By James Thompson

The shocking assassination of civil rights leader Charlie Kirk by a young man radicalized by online Antifa rhetoric has reignited national debate about the power of incendiary political propaganda. For years, Kirk was smeared by elements of the far-left as a “fascist” or “white supremacist”—labels that bore no resemblance to his real philosophy, which was firmly rooted in traditional, centrist American values.

These misrepresentations were not harmless exaggerations. They were dangerous falsehoods designed to vilify mainstream conservatism, strip it of legitimacy and humanity, and justify violence against its proponents. See our article of April 22, 2025: Perhaps Biden was Right: Domestic Terrorism is the Greatest Threat. The tragedy of Kirk’s murder illustrates the deadly consequences of such rhetoric, which transforms political opponents into enemies to be destroyed rather than fellow citizens to be debated.

A Champion of Civil Debate and Free Speech

Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, spent much of his short career on college campuses across America. With his “Change My Mind” and “Prove Me Wrong” tours, he invited young people to challenge him openly on issues ranging from economics to morality. His aim was never to silence others but to encourage robust dialogue—a hallmark of democratic society and a direct inheritance of the constitutional republic America was founded upon.

Far from being a “fascist,” Kirk’s public work was the opposite: he celebrated free speech, personal liberty, and the power of persuasion. The eagerness with which he welcomed opposition demonstrated not a hunger for domination, but a deep belief that truth and common sense could withstand scrutiny.

Core Philosophies Rooted in American Tradition

Though vilified by his opponents, Kirk consistently championed positions that align not with extremism, but with the longstanding mainstream beliefs of the American people. Among them:

1. Free Speech for All – Advocacy against censorship and “cancel culture.”
2. Religious Liberty – Defense of the right to live according to Judeo-Christian moral convictions.
3. Constitutional Government – Emphasis on checks and balances, limited government, and federalism.
4. Individual Responsibility – Belief that citizens thrive when accountable for their choices.
5. Equal Opportunity – Opposition to racial quotas and identity politics in favor of merit-based advancement.
6. Rule of Law – Support for strong but fair law enforcement and judicial integrity.
7. Second Amendment Rights – Defense of lawful gun ownership as a safeguard of liberty.
8. Economic Freedom – Promotion of free markets, entrepreneurship, and opportunity.
9. Fiscal Responsibility – Opposition to reckless federal spending and unsustainable debt.
10. Strong Families – Recognition of the family unit as foundational to a healthy society.
11. Educational Choice – Support for school choice and parental rights in education.
12. National Sovereignty – Belief in secure borders and fair, orderly immigration.
13. Care for the Vulnerable – Advocacy for policies protecting the unborn, the elderly, and the disabled.
14. Patriotism – Promotion of national pride and civic responsibility.
15. International Prudence – Advocacy of strong defense while opposing reckless foreign entanglements.

Each of these positions sits comfortably within the center of American political tradition, reflecting beliefs held by a broad swath of average citizens across all generations. None are extremist; all flow from the founding principles of liberty, justice, and ordered self-government. See our recent articles: The Rise of 80-20 Issues: How One-Sided Politics is Reshaping America’s Future; Dems Oppose Americans on Every Issue.

The Lies That Fueled Violence

Despite these centrist convictions, Kirk was relentlessly branded a “fascist” by leftist activists. In truth, fascism is defined by authoritarianism, suppression of dissent, and subordination of individual liberty to the state—values directly opposed to Kirk’s. The smear was not an accident. It was a tactic, designed to portray ordinary conservative Americans as dangerous enemies.

By equating constitutional centrism with extremism, the radical Left justified its own growing radicalism. The tragic result was a young man radicalized into believing that silencing Charlie Kirk with violence was somehow righteous.

The 80/20 America: Most Agree With Kirk’s Positions

Kirk’s centrist philosophy was not fringe—it reflected what poll after poll shows are the views of the overwhelming majority of Americans. On issue after issue, about 80 percent of the country agrees with the positions he championed, while only 20 percent embrace the radical alternatives. Examples include:

• Free Speech: Roughly 80% of Americans believe political correctness has gone too far and that open debate is essential to democracy.
• School Choice: A large majority supports giving parents the right to choose their children’s schools, including charter and private options.
• Border Security: About three-quarters of Americans believe the southern border must be secured and immigration laws enforced.
• Religious Freedom: Most Americans agree people should not be forced to abandon their faith convictions in the public square.
• Police and Law Enforcement: Around 80% reject “defund the police” rhetoric, supporting law enforcement while calling for fairness and accountability.
• National Pride: Polling shows most Americans are proud of their country and want history taught honestly, without erasing its achievements.
• Fiscal Responsibility: Americans overwhelmingly believe Washington spends too much and risks saddling future generations with unsustainable debt.

These are not “extremist” views—they are the mainstream. The radicals who sought to demonize Kirk were attacking not just him, but the broad consensus of the American people.

Charlie Kirk pictured with his wife and children

A Warning for America

The assassination of Charlie Kirk is not just the loss of one man; it is a warning for the nation. When political disagreement is replaced with slander and demonization, society begins a descent into tribalism and violence—even Civil War. The campaign to portray Kirk—and by extension, many millions of traditional conservatives—as “fascists” has now borne its poisonous fruit. Every Leftist with “fascist” and “Hitler” on their lips has hands dripping with the blood of Charlie Kirk.

If America is to remain free, which has been in question recently, citizens must reject the lies that pit neighbor against neighbor. We must restore the principle that disagreement does not make one an enemy, and that violence is never an acceptable substitute for persuasion. Violence begets violence, and a downward spiral quickly ensues into civil war—something this republic barely survived not so long ago.

Charlie Kirk’s life’s work was to prove that truth can stand on its own, that free people debating in good faith can arrive at better understanding. To honor his legacy, Americans must recommit to civil discourse, resist the radical fringe, and defend the traditional centrist values that have held the Republic together since its founding.

---

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

---

Sponsored by BasicInfo123 — simple bite-sized guides for life, money, civics, and more—because some stuff school just didn’t cover.

Lethal shots fired at a Charlie Kirk event at Utah Valley University, Orem, Utah. Kirk was shot in throat.

President Donald Trump confirmed Kirk’s death in a post on Truth Social.

“The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead. No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie. He was loved and admired by ALL, especially me, and now, he is no longer with us,” Trump wrote. “Melania and my Sympathies go out to his beautiful wife Erika, and family. Charlie, we love you!”

Conservative speaker and host assassinated by a gunman at an event at Utah Valley University, in Orem, Utah.

Police are investigating now, and the shooting suspect is NOT in custody.

The campus is on lockdown.

President Trump wrote on social media: “We must all pray for Charlie Kirk, who has been shot. A great guy from top to bottom. GOD BLESS HIM!”

In a statement on X, Vice President J.D. Vance wrote: “Say a prayer for Charlie Kirk, a genuinely good guy and a young father.”

Kirk is in critical condition at a hospital after being shot Wednesday at a Utah event, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press.

Video posted from the event appeared to show Kirk being shot as he spoke to the crowd from under a white pop-up tent. After the shot, the crowd dispersed, with onlookers shouting “Run, run, run!”

See video>

Charlie Kirk has just been shot! WTH!

I have had my beef with @charliekirk11 and have my concerns with TPUSA but I would never wish this on him.

We are at war people.

Pray for him! pic.twitter.com/jpMSR6SXpU

— Morgan Ariel (@itsmorganariel) September 10, 2025

A suspect is in custody, according to a UVU alert sent to students. The campus has been evacuated.

“A single shot was fired on campus toward a visiting speaker. Police are investigating now, suspect in custody,” an alert from UVU said.

https://www.tiktok.com/@cooperutah/video/7548536180225084727

An older man was arrested and taken into police custody. His name was not immediately released. It appears that he is not the shooter.

FBI and ATF agents are on the scene, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi.

President Donald Trump posted on social media: “We must all pray for Charlie Kirk, who has been shot. A great guy from top to bottom. GOD BLESS HIM!” 

FBI Director Kash Patel said the agency “stands in full support of the ongoing response and investigation.”

Utah Sen. Mike Lee said he is “tracking the situation at Utah Valley University closely.”

“Please join me in praying for Charlie Kirk and the students gathered there,” he said on social media.

Kirk had been scheduled to appear at Utah Valley University on Wednesday as part of his American Comeback Tour, with another stop at Utah State University later this month. His appearances have drawn protests and petitions from student groups critical of his views.

In a since-deleted post on Kirk’s social media just hours before the attack, the conservative firebrand wrote: “WE. ARE. SO. BACK. Utah Valley University is FIRED UP and READY for the first stop back on the American Comeback Tour.”

The Fall 2025 leg of the tour began at the Orem, Utah university and is “a nationwide campus tour aimed at equipping students with the tools to push back against leftwing indoctrination in academia and reclaim their right to free speech.” 

By James Thompson

America’s homicide crisis is escalating (despite Democrat attempts to skew crime numbers), and young Black men remain trapped in a grossly outsized cycle of violence and victimization that far exceeds their share of the general population.

Black American men ages 15–34 account for just 5% of the U.S. population, yet they suffer homicide rates more than six times the national average.

In 2023, federal data show Black Americans were killed at a rate of 21.3 per 100,000, compared to just 3.2 per 100,000 for White Americans. Firearm homicides alone hit nearly 27.5 per 100,000 Black residents—a staggering figure that dwarfs those of every other racial group.

Why?

The tragedy is not just in the numbers, but in the lived reality. In Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and scores of other Democrat-run “Blue Cities,” shootings are measured in dozens per weekend. The overwhelming majority of both offenders and victims are young Black men. And despite public perception, the violence is overwhelmingly intraracial (Balck-on-Black): about 63% of violent crimes against Black victims are committed by other Black offenders, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey. Contrary to what many legacy media outlets claim, very few are committed by police.

