The Insider Report from The New American

Is Massie’s Loss the End, or the Beginning of Something Bigger?

U.S. Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) took on the neocon machine and lost by nearly 10 points to primary challenger Ed Gallrein. It’s a surprisingly large margin in a race that was projected to be close, and given the grassroots excitement the congressman inspired compared to the tepid response Gallrein’s campaign consistently received. Suspicions of election chicanery are already circulating. Among those scratching their heads is the pioneer of modern libertarianism, Dr. Ron Paul.

Assuming the election result is legitimate, Massie’s loss serves as a reminder that, like their Democratic Party counterparts, the Republican electorate is plagued by lack of knowledge and bad judgment. With overwhelming margins, Kentucky voters sent Massie to Congress seven times before President Donald Trump began campaigning last year to get him fired. Trump has published irate, middle-of-the-night social-media posts painting Massie as a “RINO,” Democrat, obstructionist, grandstander, and other unsavory labels. Megadonors such as Miriam Adelson, John Paulson, and Paul Singer invested tens of millions of dollars in anti-Massie ads and Gallrein super PAC money to convince voters of the same. Though Massie is nothing like their labels, the propaganda seems to have worked.

The Republican platform vows fidelity to individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, limited government, and constitutional principles. Massie has been one of the few lawmakers who has taken these promises seriously, and none of his colleagues from either party has defended the Constitution as fiercely. His voting record proves it; during his 14 years in Congress, he has accrued a lifetime score in The New American’s Freedom Index of 99 percent. That’s even better than Ron Paul’s track record. The libertarian icon amassed a lifetime score of 97 percent. His son, Rand Paul, another constitutional stalwart (and Massie ally), is riding a 96-percent freedom score. As Ron Paul noted Wednesday, in Massie “they’ve taken somebody who had the best voting record [and] turned him into a monster.”

Massie is the kind of ideal legislator the Founders prescribed. He has fought to bring about some semblance of fiscal sanity on Capitol Hill. He built an electronic debt counter and wears it to serve as a reminder of our perilous national debt. He opposed Trump’s war with Iran because the president doesn’t have constitutional authority to launch a war without congressional permission. Massie has sponsored or supported legislation to protect privacy and freedom of commerce, to increase overall empowerment of the electorate, and to shutter unconstitutional agencies, including the Department of Education, USAID, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and even the Federal Reserve.

Massie also took on the ruling class. With California Democrat Ro Khanna, he drafted and pushed through legislation that forced the government to release millions of files related to convicted pedophile and suspected foreign-intelligence asset Jeffrey Epstein. For many, the files conclusively revealed that the world is run by a privileged class of international power players who live by their own twisted rules and operate above the law.

Massie’s problem isn’t that he’s a RINO (he’s not); it’s that he threatens the Uniparty’s control. As he noted Tuesday in his concession speech following that day’s primary loss:

If the legislative branch always votes with the president, we do have a king. If the legislative branch always votes whichever way the wind is blowing, then we have mob rule. But if the legislative branch, and the representatives and the senators that serve with it, always follow the Constitution, we have a Republic.

President Trump gloated over Massie’s defeat by posting several infographics on his Truth Social channel highlighting tens of races won by candidates he endorsed. Among them was that of Gallrein, the (reputedly) former Navy SEAL-turned-dairy farmer. Gallrein is accused of employing the Joe Biden 2020 campaign strategy because he refused to debate Massie or to participate in forums. He refused to sign right-to-life pledges. He drew small crowds and rattled out uninspiring platitudes. His campaign promise, essentially, was that he would be loyal to Trump and the Republican Party. His strategy seems to have worked. Massie observed during his concession speech Tuesday night that until now he’d never heard of someone winning by promising voters that he’d go to Washington “to get along.”

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) also celebrated Massie’s loss. The organization admits that it wanted Massie gone because he opposes foreign aid to Israel, as well as America’s war against Iran on behalf of Israel. “Voters across America sent a resounding message tonight,” said AIPAC in a statement. “They support Democratic and Republican candidates who view a strong U.S.-Israel relationship as an American interest.”

AIPAC brags that it has backed more than 100 candidates who are advancing to the general election in November, all in the name of ensuring that America continues to serve as Israel’s cash cow and military attack dog.

