On August 8, 2022 about 30 FBI agents descended on Donald Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago and searched the place with less civility than they would have afforded a Miami drug lord. They spent most of that day rummaging through Trump’s personal belongings — and those of his wife and son — allegedly in search of classified documents. This was the first time in history that such an outrage had been committed against any former president. Yet it was greeted with thinly disguised glee by Trump’s critics, including fired National Security Advisor John Bolton. The weirdest part of this retribution narrative is watching Democrats cry crocodile tears over the plight of a Republican like John Bolton. Friday morning at 7 a.m., Bolton learned what it feels like to have the FBI appear at one’s front door with a search warrant. Later that day, federal agents also searched his D.C. office. According to a report in the New York Post, a senior U.S. official said the FBI is investigating Bolton’s use of a private email to send national security documents to family members. This official alleged, “While Bolton was a national security adviser, he was literally stealing classified information, utilizing his family as a cutout.” This is profoundly ironic considering Bolton’s frequent public statements about President Trump and the Mar-a-Lago raid. After that event, Bolton appeared on MSNBC to inveigh against Trump and his attitude concerning classified material: “I don’t think he cared about the classification system, I don’t think he appreciated the sensitivity of this information.” Oddly enough, he was utterly unconcerned about the dangerous precedent set by an FBI raid on a former president’s home: “It’s important that everybody take a deep breath here. This is a very serious matter. And it would be better if we could let the legal process play out.” It played out, of course, when a federal judge dismissed the classified documents case against Trump. Inevitably the corporate news media have reacted quite differently to the Mar-a-Lago and Bolton raids. In the former case the major outlets often refused to call it a “raid.” The Washington Post, for example, ran countless pieces like this one in which the FBI “search” of Trump’s home was characterized as relatively routine: “It’s important to note that there is no reason to think the FBI’s action was triggered by politics.” On the other hand, the Post’s editorial about the bureau’s visit to Bolton’s house uses the “R” word in its headline: “FBI raid targeting Bolton crosses a line in the Trump revenge campaign.” It goes downhill from there: The pursuit of 76-year-old Bolton underscores the danger of putting partisan hacks in top law enforcement jobs. The government needed to show probable cause to get a judge to sign the search warrant, so it’s possible there was a rock-solid predicate for the search. But Trump’s promises of retribution and revenge make the government’s motives suspect … It is a valid fear that the case against Bolton is a fresh instance of the old Soviet saying, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” It comes against the backdrop of federal investigators looking for dirt on other Trump critics. The editors of the Wall Street Journal, who should stop masquerading as conservatives, are guilty of the same offense. When the FBI descended on Mar-a-Lago like a SWAT team, they ran opinion pieces patiently explaining the need for former presidents not to keep classified documents at their homes. In Bolton’s case, they vented their rage in a screed titled, “Trump’s Vendetta Campaign Targets John Bolton.” Apparently, without giving any thought to the possibility that Bolton might have committed a serious crime, they adopted the same moronic “retribution” narrative peddled by the hacks at Slate and Salon: President Trump promised voters during his campaign for a second term that he had bigger things on his mind than retribution against opponents. But it is increasingly clear that vengeance is a large part, maybe the largest part, of how he will define success in his second term … His revenge campaign took an ominous turn Friday as FBI agents raided the home and office of Mr. Trump’s first-term national security adviser John Bolton. They brought two broad warrants to search the “premises.” Agents showed up unannounced at his Bethesda, Md., home at 7 a.m. The weirdest part of this retribution narrative is watching Democrats cry crocodile tears over the plight of a Republican like John Bolton. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told CNN, “In recent days, after the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska, Bolton has been publicly criticizing President Trump … So the timing of this search of Bolton’s home is particularly chilling.” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) parroted the same talking points on MSNBC. Both of these characters know perfectly well that the FBI could not have convinced a judge to issue two separate search warrants, one for Bolton’s home and one for his office, without showing probable cause. So, did the Bolton raid involve a dark plot by President Trump and his minions at the FBI to exact retribution on a national security advisor who was fired six years ago? Or is it more plausible that the new FBI Director reopened a case against Bolton based on evidence uncovered since the DOJ and FBI finally got honest leadership. It’s an Occam’s razor thing. Most people can’t plan lunch with more than three people without messing it up, much less plan and execute an elaborate conspiracy to destroy a savvy political enemy for revenge. As John Bolton himself has phrased it, “It would be better if we could let the legal process play out.” READ MORE from David Catron: Will Newsom Rig His Redistricting Referendum? How James Carville Would ‘Save Democracy’ Trump Should Have Fired McEntarfer Long Ago

It’s incorrect to characterize the search warrants executed on former Trump national security adviser John Bolton’s offices and home as “raids.” That should be a term reserved for no-knock warrants executed by the DEA on drug lords. Ambassador and Mrs. Bolton were, of course, surprised that the FBI came knocking at about 7 a.m. on Friday, but should they have been? President Trump has been fighting Bolton for five years about Bolton’s 2020 memoir, The Room Where It Happened, about Bolton’s time in the White House. The FBI reportedly removed several boxes of documents — and possibly other materials such as computer drives — from Bolton’s home and office. In 2020, the Trump administration sued Bolton to prevent publication of the book alleging it contained classified information. A federal judge allowed the publication of the book but said, in his ruling, that Bolton had likely published classified material and jeopardized national security. The Trump administration began a criminal investigation into Bolton’s handling of classified information which the Biden crew dismissed. And now the Trump administration has renewed the case against Bolton. The president has said Bolton was a “dope” and a “lowlife” but claimed he knew nothing about the search warrants the FBI used on Bolton’s home and offices. This is possible but doubtful. Bolton has been a prominent critic of Trump, beginning with the book about Bolton’s White House memories. Since then, Bolton has missed no opportunity to trash Trump in print in the Wall Street Journal and other publications and on the air. The two of them have a deep-seated mutual hatred. So is it a big surprise that Trump — or Attorney General Pam Bondi — have renewed the investigation into Bolton’s handling of classified material? It really isn’t. The statute of limitations for the Espionage Act, which covers much of a person’s legal obligations with respect to classified information, is 10 years and it apparently is tolled by a person’s continued improper possession of the classified information. Mr. Bolton’s security clearance was cancelled last January in one of the first actions of the new Trump administration. Bolton is a well-known neocon and a war hawk. He loudly supported the Iraq war. (So did I, but I now realize it was a huge mistake. Bolton has made no such confession.) Bolton is a proponent of military action against Iran and North Korea. Trump has said words to the effect that Bolton never saw a war he didn’t like. Bolton was never comfortable as Trump’s national security adviser. Moreover, he was the subject of an Iranian assassination plot during the Biden administration and that plot may still be continuing. The Iranians also plotted the assassination of Trump and that plot is certainly still active. Bolton’s Secret Service protection detail has been cancelled by Trump. The Wall Street Journal has characterized the FBI’s actions in searching Bolton’s home and office as a politically-motivated “vendetta” by Trump. It said, “It’s unlikely that Mr. Bolton broke any laws on national secrets, and he certainly didn’t share any with us over our long association with him. But perhaps Mr. Trump intends for the process itself to be punishment even if there is ultimately no criminal charge.…The real offender here is the President who seems to think he can use the power of his office to run vendettas.” That’s an enormously strong statement by a newspaper that is usually one of the most reliable at getting the facts straight. The WSJ is backing Bolton in an unlimited fashion. The FBI reportedly removed several boxes of documents — and possibly other materials such as computer drives — from Bolton’s home and office. It has not said whether any classified information was among the documents seized. Bolton, who I knew briefly 15 years ago when I was editor of Human Events, is a very smart man. But was he so arrogant or uncareful that he retained classified information despite the warnings from the Trump administration? Trump was indicted on 40 counts for retaining classified information