GrumpyGuy

@heidiponyrider @JonahDispatch NATO’s reason for existence ended when the Cold War ended.

@JonahDispatch We've always been nothing but a rent-a-cop to Europe. Trump just ripped off their masks. They are a lazy, incompetent paper tiger fools that view America as the hired help. They always have. They would never answer an Article 5 call from US. Under any president you like.

I agree with some of this directionally, but my God the refusal to acknowledge that Trump has worked assiduously to poison the alliance and heap all the blame on Europe is just water-carrying hackery. Saying "NATO will never be the same, and Western European weakness and acquiescence is the cause" is like writing a movie review when you missed the first half of the movie.

Have you ever served in the military or dealt with NATO? You seem to have an illusion about our European allies that's disconnected from reality. NATO is the USA, and the USA is NATO. There's no real European military left on par with U.S. forces. Must be nice having a big brother defend you when you’re unable to fight your own battles.

The lowest enlisted member understands you don’t have to like a superior’s orders to execute them to the best of your ability. Perhaps some general officers have misinterpreted the respect and honors shown to their rank, thinking they’re above the most basic rules of military service.

RE: DC Politics and Senior Military Officers After the Vietnam War, America felt collective guilt over how it had treated our servicemen and women, so as a result the “yellow ribbon,” “Thank you for your service” culture has flourished for decades, with the US military consistently ranking near the top of America’s most respected and trusted institutions in public polling. That is a good thing. However, that does not mean we do not still have some rotten apples in uniform, many of whom reach very high ranks as generals or admirals. It’s time that those very senior generals and admirals not be given automatic, reflexive deference with zero scrutiny by the public. It’s time the public hold them to the same standards we hold our elected officials. What have you done for me lately? Are you honest? Who comes first, your ego or the nation? And you know what? It’s kind of sad that we have come to this point, but the generals and admirals only have themselves to blame. You see, at the level of elected officials, senior political appointees and career senior executive service members, the DC infighting that occurs on a routine daily basis is like Game of Thrones without the dragons and the literal beheadings. DC politics are Machiavellian. They are bloodthirsty. It is a take no prisoners war for power, using all manner of underhanded and devious methods. Many decades ago, the generals and admirals knew these fights were not their domain. Mostly speaking, they were above all of that. But—thanks in large part to Goldwater/Nichols and our unholy addiction to the “interagency”—as we fostered generation after generation of officers with deep experience in The Swamp, those same officers came to believe that the Machiavellian rules of their civilian bosses were theirs to play by too. Slow-rolling initiatives you disagree with? Yup. Playing the Georgetown cocktail party game of scurrilous rumormongering? Check. Running around your chain of command to Congress to get what you want? Absolutely. Being the “anonymous source” in an anonymously-sourced Washington Post article that was nothing more than outright lies and libel? Roger that. The problem is this: WE HAVE GENERALS AND ADMIRALS WHO THINK THOSE GAME OF THRONES RULES APPLY TO THEM. Not only do they think they apply to them, they consider it to be standard operating procedure and a literal requirement of their DC duty position. Well I got some news for you, general. You too, admiral. You are UNIFORMED MEMBERS OF OUR MILITARY SERVICES, and your oath is to the Constitution, not your ego. We expect more from you than we do sleazeball civilian lawyers in positions of power. We expect your integrity to be impeccable, and by playing by DC Game of Thrones rules, you sacrifice that integrity entirely. (See: Courtney Massengale; use your search engine of choice if you do not know.) Pete Hegseth has been given a Herculean task to clean out the Augean Stables at the Pentagon. He has been doing it, slowly but surely, and he is eradicating that corrupt culture at the top of the military food chain bit by bit, piece by piece. So the next time you see Hegseth fire a general or an admiral, consider that one of two things might be true: 1. The general/admiral refused to be a “sycophant” (as the Democrat/Media Complex will claim) and got fired by a meanie SecWar as punishment. -or- 2. The general/admiral didn’t like a lawful order because it went against his/her personal politics, so he/she decided to go around the electoral will of the American people and satisfy his/her own ego to play Daenerys Targaryen DC games, got caught, and got righteously fired as a result. Consider the difference. Clean up your act generals. You too, admirals. You work for THE PEOPLE (you know, like at the top of the Constitution). Do it.

@KurtSchlichter @CynicalPublius The president is right, Kurt. We don’t need our NATO ‘allies’ anymore. The Cold War is over, and we blew a great opportunity for a reset with Russia—likely thanks to those stuck in the old paradigms. NATO is now little more than an entangling alliance we’d best disentangle from.

The Europeans are not dealing with “a man.” They are dealing with the United States of America. The United States needed the most innocuous kind of cooperation from them. They denied the United States that cooperation. The implied argument is that their obligations within our alliance depend on whether they like the guy we chose as our president. “Sure, we’re allies…if we approve of who you elected.” Nope. We are not going to forget, and we’re not going to forgive. I’m indifferent to their excuses or their rationalizations. The United States of America needed their help and not very much help. They turned us down. That changes everything. And they aren’t going to like how it changes everything.

