Out of Step: How the Democratic Party always chooses what hurts Americans

By James Thompson | April 18, 2025

In today’s hyper-partisan political climate, Americans of all stripes are seeking leaders who stand for common-sense values, personal freedom, and public safety. Yet again and again, the Democratic Party finds itself not just outside the mainstream, but in open opposition to it. On issue after issue, from border security to gender ideology, Democrats continue to champion extreme or minority viewpoints that alienate the average American.

What issues? Below are twenty-one areas where Democratic policies consistently conflict with the will of the people.

1. Transgender Athletes in Women’s Sports
While the majority of Americans believe biological males should not compete in women’s sports, the Democratic Party insists on pushing for full inclusion regardless of fairness or safety concerns. Even as female athletes speak out, they are dismissed or silenced by party leaders who equate disagreement with discrimination.

2. Drag Performances in Schools
Events featuring drag performers reading to children in schools and libraries have drawn nationwide backlash, yet Democratic politicians double down in support. Parents who voice concern are labeled intolerant, even as they advocate for age-appropriate environments.

3. School Choice
Despite overwhelming support across racial and socioeconomic lines for school choice and charter programs, Democrats have opposed these initiatives, often bowing to pressure from powerful teachers’ unions that fear losing influence over the public education system.

4. Gun Rights
While gun control remains a Democratic priority, most Americans continue to support the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense and enforcement of constitutional rights. Instead of addressing crime at its roots, Democrats target law-abiding gun owners with restrictions that have little effect on actual violence. In fact, most gun violence is committed by those who support the Democratic Party–so perhaps the best answer is to limit their access to weapons.

5. Border Security
Vast swaths of the country support strong border enforcement. But Democrats have pushed back against nearly every effort to secure our borders—from opposing the border wall to undercutting ICE and defunding enforcement programs. They clearly want illegal aliens to flood our nation, most likely because a permanent underclass tends to keep their policies alive.

6. Sanctuary Cities
Democratic-run cities have declared themselves “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants, openly flouting federal law. These policies have been directly linked to increased crime, yet the party continues to protect even criminal non-citizens from deportation.

7. Welfare for Illegal Immigrants
At a time when many American citizens struggle to access housing and healthcare, Democrats fight to expand welfare, education, and even housing benefits for those in the country illegally.

8. Voter ID Laws
Over 75% of Americans support requiring photo ID to vote. Democrats oppose such laws, claiming voter suppression, yet they cannot explain why something required for everyday life—banking, flying, buying alcohol—should be off-limits at the ballot box. They clearly believe that illegal votes are keeping them in office, and fight vigorously to keep them voting.

9. Radical Education Curricula
From critical race theory to gender ideology, Democratic-backed curricula have left many parents shocked at what their children are being taught by public schools. Rather than engaging parents, Democrats brand them as domestic threats, sicking the FBI on them as terrorists, when they push back.

10. Anti-Israel Sentiment
Support for Israel used to be bipartisan, but Democratic voices have grown increasingly critical—even sympathetic to terror groups like Hamas. While Israel defends its citizens, Democrats focus on condemning its military responses to attacks across its border. Large liberal universities are no longer subtle in their support of terror groups, and allow their Jewish students to be threatened and attacked daily

11. Defunding the Police
Major Democratic cities embraced defund-the-police rhetoric, only to experience spikes in violent crime. Despite public backlash, party activists and politicians continue to call for police abolition.

12. Abortion Funding
Even Americans who support abortion rights usually oppose using taxpayer dollars to fund it–especially late-term abortion. Democrats have pushed to remove long-standing restrictions like the Hyde Amendment, placing the burden on all taxpayers to fund abortions.

13. Court Packing
Rather than respecting the judiciary’s independence, Democrats propose expanding the Supreme Court when rulings don’t go their way—a move that most Americans view as a blatant power grab.

14. Anti-Free Speech Legislation
Democrats increasingly advocate for laws that criminalize what they term “hate speech,” raising alarms about First Amendment violations. Americans overwhelmingly value free speech, even when it’s offensive. This movement is nothing more than an attempt to silence any opinions that oppose Democrats’ new-Marxist views and positions.

15. Transgender Policies in Schools
Mandating gender-neutral bathrooms, pronoun use, and juvenile transitions without parental consent has become a cornerstone of Democratic policy in schools—deeply concerning to parents whose rights are being stripped by the party at every turn.

16. Soft-on-Crime Policies
From eliminating cash bail to downgrading felonies, Democrats have supported criminal justice reforms that result in dangerous offenders being released back onto the streets, sometimes multiple times a week.

17. Immigration Enforcement
Democrats have fought to limit deportations and dismantle immigration enforcement, portraying even criminal deportees as ‘victims.’ This has led to numerous tragedies that could have been prevented through lawful enforcement. Yet, the party speaks out only for illegals, including criminals, gang members, and assassins, remaining silent about their victims.

18. Favoring Illegal Criminals Over Victims
Too often, Democrats appear more concerned with the treatment of illegal aliens who commit crimes than with the justice owed to their victims. Families devastated by crimes committed by illegal immigrants are left with no answers while Democratic politicians grandstand on protecting offenders.

19. Economic Nationalism
Democrats have uniformly rejected tariffs and other economic policies that aim to strengthen American industry, after they facilitated the death of American industry. Their policies left the U.S. overly dependent on foreign manufacturing, including steel, pharmaceutical, rare earth metals, and microcircuits, and vulnerable to global instability.

20. Attacks on Parental Rights
From education to healthcare, Democrats increasingly push policies that erode the role of parents in making decisions for their children, replacing them with state or bureaucratic oversight. Their ‘Great Society’ policies of the 1960s destroyed the American black family, and now they are trying to use the same tactics to destroy all traditional families ala Marxist techniques.

21. Rejection of Moderation
Polling shows even Democratic voters wish their party would adopt more moderate stances on these unpopular, and anti-American policies. Yet the leadership seems intent on appeasing radical activists rather than governing from the center.

Americans want safe neighborhoods, a good economy, fair elections, strong borders, and the freedom to raise their families according to their traditional American values. The Democratic Party, once the self-proclaimed voice of working-class Americans, has been exposed as the party of fringe ideologies, bureaucratic overreach, and misplaced priorities. Until the party realigns with the mainstream, it will continue to lose the trust of those it claims to represent.

---

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

Arson Attack on Pennsylvania Governor’s Residence Raises Concerns Over Leftist Antisemitism and Political Violence

By James Thompson | April 16, 2025

Admitted suspect is 38-year-old Cody Allen Balmer of Penbrook, Pennsylvania

In the early hours of April 13, 2025, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, his family, and guests were forced to evacuate their official residence in Harrisburg after an arson attack caused significant damage to the historic mansion. The incident occurred shortly after the family had celebrated the first night of Passover.

The suspect, 38-year-old Cody Allen Balmer of Penbrook, Pennsylvania, was apprehended and charged with multiple felonies, including attempted murder, aggravated arson, burglary, and terrorism. Balmer scaled the mansion’s fence, broke a window with a hammer, and threw Molotov cocktails into the residence, igniting fires in the dining and piano rooms. Governor Shapiro, his family, and their pets were awakened and rushed out of the mansion by state troopers, and escaped unharmed. ​

During police interviews, Balmer confessed to the attack, citing anger over Governor Shapiro’s support for Israel amid the ongoing Gaza conflict. He expressed a desire to physically harm the governor for his pro-Israel stance, stating he intended to beat Shapiro with his hammer if he had encountered him. A police search of Balmer’s living quarters revealed that he is enamored of the Leftist Argentine Marxist revolutionary, Che Guevara.

Pennsylvania governor’s mansion is left burnt and destroyed, looking like a Tesla dealership

Authorities are further investigating the motive behind the attack, including the stated antisemitic intent, given that Governor Shapiro is Jewish and the attack occurred during Passover. While no hate crime charges have been filed yet, Dauphin County District Attorney Fran Chardo indicated that Balmer’s statements about Palestine could be used as evidence that he targeted Shapiro because of his faith. ​

Balmer has a history of mental health issues and prior legal troubles, including domestic abuse charges from 2023. His mother reported that he struggled with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and had gone off his medication. ​

Governor Shapiro condemned the attack, emphasizing his commitment to public service and his faith. He stated, “No one will deter me or my family or any Pennsylvanian from celebrating their faith openly and proudly.” ​

The incident has sparked discussions about the rise in political violence of the Left, and widespread antisemitic riots and harmful acts in the United States. It underscores the need for vigilance and a comprehensive approach to addressing leftist hate-fueled violence.​

Balmer remains in custody without bail, with a preliminary hearing scheduled for April 23. The investigation continues as authorities seek to understand the full scope and further motivation behind the attack.

---

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

By James Thompson | April 15, 2025

---

Why is President Trump enlisting the help of the world’s smartest people to cut fraud, waste abuse, corruption, and overspending? With Democrats taking to the streets in violence chanting “HANDS OFF,” we should take a moment to observe the issues related to spending and debt.

