Tag Archive for: news

EXCLUSIVE: Trump to Unveil FBI Report Showing Largest Violent Crime Drop On Record

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

President Donald Trump will unveil the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) 2025 Crime Statistics Report, which documents the largest year-to-year drop in violent crime on record, at an event Friday, the Daily Caller has learned.

Trump is traveling to the Nassau County Police Academy alongside newly sworn-in Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel. During the event, the president will hold a press conference to release the report, which has not yet been made public. According to an excerpt provided to the Caller, 2025 — the first year of Trump’s second term — saw the largest year-to-year decrease in violent crime.

According to the report, murder and nonnegligent manslaughter decreased an estimated 18.1 percent from 2024 to 2025 across the country. Rape decreased an estimated 7.6 percent, robbery decreased an estimated 18.5 percent, and aggravated assault decreased an estimated 7.2 percent.

Burglary also decreased over the same period, an estimated 15.8 percent, information obtained by the Caller shows. Larceny-theft decreased an estimated 9.8 percent, and motor vehicle theft decreased an estimated 22.7 percent.

“President Trump promised to make America safe again, and the data proves he has done just that. Unlike Defund-the-Police Democrats, President Trump will always stand with our law enforcement officers and deliver safer American neighborhoods,” Lauren Bis, a White House spokeswoman, told the Caller in a statement.

Lowering crime was a main focus of the president’s first year in office. It began with Washington, D.C. Trump launched a task force dedicated to making “D.C. Safe and Beautiful Again.” One year into the effort, Trump cleared out 142 homeless encampments, according to internal data previously obtained by the Daily Caller. More than 3,500 personnel were deployed throughout the year to address crime, making 11,205 arrests, data provided to the Caller shows. The arrests include approximately 62 known gang members, 1,956 narcotics subjects, 1,036 subjects of firearms offenses, and 30 homicide subjects who have been arrested since the task force was created.

The president’s effort extended beyond to other cities like Memphis, Tennessee. In the first three months of the effort, the task force dedicated to cleaning up Memphis effectuated 4,115 criminal arrests and 691 administrative arrests, according to internal data previously obtained by the Caller.

In D.C., the 2026 Year-to-Date Crime Comparison, released by D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department on Monday, shows almost every major crime category trending downward. “Assault with a deadly weapon” has increased by more than 200 cases, according to the stats, but a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office told the Caller that they are prosecuting 67 percent more violent crime, including ADWs, than the Biden administration.

Trump’s mission to make D.C. safe again has also extended to beautifying the city. Under the task force’s work, the administration has removed more than 500 instances of graffiti around the city, installed 134 rat-resistant trash cans and repaired more than 150 potholes, according to internal stats shared with the Caller.

AUTHOR

Reagan Reese

White House Correspondent

RELATED ARTICLES:

Young Boy In Memphis Thanks Trump For Sending National Guard To Fight Crime

Jeff Asher Makes Bold Prediction For US Murder Rate By Year’s End

At Least 22 Dem AGs Agreed to Coordinate Takedown of Trump, Keep Public in Dark Going Into 2024 Election

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

You owe the U.S. Government $359,252! This is not a joke!

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

As the U.S. national debt approaches $40 trillion. Dividing this gross federal obligation by the estimated number of active federal income tax filers results in a theoretical burden of approximately $359,252 per taxpayer!! The U.S. federal government is several weeks away from reaching a disturbing milestone, surpassing $40 trillion in debt.

The U.S. Senate just left for recess after passing another stopgap spending bill with no offsetting cuts. This avoids a government shutdown before the midterm elections but does not slow gargantuan increases in the federal debt. In the last 18 years, the federal debt has quadrupled. In that time, has the standard of living of most Americans improved dramatically? While some Americans are doing well, there are 35.9 million individuals in poverty, with 12.3% on food stamps. At the end of 2024, there were 770,000 homeless Americans, the highest total ever recorded.

This huge increase in debt certainly did not benefit the American people. The average American faces $63,340 in personal debt, a figure that has remained steady in recent years. If the benefits were not shared with the American people, why did our government accumulate such a debt? For much of the past 18 years, America has been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. These wars cost $8 trillion and the lives of 7,073 military personnel. In the last 18 years, the federal government bailed out banks, created the Obamacare monstrosity, and dealt with the COVID-19 pandemic by shutting down the economy and spending $4.65 trillion in “relief funds for response and recovery efforts.”

As Americans have learned from recent disclosures, the quarterback of our pandemic response, Dr. Anthony Fauci, was a liar who misrepresented the impact of COVID-19 and caused additional financial damage and unnecessary loss of life. Growing government is never the answer, whether the problem is poverty or a pandemic. Unfortunately, politicians of both parties love to throw money at whatever crisis develops and hope for the best. Usually, it is the worst possible outcome: as more debt is created and the problem remains.

Currently, our national debt per taxpayer is a breathtaking $359,252. This continues to increase as leaders of both political parties share responsibility. Under Democratic administrations, domestic spending skyrockets, while military spending balloons in Republican administrations. Our federal government spends $7.25 trillion annually, while revenues total only $5.57 trillion. Efforts to address this massive gap, such as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), have been short-lived. While fraud investigations are admirable and will save some taxpayer money, the results will only amount to a fraction of overall spending.

One answer is the passage of a balanced budget amendment, which would require approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. According to House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-TX), this amendment is necessary because Congress has “failed.”

In a recent address to Congress, Arrington noted that “Both parties have failed. This institution has failed…We have jeopardized our economy, our security, our leadership in the world, and worst of all, we have compromised on our children’s future and the blessing of their inheritance of freedom and opportunity.”

Arrington supports a balanced budget amendment because it would “impose fiscal responsibility on a body politic that has not done that, that has not mustered the political will to do that. We have a national debt per GDP that exceeds World War II levels of debt. We have an annual deficit that is larger than both the defense and non-defense discretionary budget. Fifty cents or greater on every dollar that we borrow of the $2 trillion going to service our interest payment(s). Half of what we borrow, a trillion dollars, is more than what we spend on defense.” Arrington is right; a balanced budget amendment is needed and should become a major issue in our country again. Republicans should embrace this challenge and make it a significant talking point in the midterm elections.
Unfortunately, politicians are hesitant because, for every government program, there is a constituency that does not favor cuts. The major social insurance programs of Medicare and Social Security have tens of millions of Americans who depend on those services. There are 75 million Americans receiving Social Security benefits, while 70.3 million Americans are enrolled in Medicare.

These programs have enormous constituencies, who do not want any of their services to be cut. However, action must be taken. On June 9, 2026, the Social Security Board of Trustees reported that the program will become insolvent in 2032. Unless corrective measures are taken, benefits will have to be cut 25% in that year.

Another area that must be addressed is the Department of War. Several weeks ago, the House passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorized $1.15 trillion in spending in the next fiscal year. This does not include the Trump administration’s request for an additional $350 billion in defense spending through budget reconciliation. House Republicans trimmed this amount to $60 billion and are awaiting Senate approval when they return from recess.

The defense budget, as well as spending in every government department, needs to be examined for waste, fraud, and abuse. To address this debt crisis, there needs to be structural changes in our spending across the entirety of the federal government.

The answer to the debt problem is not additional taxes. Every major tax cut given to the American people has led to additional revenue flowing into the federal government. As Americans are incentivized, they become even more productive, creating economic growth and enhanced tax revenue at every level of government.

American families, cities, and states must balance their budgets. It is time that the federal government follows suit. It can be done and was accomplished between 1998 and 2001. In those four years, the budget surpluses totaled $559 billion.

Everything changed after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, and government spending increased, both domestically and internationally. Nevertheless, Americans should question whether the extra spending eradicated the threat of Islamic terror or made Americans any safer.

The spending increases did lay the groundwork for the fiscal nightmare our country faces today, which threatens the financial well-being of every American and future generations.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

Now We’re Not Allowed to Use Abdulrahman Mohamed El Sayed’s Full Name

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

Media complains calling him ‘Mohamed ‘ is Islamophobic.

Here we go again.

Islamist Michigan candidate Abdul El-Sayed’s full name has a Mohammed in there. It’s Abdulrahman Mohamed El Sayed. Now unlike Barack Hussein Obama, whose name was a bit hard to place for Americans without the ‘Hussein’, there’s not a lot of ambiguity about it.

