Blog

Soviet Europe? Trump BANS Euro Officials From U.S. in Free-speech War

My, how the worm has turned. It was in 2009 that talk-show giant Michael Savage, along with others, was banned from Britain for exercising speech. Now, 16 years later, certain European officials are being banned from the United States for banning people for exercising speech. It’s just the latest in an unprecedented development: a war over liberty between an increasingly authoritarian Europe and a U.S. that under Donald Trump’s administration is championing Americanism.

At issue, too, isn’t merely certain European countries closing their borders to a few Americans. Nor is the problem just that European Union (EU) nations suppress their own citizens’ tongues via tendentious “hate speech”-law application. It’s also that, reflecting China’s efforts to censor the U.S.’s movies, the EU’s online restrictions could suppress Americans’ online expression. This is because Big Tech companies often apply EU-compliant changes worldwide.

Not Your Father’s Europe

Interestingly, shortly before this story broke I published the article “Should We Be Defending Left-wing Europe From Right-wing Russia?” In it, I explained how Western Europe is becoming a sort of woke, morally weak USSR. Others are noticing this as well, too. As Tampa Free Press writes, reporting on the current story:

A simmering diplomatic feud between Washington and Brussels over online speech regulations boiled over on Wednesday after the Trump administration barred five prominent European figures from entering the United States. The State Department accused the group — which includes a former top EU official and several NGO leaders — of leading efforts to censor American viewpoints.

The move marks a significant escalation in the administration’s campaign against what it views as “extraterritorial censorship” by foreign entities.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the restrictions on Tuesday, citing a policy unveiled in May that targets foreign nationals believed to be coercing U.S. technology companies into suppressing protected speech. Rubio framed the decision as a necessary defense of American sovereignty against ideological pressure from abroad.

“For far too long, ideologues in Europe have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints,” Rubio stated.

The banned individuals are:

  • Thierry Breton — ex-EU commissioner for internal markets. He helped devise the EU’s “Digital Services Act” (DSA), which censors social media. He also publicly warned social-media platforms about content.
  • Imran Ahmed — CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a misnamed propaganda outfit.
  • Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg — co-founders and leaders of German organization HateAid, another misnamed propaganda outfit.
  • Clare Melford — CEO of the misnamed Global Disinformation Index, a U.K.-based nonprofit that rates media sites, unfairly. It seeks to alienate advertisers from, among others, Truth-oriented outlets. For instance, all of its 10 “riskiest” U.S. sites are conservative/libertarian.

Keep reading

‘Eat the Rich’ Activist Married to $34M Mets Star Joins NYC Socialist Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani’s Inaugural Committee

Katia Reguero Lindor, wife of New York Mets superstar shortstop Francisco Lindor, has been named to the inaugural committee of incoming Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Lindor, a vocal social justice advocate who has publicly railed against the wealthy elite, is married to an athlete pulling in a staggering $34.1 million annual salary.

Elite hypocrisy like this is often seen in far-left circles, where champagne socialists preach equality while enjoying the fruits of capitalism.

Katia Lindor, a classically trained violinist and host of “The Unaparent Podcast,” describes herself as a “breastfeeding + home birth + social justice advocate.” She has used her platform to push progressive causes, including sharp criticisms of the rich.

In a November Instagram post during the mayoral election, she declared, “Your enemies aren’t the immigrants — they’re the one-percenters hoarding the wealth while leaving you without basic needs.”

She further emphasized that supporting politicians like Mamdani, who fight for immigrants, artists, workers, and “everyone who deserves a dignified life,” isn’t against her interests, “even if I’m in a different economic position.”

This rhetoric echoes the “Eat the Rich” mantra popular among anti-capitalist activists, including The Squad, yet it comes from someone whose household wealth is firmly in the top 1%.

Keep reading

Taxpayer-Funded Florida Theater Held ‘Drag Queen Christmas’ Show Despite Protests and AG Demands

In a move that has ignited fierce debate across Florida, the Pensacola city-owned Saenger Theatre hosted a sold-out performance of “A Drag Queen Christmas” on Tuesday, despite months of controversy, public outcry, and demands from state officials to cancel the event.

The touring drag show, known for its provocative content, drew protests outside the venue but proceeded without interruption.

The Saenger Theatre, a landmark in downtown Pensacola built in 1925, is fully owned by the city, with taxpayer dollars covering its maintenance and upkeep, though not directly funding the show itself.

Conservatives had argued that allowing such an event in a publicly funded space amounts to an endorsement of obscene and anti-Christian content, especially given its timing just days before Christmas.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier publicly condemned the city for permitting the performance, calling it a “public nuisance” that mocks Christian beliefs and risks exposing children to inappropriate material.

“Two days before Christmas, Pensacola will host a demonic, sexually explicit drag show at the city-owned Saenger Theatre,” Uthmeier wrote in a post on X. “Pensacola shouldn’t platform obscenities that denigrate its residents and expose kids to harmful content. They should cancel the event.”

Keep reading

Higher mortality rates found among vaccinated 3-month-old infants

Infants vaccinated in their second month of life were more likely to die in their third month than unvaccinated infants, according to an analysis of data from the Louisiana Department of Health. The analysis also found higher mortality rates among female and Black infants.

Children’s Health Defense scientists Brian Hooker, Ph.D., and Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., conducted the analysis, which was published on Preprints.org.

Depending on which vaccines were administered, vaccinated infants were between 29% and 74% more likely to die than unvaccinated infants. Vaccinated Black infants faced a 28% to 74% higher risk of death, while vaccinated female infants had a 52% to 98% greater risk.

Overall, infants who received all six vaccines recommended at the 2-month visit were 68% more likely to die in their third month of life.

The researchers analyzed linked immunization and mortality records from the Louisiana Department of Health for infants who died before 3 months of age between 2013 and 2024.

Keep reading

Indicted Democrat Judge Seeks Reelection as Texas Vote-Harvesting Case Expands

In Frio County, Texas, a suspended county judge facing multiple felony election-fraud charges has decided to seek reelection—not after exoneration, not after trial, but while under indictment and barred from office without pay. 

The decision is legally permissible, but the implications are far more troubling.

On Dec. 5, Rochelle Lozano Camacho filed paperwork to run again for Frio County judge. 

The filing came just days before the state’s Dec. 8 primary deadline and months before her next court appearance, scheduled for March 12, 2026—nine days after Texas primary voters cast their ballots.

Camacho is currently suspended from office by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct following her May 2025 arrest in one of the most expansive vote-harvesting prosecutions in recent Texas history. 

According to indictments returned by a Frio County grand jury, Camacho faces three felony counts of vote harvesting, stemming from a two-year investigation led by the office of Ken Paxton.

The suspension order is unambiguous. 

Camacho is barred from exercising judicial authority and is receiving no compensation until her criminal case is resolved, dismissed, or reconsidered by the commission. 

Yet under Texas election law, suspension does not prohibit a candidate from seeking reelection. Camacho has chosen to exploit that gap.

Keep reading

WTF? Failed State Somalia to Assume Presidency of U.N. Security Council in January

The failed state of Somalia is set to assume the presidency of the United Nations Security Council in January.

Despite being a largely ceremonial role, it has nonetheless been hailed by diplomats as a major milestone in the country’s international standing.

For one month, Somalia will be tasked with steering the council’s routine business, including setting meeting agendas, chairing sessions, and overseeing debates on global peace and security.

While the presidency carries no real executive power, it does allow the holder to play host to discussions on some of the world’s most entrenched conflicts.

During its brief stint, Somalia is expected to highlight familiar UN priorities such as peacekeeping operations, counterterrorism initiatives, regional instability, and humanitarian crises linked to war and climate shocks like drought.

Somalia has struggled with instability since the collapse of its central government in 1991, spending decades marked by civil war, weak institutions, and fragmented authority.

The federal government in Mogadishu continues to rely heavily on international assistance, including African Union forces, to combat the al-Qaeda-linked militant group al-Shabaab, which still carries out regular attacks.

Meanwhile, there has been growing scrutiny on America’s Somali population amid increasing evidence that they have been involved in massive social security fraud.

Federal prosecutors in Minnesota recently uncovered industrial-scale fraud targeting state-run, federally funded social programs.

Keep reading

Indicted Democrat Gets Dragged For Post Hiding $100k Ring Bought With Dirty Money

Democrat Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20) sparked controversy on social media Christmas morning for posting an altered photo disguising her alleged fraud.

In her Christmas post, Cherfilus-McCormick’s portrait had been altered to remove a diamond ring worth more than $100,000, according to the Miami New Times.

The ring Cherfilus-McCormick’s portrait usually shows is reportedly a Tiffany 3.14-carat “Fancy Vivid Yellow Diamond.” She allegedly paid $109,000 for the ring using a cashier’s check.

A federal grand jury indictment revealed that Cherfilus-McCormick used funds she acquired from COVID-19 related FEMA disaster payments in 2021. The indictment claims Cherfilus-McCormick and her brother were overpaid $5 million for a COVID vaccination staffing project. The funds were then for personal benefit, including the diamond ring, or distributed to friends and family. Those individuals then acted as “straw donors” to illegally contribute to her own election campaign.

Keep reading

School District Accused of Putting Disabled Students in Wooden Crates While Promoting “Diversity”

Every major failure in public education follows the same pattern: administrators become fluent in slogans while their most basic duties collapse.

The unfolding scandal in the Salmon River Central School District is a case study in how a system that advertises “values” can fail students in practice—spectacularly, expensively, and with little accountability.

Salmon River Central School District serves roughly 1,300 students in Fort Covington, New York, near the Canadian border. The district spends approximately $41 million annually, translating to about $29,000 per student. Under any reasonable standard, that level of funding should produce strong academic outcomes and attentive student support.

Instead, just 16% of students are proficient in math and only 25% in reading on state exams. Those numbers reflect a deeper systemic failure that extends far beyond this single district and across much of the public education system.