The Israel lobby has reason to fear Massie. He recently introduced the Americans Insist on Political Agent Clarity (AIPAC) Act. It would amend the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) in a way that would likely require AIPAC to register as a foreign agent. “If an organization is heavily engaged in influencing U.S. policy in ways that principally benefit a foreign country, it should be required to register under FARA,” Massie said in a statement about the legislation.

Taking a shot at the Israel lobby, he joked during his concession speech, “I would have come out sooner, but I had to call my opponent and concede, and it took a while to find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv.” He also pointed out the foolishness of a country $38 trillion in debt doling out foreign aid and waging wars all over the planet. “Our empire will collapse if we keep sending our money to other countries,” he noted Tuesday.

So what’s next for Massie? And what happens to the millions of people he has awakened and inspired?

For starters, as he reminded supporters, he has seven months left in Congress. His Epstein Files Transparency Act passed Congress in only six months, so there’s still time for him to further upset the Uniparty.

In the long term, he is now the crowned leader of a libertarian-style, Constitution-centric movement, not unlike the Ron Paul Revolution of the early 2000s. What “started out as an election,” he told supporters, has “turned into a movement.” Framing the loss as a win of greater proportions, he reiterated: “We won because we started a movement. We showed people that if you’re under 50, you want to save this country.”

Massie has often expressed such optimism about the future of America. Polls reveal that the 60-plus crowd is the only demographic that did not overwhelmingly support him, and that more Americans today consider themselves Independents than those who identify as Republicans or Democrats. Legacy media’s stranglehold on the narrative is dying. It is now a widely held belief that a conspiratorial class is undermining liberty and national sovereignty. The future is indeed bright, but do we have enough time to get there?

Chants of “2028” and “president” erupted while Massie was trying to give his concession speech. It sounded not like a room filled with dejected people, but like a room filled with people who are ready to change things. In the past, Massie has repeatedly dismissed suggestions of running for president. He did it on Theo Von’s podcast in 2025, and again this April at the University of Louisville. “If I lose on May 19, I am not doing any more government ever,” he said. “I am not running for president, not running for governor.”

His message on Tuesday seemed different, though. Perhaps he was just being cordial to his supporters, or maybe this campaign shifted his thinking. Regardless, he made statements that hint at possible continuing political ambitions. “There’s too much of the Uniparty. … What we need is a Unity Party,” he said, to chants of “2028!”

Massie also invoked God’s sovereignty over the election:

What happened today was God’s will. It couldn’t happen if God didn’t want it to. And we have to figure out what was the purpose of having the biggest fight ever.… Why did it converge on one of 435 congressional seats right here in Kentucky?… What is He showing us tonight?

Someone in the crowd replied, “We’re just getting started!”

Massie repeated it: “We’re just getting started. I like that!”

Chants of “2028” erupted again, followed by those of “president.”

Massie concluded, “You made a compelling argument, you’ve spoken your piece. But I need a medical margarita right now. And we’ll talk about it later.” — Paul Dragu

China Leverages Rare Earths Against the U.S. Military

China has cut off supplies of rare-earth elements for U.S. military applications, according to Chinese scholar Professor Zhang Weiwei, director of Fudan University’s China Institute and former translator for Deng Xiaoping.

“Since sometime last year, China has exercised stricter control over the export of rare earths to the United States,” Zhang said. “It had to do with trade war and tech war. And China said: no rare earths for the U.S. military and its establishments.” He described the measures as including a one-year ban targeting military purposes.

In the ongoing global contest over critical technologies and materials, rare-earth elements (REEs) and permanent magnets are indispensable for advanced military systems, including F-35 fighter jets, missiles, radar, and electronic-warfare equipment. China processes the vast majority of the world’s rare-earth supply chain, giving it significant leverage.

The roots of the current tensions trace back to U.S. efforts to constrain China’s access to advanced semiconductors. In October 2022, the United States imposed sweeping export controls on high-end chips and manufacturing equipment critical for artificial intelligence and military modernization. To make these controls effective, Washington secured agreements with key allies. In January 2023, Japan and the Netherlands joined the effort, aligning their policies to restrict exports of advanced lithography machines and related semiconductor production tools to China.

