The lawman returns as Tom Homan takes the border by storm



There’s something quintessentially American about a lawman.

He is the ever-present hero in our mythology, a figure buried deep in our national psyche — like the Pledge of Allegiance or apple pie.

Western civilization values the rule of law as sacrosanct and promises order over chaos. This is what the lawman protects.

He volunteers to wear the badge. That shining metal beacon pinned over his heart symbolizes a sworn oath. It is the mark of the covenant he made with the American people to protect them at all costs.

Tom Homan is a lawman. And that’s exactly why we need him.

John Wayne redux

Reminiscent of a John Wayne character hell-bent on justice, Homan sees the world in black and white, right and wrong, legal and illegal.

I cheered when Donald Trump named Homan the next border czar. Formerly the acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Trump’s first administration, Homan was a police officer and a Border Patrol agent. He’s worked under six presidents over a 30-year career and was the executive associate director of Enforcement and Removal Operations for ICE under President Obama, where he oversaw a record number of deportations.

Homan gets emotional about hunting down criminals. This is because he’s the one who finds the bodies of women and children who died at the hands of illegal immigrants. Just recently, he had to hear graphic details from a 9-year-old who was raped by one.

He’s passionate because he cares about American lives.

Homan states that if we don’t have a historic level of mass deportation, “we’re sending out messages to the entire world: You can cross the border legally, which is a crime …”

In a recent interview with Charlie Kirk, Homan reminded us that every illegal alien is a criminal, illegal aliens aren’t vetted to enter the United States, and over 86% are not qualified as asylum-seekers. When Kirk asked Homan if he had seen the clip of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow telling her viewers how to “think strategically” about fighting against things like deportation by promoting mass amnesty for illegal aliens with criminal records, preventing law enforcement from entering jails to deport convicted illegal aliens, and a host of other insane suggestions, Homan’s response was “No. But you’re pissing me off.”

The ‘kids in cages’ canard

The main criticism Homan faces revolves around his responsibility for the first Trump administration’s notorious “zero tolerance” policy. At least 5,500 illegal immigrant children were separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2018, with 1,401 children still without confirmed reunification.

But a lawman always has a reason.

Homan, in fact, was saving those “kids in cages” by keeping them safe. While there may be 1,401 children without ”confirmed reunification,” there are at least 320,000 migrant children who have gone missing under the Biden-Harris administration as a result of not following Homan’s example. The real number is likely higher.

According to a recently released Homeland Security Inspector General’s report, many of those children were released to “qualified sponsors” who, as it turns out, weren’t always qualified. Some of these sponsors have been listed at strip club addresses. Other children were given to convicted criminals with known MS-13 gang ties. Biden’s Department of Homeland Security even released a final management alert stating, “ICE cannot monitor all unaccompanied migrant children released from DHS and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' custody.”

You don’t say. Maybe it would have been better if you had kept them, you know, in a secured building of some kind.

“Kids in cages” was a nice catchphrase for Democrats, but in the end, that’s all it was. The leftists were so obsessed with “optics” and not putting kids in safe holding facilities that they released them to potential sex traffickers, criminals, child labor exploiters, and pedophiles. They didn’t care about the migrant children any more than they cared about the Americans who have been killed.

Fighting for civilization

So criticize him all you want, but like a strict parent, Tom Homan knew where the migrant kids ICE encountered under his care were. The Biden-Harris administration cannot say the same.

But what of those who intend to fight Homan's execution of justice?

Denver Mayor Mike Johnston and other state and city officials have said they will not comply with Homan’s deportation efforts. Johnston said he is even willing to go to jail for it. Homan replied in kind. “Look, me and the Denver mayor, we agree on one thing,” Homan said. “He's willing to go to jail. I'm willing to put him in jail.”

The law doesn’t bend. Homan is here to remind them of that fact.

Being a lawman can come across as being harsh. But there’s a reason why Lady Justice holds a sword in her right hand. It symbolizes the power and authority to punish injustice.

