Federalist Press | Defending Liberty — Informing America

Breaking News and Political Commentary

The Faces of Domestic Terrorism: A Wave of Self-Radicalized Islamist Attacks in America

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson

In the wake of U.S. military strikes against Iran, a series of violent incidents across the United States has raised renewed concerns among many security analysts about the resurgence of self-radicalized Islamist terrorism.

Within a matter of days, multiple attacks and attempted attacks unfolded in different parts of the country: a synagogue assault in Michigan, a deadly shooting at a military training program in Virginia, an Islamist motivated attack in Texas, and an attempted bombing in New York City involving homemade explosives.

At first glance the incidents appear unrelated. They occurred in different states, involved different suspects, and targeted different victims. Yet investigators say a closer look reveals a disturbing common thread: several of the suspects appear to have embraced jihadist ideology and were inspired by propaganda associated with the Islamic State and similar extremist movements.

The pattern reflects a phenomenon that counterterrorism experts have warned about for years—the rise of self-activated Islamist extremists who act independently, but draw ideological inspiration from global jihadist movements.

The most alarming recent plot unfolded in New York City.

On March 7, two young men—18-year-old Emir Balat and 19-year-old Ibrahim Kayumi—were arrested after allegedly throwing improvised explosive devices into a crowd near Gracie Mansion, the official residence of the city’s mayor. Authorities say the devices were real bombs packed with volatile explosive material and metal fragments capable of causing serious injury or death to large crowds of. bystanders.

The attack occurred during a protest outside the mayor’s residence. According to federal investigators, the two suspects had constructed multiple improvised explosive devices and transported them across state lines before throwing them toward the crowd.

Emir Balat and Ibrahim Kayumi were seen throwing improvised explosive devices into a crowd near Gracie Mansion.

Fortunately, the bombs failed to detonate fully, and no one was killed.

The criminal complaint alleges that the two men had consumed ISIS propaganda online and openly expressed admiration for the terrorist organization. Investigators say one of the suspects stated he hoped to carry out an attack “bigger” than the Boston Marathon bombing.

Authorities believe the pair were not formally directed by ISIS leadership, but had been self-radicalized through online extremist content, a pathway that has become increasingly common in recent years.

While the New York plot was foiled, violence elsewhere in the country proved deadly.

In Virginia, a gunman opened fire inside a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps classroom at Old Dominion University, killing a retired military instructor and injuring two others. Investigators quickly discovered that the suspect had previously been convicted for supporting ISIS and had spent time in federal prison.

The choice of target, an American military training program, appeared deliberate. According to investigators, the attack was framed by the suspect as retaliation against the United States and its military actions overseas.

Mohamed Jalloh carried out a shooting at Old Dominion University on Thursday that killed 1 person and injured 2 others. The shooter is dead, officials said.

For counterterrorism officials, the symbolism is unmistakable: a jihadist sympathizer targeting representatives of the U.S. armed forces.

Another attack occurred in West Bloomfield Township, Michigan, where a man drove a truck into a synagogue complex that included a preschool and community center. More than one hundred children were inside the building at the time.

Armed security personnel prevented the attacker from entering the facility, stopping what authorities believe could have been a catastrophic mass-casualty attack.

Ayman Mohamad Ghazali, a 41-year-old Lebanon-born naturalized U.S. citizen, has been identified by the Department of Homeland Security as the suspect behind the attack on Temple Israel synagogue in West Bloomfield, Michigan

Investigators later revealed that the suspect had expressed anger about Israeli and American actions in Iran and the region. Authorities believe the synagogue was deliberately chosen as an antisemitic target of the terrorists rage.

Meanwhile, authorities in Texas are still investigating a mass shooting that witnesses say involved extremist Islamic ideology.

Texas gunman Ndiaga Diagne, a Senegalese immigrant-turned US citizen was wearing a sweatshirt that said ‘Property of Allah,’ and a shirt with an Iranian flag design.

Taken together, the incidents illustrate the continuing evolution of jihadist terrorism inside Western countries.

Unlike the large, centrally planned attacks associated with al-Qaeda in the early 2000s, today’s extremist violence is often decentralized. Groups like ISIS have spent years cultivating sympathizers and extremist reactionaries around the world to act independently, using whatever weapons are available, and targeting civilians, government facilities, or military personnel.

This strategy requires no direct command structure. Instead, individuals radicalized online interpret global events—wars, military strikes, or political conflicts—as personal calls to action.

