Tuesday, May 19, 2026

The Most Important Part of the Declaration of Independence Is Rarely Mentioned Today

The Most Important Part of the Declaration of Independence Is Rarely Mentioned Today

John Trumbull, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The early summer of 1776 was brutally hot in Philadelphia. Thomas Jefferson sweated the nights away in his second-floor apartment at the Graf House, wishing he were back in Virginia. He was planning a trip to Monticello before the end of June if Congress would cooperate.

The faction in Congress that favored independence was growing by the day, but opponents were trying to force an early vote, knowing that at least two colonies would vote "nay." Any opposition to independence would kill the idea, since a colony that opposed independence would be forced to take up arms against its sister colonies.

In truth, the opposition by South Carolina and Pennsylvania was based on the need for assurances about a future United States. Both colonies originally voted against independence, but later changed their votes to make the vote unanimous.

John Adams had been agitating for some kind of "declaration" that would put the case before the world for American independence from Great Britain. On June 11, Congress appointed the "Committee of Five"— consisting of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston — to draft the document.

Jefferson was chosen to write the primary draft, which he did over the following seventeen days at the Graff House. He consulted primarily with Adams and Franklin, who made minor revisions.

Adams' focus was often more on the legal and political act of independence itself rather than just the rhetorical document we know today. Adams argued that no European power (specifically France or Spain) would treat with the colonies or provide military aid as long as they were seen as "rebels" against their legal sovereign. A formal declaration would signal that the colonies were now a sovereign nation capable of making treaties. He believed it was necessary to justify the overthrow of the established colonial governments and the creation of new state constitutions.

Why? Adams believed the rest of the world would want to know the why, and not just the rhetorical flourishes and flowery language about equality and "inalienable rights." Adams suggested specific, detailed reasons for why separation was absolutely necessary.

Adams and Jefferson listed 27 grievances against the crown to justify rebellion. Jefferson included a 168-word passage that fiercely attacked the King for "waging cruel war against human nature itself" by keeping open a market in which men are bought and sold. He accused the King of suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain the commerce of slavery.

There were actually very few "legislative attempts" to prohibit or even limit slavery. Too much wealth in the South was tied up in slaves, and the shipping of slaves was a very profitable business for northern seaports and shippers. The entire 168 words were struck from the declaration. 

Historian Robert Parkinson, author of Tyrants and Rogues: Understanding the Declaration of Independence, argues that the 27 grievances are "the real heart of the document." 

"These grievances not only laid out the reasons for a revolution, but galvanized the American people to take up arms against the crown," notes Eli Lake of The Free Press.

Parkinson divides the grievances into three groups.

The first 12 are executive overreach. The next 10 are what’s referred to as “acts of pretended legislation,” meaning, If these legislative policies come out of a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions, then they have nothing to do with us. And the last five are acts of war. The grievances grow in drama as you go further down. Looking just at the verbs, as we get into the acts of war, the language becomes much more passionate. Jefferson as an essayist is building toward a dramatic dismount.

"He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. This was a very sore spot in the colony's relations with the crown. "Impressment" would continue until we fought another war against England to end it. 

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." Many Continental soldiers who lived on the frontiers of New York, Pennsylvania, and the Southern colonies lived in constant fear that their loved ones were exposed to native American depredations. Thousands of settlers were killed, including women and children. This was seen as one of the more legitimate grievances by Europeans who could empathize with the colonists, and not to mention, it angered other colonists who believed the King was capable of anything.

The grievances are often given short shrift on Independence Day because many of them are exaggerated, and some simply aren't true. Jefferson and Adams didn't necessarily care about accuracy as much as they wanted to inflame the passions of the people — just as any good political document would.

https://pjmedia.com/rick-moran/2026/05/15/the-most-important-part-of-the-declaration-of-independence-is-rarely-mentioned-today-n4952893?utm_source=pjmediavip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

What If Dems Are Shut Out of the CA Gov Race? Newsom Says There's a 'Break-the-Glass' Contingency Plan

What If Dems Are Shut Out of the CA Gov Race? Newsom Says There's a 'Break-the-Glass' Contingency Plan

What If Dems Are Shut Out of the CA Gov Race? Newsom Says There's a 'Break-the-Glass' Contingency Plan
Hector Amezcua/The Sacramento Bee via AP, Pool


The California gubernatorial primary is in June. What happens if the Democrats are shut out? That’s the risk when many Democrats run, as it could split the Democratic vote and allow the Republicans to advance to the general election. The two top vote-getters move on, so it’s possible a Democrat could be completely excluded. 

