Take, for instance, a recent story that made the rounds on social media. According to these reports, Oxfam — the British NGO — found that a huge chunk of the World Bank’s spending on climate change-related issues was “missing.”
Thank heaven for REAL fact-checkers like the Australian Associated Press — a Poynter Institute-accredited fact-checker from down under — which set us all straight: “An Oxfam report did not find that $US41 billion has gone ‘missing’ from the World Bank’s climate change fund, contrary to claims online.”
What a relief. Instead, the AAP noted, the Oxfam report found that the World Bank just doesn’t really know where the money went.
See? Totally different!
The controversy centers around an Oct. 2024 report titled “Climate Finance Unchecked: How much does the World Bank know about the climate actions it claims?” Answer: not as much as it probably should.
The findings are front-loaded in a TL;DR on page two of the 33-page report, in case you’re not interested in reading the whole thing through: “Oxfam finds that for World Bank projects, many things can change during implementation. On average, actual expenditures on the Bank’s projects differ from budgeted amounts by 26–43% above or below the claimed climate finance. Across the entire climate finance portfolio, between 2017 and 2023, this difference amounts to US$24.28–US$41.32 billion,” the report states.
“No information is available about what new climate actions were supported and which planned actions were cut. Now that the Bank has touted its focus on understanding and reporting on the impacts of its climate finance, it is critical to stress that without a full understanding of how much of what the Bank claims as climate finance at the project approval stage becomes actual expenditure, it is impossible to track and measure the impacts of the Bank’s climate co-benefits in practice.”
The Oxfam report stated “generous accounting practices by different countries and providers, combined with the lack of transparency and consistency in how climate finance is defined, calculated, and reported, is at the root of the crisis of trust in climate finance.”
As the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists pointed out in a November summation of Oxfam’s findings, this is sort of a big deal when you consider how the World Bank is in the process, more or less, of turning itself into the Global Climate Change Savings & Loan.
“In recent years, the World Bank has touted its spending on climate finance and its plans to dramatically expand it,” the ICIJ noted.
“World Bank President Ajay Banga said in December that the bank had met its goal to devote 35% of its financing to climate three years ahead of schedule and set a new target of 45% by 2025. That goal is well within reach; the bank announced in September that its climate finance investments reached 44% of total financing, or $42.6 billion, over the past fiscal year. ‘We’re putting our ambition in overdrive,’ Banga said.”
The report underscored that there’s a huge difference between the World Bank’s ambition and the world bank’s accounting processes, however, and one that needs to be addressed. But both Oxfam and the AAP fact-checking team wanted to you to be sure that the NGO “was not alleging any mismanagement of funds due to corruption or waste; it was concerned about the World Bank’s reporting process for deviations in planned and actual climate finance.”
“This distinction is significant,” a spokesperson for Oxfam said.
“Oxfam’s report doesn’t suggest funds are missing but points to a transparency issue that makes it difficult to know precisely what the Bank is delivering in terms of climate finance: where it’s going and what it’s supporting.”
Yes, well, excuse us for sounding like negative Nancys, but this sounds a bit like one of those cheerful bosses who describes a major organizational setback as an “opportunity for breakthrough improvement.” Indeed it might be, on some level, but a Panglossian refusal to acknowledge the bedrock realities of the situation that accompanies it becomes downright hilarious — unless you’re on the hook for it, of course.
And if you’re an American, you are! According to a Congressional Research Service report, the U.S. contributes over 16 percent of the World Bank’s total capital through its financial commitments, and has significant voting power on all of the World Bank organizations that provide climate change funding.
Yes, this may be a drop in the bucket in terms of your tax dollars, and yes, there are bigger climate hustle bureaucrats that have spent your cash on (hey, whatever happened to that promising green energy start-up Solyndra?), but the difference between “a transparency issue that makes it difficult to know precisely what the Bank is delivering in terms of climate finance” and “missing” sounds an awful lot like the difference between “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” and “Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate and in fact, wrong.”
Of course, when it comes to virtually any other institutional spending issue, using the word “missing” to refer to something being lost or something being unaccounted for would be a distinction without a difference. Here, it’s unspoken why it’s problematic and why fact-checkers are taking issue with it: When it comes to spending on issues related to climate change and green energy, there are Good Guys and there are Bad Guys.
The Good Guys say this is merely an accounting quibble while the Bad Guys say that this means at least $24 billion and up to $41 billion of World Bank funds are somewhere in the ether of global finance networks thanks to variances in accounting practices that charitably can be described as ‘curious’.
Thus, it’s not, “contrary to claims online,” missing. It’s just not accounted for! At this point, I’m not sure which is the bigger racket: dubious national or supranational funding of projects that fall loosely under the aegis of purported climate change mitigation, or fact-checking. At least this can be said about fact-checking: It costs a hell of a lot less.
Over the last four years, a quiet revolution has swept through corporate America, dismantling the meritocratic ideals that once ensured the nation’s best and brightest could rise to the top. With diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) mandates dictating hiring practices, the numbers tell a stunning tale: 94% of new hires at leading public companies were so-called “people of color,” with Black women taking the lion’s share of these roles. This figure, derived from corporate diversity reports, reflects an overwhelming prioritization of identity in hiring practices. Given that Black women constitute only a small fraction of the population and that just 38% hold college degrees, this disproportionate focus raises questions about the impact on fairness and the sidelining of more qualified candidates. The implications are stark: many highly skilled individuals have been systematically overlooked in favor of fulfilling demographic quotas, challenging the meritocratic foundations of corporate success. Yet this demographic represents only 2.28% of the U.S. population—a statistical manipulation that sacrifices fairness and merit. The real victims of this social engineering are white men, systematically excluded from opportunities they would have earned on their qualifications, and the companies themselves, which have sidelined talent and innovation in favor of identity politics. The consequences are already manifesting in plummeting stock returns and organizational inefficiencies, a harbinger of long-term damage to American competitiveness.
Imagine, for a moment, the absurdity of a policy that freezes out 60% of Americans based solely on their skin color or gender. This is no dystopian fantasy—it is the new corporate normal. As James Fishback, founder of the investment firm Azoria, notes, “Exceptional companies are run by exceptional people.” Yet, under the tyranny of DEI hiring quotas, talent and merit have become secondary considerations. Firms like Best Buy have gone so far as to codify these practices, committing to filling “one in three corporate salaried positions” with BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) candidates. Similarly, Wells Fargo recently faced scrutiny for limiting interviews for jobs paying over $100,000, where white men could represent only 25% of those interviewed. Although this practice was revised after public backlash, it exemplifies the widespread adoption of such policies among America’s biggest companies. These initiatives not only perpetuate divisive assumptions about minority capabilities but also systematically exclude highly qualified candidates, eroding the principles of meritocracy and innovation.
The numbers bear this out. Of the new hires filling these identity-based quotas, only 38% of Black women—the demographic disproportionately targeted by these policies—hold college degrees. By contrast, highly qualified candidates from other racial groups, particularly white men, are systematically excluded. When 94% of jobs are allocated to 2.28% of the population, it becomes mathematically impossible for these positions to consistently go to the most qualified individuals.
The fallout from these practices is hitting where it hurts most: the bottom line. Fishback’s Azoria has launched a Meritocracy ETF, boldly excluding companies like Best Buy, which prioritize identity politics over ability. As Fishback puts it, “Companies that hire on skill and ability will outperform those that hire on race and gender.” And the early results are staggering. Over the past year, a portfolio of S&P 500 companies employing racial and gender hiring targets has returned just 12%, compared to the broader index’s 30% gain. Over two years, the gap widens to a dismal 17% versus 60%.
These results are not anomalies. Firms that abandon meritocracy in favor of identity quotas are less innovative, less productive and ultimately less profitable. Exceptional employees—regardless of race or gender—build exceptional companies. But the ripple effects of these practices are just beginning. Over the next decade, the pressure to promote individuals hired under identity-based quotas will mount, regardless of their qualifications or performance. Companies, bowing to the same DEI mandates that drove these hiring decisions, will promote these individuals, further compounding the inefficiencies. The pain will inevitably be felt in declining profits, slower growth and diminished stock prices. The free market is already taking notice, with investors abandoning underperforming firms in favor of businesses that prioritize skill and merit over identity.
