making it clear that if you attack innocent people, there will be consequences?
But no, that would require actual leadership—something the left abandoned a long time ago.
Final Thoughts
This incident is just another reminder of what happens when woke leadership infects a city. Criminals are emboldened, law enforcement is demonized, and the average citizen is left wondering, “Whose side is my own government on?”
This officer is a hero, full stop. But in Wu’s Boston, heroism takes a backseat to woke compassion for the worst of society. And that’s exactly why Boston—and every city following this insane model—is spiraling into chaos.
Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President J.D. Vance, recently joined President Donald Trump in a critical Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The discussions were tense and unapologetically direct, with President Trump making it abundantly clear that America’s foreign policy is shifting away from the reckless, endless spending that defined the Biden administration’s approach to Ukraine.
The meeting, originally intended to focus on Ukraine’s failing power grid and Washington’s role in its restoration, ended with Trump decisively canceling a planned joint press conference with Zelensky, signaling a major shift in U.S.-Ukraine relations.
In a bold and necessary move, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has announced an end to U.S. support for Ukraine’s power grid, cutting off taxpayer-funded aid that has funneled billions into a foreign war with little accountability.
The decision effectively halts a USAID initiative that had been pouring American resources into rebuilding Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, even as millions of Americans struggle with rising costs at home. For years, Ukraine’s energy grid has been a target of Russian attacks, but rather than finding long-term solutions, Zelensky’s government has relied on endless American handouts, expecting the U.S. to foot the bill for Ukraine’s survival.
According to NBC News, USAID is dramatically reducing its presence in Ukraine, with the State Department officially ending a multi-million-dollar program that has propped up Ukraine’s crumbling energy grid. The decision has sent shockwaves through the D.C. establishment, particularly among those who have grown comfortable using Ukraine as a slush fund for special interests.
The reality on the ground in Ukraine remains dire, with widespread power outages plunging regions into darkness as Russia continues to target its energy infrastructure. Yet rather than seeking diplomatic resolutions, Zelensky arrived in Washington demanding more financial aid, falsely claiming that without further U.S. funding, Ukraine’s ability to defend itself would collapse.
Trump wasn’t having it. The meeting quickly turned heated as Zelensky pushed for an agreement that would give Ukraine access to lucrative rare earth mineral rights, a move that raised serious red flags within the administration. President Trump, a master negotiator, saw right through the ploy and firmly rejected Zelensky’s demands.
“You don’t have the cards right now,” Trump bluntly told Zelensky, emphasizing that Ukraine is in no position to make demands. The President made it clear that American lives, resources, and priorities come first, warning that Zelensky’s refusal to consider a negotiated settlement was gambling with the lives of millions.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, an outspoken advocate for America First foreign policy, echoed Trump’s frustrations, calling out Zelensky’s arrogance and unwillingness to accept political reality. Vice President J.D. Vance also took Zelensky to task, questioning his audacity to come to the White House and lecture the administration. The meeting ended abruptly, with Zelensky escorted out of the White House after failing to secure any new commitments from the Trump administration.
The implications of this meeting are enormous. The era of blank checks to Ukraine is officially over. For years, Washington’s corrupt foreign policy elites have funneled tens of billions of taxpayer dollars into Ukraine, enriching defense contractors and globalist interests while ignoring America’s own pressing needs. Trump’s decisive action signals a long-overdue course correction, prioritizing the American people over foreign wars and geopolitical quagmires.
While critics of the move lament the withdrawal of U.S. support, arguing that it could embolden Russia, Trump’s stance is based on realism, not fantasy. Unlike the weak Biden administration, which recklessly escalated tensions with Russia while neglecting U.S. borders and energy independence, Trump is seeking a path forward that prioritizes peace and stability over endless conflict.
This shift in U.S.-Ukraine relations is already shaking up the global power structure. European leaders, who for years have relied on American taxpayers to fund their geopolitical ambitions, are now being forced to reassess their own commitments. The message from Washington is clear: the United States will no longer be the world’s ATM.
Trump’s decisive rejection of Zelensky’s demands and his America First foreign policy represent a seismic shift from the corrupt globalist status quo.
The Ukraine war, once used as an excuse to funnel billions into the military-industrial complex, is now under scrutiny, and Washington elites are panicking as Trump restores sanity to foreign policy.
As the world watches, one thing is certain: Trump is back, and he’s putting America first—exactly as he promised.
Below is my column in The Hill on the disgraceful Democratic attacks against Elon Musk over his status as a naturalized citizen. For years, some of us have raised concerns over the adoption of McCarthyite tactics and rhetoric by the left to demonize those with opposing viewpoints, including critics of the massive censorship system under the Biden Administration. Those attacks are now reaching a dangerous crescendo after the 2024 loss in the presidential election.
Here is the column:
This month, 75 years ago, Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wisc.) gave his infamous speech denouncing disloyal Americans working at the highest levels of our government. It was the defining moment for what became known as McCarthyism, which attacked citizens as dangerous and disloyal influences in government.
Some of us have criticized the rising “rage rhetoric” for years, including that of President Trump and Democratic leaders, denouncing opponents as traitors and enemies of the state.
In the 2024 election, the traditional red state-blue state firewalls again collapsed, as they had in 2016. The response among Democrats has been to unleash a type of new Red Scare, questioning the loyalty of those who are supporting or working with the Trump administration in carrying out his promised reforms.
Elon Musk is the designated disloyal American for many on the left. That rage has reached virtual hysteria on ABC’s “The View.” This is the same show before the election on which hosts warned that, if Trump were elected, journalists and homosexuals would be rounded up and “disappeared.”
After the election, democracy seemed to stubbornly hang on, so the hosts had to resort to attacking as disloyal anyone joining the government or supporting Trump’s policies.
This week, co-host Joy Behar followed many others in questioning Musk’s loyalty and attacking him over being a naturalized American citizen: “The guy was not born in this country, who was born under apartheid in South Africa. So, [he] has that mentality going on. He was pro-Apartheid, as I understand it.”
Behar was then forced, perhaps by panicked ABC lawyers, to walk back the comment — such retractions having become a regular feature on “The View“. What came out was the type of jumbled confusion that results when you interrupt a lunatic on the metro in mid-rave.
Behar stated: “I’m getting some flack because I said that Musk was pro-apartheid. I don’t really know for sure if he was … He was around at that time, but maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t—he might have been a young guy, too. So, don’t be suing me, okay Elon?”
This anti-immigrant attack on Musk, however, has worked its way into many Democrats’ talking points, even though their party had previously claimed to defend immigrants against racist Republicans seeking to close the Southern border and deport criminal illegal immigrants.
On Capitol Hill, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) launched a xenophobic tirade that should have shocked the conscience of the nation. She warned citizens that Musk could not be trusted because he is an immigrant who has been a citizen for only a couple of decades: “Mr. Musk has just been here just 22 years and he’s a citizen of three countries. I always ask myself the question: With the damage he’s doing here when push comes to shove, which country is he loyal to? South Africa, Canada, or the United States? And he’s only been a citizen, I’ll say again, 22 years.”
Former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney was another joining in to attack Musk for being an immigrant. “You may be unfamiliar with that part of our history since you weren’t yet an American citizen,” she wrote on Musk’s social media platform, X.
These attacks are straight out of McCarthy’s playbook. It was McCarthy who insisted that “there are no degrees of loyalty in the United States — a man is either loyal or he’s disloyal…” Of course, McCarthy (and the earlier Red Scare) attacked government employees, writers and others on the left. It is now the left that is employing the same tactics, including censorship, blacklisting and public vilification.
Throughout the 2024 campaign, the Democrats, including President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, painted Republicans as either aspiring or actual fascists. That continued recently with Minnesota Gov. and former Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz (D), who referred to Republicans as “fascists and Nazis.”
Even journalists and civil libertarians have been reviled using the same terms. After a hearing on censorship two years ago, MSNBC contributor and former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) attacked journalists and members who had spoken in favor of free speech. She denounced the member witnesses (Sen. Chuck Grassley, Sen. Ron Johnson and former Rep. Gabbard) as “Putin apologists” and Putin-lovers.
Stacey Plaskett, the Democratic delegate representing the Virgin Islands in the U.S. House, even suggested arresting respected journalist Matt Taibbi, who, along with Michael Shellenberger, testified on their investigation into a massive censorship system developed under the Biden administration.
The attack on Musk is particularly disgraceful, given his contributions to his adopted country. Ironically, filmmaker Michael Moore denounced the deportations of criminal illegal immigrants last week by noting that Trump was deporting someone who might cure cancer or be the next Steve Jobs. Well, this is a naturalized citizen who not only could be the next Elon Musk. He is Elon Musk.
As politicians and pundits question Musk’s loyalty, Space X is moving to rescue two astronauts stranded in space. Musk has volunteered his time and skills to achieving a record reduction in the size and waste in government. One can disagree with his priorities or the means he uses to achieve his goals, but he has nobly stepped forward to serve his country despite death threats from the left.
Musk is also facing such attacks in Canada, where thousands have signed petitions to strip him of his citizenship. The left did not seek to revoke the citizenship of figures who have eviscerated free speech and other individual rights in that country. It is Musk who is persona non grata.
This is nothing new for Musk, whom the left has targeted since he announced an intention to buy Twitter and restore free speech protections on that site.
The concern is not for Musk, who has the intestinal fortitude (and financial means) to stand up to a global mob. Moreover, with polls showing overwhelming support for reducing the size of government and the budget, the campaign to obstruct these efforts is unlikely to resonate with voters.
The danger is more acute for the country as disagreements over policy are transformed into attacks over loyalty. It is the most dangerous form of rage rhetoric, an effort not to debate but to demonize those with whom you disagree.
When you have members of Congress standing in front of the Capitol, denouncing naturalized citizens as untrustworthy after a mere 22 years as a citizen, it is a moment that would have made McCarthy blush.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Walz is demonstrating acute paranoia saying Nazis and Fascist are taking over the U.S.. A communist Saul Alinsky tactic accusing a majority of American voters of being Nazis, or has he completely lost it?
CAUGHT ON TAPE: Walz says country stolen ‘by fascists and Nazis’ at nurses event
By Jenna Gloeb – AlphaNews – Feb 26, 2025
Walz’s statement adds to a recent pattern of deploying Nazi-related accusations against his political opponents Gov. Tim Walz said the country is being stolen “by fascists and Nazis,” according to a recording obtained by Alpha News. Sen. Nate Wesenberg, R-Little Falls, provided the recording to Alpha News and said the remarks were made during the Minnesota Nurses Association’s (MNA) Day on the Hill Tuesday—an event to spotlight healthcare issues during Minnesota’s 2025 legislative session. “I see the pundits on TV [saying] ‘what’s wrong with the Democratic Party?’ What’s wrong is our country is being stole by fascists and Nazis,” Walz appears to say, per the recording…. READ MORE
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Zelensky is biting the hand trying to feed him peace on a silver platter. He was disrespectful to both President Trump and VP Vance in the oval office as though he doesn’t want peace but a continued bloody war.
WH Press Sec Says Cameras in Oval Office Showed The World What President Trump Deals with in Negotiations “Behind The Scenes” – Reveals Zelensky has “Continually Denied” Reality in Private Discussions
“The American people and the world were able to see what the President and his team has seen behind the scenes in negotiating with President Zelensky’s team,” she said, indicating that Zelensky’s behavior and unwillingness to make peace has been an ongoing struggle in the effort to end the war. “They have continually denied the pragmatic reality of where their country stands today.” What was already a done deal and a public signing of an agreement went haywire when Zelensky, who couldn’t even bother to wear a suit, repeatedly rolled his eyes, interrupted the President, refused to agree to a ceasefire, then started attacking the President and Vice President. Ukraine had previously agreed to Trump’s requested mineral rights deal with the US to compensate Americans for the hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money Joe Biden gave them over the last four years, but the agreement was not officialized Friday. READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
•University is Killing Viable Babies and Using Their Body Parts for Research • Biden Officials Who Weaponized DOJ Get Cushy University Gigs • Justice Thomas Wants Supreme Court to Defend Pro-Life Speech •Time to Repeal FACE, The Law Biden Exploited
Comments orquestions? Email news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2025 LifeNews.com For info on advertising or reprinting news, email us.
LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report Friday, February 28, 2025
Top Stories
•Vance: Trump is Reversing Biden’s Abortion Agenda • 22,000 Babies Saved From Abortion Thanks to Pro-Life Laws • Two States Fight to Hold Planned Parenthood Accountable for Medicaid Fraud •Pope Francis’ Medical Condition Has Worsened
There was another meltdown at the Washington Post after owner Jeff Bezos moved again to moderate the newspaper’s message, which has plummeted in readership. Bezos told the editors that he wanted the newspaper to advocate for individual liberties and the free market. The message sent the left into vapors and led to the resignation of Washington Post opinion editor David Shipley. Outside the paper, another round of calls for boycotts and subscription cancellations followed.
In the announcement below, Bezos declared, “I’m confident that free markets and personal liberties are right for America. I also believe these viewpoints are underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinion. I’m excited for us together to fill that void.”
He added that a newspaper should be a voice for freedom — “is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity.” He noted that:
“There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.”
For those of us in the free speech community, the return of the Post as a champion of free speech and other individual rights would be a welcomed change. Notably, staff did not object when prior owners aligned with their views on editorial priorities. Obviously, we will need to see how this new directive is carried out. I would be equally opposed to the Post purging liberal views in the way it moved against conservative and libertarian views for the last decade. I do not see such a directive in this announcement. Bezos wants his newspaper to be a voice for individual freedom and free market principles. That should not mean that the newspaper will not run any dissenting views on policies and programs. It does mean that the newspaper will continue to be an outlet for voicing extreme views calling for the curtailment of free speech and other individual rights.
