Agenda 47, Project 25, and Us: Part Two

Tim O’Connor – Center for the Preservation of Humanity – 8/28/2024

Agenda 47, Project 25, and Us: Part Two

Fear mongering is dividing us. It’s not race, income, religion, or anything else. We are being divided by those who believe the establishment-slash-‘expert’-class lie and those who reject it. Many have succumbed to it’s cowardice-inducing effects. This is readily evident by those who still don their useless oxygen-depriving masks, see individuality best reflected in their hair color for the week, and seek to be acknowledged, accepted, and celebrated for absurd debaucheries such as murdering babies, lopping off reproductive organs of children, and promoting the rights of murderers over addressing the grievances of victims. It’s these same masked reprobates with their ‘fun’ colored hair and demands to legalize every abomination who are most concerned about Donald Trump’s Agenda 47 and the Heritage Foundation’s Project 25. So let’s see if their fears are based in reality.

Project 25 is a massive book outlining policy for the next President and his administration. On page three, the creators and overall purpose of the entire work is laid out. It reads:

“The Heritage Foundation is once again facilitating this work. But as our dozens of partners and hundreds of authors will attest, this book is the work of the entire conservative movement. As such, the authors express consensus recommendations already forged, especially along four broad fronts that will decide America’s future: 1. Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children. 2. Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people. 3. Defend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats. 4. Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution calls “the Blessings of Liberty.””

There are five sections. The first section is “Taking the Reins of Government” which lays out the driving issue the following three chapters seek to ameliorate. That issue is that there is no middle ground between a centralized administrative state and the Constitutional republic enshrined by the framers of the US Constitution. Project 25 put the issue this way (page 19):

“America is now divided between two opposing forces: woke revolutionaries and those who believe in the ideals of the American revolution. The former believe that America is—and always has been—“systemically racist” and that it is not worth celebrating and must be fundamentally transformed, largely through a centralized administrative state. The latter believe in America’s history and heroes, its principles and promise, and in everyday Americans and the American way of life. They believe in the Constitution and republican government. Conservatives—the Americanists in this battle—must fight for the soul of America, which is very much at stake.”

The remedy is to appoint people who are accountable to the President and, thus, by extension, to the US citizen. These appointees should be dedicated to actively working to realign bureaucracies with the US Constitution and to proactively counter bureaucratic efforts seeking to thwart the US Constitution. The result? Freedom returning to the land of the free. Page 21 is indicative:

“When it comes to ensuring that freedom can flourish, nothing is more important than deconstructing the centralized administrative state. Political appointees who are answerable to the President and have decision-making authority in the executive branch are key to this essential task. The next Administration must not cede such authority to non-partisan “experts,” who pursue their own ends while engaging in groupthink, insulated from American voters.”

The entire first chapter is a review of the different offices in the White House. The idea that these offices need to be filled with people loyal to the president is a given. Even more, the president and the appointees to the White House offices need to be devoted to the constitution as well as have a the proper background to competently serve in the White House. This team of people needs to be coordinated as the entire administration moves towards the President’s policy goals. Project 25 advocates for the next conservative president to do exactly that – filling White House staff positions with competent people loyal to the president, adherent to the Constitution, and with a shared vision of the policy aims the President has come to office with.

The second chapter opens by defining the problem any president immediately faces as soon as they are sworn in (page 43):

“In its opening words, Article II of the U.S. Constitution makes it abundantly clear that “[t]he executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. That enormous power is not vested in departments or agencies, in staff or administrative bodies, in nongovernmental organizations or other equities and interests close to the government. The President must set and enforce a plan for the executive branch. Sadly, however, a President today assumes office to find a sprawling federal bureaucracy that all too often is carrying out its own policy plans and preferences—or, worse yet, the policy plans and preferences of a radical, supposedly “woke” faction of the country.”

This isn’t what we elect a President to be forced to reckon with. Most of us, I am sure, don’t spend a lot of time empathizing with the president as he has been forced to face this monstrously huge bureaucracy for decades. Effectively taming this beast so that policy objectives can be met is a challenging task, to say the least. This bureaucratic nightmare is what James Madison rightly described as tyranny in Federalist Paper No. 47.

In my opinion, the solutions proposed in this chapter do not go far enough to root out all of the debauchery festering in White House Councils. For instance, a lot of the problems currently faced by incoming Presidents is due to Executive Orders to begin with. Like dip switches, these EO’s are turned on and off by each incoming administration. While the chapter does have a section detailing the need to have Congress return to it’s regulatory defining duties, relying on EO’s is ineffective and temporary because they are not law – they are policy mandates which have proven to find their greatest utility in their ability to circumvent the US Constitution.

Other questions also arise, such as what should the actual role of the Council on Environmental Quality be? Should the Office of Science and Technology Policy be issuing any guidance at all being as though the technologies they deal with and endorse, individually, represent existential risks to life and, collectively, a cataclysmic end to all life on earth without having a serious open discussion with a public informed about what each of these technologies are, their potential benefits, and the gigantic risks they portend? Who should be setting policy directives in these areas? What information should be taken into account in a Constitutional republic – the President’s, experts in the various fields, politicians, informed citizens, or a combination of all of the above?

But, with that said, what is written in this chapter does go a long way towards cleaning up the debauchery. It recommends the US Office of Management and Budget to use the full extent of it’s authority to ensure the President’s policies are tended to throughout executive branch departments. Particularly encouraging is the recommendation for Congress to be more hands-on and stop delegating their regulatory duties to executive-branch entities. Also encouraging is the complete removal of the Gender Policy Council. The recommendations to use the Office of the Vice President to assist in having the President’s policies established and followed is also a welcome recommendation.

Chapter three, the final chapter of ‘Section 1: Taking the Reigns of Government’ deals with the concept formulated during the Reagan administration, “Personnel is Policy” – that is, the people who are there to do the work are the actual policy. This chapter denotes the importance of hiring the right people for the job. A major proponent of enabling the US government to hire competent workers needs to be re-implemented according to the authors – some form of a competency evaluation needs to be administered. Exams of this sort have not been administered for the last 30 years; however, because of cries of discrimination from particularly loud minority groups. Additionally, there is no actual job-assessment criteria to follow which meaningfully evaluates employee performance. On top of that it is incredibly difficult to actually fire a government employee.

The result is the swamp every American universally has come to detest and most demand be drained expediently. And the root cause is that the entire swamp has been made unaccountable within the governmental agencies they exist and to the nation at large. Federalized public union’s – a concept repugnant to a free people – lurks in the shadows of the swamp and has greatly assisted in it’s creation. Obviously, all of this must be rectified.

One area to be fixed is to better define and limit the scope of the appeals process federal employees enjoy. Another area for reform is to use private-sector compensation packages as a model to be followed while compensating federal employees. The same concept needs to be applied to governmental pensions. Government contracts cause federal contractors and, in order to reduce the scope and cost of government, a close eye needs to be kept on the funding and grants issued in the first place with a priority of making sure that performance is what grants job-security when layoffs and furloughs occur. Reducing the number of levels between us and the federal government is recommended. Further, the creation of jobs within agencies intended to thwart Presidential policy directions at the agency level needs to be a practice which is addressed. Suggestions are made for the President to reign in the most destructive union activities and for Congress to reassess the need for public-sector unions. Filling vacant appointments and getting rid of the previous President’s appointments is also recognized as extremely important.

The final section of Chapter three is salient. It correctly identifies that the federal government has overstepped it’s bounds. The Heritage Foundation calls upon the federal government to divest itself of the responsibilities it has usurped from others through privatization and decentralization by returning the responsibility to the correct jurisdictions. In other words, the federal government needs to recognize the Constitution and return to abiding by the mandates the Constitution enables the federal government to be in charge of – no more and no less.

The ‘Department of Defense’ is the topic of chapter four and the first chapter in the Section titled, ‘The Common Defense.’ It starts out by offering a prescription for peace and a goal for wars (page 91), “Ever since our Founding, Americans have understood that the surest way to avoid war is to be prepared for it in peace—but when deterrence fails, we must fight and win.” Now, why it is the United States no longer observes these two concepts, is beyond me; however, it is imperative we recall and implement both of them immediately. The Heritage Foundation recommends four top priorities to reflect this reintroduction of common sense military dominance. These are listed on page 92:

“Reestablish a culture of command accountability, nonpoliticization, and warfighting focus. […] Transform our armed forces for maximum effectiveness in an era of great-power competition. […] Provide necessary support to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) border protection operations. Border protection is a national security issue that requires sustained attention and effort by all elements of the executive branch. [… and] Demand financial transparency and accountability.”

China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea all pose threats to their neighbors and to the interests of the United States. Containing the expansionist dreams and military endeavors of the regimes in these nations and others is the real focus in this chapter. In order to do that the author advises the United States to take some measures which have a pro-human future in mind while other recommendations demand that the race to create humanity-ending technology be developed, tested, and deployed before the enemy gets the capability. For instance, upgrading the US nuclear arsenal as a deterrent to their use from multiple foreign actors and having foreign nations become more capable of defending themselves is prudent and overdue. Another welcomed recommendation the author makes is to remove gender dysphoric individuals from military service and to scrap training which does not facilitate winning wars such as diversity, equity, and inclusion and critical-race theory. Rebuilding military capacity is also heavily suggested and should be engaged in immediately by the next President.

Developing weapons systems along the same lines as the death jabs were created and authorized (Warp Speed) is 100% anti-human though. If China or Russia or North Korea, or, frankly, our allies are developing completely autonomous slaughterbots, for instance, the threat those weapons systems pose to civilians even in times of peace far outweighs any benefit they may bring on the battlefield. Even if our own government races towards that goal, or one similar, even if it’s just to beat China to the punchline, they are actors who are decidedly hostile to all human life and the issue must be addressed, the technology abandoned, and the prototypes/armaments destroyed.

Developing a technology doesn’t necessarily portend doom. It is all about the human beings who use it. So, let’s say the United States does develop a 100% effective autonomous genetically-indicated target acquisition system with the means to kill the enemy. Is the United States going to use this to get rid of 1.4 billion Chinese before the Chinese use their version of the technology to get rid of 325 million Americans? Has the question been asked? The Chinese regime would be far less hesitant than the United States government to commit to such a tactic. Being as though the Chinese typically steal their military R&D from others, would they ever be able to develop such a system if another nation hadn’t already developed the technology? I think they would eventually develop such a system, so, what is the best way to prevent the Chinese from continuing to seek the technology? What is the purpose of the US pursuing the technology at all? Does this make the United States safer or does it mean that anyone with any particular genetic marker will be placed far more at risk from multiple ‘leaders’ of regimes around the world with some pretty dark desires? In other words, the author of chapter 4 isn’t asking the right question – why do we need this and what are the risks of even researching a particular technology with capabilities posing such a severe existential risk? It sounds like a Black Mirror episode but unfortunately it is reality and it is being promoted by the Heritage Foundation.

In order to achieve the creation of these new technologies, the author advises that the military budget be substantially increased. The idea that we be forced to pay for our own death at the hands of someone only slightly more hateful of the US citizenry than Barack Hussein Obama and Joe Biden is not offset by the promises of increased defense capabilities. Space, according to the author, is an area the US will dominate and do as it pleases in, and thus, a recommendation is made on page 118 to “Declassify appropriate information about terrestrial and on-orbit space capabilities that threaten the U.S. space constellation, as well as those being pursued by our competitors, to secure the principled right to counter them offensively.”

On page 120 there is a recommendation to bolster the perception American’s have while actually just making the activities of the DOD clandestine, “End USCYBERCOM’s participation in federal efforts to “fortify” U.S. elections to eliminate the perception that DOD is engaging in partisan politics.” On pages 123 the author boisterously calls for an expansion of irregular warfare being conducted against anyone on the planet, US citizens included, “Work with the Interagency to employ economic warfare, lawfare, and diplomatic pressure against hostile state and nonstate actors.” This particular section (pages 122-3) actually sets up a permanent surveillance state out of the Department of Defense domestically and around the globe.

This chapter certainly missed the mark in most regards. The threats the author seeks to address creates one thing – tyranny. Also odd is the author’s reliance on the Constitution to make specific claims justifying his positions while absolutely failing to mention anything about the responsibilities citizens in a republic have to maintain and prevent invasion and insurrection. Overall, while there are several very pertinent recommendations that should be adopted, most of the chapter is a demand to facilitate a vast expansion of the military-industrial complex in the United States under the guise of projecting power while in reality the recommendations pose the end of free citizenry around the globe including in the United States.

The fifth chapter is a strong recommendation to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security altogether. All of the entities under it’s umbrella are recommended to be moved under the umbrella of another existing cabinet level position save for one, the Transportation Security Administration, which is recommended for privatization. While these are the recommendations, the likelihood of them being adopted negligible, the remainer of the chapter is about how to reform the existing DHS to make it a little bit better.

DHS is the department responsible for the invasion which has occurred on the border. Because of the massive scope of the problem, the solutions have the ability to fix those problems but also pose new threats to freedom and liberty to the citizenry. The solutions are needed but several of them would need to be closely monitored to ensure they do not begin being used against the citizenry. One of these is the use of makeshift detention camps. Another is federal law enforcement agents operating independently throughout the United States. Illegal aliens in the United States must be removed and the border must be controlled effectively or we will no longer have a United States of America. The changes recommended would go a long way to fixing both problems.

Immigration is a major task which DHS is supposed to be controlling; however, it is not the only task the department has. FEMA is also under DHS. Recommendations include privatizing flood insurance and restructuring the distribution of funds to victims of disaster with an emphasis on having the several states make larger contributions as ways to prevent people from building in high-potential disaster zones in the first place. CISA is also under DHS and recommended to go back to it’s mandate, protecting ‘.gov’ websites and coordinating infrastructure security and resiliency policy. CISA, it is recommended, must avoid being a censorship arm of digital communications within the United States. The Coast Guard should be revamped to defend the waters 200 miles or less off the coasts of the United States. Another suggestion is to turn the Secret Service, another DHS entity, into a purely protective agency which no longer does investigations into counterfeiting – that task being handed to the Treasury.

