Blog

Court Says UW-Madison Social Media Censorship Illegal

The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s attempt to suppress an animal rights advocate’s comments on its social media pages has been declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court, reinforcing the limits of government control over public discourse online.

Madeline Krasno, a UW-Madison graduate and former lab worker who spoke out against the school’s animal research practices, brought a lawsuit in 2021 after discovering that her posts were either blocked or hidden from the university’s Facebook and Instagram accounts.

The 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in her favor on August 1, concluding that the university violated her First Amendment rights by silencing her viewpoint.

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

Now faced with the ruling, UW-Madison must decide whether to revise its moderation policies, disable comment functions on its social platforms, or try to escalate the case to the US Supreme Court. University officials have not indicated which direction they plan to take.

Krasno’s criticism comes from her time spent inside the university’s primate lab, where she worked as an undergraduate. She described disturbing conditions, saying she witnessed monkeys kept in isolation, sometimes escaping, and often displaying stress or aggression after being subjected to research. When she later tried to express these concerns publicly through university-run social media, her posts disappeared.

At one point, the university placed an account-level restriction on her Instagram profile, preventing any of her comments from being seen by the public. Even after that restriction was lifted, the school relied on automated filters that blocked posts containing words such as “lab,” “monkeys,” “torture,” “animal testing,” and “primate.”

Keep reading

One of the media’s favorite economists is at it again

For four years the media and other Democrats gaslighted the public about how great the Biden economic policies were. But six months into Trump’s term, the media is trashing Trump’s policies in order to influence, not inform, the voters. And, like clockwork, they trot out Mark Zandi, who they pretend is independent, but is really a Democrat hack. Whenever the media and other Democrats want an economist to support their policies and trash Republican (Trump) policies, out comes Zandi.

Here he is in The Hill saying we are on the precipice of a recession. I guess the deep depression warnings of April the Democrats and media promised didn’t come true, so out he comes again, just like a groundhog, with new warnings:

US economy on ‘precipice of recession,’ Moody’s chief economist warns

  • Consumer spending flat; construction, manufacturing contracting, he says
  • Zandi blames tariffs, immigration policy for economic struggles
  • Low jobless rate masks shrinking workforce, hiring freezes

Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi said the U.S. economy is ‘on the precipice of recession,’ citing indicators from last week’s economic data releases.

The article is everywhere. Not to be outdone, Fox News calls him a leading economist and says the Federal Reserve has few options to save us from financial crisis. Maybe they should lower interest rates? I have to wonder how many times an economist has to be wrong before the media stops considering them to be a leading economist?

Leading economist issues stark recession warning for struggling US economy

Mark Zandi cites weak jobs data and rising inflation as Fed faces limited rescue options[.]

In 2007, Moody’s (Zandi), S & P, and Fitch were earning huge fees by rating junk mortgage pools as Triple A. This allowed brokers, bankers, Freddie and Fannie, to package up trillion dollars worth of garbage to sell to individuals, banks, and mutual funds. This was pure fraud that almost destroyed the U.S. and world economy, and yet these people did not go to jail. The taxpayer bailed them out. 

Yet today Zandi and others are still treated as respectable ratings agents.

Keep reading

Zohran Mamdani Opposes Charter Schools in NYC, Even Though He Went to a Private School

New York City Democrat candidate for mayor, and noted communist, Zohran Mamdani has gone on record saying that he opposes charter schools in the city.

When Mamdani came to the United States as a child, he attended the Bank Street School for Children, a private school that charges $37,554 – $68,793 in tuition, according to Wikipedia.

There are two important issues in play here.

First, charter schools are important because they offer an alternative to traditional public schools, which frequently benefits minority children. Second, charter schools are typically opposed by teacher unions who correctly see these schools as a form of competition for public schools. As a Democrat candidate, Mamdani is undoubtedly depending on the support of teacher unions in the mayoral election.

The New York Post reports:

Zohran Mamdani’s vow to declare war on charter schools if elected NYC mayor sparks outrage from parents, advocates: ‘Very misinformed’

Socialist Zohran Mamdani plans to declare war on charter schools if he’s elected mayor, according to a survey he answered — sparking outrage from advocates and parents who called the front-runner’s views “very misguided.”

