Category: Politics

  • This “Beautiful Bill”? A Recipe for Disaster.

    This “Beautiful Bill”? A Recipe for Disaster.

    The recent unveiling of the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” demands a critical eye, not a rubber stamp, especially from those who champion fiscal responsibility and effective governance. While packaged with appealing promises, a closer look reveals a proposal that misses the mark on several fundamental issues and unwisely bundles disparate policies into a take-it-or-leave-it behemoth.

    Let’s start with the much-touted tax cuts. The claim of putting more money in Americans’ pockets rings hollow when we consider the crushing weight of our national debt. As Rep. Thomas Massie has rightly pointed out, the annual federal interest burden alone equates to losing a full IRA for every citizen. This doesn’t even factor in the hidden tax of inflation, exacerbated by out-of-control spending and unfunded liabilities in states like California, which silently devalues every dollar we earn. Barking up the “tax cut” tree while the fiscal house is on fire is a distraction. Frankly, many Americans would likely pay more in taxes if it meant a serious crackdown on rampant fraud. Where are the arrests? We see endless talk, perhaps even obscure “DOGE research” initiatives, yet tangible results in holding fraudsters accountable are conspicuously absent. This needs to change.

    (more…)
  • Deconstructing the “Buy American Exclusively” Mandate & Hypocrisy Accusation

    Mark Cuban said on April 13, 2025 that “I don’t care who you are. If you are complaining we need tariffs to bring manufacturing and jobs to the USA, and you don’t buy American EXCLUSIVELY , YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE You want to bring manufacturing back, lead by example and get friends and family to do the same”.

    He was trying to be anti-Trump. This article refutes all this bullshit.

    1. “Complaining” vs. Strategic Threat Mitigation.

    The premise incorrectly labels advocacy for domestic manufacturing/tariffs as mere “complaining.” The primary driver, particularly regarding specific sectors (ref: Section 232 – steel, aluminum, etc.), is national security. This involves mitigating strategic dependencies on potentially adversarial nodes in the global supply network. Framing this as complaining ignores the documented risk assessment driving these policy considerations.

    (more…)
  • The MADC ‘Defense Pact’: A Playbook for Evading Accountability

    Universities, nudged by faculty groups and unions primarily within the Big Ten, are floating a plan for a “Mutual Academic Defense Compact” (MADC). The idea is to create an alliance where member schools pool resources to defend each other against what they term “political attacks.” While presented as a shield for academic freedom and institutional autonomy, the MADC looks more like a coordinated strategy to sidestep accountability to elected governments, taxpayers, and the public, particularly regarding controversial programs and policies.

    Breaking Down the Goals: A Pattern of Evasion

    Examining the stated aims reveals a consistent thread of trying to avoid oversight and consequences:

    1. “Collective Defense”: This isn’t about protection in the usual sense. It’s about creating a shared war chest—funded by tuition, endowments, or potentially taxpayer money—to fight back against governmental investigations, audits, or legislative actions. It’s a mechanism designed explicitly to resist accountability measures imposed by elected bodies.
    2. “Resisting Political Interference”: This frequently serves as code for resisting laws, regulations, and oversight that university administrations or faculty dislike. It suggests an attempt to operate outside the normal democratic process where institutions are subject to political (i.e., governmental) direction, especially public universities. Shielding specific research agendas or programs, like contested DEI initiatives, from scrutiny under the guise of fighting “interference” is a direct dodge of public and governmental accountability.
    3. “Protect Academic Freedom”: While crucial, this principle can be misused. In the context of the MADC, there’s a risk it becomes a justification for insulating specific, often left-leaning, ideological viewpoints or controversial scholarship from legitimate criticism and external review, thereby evading intellectual and public accountability.
    4. “Support Vulnerable Communities / Uphold DEI”: The push to use pact resources to defend DEI programs is particularly telling. These programs face significant legal challenges and public criticism as discriminatory, promoting division, and chilling speech. The MADC aims to provide a financial and legal shield to prevent these programs from facing accountability through courts or legislatures, essentially using collective power to protect contested initiatives from consequences.
    5. “Mitigate Financial Pressure”: This goal is perhaps the most blatant attempt to avoid accountability. If a university faces funding cuts due to legislative decisions, declining enrollment, or public disapproval of its policies, the MADC seeks to use funds from other (potentially out-of-state) universities to cushion the blow. This undermines the basic principle that institutions should be accountable for the consequences of their actions and policies, including financial ones.
    (more…)
  • SPECIAL REPORT, PART II: The TikTok Betrayal: Beyond the Trojan Horse, The Rot Within

    SPECIAL REPORT, PART II: The TikTok Betrayal: Beyond the Trojan Horse, The Rot Within

    While the first report detailed the overt threat of TikTok as a weapon of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), this second analysis drills deeper into a more insidious danger: the rot within our own institutions that has allowed this threat to fester. The story of TikTok is not just one of foreign aggression, but of domestic failure, political cowardice, and a legal system that has been twisted to protect the adversary. This is a chronicle of the swamp’s self-preservation at the expense of American security.