A reorientation of the offices which exist in DHS is recommended which will not result in a safer United States but, in some instances sets the stage for the implementation of an opaque police state. The most pointed of these types of recommendations is on page 164, “In both OPA [Office of Public Affairs] and OLA [Office of Legislative Affairs], a change in mission and culture is needed. The clients of both components are the President and the Secretary, not the media, external organizations, or Congress. OPA and OLA should change from being compliance correspondents for outside entities airing grievances to serving as messengers and advocates for the President and the Secretary.”

Still, other recommendations such as de-unionizing large swaths of DHS and the end of DHS assisting illegal aliens to obtain tax-payer funded benefits, are vital changes which should be implemented immediately.

A major issue thrives at the State Department which is the focus of chapter six. The issue is that conservative presidents are forced to rely on leftists in the State Department which creates a division between the President’s foreign policy and the foreign policy advocated for by the State Department. “A major source, if not the major source, of the State Department’s ineffectiveness lies in its institutional belief that it is an independent institution that knows what is best for the United States, sets its own foreign policy, and does not need direction from an elected President” (page 172).

Efforts to align the State Department with the President’s vision include allowing nominees to fill the position they are nominated for to expedite the confirmation process. The entire State Department should see all political appointees not requiring Senate confirmation replaced on day one. Commitment to a conservative President’s vision should be made clear to officials at the State Department. Ambassadors who have already made their unwillingness to cooperate with a conservative administration should be let go.

A reassessment of funds to foreign nations and a complete freeze on all unratified treaties is advised. Building and maintaining relationships with Congress is also recommended being as though Congress holds the purse strings and statutory authority over the State Department. US relations with China have a clearinghouse in the State Department and should lead efforts to address the war China has waged against the US for decades.

Immigration views at the State Department must stop seeing the issue as a US welfare program to the rest of the world and used as a leveraging tool according to the authors of chapter six. Visa reciprocity would reflect a change in this view. Similarly, when the US seeks to return foreign nationals to their home nation and their home nations rejects the idea, the US is advised to suspend some or all visas from that nation. Until the current invasion is dealt with, refugees need not be admitted into the US.

Challenges exist around the world but the authors their top five problem nations into account. Those nations are China, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and North Korea. According to Heritage Foundation’s Project 25, China will only be changed through external pressure. Iran’s regime can be stopped by external sanctions combined with the discontent of the people. Venezuela’s situation is similar to that of Iran’s. The Russian dilemma is incorrectly argued as Putin bad Zelensky good, but a closer looks clearly shows that NATO is bringing war across the world in order to promote a literal neo-Nazi in Ukraine while using Russia as a convenient scapegoat. The Russia/Ukraine war was caused by the State Department and NATO’s excursions into Ukraine. The authors, despite their analysis, correctly identified that the new President will have a lot of room to maneuver between objectives as he or she seeks to bring an end to the conflict. North Korea must be either stripped of it’s nuclear capabilities or deterred from thinking it wise to use them or to continue using blackmail against their neighbors.

The project lays out policy objectives for each region of the world. None of these provisions made me raise an eyebrow and the inclusion of a discussion concerning the Arctic is much needed and appreciated.

The Heritage Foundation absolutely nailed the proper role and response the United States should be taking while dealing with international organizations. The authors wrote on page 190, “Working with other governments through international organizations like the United Nations (U.N.) can be tremendously useful—but membership in these organizations must always be understood as a means to attain defined goals rather than an end in itself.” It is absolutely vital to the survival of the United States and the very concept of sovereignty that this concept be applied to every such body the US is involved with. Recommendations to withdraw from bodies destructive of the ends the US hopes to attain should be bodies the US is no longer involved with are more than appropriate. Thus the prescription for the United States’ involvement with international organizations, summed up on page 193 is incredibly important, “The United States must return to treating international organizations as vehicles for promoting American interests—or take steps to extract itself from those organizations.”

Troubling; however, is the authors recommendation on page 196, “the State Department must move beyond its traditional model of attempting to establish non-binding, informal world standards of acceptable cyberspace behavior. The State Department should work with allies to establish a clear framework of enforceable norms for actions in cyberspace, moving beyond the voluntary norms of the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts.” That’s a really long way to spell censorship. If anyone reading this has concerns, I suggest you go on TikTok and attempt to engage in a conversation objecting to liberal talking points without being censored – it is literally impossible to do it.

Chapter seven is a realignment of the intelligence community’s structure as well as it’s priorities and conduct. The chapter starts off with a mission statement on page 201 worth consideration, “To arm a future incoming conservative President with the knowledge and tools necessary to fortify the United States Intelligence Community; to defend against all foreign enemies and ensure the security and prosperity of our sovereign nation, devoid of all political motivations; and to maintain constitutional civil liberties.”

It is obvious that intelligence operations reserved for foreign-use only have been employed against US citizens domestically. This led to a distrust of the intelligence community. Lies and obfuscation of domestic intelligence gathering have turned that distrust into a disgust and in some case an absolute hatred of intelligence agencies. This chapter partially addresses that issue first by clearly defining what intelligence agencies are really supposed to be doing. While difficult, it is imperative that intelligence agencies provide apolitical resources.

Unfortunately that is about as far as increased protections go. The authors enter into a justification for a slightly modified FISA court with enhanced protection against political weaponization. They missed the point – the existence of a secretive star-chamber-like court guarantees that it will be abused to violate the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and the First Amendment of not only politicians but of each and every citizen of the US. It’s like putting a turd in a punch bowl and deciding that it shouldn’t be removed because eventually it will dissolve and no longer represent a poisoning of the contents. Meanwhile the number of e-coli cases in those drinking from that punch bowl, even years later, are incredibly high and each case poses a high risk of lethality. A FISA court and anything resembling a FISA court is entirely repugnant to a constitutional republic and must be done away with irrevocably.

This chapter parrots chapter four in that it accelerates the race to create an inescapable surveillance state through the use of technologies posing existential threats to all of humanity. At the same time chapter seven recommends the CIA no longer be the primary face of intelligence dissemination to the President which will shake up the status quo of the intelligence community by preventing undue CIA influence. Another positive recommendation is to tell Brussels that while the United States is not a member of the EU, for the intention of collecting intelligence it will act as if it is, meaning that far less scrutiny will be placed on US data collection and sharing by the EU facilitating a return to trading information. If the EU rejects the position they will be rejecting US intelligence as well.

Chapter eight addresses media agencies. In particular it deals with messaging campaigns intended to support American interests and ideals abroad under the United States Agency for Global Media. While Donald Trump was in office, this organization – an organization apparently operated by Marxist’s who think Mao was to kind – routinely placed anti-American and anti-Trump messaging in the majority of their content. While Trump reigned the efforts in, Biden reversed them and since January of 2021 the world has been getting the America Marxist’s think we are. This is incredibly dangerous and destabilizing.

Hundreds ortained security clearances without proper vetting posing risks to the security of the United States and when USAGM was made aware of the breaches, they did nothing to correct them. The leadership intentionally placed journalists in harms way and actively fought against any effort which would provide any additional safety. This agency has actually pulled off a concept from the movie Idiocracy where a private entity took over a regulatory agency. Millions are wasted in fraud and redundancy. USAGM routinely violates visa law. Radio has given way to internet-based transmissions which will result in crippled communications should there be interruptions in service or conflict and is also highly subjective to censorship campaigns. All of this needs to be addressed.

The agency is also in need of oversight because, currently, there is almost none at all. It reports directly to no one. Thus, the agency felt that it could do as it pleased and suffer no consequences. Serious violations of the law up to and including potential espionage and treason were committed by the USAGM and need to be investigated so that the following scenario is no longer even a possibility (page 244):

“The VOA firewall is meant to protect broadcasters from government interference with content; however, USAGM staff have abused the firewall and used it as an offensive measure to block oversight. Additionally, the Smith–Mundt Act stipulates that USAGM services are meant to tell the American story abroad—never to domestic audiences—but the agency has used its taxpayer funding to promote partisan messaging in the U.S. One of the most egregious examples was when, in 2020, it bought ads on its foreign language social media sites to disseminate a Biden campaign ad and targeted it to a major Muslim population in Michigan.42 Moreover, VOA often airs foreign adversaries’ propaganda, which is antithetical to its congressionally mandated core mission. State Department oversight or “command” may be one way to ensure that VOA and the rest of the USAGM returns and adheres to its original mission.”

Chapter 8 ends with a prescription. We can fix these things and allow America’s story to be told even in the most hostile nations or we can scrap it because parroting anti-American propaganda is entirely unacceptable and dangerous to the United States. We pay for this with our taxes, what message do you thing oppressed people’s around the world should hear about us?

Chapter 9 rounds out the second section about the common defense. It deals with getting a grip on USAID (US Agency for International Development). USAID is meant to serve US interests overseas by fostering democratic governing principles, free enterprise, and a safe and lucrative environment for US businesses to operate in. On page 254, chapter nine’s author sums up the current state of USAID:

“The Biden Administration has deformed the agency by treating it as a global platform to pursue overseas a divisive political and cultural agenda that promotes abortion, climate extremism, gender radicalism, and interventions against perceived systemic racism. It has dispensed with decades of bipartisan consensus on foreign aid and pursued policies that contravene basic American values and have antagonized our partners in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It has decoupled U.S. assistance from free-market reforms that are the keystone of economic and political stability and has teamed with global institutions to impose central planning diktats on an unprecedented scale. Wasteful budget increases requested by the Administration and appropriated by Congress have outstripped USAID’s capacity to spend funds responsibly, and U.S. foreign aid has been transformed into a massive and open-ended global entitlement program captured by—and enriching—the progressive Left.”

Recommendations include scaling back the budget quite a bit and using the funds issued to promote American – not World Economic Forum/United Nations anti- and trans- human – interests. Placing a coordinator over all foreign aid is advised. The author correctly notes that USAID should be serving to counter Chinese economic development around the world much as it was used to counter the USSR’s during the Cold War. That will not be done until the mission of USAID is no longer one of promoting the Paris Climate Agreement and ESG/DEI around the world – another strongly encouraged recommendation the next conservative President needs to undertake. The war on women being waged under the banner of gender equality must be removed from USAID and realigned to promote all members of society, men and women, and the families they form which include children and stop issuing money to murder babies, destroy families, and denigrate men. Promoting religious freedom should become a renewed focus of USAID. Relying on local agencies in areas receiving aid needs to be implemented once more as well.

Within USAID is a Global Health Bureau. This bureau needs to be scrutinized for how and where it spends funds, perhaps more than any other area within USAID. Covid-19’s management featured restricting known effective treatments, orders to take ineffective and known-to-be-dangerous ‘vaccines,’ the destruction of global supply chains, and the crippling of economic activity around the world. Thus, the funds disbursed by the Global Health Bureau need to be monitored by outcome at the local level, as the author of chapter nine suggests. This is the exact opposite of what Biden’s USAID Global Health Bureau is doing as evidenced in a recent article, “On June 17, 2024, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Ministry of Health (MOH), and the World Health Organization (WHO) announced a new five-year partnership to tackle health security threats, prepare for future risks, and build on significant gains made during the COVID-19 pandemic.  USAID intends to provide $10 million to WHO under this new partnership.” Compare that to the authors prescription from page 264 of Project 25, “the next conservative Administration should focus on updating the Global Health Bureau’s portfolio, emphasizing a comprehensive approach to supporting women, children, and families; building host-country institutional capacity; increasing awards to local and faith-based partners (expanding what occurred during the Trump Administration with the NPI); and improving USAID’s ability to coordinate with local partners.” There is a big difference between strengthening the monsters of the WHO and their depopulation agenda and local partners with an actual interest in promoting the actual health of their actual neighbors in their actual communities.

Similarly concerning is USAID’s involvement in shoving money at every ‘emergency’ issue occurring in the world. Some of these involve legitimate US interests being threatened, others clearly do not. Page 268 contains the role humanitarian assistance should be playing, “The next Administration should resize and repurpose USAID’s humanitarian aid portfolio to restore its original purpose of providing emergency short-term relief, prepare vulnerable communities for transition, and do no harm,” as well as a description of the role it actually plays, “humanitarian aid is sustaining war economies, creating financial incentives for warring parties to continue fighting, discouraging governments from reforming, and propping up malign regimes.” This must also cease immediately. The author goes on to recommend a more active role in offering development assistance so that the need for humanitarian and other forms of aid is less needed in the sort-term and eventually unneeded altogether in the long term.

To make the recommended changes, the author notes several important personnel changes which need to occur. Coupled with personnel changes are recommendations for what USAID’s purpose should be in different regions of the world. In Asia a primary focus should be placed upon increasing the development in free-market friendly nations to counter China. In the Middle East USAID needs to foster increased support for the Abraham Accords while scrutinizing any funds going to Iran or to Iran’s allies with an eye on ceasing aid to those entities. USAID’s activities in Africa must stop being used to promote progressive values like abortion on demand and UN initiatives such as refusing to allow the construction of cheap, reliable power generation and focus on building opportunities in African nations that the residents welcome. Latin American nations need to receive aid based on the recipient’s rejection of socialism.

While most of the recommendations in this chapter are welcomed, the author has some problems. The first is in thinking that the vaccines for Covid-19 were in any way beneficial to beating the virus. No one deserves praise, only condemnation and possible charges for murder and crimes against humanity, for creating, disbursing, or administering mRNA ‘vaccines’ and that includes those who knew better at USAID. Additionally, on page 279, the author wrote in the conclusion, “The next conservative Administration will have a unique opportunity to realign U.S. foreign assistance with American national interests and the principles of good governance and more accurately reflect the U.S. taxpayer’s unmatched charitable desire to help those in need.” Paying taxes is not an act of charity and that needs to be stressed. Good governance will lower our tax burdens, reduce the need for government intervention in other nations, and would never try to get a taxpayer to accept that taxes are a legitimate form of charity. Equally troubling is the author’s vague approach as to what good governance is. In my mind good governance is defined by the World Economic Forum and requires ESG and DEI adherence. DEI is something the author explicitly calls to end, leaving the reader (me) confused as to what the author really intends here.

The next section is “The General Welfare” and starts out with the Department of Agriculture in chapter 10. First, the USDA needs a new mission statement reflecting a Congressional legislative action which reins in the scope of the USDA. Page 291 indicates a model for this new mission statement:

“To develop and disseminate agricultural information and research, identify and address concrete public health and safety threats directly connected to food and agriculture, and remove both unjustified foreign trade barriers for U.S. goods and domestic government barriers that undermine access to safe and affordable food absent a compelling need—all based on the importance of sound science, personal freedom, private property, the rule of law, and service to all Americans.”

