Blog

Democrat Congressman’s Slanderous Comments About Trump Come Back to Haunt Him After Deranged Terrorist Tries to Take Out the President 

A Democrat congressman who slandered President Trump earlier this year is being destroyed on X after a deranged terrorist seemingly inspired by his words tried to assassinate the president and members of the administration over the weekend.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, a heavily armed man stormed the lobby of the Washington Hilton Saturday night, sprinted past a Secret Service checkpoint and shot a Secret Service agent.

The shooter, identified as 31-year-old Cole Allen of Torrance, California, was taken into custody and charged with using a firearm during a crime of violence and assaulting a federal officer with a dangerous weapon.

Then, on Sunday, it was revealed that Allen wrote a manifesto and expressed his hatred for “p*dophile, r*pist” Trump.

It should come as no surprise that Allen was partially taking his cues from Democrat politicians. Conservatives on X on Sunday uncovered a video of Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) accusing Trump of being a child r*pist during a press conference in February.

“Donald Trump is in the Epstein Files thousands and thousands of times,” Lieu says in the resurfaced video. “In those files, There’s highly disturbing allegations about Donald Trump r*ping children, of Donald Trump threatening to kill children.”

These words have now come back to bite Lieu. Americans, including a former U.S Senate candidate, quickly took to X to call for him to be expelled from Congress and arrested.

Keep reading

Political Theatre – Solve Energy Crisis by Eliminating Fossil Fuels

Over 50 nations are gathering in Colombia to map out a future without oil, gas, and coal, all while the world is in the middle of an energy crisis driven by war, supply disruptions, and rising demand that cannot even be met today. The same governments pretending they can eliminate fossil fuels are quietly scrambling behind the curtain to secure more of them just to keep the lights on.

This is what happens when policy is driven by ideology instead of reality. I have warned repeatedly that there is no viable alternative capable of replacing fossil fuels at scale. This is not an opinion. It is a simple matter of physics and infrastructure. Wind and solar cannot provide baseload power. They are intermittent, unreliable, and require storage systems that do not exist at the level needed to sustain a modern industrial economy. Yet politicians stand up and pretend we can simply flip a switch and transition the entire world economy to renewables as if energy were some optional luxury.

What makes this entire agenda even more dangerous is that they are no longer speaking in vague terms, they are openly stating the objective. Ursula von der Leyen declared that “the global fossil fuel crisis must be a game-changer… let’s earn the clean ticket to heaven,” which is not economic policy, it is ideological rhetoric detached from reality. John Kerry has pushed that leaders must accelerate the “transition away from fossil fuels” or face catastrophe, while Ed Miliband continues to insist Net Zero is essential to eliminate dependence on traditional energy altogether. Then you have Ro Khanna advocating ending fossil fuel subsidies and halting new permits, which in practical terms means cutting supply before any viable replacement exists.

Yet even within their own ranks the cracks are showing. Tony Blair bluntly admitted that any strategy centered on phasing out fossil fuels in the near term is “doomed to fail.” They are publicly advancing an agenda that even insiders know cannot function in the real world.

What they refuse to admit is that every single modern economy depends on fossil fuels at its core. Transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, heating, electricity, all of it. You cannot remove that foundation without collapsing the structure built on top of it. Even now, as they hold conferences and make declarations, countries are reverting to coal because when crisis strikes, theory disappears and survival takes over. That is the reality they will never say out loud.

Keep reading

Pickering councillor facing backlash for questioning Kamloops residential school narrative

City of Pickering Councillor Lisa Robinson is learning — the hard way — that in uber-woke Canada, one is forbidden from questioning certain official narratives. Or even speaking the truth if that truth might be uncomfortable or offensive when it comes to the sensibilities of certain people.

Recently, Robinson dared to venture near that political third rail that is the former Kamloops Indian Residential School in B.C. This is the site of a mass grave of 215 bodies.

Or is it?

To date, not a scintilla of forensic evidence has been provided to prove that that there is a single body buried there.

And this fact was the crux of the matter when Robinson recently posted a four-minute video entitled: “215 ‘Mass Graves’ at Kamloops: Zero Bodies Found After 5 Years — The Lie Exposed.”

