Author: jh staff

Elon Musk and the Dog Days of DOGE

During the 2024 campaign cycle, then-GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump promised voters that when he took the oval office for the second time he would enlist the help of Elon Musk to assist him in ridding the federal government of waste, fraud, and abuse.

Musk is the entrepreneur extraordinaire that with his forward-thinking approaches to electric vehicles and rocket technology was able to transform the automobile and aerospace industries.

He is also the individual that was able to take the social media platform Twitter, christen it with the new name of “X,” and take it to the level of being one of the most influential platforms ever to exist. In so doing, he not only liberated the media landscape, he accomplished the seemingly impossible.

In 2021 he secured the Time magazine title of “Person of the Year.” About Musk, the then-Time editor-in-chief Edward Felsenthal wrote, “Person of the Year is a marker of influence, and few individuals have had more influence than Musk on life on Earth, and potentially life off Earth too.”

It’s difficult to imagine an equally qualified person that would be willing and able to take on the fiscally challenging responsibilities.

During the campaign, Trump had told the Economic Club of New York that he planned to create “a government efficiency commission tasked with conducting a complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government and making recommendations for drastic reforms.”

Following his historic victory, the president fulfilled his promise and set up a government efficiency commission, with Musk being given the assignment of running it. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was born.

It’s just what Trump voters had wanted. And judging from their reactions, it was exactly what the Democrats and the mainstream media feared.

The surprise is how good DOGE has been at exposing the corrupt use of taxpayers’ money.

In the decades-old tradition of leftists and fringe radicals, a mind massage of the public psyche is once again in the works. This time propaganda is being disseminated in the form of an endless repetition of a falsely-scripted phrase, which was likely created via focus groups.

Like the past not-so-catchy “existential threat to democracy” slogan that droned on and on in an effort to undermine President Trump’s reelection bid, Democrats and their media allies have an old new phrase with which to program people’s minds: the equally vapid “constitutional crisis.”

However, the real crisis that our country is facing is a fiscal one. A little clarification of the words “deficit” and “debt” is in order, two words that are routinely and unfortunately incorrectly used interchangeably.

In 2024 our nation had a deficit(spending beyond our means and having a shortfall in revenue so that we are unable to pay our bills) of almost $2 trillion.

The deficit amount simply gets added to the national debt(the money our country owes), which is currently more than $36 trillion.

The reality is that President Trump’s appointment of Musk to conduct a search-and-disclose expedition of a bloated bureaucratic executive branch is necessary, lawful, and constitutional.

President Trump named Musk in accordance with what Section 202 of Title 18 of the United States Code labels a “special government employee.”

Musk’s appointment is nothing new. Previous administrations have also had industry experts fill similar roles. Article II of the Constitution grants the president the power to appoint individuals to assist in carrying out the administration’s agenda.

As a result of his role as a defense contractor, Musk already holds high-level government security clearances. The rocket and satellite technology that he oversees has been used by the Department of Defense as well as many other departments of the U.S. government. And his Starlink satellite internet system has been invaluable in helping to assist domestic disaster relief efforts.

Democrats have been ignoring voters’ pleas for a more efficient and honest government. A recent survey conducted by McLaughlin & Associates indicated that 79% of the participants wanted Washington’s reckless borrowing and spending to be curtailed.

The DOGE quest for efficiency also includes serious efforts to reduce regulations. During President Trump’s first term, he had ordered that two old regulations would be eliminated for every new regulation created. His new approach in his second term is that for each new regulation, 10 regulations must be identified for elimination.

This appears to be the first time that an administration is actually scrutinizing the entire executive branch in earnest.

Why all the hysteria, anger, and crocodile tears from so many in the Democrat Party, federal offices, government agencies, liberal media, and activist organizations?

It’s only logical that the president, who is the chief executive of the executive branch, has the right and the duty to examine how agencies of the executive branch of government are spending federal dollars.

Certain parties are acting as if they want bureaucratic abuses to remain secret.

Guess it’s okay to sit back and enjoy the histrionics as long as we pray for DOGE’s success and our beloved country’s future.

