THE BRITISH ARE COMING...THEY'RE HERE ALREADY!

 

'THE BRITISH ARE COMING...THEY'RE HERE ALREADY!

The King of England has landed in town. It reminds me of when I stopped in Gibralter, a British Colony next to Spain while headed to Desert Shield. They told us "You can say anything about Margaret Thatcher, but don’t say anything about the Queen."

That reminds me:

British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money." ~ The Late Great Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Her and Reagan were good friends and both loves riding horses. She would bomb you with a quickness. She didn't play.

[When Princess Diana died there was a baby birth boom nine months later. The 'experts' said it was because hearts were broken and people wanted intimacy, so more people had sex.]

#KingCharles #Camilla #GreatBritan

It’s not every day that the King of England comes to town, but when he does, it tends to stir something deep in the souls of those who remember history, honor tradition, and understand the unbroken thread that ties the present to the past. For Americans, a visit from the British monarch is an echo of heritage, an acknowledgment that the civilization we inherited—and helped save more than once—still stands. As a veteran who once passed through Gibraltar on my way to Desert Shield, the news takes me back to a dusty outpost, a British Overseas Territory clinging to the Iberian Peninsula, where a local gave me advice I have never forgotten: “You can say anything about Margaret Thatcher, but don’t say anything about the Queen.”

At the time, the late Queen Elizabeth II sat on the throne, a quiet but formidable anchor for the free world. The warning wasn’t about political correctness; it was about reverence. In Gibraltar, that towering rock of a colony claimed by Britain since 1713, loyalty to the Crown was non-negotiable. You could critique policy, mock Parliament, grumble about No. 10 Downing Street, but the Queen was a symbol of permanence in a world of chaos—something the Left, then and now, has never truly understood. That moment also calls to mind the towering conservative figure who then presided over the United Kingdom: Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady, who famously declared, “Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money.” It’s a line that cuts to the bone in today’s America, where redistribution is rebranded as equity and government greed disguises itself as compassion.

Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, two shopkeepers’ children who rose to lead the free world, didn't just share a political philosophy; they shared a personal chemistry forged in conviction. Both loved riding horses, a pastime suited to people who understand that direction requires a firm hand and a steady seat. Both understood that the West wasn’t just a geographic expression but a moral inheritance worth defending—militarily, economically, and spiritually. And contrary to the caricatures painted by their detractors, neither hesitated to use force when freedom was on the line. Thatcher, as one British tabloid put it, “would bomb you with a quickness.” When Argentina’s junta invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982, plenty of transatlantic sophisticates clucked that the islands weren’t worth a war. The Iron Lady knew otherwise. She dispatched a task force 8,000 miles, reclaimed British soil, and freed a people who wished to remain British. She didn’t seek permission from the United Nations ditherers. She didn’t run a focus group. She led.

That kind of leadership is almost incomprehensible to today’s managerial class. Thatcher understood what the Left refuses to admit: civilization requires a backbone. Watching the King process through streets lined with both admirers and the professionally aggrieved, one can’t help but notice how much has been forgotten. A monarch today, even one with no executive power, stands as a rebuke to the leveling impulse of modern progressivism. A hereditary sovereign reminds the smug egalitarian that not everything can be reduced to a democratic plebiscite or an equity audit. Tradition, ritual, and continuity have claims on the human heart that no technocratic five-year plan can satisfy.

Thatcher’s quip about socialism exhausting other people’s money was funny because it was true. But it’s no longer just a quip. We are living in its burn phase. Across the West, welfare states built on the post-war consensus are groaning under demography and debt. Britain’s National Health Service, a secular religion in the UK, consumes ever more treasure while delivering worse outcomes. America’s entitlement state Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid is hurtling toward insolvency, and the solution offered by the ruling party is always more revenue, meaning more of your money. The socialists never run out of promises, just out of taxpayers. When the money runs dry, as it always does, they don’t repent; they reach for the printing press, unleashing inflation that steals silently from savers and wage earners.

Reagan famously said, “We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity, and ultimately human fulfillment are created from the bottom up, not the government down.” He and Thatcher put that belief into practice. They cut taxes, deregulated, privatized failing state enterprises, and stared down public-sector unions who confused their own narrow interests with the public good. The results confounded the credentialed skeptics. Britain went from the sick man of Europe to a dynamic enterprise economy. America broke the back of stagflation and launched two decades of prosperity. The secret wasn’t clever tweaking by central planners; it was unleashing the creative energy of millions of free men and women. Both leaders understood something that today’s conservatives sometimes forget: economic freedom isn’t just about GDP growth. It’s a moral cause. It’s about the dignity of the individual, the right to keep the fruits of your labor, and the pushback against an overweening state that treats citizens as fiscal livestock.

The King’s visit also reminds us of the special relationship, that oft-invoked but rarely defined bond between the United States and the United Kingdom. To listen to some corners of modern progressive discourse, you’d think the relationship was an embarrassment, a relic of dead white males and colonial nostalgia. The Left sees it as a club of former oppressors. But that’s a profound misreading of history. The Anglo-American alliance, forged in the crucible of two world wars and tempered in the Cold War, is the most successful partnership for liberty the world has ever seen. It was Reagan and Thatcher who together sounded the alarm about Soviet expansionism when the chattering classes were still playing detente parlor games. She called the USSR “brittle” when others called it permanent, and she famously stated, “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

That pugnacity is sorely missed. Today’s conservatives in both countries often find themselves on the defensive, trying to preserve what remains of the Thatcher-Reagan inheritance from constant institutional assault: administrative state overreach, woke capital, the erosion of national sovereignty through transnational bodies. The king’s presence, graceful but powerless, is a reminder that tradition survives, but only if it is defended. Crowns don’t keep themselves. Neither do borders, nor free speech, nor the right to earn an honest living without the government snatching half and scolding you to be grateful for the privilege. Each generation has to rediscover and re-fight the battles its grandparents thought they’d won for good.

It’s worth pausing to consider what Thatcher’s declaration on socialism and other people’s money actually implies for a conservative vision today. It means that compassion isn’t measured by the size of a government budget. True compassion is found in a humming economy that produces jobs, in a civil society of families and churches and neighborhoods that actually care for their own, and in a safety net that catches the fallen but doesn’t ensnare the capable. The socialist model always ends the same way, from Venezuela to Zimbabwe to the declining cities of blue-state America: a few party cronies get rich, the middle class is immiserated, and the poor are kept dependent, their votes purchased with their own stolen purchasing power. Thatcher understood this viscerally, and Reagan’s anti-communism ran on the same insight: that freedom is indivisible, that you cannot have political liberty long without economic liberty.

When I stood in Gibraltar, a young soldier heading toward the sands of the Middle East, the shadow of the Rock fell over a town that was fiercely British despite being attached to Spain. The Union Jacks fluttered from balconies. The people knew they were part of something bigger than a zip code a civilization with a memory and a mission. The King’s arrival in an American city today is, in its own way, a similar reminder. He represents a thousand years of legal and cultural evolution: Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, the stubborn insistence that the king himself is not above the law. That inheritance, passed from Britain to America, is the bulwark against arbitrary power, whether exercised by a despot or a woke diversity commissar with the full force of administrative law.

Conservatives should take heart. The fact that a British monarch’s visit still makes front pages, that people still line the streets, that the memories of Thatcher and Reagan can still stir applause, tells us something durable. The embers of the old virtues loyalty, honor, thrift, self-reliance, patriotism—haven’t gone out. They are waiting to be fanned into flame by leaders who mean what they say, who would bomb you with a quickness if you mistake our politeness for pacifism, and who know that money borrowed from our grandchildren to fund today’s vote-buying isn’t compassion; it’s theft. The King’s visit is more than ceremony: it’s a quiet call to remember who we are, what we inherited, and what we must fight, peacefully but relentlessly, to preserve. Because socialism still doesn’t work, and someone else’s money still runs out.

