GrumpyGuy

@MrsDrPublius Don’t you think it’s better that King Charles III not post an Easter message?

It’s been confirmed by Buckingham Palace - King Charles III, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England - has declined to post "A Easter Message" to the Church of England this year.  With 100 million Anglicans worldwide in communion with the Anglican Church, I will not be surprised if some of them breakaway from the association with the Church of England. I am dumbfounded. Easter is the holiest day in the Christian calendar. Has this imbecile lost his mind. I am so upset because if you are a politician and you lie who would be surprised?  King Charles III took an oath to be a Defender of Faith (although he changed the oath to make it “Faiths” plural).  He wished Muslims a Happy Ramadan a couple of months ago but remains silent when Christians around the world joyfully celebrate the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. I feel like overturning some tables in Buckingham Palace and chasing people into the streets. I have no words!!! If anyone doubted King Charles III was a traitor to the Faith - what other evidence do you need than not to recognize THE FOUNDING tenet of the Christian faith - the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why are you wasting your time going to church on Sunday Charlie, if you don’t believe in Resurrection? To our Anglican brothers and sisters out there, No person on this earth can separate you from the love of God in Christ Jesus (Romans 8: 38-39).  He is Risen! Glory to God. Happy Easter! Peace and be prepared.

@SenatorSlotkin Actually, I’m fine with it. Fire away, Sec. Hegseth. Reforming the military back to merit, standards, and lethality means some current general officers won’t be on board, but you already know that.

Sec. Hegseth fired over 20 top generals and admirals, including a top Army general who served 7 presidents this week. Purging generals to settle personal or political vendettas is what happens in China or Russia, not America. I broke down why this is dangerous back in November:

Two years ago, this illegal immigrant crossed the border pregnant and fully aware of what she was doing. Not fleeing war. Not escaping danger. She came for one reason: to give her baby birthright citizenship. Now her baby is automatically stamped “American citizen,” while millions who follow the rules, wait in line, and respect the system get shoved to the back of the line. They come here, give their children birthright citizenship and take advantage of our welfare programs. DEPORT THEM ALL NOW. This needs to end otherwise our country is doomed. @nickshirleyy

Birthright citizenship isn’t some sacred constitutional bedrock. It’s a fucking loophole carved into the 14th Amendment and weaponized into a slow-motion coup against American sovereignty...one that the Chinese Communist Party is already exploiting with industrial precision to seize control of our elections from within. The clause is crystal clear if you bother to read it without the globalist fog: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was never meant to hand passports to the spawn of tourists, visa-hoppers, or invaders. It was ratified in 1868 to secure citizenship for freed slaves whose parents had been domiciled here under American law for generations...people fully within our political allegiance, not foreign agents dropping anchor babies on U.S. soil and jetting back to Beijing. The framers weren’t idiots; they rejected jus soli absolutism precisely to avoid this pathology. Yet here we are, pretending temporary presence equals jurisdiction while the CCP laughs all the way to the ballot box. Enter the Chinese angle...the one polite society refuses to name because it shatters the “diversity is strength” delusion. This isn’t random migration. It’s calculated demographic infiltration, straight out of Beijing’s United Front playbook and the long-war doctrine of the 100-Year Marathon. For over a decade, CCP-linked birth tourism outfits...dozens of them, advertising luxury “confinement centers” in California and beyond...have funneled tens of thousands of pregnant Chinese nationals here annually. Conservative estimates from Senate hearings and investigative reporting put it at 50,000 Chinese births a year at peak, with some tallies reaching 80,000 pre-pandemic and claims of 750,000 to 1.5 million U.S.-citizen children now being raised in the PRC. These kids get the golden ticket at birth, then vanish back to the mainland for full-spectrum CCP indoctrination: mandatory Xi Jinping Thought, surveillance-state loyalty tests, family guanxi networks that bind them tighter than any oath to the Stars and Stripes. Psychology 101: allegiance isn’t erased by a hospital stamp. It’s forged in the womb of the regime that raised them...through social credit, party discipline, and the ancient art of leveraging blood ties. When these “Americans” hit voting age, they won’t be voting for liberty. They’ll be vectors for Beijing’s hybrid warfare, tipping congressional seats, statehouses, and presidential margins in the very districts where foreign influence already festers. Geopolitically, this is lethal. China doesn’t need to hack voting machines when it can breed voters. These anchor citizens become the perfect cutouts: dual-passport leverage points for espionage, influence ops, and demographic swamping of key swing areas. They sponsor family chains later. They run for office. They normalize the CCP’s narrative in American politics while their parents and handlers back home pull the strings. It’s not paranoia; it’s the same playbook they’ve run on academia, tech, and Hollywood...only now it’s baked into the Constitution itself. Every nation on Earth except a handful rejects this absurdity because sovereignty demands it. We alone treat our citizenship like a participation trophy for anyone who can book a flight. This isn’t sustainable. It’s suicidal. It rewards the very adversaries who view our republic as a resource to be looted, not a civilization to defend. End birthright citizenship for non-domiciled foreigners...now...or watch the CCP’s womb warriors graduate into the electorate and rewrite our future in Mandarin-inflected ballots. America’s not a hotel. It’s a fortress. Time to slam the gates before the invasion by passport becomes irreversible. 💀🗡️⚖️

