The Epstein bill has been passed out of Congress without amendment, much to the chagrin of Speaker Johnson and, apparently, the President. They wanted to manipulate this and failed because the Senate was tired of getting the blame as RINOs for everything when both sides of Congress have RINO issues. What is going to happen next? I do not know, but if Trump vetoes this bill it will end MAGA. There is a lot more happening and I am writing this from the road because this moment cannot be ignored.

For the first time, Congress has passed a law that explicitly targets the secrecy around Jeffrey Epstein and the web of power, blackmail, and corruption tied to his operation. The Epstein Files Transparency Act requires the Department of Justice to release a wide array of Epstein-related records on a fixed timetable, subject to certain redactions for national security and privacy.

On paper, that sounds like a victory for transparency and for the countless victims who have been ignored for far too long. In reality, this bill is also a test. It will test whether the political class is willing to allow the truth to come out, even when that truth threatens their friends, their donors, and in some cases their own careers. It will also test whether the MAGA movement is a serious movement for justice or just another brand that can be managed by consultants and lobbyists.

At this moment the bill is on the President’s desk. If he signs it, the process of prying open the files begins. If he vetoes it, MAGA is finished as a moral and political project. There is no way around that.

Jeffrey Epstein did not operate in a vacuum. He was a convicted sex offender who received an extraordinarily soft plea deal in Florida in 2007–2008 through a non-prosecution agreement brokered by federal prosecutors, including then U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta. More than a decade later he was indicted in the Southern District of New York in 2019 on sex trafficking charges involving minors, only to die in federal custody in circumstances that have never been credibly resolved.

Across that entire timeline one theme has been constant: protection. Protection from accountability. Protection for powerful clients. Protection for the networks that profited from exploitation of vulnerable young people.

Members of Congress, including Rep. Tim Burchett, have openly suggested that Epstein’s reach is so deep it is as if he is still “running Congress from behind the scenes,” with a critical mass of members compromised and voting to protect one another. That is exactly how a blackmail culture works. Once you compromise enough people, they are less afraid of you than they are of each other. The system closes ranks to protect itself.

That is why this bill matters. If the machinery of blackmail is never exposed, the Republic becomes a stage play. Elections become theater, policy becomes a script, and the same interests remain in control no matter who appears to be in charge.

It is important to understand what this bill really does and where the traps are.

On the positive side, the Epstein Files Transparency Act directs the Department of Justice to collect, review, and release a broad set of records tied to Epstein and his network, with a declassification-style process and deadlines. That is why the political establishment tried hard to get the bill watered down in the Senate. They expected amendments that would gut the transparency provisions, allow endless delay, and shift the blame.

The Senate did not play along. For once, it refused to be the designated scapegoat. RINOs are not confined to one chamber. Both sides of Capitol Hill are infested, and the Senate finally decided it was tired of taking the entire hit while the House acted like it had clean hands.

That does not mean the bill is perfect. It contains serious loopholes:

It focuses on the Department of Justice, while leaving State Department, intelligence agencies, and the Pentagon with broad room to hide behind classification and “sensitive sources and methods.” Those are precisely the channels through which foreign intelligence services and domestic agencies would have coordinated any blackmail or information operations.

It allows redactions for ongoing investigations and national security, which an untrustworthy Attorney General can weaponize to hide exactly what the public needs to see.

Right on cue, we are watching a familiar pattern. Pam Bondi is now opening a fresh “investigation” in the Southern District of New York and using that pending status as a shield. If everything important is now part of an “ongoing investigation,” she can claim that almost anything must be withheld or heavily redacted. That is how coverups are dressed up as law enforcement.

Pam Bondi is not an unknown quantity. She served as Attorney General of Florida from 2011 to 2019, a period that overlaps the years Epstein operated openly from his Palm Beach base while the political and legal establishment in that state looked the other way.

After leaving office she entered the influence world in Washington, joining major lobbying and political outfits and aligning herself firmly with the corporate and political establishment. She later became a high-profile Trump surrogate and, in this new administration, Attorney General of the United States.

At the same time, Susie Wiles has emerged as one of the most powerful figures around the President. She has deep roots in the corporate lobbying world, including senior roles at Mercury Public Affairs, a firm owned by Omnicom Group. Omnicom’s leadership is deeply embedded in the World Economic Forum ecosystem, which represents the globalist technocratic agenda that claims to “manage” the world through unelected corporate and political networks.

In plain language, these are not people who built their careers fighting the swamp. They built their careers as part of it.

So here is the situation:

A President who ran on draining the swamp has installed an Attorney General with a long history in the establishment and a record that inspires little confidence in her willingness to disrupt elite protection networks.

His chief of staff and inner circle include individuals whose careers are rooted in the same corporate and global networks that benefited from the post-9/11 surveillance state, international NGOs, and the pharmaceutical complex.

The result is a “Barr problem” all over again. We are watching a Justice Department that pretends to move, but never in a way that threatens the core of the system. Indict a few manageable villains, open a few high-profile cases, talk about “following the facts,” and make sure the real machinery of power never experiences serious risk.

This is why I have said repeatedly that if the President does not fire Bondi and clean out the surrounding swamp creatures, MAGA will collapse under the weight of its own hypocrisy. You cannot fight child trafficking on stage while your Justice Department plays procedural games to protect the very networks that made that trafficking possible.

I have been fighting for what people call MAGA and for medical freedom for years. I supported Trump in 2016, when it was not fashionable in many circles. I will continue to support him as the best available option against a Democrat Party that has openly embraced censorship, coercion, and weaponization of government against its own citizens.

But support is not worship. One cannot support child trafficking. One cannot support the protection of pedophiles. One cannot support a two-tier system of justice where elites enjoy permanent immunity while regular citizens are crushed for minor infractions.

If Joe Biden’s Justice Department were doing what Pam Bondi is doing right now, much of MAGA would be in the streets. Many of the same influencers who are silent today would be on every platform demanding impeachment, resignation, and criminal prosecution. The fact that we have an “R” in the White House does not suddenly sanctify behavior that would be unacceptable from a Democrat.

This is the crossroads for MAGA and for the medical freedom movement:

Does the movement stand for principle, or does it stand only for one man?

Does it insist that the truth about Epstein, blackmail, and global corruption come out, even if that truth implicates people who stood next to us on stage?

Or does it quietly accept that some crimes are too “disruptive” to expose, and therefore must be managed and buried?

If the President vetoes this bill to protect the swamp around him, the answer will be clear. MAGA, as a principled movement, will be over. Some may continue to use the brand, but the moral core will be gone.

None of this exists in isolation. The Epstein network was a control system. Blackmail is one mechanism for control. Financial surveillance and central bank digital currencies are another. Digital identity regimes are another.

The United States has already moved in the direction of integrated identity and surveillance through policies such as the REAL ID Act of 2005 and later modernization efforts, which tie identity documents to federal standards and, increasingly, to digital infrastructure. During the COVID era, we saw how quickly “public health” could be used as a justification for coercive digital passes and centralized databases.

When you combine:

A political class that is compromised by sex-and-blackmail operations like Epstein,

A bureaucratic state that has normalized mass surveillance and emergency powers, and

Corporate and international networks that are eager to implement digital ID, social credit style scoring, and programmable money,

you have the recipe for a completely controlled society.

