Tag Archive for: politics

More on the FDA and COVID Injections

This is a fertile area for Critical Thinkers. 

Many people wrote to thank me for my recent post alerting them that the new FDA is now taking comments from citizens about the COVID injections (until May 23).

Several readers also sent me a copy of what they sent to the FDA. Below, I am sharing with you an example of what an MD submitted, which was excellent…


To the FDA:

As of February 28, 2025, the CDC has recorded 19,310 American deaths reported to them in VAERS by healthcare professionals or pharmaceutical companies who believe the death is vaccine-related. Approximately 1134 deaths have occurred on the same day, and 1266 on the day following vaccination.

From FDA testimony, VAERS deaths should be multiplied by an under-reporting factor of 30± to get a nationwide estimate of 580,000 vaccine casualties!

The largest autopsy study published to date indicates 74%± of deaths after vaccination are a direct cause or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination. There are over 4000 peer reviewed manuscripts in the medical literature concerning fatal and nonfatal COVID-19 vaccine injuries including those recognized by regulatory agencies around the world such as myocarditis, neurologic injury, thrombosis, & immunologic syndromes.

In 2022, the World Council for Health produced a pharmacovigilance report which is factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus driven calling for global market withdrawal of COVID-19 vaccines based on lack of safety.

Dr. Peter McCullough, a widely regarded expert on COVID-19 and vaccine safety, on December 7, 2022, in the US Senate, and on September 13, 2023, in the European Parliament, has called for with assent of an expert panels, removal of all COVID-19 vaccines from the US and EU markets for excess risk of death.

On March 21, 2023 the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons issued a factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus driven statement calling for all COVID-19 vaccines to be removed from the market based on lack of safety and efficacy.

The National Citizens Inquiry, a Canadian citizen-led and citizen-funded organization chartered to investigate governments’ COVID-19 policies, on September 14, 2023, called for market removal of all COVID-19 vaccines.

On January 12, 2024, Dr. McCullough again called for removal of all COVID-19 booster products from the market in a US House of Representatives Panel on COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries.

In July, 2024, Mead et al published two extensively referenced, peer-reviewed reports concluding the COVID-19 vaccines are not safe for human use and should be removed from public use.

In 2025, Hulscher et al, reported >81,000 physicians, scientists, researchers, and concerned citizens, 240 elected government officials, 17 professional public health and physician organizations, 2 State Republican Parties, 17 Republican Party County Committees, and 6 scientific studies from across the world have called for the market withdrawal of COVID-19 vaccines.

No large-scale, conclusive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated reduction in infection transmission, hospitalization, or death as primary endpoints. Thus, the COVID-19 vaccines are not proven to be effective in reducing important clinical outcomes. A position supporting COVID-19 vaccination goes against good medical practice and cannot be backed by ethical and prudent physicians.

Based on these horrific facts, I am in support of banning the mRNA platform in humans.


The above well-written FDA submission brings to mind a powerful, short video of a few years ago. A dedicated and competent nurse lost her job for choosing not to get an experimental bio-chemical injection. She can tell her story better than I can. (Note: select the full screen option [upper left-hand corner arrows] to be able to better read her moving statements.) —

This is one of many stories that tell the adverse consequences when we stray from Real Science and implement political science instead. Hopefully, avoiding that trap will be the DHHS, FDA, CDC, etc. theme going forward…

©2025 All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Doc Who Revived Zombie Virus From Frozen Corpse Now Has Keys To Fauci’s Old Agency


Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2025 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

EXCLUSIVE: Recruits Flood Into Border Patrol’s Ranks After Years Of Bad Morale Under Biden, Memo Shows

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has seen a massive boost in recruiting numbers after years of low morale under former President Joe Biden, according to an internal memo obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Under Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem, CBP saw a massive 44% spike in applications from January to May 2025 compared to the same period in 2024, according to the memo. Under Biden, CBP struggled to stem the tide of millions of migrants while the administration mostly ignored its requests for help, causing low recruitment figures while low morale caused suicides among agents to spike.

During the Biden years, CBP tallied a whopping 8.5 million border encounters, as well as over 1.7 million known gotaways. More than 250 migrants encountered at the southern border between 2021 and 2023 were on the terror watchlist.

On his way out of the agency, former Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Chris Magnus said in 2022 morale was “the worst it’s ever been” in an email to CBP leaders. Magnus was reportedly told to step down by former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas or else be fired.

Morale was such an issue that CBP even hired a “suicidologist” in early 2021 to address the spike in suicides, The Washington Examiner previously reported. Even as Biden attempted to stop the decline in manpower with better funding, border crossings continued going unchecked while the CBP’s ranks were depleted.

Trump issued an executive order cracking down on illegal immigration immediately when he entered office, while also undoing Biden-era directives that hampered enforcement on the ground. Border apprehensions plummeted during his first month in office, hitting a fifteen-year low in February, according to the DHS.

Other divisions under the DHS have also seen improvement in performance markers and recruitment under new management, according to the memo obtained by the DCNF.

The U.S. Coast Guard has seen an uptick in drug seizures, capturing 11% more cocaine in fiscal year 2025 so far than the entire preceding year, the memo reads. Over 4,250 new recruits have joined up, an increase of 1,200 relative to the same period of time in 2024, and the Coast Guard has seized over 110,000 pounds of cocaine and marijuana worth more than $1.5 billion.

Additionally, the Secret Service also had a recruitment spike, drawing in 200% more applications so far this year.

“For four years, the previous administration demoralized and denied resources to our brave men and women in law enforcement, including in the Secret Service,” A DHS spokesperson said in a statement. “We are reinvigorating the Secret Service and providing it with the resources our brave and women need to do their jobs.”

AUTHOR

Wallace White

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘This Is Unbelievable’: Kristi Noem Turns Tables On Eric Swalwell As He Jumps To Abrego Garcia’s Defense

RELATED VIDEOS:

WATCH: Body cam footage of DeMS13’s Kilmar Abrego Garcia caught human trafficking in 2022

Three Criminal Illegal Aliens take life of 47-year-old Aleksandre Modebadze in Los Angeles

California Democrats blocked push to make it an automatic felony to buy 16 year olds for sex

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


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

James Comey Deletes ‘8647’ Post After Online Backlash Sparks Calls For Investigation

Former FBI Director James Comey deleted a post depicting ‘8647’ from his Instagram on Thursday after sparking online outrage from Republicans and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem, who opened an investigation.

In a now-deleted post to Instagram, Comey uploaded a picture of shells that depicted four numbers, ‘8647,’ saying he found the ‘cool shell formation’ during his walk on the beach. Republicans swiftly called out the former FBI director, saying the message was a threat to President Donald Trump as the term ’86’ is commonly used to “get rid of” or “throw out.”

With backlash piling on from figures like Trump’s senior advisor Dan Scavino Jr. and Donald Trump Jr., Comey deleted his original post and added a new one saying he didn’t “realize” the association of the numbers.

“I posted earlier a picture of some shells I saw today on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message. I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence of any kind so I took the post down,” Comey wrote.

WATCH: Former FBI director James Comey under investigation for Trump post

Prior to the takedown of his post, Trump Jr. took to X saying Comey is “causally calling for my dad to be murdered.”

“This is who the Dem-Media worships. Demented!!!!”

Scavino Jr., in another post on X, called the former FBI director a “POS,” alleging he “knows exactly what he’s doing.”

“Comey truly is a POS. While he’ll claim not to know what 8647 means, there’s no doubt that the former disgraced FBI Dir. knows exactly what he’s doing, with a plea to bad actors/terrorists to assassinate the POTUS’ while traveling internationally,” Scavino Jr. wrote. “Don’t let him get away with it!!”

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk said on X that Comey is making “cringe posts,” adding that the country should be “grateful” he was removed from the law enforcement agency.

“James Comey held himself up as a bastion of fairness and moral rectitude,” Kirk wrote. “Now, he makes cringe posts like a childless 50-year-old liberal woman on Facebook. The entire country should be grateful Trump put this weirdo out to pasture.”

Republican Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene also spoke out, asking how “many times” Democrats are “going to try to assassinate President Trump”?

Noem in response said Comey “called for the assassination” of the 47th president, adding that both DHS and the Secret Service will investigate the “threat and will respond appropriately.”

