The Modern Corruption of Separating Church from State

posted by Susan Quinn at American Thinker 

From the outset of forming our country, our Founders were determined to keep religion as a foundational element, given that many people had left their homes in Britain to be able to practice their religions as they chose. The goal was not for the government to reject faith, but for it to be prevented from dictating doctrine.

But over the years, the Left has distorted the meaning of “separation of church and state” (a phrase that’s not written into the Constitution) and now the country feels obligated to ban religion from every nook and cranny. How did a country founded in part by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment find itself dominated by secularism?

The Danbury Baptist Association was one of the first organizations in 1802 to ask Thomas Jefferson about the protections of their religious practice. Here, in part, is Jefferson’s reply:

‘I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State,’ Jefferson said.

The metaphor of a ‘wall of separation’ was not intended to say that religion should not influence opinion on government issues. Rather, it was used to affirm free religious practice for citizens.

The First Amendment was written to ensure that Congress would not create legislation beyond civil matters, again prohibiting the creation of a state religion:

The First Amendment prevents congress from creating or establishing a religion, and thereby prevents the power of the government from expanding beyond civil matters. The First Amendment also protects people’s right to worship however they choose, or to not worship at all. Protecting people’s right to decide what is right for themselves without government interference is a key foundation (and result) of our democracy.

What evidence do we have that the Founders were determined to prevent a single religion from becoming a state religion? Because they told us so:

The Congressional Record (required by the Constitution in Art. i, Sec. 5, ¶ 3) contains all the official words and acts that occur in congressional chambers. Those records therefore include the discussion of the ninety Founders in the first federal Congress who, from June 8 to September 25, 1789, framed the First Amendment. In those lengthy discussions that spanned months, the Founders repeatedly explained that they were seeking to prevent what they had experienced under Great Britain: the legal establishment by the national government of a single religious denomination in exclusion of all others (whether Catholic, Anglican, or any other). Very simply, their oft-repeated intent was that Congress could not officially establish any one denomination in America; or, in the wording proposed by James Madison, ‘nor shall any national religion be established.’

However, preventing a dominant state-controlled faith did not mean that the Founders wished to erase religion from public life or from people’s values. George Washington, before he left the Presidency, insisted religion being included in the public square:

In his famous ‘Farewell Address,’  Washington reminded Americans that religious teachings and values must never be removed from politics and public policy, declaring:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable [inseparable] supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.

The Supreme Court allowed the state to intrude, in a very limited fashion, into how religion in America is practiced, provided it stayed out of the core doctrines of traditional biblical faiths:

Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People identified actions into which—if perpetrated in the name of religion—the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, patricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc.

Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were “subversive of good order” and were “overt acts against peace.” However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in “the Books of the Law and the Gospel”—whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc.

By 1980, though, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court was actively removing religion from the public square:

Stone v. Graham, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on November 17, 1980, ruled (5–4) that a Kentucky statute requiring school officials to post a copy of the Ten Commandments (purchased with private contributions) on a wall in every public classroom violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which is commonly interpreted as a separation of church and state. .

[snip]

The Supreme Court held that the Kentucky statute violated the first part of the so-called Lemon test. The court rejected arguments that the notation on the bottom of the Ten Commandments was sufficient to indicate the secular purpose of the posting. Moreover, the court was of the opinion that the posting of the Ten Commandments was clearly religious and not educational. The Commandments were not part of the curriculum, and the court maintained that the state was instead encouraging students ‘to read, meditate upon, and perhaps venerate and obey’ the Commandments, which is a violation of the establishment clause. The court considered it to be irrelevant that the copies were bought with private funds, because displaying the Commandments demonstrated official state support of their message.

Thus, the highest court in the land committed a shocking error in how it interpreted the First Amendment, for it abandoned completely the Founders’ expressed belief that the biblical faiths were essential to America’s existence. Even though the SCOTUS decision was a pitiful interpretation of the Separation Clause, which only prohibited the establishment of a state religion, they sent a clear message that religion and its values should not appear anywhere near our citizenry.

