Federalist Press | Defending Liberty — Informing America

Breaking News and Political Commentary

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).

“As Seen on TV”: The Commercials Walking a Fine Line Between Hype and Consumer Fraud

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson — April 3, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seniors Beware: Misleading Ads Promise Free Money That Doesn’t Exist

By Leave a Comment

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

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

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

What Are These Ads Really Promoting?

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

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

Typical scam ad appearing during commercial interruption on phone app.

In most legitimate cases:

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

The Danger of Misleading Ads

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

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

Understanding Legitimate Medicare Benefits

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

Medicare Advantage Flex Cards:

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

OTC Benefits and Grocery Allowances:

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

Extra Help (Low-Income Subsidy Program):

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

How to Protect Yourself from Scams

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

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

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

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

Red Flags to Watch For:

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

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

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

Where to Get Help:

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

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

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

The Human Cost of the Southern Border Crisis: Trafficking, Exploitation, and the U.S. Demand

By Leave a Comment

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

A Dangerous Journey: The Human Toll of Trafficking

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

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

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

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

A Market for Misery: What Happens After Arrival

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

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

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

The Drug Trade: A Parallel Tragedy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hidden Cost: A Broken System and Broken Lives

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

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

More Than a Border Crisis

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

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

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

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

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

RFK Jr. Confirmed as HHS Secretary in Historic Senate Vote

By Leave a Comment

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

A Divisive Nomination

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

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

A Contentious Senate Battle

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

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

What This Means for HHS

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

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

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

What Comes Next?

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

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

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

DHS ‘Claws Back’ $80 Million from NYC Misdirected for Luxury Migrant Hotels

By Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump Saves TikTok Day Before He’s Sworn In

By Leave a Comment

ART OF THE DEAL – TikTok begins restoring service after Trump vows Day 1 executive order / makes pro-America promise

TikTok CEO thanks Trump for ‘commitment’ to keeping app available as ban looms

TikTok said it was in the process of restoring operations in the U.S. Sunday, after President-elect Trump promised to issue an executive order to extend TikTok operations on Inauguration Day. 

Some U.S. users reported being able to regain access to the app following Saturday’s blackout. 

Trump wrote on TRUTH Social that he is “asking companies not to let TikTok stay dark!” 

“I will issue an executive order on Monday to extend the period of time before the law’s prohibitions take effect, so that we can make a deal to protect our national security,” the president-elect continued. “The order will also confirm that there will be no liability for any company that helped keep TikTok from going dark before my order.”

“Americans deserve to see our exciting Inauguration on Monday, as well as other events and conversations,” Trump said.

Trump is expected to be sworn in around noon ET Monday at the U.S. Capitol, officially taking office as the 47th president. 

His Sunday post did not clarify how soon the extension would take effect or specify how long it would last. 

As for the proposed national security deal, Trump said he would like “the United States to have a 50% ownership position in a joint venture.” 

“By doing this, we save TikTok, keep it in good hands and allow it to [stay] up. Without U.S. approval, there is no TikTok. With our approval, it is worth hundreds of billions of dollars – maybe trillions,” Trump wrote. “Therefore, my initial thought is a joint venture between the current owners and/or new owners whereby the U.S. gets a 50% ownership in a joint venture set up between the U.S. and whichever purchase we so choose.” 

TikTok’s account on X dedicated to releasing policy updates posted a statement later Sunday saying: “In agreement with our service providers, TikTok is in the process of restoring service.” 

“We thank President Trump for providing the necessary clarity and assurance to our service providers that they will face no penalties providing TikTok to over 170 million Americans and allowing over 7 million small businesses to thrive,” the statement said. “It’s a strong stand for the First Amendment and against arbitrary censorship. We will work with President Trump on a long-term solution that keeps TikTok in the United States.” 

Apple and Google’s app stores no longer had the TikTok app available as of 10:50 p.m. EST Saturday. President Biden signed a bipartisan law last spring mandating that TikTok’s China-based parent company, ByteDance, sell the platform by Sunday or else the platform would be banned in the United States.

The following pop-up message appeared for users who tried to access the TikTok app earlier Sunday: “Sorry, TikTok isn’t available right now. A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can’t use TikTok for now.” 

“We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!” the message added. 

Earlier Sunday, Trump issued a two-word message on TRUTH Social: “SAVE TIKTOK!”

Instead of utilizing the nine-month grace period to sell TikTok to an approved buyer, ByteDance, as well as TikTok, sued. 

The law was upheld Friday by the U.S. Supreme Court, which pointed to national security risks due to the app’s connection to China. 

Trump previously indicated that he must “review” the ban before choosing a course of action and that he’d “most likely” grant TikTok a 90-day extension from the Jan. 19 deadline. 

Under the law, the sitting president can extend the deadline by 90 days if a sale is in progress. ByteDance has previously rebuffed the idea of selling TikTok. 

In a video posted on Friday, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew praised Trump for his “commitment to work with us to find a solution that keeps TikTok available in the United States. This is a strong stand for the First Amendment and against arbitrary censorship.”

Alexandra Koch, Bradford Betz, Landon Mion and Brie Stimson contributed to this report.

UAP Recovery Video Shows ‘egg-shaped’ Object

By Leave a Comment

NewsNation has obtained exclusive footage capturing an egg-shaped craft, recorded during a UAP retrieval operation.

The egg resembles the UAP encountered by U.S. Navy fighters off the east coast of the U.S. in 2015, suggesting a connection between these unidentified objects.

NewsNation was told that the video was sent to the organization responsible for monitoring UAPs, and until now it has never been shown to the public, making a U.S. Air Force veteran’s mission even more critical.