A Cycle Rooted in Poverty and Family Instability

Researchers point to a web of interconnected drivers: segregated, under-resourced neighborhoods, failing public schools, and high rates of single-parent households. In 2023, nearly half of Black children lived with a single parent, compared to about one in five White children. Critics argue that decades of welfare policy discouraged family stability, and that “marriage penalties” in tax and welfare benefit systems risk making poor families worse off if they legally wed.

The result is a generation of boys too often raised without consistent male role models, in neighborhoods where crime networks wield more influence than families, schools or churches. As one Chicago pastor put it recently: “We’re asking young men to build a life on quicksand.”

Violence Beyond the Black Community

The violence does not remain contained. The shocking murder of Iryna Zarutska, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee fatally stabbed on Charlotte’s light rail a few days ago drew national headlines and underscored broader anxieties about crime crossing racial lines. Hispanic and Asian communities in urban centers are also reporting rising victimization rates, though the overall pattern remains heavily concentrated within racial groups themselves.

What Works—and What Doesn’t

While political debates rage over policing, incarceration, and gun laws, researchers have quietly identified interventions that consistently save lives.

• Focused deterrence strategies, such as the Group Violence Intervention model, have cut homicides sharply in cities that apply them with fidelity. These programs zero in on the small networks responsible for the majority of shootings, pairing swift enforcement with real offers of services and escape routes.
• Youth interventions like Chicago’s Becoming a Man program have shown remarkable results, reducing violent-crime arrests by more than a third through cognitive-behavioral therapy and mentoring.
• High-dosage tutoring and strong schools in disadvantaged areas attack the root of intergenerational poverty by raising achievement and keeping at-risk youth connected to opportunity.
• Mobility programs that help families move into safer, higher-opportunity neighborhoods when children are young have lasting effects, producing higher adult earnings and more stable families.

These approaches stand in contrast to broad “tough on crime” sweeps that often criminalize entire communities while missing the small, tightly connected groups who actually drive the violence.

A National Responsibility

The cost of inaction is measured in human lives and lost futures. Every weekend, headlines announce the toll: “12 shot, 3 killed overnight” in many cities. Each figure represents not just a victim, but a family torn apart, a neighborhood further traumatized, and a society that has failed to deliver equal safety and opportunity.

If America is serious about addressing its most urgent public safety crisis, it must confront the uncomfortable truth: a small share of the population, disproportionately young Black men, bear the brunt of the nation’s violence epidemic–as perpetrators and victims.

Breaking that cycle will require more than policing alone. It demands rebuilding families, repairing schools, reforming welfare policies, and investing in proven strategies that offer young men a path to middle-class stability rather than early graves.

Until then, the “normal” American life—safe streets, good schools, stable families—will remain out of reach for too many of those who need it most.

President Donald Trump is launching a sweeping policing of troubled cities with federal assets in the hope of reducing crime and saving lives. His foray into Washington, D.C. with a federal presence has yielded fantastic results, sparing the lives of many young Black American men. However, Democrats are boisterously against such efforts, screaming in the streets that they are happy with the status quo in their war-torn cities, and that Trump is a fascist dictator to seek peace and safety in our cities. We expect to see the effort expanded to many Blue Cities in the next few months, and when Trump succeeds, we will see what can be done for the young Black men and their families who live to make a change.

---

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

Sponsored by BasicInfo123 — simple bite-sized guides for life, money, civics, and more—because some stuff school just didn’t cover.

By Federalist Press Investigative Team

Houses of worship, once untouchable sanctuaries of community and conscience, are becoming battlefields in a global war against religion. From arson and vandalism to deadly shootings, the evidence is clear: hostility toward faith is on the rise. Yet the institutions most responsible for protecting society—the press, educators, and governments—often look away, downplay, or worse, subtly encourage the targeting of believers.

This exposé examines the escalation of anti-religious violence, how radical ideologies are weaponizing young people against faith, and why silence from the cultural establishment makes them complicit.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

The FBI’s most recent Hate Crime Statistics Report shows that religious bias accounts for roughly 20% of all reported hate crimes, second only to racial bias. Anti-Jewish incidents lead the category, but anti-Christian and anti-Muslim cases have climbed sharply. Reports of church vandalism and synagogue desecrations increased by double digits in the past decade, yet coverage in major outlets like The New York Times and CNN remains sparse.

Meanwhile, Catholic Vote reported over 320 attacks on Catholic churches since 2020, including dozens of arsons. Evangelical churches, particularly those opposed to progressive social agendas, face firebombings and smashed windows. In Canada, over 70 churches were torched in a single summer, most cases unresolved.

---

The School Shootings the Media Buried

Nowhere is the pattern more chilling than in school shootings explicitly targeting Christian institutions.

• The Covenant School, Nashville (2023): A transgender-identified shooter murdered three children and three staff members at a Christian elementary school. Authorities confirmed the shooter left a manifesto targeting Christians, yet its full release has been blocked by courts—amid suspicions that its contents would reveal explicit anti-Christian animus tied to radical gender ideology. The shooter’s Transifesto is still being suppressed from the public.
• Minneapolis was shaken when gunfire erupted outside Annunciation Catholic Church on Wednesday, Aug. 27 – the fourth major shooting in less than 24 hours. The school attack, which terrified students and parents, capped a violent spree that left at least three people dead and more than a dozen others wounded across the city. The transgender-identified shooter left behind his Tranifesto, spewing his hate of children and Christians.
• Colorado Springs (2019, thwarted): A trans-identified individual was arrested with a hit list and plans to target local churches, citing hatred of Christians in online postings.
• Other incidents: Smaller cases in Kentucky and California also revealed trans-identified suspects threatening or attacking churches and faith schools.

Mainstream coverage? Muted. Instead of highlighting the anti-religious motivation, networks portrayed the perpetrators as victims of “societal rejection,” effectively excusing their violence. Imagine the coverage if the reverse were true—if a religious extremist had targeted an LGBT school. The double standard is glaring.

Teachers’ Union Programs: Undermining Faith in the Classroom

Much of the cultural hostility toward religion is seeded not in the streets, but in the classroom. Teachers’ unions, long dominated by progressive leadership, have increasingly used their influence to push policies and programs that portray traditional religious beliefs as outdated, intolerant, or even harmful.

• NEA & Gender Ideology Training: The National Education Association (NEA), the nation’s largest teachers’ union, hosts workshops that encourage teachers to “affirm student identities” without parental knowledge. In practice, this often means withholding information from Christian or religious parents whose values conflict with gender-transition policies. By treating parental involvement as dangerous, these programs drive a wedge between children and their families’ faith traditions.
• Anti-“Religious Privilege” Curricula: The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has endorsed classroom materials that frame Christianity—especially in its traditional or conservative forms—as a source of systemic oppression. Training documents encourage educators to identify “religious privilege” as a barrier to equity, painting devout families as inherently problematic.
• Partnerships With Activist Nonprofits: Both NEA and AFT have partnered with outside organizations such as GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network) and the Human Rights Campaign to develop curricula. While framed as “anti-bullying” or “inclusive,” many of these programs depict faith-based objections to gender or sexual ideology as examples of hate, effectively stigmatizing religious students and families.
• Cultural Reframing Exercises: Some union-backed training materials go so far as to suggest exercises where children are encouraged to question their families’ religious values and “deconstruct” traditional moral frameworks. Faith is treated as something to be unlearned, rather than a legitimate foundation for personal identity.

Critics argue these programs do more than just “educate.” They function as soft conversion tactics—encouraging children to view their parents’ religion as oppressive, while offering radical ideology as the enlightened alternative. The result is a generation of young people alienated from faith and more susceptible to radicalization online, where anger and identity confusion can be weaponized into activism—or in extreme cases, violence.

Europe and Beyond: Faith Erased, Freedom Eroded

In Europe, secular governments do little to protect churches that are vandalized weekly. France has seen over 1,000 annual attacks on Christian sites in recent years. Germany’s Jewish communities face surging antisemitic crimes. The U.K. documents increasing assaults on both Muslims and Christians, yet arrests and prosecutions are rare.

Globally, the situation is bloodier. Boko Haram massacres Christians in Nigeria. Hindu-Muslim violence leaves houses of worship smoldering in India. In China, churches are bulldozed and mosques fitted with surveillance cameras. The message is the same everywhere: religion is dangerous, and faith must bow to ideology.

The Media Cover-Up

When attacks occur, media coverage follows a predictable script:

• If the victims are Christian, the crime is treated as an isolated event, stripped of ideological context.
• If the perpetrator is tied to progressive causes (as in Nashville), coverage softens or shifts blame to “society.”
• If the crime fits an anti-right narrative, it dominates headlines for weeks.

By burying the truth, the press signals that attacks on certain faiths are tolerable—or even deserved.

Why It Matters

This is more than vandalism. More than crime. These are attacks on freedom itself. The right to worship freely is the cornerstone of any free society. When churches burn and Christian children are gunned down—while governments hide manifestos and teachers’ unions undermine families—we are watching the unraveling of liberty.

History is unambiguous: totalitarian regimes always begin by erasing religion. Stalin dynamited churches. Mao banned temples. Hitler vilified Jews. Today’s radicals, whether in classrooms, legislatures, or social media mobs, are following the same playbook.

A Call to Defend Faith

The faithful must no longer remain silent. Religious communities must demand that governments enforce laws equally, that perpetrators be prosecuted without ideological cover, and that media outlets stop burying the truth. Parents must reclaim schools from unions that treat their faith as an enemy.

The war on faith is not hypothetical—it is here, it is growing, and it will not stop until believers themselves refuse to bow.

By James Thompson

Across the globe, religious believers are under siege. Churches burned, synagogues defaced, mosques bombed—what once might have been dismissed as rare or isolated incidents has now become an undeniable pattern: a rising tide of hostility against people of faith and the institutions they hold sacred. Tens of thousands of Christians are being murdered, and no one seems to be that concerned about it.

This surge in anti-religious violence is not merely the work of fringe extremists. It reflects something deeper and more dangerous—a cultural shift, fueled by political agendas, ideological indoctrination, and in some cases, governments themselves. Faith, long seen as the backbone of communities, is now deliberately painted as an obstacle to “progress.”