Cue the outrage from the usual suspects.

This included Pickering Mayor Kevin Ashe who is now formally lodging a complaint against Robinson with the city’s integrity commissioner.

Mayor Ashe wants to see Robinson stripped of three months’ salary. Astonishingly, Robinson has already been docked a whopping 21 months’ salary. Not for uttering death threats or racial epithets, but rather, for “wrong-thought”.

And with her commentary regarding Kamloops, this over-the-top vendetta shamefully continues.

And as far as we can tell, Robinson spoke the truth.

We ventured out to Pickering just east of Toronto to interview Robinson, who feels she is yet again being unfairly maligned for no valid reason. She had plenty to say about this latest attack on her for embracing free speech, which seems to be increasingly under fire in Canada these days.

Rebel News also extended an opportunity for Mayor Ashe to come on camera. That offer was declined, although his office did provide the following statement:

“I want to acknowledge the harm caused by recent comments made by a member of Pickering City Council regarding the Tk̓emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation’s investigations at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School site.

“I offer my sincere apology to Indigenous community members, Survivors, families, and all those affected by these remarks. Comments that dismiss, distort, or cast doubt on the truths shared by Survivors and Indigenous communities are deeply hurtful. They undermine reconciliation, re-traumatize those carrying the legacy of residential schools, and have no place in respectful public discourse.

“The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada gathered testimony from more than 6,500 Survivors and witnesses and reviewed millions of federal records to support our education on the systemic harms, cultural genocide, and intergenerational traumas caused by residential schools. These are not matters for political speculation or denial.

“The legacy of residential schools persists in our everyday institutions, and we must hold public servants accountable to our responsibility to acknowledge our shared history, honour Survivors, and advance meaningful efforts in Truth and Reconciliation.

Keep reading

Nuclear Weapons Didn’t Save Lives in 1945. They Wouldn’t Today Either

False historical narratives abound in our contentious and divided world, as leaders and complicit historians endeavor to use public understanding of the past to push policies and gain control in the present. One of the most egregious cases is the widely accepted account of the decision by U.S. leaders to drop the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9 of 1945, respectively.

The generally held view, which is frequently taught in schools across the U.S. and beyond, is that the bombings were necessary to save lives, both American and Japanese; just how many lives were saved has itself been subject to debate, though President Harry Truman claimed half a million U.S. lives in his 1955 memoirs. This assessment is not only disputed by the facts, but it ignores the realities of what the bombings meant for the initiation of the Cold War and the future of humanity, in a world long awash with civilization-ending weapons.

Most importantly, the bombings quite simply were unnecessary. There were at least three ways that Japanese surrender could have been induced without the instantaneous killing of more than a hundred thousand civilians and another several hundred thousand men, women, and children being subjected to third-degree burns, injuries, and radiation exposure that would either end their lives shortly thereafter, or cause health problems in the years and decades following the fateful attacks.

One option was that the U.S. could have altered the surrender terms to make them acceptable to the Japanese. What most Japanese leaders wanted in early August of 1945 was to keep their Emperor and the kokutai or emperor system. The Americans, who knew this from intercepted cables, should have accepted this term; they would eventually agree anyway out of self-interest. Sadly, most of Truman’s top military and political advisors urged this course of action, but Truman, with the support of Secretary of State Jimmy Byrnes, refused.

Another possibility was to allow the Soviet Union to proceed with its ground invasion upon declaring a war on Japan at midnight on August 8. The Joint Intelligence Staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff predicted on April 11, “If at any time the USSR should enter the war, all Japanese will realize that absolute defeat is inevitable.”  As Japan’s Supreme War Council stated in May, “At the present moment when Japan is waging a life-or-death struggle against the U.S. and Britain, Soviet entry into the war will deal a death blow to the Empire.” Japan would have surrendered once it saw that it would be fighting both the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Moreover, President Truman knew that the Soviets were about to invade, and wrote at least twice that that would end the war.