Security analysts say moments of geopolitical tension can act as powerful catalysts for this process.

The recent escalation involving Iran has dominated global media and online discourse. Extremist propaganda channels have already begun portraying the conflict as evidence of a broader war between Islam and the West, a narrative designed to provoke retaliation by Islamist sympathizers abroad. For individuals already consuming radical content, that messaging can serve as a trigger.

At the same time, investigators caution against assuming that the recent attacks were coordinated or directed by a single organization. There is currently no evidence that the suspects communicated with one another or operated as part of a structured network. Instead, the emerging picture appears to be one of parallel radicalization.

This decentralized threat presents a major challenge for law enforcement. Traditional intelligence methods are designed to detect organized conspiracies, not individuals who radicalize quietly online and act alone.

For that reason, officials say the greatest danger may come not from large terrorist networks but from isolated individuals who decide, sometimes suddenly, to turn mistaken ideology into violence.

As investigators continue to examine the recent incidents, security agencies across the nation have quietly increased protection around synagogues, government buildings, military facilities, and public events.

This has become quite difficult in the wake of Democratic Party efforts to leave the American people vulnerable to such attacks by defunding the Department of Homeland Security at such a critical time.

Whether the recent attacks represent the beginning of a broader wave, or merely a troubling cluster of isolated incidents, remains uncertain. What is becoming increasingly clear is that global conflicts can have immediate domestic consequences.

In an era of instant communication and online radicalization, the ideological battlefields of the Middle East no longer remain confined overseas. Now, their echoes are heard in American cities.

The government must shift its strategies to combat this development in its effort to protect American citizens from the violence that accompanies Islamist propaganda.

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

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

Missing General, Missing Answers: The Strange Disappearance of Retired Maj. Gen. Neil McCasland

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson | Feature article contributor

The disappearance of retired U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. William Neil McCasland has become one of the strangest missing-person cases in the country: a former commander of the Air Force Research Laboratory, a Pentagon special-programs official, and a figure long discussed in UFO-disclosure circles vanished from Albuquerque in late February, leaving investigators, journalists, and online observers asking the same question: where did he go?

McCasland, 68, was last seen around 11 a.m. on February 27 near Quail Run Court NE in Albuquerque, according to the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office. Authorities issued a Silver Alert, saying they were concerned for his safety because of medical issues. The FBI later joined the search, and by March 11 investigators had asked more than 600 nearby homeowners to turn over security-camera footage. As of the latest public updates, there had been no confirmed sightings and no announced resolution.

That alone would make the case serious. What makes it extraordinary is who McCasland is.

According to his official Air Force biography, McCasland commanded the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, overseeing a $2.2 billion science-and-technology program and another $2.2 billion in customer-funded research and development. He also served as Director of Space Acquisition in the Office of the Under Secretary of the Air Force and then as Director of Special Programs in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. Those roles placed him near some of the government’s most sensitive defense and space programs.

That background is why NewsNation correspondent Ross Coulthart has called the disappearance a “grave national security crisis.” In public comments summarized by Newsweek, Coulthart argued that McCasland is a man with “some of the most sensitive secrets of the United States in his head,” and said the case raises the question of whether foul play should be considered. He also pointed to the FBI’s involvement as a sign the matter is being treated with unusual seriousness.

The UFO angle comes from two overlapping threads.

The first is institutional. Wright-Patterson has long occupied a central place in UFO lore because of claims, disputed and never officially confirmed, that Roswell-related debris was sent there decades ago. McCasland’s official record confirms that he later ran the Air Force Research Laboratory there, but that does not by itself establish that he had access to extraterrestrial materials or hidden UFO programs.

The second thread is documentary. In a 2016 email published by WikiLeaks, musician and UFO activist Tom DeLonge told John Podesta that McCasland “was in charge of that exact laboratory” at Wright-Patterson and said McCasland was “very, very aware” of the material DeLonge was investigating and had helped assemble his advisory team. Those emails are real documents in the WikiLeaks archive, but DeLonge’s claims inside them were his own; they were not official government confirmation, and McCasland has not publicly validated them.

The timing has intensified the intrigue.

On February 19, President Donald Trump said he would direct federal agencies to begin identifying and releasing government files related to aliens, unidentified aerial phenomena, and UFOs. Reuters reported that Trump said there was strong public interest in the topic, while DefenseScoop noted that transparency advocates greeted the announcement with both hope and skepticism, stressing that a real disclosure effort would require sustained cross-agency follow-through rather than a single headline-grabbing statement. McCasland disappeared roughly a week later, and Coulthart has publicly highlighted that sequence.

