“I’m not going [up] to a Christian to tell him ‘I hate you’… but that does not deny the fact I do.” The post One of Florida’s Largest Mosques Calls Trump “Garbage” appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

Every person involved in the Russiagate conspiracy was removed from leadership positions. There might be others and they are staying on it, said Kash Patel, who spoke with Larry Kudlow on his show this morning. The reason Mar-a-Lago was raided was purely political, Kash Patel told Kudlow. The FBI created a crime where there was […] The post Kash Patel: The Mar-a-Lago Raid Had No Predicate & People Will Be Held Accountable appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

A great deal of evil in the world can be described (and has been described) as banal. It happens constantly — often without us realizing it, without thrusting itself in our faces, and without making its perpetrators known to the world. Think of the routine executions that are conducted by the anonymous butchers working on behalf of Planned Parenthood, or MAID clinics in Canada. Think of the many fraud schemes that are currently being hatched by unknown Somalis in Minneapolis, or the crimes against humanity that are taking place, as we speak, in far-off African countries. These are all horrific acts. But we also don’t see them happening. We just know that they happen. And they happen so often that, to a certain extent, we take them for granted. And therefore, whether we realize it or not, we can discuss these acts of evil with a certain clarity and calm. The brutal murder of Charlie Kirk was not a banal act of evil. There was nothing routine or mundane about it. Footage of Charlie’s public execution was beamed to hundreds of millions of people across the world. His death was far more gruesome than any depiction in a film could ever be. And it was streamed in far higher-resolution than any other documented political assassination in the history of this country. Outside of military veterans — many of whom suffer for the rest of their lives because of what they’ve seen on the battlefield — it’s highly unlikely that any of us had ever witnessed the devastating and immediate effects of a sniper shot to a man’s neck. I know that I had never seen such a thing. And I certainly had not seen it happen to a friend. But whether you were a friend of Charlie or not — whether you agreed with his politics or not — the point is that you had never seen anything like this event. On September 10th, that changed. And what you saw, if you have a conscience at all, changed you. How do normal human beings respond when they’re confronted, against their will, with a sight like that? There is no playbook to follow. There’s no precedent to guide us. There’s no research, or peer-reviewed study that can walk us through it. The honest answer is: We have no idea. We’re all figuring it out as we go. Some have preferred not to talk about what happened. Others have spoken up, as often as they possibly can. And, we can now say with some certainty, a very large number of people have concocted (or come to believe) highly incredible theories to explain Charlie’s death — theories that, if true, would defy any semblance of common sense and cause more international incidents than both World Wars put together. These kinds of theories can, in many cases, perhaps be plausibly explained as a psychological defense mechanism — a way for many people, who are effectively in a state of shock, to make sense of something horrible and unprecedented. Conspiracy theories always pop up around tragedies of this sort — think of the Sandy Hook theories, and many other examples. I believe this happens, at least in part, because people are trying to take something ghastly and shocking and make it comprehensible by turning it into a kind of cinematic storyline. But over time, as we all know, shock wears off. Eventually, the perpetrators of even the most grotesque acts of evil, through the passage of time and the arrival of more information, begin to remind us of the perpetrators of banal acts of evil — the ones we’re all familiar with.  Especially when they’re caught, these killers lose the mystique that they had when they were on the run, or when they were squirreled away in solitary confinement somewhere. The reason people still talk about “Jack the Ripper,” while no one knows the name “Gary Ridgway” anymore, is that Ridgway was identified, arrested, and put on trial. There was a public catharsis. And when something like that happens, we have an opportunity to regain our senses, to understand the threat we face, and to proceed with clear heads and restrained emotions as we work to eliminate that threat and move on with our lives. Yesterday, just over three months after Charlie Kirk was murdered, one of those moments of public catharsis took place in a courtroom in Utah. The man alleged to be responsible for Charlie’s death, Tyler Robinson, appeared in-person, in court, for the first time since the assassination. Note that I say the word “alleged” only in the journalistic sense that we traditionally use it to describe accused criminals before they are convicted in a court of law. But in reality, from my point of view, Tyler Robinson is not just alleged to be the killer. He is the killer. His guilt is plain as day. And I will explain why in a moment.  During his appearance, Robinson repeatedly grinned and smiled, as if he was enjoying himself. This is a man who has clearly benefited from the many fanciful stories that have been told about Charlie’s death. His expression is the demonic grin of a sociopath. It’s a grin that we’ve seen from many other sociopaths over the years, from Luigi Mangione to Brian Kohberger. It’s familiar. And therefore, the images from the courtroom yesterday are not confounding or shocking. They are sobering. And they aren’t particularly difficult to decode. Tyler Robinson laughs and smiles during hearing on media access to the trial on Charlie Kirk’s killing. pic.twitter.com/QbiUa7l7qO — The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) December 11, 2025 At the risk of understatement, this does not look like footage of a man who’s being framed for murder, or someone who’s terrified and confused. He looks a lot like many other narcissistic, sociopathic murderers who have been in the exact same position. There’s been a lot of conversation about “vibes” and “feelings” — people claiming that various figures involved in this saga give off bad vibes or give them a weird feeling. Needless to say, vibes and feelings do not constitute evidence of anything. But it’s worth asking anyway: what kind of vibe does Tyler Robinson give off? Can anyone honestly say you get the vibe that this is an innocent man being railroaded by powerful forces involved in a global conspiracy? To say nothing of his parents, who certainly are not giving off the vibes of parents who know that their son is being used as a patsy for a crime he didn’t commit. This footage should have the effect of focusing your mind and strengthening your resolve after three months of speculation and paranoia. It should also motivate you to evaluate, with as much precision and seriousness as possible, the strength of the case against Tyler Robinson. Justice in this case depends on it. And so does, perhaps, the survival of the conservative political movement, and therefore our country. The time for wild theorizing is over.  Of course, as we all know, Candace Owens has been by far the most prominent person to push alternative theories of the case. Candace has been my friend for many years now. But I strongly disagree with her theories about this case, and I’ve told her that in our private conversations. I won’t — and would never— say anything about the content of those conversations, except that we’ve had them.  