What is striking is that many on the left expect Bezos to run the newspaper like a vanity project, losing millions of dollars to bankroll a far-left agenda. This is an announcement that goes to the position of the newspaper, not any intrusion into reporting. It also does not bar a diversity of opinion on the op-ed pages which still have a vast majority of liberal writers.
The thought that the Post would now focus on advocating for individual rights and the free market led Jeffrey Evan Gold, who posts as a legal analyst for CNN and other networks, to declare that it was the “last straw” and post his cancellation.
Jeff Stein, the publisher’s chief economics reporter, denounced Bezos as carrying out a “massive encroachment” that makes it clear “dissenting views will not be published or tolerated there.” For many moderates and conservatives, it was a crushingly ironic objection given the virtual purging of conservative and libertarian voices at the newspaper.
Amanda Katz, who resigned from the Post’s opinion team at the end of 2024, offered a vivid example of the culture that Bezos is trying to change at the Post. Katz said the change was “an absolute abandonment of the principles of accountability of the powerful, justice, democracy, human rights, and accurate information that previously animated the section in favor of a white male billionaire’s self-interested agenda.”
Just as a reminder, Bezos simply stated that the newspaper would advocate for freedom and free markets. However, the most telling condemnation came from Post columnist Philip Bump, who wrote “what the actual f**k.” Not surprisingly, Bump wrote the condemnation on Bluesky, a site that promises a type of safe space for liberals who do not want to be triggered by opposing views.
Bump previously had a meltdown in an interview when confronted about past false claims. After I wrote a column about the litany of such false claims, the Post surprised many of us by issuing a statement that it stood by all of Bump’s reporting, including false columns on the Lafayette Park protests, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and other stories. That was long after other media debunked the claims, but the Post stood by the false reporting.
We have previously discussed the sharp change in culture at the Post, which became an outlet that pushed anti-free speech views and embraced advocacy journalism. The result was that many moderates and conservatives stopped reading the newspaper.
In my book on free speech, I discuss at length how the Post and the mainstream media has joined an alliance with the government and corporations in favor of censorship and blacklisting. I once regularly wrote for the Post and personally witnessed the sharp change in editorial priorities as editors delayed or killed columns with conservative or moderate viewpoints.
Last year, that culture was vividly on display when the newspaper offered no objection or even qualification after its reporter, Cleve Wootson Jr., appeared to call upon the White House to censor the interview of Elon Musk with former President Donald Trump. Under the guise of a question, Wootson told White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre that censoring its leading political opponent is “an America issue.”
During a press briefing, the Washington Post’s Cleve Wootson Jr. flagged the interview and said, “I think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue…it’s an America issue.”
There was a time when a reporter calling for censorship of a political opponent would have been a matter for immediate termination in the media. Instead, the newspaper that prides itself on the slogan “Democracy dies in Darkness,” was entirely silent. No correction. No qualification.
The Wootson controversy was consistent with the embrace of advocacy journalism at the Post. We previously discussed the release of the results of interviews with over 75 media leaders by former executive editor for The Washington Post Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward. They concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”
The former Post editor, Downie, recounted how news leaders:
“believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”
The decline of the Post has followed a familiar pattern. The editors and reporters simply wrote off half of their audience and became a publication for largely liberal and Democratic readers. In these difficult economic times with limited revenue sources, it is a lethal decision.
Robert Lewis, a British media executive who joined the Post earlier this year, reportedly got into a “heated exchange” with a staffer. Lewis explained that, while reporters were protesting measures to expand readership, the very survival of the paper was now at stake:
“We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,” Lewis said. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
Other staffers could not get past the gender and race of those who would oversee them. One staffer complained, “We now have four White men running three newsrooms.” The Post has been buying out staff to avoid mass layoffs, but reporters are up in arms over the effort to turn the newspaper around.
So, let’s recap: The Washington Post’s owner has been pushing the newspaper to shift back toward the middle and restore greater balance on its pages. He is unwilling to bankroll a far-left echo chamber of advocacy journalism. Washington Post opinion editor David Shipley resigned in protest rather than agree to emphasize individual rights and free markets in editorials that speak for the newspaper.
Shipley previously fought to reverse Bezos’s decision not to endorse presidential candidates in 2024 or later elections. Some of us have long argued that newspapers should end such endorsements as inimical to journalistic neutrality and objectivity. The editors reportedly encouraged Bezos that, if he wanted to end such endorsements, he should wait until after endorsing Harris in this election cycle — a remarkable position devoid of any cognizable or controlling principle.
There was a time when advocating for editorials to champion freedom would not have been controversial. The staff’s hyperventilation only reinforces the need for such an intervention. These same voices supported the Post adopting “Democracy dies in Darkness” to oppose what they viewed as an attack on democracy from Trump or the right. However, advocating for freedom in editorials is simply unacceptable.
Perish the thought that a newspaper would commit itself to advocating for individual rights and the free market. (Warning foul language below)
Perhaps the Post could adopt a new slogan: “Freedom dies in Silence.”
Here is the announcement from Jeff Bezos:
I shared this note with the Washington Post team this morning: I’m writing to let you know about a change coming to our opinion pages.
We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.
There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.
I am of America and for America, and proud to be so. Our country did not get here by being typical. And a big part of America’s success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else. Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity.
I offered David Shipley, whom I greatly admire, the opportunity to lead this new chapter. I suggested to him that if the answer wasn’t “hell yes,” then it had to be “no.” After careful consideration, David decided to step away. This is a significant shift, it won’t be easy, and it will require 100% commitment — I respect his decision.
We’ll be searching for a new Opinion Editor to own this new direction. I’m confident that free markets and personal liberties are right for America. I also believe these viewpoints are underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinion. I’m excited for us together to fill that void.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Unelected left-wing activist Judges are overstepping their constitutional authority and undermining the executive branch in an effort to sabotage the Trump agenda that voters overwhelmingly elected him to do.
Elon Musk Unveils a Creative Proposal to Rid America of the Corrupt Judges Sabotaging the Trump Administration
Conservatives have been rightfully livid following a string of corrupt rulings by Democrat judges sabotaging Trump’s efforts to downsize and make the federal government more accountable. Now, X CEO and DOGE chairman have a great idea to solve this crisis. As The Gateway Pundit reported, a federal judge halted Elon Musk’s government efficiency team from accessing a critical Treasury Department. US District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, who Barack Obama appointed, cited a risk of “irreparable harm.” The order temporarily stops access to a sensitive payment system that distributes Americans’ tax returns, Social Security benefits, disability payments, and federal employees’ salaries. READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
•House Passes Budget Framework That Allows Defunding Planned Parenthood • Trump Nominee Confirms DOJ Will Stop Targeting Pro-Life Christians • Having Fewer Babies Will Cost U.S. Economy “Quadrillions of Dollars” •Planned Parenthood Makes $2 Billion, It Doesn’t Need Our Tax Dollars
President Donald Trump’s plan to offer a “gold card” visa to those willing to shell out $5 million could raise new fraud and national security risks, according to one expert.
“Any immigration benefit draws fraud … people are willing to do anything and say just about anything to come to the U.S.,” Lora Ries, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, told Fox News Digital.
The comments come after Trump announced Tuesday a plan that would give those willing to pay $5 million for a “gold card” lawful permanent U.S. residency status and a pathway to citizenship, which the president argued would lead to several economic benefits.
“They’ll be wealthy, and they’ll be successful,” Trump told reporters from the Oval Office on Tuesday. “They’ll be spending a lot of money and paying a lot of taxes and employing a lot of people, and we think it’s going to be extremely successful.”
President Donald Trump holds a Cabinet meeting at the White House on Feb. 26, 2025. (JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images)
Trump doubled down on those comments Wednesday while also telling reporters that the program would be a way to pay down some of the national debt.
“Companies can go and buy a gold card, and they can use it as a matter of recruitment,” Trump said. “At the same time, the company is using that money to pay down debt. We’re going to pay down a lot of debt with that.”
But while Ries acknowledged that she understands the goals behind the program, she expressed skepticism that applicants could be vetted well enough to prevent the kind of fraud currently seen in the similar EB-5 visa program, which Trump’s gold card would replace.
“Fraud is rarely detected, let alone enforced … so it’s low risk, high reward to commit immigration benefit fraud,” Ries said, adding that even Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick admitted to the widespread fraud plaguing the EB-5 program.
President Donald Trump speaks as Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick looks on after Trump signed executive orders in the Oval Office on Feb. 25, 2025. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
“So, the question is: How is this going to be different,” Ries said. “It raised the price from a million to 5 million, but how are we going to prevent the fraud? Are you just inviting wealthier fraudsters and corrupt people to exploit this?”
Ries also raised concerns about the potential national security implications of the program, arguing that many of the applications are likely to originate from countries that are not exactly friendly to the United States.
“Who can afford this? What countries have many people who can afford this,” Ries said. “Russia, China … you’re going to get Gulf countries, but China is not exactly our ally – some Russians, the same boat.”
Trump’s gold card plan would extend a path to citizenship for qualified foreign nationals who pay the $5 million fee. (Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)
Ries said the key will be the system used to vet potential applicants, details of which have yet to be revealed by the Trump administration.
“It’s going to need thorough vetting for national security concerns, espionage and corruption,” Ries said. “That’s going to be very, very important.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a Fox News Digital request for comment.
Michael Lee is a writer for Fox News. Prior to joining Fox News, Michael worked for the Washington Examiner, Bongino.com, and Unbiased America. He has covered politics for more than eight years.
Legal experts are pointing out what they say is hypocrisy as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., faces an ethics complaint over a potential conflict of interest that resulted in millions of dollars in federal grants for a nonprofit associated with his wife.
“Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who has made his political career accusing others of dark money corruption, appears to be throwing stones in his glass house,” said Mike Davis, the former chief counsel for nominations to former Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.
“This is the height of hypocrisy,” Brett Tolman, former U.S. attorney and executive director of Right On Crime, told Fox News Digital. “Sen Whitehouse is a former US attorney and the self-proclaimed watchdog of dark money.”
Legal experts are sounding off on whether an alleged ethical violation by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse should be investigated. (Reuters)
Whitehouse spokesperson Stephen DeLeo told Fox News Digital in a statement, “The ‘legal experts’ at Fox News should review the bipartisan dismissal issued by the Senate Ethics Committee the last time a dark-money group attempted these same kinds of smears.”
Whitehouse voted for legislation that ultimately provided millions of dollars in funding for grants to environmental nonprofit group Ocean Conservancy, which works with his wife, Sandra Whitehouse, and pays her through a consulting firm.
The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), an ethics watchdog, wrote to Senate Select Committee on Ethics Chair James Lankford, R-Okla., and Vice Chair Chris Coons, D-Del., this week, asking them to investigate Whitehouse “to determine whether he violated the Senate ethics rules on conflicts of interest.” The group works primarily to draw attention to potential Democrat lawmaker ethics violations.
“This is not just a careless ethical lapse in judgment,” Tolman added. “This is corruption, Washington, D.C., style. This is literally what many public officials have been prosecuted for by DOJ (Department of Justice). I’m aware of multiple cases DOJ is pursuing right now with less egregious facts.”
Thomas Jipping, senior legal fellow with the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital the Ethics Committee should investigate the allegation against Whitehouse.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is being accused by an ethics watchdog of a potential conflict of interest. (Getty Images)
“Of course, that’s what they exist to do,” he said.
“I was struck by the fact that they are arguing” and that the complaint from FACT has “specific facts that back up a claim that there’s an ethical violation,” Jipping said.
As he referenced, FACT provided information to support a potential conflict of interest.
Ocean Conservancy has notably received more than $14.2 million in federal grants since 2008, per USASpending.gov. In 2024 alone, it was given two sizable grants, one for $5.2 million from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for marine debris cleanup in September, and another for $1.7 million from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), also to assist with marine debris cleanup.
The grants were funded through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the EPA’s annual appropriations bill. Whitehouse voted for both.
Per her LinkedIn page, Whitehouse’s wife, Sandra, is employed as president of consulting firm Ocean Wonks LLC and has been since 2017. She was previously a direct employee of Ocean Conservancy as its senior policy advisor starting in 2008.
The Democrats have led an effort to pass an ethics code to be applied to the court. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib/File)
Jipping said the senator never provided sufficient evidence for his various ethical claims against conservative Supreme Court justices.
Whitehouse has long crusaded against conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, accusing them of ethical wrongdoing. The Democrat has even spearheaded an effort to put a Supreme Court ethics code into law, which has drawn serious criticism as some warn it would effectively allow the legislature to govern the court.
“The irony here absolutely takes my breath away,” Jipping remarked. “He now appears to be embroiled in such an obvious conflict of interest.”
However, not everyone agreed. Attorney Bradley P. Moss told Fox News Digital that “from what is described in the media report, this seems like a considerable stretch to find even the appearance of a conflict of interest.”
Whitehouse is a climate hawk. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images)
He said he was more concerned about engineers from billionaire Elon Musk’s SpaceX assisting the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to modernize air traffic control.
According to the Department of Transportation, the engineers are part of Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency team at the FAA and are special government employees. Their work in this capacity is being kept separate from the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation, they said.
