How Clarkson’s Farm Debunks Globalist Lies About England And Mass Migration

Jeremy Clarkson has become an icon of the farming world, a living rebuke to the artificial, technocratic, globalist, and humorless world order that prevails in the West.

Trump keeps endorsing the establishment he vowed to fight



Donald Trump’s endorsement of Karrin Taylor Robson in December marked one of the most baffling moves of his political career. Still riding the momentum of his victory, Trump pre-emptively backed a known RINO for Arizona governor — nearly 19 months ahead of the 2026 primary. The endorsement fit a troubling pattern: early-cycle support for anti-Trump Republicans who hadn’t lifted a finger for the movement, while stronger MAGA candidates waited in the wings.

If Trump wants to deliver on his campaign promises, he needs to reassert deterrence against weak-kneed incumbents and withhold endorsements in open races until candidates prove themselves.

At some point, conservatives must face the hard truth: The swamp isn’t being drained. It’s getting refilled — with Trump’s help.

Arizona illustrates why MAGA must push back hard on Trump’s errant picks. Robson, a classic McCain Republican, publicly criticized Trump as recently as 2022. She ran directly against MAGA favorite Kari Lake in the 2022 gubernatorial primary. Maybe she could merit a reluctant nod in a general election, but nearly two years before the primary? With far better options available?

And indeed, better options emerged. Months later, Rep. Andy Biggs — one of the most conservative voices in Congress and a staunch Trump ally — entered the race. The Arizona drama had a partially satisfying resolution when Trump issued a dual endorsement. But dig deeper, and the story turns sour.

Top Trump political aides reportedly worked for Robson’s campaign, raising serious questions for the MAGA base. Their loyalty seemed to shift only after Robson refused to tout Trump’s endorsement in her campaign ads.

Which brings us to the million-dollar question: Why would Trump endorse candidates so subversive that they feel embarrassed to even mention his support?

The Robson episode is an outlier in one way: Most establishment Republicans eagerly shout Trump’s endorsement from the rooftops. Yet the deeper issue remains. Without MAGA intervention, Trump keeps handing out endorsements to RINOs or to early candidates tied to his political network — often at the expense of better, more loyal alternatives.

A pattern of bad picks

Some defenders claim Trump backs incumbents to push his agenda. That theory falls apart when so many of those same RINOs openly sabotage it.

Take Reps. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) and Jen Kiggans (R-Va.). Both received Trump’s endorsement while actively working against his legislative priorities — pushing green energy subsidies and obsessing over tax breaks for their donor class. These aren’t minor policy differences. These are full-spectrum RINO betrayals.

Trump wouldn’t dare endorse Chip Roy (R-Texas) for dissenting from the right, so why give cover to Republicans who consistently undermine his mandate from the left?

And don’t chalk this up to political necessity in purple districts. Trump routinely gives away the farm in safe red states, too.

Here's a list of Trump’s Senate endorsements this cycle, straight from Ballotpedia — and it’s not comforting.

  

You’d struggle to find a single conservative in this bunch. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, and Jim Risch of Idaho all represent the globalist mindset that Trump’s base has spent years fighting. So why did Trump hand them early endorsements — before they even faced a challenge? What exactly is he getting in return?

Well, we know what his loyalty bought last cycle.

After Trump endorsed Mississippi’s other swamp creature, Roger Wicker, against a MAGA primary challenger in 2024, Wicker walked into the chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee — and now he’s stalling cuts to USAID. That roadblock has helped keep the DOGE rescissions package from reaching the president’s desk.

Wicker isn’t the only one. Several of Trump’s endorsees have publicly criticized his tariff agenda. Whether or not you agree with those tariffs, the pattern is telling. Trump only seems to call out Republicans who dissent from the right. Meanwhile, the ones who oppose him from the left collect endorsements that wipe out any hope of a MAGA primary.

Ten years into the MAGA movement, grassroots candidates still can’t gain traction — and Trump’s endorsements are a big part of the problem.

Instead of amplifying insurgent conservatives, Trump often plays air support for entrenched incumbents. He clears the field early, blasting apart any challenge before it forms. That’s how we ended up stuck with senators like Thom Tillis (N.C.) and Bill Cassidy (La.) — both from red states — who routinely block Trump’s nominees and undermine his priorities.

Trump endorsed both Tillis and Cassidy during the 2020 cycle, even as grassroots conservatives geared up to take them on. In fact, almost every red-state RINO in the Senate has received a Trump primary endorsement — some of them twice in just 10 years. That list includes Moore Capito, Graham, Hyde-Smith, and Wicker.

Saving red-state RINOs

What’s worse than endorsing RINOs for Congress in red states? Endorsing RINOs for governor and state legislature.

Yes, Washington is broken. Even in the best years, Republicans struggle to muster anything more than a narrow RINO majority. But the real opportunity lies elsewhere. More than 20 states already lean Republican enough to build permanent conservative power — if we nominate actual conservatives who know how to use it.

The 2026 election cycle will feature governorships in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming, to name just a few. These races offer a chance to reset the Republican Party — state by state — with DeSantis-caliber fighters.

Instead, we’re slipping backward.