This is why exposing Epstein matters so much. If the public never sees the full extent of the blackmail system that has been operating for decades, they will never fully understand why their elected officials routinely vote against their interests, surrender sovereignty, and ignore clear evidence of corruption.

In the second half of the program I brought on Matthew Runnels, an Army chaplain and author of the young adult dystopian series A Nation Found. His stories explore what happens when a society grows complacent, forgets its foundational “monument stones,” and allows an enemy culture to quietly reshape its identity.

That is not just fiction. That is the story of modern America.

Runnels spoke about how young people are desperate for belonging and meaning, and how the lack of family and community cohesion leaves them vulnerable to destructive ideologies. Contemporary research on suicide risk backs this up: people are at greatest risk when they feel like a burden and feel that they do not belong anywhere.

The solution is not only political. It is cultural and relational:

Rebuild families.

Rebuild neighborhoods.

Host the block party.

Volunteer with local organizations that actually help people.

Teach your kids where freedom came from and what it costs to keep it.

If we do not reclaim culture at the family and community level, no “win” in Washington will matter. A people that has forgotten who they are will always be easy to manipulate, whether through fear, bribes, or blackmail.

So where does this leave us?

Demand the truth. The Epstein bill must be signed and then enforced aggressively. No veto. No fake investigation pretexts. No hiding behind national security unless the risk is real and compelling.

Clean out the swamp around the President. That means demanding the removal of officials who treat justice as theater, including Pam Bondi and others who are clearly more interested in protecting the system than exposing it.

Refuse personality cults. Supporting Trump as the best available option is not the same as excusing everything done in his name. If you cannot criticize your own side when it covers up for child sex trafficking networks, you do not have a movement. You have a fan club.

Rebuild from the bottom up. Politics sitting on top of a sick culture will always bend toward corruption. Strong families, strong communities, and a clear understanding of our founding values are the only real long-term safeguards.

I am going to keep fighting for truth, for the children who were abused and discarded, and for a country that still has a chance to reclaim its soul. That means taking risks. It means criticizing our own side when it is wrong. It means pushing the President we support to fire the people who are betraying him and us.

We can still force transparency on Epstein and everything tied to him if enough of us refuse to be silent. The bill is on the desk. The choice is in front of the President. The responsibility to raise our voices is in front of us.

Support the show at TomRenz.comhttps://tomrenz.com/

The MAGA and MAHA alliance, not to mention the MAGA base, is in bad shape. Trump himself continues to do some amazing work, but he has moved from supporting the wrong things, mRNA, digital ID, privatized CBDCs, foreign food over American ranchers, and so on. Trump has always been MAGA and America First, but something really seems different and we need to talk about it.

Why is he spending more time attacking MTG than Lindsey Graham? How is that MAGA?

If Trump has ever had a weakness it is the people he surrounds himself with, and that is the best explanation I have at the moment. We know he picked people like Bill Barr and Mike Pence in the past, and my question is whether people like Susie Wiles and Pam Bondi are any better. If it is not them, then what is the problem, because things are not adding up.

That is the heart of this discussion: not a personality fight, but a principle fight.

For years people on our side warned against “infighting” among influencers and grassroots activists. I agreed. I have always tried not to attack my own side.

But what we are seeing now is not a few crank accounts going at each other in comment sections. We are watching the top of the movement start to fracture:

Trump attacking Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) and Rep. Thomas Massie.

MTG and others responding publicly about threats and rhetoric.

Major pro-Trump influencers like Laura Loomer begging everyone to “stop the infighting” while at the same time taking hard lines on foreign policy fights.

All of these people are, in different ways, MAGA. The question is not whether they are “in the club.” The question is what MAGA even means now.

If the movement forgets its principles, the infighting is a symptom, not the disease.

I use “MAGA” for the political movement and “MAHA” for the medical-freedom, health-freedom alliance that rose up against COVID tyranny and Big Pharma.

At its best, MAGA / MAHA meant:

America First over globalist institutions

Medical freedom and informed consent

Opposition to forced digital control systems

Real justice for corruption and child trafficking

Protecting American workers and producers

So let us ask some hard questions:

Is mRNA MAGA or MAHA?

Is digital ID MAGA?

Are privatized CBDCs and tokenized control systems MAGA?

Is bailing out foreign agriculture while American ranchers struggle MAGA?

Is protecting the powerful from exposure in the Epstein network MAGA?

Those are not side issues. For many of us, they are lines in the sand.

One of the clearest MAHA issues is mRNA.

In 1976, the federal government rolled out a swine flu vaccination campaign. About 24 percent of Americans received the shot before the program was halted. Reports of Guillain–Barré syndrome and at least 25 associated deaths led officials to suspend the program after only a few months.

Compare that to the COVID-19 mRNA rollout:

Pfizer’s own post-authorization safety report (the famous “5.3.6” document, released via FOIA and litigation) recorded 1,223 reported deaths in the first three months after rollout for its vaccine worldwide, based on spontaneous reports to its pharmacovigilance system.

Instead of pulling back, governments around the world expanded mandates, marketing, and pressure.

Whatever you think about causation in any given case, the point is simple:

Any other product with that kind of early safety signal would have been pulled or frozen.

Yet mRNA shots were treated as untouchable. Many of us spent years in the trenches fighting mandates, hospital protocols, and censorship. To then watch a Trump aligned administration continue to praise Operation Warp Speed and keep mRNA on the shelves feels like a betrayal of what MAHA fought for.

You cannot be a medical-freedom movement and pretend this does not matter.

The damage from COVID policy is not only medical, it is legal and structural.

Under the PREP Act, the federal government granted sweeping liability immunity to manufacturers and administrators of COVID-19 countermeasures, including vaccines and certain drugs, so long as they were used under the emergency framework. HHS has repeatedly extended and updated that declaration, maintaining broad protections for these products through at least the end of 2024 for many uses, with some related declarations running even longer.

That means:

Families harmed by protocols or products face nearly impossible legal hurdles.

The system that allowed the worst abuses has not been dismantled.

The people who pushed and profited from this have not been held meaningfully accountable.

If MAGA and MAHA are about justice, then COVID accountability is not optional. It is central.

Another major fault line is digital ID.

The legal scaffold started with the REAL ID Act of 2005, which set federal standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and IDs. In 2020, Congress passed the REAL ID Modernization Act as part of a larger spending bill, and DHS has since issued regulations allowing digital document submission and supporting digital or mobile driver’s licenses that comply with REAL ID standards.

Put simply:

REAL ID creates a nationally standardized identity framework.

The modernization and follow-on regulations open the door to mobile and digital IDs tied directly into federal databases.

That is exactly the kind of infrastructure globalist institutions, including partners of the World Economic Forum, have promoted as part of a broader digital-identity and surveillance ecosystem.

I do not care which party is in power. If you believe in freedom, you should be deeply concerned.

When this framework is being accelerated under a supposedly America First administration, people are right to ask who is advising the president and why are they pushing tools that can easily be used for social control.

Then there is Epstein.

