Blog

NBC News Stirs the ‘Systemic Racism’ Pot With Update on Once-Inaccessible Activities

For years, the Left — aided by the media — have said certain activities are “inaccessible” to Black Americans, and blamed “systemic racism” for the exclusion of specific demographics. Some of those racist things included milk, Sydney Sweeney’s jeans, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, skiing, cycling, and weight loss.

Now, NBC News is back to stir the racism pot again with an update to that “systemic” and “exclusionary” racism by announcing that people who always had access to these activities are now accessing them.

Here’s more:

Tonya Parker was not looking to add another activity to her life. She traveled the world as a flight attendant and regularly practiced ballet and yoga. She was not searching for new friends, either. After attending Spelman College in Atlanta, she had plenty.

With two grown children who made her proud, Parker’s life was full — or so she thought.

The Covid-19 pandemic led her to a sport she had considered mundane: golf. She was invited to a few golf events and participated. She struggled. But one day, thinking of how tired she was of her friends making fun of her golf game, Parker secretly began taking lessons. Soon enough, her friends noticed improvement. And she noticed her own growing passion for the sport.

Remember, when White people engage in activities like belly dancing, drum circles, hip-hop dancing, and other activities, that’s “cultural appropriation” and inherently evil.

Keep reading

Texas AG sues five major TV companies for allegedly spying on state residents

exas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton filed lawsuits Monday against five major television companies for allegedly spying on state residents by secretly recording what they watch in their own homes.

The lawsuits include two China-based television companies, Hisense and TCL Technology Group Corporation, which Paxton claimed pose serious concerns about consumer data harvesting. 

The three American companies are Sony, Samsung and LG. 

“Companies, especially those connected to the Chinese Communist Party, have no business illegally recording Americans’ devices inside their own homes,” Paxton said. “This conduct is invasive, deceptive, and unlawful. The fundamental right to privacy will be protected in Texas because owning a television does not mean surrendering your personal information to Big Tech or foreign adversaries.”

Paxton’s office said the companies have been illegally collecting personal information from users through Automated Content Recognition technology, which captures “screenshots of a user’s television display every 500 milliseconds, monitor viewing activity in real time, and transmit that information back to the company without the user’s knowledge or consent.”

The companies then sell the information to ad agencies so targeted advertisements can be shared on different platforms.

Keep reading

Who controls the world? It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it

Ten Questions:

1.Why are politicians the least trusted, but governments are respected and obeyed?

2. Why are governments across the world passing the same laws at the same time?

3. When was the last time the public made a decision that made any actual difference?

4. Everyone knows that money rules the world, but who rules the money and why does anyone rule it?

5. Why do individual men and women get the power to commit crimes when they are instituted as government, military or police?

6. Why is our privacy being dismantled, but the government’s secrecy remains official?

7. Nobody sane wants power over anyone else; every normal human wants to lead a fulfilling, useful life according to their individual choices and wants the same freedom for everyone else. Why do we have to fight governments and corporations continually just to be able to do this?

8. Who or what has committed more murders than everyone else put together?

9. Why would voting for a different manager with a different colour rosette make any difference?

10. Can you therefore conclude that you have no say in any decisions that matter, yet you continue to accept a worsening standard of living for more and more of your time and energy, and then pay for a government that does nothing but steal and murder?

Keep reading

US OBLITERATES 3 More Venezuelan Drug Boats Just Hours After President Trump Designates Fentanyl as a Weapon of Mass Destruction

United States Southern Command on Monday announced that Joint Task Force Southern Spear took out three narcotrafficking vessels in the Eastern Pacific. 

A total of eight “narco-terrorists” were killed in the strikes. “Intelligence confirmed that the vessels were transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and were engaged in narco-trafficking,” US SOUTHCOM said.

Video from the strikes shows massive explosions on each boat, turning them into burning piles of rubble.

US Southern Command said in a statement on X,

On Dec. 15, at the direction of @SecWar Pete Hegseth, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted lethal kinetic strikes on three vessels operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations in international waters. Intelligence confirmed that the vessels were transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and were engaged in narco-trafficking. A total of eight male narco-terrorists were killed during these actions—three in the first vessel, two in the second and three in the third.