That chronology is undeniably striking. But chronology is not causation.

At this point, there is no public evidence that McCasland’s disappearance is connected to Trump’s disclosure directive, to UFO secrecy, or to any foreign-intelligence operation. Public reporting from local authorities has emphasized the missing-person search itself, and KOAT reported that investigators had not uncovered evidence of foul play a week into the case. The fact that Coulthart and others believe the circumstances are suspicious is newsworthy; it is not the same thing as proof.

Still, the possibilities are unsettling.

One possibility is the simplest: a medical emergency or disorientation. The Silver Alert exists precisely because authorities believed McCasland may have been vulnerable, and in many missing-person cases the most mundane explanation is the correct one. That remains a leading possibility based on what police have publicly said.

A second possibility is accidental death in terrain that has not yet yielded answers. Albuquerque’s foothills and open areas can complicate searches, and officials have suggested investigators are pursuing tips from people who may have been in the Sandias or nearby areas around the time he disappeared. That theory is grim, but it does not require a conspiracy to explain why a person can vanish so quickly.

A third possibility is voluntary disappearance, though there is little public evidence for it. Reports have emphasized that McCasland left without his phone, and the broad law-enforcement response suggests his disappearance was considered out of character and alarming from the start.

The most dramatic possibility is foul play tied to what McCasland knew. That is the scenario that has electrified UFO circles and national-security watchers alike. Coulthart has openly argued that someone with McCasland’s background would be of obvious interest to hostile foreign powers. But again, that remains speculation unless investigators produce evidence supporting it.

What makes the case so potent is not just the mystery of one missing man. It is the symbolic collision of three storylines Americans already distrust: black-budget military secrecy, decades of arguments over UFO disclosure, and a political moment in which the president has just promised to open sealed files. When a retired general with deep access to classified aerospace and special-programs work disappears days after that promise, people are going to suspect more than coincidence, whether or not the facts ever justify it.

For now, the hard facts are narrower than the rumors. Neil McCasland is missing. He held unusually sensitive positions in the Air Force and Pentagon. Ross Coulthart has argued the disappearance could have national-security implications. Trump did, in fact, order agencies to begin identifying UFO-related files for release shortly before McCasland vanished. And authorities still have not publicly explained what happened.

Everything beyond that is inference.

And that is exactly why this case has become so compelling.

James Thompson is an author and ghostwriter, and a political analyst. He is an analyst of UAP reports, and have authored the book Worlds Without Number.

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

YOU’RE FIRED! It’s Time to Pull the Plug and Drain the Swamp

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson.

Washington, D.C. has long been home to a bloated and entrenched bureaucracy, dominated by career Democrats who have turned federal agencies into their own political strongholds. For decades, the Democratic Party has enjoyed near-total loyalty from the vast majority of federal employees, with their paychecks consistently recycled back into Democrat campaign coffers. Polling has shown that very few Republicans are employed in the federal government, cementing the perception that Washington’s bureaucracy is not neutral, but rather an arm of the Democrat machine.

This is the “swamp” that President Donald Trump warned the American people about when he first ran for the White House. And he was right. The swamp has spent decades growing unchecked, protecting its own interests, and working against the very principles of accountability and limited government that our republic was founded upon.

Now, with President Trump back in office and the Democrats once again showing their true colors by shutting down the government—refusing to pass the continuing resolution despite it being forwarded more than a dozen times—the opportunity is clearer than ever. The Democrats’ reckless obstruction proves that their priorities are not with the American people, but with defending their entrenched power in Washington.

For President Trump, this shutdown is not a crisis—it is an opportunity. A chance to finally deliver on his signature promise to drain the swamp.

Unlike past presidents, Trump has the political courage and public mandate to take bold action. He now has both the justification and the authority to slash the size of government, shut down unnecessary agencies, and cut loose the hundreds of thousands of federal employees who are not only failing to pull their weight but who actively work against the values of freedom, limited government, and constitutional integrity.

Massive cuts to the federal bureaucracy would not only restore balance and accountability, but they would also break the stranglehold that one political party has on Washington’s administrative state. Why should hardworking American taxpayers continue funding federal employees who openly funnel money, power, and influence to the Democratic Party—employees who serve the Party’s agenda rather than the people’s?