#MargaretThatcher #Socialism

Backdoor Scam Money: The Child Tax Credit

 

Backdoor Scam Money: The Child Tax Credit

Remember when Biden entered office Kamala was talking constantly about increasing the Child Tax Credit. At the same time hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied minors were crossing the border with a phone number and sometimes an address. The fix was in. They created a money transfer via the Tax Code.

The Child Tax Credit is a 'REFUNDABLE CREDIT', meaning when the credit gets your tax liability to $0, the credit keeps going below $0. I did taxes for a single Mother in California with 4 kids. She made 48K one year, which isn't much for California. She paid in $1800 one year. I got her back $4800. She profited from the Child Tax Credit. Basically she got other people's money. She didn't pay in $4800. The Tax Code is actually 'Subsidizing' raising kids.

Trust me, ILLEGALS that come here know our Tax Code Better than YOU

#Taxes #ChildTaxCredit #IRS

The Child Tax Credit Racket: A Backdoor Wealth Transfer Hiding in Plain Sight

The post that sparked this discussion cuts through the usual political noise and gets straight to the heart of a fiscal scandal that the Washington establishment would prefer you ignore. It reads: “Remember when Biden entered office Kamala was talking constantly about increasing the Child Tax Credit. At the same time hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied minors were crossing the border with a phone number and sometimes an address. The fix was in. They created a money transfer via the Tax Code.

This isn’t conspiracy theorizing. It is a succinct, if blunt, summary of a policy confluence so brazen that it should have dominated every news cycle for years. Instead, the administrative state, abetted by a compliant media, normalized the wholesale transformation of the Internal Revenue Service from a revenue collection agency into a welfare distribution pipeline. From a conservative perspective, this represents not just a fiscal calamity, but a moral failure that incentivizes illegal immigration and punishes the responsible taxpayers who foot the bill.

To understand the scale of the scam, one must first dispel the progressive linguistic alchemy surrounding the term “tax credit.” In normal English, a credit reduces a liability. If you owe no liability, there is nothing to credit. But the modern tax code has twisted this logic into a pretzel. As the original post notes, the Child Tax Credit is "refundable," meaning the Internal Revenue Code treats the credit not merely as a shield against taxation, but as a sword to extract wealth from the Treasury. When that credit pushes a filer’s liability below zero, the government doesn’t stop; it simply cuts a check. This is not a tax refund. It is a direct cash grant disguised in IRS jargon.

The anecdote from the tax preparer is the empirical nail in the coffin: a single mother in California earning $48,000 a year paid $1,800 in federal income tax and received a refund check for $4,800. That is a net profit of $3,000 from the government on an income stream that, while modest for California, is firmly within the working class. She did not overpay the government. She did not loan Uncle Sam money interest-free. She was simply a conduit for redistributing other people’s money into her own pocket. The tax code is no longer funding the constitutional functions of government; it is subsidizing lifestyle choices, and in this case, specifically subsidizing children.

This “refundable credit” architecture is the vehicle for the backdoor scam. For decades, the conservative movement has warned against making the IRS an agent of social policy. Ronald Reagan’s 1986 tax reform was brilliant precisely because it severed the tax code from social engineering. Loopholes were closed, rates were flattened, and the dignity of work was respected. Fast forward to the post-Trump era, and the bipartisan consensus has drifted toward a destructive fusion of tax policy and welfare policy. When a family “profits” from filing their taxes, the social contract between the citizen and the state is shattered. The citizen is no longer a sovereign individual paying dues for shared services; they are a client of the state, and the state is the master.

The post’s central charge that this system was deliberately engineered as a magnet for illegal immigration is not just plausible; it is logically inescapable. As Vice President Kamala Harris talked endlessly about expanding the CTC, the southern border dissolved into chaos. Hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied alien minors surged across the border, often clutching a phone number and an address—not of distant relatives, but frequently of sponsors connected to a sprawling resettlement network funded directly and indirectly by the American taxpayer. The “fix was in” refers to the seamless integration of these minors into a tax apparatus designed to monetize their presence.

For an illegal alien who has overstayed a visa or crossed the border surreptitiously, the tax code is not a labyrinth to fear; it is an ATM to exploit. Through the use of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), individuals who are legally barred from working in the United States and who lack a valid Social Security number can still file tax returns and claim refundable credits. The IRS has, with deliberate bureaucratic precision, walled off the enforcement arm of immigration law from its “customer service” ethos. The agency audits small business owners and middle-class conservatives with ruthless efficiency, but it steadfastly refuses to verify the legal status of individuals claiming the Additional Child Tax Credit.

The post accurately states, “ILLEGALS that come here know our Tax Code Better than YOU.” This is the brutal truth. The cartels and the trafficking networks don’t just sell a crossing; they sell a destination package that includes immediate enrollment in the shadow welfare state. They understand the statutory nuance that U.S. citizens often miss: to claim the refundable portion of the child tax credit, a child does not need to be a U.S. citizen. They need merely a valid ITIN or Social Security number. For many unaccompanied minors, the process of being paroled into the interior and placed with sponsors generates the paper trail necessary to establish just enough legal presence to trigger these credits for the adults housing them.

The result is a massive, reverse-incentive machine. Every dollar Washington distributes through refundable credits to individuals who have no legal right to be in the country is a dollar that broadcasts to the rest of the world: *come, bring children, and the IRS will become your financier.* Meanwhile, the American family that plays by the rules watches their purchasing power evaporate due to inflation, much of it driven by out-of-control government spending on these very programs. The single mother in the example, living legally and working a job, is caught in a tragic irony. Her refund might seem like a jackpot, but it is a pittance compared to the systemic looting occurring on a grand scale, and it is paid for by debt that will crush her children’s generation.

Conservatism has long understood that you cannot have open borders and a robust welfare state simultaneously. The Founders envisioned a limited republic, not a global charity. The Child Tax Credit expansion, particularly the temporary supercharging of the credit under the American Rescue Plan, was a Trojan horse for a Guaranteed Basic Income for families, regardless of citizenship. The monthly checks that went out in 2021—halting child poverty at the stroke of a pen, we were told—were functionally a universal child allowance. But that pot of money does not appear out of thin air. It is extracted from the productive economy, or borrowed against the future, weakening the dollar and mortgaging national sovereignty.

The conservative solution is not to tinker with the credit’s phase-out thresholds, as some tame reformists suggest. The solution is a fundamental decoupling of welfare and taxation. A just tax system treats all citizens equally and asks only for the revenue necessary to execute the enumerated powers of the federal government. It does not pick winners and losers. It does not inform a single mother that her neighbor’s income is now, thanks to the wisdom of the IRS, hers. The refundable Child Tax Credit should be repealed in its entirety for non-citizens, and dramatically reformed for citizens perhaps replaced by an increased standard deduction that protects the genuinely poor from paying income tax, but refuses to wire them a check simply for breathing.

To prevent the “backdoor scam money” from flowing, mandatory E-Verify must be synced with the IRS database. If you are not authorized to work, you should not receive work-derived tax credits. It is a commonsense proposition treated as radical only because the bipartisan uniparty benefits from the cheap labor and the political patronage of the newly arrived. The original post calls this what it is: a fix. The political class gets a dependent voting base and corporate America gets suppressed wages, all lubricated by the Treasury. The taxpayer is the mark.

Ultimately, the outrage captured in the viral post is the outrage of a citizen who has peeked behind the curtain of the administrative state and seen the gears turning in reverse. The Tax Code is no longer just about roads, defense, and courts. It is a vast engine of redistribution. And every time a conservative hears the left claim that illegal immigrants “pay taxes,” the proper response is the one implied by this post: they may pay, but they take out far more than they put in through these refundable scams. It’s a negative tax rate dressed up in the garb of compassion.

The fix is indeed in, and it can only be broken by a return to first principles: no citizenship, no credit. Simplify, flatten, and stop the stealing. Anything less is complicity in the greatest heist of American prosperity in history.

