By José Niño

Border Patrol apprehensions at the Southwest border in June 2025 dropped to the lowest monthly total ever recorded, marking what many restrictionist observers hail as a long overdue correction after years of surging illegal entries.

Click the Link Below to Listen to the Audio of this Article

New data from Customs and Border Protection reveal that, in June, agents caught only 6,072 illegal entrants at the United States-Mexico border, a figure sharply down from 83,532 in June 2024 and an astonishing 192,399 in June 2022.

These numbers reflect a 98.2% reduction since last summer, and are also 45.5% below April 2017, previously the low-water mark following President Donald Trump’s initial crackdown in his first term.

“Americans are safer today than they were six months ago, which is likely why nobody’s talking about ‘border security’ anymore,” wrote Andrew R. Arthur, a Center for Immigration Studies fellow, describing these developments as a direct result of Trump’s decision to end the “legally questionable” CHNV parole program [for nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela] and CBP One programs.

These tools, Arthur notes, had admitted more than 1.4 million aliens into the country without visas and had been widely criticized for rampant fraud and inadequate vetting.

Yet, with these historic gains in stemming border incursions, the broader immigration crisis remains unresolved. The Trump administration is now moving ahead with plans to further reform the legal immigration system, targeting the deeply contentious H-1B visa lottery for high-skill workers.

The H-1B visa is a non-immigrant temporary work visa that allows U.S. employers to hire foreign workers in specialty occupations requiring specialized knowledge and typically at least a bachelor’s degree or equivalent. This program serves as a mechanism for addressing alleged labor shortages in high-skill sectors while providing foreign professionals with opportunities to work in America.

Instead of a random lottery, the new Trump administration proposal will give preference to those offered the highest salaries. Observed economist Mark Regets:

Weighting would suggest giving a higher probability of being selected for certain applicants, but everyone would still have some chance at being selected

He noted that a candidate making $200,000 could have twice the shot at a visa as one making $100,000. While supporters argue this will reward merit and curtail exploitation of the system by staffing firms, critics warn the measure could sideline talented young graduates and undercut entire sectors.

Despite these headline improvements, enforcement advocates warn that America’s deportation numbers remain far below what is needed. According to the most recent Department of Homeland Security data reported by CBS News, ICE recorded nearly 150,000 deportations during Trump’s first six months in office (Jan. 20 through July 20), averaging more than 800 deportations per day.

These figures lag significantly compared to monthly averages under the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. These numbers are even lower than Joe Biden’s first years in office.

For perspective, according to estimates cited by the Migration Policy Center, total deportations—including voluntary returns—under Bill Clinton may have reached up to 12.3 million.

During peak years in the early 2000s, annual removals often exceeded 300,000 after the reorganization of immigration enforcement in the post-9/11 era.

Barack Obama removed more than 400,000 individuals in some years, and averaged consistently high deportation tallies through his two terms. Even Biden’s first year saw substantial removals—though these were artificially boosted as his administration shifted focus from the prior president’s immigration agenda and allowed many more people into the country.

Restrictionist groups stress that meaningful reform cannot stop with border enforcement or lottery tweaks for guest workers. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates the United States is now home to 18.6 million illegal immigrants as of March 2025, a number that has ballooned amid decades of lax border and work enforcement.

Since the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which initiated the largest sustained wave of legal migration in American history, the nation has admitted at least 47.6 million new lawful permanent residents through fiscal year 2024. These trends have driven both the scale and diversity of immigration to levels never envisioned by the country’s founders, pushing America far from its demographic origins.

Tougher measures, such as mandatory use of E-Verify (an electronic system obligating employers to verify the immigration status of all new hires), with stiff penalties for violators, an end to birthright citizenship, the practice of chain migration, and even an immigration moratorium can help balance the demographic integrity of the nation and preserve the European character of the United States.

Such proposals remain deeply controversial, facing strong opposition from business interests, civil society organizations, and politicians across the spectrum. Yet, for those who favor a sharp reversal from the trajectory set by the Hart-Celler Act 60 years ago, border security victories and incremental legal reforms will not suffice.

• Secret DoJ Spy Program Regularly Records Cell Phone Calls
• Debt Forgivness and Nationalization Are the Answers to the Economic, Health Crisis
• Will Congress and Trump Declare War on WikiLeaks?
• Book Says Haig Took Down Nixon
• Kamala Presidency Would Be Disaster for America
• American Attendees of Bilderberg 2024

By Donald Jeffries

With the most recent pronouncement from Donald Trump’s Justice Department that there actually was never any “list” associated with billionaire sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, it is reasonable to ask why he was prosecuted. Or why his cohort Ghislaine Maxwell was tried and convicted of trafficking minors to unknown parties.

Click the Link Below to Listen to the Audio of this Article

When Epstein died in his jail cell on Aug. 10, 2019, virtually the entire world was dubious that he had actually taken his own life. Then Attorney General William Barr claimed to have initially been suspicious himself, but would laughably tell the Associated Press that:

I can understand people who immediately, whose minds went to sort of the worst-case scenario because it was a perfect storm of screw-ups.

The “screw-ups” included the two guards assigned to watch Epstein’s cell, who would be charged with falsifying prison records and sleeping on the job, as well as the prison security cameras not working at the time.

Epstein was awaiting trial on charges that he abused girls as young as 14, in New York and Florida in the early 2000s. But Barr would also claim to have viewed security footage that showed no one entered Epstein’s cell that night. This was presumably the same footage recently released by Donald Trump’s new Justice Department, which doesn’t actually show Epstein’s cell, was taken from an odd angle, and is missing several minutes.

Epstein had been found lying on his cell floor with bruises on his neck on July 23, and was placed on suicide watch. However, he was taken off suicide watch a week before his death, and had no roommate at the time. His previous roommate was an ex-cop who had killed four people, an odd choice to be housed with Epstein.

