Federalist Press | Defending Liberty — Informing America

Breaking News and Political Commentary

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

By Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

That is what seriousness looks like.

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

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

The significance of this strike is therefore twofold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This operation appears to have had all four.

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

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

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

By Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump Releases First Major UFO/UAP Files — “The People Can Decide for Themselves What the Hell Is Going On”

By Leave a Comment

In one of the most extraordinary government disclosures in modern American history, President Donald Trump announced Friday that his administration has officially begun releasing long-classified government files related to UFOs, UAPs, extraterrestrial life, and unexplained aerial phenomena.

The announcement came directly from Trump on Truth Social, where he declared that the Department of War had released the “first tranche” of files to the American public as part of what the administration is calling the Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters, or “PURSUE.”

Trump’s message was vintage Trump — blunt, provocative, and impossible to ignore.

“As for my promise to you, the Department of War has released the first tranche of the UFO/UAP files to the Public for their review and study,” Trump wrote. “Whereas previous Administrations have failed to be transparent on this subject, with these new Documents and Videos, the people can decide for themselves, ‘WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?’”

Here is the live link: UFO Release>

The files are now publicly available through a newly launched government portal at WAR.GOV/UFO.

The release marks the first major government disclosure effort specifically focused on unexplained aerial phenomena and alleged extraterrestrial-related material since decades of classified investigations stretching back to Roswell, Project Blue Book, Area 51 speculation, military pilot encounters, and secret Pentagon programs that the government spent years denying even existed.

And unlike previous carefully worded Pentagon briefings, this rollout appears designed to maximize public curiosity rather than suppress it.

The newly released materials reportedly include:

  • military pilot encounter reports
  • radar tracking incidents
  • infrared and cockpit videos
  • FBI investigative files
  • NASA and Apollo-era records
  • intelligence community documents
  • witness testimony
  • previously unseen photographs
  • unexplained “metallic orb” incidents
  • objects observed near military installations
  • sightings near the Pacific and Indo-Pacific regions
  • historical records dating back nearly 80 years

Several reports describe objects demonstrating flight characteristics that appear inconsistent with known aerospace technology.

One report allegedly details a football-shaped object tracked near Japan by U.S. Indo-Pacific Command personnel. Another references strange luminous objects observed during Apollo-era space missions. Other files reportedly discuss glowing aerial spheres, unexplained formations, and sudden high-speed disappearances observed by military personnel.

Notably, the administration has stopped short of claiming definitive proof of extraterrestrial life.

Instead, officials are framing the release around “maximum transparency.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that secrecy surrounding the files had fueled decades of justified public speculation and argued that Americans have a right to review the information for themselves. DNI Tulsi Gabbard similarly stated that the Intelligence Community is now coordinating declassification efforts across multiple agencies, including NASA, the FBI, the Department of Energy, and military intelligence divisions.

For many Americans, the release represents vindication after decades of ridicule directed toward military pilots, intelligence officials, radar operators, scientists, and civilians who claimed to witness phenomena they could not explain.

For decades, anyone discussing UFOs risked being labeled unstable, conspiratorial, or irrational.

Yet over the last several years, the entire tone of the conversation changed.

The U.S. Navy authenticated leaked UAP videos.
Congress held hearings featuring military witnesses.
Pentagon officials admitted many cases remain unexplained.
Former intelligence personnel alleged hidden retrieval programs exist.
Pilots described objects performing maneuvers beyond known aircraft capabilities.

Now, for the first time, the federal government is effectively telling the public:
Here are the files. Decide for yourselves.

That alone is historic.

The implications are enormous.

If even a small percentage of the released material ultimately proves authentic and technologically unexplainable, it could represent one of the most important revelations in human history. If, alternatively, many sightings turn out to involve classified military systems, foreign adversary technology, sensor distortions, or misidentifications, the release may still fundamentally reshape public understanding of decades of secrecy.

Either way, the era of reflexive dismissal appears to be ending.

Critics, however, are already accusing the administration of political theater.

Some left-wing commentators claim the UFO disclosures are intended to distract from foreign policy tensions, economic concerns, or ongoing political controversies. Others argue the release is designed to energize Trump’s populist base by positioning him as the anti-establishment president willing to expose secrets hidden by the permanent bureaucracy.

But those criticisms may miss the larger point.

The public interest in UFOs and unexplained aerial phenomena has persisted for generations precisely because the government repeatedly denied, concealed, ridiculed, and compartmentalized information related to the subject. The secrecy itself fueled the distrust.

Trump appears to understand that instinctively.

His administration has already pursued high-profile transparency efforts involving assassination records, intelligence documents, and classified archives. The UFO/UAP rollout now adds another layer to that strategy — one aimed directly at the American public’s growing distrust of permanent government institutions.

And judging by public reaction online, the strategy is working.

Social media exploded within minutes of the announcement. UFO researchers, military analysts, skeptics, podcasters, journalists, and millions of ordinary Americans immediately began dissecting the newly released records frame by frame.

Some are convinced this is the beginning of full disclosure.

Others believe the government is still hiding the most explosive material.

But almost everyone agrees on one thing:

This is unlike anything the United States government has ever done before.

Whether the files ultimately reveal advanced foreign technology, hidden military programs, natural phenomena, spiritual deception, extraterrestrial intelligence, or simply decades of government confusion, one reality is now unavoidable:

The conversation has permanently changed.

And for the first time in American history, the government itself has opened the vault and invited the public inside.

Why Is the United States Still Allowing Iran to Threaten the Strait of Hormuz?

By Leave a Comment

Cargo ship in Strait of Hormuz reports being attacked as peace negotiations continue

For decades, the United States has treated the Iranian regime as a problem to be managed. The result has been decades of escalation, proxy warfare, regional instability, and recurring crises centered around one of the most strategically important waterways on earth: the Strait of Hormuz.

At some point, Americans are entitled to ask a simple question: Why is an Islamic revolutionary regime that openly calls for confrontation with the West still allowed to project this much power?

From Monarchy to Revolution

Modern Iran was not always governed by the Islamic clerical regime that exists today. Before 1979, Iran was ruled by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a pro-Western monarch aligned closely with the United States. That order collapsed during the Iranian Revolution, when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his Islamist movement seized power and transformed Iran into an Islamic Republic governed by revolutionary religious doctrine.

The revolution was not merely political. It was ideological.

The new regime defined itself in opposition to:

  • Western influence
  • Secular government
  • American power in the Middle East
  • The existence of Israel and its regional allies

That worldview still defines the regime today.

The Structure of Power in Iran

Iran presents itself as a republic, with elections and civilian institutions. But ultimate authority does not rest with elected officials. Real power lies with:

  • The Supreme Leader
  • The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)
  • Senior clerical and security networks loyal to the revolutionary system

The IRGC in particular has become one of the most powerful organizations in the region:

  • Military force
  • Intelligence apparatus
  • Economic empire
  • Foreign operations network

Its influence extends through proxy groups and allied militias across the Middle East.

Why Negotiations Are So Difficult

American administrations from both parties have repeatedly attempted diplomacy with Tehran. But negotiations with Iran are uniquely difficult for one central reason:

The regime views confrontation with the United States as part of its ideological identity.

This is not merely a dispute over sanctions, territory, or trade. For many within the regime’s core leadership structure, opposition to American influence is foundational to the revolution itself.

That reality complicates every negotiation. Even when agreements are reached, there remains deep skepticism in Washington and among U.S. allies about whether Tehran ultimately seeks coexistence—or simply strategic advantage. President trump believes the latter. He has publicly voiced his understanding of the regime, that it will never voluntarily lay down its arms, including nuclear arms, and accept peace in any form. It must be forced into such a position.

The Strait of Hormuz: A Pressure Point

The Strait of Hormuz remains one of Iran’s last, and most powerful leverage points.

A significant percentage of global energy shipments pass through the narrow waterway. Even limited disruption can:

  • Spike oil prices
  • Rattle financial markets
  • Threaten global supply chains

Iran understands this.

And it has repeatedly used the threat of disruption as a geopolitical tool.

From Washington’s perspective, that creates a persistent dilemma:

  • Respond too aggressively and risk broader regional war and damage to Iran’s civilian population
  • Respond too weakly and invite continued escalation

A Regime Under Pressure

Years of sanctions, internal unrest, economic strain, and regional conflict have placed enormous pressure on the Iranian system. At the same time, recent leadership losses and internal fragmentation have fueled speculation about divisions within the regime itself. Trump’s Department of War has eliminated the two top tiers of leadership in the regime, and it is difficult to locate survivors to engage in negotiations.

Some analysts argue that the current (third) leadership tier is more rigid and ideological than pragmatic. Others believe there are factions within the broader system that would prefer reduced confrontation and economic normalization.

The challenge for American policymakers is determining whether meaningful moderation is possible within the current structure—or whether the regime’s core ideology makes that unlikely.

The Strategic Debate in Washington

This has led to an increasingly sharp debate among foreign-policy analysts and national-security officials.

One side argues:

  • Iran responds only to overwhelming pressure
  • Deterrence must be restored decisively
  • Continued restraint emboldens the regime

The other warns:

  • Escalation could ignite a wider regional conflict
  • Regime instability carries unpredictable consequences
  • Military action may strengthen hardliners rather than weaken them

Underlying both arguments is the same concern: The current situation is unsustainable.

The Bigger Question

For years, the United States has attempted to contain, negotiate with, sanction, pressure, and deter the Iranian regime—often simultaneously. And yet the core conflict remains unresolved.

Iran continues to:

  • Support regional proxy networks
  • Threaten maritime stability
  • Challenge American influence
  • Advance strategic capabilities despite international pressure

Which raises the uncomfortable possibility that the problem is not tactical. It is structural.

The Bottom Line

The Iranian regime was born out of revolution and sustained through ideology, security power, and confrontation with the West. That history matters because it shapes every negotiation taking place today.

The debate now facing the United States is no longer whether Iran is a challenge. It is whether decades of limited containment have merely prolonged a deeper conflict that neither side truly believes can be permanently resolved.

And as tensions rise once again in the Strait of Hormuz, that question is becoming harder to avoid. President Trump has signaled that he very much understands this. What is surprising is his patience with a regime that he knows lies as often as they breath, and has no intention of restricting its modus operandi of the past 60 years. Surely, he understands that only death of all leadership will allow cooler heads to take over and finally allow peace to come to the region.

The Vanishing General and the Eleven

By Leave a Comment

Inside the Growing Mystery of America’s Missing and Dead Scientists

By James Thompson | Feature article contributor

The disappearance of retired Air Force Maj. Gen. William Neil McCasland has evolved from a troubling local case into something far larger—an unresolved mystery now drawing the attention of the FBI, the White House, Congress, and multiple federal agencies.

At the center of that mystery is a simple but unsettling question:

Did one man vanish, or is he part of a pattern?

On the morning of February 27, 2026, McCasland was at his Albuquerque home. At approximately 10:00 a.m., he spoke with a repairman. At 11:10 a.m., his wife left for a medical appointment. When she returned at 12:04 p.m., he was gone. There were no signs of a struggle. No confirmed witnesses. No clear direction of travel.

Law enforcement responded immediately, and the FBI quickly became involved. Investigators conducted an extensive canvass, reviewing doorbell and security footage from hundreds of homes throughout the neighborhood. What they found—or rather, did not find—has become one of the most confounding elements of the case.

There is no confirmed video showing McCasland leaving his home or the surrounding area. In a modern residential neighborhood saturated with surveillance, that absence is striking.

Inside the home, investigators found his phone, his prescription glasses, and his wearable devices such as his smart watch. Missing were his wallet, hiking boots, and a .38-caliber revolver. That combination has resisted easy explanation.

Leaving a phone behind for a short neighborhood run is not unusual. But leaving behind prescription glasses raises real questions. At the same time, taking a firearm suggests intention, preparation. Was he afraid of someone? Did he have a suicidal intent? Did a kidnapper take the gun?

Taken together, the pattern does not align cleanly with any single scenario. It is not what one would expect from a routine run. It does not neatly fit a medical emergency. And it is inconsistent with most planned disappearances.

It is a behavioral contradiction—and it is at the heart of the mystery.

McCasland is not an ordinary missing person. He served as commander of the Air Force Research Laboratory, commanding a multi-billion-dollar exotic research budget, later holding senior roles in Pentagon special programs and space acquisition. Yes, he ran the research lab at Wright-Patterson AFB (where the Roswell debris was taken). These positions placed him inside the ecosystem of the U.S. government’s most sensitive technologies—advanced aerospace systems, exotic weapons research, and highly classified programs.

His name has also circulated in UFO discussions through past communications involving Tom DeLonge, who claimed McCasland recounted his work with captured UFOs and non-human remains.

What has transformed this case into a national story is not just who McCasland is, but who else has recently disappeared or died.

Across the past several years, at least eleven individuals tied to high-level scientific or defense-related work have died or gone missing under unusual circumstances. The list includes researchers, engineers, and professionals connected to institutions such as NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Los Alamos–adjacent environments, MIT, and Caltech, along with several cases centered in New Mexico.

Amy Eskridge, a propulsion researcher focused on advanced aerospace concepts, died in 2022. Her death was ruled a suicide, though her work and reported concerns about harassment have fueled ongoing speculation.

Michael David Hicks, a NASA-affiliated scientist working on asteroid-related technology, died in 2023 under circumstances that have not been fully detailed publicly.

Frank Maiwald, a longtime engineer involved in advanced Earth observation systems, died in 2024.

Monica Reza, one of the most striking cases, was a NASA and Aerojet Rocketdyne engineer specializing in advanced materials used in rocket propulsion. She helped develop high-performance alloys designed to increase thrust while reducing weight. She disappeared in 2025 while hiking. According to reports, she was within sight of a companion—just feet away—when she suddenly vanished. Her work overlapped with projects funded through the same defense research ecosystem that McCasland later oversaw.

Melissa Casias, connected to Los Alamos National Laboratory, disappeared in New Mexico in 2025 and has not been found.

Anthony Chavez and Steven Garcia, also in New Mexico, are part of a cluster of disappearances that have drawn attention due to their geographic proximity.

Jason Thomas, a pharmaceutical scientist, was later found dead after initially being reported missing.

Nuno Loureiro, a leading plasma physicist, was killed in what authorities have described as a targeted act of violence.

Carl Grillmair, a Caltech astrophysicist, was shot outside his home in 2026.

And then there is McCasland.

At first glance, the list appears alarming: aerospace engineers, propulsion experts, nuclear-adjacent personnel, and defense-connected scientists. Many had exposure to advanced or sensitive technologies. Some held security clearances. A few have been loosely linked to discussions of unidentified aerial phenomena.

This has led some analysts and officials to raise the possibility of foreign intelligence targeting, technological espionage, or suppression of sensitive knowledge.

The federal government is now taking those questions seriously. The FBI is reviewing the cases collectively, and the White House has directed agencies to identify any potential commonalities. Congress has also begun seeking answers.

But there is a competing view, one grounded in caution. Investigators note that several of the deaths have known explanations. Some incidents involve personal conflicts or isolated acts of violence. The individuals worked in different fields and institutions, and there is currently no confirmed evidence that all of the cases are connected.

Some experts argue that what appears to be a pattern may instead be coincidence amplified by attention.

Even so, McCasland’s case stands apart. Because of the tight one-hour timeline. Because of the absence of surveillance confirmation. Because of the items left behind versus those taken. And because of where it happened. He did not vanish in wilderness. He did not disappear while traveling. He vanished from his own neighborhood—with no confirmed trace.

At its core, the issue now confronting investigators is not just what happened to one man. It is whether the United States is witnessing a series of unrelated tragedies or the early signs of a deeper vulnerability. In today’s world, the most valuable assets are not always documents or systems. They are people—individuals who understand advanced propulsion, materials science, classified research programs, and emerging defense technologies.

If even a small number of those individuals were being targeted, the implications would be profound.

For now, the facts remain unchanged. A retired general with deep access to some of the nation’s most sensitive programs walked out of view and has not been seen again. At the same time, a growing list of scientists and researchers connected in varying ways to that same broad ecosystem has raised questions that no one has yet been able to definitively answer.

It may prove to be coincidence. But until that is established with evidence, the question will remain: Is this a collection of isolated events, or the outline of something far more serious?

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

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

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson | Feature article contributor

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

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

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

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

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

The UFO angle comes from two overlapping threads.

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

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

The timing has intensified the intrigue.

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

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

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

Still, the possibilities are unsettling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everything beyond that is inference.

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

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

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

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.

Unlocking the Unseen: UAP Propulsion, Hidden Fields, and the Dimensional Fabric of Reality

By Leave a Comment

By: James Thompson

For decades, trained observers—military pilots, radar operators, law enforcement, and government contractors—have reported encounters with Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) that defy our understanding of physics. These objects accelerate instantly, hover silently, vanish without sonic booms, and traverse mediums like air and water without resistance. The data, corroborated by multiple sensor systems and visual observation, is not just compelling—it is paradigm-challenging.

But what if these behaviors are not merely the result of advanced propulsion technology, but evidence of a deeper interaction with the underlying structure of reality itself? As modern science inches closer to understanding the quantum fabric of the universe, it becomes increasingly plausible that UAPs operate on principles that leverage not just energy and force, but the geometry of reality itself.

The Common Blueprint: Spinning Fields and Silent Power

A surprising number of UAP-related accounts, both from eyewitnesses and alleged insiders, describe similar technological components:

  • Counter-rotating discs, mercury, or flywheels (e.i., Udo Wartena, Die Glocke, Bob Lazar)
  • No visible exhaust or heat signature
  • Sudden, inertia-free movement
  • Energy seemingly drawn from the surrounding environment

These traits hint at a propulsion method fundamentally different from combustion or ion-based systems. Rather, they point to field-based systems capable of manipulating inertia, gravity, and possibly spacetime itself. This blueprint echoes throughout historical cases as well as contemporary U.S. Navy sightings like the Tic Tac incident observed by Cmdr. David Fravor, which described the object as moving like a bouncing “ping-pong ball in a box.”

Beyond Propulsion: Three Breakaway Theories

1. Torsion Field Physics Suggests rotating mass or electromagnetic systems can induce torsional distortions in spacetime. These hypothetical fields may permit mass decoupling from inertia, enabling high-speed movement without g-forces. Russian scientists like Anatoly Akimov and Gennady Shipov have explored this extensively in non-mainstream circles, proposing that torsion fields are a fifth fundamental force, capable of transmitting information faster than light.

2. Quantized Inertia (QI)
Proposed by Dr. Mike McCulloch, QI posits that inertia arises from interactions with the quantum vacuum. By manipulating boundary conditions (such as through high-frequency oscillations), inertia could be reduced or removed entirely. Experiments involving electromagnetic cavities have even shown unexplained thrust forces that align with QI predictions, suggesting the possibility of fuel-less propulsion.

3. Electrogravitics
Developed by Thomas T. Brown, this theory suggests high-voltage capacitors might generate lift by interacting with the gravitational field. Though often dismissed as ion wind, some believe it forms the basis for classified research. Brown’s work was of such interest during the 1950s that it was allegedly buried under military secrecy. If viable, it could point to a simple but profound manipulation of spacetime curvature via electromagnetic means.

Bob Lazar explanation of the propulsion system on the craft he purports to have seen in operation at S4

These speculative models share one critical element: they treat spacetime and vacuum energy as interactive, dynamic mediums rather than passive backdrops. These theories move us beyond Newtonian action-reaction and even Einsteinian curvature into a domain where reality is responsive to field architecture.

Electricity and the Vacuum: A Window into Deeper Fields

This leads to a deeper philosophical and physical mystery: where does energy come from when we generate electricity? Turning a copper coil through a magnetic field produces current. But why is this possible anywhere—in space, at sea, or in your living room?