The 33-year-old Queens assemblyman said he would fight efforts to open more charters, which largely educate minority, working-class students, and even opposed the schools sharing space in city-owned buildings.

“I oppose efforts by the state to mandate an expansion of charter school operations in New York City,” he said in a Staten Island Advance questionnaire before the June 24 Democratic primary.

Mamdani’s hostility to charter schools — which are privately run and publicly funded — puts him in sync with the United Federation of Teachers union, which endorsed him in the November general election following his primary victory over ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo and others.

So typical for the left. School choices for me but not for thee.

Keep reading

For B-21, Quantity Is Its Most Critical Quality Top Bomber Officer Says

For all the new capabilities the B-21 Raider will bring as an individual aircraft, the U.S. Air Force’s top bomber officer says he is most excited about the sheer numbers of those aircraft that are set to enter service in the coming years. The Operation Midnight Hammer strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities underscored how vital existing B-2 stealth bombers are to U.S. national security, but also the inherent limitations imposed by how few of them were ever built.

Air Force Maj. Gen. Jason Armagost touched on the B-21 and related topics during an online talk that the Air & Space Forces Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies hosted today. Armagost is the commander of the Eighth Air Force, to which the Air Force’s current B-2, B-1, and B-52 bombers are all assigned, as well as the officer in charge of the Joint-Global Strike Operations Center (J-GSOC) at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

At present, the Air Force plans to acquire at least 100 B-21s, but senior U.S. military officials have been increasingly advocating for a fleet of 145 of the bombers. A single pre-production Raider is now in flight testing, with a second expected to join it soon. At least four other B-21s are in various stages of production, and a number of non-flying airframes are being used to support ongoing test work. The Raider is expected to eventually replace the Air Force’s current fleet of 19 B-2 bombers, as well as its more than 40 remaining B-1s.

Keep reading

North Carolina DMV Hits All DEI Targets, Misses Road Safety Goals

North Carolina’s Division of Motor Vehicles achieved 100 percent of its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) benchmarks in 2024 but failed to meet several core performance goals related to safety, infrastructure, and fiscal responsibility, according to the Department of Transportation’s most recent annual report.

The report from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) reveals that the state’s Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) reached its DEI target for 2024 while falling short on several other key performance metrics, including road safety, infrastructure maintenance, and fiscal management.

According to the 2024 Annual Performance Report (page 65), the DMV fulfilled its DEI goal entirely. However, it did not achieve full success in four other categories:

  • “Maintain fiscal responsibility”
  • “Make transportation safer”
  • “Improve the reliability and connectivity of the transportation system”
  • “Deliver and maintain our infrastructure efficiently and effectively”

The report comes as former Gov. Roy Cooper (D), who appointed DMV Commissioner Wayne Goodwin in 2022, has launched a campaign for U.S. Senate in the 2026 race.

Keep reading

Gun-Free Zones Like Fort Stewart Invite Mass Shootings

On Wednesday, another mass shooting unfolded — this time at Fort Stewart military base in Georgia. A male Army sergeant, who illegally carried a gun on the base, wounded five soldiers before others tackled and disarmed him.

Typically, only authorized designated security forces such as MPs are armed on duty. Any other soldier caught carrying a firearm faces severe consequences, ranging from a rank reduction, court-martial, potential criminal convictions, dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay, and even imprisonment.

So why would a soldier risk such harsh penalties? Because if you’re the attacker, planning to murder fellow soldiers, gun control laws won’t stop you. If you expect to die in the assault, as most mass public shooters do, extra years added to your sentence mean nothing. Even if you survive, you already anticipate multiple life sentences or the death penalty.

But for law-abiding soldiers, those same rules carry enormous weight. Carrying a gun for self-defense could turn them into felons and destroy their futures. These gun control policies disarm the innocent while encouraging a determined killer to attack there as they will know that they are the only ones who will be armed.

Yes, military police guard entrances, but like civilian police, they can’t be everywhere. Military bases function like cities, and MPs face the same limitations as police responding to off-base mass shootings.