RELATED: Reconciliation or capitulation: Trump’s final go-for-broke play

  Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

Trump has already endorsed Rep. Byron Donalds for Florida governor — nearly two years before the election. In most red states, Donalds would look like an upgrade. But Florida isn’t most red states. Florida is the citadel of conservatism. It deserves a contested primary, not a coronation. Donalds hasn’t led the way DeSantis has — either nationally or in-state — so why clear the field this early? Why not at least wait and see whether DeSantis backs a candidate?

And don’t forget about the state legislatures.

Freedom Caucuses have made real gains in turning GOP supermajorities into something that matters. But in Texas, House Speaker Dustin Burrows cut a deal with Democrats to grab power — then torched the entire session. Conservative voters are eager to remove Burrows and the cronies who enabled him.

We’ll never drain the swamp this way

This is where Trump should be getting involved — endorsing against the establishment, not propping it up.

Instead, he’s doing the opposite.

Trump recently pledged to back Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows and his entire entourage of RINO loyalists — just because they passed a watered-down school choice bill that also funneled another $10 billion into the state’s broken public-school bureaucracy.

The same pattern holds in Florida.

The House speaker there, Daniel Perez, has consistently blocked Governor Ron DeSantis’ agenda, including efforts to strengthen immigration enforcement — policies that are now a national model. Despite this, Perez cozied up to Byron Donalds. Donalds returned the favor, but refused to take sides in the Perez versus DeSantis clashes. He also ducked the fights against Amendments 3 and 4. So what exactly qualifies Donalds to become Trump’s handpicked candidate in the most important red state in America?

This new paradigm — where candidates secure Trump endorsements just by parroting his name — has allowed RINO governors and legislators to push corporatist policies while staying firmly in Trump’s good graces. They wrap themselves in the MAGA brand without lifting a finger to advance its agenda.

That’s not the movement we were promised.

At some point, conservatives must face the hard truth: The swamp isn’t being drained. It’s getting refilled — with Trump’s help. We can’t keep celebrating Trump’s total control of the GOP while hand-waving away the RINOs, as if they’re some separate, unaccountable force. Trump has the power to shape the party. He could use it to clean house.

Instead, he keeps using it to protect the establishment from grassroots primaries.

At the very least, he should withhold endorsements until candidates prove they can deliver on the campaign’s promises. Don’t hand out golden Trump cards before they’ve earned them.

Mr. President, please don’t be such a cheap date.

Comparative advantage was built on patriotism. That’s gone.



In a recent Financial Times column, economist Burton Malkiel slammed President Trump’s tariffs as economically “foolish,” arguing they violate the supposed universal truth of comparative advantage. He’s wrong — on both the economics and the reality.

First, comparative advantage only applies when nations trade goods for goods. Today, the U.S. trades goods for assets and debt. That alone breaks the model. Second, comparative advantage only holds when capital stays put. But in the real world — our world — capital moves. Factories relocate, labor follows, and production shifts across borders. That’s not a flaw in the theory. It’s a fatal contradiction.

America doesn’t need more academic theory. It needs factories. It needs jobs. It needs to win again.

Malkiel either doesn’t understand these limitations — or he does and hopes you don’t.

Ignoring the fine print

Comparative advantage, a theory made famous by David Ricardo in his 1817 work “On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation,” says countries should produce what they’re best at and trade for the rest. This specialization, Ricardo argued, makes everyone richer by boosting global efficiency.

Malkiel trots out the textbook example: If Britain and France each devote 100 hours to making cloth and wine, both benefit more by specializing — Britain in cloth, France in wine — and trading. Total production rises, and both countries gain.

That’s the theory. It’s clean, tidy, and wrong — at least in the modern world.

Ricardo himself acknowledged the theory only works when countries trade goods for goods. If one country, like the United States, trades away past and future production — assets and debt — in exchange for foreign-made goods, comparative advantage fails.

When trade isn’t backed by production, it doesn’t encourage specialization. It incentivizes offshoring. In Ricardo’s own words: “It would undoubtedly be advantageous to the capitalists of England that the wine and cloth should both be made in Portugal.”

In other words, once capital moves, the model collapses. Malkiel conveniently ignores that Ricardo flagged this problem over 200 years ago.

Ricardo also assumed that capitalists would stay loyal to their country. “Most men of property,” he wrote, “will be satisfied with a low rate of profits in their own country.” But what happens when they’re not? What happens when loyalty gives way to margin-chasing?

You get modern America.

Ricardo’s world is gone

When Ricardo wrote, moving capital across borders was almost impossible. Machinery couldn’t be exported. Tariffs hovered above 50%. Capital markets barely functioned. Transportation was slow and expensive. Endemic warfare prevented a large-scale commodity trade. Ricardo’s world had walls. Comparative advantage worked because it couldn’t be easily gamed.

But after his death, many of those barriers fell. By the mid-19th century, British capital was pouring into overseas markets. In 1815, Britain had £10 million invested abroad. A decade later, it topped £100 million. By 1914, Britain held more than a third of its national wealth overseas — while domestic investment cratered.

RELATED: Trump’s trade crackdown may be US Steel’s last shot

  sdlgzps via iStock/Getty Images

That same trend now defines America’s trajectory. Since 1974, the United States has run a trade deficit every single year. The cumulative value: $25 trillion. We paid for it by selling assets and IOUs. As a result, more than 60,000 factories closed, and seven million well-paying manufacturing jobs vanished.