After getting a new mandate, USDA must cease all attempts to radically transform the way food is produced, transported, obtained, and eaten. Recommendations include scrapping USDA’s adherence to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals concerning food production. A sluch fund exists at USDA to the tune of $30 billion a year. It is being used to prioritize climate change and other agendas unrelated to producing safe and affordable food. The author recommends USDA cease touching these funds and for Congress to curtail their ability to be used. Reforming farming subsidies is another important recommendation as is decoupling agricultural legislation from food-stamp legislation which are currently rolled together under one farm bill. Nutritional programs (welfare) would be better tended to by the Department of Health and Human Services. Reevaluating and reigning in costs for SNAP, TANF, the Thrifty Food Plan, WIC, and abuses through combining utility welfare programs and food welfare programs all need to be addressed. Another area in need of being addressed are school lunch programs which are supposed to be providing reduced or free meals to students in need, not every student in school. The author strongly recommends that farmers no longer be paid to not plant crops, prohibitions from USDA about planting in conserved land be dealt with by local authorities, and easement restrictions be seriously reformed.

Instruments used by particular farms to get government to coerce competing farms to comply with a particular farm’s decisions should be abandoned. In lieu of abandoning such programs, regular votes must begin taking place regarding marketing orders and checklist programs. Trade barriers should be reduced to facilitate increased US exports. USDA, also in charge of forestry management, should be taking steps to remove tinder for forest fires including deadwood. As a bonus, USDA should be focusing on returning to harvesting lumber in the United States which, between 1988 and 2021 has seen a 78% reduction. The author advocates for the USDA to scrap issuing dietary guidelines and recommends that if they continue to do so, any political or climate-change related skewing needs to be removed from the publication.

The author recommends ignoring any concerns raised about bioengineering food. Using language to conflate scare tactics with legitimate concerns regarding food safety, the author recommends removing all barriers to genetically adulterated food stuffs including repealing the weak (in some cases non-existent, such as with nanotechnology) labeling standards. Efforts encouraging a further decline in food safety and nutrition through biotechnology’s perverse creations of food-like substances need to be categorically rejected. The author of this chapter seems to have some deep ties to the illiberal logic pervading the thinking of the liberal left by concluding the chapter expressing a freedom for everyone, not just special interests, when this recommendation does just that. The recommendation to turn a blind eye to already existing food safety issues regarding biologically adulterated food and the author’s insistence that future developments are being designed with any thought given to safety at all is alarming. This is how humans end up being poisoned with vaccines infused into plants and animals, eat ‘meat’ grown in vats from cancer cells, and have chitin-rich insect proteins replace traditional meat and dairy based proteins.

Chapter 11 suggests the United States no longer have a Department of Education. It correctly identifies the department as one created outside of the Constitution to serve the purposes of teachers unions, not the educational needs of US citizens. It is overly expensive, wrapped in red tape, and inefficient, has not stopped expanding, and actually serves to malign, not promote, education and educational objectives in the United States. There are several overarching reforms which the author recommends including increasing school choice, having agencies dealing with special populations (military, tribal, etc…) administer education as well, returning funding to the state and local level, focusing on creating productive students so that taxpayers get what they are paying for, rejecting frivolous politically motivated student-loan forgiveness gimmicks, and applying actual civil rights – not those infused by nonsense ideologies like gender ideology and critical-race theory – in educational settings. None of the provisions to accomplish these objectives presented a problem.

The author also looks to the future and suggests several pieces of legislation. Getting rid of the congressional charter for the National Education Association (another repulsive public union) is high on the list. Critical Race Theory – a theory promoting racial disparity by demanding that people of color can do no wrong while white and light-skinned peoples are evil merely for existing in this brave new colored world – deserves legislation to curb the disastrous effects it has already brought into school systems and into society at large. Parental rights are in need of being elevated and the author proposes immediate legislative action to achieve it such as no longer allowing children to undergo social gender-transitioning in school in an attempt to turn the transition into a physical one while the school refuses to inform the parents even if they are asked.

School choice requires funding and to address the issue, the author suggests legislation which would make every child eligible to attend the school of their choice, fully fund it, and give private schools the ability to control their own admissions process. Funding from the federal government prevents local and state control over curricula in public K-12 schools. Also, in colleges and universities, accreditation agencies have become federal lunacy enforcers shoving World Economic Forum concepts down the throats of even the most conservative institutions in order to retain their accredited status. The funding stick and the accreditation stick necessarily needs to be taken away from federal government altogether.

Included in chapter 11 are a lot of details about how to reform school loans and avoid school loan forgiveness stunts. The author favors a private-based approach where the government plays as small of a role as possible with the ideal that the federal government has no role in student loans. This issue has been made into a flash-point for leftists who refuse to see that nothing is free and that educational needs rely on funding from somewhere. Particularly with college, a voluntary endeavor, the repayment of funds students borrow needs to be placed firmly on the shoulders of the borrower, not taxpayers.

Moving forward, education will change. I agree with the changes the author proposes because they will make education cheaper, more widely available, more flexible, and more focused on having students learn the knowledge and skills they will need. But it really boils down to two competing interests. We will either educate our children with a focus on raising up generations who support the nation or teach them nothing but hatred for the nation. Today we are at the crux of the future of the United States and if we fail to reign in the Department of Education, the United States, capitalism, free speech, the Bill of Rights, and the concepts contained in the Declaration of Independence and the preamble to the US Constitution will be spoken of exclusively in the past tense.

Chapter twelves reveals problems and solutions at the Department of Energy. On page 366 the overall solution and the theme of this chapter reads:

“The Department of Energy should be renamed and refocused as the Department of Energy Security and Advanced Science (DESAS). DESAS would refocus on DOE’s five existing core missions: Providing leadership and coordination on energy security and related national security issues; Promoting U.S. energy economic interests abroad; Leading the nation and the world in cutting-edge fundamental advanced science; Remediating former Manhattan Project and Cold War nuclear material sites and; Developing new nuclear weapons and naval nuclear reactors.”

Just as in the other chapters, the Department of Energy is targeted for a rebranding and reorganization. The intention is to provide energy which is reliable and cheap across the United States while developing new technologies and delivery methods which increase stability and security while lowering costs. A big part of this restructuring is to have the Department of Energy’s involvement in picking winners and losers in the market, focusing on green technologies, and hiring based on DEI metrics.

With the Department of Energy are multiple agencies responsible for different aspects of energy. Several of these have been made into weapons against the citizens of the United States. One of the more egregious examples is, “the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM), effective as of July 2021, and FECM’s mission: “to minimize the environmental impacts of fossil fuels while working towards net-zero emissions.”” Biden repurposed this office to restrict access to energy and to cause artificial scarcity which has proven to be one of the primary drivers of ‘Bidenomics,’ massive increases in how much it costs just to live.

The author proposes several solutions to fix FECM. Ending subsidies for carbon capture is one. Investing in harvesting techniques and applications to process and use the minerals in spent fuel such as coal is another. The author suggests tat the United States would be better off if FECM ceased to exist. If it FECM survives it needs to be returned to it’s original name, “Office of Fossil Fuel” and once more charged with its original intention, “increasing energy security and supply through fossil fuels” (page 377). Appropriations need to reflect the change. Changes in licensing natural gas developments also need to reflect this. The author; however, suggests that licensing for allies and free-trade partners be automatically approved and I would have to challenge the wisdom of such a measure because allies don’t always stay allies and most of our free-trade partners should be seen with high levels of skepticism.

There is also an Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) which has been tasked with eliminating any reasonable expectation for people in the United States to access cheap reliable energy by 2050. The author points out on page 378, “EERE’s five programmatic priorities during the Biden Administration are all focused on decarbonization of the electricity sector, the industrial sector, transportation, buildings, and the agricultural sector,” and calls for a swift end to the war on carbon. Similarly, the author calls for the elimination of the office’s ability to set energy efficiency standards. As a result of it’s progressive stance and the threats it poses to energy for the US citizen, the author calls for the total elimination of the office while realizing that if it is not eliminated it’s budget should be severely slashed and it’s role should be significantly reduced to protect the market from EERE’s desires to choose who wins and who loses.

Similar to FECM and EECE is the Grid Deployment Office. Some of the focus of this office goes to enhancing the energy grid’s expansion, resiliency, and security; however, far too much focus is on hooking renewable energy into the grid, offering subsidies to green power debacles, and setting grid plans themselves. The office, under Project 25, would see GDO split apart and placed in other already existing offices.

Another office which could and should be gotten rid of is the Office of Clean Energy Demonstration. This entirely Marxist program, “is distorting energy markets and shifting the risk of new technology deployment from the private sector to taxpayers. The IIJA [Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act] provided more than $20 billion in government subsidies to help the private sector deploy and market clean energy and decarbonizing resources. Government should not be picking winners and losers and should not be subsidizing the private sector to bring resources to market” (page 381).

The idea the DoE should issue loans backed by taxpayers is repugnant to the United States Constitution as well and needs to immediately cease. Thus the Loan Program Office should disappear as quickly as possible. Additionally, Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy needs to be completely eliminated.

Another example of a particularly odorous Biden-created monster is slated for elimination called the Clean Energy Corps. The author summarizes the mission of the Corps and gives more than ample cause to get rid of it on page 386, “The Clean Energy Corps is a taxpayer-funded program to create new government jobs for employees “who will work together to research, develop, demonstrate, and deploy solutions to climate change.” DOE anticipates recruiting “an additional 1,000 employees using a special hiring authority included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.” Taxpayers should not have to fund a cadre of federal employees to promote a partisan political agenda.”

These are provided as examples of completely useless aspects of the Department of Energy. Other entities under the Department of Energy’s umbrella do serve valuable roles. Yet, even these entities are subject to reforms which are vitally need to clean up nuclear test sites, develop modernized and more effective nuclear warheads to be used as deterrents, provide cheap, secure, and available energy to US consumers, develop technology, and facilitate trade. Increasing bureaucratic efficiency sounds like an oxymoron; however, in order to reduce costs it is called for at the Department of Energy. The author takes care to provide solutions to potential abuses while describing the streamlining and cost-reducing efforts prescribed in this chapter – one which, if adopted, will create the opportunity for a once more thriving United States based on bountiful energy resources and scientific developments.

The chapter about reforming the Environmental Protection Agency is the thirteenth. The EPA does have a solid basis to exist in the premise that people in the United States deserve clean air, water, and soil. This is not what the EPA is doing; however, as they have yet to come across a global treaty to destroy the economy to supposedly benefit the climate. The authors suggest the EPA be forced to return to it’s proper role of creating clean air, water, and soil while not unduly burdening the economy with nonsense regulations.

In order for the EPA to be forced back within its legal boundaries several overhauls need to take place at the agency. One of them is to freeze spending until a review can be conducted to see if the programs support clean air, water, and soil projects or something else. Another key is to stop allowing nonprofits access to taxpayer money with the enforcement powers of the EPA. Instead, those monies should be going to state environmental agencies and EPA should be building partnerships with those agencies, not their pet nonprofits which have absolutely no accountability to anyone.

The targets at the EPA include the Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Water, Office of Land and Emergency Management, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Office of Research and Development and Related Science Activities, American Indian Office, Office of General Counsel, Office of Mission Support, and Office of the Chief Financial Officer. While all of these offices serve a particular role, they are all guilty of thwarting the intentions of the congressionally mandated purpose given to them. They are rife with creating science based on ideology, wasteful spending, extra-legally expanding their scope, and shirking their actual duties to provide clean air, water, and soil. All of that is effectively addressed in the recommended changes at the EPA and within it’s offices.

Chapter 14 notes that the Department of Health and Human Services has a budget of around $1.6 trillion which would make it the fifth largest national budget all by itself. We spend a ton of money through this department yet, as the author notes, we are not benefiting from the spending. Page 449 identifies the direction HHS needs to take moving forward, “HHS must return to serving the health and well-being of all Americans at all stages of life instead of using social engineering that leaves us sicker, poorer, and more divided.”

Five fundamental goals are proposed that HHS should strive to reflect in all of its actions. The first of these goals is a denial of the murderous claims made about abortion and euthanasia being healthcare and an equal denial of legitimizing non-biological gender ideologies. The second goal seeks to have patients regain control over their healthcare and the way they pay for their healthcare. Thirdly, HHS should support families consisting of a father, mother, and child(ren). Fourth, HHS must be made into a public health agency which respects human and civil rights and relies on factual science, not Anthony Fauci’s corrupt, demented, and murderous decrees, in the face of a health emergency. The fifth goal is to completely end the revolving door between HHS regulators and private pharmaceutical and/or medical personnel, the money flowing to and from regulators and private pharmaceutical and/or medical personnel, and to have health outcomes be the metric measured for success at HHS.

The author excoriates the disastrous existence of the CDC. Major changes at the CDC are demanded such as splitting the agency into two – one to collect data and the other to issue policy recommendations which in no way are able to be construed into mandates issued by the CDC. All pharmaceutical money flowing to the CDC must be stopped. Data systems need to be modernized and made available across multiple systems used by health care workers and policymakers. Further, the CDC should be restrained from promoting abortion or using cells derived from aborted babies. Efforts to collect accurate abortion data need to be implemented and coupled with eligibility to receive Medicaid payments and the data needs to include, gestational age, the cause of the abortion, the state the mother lives in, and how the abortion was carried out.

Looking towards the Food and Drug Administration, the author notes several disturbing issues which exist at the administration.  One big issue is the FDA's penchant for restricting generics to enter the market.  Another is the FDA's absolute war on providing vaccines which neither contain nor were derived from nor tested with fetal cell tissue.  Far from protecting life, the FDA has taken a pro-baby-murder stance as it endorses mail-order chemical 'do-it-yourself' abortion kits.  Ending the revolving door between pharmaceutical companies and FDA regulators must be stopped while at the same time the undue influence pharmaceutical companies wield inside of media outlets (due to often being the largest paying advertiser) needs to be addressed as well.  