Whistleblower Jake Barber believes he was involved in the recovery of alien technology while working for a long-rumored secret UFO retrieval program.

  • Jake Barber believes he saw nonhuman tech
  • Exclusive footage shows egg-shaped craft
  • Craft resembles UAP encountered by Navy 

When asked to describe the object, Barber told NewsNation’s Ross Coulthart. “I saw an egg, a white egg.”

“Just visually looking at the object on the ground, you could tell that it was extraordinary and anomalous,” Barber said. “It was not human.”

He added: “It’s inconsistent with anything I’d ever seen before. I can also tell you that the reaction by my team, we all knew we were dealing with something extraordinary.”

Former Navy rear admiral supports UFO whistleblower claims

Other whistleblowers, including Lue Elizondo and David Grusch, have alleged a secret government UFO program exists but Barber says he knows it’s true because he’s part of it.

NewsNation has also obtained exclusive, never-before-seen video of one of these alleged UFO crash retrievals. That video and the full interviews aired in Saturday’s special report, “Hunting UFOs: The Crash Retrieval Whistleblower.”

In June 2023, NewsNation was the first television network to present an interview with Grusch. The account has led to multiple Congressional hearings.

For a full analysis of UAPs, we highly recommend the book Worlds Without Number>

By Ross Coulthart; Updated: Jan 18, 2025 / 08:57 PM CST

Meta Fact-checkers May Close Doors

By Leave a Comment

Fact-checkers said Meta’s decision will have significant impact on their business operations

Mark Zuckerberg reveals pressure brought by Biden Administration to curtail free speech, and that “fact-checking” led to false narratives prevailing

In a move that will help restore free speech to social media, a network of fact-checkers is set to lose a major source of revenue and may even close shop after Facebook parent company Meta announced it would terminate their contracts and move towards a system closer to X’s Community Notes.

“We don’t have much time left. At this rate, we are done in a few months,” claims Check Your Fact managing editor, Jesse Stiller.

“We were blindsided by this. This was totally unexpected and out of left field for us. We weren’t aware this decision was being considered until Mark dropped the video overnight. We have no idea what the future looks like for the website going forward,” he added.

On January 7, 2025, Meta revealed that it would end its fact-checking program and lift some content moderation policies to “restore free expression” across its platforms, including Facebook and Instagram.

Prior to the announcement, Meta repeatedly stressed they were committed to supporting a long-term independent fact-checking industry to address “misinformation” online.

In an April 2022 blog post, Meta claimed it had built the “largest global fact-checking network of any platform” and contributed more than $100 million to fact-checking programs since 2016.

Meta did not reply when asked how much money it had given to third-party fact-checkers before announcing the end of the program in early January 2025.

According to the company’s website, Meta began prioritizing “additional support and resources” for fact-checkers in early 2020 to combat health “misinformation.”

As part of this initiative, Meta launched a $1 million emergency grant program in partnership with the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) to tackle information about the COVID-19 pandemic

IFCN created the CoronaVirusFacts Alliance, in which nearly 100 fact-checking organizations in more than 70 countries produced over 11,000 fact-checks about COVID-19 across 40 languages. Seven fact-checking organization projects specifically focused on vaccine “misinformation.”

In August, Zuckerberg admitted that the Biden White House had pressured Meta to censor some health information during the pandemic.

Zuckerberg told podcast host Joe Rogan in January that members of the Biden administration would “scream” and “curse” at his employees, demanding they take down information, especially during the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine program.

Meta later gave the IFCN a $1 million “Climate Misinformation Grant.” The grant, in part, provided funding to organizations working to combat “climate misinformation” and supported collaborative partnerships between fact-checkers and “climate experts.”

The company also provided funding for fact-checkers to “increase their capacity to promote reliable information” ahead of the 2022 elections in various countries, including the U.S., Australia, France and India.

In the United States, Meta worked with the following third-party fact-checkers: AFP – Hub, Check Your Fact, Factcheck.org, Lead Stories, PolitiFact, Science Feedback, Reuters Fact Check, TelevisaUnivision, The Dispatch and USA Today.

All 10 of these partners are expected to lose their funding. It is unclear when or if Meta’s changes will affect overseas fact-checkers.

In a recent interview with Fox News Digital, Meta’s chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, claimed that these fact-checkers failed to remain neutral.

“We went to independent, third-party fact-checkers,” Kaplan said. “It has become clear there is too much political bias in what they choose to fact-check because, basically, they get to fact-check whatever they see on the platform.”

Since the pivot away from third-party fact-checking, several of these fact-checking organizations with financial ties to the tech conglomerate have issued statements critical of Zuckerberg and Meta’s claims of political bias.

Previously, these groups were often paid for each published fact-check using Meta’s platforms and tools.

For example, PolitiFact, according to its financial disclosures, earned over five percent of its 2024 revenue from the partnership.

PolitiFact said that the organization, one of the original participants in Meta’s third-party fact-checking program, will be affected by the company’s decision to discontinue it.

They also pointed Fox News Digital to comments made by PolitiFact parent Poynter Institute President Neil Brown, who called Meta’s decision a “disappointing cop-out” that “perpetuates a misunderstanding of its own program.”

“Facts are not censorship. Fact-checkers never censored anything. And Meta always held the cards. It’s time to quit invoking inflammatory and false language in describing the role of journalists and fact-checking,” Brown said.

Lead Stories, a Facebook fact-checker employing several former CNN alumni, told The New York Times that it is now doing a large chunk of its work for TikTok’s parent company, Bytedance. Meta was previously the fact-checker’s primary client.

