November 14, 2025 Insider Report

Climate Alarmism From World Leaders

Reuters provided a worthwhile service last week by compiling examples of what world leaders said at a November 6 summit in Belém, Brazil, ahead of the COP30 United Nations Climate Change Conference that began in that city two days later and is scheduled to continue until November 21. Of course, Reuters’ purpose was not to debunk climate alarmism but to trumpet it, particularly with regard to President Donald Trump’s supposed climate denialism. Nonetheless, it is nice to have a recent round of alarmist quotes so easily available in one spot. Here are several examples from the Reuters compilation:

• UN Secretary-General António Guterres: “Too many corporations are making record profits from climate devastation, with billions spent on lobbying, deceiving the public and obstructing progress, and too many leaders remain captive to these entrenched interests.”

• Brazilian President Lula da Silva: “Extremist forces invent untruths for electoral gains and imprison future generations in an outdated model that perpetuates social and economic disparities and environmental degradation.”

• Britain’s Prince William: “All of us here today understand that we are edging dangerously close to the Earth’s critical tipping points, thresholds beyond which the natural systems we depend on may begin to unravel.”

• Irish Prime Minister Michael Martin: “Climate change is unarguable. The science is undeniable. Temperatures are rising, and the clock is ticking.”

Blarney? That’s putting it charitably! In truth, the alarmist nonsense is not about saving planet Earth but about shackling it, using the alarmism as a pretext for global control. The New American has exposed this subversive game plan again and again, and will continue doing so. As part of that exposure, TNA’s Alex Newman and Andrew Muller will be reporting from COP30 in Belém on November 15-21. On the other hand, the United States does not have a high-level delegation there, nor is Trump himself attending, so fed up is Trump with the UN climate scam. Good for the U.S. — and good for TNA. — Gary Benoit

“Global Governance”: Communists, Globalists Converge on World Government for AI, Climate, Health, Internet, Currency, Food

Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are all in on “global governance.” So too are the Marxists of the Socialist International and globalist elites of the World Economic Forum, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Council of Councils (the CFR’s 27 affiliated foreign Councils; see list), Chatham House (RIIA), the Trilateral Commission, the Club of Rome, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, etc. Fully aware that widespread resistance to their plans for world government has rendered an open march in that direction futile, the dedicated One-Worlders have for decades settled for gradual encroachments on national sovereignty in the name of “international law,” “rules-based norms,” and “sustainable development goals.” All of this has been packaged under the coded catchphrase of “global governance,” a term that is coming more and more to the fore — and is being fleshed out in alarming detail.

“I look forward to working with all countries for a more just and equitable global governance system and advancing toward a community with a shared future for humanity,” Chinese President Xi Jinping said upon putting forward a proposal during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Plus Meeting in September. “The Global Governance Initiative (GGI) proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping provides important guidance for the future development of the United Nations,” China’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Fu Cong said in October. UN Secretary-General António Guterres “underscored the importance of safeguarding the international system with the United Nations system at its core, an international order underpinned by international law, and he welcomed [Xi Jinping’s] Global Governance Initiative,” Guterres’ spokesman said in a press briefing.

Xi Jinping’s Global Governance Initiative (GGI) imagines a totalitarian, communist-style regime for the entire planet. That it is being applauded by internationalists of all stripes is hardly surprising, given that they have been pushing this theme for decades. As we noted back in 1996 (Target: World Government), the report of the UN-appointed Commission on Global Governance (CGG), Our Global Neighborhood, had just gone to considerable lengths in a ridiculous attempt to claim that they were not, not, NOT proposing “world government” — which is precisely what they were advocating.

“The development of global governance is part of the evolution of human efforts to organize life on the planet,” CGG co-chairmen Ingvar Carlson and Shridath Ramphal wrote. “As this report makes clear, global governance is not global government. No misunderstanding should arise from the similarity of terms. We are not proposing movement towards world government.” Oh, no, no, no, of course not.

“However,” we noted, “one need only recur to a standard dictionary to glimpse the semantic sleight of hand at work here. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary gives but a one-word definition for ‘governance,’ and that is ‘government.’ And world government is precisely what the Commission on Global Governance is proposing. That is plainly evident on the face of their proposals, all of which invariably advocate increasing strictures on national sovereignty and the transferring of legislative, executive, and judicial powers to the United Nations or its subsidiary multilateral institutions — always in the name of peacekeeping, nation building, saving the environment, helping the poor, disarmament, fighting organized crime, etc.”

