Organize for Attack! thumbnail

Organize for Attack!

/in , , , , , , , /by

By Center For Security Policy

On Independence Day, nearly a dozen black-garbed individuals, some equipped with body armor and firearms, allegedly orchestrated a premeditated ambush on law enforcement outside the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas. According to the federal criminal complaint, the group began firing on the center with fireworks and spray-painting anti-ICE and pro-Antifa slogans on vehicles until law enforcement moved to secure the area. Once law enforcement came out of the building, two assailants opened fire with AR-15s, firing 20-30 rounds and wounding at least one officer.

The attack was entirely foreseeable. Antifa militants motivated by virulent rhetoric have repeatedly doxxed and targeted ICE, going all the way back to Antifa member Willem Von Spronsen’s 2019 attack on a Tacoma, Washington, ICE detention facility. Spronsen was killed by responding officers and became a popular anarchist martyr.

What are these attackers seeking to achieve with their violence? Most people believe that terrorism of this sort is intended to create support from the public. But the majority of Americans, including legal immigrants, support deporting illegal aliens, especially dangerous criminals. Do Antifa militants think they can win over the public with acts of violence?

Some answers to the alleged attackers’ motivations might be found in literature captured by law enforcement. One pamphlet seized by police is entitled “Insurrectionary Anarchism: Organizing For Attack!” which was authored anonymously in 2003 (and is available online).

The pamphlet traces a history of insurrectionary anarchist thought. It begins with early anarchist thinker Mikhail Bakunin in 1871 and then goes to Luigi Galleani, an Italian-American anarchist who popularized the concept of “propaganda of the deed,” and Italian anarchist Alfredo Bonnano, whose “Why we are Insurrectionary Anarchists” is cited in its entirety.

Central to insurrectionary anarchist thinking is the notion that the violent terrorist act is simultaneously a means and an end. The attack and the propaganda are a unified whole.

The author writes, “It is through acting and learning to act, not propaganda, that we will open the path to insurrection—although obviously analysis and discussion have a role in clarifying how to act. Waiting only teaches waiting; in acting one learns to act.”

Put bluntly, the message of attempting to murder ICE agents is that ICE agents should be murdered and that others should be encouraged to do the same.

Insurrectionary anarchism contains within its logic an inherent critique of other leftist, and especially Marxist-Leninist, organizing principles. Leninists emphasize determining the “correlation of forces,” an analysis of the total historic, economic, and material differences between the warring classes before acting. Maoists seek to ensure they have the correct “mass line”—that is, remaining in step with “the people” amongst whom the Maoist guerrilla seeks to hide.

But for the insurrectionary anarchist, the events that provoke and sustain revolutions cannot truly be understood, and attempts to do so result in wasted opportunities. The author writes that

contrary to the mathematicians of the grand revolutionary parties, it is never possible to see the outcome of a specific struggle in advance. Even a limited struggle can have the most unexpected consequences. The passage from the various insurrections—limited and circumscribed—to revolution can never be guaranteed in advance by any method, nor can one know in advance that present actions will not lead to a future insurrectionary moment.

These differences in perspectives may seem like meaningless revolutionary navel-gazing to the outsider. But since the 2020 George Floyd Uprising (as they call it), there has been growing hostility between the anarchists who overwhelmingly provided the street muscle for the violent riots and the Communist Party organizers who utilized the riots to build up structures and organizations.

Anarchists argue that Marxists and progressives took advantage of their bloodshed to “organize” and fundraise, wasting the opportunity the riots were intended to create. As a group of black Insurrectionary Anarchists wrote in a 2022 manifesto entitled “Black Armed Joy,”

Despite lifting up figures such as Assata, they label any sort of Black rebellious activity as “too fast” or “not ready” or complain about the ultra-left “ruining” their plans for revolution despite the rebellious actions of Black youth in the summer of 2020. They do not want black people to study the Black Liberation Army’s tactics. They wish to erase [Black Liberation Army member and Black anarchist] Kuwasi Balagoon and his rebellious ways. They wish to erase how Assata Shakur was liberated. They wish to erase the general strike of the Slaves. They wish to ignore the Maroons. They just want us to participate in their reformist campaigns to “Defund the Police” or “Community Control of the Police.” The Black insurrectionary must reject these positions.

These accusations of betrayal reached a fever pitch in the aftermath of the Los Angeles anti-ICE riots. Unity of Fields, a pro-terrorism propaganda outlet currently promoting a crowdfunding effort for the alleged perpetrators of the Alvarado attack, labeled the allegedly Chinese-funded Maoist Party for Socialism and Liberation, which helped organize the L.A. protests, as part of a “left counterinsurgency” because it failed to fully back calls for violence against ICE in Los Angeles.

While such apparent infighting might seem like a general sign of the radical Left’s weakness, in reality such conflicts are common during waves of increasing left-wing activation. Despite their internal disagreement, the various revolutionary factions can often advance their cause(s) against shared enemies, and eventually coalesce around shared gains.

While there are historic examples of anarchist-Communist infighting that sink prospective revolution (think the Spanish Civil War), there’s also a historical record of anarchists helping breach a hole through which the forces of revolution can pour through (the Russian Revolution comes to mind). In neither case does it typically end well for the anarchist, but that’s small comfort to the rest of us.

In the meantime, it should be understood that Antifa and their fellow anarchist extremists mean exactly what they say when they say “Kill ICE.”

Originally published by The American Mind.

AUTHOR

Kyle Shideler

Director and Senior Analyst for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism

EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Securty Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The post Organize for Attack! appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

Republicans Advances Recission Bill—With Vice President Vance Breaking Tie Vote thumbnail

Republicans Advances Recission Bill—With Vice President Vance Breaking Tie Vote

/in , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

Just as important as the Big, Beautiful Bill, passing the rescissions bill is essential with the national debt at unsustainable levels.

If the bill isn’t signed into law by the end of July 18, the appropriated government funding the White House is seeking to rescind has to be spent.

Backstabbing Republicans, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Susan Collins (Maine) and Mitch McConnell (Ky.), once again betray the party.

The Hill: Senate Republicans on Tuesday narrowly cleared a key procedural hurdle on the path to clawing back billions of dollars in funding previously authorized by Congress for foreign aid and public broadcasting. Vice President Vance had to break the 50-50 tie vote after three Republicans — Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Susan Collins (Maine) and Mitch McConnell (Ky.) — voted against a motion to discharge the rescissions package out of the Senate Appropriations Committee, allowing the full upper chamber to advance to consideration of the package.

Washington Post: Tuesday’s vote was a first step toward passing the bill. The Senate must vote to start debate on the bill, followed by hours of debate and votes on amendments. Lawmakers are under pressure because Congress must approve the cuts by Friday at midnight under the law they are using to dodge a Democratic filibuster…. The catch: Congress must send the bill to Trump’s desk by Friday or the administration will be forced to release the funds. Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate, meaning they can lose up to three Republican votes and pass the bill. The House — which approved the package last month — will need to vote on it again if the Senate changes it .

Vance casts tie-breaking votes to move forward $9.4B rescissions package — which would defund PBS and NPR — in Senate

By Victor Nava

Vice President JD Vance cast two tie-breaking votes in the Senate Tuesday to move forward a $9.4 billion rescissions package — which would rip federal funding from PBS and NPR — in the upper chamber.

The Senate deadlocked, 50-50, on two procedural votes to start debate on the multibillion-dollar spending clawback package before Vance’s votes advanced the measure requested by the White House.

Three Republicans — Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) — joined all Democrats in opposition to the bill.

The package, approved by the House of Representatives last month, axes approximately $8.3 billion previously allocated to the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and $1.1 billion to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which partially finances National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).

A proposed $400 million cut to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) program is expected to be scrapped via an amendment before the bill comes up for a final vote.

“There was a lot of interest from our members on doing something on PEPFAR,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) told reporters after a meeting with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought. “That’s reflected in the substitute.”

“We hope that if we can get this across the finish line in the Senate, that the House will accept that one small modification that ends up making the package about a $9 billion rescissions package,” Thune added.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Republican Lawmakers Join Trump Administration Push to Stop the Sale of U.S. Land to China

All Members of Anti-Semitic UN Commission of Inquiry Resign

JIHAD IN AMERICA: Senator Ted Cruz Introduces Legislation to Designate Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Organization

The Biden Autopen Conspiracy

SUPREME COURT SIDES WITH TRUMP ON DISMANTLING OF DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The post Republicans Advances Recission Bill—With Vice President Vance Breaking Tie Vote appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

The Biden Staff Coup Was The Biggest Conspiracy Against Americans In History

/in , , , , /by

By Rachel Bovard

Written by Rachel Bovard

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Republicans can’t stop investigating the Biden staff coup until people go to prison

The past week finally blew the lid off the worst political corruption scandal of the 21st century. And if you’re not sure what I’m talking about, that means the criminal conspiracy behind it is already winning.

The revelations of the last seven days indicate that the coverup and exploitation of former President Joe Biden’s deteriorating health by his inner circle were more treacherous than first suspected. Moreover, we now know for sure that their conspiracy is still active.

Exhibit A: Last Wednesday, Joe Biden’s White House Physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, finally appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee after months of delays. He was subpoenaed as part of the committee’s investigation into the former president’s mental incapacity.

As the president’s official physician, O’Connor would have been consulted — and probably conducted neurological assessments on his patient — as soon as Biden started falling down in public in early 2021. He may have also tested and treated him for prostate cancer. O’Connor knows better than anyone when, how quickly, and how badly the president fell into cognitive and physical decline.

He knows who else in the White House knew. He knows what steps were taken to conceal the president’s condition from the public — and how he abetted those deceptions. It was no surprise, then, that when O’Connor’s deposition began, he took the Fifth.

Exhibit B: On Friday, Ashley Williams came in for questioning. Williams was Biden’s deputy director of Oval Office operations while in the White House and still works in his post-presidency office. She had — and has — a front-row seat to Biden’s decline and, like O’Connor, had firsthand knowledge of the White House’s coverup.

Williams did not take the Fifth. She did not have to. As luck would have it, Williams doesn’t remember anything about working alongside President Biden for the last five years.

According to a source familiar with Williams’ five-hour interview, the highly accomplished Ivy League-educated lawyer “could not recall”:

. . . if she spoke with President Biden in the last week, if teleprompters were used for Cabinet meetings, if there were discussions about President Biden using a wheelchair, if there were discussions about a cognitive test, if she discussed a mental or physical decline of President Biden, if she ever had to wake President Biden up and how she got involved with his 2020 campaign.

Congressional Republicans must understand what’s happening here. O’Connor and Williams’ silence is not about covering up Biden’s cognitive decline. It’s about covering up the executive actions that a syndicate of Biden staffers allegedly, illegally discharged in his stead — actions that, if the allegations are true, would be rendered null and land the syndicate in prison.

That’s why there has been so much scrutiny this week about Biden’s — or rather, “Biden’s” — use of the White House autopen to sign thousands of pardons and clemency orders at the end of his term. By late last year, remember, Biden was almost catatonic, “a well‑meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

It’s a matter of public record that Biden was forgetting the names of old associates. Yet the syndicate would have us believe old Joe personally reviewed and approved thousands of pardons and commutations in the final weeks of his presidency?

