On Thursday, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears (R-Va.) attended a school board meeting in Arlington County, Va., where she spoke during public comment about the school system’s transgender bathroom and locker room policies.
She said:
“Here’s the truth: there are two sexes, boys and girls, and for generations we’ve understood this, that they deserve their own sports teams, their own locker rooms, their own bathrooms. That’s not discrimination, it is common sense. But here in Arlington, the trust between parents and schools is being broken.
When girls lose their privacy, when boys are punished for speaking plain truth, when parents are silenced for simply asking questions, that’s not education, that’s indoctrination. You are one of the five NOVA school districts who have been found in violation of Title IX.
Title IX was written to protect biological girls’ spaces and opportunities on the basis of biological sex, not gender identity. And by refusing to reverse your reckless policies, you are failing our daughters and risking losing millions of dollars in funding our children. This is not theoretical.”
A group of protesters had gathered outside the meeting to demonstrate in favor of letting boys into girls’ spaces and endangering young women. My Townhall colleague Corey Inganamort confronted some of them; one protester blew on a whistle and revealed herself to be the most annoying human being on the planet.
Earle-Sears appeared on Fox & Friends on Friday to address the controversy:
This is nonsense. And my opponent will not come forward and say anything. And then last night, you saw that they equated bathroom opportunities with me being Black in America. And here I am, second-in-command in– of the– a former capital of the Confederacy. Me, the immigrant, whom they say, as Democrats, they love more than anybody. Me, a black woman who they say they love, as Democrats, more than anybody. This is insane.
The idea that a black woman could run for governor in the state that was the capital of the Confederacy is testimony to the promise of freedom that America offers. And her opponents meet her with abject racism.
Earle-Sears’ opponent, Abigail Spanberger, didn’t address the issue until nearly lunchtime on Friday.
Anytime a Democrat says that Republicans want to put black people back in chains or bring back Jim Crow, we should respond by showing them that sign. It’s time to throw their true colors back in their faces.
Democrats love to accuse Republicans of wanting to drag America back into Jim Crow, but when push comes to shove, it’s their own activists who spew the ugliest racism. Just ask Virginia Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears.
Her response? Calm, strong, and rooted in truth.
That’s the kind of clarity and courage the media won’t give you. PJ Media will. Join us today for 60% off with the code FIGHT — because exposing the Left’s hypocrisy takes more than headlines. It takes a movement.
Chris Queen is an editor and columnist at PJ Media. He’s a UGA alum (#DGD), a fan of anything involving his beloved Georgia Bulldogs, and an amateur Disney historian. He’s a Certified Bourbon Steward, but that doesn’t make him a bourbon snob.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Tuesday that he believes President Donald Trump is prepared to “crush” Russia’s economy with a new wave of sanctions if Russian President Vladimir Putin refuses to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the coming weeks.
Graham, who spoke with Trump on Tuesday morning, has pushed the president for months to support his sweeping bipartisan sanctions bill that would impose steep tariffs on countries that are fueling Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by buying its oil, gas, uranium, and other exports. The legislation has the backing of 85 senators, but Trump has yet to endorse it. Republican leaders have said they won’t move without him.
“If we don’t have this thing moving in the right direction by the time we get back, then I think that plan B needs to kick in,” Graham said in a phone interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday. The Senate, now away from Washington for the August recess, is scheduled to return in September.
Graham’s call with Trump came less than 24 hours after high-stakes meetings at the White House with Zelenskyy and several European leaders. Trump and the leaders emerged from those talks sounding optimistic, with the expectation being that a Putin and Zelenskyy sit-down will happen soon.
Trump’s comments to Graham, one of his top congressional allies, mark the latest sign that pressure is building — not just on Putin, but on Trump as well.
“Trump believes that if Putin doesn’t do his part, that he’s going to have to crush his economy. Because you’ve got to mean what you say,” Graham told reporters in South Carolina on Tuesday.
Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, the lead Democrat pushing the bill with Graham, says there is a “lot of reason for skepticism and doubt” after the meetings with Trump, especially because Putin has not made any direct promises. He said the Russian leader has an incentive to play “rope-a-dope” with Trump.
“The only way to bring Putin to the table is to show strength,” Blumenthal told the AP this week. “What Putin understands is force and pressure.”
Still, Republicans have shown little willingness to override Trump in his second term. They abruptly halted work on the sanctions bill before the August recess after Trump said the legislation may not be needed.
Asked Tuesday in a phone interview whether the sanctions bill should be brought up even without Trump’s support, Graham said, “the best way to do it is with him.”
“There will come a point where if it’s clear that Putin is not going to entertain peace, that President Trump will have to back up what he said he would do,” Graham said. “And the best way to do it is have congressional blessing.”
The legislation would impose tariffs of up to 500% on countries such as China and India, which together account for roughly 70% of Russia’s energy trade. The framework has the support of many European leaders.
Many of those same European leaders left the White House on Monday with a more hopeful tone. Zelenskyy called the meeting with Trump “an important step toward ending this war.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that his expectations “were not just met, they were exceeded.”
Still, little concrete progress was visible on the main obstacles to peace. That deadlock likely favors Putin, whose forces continue to make steady, if slow, progress on the ground in Ukraine.