Four years earlier, reporting from the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (“Socializing at Rio: Socialists Run the Earth Summit“), we provided prior background history, showing the alarmist environmental pretexts being used to promote global governance in the 1970s and 1980s. It was billionaire socialist/globalist Maurice Strong, secretary-general of the Rio Earth Summit, who 20 years earlier (as secretary-general of the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden) commissioned Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos to author Only One Earth as an eco-manifesto. That 1972 report was followed 15 years later, in 1987, with the publication of Our Common Future (also known as The Brundtland Report, for former Norwegian Prime Minister and Socialist International leader Gro Harlem Brundtland), which set the stage for Agenda 21 and the other ultra-radical proposals at Rio. For more early history of the global governance con game see here, here, here, and here.

More recently (back in 2017), we reported that “Communist China Opens ‘Global Governance’ School.” And we noted in 2018 (“Chinese President Xi Jinping Looks to Take the Lead in Global Governance“) that Xi said China would “show the way in reform of the global governance system, creating an even better web of global partnership relationships.” In 2020 we reported (“Globalists, Communists Push Coronavirus as Gateway to ‘Global Health Governance’”) on the glaring globalist-communist concurrence between the CFR and the CCP on “health governance.” Global governance is coming out of the closet and ever more brazenly marching toward world government. — William F. Jasper

Trump Admin Restricts Welfare for Visa Applicants

In a small victory for reining in mass migration, the Trump administration is enforcing a longstanding law allowing the government to deny visas to potential migrants expected to rely upon public welfare.

Fox News reports:

A State Department cable obtained by Fox News Digital directs U.S. embassies worldwide to enforce sweeping new visa screening rules under the so-called “public charge” provision of immigration law — a move that revives and expands a Trump-era standard officials say was relaxed under President Joe Biden.

The guidance instructs consular officers to deny visas to applicants deemed likely to rely on public benefits, weighing a wide range of factors including health, age, English proficiency, finances and even potential need for long-term medical care….

Any past use of government cash assistance or institutionalization could also be grounds for denial. “You must examine all aspects of the case,” the guidance reads, “including the petition, visa application, medical report, affidavit of support, and any information uncovered in the course of screening and vetting.”

… The new guidance follows an executive order signed by President Donald Trump titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders.” The cable says the order seeks to ensure “that no taxpayer-funded benefits go to unqualified aliens.”

… A 2022 version of the public charge rule under the Biden administration had limited the scope of benefits considered — primarily to cash assistance and long-term institutional care — excluding programs like SNAP, WIC, Medicaid, or housing vouchers. The Immigration and Nationality Act has long permitted consular officers to deem applicants inadmissible on public charge grounds, but Trump in 2019 expanded the definition to include a broader range of public benefits. That expansion was challenged in court, with portions ultimately blocked before being rescinded by the Biden administration.

This expanded rule is significant, since more than half of households headed by migrants — both legal and illegal — use at least one welfare program. Although all federal welfare is unconstitutional, falling outside Congress’ enumerated powers under Article I, Section 8, prohibiting foreigners who seek to live in the United States from using welfare is sensible public policy.

Immigration policy has largely been a bright spot for Donald Trump’s second term. In addition to reducing illegal border crossings to historical lows, his administration has taken encouraging steps to limit legal mass migration (refugee admissions, worker visas, etc.). As a result, the United States may have experienced negative net migration — more people leaving the country than entering — for the first time in more than 50 years.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether or for how long the administration can enforce its expanded public-charge rule, since left-wing organizations are likely to sue the administration, leading to lengthy court battles. Nonetheless, it is encouraging to see the Trump administration take steps to uphold U.S. citizenship and borders. — Peter Rykowski

UN Still Pushing for Global Carbon Tax

Although the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) postponed its proposed global tax on carbon emissions under pressure from the Trump administration, the global body is still plotting to impose this draconian measure.