Someone must challenge this decision and rectify this injustice. Our country is desperately in need of revitalizing our spiritual and religious climate, and our important institutions should support that effort.

And we Know, On the Fringe, and more- May 2nd

 

Upset About Trump’s Aggressive Deportations? Thank A Democrat

If looking at the mass deportation effort by the Trump administration bothers you, remember who put us in this position.

Eddie Scarry reporting for The Federalist

Remember when all national polls said Kamala was popular? Yeah, that’s why it’s so hard to take seriously a new CNN one showing that a majority of Americans now supposedly say the Trump administration has “gone too far … when it comes to deporting immigrants living in the United States illegally.”

According to the poll, 52 percent of respondents agreed the president’s crackdown on deportations has been excessive (though in what sense, the poll doesn’t say). It’s a 7-point increase from when the question was asked in February.

I’m skeptical that even a quarter of Americans (as in, actual U.S. citizens, not just whoever picked up CNN’s phone call) have strong opinions one way or another about the alien removals from the country, but if even just one person is upset by it, they can take it up with Democrats. They’re the reason Trump has had to get creative in this whole process.

Let’s go back to 2016 when Donald Trump, a reality TV game show star, was elected against all odds to be the first genuine president of the United States to not have any political or military experience. And he did it in large part with a very simple slogan: “Build the wall.” Democrats said no and called Trump supporters racists.

The president tried making a deal anyway. A few billion dollars for walls along the southern border and in exchange he would agree to permanently legalize the “dreamers,” roughly 1 million younger illegal aliens given temporary protection by the Obama administration to stay in the U.S. Democrats said no and called Trump supporters racists.

When he tried keeping the obscene numbers of migrants pushing their way into the U.S. at bay with law enforcement, Democrats cried and accused the administration of kidnapping children. Then they called Trump supporters racists.

For four years, Democrats fought any and every attempt to remove illegal migrants or even just to stop them from entering at all. And then they got their own president in the White House.

President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris invited every destitute foreigner to America, fast-tracked their entry, and flooded cities with busloads of impoverished Haitians, Venezuelans, and Congolese. Importing the Third World was done with incredible efficiency, and only when the next presidential election was fast approaching did Democrats start pretending it was a problem.

They had no right to tell those people to flout American laws and take root in a place that they couldn’t be guaranteed to stay. But they did, and voters rendered their judgement on that in November, this time electing not a TV star to fix this broken country, but a convicted felon. That’s how dire the situation is.

The migration crisis that Democrats created was for sure an ugly mess. It sucks to be the person who has to clean it up, but if looking at that effort bothers you, remember who put us in this position.

The Trump Counterrevolution and the Moral Ledger ~ VDH

by Victor Davis Hanson for Townhall 

Despite the media hysteria, President Donald Trump's counterrevolution remains on course.

Its ultimate fate will probably rest with the state of the economy by the November 2026 midterm elections. But its success also hinges on accomplishing what is right and long overdue -- and then making such reforms quietly, compassionately, and methodically.

No country can long endure without sovereignty and security -- or with 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants crossing the border and half a million criminal foreign nationals roaming freely.

The prior administration found that it was easy to destroy the border and welcome the influx. But it is far harder for its successor to restore security, find those who broke the law, and insist on legal-only immigration. Trump is on the right side of all these issues and making substantial progress.

Everyone knew that a $2 trillion budget deficit, a $37 trillion national debt, and a $1.2 trillion trade deficit in goods were ultimately unsustainable.

Yet all prior politicians of the 21st century winced at the mere thought of reducing debts and deficits, given that it proved much easier just to print and spread around federal money. As long as the Trump administration dutifully cuts the budget, sends its regrets to displaced federal employees, seeks to expand private sector reemployment, and quietly presses ahead, it retains the moral high ground.

The elite universities have long hidden things from the American people that otherwise would have lost them all public support.