French President Emmanuel Macron told reporters after talks at the White House that Trump believes a deal with Putin is possible. But he said sanctions remain on the table if the process fails.
___
Associated Press reporter Meg Kinnard contributed to this report from Florence, South Carolina.
Gerrymandering is an idea that should be terminated.
The independent redistricting movement here, has vowed to fight Newsom with the same vigor that his character as a Thank goodness for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Not only did he utter one of the top lines in movie history—“I’ll be back”—but he’s also bringing muscle to the fight against Gov. Gavin Newsom’s scheme to take Ventura County and the rest of the state back to the days when shady politicians decided who spoke for us in Sacramento and Washington.
Newsom’s “Election Rigging Response Act” is a constitutional amendment that, if passed by California voters, would temporarily override the state’s independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. Since 2008, that body has drawn state district lines. In 2010, it was handed responsibility for congressional districts.
The commission has worked fine ever since and there’s no indication that any Californian, save for Democrat Newsom, has an appetite to scrap the independent process.
The governor wants to temporarily suspend the commission and have the legislature redraw the state to favor his party, an ugly ploy from the past to counter what is a lawful redistricting attempt in Texas favoring Republicans. And he’s trying to ram his plan through as quickly as possible.
Newsom getting his way could have serious consequences for Ventura County, which shares the 26th Congressional District with a small portion of Los Angeles County.
Drawn by the independent commission, the district reflects the shared interests of residents from the coastal cities of Oxnard and Ventura to the inland areas of Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley, providing a cohesive voice for the region in Washington.
Under Newsom’s proposed scheme, Ventura County could be split into multiple new districts, meaning people in different parts of the county who share concerns about water, agriculture, infrastructure and other local issues, would suddenly find themselves represented by different members of Congress.
A collective voice would be weakened. Schwarzenegger, California’s most recent Republican governor and driver of cyborg assassin, first introduced in 1984 in “The Terminator,” fought. And he’s got a powerful sidekick in Charles Munger Jr., a fellow Republican who spent nearly $13 million on the campaign to pass independent redistricting and is ready to spend again to defend it.
These two care about California. Term limited Newsom cares only about his next job, which he hopes will be as president.
At the Reagan Library Republican Primary Debate in 2023, Newsom wagged his finger at the Acorn when asked about the state’s standing outside California.
“The future happens here first,” he responded emphatically, words that could apply to today, given Newsom’s desire to see other states take his lead on redistricting.
But California has seen the future that Newsom is turning to our ugly past to resurrect. If it’s not terminated immediately, we’ll have only ourselves to blame.
What is really going on? Why is the DOJ still preventing the release of Seth Rich documents requested for nearly a decade?
It is believed that Seth Rich is a pivotal key to the Russia Collusion coup attempt of the first Trump Administration.
The Deep State DOJ and FBI have gone through extreme efforts to cover-up any information they have on Seth Rich. Rich is who many believe transferred DNC emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 election. He was a Bernie fan who worked in the DNC at that time. He was reportedly upset with what the DNC was doing to Bernie. On July 10, 2016, Rich was found shot in the back due to what law enforcement labeled a burglary, and yet his wallet, phone, and watch were left on his person. This is after WikiLeaks began dropping damaging DNC emails that showed the inner-workings of the Hillary campaign.
It is believed that Seth Rich forwarded those Podesta emails to WikiLeaks. We all know now without a doubt that it is a lie to claim that the Russians were involved in the transfer of these emails.
Hillary wanted to deflect from her email scandal and what was in her emails. She also wanted to punish whoever sent those emails to WikiLeaks. This is why many believe Seth Rich was murdered.
Attorney Ty Clevenger for years has doggedly gone after information held by the Deep State FBI and DOJ that they refuse to release related to Seth Rich’s murder. It is the law that documents related to Seth Rich be released per Clevenger’s requests but the Deep State DOJ keeps hiding these documents from the public.
Clevenger previously shared a potential reason why the Deep State won’t provide requested documents from the Seth Rich case.
We filed a motion today to compel the @FBI to search its “prohibited access” files and its previously-secret evidence room for records about Seth Rich. On May 29, 2025, Senate Judiciary Chairman @ChuckGrassley revealed that the FBI had been designating certain records “prohibited access” such that they would not appear during records searches. In other words, “prohibited access” files would have been hidden from FOIA requesters.
For the reasons set forth in the motion (URL below), there is good reason to believe Seth Rich and CrowdStrike records would have been designated “prohibited access.”
The day after Senator Grassley revealed the “prohibited access” feature, @FBIDDBongino revealed the existence of a previously-hidden evidence room at FBI headquarters, and he said records in that room had not been entered into FBI records systems. In other words, those records would also have been hidden from FOIA requesters.
We tried for six weeks to get some straight answers out of the FBI, but no luck. I wish Bongino and @FBIDirectorKash would pay attention to this case, which has been pending since 2020. If they won’t, then maybe Senator Grassley, @JamesComer, @RepMTG, @Jim_Jordan, @RepLuna, @RepThomasMassie, @DNIGabbard or @SpeakerJohnson will. According to Julian Assange, this goes to the heart of the Russia-collusion hoax. @wikileaks
Per a document related to the Russia collusion lie, Hillary Clinton approved the Russia Collusion lie on July 26, 2016, barely two weeks after Seth Rich’s murder.