Another criminal actor throughout the course of the recent Covidiocy experiment was the National Institutes for Health.  While they are supposed to conduct science to assist in creating greater health for larger numbers of people, they have embroiled themselves in scandal.  The NIH revels in using murdered baby tissue in experimentation, has adopted an ethical position only the most degenerate nations of all time would appreciate, and make their money through corruption and fraud.  The author points all of this out so that it, too, can be reigned in. 

Medicaid and Medicare are ran out of HHS’ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The author takes Medicare to task for restricting access to drugs and treatments, forcing higher costs for treatments, and demanding medical providers provide sex-reassignment surgeries to participate in the program. Medicaid is targeted to return the program to the reason it exists, to help those in need. Thus, getting those capable of working off of Medicaid, reassessing what it means to qualify, and allowing greater flexibility of Medicaid funds to be spent by recipients to assist their healthcare needs are all recommended. The author seeks to end CMS’ funding of abortions, enshrining gender ideology, and mandates at Medicare and Medicaid hospitals that their staff be Covid-19 vaccinated and forced to wear masks.

The Administration for Children and Families at HHS houses several programs. The author of chapter 14 advises that TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) information received by a family no longer serve as a qualification to receive SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits and for there to be stricter work requirements for benefits to be received by TANF recipients. TANF should not be seeking to recruit new beneficiaries; however, factors which would help to reduce the numbers of people in need such as delaying sex, marriage, and family health are completely ignored. The result is that more people wind up in need, TANF is applied for more often, and welfare rolls increase. The author advises HHS to combat these trends to reduce the number of people in need in the first place by revitalizing programs like the Teen Pregnancy Prevention and the Personal Responsibility Education Program which should emphasize risk avoidance. Adoption, too, should be revisited with the intention to gut regulations rooted in gender ideology and gender inclusion nondiscrimination nonsense and remove discriminatory regulations against those who advocate adoption and/or foster care based on their beliefs about marriage.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement is housed in ACF. The author notes the rampant government-funded child trafficking operation which has been conducted through this agency (without using that language). The recommendation is to place this office under DHS so that the number of children ‘lost’ is reduced, the placements they are put in are less likely to be dangerous ones, and that placements are no longer facilitated by NGO’s which assist in the illegal trafficking operation to begin with. Additionally, the Office of Refugee Resettlement is excoriated by the author because of it’s history of trafficking pregnant girls to abortion-friendly states to electively murder babies – babies likely conceived because of the rapists who smuggled them over the border to begin with and the trafficking process implemented in by NGO’s and ORR.

Several other offices are mention in this section as well. Changes are called for to address to the way child support cripples the ability of the non-resident parent are called for such as a tax credit for those paying child support, combining child support court and visitation court, tracking non-court ordered support received by the custodial parent provided by the non-custodial parent, giving educational resources to fathers stressing the importance of their presence in the home, and returning to a stance recognizing marriage as a union between one man and one unrelated woman.

Other notable changes at HHS are the recommendation to remove the Head Start program, focus the Administration for Community Living on providing palliative care instead of championing physician assisted suicide, and significantly reducing the ability for Health Resources and Services Administration to advertise abortions and sex-change therapies – instead HRSA should be focused on promoting healthy stable families which raise up healthy stable children. One particularly bright spot the author recommends is changing the education received by doctors and other medical personnel to require learning how to perform an abortion from an opt-out choice to an opt-in choice.

After suggesting better ways to meet the healthcare needs on reservations and in rural areas, the author addresses needed changes in the Office of the Secretary. The author identifies the need for the Secretary to take back control of the department’s operational policies, bar HHS from being able to declare never ending health emergencies, and address the rights HHS violated during the Covid-19 debacle. The Secretary should lead HHS back to realizing it’s status as being a protector of life and a champion of healthy traditional families.

The Surgeon General’s office should be consolidated and streamlined making sure that it’s missions are not duplicated by others. It should also reflect the renewed stance of HHS and the rest of the federal government to promote life and to promote families. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response needs to be retooled so that it is able to function properly in the event of an emergency without duplicating efforts under FEMA and reflects the stance that the National Strategic Stockpile is not intended for the public’s use but “as supplier of last resort to the federal government, state governments, or first responders and key medical staff” (page 492).

The last two offices addressed are the Office for Global Affairs and the Office for Civil Rights. The Office for Global Affairs is mentioned so it is more coordinated. The Office for Civil Rights is mentioned because of it’s need to follow the law, stop endorsing abortions, and stop ordering abortion pills to be sold universally.

In Chapter 15 delves into ending the monopoly over public housing through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The author first notes that the people leading the agency need to be made accountable, namely, through making more of them political appointees. Should the Department remain intact, all of the policies throughout HUD should reflect the temporary nature of housing assistance, cease penalizing intact nuclear families, end the ability of HUD to enforce progressive policy intrusions at HUD by removing the policies, seek to address underlying mental and substance abuse issues prior to securing housing, and work towards getting people out of public housing because the need for it no longer exists.

Chapter 16 covers the Department of Interior. The Department of Interior covers a lot of ground, literally. It is responsible for all of the public lands and waters owned by the federal government as well as for the administration of the Indian reservation system. The main points here are to curtail the department’s rampant abuses of power, land grabs, economic warfare, and so-called environmentalism. Multiple instances of these abuses have prevented countless economic endeavors and have forced the United States and its citizens into artificially created scarcity in oil, gas, coal, timber, and mineral resources, as well as food stuffs. Native American populations are critically afflicted by this artificial scarcity as they are forbidden from developing the resources on their own lands.

The author of chapter 16 recommends all of this be immediately done away with. The department and its agencies are to be reigned in to reflect a return to the mandates Congress gave them. No longer will the department serve the interests of misaligned environmental activists who have entrenched themselves throughout the department nor used to cudgel economic interests upon or under federal lands and waters.

Of special interest to me is to thwart the revival of a plan known as the Wildlands Project. In it’s original form, wildlife corridors and buffer zones would create a United States in which well over 50 percent of the land mass was made off-limits to any human activity. The rewilding effort, as it is known, is not beneficial for wild species and is dangerous and anti-productive for human beings. Today this plan is known in the Bidenomics era as the 30 by 30 plan which seeks to place 440 million acres of land and ocean under federal control giving the federal government over one billion acres of land in total. That would be slightly less than half of all of the United States. Had the US government, especially under democrat administrations, shown the ability to even modestly manage the lands already under it’s control (~600 million acres) maybe this would be tolerable; however, they have conducted a flagrant assault against property rights, Congressionally passed laws, court orders, and economic vitality that was unimaginable to the framers of the US Constitution as well as the authors of early legislation pertaining to conservation. The author’s stern direction to dismantle any actions under 30 by 30 as well as the executive order issued by Biden and all subsequent orders under it is more than welcomed.

Lady Justice has a blindfold over her eyes for a good reason – to avoid predetermined political and social outcomes in court and thwart the return of the hated star-chambers. Thus, in chapter 17, Department of Justice, the author’s diagnosis of the department’s actions of late reflects an injustice as indicated on page 545:

“Unfortunately, the department has lost its way in recent years and has forfeited the trust of large segments of the American people. Large swaths of the department have been captured by an unaccountable bureaucratic managerial class and radical Left ideologues who have embedded themselves throughout its offices and components. The department also suffers from institutional inattentiveness to its core functions. Instead of being perceived as possessing the utmost impartiality and fairness as it advances the national interest on behalf of the American people— fighting crime and defending the rule of law—the DOJ has become a department that 46.6 percent of Americans recently indicated is, in their view, “too political, corrupt, and not to be trusted.””

The author lists some of the notable incidents of injustice which should have 100% of American’s concerned and livid with the so-called Justice Department. Russian collusion; the Hunter Biden laptop; arresting parents for their speech at school board meetings; colluding with social media to remove content damaging to their ‘approved’ narrative about the 2020 election, abortion, and any other non-liberal content; turning a blind eye to a flood of fentanyl; allowing wave after wave of illegal immigration (invasion), and over-zealously (read, illegally) prosecuting pro-life demonstrators while protecting violent Antifa rioters are all recent examples of the activities of the department endorsing injustice indicated by the author. Obviously, all of these grievances must be addressed if the department ever hopes to regain one iota of credibility – a path broadly charted by the author on page 547:

“Successful reform will require more than minor peripheral adjustments. It will require a holistic, energetic, leadership-driven e"ort to remedy the damage that has been done and advance the national interest. Additionally, some needed reforms will not be possible without legislative changes from Congress. While it is true that certain o!ces and components—like the FBI or the Civil Rights Division—will require more attention than others, committed direction from the department’s political leadership can restore the department’s focus on its two core functions: protecting public safety and defending the rule of law.”

To restore the department’s reputation it must be reigned back in because it is clearly out of control. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, one of the most egregious violators of the public’s trust, must cease suppressing speech, applying misinformation and disinformation labels to speech, and be organizationally reconfigured so that the agency is no longer able to think it is accountable to no one. The FBI is also slated to be shrunk which entails emphasizing the importance of field agents while eliminating overhead such as the FBI’s Office of Congressional Affairs, Office of Public Affairs, and the Office of General Counsel. This internal Office of General Counsel at the FBI is highly problematic and in order to regain the public’s confidence, the FBI will necessarily need to seek counsel from sources external from itself.

The department, as a whole, needs to return to getting tough on crime – particularly violent crime. In state and local jurisdictions where woke district attorneys fail to prosecute violent criminals due to the status of an offender the federal government is called upon to step in and prosecute the criminal themselves. This recommendation is troubling because of the potential abuses the Department of Justice may see as a way to usurp state and local laws; however, when coupled with another recommendation – to prosecute the prosecutors who refuse to try violent criminals – much trepidation is dissipated. Sentencing must be aligned with criminal activity up to and including death sentences. Those who have received death sentences need to have their sentences carried out and “should also pursue the death penalty for applicable crimes—particularly heinous crimes involving violence and sexual abuse of children—until Congress says otherwise through legislation” (page 554).

The Department should also focus on transnational criminal enterprises. One way to do this would be to secure the border. As the border is being secured, possibly through deployment of National Guard troops, small-time distributors should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Additionally, the author recommends using RICO statutes to thwart crime syndicates operating in the United States. In a similar vein, there are state actors who flagrantly violate our laws with the full intention to weaken the security of the United States. Actors such as China and Iran are notorious for these types of efforts and the Department of Justice must act to prevent such actors from posing these continued security risks.

The rule of law is rooted in the concept that the law applies equally to all. Initiatives such as DEI, cases such as 303 Creative LLC v Elenis (2023), and DOJ’s prosecution of peaceful protesters under the FACE Act turn the underlying concept of the rule of law upside-down. If the two-tiered system of justice is not remedied the department will never again regain any of the trust it has lost. It will merely lose more trust as the weaponized system afflicts more and more people. This is the only thing Merrick Garland and the Biden Administration have proven capable of at the department as they refuse to enforce existing laws regarding mailing abortion pills, ignore election law violations, and accept requests from politically motivated third parties to illegal violate the rights of their political opponents. The department should also make every effort to ensure that DOJ grant money does not wind up being squandered by jurisdictions who actively work to thwart federal efforts to fight crime through misconduct, non-compliance, and a general unwillingness to work with federal authorities. The DOJ needs to step back into the role of adjudicating illegal alien related cases in the most timely, efficient, and justice-minded way it is able.

Overall changes at DOJ the author recommends are to expand the number of political appointments, reorganize the department to make it more accountable to the public, ensure appropriate actions were taken for personnel found to have committed misconduct, and to ensure accuracy in reporting crime statistics tailored to the general public – not special interest groups.

In Chapter 18 Project 25 takes a peek at the problems and remedies at the Department of Labor. The opening paragraph of this chapter (page 588) is too toxic to those working so ardently to destroy America to not include:

“At the heart of The Conservative Promise is the resolve to reclaim the role of each American worker as the protagonist in his or her own life and to restore the family as the centerpiece of American life. The role that labor policy plays in that promise is twofold: Give workers the support they need for rewarding, well-paying, and self-driven careers, and restore the family-supporting job as the centerpiece of the American economy. The Judeo-Christian tradition, stretching back to Genesis, has always recognized fruitful work as integral to human dignity, as service to God, neighbor, and family. And Americans have long been known for their work ethic. While it is primarily the culture’s responsibility to affirm the dignity of work, our federal labor and employment agencies have an important role to play by protecting workers, setting boundaries for the healthy functioning of labor markets, and ultimately encouraging wages and conditions for jobs that can support a family.”

DEI, racial discrimination, and non-biologically defined sexual discrimination must be halted immediately. Classifications (such as race and sexual identity especially when coupled with a quota system) of employees and prospective employees have crippled the capability and stifled the ability for many to obtain meaningful work at multiple public and private sector enterprises and must necessarily end.

The respect for human life and the protections in law for pregnant mothers needs to be respected and followed at the department and abortion services should no longer be promoted to the exclusion of bringing life into this world. Employers holding traditional views regarding sexuality, marriage, and gender as well as religious views should receive no more and no less scrutiny than any other establishment and in no case should be discriminated against.

Several recommendations are particularly attractive. One is that overtime pay can be eschewed on a current paycheck and banked up to be used for paid time off. Another suggestion is to reform retirement contributions to allow married couples to contribute the full amount of both individuals in the marriage regardless of who makes the contributions. The mere suggestion of a Sabbath rest reflecting the Christian (Sunday) or Jewish (Friday at sundown to Saturday at sundown) is refreshing although it should probably not be mandated by the government because one way or another it will be abused as the author addressed. Nonetheless, the government needs to respect those enterprises which do observe the Sabbath rest without discriminating against them. Preventing the Department of Labor from engaging in arbitrary enforcement, pretending guidance documents are equivalent to law, and removing regulatory compliance barring small business from competing against giant corporations are also welcome recommendations.

The author remarks that more attention needs to be paid to non-college avenues leading to employment such as vocational schools and on the job training. Coupled with this are various entities at the department tasked with overseeing labor programs which are intended to give needed skills to people so they can enter the workforce or into a new role in the workforce but these programs do not measure their success by outcome and instead focus on the number of people who entered the program – a remedy sorely needed. Unemployment Insurance is also mentioned because it has become rife with fraud which needs to be remedied as well.

A substantial amount of space is used to make strong recommendations intended to put unions back in their place. One area is to make public unions transparent to the public. A second example resides in the concept that unions which engage in political activism against the wishes of their members are able to sue the union for breach of contract. An alternative to unions is even proposed. The suggestion is to allow workers, on a voluntary basis, to discuss their working conditions with management directly. This is a sorely needed alternative to labor unions which will still allow workers to have a voice.