Ironically, even Biden’s trademark nepotism undercuts the theory. After all, no one doubts that Biden personally signed the sweeping pardon for his son Hunter, the famous painter and crack addict. That was corrupt, sure, but all Biden.

The others? No chance.

That’s why, two days after Williams could not recall — and returned to her day job in Biden’s office! — the former president gave a surprise interview to The New York Times. The headline ran, “Biden Says He Made the Clemency Decisions That Were Recorded With Autopen.”

Except that’s not what the story said. On the contrary, White House emails from Jan. 19 show that it was Chief of Staff Jeff Zients authorizing the midnight autopen pardons. That was the tranche that included the pardons of Anthony Fauci, Gen. Mark Milley, Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff, Adam Kinzinger, and everyone else involved with the Democrats’ disgraced Jan. 6 Committee.

The only “evidence” that Biden actually ordered these pardons is assurances from the very people we know lied about Biden’s cognitive abilities all along.

In this context, the events of the last week — O’Connor’s silence, Williams’ amnesia, and Biden’s hallucinations — are not a “smoking gun.” They are a declaration of war. The criminal conspiracy that seized control of the federal government is going scorched earth against the Constitution, the rule of law, and the American people.

They are trying to stall, stonewall, and obstruct justice. To run out the clock on the investigations in hopes that an electoral reversal or Washington’s political ADHD will save their skins.

Congressional Republicans must understand that a strongly worded report, a big document dump, and a finger-wagging press conference are a win for the syndicate.

Congress cannot allow it. Instead, they should follow the precedent set by Democrats’ vaunted Jan. 6 Committee. That committee, remember, threw Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro in jail for refusing to testify. They hired TV producers to stage prime-time hearings. That’s the new standard they set for congressional investigations. Republicans must follow suit.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee can give O’Connor immunity and force him to testify without the ability to plead the Fifth. Flipping low-level hoods, after all, is how you build cases against organized crime. If Democrats on the committee vote to block the immunity, Republicans should force them to do it in prime time, in front of the cameras, over and over again. Force them to join the syndicate’s omerta and defend its corruption. Expose congressional Democrats for what they are — coup co-conspirators after the fact.

To listen to elites, the biggest problem in American politics today is the public’s perpetuation of conspiracy theories about our ruling elites. But that’s 180 degrees backward. The biggest problem — the real scandal — is our ruling elites’ actual conspiracies against the public.

The Biden staff coup was the biggest such conspiracy in American history. Congress has the power and the precedent to hold them accountable. Doing anything less will only make them part of the syndicate themselves.

*****
This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Education Reform SIECUS State Report Card: A Tool for Spotting Parental Rights Violations

/in , , , /by

By Kali Fontanilla

Written by Kali Fontanilla

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Editor’s note: it is obvious by now that the Left’s obsession with children and sex is not merely odd, but immoral. They use non-parental sex education partly as a way to put as much distance between parent and child as possible, and partly as a way to destroy innocence. Why? Innocence is the basis of virtue. Especially in the Biblical understanding of the word, innocence is “alienation from evil”–in other words, a sense of the incompatibility of evil with Being (Dasein) as it was intended by God. These people attempt to make children familiar, friendly with evil from an early age. Without innocence, or at least a recovery of innocence, there can be little virtue. Without virtue, there cannot be no ordered liberty. Without ordered liberty, there can be no American Republic. 

Most parents assume they will be the primary voice guiding their children through conversations about sex, puberty, relationships, and values. But increasingly, those conversations are being replaced by curriculum pushed by well-funded nonprofits such as the Sexuality Information and Education Council (SEICUS), which is on a mission to embed radical sexual ideology into classrooms nationwide. Their recently updated tool? A “report card” that ranks each U.S. state based on how well it pushes “comprehensive sex ed.” But once you understand what SIECUS really means by “comprehensive,” that report card becomes something else entirely: a warning label.

What Is the SIECUS Report Card?

The SIECUS State Profiles Report Card was launched in 2020 to grade states based on how much they are aligned with SIECUS’s ideal vision for sex education. That vision includes mandatory instruction in gender identity, sexual orientation, and pleasure-based sex education, often starting as early as elementary school. In SIECUS’s world, states that allow parents to opt their children out of such lessons get docked. States that require sex ed to be age-appropriate or medically accurate are only praised if that content includes LGBTQ+ affirmations.

The report card does not simply reflect how well states educate children about human reproduction or safety. It acts as a political temperature check for how deeply progressive ideology has infiltrated a state’s education code. In fact, the lower a state’s scores, the more likely it is to respect parental rights and teach sex ed within reasonable bounds.

If you want a clear picture of how politicized sex education has become, look at the 2025 SIECUS State Profiles for California and Arizona. These two neighboring states have taken completely opposite approaches. California earned an A for its rigid statewide mandates that require instruction on gender identity, sexual orientation, and so-called comprehensive sex ed that bans abstinence-only teaching and limits parental opt-out rights. SIECUS, which openly promotes “sex-positive”  instruction in its policy agenda, considers California the gold standard. Meanwhile, Arizona earned an F, in part because as its profile notes, “If a school chooses to teach sex education, the curriculum must emphasize abstinence before marriage and discourage adolescent sexual activity.” In other words, California gets top marks for pushing radical ideology, while Arizona fails for encouraging kids to wait.

SIECUS: A History of Indoctrination, Not Education

SIECUS was founded in 1964, not as a medical institution or a grassroots parent group, but as a political project. Its founder, Dr. Mary Calderone, was the medical director for Planned Parenthood, so from the beginning SIECUS was closely linked to America’s abortion industry and the broader sexual revolution. The goal was not to educate children in partnership with parents. The goal was to reshape societal norms about sexuality, starting with the youngest minds.

Over the decades, SIECUS has shifted its focus from biology-based education to what it calls “Sex Ed for Social Change.” SIECUS officials have framed sex education as a tool to “dismantle systems of power and oppression,” including those related to racial and gender inequality, and have characterized sex ed as a vehicle for social change. This type of sex ed is less about caring for the human body and more about reshaping a child’s worldview.

A look at SIECUS’s 2021 IRS Form 990 reveals just how well-funded this radical sex ed machine has become. The organization reported over $4 million in total revenue, with more than $1.8 million in salaries and compensation. This is a stunning figure considering its mission is to push graphic and ideological content into classrooms under the banner of “public education.” While the exact line items are vague, nearly $400,000 was spent on “outside services,” a broad category that likely includes public relations, consulting, and policy work tied to its sex ed advocacy. It also reported over $62,000 in direct lobbying expenditures, confirming that a chunk of its budget is dedicated to influencing legislation.

For an organization supposedly devoted to children’s well-being, a surprising amount of its resources is funneled into lobbying, staff pay, and, of course, their state report cards. Dressed up as an objective policy resource, the report card is really a public pressure campaign to shame states that refuse to adopt its radical standards and reward those that hand over control of sex ed to activists.

Reverse Report Cards

If you are a parent (or any adult) who values the right of parents to be the guardians of their child’s sexual health instead of radical leftists, the SIECUS report card works better when you read it in reverse. States that receive Ds and Fs from SIECUS are likely the states that protect parental rights, focus sex ed on safety rather than activism, and do not groom kids into an ideology.

States such as Texas, Florida, and Idaho regularly rank near the bottom, because these states allow meaningful opt-out policies, do not mandate the teaching of gender ideology, require parental consent for sensitive content, and support local control over school curricula. In these cases earning a failing grade from SIECUS may be a sign they are doing something right.

On the flip side, states that earn an A from SIECUS are often those that sideline parents, embed gender ideology in multiple grades, and expose kids to radical content without consent. If you live in a state that earned an A from SIECUS, it’s time to start asking tough questions at your school board meetings. If you live in an F-grade state, fight to keep it that way because, in this case, failure means a victory for your kids.

*****

This article was published by Capital Research and is reproduced with permission.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

EXCLUSIVE: Congressional Republicans To Unveil Bill Stripping National Education Association’s Federal Charter thumbnail

EXCLUSIVE: Congressional Republicans To Unveil Bill Stripping National Education Association’s Federal Charter

/in , , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

Congressional Republicans will unveil a bill Wednesday aimed at revoking the federal charter of the National Education Association (NEA), the largest labor union in the United States, the Daily Caller has learned.

Republicans Rep. Mark Harris of North Carolina and Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee will introduce the National Education Association Charter Repeal Act in their respective chambers, aiming to sever the union from its congressional ties, a congressional aide told the Caller. Founded in 1857, the NEA received its charter from Congress in 1906 and now represents over 3 million educators nationwide.

However, Harris said that the NEA has abandoned its mission “to support America’s teachers and strengthened our schools” on behalf of a “radical agenda” in statement.

“From branding President Trump a fascist to embracing divisive gender ideology and walking away from efforts to fight antisemitism, the NEA has become nothing more than a partisan advocacy group,” the representative continued. “Since the NEA is clearly not prioritizing students, parents or even teachers, it’s time to remove Congress’ seal of approval from this rogue organization.”

The federal charter formalized the NEA’s status as nonprofit organization under federal statute and with a purpose acknowledged by the government.

The NEA has a “long list of egregious violations of public trust,” including an Open Secrets report finding that 98 percent of NEA political donations went to Democratic candidates during the 2024 election cycle, Harris said in a statement obtained by the Caller.

More recently, the NEA has faced controversy for passing a resolution that “pledges to defend democracy against Trump’s embrace of fascism by using the term facism [sic] in NEA materials to correctly characterize Donald Trump’s program and actions,” the New York Post reported, citing documents obtained by conservative education expert Corey DeAngelis.

The nation’s largest teachers union adopted a business item “to defend against Trump’s embrace of fascism by using the term facism [sic] in NEA materials correctly characterize Donald Trump’s program and actions.” pic.twitter.com/xNdksH3nQZ

— Corey A. DeAngelis, school choice evangelist (@DeAngelisCorey) July 7, 2025

Tina Descovich, co-founder of Moms for Liberty, praised Harris’ move in a statement obtained by the Caller. “It’s incredibly sad that the nation‘s largest teachers’ union has put woke politics before America’s children. The NEA’s embrace of radical left policies and antisemitism, combined with their rejection of parental rights, has forced moms and dads across America to condemn this organization,” she said.

The NEA’s operations rely primarily on member dues, not support from the federal government, according to Influence Watch. However, the bill could sever the organization’s congressional ties and eliminate certain property tax exemptions, according to the statement obtained by the Caller.

Similar bills to revoke the NEA’s charter, including one proposed by Blackburn in 2022, have struggled to gain traction, stalling in committee or merely being introduced on the floor.

The Caller has reached out to the NEA for comment but has not received a response at the time of publication.

AUTHOR

Derek VanBuskirk

Reporter

RELATED ARTICLE: ROOKE: America’s Largest Teachers Union Issues Torrent Of New Wackadoodle Anti-Trump Policies

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Iranian Regime Still Living in an Alternate Universe thumbnail

Iranian Regime Still Living in an Alternate Universe

/in , , , /by

By Family Research Council

The Islamist regime that governs Iran is still behaving as if it did not just lose a devastating war. Over the past two years, Israel has systematically destroyed Iran’s terrorist proxies, air defense, and missile capabilities, and then Israel and the U.S. set back its nuclear weapons program by years or decades in an intensive air bombardment. Already, the vanquished is presuming to engage with the victors on an equal footing.

