Wiped out: US faces surging toilet paper prices amid trade war with Canada

Using the bathroom or having a cry is about to become more expensive for North Americans as the US and Canada enter a full-fledged trade war that threatens to flush away decades of peaceful trading between the two nations.

After trade negotiations broke down between the two countries last weekend, Mark Carney, the Canadian prime minister, vowed to match US tariffs “dollar for dollar” and unveiled a list of nearly 900 American goods that will face 25% to 50% tariffs starting on 8 September.

Paper products are among the hardest-hit sectors, with Canada threatening to put tariffs of between 25% and 50% on “toilet paper or face tissue stock” from 8 September in retaliation for a 50% hike from Washington DC.

Though American toilet paper and tissues are often made domestically, they heavily rely on lumber-rich Canada for raw materials. Procter & Gamble, the owner of Charmin toilet paper, said last year that it would have to increase prices amid tariffs that were in place at the time.

The US imported $328m worth of toilet paper from Canada in 2024, according to the World Bank, making it by far the largest exporter of the product to the US. Retailers including Costco source much of their paper products from the country.

The US accounts for more than 20% of global tissue consumption despite having only 4% of the world’s population. The average American uses 141 rolls of toilet paper per year, making them No 1 for No 2s globally, just ahead of Germans, each using an average of 134 rolls annually.

It’s not just paper products that could rise in price. The trade war highlights the deep economic ties shared between the two countries as consumers continue to worry about inflation on both sides of the border.

US tariffs are specifically affecting Canadian liquor, including popular whiskey brands Crown Royal and Canadian Club, which are currently under a 50% tariff.

While Canada has not introduced a tariff on American liquor, most Canadian provinces have introduced their own bans on American alcohol, in retaliation for earlier tariffs on Canadian products. Donald Trump used these province-wide bans on American alcohol as part of his legal justification for his new tariffs against Canada.

Carney has asked province leaders to consider putting American liquor back on the shelves, though as the Nova Scotia premier Tim Houston told CBC News: “Whether Nova Scotians or Canadians will actually buy it when it’s back on the shelves, that’s a whole other discussion.”

Keep reading

China Rejected 22 Tons of Argentine Beef Over a Banned Antibiotic as Trump Opens the Door to 300,000 Tons

President Donald Trump’s plan to allow up to 300,000 metric tonnes of foreign beef into the US has sparked an unusual backlash from Republican ranchers and cattle groups, who warn that cheaper imports could make it harder to rebuild America’s depleted herd.

Trump says the move will lower grocery costs while giving American ranchers time to rebuild cattle supplies. Critics see a contradiction, arguing that increasing imports could weaken the incentive for US producers to expand.

The controversy also puts Argentina under scrutiny. In March, China rejected a 22-tonne shipment of Argentine beef after detecting chloramphenicol, an antibiotic prohibited for livestock use in Argentina. There is no evidence that this rejected shipment is connected to Trump’s import plan.

On August 21, Trump announced that the US would allow up to 300,000 metric tonnes of product for ground beef to enter over 90 days without the additional out-of-quota tariff.

Trump said foreign exporters had committed to selling the beef at 25% below current market prices. The White House said an executive order with further details was expected within two weeks.

The plan concerns lean beef trimmings used for ground beef, rather than 300,000 tonnes of assorted beef cuts. Trump initially declined to identify the supplying countries, later naming Argentina as one of them.

That leaves a major question hanging over the Trump beef import plan: who exactly will supply the new imports?

Keep reading

PA Gov. Josh Shapiro and State Health Officials Caught Pushing Fake Measles Death Narrative in Lancaster County — Officials Refuse to Cooperate as County Coroner Confirms ZERO Deaths FROM Measles

The mainstream media and leftist government bureaucrats are at it again, pushing panic, fear, and unverified headlines to control the public narrative, only to get caught red-handed when local officials demand basic transparency.

During a high-profile press conference on Tuesay, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, alongside state health officials and Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health, announced that two “measles-associated deaths” occurred in Lancaster County.

The legacy media immediately ran with the headlines. Two people died FROM measles. Case closed. Get the shot. Blame the unvaccinated. Blame RFK Jr.

There’s just one major problem: Local authorities have ZERO record of these alleged deaths.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called out the massive discrepancies and the state’s sudden refusal to share basic factual data.

Kennedy said Shapiro accused him of promoting “conspiracy theories” after Kennedy noted that some Americans have religious objections to MMR because of fetal-cell substrate used in manufacturing.