Today Seth Rich shared another message from the DOJ that they refuse to provide documents related to the Seth Rich murder. After nearly a decade, they just refuse to provide any documentation.
The @FBI is searching for Seth Rich records in the “secret” evidence room disclosed by @FBIDDBongino, according to a sworn declaration filed today. That’s the same place where the appendix to the Durham report was found in a burn bag.
In the same declaration, the FBI claims that “prohibited access” files would have shown up during the original records search because FOIA personnel are NOT blocked from seeing such files. That’s strange.
@ChuckGrassley expressed concern that the FBI’s own internal investigators could not see “prohibited access” files — potentially interfering with Congressional oversight — so why would low-level records clerks have blanket access when investigators do not? Maybe @GOBactual, @RealStevefriend, @PhillipAKenn, or @FXRegan have some insight.
BTW, why couldn’t the FBI just answer our questions instead of making us file a motion for partial summary judgment? A URL for the declaration is below, and a URL for the FBI’s response to our motion is below that.
It is a curious thing when a superpower begins to run out of the two things it needs most in war: fuel and men. Yet that is precisely what seems to be happening to Russia in Ukraine. After more than two years of fighting, Moscow’s once-vaunted war machine is showing unmistakable signs of exhaustion.
When Russia launched its invasion in February 2022, it relied heavily on professional soldiers but the disastrous battles outside Kyiv and Kharkiv shattered that backbone. Thousands of seasoned fighters were lost, and the logistical chaos that followed forced Russia into an embarrassing retreat from northern Ukraine.
The Kremlin’s answer was Wagner. The mercenary army, battle-hardened from Africa to the Middle East, became the spearhead of Russia’s offensive. For a time, Wagner succeeded. In the brutal fight for Bakhmut, it won headlines, captured territory, and gave Moscow its only significant victory of 2023. Yet those same battles consumed Wagner’s ranks, and the rebellion that followed sealed its demise. The Kremlin had sacrificed its sharpest blade.
Since then, Russia has leaned on a far weaker substitute: poorly trained volunteers and mercenaries recruited from among ordinary citizens. These men have been thrown into grinding assaults in the south and east. For a while, they produced modest gains. Some analysts even warned that Ukraine’s lines were close to breaking, or that the war was sliding toward stalemate. The pressure on President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government was intense.
But Ukraine endured. If its battlefield victories were few, its persistence was notable. Its drones repeatedly struck oil refineries near the front, irritating but not crippling Moscow. Its political leadership refused to crack. And slowly, the picture began to change.
Today, Russia faces a crisis that no artillery barrage can solve: firstly its own fuel shortage. Videos emerging from Crimea show gas stations with long lines and dwindling supplies. In Moscow, the government has gone so far as to ban price hikes at the pump—an extraordinary intervention that signals just how tight supplies have become. Exports of gasoline have also been restricted. The Kremlin may hope this will stabilize the situation, but history suggests otherwise. In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union imposed similar controls, only to create massive shortages that fed into the collapse of the system itself.
Some optimists blame tourism. Crimea, they argue, is simply overcrowded during summer, and supplies will normalize when the season ends. But experts warn the opposite: the shortages may spread. What is now a regional inconvenience could soon reach Russia’s great metropolises—Moscow, St. Petersburg, and beyond. That would be more than an economic irritation; it would be a political one. For a government that has staked its legitimacy on stability, empty gas stations are as dangerous as empty barracks.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s strikes are becoming bolder. Reports suggest that Kyiv has completed tests of a domestically produced long-range missile, the Flamingo, with a range of 3,000 kilometers—enough to reach deep into Russia’s interior. On August 21, Donald Trump, fueled speculation that Ukraine could soon receive additional Western-made long-range systems as well. If true, Russia’s already vulnerable energy infrastructure may face unprecedented pressure.
And then there is the problem of manpower. Even as fuel grows scarce, so too does cash. In recent weeks, Russian officials admitted that payments to volunteer fighters have been reduced. One local commissar in Yamal tried to spin this as a patriotic test, claiming that true defenders of the motherland should not fight for money. But the truth is hard to disguise: Russia is struggling to afford its own war.
The consequences are immediate. When Vladimir Putin announced mobilization in 2022, hundreds of thousands of Russians fled the country, unwilling to be cannon fodder. Those who stayed often did so for pay. Now, with wages cut and inflation eroding the value of the ruble, even that incentive is slipping away. A war that already lacked enthusiasm may soon lack bodies altogether.
Taken together, these crises suggest something profound. Russia is not just facing setbacks on the battlefield; it is hollowing out from within. Logistics—a dull word, but the lifeblood of any army—threaten to break the Kremlin’s campaign. Shortages of fuel and money are not tactical problems. They are systemic. And once they spread, they are very hard to reverse.
Ukraine has every reason to believe the tide is turning. Just as Russia was forced to abandon Kyiv and Kharkiv in 2022, it may soon find itself unable to sustain its hold over parts of the occupied south and east. The war will not end quickly, and Ukraine’s own sacrifices are immense. But Russia’s weakness is no longer hidden. It is on the surface—at the pump, in the barracks, and in the morale of its exhausted soldiers.