If you believe the wealthy control government, then government is the lever being captured. So why is the outrage aimed only at the wealthy, but not at the institution that sells power? If bribery were legal and a cop took money to harm someone, no one would call the cop innocent. The fault includes the authority willing to trade its power. Same structure here. And once that power exists, behavior follows. If your competitor is lobbying for advantages or to restrict you, your choices narrow: engage, absorb the loss, or exit. That’s not free competition. That’s competition over political access. So you get the contradiction: “The rich control government” → solution: give government more control That doesn’t break the cycle. It raises the value of influence and entrenches it.

@CynicalPublius @SenWarren ABC News: “May have tried to invest in defense stocks.…” That’s a pretty strong charge, eh? May have tried. What a joke.

@SenWarren Now tell us how much money you take from Big Banking while pretending to protect the "consumer." Well, Big Chief Lizzie?

Pete Hegseth sent U.S. troops to fight and die in Iran. Was he trying to cash in on the war behind closed doors? This would be a massive betrayal. I’m pressing for a full investigation NOW.

@mikeroweworks About half the people who have degrees aren’t even working in their degree field of study. Should we call into question their competence?

I want to apologize for not responding to any of the 22 thousand comments my last post inspired. I’ve been filming all week and just noticed my observations about Jimmy Kimmel and a former plumber named Markwayne Mullin have gone viral. I've also noticed that many of the comments are from people who genuinely seem to believe that Jimmy wasn’t belittling plumbers at all, but was instead, simply trying to point out that Mullin is not qualified to lead the DHS. Here's a small smattering... Roger Bicknell... Mikey stop. Kimmel wasn't making fun of plumbers he was making fun of Mullin. Rebecca Piatt Gonzalez... Dearest Mike, it's not anything to do with his being a plumber. It's him NOT being skilled in Homeland Security. Patrick Wise... Being a plumber qualifies you to be a plumber. Period. The issue Jimmy and the rest of us at the adult table recognize is that jobs require certain training and experience and being a plumber does not qualify you to be Sec of DHS. Had Roger, Rebecca, Patrick and all the others who rushed to Jimmy’s Kimmel’s defense actually read what I had written, they would see that I did not suggest - even remotely - that a plumber was inherently qualified to hold a cabinet position. What I said was that being a plumber should not disqualify a person from holding such a position. Big difference. Doctors, lawyers, veterinarians, fireman, and university professors are no more or less qualified to run the DHS than plumbers, electricians, or carpenters – but should they all be dismissed as “unqualified” simply because they made a living in some other vocation? As I wrote in my original post, credentials and diplomas are great ways to bolster a person’s credibility, especially if we’re talking about mastering a specific skill. I think we can all agree that plumbers, accountants, mechanics, and surgeons should all have to prove themselves competent before hanging out a shingle. But what do their credentials and diplomas have to do with their actual competency? Are we not already surrounded by a legion of perfectly qualified experts who don't know what the hell they're doing? Moreover, what do credentials and experience have to do with wisdom, honesty, common sense, integrity, courage, the ability to lead, or any other virtue we’d like to have in our elected officials? There are plenty of legitimate reasons to question Mullin’s suitability for this role. But there’s no legitimate reason to disqualify him simply because he used to be a plumber. Just as there was no legitimate reason to dismiss AOC because she used to tend bar. As for the joke itself, here’s an honest question. If Senator Mullin was a retired doctor instead of a retired plumber, do you believe he would have would made the same joke? Roger, Rebecca, Patrick...be honest. Do you really think Jimmy would have said to his audience, "So, now we have a DOCTOR in charge of protecting us from terrorism? Hey – it worked for Dr. Suess – maybe it’ll work