Why Los Angeles is burning

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

My hometown during the 2017 fires in which my childhood home was burned and many friends and neighbors lost their homes and animals, and nine lost their lives.

After years of fire and smoke in rural Northern California—evacuations, death and destruction, broken communities, lost homes—watching Los Angeles burn feels surreal but inevitable. This could have been avoided, but we knew it was coming.

For years, we have sounded the alarm to anyone who would listen. San Francisco and Los Angeles ignored us.

Now Los Angeles—one of the great cities on earth, a unique American gem—is in ashes.

For anyone who wants to understand how we got here, this is what happened.

California has not built a new major water reservoir since 1979

The state’s last major reservoir project was completed in 1979, when the population was some 23 million. It’s been 50 years, there are now 39 million residents, and progress on the storied California Water Project has stopped.

In 2014, Californians voted overwhelmingly for Prop 1, funding a US$7.5 billion bond to construct new water reservoirs and dams, with a deadline of January 1, 2022.

It’s now 2025, and no reservoirs have been built. Proposed projects remain mired in the bureaucratic morass of California politics.

There is no reason for California to experience water shortage. The natural climate is cyclical: years of low rainfall punctuated by years of extreme rain. Eleven months ago, at the start of 2024, we were enjoying several extra feet of snowpack in the Sierras and the most rain we’d had in 25 years. The reservoirs were overflowing.

Year after year, massive, swollen rivers in Northern California send water out to the Pacific Ocean, while government agencies scold citizens for watering their lawns.

The state is spending millions to REMOVE existing water infrastructure

If failure to build new water projects for a growing state population weren’t bad enough, Gavin Newsom and his feckless administration is spending millions of taxpayer dollars to destroy existing water infrastructure in fire-prone Northern California.

The Klamath Dam was removed in 2023.

Scott Dam is next: a century-old dam system upon which some 600,000 people rely in agricultural communities stretching from Potter Valley to Bodega Bay.

The government wants to remove this dam, impoverishing the farm communities and rural residents who rely on it, to “improve salmon habitat.”

Photo credit USFS. Lake Pillsbury is a scenic reservoir created by Scott Dam, critical water infrastructure serving rural and ag communities and 600,000 users from Potter Valley to Bodega Bay. Gavin Newsom’s administration is set to remove this dam, which will run Lake Pillsbury dry.

Several lethal fires have hit this region in the past few years, including the Redwood Complex and Sonoma Complex fires in 2017, and the Mendocino Complex Fire in 2018. Removing their water is a cruel blow for a community still reeling from those disasters, leaving them defenseless when the next fire comes.

Water cuts to farmers and citizens over a 3-inch fish led to empty reservoirs

Farms were run dry and pumps shut off to preserve the three-inch “Delta Smelt”

California is the leading agricultural state in the nation. But for years, politicians slashed water allotments and shut off ag pumps to farmers in an effort to save a finger-length, minnow-like fish called the Delta Smelt.

When President Trump took office, he said California should consider updating its water infrastructure so farmers could grow crops and cities didn’t have to burn to the ground over a minnow.

This enraged Democrat activists. Their righteous indignation fueled many think pieces about the Delta Smelt.

For all that spilled ink, the restoration efforts didn’t work. Outside hatcheries, the Delta Smelt are all but gone.

So are scores of farmers, their land run dry by politicians in Sacramento.

This approach is typical of the consistent preference displayed by California politicians for the perceived prosperity of any animal, species, or ecosystem over the welfare and survival of its citizens.

After years of anti-human water and land policy, neglecting critical infrastructure, when the fires started last night in Los Angeles, there was no water in the fire hydrants.

Removing grazing, control burns, and management left California an unnatural tinder box

According to UC Berkeley rangeland science professor Lynn Huntsinger, cattle remove some 12 billion pounds of dry biomass from California’s grasslands and woodlands every year.

“Cattle are the largest fire prevention tool we have in the state,” she told me, “But people are largely unaware of it.”

Environmentalists blame cows for climate change. Beef cattle are responsible for less than 2% of all U.S. carbon emissions. Wildfire is responsible for between 15% and 30% of U.S. emissions—and that number appears to be getting worse.

Prescribed fires and forest management have also gone out of fashion. For centuries, Native tribes practiced control burning to manage the natural fire risk inherent to California’s ecosystem.

Round Valley rancher Randy Vann lent me a rare book called The Last of the West by Frank Asbill, whose father Pierce was one of the earliest European explorers in Northern California. In it I came across an incredible passage in which Frank details Mendocino County as his father found it in the spring and summer of 1854:

The lower mountains and valleys…were wild oat fields, the oats being as high as the horses’ backs. There was very little underbrush, as the Wylackie Indians kept their country well burned, burning it every three years. Today the enlightened white man prevents fires, with his water shed and other devices, so that there is timber-rot, tangled underbrush, second growth, worthless timber, and a twisted mass of brush, twenty to fifty feet high, all through these same mountains. This underbrush, literally covered with cobwebs, holds the dried pine needles and dry leaves from the trees in a mass of inflammable material, ready for spontaneous combustion.…The lush undergrowth of today is far different from the flower gardens of that earlier time.

In his incredible piece for The California Sunday Magazine, author Mark Arax interviewed Richard Wilson, an elderly Mendocino County rancher who ran the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection in the 1990s.

“The Indians gave us the natural forest. Much of it was patchy, and the trees grew to differing heights,” Wilson told him. “This combination of open ground and uneven canopy kept the fires from raging. Now the fires are raging. They’re racing from forest to suburbia, and we’re scratching our heads trying to figure out why.”

Arax writes about the slow abandonment of California’s natural ecosystem in favor of a lush, dense undergrowth favored by European sensibilities.

What was once sparse is now densely packed with pine, fir, cedar, and manzanita. A forest that supported 64 trees an acre in pre-settlement times now boasted 160 trees an acre. The modern eye sees this mountain-to-mountain vegetation as proof of the forest’s good health. Like the border-to-border almond trees in the valley below, vigor would appear to be nature at its most eloquent. But that is not what nature intended. “The landscapes of today may look attractively lush,” Gruell writes, “but the thickening forest threatens us with several problems.”

For decades, ideologues waged an all-out war against forest management. Earth First! terrorists spiked trees, driving metal spikes into trunks designed to kill or maim unwitting loggers. President Joe Biden appointed one of those extremists to lead the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 7 million acres were named “protected habitat” for spotted owls, turning logging communities in the North into ghost towns and axing tens of thousands of jobs.

All of these efforts resulted in unnatural, out-of-control overgrowth. When the fires raged through, hot and wicked, those “protected” trees and wildlife were decimated, not with the judicious eye of proper sustainable loggers, but with the fury of insulted nature.

In response, Gavin Newsom cut the budget for forest management. And in October of last year, under President Joe Biden, the Forest Service put a stop to prescribed burning in California altogether.

California changed its wildfire approach from expert forest management to militarized fire suppression

In its slow shift away from responsible, historic land management, California also changed the focus of its fire services away from land and forest management to militarized fire suppression and firefighting. Gone were the days of Richard Wilson’s Department of Fire and Forestry Protection. Now we have something new: CAL FIRE.

By its 2006 name change, CAL FIRE had reached final form—a “disaster-industrial complex,” Arax calls it.

Equipped with helicopters, air tankers, bulldozers, all-terrain fire trucks, thousands of employees, and hundreds of millions of dollars, the fleet of union-backed firefighters weren’t taking orders from quiet old cattlemen and khakied forestry workers anymore.

Screenshot from the CAL FIRE website where the agency suggests deadly megafires are the “new normal” thanks to climate change and vegetation buildup.

In place of tree thinning, control burning, forest management, and brush clearing, we had Smokey the Bear. Prevention, suppression. Fire forces bought into the delusion that they could eliminate fire from this ecosystem. Instead of using fire as a tool, they tried to ban it. We allowed unnatural overgrowth to take over, turning into billions of tons of dry fuel. When fires did burn, they destroyed.

In a piece for The Atlantic titled “Trees Are Overrated,” author Julia Rosen suggests the militarized approach of modern fire practices goes against centuries of land knowledge.

Many Indigenous peoples, likely noting the benefits of wildfires for hunting and foraging grounds, intentionally burned the landscape, helping to maintain and possibly expand grasslands and savannas. But in Europe, powerful civilizations took root in forested terrain. And centuries later, when these cultures began exploring and colonizing the rest of the world, they chose trees over grass.

The vast plains of the American West are an ecosystem designed for fire, not heady overgrown brush. In terms of climate impact, grassland is a more effective and reliable carbon sink than forest. One study even found that grasslands may store more carbon through fire than forests lose.

“Fire for the savanna is like rain for the rain forest,” Joseph Feldman, an ecologist at Texas A&M University, told The Atlantic.

A comparison of the Yosemite valley floor in 1872 versus 2020. Notice the expansion of tree cover. Credit: University of California

The plains of the American West were not meant to resemble the European forests familiar to our pioneer fathers’ ancestral eye; it is more like the African savanna. This place, in its stark, haunting beauty, was shaped by fire.

State politics have become a money laundering scheme for powerful Democrats

One fact that seems to be lost in the coverage of the Los Angeles fires is this: We had warning.

This tweet was posted Monday, the day before the winds started.

I now live in Orange County. Everyone knew high winds were hitting yesterday. This happens; dry, fast Santa Ana winds or “devil winds” blow from the desert over the mountains, funneling through narrow mountain passes and rapidly heating as they descend.

This year, the conditions for fire were obvious and terrifying. We’re coming off two record rain years, but this winter has been dry. With the devil winds near, we were all on watch.

Still, inexplicably, when the fires started, there was no water in the Los Angeles fire hydrants.

The media will still blame climate change. This allows powerful Democrat politicians and bureaucrats to continue their money laundering scheme in California without accountability.