Judge Jeanine Pirro would tell Tucker Carlson in an interview that there had been a “rush to judgment,” to declare his death a suicide, and that she believed that made no sense:

We don’t know why the cameras weren’t working. We don’t know why everybody was asleep. Why they lied.

Regarding Epstein’s violent cellmate, Pirro stated:

Epstein’s last known roommate, Efrain Reyes, was found dead in his mother’s apartment in December 2020, at just 51 years old, allegedly of Covid. Evidence found in a safe at Epstein’s New York apartment contained video tapes and other items, but the government nonsensically claimed they were “lost.”

Epstein was first targeted by the justice system in 2008 but, instead of facing the stiff penalties mere mortals would have for trafficking underage girls to his Palm Beach estate, he was given a slap on the wrist by then Miami U.S Attorney Alexander Acosta. It was Acosta who arranged an agreement that inexplicably shielded Epstein and his accomplices from federal prosecution.

Epstein pleaded guilty to two prostitution charges and served a mere 13 months in Palm Beach County Jail, but could have faced life in prison with a federal sex-trafficking conviction. His accomplices were never charged.

In 2019, U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra of the Southern District of Florida ruled that Acosta was wrong to set up such a clandestine non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Trump would go on to raise eyebrows by appointing Acosta as his first secretary of Labor.

Acosta would claim that he made the unusual sweetheart deal with Epstein because he was told to “go easy” on Epstein, who “belonged to intelligence.”

Online news outlet “Daily Beast” reporter Vicky Ward wrote a profile on Epstein in 2003 for Vanity Fair but disclosed later that her editor had deleted many of the most tantalizing details in her story, despite the willingness of victims to go on the record.

I tried to expose Jeffrey Epstein for what he is and I was silenced. Everyone who knew about Epstein was … silenced by people with more money, power and influence.

Critics naturally speculate that Trump’s behavior was due to fear his own name would appear on the Epstein client list.

Attention has now focused on Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted in 2021 and sentenced to 20 years in prison on sex-trafficking charges. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche stated recently that he had communicated with Maxwell’s counsel:

… To determine whether she would be willing to speak with prosecutors from the department. … I anticipate meeting with Ms. Maxwell in the coming days.

Blanche indicated. he was acting at the behest of Attorney General Pam Bondi.

With supposedly no Epstein list, and no evidence implicating any clients, critics have asked why Maxwell was convicted. Trump’s recent comments have only served to further muddy the waters in this case.

• Cancer Caused by ‘Bad Luck,’ Not Toxins, Pollution, Diet, Ridiculous Study Concludes
• Libya in Utter Chaos
• Is Trump Assembling a War Cabinet?
• Obama Okayed Spying on Trump?
• Author Censored for Coronavirus Views
• Amish Healer Sentenced to Six Years in Prison

By José Niño

The headlines after Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s latest document release have largely focused on the two contradictory assessments of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The real intrigue, though, may reside in an obscure but jarring exchange of emails about the Steele dossier’s role in shaping U.S. intelligence.

Click the Link Below to Listen to the Audio of this Article

Buried deep within 114 pages of declassified files, these emails shed light on new uncertainties about how and why the controversial dossier so heavily influenced top-level intelligence reports.

On July 18, Gabbard released a collection of material revealing the intelligence community’s internal debates over the perceived severity and impact of Russian influence on the hotly contested 2016 presidential race. Among the revelations was an initial Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) dated Dec. 8, 2016, which questioned the Kremlin’s actual impact and concluded that Russian cyberattacks “did not impact recent U.S. election results,” implying limited motivation beyond psychological operations.

Yet, according to Gabbard, this PDB was pulled and withheld from President Barack Obama. Less than a month later, a new, far more damning assessment did reach his desk, this time alleging significant interference by Russia on behalf of the Trump campaign. Gabbard pointed to evidence that then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper moved swiftly to reorganize the intelligence community’s assessment after the initial PDB was quashed. The sharp reversal between these two reports has sparked questions that still reverberate.

It is within the annex of these documents that an eerie email exchange surfaces, prompting both technical confusion and high-level alarm inside the intelligence bureaucracy. The chain, dating back to September 2019, came in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by Kimberly Hermann of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, a conservative non-profit.

Hermann had pressed for records about the infamous Steele dossier, which had been used as opposition research for the Clinton campaign and later became part of the FBI’s case for pursuing surveillance warrants against Donald Trump campaign associates.

The exchange begins with a redacted official from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence expressing grave reservations about how the dossier was shoehorned into the analytic process. The initial portion of the official’s Sept. 18, 2019, email focuses on the mundane: the large volume of search hits for “dossier” and questions about the practicality of reviewing them all.

The official then pivots sharply, signaling deeper worries:

Second, regarding the email below, I am choosing my words carefully, for your awareness, because the premise of the message is concerning.

Citing a background as a deputy on the “National Intelligence Officer (NIO) for Cyber” team, and as a longtime participant in foreign influence briefings, the official states unequivocally that:

I was asked by NIO Cyber [name redacted] to participate in the analytic scrub of the non-compartmented version of what I think is the 2017 ICA [Intelligence Community Assessment] referenced below. It included no dossier reference I recall.

The official emphasized that, although he/she lacked full access to compartmentalized material, a point was made to ask if something analytically significant was missing. The response, the email read, was always negative, “with the exception of compartmented material.” Personal concerns “remain unresolved to this day,” the redacted official admits.

The temperature of the exchange rises as the redacted official references hearing secondhand about then DNI Clapper’s actions:

I did hear secondhand from [redacted], ostensibly recounting words of then DNI Clapper, on the day of a briefing to current (then, I think, just elect) POTUS, about inclusion of dossier materials in a presentation to POTUS elect. This was characterized as an unexpected and unwanted sudden and unilateral act by then FBI director Comey, and as a source of concern to the DNI.