America: The Unspoken Epidemic

In the United States, the evidence is overwhelming. Christian churches were vandalized and torched at a pace not seen in generations, and are now bombed and shot up by anti-religion zealots, while national media outlets give these crimes a fraction of the coverage they would if the targets were secular institutions. Synagogues in New York and New Jersey are repeatedly defaced, as are other Christian churches across the nation, while the left holds antisemitic protests verging on riots on our university campuses and in our city streets.

But instead of outrage, we hear silence—or worse, rationalizations. Some argue that attacks on churches are “understandable backlash” against historic wrongs, or that Christian institutions “deserve criticism” for their values. When trans mass murderers attack Christian schools and churches, left-leaning media all but ignore it. The moral right of religious people to worship freely is now openly questioned. That is not tolerance. It is bigotry dressed up as cultural critique.

Europe: Secular Ideology Turned Hostile

Europe offers a sobering warning of what happens when militant secularism takes hold. France’s radical brand of “laïcité” has turned crosses, headscarves, and church spires into lightning rods for political conflict. Germany has seen antisemitic attacks rise sharply, and in the U.K., religious minorities face harassment with little more than token government concern.

This is not just vandalism—it is a war on identity. Religious symbols are torn down because they remind people that tradition, morality, and transcendent values still exist. For activists who want to erase history and redefine society, faith communities are enemy number one.

Around the World: Violence Without Shame

Beyond the West, the persecution grows even bloodier. In Nigeria, Islamist militias slaughter Christian villagers while international organizations look the other way. In India, sectarian mobs destroy houses of worship with impunity. In China, the Communist regime bulldozes underground churches and fills Uyghur mosques with surveillance cameras.

The message is unmistakable: religion must bow to ideology—or be crushed.

Why This Matters

Attacks on religious institutions are not just crimes against property or individual believers. They are attacks on freedom itself. The right to worship—whether in a cathedral, a synagogue, or a mosque—is the most basic human right, one that pre-dates governments and constitutions. When that right is ignored, restricted, or mocked, societies lose their moral compass.

It is no coincidence that history’s greatest tyrannies have always begun by silencing faith. Stalin dynamited churches. Mao banned temples. Hitler vilified Jews. Today’s mobs and militants follow the same script, while calling the defenders of Jews Hitler. It is twisted Orwellian blather.

The Road Ahead

If governments continue to look the other way—or worse, encourage hostility toward religion—the violence will only escalate. Protecting houses of worship and parishioners, prosecuting hate crimes without political bias, and rejecting the narrative that faith is “dangerous” are urgent necessary steps.

The rise in anti-religion attacks is not just another social problem. It is a flashing red warning light for civilization. A society that cannot or will not defend its churches, synagogues, and mosques will not long defend anything else.

---

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

New York — A five‑judge panel of New York’s Appellate Division (First Department) has thrown out the massive monetary penalty imposed on President Donald Trump in the state’s civil fraud case, finding the disgorgement order “excessive” under the Eighth Amendment. The ruling, issued Thursday, strikingly reshapes the case that had ballooned to more than $515 million with interest, and leaves a clear path for further appeals to New York’s highest court.

What the court decided

• Disgorgement/monetary penalty: Vacated in its entirety as an excessive fine. The court concluded that directing Trump and co‑defendants to pay nearly half a billion dollars violated the U.S. Constitution’s Excessive Fines Clause.
• Injunctive relief: The panel indicated that certain behavior‑modifying injunctions aimed at corporate practices were appropriate, even as it rejected the money judgment. (Those bans and monitorships had been paused during the appeal.)
• Next steps: The decision keeps the door open for additional review—by the New York Court of Appeals—while dissolving the immediate threat of collection on the disgorgement. Trump’s previously posted $175 million bond forestalled collection while the appeal was pending.

How we got here

New York Attorney General Letitia James sued in 2022 under Executive Law § 63(12), a powerful state statute often used to police “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts.” After a bench trial, Justice Arthur Engoron found Trump had inflated asset values and, in early 2024, imposed a penalty initially pegged around $355 million, which with interest swelled above $515 million; he also ordered leadership bans and other injunctive remedies.

New York State Attorney General Letitia James campaigned on promise to take down President Trump by any means necessary.

Trump appealed, arguing that (1) no lender lost money, (2) the Attorney General stretched § 63(12) beyond its proper scope, (3) the disgorgement was unauthorized or disproportionate, and (4) the penalty violated the Eighth Amendment. Several Republican‑led states filed amicus briefs supporting the excessive‑fines argument.

Today’s ruling—after an unusually long deliberation period for the First Department—adopts the excessive‑fines critique and erases the money judgment. (Reporting earlier this week highlighted how rare such internal divisions and delays are for this court.)

Why the Excessive Fines Clause matters here

The Excessive Fines Clause applies to state actions, including civil sanctions, via Timbs v. Indiana (2019). In Timbs, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that states cannot impose grossly disproportionate financial penalties. That constitutional guardrail now anchors the appeals court’s conclusion that New York’s disgorgement order went too far.

Critics’ case: why many call the lawsuit a “sham”

From the outset, critics argued that New York brought a politicized, victim‑less fraud case: lenders were sophisticated, performed their own valuations, were repaid, and did not complain of losses; yet the state sought a sweeping corporate death‑penalty‑style remedy. Business‑law commentators warned the case, if upheld, would chill private enterprise by punishing negotiations that harmed no counterparties. Today’s ruling vindicates the core of that critique by rejecting the most punitive financial sanction as unconstitutional.

Republican attorneys general likewise contended that using § 63(12) to extract a massive disgorgement where no consumer injury was shown transformed the statute into a blunt political instrument. Their filings emphasized that punishment must be proportional and tied to demonstrable harms—principles the appellate court’s decision echoes.

What still stands—and what could come next

• Fraud findings & injunctions: The court signaled that targeted injunctive relief to constrain business practices can remain—a point the Attorney General will lean on as she considers next steps. (Any renewed attempt at monetary sanctions would face strict proportionality limits.)
• Further appeals: Either side can seek leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. Given the stakes—for Trump, for the AG’s office, and for the future use of § 63(12)—a petition is highly likely.
• Broader impact: The ruling will shape how New York (and other states) deploy civil‑fraud statutes in high‑profile business cases. It underscores that even civil “disgorgement” risks crossing into punitive territory barred by the Eighth Amendment—especially where the record shows no concrete losses to counterparties.

Bottom line

The appeals court didn’t just trim Trump’s penalty—it wiped out the money judgment as unconstitutional, dramatically undercutting the theory that justified the case’s most severe sanction. For supporters of the President, this outcome supports the view that the New York proceeding was overreaching and political. For state regulators, it’s a sobering reminder that civil enforcement powers meet constitutional limits, and that large “disgorgements” must be tied to real harms and calibrated to pass Eighth Amendment scrutiny.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a dramatic escalation of an already heated national debate, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has formally referred a criminal case to the Department of Justice, alleging that former President Barack Obama and top officials in his administration conspired to falsely implicate Donald Trump in Russian collusion. Gabbard has shared newly uncovered intelligence that reveals a calculated effort to manufacture the narrative that Russia played a decisive role in Trump’s 2016 election—a narrative that crippled Trump’s ability to govern, and poisoned U.S.-Russia relations for years.

According to evidence unearthed by National Intelligence, the Obama administration had clear evidence before the election that Russia had not manipulated vote counts or voting systems. Despite this, they selectively ignored or suppressed this intelligence in favor of amplifying a false narrative that Trump was elected with the help of the Kremlin. Gabbard has released more than 100 pages of declassified records, including internal memos and emails, which prove high-ranking officials like former CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper deliberately advanced the Russia narrative despite knowing it was untrue.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard provides graphic of how Obama and security chiefs staged coup against Trump on Russia issue.

At the center of the controversy is the infamous Steele dossier, which Gabbard contends was misused as a tool by the Obama administration to justify illegal federal surveillance of Trump’s team, and media leaks, even though its contents were never verified. She argues that the entire Russia collusion scandal was based on disinformation, used strategically to delegitimize Trump’s presidency and prevent him from working effectively with foreign leaders like Vladimir Putin.

Speaking at a press conference earlier this week, Gabbard did not mince words. “This was a years-long coup attempt,” she said. “They knew Russia didn’t change votes or hack election systems, but they pushed the lie anyway. This wasn’t intelligence—it was election interference, orchestrated from the highest levels of government.”

The discovered evidence, she says, paints a picture of a “treasonous conspiracy” involving the manipulation of classified information and the politicization of America’s intelligence agencies. Gabbard’s referral to the DOJ includes a formal request for criminal investigation into conspiracy, abuse of power, and obstruction of justice. She emphasized that because conspiracy to commit fraud against the United States carries no statute of limitations, those involved could still face prosecution.

Conservative leaders and media outlets have praised Gabbard’s actions. Fox News described the revelations as “bombshell,” and lawmakers like Senator Chuck Grassley say this criminal referral marks a long-overdue reckoning for those who politicized intelligence to harm a duly elected president.

Former officials like John Brennan have dismissed Gabbard’s claims as a “wholesale misrepresentation” of intelligence procedures and policy debates. Obama’s office also pushed back firmly, calling the accusations “a baseless distraction” intended to rewrite history and deflect from Trump’s actual conduct.

Gabbard remains undeterred. She has hinted that more documents and whistleblower testimony will soon be made public, and she is working closely with congressional allies to ensure the matter is investigated fully. Trump, who has praised Gabbard for her “courage and patriotism,” has suggested that these disclosures vindicate his long-standing claim that the Russia narrative was a politically motivated hoax.

Whether the DOJ will act on the referral remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: if Gabbard’s allegations hold up under legal scrutiny, they could represent one of the most explosive abuses of power in modern American history.