Jipping said Whitehouse’s situation is an “opportunity for the ethics committee to show that they are in fact nonpartisan.”
Lankford and Coons did not provide comment to Fox News Digital in time for publication.
Julia Johnson is a politics writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business, leading coverage of the U.S. Senate. She was previously a politics reporter at the Washington Examiner.
The United States House of Representatives successfully passed a Republican-backed budget proposal on a razor-thin margin of 217-215 on Tuesday evening. The proposal, dubbed by former President Donald Trump as his “big, beautiful bill,” includes significant fiscal reforms featuring $2 trillion in spending cuts. In a surprising move, Republican Representative Thomas Massie broke ranks with his party, being the sole GOP member to vote against the measure. This budget aims to pave the route for substantial tax reductions, comprehensive immigration reform, expansion of domestic energy initiatives, and bolstered Pentagon funding.
Confident in the face of adversity, Speaker Mike Johnson declared that there was no alternative plan, stating there was “No Plan B,” suggesting the high stakes and determination behind the passage of this crucial spending bill. The urgency and determination displayed were evident as Johnson harnessed his influence to navigate the bill through a contentious battle in the House.
Honored to preside over the House today as we passed the budget resolution, laying the groundwork for ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ to enact President Trump’s FULL agenda. 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/BOSMYdwauw
Standing firm against a sea of Democratic opposition and addressing skepticism among some Republican members, Johnson managed a narrow victory. This achievement signifies a crucial step forward for the GOP’s legislative priorities with the former president’s influence looming large in the background. The Associated Press highlighted how Trump’s active engagement was pivotal, as he persuaded wavering GOP members, even going as far as inviting Republicans to the White House for discussion and encouragement.
As reported by Speaker Pro Tem Michael Simpson presiding over the vote, the high-stakes event culminated in a narrow 217-215 victory that kept political observers on the edge of their seats until the final moment. The united Democratic front opposed the bill, further emphasizing the partisan division that characterizes the current political climate in Washington, D.C.
With the vote concluded, Speaker Mike Johnson addressed reporters with jubilation. “We got it done… Now passing the budget resolution in the House, it will go to the Senate,” Johnson announced, highlighting the significance of this legislative achievement. “This is the first important step…We have a lot of hard work ahead of us. A lot of work yet to be done, but we’re going to celebrate tonight. We’ll roll up our sleeves and get right back at it in the morning,” Johnson added, indicating his unwavering commitment to advancing the Republican agenda.
‘I think we’ve got it… There’s no PLAN-B’ — Speaker Johnson on votes for Trump’s ‘Beautiful Big Bill’ pic.twitter.com/TAODJPYrwF
.@SpeakerJohnson following budget resolution vote: "We got it done…This is the first important step…we have a lot of hard work ahead of us…Lot of work yet to be done, but we're going to celebrate tonight. We'll roll up our sleeves and get right back at it in the morning." pic.twitter.com/B0XO7A3WcH
Despite this triumph, the road ahead remains challenging as the budget proposal makes its way to the Senate. The political dynamics continue to shift, but for now, the Republicans and Trump supporters can revel in this hard-earned legislative win, symbolizing determination and unity in forging a path aligned with conservative principles.
In a striking display of assertiveness, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth demonstrated his unwavering loyalty to President Trump by decisively addressing a reporter’s unwarranted inquiry during a pivotal meeting at the Pentagon. The meeting, which included Saudi Arabia’s Defense Minister, Prince Khalid bin Salman, was interrupted by a reporter who posed a provocative question regarding the recent appointment of Air Force Lieutenant General Dan “Razin” Caine as the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, succeeding Charles “CQ” Brown. The reporter’s characterization of Lt. Gen. Caine as “underqualified” was swiftly and effectively dismissed by Secretary Hegseth.
President Trump’s decision to replace Charles Brown with Dan Caine reflects his commitment to reinvigorating the military’s leadership. Trump expressed gratitude to General Brown for his four decades of service, stating on Truth Social: “I want to thank General Charles ‘CQ’ Brown for his over 40 years of service to our country, including as our current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He is a fine gentleman and an outstanding leader, and I wish a great future for him and his family.”
Contrary to the liberal media’s unfavorable portrayal, Lt. Gen. Caine is far from “underqualified.” President Trump highlighted his achievements and expertise, noting, “General Caine is an accomplished pilot, national security expert, successful entrepreneur, and a “warfighter” with significant interagency and special operations experience.” Caine’s role in the rapid defeat of the ISIS caliphate during Trump’s first term underscores his strategic prowess, debunking any claims of inexperience.
The liberal media’s attempt to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s appointment falters when confronted with the facts of Caine’s competence. During the prior administration, Lt. Gen. Caine’s contributions were recognized, but he was overlooked for promotion by the Biden administration. Trump’s administration, however, has corrected this oversight, entrusting him with a critical leadership role.
A confrontationally posed question to Secretary Hegseth aimed to challenge this appointment. However, Hegseth’s response was poised and direct: “I’m going to choose to reject your unqualified question. Who’s next?” This succinct retort quelled the attempted disruption, allowing the meeting to proceed without further interruptions. This exchange illustrates Hegseth’s dedication to maintaining order and respect amidst unwarranted media provocations.
Trump’s commitment to revitalizing American military leadership is further evidenced by his directive to Hegseth to seek nominations for additional key positions, highlighting a proactive approach to strengthening national defense and putting America First.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case with potentially sweeping implications for discrimination cases. Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Service involves an Ohio woman, Marlean Ames, who claims she was discriminated against for being straight as less-qualified LGBT colleagues in Ohio’s youth corrections system were promoted. Ames alleged that she was treated differently due to her heterosexuality at the Ohio Department of Youth Services, resulting in not just a demotion but a pay cut in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ames started working at the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004 as an executive secretary and was promoted several times, ultimately reaching program administrator. In 2017, Ames was given a new supervisor, Ginine Trim, who is openly gay. She alleges that she met or exceeded performance review standards but was discriminated against due to being straight. Her case was dismissed by the lower courts using a three-step process for handling discrimination cases based on indirect evidence under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973).
Under that test, plaintiffs must first present sufficient evidence of discrimination but also requires an added burden for those individuals who are part of a majority group. The test requires plaintiffs like Ames to provide additional “background circumstances” to “support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
She is arguing that all parties should bear the same burden. In her filing, she calls for the Court to reject the precedent:
“Judges must actually treat plaintiffs differently, by first separating them into majority and minority groups, and then imposing a ‘background circumstances’ requirement on the former but not the latter. In other words, to enforce Title VII’s broad rule of workplace equality, courts must apply the law unequally.”
In reviewing her claim, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit called the matter an “easy” call at the preliminary stage. It noted that Ames could not show that a member of a minority group made the allegedly discriminatory decision, or with evidence demonstrating a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group.
Judge Raymond Kethledge criticized the court’s requirement that Ames show special “background circumstances” because she is straight. Such a rule, he argued, “discriminates” “on the very grounds that the statute forbids.”
Ames argues that the test’s “background circumstances” component conflicts with the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination “against any individual with respect to the terms of conditions of employment because of that individual’s sex” or other protected characteristic. She argues “that the law as applied demands something more of her than the law as written.”
The Court could break from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green and continue the push of Chief Justice John Roberts in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College to make the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment “universal in its application.”
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Democrats, in an effort to fight Trump’s agenda, are forced to defend the indefensible, such as men in women’s sports, waste fraud and abuse, and the invasion at the border.
Democrat Congresswoman Announces Crude ‘Strategy’ at Rally: “We Have to F**k Trump!” (VIDEO)
By Cullen Linebarger – The Gateway Pundit – Feb 11, 25
One Democratic congresswoman has announced a new strategy to countering President Trump that apparently involves an act of ‘lovemaking’ rather than physical violence. As Real Clear Politics reported, several members of Congress gathered at the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) “Rally To Save The Civil Service” just outside the Capitol in DC on Tuesday. While there were no calls for violence, the speakers consistently used vulgar language while speaking about the Trump Administration. Attendees at the rally included House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Rep. Donald Norcross (D-NJ), Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-OR). READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
•Court Stops Biden’s Plan to Force Employers to Fund Abortions • Biden Prosecuted Pro-Life Americans as “Domestic Terrorists” • 10% of Babies in 2nd Trimester Abortions in Canada Survive •Wisconsin Gov Tony Evers Wants to Call Women “Inseminated Persons”
‘Border czar’ Tom Homan opens up about efforts to secure the southern border on The Story.
FIRST ON FOX: President Trump’s Department of Agriculture announced on Tuesday that it is taking steps to ensure that illegal immigrants in the United States are not eligible for food stamp benefits.
“U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins today directed the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) at the U.S. Department of Agriculture to immediately clarify and enforce all rules restricting its beneficiaries to U.S. citizens and legal residents only,” the department said in a press release.
The press release adds that the directive “enforces” Trump’s executive order from February 19 aimed at “ensuring taxpayer resources are not used to incentivize or support illegal immigration.”
“The days in which taxpayer dollars are used to subsidize illegal immigration are over,” Agriculture Secretary Rollins said in a statement.
Trump’s USDA is moving to ensure that illegal immigrants do not receive food stamps (AP/Getty)
“Today’s directive affirms that the U.S. Department of Agriculture will follow the law—full stop.”
Food stamp fraud has long been an issue that Republicans have warned about including Sen. Joni Ernst who recently debuted a bill designed to tackle overpayments in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), colloquially known as “food stamps.”
Brooke Rollins, U.S. President Trump’s nominee to be secretary of agriculture, testifies before a Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., January 23, 2025. (Kaylee Greenlee Beal/Reuters)
“Bureaucratic blunders are leaving billions of dollars on the table as Americans are starved to keep up with the ever-growing $36 trillion debt,” she told Fox News Digital in a statement.
“SNAP plays an essential role in helping feed families. That’s why we need to strengthen its integrity by holding states accountable for growing error rates, implementing a zero-tolerance policy, and snapping back overpayments.”
Hundreds of migrants, predominantly from Venezuela, cross the Rio Grande with the intention of seeking humanitarian asylum by crossing the border between Mexico and the United States in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico on December 05, 2023. (David Peinado/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Trump’s Border Czar Tom Homan explained to Fox News last week that illegal migrants are incentivized to come to the U.S. while they are reaping more in benefits than most Americans make in their salaries.
“It is a major driver… how many welfare cards, and food stamps, and social services envelopes you see all around these homes,” Homan said. It’s been going on for decades.”
Fox News Digital’s Julia Johnson contributed to this report
Andrew Mark Miller is a reporter at Fox News. Find him on Twitter @andymarkmiller and email tips to AndrewMark.Miller@Fox.com.
The Trump administration and Ukraine reportedly have reached a deal on mineral rights that could pave the way to a long-term security commitment to the war-torn nation in exchange for helping the U.S. recoup the billions of dollars in humanitarian and military aid it provided since Russia’s invasion three years ago.
Ukrainian officials said they are now ready to sign the agreement on jointly developing the nation’s mineral resources, including oil and natural gas, after the U.S. dropped demands for $500 billion in potential revenue from mining the resources, The Financial Times reported Tuesday.
Asked about a report that Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was coming to the White House on Friday, President Donald Trump said this in remarks at the White House on Tuesday afternoon: “I hear that he’s coming on Friday, certainly it’s okay with me if he’d like to.” “We’re saying look… we want to get that money back.”
During his meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron at the White House on Monday, Trump indicated the deal was close to be completed and that Zelenskyy could visit Washington, D.C., this week or next to sign the deal.
Trump addressed the issue in a post on Truth Social on Monday after a virtual meeting involving the Group of Seven nations, writing in part, “I emphasized the importance of the vital ‘Critical Minerals and Rare-Earths Deal’ between the United States and Ukraine, which we hope will be signed very soon!’
“This deal, which is an ‘Economic Partnership,’ will ensure the American people recoup the Tens of Billions of Dollars and Military Equipment sent to Ukraine, while also helping Ukraine’s economy grow as this Brutal and Savage War comes to an end.”
The draft agreement, according to Axios, called for the establishment of a “Reconstruction Investment Fund” that will be co-managed by the U.S. and Ukraine. Axios reported Monday that the draft agreement it viewed was the most recent version, but it could still be amended. The agreement stipulated the fund will be designed to invest in projects in Ukraine and attract investments to increase development, including in areas like mining and ports. But it also suggests the U.S. will recoup some of its expenditures related to “defending, reconstructing, and returning Ukraine” to its pre-war gross domestic product.
Tensions between the U.S. and Ukraine have escalated in recent weeks, with Zelenskyy expressing frustration over the U.S. negotiating with Russia first on a deal to end the war, and Trump calling Zelenskyy a “dictator” for cancelling elections and blaming Kyiv for starting the war.
Newsmax reached out to the White House for comment.
As the courts hash out the legalities of the orders supporting the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the public appears to support the effort despite the almost universal condemnations in the media. Despite the prediction from James Carville that the Trump Administration will collapse within 30 days, a recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll shows that most citizens support the cutting of government spending and size. While the courts must rule on the legal basis for these executive orders, the polling shows continued support for both Trump and his agenda after the election.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) also has declared that “remorse” was growing among voters who were souring against the Trump Administration. Yet, the Harvard poll shows Trump with a 50% approval rating, (43% expressing disapproval). That is consistent with the RealClearPolitics polling average, giving Trump a 49.3% approval rating.