And what did we get in return? Cheaper toasters. Pricier patriotism.

Tariffs provide the path back

Malkiel says tariffs violate economic law. But tariffs helped build American prosperity in the first place. They protected domestic industry. They ensured investment stayed here, not in Shanghai or Shenzhen. They gave workers stable, high-paying jobs — and gave communities a chance to thrive.

Today, tariffs offer the best chance to reverse the offshoring spiral. They don’t reject trade. They demand fair terms. They recognize that production equals power — and that giving away your manufacturing base in the name of theoretical efficiency leads to real-world decline.

Free trade zealots preach like high priests of a failed faith. They chant comparative advantage like it’s economic scripture. But America doesn’t need more academic theory. It needs factories. It needs jobs. It needs to win again.

And tariffs — not another foolish lecture from the Financial Times — offer the clearest way back.

China is winning the Cold War 2.0 ... and we’re letting it happen



The threat to the United States from the People’s Republic of China is multifaceted, long-term, and aggressive. Whether it’s from military modernization to economic coercion, cyber warfare to space competition, China’s national security challenge is global, and it targets U.S. interests, values, security, and standing in the world.

While much of the focus of U.S. policymakers has been on the military threat from China, the communist country has also implemented a multipronged approach to weaken the United States economically, politically, culturally, and diplomatically. It is enlisting a whole-of-government strategy, blending civil and military approaches with tactics short of war to expand its influence and improve its geopolitical position.

The US is involved in a cold war with China and urgently needs to do more to stop its aggressive actions.

China's determined plan uses economics, media, education, politics, culture, diplomacy, and information — among many other approaches — in a highly integrated and orchestrated fashion. Its actions take place within the U.S. domestically. It seeks to undermine the U.S. regionally and globally, while sowing doubt in the minds of U.S. allies.

In short, in many respects, the U.S. is involved in a cold war with China and urgently needs to do more to stop its aggressive actions.

Reshaping public opinion

A central component of the cold war with China is the effort of its government to influence American public opinion and culture. The Chinese government has a veritable army of anonymous social media accounts, which it uses to not only present its views but to foment division among our people while silencing critics of its regime. It also distributes government-funded newspapers within the U.S., little more than propaganda broadsheets, and invests in key media infrastructure — not only to support its views but also to mute criticisms of its policies.

Additionally, through massive state support, it also seeks to shape American culture through supporting select movies, such as the 2019 movie "Midway," to create division between the alliance of the United States and Japan as well as prompting the temporary removal of the flag of Taiwan from the jacket of the actor Tom Cruise in the 2022 movie “Top Gun: Maverick.”

Much like the Soviet Union during the Cold War, China uses all of its resources to challenge, coerce, silence, and divide opinions about its policies and actions. It uses cultural influence as much as any other capability at its disposal.

No better example of China’s cold war tactics is what the regime has done to expand its capabilities in space. Through robust state-funded support, economic espionage, theft, and coercion, China has aggressively grown its constellation of satellites and other capabilities, giving its military and intelligence services, as well as its state-run industries, significant advantages. To this end, it has even tried to replicate Elon Musk’s reusable rocket concept, the Starship, as well as its Mechazilla Catching Tower.

These are just the latest examples of Chinese economic espionage, which has been going on for decades and done great harm to our commercial space companies. Even as it has advocated for peaceful uses of space, China has also aggressively militarized space, creating advantages that could be used in a future conflict. The U.S. needs to do a better job at confronting this sustained threat.

Attacking global institutions

The Chinese government has also sought to systematically expand its power and take over international institutions affiliated with the United Nations and other global and regional organizations. These efforts are made not only to expand its control but also to mute international criticism of China’s actions and to create diplomatic and other complications for the U.S. and its allies.

Consider China’s involvement with United Nations environmental organizations — how it has been able to silence criticism and prevent investigations of the activities of its maritime militia.

RELATED: America’s faith in ‘free trade’ empowered China’s apartheid machine

  wildpixel via iStock/Getty Images

China pillages fish stocks around the globe and often destroys reefs and harasses other national fishing fleets. It has also done much to downplay the country’s significant contributions to air pollution and how its development projects worldwide, as part of its Belt and Road Initiative, destroy the environment. Finally, it consistently seeks to reduce Taiwan’s role on the world’s stage and delegitimize its political system and exclude it from international forums.

While China’s leaders publicly call for peaceful relations with the United States, they are relentlessly pursuing a campaign to challenge the United States in virtually every economic, political, diplomatic, and military sphere of activity. China consistently seeks advantages using a sustained, long-term campaign of relentlessly expanding its influence using all of the resources of its government.

In many respects, our country is involved in a new cold war with China, requiring a similarly enduring approach that enlists not just the resources of the United States government but also of our own civil society, allies and partners, and freedom-loving people across the world. We must do a better job of making America first and China last.

Editor’s note: This article was published originally by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

New pope, old problem: Will Leo XIV resist tyranny?



Catholics have a new pope: Leo XIV. Most of the cardinals who elected him were appointed by Pope Francis, and at first glance, the new pontiff appears to share much with his predecessor. But it’s early yet. Catholics should pray that Leo charts a very different course. The reason is simple: The Catholic Church finds itself locked in a battle against three hostile ideologies — globalism, Islam, and communism. And right now, it’s losing on all fronts.