It’s tough to skim money from workers clearing brush or operating water infrastructure. It’s much easier to skim that money from a DEI program or an anti-fatphobia task force. There are no deliverables expected from these endeavors. They are empty talking points that do not require expertise, sweat, or calluses. No one has to get up on a podium and stand before a microphone and explain where the money went. It’s the perfect system for quietly bleeding citizens dry.

There were 13,909 “homeless fires” in Los Angeles in 2023

A few months ago, LA Mayor Karen Bass slashed the city’s fire budget by $17.6 million. She cut the budget for other government functions such as sanitation and street service. These are the items that Californians pay taxes for; one might say they are the only reason to pay taxes.

Her 2025 budget proposal includes $950 million for “addressing homelessness.”

In California, the homeless are treated like a protected political class. Any suggestion to clean up homeless encampments or get the mentally ill and drug addicted off the streets is met with disdain, as though leaving unwell human beings in squalor, a danger to themselves and others, is the compassionate choice.

It turns out mentally ill people camping in public spaces often start fires. In 2023, 13,909 “homeless fires” were started in Los Angeles alone, almost double the number in 2020. Some are caused by cooking fires, or by tapping into city electrical wires under the pavement.

Between 2019 and 2024, California spent $24 billion to “combat homelessness.” During those five years, the homeless population grew by 30,000 to 181,000. Despite spending the equivalent of $160,000 on each homeless person, the state had nothing to show for it. A 2024 report said the state lost track of those billions of taxpayer dollars, failing to “adequately monitor” its spending.

The homeless issue has become nothing less than a money laundering scheme for greedy, unscrupulous politicians and administrators, lining the pockets of the bureaucrats paid to “address homelessness” as year after year, the problem worsens, with no accountability.

ESG/climate policies and DEI hiring prioritized over effectiveness and competency

In 2021, the L.A. Fire Department issued a racial equity plan to “end systemic, institutional, and structural racism” in the force. This plan includes a chart to map out the racial makeup of employees.

The current LA fire chief appointed in 2022, Kristin Crowley, is female and gay. Her stated focus is improving diversity in the force.

Over at the Mayor’s office, when last night’s fires broke out, Mayor Bass was in Africa, attending the inauguration of the Ghanese president on the taxpayer dime.

Governor Newsom thanked her for providing leadership “in absentia.”

Bass, a black woman, won her race for mayor against Rick Caruso, a successful Los Angeles businessman who changed his political affiliation from Republican to Democrat in a failed bid to soften his appeal to L.A. voters. Caruso was on the ground last night to discuss the fires with local news crews, and the first person I saw to break the news that the hydrants were not working.

Meanwhile, as 100,000 evacuated Californians prayed their homes were still standing, our critically senile outgoing president Joe Biden took the opportunity at this morning’s press conference to announce, “The good news is, I’m now a great-grandfather.” It brought to mind his equally self-involved press conference in Lahaina after the Maui fires, in which he told a roomful of survivors about the time his Corvette almost caught fire.

State politicians take donations from at-fault power companies while fire victims remain unpaid

The history between California politicians and state-regulated power companies like Southern California Edison (SCE) and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is a long and sordid one.

PG&E has a monopoly on natural gas and electricity services across much of the Northern part of the state. The company was responsible for over 1500 fires between 2014 and 2017, including the 2018 Camp Fire that took 85 lives and destroyed nearly 18,900 homes and buildings.

After pleading guilty to 84 counts of manslaughter in the Camp Fire, PG&E was ordered to pay $13.5 billion to victims. The company filed for bankruptcy.

PG&E has made millions of dollars in donations to politicians like Gavin Newsom, Jared Huffman, and Nancy Pelosi.

In the wake of its new status as a bankrupt convicted felon, PG&E continued to make those donations, spending millions of dollars on lawmakers’ campaigns, treating employees to expensive dinners days before planned power shut-offs, and doling out $11 million in performance bonuses to executives, all while fire victims remain unpaid.

The WSJ reports California fire victims are still unpaid after PG&E pled guilty to 84 counts of manslaughter in the Paradise fire and declared bankruptcy.

Newsom also appears to enjoy a financial relationship with PG&E. Prior to serving as governor, PG&E gave Newsom’s winery over $500,000 for “advertising services.” During his gubernatorial race, PG&E was Newsom’s second-highest political contributor with $208,000 in donations.

SCE has its own lengthy history of political scandals and cover-ups. Former attorney general Kamala Harris appeared to look the other way for both power companies.

A report by ABC10 found that, of the 55 lawmakers representing California in Congress, all but nine have taken money from PG&E.

These power companies continue to raise rates on Californians while failing to maintain basic critical infrastructure in fire-prone areas or make their victims whole.

Ashes to ashes

Butte County cattleman Dave Daley went viral among California ranchers when he wrote about what happened to his land in the 2020 Bear Fire:

Someone asked my daughter if I had lost our family home. She told them “No, that would be replaceable. This is not!” I would gladly sleep in my truck for the rest of my life to have our mountains back.

I am enveloped by overwhelming sadness and grief, and then anger. I’m angry at everyone, and no one. Grieving for things lost that will never be the same. I wake myself weeping almost soundlessly. And, it is hard to stop.

I cry for the forest, the trees and streams, and the horrible deaths suffered by the wildlife and our cattle. The suffering was unimaginable. When you find groups of cows and their baby calves tumbled in a ravine trying to escape, burned almost beyond recognition, you try not to wretch. You only pray death was swift. A fawn and small calf side by side as if hoping to protect one another. Worse, in searing memory, cows with their hooves, udder and even legs burned off who had to be euthanized. A doe laying in the ashes with three fawns, not all hers I bet.

Rural California has been suffering. Perhaps our urban neighbors thought it was safe to ignore us. If the cities thought our pain and devastation would stay isolated to the parts of California that don’t matter to Gavin Newsom, they know today it won’t. No place, not even Los Angeles, is so removed from nature.

There is nothing new about California’s dry climate or cyclical rainfall.

There’s nothing new about the devil winds. Joan Didion wrote about them back in the 60s.

It is hard for people who have not lived in Los Angeles to realize how radically the Santa Ana figures in the local imagination. The city burning is Los Angeles’s deepest image of itself. Nathaniel West perceived that, in The Day of the Locust, and at the time of the 1965 Watts riots what struck the imagination most indelibly were the fires. For days one could drive the Harbor Freeway and see the city on fire, just as we had always known it would be in the end. Los Angeles weather is the weather of catastrophe, of apocalypse, and, just as the reliably long and bitter winters of New England determine the way life is lived there, so the violence and the unpredictability of the Santa Ana affect the entire quality of life in Los Angeles, accentuate its impermanence, its unreliability. The winds shows us how close to the edge we are.

What is new are years of mismanagement, sprawling urban centers built in unattended dry brush, and underprepared government agencies focused on DEI and rhetoric over outcomes.

These are just a few reasons for the state of the Golden State, the reason LA is on fire. There are layers of ineptitude to examine. Years of government mismanagement and money laundering and rejection of pragmatism and science in favor of ideological sun god worship and anti-humanism. Not all the headlines are exciting. This is what a Democrat supermajority looks like. This is the banal, boring brutality of bureaucracy. It’s death by a thousand cuts. This is why people ignore it, get numb to it, or finally move away.

This is why Los Angeles is burning.

This article has been republished with permission from UNWON.  

Do you think that the Los Angeles conflagration was preventable? 

AUTHOR

Keely Covello

Keely Covello is a writer, investigative journalist and, documentary filmmaker based in rural California. Visit and subscribe to her Substack, UNWON.

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

Larry Thompson: ‘The progressive stronghold in CA is not dead, but its demise is surfing on the Pacific waves of change.’

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

“The progressive stronghold in California may not be dead today, but I predict its demise is surfing on the Pacific waves of change.” — Larry Thompson

LOS ANGELES /PRNewswire/ — With the fires in Los Angeles still burning and the fingers of blame still being pointed, the Trump Vance Inaugural Committee has announced there will be three Official Inauguration Balls: the Commander in Chief Ball (focused on military service members), the Liberty Inaugural Ball (geared toward Trump supporters that will feature a Village People performance), and the Starlight Ball (focused on high-dollar donors). The President will dance at all three balls. His dance card is full except for California Democrats.

Even though President Trump improved his popularity from his 2020 presidential bid, he lost the state of California in the 2024 Presidential General Election to Vice President Kamala Harris by 20%. California maintained its democratic stronghold notwithstanding the country’s majority conservative vote.

On the local level, Los Angeles Mayor, Karen Bass (D), who has still failed to explain why she was in Africa when the Pacific Palisades fire broke out, is fighting an attack from real estate mogul and former candidate for Los Angeles mayor, Rick Caruso (D), who lost the costly election to Karen Bass by 10% in 2022. It appears that Caruso may be considering another run for mayor or even governor in 2026.

“The basic fundamentals of leadership start with being present,” Caruso, a former Republican and conservative Democrat, said January 10 in a post on X, a veiled swipe at Bass’s absence in the city when the fires broke out last week. Bass has said that while she was away, she was in regular contact with deputies and officials. She also said political sniping accomplished little.

While Bass finds herself on the defensive, Congressman Brad Sherman (D) also finds himself under scrutiny by his recent opponent, Larry Thompson (R), who challenged Sherman in the recent General Election for U.S. Congressional District 32. The District includes Pacific Palisades and Malibu, where the fire has done the most damage. As reported by Ballotpedia.com, Thompson received 108,711 votes in the 2024 General Election in his bid for Congress, which is the most votes ever received by any candidate running against Brad Sherman in his 28 years in office.

Caruso and Thompson’s efforts indicate that the tides of liberalism may be slowly receding in California. Thompson states, “The progressive stronghold in California may not be dead today, but I predict its demise is surfing on the Pacific waves of change.”

