Blog

Florida Senate Passes Bill To Restrict Hemp Products Like Delta-8 THC

For the second year in a row, the Florida Senate has approved new regulations on hemp-derived THC products in Florida, although this time the proposal includes limitations on the industry’s hottest new product, THC-infused beverages.

Polk County Republican Sen. Colleen Burton has led the charge in attempting to place some restrictions on these intoxicating products, which have emerged since the state legalized hemp in 2019. Since then, some states have banned all such products, while others have heavily regulated them.

Burton said that people have asked her why is she trying to regulate an industry that has been established in Florida for years. She said hemp-derived THC products are “causing harm to Floridians.”

“We have retailers in the state of Florida that are selling products that are intoxicating,” she said. “They are selling products that are putting adults and children in the hospital. And, sadly, they are selling products that are causing the deaths of Floridians.”

She alluded to a Jacksonville television station’s website, which reported this week on a Georgia woman who  believes her 25-year-old son’s death from heart disease was caused by ingesting Delta-8 gummies. “That young man did not know that what he was ingesting was going to hurt him,” Burton said.

The bill (SB 438) bans all Delta-8 products and limits the amount of Delta-9 hemp-derived products to no more than five milligrams per serving or 50 milligrams per container. It limits the amount of THC in hemp-infused drinks to five milligrams per container. Such drinks could only be sold through a retailer holding a liquor license.

It requires that each final batch of hemp extract must be tested in a certified marijuana testing laboratory before it may be sold in the state, with results verified and signed by two laboratory employees. The lab would determine whether the product meets the definition of hemp and hemp extract.

During a combined Florida House workgroup formed to study the hemp industry earlier in the session, the owner of a Lakeland testing lab that contracted with the Florida Department of Agriculture to test cannabis and hemp products appeared. He testified that his lab tested 50 out of 53 flower hemp samples from different smoke/hemp shops across the state that were over the legal 0.3 percent Delta 9 THC limit, and found contaminants in these products.

Keep reading

House Passes Rep. Darrell Issa’s No Rogue Rulings Act to Limit Rogue Activist District Court Judges – One Republican Joins Democrats and Votes “No”

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) No Rogue Rulings Act, which will place restrictions on federal District Court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions.

One Republican, Rep. Mike Turner from Ohio, voted to empower activist judges.

The new law will stop a single district court judge, one out of 677 across the nation, from dictating policy for the entire country, as we’ve seen countless times from Trump-hating activist judges.

This comes after the Supreme Court vacated Judge James Boasberg’s orders barring the Trump Administration’s removals of Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. They ruled that Boasberg, as a single district court judge, lacked jurisdiction to dictate the President’s policy.

Keep reading

No, Democrats, Trump Didn’t Kill Drug Research — Here’s What Actually Happened at the NIH

Democrats are up in arms, accusing President Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) of gutting drug research funding.

Social media is flooded with dramatic claims—photos of sick children, stories of desperate patients—each suggesting that Trump has cut off their last hope. The truth, however, is far less dramatic.

The Trump administration has indeed pushed aggressive cost-cutting across federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which funds a large share of America’s drug research. But contrary to the headlines, there’s no blanket halt on medical research—far from it.

Studies continue under other federal programs and through robust private funding, supporting everything from cancer breakthroughs to rare disease therapies.

What the administration has done is implement targeted policies—like capping overhead costs and temporarily pausing some grant reviews—that have caused confusion, delays, and loud complaints from researchers and critics, but they haven’t shut down research altogether.

Here’s the real story: In February 2025, the NIH proposed capping “indirect costs”—expenses like lab maintenance and utilities—at 15%, down from the usual 27–30%.

That move would cut about $4 billion annually from the $9 billion typically allocated for such costs within the NIH’s $35 billion grant budget (based on 2023 figures, adjusted slightly for 2025).