They deliberately sought to neuter Supreme Court rulings banning race-based preferences by stealthily continuing their often-segregated policies on campuses, from admissions and hiring to dorms and graduations.

They have taken billions of dollars from autocracies, such as communist China and Qatar. And they have partnered abroad with their foreign illiberal institutions and then disguised their quid pro quo subservience.

These supposedly prestigious universities have previously made no real effort either to stop or even hide their own campus epidemics of antisemitism.

They have spiked their tuition and costs higher than the annual rate of inflation, assured that the tottering $1.7 trillion guaranteed student loan portfolio would always send them guaranteed cash flows.

They have gouged taxpayers by charging exorbitant surcharges on federal grants from 40 to 60 percent. And they make no effort to offer students intellectual, ideological, or political diversity.

So, even our most prestigious universities seem to have no real moral compass. Accordingly, as long as Trump retains the high ground, the public, too, will demand either reform in higher education or a cessation of federal support to it.

The economy remains strong, but its ultimate health depends on reaching a trade deal with a handful of nations that account for our $1.2 trillion trade deficit in goods: China, the EU, Canada, Mexico, the Southeast Asian trade bloc, and Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea.

These nations all know that their tariffs are not symmetrical. But our trade partners will not willingly change. They apparently, but wrongly, believe that the U.S. either welcomes its trade deficits, naively thinks they're irrelevant, or is too wedded to libertarian trade ideology to demand accountability.

So, too, on trade, the Trump administration is in the right.

Its only challenge is to avoid envisioning tariffs as a new, get-rich source of massive revenue. Data does not support the idea of such large tariff incomes.

The American people signed on for symmetry, fairness, and reciprocity in trade, not tariffing those who run deficits with us or seeing high tariffs as a cash cow to fund our out-of-control government.

Enraged Democrats still offer no substantial alternatives to the Trump agenda.

There are no shadow-government Democratic leaders with new policy initiatives. They flee from the Biden record on the border, the prior massive deficits and inflation, the disaster in Afghanistan, two theater-wide wars that broke out on Biden's watch, and the shameless conspiracy to hide the prior president's increasing dementia.

Instead, the Left has descended into thinly veiled threats of organized disruption in the streets. It embraces potty-mouth public profanity, profane and unhinged videos, nihilistic filibusters, congressional outbursts, and increasingly dangerous threats to the persons of Elon Musk and Trump.

All that frenzy is not a sign that the Trump counterrevolution is failing. It is good evidence that it is advancing forward, and its ethically bankrupt opposition has no idea how, or whether even, to stop it.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

The Empire Strikes Back

The Empire Strikes Back

Ron Paul for Mises.org

News this week that Elon Musk will soon be departing his “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) is a grim reminder of what happens when you challenge big spending DC. Unfortunately, the lesson once again is that when you challenge the empire, the empire eventually strikes back.

President Trump rode into office with the help of Elon Musk’s ambitious plan to cut two trillion dollars in spending and slash useless and bloated government bureaucracies. Opinion polls demonstrated the huge popularity of the “Department.” Americans were excited when DOGE came to DC.

The exposure of the real harm being done to the country by agencies like USAID and others reinforced the idea that much of the “Federal bureaucracy” was simply not needed. Although Musk became a figure of hate for the entrenched special interests, to the large chunk of America forced to pay for Washington’s excesses he became a hero.

Many in Congress, seeing its popularity, actively embraced DOGE. Suddenly those who helped us rack up 37 trillion in debt were talking about making huge cuts and posing for photos with Musk.

Unfortunately, after the photos were taken and the hoopla had died down, Congress returned to doing what it usually does: nothing. There is no way for a DOGE to succeed without the Legislative Branch enshrining those cuts in legislation. But when the massive “Big Beautiful” spending bill was introduced, the spending cuts were nowhere to be found.