Jeffrey Epstein was a convicted sex offender who pleaded guilty in 2008 in Florida to procuring a minor for prostitution, in a plea deal widely criticized for being far too lenient. In 2019 he was again indicted in New York on federal sex trafficking and conspiracy charges involving underage girls, before dying in custody.

Ghislaine Maxwell has since been convicted of sex trafficking and related crimes.

In other words:

The existence of a trafficking network is not speculative. It is a matter of public record.

Multiple victims have testified about powerful men being involved; public documents and investigative reporting have linked Epstein to a wide range of elites, even if not all are accused of crimes.

So when any political leader suggests that the Epstein scandal or related files are basically a “Democrat hoax,” the base is not going to buy it.

Child trafficking is not a hoax.

If MAGA means anything morally, it must mean standing firmly against child exploitation, no matter which donors, friends, or political allies get exposed.

Trump’s biggest weakness has never been his instincts on the podium. It has been the people around him:

Bill Barr, who oversaw a Justice Department that refused to seriously go after COVID misconduct or deep corruption.

Mike Pence, who never lifted a finger to question disastrous COVID policies from our own bureaucracy.

Now power-brokers who reportedly control calendar, access, and messaging.

For example, reporting and public filings show that Mercury Public Affairs, where Susie Wiles has been a senior figure, has represented Pfizer and other major corporate clients, and is owned by the Omnicom Group, a partner of the World Economic Forum.

At the same time, you have political allies like Pam Bondi, who as Florida attorney general was in office during critical years of Epstein-related activity in Palm Beach and later became a high-profile Trump defender. Public scrutiny has long focused on how much law enforcement and prosecutors really did, or did not do, about Epstein in that era.

I am not accusing anyone of specific crimes here. What I am saying is simple:

If your gatekeepers and confidants are tied into Big Pharma, WEF-adjacent networks, or old-guard political machines, do not be surprised when your policies drift away from what the base actually believes.

That is what it feels like right now.

Within our own movement, arguments over Israel have become a major distraction.

Some insist that any criticism of the current Israeli government is “anti-Israel” or even anti-Jewish. Others point out that:

It is possible to support Israel’s right to exist and defend itself

While still criticizing specific leaders, such as Benjamin Netanyahu, or specific policies, including alleged cooperation with Qatar in channeling funds that later benefited Hamas.

My view is straightforward:

I support Jewish people, Christians, and anyone who wants to live peacefully.

I support Israel as a country.

That does not mean I must endorse Netanyahu or any other particular administration.

Most importantly, I believe our movement needs to refocus on American domestic issues:

mRNA and medical tyranny

Digital IDs and financial control systems

Election integrity

Corruption in our own agencies

If foreign policy fights become a pretext to silence legitimate concerns about those core issues, then we are not doing America First anymore.

Let us talk briefly about Sen. Bill Cassidy.

Cassidy, a physician turned senator from Louisiana, has been a consistent defender of the vaccine status quo and has received significant contributions from the pharmaceutical and health-care industries over his political career.

When CDC advisers review questions about vaccine schedules, including concerns about aluminum adjuvants or the timing of hepatitis B shots for newborns, Cassidy responds with the usual line:

“The vaccine is safe. These ingredients have been shown to be safe.”

Yet:

Hepatitis B in infants is primarily a risk if the mother is infected or if the baby faces exposure through blood or sexual contact later on.

Aluminum adjuvants remain controversial in the literature, with ongoing debate over long-term accumulation and potential neurotoxicity, especially with repeated early-life exposure.

Again, the point is not that every vaccine is bad. The point is that rubber-stamping pharma talking points while ignoring honest questions is exactly what MAHA rose up against.

So when a senator like Cassidy becomes the face of “trust the schedule,” and that same political universe is embraced while people like MTG or Massie are attacked, medical-freedom conservatives see it as proof that someone is selling out to pharma interests.

Toward the end of this discussion, I highlight comments from Trump attorney Peter Ticktin. He describes how experts who examined certain voting machines reported finding components that could enable remote connectivity, and how the system responded by changing laws and criminalizing the review.

Without getting lost in technical weeds, there is a simple, non-partisan principle here:

If you want people to trust elections, you must allow full transparency.

That means:

Allowing independent forensic examination of hardware and software

Protecting whistleblowers, not jailing them

Updating laws to clarify access, not retroactively criminalize it

Instead, we have secrecy and punishment for people who ask questions. That is not how you restore confidence. That is how you erode it.

Here is where I land.

MAGA and MAHA must return to principle.

No to mRNA and coerced biomedical experimentation.

No to digital IDs that can enable surveillance and social credit.

No to privatized CBDC-style control systems over your money.

Yes to accountability for COVID, pharma corruption, and child trafficking networks.

We can support Trump on what he does right and oppose him where he is wrong.

The problem is bigger than “the left.”

The base will not show up for a movement that betrays its own red lines.

I still believe America can be made great again. I still believe in the people who stood up against lockdowns, mandates, censorship, and corruption.

But to get there, we must be honest:

The infighting is a symptom.

The drift on core issues is the disease.

The cure is courage, truth, and a return to first principles, regardless of which “side” it embarrasses.

That is the conversation we need to have, and we need to have it now.

Support the show at TomRenz.com

The mRNA COVID gene therapy poisons persist in our blood for a very long time. A Yale study found the spike still being produced years after vaccination. There is no real doubt that these poisons stay in your body far longer than we were told and it appears more credible every day that they alter our DNA… but what does that mean to our blood supply? What does that mean if you need a transfusion? We will talk about that today and then get into this mess of a shutdown and what has been done to end it.

When I say our blood supply is a mess, I am not being dramatic. In this episode we walk you through why the long term persistence of vaccine induced spike protein, the regulatory history of gene therapies, and serious unanswered questions about mRNA technology should make every honest person ask what is really going into our veins when we need a transfusion.

Along the way we look at the latest political theater in Washington, the so called shutdown deal, and the growing trust gap between the America First base and institutions that are supposed to serve us, including the Department of Justice.

Most of you know where I stand on the COVID shots. I have called them gene therapies and I have repeatedly warned that they would not behave like a simple injection that disappears from your system in a few days.

Regulators and manufacturers originally sold the public a very simple story. The lipid nanoparticles would stay in your shoulder muscle, your cells would briefly produce spike protein, and then everything would shut down. That story has not held up.

A Yale affiliated team recently reported finding circulating spike protein in some individuals many months, even over a year, after mRNA vaccination. The authors are cautious about what it means, and the study is small, but it directly contradicts the early promise that spike production would be short lived.

Then there’s the controversial in vitro study from Sweden that looked at Pfizer’s BNT162b2 product in a human liver cancer cell line called Huh7. The authors reported that the mRNA could be reverse transcribed into DNA in those cells within hours. That does not prove that the same thing happens in the bodies of living human beings in the same way, and many scientists have pushed back on broader claims. What it does show is that the blanket assurance “this can never touch your DNA” was never as absolute as we were told.

On top of that, a 2006 FDA guidance document on gene therapy trials warns of the possibility of delayed cancers and “malignant transformation” after integrating or long lasting constructs are delivered to human cells. The same agency that issued that caution later fast tracked novel genetic platforms at a speed we have never seen before.