FBI Director Kash Patel said on X that the agency is aware of the post, adding they are in “communication with the Secret Service and Director Curran.”

“Primary jurisdiction is with SS on these matters and we, the FBI, will provide all necessary support,” Patel wrote.

Trump has yet to publicly respond to Comey’s post. The president left the United States and this week is conducting discussions in Saudi Arabia. During Trump’s 2024 campaign, he faced two assassination attempts, with the first leaving him injured by a bullet and one rally attendee killed.

AUTHOR

Hailey Gomez

General Assignment Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: Liberal Media Suggests Trump Was Asking For It After Second Failed Assassination Attempt

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


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

South Korea’s Democrats, Crisis, And What The U.S. Must Know

China | MEMRI Daily Brief No. 772

South Korea stands at a critical political crossroads. The impeachment of President Yoon Suk-yeol has triggered a snap presidential election, now just weeks away. What is at stake is more than the outcome of a vote. This election could decide the future direction of South Korea’s democracy, its institutional integrity, and its strategic alignment with the United States.

The moment is grave. Interpretations vary widely along ideological lines. But for those alarmed by China’s expanding influence, the ideological drift of South Korea’s Democratic Party under the sway of postmodernism and Marxism, and the post-pandemic legacy of coercive public health mandates, the stakes are especially high. Many South Koreans who hold conservative views – rooted in a Judeo-Christian worldview – find themselves sidelined by domestic media and mischaracterized abroad. Their voices must now be heard – and understood.

Freedom Forged In Blood

South Korea owes its existence as a free nation to the United States. During the Korean War, 36,574 American lives were lost in defense of Korea’s freedom. They bled not as Republicans or Democrats, but as guardians of liberty. Their sacrifice laid the foundation for the Republic of Korea’s democracy and postwar transformation.

The values that shaped the United States – liberty, truth, and faith – also shaped the founding of modern Korea. Under President Syngman Rhee and the Christian leaders of his time, those principles were carried across the Pacific and embedded in our national identity. Korea’s remarkable rise from the ashes of war would not have been possible without the blood, commitment, and leadership of America.

That is why, during the most recent U.S. presidential election, the organization I lead – Truth Forum – supported for the election of Donald Trump. It was not about party politics. It was about restoring a nation founded on moral clarity and biblical truth. A strong and free America is not just in America’s interest – it is vital to ours.

Korea’s future is deeply tied to America’s direction. As we now approach a critical election of our own, following the impeachment of President Yoon Suk-yeol, our nation stands at a crossroads. The path ahead will determine whether we remain free – or fall to ideological subversion. In this decisive moment, we do not ask for sympathy. We ask for clear understanding – and for prayer.

A Mirror Of America – And A War Over Memory

South Korea was born in the image of America – built on the same biblical worldview that inspired the U.S. Constitution and the founding principles of liberty, law, and faith. But like the United States, South Korea is now locked in an ideological crisis.

Postmodernism, cultural Marxism, and atheistic progressivism have penetrated the nation’s core institutions: schools, universities, media, courts, and even churches. These ideas have found political shelter within the Democratic Party, mirroring trends on the American left. The results are strikingly similar – truth replaced by narrative, and identity distorted by ideology.

At the heart of this ideological subversion is a calculated revision of history. In the U.S., progressives have recast the founding as a project of oppression, built on slavery and colonialism. In South Korea, the left promotes a parallel fiction: that the Republic of Korea was not a sovereign act of national will, but a betrayal – engineered by pro-Japanese collaborators and propped up by American imperialism.

This narrative does not stop at national shame. It assigns moral legitimacy to North Korea, portraying the regime as the “true Korea,” supposedly forged in resistance against foreign domination. Never mind Pyongyang’s record of tyranny, famine, and forced labor – the myth of anti-imperialist purity prevails.

These distorted narratives function as political weapons. By undermining the Republic’s moral foundation, they sow anti-Americanism and pave the way for sympathy toward Communist China. In this upside-down worldview, China is no longer seen as a threat – but as a model of post-Western order. That illusion is not only false – it is dangerous.

This war over history is not a sidebar to politics. It is the front line. It shapes how nations understand themselves, choose their alliances, and decide their futures. For South Korea – and for the U.S.-ROK alliance – the outcome of this battle will determine whether truth or falsehood writes the next chapter.

Distorting The Past: How Historical Revisionism Fuels Political Power

South Korea’s Democratic Party, under the leadership of Lee Jae-myung, has embraced a dangerous revisionist interpretation of Korean history – one that casts doubt on the very legitimacy of the Republic itself.

In 2023, Lee appointed Lee Rae-kyung – an ideologue affiliated with the “Another Centennial” Foundation – as head of the party’s Innovation Committee. Lee’s theory claims that the last 100 years of Korean history, beginning with the 1919 March First Movement, represent an era of foreign domination, imposed particularly by the United States. In his view, Korea’s founding was not liberation – but subjugation. He calls for a new national narrative, unburdened by ties to the West.

This narrative has not remained on the fringes. Former progressive presidents echoed similar views. In 2003, Roh Moo-hyun stated that Korean history was defined by the “defeat of justice” and the “rise of opportunism.” In his autobiography, Moon Jae-in described his sense of elation upon witnessing America’s retreat from Vietnam, which he regarded as a realization of historical justice.

At the center of this narrative war is the reinterpretation of the 1948 Jeju April 3 Incident. What was originally a violent communist uprising intended to derail South Korea’s first democratic elections is now widely portrayed in global discourse as a state-sponsored massacre of civilians. UNESCO’s recent decision in April to inscribe related documents into its “Memory of the World” register lends international legitimacy to this rebranding – while omitting the historical context of communist-led violence.

Acknowledging civilian casualties is necessary. But to erase the nature of the uprising – to deny that it was launched to prevent the creation of the Republic of Korea – is not just revisionism. It is a political weapon.

This is no longer a matter of domestic academic debate. It is a coordinated strategy to delegitimize South Korea’s founding, absolve the violent legacy of communism, and sow anti-American resentment. The result is a warped historical lens through which younger generations are taught to question the morality of their own nation’s birth.

The roots of this revisionist impulse run deep. Many within the Democratic Party are not only ideological heirs of the South Korean Workers’ Party but are connected to it by lineage. Former President Roh Moo-hyun’s father-in-law, Kwon Oh-seok, was a lifelong unrepentant communist and political prisoner. These are not mere coincidences – they reveal a clear line of ideological continuity from Korea’s radical past to its contemporary political elite.

If the United States and its allies fail to recognize how historical narratives are being weaponized to undermine the moral foundation of free societies, they will forfeit critical ground – not only in Korea, but across the broader fight for truth in the Indo-Pacific.

Strategic Blind Spots: How the Democratic Party Enabled China’s Reach

The Democratic Party’s embrace of revisionist history is not merely ideological – it has translated into real-world deference to authoritarian regimes, most notably China. Under President Moon Jae-in, Seoul announced the “Three No’s” policy in 2017: no additional THAAD missile deployments, no integration into a U.S.-led missile defense system, and no trilateral military alliance with the United States and Japan. In effect, the policy conceded strategic leverage to Beijing.

The consequences have been more than symbolic. In late 2024, South Korea’s Board of Audit and Inspection uncovered evidence that sensitive details about the THAAD deployment may have been leaked to China during Moon’s presidency. This revelation followed Moon’s 2017 pledge at Peking University to support China’s so-called “national dream” – a message that sent a clear signal of alignment rather than neutrality.

On the ground, the situation is even more alarming. Chinese nationals have repeatedly been caught photographing sensitive South Korean and U.S. military installations – ranging from U.S. Navy assets in Busan to the headquarters of South Korea’s intelligence agency. Yet under current law, espionage is defined exclusively in relation to the “enemy state,” which is North Korea. Efforts to revise the law to include other hostile foreign actors were blocked – and notably, by the Democratic Party.

As a result, those caught gathering intelligence for China face, at most, a fine or deportation. There is no real deterrent. Critics call it what it truly is: passive collusion.

This troubling pattern continues. While the United States intensifies efforts to combat Chinese fentanyl trafficking, South Korea’s Democratic Party has slashed narcotics investigation budgets and curtailed prosecutorial authority. The results are catastrophic: in just five years, teenage drug crimes have surged fourteenfold.

