Featured posts

    Opinion

    Home Opinion

    VP Vance Predicts ‘Dumbest’ Democrat Candidate Will Secure Nomination In 2028

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0

    Vice President JD Vance took aim at the Democratic Party’s likely 2028 presidential contenders during a lighthearted but pointed exchange on Fox News, joking that the party’s “dumbest” candidate is most likely to emerge from the primary.

    In an exclusive interview released Wednesday on Jesse Watters Primetime, Watters raised speculation about California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s national ambitions, noting the governor’s frequent media appearances and rumored White House aspirations.

    “Gavin Newsom, obviously, is running for president. Have you seen this guy cross his legs? Have you ever seen anyone cross their legs like that?” Watters asked jokingly.

    “My legs don’t cross like that, Jesse,” Vance replied with a laugh. “You can interpret that however you want to.”

    Watters went on to frame the looming Democratic contest as a showdown between Newsom and Vice President Kamala Harris.

    “Gavin and Kamala are on a collision course,” Watters said. “Who’s gonna win?”

    “The dumbest candidate will probably win,” Vance quipped. “That’s my guess with the Democratic Party.”

    Vance argued that the current Democratic bench reflects deeper structural problems within the party, particularly its fixation on identity politics over competence.

    “I mean, look, the Democrats have a couple of big issues, and one is that they lean so far into wokeism that they can’t see the obviousness of the fact, which is that Kamala Harris is not qualified to be president of the United States,” Vance said.

    “That’s why she got the vice presidential nomination. That’s why she got the presidential nomination. This is who Kamala Harris is.”

    Vance contrasted Harris with Newsom, describing the California governor as emblematic of failed progressive governance.

    “Now, the flip side is, I think you have an unbelievably corrupt and incompetent governor in Gavin Newsom,” he said. “The fact that those are the two frontrunners just suggests how deeply deranged the Democrat Party is. Let them fight it out. We’ll figure it out.”

    A Weak Democratic Bench for 2028

    While Newsom and Harris dominate early speculation, Democrats face a thin and fractured 2028 field. Other frequently mentioned names include Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—each of whom carries significant liabilities with general-election voters. Many Democrats privately acknowledge that the party lacks a unifying figure with broad national appeal, particularly as voters continue to recoil from progressive economic and cultural policies.

    Republicans, by contrast, are positioning themselves as the party of stability, affordability, and public safety heading into the next election cycle.

    Cost of Living and Accountability

    Watters noted that Democrats are expected to campaign heavily on cost-of-living issues in upcoming elections, a strategy Vance dismissed as deeply hypocritical.

    “That’s a pot-meet-kettle situation,” Vance argued, pointing to Democratic-led policies that fueled inflation, higher energy costs, and housing shortages.

    He credited the Trump administration with reversing those trends.

    “We haven’t even been in office for a year, and you’ve already seen prices start to come down. You’ve seen rents start to come down. You’ve seen groceries leveling off,” Vance said.

    “Is there more work to do? Absolutely. But the people who are going to do that work is the Trump administration, is the president of the United States, who is solving the Democrats’ affordability crisis.”

    “You don’t give power back to the very people who set the house on fire,” he added. “You give more power to the person who put the fire out.”

    Impeachment Politics

    When asked whether Democrats would attempt to impeach President Trump again if they regain control of Congress, Vance said such a move would be predictable—and revealing.

    “I’m sure he’ll get impeached,” Vance said. “Look, they have nothing to actually run on or govern on.”

    “Their entire obsessive focus of that party is they hate Donald Trump,” he continued. “So, if they ever get power, are they going to lower Americans’ taxes? No. Are they going to make your life more affordable? No. Are they going to solve the crime crisis? No.”

    “What they’re going to do is they’re going to spend all their time and all of your money trying to get Donald Trump.”

    Vance urged voters to focus on results rather than partisan theatrics.

    “I think the American people should vote for the people who want to make their life more affordable, who want to make their neighborhoods safer,” he said. “That’s what we’re trying to deliver every single day.”

    Newsom Responds With a Meme

    Newsom’s office responded to the interview with a digitally altered image of Vance crossing his legs in an exaggerated pose, captioned: “We all know JD copies Daddy.”

    House GOP just rolled out the OFFICIAL America 250 Membership & you’ve been selected for a coveted spot on the roster. This celebration will be remembered for DECADES — and we want you to have a front-row seat to it all. We’re asking a select group of TOP PATRIOTS to answer the following questions and join the House GOP’s official America 250 Membership. [Respond HERE]

    Time Magazine Denies Nazi-Era Echo In Trump Cover Image

    By
    Patrick Houck
    -
    4
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Photographer’s nod to controversial 1963 portrait fuels speculation.

    WASHINGTON — Time magazine is facing backlash over its latest cover photo of President Donald Trump, after online critics and media outlets pointed out a visual similarity to a portrait the magazine used 60 years ago featuring convicted Nazi industrialist Alfried Krupp.

    The image, shot by photographer Stephen Voss, shows Trump looming over the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, dramatically lit from below. According to a report by The Daily Beast, the composition bears a striking resemblance to a 1963 photo of Krupp taken by the Jewish photographer Arnold Newman — a photograph widely studied for its chilling and deliberate framing of a man convicted of facilitating some of history’s most heinous crimes.

    The Historical Background

    Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach inherited control of the Krupp industrial empire from his father, Gustav Krupp, who had supported Adolf Hitler and helped finance the Nazis’ rise to power. Under Alfried’s leadership during World War II, Krupp factories supplied the Third Reich with armaments and heavy machinery vital to its war efforts, including tanks, submarines, and artillery.