The Rising Power of the Podcast

An interesting thing is happening in the new “Golden Age of America.” The mainstream media are quietly fading away.

Although former media giants have been losing their credibility, influence, and audiences for a quite a stretch of time, things really seem to have accelerated over the past couple of weeks.

Most recently, a string of mainstream anti-Trump media figures have given up their positions, including Jim Acosta who exited CNN, Chuck Todd who fled NBC News, Norah O’Donnell who left CBS News, Andrea Mitchell who vacated her MSNBC anchor chair, and Neil Cavuto who waved good-by to Fox News.

Thanks in large part to a whole lot of fake reporting, many left-leaning outlets had simply lost the public trust. That’s when the media vehicles of podcasting and streaming stepped up to provide a much-needed alternative to ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.

And what happened is quite remarkable. New media figures that were accurate, informative, and real became more powerful and more influential than their media predecessors had been.

Acosta’s former employer generally brings in less than 400,000 viewers during primetime hours. On the other hand, Joe Rogan, who hosts one of the top three podcasts in the world, averages 11 million viewers per episode.

As a result of the changing media landscape, leftist media outlets are no longer able to control the narrative.

One contributing factor in the newfound success of podcasts is the growth of Gen Z (ages 13 to 24) audiences.

Edison Research found that 47 percent of the Gen Z online population (an estimated 24 million Americans) are monthly podcast listeners.

Interestingly, podcasters played a significant role in the landslide victory of President Donald Trump. According to a Bloomberg report, a group of highly popular podcasters and streamers rose to become the new mainstream source of information for millions of young males.

In the report, 9 podcasters were specifically cited: Adin Ross, Andrew Schulz, The Nelk Boys, Logan Paul, Joe Rogan, Lex Friedman, Patrick Bet-David, Shawn Ryan, and Theo Von.

In one impactful episode, Rogan interviewed then-GOP presidential nominee Trump during the final weeks of the 2024 presidential campaign. The podcast drew more than 50 million views on YouTube.

During the 2024 campaign cycle, nominees of both parties courted podcasters in an effort to seek support from voters who increasingly obtained their news information from non-traditional sources.

Vice President and Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris scheduled an interview with Alex Cooper for her “Call Her Daddy” podcast. Harris also sat with the hosts of the “All the Smoke” podcast for some Bay Area basketball talk.

Meanwhile, with the help of his son Barron’s media savvy, Trump focused on getting his MAGA message out via podcasts especially to young male voters.

It was inevitable that media changes would eventually come to White House press briefings and elsewhere in the government, including the Pentagon.

As part of the alternative media ecosystem, podcasters have been afforded seats at the table where they are permitted to ask questions at press briefings, much to the disdain of the establishment press.

At her second press briefing, John Ashbrook of the Ruthless podcast was allowed to ask White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt a question.

Ashbrook, a former campaign strategist to Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., sat in the “new media” seat among chairs that in prior administrations had been reserved for members of the White House press corps.

Leavitt called the Ruthless podcast “one of the most influential podcasts in America.”

Meanwhile over at the Pentagon Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth booted formerly prestigious media outlets from the Pentagon’s press offices to make room for new media organizations. The New York Times, NBC News, NPR, and Politico were told to evacuate their Pentagon office spaces by Valentine’s Day.

In their places, three new outlets were welcomed, The New York Post, One America News Network, and the Breitbart News Network.

As the new media kids on the block, podcasts have had an impressive beginning.

In my opinion, they’ve only just begun to wield their media power.

Birthright Citizenship and Five Little Words

An activist federal judge has blocked a key executive order that was recently implemented by President Donald Trump.

The executive order that was signed by President Trump does away with birthright citizenship, i.e., the granting of full citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens who are physically present in the United States.

The order is part and parcel of the president’s overall border reform package.

Several lawsuits have been initiated by states that are opposed to the order. In addition, the ACLU has taken it upon itself to be a representative for a number of left-wing groups in bringing legal action.

In my legal assessment, by issuing the executive order on birthright citizenship, President Trump is prompting the courts to clarify and rule on the language, meaning, and substance of what the law actually states.

