Trump issued a fabulous new executive order on Jan. 28 entitled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” What, you might ask, is meant by “chemical and surgical mutilation” of “children”? According to the EO, it involves “the use of puberty blockers, … the use of [cross-gender] sex hormones, … and [cross-gender] surgical procedures” on “individuals under 19 years of age.” Justification and Purpose of This Executive Order In effect, so-called “gender-affirming care” is a form of child abuse that results in “maiming and sterilizing … impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child’s sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions.” “Countless children soon regret that they have been mutilated and begin to grasp the horrifying tragedy that they will never be able to conceive children of their own or nurture their children through breastfeeding. Moreover, these vulnerable youths’ medical bills may rise throughout their lifetimes, as they are often trapped with lifelong medical complications, a losing war with their own bodies, and, tragically, sterilization.” Accordingly, “this dangerous trend will be a stain on our Nation’s history, and it must end.” The General New Policy The new policy of the United States government is that (1) it will no longer “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another”; and (2) “it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.” In short, so far as the executive branch of government is concerned, the federal government will cease funding or promoting in any way a child transitioning to the other sex and will enforce only those laws that prohibit or limit it. Practical Impact on Hospitals, Whistleblowers, Insurers, and Federal Guidance The most important element of this EO is that “institutions receiving Federal research or education grants,” “including medical schools and hospitals,” must “end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children.” Theoretically, they could continue to engage in such medical malpractice. But, if they did so, they would lose all federal grants. Few hospitals and medical schools would risk that, though I suppose some states may try to subvert this EO by increasing aid to hospitals that continue dispensing puberty blockers, cross-gender hormones, and surgery; or by accessing medication through international agencies. As a further guard against hospitals that attempt to cheat, new protection will be given to hospital whistleblowers who reveal violations of this EO to “end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children.” “The Secretary of HHS shall promptly withdraw HHS’s March 2, 2022, guidance document titled ‘HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights and Patient Privacy,’” which urges parents and healthcare providers to report to the Office of Civil Rights (“a law enforcement agency”) any refusal of so-called “gender-affirming care” and which threatens those who divulge such “care.” In its place, the secretary of HHS will “issue new guidance protecting whistleblowers.” The whistleblower protection comes on the heels of the Biden Justice Department’s prosecution of a young Texas surgeon, Eithan Haim, for blowing the whistle regarding transgender surgical procedures on minors as young as 11 (i.e., child abuse) at Texas Children’s Hospital. Thankfully, Trump put a stop to it. Healthcare insurance offered by the federal government to its employees and to members of the military, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, must “exclude coverage for pediatric transgender surgeries or hormone treatments.” Federal publications promoting such practices will be replaced by publications showing the harm. The federal government’s policy will no longer be guided by the recommendations of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), “which lacks scientific integrity.” Instead, “the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) shall publish a review of the existing literature on best practices for promoting the health of children who assert gender dysphoria, rapid-onset gender dysphoria, or other identity-based confusion.” Legal Action by the Trump Administration Against Violators Moreover, the attorney general and Department of Justice will take legal action against “any entity that may be misleading the public about long-term side effects of chemical and surgical mutilation,” thereby ending the “deception of consumers.” It directs the attorney general to draft legislation making it easy for parents and their children to sue in cases where the “healthy body parts have been damaged by medical professionals practicing chemical and surgical mutilation, which should include a lengthy statute of limitations.” The “lengthy statute of limitations” will enable detransitioners (those who later regret their chemical and surgical mutilation) to get justice long after the malpractice has occurred. Finally, the attorney general will take legal action against “so-called sanctuary States that facilitate stripping custody from parents” who oppose chemical and surgical mutilation of their child. That means that the Department of Justice is coming after states which enable minors from other states to get sterilizing or body-mutilating transgender treatment, against parental wishes and when outlawed by their own home state. Growing Realization of the Problem With So-called “Gender-Affirming Care” In the overwhelming majority of cases (up to 85 percent), children with gender dysphoria who are not given puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones will grow out of their gender dysphoria. There is a growing body of evidence that transitioning children to the other sex serves no good purpose. The percentage of 18-29-year-olds in the U.S. who identify as transgender (2 percent) is seven times greater than the percentage of 30-49-year-olds who so identify (0.3 percent). In some children (especially girls), it may be a case of “rapid onset gender dysphoria,” where clusters of teens “come out” as “transgender” as a sort of social contagion. The Christian Medical and Dental Associations (CMDA) has put together a helpful “Gender Dysphoria Fact Sheet,” which documents research that highlights the problems with so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors. Two-thirds to three-quarters of children with gender dysphoria have comorbidities (i.e., other mental health issues) that may have contributed to the development of the gender dysphoria. There is a “51 percent greater mortality than the general population in male to female [transgender youth] taking cross-sex hormones.” CMDA’s Dr. Andre Van Mol has put together an excellent summary analysis of Britain’s Cass Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People, commissioned by Britain’s National Health Services (NHS) and published in April 2024. The review concluded that methodologically studies supporting “gender-affirming” healthcare are of methodologically poor quality and that there is no evidence that transgender transition reduces suicide. As a result of the report, Britain has banned the prescription of puberty blockers for minors, joining Sweden, Norway, and other European nations that are moving in the direction of restricting transitioning by minors. The Third in a Trilogy of Executive Orders Undercutting Gender Ideology This EO is the third to address transgenderism directly. On Jan. 20, Inauguration Day, Trump signed, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which takes the executive branch of the federal government out of the business of “funding” and “promoting” “gender [identity] ideology.” It declares that the U.S. government will recognize only two sexes, “male” and “female,” bases the definition of “sex” on reproductive biology, and takes action to prohibit male access to female-only spaces. These practical measures include: rescinding Biden’s executive order that falsely interpreted Title IX to mandate that, in public schools and universities, female-identifying males are allowed in female restrooms and living facilities; keeping opposite-sex persons out of “single-sex spaces in workplaces and federally funded entities covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964” and protecting the right of those therein “to express the binary nature of sex” (presumably including the right of public school and university teachers to dissent from “gender ideology”); and keeping males out of female prisons and rape shelters and prohibiting the use of federal funds for transgender transitioning of inmates. It also mandates that all “government-issued identification documents, including passports,” and all government “personnel records” “accurately reflect the holder’s sex.” The second EO dealing directly with transgenderism, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” was issued on Jan. 27. It effectively bans transgender persons from serving in the military and in the Coast Guard, which in turn ends “invented and identification-based pronoun usage” and the placement of persons who identify as the opposite sex in “sleeping, changing, or bathing facilities designated for” the other sex. The justification for such action is due to the special needs of the military. Attempts to accommodate persons with the “mental health constraints” of “gender dysphoria” through “hormonal and surgical medical interventions” and psychotherapy, rules that permit soldiers of one sex use of facilities designated for the other sex, and speech policies that require all others to adopt “pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex” are “inconsistent with” the military’s “high mental and physical health standards” and with the need for “troop readiness, … cohesion, honesty, [and] humility.” As regards “honesty” and “humility,” the EO stresses that “a man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.” How many transgender soldiers are there and what has been the cost of transgender medical services to such personnel? Studies in 2016 and 2018 indicate as many as 10,000-15,000 service members on active duty or reserve identify as transgender. The Pentagon has spent more than $15 million on transgender medical, mostly since the start of the Biden administration. Four-fifths of these expenditures have gone to psychotherapy and one-fifth to gender reassignment surgeries. A related executive order, “Restoring America’s Fighting Force,” puts an end to DEI in the Armed Forces, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and all military academies. This includes the removal of administrative bodies and curricula devoted to “radical DEI and gender ideologies.” READ MORE from Robert A. J. Gagnon: Stop the Gaslighting on Elon Musk’s Arm Gesture Trump’s Executive Order Ends ‘Trans’ Tyranny and Protects Females Robert A. J. Gagnon is a visiting scholar at Wesley Biblical Seminary in Ridgeland, Miss., and has taught previously at Middlebury College, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and Houston Christian University. He has degrees from Dartmouth College (B.A.), Harvard Divinity School (M.T.S.), and Princeton Theological Seminary (Ph.D.). He has published a number of works, including The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abingdon). The post Trump Protects Children From Woke Abuse: New Executive Order Bans Chemical and Surgical Mutilation appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