---

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

Circling the News has looked into the disposition of the FireAid funds, and has discovered that most of the money has ended up in the hands of democratic party front organizations, absorbed to support many leftist causes, instead of helping victims of the L.A. fires.

FireAid, a two‑venue benefit concert held on January 30, 2025, at Inglewood’s Intuit Dome and Kia Forum, raised over $100 million for the victims of the Eaton and Palisades fires in Los Angeles. The event featured megastars like Billie Eilish, Lady Gaga, and U2—who even pledged $1 million—while Steve and Connie Ballmer matched donations dollar for dollar.

The Annenberg Foundation was designated to oversee distribution of the proceeds via a newly formed 501(c)(3) dubbed FireAid.

The missing money

• By July 2025—six months post-concert—investigative reporter Sue Pascoe (editor of Circling the News), found no evidence that funds had gone directly to fire survivors.
• When pressed, the Annenberg Foundation and Clippers’ spokesperson Chris Wallace stated that all funds were allocated to nonprofits serving impacted communities, but none were provided as direct cash grants to individuals.
• The community council in Pacific Palisades pushed back: of the nearly 120 nonprofits awarded money, only three served Palisades directly—Kehillat Israel, Chabad of Palisades, and Palisades High School—with no transparency on grant sizes or outcomes.

Where has the money gone?

• Phase 1 (February 2025): $50 million distributed across 120+ nonprofits—a wide range of leftist organizations and causes (food, housing, arts, mental health, animal welfare, etc.)—but with no indication of any impact in hard-hit neighborhoods like Palisades.
• Phase 2 (early summer 2025): $25 million allocated to longer-term programs—mental health, environmental remediation, sustainable rebuilding—again routed entirely via leftist nonprofits.
• Phase 3: Still open for nonprofit applications; no direct individual aid has been announced.

Voices from the frontlines

• Pascoe quotes a distraught reader: “I’ve never seen any fire aid money… There’s 12,000 people… homes gone. Those people probably wanna know where the money is.”
• The Pacific Palisades Community Council demanded a full accounting—grant-by-grant, dollar amounts, and whether any funds reached victims directly—pressuring Annenberg and FireAid for transparency.

What’s at stake?

1. Transparency: Donors—including Ballmers and artists—gave believing relief would hit families’ pockets. Yet there’s no public record of distributions, amounts, or recipients.
2. Accountability: The failure to track how leftist nonprofit partners used the money raises the risk of funds being diverted to general left-wing causes or bureaucratic overhead (CEO salaries, donations to DNC), instead of victims.
3. Public trust: Allegations accuse that funds were simply “laundered through democratic party front organizations.” What is clear is the heavy reliance on nonprofits without visible community oversight.

The bottom line

Over $100 million was raised in good faith to aid Los Angeles fire victims. Yet by mid‑2025:

• No direct cash support has been confirmed to individual victims of the fires.
• A small number of left-leaning nonprofits in severely affected areas have been revealed to have received grants—with no breakdown of dollar amounts or reported impact.
• The remainder of funds is funneled into broader democrat community and infrastructure projects, at the discretion of FireAid advisors.

What happens next?

• The Pacific Palisades Community Council is demanding a full financial breakdown—including all grants, matched funds, and direct aid—as of May 2025.
• More investigative pressure from reporters like Pascoe, community groups, and possibly legal scrutiny may force public disclosure.
• If answers continue to stall, donors may call for independent audits or even legal action to ensure intended recipients aren’t forgotten.

---

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

Jeffrey Epstein’s case is one of the most disturbing and puzzling scandals of our time. A financier with murky origins and enormous reach, Epstein used his wealth and elite connections to build a secretive network that trafficked and exploited underage girls across the globe. From his private Caribbean island to his luxury homes in New York and Palm Beach, Epstein operated in plain sight — surrounded by celebrities, academics, politicians, and royalty. Yet, years after his death, many of the most important questions remain unanswered.

A Global Network of Abuse

Beginning in the 1990s and continuing for over two decades, Epstein reportedly abused dozens — possibly hundreds — of underage girls. Many were recruited under the pretense of offering massage work, only to find themselves trapped in a cycle of manipulation and sexual exploitation. Victims testified that they were often coerced into recruiting other girls, creating a pyramid-style trafficking ring.

Bill Clinton greeting Epstein, with Ghislaine Maxwell

Much of the recruiting was allegedly handled by Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime associate and confidante. She was convicted in 2021 on multiple federal charges, including sex trafficking of minors. Testimony during her trial made it clear: Epstein and Maxwell worked in tandem to identify, groom, and abuse young girls — many of whom were economically vulnerable and targeted at schools, shopping malls, or through word-of-mouth.

The Famous and the Powerful

Epstein’s social circle included some of the most powerful figures in the world. Flight logs, photos, and witness statements have connected a range of individuals to his private jet or properties. While not all of these figures have been accused of wrongdoing, their close proximity to Epstein has raised serious concerns about the extent of his influence and the silence surrounding his crimes.

High-profile names linked to Epstein include:

• Bill Clinton – Took numerous trips on Epstein’s jet; denies visiting Epstein’s island or knowing about the abuse.
• Prince Andrew – Accused in a civil suit by Virginia Giuffre of engaging in sex acts with her while she was a minor. Settled the case out of court, and died by suicide April 25, 2025.
• Les Wexner – Epstein managed the billionaire’s finances and was given power of attorney over major assets. Wexner has said Epstein “misappropriated vast sums of money.”
• Bill Gates, Chris Tucker, Kevin Spacey, Naomi Campbell, Ehud Barak, Jean-Luc Brunel, and others were photographed or listed in Epstein’s logs or visitor records.

Bill Gates Met With Jeffrey Epstein Many Times, Despite His Past – The New York Times

Donald Trump knew Epstein in the early 2000s, but according to court filings and multiple reports, banned him from Mar-a-Lago after learning of allegations involving Epstein and a young female employee. Trump was not implicated in the investigation.

The 2008 “Sweetheart Deal”

Despite mounting allegations, Epstein secured a controversial non-prosecution agreement in 2008. The deal — arranged under then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta — allowed Epstein to plead guilty to lesser state charges and serve just 13 months in a Florida county jail, where he was allowed extensive work-release privileges. The agreement also granted immunity to “potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding others in his circle.

Painting of Clinton in blue dress hung in Jeffrey Epstein’s home

Acosta later became U.S. Secretary of Labor under the Trump administration, but resigned in 2019 amid backlash over the Epstein deal.

Renewed Charges — and a Mysterious Death

In July 2019, Epstein was arrested again and charged with sex trafficking and conspiracy. Prosecutors uncovered a vast trove of evidence at his Manhattan townhouse — including hundreds of nude photos, documents, and surveillance footage.

Just weeks later, on August 10, 2019, Epstein was found dead in his jail cell. The official cause was suicide, but the circumstances were unusually suspicious:

• Security cameras outside his cell malfunctioned.
• Jail guards allegedly fell asleep and falsified records.
• Epstein had been taken off suicide watch just days earlier.
• An independent pathologist hired by Epstein’s family disputed the suicide ruling, citing signs of strangulation.

Jeffrey Epstein mug shot just before death

The idea that Epstein may have been silenced — rather than allowed to expose the elite figures potentially involved — has become a widely held suspicion, although AG Pam Bondi assures the American people that she is convinced Epstein committed suicide.

The Missing List and the Public’s Frustration

One of the most frustrating elements of the case is the continued secrecy surrounding Epstein’s alleged clients, or blackmail victims. Despite court documents referencing thousands of names and contacts, there has been no official release of a comprehensive “client list” or investigation into most of the individuals connected to Epstein’s operations. Despite many secret video cameras being found in the private areas of Epstein’s luxury facilities where he invited numerous wealthy and famous associates, and Epstein’s vast wealth which has yet to be accounted for (the implication is that he blackmailed his guests after inducing them into unlawful activities with underage women), no records of the videos or blackmail have been made public — when it is obvious law enforcement must have located them.

In 2024, the Department of Justice announced it would not pursue further charges related to Epstein’s alleged co-conspirators. This was seen by many as a final nail in the coffin of public accountability — a decision that effectively ends hopes of uncovering the full truth.

Meanwhile, documents from Maxwell’s trial remain largely sealed, and the victims continue to fight for transparency.

A Scandal Too Big to Contain?

Jeffrey Epstein’s story was never just about one man. It was about how wealth and power can protect predators, silence victims, and manipulate the legal system. While Epstein is dead and Maxwell is in prison, the larger web — of enablers, clients, and co-conspirators — remains obscured.

Prince Andrew poses with abuse accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre, and Ghislaine Maxwell.

AG Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel entered office just months ago with a fierce vow to get to the bottom of the Jeffrey Epstein case, and to release the hitherto hidden client lists. But now, the DOJ releases a ‘nothing to see here’ with a whimper, and President Trump barked at a reporter for even asking about the case.

Whether the truth is being hidden to protect reputations, preserve institutions, or because it implicates people too powerful to prosecute, the public has been left with the unmistakable sense that justice was never truly served.

The Epstein case is far from “closed” as far as the public is concerned. And until the full story is told, it remains one of the most disturbing examples of how deep corruption and silence can run when power shields the guilty.

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

In a stunning and historic move, Congress has just passed President Donald J. Trump’s long-awaited Big Beautiful Bill, delivering a major legislative win for his administration and a decisive step toward fulfilling key promises of his second term. The bill, touted by President Trump as “the most beautiful piece of legislation our nation has ever seen,” passed both chambers after weeks of intense debate and negotiation.

What’s in the Bill?

The Big Beautiful Bill is sweeping in scope. Among its most significant provisions:

• Border Security and Immigration Reform: The bill allocates record funding for the completion of the southern border wall, bolsters border patrol forces, and implements stricter measures to prevent illegal immigration while streamlining legal immigration for merit-based applicants.
• Tax Relief: It introduces further tax cuts aimed at middle-class families and small businesses, building on the success of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
• Energy Independence: The bill rolls back excessive regulations on domestic energy production, supporting American oil, gas, and coal industries while expanding incentives for clean nuclear and next-generation technologies.
• Restoration of Law and Order: It provides significant funding for law enforcement and first responders, with provisions aimed at reducing violent crime in major cities.