for Markwayne!" Personally, I don't. Not in a million years. Why? Because no one would have found it funny, that’s why. Even though doctors are no more “qualified” to protect us from terrorists than plumbers are, Jimmy knows that doctors are widely respected in society, and that plumbers are not. He knows that medical degrees and doctorates are aspirational credentials, whereas plumbing certificates are not. The entire premise of his joke was based on a personal bias that he knew his audience shared – a bias that presupposes plumbers are uneducated, one-dimensional workers who never made it to college, and are therefore "unqualified" to do anything but plumb. Jimmy is entitled to his opinion, along with anyone else who believes that Mullin is unqualified to lead the DHS. The Constitution, however, says otherwise, and so does the Senate. Likewise, reasonable people can disagree as to what is funny and what isn’t. Frankly, I couldn’t care less. What I do care about, is the extraordinary shortage of plumbers and electricians our country is facing, and the longstanding stigmas and stereotypes that continue to discourage people from considering a lucrative career in the skilled trades. Jimmy’s joke – and his audience’s reaction to it – is proof positive that those stigmas and stereotypes are alive and well. PS. We have a lot of money set aside to help train the next generation of plumbers. Apply for a scholarship at mikeroweworks.org Who knows? Could be the first step on your road to President..

@CynicalPublius The left is promising to go after anyone who helps Trump, and we know they’ll do it. Our own leaders in Congress are largely no help. It’s pretty bleak but what can we do? We can—must—keep voting, but it’s disheartening. The swamp is waiting Trump out.

RE: The True Evil of the Deep State Recent experience has taught me and many others that if someone wants to fight the status quo in American politics and government as a genuine conservative reformer, that person MUST be willing to expect relentless invasions of privacy, massive public slander and libel, threats of violence, the exposure of innocent friends and family to real threats and so many other disruptions: social, financial and emotional. This is no secret. This is why so many very capable men and women refuse to serve in government or politics. The Good Guys and Gals are good because they care about those in their circle and do not want them to see harm from things they had nothing to do with. But the Bad Guys and Gals—the ones who inhabit the Deep State, the ones for whom the endless cycle of government—NGO—law firm—ThinkTank—media—more government, rinse, wash repeat—is a full time career—they never really need to worry about any of this because the engines of harassment are inside that same Deep State they so eagerly join. In fact, for them those engines of harassment become engines of protection, as the Baddies are ensconced in the safety of the institutional entropy that surrounds them like a baby in the womb. This is why we keep losing to the Deep State—we can never muster enough of the right people because the right people put their friends and family first. So what does it take for a Good Guy or Gal to step up to the plate as a true conservative reformer and enter the arena of government or politics? Right now I see only three categories of people who can do this: 1. The truly brave with truly brave families and friends. 2. Those who can’t be touched because they are so far beyond the rest of us in terms of resources: Donald Trump, Elon, e.g. 3. Others who have little to lose. They don’t have families, or they are already poor, or they are old enough and well established enough, with grown kids and some level of financial independence, that the risk is lower for them (i.e.—retired people). This is a REALLY REALLY BAD phenomenon. Our system encourages the worst Americans to govern the rest of us and the best Americans to stay home to protect their friends and families. How do we get smart, capable, well-meaning, good-intentioned, YOUNG, conservative men and women to step up in the primes of their lives when they know there is an excellent chance everything they are striving to build will be wrecked before they can build it? How? (Remember, Charlie’s assassination was about sending a warning to the rest of us.) I don’t know the answer.

