Republican lawmakers are promoting a bill that would limit the power of district judges to impose nationwide injunctions.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., earlier this month introduced the “No Rogue Rulings Act“ (NORRA), which would curtail judges’ ability to make decisions that affect people outside their district.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., confirmed on social platform X that the legislation would come to the House floor next week.

No United States district court shall issue any order providing for injunctive relief, except in the case of such an order that is applicable only to limit the actions of a party to the case before such district court with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief from such district court,” the bill states.

Issa’s legislation came shortly before President Donald Trump demanded the removal of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who barred the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants.

“This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!” Trump said on Truth Social.

Issa’s bill has gained traction among several prominent Republicans, The Los Angeles Times reported.

“The injunctions are nothing more than partisan judicial overreach, and have disrupted the president’s ability to carry out his lawful constitutional duty,” Issa said when introducing NORRA in a House Judiciary Committee hearing, the Times reported.

“This has allowed activist judges to shape national policy across the entire country … something this Constitution never contemplated.”

Trump isn’t the only administration official to call out judges.

Elon Musk, who’s heading the Department of Government Efficiency, previously called for a “wave of judicial impeachments” against judges who blocked actions by DOGE to streamline the federal government.

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, last week introduced a resolution calling for Boasberg’s impeachment, claiming the judge abused his powers. Several other Republicans began preparing other impeachment articles against other judges, The Hill reported.

However, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., on Monday shrugged off calls by Trump and other lawmakers to impeach federal judges, Politico reported.

“Look, everything is on the table: Impeachment is an extraordinary measure. We’re looking at all the alternatives that we have to address this problem,” Johnson told reporters.

The speaker and House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, are considering other legislative tools to address the federal judiciary, including hearings in the Judiciary Committee to “highlight the abuses.”

Charlie McCarthy ✉

Charlie McCarthy, a writer/editor at Newsmax, has nearly 40 years of experience covering news, sports, and politics.

Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said on Fox News Monday that it’s time to curb the powers of activist district courts.

President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to accelerate the deportation of Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang members. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia, however, issued an injunction and required the Trump administration to bring back two planes of gang members on their way to El Salvador. During an appearance on “The Ingraham Angle,” Hawley said he was frustrated with the misuse of judicial authority through so-called nationwide injunctions.

“The key thing to do here, Laura, is to end the ability of these district courts to abuse their judicial authority by issuing these so-called nationwide injunctions,” Hawley told host Laura Ingraham. “I don’t think they have that authority, properly speaking, under the Constitution, Article III. What they’re doing is they’re purporting these judges, they’re purporting to go out, and to bind parties and individuals who aren’t before them [in their districts].”

Hawley said such actions exceed their constitutional authority.

We only have one Supreme Court that can bind the whole nation. District courts aren’t supposed to be able to do it, and yet President Trump has been subject already to 15 separate, so-called nationwide injunctions,” Hawley said. “In his first term, Laura, there were 64. We have never seen anything like this in American history. It’s incredibly abusive, and Congress ought to end it, and we can end it by just saying, ‘No nationwide injunctions by these district courts.’”

Hawley said this was unprecedented and highly abusive, urging Congress to intervene.

“The Constitution expressly gives to Congress the ability to create the lower courts. The lower courts are not in the Constitution, per se. Congress has the ability to create them, to govern them. I don’t believe that under Article III, these district courts even have the power to issue these nationwide injunctions,” Hawley said. “I think it’s abusive. And that’s why we ought to just say they can’t do it. Congress has the authority to govern them. We should say they do not have the power to issue injunctions nationwide, period. End of story, no more abuse.”

The continuous misuse of judicial powers by district courts, Hawley said, calls for a decisive response from Congress, not just to protect the presidency but to preserve the integrity of the judicial system.

“I noticed that the Democrats, just a few months ago, before the election of Donald Trump, were complaining bitterly about Republican-appointed judges issuing nationwide injunctions. So I had to say this. Let’s have a vote,” Hawley said. “They said they wanted to eliminate nationwide injunctions seven months ago. OK. Let’s do it. Let’s now give them the chance to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, and let’s vote on it. I think that this ought to be a no-brainer. Let’s stop the abuse. Here’s the thing. We’ve seen this before. You put judges into office. You think they’re going to be good. They drift left. Let’s take away the power of these judges to issue injunctions like this.”

Upon assuming office on Jan. 20, President Trump signed several executive orders aimed at curbing illegal immigration, designating Mexican drug cartels, TdA, and MS-13 as foreign terrorist organizations. Allegations have surfaced of TdA members engaging in the seizure of apartment complexes in Aurora, Colo., in addition to committing kidnapping and murder.

In response to the Trump administration’s policies, Democratic states and unions have consistently filed lawsuits, leading various judges to grant nationwide injunctions that stall these initiatives. In retaliation, Republican lawmakers are actively considering legislation that would prevent district judges from issuing nationwide blocks on certain executive orders.

DAILY CALLER, Mariane Angela

As President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk work to overhaul the federal government, they’re removing thousands of workers with insider knowledge and connections who now need a job.

For Russia, China and other adversaries, the upheaval in Washington as Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency restructures government agencies presents an unprecedented opportunity to recruit informants, national security and intelligence experts say.

Former federal workers with knowledge of or access to sensitive information could become targets. When large numbers leave their positions simultaneously, it creates both potential vulnerabilities and challenges for U.S. counterespionage efforts.

“This information is highly valuable, and it shouldn’t be surprising that Russia and China and other organizations — criminal syndicates for instance — would be aggressively recruiting government employees,” said Theresa Payton, a former White House chief information officer under President George W. Bush, who now runs her own cybersecurity firm.

Each year an average of more than 100,000 federal workers leave their jobs. Some retire; others move to the private sector. This year, in three months, the number is already many times higher.

It’s not just intelligence officers who present potential security risks. Many departments and agencies oversee vast amounts of data that include personal information on Americans as well as sensitive information about national security and government operations. Exiting employees could also give away helpful security secrets that would allow someone to penetrate government databases or physical offices.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative holds information on trade negotiations that could be valuable to adversaries. Federal records contain data on intelligence operations and agents, while Pentagon databases store sensitive information on U.S. military capabilities. The Department of Energy manages many of the nation’s key nuclear assets.

“This happens even in good times — someone in the intelligence community who for personal financial or other reasons walks into an embassy to sell America out — but DOGE is taking it to a whole new level,” said John Schindler, a former counterintelligence official.

“Someone is going to go rogue,” he said. “It’s just a question of how bad it will be.”

Only a tiny fraction of the many millions of Americans who have worked for the federal government have ever been accused of espionage. The vast majority are dedicated professionals committed to their work, Payton 

Background checks, employee training and exit interviews are all designed to prevent informants or moles — and to remind departing federal employees of their duty to preserve national secrets even after leaving federal service.

It takes only one or two misguided or disgruntled workers to cause a national security crisis. Former FBI agent Robert Hanssen and former CIA officer Aldrich Ames, who both spied for Russia, show just how damaging a single informant can be.

Hanssen disclosed information about American intelligence-gathering, including details that authorities say contributed to the exposure of U.S. informants in Russia, some of whom were later executed.

The odds that one former employee reaches out to a foreign power go up as many federal employees find themselves without a job, experts said. What’s not in doubt is that foreign adversaries are looking for any former employees they can flip. They’re searching for that one informant who could deliver a big advantage for their nation.

“It’s a numbers game,” said Schindler.

Frank Montoya Jr., a retired senior FBI official and former top U.S. government counterintelligence executive, said he was less concerned about well-trained intelligence community employees betraying their oaths and selling out to American adversaries. But he noted the many workers in other realms of government who could be targeted by Russia or China,

“When it comes to the theft of intellectual property, when it comes to the theft of sensitive technology, when it comes to access to power grids or to financial systems, an IRS guy or a Social Service guy who’s really upset about what DOGE is doing, they actually are the bigger risk,” Montoya said.

Once military and intelligence officials were the primary targets of foreign spies looking to turn an informant. But now, thanks to the massive amount of information held at many agencies, and the competitive edge it could give China or Russia, that’s no longer the case.

“We have seen over the last generation, the last 20–25 years, the Chinese and the Russians increasingly have been targeting non-national defense and non-classified information, because it helps them modernize their military, it helps them modernize their infrastructure,” Montoya said.

The internet has made it far easier for foreign nations to identify and recruit potential informants.

Once, Soviet intelligence officers had to wait for an embittered agent to make contact, or go through the time-consuming process of identifying which recently separated federal employees could be pliable. Now, all you need is a LinkedIn subscription and you can quickly find former federal officials in search of work.

“You go on LinkedIn, you see someone who was ‘formerly at Department of Defense now looking for work’ and it’s like, ‘Bingo,’” Schindler said.

A foreign spy service or scammer looking to exploit a recently laid-off federal worker could bring in potential recruits by posting a fake job ad online.

One particularly novel concern involves the fear that a foreign agent could set up a fake job interview and hire former federal officials as “consultants” to a fake company. The former federal workers would be paid for their expertise without even knowing they were supplying information to an enemy. Russia has paid unwitting Americans to do its business before.

Payton’s advice for former federal employees looking for work? It’s the same as her guidance for federal counterespionage officials, she said: “Be on high alert.”

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to questions about the risks that a former federal worker or contractor could sell out the country. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard recently announced plans to investigate leaks within the intelligence community, though her announcement was focused not on counterespionage concerns but on employees who pass information to the press or the public.

In a statement, the office said it would investigate any claims that a member of the intelligence community was improperly releasing information.

“There are many patriots in the IC that have reached out to DNI Gabbard and her team directly, explaining that they have raised concerns on these issues in the past but they have been ignored,” the office said. “That will no longer be the case.”

Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without 

When I was starting out as a Chicago City Hall reporter for that big metropolitan paper—when we could smoke in newsrooms on deadline, curse, tell jokes, laugh and wore jackets and ties to work—I had one rule.

I’d often discuss this rule with my political sources, elected officials, cops, city workers and others:

Lie to me just once, just once, and I’ll burn you to the ground.

It wasn’t an empty threat. Chicago politics wasn’t a cloistered convent. It was and remains a place of thieves protected by the laws and regulations that they themselves controlled. It is a Democrat Barter Town and like all such towns it is hell bent on strangling itself. And there was one top aide to the mayor who thought himself a master manipulator. Frank lied to me and I burned him.

I burned him repeatedly, mercilessly, using a line often attributed to the poet Richard Brautigan: “He’d sell a rat’s asshole to a blind man for a wedding ring.”

Political Chicago understood. He lied. But I would never use “asshole” in the paper. We had editors. So I adapted it to say Frank was the kind of weasel who’d sell dead rats on coat hangers to a blind man for earmuffs. His boss, the mayor, once asked me about the feud with Frank. He lied to me, I said. The mayor shrugged, said nothing more because he knew Frank.

I never spoke to Frank again, never trusted his word, even his allies were dead to me. He eventually left town. I think he’s a goatherd now.

It was necessary because an honest reporter can’t let such things go. And, because Chicago City Hall was and is the legendary epicenter of political lies and political corruption in Chicago. Even our reformers were crooked. One reform alderman who railed against the evils of prostitution was found by cops in the back of his car with a teen-aged girl, without his pants. Another reformer, a favorite of lakefront leftists who dubbed him the “conscience of the council” and “Mr. Clean” was sent to prison for tax fraud. The Chicago Police Department’s chief of detectives, lionized as a heroic cop by the papers, was in reality the mob’s paid man, the Chicago Outfit’s director of a nation-wide jewelry theft ring.

At least 30 Chicago aldermen have been convicted of corruption since 1973, most with high profile court cases. The most powerful crooks—like Ald. Ed Burke–controlled the agenda for decades and had bad judges in their pockets as hammers to enforce their will.

Investigative reporters–many of them liberals in the Democrat run cities–made handsome careers of Chicago corruption and learned these lessons well. One such reporter was Dean Baquet, who secured a Pulitzer Prize from an investigation of Chicago City Hall corruption and used that as a springboard to become editor of the New York Times.

Baquet was a good reporter and he loved fine suits and fancy silk neckties, but he had a habit of telling me about the novels of Marcel Proust. I should read Proust, he said to me as we were sitting near the City Desk. I stuck with Elmore Leonard.

But in the 21st Century an amazing thing happened to the media. Even as they mouthed their cliches about “speaking truth to power,” America’s corporate media began to openly revel at their participation in the power structure alongside their classmates and elites in the increasingly dominant managerial class. They became the willful tip of the spear for Deep State censorship and misinformation operations against populist challenges.

The Chicago political world was all about accountability not to the people, but to their fellow warlords. But the New York Times was accountable to no one.

Because of its dominant position in corporate journalism, the New York Times has never been held accountable. It leverages corporate media but has never taken responsibility for misinformation and malfeasance. The newspaper’s lies have been rewarded with dominant market position and those Pulitzer Prizes based on lies were wrapped adulation based on fear.

Far from its carefully nurtured Hollywood image as the fearless speaker of “truth to power,” the old gray lady is the newspaper of the Deep State and the American Kemalists who control and feed the Deep State.

But now, following abuses of journalism that have finally reached critical mass in the public consciousness, the New York Times has yet again become the object of ridicule by recently publishing a pathetic defense of its COVID coverage, misleading readers even as it bleats “We Were Badly Misled.”

You were misled? Really?

What’s left of real journalism couldn’t help but “pounce.”

No Amount Of Crocodile Tears Can Erase Corporate Media’s Complicity In Covid Scandal was a good take by The Federalist writer Jordan Boyd.

The Wall Street Journal’s James Freeman asked How Often Has the New York Times Been Misled?

The NYT hand-wringing was good entertainment, since the old gray lady participated in a series of Deep State coverups and the comeuppance is a feature of melodrama. The New York Post naturally took a chomp out of it.

The national economy was crippled, America’s public schoolchildren were closed out of school by leftist educators and other COVID hysterics, drained of opportunity so that cities will never recover, the Deep State actors led by the New York Times elevated Covidians like Fauci, fed into the cancel culture and silenced all those questioning the “established views” in direct contravention of established scientific practice.

The Times served as the secular prayer book for hysterical leftists in local and state governments who used the New York Times as leverage to shut businesses and close schools, and now and you’re misled?And what of the great journalism prizes where the Times pats itself on the back and puffs out its chest? There was the Walter Duranty Pulitzer that praised Stalin and covered up the famine that Stalin caused to murder tens of millions in Ukraine, to the recent New York Times Pulitzer damning President Donald Trump as an agent of Putin’s Russia in the “Russia Russia Collusion” stories based on a phony dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton.

And all were based on lies.

But will they ever return their phony Pulitzers? It doesn’t appear so.

The Times Pulitzer scandal continued as noted by Krystina Skurk in the Federalist” “New York Times Wins Another Pulitzer For Falsifying History.” And Mark Hemingway also of The Federalist offers this: “For Five Straight Years, The Pulitzer Prizes Have Rewarded Misinformation.”

The New York Times set a tone, from elevating President Obama to godlike status, to the scolding of anyone who would dare suggest that Joe Biden was non compos mentis though the world could see that the corrupt old man was descending into senility. Biden was propped up by the left and used as a figurehead, what historian Victor Davis Hanson refers to as a “waxen effigy.”

The New York Times was “misled” about COVID? Where are its insincere apologies for supporting the disastrous Iraq War? Years ago, I supported the Iraq War. I believed Iraq was a threat, as portrayed by the neo-conservatives who demanded an invasion. I was wrong. I repeatedly and publicly apologized for supporting the needless invasion that broke the Middle East.

Did the New York Times apologize? It waffled but did not apologize.

The litany stretches to hell. And that Hunter Biden laptop and the famed 51 American intelligence officials insisted bore “all the hallmarks” of Russian disinformation when it wasn’t Russian, but Hunter’s and on and on.

The New York Times brags that it contains “All the News That’s Fit to Print.”

But was the Deep State plot to change America’s foundational date to 1619 fit to print and distribute to America’s schoolchildren? No. It set America’s foundation in slavery rather than the liberty expressed by our Declaration of Independence of 1776. It fed into the canonization of the street thug George Floyd, and that led to violent Black Lives Matter riots in cities during the infamous “Summer of Love.”

The left is all about force and violence. Did the New York Times say it was misled about Hunter’s laptop and the “1619 Project” and on and on?

.

I’ve gone on for quite a bit here, but only to argue that the  left, holding the New York Times as their secular bible has told lies for partisan advantage that have been deeply corrosive, killing American institutions that our nation needs to function. All the lies have now metastasized. The cancer from the leftist agenda attacks the bones of the nation, our spiritual and civic infrastructure. The left’s extreme excesses during COVID are causing Americans to not trust public health officials during the next pandemic, with deadly results. Apply the same citizen suspicion to the criminal justice system and the law, trace the curve and understand it leads to civic death. “Ozymandias” is not just a sonnet written long ago to be marveled at by schoolboys. It is a warning.

Think of it this way. With its 1619 Project, its stilted reporting on Donald Trump and a myriad of other ways, the New York Times took the lead in gain-of-function manipulations of America’s civic DNA to produce the intended and easily predictable damage to the health of the American way of life.

The New York Times owes a loud apology to America or it will forever be likened to some babbling old man at the end of the bar as the rest of the nation moves on and ignores him.

We are now in the season of those grand Washington journalism dinners, journalism with a Capital J, of brunch at the Hay-Adams Hotel, and dinners at ballrooms where the correspondents wear white tie and tails, or sashes to distinguish themselves. I’ve been to these corporate legacy media dinners of self-congratulation, the journos and the politicians performing skits and musical ditties, entertaining themselves like monkeys dressed up in velvet suits.

But we’re Americans.

We are not the masses to be manipulated and herded down the chutes like cattle at the slaughterhouse stockyards. Real America is not a land of cunning eunuchs and courtiers spinning lies to destroy enemies with the knives to be held by other witless tools.

We’re Americans. The cowboy is our icon, the pioneer, the frontiersman, the visionary entrepreneur and the self-made man whose lingering existence is an affront, and a mortal threat to the dominance of the Deep State cowards.

The stables must be mucked out. Now. And no amount of moaning about the mucking process should obscure the fact that the health of the state itself requires it. Urgently.

The New York Times is as lost in its Acela Corridor provincialism as any isolated shepherd boy in the most remote valley of Kurdistan. It hates the America that most of us love and so many died for. In its offices and newsroom, The New York Times whispers into its sleeve like the politicos of old Chicago and Tammany.

It is the one-eyed jack of our broken politics. And we’ve seen the other side of its face.

(Copyright 2025 John Kass)

Good news for the people of Mississippi—lawmakers have finally removed the state income tax. Mississippi is now joins Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, Texas, and Wyoming in eliminating this excessive and predatory taxation practice.

The first income tax was created in 1861 during the Civil War as a mechanism to finance the war effort. In addition, Congress passed the Internal Revenue Act in 1862, which created the Bureau of Internal Revenue, an eventual predecessor to the IRS. The Bureau of Internal Revenue placed excise taxes on everything from tobacco to jewelry. However, the income tax did not last and was not renewed in 1872. In the Springer v. United States 102 US 586 (1881), the Supreme Court upheld the income tax.

The origin of the current income tax on individuals is generally cited as the passage of the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913. It was on June 16, 1909, President William Howard Taft, in an address to the Sixty-first Congress, proposed a two percent federal income tax on corporations by way of an excise tax and a constitutional amendment to allow the previously enacted income tax.

Once this Marxist concept of direct taxation was created, then the government must know everything we do, track us for it assumes we all cheat and lie, and in the process, it is hunting money globally to the point that world economic growth has been declining.

Those against Mississippi eliminating the income tax are proponents of big government. They are concerned that the lost revenue will hurt the public sector and low-income residents will be disproportionately burdened as other taxes are likely to rise. Yet, eliminating the income tax will directly lead to Mississippians receiving a larger take-home pay. Businesses, especially small businesses, end up taking on this tax as is passed through from entities to the individual owner who is unable reinvest those funds into his or her company. Businesses will now have the ability to become more competitive and attract a more desirable workforce.

The state has until 2037 to determine how to manage its budget without robbing its citizens and punishing workers. Income tax will fall from 4% to 3% in 2027 and then will see a 0.3% reduction until it is eliminated entirely.

Income tax is a relic of failed economic policies that governments refuse to abandon because it gives them direct control over the wealth of the people. When you tax income, you reduce incentives to work, invest, and innovate.

Governments use the tax as a reason to continue perpetual spending that always leads to deficits. States do not need this tax to function. States need to operate within their means to function without punishing the people for fiscal mismanagement.

Martin Arm

President Donald Trump’s administration brought its bid to purge the federal workforce to the Supreme Court on Monday, challenging a judicial directive to rehire thousands of fired government employees.

The Justice Department asked the high court to block a March 13 order by San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge William Alsup for six federal agencies to reinstate thousands of probationary — meaning recently hired — employees dismissed as part of Trump’s campaign to downsize and reshape the government.

The judge faulted the administration for improperly terminating en masse the probationary workers and cast doubt on the justification presented by the government that the firings were the result of poor employee performance.

Probationary workers typically have less than one year of service in their current roles, though some are longtime federal employees serving in new roles. They have fewer job protections than other government workers, but in general can be fired only for poor job performance.

The actions by the judge represented a significant blow for a high-profile effort by Trump and billionaire adviser Elon Musk to drastically shrink the federal bureaucracy.

Unions, nonprofit groups and the state of Washington claimed that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management exceeded its authority for the mass firings. Alsup, an appointee of Democratic former President Bill Clinton, agreed.

“It is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” Alsup said at a hearing.

Alsup’s ruling applied to probationary employees at the Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior and Treasury departments.

© 2025 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

Newsom’s idea of problem-solving is to trot out the progressive platitudes and boring bromides of the Left Coast elite.

The following is an excerpt from the new book, Fool’s Gold: The Radicals, Con Artists, and Traitors Who Killed the California Dream and Now Threaten Us All.

One crisp autumn day in 2023, residents of San Francisco awoke to find their city transformed. Almost overnight, the city by the bay had become virtually unrecognizable. Street corners and plazas previously crowded with homeless encampments and open-air drug markets were clear, and the trash heaps, piles of feces, tainted needles, soiled mattresses, and ragged tents were gone. Storefront windows that had long been boarded shut now shone. All the crude graffiti, scummy debris, and filth were replaced with painted murals, brand-new flower boxes, and colorful new crosswalk markings. Freshly pressure-washed sidewalks — the forgotten pathways through the city — now gleamed.

After decades of failure and $24 billion squandered in the previous five years on statewide strategies aimed at ending homelessness, San Franciscans witnessed a bona fide miracle: their city (or at least the downtown) was golden once again. Perhaps most shocking of all, the homeless population had vanished, and no one seemed to know where they went. How could a problem that plagued authorities for decades be solved overnight?

The closer that residents looked, the more unsettling the answer became: large concrete barricades and steel fences had been erected downtown, and the formidable police presence could best be described as a “shock and awe” campaign. Stranger still were the cheering crowds waving giant Chinese flags on long poles while acrobats and Chinese dance troupes performed on the sidewalks. Hundreds of blood-red lanterns were strung above the streets.

And it was certainly ironic that the leader who unabashedly touted the cleanup of San Francisco that day, Gov. Gavin Newsom, was the very same career politician who had failed the city for so long. Chinese President Xi Jinping was there for the Asian-​Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit held at the St. Regis Hotel on Nov. 10, 2023. And Newsom was locked in, ready to prove he was a serious player on the global stage. His lucrative and long-standing business relationships with Chinese apparatchiks gave him an affinity for China that most politicians do not possess.

As Chinese Premier Xi Jinping’s rocket-proof armored vehicle made its way through the freshly cleaned streets of San Francisco to the St. Regis Hotel, throngs of pro-Beijing activists heralded his arrival. As it happened, the activists were United Front operatives on the payroll of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and had been bused in from their stations embedded across the United States. In Newsom’s California, the paid CCP foot soldiers assaulted American human rights activists protesting Xi’s arrival with impunity.

Critics mocked Newsom’s preparation for Xi, calling it a “convenient scurryfunge,” and likened it to frenzied teens rushing to clean up after a house party before the parents returned. Newsom admitted as much. “I know folks say, ‘Oh, they’re just cleaning up this place because all those fancy leaders are coming into town,’ that’s true,” he said, “because it’s true.”

So, the streets were sanitized, but where did all the criminals, drug addicts, illegal migrants, and homeless people go? Did the cleanup also magically lift them from their predicaments? Of course not. It turned out that, on Newsom’s orders, most of them were merely rounded up by police and herded, like cattle in a rotational grazing loop, to other parts of the city.

The transformation of San Francisco was so striking, not because of how sudden it was, but because of who Gavin Newsom is. For more than twenty years, Newsom claimed that he was trying to fix the problems of crime, drugs, and homelessness in San Francisco and across the state. And on his watch, those problems only got worse. Why? Because, under ordinary circumstances, Newsom cannot fix those problems. His ideology prevents him from doing what is necessary.

At his core, Newsom embodies the sinister progressive vision that has seeped outward from California and now threatens every American, whether they live in the cities, suburbs, or even remote rural locations. The progressive vision for America maintains that crime should be made legal; jails should be emptied; dangerous drugs should be freely available; borders should be opened; illegal aliens should be given amnesty and free health care and interest-free loans.

More than any current politician, Newsom has executed the progressive vision across his city and state with swiftness and precision. Every problem he encounters, Newsom addresses in typical performative progressive fashion: convene a commission, appoint a czar, hold a press conference, and ultimately, just throw more money at it. The result of his decades-long reign in California has been abject failure.

Compounding Newsom’s ruthless drive to enact the failed progressive vision is his boundless and selfish ambition. Despite his policy failures, he has amassed personal success, thus incentivizing his current course. For an unimaginative political creature who sprang from the loins of California’s corrupt Democratic establishment, Newsom’s first response to a problem has always been to trot out the progressive platitudes and boring bromides of the Left Coast elite. It’s pure reflex.

Newsom has learned that actually solving problems is not necessary for personal success in a one-​party progressive state like California, where an endless geyser of bad policy spews forth schemes of extreme permissiveness and dysfunction. For Newsom’s political opponents desperate to tackle the perennial problems of crime, drugs, and homelessness, Newsom’s enforced leniencies are not just policy failures; they are existential crises as criminals inevitably gravitate toward his sanctuaries of lawlessness.

Progressives identify innumerable “root causes” for crime and homelessness, including some combination of economic factors, racism, predatory capitalism, mental illness, drug addiction, broken families, illegal immigration, climate change, or even all the above. Newsom’s solutions have nothing to do with the problems. In fact, progressive policies tend to mask the problems, at best, and more often make them worse.

Newsom and his Left Coast mentors did not only spawn the failed progressive vision for America. They also abetted the infiltration of America by the CCP, which is now waging unrestricted warfare against US citizens via fentanyl, TikTok, intellectual property theft, massive hacking enterprises, subversion in academia, social unrest, and other methods of what our adversaries in Beijing call “disintegration warfare.

McFadden and Crabtree, The Federalist

By J.B. Shurk

“This town is now as nervous as it’s ever been.”  That’s Congressman Chip Roy’s assessment of the mood in Washington, D.C., since President Trump’s return to the White House.  It’s one of several dozen refreshingly blunt descriptions of American politics in Ned Ryun’s new documentary based on his book, American Leviathan.  The documentary is available to anyone with an Internet connection, and it is nothing short of a declaration of war on the administrative state.

I highlighted Ryun’s book when it came out last September for several reasons.  First, it is a remarkably clear description of the ideas, people, and events that led us to this unique moment in history — when the inevitable clash between the authoritarian bureaucracy and the constitutional Republic has come to a head.  There was nothing “natural” about this process.  The vast and unaccountable administrative state did not arise from the U.S. Constitution; it is a repudiation of the Constitution.  The unelected bureaucracy does not reflect the wishes of the American people; it is the polar opposite of representative government.  No matter how many propagandists defend Big Government as “our Democracy,” the ever-growing Leviathan is thoroughly authoritarian in disposition.  It jealously guards its expanding powers and despises American citizens who insist that legitimate government comes only from the consent of the people.  It is such an unnatural beast that it must spy on Americans, censor their speech, and intimidate them into submission merely to maintain control.  The administrative state is “government by coercion” and the antithesis of limited government and individual liberty.

Second, Ryun is a rather unique political operative in that he “walks the walk” every bit as much as he “talks the talk.”  He is an effective warrior when it comes to getting Republicans elected, but he is also a tireless critic of the Deep State.  Those qualities are often mutually exclusive in high-stakes American politics where a person’s clout is usually directly proportional to his willingness to sell out personal principles.  Washington’s political machine — the Frankensteinian monstrosity composed of equal parts malevolent bureaucracy, corporate blackmail, academic blacklisting, news media gatekeeping, Intelligence Community skulduggery, and rank influence peddling — tends to scoop up “true believers” and recondition them into compliant cogs of the permanent government’s hive-mind, collectivist “Borg.”  Ryun is a rare political player who refuses to be “assimilated” or transformed into another D.C. “drone.”

Lastly, I wanted readers to mentally prepare for what would happen after President Trump won in November.  There were fifty days between the publication of Ryun’s American Leviathan and Trump’s victory, and while those crucial days required all of our efforts to make sure that he would, in fact, be re-elected, I knew that we would have no time to waste once he succeeded.  That’s where Ryun’s efforts really stand out.  His book is meant (1) to wake up those who have been sleeping during the century-long transformation of the American Republic into a tyrannical bureaucracy, (2) to re-energize those who have been fighting the good fight for most of their lives, and (3) to lay out the blueprint for restoring the Republic and destroying the Deep State.  I wanted readers to spend time before the election thinking about what would come next because winning was only “Step One” of a much larger operation. 

Something that should be clear six months after American Leviathan came out in print is that President Trump and his closest advisors have long been preparing for this war against the administrative state.  They weren’t just running a political campaign the last few years; they’ve been planning their return to Washington, D.C., in meticulous detail.  From the moment the news media cartel was forced to announce Trump’s victory, those plans became active operations.  Critical personnel choices were announced.  Executive orders were finalized.  Litigation strategies were put into motion.  It is no coincidence that many of Ryun’s recommendations for “slaying Leviathan” are now official White House policy.  The Trump administration embraces American Leviathan’s proposition that the only way to save the Republic is to disembowel the unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy.  

While Ryun’s book is an excellent resource for American minds desperate to break free from a century of bureaucratic hypnosis and Deep State conditioning, his documentary provides a kind of real time snapshot of the Trump administration’s ongoing “Leviathan hunt” today.  Among many interesting contributors to the film, Congressman Roy and Senators Jim Banks, Rick Scott, and Marsha Blackburn offer insightful perspectives regarding Trump’s impact on Establishment Washington, and Jeff Clark, Mike Davis, Steve Cortes, Bradley Watson, and Rachel Bovard provide excellent analysis of the many conflicts playing out publicly today.  Every speaker is strikingly candid about where all this is heading — a showdown between two incompatible systems of government from which only one may survive.

Senator Banks says plainly that the Deep State’s animus toward President Trump originates with the “three most dangerous words” he uttered during the 2016 campaign: “Drain the Swamp.”  As soon as then-candidate Trump identified the administrative state as not only an affront to the U.S. Constitution but also a threat to the American Republic, he became public enemy number one for the bureaucratic “blob.”  The Russia collusion hoax, the Mueller Inquisition, the farcical impeachments, the endless lawfare, and the ridiculous investigatory witch-hunts all arose because Donald Trump directly attacked institutions that have governed almost absolutely for over a century while avoiding serious public 

In front of huge crowds, Trump called out agencies and bureaucrats by name and promised to rein in their out-of-control harassment of the American people.  The administrative state, having long exercised the constitutionally delegated powers of the Executive Branch while thumbing its nose at the elected president, correctly worried that Trump would reclaim legitimate Executive authorities that it had illegitimately usurped decades ago.  For a hundred years, America’s permanent ruling class has operated a state within a state in which the president is treated mostly as a figurehead and recognized as “chief executive” in name only.  In this absurd “Bizarro World” where low-level bureaucrats are quasi-kings and the three branches of government retain meager residual powers, the Constitution is a document that just gets in the Deep State’s way.

In Ryun’s documentary, Congressman Roy pulls no punches against the administrative state while laying well-deserved blame at the feet of lawmakers.  In lauding Elon Musk’s work to expose and eliminate government waste, fraud, and abuse, Roy says the American people have to hold Congress accountable.  “Because you’ve been searching for the enemy, and the enemy is right in front of you.  It is us.  It is Congress.  We’re the ones that continue to fund the very things” that enable the Deep State.  “We’re begging you to save us because we’re that bad.”  That’s a rather direct plea from a sitting congressman for the American people to rise up and demand an end to America’s unconstitutional bureaucracy.  In calling for the “slashing and burning” of Leviathan, Roy argues that DOGE shouldn’t stand for the Department of Government Efficiency but rather the Department of Government Elimination.  That’s a theme throughout 

ther theme is that Americans can win this war against the administrative state.  Rachel Bovard acknowledges how difficult it is for any country that has gone so far down the path of bureaucratic tyranny to survive.  But then she notes, “Every day this country does something that no-one has ever seen before in the history of the world.  If there is anyone who can shake off the shackles of bureaucratic statism, it’s us.  It’s America.”  

As Ryun says at the end of both his book and documentary, the solution is simple: “Break the State.  Drain the Swamp.  Restore the Republic.”  In a hundred years, there has never been a better time.

Back in the Vietnam War era, many protesters on college campuses were proud Democrats who chanted slogans about “peace” and “love.” They flashed the peace sign and railed about the war and police brutality while professing support for “free speech.”

Never mind that the Vietnam War was escalated by a Democrat President and ended by a Republican President, these protesters claimed that they were “non-violent” and that the federal government, and especially Republican politicians, were trying to limit their freedoms.

Flash forward to today and the political world has totally changed. Democrats have become the pro-war party. For example, the only part of President Donald Trump’s recent speech to Congress that Democrats applauded was his statement about support for Ukraine. Under President Joe Biden, nothing was done to end the war in Ukraine, only prolong it.

Democrats hate President Trump’s outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin and his attempts to end the Ukraine war. They continually slander President Trump and claim he is “Putin’s puppet.” Of course, the truth is the antithesis of these ludicrous charges by warmonger Democrats. No President has been tougher toward Russia than Trump. The difference is that Trump wants peace and Democrats do not.

Trump has been a lightning rod for unhinged Democrats since the day he descended the golden escalators and announced his first presidential campaign. The epidemic of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” has never subsided.

In the 2016 campaign, there were multiple instances of violent Democrats attacking Trump supporters at his rallies across the country. In the 2020 campaign, leftists attacked police, burned buildings, and committed detestable violence in the “summer of love,” which was inspired by the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

One of those incidents occurred in Washington D.C. after President Trump delivered his acceptance speech for the Republican Party’s 2020 presidential nomination. A mob of leftwing protesters surrounded many Trump supporters, including U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and his wife.

Paul said the angry mob was “shouting threats to us, to kill us, to hurt us.” He claimed the mob represented “the new Democrat Party.” Paul credited Metropolitan Washington D.C. police officers for protecting his wife and him and saving their lives.

Sadly, unprovoked leftwing violence has only gotten worse in recent years and is reaching an apex today. Violent Democrats who hate unpaid Trump adviser and billionaire businessman Elon Musk have started attacking Tesla dealerships and destroying individual vehicles owned by average Americans. This violence has been the subject of jokes by leftwing celebrities, such as late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel.

It has become so dangerous that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has issued a public service announcement to warn Americans “of nationwide incidents—arson, gunfire, and vandalism targeting Tesla EVs, dealerships, and charging stations in 9+ states, linked to political grievances.” The warning also urges Americans to display “vigilance and awareness around Tesla locations.”

Fortunately, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has announced charges against several individuals involved in the Tesla attacks, calling them incidents of “domestic terrorism.”

Musk is flummoxed by the intense hatred. In a Fox News interview, he called his enemies “deranged” and claimed it must be “some kind of mental illness.” In fact, Musk is facing the type of crazed opposition that Trump has dealt with since he launched his presidential campaign in 2015.

The hate directed at Musk is not just from lunatic protesters or lame late-night “comedians,” he is also being assailed by Democratic Party “leaders,” such as former New York Congressman Jamaal Bowman, who labeled the billionaire a “Nazi” during a recent CNN interview. In response, Musk said, “I’ve had enough. Lawsuit inbound.”

Bowman is not alone as former Democratic Party Vice Presidential candidate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, recently threatened violence against Trump supporters. On a podcast with California Governor Gavin Newsom, Walz claimed that “I could kick most of their a…”

Not to be outdone, leftwing commentator Sunny Hostin, co-host of ABC’s The View, said that Democrats are at “an existential crisis right now. We need to meet energy with energy…Let’s fight them the way they fight.”

Well, Sunny, Republicans are not burning down cities or attacking car dealerships. Republicans are not engaging in hateful behavior like the employee of the Chatterbox Jazz club in Indianapolis. On March 14, a club employee threatened a Trump supporter with a baseball bat and threw the patron out of the establishment. Her crime was being “a Trump supporter” who proudly wore “a Trump hat” inside the club.

Another tactic of the left is “swatting,” which targets the homes of conservative media personalities. In these despicable cases, in which at least 12 have occurred in recent weeks, a hoaxer calls

the local police department with a phony claim of distress or violence inside the home. The police respond, expecting to find a potential hostage situation or crime of violence. Instead, they wake up an innocent conservative media personality who may be mistakenly injured or killed in the encounter.

This is not occurring to MSNBC hosts or leftwing podcasters, as conservatives are targeted in these types of dangerous incidents. FBI Director Kash Patel said that his agency is investigating these events, which he labels “morally reprehensible” and vows “will not be tolerated.”

There have been few Democrats denouncing the “swatting” episodes or the attacks on Tesla dealerships. Instead, many Democrats are upset at their party leaders for not doing enough to stop the Trump agenda.

One leading Democrat, one of the party’s biggest stars and a potential U.S. Senate or presidential candidate, is Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). She represents the anger of many Democrats today. In a recent speech, she called for a Democratic Party that will “brawl for the working class” and “fights harder for us.”

At rallies nationwide, Ocasio-Cortez is receiving tremendous support from Democrats who do not want bi-partisan legislation or cooperation with President Trump. They desire confrontation, but, sadly, too many disturbed Democrats have gone beyond political debate and turned to violence.

Jeff Crouere