While California’s politically progressive tempo may be slowing, it’s doubtful that President Trump is ready to invite many California elected officials to join him in his famous “Trump Dance” at his Inaugural Balls. His political twerking to the Village People’s “Y.M.C.A.” will still entertain his supporters and offer an optimistic promise for America’s future.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

Once Again, Having No Faith in the Smartest Guy in the Room

/in , , , , , , , /by

Oy vey! The glass is not half empty—it’s completely empty!

Oy gevalt! The sky really is falling!

That’s what our purportedly most astute and seasoned political commentators would have you believe about the ceasefire agreement that was reached just a day or so ago between Hamas and Israel.

These pearl-clutching, handwringing, anxiety filled savants have now become 2025’s Doomsday Squad. But it sounds to me like they all participated in the same Zoom session, so similar are their dire messages and predictions.

And so wrong-headed!

The esteemed Harvard Law professor emeritus, Alan Dershowitz, opined that “it wasn’t a deal; it was  a crime.”

“This was not the result of a negotiation between equals. If an armed robber puts a gun to your head and says, ‘your money or your life,’ your decision to give him your money would not be described as a deal,” he said.

“Would you call it a deal if somebody kidnapped your child, and you ‘agreed’ to pay ransom to get her back? Of course not. The kidnapping was a crime. And the extortionate demand was an additional crime,” Dershowitz continued.

The estimable Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and prolific author, asked “How bad is it? It makes a replay, and quite likely more than one replay, of Hamas’ massacre of 1,200 Israelis on Oct. 7, 2023, a very real possibility…the deal also involves ‘the release of 50 Palestinian Arab terrorists serving life sentences. These are essentially convicted murderers with Jewish blood on their hands who are likely to murder Jews again.’”

The widely known commentator and President of the Middle East Forum, Daniel  Pipes, called the deal “momentous” and “horrific.”

“The deal, Pipes concluded, “releases many hundreds of hardened Islamist criminals, now free to return to their murderous ways. It nearly assures continued Hamas rule in Gaza. It boosts Islamist morale worldwide. It humiliates the West’s foremost Middle Eastern ally.”

The prolific British writer Melanie Phillips also weighed in, writing that negotiating with Qatar was “dealing with the devil,” and that the jubilant Arabs were ecstatic because they believed that the deal “would enable them now, finally, to destroy Israel and the Jews.”

In addition, the formidable Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) issued this stern warning: “No responsible Israeli government should agree to such a dangerous surrender deal. Didn’t the government learn from the 2011 Gilad Shalit deal, in which Israel received one Israeli hostage for releasing 1,027 Palestinian Arab terrorists (including October 7 mastermind Yahya Sinwar) who were collectively responsible for killing 569 Israelis? The Shalit deal resulted in October 7, numerous other terror attacks, the murders of more than 2,000 innocent Jews and the maiming of many thousands of innocent Jews and others.”

And to top it off, several high-ranking members of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s coalition threatened to leave if he signed the deal, which was predicted to result in total chaos in the Knesset. They include National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who called the deal “reckless,” as well as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, and Minister of Diaspora Affairs Amihai Chikli.

Bottom line, each of these critics––and dozens of others––denigrated both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President-elect Donald Trump for agreeing to and participating in one of history’s worst deals!

OTOH

My question to these critics: What do you think the conversation was when the Israeli Prime Minister visited the President-elect at his Mar-a-Lago estate last July? Do you suppose they discussed the poetry of Emily Dickinson?

Do you think they studiously avoided discussion of the ongoing and escalating war not between but among Israel and Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Yemen, and Iraqi groups, and what to do about this existential threat to the tiny Jewish state?

Do you think they wished each other well and parted ways with handshakes and smiles?

I don’t.

THE PLAN OF ACTION

I think that President-elect didn’t pressure PM Netanyahu at all, that he simply suggested a strategy that would work.

And it did!

Given his solution-oriented nature, Mr. Trump told the PM that he would threaten to annihilate the mass murderers who not only threatened to obliterate the entire state of Israel but to extinguish the lives of every Jew in the world. That this threat…this promise…was actually written down in their charter and mission statement and boasted about by like-minded advocates of this death cult.

Well…. POOF! As soon as Mr. Trump posted those “hell to pay” words––because they believed him––magic! Hamas agreed to negotiate and Israel, wisely, agreed.

Why wisely? Because Mr. Trump never took back his original words––there would be “hell to pay” if the hostages were not released before his inauguration….in just a couple of days…. January 20th, 2025!

SOME PEOPLE “GET” IT

Right off the bat, U.S. Representative Mike Waltz, President-elect Trump’s choice for National Security Adviser, announced that he vowed that the Trump Administration would support Israel resuming operations in Gaza if Hamas violated the ceasefire deal.

US Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL) speaks on Day 1 of the Republican National Convention (RNC) at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US, July 15, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Mike Segar.

And Douglas Altabef, Chairman of the Board of Im Tirtzu and a Director of the Israel Independence Fund, writes that “it is too soon to be too distraught about the hostage deal.

“Again,” says Altabef, “I would urge us all not to jump to a definitive conclusion quite yet. Hopefully, as happened in November 2023, we will look back and say, yes there was disruption, yes, our job got more difficult and complicated, but we were able to secure the release of (most, all, many??) hostages, and then got back to the required task of dismantling Hamas.

“We need to remember,” Altabef continues, “that Trump has appointed very pro-Israel people to key leadership roles in his government. The Secretaries of State and Defense, Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth (who is likely to be approved despite initial concerns), are both firmly in Israel’s corner, and are knowledgeable about the situation in this neighborhood.

“I believe that Trump himself is very much with us and will regard supporting Israel as part of a key strategic construct needed to face down China, Russia and Iran.

“He now is starting off his tenure with the geo-political wind at his back, and he knows that Bibi and Israel helped him to get exactly where he wanted to be. Getting Trump to have a latter-day version of the 1980 Iranian hostage release, as Reagan assumed office, is an enormous credibility boost for him.”

Concluding, Altabef says: “I for one would like to think that Trump knows that Israel helped him to achieve it, and that he will be returning the favor as his term unfolds.

So, friends, grit your teeth, and take a longer view. God willing, we will emerge from this intact, more unified, and ultimately, strengthened.”

To these inspiring words, can we all say a hearty Amen!

©2025 . All rights reserved.

Proposed Gaza Ceasefire Is a ‘Terrible Deal for Israel’

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

1/17/2025 9:16 a.m. This story has been updated to reflect that the Israeli Cabinet has voted to approve the ceasefire deal.

A prisoner exchange and ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas was reached Wednesday, President Joe Biden announced. But, after “many months of intensive diplomacy” between the U.S., Egypt, and Qatar, the deal they devised would require Israel to give away the farm, leaving them no leverage to ensure that all their hostages are safely returned. “It’s a terrible deal for Israel,” complained Frank Gaffney, president of the Institute for the American Future. “I fear that it amounts to a victory for Hamas.”

The details of the deal have not been published, but according to reports, the ceasefire agreement would occur in three phases.

In the first phase, Israel would release 100 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences (a.k.a. “pedigreed jihadists,” Gaffney stated) and 1,000 other prisoners not involved with the October 7 attacks, and Hamas would release 33 hostages in return. “I’m getting some signals out of Israel that this is not the best deal for Israel,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “I’m told the ratio is 50-to-1 for every hostage.”

These lopsided prisoner exchanges would be spaced out over a six-week ceasefire — an unexplained delay that left Perkins “a little puzzled” — during which time Israel would pull its military out of all the populated areas of Gaza and allow hundreds of aid trucks to enter the Gaza Strip, bringing humanitarian aid and tens of thousands of temporary homes.

In the second phase, the two sides would declare a permanent end to the war, and Israel would withdraw the rest of its forces from Gaza. Hamas would also release more hostages in exchange for more prisoners.

In the third phase, Hamas would return the rest of the hostages, including the remains of those it killed. In return, it would get “a major reconstruction plan for Gaza,” in President Biden’s words.

To review, Israel would have to pack up and go home before getting the hostages it came for, and Hamas would not only have its pre-October 7 autonomy restored, but it would get its own personal Marshall Plan, and spring 50 terrorists per hostage.

What an odd way to punish its terrorist atrocities! What an odd way to deter future iterations.

Unfazed by these particulars, Biden declared he was “deeply satisfied” that a deal had been reached — likely so he can claim credit. “We got the world to endorse it,” he boasted. Given how the world feels about Israel, that should be a warning sign.

“I think it’s, in some ways, worse than the plan … that Joe Biden put together” last year, said Gaffney. By agreeing to this deal, Israel would be “effectively surrendering the entirety of Gaza to the people who perpetrated this horrific attack on October 7th,” and who have “been at war with Israel … from the inception of this terrorist organization and will be until it is put out of business.”

“All of the progress that Israel has made to root out Hamas, to deprive it of resources, to close its infrastructure … will essentially be undone because they will be allowed to have the run of Gaza again,” warned Gaffney.

And all of this assumes that Hamas will keep up its end of the agreement through all three phases. But that might be the least likely outcome, based on its past behavior and genocidal hatred of Israel. “Hamas broke ceasefires with Israel in 2003, 2007, 2008, and nine times in 2014,” listed National Review’s Jim Geraghty, not to mention a terrorist shooting during a ceasefire in 2024.

Over the past year, Geraghty continued, “Hamas either rejected ceasefire proposals or hostages-for-prisoners trades, walked away from the table, or refused to restart negotiations in the months of December, January, February, March, April, May, June, and July 2024. … Hamas has proven a bad-faith, bloodthirsty, irrational, and self-destructive negotiator at every step in this process.”