@marklevinshow So you’re thinking the justices are almost certainly going to say the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to children born to people here illegally? Is that where you think they are headed?

THE SUPREME COURT'S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP HEARING I've been working on a few exciting projects (for the future), but here's my quick take: This is actually a very simple case but made messy for the justices.  90% of the time the justices spent asking questions/making statements that had absolutely no relevance to the 14th amendment but were result-oriented attempts at justifying birthright citizenship.  There were comments about administration, policy, English common law, etc.  But anyone who can read and comprehend the civil rights act in 1866 that preceded the amendment, the debates surrounding the act, and the subsequent draft and debate around the 14th amendment would know full well that the amendment never -- in any way -- contemplated granting birthright citizenship to foreigners, let alone illegal aliens.  It would have been unimaginable.  In fact, it was not intended to be an immigration amendment.  It was passed by Congress and ratified by the states to enshrine in the Constitution and across all states the treatment of newly freed slaves and their children as citizens after the Civil War, and because certain states refused to acknowledge their citizenship.  Indeed, President Andrew Johnson had vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, his veto was overridden, but that was the impetus for the constitutional amendment.   The language -- "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" -- had a specific meaning and intent.  As explained years ago by me and others, this refers to the political allegiance to the United States and is derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which extended citizenship to the freed slaves and their children. Again, to underscore, it had nothing to do with immigration at all.  Therefore, foreigners who come into the United States illegally cannot confer upon themselves "jurisdiction" for the purposes of granting citizenship to their babies because they were born in our country.

I agree that Congress should have acted, but Congress is an impotent mess. That doesn’t justify President Trump’s executive order, but at least we should finally get definitive citizenship requirements from the Supreme Court. It’s clearly not just born on US soil. Subject to the jurisdiction requires interpretation.

My warm take on birthright citizenship: Wholly defensible to be against it as policy and wholly reasonable to want to reform it in some way. Also intellectually defensible to say that the 14th amendment is being misinterpreted. Doesn't mean I agree, but I don't think it's crazy either. But even if you win that argument, you still need to deal with century+ of precedent and statutory language that codifies it and has created massive reliance interests. I consider it an open question whether Congress can repeal or modify birthright citizenship. I think it is absolutely nuts and dangerous to think a president can repeal it through executive order, and defending the E.O. because you agree with the underlying policy is itself indefensible. That's it. That's my take.

@briannalyman2 Europe is a freeloader that wants us to defend it but is unwilling to do the bare minimum to support us in return. They pulled us into the Ukraine mess—even though it's not even a NATO country. NATO has become a feckless, entangling alliance these days. End it.

Lyman: "[The left had] no problem running a proxy war against Russia which does have nuclear weapons. We were giving Ukraine intelligence, we were actively sending them money. We had Gov. Shapiro signing missiles to send to Ukraine to fire into Russia. So when you put those things into perspective, it‘s hard to take seriously half of the country‘s [concerns] with the president [and the war with Iran] when they were rallying [for] war with an actual nuclear power." Blow: "Are you saying that we should not have been supporting Ukraine?" Lyman: "I do not think that was our war." Mockler: "So you guys are going to complain in one breath we shouldn‘t support Ukraine at all. And then you‘ll be like, 'Wait a minute those same allies refuse to come help us over in Europe when we're in trouble.'" Lyman: "We helped Ukraine at the end of the day and our allies STILL didn‘t come and help us now. So what‘s your point?" Mockler: "My point is uh, my point is --" Phillip: "You‘re talking about NATO didn‘t help us? Lyman: "When we asked for some assistance, whether it‘s sharing intelligence, whether it‘s using some naval bases, our allies say, 'Oh, we don‘t want to get involved.'...They are freeloaders."