The company was shocked by Zuckerberg’s announcement, considering Lead Stories signed a new yearlong contract with Meta just three weeks ago. Lead Stories admitted that it would see a drop in revenue after severing ties with Meta—a reality that will result in a “staffing reduction,” according to co-founder Alan Duke.

“Cutting fact-checkers from social platforms is like disbanding your fire department,” he told CNN in early January.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Kristin Roberts, the chief content officer of Gannet Media (USA Today’s parent company), said, “Fact-based journalism is what USA Today does best.”

“We are the nation’s trusted news source because we provide unbiased and essential content for all people. Truth and facts serve everyone — not the right or the left — and that’s what we will continue to deliver,” she continued.

The company did not provide information on its financial relationship with Meta.

TelevisaUnivision, Lead Stories, Factcheck.org, AFP – Hub, The Dispatch and Science Feedback did not return Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Reuters declined to comment.

By Nikolas Lanum, Fox News

Pam Bondi Appears Before Senate Committee for Attorney General Confirmation

By Leave a Comment

In a highly anticipated hearing, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, President Trump’s nominee for U.S. Attorney General, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, seeking confirmation for her new role. Bondi, a staunch conservative known for her vigorous advocacy on issues such as consumer protection and public safety, addressed the committee with clarity and conviction, emphasizing her commitment to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of American citizens.

Bondi’s stellar track record as Florida’s Attorney General showcased her dedication to fighting against human trafficking, opioid addiction, and fraud. She articulated her vision for a nation where law enforcement is supported and empowered, promising to lead the Department of Justice with integrity and a focus on restoring public trust in the legal system. Committee members noted her extensive experience and her ability to navigate complex legal matters, which they believe will serve her well in this new capacity.

Throughout her testimony, Bondi faced some tough questions from committee members, particularly regarding her stance on controversial issues such as immigration enforcement and criminal justice reform. However, her responses reflected a balanced approach rooted in conservative principles, emphasizing the importance of maintaining law and order while also considering the underlying social issues that contribute to crime.

Supporters of Bondi have rallied behind her nomination, highlighting her unwavering commitment to conservative values and her proven leadership skills. As the Senate prepares to vote on her confirmation, many believe that Bondi’s appointment would mark a significant step toward a more robust and principled Department of Justice, one that prioritizes the safety and security of American families.

The confirmation process will closely be watched, as Bondi’s appointment could signal a shift towards a more aggressive stance on crime and a renewed focus on protecting the rights of victims.

Legal Career

Pam Bondi’s legal career has equipped her with a wealth of experience and a robust skill set that are critical for her role as Attorney General. Serving as Florida’s Attorney General from 2011 to 2019, Bondi handled a wide range of legal issues, including consumer protection, public safety, and criminal justice. Her tenure was marked by significant initiatives against human trafficking and the opioid crisis, demonstrating her ability to tackle pressing societal issues head-on.

Bondi’s experience in the courtroom, both as a prosecutor and in civil litigation, has honed her legal acumen and understanding of the judicial system. This background allows her to navigate complex legal frameworks and advocate effectively for the law. Additionally, her leadership in high-profile cases has provided her with the skills necessary to manage large teams and coordinate across various governmental agencies.

Moreover, Bondi’s strong communication skills and ability to engage with the public have been vital in building trust and transparency within her office. Her commitment to educating citizens about their rights and promoting community safety further illustrates her readiness to lead the Department of Justice.

Overall, Bondi’s extensive legal background, combined with her passion for public service, positions her as a capable candidate for the role of Attorney General, ready to address the challenges facing the nation.

New Challenges

As Pam Bondi steps into her role as U.S. Attorney General, she is likely to encounter several significant challenges. One primary challenge will be navigating the complex political landscape, particularly in a divided Congress. She will need to build bipartisan support for her initiatives while remaining true to her conservative principles, which can be a delicate balancing act.

Another significant challenge will be addressing the ongoing issues of crime and public safety, especially in light of rising concerns over violent crime and drug-related offenses. Bondi must develop effective strategies that not only enforce the law but also foster community trust and cooperation, which is essential for successful law enforcement.

Additionally, Bondi will face scrutiny over her policies concerning immigration and criminal justice reform. Critics may challenge her approaches, demanding transparency and accountability, which could lead to contentious debates. Ensuring that her policies are both effective and fair while managing public expectations will be crucial.

Lastly, the ongoing opioid crisis and its ramifications will require her immediate attention. She will need to implement comprehensive solutions that involve collaboration with states and local authorities, balancing enforcement with treatment and prevention efforts.

Overall, while Bondi’s experience positions her well for the role, these challenges will require her to navigate a complex and often contentious environment.

Watch the full confirmation hearing:

Pete Hegseth Appears before Senate

By Leave a Comment

Pete Hegseth, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be secretary of defense, testifies before a Senate Committee on Armed Services confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., January 14, 2025.

On January 14, 2025, Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee for his confirmation hearing. Hegseth, a former Army National Guard officer and Fox News host, entered the chamber to chants of “USA” from many in attendance, then faced rigorous questioning from senators concerning his qualifications, past conduct, and views on military policies.

Allegations and Controversies

Hegseth confronted inquiries about several serious allegations, including a 2017 sexual assault claim, which he has denied, asserting the encounter was consensual. Additionally, concerns were raised about his past financial management and reported instances of heavy drinking. Hegseth addressed these issues by labeling them as part of a “smear campaign” and emphasized his commitment to maintaining high standards within the Department of Defense.