Pope Francis earned the nickname the "People’s Pope,” a title meant to suggest he championed ordinary Catholics. In truth, he aligned more closely with the globalist left. He openly opposed President Trump’s push to restore American borders and criticized similar efforts by European nations to reclaim their sovereignty. Under Francis, the Church’s advocacy of open borders helped dismantle Western Christendom by encouraging the mass migration of Muslims into Europe. Many of these migrants view their secularized Christian hosts with contempt. European leaders, meanwhile, steeped in guilt and detached from the virtues of their own civilization, capitulated. The result: rape, murder, and a continent sinking into self-loathing. Only a radical reformation can pull Europe back from the brink.

Communism and Christianity cannot coexist. The new pope must say so — clearly, unambiguously, and without fear.

Francis also failed pastorally. Faced with the ongoing sexual abuse crisis that has haunted the Church for decades, he refused to lead with transparency or justice. When he became pope, he had the chance to hold predatory priests accountable for their demonic crimes and restore trust among the faithful. Instead, he did next to nothing. His silence signaled to the hierarchy that abuse could still be covered up, even tolerated. That betrayal deepened the wounds of a Church already in crisis and demoralized millions of believers.

Pope Leo XIV now has a moment to break with the past. He must act swiftly and decisively. The Church cannot afford another papacy of retreat and complicity.

A disgraceful bargain

In December 2017, Pope Francis appeared on Italian television and publicly questioned the traditional wording of the Lord’s Prayer. The closing line — “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” (Matthew 6:13, Luke 11:4) — is a direct teaching from Christ. Francis asked, “What kind of Father would lead his children into temptation?”

That question revealed a deeper confusion. The line reflects not divine cruelty but the profound gift of human freedom. God grants mankind free will — the ability to choose between good and evil, between virtue and temptation. The Lord’s Prayer acknowledges that freedom and asks God to help us navigate it. Pope Francis, it seems, struggled to grasp this. His discomfort with the line suggests a broader discomfort with the idea that freedom comes with moral risk — and that risk, in turn, calls for responsibility, discipline, and faith.

At the same time, Francis sent disgraced pedophile Cardinal Theodore McCarrick to Beijing to negotiate a secret deal with the Chinese Communist Party. That deal handed partial control of the Church in China to the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, a CCP-run front established in 1957 to suppress Christianity and replace it with a state-approved imitation.

Religious freedom in communist China remains a fiction. Teaching the faith to children is effectively banned. The Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association exists not to protect believers but to pacify the Vatican and deceive the West. It offers a false promise of coexistence — as long as Catholicism conforms to state-imposed restrictions. Some call this process the “Sinicization” of the Church. A more accurate term would be its communization.

RELATED: Not Francis 2.0: Why Pope Leo XIV is a problem for the ‘woke’ agenda

  Photo by ALBERTO PIZZOLI/AFP via Getty Images

The CCP has not simply demanded obedience — it has altered doctrine and replaced sacred symbols. The crucifix — central to the Christian faith as a reminder of Christ’s suffering — has been replaced in churches with portraits of Xi Jinping. That’s not contextualization. That’s desecration.

McCarrick, a despicable character to be sure, traveled to China at least three times to help broker the Vatican’s secret agreement with the CCP. Those negotiations produced disturbing compromises: among them, a shared arrangement where the Vatican and the Communist Party jointly approve bishops. Cardinal Joseph Zen of Hong Kong has condemned the deal as a betrayal of faithful Chinese Catholics — many of whom spent their lives resisting communist persecution.

Even Pope Francis acknowledged that the agreement would cause suffering. He was right. Since its implementation, the CCP’s Ministry of State Security has “disappeared” at least 15 bishops who refused to submit to party rule. Their whereabouts remain unknown.

But the suffering extends further — to millions of Chinese parents forbidden from teaching their children about Jesus. Families must wait until their children turn 18 before they can legally attend church, at which point they don’t approach the altar as supplicants to God but as subjects of the Chinese Communist Party. This forced delay in faith formation is not only spiritually damaging — it is deeply humiliating. It turns the act of worship into a form of ideological submission.

No more submission

Some may argue that Chinese Catholics are better off with a compromised, state-approved church than with no church at all. Pope Francis may have reasoned that accepting the replacement of the cross — the profound symbol of Christ’s suffering — with portraits of the Chinese Communist Party’s first secretary was a small price for institutional survival.

But allowing an atheistic regime to oversee Christian worship amounts to cruelty disguised as prudence. It undermines the very purpose of the church. There is something profoundly demoralizing to the entire world to watch the Holy Roman Catholic Church behave in such a craven manner.

Pope Leo XIV must draw a clear line. He must reject every agreement with the Chinese Communist Party that surrenders human freedom in exchange for bureaucratic recognition. The freedom of conscience, the freedom to worship, and the freedom to speak the truth — these stand at the heart of the Christian mission. In China, the underground church continues to bear witness to that mission. Its members worship in secret, often at great personal risk, defying a regime that demands their silence and obedience. Their defiance reveals a faith rooted in courage and dignity.

The CCP’s version of Catholicism, by contrast, fuses materialism, Maoism, and political submission. No Catholic worthy of the name should pretend that such a hybrid represents anything but ideological fraud. Communism and Christianity cannot coexist. The new pope must say so — clearly, unambiguously, and without fear.