The Netherlands hosts ASML, the world’s only producer of extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography systems essential for cutting-edge chips below certain process nodes. Japan provides critical materials, chemicals, and equipment. These trilateral restrictions, alongside measures involving Taiwan, targeted choke points in the semiconductor supply chain, aiming to slow China’s progress in dual-use technologies.

China responded by weaponizing its dominance in rare-earth processing. In 2025, Beijing introduced multiple waves of export restrictions on heavy rare-earth elements, permanent magnets, and related technologies, often citing national security and in direct response to U.S. tariffs and tech controls. Measures in April and October 2025 added licensing requirements, end-user scrutiny, and targeted curbs, with impact on defense-related applications. Some restrictions saw temporary suspensions following diplomatic outreach, but controls persisted in forms that affected U.S. military supply lines.

To ease these ongoing tensions, President Trump negotiated with Chinese president Xi Jinping at a summit last week. The latter pledged to address U.S. concerns over rare-earth elements and critical minerals supply chains, including neodymium, scandium, yttrium, and indium.

President Trump smoothed things over with several trade commitments aimed at boosting U.S. exports. China agreed to purchase at least $17 billion per year in U.S. agricultural products through 2028, in addition to prior soybean deals, while restoring market access for hundreds of U.S. beef facilities and resuming poultry imports from approved states. Beijing also committed to an initial order of 200 American-made Boeing aircraft.

The leaders also confirmed shared goals of denuclearizing North Korea, agreeing that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons, and calling for the Strait of Hormuz to remain open. Additionally, Xi is expected to visit Washington later in 2026. — Rebecca Terrell

Military Service Members Speak Out About Covid-shot Mandates in Powerful New Documentary

The unlawful mandate of the Covid-19 shot forced tens of thousands of military members out of the service for simply obeying their conscience and adhering to their deeply held religious beliefs. In exchange for their courage, many were dishonorably discharged and lost benefits, retirement, and even their careers.

After six years, these brave service members are organizing to speak out in a shocking and powerful documentary, Duty to Disobey, created by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense.

In an interview with The New American’s Alex Newman on Conversations That Matter, former Special Forces Green Beret John Frankman, who left the service in 2023 for refusing the jab and appears in the film, says there must be accountability for the elites who orchestrated the disaster.

According to Frankman, 8,600 service members were kicked out for refusing the jab, and 80,000-90,000 “voluntarily separated” over the scandal. “Of that 100,000 or so who left, we’ve only had about 150 reinstated,” he revealed. “For every thousand service members who were forced out, one and a half have come back in.” They must be made whole, he added.

Frankman is not sitting on the sidelines, despite maltreatment. He is running for Congress in Florida’s 1st Congressional District against the Trump-endorsed incumbent, Jimmy Patronis. Key pillars of Frankman’s campaign include reinstating service members forced out for refusing the jab and seeking justice for the Epstein class that remains untouched despite overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing. He is hopeful that accountability can be achieved through understanding and education.

Watch this powerful interview at TheNewAmerican.com. — Editors

French Presidential Candidate Calls for NATO Exit

In a declaration on May 9, French leftist leader and presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon announced that, if he is elected, France will withdraw from NATO.

“NATO only serves one purpose: to place us under U.S. control,” he stated, framing the alliance as an instrument of American dominance rather than collective defense, an opinion about transatlantic arrangements that seems to be gaining traction across Europe.

In fact, the post-World War II consensus (built on U.S.-led institutions such as NATO, the Bretton Woods system, and liberal internationalism) shows certain signs of erosion. The bipolar Cold War order gave way to brief U.S. dominance after 1991, but the rise of China, Russia’s resurgence, and assertive middle powers have accelerated a shift toward multipolarity.

Hence, NATO finds itself under strain from multiple directions. U.S. leaders including President Trump have long criticized European allies for insufficient defense spending and “free-riding,” pushing for expanded sharing of the burden (with targets of five percent of GDP in some discussions). Europeans frustrated over U.S. unilateralism, especially in conflicts such as the recent Iran operations, have declined direct involvement or military base access. Current French President Emmanuel Macron and others have advocated “strategic autonomy” for Europe, wary of being drawn into U.S.-China or Middle East escalations. European nations are now questioning NATO’s relevance when U.S. priorities diverge from theirs. Meanwhile, Americans are increasingly frustrated with U.S. involvement in overseas conflicts.

