Blog

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

Dinosaur egg unearthed in perfect condition after 70M years— and it could hold genetic material

It was in egg-cellent condition.

Argentine paleontologists found a real diamond in the rough after happening across a perfectly preserved 70-million-year-old dinosaur egg during an excavation.

“It was a complete and utter surprise,” Gonzalo Leonel Muñoz, a Vertebrate paleontologist at the Bernardo Rivadavia Argentine Museum of Natural Sciences, told National Geographic of the “spectacular” find. “‘It’s not uncommon to find dinosaur fossils, but the issue with eggs is that they are much less common.”

The team of paleontologists was reportedly conducting an excavation campaign in the fossil-rich region of Río Negro, when they stumbled across the primeval embryo.

While dinosaur eggs had been excavated in the area before, finding one this well-preserved was super rare.

Keep reading

The GOP’s ‘Capitalism’ is Central Planning with MAGA Branding

When House Speaker Mike Johnson (R–La.) lashed out at last weekend’s “No Kings” rallies soon to arrive on Washington’s National Mall, he reached for an old conservative refrain: “They hate capitalism. They hate our free enterprise system.”

I am sure he’s correct about some of the protesters. But the message rings hollow coming from a party leader that stands by as President Donald Trump does precisely what Johnson rightly decries: substituting political control for market choice and ruling by executive order.

Indeed, what began as a populist revolt against so-called elites has become a program of state ownership, price fixing and top-down industrial control. Take a look.

Recently, the Trump administration quietly converted CHIPS Act subsidies into an $8.9 billion equity purchase in Intel, making Washington a 10 percent owner of one of America’s largest technology companies. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick insists “this is not socialism.” That’s semantics.

Socialism is government control of the means of production. When the government becomes your largest shareholder, that’s a strong first step.

The Intel case offends two basic economic truths. First, no group of officials can ever know enough to guide a complex industry better than millions of private investors, engineers, and consumers spending their own money. Second, the power to “partner” with business is the power to control it.

The more political capital the government invests, the more it demands in return. It’s only a matter of time until politically favored locations, suppliers, or hiring quotas shape Intel’s decisions. That isn’t capitalism.

The administration has taken shares in companies before, and it likely will again. In July, the Pentagon became the largest shareholder in MP Materials, considered the only fully operating rare-earth mine of scale in the U.S. The deal guarantees a 10-year price floor for MP output at nearly double the current market rate. MP competitors were rightly shocked.

Yet Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently told CNBC that Washington will continue to “set price floors” and “forward-buy” commodities “across a range of industries” to encourage more investments into U.S. production and away from China.

While this may encourage more U.S. investments in the short term, guaranteeing an unfair advantage over competitors by setting a minimum price reduces American companies’ long-run incentives to innovate and produce better output. Economists have understood for more than a century what happens when the government fixes prices above their market level: Buyers purchase less, sellers produce more, surpluses pile up and waste follows. It’s the logic of failed farm-price support in the 1930s.

There are far better options than schemes like these. As for those rare-earth minerals, the U.S. sits on billions of dollars’ worth, yet MP is almost alone in extracting them. That’s in part because excessive regulation keeps the potential locked underground, deterring investment in innovative mining solutions, processing plants, magnet factories, and the skilled workforce needed to turn our geological abundance into economic value. Deregulation is the free-market way. Mimicking the Chinese model isn’t.

If that’s not enough, the administration has nationalized all but in name the company called U.S. Steel. To approve its market-driven purchase by Nippon Steel, Trump required a “golden share,” giving him veto power over plant closures, production levels, investments, even pricing. The White House effectively dictates how U.S. Steel can operate inside the United States.

Keep reading

File on Bizarre Argentine UFO Event Deemed Classified for National Security Reasons

In an eyebrow-raising story out of Argentina, a police report concerning a recent UFO incident involving mesmerized cattle has been deemed classified for national security reasons by government officials. According to a local media outlet, the bizarre event occurred on August 14th in the village of Candioti when police received word that multiple residents had observed a “white light with violet flashes” floating over the community. An officer dispatched to investigate the UFO sighting was soon alerted to a strange commotion unfolding among the animals at a ranch along the way. Arriving at the location, he likely could not believe his eyes at the wondrous scene before him.

To the astonishment of the officer and other witnesses, the ranch’s cows were eerily walking in a circle beneath the mysterious ball of light hovering overhead. Meanwhile, the property’s horses were thrashing around in a manner suggesting that they were deeply disturbed by what was unfolding around them. After a few minutes, the UFO suddenly vanished. Its disappearance seemingly broke the spell cast over the animals as the horses immediately calmed down, and the cows stopped their ritualistic circling. Silence fell over the field, with the witnesses understandably wondering what they had just seen.

Keep reading

The Rise and Mysterious Fall of Cahokia: Researchers Unearth New Secrets of America’s Greatest ‘Lost’ Ancient Megacity

For centuries, the sprawling earth mounds of Cahokia have stood as silent remnants of a massive, lost American city. Once the largest and most influential urban settlement north of Mexico, this pre-Columbian metropolis near modern-day St. Louis mysteriously flourished, and then vanished, hundreds of years before European colonists arrived. 

Now, a team of researchers has uncovered new clues about Cahokia’s rise and decline, thanks to a single massive wooden monument that once towered over the landscape.

In a study published in PLOS ONE, scientists from the University of Arizona and the University of Illinois used advanced tree-ring dating and isotope analysis to determine that a monumental wooden post known as the “Mitchell Log” was cut around 1124 CE, at the height of Cahokia’s power. 

