By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Candace Owens expressed panic and called the Macrons’ lawsuit a “foreign invasion” due to its challenge to free speech, urging Trump and J.D. Vance to intervene. Owens criticized Trump’s silence, stating he should defend the First Amendment and condemn the French leader’s actions regardless of his views on the individual’s gender. She claims the lawsuit is an attempt to impoverish her for speaking her mind. The original author points out that Owens has been spreading misinformation about the First Lady of France for months.
Read the original article here
Oops! The FBI Chief just inadvertently revealed a key detail.
Let’s get right to it: this whole dust-up is about Donald Trump’s purported plan to “take over” Washington, D.C. Supposedly, the city is in dire straits. But, here’s the kicker: during a recent press conference designed to promote this very idea, Kash Patel, the FBI’s former chief of staff and a prominent figure in Trump’s orbit, accidentally dropped a truth bomb. In the middle of his urgent plea, Patel inadvertently cited data that actually showed violent crime in D.C. is at a 30-year low. Talk about an embarrassing moment, undermining the very foundation of the crisis Trump was attempting to manufacture. It’s like the opposite of a self-own; it’s a “self-expose.”
This isn’t just about D.C., either. The discussion points out a concerning trend of targeting blue cities, potentially using the guise of law and order to implement a broader agenda. There are whispers of the state/federal takeover in other cities. The playbooks of the Trump administration seem consistent, focusing on creating a problem and implementing non-solutions, while touting “massive success.” The main issue is, the data simply doesn’t back up the claims of rampant crime.
It’s hard not to be skeptical when you consider this is all happening against the backdrop of a specific concern: the Epstein files. The timing is suspect, as the supposed urgency comes as the Trump team may want to distract from this ongoing issue. The narrative seems meticulously designed to draw attention away from the actual problems. It’s a classic case of smoke and mirrors, with the ultimate goal of diverting scrutiny and control.
Now, let’s talk about the media’s role in all this. The reports paint a picture of a press corps that seems more interested in getting along than doing their jobs. The article brings up journalists who are “spineless,” too afraid to challenge the blatant falsehoods. This passivity only enables the spread of misinformation and allows the narrative to solidify without real opposition. This press conference, it seems, was a chance for Trump to deflect and avoid real scrutiny.
The article also points out a particularly concerning aspect: the potential redefinition of what constitutes a child. It sounds like this could be about creating a loophole to allow for more control. Combined with Trump’s broader rhetoric on law and order, the implications are genuinely unsettling.
It’s also worth noting the hypocrisy here. The very claims being made about the crime levels are contradicted by the official statements. The Department of Justice’s website itself provides data that undermines the entire premise. One is left to wonder how the administration can spin such a blatant contradiction, especially since they are supposedly in charge. The whole thing feels like a script written in haste, the real story being hidden behind a wall of manufactured outrage.
Then there’s the financial aspect. The article mentions the budget cuts, which may limit D.C.’s ability to defend itself against federal overreach. It’s a deliberate dismantling of the city’s defenses, making it easier for the Trump administration to enforce its agenda.
Finally, there is a consistent message that the public cannot be complacent, and urges people to take action by contacting representatives. It is a call for real checks and balances, urging the public to ensure that the government fulfills its duties and not become another tool of the elite. The concern is not just about Trump; it’s about the potential for lasting damage to the institutions of democracy. The fear isn’t just that Trump could come to power again but that the next figure, who is in charge, will have already learned a new playbook that cannot be checked or balanced.