A Hard-Fought Victory

Passage of the bill was far from certain. Democrats mounted fierce opposition, criticizing the bill as being too focused on Trump’s campaign priorities. Yet in the end, a coalition of Republicans and moderate Democrats, responding to public pressure for action on border security, inflation relief, and national security, propelled the bill across the finish line.

Speaker of the House, who had initially wavered, ultimately praised the final product: “This is a bill that puts Americans first. It strengthens our economy, secures our borders, and supports our communities.”

Senate Majority Leader echoed the sentiment: “We’ve delivered on what the American people asked for: safety, prosperity, and common-sense governance.”

Trump’s Reaction

President Trump, speaking from the White House Rose Garden moments after the vote, hailed the legislation as “a win for all Americans” and “proof that when we put America First, nothing can stop us.”

He added: “This Big Beautiful Bill is going to make our country stronger, safer, richer, and greater than ever before. I want to thank Congress for working together, despite differences, to do what’s right for our people.”

The Road Ahead

The Big Beautiful Bill now heads to President Trump’s desk, where he is expected to sign it into law within days. Implementation will begin immediately, with federal agencies already preparing to roll out new programs and allocate funding according to the bill’s provisions.

Critics, including progressive lawmakers and left-wing media outlets, have vowed legal challenges to portions of the bill, particularly those related to immigration enforcement and energy policy. However, the Trump administration appears confident that the law will withstand scrutiny.

For now, the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill marks a pivotal moment in the Trump presidency—one that supporters are calling a defining achievement and a major step in delivering on the promises that brought him to the White House once again.

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

By James Thompson | June 26, 2025

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth details the devastating massive destruction done to the Iranian Nuclear Weapons Development program by America’s ‘Bunker Buster’ bombs

In a bold and historic move, President Donald J. Trump ordered a series of precision strikes on Iran’s nuclear weapons development facilities this week, bringing an end to what has long been one of the greatest threats to peace in the Middle East and global stability. The success of the operation has been widely praised by allies and even reluctantly acknowledged by some critics, marking a turning point in the decades-long struggle to stop Iran’s radical regime from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.

Military releases videos of bunker buster bombs impacting and obliterating Iranian nuclear weapons development facilities

A History of Hostility

Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the fall of the U.S.-backed Shah, Iran has operated as a hardline theocracy under the control of Shiite clerics, exporting terrorism and extremism throughout the Middle East and beyond. The Ayatollah-led regime quickly moved to establish itself as a leading sponsor of global terror, funding and arming proxy groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, and various Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria.

Iranian-backed insurgents and terror cells have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American troops and civilians, through roadside bombs, embassy bombings, hostage crises, and direct military confrontations. Their hatred for the West—and especially the United States and Israel—is woven into the regime’s core ideology. Notably, Iranian leaders have called for the destruction of both nations, and have plotted or attempted the assassination of foreign officials on American soil.

Democratic Appeasement and Strategic Failures

Despite Iran’s unrelenting aggression, Democratic presidents have repeatedly chosen appeasement over strength. President Barack Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) in 2015 gave the regime billions in sanctions relief and unfreezing of assets, including a now-infamous $1.7 billion in cash—literally flown in on pallets—without any permanent dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program.

President Joe Biden returned to that same philosophy of weakness. Early in his term, he reversed Trump-era sanctions, released billions in Iranian oil revenues, and attempted to re-enter the JCPOA, even as Iran was caught enriching uranium far beyond civilian-use levels. Biden’s move effectively financed renewed Iranian aggression and hastened their nuclear ambitions, all while U.S. allies in the region warned of the consequences. The results were predictable: escalation in terrorism, open threats to Israel, and bold moves by Tehran to expand its nuclear infrastructure deep underground.

Trump’s Warning and the Turning Point

As tensions escalated in early 2025, Iran crossed multiple red lines, including expelling international nuclear inspectors and threatening to unveil a working nuclear weapon. Last week, Israel launched a preliminary strike on Iranian military targets. In response, Iran vowed retaliation and doubled down on its weapons program.

President Trump, having warned Iran repeatedly to abandon its nuclear pursuits, authorized a coordinated U.S. military operation targeting the heart of Iran’s weapons development infrastructure. B-2 stealth bombers, armed with GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators—so-called “bunker buster” bombs—successfully penetrated Iran’s heavily fortified underground nuclear sites near Fordow and Natanz. Intelligence confirms those facilities were completely destroyed.

Downplaying Success: Democrats in Denial

In the wake of the operation, Democratic leaders scrambled to contain the political fallout. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries condemned the operation as “reckless” and “destabilizing,” despite bipartisan briefings confirming the accuracy and effectiveness of the strikes. Some Democrats even floated the possibility of launching another impeachment effort, a move widely ridiculed as political theater in the face of a clear national security victory.

Mainstream media outlets have echoed similar talking points, downplaying the impact of the strike, questioning the intelligence used, and expressing concern for “regional tensions”—while failing to acknowledge that those tensions stem from decades of failed diplomacy and Iran’s unchecked aggression.

A Global Victory and Affirmation of Leadership

Despite political resistance at home, the global response has largely been supportive. Leaders from Israel, the United Kingdom, and several Arab nations privately and publicly applauded the elimination of Iran’s nuclear threat. Even some European leaders—who previously clung to the Iran deal—acknowledged the reality that diplomacy had failed, and that firm action was necessary.

President Trump and members of his administration are being widely credited with removing a major threat to world peace. The Pentagon confirmed that civilian casualties were avoided due to careful targeting and real-time surveillance, and satellite imagery verifies the complete collapse of Iran’s nuclear weapons infrastructure.

This successful operation will go down as a pivotal moment in modern geopolitical history—one that reaffirmed the importance of strength, clarity, and resolve in the face of tyranny.

For further background and buildup to these events, read our original June 21 article: “Trump Orders Iran Strikes After Israel Assaults Nuclear Facilities” — an in-depth look at the escalating crisis and how Iran’s dangerous ambitions were finally stopped.

---

Federalist Press will continue to report on the fallout and geopolitical ramifications of the mission that ended Iran’s nuclear dream. Subscribe for updates on Middle East security, U.S. foreign policy, and America’s defense of freedom.

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

By James Thompson
June 21, 2025

In a powerful and decisive move that may reshape the future of the Middle East, President Donald J. Trump has ordered precision airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, delivering a crippling blow to the Islamic regime’s long-standing goal of acquiring a nuclear bomb. The strikes, carried out late last night, targeted multiple fortified facilities using America’s most advanced military aircraft and bunker-penetrating weaponry.

A Historic Response to a Global Threat

The action follows months of mounting aggression from Iran and its proxies, and comes on the heels of Iran-backed Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israel in October 2024, which left over 1,000 civilians dead in one of the most savage acts of terrorism in recent history.

Iran has continued to escalate the regional conflict since then, launching or directing attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria, arming Hezbollah and the Houthis, and vowing to destroy Israel. For years, Tehran has been enriching uranium far beyond limits allowed under past international agreements. Despite repeated warnings from Western leaders and the IAEA, Iran has inched dangerously close to producing weapons-grade material.

President Trump, citing the imminent threat of nuclear war, authorized the operation under the doctrine of preemptive self-defense.

Precision Strikes on Iran’s Most Protected Facilities

The operation—codenamed Operation Iron Dagger—began just before dawn local time in Iran. Multiple U.S. B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, launched from bases in Missouri and Diego Garcia, penetrated Iranian airspace undetected, escorted by electronic warfare aircraft that blinded Iranian radar systems.

The B-2s dropped a combination of GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs)—a 30,000-pound bunker-buster bomb designed to destroy deeply buried facilities—and GBU-31 JDAMs for surface-level infrastructure. The targets included:

• Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant – built into a mountain near Qom, this facility is heavily fortified and buried deep underground. U.S. bunker busters were used to collapse large sections of the underground halls.
• Natanz Nuclear Complex – the centerpiece of Iran’s uranium enrichment program. Satellite images show heavy damage to centrifuge halls and support buildings.
• Arak Heavy Water Reactor – believed to be capable of producing plutonium for weapons. Airstrikes disabled key components and cooling systems.

Additional sites associated with nuclear weaponization, including research facilities near Isfahan and missile development hubs near Parchin, were also targeted with precision munitions.

Pentagon officials confirmed that no U.S. aircraft were lost in the operation, and that secondary explosions indicated the presence of nuclear materials and high-value weapon components.

Strategic Shockwaves and Political Firestorm

The immediate aftermath of the strike sent shockwaves throughout the region. While Israel and America’s Gulf allies praised the move, labeling it a “historic act of global leadership,” Iran responded with rage.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed revenge, calling the strikes “an act of war” and threatening retaliation against both American and Israeli targets. However, Iran’s air defenses were humiliated, and the regime now faces the total collapse of its nuclear ambitions.

In Washington, Democrats reacted with fury.

Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi called the strike “reckless warmongering” and urged for President Trump’s impeachment. Representative Adam Schiff warned that “Trump’s unilateral attack may draw the U.S. into full-scale war,” while Senator Bernie Sanders accused the president of “undermining decades of diplomatic work for the sake of political distraction.”

A group of Democrat lawmakers has already introduced draft articles of impeachment, citing failure to obtain congressional authorization under the War Powers Act.

A Message to Iran—and the World

In a statement from the White House, President Trump defended his decision:

“The world has waited long enough. Iran has murdered Americans, sponsored terrorism, and defied every warning about its nuclear program. We gave them every chance. Today, we ensured they will never hold the world hostage with a nuclear weapon.”

This strike marks the most forceful U.S. action against Iran since the killing of Qassem Soleimani in 2020. But unlike that strike, this one wasn’t aimed at a single man—it was aimed at the heart of Iran’s nuclear threat.