    National Museum of the U.S. Navy, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    After Germany’s defeat, Krupp was tried by the U.S. Military Tribunal in the Nuremberg Krupp Trial (officially The United States of America vs. Alfried Krupp, et al.), which took place from 1947 to 1948.

    He was convicted primarily for:

    • Exploitation of Forced Labor: Krupp industries used 100,000 slave laborers and prisoners of war under brutal conditions. Many of these laborers were taken from occupied countries and concentration camps, forced to work long hours in unsafe factories.
    Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-138-1083-20 / Kessler, Rudolf / CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 DE , via Wikimedia Commons
    • Plundering Occupied Territories: Krupp was found guilty of seizing industrial plants and raw materials from conquered nations to boost Nazi Germany’s armament production.
    Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-2005-1017-521 / Gehrmann, Friedrich / CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 DE , via Wikimedia Commons
    • Participation in Crimes Against Humanity: The tribunal held that Krupp’s active role in maintaining and expanding his war production empire made him complicit in Nazi crimes.
    Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1985-100-33 / Unknown authorUnknown author / CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 DE , via Wikimedia Commons

    He was sentenced to 12 years in prison and had his property confiscated.

    Newman’s portrait of Krupp is iconic in photographic circles. In the image, Krupp is seated at a desk under harsh lighting, his posture and setting portraying him as both powerful and ominous, reminiscent of a devil or a fiendish creature. Critics argue that Time’s Trump cover bears such a resemblance to Newman’s portrait that it cannot be a coincidence.

    Photographer Reacts on Social Media

    Voss, the photographer behind the Trump image, has not publicly commented on the comparison. However, he reportedly “liked” social media posts highlighting the resemblance — a move many interpret as a subtle acknowledgment of influence.

    A spokesperson for Time magazine rejected the claims outright, telling The Daily Beast that “any suggestion of an intentional reference is completely untrue.”

    Why This Matters

    The controversy cuts across political and cultural lines:

    • Visual symbolism: Referencing imagery linked to Nazi figures — even inadvertently — risks crossing ethical and historical boundaries.
    • Editorial credibility: Time, known for its iconic covers, faces questions about whether such visual choices are neutral, intentional, or ideologically driven.
    • Trump’s image control: As a media-savvy political figure, Trump is acutely aware of how visuals shape perception. Whether intentional or not, the cover’s tone could affect public interpretation.

    What’s Still Unknown

    • Was the similarity intentional? No direct evidence confirms that Voss or Time deliberately modeled the image after Newman’s Krupp portrait.
    • Does intent matter? Critics argue that even unintentional parallels can carry meaning, especially given the historical weight of the reference.
    • Will this have a lasting impact? It’s unclear, though likely, that the controversy will become another political flashpoint in media criticism.

    A Larger Media Question

    This episode adds fuel to a long-running debate over how the media portrays political leaders — especially those it opposes editorially. It also highlights the power images have in shaping public perception.

    In an era when symbolism is parsed as carefully as language, even a magazine cover can carry profound consequences.

    JD Vance has a question for YOU! The only thing at the forefront of his mind is serving America-loving patriots. What are the most important issues facing our great country today? [Respond to the Vice Presidential Survey HERE]

    Will Trump Take Back Our Panama Canal? Cruz Blows Whistle On Communist Chinese Control

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    1
    Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America,

    U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz met with Panamanian officials about growing Communist Chinese influence over the Panama Canal, a crucial artery for global trade that was built and once controlled by the United States, until it was given away by liberal the-President Jimmy Carter.

    Cruz announced in a statement he “recently traveled to Panama and underscored the Panama Canal’s strategic importance to the United States.”

    Cruz reports he “met with top Panamanian officials, including the Minister of Economy and Finance, Felipe Chapman; Minister of Public Security, Frank Abrego; and Panama Canal Authority Administrator, Ricaurte Vásquez Morales. During these meetings, Sen. Cruz reiterated the growing threats posed by China and other foreign actors seeking to exert influence over the region, threatening both American and Panamanian national and economic security.”

    “The Senate Commerce Committee has primary jurisdiction over the Panama Canal due to its role in the facilitation of global trade and U.S. commerce,” Cruz notes.

    “There is undoubtedly a strong Chinese presence, and I believe a threat to the canal. The purpose of my visit is number one, to try to strengthen the longtime friendship and alliance between the United States and Panama. And number two, I’m the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which, among other things, has jurisdiction over the Panama Canal and the Panama Canal is vital, both to national security and economic security of the United States and Panama,” said Cruz.

    Cruz summarized the long-brewing issue of Communist Chinese control of the Panama Canal and its threat to the United States, writing:

    Previously, Sen. Cruz convened a Senate Commerce Committee hearing to examine the growing number of challenges facing the maritime industry in the region due to capacity limitations and increased transit fees. Sen. Cruz sounded alarms over China’s growing foothold in Panama, which poses a direct threat to U.S. trade. China has exploited Panama’s institutional weakness to evade U.S. sanctions and has taken controlling stakes in critical infrastructure surrounding the Panama Canal. During the hearing, multiple senators raised concerns about Panama’s management of the canal, citing allegations of corruption, suggesting that they may be violating the Neutrality Treaty.

    One week after the hearing, a preliminary deal was announced that would give an American company primary control of Port Balboa and Port Cristobal, which are container ports on either end of the canal. However, the deal has faced delay amid pressure from China seeking to secure a stake in the deal, stalling progress to protect both American and Panamanian interests.