Meanwhile, Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung has signaled his intention to strengthen ties with Beijing. In a 2022 interview with Time magazine, he pledged greater cooperation with China if elected. When China’s ambassador to Seoul warned in 2023 that South Korea would “regret” siding with the United States, Lee offered no rebuttal – a silence some critics interpreted as tacit approval. Even before that, Chinese state-run outlets such as Global Times and CCTV had portrayed him as a friendly and reliable figure in South Korean politics – coverage that, in China’s tightly controlled media environment, is rarely incidental.

Around the world, democratic nations are waking up to the reality of China’s “united front” operations – covert campaigns to shape public opinion and co-opt foreign elites. Confucius Institutes, long exposed as soft power arms of the Chinese Communist Party, have been shut down across much of the West. In South Korea, however, they remain active – and some are reportedly expanding.

At Seoul National University – South Korea’s most prestigious academic institution – a “Xi Jinping Library” continues to operate despite widespread public opposition. It no longer serves as a neutral academic resource, but rather stands as a stark symbol of how deeply China has embedded itself in the nation’s intellectual and political landscape.

China’s ambition matters – but more concerning is South Korea’s vulnerability. If the United States and its allies ignore this creeping influence, they risk losing not just a partner – but the geopolitical anchor of democracy in Northeast Asia.

When Impeachment Aligns With Authoritarian Ambition

Whether the declaration of martial law was the right course remains debated. But what followed is beyond dispute: tens of thousands of young South Koreans – many previously disengaged from politics – took to the streets. Their outrage transcended partisanship. It stemmed from deepening concerns over unchecked legislative power, weaponized budget obstruction, growing doubts about election integrity, and clear signs of Chinese interference.

For China, Yoon represented an obstacle – resolutely pro-U.S. and openly critical of Beijing’s influence operations. For the Democratic Party, removing him was existential. A failed impeachment could have spelled collapse, especially with Lee facing intensifying corruption probes, including the high-profile Daejang-dong scandal.

The convergence of interests between South Korea’s progressive establishment and the Chinese Communist Party is no longer a matter of speculation. Reports indicate Chinese nationals took part in pro-impeachment rallies – raising urgent questions about foreign orchestration at the heart of Korea’s constitutional process.

This is not coincidence. It is coordination. It is what happens when internal political warfare intersects with the global ambitions of authoritarian regimes. Beijing wants South Korea out of America’s orbit. The Democratic Party wants to survive – at any cost. Their common adversary: President Yoon.

For U.S. policymakers, the lesson is clear and urgent. South Korea’s internal crisis is not just confined to its borders. It is a case study in how foreign adversaries can leverage democratic institutions against themselves. Unless the United States recognizes this alignment for what it is – a coordinated effort to undermine Indo-Pacific stability – it risks repeating the mistakes of the past.

A Sudden Pivot – Or Calculated Camouflage?

In a striking shift, South Korea’s Democratic Party – long criticized for its dovish stance toward Beijing – has begun to sound an unfamiliar tune. On January 21, the party introduced a resolution reaffirming support for the U.S.-ROK alliance. The timing was no accident. It coincided with rising global anticipation of a possible Trump administration return, and with South Korea’s own snap election looming.

Party leader Lee Jae-myung has followed suit. Once a champion of progressive economic policies, Lee is now signaling a retreat. He has signaled a willingness to abandon key progressive platforms, including the Democratic Party’s hallmark policy of universal basic income – once championed as a pillar of its socialist agenda. In meetings with U.S. and Japanese officials, Lee has gone so far as to emphasize the importance of trilateral cooperation with Washington and Tokyo, a line rarely heard from the party’s upper ranks.

To casual observers, these gestures might suggest an ideological realignment. But within South Korea, few are convinced. Even some within the Democratic Party have expressed unease over the abruptness and optics of this sudden shift.

However, this calculated camouflage seems working abroad. Not long ago, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich visited South Korea and addressed growing concerns in Washington about the Democratic Party’s pro-China leanings and far-left tendencies. In a post on his X account, he noted that despite these concerns, most South Koreans remain firmly supportive of the U.S.-ROK alliance – and that even if the Democratic Party wins the presidency, the alliance would likely endure.

His observation reflects a widely held reality in South Korea. The majority of South Koreans strongly value the alliance with the United States.

However, as the U.S.-China rivalry intensifies, it is critical to recognize the dangers posed by the Democratic Party’s distorted view of history and ideological foundations. If these are overlooked, the future of the U.S.-ROK alliance could face serious and lasting consequences. America’s allies must distinguish rhetoric from conviction – because the future of our shared security may depend on it.

Forecast And Response: South Korea’s Election At The Crossroads

South Korea stands on the edge of a consequential decision. The outcome of its upcoming presidential election will not only define the direction of its domestic politics but may also recalibrate the nation’s democratic framework and foreign policy orientation.

With the National Assembly firmly in the hands of the Democratic Party – widely criticized for its conciliatory stance toward Beijing – many Koreans fear that continued consolidation of power could tilt the country irreversibly toward strategic ambiguity. Some fear it could even lead to alignment with authoritarian regimes.

Amid this uncertainty, Kim Moon-soo has emerged as the conservative standard-bearer. Once a socialist labor activist, Kim renounced those beliefs following the collapse of the Soviet Union. He went on to serve three terms in the National Assembly, as Minister of Labor, and as Governor of Gyeonggi Province. During his tenure, Kim played a key role in advancing South Korea’s industrial growth through projects like Samsung’s Pyeongtaek complex, Pangyo Techno Valley, and Gwanggyo New Town.

Kim’s profile – defined by personal modesty and a reputation for integrity – stands in stark contrast to his rival, Lee Jae-myung, who remains entangled in multiple legal investigations and continues to face widespread public distrust. Several individuals connected to his criminal cases have died under suspicious circumstances – allegations that continue to raise unanswered questions.

Yet the political momentum has shifted since President Yoon Suk-yeol’s impeachment. Conservative unity has weakened, and concerns have emerged over the reliability of polling and voter engagement. Notably, Yoon’s approval ratings had rebounded to over 50 percent prior to his impeachment – suggesting that, with proper mobilization, the conservative base could still be reactivated.

At the core of this election lies the issue of electoral integrity. While fraud allegations in the United States have prompted unified calls for investigation within conservative circles, South Korea’s conservative leadership has remained largely silent – eschewing any meaningful inquiry. Even President Yoon’s invocation of martial law, tied to concerns over election manipulation, failed to prompt a serious audit of the system or restore public trust in the electoral process.

The result is a fragmented national discourse. Allegations of rigging are dismissed by some as fringe conspiracy theories, while others point to opaque procedures by the National Election Commission and the possibility of foreign interference – particularly from China. Public confidence continues to erode.

This erosion is unfolding against the backdrop of a broader geopolitical threat. Anti-China sentiment in South Korea ranks among the highest in the world – 81 percent, according to Pew Research. Yet paradoxically, the political party widely viewed as sympathetic to Beijing continues to command significant support.

This contradiction stems from deep historical and ideological divides. Some voters perceive the conservative bloc as tainted by alleged ties to Japan’s colonial legacy. Others downplay the threat from China, citing economic pragmatism. Still, some progressives argue that concerns about Chinese influence are overstated. Others believe that economic cooperation must take precedence in times of global uncertainty.

But this calculus may not hold. Recent reports of Chinese espionage involving South Korean military personnel have heightened public alarm. If further evidence emerges, the backlash could be swift – and politically decisive.

South Korea is approaching a moment of reckoning. Rebuilding democratic confidence will require more than campaign rhetoric. It will demand transparency, institutional courage, and an honest reckoning with the risks posed by foreign interference. The stakes in this election are not abstract – they are existential.

Syngman Rhee’s Warning And The Unfinished Mission

In 1954, President Syngman Rhee delivered a stark message to the United States Congress: “Unless we win back China, ultimate victory for the free world is unthinkable.” At the time, his words may have sounded extreme. Seventy years later, they read like prophecy.

The Republic of Korea today stands amid an unresolved struggle between truth and falsehood – a battle rooted not only in domestic division, but in the broader regional order shaped by North Korea’s authoritarian regime and China’s expanding influence. This ideological fault line runs deep, touching everything from historical interpretation to democratic governance.

