Tag: donald trump

“It’s a Conspiracy. We Have to Investigate Them Immediately.” – Trump DESTROYS Climate Change Hoaxers and Slams Countries “Losing Their Ass” and Going Bankrupt for Green Energy

President Trump on Wednesday trolled the climate hoaxers, calling for an investigation into their corruption and lies about the climate, while speaking at a US-Saudi Investment Forum. 

“It’s a little conspiracy out there. We have to investigate them immediately. They probably are being investigated,” Trump appeared to joke during his speech at the Kennedy Center.

The United Nations and the Democratic Party have been pushing climate alarmism and signaling the imminent end of the world for decades to implement green energy policies and get rich off back-room deals.

In December 2008, former Vice President Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice-free in five years.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) claimed in 2019 that life on the planet would end in 12 years unless the US addressed the threat of global warming.

In August 2022, Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which dedicated $369 billion to environmental programs and so-called clean energy. And 96% of the climate data used to justify this climate push is flawed. It was a scam.

Keep reading

The Trump Administration has Not Kidnapped Children Neither Are They Missing

Reports on social media and in some news outlets claim that the Trump administration is stealing children, kidnapping children, or has lost thousands of children as a result of immigration enforcement. These claims imply that the United States should have open borders and stop deporting illegal aliens because liberals believe this would make children safer. The reality is that no children have been stolen, kidnapped, or lost by the Trump administration. In most instances, the adult accompanying the child is arrested or deported, and the child enters the system until a legal guardian can be found.

In many cases, this becomes complicated because the guardian is also an illegal alien who refuses to come forward and collect the child. Far from stealing children, the Trump administration is taking an active stance against child trafficking, which is closely tied to illegal immigration, with parents even renting their children to other migrants to expedite their entry into the United States.

In April through September 2018, the Trump administration reported that it could not determine the whereabouts of roughly 1,475 to 1,500 unaccompanied immigrant children. HHS made follow-up calls to 7,635 children from October to December 2017 and could not account for about 1,475 of them, roughly 19 percent. From April 1 to June 30, 2018, HHS contacted 11,254 immigrant children and could not determine where about 1,488 of them were, or roughly 13 percent.

The Trump White House explained that these children were not lost. About 90 percent of the children’s sponsors are parents or close relatives already living in the United States. Because the 30-day follow-up calls are voluntary, many sponsors do not respond. Some avoid speaking to federal authorities because they are illegal aliens. Others simply do not answer unknown numbers, have moved without updating contact information, or have disconnected or incorrect phone numbers. None of these situations means the children are missing.

Between July and November 2018, ICE arrested 170 potential sponsors and placed them in deportation proceedings after they stepped forward to sponsor unaccompanied children. ICE estimated that about 80 percent of active UAC sponsors and accompanying family members were residing in the country illegally. These children arrived in the United States without their parents, so federal officials did not separate them from their families.

Much of the public confusion came from conflating unaccompanied children who could not be reached by phone with the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy. The 1,475 children in question crossed the border alone. Children who were separated from adults who were not legitimate guardians, such as suspected traffickers or smugglers using children for easier entry, were placed in HHS custody. Confirming family relationships can take time, particularly when documents are missing or fraudulent. And even when legitimate relatives come forward, locating a child within the system requires navigating bureaucratic processes.

Keep reading

Corporate Media Parrot Dubious Drug Claims That Justify War on Venezuela

Since August, the US has been amassing military assets in the Caribbean. Warships, bombers and thousands of troops have been joined by the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, in the largest regional deployment in decades. Extrajudicial strikes against small vessels, which UN experts have decried as violations of international law, have killed at least 80 civilians (CNN, 11/14/25).

Many foreign policy analysts believe that regime change in Venezuela is the ultimate goal (Al Jazeera, 10/24/25; Left Chapter, 10/21/25), but the Trump administration instead claims it is fighting “narcoterrorism,” accusing Caracas of flooding the US with drugs via the Cartel of the Suns and Tren de Aragua, both designated as foreign terrorist organizations.

Over the years, Western media have endorsed Washington’s Venezuela regime-change efforts at every turn, from cheerleading coup attempts to whitewashing deadly sanctions (FAIR.org, 6/13/22, 6/4/21, 1/22/20). Now, with a possible military operation that could have disastrous consequences, corporate outlets are making little effort to hold the US government accountable. Rather, they are unsurprisingly ceding the floor to the warmongers.