Abdul El-Sayed isn’t exactly Jack Smith or Bob Jones.

But still he chose not to call himself ‘Abdulrahman Mohamed El Sayed’ maybe because it wouldn’t fit on a campaign sign.

Democrats and their media however are now complaining that anyone who calls him ‘Abdulrahman Mohamed El Sayed’ is an Islamophobe.

Other examples immediately started piling up, from the Republican National Committee casting El-Sayed by full name as a “terrorist supporter” to NRSC Vice Chair Jim Banks’ comments saying Michigan’s union Democrats wouldn’t “want to vote for a guy like Abdulrahman El-Sayed.”

Emphasizing El-Sayed’s full name and casting him as a terrorist follows a familiar strategy of using Islamophobic rhetoric to target Democrats of color: Conservatives often invoked — and, sometimes, continue to invoke — former President Barack Obama’s middle name, Hussein, as a derogatory reference despite his not being Muslim.

Sen. Tim Scott on CNN quickly brushed off the attack.

WATCH: CNN melts down over the GOP using Muslim Abdulrahman Mohamed El Sayed’s full name

The same media that refused to note the blatant antisemitism of Abdul El-Sayed’s campaign, is now squealing that using his full name is ‘Islamophobic.’

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamist Influence in Hollywood — By Deborah Weiss, Esq.

Jill Biden Spokesman, Top Dems Back GOP Candidate Over Abdul El-Sayed

Prominent Michigan imam celebrates Lindsey Graham’s death, prays for Trump’s death, urges Muslims to elect El-Sayed

Bill Privileging Muslims in Massachusetts Is Clearly Unconstitutional

Republican Party of Texas makes ‘Don’t Sharia Our Texas’ One of Its Official 2026-2028 Legislative Priorities

UK watchdog investigates one of Britain’s largest Muslim charities for Hamas ties 

Muslim Pedophile Convicted of Sexually Assaulting French Toddler Gets No Prison Time

Hamas-linked CAIR top dog: ‘We love this country, we love it. Because we love it, we have to correct it.’

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

Americans Have Essentially Same View Of Marriage As We Did 13 Years Ago, Thanks To Republicans

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

Slightly more Americans believe that it is “very important” for couples with a child together to marry than did 13 years ago, and Republicans are leading the change, a new Gallup Poll shows.

The rise in this belief comes after a fall in 2020, when it reached an all-time low over the past two decades, according to Gallup’s past polling. In 2026, 39% of Americans said it was “very important” when asked “[w]hen a couple has a child together, how important is it to you that they legally marry?” — which is one point higher than in 2013, when 38% of Americans said the same, per the poll released Friday.

This marks a ten-point rise from 2020 when only 29% said that it was “very important” for couples with children to be married. 

The percentage of Democrats who believe in marriage’s importance for parents has split in half over the past 20 years, going from 42% in 2006 to 21% in 2026. The percentage of Republicans who believe that marriage for parents is “very important” in 2026 was 58%, four percent lower than it was 20 years ago.

However, in 2020, 36% of Republicans believed that it was “very important,” marking a 20-point rise in this sentiment among GOP voters over the past six years. Democrats’ view on this issue, however, has only improved three points in favor of marriage over the same time period — rising from 18% in 2020 to 21% in 2026.

The divide between men’s and women’s belief in the importance of marriage for parents has decreased since 2006. The divide fell from an eight-point difference in 2006, with 53% of men finding it very important and 45% of women, to a one-point difference in 2026, with 40% of men finding it important and 39% of women.

For the first time in 20 years, the percentage of Americans who believe it is “very important” for couples who have a child together to get married has surpassed the percentage of Americans who believe it is “very important” for couples who plan to spend their lives together to get married. Only 37% of Americans find it “very important” for couples planning to spend a life together to get married.

ReconMR conducted the Gallup poll via phone interviews in May, surveying 1,000 U.S. adults. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

AUTHOR

Faith Miller

RELATED ARTICLE: Women, Youth Led American Exodus From Religion Over Past 13 Years, Poll Shows

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

EXCLUSIVE: Trump To Sign Executive Order Calling For More Vaccine Flexibility And Research

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

President Donald Trump will sign an executive order Monday aimed at increasing confidence in the childhood vaccination schedule through greater flexibility for families, according to a fact sheet obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Trump’s recommendations to align the childhood vaccination schedule with “gold standard science” involves three policies. White House officials told the DCNF the new executive order builds on the prior ones in large part because Trump himself will educate the public from the bully pulpit about the changes.

First, the order better educates states to harmonize their policies with a Health and Human Services (HHS) study finding that America’s 18-disease childhood vaccination schedule is more crowded than those in other high income nations in Europe and Asia. The order grants families greater allowance to space out childhood vaccines into separate medical visits and to separate the combined measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine into three single-disease shots.

Second, the order calls on the HHS Task Force on Safer Childhood Vaccines — first created by a 1986 law but fallen into neglect in 1999 — to generate a report in 90 days on how to implement the EO, including ways the commercial sector can produce individual MMR shots and recommend research studies on how to optimally space out shots. The task force includes the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Third, the EO directs the Department of Justice to investigate where states are in violation of parental authority, religious freedom, disability accommodations, and religious and medical exemptions.

Other high income countries implement vaccine mandates but nevertheless do not enjoy high vaccination rates.

“By signing this executive order the president is helping Americans who are asking questions, especially post COVID, about vaccine requirements, and opening up a dialogue to encourage public trust,” a White House official said. “We are still recommending the measles and the polio vaccine.”

“On this topic in particular there’s been a lot of media misinformation and misreporting,” said another White House official. “If you read the EO there is nothing not grounded in data and gold standard science. We’re taking an evidence-based approach, but a lot of the reporting is not evidence-based.”

Detailed polling conducted in October 2025 by Trump’s longtime pollster Tony Fabrizio found that 73% of voters expressed concern about childhood vaccine mandates, while a whopping 90% of voters expressed concern about the pharmaceutical industry’s corrupting influence.

The Wall Street Journal reported on July 27 that Trump was turning up the heat on Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to do more on vaccines.

HHS first reported in a metaanalysis last year that America’s chockablock vaccination schedule was out of step with many other wealthy countries and recommended 11 critical vaccines for which broad international consensus exists.

In December 2025, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum directing his health department to align U.S. core childhood vaccine recommendations with best practices from peer, developed countries.

And in May, President Trump signed an Executive Order realigning United States core childhood vaccine recommendations with best practices from peer, developed countries.

Internal documents from the maker of Tylenol and from the FDA show evidence was accumulating about a potential link between exposure to the drug in utero and neurological damage, the DCNF reported. Other studies have pointed to exposure to the drug in early childhood as problematic.

A 2017 survey shows that 64% of families administer Tylenol to treat side effects from childhood vaccines.

AUTHOR

Emily Kopp

Senior Investigative Reporter

RELATED ARTICLE: EXCLUSIVE: Trump’s Pollster Found Voters Were Highly Concerned About Vaccines

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

Epoch Times Reader’s Poll on the War with Iran

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

Below are recent poll results from Epoch Tiimes, one of few remaining conservative print news sources.  I highlighted % that I personally favored.

Dear Reader,

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us. We’re pleased to share with you the results of the survey you participated in.

Do you approve or disapprove of the recent US military strikes on Iran?

  • Approve — 62 %
  • Disapprove — 36 %
  • No strong opinion — 2 %

What do you think should be the main goal of US actions toward Iran right now?

  • Prevent Iran from developing or using nuclear weapons — 59 %
  • Protect US troops and allies in the region — 6 %
  • Avoid further escalation and seek de-escalation — 19 %
  • Focus on other priorities instead of military involvement — 15 %
  • Not sure — 2 %

How concerned are you about potential risks from the current US military involvement in Iran (such as casualties, higher costs, or wider conflict)?

  • Very concerned — 44 %
  • Somewhat concerned — 22 %
  • Not very concerned — 19 %
  • Not concerned at all — 13 %
  • Not sure — 1 %

Should the US prioritize addressing domestic issues (like the economy, borders, and infrastructure) before committing more resources to foreign conflicts like the one with Iran?