The deal is so bad for Israel that it could put Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in trouble domestically. “The Left has, of course, wanted his head on a pike for a long time,” said Gaffney, but “there are a lot of people now on the right who feel that all of this is for naught — all of the war efforts — if this [deal] is allowed to go forward.” Throughout the war, Israel has maintained its sovereign right to self-defense, which involves the right to react to the ongoing threat posed by Hamas, a terrorist group operating from within its borders.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have come out against the deal; while aligned with Netanyahu, they control enough votes to destabilize his coalition. “This could cause his governing coalition to implode,” Perkins exclaimed.

If fact, it seems that Netanyahu himself was reluctant to agree to the deal, until he met with Steve Witkoff, Trump’s incoming special envoy to the Middle East. The Biden administration’s State Department spokesman Matthew Miller confirmed that input from Trump’s team was “absolutely critical in getting this deal over the line.”

“Bibi [Benjamin Netanyahu] basically had his knees broken” by Witkoff, said Gaffney. “He took what Donald Trump meant as leverage on the Hamas terrorists, putting them on notice that if the hostages were not released … by the time he came to office … all hell would break loose. Now, that was intended to be pressuring Hamas. Instead, Witkoff — and the Biden team, of course — turned this into leverage on Bibi Netanyahu.”

In fact, Gaffney suspected Witkoff of showing more loyalty to Qatar than to Trump. Witkoff said “that ‘Qatar is doing God’s work in these negotiations.’ I think he might have meant Allah’s work, because what has been done, I think, is not in the service of Israel,” he alleged. “This is a man who may work for Qatar, but I don’t honestly think he’s worked effectively for Donald Trump or the interests of the United States, to say nothing of Israel.”

Trump initially celebrated the “EPIC” ceasefire agreement that “could only have happened as a result of our Historic Victory in November, as it signaled to the entire World that my Administration would seek Peace and negotiate deals to ensure the safety of all Americans, and our Allies.”

But Gaffney cautioned that Trump might not have the full picture. “I hope that the president, Donald Trump, will think better of this as he learns more about what’s been done,” he said. “I’d be a little surprised if President Trump knew when he put [Witkoff] in this position that he had actually done a $600 million hotel deal with the nation of Qatar.”

The Israeli cabinet approved the deal “after examining all political, security, and humanitarian aspects, and understanding that the proposed deal supports the achievement of the war’s objectives, the Ministerial Committee for National Security Affairs (the Political-Security Cabinet) has recommended that the government approve the proposed framework..”

Netanyahu accused Hamas of creating a “last-minute crisis” by making additional demands over the identity of the prisoners Israel will release. Netanyahu explained the deal Israel agreed to “gives Israel veto power over the release of mass murderers who are symbols of terror,” but Hamas now “demands to dictate the identity of these terrorists.”

Instead of approving the lopsided ceasefire right away, Israel launched overnight airstrikes against 50 terrorist targets in Gaza. Hamas-aligned sources claimed that the airstrikes killed at least 75 people — most of whom were probably terrorists. In a statement, the IDF confirmed the death of Muhammad Hasham Zahedi Abu Al-Rus, a terrorist who participated in the October 7, 2023 massacre at the Nova Music Festival.

The world may be ready to move on from Hamas’s atrocities, but Israel will not — cannot — rest secure until the Hamas threat within their own borders has been eliminated.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Ceasefire Deal: A Boon for Hamas and a Blow to Israel

14 reasons why the ceasefire deal is a defeat for Israel

Hamas top dog praises Oct. 7 jihad massacre, says ceasefire is a defeat for Israel

“Ceasefire Deal”: Islamic Terror Stabbing Attack In Tel Aviv, Yemen Fires Ballistic Missiles Into Israel

RELATED VIDEO: The Catastrophic Israel-Hamas ‘Ceasefire’

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.

Less Work, More Welfare: How Immoral Policies Are Making Americans Poorer

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

A new report shows that over the last four decades, poor Americans have become far more likely to receive their daily bread from welfare than work. This slide from self-reliance to government dependence serves as an economic barometer of American decline, fueled by perverse incentives created by morally challenged government policies.

The numbers paint a stark picture of American indolence. In 1979, Americans living in poverty earned 60% of their income from work. In 2021, the share had fallen to 25%. That analysis from the Congressional Budget Office shows the startling degree to which, in 42 years, Americans have moved steadily from a paycheck to a handout.

“Low-income Americans are receiving an ever-growing share of their financial resources from government transfers, not work,” said Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.), who requested the report, in a statement emailed to me. “To improve our nation’s welfare system, we must pursue policies that will lift more Americans out of poverty — including strengthening incentives to seek a job like tying benefits to commonsense work requirements. This will help more of our fellow Americans achieve independence and gainful employment. After all, a job is the best anti-poverty program that exists.”

Smith is to be commended for requesting this report and focusing on a policy solution. The report reveals that some of the great drivers of joblessness are political, some personal. But, as secular government analyses always do, this study ignores the moral components underlying increased welfare dependence.

The fact that more Americans have come to rely on welfare serves as an indictment of a nation that has forgotten the Apostle Paul’s admonition, “If any would not work, neither should he eat” (II Thessalonians 3:10). God gave Adam work to do in the Garden of Eden before the fall and, in the post-exilic world, He intended work to supply our daily needs (Genesis 2:15; Proverbs 6:6-11 and 12:11). Honest work, combined with frugal living, allows Christians to care for the needs of others (II Corinthians 8:13-15; I Timothy 5:3-16).

While some percentage of Americans lack the physical or mental ability to earn a living, the ever-growing number of Americans on welfare rolls far outstrips that of its incapacitated recipients. That proves Americans have lost sight of biblical importance of work: Work benefits our souls, improves the raw materials bestowed in God’s creation, enhances our God-given talents, allows us to provide for our own needs while serving others, and allows us to provide for those truly unable to participate in this ennobling cycle.

The Apostle Paul showed the excellence of work by working as a tentmaker in order to carry out his missionary work. St. Jerome — who translated the Bible into Latin, the language of the West — once asked a monk the same question idle Christians should ask themselves: “If apostles who had the right to live of the Gospel labored with their own hands that they might be chargeable to no man, and bestowed relief upon others whose carnal things they had a claim to reap as having sown unto them spiritual things; why do you not provide a supply to meet your needs?”

When followed, the biblical plan still works. Only 2.5% of Americans who work full-time fell below the poverty level, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Another study found only 1.7% of Canadians who worked full-time lived in poverty. In other words, work eliminates nearly 100% of all poverty.

Perhaps more importantly, this report serves as an indictment of family breakdown. “Of the four types of households examined, unmarried households with children had the highest percentage of people with money income below the poverty threshold,” found the report. That reinforces government statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau, which reported, “Of people in families, those in married-couple families had the lowest poverty rate (5.2 percent), while those in female-householder families had the highest (23.6 percent).” Both homes led by single mothers and households with cohabiting partners had four times the poverty level of married couples.

On the other hand, traditional married families earned the most money, with a median income of $119,400 in 2023, compared to $59,470 in homes led by single mothers. Even in families where only one person works, single mothers were more than three times as likely to end up in poverty than married couples. In fact, single mothers earn just over $5,000 a year more than single men without children (and thus, without incentives to earn more).

Can it be a coincidence that the number of married households in America has fallen from 71% in 1971 to 47% in 2022? When mothers and fathers cannot take their place in God’s order, and children lack the example of a working father, society sets young people up for a life of government dependence and wasted potential. And our reduced GDP is the least consequential result.

America’s retreat from work serves as an indictment of our welfare system. After the Left’s purposeful throttling of President Donald Trump’s red-hot economy in the name of COVID-19, Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion spending spree gave workers collecting unemployment a $300 weekly bonus. That surplus gave approximately one in four workers more money than they could earn by working. One study showed that policy alone depressed employment by approximately 14%.

The report also shows the problems presented by counterproductive economic interventionist policies that destroy jobs and opportunity. Politicians promote tax-hikes that raise prices, massive spending that fuels inflation, and subsidies for unpopular products such as electric vehicles — all of which distort the market — for short-term political gain. For example, a minimum wage when raised too high prices out the poorest and neediest from the job market. The CBO estimated a proposed minimum wage hike would give workers an average of $50 a week — and throw 1.3 million people out of the workforce, reducing GDP by $9 billion.

The report also points an accusing finger at our nation’s immigration system. The recent H1-B visa debate provided a healthy spasm against a corporatist immigration system starving American families of good opportunities. During the last four years of the Biden-Harris administration, all net job growth has gone to immigrants. Between 2019 and late 2023, 2.9 million immigrants took U.S. jobs, while 183,000 American citizens left the job force. Mass immigration — illegal and legal — reduces wages, making a welfare check seem far more inviting than 40 hours of toil.

Finally, the report presses charges against American Christians. Why are churches not providing charity on a grander scale for those in need? Why have private citizens outsourced essential functions — like fulfilling Christ’s commandment to feed the hungry and clothe the naked — to the secular state? Government benefits lead to an attitude of entitlement and enable self-destructive pathologies. Secular programs cannot cure the problems secularism created.

Churches alone stand in the position to address the underlying issues that keep sidelined Americans out of the workforce — addiction, depression, lack of motivation, family commitments, lack of child care, etc. — and to elevate even seemingly mundane work to its true spiritual significance.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor 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.

Senators Express Optimism That Trump Will Restore Pro-Life Policies at HHS

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

Following four years of the Biden administration reversing the pro-life federal policies established during President Donald Trump’s first term, Republican senators are expressing confidence that the incoming Trump administration will put back in place policies that blocked federal funds from going to abortion businesses, allowed pregnancy resource centers to receive federal funds, and stopped the funding of international groups that promote abortion, among other measures.

After Trump nominated former Democrat Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to serve as his secretary for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) last November, concerns arose among numerous GOP lawmakers and pro-life advocacy groups that the former Democrat-turned-Independent presidential nominee would sideline pro-life policies based on his past pro-abortion positions. During his presidential run, Kennedy has called the abortion issue “nuanced and complex” and also said that the state should not “dictate choices that the woman is making” regarding abortion. He has also previously supported (and walked back support for) three-month pro-life protections.