At the state level, the author suggests that unemployment benefits be doled out by non-public entities which are legally barred from making political donations of any sort. Also, Licensing requirements should not be added to at the federal level for interstate compacts.

Investments need to be made more transparent so that ESG vehicles are not the default investment made with retirement monies. For public workers, such investments in China should be legislated out of the realm of possibility and ESG-friendly firms like BlackRock should be divested. Public pensions at the state level are massively underfunded and is called upon to be fixed not through bailouts but through restructuring the investments to turn the programs around.

When it comes to immigration and labor, Americans are losing out of job opportunities. Despite the whining from some corners of the conservative movement, the author recommends capping and curtailing H-2A and H-2B visas, cracking down on employers who commit visa fraud, and reintroducing the legality of hiring US citizens for US jobs before others are considered. Internationally, American workers need to be protected from foreign labor which often features forced labor (i.e, slavery) – a crime which should be investigated by the Department of Labor.

There are some rather concerning opinions expressed in this chapter as well. While the author neither condones nor disparages what is known as the gig-economy, making it easier for people to participate in it, as the author recommends, portends a negative outcome. As jobs become scarcer, more temporary, and employ larger numbers of gig-workers, the arrival of a brand new class of people will devastate societies. This class, the precariot, will need to be pacified through all sorts of public means such as Universal Basic Income and increases in already existing welfare benefits. The precariot, a class of people with no stable income and no opportunity to obtain a stable income through labor will bring about the return of the bread and circuses Rome so famously destroyed itself with. Another concern arises when the author suggests that farming be done with technology. This, too, facilitates the rise of the precariot.

Yet, overall, implementing almost all of chapter 18, less the cautions given about the rise of a precariot class, would fulfill the authors purpose and substantially help to Make America Great Again as mentioned in the concluding remark on page 616:

“The good of the American family is at the heart of conservative labor policy recommendations. The longstanding tradition of a strong work ethic in American culture must be encouraged and strengthened by policies that promote family-sustaining jobs. By eliminating the policies promoted by the DEI agenda, promoting pro-life policies that support family life, expanding available apprenticeship programs including by encouraging the role of religious organizations in apprenticeships, making family-sustaining jobs accessible, simplifying employment requirements, and allowing employers to prefer American citizens when making hiring decisions, among the other policy recommendations discussed above, we can begin to secure a future in which the American worker, and by extension the American family, can thrive and prosper.”

Transportation is something American’s think about just as much as their jobs. After all, how we get to and from our jobs often sets the tone for our entire working day. Should we all ride a bus or drive a car – that’s up to us as individuals. Should we drive to visit family on the holidays or fly? Think about buying a birthday gift. A gift made in China, Chile, France, or South Africa will often be taken by road to a seafaring vessel, transported across an ocean, put on a train, then put back on the road. All of these modes of transportation are under the umbrella of the Department of Transportation, the topic of Chapter 19.

The department has some major issues. Topping the list is that the department was never supposed to serve as the grant-maker it is today. It is supposed to be setting regulations and rules to facilitate safe transportation corridors throughout the United States over land, water, and air. It was never intended for the department to wield tens of billions of dollars for discretionary grants, yet that is what it has become – the federal government’s infrastructure grant maker.

Pages 621-622 has the broad solutions to the department’s woes. It reads:

“Many Americans continue to confront serious challenges with their day-to-day transportation, including costs that have increased dramatically in recent years. DOT in its current form is insufficiently equipped to address those problems. DOT’s discretionary grant-making processes should be abolished, and funding should be focused on formulaic distributions to the states, which know best their transportation needs and are incentivized to think of the long-term maintenance costs. At a bare minimum, the number of grants should be consolidated.”

Embedded in this chapter is a pros and cons list of using public-private partnerships to fund infrastructure projects. Instead of the government financing the upfront costs of a project, the government will contract a private business. The private business that is chosen then becomes the winner as the government will be contractually obligated to pay them for as long as the contract states. Often this is 30 years. The author points out that this arrangement is subject to abuse from the private sector because stipulations need to be made air-tight to prevent such abuses down the road – long after the terms of the representatives from the government as well as the careers of those in the corporate world have signed the contract. What the author fails to mention is that the entire idea is a new way to implement an old idea conceived by Karl Marx and instituted by Mussolini and Hitler in the 1930’s and by the Chinese politburo along with the governments of Singapore, United Arab Emirates, and Ukraine presently. The idea is the incestuous economic model called fascism with an overlay of technocracy which destroys the rights of the citizenry just as surely as other flavors of Marxism. The real problem arises when it is properly understood that this technocratic fascism is the favored outcome for the global economic system championed by the World Economic Forum. The fact that there is a pros and cons list of private-public partnerships in Project 25 is welcomed; however, because Project 25 author(s) seem(s) to favor the arrangement I have deep concerns about an increase in the number and the scale of private-public partnerships and the direction they will take our nation.

Another giant problem the author of this chapter warmly embraces is making sure that automated vehicles enter roadways as swiftly as possible. This is how we end up being forced into living in Klaus Schwabs’ 15 minute cities. Thus, despite the author hinting at the concept of allowing individuals and communities to choose their transportation means, the author is really creating the rise of one the primary features a totalitarian society – the complete control of the subject’s movement. The author even includes WEF advertising to get us into these mobile prison cells, writing on page 625, “Over time, these advanced technologies can save lives, transform personal mobility, and provide additional transportation opportunities—including for people with disabilities, aging populations, and communities where car ownership is expensive or impractical.” Sure they will accomplish that but in the meantime individual automobile ownership and operation is facing an all out assault to force us into the situation that AI ride sharing – mobile prison cells – is the only way to get around. Because the author took none of this into account, I highly suspect the author is corrupt.

The author misses a huge issue which arises when the department sets corporate average fuel economy standards as well. Heavier vehicles are typically safer to be in if there is an accident. If a passenger car weighs, on average, about 2 tons, what will a 3 ton pickup, an 8 ton semi tractor, a 13 ton box truck or a 70,000 pound semi with a full trailer going to do it if there is an accident? It’s going to kill people. Lighter may mean better fuel economy, but it also means less safe. The author repeatedly denies this fact. Some of the recommendations the author makes are welcomed such as not allowing the EPA to override the authority of DOT setting CAFE standards, lessening the Unites States’ reliance on China for rare earth minerals, and de-emphasizing the production and subsidies of electric vehicles; however, once again the author proves to be lacking in integrity by appealing to ‘experts’ who claim newer vehicles are safer vehicles by default when they certainly are not.

The author’s vision for Federal Highway Administration is direct and straight forward. It includes getting the administration to “Seek to refocus the FHWA on maintaining and improving the highway system. Remove or reform rules and regulations that hamper state governments. Reduce the amount of federal involvement in local infrastructure decisions” (page 629).

The author suggests that there be more competition in the airline industry – a welcome addition – but then goes on to suggest that those competitors should include foreign investors and airlines. The author goes on to address the pilot shortage without ever once coming within a hundred miles to address the actual causes of the shortage – DEI hires and the Covid-19 death jabs and suggests, instead that copilots should be certified with less flight-time hours and have their flight simulator hours counted towards the total. At the Federal Aviation Administration the author is obsessed with making US airports exactly like European, Canadian, and Australian airports. Although the reforms suggested, like forcing the FAA to collect monies from sources outside the appropriations process, should be seriously considered, nothing in the United States should ever be undertaken merely because the EU is doing them. Yet that is the only – ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ – factor which seems to motivate the author’s recommendation in this section.

Despite the slap-in-your-face hypocrisy the author suggests on page 635 which would create a huge fraud scheme available to anyone with motorized transportation in their possession, “A better definition for public transit (which also would require congressional legislation) would be transit provided for the public rather than transit provided by a public municipality,” by the end of the section the author makes a sensible calculation about mass transit funding at the federal level. Recommendations include restructuring labor contracts with transit workers and ending federal subsidies propping up failing municipal mass-transit systems, and allowing the localities mass-transit systems operate in to determine whether those systems are providing a public benefit worth continuing or not.

140,000 miles of railroad track serves as the internal backbone of the United States transportation system. The Federal Railroad Administration is tasked with ensuring that freight traveling the tracks is done safely and efficiently with a focus on the safety element. The author rightly calls upon the next administration to modernize the FRA, force the FRA to stop getting in the way of efficiency by demanding useless regulations to be followed, and to focus on its actual mission of ensuring safe transport instead of preserving jobs which are mandated by regulation not need.

To address the waters in and around the United States, the Department of Transportation houses the Maritime Administration. The suggestion is for this administration to be moved to the Department of Homeland Security or, if DHS is eliminated, the Department of Defense. The administration is responsible for ensuring vessels are on the sea to engage in commerce in times of peace and to provide for those same vessels being used for operations during times of crisis and/or war. The author’s suggestion of placing the administration in the same house as FEMA is extremely worrisome as FEMA’s mandate is to provide for continuity of government (it’s not officially tasked with disaster recovery).

To sum up this chapter – a chapter rife with disingenuous reasoning and outcomes which will result in total enslavement – someone else with some sense should have been tapped to write it. While several of the recommendations hold a great deal of merit, many of them portend the doom of individual liberty the nation was founded on. This chapter wildly misses the mark the author only mentions in platitudes. This is summed up in the conclusion to Chapter 19 on pages 638-639:

“All too often, DOT’s mission is described as reducing the number of trips, using less fuel, and raising the costs of travel to Americans through increased use of renewables. These goals are not compatible with what should be DOT’s purpose: to make travel easier and less expensive. That is what the American people want, and that is what DOT should provide.”

While the average US citizen demands DOT provide inexpensive and easier travel, what we do not want is a DOT which is even capable of dictating where we are permitted to go, how we are permitted to arrive there, and if we are even able to access transportation options to get there at all. The author of this chapter must have missed the instances where the recommendations suggested imply that transportation is too hard and costs too much – transportation can be made more affordable and easier, true – but that in order to make it easier and cheaper, a new form of subservience needs to be submitted to so that in order for a US citizen to get from point A to point B a huge amount of individual liberty must be ceded to state and federal ‘authorities.’ The convergence of facilitating easy and affordable transportation needs, commingled with a social-credit score to access those needs, is overwhelming throughout this chapter, albeit unmentioned directly. Much caution should be used when seeking to implement any of the recommendations in it.

The last chapter of section three, Chapter 20, details how the Heritage Foundation seeks to address needed reforms at the Department of Veteran Affairs. Three administrations are mentioned to address the reforms need at each within the VA; the Veteran’s Health Administration, Veterans Benefit Administration, and Human Resources and Administration.

The Veteran’s Health Administration should be assessed to align resources including medical personnel and funding to meet the needs of the nation’s veterans. Where the VA is not properly staffed or funded to handle the medical and or psychiatric needs of a veteran Community Care should be sought with the added benefit of the veteran making healthcare decisions much more independently.

Technological and structural upgrades are recommended for the Veteran’s Benefit Administration. Contracting out assessments to determine whether or not a veteran qualifies for benefits would allow for VBA personnel to make the final determinations while reducing the time between a claim being filed and a determination being made and/or benefits being paid. The process to rate disabilities also needs to be addressed to reduce fraud as well as to remove non-military disabilities from being covered.

Human Resources and Administration is charged with becoming more flexible so that it is more attuned to fulfilling the medical needs of veterans. This entails creating a positive culture throughout the VA system, making the VA more accountable, and engaging in collective bargaining negotiations with the intent to provide for veteran’s medical needs in exchange for adequate taxpayer-funded compensation packages.

The six chapters in Section 4 pertain to the economy. The first spot the Heritage Foundation stopped at was the Department of Commerce in Chapter 21. Ideally, the department would be largely dismantled, it’s pieces sent to other entities at other departments. This is due to a huge amount of overlap which exists which causes duplicated work and wastes taxpayer dollars. The author notes; however, that the political ability to achieve this dismantling is not feasible and thus focuses the chapter on making changes within the department as it currently exists.

The first step is to replace the heads of the Department of Commerce with political appointees and then to get rid of bureaucrats who serve as gatekeepers to prevent policy changes from being implemented. This will increase accountability at the department as will the next recommendation, dissolving committees which are not authorized by law or statute and ensuring the committees which remain are not full of activists with an agenda who have infiltrated our government.

The department’s International Trade Administration is to be focused on several important issues; countering malign actors such as China; monitor enforce, and defend against trade violations; bolster the security of supply chains and technology flows; and set the stage for the private sector to thrive, innovate, and compete.

The Bureau of Industry and Security is responsible for managing technology exports to other nations. Reforms in this area are sorely needed as advanced US-developed technologies routinely wind up in the hands of states and actors with an adversarial, and at times even openly hostile, relationship with the United States. It is a matter of national security to reign in technology transfers to nations of concern, take control of intellectual property in order to prevent it from being used by nefarious actors against the interests of the United States, and to prevent hostile foreign governments from surveilling the general US public through any of several widely used applications.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has multiple components which comprise it. It is the most expensive and largest administration of the Commerce Department except when the census is conducted. While NOAA does have utility, it’s focus on environmental issues conjured up by climate activists detracts from the useful elements of NOAA. The National Weather Service is recommended for complete privatization and, in lieu of that, to work more closely with private sector weather forecasters. The National Hurricane Center and National Environmental Satellite Service need to recommit themselves to providing accurate unbiased data. The US Coast Guard and US Geological Survey should absorb the functions of the National Ocean Service. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service needs to be streamlined and abuses need to be remedied to reflect accessibility to commercial uses of ocean resources. The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research is the hub of activists’ preferred climate alarmism of the day and should be gutted. The Office of Marine and Aviation Operations is recommended for dissolution and it’s assets placed at other departments. Other recommendations are to ensure that NOAA officials act in-line with a conservative administration in the White House, provide for innovation awards in the private sector to lessen the cost of research and development funded by taxpayers, and putting the Office of Space Commerce directly under the Office of the Secretary of Commerce to allow it to operate with the intention it was designed for – commercial space operations.