From Electronic Monitoring to Murder: The Arrest Record of Alphanso Talley

 

From Electronic Monitoring to Murder: The Arrest Record of Alphanso Talley

The arrest record of Alphanso Talley, the 26-year-old accused of killing a Chicago police officer and wounding another inside Endeavor Health Swedish Hospital, reads like a decade-long catalog of judicial patience and, according to critics, systemic failure.

When Chicago Police Officer John Bartholomew, a 38-year-old veteran, was pronounced dead Saturday and his 57-year-old partner was left fighting for his life, the suspect in custody was not a first-time offender. He was, according to officials, a seven-time convicted felon who was actively wanted on an arrest warrant and listed as an absconder by the Illinois Department of Corrections.

The chain of events that led to the hospital shooting began with an armed robbery and ended with a police-involved tragedy but Talley’s criminal history suggests the warning signs were abundant long before Saturday morning.

A Criminal History Spanning Nearly a Decade

According to court records and investigative reporting, Alphanso Talley’s first serious encounter with the criminal justice system occurred in 2017, when he was still a teenager. That year, he was charged in two separate armed robbery incidents. In one, he allegedly robbed two men walking through an alley in Chicago’s Boystown neighborhood, battering them in the process. In another, he displayed a firearm while robbing three men on the Red Line platform at Grand Avenue.

Talley eventually pleaded guilty to four counts of armed robbery, receiving four concurrent seven-year sentences a significant penalty that, in theory, should have kept him off the streets for years.

Instead, the pattern that would define his criminal career began to emerge: incarceration, release, and reoffending.

By 2021, Talley was back in custody, this time charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm while on parole. Prosecutors initially pursued a Class X armed habitual criminal designation, but under a plea agreement, Talley pleaded down to a lesser felon-in-possession charge and received a three-year sentence.

Less than a year after entering that plea, he was arrested again this time by Illinois State Police troopers who alleged he led them on a lengthy chase in a stolen car. True to form, court records show Talley claimed he needed medical assistance during that arrest, a tactic he would reportedly use multiple times throughout his criminal history.

The Electronic Monitoring Loophole

Perhaps the most troubling chapter in Talley’s arrest record involves his repeated releases on electronic monitoring a pretrial release mechanism that critics say failed spectacularly in this case.

In the fall of 2024, after spending a year in jail following the stolen vehicle chase and an additional charge for attacking a Cook County jail correctional officer, Judge John F. Lyke denied a state petition to continue Talley’s detention and released him on electronic monitoring.

Within three months, Talley was charged with misdemeanor domestic battery, and he stopped showing up for his felony cases. In February 2025, Lyke signed an arrest warrant.

But police didn’t locate Talley until April 2025 and only after he allegedly committed additional violent crimes. According to police reports, Talley and an accomplice carjacked a 25-year-old woman at gunpoint in the 4700 block of South Calumet, stealing her Jeep Cherokee. Minutes later, the same stolen vehicle rolled up on a man in the 6300 block of South Morgan, and two masked men robbed him at gunpoint.

Chicago Police’s hijacking task force eventually located the stolen Jeep and arrested Talley after he bailed out of the driver’s seat and hid under a porch. During that arrest, Talley told officers he had “swallowed multiple bags of crack cocaine” and was taken to a hospital for treatment the same pattern of feigning medical need that would later surface in the hospital shooting case.

Judge Luciano Panici, Jr. ordered Talley jailed as a public safety threat. He was finally behind bars again .

But not for long.

The Final Release

On December 11, 2025 less than six months after the carjacking and armed robbery charges were filed Judge Lyke agreed to release Talley on electronic monitoring once again. A month later. Talley pleaded guilty to the stolen vehicle and battery charges, receiving concurrent sentences of four and three years. But with the state’s standard 50 percent sentence reduction and credit for time already served including time wearing an ankle monitor Talley entered and exited Illinois Department of Corrections custody within a few hours on January 9, 2026.

He went home on electronic monitoring again, still facing pending armed carjacking and armed robbery charges.

Then came the expansions. On January 11, 2026, Talley asked Lyke for permission to leave his home to attend classes at Truman College in Uptown. Lyke agreed, allowing Talley to be on the streets for between five and eleven hours each day, Monday through Thursday. By January 28, Lyke expanded that window further allowing between seven and 16.5 hours of daily movement so Talley could attend school.

On February 10, 2026, prosecutors filed a petition to violate Talley’s pretrial release, though the specific reasons remain unclear. A substitute judge continued the matter for a future date.

The Final Days Before the Shooting

The electronic monitoring data from March 2026 reveals a system that was already breaking down. According to a pretrial monitoring report, Talley’s ankle monitor alerted to two violations within three days in early March.

On March 8, his monitor showed he left home without permission at 1:39 p.m. and did not return until 7 a.m. the following day hours he was not authorized to be outside. Forty-four minutes after he returned on March 9, his monitoring device died because he had failed to charge it.

“The individual’s whereabouts are unknown,” the report stated.

The Pretrial Services Division did not notify Judge Lyke until March 11 more than 48 hours after the bracelet went dead. On March 11, Lyke signed an arrest warrant. But critically, that warrant was still active on Saturday morning when Talley allegedly walked into the Family Dollar store at 3239 West Lawrence Avenue to commit an armed robbery.

Talley was also still listed as an absconder by the Illinois Department of Corrections at the time of the shooting meaning he was in violation of the parole he was on for his prior convictions.

The Hospital Shooting

According to police, officers responded to the Family Dollar armed robbery around 8 a.m. Saturday. Using a GPS device hidden in the store’s proceeds, they located Talley near the 3400 block of North Troy Street and found a wallet belonging to a victim from the store in a nearby trash can.

Citing his history of claiming medical need during arrests, Talley once again told officers he required medical assistance. An ambulance transported him to Endeavor Health Swedish Hospital for observation.

The hospital later stated that Talley was “wanded upon arrival” with a metal detector and escorted by law enforcement at all times . Despite this, roughly two hours after arriving, around 10:50 a.m., Talley obtained a firearm exactly how remains under investigation and shot both officers.

The Charges

Talley now faces a staggering 20 felonies in connection with the incident, including first-degree murder of a police officer, attempted murder, aggravated armed kidnapping, aggravated battery of a peace officer, escape from a peace officer, armed robbery, and multiple counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon.

He also had three outstanding warrants for his arrest at the time of the shooting, including one alleging a lapse in his electronic monitoring.

The 57-year-old wounded officer, a 21-year veteran, remained in critical condition as of Monday morning.

For a seven-time felon who was supposed to be under electronic monitoring, actively wanted on a warrant, and listed as a parole absconder. Alphanso Talley’s presence on the streets of Chicago on Saturday morning let alone in a position to shoot two police officers represents what many are already calling a catastrophic failure of the pretrial release system.

#Chicago #Police #PretrialRelease #Crime

Democrats couldn't run a grocery store. There would be clean ups on EVERY Isle

 OPINION

Democrats couldn't run a grocery store. There would be clean ups on EVERY Isle ...

I finally see why Democrats criticize Republicans for saying 'What about Obama', or 'What about Biden'. Democrats, as we know can't debate policy, but they don't take responsibility for their failed policies. 

They don't take responsibility for their policies that lead to Black on Black crime.

They don't take responsibility for the failed Blue cities and states like California, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington State, and even New York.

They don't take responsibility for open borders. 

They don't claim responsibility for low Police moral and numbers.

They didn't take responsibility for low military recruitment during the Obama and Biden years.

They ignored the Afghanistan withdrawal where we lost 13 Service Members and 80 Billion dollars in equipment left behind. 

They never apologized for Jussie Smollet. 

They never acknowledged the Russia Russia Russia was a hoax made up by Hillary Clinton.