But many millions of other people in the general public have come to believe these theories — and there are plenty of other people online who are pushing them — which means that there is a conversation to be had with the general public as well, which is what I want to do today. If you are in that camp — if you are someone who believes that Charlie’s death was the result of some kind of vast conspiracy implicating foreign governments, our own government, and even TPUSA — I ask you to listen to what I have to say. I am not going to insult or condemn you. I’m just going to tell you plainly that I think you’re wrong, and why. Guilt is established through evidence. And the evidence — all of the evidence — points in one direction. Which isn’t to say that there aren’t unanswered questions. And it’s not even to dismiss the possibility of a conspiracy. There may indeed be a conspiracy of sorts, but it’s a conspiracy — if there is one — among left-wing militants in Utah. I’ll get to all of that. I just ask that you listen. We’ll start with the evidence. And here it is.  DNA recovered at the crime scene from a screwdriver, as well as a towel that was wrapped around the rifle used in the shooting, both match Tyler Robinson. His DNA was also found on the trigger of the rifle. This is evidence that mathematically excludes any other suspect. It’s also evidence that’s subject to independent testing by the defense team, and which the state crime lab has reviewed, separately from the FBI. It’s evidence that, even if it were the only evidence, would likely be enough to convict anyone in any court. But it’s not the only evidence. Additionally, in a text message after the shooting, Robinson said he wanted to take out Charlie Kirk because he’s been spreading “hate.” He also wrote a note stating, “I have the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I’m going to take it.” The FBI has a photograph of that note. Hearing all this, you might say, “Well, I don’t trust the FBI. Maybe they faked the text messages and planted the DNA.” And it’s certainly not unreasonable to distrust the FBI. After all, we’ve been lied to so many times, about virtually everything — from Russiagate to COVID to George Floyd to the assassination attempt in Butler and so on. The FBI, as an institution, historically, has very little credibility. But here’s the thing: The case doesn’t hinge on the credibility of the FBI. Not even close. Tyler Robinson’s father and mother both recognized their son in the surveillance images from UVU’s cameras. Robinson’s father also recognized the rifle as the same type of rifle that had been given to his son as a gift.  But Robinson didn’t provide a photo of the rifle when his father requested one, after the shooting. He didn’t tell his parents where the rifle was. He also didn’t deny committing the crime when his parents asked about it. Nor did Robinson say that the FBI had faked the surveillance images somehow, as a way of setting him up as a patsy.  Instead, when asked why he had killed Charlie, he wondered aloud about whether he should kill himself, and stated that Charlie was responsible for spreading “evil.” Then, before going to the sheriff’s office, Robinson also posted this message to a group of his friends on Discord: “It was me at UVU yesterday. im sorry for all of this.” So we have three confessions here — one to his parents, one to his roommate, and one on Discord. And the confessions weren’t obtained by the FBI, or coerced in an interrogation room, or anything like that. Robinson turned himself in at a sheriff’s office, not an FBI field office. A retired deputy sheriff and family friend brought him there. Those local sheriffs were the ones who took the first statements from Robinson’s parents, which identified Robinson as the shooter, and provided the motive. In literally any other case, for literally any other defendant, if there is DNA evidence and a confession — they will be convicted. To say that this kind of evidence is not enough — indeed to say that this evidence doesn’t even point vaguely to the suspect — is to essentially say that guilt can never be proven in a court of law. And by the way, a police officer at Utah Valley University was the first person to identify where the shooter was located. The FBI wasn’t on scene at the time. This officer immediately identified where the shot had come from, and he ran to the sniper’s nest. According to charging documents, which were prepared by Utah’s County Attorney, “At the moment of the shot, a UVU police officer was watching the crowd from an elevated vantage point. As soon as he heard the shot, he began to scan the area for threats. Believing the shot came from a rifle because of its sound, he looked for potential sniper positions. He noted a roof area approximately 160 yards away from Mr. Kirk as a potential shooting position and rushed there to look for evidence.” When the UVU officer arrived at that position, he “noticed markings in the gravel rooftop consistent with a sniper having lain on the roof – impressions in the gravel potentially left by the elbows, knees, and feet of a person in a prone shooting position. Police reviewed surveillance from the camera covering the roof and discovered that it recorded an individual dressed in dark clothing cross the railing from the public walkway and drop onto the roof at approximately 12:15 p.m. … After a short time, which matches the known time of the shot, the individual arose and ran across the roof to the northeast. This discovery led to an intensive review of UVU surveillance recordings to attempt to track and identify the suspect.”  Notably, this UVU police officer — an unlikely participant in a grand FBI conspiracy, by any measure — did not think a mysterious second shooter on a grassy knoll had taken the shot. He zeroed in on the shooting location right away. They checked the cameras. And the cameras provided images of the shooter climbing the steps, who was then identified by his parents. There’s also the fact that, according to a former co-worker, Robinson always walked around with his fists clenched. This is not the kind of evidence that would convict Robinson on its own, obviously. It’s circumstantial. Not hard evidence. But we have hard evidence. And we have circumstantial evidence. So both the hard evidence and the circumstantial evidence point in one direction. This is from the New York Post, quoting an electrician that Tyler Robinson worked with. “Tyler walked around with clenched fists all the time – like, super hard clenched fists. I remember making a joke to him one time when he had his fists like that, I was like, ‘Are you angry, Tyler?’ And he was like…’That’s just what I do.’ He was always soft-spoken but his fists were always like that,” he said. “Even in the security footage from UVU, you can see he’s got his fists clenched tight.” Here’s that security footage: So that detail from an independent witness is obviously incriminating. So is the fact that, after the shooting, Robinson didn’t answer his phone or show up to work. The Post continues:  “‘I was shocked when I heard the news yesterday — I was like, ‘It can’t be that Tyler’ — so I called my old coworker at Wilde Electric and I was like, ‘Hey, did Tyler show up to work today?’ He was like, no, he was supposed to but maybe he’s at a different site. … “And I was like, ‘Dude, I think Tyler was the one who did the shooting.’ And he didn’t believe me,” the man said, adding that his subsequent phone call to Robinson went straight to voicemail.” In no uncertain terms, the evidence against Tyler Robinson, which comes from multiple independent sources, is overwhelming. It’s easily enough for a reasonable jury to convict him ten times over. By contrast, the alleged evidence implicating the U.S. military, a dozen foreign assassins with their personal cellphones, Egyptian air force planes, Turning Point USA, and the French Foreign Legion, is nonexistent. It’s not that there aren’t any weird details about that day, or some of the people tangentially connected to the event, that you could point to. But there are two important points about those weird details: First of all, a lot of those details are based on hearsay and anonymous reports. You have no way to know if they’re even true. Second, even if they are all true — even if it’s true that Egyptian planes have been following Erika Kirk around, for example — they do not constitute any kind of evidence at all. You could take any murder that has ever happened in the history of the world, look at all of the stuff surrounding it, and all of the people connected in some way to it, and point to any number of “weird” things. But there is a reason why no competent defense attorney would ever try to get his client off the hook simply on the basis that weird stuff happened on the same day that the murder happened. That is not exculpatory. That is not evidence of anything, except that weird things happen. And in that very important respect, the conspiracy theory claims are the exact opposite of the witness testimony and DNA evidence that will be presented at Robinson’s trial — all of which will be subjected to cross-examination and independent testing. None of the weird details presented by conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, constitutes evidence even remotely. More to the point, the conspiracy theories make LESS sense of these facts than the so-called “official narrative” does. So the conspiracy theorists are positing random circumstantial points as evidence of a theory that itself does a worse job of explaining the points than the theory they’re trying to debunk. All of the weird details — again, assuming they’re all true, which we cannot assume — actually make the conspiracy theory LESS plausible, not more. If this whole thing was the work of powerful actors at the highest levels of government across the world — who plotted, planned, and carried it out — it would be much cleaner, and there would be far fewer weird details for people on the internet to home in on.  For example, the conspiracy theories suggest that various powerful governmental forces across the globe conspired to kill Charlie Kirk and rather than just having him die mysteriously in his home of a heart attack or “suicide,” which they could have easily arranged, or sniping him while he checked the mail one day and making sure the assassin was never found, which they also could have arranged, they decided to carry out this plot on stage, on camera, using Robinson as a patsy, who they allowed to be captured alive for some inexplicable reason, when they could have just made it a murder-suicide and tied up the loose ends. And on top of all of that, we’re told they used the wrong ammunition in the official story (we’ll get to that in a second), along with leaving a trail of various other bread crumbs that the internet could follow. And on top of that, they somehow convinced Robinson’s own parents to go along with this charade, persuading them to offer their innocent son up to be executed, while also letting them stay alive to tell their tale if they ever chose to. There have been many mass shootings where the shooter kills his family members before turning his gun on the public and then himself. The hypothetical conspirators could have — and obviously would have — arranged all of that in this case, tidily closing the loop and getting rid of anyone who could blow the whistle. Indeed, the whole reason why everyone (I think rightly) assumes that Epstein didn’t kill himself is that we know that powerful conspirators aren’t just going to leave someone alive to blow the lid off the whole thing. Admittedly, I’m speaking hypothetically about what these government assassins would do. But the conspiracy theorists are also speaking hypothetically. And I’m saying that the facts on the ground don’t match their hypothetical. At all.  A theory is not just an educated guess. A theory, in a scientific sense, is a system meant to explain the facts we observe. We observe objects falling to the ground when we drop them. Gravity is the “theory” — the system — that explains that fact. This is why we say theories should be predictive. A theory should predict what we observe in reality. If you listen to someone explain the theory of gravity, you would predict, based on the theory, that things would fall to the ground when you drop them. And they do. But the conspiracy theory surrounding Charlie’s assassination does not make sense of, or predict, any of the details that it was designed to explain. If you did not know anything about Charlie or his murder, and someone told you the conspiracy theory — they told you the tale of militaries, and intelligence agencies, and multi-million dollar organizations conspiring to kill this man in a highly coordinated and well funded scheme carried out by specialized and highly trained killers — you would have in your head a picture of this case that would not even slightly resemble the reality. When you finally read up on the case itself, and the actual real-life details, you would be utterly shocked to see the clumsiness, the “weirdness,” the apparent inconsistencies, and most especially, you would be shocked that all of the people who are being used as patsies in this murder were somehow left alive. You would be shocked that Charlie’s murder very much resembles, in every way, the work of an untrained radical whack job, and not the work of nefarious global elites. Now you could argue that nefarious global elites would want it to look like the work of an untrained radical whack job. But the whole reason you formulated this theory is because you say it doesn’t look like the work of an untrained radical whack job, even though it does. Your theory collapses in on itself. It eats its own tail. And on that point, we need to talk about one specific insinuation, which comes up quite often and which the conspiracy theorists are hanging much of their theory on, which is that Robinson’s rifle may not have killed Charlie Kirk, because a bullet from that rifle would have decapitated him. This is an insinuation that claims to rely on actual, scientific evidence, so it’s worth discussing in some detail. Again, even if it’s true that the ammunition doesn’t match the type of injury Charlie sustained, that inconsistency makes EVEN LESS SENSE under the theory that this was all plotted by militaries and governments. Would they not have known this fact about the ammunition? Is it even plausible that they would make such an obvious mistake?  But we’re supposed to believe this claim about the rifle because of demonstrations like this one, which Candace presented on her show recently. Watch: Candace Owens responds to ballistics test: I agree with her and I’m sorry to inform you, but a 30/06 WAS NOT used in Charlie Kirk’s assassination! pic.twitter.com/JaopgiIcZn — FromConvict2Conservative (@YaakovRenewed) December 9, 2025 One of the many obvious problems here is that this demonstration does not account for any of the actual variables of the assassination, beyond the round that was used. And the most important missing variable is that the actual shooter was at an elevated position, roughly 40 feet above the ground. He shot Charlie at an angle. They don’t account for that, in any way, in this demonstration. Take a look at this diagram that was uploaded by Fenix Ammunition, which is a credible source on the topic because they manufacture precision ammo. The blue line is the bullet trajectory that they assess is plausible. It gives you an idea of how the bullet may have deflected once it hit Charlie’s spine. And if you’ve ever gone hunting, you know how often this kind of thing happens. A powerful round, particularly if it’s shot at an angle, will often deflect off bone, sending fragments downward into the body. But if you watch that demonstration, which doesn’t remotely mirror the actual conditions of the shooting, you’re led to believe that this is physically impossible. You’re told that it’s far more likely that a second, unknown shooter actually shot Charlie with a completely different weapon. Which, for the third time, if the conspiracy theories are true, it wouldn’t make any sense for the conspirators to carry out the assassination that way.  