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.
According to the New York Post, transgender activists are “reconsidering their abrasive approach as public support slips.”
Citing a New York Times piece (itself titled “Transgender Activists Question the Movement’s Confrontational Approach”), it seems that some members of the LGBT community are none too pleased with the more hysterical fringes of the “trans” movement.
Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen, executive director of Advocates for Transgender Equality, told the Times that shaming people into embracing transgenderism appeared to be backfiring.
“We have to make it OK for someone to change their minds,” Heng-Lehtinen told the Times. “We cannot vilify them for not being on our side.
“No one wants to join that team.”
The director added: “No one wants to feel stupid or condescended to.”
It’s at this point that I simply must interject. Heng-Lehtinen has the unmitigated gall to claim that “no one wants to feel stupid,” and yet the Times has to refer to Heng-Lehtinen as “they”? Pronoun nonsense is literally a huge part of the problem.
Mara Keisling, another transgender activist, similarly made a bizarre plea.
“We looked unreasonable,” Keasling told the Times. “We should be talking about the 7-year-old who just wants to play soccer with her friends.”
There’s just no other way to put this: It’s impossible to take just one “part” of transgenderism, make it friendlier, and then sell it to the masses. And that’s because transgenderism is rotten to the core, full tilt.
Any ideology that disrespects biblical truth (which is all we truly have at the end of the day) by suggesting God is mistake-prone is not an ideology worth entertaining in any way, shape, or form.
But even if you’re an atheist, allow this writer to appeal to your rigorous scientific method: In what world is it okay to chop off a perfectly healthy girl’s breasts because she’s going through a tomboy phase?
That’s really the long and short of it.
Transgenderism — ironically enough — can dress itself up however it wants. It can be nicer and more coddling, like Heng-Lehtinen and Keasling want. Heck, transgenderism could cut $1,200 checks for every American, cure the common cold, and figure out how to keep your pillow cool through the night.
And it still wouldn’t sway public opinion.
That’s because, no matter how “nice” or “demure” transgenderism presents itself, the entire movement is still predicated on the idea that boys can become girls, and vice versa, with little more than bodily mutilation and an endless cocktail of monthly prescription hormonal drugs.
That core conceit will never jive with most Americans — as the Gallup poll cited by both the Post and the Times attests to. Transgender issues, across the board, just didn’t hold much water with Americans.
No, we don’t care about your “Xe/Xim” hogwash when we have (actual) real-world problems to deal with, like putting food on our family’s table or keeping a roof over everyone’s head.
I suppose it’s nice that some of these activists are reconsidering their shaming, aggro tactics.
But until they realize it’s the trans issue itself — and not the approach to it — the left will truly never get it and my belief is that they never will because they just don’t want to either.
For the first time in history, a Chinese president has openly delivered clear red lines to an American president, delineating Beijing’s non-negotiable core interests. When Chinese President Xi Jinping met with President Joe Biden at the 31st APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting in Lima, Peru, the world’s attention was drawn to Xi’s blunt articulation of China‘s “four red lines.” Unlike previous APEC meetings, which often emphasized cooperative economic growth, this meeting was starkly different in tone, as Xi chose to lay down firm boundaries. Xi delivered these red lines with a strategic calculation: he saw Biden as weak—a perfect target for asserting China’s boundaries—preferring to establish these limits before Donald Trump, a leader with a much stronger and more combative stance on China, takes office again in January. These red lines were issued as a stark warning to Washington: do not cross boundaries concerning Taiwan, democracy and human rights, China’s path and system and its rights to economic development. Xi’s delivery of these red lines marks a critical turning point in global power dynamics, reflective of an increasingly confident China testing the resolve of a U.S. president they perceived as pliable.
The Four Red Lines: Setting Ground Rules for Engagement
Xi Jinping’s decision to articulate these red lines at the presidential level marked a significant departure from the traditionally indirect and often veiled language used by Beijing in diplomatic settings. The core components of these red lines reflect the deep sensitivities China has about its sovereignty, ideological integrity and developmental trajectory:
Taiwan: Beijing sees Taiwan as an inalienable part of its territory. Xi emphasized that any U.S. support for Taiwanese independence or actions that embolden the island’s efforts to solidify its separation from China would be unacceptable. The language was a firm reminder that Washington’s increased engagements with Taiwan would be seen as a direct challenge to China’s national unity.