Geopolitical analysts point out other cracks in the NATO system, using tensions between Israel and Turkey as an example. Turkey is a key NATO member but stands as an obstacle to Israel’s ambition to be the regional hegemon in the Middle East — its “Greater Israel” project. In other words, Israel benefits from a weakened or fragmented NATO, potentially freeing the United States from Article 5 obligations to Turkey in a hypothetical conflict. Claims that elements in Israel seek to sideline Turkey (and to use their influence in the United States to do it) demonstrate how bilateral relationships can undermine international alliances such as NATO.

In this context, Mélenchon’s proposal is not isolated, and could earn unprecedented support for the far-left candidate. He is reflecting a broader reality that Europe is waking up to the dangers of international entanglements. — Rebecca Terrell

Trusting Politicians Is Fatal to the Republic

Looking at the state of the world, it’s hard to tell whether to blame the political misery of our country on the people’s own gullibility or on the corruption of their so-called representatives. Both conspire to produce the same result, and where there are no dupes, there are no con men.

There must be a deep reservoir of stupidity in human nature, because otherwise men would not fall for the same lies, and they would remember perfectly well the damage done the last time we fell for the same deception and then turn around and applaud the very causes that produced it.

Even in free countries, you will always find certain men, and whole organized blocs of them, whose job is to mislead everyone else. The public is forever being suckered with words; we are taught to love the worst things dressed in party labels and to hate the best things tagged with the other party’s label. A few loud words rule the majority, and very nearly the whole world.

History runs on this script. Whenever a corrupt clique surrounds a ruler, its program of plunder is rebranded as official policy, and every honest citizen who resists is denounced as a traitor, when the actual traitors are the ones doing the denouncing.

It is ridiculous to believe that the president, or any other politician, can do no wrong. He and the politicians who bend the knee to him can do enormous wrong, and have done so over and over, and the people have an absolute right to drag them to court and make them answer for their tyranny. Every citizen can judge the results for himself: whether he can work without onerous regulations, whether he can buy groceries and gas, and whether armed men come to his door over taxes.

By that standard, our present politicians, with rare exception, do not pass. Watch them. Judge them by results. Drag them into the light. And when they have earned removal, remove them immediately, or the Constitution will soon be just a relic. — Joe Wolverton

King Charles Announces Digital ID Plans

In a King’s Speech delivered on May 13, King Charles III stated, “My ministers will … proceed with the introduction of digital ID.” The announcement, part of the formal opening of Parliament under the Labour government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer, has spurred debate over privacy, civil liberties, and government surveillance in the United Kingdom.

The king’s statement recalls a speech in September 2025 at the Global Progress Action Summit in London, where Starmer said, “Today I am announcing: this government will make a new free-of-charge digital ID mandatory for the right to work by the end of this parliament. Let me spell that out. You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID.”

The historical context of this scheme goes back to the First and Second World Wars, when national ID cards were introduced reputedly for reasons of security, conscription, rationing, and administration. The World War II-era program persisted until 1952, when it was abolished due to public pushback over its use in peacetime policing.

Is the current drive toward digital ID sending a signal about a coming war? Pundits are pointing out that in late April 2026, King Charles made a state visit to the United States, hosted by President Donald Trump. The trip was widely viewed as an effort to reinforce transatlantic ties and smooth over disagreements about Ukraine aid and the Iran conflict. Charles addressed Congress, emphasizing NATO unity and “unyielding resolve” in support of Ukraine.

Critics interpret the digital-ID announcement in this context, seeing it as preparation for enhanced domestic control in the face of possible war; the public is bristling with concerns over surveillance and the potential implementation of social-credit features. The government maintains that the system will prioritize privacy, with no centralized database of all personal data. Supporters are trying to soften opposition by arguing that it modernizes public services and addresses illegal immigration more effectively. — Rebecca Terrell

Data Centers Are Destroying Farmland

The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence is literally reshaping America’s landscape. Tech giants such as Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon, OpenAI, and Oracle are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into massive data centers. A significant portion of these facilities is being constructed on former agricultural land, which might trigger dim memories from several years ago regarding tech figures such as Bill Gates buying up farmland with strange urgency and enthusiasm.