Wars are often decided less by the brilliance of generals than by the endurance of nations. By that measure, Russia is faltering. Ukraine, bloodied but unbowed, still stands.
Democracy,” H.L. Mencken once wrote, “is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” Mencken probably would feel right at home among Californians in this age. Or, perhaps more accurately, among the Californians who haven’t left yet.
According to a new poll from Politico and its partners, California voters want graft and fraud on a massive scale to continue. And lucky for them, they’ve elected a governor who can deliver! For example, slightly more than six in ten Californians want Gavin Newsom to keep funding the high-speed rail project that hasn’t laid a single mile of usable track in 17 years — even though most of them realize they’ll never see it operate:
Nearly two-thirds — 62 percent — of voters say that California should continue bankrolling the planned rail line from the Bay Area to Los Angeles after the Trump administration clawed back $4 billion in federal grants last month, according to an exclusive POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab poll.
The poll revealed a clear partisan divide among the more than 1,400 registered voters surveyed, as just 21 percent of Democrats said it’s time to pull the plug, compared to 45 percent of independents and 62 percent of Republicans. But that doesn’t mean liberal Californians believe it’s any more likely that they’ll be able to ride from Southern California to San Francisco in their lifetime.
Just 27 percent of Democrats said there’s a high likelihood the project will be completed, roughly matching the 23 percent of their conservative counterparts who believe California officials can finish the first high-speed rail line in North America.
For some reason, Politico offers this as a conclusion to that data:
That seemingly counterintuitive outcome offers a lesson for Gov. Gavin Newsom and the candidates vying to replace him who’ve doubled down on their support: It’s time to put up or shut up.
Bwa-hahahahaha. How cute! Politico thinks this means that voters will hold HSR backers accountable for failure, when it means exactly the opposite. Not only has the project failed to meet any of its milestones or even put one car on a high-speed rail line of any length in 17 years, but there’s no prospect that the situation will change at any fixed point on the time horizon. The federal government just clawed back $4 billion in funding, and the state won’t get any more subsidies for at least the next three years. And yet these voters want the state to keep pouring good money after bad — all of it now in debt-increasing bond issues — for a system that probably will never connect Fresno to Bakersfield, let alone LA to San Francisco.
Politico sees this as an ultimatum, when the poll actually hands the boondogglers a blank check.
That’s not the only political insanity that emerges from Politico’s polling. Despite a massive budget crisis on their hands — and that same expanding debt from the HSR project, not to mention a looming pension crisis too — Californians want to foot the bill for medical coverage of illegal aliens. Again, the results show that federal cutoffs of such subsidies haven’t discouraged Californians from even more red ink:
In a survey of 1,445 registered voters, 29 percent of respondents said they believe the state should continue to provide subsidized health care through its Medi-Cal program to undocumented immigrants, even if doing so comes at the expense of other programs. That marks an increase from the 21 percent of voters who supported the idea in an April poll.
fairness, Politico offers at least some sobering context for this result:
Through its Medi-Cal program, California has offered Medicaid to undocumented people in some form since 2016, but significantly expanded coverage during Gov. Gavin Newsom’s time in office. By January 2024, every low-income person in the state, regardless of immigration status, had access to the full suite of Medi-Cal benefits.
The resulting growth of the Medi-Cal population has contributed to huge cost increases for the program. In the past year, Medi-Cal ran over its budget by 7.5 percent, forcing the state to spend more than $6 billion more to keep the program solvent. The overrun helped drive the state into the red, leaving lawmakers and the governor to deal with a $12 billion budget shortfall. They opted to cut back Medi-Cal for undocumented patients, chipping away at the universal coverage that has been a pillar of Newsom’s legacy.
What impact has this had on California voters? Er …
Thirteen percent of respondents agreed that the state should fully or partially roll back its Medi-Cal offerings for those in the country illegally — a decline from 17 percent in April.
Good. And. Hard.
Realistically, we aren’t going to boot California from the union in a “Calexit,” of course. However, it won’t be long before Newsom and his successors begin demanding bailouts from the fiscal and infrastructure crises that these policies will create. California voters will expect the other 49 states to indemnify them against their own stupidity. When that fails, Californians will start raiding capital and property within the state in “fair share” policies to subsidize their boondoggles and absurd giveaways. That has already been happening for the last few decades, and it’s why middle-class and entrepreneurial capital have fled the state over the past few years
Calexit, in that sense, is already underway. And with it goes not just the means to bolster the state’s economy but also most of its common sense as well.
Editor’s note: What happens in California unfortunately does not stay in California. That’s especially true of Greasy Gavin Newsom, whose leadership would prove utterly disastrous if he achieves his presidential ambitions. That’s why we focus so much time, attention, and analysis on Newsom and the ‘Golden State,’ because we must demonstrate the utter failure of progressive policies and leadership before it’s too late.
In historical times, the British Isles were first inhabited by Celts. Then they were invaded by Romans who withdrew after a few hundred years. Anglo-Saxons immediately replaced the departing southerners, landing in droves on the English east coast. Vikings also crossed the North Seas and tried their luck, gradually integrating with the natives. Finally, the isles were conquered by Normans — a third Germanic wave.