    Sen. Cruz concluded, “China is not America’s friend, and China is not Panama’s friend, and if God forbid, a military conflict emerges between the United States and China, I believe there is an unacceptable risk that China would act to shut down the Panama Canal, which would have a devastating impact on the United States and an even worse impact on Panama…

    “There is strong American interest in expanding and improving commerce and transportation through the Panama Canal. The United States built the Panama Canal more than a century ago and our nations have been close friends for a long, long time. The economies of both the United States and Panama benefit enormously from the Panama Canal, and there are strong American interests in investing in ports on both ends of the Panama Canal and assisting in new infrastructure, whether it is gas pipelines to transport gas from one end to the other, or whether it is building a new reservoir and expanding the ability to ensure there’s

    Anatomy Of A Soft Coup: McCabe’s Unprecedented Criminal Investigation Of A Sitting President

    By
    Alex Muse
    -
    2
    By Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) - Director Wray Installation Ceremony, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=63667603

    The election of Donald Trump in November 2016 was, for the entrenched political class, a thunderclap. It was not supposed to happen. The experts, the pollsters, the seasoned operatives had assured the country that Hillary Clinton’s victory was inevitable. Yet by the morning of November 9, the White House was preparing to receive a president unlike any in modern history: a political outsider with no government experience, an instinctive distrust of Washington, and a willingness to discard its conventions. For some in the outgoing administration and the permanent bureaucracy, this was not merely a surprise. It was a crisis to be managed, or better yet, undone.

    That undoing began in earnest just four months into Trump’s presidency, when Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, with the approval of FBI Counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap and General Counsel James Baker, authorized a criminal investigation into the sitting president of the United States. This probe did not arise from fresh evidence of presidential misconduct. It rested on the same thin reeds that had underpinned the Russia collusion narrative since mid-2016: opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign, laundered through the Steele dossier, and presented as intelligence. It was a case study in how partisan disinformation can metastasize into official action when it finds a willing audience inside the government.

    To understand how extraordinary this was, one must appreciate the context. Intelligence reports later declassified in the Durham Annex revealed that, as early as March 2016, the Clinton campaign had hatched a plan to tie Trump to Russian operatives, not as a matter of national security, but as an electoral tactic. These plans were known to senior Obama administration officials, including John Brennan, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe, before the election. Yet when Trump won, the machinery they had assembled did not wind down. It shifted purpose: from preventing his election to destabilizing his presidency.

    The first casualty in this internal campaign was Michael Flynn, Trump’s National Security Adviser and one of the few senior appointees with both loyalty to Trump and an understanding of the intelligence community’s inner workings. In late January 2017, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama holdover, warned the White House that Flynn had misled them about conversations with the Russian ambassador. The FBI had already interviewed Flynn, in a meeting arranged by Comey that bypassed standard White House protocol. Even Peter Strzok, one of the interviewing agents, admitted they did not believe Flynn had lied. Nevertheless, the incident was used to force Flynn’s resignation on February 13, with Vice President Pence publicly citing dishonesty over sanctions discussions. In hindsight, it is clear this was less about Flynn’s conduct than about removing a man who might have quickly uncovered the flimsiness of the Russia allegations.

    Next came Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a Trump loyalist but a DOJ outsider with no prior experience in its leadership. Under pressure over his own contacts with the same Russian ambassador, Sessions recused himself from any matters related to the 2016 campaign on March 2. This decision, encouraged by DOJ ethics officials from the Obama era and accepted without challenge by Pence and other advisers, effectively ceded control of any Trump-Russia inquiries to deep state officials and Obama holdovers. It was the opening the FBI needed.

    By mid-May, after Trump fired Comey at the recommendation of Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the FBI’s leadership was in open revolt. McCabe, Priestap, and Baker, all veterans of the Obama years, debated whether Trump had acted at Moscow’s behest. They even discussed the 25th Amendment and the idea of Rosenstein surreptitiously recording the president. These were not jokes. On May 16, McCabe authorized a full counterintelligence and criminal investigation into Trump himself, premised on the possibility that he was an agent of a foreign power. This was the first such investigation of a sitting president in US history.

    Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]

    The evidentiary basis for this move was paper-thin, much of it drawn from the Steele dossier, a work of partisan fiction that its own author was unwilling to verify. Baker, the FBI’s top lawyer, was a personal friend of Michael Sussmann, the Clinton campaign attorney who had helped funnel the dossier to the Bureau. Priestap, who signed off on the investigation, had overseen its use in obtaining FISA warrants to surveil Trump associates. They knew the source was tainted and the allegations were fiction. They proceeded anyway.

    The day after the investigation formally opened, Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel, locking the inquiry beyond Trump’s reach. Mueller’s team, stocked with Democratic donors and Obama DOJ and FBI veterans, inherited the case and its political overtones. For nearly two years, the president governed under a cloud of suspicion, his every move interpreted through the lens of an unfounded allegation.

    The impact on Trump’s presidency was profound. Key legislative initiatives stalled. Allies in Congress, warned privately by Pence and others that the investigation was serious, kept their distance. Figures like John McCain, Paul Ryan, and Jeff Flake acted in ways that hampered Trump’s agenda, from blocking Obamacare repeal to threatening his judicial nominations. Inside the executive branch, FBI Director Christopher Wray, another newcomer with no institutional knowledge of the Bureau’s internal politics, declined to purge the officials who had driven the investigation, allowing them to operate until they were forced out by Inspector General findings.

    By the time Mueller submitted his report in March 2019, concluding there was no evidence of collusion, the damage was done. Trump’s first term had been defined in large part by a manufactured scandal. The narrative of foreign compromise, though disproven, had justified a Special Counsel, sustained hostile media coverage, and ultimately greased the skids for an unfounded impeachment over Ukraine.