The last, albeit arguably the weakest, alternative was to demonstrate the enormous power of the atomic bomb by exploding it, as was done on July 16 in New Mexico, in the presence of foreign leaders, and as was recommended by a group of scientists in the Franck Report. Such a display could have exerted sufficient pressure on the Japanese government, especially in conjunction with the changed surrender terms and a warning about Soviet entry, to precipitate Japanese surrender. In fact, seven of America’s eight five-star admirals and generals in 1945 said the bombs were either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both. Truman’s personal chief of staff Admiral William Leahy, who also chaired the meetings of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the use of the atomic bombs put us on the moral level of the ”barbarians of the dark ages.” General Douglas MacArthur wrote that the Japanese would have “gladly” surrendered months earlier if we’d told them they could keep the emperor.

Keep reading

The WHO Is Building A Supranational Vaccine Authorization Mechanism

“I need to ask someone else to take responsibility for the second part of the approvals process, so that I won’t have a conflict of interest. I’m also working with Bill Gates and the World Health Organization on the vaccine itself.”

This admission of a conflict of interest was made by Prof. Lester Schulman, secretary of the Ministry of Health’s polio committee, in March 2023, during an internal discussion about approving the importation into Israel of a new polio vaccine. The vaccine was developed and promoted by the World Health Organization in collaboration with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and its approval pathway relied on a new emergency authorization mechanism the WHO has developed in recent years: the EUL (Emergency Use Listing).

Although the remark was framed as a technical aside, it was an unusual confession of a conflict of interest by the committee’s secretary. Its seriousness is compounded by the fact that it was made only after the committee had already voted by an overwhelming majority to initiate the process of bringing the vaccine to Israel, and after it had already worked vigorously to persuade the Pharmaceutical Division to cooperate.

The quotation does not appear in the official minutes of the meeting that were provided to us. It is heard on an audio recording of the session, one of several recordings passed on to us by a whistleblower. The minutes were provided only following a Freedom of Information request and subsequent litigation.

The episode is serious in its own right. But it goes far beyond a local episode of personal conflict of interest or an administrative failure within Israel’s health system. The materials point to something more consequential: the use of an international emergency authorization pathway to shape regulatory decisions inside a sovereign state, advanced through overlapping professional networks, without the organization assuming the legal responsibilities borne by national regulators. 

Keep reading

DeSantis proposes new Congressional map for Fla., giving GOP 4 extra seats

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has proposed an overhaul of the state’s congressional map, designed to net the Republican Party 4 additional seats in the U.S. House. This move is widely viewed by Democrats as a strategic “tit-for-tat” response to recent Democrat redistricting victories in states like Virginia and California.

Nonetheless, by establishing a projected 24–4 GOP advantage, the governor’s proposal reportedly seeks to ensure Florida’s congressional delegation accurately reflects the state’s massive shift in voter registration, which now sees Republicans leading Democrats by over 1.5 million voters.

This update would modernize the current split to better align with the state’s significant population growth and clear political mandate. Supporters have described the move as a necessary step to solidify Florida’s influence and provide a decisive Republican firewall in the House ahead of the 2026 midterms.

“Florida got shortchanged in the 2020 Census, and we’ve been fighting for fair representation ever since,” DeSantis (R-Fla.)told Fox News Digital. “Our population has since grown dramatically, and we have moved from a Democrat majority to a 1.5 million Republican advantage. Drawing maps based on race, which is reflected in our current congressional districts, is unconstitutional and should be prohibited.”

“Our new map for 2026 makes good on my promise to conduct mid-decade redistricting, and it more fairly represents the makeup of Florida today,” DeSantis added.

DeSantis’ latest congressional map proposal follows similar mid-decade redistricting efforts in states like Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio, which are collectively expected to bolster the GOP’s seat count in the U.S. House.

While the move also coincides with a recent shift in Virginia that will highly likely favor Democrats, sources familiar with the governor’s thinking similarly argued that the Florida redraw is primarily driven by the state’s massive population growth and a significant shift in voter registration since the 2020 Census.

DeSantis has maintained that the update is necessary to ensure fair representation for Florida’s expanded electorate and to move toward a more “race-neutral” map, rather than acting as a direct retaliation for political developments in other states.