Yet a visit to the district’s public-facing materials tells a different story. The front page of the district’s website prominently emphasizes diversity, language, and institutional values, projecting moral seriousness and cultural awareness.

That messaging now stands in stark contrast to allegations that elementary students with disabilities were confined in wooden “timeout” boxes—structures parents described as resembling small padded cells.

According to reporting confirmed by local outlets, district officials are under investigation after images circulated on social media showing wooden enclosures built inside two elementary schools.

The district acknowledged that three such crates existed, claiming they were never used and have since been dismantled.

Parents told a very different story at a community meeting, alleging that their children were placed inside the boxes as a form of seclusion.

One parent of a minimally verbal child said his son described the structures as a place students were sent “to calm down,” regardless of emotional state.

That description alone should alarm anyone familiar with special education law.

Keep reading

New Files Show Epstein Was ‘Too Useful’ for Banks to Drop — Trump Was ‘Too Politically Dangerous’ to Keep

The newest Epstein disclosures include deposition testimony that illustrates, in unusually concrete detail, how major financial institutions assessed risk, value, and accountability.

The transcript does not add new allegations about Epstein. Instead, it explains why he remained bankable long after his 2008 conviction and why his relationship with major banks survived despite generating almost no traditional revenue.

That institutional logic is the same logic that later drove JPMorgan to end its ties with Trump Media, and the contrast between the two cases shows how selectively these standards are applied.

In the deposition, Paul Morris—a private banker who handled Epstein’s accounts at JPMorgan Chase and later Deutsche Bank—described Epstein’s financial profile with unusual precision.

Epstein’s trading was minimal. His accounts produced limited fees.

He was not a high-activity client and did not utilize the investment tools that banks rely on to generate consistent revenue. By every conventional benchmark, he was a low-value account.

And yet, the relationship continued.

The deposition shows why. Epstein was not retained for his financial performance but for his institutional usefulness.

Morris acknowledged that Epstein facilitated introductions to ultra-wealthy individuals that the bank viewed as essential prospects. One example was Leon Black, whom Morris identified as a “priority prospect” because of Black’s significant net worth and influence in the investment sector.

Epstein introduced the bank to real-estate investor Andrew Farkas and discussed a potential connection involving biotech investor Boris Nikolic, who had ties to Bill Gates.

These introductions were specific, documented, and initiated by Epstein, not the bank.

This is the key element that many public accounts overlook. Epstein was not being managed as a traditional client. He functioned as a relationship broker inside a system where introductions to power carry more internal value than account-level returns.

Banks routinely emphasize compliance structures, but the testimony shows how those structures contract when the client provides access that cannot be replicated elsewhere.

Keep reading

Everytown’s Defense of ‘Vampire Rule’ Renders the Second Amendment Meaningless

In less than a month from now, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, the challenge to Hawaii’s default ban on concealed carry on all private property (also known as the “vampire rule”, thanks to FPC’s Rob Romano) unless property owners specifically allow it. Amicus briefs in support of both the plaintiffs and defendants have now been filed with the Court, and over the next couple of days we’ll be taking a closer look at some of the arguments raised in defense of the gun control law… starting with the amicus brief filed by Everytown for Gun Safety. 

What makes this brief noteworthy is the audacity of the gun control group’s arguments, which fly in the face of the Court’s decisions in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen and would essentially turn the Second Amendment into a dead letter if adopted by the justices. 

The first argument raised by Everytown is that laws that are specifically designed to frustrate Second Amendment rights are presumptively constitutional, and that an “improper purpose” for a gun control statute is not reason enough for the courts to strike it down. 

This Court’s decisions in Bruen and Rahimi set forth the operative analytical framework for Second Amendment challenges. When a contemporary law regulates conduct that falls within the Amendment’s text, this framework points courts to historical evidence to determine whether the law is consistent with tradition. The United States and petitioners now ask the Court to distort that methodology by arguing for per se invalidation of any regulations that “restrict[] firearms simply to frustrate the exercise of Second Amendment rights”—a description they incorrectly ascribe to Hawai‘i’s statutory scheme. And they incorrectly claim that their freefloating improper-purpose test is grounded in the textual and historical understanding of the Second Amendment. Because neither precedent, text, nor history supports that novel test, the Court should reject it.

Now, it’s true that the Supreme Court has said that courts need to look to the text of the Second Amendment as well as the national tradition of gun ownership to determine if a modern gun control law is 2A-compliant, but there’s a good reason why the justices have never explicitly said that laws meant to chill the exercise of our right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional: it’s self-evident. 

Rights exist for a reason, and any laws that are put in place with an eye towards curtailing that right are, by their very nature, constitutionally unsound. And despite Everytown’s claim to the contrary, Hawaii’s “vampire rule” is absolutely meant to stop people from exercising their right to bear arms. If it’s illegal to carry a gun in the vast majority of publicly accessible places, even with a concealed carry permit, then most people aren’t going to bother getting one… and those that do will be unable to carry except in a very limited number of locations. 

Keep reading