Trump signed an executive order earlier on Monday to designate fentanyl as a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) and empower his administration to take on the “concentrated, large-scale terror attacks by organized adversaries.”

This will likely be used to justify the defense of America against drug cartels further, as the order directs the Secretary of War and Secretary of Homeland Security to “update all directives regarding the Armed Forces’ response to chemical incidents in the homeland to include the threat of illicit fentanyl.”

Keep reading

New memos show how corruption probe into Clinton Foundation was killed: ‘We were told NO by FBI HQ’

Atop Republican senator has provided Just the News a timeline written by FBI investigators laying out the repeated political obstruction those agents faced from their own bosses and the Justice Department during the 2016 election and beyond as they probed whether Hillary Clinton engaged in a pay-to-play corruption scheme involving her family foundation.

“Field agents were frustrated. But HQ would not let it go forward,” the newly-released and lengthy investigative timeline reveals. “We were trying to explore the [Clinton] Foundation, and we were told ‘NO’ by FBI HQ.”

Not the first timeline showing interference

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley made the records produced to him by FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi available to Just the News this weekend. Grassley’s office said the senator’s request for these records was prompted by whistleblowers who first brought the issue to his attention.

This follows Patel unearthing a shorter timeline, written in 2017, which also chronicled the extensive stonewalling that bureau investigators in three cities faced from the Obama-era DOJ and FBI during the 2016 election.

FBI agents tried to get the help of federal prosecutors to determine whether or what crimes occurred while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State, most notably, because at that time, her family foundation solicited hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign and U.S. interests with business before her department.

“Shut it down!” then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates is quoted as demanding in the shorter timeline of the politicized barriers that agents in New York City, Little Rock, Ark., and Washington D.C. reported. 

The shorter timeline — written by a DOJ lawyer assigned to the FBI under former bureau Director James Comey — was secured by top aides to Patel and was obtained by Just the News earlier this year. The newly-released and longer timeline was handed over to Grassley’s office by the FBI along with a host of corroborating internal emails and was recently provided to Just the News.

The final entry in the shorter timeline came in August 2017. The longer timeline continued to lay out the slow-walking and interference by the FBI up through early 2020.

You can read the new and lengthier timeline and newly-public internal records here:

Clinton Foundation – Investigative Timeline

Altogether, the evidence makes clear that the DOJ, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and other officials within the FBI placed hurdles in front of agents who believed they had evidence to justify a public integrity criminal case.

Keep reading

Senate Advances $900 BILLION Defense Spending Bill with Military Aid to Ukraine

The US Senate on Monday voted to end the filibuster and advance the National Defense Authorization Act to a final vote. 

The bipartisan vote, 76-20, invoked cloture on the bill, bringing it one step closer to final passage, which could still take days.

Still, some lawmakers seek to amend the bill further, which would then require House passage before landing on the President’s desk.

Senator Ted Cruz, who showed no concern about Ukraine funding or other unnecessary provisions, has called for an amendment to restrict military aircraft at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), following the deadly crash between a female helicopter pilot and a passenger airplane in January.

The presidential hopeful released a campaign-style video of himself at a Monday press conference, calling for the rewriting of Section 373 of the bill and its replacement with his ROTR Act to add more protections for aviation safety in the bill’s language.

Keep reading

Biggest Military Funding Bill Still Allows Promoting Soldiers By Race And Sex

Five months ago, in these pages I expressed concern that Congress was missing the opportunity to restore merit to the military personnel system. To accomplish that task I urged Congress to include a meritocracy provision in the 2026 NDAA that does four things: (1) require all military personnel actions to be based exclusively on merit; (2) forbid race and sex-based preferences; (3) provide for reasonable exceptions when mission success requires sex or race be considered; and (4) define key terms so idealogues in the Pentagon cannot manipulate the language to further their diversity agenda.

