The leftists at TIME, which is likely a huge chunk of the people who works there, didn’t want to do this cover but they really had no choice.

https://twitter.com/PeteHegseth/status/1867199485958668513

Now it’s almost time to make America great again.

The reason is simple. With Christmas around the corner, we’re hearing more and more from our customers that the gift of high-quality survival food is becoming increasingly popular. The days of ties and DVDs being given out as popular gifts are behind us.

Today, Americans want food security and there’s no better way to supply it than with all-American beef that stays good until 2049.

Stock up today with a 1-pack, 4-pack, or 10-pack of “Beef Steak” with the only limit being the availability of the supply. When they’re gone, the sale ends.

It seems like anyone who doubted the “Trump Effect” on Bitcoin was wrong, at least in these early days after the election and before he’s even inaugurated. Bitcoin soared to over $100,000 for the first time on Wednesday.

According to Breitbart:

The digital asset peaked around its previous 2022 record of $73,000 in March 2024, weeks after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved several exchange-traded funds (ETFs) for investors seeking to acquire it, according to data from CoinMarketCap.com. At the end of October, Bitcoin came close to that $73,000 record before retreating in the 60,000s range, then rocketing to a new all-time high of $75,000 before the end of the first week of November. Since then, BTC has sailed past new price benchmarks, first selling for $90,000 on November 13.

In the course of an hour, BTC surged from roughly $98,500 to $103,000 Wednesday evening, smashing a six-figure price barrier that felt unthinkable a decade ago, when the asset spent an entire year under $1,000.

Several factors may have contributed to the past month’s price action; investors may have been energized by President-elect Donald Trump’s victory over Kamala Harris (Trump vowed to create a BTC “strategic reserve” and appealed directly to Bitcoiners on the campaign trail) and the announcement that Gary Gensler — a villain in the eyes of many cryptocurrency fans — would step down from the SEC once Trump takes office.

But one of the key elements in Bitcoin’s perennial rise is its “halving” — a 50% reduction in its issuance of new “coin” units — that occurs every four years, making the “mining” that secures the network that records the ledger of BTC transactions more competitive and costly. The latest Bitcoin halving occurred in April 2024. Just as it did in 2012, 2016, and 2020, BTC appears to be entering price discovery roughly five months after the latest halving.

Historically, Bitcoin has grown in cycles of parabolic ascent and “crashes” down to prices far above the previous cycle’s highs.

Will Bitcoin go to $150,000? $200.000? $1,000,000? With Donald Trump in the White House, anything is possible.

According to WJAT:

Twenty years after closing all of its locations due to bankruptcy and a foodborne illness outbreak, a popular Mexican restaurant is looking to make a comeback.

Hormel Foods, who owns the trademark, worked out a deal to bring Chi-Chi’s back to life after every location closed in 2004. The company initially closed its doors after a bankruptcy which coincided with a foodborne illness outbreak that was linked back to them.

The son of the founder of Chi-Chi’s, Michael McDermott, said in a release that he hopes to honor his family’s legacy by combining the classic Mexican restaurant with modern influence.

It would NEVER be admitted by anyone at Hormel or the original Chi-Chi’s team that the 2024 election results played a role in their decision to reopen… but it definitely did.

We’re back, baby!

It would NEVER be admitted by anyone at Hormel or the original Chi-Chi's team that the 2024 election results played a role in their decision to reopen… but it definitely did.

"Trump Effect: Popular Mexican Restaurant Set to Return 20 Years After Closing All US Locations" pic.twitter.com/1BYHO5B8iW

— JD Rucker (@JDRucker) December 5, 2024

Between 50 to 100 Venezuelan nationals in Mexico are now requesting what is known as “voluntary return” every week, according to a Venezuelan official that spoke with Reuters, who added that many of these migrants have faced perilous situations in Mexico, such as kidnappings and sexual exploitation. A dozen migrants in Mexico told the news outlet that they would prefer to go back to their home countries, despite whatever issues that drove them to leave in the first place.

A major point of contention is Trump’s promise to scrap the CBP One app, which has been used by hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals to schedule asylum appointments with U.S. officials. More migrants feel the obstacles to come from Trump make it no longer worth waiting in Mexico, where many of them have been subjected extortion, sexual assault, kidnappings and a slate of other violence from cartels and other dangerous individuals taking advantage of the migration crisis.