Democracy and Human Rights: China demanded an end to external interference concerning human rights and democracy, both of which Beijing deems to be domestic matters. U.S. criticism over China’s treatment of Uyghurs and actions in Hong Kong has been seen by China as interference designed to undermine the ruling Communist Party.
China’s Path and System: Xi underscored that the United States must respect China’s governance and its chosen socialist path. Any attempts to influence or undermine the authority of the Communist Party would be viewed as an existential threat.
Rights to Development: Finally, China asserted its right to pursue economic development and technological advancement without external obstruction. Restrictions on trade, technology transfers, or economic development would be seen as direct infringements on China’s core rights.
These four areas define what China perceives as fundamental to its sovereignty, stability and growth. Their articulation marks a new era in U.S.-China relations—one where Beijing is not just reacting to American actions but also preemptively setting boundaries for what it considers unacceptable.
Trump and Biden: A Tale of Policy Overlaps and Red Line Violations
Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden have adopted policies that, in various ways, challenge China’s new red lines. However, while there are some commonalities between their approaches, there are also notable differences in tone, methods and strategic emphasis.
Trump’s Policies: A Bold Stand Against China
Donald Trump’s first term was marked by a courageous and unapologetic stance against China, emphasizing economic measures and national security concerns. His administration launched a trade war, imposing significant tariffs on Chinese goods—a move that crossed China’s “right to development” red line but was absolutely necessary to correct decades of unfair trade practices and reduce American reliance on Chinese manufacturing. This marked a significant departure from previous U.S. administrations’ approaches to China, such as Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” strategy, which aimed to contain China’s influence through diplomatic and military alliances, or the Nixon-era opening to China, which sought engagement to balance Soviet power. Trump’s approach, in contrast, was more confrontational and focused on economic decoupling and direct confrontation. While Beijing saw it as a deliberate attempt to stymie China’s economic rise, Trump saw it as a means to protect American jobs and secure economic independence.
Trump’s unwavering support for Taiwan also crossed Beijing’s sensitivities, but it sent a powerful message of American resolve. The Trump administration sold billions in arms to Taiwan, fostered increased diplomatic engagements and openly spoke about Taiwan as a partner, which was interpreted by Beijing as support for Taiwanese separatism—a direct challenge to its sovereignty. This support was built on the foundation of the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, which committed the United States to assist Taiwan in maintaining its defense capabilities. The Taiwan Relations Act was a significant turning point that ensured continued U.S. support for Taiwan after formal diplomatic ties were severed in favor of China. Yet, Trump’s policy took this support further, demonstrating his commitment to defending democracies against authoritarian expansion.
In the arena of human rights, Trump did not shy away from challenging China. He sanctioned Chinese officials involved in abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, directly confronting China’s demands for non-interference. His administration’s labeling of China’s actions in Xinjiang as genocide represented a principled stand for human dignity and freedom, a rare boldness in modern American foreign policy. Trump’s actions demonstrated a consistent willingness to confront injustice head-on, setting a precedent that Biden has struggled to follow.
Biden’s Policies: Weakness Disguised as Diplomacy
President Biden has largely maintained a confrontational stance toward China, but his approach lacks the clear resolve and strength that defined Trump’s policies. Biden continued the tariffs and expanded on export controls, particularly targeting high-tech sectors that China views as critical to its future growth. While this could have been a positive continuation of Trump’s policy of economic decoupling, Biden’s implementation has been lackluster and hesitant, failing to bring about significant leverage against Beijing’s ambitions. Xi Jinping saw in Biden an opportunity—a chance to confront an administration that might talk tough but lacks the backbone to deliver.
On Taiwan, Biden’s actions have been somewhat more ambiguous and inconsistent, sending mixed signals to both Taiwan and China. His administration has allowed additional arms sales to Taiwan and fostered stronger diplomatic ties, but his off-the-cuff remarks suggesting a U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s defense have lacked the clarity and decisiveness needed in such a critical area. Unlike Trump, who openly supported Taiwan with strength and conviction, Biden’s approach has been marred by ambiguity, undermining the potential deterrent effect. This vacillation has done little to reassure allies and only emboldened adversaries.