History offers no shortage of warnings against abandoning meritocratic principles. Cicero’s admonition that “salvation is found in the counsel of the capable” resonates here. America’s meteoric rise—its innovation, wealth, and power—is the direct result of fostering the talents of its most capable individuals. From Carnegie’s steel mills to Ford’s assembly lines, the country’s great leaps forward were driven not by identity but by ingenuity, grit, and hard work. These industries prioritized the brightest minds and the most skilled hands, irrespective of race or background. By focusing on competence and excellence, America outpaced its global competitors in nearly every domain, from manufacturing to technology.
Contrast this with societies that have rejected meritocracy. The decline of Rome, plagued by nepotism and identity-driven appointments, serves as a cautionary tale. As Rome shifted its priorities from competence to loyalty, its military leadership was increasingly filled with unqualified individuals chosen for their connections rather than their strategic acumen. Civil administrators, likewise, were selected based on familial ties or political favoritism, leading to widespread corruption and inefficiency. Over time, these practices eroded trust in institutions, weakened Rome’s ability to respond to external threats and drained its economic vitality. The empire’s inability to innovate or adapt stemmed directly from this abandonment of merit, leaving it vulnerable to collapse under the weight of its own dysfunction. Today’s corporate leaders should heed this lesson: hiring based on identity quotas weakens the very foundations upon which success and resilience are built.
Beyond financial ramifications, these policies tread on perilous legal ground. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) mandates that hiring decisions cannot discriminate based on race, gender, or ethnicity. By openly advertising racial and gender quotas, companies are inviting lawsuits and undermining public trust. This issue was brought into sharp focus by the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In a 9-8 ruling on December 11, 2024, the court invalidated Nasdaq’s board diversity rules, which had mandated that listed companies either appoint directors from specified demographic groups—namely women, underrepresented minorities, or LGBTQ+ individuals—or provide an explanation for non-compliance. The court determined that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) exceeded its statutory authority under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by approving these rules. The majority opinion emphasized that the SEC’s endorsement of Nasdaq’s requirements did not align with the Act’s primary objectives, which focus on preventing fraud, manipulation, and promoting fair competition in securities markets. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s stance on the limitations of regulatory bodies in enforcing corporate diversity mandates, highlighting the ongoing debate over the extent to which such initiatives should influence corporate governance. These practices perpetuate the divisive narrative that success is unattainable for minorities without intervention, diminishing individual dignity and fostering resentment among employees.
The cultural costs are equally dire. Identity-based hiring fosters workplace conflict, reduces morale and stifles innovation. Employees, aware of these quotas, question whether their colleagues were hired for their talents or their identity. This breeds division, diminishes teamwork and ultimately hurts organizational performance. Moreover, the fear of appearing “insensitive” silences dissent, stifling the creative friction that drives innovation.
The path to restoring meritocracy is clear. Companies must prioritize skills-based hiring, blind applications, and diversity sourcing that expands talent pipelines without sacrificing standards. These methods promote inclusivity while ensuring that the most capable individuals—regardless of identity—rise to the top.
Azoria’s strategy underscores this principle. By excluding underperforming DEI-driven firms from its portfolio, the Meritocracy ETF sends a powerful message: excellence, not identity, drives success. And the invitation remains open. Companies willing to abandon identity quotas and recommit to merit will be welcomed back, ensuring their investors and employees reap the rewards of competence and innovation.
Corporate America stands at a crossroads. It can continue down the path of identity-based hiring, sacrificing innovation, productivity and shareholder value, or it can reclaim the principles that made it great. The choice is clear. By embracing meritocracy, America’s companies can rebuild their reputations, deliver superior returns, and restore the dignity of every employee. As Azoria’s Fishback aptly observes, “We’re betting on merit.” It’s time for the rest of corporate America to do the same.
From promoting the lie about Brian Sicknick’s death to swooning over the J6 Select Committee while ignoring new findings about the events of Jan 6, the WSJ is soiling its once-solid reputation.
The January 6 narrative continues to crumble amid near-daily revelations related to, among other things, the shady circumstances surrounding the Jan 6 “pipe bomber,” the corruption of the January 6 Select Committee, and evidence directly contradicting the carefully fabricated storyline including who was responsible for delaying the deployment of National Guardsmen that afternoon. (Hint: Not Donald Trump.)
A few news and opinion outlets, however, remain stubbornly loyal to the regime-established Jan 6 propaganda mill. After years of investing ink and clicks to promote the most outlandish and in some instances debunked angles of the so-called “insurrection,” these outlets refuse to entertain the idea, now being considered by millions of Americans, that maybe they were snookered into believing one of the most destructive political hoaxes in U.S. history.
The Wall Street Journal is chief among them.
Once regarded a “conservative” paper with a news section largely devoted to the business sector and an editorial page section largely devoted to supporting conservative political causes, the WSJ currently rivals MSNBC and the Washington Post as the most hysterical J6 propagandists on record.
On Christmas Eve, the paper published a report authored by four WSJ reporters that named several companies who had pledged to withhold financial support for Trump and Republican lawmakers after the Capitol protest that now are donating to the president’s inaugural committee. Describing the events of January 6 as an “invasion” of the Capitol, the reporters lamented how “many of those pledges are a thing of the past.”
After Trump supporters invaded the Capitol in 2021 to protest the results of the presidential election, dozens of companies vowed to rethink their political contributions going forward. Some paused all donations. Others suspended donations to any lawmaker who voted against certifying the 2020 electoral college results. Some simply promised to factor integrity into their donation decisions going forward.
Now, as corporate executives hurry to make inroads with an incoming president whose agenda will have sweeping ramifications for the business world, many of those pledges are a thing of the past.
This latest installation of the WSJ’s “insurrection” chronicles follows a long arc of reporting and pontificating that began the day after the Capitol protest.
Lies About Cops and Lying Cops
On January 7, 2021, as the country knew few details about what actually happened, the WSJ’s editorial board called for President Trump to resign or face impeachment. “This was an assault on the constitutional process of transferring power after an election. It was also an assault on the legislature from an executive sworn to uphold the laws of the United States. This goes beyond merely refusing to concede defeat. In our view it crosses a constitutional line that Mr. Trump hasn’t previously crossed. It is impeachable,” the board, led by longtime “conservative” commentator Paul Gigot, wrote.
The next day, the paper helped fuel the lie that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was murdered by Trump supporters with a fire extinguisher, a falsehood first reported by the New York Times. The original WSJ article remains intact with a one-sentence correction from April 2021 admitting the D.C. coroner had concluded Sicknick died of natural causes. Nonetheless, the paper continued to describe Sicknick as a “slain” police officer.
A few months later, WSJ contributor Karl Rove—need I say more?—called the testimony of four police officers featured during the first televised hearing of the January 6 Select Committee “riveting” and how they “demolished claims by some Republicans that the assault on Congress wasn’t very different from a ‘normal tourist visit’ or a peaceful protest.”
But video evidence unearthed since that July 2021 hearing contradicts the accounts offered by all four officers under oath; some testimony could result in perjury charges. This appears to be of no interest to Rove or the WSJ in general.
Pelosi/Cheney Partner in Crime
To be fair, the WSJ criticized former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s heavy-handedness in creating the January 6 Select Committee, a body the WSJ supported in order to “get to the bottom of it all.” However, editors and columnists proceeded to fully participate in the committee’s media echo chamber. The evidence presented during the committee’s professionally scripted televised performances, the WSJ editorial board agreed in June 2022, represented “a reminder of the violence and how Trump betrayed his supporters.”
The following month, the paper’s editorial board regurgitated now-debunked accusations that Trump “stood still” and did nothing to prevent or halt the chaos on January 6. “No matter your views of the Jan. 6 special committee, the facts it is laying out in hearings are sobering. The most horrifying to date came Thursday in a hearing on President Trump’s conduct as the riot raged and he sat watching TV, posting inflammatory tweets and refusing to send help,” WSJ editors wrote in July 2022. Never mind the fact the president had urged the deployment of National Guardsmen days before the certification vote then posted tweets and a personal video asking for calm within the scope of a few hours that day.
WSJ Hearts Cassidy
But perhaps nothing can top the WSJ’s swooning over Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide considered the committee’s star witness. Her June 2022 testimony, the editorial board insisted in a cringe-worthy rant, represented the committee’s “accumulating evidence of [Trump’s] conduct” on January 6. “Republicans should [not[ look away from the considerable evidence it is producing about Mr. Trump’s behavior that would surely be relevant to voters if he runs in 2024.”
Former Reagan speechwriter and Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferer Peggy Noonan completely humiliated herself with a lengthy ode to Hutchinson, whom Noonan claimed was the sort of courageous gal that “can upend empires.” The young aide, Noonan continued, “showed more guts than any of Trump’s men. Her testimony strengthens the case for prosecution.”
Doubts over her testimony should be challenged, Noonan argued. “If she lied I see no motive. Any who know otherwise, who can rebut what she said, should come forward and, like her, testify under oath.”
Which is precisely what happened. In the months following Hutchinson’s testimony, several individuals directly refuted under oath her accounts of Trump’s behavior. Transcripts recently obtained by Representative Barry Loudermilk, chairman of a House subcommittee investigating the J6 committee and events of January 6, show that several witnesses including the driver of the presidential limousine told committee investigators and former Rep. Liz Cheney, Hutchinson’s hand holder, that Hutchinson’s allegations were untrue particularly related to an alleged physical confrontation inside the vehicle.
No Interest in Covering the Unraveling J6 Narrative
But unfortunately, the WSJ does not share the same interest in Loudermilk’s committee as it did in the Jan 6 select committee. Despite uncovering shocking proof of malfeasance and potential crimes committed by members of the Jan 6 select committee, including Cheney, Loudermilk hasn’t received any coverage in the WSJ.
The paper appears to have ignored a separate report issued earlier this month by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirming the presence of at least 26 FBI informants in Washington on January 6. Nor is the paper interested in the ever-changing story about the “pipe bombs” allegedly planted near the headquarters of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee on January 5, 2021; the last time the WSJ published anything about the explosives was more than 2 ½ years ago.
Even more inexcusable is the paper’s selective ignorance on the abusive treatment of January 6 protesters. One would be hard pressed to find any mention of how the Biden DOJ weaponized federal law to criminalize political protest or how the FBI has conducted hundreds of predawn armed raids for even nonviolent offenders or how federal prosecutors seek excessive prison time including “terror enhancements” for J6ers.
Instead, some WSJ writers now oppose Trump’s plans to pardon the wrongly accused and victims of a double standard of justice. Issuing pardons of J6ers, political columnist William Galston recently opined, would represent a “misread[ing]” of Trump’s decisive victory. “Two-thirds of Americans polled by the Washington Post would oppose issuing pardons for people convicted of crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol,” Galston wrote, as if public opinion should dictate how the inarguable abuse of the legal and judicial system must be resolved.
Another shameful example of the WSJ excusing away the government’s political persecution of Trump supporters while continuing to promote nonsensical aspects of January 6. What a fall from grace.
In a quiet classroom at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin, the unspeakable happened once again: two dead, six wounded and an entire community shattered. The shooter, a 15-year-old, turned a study hall into a scene of terror before taking her own life. Predictably, political rhetoric came swiftly, as did the tired solutions that follow every school shooting.
President Biden spoke of “prayers” and “unacceptable” violence, sentiments as sterile as they are predictable. Vice President Harris decried the “senseless gun violence” while the drive-by media spun inflated statistics—650 mass shootings a year, they claim, as if this carnage occurs on every street corner. It doesn’t. But that’s the problem. Public massacres, like the one in Madison, occur in places that we’ve willfully left defenseless.
The very words drip with irony. There is nothing safe about disarming the law-abiding while leaving criminals emboldened. A gun-free zone is a target—an irresistible siren call to those who want to kill as many as possible, as quickly as possible. Nearly 94% of mass public shootings since 1950 have occurred in gun-free zones, according to research from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which analyzed data on mass shootings in the U.S. over the last several decades. Why? Because murderers are cowards, not crusaders. They seek defenseless victims, not resistance.
The Failed Logic of Gun-Free Zones
The Madison shooter chose her venue deliberately, just as the Covenant School shooter did last year in Tennessee. The Covenant shooter explicitly avoided a secondary location because of “too much security,” according to police reports. This cowardice is consistent: the Buffalo supermarket shooter in 2022 admitted in his manifesto that he targeted an area where concealed carry permits were outlawed.
Yet the politicians and pundits pretend ignorance. Instead of addressing the root of the problem—defenseless soft targets—they tout gun-free zones as virtuous policies. It’s worth asking President Biden why he feels safe behind armed guards and fences at the White House but thinks schoolchildren can be protected by nothing more than a “No Guns Allowed” sign.
If “Gun-Free Zone” signs worked, the U.S. Capitol wouldn’t need security. Yet politicians rely on armed protection for themselves because they know such measures are essential. Their refusal to apply the same logic to schools speaks to a deeper hypocrisy: they prioritize their own safety while ignoring the vulnerability of America’s children. It’s not ignorance; it’s political convenience. Replace those guards with placards declaring the building weaponless and watch how quickly Congress demands action. Of course, they know better. They protect themselves, but leave our children vulnerable.
The Data We Ignore
Since 1998, 82% of mass shootings occurred in places where firearms were banned.
Schools that permit concealed carry for staff have seen zero mass shootings during school hours. Zero.
States like Utah and New Hampshire allow any teacher with a concealed carry permit to carry a firearm on campus. In 19 other states, local districts make that call. Yet where such policies exist, the grim scenes we saw in Madison simply do not happen.
To this day, critics raise alarmist fears about “armed teachers snapping” or students grabbing weapons, but these scenarios have never materialized. Not once. Instead, the data reveal an uncomfortable truth: gun-free zones work only for killers. The law-abiding comply, the criminals rejoice.
A Return to Common Sense
The solution to Madison’s tragedy—and others like it—is not complicated. First, abolish gun-free zones in schools. Replace them with policies that deter attackers and protect students. Allow teachers and staff—volunteers who are trained and licensed—to carry concealed weapons. This doesn’t mean turning schools into fortresses but turning classrooms into deterrents.
Sheriff Kurt Hoffman of Sarasota County, Florida, put it plainly:
“A deputy in uniform… may as well be holding up a neon sign saying, ‘Shoot me first.’”
Hoffman’s point underscores the need for tactical discretion. Uniformed guards, while a visible deterrent, can inadvertently become the first targets. Schools should adopt the strategies used in aviation security, where plainclothes air marshals blend in seamlessly. Similarly, plainclothes or covertly armed staff can provide critical protection without drawing attention to themselves. This element of unpredictability forces attackers to reconsider their plans, knowing that resistance could come from anywhere.
He’s right. Security must be strategic, not theatrical. This is why air marshals on planes don’t wear uniforms. Schools could adopt similar measures: armed staff members concealed among their colleagues, indistinguishable from any other teacher. Let potential attackers wonder who might shoot back.
Dispelling the Misleading Narrative
Much of this debate has been hijacked by misleading claims. President Biden’s “650 mass shootings” figure comes from the Gun Violence Archive (GVA), a gun control advocacy group that classifies even nonfatal injuries in domestic disputes as “mass shootings.” Yet there is a reason Uvalde and Madison dominate the headlines: the horror of indiscriminate public slaughter is unique, and rare. Inflating the numbers undermines genuine solutions.
The FBI focuses on public shootings—those where attackers seek out undefended targets. Under that definition, mass public shootings are increasing, but still average only 3.9 attacks per year since 1998. This isn’t about “daily gun violence”; it’s about ensuring that when evil strikes, it meets resistance.
The Costs of Willful Naïveté
Gun-free zones persist because they are politically convenient. They offer the illusion of safety, not the reality. They allow politicians to feel like they’ve acted, even as they make the next Madison inevitable. If you doubt this, consider California: the state with the strictest gun laws also has the highest per capita rate of mass public shootings since 2000—far above the national average. Why? Because laws disarm the innocent and embolden the guilty.
The Moral Responsibility to Act
Parents send their children to school believing it is a place of learning and growth. They should not have to wonder if it will be their child’s last day. Abundant Life Christian School, like too many before it, learned this lesson at a terrible cost.
But Madison does not have to become just another tragic name. It should be a call to action. We must abolish gun-free zones and replace hollow virtue-signaling with policies that work: trained, armed and concealed staff. We must admit what the attackers already know—soft targets invite slaughter.
It is time to defend our schools the way we defend our ‘leaders’. (‘leaders’: God, I absolutely abhor that term) Anything less is a failure of moral responsibility.
“If you want peace, prepare for war,” the Roman author Vegetius wrote.
Schools do not need to become battlegrounds, but they do need to be fortified. Because when the next coward comes seeking defenseless victims, let him find resistance instead.
There is a cruel irony in how a statute born to counteract Nazi propaganda in the late 1930s has been exhumed from its bureaucratic tomb to serve as a weapon of political warfare nearly a century later. The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), originally a dusty relic collecting mothballs in the annals of American law, was suddenly thrust into the limelight at the dawn of Donald Trump‘s presidency—not as an impartial instrument of justice but as a cudgel against his allies. Before Trump’s rise, FARA enforcement was so rare it could be likened to a curiosity better suited to a museum than a courtroom. Between 1966 and 2016, the Justice Department invoked FARA a mere seven times, yielding just three prison sentences. Then Trump happened, and with him came a political reckoning, as the DOJ turned a disused statute into a partisan sword.
FARA: A Law Designed for Sunlight, Not Punishment
To understand this cynical reanimation, one must return to the law’s origins. Passed in 1938, FARA (22 U.S.C. §§611-621) was intended to expose Nazi propaganda efforts by requiring agents of foreign interests to disclose their activities. It was never about outlawing foreign influence outright—transparency, not criminalization, was the aim. Like the sunlight exposing the grime in a neglected house, FARA presumed that openness alone would disinfect.
For decades, the law remained more of a warning sign than a hammer. Its definitions were notoriously ambiguous, its enforcement selective to the point of obsolescence. As long as lobbyists checked the right bureaucratic boxes—retroactively, if necessary—FARA became an administrative afterthought.
But when Trump stormed into Washington with his promise to drain the swamp, the Department of Justice suddenly rediscovered its appetite for enforcement—albeit with a particular taste for Republicans. Between 2017 and 2021, FARA prosecutions surged to over 20 cases, a sharp contrast to the mere seven between 1966 and 2016. Notable names included Paul Manafort (Republican), who received 7.5 years in prison for unregistered Ukrainian lobbying and Samuel Patten (Republican), who pleaded guilty for failing to disclose his work with a Ukrainian political party. Bijan Rafiekian (Republican), Michael Flynn’s associate, was convicted for lobbying on behalf of Turkey, though his conviction was later vacated on appeal. In contrast, prominent Democratic figures like Gregory Craig escaped prosecution when an all-Democrat jury swiftly acquitted him.
These cases illustrate the selective application of FARA—a law ignored for decades until it became politically expedient to wield it against Trump’s allies.
Manafort: The Poster Child of Political Selectivity
The case of Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, is the most glaring indictment of this selective weaponization. In 2018, Manafort was prosecuted for failing to register under FARA for his lobbying work on behalf of Ukrainian interests—a charge born from Robert Mueller‘s sprawling investigation into alleged Russian collusion. That the Mueller probe ultimately yielded no evidence of collusion was irrelevant; the damage was already done. Manafort became the sacrificial offering for a narrative that demanded blood.
Here lies the outrage: prior to Trump, FARA violations were routinely resolved administratively. Retroactive filings were the norm, not handcuffs and prison cells. Indeed, Manafort’s lawyers were actively working with the DOJ to resolve any filing discrepancies—until Mueller’s team appeared. Suddenly, the same grace afforded to countless others evaporated, replaced with the cold steel of aggressive prosecution. Manafort was sentenced to 7.5 years in prison, his life shattered as collateral damage in the left’s desperate fishing expedition.
This selective enforcement becomes even more glaring when viewed in contrast to figures like Tony Podesta—whose Ukrainian lobbying work closely mirrored Manafort’s. While Manafort faced prosecution and prison, Podesta simply retroactively filed, as was customary, and the DOJ shrugged. Manafort was imprisoned; Podesta merely updated paperwork. The contrast is not merely striking but damning.
Justice or Theater?
Manafort’s ordeal reveals FARA’s true utility in the age of Trump: not as a safeguard of transparency but as leverage. Prosecutors wielded it like a rack, hoping to squeeze incriminating evidence from Manafort that might ensnare Trump himself. But despite the pressure, despite the draconian sentence, no such evidence materialized. Manafort’s prosecution became a grotesque spectacle—a reminder that when justice becomes political, fairness is the first casualty.
And what of the Democrats? Consider Gregory Craig, a former White House counsel under Barack Obama, who faced similar FARA-related charges. Unlike Manafort, Craig enjoyed the privilege of an all-Democrat jury and walked free after a swift acquittal. Samuel Patten, Elliott Broidy and others within Trump’s orbit were not so lucky, their livelihoods sacrificed to the gods of political vengeance.
The Hypocrisy of Ignoring the Bidens
While Manafort languished, Hunter and James Biden operated with impunity. As former DOJ prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has observed, the selective enforcement of FARA undermines its stated purpose: “The law is meant to ensure transparency, not to serve as a bludgeon against political opponents.” Hunter Biden‘s dealings with Burisma and Chinese firms met the same legal criteria as Manafort’s work, yet the DOJ chose to look the other way, exposing a glaring double standard in its application. Hunter’s dealings with Burisma, a Ukrainian energy firm, and BHR Partners, a Chinese-backed investment fund, practically screamed for FARA scrutiny. By any reasonable standard, these activities should have triggered registration requirements. Yet the DOJ remained conspicuously silent, shielding the Bidens from the legal entanglements so eagerly imposed on Trump’s allies.
Legal experts have pointed out the hypocrisy: if Paul Manafort’s Ukrainian ties constituted a crime, Hunter Biden’s ventures were open-and-shut FARA violations. The difference, of course, is not legal but political. Some surnames, it seems, are more equal than others.
A Pandora’s Box
The DOJ’s politicized enforcement of FARA has had unintended consequences. Republicans, long skeptical of the law’s ambiguity, now see it as an opportunity to turn the tables. Cases like Senator Robert Menendez’s 2024 conviction for acting as an unregistered agent of Egypt, or Linda Sun’s conviction for representing Chinese Communist Party interests, suggest the pendulum is swinging—but at what cost? FARA’s resurrection, once intended as a partisan tool, has begun to ensnare dissenting Democrats as well.
Even so, glaring omissions remain. Hunter Biden’s immunity from scrutiny remains the starkest example of DOJ inconsistency. The agency’s newfound enthusiasm for enforcement appears curiously targeted, like a spotlight that illuminates selectively while leaving politically favored actors in the shadows. This is not justice; it is theater.
The saga of FARA enforcement is a cautionary tale for any nation claiming to uphold equal justice under the law. It exposes how a law, when selectively applied, can morph into a tool of political vengeance—undermining public trust in institutions and corroding the very foundation of the republic. Justice weaponized is justice denied. Once a dormant statute born to combat Nazi influence, FARA has become a political cudgel in the hands of a system that is anything but blind. The persecution of Paul Manafort and the exoneration of figures like Tony Podesta and Hunter Biden reveal a chilling truth: the machinery of justice, when wielded selectively, ceases to be justice at all.