That’s the part we often forget.

What good are laws or policies if they go unenforced or, worse, blatantly and unapologetically violated without just recourse? What value does being a good citizen hold if the bad ones go unpunished for their crimes? Why care about doing what is right when injustice has no consequence?

Western civilization has always been set apart because it’s, well, civilized. It values the just rule of law as sacrosanct and promises order over chaos. This is what the lawman protects.

The appointment of Homan as border czar is meaningful because it represents a return to safety and peace of mind. It is the first step in Making America Safe Again.

Elon Musk recently dubbed Homan our Judge Dredd, but when Homan speaks, I hear John Wayne’s voice as the straight-shooting U.S. Marshal J.D. Cahill when he offers a very simple solution to outlaws he’d caught who were complaining that their handcuffs were too tight: "You call the tune and you pay the piper. … You don't like the treatment? Don’t rob the banks.”

The Joy Is Back in Town: Trump Greeted as Liberator in Triumphant Return to White House

America's long national nightmare is almost over. President Joe Biden will leave office (and politics) forever at noon on Monday when Donald Trump is sworn in for a second term. The vibes are different this time. Trump is more popular than ever. The incumbent geezer is despised. What's left of the #Resistance is exhausted and exhausting. Fair-weather fans have fled in droves. The pussy marchers and the boycotters are decimated; corporations and celebrities no longer cowed into submission. One gets the sense that some of Trump's former opponents might be feeling a little embarrassed by their behavior over the past eight years, as they should be. There's hope for change again.

The post The Joy Is Back in Town: Trump Greeted as Liberator in Triumphant Return to White House appeared first on .

Humor Column: These Giggle-Worthy WaPo Slogan Rejects Will Make Your Knees Sore from All That Slapping!

Jennifer Rubin's new #Resistance website, the Contrarian, is determined to establish itself as a cultural force. "We'll have a humor column!" Rubin's co-founder, Norm Eisen, explained with considerable enthusiasm earlier this week. "We'll even have a cooking column, but we're going to sprinkle in a little bit of pro-democracy flavor."

The post Humor Column: These Giggle-Worthy WaPo Slogan Rejects Will Make Your Knees Sore from All That Slapping! appeared first on .

American Tragedy: Obama Terror Lawyer Clashed With Aspen Bureaucrats Over $20 Million Home Expansion

Neal Katyal is a multifaceted man. He's a Georgetown Law professor who served as acting solicitor general of the United States under former president Barack Obama. He's a hotshot attorney and partner at Hogan Lovells who represents a range of clients, including al Qaeda terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay. He once defended Big Chocolate conglomerates accused of abetting child slavery and torture by citing the fact that the manufacturer of the Zyklon B poison gas used in Nazi concentration camps was never indicted at the Nuremberg trials. He's a graduate of Dartmouth College and Yale Law School. He's also a #Resistance icon who was named a GQ Man of the Year in 2017 for his vocal opposition to Donald Trump. He's a frequent contributor to MSNBC and the New York Times, obviously, but he's also a humble homeowner who is just trying to do what's best his family.

The post American Tragedy: Obama Terror Lawyer Clashed With Aspen Bureaucrats Over $20 Million Home Expansion appeared first on .

Deep state 2.0: How progressives plan to undermine Trump … again



In 2016, Donald Trump shocked the world by defeating Hillary Clinton. Conservatives cheered, believing we’d taken back the reins of our country. But we missed the bigger battle. We failed to recognize the extent of the damage caused by eight years of Barack Obama and decades of progressive entrenchment. The real war isn’t won at the ballot box. It’s being waged against an insidious force embedded deep within our institutions: the administrative state, or the “deep state.”

This isn’t a new problem. America’s founders foresaw it, though they didn’t have a term for “deep state” back in the 1700s. James Madison, in Federalist 48, warned us that combining legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same hands is “the very definition of tyranny.” Yet today, that’s exactly where we stand. Unelected bureaucrats in agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Justice hold more power than the officials we vote for. They control the levers of government with impunity, dictating policies and stifling change.