The United States is facing a mounting financial crisis—not from a war, a natural disaster, or a market collapse—but from the very thing that’s supposed to sustain it: the national budget. With the national debt now surpassing $34 trillion, the country is paying more in interest on its debt each year than on critical public services such as defense, education, or infrastructure.

To understand the severity of this situation, imagine a typical American family making $75,000 a year. Now imagine they’ve accumulated over $430,000 in credit card debt—more than five times their annual income. Each year, they must pay nearly $10,000 just in interest to avoid default. That $10,000 doesn’t reduce the principal; it simply keeps the creditors at bay.

This is America’s reality on a much larger scale.

The Interest Bill Is Surging

In fiscal year 2024, the federal government spent over $870 billion just on interest payments. According to projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), interest on the debt will soon surpass $1 trillion per year—making it the single largest line item in the federal budget by the early 2030s, ahead of defense and Medicare.

These payments don’t improve roads, build schools, or provide health care. They’re simply the cost of past borrowing. And just like a family stuck in a cycle of making minimum payments on their credit card debt each month, the nation is increasingly unable to afford anything beyond its debt obligations.

What Got Us Here?

The national debt has grown as the federal government has spent more that it takes in–year after year, for decades. Major drivers include:

• Uncontrolled spending on entitlements and social programs, without corresponding revenue increases.
• Wars and defense expenditures funded through borrowing rather than tax hikes.
• Emergency responses, such as COVID-19 stimulus packages, that were initially necessary in the short term, but piled on out of habit thereafter, adding trillions to the debt.

And now, with interest rates significantly higher than they were before Biden inflation hit so hard, those debts are now much more expensive to maintain.

Why It Matters

Paying so much of the federal budget on interest reduces the government’s ability to invest in the future. It’s the equivalent of a family cutting their food, health care, and college savings just to make minimum payments on their cards. Where did all of the borrowed money go? Frivolous spending–usually pork belly projects to purchase your vote for politicians bringing home the bacon. Over time, this creates:

• Reduced government flexibility in responding to emergencies.
• Less public investment in innovation, infrastructure, and education.
• Higher borrowing costs as investors demand more interest to lend to a financially strained nation.
• Risk of fiscal crisis, where the government either defaults or must resort to drastic spending cuts and tax increases.

The Family Analogy: A Closer Look

Let’s revisit the metaphor.

U.S. Government	Typical American Family
Revenue: ~$4.9 trillion/year	Income: $75,000/year
Debt: $34+ trillion	Credit card debt: $430,000+
Annual interest: ~$870 billion	Annual interest: ~$10,000
Surplus/Deficit: ~$1.7 trillion	Spending exceeds income by 35%

Just like a family in this situation would need to drastically cut spending, increase income, or both—so too must the federal government consider its fiscal trajectory.

What Can Be Done?

Fixing the debt crisis isn’t easy, but experts propose several paths forward:

• Entitlement reform: Restructuring Social Security and Medicare to remain solvent without bankrupting the budget.
• Spending caps and balanced budget amendments: Forcing fiscal discipline through legislation.
• Tax reform: Closing loopholes and broadening the tax base without necessarily raising rates.
• Economic growth: Encouraging policies that increase productivity and GDP, thereby improving the debt-to-GDP ratio.

However, all of these require political courage and bipartisan cooperation—both in short supply.

The Bottom Line

The U.S. isn’t broke . . . yet—but it’s acting like a maxed-out household living off borrowed money and barely keeping up with the interest payments. Without a course correction, Americans will soon see more of their tax dollars go toward paying for yesterday’s decisions rather than building tomorrow’s prosperity, or even funding today’s necessitites.

In the end, just as no family can indefinitely survive by paying interest on an ever-growing credit card balance, neither can a nation. Unlike the family that spent its future money on drunken foolishness, the government can’t file for bankruptcy protection.

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

From Inflation Surge to Economic Shift: Analyzing the Transition from Biden to Trump

By James Thompson, Financial Correspondent
April 15, 2025

The United States experienced significant inflationary pressures during President Joe Biden’s tenure, with the annual inflation rate peaking at 9.1% in June 2022—the highest in over four decades. This surge was attributed to expansive fiscal policies, including the $780 billion so-called “Inflation Reduction Act,” which was nothing more than a money grab for Democrat party climate change and healthcare groups. The boondoggle did nothing to curb inflation, of course, and in fact, flooded the money supply, causing soaring inflation.

In addition to this problem, Biden and the Democrats passed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which injected way too much liquidity into the economy. This influx of funds, coupled with supply chain disruptions and labor shortages, strained the supply-demand balance, leading to price surges.​ Additionally, energy policies emphasizing a transition to ‘renewable’ sources and away from solid sources led to reduced investments in traditional energy sectors, contributing to decreased domestic oil production, and influencing fuel prices, and by extension, transportation and goods costs.​ Pretty much every policy implemented by Biden and the Democrats lit a torch to the American economy, burning it nearly to the ground.

Upon assuming office on January 20, President Donald Trump implemented a series of policies aimed at curbing inflation and reducing consumer prices. Notably, he signed executive orders to expand domestic fossil fuel production by lifting restrictions on drilling in Alaska and offshore areas, promoting the “Drill, Baby, Drill” initiative. In the first few weeks of his second term, President Trump signed scores of Executive Orders aimed at eliminating or reducing the economic roadblocks inserted by Biden. These measures are largely aimed to increase energy supply, thus lowering fuel costs. ​

Initial indicators suggest a significant cooling in inflation, but the depth and long-term effects of Biden’s destructive policies remain uncertain. The interplay between domestic initiatives and global economic dynamics will be crucial in determining the sustained trajectory of inflation and overall economic health.​

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

By James Thompson

In today’s hyper-polarized political landscape, the divide between parties isn’t just a matter of opinion—it’s often a matter of math. Increasingly, a number of political issues have become what analysts call “80-20 issues,” meaning approximately 80% of the public, or one party, supports a position while the other party opposes or only weakly supports it. These disparities are not only deepening the divide between left and right—they’re reshaping the political map and defining a new battleground of ideas, accountability, and truth.

These issues often have overwhelming public support or clear practical benefits, yet face resistance largely rooted in ideology, special interests, or identity politics. The result is a political gridlock in which one side is perceived as fighting for common sense reform, while the other is seen as obstructing progress—even when doing so goes against the will of their own constituents.

The 80-20 Issues: A Brief Overview

While the full list evolves with current events, here is a summary of approximately 20 major 80-20 issues that reflect the growing one-sidedness in American politics:

1. Border security and enforcement – Supported by a wide swath of Americans, yet increasingly blocked by Democratic leadership. Trump shut down the border to illegal crossings, and Biden opened it widely, allowing tens of millions of unvetted, military aged men to enter. He claimed it would require an act of congress to close it. Now Trump has closed the border. Democrats have flooded the courts to keep brutal gang enforcers on our streets.
2. Parental rights in education – Parents want a say in their children’s curricula, but progressive policies often aim to minimize parental input.
3. School choice – Strong bipartisan support nationally, but consistently opposed by teachers’ unions and their Democratic allies.
4. Government waste and fraud reform (DOGE) – Broadly favored by Americans, yet Democrats have fought transparency and trimming of bureaucracy.
5. Voter ID laws – Supported by around 75-80% of Americans, but still mischaracterized by many on the left as discriminatory.
6. Energy independence – A majority favor policies that promote U.S. oil and gas alongside renewables, while progressive Democrats push for abrupt transitions.
7. Police funding and public safety – Most Americans want effective, well-funded police forces. “Defund the police” rhetoric persists on the left.
8. Free speech on college campuses – Conservatives and moderates favor open dialogue, while left-wing administrators often suppress dissenting views.
9. Biological gender recognition in sports – Common-sense legislation on gender divisions in athletics is supported by majorities, yet dismissed as “anti-trans” by leftist activists.
10. Term limits for Congress – Supported overwhelmingly by Americans, yet opposed by career politicians, especially those entrenched in Democratic power.
11. Criminal justice for violent offenders – The public demands tougher sentencing for repeat violent criminals, while many progressive DAs release them to our streets with minimal consequences.
12. Opposition to child gender transition surgeries – Widely seen as harmful by the public, but aggressively supported by the radical left.
13. Protection of religious freedoms – Often trampled in favor of progressive causes. Christians are violently endangered by leftist groups, and the trend is global.
14. Election integrity – From ballot chain-of-custody to mail-in vote security, the public supports safeguards; most Democrats oppose these measures, claiming minorities aren’t bright enough to comply with voting requirements.
15. Transparency in public schools – Parents want to know what’s being taught, but teachers’ unions and Democratic boards frequently resist disclosure.
16. Opposition to ESG mandates – Most Americans are wary of politicizing investments, while Democrats push ESG as a corporate and social standard.
17. Gun rights for law-abiding citizens – While supporting background checks, the public largely supports the right to bear arms, while Democrat politicians oppose the constitutional right, and Democratic states increasingly pass restrictive laws.
18. Merit-based college admissions – Supported by a majority of Americans, yet affirmative action and equity quotas persist in left-leaning institutions.
19. Balanced federal budget – A growing national concern, but federal Democrats continue pushing massive spending bills with no offset.
20. Free speech online and elsewhere – Many fear government collusion with social media companies to suppress dissenting voices—an effort exposed in the Twitter Files, with most censorship aligning with Democratic interests.