Biden has also been vocal about human rights abuses in China, but his actions have often been more about rhetoric than substance. His administration has called for international alliances to pressure Beijing, emphasizing democracy and human rights, but this coalition-building approach lacks the teeth of Trump’s direct sanctions and blunt confrontations. Biden’s multilateralism has often resulted in diluted measures that fail to produce tangible consequences for Beijing’s actions. For Xi Jinping, Biden’s focus on diplomacy over direct action was a welcome reprieve, allowing China greater latitude to assert its global ambitions without fear of real repercussions.
Compare and Contrast: Trump vs. Biden on China’s Red Lines
總統府, CC BY 2.0
While Trump and Biden both crossed China’s newly defined red lines, their approaches reflect starkly different philosophies and tactics. Trump’s method was characterized by unilateral action, economic leverage and a willingness to escalate tensions openly. His trade war, strong public rhetoric and transactional foreign policy painted U.S.-China relations in clear, adversarial terms. Trump crossed China’s red lines in dramatic and overt ways, making it clear that he was willing to challenge Beijing directly on all fronts, including trade, technology and military engagement with Taiwan. This directness was precisely what the U.S. needed to counterbalance an increasingly aggressive China.
In contrast, Biden’s approach has focused on coalition-building, aligning allies to confront China collectively rather than through unilateral actions. However, this has often resulted in weaker responses and a lack of coherent strategy. Although Biden’s actions have largely continued to cross China’s red lines—particularly regarding Taiwan, human rights and technology—his diplomatic channels and international alliances have often been more about appearances than genuine pressure. Biden’s emphasis on the ideological battle between democracy and authoritarianism lacks the concrete actions that Trump took, and his attempts at diplomacy have often been interpreted as a sign of weakness by Beijing. In this scenario, Xi Jinping saw an opportunity to deliver these red lines directly to Biden, sensing a lack of the firm resolve that had characterized Trump’s tenure.
Conclusion: A Need for Strength in Navigating Red Lines
The clear articulation of red lines by Xi Jinping to Joe Biden has set a new tone in U.S.-China relations, one that is based on Beijing’s growing assertiveness and willingness to define its boundaries openly. Xi chose to deliver these red lines to Biden, seeing him as a weaker and more malleable target, preferring to establish these limits before Trump, a leader unafraid to challenge Beijing, takes office in January. Both Trump and Biden have ignored these lines in their own ways—Trump with his boldness and economic confrontation, and Biden with his indecisive coalition-building and lackluster diplomatic approach. The difference, however, lies in the impact: Trump’s policies were aimed at decisively countering China and protecting American interests, while Biden’s approach has often resulted in mixed signals and ineffective pressure.
Special Counsel Jack Smith moves to dismiss his four-count criminal indictment against President Trump related to January 6, adding to his long list of failures at the DOJ.
Pour one out for Jack Smith.
Declassified with Julie Kelly is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
After two years of fawning press coverage and promises that the international war-crimes prosecutor would finally put Donald Trump behind bars, the special counsel today hammered the final nail in his own battered coffin by dropping his four-count J6-related indictment in Washington against the incoming president.
The move represents yet another failure by the Democratic apparatchik who once ran the Department of Justice’s public integrity unit under the Obama administration. Since then, Smith has been on a losing streak unmatched in DOJ history, suffering one loss after another before the Supreme Court and trial courts; in 2016, SCOTUS unanimously overturned the bribery conviction of Bob McDonnell, the former Republican governor of Virginia, a case Smith brought in 2014. Smith also failed to secure convictions in his prosecutions of former Senator John Edwards in 2012 and former Senator Robert Menendez in 2015.
This year, the highest court rebuked Smith on three separate occasions. First, the court rejected Smith’s rarely-used and desperate request to bypass the D.C. appellate court in considering the presidential immunity question and decide the matter quickly in an attempt to get the J6 case to trial before the election. The court a few months later reversed how the DOJ applied 18 USC 1512(c)(2), the post-Enron document destruction statute that represented two of the four counts in the J6 indictment against Trump. And on July 1, the court issued its landmark opinion in Trump v US, which gutted the J6 case by concluding most of the conduct cited in the indictment represented official acts protected by presidential immunity.