What should alarm the faithful most is the Vatican’s submission to totalitarian rule. Instead of forming a bulwark against tyranny, the Catholic Church has, through its secret pact with Beijing, told its flock to put Caesar before God. That message contradicts the very heart of the faith. The Vatican must repeal its secret agreement with the Chinese Communist Party and make public its contents. Only then can the world see clearly the extent of the CCP’s repression — and the Church’s role in enabling it.

The disaster in China offers a painful reminder: While Christ is king and has conquered sin, Satan still rules the world (John 14:30). That truth remains central to Christian belief. It underscores man’s constant dependence on God — and Satan’s persistent effort to pull mankind away. In China’s repression of believers, its sponsorship of Islamic terrorism, its support for Iran’s nuclear program, and its vicious treatment of its own people, Satan’s fingerprints remain obvious and unhidden.

Catholics and all Christians should pray that Pope Leo XIV receives the grace to lead boldly and reject the globalist path of his predecessor. As an American, he might take inspiration from the words of Thomas Jefferson: “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” That counsel has never been more urgent. May the new pope heed it.

Soros and McCain: The unholy alliance hidden in plain sight



Have we been missing a Soros-McCain family connection in front of our very eyes all this time?

Unlike his father, George, who operated behind the scenes and dismissed scrutiny as conspiracy theory, Alexander Soros flaunts his influence openly on social media. He’s proudly posted photos with Vice President Kamala Harris, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D), Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Democratic leaders like Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) — to name just a few. He’s also showcased meetings with newer faces, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), whom he called a “rising star.” Let’s hope he’s right.

What started as a quiet alliance between George Soros and John McCain has now become a visible partnership between their heirs, Alex and Cindy.

To paraphrase “The Big Short”: Alex isn’t confessing — he’s bragging.

His photos with high-profile Democrats have grabbed headlines, but it’s his posts featuring Cindy McCain that reveal something even more telling: a decades-long relationship between the Soros and McCain families.

On May 6, 2024, Alex shared a photo with Cindy at the McCain Institute Sedona Forum. The topic of the forum was “Securing Our Insecure World,” which used the “climate crisis” as a backdrop, and had a roster of speakers that included Democrats and RINOs such as Mitt Romney, Janet Yellen, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D), David Axelrod, and former Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

In another tweet with Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Alex indicated that stopping Trump was a topic of discussion, referring to Kelly as “inspiring as ever and attentive to the threat posed in November if Trump wins.”

Alex has also shared a photo of himself with Cindy McCain and his father at the Munich Security Conference. The two also appear in a photo discussing the World Food Programme. The earliest image of them together dates back to 2020, when Cindy served as chairwoman of the board of the Munich conference and Alex sat on the advisory council, according to the conference’s annual report.

The McCains have never hidden their disdain for Donald Trump or the modern Republican Party — views that earned them the “RINO” tag and de facto exile from today’s GOP.

RELATED: Alex Soros admits he’s more powerful than elected officials

  Photo by Tom Brenner/Getty Images

Their ties to the Soros network don't mark a new alliance, but they do prompt questions about how the relationship began. The answer may lead directly back to John McCain himself.

To understand the dynamic between Cindy McCain and Alex Soros, you first need to understand the relationship between John McCain and George Soros.

In 2001, McCain launched the Reform Institute — a nonprofit think tank that operated as a convenient loophole for accepting unlimited, unregulated donations. Many of the Reform Institute’s funders also contributed to McCain’s presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2008 as well as to his Straight Talk America PAC.

Hypocritically, the Reform Institute has claimed it wants to “clean up” campaign finance. In 2008, the Reform Institute even sent out a fundraising appeal blasting George Soros as a Democratic mega-donor. Yet, it was taking Soros’ money as it criticized others for doing the same.

The Reform Institute accepted multiple contributions from George Soros — some as high as $100,000 — as well as from the Soros-backed Tides Foundation. The maverick also took money from Teneo, a firm co-founded by Bill Clinton’s longtime “bag man” Doug Band.

What started as a quiet alliance between George Soros and John McCain has now become a visible partnership between their heirs, Alex and Cindy. Their shared disdain for Trump and mutual investment in globalist initiatives reveal what many prefer to ignore: Real political power often hides in plain sight — until it doesn’t.

With his ascension to the helm of his father’s Open Society Foundations, Alex Soros inherits a political infrastructure from the Democratic Party — and from RINOs like John and Cindy McCain.

Editor’s note: This article, part of a series, has been adapted from Matt Palumbo’s new book, “The Heir: Inside the (Not So) Secret Network of George Soros.”

Bill Gates accuses Musk of killing children, destabilizing foreign nations with USAID cuts



Bill Gates appears desperate to convince the world of his magnanimity and of his fellow billionaire Elon Musk's maleficence.

Gates, 69, recently went on a liberal media tour, telling late night script-reader Stephen Colbert, the New York Times Magazine, the Financial Times, and other outfits reflexively receptive to his preferred narrative all about his intention to spend $200 billion on philanthropy before closing down the Gates Foundation — which underwent a name change in January in the wake of reporting about Gates' relationship with child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and then the billionaire's divorce.

According to the New York Times Magazine, this potential charitable giving is especially important after the Trump administration's termination of programs at the U.S. Agency for International Development that Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized "did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States."