However, Senate Republicans like Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) say they have received personal assurances from Kennedy that he will not pursue pro-abortion policies while in office and will, in fact, enact pro-life ones. Last month, Hawley posted a series of tweets describing his conversation with Kennedy regarding the issue. “He committed to me to reinstate President Trump’s prolife policies at HHS,” Hawley wrote. “That includes reinstating the Mexico City policy & ending taxpayer funding for abortions domestically.”

The senator further noted Kennedy’s promise to have all pro-life deputies at HHS and that he “believes there are far too many abortions in the US and that we cannot be the moral leader of the free world with abortion rates so high.” Hawley also stated that Kennedy promised to reinstate “the bar on Title X funds going to organizations that promote abortion” and to “reinstate conscience protections for healthcare providers.”

During Tuesday’s edition of “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins,” Senator Steve Daines (R-Mont.) confirmed that he too met with Kennedy and also received assurances from him that he would pursue pro-life policies within the federal agency.

“We had a very robust discussion,” he explained. “In fact, talking about the importance of protecting the pro-life policies in terms of regulations coming out of HHS, but importantly, restoring any policies that the Biden administration has stripped, and to … work with the secretary of State [to ensure] we are doing all we can within the executive branch to make sure these protections are in place and, frankly, expanded. And he told me that he’ll have seven [deputies in] HHS [that] would be pro-life type of leaders. And I appreciate that honesty and frankness from RFK Jr.”

The news comes amid uncertainty surrounding how pro-life Trump’s second administration will be after the president-elect oversaw watered-down pro-life language inserted into the 2024 Republican Party platform last July, which was entirely revamped and truncated from the previous GOP platform. Trump also repeatedly said on the campaign trail last year that he would leave the abortion issue to the states and that some state pro-life protections are “too tough.” The 45th president’s inconsistent rhetoric on the issue has left pro-life lawmakers and advocates wondering if he would, in fact, use his executive authority to undo the pro-abortion executive orders that President Joe Biden enacted.

Nevertheless, in an op-ed published Monday, Hawley reiterated his optimism that the president-elect will restore the pro-life policies that were reversed under Biden. The senator noted that in addition to restoring the Mexico City Policy, barring abortion businesses from receiving Title X grant money, and restoring federal funding to pregnancy resource centers, Trump’s first-term HHS also “restrict[ed] the use of human fetal tissue obtained from abortions.”

“The Biden administration gutted those rules,” Hawley concluded. “Thankfully, it’s a new day. And President Trump has the power to start protecting life again — immediately. He should use that power boldly to protect those who most need it: the innocent unborn.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor 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.

Johnson Races to Ready for Trump: ‘This Is an Around-the-Clock Operation Right Now’

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

While miles of fences and concrete barriers line the most iconic spots of the National Mall, there are other preparations underway for Donald Trump’s inauguration – well out of the public eye. As the city transforms into the best and most patriotic version of itself, Republicans are working well into the night on the most significant plans: what the first few days of the new administration will look like.

Under the Capitol dome, which is already draped in red-white-and-blue bunting, members are hurrying from meeting to meeting to cement their plans for the flurry of business that starts after Trump’s oath of office. For House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), it’s the culmination of months of work that started as early as last summer on the campaign trail, when it became obvious that the 45th president had the momentum he needed to win. The 100-days agenda is “very aggressive,” the Louisianan explained as far back as June. “Those days cannot get here soon enough,” he told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.

Now that the time has come, the speaker is focused on one thing: undoing the damage Joe Biden did to this country’s security, economy, families, and sovereignty. “We’re going to reverse some of the crazy things that this administration did in the areas of public policy,” he previewed to Perkins on Saturday. “All of that begins this month, so we’re excited and working steadily,” Johnson explained. “This is an around-the-clock operation right now, because we have to fix everything.”

Of course, as the speaker understands better than anyone, he’ll need every Republican on the same page to get a single piece of Trump’s agenda off the ground — something that’s proven, as recently as this month, to be a monumental task. The president-elect has tried to minimize some of that tension, bringing members of the House Freedom Caucus to Mar-a-Lago over the weekend to hash out some of the differences that threatened to torpedo Johnson’s reelection as speaker.

“Unity was a huge part of the meeting,” one of the Republicans confirmed. “I think that kind of team-building [and] camaraderie is really important,” Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) explained to Politico, “because we have a heavy lift in front of us.” Despite the bitter debates the fiscal hawks have had with leadership of late, Donalds reiterated, “It was really much more a fun, enjoyable dinner than a deep policy session.”

Congressman Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) explained to Perkins on Tuesday’s show, “We talked for several hours, as a matter of fact, late into the evening. But it was on border security. It was on crime. It’s how, quite frankly, the Biden administration has used the weapon of the pen [with] executive orders to attack and invade our country and undermine every working American day in and day out.”

One of the recurring themes has also been reconciliation — the process that allows Republicans to move two budget-related bills through the Senate with a simple majority instead of the usual 60 votes it takes to end debate on a proposal. Part of it, Ogles admitted, “is nerdy procedural stuff.” But to make the drastic changes Trump and the American people demand, it’s a crucial piece of the puzzle moving into next week. Right now, there’s disagreement among the GOP over whether the party should bundle all of their major policy goals like tax cuts and border security into one “big, beautiful bill,” as Trump is urging, or two. But there’s also legitimate concern that the president-elect’s strategy might open the door to more spending waste.

Several GOP members of the Senate and House Freedom Caucus are urging the White House to split the priorities into two reconciliation bills (which is the maximum number a majority can advance each fiscal year) so that nothing sneaks into the legislation that derails them.

“You know, Donald Trump is strategic,” Ogles pointed out. “I think he wants to deliver some quick wins for the American people. The election was a mandate to secure the border, to, again, attack crime, to get these folks [who] are illegally. We know we have murderers here. We know we have terrorists here. We need to go find them. We need to deport them. We need to get them out of our country. And so with that, I think organically there’s the opportunity or perhaps even the likelihood that this could end up being two separate bills, because the larger [it is] … the more complicated it becomes, and the more difficult it will be to pass and the longer it will take to pass.” He suggested that if Trump delivers “a smaller bill, then follow[s] up with tax policy,” it will be easier to get done. “We can make sure Donald Trump has a successful 100 days and delivers a secure border for the American people.”

The speaker, who’s been careful to follow Trump’s lead, emphasized that Republicans might disagree on the process, but they do agree on the “overall objectives.” “The debate has been about the sequencing,” he explained to Perkins. “And when we say one large reconciliation bill, that is the best chance that we have to get all of these initiatives done.” As he explained, the House has less room for error than the Senate. “We have a smaller margin. For the first time in U.S. history, there are more Republicans by way of margin in the Senate than there [are] in the House. So they can lose three votes on any given measure, and I can only lose one or two.” In other words, he said, “I have 150 more personalities to deal with and get on the same page.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has a similar problem — but fewer cats to herd. What matters, the speaker insisted, is that he and Thune have a great relationship. “We’ve been talking about this very thoughtfully and deliberately. There’s a handful of [Republican] senators — I wouldn’t say all of them — [who] are very adamant that we ought to do two bills in the House. We believe one bill is the best way.”

The reason, he went on, is simple. “[W]hat they want to do is take some of the border measures and maybe defense spending and do that right out of the blocks very early in January and then leave the larger piece, which is the tax extension of the tax cuts and some of the other very complicated things that we’ve got to do, on a larger package. The problem is, if you take the border and defense spending off of the larger package, those things are very popular among Republicans. And that’s kind of the anchor to get the harder things done. So there’s a risk in splitting them up. I’ve explained that to President Trump in detail. And as of today, now, I think he very much agrees with what I’m saying. And I think he told that to the senators when he met with them this week.”

Ogles and his colleagues do understand the need to get something substantial done in the first 100 days. “And so, understanding how the sausage gets made up here by putting border security with some strategic cuts together in a package, again addressing the debt ceiling, we can move quickly — much more quickly than we can if everything is in there,” he countered. “And then, quite frankly, once you have one ‘big, beautiful bill,’ it ends up typically getting filled up with a bunch of nonsense and pork,” which the hardline conservatives won’t tolerate. But again, the Tennessee congressman underscored, “I think we’ve got to cut where we can cut. Look, we can’t cut our way out of this mess. We’re going to have to grow our way out of this mess. But every cut, every penny, every dollar matters.”

One thing that both sides can agree on is that “we’ve got to change the way this town operates,” Ogles insisted. “[O]ne of the successes we had with this when Mike Johnson was elected — and I was one of the individuals that helped whip those final votes and get him across the finish line — is that you can’t do suspension bills the last day right before you fly out. Because what ends up happening is they put some junk bill together. They sweeten it for the Democrats, and they pass it with a majority of Democrat votes. You can’t do that anymore,” he argued. “You can only do a suspension bill on a Monday or Tuesday.”

Again, he acknowledged, “It’s nerdy. Most people don’t understand why that’s important. But what it does is it stops this town from running over the American people. And so, day in and day out, what we’re trying to do is fix how this place operates.” And yes, “One big, beautiful bill might seem great, but when you understand everything that gets thrown in there, it’s really counterintuitive to the mandate that the American people delivered to Donald Trump and to Congress to fix this country.”

Whatever form the reconciliation strategy takes, Johnson reminded viewers, “We work in the greatest deliberative body in, really, the history of the world. And we get the opportunity [in] the extraordinary moment in history that we’re in, to hold that thing together. … And I can tell you, the Republicans in the House and the Senate are very excited right now.”