The core of my argument is simple:

We know spike protein itself is biologically active and not benign.

We know the mRNA platforms were designed to stabilize that spike and keep production going longer than ordinary RNA would.

We know there are published signals that some components may persist in certain individuals much longer than expected.

We know regulators long ago acknowledged that durable genetic constructs can carry long term cancer risks.

From those facts I argue for a precautionary approach when it comes to our blood supply. Mainstream blood organizations, including the American Red Cross and a recent large cohort study in Transfusion, currently state that blood from vaccinated donors is safe and that transfusions from vaccinated donors are not associated with higher rates of clots, respiratory failure, or death in recipients.

When you have lingering spike, contested evidence about reverse transcription, and rising reports of unusual clotting, I believe it is reasonable for patients to want more transparency and more options than “trust us.”

SafeBlood is an international network that tries to match transfusion recipients with donors who have not received mRNA injections. It began in Switzerland and now operates in over fifty countries, with members in every American state. The basic idea is not complicated. People who want to avoid additional mRNA exposure, whether they are vaccinated and injured or never took the shots at all, should be able to receive blood from like minded donors.

My guest Clinton Ohlers, PhD and I talk through several important points:

Many people only think about blood once in their lives. Then suddenly leukemia, surgery, childbirth complications, or trauma make it a life and death issue.

Once you are on a hospital bed, you rarely have time to negotiate what goes into the IV bag.

Directed donations and autologous donations, where you or a known friend donate ahead of a planned procedure, have been routine for decades, but some hospitals and blood networks now make these options harder, not easier.

Clinton explains how SafeBlood works as a “just in time” matching service. They do not run their own storage network. Instead, they connect recipients and donors locally so that the donation can go through existing hospital systems within the medical rules of that facility. It is a very lean model, built around people who are willing to show up for strangers because they see what is at stake.

Several states have introduced bills that would protect the right to directed donations and require more transparency about blood provenance. None of this should be controversial, yet you see intense resistance from large blood networks and lobbyists. Public health groups have already labeled the very desire for “unvaccinated blood” as conspiratorial, despite acknowledging that there is no evidence these patients are harming anyone by asking for more information and choice.

I am willing to sign up as a donor myself and to help with legislative work wherever I can. If you want this option for your family, you need to help create it now, not when you are already being wheeled into surgery.

Reports from embalmers and morticians of unusual, rubbery casts in vessels of deceased individuals, popularly nicknamed “calamari clots.”

Case stories in which unvaccinated individuals who received transfusions then showed blood changes or clotting patterns that resemble those seen in heavily vaccinated populations.

The ongoing debate over whether persistent spike and residual DNA fragments contribute to autoimmunity, cancers, or other chronic conditions.

The academic and regulatory establishment often responds that these are anecdotal or that causation is not proven. That is technically true. Case reports and observational patterns do not automatically prove cause. At the same time, the same establishment pushed mass vaccination, including for very low risk groups, with extremely limited long term data.

If regulators erred on the side of bold experimentation in 2021, they should err on the side of transparency and patient autonomy in 2025 and beyond. You should be allowed to know the vaccination status of your donor. You should be allowed to bring your own donor when feasible. You should be allowed to decline products that you believe present unacceptable risk to you or your child.

That is not radical. That is informed consent.

One of the more moving parts of this show was our conversation on prayer and medicine working together. Clinton shares the story of a newborn whose doctors insisted the child would need a transfusion before surgery. Friends in the freedom movement scrambled for alternatives, including volume expanders and nutritional support. When nothing seemed sufficient, they turned to prayer, and over the next several days the baby’s levels rose past the threshold that doctors had said could not be reached without donor blood.

Not every story resolves that way. The point is not that prayer replaces medical care. The point is that families deserve both the right to seek God and the right to seek the safest possible medical options.

Hospital policies, not just written law, can quietly erase long standing rights to directed donation. In some places parents have had to travel across the country in order to secure blood from family members for their own child, even though there was no scientific reason to forbid that match. That should concern anyone who believes parents, not bureaucrats, should make critical health decisions for their families.

If you want to help, Clinton makes three very simple requests:

Become a SafeBlood member, especially as a recurring supporter if you can afford it, so there are resources to keep building the network.

Sign up as a donor if you have never taken mRNA shots and are medically eligible to give blood.

Contact your state legislators and demand protection for directed and autologous donations, as well as transparency about blood sourcing.

In the second half of the show I pivot from bodily integrity to institutional integrity. I play a clip from Candace Owens where she raises serious questions about the shooting of Charlie Kirk and the way federal authorities handled footage from the hospital where he was treated.

Candace’s core question is not complicated. Why were federal agents so eager to seize hospital video, rather than focusing on an open and transparent investigation that would reassure the public. When the same Department of Justice has already lost the confidence of many Americans over issues such as the handling of the Epstein list and selective prosecutions, it becomes very difficult to take their statements at face value.

I dislike liars more than I dislike silence. If something is genuinely a national security issue, officials can say “we cannot disclose those details.” People will be frustrated, but at least the government is not compounding the problem by issuing statements that obviously conflict with what citizens can see with their own eyes.

The bigger picture is that this constant pattern of partial truths, spin, and outright deception is driving a wedge between the MAGA base and the very administration that claims to represent it. You cannot build a movement on censorship and half truths. So I call for honesty, even when the truth is hard.

On paper the government kept operating. On substance, many of the worst features of the current regime stayed in place or even gained new funding.

SNAP food benefits kept at elevated levels without work requirements or meaningful eligibility tightening.

No serious attempt to roll back the huge expansion in IRS enforcement capacity.

Continued subsidies and mandates that favor large agribusiness and ethanol schemes over ordinary family farmers.

New pots of money for security and perks for members of Congress, while ordinary border agents and Americans get less support.

Additional funding that indirectly supports NGOs and programs involved in resettling illegal migrants.

Republicans have a unique talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. That is not a partisan talking point. It is a simple observation. When a party controls the House, the Senate, and the presidency yet cannot deliver a serious budget or even basic course corrections, something is deeply wrong.

For the constitutional republic to function, representatives have to fear their voters more than they fear the donor class and the permanent bureaucracy. That fear is clearly missing in Washington right now.

Take your health and your blood seriously. Learn how to set up directed or autologous donations before you need them.

Support organizations that are trying to build parallel options rather than simply complaining about what government and corporate medicine are doing.

Hold your elected officials accountable for every dollar in these “compromise” bills that funds the destruction of your rights and your nation.

We will keep putting an axe in the skull of tyranny on The Tom Renz Show. I hope this written recap helps you dig a little deeper into why.

Support the show at TomRenz.com

January 6 was not some spontaneous uprising of grandmothers with flags. It was a federal and Democrat operation that used real patriots as props. There is so much evidence at this point that it is hard to see how anyone honestly looking at the facts can still pretend it was a “MAGA insurrection.”

Now we have a new twist. Investigative reporting alleges that the so-called “pipe bomber” may have been a former Capitol Police officer who later wound up at the CIA. At the same time, Democrats are melting down because their leadership caved on the government shutdown.