    The Durham Annex, unearthed years later, stripped away any lingering doubt about intent. It documented that the Russia collusion story was conceived as a political hit, that it was known to be false by the time it was weaponized in 2017, and that senior intelligence and law enforcement officials chose to advance it rather than expose it. In Madison’s terms, the accumulation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same hands, here, the unelected leadership of the FBI and DOJ, amounted to tyranny.

    That Trump survived this onslaught is remarkable. Few presidents, faced with a hostile bureaucracy, disloyal appointees, and a media eager to amplify every leak, could have done so. That the plot failed to remove him does not make it less a coup. It makes it a failed coup, one whose near-success should alarm anyone who values electoral legitimacy.

    The lesson is clear. The intelligence and law enforcement apparatus of the United States must never again be allowed to become an instrument of partisan warfare. The use of fabricated opposition research to justify surveillance, investigations, and the effective nullification of an election result is a violation not just of political norms but of the constitutional order. It took years for the facts to emerge. It will take far longer to repair the trust that was lost.

    If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing: https://x.com/amuse.

    Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

    MAGA in Space! America’s latest space success proves we’re still the greatest. Celebrate — donate $35 or more and get your Make the Moon Great Again shirt!

    Poll: Americans Oppose US Involvement In Iran, Believe US Should Stay Out Of Other Countries’ Business

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    3

    A new poll finds overwhelming majorities of Americans oppose the U.S. government’s military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and believe the federal government should stay out of other countries’ disputes.

    Reuters/Ipsos reports their new poll finds “most Americans support immediately ending U.S. involvement in the conflict with Iran. The poll also finds that Americans oppose U.S. military involvement in the Middle East unless the U.S. is directly threatened and that most Americans do not feel that U.S. airstrikes against Iran make America safer.”

    Only 36 percent of Americans support the strikes, with 45 percent opposing.  

    A whopping 69 percent of Americans, including 57 percent of Republicans, oppose “any military action in the Middle East unless America is directly threatened”.

    58 percent of Americans say “it is better for the nation if the U.S. stays out of the affairs of other nations”

    Republicans generally opposed U.S. strikes on Iran when Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden were president, warning it would lead to “World War 3.”  They now report supporting the policy under Republican President Donald Trump.

    Reuters summarized the findings, noting:

    * Seven in ten say they have been following the U.S. airstrikes against Iran (70%) or the war between Israel and Iran (67%) very or somewhat closely. Republicans are slightly more likely to say they are following the U.S. airstrikes very closely (39%) compared to Democrats (32%), independents (31%), and the general population (33%).

    * Four in five Americans say they are concerned with the conflict growing between the U.S. and Iran (84%) and U.S. military personnel stationed in the Middle East (79%). In comparison, similar numbers of Americans are concerned about rising inflation (81%) and growing U.S. debt (78%).

    * Republicans (69% support, 17% oppose) are significantly more likely to support the strikes compared to Democrats (13% support, 74% oppose) and independents (29% support, 48% oppose).

    * Just over one in three Americans (36%) say they agree that U.S. airstrikes against Iran make America safer, while 60% disagree and 4% refused or skipped. This is heavily divided along partisan lines, with 12% of Democrats, 29% of independents, and 67% of Republicans agreeing with this statement.

    * Most Americans say the U.S. should not become involved in any military action in the Middle East unless America is directly threatened (69%). Majorities across partisanship feel this way, with 57% of Republicans, 73% of independents, and 80% of Democrats agreeing with this statement. 

    “This Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted June 21-23, 2025. The poll began fielding immediately after the June 21 U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. The poll closed before the June 23 Iranian strikes on a U.S. military base in Qatar, which has reportedly caused no fatalities,” Reuters notes.

    Deep State May Be Forced To Cough Up More Records On Biden Influence Peddling Scheme

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    1
    Joe Biden via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Americans may soon know more about a Biden family business arrangement selling White House access to foreign interests, under a  lawsuit from an ethics watchdog.

    The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch reports it may receive more records under a “Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for Biden family records and communications regarding travel and finance transactions, as well as communications between the Bidens and several known business associates.”

    “This lawsuit is an opportunity for the Trump team to stop the Deep State’s slow-walking of the release of Biden family corruption records,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

    The suit was originally filed in May 2023 “after the National Archives failed to respond to a February 2023 FOIA request.”

    This lawsuit previously “forced the release of  records revealing emails sent by Joe Biden using alias accounts during his vice presidency, in which he communicated with family members, including his son Hunter and brother James. The records also showed that in August 2016, Biden approved ending Secret Service protection for both Hunter Biden and Beau Biden’s daughter, Natalie, during a trip to Kosovo,” Judicial Watch reports.

    The emails included messages to Jim and Hunter Biden regarding the then-vice president’s schedule and meetings. Some emails showed Joe Biden using the alias: [email protected].

    According to Judicial Watch:

    The emails also showed that Hunter and Jim Biden accompanied Joe Biden on taxpayer-funded trips; and then-Vice President Biden in December 2009 emailing an aide after he forgot the password to his West Wing computer.

    The records showed that Hunter Biden used an email address ([email protected]) from his now-dissolved firm Rosemont Seneca Partners and that James Biden used an email address ([email protected]) tied to his consulting firm Lion Hall, which had been the subject of an FBI bribery investigation in the 1990s.

    The lawsuit also forced the release of records showing then-Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter received a May 26, 2016, email detailing a scheduled “8:45 am prep for a 9 am phone call with Pres Poroshenko,” who was the president of Ukraine. Joe Biden’s email address is the alias [email protected], Hunter Biden’s email account is disclosed as [email protected]. (Hunter Biden was on the board of the controversial Ukrainian firm Burisma at the time.)