The Democrats never acknowledged the Hunter Biden Laptop was real.

Democrats said Biden was at the top of his game even though he didn't know if it was Tuesday or September.

Democrats can't remember the Women or young girls killed and/or raped by ILLEGALS.

The Democrats can't understand Energy Policy.

Democrats don't understand or acknowledge inflation.

Democrats either hate the country or don't know when we are being screwed in the ass.

Democrats have had no problem with Iran disrupting the Middle East for 47 years.

And now, Democrats hate the 4th of July.

#Democrats #Hate #Liberals #Progressives

Ain’t No Fraud Like West Coast Fraud

"Ain’t No Fraud Like West Coast Fraud Because West Coast Fraud Don't Stop." ~ Larry Elder

Commentary

Larry Elder, the "Sage of South Central," has spent decades warning conservatives about the hard truths the mainstream Left would rather ignore. When he famously remarked, "Ain't no fraud like west coast fraud because west coast fraud don’t stop," he wasn’t just being clever. He was issuing a prophetic warning about the Golden State’s addiction to waste, abuse, and criminal mismanagement of taxpayer dollars.

Today, that prophecy has manifest in the most grotesque way imaginable: the wholesale looting of hospice care. In California, the business of dying has become the ultimate grift. Recent investigations reveal that the state has become the national epicenter for Medicare and Medicaid fraud, specifically in the hospice industry, where scammers are literally stealing the identities of the living and billing the government for their "deaths."

If you want to understand the difference between red-state accountability and blue-state governance, look no further than the empty storefronts of Van Nuys.

The "Burrito Stand" Scandals

The statistics coming out of Los Angeles County are not just alarming; they are absurd. In any rational market or any state with even a modicum of regulatory competence supply follows demand. But in California, the demand for fraud has created a supply of hospices that defies mathematics.

According to a recent House Committee investigation, the number of hospice providers in Los Angeles County increased by 1,500 percent between 2010 and 2022 . To put that in perspective, Los Angeles County now has more hospice agencies than 36 entire states combined. It has 33 times the number found in Florida, a state with a similar senior population .

How is this possible? As Larry Elder might point out, when you remove consequences, the wolves rush in.

One building on Friar Street in Van Nuys a single, unassuming two-story medical plaza is reportedly home to 89 licensed hospices. Not 89 offices. Not 89 departments. 89 separate companies operating out of one building. In a now-infamous exposé, a burrito stand and a tire shop were found to be certified as hospice providers .

CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz has put California "on notice," halting payments to hundreds of sketchy providers. But the question remains: Why did it take the Trump Administration’s fraud task force to expose what should have been obvious to Governor Gavin Newsom years ago?

The answer is simple: In California, the fraud *never stops* because the politicians in Sacramento view the federal treasury as an unlimited piggy bank to fund their progressive utopia, regardless of whether the recipients are legitimate patients or organized crime rings.

The Human Toll of Administrative Neglect

For the progressive Left, fraud is often framed as a "victimless crime" just a few billion dollars disappearing into the ether. But the hospice scandal proves this is a lie. When a fraudster steals a Medicare ID number to bill for a fake cancer patient, they aren't just stealing money; they are stealing *lives*.

Consider the testimony of Lynn Ianni, a 69-year-old clinical psychotherapist. She went to get physical therapy for a shoulder injury sustained while playing pickleball. She was told she couldn't access her Medicare benefits because, according to the system, she was already dead or at least, she was enrolled in hospice care .

Ms. Ianni was not dying. She was the victim of identity theft by a sham hospice company. For months, she was locked out of routine medical care, terrified that the bureaucracy had stamped her as terminal. "Imagine being told in effect that you're at the end of your life when you're not," she testified . That is the human cost of Newsom’s negligence.

When legitimate patients are fraudulently signed up for hospice, they are often cut off from curative treatments. The scam isn't just about billing; it is about denying care to the living while exploiting a system designed for the dying.

Newsom’s Gaslighting and the "Racism" Dodge

When confronted with these facts, the California political machine did not act with shame or urgency. They resorted to the Left’s only defense: playing the victim. When Dr. Oz pointed out that much of this fraud is reportedly orchestrated by sophisticated criminal networks—including entities operating in the Armenian community the Newsom administration did not thank federal law enforcement for the tip.

Instead, Newsom’s office hurled accusations of "racism" and demanded a civil rights investigation into Oz.

This is the height of cynicism. As Larry Elder would argue, this is what the Left does when you catch them failing: they change the subject. They want to talk about "tone" and "microaggressions" rather than the $267 million stolen from Medi-Cal through identity theft rings . They want to talk about hurt feelings while Russian-Armenian mafia-linked operations are allegedly bilking $3.5 billion out of Los Angeles County alone.

Governor Newsom boasts about a "crackdown" and a moratorium on new licenses that was passed in 2021. But here is the dirty secret: the emergency regulations that were supposed to fix the licensing loopholes still aren't in effect . Four years later, the fix is still "in progress." That isn't governing; that is willful blindness.

The Great Looting of the Treasury

Conservatives have long warned that the welfare state is a leaky vessel. But California has taken it to an industrial scale. This isn't just about hospices; it is the entire ecosystem of the state.

The "West Coast Fraud" Elder describes is systemic. We see it in the High-Speed Rail boondoggle, where billions vanish into a train to nowhere. We see it in the COVID unemployment scandal, where prisoners and Nigerian princes collected checks. We see it in the $100 billion per year in social services fraud that Dr. Oz is now tasked with cleaning up.

The difference between a red state and California is the presence of political will. In Florida or Texas, oversight exists because those governments view taxpayer money as a sacred trust. In Sacramento, they view it as campaign contribution fuel for their allies.

The federal government must hold the line. The Trump Administration’s decision to freeze payments and launch criminal investigations is the only thing standing between the taxpayer and total collapse.

Conclusion

Larry Elder said the fraud doesn't stop because the "west fraud don't stop." He was right. It won't stop as long as the same corrupt politicians who enabled it are the ones asked to police it.

Gavin Newsom wants to run for President. He wants to take this culture of corruption, these empty storefronts billing for dead people, and this excuse-making to the rest of America. The hospice fraud crisis is not a bug of progressive governance; it is a feature. It is what happens when you prioritize ideology over auditing, feelings over facts, and political correctness over prosecution.

Until Sacramento is held accountable and until voters recognize that "west coast fraud" is just the logical conclusion of unchecked liberalism the stealing will continue. And as Elder might say, they won’t stop until the checks do.

#California #Fraud #LarryElder #Medicaid #Medicare #Hospice

Thousands of Christians in Nigeria have been slauteredand No Word From The Pope

Genocide: Thousands of Christians in Nigeria have been slauteredand No Word From The Pope

Thousands of Christians in Nigeria have been slautered. They hate their own race over religion? Where is the freaking POPE? DOES HE EVEN CARE ... Or is just there to HATE TRUMP? 'SOUTHSIDE BOB" ...

Nigeria is the 6th largest country on Earth. It has 25% of the Blacks in Africa. It is rich in minerals and precious metals. Christianity used to be on the rise. Islam was being pushed back. In 2010 things went the other direction and Christians are being slautered and no one is speaking up.

To Hell with the Catholuc Church. The Pope simply went to Africa to make a show.

Nigeria makes more films than Hollywood, and they are the 5th largest oil exporter of oil. The hardline Muslims run the place. When Trump bombed the Hell out of ISIS they ran to Nigeria. Now they have China financing them.

#Nigeria #Genocide #Christianity #Islam

The Silence Is Deafening: Genocide Against Christians in Nigeria

In any other corner of the world, under any other banner, the systematic slaughter of thousands of people based on their faith would be met with outrage. There would be marches. There would be condemnations from the United Nations. The media would run nonstop coverage, and world leaders would fall over themselves to intervene.

But the victims are Christians. The perpetrators are radical Islamists. And the world including many of the very same voices who claim to champion human rights has remained largely silent.