Is it better to fight or to fold

On January 6, 2021, authorities discovered two pipe bombs near the RNC and DNC headquarters in Washington, D.C. The FBI has consistently said the devices were real, contained explosive powder, and were planted the night before. To this day, the Bureau publicly claims it has not identified the suspect and is still offering a reward for information.

Those bombs became part of the emotional backdrop for branding J6 as an “insurrection.” DOJ and the January 6 Committee leaned heavily on that language, treating the entire day as proof that ordinary Trump supporters were domestic terrorists.

Yet years later, the official story has more holes than answers. The FBI has released carefully edited clips, but basic questions remain. Why did a bomb-sniffing dog on video walk right past the alleged device without reacting if this was a serious, live bomb ready to explode

Into that vacuum stepped independent investigators. Blaze Media and others have published a detailed analysis using gait, build, and insider whistleblower information alleging that the “pipe bomber” appears to match a former Capitol Police officer, Shauni Kerkhoff, who reportedly later took a position with the CIA. These reports claim a very high gait-match score between her and the bomber footage.

Let me be clear about what we know and what we do not. As of the time I am writing this, the federal government has not publicly confirmed that identity and still lists the bomber as unknown. The Blaze reporting is an allegation, backed by analysis and whistleblowers, but it is not yet a formal indictment.

Here is the point.

If you or I had been within fifty yards of that pipe bomb, we would already have been indicted and probably sitting in a cell. Hundreds of Americans have been prosecuted and imprisoned over J6, many for non-violent offenses. When the trail leads toward entrenched federal interests or connected insiders, everything slows to a crawl.

Will Pam Bondi and the current DOJ actually prosecute anyone involved in orchestrating J6 if that trail runs into the federal family itself?

So far we see a lot of noise about old villains whose power is fading. What we do not see is a serious house-cleaning of the people and agencies that engineered J6, buried the truth, and left ordinary citizens holding the bag.

After weeks of standoff, the Senate broke the deadlock with a bipartisan vote that allowed a new funding bill to move forward and a partial shutdown to end. Several Democrats crossed over and backed a deal that, among other things, extended funding at essentially flat levels and did not lock in long-term expansions of Affordable Care Act subsidies that progressives wanted.

Republicans, for their part, avoided deep cuts to veterans’ programs and SNAP while pushing the next big funding fight out to a future date, after another election cycle. The result is being spun by establishment voices as a “responsible compromise.”

On the left, activists and commentators exploded. They accused their own senators of betrayal for giving up leverage and for failing to secure permanent expansions of Obamacare-style benefits.

Here is what interests me.

Behind every shutdown fight is a basic question of character.

Do you ever use leverage or do you fold as soon as cable headlines get uncomfortable

Do you treat principles as negotiable or as the starting point that shapes which compromises are even morally possible

The conservative base is tired of “managed decline.” People do not want a party that calls itself pro-freedom, then quietly funds the permanent bureaucracy that censors them, tracks them, and forces unsafe medical products on their families.

If you want real change, you must be willing to absorb some pain, hold the line, and fight for outcomes that actually move the needle, not just for optics.

A big chunk of the episode deals with an article by a young columnist, Gregory Lyakhov, published at Gateway Pundit. He pleads with conservatives to stop “fighting on the right,” using Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson as symbols for two wings of the movement.

His basic message is that the right is tearing itself apart over Israel. He admires Shapiro’s resume and sees Tucker as authentic, and he wants everyone to get along for the sake of young conservatives.

I agree with him on one point and strongly disagree on another.

Where I agree

Where I disagree

For example, it is well documented in mainstream reporting that Israel, under Benjamin Netanyahu, allowed and even encouraged Qatar to send large amounts of cash into Gaza, money that went to Hamas-controlled institutions. At the same time, Israel cut an early, sweeping deal with Pfizer to turn the Israeli population into a high-intensity test bed for the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out, sharing health data in exchange for rapid supply.

You do not have to hate Israel or Jewish people to say that funding Hamas and forcing experimental injections on your citizens is catastrophic leadership. Many Israelis, including security and public-health experts, have voiced their own concerns and criticisms.

My position is simple:

I support the Jewish people and the right of Israel to exist and defend itself.

I do not support corrupt leadership in any country, including Benjamin Netanyahu’s decisions that have harmed his own people.

Asking hard questions about how our tax money is used and about foreign corruption is not bigotry. It is responsible citizenship.

The American conservative movement should be arguing about how to defend our Constitution, secure our borders, protect our children, and remove captured, corrupt officials. If a commentator or politician tries to shut down those questions by shouting “disloyalty,” it is fair to ask whom they really serve.

Pharma and the security state have captured the institutions that are supposed to inform and protect you.

In 2002, the Women’s Health Initiative trial reported an increased relative risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular events in older women on one specific combination of estrogen plus progestin. The absolute increase was on the order of eight extra cases of certain events per 10,000 women per year.

Media coverage and regulatory response treated this as a universal verdict against hormone therapy. For years, the FDA slapped strong boxed warnings on menopausal hormone treatments, and many women lost access to therapies that might have safely improved quality of life when tailored to age and risk.

Now, after two decades of additional data, the FDA is in the process of removing those black box warnings from many menopausal hormone products, acknowledging that the original message was overly broad and often misleading, especially for younger women near the onset of menopause.

In other words, the establishment is quietly admitting that millions of women were scared away from potentially helpful treatments because of how one study on a narrow population was spun.

That is exactly the kind of distortion I warn about when we talk about mRNA shots, regulatory capture, and “settled science.”

I also talk in the episode about hemp products and about pharmacies that offer ivermectin and fenbendazole as part of broader wellness protocols. The point is not to offer medical advice on any specific drug. People should always work with honest clinicians and understand the evidence for any therapy.

The point is this.

When a plant that has well-documented non-intoxicating uses becomes politically suspect, it is suddenly treated as more dangerous than powerful patented drugs. When cheap, off-patent molecules are explored for potential antiviral or anticancer properties, official channels rush to suppress or ridicule that discussion, even if some early data look promising.

At the same time, experimental platforms like mRNA are pushed on entire populations under emergency powers, with safety signals dismissed and liability shielded.

That is not science. That is a business model.

For years, anyone who suggested that governments were experimenting with spraying substances into the atmosphere to modify climate or weather was dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.

Yet mainstream sources now openly discuss research programs on stratospheric aerosol injection and other geoengineering concepts, including projects funded or studied by agencies linked to the national security and defense apparatus.

What I argue is not that every condensation trail you see is a secret program. It is that:

Our government has funded research that would allow large-scale atmospheric interventions.

The same establishment that denied interest in these topics for years is now normalizing them without a transparent, democratic debate.

Once again, the pattern is secrecy first, disclosure later, accountability never.

We also talk about Senator Rand Paul’s public battles with Anthony Fauci and his new book on COVID and gain-of-function research.

Many of the facts about lab funding, EcoHealth Alliance, and U.S. involvement in risky research were available years ago. Some of us sent those materials to members of Congress well before it was politically safe to talk about them in public.

Real leadership does not wait until the polls move or the book contract is signed. Real leadership fights when it is costly, not just when it sells.