Consider the attacks at the Navy Yard, both Fort Hood shootings, and the Chattanooga recruiting station. In each case, unarmed JAG officers, Marines, and soldiers had no choice but to hide while the attacker fired shot after shot.

Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley, then commander of Third Corps stationed at Fort Hood, testified to Congress about the second attack there: “We have adequate law enforcement on those bases to respond … those police responded within eight minutes and that guy was dead.” But eight minutes was simply too long for the three soldiers who were murdered and the 12 others who were wounded.

Keep reading

Illegal Aliens Rig The Census For Blue States, And Trump Is Right To Correct It

President Donald Trump announced Thursday he instructed the Commerce Department to begin working on a census that does not include illegal aliens. It’s a long-overdue correction to a system that Democrats have exploited for years to tip the balance of power in Washington.

“I have instructed our Department of Commerce to immediately begin work on a new and highly accurate CENSUS based on modern day facts and figures and, importantly, using the results and information gained from the Presidential Election of 2024. People who are in our country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump said.

Trump previously signed a memo in 2020 that barred illegal aliens from being counted in the census. The memo was challenged and made its way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately did not rule on the merits as to whether all residents — regardless of their legal status — must be counted and if the president has the authority to exclude nonresidents.

The high court however did rule in the 1976 decision Mathews v. Diaz, a case regarding the Social Security Act, that while illegal immigrants are entitled to due process protections under the Fifth and 14th Amendments, they are not entitled to the benefits of citizenship. 

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the unanimous court:

Neither the overnight visitor, the unfriendly agent of a hostile foreign power, the resident diplomat, nor the illegal entrant, can advance even a colorable constitutional claim to a share in the bounty that a conscientious sovereign makes available to its own citizens and some of its guests.

If voting, which is a benefit exclusively for citizens, is off-limits to illegal immigrants, it would be hard to imagine that illegal immigrants should be empowered to dilute the weight of a vote by artificially expanding the population and increasing the representational advantage of one area while taking it away from another area that is populated by legal residents. And yet, thanks to Democrats, that’s exactly what they’re doing.

President Joe Biden, of course, ordered the census to include illegal aliens and other noncitizens and, coincidentally, opened the floodgates at the border, letting in millions of illegal aliens — all of who which could be counted in the census.

And where are these illegal aliens welcomed with open arms?

Keep reading

Before The Supposed Climate Change Crisis Could Ruin John Kerry’s Posh Neighborhood – Drug Addicts Did It Instead

Former Secretary of State and climate change alarmist John Kerry’s high-class neighborhood has reportedly been overrun with drug users, who ironically did more damage to the area than his supposed extreme weather events.

Kerry’s been preaching about climate-change consequences for decades. Yet before any of the hypothetical chaos had a chance to affect him, liberal governance brought another plague to his doorstep: Addiction.

Back in 2007, Kerry spoke with the Council on Foreign Relations about how climate change is “a national security issue.”

The former senator was introduced as having spoken out “on the topic of climate change for some 20 years now and has promoted hi-tech green solutions to stabilizing climate change and called attention to the economic risks of failing to address climate change. He’s also [an] advocate for the adoption of innovative and strategic national energy policy.”

Kerry’s 2009 claim in a Huffington Post op-ed that the Arctic would be “ice free by the summer of 2013” was examined by PolitiFact and judged to be “mostly false” at the time.

“Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now,” Kerry wrote. “Make no mistake: catastrophic climate change represents a threat to human security, global stability, and — yes — even to American national security.”

In 2017, when Kerry paid $11.75 million for property on the water in Martha’s Vineyard, he didn’t seem too concerned about rising sea levels or climate catastrophes.

Fast forward to today, and an actual crisis is playing out in Beacon Hill, where Kerry also owns property, according to Fox News.

Local residents are complaining that city leaders aren’t doing enough to contain open drug use in the streets, creating a chaotic situation.

“Prior to this year, I’ve never seen the Boston Common, Cambridge Street or the Esplanade get this overrun with drug paraphernalia or folks in crisis,” resident Katherine Kennedy said. “As a mother of two small children, this is very scary.”