The redacted source’s next statement is startling:

To this day, I have never seen or reviewed dossier materials in a work setting. Bottom line, though, I am glad to have been spared exposure to the material, if it was influential, I hope it was in a compartment I am not in, because otherwise—given my five years of working these topics at PDB and ICA level … we may have a different information issue.

The exchange continued the next day with a brief response from a superior: “Are you asking for any guidance or action by me, or is this just informational?”

The original sender, undeterred, follows up hours later with stark clarity.

IF the dossier material WAS used by the NIC, unless it is also compartmented, my NIO intentionally deceived and excluded me from things I was cleared for and had need to know, throughout his entire tenure here. I prefer to think that isn’t true, but, if it was, we have a problem.

The superior offered a curt, bureaucratic aside:

As the declassified file circulates and speculation turns to the potential for Justice Department review, buoyed by Gabbard’s criminal referral of former Obama officials, the power of the emails lies partly in what they do not say. The recipient identities remain unknown, as does the elusive context concealed by black bars of redaction.

• Does Saudi Arabia Have A-Bombs?
• Is Affirmative Action Ruling Overblown?
• Free Speech Triumph
• Was U.S. Lab Leak the Cause of 2014 Ebola Outbreak?
• Historical Book on Israel Censored in U.S.
• Eric Holder’s Radical Past Uncovered

Open License to Kill?

Two U.S. military contractors told Associated Press reporters that they were disturbed by the “dangerous and irresponsible” practices carried out by groups managing aid delivery to starving Palestinians in Gaza. One contractor told an AP reporter that bullets were being fired “in all directions—in the air, into the ground and at times toward the Palestinians.” He recalled at least one incident where he thought a Palestinian civilian was hit by gunfire. “There are innocent people being hurt. Badly. Needlessly,” he said. In videos shared with the AP, English-speaking contractors can be heard discussing crowd control and encouraging each other after bursts of gunfire, with one saying, “Hell, yeah, boy!” and “I think you got one!” The contractors described their colleagues as often unqualified, unvetted, heavily armed, and acting with what seemed like an “open license to do whatever they wished.”

Click the Link Below to Listen to the Audio Below 

Sent Them Home for Vacation

Rather than address legislation in Congress demanding the Department of Justice release all files on convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) shut down the House early on July 25 and sent everyone home for vacation until September. Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) say they have the votes lined up to force the Department of Justice to release all the files the U.S. government has on Epstein.

Where’s the Evidence?

In an interview with Alex Jones, comedian Tim Dillon said he recently had dinner with Vice President JD Vance. Dillon claimed that Vance told him the 10,000 hours of videos the FBI collected from convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein were just “commercial pornography” and were not personal videos filmed by Epstein of himself or any high-profile figures in compromising situations. “If that’s the case,” asked Dillon, “why would Pam Bondi call it ‘evidence’? She’s not an idiot. She’s the attorney general. Why would she say she has files on her desk if none of these implicated anybody?” Epstein reportedly had multiple video cameras hidden around his home in New York City and on his private island in the Caribbean. Are Americans to believe that Epstein, who was convicted of trafficking female minors and regularly threw parties for powerful people, had no videos of these elites in compromising situations?

Behind the Times

Showing just how behind the curve they are, the U.S. Army recently touted one of its new automated drones that can fly over a target and drop a grenade on it. “Have you ever seen a drone drop a grenade?” a now-deleted post from the official U.S. Army account on social media site “X” read. “Watch Soldiers from [the 7th Army Training Command], the Joint Multinational Training Group-Ukraine, and [the 173rd Airborne Brigade] execute the Army’s first live-grenade drop from an unmanned aircraft system in Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany.” The July 21 social media post had thousands of people mocking the Army for being so far behind the times. Since the start of the war in Ukraine, Ukrainian and Russian soldiers have been using drones to drop all sorts of explosives on one another.

Senior Citizen Soldiers

The war in Ukraine has been dragging on for three and half years now since Russia invaded the country on Feb. 24, 2022. In that time, reports indicate as many as a million Ukrainian and Russian men died in the fighting. Ukraine has been hit especially hard, and has been suffering from troop shortages for some time now. To show just how desperate the country is, on July 29, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signed a law that would allow Ukrainians over the age of 60 to voluntarily enlist in the military and serve on the front lines. The Kyiv Independent reported that the law does not list a maximum age limit for service, but discretion has been left up to officers to deny service to older men who physically cannot do the job.

Transparency Is Vital

A federal judge recently handed the Trump administration a defeat, ruling that officials broke federal law by removing a public website that showed how federal funding is divided amongst different agencies. “There is nothing unconstitutional about Congress requiring the Executive Branch to inform the public of how it is apportioning the public’s money,” said U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in his ruling. Sullivan added that the online database, which was overseen by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), could not just be unilaterally terminated. He said that congressional legislation demands that the OMB make all apportionment decisions publicly available within two business days. On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump promised to have the most transparent presidency in the nation’s history. It is up to all of us to make sure he sticks to his pledge.

Reckless Cop Gets 33 Months

Five years after the tragic death of emergency medical technician Breonna Taylor, who was fatally shot during a no-knock police raid at her home in Louisville, Ky., the family is finally getting some justice. On July 21, Brett Hankison, a former Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) officer, was sentenced to 33 months in prison and three years of supervised release for unlawfully using deadly force when he blindly shot into Taylor’s apartment. On the night of the fatal police raid in March 2020, LMPD officers arrived at Taylor’s home to conduct a no-knock raid based on a misleading and legally deficient search warrant. Standing outside a window that was covered by blinds and curtains, Hankison blindly fired 10 rounds into Taylor’s bedroom, killing her instantly.