“I am traumatized. If I don’t get the appointment, I will go back,” Nidia Montenegro, a 52-year-old Venezuelan national, said to Reuters.

Trump — who already established himself as an immigration hardliner during his first term in office — has vowed to embark on a number of hawkish measures for his second term, such as executing the largest deportation initiative in U.S. history, resuming wall construction, restarting the Remain in Mexico program and a number of other proposals.

“As President I will immediately end the migrant invasion of America. We will stop all migrant flights, end all illegal entries, terminate the Kamala phone app for smuggling illegals (CBP One App), revoke deportation immunity, suspend refugee resettlement, and return Kamala’s illegal migrants to their home countries (also known as remigration),” Trump posted on X in September.

First launched in October 2020 by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) primarily for cargo inspections, the CBP One app was expanded incredibly in January 2023 to include migrants waiting in Mexico hoping to schedule asylum appointments. More than 800,000 foreign nationals have scheduled appointments to present at ports of entry since the app’s expansion in January 2023, according to CBP.

While there have been reports of human smugglers urging migrants to rush to the southern border before Trump takes office and immigration officials have braced for such a possibility, border crossing numbers and on-the-ground interviews have largely suggested that most migrants feel defeated after Trump’s election victory. Todd Bensman, a national security fellow for the Center for Immigration Studies, reported Tuesday that “most everyone” he interviewed at a migrant camp in Mexico City said that they’re giving up and going home after Trump is inaugurated and cancels the CBP One app program.

Nevertheless, there are some that are still holding on to hope that they will land an appointment before the Republican re-enters the White House.

“I trust I will arrive before Mr. Trump takes office,” Johana, a young Venezuelan national hoping to cross from Guatemala to Mexico, said to Reuters. “If it’s not by appointment, there’s always a way.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Tennessee’s SB1 bans medical procedures on minors for the purpose of “enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or “treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the parents of minors who claim to identify as the opposite sex and claim to have benefited from these procedures, sued to block the law, and the Biden administration joined the lawsuit on the ACLU’s side.

The plaintiffs claim that SB1 violates federal law by discriminating against minors who identify as transgender, denying to them the same treatments that would be allowed for minors who do not so identify.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld Tennessee’s law, finding that it doesn’t entail discrimination. The U.S. and the ACLU appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio—a male who says he identifies as female—argued the case before the court Wednesday, as did Tennessee Solicitor General Matt Rice.

Prelogar, Strangio, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, an appointee of President Joe Biden, twisted the truth on “gender-affirming care” in at least five ways.

1. ‘Puberty blockers’ are reversible

“Critically, puberty blockers have no effect, in and of themselves, on fertility, so I don’t think that concern can justify the ban on puberty blockers, which is just pressing pause on someone’s endogenous puberty to give them more time to understand their identity,” Prelogar argued.

The Food and Drug Administration has not approved GnRH agonists, which stands for “Gonadatropin-releasing hormone agonists,” for the treatment of gender dysphoria (the painful and persistent identification with the gender opposite one’s biological sex) in children. GnRH agonists prevent the natural release of testosterone and estrogen that initiate puberty.

David Gortler, a pharmacologist and pharmacist who previously was a senior adviser to the FDA commissioner on policy and drug safety, previously told The Daily Signal that physicians developed GnRH agonists to help treat certain cancers that depend on estrogen or testosterone.

Endocrinologists—doctors who specialize in the hormone-regulating endocrine system—have testified to the harms these drugs can cause. Dr. Paul Hruz, an endocrinology researcher and clinician at Washington University School of Medicine, wrote that after “an extended period of pubertal suppression,” patients can’t “turn back the clock” and “reverse changes in the normal coordinated pattern of adolescent psychological development and puberty.”

Dr. Sophie Scott, a neuroscientist from the United Kingdom, explained that the effects of certain chemicals on the human brain aren’t well known, and that current science does not support “puberty blockers” for adolescents.

“As puberty is associated with very marked changes in the structure of the brain … the use of puberty blockers may have serious consequences for the development of the human brain,” Scott warned. Studies in sheep and young girls suggest that these drugs affect the size of the amygdala. Male sheep treated with the drugs showed “more risk-taking behaviors,” while treated female sheep “showed higher levels of anxiety and greater avoidance behavior.” Girls treated with the drug also showed “significant greater emotional reactivity” and “lower heart rates.” They also scored lower on IQ tests after taking the drugs.