The most recent example came in a speech Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi gave this weekend to diplomats in Tehran, in which he condescendingly allowed that Iran is ready to re-engage with the U.S. in talks over the future of its nuclear program and potential sanctions relief — but only if all of Iran’s conditions are met. He demanded “assurance … that, in case of a resumption of talks, the trend will not lead to war.”

“First of all,” Araghchi insisted, “there should be a firm guarantee that such actions [as the U.S. bombing of its nuclear facilities] will not be repeated. The attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities has made it more difficult and complicated to achieve a solution based on negotiations.”

On June 21, the U.S. military executed a stunning campaign that dropped high-powered bombs on Iran’s top three nuclear sites, burying the bunkers deep under rubble without Iran ever knowing what hit them. In an interview published Monday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian admitted the U.S. airstrikes so damaged the sites that Iran still has not been able to assess the extent of the destruction.

The stunning operation came after months of fruitless negotiations, in which Iranian negotiators would agree to little more than the next meeting. Despite the strict deadline President Trump imposed up front, the Iranian regime never budged from the position that it would continue enriching uranium to nearly-weapons-grade levels as fast as possible.

In other words, Araghchi’s remarks were merely a crude attempt to rewrite history. There never was any hope “to achieve a solution based on negotiations.” The only solution acceptable to President Donald Trump is one in which the Iranian regime gave up its nuclear weapons program and stockpiles of enriched uranium. The only solution Iran envisioned is one in which it would become a nuclear-armed power.

Only after this impasse became abundantly apparent did President Trump resort to bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. Far from “difficult and complicated,” this presented an easy and simple solution to the problem, at least so far as America’s priorities went.

Furthermore, with Iran’s nuclear weapons program set back by years, there was no longer any point to America continuing the negotiations, nor offering the possibility of sanctions relief. Negotiations were not an end in themselves, but merely a tool that served as a means to the end of eliminating Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Trump found another, easier means to that end, so further negotiations would be, from the American perspective, a means to nothing.

Araghchi offered to re-enter negotiations with the U.S., on the condition that America pledge not to bomb their nuclear sites again. In other words, he demands that America voluntarily forgo the most effective means to dismantle Iran’s nuclear weapons program, in exchange for another means that never offered much promise. This gets the priority of the objectives exactly backward, pretending that the negotiations were an end in themselves, and not a means to achieve something else.

The one possible advantage to a negotiated solution is that it would offer a more permanent resolution. Instead of setting Iran back by years or decades, at which point their nuclear program would again become a threat, a negotiated solution would cause Iran to desist from its efforts to build a nuclear weapon, thus eliminating the future threat.

But this would require the Iranian regime to operate in good faith in negotiating and implementing the dissolution of its nuclear weapons program, something they have not demonstrated a willingness to do.

Ever since 2003, Iran has quarreled with U.N. nuclear inspectors over the lack of transparency in its program — a quarrel that culminated in June when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors officially found Iran in non-compliance. Iran reacted defiantly by declaring its intention to expand its non-compliance by opening yet another uranium enrichment site, at which point Israel began its devastating bombardment. Even since America’s bombing run literally buried the program, Iranian officials have repeatedly declared their intention to exhume and resuscitate the country’s nuclear program.

Iranian lawmakers revealed the regime’s true intentions last month, when they enacted legislation to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, thus violating their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. As the bill received final approval, lawmakers broke out into chants of “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” — suggesting that any proposals to find “a solution based on negotiations” with the regime’s two great adversaries are insincere.

Fortunately, President Trump does not seem to be giving any serious consideration to Iran’s silly offer. Last week, a reporter asked, “What might make you have the desire to do another strike on Iran?” (The answer is painfully obvious — a revival of Iran’s nuclear weapons program — but perhaps the reporter is in the habit of asking questions to which she knows the answer.)

In response, Trump declined even to engage the idea of sidelining America’s most important piece of leverage, responding, “I hope we’re not going to have to do that. I can’t imagine wanting to do that. I can’t imagine them wanting to do that. They want to meet. They want to work something out.” As for America, Trump already achieved the objective of taking Iran’s nuclear threat off the table, and he wouldn’t be afraid to do it again.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Whitewashing Anti-Israel Campus Protests

RELATED VIDEO: Farahanipour Vs. Yaghoubian: Is the Iran Conflict Similar to Iraq and Afghanistan?

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The post Iranian Regime Still Living in an Alternate Universe appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

‘Woke,’ ‘Weak,’ and ‘Out of Touch’: The Crisis of the Democratic Brand thumbnail

‘Woke,’ ‘Weak,’ and ‘Out of Touch’: The Crisis of the Democratic Brand

/in , , , , /by

By Family Research Council

The summer hasn’t done much to break the heat that Democrats are feeling from voters. The party of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris is about as popular as a rush-hour traffic jam, according to the latest surveys. Unfortunately for Minority Leaders Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), time hasn’t helped the dismal approval ratings — nor, most Americans would point out, has the party’s supposed “self-reflection.”

In the eight months since Election night, Democrats have spent countless hours and dollars on meetings, strategy sessions, focus groups, and autopsy reports only to turn around and ignore the lessons they teach. “Woke,” “weak,” and “out of touch” was how one survey described the party that paid for the poll. With the GOP eating into the once-impressive margins that Democrats enjoyed with Hispanics, the working class, and white men, Schumer and company are looking at a pretty dismal approval rating — just 35% across those key demographics.

Equally as frustrating, there’s little to no hope in the base that things will change. Asked how optimistic they are about the future of the party, dejected Democrats have all but resigned to their fate in the political wilderness. Only 35% think things will turn around in the future — an almost 20-point drop from the 57% last July. Much to Jeffries’s and Schumer’s displeasure, congressional Democrats are taking a severe beating in the polls. A late June YouGov/Economist survey found a sharp drop in Americans’ approval of their House and Senate members: a -32 favorability rating, compared to -15 when Donald Trump took office in January.

And while insiders are quick to call these results “striking,” they’re just as quick to dismiss them. “Americans have a pretty sour view of everyone in Washington right now,” Democrat pollster Matt McDermott rationalized. But, he rightly pointed out, “It’s important to note that the favorability of the opposition party has never been a reliable barometer for midterm results. Voters don’t need to like the ‘out’ party to vote for change — they just need to be fed up with the incumbents,” he observed. “I see parallels in the current climate. Trump’s presidency (or second presidency, in this case) has mobilized a lot of anger and opposition.”

Republicans might be tempted to cheer the opposition’s fall from grace or draw premature conclusions about how this could impact the 2026 elections — but they shouldn’t. The reality is, Donald Trump will always be more unpopular in the Democratic base than Democrats themselves — and he, not Jeffries or Schumer — is what will motivate them to turn out in the midterms. To think that the base’s exasperation with the Left will keep them home is to underestimate their general hatred for the president. Once Trump is gone, the party will have a real crisis on its hands. Without the president to drive the protest vote, Americans will be forced to evaluate Democrats on what they actually stand for. And that’s where the party’s tenuous hold unravels.

“Part of the problem for Democrats is that there is little consensus about what exactly the party stands for in concrete policy terms,” David Walsh vents in the Boston Review. Or maybe the problem is that people do know what the Democrats stand for — radical gender ideology, open borders, DEI, abortion until birth, the “global intifada,” and general lawlessness — and reject it on its face. That, more than anything, is what’s given rise to a quiet countermovement in the Democratic Party, a growing determination to give voice to the marginalized — but more broadly appealing — centrists in the base.

Fed up with the off-putting narrative driving the Democrats’ messaging, the party’s “middle” is hosting events like WelcomeFest to bridge the gap that voters see between Jeffries’s Squad and the average American. “In the wake of their 2024 loss,” Jeremiah Johnson writes in The Dispatch, “a significant portion of Democratic leadership seems to believe that what the party really needs is to change the messaging. They need more aggressive PR, better catchphrases, more viral stunts. They need to go on more podcasts!” Sure, he agrees, a better messaging strategy might help. “But the core thing that held Democrats back in 2024 wasn’t PR strategy. It was the party’s beliefs and policies. If Democrats want to win the kind of large and durable majorities that will allow them to really govern, they’re going to have to rethink those policies.”

He’s referring, of course, to the party’s insistence on clinging to fringe views that reject everything from the sanctity of girls’ sports to parental rights in education, legal immigration, and empowering law enforcement. “Democrats,” Johnson agrees, “continue to deviate from public opinion — afraid to denounce the 20 end of an 80/20 issue in the polls for fear of offending an interest group.” And, he continues, “Democrats do themselves no favors by not loudly condemning the excesses of wokeness, which are real.”

There’s a way to thread that needle, Johnson argues. “They can get visibly tougher on illegal immigration while still advocating for more legal pathways and the fair treatment of immigrants. They can focus on the LGBT rights that matter like non-discrimination in the workplace, non-discrimination in housing, and access to health care — rather than dying on dubious and unpopular niche issues like trans athletes in women’s sports. They can loudly denounce the excesses of DEI (such as mandatory diversity statements for technical STEM research) while preserving diversity and inclusion ideas that still make sense (such as honoring civil rights heroes like Jackie Robinson),” he reiterates. “They can advocate for intelligent police reforms while still taking a hard stance against public disorder, crime, and anti-social behavior.”

And yet, every time a Democrat attempts to moderate their stance, they’re later rolled, repentant, or ostracized. California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) and Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) tested the waters on girls’ sports, suggesting it wasn’t fair for America’s daughters to lose titles and positions to men, only to retreat once the party’s woke overlords and fundraisers get their hooks in.

Or take Senator John Fetterman (D-Pa.), the hoodie-wearing castoff who’s staked out a rational position on Israel, Iran, ICE, and immigration, and who’s become, in CNN’s words, “isolated” for agreeing with most voters. While he’s tried to embrace a practical view on some of the Democrats’ biggest messaging liabilities, his effort rarely goes unpunished. Even now, the party’s growing frustration with his independent thinking is helping to fuel a bitter primary race in Pennsylvania, where Fetterman’s overall approval is still a +4 positive at 41%.  Ironically, Republicans, who’ve grown to appreciate his ability to break with the Left, give him even higher marks: 45% approval. “My values haven’t changed,” the senator wanted people to know recently. “But I think in some cases, I think our party’s values have changed.” Instead of seeing Fetterman as a senator who can help Democrats reach voters, he’s become a pariah.

Even Fetterman’s suggestion that the party at least sound more civil while pushing these outlandish agendas was ignored. “I think their primary currency was shaming and scolding and talking down to people and telling them ‘Hey, I know better than you, or you’re dopes, or you’re a bro, or you’re ignorant or, how can you be this dumb? I can’t imagine it. And then, by the way, they’re fascists. How can you vote for that?’” Fetterman asked.

“I know and I love people that voted for Trump, and they’re not fascist. They don’t support insurrection and those things. And if you go to an extreme, and you become a boutique kind of proposition, then you’re going to lose the argument. And we have done that,” he lamented about Democrats.

FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter could only shake his head at the party’s refusal to adapt to the cultural and political winds. “The problem is much deeper than a facelift on their advertising and an update to their talking points,” he told The Washington Stand. “The Democratic Party’s base wants their leaders in Congress to double down on opposing President Trump and the Republican Congress wherever they can. This places the Democratic Party in a desperate position,” he warned. “They can try to stanch the bleeding among key demographics by moderating in some places and risk their base turning on them — or they can lean into the anger of their base and watch their numbers continue to decline among men and working-class voters.”