Keep reading

Shutting Down the War Machine

Right at this moment, we are witnessing an unprecedented shift of resources from domestic investments in the United States to the military-industrial complex (aka the war machine). The only comparable period in our history was the buildup to World War II, when the United States confronted a powerful adversary in Nazi Germany with designs to control not just Europe, but the world. The current buildup is breathtaking in scope and will certainly prove devastating in its impact — not just on this country’s foreign and domestic policies but also on the economic prospects of average Americans.

When, in 2023, my colleague Ben Freeman and I first conceived of our book, The Trillion Dollar War Machine, we viewed it in part as a cautionary tale about just how high the Pentagon budget might rise in the years to come (absent pushback from Congress and the taxpaying public). By the time our book came out in November 2025, however, the Pentagon budget had already topped the $1 trillion mark and, only recently, President Trump has proposed to instantly add another $500 billion to that already staggering figure and to do so in a single year’s time. And imagine this: such a proposed increase alone is higher than the total military budget of any other nation on Earth. Mind you, the current high levels of spending have already underwritten a provocative, unnecessary intervention in Venezuela and a region-wide war in the Middle East, and the larger costs of all this in human lives and damage to the global economy are guaranteed to shape the lives of the rest of us globally for years to come.

To add insult to injury, the Pentagon announced that it would seek a $200 billion supplemental appropriation to pay for its war on Iran, which has spread across the Middle East. That $200 billion would have been in addition to the $1.5 billion proposed for the Pentagon’s future budget. According to an analysis by Pentagon budget expert Stephen Semler, the Iran war, which started on February 28th with Israeli and U.S. air strikes on that country, cost the United States more than $28 billion just in its first two weeks. And to put that in perspective, $28 billion is more than three times the Trump administration’s proposed annual budgets for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency (at a time when the climate crisis and the need to head off future pandemics are essential to the health and security of all Americans). Worse yet, it’s all for a completely senseless war that should never have been started.

As President Trump alternates between engaging in negotiations to end the war and threatening to wipe Iran off the map — or even just walking away to bomb another day — there are reports that the supplemental budget request to pay for the war on Iran will shrink from the proposed $200 billion to $98 billion. And that $98 billion will include other things in addition to war costs, including disaster relief and aviation modernization.

Keep reading

Israel Deployed Iron Dome and Troops to Support UAE Defense Amid Iran Attacks — First Deployment Abroad

Israel quietly deployed its Iron Dome air defense system along with dozens of IDF troops to the United Arab Emirates in the early days of the Iran conflict, according to reporting, marking the first operational use of the system outside Israel and the United States as Tehran unleashed a sustained and intense missile and drone barrage against the Gulf state.

According to reports published Sunday by Axios and The Jerusalem Post, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the deployment early in the conflict following a call with UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, directing the Israel Defense Forces to send an Iron Dome battery, interceptors, and several dozen operators to help defend the country as Iran escalated its attacks across the region.

The move represents an unprecedented step in Israeli defense policy, with officials confirming it was the first time an Iron Dome system had been transferred abroad for active use. A senior Israeli official said the UAE became the first country outside Israel and the United States to deploy the system operationally, with another official noting it intercepted dozens of incoming threats.

Iran’s barrage on the UAE was among the most intense of the conflict, with more than 550 ballistic and cruise missiles and over 2,200 drones launched at the country — more than at any other nation, including Israel — with numerous strikes hitting civilian infrastructure, residential areas, and economic hubs in what analysts say reflects Tehran’s effort to pressure U.S.-aligned regional partners.

Keep reading

See If You Can Spot Why Some Democrats Think President Trump Staged Latest Assassination Attempt

Pssst. Did you hear the conspiracy theory about President Donald Trump staging his own attempted assassination? It’s in the news. 

The conspiracy theory goes that the most transparent president in the history of America staged his own assassination attempt as a false flag. This means that these attempts are his own darned fault because he planned them. 

Yeah, that must be it. 

Besides, Trump is looking too good, too presidential, too heroic for there to be any other explanation for this political violence against him than that he staged attacks to burnish his Q rating. 