What was interesting amid the ongoing judicial and legislative fight is that 83% of voters preferred cutting government spending to raising taxes. Some 77% also supported a broad review of government spending. A massive 70% believe government spending is rife with waste and fraud and 69% support cutting spending by $1 trillion. Sixty percent of voters said that DOGE is carrying out the need of the government to make significant cuts.
Once again, our courts are designed to resist popular demands when they contravene legal or constitutional authorities. However, courts are also sensitive to what is called the “countermajoritarian difficulty.” As Alexander Bickel discussed in his 1962 book, The Least Dangerous Branch, the courts straddle this line between protecting constitutional values and not becoming a type of super-legislature. The political question doctrine and other judicial rules are designed to remove federal judges from making policy or political judgments.
Voters are allowed to bring about significant, even radical, changes in government policies and programs. They are allowed to elect “change agents” to use existing powers to achieve those goals.
•SCOTUS Won’t Hear Case Challenging Law Banning Pro-Life Free Speech •Archbishop: Abortion is the “Human Rights Issue of Our Time” • Presbyterian Hospital is Forcing Ultrasound Techs to Do Abortions •No, Pro-Life Laws Have Not Led to a Sepsis Crisis in Texas
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Hiding under that massive bureaucratic slimy rock in D.C. is even more slimy rocks to be overturned, that are full of waste, fraud, and abuse. You can almost smell it from here.
Cutting Waste and Uncovering Corruption: What’s Not to Love About DOGE
By Antonio Graceeffo – The Gateway Pundit – Feb 21, 2025
So far, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has made significant cuts and taxpayer savings, including over $1 billion in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) contracts, $6.5 billion in reductions from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), $502 million from the Education Department, and savings across several other departments such as Social Security, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services. Additionally, DOGE has laid off thousands of federal employees, terminated over 1,100 contracts, and restructured various government programs. And now, DOGE is considering sending a $5,000 check to every American as part of its efforts to provide financial relief to taxpayers. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
I am returning today after speaking at the Broadmoor in Colorado Springs about my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” Last night, I was approached by a student named Andrew who asked whether he should just remain quiet at his college, where professors routinely slam conservatives and teach highly ideological views as gospel. I went on a walk this morning around dawn and spotted this swan. I immediately thought of the young man who came up to me after my talk.
Andrew, when you find yourself surrounded by ducks, don’t try to be a duck.
There are three simple reasons. First, you will make a uniquely poor duck, and the flight South will be exhausting. Second, none of the other ducks are likely to believe that you are really a duck. Finally, and most importantly, you are not a migratory bird. You only go through this life once and either live it on your own terms or live an inauthentic life.
We have discussed how the current orthodox and intolerant environment in higher education has resulted in a culture of self-censorship. (here, here, here, and here). Surveys show conservative students are 300 times more likely to self-censor. Even the largely liberal faculty at leading schools report self-censoring to avoid being targeted.
This year, Harvard found itself in a familiar spot on the annual ranking of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): dead last among 251 universities and colleges.
What is most striking is the fact that Harvard has created this hostile environment while maintaining an overwhelmingly liberal student body and faculty. Only 9 percent of the class identified as conservative or very conservative.
Yet, even liberals feel stifled at Harvard. Only 41 percent of liberal students reported being comfortable discussing controversial topics, and only 25 percent of moderates and 17 percent of conservatives felt comfortable in doing so.
During the Harvard debate, I raised the gradual reduction of conservatives and libertarians in the student body and the faculty.
The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.”
Only 5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”
According to Gallup, the U.S. population is roughly equally divided among conservatives (36%), moderates (35%), and liberals (26%).
So Harvard has three times the number of liberals as the nation at large, and less than three percent identify as “conservative” rather than 35 percent nationally.
Among law school faculty who donated more than $200 to a political party, 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to Democrats.
While Professor Kennedy dismissed the notion that Harvard should look more like America, the problem is that it does not even look like Massachusetts. Even as one of the most liberal states in the country, roughly one-third of the voters still identify as Republican.
The student body shows the same selection bias. Harvard Crimson previously found that only 7 percent of incoming students identified as conservative, but the latest survey shows that number at 9 percent.
Some faculty members are wringing their hands over this continued hostile environment. However, the faculty as a whole is unwilling to restore free speech and intellectual diversity by adding conservative and libertarian faculty members and sponsoring events that reflect a broad array of viewpoints.
Given my respect for Professor Kennedy, I was surprised that he dismissed the sharp rise in students saying that they did not feel comfortable speaking in classes. Referring to them as “conservative snowflakes,” he insisted that they had to have the courage of their convictions.
This ignores the fact that they depend upon professors for recommendations, and challenging the school’s orthodoxy can threaten their standing. Moreover, a recent survey shows that even liberal students feel chilled in the environment created by Harvard faculty and administrators.
In other words, these are ducks surrounded by ducks who are still afraid of quacking out of turn.
Even a mute swan is actually not mute and are known to trumpet when other animals (including humans) threaten their nests or cygnets.
In other words, Andrew, if you are a swan, be a swan.
Below is my column in the Hill on the new American emigres: “disinformation experts” who are finding themselves unemployed with the restoration of free speech protections.
Here is the column:
President Trump’s election has brought about mass layoffs among federal employees and contractors, including some who have sued and others who have protested.
But one group — that of America’s would-be censors — is taking its cause worldwide.
During the Biden administration, a massive industry took root, sweeping up billions in taxpayer funds to research, target and combat those accused of misinformation, disinformation and “malinformation.”
Although the exact number is uncertain, many trained censors are now facing unemployment. These self-described “disinformation experts”have become the modern equivalent of rōnin, the Japanese samurai who found themselves without a master and wandered the land looking for a new use of their skill set. They are finding precisely that calling in academia, not-for-profit groups and, most importantly, Europe.
A speech-regulation industry that was booming under Biden has gone bust under Trump. Over the last four years, massive amounts of money were poured into universities, non-governmental organizations and other groups in an unprecedented alliance of government, academia and corporations. The media lionized many in the industry as “saving democracy”by controlling, targeting and suppressing others’ political speech. Not only did federal agencies fund these efforts, but they also coordinated censorship of groups and individuals with opposing views, even objecting to jokes on the internet.
Universities cashed in on this largesse as well. It was popular with most liberal administrators and lucrative for academics.
The sudden shutoff of the federal spigot comes as a blow, but it does not mean the speech warriors will simply convert their censor-shields into plowshares. Many will follow in the footsteps of Nina Jankowicz, briefly the head of a now-defunct disinformation governance board. After the outcry over the board, Jankowicz quickly found her skills were in demand in Europe.
Free speech has been in free-fall in Europe for decades. Germany has long enforced a robust system of speech criminalization that began with Nazi symbolism but steadily expanded to include inciteful speech, insults and merely “disinformative” statements. The United Kingdom and France showed the same insatiable appetite for the inexorable expansion of censorship and prosecutions.
The European Union has also been ground zero for the anti-free speech movement’s aggressive use of the Digital Services Act, which bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.”
When it passed over the objections of free speech advocates, European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager was perfectly ecstatic, declaring it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now, it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”
That is why Vice President J.D. Vance’s recent speech in Munich was so historic. For the free speech community, Vance went into the belly of the beast and denounced the anti-free-speech movement in the heart of Europe. The response to the Vance speech has been nothing short of panic in the anti-free-speech community. Many are assembling in conferences in Europe, including the upcoming World Forum in Berlin. Bill and Hillary Clinton will be in attendance. (I will also be speaking at the conference.)
It was Hillary Clinton who, after Elon Musk purchased Twitter with the pledge to dismantle the censorship system, called upon the EU to force him and others to censor her fellow U.S. citizens. She embraced the infamous Digital Services Act, which seeks to impose a global system of speech control. She has also suggested the arrest of those spreading disinformation.
Immediately after the speech, familiar European and American voices denounced Vance and doubled down on the need for Europe to hold the line against dangerous free speech.
For the free speech community, there could not be a better place for this debate to unfold. Germany has demonstrated the false claims of the anti-free-speech community over the years. Indeed, you might call their arguments “disinformation.”
Vance and others who have challenged the European censorship systems have been attacked as Nazi enablers or sympathizers. Many of those who have fostered this attack are part of the regulator ronin. Others simply repeated the narrative without thought or support.
Take CBS anchor Margaret Brennan, who confronted Secretary of State Marco Rubio over the outrageous fact that Vance was supporting free speech while “standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.” The claim is stupefyingly uninformed. The first thing that the Nazis did in coming to power was to crack down and criminalize free speech — just as many on the left have done in European countries.
A few have insisted that the Nazis were brought to power by the lack of government controls over what views could be expressed. But this is not true either. The crushing irony is that Article 118 of the Weimar Constitution guaranteed free speech only “within the limits of the general laws.” It did not protect statements deemed by the government as factually untrue, and speech was actively regulated.
Adolf Hitler, for example, was barred from speaking publicly. The Nazis did not use free speech because they did not have it. They did, however, use the denial of free speech to claim that the government was afraid to have certain views aired in public.
Germany has replicated the old system that failed to stop (and perhaps even helped) the Nazis, doubling down on speech controls and criminalization. As I discuss in my book, there has never been a successful censorship system in the history of the world — not one. Germany is again a chilling example of the true record of such systems.
Past polling of German citizens found that only 18 percent felt free to express their opinions in public. Only 17 percent felt free to express themselves on the internet. So, the neo-Nazi movement is flourishing, even as average German citizens feel chilled in their own speech.
Despite this history, the regulatory ronin are hard at work to scare the public back into empowering and especially into funding their efforts.
The outgoing chairman of the Munich Security Conference spoke through tears as he expressed his “fear” that Vance’s call for free speech could take hold in Europe. He tellingly added, “It is clear that our rules-based international order is under pressure. It is my strong belief … that this multipolar world needs to be based on a single set of norms and principles.”
This “international order” has striven to impose a single set of norms on speech, particularly through vehicles like the Digital Services Act. The effort stands at odds with the very essence of the American constitutional system and values.
The only thing both sides agree on is that this is an existential fight. For those in the free speech community, it will determine the future of what Justice Louis Brandeis called “the indispensable right.” For the other side, it is the future of a European model of free speech, limiting the right to deter those with extreme or inciteful views.
The recent successes in the U.S. at X and more recently at Meta are real. However, the displaced speech regulators are not just going to retool and learn to code or train to work in the hospitality industry.
As Vance’s speech showed, we are more isolated than ever. Even Americans like Clinton have joined with the Europeans to fight for censorship. It is time to take a side and fight for freedom of speech.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Schiff might be in some trouble now that Kash Patel has been confirmed as Director of the FBI for the lies and Conspiracies he’s fostered to frame and impeach Trump.
Panicked Adam Schiff Went to FBI Building for One Last Attempt to Derail Kash Patel’s Confirmation – It Didn’t Work
By Joe Saunders – The Western Journal – Feb 20, 2025
If anyone knows about lacking integrity, it’s Adam Schiff — and Republicans in Washington clearly know it. The newly minted senator from California spent President Donald Trump’s first administration manufacturing the “Russia collusion” hoax and engineering the blatantly political first Trump impeachment trial only to meet with failure — and eventually see his nemesis returned to the White House in November by American voters disgusted with Schiff’s Democrats. On Thursday, the Schiff show turned up outside FBI headquarters in Washington in a last-ditch attempt to derail the confirmation of the man Trump chose to head the law enforcement agency — and Schiff met with failure again. READ MORE
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Minnesota Democrats are doubling down on left-wing gender ideology despite their viewpoints being increasingly unpopular with the average American.
It appears Democrats have finally picked a hill to die on
(Daily Caller News Foundation) — Democrats are doubling down on left-wing gender ideology despite their viewpoints being increasingly unpopular with the average American. The vast majority of Americans support reversing the Biden administration’s extreme approach to transgender issues, including barring biological males from participating in women’s sports. But Democratic lawmakers, including those representing congressional districts President Donald Trump won in November, are continuing to push left-wing stances on transgender issues that are seemingly at odds with their own voters. “Rather than changing course and abandoning the destructive transgender agenda, Democrats are ignoring what the majority of Americans know to be true just to appease the radical wing of their party,” Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, told the Daily Caller News Foundation in a statement. “I hope Democrats keep… READ MORE BRANCO TOON STORE
A.F. Branco Cartoon – The Uniparty warmongers have a big interest in keeping the Military Industrial Complex continuously overflowing with taxpayer money while ignoring waste, fraud, and abuse.
DOGE-ing toward the best Department of Defense ever
John Mills – The Gateway Pundit – Feb 21, 2025
President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth have made it very clear. The United States will have the best Military in the world, bar none. This goal is being established to deter and prevent conflict, not start it, slip into it, or perpetuate it. The President and Secretary of Defense have also said we will grow the military and also cut inefficient spending. This message is not an oxymoron – with the DOGE raids on other departments, the horror stories of fraud, waste, and abuse are far worse than we thought. In one of his first public comments on the impending arrival of DOGE to DOD, Secretary Hegseth made it clear that attacking fraud, waste, and abuse would happen on a scale never before seen in the notoriously… READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
•Planned Parenthood Killed 392,715 Babies, But Got 43% MoreTax Money •Media Falsely Claim Texas Sepsis Rates Skyrocketed After Abortion Ban • JD Vance: Jesus Christ “Died and Then Raised Himself From the Dead” •Georgia Supreme Court Stops Planned Parenthood’s Attempt to Strike Down Heartbeat Law
[url=file_search.php?action=file&lightboxID=312777][img]http://www.pascalgenest.com/istock/seriesImages/banners_featuredImages.gif[/img][/url]
[url=file_search.php?action=file&lightboxID=312798][img]http://www.pascalgenest.com/istock/seriesImages/banners_women.jpg[/img][/url]
abdomen of a pregnant woman
Founded in 1660, the Royal Society is one of the most prominent scientific organizations in the world with associations to such luminaries as Sir Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin. Despite that proud history, British scientists are pushing to politicize the society and expel Elon Musk because they disagree with his political views. It is not simply anti-intellectual but self-destructive for a society committed to the pursuit of scientific knowledge.