    State Department Sued For Labeling Trump ‘Disinformation Purveyor’

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    1
    (Miami - Flórida, 09/03/2020) Presidente da República Jair Bolsonaro durante encontro com o Senador Marco Rubio..Foto: Alan Santos/PR

    The United States Department of State is being sued for documents detailing a Biden administration scheme that censored the political speech of Americans and labeled President Donald Trump a “disinformation purveyor.”

    The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced in a statement it “filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. State Department for all records which allege President Trump or any current or former member of his cabinet are ‘purveyors of disinformation.’”

    “The Biden censorship operation was compiling files on his political enemies from Trump world. The State Department should immediately disclose the records about this abuse, as FOIA requires,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

    Judicial Watch states in the complaint:

    According to media reports on April 30, 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the State Department labeled a member of President Trump’s cabinet as a purveyor of disinformation, compiling a dossier of social media posts from the unnamed cabinet member. See, e.g., “Rubio says State had dossier accusing Trump Cabinet member of disinformation,” The Hill, April 30, 2025 

    Judicial Watch reports it sued the State Department after “it failed to respond to a May 1, 2025, FOIA request for records, including those of the Global Engagement Center (GEC), about social media posts of any current or former member of President Donald Trump’s cabinet, to include Trump himself, alleged to constitute misinformation, disinformation, or malign influence. Judicial Watch also asked for any guidance or policy documents.”

    Judicial Watch notes that during an April 30, 2025, Cabinet meeting, Rubio said, “We had an office in the Department of State whose job it was to censor Americans.”

    Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs South and Central Asia Subcommittee, said at a hearing in April about the center: “The GEC [Global Engagement Center] was initially authorized for the statutory purpose of countering foreign propaganda and disinformation efforts. Despite that mandate, for years the GEC instead deployed its shadowy network of grantees and sub-grantees to facilitate the censorship of American voices …”

    The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. 

    Urgent! Stand with Trump against Impeachment! Complete the Trump audit NOW.

    America Ascendant: The Golden Age Nobody Saw Coming

    By
    Alex Muse
    -
    3
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    It is not hyperbole to speak of a golden age. The phrase has been cheapened by pundits and prematurely invoked by partisans, but now it fits. Something has shifted in the tectonic plates of American politics, culture, and global influence. And unlike prior inflection points, this one is not merely symbolic. It is empirical. Measurable. Concrete. We are not gazing at a mirage, but witnessing a renaissance. The agent of this change is President Donald J. Trump.

    In 2019, the New York Times launched the 1619 Project with a simple proposition: that the true founding of America occurred not with the Declaration of Independence, but with the arrival of the first African slaves. What followed was a coordinated attempt to reframe the country as irredeemably racist, its history irreparably stained. Under the Biden administration, this view metastasized. Patriotic symbols were treated as threats. The FBI circulated training documents labeling common American flags as markers of “domestic extremism.” Catholics were surveilled, not for terrorism, but for attending Latin Mass. And over 800 January 6 defendants were held for years, many for crimes more symbolic than violent. Meanwhile, across the country, statues of Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson were torn down by mobs or removed by local governments in the dead of night. Schools named after America’s founders were renamed for lesser figures more palatable to progressive tastes. Military bases, long-standing monuments to American history, were stripped of their names and given bland, ideologically approved replacements. The point was not justice. It was deterrence. It was ideological conformity enforced by state power.

    Then Trump returned.

    His re-election, certified on January 6, 2025, and his inauguration on January 20, marked not merely the return of a man, but the restoration of a nation. Within 100 days, Trump had secured the border, reversing years of open-border chaos. Migration flows dropped to levels unseen since the early 1990s. His decisive action became a global model. From England to Romania, political movements took note. Nigel Farage’s Reform UK surged. The AfD in Germany crept into double digits. Marine Le Pen’s party is now the frontrunner in France. Elites sneered, but voters saw results.

    At home, Trump wielded his mandate like a scalpel. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, began a forensic audit of the administrative state. Within weeks, billions in funding were clawed back from useless programs and slush funds hidden in alphabet agencies. USAID, long a globalist piggy bank, is being dismantled. The FBI, purged of its partisan leadership, is now focused on actual crime. DEI offices, once metastasizing across government and corporate America like ideological tumors, were defunded. Wokeness, once a cultural juggernaut, is now a punchline.

    The military, gutted by social engineering and recruitment failures under Biden, is now over capacity. Credit belongs not only to President Trump’s message of strength and national pride, but also to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who moved swiftly to eliminate identity-based promotions and reinstate merit as the lodestar of advancement. Hegseth’s decision to end the inclusion of transgender individuals in combat roles and restore a focus on unit cohesion and battlefield readiness was met with predictable outrage from progressive quarters, but it worked. Military service is now admired again. Recruiters have lines out the door. The stars and stripes, once seen as fraught, are fashionable again. The American flag, once viewed with suspicion on elite campuses, is now trending in TikTok videos of patriotic Gen Z influencers. Coolness, that elusive cultural currency, has shifted.

    Internationally, Trump has turned the tide. China is back at the negotiating table, offering market access in exchange for tariff relief. For the first time in decades, Beijing blinked. Iran, isolated and bleeding economically, has returned to disarmament talks. The Abraham Accords have expanded to include Oman and Tunisia. Just today, Trump announced a new trade deal with the United Kingdom that will open British markets to American farmers, slash tariffs, and generate billions in revenue. It is the first of more than a dozen similar deals being negotiated with U.S. trading partners, all aimed at restoring prosperity and security to the American heartland. American prestige, once bartered away for UN resolutions and climate pledges, has been restored. Even the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church’s College of Cardinals seems to have acknowledged this new moral order.