The collapse of North Korea and the liberalization of China remain essential, not optional, conditions for the full realization of freedom and stability on the Korean Peninsula. So long as the North Korean regime endures, it serves as a source of internal subversion, disinformation, and national division. Likewise, China’s authoritarian reach continues to embolden illiberal forces in South Korea and beyond.

This is more than strategy – it is a question of values. The U.S.-ROK alliance was forged not just to deter war but to safeguard liberty. That mission – defending truth, securing sovereignty, and advancing human dignity – remains incomplete.

The question before us is whether we are prepared to finish the work begun decades ago. For both Koreans and Americans, the unfinished mission is clear: the liberation of North Korea and the arrival of genuine freedom in China. Without these, the free world’s victory remains partial – and its future uncertain.

AUTHOR

David Eunkoo Kim

David Eunkoo Kim is the founder and representative of Truth Forum, a conservative youth organization founded at Seoul National University. Rooted in a Judeo-Christian worldview, Truth Forum promotes universal values and defends freedom, national sovereignty, and historical integrity in response to the rise of leftist ideology in academia and media.

He holds a law degree from Seoul National University, where he also completed his doctoral coursework. Before launching his own game development company, he worked on the legal team at Nexon, one of South Korea’s leading tech firms.

He also co-produced and appeared in The Birth of Korea, a groundbreaking documentary that surpassed one million viewers. The film challenges progressive distortions of history and restores the legacy of South Korea’s founding president, Syngman Rhee – a U.S.-educated Christian who built the Republic on principles of liberty.

David founded Truth Forum in response to the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye, which he viewed as a turning point in South Korea’s ideological trajectory. Under his leadership, the organization successfully led the campaign to shut down the Xi Jinping Library at Seoul National University – a symbol of growing Chinese influence on Korean campuses. He also launched Students for Israel in Korea to combat rising antisemitism and pro-Hamas sentiment in academia.

Today, Truth Forum is at the forefront of a rising conservative movement, championing a strong U.S.–ROK alliance and advocating for Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Pro-Israel, Pro–South Korea, and North Korean human rights. David regularly writes and speaks on national identity, international security, and cultural resistance, focusing on countering authoritarian influence and defending democratic values.

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

The War On Cops — Cincinnati Is Ground Zero

Ryan Hinton was an 18-year-old black man living in Cincinnati, Ohio. On May 1, 2025, he and three friends were pulled over by the police in a vehicle the police officers believed was stolen. The four youths took off running. The two police officers who had made the stop pursued on foot.

Seconds later, Hinton appeared from between two dumpsters with a semi-automatic pistol in his hand and pointing it at one of the police officers. He was shot dead.

On May 2, 2025, the police showed Hinton’s parents body cam footage taken by one of the officers, clearly showing their son holding a pistol. The weapon was recovered from the scene.

The father, Rodney Hinton, Jr., was upset. So, later that day, he got in his car and ran over a sheriff’s deputy directing traffic outside a University of Cincinnati graduation event. The officer was killed.

Other members of the Hinton family were in another vehicle following Rodney Hinton, Jr., when he ran over the police officer. It is unclear if they knew what Hinton was going to do in advance.

Rodney Hinton, Jr., is now being charged with murder and may face the death penalty. The Black Panthers and the Democratic Socialists of America have shown up. Rodney Hinton has a long criminal record including grand theft, aggravated robbery, and domestic violence. That is irrelevant. Hinton is, you understand, being oppressed. The answer is not that he should be prosecuted. The answer is that more cops should die.

“They might wanna kill Rodney for avenging his son. We say no, sir!” said Mmoja Ajabu, Executive Director of Pan-African Affairs for the Black Panther Movement, at a rally in support of Rodney Hinton. “You do that, and other things are gonna happen!”

“No justice! No peace!” the crowd at the rally chanted.

“Say his name! Rodney Hinton! And we’re not going to just say his name, we’re going to protect his body.”

Ajabu was surrounded by armed members of the Black Panther Party in full military regalia.

Later that day, Mmoja Ajabu spoke again at a town hall. Hinton was lionized as some sort of revolutionary hero, and the act of running over a deputy was glorified as an act of revolutionary courage.

“Most of us think like this, especially in this room, but how many of us have the courage to carry it out?” Ajabu asked.

“When we start seeing each other as brother and sister, then if it’s your child, it’s mine too.”

“Rodney has shown us, and we’re gonna support him. Now they’re talking about killing him,” Ajabu said.

“That ain’t gonna happen without there being a price. But see, we don’t want to riot. We want to have a military strategy that we bring them to their knees.”

“If you ain’t ready for the killing, then you’re in the wrong place.”

A group of representatives from the Democratic Socialists of America at the University of Cincinnati attended the town hall as well. Someone asked about identifying the officer who shot Ryan Hinton. “We take the position that Rodney took,” Ajabu replied. “Any of them will do.”

There is no ambiguity here. Ajabu is not calling for an inquiry or due process. Ajabu is legitimizing the deliberate murder of a police officer and encouraging others to act as Rodney Hinton did. “Any of them will do.” The objective is to kill police officers. In Ajabu’s terms, a “military strategy”.

The Democratic Party set this monster loose. It made common cause with revolutionary Marxists who want to burn the system down. It encouraged mobs to destroy cities and demonized the police. Trump is in the White House, but the revolutionary forces across the nation remain powerful and fully intent on destroying the existing social, economic, and political order.

This is the United States of America. We give a wide berth to free speech as we should. We need to understand, however, that groups like the Black Panthers and others on the far left have no real interest in talking. They are organizing for overt, violent action.

At some point, we are going to have to recognize that and act accordingly. These guys are already talking about a war on cops. All the rest of us are next.

©2025 . All rights reserved.


Please visit the AND Magazine substack.

Rome Likens Jesus to Buddha: Pope Leo XIV Affirms Continuity on Interfaith Dialogue

New pontiff assures Jews that he will strengthen Catholic-Jewish dialogue in the spirit of Vatican II.

The Vatican is equating the teachings of Jesus with those of Buddha in its first interfaith message since Pope Leo XIV’s election, signaling the pontiff’s desire for continuity with the dialogical approach of Vatican II and Pope Francis to the world religions.

The pope’s Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue sent its greetings to Buddhists on the occasion of the festival of Vesak on Monday, likening the message of Jesus in John’s gospel with the teaching of the Buddha in the Dhammapada — an anthology of teachings in the Buddhist canon.

“The Buddha taught that, ‘he who is free from craving and attachment is perfect in uncovering the true meaning of the Teaching, and knows the arrangement of the sacred texts in correct sequence — he indeed is the bearer of his final body,’” the Vatican noted.

“He is truly called the profoundly wise one, the great man” (Dhammapada, Ch. 24, V. 352),” the document, titled “Buddhists and Christians in Liberating Dialogue for Our Time,” stated, marking the “sacred festival” commemorating the Buddha’s birth and enlightenment.

“For Jesus, knowledge of Truth is liberating: ‘You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free’ (John 8:32),” Cardinal Jacob Koovakad, the dicastery’s prefect who cosigned the document, wrote in his comparison of the Son of God with the prince who founded Buddhism.

Buddhism Offers “True Liberation”

Koovakad, a Syro-Malabar priest who was raised to the cardinalate by Pope Francis in December 2024, said, “This yearning for true liberation finds deep resonance in our shared pursuit of truth and fullness of life, and it aligns with the teachings of our respective traditions.”

The Vatican’s endorsement of Buddhism as one of the paths of “true liberation” echoes the sentiments of Pope Leo XIV, who shared a post on the Buddha’s teachings from Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi in 2014. The post, in Italian, quoted the Buddha as saying: “Life is not a problem to be solved but an experience to be lived.”

Koovakad’s message also echoes the final statement of the Seventh Buddhist-Christian Colloquium on “Karuna and Agape in Dialogue for Healing a Wounded Humanity and the Earth,” which involved the Holy See and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Thailand and put Jesus on the same plane as the Buddha concerning redemption and healing.

“As Buddhists and Christians, we see the Buddha and Jesus as Great Healers. The Buddha pointed to greed and Jesus to sin as the cause of suffering,” the colloquium declared. “On many levels, Jesus and the Buddha proposed love and compassion as medicine to drive out the darkness in the human heart and the world.”

