United States’ Serious Problem
and the Authoritarian Response
I don’t care about Charlie Kirk. You can not ask any BIPOC or member of the LGBTQ+ to have empathy for a man who claimed empathy is a made up word. A man who built his wealth by attacking marginalized communities. Who also claimed “in order to protect our GOD GIVEN right to the second amendment” gun violence is justified. I am neither here to mourn nor celebrate what happened to him. Simply: you reap what you sow. However, the United States suffers another political blow to democracy because of Kirk’s assassination.
The United States struggles to stay united. The country’s leaders should collaborate in finding a solution to this gun problem. Instead we have Trump, led by the Heritage Foundation, pointing the blame for gun violence on a political party and a marginalized community until it was revealed the shooter was a young, white, cis-gendered man. The conservative leaders changed their stance from hatred to empathy for a “lost” soul. That did not stop the conservative media, who scrambled to change their initial narrative. Currently, three days later, right-leaning media outlets seek to spin the narrative on the trans-gender community with the alleged “Tyler Robinson had a trans-gender roommate.” These attacks neither make the trans-community responsible for Kirk’s assassination nor move the largest elephant in the room: gun violence. Political leaders focused on a different issue: people’s response to Kirk’s death.
The US federal and some state governments strip their employees’ first amendment right to freedom of speech for their stance on Kirk. Pete Hegseth, Secretary of War, directed the Pentagon to discipline any military, or civilian, personnel publically celebrating, or mocking Kirk’s death. Florida delivered the same warning to state employees, especially classroom teachers. Already Florida’s Department of Education is investigating a teacher for their stance on Kirk. The people who Kirk targeted in many of his “debates” lost their job because they refused to mourn their oppressor. Very similar to African slaves brought over to the United States, who refused to mourn their master’s death.
Perhaps I, too, may lose my job for my stance on Kirk because I will not mourn him. He attacked the black community stating anyone black lacks qualifications, despite many black Americans holding college degrees and other credentials. He claimed black women lack the brain processing power to be taken seriously, yet many black women show serious processing power daily. He constantly attacked the LGBTQ community quoting the bible and suggesting we “stone those who are gay.” These are only a fraction of the hateful rhetoric and political propaganda Kirk made into a career. As a black, educated woman, I refuse to mourn him. Instead of Kirk, I will mourn the death of the teens in Colorado and the death of all black Americans who lost their lives because of gun violence. Like millions of others, I will continue to use my voice to demand changes to gun control for US citizens and schools. Many countries with strict gun laws balance the “right” to own a gun without a high number of shootings. Let’s work towards a safe America instead.
Side-note: On the same day, September 10, 2025, a shooter took the life of two high schoolers in Colorado. The mainstream media remain silent about those high schoolers who suffered through yet another school shooting in the United States. Why are we not mourning their lives? Why are we not implementing gun control policies to avoid the collection of deaths because of gun violence? What do our leaders say to the millions of families who watch their children attend school every day in fear, worried if that day will be their child’s last at school? Or to the millions of US citizens who must walk down the street, glancing over the shoulders with hyper-vigilance because a third of the country made them target over political propaganda? These questions haunt millions of US citizens because elected officials refuse to solve our deadliest problem: gun violence.
About the Creator
Iris Harris
An aspiring novelist. I enjoy writing ghost, horror, and drama. Occassionally, I dabble with some essays. You can find more of my work with the link below:
Keep reading
More stories from Iris Harris and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Mental Health and Gun Control
School buses line up on the curb. Little feet race off the bus and into the adjacent building. Excitement of new clothes, faces, and supplies buzzes the air. A school bell silences the youthful voices as the adult voices rise, delivering instructions for the young scholars to follow. The morning progresses seamlessly, unaware of unexpectant invasion on campus. A spray of popping echoes through the academic hallways, shattering the studious atmosphere within every room of the educational building. Scrapping of floors spills out in between each terrifying burst. Aggressive pounding replaces the popping briefly before the unwanted cascade of bullets striking wooden doors return. Blood curling scream deafen the popping for a few seconds before the restoration of silence.