In the end it was the Beltway addiction to the global US military empire that may have hammered the final nail in DOGE’s coffin. The “Big Beautiful” spending bill actually increased military spending even after President Trump hinted that a 50 percent cut was possible. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth bragged about presiding over the “first” trillion-dollar defense budget. Starting a war on Yemen – at over a billion dollars a month – and saber rattling over Iran are the most obvious evidence that the empire has struck back. And of course the DC hawks want to “confront” China.

This isn’t the first time a populist, popular movement to tame the Beltway beast was embraced then defeated by that same beast. The “Tea Party” movement was launched in December, 2007, with volunteers supporting my 2008 Presidential campaign holding a record-breaking 24 hour “money bomb” on the anniversary of the 1773 Boston Tea Party.

Americans sick of deficit spending, over-reaching government, and the costly and counterproductive US military empire overseas, joined together to demand change. The “money bomb” success got Washington’s attention – money is the lifeblood of the political class – and before too long politicians of all stripes declared themselves to be part of the “Tea Party.”

They loved the popularity of associating themselves with the “Tea Party.” But actually cutting government? Not so much.

The first thing these newly-minted “Tea Party” members rejected was our demand for an end to the unsustainable, bloated military budget and our aggressive foreign policy. Eventually they backed away from other spending restrictions and within a few years the “brand” was diluted and tossed away.

What is the lesson here? Is it all futile? Hardly. The popularity of DOGE shows that Americans still want a much smaller government. That is great news, and the country owes a debt of gratitude to Elon for reminding us of this. But until Americans elect Representatives who have the courage to follow through beyond photo-ops, we will sadly continue down the path toward bankruptcy and collapse.

Hegseth Ends Women’s Leadership Program

 Hegseth Ends Women’s Leadership Program

The Women, Peace and Security program was developed in response to a law on October 6, 2017 signed by Trump during his first term

Rachel Acenas for The Epoch Times 

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks during the Central American Security Conference in Panama City, on April 9, 2025. Matias Delacroix/AP Photo

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday announced he is scrapping a women’s leadership program implemented during President Donald Trump’s first term.

The program is operated by the United Nations and is “pushed by feminists and left-wing activists,” according to the defense secretary.

“This morning, I proudly ENDED the ‘Women, Peace & Security’ (WPS) program inside the [Department of Defense],” Hegseth wrote in a statement on X. “WPS is yet another woke divisive/social justice/Biden initiative that overburdens our commanders and troops—distracting from our core task: WAR-FIGHTING.”

Hegseth said that “politicians fawn” over the program but troops “hate” it.

The WPS program was developed in response to the Women, Peace, and Security Act, which Trump signed into law on Oct. 6, 2017. The Trump administration at the time said it recognized that women are important agents of change in preventing and resolving conflicts, countering violent extremism, and building peace and stability.

The law, outlined by the U.N. Security Council and adopted as in a resolution in 2000, had been championed over the years by various members of Congress. The cause was then taken up by Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and former advisor, after it was signed into U.S. law.

Ivanka said in a June 2019 statement that good defense policy requires women’s participation and empowerment. She also stated that women are “critically underrepresented in conflict-resolution and post-conflict peace building efforts” and women only make up 2 percent of mediators, 3 percent of military personnel, and 9 percent of negotiators globally.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem co-sponsored the WPS Act when she represented South Dakota in Congress.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who co-wrote the 2017 bill with then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), wrote on X that Hegseth’s latest move was “short-sighted.” She disagreed with Hegseth’s assertion that troops hate the program and argued it’s supported by military leadership and has proven to give the country a strategic advantage.

Amy McGrath, the first woman to fly a combat mission for the Marine Corps, argued in a statement on X that the program brought women to the negotiating table to end conflicts around the world. McGrath added that more sustainable peace is likely when women are included.

Hegseth later Tuesday appeared to push back on any criticism of his move on X.  He doubled down on his decision to scrub the program, suggesting that the Biden administration “distorted and weaponized” the women’s initiative that was meant to be “straight-forward and security-focused” after it launched in 2017. Hegesth did not further elaborate how Biden allegedly “ruined” the program.