The leading Democrats aren't necessarily strong contenders. There’s Katie Porter, whose campaign is struggling; Xavier Becerra, who is considered a lightweight; and Tom Steyer. What if this happens? Well, Gov. Gavin Newsom cryptically alluded to a secondary protocol in case this happens, but wouldn’t elaborate (via Politico):

Gavin Newsom said he’s confident at least one Democrat will advance from California’s June gubernatorial primary, hinting at a “break-the-glass” contingency plan as he declined — yet again — to endorse in the race.

The California governor, speaking at his budget presentation on Thursday, said that rather than pick a candidate, he has focused on ensuring that Democrats are not locked out of the primary, in which the top-two vote getters regardless of party go on to the general election.

“I do not see that scenario taking place,” he said.

Newsom said there was a “break-the-glass” contingency plan to prevent that from happening, and alluded to behind-the-scenes efforts to rally people. He did not specify his activities, but the Democratic Governors Association recently began sending mail highlighting Republican Steve Hilton as a fierce conservative. The ostensible opposition campaign could drive GOP voters to Hilton, ensuring he consolidates the party’s voters and saps the support of the other Republican candidate, Chad Bianco, enough to keep him from finishing in the top two.

“There are many people who have a deep understanding of what it would look like if Democrats were locked out,” Newsom said.

Never underestimate the Democrats in plotting totally insane things to remain in power. 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2026/05/15/what-if-dems-are-shut-out-of-the-ca-gov-race-newsom-says-theres-a-break-the-glass-contingency-plan-n2676129?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

When Antarctic Headlines Melt Faster Than the Ice

When Antarctic Headlines Melt Faster Than the Ice

Ian Joughin/University of Washington via AP

As predictable as the sun rises, it’s another breathless headline warning that Antarctic ice shelves are melting faster than we thought, that sea levels are going to swamp our coastlines, and that millions face an underwater future. The Daily Mail's recent coverage of Norwegian researchers studying the Fimbulisen Ice Shelf is a case study in how legitimate, and genuinely interesting, science gets processed through the media's climate catastrophe machine until the nuance is ground out entirely and only the alarmism remains.

The discovery of deep channels beneath ice shelves trapping warm ocean eddies and accelerating basal melt is a new discovery and is legitimate science work. What isn’t legitimate is the leap from “we discovered something we didn’t fully know about” to “sea levels could rise 30 meters by 2150.” That’s not science. That’s science fiction with a university letterhead attached.

Here’s what the coverage buries: the reason we’re only learning about these sub-ice channels and their effects right now is that we have only recently developed the technology and methodology to observe conditions beneath Antarctic ice shelves. Think about that for a moment. We are talking about one of the most remote, inaccessible, and hostile environments on the planet. The ice shelf cavities these researchers are studying sit beneath hundreds of meters of ice, in waters that are extraordinarily difficult to instrument, monitor, or sample directly. The Fimbulisen Ice Shelf case study used a combination of detailed topographical mapping and computer modeling, not decades of direct observational data, to draw its conclusions.

This is a statement of fact that The Daily Mail missed entirely, and it has enormous implications for how confidently we should accept these projections. When a scientist tells you they’ve discovered a process they didn’t previously know existed, and then in the same breath tells you they can project its consequences out to the year 2300, you should be concerned and skeptical of that claim. You should ask: how can you forecast with confidence the far future behavior of an Antarctic system you’ve only just begun to observe?

The honest answer, buried deep in their coverage, is that they can't. One of the researchers, Dr. Hattermann, acknowledges that the effect of this new discovery is so uncertain that we cannot "rule out" sea level increases of 30 meters by 2150 and 50 meters by 2300. That's a remarkable statement. The statement "cannot rule out" is not a scientific projection; it is a guesstimate so wide as to be scientifically meaningless. You cannot rule out that it won't happen either. But look at which assumption is framing the headline.


SEE ALSO: New Ice Core Study Shows Moderate Warming Happens Every Few Centuries


The history of Antarctic ice science specifically is a history of revisions, recalibrations, and surprises in both directions. Researchers have repeatedly been caught flat-footed by the complexity of this system. East Antarctica, which contains the vast majority of the continent’s ice, was long considered stable, not gaining or losing mass even as ice sheets in West Antarctica and Greenland shrank. Now this study points to East Antarctica’s Fimbulisen Shelf as a potential vulnerability. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet was the focus of alarm for years, until findings emerged complicating those projections. The science-to-media pattern repeats: announce a crisis, the models get revised, the crisis gets walked back in the literature (though rarely in the press), and then a new crisis emerges.

What we are dealing with in Antarctic glaciology is a field that is, scientifically speaking, still in its early adolescence when it comes to direct observation of the processes that matter most. That perspective is widely shared within the scientific community, as Antarctic glaciology is rapidly evolving from a phase of exploration and basic mapping to complex, predictive modeling. This "adolescent" stage is characterized by high, often surprising, findings such as witnessed with this new discovery.

Problematically, the supporting data are sparse. We have Antarctic satellite data going back just about 40 years, which is a blink of an eye in geological time. We have sub-ice-shelf observational records that are even shorter. The computer models being used to project these outcomes are necessarily built on assumptions from observations, assumptions that are now being revised as we discover phenomena like these channeled melt eddies that weren't previously accounted for.

None of this means Antarctic ice is doomed. It suggests we should gather more observational data before making projections, and exercise the kind of restrained caution that good science demands. What it does not mean is that The Daily Mail should be running headlines about millions being “plunged underwater” based on newly minted climate models that researchers openly acknowledge that they don’t fully understand the processes they’re modeling.

The ice will tell us its story if we watch carefully and honestly. But it will take years, probably decades, of rigorous observation before we can say with genuine confidence what these newly discovered sub-shelf dynamics mean for the future of Antarctic ice. Until then, the responsible position should be curiosity, not catastrophism.

This new Antarctic science is interesting, but projections based on one new discovery are premature, and should not be the basis for irresponsible and inflated doomsday headlines.

https://redstate.com/heartlandinstitute/2026/05/15/when-antarctic-headlines-melt-faster-than-the-ice-n2202319?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Monday, May 18, 2026

Waging War on the Time Clock

Waging War on the Time Clock

AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump wrote:

When the Fake News says that the Iranian enemy is doing well, Militarily, against us, it’s virtual TREASON in that it is such a false, and even preposterous, statement. They are aiding and abetting the enemy! All it does is give Iran false hope when none should exist. These are American cowards that are rooting against our Country. Iran had 159 ships in their Navy — Every single ship is now resting at the bottom of the sea. They have no Navy, their Air Force is gone, all Technology is gone, their “leaders” are no longer with us, and the Country is an Economic Disaster. Only Losers, Ingrates, and Fools are able to make a case against America! President DONALD J. TRUMP

The Islamic Republic of Iran is indeed nurturing hope, but it doesn’t appear to be based on the establishment media’s cheerleading for anyone, no matter how vicious or evil, who opposes Trump. Ali Khezrian, a member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of the Majles, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s legislative body, on Friday expressed the confidence that the United States would soon be driven out of the Middle East altogether.

Far-fetched? Undoubtedly. Unlikely? Absolutely. So is Khezrian just assuming a Baghdad Bob-like pose of braggadocio in the face of disaster? Possibly. Or he could be watching the election cycle in the United States.

Khezrian was so confident that events would turn in the Islamic Republic’s favor that he warned that the leaders of the Islamic regime would take revenge on the United Arab Emirates once the U.S. was gone and the crisis was over. “In the past week,” Khezrian declared, “the Emiratis have learned many lessons. However, compared to what they are yet to learn, the lessons they were taught so far are like preschool versus academic studies.”

Warming to his theme, Khezrian blamed the Emiratis for supposedly wishing to “escalate the tension in the region, in cahoots with the Zionists.” Of course! Who else could be behind it? He added: “They know that when the Islamic Republic of Iran emerges from this war, and the Americans are driven out of the region, [Iran] will put them through hell. Iran will not just let go of the UAE, and they know it.”

All right. But what was that bit about the Americans being “driven out of the region”? Nothing seems much less likely at this point, but at the same time, it must be acknowledged that the Americans could well stop attacking the Islamic Republic of Iran before the threat that it poses is fully neutralized.

There are several reasons why this could happen. One is that President Trump and his team would decide that the political cost of continuing the hostilities is too high. Another is if the Democrats win control of Congress in 2026 and the presidency in 2028, and start sending billions to the mullahs again instead of trying to end the danger they pose to the world.

Both of these possibilities revolve around the clock. The November election is coming, and Iran will be an issue. It could still be an issue in the 2028 presidential election. The Democrats are certain to claim, whatever is really happening, that Trump has gotten us mired in a needless “quagmire” there.

Meanwhile, Islamic jihadis are fighting what they consider to be a 1,400-year-old war to conquer and Islamize the world. If they lose now, they will be patient and trust in Allah, and pass on the fight to their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Our wars, meanwhile, have to be safely and happily concluded before the next election cycle, or before the new administration takes office.

American forces stayed far too long in both Iraq and Afghanistan, having no clear purpose or goal in either country, and now the bitter memory of those failures stops many from seeing clearly when it is important to respond to a serious threat, and to be patient in seeing the conflict through to a favorable conclusion.

Related: Trump to Iran: Time’s Up

The U.S. should not send ground troops to Iran or get involved in futile Bushian nation-building. However, Khezrian is right about the chance Iran has to win this war. All the Islamic Republic has to do to win is survive. If the U.S. leaves the region with the mullahs still in power, they will declare victory and resume their jihad as soon as they are able to do so.

The only way that the Islamic Republic of Iran can be prevented from continuing its jihad against the U.S. and Israel is by being toppled from power. But that may not be possible by this November, or by November 2028. Khezrian, and others within Iran and all around the world, is willing to be patient.

https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2026/05/14/waging-war-on-the-time-clock-n4952876

A RedState Photo Odyssey: The Devastation of the Pacific Palisades Is America's Wake-Up Call

A RedState Photo Odyssey: The Devastation of the Pacific Palisades Is America's Wake-Up Call

Pacific Palisades, May, 2026. (Credit: The Hoge Family)

All personal photos courtesy of the Hoge Family.

In February, I attended a birthday party in the Malibu hills with my wife, and afterward, we realized that we weren’t too far from the Pacific Palisades, the Los Angeles neighborhood that was scorched to the ground in the apocalyptic January 2025 fires.

Almost 7,000 structures were utterly destroyed, and at least 12 people lost their lives. Ponder that for a moment: 6,837 buildings and homes turned to smoke. That’s the equivalent of several towns and neighborhoods abruptly erased from the earth.

“You haven’t seen it,” she said.

I realized with a pang of guilt that, indeed, I had not witnessed it for myself. I had written numerous articles about the disaster, I had smelled the smoke in the air, I had friends whose homes were destroyed, and I had watched the videos. But I hadn’t seen it in person.

She had, a mere month after the conflagration was finally extinguished, and she’d told me what she’d seen back then: “It was as if Godzilla had flattened half the town.”

This is what a lot of it looked like then:

So off we went, and the experience was gut-wrenching, even 13 months after the flames. The sheer scope of the damage is almost impossible to describe; yes, it felt like a war had transpired, but even that is almost too glib. House after house had been destroyed by the flames, neighborhood after neighborhood had simply vanished. Blackened steel girders stood at awkward angles at almost every corner, dark symbols of the homes and buildings that once stood there and the people who inhabited them. And, yet, weirdly, every once in a while, there would be a house or structure that had been spared, sitting surrounded by ruin yet remaining utterly unscathed. Unsettling, to say the least.

You could still smell the acrid scent of destruction in the air.

I wanted to document it at the time, but all I had was my phone. My little I-device just didn’t seem worthy of depicting the true (preventable) horror of what had transpired.

My son, however, has become quite the photographer, and I asked him the other day if he would accompany us to the Pacific Palisades — and bring along some of his high-tech gear — to see if we could try to capture what happened then, and what was happening now. He was on board. 

The good news: the landscape has changed considerably in the three months since I last visited. Despite what has been a glacial reconstruction phase, plagued by California’s Byzantine permitting rules and the reluctance of insurance companies to pay out, construction was clearly happening at a higher rate than before. The pounding of hammers resounded through the sunny afternoon, and pickup trucks loaded with supplies and ginormous construction vehicles dotted the town.

Away from the activity, however, it seemed like we were on an archaeological mission deep in the Cambodian jungle. (Note: We were very respectful of people's property and never trespassed or took pictures of anything that identified a specific residence.)

This was, until very recently, a presumably very large house, with an expansive backyard, but now it’s straight out of an Indiana Jones movie.

As Jeff Goldblum’s scientist character says in Jurassic Park, “Life finds a way”:

See this slide? See this jacuzzi? This pool we came across had them both, but I don’t think anybody will be using them anytime soon:

Meanwhile, we found a door to nowhere on a hill leading to nothing, in a weird way evoking Gavin Newsom’s bullet train to nowhere:

Was this an indoor or an outdoor kitchen? Who knows:

The Palisades is part of the City of Angels, but it has a small-town feel. This little slice of Americana, however, was, quite simply, devastated. Here is the iconic Business Block Building, dedicated in 1924, right at the center of things and, ironically, across the street from the Palisades Village — Rick Caruso’s high-end outdoor mall that escaped the fires unscathed with the help of private firefighters.

It is no more:

Its Spanish Colonial Revival-style glory days are now in the past, thanks — not to global warming — but to the ineptitude of California’s single-party rule regime. This photo is from 1925, and the building had lasted through wars, previous fires, and earthquakes, only to be scorched one hundred years later by incompetence.


MORE: Spencer Pratt's Mother's Day Ad Shows Emotional Aftermath of Palisades Fire

Fire Damage in LA Reaches Biblical Proportions—Is This What They Wanted? And Could It Be Their Demise? VIP


We have friends from the Palisades, and they said that a local business had been asked to replace a tattered American flag atop their location with a brand-new one. They said, “That flag survived the fire. It stays.”

I actually respect that.

Numerous such flags are fluttering in the wind, a testament to the “Pali Strong” banners you can see while driving through:

This next photo was taken right in the center of town. What was this building? Whatever stood there, most of it has now vanished like smoke:

Meanwhile, a high-end Tesla Cybertruck stood in sharp contrast to the Berkshire Hathaway office wreckage behind it:

We here at RedState have extensively documented the disastrous failures of the one-party Democrat rule here in the Golden State, helmed by the governor with the worst record of failure arguably in the history of the United States, Gavin Newsom. Meanwhile, LA Mayor Karen Bass jetted off to Ghana despite being warned that a looming catastrophe was on the way, a key reservoir above the Palisades was left empty by highly-paid, inept Department of Water and Power (DWP) officials, the LA Fire Department was more concerned with DEI and LGBTQ than fire prevention, the forestry service told firefighters to stand down because they cared more about plants than people… the list goes on, and on… and on.

The notable increase in construction gave me hope, but there’s a caveat: there are many stories and rumors about foreign interests and investment bros snapping up properties and planning on radically changing what once were leafy, family-friendly neighborhoods. Some theorize that the real “progressive” plan is to turn the whole area into high-density urban housing — nothing like it once was.

I’d say all that they were all just tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, except that the two links I provided in the above paragraph show that they are most certainly not. Meanwhile, I’ve lived in the formerly Golden State long enough to know that, however devilish you think the Left’s plans are for the failing West Coast progressive juggernaut, the reality is always worse. My fear is that the Palisades will never again be the idyllic, wonderful area that mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt grew up in. He watched as his own house and his parents' were incinerated beyond recognition, and that trauma has inspired his once unlikely but now increasingly viable run for mayor.

I attended a gathering in 2022 at the home of some dear friends. This is what was:

Today, the house is gone. The porch from which I took the photo is no more. Taking that picture would no longer be possible, because the homes below are torched, the trees burnt to a crisp. Today, as we surveyed the aftermath, it is an empty, charred lot surrounded by fences, overlooking devastation — not sunsets.

It was a powerful journey — and we ended up not even having time to document Malibu, where the beachfront is littered by seemingly mile after mile of burnt-out pylons signifying where homes once stood. People can wrongly mock the families and citizens who once called this their home for being wealthy, and rightly for consistently voting for the Democrats who destroyed their state. However, one can also feel compassion for all the memories lost, all the hard work turned to ash, all the souls who have lost everything. Many of them are not in fact loaded Hollywood celebrities with basements full of cash — they’re old Californians who bought their dream houses decades ago and now have no hope of being able to afford to rebuild them.

In fact, at least 17 percent of former residents are reportedly never coming back. I would guess that the real number ends up being significantly higher, but only time will tell.

The California Dream has turned into a dystopian nightmare. Karen Bass, Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Xavier Becerra, Tom Steyer, and all their union cronies want to bring this socialist hallucination to you, the American people. 

There is only one answer: vote different.


Rand Paul Hearing Explodes After CIA Officer Accuses Fauci of Steering COVID Probe

Rand Paul Hearing Explodes After CIA Officer Accuses Fauci of Steering COVID Probe

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

A decorated CIA officer testified before the U.S. Senate on Wednesday that Dr. Anthony Fauci deliberately manipulated intelligence community analyses on COVID-19's origins, steering federal investigators away from the lab leak theory and toward a predetermined conclusion of natural origin. The fix was in from the beginning: Fauci hand-picked the experts, shaped the process, and leveraged a network of grant-dependent researchers to make sure the intelligence community reached the answer he wanted. The hearing confirmed what millions of Americans long suspected: The government lied, and it knew it was lying.

CIA special operations officer James Erdman III, a 13-year Agency veteran, appeared publicly for the first time before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee under a subpoena his own agency tried to block. No Democrats participated — not one. Every Democrat on the committee chose to skip a public hearing about a government cover-up that cost more than a million American lives. Make of that what you will. The hearing was chaired by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). 

"Dr. Fauci's role in the cover-up was intentional," Erdman testified. "Dr. Fauci influenced the analytical process and findings by leveraging his position to ensure the IC consulted with a conflicted list of curated subject matter experts, public health officials and scientists."

Fauci's method was to hand-pick the experts the intelligence community would consult: scientists predisposed to reject the lab leak theory, including authors of the now-infamous 2020 "Proximal Origin" paper. Those authors initially believed the virus came from a Wuhan lab, changed their minds after a Zoom call with Fauci and NIH leadership, and at least one received a $9 million grant from Fauci's agency shortly after reversing his position.

CIA analysts reached the same conclusion repeatedly between 2021 and 2023: a lab leak was the most likely origin. Those findings never reached Congress or the public. Erdman rejected reports of direct bribes but said the outcome was arguably worse: "Six of the seven technical experts say, 'Yep, we still think it's a lab leak.' And they were sticking to their guns. Management changed the analytic line."

That management capitulation didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened because the network was already in place, and the people running the investigation were answerable to the same institutional circles that built it.


See Also: New NIH Letter Again Confirms That Fauci Lied, Funding Went To Wuhan Lab; Cancels Funding of Grant

Wuhan Lab Funder Daszak Served as Facebook Fact-Checker and on WHO Investigation Team


The structural conflict ran deep, and it didn't start with Fauci alone. Fauci's agency funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and Fauci was then invited into classified deliberations to assess whether that research caused the pandemic. Researcher Ralph Baric collaborated with Wuhan's Dr. Zhengli Shi to engineer gain-of-function coronaviruses, then sat on the Biological Sciences Experts Group advising the intelligence community on COVID's origins. Peter Daszak received hundreds of millions in U.S. government funding, worked with Shi on the same experiments, and was dispatched to China with the WHO to investigate the outbreak he may have helped cause. This is the network. The same people who funded the research, ran the research, and partnered with Chinese Communist Party-linked scientists were then handed the keys to the investigation. That isn't independent expertise — it's a closed loop, and it was built that way.

"It was not until after the 2024 election that the outgoing Biden Administration directed the CIA to issue an assessment — not because of new intelligence, but so officials could walk out the door claiming there was nothing left to find," Paul said. "That is not analysis. That is a cleanup operation."

The CIA's response was to attack the process rather than the evidence — calling the hearing "dishonest political theater" and dismissing Erdman as a subpoena witness rather than a truth-teller. It was a classic bureaucratic deflection: Impugn the messenger, ignore the message, and hope nobody reads past the first paragraph. It didn't work. The Agency's own statement contained the line that blew up the whole attack: "As the CIA has already assessed, COVID-19 most likely originated from a lab leak." Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) read it aloud and demanded a public apology from CIA Director John Ratcliffe. He didn't get one — but the contradiction was already on the record, in the CIA's own words


Read More: GOP-CIA Showdown Over COVID Whistleblower As Dems Go Ghost


Erdman further testified that the CIA is withholding up to 2,000 pages of classified COVID origins material in violation of a 2023 law requiring disclosure — and that whistleblowers conducting the review were illegally surveilled by the very agency they were investigating.