That silence is a moral catastrophe. And it demands an answer.

A Bloodbath Ignored

Nigeria, the sixth most populous country on Earth, is home to more than 100 million Christians. For years, these believers have faced an escalating campaign of terror. Armed groups including Boko Haram, Fulani herdsmen, and factions linked to ISIS have murdered tens of thousands of Christians, burned churches, razed entire villages, and kidnapped women and children with impunity.

According to reports from organizations like Open Doors USA and the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law, between 2009 and 2020, an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 Christians were killed in northern and central Nigeria. That is not a few isolated incidents. That is a sustained, targeted slaughter.

When Christians are killed for no other reason than their refusal to renounce Christ, the word for that is not “conflict.” It is not “communal violence.” The word is genocide.

Yet where is the outcry? Where are the celebrity activists who fill their social media feeds with demands for justice everywhere else? Where is the international community that claims to prioritize the protection of religious minorities?

They are nowhere to be found.

The Silence of the Shepherds

Perhaps the most heartbreaking silence comes from the very institutions that should be shouting from the rooftops. Conservative Christians have long looked to Rome as a moral anchor. But the response from Pope Francis and the Catholic Church hierarchy has been, to put it charitably, underwhelming.

Yes, the Pope has visited Africa. He has spoken in general terms about peace and reconciliation. But where are the specific condemnations of the Islamic extremists who openly boast about their massacres of Christians? Where is the excommunication of political leaders who enable the violence? Where is the mobilization of the global Church to demand action?

Instead, much of the Pope’s public energy in recent years has been consumed by Western political grievances including, at times, what appears to be a reflexive opposition to conservative American leaders like Donald Trump. Whatever one thinks of Trump’s personality, his administration aggressively targeted ISIS, including its affiliates in West Africa. Under Trump, the U.S. designated Nigeria a Country of Particular Concern for religious freedom violations. The State Department took concrete steps.

Since then, the focus has shifted. And while the world’s attention wandered, the bloodshed in Nigeria continued.

Conservatives see the double standard clearly: The same Vatican officials who eagerly lecture Americans about immigration and climate change have remarkably little to say about the systematic eradication of the faith in one of Africa’s largest nations. That is not moral leadership. That is abdication.

Race, Religion, and the Left’s Blind Spot

One of the most uncomfortable questions the left refuses to answer is this: Why do so many progressive activists who claim to defend Black lives ignore the genocide of Black Christians in Nigeria?

The victims are overwhelmingly Black African Christians. Their killers are also Black African Muslims. If this were a case of white colonizers killing Black Africans, the outrage would be instantaneous and global. But because the oppression comes from within the same racial group and because criticizing Islam is taboo in Western progressive circles the victims are abandoned.

Conservatives are not afraid to name the truth. The hatred driving these massacres is not about race. It is about religion. Radical Islamist ideology teaches that Christians are infidels, that their churches are legitimate targets, and that their land should be cleansed of the cross.

When a Fulani herdsman kills a Christian farmer, it is not a “land dispute.” It is an act of religious persecution, often enabled by local Islamic authorities and tacitly supported by Nigeria’s Muslim-dominated government in the north. The refusal to call this what it is jihadist violence is a form of cowardice.

Strategic Consequences for the West

Nigeria is not some obscure nation of no consequence. It is the 5th largest oil exporter to the United States. It produces more films than Hollywood. It is the economic giant of West Africa. And it is increasingly aligning with hostile powers.

When the Trump administration bombed ISIS into rubble in the Middle East, many of those surviving fighters didn’t disappear. They fled and found a new haven in northern Nigeria. Today, ISIS-West Africa is one of the deadliest jihadist groups on the planet. And they have new patrons.

China has moved aggressively into Nigeria, financing infrastructure projects, supplying weapons, and gaining influence with the same Islamist-leaning government that has done little to stop Christian persecution. While the West wrings its hands, Beijing secures oil deals and military cooperation.

A conservative foreign policy understands this: When we abandon our allies—including religious allies our enemies fill the void. The genocide of Christians in Nigeria is not just a humanitarian tragedy. It is a strategic disaster in the making.

What Must Be Done

Conservatives do not believe in standing by while innocents are murdered. We believe in moral clarity. And the situation in Nigeria demands action.

First, the United States must officially designate the violence against Christians in Nigeria as genocide. That designation is not just symbolic. It triggers legal obligations under international law and unlocks sanctions against perpetrators.

Second, the State Department should reinstate and strengthen the Nigeria Religious Freedom Act, conditioning aid on concrete steps to protect Christian communities. No more blank checks to a government that enables mass murder.

Third, the Biden administration and a future conservative administration must pressure Nigeria’s government to disarm Fulani militias, prosecute religiously motivated killings, and provide security for Christian villages. If they refuse, aid should be redirected to local Christian communities and refugee resettlement.

Fourth, the global Church, including the Vatican, must be called to account. Silence is complicity. Every bishop, every cardinal, and every pope who refuses to name the evil of Islamic extremism in Nigeria shares in the guilt.

Finally, Western media must be shamed into doing its job. Imagine if 80,000 Jews had been killed in a decade. Imagine if 80,000 gay men were murdered. There would be saturation coverage. But 80,000 Black Christians? Crickets. That is a scandal that reveals the moral bankruptcy of the progressive press.

Conclusion

This article was inspired by a frustrated question: “They hate their own race over religion?” Yes. That is exactly what is happening. And the silence of the Pope, the international community, and the mainstream media is a disgrace.

Conservatives do not have the luxury of looking away. We believe in the sanctity of every human life. We believe that religious freedom is the first freedom. And we believe that America as the leader of the free world has a duty to speak for the voiceless.

Thousands of Nigerian Christians have already died. Hundreds of thousands have fled their homes. And every day the world remains silent, more blood is shed.

Enough.

It is time to call the slaughter what it is: genocide. It is time to name the perpetrators: Islamist extremists. And it is time to act not with empty gestures, but with sanctions, diplomacy, and moral courage.

The Silence That Speaks Volumes

Thousands of Nigerian Christians slaughtered, villages razed, women and children butchered for their faith and still, a deafening quiet from the Holy See. The Pope has been swift to lecture America, criticize border policies, and sound alarms on climate change. Yet when African believers face genocide at the hands of Islamist extremists, the microphone goes dead.

For Catholics like "Southside Bob," this isn't mere frustration it's a crisis of trust. When shepherds speak boldly to political adversaries but whisper about martyred sheep, the flock takes notice. The Chair of Peter must defend the persecuted with the same vigor it reserves for Western politics. Anything less breeds righteous anger.

The Unsettling Echoes of Political Violence: A Closer Look at Coincidence, Connection, and a Double Standard

The Unsettling Echoes of Political Violence: A Closer Look at Coincidence, Connection, and a Double Standard ~ Reagan and Trump ...

There’s a familiar phrase that echoes through the corridors of American political consciousness every time the unthinkable happens: “Nothing happens by accident.” It’s a sentiment often dismissed by polite society as the domain of tinfoil-hat wearers, conspiracy theorists lurking in the digital shadows. But what happens when the official narratives, the pre-packaged stories we’re told to move on from, leave behind threads so jagged they cut the hands of anyone trying to weave them into a coherent whole? To ask a simple question—“Somethin’ AIN’T right” is not a sign of madness; it is the first duty of a vigilant citizenry that has learned, often painfully, that the state and its media appendages do not always traffic in the full truth.

Nowhere is this haunting lack of closure more palpable than when examining the two most traumatic bookends of modern American political violence: the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981 and the attempted assassinations of Donald Trump. The chasm between how these events were treated, the disparate fates of the perpetrators, and the ghostly web of connections surrounding the Reagan shooting demand a cold, hard look—not from the “experts” who have failed us, but from the perspective of those who still believe in connecting dots, even when the picture they reveal is deeply disturbing.