At the end of the day, it’s their choice. “To win votes, you can’t have wildly different views from the public,” Johnson underscored. “That’s a lesson Democrats seem to have forgotten.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The Biden Autopen Conspiracy thumbnail

The Biden Autopen Conspiracy

/in , , , /by

By The Geller Report

Who approved the Biden administration’s 11th-hour clemency decisions and authorized use of the autopen? Because it certainly wasn’t Biden.

AP, MSNBC, and CNN fell over themselves to brand Trump and anyone who questioned the use of autopens in Biden’s final weeks as conspiracy theorists. Now the NY Times reports this bombshell: “Mr. Biden did not individually approve each name for the categorical pardons that applied to large numbers of people, he and aides confirmed.

or weeks the propaganda press has painted President Donald Trump and others as conspiracy theorists for suggesting that a secret cabal of unelected White House aides were using the autopen without President Joe Biden’s final authorization.(read more)

They knew what they did and they knew it was criminal.

The New York Times’ story on the Biden autopen scandal raises more questions — and urgency for investigators to secure testimony.

The New York Times’ latest piece attempting to help former President Joe Biden and his administration off the hook in the growing autopen scandal is having the opposite effect. If anything, the Biden apologists raised a lot more questions about just who was in control of the White House — and the thousands of presidential clemency decisions issued in the waning days of Biden’s disastrous term.

Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., who serves as chairman of the Oversight Committee, said the Times’ story “confirms Biden White House staff took executive action without the President’s approval.”

“The House Oversight Committee will continue pursuing answers about this historic scandal to prevent such an abuse from happening again,” Comer said in a statement to The Federalist. Whether the ongoing investigations will include further subpoenas wasn’t clear.

Anthony Bernal, former Biden assistant and senior adviser to First Lady Jill Biden, is scheduled to sit for a committee deposition on Wednesday. Bernal failed to show up for a voluntary interview last month. His failure earned him a subpoena to compel his testimony.

Biden’s White House physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, who has claimed in his medical evaluations that Biden was up to the job, also was issued a subpoena to appear. He finally showed up last week but did not answer a single question, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and doctor-patient privilege.

“It’s clear there was a conspiracy to cover up President Biden’s cognitive decline after Dr. Kevin O’Connor, Biden’s physician and family business associate, refused to answer any questions and chose to hide behind the Fifth Amendment,” Comer said in a statement. “The American people demand transparency, but Dr. O’Connor would rather conceal the truth.”

Doug Ross writes:

The revelations uncovered thus far in the Biden autopen scandal are just the tip of a Constitution-sized iceberg.

The American people demand – and deserve – full transparency and accountability: who the hell was operating the autopen and signing these pardons and other controversial documents?

‘I Approve the Use of the Autopen’

The Federalist:

The man at the center of the late-term autopen bonanza has been reluctant in the past to answer questions. Jeffrey Zients, Biden’s chief of staff, was a point man for many of the reported discussions, including the midnight pardons of accused pandemic criminal Dr. Anthony Fauci,  Gen. Mark Milley, and members of the House committee that held the political show trial on the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot. The Times reported that “Biden kept his aides up until nearly 10 p.m.” to talk through last-minute pardon decisions, or at least so sayeth “people familiar with the matter.” The octogenarian president who routinely nodded off during the day was not known to keep such late hours.

On that night, Zients hit “reply all” before writing, “I approve the use of the autopen for the execution of all of the following pardons,” according to the news outlet.

Exactly what Zients knows remains closed to federal investigators. In February, Martin, who at the time served as interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, sent a letter to Zients asking whether Biden “was aware of the breadth of the pardons & the unprecedented preemptive nature.” Zients reportedly blew off the request because it wasn’t a subpoena.

The Seattle Times’ tilted headline at the time? “Trump-allied prosecutor looks to undermine Biden pardons.”

A source with knowledge of the situation tells The Federalist that Zients is cooperating with the Oversight Committee and that a date for his appearance is expected to be set soon.

AUTHOR

 Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: Biden Defends Autopen Use as Republican Investigators Dig Deeper

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

EXCLUSIVE: Epstein-Funded MIT Lab Hosted Panel On Giving Pedos Child Sex Robots thumbnail

EXCLUSIVE: Epstein-Funded MIT Lab Hosted Panel On Giving Pedos Child Sex Robots

/in , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

A Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) lab previously funded in part by Jeffrey Epstein hosted a panel where attendees openly discussed the idea of using “child-size sex robots” to treat pedophiles.

The MIT Media Lab’s July 2016 conference on research questions without “social and moral constraints” included a panel discussion arguing that pedophilia should not be seen as a “moral failing” but rather a medical condition and that the development of “child-size sex robots” is an inevitability, a transcript and video of the event shows.

The Media Lab’s ties to the disgraced financier span a 17-year period in which the lab readily accepted Epstein’s cash donations and facilitated introductions with its scientists on-campus and off, according to a 2020 fact-finding report commissioned by the university. The lab’s director contemplated inviting Epstein to one of its conferences in July 2016, the report states, the same month of the conference where the child-size sex robots were proposed, the only conference the lab hosted that month, according to its website.

“Once child-size sex robots hit the market, which they will, is the use of these robots going to be a healthy outlet for people to express these sexual urges and thus protect children and reduce child abuse? Or is the use of these robots going to encourage, normalize, propagate that behavior?” said one panelist. “We can’t research it [because of reporting restrictions]. But I do wonder whether they’re doing more harm than good in these cases. Because as much as people want these sexual urges — the urges, not the act — to be a moral failing, they are a psychological issue.”

“The issue of normalization, as you brought up. How does that change of society as a whole, and the acceptance of certain kinds of behavior?” another panelist said, while warning about the possibility of the robots being diverted to a black market for entertainment. “The notion of studying sexual deviance and actual normal humans interacting with these things can provide the basis for a deeper understanding of how that operates.”

The previously unreported panel comes to light as the public’s gaze once again fixates on Epstein’s ties to academia, Wall Street and government amid the Trump administration’s move to close the book on investigating the matter any further. The Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation announced in a July 7 memo that they had uncovered no “client list” and would not make further disclosures, spurring incredulity among the president’s supporters and driving a fracture between U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino. The memo also stated “Epstein harmed over 1,000 victims.”

MIT did not answer questions from the Daily Caller News Foundation about whether the MIT Media Lab had considered inviting Epstein to the conference where “child-size sex robots” were discussed.

“The panel referenced occurred nearly a decade ago, and we can’t comment on individual programming decisions a department made. Thousands of events take place on our campus each year,” said MIT spokesperson Kimberly Allen in a statement to the DCNF. “As a general practice, we also don’t comment on the individually held and freely expressed views of any particular community member. The views of any individual community member are their own.”

“Following the independent investigation and report you reference, MIT took a number of steps, including institutional reforms to our gift acceptance processes and donating to four nonprofits supporting survivors of sexual abuse,” Allen said.

MIT shuttered its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) office on May 28 amid President Donald Trump’s crackdown on the Ivy League. But MIT has previously received congressional scrutiny for research on censoring what researchers deemed to be “dangerous digital content” aimed at American conservatives.

A slide from a presentation at the 2016 “Forbidden Research” conference hosted by MIT Media Lab.

The July 2016 conference coincided with frequent contact between Epstein and the Media Lab through then-MIT Media Lab Director Joi Ito, who accepted money from Epstein for the media lab and for his private venture capital funds. Ito also visited Epstein’s properties, including the island of Little St. James. Epstein donated $525,000 to the lab from 2013 to 2017, well after his 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from someone under the age of 18, according to the 2020 fact-finding report.

Ito did not respond to a request for comment. In a 2019 public statement, Ito apologized for his “error in judgement” and said he never heard Epstein discuss his sexual crimes. In that statement, he also promised to “raise an amount equivalent to the donations the Media Lab received from Epstein and will direct those funds to non-profits that focus on supporting survivors of trafficking. I will also return the money that Epstein has invested in my investment funds.”

Epstein’s name was mentioned in connection to a July 2016 conference in the 2020 report, with Ito asking Democratic megadonor Reid Hoffman – a member of the lab’s advisory council – whether to invite the disgraced financier to a conference that same month out of concerns he’d be recognized. People may “see him and maybe know he’s involved,” Ito wrote, per a footnote in the report. The conference where the “child-size sex robots” concept was pitched was the only conference in July 2016, the lab’s website shows. Epstein ultimately did not attend.

LinkedIn Co-founder Reid Hoffman and Former MIT Media Lab Director Joi Ito are pictured awarding the labs “Disobedience Awards” in 2018. Photo credit: (MIT Media Lab, Flickr, Creative Commons)

Epstein did visit the MIT campus at least nine times between 2013 and 2017, the report states. Hoffman joined one of these meetings. The report states Epstein brought “assistants” who were young women “on some visits” to campus, including a visit in 2016, which made staff uncomfortable.

Ito and Hoffman remain connected. On July 11, 2025, Ito announced a “Radical Transformation Award” and $68,000 cash prize underwritten by Hoffman at Chiba Institute of Technology in Japan. Neither Hoffman nor the Chiba Institute responded to requests for comment.

The July 2016 conference also introduced for the first time the idea of a “Disobedience Award” – a $250,000 award underwritten by Hoffman, along with an orb-shaped trophy designed by former MIT Media Lab Associate Professor of Media Arts and Sciences Neri Oxman. Epstein himself received one of these orbs for his status as a donor to the MIT Media Lab, the Boston Globe reported. 

Oxman did not respond to a request for comment.

A 2018 Disobedience Award (Photo credit: Mediated Matter Group, Creative Commons)

The MIT Media Lab began giving the Disobedience Awards at the subsequent summer conference, renamed from “Forbidden Research” to Defiance in 2017. The Media Lab hosted a ceremony honoring more Disobedience Awards recipients in November 2018.

Epstein said in a 2017 interview with Science Magazine that he supported the MIT Media Lab because the researchers there are “rebels who don’t fit in.”

“The MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] Media Lab is a good example,” Epstein said. “I would say 25% of the kids there are autistic, on the spectrum. They don’t really work in groups.”

“It’s my natural bent to move toward the maverick and rebels who don’t fit in,” he said. “They were probably overlooked [in school]. They were definitely never class president.”

Epstein claimed in emails to have facilitated $7 million in donations from former Apollo Global Management CEO Leon Black and Microsoft CEO Bill Gates in 2014, according to the 2020 fact-finding report. Gates has denied that claim. Black has acknowledged giving to Epstein-linked charities but has not addressed the alleged connection to MIT directly, the report states. Requests for comment from Gates through the Gates Foundation and Black through Apollo were not responded to.

The 2020 MIT-commissioned report said that “perhaps” the July 2016 conference to which Ito and Hoffman discussed inviting Epstein was an event with the lab’s fellows.

The lab’s fellows were announced in July but it’s not clear that announcement resembled a conference.

The report’s uncertain suggestion that Ito may have weighed an Epstein invitation to the low-key “announcement of the Media Lab Directors’ Fellows” may have distracted the public from the lab’s annual summer event — the flashier conference on pushing moral boundaries that same month — according to former MIT Media Lab research scientist Babak Babakinejad, who is suing the university over allegations of research fraud.