At the end of the day, the speaker underscored, “God is the one that raises up those in authority. Scripture is very clear about that. And so with that great responsibility, there are a lot of things that come along with that. And so, I’m encouraging my colleagues to remember that, to keep our perspective. We don’t grasp these gavels or hold on to these titles with any sense of pride or anything else. This is a this is a moment of service. And it is a sacrifice,” and no matter what happens, “we ought to regard it that way.”

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.

Mark Zuckerberg Bows to ‘Free Speech’: But Will This Be Real Change or Mere Illusion?

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

Over the past several years, Facebook has quietly sidelined millions of conservative voices. At Christian Action Network, we’ve experienced this firsthand.

For the last year, our Facebook fan page hovered around 29,000 followers, yet our posts only reached an average of 108 people in 2024. That’s a far cry from pre-2016 days when many posts would attract thousands of viewers.

Now, Mark Zuckerberg has announced a grand gesture to return Facebook (and its sister platforms) to the “roots” of free expression—abandoning fact-checkers, restoring political content to user timelines, and pivoting to a community-based approach like X’s Community Notes.

The question is: Is this truly a sea change, or merely a cosmetic fix aimed at appeasing the new administration and big-name conservative leaders?

Our Facebook Story: From Booming to Ghost Town

Prior to 2016, our conservative commentary frequently reached thousands of followers. An average post might be shared dozens of times, with comment threads multiplying by the hour.

By 2024, Facebook had become a digital ghost town for us—despite having nearly the same audience size.

We’re not alone.

Many lesser-known conservative voices report experiencing so-called “shadow bans” or algorithmic suppression. While big names like Donald Trump or Ben Shapiro make headlines when they’re censored or reinstated, small organizations slip by unnoticed—like the quiet kid in gym class who nobody thinks to pick for dodgeball.

So, when Zuckerberg proclaims a new era of free speech, my first reaction is: Will smaller conservative Pages actually see change—or will we remain invisible as ever?

Zuckerberg’s Big Announcement

Headlines dominated the news earlier this month when Zuckerberg released a five-minute video promising major changes to Facebook, Instagram, and even Threads:

  • · Scrapping Fact-Checkers
    Citing their “bias” and “complexity,” Meta plans to ditch third-party fact-checkers in favor of a community-based system that flags misleading information—presumably hoping a digital “village watch” is less biased than a handful of full-time hall monitors.
  • · Political Content is Back
    The platforms will once again emphasize political and civic content in users’ timelines, with the option to customize how much (or how little) you see.
  • Simplifying Content Policies
    Zuckerberg claims Meta will remove onerous restrictions around issues like immigration and gender, recognizing these are mainstream debates that people (shockingly) like to have.

On the surface, that all sounds great. Who wouldn’t want a level playing field for robust political discourse?

But the timing is suspicious.

It comes right on the heels of President-elect Trump’s victory—amid rumors of million-dollar donations from Zuckerberg to Trump’s inaugural fund, dinners at Mar-a-Lago, and newly appointed conservative-friendly board members and positions.

Is this a sincere shift in how Facebook will moderate speech, or merely an attempt to stay on the good side of the incoming administration?

Will This Actually Help Lesser-Known Voices?

If history is any guide, Meta (Facebook’s parent company) tends to favor large-scale, splashy gestures—while quietly preserving the algorithms that stifle smaller organizations.

It’s easy to restore access to someone like Donald Trump (who generates headlines and millions of views). But will local churches, grassroots nonprofits, and modest-sized conservative Pages actually see their organic reach go from 108 back up to thousands?

Algorithms are tricky.

No matter how transparent Zuckerberg claims Facebook will be, it’s often near-impossible to pinpoint why one post thrives and another fails.

Think of it like the Bermuda Triangle of social media: posts go in, never to be seen again, and we’re left scratching our heads as to what happened.

A new “community notes” feature might be less overtly biased than old-school fact-checkers, but it could also be weaponized. Coordinated groups could mass-flag content they dislike, burying conservative viewpoints under “misleading” warnings.

Zuckerberg insists this move is about going back to Facebook’s original purpose: connecting people and encouraging free expression.

Yet, the cynic in me can’t ignore how often Facebook’s policies follow the political wind.

In 2019–2020, Democrats and mainstream media hammered social platforms for “allowing misinformation,” prompting Facebook to impose heavier censorship. Now, with a more conservative White House emerging, the pendulum swings back to “free speech”?

Forgive me if I’m getting whiplash.

A Troubling Track Record

Facebook’s admission that it demoted the Hunter Biden laptop story leading up to the 2020 election is just one example of how the platform has been swayed by political pressure.

Zuckerberg even claimed the FBI pressured Facebook to censor “potential Russian disinformation,” which turned out to be legitimate reporting.

More recently, Facebook revealed that the Biden administration threatened the company to remove so-called “COVID misinformation,” including satire.

Zuckerberg now calls that pressure “wrong,” insisting Meta won’t repeat that mistake. But again, is that contrition genuine—or the result of looming legal or political risks?

A Free Speech Warrior? Or a Political Opportunist?

Zuckerberg dined with President-elect Trump at Mar-a-Lago and donated $1 million to his inaugural fund, signaling a complete reversal of their past relationship.

Could these overtures be about Meta protecting itself from Section 230 reform and potential antitrust battles?

After all, when the wolves are at your door, offering them a seat at the dinner table can be a strategic move.

With the threat of regulation ever-present, Meta needs to keep Washington on its side—especially if the next administration is determined to crack down on Big Tech. Restoring conservative voices is one way to appear balanced and avoid the scalpel.

Even if shadow-banning become rarer, quiet algorithmic suppression can continue indefinitely. We may never know exactly why certain content is shown to only 100 people out of 29,000 followers.

Waiting for Proof in the Pudding (or the Analytics)

At Christian Action Network, we’ll be watching our Page’s analytics closely over the next few months. If our reach doesn’t budge, that’s a glaring sign this “free speech pivot” was more about polishing Meta’s halo than about helping our posts actually see the light of day.

Rather than throw in the towel, though, we plan to keep posting regularly—and sharing direct data on post reach—in case the platform really does start honoring the “back to our roots” promise. Plus, encouraging our followers to like, comment, and share might help crack the algorithmic code… or at least annoy the censors enough to notice us.

We’re Still Skeptical But Staying Hopeful

It’s tempting to hope Zuckerberg’s latest announcement signals a true renaissance of free expression on Facebook. It would be a boon for countless smaller conservative platforms like ours that have been pushed to the margins.

But skepticism is warranted.

Is this new policy just a showpiece designed to placate influential conservatives, while everyone else continues to suffer soft suppression and shadow banning?

Only time—and data—will tell.

As we track post reach, engagement, and the tenor of “community notes,” we’ll find out if this “back to our roots” promise truly means something for everyday conservative voices or remains a top-level concession to placate a new era in American politics.

Either way, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

We’ll keep sharing our content and letting you know exactly how the platform responds.

If there’s one positive takeaway, it’s that the conversation around free speech and Big Tech is finally happening out in the open— —and maybe, just maybe, “nerd rule” will give way to genuine public discourse.

If not? Well, we’ll always have memes.

AUTHOR

Martin Mawyer

Martin Mawyer is president of the Christian Action Network, which he founded in 1990. Located in Lynchburg, VA, CAN was formed as a non-profit educational organization to protect America’s religious and moral heritage. He is the author of several books, including You Are Chosen: Prepare to Triumph in a Fallen World.

©2024 . All rights reserved.

Please visit the Majority Report substack.

United Nations renews push for globalized digital marking system to deal with ’emergencies’

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

Regardless of who’s occupying the White House, the global beast system marches forward. Don’t be caught in the camp of ‘irrational exuberance’ or you will be deceived. 

The United Nations is calling on governments around the world to fight climate change and other “emergencies” by mandating biometric digital ID systems, giving governments worldwide the ability to tag and track the masses in their every move.

Digital ID systems that have already been implemented in other countries are typically tied to the financial system, allowing the government to track one’s spending habits as well as their movement.

A biometric digital ID requires the recipient to upload a face scan, eye scan, palm scan or other unique identifier, which is then integrated into a central system and tracked by an app on the person’s phone. Eventually, the plan is to place this surveillance device “under the skin,” as the Israeli historian and World Economic Forum adviser Yuval Harari has repeatedly stated.

As reported by Slay News, the digital ID demands were made anew by unelected foreign bureaucrats who serve on the United Nations Development Program, or UNDP.

UNDP officials made the case for why digital identity is allegedly a key weapon in their anti-human climate agenda in an article titled: “Why legal identity is crucial to tackling the climate crisis.”

If governments assign digital identities to citizens, they explained in the article, authorities can track populations more easily in an “environmental disaster.”

The UNDP further argued that countries that roll out digital identity programs will have more data about their taxpayers that can then be used in an emergency.

We all know how governments use so-called emergencies to enact tyrannical and authoritarian policies they would otherwise never get away with. They do this by using the news media to whip up fear in the population, dividing the people against each other. During Covid, more than a few states implemented 24-hour snitch-lines where residents could call and turn in their neighbors for not following the lockdown rules.

Governments should know the income and health status of every taxpayer, as well as their education level, the UN agency states in the document.

This would help authorities have a more “targeted response” to citizens during, for example, a weather disaster, according to the world body.

However, as noted by Slay News, a digital identity is not only for tracking taxpayer movements and backgrounds.

It can also be used to track how much energy taxpayers are consuming.

Once a government has this data, it can force citizens to change their energy-consumption habits.

The UNDP euphemistically refers to this state coercion in Orwellian fashion, calling it “inspiring behavior change.”

When’s the last time you were “inspired” to perform a certain action by the government, may I ask?

“Leveraging digital legal ID data to track energy consumption, inspire behavior change, and enhance sustainability measures can mitigate climate-related disasters,” the UNDP officials wrote.

That’s a nice way of saying, we will force you out of your gasoline-powered vehicle, out of your house on an acre or more of land, and into a tiny apartment in the city eating bugs and riding public transit.