You can come up with various reasons why so many people are tempted to buy into this. Part of it may be ignorance, or unfamiliarity with firearms and other basic scientific evidence. Some of it may be latent frustration or resentment towards Turning Point USA. Some of it may be a desire for catharsis — to lash out blindly at the “establishment.” And a good part of it may be related to the same reason “true crime” shows are popular, especially with women. It can be intoxicating for people to believe fictional narratives about real-world events. It makes you feel like a detective — someone who’s privy to knowledge that most people aren’t. It’s a way to make sense of events that are horrifying and disturbing — even if those events, at a factual level, aren’t complicated. Compare the popularity of the highly fictionalized “Making a Murderer” Netflix show with various attempts to debunk it (including Candace’s own well made documentary on the subject). It’s not even close. Wild theorizing is often far more entertaining than the sober reality. And that’s especially true now, in an era of extremely low trust in institutions. When the government has proven that it’s willing to lie, again and again, wild theorizing starts to seem rational. No one wants to believe the official narrative because the official narrative, so often, is false. We elected this government to address the problem. We elected them to restore faith in law enforcement and the rest of America’s institutions. And frankly, they haven’t done so. So there is distrust. And distrust is understandable. But distrust is not evidence of an alternative theory. And crucially, again, you do not need to trust the FBI, or the federal government, to recognize Tyler Robinson’s very obvious guilt.  With that said, there are, as I alluded to, unanswered questions. And those unanswered questions, in my opinion, may even lead to a conspiracy. But not one that involves TPUSA or the Trump Administration or any of the people or organizations who have so far been implicated. As for those questions, here they are:   Question one: Why did someone write on September 3rd, a week before the shooting, “it’d be funny if someone like charlie kirk got shot on september 10th LMAO.” That’s a real post on X. It was unearthed by the account “Aesthetica.” It’s legitimate. Did that person have advanced knowledge of the shooting? It’s especially alarming because, as Cassandra Macdonald of Gateway Pundit has pointed out, the user name of that poster is “tally hall album.” And Tyler Robinson, coincidentally enough, had a publicly visible playlist of songs by the band Tally Hall on Spotify. Additionally, the shooter’s trans/furry-identifying boyfriend, MacDonald reported, was active on the Tally Hall subreddit. There were several other posts along these lines.  Another post read, “Charlie Kirk is coming to my college tomorrow, I really hope someone evaporates him literally … Let’s just say something big will happen tomorrow.” Additionally, days before the shooting, someone else indicated that something “BIG” was coming soon. Then, after the shooting, the author wrote, “Well that’s that” and “Another Chud bites the dust.” Then there’s this one. It’s from shortly after the shooting. A trans-identifying individual who is followed by Lance Twiggs on TikTok wrote, WE F–ING DID IT!!”  Whatever happened to these people? The FBI says they investigated them. What did they uncover? Were they cleared? If so, how?  There’s a clear public interest in answering that question. It wouldn’t interfere with Tyler Robinson’s trial. So what’s the answer? And while we’re at it, why did Robinson text his gay furry lover, “Remember how I was engraving bullets?” How is it possible that the roommate, Lance Twiggs, would see Robinson “engraving bullets,” but not have any idea why he was engraving them? Did he see him engraving messages like, “Hey Fascist, catch?” Did he ask why his roommate was engraving bullets? We have no idea. As far as we know, Twiggs has gone missing. No one seems to know where he is. So where is he? And has he actually been cleared of any wrongdoing or foreknowledge of this attack?  And what is the group Armed Queers Salt Lake City? And why did they scrub their entire social media presence immediately after the shooting?  These are legitimate questions that, for all I know, the government will answer during Robinson’s trial. But they should address some of these issues now. Even if they have to leak the information through unofficial sources, transparency is obviously necessary.  As of now, there is actually a case to be made for conspiracies. But it doesn’t involve the Egyptian Air Force or the French Foreign Legion. It involves Leftist freaks on the internet, who seemingly had foreknowledge of the attack. It involves the coordinated attacks by Leftists on law enforcement over the past several months. It involves the people — leftists militants — who have been committing acts of political violence all over the country for years, and who had all of the motive and all of the incentive to kill Charlie Kirk. There is one group and one group only that has actually benefited from Charlie’s assassination, and that ever had a chance of benefiting. And that is the militant left. On the other hand, the group that has been harmed the most, by far, and that could only be harmed by it, is TPUSA. Which means that — along with their being no evidence at all to implicate them — they also don’t have any discernible motive. That includes, most obviously and especially, Erika Kirk. On that note, I want to say this about Erika. I had only met Erika maybe once or twice prior to Charlie’s death. After he was killed, of course, I reached out to her. We spoke briefly on the phone. Again, I won’t go into detail about the content of a private conversation, except to say that Erika, who had just lost her husband in the most shocking way imaginable, spent most of our conversation trying to encourage me and tell me how much I meant to Charlie. She’s the grieving widow, with children who at that point still didn’t even know that their father was dead, and yet here she was on the phone — through her tears, through the very deep anguish and pain in her voice — still trying to be gracious and encouraging to someone else, some guy she barely knew. It was clear to me then — and has become all the more clear to me since, as I’ve gotten to know her more — that this is someone with an immense amount of strength and courage.  So when people look at Erika and say, “She’s acting strange. I’ve never seen a grieving person act this way.” Well, I agree. She’s an exceptional person, in an extraordinary situation, handling it with remarkable poise and dignity. That is a virtue. And virtue is a strange thing in our day.  And even if she were not an impressive person, she would still be a grieving widow. She would still be my friend’s wife. And I would still feel duty-bound to support her — as I have over these past three months, in ways both public and not. So what I am asking everyone — including Candace — is to please leave this woman alone. Let her grieve. Let her pick up the pieces of her shattered life in whatever way she sees fit. She deserves that grace. And we owe it to her. Not because of any specific debt. Not because we have no right to question her. Of course, we do have the right. But we have a moral obligation, as children of our Heavenly Father, to be charitable and kind towards suffering widows, especially the widow of a man that all of us (on the Right anyway) say we respected and admired.  All told, the tragic reality is that three months after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the Leftists who want us dead are more emboldened than ever. They’re thrilled. That was always the worst possible outcome. It’s a trajectory that, if it continues, could destroy not only what Charlie built, but also what’s left of the conservative movement — a movement that is the only thing standing between western civilization and the forces that wish to tear it down brick by brick. That’s the reason sociopaths like Tyler Robinson are smiling right now. They know they’re winning. And we cannot let them. Which means we must all return to the facts, to the truth and our defense of it, which is the mission that Charlie lived for, and died for. We cannot let it die with him. 

President Donald Trump took aim at two major financial firms he said were pushing racial quotas and climate activism onto American companies in an executive order on Thursday.  The executive order accused the proxy advisor firms of Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis of pushing leftist politics into the shareholder voting process. Both companies control over 90% of the market for proxy advising in the United States and advise powerful clients on how to vote on shareholder proposals on things ranging from climate policy to board composition.  “These proxy advisors regularly use their substantial power to advance and prioritize radical politically-motivated agendas — like ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ and ‘environmental, social, and governance’ — even though investor returns should be the only priority,” Trump wrote in his executive order. “For example, these proxy advisors have supported shareholder proposals requiring American companies to conduct racial equity audits and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and one continues to provide guidance based on the racial or ethnic diversity of corporate boards.” Glass Lewis has provided guidelines recommending against boards with fewer than one member of “an underrepresented community.” It defines “underrepresented” as non-white people or sexual minorities. It will also generally recommend against a board “that fails to provide explicit disclosure concerning the board’s role in overseeing [climate change] issues.” ISS has adopted similar guidelines, noting that it will generally vote against companies with no women on the board, against boards with no racial or ethnic diversity, and vote against companies it says have not taken “minimum steps” to address “climate change” risks.  “Their practices also raise significant concerns about conflicts of interest and the quality of their recommendations, among other concerns,” Trump wrote. “The United States must therefore increase oversight of and take action to restore public confidence in the proxy advisor industry, including by promoting accountability, transparency, and competition.” Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships The executive order directed the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission to review all regulations related to proxy advisors and DEI mandates and directed the chair of the Federal Trade Commission to join state investigations into whether proxy advisors were violating unfair trade practices. It also calls for the attorney general and the secretary of labor to investigate the influence of proxy advising.  Last month, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed a lawsuit against ISS and Glass Lewis, accusing them of violating Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and state antitrust laws. Both firms are currently under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission over how they direct clients on social and climate issues.  In August 2023, the House Judiciary Committee launched an investigation into ISS and Glass Lewis, probing their partnerships with climate activist groups and their push to “decarbonize” corporations.

Democratic attorneys general in 19 states, led by California and Massachusetts, are suing the Trump administration over its $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. The lawsuit announced on Friday argues that the fee imposed by the administration goes far beyond the actual cost for an H-1B application, and goes against the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. “As the world’s fourth largest economy, California knows that when skilled talent from around the world joins our workforce, it drives our state forward. President Trump’s illegal $100,000 H-1B visa fee creates unnecessary — and illegal — financial burdens on California public employers and other providers of vital services, exacerbating labor shortages in key sectors,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement Friday. “The Trump Administration thinks it can raise costs on a whim, but the law says otherwise,” Bonta continued. The visa is meant for a limited number of jobs, and there are only 65,000 new ones doled out annually. However, 20,000 more H-1B visas are issued for those who have a “master’s degree or higher” from a college within the United States. According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website, there have been “enough petitions” sent to the federal government for both caps for fiscal year 2026. “President Trump promised to put American workers first, and his commonsense action on H-1B visas does just that by discouraging companies from spamming the system and driving down American wages, while providing certainty to employers who need to bring the best talent from overseas,” White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers told The Daily Wire in a statement. “The Administration’s actions are lawful and are a necessary, initial, incremental step towards necessary reforms to the H-1B program,” she continued. Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships A September presidential proclamation stated that the program “has been deliberately exploited to replace, rather than supplement, American workers with lower-paid, lower-skilled labor” and it has veered off from its original intention. The proclamation added that companies “have abused the H-1B statute and its regulations to artificially suppress wages, resulting in a disadvantageous labor market for American citizens, while at the same time making it more difficult to attract and retain the highest skilled subset of temporary workers, with the largest impact seen in critical science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields.” The lawsuit comes at a major tipping point for immigration nationwide, as the Trump administration recently stopped immigration processes for people from 19 “high-risk” countries following the shooting of two National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., by an Afghan national who entered as part of a refugee program following the botched 2021 troop withdrawal from the Middle Eastern nation. In addition, deportation efforts are still underway as the Supreme Court will soon be tackling whether or not birthright citizenship is constitutional.

Episode Description: Australia just became the first country to ban social media accounts for kids under 16… but will it actually keep them safer online? In this episode, Arielle and Karissa unpack the data that pushed lawmakers to act, the huge loopholes critics are worried about, and the real trade-offs for teens, parents, and platforms. They also ask a bigger question: who should be responsible for protecting kids on the internet in the first place? Have thoughts on the ban or ideas for better solutions? Share your take at social@optimistdaily.com. Want to be part of the Optimism Movement? Become an Emissary. Subscribe to our FREE Daily Newsletter and follow us on Instagram, X, and Blue Sky. The Optimist Daily is a project of the World Business Academy. Donate link: https://www.optimistdaily.com/donate-to-support-the-optimist-daily/?gift=Y%20http:// Transcript: Theme music  Karissa  Hello, and welcome to the Optimist Daily’s Weekly Roundup. I’m Karissa.  Arielle  And I’m Arielle, and we’re working hard to put solutions in view and optimism in movement.  Karissa  Welcome back. We’re here with another episode of the pod to share the solutions from the Optimist Daily this week.  Arielle  Yes, we are. But before we do that, we’d like to remind you that there is a free daily newsletter that you can sign up for. That way you’ll get all of these amazing solutions straight to your inbox.  Karissa  Yeah, and if you prefer to get your news on your social media feeds, we are on just about everything from Facebook to X, even Pinterest if you want some lifestyle solutions. We are @OptimistDaily on just about everything, except X, where we are @OdeToOptimism.  Arielle  And we’d love to thank our Emissaries, who are our financial supporters. If you’d also like to donate to the cause and help us keep the Optimist Daily going, then you can find out how to do that in the show notes.  Karissa  Yeah, and of course we appreciate any non-financial support as well. Just sharing this podcast, forwarding our daily newsletter to a friend, engaging with a social media post and posting it to your story. Anything to spread that positive, optimistic news around will really help our mission.  Arielle  And it’s a great time to be positive and optimistic because it’s almost the holidays. I can’t believe it’s mid-December already.  Karissa  I know. This year really has just flown by, and this month as well.  Arielle  And then it’s going to be 2027.  Karissa  Just wow, is all I can say (laughs).  Arielle  But how are you doing?  Karissa  I’m doing well, Arielle. I mean, like we’ve been saying, all the busyness of the holidays is definitely catching up to me. And so, I encourage everyone, and myself, to make sure to slow down, make sure to show some gratitude, show some love to yourself, and to others as we wrap up another year.  Arielle  Yeah, I’m pretty excited that my family will be arriving in just two days. Excited, also a little stressed. It’s always confronting to have your parents in your own space after you’ve been living away from them for a while. I hope the house is clean enough for my mom (laughs). But I guess we’ll just jump straight into our episode because we probably both have a lot to do. Well, I’m an Optimist, But… sometimes I find that there’s just not enough time to talk about all of the solutions we want to talk about. And I say this because I’m actually really excited about your solution, Karissa. So, I might put mine on the backburner and we’ll see if we have enough time to dive into it. But yeah, yours is just really, really interesting and timely.  Karissa  Yeah. And like you said, Arielle, it is a bummer we don’t get to talk about all the solutions here. But of course, you can go read more about them on our website. They’re always there for you. But without further ado, if you don’t mind, I would love to share my solution.  Arielle  Go for it, go for it.  Karissa  Yeah, like you said, this one is super timely. The solution is called Australia’s bold move to ban kids under 16 from social media sparks important global debates.   This week on December 10th, Australia became the first country to ban all children under 16 from having social media accounts. And I think it opens up such a fascinating conversation on whether a ban can be effective in a situation like this and what can be done in tandem or instead to protect kids on the internet.  Arielle  A sweeping ban on social media for kids by an entire government is quite an ambitious move. Personally, I appreciate where this is coming from. We’ve published many articles on the negative effects of social media activity and what that does to mental health, not only for kids but adults too. And honestly, I think a blanket ban for people under 16 may not be the final solution for such a complex and nuanced issue, but it’s definitely a start, and it’s certainly caught the attention of other countries that are already working on improved regulations for online spaces.  Karissa  Yeah, exactly. It’s such a wild west and there’s a lot to be discussed with this. But protecting kids, I think, is definitely one of the main concerns with these digital spaces. And this new policy is meant to be a sweeping law that covers these global digital spaces like TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Threads, and other popular platforms. But whether the move will meaningfully protect young people or just simply push them towards digital workarounds is still unclear. Sometimes on the Optimist Daily, we share solutions that haven’t been fully fleshed out, and this is certainly one of them that’s so open-ended. But I think it’s safe to say that the rest of the world is definitely watching closely and there will be a lot to learn in this experiment.  Arielle  Yes, digital and online spaces are really new to humanity when you think about it, but they also evolve so rapidly that it feels like there will always be a steep learning curve. I think any government that is concerned with the well-being of their citizens would be interested in… in taming social media in some way, especially for youth whose brains aren’t fully developed. But what’s led to Australia being the first one to take such a huge leap?  Karissa  Well, the ban follows a government-commissioned study released earlier this year that painted a pretty troubling picture of kids’ online lives. 96% of children aged 10 to 15 were using social media, which is crazy. That’s just about all of them. And 70% had been exposed to harmful content, including misogyny, violence, and material promoting suicide and eating disorders, which are not great. One in seven had been targeted by grooming behavior, and more than half reported being cyberbullied.  Arielle  Oh my gosh, when I hear these stats, I’m already terrified. And I can only imagine how parents of young children feel, not just in Australia either, because I’m sure these numbers aren’t far off from other places in the world. Parents and guardians have to balance all the risk that comes with an online existence while, I imagine, also respecting their growing children’s privacy and freedom of expression. So how do they juggle keeping kids safe while allowing them to communicate with their friends? There’s so many factors that parents and guardians have to grapple with in this digital age. It’s just super clear that something has to be done to also take some of that burden off of citizens’ shoulders.  Karissa  Exactly, which is why the Australian government wants to do something about it and is why, you know, they cited these findings when introducing the ban because they accuse social media platforms of promoting design features that encourage young people to spend more time on screens while pushing content that can harm their health and well-being. And that’s not really a secret. That’s been a huge discussion for years since this has come about, but it’s time to finally do something.  Arielle  So, Karissa, can you explain how they’re going to attempt to make this ban work?  Karissa  Yeah, so children under 16 can no longer create or maintain social media accounts across 10 platforms, which include TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, and Twitch. Existing accounts must be deactivated, but kids can still watch most content passively, as the ban only blocks interactive accounts.  Arielle  And who’s responsible for making sure kids under 16 don’t have their own social media accounts? Would a child or a parent face punishment for breaking this law?  Karissa  No, the law doesn’t punish children or parents. Instead, the burden falls entirely on social media companies who must take reasonable steps to keep under 16s off their platform or face fines of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars, which is about 32 million US dollars. So, pretty hefty fine, but maybe not enough (laughs). And to comply, companies must implement age assurance technology that goes beyond simple self-declared birthdays, because that’s kind of what’s already in place right now, you know. And that may include government ID checks, facial or voice recognition, or advanced algorithms that infer a user’s age based on online behavior.  Arielle  Well, these kids have grown up with tech. Most of them are more adept at navigating these hurdles than many adults I know. And I bet that some of these Australian kids are already working on workarounds. Plus, a lot of kids, even over the age of 16, don’t have government IDs, right? I didn’t get my first government ID until I got my driver’s license. And then there are issues with how reliable these verification systems are, et cetera.  Karissa  Yeah, critics are worrying that the rollout may backfire because also facial recognition is notoriously unreliable for teens. And many fear the law will even block adults by mistake while letting determined underage users slip through. And then, like you said, of course, Arielle too. I mean, a lot of people don’t even have like a government ID at that age. I barely did at 16 too. So, there’s a lot of things that could go wrong with this.  Arielle  Yeah. Or I guess I had my passport, but then again, like, not everyone has a passport.  Karissa  Yeah.  Arielle  And then not to mention all the privacy concerns.  Karissa  Yes.  Arielle  There’s been so many data breaches that any kind of data collection would be concerning for underage kids, but especially biometric and other sensitive data. So, my guess is that not all families would be okay with this.  Karissa  Yeah. I mean, critics actually flagged this point, especially in a country where data breaches have exposed sensitive personal information in recent years. And I mean, in a world, honestly, because I know in the United States that happens all the time.   Arielle  Yeah.   Karissa  The government insists the legislation includes strong data protections. Information collected can only be used for age verification and must be deleted immediately after. But of course, you know, data breaches are going to happen and they’re all too common.  Arielle  Karissa, I want to back up a bit to the fines that these social media companies would have to pay if or when they violate this ban. These are multi-billion, even trillion-dollar companies. How much of a deterrent would these fines even be to them?  Karissa  That’s a great point too, because actually Stephen Scheeler, who is a former Facebook executive, questioned the effectiveness of the fines as well. And he said that it takes Meta about an hour and 52 minutes to make $50 million USD in revenue. And we just mentioned that like the max fine would be $32 million. So,they can pay that easily, like in an hour, in two hours.   And besides this only being a drop in the bucket, the ban has some other major loopholes which allow other companies to get through the cracks as well. Because dating apps, gaming platforms, and AI chatbots, some of which have been flagged for predatory or sexually suggestive behavior, are not covered by the ban. And popular gaming platforms for kids like Roblox or Discord are also excluded, although they have been working on introducing more age restrictions. And you know, those are huge digital gathering places for kids as well.  Arielle  Yeah, I mean, as you said, it’s like the wild, wild west or the final frontier. It’s all new. And there are so many weak points and workarounds that would allow children to basically do what they please on other platforms in the digital world, regardless of this particular ban. And probably with even less oversight and regulation.  Karissa  Yeah, exactly. I mean, even teens themselves seem pretty skeptical of all this because some admitted that they’re setting up fake accounts, switching to shared family profiles, or planning to use VPNs to mask their age and location.   I came about on the internet when things were still developing, like social media was relatively new. Everyone having a smartphone was relatively new as well. But I had easy access to my mom’s phone. So, I’m sure like even for me, I can imagine that I just would have been able to like even just go on her phone if that’s what it came to.   And these tactics already were used in the UK because similar laws were enacted under the Online Safety Act of 2023, which didn’t like come with a full ban, but it definitely had some more restrictions on kids being on these social platforms. But you know, we’re already seeing that they’re able to work around it.  Arielle  Yeah, I also wonder how much dialogue the Australian government has had with the very people that this ban will affect. And when I say that, I don’t necessarily mean the companies, but the actual children and parents who will be navigating these changes on the ground. I know that unregulated social media can affect any brain negatively, no matter the age, but there are also positive aspects to finding community online.   Like, let’s say, youth with marginalized identities who may feel isolated in their small hometowns, for instance. Also, there’s educational content or even the chance to develop media literacy skills. I know that there are also a lot of content creators who are under the age of 16 who are already running businesses and making money for, I don’t know, university or whatever via their social media accounts.   So regardless of personal opinions on whether children should already have online businesses, the fact is that some of them have put in a lot of work into building something lucrative, and then to kick them off these platforms could feel pretty unfair to them.  Karissa  I’m kind of thinking back to when Slime was a major thing and a lot of, kid like content creators and kind of business owners who are probably in this like younger age of the teenage spectrum were the ones behind these businesses like making Slime or something like that.   And it could be a good thing too, you know, they’re raising money for themselves for their futures and their audience is also going to be like younger people. So, you know, you’re losing an entire audience, an entire community. So, it just makes me wonder is, like you were saying, is taking away access to social media for most of their teen years too limiting of their expression and freedom?   For better or for worse, I joined social media when I was around 12 years old. And like I said, this is when like social media was kind of like coming about more presently. These huge like companies were really starting to get their footing on the ground, like Facebook and Instagram and stuff, which are still like the leading giants. So that was when these negative consequences were pretty like widely unknown. But we can’t just say social media and the online world is entirely bad for any age, honestly.  Arielle  Yeah, no, I wouldn’t say it is. But thinking about how screens are so baked into children’s lives does make me sad. And it makes me wonder how much of the “real world” they’re missing out on. I remember watching that Netflix documentary a few years back called… what was it called? The Social Dilemma. Have you seen it?  Karissa  No, but I remember everybody was talking about it.  Arielle  Yeah, there were interviews with former designers and execs from companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Pinterest, et cetera, talking about how these platforms are engineered to be addictive. And several of these big shots in these companies mentioned that they don’t let their own kids anywhere near social media or let them have smartphones or unrestricted screens, which I think is super telling. But then again, this digital screen-saturated reality is what the world has become, and perhaps… the conversation should really be more about learning how to wield social media safely and fairly, both from the company side and from the users at any age.  