This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege.

We’ve felt the consequences of this growing tyranny firsthand. During COVID-19, so-called experts ran our lives, crushing civil liberties under the guise of public safety. Our intelligence agencies and justice system turned into weapons of political warfare, targeting a sitting president and his supporters. Meanwhile, actual criminals were given a pass, turning American cities into lawless war zones.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816 that “the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents.” Today, we see Jefferson’s prophecy fulfilled. The deep state exercises unchecked power over our freedoms, and information itself is controlled by the fourth branch of government: the legacy media.

Even when we win elections, the deep state doesn’t concede defeat. It switches to survival mode. Trump’s first term proved this. Despite a historic mandate to dismantle the bureaucracy, the deep state fought back with everything it had: leaks, investigations, court rulings, and obstruction at every turn. And now, with the possibility of Trump returning to office, the deep state is preparing to do it again.

Progressives are laying out their attack plan — and they’re not even hiding it.

U.S. Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.) recently boasted about forming a “shadow cabinet” to govern alongside the deep state, regardless of who’s in the White House. Nickel called it “democracy’s insurance policy.” Let’s be clear: This isn’t insurance. It’s sabotage.

They’ll employ a “top down, bottom up, inside out” strategy to overwhelm and collapse any effort to reform the system. From the top, federal judges and shadow officials will block Trump’s every move. Governors in blue states like California and New York are gearing up to resist federal authority. During Trump’s first term, California filed over 100 lawsuits against his administration. Expect more of the same starting January 20.

From the bottom, progressive groups like the American Civil Liberties Union will flood the streets with protesters, much as they did to oppose Trump’s first-term immigration reforms. They’ve refined their tactics since 2016 and are prepared to unleash a wave of civil unrest. These aren’t spontaneous movements; they’re coordinated assaults designed to destabilize the administration.

Finally, from the inside, the deep state will continue its mission of self-preservation. Agencies will drag their feet, leak sensitive information, and undermine policies from within. Their goal is to make everything a chaotic mess, so the heart of their power — the bureaucratic core — remains untouched and grows stronger.

We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move. Progressives never see themselves as losing. When they’re out of power, they simply shift tactics, pumping more blood into their bureaucratic heart. We may win elections, but the war against the deep state will only intensify. As George Washington warned in his Farewell Address, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force; and force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege. The deep state has shown us its plan: to govern from the shadows, circumventing the will of the people. But now that the shadows have been exposed, we have a choice. Will we accept this silent tyranny, or will we demand accountability and reclaim our nation’s heart?

The battle is just beginning. We can’t afford to lose.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Trump’s border strategy exposes myths about posse comitatus



Our military was not built for urban renewal projects in Kabul or to referee Sunni versus Shia conflicts in Baghdad. Its primary purpose is to protect our country from foreign invaders. If the military cannot be deployed to address the millions of people strategically funneled into the country by ruthless drug cartels — cartels that are killing hundreds of thousands of Americans with fentanyl — then what purpose does it serve? The fact that these individuals do not remain near the border does not transform mass removals into a domestic law enforcement issue; it remains a matter of national defense.

Many in the media shout, “Posse comitatus!” as if invoking it magically prohibits the military from addressing the invasion, attempting to sound legally astute. Some Republicans, such as libertarian-leaning Rand Paul of Kentucky, express concern over the “optics” of using the military for mass deportations. While cutting off employment and benefit incentives would likely eliminate the need for mass deportations by encouraging many to leave on their own, we cannot legally preclude the military’s use based on a flawed interpretation of the law.

Prudence or 'optics' should not mislead us into spreading misinformation about the legal authority we must preserve.