Shapiro reportedly snapped that there is “no fetal tissue in the MMR.” Kennedy responded that Shapiro could not produce a single example of HHS “misinformation” when asked, yet repeated the smear on camera anyway, while ignoring the fact that Pennsylvania’s own drop in vaccination rates largely occurred during the Biden years, a fact Shapiro reportedly admitted in a private call with RFK Jr.

Keep reading

Networks Were Ordered to Stop Filming Trump—and They Didn’t Protest the Illegal Censorship

“Cameras off the president right now.”

This direct command could be heard this weekend on the live broadcast of the Freedom 250 Grand Prix, an IndyCar street race orchestrated by President Donald Trump’s administration as part of its MAGA-branded commemoration of the nation’s historic anniversary. The entire three-hour debacle was live-broadcast on Fox, alongside footage of Trump and First Lady Melania Trump as they basked in the front-row presidential suite.

At one point, the presidential couple engaged in heated conversation—possibly regarding, some speculated (Mercury News8/24/26), the presence of Trump’s personal assistant Natalie Harp, with whom he has an unusually close relationship. As this discussion transpired, a terse command to the camera operator could be heard: “I need the cameras off the president right now. Cameras off the president right now. Turn the cameras.”

A camera operator replied, “We’re the pool with President Trump for the entire network—FoxCNNCBSABC.”

The response was unyielding: “I understand that. We’ve asked you to turn the cameras off of the presidential suite.”

The command—from a staffer wearing an IndyCar uniform—was an astonishing call for press censorship on behalf of Trump, not to mention a direct violation of the First Amendment freedom of press.

As Brendan Keefe, an award-winning investigative reporter for Atlanta News First, posted on X (8/23/26):

You can tell us where we can be. You cannot tell us what to film. “Cameras off” is an unlawful order from government, especially when recording an elected official…. The First Amendment allows the press to record in any place they’re allowed to be present.

Even more surprising, however, is that none of the major outlets—including the outlets for which the camera person was working—have acknowledged this blatant assault on the freedom of the press. Coverage of the Grand Prix from networks FoxCBS and ABC operated as usual, highlighting race victories and logistics. CNN correspondent Brian Todd (8/23/26) reported that the race was “a real success.”

Only independent outlets, such as Atlanta Black StarRaw Story and Crooks & Liars, or overseas-based publications like the British-based Mirror or Spanish sports outlet Diario AS, have published pieces highlighting the infringement. So why have establishment media stayed silent?

One explanation is a realistic fear of government retaliation. After the FCC’s failed efforts last year to cancel ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live! for critical comments about Charlie Kirk—a move that was disparaged even by conservatives—the organization mounted a retaliatory campaign, slapping ABC with an unprecedented and mandatory years-early license renewal review. The ordeal has since snowballed into a full-blown lawsuit against the FCC from ABC’s parent company Disney.

But the media have an obligation to act as watchdogs, to report on those in power and keep the public informed on wrongdoing and corruption. Corporate media have billions of dollars at their disposal, and have more resources than any other media format to stand up to the administration. When corporate media are collectively silent about violations of their press freedoms, ordinary people can hardly rely on them to stand up for the rest of us.

Keep reading

Army Lays Groundwork for First Military Executions Since 1961

The Army has prepared for the possibility of carrying out executions of the military’s death row prisoners if President Donald Trump approves them.

The plan would apply to the military’s four death row inmates and would mark the first U.S. military execution in more than six decades if carried out, according to an internal planning document first reviewed by ABC News. The outlet reported earlier this month that said document is called “Operation Resolute Justice” and was internally issued within the Army this past February.

“Exercises regarding this operation have been conducted regularly for the past 20 years,” Cynthia Smith, an Army spokesperson, told ABC News, adding in early June that no orders had been handed down by Trump. “These drills are a standard component of our continued planning and preparation if the president approves a death sentence,”

The main holdup is built into military law. Article 71 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice says a court-martial death sentence “may not be executed until approved by the president,” and it also bars execution until appellate review produces a final judgment on the legality of the proceedings. That requirement explains why military death sentences can sit for decades after trial.

Ronald Gray, sentenced to death in 1988 for murders and rapes near Fort Bragg, had an approved execution date set for Dec. 10, 2008, but a federal court stayed the execution on Nov. 26, 2008.

The last U.S. military execution occurred April 13, 1961, when Army Pvt. John A. Bennett was hanged after being convicted of rape and attempted murder.

Ronald Gray, Hasan Akbar, Timothy Hennis and Nidal Hasan are prisoners currently sentenced to death in the military system. They were imprisoned based on the following crimes:

  • Gray was convicted by general court-martial of 14 charges, including premeditated murder, attempted murder and three rapes.
  • Akbar was sentenced to death in 2005 after a grenade and shooting attack killed Army Capt. Christopher Seifert and Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone and wounded 14 other soldiers in Kuwait in 2003.
  • Hennis was sentenced to death in 2010 after a military trial for a 1985 triple murder.
  • Hasan was sentenced to death in 2013 after killing 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009.

What the Army Is Preparing

The Army plan is called “Operation Resolute Justice” and involves coordination with the Federal Bureau of Prisons for possible executions at the federal prison complex in Terre Haute, Ind.

The plan outlines procedures for transferring condemned prisoners from the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., to Terre Haute, arranging a viewing station for witnesses and coordinating with federal prison officials. Terre Haute has housed all the federal government’s executions since 2001.

Keep reading

Watch a DSA Member Explain That Their Takeover of the Country Will be a ‘Violent Process’

One of the most amazing things about the DSA is hearing them talk in their own words when they think only other members are listening.

A clip that has been making the rounds on social media shows several members engaging in what looks like a Zoom meeting when one of them begins to detail how they are going to take over the Democrat Party and ultimately the country.

He then mentions that it will be a violent process.

This is why Democrats and media liberals must be called out when they try to claim that these people just want healthcare. It’s a total lie.

Townhall reports:

The DSA Promises Its Revolution Will Be a Violent One

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) haven’t exactly been shy about their intentions for America should they ever gain majority power. They will destroy America’s founding documents, the Senate, the presidency and the Supreme Court. They want to undo our immigration laws, abolish our borders, end ICE, and put the kibosh on law enforcement.

Of course, they’re also aware that tens of millions of Americans own guns and that many of us will put up a resistance to the commie takeover of the U.S.A. That just means the DSA is promising the revolution will be bloody and violent, as they usually are.

“We have seen that the Democratic Party establishment that we have has to be ripped out,” said Michael Beyer, a DSA activist and streamer. “We can actually start to grab hold of the ship of state and steer it in our direction, but it’s going to be a, you know, violent process.”

Oliver Larkin, who is running for Congress in Florida’s 25th Congressional District, added, “Our country needs to change and this Democratic Party needs to change. I was more than glad to go on Hasan’s stream. This is we need, as Democrats, we need to go into these spaces.”

Keep reading

How the Media Sells Genocide

The Western media manufactures consent for genocide. It normalizes Israel’s decades-long military occupation and apartheid. It erases Israel’s flagrant violations of international law. It perpetuates the fallacy of Israeli victimhood. It betrays, discredits and demonizes the work of Palestinian journalists and media workers in Gaza, at least 220 of whom have been killed by Israel between Oct. 7, 2023, and August 2025. It supinely accepts draconian Israeli censorship. It acquiesces with tepid letters of protest at Israel’s refusal to allow foreign reporters in Gaza — an effort by Israel to mask its war crimes. It amplifies Israeli lies, from beheaded babies to widespread sexual assault of Israeli women on Oct. 7, to obfuscate the truth.

When writing about Gaza, verbs are in the passive tense. There is no subject. No one is accountable. Genocide, it seems, is an act of God. No different from an earthquake or tsunami. Clichés and opaque adjectives such as the “cycle of violence” or “clashes” distort and falsify reality.

“If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought,” George Orwell warned.

Terms such as “genocide,” “atrocity,” “ethnic cleansing” and “occupied territories” magically disappear from media reports on Palestinians, whose resistance is routinely described as “savage” and “barbaric.” New York Times reporters are instructed by editors to avoid terms such as “Palestine,” “genocide,” “carnage,” “refugee camp,” “slaughter” and “massacre,” when referencing Palestinians.

The media slavishly regurgitates what Israel feeds it. Saturation bombing becomes “surgical air strikes.” Israel’s weaponization of famine becomes a “food shortage.” The killing of unarmed civilians — including children — becomes “clashes.” The hilltop fortress-like compounds of Jewish colonists becomes “neighborhoods.” Extrajudicial assassination of a journalist or a doctor becomes “died.”

Genocide, referred to as the “Israel-Hamas war” is justified as “self-defense,” part of the mantra of Israel’s “right to defend itself.” When schools, hospitals, clinics, ambulances, mosques, churches and other civilian targets are obliterated, they are labeled “Hamas command centers” or targeted because Hamas is “using civilians as human shields” — something Israel does routinely, when the army binds detained Palestinians and forces them to enter potentially booby-trapped buildings and tunnels ahead of Israeli troops.

When Israelis are held by Hamas, they are “hostages,” even if they serve in the military. When Palestinians — including children — are held without charges or trial and disappeared into Israeli detention centers, where torture is “widespread” and “systematic,” they are “prisoners.”

Missile attacks on tent cities or hospitals are blamed on Palestinian armed groups firing errant rockets. If Israel acknowledges the attacks — which very rarely happens — they are described as a “tragic mistake.”

Civil institutions in Gaza are characterized as “Hamas-run” to cast doubt on the veracity of what they report. The New York Times routinely qualifies announcements from the Gaza Health Ministry by noting it “does not distinguish between civilians and combatants,” masking the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians.

The result is some of the most convoluted writing in the history of journalism, including the Nov. 5, 2023 New York Times headline that reads: “Explosions Gazans Say Was Airstrike Leaves Many Casualties in Dense Neighborhood.”

“When Middle East Eye journalists Mohamed Salama and Ahmed Abu Aziz, along with Reuters photojournalist Hussam al-Masri, and freelancers Moaz Abu Taha, and Mariam Dagga — who had worked with several media outlets, including the Associated Press — were killed in a “double tap” strike — designed to kill first responders arriving to treat casualties from initial strikes — at Nasser Medical Complex, how did Western news agencies respond?” I asked in my column The Betrayal of Palestinian Journalists.

“Israeli military says strikes on Gaza hospital targeted what it says was a Hamas camera,” the Associated Press reported.

“IDF claims hospital strike was aimed at Hamas camera,” announced CNN.

The camera belonged to Reuters, which said Israel was “fully aware” the news agency was filming from the hospital.

“When Al Jazeera correspondent Anas Al Sharif and three other journalists were killed on Aug. 10 in their media tent near Al Shifa Hospital, how was it reported in the Western press?” I asked.

“Israel Kills Al Jazeera Journalist It Says Was Hamas Leader,” Reuters titled its story, despite the fact al-Sharif was part of a Reuters team that won a 2024 Pulitzer Prize.

The German newspaper Bild, published a front page story headlined: “Terrorist disguised as a journalist killed in Gaza.”

Keep reading

Undocumented migrant accused of using 55 fake identities to collect $180K in Quebec welfare

An undocumented migrant from Senegal is accused of defrauding Quebec taxpayers of more than $180,000 by allegedly submitting dozens of social assistance applications using fake identities.

According to the Journal de Montréal, 45-year-old Omar Ndiaye has been detained since his arrest last month and faces fraud, document forgery and use of forged-document charges stemming from an alleged scheme operating between August 2024 and March 2026.

Crown prosecutors allege Ndiaye submitted 55 applications for last-resort financial assistance, mostly online, using fictitious profiles and impersonating different beneficiaries.

Quebec’s Ministry of Employment and Social Solidarity allegedly approved 37 of the applications, resulting in more than $180,000 in public money being paid out.

There was one apparent flaw in the alleged scheme: despite using different identities, photographs bearing a “very strong resemblance” to Ndiaye were allegedly attached to several applications.

Surveillance footage also allegedly captured Ndiaye withdrawing money with bank cards registered to three other people, while police reportedly observed him retrieving mail from several post office boxes registered at addresses other than his own.

According to the report, a former landlord discovered more than 140 letters from the Quebec government, federal government and a bank addressed to various individuals.

Investigators allegedly found another identity during Ndiaye’s arrest: a passport from the Democratic Republic of Congo bearing a different name but his photograph.

Crown prosecutor Julien Beaulieu argued against releasing Ndiaye pending trial.

“Mr. Ndiaye is using multiple different identities, so much so that he constitutes an imminent flight risk,” Beaulieu told the court.

Ndiaye has no legal status in Canada and testified that he works illegally as a dishwasher at a Montreal restaurant. He reportedly lived in Spain between 2005 and 2023.

Seeking release, Ndiaye told the court that “living in Canada is a dream” and insisted he had no intention of fleeing.

Quebec Court Judge Sonia Mastro Matteo wasn’t convinced.

The judge noted that Ndiaye’s place of residence in Canada was difficult to establish and ruled that a proposed $4,000 deposit was insufficient to ensure he would appear in court and comply with release conditions.

His defence, meanwhile, offered an unusual alternative explanation: another person could be responsible for the 55 allegedly fraudulent applications by impersonating Ndiaye himself.

Ndiaye remains behind bars and is scheduled to return to court in October.

According to the Crown, he could face three to five years in prison if convicted.

Keep reading

A lesson from the past: When governments implement food controls, people starve

How does Paris get fed? Frédéric Bastiat famously explained in ‘Economic Sophisms’ (1845) how market exchange reliably provisioned the (then) million people of Paris with agricultural produce from the countryside that they were able to enjoy “peaceful slumbers … not disturbed for a single instant …” 

In stark contrast, Bastiat predicted that there would be “much suffering within the walls of Paris – poverty, despair, perhaps starvation …” if a presumptuous minister decided to replace the market with their own decision-making for what “should be produced, transported, exchanged and consumed …”

We can appreciate Bastiat’s observation about the miraculous functioning of the market even more when we look at a time when Paris actually went hungry.

France’s Experiment in Forced Provisioning

Leading up to the French Revolution in 1789, France found itself in a precarious fiscal position. It had accumulated crippling debt from the Seven Years’ War and its support for the American colonies during their War of Independence. This heavy debt burden left the kingdom woefully unprepared to withstand the economic shocks that followed.

Economic shock came in the form of the eruption of the Laki volcano in Iceland in 1783, which contributed to climatic disruptions and poor harvests in France in the years that followed. These problems were compounded by a severe hailstorm in 1788 that devastated crops and livestock, raising prices, especially for bread, which was the main staple at the time. Increased demand for grain to support the military and its draft animals, when France declared war on Austria in 1792 (followed by war with Great Britain), pushed prices even higher. When France implemented a draft that drew agricultural workers into the military and then began requisitioning agricultural horses and wagons, the supply of grain was further reduced.

Henry Bourne, writing a two-part article in the Journal of Political Economy in 1919 about this era, notes that in the autumn of 1792, “One of the longest and most important debates [of the National Convention] was upon the best method of insuring a supply of bread at a reasonable price.” This was a problem that especially loomed over the major city of Paris. Bourne argues that the threat of starvation fuelled not only the French Revolution, but the mob mentality and interventionism that followed. As Bourne writes, “People, in a panic because they do not know where next week’s bread, meat and coal are to be found, are not likely to apply the rules of evidence to every rumour.” The French clamoured for state intervention on the “fixed idea that dearness and scarcity were the result of speculation” rather than underlying economic conditions.

Transporting grain became a risky enterprise as mobs sprang up to seize it, further decreasing the supply of grain to Paris. To add insult to injury, the transportation of grain to major cities was further suppressed by inflation, which made the issued assignats unappealing to country farmers.

The National Convention and the Paris Commune turned to “a series of ventures in price-fixing and food control” to solve the problem. Bourne notes that “price-fixing became one of the characteristic features of the Reign of Terror.” In 1793, the National Convention imposed a maximum price, or what economists today call a price ceiling, on grain. In a futile attempt to warn of the potential consequences, Pierre Vergniaud, who later that year was executed under the accusation of the radical Jacobin Maximilien Robespierre, urged that “If you destroy commerce, you decree famine.”

French attempts to deny the economic reality reflected by market prices, by attempting to suppress them, resulted in severe shortages and long lines. 

“The scheme not only failed to encourage the farmer, it threatened him with ruin,” Bourne noted. “His expenses for tools, draft animals and wages were steadily rising, but his profits were cut down, with the prospect of further losses every succeeding month.”

But politically savvy politicians blamed these disappointing outcomes on greed and used them to justify further interventions backed by the threat of imprisonment and death. The National Convention created a Commission of Subsistence and Provisioning to be the “Food Director” of France. Swarms of officials were commissioned to survey farmers’ inventories and fields in an attempt to enable government officials to redirect grain to where it was needed. Rules were issued detailing the precise percentage of bran that millers could extract and even dictated the one type of bread that would be allowed. A bread card rationing system was created but was abused as families failed to report the death of family members to continue receiving the same allotment. Bourne reports that in 1794, rations fell to a single pound of bread for each labourer and three-fourths of a pound for others, and that “it was practically impossible to obtain meat, butter, eggs, oil and other articles of food commonly regarded as necessary,” as price ceilings were extended to these items as well.