Karissa  Yeah, exactly. I think it kind of also opens up the broader conversation of who is responsible for making sure the digital landscape is safe. Because is it the government? Is it these companies? Which I think, you know, is it the families? Is it the kids themselves? I think it should be a mix of all of these factors. And, is a full band the complete answer? I don’t know.   Arielle, I just wanted to go back and touch on how you’re talking about these social spaces can be a place for development as well. I don’t think I would have been exposed to so many opinions and like the realities of life if I wasn’t on social media at a young age. I entered the digital sphere as a preteen. And from a young age, it connected me to, causes that I am now like pretty passionate about. I would say it formed my political views and values from being a teen on Twitter and Tumblr. When Donald Trump first became a presidential candidate in 2016, there was a lot of discussion that I wouldn’t have even been exposed to. I don’t think like if I didn’t have that space. You know, also just in terms of expression too, like developing your identity and a lot of that these days can be online.  Arielle  Yeah, I hear you. The online world can be a playground for kids to explore their passions and for them to get comfortable early on with tools they will certainly have to use in their adult lives. Yeah. But actually what you said about political views and everything… the shaping of ideology via the internet could also be very easily weaponized if not regulated carefully.  Karissa  Yes.  Arielle  And if that power is placed in the hands of those who only have their best interests and agendas in mind, I don’t know… that freaks me out. Social media and data companies today know us so intimately through tracking our behavior, and… I don’t know… at that point, the relationship we have with it, I feel, can be and probably is quite exploitative, like using our own identities, our deepest fears and desires to extract money from us without our permission is just… it gives me the creeps.  Karissa  I know. Yeah, it gives me the creeps too. And I mean, like you’re saying, like there can be good and bad, like, use that can be shaped. A huge discussion right now too is the male loneliness epidemic that has been formed from these spaces online that are pretty, I would say negative, I’m sorry, but like really bad for society and taking so many steps backwards. And this can go for, you know, not just like the male loneliness epidemic, but so many other things too, just like hateful… it could be a place of connection. It could be like connection for good causes or for hateful causes as well.  Arielle  Yeah. Well, back to Australia’s social media ban specifically. While we discussed many of its weak points, and let’s call them areas of improvement, I do think that they’ve made a seriously brave move in being the first country to do something about this and open up the conversation at a global level.  Karissa  Yeah, exactly. I mean, the rollout is going to be imperfect. And as Communications Minister Annika Wells even admitted, you know, this rollout will not be flawless. She says it’s going to look a bit untidy on the way through. Big reforms always do, which is so true. But the government maintains that doing something is better than doing nothing, which I agree with.  Arielle  Yes, we have to start somewhere, and we just have to accept that it’s going to be a lot of trial and error. We’ve opened up Pandora’s box with the internet and social media without knowing what’s on the other side. And we cannot go back in time… yet. That much is clear. So, the solution or solutions to this multifaceted global problem won’t be simple, and it’s going to take a lot of collaboration across the board.  Karissa  Yeah, Australia is taking a great step here, and it’s out of a place for concern for their citizens, of course. And the rest of the world is also, you know, taking similar steps as well. It’s really encouraging to hear that Denmark has announced a similar under 15 ban. Again, will a ban work? Who knows? And I mean, France is debating a curfew for teens on social media, so that could be something effective as well. Spain and Norway are exploring new restrictions. And like we mentioned earlier, the UK took action with their 2023 Online Safety Act. And also in the UK, companies now face major fines or even jail time for executives if they fail to prevent kids from accessing harmful content. So that’s a pretty bold step as well.   So, there is action around the world, but there’s definitely not a straightforward path quite yet in protecting kids online. And something that we kind of touched on earlier too is that this space is here to stay, the Pandora’s box is open, and it’s going to be ever-changing too. This is just something that’s going to have to keep evolving.  Arielle  I am so curious to find out which solutions will be the most effective and fair, and whether corporations can set aside their concerns with monetary gain in favor of what’s actually good for humanity, especially concerning the well-being of younger generations.  Karissa  Right, exactly. So maybe a ban is the answer, or maybe it isn’t. And that’s why open-ended solutions like this one are fascinating to examine and also a reason for optimism, even if they haven’t solved an entire issue quite yet. It opens up the door for more discussion and more improvement on a very complex and nuanced issue that will continue to evolve.  Arielle  Well, I’m sure other governments will be inspired to make some serious moves or will at least be watching to see what happens with Australia before making any big decisions. I know we at the Optimist Daily will be following this space closely.  Karissa  And we are interested in what our listeners think of this ban. First, I mean, who is responsible for online safety for kids? Is it the government, the companies, or families? Is age 16 too harsh of a ban? Is it too much, too little? Are there other things that you think governments, families, or schools could do to help protect children online? E-mail us your thoughts at Social@OptimistDaily.com or send us a message on socials even and let us know.  Arielle  Yes, we are so curious what all you forward-thinking solutions-focused people have in mind when it comes to this issue. So don’t be shy, share your hot takes with us, and on that note, I think we did talk quite a lot about this one. Maybe we’ll save my solution for another time. What do you think, Karissa?  Karissa  I think so. And I mean, like we said, all these solutions are available on OptimistDaily.com. And yeah, some of the ones that we included this week are.  Arielle  Gift shopping for a loved one with cancer this holiday season? Here’s what actually helps. From compost to crops: banana peels show surprising power as eco-friendly fertilizer. EU greenlights 100 hydrogen projects in major energy transformation plan. The surprising emotional life of bees: what bumblebees can teach us about contagious joy. What else did we have, Karissa?  Karissa  We also have Decades of protection pay off as endangered whales make a rare comeback in Canada. And this one. Smelling your own farts might be good for your brain, science says. Go check that one out. It’s fascinating (laughs). New stem cell treatment shows promise for reversing vision loss in macular degeneration patients. 3 so-called bad habits that might actually be making you a better person. And How to build a life that feels good: 5 guiding principles to happiness.  Arielle  All right, amazing. These all sound like really interesting, eye-catching solutions, actually. Hopefully that gives everyone some good reading material for this weekend. And Karissa, see you next week when we get to talk more about the great solutions happening in this world.  Karissa  Looking forward to being back!  Both  Bye!   The post Podcast Transcript December 12, 2025— Should kids be banned from social media? Inside Australia’s bold online safety experiment first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

We don’t gimmick 50 year mortgage debt traps. 

'Here's the full quote you, scumbags'

'Win that primary'