Ulysses S. Grant signed the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act to prevent the military from enforcing domestic Reconstruction-era laws against American citizens in the South without explicit authorization from Congress. But repelling an invasion at the border — or within the nation’s interior — is precisely the kind of mission our founders envisioned for the military. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution obliges the federal government to protect states against invasion. We owe this to border states like Arizona and Texas, as well as every state impacted by illegal migration.

Article IV, Section 4 should serve as the constitutional exception to the Posse Comitatus Act prohibition on military enforcement. The Constitution itself expressly authorizes federal action to secure the nation from invasion, making this a legitimate use of the military in the face of an ongoing crisis.

Even without the constitutional provision, the law itself only prohibits the military from enforcing domestic laws targeting Americans, such as tax laws or traffic regulations, under the direction of local marshals. This prohibition stems from the term “posse comitatus,” which means “the power of the county.” The 1878 law prevents the military from acting as reinforcements to enforce local laws under the authority of a county sheriff.

The act responded to Attorney General Caleb Cushing’s 1854 opinion during the “Bleeding Kansas” conflict, which held that “every person in the district or county above the age of fifteen years,” including “militia, soldiers, marines,” was part of the posse comitatus and subject to the sheriff or marshal’s commands. As the Congressional Research Service notes, Congress was alarmed by this precedent even before 1878 and attempted to restrict it through an Army appropriations bill, prohibiting the use of the military to enforce territorial law in Kansas.

Under Trump’s proposed plan, however, the military would focus solely on those who invaded the country and enforce national sovereignty laws. Just as states can declare an invasion, the federal government has the authority to treat the 10-million-man border incursion as an invasion. When gangs like Tren de Aragua operate across half the states, their numbers exceed the size of any force America’s founders envisioned threatening the nation during the Constitution’s adoption.

Using the military in this context is entirely legitimate. Labeling it “immigration law” does not transform it into a domestic territorial matter outside the scope of national defense.

During “Operation Wetback,” President Eisenhower deported up to 1.3 million illegal aliens using the U.S. military, including National Guardsmen operating under Title 10 federal orders. The operation was completed within a few months, and no court challenges were filed on the grounds of violating the Posse Comitatus Act. At the time, cartels and transnational gangs posed a far lesser national defense threat than they do today.

The absence of legal challenges stemmed from the fact that deportation is not equivalent to a law enforcement action depriving someone of life, liberty, or property — protections covered under the 1878 act. As the Supreme Court ruled in Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893):

The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is not a "banishment," in the sense in which that word is often applied to the expulsion of a citizen from his country by way of punishment. It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions upon the performance of which the government of the nation, acting within its constitutional authority and through the proper departments, has determined that his continuing to reside here shall depend. He has not, therefore, been deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process or law, and the provisions of the Constitution securing the right of trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments have no application.

In short, actions not governed by the laws of due process are not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act’s limitations on military use. If the goal were to prosecute and imprison illegal aliens indefinitely, that would constitute a domestic law enforcement action. However, removing individuals who invaded national sovereignty by escorting them across the international border falls squarely within the military’s legal authority.

A large military force going house to house to deport illegal aliens likely won’t be necessary. Cutting off incentives such as employment, identity theft opportunities, welfare benefits, and K-12 education would prompt most to leave voluntarily. State enforcement of laws, combined with state guard units operating under Title 32 (and not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act), in red states would ensure that any encounter with the state leads to removal. This approach would deter illegal immigration, limiting active deportation efforts to targeting criminal aliens. In fact, some illegal immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are already leaving in anticipation of Trump taking office.

Prudence or “optics” should not mislead us into spreading misinformation about the legal authority we must preserve. This is about protecting territorial sovereignty — the very purpose for which America’s founders envisioned a standing army — far more than defending the fragmented territories of warring Islamic capitals.

To Restore Democracy Trump Will Have To Overcome Administrative State Tyranny

The second Trump administration was elected as the antidote to the administrative state — to make radical changes in personnel and policy.