In an interview with the Associated Press at the UN COP30 conference in Brazil, IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez promised to “advocate and campaign” for imposing the tax and other global shipping-emissions regulations.

Referencing the decision to postpone the tax, Dominguez stated, “Don’t think the IMO stops there, because we don’t. We need to learn from this experience, these circumstances.” And in an ominous statement, he commented, “Shipping is not going to decarbonize on its own.”

We should take Dominguez’ comments seriously. Although Trump’s pressure prevented the IMO from imposing its tax this year, a future president could acquiesce to — or even encourage — its implementation. California Governor Gavin Newsom underscored this during his own comments at the conference. Speaking broadly about California’s “climate change” efforts, he stated, “Donald Trump is temporary. California’s commitment is strong, and we’re in this for the long haul.”

Accordingly, it’s not enough to fight globalist, one-world policies from inside the UN’s bureaucracy. The United States must get out of the UN entirely, restoring its steadily eroding independence. Contact your U.S. representative and senators, and urge them to support and vote on the Disengaging Entirely From the United Nations Debacle (DEFUND) Act (H.R. 1498 and S. 669), which would do just that. — Peter Rykowski

Only Biological Pronouns Allowed: Court Strikes Down Trans-imposed Censorship

Ohio’s K-12 schools may not punish students “for the commonplace use of biological pronouns,” says the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Writing for the majority of the 10-judge panel, Trump appointee Judge Eric Murphy noted that a “district may not restrict personal speech on matters of public concern unless the speech would ‘materially and substantially disrupt’ school activities or infringe the legal ‘rights of others’ in the school community.”

His quoted references came from the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines case, which affirmed students’ First Amendment rights in public schools. The 7-2 decision in that suit ruled that students did not disrupt school activities by wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War.

One of the dissenting judges, Obama-appointee Jane Stranch, compared biologically correct pronouns to swear words uttered in school. She cited the 1971 case Cohen v. California, which protects profanity in public places under the First Amendment but not in K-12 public schools.

Nevertheless, parents in the Olentangy (Ohio) Local School District (OLSD) are celebrating the victory. They are part of a national nonprofit group Parents Defending Education (now known as Defending Education), which filed suit against OLSD in 2023. It challenged district policies that banned biologically accurate pronouns, accusing them of “chilling students’ speech rights, compelling students to affirm beliefs about sex and gender that are contrary to their own deeply held beliefs, and violating parents’ Fourteenth Amendment [equal protection] rights through the district’s efforts to restrict speech off school grounds and in families’ homes.”

The suit claimed that OLSD identifies “transgender identity” as a protected group, and that students could be suspended or expelled for violating the group’s “rights.” It also exposed OLSD’s “Gender Identity Support Plans” and “Transgender Guidelines” that skirt parental consent and instruct school officials and staff to hide students’ gender identity and “preferred pronouns” from parents.

Interestingly, Judge Murphy pointed out that there was no evidence of “students ever engaging in the speech at issue or of any transgender or nonbinary students” complaining about it. — Rebecca Terrell

CFR Takes Aim (Again) at “Dangerous” Trump and His “Chaos Agents”

The globalist Establishment and its Deep State operatives, as preeminently represented by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), hate President Trump and his (professed) “America First” agenda. “In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as ‘America First.’” So stated Admiral Chester Ward, former judge advocate general of the U.S. Navy and for many years a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. However, after realizing the prevalent subversive attitudes permeating the organization, Admiral Ward left the Council and became one of its chief critics. According to Ward , the goal of the CFR is the “submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government.” He noted that “this lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership.”

Thus, the latest salvo (November 12) to appear in the CFR’s flagship journal Foreign Affairs: “Trump’s Year of Living Dangerously: How His Second Term Is Reshaping America and the World.” The author is Peter D. Feaver, “Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at Duke University, where he leads the Program in American Grand Strategy.” He is an advisor at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a leftist think tank of CFR Democrats from the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations. He has also written for Lawfare, the viciously partisan anti-Trump blog of Deep Stater Benjamin Wittes (The Brookings Institution, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, and buddy of ex-FBI chief James Comey). A feverishly faithful factotum of the Uniparty, Feaver served on the National Security Council of both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. Professor Feaver has authored or co-authored a dozen articles for Foreign Affairs over the past few years criticizing Trump and defending the anti-Trump “professionals” of the CFR, otherwise known as “the Blob.”