Let’s start with the central, uncomfortable knot: the Bush-Reagan-Nixon triangle and the enigma of John Hinckley Jr. The official story of March 30, 1981, is a saga of a lone, deranged gunman obsessed with a movie star. Hinckley’s obsession with Jodie Foster is a convenient, tidy, and ultimately solipsistic motive. It asks nothing of us and threatens no power structure. But peel back the layer of that Hollywood obsession, and you find a family connection so incandescently relevant that its perpetual burial by the media constitutes journalistic malpractice. John Hinckley Jr.’s family wasn’t just wealthy; they were deeply enmeshed in the very oil and political nexus that produced the Bush dynasty. His father, John Hinckley Sr., was a wealthy oilman and a longtime political supporter of the Bush family. The Hinckley and Bush families were not mere acquaintances who shook hands at a Houston fundraiser; they were friends whose financial and social orbits revolved around the same sun.

Why does this matter? Because at the exact moment Hinckley Jr. pulled the trigger, his father’s friend, George H.W. Bush, was Reagan’s Vice President. In the hierarchy of power, this puts Bush a heartbeat or, as it nearly turned out, a .22 caliber bullet away from the presidency. It is a fact that, if the political affiliations were reversed, would have fueled a thousand cable news specials. Imagine if a Biden family friend’s son had shot a Republican president. The airwaves would melt. Yet, this connection is invariably referred to as a “trivial footnote” by gatekeepers who decide for us what is unworthy of historical scrutiny.

Then add the deeper layer of the intelligence community. George H.W. Bush was not just any former Congressman or ambassador. He was a former Director of Central Intelligence, appointed by Richard Nixon in the twilight of an administration drowning in scandal to clean house and, more importantly, to protect the agency’s vast secrets. Nixon, a man whose paranoia was his undoing, harbored a notorious and venomous dislike for Ronald Reagan. Nixon saw Reagan as a dimwitted cowboy, an amateur who had stolen the conservative movement Nixon believed he alone had built. The idea that the entrenched Nixonian intelligence apparatus, with Bush as its recent caretaker, was wholly at ease with the Reagan revolution sweeping away the detente-era old guard is naive. No one is suggesting Bush orchestrated the shooting. But the atmosphere a network of disaffected spooks, old Nixon hands furious at Reagan, and an oil-patch friend’s unstable son drifting through their world is the fertile soil of an alternate history that the press refuses to plow.

Now, let’s examine the stagecraft of the crime itself, specifically the bizarre overlap with the White House Correspondents’ Dinner “shooting.” The assassination attempt on Reagan occurred at the Washington Hilton Hotel. Simultaneously, a short distance away, the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner was underway, attended by the glitterati of journalism and politics. So ingrained is the Washington Hilton in the DNA of political violence and media spectacle that, just days before, the hotel had hosted a murder-mystery game for the correspondents’ dinner weekend that involved a simulated shooting. The most powerful media and political figures in the nation were gathering at the same hotel, playing games of fake assassination, when an actual assassin struck the President in the same venue’s driveway. It’s a detail so surreal, so meta, that it feels ripped from a dystopian novel. The media, who love nothing more than reporting on themselves, carefully clean this coincidence from the record, perhaps because it casts their annual carnival of self-congratulation in a sinister light. The hotel wasn’t just a venue; it was a symbol of the Washington-media complex’s detached game-playing while a true threat, born from within their own elite social nexus, materialized.

This brings us to the jarring asymmetry of accountability and narrative in our current era. We are asked to believe that John Hinckley Jr., a man who stood in broad daylight and attempted to assassinate a sitting president, wounding him and permanently disabling his Press Secretary, James Brady, is a misunderstood soul deserving of a full, consequence-free life. Released from a mental facility, Hinckley was allowed to settle into his mother’s home a “gated community” as noted, a detail that reeks of privilege where he now dabbles in painting, sells his art, and pursues a music career. He has a YouTube channel. He signs his name, infamously, “John Hinckley. Free at last.” Society has bent over backward to find a medical rehabilitation arc for a man who tried to decapitate the executive branch, largely because the narrative demands that conservative threats be treated as mental health issues, not criminal monstrosities.

Contrast this with the treatment of the would-be assassins of Donald Trump. The calculus of life and death around these perpetrators follows a grim, utilitarian rhythm. Thomas Matthew Crooks, the 20-year-old who fired at Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, killing an innocent bystander, was neutralized on the spot. He is currently “1 dead,” as the raw scorecard notes, his motivation still a fog of ambiguous search history and a lack of manifesto. Then, more recently, Ryan Wesley Routh, the man caught apparently attempting to assassinate Trump at his golf course, was apprehended alive; he sits as the “1 living.” The contrast in the noise machine is deafening. For Hinckley, a patrician from a connected family shooting a Republican president who threatened the deep state, the response is a half-century of gentle psychiatric care, culminating in a quiet artistic life. For Trump’s assailants—one a mysterious figure with no immediate public family connection to power, the other a man with a lengthy criminal record and a bizarre political trail in the stakes were instant death or, in Routh’s case, a looming federal death penalty case.

The double standard illuminates a rotten core. The system sees violence differently depending not just on the target, but on the perceived social station of the perpetrator. Trying to kill a conservative disruptor like Trump gets you a state-sanctioned bullet before questions can fully be asked, or an immediate trip into the belly of the federal legal beast. Trying to kill a Republican president who was restructuring the federal bureaucracy and challenging the Soviet Union, if you’re the connected son of a Bush ally, gets you a sympathetic media profile in *Rolling Stone* magazine and a quiet life selling cats-and-flowers artwork on social media. The “mental health” narrative is a luxury afforded only when the alternative a trial, a rigorous investigation into family connections, a deep dive into motive beyond a movie might lead to uncomfortable truths about elite networks.

To state the obvious is to invite mockery. “Just ‘Sayin’... DOT DOT DOT!!!” The sarcasm is a defense mechanism against accusations of insanity. But we live in an age where patching together disparate facts Bush’s friendship with the Hinckleys, his CIA background, Nixon’s hatred of Reagan, the eerie correspondents’ dinner overlap, and the ultimate soft landing for a presidential assailant—is labeled a conspiracy theory, while believing a laptop is Russian disinformation or that the border is secure is mainstream sophistication.

Something ain’t right. Not just in the past, but in the present. The forces that treat one set of presidential threats with surgical, lethal finality and another with a rehabilitative cuddle are the same forces that classify the American people’s questions as “dangerous misinformation.” The greatest defense against a government shrouded in secrecy is not blind trust, but the courage to look at the dots, however uncomfortable, and refuse to let the gatekeepers tell us we didn’t see what we all plainly see. The disturbance in the force isn’t just a feeling; it’s a documented pattern of privilege, connection, and the selective value assigned to an American president’s life.

#Reagan #Trump #Assassination #WhitehouseCorrespodentsDinner

Echoes of a Failed Revolution: U.S.-Cuba Relations and the Imperative for Principled Realism

Echoes of a Failed Revolution: U.S.-Cuba Relations and the Imperative for Principled Realism

For over six decades, the island nation of Cuba has occupied an outsized place in the American conservative imagination. Located a mere 90 miles from Key West, this Caribbean nation transformed from a strategic neighbor into a Soviet beachhead in the Western Hemisphere, and today remains a cautionary tale of socialist economics and authoritarian governance. Understanding this history—and charting a path forward—requires conservatives to balance a principled rejection of tyranny with a pragmatic assessment of American national interests.

The Pre-Revolutionary Landscape and Castro's Rise

To comprehend how Fidel Castro came to power, one must first recognize the conditions he exploited. Cuba in the early 20th century existed under significant American influence following Spain's defeat in the 1898 Spanish-American War. While the Platt Amendment granted Washington intervention rights, the more immediate catalyst for revolution was the corrupt and repressive regime of Fulgencio Batista.