Fringe Support and Controversial Alignments

While these core issues dominate headlines, fringe developments further expose the Democratic Party’s vulnerability to radical influences. Take for example:

• The Mangione Assassination: Some Democratic circles have shown sympathy for David Mangione, the man who murdered a private sector CEO over corporate policies—a shocking alignment with vigilante justice under the guise of activism. Approximately half of the Democratic party says violence, and even assassination, is a valid form of political activity.
• Support for Hamas: Factions within the Democratic Party, particularly in activist and academic spheres, have expressed explicit support for Hamas—a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. OUr universities have become petri dishes for anti-Israel and Jewish hatred. This stance alienates the broader American public and Jewish community and contradicts U.S. foreign policy and humanitarian values.
• Opposition to Cleaning Up Government Waste: Perhaps most baffling is the resistance from Democratic lawmakers and party members to anti-corruption initiatives, such as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Measures that root out fraud, waste, corruption and abuse—often bipartisan goals—have been dismissed as partisan attacks simply because they originated under Trump-era initiatives or figures like Elon Musk.

The Consequences

These issues create a political dynamic in which one party claims the mantle of reason, reform, and accountability—while the other increasingly appears captured by special interests, radical ideology, or a desire to oppose for opposition’s sake.

This 80-20 split isn’t just a political talking point; it’s a warning sign. When one party begins to routinely resist overwhelmingly supported policies, the result is disillusionment, voter apathy, and the rise of independent or populist alternatives. We are seeing it in daily polling, moving further toward traditional, conservative values–especially among young men, and anyone who hasn’t been indoctrinated by the university experience

Whether America can recalibrate remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the 80-20 issues aren’t going away. In fact, they may be the key fault lines that determine the nation’s future political alignment—and its willingness to restore common sense in the halls of power. For those on the Left who are wondering why their power and influence have eroded so quickly–this is it.

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

By James Thompson

Throughout history, the rare individuals who lift civilization forward are rarely celebrated in their time. They are mocked, resisted, persecuted—not for their failures, but for their successes; for daring to expose what is broken, for solving the problems others refuse to admit exist. Elon Musk, perhaps the most brilliant technologist and entrepreneur of our time, is the latest figure to walk this path of visionary persecution.

From revolutionizing electric vehicles and private space travel to waging a new battle against the leviathan of government waste, Musk has achieved more in one lifetime than most nations do in a century. And yet, the very elites who claim to champion “progress” have turned against him with a ferocity that reeks not of principle—but of panic.

The Visionary Who Dares to Cut Fat

In 2024, Musk took on a new role: leading President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This agency was formed with one goal—to shine a light on the darkest, most protected corners of federal waste, abuse, and corruption.

The results were staggering. In under two months, DOGE uncovered and dismantled nearly $150 billion in fraud and inefficiency. Entire layers of redundant bureaucracy were eliminated. Government projects that had ballooned into multi-billion-dollar money pits with no results were shuttered. Wasteful programs that had existed solely to enrich consultants, cronies, Democratic candidates, and special interest groups were shut down.

The response from the American taxpayer? Relief. Applause. Hope.

The response from the political left? Fury. Violence.

Why? Because the gravy train had been derailed. Musk and DOGE weren’t just exposing abstract numbers on a spreadsheet—they were uncovering corruption that benefited the very people now calling for his head.

The Left’s Hypocrisy Laid Bare

The Democratic party—once home to self-professed watchdogs of government spending—has now made it clear: the only “waste” they oppose is waste they don’t control. Figures like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi once thundered about fiscal responsibility, about ending pork-barrel spending and holding bureaucrats accountable.

Now? They scream fascism at Musk and Trump for doing exactly that.

They claim Musk is dangerous, that his audits and efficiency drives are “authoritarian.” But they were silent when trillions were flushed down the drain in foreign wars, DEI initiatives, “green” boondoggles, corporate bailouts, and failed social programs. They claim DOGE threatens democracy—yet it is they who seek to shut down the very man trying to protect the public trust.

This is not principled opposition. It’s fear. Fear that their decades-long scam has finally met its match.

The Galileo of Our Time

Let’s be clear: Elon Musk is no ordinary political appointee. He is not a career bureaucrat. He is not another figurehead who cashes checks and rubber-stamps reports. He doesn’t even get paid for his valuable services.

Musk is a modern Renaissance man—a polymath, an inventor, and a disruptor.

Just like Galileo, who was imprisoned for pointing a telescope at the heavens and speaking truth, Musk is being punished for using data and reason to reveal corruption here on Earth. Just like Leonardo da Vinci, whose mechanical sketches were centuries ahead of their time, Musk’s work in AI, rocketry, and sustainable energy is forcing humanity to catch up to his vision.

And just like Socrates, who was sentenced to death for “corrupting the youth” with free thought, Musk is now demonized for encouraging skepticism, science, and innovation outside the approved channels of the elite.

The Left does not fear Elon Musk because he is wrong—they fear him because he is right, and because he is effective.

Trump and Musk: Enemies of the Establishment

President Trump and Elon Musk, despite wildly different styles, share a dangerous trait in the eyes of the ruling class: they are uncontrolled. They do not owe the donor class. They do not bow to the media. They do not serve the bureaucratic machine. And worst of all—for their enemies—they deliver results.

Trump’s first term of presidency was defined by record-low unemployment, tax relief for the middle class, border enforcement, and deregulation. Musk’s DOGE tenure is now defined by billions in recovered taxpayer dollars and the exposure of massive systemic rot in government.

No wonder the same media and political operatives who tried to destroy Trump are now targeting Musk with the same smear campaigns. They call him a megalomaniac, a troll, a fascist, a Nazi—not because he is, but because he dares to operate outside of their control.

They want Musk silent because his voice carries truth. They want him gone because his existence threatens their grip on power.

The Backwardness of the Musk Detractors

Let’s not mince words: the people protesting Musk are not revolutionaries. They are not champions of the downtrodden. They are useful idiots, clinging to outdated ideologies and faux moral superiority while attacking the very man modernizing their world.

They drive Teslas to impact global climate change, and then vandalize Teslas, and Tesla dealerships and charging stations. They use Starlink internet to post hate toward the man who brought it to their rural communities. They call Musk greedy, while they beg the government to pay off their student loans. They decry authoritarianism, while demanding censorship of those they disagree with.

They are not brave. They are not enlightened. They are the inheritors of the mob that once burned books, silenced scientists, and jailed geniuses. They would have banned da Vinci from his workshops, smashed Galileo’s telescope, and mocked Edison for his “stupid little light bulb.”

They claim to be the future. In truth, they are the past—ignorant, loud, and increasingly irrelevant.

A Future Worth Fighting For

Elon Musk has not merely created companies. He has created paradigm shifts. His work has brought us closer to energy independence, multiplanetary existence, and government accountability. He is a one-man engine of the American Dream.

The establishment is terrified because Musk represents a future where the are free people ask questions. Where the truth is known. Where efficiency matters more than backroom deals. Where government is the servant of the people, and not the other way around. Where power is earned—not inherited.

Musk, like the giants before him, will be vindicated in the pages of history. But today, he needs defenders. Champions. Citizens who refuse to bow to the cowardly cancel mobs and political parasites who thrive in darkness and dysfunction.

Stand With the Visionaries

In every era, the Renaissance has had enemies. The people who push mankind forward must push against the forces of fear, ignorance, and control. Musk is one of those people. So is Trump. Their enemies are not fighting for justice or democracy—they’re fighting for their own survival in a world that no longer needs them.

The question is simple: will we side with the torchbearers of progress, or with those who would snuff that flame to stay in power just a little longer?

History is watching.

The future belongs to the brave. Musk and Trump have demonstrated extraordinary bravery as the Left continues to in their quest to destroy them.

---

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

In a bold campaign to eliminate corruption, waste, fraud, and inefficiency in the federal government, tech entrepreneur Elon Musk has partnered with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a newly-formed task force authorized by President Trump. The initiative, which uses a combination of blockchain transparency tools, AI audit systems, and private-sector accountability standards, has already exposed hundreds of billions in redundant or fraudulent government spending.

Supporters call the results nothing short of revolutionary.

Within the first 60 days of DOGE operations, the agency uncovered a $3.2 billion surplus in unused COVID-era relief funds being funneled through inactive non-profits, uncovered fraudulent contracting schemes in the Department of Transportation, hundreds of billions slated for DEI and “green” propaganda efforts, and flagged over 14,000 cases of ghost employees across federal agencies. Whistleblowers inside DOGE say this is just the beginning.

“Elon Musk has brought the same disruptive innovation that transformed the auto, space, and social media industries to a government that desperately needed accountability,” said DOGE Deputy Director Maria Kent. “The American taxpayer is finally seeing where their money is going—and where it shouldn’t be.”