Babakinejad purportedly blew the whistle on an agriculture project one tech blog dubbed “Theranos for Plants.”

He told the DCNF that his lawsuit should reveal documents related to Epstein as Ito sought funding from Epstein for the agricultural project’s principal research scientist, per the 2020 report.

The Media Lab’s connections to Epstein predate Ito. Ito was introduced to Epstein in February 2013 by Linda Stone, a former member of the Media Lab’s Advisory Council, at a TED Conference in Long Beach, California. Epstein was also close to MIT Media Lab Co-founder Marvin Minsky, an early artificial intelligence researcher, he told Science.

“As you might know, I was very close to Marvin Minsky for quite a long time [and] I funded some of Marvin’s projects,” Epstein told the outlet in 2017.

DCNF co-founder Tucker Carlson was critical of billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman at a public event on July 11, prompting a reply from Ackman on X in which he acknowledged that Oxman, who is his wife, had received $125,000 in funding from Epstein as an artist at the MIT Media Lab.

“I never met Jeffrey Epstein, flew on his planes, went to any of his parties and/or properties, or interacted with him ever,” Ackman said. “When my wife was a professor at MIT, she received a $125,000 grant from Epstein (prior to my knowing of her existence). She met Epstein once for 45 minutes at the request of the head of the MIT MediaLab. […] If this is why Tucker thinks I am in Jeffrey Epstein’s constellation, it’s clear he doesn’t know anything about astronomy.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

AUTHOR

Emily Kopp

Investigative Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Compares ‘Jeffrey Epstein Hoax’ To Russiagate, Blasts ‘Past’ Supporters

MIT Lobbied Against Reviewing Foreign Funds Flowing Into Universities, Emails Show

MIT Bans Diversity Statements For Faculty Hires

Meet The New WHCA President, Just As Lib As The Last WHCA President

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The post EXCLUSIVE: Epstein-Funded MIT Lab Hosted Panel On Giving Pedos Child Sex Robots appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

Biden Was Never Fit For Office To Begin With

/in , , , /by

By John Daniel Davidson

Written by John Daniel Davidson

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Editor’s note: Joe Biden was the ideal State Head for the Deep State: his physical frailty was a uniquely perspicacious symbol for the frailty of the Presidency itself, which under the auspices of the Bureaucracy has become largely a ceremonial office. Donald Trump is changing that. The Executive authority of the United States–now dispersed among a faceless number of government “experts”–represents the greatest amount of power belonging to any political office the world over. What occurred under the Biden Administration was therefore the completion of the Deep State project: the theft of the remaining powers of the President from any democratically accountable person and the total insulation of executive authority from popular answerability. It was the greatest sovereignty heist in modern history. Justice must come, for the sake of this Republic’s well-being, both present and future.

Who approved the Biden administration’s 11th-hour clemency decisions and authorized use of the autopen? Because it certainly wasn’t Biden

At this point, you would be hard-pressed to find any reasonably informed American who honestly thinks President Joe Biden wasn’t in a state of serious cognitive decline at the end of his term in office. Yet the New York Times has at least two reporters who are willing to pretend they believe this.

On Sunday, the Times ran a piece by notorious Russia collusion hoaxer Charlie Savage and Tyler Pager about the thousands of clemency decisions recorded with autopen in the final days of the Biden administration. The piece is meant, on the surface, to be a defense of Biden and his administration’s use of the autopen.

But anyone who reads the entire article carefully will immediately see that its real purpose is damage control: The Trump White House, Justice Department, and Congress are all investigating the high-profile clemency decisions that came down in the final days of the Biden presidency, and it sure looks like Biden’s top aides were making decisions on their own, without the president’s knowledge.

Despite the article’s framing — “Biden Says He Made the Clemency Decisions That Were Recorded With Autopen” — there’s no evidence presented in the piece that Biden personally authorized any of the last-minute pardons. Indeed, the article states that “Biden did not individually approve each name for the categorical pardons . . . Rather than ask Biden to keep signing revised versions, his staff waited and then ran the final version through the autopen, which they saw as … routine”

The overall picture that emerges from the article is that the entire pardon process was directed by top Biden staffers, not by Biden himself. Emails reviewed by the Times “show that use of the autopen was managed by Mr. Biden’s White House staff secretary, Ms. Feldman. She wanted to receive written accounts confirming Mr. Biden’s oral instructions in the meetings before using it to produce the warrants recording the clemency actions, the emails show.” Those written accounts were drafted by aides who themselves were not in the room when Biden supposedly gave verbal authorization for the pardons, and instead came entirely from Biden’s chief of staff, Jeffrey D. Zients, and Biden’s White House counsel, Ed Siskel.

In other words, Zients and Siskel were running the show, and the only evidence we have that Biden was actually authorizing these pardons is that Zients and Siskel insist that he was, verbally, in late-night, closed-door meetings. And the account of these meetings strains credulity: “At the Jan. 19 meeting, which took place in the Yellow Oval Room of the White House residence, Mr. Biden kept his aides until nearly 10 p.m. to talk through such decisions, according to people familiar with the matter.”

So you’re telling me a president in obvious cognitive decline, who clearly could not function after a certain point in the early afternoon, whose White House regularly called a lid at noon, “kept his aides until nearly 10 p.m.” on his last day in office? I’m sorry, but that’s just not believable.

What is believable is that Biden’s presidency was run by a faceless syndicate of aides, lawyers, and senior White House staff — the deep state, in other words. And not just in the final days regarding clemency decisions. Early on in the 2020 campaign it was obvious to anyone who cared to pay attention and be honest that Biden wasn’t all there and wasn’t really in charge. He awkwardly hid in his basement instead of campaigning, using Covid as the excuse. Once he took office, Biden’s decline was undeniable. His routine confusion on stage and in formal settings, his physical frailty and penchant for tripping, and his incessant verbal gaffes and nonsense made it obvious that he wasn’t all there.

Biden once repeatedly looked for a dead congresswomen in the crowd at a White House event and called out her name. That was in September 2022 — long before his disastrous debate performance with Trump made it obvious that he was unfit to run for a second term, let alone serve as commander-in-chief.

All along, the media ran cover for him, insisting anyone who questioned his mental acuity was a conspiracy theorist or acting in bad faith. Some, like CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios’ Alex Thompson, have tried to retcon all of this, writing an entire book about how the Biden White House  hid the president’s mental decline and “deceived” the press. For Tapper to co-author such a book is almost pathologically shameless, since he was one of the major media figures who ran interference for Biden by attacking everyone who noticed the president’s decline.

Like nearly everything else about the Biden presidency, the autopen scandal reveals just how far the deep state was willing to go to keep a mentally compromised figurehead in office. They ran a coup against Biden last summer after the debate with Trump, only once it became obvious and undeniable that Biden wasn’t all there.

The New York Times can cite anonymous sources all it wants to try to “contextualize” the use of the autopen at the eleventh hour of Biden’s term, but like Biden’s obvious unfitness for office throughout his presidency, the truth is right in front of us, plain for all to see. His presidency stands as one of the greatest political scandals perpetrated against the American people in a generation, and eventually someone needs to answer for that.

*****

This article was first published at The Federalist, and is reproduced here with permission

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Trump Is Asking Us To Move On But MAGA Media Luminaries Resist

/in , , /by

By Neland Nobel

Written by Neland Nobel

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Editor’s note: As The Prickly Pear has previously written, this “debacle” is particularly frustrating because it has the recognizable features of a deep state scandal: the classic narrative stuttering, high-ranking officials suddenly contradicting themselves, and a a central lie which is so ridiculous is takes one’s breath away–namely, that Epstein trafficked women and girls only for himself and no one else. It is important to remember that America became a global empire in the wake of WWII, which in one way was lucky, because it allowed us to successfully confront another empire–the “Evil Empire”. There have been many empires throughout history, and they share one thing in common: they are maintained through especially unsavory means. A Republic can be moral; an empire cannot be moral, because an empire is a much more unnatural thing than a Republic. That is a brute fact of history. The American Empire has been maintained through conspiracy, through covert operations against both our own people and foreign populations: such operations were no more savory than the methods of any other empire. Jeffrey Epstein was perhaps one of those methods, and perhaps one of the most unsavory. 

Like everyone else, we are puzzled by the way the Administration has handled the Epstein affair. It seems either discombobulated or sinister, depending on interpretation.

This has led to a split among MAGA supporters and within the Trump Administration.

Perhaps the worst part is that administration officials set us up with the expectation that a release was forthcoming (Attorney General Pam Bondi), even though most of the preparation work was likely performed by deep state operatives from the previous administration. The latter leads to the possibility of being a trap, prepared by Trump’s enemies.

If they don’t have the material or don’t think it is accurate, say so. Don’t tell us it is sitting on the AG’s desk and will soon be released.

But as Scott Adams suggests below, governments do keep secrets, and in some cases, they need to. Does that clash with transparency? Yes, it does.

Sometimes, you might not be able to be transparent. For example, as much as we would like this whole thing explained, we don’t want to expose key intelligence operations. I would like to know more about what my government is doing, but does the public need to know about the vulnerabilities of, say, our nuclear first-strike capability? Did the public need to know we had broken the Japanese naval code or plans for the Normandy invasion?

We are right now in a new cold war with Russia, China, and Iran. To avoid open warfare, sometimes you have to do things in secret, which certainly clashes with the desire for transparency. Which is the higher value to be preserved here? The need for the public to know or for the security of the country itself?

That is a difficult judgment call, and Trump is attempting to make it. Do you trust him to make that call?

We sense it is not incompetence. There is something about the information that doesn’t smell right. And we don’t mean just the salacious nature of Epstein’s operation. Trump is telling us to move on, for some reason. Once again, do you trust him? We are certain the President knows many secrets that he can’t tell us.

The President has been subjected to multiple deep state operations intended to destroy and imprison him. Heck, they have tried to kill him twice. We are sure he wants as much of that as possible to be exposed. However, having been subjected to these operations, he knows he must deal with both dangerous foreign adversaries that pose a threat to the country and internal enemies that pose a similar threat. For some reason, he is telling us to pull back from this particular scandal because its full exposure comes at too high a cost to the nation’s interests.

MAGA wants all treated the same before the law, and that includes the rich and powerful. However, it is not clear whether Epstein’s operation was exploitative; it is unclear whether the girls or the clients were intended to be the victims. Epstein did break the law, was prosecuted on occasion, but received legal breaks from prior administrations. Now, suddenly, Trump is being held responsible for not dispensing justice to those affected. You could say getting justice for Epstein was a cause that left the barn years ago.

We have published numerous critical videos and articles on this subject, so we are aware that you have been receiving a variety of views. However, Scott Adams’ take is different. So different, we commend it to you for a close listen. You, then, must make your judgment.

 

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Toyota To Build Track And More At Arizona Testing Site

/in , , , /by

By Zachery Schmidt

Written by Zachery Schmidt

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Toyota has begun construction of a $50-million-plus expansion project at an Arizona testing facility.

The new amenities will include a 5.5-mile oval track, an off-road park, new ride and handling surfaces, as well as other improvements, Toyota announced. The changes are being made at Arizona Mobility Test Center at Toyota Arizona Proving Grounds. Toyota has owned this facility since 2021. It’s located in Wittmann, Arizona, approximately 60 miles from Phoenix.

