Blog

Burma Army’s “Scorched Earth” Campaign Against Civilians Ahead of National Elections

Thick black smoke billows into the sky, twisting above the charred remains of what was once a thriving village. Flames consume wooden homes, their roofs collapsing as fire spreads relentlessly through the community. The air is heavy with the acrid scent of burning thatch and scorched earth, while displaced villagers watch helplessly from a distance, their lives reduced to ashes.

This scene of devastation followed a Burma Army airstrike on a civilian village in Arakan State on January 9, marking the start of another year of intensified fighting. After losing significant ground through February, the junta is now escalating attacks ahead of planned national elections, polls that exclude resistance-held territories and bar participation by pro-democracy parties. The regime’s objective is to recapture enough territory to present the election results to the international community as representing the will of the entire nation.

The attack in Arakan, like most strikes against civilians today, came without warning, sending families scrambling for cover as bombs rained down. Witnesses reported the deafening roar of jets overhead before the first explosion shattered the midday silence. Within minutes, homes, schools, and places of worship were engulfed in flames, leaving behind only smoldering ruins.

According to local reports, at least 42 civilians were killed and 50 others wounded, though the true death toll is believed to be much higher. Nearly 500 homes were reduced to rubble, forcing survivors to flee into nearby forests with whatever they could carry. The Burma Army has since cut off communication with the area, making it nearly impossible to assess the full extent of the destruction or deliver aid to those in desperate need.

Keep reading

Oligarch-Battling Bernie Sanders Thinks It’s Perfectly Normal To Own Three Homes

Oligarchy fighter and working class man of the people Bernie Sanders sees nothing out of the ordinary in owning three large properties.

When recently questioned about his three houses, the ‘No Kings’ figurehead passed it off as if most Americans own multiple properties and he’s just like everyone else.

“Do I own three residences? Yes I do,” declared Sanders.

He then explained that he has “a beautiful home in Burlington,” a place in Washington, and “like many thousands of people in the State of Vermont” he has a “Summer camp on Lake Champlain.”

“It’s a nice one,” he enthused.

“That’s it!” Sanders declared.

Oh is that all?

Everyone has a vacation pad, right?

Aside from their other two houses.

Keep reading

Mamdani Vows To Shut Down Rikers Island, Release Almost 8K Criminals

If New York City voters elect Muslim democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani as mayor, they will come to appreciate H.L. Mencken’s maxim that “democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

The latest on the far-far-far left radical goes well beyond raising taxes on whites, providing free day care and bus transportation, and, famously, “seizing the means of production.”

Last night, during the final mayoral debate against independent candidate and former Governor Andrew Cuomo and radio talker and Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa, Mamdani vowed again to shut down the Rikers Island prison facility in 2027, as city law requires. The problem: Other jails cannot be built before the deadline.

Result: Almost 8,000 dangerous criminals would be loosed upon the city. Not that Mamdani would care. Aside from the other communist ideas he espouses, he would also abolish jails and prisons.

Rikers Island is a 413-acre property with 12 facilities, almost all the city’s jails. In 2019, the city passed a law to close the facility and replace it with jails in four of the city’s five boroughs. That was a pipe dream, and now, the deadline for shuttering Rikers looms.

Answering a debate moderator’s question about it, Cuomo said “you cannot close Rikers in 2027 because there’s no place to put the people unless you’re going to release 7,000 people.” Noting that Mamdani would release them, Cuomo added that “I’m not going to release 7,000 criminals into New York.”

Releasing the criminals is the Democratic Socialists’, and therefore Mamdani’s, policy, Cuomo said. The former Empire State governor would build new jails on the island.

Keep reading

China Is Smuggling Fentanyl to US Through Venezuela, Trump Says

U.S. President Donald Trump confirmed on Oct. 23 that China is smuggling fentanyl into the United States through Venezuela to bypass U.S. and Mexican controls.

“They are doing that, yes, but they are paying right now 20 percent tariff because of fentanyl,” Trump told reporters.