Yet despite the clear-cut wins for the American taxpayers, DOGE’s mission has been met with organized resistance, primarily from progressive politicians, the left, and activist groups, financed by anti-American globalists like George Soros. Demonstrators have taken to the streets of major U.S. cities, accusing Musk and the Trump administration of using the initiative as a front for authoritarian control, though no evidence of civil liberties violations or overreach has been substantiated.

Some of the criticism has reached extremes. Protesters in San Francisco, Chicago, and Berlin have vandalized Tesla vehicles and set fire to Tesla dealerships in symbolic opposition to Musk’s role in DOGE. Chants likening Musk to Nazis and other authoritarian figures have echoed through university campuses and protest sites, with critics framing the crackdown on corruption as an assault on “social progress.”

The White House has pushed back sharply against the false allegations.

“Calling anti-corruption efforts ‘fascist’ is Orwellian,” said the Press Secretary. “Elon Musk and DOGE are not targeting the poor, the vulnerable, or any individual Americans. They are targeting waste, fraud, and abuse that both Republicans and Democrats should be against. If you’re protesting this, you’re either misinformed—or benefiting from the corruption.”

Data from independent watchdogs supports DOGE’s effectiveness. The non-partisan Civic Budget Institute estimates that DOGE’s work could lead to trillions in savings over the next three years. Already, federal contracts are being restructured with performance clauses and transparency requirements modeled after DOGE protocols.

Still, many leftist critics, including mainstream television news programs, remain unmoved.

Democratic Senator Alicia Moreno (D-NY) called DOGE “a weaponization of technology to push right-wing ideology under the guise of efficiency.” When pressed on which specific programs were being unfairly targeted, she declined to name any, stating instead that the initiative “sends a chilling message.”

Some analysts see the backlash not as a policy disagreement, but as a reaction to Musk himself—a polarizing figure who challenges traditional political and institutional boundaries.

“Elon Musk is an avatar of post-partisan disruption,” said Dr. Leo Hammond, a political science professor at Stanford. “He’s neither left nor right in a conventional sense, and that terrifies people who are invested in the current structure, especially if that structure is bloated and inefficient.”

For now, DOGE appears to be expanding with rapidity. Reports suggest upcoming audits of the Department of Education, the military, Medicare billing systems, and federal environmental grant programs. According to Musk, the DOGE model may eventually be exported to state governments and even foreign allies.

“If we can send rockets to Mars,” Musk tweeted, “we can figure out where the $6 trillion in annual spending actually goes.”

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

Stone: “I hate what they did with Russiagate, I really do”

Left-wing movie director Oliver Stone slammed Democrats for weaponizing federal law enforcement and “lying” in their attempts to charge the president with Russian collusion during the 2016 election.   

Stone, meanwhile, applauded President Donald Trump for taking steps to find out what really happened, adding that he is “absolutely” right that the federal government has been weaponized to attack political opponents.

Trump recently signed a new executive order directing the FBI to immediately declassify files concerning Crossfire Hurricane, the initial investigation launched in 2016 that sought information on whether members of the Trump campaign were colluding with the Russians to undermine the election. The president has also taken steps to go after the law firms involved in the scandal, including by suspending the security clearances for their attorneys and barring them from entering any federal buildings. 

Left-wing movie director Oliver Stone slammed Democrats for weaponizing federal law enforcement and “lying” in their attempts to charge the president with Russian collusion during the 2016 election.   

Stone, meanwhile, applauded President Donald Trump for taking steps to find out what really happened, adding that he is “absolutely” right that the federal government has been weaponized to attack political opponents.

Trump recently signed a new executive order directing the FBI to immediately declassify files concerning Crossfire Hurricane, the initial investigation launched in 2016 that sought information on whether members of the Trump campaign were colluding with the Russians to undermine the election. The president has also taken steps to go after the law firms involved in the scandal, including by suspending the security clearances for their attorneys and barring them from entering any federal buildings. 

“Russiagate – we paid for it,” Stone said. “I applaud [what Trump is doing], and I hate what they did with Russiagate, I really do. I think it’s – again, the lying, the lying, the lying, and selling that to the American people.”

When asked if he felt Trump was right about there being weaponization of the federal government against conservatives, Stone responded: “There was.”

Stone, who has produced several documentaries supporting Russian narratives about Ukraine, added that the underlying premise behind Russiagate – that Russia is a nefarious actor – is wrong and “un-American.”

“They are potentially our best partners, as are the Chinese. I mean, we have this mentality that they’re the enemy,” Stone said. “That’s all been inculcated by propaganda. If you go out there to China, and you go out to Russia, you don’t hear that kind of vituperative dialogue.”

Russia President Putin and President Trump (Getty Images)

However, while Stone said he agreed with Trump’s approach to taking on those involved with Russiagate, he did lament the president’s attacks on pro-Palestinian protesters over alleged antisemitism.  

“I don’t like this new thing about censorship coming from Trump,” said Stone. “Against the anti – what he calls ‘antisemitic news’ – I mean, I don’t agree. I don’t know where he’s coming from, and it’s not what he promised.”

By Alec Schemmel

Biden DOJ was full of Sgt. Schultzes when it came to obvious corruption

By Jonathan Turley

For years, some of us have written about the Biden family’s multimillion-dollar influence-peddling operation and the Justice Department’s refusal to charge Hunter Biden with being an unregistered foreign agent. Now, years later, The New York Times has found evidence suggesting that the former president’s son was acting as a foreign agent as early as the Obama administration, when his father was vice president.

Last August, the New York Times ran a story about Hunter Biden seeking help from the government for his client, the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. A recent follow-up story had damaging new details:

Hunter Biden sought assistance from the U.S. government for a potentially lucrative energy project in Italy while his father was vice president, according to newly released records and interviews.

The records, which the Biden administration had withheld for years, indicate that Hunter Biden wrote at least one letter to the U.S. ambassador to Italy in 2016 seeking assistance for the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, where he was a board member…

The State Department did not release the actual text of the letter.

That is precisely what many of us have been writing about in asking why Hunter Biden was not charged with being an unregistered foreign agent, as Paul Manafort, Bob Menendez and others were under similar circumstances.

(Hunter Biden’s scandalous laptop was falsely dismissed as Russian disinformation.)

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) covers anyone acting as “agent of a foreign principal,” including but not limited to (1) attempting to influence federal officials or the public on domestic or foreign policy or the political or public interests in favor of a foreign country; (2) collecting or disbursing money and or other things of value within the United States; or (3) representing the interests of the foreign principal before U.S. Government officials or agencies.

It is sweeping. So is the definition of what a “foreign principal” encompasses, including “a foreign government, a foreign political party, any person outside the United States (except U.S. citizens who are domiciled within the United States), and any entity organized under the laws of a foreign country or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.”

As I previously wrote, Special Counsel Robert Mueller seemed to charge by the gross under the act. He hit a line of Trump associates with such allegations from Manafort to Michael Flynn to George Papadopoulos to Rick Gates. The Justice Department used FARA to conduct searches on the homes and files of former Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani, Republican attorney Victoria Toensing and others.

President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. (Getty Images)

However, the Justice Department and Special Counsel David Weiss seemed to tie themselves into knots to avoid tripping the wire on FARA even as it discussed Hunter Biden’s work for foreign clients.

The government also resisted FOIA requests from the Times and other media. More from the above article:

The request was initially filed under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, in June 2021. After nearly eight months, the State Department had not released any records, and The Times sued. About 18 months later, the department moved to close the case after releasing thousands of pages of records — none of which shed light on Hunter Biden’s outreach to the U.S. government.

The Times challenged the thoroughness of the search, noting that the department had failed to produce responsive records contained in a cache of files connected to a laptop that Mr. Biden had abandoned at a Delaware repair shop. The department resumed the search and periodic productions, but had produced few documents related to Mr. Biden until the week after his father ended his re-election campaign and endorsed Vice President Harris for the Democratic nomination.

Now we have a copy of a key letter from Hunter Biden that gives us an insight into the evidence buried for years:

The State Department last week released a letter he wrote while his father was serving as vice president in which he sought assistance from the U.S. government for the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

In the previously unpublished June 2016 letter on Burisma letterhead to the U.S. ambassador to Italy, Mr. Biden requested “support and guidance” in arranging a meeting with an Italian official to resolve regulatory hurdles to geothermal energy projects Burisma was pursuing in the Tuscany region…

The letter requested help arranging a meeting between Burisma officials and Enrico Rossi, the president of the Tuscany regional government at the time, “to introduce geothermal projects led by Burisma Group, to highlight their social and economic benefits for local communities and develop a common action plan that would lead to further development of the Tuscany Region.”

How could any Justice Department official, let alone a special counsel, read that letter and not see the glaring disconnect between the handling of the case involving Joe Biden’s son and others like Manafort?

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Former President Donald Trump. (Getty Images)

The letter references a trip on which Hunter Biden, as was his pattern, used official travel with his father to make these business connections. The letter mentions meeting a key ambassador on Air Force Two as he seeks assistance for his client.

