Blog

‘Unusual Cluster’ of Rare Child Cancer Cases Triggers Calls for Investigation

Families in Ladera Ranch, California, have experienced a nightmare that they believe could involve toxic chemicals from pesticides.

Bill Essayli, First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, wants the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate the matter and determine whether environmental factors explain why so many children in that community have developed rare forms of cancer.

“There has been an unusual cluster of pediatric cancers in the Ladera Ranch community,” Essayli wrote Thursday on the social media platform X.

Essayli asked that the EPA “conduct an appropriate investigation into whether there are any environmental causes, and whether any federal environmental laws are implicated.”

A letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin accompanied the post.

“My office has been made aware of recent reports of multiple pediatric Ewing sarcoma cases within the Ladera Ranch community,” Essayli wrote.

“Residents are raising concerns about a potential cancer cluster and whether environmental factors may warrant further evaluation. At least six children have been diagnosed with this rare bone and soft-tissue cancer, with one 17-year-old, Brody Matteson, dying after complications during treatment.”

Keep reading

What the FDA Knew—and When: The Case for a Black Box Warning on SSRIs for PSSD

A recent article in the DailyMail focused on what many who take antidepressants are reporting as sexual dysfunction. Apparently, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI), antidepressants not only cause people to feel nothing – not good, not bad -they also are unable to experience sexual pleasure…and it could be permanent.

The problem, of course, is more than sexual dysfunction. The bigger problem is that there is a risk of the psycho/pharma industry making the reported sexual dysfunction a mental illness, rather than call it what it is: an adverse effect of the SSRI drugs taken as “treatment” for depression. After all that’s what the psycho/pharmaceutical industry does…finds ways to profit from people’s feelings, even when those feelings are caused by that industry.

In fact, it is of interest that the DailyMail article refers to sexual dysfunction as a “condition,” writing the “American Psychiatric Association (APA) to help psychiatrists diagnose conditions states ‘in some cases, SSRI-induced sexual dysfunction may persist after agent (SSRI antidepressant) is discontinued.’” AbleChild cannot stress enough that the reported sexual dysfunction associated with antidepressant “treatment” is an adverse effect of the drug…not a mental disorder and certainly not something that needs to be “treated” with another mind-altering, mind-numbing drug.

Unfortunately, the inability to experience sexual pleasure is referred to as Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD) and these adverse antidepressant side effects are not new. An increasing number of people are reporting experiencing PSSD, with symptoms that include genital dysfunction, loss of libido, difficulty or inability to reach orgasm and feeling muted or no sexual pleasure.

Some refer to PSSD as “emotional blunting,” but AbleChild would argue that antidepressants have long been reported to leave people feeling nothing. The overall feeling that comes with the antidepressant “treatment” is emotional blunting. It would appear that the answer from the psycho/pharma industry is that if someone is depressed, that can be “treated” by providing mind-altering drugs that make a person feel nothing. The patient won’t be depressed. The patient will feel nothing.

Keep reading

Democrats Dismiss Our Constitutional Traditions As ‘Nostalgia’

It appears that the Madisonian democracy has joined shackets and combat boots as embarrassingly outdated for many on the left. In calling for radical changes to our constitutional system, leading Democrats are now calling the lingering loyalty to our traditions as mere “nostalgia.” To be nostalgic in today’s parlance is to be a dupe of the oligarchs and an enemy to reform.

“Nostalgia” has become the new coded term for reactionaries among Democratic figures, who are trying to convince Americans to accept radical changes to our republic after 250 years.

Kamala Harris recently insisted that opposition to ideas like packing the Supreme Court is mere “nostalgia” for a system that is no longer working. “I would caution us against talking about rebuilding with any sense of nostalgia about how things work, because even before, they weren’t working so well for a lot of folks,” she said. That “nostalgia,” according to Harris, is preventing us from doing things like packing the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) last week also declared that “nostalgia is not working” and, while refusing to embrace socialism, added that “capitalism as we know it doesn’t work.”

Morris Katz, a political strategist for Zohran Mamdani, spoke to CNN’s Dana Bash about looking beyond the label of democratic socialism and instead simply to accept that “our government does not work.” They are joining socialists who have long promised revolutionary changes without “introspection, nostalgia or regret.”

It is an all-too-familiar pitch. Sixty years ago, a call to break free of “old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits” revolutionized a nation. That call was heard in a Chinese paper that would help lay the foundation for Mao Zedong’s bloody Cultural Revolution. Marxists had long rejected calls to preserve institutions and citizens’ rights as “nostalgia” and “sentimentality,” standing in the way of needed progress.

For the Democratic Socialist of America organization, nostalgia stands in the way of getting rid of the Senate, presidency, and the Supreme Court to fundamentally change the republic.

The effort is to condition Americans to adopt radical changes to our core institutions that professors and pundits say will guarantee Democrats never lose power again.

That is not an easy task for a people who have benefited from the oldest and most prosperous democracy for 250 years. They have to be very angry or very afraid to take such a radical course.

The Soviets understood that about the U.S. After Yuri Bezmenov, a KGB agent working in the media, defected in 1970, he revealed the four stages by which the Soviets hoped to bring about revolutionary change in the U.S. It began with undermining our institutions and values, with the help of journalists and academics.

With establishment figures lining up behind radical changes, including packing the Supreme Court, the public is hearing a constant drumbeat of how our system is broken.

Even Democratic judges are joining the chorus. Indeed, some appear to be auditioning for the slots promised by Democratic leaders to take over the court with a reliable liberal majority.

This week, the Hawaii Supreme Court issued an unhinged diatribe against the U.S. Supreme Court that abandoned any semblance of judicial restraint or decorum. It declared the majority as effectively racists, saying that “The Roberts Court sees only white.” It portrayed the court as a rogue institution that “overrides what Congress passed. It overrides what the people chose. All to serve its own ends.”

It is an opinion that would make an MS NOW host blush. But it follows a pattern on the left to get people to turn against our institutions and even against the Constitution itself.

Others are telling the public that they are being repressed by the Constitution, which must be scrapped. In a New York Times op-ed — “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed” — law professors Ryan Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for the nation to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”

In yet another New York Times editorial, Jennifer Szalai denounced  “Constitution worship” and claimed that “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us. A growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.”

Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinsky insists that it is time to trash the Constitution in favor of “radical changes.”

These voices are seeking to remove all of the moderating elements of our system —the safety features that have produced the world’s most successful and stable republic. They are the very constitutional elements protecting us from the tyranny of the majority, protecting us from ourselves.

Without those protections, we will unleash the self-destructive forces that have been tearing apart other democratic systems since Athens. It is our constitution that spared us from that fate. As James Madison observed, “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”

Of course, history has shown that such radical proposals ultimately produce not democracy, but what the Framers called mobocracy. If we let that happen, many Americans will indeed look back at the last 250 years with a tragic sense of nostalgia.

Keep reading

Minnesota Paper Faces Backlash After Columnist ‘Cheers’ Tim Walz’s Clemency for Foreign Child Sex Offender

A foreign criminal who repeatedly raped a 10-year-old girl and tried to buy her silence was days from deportation when Minnesota Democrats, led by Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, stepped in to protect him.

Now, Minnesota’s flagship paper, The Minnesota Star Tribune, is facing backlash after columnist Rochelle Olson’s article “Cheers to Gov. Tim Walz,” praised the governor for his decision to defend the pardon.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, Laotian illegal alien pedophile Tou Lue Vang repeatedly raped a 10-year-old girl in Minnesota in 2004 and was issued a deportation order.

Vang even blamed the child and said it’s a “cultural thing to marry and have sex with girls as young as 12.”

Vang served ZERO prison time after pleading guilty.

However, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and the Democrat-controlled Board of Pardons  Tim Walz pardoned Vang, which shielded him from deportation.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, however, put an end to the madness and announced that Vang’s legal status was revoked and “as a result, federal agents took him into custody, and as of today, he has been removed from the United States.”

Keep reading

Rigging Elections Has Been Around for Thousands of Years

Rigging elections have been a passtime for thousands of years. Even Joseph Stalin commented on that practice famously saying its the people who count the votes decide everything, not the people who vote. That is so true and that rose to the surface during the Scottish Referendum. When the ethnic Russians of Crimea voted to separate from the mother-land of ethnic cleansing Ukraine with its Neonazi agenda, because the EU did not like the outcome they claimed Russia rigged the vote. The UN General Assembly passed a resolution declaring it invalid under pressure. They pulled the same stunt in Romania declaring the election invalid. The press routinely publishes fake polls to deliberately try to swing elections. The historical record for thousands of years is one continuous Greek tragedy when it comes to rigged elections.

In 1948, the Chicago Daily Tribune was so certain that New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey would defeat President Harry S. Truman that they ran the now-infamous front-page headline “Dewey Defeats Truman.” This is considered one of the most legendary blunders in American journalism.

Keep reading

As the Right Panics Over ‘Marxists,’ Their Own Leaders Are Openly Seizing the Means of Production

House Speaker Mike Johnson recently took to social media to broadcast an apocalyptic warning, screaming that “the barbarians are inside the gate” and claiming Congress is locked in a life-or-death battle to stop America from sliding down a “dark road of death to communism.” It is the classic, time-tested political playbook used by the establishment for decades to keep the populace paralyzed and compliant. They invent a terrifying, existential boogeyman, claim they are the only thing standing between the voters and total destruction, and hope nobody notices that their own team is running the exact same racket.