“For those of us who work in Buddhism, the Vatican releasing that document also speaks volumes! Really happy where this is headed,” tweeted Tyler McNabb, a Catholic associate professor of philosophy at Saint Francis University in Loretto, Pennsylvania.

Great Healers, Hopeless, or Heresy?

In comments to The Stream, the Rev. Dr. Rohintan Mody, who converted to Christianity from his background in Zoroastrianism and is author of the book Empty and Evil: The Worship of Other Faiths in 1 Corinthians 8-10 and Today, noted that the new document “compares both Buddha and Jesus as two great healers with the same solution: love and compassion.”

“Yet it leaves the big question unanswered: the existence, nature, and identity of God,” he said. “Even if you want to do interfaith dialogue you have to start with God, not anthropology. The wrong starting place means the wrong answer. It is prima facie heresy.”

Dr. Paul Williams, a former Buddhist who is emeritus professor of Indian and Tibetan Philosophy at the University of Bristol, agrees. “If the Buddhist position is correct, our death in this life is actually, really, the death of us. Death will be the end for us,” he writes.

“I began to see that if Buddhism were correct then unless I attained enlightenment (nirvana) or something like it in this life, where the whole cycle of rebirth would finally come to a complete end, I would have no hope. Each one of us — the person we are — is lost forever. Buddhism for me was hope-less.”

Open-Minded Augustinian Pontiff

The message from the Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue signals continuity with the religious inclusiveness heralded by the Second Vatican Council and the extraordinary strides Pope Francis made in interreligious dialogue during the 12 years of his pontificate.

When asked if Leo XIV would follow Francis’s lead when it comes to interfaith dialogue, Dr. Craig Considine, Islamic scholar and senior lecturer in the department of sociology at Rice University, told ABC News, “I think we’re going to see a continuation of Pope Francis’s approach.

“When he was at the Chicago seminary, one of his professors was a leading Jewish scholar on Jewish-Catholic relations, and I would surmise that this professor had a big impact on Pope Leo,” Considine observed. “I think that one of the big reasons why Pope Francis was so beloved was that he wasn’t trying to force-feed Catholicism on anyone.”

Pope Leo’s professor at CTU, Fr. John T. Pawlikowski, told The Jewish Chronicle: “My experience of him was he’s a very open-minded person who’s very much in the context of Vatican II.”

“Being an Augustinian means being pretty open,” explained Fr. Alejandro Moral Antón, the prior general of the Augustinian order to which Leo XIV belongs. Compared to other orders, theirs does not have “very rigid norms.”

Leo Praised for Inclusive Approach

Leo XIV’s alma mater, the Catholic Theological Union, is known for its interfaith emphasis, including courses on Catholic-Jewish and Catholic-Muslim studies. In 2020, CTU appointed a Muslim scholar, Prof. Syed Atif Rizwan, as the director of its Catholic-Muslim Studies Program.

On May 8, the day he was elected, Leo XIV wrote to the American Jewish Committee’s Director of Interreligious Affairs, Rabbi Noam Marans, pledging “to continue to strengthen the Church’s dialogue with the Jewish people in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council’s declaration Nostra Aetate.”

Marans’s response was warm. “We are deeply moved that Pope Leo XIV, so early in his papacy, has reaffirmed his commitment to Catholic-Jewish relations,” he wrote. “As we approach the 60th anniversary of this landmark declaration, we look forward to working together to deepen understanding and cooperation.”

“Complete Commitment” to Vatican II

In his first papal address, Leo XIV issued a call to dialogue: “Help us as well — help one another — to build bridges through dialogue, through encounter, uniting everyone to be one single people always in peace.”

Over the course of his first week in office, Leo XIV has repeatedly emphasized his desire to pursue continuity rather than rupture with the new magisterium of Vatican II and Pope Francis.

“I would like us to renew together today our complete commitment to the path that the universal church has now followed for decades in the wake of the Second Vatican Council,” he told the College of Cardinals on May 10. “Pope Francis masterfully and concretely set it forth in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium.”

Conservative Catholics reacted negatively to this inclusive approach. When asked how he would respond to the new pontiff’s “complete commitment” to Vatican II, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, a leading voice in the traditionalist movement, said: “I think a pope should not speak so because our first complete commitment is to Jesus Christ’s gospel.”

The prelate stressed that Leo XIV’s first task must be to correct issues that are “disfigured” or “confused” in the life of the Church, beginning with “the truth about the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation and that other religions are not means of grace or means or ways of salvation.”

The Smiling Buddha and the Crucified Christ

In his Credo: A Compendium of the Catholic Faith, Schneider notes that some of the affirmations of the Second Vatican Council “are in themselves ambiguous and can lead to an erroneous understanding.” The bishop writes that Catholics may “propose emendations or corrections of evidently ambiguous or erroneous statements or commands of a pope or ecumenical council.”

“Is Buddhism a means to supreme illumination and liberation from evil?” Schneider asks, citing Vatican II’s endorsement of that religion. “No. Buddhism rejects the Incarnation and Redemption, proposing instead a path of self-extinction through meditation techniques. Such a path is contrary to God’s plan for divine union with man in Christ, culminating in the illumination of the Beatific Vision in heaven.”

Koovakad, by contrast, cites Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate: Buddhism “proposes a way of life by which people can, with confidence and trust, attain a state of perfect liberation and reach supreme illumination either through their own efforts or with divine help.”

“Where is the basic difference between Jesus and the Buddha to be found?” theologian Hans Küng asks in his book Christianity and the World Religions. “We can bring it into sharp focus by holding side by side the figure of the smiling Buddha, seated on a lotus blossom, and that of the suffering Jesus, nailed to the cross.

“Christian faith is convinced, this Crucified One did not fall into nothingness [as in the teaching of Buddhism], but was taken up out of this temporary, fleeting, inconstant reality into the true, eternal life.”

AUTHOR

Dr. Jules Gomes (BA, BD, MTh, PhD) has a doctorate in biblical studies from the University of Cambridge. Currently a Vatican-accredited journalist based in Rome, he is the author of five books and several academic articles. Gomes lectured at Catholic and Protestant seminaries and universities and was canon theologian and artistic director at Liverpool Cathedral. This article has been cross-posted with the author’s permission from The Stream.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Repeal the Deal: Pope Leo XIV Must Adopt a New, Pro-Freedom Policy towards the CCP

Israeli Vocalist Yuval Raphael Under Siege at the Eurovision Contest

Salman Rushdie pulls out as college graduation speaker after complaints from Hamas-linked CAIR

Macron scolds Netanyahu, supports review of Europe-Israel trade ties — Netanyahu responds

Carney slams UK over 2nd invite to Trump, says it ‘undermined’ Canadian government effort against ’51st state’ talk

Jihad Airways: Muslim Air Traffic Employee Wears Keffiyeh on the Runway

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

EXCLUSIVE: Ed Martin Teases Potential Target For His DOJ Weaponization Group’s Microscope

Newly-appointed head of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Weaponization Working Group Ed Martin revealed Thursday that he may spend time looking into bar associations for targeting conservative attorneys.

Martin, who says he is being targeted by the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, told the Daily Caller News Foundation he wants to expose the “weaponization of the bar associations against lawyers.”

“The bar associations exist with a sort of monopoly, but they also exist at the discretion of the courts,” he said, noting they mostly target conservatives. “I’ve seen the impact on the legal system, not only advocates like myself who are targeted, but rank and file prosecutors who are abused by the system because the left wants to have sort of lawlessness.”

James Phalen, executive attorney of the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility, told the DCNF that “any matters involving allegations of disciplinary misconduct are confidential unless and until Disciplinary Council brings charges.” Disciplinary counsel Hamilton Fox also told the DCNF that investigations are confidential until formal charges are brought.

Martin revealed in a going-away email to staff that he was under an ethics investigation by the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Reuters reported Wednesday.

Democratic lawmakers requested an investigation into Martin in March for allegedly abusing his position as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, accusing him of “dismissing charges against his own client and using the threat of prosecution to intimidate government employees and chill the speech of private citizens.” The office previously declined in February to address a prior complaint against Martin for dismissing charges against a Jan. 6 defendant he previously represented.