The United Nations has long pushed for a global ID system that would digitally tag every human being on the planet. This is embedded within the global body’s 17 sustainable developement goals associated with its Agenda 2030 document, adopted by some 190 nations, including the U.S., in September 2015.

On its website, the U.N. writes:

Sustainable Development Goal Target 16.9 (“legal identity for all, including birth registration, by 2030”) is key to advance the 2030 Agenda commitment to leave no one behind, and equally relevant is SDG 17.19 — support to statistical capacity-building in developing countries, monitored by the indicator “proportion of countries that have achieved 100 per cent birth registration and 80 per cent death registration”.

This is just another way of describing what is, in essence, a social-credit scoring system, similar to what’s already in place in communist China.

If you drive too much, spend too much on the wrong products, such as meat or dairy, or if you’re guilty of wrongthink, you will see your social-credit score dip, meaning you will be banned from getting loans, or the best housing, jobs or educational opportunities.

This agenda will no doubt be brought up at the 2025 World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, later this month. President Trump has reportedly agreed to address the WEF remotely.

None of this agenda has any place in any country that claims to be free.

©2025 . All rights reseved.

Please visit Leo’s Newsletter substack.

I have a dream that beginning on January 20, 2025 all Americans will begin judging people by the content of their characters, not the color of their skin

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

I am looking forward to January 20, 2025 for two reasons.

First, it is the day that Donald J. Trump is sworn into the office of President of the United States.

Second, because it is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

I wonder, is this happenstance or an act of God?

I remember watching on my family’s black and white television the “I have a Dream” speech on August 28, 1963 by Dr. King.

WATCH: Martin Luther King Jr.’s Content of Character by Free the People

Dr. King believed in faith, family and freedom. President-elect Donald J. Trump also believes if faith, family and freedom.

Dr. King and Donald J. Trump are both convicted felons.

Both Dr. King and Donald J. Trump have been persecuted for what they believe in.

Both were the victims of an assassin. Donald J. Trump was wounded, Dr. King was killed.

For too long we have fallen into the trap of judging people by the color of thier skins and ignoring the content of their characters. Be it politicians, workers, friends and associates.

I believe that we the people will, beginning on January 20, 2025, go back to the future and judge people solely on the content of their characters.

We will move away from an autocracy and toward a meritocracy in America from the school house to the White House and from the school room to corportate board rooms across America.

We will no longer idolize those solely based upon race or color but rather embrace and hold in esteem those among us of high moral character.

It is time to make America moral again.

It is time to make America healthy again.

And finally, it is time to make America great again!

©2025. All rights reserved.

Heritage Foundation Launches Ad Supporting Former Dem RFK Jr. for HHS Secretary

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

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—The Heritage Foundation on Monday launched an advertisement campaign supporting Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination to direct the Department of Health and Human Services.

WATCH: The Heritage Foundation RFK Jr. Ad

The ad, first obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation, touts Kennedy as “fearless,” and promotes his policy agenda to make America healthier and combat the chronic disease crisis. Kennedy, an environmental lawyer and former Democratic presidential candidate with deep party roots, launched an independent presidential bid in 2023 before bowing out of the race to endorse now-President-elect Donald Trump in August 2024.

“One word to describe Bobby Kennedy: fearless,” the video’s narrator says. “He was when he took on big corporations and big government. Now, he is ready to work with President Trump to take on special interests, reform a broken system, and make America healthy again.”

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

President-elect Donald Trump selected Kennedy to lead the Department of Health and Human Services on Nov. 14, stating that Kennedy “will restore these Agencies to the traditions of Gold Standard Scientific Research, and beacons of Transparency, to end the Chronic Disease epidemic, and to Make America Great and Healthy Again!”

“Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services signals a bold step toward restoring trust, accountability, and integrity in our nation’s public health agencies,” Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “His commitment to ending corruption and addressing chronic disease resonates with millions of Americans who question why Big Pharma continues to grow richer while the health of Americans deteriorates. His vision to depoliticize science and medicine, paired with his dedication to protecting individual freedoms, lays the groundwork for a stronger, healthier future—but achieving this will require taking on entrenched interests. RFK Jr. has the backbone to see it through.”

The Heritage Foundation’s latest ad is a part of a wider $1 million campaign launched in November that “advocates for prompt confirmation” of Trump’s second-term cabinet picks and “educates the American people about the confirmation process.” The think tank recently released separate ads promoting some of Trump’s other cabinet picks, including Pete Hegseth, defense secretary nominee, and Kash Patel, Trump’s nominee to head the FBI.

The president-elect and Kennedy have pledged to Make America Healthy Again by enacting sweeping measures to overhaul the country’s food system, remove conflicts of interest from federal regulators and tackle the rising issue of obesity in adults. Kennedy’s pledge to make America healthier coincides a dramatic 24-year drop in the public’s perception of the U.S. healthcare system.

Kennedy also vowed to tackle the chronic disease crisis that has plagued Americans and driven up health-related costs. The U.S. spent more per capita on health care in 2022 than any other similar country, according to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. In 2023, total health care spending reached $4.9 trillion, which is roughly $14,570 per person.

The prospective HHS secretary has also been a critic of the COVID-19 vaccines, and has said he would investigate any potential links between the childhood vaccine schedule and autism. He has also called for the U.S. to reduce the high levels of fluoride in drinking water, calling the mineral a “dangerous neurotoxin” and an “industrial waste.”

While Trump’s decision to nominate the former independent presidential candidate for a key cabinet position has drawn criticism from some corporate media outlets and left-leaning healthcare organizations, supporters have advocated in favor of Kennedy’s MAHA agenda and have pledged to help secure his confirmation as HHS secretary.

Ahead of Trump announcing the HHS selection, Kennedy told NPR in a November interview that the president-elect had given him “instructions” to remove “corruption and the conflicts” from regulatory agencies and “end the chronic disease epidemic.”

“President Trump has given me three instructions,” Kennedy told NPR in November. “He wants the corruption and the conflicts out of the regulatory agencies. He wants to return the agencies to the gold standard empirically based, evidence-based science and medicine that they were once famous for. And he wants to end the chronic disease epidemic with measurable impacts on a diminishment of chronic disease within two years.”

Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

Ireland Owens

Ireland Owens is a contributor at the Daily Caller News Foundation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘President Trump Is Going to Usher in a Golden Age of Science,’ Health Expert Says

What Does It Mean to ‘Make America Healthy Again’?

Public Trust in Health Agencies Gone, Former CDC Director Says

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

Muslim University Student Who Plotted Jihad Massacre is Latest Failure of Officials Who Vet Migrants

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

The officials who vet migrants are bound as a matter of policy to ignore that there is any such thing as an Islamic jihad, so vetting failures of this kind are bound to happen.

“Egyptian Student Added to CIS National Security Vetting Failures Database,” by Todd Bensman, Center for Immigration Studies, January 10, 2025:

An 18-year-old Egyptian student at Virginia’s George Mason University who now stands charged with multiple terrorism offenses related to a mass casualty plot on Israel’s consulate in New York is the latest addition to the Center for Immigration Studies National Security Vetting Failures Database. The entry brings the total number of analyzed failure cases to 50.

In March 2023, the Center published the database collection to draw “remedial attention” to ongoing government vetting failures lest they “drift from the public mind and interest of lawmakers, oversight committee members, media, and homeland security practitioners who would otherwise feel compelled to demand process reforms”, according to an explanatory Center report titled “Learning from our Mistakes”.

The FBI arrested Abdullah Ezzeldin Taha Mohamed Hassan on December 17, 2024, for allegedly plotting a mass casualty attack on the Israeli consulate in New York. The case is pending in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Hassan, an Egyptian National, entered the United States in July 2022 as a juvenile and lived in Falls Church, Va., although as of January 2025 the visa granted for him to enter had not been publicly reported.

As a juvenile, he may have entered with parents or relatives on a temporary non-immigrant visa, such as a tourist visa or a J-2 student exchange visa, or even on an F-1 student visa, as there is no age limit for student visas. The U.S. State Department would, however, approve any of these visa types and conduct a personal interview of minors older than 14, like Hassan, who was 15 at the time.

However it was that Hassan entered, perhaps even if he illegally crossed a land border and claimed asylum, he was clearly already radicalized as an Islamic extremist, a circumstance that visa adjudicators or even federal law enforcement agents at the border, apparently could have discovered in his online social media accounts.

This is knowable because, within weeks or months of the juvenile Hassan’s 2022 entry, his social media accounts alerted the FBI, which sent agents to interview him “due, in part, to Hassan’s support for ISIS online”, the recent charging documents said.

Although no charges were filed in 2022, at some point soon after the FBI interviews, the U.S. government reportedly decided a mistake had been made. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) put Hassan into deportation proceedings, which were pending by the time he enrolled in George Mason University (GMU) to study information technology, probably in 2023 or 2024.

Hassan was still an enrolled active student in the summer and fall of 2024 when FBI agents were again actively investigating him undercover and saw him on the GMU campus, an agent affidavit said.

Again, Hassan’s online activities on several X social media accounts had drawn FBI attention. The bureau sent in an undercover agent online upon discovering that Hassan, who portrayed himself as an admirer of Osama bin Ladin and ISIS branches in Afghanistan and West Africa, was openly fantasizing about killing infidels and wanted to martyr himself in a mass-casualty attack.

Court documents reveal examples of Hassan’s alleged posts of him musing about killing Jews and, in one case, noted that a football player’s forehead was a “sniper’s dream”.

In one X account, Hassan boastfully shared an AI analysis of his profile that stated: “Based on our AI agent’s analysis of your tweets, you are a young radical Islamist extremist who is obsessed with jihad and violence against perceived enemies. Your tweets suggest a deep-seated hatred and intolerance towards those of other faiths, particularly Jews.”

“Yep I am an extremist,” Hassan later posted….