For quite a long time government institutions have allowed policies to be implemented apart from the law, policies that deem all persons born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents are citizens.

However, the United States Constitution does not necessitate this policy. In fact, there is nothing in either the Constitution or in any federal statute that grants birthright citizenship to a child born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents.

What appears to be a complex issue actually isn’t. A look back at constitutional history provides quite a bit of insight and may help to clarify things.

The most repugnant decision in Supreme Court history took place in 1857, when the High Court issued its ruling on the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. The Court held that U.S.-born descendants of African slaves were not citizens.

In response to the Dred Scott decision, when the Civil War ended Congress did two things.

First, it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Second, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was drafted and passed, which took the protections of the Civil Rights Act and incorporated them into the text of the Constitution.

The goal was a singular one: To grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people.

The amendment does not say that all children born in the United States are citizens. The drafters of the amendment would have used different language if this were the intention. But they didn’t.

The Fourteenth Amendment, as approved and written, states the following: “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens.

It is important to note the conditional phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The original meaning of the phrase has to do with the concept of political allegiance.

Senator Lyman Trumbull, who was one of the principal figures involved in the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment, spelled it out. Individuals who owed allegiance to or were subject to a foreign power were not granted citizenship by the amendment.

Clearly, the language of the Fourteenth Amendment didn’t apply to everyone born here. Children of tribally-affiliated Native Americans as well as diplomats were not included in the extension of citizenship, even if they were born in the U.S.

The historical reasoning that excluded tribally affiliated Native Americans and diplomats from birthright citizenship applies equally to those who are illegally present in our country today.

Why? Because illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the United States in that their first contact with the U.S. was an illegal act, and additionally they maintain citizenship with another country while illegally residing in the U.S.

In an apparent attempt to bolster their arguments, opponents of President Trump’s executive order bring up the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong. This case involved a child born in the U.S. during a period when federal law barred Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens.

However, the High Court’s decision was predicated on the fact that the child’s Chinese parents were in the country lawfully and permanently. In other words, the case dealt with a child born to parents who were both legal immigrants.

Truth be known, the Supreme Court has never had to deal with a birthright citizenship case involving children born to parents living in the country illegally.

Looks like the High Court will have to now.

Hopefully, the Justices will be paying close attention to the 5 little words and will rule accordingly.

The Ashes of the California Wildfires

On the morning of January 7, 2025, a brush fire in the hills above Los Angeles quickly transformed into an inferno.

Tens of thousands of people were evacuated, while hundreds of thousands were on pins and needles as they awaited the impending evacuation orders.

The first fire would come to be known as the Palisades Fire.

A few hours later the Eaton Fire would ignite in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains.

Later in the night the Hurst Fire would erupt in the northern San Fernando Valley.

The following morning the Woodley Fire would emerge in the central San Fernando Valley.

And Los Angeles hadn’t seen the last of the fires yet.

Needless to say, numerous homes burned to the ground. Many people suffered injuries. And some individuals tragically lost their lives.

Two prominent leaders have dared to speak bluntly about the contributing causes of the calamity that occurred in Los Angeles: former LA mayoral candidate Rick Caruso and President elect Donald Trump.

— Caruso is a former commissioner for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. He is also the owner of the Palisades Village Mall, located in the heart of the community that has been decimated by the wildfires.

Caruso’s daughter’s home was destroyed in the blaze, and he himself was evacuated from his home. As the flames were breaking out in his beloved neighborhood, he noticed something that defied comprehension. The fire hydrants were devoid of even a drop of water.

“There’s no water in the fire hydrants,” Caruso exclaimed, his voice revealing his exasperation.

“This is a window into a systemic problem of the city,” he said.

“The real issue to me here is two-fold. We’ve had decades to remove the brush in these hills…and the second is, we’ve got to have water. My understanding is the reservoir was not refilled in time…to keep the hydrants going…”

— President elect Trump had previously warned California Gov. Gavin Newsom that he needed to better manage the state’s forests in order to prevent wildfires.