Few individuals in history have had a more pronounced impact on scientific and technological advances than Musk. His work on Space X alone has reshaped space technology. The upcoming mission to rescue the stranded scientists only highlights his transformative role and that of his company.
However, more than 2,700 scientists have signed an open letter that cited his public attacks on figures such as Anthony Fauci. They also noted that ‘The situation is rendered more serious because ‘Mr. Musk now occupies a position within a Trump administration in the USA that has over the past several weeks engaged in an assault on scientific research in the US that has fallen foul of federal courts.’”
It is unclear what cases are being referenced, since there have been several rulings against efforts to enjoin DOGE and Musk. More importantly, such litigation has only just begun. Whether the challengers or the Administration have “fallen foul” is yet to be determined.
Others made it clear that they simply disagree with Musk’s views.
Professor Dorothy Bishop, a University of Oxford psychologist, resigned earlier from the society, stating “I just feel far more comfortable to be dissociated from an institution that continues to honour this disreputable man.”
Others accused Musk of spreading “disinformation,” a much-abused category in the United Kingdom as a basis for censorship.
Many of these scientists seem selective in their outrage. I do not recall the Royal Society rushing to the defense of the many scientists who were fired or silenced over their dissenting views on COVID-19.
That includes the lab theory that led to scientists being denounced as conspiracy theorists or racists. Now, federal agencies agree that the theory is legitimate and indeed favored by some offices.
Some experts questioned the efficacy of surgical masks, the scientific support for the six-foot rule and the necessity of shutting down schools. The government has now admitted that many of these objections were valid and that it did not have hard science to support some of the policies. While other allies in the West did not shut down their schools, we never had any substantive debate due to the efforts of this alliance of academic, media and government figures.
Not only did millions die from the pandemic, but the United States is still struggling with the educational and mental health consequences of shutting down all our public schools. That is the true cost of censorship when the government works with the media to stifle scientific debate and public disclosures.
There is an alternative. The Royal Society could confine its review to the scientific contributions of figures like Musk. The subjectivity of this criticism should be antithetical to a scientific organization. Science is ideally a field that transcends political, social, and religious divisions. Few figures in history have advanced the cause of space travel and green technology as Musk.
I hope the Royal Society will decline to engage in such political exclusions, but I am hardly hopeful. However, in carrying out this expulsion, they will do far more harm to their society than to Elon Musk.
Nothing has upset Democrats nor upended the bureaucratic establishment quite like the recent unleashing of the Elon Musk led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). With the Presidency and both Houses of Congress in the hands of Republicans, the only realm of power Democrats maintained was the so-called “fourth” branch American government.
The BBC explains what DOGE’s role is within the Trump Administration:
Doge is not an official government department, which would have had to be established by an act of Congress.
Instead, it came into being through one of Trump’s presidential executive orders, and operates as an advisory body with at least four employees dedicated to each)o government agency.
Part of Doge’s mission, says the order, relates to IT upgrades aimed at boosting efficiency. It must finish its work by July 2026.
Image: Fortune
President Trump and Elon Musk have been reevaluating the size and role of the federal government in American Society. To date in fiscal year 2025, the U.S. government has spent $2.44 trillion with federal outlays totaling $7 trillion, or 23.3% of the GDP. By “following the money” DOGE has been able to audit several federal agencies and has found billions in wasteful spending.
To know how effective something is, just look at who is opposing it. Since its inception, DOGE has been the bane of big-government spending Democrats who have questioned its legality, while filed several states have filed lawsuits to block the organization from carrying out its mandate.
Obama Owned DOGE First!
Image: X
Before it was reconstituted as DOGE, the agency was established in 2014 as the United States Digital Service (USDS) during the Obama Administration. Because USDS was already fully funded and operational, Trump then was able to implement 5 USC 3161, allowing him temporary hiring authority.
On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order that renames the little-known but highly respected United States Digital Service office as the United States DOGE Service, referring to the Department of Government Efficiency, an effort helmed by tech billionaire and Trump ally Elon Musk.
In contrast to the initial announcement of DOGE, focused on federal spending, the workforce and technology infrastructure from “outside the government,” Trump’s Jan. 20 order outlines a temporary organization within the larger USDS office that will be led by a to-be-named administrator.
The order also moves the USDS from the Office of Management and Budget to the Executive Office of the President and directs each federal agency to create a “DOGE Team” that may include a team leader, engineer, human resources specialist and attorney to help facilitate Trump’s “DOGE agenda.”
There were not any Democrats protesting outside of government buildings when Obama and Biden echoed the same ideas of cutting government spending in June 2011:
The White House is taking aim at Democratic critics of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), highlighting that the new agency’s work was once championed by prominent Democrats.
Democrats have ramped up their attacks on DOGE and its leader, billionaire Elon Musk, over the past week, arguing that Trump’s project is a violation of the Constitution and filing several lawsuits in an effort to bring the new department’s momentum to a halt.
But Leavitt pointed out that many of DOGE’s priorities used to be the same across the aisle, especially for the two most well-known Democratic leaders.
Supporting DOGE
It is said “Imitation is the ultimate form of flattery”; or, “if something right is being done its going to be immolated.” Numerous states have begun implementing their own state-level versions of DOGE to look for and begin eliminating government waste.
Currently US District Judge John Bates has ruled that DOGE is an ‘agency’ and has granted the Musk-led agency access to the Departments of Labor, HHS, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In another lawsuit, Judge Tanya Chutkan will decide if DOGE gains access to data of seven more agencies. The Judge said that she was skeptical of plaintiffs arguments, and appears to be leaning towards granting access to Musk’s team.
Trump did warn that he was going “win, and keep winning!”
ESTABLISHING AND IMPLEMENTING THE PRESIDENT’S “DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY”
EXECUTIVE ORDER
January 20, 2025
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. This Executive Order establishes the Department of Government Efficiency to implement the President’s DOGE Agenda, by modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.
Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this order:
(a) “Agency” has the meaning given to it in section 551 of title 5, United States Code, except that such term does not include the Executive Office of the President or any components thereof.
(b) “Agency Head” means the highest-ranking official of an agency, such as the Secretary, Administrator, Chairman, or Director, unless otherwise specified in this order.
Sec. 3. DOGE Structure. (a) Reorganization and Renaming of the United States Digital Service. The United States Digital Service is hereby publicly renamed as the United States DOGE Service (USDS) and shall be established in the Executive Office of the President.
(b) Establishment of a Temporary Organization. There shall be a USDS Administrator established in the Executive Office of the President who shall report to the White House Chief of Staff. There is further established within USDS, in accordance with section 3161 of title 5, United States Code, a temporary organization known as “the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization”. The U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization shall be headed by the USDS Administrator and shall be dedicated to advancing the President’s 18-month DOGE agenda. The U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization shall terminate on July 4, 2026. The termination of the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization shall not be interpreted to imply the termination, attenuation, or amendment of any other authority or provision of this order.
(c) DOGE Teams. In consultation with USDS, each Agency Head shall establish within their respective Agencies a DOGE Team of at least four employees, which may include Special Government Employees, hired or assigned within thirty days of the date of this Order. Agency Heads shall select the DOGE Team members in consultation with the USDS Administrator. Each DOGE Team will typically include one DOGE Team Lead, one engineer, one human resources specialist, and one attorney. Agency Heads shall ensure that DOGE Team Leads coordinate their work with USDS and advise their respective Agency Heads on implementing the President ‘s DOGE Agenda.
Sec. 4. Modernizing Federal Technology and Software to Maximize Efficiency and Productivity. (a) The USDS Administrator shall commence a Software Modernization Initiative to improve the quality and efficiency of government-wide software, network infrastructure, and information technology (IT) systems. Among other things, the USDS Administrator shall work with Agency Heads to promote inter-operability between agency networks and systems, ensure data integrity, and facilitate responsible data collection and synchronization.
(b) Agency Heads shall take all necessary steps, in coordination with the USDS Administrator and to the maximum extent consistent with law, to ensure USDS has full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems. USDS shall adhere to rigorous data protection standards.
(c) This Executive Order displaces all prior executive orders and regulations, insofar as they are subject to direct presidential amendment, that might serve as a barrier to providing USDS access to agency records and systems as described above.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner engaged in a heated discussion with former New York Democratic State Senator David Carlucci on Wednesday, probing whether his criticisms of President Donald Trump indicated he was “rooting against” America. Carlucci had earlier criticized Trump’s establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which aims to recruit new federal employees, oversee wasteful spending, and halt several programs. When Carlucci suggested that Republicans might “crash” the country after “begging” for control over the government, Faulkner pressed him hard.
Challenging his stance, Faulkner asked, “You’re not rooting for America not to win, are you? You’re not rooting against the country? Because that’s what it sounds like. Is that what you are doing?” In response, Carlucci insisted, “No, absolutely not!” He then attempted to elaborate but was cut short by Faulkner, who remarked, “But you want the leader that the majority just elected to fail.”
Since assuming office, Trump has signed numerous executive orders focusing on crucial issues such as illegal immigration, regulatory cuts, and ending federal involvement in diversity initiatives and energy production. While some federal judges have impeded Trump’s executive actions regarding birthright citizenship, biological male inmates in women’s prisons, and the suspension of foreign aid programs, his administration continues to push forward.
Carlucci, although denying he was rooting against the country, expressed skepticism about Trump’s effectiveness. “No! Absolutely not! I hope the president does well, but he has only done announcements,” he stated, arguing that no tangible results had materialized. “There hasn’t been cost savings, and his budget proposal that’s coming up will prove that. There might be tax cuts for the wealthiest but layoffs for Americans.” Trump’s budget endorsements reflect his commitment to reducing federal spending while offering tax relief, evident in the House proposal he backed on Wednesday.
Highlighting the impact of Trump’s immigration policies, Faulkner countered Carlucci by emphasizing, “People on the left are pushing, saying no, no, no, we want to see the receipts of what is being done with DOGE for instance. Go to the border. Look at what the president has already done there. It has dwindled to a trickle which means illegals can’t get in.” The Trump administration reported an 85% drop in illegal immigration during the first 11 days of his tenure, demonstrating the success of his robust policies in securing the nation’s borders.
Such measures underscore Trump’s dedication to America’s prosperity and security—a vision that aligns with his campaign promises to abolish certain taxes and make permanent the tax cuts from 2017, while reducing the burden of federal expenditures.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Democrats are screaming over DOGE auditing the IRS. Hey, Turnabout is fair play, right? I wonder if Lois Lerner’s name regarding the Tea Party will pop up.
As Legacy Media Freaks Over 1 DOGE Employee Getting IRS Access, We Learn Biden Gave 919 People Access
By Ben Zeisloft – The Gateway Pundit – Feb 19, 2025
The Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency is about to provide a staff member access to IRS data, causing the media and the Democrats to spin into a frenzy. Gavin Kliger, a software engineer who works at DOGE, will be based at the IRS for 120 days, and he will reportedly have access to the tax agency’s data, according to a Monday report from CNN. Kliger will work as a senior adviser for the IRS acting commissioner. “Waste, fraud, and abuse have been deeply entrenched in our broken system for far too long. It takes direct access to the system to identify and fix it,” White House Deputy Press Secretary Harrison Fields told CNN about the move. READ MORE…
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
•Police Arrest Pro-Life Grandma for Standing Outside Abortion Biz •HHS Issues Statement Confirming Human Life Begins at Conception • Trump Admin Wants Pro-Life Policy Recommendations on IVF •Defund Planned Parenthood: $700 Million Shouldn’t Go to Abortion Biz
Judge Tanya Chutkan, appointed by former President Obama, recently made a decision regarding a motion involving the Trump administration and Elon Musk. The case involved 14 Democrat state attorneys general who claimed that President Trump violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. They argued that the creation of DOGE and Musk’s role within it granted him “unchecked power.”
The attorneys general from predominantly blue states like Arizona and California filed this lawsuit. They contended that since Musk is not Senate-confirmed, he should not have the authority to issue orders to the executive branch. Their argument centered on the belief that Musk’s appointment violated constitutional provisions. This is not the first time the Appointments Clause has been the center of legal battles in Judge Chutkan’s court. President Trump’s legal team previously argued that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith violated the same clause. Judge Chutkan dismissed that motion, though not every court has followed suit.
Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed a classified documents case based on similar constitutional grounds. The ongoing legal drama continued as Judge Chutkan expressed skepticism about the emergency restraining order request. She asked the plaintiffs to narrow its scope before making a decision.
On Tuesday, Judge Chutkan ultimately denied the request for a temporary restraining order. In her written decision, she stated, “Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of showing that they will suffer imminent, irreparable harm absent a temporary restraining order.” Her decision was based on the information presented in court.
Despite denying the restraining order, Judge Chutkan acknowledged the significance of the Appointments Clause issue. She noted that there are questions about Musk’s role and whether it breaches constitutional guidelines. The court must ensure that its actions remain within legal boundaries.