AMTC at TAPG spans nearly 11,650 acres and features 77 miles of testing surfaces, as well as 60 miles of paved roads, according to a recent Toyota press release.

Toyota estimates the construction will be completed by the end of 2025.

“The new investment in Arizona signals the facility’s importance to Toyota,” said Stefan Young, vice president at Toyota Motor North America’s research and development.

“Site updates make it more attractive as an ideal place for companies to test new vehicle capabilities, including by Toyota for our own North American-developed vehicle line-up, thanks to the new and expanded development capabilities,” he added.

Toyota also said it plans to develop a future facility at AMTC at TAPG for advanced driver assistance technology.

The manufacturer has received bipartisan support from Arizona politicians for the project.

Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, said Arizona is “grateful” for the efforts Toyota is bringing to the state.

“This new investment in our state will spur economic growth and put us at the forefront of auto ingenuity,” she said.

State Rep. Leo Biasiucci, R-Lake Havasu City, also showed his appreciation to the Japanese-based company. He thanked Toyota for its continued investment in Arizona.

“As chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I’m proud that Toyota chose Arizona to call home,” Biasiucci said.

*****

This article was published by The Center Square and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: Toyota

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Trump laughs off latest death threat from Islamic Republic of Iran: ‘I don’t sunbathe’ thumbnail

Trump laughs off latest death threat from Islamic Republic of Iran: ‘I don’t sunbathe’

/in , /by

By Jihad Watch

It’s remarkable that Tucker Carlson and others have denied that the Islamic Republic of Iran has threatened to kill Trump. They’ve issued this threat repeatedly.

“Trump mocks Iran official’s Mar-a-Lago attack threat: ‘I don’t sunbathe,’” Iran International, July 9, 2025:

“Trump has done something so that he can no longer sunbathe in Mar-a-Lago,” Mohammad-Javad Larijani, a former senior advisor to Iran’s Supreme Leader had told Iranian state TV in remarks first reported in the English language media by Iran International.

“As he lies there with his stomach to the sun, a small drone might hit him in the navel. It’s very simple,” added Larijani, whose two brothers are among the Islamic Republic’s most powerful political figures.

Fox News reporter Peter Doocy read the comments to Trump at a press conference, adding, “Do you think that’s a real threat? And when is the last time you went sunbathing anyway?”

Trump, smiling, retorted: “It’s been a long time. I don’t know, maybe I was around seven or so. I’m not too big into it. Yeah, I guess it’s a threat. I’m not sure it’s a threat actually, but perhaps it is.”

Iranian clerics have previously called on Muslims to kill Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in retaliation for their threats on the life of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei during the conflict….

Larijani’s comments came after an online platform calling itself “blood pact” began raising funds for what it calls “retribution against those who mock and threaten the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.” The site says to have collected over $40 million to date.

It was not immediately possible to verify the authenticity of the figure.

“We pledge to award the bounty to anyone who can bring the enemies of God and those who threaten the life of Ali Khamenei to justice,” a statement on the site said.

The campaign’s stated aim is to raise $100 million for the killing of Donald Trump. It remains unclear who operates the site….

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iranian MP: We need to be able to produce as many nuclear bombs as we want in less than 24 hours

Hamas Wants the World to Believe It Has ‘Lost Control’ of Gaza

Spain: Anti-migrant street riots break out after Muslim migrants beat 68-year-old man

Will Islam Subjugate Europe?

Australia: Muslim screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ stabs random Australians

UK: London police arrest dozens of supporters of newly banned Palestinian protest group

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The post Trump laughs off latest death threat from Islamic Republic of Iran: ‘I don’t sunbathe’ appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

Shot Heard Round the Web: The Democrat Party, America’s Number One Enemy thumbnail

Shot Heard Round the Web: The Democrat Party, America’s Number One Enemy

/in , , /by

By Catherine Salgado

Written by Catherine Salgado

“The river was dyed with the blood of the slaughtered for two hundred yards,” wrote Nathan Bedford Forrest, Confederate general, war criminal, future Ku Klux Klan founder, and Democrat, about his slaughter of the surrendering black and white Union troops at Ft. Pillow. “The approximate loss was upward of five hundred killed, but few of the officers escaping. My loss was about twenty killed. It is hoped that these facts will demonstrate to the Northern people that n*gro soldiers cannot cope with Southerners.”

On July 13, 1821, Forrest was born, a man who would one day have the blood of countless Americans, black and white, on his hands. But he was praised and supported and defended and honored by thousands of his fellow Democrats, both during the Civil War and after the war. He was a hero to decades of Democrats who saw him as a champion of their white supremacist, treacherous, bloodthirsty creed. And so he was. This is the Democrat Party of your grandfathers, your great-grandfathers, and your great-great-great grandfathers. The Democrats, with only alterations of rhetoric, are at their core the same yesterday, today, and forever.

This article is so amazing, we published it for premium members only.

Does that sound like you?

Click here to enroll in premium membership for only $4.99 per month.

Already a member? Login below.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

Freedom and Nationalism thumbnail

Freedom and Nationalism

/in , , , /by

By Daniel Sutter

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

Editors’ Note: Although this essay was written for the July 4th celebration, his commentary on Libertarian opposition to MAGA was spot on. Too many Libertarians are hung up on their theories of free trade and mass migration, and align themselves with the Totalitarian Left. Nationalism, and putting America first, is the core of MAGA, and it is not incompatible with being a classical liberal. We have some libertarian friends who make a fetish out of sending us every negative article they can find, typically from that bastion of freedom, the New York Times.  Suppose you believe in limited government, or no government. How can you support unelected elites that order the world around through unrepresentative and unelected organizations like the UN, IMF, WTO, WHO, the World Court, and the EU? MAGA has its faults, but on the big picture–the nation state versus international bureaucratic control through central planning–they have it correct, and many Libertarians miss the forest for the trees of mass migration. We have a right to preserve our freedom and culture. We are not required to allow any and all persons into the country and put them on public support, which is what open borders do. As libertarian Milton Friedman pointed out, you can’t have an open border with a welfare state.

I have always found celebrating America’s independence to be a joy. America was the first nation founded on [an] idea, and that idea was freedom. The celebration should be even more special this year as we approach America’s 250th birthday and are already beginning the anniversary of the rebellion which produced independence. I realize that not all Americans celebrate our nation. Marxist, Post-Modernist, racialist progressives, I know, believe our nation embodies everything wrong with humanity. But classical liberals and libertarians who value freedom should celebrate our national heritage, right? Except some claim that proponents of freedom are hostile to even American nationalism.

Personally, my immediate reaction was that this must be a joke. I have never seen any tension between freedom and nationalism. World government, the antithesis of nationalism, has always to me appeared enormously detrimental to freedom. I have always favored U.S. national sovereignty over international organizations like the United Nations. I was consequently surprised to learn about the alleged tension between classical liberalism or libertarianism, and nationalism. I believe I first encountered this thesis in Yoram Hazony’s The Virtue of Nationalism. I began to recognize the globalist bent of libertarians and libertarian organizations. Indeed, many free market economists whom I know champion globalist positions like open borders and unrestricted international trade.

I see this as all wrong. Freedom arises when a group of people decide to achieve freedom for themselves; that is, to create a free nation. Throughout the history of civilization, many humans have tried to subjugate others through force, fear, and intimidation. The conquerors have never abandoned their efforts because some folks asked to be left alone. A free nation only comes into existence because the people constituting the nation make a hard commitment to protect each other from subjugation and with no ulterior motive of subjugating their allies of today after defeating the conquerors. This was the essence of the American Revolution and the source of American exceptionalism. A free nation is profoundly moral, perhaps the apex of human morality. Classical liberal theory may hold that all humans are  morally equal, but we are not physically equal. Although we might all contribute to our common defense, the strong and brave contribute more than others. When the strong and brave join in mutual defense as opposed to domination of the physically weaker, this represents the very best behavior of people.

The ideals of libertarian theory remain a pipe dream until or unless a group of people band together to fight for and maintain their freedom. The world is full of predators and defense against predators looking to conquer and exterminate those showing weakness or possessing wealth is always an absolute necessity. If external predators are kept at bay, the problem of who guards the guards arises. In a free nation the guards must choose not to try to dominate other citizens. George Washington returned to Mount Vernon after winning our independence, and he did not use the Continental Army to subjugate Americans. Forging a free nation must involve significant trust, first trust those who do the heavy lifting to secure freedom will not in turn subjugate those they have defended against foreign predators, and second that citizens will not irresponsibly pick fights with others, creating messes for the group.

We should celebrate any nation coming remotely close to realizing the ideal of freedom. And those fortunate enough to be born into a free nation, we should honor those who established and protected this freedom, deliberately choosing not to dominate the fellow citizens they protected.

To be clear, nationalism can be a form of collectivism and has served as cover for efforts to curtail individual freedom. But the voluntary commitment to mutual defense at the core of a free nation is to be celebrated. 

I find the ambivalence and perhaps even hostility of libertarians most surprising because Ayn Rand, a dominant intellectual force of modern libertarianism, was a true patriot for her adopted United States. She always rejected any moral equivalence between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, argued that a free nation could invade an unfree nation whenever it chose, and advocated for rational self-interest in national defense. As just one illustration, consider the following passages from her essay, “The Roots of War”:

A dictatorship is a gang devoted to looting the effort of the productive citizens of its own country. When a statist ruler exhausts his own country’s economy, he attacks his neighbors . . . A country that violates the rights of its own citizens, will not respect the rights of its neighbors . . .

Needless to say, unilateral pacifism is merely an invitation to aggression. Just as an individual has the right of self-defense, so has a free country if attacked.

Ayn Rand was a true America Firster.

We should recognize and applaud the universalism of classical liberalism. The political philosophy was not applicable to only some humans. The principles and rules were based on human nature, specifically our ability to reason and cooperate. Brad Thompson details this for America’s founders in America’s Revolutionary Mind. The rules of just conduct could potentially apply to everyone. This was not a political philosophy patched together to defend the acts of one nationality, race, or religion but one which all humans could live by and up to. Classical liberalism’s universal message conflicted with those seeking to defend and maintain slavery. Phil Magness in The 1619 Project: A Critique highlights the tension between liberalism and Southern efforts to defend the peculiar institution. Defenders of slavery understood the need to reject the entire liberal, free market project to justify continued human bondage. Recognizing the applicability of a system of peaceful cooperation to all humans signifies moral progress and comprises an admirable element of liberalism.

Proponents of liberty seemingly forget, however, that while everyone can potentially live by the rules of freedom, many humans do not embrace this. While we might offer philosophical tracts about the rights and freedoms of all humans, which all should possess. Many humans continue to want to subjugate others or to serve them. Others wish to compel their neighbors to live or worship as they command. In such a world people only have the rights and freedoms they can make others accept. Achieving freedom requires a group to recognize the value of each individual and commit to defend their freedom. A nation – a free nation – is the only way to approximate the classical liberal and libertarian ideal.

American libertarians should also not be ashamed to feel patriotism. Emotions are an automatic human response when we observe good in the world. This was another theme of Miss Rand. Consider this from her essay “Apollo 11″ on watching the rocket’s blastoff:

I found myself waving to the rocket involuntarily, I heard people applauding and joined them, grasping our common motive; it was impossible to watch passively, one had to express, by some physical action, a feeling that was not triumph but more: the feeling that the white object’s unobstructed streak of motion was the only thing that mattered in the universe . . . That we had seen a demonstration of man at his best, no one could doubt – this was the cause of the event’s attraction and of the stunned, numbed state in which it left us.