In 2018, then-President Trump chastised Newsom over the burned-out remains of the town of Paradise.

“You’ve got to take care of…the floors of the forests,” Trump said.

Two years later Trump spoke out again after a new round of fires had inflicted severe harm on California. He talked about cleaning the forest floors, removing leaves and fallen trees, and preventing the igniting of the brush and forest debris.

The president elect recently used a post on X to comment on the current fires in Los Angeles.

“There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor,” he posted.

He also used his Truth Social account to wake up Gov. Newsom, writing, “…I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to FLOW INTO CALIFORNIA! He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster!”

Angelinos are far from happy with their government leaders.

— Despite fire warnings, Mayor Karen Bass flew to Africa to attend Ghana’s presidential inauguration on the day that the fire broke out; this after meteorologists warned that a “recipe for fire” was on track to strike LA.

— LA city officials reportedly failed to cut off electricity to power lines. Video footage from the Palisades Fire showed sparks flying as power lines came down.

— Officials in Los Angeles County had reportedly refused to refill reservoirs with the water that would ultimately be needed to flow to fire hydrants.

More information about the catastrophic failures of leadership will no doubt emerge in the coming days.

Out here in California, prayer is all we have. And yet it’s everything.

If your heart is able, please join in prayer for safety, solace, and strength for the people of the City of Angels.

May God’s blessings flow from the ashes.

“I will give them a crown to replace their ashes, and the oil of gladness to replace their sorrow, and clothes of praise to replace their spirit of sadness.” (Isaiah 61:3)

ABC News and Stephanopoulos Give Trump an Early Christmas

ABC News and anchor George Stephanopoulos recently settled a lawsuit with President elect Donald Trump.

The terms of the agreement have the defendants in the suit forking over $15 million to the incoming prez, the money being designated for a future presidential library or similar foundation.

Also included in the settlement is a forced payment of $1 million of Trump’s legal fees and a big crow-eating apology.

Trump had filed a lawsuit over an interview that Stephanopoulos had conducted with South Carolina congressional representative Nancy Mace.

During the Mace interview, the former Clinton administration operative repeatedly made the false allegation that Trump had been found liable for rape in a civil case that was initiated by E. Jean Carroll and took place in a New York courtroom earlier in the year.

Rep. Mace, a rape survivor herself, was being interrogated on her endorsement of Trump, and Stephanopoulos was evidently trying to paint her as a hypocrite. She felt personally attacked by Stephanopoulos and was brave enough to directly take him on at the time.

“I live with shame,” she said. “And you’re asking me a question about my political choices, trying to shame me as a rape victim — I find it disgusting.”

Most viewers did as well. ABC News had a serious problem from that moment on.

Shortly after the interview aired, Trump filed a defamation lawsuit against both the network and the anchor.

Stephanopoulos subsequently appeared on a politically friendly late-night show with host Stephen Colbert, posturing about the then-pending defamation legal action and boasting that he would not be “cowed out of doing my job because of a threat.”

All things considered, the most compelling part of the Trump win came in the portion of the settlement in which both ABC News and Stephanopoulos agreed to issue apology statements, expressing regret surrounding the case.

Both the settlement agreement and apology statements have already had far-reaching effects. Stephanopoulos has deactivated his X account and left the platform.

While the settlement has been heralded by center-right folks, it has also been viewed as the end of Western Civilization by the compromised media crowd and woke mob gang.

Regarding the settlement, reporter Oliver Willis wrote on Threads, “This is actually how democracy dies.”

Sharon Waxman, editor in chief of the Hollywood trade outlet TheWrap, wrote. “This is both confusing and disheartening. #Disney and #ABC caving to Trump.”

Democrat attorney Marc Elias posted, “Knee bent. Ring kissed. Another legacy news outlet chooses obedience.”

CNN media analyst Brian Stelter asked on X, “Why did ABC agree to pay and apologize? The network won’t say. It could have kept fighting in court, but decided to pay $$ to end the dispute and make the case go away.”

NPR TV critic Eric Deggans wrote on his X account, “Wow. Feels like one more mainstream news organization bending the knee.”