@AAvenger1961 @IntrepidKeith @marklevinshow Many pundits believe the court will rule a certain way. I simply asked for Mark Levin’s opinion. The ALCU said there are exceptions to the 14th, like children of invading armies, but the amendment doesn’t mention that. It all hinges on “subject to the jurisdiction.”

@IntrepidKeith @GrumpyGuy149642 @marklevinshow I'm not. I don't cater to fucking commies is all.

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.

@DougBright1 @JonathanTurley To their credit, they have strict immigration controls. Keep Japan Japanese!

@GrumpyGuy149642 @JonathanTurley Doubt Japan agrees.

Given her reported support for court packing, Harris's demand that “we must be clear eyed about what is at stake" is an understatement. jonathanturley.org/2026/04/04/we-… The idea of a packed court with unrestrained, agenda-driven nominees leaves many in unblinking dread:

While it’s true that conservative justices are often excoriated on X for ruling against Trump, they serve for life. I doubt criticism on X bothers them. Also, the overwhelming majority of district judge rulings against Trump are overturned or modified on appeal. Why? They aren’t following the law and precedent. They’re political.

@GrumpyGuy149642 @JonathanTurley Turley is correct that conservative justices face huge backlash (on X) when they don’t vote Trump’s way, but that’s just irrational hysteria—“Barrett always votes liberal!”, etc. When a quick look confirms she (and the others) overwhelmingly vote on the Right

@DougBright1 @JonathanTurley That would make us Japanese citizens, right? Not a bad idea…

@JonathanTurley I’m sorry but if must endure more Ketanji Browns then we may as well go to Japan to become pickpockets.

@JesseO007 @JonathanTurley Yes. Judges acting as super-legislators has been going on longer than I’ve been alive. Wickard v. Filburn, anyone?

@JonathanTurley The democrats have been using the judicial system to create laws they couldn't get passed in congress.

Yes, but conservative justices occasionally vote for the administration’s positions, and that simply cannot be tolerated by the left. They want tyrants in black robes—judges as legislators. Mr. Turley, it’s largely theater at this point anyway. Both sides can predict rulings with high accuracy, and no amount of legal reasoning or brilliant arguments sways many minds. We no longer have a true rule of law in the United States. Those who claim otherwise are gaslighting us, and anyone paying attention knows it.

...Notably, these groups are pushing the "reform" of the Court (which Harris has denounced as "activist") despite the fact that the conservative justices have repeatedly voted against the Administration and continue to draw the ire of the President for their independence.

@RepDonBacon President Truman relieved Gen. MacArthur during the Korean War, and President Lincoln frequently relieved Union generals during the Civil War. These firings are perfectly legal, and Trump is the Commander in Chief, not you. What makes this one immoral and foolish? Be specific.

The Secretary of Defense has the legal right to fire these Flag Officers, but it is not morally right nor wise. Further, he owes an explanation to the tax paying citizens.

Replacing a service member in the middle of a war is reckless? The military is specifically designed to operate through casualties. In exercises, the sudden loss of commanders and disrupted communication with higher command are favorite scenarios. No one is irreplaceable. As for firing a general without public explanation, command of the military is an Article II power. Congress could hold an inquiry and call in the Secretary of War to testify, but it has no authority to overrule Hegseth’s decision.

@CynicalPublius @TheAtlantic @RadioFreeTom Clearly, The Atlantic has little concept of military service. No one is irreplaceable, and the military is specifically designed to survive and operate with casualties. The idea that replacing the Chief of Staff 'in the middle of a war' is especially egregious is simply nonsense.

@TheAtlantic @RadioFreeTom Any unelected federal official, whether civilian or military, who purposely obstructs the lawful agenda of the American people--as Constitutionally expressed via their electoral choices--is a traitor to the People they serve. Mere retirement with full pension is a blessing.

“Dumping the Army chief of staff in the middle of a war, without explanation, is a reckless move even by Hegseth’s standards,” @RadioFreeTom argues: theatln.tc/BLCvafwZ