Boston’s Democratic mayor hasn’t helped the situation, either.

Back in 2022, Mayor Michelle Wu launched a needle exchange program, which also included distributing free pipes for smoking crack or meth.

Wu defended the program, claiming it prevents addicts from contracting diseases that could spread into the general populace, WHDH in Boston reported.

So, using liberal logic, we should spend billions — even trillions — of dollars on climate-change funding with no questions asked, despite its ever-changing benchmark. But when it comes to a drug epidemic, we should feed the fire by giving out free paraphernalia?

Keep reading

From helpdesk to havoc: Why Clorox is suing Indian company for $380 million

In a San Francisco courtroom, the Clorox Company recently dropped a legal bombshell – a $380 million lawsuit against Indian-American information technology company Cognizant, alleging gross negligence in a 2023 cyberattack.

In the complaint dated July 22, 2025, Clorox contends a hacker simply called Cognizant’s helpdesk, lied about being an employee and was handed network credentials – no identity verification, no oversight, just a password transfer. The resulting cyberattack ended up paralyzing Clorox’s operations, costing upwards of $49 million in remediation and much more in lost business.

Offshoring ecosystem under the microscope

Cognizant, though officially headquartered in New Jersey, was founded in Chennai, India in 1994, and now employs over 250,000 people across India, providing everything from software development to helpdesk services for global corporations. Industry analysts have warned that shifting U.S. companies’ sensitive customer data offshore exposes Americans to significant privacy risks. India lacks comprehensive data privacy laws or an enforcement body like the Federal Trade Commission.

While offshoring offers cheap labor and scalability, it also creates layers of separation between U.S.-based clients and the employees handling their data. Those layers can conceal critical weaknesses.

Clorox case: A failed firewall

In Clorox’s telling, the hacker didn’t crack advanced encryption or “spear-phish” executives. He just called Cognizant on the phone and lied about who and what he was. That was enough. Cognizant agents reset the account, handed over passwords and reopened Clorox’s VPN access without a single identity check. Agents reportedly said phrases like: “Here’s the password … Welcome …”

Cognizant disputes the claim, saying its contract with Clorox, dating back to 2013, covered only helpdesk tasks, not broader cybersecurity responsibilities. Cognizant characterized Clorox’s own defenses as “inept,” calling the attack partly Clorox’s fault.

Keep reading

Washington Post Hides Russiagate Facts From Readers While Peddling PR For Disgraced Hoaxers

“Exclusive!” boasts Washington Post intel reporter Warren P. Strobel in a report this week: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and “other intelligence agencies” didn’t want Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to declassify a report that makes the CIA look bad.

In other news, the sky is blue, and the grass is green. Obviously, no one wants to be publicly embarrassed by the exposure of their substandard work — in this case work that led to the Russia collusion hoax, one of the political witch hunts that interfered with President Donald Trump’s first term.

As noted by Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway on X, “Strobel frames everything as if he’s doing highly paid PR for bad actors in the spy agencies and their Democrat co-conspirators. Namely, HE DOES NOT EVEN TELL HIS READERS WHAT THE REPORT REVEALS about how shoddy Brennan/CIA’s work was!”

Strobel does not make it easy for the reader to see the report, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence’s 2020 staff report regarding the Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Election Interference. At no point does he offer a link to the report or explain its explosive findings: that John Brennan, CIA director under former President Barack Obama, produced a sloppy Intelligence Community Assessment promoting the lie that Russian President Vladimir Putin interfered with the 2020 election to help Trump win. The foundation of Brennan’s report was an out of context fragment of a sentence that could not be confirmed and the comically false Steele dossier. A newly released CIA review shows high level CIA analysts and officers urged Brennan not to include the Steele dossier in the report.

Beyond being thin on facts, Strobel’s piece paints Gabbard as the villain right off the bat with the title, “Gabbard overrode CIA officials’ concerns in push to release classified Russia report.” It reads as if Gabbard did something wrong; she didn’t. Gabbard does not need permission to declassify these documents. Strange that a reporter, by trade, would champion keeping documents classified or highly redacted, as suggested in his piece. Normally reporters press for the most transparency possible.  

Keep reading