A suggestion to house all of the data collection functions under one bureau is on page 678 followed by a detailed list of recommendations for the Census Bureau. The census is how we apportion our representatives and collecting accurate useful data is extremely important. To effect its mission, the Census Bureau needs to make sure the questions on the survey reflect data which is accurate and needed such as maintaining a separation of race from ethnicity, adding a citizenship question, and addressing the plans and budget of the upcoming census (2030). Overall the bureau should seek ways to perform it’s functions in a more cost effective manner. Not only does it conduct the census every ten years, it is also conducts several other surveys such as the American Communities Survey, the Economic Census, and the Supplemental Poverty Measurement. All of these data gathering efforts can be useful statistical representations which help inform policies which work and need to be molded to do so. The author relates that the committees which are under the Census Bureau all need to be reevaluated and one on particular, The Census Bureau National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations, needs to be immediately abolished entirely under a conservative administration.

The Economic Business Administration would be better off being dissolved and it’s functions given to other more capable grant-making entities in the federal government. In lieu of that move, the administration should be aligned with a conservative administration’s policy directives. While it is curious that there is a racially-charged Minority Business Development Agency, the author accurately states it is highly unlikely to go anywhere and should be used to promote conservative values to minority business owners and the communities they serve.

The author suggests enhancing intellectual property rights. Specifically mentioned are quantum computing, 5G, and artificial intelligence but also strongly alluded to are medical technologies such as mRNA. It is odd to me that the author would demand that patents be enhanced for any of these technologies because as stand-alone developments they represent the potentials for existential crises and, when combined, they guarantee the end of human existence on the planet. Off the top of my head, the leaders in these areas are, respectively, IBM, Samsung, Google, and Moderna, who, under increased patent protections would literally be able to commingle with one another to control every aspect of our lives externally and internally based on their whim without having to answer to anyone, particularly politicians. Intellectual property rights are important; however, strengthening them particularly in these areas will allow the consolidation of power above and beyond the reach of government authorities let alone the people who are made subject to these technologies.

The author notes that the National Institute of Standards and Technology needs to focus on setting standards with allied nations so that US standards are compatible in other nations and facilitates ease of trade and commerce with those nations while reconsidering the science it is engaged in. the institute needs to get out of private sector manufacturing. The National Telecommunications and Information Service should be moved to the National Institute of Standards and Technology to streamline science getting to the public.

The author again delves into demanding that 5G be brought to every person in the United States while discussing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. 5G does the same thing to living cells that our microwaves do to whatever we are trying to heat up. Putting this throughout the nation will have drastically bad outcomes because as people drop dead from radiation poisoning from 5G, the infrastructure will prove to be a useless waste of time. Advocates of fiber optics – a far safer and more permanent high-speed broadband option – seem to be in short supply at the Heritage Foundation and everywhere else on the planet. That is an oddity in and of itself.

Adding to this repeated lapse of good sense, the author apparently seems to think the government has a legitimate role in monitoring free speech as noted on page 687, “Immediately conduct a thorough review of federal policy regarding free speech online and provide policy solutions to address big tech’s censorship of speech.” The author cannot recognize that nearly all of this censorship – particularly the most egregious examples of this censorship such as regarded Covid-19 death jabs, Covid-19 treatments, the 2020 election, and Hunter Biden’s laptop – was at the behest of the government in the first place. This is an open backdoor invitation for the US government to implement legislation without voting on it which will seemingly legitimize government censorship of speech (conservative or liberal administrations have no bearing at all here, S. 686 serves as an example as does the pronouncements recently made in the UK by their Goebbels-loving Prime Minister).

Most of the recommendations in this chapter are positive and will result in a safer, more prosperous, and more competitive United States. Obviously there are some grave concerns which need to be explored before fully committing to them. This technological race the United States seems to be unable to disengage from – the one where all of these humanity-ending technologies are developed as fast as possible with no serious regard given to the consequences – needs to stop not just in the United States but in China, Russia, the EU, Australia and anywhere else they are being developed. We, the people who live on this planet need to be made aware of these technologies before they are fully developed and a global discussion needs to result in a decision made by us – the people – as to whether or not these technologies should be pursued or not. The pedal-to-the-metal approach of developing and deploying these technologies because of fears of another nation developing them first is an extension of the same stupid things the world was forced to endure throughout the Cold War.

In Chapter 22 the Heritage Foundation tackles the Department of the Treasury. The Department of the Treasury houses multiple departments, seven bureaus, and four inspector generals but 85% of the personnel are in the Internal Revenue Service which also eats up 80% of the Department of Treasury’s budget. In addition, the department has gone ‘woke’ and instead of focusing on it’s duties is more concerned with social and economic equity (that everyone ends up the same way – lost, destitute, and broken) and mitigating climate change which serves one peculiar interest – obliterating the sovereignty of whatever nation adheres to the tenets of climate change to make the former nation compliant with international and supranational edicts and forms of governance.

With 80% of the Department of Treasury comprised of the IRS, tax policy is obviously a huge issue. The author tackles it by calling for intermediate reforms by eliminating deductions and making the entire individual tax code only two brackets one at 15% and the other at 30%. Business taxes are also recommended to be made far simpler. Additionally, the author proposes a savings account which can be funded up to $15,000 annually, used for anything including investments, and not eligible to be taxed on any gains made on the money; encouraging entrepreneurship; and capping the tax write off employers claim through employee benefit packages at $12,000 a year.

Fundamental tax reform will require a lot more work but is sorely needed. The author suggests any of several forms of taxation based on consumption – not labor. Specifically mentioned (page 697) are a “national sales tax, a business transfer tax, a Hall–Rabushka flat tax, or a cash flow tax.” In addition to completely throwing out the current structure of taxes in the United States, the author supports a supermajority in Congress to raise taxes, encourages tax competition between the states and the nations of the world, and advocates vigorously for the United States to immediately cease funding the United Nation’s Organization for Economic Coordination and Development.

Administration at the IRS is the next subject addressed by the author. Doubling the number of agents at the IRS is a bad idea because it will cost more and become even more intrusive into our daily lives. Management lacks accountability because there are a grand total of two political appointees overseeing 81,000 employees which must be corrected if any change is ever going to take place at the IRS. Information Technology at the IRS sorely needs to be modernized but either IRS management is unwilling to actually fix the issue or too incompetent to go about fixing the issue to actually fix the issue. The author makes appropriate recommendations to ameliorate the issues.

The author advises an expansion of taxpayer rights and privacy protections by expanding The Office of the Taxpayer Advocate and allowing it to operate more independently. In the international arena, the United States is urged to withdraw from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and to cease using international intermediaries when providing humanitarian aid. If the United States refuses to withdraw, the Department of the Treasury should create stipulations preventing monies to be spent on objectives which are against US interests and have a staff at the international institution to ensure US interests are pursued.

The most important issue at the Department of the Treasury should be reigning in the national debt according to the author who suggests this should be pursued by offering longer term bonds including a 50 year bond. Coupled with this, an encouraging new trend should begin which involves informing every US citizen about the prior fiscal year’s performance and include what that means for each of us going forward from that point. Right now everyone in the US is on the hook for about $104,000 each.

The author has a lot to say about the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. For one, the committee may as well be there to serve the interests of corporate which is not compatible with realizing, detecting, nor penalizing foreign investors who run afoul of the law, let alone pose grave national security risks. Greenfield purchases by China in the United States, which do create jobs, also pose technological transfers from the US to China and undermine the economic vitality of the United States. In order to fix this issue the Department of Defense should be co-chair the committee to have the interests of national security realized. The committee also lacks transparency and objectivity which would be addressed by clearly defining what is acceptable, what is not acceptable, and the penalties which will come from violating the provisions.

A very interesting proposal is made on page 704 which would necessarily require the Treasury and Defense Departments to work in tandem. Done correctly, with proper protections in place, this represents the best counter to declarations of economic war voiced and conducted by China. The proposal and rationale for it reads, “Treasury should examine creating a school of financial warfare jointly with DOD. If the U.S. is to rely on financial weapons, tools, and strategies to prosecute international defensive and offensive objectives, it must create a specially trained group of experts dedicated to the study, training, testing, and preparedness of these deterrents. Recent experience has demonstrated that the U.S. cannot depend on the rapid development and deployment of untested, academically developed financial actions, stratagems, and weapons on an ad hoc basis.”

The author proposes significant changes to banking regulation performed by the department. Increased competitiveness and reduced regulation is advocated for in an effort to reduce the risks of financial crises and allowing investors better vehicles to invest in. No longer should the federal government be offering what amounts to taxpayer-backed promises that any financial institution is ‘too-big-to-fail’ nor as a backstop for mortgages.

I am personally aware of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network because of a previous employer which had to maintain compliance with FinCEN. While it is important to detect and root out money laundering schemes, the author points out that the economic and privacy harms committed by FinCEN far outweigh its benefits and is thus in need of reform. Far too often FinCEN targets small business owners making regular deposits of small amounts of money over the minimum reporting amount and have their assets seized. The author suggests that the ability for FinCEN to do this be repealed, they are forced to become transparent, and must begin to publish data on their activities so that lawmakers are able to determine whether the costs of the program warrant the benefits of FinCEN’s activities.

According to the author it is not enough to immediately end the existence of the Treasury Advisory Committee on Racial Equity but to root out every policy which is tied to DEI or critical race theory and have an employee’s involvement on creating them serve as grounds for termination. By adopting policies based upon these ideologies, the Department of Treasury has overtly engaged in discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and sex.

Similarly, the author advises that the ‘Climate Hub’ at the department be shut down, the US withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement, abandon ESG, and reassess what responsible investment is. The department should be seeking ways to make life for the people it is serving – US citizens – easier, more affordable, and more accessible but seeking any and every opportunity to divest from traditional energy markets serves the opposite purpose.

The author sees the Treasury as the right department for the US Coast Guard and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Advice is given to end the US Trade and Development Agency because the private sector would better serve the functions. Other issues which the author notes but does not cover are listed on page 710 and “include China, cybersecurity, digital assets, digital services taxes, international debt defaults, Iran, Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and private sector pensions, sanctions policy, and treasury auction and debt issuance.” I am particularly interested in recommendations on digital assets and digital taxation and would have appreciated them included here.

The Export-Import Bank is the sole topic of Chapter 23. The Bank is abbreviated as EXIM. It is summarized by the author writing against it on page 717, “EXIM operates in effect as a protectionist agency that picks winners and losers in the market by providing political privileges to firms that are already well-financed. By doing so, it risks taxpayer funds as it stymies economic growth.” Thus, on page 718 a plain and simple conclusion is drawn, “The Bank should be abolished.” The first authors conclusion reads, “The Export–Import Bank should be abolished because it wastes taxpayer money, adversely affects American businesses, and does not promote economic growth effectively. Furthermore, any attempts to reorient the agency and make it a weapon with which to fight against China are going to fail. Economic fights and national security fights are not won with subsidies” (pages 723-724).

Another author writes of the cause to retain the bank. What I took from the argument presented is that we should continue on with the bank because it’s what everyone else does. I learned that these types of banks represent the quickest path to win the race to the bottom. They are not suited for competition between nations but as vehicles to promote globalization. This author certainly failed to make a coherent case as to why EXIM should exist. The case exists for the United States to not only get rid of the Export-Import Bank but to bar US businesses from cooperating with any foreign export credit agency.

The Federal Reserve is one on my favorite things in the United States which absolutely should not exist, should never have existed, and should immediately cease being in existence. That is my take on the matter, in Chapter 24, the Heritage Foundation offers it’s take. Their take is to reform the institution to increase its independence and make it’s singular focus the stability of money in the United States. The author advises that no matter what the FED should not be responsible to create full employment, be forced to set a target inflation rate, regulate only bank capital adequacy (eliminating the possibility of incorporating ESG into their regulations), end the ability for the FED to be used as a lender of last resort, and to not allow a central bank digital currency to be instituted. Another recommendation, one I highly favor, is to, “Appoint a commission to explore the mission of the Federal Reserve, alternatives to the Federal Reserve system, and the nation’s financial regulatory apparatus page 741).

Despite the authors seeming desire to carry on with the FED, several alternatives to the current way the monetary system operates are presented. Commodity-backed banking is discussed and includes the idea of returning to the gold standard. The K-percent rule is brought out which is similar to a gold-backed currency but is really just fiat currency in disguise. Inflation targeting rules are what we live under now. Inflation and growth-targeting rules would enhance the ability to control the money supply because it would be able to avoid demand shocks but would permit higher levels of inflation. My favorite option; however is the free-banking option suggested on pages 736-737. It’s my favorite because it means there is no longer a need for the federal reserve system nor any central bank. It places a premium on customers paying attention to what banks are doing, other banks paying attention to what any given bank is doing, and, perhaps the most compelling reason I favor this idea is, “under free banking, the norm is for the dollar’s purchasing power to rise gently over time, reflecting gains in economic productivity” (page 736). It works by a bank investing in other banks and allowing the monies issued on deposits to be redeemed at any bank with deposits from the issuing bank. Of course there are drawbacks, inflation not being one of them, but nearly any alternative that gets rid of the FED is a win in my book.

Chapter 25 delves into the Small Business Administration. Propositions are based on outcomes a conservative administration should seek to instill in the Small Business Administration’s policy objectives. SBA leadership needs to return to advocating for small businesses and entrepreneurs for starters. The leadership must be accountable to Congress and stick to doing what Congress authorized them to do and nothing more nor less. Fraud due to Covid-19 funds disbursed by SBA must be clawed back including through initiating legal investigations and enforcement. The SBA should be made ineligible to make any direct loan. Assistance offered by SBA will no longer exclude relevant entities. The SBA needs to become more technologically inclined to streamline its operations. Finally, SBA’s Office of Advocacy should be strengthened and tasked with assessing regulations for the harm they pose to small businesses and producing research intended to measure the costs of that harm.

Legislation to effect the recommended changes is mentioned by name. IMPROVE the SBA Act, Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, Fair and Open Competition Act, and JOBS Act 4.0 are all mentioned as providing pieces to getting the SBA back on track. Additionally, the author recommends a complete evaluation of all of the programs at SBA to determine which will be retained and which will be eliminated or moved. While this evaluation is ongoing SBA’s budget should be frozen.

