There’s no better example of how little faith Americans have that government officials will tell the truth than the public’s blasé reaction to UFO announcements. In the last ten years, The New York Times has run stories about secret Pentagon programs tasked with retrieving alien craft. Members of Congress have held hearings on “mysterious orbs” and invited government witnesses to testify about black budget projects supposedly reverse-engineering alien technology. Secretary of State Rubio and director of National Intelligence Gabbard have both suggested that the UFO issue is serious. Yet eight billion people around the world collectively shrug.
Can you imagine what the public reaction would have been like had national newspapers and prominent officials released similar details in the 1950s? With the 1947 Roswell Incident still fresh in Americans’ minds, government confirmation of UFOs would have been the most important story in the world. Every article written and television report broadcast would have been framed around the alien/UFO phenomenon.
For eighty years, UFO-hunters have been fighting for government declassifications and official disclosure of alien contact. Now that videos of strange sightings have been released and congressional hearings have been convened to investigate the matter, Americans don’t seem to care. Representatives Tim Burchett and Anna Paulina Luna have said explicitly that extraterrestrial visitors are real, and their statements disappear in a blizzard of news stories discussing the “Aryan micro-aggressions” of Sydney Sweeney’s jeans.
Nobody believes what government officials say. Nobody believes what journalists say. In our world today, fantastic stories come and go, and nobody knows if they’re real.
CIA director William Casey reportedly told other principals gathered in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in early 1981, “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” Whether Casey was being frighteningly blunt or darkly humorous, I don’t know. Yet we certainly know that the CIA and FBI have been running mass propaganda programs on the American people for as long as either agency has existed.
What military schools now teach as examples of “hybrid” or “information warfare” has long been part of the U.S. government’s arsenal of psychological weapons used against American citizens. I wish this fact were more shocking to people. Information warfare is just as effective and deadly as conventional warfare.
As bad as Allied losses were at Normandy, they would have been much worse had Eisenhower and Patton not tricked Hitler into concentrating his forces away from the locus of the invasion. All of the so-called “color revolutions” of the last fifteen years in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East relied heavily upon anonymous (and likely espionage agency–created) social media accounts to inflame tensions, sow chaos, and encourage rioting. The Russia Collusion Hoax and the unbridled COVID hysteria (during which governments rushed to close schools and businesses and censor online speech before basic facts could even be established) are textbook examples of information warfare that upended entire societies without ever firing a shot.
When we acknowledge that government institutions have knowingly and willfully targeted the American people with disinformation campaigns meant to achieve strategic objectives, we are acknowledging that these institutions have made war against us exactly as military planners would wage war against foreign enemies. That is a sobering, terrifying, and unforgivable betrayal of the U.S. Constitution.
Surely the federal government’s information war against the American people is just as newsworthy as the possibility of extraterrestrial or intra-dimensional visitors. Noticeably, however, there are even fewer stories written about the government’s mass psychological operations against citizens than there are stories written about UFOs. That’s pretty revealing. The New York Times would rather hype speculation about little green men than document how federal agencies regularly lie to and manipulate the American people.
Why do you think that is? It is because The Times and other prominent news publications are well aware that they have been willing weapons in this decades-long information war against citizens. The government can’t psychologically manipulate the masses without controlling mass communication. Likewise, instruments of mass communication can’t effectively disseminate disinformation if the people who are meant to be manipulated recognize those instruments as weapons for spreading colossal lies.
When President Trump first began excoriating reporters for publishing “fake news,” the Dan Rathers and Jim Acostas of the propaganda press huffed and puffed, claiming that Trump’s exercise of his First Amendment right to free speech somehow jeopardized Americans’ First Amendment right to a free press. Coming from the mouths of known liars, the journalistic Establishment’s choreographed umbrage was hilarious. The prodigious manufacturers of fake news had long advertised their offal-laden sausages as fine cuts of meat. And Trump had no problem telling the American people that the most famous names in news sold eyeball- and intestine-filled slop.
But it was not Trump’s insults that the corporate news media really feared. After all, lame-duck President Obama had used the “fake news” pejorative repeatedly before leaving office in an effort to blame Hillary’s election loss on random social media accounts supposedly spreading “Russian disinformation.” (Appallingly, Obama was pushing Russia Collusion Hoax disinformation while blaming disinformation for Trump’s victory.) Even the propaganda press picked up Obama’s baton and published numerous stories in late 2016 claiming that an epidemic of “fake news” got Trump elected.
So the purveyors of fake news had no problem disparaging other news publications as “fake.” They only started worrying when they belatedly realized that Trump’s belittling of their profession had shattered their decades-long spell over the minds of the American people. Frauds such as Dan Rather and Jim Acosta called Trump a liar. Trump called them liars. And the American people believed Trump more than the pudgy blood sausages of fake news.
Trust in government institutions and newsrooms has been falling for decades. The Russia Collusion Hoax, the COVID Reign of Terror, and the outrageous lawfare campaigns against conservative politicians and voters have now destroyed public trust in Establishment institutions for the foreseeable future.
Where do we go from here? When authorities no longer have the trust of the people, they survive only by making amends for past transgressions or adopting even more overt forms of coercion. In the former case, government transparency, the impartial application of the law, and respect for public dissent help to renew the social contract between citizens and their government. In the latter case, appeals to expertise, discriminatory criminal enforcement, and rank censorship become hammers beating citizens into submission.
The United Kingdom has chosen coercion. Law enforcement agencies in the U.K. spend more resources policing public debate on social media platforms than they do curbing illegal immigration or protecting children from rape gangs. Citizens who express unapproved thoughts that contradict official government policies put themselves in legal jeopardy. U.K. health authorities continue to defend their COVID totalitarianism as a reasonable emergency response backed by “scientific” expertise. In the U.K., protections for free speech, dissent, and freedom of conscience are dead.
The Brits will surely reap what they now sow. They will discover how many citizens are willing to “trust the experts” when “net zero” energy rationing puts lives and livelihoods in danger. They will learn how many capable warriors are willing to fight and die in future wars for a country that treats illegal aliens better than patriotic citizens. They will rediscover that the criminalization of public debate leaves silenced citizens no alternative to rebellion.
In the United States, we have a small window to avoid Britain’s fate. While President Trump is keeping the corporate news media’s propagandists and Silicon Valley’s censors at bay, Americans have one final chance to defend free speech from the contemptible Deep State. If we fail, everything will soon resemble a UFO. Nobody will know what’s fake or real…or even care.
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.