Freedom is good. Stories of the Americans who chose to put their lives in danger to protect freedom should cause an emotional response. Feel free to cheer at Fourth of July fireworks or get misty eyed watching a documentary on the American Revolution. Freedom isn’t free and the moral choice people make to fight for a nation’s freedom should move the rest of us. Founding and maintaining a free nation is among the best that humans can do.

*****

This article was published by the Heartland Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Daniel Sutter is Affiliated Senior Scholar at the Mercatus Center and Professor of Economics at the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

Image Credit: Grok AI image generator

Switch to Patriot Mobile

The Prickly Pear supports Patriot Mobile Cellular and its Four Pillars of Conservative Values: the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Right to Life, and significant support for our Veterans and First Responders. When you switch to Patriot Mobile, not only do you support these causes, but most customers will also save up to 50% on their monthly cellular phone bill. 

Here at The Prickly Pear, we know that switching to a new cellular service can be challenging at times. Let’s face it, no one wants the hassle.  But that hassle is necessary if Conservatives want to support those who support them.

CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE…

2024 Was A Year Of Bullet-Dodging

/in , , /by

By Elle Purnelle

Written by Elle Purnelle

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Sometimes we see the divine hand of providence work in the shadows. Other times, it’s caught on live television

One year ago Sunday, presidential candidate Donald Trump turned his head to point to a graphic at his rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Milliseconds later, gunshots — or, if you’re MSNBC, “popping noises” — rang out. Trump recoiled and was immediately buried by a pile of Secret Service agents.

For 59 seconds, Americans watching the live-streamed rally wondered if the former president was hurt or even alive. Screams from rally-goers punctuated the televised audio feed; as we would later learn, three attendees had been shot. A beloved wife and daughter were realizing that Corey Comperatore, a firefighter from Buffalo Township, had been fatally shot while shielding them from the gunfire.

You know what happened next. Despite the best efforts of the Secret Service, Trump stood up and pumped his fist, shouting “Fight! Fight! Fight!” It was immediately clear the image of the bloodied, defiant president would be the single most iconic moment of his political career.

Within hours, Trump would arrive at the Republican National Convention, where his announcement of Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance as his running mate would cement the tone of the third Trump campaign. This was no compromising choice designed to appease the old guard of the Republican Party; Trump was all in.

Meanwhile, Democrat strategists scrambled. Things had never looked good for the doddering, confused, and unpopular incumbent. Now that the entire country had watched his opponent tangle with death and win, things had never looked worse. The following weekend, Biden’s Twitter account announced his retreat from the presidential race.

For the next 107 days, Americans would be inundated with PR to convince them that Biden’s vice president and heir apparent, Kamala Harris, was “joyful” and “brat.” She washes her collard greens in her bathtub, just like the rest of us!

Leading up to November, Trump World projected nothing but confidence. His voters looked around at polls predicting a statistical tie, and wondered how such a lopsided matchup could be so close. They all remembered 2020, when Democrat jurisdictions changed voting procedures to allow an unprecedented flood of low-security mail ballots and Big Tech companies censored bombshell news to shield the Biden campaign.

In four years, the Democrat campaign strategy had evolved from rigging election processes to publicly waging a legal battle to throw the opposition and his allies in prison. During those same four years, a weaponized Department of Justice threw peaceful pro-life advocates in prison, raided their homes, and terrorized their families. The president of the United States promised a “winter of severe illness and death” to Americans who made their own cost-benefit analysis about the Covid-19 virus and an experimental shot. People who chose not to take it for medical or religious reasons were unceremoniously fired. In many Democrat-run areas, churchgoers were forbidden to gather together for worship or the taking of communion. Schoolchildren lost years of learning, and teachers taped useless masks to their faces in the name of compliance.

Tens of millions of illegal aliens poured across the southern border, tacitly blessed by the White House, and innocent Americans were raped and murdered as a result.

Nameless aides propped up a Potemkin president. Everyone in America knew it was happening, but talking heads on television dutifully repeated the lies they would later cash in on. The Biden administration tried to launch a “disinformation governance board” to police Americans’ speech. What the administration deemed “an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories,” including dissenting opinions about Covid-19 and the 2020 election, was characterized as a “terrorism threat” by the Department of Homeland Security.

Public schools deluged kids with pornographic and racist curricula. When parents protested, the secretary of the Education Department secretly colluded with a school boards group to smear those parents as domestic terrorists, too.

It’s worth remembering how bad we let things get. Who knows what would have happened if the assassination attempt in Butler had succeeded? Now is a good time to thank God it didn’t.

Events of massive political import are governed by the same hand of divine providence as the millions of personal events — the conversations, acts of love, happy accidents, or silent miracles — that happen every day. Sparing Trump’s life last July was no exception. Nor was the election four months later, in which the worst excesses of the Biden years were repudiated.

It’s an ancient mistake to make messiahs out of politics. But likewise, it’s foolish to believe a God who clothes lilies and feeds sparrows is neglectful of the earthly authorities He commands His people to respect. To do either is to think too little of the sovereignty of God. It is the God of Heaven, the prophet Daniel says, who “changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings.” When doing so spares us from evil, we ought to thank Him.

The great theologian Charles Spurgeon thought his listeners’ forgetfulness of God’s providence in their lives was likely “the greatest stronghold of our natural Atheism.” He warned them, in an 1858 sermon, not to harbor “a doubt of God’s dealings with us in the arrangements of outward affairs.”

The umbrella of God’s loving providence makes our political developments both more significant and less consequential. When we look at earthly rulers, we can recognize their significance as instruments of His divine will, and we can happily trust that they will not ruin it. Spurgeon continues:

God hath not arbitrarily marked out the world’s history; he had an eye to the great architecture of perfection, when he marked all the aisles of history, and placed all the pillars of events in the building of time.

Sometimes those events happen quietly. On occasion, they happen on live TV.

*****

This article was first published at The Federalist, and is reproduced here with permission

Photograph: Rebecca Droke/AFP/Getty Images

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR

‘The Man That Saved Our Country’: Donald Trump Talks About What He Wants His Legacy To Be thumbnail

‘The Man That Saved Our Country’: Donald Trump Talks About What He Wants His Legacy To Be

/in , , , , /by

By The Daily Caller

President Donald Trump did a one-on-one interview on Fox News’ My View with Lara Trump Saturday where he touched on a whole host of issues, including his legacy.

Lara began by asking Trump whether the four-year gap between his terms has played a role in his recent successes.

“Well, experience is very important in life. I think talent is more important than experience but if you can have them both somehow it’s a very good thing, but experience is very important,” he responded.

“I think it also helped; it was very bad for the country, but it also helped to have four years of horror. What went before me was horror, and by comparison, I think anything looks good, and I don’t want to demean what we’ve done because we’ve done a lot of records,” he went on to say. “What they’ve done to our country should never be forgiven … allowing millions and millions of people to come into our country that shouldn’t be here.”

“It was almost like they tried to kill our country,” Trump said while describing what he called a “horror show” for the four years Biden was president.

Trump then went on to tout his administration‘s successes and compliments he’s received from other world leaders.

“The beautiful thing is, now we have the hottest country in the world,” he proclaimed.

“You know I was with the king of Saudi Arabia, the leader of Qatar, the leader of the UAE, and many other leaders at NATO. Separately, every one of them virtually said, ‘you have the hottest country in the world right now, and six months ago, we thought your country was dead.’ They actually thought it was dead and it felt dead. We had not only no leadership, we had negative leadership. So I think that probably makes it look good too, but we’ve done a lot.”

Lara then asked Trump what kept him going after losing the 2020 election when people were saying it wasn’t possible for him to make his way back to the White House.

“Well, number one, I saw what was happening to the country. They were destroying our country. They were allowing people to come into our country from prisons, from mental institutions, gang members — the worst gang members in the world, make our gang members look like … nice people — they were coming in at levels that nobody had ever seen before. No checking, no vetting, no anything, just come into our country and do whatever you want,” Trump said.

Trump also added that fixing the border crisis is a big job along with what his administration is already doing by lowering the costs of energy and curbing inflation.

“It’s a big job getting thousands … hundreds of thousands of criminals out of our country. 11,888 murderers, many of those people have killed more than one person … and he [Joe Biden] let them into our country,” he said. “I guess it wasn’t him so much as the people surrounding the beautiful resolute desk — and I know them all — and they’re not good, they’re smart but they’re not good. They’re smart in a different way, but evil intention”

“He was the worst president in the history of our country,” Trump went on to say, talking about Biden. “Nobody’s done such damage to our country, and we’re fixing it and I think we’re fixing it very fast.”

Trump finished the interview by talking about how he would like to be remembered from his time as president.

“A good person, but a person that saved out country. I really believe our country was going down for the fall. I don’t know if it ever could’ve come back, it was very close to the edge,” he said

“I really would really like to be known as the man the saved our country.”

AUTHOR

Timothy Sekerak

Contributor

RELATED ARTICLES:

Editor Daily Rundown: President Trump Speaks With Daily Caller’s Vince Coglianese

One Year Later, Questions Remain About Butler Despite Trump Being ‘Very Satisfied’ With Investigation

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The post ‘The Man That Saved Our Country’: Donald Trump Talks About What He Wants His Legacy To Be appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

Europe veers Right—Towards Israel and Trump? thumbnail

Europe veers Right—Towards Israel and Trump?

/in , , , , /by

By Dr. Martin Sherman

There are accumulating—albeit belated—signs of a new political assertiveness in Europe, together with a growing appreciation of Israeli resolve and Trumpian toughness

“…this concept [of multi-culturalism] has failed, and failed utterly.” —Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, 2010

Winds of change are finally beginning to blow in Europe.

With them, they carry potential implications not only for the European continent itself but for Israel and the wider Middle East—as well as for relations with Washington, particularly with the current Trump administration.

A stiffening of political will?

A clear indication of the stiffening of political will was reflected in a recent conference held in Vienna.

Under the auspices of former Austrian Vice-Chancellor Heinz-Christian, and with the participation of Members of European Parliament from Germany, Holland, and Belgium, as well as prominent guests of honor from across the continent—including France, Hungary and the UK, the conference focused on “Peace, Freedom, and Security.”

Billed as “The Vienna Conference of European Patriots”, it evinced the ominous banner, “Europe on the Brink – Between Self-Denial, Islamism, and Geopolitical Irrelevance”, reflecting the sense of concern that prevailed at the event. Speakers warned that what once was celebrated as “multicultural open-mindedness” is increasingly proving to be myopic political naivety. Several speakers expressed alarm at what they perceived as an “urgent threat”—i.e., the looming spectre of a steadily creeping transformation of European social order into “Islamist authoritarianism”. The overall sentiment was that the real threat menacing Europe today is not an external one, but more an internal one—eroding the very core of European society.

A threat to national cohesion

This perception dovetails well with the perturbing findings of a government-commissioned probe into the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in France. The report warns that “The Muslim Brotherhood movement is a “threat to national cohesion” in France and action must be taken to stop the spread of “political Islamism.”