  • Yes, domestic issues should come first — 37 %
  • No, security threats abroad must be addressed regardless — 30 %
  • Both should be balanced equally — 32 %
  • Not sure — 1 %

Do major news outlets provide fair, balanced, and fact-based reporting on the US military strikes and the Iran conflict?

  • Yes, mostly fair and accurate — 8 %
  • No, they often push political narratives — 79 %
  • Sometimes fair, sometimes biased — 10 %
  • Not sure — 3 %

Would you be interested in subscribing to a news source that focuses on factual, non-partisan reporting without political agendas or sensationalism?

  • Yes, especially if it offers clear, unbiased coverage — 27 %
  • Maybe, if it proves reliable over time — 23 %
  • No, I already trust my current sources — 41 %
  • I don’t care about the news — 9 %

Copyright © 2025 The Epoch Times. All rights reserved.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

WHITE HOUSE FRAUD TRACKER: Blows the Lid Off Nearly $300 Billion in Government Waste and Fraud

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

The White House has just published the first transparent public record to track fraud across our nation. It’s massive.

And Democrats kep voting against killing billions in pure federal waste, fraud, and abuse.

White House fraud tracker exposes nearly $300 billion tab as health programs take center stage

According to administration officials, the website called “Fraud Ledger” is intended to give taxpayers a public view of fraud investigations, enforcement actions and fraud prevention efforts

The White House’s new fraud tracking website is spotlighting billions of dollars in government losses prevented, with healthcare programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services among the largest areas of focus.

The online “Fraud Ledger” said the administration has uncovered nearly $230 billion in fraud and stopped approximately $56 billion in fraudulent payments through its efforts to identify waste, abuse and improper spending across federal programs.

According to administration officials, the website is intended to give taxpayers a public view of fraud investigations, enforcement actions and fraud prevention measures carried out as part of President Donald Trump’s broader push to combat fraud in federal benefit programs. The White House has described the effort as a way to “root out” fraud and recover taxpayer dollars.

Administration officials said the administration stopped $46 billion of fraud in HHS-related programs, uncovered $96 billion and enforced $30.5 billion in recovery actions.

The Department of Health and Human Services reported more than $90 billion identified in improper payments
“Each partner agency reported three figures to the Task Force. Fraud uncovered represents total estimated fraud identified through data analysis. Fraud stopped counts the dollars saved annually through administrative actions such as provider suspensions and rule changes,” read the website. “Fraud enforced covers dollars recovered through indictments, settlements, and civil monetary penalties. All figures reflect the period since January 2025.”

Healthcare spending represents a major portion of the government’s fraud and improper payment problems.

HHS also reported more than $90 billion in improper payments across its programs in its fiscal year 2025 financial report. The largest categories included Medicare and Medicaid, with Medicaid accounting for tens of billions of dollars in estimated improper payments.

The tracker rated Medicaid fraud as its “highest-impact” anti-fraud action since January 2025.

“CMS held states accountable for the first time for Medicaid fraud, deferring federal financial participation of over $2 billion from California and over $500 million from Minnesota,” read the website.

Federal auditors caution that improper payments are not automatically evidence of fraud. The Government Accountability Office defines improper payments as funds that “shouldn’t have been made or were made in the incorrect amount,” which can include administrative errors, eligibility mistakes or insufficient documentation.

The GAO estimated that federal agencies made approximately $186 billion in improper payments government-wide in fiscal year 2025, bringing the total estimate since 2003 to roughly $3 trillion.

The Trump administration has argued that stronger data-sharing and enforcement tools can prevent taxpayer losses before money leaves government programs. The White House previously announced efforts to eliminate information barriers between agencies, saying better access to government data would help detect and prevent fraud.

HHS officials have also expanded the use of data analytics and other screening tools to identify questionable billing patterns and payment risks before funds are distributed, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Investigators have targeted Medicare and Medicaid fraud schemes involving false medical claims, phantom providers, unnecessary procedures and improper billing, while watchdog agencies continue to stress that reducing improper payments requires fixing administrative problems in addition to fraud prevention efforts.

The White House said the new tracker will continue to be updated as federal agencies report additional enforcement actions and taxpayer savings.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

One Gaza Palestinian … $547,000,000 Fraud

Israelis in Greece Warned to Lie Low Ahead of Pro-Terror ‘DAY OF RAGE’ Riots

‘Each Migrant Has a Story Worthy of a Hollywood Movie’

Iran Security Chief: Hormuz Closed ‘Until America Corrects Its Behavior’

The VDH Doctrine: Bypass Tehran, Recognize Reza Pahlavi’s Government-in-Exile

EVERY Senate Democrat Voted Against Voter ID

RELATED VIDEO: THE WHITE HOUSE: A vision for two very different Americas

POSTS ON X:

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

The VDH Doctrine: Bypass Tehran, Recognize Reza Pahlavi’s Government-in-Exile

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

For over four decades, Washington’s posture toward the Islamic Republic of Iran has oscillated between containment, targeted economic sanctions, and episodic diplomatic engagement. Historian and military strategist Victor Davis Hanson argues that this paradigm has proven utterly ineffective at checking Tehran’s regional aggression or supporting the democratic aspirations of the Iranian public. During a high-profile broadcast exchange with commentator Mark Levin, Hanson put forward a provocative shift in U.S. foreign policy: formal diplomatic recognition of an Iranian government-in-exile headed by Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi.

Hanson’s proposal fundamentally challenges the conventional wisdom of Middle Eastern diplomacy. Rather than treating the clerical regime as the permanent, sole legitimate authority in Tehran, the United States would actively construct a parallel diplomatic reality — one that isolates the ruling theocracy, provides an institutional anchor for internal and external opposition, and charts a credible path toward democratic restoration.

The core of Victor Davis Hanson’s proposal rests on fundamentally shifting American foreign policy away from the perpetual management of the Islamic Republic and toward its active delegitimization. During his discussions with Mark Levin, Hanson argued that decades of containment, economic sanctions, and episodic negotiations have only subsidized the clerical regime’s survival while ignoring the overwhelmingly secular, pro-Western aspirations of the Iranian public. By proposing that Washington explicitly bypass Tehran and formally recognize an Iranian government-in-exile, Hanson challenges the traditional diplomatic status quo. This strategy aims to strip the ruling theocracy of its international standing, isolate its diplomatic channels, and create a structured external pressure point that forces the regime to absorb the full financial and political costs of its domestic tyranny and regional proxy warfare.

The core pillar of Hanson’s argument is that the United States must stop according de facto legitimacy to the Islamic Republic. For decades, Western powers have operated under the assumption that negotiations — whether over nuclear proliferation, regional proxies, or maritime trade — are the only practical mechanism for managing Iranian hostility. Hanson rejects this premise, asserting that engaging with the regime merely subsidizes its survival and undermines most of the Iranian populace, who remain inherently secular, anti-theocratic, and pro-Western.

By formally recognizing a government-in-exile, Washington would send a clear signal: the ruling clerics no longer possess the legal or moral authority to represent the state of Iran on the global stage. Hanson emphasizes that the U.S. should explicitly refuse to negotiate with the current regime and instead engage directly with this provisional alternative. This shift would strip Tehran of its status as an accepted diplomatic actor, isolating its diplomats, restricting its international standing, and forcing the regime to absorb the full political and financial costs of its domestic oppression and regional subversion.

A central pillar of this strategy is establishing a unified political anchor by tapping Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi to head the provisional government under strict, conditional parameters. Rather than facilitating the return of an absolute monarchy, Hanson stresses that U.S. recognition must be contingent on Pahlavi acting strictly as a temporary steward whose primary mandate is organizing free, multi-party democratic elections within one to two years of the regime’s collapse. This approach directly addresses the historic fragmentation of the Iranian opposition, providing internal dissidents, potential military defectors, and foreign allies with a legitimate focal point. By pairing Pahlavi’s long-standing advocacy for secular democratic pluralism with formal Western backing, Hanson’s framework seeks to convert passive resistance into an organized successor state ready to manage a stable post-theocratic transition.