    The Political Uni-Party and the Propaganda Machine

    The most glaring hypocrisy in the fight against TikTok comes from the very politicians who should be our first line of defense. The Republican and Democratic parties, in their lust for votes, have proven themselves to be two wings of the same Uni-Party, willing to engage with the enemy for political gain.

    • Biden’s Betrayal: Why in the Hell would a sitting U.S. President use a CCP-controlled application? The “Biden-Harris HQ” TikTok account is a slap in the face to the entire U.S. intelligence community. We are told it is run by campaign aides, not the President himself, which is an irrelevant distinction. The account, with its hundreds of thousands of followers, legitimizes the platform and signals to our enemies that our leaders are not serious about the national security threat. We must ask: was the campaign paid? What data is being collected on the American citizens who follow and interact with this account? It is a staggering display of political malpractice.
    • Government-Sponsored Propaganda: The “No TikTok on Government Devices Act,” buried in a massive appropriations bill, was a weak and performative gesture. Why did it require the Office of Management and Budget to “establish deadlines” for removal? The ban should have been instantaneous. The real question is why these apps were on government devices in the first place. A search reveals a shocking list of U.S. agencies that maintained large TikTok accounts, effectively using a CCP platform to conduct government outreach. The TSA, the National Parks Service, and numerous state-level agencies built substantial followings, normalizing the app and handing the CCP a direct pipeline to American citizens under a veneer of officialdom.
    • The Apology of Jeff Jackson: Look no further than Rep. Jeff Jackson of North Carolina for a profile in political cowardice. After voting for the ban, he posted a now-infamous “apology video” to his massive TikTok following, explaining why he voted the way he did. This act of appeasing a digital mob, potentially inflated by foreign bots, over his duty to national security is contemptible. How does a representative from North Carolina, not a media hub like LA or NYC, amass such a following? How is follower authenticity or monetization even verified by TikTok? This entire ecosystem stinks of fraud, a problem Apple and Google refuse to address, even as new legislation against fake app store activity is debated.
    • The Chinese Embassy in the Halls of Congress: It is a fact that representatives from the Chinese embassy met directly with U.S. congressional staffers to lobby against this bill. This is not normal diplomacy; it is an act of hostile influence. For a foreign adversary to walk the halls of our government and directly pressure our lawmakers is an outrage reminiscent of a spy thriller. This practice, while technically legal, is part of a pattern of corruption that has been allowed to fester in the post-9/11 era, where foreign money and influence have become commonplace in Washington D.C.
    (more…)
  • SPECIAL REPORT: The Case for a Complete and Total Ban of TikTok in the USA

    SPECIAL REPORT: The Case for a Complete and Total Ban of TikTok in the USA

    Introduction: A Clear and Present Danger

    The ongoing debate surrounding TikTok is not merely about a social media application; it is about national sovereignty, the security of our citizens’ data, and the integrity of our democratic discourse. For too long, the conversation has been muddled by half-measures, corporate-speak, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the adversary we face. The passage of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) was a necessary first step, but it is not the final solution. Current and past efforts to mitigate the threat posed by TikTok are, and have always been, ineffective at addressing the underlying security concerns. The time for divestment negotiations and technical firewalls has passed. TikTok, a tool of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), must be banned entirely from the United States.

    The Corporate Shell Game: A Deliberate Deception

    To understand the TikTok threat, one must first dismantle the complex and deliberately opaque corporate structure of its parent company, ByteDance.

    • Cayman Islands and Delaware: Havens of Obscurity: ByteDance is not a simple tech company; it is incorporated in the Cayman Islands, a jurisdiction notorious for financial secrecy. This is not an accident. It is a calculated move to obscure ownership and evade American oversight, a direct contradiction to the “America First” principles our nation must embody. Furthermore, its U.S. entity, TikTok Inc., is registered in Delaware, a state with notoriously lax corporate transparency laws, and the home state of President Biden, a fact that should raise serious questions. This is the opposite of the patriotic move made by Truth Social, which reincorporated from Delaware to Florida, demonstrating a commitment to transparency and American values.
    • The “Global Investor” Myth: We are told that 60% of ByteDance is owned by “global institutional investors.” This is a classic globalist talking point designed to lull us into a false sense of security. It is a distraction. The critical issue is not the 60%, but the controlling interest and influence wielded by the CCP. This “globalist” structure ensures that American interests will always be subjugated.
    • The “Golden Share”: A Dagger at the Heart: The most damning evidence of CCP control lies in the 1% “golden share” held by WangTouZhongWen Technology, an entity backed by the China Internet Investment Fund, in a key ByteDance subsidiary. This is not a trivial stake; it grants the CCP a board seat and direct influence over the company’s operations. This structure is a blatant power grab. No American company would tolerate a foreign adversary holding such a position. It is an insult to our national intelligence to suggest this is anything but direct state control.
    (more…)