The Trump administration’s bold action signals the end of the Obama-Biden era of appeasement. Billions of dollars funneled to Tehran under the Iran Deal were used to build bunkers, fund terrorism, and prepare for war. Today, those bunkers are rubble. The world is safer—for now.

As the dust settles, one truth remains: strength deters tyrants. And today, America showed strength.

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

By: James Thompson

For decades, trained observers—military pilots, radar operators, law enforcement, and government contractors—have reported encounters with Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) that defy our understanding of physics. These objects accelerate instantly, hover silently, vanish without sonic booms, and traverse mediums like air and water without resistance. The data, corroborated by multiple sensor systems and visual observation, is not just compelling—it is paradigm-challenging.

But what if these behaviors are not merely the result of advanced propulsion technology, but evidence of a deeper interaction with the underlying structure of reality itself? As modern science inches closer to understanding the quantum fabric of the universe, it becomes increasingly plausible that UAPs operate on principles that leverage not just energy and force, but the geometry of reality itself.

The Common Blueprint: Spinning Fields and Silent Power

A surprising number of UAP-related accounts, both from eyewitnesses and alleged insiders, describe similar technological components:

• Counter-rotating discs, mercury, or flywheels (e.i., Udo Wartena, Die Glocke, Bob Lazar)
• No visible exhaust or heat signature
• Sudden, inertia-free movement
• Energy seemingly drawn from the surrounding environment

These traits hint at a propulsion method fundamentally different from combustion or ion-based systems. Rather, they point to field-based systems capable of manipulating inertia, gravity, and possibly spacetime itself. This blueprint echoes throughout historical cases as well as contemporary U.S. Navy sightings like the Tic Tac incident observed by Cmdr. David Fravor, which described the object as moving like a bouncing “ping-pong ball in a box.”

Beyond Propulsion: Three Breakaway Theories

1. Torsion Field Physics Suggests rotating mass or electromagnetic systems can induce torsional distortions in spacetime. These hypothetical fields may permit mass decoupling from inertia, enabling high-speed movement without g-forces. Russian scientists like Anatoly Akimov and Gennady Shipov have explored this extensively in non-mainstream circles, proposing that torsion fields are a fifth fundamental force, capable of transmitting information faster than light.

2. Quantized Inertia (QI)
Proposed by Dr. Mike McCulloch, QI posits that inertia arises from interactions with the quantum vacuum. By manipulating boundary conditions (such as through high-frequency oscillations), inertia could be reduced or removed entirely. Experiments involving electromagnetic cavities have even shown unexplained thrust forces that align with QI predictions, suggesting the possibility of fuel-less propulsion.

3. Electrogravitics
Developed by Thomas T. Brown, this theory suggests high-voltage capacitors might generate lift by interacting with the gravitational field. Though often dismissed as ion wind, some believe it forms the basis for classified research. Brown’s work was of such interest during the 1950s that it was allegedly buried under military secrecy. If viable, it could point to a simple but profound manipulation of spacetime curvature via electromagnetic means.

Bob Lazar explanation of the propulsion system on the craft he purports to have seen in operation at S4

These speculative models share one critical element: they treat spacetime and vacuum energy as interactive, dynamic mediums rather than passive backdrops. These theories move us beyond Newtonian action-reaction and even Einsteinian curvature into a domain where reality is responsive to field architecture.

Electricity and the Vacuum: A Window into Deeper Fields

This leads to a deeper philosophical and physical mystery: where does energy come from when we generate electricity? Turning a copper coil through a magnetic field produces current. But why is this possible anywhere—in space, at sea, or in your living room?

Quantum field theory explains that we are not creating energy, but interacting with ever-present fields—specifically, the electromagnetic field. This field is part of the fabric of the vacuum, which itself contains what we call zero-point energy: fluctuating energy present even at absolute zero.

The implications of this are staggering. Our daily experience of electricity—as simple as turning on a flashlight—may be a low-level interaction with the same foundational field that allows UAPs to operate. Electricity might be just one visible thread in a vast, unseen tapestry of dimensional energies.

Dimensional Coupling: A Hypothesis

What if electrons—and the energy they carry—are not strictly confined to our three spatial dimensions plus time? What if their motion, especially under electromagnetic influence, phases in and out of a higher-dimensional layer?

In this view, generating electricity is not just converting mechanical work into electron flow—it is opening a portal into a deeper energy field. Energy isn’t created or extracted; it is evoked, channeled, induced from a dimensionally embedded field structure.

This hypothesis could also explain the consistent success of electromagnetic systems in UAP encounters. From Lazar’s description of Element 115-powered field reactors to historical flywheel-based engines like Udo Wartena described, these technologies may not be generating energy per se, but unlocking access to it by shifting the conditions of local spacetime.

UAPs as Dimensional Interfaces

If a technology could control this kind of phasing at will—accessing zero-point fields, torsion geometries, and vacuum fluctuations—it might produce the very behaviors we associate with UAPs:

• Near-instantaneous acceleration
• No reaction mass or visible fuel
• Apparent teleportation or “blinking”
• Resistance-free transitions across media

UAPs may not be flying in the way we think. They may be slipping, briefly disentangled from spacetime, or surfing geometric gradients across dimensional boundaries. Some researchers believe these craft create localized warps or “bubbles” in spacetime, isolating them from conventional physical laws. Inside the bubble, inertia and mass behave differently—a concept closely mirrored in the Alcubierre warp drive metric.

Toward a New Paradigm

The recurring presence of rotating field systems, vacuum energy interaction, and inertia-defying behavior suggests that UAPs may operate by manipulating the relationship between matter, energy, and spacetime at a fundamental level. Their propulsion may not be propulsion as we know it—but a revelation of physics we have yet to properly understand.

Electricity, gravity, inertia, and perhaps even consciousness may be facets of a multidimensional framework we are only beginning to touch. If this is true, then the implications extend beyond aerospace—they ripple into energy systems, medicine, and our understanding of existence itself.

And if so, UAPs are not just visitors. They are demonstrations of what awaits us when we learn to speak the true language of the universe.

---

James Thompson is an author, UAP analyst, and ghostwriter, and a political analyst. His latest book on the subject of UAPs is Worlds Without Number. available>

By James Thompson | June 4, 2025

Jamie Lee Curtis addresses her online response to Kanye West’s antisemitic posts on social media, saying West’s posts were “just abhorrent.”

In 2022, actress Jamie Lee Curtis became a viral symbol of righteous outrage after rapper Kanye West posted a now-infamous tweet threatening to go “death con 3 on JEWISH PEOPLE.” Although the ‘threat’ was a hollow, big-mouth pronouncement that West was going to expose unfair treatment by Jewish music industry people, the Oscar winner condemned the comment as “abhorrent,” linking it to the atrocities of the Holocaust, and even broke into tears during a televised interview. At the time, Curtis’s response was praised as a courageous stand against hate.

But today, amid a tsunami of antisemitic harassment and violence—largely coming from far-left movements cloaked in anti-Zionist rhetoric—Curtis has been notably silent.

Across America, Jewish students are being harassed, threatened, and even physically attacked on college campuses. At pro-Palestine/Hamas rallies chants like “death to the Jews” and “Hitler was right” have been caught on camera. Jewish students at schools like Columbia, NYU, and UC Berkeley have reported needing security escorts, hiding in libraries, and being locked out of their dorms—simply for being Jewish.

Yet, Jamie Lee Curtis, along with many other left-leaning celebrities who loudly denounced Kanye West, now says nothing.

“Silence isn’t neutrality—it’s complicity,” said Noah Silverman, a Jewish student at UCLA. “When celebrities speak out against antisemitism only when it comes from the right, it tells us that our safety is conditional. If the threat comes from the ‘wrong kind’ of oppressor, it doesn’t matter.”

This glaring double standard has not gone unnoticed. Critics accuse Curtis and others in Hollywood of moral grandstanding when it suits their left-leaning narrative—but failing to call out hate when it emerges from within their own ideological circles.

“The left has built an entire identity around inclusivity, tolerance, and human rights,” said Bari Weiss, founder of The Free Press. “But when Jewish lives are threatened by people waving socialist flags instead of Confederate ones, suddenly the moral clarity vanishes.”

Curtis has continued posting regularly on social media about various progressive causes—climate change, women’s rights (although nothing about men in women’s sports), LGBTQ+ advocacy—but has made no public comment about the surge in antisemitic incidents tied to recent pro-Palestinian protests. Her silence has sparked backlash, especially from Jewish activists who once applauded her principled stand against Kanye West.

“The hypocrisy is staggering,” said Jonathan Feldman, an analyst at the Jewish Policy Institute. “Jamie Lee Curtis cried on live television over a tweet. But when Jewish college students are hiding from mobs, she can’t spare even a sentence?”

To be clear, no one is suggesting that all criticism of the state of Israel is antisemitic. But when protests devolve into calls for genocide and physical violence against Jewish individuals—when Jewish identity itself becomes the target—celebrities who previously championed “never again” owe the public more than silence.

Selective outrage isn’t justice. It’s performance. It looks like tacit approval.

And for those like Curtis, whose voice carries influence, that silence speaks volumes.

---

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

Nearly one-third of Treasury payments a year lack proper identification codes, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent testified to Congress

By Deirdre Heavey

Earlier this year, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) uncovered $4.7 trillion in untraceable Treasury Department payments. 

Prior to the discovery, Treasury Account Symbol (TAS) identification codes were optional for $4.7 trillion in Treasury Department payments, so they were often left blank and were untraceable. The field is now required to increase “insight into where the money is actually going,” the Treasury Department and DOGE announced in February. 

“Of the 1.5 billion payments that we send out every year, they are required to have a TAS, a Treasury Account Symbol. We discovered that more than one third of those payments did not have a TAS number,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government earlier this month. 

Fox News Digital asked Republican senators on Capitol Hill to respond to the approximately 500,000 in untraceable payments made by the Treasury Department each year. 