Views on Women in Combat

A significant portion of the hearing focused on Hegseth’s previous statements opposing women serving in combat roles. Senator Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa and a retired lieutenant colonel, questioned him on this stance. Hegseth responded by affirming that women should have access to combat roles, provided that rigorous standards are upheld, and committed to reviewing these standards to ensure they remain uncompromised.

Commitment to Addressing Sexual Assault in the Military

Senator Ernst also pressed Hegseth on combating sexual assault within the military. Hegseth pledged to appoint a senior-level official dedicated to sexual assault prevention and response, signaling his commitment to addressing this critical issue.

Protests and Public Reaction

The hearing was marked by disruptions from protesters, some dressed in camouflage, who were removed by Capitol Police. These interruptions underscored the contentious nature of Hegseth’s nomination and the polarized public opinion surrounding his potential appointment.

Support and Opposition

While Republican senators, including Ernst, appeared supportive, focusing on Hegseth’s commitment to military standards and his alignment with President-elect Trump’s defense policies, Democratic senators expressed skepticism. They questioned his qualifications, lack of senior leadership experience, and past controversial remarks, particularly concerning women and minority service members.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., called out Democratic senators’ “hypocritical” line of questioning of Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth during his confirmation hearing. “I think it’s so hypocritical of senators, especially on the other side, to be talking about his qualifications,” Mullin said of his Democratic colleagues before starting his line of questioning for Hegseth. “And yet your qualifications aren’t any better.”

Next Steps

The Senate Armed Services Committee is expected to vote on Hegseth’s nomination in the coming days. Given the Republican majority in both the committee and the Senate, his confirmation appears likely, barring any unforeseen developments. For those interested in viewing the proceedings, the full hearing is available online.

Abortion in the 2024 Elections

By Leave a Comment

SOLUTION: Before probing the depths of the abortion issue, and how it may affect the upcoming elections, let me here propose a companion solution to the problems discussed. Conservatives should immediately promote a federal program that offers young women $30,000 to have their tubes tied. Who will respond to such an offer? What will be the result—in the elections, and among our various communities? What would be the long-term financial savings of such a program? Perhaps the answers to those questions will become clearer as we discuss the abortion issue.

Legal History of Abortion in the U.S.

For centuries, women who wanted to terminate their pregnancies sought out the services of underground practitioners who would accommodate them, with varying levels of care and professionalism. Most societies felt that the taking of an innocent human life was wrong, even a grave wrong from a moral or religious view, so most governments took steps to restrict or abolish the practice, and protect those innocent lives.

The state of Texas had a restrictive abortion law, which dictated that only in the case of danger to the mother’s life would abortion be allowed. The restrictive state law was challenged by “Jane Roe,” who asserted that she should be able to terminate her pregnancy for personal reasons, much broader than those provided under the Texas statute. She sued the District Attorney, Henry Wade, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed with Roe, striking down the restrictive law. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in the seminal case of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Court carved out a new “right” under the U.S. Constitution, holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a fundamental “right to privacy,” which protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy.

Legal scholars, across the political spectrum, privately agreed that the Court’s reasoning in Roe v. Wade was constitutionally flawed, and likely could not withstand the rigors of constitutional scrutiny. In other words, a day of reckoning awaited the unconstitutional expansion of rights to one class, to the lethal detriment of another class, granted in Roe. Political conservatives always held the that issue is one reserved to the states by the founders and the constitution, and that each state must deal with the issue as it deals with every other moral or criminal issue—according to the will of the citizens of each state. In that discussion, conservatives felt that the innocent life is human, and must be protected. Liberals felt that the issue should be left entirely up to the individual woman affected by the pregnancy, and that aborting the unborn fetus should be her prerogative, right up until the moment of birth. A great moral, legal and political tug-of-war ensued, wherein opponents of abortion attempted to limit the practice by enacting state restrictions on how far into the pregnancy abortion would be allowed, and liberals fought to keep the practice entirely unshackled from any restrictions.

In the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Mississippi’s 2018 Gestational Age Act, which had banned abortions after 15 weeks, with exceptions only for medical emergencies or fetal abnormalities, the law was challenged by a local abortion clinic, Jackson Women’s Health Organization as too restrictive. The question was put to the Supreme Court, “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion of the Court, issued on June 24, 2022, stating therein that Roe and its progeny were “egregiously wrong from the start,” and the underlying reasoning supporting it was “exceptionally weak,” thereby overturning Roe. The practical result of the Roe decision, Alito noted that the Court’s overreaching in that line of cases had “enflamed debate and deepened division,” reasoning that overruling Roe would now “return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Political Implications of Abortion

Indeed, Roe had inflamed debate and deepened division among the American people, with feelings on both sides of the issue running to heated extremes. Leftist groups used the abortion issue to lure female and young voters to support their candidates, chanting incessantly that women must exercise control over their own bodies, and creating euphemisms like “reproductive liberty” to describe the act of ending the viable fetus living in the womb. Although some pro-life protagonists declared that all abortions were unacceptable, under any and all circumstances, most sought to balance the health needs of the mother with the baby’s right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Public polls, however, reflected that most of the country was nowhere near the extremes. Abortion in the case of rape, incest, or if the mother’s life was in danger, was something that most Americans reluctantly supported—even many religious groups. Few, however, supported abortion in the late stages of pregnancy. Most states attempted to regulate abortion past certain points in the pregnancy—the first trimester, for example. More liberal states pushed those boundaries all the way up to the moment of delivery, creating deep resentment among most citizens.