If the DOJ had a Hall of Shame, it would be named after Jack Smith.
But being the dirty Democratic operative that he is, Smith had to take a few parting shots at the man who defeated him both in court and at the ballot box. Smith asked Judge Tanya S. Chutkan to dismiss the indictment “without prejudice,” suggesting the matter could be reconsidered once Trump leaves the White House. The case needed to be dropped for now, Smith argued, based on two Office of Legal Counsel opinions—one related to President Richard Nixon and one related to President Bill Clinton—determining a sitting president cannot be prosecuted under separation of powers provisions in the Constitution.
“And although the Constitution requires dismissal in this context, consistent with the temporary nature of the immunity afforded a sitting President, it does not require dismissal with prejudice,” Smith wrote in his six-page motion. “This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant.”
That, of course, is another lie. Even if Trump had lost the election, the J6 indictment would not have survived another immunity test before the Supreme Court, which criticized Chutkan and the D.C. appellate court for fast-tracking the denial of presidential immunity without first conducting necessary due diligence.
Chutkan, like Smith, hasn’t demonstrated an ounce of contrition since the smackdown by SCOTUS. And remaining true to form, Chutkan in her order this afternoon granting Smith’s motion to dismiss also warned the case could be revisited in four years. “Dismissal without prejudice is also consistent with the Government’s understanding that the immunity afforded to a sitting President is temporary, expiring when they leave office,” Chutkan wrote.
Bye bitch.
Smith also filed a closing brief in the classified documents case, which was tossed by Judge Aileen Cannon in July after concluding Smith’s appointment violated the Constitution. The DOJ appealed her order; Smith today dismissed the appeal in the charges against Trump but not his two co-defendants, Mar-a-Lago employees Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira. One must safely assume Trump’s attorney general will move quickly to dismiss those charges as well.
Republican lawmakers flocked to social media to celebrate Smith’s demise. “The Jack Smith cases will be remembered as a dark chapter of weaponization,” Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) wrote. “They never should have been brought. Our elections are decided by voters–not by fanatical, deranged liberal lawyers like Jack Smith.”
“This lawfare was always politically-motivated. And this lawfare MUST NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN,” Rep. Byron Donalds posted.
But the time for tough talk is over and the time for tough action is now. With control of the executive branch, House, and Senate, Republicans must now exercise political power in the same way Democrats do: open investigations, hold public hearings, and pursue criminal charges where appropriate.
After all, plenty of evidence exists to support conspiracy charges against Smith and his team, particularly in the classified documents case which revealed collaboration between the National Archives, the DOJ, and the Biden White House to concoct a documents crime against Trump as early as spring of 2021. Court proceedings in Florida also disclosed examples of evidence tampering, destruction of evidence, and witness intimidation not to mention the selective nature of bringing a documents case against a former president for the first time in history while at the same time other public officials including Joe Biden and Mike Pence were found to have unlawfully kept classified files after leaving office.
The armed raid of Mar-a-Lago alone is worth a separate investigation.
So, it remains to be seen if social media bravado translates into real accountability. But for now, a moment of celebration is in order.
The Emotional Aftershock How the Left Reacted to Trump’s Election
In the wake of the 2024 election, many leftists are so distraught that they anticipate leaving the country. Never at a loss for a catchphrase, some in the media call it the “Great Trump Diaspora.”
Capitalizing on the demand for leaving, International Living (IL), without mentioning Mr. Trump, sent a promotional offer to the readers of the leftist site Mother Jones. The company says the Caribbean, Thailand, Ireland, Italy, Greece and others lie open to Jacobin readers, even those of limited means.
Escaping the Craziness
Thus, IL throws in the idea that, for some, may be the clincher. “If you’re dreading the craziness of this election season… if you’re thinking: What if I could just get away (even if only for a while)… we have the solutions you need.”
Paul Starobin in Business Insider, himself the recent purchaser of a home in Italy, points out that this tendency is nothing new.
“Every four years, as Americans gird themselves to choose a president, there’s talk, mainly among Democrats, of leaving the country. I’m off for Canada if unacceptable candidate Xwins! And every four years, the promised exodus fails to materialize. It’s mostly just therapeutic venting.”
But, Mr. Starobin assures his current readers, “This time is different.”
“This Dystopian Country”
Such sentiments echo throughout the mainstream press and many Internet news sources.
Yahoo Finance reports, “Immigration attorneys report a surge in relocation inquiries following Donald Trump’s presidential victory.”
About a week after the polls closed, The Hill shared the ruminations of actress Eva Longoria. She has already left but “says she’s anxious and nervous for Americans who can’t ‘escape’ their ‘dystopian country’ following President-elect Trump’s White House win.”
However, Miss Longoria showed her compassion by adding, “I get to escape and go somewhere. Most Americans aren’t so lucky. They’re going to be stuck in this dystopian country, and my anxiety and sadness is for them.”
Ever accommodating, the folks at Newsweek provided a “Full List of Celebrities Moving Abroad.” Their “Senior Pop Culture and Entertainment Reporter” explained that “Donald Trump’s presidential election win over Kamala Harris has sparked ire among a host of celebrities, with some going as far as to declare they will leave the U.S. rather than live under his rule for the next four years.”
Its “full list” was amazingly short, only including Barbra Streisand, Cher and Sharon Stone.
Frustrations, Fears and Disappointments
The same day Newsweek published its list, Reuters provided statistics. “Google searches for ‘move to Canada’ surged 1,270% in the 24 hours after U.S. East Coast polls closed on Tuesday, company data shows. Similar searches about moving to New Zealand climbed nearly 2,000% while those for Australia jumped 820%.”
Some of this speculation has been going on for months. On March 9, the financial site Benzinga posited that “Americans are increasingly considering relocation to escape the potential re-election of former President Donald Trump.”
In early September, The New York Times said, “Thousands of readers shared frustrations, fears and disappointments with American politics, and how they are able to live and work in another country.”
A Tale of Woe
CNBC noted four days before election day, “A growing number of wealthy Americans are making plans to leave the country in the run-up to Tuesday’s election, with many fearing political and social unrest regardless of who wins, according to immigration attorneys.”
Perhaps the most poignant tales of woe came from one-time cable news giant CNN. Opinion writer David Andelman poured out his laments.
“We were never really forced to make a choice whether [France] should become our home, permanently. Now, along with hordes of our fellow Americans, we are considering just such a move. In a growing number of cases, that reason can be traced to one proximate source—former PresidentDonald Trump. Or, more precisely—how he has torn apart America and our democracy that, for my nearly 80 years on this planet, I have cherished.”
Mr. Andelman is no recent journalism school graduate with lots of opinions and no experience. Indeed, he has quite an impressive biography. He served as The New York Times bureau chief in Europe and Asia. He was CBS’s man in Paris—back when networks could still afford such luxuries. He was made a chevalier of the French Legion of Honor. For an American, that is no small feat.
Protecting the Left’s Victory
Leftists present Mr. Trump’s comeback election as an unparalleled disaster. In many minds, he is so evil that their only option is to leave the country.
They believe the election will mean the destruction of the causes to which they have dedicated themselves: wokism, the socialist economic policies (that provoked inflation), immigration, the LGBTQ agenda and similar issues.
They do not feel they can live in traditional settings where even slightly Christian values are affirmed.
Thus, many leftists are not taking any chances. One of the most basic physiological reactions is the “fight or flight” response. When in danger, animals—including humans—reach a point where they can only see two options: to flee from the threat or confront it. Ironically, many leftists are fleeing to a kind of reverse Benedict Option offered by companies like International Living. In these comfortable settings, they think they can ride out the storm.
In the chaotic era of the Biden presidency, confusion and manipulation were the only constants. Despite their relentless drive to craft a favorable reality for the 2024 election, the American people saw through the facade. This involved the core issue of public safety: homicide statistics. The administration’s disturbing revisions to murder statistics, stretching as far back as 2003, revealed a troubling willingness to manipulate both current narratives and historical realities to suit their political agenda.
The FBI’s Revisionist Approach to Murder Statistics
Agresti’s investigation reveals that during the Biden administration, the FBI engaged in sweeping revisions of murder data from 2003 onward without providing any explanation, footnotes or clarifications. Where the normal procedure might see a minor adjustment and appropriate annotation, the Biden-era FBI saw fit to rewrite entire years. In some cases, the murder count was increased significantly, by up to 7%, and these modifications came without any of the usual footnoted disclosures that have typically accompanied data revisions. These alterations paint an alarming picture of data obfuscation.
To fully grasp the magnitude of these changes, consider this: the FBI raised the 2003 murder estimate from 16,528 to 17,716—an increase of 1,188 murders, or 7%. Such a revision suggests not just a simple clerical oversight but the rewriting of the historical record itself. Even in the Trump and Obama eras, where revisions occasionally occurred, changes were neither so drastic nor so frequent. Yet under Biden, the trend of such revisions has exploded. The data gathered by Agresti illustrate this rising gap—from 2003 to today, discrepancies between FBI data and death certificates widened into a gulf, growing to an average of 3,711 uncounted homicides per year under Biden—each of the edits designed to make Biden’s record look better than it was.
One of the key points here is the differential between the number of homicides recorded on death certificates and those reported by the FBI. Death certificates are not aspirational; they represent a grim and immutable finality—a dead body, a life lost. Despite their reliability, death certificates have always been more complete than FBI murder reports, simply because they capture every death and categorically classify it. The gap between these figures has always existed, but it has widened considerably under the Biden administration, suggesting foul play, either in local law enforcement reporting, state compilations, or FBI aggregation. In any case, it reeks of political calculation.
Disguising the Reality of Rising Crime
Why would this administration want to downplay murder statistics? The answer is simple: politics. Crime is not an abstract issue; it is viscerally felt by voters, and it reflects the state of the nation’s social contract. As crime rates surged during Biden’s term, public safety became a significant electoral liability for the Democrats. Therefore, downplaying homicide numbers—even if it meant tinkering with historic records—serves a political end. It creates the illusion of competence where none exists.
President Biden and his Department of Justice have taken cues from Orwell’s 1984, where history is continuously rewritten to serve the party’s ends. In 2023, for instance, the FBI reduced the previously reported 2021 murder estimate from 22,536 to 21,462—a reduction of over 1,000 murders, or about 5%. No explanation accompanied this drastic change, leaving Americans to wonder if we’re witnessing bureaucratic incompetence, political manipulation or both.
This level of deceit is not simply a matter of misrepresentation; it represents a violation of the public trust. How can we properly address the crime issue in this country if we cannot trust the very numbers that inform policy? If the numbers can be revised and manipulated so easily, how can the public hold anyone accountable? As Agresti stated, “The FBI has been burying its crime data since the first year of the Biden administration.”
Bureaucratic Subterfuge: Hiding Data from Public Scrutiny
The manipulation of crime data is compounded by the Biden administration’s calculated effort to bury access to FBI crime statistics. Since 2021, the traditional “Crime in the United States” report, which had served as a straightforward, easily accessible source for annual crime data, has been buried under layers of bureaucracy. Now, these datasets are scattered across an array of dropdown menus, vague descriptions and expiring hyperlinks, reducing transparency and, perhaps more importantly, concealing the shocking rise in crime.
Consider the scenario Agresti describes: in 2022, NewsNation reported that 14,677 murders occurred in 2021 based on the FBI’s convoluted and confusing presentation of its data. In reality, the actual estimate was 22,900—8,000 more deaths than reported. These obfuscations serve to mislead the public, downplaying the scope of violent crime and providing a convenient shield for political leaders.
A Crisis in Accountability
The heart of the issue lies not just in the manipulation of data but in the erosion of accountability it represents. The leaders of the FBI and DOJ are appointed by the president, and their actions clearly reflect the priorities of the administration. Instead of serving the American public through transparent reporting, these institutions have twisted the facts to fit a narrative—one that paints the Biden administration as capable and competent while hiding the realities faced by everyday citizens.
Such conduct should concern every American, regardless of political leanings. When the government manipulates data—whether it’s economic statistics like job growth or, as in this case, life-and-death metrics like murder rates—it breaks the fundamental trust that exists between a government and its citizens. Without trust, governance itself falters, giving way to conspiracy theories, paranoia and unrest. The Biden administration is playing with fire by attempting to shape reality to fit its narrative. The consequences will inevitably be felt not only in public safety but in the very fabric of democracy itself.