PANTS ON FIRE

U.S. SG Elizabeth Prelogar repeatedly lies about "gender-affirming care."

1⃣She claims "puberty blockers" are fully reversible: They are "just pressing pause."

2⃣She acknowledges that cross-sex hormones can affect fertility but suggests that kids can be… pic.twitter.com/MFwrO02Bdz

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 4, 2024

2. Suicidality

Strangio, the ACLU lawyer, claimed that it is “clearly established in the science and in the record” that “the medications in question reduce the risk of depression, anxiety, and suicidality, which are all indicators of potential suicide.” (Suicidality refers to the condition of contemplating suicide.) The lawyer admitted that there is no evidence “that this treatment reduces completed suicide” because “completed suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare.”

Yet Strangio claimed that “there are multiple studies, long-term longitudinal studies, that do show that there is a reduction in suicidality, which I think is a positive outcome to this treatment.”

NO EVIDENCE

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito presses ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio about whether "puberty blockers" decrease thoughts of su*cide. He rightly cites the Cass Review, which found "no evidence" for that claim.

It gets worse, however. At least one FDA study found… pic.twitter.com/zGAHhfFUUQ

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 4, 2024

The evidence is not as clear-cut as Strangio suggested, however.

In one email on Jan. 25, 2022, Shannon Sullivan, clinical team leader at the FDA’s Division of General Endocrinology, noted that the agency’s Division of Metabolism and Endocrinology Products performed a “safety review of the GnRH agonist class in pediatric patients in 2016/2017.”

Sullivan noted that while the study did not find effects on bone density, “We did find increased risk of depression and suicidality, as well as increased seizure risk, and we issued [safety-related labeling changes].”

In other words, some studies show the exact opposite of Strangio’s claim—that GnRH agonists increase, rather than decrease, thoughts of suicide.

BREAKING: A high-ranking FDA official admitted that "puberty blockers" carry an "increased risk of depression and suicidality" but called for approving them for "transgender" kids, anyway. This flips the gender ideology narrative on its headhttps://t.co/dtbdVKEcap pic.twitter.com/4qXc6TZF06

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) August 1, 2024

3. Puberty as Harmful

“Gender-affirming care” advocates repeatedly suggested that the natural process of puberty causes harm to people who identify with the gender opposite their biological sex.

“If you’re thinking about this from the standpoint of, ‘There’s no harm in just making them wait until they’re adults,’ I think you have to recognize that the effect of denying this care is to produce irreversible physical effects that are consistent with their birth sex, because they have to go through puberty before they turn 18,” Prelogar argued.

“So, essentially what this law is doing is saying we’re going to make all adolescents in this state develop the physical secondary sex characteristics consistent with their gender or their sex assigned at birth, even though that might significantly worsen gender dysphoria, increase the risk of suicide, and—I think, critically—make it much harder to live and be accepted in their gender identity as a result,” she said.

Prelogar noted that a male who goes through puberty will develop an Adam’s apple, and that may make it harder for that man to “pass” as female, thereby subjecting him to discrimination in the future.

“You have this population of adolescents, and there are documented very essential benefits for a large number of them, and maybe a small number that will regret this care just like with any other medical care,” she added.

Prelogar’s argument flips the natural course of biology on its head. She and others are suggesting that the natural process of puberty is somehow harmful and that it is better for males who say they identify as female to undergo a chemically induced artificial facsimile of the natural process than it is for them to develop naturally.

The evidence for benefits of this artificial process is flimsy, but the associated harms are manifold—and that’s the exact reason why Tennessee’s General Assembly voted to protect minors from it.

4. ‘The Same’ Medical Condition

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Jackson repeatedly suggested that the Tennessee law bans puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones (estrogen for boys and testosterone for girls, to make them appear like the opposite sex) for males who identify as female and females who identify as male, but not for males who identify as male and females who identify as female.

Sotomayor said that a boy struggling with precocious puberty—the condition of starting puberty too early—would take the same medication as a girl who identifies as male.

“The medical condition is the same, but you’re saying one sex is getting it and the other is not,” she added.

“We do not agree that the medical condition is the same,” Rice, the Tennessee solicitor general, responded. “We do not think that giving puberty blockers to a 6-year-old that has started precocious puberty is the same medical treatment” as giving them “to a minor who wants to transition.”

While the two patients would take the same drug, the intended purpose and practical effect would be different. Sotomayor and Jackson were conflating two very different conditions.

WE DO NOT AGREE

Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson strain to compare the treatment of precocious puberty to the "treatment" of putting boys or girls on experimental drugs to "pause" puberty.

"No, we do not agree that the medical condition is the same," Matt Rice… pic.twitter.com/12V5N8v4hL

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 4, 2024

5. ‘Gender Conformity’

Justice Elena Kagan argued that “one of the articulated purposes of this law is to essentially to encourage gender conformity and to discourage anything other than gender conformity.”

She cited the law’s text, which states that Tennessee has “a legitimate, substantial, and compelling interest in encouraging minors to appreciate their sex, particularly as they undergo puberty” and a similar interest “in protecting the integrity of the medical profession, including by prohibiting medical procedures that are harmful, unethical, immoral, experimental, or unsupported by high-quality or long-term studies, or that might encourage minors to become disdainful of their sex.”

She said that it “sounds to me that ‘we want boys to be boys and we want girls to be girls,’ and that’s an important purpose behind the law.”

Rice, representing Tennessee, noted that Kagan’s quotes come in the context of the state’s legislature attempting to prevent causing harm to minors. He noted studies in which minors’ mental health actually got worse after “gender-affirming care.”

“The legislature specifically noted those studies, so I think that statement was rooted in the notion that actually this is causing affirmative harm to minors that were undergoing the interventions, and that’s why they’re saying we don’t want these interventions that will cause minors to become disdainful of their sex,” he explained.

The law does not aim to set forth standards of masculinity to which boys must adhere, or standards of femininity that girls must follow. On the contrary, the transgender movement encourages boys who may have feminine traits to identify as girls and undergo medical interventions to alter their bodies. If any side is advocating conformity to gender standards, it is the transgender movement.

NOT ABOUT GENDER CONFORMITY

Tennessee SG Matt Rice definitively strikes down the absurd claim that the TN law is all about enforcing "gender conformity."

The law aims to protect minors from harm that is encouraged by an ideology that focuses on gender conformity—with the… pic.twitter.com/LlhPbGwRdU

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 4, 2024

6. Comparison to Loving

Justice Jackson repeatedly compared SB1 to the Virginia law banning interracial marriage that the Supreme Court struck down in Loving v. Virginia (1967).

Prelogar agreed that both cases involve “overbroad generalizations of how we expect them to live and order their affairs,” such that “these laws disadvantage someone who falls outside the average description.”

“When we look at the structure of that law, it looks—you can’t do something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics—it’s sort of the same thing,” Jackson argued.

INSANE

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson strains to compare U.S. v. Skrmetti to Loving v. Virginia, suggesting that a law protecting kids from experimental medical "treatments" to make them appear like the opposite sex is similar to a law preventing interracial… pic.twitter.com/7nAQQkZzQD

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 4, 2024

“In [Loving v. Virginia], those same kinds of scientific arguments were made,” Jackson claimed again when questioning Strangio.

She repeated the comparison a third time when asking Rice, Tennessee’s solicitor general.

“There, the question of can you marry this other person depended on what your race was. You could marry the other person if it was the same, consistent with your race. You couldn’t if [it wasn’t],” Jackson said. “I take your law to be doing basically the same thing. You can take these blockers if doing so is consistent with your sex, but not if it’s inconsistent.”

“In this case, the only way that they can point to a sex-based line is to equate fundamentally different medical treatments,” Rice responded. “Giving testosterone to a boy with a deficiency is not the same treatment as giving it to a girl who has psychological distress with her body.”

Any argument about discrimination relies on confusion about the basic fact that males going through male puberty is healthy and in accordance with nature, while males going through a false, manufactured facsimile of female puberty is not.

MATT RICE STRIKES IT DOWN

"In this case, the only way that they can point to a sex-based line is to equate fundamentally different medical treatments. Giving testosterone to a boy with a deficiency is not the same treatment as giving it to a girl who has psychological distress… pic.twitter.com/yFkAdXQQiI

— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) December 4, 2024

Biden reaffirmed that the justice system operates differently for the wealthy and well-connected. It also bolstered Trump’s ‘drain the swamp’ mantra. Bringing back Trumpism stronger than ever, wrecking the country, and making sure his corrupt son didn’t go to jail will be his legacy.

Former MSNBC analyst Mark Halperin spoke about responsibility and accountability since those are two words liberals liked to throw around before they got embarrassed by the president with this pardon. He was very direct: We wouldn’t even be talking about this decision if Joe had made the responsible decision not to run again.

“You want to talk about culpability and responsibility? You want to talk about loving your son? If my son was an addict and had done what Hunter did, and Joe knew he did, I wouldn't run for president,” says @MarkHalperin. “So if he wants to say who's responsible for this, he can… pic.twitter.com/c421kchcS4

— 2WAY (@2waytvapp) December 3, 2024

“I think this will tarnish Biden’s legacy,” says @DanTurrentine about the president pardoning Hunter. “It’s very similar to his decision to run for reelection … Why say all summer that you’re not going to do this, and have the party go out on a limb defending you, and then just… pic.twitter.com/CHwSKYjmAU

— 2WAY (@2waytvapp) December 3, 2024

Joe Biden lied in the debate about whether Hunter got money from China. Joe Biden lied about whether he went to meetings with Hunter’s business associates. Joe Biden lied about his family receiving money. He chose to run knowing his son had an addiction problem, and that this would put a spotlight on his past activities that he knew about, and lied about whether he knew about them.

Dan Turrentine, a Democratic operative who was with Sean Spicer on this segment, added that Jill Biden and Joe’s inner circle shoulder some blame for pushing the president to run again when he clearly couldn’t hack it and had this albatross around his neck concerning his son. […]

— Read More: townhall.com

According to WJAT:

Twenty years after closing all of its locations due to bankruptcy and a foodborne illness outbreak, a popular Mexican restaurant is looking to make a comeback.

Hormel Foods, who owns the trademark, worked out a deal to bring Chi-Chi’s back to life after every location closed in 2004. The company initially closed its doors after a bankruptcy which coincided with a foodborne illness outbreak that was linked back to them.

The son of the founder of Chi-Chi’s, Michael McDermott, said in a release that he hopes to honor his family’s legacy by combining the classic Mexican restaurant with modern influence.

It would NEVER be admitted by anyone at Hormel or the original Chi-Chi’s team that the 2024 election results played a role in their decision to reopen… but it definitely did.

We’re back, baby!

It would NEVER be admitted by anyone at Hormel or the original Chi-Chi's team that the 2024 election results played a role in their decision to reopen… but it definitely did.

"Trump Effect: Popular Mexican Restaurant Set to Return 20 Years After Closing All US Locations" pic.twitter.com/1BYHO5B8iW

— JD Rucker (@JDRucker) December 5, 2024

“Multiple sources confirm to @PIX11News that United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot and killed outside the Hilton hotel in midtown just before 7 am, where he was slated to speak at a investor meeting later today,” PIX11’s Dan Mannarino wrote on X.

NEW: Multiple sources confirm to @PIX11News that United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot and killed outside the Hilton hotel in midtown just before 7am, where he was slated to speak at a investor meeting later today. @PIX11News

— Dan Mannarino (@DanMannarino) December 4, 2024

Brian Thompson’s LinkedIn profile.

NYPost reports the fatal shooting of CEO Brian Thompson,50, was a “targeted attack.”

JUST IN

UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson fatally shot outside the Manhattan Hilton Hotel in New York City.

Suspect is on the run. pic.twitter.com/oTp58cqBcP

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) December 4, 2024

Here’s more:

The CEO of UnitedHealth was fatally shot in the chest Wednesday morning outside the Hilton hotel in Midtown in what police say was a targeted attack. Brian Thompson, 50, was at the hotel at around 6:46 am when a masked man fired at the CEO and fled eastbound on 6th Avenue, police sources told The Post. Thomas was rushed to the hospital in critical condition, where he was pronounced dead, police said.

BREAKING NEWS: The CEO of UnitedHealth was fatally shot this morning in New York City, in what law enforcement is calling a targeted hit pic.twitter.com/J0Bs2Hd7qi

— Kevin Dalton (@TheKevinDalton) December 4, 2024

Thompson became CEO of UnitedHealthcare in 2021 after joining UnitedHealth Group in 2004. UnitedHealth Group is largest health insurance company in the US by revenue, with over $189 billion in 2024.

The political establishment’s concerns about what a Trump FBI could do mirror a lot of what we’ve heard from the right in recent years as they found themselves in the Bureau’s crosshairs.

But almost all of these complaints and warnings have operated under the assumption that—with maybe the exception of a few bad episodes in the 1960s—the FBI has long been an essential crime-fighting force that has only recently become—or threatens to become—corrupted by politics.

In truth, the FBI has always been used as a weapon against political movements and rivals of the established political class. That’s the reason it was created.

At the end of the 1800s, left-wing anarchists were attacking heads of state all across Europe. In a few short years, the king of Italy, the prime minister of Spain, the empress of Austria, and the president of France were all assassinated by anarchists. While no communist or anarchist movement had yet to take over a country, the tenacity of these activists and revolutionaries was seriously concerning those in power in the United States.

Then, in 1901, President William McKinley was shot and killed by an anarchist while attending a meet-and-greet in Buffalo, New York, which brought his vice president, Theodore Roosevelt, into office. It was President Roosevelt who tapped his Attorney General Charles Bonaparte—the grandnephew of Napoleon—to create the FBI.

The AG was required by law to get congressional approval before creating this new “investigative” service of special agents within the Department of Justice. In the spring of 1908, Bonaparte officially requested the money and authority to create the FBI. Congress came back with an emphatic no.

Members of the House saw through the innocuous language of the request and figured out exactly what the president and AG were doing—creating a secret police force that was answerable only to them.

House Democrats like Joseph Swagar and John J. Fitzgerald and Republicans like Walter I. Smith and George Waldo all loudly condemned the proposal, saying it called for a “system of espionage” comparable to the Tsar’s secret police in Russia that stood in stark contrast to the very principles at the heart of the American system. Congress explicitly forbade the AG from creating this new Bureau.

So what did Bonaparte do? He waited for Congress to break for the summer and then went ahead and created the FBI anyway.

Congress was only notified about the new federal police force half a year later when Bonaparte included a quick throw-away line at the end of his annual report: “It became necessary for the department to organize a small force of special agents of its own.”

So, the FBI was not created in response to out-of-control crime; its creation was a crime.

Immediately, the new Bureau was unleashed on anyone and everyone who was perceived as a threat to those in power. That started with left-wing anarchists but quickly expanded to include many antiwar activists as President Wilson pulled the country into World War I.

From the outset, the FBI operated primarily as a domestic intelligence agency—recruiting spies within groups they were targeting and breaking into their offices and homes, intercepting mail, and tapping the phones of anyone they considered a threat.

As the years wore on—like most other executive agencies—the Bureau evolved away from serving the direct interests of whoever happened to sit in the Oval Office to instead serve its own interest and the interest of the broader entrenched, permanent power structure in Washington.

In the ‘50s, ‘60s, and ‘70s, the FBI conducted covert operations aimed at inciting violence between domestic groups, breaking up political organizations it disapproved of, and, perhaps most famously, collecting blackmail on Martin Luther King Jr. that they then tried to use to drive him to commit suicide.

Although today’s FBI acknowledges and publicly disavows these past activities, they are still carrying out egregious operations that always seem to benefit the political class. The Bureau has taken up a kind of sting operation where, over and over again, agents find isolated, gullible, often mentally-handicapped young men, pretend to be political radicals or higher-ups in a terrorist organization, and then convince the young men to plan and carry out a terrorist attack with FBI-funds and resources. Agents then step in at the end and act like they heroically stopped a real plot.

The FBI did this relentlessly with young Muslim men after 9/11. The arrests helped prolong the perception that the global war on terror and extreme measures like the Patriot Act were necessary.

In recent years, the FBI has conducted a number of similar schemes with right-wing groups—advancing the establishment’s narrative that Donald Trump is radicalizing “uneducated” middle Americans and turning them into violent insurrectionists.

And then there are, of course, all the ways the FBI directly tried to undermine and hinder Trump’s first term. Right-wingers are correctly deriding the establishment for panicking about Trump’s FBI doing to them what they have tried to do to him. But many—on both sides—go wrong when they present the Bureau as only recently, or imminently, being corrupted into serving the interests of those in power. That’s been its role since the beginning.