In response to the lawsuit, the Trump administration provided clarification on Musk’s authority. Elon Musk’s role, according to Joshua Fisher, is that of a non-career Special Government Employee. This position places him within the White House Office, and it is not subject to Senate confirmation.
The debate over Musk’s role highlights ongoing tensions between the executive branch and constitutional interpretations. The DOGE initiative and Musk’s involvement have drawn scrutiny from those concerned about executive overreach. However, the Trump administration maintains that Musk’s position is lawful.
Conservative news outlets such as Fox News and Newsmax have covered this story extensively. They report on the broader implications of the case and its potential impact on presidential authority. The debate around Musk’s role reflects broader discussions on executive power.
Judge Chutkan’s decision is not the end of the legal challenges facing Musk and DOGE. Further deliberations and potential appeals could change the course of this legal battle. The attorneys general may continue to press their case in pursuit of a different outcome.
The case also underscores the political divide in the United States. Conservative leaders argue for a strict interpretation of the Constitution, while others push for broader governmental oversight. These ideological differences are at the heart of many contemporary legal disputes.
The outcome of this case could have ramifications for how power is distributed within the executive branch. It raises questions about the balance between presidential authority and constitutional checks and balances. The resolution of these issues remains to be seen.
Judge Chutkan’s decision is a reminder of the complex interplay between law and politics. It demonstrates the challenges of navigating constitutional questions in a politically charged environment. The case serves as a microcosm of larger national debates. While Judge Chutkan’s ruling is significant, it is part of a broader legal landscape. The courts continue to play a critical role in interpreting and applying constitutional principles. This case, like many others, highlights the importance of judicial oversight.
In the coming months, the legal community will closely watch how this issue develops. The case has the potential to influence future appointments and executive actions. For now, the focus remains on the implications of Judge Chutkan’s decision.
This ongoing legal battle serves as a testament to the enduring nature of constitutional debates. It reflects the dynamic nature of American democracy and the constant evolution of its legal system. The resolution of such cases shapes the future of governance.
Lee Zeldin, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is taking a bold stance on financial transparency. He announced plans to retrieve around $20 billion given to environmental groups before President Trump took office. Zeldin emphasized the need for accountability, promising to evaluate “every penny that has gone out the door.”
In a video shared on X, Zeldin criticized previous financial practices, particularly grants for climate projects. The EPA, he stated, is pulling back these funds due to concerns about oversight and transparency. He declared, “The days of irresponsibly shoveling boatloads of cash to far-left activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity are over.”
Zeldin revealed that the EPA discovered about $20 billion was funneled to an unnamed financial institution. This bank managed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, established under the Inflation Reduction Act. The fund distributed $20 billion to eight groups, which Zeldin believes should be returned immediately.
The agreement with the bank, according to Zeldin, lacked transparency and needed to be terminated. He accused the entities involved of distributing funds to NGOs without proper oversight. “This scheme was the first of its kind in EPA history,” Zeldin remarked, pointing to rushed and unchecked spending.
A significant portion of the money, just under $7 billion, went to the Climate United Fund. This fund is a coalition of nonprofits aiming to solve America’s toughest economic and environmental challenges. They focus on investments in low-income and disadvantaged communities, rural areas, and tribal communities.
Interestingly, a statement from the previous EPA in April 2024 highlighted the fund’s goals. It aimed to invest in consumers, small businesses, and community facilities, prioritizing underserved areas. Despite these intentions, Zeldin is concerned about the lack of financial transparency and accountability.
Zeldin also referenced a Project Veritas video from December 2024. In this video, Brent Efron, a former EPA policy office assistant, allegedly discusses rushing funds out before the Trump administration. Efron is quoted saying, “It truly feels like we’re on the Titanic and we’re throwing like gold bars off the edge.”
These allegations have prompted Zeldin to take further action. He’s referring the matter to the EPA Office of Inspector General and collaborating with the Justice Department for a thorough investigation. Under Trump’s leadership, Zeldin assures a zero-tolerance approach to waste and abuse.
The EPA’s current administration is committed to stringent financial oversight. The emphasis is on ensuring taxpayer money is used responsibly and transparently. The Epoch Times has contacted the eight funded entities for their input regarding the situation.
The initiative by Zeldin reflects a broader shift towards fiscal responsibility and transparency. By reviewing past financial decisions, the EPA aims to restore public trust. This move aligns with the conservative values of accountability and judicious use of public funds.
As the investigation unfolds, the focus remains on ensuring that future spending aligns with these principles. The EPA is determined to set a precedent for financial integrity. The actions taken now could have lasting impacts on how environmental funding is managed.
Zeldin’s approach resonates with those who value government accountability. It’s a step towards making sure that funds serve their intended purpose effectively. By addressing these financial concerns, the EPA hopes to pave the way for more responsible governance.
The ongoing efforts to reclaim and re-evaluate these funds demonstrate a commitment to reform. This initiative could potentially reshape how environmental projects are funded and managed. The goal is to ensure that all financial decisions stand up to scrutiny.
Transparency and oversight are crucial in maintaining public confidence in government agencies. The EPA’s actions under Zeldin’s leadership are geared towards achieving these objectives. By taking a proactive stance, the agency aims to prevent future financial missteps.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – Democrats and the media went apoplectic over Trump’s threat of tariffs toward Mexico and Canada. Warning that he was starting a major trade war that would hurt the American consumer, but the opposite happened. Mexico and Canada conceded, leaving the Democrats and the legacy media looking foolish again.
By Robert Romano – DailyTorch.com – Feb 14, 2025
“It’s going to mean tremendous amounts of jobs and ultimately prices will stay the same, go down but we’re going to have a very dynamic country.” That was President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Feb. 13 taking questions from reporters, outlining his belief that one of the outcomes of imposing reciprocal tariffs on trading partners, including steel and aluminum tariffs set for March 12, is that ultimately consumer prices can come down. Although in the short term, there could be some volatility, Trump explained, stating, “I think what’s going to go up is jobs are going to go up and prices could go up somewhat short term, but prices will also go down.”… READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
•President Trump Signs Executive Order Expanding IVF •Scotland Police Stop Pro-Life Woman From Silently Praying • Senate Advances Kash Patel’s Nomination as FBI Director •Trump Must “Seize the Moment” and Defund Planned Parenthood
President Trump was elected with a mandate — a mandate to rethink the core assumptions of Washington, D.C., that have led this country to disaster after disaster. A mandate to put America first instead of last. To fulfill his mandate, the president needs to be able to make the appointments of his choosing without being sabotaged by the members of his own party that he carried to victory in November.
Yet right now, a fight has broken out over the nomination of Elbridge Colby to be undersecretary of defense for policy, the top strategy official at the Pentagon. Make no mistake: This is a make-or-break moment for whether Donald Trump’s America First foreign policy will succeed — or even happen. Colby is being attacked precisely because his opponents recognize he is the most effective and able person to put Trump’s America First approach into effect. He must be confirmed and empowered.
Who is Colby? Colby has an establishment background. But don’t be fooled: He has been arguing against the disastrous Bush-Cheney foreign policy regime since he was in college. Colby instead embraces a foreign policy of genuine peace through strength, one that avoids wars while protecting our authentic interests, gets our allies to do their part, and focuses on the top threats to Americans rather than irrelevant distractions.
Look back over Colby’s written record, and you will see that he was arguing for Trump’s America First approach long before it was popular — in fact, before Trump himself even arrived on the political scene. Colby paid the price for his advocacy, repeatedly losing out on high-powered jobs he could have easily received if he’d been willing to play along with the D.C. consensus.
Colby served Trump loyally and ably at the Pentagon during his first term, producing the landmark defense strategy shift that refocused the Defense Department on China, a central Trump goal. As great America First conservatives like Tucker Carlson and Jim Banks point out, Colby’s acclaimed book The Strategy of Denial is a guidebook for how to put an America First foreign policy into practice. Indeed, a Politico profile of him in 2023 was literally titled, “Elbridge Colby Wants to Finish What Donald Trump Started.” Even when almost every other foreign policy expert lambasted President Trump, Colby never did, enthusiastically and publicly supporting Trump in his historic 2024 campaign.
So why is Colby being attacked? The fact is, despite what they say in public, many Republican politicians want to frustrate President Trump’s attempt to change American foreign policy. They want to revive the disastrous foreign policy of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Mitch McConnell. These America Last Republicans think they can manipulate President Trump and his top officials the same way they tried to do in his first term.
They don’t even deny it. For instance, one anonymous senator recently said: “I think Tulsi Gabbard is flawed, but [is] she going to be harmful? No, because I think that there are going to [be] enough strong intelligence people around her.” GOP senators openly plan to tout Trump’s goals in public, then sabotage them in private. That same anonymous senator also said: “When it comes to those nominees below the Cabinet who may be less on people’s radar, who will be able to facilitate things, that’s where I think it can be dangerous.”
And that’s precisely why they see Colby as such a threat. He is so effective, so knowledgeable, and so genuine in his conviction for an America First foreign policy that he cannot be manipulated or controlled. Colby will actually do what the American people have given President Trump a clear mandate to do, and for that reason, the D.C. blob must stop him.
Colby’s nomination is a fork in the road not just for President Trump and his administration but for the country. If Colby is scalped by the secret cabal of bitter-ender neoconservatives, it will cut the legs out from under President Trump’s America First foreign policy, and it will chill any other nominees who follow in Colby’s wake.
People are watching to see whether President Trump’s administration will deliver real change, putting Americans first and ending the endless wars. If committed and loyal stalwarts like Colby are allowed to be taken down by those who want to return to the era of Dick Cheney, then it would be a disaster for the country — and supporters of the president will remember who was responsible.
Charlie Kirk is the founder and CEO of Turning Point USA, and host of The Charlie Kirk Show, a nationally syndicated radio show and one of the most listened to conservative podcasts in the country.
Below is my column in the Hill on the historic defense of free speech by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich last week. Where John F. Kennedy went to Berlin to declare “Ich bin ein Berliner,” Vance went in Munich to declare a type of “Ich bin ein Amerikanisch.” He spoke of free speech as an American with a power and clarity that is unrivaled in modern times. As expected, he is being attacked by Europeans and many in this country on the left. However, his speech was a tour de force of our core values.
Despite that profound point, on Feb. 14, Vance found that transformative moment. Speaking to European leaders at the Munich Security Conference, he shocked his audience by confronting them over their attacks on free speech in the West. For the free speech community, it was truly Churchillian — no less than the famous Iron Curtain speech in which Churchill dared the West to confront the existential dangers of communism.
Roughly 80 years after Churchill’s speech, Vance called our allies to account not for the growing threat from countries like Russia or China, but from themselves. To a clearly shocked audience, Vance declared that he was not worried about “external actors” but “the threat from within the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America.”
Vance then pulled back the curtain on the censorship and anti-free-speech policies of the European Union and close allies ranging from the United Kingdom to Sweden. He also chastised one of the most vehemently anti-free speech figures in Europe, Thierry Breton, who led the EU efforts to control speech with draconian measures under the infamous Digital Services Act.
Vance called out the hypocrisy of these nations asking for greater and greater military assistance “in the name of our shared democratic values” even as they eviscerate free speech, the very right that once defined Western Civilization.
The point was crushing.
Before we further commit to the defense of Europe, he argued, we should agree on what we are defending. These European nations are erasing the very distinctions between us and our adversaries.
In my recent book, I discussed many of the examples cited by the vice president. One of the most telling came from Canada last year, when the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau temporarily blocked the citizenship of Russian dissident Maria Kartasheva. The reason was that she had a conviction (after a trial in absentia) in Russia for condemning the Ukrainian war. The Canadian government declared that Kartasheva’s conviction in Russia aligns with a Criminal Code offense relating to false information in Canada.
In other words, her use of free speech could be prosecuted in Canada under its abusive Section 372(1) of the Criminal Code, punishing speech deemed to be “convey[ing] false information with the intent to alarm or injure anyone.”
Vance ran through just a fraction of the parade of horribles, from Britain arresting people for silent prayers near abortion clinics to Sweden prosecuting a religious protester who burned a Koran, with Judge Göran Lundahl insisting that freedom of expression does not constitute a “free pass to do or say anything.” Apparently, it does not include acts once called blasphemy or insulting religion.
Vance also mocked the underlying premise for speech crackdowns to combat “disinformation,” pointing out that these measures constitute a far greater threat to citizens in the West than any external threat. He had the courage to say what has long been verboten on the restriction of speech to combat foreign influence: “if your democracy can be destroyed with a few hundred thousand dollars of digital advertising from a foreign country, then it wasn’t very strong to begin with.”
In perhaps the greatest single declaration uttered by an American leader since John F. Kennedy in Germany declared “Ich bin ein Berliner,” he added: “If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump.”
The reaction of the European diplomats was one of astonishment. Few even offered the usual polite applause. Instead, rows of smug leaders looked straight ahead with the same level of disgust as if Vance were the second coming of the Visogoths threatening the Pax Romana, or Roman Peace.
In a single speech, Vance shattered the hypocrisy of our allies’ calling for a defense of the West while abandoning Western values. They did not like it, and many in the American press joined in dismissing his address. He was called a “wrecking ball” for bringing up the anti-free speech movement that has swept over Europe. One German official declared “This is all so insane and worrying.” This is a diplomat from a nation that shredded free speech for decades, to the point of arresting people over their ringtones.
Of course, our own anti-free speech voices were in attendance, too. Politico quoted one “former House Democratic staffer” who bravely attacked Vance anonymously: “I was aghast … He was blaming the victim. What the f— was that? I had my mouth open in a room full of people with their mouth open. That was bad.”