The ambassador then sent a follow-up letter saying he knew the president of Tuscany and identified a Commerce Department official working at the U.S. embassy who could help “see where our interests may overlap.”

It was another example of alleged influence peddling through his father and work for a foreign client in lobbying the government.

During this period, the Justice Department seemed to be on a hair-trigger for FARA charges. Yet, when it came to Hunter Biden, the entire department seemed composed of legal Sgt. Schultzes.

Many in the media attacked those of us who have been writing about this corruption stretching back to the Obama administration. Many simply insisted that there was no evidence, while taking no steps to find out. While the media was unrelenting in investigating Trump allegations of Russian collusion and business improprieties, it took a largely passive stance in pursuing this story.

Even The New York Times, which can be credited with pursuing this FOIA information, did comparably little with the ample evidence of corruption by the Bidens in securing millions through influence peddling.

What remains is a corruption scandal involving not only what the Bidens did but also what the Justice Department did not do over this extended period. It appears to heed the advice not of whistleblowers but politicians like former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) that “everybody needs to back off” the influence-peddling story.

Of course, Joe Biden ultimately broke his repeated promise not to pardon his son. What was most notable, however, was that not only did he pardon him for any crimes from human trafficking to tax evasion but also for a period running from Jan. 1, 2014 to Dec. 1, 2024.

This letter explains why such a sweeping, extended pardon was needed. Yet, in the end, the greatest indictment from this scandal was of the Justice Department itself.

---

Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).

By James Thompson, Financial Correspondent
April 4, 2025

Recent market turbulence triggered by President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs on countries deemed to have long exploited the United States economically has sent shockwaves through Wall Street. Stock averages have taken a noticeable dip, with major indices like the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 posting sharp losses in recent sessions. But while some investors may view the volatility with concern, seasoned market watchers and long-term investors see something very different: opportunity.

A Predictable Reaction to a Bold Policy Shift

The tariffs, part of a broader strategy to renegotiate longstanding trade imbalances, have rattled short-term confidence. Markets typically dislike uncertainty, and the threat of an escalating trade war can understandably spook traders and institutional investors. However, for those with a longer time horizon, the current downturn could represent a classic “buy low” moment.

“This is not the first time we’ve seen markets react strongly to geopolitical and economic maneuvers,” said Linda Caldwell, Chief Investment Officer at RiverRock Capital. “But if you look at the historical data, the market has always bounced back — and often to new highs — once the dust settles.”

A Time-Tested Strategy

The old adage “buy low, sell high” may sound simplistic, but it has been the foundation of countless fortunes. Warren Buffett, one of the most successful investors of all time, famously advised investors to “be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful.” In times like these, when fear is high and prices are low, value investors start paying close attention.

With many stocks currently trading well below their recent highs, this could be an ideal moment for investors to enter the market or increase their positions. Sectors particularly affected by tariff news — such as manufacturing, agriculture, and international shipping — may offer deeply discounted shares with strong fundamentals.

Historical Precedent: Recovery Is the Rule, Not the Exception

Looking back, markets have repeatedly demonstrated resilience in the face of political and economic disruptions. After the 2008 financial crisis, for example, markets eventually soared to all-time highs, rewarding investors who held their nerve and stayed invested.

Similarly, during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, stocks plunged amid global uncertainty. Yet by late 2021, markets had not only recovered but were hitting new records. The message is clear: short-term dips can lead to long-term gains.

A Balanced Approach

Of course, investing always carries risk. No one can perfectly time the market, and there is always a chance that stock prices may decline further before recovering. However, for those with a diversified portfolio and a medium- to long-term outlook, the odds are heavily in favor of recovery and growth.

Financial advisors recommend that individual investors focus on quality companies with strong balance sheets and consistent earnings. Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) and index funds also provide an easy way to gain broad market exposure with reduced risk.

The Bottom Line

While the headlines may be alarming, and the market fluctuations unsettling, the current downturn may be one of the best investing opportunities in recent memory. Investors willing to act now — with discipline and strategy — could reap significant rewards in the months and years to come.

As always, it’s wise to consult with a financial advisor to craft a strategy that aligns with your personal risk tolerance, goals, and timeline. But for many, this moment of unease may be the exact time to lean in — not retreat.

---

Disclosure: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Investing involves risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results.

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

By James Thompson — April 3, 2025

Turn on your television at any given hour—especially during daytime or late-night programming—and you’re likely to encounter a barrage of commercials peddling promises so shiny, so reassuring, you might wonder if you’re watching infomercials or fairy tales. But some of these seemingly innocent pitches tread dangerously close to consumer fraud, banking on vague claims, fine print, and the assumption that viewers won’t ask too many questions.

Let’s take a closer look at four repeat offenders: automotive aftermarket warranties, pharmaceutical ads targeting everyday viewers, gold sales companies touting shiny salvation—and a subtle newcomer exploiting elder vulnerability: fixed-price life insurance.

1. The “Worry-Free” Car Warranty That Might Just Worry You More

If you’ve ever owned a car older than a Kardashian marriage, chances are you’ve seen a commercial that begins something like this:
“Did your car’s manufacturer warranty expire? You could be on the hook for thousands in repairs—unless you act now!”

These ads market third-party or “aftermarket” warranties, often suggesting you’ll be covered for nearly every mechanical issue, with repairs available at your preferred local mechanic. Sounds fantastic, right?

Here’s the rub: the fine print often reveals a different story. Many of these plans exclude common repairs, impose strict reimbursement caps, and limit where you can actually get your car serviced. In some cases, consumers find their claims denied for vague reasons like “pre-existing conditions”—on a transmission.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued multiple warnings about misleading warranty companies, some of which have been investigated for deceptive practices. The key red flag? Aggressive urgency. “Call now before it’s too late” isn’t just annoying—it’s manipulative.

2. Drug Commercials: Side Effects May Include Confusion and Unqualified Diagnoses

“Ask your doctor if Miraculex is right for you.”
But what if you don’t even know what Miraculex is, or why it might be better than your current medication?

Pharmaceutical ads are now an entrenched part of American TV culture, even though the U.S. is one of only two countries in the world (alongside New Zealand) that allows direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. But why? Patients don’t prescribe drugs for their ailments—doctors do. These commercials often show happy, healthy people walking on beaches or flying kites—while the voiceover speeds through a mile-long list of side effects, including things like “uncontrollable muscle movements” and “thoughts of death.”

What these ads rarely include? A balanced, medically contextualized explanation of why you might need the drug—or what safer or more cost-effective options exist.

Critics argue that these ads nudge consumers to pressure their doctors into prescribing specific, often expensive, brand-name medications they may not need. And since the average viewer isn’t trained in medicine or pharmacology, these decisions are often made based on emotional appeal or fear—not medical evidence or appropriateness.

3. Gold Sales: “Buy Now!” But… Why Are They Selling?

“Gold has never been worth zero!” scream the commercials, often delivered by retired athletes or actors with gravitas and a knowing look. You’re told to buy gold today—no matter the current price—because it’s a hedge against inflation, government collapse, and apparently, zombies.

What these ads don’t emphasize is that the gold you’re buying is often priced well above the spot market price. How much higher? Sometimes 30–50% more, depending on whether you’re buying collectible coins or bullion through these sellers.

It’s a logical paradox wrapped in a shiny wrapper: if gold is such a surefire investment, why are these companies so eager to part with theirs—and spend millions on advertising to do so?

Some experts point out that gold sales companies often make more money selling gold to people than from gold itself. And because these transactions are often marketed as “emergency preparedness” or part of “diversifying your portfolio,” they can prey on fear and uncertainty, especially among older consumers.

4. “Only $9.99 a Month!”: The Life Insurance Pitch That Forgets to Mention the Payout

One of the more insidious ads sneaking under the radar involves so-called “cheap, guaranteed acceptance” life insurance plans aimed squarely at seniors. These commercials focus almost entirely on the low, fixed monthly premium—“as little as $9.99 a month!”—and often reassure viewers that there are no health questions asked and that acceptance is guaranteed.

What they fail to mention loudly (or at all) is the amount your loved ones will actually receive when you die. In many cases, these policies are graded benefit plans with small payouts—sometimes just $2,000 to $5,000—barely enough to cover basic funeral expenses. And if the insured passes away within the first two years, the payout may only be a refund of premiums, not the full amount.

Worse still, these plans are often marketed to financially vulnerable elderly individuals who assume they’re purchasing something substantial to protect their families. But when that payout comes, families are usually left with far less than expected—and a bitter understanding of just how little $9.99 a month really bought.

The Bottom Line: Don’t Believe the Hype (Without Reading the Fine Print)

Television commercials have always been about persuasion, but today’s slickest pitches walk a razor-thin line between clever marketing and outright manipulation—or worse. In an era of high costs, economic anxiety, and widespread misinformation, consumers are increasingly vulnerable to emotional appeals that promise peace of mind—or financial gain—with a quick phone call.

So the next time a too-good-to-be-true TV ad promises to save your car, cure your ailments, secure your retirement, or give your family “peace of mind,” take a breath. Then do some research, read the fine print, and maybe talk to a real expert before you hand over your cash.