in 2023 under the Biden administration. That indictment disappeared when Trump retook the White House. Former president Biden clearly retained classified information — in boxes stored in his garage — from his days as vice president. In light of those facts, and from Trump’s attempt to block Bolton’s book from publication, it seems like a bad idea to now attempt to prosecute Bolton for his retention of classified information. Bolton may or may not be innocent of retaining classified information. An FBI report on the matter should tell us whether or not he is guilty of a crime, major or minor. FBI Director Kash Patel said “no one is above the law,” which should be true. But given the histories of Trump and Biden, as I’ve written above, prosecution of Bolton would be shabby act. READ MORE from Jed Babbin: Putin’s War Proceeds The Arab League and Gaza

The Disney corporation could have saved itself a possible million dollars on a study determining that its entertainment product must appeal more to boys, as Variety reported last week. For $145, Disney execs could have subscribed to the American Spectator. There, they could read numerous pieces by one Lou Aguilar urging them to steer away from their woke male-repellent course before their company ship hit the financial iceberg. It may not have struck the ice yet but it’s in mighty chilly waters, and the alarms going off have yet to be heeded. According to Variety, Disney players are now desperately seeking Intellectual Properties that will draw young males. In my article here more than three years ago, I praised the genius of company founder Walt Disney for continually developing masculine projects along with feminine fairy tales —  which ironically have more double-gender appeal than all their live-action remakes this century: Walt Disney enchanted girls of all ages with his reimagining of Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, and Mary Poppins, yet he also gave boys Captain Nemo (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, 1954), Davy Crockett, Zorro, and Mowgli (The Jungle Book, 1967). Davy Crockett: King of the Wild Frontier (1955) became such a cultural phenomenon that it mandated a run on coonskin caps for baby boomer boys. That Crockett was a true American hero who fought Indians, corrupt politicians in Congress, and Mexicans at the Alamo makes him a liberal pariah today. The fact that Uncle Walt’s successors turned two of the most successful, iconic boy-friendly IPs of all time — Star Wars and the Marvel Comics Universe — into hideous feminist dreck has been well documented, also by me. And now they’re grasping for a Tarzan vine only because their jobs depend on it. But it’s too late for this generation of Disney players, hired primarily for their embracement of agenda over art, via the mechanism of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. For the new Disney directive to succeed, all of the above and their ilk have to go, and a traditionalist man be put in charge. Now telling them they need to attract young men is like asking them to fête conservatives. Not only do they fear and loathe the breed, they don’t speak the same language. For Disney girlbosses, the medium — television, film — is the message — feminism, progressivism. They validate the thesis of dead white male Marshall McLuhan without a clue of who he was. Today their message has been exposed as total bunk faster than they could anticipate, and their media narrative as incompetent, plus repulsive, to the hated audience they must win back. Last weekend, I sent a producer my just finished screenplay, Operation Cowboy, about an actual Soviet plot to assassinate John Wayne, because he was having too much success expulsing communist artists from Hollywood. Like the Disney leadership, Stalin understood the power of film to redirect minds away from traditional values — family, church, patriotism — to communism, having been inspired by Battleship Potemkin in 1925. He voices this in my script. “I first saw it at age fifty. A difficult time for me. Lenin had just died, and the Trotskyites were trying to take over the Party. I’d spent many sleepless nights pouring over the writings of Marx and Engels — hoping to persuade more allies to my side. Yet just two hours in a darkened theater put both those philosophers to shame. Providing the spark I needed to destroy my rivals.” Unlike any Disney output in recent memory, Potemkin is both great art and great propagandizing. And as much of a destructive lie as communism turned out to be, Eisenstein made the best case for it. For 100 years, the Odessa Steps sequence alone has rarely been matched in either artistry or emotional manipulation. Disney could manage neither. Feminism, transgenderism, and progressivism are also destructive lies, but the pantsuits’ conveyance of them repelled young men where Battleship Potemkin recruited them. So, there’s zero hope for male attraction by the current woke Disney players, from Co-Chairman of