Crucially, Hanson specifies that U.S. recognition must be conditional. The exile government and Pahlavi must commit to a binding agreement: upon returning to a liberated Iran, the interim administration must organize and conduct free, multi-party democratic elections within one to two years. This constraint addresses historical anxieties regarding dynamic power shifts in the region, ensuring that the provisional authority serves strictly as a bridge to a secular republic or constitutional framework chosen directly by the Iranian nation.

As Mark Levin noted during their discussion, Pahlavi has spent decades advocating for political pluralism, secularism, and human rights rather than personal power. Structuring recognition around a strict transitional deadline guarantees that the government-in-exile remains a vehicle for democratic self-determination rather than an autocratic alternative.

One of the greatest historical obstacles facing the Iranian pro-democracy movement has been fragmentation. While internal uprisings — such as the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement — demonstrate widespread domestic resistance, the lack of an organized political head has allowed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to suppress protests piecemeal.

An officially recognized government-in-exile fundamentally alters this dynamic:

  • Unified Political Anchor: It provides a singular, legitimate focal point around which internal dissidents, military defectors, and international allies can rally.
  • Administrative & Financial Utility: A formal exile entity could issue international documentation, establish independent funding channels, and represent Iranian national assets currently frozen abroad.
  • Psychological Pressure on Tehran: As Levin pointed out, the existence of an internationally backed alternative government creates intense strategic anxiety within the clerical establishment, signaling that a structured successor state is prepared to take power the moment the regime falters.

Hanson’s strategic vision extends beyond diplomatic symbolism; it represents a comprehensive doctrine for long-term Middle Eastern stability. The Islamic Republic functions as the principal engine of instability across the Levant and the Persian Gulf, funding a network of armed proxies. Hanson argues that attempting to manage or appease this system is a proven failure.

By aligning American power directly with the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people, the U.S. can help catalyze the collapse of the theocracy from within. Establishing a recognized government-in-exile bridges the gap between Washington’s stated commitment to Iranian freedom and its practical foreign policy, transforming passive opposition into an active strategy for democratic transition. Hanson’s proposal provides an actionable, realist blueprint for ending forty-five years of hostility — not through endless war or futile appeasement, but through the deliberate, institutional delegitimization of the clerical dictatorship.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

A Battered President

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

Figuratively the term Waterloo means a crushing defeat and is a reference to the Battle of Waterloo, the final battle of the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1825) when Napoleon was decisively and conclusively defeated. An interesting June 9, 2026, article by Michel Benchimol titled, “Israel’s Right to Exist & Trump’s Iran Gamble” poses the question:

The Iran Trap: Waterloo or Victory?

Trump’s Iran policy is the true test of his transformation. He has pursued maximum pressure—sanctions, tariffs on countries trading with Iran, and repeated military threats.

In June 2025, the U.S. and Israel struck Iran’s nuclear facilities in the largest Western attack since 1979.

Iran retaliated with a missile strike on a U.S. air base in Qatar.

Then came the pivot. In April 2026, Trump announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran, framing it as a dramatic victory. Tehran has shown willingness to negotiate on uranium enrichment but talks stall over U.S. demands to limit Iran’s missiles and proxies.

Critics call it a disaster. They argue that Trump is abandoning regime change, legitimizing the Iranian regime, and failing to achieve the doctrine Netanyahu vowed to destroy. Some analysts say Iran could become Trump’s Waterloo if escalation leads to sustained conflict, U.S. casualties, and a midterm disaster for Republicans.

The risk is that Trump’s signature tactic—construct a narrative, declare it true, and force the world to submit—doesn’t work when the adversary is a state with nuclear ambitions and proxy networks.

Benchimol’s analysis ignores the foundation of President Trump’s signature “Let’s make a deal” strategy which assumes everyone, and everything has a price that can be negotiated. And President Trump’s negotiating strategy ignores 1400 years of religious Islamic doctrine that commits Muslims to establishing a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

For me, Benchimol is dancing around the problem and revealing his own bias by presenting Trump’s “Let’s make a deal” negotiating style as if it has a possibility of success––it doesn’t. Muslims are doctrinally obligated to destroy Jews and Christians (competing ideologies) to achieve Islam’s expansionist ambition––the establishment of the worldwide Islamic caliphate. Remember, according to Islam, there will be peace on Earth when the whole world is Muslim. That is not a slogan––it is a religious doctrinal imperative.

The better question is: Can Iran be trusted as a negotiating partner?

History is a great teacher and what we learn from history is that some enemies can be negotiated with, and some enemies must be defeated unconditionally. Iran must be defeated unconditionally to secure the peace for the Western world because Iran is ideologically, religiously, and doctrinally dedicated to establishing the worldwide Islamic caliphate.

Iran advances on its centuries-old operating principles of hudna and taqiyya. Hudna is Islam’s fraudulent signature ceasefire agreement that gives a weakened Iran time to regroup, rearm, and reattack. Taqiyya is Islam’s doctrinal religious duty to lie in the service of Islam. Iran is not moved by “peace” deals, business deals, or any other deals.

Islam is a challenger civilization with a replacement ideology that is founded in a binary, supremacist, expansionist, religious doctrine. Islam’s singular goal is to make the whole world Muslim, including America. Iran is not and never was a trustworthy negotiating partner because peace is not and never was Islam’s goal.

America’s return to the negotiating table to give Iran one more chance to become a trustworthy negotiating partner is like a battered wife returning to her abusive husband thinking that this time will be different. Being out of touch with the historical reality is a lethal choice for nations as well as for wives.

No man, not Donald Trump nor any other human being, is going to change 1400 years of Islamic doctrine with promises of peace and profits to Muslim countries doctrinally committed to the Islamic caliphate! It is an absurdity that lives in subjective reality without foundation in objective reality.

For me, President Trump now appears more like a battered wife who continues to give her husband one more chance, because she desperately wants to be happily married, or like the wife who knows her husband is cheating but refuses to acknowledge it because she desperately wants to stay married. These are flawed strategies in marriage as well as in international affairs because denial is not a survival strategy and both deny objective reality.

In my 2011 philosophy book Dear America: Who’s Driving the Bus? I present a universal paradigm of human behavior that explains why people do what they do. I explain that a state of mind is not fixed. It is constantly shifting along the growth continuum, anywhere from total, infantile narcissism to responsible adulthood, depending upon the level and stability of the individual’s inner development and the strength of the external pressures challenging it.

We are each the whole of our life experiences. The children we once were continuing to exist inside our minds. So, the narcissistic infant; the demanding two-year-old; the insecure adolescent; the rebel; the adventurer; the happy child; the angry, frightened, timid, or lonely child we once were all persist as states of mind. Each inner child is an accessible entity that seeks to be in control of the individual’s mind. The inner child’s struggle for power continues to challenge the individual’s rational adult state of mind throughout his or her lifetime.

Anytime an inner entity is at the wheel the individual has psychologically exited the factual real world of objective reality and entered the historical feelings realm of subjective reality.

The bus is a metaphor for our psychological selves. The bus travels along the timeline that is our lifetime. It picks up new passengers as we grow and develop, each new feeling and each new experience adding another rider. The driver of the bus is always selected from the passengers aboard, and the passengers are constantly competing to determine who will drive the bus.

To understand the often inexplicable inconsistencies in an individual’s behavior, and to understand how one person can perceive us in a completely different way than another sees us, we must ask ourselves the seminal question, “Who’s driving the bus?”

Sustaining our most rational adult state of mind is the challenge for preserving our constitutional republic, because freedom is an adult enterprise. It is my opinion that President Trump is being psychologically manipulated again just like he was psychologically manipulated during Covid-19.

During Covid-19 the globalist elite triggered President Trump’s young, frightened, germophobic entity and now they have engaged his businessman entity. Psychological manipulation is a powerful tactical weapon in globalism’s War on America. And anytime President Trump is triggered into subjective reality it is problematic for America.

For freedom to prevail President Trump must demand his most rational adult presidential self be in the driver’s seat. Watching the President realign himself and desperately try to make a deal with Muslim countries in the Middle East is like watching a fish flailing and flapping around on land. It will not end well. Israel knows it. Rubio and Hegseth know it. And our enemies know it because their social engineers remain in objective reality.