New York Magazine wanted to avenge Trump’s victory by trying to ridicule his voters, but it hasn’t worked out well. It’s like when the wolf hatches a plan to eat the little bird in the old Disney cartoons. You know the episode will end with the wolf toothless and bandaged from top to bottom, and the little birdie singing happily in its tree. New York Magazine has ended up toothless and bandaged, and the little trump birds are still dancing. To deliver on the cartoon they had previously designed in the newsroom, they sent their journalist Brock Colyar to cover Trump’s victory weekend parties, and the Power 30 Awards, where they paid tribute to the influencers who supported the Republican’s race. The result is “The Cruel Kids’ Table” and it works better as an LSD science fiction tale than as a journalistic chronicle. Colyar is a gender studies journalist, whatever that is, obsessed with feminism, and who defines himself as non-binary; no one has explained to him that usurping women’s biological space is not precisely feminist but quite the opposite. And, although his banner is ostensibly academic, he often covers parties. Everything about him is confusing and contradictory. Including the result of his bombshell report. He had memorized from home that he was supposed to present right-wing influencers as a herd of supremacists and, since that’s not what he found, he simply omitted even the small detail that the organizer was the brilliant CJ Pearson, a smart guy, blacker than Kamala Harris’s future, along with the beautiful Raquel Debono. Colyar planned to make a total caricature of the Trumpers. He wanted them all white, alpha males, rosary in hand, bored, and joking about beating up homosexuals. The problem is that he found a party full of beautiful, young people, drinking and dancing happily, giving off all the good vibes in the world. Normal people doing something exceptional: having a good time. Heterogeneous people, which I like better than the word diverse. For the rest, from that frightening realization that there would be no supremacist history, no fascism, no dogmatism, Colyar’s obsession has been to try to hide the fact that he actually had a great time at the young Trumpers’ party. It is a pity that so many journalists put ideology before prestige. The fortunate thing about Colyar is that he writes reasonably well. His account is amusing, I even found it funny at times. But when he tries to put himself on the pedestal of the moral superiority of the progressive journalist to please his bosses, perhaps, or readers, perhaps, he falls flat on the party floor and loses every last tooth. A separate issue is the matter of the cover, which I imagine is the magazine’s decision. Cropping the picture to exclude blacks is even more stupid than going to chronicle a party and talking to everyone but the organizer to avoid having to say he’s black. The cropping of the cover photo to exclude non-whites to save Colyar’s story is so hasty and ridiculous, that they even left out the arm of a black man who was trying to sip his drink. Help! Help! There’s a black arm on the loose at the white supremacist party! Beautiful people, young people, fun people. Riley Gaines, Debra Lea, Raquel Debono, how could a man be bored there? In the end, the author has fun commenting on the elegant male suits, with their bow ties and neckties, as well as the gorgeous girls, tanned, delightfully coiffed, and dressed like princesses for the occasion. He paints it as if it were a frightening environment that should repulse us, but after reading his account twice, I can only think of one bad thing to say about the party: Why the hell wasn’t I invited? READ MORE from Itxu Díaz: The Europe of Equivocating Fools The Late Midlife Crisis Trump Sets Foot on the Lord of the Flies Island and Brings Reality to the Wild Children The post The Table of Cruel Non-Binaries: Media Attack on MAGA Influencers at Inauguration Backfires appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