So what ties all of this together

J6 and the unresolved pipe bomber story

The shutdown “compromise” and Democrat meltdown

Infighting on the right over Israel and foreign policy

Hormone therapy, mRNA, hemp, and the capture of medicine

Geoengineering research creeping into the open

Endless talk about accountability with very few handcuffs on anyone who still holds power

It all comes back to one question.

Are we going to fight or are we going to fold?

Fighting does not mean blind rage. It does not mean attacking fellow citizens because they ask hard questions. It means:

Demanding transparent investigations of events like J6, including federal involvement.

Refusing to fund a bloated, abusive bureaucracy without real structural reform.

Insisting on honest science that distinguishes between relative risk and absolute risk, between short-term signals and long-term harm.

Putting America’s interests and liberties ahead of donor networks and foreign politicians, whatever flag they wave.

I am hard on many people, on both the left and the right, because I believe time is short. We get one more chance to turn this around. If we pick the fight and then refuse to see it through, the other side will not show mercy.

My commitment, and the commitment of my team, is to keep putting an axe in the skull of tyranny, one lie at a time, with facts, law, and courage.

Stay informed. Share the truth. And for the love of your children and grandchildren, choose to fight, not fold.

Support the show at TomRenz.com

I am still on the road, still fighting bad actors, and still spending my days buried in real cases, real families, and real constitutional problems. Today’s show was shorter, but the subjects were heavy.

We walked through three big questions:

Who really controls your children when medicine, courts, and child protective systems collide.

What the new parental rights amendment in Texas really does, and why it may be far more dangerous than advertised.

Why the recent elections should be a very loud alarm for anyone who cares about liberty going into the midterms, including President Trump.

Let me unpack all of that in a way you can share with friends, legislators, and school boards.

Under United States law, the Supreme Court has long recognized that parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of their children. Cases like Troxel v. Granville explicitly describe parental authority over upbringing as one of the oldest liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause.

At the same time, states are allowed, and in some cases required, to protect children from abuse and neglect, including medical neglect. Ethical and legal commentary has consistently framed state intervention as justified when a child faces serious risk of harm and parents refuse necessary treatment.

Here is where the problem begins in the real world.

On paper, the idea is simple: if a parent is truly neglecting a child, the state can step in temporarily to prevent serious harm. In practice, however, child protective systems often operate with broad discretion, financial incentives tied to keeping children in custody, and a very low bar for what some professionals call “medical neglect.” Scholars and advocates have documented how families struggle to challenge removals, face qualified immunity barriers, and rarely find counsel who understands how to fight agencies that overreach.

That means a scenario like this is not hypothetical:

A child receives aggressive, expensive treatment that is not working.

A parent decides to stop a failing protocol and try an alternative approach.

The original physician, frustrated to lose control and revenue, reports the parent for “medical neglect.”

Child Protective Services arrives, files for an emergency order, and a judge hears only the agency and the physician in an ex parte hearing, without the parent present.

The child is removed, placed under state custody, and subjected to the very treatment the parent believed was harming the child, while the parent rushes to find an attorney in 24 to 48 hours.

That is what I call medical kidnapping. The legal tool was originally intended to rescue children from genuine abuse. It is now often used as leverage in disputes between families and powerful medical or pharmaceutical interests.

Now place that background next to what just happened in Texas.

Texas voters have approved a constitutional amendment, often referred to as Proposition 15, that adds explicit “parental rights” to the state constitution. According to the official summary, it affirms that parents have the right to exercise care, custody, and control of their children, and that they bear the responsibility “to nurture and protect” them.

On the surface, that sounds like exactly what many of us have been demanding. The problem is in the details that do not appear in the amendment. The phrase “nurture and protect” is not defined in the text. That means courts, agencies, and school systems will be left to interpret what those words require.

Commentators across the spectrum have already noted that vague duties like “nurture” and “protect” can be used in two very different ways. They can be cited to shield parents from unnecessary interference, or they can be invoked by the state to claim that a parent who refuses a contested medical treatment, questions school curricula, or chooses a different educational path is failing to “nurture and protect.”

Public health and legal scholarship has shown how parental rights, public health mandates, and child welfare frequently collide in exactly these gray zones: vaccines, “standard of care” treatments, gender-related care, and schooling decisions.

So in Texas, you now have:

A constitutional statement that parents must “nurture and protect” their children.

Existing doctrines that allow the state to remove children for “medical neglect.”

A child welfare system that already struggles with oversight and accountability.

Put those together and it is easy to see why I am deeply concerned that this amendment could be used, not to protect parents, but to justify more interventions when parents dissent from dominant medical or educational views.

If a court decides that “protect” includes every vaccine on the official schedule, or every new technology labeled “standard of care,” then refusing a specific intervention may be framed as a constitutional failure of your parental duty. That is exactly the opening that clever attorneys and bureaucrats look for.

The core question of this episode is simple but uncomfortable:

If the state can redefine “neglect” based on whichever treatments or ideologies are popular with its experts at any given moment, and if new constitutional language can be interpreted to give the state broad power to judge whether you are “nurturing and protecting” your child, then who effectively owns your children in practice?

The Supreme Court has said that parents have a fundamental liberty interest in raising their children.

The gap between those two realities is where medical kidnapping and bureaucratic overreach occur. That is the gap we must close.

The second part of the show looked at the recent election results. The short version is that the political movement often grouped under the “MAGA” banner did not have a good night. There were losses in key states and cities, some of them by wide margins.

While pundits are already trying to spin this as normal fluctuation in “blue” states, the reality is more serious. When your base is demoralized, does not believe its priorities are being addressed, and feels that entrenched insiders are still calling the shots, turnout suffers.

Many conservative voters see:

Continuing funding for foreign conflicts while the United States borrows and inflates.

Little progress on removing or even honestly auditing controversial medical products that were rushed to market during the pandemic.

Persistent influence of corporate and pharmaceutical interests in both parties.

Whether one agrees with every detail of that critique or not, there is no serious doubt that disillusionment among core voters leads to weaker performance in midterms. Political scientists have repeatedly observed that base motivation is central to midterm outcomes in both parties.

My argument in this episode was that if national leaders do not act on the issues their own voters care about, and rely instead on messaging and branding, they should not be surprised when those voters stay home.

Finally, we turned to tariffs and presidential emergency powers.

Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), passed in 1977, the president is permitted to regulate certain aspects of international commerce after declaring a national emergency tied to foreign threats.

In 2025, President Trump used IEEPA to justify broad tariffs on imports from many countries, arguing that trade practices and issues like drug trafficking created an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security and economic stability.

Lower courts have since ruled that IEEPA does not authorize such sweeping tariffs, holding that the power to “regulate” imports under that statute does not include imposing essentially open-ended taxes on nearly all trading partners.

The case is now before the Supreme Court, and early reporting on oral arguments suggests that several justices are skeptical of such an expansive reading of emergency authority.

This raises an important constitutional point that goes beyond tariffs. For years, executive branches from both parties have relied on emergency powers in health, trade, and security to take actions that would never survive a normal legislative process. When those powers are used to impose lockdowns, mandates, or surveillance, many of the same voices now opposing tariffs on separation-of-powers grounds were silent or supportive.

My position is consistent. If Congress wants to maintain control over trade and emergency responses, it should stop delegating broad, vague powers to the executive and then complaining when a president uses them.