After all, the only thing worse than buyer’s remorse… is realizing the commercial was the only thing that got paid.

Interested in more breakdowns of TV pitches and the truth behind the jingles? Stay tuned—we’ll be watching them so you don’t have to.

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

March 28, 2025 — Washington, D.C.
By: James Thompson

If you’ve been watching TV or scrolling through your favorite apps lately, you may have come across commercials targeting seniors over 65, promising a prepaid debit card loaded with thousands of dollars — sometimes as much as $3,200 — to spend however they wish. These ads often claim that the money comes from a “Senior Wellness Program” or other government initiatives. However, experts are warning that these advertisements can be highly misleading, and in some cases, downright deceptive.

For seniors trying to make the most of their retirement income, these promises of “free money” may seem too good to pass up. Unfortunately, they often are.

What Are These Ads Really Promoting?

Most of these commercials are actually promoting Medicare Advantage (Part C) plans — private insurance plans that provide Medicare benefits, often with additional perks. While Medicare Advantage plans sometimes offer flex cards or over-the-counter (OTC) allowances, the amounts provided are far from the thousands of dollars these ads claim.

“Many of these ads exploit seniors’ trust by suggesting they can receive large sums of cash to spend freely,” explains Dr. Mark Harris, a Medicare policy expert. “But in reality, the benefits offered are limited and highly regulated, often covering only specific health-related expenses like dental, vision, and medical supplies.”

In most legitimate cases:

• Flex cards or OTC allowances may provide $50 to $200 per quarter for qualified purchases, not thousands of dollars.
• Benefits are restricted to certain expenses, such as prescription medications, transportation to medical appointments, or healthy food programs.
• The higher dollar amounts touted in these ads are exaggerated and misleading.

The Danger of Misleading Ads

While some of these advertisements promote legitimate Medicare Advantage plans, others are designed to harvest personal information from unsuspecting seniors. In the worst cases, these misleading promotions can result in:

• Unauthorized Enrollment: Seniors may be enrolled in plans that don’t fit their healthcare needs or result in losing their existing coverage.
• Scams and Identity Theft: Fraudulent companies may use these ads to collect sensitive information like Medicare numbers and Social Security details, putting seniors at risk for identity theft.
• Bait-and-Switch Tactics: Some ads promise extensive benefits but fail to disclose the limited scope of the plans they promote, leading seniors to sign up for coverage that is less comprehensive than their current plan.

Understanding Legitimate Medicare Benefits

While it’s true that some Medicare Advantage plans offer flex cards or wellness benefits, these programs are far more limited than advertised. Here’s what seniors need to know:

Medicare Advantage Flex Cards:

• A few Medicare Advantage plans offer prepaid debit cards to cover health-related costs, but these cards are not loaded with thousands of dollars.
• They are usually limited to a few hundred dollars per year, only usable for specific healthcare-related expenses.

OTC Benefits and Grocery Allowances:

• Some plans offer a small quarterly allowance for over-the-counter medications, healthy groceries, or transportation.
• These allowances typically range from $50 to $200 per quarter.

Extra Help (Low-Income Subsidy Program):

• Seniors with limited income and resources may qualify for the Extra Help program to lower prescription drug costs.
• However, this program provides assistance, not direct cash.

How to Protect Yourself from Scams

1. Verify Through Official Sources
If you see an ad offering large amounts of money through Medicare-related programs, be cautious. Always verify the information through Medicare.gov or call 1-800-MEDICARE to confirm the legitimacy of the offer.

2. Do Not Share Personal Information Over the Phone
Scammers may ask for personal information like your Medicare number or Social Security details. Never provide this information to unsolicited callers or unverified websites.

3. Consult with Your State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP)
SHIP offers free, unbiased counseling for Medicare beneficiaries and can help you navigate your options. They can confirm whether a plan is legitimate and meets your healthcare needs.

4. Avoid High-Pressure Sales Tactics
Be wary of aggressive marketing tactics that pressure you to sign up immediately. Legitimate plans will give you time to review the details and make an informed decision.

Red Flags to Watch For:

Promises of Large Cash Payouts — No legitimate Medicare plan provides unrestricted money to spend as you wish.
Unsolicited Phone Calls or Emails — Scammers often cold-call or email seniors to pressure them into sharing sensitive information.
Urgent or Limited-Time Offers — Be cautious of any offer that demands immediate action or claims to expire quickly.

While it’s natural to want to take advantage of every benefit available to you, it’s essential to stay informed and cautious. Scammers and misleading ads prey on seniors by dangling the promise of free money — but a closer look often reveals the truth. Protect yourself and your loved ones by staying vigilant and verifying any claims before taking action.

“If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is,” says Dr. Harris. “When it comes to your healthcare, always double-check before making a decision.”

Where to Get Help:

If you suspect that you’ve encountered a scam or misleading advertisement, you can report it to:

• 1-800-MEDICARE (1-800-633-4227)
• Federal Trade Commission (FTC): ReportFraud.ftc.gov
• Your Local Senior Medicare Patrol (SMP): SMP programs help seniors detect and prevent fraud.

---

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

March 26, 2025 — Washington, D.C.
By: James Thompson

In a move stirring renewed debate and suspicion, the National Archives last week released a long-awaited batch of previously classified documents related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. While some hoped the final files would close the chapter on one of America’s most haunting mysteries, the opposite has occurred. Many of the newly declassified records appear to bolster arguments long made by conspiracy theorists — that the full truth about JFK’s death has been obscured by powerful forces within the U.S. government.

The 2025 release, part of a decades-long process mandated by the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, includes more than 1,400 pages of CIA, FBI, and State Department documents. While heavily redacted files have been released in waves since the 1990s, these new records are the most complete to date, shedding light on shadowy intelligence operations, foreign entanglements, and internal government concerns — some of which suggest foreknowledge or complicity in the events surrounding November 22, 1963.

---

Key Revelations:

1. CIA Surveillance of Oswald Before the Assassination

One of the most explosive findings centers around the CIA’s surveillance of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination. A formerly top-secret memo reveals that the CIA had opened a 201 file on Oswald in 1960 — well before his defection to the Soviet Union and his subsequent return to the U.S. in 1962.

New details show that Oswald was under active surveillance during his visit to Mexico City in September 1963, where he attempted to obtain visas from both the Cuban and Soviet embassies. Phone intercepts and photos of Oswald — some previously withheld — now confirm that U.S. intelligence agencies had real-time information about his movements. Yet, there is no evidence they acted on these warnings.

Critics argue this undermines claims by the Warren Commission that Oswald was a “lone nut” who escaped the radar of federal agencies. Instead, the picture that emerges is of a man of interest whose activities were well known — and possibly manipulated — by intelligence officials.

2. Questions Around “The Mexico City Tapes”

The new files also provide fresh insight into the mysterious “Mexico City tapes.” For decades, controversy has swirled around audio recordings from the CIA’s wiretaps in Mexico City, where an individual claiming to be Oswald contacted the Soviet embassy. The problem? U.S. officials who listened to the tapes after the assassination said the voice did not match Oswald’s.

Previously redacted memos now confirm that CIA officers raised concerns in real-time about this discrepancy — yet the tapes were conveniently “erased” before they could be analyzed further. The documents suggest that senior officials, including then-CIA Deputy Director Richard Helms, were involved in decisions to suppress or ignore contradictory evidence.

---

3. Possible Cuban and Mafia Connections

The newly released records reignite long-held suspicions about the intersection of organized crime, anti-Castro Cuban exiles, and U.S. intelligence operations. A declassified memo from 1962 reveals that the CIA was actively pursuing assassination plots against Fidel Castro using Mafia intermediaries — including notorious figures like Sam Giancana and Johnny Roselli.

Another document refers to a “contingency” discussion within the CIA’s Western Hemisphere Division about how to handle “blowback” if such operations were exposed — including the possibility that rogue agents or criminal elements might redirect violence toward U.S. leaders.

One memo, previously hidden under national security exemptions, describes concerns that “individuals involved in Cuba-related operations may possess both the motive and the means” to target American officials seen as “soft on communism.” JFK’s decision to shut down certain anti-Castro missions after the Cuban Missile Crisis caused deep resentment among exiles and operatives alike.

---

4. Internal Doubts About the Warren Commission

Perhaps most damning are several documents revealing skepticism within the government about the Warren Commission’s lone gunman conclusion. A memo dated 1964 from FBI Assistant Director William Sullivan warned that “the public will not believe Oswald acted alone,” citing conflicting ballistic evidence and the implausibility of Oswald’s shooting accuracy.

An internal CIA communication also reveals that high-ranking agency figures were concerned that the Commission’s work would “open doors best left closed” — particularly regarding covert operations in Latin America and Oswald’s associations with intelligence-linked entities like the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

---

Public Reaction and Expert Analysis

In the days since the release, historians, journalists, and citizens have pored over the documents with both fascination and fury. Jefferson Morley, a leading researcher on the CIA’s role in the JFK saga, told The Washington Independent that “this is the most significant release in decades — not because it provides a smoking gun, but because it confirms patterns of deception and obfuscation that can no longer be dismissed.”