Tired of Losing: Why Comcast May Cut Ties With MSNBC

Donald Trump's first term as president was the best thing that ever happened to MSNBC. The Democratic-aligned cable news channel enjoyed record ratings between 2017 and 2020 as anxious #Resistance liberals tuned in for group therapy sessions hosted by Joy Reid, Nicolle Wallace, Rachel Maddow, and other anti-Trump commentators whose increasingly unhinged rhetoric mirrored the deteriorating mental health of their viewers. But after four years of sagging ratings under President Joe Biden, amid a media landscape that has changed dramatically since 2016, there is reason to doubt that MSNBC and its roster of relentlessly partisan grievance-mongers can repeat that success in Trump's second term. A more pressing question: Can the network even survive in its current form?

The post Tired of Losing: Why Comcast May Cut Ties With MSNBC appeared first on .

After $1 Billion Failed To Stop Trump, Lib Donors Balk At Funding ‘Resistance’

'We can’t wait for the money to come in'

Fight the power: The time to rebel against the global tyrannical total censorship regime is NOW



The authoritarian regimes of the past century have all followed a generally predictable pattern of events. Almost every totalitarian government has been inspired by the ideologies of the political left: an increasingly bigger government, socialist control of resources, the melding of bureaucracy and corporate entities, demands for "social justice," collectivist propaganda, the abandonment of individual merit for the sake of the state and the "greater good," Marxism — not just economic but also cultural — and finally, the adoption of futurism.

In my view, futurism is the key to all modern authoritarianism. It's a philosophy that has been present at the birth of nearly every major despotic government in recent memory and is the root of leftist ideology today. Futurists argue that history is, for the most part, dead weight. They believe that every notion of heritage, past lessons, and our forefathers' ideals and principles is irrelevant.

Futurists think nothing is sacred and that all new ideas are superior to all old ideas. Therefore, they claim that any society that clings to (or conserves) the old ways needs to be dismantled because it is holding humanity back from progress. In other words, anyone promoting or defending traditional norms must be silenced in the name of "progress."

I suspect most people reading this at least intuitively understand the monstrous nature of this belief system. Futurism's very structure is based on a lie — the idea that all change is good and that any oppression committed in the name of change is justified.

The process of tyranny

In this process of tyranny, there are usually stages of escalation. The first stage is the exploitation of existing social divisions to create an enemy that the rest of the population can be convinced to rally against. This is not to say these divisions aren't legitimate; they often are. In our era of "multiculturalism," globalists have been inviting many groups of people into the West that are simply incompatible with Western values and morals. They will not assimilate, and they will only cause conflict, which is the very reason why political puppets continue to keep our borders open.

These divisions can be exploited to create conflict and chaos, which governments then use as an excuse to crack down on their political enemies. In the U.S. and EU, it's conservatives, the very people who are trying to defend the historical ideals of our respective nations, who are being labeled public enemy #1. We are the ever-present bogeyman of the 21st century.

It's not only because we defend the heritage and principles that helped to create the greatest civilization in the history of the world (Western civilization). It's also because because we keep talking about uncomfortable truths.

The futurists rely on disinformation to spread their utopian philosophy, and they can only continue to survive by silencing all other contrary ideas. All futurist regimes eventually turn to mass censorship to function. They cannot stand in the light of truth, so they must keep the people in perpetual darkness.

Slow at first, then all at once …

Many readers will argue that we've been in this stage for decades now. I would argue that we haven't seen anything yet. We've only been living under covert censorship. The pandemic lockdown effort was the moment of the shift when Democrats and Big Tech companies began to openly demand that counter-information be suppressed, though most of that censorship was still under the table.

Meta CEO and Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg recently admitted that the Biden administration pressured Facebook behind the scenes to censor COVID-19 information that was contrary to the government narrative. This is highly unconstitutional and criminal. Biden and Harris should be up on impeachment charges, and in my view, anyone involved should face prison time. Will that happen? Probably not.