Disney Entertainment Dana Walden (Strange World, The Marvels, Ms. Marvel, [a series about a Muslim American teen superheroine]) and President of Lucasfilm Kathleen Kennedy (every Star Wars horror since The Force Awakens)  down to the inept filmmakers — Don Hall (Strange World), Nia DaCosta (The Marvels), Bisha K. Ali (Ms. Marvel),  Mark Webb (Snow White), Kathryn Hahn (Agatha All Along [heavy on the gay trans stuff]), and many others. All these also managed to repel normal girls, who had little interest in feminist and queer fantasizing. For the new Disney directive to succeed, all of the above and their ilk have to go, and a traditionalist man be put in charge. His first step will be to kill every male distancing project in the production pipeline. Let’s consider three through his eyes: Hoppers. A girl transfers her consciousness into a robot beaver to infiltrate the animal kingdom, teaming with animals to stop a greedy mayor. Decision — dead. Freakier Friday. A sequel to Freaky Friday (2003) focusing on multigenerational family dynamics and Anna’s role as a mother. Dead. Ahsoka (Season Two). Rosario Dawson as a female Jedi. It builds on Season. Very dead. Those would be replaced on the slate by three boy — and girl — attracting projects: The Knights of the Round Table, a series about King Arthur’s Knights being sent on missions throughout the kingdom, with the main three — Lancelot, Gawain, Percival — either alternating per episode or teaming up, faithful to the Arthurian concept of chivalry and maiden rescue. Young Hornblower, film one in a world-famous IP based on C.S. Forrester’s beloved Hornblower novels about a commander in the Royal Navy during turbulent times. Jake for Mayor, a movie based on my popular family-friendly novel about a cynical young campaign manager who finds his heart in the love of the dog he’s running for small town mayor.  Okay, so the last one’s a longshot, but it’s what they used to call Disneyesque, when the term still appealed to boys. READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: The Winter of Our Contentment The Empire Strikes Out on Canada Sydney Sweeney and the Babe Factor

A woman named Holly from Cincinnati was recently knocked unconscious by a sucker punch at a jazz festival. The attack was caught on video. I had the misfortune of watching it. Perhaps you did too. The video went viral And for once, maybe the first time in decades, a white victim of black violence spoke honestly about what happened to her. She called it racially motivated. She didn’t apologize for existing. She didn’t beg people not to notice patterns. This represents a seismic shift in American discourse. For 60 years, we’ve been trapped in a suffocating ritual where white victims must immediately genuflect before the altar of racial sensitivity, even as they’re being wheeled into ambulances. They apologize for their attackers. They beg the media not to mention race. They perform elaborate acts of contrition for crimes committed against them. Real solutions require honest diagnosis. If crime is disproportionately high in certain communities, we need to ask why. The script is always identical: “I don’t want this to become about race.” “They were probably just having a bad day.” “This could have happened to anyone.” What look like organic responses from trauma victims are often coached performances designed to protect a narrative that’s destroying lives. It’s time to face a simple truth: discussing black-on-white crime isn’t racism. It’s reality, and reality doesn’t bend to our feelings or our carefully crafted fairytales. Black-on-white crime exists. In fact, according to National Crime Victimization Survey, blacks commit 85 percent of all non-lethal interracial violence between blacks and whites. Let me be absolutely clear. This isn’t about defending one race or condemning another. It’s about the lives of Americans — black, white, and every shade between — who are left to live with the consequences. Crime that cuts across every racial line exists. If we treat the problem as taboo, we stay silent while the damage spreads. The numbers tell a story that makes many people deeply uncomfortable. Violent crime is not evenly distributed across America. Certain communities commit violent offenses at rates dramatically higher than others. The standard deflections don’t hold water anymore. “It’s about poverty,” we’re told. But poverty alone can’t explain why some of the poorest regions in the United States aren’t the most violent. Appalachia, for instance, is home to some of the most economically deprived white communities in the country. Yet violent crime rates there remain far lower than in cities like St. Louis, Baltimore, or Detroit. Poor whites, poor Asians, and poor Hispanics live with the same lack of money. They live with the same struggles with addiction, the same crumbling schools. But they don’t commit violent crimes at anywhere near the same rates. “It’s about inequality,” we’re told. Yet America is filled with ethnic groups who arrived with nothing and endured discrimination without turning to thuggery. One needn’t discount blacks’ unique history of subjugation in the U.S. to recognize that immigrants from East Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe all faced bigotry and barriers. Many began in low-wage jobs, struggling with broken English, packed into unsafe neighborhoods where survival itself was a daily battle. But these communities didn’t become epicenters of violent crime. They endured, they built. They climbed, without turning their streets into warzones. The reality is inescapable. Some of America’s most violent cities — Chicago, Baltimore, St. Louis, Philadelphia — aren’t just poor. These are cities with high concentrations of black residents. That doesn’t mean blackness equals criminality, and it doesn’t excuse crude stereotypes. But it does expose the flaw in the narrative that poverty or inequality alone explains crime. Something deeper, something cultural, institutional, and uncomfortable, is at play. Until we admit this, we’ll keep watching the same cycle of violence repeat. We’ve created an intellectual straitjacket where acknowledging statistical reality is treated as morally equivalent to endorsing segregation. That is madness. Recognizing patterns in crime data doesn’t make you Bull Connor. It makes you someone who can read. Over the years, the excuses have grown more desperate as the evidence mounts. We’re told that centuries of historical grievance justify twenty-first-century violence against people who had nothing to do with those wrongs. But vengeance doesn’t explain why the majority of victims are not “the oppressor class” but members of the same community. Black-on-black crime, by sheer volume, dwarfs interracial violence. To point this out is not racism; it’s compassion for the thousands of black families burying their sons and daughters every year. Violence doesn’t respect skin color. It claims whoever is closest, whoever is vulnerable. It impacts all Americans because every homicide erodes the country’s stability. Every act of violence deepens mistrust. Every victim is someone’s child, someone’s parent, someone’s neighbor. Consider the psychological torture we inflict on victims’ families. When a crime breaks through the media filter, families are often expected to perform public acts of reconciliation before the body is even buried. They must assure the cameras that they don’t want the tragedy “to spread hate,” as if demanding justice were itself an act of bigotry. This pitiful ritual doesn’t comfort the grieving. It protects a narrative that places ideology above human decency. The Holly incident matters because it broke the script. She refused to minimize her own assault. She didn’t agree to play her part in the pageant of reconciliation. She told the truth about what happened to her, and suddenly people remembered what honest conversation sounds like. This doesn’t mean every crime is racially motivated. It doesn’t mean every member of a group is violent. It doesn’t mean we abandon fairness or equal rights. What it does mean is that we can discuss observable patterns without losing our minds — or our moral standing. Real solutions require honest diagnosis. If crime is disproportionately high in certain communities, we need to ask why. What cultural, institutional, or policy failures allowed this to fester? How can we best protect the innocent? We can’t answer while clinging to the fiction that crime is only about income or inequality. Problems we can’t name are problems we can’t solve. Silence doesn’t protect victims. It protects the academics, politicians, and nonprofits whose careers depend on keeping these conversations off-limits. They’ve convinced well-meaning Americans that citing crime statistics is itself a form of hatred. But truth and justice aren’t opposites. You can oppose racism while acknowledging crime patterns. You can support equal rights while demanding equal accountability. You can condemn historical injustice while still protecting today’s innocent victims. Holly’s refusal to play along shattered the wall of silence. We can step through — not toward division, but toward clarity. Clarity that could prevent the next assault, the next grieving family forced to mouth platitudes for the cameras. We owe it to every victim, in every community, to stop pretending reality doesn’t exist. Truth isn’t racist. Statistics aren’t bigoted. And victims shouldn’t have to apologize for violence done to them just to preserve someone else’s illusion of comfort. Until we face this head-on, crime will keep rising, families will keep burying children, and America will keep suffering. READ MORE from John Mac Ghlionn: OnlyFans and the Economics of Empty Conversions Why Democrats Can’t — and Won’t — Replicate MAGA The Rotten Truth About the Egg Cartel

Many years ago, I had the good fortune to hear the genius-divinity, Dr. James Dobson, speak on the radio about rebellious, surly teenage sons. Dr. Dobson made a simply overwhelming point about such kids, one of whom was a certain Tommy Stein: Your sons have an immense reservoir of love for their fathers. No matter how much the boys try to hide it, they love their dads as deep as an ocean. Love was always the answer for Tommy. Do not be put off or turn to anger by such behavior. Just turn up the love valve as high as it will go and keep it there. Eventually, that love will burst out at either high or medium volume. Just stick with love and eventually your boy will reciprocate. I tried it for all of our son’s life. It worked fantastically well, until Tommy was drugged by a doctor with more than six psychoactive meds and fell into a hopeless depression that ended his life. Love was always the answer for Tommy and it worked incomparably better than any multi-syllabic medicine. Try it. Your son will love it. So will you. READ MORE from Ben Stein: It’s Hot Outside Inflation: Meet Stein’s Law

In the coming weeks, President Trump is expected to revisit tariffs on steel and aluminum imports after setting them at an historic 50 percent earlier this summer — a significantly higher rate than he placed on other countries and goods. Just last week the tariffs were expanded to include a number of goods derived from steel and aluminum products and chemicals. Republicans cannot let the benefits of infrastructure and manufacturing growth be claimed as an issue by “abundance” Democrats. While the president hashed out trade agreements with the European Union, Japan, and others over the past two months, the steel and aluminum tariffs have remained untouched. Coupled with his approval of the Nippon Steel acquisition of U.S. Steel, the tariffs are Trump’s attempt to shore up the domestic supply chain for manufacturing. Supporters argue they are vital for national security and the long-term strength of American industry. But markets are growing impatient. These tariffs threaten to drive up costs for essential domestic projects — the very manufacturing work and defense and infrastructure investments the president has been championing. While Trump has relented on tariff rates before, he shows no sign of letting up on steel and aluminum, and this is consistent with his ambitious goal of bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. Nevertheless, he should consider strategic carve-outs for trade with key allies and for purchases tied to critical defense and infrastructure. Doing so would allow the administration to preserve the tariffs’ core intent while minimizing their unintended harm, balancing Trump’s pro-tariff stance with economic realities. For example, as the White House continues tariff negotiations with countries across the globe, they might consider pausing the 50 percent rate imposed on steel and aluminum for top allies we import these products from, like Canada or Brazil. Industry-specific exemptions for defense production and private sector infrastructure development, two areas where the Trump administration wants to keep winning, should also be on the table. Various companies that use domestic steel and aluminum resources are already seeing the effects of the tariffs in the form of higher prices. This expense has hit as far as auto manufacturers, the aerospace industry, and processing plants. Yet, domestic steel and aluminum producers themselves remain supportive of the tariffs as they seek out an edge over foreign competitors. Building military equipment and airplanes is a critical priority of America’s defense strategy in combating China. Deregulating construction and manufacturing will only go so far if resources are too costly for the taxpayers to foot. Bringing down the cost of goods like steel or aluminum can supercharge the Trump agenda. The existing high tariff rates jeopardize Trump’s goal of securing a strong America. Republicans cannot let the benefits of infrastructure and manufacturing growth be claimed as an issue by “abundance” Democrats. It is the smaller government approach of the GOP that leads to low prices and a booming economy. Policies put in place by Republicans are doing the heavy lifting for rapid development in places like Florida and Texas. Tariffing steel and aluminum without a second thought could undo these great achievements and give the left an opportunity to run away with this issue. Strong policies endure when they are flexible enough to meet reality as conditions change. If tariffs are to keep serving their purpose, they must not become a burden heavier than the problem they were meant to solve. The administration has an opportunity to show that strength lies not only in setting bold measures, but in knowing when and where to revise them. READ MORE from Sam Raus: Stop Slamming the Brakes on Driverless Cars Can Bessent Save Venmo and Zelle From the CFPB? Sam Raus is the David Boaz Resident Writing Fellow at Young Voices, a political analyst and public relations professional. Follow him on X: @SamRaus1. 

There’s a strange, new, anti-commonsense push happening in Washington, and it’s not coming from the usual suspects on the left. Some voices on the right are starting to flirt with the idea of reviving an obscure law called the Robinson-Patman Act — passed in 1936 to “protect” mom-and-pop stores from chain retailers by stopping suppliers from offering different prices to different buyers. Make no mistake: Dusting off this Depression-era relic would be nothing more than doing the leftists’ work for them while raising prices for Americans. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and key allies in the Biden administration had been leading a campaign for years to revive the law because they see the  classic New Deal, big-government attempt to micromanage the marketplace by freezing business relationships in amber and punishing efficiency as part of a progressive future. The Biden team…. knew Robinson-Patman could be enforced … just by changing priorities inside the FTC. Back then, Washington thought it could legislate prosperity by telling wholesalers they couldn’t give a better price to a big customer than a small one, even if that customer was more efficient to serve. The problem? That approach has never made sense in a dynamic, competitive economy, and that’s why the law has not really been enforced since the 1980s. The data tells a different story than the feel-good talking points from Robinson-Patman’s boosters. A 1977 Justice Department report documented how Robinson-Patman resulted in higher prices and price-fixing among competitors, which led to reduced enforcement of the law. And according to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, bringing back enforcement wouldn’t create more competition. Rather, it would raise the cost of groceries and other household goods by punishing the very efficiencies that keep prices down. Volume discounts and streamlined supply chains are part of what lets large retailers deliver lower prices to customers. Undermining that model would mean fewer options, slower innovation, and higher prices at checkout. We want businesses — large and small — to compete on price, innovation, and service. We don’t want federal regulators in the back room deciding who can get a discount and who can’t. That’s not capitalism. That’s central planning with a smiling face. The Biden-Lina Khan FTC had been on a mission to bring this bad law back from the dead before voters threw them out. In the final days of the Biden administration, they launched high-profile lawsuits against companies like Pepsi and Southern Glazer’s, accusing them of giving big buyers a better deal. The Pepsi case was so flimsy that the new FTC chairman — appointed by President Trump — threw it out unanimously, calling it a “partisan stunt” that wasted taxpayer dollars. And yet, there still seems to be an appetite for making Robinson-Patman enforcement part of the “America First” economic agenda. I can’t think of anything less America First. Why on earth would we help Biden’s FTC lock in its dream of bureaucrats picking winners and losers in the grocery aisle? Supporters claim this is about helping small businesses and lowering costs. But history — and basic economics — tell a different story. When you ban suppliers from offering volume discounts, you raise costs for everyone. That means higher grocery prices for working families, fewer competitive deals, and less incentive for businesses to innovate their supply chains. The last thing struggling Americans need right now is another government mandate that drives prices up and shelves empty. If the America First movement stands for anything, it’s for rejecting the idea that Washington knows best. We believe in unleashing our producers, empowering entrepreneurs, and letting the market work — not importing a 90-year-old law straight out of the FDR playbook and calling it “populism.” Real populism is making life easier for the people who grow, make, and sell things in this country. It is not about empowering the FTC to micromanage how they do it. The Biden team couldn’t get this agenda through Congress. They knew Robinson-Patman could be enforced without a single new vote in the House or Senate, just by changing priorities inside the FTC. That’s why we should be doubly suspicious when we hear calls from the right to “stand up to big box stores” by using Biden’s own playbook. We’ve seen this movie before: a well-meaning policy is sold as “leveling the playing field” but ends up doing the opposite: hurting consumers, shrinking competition, and handing more power to unelected bureaucrats. Let’s not make the same mistake again. The America First movement is about building an economy that works for the people, not the regulators. Reviving Robinson-Patman would be a step backward into Biden’s vision of a managed economy. We should leave this 1930s relic where it belongs — in the history books — and focus on creating a future where American workers, farmers, and businesses can compete and win without Washington’s thumb on the scale. READ MORE from Jared Whitley: The American Economic Liberties Project Hurts Small Businesses Democrat Drug Shakedown

More Americans are waking up to a simple truth: it’s time to cut off funding for and end U.S. membership in the United Nations and its sprawling network of affiliated entities, few of which serve U.S. interests. While public frustration grows, it’s important to understand the path forward — because the president, on his own, cannot simply pull the plug. If President Trump is serious about ending the U.N.’s grip on American policy … he must throw his support behind the DEFUND Act. Congress is responsible for annually appropriating U.S. contributions to the United Nations. Even the president’s ability to rescind previously allocated funding must go through a formal process that requires congressional approval. Similarly, withdrawing from the U.N. as a member state would take congressional action, such as passing the DEFUND Act (HR 1498/S 669) in both chambers. Ultimately, this places the responsibility on Senator John Thune and Representative Mike Johnson to halt U.S. funding to the United Nations. That said, the president has powerful tools at his disposal to steer U.N. priorities in a direction that better reflects America’s values and sovereignty. Here are three key actions President Trump should take: Set the Agenda and Shape the Narrative Presidents don’t just influence policy at home — they help define the global narrative. At the United Nations, that begins with resolutions. Through bold, clear initiatives backed by the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., President Trump can rally like-minded allies and introduce measures that reflect America First principles while honoring the sovereignty of other nations. One idea would be a “Sovereignty and Security for Human Dignity” initiative. Such a resolution would affirm every nation’s right to control its borders, maintain territorial integrity, and set its own immigration policies. It reframes border security, not as an inconvenience to globalism, but as a core human right: one that upholds national identity, public safety, and the will of the people. All of this begins with the Senate’s confirmation of President Trump’s nominee for U.N. Ambassador, Mike Waltz. Since his official nomination on May 1, 2025, Waltz has cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with a favorable vote and now awaits action by the full Senate. It is Senate Majority Leader John Thune who controls when the chamber debates and votes on the nomination. Once confirmed, Waltz can immediately begin advancing Trump’s agenda and championing bold resolutions at the United Nations. Unfortunately, Sen. Thune’s delay tactics are hindering President Trump’s ability to hold the United Nations to a higher and better standard. Use Targeted Funding Cuts The United States is the largest single contributor to the U.N. Cutting off funds entirely might feel satisfying, but a more strategic approach would involve targeted cuts and conditional support. This preserves U.S. leverage while sending a clear message: if the U.N. wants American dollars, it must respect American values. One such example would be withdrawing funding from programs that promote or normalize abortion under the pretext of “family planning.” The Rescissions Act of 2025, signed into law in July, reclaimed nearly $1 billion in U.S. funding previously directed to the United Nations and its affiliated agencies. This included mandatory dues and voluntary contributions that had been advancing abortion, gender, and climate initiatives worldwide. By submitting additional rescission packages, the president can continue making targeted cuts to the U.N., requiring Congress to vote on whether to approve or reject each proposed cut. This approach is practical and effective, redirecting U.S. support away from controversial agendas without forfeiting influence over global policy. Use The Veto Power — Often As one of five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the United States holds veto power over any substantive resolution. A single “no” vote from the U.S. ambassador can block harmful or anti-American measures in their tracks. While the president doesn’t cast that vote directly, he does appoint the ambassador and guides foreign policy through the State Department. If a resolution undermines national sovereignty, religious freedom, or commonsense security policy, President Trump must ensure his representative at the U.N. knows exactly where he stands — and acts accordingly. Moreover, the president can issue executive orders to pause or review U.S. support for specific U.N. programs, particularly those funded through voluntary contributions. This provides another powerful avenue to slow down and halt the U.N.’s more ideological initiatives. Of course, if the goal is to fully defund and withdraw from the U.N., the president will need Congress to act. That’s where the DEFUND Act comes in. This bill, introduced in the 119th Congress, would terminate U.S. participation, halt funding, and revoke the U.N.’s privileges on U.S. soil. It’s the clearest roadmap yet for a clean and legal break with the U.N.’s anti-American, globalist agenda. If President Trump is serious about ending the U.N.’s grip on American policy — and many conservatives believe he is — he must throw his support behind the DEFUND Act and urge Congress to take it up without delay. The United Nations no longer serves American interests. It undermines national sovereignty, advances radical ideologies, and increasingly acts as a platform for America’s adversaries. While unilateral defunding isn’t currently in the president’s toolbox, he does have the power to reshape and redirect the United States’ involvement — and to rally Congress to finish the job. It’s time to stop funding institutions that work against our values and start building international partnerships that respect them. Aundrea Gomez is a policy research associate at AFA Action and an advocate for liberty.

from Bannons War Room: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Mac Slavo, SHTF Plan: Ukraine has targeted the key Druzhba pipeline system for the third time this month, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said on Friday. The attack was confirmed by Slovak authorities and caused Russian oil supplies to Hungary to be stopped. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said on Friday that the attack […]