Conspiracy theories abounded after the Butler assassination attempt. But they have exploded now. Even as the gunshots sent White House correspondents diving under the tables at their big dinner and giving away lucite blocks and gold plaques like Halloween candy, the conspiracy theory stories have exploded.

Wired ran a story called, “STAGED: Conspiracy Theories Are Everywhere Following White House Correspondents’ Dinner Shooting.” Two days before the latest attempt occurred, CNN ran a story headlined, “How would an assassination attempt be staged?” The day before, CNN ran a story about Trump staging his own attempted assassination in Butler, Penn., titled, “The conspiracy-theory monster that Trump fed may be coming for him.” WaPo reported, “First came the shooting and then came the conspiracies.” And none other than the New York Times bannered a story called, “After Correspondents Dinner Shooting, Rumors and Conspiracy Theories Spread.” The piece was subtitled, “Influencers jumped to fill the information void with conspiracy theories about the attack at the White House Correspondents’ dinner on Saturday.”

Actually, there was no void to fill. Right after the shooting, the president held a presser with multiple Justice officials to discuss next steps. We knew the name of the would-be assassin, had social media information, knew where he lived, and even found his Teacher of the Month plaque from the misguided Torrance, Calif., school that hired this monster. The president spent hours on the phone with reporters on Fox and ABC News throughout the night and the following morning, filling the alleged void.

And still we got the pap about Trump running a false flag to help himself.

Of course, the president has his haters. Remember, there was a swath of reporters who claimed they’d boycott the White House Correspondents’ Dinner if the president showed up. Did they do that to Barack Obama after it was revealed he charged reporters with espionage, tapped the AP’s phones, or spied on reporters or naw? The naws have it.

Or, are a few of those “fake news” conveyors all unhinged like this one, who said while hiding under a table and within earshot of a sitting congressman on Saturday night, “I hope they kill the orange MF.” 

Keep reading

Military Disasters and the End of Empire

Writing more than 2,000 years ago, the Greek historian Plutarch gave us an eloquent description of what modern historians now call “micro-militarism.” When an imperial power like Athens then, or America now, is in decline, its leaders often react emotionally by mounting seemingly bold military strikes in hopes of regaining the imperial grandeur that’s slipping through their fingers. Instead of another of the great victories the empire won at its peak of power, however, such military misadventures only serve to accelerate the ongoing decline, erasing whatever aura of imperial majesty remains and revealing instead the moral rot deep inside the ruling elite.

There is mounting historical evidence that America is indeed an empire in steep decline, while President Donald Trump’s war of choice against Iran is becoming the sort of micro-military disaster that helped destroy successive empires over the past 2,500 years — from ancient Athens to medieval Portugal to modern Spain, Great Britain, and now the United States. And at the core of every such ill-fated war-making decision lay a problematic leader, often born into wealth and prestige, whose personal inadequacies reflected and ramified the many irrationalities that make imperial decline such a painful process.

During that demoralizing downward spiral, imperial armies, so lethal in an empire’s ascent, can err by plunging their countries into draining, even disastrous “micro-military” misadventures — psychologically compensatory efforts to salve the loss of imperial power by trying to occupy new territories or display awe-inspiring military might. Although such micro-militarism often chose targets that proved strategically unsustainable, the psychological pressures upon declining empires are so strong that they all too often gamble their prestige on just such misadventures. Not only did such disasters add financial pressures to a fading empire’s many troubles, but in a humiliating fashion, they also invariably exposed its eroding power while exacerbating the destabilizing impact of imperial decline in the capitals of empire (whether Athens, Lisbon, Madrid, London, or Washington, D.C.).

In our moment, when the bombs stop falling and the rubble is finally cleared from the streets of Tehran and Beirut, the impact on U.S. global power of such a de facto defeat will become all too clear — as alliances like NATO atrophy, American hegemony evaporates, legitimacy is lost, global disorder rises, and the world economy suffers.

Let me now turn from the disasters of the present imperial moment to the lessons of history to explore the sort of lasting damage that Donald Trump’s micro-military misadventure in the Middle East might be inflicting on this country’s declining imperium.

Keep reading