“Most bar associations, state and national, are 501(c)(3) organizations,” he told the DCNF, noting that status comes with certain benefits. “If they’re not living up to what they should be, they’ll have to face scrutiny. And also, part of it is just the name and shame.”

There are hundreds of bar associations in the United States.

Other conservative attorneys, like John Eastman in California, have faced disciplinary proceedings from the bar.

Martin said the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel is “completely hypocritical” about how it does its job.

“It’s one thing for liberals, another thing for conservatives, confidentiality for themselves, and yet, somebody like me, I had a complaint against me, they exposed my confidential, the confidentiality of the bar complaint, and exposed it to random people in my work environment.”

The DOJ implemented a policy in April placing restrictions on its attorneys participation in American Bar Association (ABA) events.

“The ABA is free to litigate in support of activist causes, including by inserting itself into pending litigation as an amicus curiae,” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche wrote in the memo. “The Department of Justice must, consistent with the Constitution, be careful stewards of the public fisc, represent all Americans regardless of ideology or political preferences, and defend the policies chosen by America’s democratically elected leadership-as reflected in Congressionally enacted statutes and Presidential policy choices.”

A judge blocked the DOJ’s effort to cancel $3.2 million in grants to the ABA on Wednesday.

“Part of it is the monopoly that bar associations maintain over the practice of law may have to change,” Martin said.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to include comment from another D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility official.

AUTHOR

Katelynn Richardson

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Ed Martin Says He’s Looking Into Last-Minute Sweeping Pardons Issued By Joe Biden

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


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

Senate GOP Races Ahead With Trump Confirmations Despite Historic Roadblocks From Dems

Senate Republicans are plowing ahead with confirming President Donald Trump’s nominees, outpacing the confirmation speed of the prior two administrations, including Trump’s first, despite unprecedented obstruction from Senate Democrats.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) general counsel nominee Sean Donahue on Thursday became the 67th civilian nominee of Trump’s second term to be confirmed, more than doubling the number of civilians that were confirmed by May 15, 2017 during the president’s first term. The Senate GOP leadership’s aggressive pace comes as Senate Democrats have sought to place historic roadblocks in the confirmation process by requiring roll call votes for all of the president’s nominees.

Senate Democrats have placed blanket holds on hundreds of the president’s nominees thus far, requiring Senate GOP leadership to use finite floor time to confirm each nominee individually through a series of roll call votes.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Monday became the latest Democrat to announce holds on the president’s Department of Justice (DOJ) nominees following Trump’s plans to accept a jet from the Qatari royal family.

Senate Republicans, however, pointed out that Democrats have sought to delay the confirmation process since the opening days of Trump’s presidency.

“Democrats can drag out nominations all they want, but we’re going to fill out the president’s administration and ensure that his nominees get into place so that … he can do the job that he was elected to do,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said on the Senate floor Monday. “I’d like to do this the easy way, and confirm noncontroversial nominees expeditiously – in batches, for example, and maybe even by unanimous consent.”

“But if we have to do this the hard way, we will,” Thune continued. “We’re going to get the president’s team in place.”

Trump, in his second term, is the first president in roughly a century to not have a single civilian nominee secure confirmation via voice vote or unanimous consent at this point in his presidency, according to the Thune-aligned Senate Republican Communications Center.

The Communications Center looked as far back as former President Herbert Hoover’s administration and found that every president since has had a nominee confirmed by voice vote or unanimous consent at this point in their presidency, except for Trump in his second term.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was confirmed just hours after Trump was sworn into office on Jan. 20, is the lone Trump nominee that Senate Democrats allowed to bypass a cloture vote. Senate Democrats forced the other 66 civilian nominees confirmed thus far to be subjected to a cloture vote to end debate on their nominations.

Prior administrations, even those with few total civilian nominee confirmations as of May 15, had an easier time moving nominees across the Senate floor than the second Trump administration.

Senate Democrats have sought to stall the confirmation process by requiring a cloture vote for nearly every Trump nominee. (Chart by the Senate Republican Communications Center)

Senate Democrats confirmed 52 of former President Joe Biden’s civilian nominees as of May 15 in the first year of his presidency. However, just 33 of those nominees required a cloture vote to win confirmation.

Similarly, 11 of the 32 Trump nominees confirmed by May 15 in the first year of the president’s first term did not require cloture votes to cut off debate on their nominations.

Though former President Barack Obama secured 107 civilian nominee confirmations by May 15, 2009, the Senate held a cloture vote on just one nominee out of the entire cohort.

The Trump White House attributed the quick confirmation pace of the president’s nominees to their enthusiasm to implement the president’s policies.

“The Senate has confirmed President Trump’s nominees at a record pace because his picks are wildly popular, credible and eager to implement the President’s America First agenda,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers told the Daily Caller News Foundation in a statement Thursday.

Though Senate Republicans have made substantial progress in getting the president’s appointees into place, much of Trump’s agenda has yet to advance through the Republican-controlled Congress. Senate Democrats have successfully filibustered four GOP-backed bills since January despite every member of the Democratic conference previously voting or campaigning to eliminate the procedural rule requiring 60 votes to pass most legislation.

Thune indicated he is aiming to send what Trump has called his “one, big beautiful bill,” a vast tax and spending package incorporating much of the president’s legislative agenda, to Trump’s desk by July 4.

AUTHOR

Adam Pack

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: Dems Have ‘Chosen Obstruction’, Sen GOP Leader Says, As Schumer Blocks Trump Noms From Swift Confirmation

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


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

Elite University Withholds Student’s Diploma After He Went Rogue During Grad Speech, Ranted About Palestine

New York University (NYU) is withholding a student’s diploma after he turned his graduation speech into a pro-Palestine rant.

The student allegedly lied about the contents of his speech and instead used his time addressing the graduating class only to condemn the U.S.’s supposed “complicity” in genocide, according to a statement from the school on Wednesday. NYU apologized for the student’s speech and announced  that it is pursuing disciplinary action against the speaker.

“As I search my heart today in addressing you all … the only thing that is appropriate to say in this time and to a group this large is a recognition of the atrocities currently happening in Palestine,” the student began. “I want to say that the genocide currently occurring is supported politically and militarily by the United States, is paid for by our tax dollars, and has been livestreamed to our phones for the past 18 months, and that I do not wish to speak only to my own politics today, but to speak for all people of conscience, all people who feel the moral injury of this atrocity. And I want to say that I condemn this genocide and complicity in this genocide.”

The student ended his speech after adding the usual congratulatory statement to the graduating class.

“NYU strongly denounces the choice by a student at the Gallatin School’s graduation today—one of over 20 school graduation ceremonies across our campus—to misuse his role as student speaker to express his personal and one-sided political views,” the university said in a statement. “He lied about the speech he was going to deliver and violated the commitment he made to comply with our rules. The University is withholding his diploma while we pursue disciplinary actions.”

“NYU is deeply sorry that the audience was subjected to these remarks and that this moment was stolen by someone who abused a privilege that was conferred upon him,” the university continued.

Rising rates of pro-Palestinian activism on college campuses disrupted graduation ceremonies across the nation in 2024, with some schools having to cancel the events altogether.

The Trump administration has demanded universities tackle anti-Israel bias on campuses and has been swiftly punishing schools that refuse to comply, gutting them of billions of dollars.

NYU did not respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

Jaryn Crouson

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats Finally Get Behind Push To End Anti-Israel Campus Encampments

Watchdog Demands Probe To Strip Tax-Exempt Status From Lefty Nonprofit Incubating Anti-Israel Activism

Harvard Begins Funding Itself As University Feels Effects Of Trump Administration Cuts

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


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

VIDEO: Joint Legislative Hearing on Arizona’s Family Court System

On Monday May 12th, 2025, an all-day Joint Legislative Hearing in the Arizona Senate occurred. Senator Mark Finchem chaired the hearing, and this interview on ARIZONA TODAY addresses major portions of the day-long legislative hearing. Those tuning in across the nation be informed that documented evidence had previously been received and was further presented to the committee revealing that six other states are experiencing very, very similar problems and challenges as Arizona. The conversation on this segment of ARIZONA TODAY with Senator Finchem will provide a very sobering glimpse to the horrendous and damaging effects from a system that has gone astray and turned on the family bringing pain, financial collapse, and other hardships that are quite sobering and damaging.