At the time, the public was baffled by the sudden number of tech icons who were swept up by the impulse to buy agricultural property. Gates, as one of many, was noted because he became the single largest owner of farmland, with 275,000 acres of arable land across 18 states. Acquired primarily through investment vehicles during the 2010s and 2020s, these holdings were framed as diversification and productivity improvements. Other Silicon Valley figures followed Gates’ lead, with Jeff Bezos, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, Thomas Peterffy, and others getting into the agrarian game.

Once dismissed as an odd “Green Acres-style” eccentricity, the reason behind their mad rush to acquire farmland is now coming into focus. Reports indicate that a significant portion of new data centers (around two-thirds) is being constructed in rural areas on former farmland. Affordable large parcels, access to power infrastructure, and water sources make these locations attractive to tech-giant hyperscalers. In states such as Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Kentucky, and Michigan, developers have offered farmers premium prices, as much as $120,000 per acre or more, for land traditionally used for crops and livestock.

Many communities are beginning to resist. In Saline Township, Michigan, residents voted against a proposed $16 billion OpenAI-Oracle project, only for developers to pursue legal action, leading to a settlement. Farmers in Kentucky rejected a $26 million offer for hundreds of acres, and similar pushback has occurred in Wisconsin and elsewhere.

Despite local opposition, streamlined federal permitting for large projects has accelerated development. In a bid to block communities from stopping the projects, federal and state authorities have increasingly framed these facilities as critical national-security infrastructure. A 2025 executive order directs agencies to accelerate permitting and environmental reviews for qualifying data centers, particularly those designated by the secretaries of defense, commerce, energy, and/or the interior as supporting national security. This includes encouraging development on federal and military lands, where local zoning and public input processes have less influence. Cases such as fast-tracked projects in Utah have drawn particular attention for invoking military compatibility or authority to limit opposition.

One of the big points of contention is water consumption. The United States hosts more than 5,000 data centers, collectively using hundreds of millions of gallons of water daily for cooling. Officials estimate the use of some 449 million gallons per day, with individual large hyperscale facilities potentially consuming 1 to 5 million gallons daily, equivalent to a small town’s usage. This demand concentrates in certain regions, competing with agriculture and municipal needs, heightening drought risks.

Proponents argue that data centers bring jobs, tax revenue (sometimes with incentives), and economic diversification to rural areas. Critics say the cons outweigh the pros: irreversible farmland loss, rising electricity rates, noise, and water depletion. — Rebecca Terrell

Rapid Rise of Red-meat Allergies a “Ticking” Time Bomb

Cases of a tick-borne disease that renders victims permanently allergic to red meat are skyrocketing in the United States.

The condition “has proliferated from just a few dozen known cases in 2009 to as many as 450,000 now,” reported The Guardian last summer. The outlet quoted expert Brandon Hollingsworth of the University of South Carolina:

We thought this thing was relatively rare 10 years ago but it’s become more and more common and it’s something I expect to continue to grow very rapidly…. We’ve seen an explosive increase in these ticks, which is a concern.… It seems like an oddity now but we could end up with millions of people with an allergy to meat.

He is referring to AGS, or alpha-gal syndrome, a condition triggered by the bite of a Lone Star tick (among other parasites), which introduces a sugar molecule called alpha-galactose (alpha-gal) into a person’s body. Alpha-gal causes an allergic reaction to mammalian meat. Other symptoms include hives, gastrointestinal issues, and anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction.

While most red-blooded Americans would view AGS as a bad thing, some scientists are rejoicing. For example, a paper published in the journal Bioethics last year postulated that if eating meat is morally wrong, then promoting parasite-induced allergies could be morally obligatory. Citing arguments common to animal-rights activists, they propose using a known disease to achieve their goal of turning all humans into herbivores.

The men who dub this stealth coercing as “moral bioenhancement” are two medical ethicists with Western Michigan University. Their paper is called “Beneficial Bloodsucking.” They rationalize that because most adverse effects are temporary and nonfatal, the end justifies the means: AGS primarily affects meat consumption for the rest of a person’s life, a necessary goal to prevent animal cruelty. They suggest that genetic editing of ticks to enhance AGS transmission is feasible and even obligatory.

(One of the two authors is Parker Crutchfield, Ph.D., who previously published a 2019 essay arguing that compulsory “moral bioenhancement” should be covert, and who, during the Covid-19 pandemic, proposed a compulsory, covert “morality pill” to force noncompliant people to follow public-safety measures. The other author, Blake Hereth, Ph.D., a member and former chair of the American Philosophical Association’s Committee on LGBTQ People in the Profession, lists pronouns as they/them and stumps for Black Lives Matter.)