Trump said it is one of the issues he will bring up with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Xi Jinping at their bilateral meeting next week.

“The first question I’m going to be asking them about is fentanyl,” he said.

Trump said that with the tariffs on China, which will rise by an additional 100 percent on Nov. 1 if no deal is made, the fentanyl operation will no longer be sustainable for China.

“They make $100 million sell[ing] fentanyl into our country … they lose $100 billion with the 20 percent tariff. So it’s not a good business proposition,” Trump said. “They pay a very big penalty for doing that, and I don’t think they want to be doing it.”

Trump’s meeting with Xi will come at the tail end of his Asia tour, for which he is departing on Oct. 24.

Earlier this year, FBI Director Kash Patel told lawmakers he had spoken to counternarcotics authorities in China and urged them to restrict exports of more fentanyl precursor chemicals.

The Chinese Ministry of Public Security in August added seven chemicals to an export control list, three of them central to producing fentanyl. The restrictions went into effect Sept. 1.

The United States has determined that China is the main supplier of the deadly illicit drug in the United States, and Trump in an executive order on Feb. 1 imposed initial tariffs on China for its “central role” in the fentanyl crisis.

In the order, Trump noted that despite a long history of discussions over the years, Chinese regime officials “have failed to follow through with the decisive actions needed to stem the flow of precursor chemicals.”

According to the order, in addition to subsidizing and incentivizing chemical companies to create and export fentanyl precursors, the regime has also provided “support and safe haven” for transnational criminal organizations that launder the related profits.

“The CCP does not lack the capacity to severely blunt the global illicit opioid epidemic; it simply is unwilling to do so,” the order reads.

In recent weeks, Trump has authorized nine strikes on vessels suspected of trafficking drugs.

Keep reading

Harvard Silent as Dean Defends Death Threats Against Trump

A Harvard dean defended death threats against Donald Trump and said “rioting and looting” are legitimate “parts of democracy.” Will the Ivy League institution sanction him? Even though the school is at loggerheads with the Trump administration, it’s looking the other way at this behavior.

The dean, Gregory Davis, is the “main liaison for students needing extra help achieving their academic and wellness goals” at Harvard University’s Dunster House. “Over the past two weeks,” the Free Beacon‘s Aaron Sibarium reports, “Over the past two weeks, conservative students at Harvard have unearthed a series of social media posts they say disqualify Davis for his position.” Chief among them: “I don’t – at all – blame people wishing Trump ill. … [F]uck that guy and [i]f he dies, he dies.”

Harvard has not commented publicly on the posts, and a spokesman for the school, Jonathan Palumbo, said he couldn’t discuss personnel matters. Davis has said the posts do not reflect his “current thinking or beliefs,” though it was kind of recently—June 2024—that he exhorted people to “hate the police.” Palumbo declined to comment regarding whether it was appropriate for a dean to legitimize calls for political violence.

Keep reading

How Leftist Think Tanks Twist Facts To Manipulate Congress On Obamacare

As the government shutdown winds on, Democrats continue to hold the federal government hostage because, they claim, “premiums will double” if Congress does not extend Covid-era enhanced Obamacare subsidies.

I’ve debunked that topic in detail here and elsewhere, but to quickly summarize the argument: 1) The federal government will still pay on average 75-80 percent of enrollees’ premiums if the enhanced subsidies expire. 2) Nearly half of Exchange enrollees currently pay nothing in out-of-pocket premiums for benchmark coverage, which the Congressional Budget Office and others have concluded has led to over $10 billion in fraud every year. 3) Focusing on relative (i.e., percentage) increases ignores the comparatively modest effects most Exchange enrollees will face in absolute terms — no more than $50-100 per month on average.

But it’s worth taking a closer look at one of the think tanks pumping up the message about premiums supposedly doubling: KFF, formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation. It’s fair to question whether its messaging has deliberately contributed to confusion regarding this topic in a way that not-so-subtly exaggerates the case for extending the enhanced subsidies.