Batista seized power through a military coup in 1952, canceling scheduled elections and establishing a dictatorship characterized by lucrative links to organized crime and the American mafia. His regime allowed U.S. companies to dominate the Cuban economy, creating widespread resentment among ordinary Cubans. Batista developed a powerful security apparatus to silence political opponents, effectively shutting down constitutional avenues for change.

It was in this environment that Fidel Castro, a young lawyer, emerged. After his constitutional challenges to Batista's rule were rejected by Cuban courts, Castro resolved to pursue armed revolution. His first attempt the 1953 assault on the Moncada Barracks ended in failure, with Castro imprisoned. Yet this defeat became a propaganda victory; his "History will absolve me" defense resonated with Cubans weary of Batista's excesses.

Upon release in 1955, Castro fled to Mexico, where he organized the 26th of July Movement, joined by his brother Raúl and the Argentine revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara. In December 1956, 82 revolutionaries disembarked from the yacht Granma onto Cuba's eastern coast. Though initially scattered by Batista's forces, the rebels regrouped in the Sierra Maestra mountains, waging a guerrilla campaign that progressively eroded the regime's military and popular support. Batista fled on January 1, 1959, and Castro assumed control shortly thereafter.

Conservatives must recognize that Castro's revolution succeeded not because of popular ideological commitment to Marxism, but because Batista's regime had forfeited all legitimacy. The tragedy was that what replaced a corrupt dictator proved far worse: a totalitarian communist state that would outlast its Soviet patron.

Consolidation of Communist Rule and the Cold War

Castro's promises of free elections and democratic restoration proved hollow. Instead, he rapidly transformed Cuba into the first communist state in the Western Hemisphere. His regime nationalized industries, seized American property, eliminated a free press, jailed dissidents, and implemented a one-party system under the Communist Party of Cuba. These were not mere policy disagreements they represented the systematic extinguishing of liberty.

The Eisenhower administration responded by imposing economic sanctions in 1960, freezing Cuban assets and severing diplomatic ties. What followed was a Cold War proxy conflict at America's doorstep. The failed 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, authorized by President Kennedy, embarrassingly reinforced Castro's narrative while demonstrating the administration's irresolution in the face of Communist expansion.

The Soviet Union quickly filled the vacuum, becoming Cuba's primary ally and economic patron. This alliance reached its most dangerous expression during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Soviet placement of nuclear weapons on the island brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. For conservatives, this crisis vindicated the view that Communist regimes in the Americas constitute direct threats to U.S. national security—a principle that remains relevant as rival powers again seek footholds in the region.

The Embargo: Principle Versus Practicality

The U.S. trade embargo, or, bloqueo, as Cubans call it, has been the cornerstone of American policy for over 60 years. Its conservative justification is straightforward: a regime that seized private property without compensation, suppressed fundamental freedoms, and aligned with America's enemies should not benefit from American commerce. Presidential candidates from Eisenhower onward have tightened sanctions, often during election years to appeal to Cuban-American voters in the pivotal state of Florida.

Yet honest conservatives must grapple with the embargo's results. After six decades, the Castro regime now under Miguel Díaz-Canel after Raúl Castro's retirement remains in power. The embargo has certainly inflicted economic pain, but the primary victims appear to be ordinary Cubans rather than regime elites. Between 2023 and 2025, Cuba's GDP contracted by approximately 1.9 percent, 1.1 percent, and possibly as much as 5 percent respectively. Since 2020, cumulative economic contraction approaches 17 percent.

The human toll is stark. Daily blackouts exceeding 1,800 megawatts in capacity loss are common, effectively paralyzing economic activity and subjecting families to hours without electricity. Food production and distribution systems have collapsed, with even rationed goods frequently unavailable. Inflation, though officially reported around 14 percent, is widely believed to be significantly higher.

Some conservative thinkers have begun questioning whether the embargo advances American interests. As one analysis framed it, "Washington's economic war against Cuba has weakened a government that has arguably been our most reliable security partner in the Caribbean". The U.S. Agricultural Coalition for Cuba estimates that American farmers hold only a 15 percent share of Cuba's food import market, which could increase to 60 percent if trade restrictions were lifted. Meanwhile, American businesses are excluded from Cuban opportunities while foreign competitors operate freely.

The China and Russia Problem

Perhaps the most compelling conservative argument for recalibrating Cuba policy concerns geopolitical competition. The maximum-pressure strategy has demonstrably failed to isolate Cuba; instead, it has driven Havana toward America's principal adversaries.

China's presence has expanded dramatically. Today, Cuba imports more goods from China on the opposite side of the globe than from the United States just 90 miles away. Chinese companies have deepened their role in Cuban infrastructure, telecommunications, and energy sectors. These relationships are not primarily ideological; they stem from necessity created by American restrictions.

Russia's renewed engagement is equally troubling. Moscow has offered investment, tourism, and oil shipments. Russian warships have replaced American cruise liners in Havana harbor. The Trump administration's 2026 executive order declared a national emergency citing Cuba's alignment with "malign actors adverse to the United States," specifically referencing Russian and Chinese intelligence cooperation. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has explicitly confirmed Moscow's "firm readiness to continue providing Cuba with the necessary political and material support".

This dynamic exposes the strategic incoherence of current policy. As one observer noted, "hardliners continue to treat the Russian and Chinese presence in Cuba as a provocation, rather than a consequence of their own policies". A conservative foreign policy grounded in realism should recognize that Washington has inadvertently created a vacuum that strategic competitors eagerly fill. The 2014-2016 period demonstrated an alternative: when engagement was possible under President Obama, Havana pursued it. When engagement was replaced by hostility, the regime predictably turned elsewhere.

Cuba's Current Economic Catastrophe

The economic situation in Cuba has deteriorated to crisis levels. The government has characterized conditions as a "war economy". Energy shortages dominate daily life. Public transportation has virtually collapsed in Havana; gasoline queues stretch for hours when fuel is available at all. The black market provides what the state cannot, but at prices far beyond the reach of citizens earning the average state salary.

The electricity grid exemplifies systemic failure. Despite over $1.15 billion in government investment in 2025 for power generation recovery, generation has declined approximately 25 percent since the pandemic. The nation's aging thermoelectric plants suffer constant breakdowns. A genuine bright spot exists in solar energy expansion 50 new solar parks added in 2025, with renewables now providing about 10 percent of electricity. Yet this progress is insufficient against the scale of the crisis.

Tourism, once Cuba's economic lifeline, has cratered by 30 percent amid blackouts and fuel shortages. Agricultural production meets a shrinking fraction of domestic food needs. The government's 2025 stabilization program has been too little and too late.

The human dimension manifests in migration. Nearly half a million Cubans arrived in the United States in 2022-2023 alone the largest exodus since the revolution. For conservatives concerned about border security, this underscores that economic collapse in Cuba directly impacts American communities.

Toward a Conservative Realism

The conservative path forward must reject both reflexive engagement and rigid ideological intransigence. The goal should be a policy that serves American national interests rather than domestic Florida politics or Cold War nostalgia.

First, conservatives should acknowledge that the embargo has proven an ineffective instrument of regime change. After 65 years, the Castro government persists, now buttressed by Chinese and Russian support. Continuing a failed policy for symbolic reasons undermines conservative credibility on governance.

Second, a recalibration in no way requires endorsing the Cuban regime. The United States can simultaneously condemn political repression while pursuing cooperation on shared interests. Cuba already functions as an effective partner in combating drug trafficking, maintaining aggressive security that prevents transnational criminal organizations from establishing Caribbean footholds. The State Department's decision to remove Cuba from narcotics control reports was ideologically motivated and practically indefensible.

Third, engagement serves the strategic objective of countering Chinese and Russian influence. Every American business operating in Cuba represents diminished dependence on Beijing or Moscow. Every cruise ship docking in Havana symbolizes Western tourism rather than Russian naval presence. Access to Cuban critical minerals the world's fourth-largest cobalt reserves and significant nickel deposits—serves U.S. supply chain security.