When the House and Senate passed their versions of the NDAA, it appeared that between the two chambers some progress toward establishing a merit-based personnel system was being made. When the compromise bill resolving the differences between the House and Senate version, S. 1017, was released last week, it was readily apparent that Congress had no intention of requiring merit principles to govern military personnel actions. To make matters worse, the drafters employed smoke and mirrors to put a merit-sounding title on a provision that just reinforces the Biden-era identity preference status quo.

What’s Not in the NDAA

The bill passed by the House had a provision that would have specifically forbidden the use of race or ethnicity in personnel actions except for certain special operations missions. It also required all personnel actions to be based “exclusively on individual merit, fitness, capability, and performance.”

While it did not address sex-based preferences, it did put Congress on the same page as the administration insofar as racial discrimination was concerned.

The initial Senate version, on the other hand, lacked any attempt to restore a meritocracy or to eliminate identity preferences. Had the final version negotiated between the House and the Senate accepted the House provision it would have been a big improvement. Instead, what we got was a provision that, when viewed in context, sends the unmistakable message that race and sex-based preferences are alive and well in the military personnel system.

Gaslighting on Merit

To appreciate the sleight of hand the Congress pulled off, one must look at how its members framed the issue. Section 525 of the final version of the bill is titled “Requirement of equal opportunity, racial neutrality, and exclusive use of merit in military personnel actions.” Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it?

Unfortunately, it is the text of the legislation and not the title that is important. All this section does is add “command selection” to Section 529C of the 2024 NDAA so that the provision now reads, “MERIT REQUIREMENT. — A military accession, promotion, or command selection in the Department of Defense shall be based on individual merit and demonstrated performance.”

Note what this provision does not say. It does not say that personnel actions shall be exclusively based on merit and demonstrated performance. It does not say that racial and sex-based preferences shall not be applied in military personnel actions. It does not define “merit” and “demonstrated performance.” And it does not provide for reasonable and legitimate exceptions, such as assigning women to Female Engagement Teams and blacks to a special operations mission in Africa where the ability to blend in with the local population might be critical to mission success.

You may ask, “Why must Congress be so specific? The language seems straightforward, and a reasonable interpretation would not allow for discrimination or preferences.” When, however, ideologues get to interpret the statute, they will manipulate the language to further their ideological goals.

We know this because of what happened after President Biden signed the 2024 NDAA into law on December 22, 2023. From that point forward “military accession” and “promotion” were to be based on “individual merit and demonstrated performance.” Furthermore, “DOD Instruction 1350.02,” the Department of Defense (now called the Department of War under the Trump administration) policy on Equal Opportunity, required service members to be “evaluated only on individual merit, fitness, capability, and performance.” The statutory language and the department’s instruction would seem to make merit the standard. But things are not always as they seem.

Because neither the federal law nor the department’s policy specifically prohibited race and sex-based preferences and Congress did not define key terms, Pentagon ideologues continued with business as usual. Neither the 2024 NDAA provision nor the Department of War’s policy language contradicted the “diversity is a strategic imperative” mantra of the Biden Pentagon. Despite the language of the 2024 NDAA and the Pentagon policy, the senior leadership in the Pentagon and the Department of Justice argued in federal court that racial preferences were appropriate in granting admission to West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy. “Diversity is our strength,” they said.

In their interpretation of both the federal statutory law and Biden’s Defense Department policy, considering skin color to achieve diversity was part of the “merit” calculation. “Performance” was weighed not in relation to any objective standard, but relative to the amount of melanin in an applicant’sskin. When Congress fails to define key terms, ideologues can manipulate the language to achieve their goals. Clever lawyering can even convince federal judges to go along with the scam.

By adding “command selection” to a statute Department of War has already twisted to allow using racial preferences does not change anything. Furthermore, codifying the language of the DOW policy without defining the terms allows the DOW bureaucrats to supply their own definition.

Keep reading

Privacy For The Powerful, Surveillance For The Rest: EU’s Proposed Tech Regulation Goes Too Far

Last month, we lamented California’s Frontier AI Act of 2025. The Act favors compliance over risk management, while shielding bureaucrats and lawmakers from responsibility. Mostly, it imposes top-down regulatory norms, instead of letting civil society and industry experts experiment and develop ethical standards from the bottom up.