    On May 8, 2025, for the first time in 2,000 years of Catholic history, an American was elected pope. The symbolism is staggering. For a Church whose demographic heart now beats in the Western Hemisphere, the election of an American Pontiff signals a new center of gravity. It is not just Rome that looks to America. It is the world.

    America’s 250th anniversary is now on the horizon. The semiquincentennial of 1776 looms not as a melancholy remembrance of faded glory, but as a celebration of resurgence. The events planned for 2026 reflect this. Trump has ordered a return to original principles: liberty, individual rights, national pride. Not apologies. Not guilt. Not equivocations. But more than that, he intends to use the anniversary as a global advertisement. A demonstration of American resolve. A reminder to our enemies that this is a nation of strength, unity, and enduring purpose. And a signal to our allies that America, once written off as declining or distracted, is once again the anchor of the free world. A nation built on the proposition that all men are created equal should not teach its children that they are born guilty because of their skin or their flag. Trump understands this, and his policies reflect it.

    Consider economics. In just over three months, Trump has attracted over $8 trillion in foreign investment back to American shores, revitalizing the heartland. Factories are reopening in Ohio, chip manufacturers are building plants in Texas, and manufacturing is surging with new, higher-paying jobs for American workers. Trump’s commitment to the American farmer is unwavering, with policies boosting agriculture, creating robust farming jobs, and safeguarding rural communities. AI and crypto, once fields dominated by offshore interests and regulatory chaos, are now firmly within American jurisdiction. His administration is protecting America’s supply chains from global threats, ensuring self-reliance in critical industries. Trump’s policy is clear: innovation without apology, regulation with reason, and a fierce dedication to bringing back manufacturing, mining, drilling, and farming. He is not afraid of technology or competition but is resolute against decay, acting decisively to secure prosperity for American workers and farmers.

    And yet, symbols matter. Culture matters. Which is why the upcoming twin spectacles of the FIFA World Cup and the Summer Olympics cannot be dismissed as fluff. Trump’s personal involvement in securing these events was not mere vanity. It was strategy. It was signal. During his first term, Trump courted FIFA President Gianni Infantino with unusual persistence. Infantino credited Trump’s enthusiasm as pivotal to the U.S. winning the bid. “You are part of the FIFA team now,” he said in the Oval Office. That statement, once treated as flattery, now seems prophetic.

    The 2026 World Cup will be the longest in history: 104 matches across 16 U.S. cities. It will not be a tournament. It will be a coronation. The same applies to the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. Trump personally engaged with the IOC before even taking office in 2016, offering federal guarantees for security and logistics. He met with IOC President Thomas Bach in 2017. The result? A winning bid. The message is clear: if America is back, it must also be seen. And what better global stage than the Olympics?

    Critics will scoff. They always do. They did in 2016. They did in 2020. They did in 2024. They were wrong every time. Trump’s critics have spent years arguing that he is a fluke, a menace, an aberration. What they have missed, and what they still refuse to see, is that Trump is not the outlier. He is the correction. He is the pendulum swinging back. And this time, it is not swinging timidly. It is swinging with force.

    What makes this era a golden age is not merely policy success or economic growth. It is coherence. It is the re-alignment of institutions with the people they purport to serve. It is the re-legitimization of patriotism. It is the death of the idea that to love one’s country is to be blind, or bigoted, or bitter. America, like Rome at its height, is asserting its identity not through conquest, but through clarity. Through excellence. Through example.

    The left has spent years insisting America was founded on sin, sustained by oppression, and systemically incapable of redemption. Trump has answered not with theory, but with action. He has rebuilt the house while others argued about whether it deserved to stand. And now, the house is full again. Full of workers. Full of industry. Full of flags. Full of hope.

    That is what a golden age looks like. And for the first time in a long time, the gold is real.

    Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

    Inside DOGE: Elon Musk’s Bold Move To Rewiring Federal Thinking

    By
    Alex Muse
    -
    1
    Screenshot via X [Credit: @amuse]

    In the history of American bureaucracy, few ideas have carried the sting of satire and the force of reform as powerfully as Steve Davis’s $1 credit card limit. It is a solution so blunt, so absurd on its face, that only a government so accustomed to inertia could have missed it for decades. And yet, here it is, at the center of a sprawling audit by the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, that has, in just seven weeks, eliminated or disabled 470,000 federal charge cards across thirty agencies. The origin of this initiative reveals more than cleverness or thrift. It reflects a new attitude, one that insists the machinery of government need not be calcified. The federal workforce, long derided as passive and obstructionist, is now being challenged to solve problems, not explain why they cannot be solved. This, more than any tally of dollars saved, may be DOGE’s greatest achievement.

    When Elon Musk assumed control of DOGE under President Trump’s second administration, he brought with him an instinct for disruption. But disruption, as many reformers have learned, is often easier said than done. Take federal credit cards. There were, as of early 2025, roughly 4.6 million active accounts across the federal government, while the civilian workforce comprised fewer than 3 million employees. Even the most charitable reading suggests gross redundancy. More cynical observers see potential for abuse. DOGE asked the obvious question: why so many cards? The initial impulse was to cancel them outright. But as is often the case in government, legality is not aligned with simplicity.