He was thirty-two years old, a husband, a father of two little boys, and expecting a daughter in just a few months. In his final moments, knowing he would never meet her, Todd Beamer could have begged for mercy. Instead, he organized a resistance, prayed with a stranger, and spoke two words the world would never forget. It was September 11, 2001. United Airlines Flight 93 took off from Newark at 8:42 a.m., delayed and routine, heading for San Francisco. On board were 44 people: passengers, crew, and four hijackers. Among the passengers was Todd Beamer, traveling for work and planning to surprise his pregnant wife, Lisa, on her birthday. At 9:28 a.m., chaos erupted. Hijackers stormed the cockpit. The plane jolted violently. Screams echoed through the cabin. Within minutes, Flight 93 was turned around and redirected east, toward Washington, D.C. The pilots were gone. Control of the aircraft was no longer in the hands of those trained to fly it. Todd Beamer picked up the seat-back Airfone. He didn’t call his wife. He didn’t call a friend. He reached a customer service center and was connected to Lisa Jefferson, a GTE supervisor. What followed was a thirteen-minute call that would become part of history. Todd spoke with clarity and composure. He described the hijackers, the weapons, the layout of the cabin, the absence of the pilots. Lisa listened, documented everything, and stayed with him. As other passengers on Flight 93 made calls of their own, a devastating truth came into focus. The World Trade Center had been hit. The Pentagon had been struck. This was not an isolated hijacking. Their plane was part of a coordinated attack. Todd understood what that meant. Doing nothing would not save them. Compliance would not bring negotiations. The aircraft itself was intended to become a weapon. Whatever target lay ahead would suffer massive loss of life unless something changed. Todd asked Lisa to do something deeply personal. If he didn’t survive, would she call his family and tell them how much he loved them? He had every reason to be terrified. His wife was seven months pregnant. His sons were three years old and one year old. He would never meet his daughter. He would never see his children grow. But fear did not paralyze him. It focused him. Todd joined with other passengers, including Tom Burnett, Mark Bingham, and Jeremy Glick. They spoke quietly. They compared information. They weighed the risks. They understood the outcome either way. Remaining seated meant certain death and catastrophic consequences on the ground. Fighting back meant danger, injury, and likely death — but it also meant the chance to stop the attack. Over the phone, Lisa could hear the resolve forming. Todd returned to the call and asked one final thing. He asked Lisa to pray with him. At thirty thousand feet, facing the end of his life, he recited the Lord’s Prayer with a stranger. His voice did not shake. When the prayer ended, he paused, then turned back to the others. “Are you ready, guys?” “Okay.” “Let’s roll.” Lisa stayed on the line as movement erupted in the background. Shouting. Struggle. The sound of passengers rushing forward. At 10:03 a.m., United Flight 93 crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Everyone on board was killed. But the plane never reached Washington. Investigators later concluded Flight 93 was likely headed for the U.S. Capitol or the White House. Because of what happened inside that cabin, that attack never occurred. Countless lives were spared by people who knew they might not survive and chose to act anyway. The 9/11 Commission later described the actions of the passengers of Flight 93 as the first successful counterattack of that day. It was not led by soldiers or commanders. It was led by ordinary people who refused to be passive. Todd Beamer’s daughter, Morgan, was born four months later. She grew up knowing who her father was and what he chose.

This is where the world is heading: 2 Timothy 3:1-5: “But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power." Good news! Heaven won’t be like this.

Friday night confession: I converted to Christianity six years ago because I loved Jesus and all that wholesome stuff. But here in the Year of Our Lord 2026? To be honest... my motivation is the promise that in the Kingdom come, we'll never hear the phrase “our democracy” ever again. 🙏

@mattvanswol @AngletonOrchids Exactly right. 'Anchor babies' refers to children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents. Elon Musk is a naturalized citizen — his children are full U.S. citizens by birth, not anchor babies.

@AngletonOrchids The Left genuinely cannot tell the difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal one. An anchor baby refers to children born here to non-citizens. Elon has been a citizen since 2002 and all of his children were born as citizens. Hope this helps.

Motherfucker, YOU are foreign. YOUR 28 KIDS are “foreign anchor babies.” Just say “brown” you Nazi fuck!

Our soft-on-crime justice system is infuriating. January 6 defendants languished in jail for years awaiting trial—supposedly innocent until proven guilty—while violent criminals are released back onto the streets with little to no consequences.

@DataRepublican @RubyR68 @FrancisWegner I pray you’re right Data Republican.

Stop. Stop. Just tired of all your gaslighting. Your side has captured the judiciary worldwide. Just because God found it fit to save our country from falling into a Communist hellhole for the grace of a few SCOTUS judges, proves exactly this point. You have captured literally every other institution out there. I know, because I spent months researching that. In 2020, y'all gathered in Davos and signed onto Klaus Schwab's sweeping ESG reforms which binded corporations to the leftist agenda at the penalty of excluding them from government contracts worldwide or other non-ESG signatories. And private corporations are only the tip of the iceberg. You captured academia, virtually every professional association -- every single government except America, because only USA was uniquely structured on the basis of division of powers (as opposed to achieving uniparty consensus as in the case of EU-style parliamentary systems). Your era of capture and gaslighting is over. We know we have been in a Soviet-style epistemic bubble, and X is breaking that. Your empire is dying like every empire has died: you sacrificed competency in the pursuit of preserving your own narrative. We are ascendant. We have homeschooling, we have Bitcoin, we have 3D printing. We are no longer gaslighted by you, and with the blessing of God, we WILL replace you.

SCOTUS found Biden didn’t have authority as President to cut student loans without Congress. Yet they find Trump has the authority to cut whole government and eliminate entire agencies unilaterally. This is the most compromised, partisan and unethical Supreme Court in history.

@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: