Authored by John R. Lott Jr. and Rep. Thomas Massie via RealClearPolitics,

A profound mental health crisis lies at the heart of violence in America. Decarlos Brown Jr., the man who brutally stabbed to death the Ukrainian woman in Charlotte, North Carolina, was in a mental hospital earlier this year, and diagnosed with schizophrenia. But doctors wouldn’t have released him if they had viewed him as a danger to himself or others.

Similarly, the killers at Minneapolis’ Annunciation Catholic School and Nashville’s Covenant School both struggled with mental illness. Nearly all mass shooters also battled suicidal thoughts.

“We will never arrest our way out of issues such as homelessness and mental health,” Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles warned after the stabbing death. “Mental health disease is just that – a disease. It needs to be treated with the same compassion.” After the Minneapolis attack, House Speaker Mike Johnson underscored the issue: “The problem is the human heart. It’s mental health. There are things that we can do.”

Yet, despite the fact that more than half of mass public shooters over the past 25 years were already under the care of mental health professionals, not a single one was identified as a danger to themselves or others. An entire body of academic research now explores why mental health experts so often fail to predict these attacks.

When professionals cannot identify threats before tragedy strikes, society must ask: What is the backup plan?

The Minneapolis school murderer admitted: “I am severely depressed and have been suicidal for years.” After the Nashville school shooting, police concluded the killer was “highly depressed and highly suicidal throughout her life.” Yet even with regular psychiatric care, experts found no signs of homicidal or suicidal intent.

The 2022 Buffalo supermarket killer showed the same pattern. In June 2021, when asked about his future plans, he answered that he wanted to attend summer school, murder people there, and then commit suicide. Alarmed, his teacher sent him for evaluation by two mental health professionals. He told them it was a joke, and they let him go. Later he admitted: “I got out of it because I stuck with the story that I was getting out of class and I just stupidly wrote that down. It was not a joke, I wrote that down because that’s what I was planning to do.”

Many well-known mass killers saw psychiatrists before their attacks. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who murdered 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, was himself an Army psychiatrist. Elliot Rodger (Santa Barbara) had received years of high-level counseling, but like the Buffalo killer, Rodger simply knew not to reveal his true intentions. The Army psychiatrist who last saw Ivan Lopez (the second Fort Hood shooter) concluded there was no “sign of likely violence, either to himself or to others.”

Aurora movie theater shooter James Holmes’ psychiatrist did warn University of Colorado officials about Holmes’ violent fantasies shortly before his attack, but even she dismissed the threat as insufficient for custody. And both a court-appointed psychologist and a hospital psychiatrist found Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho posed no danger to himself or others.

Psychiatrists have every incentive to get these diagnoses right. Beyond professional pride and the desire to help, they face legal obligations to report threats. Families of victims have even sued psychiatrists for failing to recommend confinement. Despite this, psychiatrists consistently underestimate the danger.

The problem runs deep enough to generate a whole academic literature. Some experts suggest psychiatrists try to prove their fearlessness or become desensitized to risk. Additional training in unusual cases may help, but predicting such rare outcomes will always remain extremely difficult.

Hindsight makes the warning signs look obvious. Before the attack, even to experts, they rarely do. And while addressing mental illness, we should not stigmatize it. Mentally ill people are far more likely to become victims of violence than perpetrators. Only a tiny fraction ever commit murder.

Take schizophrenia: More than 3.5 million Americans live with the disorder, yet only one schizophrenic has committed a mass attack since 2019. That makes the odds of such a crime less than one in 3.5 million – extremely rare.

No one wants dangerous individuals to access weapons. Are we going to disarm all mentally ill people, even though they themselves are at increased risk of violent crime? One woman we know saw her husband murdered in front of her by her stalker. She was very depressed but feared that in seeking mental help she would be denied the right to own a gun (which she needed to protect herself).

Another factor that makes these attacks difficult to stop is that they are planned long in advance, with six months being about the shortest. The Sandy Hook massacre was planned for over two and a half years, allowing the perpetrator plenty of time to obtain weapons.

These killers, like the recent attacker in Minneapolis, often state outright in their manifestos and diaries that they target “gun-free zones.” They may be crazy, but they aren’t stupid. They expect to die, but they want attention when they do. They know that the higher the body count, the more media coverage they’ll receive. That’s why they choose places where no one can fight back.

The attack in Charlotte happened in a gun-free zone. The woman had no chance to defend herself when the attacker struck from behind, and no one on the train intervened. Bystanders may have hesitated out of fear – after all, the killer was a large man armed with a knife, even though knives are also banned on public transportation. If someone had carried a firearm, they could have stopped the assault, just as a Marine veteran in July did in a Michigan Walmart, where at gun point he forced a knife-wielding attacker to drop his weapon. Others who tried to stop the attacker without a gun were stabbed.

Our mental health system cannot serve as the last line of defense – too many mistakes slip through. If mental health professionals can’t reliably stop these attackers before they strike, we must ask: What’s the backup plan? Leaving targets unprotected isn’t the best option.

The United States continues using regional Asian allies to counter-signal China and flex its military might, following President Xi Jinping’s massive military parade marking the 80th anniversary of World War II, which gripped the world’s attention two weeks ago.

This week the US Army has unveiled a midrange Typhon missile system on a Japanese base for the first time. The deployment comes in the context of the annual bilateral exercise Resolute Dragon; however, US officials have made clear the Typhon won’t be fired, but is only there for training purposes.

We previewed earlier that the Typhon, also dubbed ‘Mid-Range Capability’, is a land-based missile launcher that can fire nuclear-capable Tomahawk missiles, which have a range exceeding 1,000 miles, and SM-6 missiles, which can hit targets up to 290 miles away.

The missile system would have been banned under the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a treaty with Russia that the US withdrew from in 2019. This has naturally caused immense alarm in Beijing, as has Washington’s deepening military relationship with Japan.

According to the latest from The Hill on the new military exercises:

More than 19,000 U.S. and Japanese service members are participating in the exercise by rehearsing crisis response and contingency operations, with a focus on controlling and defending key maritime terrain, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. 

Delivered last month to the U.S. base in Iwakuni, the missile system is capable of firing the Standard Missile-6 and the Tomahawk cruise missiles. The missile showcase follows its deployment in the Philippines last year. Russia and China criticized the U.S., accusing the country of fueling an arms race.

Col. Wade Germann, commander of the task force that operates the missile system, said at a televised press briefing in Japan that “Integrating this system into Resolute Dragon affords us the opportunity to conduct tough and realistic training with our partners.”

“Through employing multiple systems and different types of munitions, it is able to create dilemmas for the enemy,” he added. Beijing can’t help but assume it is the presumed “enemy” being talked about here.

On Tuesday, an alarmed and incensed Chinese Foreign Ministryurged the Typhon systems’ immediately removal from Japan.

“The US and Japan need to earnestly respect other countries’ security concerns and play a positive role for regional peace and stability with concrete actions, not the other way around,” the statement from spokesman Lin Jian said.

Beijing further called on Washington and Tokyo to “heed the call from regional countries, correct the wrong move and pull out the system as soon as possible. Due to its history of militarist aggression, Japan’s military and security moves always draw close attention from its Asian neighbors and the international community,” according to Lin’s words.

President Trump’s “America First” strategy – also described as “Hemispheric Defense” and alignes with the century-long Monroe Doctrine of the early 1800s – has expanded through increased border security, elevated pressure on allies such as Canada and Mexico, punitive measures against adversaries including China, Venezuela, Colombia, and Afghanistan, and declaring fentanyl crisis as well as both a public health crisis and national security threat, while also expanding list of nations designated as major drug transit or illicit drug-producing countries. 

A White House statement to begin the week announced that the Trump administration invoked Section 706(1) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-228) to designate Afghanistan, The Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Burma, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela as major drug transit or illicit drug-producing countries.

Trump’s new designation for the countries listed above provides the administration with additional leverage, including the ability to impose severe consequences on foreign assistance programs if those governments fail to meet counterdrug obligations.

In effect, the designation gives Trump another bold tool to bring into line countries it views as complicit in the global drug trade network with drugs that eventually end up on the streets of U.S. cities, which have fueled an overdose crisis killing more than 100,000 Americans annually.

“Transnational organized crime’s trafficking of fentanyl and other deadly illicit drugs into the United States has created a national emergency, including a public health crisis in the United States that remains the leading cause of death for Americans ages 18 to 44,” the president wrote in the Presidential Determination.

The stark upward trajectory of overdose death rates since 1973 presents a powerful indictment of prevailing drug prohibition policies. When a governmental agency is established to curb a crisis, yet the severity of that crisis escalates so profoundly under its tenure, it demands… pic.twitter.com/38tUxRrwr9

— Deschedule (@DescheduleEarth) September 11, 2025

He continued, “More than 40 percent of Americans know someone who has died from an opioid overdose, and in 2024 the United States averaged over 200 deaths daily due to illicit drugs.  This remains unacceptable, and my administration is deploying every aspect of American power and unprecedented resources to defeat this threat to our Nation.” 

Key highlights from the Presidential Determination:

Major Drug Transit/Producing Countries

• Identified under U.S. law: Afghanistan, The Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Burma, China (PRC), Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Venezuela.

• Inclusion reflects geography/economics, enabling drug flows, not necessarily government cooperation or effort.

Countries Failing Demonstrably

• Afghanistan, Bolivia, Burma, Colombia, Venezuela.

• These failed to meet international obligations or U.S. standards for drug control.

• U.S. assistance to Bolivia, Burma, Colombia, and Venezuela deemed vital to U.S. interests.

Regional Security Measures 

• Border security tightened, overdose deaths reportedly declining.

• Canada: PM Carney named a fentanyl czar, advanced inspection powers.

• Mexico: Pres. Sheinbaum boosted cooperation, surged 10k National Guard to border, seized fentanyl/precursors, extradited 29 cartel leaders. U.S. expects sustained, deeper actions.

• U.S. designated Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs), unlocking sanctions, prosecutions, visa bans.

Country-By-Country Threat 

China (PRC)

• Largest source of fentanyl precursors.

• Punished with 20% tariffs and removal of de minimis duty-free imports.

• U.S. demands stronger Chinese enforcement and prosecutions.

Colombia

• Coca/cocaine production at record highs under Pres. Petro.

• Failure attributed to political leadership’s policies and weak eradication.

• U.S. open to revising designation if actions improve.

Venezuela

• Maduro regime labeled a global cocaine trafficking hub.

• U.S. will continue efforts to prosecute Maduro/regime officials.

• Tren de Aragua designated a terrorist threat.

Bolivia

• Some cooperation, including seizures and prosecution of corrupt officials.

• Still short of consistent counterdrug obligations.

Afghanistan

• Taliban ban on drugs undermined by stockpiles and meth production.

• Drug trade funding terrorists/criminal groups.

• Designated as failing demonstrably again.

Back to our earlier notes from this year on Trump’s hemispheric defense: the strategy extends beyond dismantling narcotics networks in the Americas and neutralizing command-and-control nodes of FTO-designated cartels (recall our reporting that SIGINT operations were laying the groundwork for this). The administration is also cleaning up financial institutions (recall TD Bank’s AML violation), targeting cartel money as well as laundering networks operated by China and other adversaries. 

The kinetic side of hemispheric defense is playing out with the US Southern Command’s military assets off the coast of Venezuela, targeting drug boats.

. @POTUS “This morning, on my Orders, U.S. Military Forces conducted a SECOND Kinetic Strike against positively identified, extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels and narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility. The Strike occurred while these confirmed… pic.twitter.com/KQYiEpqsGb

— DOW Rapid Response (@DOWResponse) September 15, 2025

The Trump admin has a message for FTO drug cartels: “We Are Hunting You.”

FBI Director Kash Patel ignited a fiery showdown on Capitol Hill Tuesday, tearing into Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and labeling the California Democrat “the biggest fraud ever to sit in the Senate” for his relentless push of the discredited Russia hoax.

The clash erupted when Schiff pressed Patel on why convicted sex offender and Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell was transferred to a minimum-security prison – a move rare for sex offenders – after her DOJ interview, snidely asking if Patel thought Americans were “stupid.”

In short, the Trump DOJ’s complete fumble on Epstein amid the backdrop off President Trump’s awkward evasive answers on the topic, has provided an opening for corrupt Democrats like Schiff to pounce and seize with newfound curiosity over the deceased pedophile.

“I’m not in the weeds of the everyday movement of inmates,” Patel fired back.

Patel then unloaded: “What I am doing is protecting this country, providing historic reform and combating the weaponization of intelligence by the likes of you, and we have countlessly proven you to be a liar in Russiagate, in January 6th. You are the biggest fraud to ever sit in the United States Senate. You are a disgrace to this institution, and an utter coward.”

🚨HOLY SHlT! Kash Patel just DEMOLISHED Pencil Neck.

This is the MOST EXPLOSIVE I have EVER seen Kash Patel react to anything and there is NOBODY who deserved it more than Adam Schiff.

“What I am doing is PROTECTING this country with historic reform and combatting the… pic.twitter.com/17BiNgBosE

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) September 16, 2025

The FBI head capped it off with another jab: “You are a political buffoon at best.”

Schiff wasn’t the only Democrat who got into it with Patel. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (D-CA) lost his cool during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing after Patel called out his three-minute rant, accusing Patel of endangering America and hinting his FBI days were numbered as misleading and divisive.

“That rant of false information does not bring this country together,” Patel said pointedly.

“My God! My God!” Booker erupted. “You’re going to lecture me about dividing this country? I follow you on your social media posts that tear this country apart.”

JUST IN: Democrat Senator Cory Booker has a complete meltdown after FBI Director Kash Patel tells him his time is over.

Patel: “That rant of false information does not bring this country together. If you wanna work on…”

Booker: *Interrupts*

Patel: “It’s my time, not yours.”… pic.twitter.com/u7vVtcq6Zq

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 16, 2025

Amid the sparks, Patel dropped a bombshell sure to rile those demanding justice for Epstein’s collaborators, claiming there’s “zero evidence” Epstein trafficked young women “to other individuals.”

“If there were, I would bring the case yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals, and the information we have, again, is limited,” he told lawmakers, a statement likely to fuel outrage among those seeking answers.

KASH: Epstein did nothing wrong (basically) pic.twitter.com/B2xK71xe0F

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) September 16, 2025

The Trump Justice Department has long denied the existence of a “client list” tied to Epstein, directly contradicting earlier remarks by Attorney General Pam Bondi. Bondi had previously suggested on Fox News that such a list was “sitting on my desk” for review, igniting speculation about Epstein’s possible blackmailing of globalist elites.

Trump has repeatedly sought to dismiss the scandal, accusing Democrats of fabricating a hoax around Epstein to thwart his agenda.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are scheduled to meet on Sept. 18 and Sept. 19 to consider changes to recommendations for three vaccines.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on Thursday is slated to hear presentations on the measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MMRV) vaccine, as well as data on the hepatitis B vaccine, according to a draft agenda released by the panel.

The panel on Friday will focus on COVID-19 vaccines, after federal regulators narrowed clearance for those immunizations.

Advisers will vote near the end of each day on the three shots. The specifics on the votes have not been finalized, Martin Kulldorff, the chair of ACIP, told The Epoch Times in an email on Sept. 15.

Here’s what to know about the upcoming session.

MMRV Versus MMR

The MMRV vaccine targets four diseases. Children can receive the combination vaccine, or they can become immunized against the same four diseases by receiving the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine and, separately, the vaccine against varicella, which is commonly known as chickenpox.

The CDC recommends children receive two doses against measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella. The agency says on its website that either option is fine.

It does recommend that the first dose be the MMR vaccine for children aged 12 to 47 months, since the MMRV vaccine “is associated with a higher risk for fever and febrile seizures.” A febrile seizure is a single seizure that lasts 15 minutes or less. It also states, “MMRV may be used if parents or caregivers express a preference.”

Kulldorff said during the panel’s last meeting that the effectiveness of the different options is about the same, but that data indicate the MMRV vaccine causes more febrile seizures in young children.

“A proposed recommendation … could be, that as there exist[s] a safer, equally effective alternative, the MMRV vaccine should not be administered to children under the age of 47 months,” he said at the time.

The CDC, in a background paper in June, said that the primary concern for increased risk of fevers and febrile seizures is for children aged 12 to 23 months of age. It also said that the febrile seizures “resolve without long-term consequences,” although some data indicate that certain children may have an increased risk of problems such as epilepsy following a febrile seizure.

Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, told The Epoch Times that he believes it is important for ACIP to discuss the relative risk of febrile seizure versus children not getting vaccinated.

ACIP carries out discussion and analysis between meetings through workgroups, or groups comprised of some members and other experts. Benjamin said that it has been difficult to get a read on the upcoming meeting after officials removed representatives from outside organizations from the workgroups over the summer.

“I think everybody’s going to be listening very carefully about what’s presented, how it’s presented, and … whether or not they follow the evidence,” he said.

Hepatitis B

ACIP will listen to presentations on how the hepatitis B vaccine is administered to many infants on their first day of life, as well as an update on the safety of the vaccine, according to the draft agenda. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the CDC’s parent agency, declined to provide copies of the presentations.

Hepatitis B is a liver disease that can lead to serious complications. Since the 1990s, the CDC has recommended a multi-dose vaccine starting shortly after birth. Two additional doses are recommended before a child turns 2.

The schedule was put into place due to “the difficulty of vaccinating high-risk adults” with the aim of eliminating transmission of hepatitis B in children, according to the CDC. After the recommendations were put into place, there was a decline in hepatitis B among young children. The rate of the disease has remained low among children and young adults.

“It’s been an extraordinarily and brilliantly successful program,” Dr. William Schaffner, a former ACIP member who is currently an alternate liaison to the panel for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, told The Epoch Times.

Some other experts, including the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, have questioned dosing children within hours of birth, noting that pregnant women can be tested for hepatitis B and that vaccine campaigns could target children born to women who were not tested, or who tested positive.

“Unless the mother is hepatitis B positive, an argument could be made to delay the vaccine for this infection, which is primarily spread by sexual activity and intravenous drug use,” Kulldorff said at ACIP’s last meeting.

Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, who recently resigned from the CDC, predicted recently that ACIP would try to change the recommendation for the first dose of the hepatitis B vaccine.

COVID-19 Vaccines

CDC presenters on Friday are scheduled to tell panel members about updates to the epidemiology of COVID-19, the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, and the economics of vaccination, according to the draft agenda. Retsef Levi, a member and the new chair of the ACIP workgroup on COVID-19 vaccines, will then go over the proposed recommendation. A vote is scheduled to follow.

Federal officials cleared COVID-19 vaccines on an emergency basis in late 2020 and recommended them to many Americans. That later developed into a system that mimicked the model for influenza vaccines, with an annual strain update to target circulating variants and advice that people receive an annual shot.

New leaders said that they did not support that system, in part because the clinical trials on which the repeated updates were based date back years. The CDC over the summer, under orders from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, stopped recommending COVID-19 vaccination for healthy children and pregnant women. In August, the FDA narrowed clearance to people aged 65 and older, and younger people who have at least one risk factor, such as obesity.

ACIP members could vote for recommendations that are more expansive than the FDA clearance, Benjamin said. They could also support recommending the vaccines for smaller populations than the clearance.

Levi previously called for removing two of the three COVID-19 vaccines from the market, while Dr. Robert Malone, another member, has said that data indicate the vaccines “are not effective or are at very low effectiveness and are contributing to negative effectiveness.” Several people named to the panel on Monday have also been critical of the vaccines.

ACIP typically offers recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines before the FDA acts, but did not do so this year.

In certain states, pharmacists cannot administer vaccines without ACIP recommendations. Some states changed their rules to make sure people have access to the vaccines. Some organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, have recommended vaccination for many younger people.

What Happens After the Votes?

ACIP is an advisory body. Its recommendations are sent to the CDC.

Earlier in 2025, when the CDC did not have a director in place, Kennedy signed off on ACIP recommendations.

Susan Monarez, who was confirmed in July as the CDC’s director, approved an ACIP recommendation several days later. President Donald Trump fired Monarez in August after officials said she was not aligned with the Trump administration’s agenda.

Monarez has said she was asked to preapprove ACIP’s recommendations, a charge Kennedy denied.

Following the ouster, Trump chose Deputy Health Secretary Jim O’Neill to serve as the CDC’s acting director.

O’Neill is authorized to approve recommendations from ACIP, a spokesperson for HHS told The Epoch Times in an email on Sept. 15.

Following the assassination of TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk last week, terrible human beings celebrated his death instead of simply saying “I’m sorry for your loss” and letting their political opponents mourn in peace. And as vile as these assholes may be, they have a right to be vile – lest we jump back onto that slippery slope of ‘hate speech’ that Democrats used to try and take your rights away – in a return to innocent bakers who run private businesses being prosecuted for refusing to do 2SLGBTQI++#0 wedding cakes.

This is why immense backlash among conservative commentators has sent Attorney General Pam Bondi scrambling to clarify her earlier controversial words over prosecuting hate speech. She had said during a Monday podcast that the Justice Department would “absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.” Prominent voices on the right are calling for her immediate firing, given this slippery term ‘hate speech’ when weaponized by the government will inevitably be used against conservatives in any future Democratic or left-leaning administration. Matt Walsh had among the most cogent critiques…

Get rid of her. Today. This is insane. Conservatives have fought for decades for the right to refuse service to anyone. We won that fight. Now Pam Bondi wants to roll it all back for no reason. The employee who didn’t print the flyer was already fired by his employer. This stuff… https://t.co/Ry7PEUz1ca

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) September 16, 2025

Walsh pointed that out that these incidents wherein people celebrate the death of Charlie Kirk are “being handled successfully through free speech and free markets” and so this is “totally gratuitous and pointless.” He emphasized, “We need the AG focused on bringing down the left wing terror cells, not prosecuting Office Depot for God’s sake.“

Indeed it is especially professors and public school teachers who are losing their jobs or being disciplined by their institutions, after rightly being called out – and with their institutions being notified. Things are happening – yet without the government having to step in to play police force. 

As Walsh elsewhere explained, “There should be social consequences for people who openly celebrate the murder of an innocent man. But there obviously shouldn’t be any legal repercussions for ‘hate speech,’ which is not even a valid or coherent concept. There is no law against saying hateful things, and there shouldn’t be.”

People need to remember that at the end of the day the government is not your friend, no matter who is in power. As we’ve been highlighting, the government, irrespective of ideology, does not miss opportunities to revoke civil liberties of the peasants, which are inherently and irrevocably in opposition to the interests of the governing authorities; there is no upside to them allowing the rabble to express their grievances, only headache and threat to their rule. A few examples of apparent justification for censorship and other unconstitutional abuses of power from just the first quarter of this century include 9/11, COVID, and January 6th — and, now, the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

One Libertarian writer for Reason magazine had this to say…

This is psychotic. The federal government cannot, in fact, prosecute you for refusing to print a message you disagree with—which was core to Republicans’ ideology until all of 5 seconds ago. I am speechless. https://t.co/9rUZOx8wJw

— Billy Binion (@billybinion) September 16, 2025

And journalist Glenn Greenwald went off on a seething attack, while highlighting “There’s only one law and Constitution for everyone” – and that:

None of this has anything to do with “hate speech,” which is what Pam Bondi said was distinct from “free speech.” She’s too dumb to describe basic law without notes. She has too little integrity to just admit she erred. She has no respect for anyone who heard what she said.

This was Greenwald’s fierce reaction to Bondi’s Tuesday morning effort at doing damage control, wherein she wrote on X, “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime. For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over.

Nobody asked for this actually.

We do not want Hate Speech laws. https://t.co/zFbSk1OofT

— Nicholas J. Fuentes (@NickJFuentes) September 16, 2025

She had continued: “Free speech protects ideas, debate, even dissent but it does NOT and will NEVER protect violence. It is clear this violent rhetoric is designed to silence others from voicing conservative ideals. We will never be silenced. Not for our families, not for our freedoms, and never for Charlie. His legacy will not be erased by fear or intimidation.”

But Bondi is being urged to halt this dangerous confusing of terms: Do not call true threats or incitement hate speech – given the federal government has long proven its willingness to weaponize this incredibly loose label in cases where there is no violence or real direct threat.

Unbelievably bad take by Bondi, worthy of immediate resignation of an Attorney General.

Hate speech does not exist, you can say mean things about people.

We have very specific limitations such as direct calls for violence, but amorphous “hate speech” does not exist.

Charlie…

— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) September 16, 2025

Former Fox show host and political pundit Megyn Kelly was more conciliatory in her response. Kelly wrote:

Hate speech is not prosecutable in America (which is good). Pam Bondi knows this. I am guessing, given the statements by Stephen Miller yesterday about targeting violent cells, she means those who actually plan violence, which would not be about the speech but the conspiracy.

But again, there are plenty of leading conservative voices who are not buying it, amid continued demands for her removal – also after botching the handling of the Epstein files.

Alas, the only problem is that President Trump might be in agreement with Bondi’s initial take…

President Trump defined “hate speech” as those being “unfair” to him, adding that they might be prosecuted.

WHY ARE WE DOING TIHS! pic.twitter.com/EDe0DjHfFK

— Luke Rudkowski (@Lukewearechange) September 16, 2025

Here’s the late Charlie Kirk, in his own words:

Lastly, one anon commenter on X voiced fear that “The republicans are currently setting up the infrastructure that will ensure that the democrats can put us in jail for saying words like retard and faggot.”

When dealing with the political violence of the woke left, their actions can sometimes look like grand conspiracy when it is actually a product of their unhinged hive mind mentality.  Theories initially spread like wildfire when George Zinn, 71, was detained moments after the shooting of Charlie Kirk.  The elderly suspect approached police and screamed “I shot him, now shoot me!” 

This action diverted police resources, possibly helping the real shooter to escape.  As i turns out, this was Zinn’s intention according to recently reveled police reports. 

NEW: The 71-year-old audience member who was arrested at Charlie Kirk’s UVU event says he told cops he shot Kirk to distract police so the real shooter could escape.

“I shot him, now shoot me,” George Zinn allegedly said immediately after Kirk was shot.

While speaking to… pic.twitter.com/2JiwWXKgR3

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 16, 2025

Once at the police department, Zinn asked for an attorney and then claimed that he did not, in fact, shoot Kirk and had only claimed to have done so “to draw attention from the real shooter.” As he was later being transported to the hospital due to a medical condition, Zinn made similar comments, adding that he “wanted to be a martyr for the person who was shot.”

Nearly 48 hours after the shooting, Tyler Robinson, a verified political leftist with a trans boyfriend, was arrested and charged after his conservative parents turned him in.  The bizarre actions of Zinn were initially suspected by some as an organized plot in which Zinn and Robinson were part of a larger network. 

The Trump Administration is looking into any and all possible connections between Robinson and trans militant groups in the Utah area.  However, as of Monday, police have not made any statement indicating that Zinn knows Robinson or was even aware of the plan to shoot Kirk. 

Zinn was booked into the Utah County Jail on a charge of obstruction of justice, a second-degree felony. 

An even darker twist, if that’s possible, was reported on Tuesday when investigators revealed that Zinn had images of child pornography on his phone.  He is facing four felony counts of sexual exploitation of a minor after police found images of young girls in “various stages of undress and sexual posing” on Zinn’s phone.  Police said Zinn admitted to getting “sexual gratification” from viewing and sharing those types of images.

Breaking: George Zinn, the elderly leftist activist who caused a scene at the Charlie Kirk assassination and diverted law enforcement resources, has allegedly been caught having child s—x abuse material. https://t.co/5FFcb9VEOT pic.twitter.com/KA6OTF6C0A

— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) September 16, 2025

One is immediately reminded of the Kyle Rittenhouse incident, in which a mob of leftists chased Rittenhouse down with the intent to kill him.  Of the three people the young conservative shot with his AR-15, all of them had prior violent criminal records.  One of the men, Joseph Rosenbaum, had an extensive sex offender record and was a convicted pedophile.  

It would appear that you can’t thrown a rock into a crowd of leftists without hitting a pedo.  Truly, the woke movement is on the right side of history.

Over the last few months, we have routinely brought readers’ attention to the rise of so-called ‘nihilistic violent extremism’ in America (here and here most recently):

Nihilistic violent extremism refers to acts of violence driven by a belief in the meaninglessness or futility of existence, often rejecting societal norms, values, or institutions.

It’s rooted in nihilism, a philosophy that denies inherent meaning or purpose in life, but when paired with violent extremism, it manifests as destructive acts aimed at disrupting or dismantling systems perceived as meaningless or oppressive.

Individuals or groups engaging in this type of extremism may target governments, communities, or symbols of authority, often with no clear alternative vision or goal beyond destruction.

Unlike ideological extremism (e.g., driven by religious or political motives), nihilistic violent extremism lacks a constructive agenda and may be fueled by despair, alienation, or a desire to impose chaos.

And now, as Jack Phillips reports via The Epoch Times, FBI Director Kash Patel has brought the term into the mainstream.

Patel confirmed on Tuesday that the bureau is investigating more than 1,700 domestic terrorism cases, as he was speaking before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“We have 3500 international terrorism investigations … 1700 domestic terrorism investigations, a large chunk of which are nihilistic violent extremism … those who engage in violent acts motivated by a deep hatred of society,” Patel told lawyers in a prepared statement.

The FBI has experienced a “300% increase in cases opened this year alone versus the same time last year.”

In his remarks, Patel also made reference to the “764” group, a decentralized international network of online predators that has been classified as an extremist group.

His appearance on Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee represents the first oversight hearing of Patel’s tenure amid mounting concerns about political violence inside the United States.

Patel returned to the committee for the first time since his confirmation hearing in January.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee’s chairman, signaled his support for Patel at the outset of the hearing, praising the director for having “begun the important work of returning the FBI to its law enforcement mission.”

“It’s well understood that your predecessor left you an FBI infected with politics,” Grassley stated.

But the panel’s top Democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, described Patel as “arguably the most partisan FBI director ever,” accusing him of already having “inflicted untold damage on the FBI, putting [U.S.] national security and public safety at risk.”

Vice President JD Vance and White House adviser Stephen Miller said on Monday that they plan on launching investigations into left-leaning nongovernmental organizations and other groups, with Miller saying that networks that have organized riots, street violence, and other activities may constitute a “domestic terror movement.”

“The organized doxing campaigns, the organized riots, the organized street violence, the organized campaigns of dehumanization, vilification, posting people’s addresses, combining that with messaging that’s designed to trigger and incite violence, and the actual organized cells that carry out and facilitate the violence. It is a vast domestic terror movement,” Miller said on “The Charlie Kirk Show,” which was hosted by Vance days after Kirk was assassinated last week in Utah.

Patel told Fox News on Monday that DNA on a towel wrapped around a rifle found near where Kirk was assassinated matched that of the 22-year-old accused in the killing. Investigators also have used DNA evidence to link the suspect, Tyler Robinson, with a screwdriver recovered from the rooftop where the fatal shot was fired, he said.

It’s not clear whether Robinson has an attorney. Officials have said that his initial court date will come later on Tuesday.

Officials have said Robinson carried a hatred for Kirk and ascribed to a “leftist ideology” that had grown in recent years. Robinson’s family and friends said he spent large amounts of time scrolling the “dark corners of the internet,” Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said on Sunday.

On Tuesday, Patel noted that Robinson had been communicating with others on Discord and that other people in the Discord chat are being investigated.

The FBI director said the Discord chat with Robinson involved a “lot more than 20” people, responding to a senator’s question.

Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has been taken to a hospital, CNN Brasil reports Tuesday, with his family saying he was “feeling sick”.

Just days ago the man dubbed the “Brazilian Donald Trump” was sentenced by the country’s supreme court to 27-years in prison after being convicted of coup plotting, related to his rejecting the outcome of the presidential election which saw Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva return to power.

Bolsonaro has suffered serious health issues ever since he was stabbed while campaigning in 2018. This resulted in several surgeries, and recurring intestinal issues.

He’s still under house arrest, and the top court had also ruled that he’s barred from running for public office until 2060 – which would be eight years after the conclusion of his sentence.

Jair Bolsonaro has arrived at DF Star Hospital in Brasília. The former president is reported to have low blood pressure and a hiccup crisis, according to his son:

Jair Bolsonaro já chegou ao hospital DF Star, em Brasília.

Ex-presidente apresentou quadro de pressão baixa e crise de soluços pic.twitter.com/FrwI4qNLGb

— Sam Pancher (@SamPancher) September 16, 2025

Likely his political opponents are going suspect this as a ploy to avoid the next phase of his high-stakes saga involving prison time – or they’ll accuse him of seeking to gain national sympathy.

He’s been under house arrest since August, after being accused of stoking external political interference, due to President Trump’s public commentary accusing the Lula government of being on a witch hunt.

Authored by Conrad Black via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

In an astounding coincidence, as the news broke that Charlie Kirk, founder and head of the enlightened traditionalist movement Turning Point USA, had been assassinated, I was sitting in the Oval Office of the White House across the Resolution desk from the President of the United States. Although I have known Mr. Trump for more than 25 years and have generally been in touch with him throughout that period, I had not seen him in person for some years. I have written approximately 2 million words about him, almost all of it reasonably or unambiguously favorable, though not uncritically so, mainly on U.S. internet sites, as well as a book that was appreciative of him, though no hagiography (“A President Like no Other”).

I had developed a few ideas about a couple of his programs, in emails and by telephone, and he suggested I visit him. Wednesday, Sept. 10, was the day. As I was arriving at the White House visitors’ entrance, I saw on my mobile phone that Charlie Kirk had been wounded in an assassination attempt. I did not really know him and was only generally conversant with his Turning Point movement, and from the initial wording of the bulletin I hopefully assumed that he would recover. There was no sign of alarm as I sat in the outer anteroom with a number of distinguished fellow visitors, including a prominent senator and the well-known economist Arthur Laffer, whom I had not seen in 30 years. A few friends in the administration came and went and we exchanged greetings, and the time passed pleasantly.

The outer anteroom for the Oval Office is rectangular and has doors on three walls, and in the middle of what I assume was a typical weekday afternoon, an astonishing number of people were constantly coming and going through all three doors, one the entrance and the other two into parallel inner anterooms to the Oval Office. The ambience is one of constant and purposeful activity in a shared and good-spirited cause. Occasionally, it happened that successive doors were simultaneously ajar, and the familiar voice of the chief occupant would be heard, good-humored but authoritative. A pleasing aesthetic aspect, as usual in Trump matters, is the presence of very capable and attractive youngish ladies on the presidential staff.

Although I had been to the White House a number of times before, it was in groups and in reception rooms. Here, it was possible to see how the private office functioned, and it was clear the president’s staff is devoted to him personally and that he, unlike some holders of great offices that I have known, is unfailingly polite to staff. In this he reminded me of Margaret Thatcher, who frequently beat up her cabinet ministers because she thought they could and should defend themselves if they were any good (and if they weren’t she sacked them), but never forgetting her own modest socioeconomic beginnings, she was unfailingly courteous to people in lesser positions.

After about an hour, I was invited to leapfrog the crowded intermediate waiting room and was cordially greeted by my eminent host. He was looking trim, fit, and completely undaunted by the requirements of his position. In my observations, going back to the Eisenhower years, U.S. presidents either enjoy their position and get on top of it or are worn down by it and the presidency imposes itself upon them. Donald Trump is distinctly in the first category. We were briefly joined by Art Laffer who wanted a photograph taken of himself with the president in front of the painting of President Reagan to the right of the president’s desk. After a few pleasantries and reflections, Art departed and the president said that Charlie Kirk had died.

I condoled with him, and when he indicated that it would be appropriate, I started into my reasons for being there. He listened intently and made a few comments, and we were shortly joined by the vice president, J.D. Vance, known even by me to be a close friend of Charlie Kirk. He was reporting on the initial results of the investigation. My offer to excuse myself was declined and there followed a surrealistic and unforgettable scene: the president and vice president lamented their deceased friend, and I was likely almost as improbable a third party as could be found to participate in such an exchange. In the circumstances, I only commented when my opinion was asked.

Especially in the light of ungenerous imputations of motives to both men in their public remarks in ensuing days, I would be remiss not to emphasize that neither the president nor the vice president expressed any sentiment except sorrow at the death of their friend and sympathy for his wife and family and close associates, and calm, deep concern at the extent of violence in the country. There was not a vengeful or partisan word, or even an ill-tempered one. Both men were absolutely exemplary, and in fact somewhat inspiring in their sole preoccupation with the horribly premature and violent death of a talented friend and supporter, and their shared concern at the frequency of recourse to political violence in America and much of the Western world.

*  *  * SALE *  *  *

*  *  *

The only reference to the immediate political implications of this tragic event was by me when I said that this was such a ghastly episode it might have a salutary effect in sobering public discourse and discouraging violence. This elicited a non-committal response. All Americans, whatever their political leanings, should be reassured that the two holders of the national offices of the United States, in a poignant hour of great sacrifice and sadness, had no thoughts except charity for the bereaved and concern for the country. It was my sad privilege to be a witness to this, and the completely spontaneous tastefulness and generosity of the thoughts of the president and vice president did not reduce but somewhat ameliorated the deep sadness of the occasion.

The vice president departed and the president invited me to finish what I’d come to say, which I did with uncharacteristic economy of words and got up to leave. He said he had then to telephone Mrs. Kirk.

I was staying near the White House and walked back, reflecting on the fortuitously fine qualities of America’s leaders, whatever controversies they may arouse on other grounds. And for the 31-year-old Charlie Kirk, whom I knew to be a committed and patriotic Christian, I could only wish him eternal rest with the Prince of Peace as he reposes in the honored memory of the great nation for which he made the highest and noblest sacrifice.

This article was originally provided to the New York Sun.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.