Keep reading

Report: Biden Admin Hid Online Footprint Of Trump’s Would-Be Assassin

The Biden administration hid critical information about Thomas Matthew Crooks — the person who shot President Donald Trump and three others in Butler, Pennsylvania — throughout the 2024 election, according to a report from the New York Post.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under Biden appears to have knowingly lied to Congress, misled the American people, and, at best, was negligent in its duty to track Crooks after he reportedly made numerous statements about committing political violence and assassinations.

The NYP received information from a source showing that Crooks did have a history of significant online activity, despite then-Biden FBI Director Christopher Wray testifying that Crooks had no “online history that pointed to motive or political ideology.” Wray also attempted to downplay Trump’s being shot by suggesting he may have been hit with a piece of shrapnel from his podium, despite no evidence of that whatsoever.

Paul Abbate, former FBI deputy director under Wray, seemed to muddy the water even more, telling Congress that some social media accounts connected to Crooks “appear to reflect antisemitic and anti-immigration themes to espouse political violence and are described as extreme in nature.”

That is true, but the posts Abbate was referring to — which appear to paint Crooks in some sort of right-wing extremism light — were quite a bit older than posts showing a left-wing, anti-Trump ideology Crooks seems to have adopted over time.

Crooks’ online footprint appears to show someone who has always been interested in political and mass violence, who grew to openly hate Trump and called for “terrorism style attacks” and assassinations. He also seemingly became involved with “furry” fetish platforms — often a sexual deviancy associated closely with gender ideology. Furry fetishes and transgender ideology are more and more common among those who commit left-wing violence, and the person who allegedly assassinated Charlie Kirk in September was apparently immersed in both.

In light of Crooks’ online threats, it seems impossible that he was not known to the FBI before he attempted to assassinate Trump, and yet his online footprint was completely omitted from the final report about the shooting released in December 2024.

It is important that the American people get answers about Crooks and his attempted assassination of a former president who, by all serious accounts at the time, was the leader in the presidential race. But it is also important to keep in mind that, in addition to nearly killing Trump, Crooks’ bullets took the life of rallygoer Corey Comperatore and wounded rallygoers David Dutch and James Copenhaver. They and their families deserve answers too.

Crooks was 20 years old when he tried to assassinate Trump. He was shot dead by the Secret Service on the scene, but not before he was able to fire eight bullets.

His online history goes back at least to when he was 15, showing a political evolution from Trump supporter (though violent) to left-wing terrorist. The source cited by the NYP found 17 online accounts on platforms YouTube, Snapchat, Venmo, Zelle, GroupMe, Discord, Google Play, Quizlet, Chess.com, and Quora.

Crooks’ “radicalization, violent rhetoric and obsession with political violence were all documented under his real name,” the NYP source stated. “The threat wasn’t hidden.”

And, far from the all-too-common “lone wolf with no discernible motive” narrative peddled by officials after acts of mass violence or political violence, Crooks’ political development was out in the open for anyone to see — and for the FBI to monitor.

Keep reading

Trump’s New Islamic Extremist “Allies” — Syrian and Qatari 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, and 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 Syria and Qatar 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.

Keep reading

Details revealed of Trump-approved covert action plan for Venezuela

US President Donald Trump has greenlighted additional measures to pressure Venezuela and prepare for a potential broader military campaign, including covert CIA operations targeting President Nicolas Maduro’s government, the New York Times has reported, citing US officials. 

At the same time, Trump has approved a new round of back-channel negotiations that reportedly led to the Venezuelan president offering to step down after a delay of several years – a proposal the White House rejected, the outlet said on Monday. 

The Pentagon has deployed warships to the Caribbean and has carried out controversial strikes on small boats it claims are involved in drug smuggling from Venezuela. The White House maintains that Maduro is an illegitimate, cartel-linked ruler, fueling speculation that direct military action might be imminent. Maduro has denied the drug trafficking allegations and warned the US against launching “a crazy war.”

According to the NYT, while Trump has not yet deployed combat forces to Venezuela, Washington’s next steps could involve “sabotage or some sort of cyber, psychological, or information operations” aimed at increasing pressure on the Maduro government. 

Keep reading

On the ‘Legitimate Authority to Kill’

“I don’t think we’re gonna necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we’re just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. Okay? We’re gonna kill them. You know? They’re gonna be like dead. Okay.”- President Donald Trump, October 23, 2025

As of today, the Trump administration has launched missile strikes on at least nineteen boats in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, terminating the lives of more than seventy unnamed persons identified at the time of their deaths only as “narcoterrorists.” The administration has claimed that the homicides are legal because they are battling a DTO or “Designated Terrorist Organization” in a “non-international armed conflict,” labels which appear to have been applied for the sole purpose of rationalizing the use of deadly force beyond any declared war zone.