In his latest offering in Foreign Affairs, Professor Feaver writes:

Domestically, for instance, Trump has unsettled delicate equilibriums critical to both civil-military relations and constitutional checks and balances. In doing so, he has raised troubling questions about the future of the constitutional system. Yet the trends at home are not irreversible. If Congress rediscovers a zeal for protecting legislative prerogatives and exercising rigorous oversight of the executive branch, the rest of Trump’s second term could diverge sharply from the first year. And if Democrats win one or both chambers of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections, the checks on the president would likely revert to historical norms — perhaps even returning to the congressional assertiveness of the immediate post-Watergate era.

Oh yes, the CFR “Wise Men” (as they refer to themselves) are so concerned with “troubling questions about the future of the constitutional system.” And Democratic victories in 2026 resulting in Democrats controlling Congress would safeguard our constitutional system, right? Because Democrats (Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Hakim Jeffries, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, et al.) are such righteous defenders of the Constitution and guardians of “legislative prerogatives” against executive usurpation. (If we overlook, that is, a century of Democrats’ supine abdication before presidential encroachment stretching back from Biden, Obama, and Clinton to Carter, LBJ, and JFK, all the way to FDR and Woodrow Wilson.)

As it so happens, the CFR celebrated its 100th birthday in 2021 (see “CFR: Still the Power Behind the Throne“), which, unfortunately, marked a century of betrayal and devastating loss for our nation. The CFR’s hand in all of this was foreshadowed early on. As I noted in my 1992 book Global Tyranny … Step by Step: The United Nations and the Emerging New World Order (pages 104-105), only seven years after its founding, the CFR was strenuously arguing for stripping away the congressional checks and balances provided in the Constitution. The CFR globalists were (and are) especially keen on abusing the treaty power of the U.S. Senate to create “international law” that would override the Constitution and national sovereignty. This scheme was brazenly put forth in the Council’s 1928 report Survey of American Foreign Relations. And over the past century, the CFR cabal has continued down this subversive path.

Thus, the CFR’s supposed concern for constitutional protocol, as expressed by Feaver, is more of the rank hypocrisy we have come to expect from the organization. Here at The New American we are not oblivious to encroachments and usurpations by President Trump and Republicans. Indeed, we are often criticized by MAGA supporters for opposing unconstitutional actions or proposals of President Trump or Republican leadership in Congress. However, we must first and foremost stand by the Constitution, regardless of party labels or partisan preferences. While we applaud the Trump/MAGA break from the internationalist Deep State, many of President Trump’s policies and initiatives, especially in the digital realm, are centralizing and concentrating power in the federal government in ways that should alarm all freedom-minded Americans. — William F. Jasper

Entitlement Fraud and the Government Shutdown

The recent government shutdown, prolonged by Democrats until after the November 2025 elections, is another example of uniparty political theater. Senate Democrats forced the partial shutdown by stalling funding negotiations until after the November 2025 elections. The conveniently timed Senate shutdown agreement passed 60-40, and funds government operations through January 30, 2026.

It’s worth noting that the clearly strategic compromise was passed with two Democrats who previously announced their retirement from Congress, and the six remaining swing-state Democrats not facing reelection in the upcoming 2026 midterm elections

The deal funds the government through January 30, 2026, and increases WIC nutrition funding by $603 million to $8.2 billion, increases funding for military infrastructure by $844 million, and allocates more than $300 million for security for judges, Supreme Court justices, Capitol Police, and members of Congress.

ObamaCare’s impending “subsidy cliff” exposes the program’s fraudulent underbelly. Enhanced subsidies, set to expire at year’s end, have increased enrollment to 24.3 million in 2025, but investigations reveal up to 6.4 million fraudulent sign-ups by brokers who enroll people who did not consent to signing up for insurance in order to collect commissions.