Indeed, there was particular disapproval of France, which, it will be recalled, granted the Ayatollah Khomeini political asylum. It was here that he spent his last months in exile under the benign neglect of the French authorities, before returning triumphantly to Iran, where hordes of his devotees, inflamed by his corrosive credo, swept the radical Islamists to power, later to be “exported” globally.

Moreover, along with a considerable body of expert opinion, blame was also attributed, in large measure, to France for the turmoil in Libya and the overthrow of a then much chastened Gaddafi. Paris’s rash haste in siding with the rebels precipitated the current chaos and subsequent flow of migrants into the EU. According to one 2020 study of events in Libya, “Paris soon became the most intransigent power in international efforts to foster negotiations between the Gadhafi regime and the leadership of the revolutionaries…The result of this policy is clearly visible: What has ensued is almost ten years of conflict and social distress.

Significantly, the failure of the current French administration, under Emmanuel Macron, to control the still ongoing tide of Muslim migrants and their overflow across the Channel into the UK has earned the ire of his British neighbors, even eliciting calls for his recent—and unduly ostentatious—state visit to be cancelled.

Flaccid France

Indeed, at the Vienna conference, Macron was taken severely to task for blunders at home and abroad.

Indeed, the French daily, Le Monde, recently outlined the pervasive domestic strife afflicting the country: “There is a rise in bankruptcies and restructuring plans, alongside calls for strikes at Air France, the national rail company …and within the civil service. Additionally, a new wave of unrest is spreading among farmers. [with] this unrest, stemming from economic difficulties and budgetary austerity measures”.

Yet, with the home-front in turmoil, Macron chose to commit his foreign policy to what is increasingly becoming a forlorn anachronism–a Palestinian state—and one likely to place him in direct confrontation with an increasingly assertive and proactive Trump administration. Moreover, in view of the appalling atrocities of October 7, together with the overwhelming support they received from the Palestinian public, both in Gaza and the West Bank, this policy would be an unconscionable reward for blood-curdling terror. As such, it is not only practically unfeasible, but morally bankrupt as well.

In contrast to the censure of the flaccid EU policy, there was praise for both Israel and the Trump administration. Israel was lauded for conveying a clear message with its resolute military action and pinpoint intelligence that left the Iranian nuclear program largely in ruins. Likewise, President Trump was commended for launching his B-2 bunker-busting bombs and Tomahawk missile strikes on the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan facilities in support of Israel’s action, and for laying the foundation for a restructured Mid-East via the “Abraham Accords.

A new European assertiveness

There are accumulating signs of a new political assertiveness and a growing appreciation of Israeli resolve to resist, and stare down what, until recently, seemed to be intimidating radical Islamist threats. With it, a grudging appreciation of Donald Trump may also be emerging, together with a budding acknowledgement of the efficacy of his tough stance on issues his predecessors eschewed. Hopefully, the recent Vienna conference is a sign that the edifice of Europe’s socio-cultural heritage can still be salvaged.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: A new era for Europe?

The post Europe veers Right—Towards Israel and Trump? appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

Trump’s Dept Of Education Ends Free Tuition For Illegals thumbnail

Trump’s Dept Of Education Ends Free Tuition For Illegals

/in , , , , , , , , /by

By The Geller Report

The Department of Education is ending a Clinton-era rule allowing illegals access to federally funded tuition programs.

American children don’t get free tuition.

This should never have happened in the first place.

Trump’s Dept Of Education Shuts Door On Free Tuition For Illegals

The move was part of the White House’s broader effort to restrict taxpayer-funded services to citizens.

B Jayden Jelso, Daily Wire, Jul 10, 2025:

The Department of Education is ending a Clinton-era rule allowing illegal aliens access to federally funded tuition programs.

According to The Daily Caller, the Trump administration argues that the policy, which funds career, technical, and adult education programs, violates the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). The Education Department notified postsecondary education programs that the rule would no longer apply and declared that providers have “obligations to verify the eligibility of participants.”

This was one of several such moves the White House announced today. The Department of Health and Human Services “is restricting illegal aliens from 13 additional public programs, including Head Start,” while the Labor Department “is barring illegal aliens from accessing federal workforce development resources and grants.”

According to a White House fact sheet, the cuts save “roughly $40 billion in benefits for American citizens, overturns decades of bureaucratic defiance and builds on President Trump’s executive order directing an END to the subsidization of open borders.”

“Past presidents sat by and allowed illegal aliens to steal public benefits at the expense of hardworking American taxpayers — that ends now,” White House Assistant Press Secretary Taylor Rogers told The Daily Wire. “Under President Trump, it’s America first always.”

PRWORA previously exclusively allocated the use of federal funds to American citizens, permanent residents, and a small category of “qualified aliens” (e.g., refugees, asylees). However, the Clinton administration exempted postsecondary programs from the rule. The Trump Education Department stated that the exemption “mischaracterized the law by creating artificial distinctions between federal benefit programs based upon the method of assistance.”

In line with PRWORA, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said if the federal government is going to fund postsecondary education programs, it “should benefit American citizens, not illegal aliens.”

“Under President Trump’s leadership, hardworking American taxpayers will no longer foot the bill for illegal aliens to participate in our career, technical, or adult education programs or activities,” she said. “The Department will ensure that taxpayer funds are reserved for citizens and individuals who have entered our country through legal means who meet federal eligibility criteria.”

The Trump administration has been cracking down on states that provide benefits to illegals in education.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

President Trump Authorizes ICE to Arrest ‘Slimeball’ Rioters

Iranian Group Places $40 Million Bounty on Trump’s Head, Urges ‘Every Cell of the Resistance in the West’

CANCELLED: Museum Journalism Event Celebrating NY Cartoonist Who Published Cartoon Mocking Trump Supporting Texas Flood Victims

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The post Trump’s Dept Of Education Ends Free Tuition For Illegals appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

Are Illegal Immigrants Using Taxpayer-Funded Benefits? Not Anymore. thumbnail

Are Illegal Immigrants Using Taxpayer-Funded Benefits? Not Anymore.

/in , , , , , , , /by

By Family Research Council

In another move to tackle illegal immigration, President Donald Trump and his administration are ensuring that illegal immigrants cannot access taxpayer-funded programs. The White House announced Thursday that the Trump administration “is taking the biggest step in more than 30 years to protect taxpayer-funded benefits for American citizens — NOT illegal aliens.” The Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Education (DOE), Agriculture (USDA), and Labor (DOL) have all moved to ensure that illegal immigrants cannot take advantage of taxpayer-funded programs, which the White House estimates will save “roughly $40 billion in benefits for American citizens…”

HHS officially rescinded a Clinton-era policy which the agency says “improperly extended certain federal public benefits to illegal aliens.” The withdrawn 1998 policy was an agency interpretation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 that “improperly narrowed the scope of PRWORA, undercutting the law by allowing illegal aliens to access programs Congress intended only for the American people.” PRWORA barred noncitizens from receiving “federal public benefits,” which the 1998 HHS policy interpreted not to apply to a broad swath of its taxpayer-funded programs.

In a statement shared with The Washington Stand, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said, “For too long, the government has diverted hardworking Americans’ tax dollars to incentivize illegal immigration.” Rescinding the 1998 policy, Kennedy said, “changes that — it restores integrity to federal social programs, enforces the rule of law, and protects vital resources for the American people.”

The DOE also reversed a Clinton-era policy in order to terminate “taxpayer subsidization of illegal aliens in career, technical, and adult education programs.” Like HHS, the DOE had previously issued its own agency interpretation of PRWORA, not classifying numerous taxpayer-funded programs as “federal public benefits” and subsequently allowing illegal immigrants to access government-funded career, technical, and adult postsecondary education programs. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement, “Postsecondary education programs funded by the federal government should benefit American citizens, not illegal aliens.” Due to the policy shift, she said that “hardworking American taxpayers will no longer foot the bill for illegal aliens to participate in our career, technical, or adult education programs or activities.”

The USDA has also moved to reinforce protections against illegal immigrants accessing taxpayer-funded programs, especially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps. “The generosity of the American taxpayer has long been abused by faulty interpretations of the 1996 welfare reform law,” said Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, referring to PRWORA. She insisted that “illegal aliens should not receive government dollars. This effort is one of many by the Department of Agriculture to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse of USDA’s programs and policies.”

Federal workforce development programs and related grants have also been shielded by the DOL. In order to benefit from programs funded by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, grantees and applicants must first verify that they have valid work authorization. Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer said in a statement, “By ensuring these programs serve their intended purpose, we’re protecting good-paying jobs for American workers and reaffirming this Administration’s commitment to securing our borders and ending illegal immigration.”

Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) research director Steven Camarota told TWS that legal loopholes — like those that the Trump administration is now closing — in public benefits have allowed illegal immigrants to burden American taxpayers for decades. “There are a number of reasons how and why illegal immigrants can access the welfare system, including the fact that they have U.S.-born children and they are actually eligible for some program” because of that, Camarota explained. He continued, “The bottom line is most illegal immigrant households have at least one worker, but they make extensive use of the social benefits, particularly food programs and Medicaid, because their low-average educational attainment means they generally earn low wages and qualify for programs.” Denoting legal loopholes in public benefits programs, he added, “I have no evidence that they are cheating or gaming the system, though they do seem to have extensive knowledge of the welfare system, given their use rates.”

“If we wish to avoid these costs, then enforcing the law and ensuring that as many illegal immigrants as possible go home is the only option,” Camarota insisted. He expounded, “It is virtually impossible to prevent this situation, partly because of the presence of U.S.-born children, partly because it’s impossible deny people emergency care, and partly because the United States is just not a country that’s going to stop people from receiving WIC or free school lunch or emergency medical care.” He clarified, “If the illegals remain, so will the cost.”

CIS director of Policy Studies Jessica Vaughan said in comments to TWS, “These steps are long overdue. Nearly 30 years ago, Congress decided that American taxpayers should not have to pay for welfare benefits and other services to illegal aliens.” Vaughan observed that numerous presidential administrations, starting with Clinton’s, “have chipped away at that law by creating loopholes to allow federal and state agencies to offer some of these benefits to illegal aliens.” She observed, “Now we are at the point where more than 60% of illegal alien households are accessing some form of welfare, which is an enormous cost for taxpayers, and which limits what is available to Americans who need them.”

“Taxpayers should not have to subsidize vocational or other post-secondary education for illegal aliens, who aren’t allowed to work in this country. Illegal workers displace American workers and cause their wages to go down,” Vaughan said. She emphasized, “We should not be encouraging illegal aliens to stay here to participate in taxpayer-funded training and education programs, when millions of Americans who would like to compete for better jobs should have these opportunities.”

Vaughan continued, “Similarly, illegal aliens should not receive taxpayer-funded child care or other non-emergency health and welfare programs. Access to these programs should be preserved for Americans and legal immigrants.” She explained, “Many American community leaders have learned the hard way in the last four years that generous social service programs like guaranteed access to shelter and health services are unsustainable with mass migration. Numerous studies have shown that this is because, on balance, illegal alien households contribute less in taxes than they receive in public benefits.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEO: Criminal Illegal Alien Lina Maria Orovio-Hernandez received MORE THAN $400,000 in stolen federal benefits

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The post Are Illegal Immigrants Using Taxpayer-Funded Benefits? Not Anymore. appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.