    Enter Steve Davis. Known for his austere management style and history with Musk-led enterprises, Davis encountered legal counsel who informed him that mass cancellation would breach existing contracts, violate administrative rules, and risk judicial entanglement. Most would stop there. But Davis, adhering to Musk’s ethos of first-principles thinking, chose another route. If the cards could not be canceled, could they be rendered functionally useless? Yes. Set their limits to $1.

    This workaround achieved in days what years of audits and Inspector General warnings had not. The cards remained technically active, sidestepping the legal landmines of cancellation, but were practically neutered. The act was swift, surgical, and reversible. It allowed agencies to petition for exemptions in cases of genuine operational need, but forced every cardholder and department head to justify the existence of each card. Waste thrives in opacity. The $1 cap turned on the lights.

    Naturally, the immediate reaction inside many agencies was panic. At the National Park Service, staff could not process trash removal contracts. At the FDA, scientific research paused as laboratories found themselves unable to order reagents. At the Department of Defense, travel for civilian personnel ground to a halt. Critics likened it to a shutdown, albeit without furloughs. Others, more charitable, described it as a stress test. And indeed, that is precisely what it was: a large-scale audit conducted not by paper trails and desk reviews, but by rendering all purchases impossible and observing who protested, why, and with what justification.

    This approach reflects a deeper philosophical question. What is government for? Is it a perpetuator of routine, or a servant of necessity? The DOGE initiative, in its credit card audit, insisted that nothing in government spending ought to be assumed sacred or automatic. Every purchase, every expense, must be rooted in mission-critical need. And for that to happen, a culture shift must occur, not merely in policy, but in mindset. The federal worker must no longer be an apologist for the status quo, but an agent of reform.

    Remarkably, this message has found traction. Inside the agencies affected by the freeze, DOGE has reported a surge in what one official described as “constructive dissent.” Civil servants who once reflexively recited reasons for inaction are now offering alternative mechanisms, revised workflows, and digital solutions. One employee at the Department of Agriculture proposed consolidating regional office supply chains after realizing that over a dozen separate cardholders were purchasing duplicative items within the same week. A NOAA field team discovered it could pool resources for bulk procurement, saving money and reducing redundancy. These are not acts of whistleblowing or radical restructuring. They are small, localized acts of efficiency, and they matter.

    Critics argue that these are marginal gains and that the real drivers of federal bloat lie elsewhere: entitlement spending, defense procurement, or healthcare subsidies. And they are not wrong. But they miss the point. DOGE’s $1 limit was not about accounting minutiae, it was about psychology. In a system where inertia reigns, a symbolic shock is often the necessary prelude to substantive reform. The act of asking why, why this card, why this purchase, why this employee, forces a reappraisal that scales. Culture, not just cost, was the target.

    There is a danger here, of course. Symbolism can become performance, and austerity can become vanity. If agencies are deprived of necessary tools for the sake of headlines, then reform becomes sabotage. This is why the $1 policy included an appeals process, a mechanism for restoring functionality where needed. In a philosophical sense, this is the principle of proportionality applied to public finance: restrictions should be commensurate with the likelihood of abuse, and reversible upon demonstration of legitimate need.

    DOGE’s broader audit, still underway, has now expanded to cover nearly thirty agencies. It is not simply cutting cards. It is classifying them, comparing issuance practices, flagging statistical anomalies, and building a federal dashboard of real-time usage. This is not glamorous work. There are no ribbon-cuttings, no legacy-defining achievements. But it is the marrow of good governance. As Aristotle noted, excellence is not an act, but a habit. The DOGE team has adopted a habit of scrutiny. And that habit, when instilled in the civil service, is a kind of virtue.

    Here we arrive at the most profound implication. What if the federal workforce is not inherently wasteful or cynical, but simply trapped in a system that rewards compliance over creativity? What if, when given both the mandate and the moral permission to think, civil servants become problem solvers? The $1 limit policy is, in this light, less a budgetary tool than a pedagogical one. It teaches. It asks employees to imagine how their department might function if every dollar mattered, and to act accordingly.

    In a bureaucratic culture where the phrase “we can’t do that” serves as both shield and apology, DOGE has introduced a new mantra: try. Try to find the workaround. Try to reimagine procurement. Try to do more with less. This shift may not register on a spreadsheet. It may not win an election. But it rehumanizes the federal workforce. It treats them not as drones executing policy, but as intelligent actors capable of judgment, reform, and even invention.

    The future of DOGE will no doubt face resistance. Unions, entrenched bureaucrats, and political opponents will argue it oversteps or misunderstands the delicate machinery of governance. Some of that criticism will be valid. But what cannot be denied is that DOGE has already achieved something rare: it has made federal workers think differently. It has shown that even the most byzantine of systems contains levers for change—if one is willing to pull them.

    The $1 card limit is not a policy; it is a parable. It tells us that in the face of complexity, simplicity is a virtue. That in the face of inertia, audacity has a place. And that in the face of sprawling bureaucracies, sometimes the best way to fix the machine is to unplug it and see who calls to complain. That is when the real work begins.

    Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

    READ NEXT: Federal Judge Blocks Hugely Popular Trump-Backed Reform

    Pope Francis Appoints Vocal Trump Critic As DC Archbishop In Provocative Leadership Move

    By
    Patrick Houck
    -
    3

    Pope Francis has named Cardinal Robert McElroy, a known advocate for migrants and outspoken critic of President-elect Donald Trump, as the new Archbishop of Washington, D.C. The decision underscores the pontiff’s preference for church leaders who align with his progressive vision, even as it risks further deepening ideological divisions within the millennia-old Catholic Church.