Tuesday’s announcement aligns with the Trump administration’s efforts to end federal diversity initiatives across the government. It also aligns with the efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency to slash government waste and abuse.

Hegseth declared he would “fight to end the program for our next budget.” The Pentagon did not provide specific details on how much the initiative costs.

7 Ways You Too Can Achieve Trump's Perfect Orange Skin Glow

Babylon Bee🐝

As the leader of the free world, President Donald J. Trump is a role model for all Americans. From his trademark hairstyle to his flawlessly orange complexion, everyone wants to look like him. But how can you do it?

The Babylon Bee is here to provide the following list of tips to get that Trump orange hue just right:

---

1. Just stick your head in the oven each day for a few minutes under the broiler: Be careful not to overcook.

2. Add just one radioactive carrot to your daily diet: With just a few carrots and some plutonium, you too can achieve glory.

3. Get bitten by a radioactive Trump: You may also exhibit other strange powers like growing enormous hands and attracting supermodels.

4. Become severely jaundiced from liver disease before getting sunburned: The yellow and red will mix for the perfect orange.

5. Find the Black Pearl and ask Captain Jack Sparrow to take you to the Fountain of Youth: The secret is out.

6. Become a real estate mogul, cameo in The Little Rascals and Home Alone 2, launch a popular reality TV show, switch to the Republican Party, run for president, win, then lose, then get shot, then win again: It's a very simple, straightforward plan.

7. You can't, so don't even try. You're just a mere mortal and setting yourself up for disappointment: There can be only one.

---

Many have tried, but few have succeeded. Follow the list of tips above to give it your best shot. 

Ooh, This Could Be Fun: Jasmine Crockett Hinting at Bid for Job AOC Wants

Bob Hoge reporting for RedState 

Texas Dem Rep. Jasmine Crockett has been making a name for herself in recent months, but for all the wrong reasons. She mocked her home-state governor Greg Abbott’s use of a wheelchair, even though he was tragically semi-paralyzed when a tree fell on him in his 20s. She’s made racist and inflammatory remarks, even threatening Sen. Ted Cruz. She uses different accents depending on her audience. 

In other words, she’s “special.”

The deluded congresswoman, however, thinks she’s worthy of the top Democrat spot on the Oversight Committee, saying she’s “made for the moment.” This could set up an epic battle between far-left lawmakers, as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez once ran for the job (and lost badly) and is rumored to be thinking about trying again.

But Jasmine has reportedly started lobbying hard for the position:

Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas has started pitching fellow Democrats on a run for the party’s top Oversight Committee position, according to two people familiar with the situation.

Crockett’s entreaties — playing out in phone calls, text messages and floor conversations — mark the beginning of a contested race to succeed Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) as Oversight’s ranking member. Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts is also seeking the job, though Connolly — who announced plans to step aside after suffering a recurrence of esophageal cancer — has not yet formally done so.

Kamala Harris is a fan of both extremist lawmakers, which tells you that neither of them is qualified for the job:

Crockett said she wants to “educate” us on all the dark things going on in the Trump administration, not mentioning that she herself is under federal investigation for campaign finance violations.

Crockett has told other lawmakers that she’s “made for the moment,” the people said, an apparent reference to the desire among Democratic voters for more forceful resistance to President Donald Trump.

She told POLITICO in a text message that, while there isn’t a vacancy, “knowing that Rep Connolly doesn’t plan to seek re-election & knowing that our oversight powers are broad, I’m ready to shine a light on the very dark things taking place in our country under this administration.”

She added, “I wouldn’t want anyone to think that I’m not interested in leading our investigative body while also communicating & educating the country on our findings.”

Watch out, though, Jasmine—you could have another woke extremist coming for you—AOC, who said about the Oversight position Wednesday: it's “something that I’m weighing, but the seat is not yet vacated, and I think that’s a bridge we can cross when we get to it.” 