Subject to the jurisdiction is open to interpretation. I know the left wants to focus on the born in the USA part, but that’s simply not how it works. Indians had to be granted citizenship. Apparently the children of enemy combatants on US soil aren’t citizens either, but nowhere does the 14th say that. It had to be interpreted. Some justices are originalists. Others are more fluid in their reasoning. Regardless, it’s simply not settled law or there would be no need for the Supreme Court to hear it.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." When it comes to abandoning the plain speech of the Constitution and trying to turn it into a "living document," we've reached the point where, yes, both sides do it. And we should reject both sides when they try to do it.

All persons born on US soil are citizens except for Indians, the children of foreign diplomats, and the children of foreign invaders in a declared war. See how easy that is? Except the 14th doesn’t say that. It left “subject to the jurisdiction” open to interpretation.

@endPACsNOW @AnnCoulter We also proved that developing nuclear weapons while threatening others can result in your destruction. All you’re doing is posting opinion, not fact. Nuclear weapons are not easy or inexpensive to develop. Many nations maintain their sovereignty just fine without nukes.

@GrumpyGuy149642 @AnnCoulter Because sovereignty is the entire purpose of being a nation and we just demonstrated sovereignty is not guaranteed unless you have nuclear weapons.

Isn't this obvious to everyone??? <<[Iran] was not even close to posing an imminent nuclear threat to its neighbors or the United States. Alas, in pummeling Iran inconclusively, Trump has likely heightened the nuclear threat that it will pose in future as the country’s leaders conclude that it must follow North Korea’s path.>> -- fantastic article in the Spectator by Jacob Heilbum.

I long ago concluded logic and reason means nothing in our courts. Of course the 14th Amendment writers never imagined their citizenship provision would be a national suicide pact. Clearly they wanted to protect freed slaves and not make citizens of everyone creeping across the border to have a child. But again, it matters not. I believe the justices had already made up their minds before the case was heard. Impartial arbiters of the law? Hardly! It’s all theater.

One of the strongest arguments against birthright citizenship: Sen. Howard said during opening remarks of the citizenship clause debate: “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States...This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” As Edward Erler anticipated, the left has argued that Howard meant to only include “families of ambassadors or foreign ministers” when he used the wording “who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” But “if so,” Erler argues, “this would be an extraordinarily loose way of speaking: ambassadors and foreign ministers are foreigners and aliens and their designation as such would be superfluous.” Erler argues the commas following “foreigners” and “aliens” “suggest a discrete listing of separate classes of persons excluded from jurisdiction.”

@JamesOKeefeIII This was blatant lawfare. In a sane world, he would be regarded with great honor for exposing the sickening aborted baby parts trade.

It took 11 years defending himself over one story. This is what they do to people who hold them accountable. Nobody is held accountable because the people who have the power to do so are afraid of the retaliation. But David is different. His love of truth was greater than his regard for himself.

@endPACsNOW @AnnCoulter Pat: “Every small or medium country which might have felt they didn’t want nuclear weapons now feels the opposite and is working to ensure the US can’t force their compliance.” You know this how?

Their opposition means less than nothing at this point. The US held the power to prevent it largely without force by decoupling them from the global monetary system. Now we’ve weaponized that such that countries have built ways around it understanding that it may be used against them. Every small or medium country which might have felt they didn’t want nuclear weapons now feels the opposite and is working to ensure the US can’t force their compliance.

@endPACsNOW @AnnCoulter Of course that’s true, but so what? Many nations are opposed to further nuclear proliferation, not just the USA.

@AnnCoulter It should be the most obvious thing in the world. We just sent the world the message that, if you can’t defend yourself with nuclear weapons we will wage war against you.

@AnnCoulter Iran was not an imminent “nuclear” threat to the USA. That’s not the point. They were building conventional defenses that could threaten the entire region and defend Iran’s nuclear program—either by threats or direct drone and missile attacks.

@EddiesMind @the_jefferymead @HouseDemocrats It is.

@GrumpyGuy149642 @the_jefferymead @HouseDemocrats It’s effing exhausting with these people.

Donald Trump wants to strip U.S. citizenship from children born in this country. But the 14th Amendment protects against that. The president cannot rewrite the Constitution. The Supreme Court must defend the 14th Amendment.