The analysis also revealed something unexpected and fascinating. The enormous bald cypress tree was not local. It had been transported at least 110 miles (180 kilometers) to the site, likely from southern Illinois or even farther south along the Mississippi River.

This finding reshapes our understanding of Cahokia’s reach and organization. The massive log, originally part of a towering 60-foot (18-meter) ceremonial post, offers a rare and significant timestamp for when the city’s influence stretched across the Midwest and South.

“The date, provenance, and context of the Mitchell Log establish a historical datum for the peak influence of the Cahokia polity,” the researchers write. “[It also] prompts new questions about the long-distance transport of thousands of other such marker posts.”

Keep reading

Ohio Health Agency Grants $400,000 To Fund Psychedelics Education And Training For First Responders, Doctors And More

An Ohio health agency is providing a state university with a $400,000 grant to educate first responders, law enforcement, emergency departments and behavioral specialists about how to deal with potential adverse psychedelic experiences as more people use the substances for medical or recreational purposes.

Amid the expanding psychedelics reform movement, there’s been increased attention to the possible health benefits of substances like psilocybin and ibogaine. But only a handful of states allow for the regulated use of certain psychedelics, typically in medically supervised settings.

Ohio is not among those states yet, but Ohio State University (OSU) is now launching its Psychedelic Emergency, Acute, and Continuing Care Education (PEACE) initiative, with nearly half a million dollars of funding from the state Department of Behavioral Health’s (DBH) SOAR Innovation grant program.

“People have started to learn about the benefits of psychedelics while, at the same time, the federal government categorizes these as controlled substances,” Stacey Armstrong, associate director of the OSU’s Center for Psychedelic Drug Research and Education (CPDRE), said in a press release last week.

Keep reading

Washington’s Deadly Lack of Foreign Policy Empathy Toward Russia

It is hard to believe that U.S. and other Western officials actually are surprised at the consequences of their habitually tone-deaf policies toward Russia.  Are they truly shocked that a major power, already humiliated by its defeat in the Cold War, resented having the most powerful military alliance in history steadily expand toward its borders?  One need only look at a current map and compare it to a map of Eastern Europe in 1990 at the time of Germany’s reunification to see the geographic extent of NATO’s expanded military power.  The encroachment on Russia’s core security zone is blatant.  Yet, U.S. leaders in five administrations ignored repeated, escalating admonitions and warnings from Moscow as those provocations took place.

The culmination – so far – of such policy arrogance and ineptitude is a dangerous proxy war between NATO and Russia, with NATO using Ukraine as its principal weapon.  Most worrisome of all, the proxy war is a conflict that could, given the slightest miscalculation by either side, escalate to the nuclear level.

Members of America’s foreign policy elite fail to exhibit even a modicum of strategic empathy, and that deficiency urgently needs to be corrected.  The principal global nightmare in the coming decades is likely to be a possible military collision between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC).  If the new generation of U.S. policymakers cannot do a far better job than the current crop has done with respect to policy toward Russia, a catastrophe becomes much more likely.

Aspiring and current U.S. policymakers should be compelled to conduct mental exercises in which they genuinely attempt to view a geostrategic issue from the perspective of an opponent or competitor of the United States.  As an important corollary, there needs to be a more serious effort to comprehend how the other party seems to view specific U.S. actions and initiatives.  Such an approach requires sincere, in-depth intellectual role reversals.

An attempt to achieve something at least resembling strategic empathy would, for example, try to determine how a defeated and humiliated United States would react to a victorious Russia expanding a powerful military alliance it controls ever closer to the American homeland.  Let’s say that the encroaching Russian great power started by adding small nations in the Caribbean and Central America as new alliance members and then moved on to admit larger countries possessing more significant military assets, such as Colombia and Venezuela.  Not content with implementing those provocations, Moscow then seeks to make Canada or Mexico a front line alliance member against the United States.

Substitute the Baltic republics for the small Caribbean or Central American countries, and substitute Poland, the Czech Republic, and Romania for Colombia and Venezuela, and one has the mirror image of what the U.S. and NATO did in Eastern Europe between 1998 and 2004 with the initial stages of NATO’s expansion.  Throughout that period, Washington and other leading NATO powers kept insisting that the moves were not hostile measures directed against Russia – an assertion that had little credibility even during the early phases of expansion and ultimately had no credibility with Russian leaders.  When Anti-Russia hawks began to do their utmost to admit Ukraine to NATO during George W. Bush’s administration, the provocations reached an intolerable level.

Adding Ukraine as a NATO military asset, whether or not Kiev was granted formal membership, was the functional strategic equivalent of a victorious Russia trying to add Mexico or Canada to the looming military power already arrayed against Washington.  In this alternate universe, would anyone be surprised if the increasingly beleaguered United States took decisive steps to prevent Mexico or Canada from becoming a crucial Russian geostrategic asset?  Would we be surprised if U.S. leaders and the American people concluded that they faced an existential security threat and decided that decisive action to neutralize that threat must be taken, whatever the risk?  It is nearly certain that both the public and the government would reach such a conclusion.

Why, then, do U.S. leaders and their NATO allies profess to be surprised and outraged that Russian officials and the Russian people seem to view matters in a similar fashion about the threat their country faces?  The total lack of strategic empathy on the part of Western – especially U.S. – policymakers has produced a predictable, disastrous outcome.

Keep reading