For decades, the swamp has been a hidden fourth branch of government—unelected, unaccountable, and overwhelmingly partisan. It is a system that has been weaponized against conservatives, against reform, and against the will of the voters. President Trump has this once-in-a-generation opportunity to put an end to this corruption.

Now is the time for President Trump to pull the plug to drain the swamp. By making swift and massive cuts to the federal workforce, he can finally dismantle the Democrat machine that has strangled Washington for decades. Doing so will not only fulfill his campaign promise, but will also restore the government to what it was always meant to be: a servant of the people, not a master.

If President Trump acts decisively now, while the government is shut down and he alone wields the power to ax the federal agencies and workforce, history will remember him as the man who broke the back of the bureaucratic elite and restored power to the American people.

DRAIN THE SWAMP!

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

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

UK Recognition of ‘Palestine’ Raises Questions About History, Security, and the Future of Gaza

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson

The recent announcement by the United Kingdom that it recognizes the “State of Palestine” has once again raised global debate about the historical, political, and security realities in the Middle East. While the term “Palestine” is often invoked, the actual political geography tells another story. What exists is the Gaza Strip, a narrow coastal enclave that has become synonymous with terrorism, instability, and human suffering—not a functioning sovereign state.

Ancient and Modern Roots of Israel

The Jewish people trace their roots in the land of Israel back thousands of years. From the biblical kingdoms of Israel and Judah to the destruction of the Second Temple by Rome in 70 AD, Jewish presence in the land has been a constant. Despite centuries of exile and dispersion, Jewish communities maintained ties to Jerusalem and other holy sites.

The modern reestablishment of Israel followed centuries of persecution culminating in the Holocaust, in which six million Jews were systematically murdered by Nazi Germany. In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the British Mandate of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The Jewish leadership accepted; the Arab world did not. On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the independence of the State of Israel. The next day, five Arab armies invaded, vowing to wipe Israel off the map. Against all odds, Israel prevailed.

The Six-Day War and Its Results

In 1967, the Six-Day War altered the regional landscape. Surrounded by hostile neighbors—Egypt, Syria, and Jordan—Israel launched preemptive strikes to defend itself from imminent attack. In six days, Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank. The Gaza Strip, previously administered by Egypt, also came under Israeli control. This war not only secured Israel’s survival but also restored Jewish access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem for the first time in nearly 2,000 years.

Decades of Terrorism

While Israel built a thriving democracy and economy, waves of terrorism followed. From the hijackings of the 1970s to suicide bombings during the Second Intifada, Israelis endured relentless assaults on buses, restaurants, and schools. The rise of Hamas, an Iranian-backed Islamist terror group, turned Gaza into a launch pad for rockets and attacks against Israeli civilians. Daily barrages have forced millions of Israelis to live under constant threat, rushing into bomb shelters at the sound of sirens.

The October 7th Massacre

The deadliest attack in modern Israeli history came on October 7, 2023. Hamas militants poured out of Gaza in a coordinated assault on southern Israel. They massacred families in their homes, raped women, beheaded infants, and kidnapped over 200 people—including children and the elderly. More than 1,200 Israelis were murdered in one day, shocking the world and proving that Hamas’s aim is not peace, but annihilation.

On October 7, 2023 Islamic terrorists from Gaza and other bordering sites attacked helpless Israelis going about their daily routines, murdering thousands, including chopping babies up and raping and murdering women and children

The Problem of Gaza

No Arab country has offered to take responsibility for Gaza’s people. Egypt, which shares a border, keeps it sealed. Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, despite their rhetoric, refuse to absorb refugees from the enclave. The reality is that Gaza has become a weaponized territory designed to bleed Israel.

Gaza’s location also presents strategic complications. Wedged along the Mediterranean, it effectively narrows Israel’s access to the sea and creates a long-term security threat. Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, intended as a step toward peace, led not to stability but to Hamas’s takeover and an escalation of daily rocket fire.

Some argue that the only long-term solution is for Gaza to become part of Israel again, repopulated by Israelis who can build cities, seaports, and commercial beaches that would benefit the entire nation. Others propose compromise solutions—such as dividing Gaza, with the northern half integrated into Israel proper and populated by Israelis, and the southern half left for Arab administration. Such a move would give Israel greater security and greater open access to critical Mediterranean trade routes while still providing Arab residents a less deadly alternative zone.

The UK’s recognition of “Palestine” may make headlines, but it sidesteps the brutal reality: Gaza is not a state but a terror enclave. Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East, continues to fight for its survival against enemies that reject its very existence. Until the world acknowledges this reality—and until Gaza ceases to be a hub of violence—the dream of peace will remain distant.