England and the rest of Britain have experienced numerous invasions from outside. However, ethnic peculiarities of neighboring peoples from the continent have been absorbed into the existing culture and have enriched it over time. Only in the last thirty years have the British experienced unlimited flows of aliens that threaten their own culture with extinction.
In addition to foreign invasions, British history is punctuated by moments of intense internal conflict. The English Civil War (1642–1651), a series of armed clashes between Parliamentarians and Royalists (known as “Roundheads” and “Cavaliers”, respectively), became instrumental in shaping the Britain that we used to know. The protracted state of war, intermittently complicated by Scottish and Irish independence efforts, not only settled the balance of power between monarchy and parliament but also deeply affected the religious, cultural, and political fabric of the nation.
Pious, proud, and principled, Charles I, son of Scottish-born King James VI, House of Stuart, ascended the English throne as ruler of three kingdoms (England, Scotland, and Ireland) in 1625. Like his father, he believed firmly in the divine right of kings: the idea that monarchs were appointed by God and accountable only to Him. This belief tempted him to govern without parliamentary consent for long periods and impose unpopular taxes and policies. The urban bourgeoisie (e.g. merchants) and lesser gentry resented his autocratic rule and demanded a greater share for Parliament in governance.
Intra-Christian divisions plagued England long after the break with the Roman Catholic Church (1534). Officially, papal authority had been renounced. However, Puritans swore to cleanse their church definitively of any pre-Anglican liturgy. What is more, Parliamentarians of Puritan persuasion viewed the king’s religious policies as Catholic-leaning and obstinate. Royalists, on the other hand, supported the hierarchical Anglican church and the king’s authority over religious matters.
While Royalists were largely aristocrats, greater gentry, and others loyal to tradition and monarchy, eager to maintain the established order, Parliamentarians, by contrast, included politically ambitious segments from prosperous areas and Puritans impatient for more parliamentary authority and religious reform.
The war was fierce and brutal. Battles such as those of Marston Moor and Naseby eventually decided the matter, leading to the capture and trial of King Charles I in 1646 and 1649, respectively. Anticipating the fate of Louis XVI and Nicholas II, his public execution was a dramatic turning point that shocked Europe.
A shrewd commander and devout Puritan, Oliver Cromwell would prove his abilities as leader of the Parliamentarian movement. After the royal execution, he set up the “Commonwealth of England”, a republican government that abolished the monarchy and the House of Lords. With the tyrannical privilege of making arbitrary decisions, a “proto-revolutionary”, he ruled Britain as “Lord Protector” (a peculiarly Orwellian title). However, his tenure brought relative stability after years of unrest. Distrustful of both Catholics and political dissenters until the end, he enforced Puritan moral reforms.
Civil wars inherently threaten social cohesion by pitting neighbor against neighbor. Yet, the English example shows how they may paradoxically increase sociocultural integration. So, albeit destructive in the short term, the war created a narrative vital to “nation building” — the process of forging an integrated political community from diverse social and religious groups. The conflict forced England to reconsider the nature of authority and governance. Ultimately, by challenging the divine right of kings and stipulating parliamentary sovereignty, Parliamentarians laid the foundation for a constitutional framework that unified the nation under shared laws and institutions.
The historical process drew inspiration from politico-legal traditions dating back to the Magna Carta of 1215. Signed nearly 400 years before the war, the charter stated that neither the king himself nor his government was above the law. Additionally, it guaranteed certain legal protections to the nobility. Originally intended to curb the abuses of King John, it became a venerable symbol and legal precedent for limiting royal power. Its ideals — such as the protection against arbitrary rule and the affirmation of legal rights — were echoed by Parliamentarians as they resisted King Charles I’s autocracy.
In the context of national reconciliation, the Restoration Settlement of 1660 was to become a precursor to the constitutional monarchy. At his coronation, Charles II accepted the limits on royal power decided by Parliament. A purported advocate of tolerance, he tried to restore social peace and trust. Much as the war disrupted traditional institutions, it stimulated new ideas about governance, rights, and religious freedom.
Recovering from hostilities, which highlighted the menaces of autocracy and religious intolerance, the nation showed resilience. Inspired by principles of “parliamentary sovereignty”, “rule of law”, and “individual rights”, it fostered a political culture that prized negotiation, legal frameworks, and representative government.
Like a phoenix, England emerged as a remarkably stable, orderly, and civilized society — the cradle of modern Western civilization. The laborious process of nation building, highly indebted to Magna Carta, and the post-war reinforcement of social cohesion succeeded after all. The English people united in a common culture, ensuring its long-term prosperity and global legacy.
Now, however, patiently invaded, England is broken. Unlike the drama at Hastings in 1066, the Islamic conquest has been insidious. Across the British Isles, a shift is taking place from a high-trust society, presupposing a homogenous culture, towards a multicultural “no-man’s-land” characterized by widespread suspicion and division. Alienation originates from foreign clan loyalties, which corrupt civil society and public institutions, religious supremacism, and social segregation.