An increasing number of critics have expressed concern over what President Trump’s effective assertion of the right to kill anyone anywhere whom analysts in the twenty-first-century techno-death industry deem worthy of death. Truth be told, as unsavory as it may be, Trump is following a precedent set and solidified by his recent predecessors, one which has consistently been met with both popular and congressional assent.

The idea that leaders may summarily execute anyone anywhere whom they have been told by their advisers poses a threat to the state over which they govern was consciously and overtly embraced by Americans in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, all presidents since then have assumed and expanded upon what has come to be the executive’s de facto license to kill with impunity. Neither the populace nor the congress has put up much resistance to the transformation of the “Commander in Chief” to “Executioner in Chief.” Fear and anger were factors in what transpired, but the politicians during this period were also opportunists concerned to retain their elected offices.

Recall that President George W. Bush referred to himself as “The Decider,” able to wield deadly force against the people of Iraq, and the Middle East more generally, “at a time of his choosing.” This came about, regrettably, because the congress had relinquished its right and responsibility to assess the need for war and rein in the reigning executive. That body politic declined to have a say in what Bush would do, most plausibly under the assumption that they would be able to take credit for the victory, if the mission went well, and shirk responsibility, if it did not.

Following the precedent set by President Bush, President Barack Obama acted on his alleged right to kill anyone anywhere deemed by his targeted-killing czar, John Brennan, to be a danger to the United States. The Obama administration commenced from the premise that the Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) granted to Bush made Obama, too, through executive inheritance, “The Decider.” Obama authorized the killing of thousands of human beings through the use of missiles launched by remote control from drones in several different countries. To the dismay of a few staunch defenders of the United States Constitution, some among the targeted victims were even U.S. citizens, denied the most fundamental of rights articulated in that document, above all, the right to stand trial and be convicted of a capital offense in a court of law, by a jury of their peers, before being executed by the state.

As though that were not bad enough, in 2011, Obama authorized a systematic bombing campaign against Libya, which removed Moammar Gaddaffi from power in a regime change as striking as Bush’s removal from power of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Rather than rest the president’s case for war on the clearly irrelevant Bush-era AUMFs, Obama’s legal team creatively argued that executive authority sufficed in the case of Libya no less, because the mission was not really a “war,” since no ground troops were being deployed. Obama’s attack on Libya, which killed many people and left the country in shambles, had no more of a congressional authorization than does Trump’s series of assaults on the people of Latin America today.

It is refreshing to see, at long last, a few more people (beyond the usual antiwar critics) awakening to the absurdity of supposing that because a political leader was elected by a group of human beings to govern their land, he thereby possesses a divine right to kill anyone anywhere whom he labels as dangerous, by any criterion asserted by himself to suffice. President Trump maintains that Venezuela is worthy of attack because of the drug overdose epidemic in the United States, a connection every bit as flimsy as the Bush administration’s ersatz linkage of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. Operating in a fact-free zone akin to that of Bush, Trump persists in insisting that the drugs allegedly being transported by the small boats being blown up near Venezuela are somehow causally responsible for the crisis in the United States, even though the government itself has never before identified Venezuela as a source of fentanyl. In truth, Trump has followed a longstanding tradition among U.S. presidents to devise a plausible or persuasive pretext to get the bombing underway, and then modify it as needed, once war has been waged.

Keep reading

Trump Suggests Airstrikes On Cartels In Mexico, Colombia: ‘Okay With Me’

President Donald Trump told reporters gathered in the Oval Office on Monday that potential military strikes in Mexico to disrupt the drug trade would be “okay with me”.

He expressed rare openness to direct Pentagon action inside America’s neighbor to the immediate south, at a moment of ongoing deadly drone strikes on alleged drug boats off the coast of Venezuela. This is sure to turn US-Mexico relations in a more negative direction, but Trump doesn’t seem overly concerned with this as he ramps up the pressure, also on Colombia.

He said he’d be willing to do this to prevent drugs from entering the United States, and further he’d be proud to “knock out” cocaine factories in Colombia.

On Colombia, where the president, his family and top officials have recently been hit with US sanctions, Trump said as follows:

“Colombia has cocaine factories where they make cocaine. Would I knock out those factories? I would be proud to do it personally. I didn’t say I’m doing it, but I would be proud to do it because we’re going to save millions of lives by doing it.”

This renewed war on drugs rhetoric has been met with immense controversy, including among some US Congress members who demand a Congressional vote before war is declared on Venezuela or any other sovereign Latin American country.

But the administration has also been utilizing ‘terrorism’ labels to justify strikes, which up to now has included targeting over twenty alleged drug boats and killing some 80 people.

Keep reading

Trump Offers Lifeline To UK ‘Thought Criminals’

The Trump White House is mulling political asylum for British free speech activists branded “thought criminals” under Keir Starmer’s regime, in one example offering refugee status to those prosecuted for silent protests outside abortion clinics as well as expressing online dissent.

The transatlantic intervention, said to be largely influenced by Elon Musk continually pointing to cases of the UK punishing people for “thought crimes,” signals America’s readiness to shield allies from creeping authoritarianism.

Administration insiders are intently exploring the option of offering visas and refugee status, focusing on figures like Livia Tossici-Bolt, prosecuted in March 2023 for holding a sign near a Bournemouth abortion clinic reading “Here to talk if you want,” and Adam Smith Connor, convicted for a vigil outside Poole Magistrates Court.

A source close to the process called the plan “serious,” noting officials are “beginning to consider” extending protections to gender critical activists, immigration critics, and even pro-abortion campaigners hit with “thought crimes.”

Keep reading

Trump’s Ploy at the UN Is American Imperialism Masquerading as a Peace Process

The Trump administration is pushing an Israeli-crafted resolution at the UN Security Council (UNSC) this week aimed at eliminating the possibility of a State of Palestine. The resolution does three things. It establishes US political control over Gaza. It separates Gaza from the rest of Palestine. And it allows the US, and therefore Israel, to determine the timeline for Israel’s supposed withdrawal from Gaza – which would mean: never.

This is imperialism masquerading as a peace process. In and of itself it’s no surprise. Israel runs US foreign policy in the Middle East. What is a surprise is that the US and Israel might just get away with this travesty unless the world speaks up with urgency and indignation.

The draft UNSC resolution would establish a US-UK-dominated Board of Peace, chaired by none other than Donald Trump himself, and endowed with sweeping powers over Gaza’s governance, borders, reconstruction, and security. This resolution would sideline the State of Palestine and condition any transfer of authority to the Palestinians on the indulgence of the Board of Peace.

This would be an overt return to the British Mandate of 100 years ago, with the only change being that the US would hold the mandate rather than Britain. If it weren’t so utterly tragic, it would be laughable. As Marx said, history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. Yes, the proposal is farce, yet Israel’s genocide is not. It is tragedy of the first order.

Incredibly, according to the draft resolution, the Board of Peace would be granted sovereign powers in Gaza. Palestinian sovereignty is left to the discretion of the Board, which alone would decide when Palestinians are “ready” to govern themselves – perhaps in another 100 years? Even military security is subordinated to the Board, and the envisioned forces would answer not to the UN Security Council or to the Palestinian people, but to the Board’s “strategic guidance.”

The US-Israel resolution is being put forward precisely because the rest of the world – other than Israel and the US – has woken up to two facts. First, Israel is committing genocide, a reality witnessed every day in Gaza and the West Bank, where innocent Palestinians are murdered to the satisfaction of the Israel Defense Forces and the illegal Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Second, Palestine is a state, albeit one whose sovereignty remains obstructed by the US, which uses its veto in the UNSC to block Palestine’s permanent UN membership. At the UN this past July and then again in September, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly for Palestine’s statehood, a fact that put the Israel-US Zionist lobby into overdrive, resulting in the current draft resolution.

For Israel to accomplish its goal of Greater Israel, the US is pursuing a classic divide-and-conquer strategy, squeezing Arab and Islamic states with threats and inducements. When other countries resist the US-Israel demands, they are cut off from critical technologies, lose access to World Bank and IMF financing, and suffer Israeli bombing, even in countries with US military bases present. The US offers no real protection; rather, it orchestrates a protection racket, extracting concessions from countries wherever US leverage exists. This extortion will continue until the global community stands up to such tactics and insists upon genuine Palestinian sovereignty and US and Israeli adherence to international law.

Palestine remains the endless victim of US and Israeli maneuvers. The results are not just devastating for Palestine, which has suffered an outright genocide, but for the Arab world and beyond. Israel and the US are currently at war, overtly or covertly, across the Horn of Africa (Libya, Sudan, Somalia), the Eastern Mediterranean (Lebanon, Syria), the Gulf region (Yemen), and Western Asia (Iraq, Iran).

Keep reading