I thought we had learned the lesson in WWII that you cannot make a deal with a Nazi––it does not take a genius to realize that you cannot make a deal with an Islamist either. Why? Because, like Nazis, Islamists are ideologically committed to their doctrinal goals and ideological supremacy––everything else is details.

President Trump used to know this, but like the battered wife he is desperate to give the Islamists one more chance because his overarching goal is to be the man who makes peace in the middle east. He is as desperate as the bruised wife going back to give the battering husband one more chance.

The difference between President Trump and the battered wife are the consequences. The battered wife will eventually be battered to death; a battered president leaves America vulnerable and weakened. I no longer trust President Trump’s foreign policy decisions in the Middle East because I no longer trust the entity that is driving his bus.

Just as the police know what will eventually happen to the bruised and battered wife, anyone living in objective reality knows the outcome of Trump’s Iran Gamble.

The Iranian regime will survive and become even more brutal against its own population, and its proxies will be more emboldened to continue terrorizing Jews and Christians worldwide. A battered president leaves a trail of destruction behind him because a president living in subjective reality cannot protect America.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Epoch Times Reader’s Poll on the War with Iran

A Defense of the President’s Strategy in Iran

The VDH Doctrine: Bypass Tehran, Recognize Reza Pahlavi’s Government-in-Exile

Space Is No Longer the Final Frontier––Reality Is is available in paperback, hardback, and ebook formats on barnesandnoble.com, amazon.com, and directly from Ingram in paperback.

The Masochism of the West

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

Many people in the West have lost the will to fight the Muslim invasion of their countries. Instead, some embrace the Muslims who are, by the tens of millions, already in their midst, treating them as legitimate “asylum refugees,” to be provided with every sort of welfare benefit, and not as the economic migrants that in fact they are. Some in the West see themselves as having to atone for the colonial conquests of their ancestors, and what better way to do so than by admitting into their countries the descendants of those who supposedly suffered from such colonialism? More on this Western masochism can be found in Giulio Meotti’s article here: “Masochism: the gravest mental illness in the West,” by Giulio Meotti, Israel National News, August 5, 2026:

At the end of his long and magnificent life, the anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss wrote:

“I began to reflect at a time when our culture was aggressing other cultures, and in that period I set myself up as their defender and witness. Today I have the impression that the movement has been reversed and that our culture has ended up on the defensive in the face of external threats, among which figures the Islamic explosion. And suddenly I found myself being an ethnological defender, and firmly resolved, of my own culture.”

Pippa Bacca, a Milanese artist, pseudonym of Giuseppina Pasqualino Di Marineo, niece of Piero Manzoni, began her itinerant tour “Brides on tour” in a white wedding dress.

To teach Israel “how to make peace,” the Italian leftist decided to hitchhike from Italy to Israel. She had even learned Arabic, to demonstrate that “Islam is not violent.”

The Jewish state needed no lessons on “how to make peace” from the pro-Palestinian Pippa Bacca. Israel has been attempting to make a real peace, and not just a temporary hudna, or truce, with its Arab enemies ever since the 1948 war. Egypt, notably, signed a peace treaty with Israel in order to get back the entire Sinai, that it had lost in the Six-Day War, but relations between Israel and Egypt have hardly improved since. The Egyptian media is still full of vituperative attacks on Israel; at the UN, Egypt leads the anti-Israel bloc of Arab states, and pushes for the General Assembly to adopt anti-Israel measures. Sadat explained to his fellow Egyptians that he only signed the Camp David Accords in 1978 in order to have Israel turn the entire Sinai back to Egypt.

But let’s go back to Pippa Bacca, the innocent Italian leftist, hoping to hitchhike all the way from Italy to Israel, to help bring “peace” between Arab and Jew.

A hitchhiking journey, unconditional trust in others and in the brotherhood among peoples. What could possibly go wrong?

“The only thing that scares me is the cold,” Pippa had said before setting off through Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Bulgaria.

But in Turkey, Pippa met Murat Karatash and her life ended in horror and brutality. Raped and murdered.

Thus concluded Pippa’s parabola, within her own creative work.

Meanwhile another Italian activist, Vittorio Arrigoni, a homosexual, had arrived in Gaza on a boat against the Israeli “blockade” (of weapons) to help “the Palestinian Arab people.” He had tattooed on his arm the Arabic word for “resistance” (مقاومة, muqāwama).

The jihadists of Gaza kidnapped and killed him.

For twenty years it is as if we had put Pippa Bacca in charge of Europe.

Too many in the Western world, like the terminally naïve Pippa Bacca and Vittorio Arrigoni, who paid with their lives, have sympathized with, and trusted, the Palestinians, and other Muslims, and that diseased sympathy has prevented many in the West from comprehending the demographic threat from the Muslims now in their midst. And too many Western officials have for decades been admitting hordes of Muslims — there are now 44 million in Europe — who have no intention of assimilating into Western societies, for why should the “best of peoples” want to integrate with those they know are the “most vile of created beings”? And they are convinced, too, as Muhammad famously said, that “Islam is to dominate and not to be dominated.”

The attack at Berlin’s Pride once again demonstrates that out there roam wolves who in the name of Islam want to tear us bodily apart. Faced with this very serious danger, a country can react in two ways. Either the rule of law passes from prey to hunter, even if unpleasant images will arise, for example during raids….

In other words, European governments must do everything they can to cease being “prey” to Muslims. This means they must discourage, or prevent altogether, Muslim immigration. Such measures could include putting a stop to all migration from Muslim lands, rounding up and deporting those Muslim migrants who are already in the West illegally, promptly deporting Muslims convicted of crimes at the conclusion of their sentences back to their countries of origin, and preventing migrants — overwhelmingly Muslims — from receiving any welfare benefits during the first five years of their presence in the land.

Pippa Bacca feared the cold, not the man. Arrigoni feared Israel, not the Salafists. The organizers of Berlin Pride fear “instrumentalization,” not those who kill them.

Perhaps the end of Western civilization will not arrive with barbarian invasions, but in a wedding dress, a resistance tattoo and prayers that the murderer be white and Christian.

Giulio Meotti is too pessimistic. He should know that everywhere in the Western world the anti-immigrant parties — or more exactly, the anti-Muslim-immigrant parties — are now in the ascendant. In Germany, Alice Weidel’s Alternative für Deutschland, in Italy Giorgia Meloni’s Fratelli d’Italia, in Spain Santiago Abascal’s Vox party, in the UK Nigel Farage’s Reform Party, Rupert Lowe’s Restore Britain Party, and Laurence Fox’s Reclaim Party are all determined to diminish the presence of Muslim migrants.

The peoples of Europe have been slow to grasp the demographic threat, but now the scales have fallen from their eyes, and many are bestirring themselves to support leaders well aware of the Muslim menace. Note to Giulio Meotti: Sursum corda! The cavalry is coming.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Spanish Prime Minister Accuses Europe of Prejudice for Not Wanting to be Invaded by Migrants

The Bizarre Efforts to Blame Morocco Migrant Invasion of Spain on US and Israel

UK Reinvents ‘Romeo and Juliet’ as ‘Romeo and Mohammed’

Hamas-Linked CAIR’s Media Appearances Exploit Misfortune and Obscure Muslim-Inspired Hate

Massachusetts: Pakistani Muslim Illegal Alien Whom Biden Freed Tries to Rape Elderly Woman

Parents of Murdered Teen Demand That Firewall Against AfD Be Lifted

Say, Didja Happen to Notice the Total Implosion of the Academic World and DEI Industry?

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

Retired U.S. Flag Offficers (Generals/Admirals) Traveling to and Collaborating with Communist China

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

Judge for yourself but in my opinion these retired Generals, Admirals and other high ranking former members of Federal Government should have their Security Clearances lifted NOW (if they still have them) and should be investigated for what information they shared with Communist Chinese military officials.

It has been alleged that most received free transportation, lodging,meals, etc. while engaged in these collaborations.

Several retired U.S. flag officers, including four-star generals and admirals, have been reported to collaborate with Chinese military officials in closed-door meetings over the past decade. These interactions have raised concerns about the influence of the Chinese Communist Party on American military leadership.

Retired U.S. Flag Officers Collaborating with China

Numerous high-ranking retired military officials have engaged with Chinese counterparts.