Officials attempted to appeal to the higher motives of the people, telling them that they were “brothers and that they should help” even if it meant turning over the grain needed for their family, for storage for future use, or even the seed necessary to plant the next year’s crop. This proved insufficient, however, so the officials eventually turned to force.

Bourne writes that “An attempt was made to provide for Paris by compelling every farmer to furnish within twenty-four hours sixteen bushels of wheat for each hide of land.” French dragoons were soon released upon the countryside to “scour the country” for food and to arrest any suspected hoarders. As Bourne notes, “merchants were thrown into prison upon the accusation of the first intriguer who shouted out his suspicions at a popular society. The local revolutionary committees acted as judges without appeal. To escape a similar fate, the other merchants hastened to dispose of their merchandise and did not restock.”

If a farmer had grain in the field but no labourers to gather it, labourers were drafted by local authorities. Millers and bakers in Paris were drafted and forbidden from abandoning their work without sufficient notice. Eventually, the National Convention even attempted to extend maximum price laws to the wages of labourers as well.

Despite the substantial and systematic efforts of the National Convention and the boards of the separate departments of France, Parisians and much of the rest of France went hungry under government control. In Cahors, people “were so poorly fed that they were falling in the street from sheer weakness.” In Nord, “grain of every sort disappeared from the markets …” The people of Paris would stand “with famished eyes” for hours in line “only to be told when their turn came that nothing was left.” As Bourne concludes, “If the maximum laws were meant to save the common people from want and wretchedness, they failed.”

Keep reading

Write Code, Go to Prison. Slaughter Children, Get a Pardon: Welcome to American “Justice”

If you want to understand the true nature of the American justice system, look at who it pardons and who it cages. This is a regime that hands full clemency to executives who admit, in writing, to laundering money for hackers and drug cartels, while it hunts down software developers who never touched a single dollar that wasn’t theirs, who had zero victims, and then buries them under decades of federal time. The hypocrisy is not incidental. It is the modus operandi of the machine: the state does not actually care about fraud, laundering, or victims. It cares about control, and control is exactly what open-source financial privacy takes away from it.

We said it after Trump pardoned Ross Ulbricht in January 2025: the pardon was a great start, but the debt owed to the rest of the political prisoners rotting in federal cages was nowhere near paid. Nineteen months later, that debt has been settled only for the defendants with the most useful political connections, while the actual innovators, the ones who built tools instead of stealing from innocent people, are still being ground up by the exact same machine.

Take for instance, Roman Storm, who is still fighting for his freedom for the “crime” of writing code. A Manhattan jury convicted him in August 2025 on a single count tied to Tornado Cash, a privacy protocol, and deadlocked on the far more serious and entirely unprovable money-laundering and sanctions charges, and rather than take that hung jury as the warning it was, federal prosecutors are pushing for an October 2026 retrial on the very counts they couldn’t get a conviction on the first time. This is happening while the Justice Department’s own March 2026 report to Congress admits that lawful Americans have every right to use mixers to protect their financial privacy. The state knows it is prosecuting a man for building something it has since conceded is legal to use. It is pursuing him anyway. Storm’s own team has called this what it is, an attempt to make writing code a crime, and this past week Storm pointed out that if prosecutors’ theory of liability were applied honestly, it would put Google and OpenAI in a federal courtroom right alongside him.

If you want to be even more angry, read about Dexter Taylor’s case. Taylor is still in a maximum-security cage for building firearms in his own apartment that he never sold, never trafficked, and never used to harm a single human being. He is three years into a ten-year sentence, parole-eligible only in 2032, still appealing a conviction his attorney says could take years and go all the way to the Supreme Court. A software engineer with zero prior criminal history is serving longer than plenty of people convicted of manslaughter, for a hobby with no victim, and the state has shown no interest in correcting that.

Ian Freeman already lost his appeal, which is what happens when the machine runs its full course, and the state simply wins by default. Freeman helped people convert cash into Bitcoin through Bitcoin ATMs and church-run kiosks, and for that he was locked in a state-run cage after a federal appellate court affirmed both his conviction and his sentence in the summer of 2025. He is still in that cage today for giving people a way to hold their own money outside the banking cartel.

Keep reading