No, it was not bad. It was glorious.
After Elon Musk purchased Twitter with the pledge to dismantle the company’s censorship system, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton turned to the EU, calling on it to use its Digital Service Act to force the censorship of her fellow American citizens. That did not leave many people agape. But Vance’s defense of free speech is considered a breathtaking outrage.
In “Hillbilly Elergy,” Vance explained his lack of faith in transformative moments.
“I’ve seen far too many people awash in a genuine desire to change, only to lose their mettle when they realized just how difficult change actually is,” he wrote.
And there is no “genuine desire to change” in Europe. The appetite for censorship is now insatiable, and free speech is in a free fall.
In the midst of this crackdown, Vance spoke with a quintessentially American voice. It was clear, honest and unafraid. There was no pretense or evasion. It was a speech about who we are as a nation and the values that still define us — and no longer define our allies. They saw him as a virtual hillbilly, an American hayseed who does not understand transnational values.
For the rest of us, it was a true elegy — part lament and part liberating.
Below is my column in the New York Post on the unhinged response to Vice President J.D. Vance’s historic defense of free speech in Europe. The chorus of criticism from press and pundits was immediate. Literally speaking through tears, German diplomat Christoph Heusgen responded to VP Vance: “It is clear that our rules-based international order is under pressure. It is my strong belief that this more multipolar world needs to be based on a single set of norms and principles.” Indeed, it is and that is a good thing. Vance was speaking truth to transnationalists who view free speech as a threat to the “international order” that they maintain. The response from the American left was even more bizarre. Not only did CBS’s Margaret Brennan suggest that free speech caused the holocaust, but Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) said that Vance, in defending free speech, used “some of the same language that Hitler used to justify the Holocaust.”
Here is the column:
On Friday, Vice President JD Vance gave a historic defense of free speech at the Munich Security Conference. In front of a clearly hostile assemblage of European diplomats, Vance confronted our allies with their systemic censorship as they demanded more support to “defend democracy.” For the free speech community, it was akin to Ronald Reagan’s call: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
Vance questioned how our allies could claim to be the bastions of freedom while denying free expression to their citizens. He then delivered this haymaker: “If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump.”
Not surprisingly, the Europeans sat on their hands while glaring at Vance for calling them out for their hypocrisy. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius declared Vance’s remarks were “not acceptable.” An unnamed German official in attendance declared, “This is all so insane and worrying.”
The outrage of the Europeans was only surpassed by our own anti-free speech voices in government, the media and academia. Commentator and CNN regular Bill Kristol called the speech “a humiliation for the US and a confirmation that this administration isn’t on the side of the democracies.” It appears that free speech is no longer viewed as pro-democracy. Indeed, it could be outright fascism.
In one of the most bizarre attacks, CBS anchor Margaret Brennan confronted Secretary of State Marco Rubio over Vance’s support for free speech given the fact that he was “standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.” In other words, it was free speech that brought Hitler to power and caused the Holocaust. Brennan’s statement is completely detached from history and logic.
Germans did enjoy free speech protections after World War I, though the Weimar Constitution was more limited than the First Amendment. However, one of the first things that the Nazis did in coming to power in 1933 was to crack down on free speech and criminalize dissent. Censorship is the harbinger of authoritarianism and Germany is the ultimate example of how no censorship system in history has ever succeeded in killing one idea or stopping a single movement.
Brennan could not have picked a better country to utterly destroy the point that she was trying to make in favor of limits on free speech.
Germany continued to censor and criminalize speech after World War II, targeting the neo-Nazi movement and other prohibited viewpoints. Authorities charged citizens for everything from wine labels to ringtones with banned content. The government has sought to force figures like X owner Elon Musk to censor Americans and others to combat anything that it deems “fake news” or “disinformation.”
Of course, Germany’s massive censorship effort has done little to deter the thriving neo-Nazi movement. What it has done is chill the speech of ordinary citizens. One poll of German citizens found that only 18% of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Only 17% felt free to express themselves on the internet.
Other nations joined in the harrumphs with equally disingenuous statements, including the United Kingdom. British diplomats expressed shock despite their systemic suppression of free speech, including arresting citizens for simply praying to themselves near abortion clinics.
The British have doubled down on censorship with sweeping new laws. Hundreds have been arrested recently for speech crimes like spreading “fake news” or disinformation that could lead to “non-trivial psychological or physical harm.”Previously, British citizens were arrested for criticizing religious groups or opposing homosexuality or immigration. In one case, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime.
The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.
In 1963, John F. Kennedy went to Germany to declare “Ich bin ein Berliner” to express solidarity with those who were fighting for the right to live and speak freely behind the Iron Curtain.
More than 60 years later, Vance returned to essentially declare “Ich bin ein Amerikanischer,” affirming our commitment to a right that not only defines the United States, but once defined Western civilization. He argued that if we are to defeat our foreign adversaries, we must first protect those rights that distinguish us from them.
The response of our press and pundits only proved Vance’s point. We have returned to the moment described by Tom Paine during our Revolution, a time that would “try men’s souls.”
Those opposing free speech today are like “the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot” who, Paine warned, would “shrink” from the defense of our values.
The anti-free speech movement that has swept over Europe has finally reached our shores.
Vance drew a bright line in Europe and we will all have to decide on which side to stand. Some obviously have made the decision to stand with Europe.
For the rest of us, we will stand with free speech.
The defense of free speech by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich, Germany, has led to open panic on the left in fighting to maintain European censorship and speech criminalization. The response of the American press and pundits was crushingly familiar. From CBS News to members of Congress, Vance (and anyone who supports his speech) was accused of using Nazi tactics. It is the demonization of dissent.
The suggestion that free speech cleared the way for the Holocaust left many scratching their heads, but it is an old saw used by the anti-free speech community, particularly in Germany.
When they came to power, the Nazis moved immediately to crack down on free speech and criminalize dissent. They knew that free speech was not only the “indispensable right” for a free people, but the greatest threat to authoritarian power.
Figures like Brennan appear to blame free speech for the rise of the Nazis because the Weimar Constitution protected the right of Germans, including Nazis, in their right to speak. However, the right to free speech was far more abridged than our own First Amendment. Indeed, it had many of the elements that the left has pushed in Europe and the United States, including allowing crackdowns on disinformation and fake news.
Article 118 of the Weimar Constitution, guaranteed free speech but added that it must be “within the limits of the general laws.” It did not protect statements deemed by the government as factually untrue and speech was actively regulated.
Indeed, Hitler was barred from speaking publicly. It was not free speech that the Nazis used to propel their movement, but the denial of free speech. They portrayed the government as so fearful and fragile that it could not allow opposing views to be stated publicly.
This ridiculous and ahistorical spin also ignores the fact that other countries like the United States had both fascist movements and free speech, but did not succumb to such extremism. Instead, free speech allowed critics to denounce brownshirts as hateful, dangerous individuals. To blame free speech for the rise of the Nazis is like blaming the crimes of Bernie Maddoff on the use of money.
Nevertheless, before the last election, the left was unrelenting in accusing those with opposing views as being Nazis or fascists. During the election, it seemed like a one-answer Rorschach test where Democrats saw a Nazi in every political inkblot.
While the narrative failed in spectacular fashion, the script has not changed. Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) expressed sympathy for the “absolute shock, absolute shock of our European allies” to be confronted in this fashion. Rather than address the examples of systemic attacks on free speech, Moulton reached again for the favorite talking point: “if you listen, listen carefully it’s actually much deeper and darker. He was talking about the enemy within. This is some of the same language that Hitler used to justify the Holocaust.”
Like Brennan, Moulton is warning that free speech can be a path to genocide. However, his take is that anyone claiming to be the victim of censorship is taking a page out of the Nazi playbook. The logic is simple. The Nazis complained about censorship. You complained about censorship. Thus, ipso facto, you are a Nazi.
Others joined the mob in denouncing Vance and supporting the Europeans. CNN regular Bill Kristol called the speech “a humiliation for the US and a confirmation that this administration isn’t on the side of the democracies.”
By defending free speech, you are now viewed as anti-democratic. It is part of the Orwellian message of the anti-free-speech movement. Democracy demands censorship, and free speech invites fascism.
It is hardly a novel argument. It was the very rationale used in Germany after World War II to impose what is now one of the most extensive censorship systems in the world. It was initially justified as an anti-Nazi measure but then, as has occurred repeatedly in history, became an insatiable appetite for speech controls. Indeed, the country returned to the prosecution of anything deemed disinformation and fake news by the government.
The result has indeed silenced many, but not those neo-Nazis who are flourishing in Germany. Past polling of German citizens found that only 18% of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Only 17% felt free to express themselves on the internet. As under the Weimar Constitution, fascist groups are portraying themselves as victims while finding alternative ways to spread their message.
Yet, the American media continues to peddle the same disinformation on the value of censorship. After its anchor made the widely ridiculed claim about free speech leading to genocide, 60 Minutes ran an interview with German officials extolling the success of censorship.
CBS’ Sharyn Alfonsi compared how the United States allows “hate-filled or toxic” speech while Germany is “trying to bring some civility to the worldwide web by policing it in a way most Americans could never imagine.”
German prosecutors (Dr. Matthäus Fink, Svenja Meininghaus and Frank-Michael Laue) detailed how they regularly raid homes to crack down on prohibited views with the obvious approval of CBS.
They acknowledged that “the people are surprised that this is really illegal, to post these kind [sic] of words… They don’t think it was illegal. And they say, ‘No, that’s my free speech,’ And we say, ‘No, you have free speech as well, but it also has its limits.’”
Alfonsi explained that the law criminalizes anything the government considers inciteful “or deemed insulting.” She then asked “Is it a crime to insult somebody in public?” The prosecutors eagerly affirmed, but added that the punishment is even higher to insult someone on the Internet.
Meininghaus started to explain that “if you’re [on] the internet, if I insult you or a politician …” Alfonsi could not even wait for the end of the sentence and completed it for him: “It sticks around forever.”
As CBS was completing the sentences of speech regulators, many in Europe were celebrating the Vance speech as breathing new life into the embattled free speech community. What is most striking is how the press and the pundits could not help themselves. They are eagerly proving Vance’s point. This is an existential fight for the “indispensable right.”
A.F. Branco Cartoon – VP Vance gave the European Union a well-deserved good spanking at the Munich Security Conference. Ripping them on their free speech policies.
ICYMI: Here’s Vice President J.D. Vance’s Full Speech on Free Speech and Tyrannical Censorship That Sent European Elites Into a Total Meltdown at the Munich Security Conference (FULL TRANSCRIPT)
By Jim Hoft – The Gateway Pundit – Feb 16, 2025
Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a fiery speech at the Munich Security Conference on Friday, taking direct aim at European elites for their war on free speech and authoritarian censorship tactics. In a no-holds-barred address, Vance exposed the hypocrisy of European leaders, who claim to champion democracy while silencing dissent and weaponizing so-called ‘misinformation’ laws to crush political opposition. Below is the full transcript of his explosive speech: READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
•Study Confirms Abortion Bans Have Saved at Least 22,000 Babies •Woman Faces Trial for Holding Sign Outside Abortion Clinic • Florida Data Shows 23,000 Babies Saved From Abortions •Babies Will be Killed in Missouri Again
Planned Parenthood South Austin Health Center is seen following the U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a Texas law imposing strict regulations on abortion doctors and facilities in Austin, Texas, U.S. June 27, 2016. REUTERS/Ilana Panich-Linsman – RTX2IIRZ
It is astounding that this issue remains largely underreported by the mainstream media. The recent investigation spearheaded by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and her subcommittee, lovingly dubbed DOGE, has unveiled a staggering $2.7 trillion in improper payments made by the US government since 2003. This number is both shocking and sobering, yet the liberal media has largely chosen not to highlight these findings which paint a concerning picture of government waste and ineptitude.
Earlier this week, Real America’s Voice’s Brian Glenn directly addressed White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt regarding the massive fraud unveiled by DOGE. Glenn put on record that this substantial mismanagement involved Medicare and Medicaid payments going overseas and payments being issued to ineligible recipients. Yet, his query echoes in rooms occupied by those more concerned with pushing political agendas than confronting harsh truths.
Brian Glenn questioned: “I want to go back to DOGE for just a second. Earlier the subcommittee headed by Chairman Marjorie Taylor Greene, her and her staff discovered $2.7 trillion in improper payments to Medicare, Medicaid, overseas, to people who should not have gotten it, some in this room might have missed that press conference. Can you elaborate on what the President is thinking at this point?”
In response, Leavitt underscored the systematic fraud, waste, and abuse that have occurred, mentioning: “Well, again, that’s another example, there is a very long list of the fraud, waste, and abuse that DOGE is identifying on a daily basis. Elon Musk also talked yesterday about Social Security payments that are going out the door for people who are no longer with us, unfortunately.”
$2.7 TRILLION of YOUR money.
Down the drain.
💸💸💸
Tomorrow, the @DOGECommittee will EXPOSE the waste, fraud, and abuse of improper payments doled out by the federal government.
She pointed out the millions of dollars potentially lost to fraudulent contracts, saying, “I would say that is certainly fraud. There is also a lot of contracts they’ve identified that, just as a hypothetical example, are a million bucks been only $500,000 went out the door, so where’s the rest of that cash? And so, that’s the thing — those are the things that DOGE is working on every single day.”