Analogous to Mao’s “Long March”, Marxist activist Rudi Dutschke introduced the “Long March through the Institutions”. The revolutionary scheme was to seize academia in order to prepare the “people” for the showdown with Western civilization. In 1997, PM Tony Blair decided to change his country forever and let the Muslim masses in. Fresh supplies of “dispossessed” became necessary for socialist rule in the absence of a belligerent working class. At this point, public institutions had been taken over by anti-Western progressives.
In recent years, jihadist atrocities committed by rape gangs have provoked public outrage. Targeting minors has proven to be a criminal specialty of certain ethnic groups. In the wake of a cover-up by authorities and politicians, news media have revealed the depth of Islamic contempt, intertwining with concerns about mass immigration and Islamization of society. The unprecedented case of tribal warfare has increased tensions and distrust between communities and public institutions.
As the invasion progresses, the future balance of power becomes clearer. Christians, whether Catholic or Anglican, and Jews are in retreat. The political elite, as if it were a vassal court, betrays the indigenous people, denying them the right to speak freely and defend themselves against injustice. Unforgivingly, its police and courts persecute those who openly resist the anti-civilizational transformation of society.
If the ancient giants could see their descendants humble themselves and cower before Muslim invaders — see them submit and become enslaved in their own homeland, surrendering the green isles that their ancestors cultivated and inhabited for millennia… Anglo-Saxon, Viking, and Norman warriors alike would turn in their graves.
David Betz, Professor of War at King’s College, London, argues that Western societies — particularly Britain — are drifting towards a new kind of civil war. Nothing like a war in the traditional sense, it is a decentralized, low-intensity conflict rooted in tribal identity, grievance, and collapsing trust.
As public institutions fail to mediate social tensions, animosity freezes along ethnic, religious, and ideological lines. Betz sees growing alienation among young people, eroded faith in political systems, and state incapacity to enforce norms as ominous signs of breakdown. Awaiting the caliphate, as predicted by demographics, the warring parties will engage in urban disorder, infrastructure sabotage, and community self-policing. In the crumbling ruins of Western civilization, the state itself becomes just one faction among many. Lebanonization. Anarchy.
What is inflation? Most assume it’s a rise in prices — caused by greedy, mean people who want to make money.
Not so fast.
According to classical free market economist Ludwig von Mises, inflation is an increase in the money supply, not the resulting general rise in prices. He argued that this increase in the quantity of money (whether by central banks or fractional-reserve banking) devalues the currency, leading to more money chasing the same amount of goods, which then drives up prices and wages. Mises believed this process inevitably diverts resources, distorts the economy, and can ultimately lead to a complete breakdown of the currency system or a severe economic slump.
The money supply could not increase relative to demand — at least not long term — without a government control over the currency. It’s important to remember that America did not have this government control over the currency until the 20th century. That’s when the boom-and-bust cycles became normal, rather than the exception.
We don’t really have a free market economy in America. We have more of a free market than, say, Cuba or Venezuela. We’re not fully politicized — yet — like Communist China. But we’re very close. The Democratic Party aims to finish the job and make our economy government-controlled, as is China’s. Most of the established, long since paid off Republican politicians are little better.
So remember: the next time you hear about inflation, don’t think of mean people raising their prices. To any person with a business, the right price is what you can get. You’re not “mean” for raising your prices, nor are you “nice” for lowering them. That’s not how economics works — not in a free market, and not anywhere.
Inflation happens because government wants an increased money supply. This allows more money for themselves (think Nancy Pelosi), but it also allows more money to distribute to loyal people and programs to keep these career politicians in power.
Inflation is not the product of a free market. It’s the product of a society and economy consumed by nasty, rotten corrupt politicians — and the Imperial City they have created in and around Washington DC, and now globally.
Until we get rid of them, we’re not going to get rid of inflation.
New Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director Scott Kupor told several news outlets, most recently the New York Times, that the federal workforce will drop from 2.4 million to 2.1 million employees, largely as the result of the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) efforts.
In a lengthy interview this week with Washington, DC, station WTOP, Kupor said that up to 80 percent of the reductions come from federal workers choosing to access buyouts or another program that paid them while they looked for other work.
“I think the team that designed those did as much as they could to be appropriately generous and give people as long of a runway as they could to go transition into something,” Kupor told the station.
The other 20 percent were fired, Kupor told Reuters in a previous interview. The total reduction amounts to a 12.5 percent decrease in the federal workforce of approximately 2.3 million.
President Harry S. Truman reduced the civilian federal work force by 1.3 million following World War II, largely in the defense industry. Other presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, made substantial reductions, though theirs, unlike President Donald Trump’s, took multiple years to accomplish.
CNN has featured a tracker of employee reductions implemented by the Trump administration. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) dismissed some 10,000 employees when it was dismantled entirely.
Others, as Breitbart News reported, include more than 20,000 employees reportedly cut or accepting buyouts at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Some 7,300 have been dismissed at the Internal Revenue Service, according to the CNN tracker.
Kupor told theTimes he doesn’t expect any significant new layoff announcements this year, Forbes reported.
Kupor, confirmed to his position in July, comes from the private sector, where he was a managing partner at Andreessen Horowitz, a venture capital firm.
He told the TV station he’s well aware of the personal consequences for some of those who no longer have federal jobs.