A response paper, “Why It Is Wrong to Promote Alpha-Gal Syndrome: A Response to Crutchfield and Hereth,” challenges their claim that AGS would reduce animal suffering, noting shifts to other meats such as poultry and fish. Moreover, argue the authors, the proposal is morally indefensible as it violates bodily autonomy. AGS carries lifelong risks and provides no health benefits.

“Moral bioenhancement” is important to refute because the Crutchfield/Hereth duo is not a one-off. Bioethicist S. Matthew Liao of New York University has long advocated biomedical modifications to discourage meat consumption. However, his stated goal is to mitigate global warming. His 2012 paper “Human Engineering and Climate Change” suggested artificially inducing red-meat allergies by stimulating immune system intolerance to bovine proteins. “There’s this thing called the Lone Star tick, where, if it bites you, you will become allergic to meat,” he said during a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum. “So that’s something we can do through human engineering.”

The circumstances recall funding by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for research into genetically engineered cattle ticks. In 2021, the foundation granted nearly $1.5 million to Oxitec Ltd. for this purpose, and an additional $4.8 million in 2023 after reported efficacy. Gates is also famous for investments in pharmaceutical companies involved in tick-borne disease treatments and in plant-based and lab-grown meat companies. Additionally, the foundation funds genetically modified mosquitoes as part of its malaria research. There is no definitive evidence linking Gates-funded research to the increase in AGS cases, but the timing and overlap is disturbing.

Also of note is the historical use of aerial dispersal of insects and ticks for bioweapons testing during the Cold War. Operation Big Itch witnessed the U.S. military dropping some 670,000 uninfected tropical rat fleas from aircraft at Dugway Proving Ground to test dispersal methods in 1954. Two years later, Operation Drop Kick involved uninfected mosquitoes released over residential areas in Georgia and Florida to study disease spread. Last year, the U.S. House passed an amendment introduced by New Jersey Republican Chris Smith, ordering reviews of tick and insect bioweapons experiments conducted by the Department of Defense throughout the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s.

Due to the current inexplicable uptick in ticks, perhaps Congress should instead investigate whether such methods are in use today. — Rebecca Terrell

Another Constitutional Republican Driven Out of Office

Thomas Massie’s Kentucky primary challenge was not merely a contest between an incumbent and a Trump-anointed challenger. It was a referendum on whether the populist Right retains any pretense of caring about spending, federal overreach, or constitutional restraint. The verdict, regardless of Massie’s loss on Tuesday, was in long ago: It does not.

Massie had been, since 2012, that rarest of creatures in Washington — an actual believer in smaller government, lower spending, and no more foreign adventures. He is a country-bred MIT engineer whose Americanism began with guns and matured into a coherent philosophy of restraint. Katherine Mangu-Ward, editor-in-chief of Reason magazine, is correct that Congress will be poorer without him. The country will be poorer still.

His defeat ends more than a career; it buries what remains of the Tea Party, that brief and genuine eruption of fiscal conscience that swept Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Massie himself into office on the simple rallying cry of “stop the spending.” For one shining season, the populist Right meant it.

Then came the rot. The anti-immigrant pivot. The exorbitant, record-setting defense spending. Mitt Romney’s flaccid 2012 loss produced not principled reform, but Donald Trump, a man who promised everything to everyone, delivered debt explosions twice over, and got the United States involved in one foreign entanglement after another, including an unwise and unconstitutional war in Iran.

Ted Cruz folded. Mike Lee folded. Marco Rubio collects appointments. Justin Amash, the one man who refused to bend, was driven from the party. Rand Paul still throws punches. Massie voted his conscience. After them, there is nobody to carry on Massie’s consistent constitutionalism.

The question that should haunt anyone who still believes in limited government is this: What movement, what coalition, what coming wave, could possibly elect dozens of principled small-government legislators again? That is exactly the purpose of The John Birch Society, and we need your help now more than ever. Learn about our fail-proof methods at JBS.org, and join our cause today. Our constitutional Republic depends on you. Otherwise the people cheering Massie’s purge will own our silence. — Joe Wolverton