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hamas-Linked Council on American-Islamic Relations Opposes San Francisco Rejoining Joint Terrorism Task Force

Italy: 40 Muslim migrants engage in ‘Islamic ritual’ of mass sexual molestation on New Year’s Eve

Iran increases military presence In Venezuela with drone factory

Hamas Claims to Have ‘Lost Track’ of Many Israeli Hostages 

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

The United States Has More Guns Than People

/in , , , , , , , /by

We all know that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the last defense against a tyrannical government so no surprise here.

Look at states with least amount of guns and you’ll find more government contol.

High Gun Ownership in Northwestern America by Free Republic

Montana tops the ranking of the states with the highest percentage of gun ownership, with 66.3% of the adult population owning firearms. The state has some of the most relaxed gun control laws in America. No state permit is required to purchase or possess a rifle, shotgun, or handgun.

The state is followed on our list by its neighbor, Wyoming, where 66.2% of adults own a firearm. Alaska comes in third, with 64.5%.

State Gun Ownership Rate ↕
Montana 66.3%
Wyoming 66.2%
Alaska 64.5%
Idaho 60.1%
West Virginia 58.5%
Arkansas 57.2%
Mississippi 55.8%
Alabama 55.5%
South Dakota 55.3%
North Dakota 55.1%
Oklahoma 54.7%
Kentucky 54.6%
Louisiana 53.1%
Tennessee 51.6%
Oregon 50.8%
Vermont 50.5%
South Carolina 49.4%
Georgia 49.2%
Kansas 48.9%
Missouri 48.8%
Nevada 47.3%
Maine 46.8%
Utah 46.8%
Arizona 46.3%
New Mexico 46.2%
North Carolina 45.8%
Texas 45.7%
Wisconsin 45.3%
Nebraska 45.2%
Colorado 45.1%
Indiana 44.8%
Virginia 44.6%
Iowa 43.6%
Minnesota 42.8%
Washington 42.1%
New Hampshire 41.1%
Pennsylvania 40.7%
Michigan 40.2%
Ohio 40.0%
Florida 35.3%
Delaware 34.4%
Maryland 30.2%
California 28.3%
Illinois 27.8%
Connecticut 23.6%
New York 19.9%
Hawaii 14.9%
Rhode Island 14.8%
New Jersey 14.7%
Massachusetts 14.7%

On the other side of the spectrum, New Jersey and Massachusetts share the lowest gun ownership rate in the country, both at 14.7%.

Two other states with very low ownership rates include Hawaii (14.9%) and Rhode Island (14.8%).

The Number of Firearms is Increasing

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), U.S. gun manufacturing and imports have increased by about 10% annually over the last decade.

In 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic spurred record demand for firearms, 17 million guns entered the domestic market.

If you enjoyed this post, check out Which U.S. States Have the Most Gun Manufacturers? on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Border Bonanza: Trump Slated to Enact 100 Executive Orders to Tackle Immigration Crisis

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

Following his sweeping electoral victory in November, President-elect Donald Trump is reportedly preparing 100 executive orders for his first day in office, mostly centered on securing the nation’s neglected southern border.

In an interview Thursday, Trump ally and Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin (Okla.) discussed the president-elect’s plans. “He says he has almost 100 executive orders that will go a long ways towards securing the border again and also put the energy sector back in play again and actually build a … ‘drill, baby, drill’ process where we can become energy-independent again.” Mullin added, “All that can be done through executive order, but, as he said, it’s not permanent” without congressional support.

Newly-minted GOP Senate Majority Leader John Thune (S.D.) also emphasized that congressional Republicans must deliver on Trump’s agenda. “This past November, the American people gave President Trump and Republicans a mandate. Now the time has come to begin executing on it,” Thune said in a floor speech Wednesday. Noting the incoming Trump administration’s focus on border security, he continued, “One of the most important issues in this last election was the illegal immigration crisis. … For the last four years, the Biden administration’s open-border policies have wreaked havoc in both border communities and those far from the border.”

Republicans in the House are also looking to grant congressional permanence to Trump’s immigration policies. On Thursday, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) introduced a bill to reinstate the “Remain in Mexico” policy previously employed under Trump’s first administration. The legislation would reverse the Biden administration’s “parole” program and require those seeking or claiming asylum in the U.S. to await their appointed court dates in Mexico, instead of releasing migrants into the U.S.

According to an Axios report, Trump and several of his closest policy advisors met with GOP senators late Wednesday and unveiled roughly 100 planned executive orders, mostly focused on border security and immigration. Stephen Miller, an immigration hardliner and Trump’s homeland security advisor and deputy chief of staff for policy, shared that likely executive actions included reinstating Title 42, which allows for the rapid expulsion of illegal immigrants under public health concerns; continuing construction of the border wall, a policy Miller is credited with devising; and utilizing part of the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow state and local law enforcement to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with detaining and deporting illegal immigrants, a key promise of Trump’s successful 2024 campaign.

Trump’s mass deportation plans have consistently garnered widespread support across the nation. Surveys from both April and September of last year found that over half of Americans endorse the mass deportation of illegal immigrants. While some Democratic officials, including mayors and governors, have vowed not to cooperate with ICE to deport illegal immigrants — or, in some cases, have suggested even outright opposing federal deportation efforts — a recent poll found that a supermajority of voters in even deep-blue Democratic stronghold such as Maryland support requiring state and local law enforcement to work with ICE in carrying out deportations. Overall, 76% of Marylanders — including 96% of Republicans, 77% of Independent voters, and even 65% of Democrats — want state and local authorities to cooperate with ICE in deporting illegal immigrants who have committed crimes.

A number of prominent Democrats have recently shifted their positions on deportations, from full-throated support for “sanctuary cities” to promising to aid ICE. Governors J.B. Pritzker (Ill.) and Jared Polis (Colo.) and mayors like Eric Adams of New York City have abandoned opposition to ICE’s deportation program — Adams has even pledged his support — after initially indicating opposition. Even Governor Kathy Hochul (N.Y.) said that she would be the “first one to call up ICE” to manage deportations in her state.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Washington are all currently considered “sanctuary” states. There are also 157 counties and 45 cities across other states listed as “sanctuary cities” as of this week.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news 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.

Poll: Majority of Americans Say Biden Is Worst President Since Nixon

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

According to a newly released Gallup poll, Americans rate President Joe Biden as the second worst U.S. president since the 1960s, just barely above Richard Nixon.

The survey, released Tuesday, asked respondents to rate how 10 presidents from the last 60 years will go down in history. The presidents included JFK, Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump’s first term, George W. Bush, Joe Biden, and Richard Nixon.

Just 6% of respondents gave Biden an “outstanding” rating, with 13% giving him an “above average” rating, 26% giving him an “average” rating, 17% giving him a “below average” rating, and 37% giving him a “poor” rating. Cumulatively, Biden scored a net positive rating of -35 percentage points — only Richard Nixon fared worse, with -42. Biden’s 37% “poor” rating was the highest of any of the 10 presidents in that category.

Overall, a majority of Americans — 54% — said Biden will be remembered as “below average” or “poorly.”

Under Biden’s four-year term, America has experienced a series of disastrous outcomes across a wide array of fronts.

On the economic front, a recent Economist report found that the U.S. currently ranks 20th in the world on a combined scale over the past year of gross domestic product growth, stock market performance, core inflation, change in unemployment rate, and government deficits. Despite this, Biden claimed last month that “we’ve entered a new phase of our economic resurgence.” He also stated, “I believe the economy I’m leaving at the moment … [is] the best economy, strongest economy in the world and for all Americans, doing better.”

But American voters did not appear to share the president’s enthusiastic economic outlook. After experiencing record-high inflation on food, gas, and housing prices and significant spikes in homelessness under Biden’s watch, almost 70% of Americans characterized the nation’s economy as “not so good” or “poor” in exit polls following the November election.

On America’s borders, a true crisis emerged after Biden reversed President Donald Trump’s border security policies shortly after taking office in February 2021. As a result, 10 million illegal border encounters occurred (compared to 2.4 million under Trump’s first term), child sex-trafficking more than tripled, and fentanyl trafficking increased, with over 250,000 Americans dying from fentanyl overdoses (an 80% increase since Trump’s first term). In addition, violent crime spiked significantly across the country under the Biden administration.

Regarding foreign affairs, global stability unraveled drastically following Biden’s decision to abruptly withdraw American troops from Afghanistan in August 2021, resulting in the deaths of 13 U.S. servicemembers from a suicide bomber outside Kabul Airport and the deaths of an unknown number of American allies in the country (in addition to $7 billion worth of military equipment left behind, which the Taliban acquired). Six months later in February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, resulting in the deaths of approximately 80,000 Ukrainian troops and 200,000 Russian troops and a combined 800,000 wounded. In addition, approximately 12,100 Ukrainian civilians have also been killed, and there is currently no end in sight to the conflict, with North Korean troops joining the war in October 2024. A year and a half after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in October 2023, the terrorist group Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel, resulting in 1,200 Israeli deaths. This engulfed the Middle East in widespread conflict between Israel and the terrorist groups Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and others. The Iranian regime also launched direct attacks against Israel.

On the domestic policy front, Biden made highly polarizing and controversial issues the focal point of his administration, including completely unrestricted abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy, the targeting of pro-life advocates and political opponents through the Department of Justice, the promotion of gender transition procedures for minors, and more.

“I think the American people are very kind to only give the outgoing administration the second worst grade of any administration since JFK,” Matt Carpenter, director of FRC Action, told The Washington Stand. “To my knowledge, the Nixon administration didn’t publish guidelines for biological males to ‘chestfeed’ their infants, subsidize abortion in the Pentagon, promote dangerous and irreversible gender transitions for minors, flood the country with millions of illegal aliens, and so forth. In my mind, Biden was the worst president since JFK and it’s not even close.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor 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.