Keith Olbermann sarcastically posted, “What a great look @abc News.”

Left leaning legal analyst Allison Gill, known online as Mueller, She Wrote posted, “This is so gross.

Why not depose him [Trump]?” she asked. “The case wouldn’t cost more than $15M and ABC would have won if they bothered fighting.”

Human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid characterized the settlement as “the cowardice of legacy media out to make profit, rather than uphold principle.”

Here in the United States, a 1964 landmark Supreme Court case made it far more difficult for public figures, as opposed to ordinary folks, to sue for defamation. This is not the case in many other parts of the world.

In my opinion, reform in this area of the law is long overdue.

The timing of the ABC-Stephanopoulos settlement is interesting to say the least. It occurred a few short days after U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisette Reid ordered the president elect, and more importantly Stephanopoulos, to submit to depositions of four hours in length.

The ABC News-Stephanopoulos settlement sends a powerful message. It is one that says news personalities, especially those who work for far-left media outlets, can no longer broadcast false claims in the cavalier manner that they have become accustomed to.

An early Christmas present for those who value truth in news reporting.

Clooney Is Big Mad at Obama

It’s a risky move for a Hollywood star to step into the world of politics.

This is true for those who are new to the spotlight. But it’s especially true for those with a long track record of success.

Enter George Clooney.

Months ago when President Joe Biden gave a shockingly poor debate performance against then-GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, donors began to withhold campaign cash, while party leaders and media pundits simultaneously started to talk about getting Biden to pull out of the race.

A huge amount of video footage had been emerging online, which suggested that Biden was experiencing cognitive difficulties.

One particular video piece featured Clooney at a Left Coast fundraiser. Also in attendance were Biden and former President Barack Obama, who was seen playing the role of caregiver to his former veep, even appearing to have to assist Biden in exiting the stage.

Clooney would soon become the de facto celebrity leader of a group that was seeking to shove Biden out of the spotlight.

A few short weeks after the Hollywood fundraiser, Clooney took the highly dramatic step of penning an op-ed column for the New York Times, which urged Biden to step aside.

“It’s devastating to say it, but the Joe Biden I was with three weeks ago at the fund-raiser was not the…Biden of 2010. He wasn’t even the Joe Biden of 2020. He was the same man we all witnessed at the debate,” Clooney wrote.

The actor slammed Democrats who were seeking to retain Biden as the nominee, admonishing them to “stop telling us that 51 million people didn’t see what we just saw.”

Clooney warned the Democratic Party, “We are not going to win in November with this president. On top of that, we won’t win the House, and we’re going to lose the Senate.”

The star’s prediction turned out to be accurate, even after Biden reluctantly stepped down and Vice President Kamala Harris was “selected” by party leaders as the Democrat presidential nominee.

After the decisive November 5, 2024 victory of President elect Trump, Clooney began to experience the unexpected, i.e., backlash and blame for his high profile role in what a lot of folks viewed as a coup.

Amid the finger pointing after the election loss, Clooney became one of the top scapegoats.

This may have prompted the recent announcement that from now on, he would avoid the political arena entirely.

“George feels that the backlash he is getting for Kamala losing is not at all warranted,” a source told the Daily Mail. “He [Clooney] thinks it is completely unfair to try and make him a scapegoat for her loss.”

In addition, it appears as though Clooney is directing some of his personal wrath at a former friend. Recent reports indicate that the star, who was previously best buds with Obama, is deliberately drifting away.

RadarOnline, via an anonymous source, has reported that Clooney is fuming over the former president having pushed him into becoming a front and center advocate for ending Biden’s campaign.

“George is furious with Obama for disappearing after the election disaster and leaving him holding the bag for pushing the plan with his Hollywood pal,” the source indicated.

“George became Barack’s surrogate in leading the charge for Joe to step away. Barack knew he would look like a traitor if he publicly called for Joe to be cut loose. And now, he’s trying to walk away from it all,” the source stated.

According to the source, Clooney “feels duped and vows he’s not going to be anyone’s political water boy anymore… and feels he stepped up and took a bullet for the team.”