Medicare fraud has become a global criminal enterprise, with international networks stealing $14.6 billion — Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Mehmet Oz announced the Department of Justice charged 324 individuals, including 96 doctors, in the largest healthcare fraud bust in U.S. history. These individuals allegedly laundered money offshore via telemedicine loopholes expanded during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Additionally, the Trump administration is working to recover $1 billion in federal Medicaid funds spent on healthcare for illegal immigrants. California and New York, who used funds in violation of federal law, have already returned some of the money, with Oz stating:

We are clawing back that money. We have already gotten hundreds and millions of dollars back which again, proves that states were guilty, or they wouldn’t give us the money back otherwise.

This Senate deal ignores the rampant fraud plaguing these entitlement programs, and perpetuates Deep State spending. Unelected bureaucrats and leftist politicians conspired to use billions in taxpayer dollars for unlawful Medicaid handouts to illegal migrants at the expense of American citizens. This fraud undermines the integrity of our constitutional republic. Americans must expose this corruption and demand audits, prosecutions, and reforms to restore fiscal sanity and secure our borders. — David DeRidder

Greater Idaho: Rural Oregon Counties Have Had Enough of Portland, Vote to Join Idaho

What do you do if you’re a hardworking, taxpaying, commonsense, freedom-loving, conservative constitutionalist, but you live in a state run by spendthrifts and socialists/communists who are rapidly destroying the remaining vestiges of liberty? It is a predicament faced by millions of Americans in the expanding Bolshevik wastelands that were once thriving, beautiful wonderlands. This dilemma is most manifest in the growing conflicts between the Democrat/socialist controlled urban centers and the more conservative rural counties and small towns. One solution is to simply move. Millions of Americans in recent years have done just that, fleeing the chaos, crime, taxation, DEI wokism, and choking regulation of “blue states” for the greater freedom of “red states.” But millions of other Americans are unable or unwilling to move. They have their homes, their families, their farms, ranches, churches, businesses, memories, communities, roots, and legacies. They refuse to be forced out of their homeland, but staying under the present circumstances seems to point to inevitable ruin of everything they hold dear.

Is there a solution other than moving out of state? How about moving the border so that you live in a more hospitable state? That’s what citizens of 13 counties in central and eastern Oregon (see interactive map) are considering. They appear to have had it with Portland, Antifa, and the coastal Portland-Salem population centers, which have become squalid sinkholes of corruption and depravity. Voters in the 13 counties, which comprise over two-thirds of the state’s landmass but only one-third of the population, have voted in favor of joining Idaho. Supporters of Greater Idaho point out that the rural/small town Oregonians of the central/eastern counties voted 60-70 percent in favor of Donald Trump, almost identical to Idaho voters. But they are disenfranchised by the reality of a far-left, Democrat-controlled state government.

Questions: Is the Greater Idaho effort constitutional? Is it viable?

First, as to the constitutional issue, Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

So, to pass constitutional muster the proposed border change must be approved by the state legislatures of both Idaho and Oregon. It then must obtain approval from the U.S. Congress. Has this been done before? Yes, as the Greater Idaho website, explains.

Is the proposal politically viable? That’s a harder question. In 2023 the Idaho House passed (41 to 28) House Joint Memorial 1, providing that “the Idaho Legislature stands ready to begin discussions with the Oregon Legislature regarding the potential to relocate the Oregon/Idaho state boundary, in accordance with the will of the citizens of eastern Oregon, and we invite the Oregon Legislature to begin talks on this topic with the Idaho Legislature.” Getting the Democrat-controlled Oregon Legislature to act will be the real challenge.
— William F. Jasper

Concerning: Trump’s New Islamic Extremist “Allies” — Qatari and Syrian Regimes

Is the ghost of Dick Cheney (CFR) haunting the Trump administration? During the George W. Bush administration, Vice President Cheney and a coterie of CFR neocon war hawks known as “The Vulcans” (Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Stephen Hadley, Robert Gates, Paul Wolfowitz) dragged America into a series of “forever wars” and “regime change” interventions. Accompanying these misadventures was the continuation of the policies of previous Democratic and Republican administrations’ musical-chair alliances, in which yesterday’s “terrorist” becomes today’s “noble ally” (and then tomorrow turns on us and is again designated a terrorist).

