Federalist Press | Defending Liberty — Informing America

Breaking News and Political Commentary

Trump’s ISIS Strike in Nigeria Sends a Message: America Can Still Hunt Terrorists Anywhere

By Leave a Comment

Abu-Bilal al-Minuki thought Africa could hide him. He was wrong.

President Donald Trump announced Friday night that U.S. forces, working with the Armed Forces of Nigeria, killed al-Minuki in what he called a “meticulously planned and very complex mission.” Trump described al-Minuki as the second-in-command of ISIS globally and “the most active terrorist in the world.” Fox News reported that Trump said the operation was “flawlessly executed” and that al-Minuki had been helping plan operations targeting Americans.

This was not a symbolic strike against a low-level militant. According to U.S. Africa Command, al-Minuki was the “director of global operations for ISIS,” and multiple terrorists, including other senior ISIS leaders, were killed in the operation. AFRICOM’s initial assessment found no civilian casualties and no U.S. or Nigerian losses.

Nigerian President Bola Tinubu confirmed the strike, saying al-Minuki was killed along with several lieutenants at his compound in the Lake Chad Basin. The Associated Press reported that the Nigerian military described the mission as a “highly complex precision air-land operation” carried out during three hours of darkness without casualties or loss of assets.

That is what seriousness looks like.

For years, Americans have been told that ISIS was “defeated,” that terrorism was yesterday’s war, and that the real work of national security involved managing narratives at home while pretending jihadist networks abroad were fading into irrelevance. But ISIS did not disappear. It adapted. It migrated. It embedded itself across Africa, especially through ISIS West Africa Province and other affiliates operating in Nigeria, the Sahel, and the Lake Chad region.

Al-Minuki was not some obscure figure pulled from the shadows for political theater. In June 2023, the U.S. State Department formally designated Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Ali al-Mainuki — also known as Abu-Bilal al-Minuki, Abubakar Mainok, and Abor Mainok — as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist and identified him as a leader of ISIS.

The significance of this strike is therefore twofold.

First, it removes a major terrorist commander from the battlefield. AP reported that al-Minuki was viewed as a key figure in ISIS organizing and finance and had been plotting attacks against the United States and U.S. interests.

Second, it signals that the Trump administration is willing to project power into places where terrorist networks believe distance, chaos, weak borders, and corrupt or overwhelmed governments can protect them. That matters.

Africa has become one of the central battlegrounds in the post-caliphate phase of ISIS. After the collapse of the group’s territorial stronghold in Iraq and Syria, ISIS affiliates in Africa became some of the movement’s most active and dangerous branches. Nigeria has been fighting jihadist factions for years, including Boko Haram and ISIS-linked militants, while entire regions have been destabilized by kidnapping, massacres, insurgency, and religious violence.

The Lake Chad Basin is not a footnote. It is one of the world’s most important terror corridors.

The operation also exposes a hard truth many in Washington would rather avoid: counterterrorism is not over. The battlefield has shifted, but the enemy has not given up. ISIS no longer needs a caliphate capital to remain dangerous. It needs financing, propaganda, operational planners, safe havens, and regional affiliates. Al-Minuki reportedly sat near the center of that web.

There are still questions. Some analysts dispute whether al-Minuki was truly the global “number two” in ISIS, and AP noted that his exact rank cannot be independently verified. But even cautious experts acknowledged the strike’s importance. One Nigeria-focused analyst told AP that, if confirmed, the killing would be enormous because it would be the first time security forces had killed someone so highly ranked in ISWAP.

That is the responsible way to read this story: do not exaggerate what cannot yet be independently proven, but do not minimize what is clearly a major counterterrorism success.

The broader message is unmistakable. America does not need endless wars to kill terrorists. It needs intelligence, allies, resolve, and a commander-in-chief willing to authorize decisive action.

This operation appears to have had all four.

For Federalist Press readers, the takeaway is simple: peace through strength is not a slogan. It is a strategy. Terrorists understand power. They understand fear. They understand consequences. And only those.

And today, the world’s jihadist networks have been reminded that if they plot against Americans, there may be nowhere far enough to hide.

Trump’s UFO Disclosure Has Changed the Conversation — But Not Yet Answered the Biggest Question

By Leave a Comment

Actual site photo with FBI Lab rendered graphic overlay depicting corroborating eyewitness reports from September 2023 of an apparent ellipsoid bronze metallic object materializing out of a bright light in the sky, 130-195 feet in length, and disappearing instantaneously.

For decades, Americans who took UFOs seriously were told they were chasing swamp gas, weather balloons, camera artifacts, or fantasy. That era has ended.

The Trump administration’s first major release of UFO/UAP files does not prove that aliens are visiting earth. It does not settle whether these craft are extraterrestrial, interdimensional, spiritual, military, adversarial, or something even stranger. But it does something historically important: it places the official stamp of the United States government on the fact that the phenomenon itself is real enough to warrant public review.

On May 8, the Department of War announced the initial release of declassified Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena files through the new PURSUE system, describing it as part of a rolling, interagency transparency effort involving the White House, ODNI, DOE, AARO, NASA, the FBI, and intelligence agencies. See released documents and videos> Officials said future releases will continue.

That matters because much of the public has already seen some of these videos, reports, and claims in leaked or fragmented form. The difference now is authentication. A leaked video can be dismissed. A government-hosted archive cannot be waved away so easily.

CBS reported that the first release included 162 files from the FBI, Department of Defense, NASA, and State Department, including eyewitness testimony, photos, videos, and reports reaching back decades. The batch included 120 PDFs, 28 videos, and 14 image files.

The official position remains cautious. The government has not said these objects are alien spacecraft. NASA has said it has no data proving UAP are alien technology, and AARO has maintained that it has found no evidence confirming extraterrestrial technology.

But “no proof of aliens” is not the same thing as “nothing to see here.” To put it in plain terms, the government could have 1,000 hi-resolution videos of hundreds of UFOs, with 3-foot tall gray beings with large black eyes walking out and looking around, and it still would not constitute “proof of aliens,” because there would remain a possibility that it is something else.

What could they be? That remains to be seen. But the government will not call it extraterrestrial without more evidence than videos, and sightings by military personnel.

Retired Rear Adm. Tim Gallaudet, former Oceanographer of the Navy, has become one of the more serious voices pushing the conversation beyond ridicule. In a recent interview, Gallaudet said he has not personally seen an alien, but believes some craft appear to be under “higher order non-human intelligence” control, citing objects that move between ocean and atmosphere without visible disturbance and at speeds far beyond known human technology.

Gallaudet is not a random internet personality. He is a retired admiral, and his comments echo a growing chorus of military pilots, intelligence officials, researchers, and members of Congress who are in a position to argue that the public has not been told the full story.

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command reported UAP that resembles a football-shaped body near Japan.

Still, the first Trump tranche has disappointed some serious UAP researchers. Christopher Mellon, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for intelligence, called the release meaningful but incomplete, warning that “data alone is not disclosure.” DefenseScoop reported that several experts praised the move while criticizing the lack of metadata, context, sensor information, chain of custody, altitude, coordinates, and official analysis.

That is the heart of the matter. The government has released material. It has not yet released the full analytical framework needed to understand it. Nevertheless, this first release is only a tiny fraction of the materials that are yet to come.

For Federalist Press readers, the proper posture is neither gullibility nor reflexive denial. The serious conservative instinct should be this: demand transparency, demand evidence, demand accountability, and resist being managed by institutions that spent decades ridiculing citizens for asking questions they now admit were legitimate.

There is also a deeper cultural and spiritual dimension that continues to arise in the subject. In Worlds Without Number, J.L. Thompson argues that belief in life beyond earth should not be shocking at all to people of faith. The book cites many sources to frame the universe as filled with God’s creations and inhabited worlds.

But Thompson also urges caution. The book does not simply equate UFOs with noble visitors from other planets. It repeatedly warns that the phenomenon includes “high strangeness,” occult-like messages, spiritual confusion, and deceptive possibilities.

That may be the most important distinction in the entire debate. The existence of other worlds does not automatically explain the strange behavior of UAP. Nor does advanced technology automatically imply benevolent motives.

If the objects are foreign technology, the national security implications are enormous. If they are American black-budget systems, then the secrecy problem is enormous. If they are controlled by non-human intelligence, then the implications are civilizational. And if the phenomenon includes a psychological or spiritual component, then the stakes may be even higher than politics.

Trump’s release has not answered those questions. But it has changed the burden of proof.

The question is no longer whether responsible people may discuss UFOs. They can. The question is whether the government will now provide enough serious evidence for the public to separate aircraft, drones, balloons, sensor errors, and hoaxes from the truly unexplained.

Until then, the public should keep watching — carefully, soberly, and without surrendering its judgment to either official denial or internet hysteria.

School Choice Is Winning — And the Education Establishment Knows It

By Leave a Comment

For decades, American families were told they had no real say in their children’s education. They were told to just leave everything to the ‘experts.’

You went to the school assigned to you. You accepted whatever curriculum was offered. You trusted a system that, in many parts of the country, has produced steeply declining performance, frustrated parents, and myriad students left behind.

That model is now being challenged—and the reaction from the education establishment has been swift, loud, and deeply revealing.

Because in states like Arizona, the rules have changed.

A System Finally Forced to Compete

Arizona, for example, has emerged as a national leader in school choice, implementing programs that allow education funding to follow the student instead of being locked into a specific school or district.

Families now have real options:

  • Public schools
  • Charter schools
  • Private institutions
  • Homeschooling programs

Each child carries with them a portion of education funding, and that money goes wherever the family decides. That simple shift has introduced something that has long been absent in public education: Competition and Accountability.

Public schools are no longer guaranteed funding simply because they exist. They have to earn it. They have to compete for available dollars. They have to do do better than the competition to receive the funding.

And that changes everything.

Why Parents Are Embracing It

The appeal of school choice is not theoretical. It is practical, immediate, and deeply personal.

Parents are choosing schools based on:

  • Academic performance
  • Safety
  • Discipline
  • Values
  • Individual student needs

For families who have felt trapped in underperforming districts, the ability to leave is more than a policy change—it is a lifeline. And once families experience that freedom, they rarely want to go back.

The Resistance: A System That Doesn’t Want to Change

Despite growing support, school choice faces fierce opposition from entrenched interests that have long shaped American education. Critics of CHOICE argue that these programs threaten public schools, divert funding, and create uneven outcomes.

But behind those arguments is a deeper reality: School choice disrupts a system that has operated for decades with limited competition and guaranteed funding.

When funding follows students, institutions that once operated without pressure or accountability are suddenly forced to respond—to parents, to outcomes, and to alternatives.

That is not a small shift. It is a fundamental one.

The Performance Problem No One Can Ignore

Across the country, there are school systems, particularly in large urban areas, that have struggled for years with:

  • Low proficiency rates
  • Graduation gaps
  • Safety concerns
  • Declining public confidence

These issues did not appear overnight, and they have not been resolved by maintaining the status quo. They developed over decades as teachers’ unions fought for more money for less work, and the right essentially replace students’ parents in matters of values. They have foisted woke, Marxist, and anti-religious curricula on students, and parents who showed up at the principal’s office or school board meetings were often placed on FBI terror watch lists.

School choice does not claim to solve every problem. But it does introduce a mechanism that public systems have lacked: The ability for families to leave.

And when families can leave, systems must adapt, or risk losing relevance, and funding.

The Accountability Divide

One of the sharpest lines in the debate is over accountability. Supporters of school choice argue that:

  • Parents are the ultimate accountability mechanism
  • Schools that fail to meet expectations lose students

Critics counter that:

  • Public funds require consistent oversight
  • Not all alternatives are held to the same standards

Both arguments carry weight. But the current system raises its own question: What accountability exists when families have no realistic alternative?

A Shift in Power

At its core, school choice is about more than education policy. It is about power. For generations, decisions about education have largely been made at the institutional level, by districts, boards, and administrators.

School choice shifts that power outward to families. And that redistribution is at the heart of the conflict. Because when parents gain control over where funding goes, long-standing structures are forced to compete, adapt, and justify their performance in ways they never had to before. Public schools struggle fiercely to remain relevant in the face of competition. The socialist malaise of the public education system has rendered public schools and teachers undesirable, and in many case, abhorrent.

The Stakes Going Forward

The expansion of school choice is not slowing down. More states are exploring similar models, and more families are demanding options. The topic has become political in that democrats fight against choice, be the power that is being redirected to parents is essentially that curated by the Left over the decades.

Now, the debate is no longer about whether school choice exists. It does. And it is thriving, as are the students who are attending the best schools at no cost to them.

Public schools and teachers’ unions fight against school choice in Arizona.

It is really about how far it will go, and how the existing system will respond. So, will public schools evolve and compete? Will policymakers refine these programs to address legitimate concerns?
Or will the divide deepen as quality of choice spreads, and the stagnant decline of public schools digs in?

The Bottom Line

School choice is not a fringe idea anymore. It is a centrist, growing movement that is forcing a national conversation about how education works, and who it is meant to serve. Families, or teachers’ unions?

For supporters, it represents long-overdue accountability and freedom. For critics, it raises serious concerns about equity, funding, and oversight.

But one thing is certain: The days of a one-size-fits-all education system are coming to an end.

And the fight over what replaces it is only just beginning.

This Easter

By Leave a Comment

What is it, truly, that we remember on Easter?

The New Testament preserves the final days of Jesus of Nazareth—His suffering, His crucifixion, and His death upon the cross. As the Sabbath approached, His body was taken down and placed quickly into a borrowed tomb, carved from stone. A heavy rock sealed the entrance, and silence settled over the place where hope itself seemed to have been buried.

What is it, truly, that we remember on Easter?

For His followers, it was a moment of confusion and grief. The One they had trusted, the One they believed to be the very Messiah, now lay lifeless behind stone and darkness.

But the story did not end there.

At the first light of the third day, women came to the tomb, intending to complete the burial preparations that had been rushed. Instead, they found the stone rolled away.

The tomb was empty.

Angelic messengers stood as witnesses of something that had never before occurred in human history. They spoke plainly: Jesus, who had been crucified, was no longer there—He had risen.

At first, the news seemed too extraordinary to accept. Yet one by one, those who had known Him began to see for themselves. Among them was Mary Magdalene, who lingered at the tomb in sorrow, not yet understanding what had taken place.

Through her tears, she encountered a man she did not at first recognize. Only when He spoke her name, “Mary,” did realization come.

It was Him.

Alive.

Not restored merely to mortal life, but risen—changed, glorified, no longer subject to death.

What does this mean for us today?

Across nearly two millennia, this moment has stood as the central claim of Christianity: that death is not the end, that something greater lies beyond, and that Jesus Christ was not simply a teacher or prophet, but the literal Son of God.

Easter is not only a remembrance of that event, but an invitation to consider its meaning.

If the resurrection is real, then it changes everything.

It is real.

It speaks to hope in the face of loss, to purpose beyond mortality, and to the assurance that life continues in ways we do not yet fully understand.

Each person must decide for themselves what to make of it.

But the message recorded by those who witnessed these events remains simple and direct—that these things were written so that we might believe, and that through that belief, we might find life.

This Easter, whatever else we may celebrate, let us pause and remember Him. And believe.

James Thompson is a Christian author, political commentator, and professional ghostwriter. His latest book, The Miracle of Faith, is available on Amazon or at Publisher.

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

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson

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

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

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

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

The most alarming recent plot unfolded in New York City.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson

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

Ancient and Modern Roots of Israel

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

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

The Six-Day War and Its Results

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

Decades of Terrorism

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

The October 7th Massacre

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

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

The Problem of Gaza

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson

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

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

A Champion of Civil Debate and Free Speech

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

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

Core Philosophies Rooted in American Tradition

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

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

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

The Lies That Fueled Violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charlie Kirk pictured with his wife and children

A Warning for America

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

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

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

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

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

Charlie Kirk Killed at event at Utah Valley University

By Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

The campus is on lockdown.

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

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

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

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

See video>


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Leave a Comment

By Federalist Press Investigative Team

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

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

The Numbers Don’t Lie

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

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

The School Shootings the Media Buried

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

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

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

Teachers’ Union Programs: Undermining Faith in the Classroom

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

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

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

Europe and Beyond: Faith Erased, Freedom Eroded

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

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

The Media Cover-Up

When attacks occur, media coverage follows a predictable script:

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

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

Why It Matters

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

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

A Call to Defend Faith

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

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

Trump’s Decisive Strike: Ending Iran’s Nuclear Threat and Exposing Decades of Diplomatic Failure

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson | June 26, 2025

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

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

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

A History of Hostility

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

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

Democratic Appeasement and Strategic Failures

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

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

Trump’s Warning and the Turning Point

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

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

Downplaying Success: Democrats in Denial

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

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

A Global Victory and Affirmation of Leadership

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAKING: President Trump Orders Devastating Airstrikes on Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Facilities in Historic Preemptive Strike

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson
June 21, 2025

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

A Historic Response to a Global Threat

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

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

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

Precision Strikes on Iran’s Most Protected Facilities

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

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

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

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

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

Strategic Shockwaves and Political Firestorm

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

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

In Washington, Democrats reacted with fury.

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

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

A Message to Iran—and the World

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jamie Lee Curtis Wept Over Kanye’s Antisemitism—But Where Is Her Outrage Now?

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson | June 4, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson | April 30, 2025

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

A Nation in Demographic Decline

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

A Financial Solution to a Cultural Crisis?

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

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

Addressing the Legacy of Reproductive Targeting

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

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

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

Potential Impacts Across Demographics

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

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

Critics Raise Concerns

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

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

A New Direction—or a Step Too Far?

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

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

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

Pope Francis, First Latin American Pontiff, Dies at 88

By Leave a Comment

April 21, 2025 — Vatican City​

Pope Francis, the 266th leader of the Roman Catholic Church and its first Latin American pontiff, passed away on Easter Monday at the age of 88. The Vatican announced that he died peacefully at 7:35 a.m. local time in his residence at the Domus Sanctae Marthae, following complications from chronic lung disease and double pneumonia.

Born Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Pope Francis was elected in March 2013 after the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. His papacy was marked by a commitment to humility, social justice, and outreach to marginalized communities. He was known for his ultra-liberal stances on issues such as climate change, economic inequality, and interfaith dialogue.

Despite recent health challenges, including a 28-day hospitalization for a severe respiratory infection, Pope Francis made his final public appearance on Easter Sunday, delivering the traditional “Urbi et Orbi” blessing to thousands gathered in St. Peter’s Square.

Global leaders have paid tribute to Pope Francis’s legacy. U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, who met with the Pope shortly before his passing, expressed his condolences, stating, “My heart goes out to the millions of Christians all over the world who loved him.” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen described him as an inspiration “far beyond the Catholic Church,” and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi remembered him as a leader committed to “inclusive and all-round development.”

Pope Francis meets with the Prophet and other leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In accordance with his wishes for a modest funeral, Pope Francis will be laid to rest in the Basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome, making him the first pope since Leo XIII in 1903 to be buried outside the Vatican . The Vatican has announced that his body will be moved to St. Peter’s Basilica by Wednesday for public viewing ​

The Catholic Church now enters a period of mourning and preparation for the conclave to elect the next pope, expected to commence between May 6 and May 11. Cardinal Kevin Farrell, the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, will oversee the interim period until a new pontiff is chosen.

Pope Francis’s enduring legacy is one of compassion, humility, and a steadfast commitment to serving the most vulnerable members of society.​

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

Dems Oppose Americans on Every Issue

By Leave a Comment

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

By James Thompson | April 18, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson

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

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

The 80-20 Issues: A Brief Overview

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

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

Fringe Support and Controversial Alignments

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

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

The Consequences

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

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

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

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

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:

Economy

Elections

Foreign

Crime

Science Tech

Reader Responses