In other words, she’s probably running.

Watching these two intellectual powerhouses battle it out would be fantastic theater indeed. I thoroughly encourage both to fight for the job with everything they have.

Trump Signs Executive Order Ending Taxpayer Funding of NPR and PBS

Matt Vespa reporting for Townhall 

It’s finally happened. President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order ending taxpayer funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The left-wing outlet that opted to ignore stories that made Democrats look bad and has been doing that for years finally got the carpet yanked from under them. These entities are not canceled or shut down. They can still produce and disseminate pro-Democratic Party propaganda; they won’t have our money subsidizing this brainwashing operation. 

Mister Rogers would’ve voted for this.

PS: Boys are boys from the beginning. Girls are girls right from the start.

Time to cut PBS (and NPR). https://t.co/yLkSeK2HrP pic.twitter.com/RjJEzfRCOj

— Grace Chong, MBI (@gc22gc) May 2, 2025

Here's the text of the order: 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

(b)  The CPB Board shall cease indirect funding to NPR and PBS, including by ensuring that licensees and permittees of public radio and television stations, as well as any other recipients of CPB funds, do not use Federal funds for NPR and PBS.   To effectuate this directive, the CPB Board shall, before June 30, 2025, revise the 2025 Television Community Service Grants General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria and the 2025 Radio Community Service Grants General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria to prohibit direct or indirect funding of NPR and PBS.  To the extent permitted by the 2024 Television Community Service Grants General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria, the 2024 Radio Community Service Grants General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria, and applicable law, the CPB Board shall also prohibit parties subject to these provisions from funding NPR or PBS after the date of this order.  In addition, the CPB Board shall take all other necessary steps to minimize or eliminate its indirect funding of NPR and PBS. 

Sec. 3.  Instructions to Other Agencies. (a)  The heads of all agencies shall identify and terminate, to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law, any direct or indirect funding of NPR and PBS. 

(b)  After taking the actions specified in subsection (a) of this section, the heads of all agencies shall identify any remaining grants, contracts, or other funding instruments entered into with NPR or PBS and shall determine whether NPR and PBS are in compliance with the terms of those instruments.  In the event of a finding of noncompliance, the head of the relevant agency shall take appropriate steps under the terms of the instrument. 

(c)  The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall determine whether "the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio (or any successor organization)" are complying with the statutory mandate that "no person shall be subjected to discrimination in employment . . . on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex."  47 U.S.C. 397(15), 398(b). In the event of a finding of noncompliance, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take appropriate corrective action. 

Sec. 4.  Severability. If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any agency, person, or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other agencies, persons, or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. 

Sec. 5.  General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: 

(i)  the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or 

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. 

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. 

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. 

DONALD J. TRUMP  

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

May 1, 2025.

We Are Just Getting Started’: Trump Hails His First 100 Days

 ‘We Are Just Getting Started’: Trump Hails His First 100 Days

Fred Lucas for DailySignal.com

President Donald Trump speaks at a rally at Macomb Community College on Tuesday at Warren, Michigan. Trump held the rally to highlight his accomplishments during his first 100 days of his second term. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump declared it the “most successful 100 days” in American history.

“They all want to come back to Michigan and build cars again. You know why, because of our tax and tariff policy,” Trump said in his remarks at the Macomb County Community College Sports and Expo Center in Warren, Michigan, to mark his 100th day in office. 

“I’m here in the heartland of our great nation to celebrate the most successful 100 days of any administration in the history of our country, and that’s according to many, many people,” Trump said. “Everyone is saying. We are just getting started.”

Trump delivered a wide-ranging speech covering innumerable topics.

“We are taking back our jobs and protecting American autoworkers and all of our workers. We are restoring the rule of law,” the president continued. 

“We are ending the inflation nightmare, the worst that we’ve had probably in the history of our country,” Trump said. “Getting lunacy and transgender insanity the hell out of our government. We are stopping the indoctrination of our children, slashing billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse. And above all, we’re saving the American dream, we are making America great again, and it’s happening fast.”

