Was President Trump’s attack on Iran legal? Of course that’s been hotly debated all week long, and I think the answer based on the actions of all prior past Presidents, especially Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barrack Hussein Obama, is a resounding “yes!” — but today I want to show you something you might not be familiar with. Glenn Beck had renowned legal scholar Jonathan Turley on his show to discuss and debate the topic and one of the parallels Beck pointed out was Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates! I like to think I’m a student of history, but I didn’t know this one and I figured you might not either…. We talk so much about what the Founding Fathers would think or what they would do if they were here with us, but in this case we don’t have to wonder what they would do… In this case, we can talk about what Thomas Jefferson actually did under similar circumstances. Here’s a quick summary of the foreign issues that plagued the United States when Jefferson took office: After the American Revolution, the United States lost the protection of the British Navy, leaving American merchant ships vulnerable to the Barbary corsairs operating from the North African states of Algiers, Tripoli, Tunis, and Morocco. These states captured ships, enslaved crews, and demanded tribute or ransom for safe passage. In the 1780s, while serving as U.S. Minister to France, Thomas Jefferson confronted the issue when American vessels were seized. In 1786, Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s ambassador in London and asked why their ships were attacked despite causing no harm. The ambassador reportedly explained that, under their interpretation of Islamic law, it was justified to wage war on nations that did not submit and to enslave their people. This encounter convinced Jefferson that paying tribute would only invite more demands, though the U.S. initially lacked the naval strength to resist. Throughout the 1790s, Presidents Washington and Adams reluctantly paid large tributes to the Barbary states to secure American trade and free captured sailors. When Jefferson became president in 1801, Tripoli’s ruler Yusuf Karamanlidemanded even higher payments. Jefferson refused. Tripoli responded by declaring war in May 1801 by cutting down the American flagpole at the U.S. consulate. Jefferson sent a naval squadron to the Mediterranean, beginning the First Barbary War (1801–1805). Key events included: The USS Enterprise defeating a Tripolitan ship in 1801. A long U.S. naval blockade of Tripoli. The 1803 capture of the USS Philadelphia, followed by Stephen Decatur’s 1804 raid to burn the ship and prevent its use by the enemy. The 1805 capture of Derne, when U.S. Marines and allied forces marched across the desert from Egypt under William Eaton, marking the first U.S. land battle overseas and inspiring the Marine Corps line “to the shores of Tripoli.” Facing naval pressure and the threat of further attacks, Tripoli agreed to peace in June 1805. The U.S. paid $60,000 to ransom prisoners but ended ongoing tribute payments, marking a strategic victory for Jefferson’s approach of resisting extortion rather than paying it. The conflict strengthened the reputation of the U.S. Navy, boosted national confidence, and established an early precedent for projecting American military power abroad. A later conflict, the Second Barbary War in 1815, finally ended tribute demands altogether. The comparisons to President Trump and Iran are obvious — and confirms that President Trump acted exactly the same way Thomas Jefferson did: Parallels Between Thomas Jefferson’s Barbary Pirates Conflict and Donald Trump’s Approach to Iran The story of Thomas Jefferson confronting the Barbary pirates (from the semi-autonomous North African states of Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis, and Morocco) and Donald Trump’s approach to Iran (particularly during his presidencies, including the “maximum pressure” campaign, the 2020 killing of General Qasem Soleimani, and later escalations involving strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and leadership) share several notable parallels. These have been drawn by historians, legal scholars, conservative commentators, and even some Trump defenders when discussing presidential war powers and responses to hostile actors. Here are the key similarities: Rejection of ongoing “tribute” or appeasement in favor of confrontation Jefferson inherited a system where the U.S. paid substantial annual tribute (protection money) to the Barbary states to prevent attacks on American merchant ships—a policy he viewed as humiliating and unsustainable. He refused escalated demands from Tripoli’s Pasha Yusuf Karamanli in 1801, leading to war. Similarly, Trump rejected what he and supporters saw as appeasement under prior administrations (e.g., the Obama-era JCPOA/Iran nuclear deal, which involved sanctions relief in exchange for limits on Iran’s nuclear program). Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 and imposed a “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign to choke Iran’s economy, denying it funds for terrorism, proxies, and nuclear pursuits—framing concessions or payments (direct or indirect) as encouraging aggression rather than buying peace. Response to state-sponsored threats against American interests and commerce The Barbary corsairs attacked and captured U.S. ships, enslaved crews, and disrupted trade in the Mediterranean, costing the young republic economically and in prestige. Jefferson saw this as an existential challenge to free navigation and national dignity. Iran, designated a leading state sponsor of terrorism, has targeted U.S. forces (e.g., through proxies killing Americans in Iraq), attacked shipping in the Persian Gulf, threatened allies like Israel, and pursued nuclear capabilities that could destabilize global security and energy routes. Trump’s policies (sanctions, Soleimani strike, later direct attacks) aimed to counter Iran’s “malign influence” and proxy warfare, much like Jefferson’s blockade and naval actions protected American commerce. Use of military force without prior formal congressional declaration of war Jefferson sent a naval squadron to the Mediterranean in 1801 with instructions for defensive (and later offensive) action, relying on his commander-in-chief authority after Tripoli’s de facto declaration of war (chopping down the U.S. consulate flagpole). Congress later authorized broader measures but didn’t declare war outright. Trump authorized the 2020 drone strike on Soleimani (justified as preventing imminent attacks) and subsequent operations (including strikes on nuclear facilities and leadership) without seeking a new declaration of war or specific authorization beyond existing AUMFs (e.g., 2001/2002). Defenders cite Jefferson’s precedent for unilateral presidential action against ongoing threats from non-traditional state actors. Preemptive or decisive strikes against key figures/threats Jefferson supported (and Congress later backed) operations like Stephen Decatur’s raid to burn the captured USS Philadelphia and William Eaton’s overland campaign to install a rival ruler in Tripoli—targeting leadership and assets to force compliance. Trump’s 2020 killing of Soleimani (head of the IRGC’s Quds Force, blamed for hundreds of American deaths) and later escalations (e.g., strikes killing Ayatollah Khamenei and regime figures in some accounts) were framed as removing high-value threats to deter future attacks, echoing Jefferson’s willingness to use force against pirate leaders and strongholds. Establishing deterrence through strength rather than negotiation alone Jefferson’s war ended tribute payments (though with a one-time ransom), proving force could succeed where payoffs failed, boosting U.S. prestige and naval credibility. Trump’s “peace through strength” approach sought to force Iran to negotiate from weakness (curtailing nuclear ambitions, proxy funding, and aggression), with supporters arguing it constrained Iran’s economy and capabilities more effectively than diplomacy without leverage. Historical precedent invoked for presidential authority In debates over Trump’s actions (especially Soleimani and later strikes), commentators and legal scholars (e.g., John Yoo) explicitly compared them to Jefferson’s Barbary campaign—highlighting early presidents’ broad commander-in-chief powers against non-state-like threats (pirates as quasi-state actors vs. Iran’s proxies/terrorism sponsorship) without needing Congress’s prior approval for initial responses. If you’re more of a visual learner, you can watch the full discussion here — it’s really good: Share!

I had to double and triple check that this was real, because it’s absolutely beyond anything you could even imagine. And incredibly it is real! It just happened today. It’s not AI and not a Deep Fake. Check out this truly stunning clip of the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, Sarah Rogers, testifying to Congress today and admitting that the Biden Administration spent time and money trying to “make the maps more gay”. Watch here: The Biden administration was allegedly wasting taxpayer money making gay maps, according to Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers. Rep Brian Mast: Can you tell me what is queering the map? Rogers: So I think we were trying to make the maps more gay. Mast:… pic.twitter.com/hPFWJxyxGY — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) March 6, 2026 NOT SATIRE! From Townhall, another clip: .@RepBrianMast: “What is queering the map?” Biden State Dep Admin: “I think we were trying to make the maps more gay … maybe they weren’t gay enough” Biden’s Presidency was a complete joke.pic.twitter.com/C42iMoI9RQ — Townhall.com (@townhallcom) March 6, 2026 Grok confirms the clip is real and explains exactly what it means to “make the maps more gay”: House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing: March 2026 Yes, it’s real—this exchange happened during a March 2026 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing under the new administration, where Rep. Brian Mast grilled State Department officials (including Under Secretary Sarah B. Rogers for Public Diplomacy/Management) about leftover Biden-era spending on various public diplomacy and academic grants. The specific phrase came up regarding a roughly $72,000 Fulbright-Hays doctoral dissertation grant (administered jointly by the Department of Education and State Department) awarded to a student researching queer and trans community building in Czechia (Czech Republic) and Slovakia. Part of the project involved creating an interactive online map of LGBTQ+ spaces, experiences, and histories in those countries—explicitly modeled after the existing crowdsourced platform called Queering the Map. The “Queering the Map” Project That