More than a million Americans died. Children lost years of education. Businesses were destroyed. Vaccine mandates were imposed under emergency authorities built, according to Wednesday's testimony, on an origins narrative the government had reason to doubt from the start. The American people are owed the complete record — and accountability for everyone who helped hide it.

https://redstate.com/ben-smith/2026/05/13/rand-paul-hearing-explodes-after-cia-officer-accuses-fauci-of-steering-covid-probe-n2202299?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Sunday, May 17, 2026

Press Is Attacking Pratt, Ignoring the Dems Attacking Courts, and Overlooking the IdiAOC About Virginia

Press Is Attacking Pratt, Ignoring the Dems Attacking Courts, and Overlooking the IdiAOC About Virginia

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Press Is Attacking Pratt, Ignoring the Dems Attacking Courts, and Overlooking the IdiAOC About Virginia
Townhall Media

Get access to Brad Slager's "Riffed From the Headlines," a daily VIP feature where he looks to bring accountability to the mainstream media. Use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!

News Avoidance Syndrome – POLITICO

  • How do you tune your ears to only hear one side?!

At Politico, Josh Gerstein wrote a gushing piece on SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and in it, he opens with her defense of the courts from critical attacks:

You have to have an independent judiciary — one that is not beholden to the political branches or beholden to people. I just wish that people really focused on that and, therefore, stood up in some ways for the judiciary, when people — judges are being attacked and undermined, that is really an attack on our society.

Gerstein then helps her out and fills in the blanks. The attacks on the court come from a predictable (to Josh) President Trump.

Not mentioned at all by Gerstein are the lengthy examples seen from Democrats the past couple of weeks, as they had scathing outrage over the Louisiana redistricting decision, and, of course, the calls to impeach the members of Virginia’s state Supreme Court.

Low-Octane Gaslighting – VARIOUS OUTLETS

  • Look, gang – we expect this from her, but your ignorance is not excusable.

Speaking of attacks on the judiciary, we have this prime example. In an impromptu presser outside the Capitol, the deeply cerebral U.S. Rep Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) spoke on the matter of Virginia’s redistricting drama. She expressed dismay and disapproval that SCOVA ruled the new voting maps that were drawn were unconstitutional, specifically because the court ruled after the voters cast their votes.

Now we will leave it to interpretation whether it was willful deception by her or ignorance, but the Democrats had gone to the court and specifically filed to have them rule on things after the vote, and the court complied. Either way, she was peddling misinformation.

But none of the gathered journalists dared to challenge her on this detail in the matter.

Both Kinds of Standards – THE INDEPENDENTS

  • History, once again, began with Trump’s inauguration.

There is an old chestnut spoken in legal circles that during a trial, you should never ask a question of a witness for which you do not already know the answer. This is wisdom that Mehdi Hasan could have heeded before looking bad. Another wise phrase is that it is never wise to repost Aaron Rupar.

In uttering his disgust with the way the president treats the press, Hasan asked when it became acceptable for the president to insult the media.

Now, I could get deep in the weeds with Hasan and point to the times our early presidents had contemptuous relationships with the newspapers, but instead, we just need to backtrack a couple of years. You remember Joe Biden, don’t you, Mehdi?

He was the president who saw journalist Steve Baker arrested, and he is on the record insulting Peter Doocy in Trumpian fashion. Just thought I’d help you with the research…you did not want to engage in it yourself.

Prose & Contradiction – POD SAVE AMERICA

  • Suddenly, past comments are a serious matter…unlike what we were told weeks ago.

Many people are recognizing that in the race for Mayor of Los Angeles, Spencer Pratt is making waves and impressing more people. A sign that he is worrying the Left is seen in the Pod Save Bros deciding to try to lash out at the candidate. Jon Favreau dug up an old tweet from Pratt where he was touting Alex Jones – from about 15 years ago.

Not only is this the kind of exposé to cause shrugs across the country, but it is also particularly amusing to see this from the same guy who tried to platform Graham Platner and excused away his years of deeply problematic posts.

Body Checking the Fact-Checkers – POLITIFACT

  • When you try recasting a Democrat by saying “that’s not what he said”, maybe don’t post what he said…?

In an effort to clean up for U.S. Rep. Democrat Hakeem Jeffries (NY-8) and to slam his critics at the same time, PolitiFact saw a need to clean up after the minority leader regarding his comments about “Maximum Warfare.” We get the trademarked methods of this site when it needs to recalibrate the facts to deliver a narrative. Republicans are taking his words out of context, and “The soundbite lacks larger context.”

The effort by Amy Sherman is to not give more, but less, as she narrows his words to mean only, and strictly, the redistricting efforts taking place.

Small problem for Amy, however. She not only gave Jeffries’ full quote, but her cleanup attempt also had his poster used at that presser displayed, where he distinctly says, “Maximum Warfare Everywhere All The Time.”