In the aftermath of Dobbs, which ruling had been leaked ahead of the announced decision, abortion advocates vehemently denounced the Court, and swore vengeance in their wrath. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N. Y., pledged violent retaliation as he shouted from the steps, “I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

This sentiment was carried into the streets, and indeed affected the outcome of the 2022 mid-term elections. Polls had shown Republican candidates making sweeping gains in federal and state elections, but those were pared to a slim majority in the House of Representatives, and failure to take the Senate, by the time the elections were completed.

Democrats are currently whipping up upcoming election support based on the pro-abortion fervor that they hope will continue to grow as election day draws near. Their control of the White House and Senate has left the nation in shambles, with every economic and quality-of-life measurement reflecting in the worst presidential incumbent approval numbers in history. Support for Democrat congressional candidates is gloomy. But abortion—yes, abortion—that’s the winning ticket; in their collective minds, anyway.

Will the abortion issue carry the day for the Democrats in the 2024 elections? Will it still pack the same indignant punch in the minds and hearts of middle-of-the-road voters?

The reality appears to be much different than the promised whirlwind. Women being forced into back-alley abortions as a result of the Court overturning Roe has not materialized. In fact, each state has been deliberating its own abortion policy, deciding it based on local feelings and mores—as they decide most other issues. Most women still have access to an abortion if that’s what they choose, without burdensome hardships heaped on them. It all turned out to be nothing but a poof in the wind, instead of the circling hurricanes predicted by abortion advocates. A nothing-burger.

The Abortion Issue in the 2024 Election

Pro-life forces are still against terminating innocent lives, and pro-abortion forces still stress abortion on demand. The American people are still somewhere in the middle. Political operatives on the left have been ginning up their base with promises that states will deprive them of their “right” to abort their children. Therefore, they must donate generously to Democratic candidates, and support their elections. Some conservative voices have been warning conservative candidates to stay away from the issue to the extent possible, and to take a “reasonable” public stance. Is it possible for a pro-life candidate to say, Okay, go ahead and abort some babies, for the good of our long-term survival as a political philosophy?

Here is some practical advice from someone who believes that terminating a pregnancy is the taking of innocent life. Yes, the “science” confirms that human fetuses are human lives, with organs and brains that function at a viable level. The more mature the fetus becomes, the more viable and alive it is. There’s no escaping that scientific truth. However, in the 2024 election, we are told to be a little more ‘pragmatic’ about the subject. Can I be pragmatic about killing babies? Am I become Hamas? Let us reason a little together.

Who is it that supports abortion? The left. Who is it that receives abortions? Mostly those on the left. Since 1970, approximately 59 million abortions have been performed in America. Most of those were minority babies. Most of those would have become Democratic voters. Those voices were silenced in abortion clinics.

If approximately 50 million potential Democratic Party voters have been removed by the Democrats from the voter polls, why are the Democrats still so keen to abort their babies? It’s political suicide, literally, to support the practice. Do they answer to a higher calling than garnering political power? They do not. Political power is their main focus, and they acquire it through any pretense or device they can contrive. So why do they so fervently support their own suicide? Because their long-term goals are always accomplished through short term gains. Counting the costs has never been the strong suit of the left. They never display any reservations about anything based on its cost. They simply plough the political field to harvest the crop of power, even if they know that field will be destroyed in the process. Burn it to the ground, and rebuild it in our own image, is their philosophy. Run up the debt until the nation is crushed under the weight of interest, and there’s nothing left for social services or welfare programs. It doesn’t matter; as long as they get more power today. This short-sighted methodology dominates leftist thinking, and is destroying everything that made America a great place to live and raise families.

So . . . why do Republicans fight so hard to keep Democrats from aborting their next generation of voters? Why do they fight so hard to preserve tens of millions who would probably end up on public assistance for most of their lives, and criminally victimize one another, as many do in our Democratically controlled cities? Would it not be more expedient for Republicans to just ignore the abortion issue? After all, like so many suicidal dalliances of the left—it’s a problem that eventually resolves itself. Imagine the state of our nation if Roe had never been the law of the land. Tens of millions more Democrat voters would have voted in leftist, Marxist, anti-American candidates, who would have turned the entire nation into downtown Detroit decades ago.

Is there any reason for Republicans to champion the cause of saving these unborn babies? Politically, the answer is no. Let the dead bury the dead. Ethically, morally and religiously, however—yes, there’s the rub. How many babies can we send to the ‘gas chambers’ of the abortion clinic, and still look at ourselves in the mirror? How many are expendable, for our own short-term political gains in the upcoming election?

Indeed, this is a very hard question. We are victims of our own morality, as much as the left are victims of their own godlessness. Pundits tell us to temper our stance, and speak in “reasonable” tones about aborting babies. Is that okay? WWJD? The left tells us that Jesus supports abortion. I can tell you for a fact that He does not. He holds all accountable for this evil and pernicious practice. It would be better, He says, that a millstone were draped around your neck and you were sent to the bottom of the sea, than you should offend an innocent little one.

Conclusion

Walk softly, and carry a big stick. Be as wise as serpents, but harmless as doves. Our nation is at an existential crossroads. This 2024 election will play a great part in determining our future as a constitutional republic; or, a totalitarian state. The stakes have not been so high since the Civil War, and the players are essentially the same as then, with very similar philosophies of governance. It seems that for this election, it is better for all conservative candidates to adopt a “reasonable” position on the issue of abortion, and allow the people to decide which side of the issue they support. Of course, we can teach by example as we do what is right, and how to care for the innocent among us. But perhaps the pundits are correct at this snapshot in time. Perhaps the answer to abortion should be, If leftists want to abort their babies, that’s up to them. We do not see abortion as a birth control device, but if others wish to cut themselves off from the happiness that naturally flows from living the true American dream, then we will not compel them. We will garner for ourselves the liberties that our Founders preserved to us, and create an environment that is hospitable to our children, and nurturing for the future generations of our nation. We may have to collectively bite our tongues, for a season, and perhaps God will forgive us when we are eventually able to cultivate a restored republic and live in peace and prosperity, where children are welcome and cared for by loving parents.