The Trump administration's own National Security Strategy advocates "flexible realism" and acknowledges that "there is nothing inconsistent or hypocritical about maintaining good relations with countries whose systems of government and societies differ from our own". Cuba policy currently violates this principle.

Conclusion

Cuban communism has been an unmitigated disaster for the Cuban people. It destroyed a once-prosperous island, extinguished freedom, and impoverished generations. Conservatives are right to view the Castro regime as illegitimate and oppressive.

But American policy exists to advance American interests, not merely to express moral disapproval. Those interests include secure borders, counter-narcotics cooperation, strategic denial of Russian and Chinese footholds, and economic opportunities for American businesses. Current policy achieves none of these objectives while imposing taxpayer costs for enforcement and fueling regional instability.

A conservative Cuba policy for the current era would maintain principled opposition to tyranny while pursuing pragmatic engagement on matters of mutual benefit. This is not appeasement—it is realism. The alternative is continued irrelevance as Beijing and Moscow fill the vacuum that Washington has created just 90 miles from American shores.

#UnitedStates #Cuba #Castro #Communism #US

WACO, The Government's Raid: A Case of Administrative Malpractice

From a conservative perspective, the tragedy at Waco in 1993 represents a catastrophic failure of federal law enforcement, a violation of constitutional principles, and a disturbing instance of government overreach yet the situation is deeply complicated by the genuinely criminal and morally repugnant actions of David Koresh. A principled conservative analysis must simultaneously hold the government accountable for its disastrous operational decisions while acknowledging that the First Amendment does not grant immunity for child rape, even if a perpetrator cloaks it in Biblical justification.

#WACO #Government  #Bible #Christianity #JanetReno #DavidKoresh

WACO, The Government's Raid: A Case of Administrative Malpractice

To understand why the federal government targeted the Branch Davidians, one must first look at the operation's catalyst. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) initiated the raid based on allegations that the group was stockpiling illegal automatic weapons and converting semi-automatic rifles to fully automatic capability. However, from a conservative standpoint, the investigation and subsequent raid were marred by contradictions that undermine the government's credibility.

Following the disaster, Treasury Department reports found that ATF officials had botched the raid and subsequently lied about material facts . The raid proceeded despite the ATF knowing they had lost the element of surprise, a decision that effectively guaranteed a shootout rather than a peaceful arrest. The sight of heavily armed agents engaging in such a kinetic, high-risk operation against a group widely dismissed in the media as a "cult" raised immediate questions about whether law enforcement was governing by impulse rather than prudent strategy.

This leads to a critical justification for conservative skepticism: the framing of the Davidians as a "cult" was a media and law enforcement strategy to sidestep religious liberty protections. Officials understood that labeling the group a cult would generate public support for a military-style raid, a tactic that would likely be condemned if executed against a mainstream church. As the Department of Justice later acknowledged, the "historical evidence" of Koresh's sexual predations "was insufficient to establish probable cause to indict or proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict" . If probable cause for those specific morals charges was lacking, a conservative assessment must question whether the government used the weapons charge as a pretext to storm a compound primarily because the group's beliefs made them a dangerous "other."

Religious Freedom Under the First Amendment

From a constitutionalist view, the First Amendment exists precisely to protect unpopular, eccentric, and even offensive religious expressions from government persecution. As several religious organizations argued in the wake of Waco, many of today's respected denominations began as scorned "cults" hounded by the establishment. The joint statement from major faith organizations and bodies like the National Association of Evangelicals warned against shrinking from a "commitment to religious pluralism".

Koresh's followers exercised their agency in joining him. Branch Davidian member Myrtle Riddle, who lost her son in the fire, maintained, "We weren't there against our will. We're very independent people and we think for ourselves". Conservatism, which champions individual liberty and the right to covenant in communities of faith, must respect the right of individuals to withdraw from mainstream society and follow a self-proclaimed prophet. The government does not have the right to oppress people simply because their faith originates outside the mainstream consensus .

However, religious freedom is not an absolute shield. The Constitution does not consent to human sacrifice, and it does not offer a sanctuary for the systematic rape of children. The boundary of religious liberty sits firmly at the point where minority sexual status children are physically and sexually abused.

The Reality of Child Molestation in the Compound

The most disturbing aspect of the Waco narrative, and the one that challenges a purely anti-government narrative, is the overwhelming evidence that David Koresh used his spiritual authority to run a predatory sexual regime. It is essential here to distinguish between polygamy among consenting adults and the statutory rape of minors. While 19th-century Mormons practiced polygamy, many of Koresh’s "wives" were children.

The Department of Justice report details a horrifying pattern: Koresh fathered more than a dozen children with "wives" as young as 12 or 13. Witness testimonies compiled in the report describe girls ages 10, 12, and 14 on their first sexual encounters with him. These were not abstract allegations. The FBI negotiating team confronted Branch Davidian Steve Schneider during the siege directly about whether sexual encounters with a 14-year-old constituted rape. Schneider’s defense that the parents consented is a shocking testament to how Koresh’s theology normalized child molestation .

Psychiatrists who interviewed the children released from the compound confirmed that girls as young as 11 were given plastic Star of David necklaces signifying they had reached puberty and were "ready" for sex with the leader. Conservatism’s core tenet is the defense of the innocent and the preservation of moral order. The sexual exploitation of minors under the guise of building a "House of David" represents a depravity that no legitimate interpretation of the Old Testament or Christian liberty can justify. Therefore, while the ATF's operational conduct was a travesty, the moral imperative to rescue children from a pedophilic environment was legally and ethically valid.

The Siege Logic and the Final Tragedy

Attorney General Janet Reno's final authorization of the tear gas insertion on April 19, 1993, remains a flashpoint. Reno claimed the decision was driven by reports that "babies were being beaten" inside. This was a catastrophic error in judgment or a willful misrepresentation. FBI Director Sessions stated the very next day there was "no contemporary evidence" of child abuse occurring during the standoff itself. Reno later retracted her statement, and the Justice Department concluded there was no evidence of ongoing abuse after February 28.

From a conservative perspective, the failure is twofold. First, the FBI ignored the ancient wisdom that besieging zealots with Armageddon prophecies would only confirm their worldview. By blasting sounds of screeching rabbits and Tibetan chants to induce sleep deprivation, the FBI created an environment where religious paranoia turned into fatal fanaticism. Second, the final assault rejected patience. The rationale that conditions were "unhealthy" and that a "99% chance" existed the Davidians would fire on the tanks suggests the FBI knowingly provoked a gunfight to end the political embarrassment of a long siege.

The fire that consumed 76 people, including nearly two dozen children, is a legacy of government hubris. Whether the fire started from inside the compound or from the pyrotechnic tear gas rounds remains hotly contested. However, the conservative commitment to limited government and procedural restraint forces the conclusion that the final assault was a disproportionate use of force against a group that had already demonstrated it would not surrender.

Conclusion

A conservative justification of the Waco tragedy must navigate a razor's edge. The Branch Davidians were legitimately practicing a form of religious expression that, however bizarre, was their First Amendment right. Their weapons stockpiling, while alarming, did not justify an ATF raid that was bungled, lied about, and essentially a Trojan horse for a moral crusade against a "cult."

However, the cultural conservative defense of religion crumbles when acknowledging that David Koresh was not just a non-conformist preacher but a serial child rapist who used the Bible to justify felonies. The government had a legitimate, indeed urgent, interest in stopping the sexual abuse of minors. Yet, the "rescue" was handled with such catastrophic tactical ineptitude including misleading the Attorney General about ongoing abuse that the state ultimately killed the very children it professed to save. Waco serves as a permanent warning that when the administrative state combines unaccountable firepower with cultural contempt for religious nonconformity, the cure can become far deadlier than the disease.