Quantum field theory explains that we are not creating energy, but interacting with ever-present fields—specifically, the electromagnetic field. This field is part of the fabric of the vacuum, which itself contains what we call zero-point energy: fluctuating energy present even at absolute zero.

The implications of this are staggering. Our daily experience of electricity—as simple as turning on a flashlight—may be a low-level interaction with the same foundational field that allows UAPs to operate. Electricity might be just one visible thread in a vast, unseen tapestry of dimensional energies.

Dimensional Coupling: A Hypothesis

What if electrons—and the energy they carry—are not strictly confined to our three spatial dimensions plus time? What if their motion, especially under electromagnetic influence, phases in and out of a higher-dimensional layer?

In this view, generating electricity is not just converting mechanical work into electron flow—it is opening a portal into a deeper energy field. Energy isn’t created or extracted; it is evoked, channeled, induced from a dimensionally embedded field structure.

This hypothesis could also explain the consistent success of electromagnetic systems in UAP encounters. From Lazar’s description of Element 115-powered field reactors to historical flywheel-based engines like Udo Wartena described, these technologies may not be generating energy per se, but unlocking access to it by shifting the conditions of local spacetime.

UAPs as Dimensional Interfaces

If a technology could control this kind of phasing at will—accessing zero-point fields, torsion geometries, and vacuum fluctuations—it might produce the very behaviors we associate with UAPs:

  • Near-instantaneous acceleration
  • No reaction mass or visible fuel
  • Apparent teleportation or “blinking”
  • Resistance-free transitions across media

UAPs may not be flying in the way we think. They may be slipping, briefly disentangled from spacetime, or surfing geometric gradients across dimensional boundaries. Some researchers believe these craft create localized warps or “bubbles” in spacetime, isolating them from conventional physical laws. Inside the bubble, inertia and mass behave differently—a concept closely mirrored in the Alcubierre warp drive metric.

Toward a New Paradigm

The recurring presence of rotating field systems, vacuum energy interaction, and inertia-defying behavior suggests that UAPs may operate by manipulating the relationship between matter, energy, and spacetime at a fundamental level. Their propulsion may not be propulsion as we know it—but a revelation of physics we have yet to properly understand.

Electricity, gravity, inertia, and perhaps even consciousness may be facets of a multidimensional framework we are only beginning to touch. If this is true, then the implications extend beyond aerospace—they ripple into energy systems, medicine, and our understanding of existence itself.

And if so, UAPs are not just visitors. They are demonstrations of what awaits us when we learn to speak the true language of the universe.

James Thompson is an author, UAP analyst, and ghostwriter, and a political analyst. His latest book on the subject of UAPs is Worlds Without Number. available>

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

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson

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

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

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

A Mandate, Not a Choice

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

President Joe Biden received one of many COVID-19 vaccinations

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

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

Media Complicity and the Censorship Machine

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

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

The Human Cost

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

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

A Lesson for the Future

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

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

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

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

Elon Musk: A Modern Renaissance Genius Under Siege by the Small-Minded Left

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson

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

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

The Visionary Who Dares to Cut Fat

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

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

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

The response from the political left? Fury. Violence.

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

The Left’s Hypocrisy Laid Bare

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

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

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

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

The Galileo of Our Time

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

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

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

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

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

Trump and Musk: Enemies of the Establishment

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

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

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

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

The Backwardness of the Musk Detractors

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

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

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

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

A Future Worth Fighting For

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

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

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

Stand With the Visionaries

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

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

History is watching.

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

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

‘Buy Low, Sell High’: Market Volatility Creates a Golden Opportunity for Long-Term Investors

By Leave a Comment

By James Thompson, Financial Correspondent
April 4, 2025

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

A Predictable Reaction to a Bold Policy Shift

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

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

A Time-Tested Strategy

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

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

Historical Precedent: Recovery Is the Rule, Not the Exception

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

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

A Balanced Approach

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

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

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.

Stunning Revelation in Durham Hearing should Chill Us to the Core

By Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hear hear.

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

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

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

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

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

Newt Gingrich: This is the Biggest Scandal in American History

By Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fauci knew all this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economy

Elections

Foreign

Crime

Science Tech

Reader Responses