The actor evidently wants Obama to publicly intervene with some crisis management.

The source said, “He [Clooney] thinks Obama should come forward and say that George did the right thing and it isn’t his fault that it didn’t work out.”

Apparently, Clooney is not optimistic that Obama will do any such thing, and the whole matter has left him “feeling like a patsy.”

It’s all totally understandable.

For years Clooney has worked hard to build his brand. Now his Hollywood star has been seriously sullied.

Will the public give the celebrity a pass?

The answer may be found in yet another tired “Ocean’s” sequel.

Goodbye to MSNBC

Media and technology conglomerate Comcast is spinning off cable news network MSNBC from its roster, along with a number of other cable networks.

The company announced it will create a new publicly traded entity, which will house MSNBC and NBCUniversal’s additional cable television networks.

Comcast is giving the new company an apt moniker, “SpinCo.”

Unveiling of the plans are shaking up the media landscape and sending shock waves through the network’s offices.

It all came to a head when MSNBC lost over half its viewers following the electoral triumph of President elect Donald Trump.

An additional ratings drop occurred after Joe Scarborough, host of the network’s program “Morning Joe,” revealed that he and wife/co-host Mika Brzezinski had recently met with President elect Trump at Mar-a-Lago, ostensibly to “restart communications.”

The ratings tank and spin-off talk had Scarborough questioning his own future employment with the channel.

“I could be completely wrong. We could all be fired a year from now. You never know what’s going to happen tomorrow,” he said on his show.

There are a number of reasons that the spin-off is happening. First up is the fact that streaming is clobbering cable. Execs are understandably concerned about the steady increase in cord cutting that has taken place, especially among the younger demographic. This segment of viewers is accustomed to having non-bundled options and is partial to streaming media.

Comcast has also let it be known that current chairman of NBCUniversal Media Group Mark Lazarus will be named SpinCo’s CEO. Sources have indicated to Variety that Lazarus spoke to an audience of concerned staffers and talent, which included MSNBC personalities Rachel Maddow, Chris Jansing, and Katy Tur.

MSNBC will evidently be joined by the business news network CNBC in being detached from NBC News.

Since the two networks will no longer be a part of NBC, attendees at the meeting with Lazarus reportedly expressed concerns about whether the use of familiar symbols, which have been used by MSNBC for decades, will be allowed to continue.

In a shocking admission, Lazarus said that because of the spin-off he wasn’t sure whether MSNBC would have to give up its current image, identity, or home.

“Everyone is in a panic because everything is up in the air,” one MSNBC source told The New York Post.

Journalists at the network CNBC are coming apart at the seams at the prospect of being separated from NBC’s news division. This is because MSNBC routinely shares reporting, and a significant part of the network’s daytime schedule uses correspondents from NBC News.

Andrea Mitchell, chief foreign affairs correspondent and chief Washington correspondent for NBC News, has anchored a daily MSNBC show since 2008. And MSNBC’s Katy Tur and José Díaz-Balart have dual roles as journalists for NBC News as well.

Lazarus was unable to answer questions about MSNBC’s newsgathering and whether the cable news outlet would have to develop its own capability for collecting and verifying news, which is a daunting task to say the least.

The idea of giving MSNBC a makeover has been tossed around for a long time. The network wasn’t always the far-left echo chamber that it is today.

Back in 1996 it originally launched as a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC (although Microsoft would later divest its stake in the TV network).

Like fellow cable networks had previously done, MSNBC would go on to broaden its horizons by doing political coverage as well as opinion-oriented programming. A variety of viewpoints were represented on its programs, ones that ranged across a spectrum from Phil Donahue on the left to Tucker Carlson on the right.

Oh the good ol’ days, when there was a fairly clear line of demarcation between hard news and editorial opinion. That line served a number of important purposes, including a commitment to truth and accuracy in the conveyance of national and international information as well as an adherence to a journalistic code of ethics.

It could be that the good ol’ news days are going back to the future. And the sport of intellectual sparring will make its own separate comeback.

Let’s all stay tuned in whatever new media way is preferred. And may the Truth win out.