“I’m not surprised at all, unfortunately,” Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kansas, said before adding, “They were leaving complete fields undone when they were filling out their financials, so this is a common theme. I’m not surprised.”

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Missouri, called for an investigation into where those payments actually went. 

“There’s so much waste. There’s so much fraud, There’s so much abuse in our government,” Schmitt told Fox News Digital. “I’m glad there was a laser-like focus on it. We ought to make many of those reforms permanent, but there probably ought to be some investigations here about where this money actually went. I mean this is taxpayer money. People work hard.”

President Donald Trump and Elon Musk have worked to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).  (Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC)

After DOGE and the Treasury Department uncovered $4.7 trillion in untraceable funds, Marshall and Sen. Rick Scott of Florida introduced a bill in March requiring the Treasury Department to track all payments. 

The Locating Every Disbursement in Government Expenditure Records (LEDGER) Act seeks to increase transparency in how the Treasury Department spends taxpayer money. 

“When you hear about this story that they didn’t know where the money was going, it makes you mad because this is somebody’s money, this is taxpayers’ money when we have almost $37 trillion in debt, so this makes no sense at all,” Scott said. 

Elon Musk shows off his t-shirt reading “Tech Support” while speaking at the first cabinet meeting hosted by President Donald Trump, at the White House in Washington, D.C., Feb. 26, 2025. (REUTERS/Brian Snyder)

The Congressional Budget projects that interest payments on America’s national debt will total $952 billion in fiscal year 2025. That’s $102 billion more than the United States’ defense budget at $850 billion. 

“We paid out more last year on our debt, $36 trillion in debt, with $950 billion in interest going to bondholders all over the world, including in China. That $950 billion didn’t go to build a bridge or an F-35. We paid more on the interest on debt than we did to fund our military,” said Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska. 

“That is an inflection point that when most countries hit, you look at history, that’s when great powers start to decline. So we have to get those savings.”

By James Thompson

In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, the American public is only beginning to reckon with the social, political, and personal costs of what most now view as an era of coercive overreach by the Democrat federal government and its media allies. One of the most striking recent reversals has come from Dilbert creator Scott Adams, who—after years of vehemently defending aggressive vaccination policies—has admitted, in the shadow of a personal cancer diagnosis, that the government-led push to vaccinate every American “at all costs” was deeply misguided.

Adams has acknowledged that those who refused the vaccine—the so-called “anti-vaxxers” vilified by pundits and politicians alike—are now enjoying the benefit of natural immunity, unburdened by the vaccine-related side effects that have become a topic of growing scientific concern. “They were right,” Adams said, noting that natural immunity, which was largely dismissed by officials early in the pandemic, has proven to be effective. “The smartest, happiest people are the ones who didn’t get the vaccination and are still alive.”

This statement reflects a larger shift in public sentiment, as millions who were fired, ostracized, banned from travel, forced to close their businesses, forced to stay home from school, or denied hospital visits with dying relatives begin to demand answers—and accountability.

A Mandate, Not a Choice

Under the Biden administration, vaccine mandates swept through the federal government, the military, public schools, hospitals, and large corporations. President Biden himself declared in July 2021: “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.” That bold promise, however, did not hold. Biden contracted COVID multiple times despite being vaccinated and boosted, undermining the very narrative his administration used to justify its draconian policies.

President Joe Biden received one of many COVID-19 vaccinations

The White House, in conjunction with the CDC and mainstream media, created a culture of forced compliance. Americans were not merely encouraged to get vaccinated—they were compelled. In Orwellian fashion, objectors were ridiculed as science-deniers, conspiracy theorists, or threats to public safety. Democratic leaders across the country echoed the federal position, with cities like New York and Los Angeles enacting some of the strictest vaccine mandates in the world, including forced mask wearing and six-foot personal bubble zones in public–which were entirely without scientific basis.

But the real-world consequences were far from hypothetical. Teachers were fired. Nurses who worked through the height of the pandemic were terminated. Business closed permanently. Military personnel were discharged. Students were barred from campuses. Families were separated from loved ones in their final moments. Freedom of movement and association—basic rights in any free society—were suspended indefinitely in the name of safety. Leftists, drunk with their new-found power, ruled with jack-booted thuggery, destroying the lives of millions of Americans in the process.

Media Complicity and the Censorship Machine

Much of this was aided and abetted by a compliant press corps. Networks like CBS, NBC, ABC, CNBC, CNN and MSNBC rarely challenged the official narrative. Tech platforms like Facebook and Twitter throttled dissenting voices, deplatformed doctors, and labeled emerging science as “misinformation”—even when those claims were later validated. Dissent became dangerous, and speech was tightly policed.

Public trust eroded further as vaccine efficacy became increasingly unclear. The original promise of complete protection gave way to a shifting goalpost: fewer symptoms, fewer hospitalizations. And with that shift came the creeping realization that the public had been misled.

The Human Cost

The Biden administration’s mandates exacted a steep toll. Americans who dared question the prevailing orthodoxy were not only widely shamed, but often economically ruined. Many are still trying to rebuild.

Some justice is slowly being served. President Donald Trump has made efforts to reinstate military personnel discharged for refusing the vaccine, acknowledging the injustice. But these are small reparations for a crisis of trust that cut deep into the fabric of American life.

A Lesson for the Future

The pandemic response revealed the ease with which government with totalitarian leanings and media institutions could exert massive control over the lives of everyday Americans. What was marketed as “science” often functioned as mere ideology. And those who asked inconvenient questions were not engaged—they were erased.

As figures like Scott Adams reflect on their own role in enabling these draconian, Big Brother policies, a larger question remains: Will there be accountability? Who will we see being perp-walked on television for their unconstitutional betrayals of the American people? And will Americans ever again be allowed to question authority without being crushed by it?

In the end, COVID-19 may be remembered not only for the virus itself—but for the way it exposed the easy willingness of a government to seize control, and the cost of a media complex that cheered it on. The left should be held to account for everything they did to the American people, and at a minimum, should never be afforded even a modicum of trust by their victims.

---

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

May 15, 2025 — Washington, D.C.

In a dramatic shift from trends seen in recent years, gasoline and oil prices are tumbling across the United States, with some regions now reporting prices at nearly half of what they were on the day President Joe Biden left office. The reversal comes on the heels of former President Donald Trump’s return to the White House for a second term, ushering in sweeping changes to energy policy and geopolitical strategy.

From Boom to Bust and Back Again

During Trump’s first term (2017–2021), the United States experienced a surge in domestic energy production. The administration’s aggressive deregulatory approach and expanded drilling incentives led to historically low gasoline prices, with the national average often hovering around $2 per gallon. The U.S. briefly became a net exporter of oil and natural gas, and the term “American energy independence” became a political catchphrase.

That dynamic shifted sharply under President Biden. Prioritizing climate change mitigation, the Biden administration curtailed domestic fossil fuel production through executive orders, leasing restrictions, and support for renewable alternatives. While supporters applauded the environmental emphasis, critics pointed to rapidly rising energy costs, supply chain disruptions, and surging inflation as direct consequences.

By mid-2022, average U.S. gasoline prices had climbed above $5 per gallon in some states, driven by both policy decisions and global factors such as the war in Ukraine. These price hikes strained household budgets and increased the cost of transporting goods—one of several drivers behind persistent inflation.

A New Energy Landscape in 2025

Since taking office in January 2025, President Trump has rapidly reversed many of his predecessor’s energy policies. Executive orders reopened federal lands to oil and gas drilling, streamlined permitting processes, and greenlit major pipeline projects previously stalled or canceled.

The response from the energy sector was swift. U.S. oil output surged to record levels by May, and gasoline prices began dropping accordingly. As of this week, the national average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline stands at $2.39—down from $4.71 five months ago. In some Southern and Midwestern states, prices have dropped below $2 per gallon.

Economists note that this decline is not only easing pressure on consumers but also helping to lower transportation and manufacturing costs across industries. “Energy is the lifeblood of the economy,” said Dr. Laura Chen, an economist at the Heritage Foundation. “When fuel costs fall, virtually every sector benefits—especially food, shipping, and retail.”

Geopolitical Impacts: Strength at Home and Abroad

Trump’s assertive diplomacy is also being felt on the international stage. In a surprise visit to Saudi Arabia earlier this week, President Trump secured a new multi-nation agreement to increase oil output and stabilize prices. The deal includes cooperation from Gulf states and a tentative framework for easing tensions in the Red Sea corridor.

Analysts say the agreement not only boosts global supply but also undermines adversarial regimes that rely heavily on high oil revenues to fund aggression.

“Russia, Iran, and others use oil money to prop up their economies and fund military campaigns,” said former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman. “When energy prices fall, their ability to project power shrinks. This is economic deterrence in action.”

The economic and strategic benefits of lower oil prices are expected to continue in the months ahead. Inflation, which had remained stubborn through 2024, has already begun to decline, with the Consumer Price Index showing a 0.4% decrease in April—the first monthly drop in over two years.

The Road Ahead

While critics warn of environmental consequences and question the long-term viability of fossil fuel reliance, Trump supporters argue that renewed energy production is key to restoring economic stability and global strength.

“America is back in control of its energy future,” said the White House Press Secretary in a briefing Tuesday. “We’re putting American jobs, American security, and American families first.”

As oil rigs come back online and gas stations reflect lower prices, the political and economic narrative surrounding U.S. energy policy is once again shifting—with major implications for inflation, international stability, and everyday life.

---

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

By Danielle Wallace , Bradford Betz

President Donald Trump on Thursday morning confirmed a new “full and comprehensive” trade deal with the United Kingdom. 

“The agreement with the United Kingdom is a full and comprehensive one that will cement the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom for many years to come,” Trump wrote on TRUTH Social on Thursday. “Because of our long time history and allegiance together, it is a great honor to have the United Kingdom as our FIRST announcement. Many other deals, which are in serious stages of negotiation, to follow!

“This should be a very big and exciting day for the United States of America and the United Kingdom,” Trump added. “The Golden Age of America is coming!” 