The woke and DEI political philosophy and antics are meant to subvert the gift of family. You will hear just how this DEI subversion is damaging families. More evidence and revelations are coming. Once again Arizona is taking the lead confronting a most destructive attack determined to alter another dimension of what makes America great.

WATCH: Arizona Today with AZ Senator Mark Finchem

©2025 All rights reserved.

The New FDA is Now Asking for Public Comments about COVID Injections

Critical Thinkers should reply. 

Although the verdict is not in yet, the new FDA is hopefully nothing like the old FDA. Here is a test case: Request for Public Comments regarding COVID-19 type injections (mRNA). Comments will be accepted from May 7 to May 23.

You can ignore all the official-looking material and just click on the blue “Comment” box in the upper left of the page. Answer some basic questions and submit your comments (and/or attach a document).

FYI, here are two relevant documents of mine I sent them:

  1. Some Major FDA EUA/Approval Reforms Neededand 
  2. Some Scientific Observations about the Medical Establishment’s Handling of COVID-19 to Date.

Those (and a lot more) are on my COVID-19 page: C19Science.info.

Fingers crossed!

P.S. — Please pass this onto other interested citizens.

©2025 All rights reserved.


Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2025 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Liberal Pollster Warns Lefty Activist Group to Focus on Hill GOP and Gov’t Corruption, Not Trump and Musk

Liberal activists should focus their attacks on congressional Republicans and perceptions of widespread corruption in government instead of the policies and actions of President Donald Trump and billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, according to a Democratic political research firm.

The firm analyzed responses from participants in four focus groups consisting of swing voters and those who are not strongly committed to either of the major political parties. The analysis suggests the intense focus of Democrats in Congress and the mainstream media on Trump and Musk is at least somewhat out of step with the most important group of voters, especially in midterm elections.

“For these swing participants, their views on Trump and Elon are complicated and still forming. Trump retains some inoculation on corruption issues. His longstanding ‘drain the swamp’ rhetoric combined with the way he’s messaging DOGE through the framework of ridding waste and corruption gives him some credibility,” Impact Research (IR) said in a memo first made public by a liberal activist group, End Citizens United.

End Citizens United frequently commissions IR for political polling and data analysis. The firm boasts on its website that “we’ve flipped more Republican-held congressional seats over the past ten years than any other polling firm in the country.”

“Likewise, while participants had real concerns about Elon’s role, they were ill-formed, and they saw some positives from his cuts. They are not positive towards either person, but candidates should note that only utilizing corruption framing against Trump and Musk will present some barriers,” the IR memo continued.

Instead of the chief executive and the man leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the deepest-ever government-wide anti-corruption investigation, liberal activists should, according to IR, aim their energies at Capitol Hill Republicans, who have a razor-thin House majority and only a modest edge in the Senate.

“However, members of Congress are ripe targets for corruption messaging — voters view all (nameless) politicians as corrupt, focused on self-enrichment and gaining power. They attach a lot of the problems facing the country to these ills, and while they are not necessarily able to articulate specific examples of corruption, they are certain that corruption is rampant in Washington,” the memo said.

Significantly, the IR analysis says voters view Democrats and Republicans on equal terms on the corruption issue, even though traditionally GOPers devote much more time and political capital to condemning waste, fraud, and abuse than do Democrats, who in the past, while ignoring such concerns, have put far more emphasis on the alleged benefits of big federal spending programs.

“Participants view Washington’s culture as the corrupting influence — it is a disease that infects both parties equally. Even as Republicans have taken control of Washington, participants are no more likely to fault them for it than Democrats who they see as weak, ineffective, and self-interested,” the IR analysis stated.

In addition, the IR analysis pointed to the increasing irrelevance of critiques of Trump and Musk as threats to democracy.

“In past cycles, ‘threats to democracy’ was a motivator for the base and persuasive to swing voters. While all participants agreed that our democracy is under threat, there was much less clarity about what that means than in the past. Participants struggled to define what a threat to democracy is,” the analysis explained.

By contrast, the corruption issue, according to the analysis, “is both a salient issue and universally defined as politicians looking out for their own interests and against the interest[s] of the people. We should push hard on taking on corruption and should be mindful that just talking about democracy broadly without specific definition does not have the same intuitive meaning for voters.”

FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter told The Washington Stand the focus group results are no surprise, given recent history, particularly with regard to former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

“There’s a reason why the Senate’s anti-insider trading bill is called the PELOSI Act — she’s the poster child of congressional insider trading and one of the most prominent congressional Democrats,” Carpenter said. He further noted that “there is no doubt the American public is cynical about the work of Congress. Many of their concerns about politicians using their influence to enrich themselves is, unfortunately, justified. This is fuel for the populist sentiment that has propelled Donald Trump to the presidency twice.”

Carpenter is skeptical that Democrats heeding the IR memo will enjoy complete success. He contends that “left-wing groups will have difficulty making the case to voters that it’s only Republicans who trade on insider information or otherwise use their positions to gain wealth for themselves.”

AUTHOR

Mark Tapscott

Mark Tapscott is senior congressional analyst 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.

Wisconsin Judge Criminally Charged for Obstructing Deportations. Who’s Next?

As Democrats fret over possible arrests for opposing deportations, a federal grand jury has handed down an indictment against a Wisconsin judge who hid an illegal immigrant from law enforcement. A grand jury on Tuesday indicted Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan on charges of “knowingly concealing” an illegal immigrant named Eduardo Flores-Ruiz when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers showed up at the courthouse to arrest him and “corruptly endeavor[ing] to influence, obstruct, and impede the due and proper administration of the law” by actively trying to prevent the Mexican national’s arrest. Dugan was accused in the indictment of knowingly lying to ICE officers and telling Flores-Ruiz to leave by a back door to avoid being arrested.

Dugan was arrested last month after confronting and obstructing ICE agents waiting outside her courtroom to arrest Flores-Ruiz, who was in court for allegedly assaulting his roommate. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin reported that Flores-Ruiz “has a laundry list of violent criminal charges including strangulation and suffocation, battery, and domestic abuse.” The Mexican national has entered the U.S. illegally twice and was ordered deported in 2013. Dugan faces up to six years in prison if convicted of the charges.

In comments to The Washington Stand, Lora Ries, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, said, “Of course, this judge and other judges should be prosecuted for obstructing federal agents from enforcing the law. It is long past time for those obstructing law enforcement to face the consequences of their own actions.” In a Tuesday night interview, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said he was “glad” Dugan had been indicted, referring to her actions as an “egregious case” of flouting U.S. law. He suggested that other local, state, and even federal officials should face prosecution for obstructing President Donald Trump’s deportation program. “Let every other judge and member of Congress out there take a lesson from this: you are not above the law,” the senator said.

The Trump administration certainly appears poised to initiate prosecutions against officials who obstruct ICE operations. Last week, a group of protestors — including Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D) and Reps. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), Robert Menendez, Jr. (D-N.J.), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) — tried to “break into” an ICE detention facility in New Jersey and reportedly shoved and threatened several federal law enforcement officers and facility guards. McLaughlin said in a statement at the time, “Members of Congress storming into a detention facility goes beyond a bizarre political stunt and puts the safety of our law enforcement agents and detainees at risk. Members of Congress are not above the law and cannot illegally break into detention facilities.”

Department of Justice (DOJ) official Alina Habba confirmed that Baraka “committed trespass and ignored multiple warnings from Homeland Security Investigations to remove himself from the ICE detention center” and was subsequently arrested. The former Trump defense lawyer added, “He has willingly chosen to disregard the law. That will not stand in this state. He has been taken into custody. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.”

The Trump DOJ is reportedly weighing criminal charges against McIver, Menendez, and Watson Coleman, eliciting fierce backlash from House Democrats. In a video posted to social media, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) claimed that her congressional colleagues had done no wrong. “If anyone’s breaking the law in this situation, it’s not members of Congress, it’s the Department of Homeland Security,” the congresswoman said, specifically naming border czar Tom Homan and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, who are in charge of ICE operations and deportations. “You lay a finger on someone, on Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman … or any of the representatives that were there, you lay a finger on them, we are going to have a problem,” Ocasio-Cortez said. She added, “Because the people who are breaking the law are the people not abiding by it.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) made similar comments in a Tuesday press conference. When asked what would happen if the Trump administration followed through on filing criminal charges against McIver, Menendez, and Watson Coleman, Jeffries repeatedly replied, “They’ll find out.” Fox News congressional correspondent Chad Pergram asked, “What would you do?” Jeffries replied again, “They’ll find out.” The Democratic official said that arresting his congressional colleagues would be a “red line” for the Trump administration. “They know better than to go down that road. And it’s been made loudly and abundantly clear to the Trump administration. We’re not going to be intimidated by their tactics,” Jeffries said. He continued, “No one’s intimidated by this dude. No one. And so there are clear lines that they just dare not cross.”