“I recognize and understand we’re talking about very serious things. Anytime we do layoffs or reductions, you know, that impacts people’s families, it impacts people’s friends, it impacts their ability to be contributing members to their community,” he said. “And look, we need to recognize and understand that is a difficult thing for people to live through.”
Contributor Lowell Cauffiel is the best-selling author of Below the Line and nine other crime novels and nonfiction titles. See lowellcauffiel.comfor more.
“We had so much money it was hard to get it out the door,” a Kamala ally said after the election even as her campaign was still sending out texts to donors begging them to send more cash.
“Hi Team, It’s Kamala, The election isn’t what we wanted, but I will never give up the fight,” a post-election text message solicited donors to replace all the money that went out the door. In Jan 2025, even as President Trump was preparing for his inauguration, the ‘Harris Fight Fund’ was still milking recurring donations even though there was nothing left to fight for anymore.
Whether or not Kamala was giving up the fight, she certainly wasn’t giving up fleecing donors.
Kamala Harris didn’t get much done, but she did manage to get $1.5 billion in 3 months out the door. Her new book, 107 Days, frames her limited campaign as an accomplishment and an excuse. As she prepares a soft launch for 2028, she’s suggesting to supporters that she could have gotten a whole lot more done in more days. But there are two things she did get done.
She raised and spent record amounts of cash while suffering the worst Democrat defeat in 20 years. Where did the money go? It didn’t go to field offices or local campaign operations, which by some accounts were badly neglected, millions went to Kamala friends and allies, and $20 million more to the Kamala Harris Fund for Meeting Underprivileged Celebrities.
While the campaign couldn’t figure out minor matters like a platform or a slogan, it rounded up all the celebrities it could find anywhere in the country to put in appearances at Kamala rallies.
Kamala spent $2.5 million on an event with Oprah including a $1 million payment to the celebrity talk show hostess’ production company. Beyonce, Bruce Springsteen, Katy Perry, Jon Bon Jovi and Lady Gaga were among the other celebrities who also came out for Kamala. While Kamala did not pay the celebrities directly, as with Oprah, Lady Gaga and Beyonce, her campaign sometimes made payments to their production companies, and most intriguingly, nearly $100,000 to Renegade44, an Obama company, to supposedly cover their ‘expenses’.
Al Sharpton, a former racist hate group leader with blood on his hands, who had come to be seen as for sale, got $500,000 from the Kamala campaign through his organization. Areva Martin, a Los Angeles lawyer and Kamala pal who had threatened that black women would “blow the party” if it didn’t choose her, got a $200,000 payday to act as a ‘consultant.
Millions of dollars kept going out the door to consultants, some qualified and some not, and while Kamala and her people might want to blame some of the dubious payments on the rushed schedule after Biden dropped out, but her Senate campaign had worked the same way (on a smaller scale) dispensing a shocking $600,000 to 19 consultants in a barely contested race.
During her Senate campaign, Kamala squandered the haul on luxury hotels and first class airline tickets, during her presidential campaign she spent $2.6 million on private jets in just the final weeks of the campaign after spending $12 million on jet travel in total.
“Kamala demands a life of luxury,” a former aide revealed. “She treats the campaign like a personal checking account to fund a lifestyle she aspires to,” another aide warned. “Staff has always worried about Kamala’s spending, but she is adamant about using campaign money as she wants,” that aide on her former Senate campaign said.
But all this was chump change compared to the $690 million spent on campaign ads with $2.5 billion in total media spending by the campaign and its political allies. A good deal of that spending revolved around Future Forward, a PAC founded by Obama vets and funded by Big Tech, which became the single biggest election PAC in the 2024 campaign.
In the first two months of Kamala’s campaign, Future Forward funded 655 trial ads vetted by a “close-knit network of Ph.D.s” while taking in over $100 million in dark money, but like so much of the political ad business, the Obama group turned out to be a self-serving operation paying millions to companies controlled by its founders.
While the Kamala campaign’s baffling decision to spend $900,000 to spotlight her head and the slogan “A New Way Forward” on the Las Vegas Sphere got a lot of attention, it was just a fraction of hundreds of millions of dollars in ad spending that were vetted and approved by an insular secretive operation whose leaders had figured out how to cash in on ad spending.
Menu
“Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out”—David Horowitz
Kamala’s $1.5 Billion Money Laundering Operation
“We had so much money it was hard to get it out the door.”
[Craving even more FPM content? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more. Click here to sign up.]
“We had so much money it was hard to get it out the door,” a Kamala ally said after the election even as her campaign was still sending out texts to donors begging them to send more cash.
“Hi Team, It’s Kamala, The election isn’t what we wanted, but I will never give up the fight,” a post-election text message solicited donors to replace all the money that went out the door. In Jan 2025, even as President Trump was preparing for his inauguration, the ‘Harris Fight Fund’ was still milking recurring donations even though there was nothing left to fight for anymore.
Whether or not Kamala was giving up the fight, she certainly wasn’t giving up fleecing donors.
Kamala Harris didn’t get much done, but she did manage to get $1.5 billion in 3 months out the door. Her new book, 107 Days, frames her limited campaign as an accomplishment and an excuse. As she prepares a soft launch for 2028, she’s suggesting to supporters that she could have gotten a whole lot more done in more days. But there are two things she did get done.