Trump wrote Wednesday that a deal would be announced during a news conference from the Oval Office,but he did not specify which nation the agreement was with at the time. 

“Big News Conference tomorrow morning at 10:00 A.M., The Oval Office, concerning a MAJOR TRADE DEAL WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF A BIG, AND HIGHLY RESPECTED, COUNTRY. THE FIRST OF MANY!!!” Trump wrote.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday teased the announcement of a new trade deal that is expected to be between the United States and Britain on Thursday, according to the New York Times. (REUTERS/Leah Millis / Reuters)

The New York Times, citing three people familiar with the plans, first reported that Trump was expected to announce a trade deal with the U.K. 

As of April 5, the U.S. has imposed a 10% reciprocal tariff on imports from the U.K. The Trump administration’s 25% global tariff on cars took effect on April 3, impacting all imported vehicles, even from traditional U.S. allies, including the U.K. A 25% tariff on U.S. imports of steel, aluminum and derivative products took effect on March 12. 

Prior to April 2025, most U.K. goods exported to the U.S. were subject to standard, relatively low tariffs, mostly ranging from 0 to 2.5%, with higher rates only for specific products like steel, aluminum, and some vehicles. The U.K., meanwhile, imposed tariffs on U.S. imports based on the World Trade Organization’s “Most Favored Nation” or MFN rules. 

The U.K.’s average MFN applied tariff rate was 3.8% in 2023, according to the most recent data available. The UK has some high tariffs that affect U.S. exports, such as rates of up to 25% for some fish and seafood products, 10% for trucks, 10% for passenger vehicles, and up to 6.5% for certain mineral or chemical fertilizers.

The U.S. goods trade surplus with the U.K. was $11.9 billion in 2024 – a 17.4%, or $1.8 billion, increase over 2023.

The deal announced Thursday is the second for Britain in a week after it clinched a free trade pact with India.

President Donald Trump speaks to the media after signing executive orders in the Oval Office. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images / Getty Images)

A U.K. official said on Tuesday that Britain and the U.S. had made good progress on a trade deal that would likely include lower tariff quotas on steel and autos.

The news of a U.S.-U.K. trade deal comes as U.S. and Chinese officials prepare to hold talks in Switzerland on Saturday, which could mark the first step in resolving a potentially damaging trade war between the world’s top two economies.

The April jobs report, which was released just following President Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office, came in better than expected with 177,000 new payrolls. (Scott Olson/Getty Images / Getty Images)

Trump’s trade war has shaken up financial markets and raised fears of a recession, with central bankers and business executives wrestling with often chaotic policymaking that is rippling through world supply chains and a whole host of industries.

The International Monetary Fund last month slashed its growth forecasts for the United States, China and most countries, citing the impact of U.S. tariffs and warning that rising trade tensions would further slow growth.

Reuters contributed to this report. 

By James Thompson | April 30, 2025

In an era marked by declining birth rates, rising abortion numbers, and growing social disconnection, a bold proposal has emerged from President Trump’s recent announcement: a $5,000 financial bonus for American women who give birth. The initiative, pitched as a means to offset the rising costs of childbirth and child-rearing, aims to address a critical issue facing the United States—population decline and the fraying of the traditional nuclear family.

A Nation in Demographic Decline

The United States, like much of the Western world, is facing a fertility crisis. With the birth rate well below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, America risks long-term demographic collapse, a shrinking labor force, and escalating economic dependency ratios. The nuclear family—once the cornerstone of American society—has steadily unraveled, impacted by economic pressures, cultural shifts, and policies that critics say often discourage family formation rather than support it.

A Financial Solution to a Cultural Crisis?

The proposed $5,000 childbirth bonus, though controversial, is rooted in the belief that financial strain is a primary reason many young couples delay or avoid having children. The payment would be a one-time, tax-free benefit available to American citizens upon the birth of a child, regardless of marital status—though proponents argue it will naturally incentivize more stable, two-parent households.

In addition to this bonus, I would propose voluntary options for sterilization: a $10,000 bonus for men under 40 undergoing vasectomies, and a $40,000 payout for women under 40 choosing hysterectomies. While at first glance these policies may seem contradictory, supporters argue the structure could lead to a more responsible, future-focused society—one in which individuals make long-term reproductive decisions based on personal stability and readiness, rather than ‘circumstance.’

Addressing the Legacy of Reproductive Targeting

This program also seeks to address longstanding criticisms of how reproductive services have been distributed in America. For decades, abortion clinics have been disproportionately concentrated in low-income, urban neighborhoods—many with high minority populations. Critics from across the political spectrum have raised concerns that this pattern reflects not just a public health strategy, but a deeper history of population control and systemic neglect.

Some argue that progressive cultural messaging—particularly on the far left—has encouraged sexual behavior disconnected from long-term commitment, especially within minority communities. The result is a cycle of unplanned pregnancies, fatherlessness, and generational poverty.

In that context, incentivizing childbirth within a stable family unit could serve as a counterbalance—one that not only encourages population growth, but also promotes personal responsibility and economic mobility. At the same time, offering substantial payments for voluntary sterilization could empower individuals who are not prepared for parenthood to make a firm, independent choice, potentially breaking generational cycles of instability.

Potential Impacts Across Demographics

Because the program is entirely voluntary and available to all citizens, participation will likely vary across different racial, religious, and economic groups. For some, the childbirth bonus may provide the final financial push needed to begin a family. For others, particularly those struggling with poverty or long-term uncertainty, the sterilization incentives may be a welcome option for control over their reproductive future.

Supporters argue that both outcomes—more children born into prepared, stable homes, and fewer unplanned pregnancies—represent a net gain for society.

Critics Raise Concerns

Of course, the proposal is not without its detractors. Some warn that tying large financial rewards to reproductive decisions could create perverse incentives, or further entrench divisions between the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor. Others worry the sterilization payments echo dark chapters of American history, when forced sterilizations targeted vulnerable communities under the guise of social improvement.

To mitigate such concerns, the program’s designers stress transparency, informed consent, and counseling for all participants.

A New Direction—or a Step Too Far?

Whether the $5,000 childbirth bonus and its accompanying policies become law remains to be seen. But they have ignited a national conversation—about family, responsibility, and the role of government in shaping both.

In a time when American identity and structure are being fiercely debated, bold solutions may be necessary to reverse troubling trends. If these policies succeed in strengthening the traditional family, lifting communities out of generational instability, and restoring a culture that values children and commitment, they could mark the beginning of a new American revival.

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.

Over the past four years the United States experienced an unprecedented surge in illegal immigration across its southern border, as President Joe Biden’s administration dismantled many of the prior administration’s stringent border security measures. Despite repeated assurances to the American people that “the border is secure,” tens of millions of unvetted migrants entered the nation under Biden’s watch, or . . . invitation, straining resources and fueling a national debate about the rule of law, sovereignty, and public safety.

Shortly after taking office in January 2021, President Biden reversed key Trump-era policies that had effectively halted illegal immigration. Among these were killing the “Remain in Mexico” policy (officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols), the halting of border wall construction, and the suspension of Title 42, a public health order that allowed for rapid expulsion of illegal entrants during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Biden signs dozens of Executive Orders overturning Trump’s border security efforts

At the same time, Biden and his top officials, including Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, publicly insisted that the southern border was “closed” and “secure.” In March 2021, Mayorkas stated, “The border is secure. The border is closed,” even as apprehension numbers surged to record highs.

President Biden himself echoed this sentiment. In January 2023, he declared, “I think the border is secure,” during remarks to the press, despite more than 2 million migrant encounters being reported in fiscal year 2022 alone. Of course, Democrats view illegal aliens as future Democrat voters, as Biden’s ‘Freudian slip’ referring to mass immigration influx of ‘Hispanic voters’ on May 9, 2024 indicated.

Prominent Democratic leaders rallied behind this narrative. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) emphasized in November 2022, “We need immigrants… We have a population that is not reproducing on its own with the same level that it used to. We need a path to citizenship.” Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) insisted, “There is no crisis at the southern border that Republicans would have you believe.”

Facing growing public concern, the Biden administration shifted its messaging, claiming that the only way to fix the “challenges” at the border was through new legislation. In February 2024, Biden stated during a speech, “We need Congress to act. We need a comprehensive immigration reform that will once and for all fix this broken system.”

However, critics pointed out that the proposed “fixes” in Democratic-sponsored legislation would essentially codify the mass influx of illegal aliens, providing expedited paths to citizenship and offering extensive protections for individuals who entered the country unlawfully.

The contrast with the Trump administration’s record could not be more stark. Upon entering office in 2017, President Donald Trump swiftly enacted executive orders to ramp up border security, reinstate and expand detention facilities, build hundreds of miles of new border wall, and negotiate agreements with Mexico and Central American countries to stem the flow of migrants.

President Trump visits border wall as it is being constructed

Illegal crossings plummeted during Trump’s tenure. By mid-2020, with policies like “Remain in Mexico” firmly in place and aggressive enforcement measures underway, the southern border saw some of the lowest levels of illegal migration in decades.

As Trump returned to the White House for his second term in 2025, he wasted no time reinstating his proven policies. Within weeks, construction on the border wall resumed at an accelerated pace, and diplomatic efforts reestablished cooperative security agreements with neighboring nations. The “catch and release” practices that had flourished under Biden were once again halted, and apprehended illegal immigrants were swiftly processed and removed.

Border Patrol data for early 2025 already shows a dramatic decrease in illegal crossings, able to be counted on fingers, demonstrating that decisive leadership and enforcement can reestablish control of the border quickly and effectively.

In short, the Biden administration’s policies opened the floodgates to millions of unvetted foreigners entering the United States, even as officials insisted the border was “secure.” In contrast, President Trump’s border policies – both in his first and second terms – demonstrated that a strong, lawful approach can effectively safeguard the nation’s sovereignty.

Now, as President Trump seeks to return all of those illegal aliens to their countries of origin, Democrats are fighting in the courts and in the streets to stop him.

---

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst.