The executive order states that under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, “it is the policy of the United States to rescind all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities, which results in the endangerment, humiliation, and silencing of women and girls and deprives them of privacy. It shall also be the policy of the United States to oppose male competitive participation in women’s sports more broadly, as a matter of safety, fairness, dignity, and truth.”
The compliance tracker lists the following states as non-compliant: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
“President Donald Trump’s administration sued the California Department of Education on Wednesday for allowing transgender girls to compete on girls sports teams, alleging the policy violates federal law,” the Associated Press reported on July 9. “The move escalates a battle between the Republican administration in Washington and Democratic-led California over trans athletes.”
Women and girl athletes are being crushed — psychologically and physically — by men and boys posing as females. The girly-boy and man-lady “athletes,” who couldn’t even place in legitimate boy/men competition, are dominating female sports, physically hurting females, and invading the privacy of female locker rooms. See stories here, here, and here.
As R. Cort Kirkwood reported on July 2 (UPenn Revokes “Lia” Thomas’ Swimming Records Under Agreement With Education Department), the University of Pennsylvania agreed to strip trans “woman” Lia (birth name William) Thomas (and other “trans” women) of the titles, medals, and records unfairly taken from women and restore them to the women who were robbed. What motivated UPenn to reverse course? The threat of losing $867.1 million in federal funding.
Of course, the federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in education and to be taxing American citizens to fund programs and policies dictated by federal politicians and bureaucrats. President Trump’s executive order is a much-welcomed dose of common sense. However, it is a band-aid that can be easily ripped off by the next administration. The real solution is to abolish the Department of Education, which the Republican Party and GOP politicians have pledged to do since Ronald Reagan’s time, but have always failed to do. In his 2012 article, “Why Ronald Reagan Couldn’t Abolish the Department of Education,” the late education historian Samuel Blumenfeld provided essential background understanding of the battle lines in this ongoing war, including the century-long campaign by elite, subversive organizations that pushed for nationalizing and socializing education. — William F. Jasper
U.K. Women’s Swimming Champion Denounces “Ludicrous,” “Atrocious” Trans Invasion of Girls’ Sports
British former Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies, a vocal opponent of biological males competing in female sports, blasted officials who continue to promote and permit the invasion of girls’ sports by biological males despite the U.K.’s Supreme Court ruling that the practice is illegal. In a July 15 interview with GB News, Davies warned that “top officials from British sporting groups like tennis and weightlifting could end up in court if they do not prevent transgender women from competing.”
“They won’t have any legal cover,” Davies said. “They are breaking the law. If someone was to get injured, there would be no legal cover. They are all sitting on their hands. They need to get off the fence and protect their female athletes.”
Asked by GB News’ Martin Daubney what sports are “simply ignoring” the Supreme Court ruling, she said, “Things like taekwondo, we have a rounders boss saying this is not a gender-affected sport. Men hit harder than women. We know cricket, golf and baseball, men hit harder than women. We have wrestling.”
“One thing I find heartbreaking is from parents whose kids are at primary schools who have ‘inclusive’ sports days, meaning they don’t have a boys and girls race and not a single girl wins a race all day,” Davies said. “That’s the message we’re giving young girls. It’s atrocious.”
— William F. Jasper
Marxist Chaos in Bolivia
Bolivia’s Marxist former president Evo Morales has gone full radical Left beast mode in recent weeks, effectively inciting his supporters to open insurrection against the Bolivian government after a Bolivian court disqualified him from running for president again. Having already served three terms as president (the Bolivian constitution only permits two), Morales was driven into the political wilderness — or so we thought — following his resignation in 2019 amid widespread allegations of vote fraud. Morales fled to exile in Mexico and then Argentina for a time before returning to Bolivia to resume his fight for power.
Morales, an ethnic Aymara, was widely feted by the leftist media as the first native American to be elected a national leader. He also provoked Washington’s wrath by ending cooperation with the DEA and openly supporting cocaine production. Morales is also an unapologetic radical Leftist, with close ties to Cuban, Venezuelan, and Colombian Marxists, and has voiced his commitment to achieving a communist revolution in Bolivia.
Following the recent court decision ending any hopes Morales may have had of reelection, the former president, who is now in hiding, began orchestrating a bloody uprising against the Bolivian government in a story that the legacy media is completely ignoring. Morales, already on the run from the law for failing to show up in court to face charges of aggravated rape and human trafficking, has begun threatening the lives of his political opponents and their families, and has embarked on a rule-or-ruin campaign designed to burn the country to the ground if he is not restored to power.
In a damning audio released on June 4 by one of Evo’s own former supporters, the would-be dictator issues a call to arms against the government, urging his supporters to “surround” the cities:
It’s all out, brother; it’s the final battle. Close all the exits to Yungas, toward the lake, toward Desaguadero, toward Aroma, and that’s it. Regarding that, Oruro and Santa Cruz will only block the roads. Cochabamba is already starting.
The next day, the Bolivian government issued a litany of new charges against Morales, including terrorism, public incitement, and obstruction of electoral processes. In response, Evo’s violent shock troops began carrying out his orders, blockading roads, and committing violence against medical personnel and police. In Cochabamba, residents report being coerced by Evo’s followers to man road blockades, under threat of having their homes and business looted. During weeks of violence, many police and some civilians have been murdered by forces loyal to Morales, and the renegade Marxist has effectively taken over an entire remote region of the country, the rainforest-covered Chapare province north of Cochabamba, where he has set up a separate republic.
The Bolivian crisis is yet another poignant example, if any were needed, of how Marxists behave when stripped of power. Behind the mask of tolerance and inclusion is always concealed the leering satyr of anarchic violence, and the will to resort to any end to preserve or restore power. Evo Morales’ minions, like Antifa and BLM shock troops here in the United States, are utterly convinced of their own virtue, and of the moral justification for violence and intimidation that it confers. It would appear that Bolivia — like Ecuador and Argentina — has tired of leftist revolutionary government and the suffocation of liberty and prosperity that it inevitably creates. But Morales’ Marxists are not willing to go quietly, and the fate of an ancient Andean nation now hangs in the balance. — Steve Bonta
Canada’s Raging Wildfires Are Blamed on U.S. and Global Warming
For the third summer in a row, tens of millions of Americans living in northern states are being periodically smothered by enormous clouds of wildfire smoke issuing from Canada. On July 13, for example, residents of northern and central Wisconsin, where The New American is published, awoke to thick, smoky haze that prompted severe air quality alerts and discouraged outdoor activities in what was otherwise a pleasant Sunday in midsummer.
The news media and the Canadian government, naturally, are blaming the dramatic rise in cross-border secondhand smoke to climate change, with at least one Canadian scientist having the chutzpah to claim that the United States is primarily to blame for the frequent fires. As The New York Times dutifully and unironically reported:
Michael Waddington, a professor at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, who studies the interaction between wildfires and forested lands, said a warming climate was turning those landscapes into a tinderbox.
“The United States is, for the most part, the main reason for that,” said Dr. Waddington, referring to the U.S. role in planet-warming greenhouse emissions. China is the largest emitter.
You read that right: Even though China is the largest emitter, it’s the United States, as usual, that bears the lion’s share of the blame.
Some U.S. lawmakers aren’t buying it, though. A group of indignant lawmakers from northern states, including northern Wisconsin representative and pro-Constitution standout Tom Tiffany, sent a letter to the Canadian government expressing concern at the epidemic of wildfires, and demanding that Canada take steps to mitigate the problem. “In our neck of the woods, summer months are the best time of the year to spend time outdoors recreating, enjoying time with family, and creating new memories,” the congressmen wrote. “But this wildfire smoke makes it difficult to do all those things.”
Added Wisconsin congressman Tiffany on X: “Another weekend of Canadian wildfire smoke and air quality warnings across WI & MN. With today’s modern tools to prevent wildfires, this shouldn’t keep happening. Canada owes us answers for its forest management failures.”
Tiffany’s posts have drawn the usual leftist bile, with one Canadian poster demonstrating true north class by calling Tiffany a “dumb MAGA f__k,” and sneering about climate change. Canadian officials, meanwhile, tried to deflect and distract, with Manitoba premier Wab Kinew accusing the congressmen of “trying to trivialize and make hay out of a wildfire season where we’ve lost lives in our province.”
All of which raises the question: Why have Canadian wildfires become such a conspicuous problem the last few years? One answer is government mismanagement (as with California), but another — routinely pooh-poohed by the media and the political class — is arson, at least some of which may be in the service of radical environmentalism. One Canadian source, while admitting that the majority of this year’s devastating Canadian fires were “human caused,” claims there is supposedly no evidence to suggest that any were deliberately set. Yet online reports show clearly that most of the fires are set by people, not caused by lightning strikes, as often claimed. The Manitoba government report for July 12, for example, showed four new fires had started over the previous 24 hours, of which three were started by humans. And while some of them doubtless arose from human error around campsites, there are numerous investigations underway, one involving a spray can that had been converted into a fire bomb and thrown into the woods, which set off a major fire. In northern Saskatchewan, where massive fires recently forced the evacuation of the industrial town of Flin Flon, at least two people have already been charged with arson, including a man who was caught deliberately setting fires in ditches.
So while it’s too early to know whether the new annual tradition of “Burning Canada” is being cynically orchestrated by fanatical climate alarmists and their ilk, it does appear that our northern neighbor is increasingly at the mercy of those who just want to watch the world burn.
— Steve Bonta
Milei Fights Backsliding Spendaholics in Argentina’s Congress
Argentine president Javier Milei is encountering pushback from a Senate squeamish about the real budget cuts Milei has implemented. Last Thursday, the Senate passed a measure — fiercely opposed by Milei — to hike pensions and disability allowances. All this, despite overwhelming evidence that Milei’s so-called radical policies — cutting government spending to the bone while removing the stifling blanket of government regulations on the private sector — have transformed Argentina into an economic miracle in little more than a year. This is the fatal, irrational delusion of collectivism, and the Argentine example reminds us anew that people in thrall to socialist conceits are willfully blind to its destructive nature. Argentina, like the United States, has midterm congressional elections upcoming. We will find out then whether Argentines are truly ready to embrace liberty or whether they end up, like the proverbial dog, turning back to its socialist vomit. — Steve Bonta
Epstein “Client List”: Alan Dershowitz Says “I Know the Names”
Alan Dershowitz, the celebrity lawyer, law professor, and media commentator, claims that he knows the names of Jeffrey Epstein’s clients who engaged in illegal pedophile activities. Dershowitz was a member of the defense team in Epstein’s 2008 trial over charges of having sex with multiple minor girls, and helped negotiate the sweetheart plea deal that let Epstein off with an outrageously lenient 18-month prison sentence. One of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Giuffre, claimed that Epstein had trafficked her when she was 16 for sex with Dershowitz, as well as Britain’s Prince Andrew, MIT scientist Marvin Minsky, hedge fund billionaire Glenn Dubin, and prominent Democrat politicians Bill Richardson and George J. Mitchell. This began a series of defamation lawsuits and countersuits between Dershowitz and Giuffre which were settled with Giuffre stating, “I now recognize I may have made a mistake in identifying Mr. Dershowitz.”
After Attorney General Pam Bondi and other administration officials declared that the Epstein “client list” doesn’t exist, a video interview from last March resurfaced in which Alan Dershowitz tells Sean Spicer he has seen the names of Epstein’s clients.
“I know the names of the individuals. I know why they’re being suppressed. I know who’s suppressing them,” Dershowitz said during an appearance on The Sean Spicer Show that was originally broadcast on March 19. “But I’m bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases, and I can’t disclose what I know, but I, hand to God, I know. I know the names of people whose files are being suppressed in order to protect them, and that’s wrong.” he added.
Dershowitz says that he has pushed for “total transparency” in the release of Epstein-related documents. “Every single document, no redaction. That’s what I’ve said from day one,” he emphasized. Spicer asked if politicians or business leaders were named. Dershowitz responded, “They’re everything and let me tell you, a lot of them — at least one of them — is somebody who was accused, others are accusers, and the judges have said if somebody calls themselves a victim we’re not going to give any information about them, but they may not be victims, they may be perpetrators…. We want total transparency on this.”
We should note an important point about the semantic deception at work here. There may not be an Epstein “client list,” as such. Dershowitz does not say he saw such a thing. He claims to have seen the sex clients’ names in court documents he reviewed in his defamation suit. It is unlikely that Epstein kept a single patron register titled “client list,” but if he did, it may have been destroyed already by DOJ or FBI personnel. However, the absence of a “client list” is no excuse for refusing to release the Epstein files that we were repeatedly promised by Donald Trump, Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, and other administration officials. — William F. Jasper
Massie Leads GOP Attempt to Force Release of Epstein Files
On July 15, Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) announced that he has introduced the bipartisan “Epstein Files Transparency Act” (EFTA), which would force the House of Representatives to vote on the complete release of the government’s files related to Jeffrey Epstein. If the EFTA is not considered by the House within seven legislative days, a discharge petition will be circulated.
“We all deserve to know what’s in the Epstein files, who’s implicated, and how deep this corruption goes,” said Massie in a press release. “Americans were promised justice and transparency. We’re introducing a discharge petition to force a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on releasing the complete files. If your Representative won’t sign the discharge petition, ask why.”
The press release noted that a discharge petition is a procedural tool for bypassing House leadership. When the petition is signed by 218 House members, the House must vote on the EFTA. Representative Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) is an original cosponsor of the Massie resolution and will be assisting in the effort to collect Member signatures. If the EFTA is not considered by the House within seven legislative days, a discharge petition will be circulated. — William F. Jasper
Will Bongino Resign Over Epstein Fiasco?
As we write, the news sphere has been rife with rumors for days that FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino has heatedly clashed with Attorney General Pam Bondi over the refusal to release the Epstein sex crimes files. According to various reports, Bongino did not go in to work on Friday, July 11, supposedly out of exasperation with Bondi.
As of Monday morning, no one in leadership at the Justice Department had spoken to Bongino since Wednesday, when he implied that he could no longer continue in his position as long as Bondi was there, sources familiar with the matter said.
The threat infuriated Trump, who spent the weekend fuming over both Bongino and FBI Director Kash Patel, sources told CNN. Most of his fury was directed at Bongino, causing aides to expect that the deputy director would depart his job in the coming days. But Vice President JD Vance spent the weekend attempting to mediate, at times fielding calls from Patel, Bongino and Bondi, sources said.
It remains to be seen if Bongino ultimately resigns, which he told others he was considering. But sources say his relationship with the White House has become basically untenable. Even if he does not quit now, some inside the administration believe he will not stay in the job long-term.
Granted, that’s coming from the hate-America/hate-Trump apparatchiks at CNN, but multiple conservative MAGA-aligned sources are reporting similar accounts. It is clear from his media appearances that the former Secret Service agent and popular podcaster is very uncomfortable being tasked with dissembling (or lying) to the American people, especially on an issue for which he has repeatedly and emphatically demanded full transparency. — William F. Jasper
New York Times Sows Defeatism in War Between U.S. and China
If The New York Times is to be believed, communist China’s victory over the United States is all but assured. On July 13, an article by Farah Stockman warns that the U.S. military and American tech companies lag far, far behind China in drone technology — technology that is “key to winning wars now.” The following day, an ominous essay by economists David Autor and Gordon Hanson warned that a second “China Shock” is aborning — and this time, it will be “where China goes from underdog to favorite”:
Today, [China] is aggressively contesting the innovative sectors where the United States has long been the unquestioned leader: aviation, A.I., telecommunications, microprocessors, robotics, nuclear and fusion power, quantum computing, biotech and pharma, solar, batteries. Owning these sectors yields dividends: economic spoils from high profits and high-wage jobs; geopolitical heft from shaping the technological frontier; and military prowess from controlling the battlefield. General Motors, Boeing and Intel are American national champions, but they’ve all seen better days and we’re going to miss them if they’re gone. China’s technological vision is already reordering governments and markets in Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia and increasingly Eastern Europe. Expect this influence to grow as the United States retreats into an isolationist MAGAsphere.
Such articles are merely part of an increasingly shrill narrative being promoted by the legacy media, to the effect that, as far as China goes, we have already lost. Their military is too strong, their technology too advanced, their economy too robust, and their leadership too clever for Trump and his mindless MAGA myrmidons to challenge. Time to roll over and cede global leadership to them.
While Trump has indeed been mercurial on China (and other foreign issues, such as Ukraine and Iran), his overall approach has already been bearing fruit where the Chinese communists are concerned. Almost unnoticed by the servile legacy media has been the pronounced decrease in Chinese military provocations in the South China Sea and across the Taiwan Strait lately. The blatant attacks on Philippine vessels have stopped, and the military exercises and apocalyptic threats vis-à-vis Taiwan have diminished from the weekly outrage perpetrated during the Biden years. This is because the Chinese understand perfectly well what the U.S. military is capable of, if its full potential is unleashed. While China might enjoy a “home court advantage” of sorts in a war fought near its coastline, it has no experience in modern naval warfare (unlike both the United States and Japan) and its ships, while more numerous than ours, have nowhere near the firepower or technical sophistication. In fact, every major U.S. military foe in recent years was transformed by ignorant, hysteria-mongering journalists into a dreadful menace — until actual combat exposed the reality. Remember all the cant about Saddam Hussein’s “battle hardened million-man army” in the run-up to the first Gulf War? Or, more recently, all the hand-wringing about Iran? None of which is to give moral countenance to America’s many ill-conceived foreign adventures. But the brutal reality is that America’s military is battle-tested many times over, and our equipment is first-rate. Having lived in China for four years, this author can attest that the Chinese, while adroit at putting on wonderfully choreographed drone light shows, lag far behind the United States in such critical areas as materials science. Put simply, their metals and polymers aren’t as resilient as ours, and that makes a huge difference in the stress of actual combat.
Speaking of drones, while they have become a critical feature of the Russia-Ukraine War and have been deployed recently by Iran against Israel, they have yet to win a war or achieve an overwhelming military objective, like the destruction of a hardened underground command center. While the lion’s share of the world’s drones are still manufactured in China, it’s doubtful that they could play a decisive role in all-out modern naval warfare; missiles, aircraft carriers, gunboats, sea mines, and satellite systems will be much more important, and in all of these, the United States reigns supreme, by a very hefty margin.
As for the economy, the only “China shock” in the offing is the collapse of China’s own system. China has been trying in recent weeks to internationalize the renminbi, in order to challenge the supremacy of the dollar, but they’re at least a decade late and more than a dollar short. Most of China’s ballyhooed rise — financial as well as commercial — has come about because of its unique treatment by the WTO for more than two decades. After U.S. forces mistakenly bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, in May 1999 during the Kosovo War, the Chinese extracted from an apologetic President Clinton a promise to get China into the WTO. The idea was to use the WTO to bring about a vast infusion of foreign capital — while refusing to abide by any of the rules of the organization foisted on other members. Thus, China for decades has enjoyed preferential, regulation- and duty-free access to the WTO, even as the United States and other countries have been held to account for obeying copyright and patent standards, renounced tariffs and import controls, and complied with onerous environmental and worker compensation standards, among many other impositions — all of which China has simply ignored, with zero accountability.
Now, however, things have changed. Trump is ignoring the WTO and imposing heavy tariffs and import restrictions on Chinese-made goods, even as he seeks to lower taxes and deregulate the American economy. Despite wave after wave of dire warnings about how Trump’s MAGA policies will bring utter ruin, the U.S. economy is growing briskly (even if we’re not out of the woods yet). Certainly, in comparison to free-falling China, the U.S. economy is the envy of the world right now. This author’s Chinese contacts report ever-worsening economic conditions and general malaise on a scale no one in China under the age of 60 has ever seen before.
In general, we would be wise to remember that free markets work, while centralized, command economies don’t. The Chinese have been cleverer than the Soviets were in their day at harnessing the energies of foreign capital while keeping a tight lid on freedom at home. But that game is playing out now, as foreign investors (aside from Elon Musk) increasingly see the risk of remaining in China. The worse things get, the more likely that Xi Jinping, in his lust to conquer Taiwan, may do something truly rash in a last-ditch effort to cement his legacy.
And while that day, if it comes, would be a monumental tragedy, it will go far worse for China than for the rest of the world. Deep down, the Chinese government understands this, even if TheNew York Times doesn’t. — Steve Bonta
Radical Somali Wants to Lead Minneapolis Further into Leftist Ruin
Somali democratic socialist Omar Fateh is running for mayor of Minneapolis. Currently a state senator, his campaign pledges include minimum-wage increases, “free” public housing, rent controls, and help for illegal immigrants in skirting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Among his senatorial pursuits is a bill providing students with “free” college tuition. He also hopes to fund illegal encampments in Minneapolis with taxpayer dollars.
Fateh faces four challengers for the state’s Democrat Farm Labor Party nomination, including far-left incumbent Mayor Jacob Frey, who is running for re-election to a third term. The primary will be held July 19 in a city-wide election. The winner will face Republican Laverne Turner, Kevin Dwire of the Socialist Workers Party, and unaffiliated Howard Dotson in the general election on November 4.
Fateh is brother-in-law of another state senator from Islamic Somalia, Zaynab Mohamed. Both are radical environmentalists, and both are adamantly against the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
Fateh and his family have also “racked up an impressive number of scandals,” according to American Experiment. His brother-in-law lied to a grand jury about election fraud, and Fateh himself was caught red-handed in campaign finance violations in 2022. Close associates have been found guilty of bribery, wire fraud, and money laundering, among other charges.
Congress Plans Follow-up to One Big Beautiful Bill
As soon as President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) on July 4, members of Congress shifted their attention to enacting follow-up reconciliation bills for this year and next year.
In a statement to Fox News, U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) expressed his support for a second reconciliation bill, and noted:
I think I pretty well have a commitment. They’re going to do that, and we’re going to set a process, line by line, program by program.
Another reason why I definitely had to vote “yes” is I would have just dealt myself out of being involved in that process, and I want to be highly involved in that for the next process.
Other senators, including Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), also expressed their support for a second reconciliation bill.
Meanwhile, in the House, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has expressed support for follow-up legislation. In an interview on Fox News shortly after Trump signed the OBBBA, Johnson said, “We’re going to do this again. We’re gonna have a second reconciliation package in the fall and a third in the spring of next year.” Members of the Freedom Caucus, which supports spending cuts but voted for the OBBBA, are among the strongest advocates for a second reconciliation bill.
Will Senator Johnson and the Freedom Caucus succeed in reining in reckless federal spending in a follow-up bill? Unfortunately, despite pressure from conservatives to significantly cut federal spending and the deficit, the OBBBA raises the debt limit by $5 trillion, and is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to increase the national debt by an additional $3.2 trillion — on top of the current rate of debt accumulation — by 2034 (assuming the tax-cut extensions are factored in).
Will Texas Save the Republican U.S. House Majority?
On Monday, the Texas Legislature will convene a special session to consider 18 agenda items chosen by Governor Greg Abbott. One of those items is a mid-decade congressional redistricting.
On July 7, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a letter claiming that four Texas congressional districts “constitute unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.” Abbott’s proclamation, issued on July 9, cites “constitutional concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice” as the rationale for redrawing its congressional districts mid-decade.
Republicans, including President Donald Trump, are hoping to net five congressional districts through this redistricting. The Texas Tribunereports:
Earlier Tuesday, Trump told Texas congressional Republicans that his political team is pursuing a map that would yield five new Republican seats, according to three people briefed on the call, which was first reported by Punchbowl News.
At the White House, Trump later told reporters that Republicans could get three to five more seats out of a new Texas map — and that other states could follow.
“Texas would be the biggest one,” he said. “Just a very simple redrawing, we pick up five seats.”
Although Republicans hope to gain additional seats — and retain control of the U.S. House in a historically difficult midterm election — this plan does carry risks. For example, it could spread Republican-leaning voters too thinly, making Republican-held seats more competitive and risking Democratic victories.
More importantly, justifying a mid-decade redistricting based on pressure on the federal government — even if for partisan political ends — is constitutionally problematic. The U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government, including the judicial branch, any authority over redistricting. As the 10th Amendment affirms, this power is reserved to the states, without any federal meddling.
In a 2024 concurring opinion, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas explained the problems with Supreme Court-imposed “racial gerrymandering” precedents, which the DOJ is dutifully enforcing:
As these cases make clear, this Court’s jurisprudence puts States in a lose-lose situation. Taken together, our precedents stand for the rule that States must consider race just enough in drawing districts. And, what “just enough” means depends on a federal court’s answers to judicially unanswerable questions about the proper way to apply the State’s traditional districting principles, or about the groupwide preferences of racial minorities in the State. There is no density of minority voters that this Court’s jurisprudence cannot turn into a constitutional controversy. We have extracted years of litigation from every districting cycle, with little to show for it. The Court’s involvement in congressional districting is unjustified and counterproductive….
The Constitution provides courts no power to draw districts, let alone any standards by which they can attempt to do so. And, it does not authorize courts to engage in the race-based reasoning that has come to dominate our voting-rights precedents.
Regardless of the partisan implications of redistricting, urge your state legislators to nullify all unconstitutional federal-court rulings that seek to usurp state sovereignty, including those related to elections and gerrymandering. — Peter Rykowski
“Medical Researchers” Predict 14 Million Deaths Over the Next Five Years Due to USAID Cuts
An article published June 30 in The Lancet claims that 14 million people will die over the next five years because of cuts to USAID. Those deaths, according to the article, will include 4.5 million children under age five, who allegedly will no longer have access to medical treatments, humanitarian aid, food assistance and environmental protection.
Major media dutifully parrot the allegations, pointing the finger of blame at former Trump advisor Elon Musk and the administration’s newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). In pursuit of the president’s plans to cut excess spending, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced in March that 83 percent of USAID programs were terminated, affecting up to $75 billion in obligated funds, according to the Center for Global Development. Around 1,000 USAID programs remained, and most were absorbed into the Department of State.
The Lancet authors apparently think we haven’t been paying attention. When does “humanitarian aid” ever get to those it’s reputedly intended to help?
Who can forget the 1984 heartstring-pulling Band Aid group singing their pop hit “Do They Know It’s Christmas?” and subsequent Live Aid concerts the following year in Philadelphia and London? Together they raised an estimated $285 million. Did the money go to the starving population of Ethiopia? Hardly.
“The Ethiopian dictator, Mengistu, until then deadlocked in war, was using the money the west gave him to buy sophisticated weapons from the Russians, and was now able to efficiently and viciously crush the opposition,” wrote investigative reporter Bob Keating of Spinin 2015. “Ethiopia, then the third poorest country in the world, suddenly had the largest, best-equipped army on the African continent.”
Moreover, Spin investigators discovered what The John Birch Society had already revealed: “that this famine, the awful depictions of which had pulled on the world’s heartstrings, was man made, by government planes deliberately napalming rebel farms.”
Ethiopia is one of countless examples that expose U.S. foreign “aid” for what it really is. Afghan opium farmers happily gobbled up more than a billion U.S. tax dollars, courtesy of USAID, from 2002 to 2017 in the agency’s reputed attempt to end drug production in Afghanistan. A 2018 report of the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction noted that opium cultivation increased during the program years.
A whistleblower exposed rampant child sex abuse and trafficking, made possible through USAID funding to Children of God Relief Institute in Kenya from 2013 through 2021.
USAID was also at the heart of the $9.5 billion medical supply boondoggle, the Global Health Supply Chain Program, a money-laundering scheme ostensibly intended to provide needy countries with medical supplies. After the scandal broke last year, USAID proceeded to start awarding contracts on a new and improved medical supply chain known as NextGen, to the tune of $17 billion.
More recently, Mike Benz exposed USAID as a foreign-policy “rent-a-riot” operation during an interview on The Tucker Carlson Show. Benz is a former State Department official and cybersecurity expert who now heads the Foundation for Freedom Online. According to him, USAID has funded transgender dance festivals, social-media censorship, and espionage activities in foreign countries. And, of course, many USAID dollars end up in the bank accounts of contractors and (what he called) national security “hobbyists.”
However, it is small wonder that The Lancet is peddling propaganda. A bastion of bad actors, The Lancet has made its mark in shilling for the Left, despite its reputation as one of the world’s most authoritative medical journals.
Consider its 2020 smear piece on hydroxychloroquine as “ineffective and unsafe” during the height of the Covid psyop. Dr. Marc Siegel told Tucker Carlson that the Lancet propaganda was “a political hit job,” and even the ultra-liberal New York Times cried foul.
In 2021, The Daily Mail reported that the “World’s most famous medical journal The Lancet is accused of doing China’s dirty work — by denouncing the Covid lab leak theory as a conspiracy.” Peter Daszak, head of EcoHealth Alliance and co-conspirator with Anthony Fauci and China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology in creating SARS-CoV-2, was on the Lancet team “that exonerated the lab of wrongdoing,” as The New Americannoted.
The Lancet is also quick to promote UN climate conferences, urgently calling for “emergency action” to avert catastrophic effects to health. The World Economic Forum has rewardedLancet authors for plugging climate change nonsense.
Social-media users aren’t buying the latest USAID claptrap. “‘Projected to cause’ = ‘nonsense propaganda’” tweeted Andrew Branca of Gun Freedom Radio. “But even were it true — America is not the free-access ATM of the world.”
“Your whole premise is flawed,” notes another commentor. “It is predicated on an assumption that American taxpayers are responsible for the entire 3rd world’s health and wellness.”
The Lancet report is an example of the dangers of governance by prognostication. America’s Founding Fathers based our government on lessons learned from history, which explains why they constructed a limited federal framework and shackled it with the Bill of Rights.
Foreign aid was not in their model then, and it is still unconstitutional today. Now that it exists, making decisions about aid based on Lancet forecasts is akin to setting environmental policies based on UN climate models. The latter are consistently dead wrong. Would that our government officials might formulate environmental policies based on that fact, and foreign aid policies based on the damning history of abuse in regard to “humanitarian” aid. — Rebecca Terrell
WHO Pandemic Aparatus Grabs for Global Control
On July 10, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a press release titled “WHO Member States hold first meeting, agree on next steps to take forward key elements of the WHO Pandemic Agreement.” The July 9-10 meeting of the WHO poohbahs in Geneva was the follow-up to the May 20, 2025 conference at the WHO Geneva headquarters at which the WHO Pandemic Agreement was adopted.
“WHO Member States have held their first meeting of the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) on the WHO Pandemic Agreement, formalizing next steps on implementing key provisions of the historic legal instrument to make the world safer from future pandemics,” the press release stated.
“The Assembly established the IGWG to, as a priority, draft and negotiate an annex to the WHO Pandemic Agreement on Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS). This PABS system is intended to enable safe, transparent and accountable access and benefit-sharing for PABS materials and sequence information,” the press release continued.
Notably, “The IGWG also decided to identify experts to provide inputs on the PABS annex and possibly hold an informal briefing before the second meeting of the IGWG, which will be held on 15-19 September 2025.” We can probably rest assured that the “experts” chosen by the WHO IGWG will not include Drs. Peter McCullough, Sunetra Gupta, Martin Kulldorf, Meryl Nass, Michael Yeadon, John Ioannidis, or any of the hundreds of additional medical/health experts who challenged WHO’s deadly Covid protocols that are responsible for the deaths of millions worldwide. — William F. Jasper