Sanity to Sports

On July 22, the main group that organizes fencing bouts across the United States announced its new policy for sports categories, ruling that, effective immediately, anyone who wishes to compete in the women’s category will have to be female. This means that transsexual men who insist they are women will be excluded. USA Fencing’s new policy aligns with the Trump administration’s efforts to protect women’s sports. The news comes after the organization ran into trouble in June when a female fencer dropped to a knee to forfeit her match to protest the fact that she would have to fence a man who said he was a woman. In physical sports, men have significant advantages, including more upper body strength, longer reach, larger lung capacity, more muscle mass, and even a bigger heart. There is currently a debate within Fencing USA about whether the records of transgender athletes who have competed under existing rules will be invalidated.

Too Close for Comfort

The asteroid known as 2024 YR4 recently went behind the Sun as it travels across our galaxy, but its trajectory has scientists worried. Initially, the building-sized object had a slight chance of hitting Earth, which would have been catastrophic. As scientists wait for it to reappear, however, there are growing concerns that its revised trajectory points it squarely at our Moon. While Earth wouldn’t face any significant physical danger should the asteroid strike the Moon, there are concerns that debris fields launched into space could damage satellites and even the International Space Station.

U.S. Tops Global Physics Olympiad

On July 27, it was announced that five U.S. high school students won gold medals in the International Physics Olympiad in Paris, France, in late July. The five U.S. students were Agastya Goel, Allen Li, Joshua Wang, Feodor Yevtushenko, and Brian Zhang, and they competed against kids from 85 other nations, according to the American Association of Physics Teachers. The U.S. Team was the only country to achieve five gold medals.

• U7 Cities Are Usurping Power, Advancing Globalism Locally
• Crime in the USA
• Horsemeat is Big Business
• Leftists Plotting to Derail Trains Slapped With Terrorism Charges
• America’s Mediation of Ukraine War Stumbles
• Citizens Unite to Fight Texas Wildfires

By Paul Angel

I recently had another failed political discussion with a liberal friend of mine (yes, I have kept a few). He asked me what approach I would take to solving America’s problems in the Mideast. I told him that America really didn’t have a problem in the Mideast, Israel did, and that America should always take an America-first approach to every problem.

Click the Link Below to Listen to the Audio of this Article

“What does that mean,” he asked.

Knowing the attention span of highly educated liberals can sometimes be shockingly brief, I thought I’d synopsize what I consider to be the most important tenet of America-first war philosophy: “Any money spent or blood spilt should be for the direct benefit or defense of the American people.”

In short, don’t get our boys and girls killed, or waste American taxpayer dollars ensnaring us in the potentially dangerous squabbles of other nations.

Should a certain situation worsen, and U.S. national security were actually threatened (i.e., a hostile nation wanted to place nuclear weapons on our borders), then, obviously, America firsters would respond forcefully.

But, otherwise, butt out. War is too costly in multiple ways. A mountain could be made from the gravestones of U.S. soldiers who have died needlessly in America’s many overseas follies.

And this does not include those servicemen who’ve returned home irre­v­ocably scarred, emotionally and physically. I doubt anyone who enlisted in the U.S. military ever imagined they’d end up living on the streets one day.

We only compound the grief when we consider the amount of gold Uncle Sam has purloined for these wars from our empty cupboards. Even Rover is shocked at how bare Sam’s cupboards are these days. Worse, Rover opened the cupboard and found not a bone but a $37 trillion IOU.

Certainly the money we waste on war could be better spent filling the cupboards of the American people.

By now, my liberal friend had nodded off, my diatribe punctuated not with exclamation points but by the sounds of snoring. You, being still awake (I hope), can read the rest here.

Wars are the biggest waste of money and lives there is, and my disdain for war was further colored by reading the anti-war statements of the America First Committee (AFC). At one time, the AFC had 800,000 members and 450 chapters. Members of that group included Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge (R-Mass), Gen. Hugh S. Johnson, Sen. Robert M. La Follette Jr. (R-Wisc.),  famed aviator Charles A. Lindbergh, and other peace-loving Americans.

Some of the anti-war “Principles of the America First Committee,” as stated in their literature, included:*

American democracy can only be preserved by keeping out of war. … “Aid short of war,” beyond the limitations of cash and carry, weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war [with Russia and/or Iran] abroad.

At every chance, members of the AFC would address their fellow Americans. At the time, these men were desperate to keep the United States out of what we call World War II, but what was then called the “European war.”

The arguments put forth in their addresses represented the thinking of an overwhelming majority of the American people at the time, and still does, especially among those who fully comprehend the true cost of war.

Ironically, although so many years have passed and times have changed so drastically, the warnings of these tried-and-true America firsters against U.S. meddling in foreign conflicts are as prudent today as they were over eight decades ago.

Here is what Gen. Johnson, for instance, had to say about war:

Modern war is not risked by any wise nation, as George Washington was careful to tell us, for any reason other than its own defense or some other absolutely compelling cause. … [A]ny nation [Israel/Ukraine] which must rely for its own peace and for its own defense on the strength of any other nation is lost.

Lodge must have had a crystal ball. His comments from 1940 could be describing today’s Zionist slaughter of Palestinian Muslims and Christians:

All Americans are horrified at the savage news from [Gaza]. The slaughter of innocents, the destruction of everything that makes civilization possible, the maiming of bodies and the shattering of the human spirit are terrible beyond description.

Frightful as these things are, in and of themselves, they become desperate when we realize that the motive for this holocaust is to establish an order which denies the dignity of the individual man, and thereby contradicts the chief purpose and aim of the American dream.

I am sure Lodge would be appalled his nation was sending weapons of mass destruction to a state that was then turning them on civilians.