    Cardinal McElroy, recognized as a strong supporter of LGBTQ inclusion and other liberal causes, has consistently aligned with Pope Francis on key social and theological issues. His appointment was announced two weeks before Inauguration Day, conspicuous timing that drew widespread attention given the cardinal’s history of publicly criticizing Trump’s policies on immigration and social justice. This is particularly notable in light of McElroy’s emphasis on synodality (dialogue with one another in the presence of the Spirit of God) and church reform, which have drawn both praise and criticism from Catholic observers.

    The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    As Forbes’ Conor Murray reports, the move to elevate McElroy comes as a stark contrast to Trump’s nomination of Brian Burch as ambassador to Vatican City. Burch, a conservative Catholic activist and president of the right-leaning advocacy group CatholicVote, was instrumental in rallying Catholic support for Trump during the 2024 campaign. His organization has frequently clashed with the more progressive stances of Pope Francis and his allies:

    McElroy has largely slammed Trump because of his views on immigration, including his promise to conduct mass deportations. McElroy was one of 12 Catholic bishops from California who co-authored a statement last month voicing support for “our migrant brothers and sisters,” acknowledging the “calls for mass deportations and raids on undocumented individuals” have created fear in migrant communities. After Trump’s first election victory in 2016, McElroy called it “unthinkable” that Catholics would “stand by while more than ten percent of our flock is ripped from our midst and deported.” He called Trump’s mass deportation plan an “act of injustice which would stain our national honor” and compared it to Japanese interment and Native American dispossession. McElroy criticized Trump’s plan to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy in 2017 for lacking any “shred of humanity,” stating Jesus Christ was “both a refugee and an immigrant during his journey.”

    In a 2023 column for America magazine, McElroy urged greater welcoming of divorced and LGBTQ Catholics into the church, stating the church’s “disproportionate” focus on sexual activity as sin “does not lie at the heart” of a Christian’s relationship with God and “should change.” McElroy called it a “demonic mystery of the human soul why so many men and women have a profound and visceral animus toward members of the L.G.B.T. communities.” In a February 2024 speech, McElroy considered the lack of support among Catholics for blessing same-sex marriages to be the result of “enduring animus among far too many toward LGBT persons.” McElroy has also criticized abortion being considered a “de facto litmus test for determining whether a Catholic public official is a faithful Catholic.” McElroy, however, called Biden’s lack of support for anti-abortion legislation an “immense sadness” in a 2021 America magazine column, and called the overturning of Roe v. Wade a “day to give thanks and celebrate.”

    Burch, founder and co-president of CatholicVote, was once a Trump skeptic but praised him in 2020 for making a “concerted effort to reach out to Catholics in a way that we haven’t seen in the past.” That year, he authored the pro-Trump book, “A New Catholic Moment: Donald Trump and the Politics of the Common Good.” Burch has slammed Francis for “progressive Catholic cheerleading” and accused him of creating “massive confusion” over his approval of blessing same-sex marriages in 2023.

    Also on Monday, Francis appointed Sister Simona Brambilla, an Italian nun, to lead a Vatican office, making her the first woman to lead a major Vatican department. The department, the Dicastery for the Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, is responsible for religious orders. Francis has long voiced support for greater roles for women in the church, though he has ruled out ordaining women as deacons or priests.

    McElroy’s appointment also highlights Pope Francis’ broader engagement with U.S. politics. In 2024, the pontiff made headlines when he urged voters to carefully consider their choices, describing the act of voting as a moral responsibility. During a press conference aboard the papal plane, Francis remarked on the complexities of American politics, advising voters to choose “the lesser evil” when faced with challenging decisions.

    While the pope has criticized Trump’s hardline immigration policies, he has also expressed concern over Vice President Kamala Harris‘ unwavering support for abortion rights. Both stances, Francis noted, conflict with the Church’s teachings on the sanctity of life. “One must choose the lesser of two evils,” the pope reiterated. “Who is the lesser of two evils? That lady or that gentleman? I don’t know. Everyone with a conscience should think on this and do it.”

    Despite the pontiff’s cultural influence, his impact on American politics was negligible. In the 2024 presidential election, former President Donald Trump secured a notable share of the Catholic vote, surpassing his performance in previous campaigns. According to exit polls conducted by The Washington Post, Trump won the national Catholic vote by a 15-point margin, with 56% supporting him compared to 41% for Vice President Kamala Harris.

    This represents a notable shift compared to the 2020 election, where the Catholic electorate was nearly evenly split, with 50% supporting Trump and 49% favoring Joe Biden, a lifelong Catholic.

    In the 2016 election, Trump secured 52% of the Catholic vote, while Hillary Clinton received 45%.

    The 2024 election also saw variations within the Catholic demographic. Trump’s support among white Catholics increased, with 59% backing him compared to Harris’s 39%, a 20-point margin. This was an improvement over his 15-point lead in 2020.

    Marburg79, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    Among Latino Catholics, there was a significant shift toward Trump. In 2020, Biden led this group by a substantial margin, but in 2024, Trump’s support increased notably, contributing to his overall gains among Catholic voters.

    The appointment of McElroy is likely to spark further debate within the Church, where a widening schism between liberal and conservative leaders continue to grow. However, it also reflects Francis’ commitment to shaping the Church’s leadership in a way that emphasizes his vision for pastoral care and inclusivity, even at the expense of unity.

    Yet, in the United States, voting trends strongly suggest that Trump’s campaign strategies—including selecting Senator JD Vance, a Catholic, as his running mate, and making explicit appeals to Catholic voters—resonated with this demographic, contributing to increased GOP support in the 2024 election and possibly beyond.

    Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News.

    123...6Page 1 of 6
    © Great America News Desk 2022