It turns out that, in order to establish sovereignty over the world’s largest island, President Trump may not have to purchase Greenland after all. The American explorer Charles Francis Hall claimed this vast land mass (or at least the northern third) for the United States on September 5, 1871. In the summer of 1916, the U.S. signed an agreement to purchase the Danish West Indies, now known as the U.S. Virgin Islands, for $25 million ($595 million in current dollars). The primary ratification condition for this treaty, a major American concession, read: “that the government of the United States would not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests over the whole of Greenland.” Note the liminal phrasing: If a nation exercises sovereignty over a given territory, how can it “extend” such control? Can you imagine a similar diplomatic stipulation appearing in a treaty involving Puerto Rico or Guam or any other U.S. territory? The obvious objection is that, when it comes to territories, actual sovereignty is not potential sovereignty. At the time Danish and U.S. diplomatic officials signed this document, there was one Danish “town” on the island, Godthab (present-day Nuuk), located in the southwest, and two diminutive outposts, Dundas (present-day Uumannaq) on the western coast, and Thule, to the far northwest. There are probably more Danes on a 747 pulling out of a gate at JFK and headed to Copenhagen than there were in all of Greenland in 1916. That’s why that country’s diplomats were thinking in terms of “extended” territorial sovereignty: They were looking at an 836,300 square mile land mass that was over 78 percent ice-covered, some of which was almost two miles thick. It was a terra nullius (no man’s land). The Norwegian Claim Norway used this exact phrase in their defense when Denmark brought a claim before the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) in 1931, the year a group of Norwegian hunters and fishermen planted their country’s flag on the shores of Mackenzie Bay, on the eastern edge of the island, naming it Eirik Raudes Land. There had long been enmity between the two Scandinavian nations, with Norway subsisting as a virtual Danish province from 1380 to 1814.  The Danes were now asserting absolute and unambiguous sovereignty over the whole land mass. This trial went on for two years, and the PCIJ eventually ruled in Denmark’s favor, stating that Danish diplomats had made their right to and intentions of attaining absolute sovereignty over all of Greenland clear to Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan in the aftermath of World War I and that a disputed communication, called the Ihlen Declaration (after Norway’s foreign minister Nils Ihlen) constituted a similar admission on the part of that country. In an innovative dissent, Italian judge Dionisio Anzilotti cited numerous instances leading up to Norway’s territorial claim where Danish diplomats repeated the tentative language of the aforementioned Treaty of the Danish West Indies with the U.S., again speaking and writing of an “extension” of sovereignty and not a “recognition” of such. Denmark’s absolute control over all of Greenland hasn’t been questioned since. Basis for America’s Claim This takes us back to Hall’s 1871 flag plant. He was the second in a succession of American explorers: Elisha Kent Kane (the first), Adolphus Greeley, Donald MacMillan, and Robert Peary. These men had roamed the vast emptiness of the far north of Greenland for decades, becoming friendly with and trusted by the region’s native Inuit people. The earliest of these explorers didn’t even encounter any Danes until that nation’s first expedition to the area, Ludvig Mylius-Erichsen’s Danish Literary Expedition of 1902-04. After that, and seeing themselves in competition with the Americans who’d established themselves at the top of the island, Danish authorities dispatched Knud Rasmussen (with explicit private funding to shield any overt sovereign interest) to “explore” the region and to establish a trading post called Thule, one of the two minor Danish settlements I mentioned earlier. Denmark clearly intended to give the Americans in the region a wide berth. Hall had claimed for America the vastness of the rock-rimmed ice cap that stretched south of him. The Danes held only their diminutive coastal settlements. Unlike Norway, the U.S. wasn’t bound by any previous agreements. No medieval Norse claims, no residue of a fractious 800-year relationship, no Treaty of Kiel (whereby Denmark, who had sided with Napoleon, was stripped of almost all of her overseas settlements upon his defeat, but was allowed to retain Godthab in Greenland), existed to cloud and complicate sovereignty disputes between America and Denmark. America’s thus far incontesto right to Greenland’s north coast and the uninhabited interior has never been adjudicated. Much hinges on the language of the 1916 Treaty of the Danish West Indies: When can “extended” sovereignty be considered “established”? An enlightened answer to this question could lead us to the discovery that the United States already owns most of Greenland. READ MORE: Greenland Does Not Have to Be Trump’s Folly China Poses a Severe Threat in Panama and Leaves the US With No Choice. Annexing Canada the Dumbest Idea Since DC Statehood The post What if Greenland Isn’t Denmark’s to Sell? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Conservative pundits often love deriding the irrational arts path that many on the left head down, priding themselves on more concrete pursuits early on, which helps with important things like owning a house. Then in the next breath, that pride turns into a whine as they bemoan the sheer number of books and movies and television overflowing with leftist narratives. Seems best to pick one. Art and the pursuit of it tend to involve irrationality, dreams, emotion, and stubbornness in the face of reality — various qualities that talking heads love deriding. I do it all the time, but that’s just self-hatred. Yet doing this discourages those who may share some of your ideology from entering the cultural fray, and leads to the sort of monoculture we find ourselves in now. Yes, it can be silly to get an obscure arts or humanities degree, and no good day job should be taken for granted to boost dreams. But entertaining those impractical urges is what spurs many into sometimes successful arts and media careers. They then make things that people who didn’t take that route don’t like. Over-immersion in the arts is lame, but dismissing the arts outright is equally so. Those old cringy conservative lamentations against hippie pursuits never disappeared outright. Instead, they evolved into a generally dismissive attitude to much of the art world in general, especially new and obscure forms. The National Review is no longer railing against rock music. But conservative pundits are needlessly going after things people sorta like, dismissing comics, video games, pop music, anime, and whatever art form they tended to not like when they were teenagers. It’s not merely a failure to adapt to a changing culture, it further misses the idea that some of the people going into such careers may actually share your politics. And now you’re alienating them. This attitude is worsened by the off-putting tendency to applaud layoffs in the arts. Even if a movie studio or arts organization produced politically biased content, cheering when people get laid off is counterintuitive. It never helps when an arts industry shrinks, and often most of what they produce isn’t politically biased content, that’s just what gets the most attention online as raging clickbait. We need a few dumb dreamers here and there, a few eccentrics chaotically charging ahead into a totally uncertain future. None of this is to say that people who pursue the arts without a backup plan and then complain about struggling aren’t occasionally annoying. Of course, they can be, and I’ve been guilty of such whining as well. But we neither want a society where every young person only takes the most rational, logical, correct path that’s assured of a proper result in income and status. You want those people in your tent, too. When the right speaks of narratives in art, they often mistakenly ascribe it to conspiracy, as if there’s a bunch of people in a dark, smoke-filled room deciding what political message of the day is going to be in the next Marvel film. It’s not quite that extreme, it’s simply that most of the people who go into cultural careers tend to think alike, and automatically agree on and interpret any event through the same political lens. There’s little coordination, as the shared biases are simply assumed. And, while it’s somewhat true that such cultural institutions are hostile towards conservatives, this wouldn’t be the reality if conservatives hadn’t ceded away any kind of presence in the media and culture, as well as the careers that go with them, decades ago. Those chickens have long roosted, which is why the last 50 years culturally looked like it did, and the next 50 will as well. This is not something you turn around with a beer boycott or a somewhat weird movie about child exploitation. Imagine how different the culture would look if the right took a different attitude towards cultivating art in the last few decades of the 20th century, if there were more funding and a system of patronage, if the arts were a less derided career path, and artists weren’t stigmatized as head in the clouds dreamers. Would we be having as many discussions about leftist political messages shoehorned into Yellowstone or SNL or whatever superhero franchise used to be good? Not at all. The pragmatic path, especially in the current endless pollution of content that makes up the culture, is especially wise. Getting skilled in a trade early on like HVAC or being an electrician is a simple, effective way to ensure a near lifetime of financial stability and better quality of life. One thinks, “Maybe it would be nice to not constantly worry about money,” and it is. Still, it’s hard to complain about culture when you make so little of it. We’ve seen an evolution with various conservative-leaning companies getting into documentaries and publishing and kids’ shows. That’s all healthy for creating a more balanced arts world. But in still overly prizing the sternly pragmatic over the artistically ephemeral, conservatives are firmly maintaining a blind spot to a new generation of arts, not to mention the people thinking about ruining their lives by going into them. It’s good to be on both sides of that, not just encouraging the pursuit, but being there on the other side with an empathetic attitude when it may not work out. There are too many lectures in arts and entertainment. We could use less lecturing in life as well. READ MORE: Hollywoke: The Motion Picture Academy of Bigotry Little House on the Prairie Changed My Life Can Trump Make Hollywood Great Again? Chason Gordon is a writer whose work has appeared in Slate, Spiked, Vice, The Federalist, and McSweeney’s, among others. You can find less of him at chasongordon.com. The post The Right’s Focus on Pragmatism is Why it Lacks Cultural Power appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Putting handcuffs on good cops is a bad idea. For too long, the U.S. Department of Justice has forced some American cities to pay wealthy private lawyers to oversee their police departments rather than the officials elected by citizens to do that job. It’s time to curb this pernicious trend and President Trump should remove those restraints. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 allowed the Justice Department to seek federal oversight of law enforcement agencies engaged in alleged patterns of unconstitutional conduct. Since then, numerous cities have been forced into signing “consent decrees” that essentially turn over management of their police to outside “monitors” who too often lack a deep and even-handed understanding of police work. Worse yet, many don’t even live in the community they oversee. In too many cases, these federal bullying tactics are tinged with extremist politics. For example, Louisville, Kentucky just signed a consent decree. It followed a 2020 incident when police officers serving a lawful warrant were shot at by a man in the house they were searching. An officer was hit. The shooter’s girlfriend — a woman named Breonna Taylor, who was standing near the gunman — was tragically killed when officers returned fire. Even though the Kentucky attorney general, David Cameron, announced grand jury findings that the officers were justified in their use of force, Joe Biden’s Justice Department, nevertheless used a warped view of that situation and a handful of others as a pretext to allege a pattern of racism in the Louisville Metro Police Department and forced the city into a consent decree wherein an outsider — typically a lawyer with serious antipathy toward cops — monitors the department. Louisville residents must pay about $1.5 million a year to have someone other than their city leaders manage their police. And that’s cheap compared to what New Orleans taxpayers pay — $132 million.  Other cities — most of which are already facing budgetary shortfalls — are also paying for consent decrees, including Los Angeles, Baltimore, Minneapolis, Albuquerque, and Pittsburgh. The Negative Impact of Consent Decrees in Ohio In Ohio, where I serve as an elected county prosecutor, Cleveland has endured such a consent decree for nearly a decade. The agreement demands that local police change how they conduct searches and seizures, and how they interact with people.  But it’s had little positive effect. Even the Cleveland City Council president said it hasn’t made the city safer. And it’s about as fiscally sound as turning cash into confetti. Much like agreements in the other cities, Cleveland’s consent decree mandates a monitor — essentially a very expensive babysitter who doesn’t like the kids much. How expensive? Even the far-left ACLU admits the cost may be $11 million per year, and the current monitors charge as much as $750 an hour. The average Clevelander makes about $30 an hour. You do the math. Who are these richly rewarded monitors? If you guessed they’re all local folks who want to help their hometown, you’re wrong. It’s 19 people, and only a few are from Cleveland. Several are lawyers from a gold-plated Washington, D.C. law firm led by Karl Racine. Racine has endorsed politicians who want to defund the police. He also helped anti-police rioters hide their arrest records from the public. He’s no friend to hard-working police officers who do their job and follow the law. In a recent report, Racine and his decadent D.C. comrades explained that: “We will be establishing additional priorities … to help us understand exactly what has occurred over the lifespan of this Consent Decree so that we know what is working well and what needs to be fixed.” After a decade and millions of dollars spent, the monitors should already know what’s working and what needs to be fixed. Citizens and police in Cleveland deserve better. In a few rare instances, a consent decree might be appropriate. But — like nearly all government regulation that has the potential to be punitive and oppressive — it should be limited in scope, short in duration, and staffed only by local people with genuine insight into police work. That’s true everywhere in America and it’s particularly true in Cleveland.  It’s time to end the Cleveland consent decree, give taxpayers relief, and remove the handcuffs from the police who do their job well. It’s also time for the incoming Justice Department leaders to wind down those consent decrees that are expensive and ineffective. I’m confident that President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi are the right people to make that happen. READ MORE: FBI Caught Gaslighting the Public With Bogus Crime Stats A Modest Proposal for Police Reform Destroying Our Criminal Justice System The post Time to Defund Consent Decrees: Unelected Monitors Do Not Make the Public Safe appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

by Olivia Rondeau, Breitbart: There was one air traffic control (ATC) worker on two different tower positions at the same time when the tragic helicopter-plane crash occurred over Washington, D.C. on Wednesday night, according to emerging reports. The controller who was assigned to helicopters in the vicinity of Ronald Reagan National Airport (DCA) was also […]

by Peter Schiff, Schiff Gold: Critics of President Trump are fond of calling his administration an oligarchy of wealthy businessmen. What they fail to realize, however, is that the United States government has long been an oligarchy, prone to extracting wealth from its citizens and unaccountable even to elections. The following article was originally published by the Mises Institute. The opinions […]