  • Participants — Some of the most powerful retired officers, including former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have participated in these meetings.
  • Topics Discussed — Discussions have included critical issues such as Taiwan, the South China Sea, and cybersecurity.
  • Duration of Engagement — These interactions have reportedly spanned over a decade, indicating a long-term relationship.
  • Chinese Influence — The meetings were organized by a Chinese organization linked to military intelligence, raising concerns about potential influence.

Recent reports indicate that several retired U.S. flag officers, including high-ranking generals and admirals, have engaged in extensive dialogues with Chinese military influence groups over the past decade. This collaboration has raised concerns about the potential implications for U.S. national security and military integrity.

Overview of Collaborations

The involvement of retired U.S. military leaders with Chinese entities has significant implications.

  • Network Formation — The Chinese Communist Party has established a private network involving senior retired U.S. military officials, circumventing direct penetration of the Pentagon.
  • Long-term Engagement — Some retired officers participated in meetings with a Chinese organization linked to Beijing’s military intelligence for over ten years.
  • Public Endorsements — Over 120 retired generals and admirals publicly supported political figures, indicating their ongoing influence.
  • Concerns Raised — Investigations have highlighted the risks associated with these collaborations, suggesting they could undermine U.S. military strategies

Lloyd Austin’s (former US Secy of Defense) interactions with China have been primarily through communication rather than travel. Austin spoke with his Chinese counterpart in April 2024, marking a significant step in military dialogue.

EXCLUSIVE: America’s Top Retired Generals Participated In Secret Beijing Conference Backed By Chinese Spy Group

Some of America’s most senior former military and national-security officials quietly traveled to Beijing to participate in a closed-door “Strategic Security and Stability Dialogue” supported by the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF), an organization repeatedly identified by U.S. analysts and members of Congress as part of the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front influence apparatus.

The meeting was billed as a Track II dialogue, meaning unofficial and off the record. But Track II forums are not politically neutral. They are where Beijing cultivates elite Western figures who no longer hold office but still command credibility and converts their presence into political capital.

CUSEF’s role is central.

The foundation was created by former Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, who also served as a vice chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, a core United Front body. For years, CUSEF has sponsored U.S.–China dialogues, trips, and exchanges that critics say consistently advance Beijing-friendly narratives under the language of “mutual understanding.”

This strategy is not subtle. CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping himself has described United Front work as “an important magic weapon for the success of the Party’s cause.” In other words, influence – not tanks or treaties – is how Beijing seeks to shape outcomes abroad.

That context matters when examining who showed up in Beijing.

Continue reading.

America’s Top Generals Walked Straight Into China’s Influence Machine

By Ben Smith

The Chinese Communist Party didn’t need to penetrate the Pentagon. It built a private network around it, and stocked it with some of America’s most senior retired generals and admirals.

That’s the core finding in Natalie Winters’ new report on the Sanya Initiative, a decade-plus military dialogue funded by the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF) and run in coordination with the China Association for International Friendly Contact (CAIFC). Congressional investigators have identified CAIFC as a front for the PLA’s former General Political Department, responsible for intelligence collection and “propaganda and perception management.” The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission specifically cited CAIFC’s role in Sanya.

Winters summarized the findings Tuesday on X:

The first delegation, named in CUSEF’s own 2008-2009 annual report, included retired Adm. William “Bill” Owens, former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Ronald Fogleman, former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Dennis Reimer, former Pacific Command chief Adm. Joseph Prueher, former Southern Command chief Gen. Charles Wilhelm and former Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. John Keane. By 2009, the combined American-Chinese delegation had traveled to Hawaii, Washington and New York, where they sat down with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, members of Congress and senior State Department officials.

The glossy brochures called it a peaceful exchange. What they left out was CAIFC’s actual mandate. Congressional investigators described the group as performing the “dual roles of intelligence collection and propaganda and perception management” as part of the CCP’s broader United Front system, an influence apparatus designed to cultivate foreign elites and neutralize opposition to Beijing’s objectives.

The warnings were public as early as 2011. Mark Stokes, a former Pentagon official and co-author of a landmark study on PLA political warfare, testified before the commission that the Chinese side’s intentions were spelled out in the initiative’s own first report:

“The Chinese side says we wish you would advocate these positions,” Stokes testified, adding that American editorials later appeared with a “stark similarity” to what the Chinese participants had pushed. Hearing co-chair Jeffrey L. Fiedler responded: “Sounds like it was a successful narrative that was placed.”

A 2013 investigation by John Garnaut found a striking imbalance in the initiative’s early deliverables. The American side had agreed to try to delay a Pentagon report on China’s military power until after Taiwan’s election, viewed the U.S. election cycle as an opportunity to shape military relations, and discussed writing opinion pieces to counter critical coverage of China’s military. Garnaut found no comparable list of commitments from the Chinese side. Shortly after those early Sanya meetings, Owens published opinion pieces urging Washington to treat China as a friend and end arms sales to Taiwan.

Continue reading.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Disloyal Careerists Are Still Haunting The Pentagon’s Halls

Disloyal Careerists Are Still Haunting The Pentagon’s Halls

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

I have served alongside government civilian employees for more than 40 years in varying capacities and watched too many good people in uniform and the civil service choose to not speak out instead of putting the mission first.

Mission first is the standard. What we saw from Pentagon employee Brandon Newsom is a good example — and he is not an isolated case.

Newsom, a 16-year Pentagon employee and Director of Business Operations in the Office of the Secretary of the Navy, was caught on hidden camera by James O’Keefe admitting he intended to stay in place precisely so he could “undo whatever’s been done” by the Trump administration once the political winds shifted.

“I have the influence… I can undo whatever’s been done,” he said. “When the election changes… I want to stay and stick it out so that when the time comes, I can undo whatever’s been done.”

He openly dismissed the president as a “textbook narcissist” and called U.S. policy toward Iran “completely stupid … driven on one man’s ego.”

He even targeted the voluntary monthly prayer service held by Secretary Pete Hegseth and the policy that allows senior officials to be held accountable and removed.

This is not policy disagreement. This is calculated resistance by a career government employee who views the elected leadership of the United States as an inconvenience to be waited out and then reversed.

Newsom admitted he lacked formal authority but planned to use the influence of his position to slow-roll or reverse lawful directives.

That is the textbook definition of the “disloyal government employee problem” that has plagued the Pentagon and the broader federal bureaucracy for years.

Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao did the right thing by placing Newsom on administrative leave immediately. Accountability must follow. Suspension is the minimum. Removal should be the outcome.

Anyone who takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution, then plots to undermine the policies of the duly elected commander-in-chief because they personally dislike them, has no business drawing a taxpayer paycheck inside the Department of War.

I have seen this mindset before.

Careerists who treat the Pentagon as their permanent fiefdom rather than an institution that serves the American people and the warfighters who put their lives on the line.

They wrap their resistance in the language of “institutional knowledge” or “continuity,” but the reality is often personal ideology and self-preservation.

They stay, they slow-walk, they leak and they wait for the next administration that better matches their preferences.

Meanwhile, readiness suffers, lethality is diluted and the troops pay the price.

Civilian control of the military is not optional. It is foundational. Government employees, whether uniformed or civilian, do not get a veto over the voters. They execute lawful orders or they leave. Period.

The idea that a GS-15 or SES can sit in the Pentagon for 16 years and openly scheme to reverse the policies of an elected administration is corrosive.

It destroys trust, invites more of the same, and signals to our adversaries that America’s defense establishment is divided against itself.

Secretary Hegseth and the Trump administration have made clear they intend to restore warfighting focus, cut bureaucratic bloat, and hold people accountable.

That mission cannot succeed if the building is still full of people who view those changes as temporary inconveniences to be undone the moment the political calendar turns.

Root them out. Use the tools already available, and strengthen them if necessary, to ensure loyalty to the Constitution and the chain of command, not to personal agendas or Beltway orthodoxy.

I spent more than three decades in uniform because I believed in the mission and the country. Most of the men and women still serving feel the same way.

They deserve leaders and civilian counterparts who share that commitment, not careerists waiting for their chance to “undo” the will of the American people.

Fire them. Replace them with people who understand that service means executing the policies of the elected government, not subverting them.

Our national security depends on it.