The coverage of Trade, the title of Chapter 26, is broken into two parts, fair trade and free trade. Going into this topic, I have a huge problem with free trade because it destroys sovereignty. The destruction of national sovereignty leads to less personal freedom and individual liberty and a far more totalitarian form of government further away from being able to be approached by any of its subjects (formerly citizens from a United States citizen’s perspective). This is not the outcome I seek, thus free trade with it’s underlying policies of open borders to facilitate the free flow of people, the idea of free trade is a non-starter. The added security enjoyed by having a secured border with rational policy objectives implemented by dedicated enforcement personnel is worth far more than saving a tenth-of-a-cent on a bunch of bananas or a few dollars on a cheaply made foreign car.

The fair trade piece is couched in the context of how unfair trade is for the United States. To make trade more fair for everyone, not just the United States, the author desires to fix the irregularities of the World Trade Organization by making the Most Favored Nations tariff stipulations inapplicable to every other nation. Under the ruse, a nation who sets a tariff rate with one nation must set that same rate with all nations. This results in unfairness in markets which should be competitive and never made inaccessible by another nation with high tariffs which is exactly what Most Favored Nations statuses do because they remove the ability for a nation to reciprocate tariffs on those trying to wage an economic war on those with low tariffs. This issue could be fixed in several ways. The author seems to favor the passage of the United States Reciprocal Trade Act which would allow the President to negotiate with trading partners to set tariffs equal to a new lower tariff established by the partner or allow the US to raise our tariffs to match those of the trading partner. An alternative method would be to tax businesses when imports arrive to make up the difference between US made products and foreign made products.

China’s intrusions into US institutions has not gone unnoticed and they represent a multitude of economic, intellectual protection, and national security concerns. Through the guise of trade, China is stealing US technologies. The author of the fair trade section identifies the solution coming from one of two areas – further negotiations or the complete decoupling of the United States and China. China refuses to negotiate with any nation in good faith which is particularly true with the United States it is engaged in a war against and thus is not going to yield positive outcomes for the United States. Decoupling is the author’s recommendation.

Decoupling the US from China would include instituting tariffs; re-shoring US companies from China; barring Chinese involvement in government procurement contracts; banning Chinese-made drones, social media applications, US pension funds from investing in China, China from investing in cutting edge technologies in the US, US banks from investing in China’s bonds, and many more such restrictions. Some of these are notable and should have already been stopped such as Apple allowing it’s technology to be obtained by China and participating in building China’s so-called Great Firewall – the author proposes sanctioning Apple for their involvement with the Chinese Communist Party. Ending all Confucius Centers in the United States should have already occurred. Strict controls on issuing visas to Chinese students and researchers should have already occurred as well. De-listing Chinese stocks on Wall Street for refusing to cooperate with US financial disclosures seems like a no-brainer yet they are still listed. Holding the CCP accountable for their involvement in gain-of-function research and ultimate release of Covid-19 should have already commenced yet no one has done anything about it.

The author wraps up the argument for fair trade with four main pieces rooted in pragmatism. The first of these topics deals with Ricardian free trade and the fact that on paper, it looks great, but in the real world where people have their own agendas, axes to grind, greed on their hearts, and lust for power and control, Ricardian free trade ideals yield to the fruit in men’s hearts which overwhelmingly is dominance over other men sheerly for dominance sake.

The next topic addressed is about who benefits from Ricardian free trade. The answer is multinational corporations and the politicians they donate to while the average US citizen watches their job be exported to a foreign nation or taken by an immigrant who will do it for half of the wages.

The author argues that trade deficits do matter, no matter what arguments advocates of free trade and open border policies make. Running trade deficits over long periods of time forces the United States to no longer be owned by those in the United States. This is a sovereignty issue, a military readiness issue, a national security issue, and a defense manufacturing issue. Additionally, it is an economic issue as wages stagnate and jobs are sucked out of the United States altogether because the United States is merely playing host to foreign corporations. The author makes this clear on page 794, “It is therefore of critical importance that we bring America’s global trade back into balance through free, fair, balanced, and reciprocal trade.”

The final argument laid out is that “personnel is trade policy” (page 794). The author stresses the importance of having a non-free-trade-based conservative administration’s trade policies carried out by getting staffing correct. Key positions identified by the author include the United States Trade Representative, the Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade, the National security Advisor, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, the Director of the National Economic Council, and the Secretary of Defense all of which are critical to implementing a fair trade policy.

The free trade argument starts off with redefining what trade really is. On page 796 the author suggests, “Trade policy is about more than goods and services: It is a statement of American identity. Our trade policy choices reveal America’s values and where we put our trust.” The first place the author goes to argue is to get trade bills to focus on trade not on non-trade related topics. Holding up NAFTA as the model (ya whoops, since 1994 all US workers have heard is a giant sucking sound), the author proceeds to rail against including trade deals paying heed to labor, environmental, or intellectual property topics and suggests they should all be addressed separately.

The author conjures up a definition of value which has led the United States into the morass of becoming a service economy. The author of the fair trade section would rebuke this wholeheartedly, and rightfully so, as it intentionally weakens national security and economic mobility within the United States. For free traders it’s not about whether someone lost a $100,000 a year job and was forced to sell most of what they own while taking a $50,000 a year job, its about “the types of jobs, not the number of jobs” (page 800). This author even parrots the economic arsonists currently in the White House stating on page 799:

“Pessimistic bias is one of the most important cultural problems that conservative policymakers need to address. In trade, as in most other areas, few people ever zoom out to see the big picture, which is one reason why so many people mistakenly believe that U.S. manufacturing and the U.S. economy are in decline.”

It’s not the economy that is doing horribly, it’s your perception of the economy doing horribly that is causing problems. In other words the author is broadcasting his disdain for the economic vitality of average Americans when they lose their jobs, inflation wipes them out, or banks seize their money for bail-ins. None of that matters to the author because zooming out to the macro-level, all those little points of economic ruin on the micro-scale don’t matter one bit in the grand scheme of things. The author of this free trade argument has praised NAFTA and decidedly shown he doesn’t care that eggs, milk, and butter are increasingly being seen as luxury foods by everyday people.

The author, supposedly promoting conservative values, argues in favor of handing out billions of dollars to entities affected by unfair and retaliatory tariffs placed on US producers. The author also recommends ending Presidential authority to enact tariffs in the name of national security, to raise tariffs on imports threatening domestic markets, and to enforce existing trade deals if a partner violates the deal. Getting rid of trade adjustment assistance and extending it to all displaced workers is another recommendation. Removing supply-chain restrictions, acknowledging foreign safety regulators as equivalent to our own, and ending any notion encouraging the United States to Buy American, particularly ships. The author wants a stronger World Trade Organization but, if the WTO fails to become stronger, the author proposes a new trade organization allowing only so-called liberal democracies as members.

The author wants expedited trade-agreements. The same flawed policies which have emboldened China’s current actives are doubled-down on despite clear evidence that those policies will never “convince the Chinese government to reform its illiberal human rights and trade policies” (page 801). The author even suggests that there are too many well-paying jobs in the United States presently and to fix that problem demands the United States rejoin the wretched Trans-Pacific Partnership and to realign the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework to remove progressive ideals and get right at what really matters – dismantling the already crippled ability US citizens have make a living to bolster the prospects for Indians, Vietnamese, Filipinos, and Bruneians.

Truly, the author of free trade is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Evoking Barack Hussein Obama, the author offers, on page 803, two hallmarks of that ruinous failures tenure in the white house. The first is “The key to prosperity is doing more with less.” Eventually the mentality means we will be forced to do everything with nothing – a feat achieved only by G-d himself. The second is “It is anathema to the optimism, hope, and confidence that are the natural birthright of conservatives.” If you crap in one hand and hope in the other which hand fills up first?

The author is so feloniously dedicated to the nonsense of free trade that the economic downturn and goods shortages in 2020 to present are attributed entirely to Covid-19 lockdowns and have nothing to do with trade. The idea that the lockdowns didn’t affect trade are preposterous and the idea that trade restrictions played no role in creating worsening economic conditions globally is disingenuous to put it politely. The baby-formula shortage caused by stupid FDA inspectors and worsened by package labeling standards is harped on by the author. No where does the author suggest a resurgence in nursemaids, nor does the author suggest that baby formula cannot be made at home. The author uses the topic to smash people over the head with the supposed grandeur of free-trade policies while ignoring time-tested solutions which is actually a restriction of options, something the author claims to be focused on.

China, the author claims, is a bad actor but decoupling from them would make them a worse actor. So, in order to make China better, the US needs to remain coupled to the corrupt genocidal nation. It is this cooperation which China’s CCP is able to conduct it’s atrocities with impunity, a fact the author must ignore in order to make the stupid argument which appears here.

Trade agreements are treaties with a specific purpose. Treaties must be ratified by the US Congress. The author wants Congress to have no role in negotiating trade agreements and only allow them to vote yes or no without the possibility of adding amendments on massive trade deals such as the TPP. This does not serve the interests of the average US citizen.

There is a reason the writing against free trade is extremely harsh. The author can call themselves whatever they want but at the end of the day the author is a technocrat. Technocrats come in every political flavor there is. Their one uniting feature is to knit the world into one sovereignty with one way for all nations, ethnicity, and peoples. Technocrats have zero qualms about smashing an individual’s skull open no more than Stalin’s KGB or Hitler’s Youth had in their day. Once technocrats take over, their totalitarian streak will run red with the blood of anyone who disagrees with them. The author here places no premium on US sovereignty and uses deception and omission to try to convince the reader free-trade is the right way to do trade. The only thing free-trade is good for is to dismantle the sovereign rights held by the people of the United States and give it to trade organizations and other international bodies. It is not surprising the author expounds on the benefits of the WTO and/or creating a whole new international trade organization – the author has no understanding or recognition of human nature, a trait carried to extremes by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and other leaders of movements based on the underlying thesis of secular humanism. It is this thesis, that humanity is the most elevated of all creation, which has also spawned technocracy.

Not once did the author of the free trade section try to ameliorate the disaster posed by open borders. Trump’s name was mentioned frequently, usually in conjunction with Biden’s, to denigrate his desire for fair trade. From what is written here, the author seems to desire nothing less than a return to the globalism espoused by the two disastrous administrations ran by the Bush’s and their stupid, US-sovereignty crushing, globalistic, and inherently America-last policies in trade. I have no idea why an expression of Marxism was permitted to enter the Heritage Foundations Project 2025 publication and I rebuke everything about free-trade.

If there is a section to skip reading, this is the one. Fair trade is the only way to go and still have a sovereign United States of America.

Financial Regulatory Agencies is the title of Chapter 27, the first of Section Five, Independent Regulatory Agencies. This is the final section. There are two authors who write two sub-chapters here. The first covers the “Securities and Exchange Commission and related agencies” (page 829). The author points out that the SEC has an important role to fill but is not filling it because it is chasing nonsensical ideas like ESG investments, placing punitive restrictions on businesses, and demanding that DEI accounting practices be implemented. The author notes, also on page 829, “The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should be reducing impediments to capital formation, not radically increasing them.” The next several pages cover the ways envisioned by the author to achieve that goal including by reorganizing and properly staffing the Commission.

Where recommendations are intended to improve securities trading at the SEC, the author, likewise offers recommendations to improve commodity trading at the CFTC (Commodities Futures Trading Commission). Suggestions include detailing the allocation of funding, defining what a commodity is, and defining what constitutes a swap execution facility.

The SEC and CFTC have both dropped the ball regarding digital assets. A singular recommendation is offered to determine if a particular digital asset should be regulated as a security or a commodity to start with. It’s a commodity if the digital asset can be redeemed for a good, a security if for money, and should be regulated accordingly. FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) needs to be more transparent and made to be more stable. Self-reporting organizations should be forced to operate as other entities in the federal government including by allowing a comment period before submitting proposed regulations and having oversight hearings.

The second section in this chapter is about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This thing is an unconstitutional extralegal monster embedded in the US government that needs to be removed and thrown away never to be tried again as soon as possible. It’s funding comes from the Federal Reserve and it’s oversight by Congress does not exist. A single director is able to act as prosecutor, judge, jury, enforcer, and distributor of the funds it illegally expropriates from the political opponents it targets often at the behest of the President. The author recommends it’s immediate closure by a conservative president. Until then it is recommended the CFBP no longer be able to disburse funds to those who were not directly wronged, cease ruining capital access for small businesses, enforces nothing falling outside of the Administrative Procedure Act’s rule making provisions, allow respondents to choose between administrative court or an Article III court, and to define arbitrary words such as “deceptive, unfair, and abusive’ practices” (page 839).

Chapter 28 regards the Federal Communications Commission. Right off the bat, the author of this chapter nails the goals of the FCC, or at least what it should be doing. Page 845 states:

“The FCC should promote freedom of speech, unleash economic opportunity, ensure that every American has a fair shot at next-generation connectivity, and enable the private sector to create good-paying jobs through pro-growth reforms that support a diversity of viewpoints, ensure secure and competitive communications networks, modernize outdated infrastructure rules, and represent good stewardship of taxpayer dollars.”

A description is given regarding the bizarre way political appointments typically happen, the FCC’s budget and revenue generation, and what it is supposed to be doing. The author advises the FCC to, “change course and bring new urgency to achieving four main goals: Reining in Big Tech, Promoting national security, Unleashing economic prosperity, and Ensuring FCC accountability and good governance” (page 847).

To reign in big tech the author calls upon the FCC to remind the courts that Big Tech companies do not have carte blanche immunity to ban anything they want. The law in question is found in the Communications Act at Section 230 and needs to immediately stopped being abused to silence opposition to democrat and/or tyrannical narratives. Forcing Big Tech companies to be more transparent as to how they arrived at a decision and took action coupled with holding Big Tech to their own terms of service would be helpful. The author provides an alternative example of legislation which could replace a scrapped Section 230. Users should have control over their content. There is a fee we all pay for telephone service called the Universal Service Fund which Big Tech weasels its way out of despite the massive amounts of money the fund spends on subsidizing the broadband Big Tech relies on and this, also, should be addressed either by making them pay or by reassessing the need for the Universal Service Fund.

National security in this chapter is applied mostly to China; however, it has implications for applications and hardware for any nation, developer, or manufacturer which becomes a threat to the security of the United States. On these grounds, the author recommends the banning of TikTok. Reanalyzing the Covered List – the list of products in this arena posing national security threats – needs to be made more timely and regular. A prohibition on allowing regulated carriers to cooperate with insecure providers, publishing a list of all entities with a 10% or greater ownership by adversarial governments which hold any type FCC permissions, fully funding efforts to get rid of Chinese hardware and replace it with trusted hardware, engaging the US fully in the international standards setting arena, and rooting out US companies assistance to China in the realm of AI are also suggested.

The author favors 5G, unfortunately (see page 26/Chapter 21 Department of Commerce), and wants to see it everywhere at the most rapid pace possible, specifically by allowing the FCC to fast track authorization to build out the infrastructure and allocate the spectrum. Allocating the spectrum needs to be much better aligned and coordinated between federal and private sector needs. The really bad idea of getting rid of objections to 5G towers being built in our backwards is promoted by the author. Finally a recommendation is made to have the FCC hasten its efforts to launch satellites into space to provide internet access. The author thinks these suggestions will increase economic activity.

In order to hold the FCC accountable and usher in good governance, proposals include: spending funds to build connectivity in places that have no connectivity instead of building additional redundancy into locations which already have connectivity; ensuring broadband projects are incorporated into an overall national plan to avoid waste and duplication and to save taxpayer money while increasing connectivity and efficiency; and as written on page 857, “Ultimately, FCC reliance on competition and innovation is vital if the agency is to deliver optimal outcomes for the American public. The FCC should engage in a serious top-to-bottom review of its regulations and take steps to rescind any that are overly cumbersome or outdated. The Commission should focus its efforts on creating a market-friendly regulatory environment that fosters innovation and competition from a wide range of actors, including cable-based, broadband-based, and satellite-based Internet providers.”

In Chapter 29 the Heritage Foundation takes a look at the Federal Election Commission. The independent Commission is tasked with monitoring federal election fundraising and spending. In essence, the FEC reglates, “one of the most sensitive areas of the Bill of Rights: political speech and political activity” (page 861). The author points out the de facto composition of the Commission is three Democrats and three Republicans and strongly urges that replacements uphold the republican view of abiding by the law and avoiding the censoring of speech as well as prompting the incoming conservative President to have the democrats find commissioners who will do the same.

While the FEC lacks the power to prosecute federal election law violations, the Department of Justice may. The Department of Justice has significant political oversight, thus the President needs to make it clear that error will default to the side of favoring free speech. The author bluntly stated the reasoning on page 864, “It is fundamentally unfair for the DOJ to prosecute an individual for supposedly violating the law when the FEC has previously determined that a similarly situated individual has not violated the law.” The author goes on to state that no action should take place in the case of a three-to-three tie at the FEC. This should hold true unless the FEC is taken to court, then the FEC should receive legal defense for the Department of Justice if and when democrats refuse to vote in favor of allowing the FEC to defend itself, forcing the FEC to default.

Other changes the author seeks are legislative in nature. One would be to stop allowing people to be a commissioner after their six year term is up (there is a democrat who has been there since 2001). Efforts from a particular political party to game the FEC by making the commission an odd number need to be legislated out of the realm of possibility. Raising campaign contribution amounts is also highly recommended (it is not clear if this pertains to individual donations, corporate donations, or both).

The FEC really does represent the dangers that certain entities in the government pose should they stray even slightly from their legislated intent. The author concludes the chapter by making this manifest on page 866:

“When taking any action related to the FEC, the President should keep in mind that, as former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says, the “greater problem at the FEC has been overenforcement,” not underenforcement as some critics falsely allege.15 As he correctly concludes, the FEC’s enforcement efforts “place a substantial burden on small committees and campaigns, and are having a chilling effect on some political speech…squeezing the life out of low level, volunteer political activity.”

“Commissioners have a duty to enforce FECA in a fair, nonpartisan, objective manner. But they must do so in a way that protects the First Amendment rights of the public, political parties, and candidates to fully participate in the political process. The President has the same duty to ensure that the Department of Justice enforces the law in a similar manner.”

The final chapter of the final section, Chapter 30, takes us to the Federal Trade Commission. This Commission deals with anti-trust laws. The author does a marvelous job of presenting a brief history of the FTC and offers a straightforward analysis of the conundrum conservatives find themselves in when looking into using the powers of the FTC to break up specific anti-competitive business entities. The first four pages really lays out the basis upon which economic conservatism rests – the realization that businesses have one social responsibility and it’s to make profits within the rules of the game and with the overall goal of providing consumer welfare. The issue is laid bare on page 871. The author writes:

“Beyond antitrust injury, we are witnessing in today’s markets the use of economic power—often market and perhaps even monopoly power—to undermine democratic institutions and civil society. Practices such as Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) requirements on publicly traded corporations and their inclusion in business agreements, the so-called “de-banking” of industries and individuals, and the interference of large internet firms with democratic political discourse undermine liberal democracy, a truly open society, and, indeed, rule of law. Without rule of law, markets themselves will wither.”

Will the United States continue to exist? Will the United States become a designation for an area of operation referred to by the corporations who rule over us to enact and enforce the aims of the proponents of global government? That is the question the author seems to be asking each of us to decide. For that reason alone, the suggestions in this chapter are all the more important as missteps here could easily find the citizens of the United States fully enslaved by these corporate entities and the global institutions they are beholden to. The author suggests three ways forward. Ending the ability of independent bodies to engage in enforcement or ending their independent status or getting rid of entities such as the FTC altogether. For the first two the author heavily recommends having the Supreme Court redetermine a case called Humphrey’s Executor. For the third suggestion the author cautions against the zeal of those who seek to dismantle the administrative state to hastily stating, “Unless conservatives take a firm hand to the bureaucracy and marshal its power to defend a freedom-promoting agenda, nothing will stop the bureaucracy’s anti–free market, leftist march” (page 873).

The author notes the rising prevalence of companies seeking to make ESG/DEI deals with the FTC to avoid being investigated for crimes they may be committing. Combating this will take Congress looking into it and ameliorating it. This solution would also apply to ending what amounts to unfair trading practices where, “Businesses, particularly those that enjoy certain government privileges or relationships and/ or market power, should not replace democratic decision-making with their own judgment on controversial matters” (page 874).

The author advocates for children and families when suggesting the FTC should step in to prevent children from entering into binding contracts through social media and other online platforms to protect the child from harm as well as the parents from having to pay for the consequences of a contract illegally entered into by a minor. Other conservatives would like the FTC to play the role of privacy advocate and educator and nothing else.

State attorney generals should gather in Washington DC to discuss issues regarding antitrust problems in their states. The author cautions against currents within conservative thought to establish FTC branch offices in every state because they would become entrenched and next to impossible to remove. Despite the caution the author also recommends that the FTC consider whether or not to establish such branches throughout the states.

Big Tech presents new challenges to the FTC. Traditional models based on costs and prices do not apply to many Big Tech firms. The author points at the FTC’s ‘investigation’ into Google’s glaringly anti-competitive practices which found that Google had competitors (which they did not) or would soon have competitors (which still, nearly a decade later, have yet to materialize). Mixed data suggest that Big Tech is playing a role in increasing prices. It is an established fact that social media, used too often, will result in unhappiness and even depression and sometimes suicide. Thus the author proscribes:

“Conservative approaches to antitrust and consumer protection continue to trust markets, not government, to give people what they want and provide the prosperity and material resources Americans need for flourishing, productive, and meaningful lives. At the same time, conservatives cannot be blind to certain developments in the American economy that appear to make government–private sector collusion more likely, threaten vital democratic institutions, such as free speech, and threaten the happiness and mental well-being of many Americans, particularly children. Many, but not all, conservatives believe that these developments may warrant the FTC’s making a careful recalibration of certain aspects of antitrust and consumer protection law and enforcement” (page 879).

~~

I like almost all of this Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. The intent is certainly in the right place, “We do this not to expand government, grow its largesse for some special interest, or centralize more control in Washington. Instead, we do this to build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish for all” (page 887). That’s what the citizenry in any nation on earth, not just the United States, should be striving for in their nation. Overall these recommendations and policy considerations and redirections and staffing concerns will translate into a stronger, freer, and more sovereign United States of America which will be able to withstand the relentless attacks on it for decades to come.

I made the decision that this is a document that needs to be read to see what it actually says. I really didn’t have the time to do it, but I still managed to slog through it. I also found it fitting to give an opinion on it and to summarize it the best I could. There are too many woke liberals making far too many claims about what the Heritage Foundation suggests a conservative administration should do that just do not exist in the Project 2025.

Abortion and contraception is not slated to be outlawed. It is slated to be paid for out the recipient’s pocket; however. The federal government has no business subsidizing abortions, providing contraception, nor financing sex-reassignment surgeries nor the treatments and counseling which is needed before and after treatment. This should all be left up to the states and to the individual and the federal government should not spend a cent on controlling population through glorified eugenics programs with transhumanist intentions. The federal government should stress the importance of intact families, the importance of rearing children in a safe and loving environment, and respect the rights of parents. Project 2025 stresses these values. It does not demand national abortion and contraception bans.

The document places a premium on retaining free speech protections. It seeks to remove ideologies which are harmful to free speech such as DEI and ESG. Additionally, DEI and ESG tend to demand overt and grotesque violations of other rights such as the second, fourth, fifth, sixth, eaight, ninth, and tenth amendments. The purpose of DEI and ESG is to undercut the protections in the US Constitution by making our enumerated rights subject to arbitrary and unelected international entities which seek to create a global standard for such measures. The result is colluding business and governmental interests running roughshod over the people, particularly those people who reject the value system drempt up by the globalist-aligned entities. The Heritage Foundation understands this and it is for these reasons Project 2025 vows to rid the federal government of proponents of harmful, anti-constitutional, anti-American, and dehumanizing ideologies such as DEI, ESG, and CRT.

Another issue which is stressed throughout the document is ensuring that the right people are put into the right places throughout the federal government. The issues with doing so are made very clear and clear concise steps are recommended to mitigate the effects of certain staff and people who stay in these bureaucracies through different administrations. The heads of departments, agencies, administration, commissions, and other offices in the federal government must first of all be aligned with the conservative administration’s policy objectives. Next, those people need to be able to effectively initiate the changes within their organization. Those who stay behind often present stumbling blocks to conservative policy changes and may go so far as to refuse to implement them. That needs to be remedied through removing those in the federal government who refuse to cooperate with the White House, Congressionally passed law, and who choose to operate outside of their own charters and mandates. We need pragmatic, effective, enforceable, and transparent laws and people who are willing to uphold the rule of law and accept accountability – criticism as well as praise – for their ability to provide the United States with the services the people need to be productive, safe, and free.

China and unfettered migration, both illegal and legal, are issues identified as major concerns in multiple chapters. With China and other adversarial nations and international bodies, the United States has allowed it’s people to be economically, medically, intellectually, and even physically in some cases, denigrated, raped, tortured, and murdered. Combating entities hostile to the interests of the United States is incredibly important and there is no singularly worse violator of American values than China, save for the United Nations. One is national and the other is an international body. Project 2025 correctly identifies these issues with aggressive anti-rule-of-law and anti-American intent and suggests that the US should stop wasting blood, sweat, and treasure to pacify and appease them by basically kicking them out of the United States.

There are major changes contemplated within the pages of the document. Getting rid of the Federal Reserve system is debated. Changing the way that banking works entirely is looked into. Getting rid of the IRS altogether is one suggestion. Alternative taxing structures are recommended to be considered for implementation which would reduce fraud, waste, corruption, and provide for a system which is fair for everyone based on their consumption. Trade is reimagined. Rooting out corruption and arbitrariness within the legal system as well as throughout the rest of the government is strongly recommended. Validating states rights is paramount. Returning the federal government to more closely reflect the powers enumerated by the US Constitution is enshrined throughout the document in various suggestions such as getting rid of the US Department of Education, reigning in the Environmental Protection Agency, and realigning the objectives of the Department of Transportation to reflect that US citizens need transportation and supply chains and the cheaper and safer those services are provided the better off we will be.

That is not to say that the entire document is perfect. I have major problems with the sections suggesting that 5G should be rolled out to everyone, everywhere without paying heed to the harms these technologies pose. There is no suggestion to invest in fiber optics while there is some fanfare about creating an internet able to be connected to anywhere on earth all the time which raises some issues such as who is on the other side of Starlink-type systems. That’s problematic. The emphasis on winning the race to achieve ‘victories’ in creating more powerful and ‘comprehensive’ AI poses a huge problem because the technology exists to supplant humankind in the intellectual realm. Robotics does this in the physical realm. ‘Winning’ these races means that technology exists to obliterate all life as we know it. It is a subversive war on carbon, picking up covertly where the ‘green’ environmental movement stops being overtly anti-carbon and thus anti-life. We should all have had our voices heard about this topic, yet the conversation has not taken place and the technologies are slated to become truly anti-human within the next 5-10 years.

What I see in this election is a choice not between democracy and totalitarianism, republicans versus democrats, gun rights versus gun bans, or many of the other wedge topics invented just to garner votes for one side or the other. This truly is a political cycle which has one faction endorsing the enslavement and total annihilation of humanity as we know it and the other faction demanding that humanity remains as it always has been – struggling to retain freedoms, live up to the responsibilities those freedoms entail, and working to build up human civilization through cooperation based on common interests such as remaining carbon-based life forms. The real issue with this is that there are agents of the enslavement and annihilation persuasion throughout both political parties. The Heritage Foundation doesn’t address this fundamental challenge directly; however, it addresses nearly all of the symptoms of such ideologies and, thus, the 2025 mandate describes ways to mitigate and/or remove the damages these entities seek to inflict on humanity.

In conclusion, the policy in Project 2025, the Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, will largely right the sinking ship that is the United States after being pummeled by anti-American agents with anti-American values nearly unimpeded for several decades. These changes will take time and will be featured on the front pages of every liberal newspaper as the worst thing since Hitler when in reality, these changes effect the opposite of the policies of 1930’s Germany. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what this document itself is described as. It is not. It is a thoughtful, and well-intentioned road map to returning the United States to it’s Constitutional roots in today’s world and, in the process, destroying corruption and tyrannical operations along the way to also returning to the states and the people, respectively, the rights usurped by the federal government. I encourage you to read it for yourself. If you choose not to, I encourage you to take a look at what I hope can be used as the cliff note version of the document.

Bless G-d and G-d bless.