The Biden Administration: A Legacy of Revisionism
As Agresti has demonstrated, the revisions during Biden’s presidency are unprecedented in scope and audacity. Beyond the murder statistics, it is worth noting that this penchant for deception extends into other areas of governance. One notable example involves the employment numbers, which were overestimated month after month and then quietly revised down—at one point by nearly a million jobs. The administration’s strategy is transparent: make a good first impression and hope the correction goes unnoticed.
In a broader historical context, this kind of manipulation is not new. The Democratic Party has a storied history of deception, stretching back to its opposition to civil rights movements, school integration and its manipulative approach to social issues like immigration. Today, as in the past, the party is willing to rewrite history to maintain power. However, unlike earlier times when information took months or years to spread, today’s digital age has made this duplicity more transparent—if the public is willing to look.
Conclusion: The Need for Vigilance and Transparency
The Biden administration’s alterations to the nation’s murder statistics are emblematic of a deeper, systemic issue within our government—one that prioritizes political expediency over the truth. James D. Agresti, through his Freedom of Information Act requests and diligent research, has shown us that what we face is not just a statistical anomaly but a deliberate attempt to deceive the American people.
As citizens, we must demand better. We must demand transparency, accountability and, above all, honesty from those we entrust with power. The manipulation of murder statistics is not just a question of bureaucratic procedure—it is a fundamental breach of public trust, one that demands scrutiny, outrage and, ultimately, reform. The Biden administration might be able to manipulate the present, but the truth—painful, immutable and ultimately liberating—will prevail.
The establishment of a presidential press pool was once a hallmark of transparency, an assurance to the American people that, no matter where the president was, a fair group of journalists would be there, ready to inform the nation of every development. Yet, today we face a situation where that trusted system has been deeply undermined, as evidenced by the panic triggered by the so-called “unofficial” press pool stationed outside Mar-a-Lago Thursday afternoon. The events of yesterday serve as an alarming reminder of how far the mainstream media has fallen from the role of a responsible communicator to that of a hapless panic-monger. And, simultaneously, they underscore why President Trump’s vision of including independent journalists and outlets in the press pool may be not just warranted but essential.
The chaos began Thursday afternoon when two ambulances, several vans and a helicopter were seen leaving Mar-a-Lago. An overzealous CBS producer, watching from afar, decided to put forth an explosive theory—President Trump had been taken away by an ambulance. The message was sent out into the pool, stoking speculation among mainstream networks about the president’s health. “Was he dead? Had he suffered a heart attack? Was this an assassination attempt?” The breathless, barely contained eagerness with which the mainstream media spread these unverified claims is revealing. They were more than happy to shout fire in a crowded theater, and today, the crowded theater was the entire world.
This situation could have been easily avoided if that so-called “press pool” had simply exercised some restraint, some patience, or—most importantly—some journalistic integrity. The reality? President Trump was very much alive, sitting comfortably in a meeting inside Mar-a-Lago, while the motorcade seen leaving belonged to Vice President-elect J.D. Vance. The rush to publish sensationalist headlines was exacerbated by the utter lack of official channels and coordination. In fact, as Steven Cheung, Trump’s incoming White House Communications Director, noted: the mainstream press created their own “fake, unofficial ‘pool’ because they want to feel important.”
This moment underscores a growing reality—**X **has eclipsed traditional media as the source of accurate, up-to-the-minute information. While CBS and other mainstream media outlets were setting the world on edge, independent journalists on X were the first to debunk the misinformation amplifying the truth from officials inside Mar-a-Lago. Dan Scavino Jr., Trump’s incoming deputy, immediately took to X to clarify: “I am currently at Mar-a-Lago, and 45-47 is in a meeting… the movements being reported by the unofficial ‘pool’… are that of Vice President-elect J.D. Vance’s motorcade.” Within minutes, independent voices and Community Notes on X corrected the course, whereas the mainstream networks were still tripping over themselves, searching for a nonexistent scoop.
The History of the Presidential Press Pool: From Roosevelt to Today
The incident today also offers an interesting reflection on the historical evolution of the presidential press pool. It wasn’t always this way—the concept of the press pool, after all, began with good intentions. Theodore Roosevelt was the first president to establish regular relationships with journalists, fostering direct communication between the White House and the American people. Franklin D. Roosevelt institutionalized press briefings, holding biweekly conferences that ensured coverage was grounded in firsthand accounts. These presidents recognized the importance of transparency—not for the sake of a headline, but for the sake of democratic legitimacy.
During the post-World War II era, the press pool took on a more structured form, beginning with Dwight D. Eisenhower. The necessity of having a rotating group of journalists who could travel with and report directly on the president was evident—it balanced the logistical challenges of security with the growing demand for media coverage. By the time of John F. Kennedy, the press pool had become an established mechanism, one meant to serve as a conduit between the highest office in the land and the public. Over the decades, with the advent of 24-hour news cycles and increasing scrutiny during administrations such as Bill Clinton’s and Ronald Reagan’s, the need for an ever-watchful, organized press pool became the norm.
However, today’s debacle shows us that the press pool is broken. The WHCA, which once coordinated pool coverage, has been sidelined, and in its place is a chaotic gaggle of mainstream networks trying to outdo each other for a moment of sensationalism. This has turned what was once a serious journalistic responsibility into an embarrassing frenzy, with major networks relying on unverified iPhone footage and second-hand assumptions. Their priorities seem less about providing the American people with truth and more about scoring cheap points against a president they disdain.
The Need for Independent Voices: Trump’s Vision for the Future
President Trump has spoken about including independent journalists and new media outlets in the press pool when he returns to office, and after today, it is clear why this must happen. Legacy media has long lost the trust of the American people—its coverage tainted by bias, its reporters more interested in making a splash than in representing the truth. The fake press pool’s handling of Thursday’s Mar-a-Lago incident is yet another mark against a mainstream media that has failed its most basic responsibility.
On the other hand, independent journalists, many of whom operate primarily on platforms like X, have proven to be more agile, more transparent and, crucially, more aligned with the truth. They do not have corporate overlords with a political agenda, nor do they require the validation of the cocktail circuit in Washington, D.C. They are beholden only to their readers and viewers—the people—and it shows in the accuracy and urgency of their work. These journalists are willing to engage directly, answer questions, provide immediate updates and debunk rumors in real time using tools like Community Notes.
By including independent media in the White House Briefing Room and the presidential press pool, the Trump administration can ensure that news is not filtered through layers of establishment bias. The truth will not be drowned out by sensationalism or lost in a sea of half-truths and assumptions. Instead, it will be broadcast directly, efficiently, and with integrity. Yesterday’s panic over the supposed medical emergency at Mar-a-Lago would never have occurred if those responsible for communicating news to the American public were grounded in facts rather than fantasies.
X is the News Now: The Shift Away from MSM
Today marks an important moment for anyone still placing their faith in the mainstream media. Platforms like X have completely overtaken the old-guard media when it comes to providing accurate, reliable information. While CBS was fueling a global panic, independent voices on X were speaking directly to members of Trump’s team, cutting through the noise and getting the facts straight. It’s an example of precisely why social media platforms are now trusted far more than any legacy network. They provide a platform for immediate, unfiltered communication, unlike the slow, bureaucratic response of old-school media outlets.
This shift is also reflective of a deeper, more fundamental change in how the public consumes news. People no longer want carefully curated narratives delivered by talking heads with obvious biases. They want real-time updates, and they want to hear from the sources directly—not via a game of media telephone. In today’s digital age, where every smartphone can record history in real time, the power has shifted away from the elite circles of network newsrooms to the hands of those who simply want to share the truth.
Conclusion: Moving Toward Real Transparency
The events at Mar-a-Lago today served as a reminder of the pressing need for change. The legacy press, once entrusted with holding those in power accountable, now seems more concerned with power plays of its own. As the “unofficial pool” tripped over itself in its desperate bid for a sensational headline, independent journalists did what the mainstream media would not—they provided clarity, honesty and truth.
President Trump’s commitment to bringing these independent voices into the press pool is a promise of real transparency. It is a commitment to breaking away from the stranglehold of legacy networks, to ensure that the American people receive accurate, timely and trustworthy information. Today, X showed us what the future of news looks like—a direct, unfiltered line to the truth—and it is time that the White House press pool reflects this new reality. It could not have come too soon either!
fox files 
Recent Comments