AUTHOR

Col. Rob Maness, USAF ret

STARRS Board of Advisor and Retired U.S. Air Force Colonel, 9/11 Pentagon Survivor, Author of “What You Can Do About It: Taking Real Action Against Corruption, Radicalism, and Moral Decay to Save America”, and Host of The Rob Maness Show.

First published on The Daily Caller

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

The Leftist Laughable Hypocrisy

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

Yes, I know, you read the title of this missive and said to yourself, “Which one?”

Yes, the entire basis of Marxism is deeply rooted in hypocrisy, but last week Martha MacCallum had it on full display. She was interviewing a young fella who was the co-director of the NYC Democratic Socialists of America chapter.

Ms. MacCallum had obviously done her research and led this helpless imbecile right into a textbook U-shaped ambush.

She asked him about his parents, who had immigrated to the United States from Peru. His response was that they did so to flee American imperialism and capitalism.

She then reminded him that they fled during the time of the rise of the Shining Path, a Maoist Communist insurgency movement. Her response to the young man was that he didn’t make sense. I would certainly agree.

If American imperialism and capitalism were something worth fleeing, then why not just stay in Peru and support the Shining Path? After all, they were a communist insurgency. Is that not what Marxists desire?

And to admit that his parents “supposedly” fled Peru to escape American imperialism and capitalism to come to America, home of the free-market, free-enterprise economic system that has benefited far more people than a socialist economic model, is delusional hypocrisy.

Therein lies the fundamental reason why it is hard to take these Marxist propagandists as intelligent.

I certainly do take them seriously because they are delusional enough to enact violence to force one to succumb to their insanity.

I remember as a young Army Lieutenant going behind the “Iron Curtain” and seeing for myself what this delusion is all about.

My first trip through Checkpoint Charlie to East Berlin was in 1985, and it was very eye-opening for this kid from the inner city of Atlanta.

All that which I had studied at the University of Tennessee about Marxism, socialism, and communism was staring me right in the face.

And we were well aware of the East German Stasi secret police following us. The poor condition of the roads, streets, streetcars, and buildings was apparent. The lack of “diversity” in automobile selection was startling. I saw what government “rent-controlled” housing looked like.

But what was most telling and unforgettable was the look of despair, despondency, and lack of joy on the faces of the people. It is truly as Sir Winston Churchill described it,

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

Marxist ideology is indeed a creed of ignorance that believes it is their right, their objective, to make us all equal. It is a philosophy of governance that does not reward individual achievement or exceptionalism.

As Barack Obama once quipped, “If you own a business, you didn’t build that.” How utterly offensive and condescending to the indomitable American entrepreneurial spirit that made this nation the envy of the world, which was on full display to the world during the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

The world got to see and experience this nation, our America, and came to the realization that the Marxist leftist propaganda media had been lying to them.

Take, for example, the laudatory comments about Waffle House, founded in my home state of Georgia by two former World War II veterans, Joe Rogers Sr. and Tom Forkner. Imagine an America where their desire, their idea, their innovation would have been stymied by the likes of an Obama, worse, Mamdani.

I often ask, why don’t these delusional American Marxists just move to North Korea?

Certainly, after hearing the new British Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, speak, they should go there. Something tells me that it will not be long before the Brits are on their 8th PM in 10 years.

Cuba is collapsing. The Soviet Union collapsed. South America is rejecting Marxist governance. But here, we have a group of incompetents who are the pure definition of insanity and believe that they can do Marxism better, better than Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, and the Sandinistas.

America is the longest consecutive-running Constitutional Republic that the world has known, but these Marxists seek to destroy it by completely decimating our Constitution. Heck, they do not even want an America at all, since they demand open borders.

Totalitarians are delusional, and their hypocrisy lies in the lies that they tell themselves.

Even the Chinese Communist Party recognized that the capitalist system could be leveraged in such a way to sustain their communist ideology, which is why we should seek to isolate and expel them from the world economy since their long-term objective is the triumph of communism; capitalism is just a means to that end.

America in 2026 is facing an ideological choice, not a political one.

And how interesting that this choice for our future would come in the year of our 250th anniversary of independence.

Truthfully, for the American Marxists, their hypocrisy is rooted in an acute inability to love their own country because of their own personal character failures and shortcomings.

There are many places where they, along with their Islamist cohorts, can go and live in their tyrannical utopia.

No, their joy will come in destroying the joy of those who love America and ushering in their definition of equity, the equality of outcomes that leads to the equality of misery.

Steadfast and Loyal.

First published on The American Constitutional Rights Union website

AUTHOR

Lt. Col. Allen West, USA ret

Executive Director of the American Constitutional Rights Union and STARRS Board of Advisors.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Marxism Is Deeply Embedded at America’s Military Service Academies

Disloyal Careerists Are Still Haunting The Pentagon’s Halls

Brig. Gen. Christopher Walker on his DEI experience in the military

RELATED VIDEO: THE WHITE HOUSE: A vision for two very different Americas

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

The Islamic Threat to the West

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

Lars Møller recently published a piece on three farsighted people — the late Oriana Fallaci, Mark Steyn, and Douglas Murray — who understood and have written about the mortal threat to Western civilization from “the sons of Allah,” tens of millions of whom are now living in our midst. More. on his tribute to the three (and he might have added the names of Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Ibn Warraq to his list) and the alarm he now feels, because so few in the West have heeded them, can be found here:

The moral decline of the West is no longer a matter of speculation but a demographic, cultural, and spiritual fact, visible in collapsing birth rates, the erosion of civilizational confidence, and the supine accommodation of an ideology fundamentally hostile to the Enlightenment inheritance. Where once the West confronted Nazism and Bolshevism—two totalitarian waves that sought to remake humanity through terror and ideology—it now faces a third: Islamist totalitarianism, advancing not primarily through tanks or gulags, but through demographic momentum, elite cowardice, and the patient erosion of liberal norms.

In this darkening landscape, the voices of Oriana Fallaci, Mark Steyn, and Douglas Murray rate as lonely sentinels. Far from unreflective “Islamophobes,” as their detractors sneer, these thinkers form an intellectual continuum defending Western liberty against civilizational surrender. Their warnings, typically dismissed as “alarmist” in the complacent halls of Brussels or academia, grow more prescient with each passing year. To ignore them is to invite a future in which Europe—and by extension the West—becomes unrecognizable, its freedoms subordinated to a theocratic vision incompatible with individual rights.

Oriana Fallaci’s The Rage and the Pride (2001), written in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, remains a visceral cri de coeur. An accomplished journalist who had interviewed Ayatollah Khomeini, she possessed intimate knowledge of radical Islam’s face. She beheld in post-9/11 Europe not multicultural enrichment but a “reverse crusade”—a Muslim invasion facilitated by mass immigration, differential birth rates, and the craven multiculturalism of European elites. She adopted and popularized the term “Eurabia” from the writings of Bat Ye’or to describe the continent’s trajectory towards becoming an Islamic colony. For Fallaci, the threat was civilizational: Islam, in its political and expansionist form, sows “hatred in place of love,” subjugates women, stifles inquiry, and rejects the separation of mosque and state….

Mark Steyn, in America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It (2006), provided the demographic and strategic depth to Fallaci’s passion. His thesis is stark: Europe is dying of self-inflicted wounds—sub-replacement fertility, cultural self-loathing, and a welfare state that imports dependents rather than nurturing its own children. Muslim populations, with higher birth rates and assertive religious identities, fill the vacuum. Steyn distinguishes, as do his peers, between individual Muslims and the political ideology of Islamism, yet he refuses the comforting delusion that the two can be neatly separated when scriptural sources and historical patterns urge otherwise. His prediction of “Islamization” warned of a “fearless Muslim advance” met by “weak-kneed European elites.” The endgame, he foresaw, would be either submission or civil war, perhaps yielding neo-nationalist strongmen as desperate backlash….

Douglas Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe (2017) synthesizes and updates these analyses with empirical rigor and moral clarity. He documents how mass migration, particularly from Muslim-majority countries, combined with elite refusal to insist on assimilation, has produced parallel societies, grooming scandals, no-go zones in practice if not in euphemistic language, and rising extremism. An atheist himself, he examined Islamic texts and found them incompatible with the secular, pluralistic order that Europe claims to cherish.