original “Queering the Map” project (launched in 2017 by artist/designer Lucas LaRochelle) is a digital archive where LGBTQ+ people anonymously drop pins on a world map and share short personal stories tied to specific locations—things like: First kisses Coming-out moments Safe spaces Sites of violence/loss Cruising spots Pride events Everyday queer life in otherwise overlooked places It now has tens of thousands of entries and functions as a kind of community-generated counter-archive that challenges traditional maps’ focus on dominant (often straight, cis, colonial) narratives of space. Academic and Activist Context In academic/activist contexts, “queering the map” (or “queering cartography”) draws from queer theory and critical geography. It means: Challenging how conventional maps normalize certain identities, histories, and uses of space while erasing or marginalizing others. Adding layers that highlight LGBTQ+ experiences, non-normative geographies, or “queer” readings of place (e.g., marking public parks as sites of both joy and danger for queer people, or showing how cities are navigated differently by trans folks). Using mapping as resistance—reclaiming space, preserving erased histories, or making invisible communities visible. So “making a map more gay” (or “more queer”) is basically sarcastic shorthand for applying queer-theory lenses to cartography: overlaying LGBTQ+ stories, identities, and spatial experiences onto geographic data to create more inclusive/representative/alternative representations. Political and Cultural Impact In the hearing, the official’s deadpan/joking responses (“trying to make the maps more gay” → “maybe they weren’t gay enough”) played into the viral clip’s humor/absurdity angle, especially amid broader Republican criticism of these grants as wasteful ideological spending during serious national security issues (e.g., Iran-related threats). Critics see it as a classic example of bureaucratic overreach. Supporters frame it as soft-power cultural/educational outreach or academic freedom in international studies. The clip is circulating widely because the phrasing is hilariously blunt and meme-worthy, but the underlying project is a genuine (if niche) academic/digital-humanities effort that got federal funding through standard grant channels. At this point, I think we all owe Alex Jones a big apology….because he was right. Not only are we turning the frogs gay, but apparently we are making the maps gay as well, which is really an incredible accomplishment: RF.K Jr. confirms what Alex Jones has been saying forever…..The water is turning the frogs and kids gay…#WeWantAnswers #AlexJones #RFKJr pic.twitter.com/mbr5X1OqOz — Isaac’s Army (@ReturnOfKappy) September 23, 2023

Yesterday, when I covered the Kristi Noem news, I was very careful to not report what others were saying….namely, that she was “fired”. Why? Because it wasn’t immediately clear to me that it was true. In fact, President Trump’s statement seemed to clearly indicate it wasn’t a firing at all. So I very carefully reported it this way: BREAKING: Kristi Noem OUT As DHS Head, Replacement Already Named I also told you yesterday that Noem was actually given a new job in the Trump Administration, perhaps a much larger and more important job. And today Glenn Beck picked up on that theme and offered his thoughts. I thought his analysis was spot on, so to answer the question of “Was Kristi Noem fired?” I give you this short clip here: FULL TRANSCRIPT: Hello. Thank you for listening. Let me start with, um, Kristi Noem. What happened? Yesterday, something happened in Washington, looked a little like chaos, looked like, “Uh-oh, trouble.” And I’m not sure, maybe it is. I’m not sure. Uh, Kristi Noem is out as Department of Homeland Security secretary. And in her place, a guy named Senator Mullin. Now, let me start with Noem. She wasn’t fired, she was moved. And she was moved into something there, it was like, “What the hell is that? I’ve never even heard of that.” Doesn’t even fully exist yet. It’s a position called the Special Envoy for the Shield of the Americas. We are going all Marvel Comic. I mean, this guy is all Marvel Comic. Okay. Let me translate what this usually means in Washington, and may mean this time. I mean, what I’m gonna give you here is—I’m gonna give you facts and then I’m gonna speculate on them, so, you know, take it for what it’s worth. When a president moves somebody into a job that hasn’t been fully defined yet, it usually means one of two things: either A, yeah, bye-bye, you’re being pushed aside, or B, you’re being moved in to run something that is bigger but isn’t public yet. Okay? And if you look at the timing, this doesn’t feel like a demotion. And I’m getting mixed signals because some things, it looks like Donald Trump is pissed at her about, etc., etc., so I really don’t know, ’cause this is speculation. But it feels like a reorganization of the battlefield, because it’s the Shield of the Americas. I know that doesn’t mean anything, but follow me on this. Right now, the United States is looking at a hemisphere and a hemisphere problem that most Americans still don’t fully understand or see. When Donald Trump was running, and I’ve told you this before but it’s worth repeating, um, when Donald Trump was running for re-election, we were standing backstage some place and he was getting ready to go on. He said, “You wanna look like a prophet? You