However, some Republicans are seeking penalties for the New Jersey Democrats, whether prosecutions come or not. Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) introduced a resolution Tuesday to strip McIver, Menendez, and Watson Coleman of all committee assignments. In a social media post touting the resolution, he commented, “The radical left has lost their minds — they would rather raid an ICE facility to defend criminal illegal immigrants than represent their own constituents.” He added, “The three Democratic members involved in this stunt do not deserve to sit on committees alongside serious lawmakers.”

Ries told The Washington Stand that consequences are necessary for the Democrats’ conduct. “It has been the absence of consequences in so many aspects of American society that has allowed illegal behavior and corruption to escalate,” she said. Ries continued, “The perpetrators have relied on non-action to continue their transgressions, as demonstrated by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries threatening yesterday, in essence, ‘Don’t you dare arrest Democrat lawmakers for bum-rushing an ICE detention facility and shoving federal agents.’”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Liberal Pollster Warns Lefty Activist Group to Focus on Hill GOP and Gov’t Corruption, Not Trump and Musk

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.

Don’t Underestimate Christian Media

For years, Christian media has often been viewed as a backwater source—like something seen in a Saturday Night Live skit. A source for snickers, but not for sensible information.

But, as Dr. Ted Baehr, the publisher of “Movieguide,” likes to say in effect, “The good news is: The bad news is wrong.”

Recently, the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) commissioned a study with the respected pollster, the Barna Group, and found that a majority of Americans “engage with Christian media.”

The NRB reported on the survey’s findings with this title: “Most Americans Engage with Christian Media, NRB and Barna Report.”

The NRB notes in the findings: “More than 60% of American adults report consuming Christian media in some form, whether through television, radio, podcasts, news websites, social media, or YouTube. This is not an occasional interaction—among these users, half engage with Christian content at least once per week.”

Barna defines “Christian media users” as “viewers, listeners, or readers of Christian media” or consumers of “Christian radio, Christian TV, Christian podcasts (not including sermons), Christian news websites,” as well as users of social media with Christian content.

Troy Miller, president of the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), told me in a recent radio interview about this: “To be honest, that number nearly caught us off guard.” Wow—nearly two-thirds of all Americans are engaged to some degree with Christian media. Miller said: “That was much, much higher than we thought it would be.”

And he added, “If you drill down further, within the Christian community—those who recognize that the Bible is the authority, who attend church on a regular basis, who read their Bible on a regular basis—their involvement with Christian media is [much greater]. They listen to Christian media almost on a daily basis.”

Furthermore, the NRB writes that there is a higher trust factor of Christian media among listeners/viewers than of other sources of media.

The NRB observes: “Christian media isn’t just widely consumed; it’s also largely respected. Two-thirds of the general population view Christian media as valuable and trustworthy, and that figure rises to four in five among those who use Christian media…..Even among those who don’t identify as born again, roughly half view Christian media in a positive light.”

Nonetheless, they also note the other side of the same story: “However, this trust is not without tension. Some respondents—particularly heavy users—express concerns about bias and manipulation in Christian content….Meanwhile, non-Christians tend to have the most negative perceptions of Christian media.”

During the time of America’s founding, what was the mass media in the various colonies? Certainly, newspapers were very influential. Stacy Schiff, author of The Revolutionary: Samuel Adams (2022), notes that Samuel Adams had incredible influence writing for the key newspaper of his city, The Boston Gazette.

Adams usually used pseudonyms (e.g., A Puritan, Candidus, Victus, etc.)  to avoid arrest or deportation to Canada or England for trial (and likely execution). She writes of the Royalist Massachusetts Governor, who despised Samuel Adams: “To [Thomas] Hutchinson’s dismay, seven-eighths of Boston read nothing but that ‘infamous paper’ [The Boston Gazette]. It set the temper of the town.”

Samuel Adams had another form of mass media. He utilized the Committees of Correspondence to communicate to the other colonies what was actually going on in Boston, the seedbed of the Revolution.

But there was yet another aspect of the media in those days almost always overlooked in our time—and that is, the sermons of the day. They were very influential.

I once interviewed the late Dr. Donald S. Lutz, author of The Origins of American Constitutionalism, of the University of Houston. Lutz had co-written a major study with Charles S. Hyneman. They found that about one-third of the quotes from the founding fathers’ writings came from the Bible; and other major quotes came from Bible-oriented writers, such as Montesquieu, Sir William Blackstone, and John Locke (in that order).

Lutz told me: “During the Founding Era, the late 1700’s, there were no magazines, newspapers had a very small circulation, there was no television, there was no internet. What did people do for entertainment? They would read pamphlets….Now, of all the pamphlets published during the last part of the 1700’s, more than 80% of them were reprinted sermons.”

As Americans, we have been given a great gift: free speech and a free press—largely because of Christian influence. But like all good gifts in this fallen world, it must be safeguarded.

As Troy Miller of the NRB noted recently to RadioWorld: “Free speech isn’t optional, It’s the foundation of the American experiment…If one group’s voice can be silenced because of its beliefs, every voice becomes vulnerable.” Thankfully, many Americans are sitting up and paying attention to Christian media.

©2025 All rights reserved.

JUDICIAL TYRANNY: Supreme Court to Hear Trump Challenge to Universal Injunctions by Radical, Rogue Judges

Far left judges issue rulings that go far beyond the scope of resolving cases or controversies. It is a grotesque seizure of power that puts the entire nation at risk.

The Supreme Court under a corrupt and compromised Justice Roberts has abandoned it’s judicial responsibility to uphold the Constitution. He is owned.

The case proper is over birthright citizenship. This hearing, however, will be about the numerous injunctions that have sought to limit the administration’s efforts coast to coast. SCOTUS Blog: The dispute is one of the relatively rare proceedings that came to the justices as an emergency appeal – on the so-called “shadow docket” – only to be set for oral arguments…. the primary issue before the court on Thursday is whether lower-court judges can issue what are known as universal injunctions to block an order nationwide. With a universal injunction, a federal judge (or several in this case) can that bar the government from enforcing an executive order – or, in another case, a law or policy – anywhere in the country. The Trump administration, which has been blocked by many such injunctions in recent months, argues that the practice is unconstitutional…. President Donald Trump set the events leading to Thursday’s argument in motion on Jan. 20, when he signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship. Under the order, which was originally slated to go into effect on Feb. 19, children born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to U.S. citizenship if their parents were in this country illegally or temporarily – for example, on a work or student visa…. Seven years ago, in a concurring opinion in Trump v. Hawaii, Justice Clarence Thomas called universal injunctions “legally and historically dubious.” Moreover, he added, they are “beginning to take a toll on the federal court system — preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch” (SCOTUSblog).

The very fact that they are holding this hearing may bode well for the president. Margot Cleveland at the Federalist: That the Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on the nationwide injunction issue, while the underlying question of the constitutionality of the president’s EO continues to percolate in the lower courts, suggests several of the justices have grave concerns over nationwide injunctions. Further, as the Trump Administration’s brief highlights, five justices — Justices Alito, Barrett, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch — at different times and in various concurrences or dissents, have criticized the use of nationwide injunctions (Federalist).

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Liberals Get A Taste Of Their Own ‘January 6’ Medicine

‘Modern Equivalent Of A Pirate Or Robber’: Federal Judge Says Trump Can Deport Tren De Aragua Gangbangers

Minor Parking Violation Leads To Discovery Of Multiple Illegal Immigrants Accused Of Crimes

‘Dumbest F*cking Thing’: Democrats Are Absolutely Furious At Lawmaker Trying To Impeach Trump

‘Remarkable Reversal’: CNN Stunned As Trump Prediction Proves True

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