By Iris Harris4 months ago in The Swamp
U.S. Pushes for Faster Action to Cut Reliance on China for Rare Earths
Rare Earths: Small Minerals, Massive Power Rare earth elements may sound obscure, but they sit at the heart of modern life. From smartphones and electric vehicles to fighter jets and missile systems, these minerals are essential to both civilian technology and national defense. That reality is why the United States is now pushing for quicker, more decisive action to reduce its dependence on China for rare earth supplies. For years, Washington talked about diversification. Now, it wants speed. The shift reflects growing concern that reliance on a geopolitical rival for critical materials is no longer sustainable in an era of strategic competition. Why China’s Dominance Worries Washington China controls roughly 60–70% of global rare earth mining and an even larger share of processing and refining. Even when rare earths are mined elsewhere, they are often shipped to China for processing. This gives Beijing enormous leverage over global supply chains. U.S. officials fear that in a moment of heightened tension—over Taiwan, trade disputes, or technology restrictions—China could restrict exports. Beijing has already hinted at this possibility in the past, using export controls as a diplomatic tool. From Washington’s perspective, this is not a hypothetical risk. It is a strategic vulnerability that touches everything from renewable energy goals to military readiness. Rare Earths and National Security Few issues unite Democrats and Republicans as strongly as national security. Rare earths fall squarely into that category. Advanced weapons systems rely on these materials for precision guidance, radar, and communications. A disrupted supply could delay production, weaken deterrence, and raise costs dramatically. Pentagon officials have repeatedly warned that dependence on China for defense-critical materials undermines U.S. security. As a result, rare earth supply chains are increasingly viewed through the same lens as energy independence once was. This framing explains the urgency behind Washington’s push for faster action. Why “Quicker Action” Matters Now The U.S. has discussed rare earth independence for over a decade, yet progress has been slow. Mining projects face environmental reviews, local opposition, and long development timelines. Processing facilities require heavy investment and technical expertise that has largely migrated to China. What has changed is the global context. Rising U.S.-China tensions, supply-chain disruptions during the pandemic, and growing demand for clean energy technologies have compressed timelines. Waiting another decade is no longer acceptable to policymakers. Quicker action now means fast-tracking permits, increasing federal funding, and working more aggressively with allies. The Role of Allies in Diversification The United States does not expect to solve the rare earth challenge alone. Instead, Washington is pushing for a “friend-shoring” strategy—building supply chains with trusted partners rather than relying on geopolitical rivals. Australia, Canada, Japan, and several European countries are key players in this effort. Australia already hosts significant rare earth mining operations, while Japan has invested heavily in reducing its own dependence on China after facing export restrictions in the past. By coordinating investment, sharing technology, and aligning regulations, the U.S. hopes to create an alternative ecosystem that can compete with China’s dominance. Environmental and Economic Tensions Rare earth mining is not clean. It involves toxic waste, radioactive byproducts, and significant environmental risks. Ironically, minerals essential for green technologies come with heavy environmental costs at the extraction stage. This creates a political dilemma. Americans want clean energy, but often oppose mining projects in their own communities. Faster action will require balancing environmental protections with strategic necessity—a challenge that has stalled projects in the past. The Biden administration, like administrations before it, faces pressure to prove that domestic mining can be done responsibly without undermining climate commitments. China’s Likely Response Beijing is watching these developments closely. While China has not yet weaponized rare earth exports on a large scale, it understands the leverage it holds. At the same time, China is moving up the value chain—focusing more on advanced manufacturing and less on raw material exports. If the U.S. accelerates diversification successfully, China may respond by tightening export controls in the short term while investing in higher-end technologies that keep it indispensable in other ways. This dynamic underscores that rare earths are not just a resource issue, but part of a broader strategic competition. Economic Implications Beyond Security Reducing reliance on China is not only about defense. It is also about economic resilience. Supply disruptions during the pandemic exposed how fragile global supply chains can be. Rare earth shortages could slow electric vehicle adoption, raise consumer prices, and delay infrastructure projects. By pushing for faster action, Washington hopes to stabilize future growth and protect key industries. Domestic production and allied partnerships could also create jobs and spur innovation, particularly in rural and industrial regions. However, building new supply chains will not be cheap. Consumers and taxpayers may face higher costs in the short term as alternatives to Chinese supplies come online. Challenges That Could Slow Progress Despite political momentum, obstacles remain. Mining projects take years to develop. Processing facilities require specialized knowledge. Workforce shortages, local resistance, and regulatory complexity all pose risks to rapid progress. There is also the danger of overpromising. Policymakers must manage expectations, making clear that reducing reliance on China is a long-term effort, even if action accelerates now. Failure to deliver tangible results could weaken public support and give critics ammunition. Final Thoughts The U.S. push for quicker action in reducing reliance on China for rare earths marks a turning point. What was once a niche policy issue has become a strategic priority at the highest levels of government. This is not about cutting China out of the global economy entirely. It is about ensuring that no single country can control materials essential to modern life and national defense. Speed, coordination, and political will will determine whether Washington succeeds. As competition intensifies, rare earths will remain a quiet but powerful force shaping the future of technology, security, and global influence. The race is no longer just about who has the minerals—but who controls the supply chains that define the 21st centur
By Muhammad Hassan2 days ago in The Swamp
Comments (1)
I salute you, Iris. I stand with you on this. It is wrong for anybody to kill another person - even a person like Charlie Kirk. But, I refuse to honor him or mourn his death. He did far more bad for the United States than any perceived good.