Gates, whose foundation's relationship with USAID has been likened to a "money-laundering scheme — one that 'cleans' both wealth and power for people like Gates while sustaining thousands of projects, employees, and placeholders in organizations that rely entirely on a circular flow of public funds" — suggested to the Financial Times that diseases such as measles, HIV, and polio could see a massive resurgence as a result of the USAID cuts championed by Musk.

Elements of the scientific community have furnished Gates with hypotheticals and estimates to lean on. For instance, a preprint study published by the Lancet and amplified by Nature, despite its lack of peer review, suggested that a:

complete cessation of US funding without replacement by other sources of funding would lead to dramatic increases in deaths from 2025-2040: 15.2 (9.3-20.8) million additional AIDS deaths, 2.2 (1.5-1.9) million additional TB deaths, 7.9 million additional child deaths from other causes, 40-55 million additional unplanned pregnancies and 12-16 million unsafe abortions.

"The picture of the world's richest man killing the world's poorest children is not a pretty one," said Gates.

'They were put in the woodchipper.'

"I'm not even sure the administration understands what is going on in the field because we do have, for the first time in 25 years, we have more children dying," continued Gates. "Instead of it going down, it's now going up. And unless we reverse pretty quickly, that will be over a million additional deaths."

Gates suggested that while his foundation will spend roughly $10 billion a year on global health, with a focus on vaccines and maternal and child health, this private philanthropy would not make up for the American taxpayer dollars saved through USAID cuts.

The Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, began exposing in December that USAID had blown taxpayer funds on anti-American, leftist causes and radical initiatives.

The administration discovered, for example, that the USAID previously blew:

  • $45 million on DEI scholarships in Burma;
  • $1.5 million "to advance diversity, equity and inclusion in Serbia's workplaces and business communities";
  • $6 million to "transform digital spaces to reflect feminist democratic principles";
  • $19 million for two separate "inclusion" programs in Vietnam;
  • $2 million on sex-change activism in Guatemala;
  • $20 million for a "Sesame Street" show in Iraq;
  • $2 million for "activity to strengthen trans-led organizations to deliver gender-affirming health care" in Guatemala;
  • $37.7 million to study HIV among "sex workers (SWS), their clients, and transgender (TG) people" in South Africa; and
  • $1 million to assist disabled people in Tajikistan to become "climate leaders."

"Unfortunately, you know, there was a weekend where it was decided they [USAID] were criminals and they were put in the woodchipper, and so we lost a lot of capacity there. Now, we can get it back," Gates told Colbert. "Eventually, Congress is the one who will have the final word on this."

Gates suggested to the New York Times Magazine that he is counting on Congress to once again undermine the Trump agenda where funding is concerned but realizes "the cuts are so dramatic that even if we get some restored, we're going to have a tough time."

The billionaire also expressed confidence that future administrations will not similarly cut back foreign aid, noting that he sees it "as a four- to six-year interruption."

Elon Musk, responding to another interview where Gates claimed the DOGE would cost two million lives, wrote, "Gates is a huge liar."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Globalism betrayed us — God's design reveals the righteous solution



America’s postwar generosity rebuilt shattered nations, only to see those nations build economic empires on the ruins of our own industries. What began as Christian charity — opening our markets after World War II with outstretched hands to both friends and former enemies — has been repaid with decades of calculated exploitation.

President Donald Trump’s April 2025 plan to implement “reciprocal tariffs” marks a necessary return to the biblical principles of stewardship, sovereignty, and justice.

Christians must reject the guilt-shaming rhetoric that demands national self-destruction as the price of global participation.

Christians should support these tariffs because they represent a biblical application of proper stewardship and sovereignty rather than mere economic protectionism. These measures align with three foundational scriptural principles: God’s establishment of nations with boundaries, government’s divine mandate to protect citizens, and the biblical command to pursue economic justice.

The tariffs are not simply political policy but God’s design for ordered societies in action.

God established nations with boundaries and purpose

The globalist vision of borderless governance contradicts God’s design. Scripture teaches that nations are His idea, not man’s invention. Acts 17:26 declares that God “made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.”

Nations, with their distinct boundaries and responsibilities, reflect divine wisdom. When America reasserts control over its economy through reciprocal tariffs, it exercises biblical stewardship by honoring the Lord’s created order rather than surrendering to economic predators who weaponize “free trade” against American families. These tariffs represent a return to God’s intended design for nations — each with responsibility to govern its affairs justly and protect what has been entrusted to its care.

The April 2, 2025, National Emergency declaration to address trade imbalances is not an act of isolation but of proper stewardship.

President Trump’s implementation of a baseline 10% tariff on all imports — with higher rates for countries exploiting trade relationships — represents a restoration of boundaries that scripture affirms as necessary and good.

Government's God-ordained responsibility to protect citizens

Romans 13:1-4 reminds us that government is “God’s servant for your good” and “an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” This divine mandate establishes government’s responsibility to protect its citizens from economic exploitation — not to enrich foreign nations at the expense of its own people but to safeguard what is good within its borders.

The White House’s own data reveals the cost of abandoning this God-ordained duty: between $225 billion and $600 billion lost annually to counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets.