By James Thompson
James Thompson is an analyst, author and professional ghostwriter.

Stunning Revelation in Durham Hearing should Chill Us to the Core

By Leave a Comment

What Americans heard in the hallowed halls of the Capitol should chill them to the core

Special Counsel John Durham recently appeared before Congress to answer questions about his bombshell report on the FBI’s botched handling of Donald Trump’s alleged Russian collusion in 2016, and what Americans heard in the hallowed halls of the Capitol should chill them to the core.

Durham told the House Judiciary Committee, “The FBI was too willing to accept and use politically funded and uncorroborated opposition research, such as the Steele dossier. The FBI relied on the dossier and FISA applications, knowing there was likely material originating from a political campaign or political opponent.”

And whose political campaign you might ask was funneling this false information to the FBI? Why that would be Hillary Clinton’s, Trump’s 2016 presidential opponent.

As if this weren’t bad enough, and it most assuredly is, at almost the same time as the same FBI was opening a case on Trump under false pretenses, it was closing its investigation on Clinton’s mishandling of classified materials with no charges.

In the report, Durham called the treatment of Democrat Clinton and Republican Trump “markedly different,” which is a nice way of saying it stinks to high heaven.

Put bluntly, according to Durham, the FBI had ample evidence to believe that the dirt dug up on Trump was coming from Clinton’s camp, that it was opposition research, not the product of a legitimate investigation, but they didn’t care.

In another stunning revelation, we learned that the original head of Crossfire Hurricane, as the probe into Trump was known, was never shown key information that pointed to the Clinton campaign as the source. Apparently, upon learning this, that agent, Joe Pientka, was absolutely furious. Who wouldn’t be?

This all came around the time, as you might remember, that FBI employees and star-crossed lovers Peter Stzrok and Lisa Page were texting love notes about how they would never let Trump become president.

Democrats on the committee who have no curiosity whatsoever about the Durham report, even though the FBI itself admits wrongdoing and says it has made corrections, spent the morning berating and insulting the witness.

Durham was called a political hack, and one Democrat lawmaker suggested that his reputation had been sullied by allegedly helping Trump, to which an unbowed special counsel replied, “My concern about my reputation is with the people who I respect and my family and my Lord. And I’m perfectly comfortable with my reputation with them.”

What makes Durham’s discoveries so damning, both in the report and in his testimony, is that the very same Department of Justice he so deeply criticizes for playing politics is not just once again investigating Trump as he runs for president, but indicting him this time.

Think about that. Durham has proven that the Russian collusion investigation against Trump in 2016 was poorly predicated and politically motivated. Why should any American have the slightest bit of faith that anything has changed?

Maybe if Democrats took this matter remotely seriously, if they were able to admit the wrongdoing, as the FBI has done, then we could start to rebuild faith in these institutions. But instead, committee Democrats ignored it and amazingly used their time to continue their farcical harping about Trump and Russia.

As committee Chairman Jim Jordan put it, “Sixty percent of Americans now believe there is a double standard at the Justice Department. You know why they believe that, ’cause there is! That has got to change.”

Hear hear.

The United States is in uncharted waters. The leading GOP candidate for president is headed to a federal trial that could lead to him campaigning from a jail cell and the majority of Americans do not trust the agency running that case. That is frankly terrifying.

Thankfully Republicans, including many who aren’t named Trump, are sitting up, taking notice and promising to deliver change. That includes Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has made DOJ reform a center of his presidential campaign, and Sen. Tim Scott, who says as president he would fire FBI Director Christopher Wray.

All of the GOP candidates and indeed every GOP elected official need to keep the focus where it belongs — on a Department of Justice that far from being blind glares at conservatives like Trump and his associates, while winking at Democrats like Clinton and Hunter Biden.

When there are two sets of laws in a society, there is no law at all, there is only power. John Durham has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is exactly what is going on in the Department of Justice, and if that doesn’t change then nothing else will.

By David Marcus: a columnist living in West Virginia and the author of “Charade: The COVID Lies That Crushed A Nation.”

Newt Gingrich: This is the Biggest Scandal in American History

By Leave a Comment

This is a scandal of many of our best professional researchers lying to the American people

FBI director says Chinese lab leak ‘most likely’ caused COVID pandemic

We are living through the largest, deadliest scandal in American history, but the elite media refuses to connect the dots and analyze it.

COVID-19, a disease no one disputes came from Wuhan, China, has killed more than 1.1 million Americans and more than 38 million people worldwide. It has left millions of others with chronic health problems.

Because of the teachers’ unions and totally misguided, destructive public health policies, children who were under virtually no risk from COVID-19 have lost at least a year of education. Many children are suffering from depression and other mental health challenges from the forced isolation and lack of social contact.

Now, it is becoming more clear that much of this pain was avoidable – and the result of powerful government employees protecting themselves. As Jarrett Stepman in The Daily Signal wrote:

“In 2020, if you thought it was possible COVID-19 came from a lab in China you were labeled a conspiracy theorist, a peddler of misinformation, ‘bonkers,’ and a racist.

“Facebook and other social media removed the lab leak claim from their apps or slapped ‘misinformation’ labels on it. Facebook did so in lockstep with the government.

“So according to the standard set in 2020, the Department of Energy just came out as a racist purveyor of misinformation this week.

“The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday that, according to a classified intelligence report provided to the White House and Congress, the Department of Energy concluded that the COVID-19 pandemic likely came from a lab leak.

‘”The Energy Department’s conclusion is the result of new intelligence and is significant because the agency has considerable scientific expertise and oversees a network of U.S. national laboratories, some of which conduct advanced biological research,’ the Wall Street Journal report said.”

President Donald Trump called it “the Chinese Virus” and was intensely attacked. Somehow the word “Chinese” was deemed racist. No one disputes that the virus originated in China. But calling it COVID-19 rather than the Chinese virus was more polite. (After all, it’s important to indicate an appropriate sensitivity to the totalitarian dictatorship that is trying to defeat the United States and become the world’s leading power.)

We now know this censorship and speech silencing was part of a systematic effort of senior scientists to mislead the American people. When COVID-19 first became a threat in early 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci already knew the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) had funded research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology via EcoHealth Alliance. He knew the WIV was a subgrantee of EcoHealth Alliance – and that EcoHealth Alliance was not in compliance with its grant reporting. Specifically, the organization was out of compliance for a project that NIAID knew could potentially make novel bat-borne coronaviruses much more dangerous.

Fauci knew all this.

According to Kentucky Rep. James Comer, who is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, on Feb. 1, 2020, “Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins, and at least eleven other scientists convened a conference call to discuss COVID-19. On the conference call, Drs. Fauci and Collins were first warned that COVID-19 may have leaked from the WIV and may have been intentionally genetically manipulated.”

The scientists decided to remain silent to avoid controversy (which would have ultimately fallen back on themselves).

So, the same experts who are paid by the American people and given tens of billions of dollars to invest in research decided that they would deliberately mislead the American people.

This perfectly captures the arrogance of the aristo-bureaucrats, who believe they are intellectually and morally superior to the people to whom they are supposed to be accountable. They believe they have the right and duty to censor what we think and say – and to feed us falsehoods in the name of some higher duty.

This scandal of many of our best professional researchers lying to the American people is compounded by the absolute failure of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Why there has not been a scathing and thorough investigation – and set of hearings on the absolute inability of the bureaucrats in Atlanta to do their jobs – and the general failure of the public health system across the country is a mystery to me. This lack of introspection or investigation should itself be a scandal.

Driven by the economic impact of the Chinese virus, the American government spent trillions of dollars propping up the economy, sparking inflation, massively increasing the national debt, and permitting hundreds of billions in theft and corruption.

Finally, there has been no serious effort to hold the Chinese Communist dictatorship accountable for the damage it has done around the world. There is ample precedent for holding governments responsible for the damage they have done to others (the Lockerbie bombing, the Iranian hostage crisis, 9/11, and other cases).

The Chinese Communists have continuously focused on stopping us from understanding the origins of the pandemic. As Dave Boyer reported in the Washington Times, FBI Director Christopher A. Wray confirmed his agency believes the COVID-19 pandemic likely started from a lab leak in Wuhan, China. He told Fox News on Tuesday that “the FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan… Here you are talking about a potential leak from a Chinese government-controlled lab.

As Boyer reported, “Mr. Wray also slammed Beijing for stonewalling international efforts to find out what happened. ‘I will just make the observation that the Chinese government, it seems to me, has been doing its best to try to thwart, and obfuscate the work here, the work that we’re doing, the work that our U.S. government and close foreign partners are doing. And that’s unfortunate for everybody,’ he said.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci accused the GOP of “character assassination” masquerading as oversight. (Getty Images)

Clearly there ought to be a mechanism for making the Chinese Communist dictatorship pay COVID-19 victims for the disaster it caused. One step might be a COVID-19 tariff on all Chinese imports (the proceeds of which would go into a COVID-19 Compensation Fund that every American family affected by the pandemic could apply to).

Other countries could be urged to establish similar tariffs. Then Xi Jinping and his dictatorship would learn that lying, covering up, and hiding the truth has enormous costs for those guilty of killing millions and forcing the spending of trillions.

This scandal is so large, and covers so many areas, it will be a major factor in politics and government for the next decade. It will go down in history as a turning point in our lives and the life of our country.

We just need to decide what direction we turn: toward clarity and accountability, or toward lies and chaos.

Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995-1999 and a candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. He is chairman of Gingrich 360.

Utah Mormons — Again, McMullin Tries to Bamboozle

By Leave a Comment

In the Utah Senate Race, Utah Has a Clear Choice . . . and it isn’t the Pretend Conservative

Senator Mike Lee has represented the interests of the state of Utah, and the nation, extremely well during his tenure in office. He has voted and acted like a conservative, championing the pro-God, pro-Christian, pro-family, pro-life, limited government and spending philosophies of the Republican party—often providing lacking leadership in those arenas.

Evan McMullin, conversely, has been skulking and hobnobbing with liberals, busily undermining those principles and philosophies whenever the occasion has permitted. As we warned during the 2016 presidential election (Mormons Determined to Give White House to Clinton, and Supreme Court to Left, Oct 24, 2016), wherein McMullin attempted to deprive Donald Trump of the presidency with a divided conservative vote, his purpose was to deliver the White House to Hillary Clinton. If he had succeeded in that attempt, Roe vs. Wade would still be the law of the land. Let me say it again—McMullin would have deprived Trump of badly needed electoral votes in what appeared to be a razor thin margin, and Hillary Clinton would have nominated the next 4 Supreme Court Justices (so far), and the 54 judges for the United States courts of appeals, 174 judges for the United States district courts, etc. That was McMullin’s plan, and he was depending on the people of the state of Utah to accomplish it.

“He Is A Liberal Democrat”: Tucker Carlson Mauls Evan McMullin For ‘Independent’ Senate

The damage we’ve seen in just two years of democratic dominance would now be in its sixth year if McMullin had succeeded, and as bad as things have gotten, we can easily project how much worse they would be if Trump had been defeated. Your rights as Christians and citizens would have been eroded to unrecognizable levels had McMullin succeeded.

McMullin has been railing against Senator Mike Lee, falsely accusing him of stupidity and wrongdoing. He is lying, and he knows it. His accusations are the thinly disguised talking points of the left, ignoring reality and constitutional principles. McMullin says he will reach out to the democrats if elected. I’m not sure how that is a virtue, when the party has been taken over by hard-left socialists. On which issue should he reach out—which means join them?

A vote for McMullin is a vote for Chuck Schumer as the Senate Majority Leader.

Utah–it’s time to cut McMullin loose. Send a message, and stand strong with the pro-God, pro-Christian, pro-family, pro-life, limited government and spending practices of Mike Lee.

By James Thompson
James Thompson is an LDS writer and professional ghostwriter, who is well acquainted with Utah politics — he was ghostwriting the book of Utah’s late Speaker of the House, Becky Lockhart, when she died suddenly and unexpectedly.

SPONSORED

The Dust Never Settles — New book by Ground Zero hero Stacey Goodman [visit]

GhostWriter — James Thompson writes your book for you [visit]

Author Den has James’ latest book projects.

Where Is Mark? is the new book by Det. Rich McHale about the abduction of young Mark Himebaugh.

Worlds Without Number — a book that discusses government admissions about UAP and other interesting matters.

Supreme Court Rules for Trump; Dems Don’t get Taxes

By Leave a Comment

Supreme Court grants a stay, temporarily blocks release of Trump tax records to House Democrats

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts granted a stay, temporarily blocking former President Trump from having to turn over his tax records to Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Trump and his legal team on Monday filed asking the Supreme Court to block the release of his tax records. 

The House Ways and Means Committee first requested six years of Trump’s tax returns in 2019.

“Upon consideration of the application of counsel for the applicants, it is so ordered that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, case No. 21-5289, is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the court,” Roberts’ order states, requesting that the committee respond before Thursday, Nov. 10, by noon.

In 2021, the Justice Department said Congress should be able to review the records, a decision Trump and his legal team have appealed.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden ruled last December that the Treasury Department should turn the tax returns over to the congressional committee, and a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with that ruling in August.

The full bench of the D.C. Circuit Court denied Trump’s request to stop the release last week.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., said last week that Trump has “tried to delay the inevitable.”

“We’ve waited long enough—we must begin our oversight of the IRS’s mandatory presidential audit program as soon as possible,” Neal said in a statement.

By Brooke Singman. @BrookeSingman on Twitter.

SPONSORED

The Dust Never Settles — New book by Ground Zero hero Stacey Goodman [visit]

GhostWriter — James Thompson writes your book for you [visit]

Gorgeous food photography and delicious original recipes for food bloggers from InFocus Content Shop.

Government admissions about unknown craft in restricted airspace [visit]

Author Den has latest projects.

Where Is Mark? is the new book by Det. Rich McHale about the abduction of young Mark Himebaugh.

Worlds Without Number–a book that discusses UAP and other interesting matters.

Elon Musk fires Twitter’s top brass after closing $44 billion deal

By Leave a Comment

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has fired several top Twitter executives after officially taking control of the company Thursday evening, according to multiple reports.

CNBC’s David Faber reported Thursday evening that Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal and CFO Ned Segal have “left” Twitter’s headquarters and “will not be returning as the Musk era begins.” 

People familiar with the matter told The Washington Post that the move came after Musk’s $44 billion deal to takeover over the company closed. 

They told the outlet that Agrawal and Segal, as well as Vijaya Gadde, head of legal policy, trust, and safety, were shuttled from the building after being fired.   

This is a developing story. Check back for updates. 

SPONSORED

The Dust Never Settles — New book by Ground Zero hero Stacey Goodman [visit]

GhostWriter — James Thompson writes your book for you [visit]

Gorgeous food photography and delicious original recipes for food bloggers from InFocus Content Shop.

Government admissions about unknown craft in restricted airspace [visit]

Author Den has latest projects.

Where Is Mark? is the new book by Det. Rich McHale about the abduction of young Mark Himebaugh.

Worlds Without Number–a book that discusses UAP and other interesting matters.

Federal Courts Block Biden Student Loan Forgiveness Attempt

By Leave a Comment

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a motion on Friday to temporarily block President Biden’s student loan handout plan.

The appeals court ruled in favor of six Republican-led states who requested that Biden’s handout plan is halted while the court works through its request for an injunction.

Biden’s plan, which aims to cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt for Pell Grant recipients in college and up to $10,000 for others who borrowed using federal student loans.

Qualifications for the handout include having an adjusted gross income of less than $125,000 individually, and less than $250,000 if married.

By Adam Sabes

SPONSORED

The Dust Never Settles — New book by Ground Zero hero Stacey Goodman [visit]

GhostWriter — James Thompson writes your book for you [visit]

Gorgeous food photography and delicious original recipes for food bloggers from InFocus Content Shop.

Government admissions about unknown craft in restricted airspace [visit]

Author Den has latest projects.

Where Is Mark? is the new book by Det. Rich McHale about the abduction of young Mark Himebaugh.

Worlds Without Number–a book that discusses UAP and other interesting matters.

Economy

Elections

Foreign

Crime

Science Tech

Reader Responses