This brand of censorship is insidious, but rigging algorithms to hide search results and booting people off of social media are not exactly the same as creating laws to intimidate or punish those who speak out. That's the stage we're entering right now; the open mass censorship era has arrived.

In Brazil, leftist authoritarians have shut down Elon Musk's X (formerly Twitter) because Musk has refused to institute their censorship model on his social media site. To Musk's credit, he has been willing to lose Brazil's business and stand by his principles.

The developments in the U.K. are another blatant example, with the government now trying to hunt down and imprison people for the most minor of actions. A British teen was recently put in prison for two years for merely flying a British flag near a mosque. Anyone who stands against multiculturalism (and futurism) risks being arrested and thrown in a cage.

U.K. authorities have suggested that Elon Musk should be charged and that other Americans should be extradited for promoting conservative values on immigration or arguing in favor of British protests. We're just pointing out that there are only two ways this can go: Either the British people rebel and violently overthrow the globalist puppets in their own government, or they will become slaves living in fear within their own country.

It sounds truly insane, all of this drama over basic free speech rights, but this is the world we are now approaching, and leftists are happily supporting the transition.

Mass censorship is a path to inevitable rebellion

rootstocks/Getty Images

Musk has stated that he believes X will eventually be shut down in the U.S. should Kamala Harris gain the presidency in the November election, and I'm inclined to agree. Look at what the establishment did to social media newcomer Parler when the company started gaining traction; the elites simply shut down Parler's ability to function efficiently on the web and grow its user base. Under a Harris regime, they will feel encouraged to go even farther.

The rhetoric of the Democrats is quite clear. They are anti-free-speech, and they view certain ideas as a threat to their society.

For example, the far-left New York Times published an article this week that gave credence to mass censorship, including the Brazilian government's decision on X. The article highlighted the positives of giving Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes sweeping online censorship powers and described this move as an "effective solution to the vexing problem of right-wing threats to Democracy."

The Times article falls just short of institutionally endorsing the censorship of X and even asks if Brazil perhaps "went too far" (obviously, the answer is yes), but at the same time, it suggests that this trend is a "new normal" that Big Tech companies will have to navigate. And the article insinuates that if Musk wants to counter government censorship demands, he should do it through civil courts instead of defying such tyranny directly. In other words, it argues Musk doesn't have the right to stand against them.

A rebellion doesn't need to ask for permission to rebel

The New York Times also had much to say about the problem of freedom and the U.S. Constitution in an article titled "The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?" The Times again tries to tie the events of January 6 to the necessity of censorship, promoting the false narrative of an attempted "insurrection" in which no one was armed and no one was killed except one of the conservative protesters.

The Times asserts that the danger of the Constitution is that it gives the public the freedom to vote for a person like Trump, an act that the Times claims allows for the document's own destruction.

The true irony is that Trump's popularity would be nonexistent if it weren't for the political left's constant attempts to institute a socialist dystopia that erases the Bill of Rights. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and these people never take responsibility for their behavior. They spent three years ignoring the Constitution in the name of medical authoritarianism over a virus with a tiny median infection fatality rate of only 0.23%. Then they started gaslighting the public about how conservatives are a threat to democracy.

I argue this is not the new normal; it's a recipe for war in the U.S., Europe, or both. Globalists know full well that rebellion is coming, but I don't think most leftists truly appreciate how at risk they are if they continue down this path. It's not going to go well for them.

Rebellion is always on the minds of the elites. In a way, they want it, but they want it in small doses that are easy to manage. They want a "terrorist" enemy they can use to frighten the public into supporting martial law, but what happens if too many in the public join that rebellion?

What globalists and leftists are truly afraid of is a large-scale rebellion that they can't control — the kind of rebellion that could end with the elites on the chopping block. They will do anything to avoid widespread revolution, so they're willing to risk open mass censorship today. They know what is coming, and they're moving to mitigate the spread of anti-globalist views as much as possible before things get out of hand. I believe it's too late for them.

A version of this piece originally appeared in alt-market.us.