This latest iteration of the Red Scare, spearheaded by Donald Trump and his neoconservative cheerleaders, is a masterclass in psychological projection designed to keep the masses blind to a deeply uncomfortable truth. The real threat to economic freedom in America isn’t some foreign Marxist vanguard hiding in the shadows. It is the bipartisan, corporate-state cabal that has already replaced voluntary exchange with top-down central planning while wrapping it tightly in an American flag.

While the political Right whips its base into a frenzy over the creeping threat of left-wing Marxism, the very same “America First” politicians are quietly executing a hostile takeover of the free market. The State operates on an inherent double standard, unapologetically claiming that it is illegal for you to commit murder or theft, while it continuously wages wars that slaughter tens of thousands of innocents and extorts half your income through taxation. That staggering hypocrisy is currently on full display in the realm of economics, where the establishment campaigns on capitalism while ruling as command-economy despots.

During his first term, Trump frequently bypassed market mechanisms entirely, using protectionist tariffs to pick economic winners and losers before doling out a staggering $23 billion in taxpayer-funded farm bailouts to clean up the resulting economic carnage. A comprehensive study by the Cato Institute reveals that the federal government now spends over $181 billion annually on corporate welfare. This massive redistribution of wealth has only grown exponentially under both the Biden and Trump 2.0 administrations, forcing everyday taxpayers to underwrite corporate failures and subsidize favored industries.

The reality of the current administration is a clear line toward what can only be described as corporatism — the merger of corporate and state — marking a radical break from any semblance of a free market. Since taking office in 2025, the administration has weaponized the federal government to directly insert itself into corporate boardrooms. In a move that would make Benito Mussolini jealous, they have abandoned temporary bailouts for proactive, creeping socialism, using taxpayer funds to acquire financial equity stakes in 28 private companies over the past year and a half.

Keep reading

Houthis Announce Blockade On Saudi Shipping, Threaten Drone & Missile Attacks On Kingdom

Yemen’s Houthi rebels have announced they are imposing a new maritime embargo against Saudi Arabia in response for a recent attack on Sanaa Airport, and after years of the kingdom leading a blockade of Houthi-controlled Yemeni ports.

A military statement by Houthi spokesman Yahya Saree said the maritime ban on all Saudi shipping will be effective immediately in what he declared as an “equation of ‘an eye for an eye.'”

However, details of what this ’embargo’ will look like, in terms of where or what chokepoints the Houthis might seek to blockade were not given.

Last week the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen attacked the Houthi-controlled Sanaa International Airport, threatening a fragile truce that has been in place since 2022. Saudi jets had prevented an Iranian passenger plane from landing there, after the US-Saudi recognized Yemeni government warned against any Iranian planes entering the divided country’s airspace.

Within days of that incident, the Houthis reportedly sent missiles on Saudi Arabia – which was a first after years of relative peace. In addition to unveiling the anti-Saudi embargo, the Houthis spokesman warned that if the Saudi siege on Yemen is not lifted, then Houthi armed forces will move towards a full-scale war.

Saree declared, “if Saudi Arabia turns to all-out aggression against Yemen, all of Saudi Arabia’s energy facilities and its vital facilities will be targets for missiles and drones.”

He described that the blockade of Sanaa airport “is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated” – following the Iran airline incident. Saree vowed to retaliate “to the blockade with a blockade and to respond to all escalation with escalation.”

July 13: Yemen’s internationally recognized, Saudi-backed government says its forces targeted Sanaa Airport, under Houthi control, to prevent an Iranian aircraft from landing there…

Keep reading

Wars End With An Invoice – IMF Drops Global Growth Forecast

The IMF has once again reduced its outlook for global growth, pointing to persistent geopolitical tensions, expanding trade barriers, and growing uncertainty surrounding conflicts stretching from Eastern Europe to the Middle East. Global output is now expected to grow at roughly 3% this year, a pace well below the historical average.

Modern economists often separate military conflict from economic performance as though they are unrelated subjects. Every prolonged conflict diverts resources away from productive investment and toward military production. Steel that might have built factories instead becomes armored vehicles. Microchips are directed into missile systems rather than consumer electronics. Governments absorb increasing amounts of capital through debt issuance while businesses delay investment because they cannot predict where the next geopolitical crisis will emerge. Those developments do not remain confined to defense ministries. They eventually work their way into every household through higher prices, slower growth, and declining purchasing power.

Europe is steadily increasing defense budgets after decades of reducing military expenditures. Germany has abandoned many of the fiscal restraints that once defined its economic policy. Poland continues purchasing military equipment on a scale unprecedented in its modern history. Finland has spent years constructing extensive underground civil defense infrastructure capable of sheltering nearly its entire population. Governments are discussing emergency preparedness, strategic stockpiles, expanded ammunition production, and even renewed conscription. These are not isolated policy decisions. They represent an entire continent reorganizing itself around the assumption that geopolitical confrontation will remain a defining feature of the years ahead.

Every additional defense commitment must ultimately be financed either through taxation, inflation, or borrowing. Since raising taxes remains politically unpopular, governments overwhelmingly choose debt. The United States is approaching $40 trillion in federal obligations. France continues struggling with chronic deficits while attempting to finance both social spending and military expansion. Britain faces rising borrowing costs alongside growing defense commitments. Similar pressures exist throughout much of the developed world because every government believes it can postpone today’s expenses until tomorrow’s taxpayers arrive.

Most forecasting models begin with the assumption that political conditions remain reasonably stable. Once that assumption disappears, many of the underlying projections quickly lose their value. Energy markets respond to military developments rather than supply and demand alone. Shipping costs fluctuate because of security concerns instead of commercial activity. Capital begins seeking jurisdictions perceived as politically safer rather than merely offering higher returns. Central banks discover that adjusting interest rates cannot reopen disrupted trade routes or restore confidence damaged by expanding conflicts.

Wars have always carried two battlefields. One is fought with soldiers and weapons. The other is fought on government balance sheets, in bond markets, and through the purchasing power of national currencies. Politicians generally devote far more attention to the first battlefield because the second is less visible to the public. Yet history repeatedly shows that financial exhaustion has brought down governments every bit as effectively as military defeat. That is why the economic consequences of prolonged conflict deserve far greater attention than another routine revision to a global growth forecast.

Keep reading

Inside Montreal’s homeless hellscape

Tents, discarded belongings and makeshift camps are becoming increasingly common as governments spend billions on social programs while many vulnerable Canadians remain without stable housing or treatment.

Several homeless individuals in Montreal recently spoke with Rebel News about how addiction, rising rents, incarceration and personal choices pushed them onto the streets.

“I had a place to live, but I didn’t do what I needed to do. It cost me everything,” a person experiencing homelessness explained. Another said drug use contributed to his homelessness, but was not the only cause. “It contributed, yes. Of course. But it wasn’t the only reason.”

The interviews also revealed why some residents refuse to stay in shelters, despite the dangers of sleeping outdoors. “Because we don’t want anything to do with shelters,” one man said, citing schedules for meals, showers and curfews. “I’m 57 years old, you’re not going to tell me what to do.”

Others described theft, unsafe conditions and workers they claimed were not trained to handle overdoses. One resident said he lost “between $20,000 and $30,000 worth of belongings” over two years at a shelter.

Drug use remains visible throughout the encampments. One interviewee admitted: “I use a bit of cannabis and a bit of speed,” while another acknowledged using hard drugs and said he could remain awake for days.

Rebel News also questioned people about ‘harm-reduction’ policies. Asked whether providing free drugs helps, one replied: “No. Honestly, no.”

With winter approaching, many say they will remain outdoors. “We’re always afraid of winter,” one resident said. “Otherwise, we’ll reinforce the tents.”

The testimony paints a grim picture of a system struggling to move people from survival toward recovery, stability and reintegration.

Keep reading

Deep State Media Censorship

Something has fundamentally changed in America, and it should concern everyone regardless of politics. The press was never supposed to decide what the public is allowed to hear. Their job was to report the news. Somewhere along the way, they decided their real job was deciding which information is acceptable and which information should be filtered before it ever reaches the public.

When President Trump delivered his address on the newly released election-related documents, several major television networks chose not to carry it in full. ABC and NBC declined to air the speech on their broadcast networks. CBS began airing it but cut away before it concluded, while other outlets focused immediately on commentary and fact-checking rather than simply letting viewers watch the entire address for themselves. Whether one agrees with the President or not is beside the point. The public should be able to hear a presidential address in full and make up its own mind. The editorial decisions themselves became part of the story.

The press increasingly tells people what to think before they have even been allowed to hear what was said. Every story arrives prepackaged with analysis, approved conclusions, and a warning label. The assumption seems to be that the public cannot be trusted to evaluate information on its own. Yet, as the press is refusing to broadcast an announcement from a sitting president, one can see that the legacy media’s loyalty is to the actors behind the curtain. The deep state is controlling the narrative—you’ve been warned.

ABC is no longer simply a television network. It sits inside one of the largest entertainment conglomerates on the planet. Disney acquired ABC decades ago, transforming what was once a standalone broadcaster into another division of a multinational corporation whose interests extend far beyond journalism. When news becomes one business unit among countless others, people naturally begin asking whether protecting the corporate brand becomes just as important as reporting the story.

Keep reading