Donald Trump pledged that he would cease these disastrous policies. However, his recent policies with regard to Qatar and Syria call that pledge into question. Are Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth channeling the Cheney/Vulcan spirit? It seems so. The recent White House reception for Syrian “President” Ahmed al-Sharaa was odd, to say the least. Our government had previously designated him as a terrorist, with a $10 million bounty on his head. (See: From al-Qaeda to the Oval Office: Trump’s New Syrian Partner). Then there is the announcement last month of plans to open a training facility for Qatar at the U.S. Air Force Base in Mountain Home, Idaho. Besides hosting Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi terrorist leaders, the Qatari government hosts (and funds) the militant Islamist propaganda of the Al Jazeera media conglomerate.

The Trump-Rubio/Qatar move is a continuation (and expansion) of the Biden-Blinken/Qatar move carried out by Secretary of State Antony Blinken (CFR) and other CFR minions over the past several years. (See here, h e re, and here.) Idaho’s citizens and elected officials were caught off guard by the announcement that Qatari soldiers and airmen would be coming to the Gem State. On October 16, Idaho’s Governor Brad Little, Senators James Risch and Mike Crapo, and Representative Mike Simpson (in whose district the Air Force base is located) sent a letter to Secretary Hegseth requesting a briefing and noting that “we were given no advance notice that this agreement had been finalized or that it was going to be formally announced.” Among the questions they want answers to are:

• Given the technological capabilities of the Mountain Home AFB range complex, what measures will be implemented to safeguard against any compromise to our national security?

• What screening, intelligence, or vetting processes are in place to ensure no trainees have ties to hostile or extremist organizations?

• Are there any specific security concerns for the surrounding communities and for U.S. military personnel stationed at Mountain Home AFB?

• How many Qatari personnel will be involved in the training mission?

• How long will they be deployed to Idaho?

— William F. Jasper

The BBC: Lies, Lies, and More Lies

News flash:The BBC has doctored President Donald Trump’s speech to his supporters on January 6, 2021 to make it appear that he instructed them to engage in violence and insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. The edited version, which turns upside down the meaning of Trump’s words, appears in the BBC’s Panorama documentary Trump: A Second Chance.

But is that really a news flash, you might ask? Those of us who have been paying attention know that the major media lies, and that the BBC is one of the largest and worst purveyors of fake news. Perhaps what is new is that, in this instance, the lying was so transparent and over the top that two top BBC executives — BBC director general Tim Davie and CEO of BBC News Deborah Turness — resigned after the deception was exposed and they were hit with backlash. Also, Trump has threatened to sue the BBC for $1 billion if the network does not apologize and “appropriately compensate” him.

As edited by the smear artists at BBC, the clip shows Trump saying, “We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.” But the first and second parts of that distorted quote were more than 50 minutes apart in Trump’s speech. In reality, almost immediately after saying “We are gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be with you,” Trump said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” But those words were cut out of the BBC version of the quote. (For a side-by-side comparison of the original and edited versions of Trump’s remarks, see here.)

This deception is par for the course at BBC. For another example, consider the network’s “transgender” propaganda that not just women can become pregnant. Apparently men can, too — and so the exclusionary phrase “pregnant women” must give way to the inclusionary phrase “pregnant people.” But one BBC newsreader, Martine Croxall, either did not get the memo or couldn’t bring herself to toe the propaganda line. Specifically, Croxall had the audacity to substitute “pregnant women” for “pregnant people” in a story she was reading. Not only that, but when she made the on-air switch, she raised her eyebrows! This gesture generated complaints about Croxall’s supposed bias, and the BBC took the complaints so seriously it upheld them.

According to The Guardian, the BBC said that Croxall’s facial expression “laid it open to the interpretation that it indicated a particular viewpoint in the controversies currently surrounding trans identity.” And this violated BBC policy. The Guardian explained, “Under the BBC’s impartiality rules, news presenters are not permitted to express views on controversial topics. Croxall and the editorial team involved have been spoken to about the item.” Of course, we have no way of knowing if Croxall might have rolled her eyes, in private, after she was talked to.

Then there is the BBC’s steady drumbeat of climate alarmism — which has become so outrageous and incessant that the network is now “preparing to launch an investigation to assess bias in its climate change coverage,” The Telegraph reported. The BBC environmental reporting is now in the “spotlight,” The Telegraph said, following a “string of controversies, with some programs removed altogether.” (To see a recent example of the BBC’s climate alarmism, click here.) However, we would not recommend holding your breath for the BBC to come clean on its climate alarmism — at least not until it willingly acknowledges that men do not get pregnant. — Gary Benoit

Mexican Cartel Assassinations; U.S. Government Sold Guns to Cartels

Carlos Manzo, the heroic mayor of Uruapan in the Mexican state of Michoacan, was assassinated on November 1. He is the latest victim of Mexican cartel political violence. Manzo, considered the “Mexican Bukele” for his uncompromising stance against cartels, was killed during a Day of the Dead event on November 1, 2025. Despite wearing a bulletproof vest and having National Guard protection amid death threats, the mayor was shot seven times during the event.

Public outrage has erupted, with Mexican citizens protesting at government buildings, holding marches, and planning nationwide protests on November 15. Former President Vicente Fox praised Manzo’s courage in a post on X, urging citizens:

WHEN A MEXICAN RISES WITH COURAGE, IT REMINDS US OF WHAT WE ARE MADE OF. CARLOS MANZO GAVE US A LESSON IN DIGNITY AND LOVE FOR MEXICO. TODAY I TAKE OFF MY HAT TO HIM. MAY HIS EXAMPLE AWAKEN US. WE NEED TO AWAKEN. TODAY, TODAY, TODAY. FOR MEXICO. 🇲🇽

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has dismissed calls for militarization, accusing critics of political exploitation and claiming homicide reductions under her watch. This crisis continues to be fueled by Sheinbaum’s lackluster response — her vague “Plan Michoacán” promises intelligence sharing, welfare, and social programs, as states such as Michoacán become ungovernable cartel territories.

The U.S. government isn’t an innocent bystander in this situation. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been complicit in arming cartels with U.S. manufactured firearms — a major scandal that was exposed more than a decade ago and covered by The New American. In “Operation Fast and Furious” under Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder, ATF agents were ordered to allow thousands of firearms purchased in the United States to “walk” into Mexico, supposedly in an effort to track cartels. This reckless plan armed narco-terrorists, and resulted in the murder of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in December 2010.

ATF whistleblower John Dodson exposed how the firearms used in crimes were allowed to be sold, contradicting anti-Second Amendment narratives that blamed American citizens. Holder’s DOJ called for stricter U.S. firearm laws while covering up its own complicity — a blatant Deep State strategy to erode the Second Amendment.

The ATF’s actions and the Mexican government’s inaction undermine our border security and endanger countless lives on both sides of the border. As cartels continue to expand, threatening U.S. communities and targeting politicians, Americans must expose this crisis. — David DeRidder

SCOTUS Rules Sex-at-birth on Passports

Passport applicants must use their sex assigned at birth, according to a U.S. Supreme Court opinion handed down last week. The requirement, issued earlier this year by the Trump administration, does not violate equal protection guarantees, according to SCOTUS.

The case involved a challenge to President Donald Trump’s executive order, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government. In it he declared that the U.S. government would “recognize two sexes, male and female,” and he ordered the State Department to “require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas and Global Entry cards, accurately reflect the holder’s sex.”

On his blog, law professor and judicial pundit Jonathan Turley explains, “In this opinion, the Court rejects the rulings of U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick, a Biden appointee in Massachusetts, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on the injunction of the policy.” Those rulings would have forced the State Department to issue passports with designations fabricated by individual applicants.

SCOTUS defended its opinion by noting that “Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth — in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”

The Court also pointed out that listing biological sex is not motivated by malice or intent to harm, and that to act otherwise could adversely impact affairs with foreign nations.

Not surprisingly, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented, claiming that SCOTUS had abdicated its “duty to ensure that equitable standards apply equally to all litigants.”

Turley concluded that the decision is a “major setback for advocates seeking to establish transgender status as protected in the same way as race or religion.”
— Rebecca Terrell

British Journalist Tommy Robinson Cleared of Terror Charge

A British judge has cleared a journalist of a terrorism charge that arose when he refused to give police access to his personal cellphone.

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who goes by the pen name Tommy Robinson, is a high-profile anti-immigration campaigner and hero to British nationalists.

On Tuesday, Judge Sam Goozee ruled that police had unlawfully detained Robinson because of his political views. The incident happened in July 2024 when border security stopped Robinson on his way to Spain. The police seized the journalist’s phone and asked for the passcode to unlock it. He refused, claiming the device contained confidential material related to his work.

Prosecutors in the case claimed that Robinson’s behavior, as well as the Bentley he was driving, made police suspicious. The defense countered that Robinson is a well-known influencer with celebrity status who frequently travels to Spain.

Outside the courtroom, Robinson thanked Elon Musk for funding his defense.

Major media call Robinson a far-right provocateur who reports misinformation online to stoke anti-Muslim sentiment. In 2009 he founded the English Defense League, but left the organization more than a decade ago. In a separate case, he received an 18-month sentence for contempt of court charges related to the 2023 release of his documentary, Silenced. — Rebecca Terrell

Chemtrails: Conspiracy Fact

“The greatest, most damaging form of human activity on the planet at this moment in time must be considered these operations: climate engineering.”

If you caught Tucker Carlson’s show this week, you heard Dane Wigington issue this warning without hyperbole.

Wigington is a solar energy contractor who founded GeoEngineering Watch after noticing a significant decline in solar energy uptake of photovoltaic cells near his home in California. Having researched the phenomenon for nearly three decades, he believes it stems from “solar obscuration” caused by large-scale weather manipulation by our government.

Popularly known as “chemtrails” or “contrails,” these white streaks across the sky, left by aircraft, are familiar to most Americans these days. Fact-checkers are quick to dismiss chemtrails as conspiracy theory and label Wigington and his ilk as charlatans scamming people with fear and misinformation. After all, who would ever believe mankind could manipulate weather?

Such naysayers obviously never heard of Operation Popeye, a U.S. military weather-modification program that used cloud seeding to increase rainfall during the Vietnam War between 1967 and 1972.

U.S. President Lyndon Johnson had bragged about government’s geoengineering plans in a 1962 address at Southwest Texas State University. Speaking first of satellite telecommunication technology, he revealed that “it lays the predicate and foundation for the development of a weather satellite that will permit man to determine the world’s cloud layer and ultimately to control the weather.” The purpose of this invention he revealed in his next breath: “He who controls weather will control the world.”

Fast-forward 50 years to 2011, when then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Western governments of stealing rain. “European countries are using special equipment to force clouds to dump” water on them, with little left for drought-plagued nations like his own. Western media scoffed, ridiculed and trashed the story.

They’ve treated U.S. Air Force whistleblower Kristen Meghan with equal disdain. She served as a bioenvironmental engineer for nine years and made it a personal mission to debunk “chemtrails.” What she found was that the technology was “actually coming right out of my office.” Last year she told a reporter with kla.tv: “There are multiple forms of weather modification…. They’re saying it’s combating climate change. Well, the climate change we need to be worried about is man-made climate engineering, also known as geoengineering.”

Indeed, visit the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) website, and you’ll read that the Weather Modification Reporting Act of 1972 mandates that “all persons intending to engage in weather modification activities in the United States are required to provide a report to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at least 10 days prior to undertaking the activity.”

NOAA, in turn, claims that “cloud seeding is the only common weather modification activity currently practiced in the United States.”

The only common activity? So, it’s not the only one.

It’s enough of a concern that the State of Tennessee last year passed legislation that banned geoengineering activities in its airspace. “In the course of researching this legislation, we found a number of federal documents that clearly indicated that the federal government, through a number of agencies, was conducting and funding these kinds of endeavors,” wrote Tennessee State Representative Monty Fritts in a November 5 letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

He warned Hegseth that geoengineering chemicals, including “aluminum, barium, sulfur oxides, strontium, ammonia, nitrogen oxides, and high-density polyethylene particulates, eventually find their way into our water, soil and food supply, poisoning them and jeopardizing the overall health of our nation and strength of our fighting forces.” Fritts asked Hegseth as the newly designated “Secretary of War” to “put an immediate end to any funding or experimentation … related to weather modification, climate change or solar radiation modification (SRM),” and to terminate partnerships with other federal agencies such as NOAA that support such initiatives.

Fritts’ research (and more) is available at Wigington’s website, GeoEngineeringWatch.org. You can also find Wigington’s two-hour documentary on climate engineering here: The Dimming. — Rebecca Terrell