Trump asserted he is telling “incompetent deep state bureaucrats, ‘You’re fired. Get out of here.’”

“We are ushering in the golden age of America,” he said. 

Trump asserted that border crossings had dropped “99.999%” since he returned to office. 

“The number of illegal border-crossers released into the United States is down. Listen to this, please: 99.999%,” Trump said, before making a joke about his border czar Tom Homan. “Three people got in. Three. And I got angry as hell at Tom Homan. How did you allow three, Tom?”

Trump issued executive orders to end the “catch and release” of illegal immigrants trying to sneak into the country; reinstated the “Remain in Mexico” policy for those seeking asylum here; designated MS-13, Tren de Aragua, and other gangs as foreign terrorist organizations; and greatly ramped up deportations.

“You’ve seen a change at the southern border that Sleepy Joe said couldn’t happen,” Trump said, referring to his predecessor, the 46th president, Joe Biden. “I stand before you today and can report to you that we have achieved the safest border in American history.”

Trump asserted if he hadn’t won the 2024 election, Democrats “would have imported the next round” of illegal immigrants. “It would have only been a matter of time before America became a Third World country.”

The president also made a comparison to Democrats’ unwillingness to prosecute illegal immigrants, but their enthusiasm to prosecute him.

“They’re claiming that we’re not allowed to deport illegals, and they’re the ones who orchestrated an eight-year campaign to jail their political opponents,” including himself, he said. “That’s all they can do. Jail their political opponents.”

Continuing a reference to his predecessor, Trump said, “Whoever operated the autopen was in charge.”

Trump was referring to an autopen that appears to have been used by someone other than Biden in the Biden administration to sign off on several executive orders. The Oversight Project, a watchdog group, recently issued a legal memo asserting presidential pardons may be invalid if the president doesn’t sign them himself, since clemency is a responsibility the Constitution only grants to the president.  

On the economy, Trump also took a verbal swipe at Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell, who the president appointed during his first term. 

“Interest rates came down, despite the fact that I have a Fed person who’s not really doing a good job. But I won’t say that,” Trump said. “I want to be very nice. I want to be very nice and respectful to the Fed. You’re not supposed to criticize the Fed. You’re supposed to let him do his own thing. But I know much more than he does about interest rates. Believe me.”

Trump said he was the president of “the workers, not the outsourcers,” and the “president for Main Street, not Wall Street.”

The president boasted about his tariffs—which have been controversial even among many Republicans. He noted, “In many cases, friends have abused us more than foes on trade.”

However, China is the biggest problem, he said.

“China has taken more jobs from us than any country has ever taken from another country,” Trump said. “That doesn’t mean we’re not going to get along. We’ll get along with China. Their tariff now is at 145%. That’s a big difference between that and zero. I think it’s going to work out. They want to make a deal. We’re going to make a deal. It’s not going to be a deal where we lose $1 trillion a year like they did with Biden.” 

Trump touted his executive order on election integrity that he signed this month. A U.S. District Court recently blocked part of that executive order.

“I also signed an order to require proof of citizenship to vote in American elections. That was easy,” he said. “The Democrats fought me on that. Think of it. Why would they want no voter ID? Because they want to cheat. Why would they want no proof of citizenship? ‘We don’t want it. We trust everybody.’ No, they want to cheat. That’s what they do.”

The Trump administration has also dismantled federal mandates regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI for short. 

“I banned men from competing in women’s sports. They say that’s an 80-20 issue. No, I’d say it’s about a 97-3 issue,” the president said, referring to his ban on biological males who “identify” as females playing in girls and women’s sports.

Trump also said he stopped the spread of DEI in the military academies. 

“I signed executive orders to abolish critical race theory and transgender insanity from our schools, and from our military,” Trump continued. “We fired the woke boards of visitors at our military academies. We have. We have great people running our military academies now.”