Federalist Press | Defending Liberty — Informing America

Breaking News and Political Commentary

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:

Pete Hegseth Appears before Senate

By Leave a Comment

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

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

Allegations and Controversies

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

Views on Women in Combat

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

Commitment to Addressing Sexual Assault in the Military

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

Protests and Public Reaction

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

Support and Opposition

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

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

Next Steps

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

This Easter

By Leave a Comment

What is it that we celebrate on Easter?

The New Testament of the Bible contains the story of the life of Jesus Christ. Within its pages is recounted how He was crucified on Friday, and his body was hastily removed from the cross and placed into a tomb hewn into the rock, with very little time to appropriately prepare the body for final burial before the Jewish Sabbath started at sunset.

It was early Sunday morning when Mary Magdalene and other women disciples arrived at the tomb to see the sepulcher and prepare His body. Suddenly there was a great earthquake and an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow.

The angel said to the women, “Fear not: for I know that you seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is arisen. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.” He then instructed her to go and tell Jesus’ disciples that He was risen from the dead and that He would go before them to Galilee; and there they would see Him.

The others ran to tell the Apostles what they had seen and heard, but Mary stood at the door of the sepulcher weeping. As she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulcher, and saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet where the body of Jesus had lain.

They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?”

She said, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.”

And when she had spoken she turned back, and saw Jesus standing, but knew not that it was Him. He spoke to her and said, “Woman, why are you crying? Whom do you seek?”

She, supposing him to be the gardener, said, “Sir, if you have borne him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.”

Jesus looked upon her with compassion, and said, “Mary.”

Suddenly recognizing His voice, she turned herself and said to him, “Rabboni,” which is to say, Master.

Mary ran to him and embraced him, but Jesus said to her, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say to them, ‘I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.’”

Watch this short video about the events that we celebrate at this season

What is the significance of this event nearly 2,000 years later? Each of us must decide its implications and importance for ourselves, and apply its lessons and realities in our own lives as we interpret the message for ourselves. John, the Apostle who recorded this version of the incident gives us his own explanation of why he recorded it: “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name.”

Let us remember Him this Easter.

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.

Abortion in the 2024 Elections

By Leave a Comment

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

Legal History of Abortion in the U.S.

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

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

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

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

Political Implications of Abortion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Abortion Issue in the 2024 Election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Utah Mormons — Again, McMullin Tries to Bamboozle

By Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPONSORED

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

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

Author Den has James’ latest book projects.

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

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

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

By Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

This is a developing story. Check back for updates. 

SPONSORED

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

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

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

Government admissions about unknown craft in restricted airspace [visit]

Author Den has latest projects.

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

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

Federal Courts Block Biden Student Loan Forgiveness Attempt

By Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

By Adam Sabes

SPONSORED

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

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

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

Government admissions about unknown craft in restricted airspace [visit]

Author Den has latest projects.

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

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

Economy

Elections

Foreign

Crime

Science Tech

Reader Responses