Though he was, at the time, talking about England, Lindbergh’s words could just as well have been recounting the Ukraine war of today. He said:

It’s obvious [Ukraine] is losing the war. I believe this is realized even by the [Ukrainian] government. But they have one last desperate plan remaining. They hope that they may be able to persuade us to send another American Expeditionary Force to Europe, and to share with [Ukraine] militarily, as well as financially, the fiasco of this war.

Unfortunately, today, only a few conservatives in Congress understand the America-first take on war and foreign intervention. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia may be one. Another is Rep. Tom Massie (R-Ky.)

Read Greene’s comments about the cost of war to the American people, specifically the amount of money taxpayers waste on what she terms “nuclear-armed” Israel.

She also had the guts to mention an open secret: Israel has a large nuclear arsenal and is perfectly capable of defending itself. It needs us not.

• The Cash Bail Controversy Examined
• Uncensored Jan. 6 Videos Earn Odd Bipartisan Condemnation
• Justice Department Agrees to Share Secret Info on Spy in Trump Campaign
• Secession Talk Spreading
• Charlottesville Named in Lawsuit for Violating First Amendment
• War on Terror in Yemen Collapses; Libya in Shambles

By the Staff of AFP

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) blasted her Republican and Democratic colleagues on July 18 after all six of her amendments to the defense appropriations bill failed in the House of Representatives.

Click the Link Below to Listen to the Audio of this Article

The lower chamber advanced the legislation, which allocates $832 billion in funding for Department of Defense programs for fiscal 2026—the largest amount ever appropriated by Congress.

Greene offered an amendment to cut funding for the Israeli Cooperative Program—an agreement via which the U.S. provides Israel $500 million for programs for missile defense. That amendment was spiked in a lopsided 6-422 vote.

The amendment garnered support from true America-first Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and a group of Democrats that included Rep. Al Green (Texas), Rep. Summer Lee (Pa.), Rep. Ilhan Omar (Minn.) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (Mich.).

On the House floor, Green excoriated her fellow members of Congress, saying:

“As the House considers the defense appropriation bill today that cost the American people $832 billion, it’s important to mention that this is the funding for our great men and women serving in our military and our nation’s defense. The Department of Defense’s mission statement is to deter war and ensure our nation’s security, and that is worthy of the American people’s hard-earned tax dollars.

“However, the American people are $37 trillion in debt, so this is money that is being spent that they already don’t have.

“My amendment would strike $500 million in funding for nuclear-armed Israel’s missile defense system. And it’s important to phrase it that way. Israel is a nuclear-armed nation which is very capable of defending itself, and they have been proving that, as we’ve watched on the world stage. The United States already provides Israel with $3.8 billion annually in foreign aid—$3.8 billion. That’s a lot of money.

“Additionally, the April 2024 security supplemental included $8.7 billion for Israel. That is nuclear-armed Israel. And, during the recent 12-day war, the United States used 15% to 20% of our terminal high-altitude area-defense missile stockpiles defending nuclear-armed Israel, which cost us over $800 million.

The $500 million provided in this bill will fund Israel’s—that is nuclear-armed Israel’s—missile defense system, the Iron Dome David Sling Aeros system, yet Israel is a nuclear-armed nation. That’s a pretty big deterrent for any of their enemies. Any nation that has a nuclear bomb has the greatest threat against their enemies.

“The United States typically accounts for 15% to 20% of Israel’s defense budget. Even though Israel— nuclear-armed Israel—has universal healthcare for their citizens and subsidized college for their citizens. They’re able to provide that, however, here in America, we’re $37 trillion in debt.

“My amendment to strike $500 million in foreign aid will ensure an America-first Department of Defense. And that is exactly what we need and we haven’t had for a very long time.”

• Land of the Greed; Home of the Slave
• Big Brother Is Watching in Multitude of New Ways
• Mississippi’s Flag Is Making Me Sick!
• Blackness Settles Over Detroit
• The Last Fed Chairman?
• Will the Federal Reserve Really Save Us from Climate Change?

By Paul Angel

Zohran Kwame Mamdani: Not too long ago, how many of us would have thought a man with a name like that could become the mayor of New York City (NYC)? Currently, Mamdani is the presumptive Democrat candidate for the Big Apple’s top administrator, and has a very good chance to win his mayor’s race in November. Should we be scared or should we be celebrating? You decide.

Click the Link Below to Listen to the Audio of this Article

Mamdani, like Barack Obama, grew up with his feet planted in multiple worlds. The child of an Indian Hindu filmmaking mother and a Shia Muslim university professor father, Mamdani was born in Kampala, Uganda. At the age of five, the Mamdani family moved to Cape Town, South Africa.

At the age of seven, Mamdani arrived with his parents in NYC. His earliest education was not, however, in the public school system. Rather, he attended Bank Street School for Children. The yearly cost is currently $36,110 for a half-day of preschool and $66,147 a year for grades 5-8.

After graduating from Bank Street, he attended the Bronx High School of Science, which is a free public school. However, admission is described as “highly competitive and based primarily on the Specialized High Schools Admissions Test,” meaning Mamdani is no dummy.

After graduating high school, Mamdani attended the exclusive, progressive Bowdoin College in Maine. Currently it costs over $90,000 per year to attend Bowdoin.

At Bowdoin, Mamdani co-founded the school’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine. In 2014, he graduated with a Bachelor’s Degree in African studies. In short, Mamdani is a child of “privilege.”

In 2018, Mamdani was naturalized as an American citizen. He is currently 33.

As for his political beliefs, many of his programs can be considered left-wing populist. He wants to have a fare-free bus system which, he claims, is of biggest benefit to people making $28,000 a year or less.

Mamdani also advocates creating one city-owned grocery store in each of NYC’s five boroughs. His idea there is to try to drive down food prices. (One owner of 21 grocery stores currently operating in NYC says he will be pulling out of the Big Apple if Mamdani is elected because he will not be able to compete, as his margin is but 1%.)