Inaccurate Graphic

KFF’s September report claimed that “premium payments will more than double” if the enhanced subsidies expire as scheduled. As I previously noted in these pages, this misleading terminology conflates premiums with out-of-pocket costs, which ignores the sizable subsidy the federal government will still provide to most enrollees if the Biden-era portion expires.

If the “premium payments” terminology is misleading, the “premiums will more than double” language moves into the realm of flat-out false and directly contradicts KFF’s own research on premium increases for 2026. So I wrote to KFF staff and asked them, “Do you plan on 1) correcting the graphic, 2) noting the correction on the homepage of your site (i.e., where it is located now) and 3) notifying your press lists of said correction?”

Keep reading

Democrats Exhibit Amnesia About Biden-Era Lawfare

A federal grand jury in Virginia indicted Comey last month for lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding by “willfully and knowingly” lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he testified that he had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports” concerning the FBI’s 2016 investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of private email for confidential information.

A 2018 inspector general report suggests that the main factual dispute may be whether Comey authorized, or was merely informed of, the leaks.

Documents published by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA director John Ratcliffe, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley show that while serving as Barak Obama’s FBI director and then Trump’s first FBI director, Comey used the Steele dossier, which he knew to be unsubstantiated Clinton campaign disinformation, to obtain warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, doctor an intelligence assessment to falsely claim the purpose of Russian interference in the 2016 election was to benefit Trump, and entrap Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

Grassley also issued reports establishing that Comey gave Clinton special treatment during the investigation of her emails and intended to exonerate her even before her FBI interview.

This month, Letitia James was indicted for filing a fraudulent mortgage application that described an investment property she was purchasing in Norfolk, Virginia, as her second home. By doing so, she allegedly reduced her interest and fees by $18,933 over the life of the loan.

James ran for Attorney General in New York on the promise that she would “get Trump.” When she was unable to find grounds to pursue criminal charges, she made unprecedented use of a consumer fraud law to pursue Trump for allegedly defrauding Deutsche Bank by overstating the value of Mar-a-Lago. Judge Arthur Engoron implausibly found that Mar-a-Lago’s $18 million tax assessment was its true value. Though Deutsche Bank officials testified they were not defrauded, lost no money, and would happily again work with Trump, Engoron banned the Trump family from doing business in New York, and imposed a penalty that, with interest, topped $500 million.

James vigorously sought to execute the judgement and foreclose on Trump’s properties. An appellate court stepped in, reducing Trump’s appeal bond to $175 million, and later throwing out the financial penalty.

Both indictments were secured by former Trump lawyer Lindsey Halligan, appointed to serve as interim U.S. attorney in Virginia when experienced prosecutor Erik Seibert declined to pursue the cases, and came just days after Trump posted a caustic text on Truth Social directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute Comey and James.

Democrats have been more muted about last week’s indictment in Maryland of former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton for mishandling classified information.

I previously wrote about Democrats’ hypocrisy in objecting to investigations of their colleagues who engaged in lawfare against Trump and his supporters, though I cautioned the administration against prosecutions based on laws that are not traditionally enforced.

The facts suggest the three cases are indeed retribution. That does not void the indictments. Every lawyer is taught that the purpose of criminal justice is rehabilitation, retribution, and deterrence. Rather, the issue is whether these are selective prosecutions of laws that are not enforced against others. That is difficult to establish, particularly for these laws and by officials who hold a public trust.

Keep reading

Big Government Locks Young People Out of the American Dream

Last Thursday’s debate among the New York City mayoral candidates highlighted an issue that is among young Americans’ top concerns today: affordability. Democrat candidate Zohran Mamdani, the frontrunner, stated that affordability was the city’s most important problem. Independent candidate Andrew Cuomo and Republican hopeful Curtis Sliwa concurred, arguing the socialist Mamdani’s proposals are impractically expensive.

Mamdani’s emphasis on the affordability issue has benefited him politically, as young people in the city struggle to find decent, affordable housing and are increasingly willing to consider his agenda of greater government intervention and control.