Meanwhile, American companies pay over $200 billion yearly in value-added taxes to foreign governments while receiving no reciprocal treatment. When President Trump imposes reciprocal tariffs, he fulfills government’s biblical purpose as protector of those under its authority.

When a persistent $1.2 trillion trade deficit hollows out our manufacturing base and displaces American workers, government has not only the right but the duty to act. Tariffs are a tool to restore order and protect American families from economic exploitation. They fulfill government’s God-ordained mandate to “bear the sword” for the sake of good — protecting the vulnerable from predatory trade practices.

Economic sovereignty as biblical justice

Isaiah 1:17 commands God’s people to “learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression.” This biblical mandate for justice forms the third pillar of our thesis: Tariffs represent economic righteousness in action.

For decades, unbalanced trade has operated as systematic oppression against American workers. The statistics are sobering: U.S. manufacturing output has fallen from 28.4% of global output in 2001 to just 17.4% in 2023. Since 1997, America has lost approximately 5 million manufacturing jobs, one of the largest losses in our history.

This is not theoretical — it is personal.

Each statistic represents individuals, families, communities, and churches devastated by the outsourcing of American industry. When foreign nations impose 50% tariffs on American apples while their apples enter our markets duty-free, this is not free trade — it is theft masquerading as commerce.

President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs seek to correct this injustice. By implementing the “golden rule” of trade — treat us as we treat you — these measures restore the dignity of honest labor and uphold the biblical principle that “the worker is worthy of his wages” (1 Timothy 5:18).

Rejecting false guilt in service of true compassion

Modern globalism demands that America relinquish its sovereignty under the banner of compassion. But true biblical compassion never requires surrendering the well-being of those entrusted to our care. Jesus taught us to love our neighbors — not to abandon them to economic ruin in service to abstract ideology, namely globalism.

The facts reveal the truth: America has one of the world’s lowest average tariff rates at 3.3%, while our trading partners impose significantly higher rates.

  • Brazil: 11.2%
  • China: 7.5 %
  • The European Union: 5%
  • India: 17%
  • Vietnam: 9.4%

Moreover, many countries ban certain U.S. products from entering their markets at all but encounter no barriers in sending their own products here; other countries put massive tariffs on certain U.S. products to tip the scales in their favor.

We have been practicing unilateral economic disarmament while others wage economic warfare against us.

Defending American industries is not selfish — it is stewardship. When a nation secures the well-being of its citizens, it becomes better positioned to bless others through genuine charity, aid, and moral leadership. Christians must reject the guilt-shaming rhetoric that demands national self-destruction as the price of global participation.

A biblical path forward: strength through sovereignty

President Trump’s “Reciprocal Tariffs” policy echoes Proverbs 31:8-9: “Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.” These measures give voice to communities silenced by decades of economic abandonment.

The evidence suggests tariffs work. Studies show that previous tariffs during the first Trump administration strengthened the U.S. economy, led to significant reshoring in manufacturing, and had minimal effects on prices — contrary to the apocalyptic warnings of globalist prophets.

Most importantly, these policies recognize that a strong, sovereign America — one that honors its workers, defends its industries, and respects God’s design for nations — is better positioned to be a beacon of freedom and faith to the world.

Conclusion

In an age when national sovereignty is scorned and biblical wisdom is rejected, Christians must recover the courage to think scripturally about economic stewardship. President Trump’s tariffs are not merely economic policy; they represent a righteous stand against exploitation and a reaffirmation of God’s design for ordered societies.

If we care about justice, if we believe in the protection of families, and if we honor the authority and order that God has established, then we must support efforts that secure America’s economic integrity.

This is the heart of our argument: Tariffs represent proper biblical stewardship, not mere protectionism. They honor God’s establishment of nations with boundaries, they fulfill government’s divine mandate to protect its own citizens, and they execute the biblical command to pursue economic justice.

Proper stewardship requires boundaries. Leadership demands the courage to stand when the world demands submission. The people of God must remain unwavering, committed first to truth, and willing to defend the good of the nation God has entrusted to our care.

The path to true prosperity lies not in surrendering our sovereignty but in exercising it according to biblical principles. That is the heart of these tariffs — not isolation, but righteous independence under God’s sovereignty.

This article is adapted from an essay originally published at Liberty University's Standing for Freedom Center.

Dictator, thief, puppet: Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s 3 strikes revealed



The mountain of lies about Ukraine is beginning to crumble under the weight of the truth. The media-crafted façade of Ukraine as a beacon of democracy — and Volodymyr Zelenskyy as the Winston Churchill of our time — is disintegrating. February’s disgraceful Oval Office meeting between President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and the Ukrainian dictator revealed Zelenskyy’s true character.

After Trump made it clear that Ukraine would never join NATO, Zelenskyy responded with open defiance, vowing NATO membership would happen anyway. His message was clear: The war must go on — regardless of the cost to his people. From the beginning, NATO expansion into Ukraine has been the root provocation behind Russia’s so-called "special military operation."

The United States and NATO have waged a proxy war against Russia and for globalism.

This week, Zelenskyy removed any lingering doubt about his intent. He outright rejected President Trump’s peace proposal, effectively sabotaging any meaningful negotiation.

An illegitimate president

Retired Col. Douglas Macgregor recognized Zelenskyy’s role as a puppet early in the war — stunning mainstream media. He sees Zelenskyy as the “globalist enemy within” — undermining any chance for peace. To achieve the most direct path to peace, Macgregor has urged Trump to immediately stop all military and financial aid to Ukraine, dump Zelenskyy, and pull out all American personnel — in or out of uniform.

Zelenskyy’s term expired last May, but he canceled presidential elections to remain in power. Donald Trump has called out Zelenskyy as a “dictator without elections” — and that’s not even the half of it.

Zelenskyy has shut down all nongovernment-controlled media, banned opposition parties, jailed dissidents, and reportedly had critics kidnapped, tortured, or killed. He’s ordered thugs to snatch thousands of men off the streets and shove them into the trenches. He’s outlawed the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, jailing its priests. Meanwhile, his government and military remain riddled with neo-Nazis — a fact the media refuses to address.

Zelenskyy also uses Ukrainian lawfare to lock up members of his own party when they speak out against his corruption.

Dissent silenced

Oleksandr Dubinsky was elected to the Ukrainian Parliament as a member of Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People Party. He is the only MP to speak out against the criminal regime. Dubinsky states, “I’m currently fighting a politically motivated case, filed by Zelensky's [sic] regime, to silence my criticism of his corruption, as well as the corruption of Soros-backed NGOs and the Bidens' connections to Burisma.” In November 2023, Dubinsky was arrested, charged with treason, and thrown into prison, where he remains awaiting trial. From his prison cell, Dubinsky has called for Zelenskyy’s impeachment and announced his intention to run for president — assuming elections are ever allowed again.

In a Kyiv courtroom in February, Dubinsky exposed the SBU, Zelenskyy’s secret police, for their brutal arrest, imprisonment, torture, and murder of American independent journalist Gonzalo Lira — whose only crime was criticizing both the Zelenskyy and Biden regimes.

In a remarkable prison interview, Norwegian scholar Glenn Diesen spoke with Dubinsky — who knows Zelenskyy well. In 2019, both men were allies when Zelenskyy ran as a peace candidate promising normalized relations with Russia. But Dubinsky broke ranks once Zelenskyy aligned with globalist interests, collaborated with the neo-Nazis, and embraced full-on corruption and criminality.

Dubinsky provides a deep insight into Zelenskyy’s motives and exactly who is pulling his strings. “Zelenskyy is the product of the efforts of globalist and liberal elites who saw the war in Ukraine as a tool to consolidate their own power,” Dubinsky said. “Ukraine has become the last stronghold of globalism and Zelenskyy is its figurehead.”

This war has never been about Ukraine. The United States and NATO have waged a proxy war against Russia and for globalism. The ultimate objective of the international globalists — and American neoconservatives — is to destroy and break up Russia. Dubinsky contends there is “no goal of securing Ukraine’s victory. The only objective is to prolong the war.” And their immediate goal? To “undermine President Trump’s peace initiatives.”

Thirty years ago, George Soros conjured up the sinister strategy of sacrificing European Slavs to fight a proxy war with Russia. “The combination of manpower from Eastern Europe with the technical capabilities of NATO,” he wrote, “reduce the risk of body bags for NATO countries.” In Ukraine, the globalists found Zelenskyy, who, for 30 pieces of silver, has obliged, filling NATO body bags with his countrymen.

Before entering politics, Zelenskyy’s day job was as a comedic television actor. Dubinsky, well-versed in Zelenskyy’s theatrics, noted that his Oval Office appearance in February — including his costume choice — was “a deliberate performance designed to sabotage negotiations.” Mission accomplished.

A neocon’s dream

The globalists and neocons set a trap. Trump walked into it — and now, he must walk back out.

I still believe Trump sincerely wants to disengage from Ukraine and bring peace. But if he allows American military and financial support of the Zelenskyy dictatorship to continue, any peace will be impossible. Since his inauguration, the president has talked about peace in Ukraine but has maintained the Biden status quo. That’s not going to cut it now.

Trump won because he was the peace candidate with a revolutionary anti-war, anti-globalist pledge: “There must ... be a complete commitment to dismantling the entire globalist neocon establishment that is perpetually dragging us into endless wars.” This was a bombshell. But as the initial shock of Trump’s victory has worn off and the commitment to dismantle the neocon establishment has not been acted upon, the “globalist neocon establishment” has regrouped and is back on the attack.

In Europe, Zelenskyy and his globalist masters in the European Union and NATO openly defy Trump, calling for a prolonged war and NATO membership for Ukraine. Here at home, neoconservatives at all levels of the military-industrial-congressional complex — and their mainstream media — openly undermine him.

In April, Gen. Christopher Cavoli, commander of U.S. European Command and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee to report on the status of the war. In a profoundly dishonest presentation, Cavoli made a case for prolonging the war and avoiding a negotiated settlement.

Cavoli’s remarks were an inspiration to Zelenskyy and a slap in the face to Trump. The fact that he could defy and insult his commander in chief with total impunity reveals just how deeply entrenched the neocon power structure remains.

Dictator, thief, and globalist puppet

To save Ukraine — and his presidency — Trump must break free from the neocons and globalists once and for all and stop all aid to Ukraine.

People are beginning to understand who Zelenskyy really is. My previous essays made clear that he is a dictator and a thief. Now, we know that he is also a globalist puppet sabotaging peace in Ukraine. Three strikes, and you’re out.