Mamdani also wants to create a minimum of 200,000 affordable housing units (publicly owned) and improve the living conditions at 400,000 existing housing units.

He has also stated his desire to replace as much black asphalt as possible with “green” areas to reduce “global warming.” Effective or not, a few more green areas in NYC would be a welcome sight.

In addition, Mamdani says, if elected, he will raise taxes by 2% on those NYC residents making $1 million or more and jack up taxes on corporations from 7.25% to 11.5%. This, he believes, will generate the $20 billion necessary to pay for many of the aforementioned programs, including tuition-free schools and universities.

By the way, Mamdani does not like billionaires and has said so publicly. In this regard, we see echoes of Huey Long, who believed anyone who made over $1 million in the 1930s should “share the wealth.” In fact, Mamdani has used blatantly communist language when he has said in previous speeches that his ultimate goal is a “redistribution of wealth.”

Still, sounds pretty good so far, unless you  are one of those corporations in NYC who will see taxes increased or a person making more than a million or a billion bucks a year. But there are some worrisome elements in Mamdani’s programs that reflect his uber-progressive upbringing.

Mamdani has picked up on the Obama administration’s idea to “upzone” wealthy neighborhoods. This means, in certain areas, small apartment buildings could pop up next to your home should your neighbor sell to someone who wants to tear down that single-family home and build a multi-story, multi-family dwelling.

As for the minimum wage, Mamdani aims to increase it in NYC to $30 per hour. How he is going to accomplish that without driving businesses out of New York is unknown. (At that rate, you might even find this editor working at one of those city-owned grocery stores for $60,000 a year.)

More troubling, Mamdani is a Democratic Socialist in the vein of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. He insists NYC will remain a sanctuary city for illegal aliens and that the city will pick up the legal fees and provide city attorneys for any illegal alien fighting deportation.

Mamdani is also on the transgender train, telling NYC residents that he supports sex-change surgeries and dangerous drugs for those who are unhappy with the sex they were born with. Mamdani suggests $65 million be allocated for this perverse purpose and to set up an Office of LGBTQIA+ Affairs. (That stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning one’s sexual or gender identity, intersex, and asexual, aromantic, agender.) In addition, Mamdani wants to expand the sanctuary status of NYC to cover non-heterosexuals.

Mamdani has also expressed a desire to defund the NYC police department, “reimagining” law enforcement in the city and hiring social workers to deal with mentally unstable criminals.

Troubling to fans of the state of Israel is Mamdani’s pro-Palestinian stance. To me, it is refreshing to see such a prominent candidate say that, if Benjamin Netanyahu shows up in New York while Mamdani is mayor, he will have him arrested—and any other Israeli official named by the International Criminal Court as a war criminal.

Throwing himself into the middle of the mayoral race, President Donald Trump has condemned Mamdani for allegedly  defending a “global intifada,” saying:

I’ve heard he’s a total nut job. I think the people in New York are crazy [if] they go this route. I think they’re crazy. We will have a communist in [office] for the first time, really a pure, true communist. He wants to operate the grocery stores. The department stores. What about the people that are there? I think it’s crazy.

Trump must realize that his condemnation of Mamdani only helps the upstart politician’s candidacy in heavily Democratic New York. But is that what Republicans really want—to see Mamdani win, and then turn Gotham into a communist cesspool?

Or—Heaven forbid—could Mamdani’s socialist programs actually work and succeed in making life better for many New Yorkers? That, in the eyes of the elite, would be the worst outcome imaginable. Could it happen? Historically, it’s doubtful.

One way or another, if Mamdani is elected, every Democrat running for office in the next few years will be asked whether or not they support him and his political philosophy. If they do, they will be labeled a communist and, if they refuse, they will be vilified by the aggressive, progressive left.

In the end, I cannot get over the similarities between Obama and Mamdani. Could this man be a Democratic candidate for president in the future?

Whatever the case, this mayoral election in New York City is going to be very consequential. Keep your eyes on it.

• Obama’s ‘Kill List’ Grows
• Truth About the Trans-Canada Pipeline
• U.S. Financial Train Wreck Imminent
• Remembering the Fearless U.S. Soldier Who Stood Up to the UN & Globalism
• Take On Police State Now, Says Author
• AUDIO INTERVIEW & ARTICLE: Christian Cross Assault Continues

By Mark Anderson

At the recent NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, President Donald Trump set the tone for the event, dominating the entire gathering. In so doing, he maintained to the sitting defense ministers from NATO’s 32 member states that, even though the United States military had dropped massive bunker-buster bombs on Iranian targets, he is still the peace president that he promised to be while on the campaign trail.

Click the Link Below to Listen to the Audio of this Article

While many MAGA supporters voiced legitimate criticism over Trump’s decision to directly involve the United States in the Middle East, Trump still showcased his diplomatic efforts at a key press conference during the June 24-25 summit.

Flanked by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the 47th president expounded on a question from a summit reporter to outline what he described as ironclad peace arrangements that are unusually broad in scope.

Trump steered the conversation by saying that he’s been working to establish peace in traditional hotspot regions in Europe, Asia, and Africa.

“You know, in the last few weeks, we took care of India and Pakistan, Kosovo and Serbia … the Congo is coming in and Rwanda is coming in—[concerning] a vicious war that went on, a machete war [in Africa].  … We did [two other countries] in addition to that; nobody has ever done a thing like this.”

While Trump called Putin “misguided” for not ending the Ukraine-Russia war, Trump stressed that he was “very surprised, actually” that Putin had not played his part in ending hostilities in Ukraine.

“I would have thought we would’ve had that settled,” Trump said, walking this matter back, since he had said, even before his 2024 election, that he could have the Russia-Ukraine conflict ended in 24 hours.