Author and former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, before his death, maintained that the evidence overwhelmingly supported Oswald acting alone. But critics argue that the new files render such confidence untenable.

Social media has exploded with new theories, drawing connections between names and timelines. Grassroots efforts to build open-source databases are underway to comb through the files for undiscovered threads.

---

The Lingering Questions

While no single document in the 2025 release definitively proves a conspiracy, the cumulative effect of these revelations paints a picture far more complex than the official narrative of a lone gunman with a mail-order rifle. They raise the possibility — even likelihood — of a broader web of negligence, manipulation, or even cover-up.

If Oswald was being watched so closely, why was no action taken? If key tapes and memos contradicted the lone gunman theory, why were they destroyed or buried? And if government insiders harbored doubts about the official story, why were those concerns never shared with the public?

---

A Closing Chapter, or a New Beginning?

President Biden, in a brief statement following the release, acknowledged “the public’s right to transparency” while emphasizing “national security concerns that still persist.” Some documents remain redacted or delayed, leading to calls for full disclosure.

For now, the assassination of John F. Kennedy remains a wound in the American psyche — one layered with secrecy, shadows, and unanswered questions. With each release, the official story becomes harder to defend, and the call for a reckoning grows louder.

Whether these new files bring us closer to the truth or simply widen the space for speculation, one thing is clear: the story of JFK’s death — and the power struggles it exposed — is far from over.

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

The U.S.–Mexico border continues to be a focal point in the ongoing crises of human and drug trafficking, as transnational criminal organizations exploit vulnerable populations and fuel dangerous markets within the United States. While political debates often center around national security, the most devastating costs are borne by the individuals who are trafficked—many of whom suffer unspeakable abuse both during their journey and after arriving in the United States.

A Dangerous Journey: The Human Toll of Trafficking

Every year, thousands of migrants, including women and children, are smuggled across the southern U.S. border. Many do not arrive willingly. Instead, they fall victim to sophisticated trafficking networks that promise safety and opportunity but deliver exploitation, violence, and enslavement.

Sexual exploitation is one of the most pervasive and horrifying realities for trafficked women and girls. Victims are often raped repeatedly during the journey by smugglers—known as coyotes—or sold into sex trafficking rings operating in both Mexico and the U.S. Some are forced to take contraceptives before the journey because rape is expected. Once in the U.S., many are forced into prostitution under threats to their families back home.

Children are not spared. Unaccompanied minors are particularly vulnerable to forced labor, abuse in detention centers, or being handed over to traffickers posing as relatives. Some are recruited into gangs or compelled to work under exploitative conditions in agriculture, construction, or illicit economies.

For many, the border is just the beginning of a longer cycle of abuse.

A Market for Misery: What Happens After Arrival

Once trafficked individuals arrive in the U.S., they often vanish into underground networks. Some end up in illegal massage parlors, domestic servitude, or sweatshops, where they work under threats of deportation, violence, or harm to loved ones. Many don’t speak English and are unaware of their rights, making them easy to control.

In states with large migrant labor forces, such as California, Texas, and Florida, trafficked people are often exploited in farms, factories, and restaurants. Their wages are withheld, identification documents confiscated, and movements monitored.

Psychological trauma is pervasive. Victims frequently suffer from PTSD, depression, anxiety, and substance abuse—often a result of forced drug use or attempts to cope with ongoing abuse. Without support systems, many are retraumatized and trapped in cycles of poverty and exploitation.

The Drug Trade: A Parallel Tragedy

Alongside human trafficking, drug trafficking surges across the southern border. Fentanyl—up to 50 times stronger than heroin—has become the leading cause of overdose deaths in the U.S., often smuggled in small, hard-to-detect quantities through legal border crossings by mules or hidden in vehicles.

The same cartels trafficking people are deeply involved in narcotics. Sometimes, the two crises intersect: human mules—including minors—are forced to carry drugs into the U.S., often without knowledge of what they’re transporting. If caught, they face criminal charges. If successful, they remain indebted to the cartels, who continue to exploit them.

Who’s Buying? The U.S. Demand for Illicit Goods and Labor

The trafficking crisis is not just a foreign issue—it’s fed by American demand.

The sex trade thrives in every major U.S. city, from New York to Los Angeles. Online platforms, underground brothels, and illegal massage parlors generate billions in profit annually. Many of the women involved are not there by choice.

The drug epidemic is also homegrown. From prescription opioid dependency to street fentanyl, the demand for narcotics keeps traffickers in business. U.S. consumers spent over $150 billion on illegal drugs in a recent year, fueling the cartels’ operations.

And in sectors where cheap labor is in demand—agriculture, hospitality, food service—undocumented and trafficked workers are routinely employed. Many businesses turn a blind eye to exploitation or benefit from labor arrangements that wouldn’t hold up under scrutiny.

The Hidden Cost: A Broken System and Broken Lives

The systems meant to protect trafficked individuals often fail them. Shelters and legal services are underfunded, and immigration proceedings can take years. Some survivors are deported, returning to the same dangerous conditions they fled. Others remain in hiding, unable to access medical care or education, fearful of law enforcement and immigration authorities.

Efforts to address the crisis—such as increased border enforcement, stricter immigration policies, and anti-trafficking laws—have been uneven and politically charged. Without a coordinated approach that includes disrupting trafficking networks, reducing U.S. demand, and supporting survivors, the cycle will continue.

More Than a Border Crisis

What’s unfolding at the southern U.S. border is not just a geopolitical issue—it’s a humanitarian catastrophe.

Behind every statistic is a human being: a young girl forced into sex work, a teenager carrying fentanyl across the desert, a father trapped in debt bondage on a farm. And behind every act of trafficking is a buyer—someone in the U.S. willing to pay for cheap drugs, sex, or labor, regardless of the cost to another person’s life.

Until both supply and demand are addressed, the crisis will persist—hidden in plain sight, leaving shattered lives on both sides of the border. This is why President Donald Trump has been so determined to close the border to illicit traffickers, and the sooner all Americans realize the problems that accompany an open border, the quicker all of the victims will receive relief.

If you or someone you know is a victim of trafficking, call the National Human Trafficking Hotline at 1-888-373-7888 or text “HELP” to 233733.

---

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

The U.S. Senate confirmed Kashyap “Kash” Patel as the new Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The 51-49 vote, largely along party lines, reflects deep divisions over Patel’s appointment. Patel was sworn in by Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Patel promised to be transparent with Americans and restore faith in the bureau when he takes over, following years of political weaponization by the left.

“The American people deserve an FBI that is transparent, accountable, and committed to justice. The politicalization of our justice system has eroded public trust—but that ends today. My mission as Director is clear: let good cops be cops—and rebuild trust in the FBI. Working alongside the dedicated men and women of the Bureau and our partners, we will rebuild an FBI the American people can be proud of. And to those who seek to harm Americans—consider this your warning. We will hunt you down in every corner of this planet. Mission First. America Always. Let’s get to work,” Patel wrote on X.

Patel, 44, brings a diverse background in law enforcement and national security to his new role. He began his legal career as a public defender in Miami-Dade County, Florida, representing clients in cases ranging from murder to drug trafficking. Later, he served as a federal public defender in the Southern District of Florida.

Transitioning to prosecution, Patel joined the National Security Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in 2013 as a terrorism prosecutor.

During President Donald Trump’s first term, Patel held several key positions, including senior counsel for counterterrorism on the House Intelligence Committee and senior director of the Counterterrorism Directorate at the National Security Council. He was instrumental in challenging investigations into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and played a significant role in drafting the 2018 Nunes memo, which criticized the FBI’s surveillance practices.

Patel’s nomination has been met with both praise and criticism. Supporters, such as the National Police Association, commend his commitment to transparency and accountability in law enforcement. New York Post Critics, however, express concern over his perceived political biases and past promotion of conspiracy theories. Senator Dick Durbin voiced fears that Patel’s leadership could politicize the FBI and undermine its integrity. Too late.

In his first address to FBI personnel, Director Patel outlined his priorities, emphasizing the need to restore public trust and ensure the bureau operates without political influence. He pledged to focus on pressing issues such as counterterrorism, cyber threats, and public corruption. Patel also highlighted the importance of collaboration with other law enforcement agencies to effectively combat crime and protect national security.

As he assumes leadership, Patel faces the challenge of uniting a bureau that has been at the center of political controversies in recent years. His tenure will be closely watched by both supporters and detractors, as the FBI continues its mission to uphold and enforce the laws of the United States.

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

Washington, D.C. – February 13, 2025 – In a move that has sent shockwaves through both political and public health circles, the U.S. Senate has confirmed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). The controversial environmental lawyer and longtime critic of government health policies was confirmed in a razor-thin 51-49 vote, marking one of the most contentious cabinet confirmations in recent history.