She raised and spent record amounts of cash while suffering the worst Democrat defeat in 20 years. Where did the money go? It didn’t go to field offices or local campaign operations, which by some accounts were badly neglected, millions went to Kamala friends and allies, and $20 million more to the Kamala Harris Fund for Meeting Underprivileged Celebrities.
While the campaign couldn’t figure out minor matters like a platform or a slogan, it rounded up all the celebrities it could find anywhere in the country to put in appearances at Kamala rallies.
Kamala spent $2.5 million on an event with Oprah including a $1 million payment to the celebrity talk show hostess’ production company. Beyonce, Bruce Springsteen, Katy Perry, Jon Bon Jovi and Lady Gaga were among the other celebrities who also came out for Kamala. While Kamala did not pay the celebrities directly, as with Oprah, Lady Gaga and Beyonce, her campaign sometimes made payments to their production companies, and most intriguingly, nearly $100,000 to Renegade44, an Obama company, to supposedly cover their ‘expenses’.
Al Sharpton, a former racist hate group leader with blood on his hands, who had come to be seen as for sale, got $500,000 from the Kamala campaign through his organization. Areva Martin, a Los Angeles lawyer and Kamala pal who had threatened that black women would “blow the party” if it didn’t choose her, got a $200,000 payday to act as a ‘consultant’.
Millions of dollars kept going out the door to consultants, some qualified and some not, and while Kamala and her people might want to blame some of the dubious payments on the rushed schedule after Biden dropped out, but her Senate campaign had worked the same way (on a smaller scale) dispensing a shocking $600,000 to 19 consultants in a barely contested race.
During her Senate campaign, Kamala squandered the haul on luxury hotels and first class airline tickets, during her presidential campaign she spent $2.6 million on private jets in just the final weeks of the campaign after spending $12 million on jet travel in total.
“Kamala demands a life of luxury,” a former aide revealed. “She treats the campaign like a personal checking account to fund a lifestyle she aspires to,” another aide warned. “Staff has always worried about Kamala’s spending, but she is adamant about using campaign money as she wants,” that aide on her former Senate campaign said.
But all this was chump change compared to the $690 million spent on campaign ads with $2.5 billion in total media spending by the campaign and its political allies. A good deal of that spending revolved around Future Forward, a PAC founded by Obama vets and funded by Big Tech, which became the single biggest election PAC in the 2024 campaign.
In the first two months of Kamala’s campaign, Future Forward funded 655 trial ads vetted by a “close-knit network of Ph.D.s” while taking in over $100 million in dark money, but like so much of the political ad business, the Obama group turned out to be a self-serving operation paying millions to companies controlled by its founders.
While the Kamala campaign’s baffling decision to spend $900,000 to spotlight her head and the slogan “A New Way Forward” on the Las Vegas Sphere got a lot of attention, it was just a fraction of hundreds of millions of dollars in ad spending that were vetted and approved by an insular secretive operation whose leaders had figured out how to cash in on ad spending.
By the end, Kamala had not even been told the campaign was in debt so that the spending spree of $100 million a week would continue until the final days and hours until her defeat.
Fundraising worked the same way. Raising a lot of money was the campaign’s claim to fame. The campaign broke massive fundraising records, and that fundraising prowess was treated as a validation of Kamala’s popularity, but it actually reflected the amounts of money and resources that the campaign was spending on fundraising.
The Biden and Kamala campaigns raised $2.15 billion in total, not because either one of the candidates was popular, but because the Democrats had built a fundraising operation that excelled at milking and sometimes outright defrauding its donors with warnings about Trump.
The Kamala campaign spent $111 million just on online ads soliciting donations and another $70 million on direct mail. The campaign set a record for fundraising in one quarter, but it wasn’t raising money to run a better campaign, but raising money to make money by raising money.
What looked like a political campaign had really become a money laundering operation.
Kamala can once again plead that she only had 107 days to figure it all out, but her first presidential campaign ended the same way, impressive fundraising followed by even more impressive spending. After burning through $40 million during the primaries, her campaign couldn’t even afford to buy Facebook ads during the 2020 Democrat primaries.
“Where did the $35 million go?” CNN quoted someone “close to Harris”.
Except that this time it wasn’t $35 million, it was $1.5 billion. Where did it go?
The campaign pros lavished millions on Kamala’s personal appearances, spending $100,000 just for a podcast set, surrounding her with celebrities, and ferrying her around on private jets, to distract her from what was really happening to much of that $1.5 billion campaign war chest.
This wasn’t a normal campaign. Not because it had to take place within 107 days, but because the professionals didn’t bother with doing any of the things a serious campaign tries to do.
Kamala came to the Democratic National Convention with a platform that still talked about Biden, not her, the campaign couldn’t settle on a slogan or manufacture lawn signs, but it could raise and spend huge amounts of money because it didn’t expect Kamala to win anything.
The Kamala-Walz 2024 campaign wasn’t fought to win, but to profit. Kamala’s book pitching her new campaign shouldn’t be called 107 days; it should be called $1.5 billion dollars. Anyone can campaign for 107 days; no one else could waste $1.5 billion while doing it.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism. Daniel became CEO of the David Horowitz Freedom Center in 2025
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 