This episode brought several threads together.

The legal framework around parental rights is already fragile. The Texas amendment uses noble language that can be interpreted very differently once it reaches courtrooms and agencies.

The child welfare and medical systems have real incentives and very broad discretion, and those systems too often treat principled parental disagreement as “neglect,” especially where profitable treatments are involved.

The recent elections show that rhetoric without action is not enough. If leaders ignore the issues that matter most to their own voters, the midterms will reflect that.

The tariff fight is one more example of a larger struggle over emergency powers, constitutional limits, and whether Congress will reclaim its responsibilities.

Who really owns your children, who controls your economy, and who is accountable when rights are quietly redefined are not abstract questions. They are being answered right now in legislatures, courts, and agencies around the country.

My goal is to keep you informed, engaged, and prepared to push back wherever those answers threaten your family and your freedom.

Support the show at TomRenz.com

I am traveling this week, which means today’s show was a shorter one, but the topic could not be more important. Legislation is continuing to advance in the United States that brings us closer to a world where the government and its corporate partners have CBDC level control over our currency. We already have the foundation in place through digital ID. You can see my thread on this topic pinned to my profile on X (https://x.com/RenzTom/status/1979996633199763723?s=20). The Genius Act and several related bills are accelerating us toward a fully centralized digital financial system. It is coming, and we need to be ready.

Even while on the road, I could not wait to bring this information to you because the pieces are falling into place quickly. The public is being told these laws are unrelated and harmless, yet together they create a framework that mirrors what a formal CBDC system would require. Today’s show pulled those pieces together, and in this blog I want to unpack that in a clear and accessible way.

The Real ID Act of 2005, updated through later rulemaking, created a nationwide system of identification with mandatory security and biometric standards that states must follow to participate in federal identification programs. The Department of Homeland Security describes Real ID compliance as requiring machine readable technology and identity verification mechanisms that enable digital authentication across states.

Add to that the rapid push toward mobile driver’s licenses, a system promoted by standards bodies and adopted by several states, and you begin to see the emergence of a universal digital ID. When private companies like Apple and Google integrate these IDs into their platforms, the line between public and private data sharing becomes thin. That is not speculation. It is how digital credentialing works across sectors, as documented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

My concern, which I voice regularly, is that this creates a digital environment where you cannot meaningfully participate in modern life without connecting your government verified identity to private systems that track your behavior. Whether the government compels it directly or through corporate pressure, the result is the same.

Advocates for the Genius Act claim it prevents a central bank digital currency by forbidding the Federal Reserve from issuing one. That is true in a narrow sense. However, the Act simultaneously opens the door for private entities to create dollar pegged digital tokens that can include programmable features.

The Financial Stability Oversight Council has already warned that private stablecoins require strong oversight due to the potential for systemic risk and user tracking concerns. My point is simple. If a private company can issue a programmable digital dollar that determines where you can spend it, how long it is valid, or what types of purchases it allows, then functionally it behaves like a CBDC even if it is not issued by the Federal Reserve.

This means control shifts from constitutionally accountable institutions to corporations shielded by regulatory loopholes. During COVID we saw the consequences of public private enforcement when pressured platforms censored speech while government agencies claimed plausible deniability. A similar structure applied to currency presents a serious national threat.

Ohio House Bill 195 belongs to a nationwide series of updates to the Uniform Commercial Code. These updates create a new classification called Controllable Electronic Records. That category includes stablecoins, tokenized assets, and various forms of cryptocurrency.

This is not inherently negative. The UCC must evolve to handle modern financial tools. But the way these changes merge digital identity verification, tokenized currency, and settlement systems closes the loop. Once you have a verified digital ID and a programmable form of digital money, and once your state laws recognize those tools as the official mechanism for commerce, you have created a framework that mimics a CBDC. It does not matter if it is the Federal Reserve or a corporation issuing the token. If the behavior is the same, the power is the same.

I mentioned Proposition 15 in Texas, a proposed constitutional amendment presented as a parental rights protection measure. As with many recent bills across the country, it deserves a careful reading. Vague statutory language has been used in other states to expand government authority over parental decisions, especially in areas involving medical consent. I will be completing a full legal analysis of this proposal and presenting it in an upcoming show.

The pattern is visible. Bills that appear benign often contain language with the potential to expand government and corporate control. Combined with digital ID requirements and financial tokenization, these developments should concern every citizen who values individual liberty.

The most important message from today’s episode is that we must recognize how these systems work together. No single bill creates a CBDC. Instead, the structure emerges from overlapping laws, regulations, and private sector agreements. This is exactly how pandemic era censorship operated.

If we want to maintain financial freedom, the time to push back is now. Awareness must precede action. Our constitutional rights cannot survive if the government can monitor every transaction, trace every purchase, and influence economic behavior at the individual level. Financial privacy is foundational to liberty, which is why governments throughout history have sought control over currency.

As always, my commitment is to bring you the truth with clarity and courage. We will continue to expose the mechanisms of control that threaten the future of our republic. I will have more detailed analysis in the coming days. Thank you for standing with me in this fight.

Stay vigilant, stay engaged, and stay free.

Support the show at www.TomRenz.com

Agriculture in America is an absolute disaster. We don’t have an issue with agriculture, we have an issue with government over regulation. The regulators have created a situation where four big ag monopolies control the beef supply for the United States. If we want healthy American beef we need to bring back country of origin labeling, and break the hold these monopolies have over our small farmers.

A handful of meatpackers control the vast majority of U.S. beef processing, which puts small ranchers in a chokehold and leaves families paying more for food. USDA’s own research acknowledges that the four largest firms handle about 85 percent of steer and heifer purchases.

That level of control invites abuse. It is not surprising that federal investigators are again probing the sector for potential antitrust violations involving the same dominant players: Tyson, JBS, Cargill, and National Beef.

Rep. Thomas Massie’s PRIME Act begins to restore common sense. The bill amends the Federal Meat Inspection Act so states can allow custom slaughter facilities to process livestock for intrastate sales to households, restaurants, and retailers, subject to state law. Decentralize. Rebuild resilience. Put neighbors back in business with neighbors. Read the text for yourself.

We need to restore country-of-origin labeling for beef so Americans can see where their food comes from. Congress repealed mandatory COOL for beef in 2015 after WTO pressure. A decade later there is bipartisan energy to revisit origin labels because consumers and ranchers deserve clarity.

In Gibbons v. Ogden the Court read the Commerce Clause broadly for interstate trade. In Swift & Co. v. United States the “stream of commerce” theory swept local meatpacking into federal control. Then Wickard v. Filburn said even growing wheat for your own farm could be regulated if, in the aggregate, it substantially affects interstate commerce. That is how we arrived at a world where local transactions can be strangled by federal rules.

If we want healthy American beef and affordable food, we must break the cartel-like control of the Big Four, restore transparency for consumers, and return power to states and local producers. The PRIME Act is a practical step forward. COOL is common sense. And the Constitution should be read in a way that protects, not punishes, the people who feed this nation. Tune in and share this episode.

Support the show at TomRenz.com

Climate change has always been a fraud. That’s not to say the climate doesn’t change, clearly it does, but to blame it on human activities or to suggest that you can predict the doom it will cause when you cannot get the weather forecast right on the 6 o’clock news is absurd. It turns out that conspiracy theorists were right again, and that a substantial amount of money being given to “fight climate change” was actually just a mechanism to buy favor with corrupt foreign governments. This is pretty clear when we see Bill Gates’ change of heart on the issue shortly after the investigation into his support for CCP China began. The corruption across the board in the US is appalling and we will get into it all today.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is digging deep into the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a so-called charity with a $77 billion endowment that looks more like a tax-dodging slush fund for globalist agendas. From 2022 to 2024, they funneled about $20 million to CCP-linked entities, including $11.7 million to Chinese military arms and $6.7 million to state-run universities, all under the guise of climate initiatives. Suddenly, Gates downplays climate doom right as the probe heats up. Coincidence? Hardly. This ties into billions laundered through “green” schemes by Bloomberg ($1 billion+ to shutter U.S. coal while cozying up to China), the MacArthur Foundation ($20 million to Beijing in 2014), the Energy Foundation ($1 billion+ with 30% to China), ClimateWorks ($2 billion+ globally, heavy China focus backed by Soros networks), Bezos Earth Fund ($10 billion since 2020), and much, much more. This is bribery masked as environmentalism, plain and simple.

This and so much more! Enjoy the show, and please support us at GiveSendGo.com/RenzLaw.

The Schumer Shutdown drags on while Dems demand insane concessions just to pay our troops and keep SNAP flowing to their own voters. It is pure political theater, nothing more. Meanwhile, Bill Gates, the eugenics poster boy himself, just admitted maybe we should not nuke the planet over “climate change.” Stunning flip-flop that smells like a grifter pivoting to a fresher scam, not some road-to-Damascus awakening. Truth is exploding everywhere, and the American people are finally waking up.

Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, continue blocking government funding bills, demanding massive concessions on everything from green energy slush funds to open borders. They claim it is about “protecting democracy,” but soldiers go unpaid and 42 million SNAP recipients face benefit disruptions starting November 1. Schumer does not want his constituents eating? Please. This is leverage for pork, plain and simple. Dems demand absurd giveaways to restart paychecks for troops and food stamps for their base. It is hostage-taking, and Americans see through it.

Now, Bill Gates’ climate whiplash. For decades, Gates screamed climate change was an “existential threat” dooming agriculture, especially in Africa, predicting mass starvation by 2050 from droughts and heat. He pushed trillions in green premiums, farmland grabs, and synthetic meats. Suddenly, in his October 2025 essay “Three Tough Truths About Climate,” Gates writes: “Climate change is serious, but not as big a deal as I have been saying for 20 years... We cannot cut funding for health and development to reach net zero.” He pivots to vaccines and AI-health as bigger priorities. Why the reversal? The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is under IRS investigation for funneling millions to Chinese PLA fronts and foreign governments, violating nonprofit rules. Climate grift lost steam; nobody buys the doomsday anymore. Gates smells vaccines and AI-medicine as the new cash cow. He would rather jab us into compliance than tax our cows.

I sat down with my good friend Melissa Red Pill for a biblical-Trump deep dive. She nailed it: President Trump is dismantling globalist control over rare earth minerals by cutting deals directly with Australia, Cambodia, Thailand, and soon China, bypassing elite middlemen for sovereign processing. This returns wealth to nations, not crowns. Melissa tied it to 1 Corinthians 13:11, putting away childish things as nations reclaim adulthood from UN babysitters. We exposed Gaza as a proxy land grab, with 2012 Economist cover foreshadowing Netanyahu-Hamas paraglider “equivalence.” Saudi, Egypt, Jordan fund rebuilding to block expansionism. Kash Patel hammers mob bosses tied to election fraud and Pelosi-Newsom networks. It is The Untouchables in real time.

Folks, the golden age dawns, but snakes remain. Support the fight at givesendgo.com/renzlaw and tomrenz.com.

Elon Musk just dropped Grokipedia through his X AI, and it is taking dead aim at Wikipedia, that left-wing propaganda machine we all know too well. Plus, Texas AG Ken Paxton is suing Big Pharma over Tylenol and autism links, and we have got a temporary SNAP benefits shutdown that exposes the mess in our welfare system. Buckle up, because the truth is coming out fast and furious.

Let me start with the big one: Grokipedia. On October 27, 2025, X AI launched this AI-powered encyclopedia with 885,000 articles, all generated by Grok and designed to chase unbiased truth. I love the concept. Wikipedia has been a joke for years. Their co-founder Larry Sanger told Tucker Carlson that 85% of Wikipedia’s most powerful editors are anonymous, and the site slid into leftist bias after ditching conservative sources. Even Wikipedia CEO Katherine Mayer admitted they prioritize “consensus” over actual truth, saying seeking truth is a “distraction.” That is not an encyclopedia; that is narrative control.

Now enter Musk, the genius businessman. Grokipedia lets users flag errors for AI review, with open-source framework for transparency. Early tests show deeper science coverage and less censorship on controversial topics. I checked the vaccine entry myself: solid definition citing CDC and WHO, but it calls out mRNA risks like myocarditis. On January 6, it still leans propaganda-heavy, but users can push corrections. Grok is not perfect yet. I live-demoed it asking why newborns need hepatitis B if mom tests negative, and it parroted CDC lines without questioning Pharma funding. Garbage in, garbage out. But if Musk makes Grok dig for real sources and ignore bought-off “authorities,” this changes everything. X is now AI-driven for news algorithms, the top news source worldwide. We cannot let biased AI control narratives any more than anonymous Wikipedia editors.

Shifting to health freedom: Texas AG Ken Paxton filed a failure-to-warn lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson over Tylenol (acetaminophen) and prenatal links to autism, ADHD, and liver issues. RFK Jr. and President Trump highlighted this in press conferences, noting Tylenol’s over-the-counter status since 1959 with no autism spike until the 1980s vaccine schedule explosion. Johnson & Johnson owns both Tylenol (billion-dollar product) and vaccine lines. Will they defend Tylenol by pointing to vaccines as the real culprit? Temporal evidence screams vaccines: autism was rare pre-1986 immunity law, then exploded with mandated shots. Paxton could demand vaccine discovery to find intervening causes, but politics might stop him. This case could crack Big Pharma wide open if discovery hits vaccines. I am watching this like a hawk.

Finally, SNAP benefits faced a temporary shutdown, impacting 42 million Americans, with funding resuming November 1. The USDA is finally enforcing work requirements under 7 U.S.C. § 2015(o), ending COVID waivers where people collected without job searches. I have been there briefly, lost my job, wife sick, humiliated using it. It should be a bridge, not a lifestyle. Carts full of Doritos and soda while taxpayers foot $3,000–$4,000 monthly for some families? Insane. Enforce work, switch to healthy food boxes by family size, cut junk. Help the truly needy without breeding dependency.

Folks, that is the show! Grokipedia could revolutionize truth if Grok gets unbiased. Paxton’s suit might expose vaccine harms. SNAP needs real reform. Support the fight at GiveSendGo.com/RenzLaw and TomRenz.com.