That would be an awful mistake because socialism, regulation, and other government policies are what have caused the affordability crisis that has arisen across the United States. The current U.S. economy is anything but free, and the problems of today’s American economic system are caused almost exclusively by government. Young Americans’ struggles in achieving home ownership reflect the decline of economic freedom in the United States.

Government regulations directly increase the cost of housing, accounting for $93,870 of the $394,300 average price of a new home in the United States in 2021, about a quarter of the home’s cost, notes Paul Emrath, Ph.D., in a study for the National Association of Home Builders.

University of Central Arkansas professor Jeremy Horpedahl observes that “in 2023 it took 31 percent more hours of work to buy a square foot of the median home, compared with 1971.” That has its greatest effect on young households: with housing prices increasing rapidly, those who already have mortgages or fully own their houses gain an ever-greater economic advantage over the young. U.S. home sales in 2024 and 2025 are at their worst in 30 years, Fortune reports.

Keep reading

Countries Call on the EU to Enforce “Values” Through Speech Rules

European governments are intensifying pressure on Brussels to tighten control over which organizations receive EU funding, using the language of “combating hate” to justify measures that could sharply restrict free expression.

France, Austria, and the Netherlands have jointly circulated a paper calling on the European Commission to withdraw financial support from any group that does not conform to “European values.”

The document, seen by Politico, urges member states to “redouble their efforts to combat racism, antisemitism, xenophobia and anti-Muslim hatred” and to ensure “no support is given to entities hostile to European values, in particular through funding.”

Behind the rhetoric of tolerance, the plan lays out a system that ties access to EU money directly to ideological loyalty.

Under the proposal, beneficiaries of programs such as Erasmus+ and CERV (Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values) would be required to sign pledges confirming that they “respect and promote EU rights and values.”

The Commission would also be instructed to apply existing budget rules that allow for excluding groups accused of “inciting hatred.”

The initiative arrives just ahead of a European Council meeting in Brussels, where leaders are set to discuss a range of topics, including Ukraine, migration, defense, and Europe’s digital and environmental goals.

A draft of the Council’s conclusions adds another layer by insisting that “EU values apply equally in the digital sphere,” with the “protection of minors” highlighted as a key aim.

What looks like a defense of European ideals increasingly resembles an effort to police opinions.

By expanding the concept of hate speech both online and offline, the document could allow EU institutions to label controversial or dissenting views as violations of European values. This would effectively hand Brussels the power to determine which voices are acceptable in public debate.

Keep reading

Western Media Use ‘Peace’ Prize to Fuel War Propaganda

The awarding of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize to Venezuelan far-right leader María Corina Machado took nearly everyone by surprise (with the exception of insiders who apparently used advance knowledge to profit on betting markets—New York Times, 10/10/25).

The Nobel Committee justified the award on the basis of Machado’s “tireless work promoting democratic rights” and “her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.” However, Machado’s track record paints a very different picture (Sovereign Media, 10/11/25; Venezuelanalysis, 7/8/24).

Rather than scrutinize the opposition politician’s credentials, the media establishment seized the opportunity to whitewash the most unpeaceful elements in her background in order to advance its cynical pro–regime change agenda targeting Venezuela’s socialist government (FAIR.org, 2/12/25, 1/11/23, 6/13/22, 4/15/20). Not coincidentally, Machado’s award coincided with an escalation of US military threats against Venezuela, meaning that corporate pundits used a “peace” prize as a platform for war propaganda.

The Nobel Prize meant corporate outlets had to give their readers an idea of Machado’s political trajectory. And though some had profile pieces (Reuters, 10/10/25; New York Times, 10/10/25), there was a concerted effort to conceal the most unsavory elements. The Financial Times (10/10/25) euphemistically stated that Machado “enter[ed] politics in opposition to Hugo Chávez”—president of Venezuela from 1999 through 2013—while the Guardian (10/10/25) summed up that she has been “involved in politics for more than two decades.”

Keep reading