Leavitt also reminded the public of President Trump’s campaign promise to tackle such inefficiencies, adding, “I would just are mind everybody in this room, this is what President Trump campaigned on doing. He’s delivering on a promise that 77 million people elected him to do.”
This crucial issue remains sidelined by a liberal media that prefers to focus on narratives that support their biases and sensationalist stories, rather than the staggering bureaucratic failures exposed by a duly elected subcommittee.
•Florida Abortions Drop 28%, Heartbeat Law Saves Thousands •Senate Initially Approves Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as HHS Secretary • Vance’s Relative Can’t Get Heart Transplant, No COVID Vax •Biden Gave Planned Parenthood $700 Million, DOGE Should Defund •Scroll Down for More Pro-Life News
Comments orquestions? Email news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2025 LifeNews.com For info on advertising or reprinting news, email us.
LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report Thursday, February 13, 2025
Top Stories
•Judge Orders Abortionist to Stop Mailing Abortion Pills to Texas •Senate Confirms Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as HHS Secretary • Senate Committee Advances Kash Patel’s Nomination as FBI Director •Over 65 Million Babies Have Been Killed in Abortions Since Roe
Comments or questions? Email news@lifenews.com. Copyright 2003-2025 LifeNews.com For info on advertising or reprinting news, email us.
LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report Friday, February 14, 2025
Top Stories
•JD Vance Slams Europe for Violating Free Speech of Pro-Life Christians •Kennedy Says Trump Wants Study of Abortion Pills • Kathy Hochul Protects Abortionist Who Illegally Sold Pills •Pro-Life Groups Ask Trump Budget Director to Defund Planned Parenthood
Elon Musk announced on Tuesday that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was looking into a limestone mine in Pennsylvania, where the cost-cutting organization says federal employee retirements are processed manually using a system that could take months. Musk told reporters about the mine on Tuesday during an appearance with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office, as the president prepared to sign an executive order concerning the billionaire’s work leading DOGE.
“And then we’re told this is actually, I think, a great anecdote, because we’re told the most number of people that could retire possibly in a month is 10,000,” Musk said.
“We’re like, well, what? Why is that? Well, because all the retirement paperwork is manual on paper,” he continued. “It’s manually calculated and written down on a piece of paper. Then it goes down to mine and like, what do you mean, a mine?”
This photo posted by DOGE on Feb. 11, 2025, shows the old limestone mine in Boyers, Pennsylvania, where the organization says about 700 workers operate more than 230 feet underground to process about 10,000 federal retirement applications per month. (DOGE/X)
DOGE wrote on X that an old limestone mine in Boyers, Pennsylvania, about 60 miles north of Pittsburgh, is where about 700 workers operate more than 230 feet underground to process about 10,000 federal retirement applications per month.
The applications are processed by hand using paper and are stored in manila envelopes and cardboard boxes, DOGE said.
This photo posted by DOGE on Feb. 11, 2025, shows shelving and cardboard boxes which DODGE says workers at the underground mine facility use to store federal worker retirement papers. (DOGE/X)
The Washington Post described the facility as a “sinkhole of bureaucracy” in a 2014 article. At the time, the report said the total spending on the retirement system was $55.8 million.
Multiple attempts to digitize the system have been made since 1987, according to the report. Each attempt largely failed and was eventually scrapped, with reported costs totaling over $130 million.
Musk said the facility was started in 1955 and looks “like a time warp.” He noted the slow processing speed, which DOGE says can take multiple months.
Elon Musk mentioned the limestone mine to reporters during an event with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office at the White House on Tuesday. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
“And then the speed, the limiting factor is the speed at which the mine shaft elevator can move, determines how many people can retire from the federal government,” Musk said. “And the elevator breaks down and sometimes, and then you can’t, nobody can retire. Doesn’t that sound crazy?”
Musk said the flawed system of “carrying manila envelopes to, you know, boxes in a mine shaft” could be remedied with “practically anything else.”
“That’s an example, like at a high level, if you say like, how do we increase prosperity is we get people to shift from roles that are low to negative productivity to high productivity roles,” he said.
In recent weeks, Democrats have largely criticized the work of Musk and DOGE to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in federal spending and trim the more than 2 million-person federal workforce.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement via Getty Images)
The Trump administration has retrieved the $59 million the Federal Emergency Management Agency allocated last week to house illegal aliens in hotels in New York City.
“I have clawed back the full payment that FEMA deep state activists unilaterally gave to NYC migrant hotels,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote on X on Wednesday. “FEMA was funding the Roosevelt Hotel that serves as a Tren de Aragua base of operations and was used to house Laken Riley’s killer,” Noem wrote, referring the Jose Antonio Ibarra, an illegal alien from Venezuela who was found guilty in November of murdering Riley, a Georgia nursing student. Tren de Aragua is a Venezuela-based gang.
“Mark my words,” Noem wrote, “there will not be a single penny spent that goes against the interest and safety of the American people.”
I have clawed back the full payment that FEMA deep state activists unilaterally gave to NYC migrant hotels.
FEMA was funding the Roosevelt Hotel that serves as a Tren de Aragua base of operations and was used to house Laken Riley’s killer.
On Monday morning, Elon Musk shared on X that the Department of Government Efficiency, an agency established to root out government waste, “discovered that FEMA sent $59M LAST WEEK to luxury hotels in New York City to house illegal migrants.”DHS later confirmed that FEMA had allocated the money for the housing of illegal aliens, and on Tuesday announced the termination of the four FEMA employees responsible.
“Effective immediately, FEMA is terminating the employment of four individuals for circumventing leadership to unilaterally make egregious payments for luxury NYC hotels for migrants,” according to a statement from a DHS spokesperson.
“The four employees being fired include FEMA’s chief financial officer, two program analysts, and a grant specialist,” according to the DHS spokesperson.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday called for the termination of FEMA in a post on Truth Social.
“FEMA spent tens of millions of dollars in Democrat areas, disobeying orders, but left the people of North Carolina high and dry,” Trump wrote of the Tar Heel State residents whose lives were upended last fall by Hurricane Helene. “It is now under review and investigation. The Biden-run FEMA has been a disaster. FEMA should be terminated! It has been slow and totally ineffective. Individual states should handle storms, etc., as they come. Big savings, far more efficient!!!”
During a visit Saturday to western North Carolina to review the progress of the recovery efforts and the damage that still remains from Helene, Noem said major changes might be coming to FEMA. The Trump administration may eliminate “a lot of what FEMA is at the federal level and giving the authority, the dollars, and the money to the states so that they can deploy that,” she said.
On Jan. 24, Trump signed an executive order establishing the Federal Emergency Management Agency Review Council to review FEMA’s effectiveness in responding to natural disasters and to recommend needed changes to the agency.
“This task force will be looking at all those opportunities to make sure that those that are closest to these communities have the opportunity to make the decisions in how they respond,” according to Noem.
Trump Wants to Make FEMA the ‘Peoples’ Agency’, says Kristi Noem
Homeland Security Secretary @KristiNoem visited western North Carolina Saturday to see the progress of the recovery efforts and the damage that still remained from hurricane Helene. The secretary discussed the… pic.twitter.com/9DP1DCWqx6
Caught on Camera: EPA Official Confesses to Rushed Fund Allocation in Climate Push.
A shocking revelation has emerged from an undercover investigation by Project Veritas. An EPA advisor was caught on tape admitting that the agency hastily allocated billions of taxpayer dollars to climate change initiatives just before President Donald Trump took office. Brent Efron, a special advisor at the EPA who played a crucial role in implementing Biden’s climate agenda, was filmed discussing the frantic effort to disburse funds mere months before Trump’s inauguration.
Efron candidly told a Project Veritas operative, “Now it’s how to get the money out as fast as possible before they [Trump Administration] come in … It truly feels like we’re on the Titanic or throwing gold bars off the top edge.” This statement sheds light on the chaotic and reckless manner in which the EPA managed taxpayer money. Under the Biden administration’s so-called Inflation Reduction Act, dubbed by Efron as “Biden’s climate law,”over $100 billion was designated for environmental projects, an amount that Efron admitted the agency is racing to allocate.
In a brazen illustration of bureaucratic insolence, Efron divulged that the EPA is vigorously ensuring these funds are committed to projects, some of which were initially set aside for a Kamala Harris presidency that never materialized. He remarked, “The thing that we haven’t funded yet are [sic] the local nonprofit program that was going to be an inter-Kamala Harris administration program… so now we’re getting it [funding] out as quick as possible. It’s like two billion at this point, we’ve got most of it out – like 90%.”
Furthermore, Efron openly acknowledged the EPA’s strategy to continue this funding rush up until the last possible moment on Inauguration Day. His statement reveals a clear strategy to channel funds through nonprofits, which Efron viewed as an “insurance policy” against a Trump-led administration that might seek to overturn these initiatives. According to Efron, “We gave them [nonprofits, states, tribes] the money because… it was an insurance policy against Trump winning. Because they aren’t [a government agency], they’re safer from Republicans taking the money away.”
This revelation is emblematic of the underhanded tactics used by liberal bureaucrats to advance their agendas while circumventing Republican oversight. Efron’s comments also suggest that these actions were motivated by potential personal gains, hinting at “personal benefits” awaiting him after his tenure with the EPA. He boastfully declared, “Over the last year we’ve given out $50 billion dollars for climate things…so to go work for one of these places would be really cool.”
In response to the scandal, EPA chief Lee Zeldin, a dedicated Trump ally and former Congressman from New York, released a statement highlighting the outrageous misuse of funds. “Huge news! Our awesome team EPA just located BILLIONS of dollars worth of “gold bars” that the Biden Admin threw “off the Titanic”. Big update coming tomorrow…” Zeldin wrote.
Conservative voices are rallying against what they see as blatant incompetence and manipulation by the liberal-led EPA. Utah Senator Mike Lee took to X to express his disdain, saying, “The U.S. government is actively working to undermine the American people. We’ve empowered Washington to the point that it’s become dangerous and destructive. It’s too big, too expensive, and too powerful. We must return to constitutional government.”
This episode is a stark reminder of the lengths to which Democrat operatives will go to further their objectives at the expense of transparency and integrity. As the smoke clears, conservatives are calling for accountability and a rigorous investigation into these egregious acts.
It seems we have a new chapter featuring tech magnate Elon Musk as the lead, aimed squarely at the secrets of government financial dealings. Musk is reportedly teaming up with President Donald Trump, who he visited in the Oval Office. Alongside his son X, Musk seemed to be on more than just a casual visit, with high stakes surrounding their discussions. President Trump signed a new executive order, instructing federal agencies to work with DOGE, a move causing quite a stir.
Musk didn’t hold back as he questioned the growing net worth of federal government employees who are on a basic salary structure. “We do find it sort of rather odd that there are quite a few people in the bureaucracy who have essentially a salary of a few hundred thousand dollars, but somehow manage to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth while they are in that position,” he noted.‘
Conservative voices have long expressed skepticism about how certain individuals in the public eye seem to gain significant wealth without any plausible explanation. Musk’s plan to delve deeper using DOGE comes as a welcomed initiative by many supporters of transparency. “We’re just curious as to where it came from. Whether they have very good investing in which that case we should take their investment advice perhaps,” Musk added with a hint of sarcasm, “They seem to be mysteriously getting wealthy and we don’t know why – where did it come from?”
This issue of financial discrepancies in public office is not exclusively a bureaucratic problem, as Musk hints at significant wealth seen in certain political realms, often leaning towards the Democrat side. Robert Kiyosaki’s eyebrow-raising predictions about gold and silver prices also add layers of financial intrigue to the political plotline.
Elon Musk has said:
"Maybe Congress is really good at investing [because] we find it sort of rather odd that there are quite a few people in the bureaucracy who have a salary of a few hundred thousand dollars but somehow manage to accrue tens of millions of dollars."
There’s more than meets the eye when it comes to Senator Elizabeth Warren. Musk recently pondered over her hefty, amassed wealth, given her salary figures. The eye-opening question, “Has anyone tracked how she got $12M from a $200k salary?” throws the senator under the microscope. It’s a question resonating with many Americans who demand accountability and financial transparency. Musk, never one to mince words, declares, “This is a real question.”
Has anyone tracked how she got $12M from a $200k salary?
The ongoing investigation powered by Musk’s tech influence threatens to unravel hidden truths about government wealth accumulation and holds the potential to shift the tide of political accountability. Both Trump and Musk’s tally of financial truths challenge liberal agendas, seeking to shed light on opaque practices cloaked in governmental operations.
A.F. Branco Cartoon – It has been revealed that Democrats and the Deep State have been laundering money through USAID and other means that are benefiting their left-wing causes.
David Sacks Explains Why the Liberal Establishment in DC is Freaking Out Over the Exposure of USAID: ‘The Money is All Going to Them’ (VIDEO)
By Mike LaChance – The Gateway Pundit – Feb 8, 2025
During an appearance on the ‘All In’ podcast this week, David Sacks, Trump’s ‘crypto-czar’ talked about the exposure of USAID by DOGE and why it’s causing so much anxiety for the establishment in Washington, DC. Sacks points out that it’s a giant scam, which awards a ton of money to all of these people and their favored media outlets. He questions how much of this cash was used to create artificial support for progressive policies in the form of Astroturf. “We’re in debt almost $40 trillion, and anytime anyone tries to cut anything in Washington, the whole city screams bloody murder. The question is, why? Well, now we know. The money is all going to them.” READ MORE
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country in various news outlets, including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Trump.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
Image: AP
Image: Fortune
Image: X
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.