Trump has been pushing his longtime plan to have NATO member states pay 5% of their GDP as their share in the military alliance—the ceiling had been 2%. Various media came under fire by Trump, even as several orthodox media reports acknowledged in rather stark terms that NATO seemed subservient to Trump at the summit.

Trump singled out those omnipresent “fake news” outlets, such as The New York Times and CNN, chastising them for what he described as skewing or misrepresenting his diplomatic efforts.

Most media also conveyed the probability that even the stature of NATO itself seemed to be diminished as a result of Trump’s visit—something the legacy media cartel is not accustomed to doing, given its penchant for internationalism as a domineering, virtually faultless philosophy, while nations with a strong sense of nationhood are often cast as “neo-Nazi” or “rogue.”

The focus on Ukraine was scaled back dramatically, with its invasion by Russia earning only a passing mention in the summit’s official statement. Ukrainian President Zelensky’s profile at the gathering was diminished.

As the summit wrapped up, the 32 leaders endorsed a final summit statement saying they will meet the 5% target—in up to 10 years from now.

“I’ve been asking them to go up to 5% for a number of years,” Trump remarked earlier when he met with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, whose praise of Trump was posted on Trump’s Truth Social account.

• George Soros: The Israel Lazarevich Gelfand of Today?
• Like Voter ID? You’re a Racist
• Benghazi Attack Not About Film Attacking Mohammed
• INTERVIEW: Father of Little Boy Murdered at Sandy Hook Speaks
• The Last Fed Chairman?
• Issue 29/30 2024 News You May Have Missed

By the Staff of AFP

Unprecedented pushback from some of Trump’s strongest MAGA supporters, as well as many liberals, had the president thinking twice about dragging the United States into yet another disastrous war in the Middle East.

Click the Link Below to Listen to the Audio of this Article

On June 13, the Israeli military orchestrated a sneak attack on Iran, sabotaging Iran’s defenses from within while attacking from the air with jet fighters.

It took a day, but Iran struck back hard, launching hundreds of advanced missiles at Israeli cities, hitting Israel’s military command center, among other key locations, and killing dozens of Israelis.

Iran also reportedly disrupted Israel’s network of spies inside the Persian country, nabbing and executing multiple foreigners, who, they claimed, had helped Israel treacherously but temporarily take down Iranian air defenses.

In the following days, the Israelis claimed that they had coordinated with Trump, who, they claimed, had provided cover for the Israeli sneak by pretending to publicly disagree with Israeli Prime Minister Benja­min Netanyahu and scheduling more phony nuclear talks with Iranian diplomats.

In the past, there would have been no doubt that the U.S. military would have come to Israel’s aid, but a strange thing happened. Some of the biggest names in the MAGA movement came forward to voice their opposition to the United States being dragged into another war in the Middle East.

Chief among them was well-known conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, who wrote on the internet on June 13:

The real divide isn’t between people who support Israel and people who support Iran or the Palestinians. The real divide is between those who casually encourage violence, and those who seek to prevent it—between warmongers and peacemakers. Who are the warmongers? They would include anyone who’s calling Donald Trump today to demand air strikes and other direct U.S. military involvement in a war with Iran.

On that list: Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Rupert Murdoch, Ike Perlmutter and Miriam Adelson. At some point they will all have to answer for this, but you should know their names now.

On the same day, MAGA firebrand Steven Bannon said on his popular internet talk show:

We don’t oppose Israel being Israel first, but we have to be America first. The bottom line is we cannot be dragged into a war on the Eurasian landmass or in the Middle East. … If Israel’s gonna go alone, then take care of your business. You decided to go it alone. You said you didn’t need us. And, six hours in, not only do they want the U.S. to help, you want the U.S. to go on offense.

A day later, another of Trump’s most ardent supporters, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), told her followers that the U.S. should not go to war for Israel, writing:

Everyone is finding out who are real America first/MAGA and who were fake and just said it because it was popular. Anyone slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel-Iran war is not America first/MAGA. … We have spent trillions in the Middle East, and we have dealt with the aftermath of death, blown-apart bodies, never-ending suicides, and disabling PTSD, all because they told us propaganda as to why we must sacrifice our own to defend some other country’s borders.

And that is not all. Soon, many others joined the call for peace.

On June 15, conservative Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced legislation that reasserts Congress’s power over declarations of war. Massie wrote:

This is not our war. But, if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution. I’m introducing a bipartisan War Powers Resolution tomorrow to prohibit our involvement. I invite all members of Congress to cosponsor this resolution.

Liberal Reps. Ro Khana (D-Calif.) and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.) immediately announced they were signing onto the bill. Khana took to the internet to declare:

No war in Iran. It’s time for every member to go on record. Are you with the neocons, who led us into Iraq, or do you stand with the American people? I am proud to co-lead this bipartisan War Powers Resolution with Rep. Massie that is privileged and must receive a vote.

In the Senate, Sen. Bernie San­ders (I-Vt.) announced:

Netanyahu started this war by attacking Iran. He assassinated Ali Shamkhani, Iran’s lead nuclear negotiator, deliberately sabotaging U.S.-Iran nuclear nego- ­tiations. The U.S. must not be dragged into another illegal Netanyahu war—either militarily or financially.

Other strong Trump supporters in the media joined in as well. Black conservative commentator Candace Owens posted to social media site “X,” “Get ready, white American men! It’s time for you to go die for Israel again.”

Conservative Matt Walsh wasn’t going got be cowed by his ardent pro-Israel boss Ben Shapiro, writing on the internet:

The U.S. has been at war with one random Middle East country after another for my entire adult life. It’s baffling that there are people who want this to continue. Can we focus on our own problems for a change? Is that such a radical suggestion?

• FBI Officials Lied to Hide True Extent of Biden Family Criminality
• American Schools Failing to Meet Basic Educational Needs of Students
• FBI vs Antifa
• Hillary Presidency Frightens Some
• Does the President Have the Authority to Open the Country for Business?
• Canadian Police State vs. Brad Love

By Mark Anderson

The 71st Bilderberg conference that just concluded June 15 in Stockholm, Sweden carries with it some highly significant global financial news that includes top European officials scheming on the best ways to part average Westerners from their hard-earned savings.

Click the Link Below to Listen to the Audio of this Article

Rep. Jason Smith—a sixth-term Missouri Republican enthusiastic about President Donald Trump’s trade agenda—attended the ultra-exclusive confab this year, due to his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee. That committee, one of the most important in Congress, writes the nation’s tariff, trade, and customs laws.

The modern money changers that comprise a sizable part of the Bilderberg conferences know that, if wielded properly, tariffs tend to steer nation states away from world consolidation and toward national self-sufficiency through protection from predatory foreign trade practices and through re-industrialization. Thus, bending Smith’s ear is clearly in Bilderberg’s interest.

A call and email to Smith’s media spokesman, seeking any additional information about his participation at the conference, was not answered at press time.

Notably, someone with a keen interest in Smith’s views, Maros Sefcovic, the EU’s commissioner for trade and economic security, also attended Bilderberg this year. Back on Feb. 19, Sefcovic spoke to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a Washington think tank often represented at Bilderberg—this year by AEI political-economy scholar Nicholas Eberstadt.

Sefcovic, in near-panic mode over the expectation that Trump wanted to apply sizable tariffs across the board to EU goods entering the U.S, returned to America in March to meet with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Rep. Jamieson Greer. Sefcovic then visited the U.S. in April, still seeking to tame U.S. tariffs.

Interestingly, one day after this year’s Bilderberg concluded on June 15, Sefcovic flew to the Alberta, Canada G-7 meeting to meet with Greer on the sidelines, amid ongoing trade negotiations between the EU and U.S.

Notably, Trump’s former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who now chairs the private Center for American Trade, also attended Bilderberg 2025, alongside Smith and Sefcovic.

This firsthand look by AFP at these tariff-and-trade matters playing a major role at Bilderberg happen to mirror, in part, what the Financial Post of Canada, via a Bloomberg News dispatch, reported on June 16:

Although the 11 items on the official 2025 Bilderberg discussion-topics list cannot be considered all-inclusive—as has been the case since Bilderberg was born 71 years ago—the economic matters reported here evidently came up, in one manner or another, in up to three of the conference’s topics “Transatlantic Relationship,” “U.S. Economy,” and “Europe.”

The other eight announced topics this year were: “Ukraine,” “Middle East,” “Authoritarian Axis,” “Defense Innovation and Resilience,” “AI, Deterrence and National Security,” “Proliferation,” “Geopolitics of Energy and Critical Minerals,” and “Depopulation and Migration.”

 Another significant financial matter became clear upon careful inspection of Bilderberg’s official attendance list.

Maria Albuquerque of Portugal, who is the EU commissioner for financial services and the Savings & Investments Union, attended Bilderberg 2025. On June 12—just before her arrival in Stockholm—she released a major speech entitled: “Speech by Commissioner Albuquerque (by video message) for the high-level conference on European financial integration: Advancing the savings and investments union, jointly [organized] by the European Commission and the European Central Bank.”

Her speech—of particular interest to other 2025 Bilderberg attendees such as Bank for International Settlements GM-Elect Pablo Hernandez, European Investment Bank President Nadia Calvino, World Economic Forum President Borge Brenda, and Eurogroup President Paschal Donohoe, among other finance wonks—is quite revealing.

Albuquerque noted, “European financial integration could not be more relevant. Today’s discussions are centered on the Savings and Investments Union, or the SIU.” She maintains that “the political momentum” is behind the SIU.

True to Bilderberg’s form, a more power-concentrated “single supervision” of the SIU is being sought, although national authorities supposedly would be properly consulted. Tapping into Europeans’ relatively high savings will help solidify what Ms. Albuquerque describes as Europe’s “more fragmented” capital markets compared to the U.S.

She emphasized: “At the end of 2023, household financial assets in the EU totaled 34.5 trillion euro. Of that, around 11.5 trillion euro sits in cash and low-yield deposits.”

And while she claims the SIU scheme can provide EU citizens with a surefire way to grow their wealth, it’s not yet known if this plan is altogether voluntary and what kind of direct, tangible benefits the EU’s thrifty depositors would actually receive.

AFP isn’t alone in its skepticism toward the SIU. The impartial journal “GIS Reports” on May 6 strongly suggested that the SIU indeed may be a back-handed scheme to pilfer Europeans’ savings, putting the best face on compensating for a massive investment shortfall, amid high taxes and rising military bills levied on the very Europeans who manage to save well.

“As highlighted in the [European Commission’s] Competitiveness Compass … the EU will require an annual investment of 750-800 billion euros by 2030 to modernize its chronically distressed economy,” “GIS Reports” noted. “These figures stem from a September 2024 report by [career European banker and past Bilderberg attendee] Mario Draghi, which underscored the urgency for groundbreaking innovation across the board. … To these colossal sums, add Europe’s escalating defense requirements. Just a day before the SIU’s launch, the commission announced … a rearmament effort projected to cost up to 800 billion euros by the end of the decade.”

Various past and present Bilderberg attendees who’ve colluded and nurtured deals at this elite gathering, involved in defense, investing, AI, etc., can remain fat and happy for years to come by way of such manipulative machinations.

• George Soros in His Own Words
• Bethlehem in Danger
• Jim Traficant Is Coming Back to Washington!
• Fat Cats Running Scared
• Issue 15&16 2025 News You May Have Missed
• Big Brother Is Watching You: Don’t Fall for the NSA’s Latest Ploy