Murray’s controversial statements—that conditions for Muslims in Europe should be made “harder across the board” to discourage further settlement and failed integration — stem not from gratuitous cruelty but from observed reality: tolerance extended unilaterally becomes suicide. Jihadism, he insists, “comes from Islam,” drawing on theology, history, and contemporary events from Bataclan to Cologne. Like Fallaci and Steyn, he deplores the West’s loss of identity. Europe, he argues, no longer believes that its own story is worth defending. This spiritual exhaustion invites conquest by those who believe fervently in theirs.

After such knowledge, what forgiveness? In the spirit of “Sursum Corda,” let’s consider the reasons for hope so as to dispel the gloom. In Europe, almost everywhere the anti-immigrant — or more exactly, anti-Muslim immigrant parties, are ahead in the polls. In Germany, Alice Weidel of the Alternative für Deutschland, in France, Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella of the National Rally, and Bruno Retailleau of Les Républicains, in Italy, Giorgia Meloni of Fratelli d’Italia, while in the UK, Rupert Lowe’s Restore Britain Party, not even a year old, is rapidly gaining support from those who have found Nigel Farage’s Reform Party not sufficiently adamant on the subject of ending Muslim migration.

It is the next decade or two that will determine Europe’s fate. Will it continue to welcome Muslim migrants or call a halt to increasing their presence? Will European states limit welfare benefits so that, as Bruno Retailleau has suggested, for the first five years of their presence, immigrants will not be eligible for any benefits? Will the peoples of Europe inform themselves sufficiently about the texts and teachings of Islam to rouse themselves, as if after a long sleep? How many will educate themselves in time about this menace, which turns out to be more dangerous than even Nazism and Bolshevism, for it has already burrowed into our societies, affecting our political life, our media, our impressionable young?

AUTHOR

Hugh Fitzgerald

RELATED ARTICLES:

El-Sayed’s Michigan Victory: The Communist, Antisemitic Takeover of the Democrat Party Is No Longer an Aberration

Senior Saudi Journalist: The New Alliance Between Saudi Arabia, Turkey And Pakistan Will Deter And Defeat Iran

All in the Family: Three Muslim Brothers Form a Child Rape “Grooming” Gang

Maryland Imam Calls for Blood

Secret Bot Army Boosting Mamdani on X Traced Back To ……..Mamdani

RELATED VIDEO: THE WHITE HOUSE: A vision for two very different Americas

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

Politics By Other Means

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

Inspired by his service in the Prussian and Russian armies in the Napoleonic wars at the start of the 19th Century, Carl von Clausewitz has left us with many famous sayings from his unfinished treatise, On War, published after his death in 1830.

Among them was that the “fog of war” often obscures what is really happening on the battlefield. Another, which is my theme for today, is that “war is politics by other means.”

President Trump has been criticized in recent weeks by the left and the right for his repeated threats to launch yet another “massive” military strike on Iran, only to relent at the last minute in hopes of some last minute breakthrough in negotiations that would satisfy the two major U.S. goals in this war: the unconditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping, and the end of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

So far, each time it has happened, the Iranians have backed away from a negotiated settlement, either by new drone or missile strikes against ships in the Strait of Hormuz, or by instructing their proxies to carry out attacks against our Gulf allies. (In recent weeks, they have used Shiite militias in Iraq to attack civilian infrastructure in Kuwait, and the Houthis in Yemen to hit Saudi vessels in the Red Sea). And each time that happens, the United States responds by taking out IRGC assets in southern Iran.

The President has repeatedly expressed his reluctance to inflict massive damage on Iran’s infrastructure, all the while threatening to do so should the Iranian regime not agree to his conditions.

I believe he is trying to find the sweet spot of just enough military pressure to achieve his political goals, without inflicting what he sees as unnecessary and unfortunate damage.

But so far, he has failed to find that sweet spot. The regime — or whoever is calling the shots in Iran — responds with increased aggression: more missiles, more drones, and more irredentist demands.

The latest, on Thursday, was a claim by the Iranian parliament that the regime had reached an agreement with Oman over joint control of the Strait of Hormuz that would inflict a toll of between 5% to 7% on ships transiting the Strait that would bring in an estimated $385 million per day to the Revolutionary Guards to oppress the Iranian people, and to use to build more drones and missiles and to arm their proxies.

The alleged deal would also bar ships from the United States, Israel, and any other country opposing the “Axis of Resistance” from transiting the Strait. That designation would bar Saudi Arabian ships, since the Saudis have been at war with the Houthis for over a decade.

Clearly, such a deal is not just unacceptable: it is outrageous.

If you read the international media, you might forget the whole reason we are even negotiating over the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. It’s because Iran mined the customary passageways in the middle of the Strait at the beginning of the war, and no one has yet removed those mines.

That’s why there is all this talk of the “northern route” transiting Iran’s territorial waters, and the “southern route” that uses Oman’s.

The historic passageway through the Strait transits through international waters. But Iran closed that passageway at the onset of the conflict, an act of war in violation of the UN Law of the Sea Treaty that should have triggered unanimous international action, spearheaded by the UN Security Council.

If it weren’t for the support that Russia and China have been providing Iran, the United States could have gone to the United Nations and invoked Chapter VII of the UN charter that authorizes member nations to use “all necessary measures” — including military action — to restore international peace and security, just as we did twice in wars against Saddam Hussein.

We actually tried that in May, with the predictable result that both the Chinese and the Russians threatened to veto any resolution against Iran.

Since then, both the Brits and the French have said they would join an international mine-sweeping force, and then promptly backed out when it became obvious that mines were not only still present in the Strait but that the IRGC was going to attack any ships trying to remove them.

So much for the international “order.” And so much for our allies.

That leaves President Trump with the course he has followed in recent weeks: apply just enough force to keep the IRGC on its heels, while not triggering a massive spike in oil prices or spooking international markets.

He has succeeded on all three counts, extremely significant accomplishments.

But the United States cannot just “walk away and go home” if our diplomacy fails, as Vice-president JD Vance suggested recently in his very unfortunate three-hour appearance on the Joe Rogan show.

There is that pesky second demand that Iran give up its nuclear ambitions. On Wednesday, reports from Israel resurfaced an earlier claim by the current IRGC Chief, Ahmad Vahidi, while he was Interior Minister, that Iran would continue to develop nuclear weapons as long as the United States and Israel possessed them. “If they disarm, we will disarm,” he reportedly said.

There has been some parsing of that quote in recent days. One Iranian commentator claimed that the correct quote was this: “As long as the United States and Israel possess nuclear weapons, activities related to national security will not cease.”

Sorry, but in IRGC-speak, that means exactly the same thing.

In the end, whether Vahidi made those public comments or not makes little difference. There is no other explanation for the massive expenditures on uranium enrichment, buried nuclear sites, the Iranian regime’s absolute refusal to discuss its nuclear programs or the recent revelations about Mount Kalang (aka “Pickaxe Mountain”).

The Iranian regime is developing nuclear weapons and thank God they don’t yet have them or they would have already used them on Israel or on us, either in direct attacks or in EMP mode to destroy our electric power grid and send us back to the 1880s, when the United States could support a population of between 80 to 90 million.

This is a regime that has already acted out its intentions to wipe Israel off the map, and has shown its willingness to destroy the entire civilian infrastructure of its Persian Gulf neighbors, including their destination plants.

If anyone has any doubts as to why President Trump is fighting this war, just think of what the IRGC would do if it actually had operational nuclear warheads.

I discuss this, as well as the latest reports of Chinese and Russian weapons shipments to Iran and Russian threats to NATO, on this week’s Prophecy Today Weekend. As always, you can listen live on 104.9 FM or 550 AM in the Jacksonville, Florida, area, or by using the Jacksonville Way Radio app.

Yours in freedom.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: While the West Surrenders to Islam, Iran Is Fighting to Break Free From It

RELATED VIDEO: THE WHITE HOUSE: A vision for two very different Americas

Website: kentimmerman.com

Ken Timmerman’s 14th book of non-fiction, THE IRAN HOUSE: Tales of Revolution, Persecution, War, and Intrigue, can be ordered by clicking here or by viewing my author’s page, here. 

Raising Olives in Provence, can be ordered by clicking here.