Perhaps we could dismiss the Act as just another example of California’s interventionist penchant. But some American politicians and regulators are already calling for the Act to be a “template for harmonizing federal and state oversight.” The other source for that template would be the European Union (EU), so it’s worth keeping an eye on the regulations spewed out of Brussels.

The EU is already way ahead of California in imposing troubling, top-down regulation. Indeed, the EU Artificial Intelligence Act of 2024 follows the EU’s overall precautionary principle. As the EU Parliament’s internal think tank explains, “the precautionary principle enables decision-makers to adopt precautionary measures when scientific evidence about an environmental or human health hazard is uncertain and the stakes are high.” The precautionary principle gives immense power to the EU when it comes to regulating in the face of uncertainty — rather than allowing for experimentation with the guardrails of fines and tort law (as in the US). It stifles ethical learning and innovation. Because of the precautionary principle and associated regulation, the EU economy suffers from greater market concentration, higher regulatory compliance costs, and diminished innovation — compared to an environment that allows for experimentation and sensible risk management. It is small wonder that only four of the world’s top 50 tech companies are European.

From Stifled Innovation to Stifled Privacy

Along with the precautionary principle, the second driving force behind EU regulation is the advancement of rights — but cherry-picking from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights of rights that often conflict with others. For example, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of 2016 was imposed with the idea of protecting a fundamental right to personal data protection (this is technically separate from the right to privacy, and gives the EU much more power to intervene — but that is the stuff of academic journals). The GDPR ended up curtailing the right to economic freedom.

This time, fundamental rights are being deployed to justify the EU’s fight against child sexual abuse. We all love fundamental rights, and we all hate child abuse. But, over the years, fundamental rights have been deployed as a blunt and powerful weapon to expand the EU’s regulatory powers. The proposed Child Sex Abuse regulation (CSA) is no exception. What is exceptional, is the extent of the intrusion: the EU is proposing to monitor communications among European citizens, lumping them all together as potential threats rather than as protected speech that enjoys a prima facie right to privacy.

As of 26 November 2025, the EU bureaucratic machine has been negotiating the details of the CSA. In the latest draft, mandatory scanning of private communications has thankfully been removed, at least formally. But there is a catch. Providers of hosting and interpersonal communication services must identify, analyze, and assess how their services might be used for online child sexual abuse, and then take “all reasonable mitigation measures.” Faced with such an open-ended mandate and the threat of liability, many providers may conclude that the safest — and most legally prudent — way to show they have complied with the EU directive is to deploy large-scale scanning of private communications.

The draft CSA insists that mitigation measures should, where possible, be limited to specific parts of the service or specific groups of users. But the incentive structure points in one direction. Widespread monitoring may end up as the only viable option for regulatory compliance. What is presented as voluntary today risks becoming a de facto obligation tomorrow.

In the words of Peter Hummelgaard, the Danish Minister of Justice: “Every year, millions of files are shared that depict the sexual abuse of children. And behind every single image and video, there is a child who has been subjected to the most horrific and terrible abuse. This is completely unacceptable.” No one disputes the gravity or turpitude of the problem. And yet, under this narrative, the telecommunications industry and European citizens are expected to absorb dangerous risk-mitigation measures that are likely to involve lost privacy for citizens and widespread monitoring powers for the state.

The cost, we are told, is nothing compared to the benefit.

After all, who wouldn’t want to fight child sexual abuse? It’s high time to take a deep breath. Child abusers should be punished severely. This does not dispense a free society from respecting other core values.

But, wait. There’s more…

Keep reading

Senator John Kennedy Reads Damning Memo That Explains Why Minnesota Democrats Kept the Fraud Quiet for so Long

As the massive fraud scandal in Minnesota continues to unfold, people are wondering how it was allowed to happen. How did these people get away with such huge financial crimes?

Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana might have an answer for that.

He recently read part of a memo that came from the Attorney General’s office in Minnesota. It makes the situation pretty clear.

This is from Wall Street Apes on Twitter/X, emphasis is ours:

Senator John Kennedy reads an internal memo from the Minnesota Attorney General’s office

They openly say they did not stop the Somalia immigrant fraud because Democrats would lose votes

“Here’s what a fraud investigator in the Attorney General’s office said. She said, There is a perception that I’m quoting now, that forcefully tackling this issue would cause political backlash from the Somali community, which is a core voting block for Democrats”

Keep reading

Aristocracy, Meritocracy, Technocracy, And Revolution

All human societies have informal social classes or formal social castes that separate groups of people within the same community.  Generally speaking, notions of aristocracy and hereditary nobility started on the battlefield.  Warrior chiefs of clans became minor kings after killing more rivals without dying themselves.  Rather than remaining in a constant state of tribal conflict, the chiefs of other clans bent the knee and became lesser lords.  Because kings and lords prefer their heirs to be kings and lords, too, bloodlines afforded children the social status that their ancestors had earned on the battlefield.

A ruling king who provided security and stability earned deference from those under his protection.  Over time, tribes combined to become nations.  Chieftains cooperated to form royal courts.  And the heirs of warrior chiefs adopted customs and traditions that symbolically separated those who rule from those who are ruled.

During social upheavals, the ruling aristocracy is often overthrown.  This provides hereditary nobles an incentive not only to quell rebellions quickly but also to find ways to keep the interests of non-nobles aligned with the aristocratic class.  Gifts of land, titles, and property buy a certain amount of loyalty.  The creation of minor offices apportions power to those deemed “worthy” of holding it.  The historic growth of administrative bureaucracies creates a path for non-nobles to exercise their talents in the service of those who rule.

To the consternation of Europe’s aristocratic class, the Great War ushered in a popular revolution against the hereditary order.  Several centuries of a growing middle class, increased literacy, industrial innovation, entrepreneurialism, and more widespread property ownership helped to create the social conditions for broad swaths of Europe’s populations to question why bloodlines should matter more than intelligence, talent, and hard work.  Many European families who lost fathers and sons during the First World War blamed European nobles for the calamity.

By the time the Second World War had provided an extra helping of self-destructive ruin, many of Europe’s noble houses were no more.  Those that had survived were acutely wary of suffering the fates of so many cousins who had been hanged, burned, or shot.  For the surviving members of Europe’s aristocracy to endure, they had no choice but to hand considerable political powers to the common people.  The twentieth century shepherded government reforms, suffrage for men and women without property, public welfare statutes, and expanded opportunities for common people to become part of the State’s governing bureaucracy.

While these reforms were celebrated as triumphs for “democracy,” it is important to understand that they did not completely supplant the vestiges of European aristocracy.  In the United Kingdom, the House of Lords still recognized the inherent right to rule of certain families.  Men with noble titles still ran central banks, trading houses, and clandestine agencies.  The attachés of those administrative lords still came from the “best families” and attended the “finest schools.”  Increasingly, however, the children of middle class families competed for and secured positions within the larger bureaucratic staff.

This twentieth century transition — in which citizens from low social classes were more broadly included in the functions of government — marked the social pivot to what Westerners call “meritocracy.”  

No longer would a person’s bloodline serve as the limits of what that person might achieve in this life.  Instead, natural intelligence, hard work, and determination could provide a person of any means the opportunity to rise as high as he might wish.

“Meritocracy” was an alluring idea to sell to the common people who had already destroyed so much of the aristocrats’ cherished social order in the first half of the twentieth century.  

Out with the nobles!  In with the people who deserve to have power!  From the point of view of someone in the lower or middle classes, a system that rewards skill, smarts, and determination sounds much fairer.

However, “meritocracy” provides an ancillary benefit to a ruling class seeking to maintain control: It keeps the most ambitious members of the non-noble classes competing against each other for a small number of powerful positions and reinforces the legitimacy of the governing system as a whole.  People who study, sacrifice, and struggle to obtain a little power within a governing bureaucracy are not inclined to question, criticize, or delegitimize that system once vested with a modicum of authority inside of it.

With the rise of the “meritocracy,” residual ruling class families found endless opportunities to keep unsuspecting commoners chasing their tails.  

Keep reading