know what you need to just talk about? You just keep talking about Panama.” And I’m like, “Right.” And then he goes on stage and I’m like, “What am I gonna say about Panama? What does that mean? I don’t even know what that means.” “Panama’s gonna be in the news everywhere next year.” And then he walks on stage. And I came back and I went, “Does anybody understand what he’s talking about with Panama? What’s happening in Panama?” We all looked at each other, like, “Nothing is happening with Panama. What are you talking about?” Remember when he gets in? What does he say? “Panama. We want the Panama Canal back.” And you’re like, “W- what? What, where is this coming from?” Because he understood what was happening with Panama and China. China had taken the entire Panama Canal and was controlling it. Then what happens? He starts talking about Greenland, also in our hemisphere. Then what happens? He’s talking and making moves on Venezuela. Then what happens? He’s talking about, you know who’s next? Cuba. Okay. Whoo. Cuba, Russia, cartels operating like parallel governments across Mexico and Central America, Chinese ports being built all over Latin America, Russian intelligence operating out of Caracas, Iranian proxies using the region for logistics and staging grounds, and every other president has treated Latin America like an afterthought. But now? Now what’s happening? It’s not an afterthought anymore. The southern hemisphere has become the, the new frontline of great power competition. He is declaring, “The western hemisphere is ours.” Okay? And DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, was not designed for that. DHS created after 9/11, and that’s a whole different can of worms and we can get into that some other time, but it was built to stop terrorism inside of the United States, at our airports, at our borders, uh, disaster response, blah, blah, blah. But what the president is doing now is different and different than any other president has done probably since Theodore Roosevelt. Okay? This is hemisphere level instability. We have the migration waves, we have state collapse, we have cartels that are moving people and drugs and weapons and intelligence. We have foreign adversaries embedding themselves inside of all of that chaos. So, if you’re the president and you’re looking at the world and you’re saying, “We have got to shore up America to make sure we last another 150, 250 years, 100″—another 150 minutes at times, I feel like. You don’t just run border patrol. You build a hemisphere defense system. You make sure that our darkest, Russia, China, Iran, are not running operations in this hemisphere. Which may explain the phrase Shield of the Americas. Think about the name. It’s not border control, it’s not immigration enforcement, it’s a shield of the Americas, the entire western hemisphere. That doesn’t sound like DHS. That sounds more like strategic security architecture for the western hemisphere, doesn’t it? Or he’s just been watching Marvel Comics. But, to me, the Shield for Americas, the Americas sounds a little bit more like something like NATO; intelligence sharing, cartel disruption, migration control, counter-China operations. And if that’s what’s being built, you would need somebody who understands a few things: border security, state governments, law enforcement and migration policy. Well, I mean, isn’t that Kristi Noem? I mean, that’s her entire resume, isn’t it? So, the story may not be Noem fired on the outs. The story might be Noem redeployed. Now let me talk about the second half of this move, because while she goes outward to whatever is coming next—and the president said he’s gonna be talking about that this weekend—Trump brought somebody inward, Senator Mullin. Who is Senator Mullin? He’s a former MMA fighter, he’s a business owner, he’s a senator, and he’s controversial. Some critics inside, uh, MAGA circles, some of them, accuse him of being too establishment. Uh, he has done things like business loans during COVID. Uh, he’s got ethics complaints. He votes, you know, against MAGA sometimes. Fine. Not my favorite, but debate is healthy, and the real question is not personality, it is function. If the White House is creating a new Western hemisphere security structure, then DHS is about to become something different. Not a political platform, not a messaging department, but an operational machine. Master p— uh, deportations continue, border enforcement, domestic security, logistics, and Mullin, love him or hate him, has a reputation in Washington as somebody who picks fights and then executes orders. That’s what Donald Trump wants, a fighter who can execute what he orders. Okay, that’s his resume, and that’s—that tells me something important. This may not be a personnel shakeup. It may be the move in a larger security strategy, and a strategy built around the simple realization that for the next 20 years, America’s biggest threats may not come across the ocean. They may come across our own hemisphere. Think of Mexico. And if that is true, then the United States may be about to build something we haven’t had since the Cold War, a continental defense doctrine for the Americas. And if that’s what Shield of the Americas turns out to be, yesterday was not a firing. Yesterday was the first chess move on a board none of us have been thinking about. You can watch the full video here if you want: So what do you think? Fired or promoted?