The harm done here is not merely to individuals like Manafort but to the very concept of justice itself. A republic cannot endure when the law becomes a weapon of partisan vengeance. If FARA remains a tool for political warfare rather than transparency, then we have not upheld the integrity of the republic—we have betrayed it.
With Donald Trump’s nomination of Kash Patel, the FBI appears to be in panic mode. Chris Wray is the first to fall but not before giving a fantastical account of his seven-year stint as FBI director.
Confirming reports he planned to step down before Donald Trump’s inauguration next month, FBI Director Christopher Wray today announced he will retire at the official end of the Biden administration. Wray, appointed by then-President Trump in 2017, delivered the news during an all-hands-on-deck virtual meeting of more than 38,000 FBI employees.
In typical oleaginous fashion, Wray touted the bureau’s alleged achievements under his leadership—fighting the trafficking of illegal drugs, protecting children from predators, thwarting cybercrime, blah blah—by “abiding by the rule of law and adhering to our core values.” Whatever that means.
The FBI, Wray claimed, is immune to the whimsy of American politics: “Unfortunately, all too often in today’s world, people’s standard for whether something was fair or objective—a Supreme Court decision, a verdict in a high-profile case, the investigation we brought, or the one we didn’t bring—is whether they liked the result, whether their side won or lost. But that’s not how independence and objectivity work. We’re not on any one side. We’re on the American people’s side, the Constitution’s side.”
That, of course, is not true; in fact, it is demonstrably false. While former FBI Director James Comey initiated the partisan weaponization of the FBI against Trump in 2016 with the opening of “Crossfire Hurricane,” Wray accelerated the effort while expanding the FBI’s political hit list. The “side” Wray chose time and again was the side of the Democratic Party—the Bidens in particular—while subjecting Trump supporters and other conservatives to the crushing boot of the most powerful law enforcement agency in the world.
What, No Bragging About Jan 6 and Whitmer Kidnapping Plot?
For example, one day before Wray’s “we don’t take no sides” speech, agents with the FBI Counterterrorism Task Force arrested a man from Florida for his participation in the events of January 6 as the caseload for the FBI’s biggest criminal investigation in history reaches 1,600 total defendants. Wray’s FBI continues to execute military-style SWAT raids of J6 protesters; the FBI just issued a “Most Wanted” poster for a 60-ish man from California who fled his home right before a pre-dawn armed raid on October 17.
Oddly, however, Wray did not brag about the J6 investigation during his scripted remarks today. He did not boast about how the FBI saved America from the threat of Indiana meemaws or decorated veterans pissed off about a rigged presidential election. Wray omitted mentioning the FBI’s extensive use of geofence warrants for cell data and subpoenas for banking records and Amazon purchases and the interrogation of family members and co-workers to hunt down J6 trespassers.
Why so humble all of a sudden, Mr. Wray?
He also failed to mention the greatest unsolved crime related to a day Wray himself designated an act of domestic terror: the identity of the J6 pipe bomber. Wray’s FBI still offers a $500,000 reward for anyone who helps nab the individual who allegedly planted explosives—devices Wray’s FBI insist were “viable” and “lethal”—outside the headquarters of the RNC and DNC the night of January 5. Surely the fact the MAGA bomber, who almost assassinated Kamala Harris that day, is still on the loose must keep Wray up at night. Isn’t that open case something Wray would want to encourage his presumed successor, Kash Patel, to pursue?
Wray also overlooked the FBI’s “success” in foiling the plot to kidnap and kill Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in 2020, which was considered the FBI’s biggest domestic terror investigation prior to January 6. Why didn’t Wray take credit for saving Whitmer from the guy living in the basement of a vacuum repair shop in a Grand Rapids strip mall?
Which leads to one reason why Wray may have abruptly announced his resignation today: the long-awaited release of an internal DOJ investigation into the FBI’s role in January 6, which could happen by the end of the week. As I reported here, the report by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is expected to at least partially confirm the number of FBI confidential human sources, commonly known as informants, before and on January 6.
In many ways, the Whitmer fednapping hoax—which involved dozens of FBI informants, undercover employees, and handling agents working out of numerous FBI field offices—represented a dress rehearsal for January 6.
And Wray’s Congressional testimony over the past few years related to his knowledge about the presence of informants may contradict the official findings, possibly prompting perjury charges against him after he vacates the J. Edgar Hoover building next month.
Watch his shifting testimony here:
At the same time Wray’s FBI concocted the Whitmer fednapping hoax to make it appear that rightwing gun crazies wanted to take out one of Trump’s biggest political foes in 2020, Wray’s FBI created a coverup operation for Hunter Biden’s incriminating laptop. Despite possessing the device, loaded with proof that the “Big Guy” was directly involved in his addicted son’s international racket, since 2019, Wray’s FBI refused to launch an investigation.
To the contrary, Wray’s FBI colluded with Big Tech to ban reporting of the laptop’s contents just weeks before Election Day 2020. Photos, emails, and other correspondence directly contradicted Joe Biden’s public denials of his knowledge about Hunter Biden’s “business” deals, facts that could have swayed the already rigged election results.
One Armed Raid, One Voluntary Search
But nothing comes close to the disparity between the FBI’s handling of Trump’s alleged possession of so-called classified documents versus Joe Biden’s longtime hoarding of similar files. Wray’s FBI, over the objection of lower-level FBI officials, executed a search warrant of Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022. At least 30 armed FBI agents from two field offices rummaged through Trump’s residence for nine hours. The private suite of Melania Trump and bedroom of Barron Trump were ransacked despite no evidence classified papers were hidden in either place. The FBI raid plan included the bureau’s “use of lethal force” policy.
But the FBI’s search for classified files at the Biden home did not require armed agents with authorization to shoot-to-kill if necessary. Two “voluntary” searches yielded national security documents, material Biden was never authorized to take as vice president. And while Trump faced a 40-count federal criminal indictment in southern Florida, Biden’s condition as an “elderly man with a poor memory” allowed him to evade prosecution.
There are of course many other examples of Wray’s brazen politicking: arresting pro-life activists, spying on parents protesting woke policies at school board meetings, abusing warrantless surveillance tools for partisan purposes.
This represents the shameful legacy of Christopher Wray. A recent Gallup poll showed the FBI has the lowest approval rating in history; less than one-quarter of Republicans trust the FBI, a stunning figure from the party of law and order.
And all of the self-aggrandizing bloviating in the world can’t cover Wray’s disgraceful performance as director of the FBI. I hope the Cretin burns in eternal rotting hell.
Events over the past months have exposed a very stark divide between the globalist, collectivist, “woke” authorities of Europe and the Make America Great Again (MAGA) patriot movement here in the United States. To be frank, it is almost as if the snide, effete elitists who control the nations of the European continent want to rub our noses in their horror show.
Let’s be frank. Europe would be a total basket case without American taxpayers, American troops, and American subservience to their ever more bizarre “culture.” Since Woodrow Wilson first fell for the globalist-line that somehow “the better people” could build a world government free of popular input, the citizens of the United States have been played as fools. Churchill’s constant pushing and cajoling led to the so-called “special relationship” that has come to mean Uncle Sucker picks up the tab, does the dirty work and then allows others to make decisions.
And today, the outdated, “ticking time bomb without a mission” called NATO has become an anchor around the necks of the American people that can only draw us into a war that serves the territorial interests of European elites, not that of the United States.
All of this was made clear when a recent article by Giovanna De Maio and Célia Belin in the publication, Foreign Affairs, appeared entitled Europe’s America Problem. To set the record straight, the magazine is owned and operated by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). CFR has been the leading voice for globalist ambitions since its founding in 1921. It is the voice of the very people the MAGA movement has identified as those working to destroy American sovereignty and submerge us into a swamp.
Europe as advanced by the globalists at CRF, NATO, the Atlantic Council and the European Union (EU) is unalterably opposed to the core principles of the United States. Even a cursory review shows them to outright enemies of liberty.
The suppression of free speech is now rampant. People in Britain are being jailed for prayer, at least Christian prayer. The government of Germany is moving to outlaw the second largest party in the country in order to eliminate competition, exactly as the Nazis and the Communists did in the not so distant past.
The EU is claiming the right to prosecute citizens outside their nations — the United States or any other non-European country — if that individual publishes something the thought police in Brussels oppose. National laws and sovereignty mean nothing to them.
We are admonished that steps to defend and protect the U.S. economy will be regarded as hostile and that efforts at retaliation will be considered.
As evidence mounts that the so-called “climate crisis” is at best not true — and more likely will eventually be exposed as a total fraud — Europe is demanding that the United States continue to surrender all its advantages to “international cooperation.” What this means is that the United States refrains from developing the massive energy resources that would give our manufacturing and development a clear advantage so that energy-starved Europe can “compete.” The Foreign Affairs article is blunt — “Europe will need to define its collective interests in the transatlantic partnership, deciding what it wants to protect and what it expects from the United States.” [emphasis added]
“What it expects” from the United States? To paraphrase one of their prominent green-freaks, “How dare they?”
Why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars we do not have to defend the borders of Ukraine when we should be defending our own borders? Why? Because Europe couldn’t last a week in combat and demand that we continue to defend them like we have for nearly 80 years. Why should we be afraid of Russia?
From the end of World War II the entire game for the Europeans has been to soak America. Get us to pay for their defense. Get us to subsidize their economies. Get us to incur the wrath of newly formed nations of Africa, Asia and the Middle East — have them direct their righteous rage at us instead of the Imperial masters who continue to this day to loot the former colonies.
The entire model was stated clearly by the first Secretary-General of NATO in 1952 when Lord Hastings “Pug” Ismay (1887-1965), outlined the entity’s strategic objectives with his famous tripartite formula: “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” No better description of British foreign policy has ever been written for the past 100 years.
A cold-eyed review shows that Europe has near-zero natural resources that America needs. On the other hand, Latin America and Africa are rich in them, they just need to be developed. China has proven to be a less than reliable partner for these nations. We should make the advance.
Europe supplies next to nothing in a military sense. Yes, we have great bases in Italy and Germany. But we only need them to defend Europe. If we could walk away from billions in weapons and a state-of-the-art air base in Afghanistan, why not do it in Europe? Just hand those bases over and let the Europeans fight over them.
Politically, who really cares if we get “their votes” at the United Nations or any of the other globalist’ strait jackets. Better to tell those entities to fend for themselves, make our annual blackmail payments contingent on not making us angry, and at the first appropriate moment walk away entirely.
On the “net zero” suicide pact, they need to be told to forget it. The U.S. is going to drill and refine all we can as nuclear plants are built. What they do is up to them but finding sources of energy should be their top priority. Winters can get very cold in much of Europe.
Finally, the perverse culture that has infected us from Europe needs to be returned to sender. The “critical theory” treason of Michel Foucault and his cohorts in academia need to be excised like a tumor. We need nothing of their totalitarian poison. The dedication to family and community so valued in Africa and Latin America are far more vital to the U.S. than anything from the smut-dens of Berlin or Paris.
It is time for renewal in America, a restoration of our values and principles of self-reliance and independence. All we can get from Europe is a drain on our resources and resolve. The rest of the world wants our leadership — not through force of arms as latter-day colonial powers but from a commitment to enduring principles of liberty, a liberty not found anywhere in Europe today. It is time to move on and dump Europe. They are leeches sucking America dry. Time to cut them off.
Most Americans tend to think of private property simply as a home – the place where the family resides, stores their belongings, and finds shelter and safety from the elements. It’s where you live. It’s yours because you pay the mortgage and the taxes. Most people don’t give property ownership much more thought than that.
There was a time when property ownership was considered to be much more. Property, and the ability to own and control it, was life itself.
John Adams said, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
The great economist John Locke, whose writings and ideas had a major influence on the nation’s founders, believed that “life and liberty are secure only so long as the right of property is secure.”
Locke warned that human civilization would be reduced to the level of a pack of wolves and cease to exist because lack of control over your own actions caused fear and insecurity. Private property ownership, Locke argued, brought stability and wealth to individuals, leading to a prosperous society of man. That’s because legal ownership of property is the key to productive development.
Private property ownership is the reason the United States became the wealthiest nation on earth almost overnight. Free individuals, using their own land to create commerce and build personal wealth through the equity of their property, are the root of American success. Sixty percent of early American businesses were financed through the equity of property ownership. And sixty percent of American jobs were created through those successful businesses. That’s how a free-market economy is built. Private property ownership is the source of personal individual wealth for the average American.
John Locke advocated that if property rights did not exist, then the incentive for an industrious person to develop and improve property would be destroyed; that the industrious person would be deprived of the fruits of his labor; that marauding bands would confiscate, by force, the goods produced by others; and that mankind would be compelled to remain on a bare-subsistence level of hand-to-mouth survival because the accumulation of anything of value would invite attack.
One must only look to the example of the former Soviet Union to see clearly what happens to society when an outlaw government exercises brute force to take control of private property. Under that tyrannical government, each of Locke’s predictions came true. Throughout its history, the Soviet government excused its every action under the banner of equality for all. There were no property rights, no freedom of enterprise, and no protections for individual actions. Instead, the Soviet government enforced redistribution of wealth schemes, confiscating homes from the rich and middle class. Shelves were bare, freedom of choice was non-existent, and personal misery ruled the day.
The same basic redistribution schemes of the Soviets were later used by Zimbabwe’s former dictator, Robert Mugabe, to destroy that agriculturally rich African nation. Mugabe confiscated farmland owned by white farmers and gave it to friends of his corrupt government – most of whom had never even seen a farm. The result was economic disaster, widespread poverty, and hunger in a land that had once fed the continent. The nation of South Africa is now following in the murderous footsteps of Robert Mugabe as it attacks white farmers, taking their property and again putting it in the hands of those who know nothing about running a farm.
Clearly, John Locke’s warnings have been vindicated. Private property ownership is much more than a house. It is the root of a prosperous, healthy, human society based on the individual’s freedom to live a life of his own, gaining from the fruits of his own labor. Take that option away, and people will always react the same way. They stop producing.
THE LOST DEFINITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
In the 1990s, an all-out assault on property rights was well underway, led by a radical environmental movement, resulting in massive federal land grabs in the name of conservation. As one can imagine, courts across the nation were flooded with cases of people attempting to defend their property rights from government takings.
In the state of Washington, one of the major targets for such programs, the state Supreme Court realized it didn’t have an adequate definition of property rights to use in considering such cases. That’s when State Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders wrote a “Fifth Amendment Treatise”, which included the following definition of property rights:
“Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment, and disposal. Anything which destroys any of the elements of property, to that extent, destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the right of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated, and ownership is rendered a barren right.”
“Use” of the land is the key. Using the land in a productive way that is beneficial to the owner is what gives the land value. According to Justice Sanders, paying the taxes and mortgage while some undefined government entity can rule and regulate how the property is used, is a “barren right” that annihilates its value.
When you purchase property, how much of the land do you own? What is the depth of the soil? Do you own the water on the land? Do you own the air above it? As property rights expert Dr. Timothy Ball wrote, “All these questions speak to political issues that transcend private, regional, and national boundaries. Nationally and internationally, lack of this knowledge is being exploited by those who seek control…”
HOW TO FIGHT BACK?
For several decades, the radical Left has been dedicated in its efforts to organize at every level of government while advocates of limited government failed to do the required “dirty work” of local organization and activism to protect our freedoms. We gave the Left a pretty clear playing field to organize and seize control, and now we are suffering under the result.
For the dedicated Left, no position is too small. No appointed board is ignored. When was the last time local Conservative activists cared about positions like City Attorney? Yet these are the very officials who enforced the COVID-19 lockdown policies. Local government is now infested with Planners, NGOs, and federal agencies dictating policies. And the only reason they have power and influence now is because the Left fought to elect representatives who then gave it to them.
Today, too many elected officials, even the honest ones, fail to understand the roots and goals of the “Sustainable” policies they are enforcing. In their ignorance they respond to critics, saying, “well, that’s just the way it’s done.” As they surrender their elective powers to appointed boards, do they even think of asking themselves, “Who do they actually represent – the voters or the NGOs and appointed boards?”
The threat of man-made climate change is the center of the Deep State’s hold on power. That’s the unrelenting fear tactic that claims the earth will become uninhabitable in ten years unless massive government power controls every human action. Power for the state!
Yet there is ample scientific proof that such claims about man’s effect on the environment are basically non-existent. However, many leaders of the freedom movement wrongly assume that all we need to do to counter the misinformation from the climate alarmists is to simply write a scholarly paper disproving it and set the record straight. It doesn’t work because few will understand it, fewer still will ever attempt to read it. In short, we badly overestimate the knowledge, intelligence and attention span of the average citizen and government official whom we are trying to convince. Emotions tend to decide debates rather than facts.
The first step in fighting back is to stop depending on one person, one icon, one president to lead us forward. We must take responsibility ourselves to ensure that the government does not move forward unattended. We need to be directly involved at every level, especially on the local level.
Change the debate to attack anti-freedom policies and expose non-governmental (NGO) carpetbaggers hiding in the shadows dictating policy. You can change the debate by making private property protection the key to your local fight. Sustainable policy cannot be enforced if private property is protected. Challenge local elected officials to stand with you in protection of private property. If they refuse – expose them. Force elected officials to be personally responsible for their actions.
Picture how different our nation would be if we dug in to elect a majority of governors across the nation who understood and operated under the Tenth Amendment, which acknowledges the States’ power to stand against Federal overreach. What if you had a county commission that refused to participate in non-elected regional government? How would your life change if your city council was made up of individuals who guided your community under the three pillars of freedom, including protection of private property, encouragement and support for local businesses, and the lifting of rules and regulations that stifled personal choices in your individual life? How do we make all of that a reality?
Set a goal to turn your local community into a Freedom Pod. Simply focus on making these goals a reality in your community and if successful, as prosperity spreads, the idea will certainly spread to a neighboring community and then to the next. The challenge is to create a successful blueprint and a cadre of dedicated elected representatives that will begin to move from the local to the state level of government.
That will set the stage for effecting a federal government as conceived by our forefathers. The result will be the growth of Freedom Pods across the nation. Here is the end game for the forces of freedom. No matter who is president, we must take control of our cities, counties, state legislatures, and governors. Only then can we stand up to the potential tyranny from Washington, DC. To live your life as YOU choose, start right there in your community – build that Freedom Pod. Act Local and Stop Global!
How do you do that? The American Policy Center (APC) is now working with organizations nationwide to train and motivate local residents to take action in their own communities to push back and restore American freedom. APC has created a Local Activists Handbook and a Tool Kit with all the details you need to start organizing, training, and improving communications between activists and organizations, to share tactics, ideas, and successes. Learn more at www.americanpolicy.org.
The House Oversight Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released a 520-page report yesterday, detailing the findings of the subcommittee’s investigation concluded after its two-year investigation into the COVID-19 pandemic. It is the most thorough review of the pandemic conducted to date. This report ensures COVID-19 accountability and serves as a roadmap for the U.S. to prepare for and respond to future pandemics.
It is beyond damning, names names and references criminal acts. People are calling for a Nuremberg-type trial to prosecute the main players for crimes against humanity.
The final report is titled, “After Action Review of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Lessons Learned and a Path Forward.” (Below)
This final report will serve as a road map for Congress, the Executive Branch, and the private sector to prepare for and respond to future pandemics. Since February 2023, the Select Subcommittee has sent more than 100 investigative letters, conducted more than 30 transcribed interviews and depositions, held 25 hearings and meetings, and reviewed more than one million pages of documents. Members and staff have exposed high-level corruption in America’s public health system, confirmed the most likely origin of the pandemic, held COVID-19 bad actors publicly accountable, fostered bipartisan consensus on consequential pandemic-era issues, and more. This 520-page final report details all findings of the Select Subcommittee’s investigation.
“This work will help the United States, and the world, predict the next pandemic, prepare for the next pandemic, protect ourselves from the next pandemic, and hopefully prevent the next pandemic. Members of the 119th Congress should continue and build off this work, there is more information to find and honest actions to be taken,” wrote Chairman Wenstrup in a letter to Congress. “The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted a distrust in leadership. Trust is earned. Accountability, transparency, honesty, and integrity will regain this trust. A future pandemic requires a whole of America response managed by those without personal benefit or bias. We can always do better, and for the sake of future generations of Americans, we must. It can be done.”
On Wednesday, December 4, 2024, at 10:30am, the Select Subcommittee will hold a markup of the final report and officially submit the report to the Congressional record. Ahead of the markup, the Select Subcommittee will also release additional supporting materials and recommendations.
The full, 520-page final report can be found here and below. Here’s a summary of the staggering information contained within:
The Origins of the Coronavirus Pandemic, Including but Not Limited to the Federal Government’s Funding of Gain-of-Function Research
COVID-19 ORIGIN: COVID-19 most likely emerged from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. The FIVE strongest arguments in favor of the “lab leak” theory include:
The virus possesses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature.
Data shows that all COVID-19 cases stem from a single introduction into humans. This runs contrary to previous pandemics where there were multiple spillover events.
Wuhan is home to China’s foremost SARS research lab, which has a history of conducting gain-of-function research at inadequate biosafety levels.
Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) researchers were sick with a COVID-like virus in the fall of 2019, months before COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market.
By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced.
PROXIMAL ORIGIN PUBLICATION: “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” publication — which was used repeatedly by public health officials and the media to discredit the lab leak theory — was prompted by Dr. Fauci to push the preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated in nature.
GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH: A lab-related incident involving gain-of-function research is most likely the origin of COVID-19. Current government mechanisms for overseeing this dangerous gain-of-function research are incomplete, severely convoluted, and lack global applicability.
ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE INC. (ECOHEALTH): EcoHealth — under the leadership of Dr. Peter Daszak — used U.S. taxpayer dollars to facilitate dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China. After the Select Subcommittee released evidence of EcoHealth violating the terms of its National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) commenced official debarment proceedings and suspended all funding to EcoHealth.
New evidence also shows that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has opened an investigation into EcoHealth’s pandemic-era activities.
NIH FAILURES: NIH’s procedures for funding and overseeing potentially dangerous research are deficient, unreliable, and pose a serious threat to both public health and national security. Further, NIH fostered an environment that promoted evading federal record keeping laws — as seen through the actions of Dr. David Morens and “FOIA Lady” Marge Moore.
The Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Transparency of the Use of Taxpayer Funds and Relief Programs to Address the Coronavirus Pandemic, Including Any Reports of Waste, Fraud, or Abuse
COVID-19 RELIEF FUNDING: Federal and state governments had significant lapses in coordination, were unprepared to oversee the allocation of COVID-19 relief funds, and failed to sufficiently identify waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars during the pandemic.
PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM: The Paycheck Protection Program — which offered essential relief to Americans in the form of loans that could be forgiven if the funds were used to offset pandemic-era hardships — was rife with fraudulent claims resulting in at least $64 billion of taxpayers’ dollars lost to fraudsters and criminals.
FRADULENT UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIMS: Fraudsters cost the American taxpayer more than $191 billion dollars by taking advantage of the federal government’s unemployment system and exploiting individuals’ personally identifiable information.
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA) FAILURES: $200 million of taxpayers’ dollars were lost as a result of the SBA’s inability to conduct proper oversight, implement internal controls, and ensure fraud protection measures were enacted.
TRANSNATIONAL FRAUD: At least half of the taxpayer dollars lost in COVID-19 relief programs were stolen by international fraudsters.
COVID-19 RELIEF FUNDING OVERSIGHT: Expanding relief programs that lacked proper oversight functions exposed severe vulnerabilities in the system and paved the way for fraudsters, international criminals, and foreign adversaries to take advantage of taxpayers.
The Implementation or Effectiveness of Any Federal Law or Regulation Applied, Enacted, or Under Consideration to Address the Coronavirus Pandemic and Prepare for Future Pandemics
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO): The WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was an abject failure because it caved to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and placed China’s political interests ahead of its international duties. Further, the WHO’s newest effort to solve the problems exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic — via a “Pandemic Treaty” — may harm the United States.
SOCIAL DISTANCING: The “6 feet apart” social distancing recommendation — which shut down schools and small business across the country — was arbitrary and not based on science. During closed door testimony, Dr. Fauci testified that the guidance, “sort of just appeared.”
MASK MANDATES: There was no conclusive evidence that masks effectively protected Americans from COVID-19. Public health officials flipped-flopped on the efficacy of masks without providing Americans scientific data — causing a massive uptick in public distrust.
LOCKDOWNS: Prolonged lockdowns caused immeasurable harm to not only the American economy, but also to the mental and physical health of Americans, with a particularly negative effect on younger citizens. Rather than prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable populations, federal and state government policies forced millions of Americans to forgo crucial elements of a healthy and financially sound life.
NEW YORK PANDEMIC FAILURES: Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s March 25 Order — which forced nursing homes to accept COVID-19 positive patients — was medical malpractice. Evidence shows that Mr. Cuomo and his Administration worked to cover up the tragic aftermath of their policy decisions in an apparent effort to shield themselves from accountability.
Evidence suggests Mr. Cuomo knowingly and willfully made false statements to the Select Subcommittee on numerous occasions about material aspects of New York’s COVID-19 nursing home disaster and the ensuing cover-up. The Select Subcommittee referred Mr. Cuomo to the DOJ for criminal prosecution.
TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS: President Trump’s rapidly implemented travel restrictions saved lives. During Dr. Fauci’s transcribed interview, he unequivocally agreed with every travel restriction issued by the Trump Administration. This testimony runs counter to the public narrative that the Trump Administration’s travel restrictions were xenophobic.
COVID-19 MISINFORMATION: Public health officials often spread misinformation through conflicting messaging, kneejerk reactions, and a lack of transparency. In the most egregious examples of pervasive misinformation campaigns, off-label drug use and the lab leak theory were unjustly demonized by the federal government.
The Biden Administration even employed undemocratic and likely unconstitutional methods — including pressuring social media companies to censor certain COVID-19 content — to fight what it deemed misinformation.
The Development of Vaccines and Treatments, and the Development and Implementation of Vaccination Policies for Federal Employees and Members of the Armed Forces
OPERATION WARP SPEED: President-elect Trump’s Operation Warp Speed — which encouraged the rapid development and authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine — was highly successful and helped save millions of lives.
COVID-19 VACCINE: Contrary to what was promised, the COVID-19 vaccine did not stop the spread or transmission of the virus.
RUSHED COVID-19 VACCINE APPROVAL: The FDA rushed approval of the COVID-19 vaccine in order to meet the Biden Administration’s arbitrary mandate timeline. Two leading FDA scientists warned their colleagues about the dangers of rushing the vaccine approval process and the likelihood of adverse events. They were ignored, and days later, the Biden Administration mandated the vaccine.
VACCINE MANDATES: Vaccine mandates were not supported by science and caused more harm than good. The Biden Administration coerced healthy Americans into compliance with COVID-19 vaccine mandates that trampled individual freedoms, harmed military readiness, and disregarded medical freedom to force a novel vaccine on millions of Americans without sufficient evidence to support their policy decisions.
NATURAL IMMUNITY: Public health officials engaged in a coordinated effort to ignore natural immunity — which is acquired through previous COVID-19 infection — when developing vaccine guidance and mandates.
VACCINE INJURY REPORTING SYSTEM: Vaccine injury reporting systems created confusion, failed to properly inform the American public about vaccine injuries, and deteriorated public trust in vaccine safety during the COVID-19 pandemic.
VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION: The government is failing to efficiently, fairly, and transparently adjudicate claims for the COVID-19 vaccine injured.
The Economic Impact of the Coronavirus Pandemic and Associated Government Response on Individuals, Communities, Small Businesses, Health Care Providers, States, and Local Government Entities
BUSINESS IMPACTS: Federal and state governments imposed mandatory lockdowns that were the primary cause of temporary and permanent business closures. More than 160,000 businesses closed due to the pandemic — with 60% of those closures classified as permanent. For the businesses that stayed or re-opened, the lack of supply chain diversity exacerbated pandemic-era challenges and deepened existing disparities.
HEALTHCARE IMPACTS: America’s healthcare system was severely damaged by the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients experienced a decreased quality-of-care, longer wait times, shorter medical appointments, and missed diagnoses.
WORKER IMPACTS: Unemployment rates surged to levels not seen since the Great Depression. Overly broad mitigation measures — including the now debunked “6 feet apart” guidance — disproportionately impacted sectors with low wage earners.
FEDERAL RESERVE: The Federal Reserve’s aggressive, early, and unprecedented response to the COVID-19 pandemic prevented a severe economic downturn. This continued approach also contributed to staggering inflation.
The Societal Impact of Decisions to Close Schools, How the Decisions Were Made and Whether There is Evidence of Widespread Learning Loss or Other Negative Effects as a Result of These Decisions
COVID-19 SCHOOL CLOSURES: The “science” never justified prolonged school closures. Children were unlikely to contribute to the spread of COVID-19 or suffer severe illness or mortality. Instead, as a result of school closures, children experienced historic learning loss, higher rates of psychological distress, and decreased physical well-being.
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC) INFLUENCE: The Biden Administration’s CDC broke precedent and provided a political teachers organization with access to its scientific school reopening guidance. Former CDC Director Rochelle Walensky asked the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) to provide specific language for the guidance and even went so far as to accept numerous edits made by AFT.
AFT INFLUENCE: Schools remained closed longer than necessary because of AFT’s political interference in the CDC’s school reopening guidance. AFT is a political union, not a scientific organization, that advocated for mitigation efforts that prolonged school closures — including an automatic closure “trigger.”
Testimony revealed that AFT President Weingarten had a direct telephone line to contact former CDC Director Walensky.
LONGTERM IMPACTS: Standardized test scores show that children lost decades worth of academic progress as a result of COVID-19 school closures. Mental and physical health concerns also skyrocketed — with suicide attempts by 12-17 year-aged girls rising 51%.
Cooperation By the Executive Branch and Others with Congress, the Inspectors General, the Government Accountability Office, and Others in Connection with Oversight of the Preparedness for and Response to the Coronavirus Pandemic
HHS OBSTRUCTION: The Biden Administration’s HHS engaged in a multi-year campaign of delay, confusion, and non-responsiveness in an attempt to obstruct the Select Subcommittee’s investigation and hide evidence that could incriminate or embarrass senior public health officials. It appears that HHS even intentionally under-resourced its component that responds to legislative oversight requests.
ECOHEALTH OBSTRUCTION: EcoHealth President Dr. Peter Daszak obstructed the Select Subcommittee’s investigation by providing publicly available information, instructing his staff to reduce the scope and pace of productions, and doctoring documents before releasing them to the public. Further, Dr. Daszak provided false statements to Congress.
DR. DAVID MORENS: Dr. Fauci’s Senior Advisor, Dr. David Morens, deliberately obstructed the Select Subcommittee’s investigation, likely lied to Congress on multiple occasions, unlawfully deleted federal COVID-19 records, and shared nonpublic information about NIH grant processes with EcoHealth President Dr. Peter Daszak.
NEW YORK OBSTRUCTION: New York’s Executive Chamber — led presently by Governor Kathy Hochul — redacted documents, offered numerous illegitimate privilege claims, and withheld thousands of documents without an apparent legal basis to obstruct the Select Subcommittee’s investigation into former Governor Cuomo’s pandemic-era failures.
fox files 
Recent Comments