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

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

The Assassination of Charlie Kirk: How Leftist Propaganda Fueled a Tragic Attack on a Centrist Voice

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson

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

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

A Champion of Civil Debate and Free Speech

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

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

Core Philosophies Rooted in American Tradition

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

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

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

The Lies That Fueled Violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charlie Kirk pictured with his wife and children

A Warning for America

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

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

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

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

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

Charlie Kirk Killed at event at Utah Valley University

By Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

The campus is on lockdown.

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

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

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

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

See video>


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s Be Honest: Young Black Men are Trapped in the Blue City Crossfire

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson

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

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

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

Why?

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

A Cycle Rooted in Poverty and Family Instability

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

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

Violence Beyond the Black Community

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

What Works—and What Doesn’t

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

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

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

A National Responsibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Global War on Faith: Anti-Religious Attacks Escalate in America and Beyond

By Leave a Comment

By Federalist Press Investigative Team

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

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

The Numbers Don’t Lie

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

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

The School Shootings the Media Buried

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

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

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

Teachers’ Union Programs: Undermining Faith in the Classroom

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

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

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

Europe and Beyond: Faith Erased, Freedom Eroded

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

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

The Media Cover-Up

When attacks occur, media coverage follows a predictable script:

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

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

Why It Matters

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

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

A Call to Defend Faith

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

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

NY Appeals Court Throws Out Trump Civil Fraud Penalty

By Leave a Comment

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

What the court decided

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

How we got here

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

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

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

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

Why the Excessive Fines Clause matters here

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

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

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

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

What still stands—and what could come next

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

Bottom line

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

DNI Gabbard Refers Obama ‘Russiagate Conspiracy’ to DOJ for Criminal Prosecution

By Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Took the FireAid $100 Million? Dem Front Groups

By Leave a Comment

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

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

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

The missing money

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

Where has the money gone?

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

Voices from the frontlines

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

What’s at stake?

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

The bottom line

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

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

What happens next?

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

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

The Epstein Enigma: A Web of Abuse, Influence, and Secrets Still Hidden

By Leave a Comment

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

A Global Network of Abuse

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

Bill Clinton greeting Epstein, with Ghislaine Maxwell

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

The Famous and the Powerful

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

High-profile names linked to Epstein include:

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

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

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

The 2008 “Sweetheart Deal”

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

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

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

Renewed Charges — and a Mysterious Death

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

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

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

Jeffrey Epstein mug shot just before death

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

The Missing List and the Public’s Frustration

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

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

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

A Scandal Too Big to Contain?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill Passes Congress in Landmark Victory

By Leave a Comment

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

What’s in the Bill?

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

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

A Hard-Fought Victory

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

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

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

Trump’s Reaction

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

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

The Road Ahead

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

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

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

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

$4.7 trillion in untraceable Treasury payments

By Leave a Comment

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

By Deirdre Heavey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Trump and Elon Musk

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

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

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

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

Elon Musk in "tech" shirt

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

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

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

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

“Forced to Comply: The Lasting Consequences of America’s COVID Vaccine Mandates”

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson

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

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

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

A Mandate, Not a Choice

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

President Joe Biden received one of many COVID-19 vaccinations

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

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

Media Complicity and the Censorship Machine

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

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

The Human Cost

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

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

A Lesson for the Future

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

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

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

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

Reviving the American Family: Could Financial Incentives Strengthen the Nation’s Social Fabric?

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson | April 30, 2025

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

A Nation in Demographic Decline

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

A Financial Solution to a Cultural Crisis?

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

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

Addressing the Legacy of Reproductive Targeting

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

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

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

Potential Impacts Across Demographics

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

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

Critics Raise Concerns

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

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

A New Direction—or a Step Too Far?

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

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

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

Dems Oppose Americans on Every Issue

By Leave a Comment

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’ neo-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.

The Rise of 80-20 Issues: How One-Sided Politics is Reshaping America’s Future

By Leave a Comment

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.

DOGE Initiative Slashes Government Waste: Musk’s Efforts Draw Both Praise and Protests

By Leave a Comment

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.

JONATHAN TURLEY: Biden DOJ behind even the Times in pursuing alleged Hunter corruption

By Leave a Comment

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 NY Post laptop illustration

(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.

Joe Biden, Hunter Biden

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?

Paul Manafort, Donald Trump

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).

Economy

Elections

Foreign

Crime

Science Tech

Reader Responses