The U.S. military abruptly canceled a major training exercise for an elite paratrooper unit, The Washington Post reports. “The Army abruptly canceled a major training exercise, officials said, fueling speculation within the Defense Department that soldiers specializing in ground combat and a range of other missions may be sent to the Middle East,” the outlet wrote. Breaking news: The Army abruptly canceled a major training exercise, officials said, fueling speculation within the Defense Department that soldiers specializing in ground combat and a range of other missions may be sent to the Middle East. https://t.co/1nuTFn8acH — The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) March 6, 2026 More from The Washington Post: The 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg in North Carolina includes a brigade combat team of about 4,000 to 5,000 soldiers ready to deploy on 18 hours notice for missions as varied as seizing airfields and other critical infrastructure, reinforcing U.S. embassies and enabling emergency evacuations. Its headquarters element is responsible for coordinating how those operations are planned and executed. No deployment orders had been issued as of Friday, officials said, speaking like some others on the condition of anonymity to discuss the situation. They noted that the Army is expected to announce soon a previously scheduled Middle East deployment for a helicopter unit with the 82nd, but that won’t happen until later in the spring. Other soldiers with the 82nd continued training in Louisiana in recent days. But the unexpected change of plans for the headquarters staff — the unit was told to stay put in North Carolina instead of joining the training event at Fort Polk in Louisiana — and the 82nd’s high-profile role in past conflicts has heightened expectations that the division’s Immediate Response Force could be called upon. Meanwhile, some Iranian officials said they are “confident” they can withstand a U.S. ground invasion. “We are confident that we can confront them, and it will be a big disaster for them,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Thursday. Watch below: NOW – Reporter: "Are you afraid of a U.S. invasion in your country?"Araghchi: "No, we are waiting for them."Reporter: "You are waiting for the U.S. military to invade, the ground troops?!"Araghchi: "Yes!" pic.twitter.com/0L0cNXLopd — Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 5, 2026 The Hill shared further: Iranian and U.S. representatives last met for negotiations on a new nuclear agreement on Feb. 26, less than 48 hours before the U.S. military launched Operation Epic Fury. The joint strikes on Saturday killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and multiple military leaders. Iran’s military retaliated with targeted drone strikes on Israel and Gulf states, killing six U.S. service members in Kuwait. The foreign minister waved aside concerns that Iran could target the U.S. homeland, saying the country’s military is focused on targeting American military bases in the Middle East. “They have enough soldiers, they have enough military assets, they have enough military bases and military installations, so we don’t need to go beyond that,” he said.

Another day, another record… New data has just come in showing that President Trump’s approval rating is higher than both Barack Hussein Obama and George W. Bush at this point in their 2nd terms: BREAKING: It was just confirmed that President Trump has a HIGHER approval rating than both Barack Hussein Obama and George Bush at this point in their 2nd terms — RealClearPolitics LET’S GO! Another fake news narrative decimated. pic.twitter.com/6JnR91eKSn — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 5, 2026 But it’s actually much bigger than that… Watch below as CNN is forced to admit on the air that President Trump is more loved by his own party at this point in his 2nd term than by ANY OTHER President in history! Check this out: CNN: “Republicans love Donald Trump more than any president’s own party’s supporters loved them at this particular point.” pic.twitter.com/QYTlmQifEl — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) March 5, 2026 So the next time someone tries to tell you President Trump is unpopular, just show them this. Even CNN had to admit it!