A Divisive Nomination

Kennedy, an outspoken advocate on vaccine safety, environmental health, and corporate accountability, faced intense scrutiny throughout the confirmation process. His nomination by President Trump was met with strong resistance from democrats, as well as some members of the medical and scientific communities, many of whom criticized his past statements on vaccines and public health agencies. However, his supporters praised his willingness to challenge entrenched institutions and prioritize individual medical freedoms.

“The Department of Health and Human Services must be led by someone who understands the concerns of everyday Americans and is not beholden to Big Pharma,” Kennedy said in his post-confirmation remarks. “I am committed to transparency, accountability, and restoring trust in our public health institutions.”

A Contentious Senate Battle

The confirmation hearings were marked by heated exchanges, particularly over Kennedy’s views on vaccine mandates, pandemic policies, and the role of pharmaceutical companies in shaping federal health regulations. Democratic Senators largely opposed his nomination, railing against Kennedy up until the final vote, arguing that his leadership could undermine public trust in vaccines and weaken the department’s pandemic preparedness.

Meanwhile, Republicans and some independent lawmakers rallied behind Kennedy, citing his advocacy for medical choice and corporate accountability.

What This Means for HHS

Kennedy’s appointment signals a dramatic shift in the leadership of one of the most powerful federal agencies, responsible for overseeing the CDC, FDA, and NIH, among others. His tenure is expected to bring sweeping changes to vaccine policies, public health funding, and regulatory oversight of pharmaceutical companies.

Public health officials have expressed concerns about the potential implications of his leadership. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, cautioned that Kennedy’s policies could “roll back decades of progress in disease prevention and public health initiatives.”

On the other hand, Kennedy’s supporters view his appointment as a necessary disruption to a system they argue has grown too cozy with corporate interests. “This is a win for medical freedom and government accountability,” said Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), a vocal advocate of Kennedy’s nomination.

What Comes Next?

As he takes the helm at HHS, Kennedy faces the immediate challenge of balancing his reformist agenda with the practical realities of leading a vast federal bureaucracy. His positions on vaccine policy, pharmaceutical regulation, and environmental health will likely be tested in the coming months, as lawmakers, health professionals, and advocacy groups watch closely.

For now, RFK Jr.’s confirmation marks a turning point in U.S. health policy—one that promises to be as controversial as the man himself.

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

In a recent development, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under the leadership of Secretary Kristi Noem, has retracted over $80 million in funding previously mis-allocated to New York City for migrant housing and services. This decision follows an internal investigation that led to the termination of four Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) employees, including the agency’s Chief Financial Officer, for unauthorized and extravagant payments to luxury hotels accommodating migrants.

The controversy began when Elon Musk, head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), alleged that FEMA had unlawfully allocated $59 million to New York City for housing migrants in luxury accommodations. Musk correctly claimed that this expenditure violated federal law and contradicted a presidential executive order.

In response, Secretary Noem announced the immediate termination of the four FEMA employees involved, stating, “I have clawed back the full payment that FEMA deep state activists unilaterally gave to New York City migrant hotels.” She emphasized that under her leadership, DHS will not permit actions that compromise the safety or interests of the American people.

New York City officials expressed surprise and concern over the funding revocation. Mayor Eric Adams and Comptroller Brad Lander described the move as “highway robbery” and are considering legal action to recover the funds. They argue that the majority of the funds were designated for essential migrant services, with only a portion allocated for hotel accommodations.

This incident has intensified tensions between the federal government and New York City, a self-proclaimed ‘Sanctuary City,’ especially in light of the city’s ongoing efforts to manage a significant influx of migrants. The situation also highlights broader debates about the allocation and oversight of federal funds designated for migrant assistance.

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

On February 12, 2025, the U.S. Senate confirmed former Representative Tulsi Gabbard as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) in a 52-48 vote. The confirmation saw all Republicans, except the quickly fading Mitch McConnell, supporting the nomination.

Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii and combat veteran, was pitched as a polarizing figure by her former democratic colleagues, who attempted to create an issue of her past foreign policy positions, and limited experience in intelligence. They tried to block her confirmation highlighting previous comments about Russia, and possible support for whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Despite these reservations, President Donald Trump heartily endorsed Gabbard, praising her courage and patriotism. During her swearing-in ceremony at the White House, Trump stated, “Tulsi brings a unique perspective to the intelligence community, and I am confident she will serve our nation with distinction.”

In her new role, Gabbard will oversee 18 intelligence agencies, including the CIA and FBI. She has pledged to align the intelligence community with the administration’s vision and to restore public trust, and to abandon its recent widespread practices of weaponizing government agencies against political conservatives. Gabbard committed to focusing on national security and rebuilding confidence in U.S. intelligence agencies.

The confirmation underscores the deepening divisions in Washington regarding national security appointments, and reflects President Trump’s influence over his party and the national direction. As Gabbard assumes her duties, the nation will closely watch how she navigates the challenges ahead in her capacity as the nation’s top intelligence official.

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

On February 4, 2025, the U.S. Senate confirmed Pam Bondi as the nation’s 87th Attorney General with a 54-46 vote, marking the appointment of a steadfast ally of President Donald Trump to lead the Department of Justice. Bondi, who previously served as Florida’s Attorney General from 2011 to 2019, was sworn in the following day by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas at the White House.

Upon assuming office, Attorney General Bondi swiftly implemented a series of directives aimed at realigning the Justice Department’s priorities with the current administration’s agenda. One of her initial actions was to establish a “Weaponization Working Group” tasked with investigating political biases in prior investigations against President Trump and his supporters, including those related to the January 6 Capitol attack.

In a significant policy shift, Bondi announced a reorientation of the Department’s focus from combating corporate corruption and Russian oligarchs to targeting drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations. This move includes prioritizing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigations related to cartels and disbanding Task Force KleptoCapture, which was established to enforce sanctions on Russian oligarchs.

Bondi also issued a directive allowing Justice Department attorneys to be disciplined or dismissed if they refuse to comply with advancing legal arguments on behalf of the administration. This measure aims to align the Department’s actions with President Trump’s policies and includes reviewing criminal and civil cases against Trump during his time out of office. Additionally, Bondi plans to reduce enforcement of U.S. foreign influence laws, focusing on cases resembling traditional espionage and shifting to civil enforcement.

Further emphasizing the administration’s stance on immigration, Bondi ordered a 60-day suspension of federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. This directive halts all Department of Justice funds to these jurisdictions and disallows new contracts or grants supporting services to removable or illegal aliens. The move aligns with Republican initiatives to pressure local governments to comply with federal immigration policies.

In a move reflecting the administration’s focus on religious liberty, President Trump announced at the National Prayer Breakfast that Attorney General Bondi will lead efforts to eliminate “anti-Christian bias” within the federal government. This initiative includes establishing a task force to address discrimination against Christians and fully prosecute related violence and vandalism. Plans are also underway to form a Presidential Commission on Religious Liberty and a Faith Office in the White House to defend the rights of Christians nationwide.

These initial actions by Attorney General Bondi signal a significant shift in the Department of Justice’s priorities, aligning closely with President Trump’s policy objectives and addressing concerns raised by his supporters regarding previous investigations and enforcement practices.

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

This is where we stand on President Trump’s nominated cabinet secretaries

As of February 5, 2025, President Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominations have seen significant progress, with several key positions confirmed and others advancing through the Senate confirmation process.

Confirmed Appointments:

• Secretary of State: Marco Rubio was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on January 20, 2025, and sworn in the following day.
• Secretary of the Treasury: Scott Bessent received Senate confirmation with a 68–29 vote on January 27, 2025, and assumed office on January 28.
• Secretary of Defense: Pete Hegseth was confirmed on January 24, 2025, with a 51–50 vote, where Vice President J.D. Vance cast the tie-breaking vote. He was sworn in on January 25.
• Attorney General: Pam Bondi was confirmed by the Senate with a 54–46 vote on February 4, 2025.
• Secretary of the Interior: Doug Burgum was confirmed on January 30, 2025, with a 79–18 vote and sworn in on February 1.
• Secretary of Transportation: Sean Duffy was confirmed on January 28, 2025, with a 77–22 vote and sworn in the same day.
• Secretary of Energy: Chris Wright was confirmed on February 3, 2025, with a 59–38 vote.
• Secretary of Veterans Affairs: Doug Collins was confirmed on February 4, 2025, with a 77–23 vote.
• Secretary of Homeland Security: Kristi Noem was confirmed on January 25, 2025, with a 59–34 vote and sworn in the same day.
• Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency: Lee Zeldin was confirmed on January 29, 2025, with a 56–42 vote.
• Director of the Central Intelligence Agency: John Ratcliffe was confirmed on January 23, 2025, with a 74–25 vote.

Advancing Nominations:

• Secretary of Health and Human Services: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. passed the Senate Finance Committee with a 14–13 vote on February 4, 2025, moving his nomination to the full Senate.
• Director of National Intelligence: Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination advanced from the Senate Intelligence Committee with a 9–8 vote on February 4, 2025, and awaits a full Senate vote.

The confirmation process has been marked by both bipartisan support and contention, reflecting the diverse backgrounds and views of the nominees. The administration continues to work with the Senate to finalize the remaining appointments.

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