Universities and hospitals quickly sounded the alarm, warning of layoffs and stalled projects. Then, on March 5, 2025, a federal judge in Boston issued a nationwide injunction, blocking the cuts after 22 Democratic-led states and research groups filed suit, citing bipartisan legislation that protects NIH funding.

As of April 3, the proposed cap remains tied up in court—no reductions have taken effect.

Meanwhile, shortly after Trump’s inauguration, the NIH temporarily froze most grant-review meetings, stalling roughly $1.5 billion in new research funding (Nature, February 2025).

This wasn’t a budget cut—it was a bureaucratic slowdown triggered by new oversight protocols.

Keep reading

Meta Keeps Big MAGA Accounts on Ban List as Mark Zuckerberg Lobbies Trump

Mark Zuckerberg is reportedly lobbying the Trump administration to drop a pivotal FTC case against the company, in what would amount to a major political favor for Meta. Despite Zuckerberg’s multiple olive branches to the Turmp administration, a number of high-profile, pro-MAGA voices are still banned on Meta’s Facebook and Instagram platforms.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Mark Zuckerberg has made regular visits to the White House urging the president to lean on the FTC to drop its case against Meta. If the FTC were to prevail in the case, Meta could be forced to divest from WhatsApp and Instagram, breaking up the company.

In January, Zuckerberg made several public overtures to the Trump administration, praising parts of its policy platform in an appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience, and criticizing the outgoing Biden administration for its censorship demands during COVID. Zuckerberg also announced a policy pivot at Meta, promising to “get back to our roots” of supporting free speech.

Despite these pledges, several prominent anti-establishment figures remain banned on Meta platforms:

  • Laura Loomer, investigative journalist and former Republican congressional candidate who was recently credited with influencing a shakeup at the NSC.
  • Tommy Robinson, the prominent British political activist and critic of Islam.
  • Alex Jones
  • Paul Joseph Watson
  • Gavin McInnes
  • Milo Yiannopoulos, self-styled “civil rights icon” and former Breitbart News editor.

It is also unclear if Meta still maintains its “hate agents”  list of prominent anti-establishment voices uncovered by Breitbart News in 2019 that included political candidates. Or if the company has taken any steps to remedy the mass-censorship of WhatsApp accounts in Brazil, which extended to Flavio Bolsonaro, son of persecuted former president Jair Bolsonaro. In a comment to Breitbart News, the company denied it has continued to maintain its documented list of hate agents.

As the FTC trial date draws closer, Meta has drawn flak from the conservative commentariat.

Keep reading

Senator Adam Schiff: I Will Investigate to Determine If Members of the White House Were Involved in Insider Trading Before Trump’s Tariff Announcement

Moonbat Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) has gone completely crazy after President Trump proved once again why it’s unwise to doubt him about the art of the deal.

As The Gateway Pundit’s Cassandra MacDonald reported, Trump today announced an immediate tariff increase on China to 125%. He also granted a 90-day pause and tariff reduction to 10% for over 75 other countries.

Trump announced the tariff change on Truth Social, writing that it was due to China’s “lack of respect for the World’s Markets.”

An angry Schiff lashed out a few hours after Trump announced his new tariff policy. After receiving a question from a leftist ‘reporter’ regarding whether members of the White House were benefiting from “market fluctuations,” Schiff vowed to investigate whether Trump’s White House officials were involved in insider trading before Trump announced his new tariff policy.

“I’m writing to the White House to demand who knew in advance the president was going to flip-flop on tariffs and if people are cashing in,” Schiff said. “There is just all too much opportunity for people in the White House and the administration to be insider trading, and you can’t put it past them for a minute.”

“So we’re gonna try to find out,” he added.

Keep reading

Secretive Billionaire-Filled City in California Is One You’ve Likely Never Heard of—Because Residents Don’t Want You To

Tucked into the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains is a tiny California town that is home to approximately 1,000 people and just 355 houses—yet it is also one of the wealthiest ZIP codes in the country, with many of its residents boasting either billionaire or multimillionaire statuses.

But unlike Beverly Hills or Bel-Air, the odds are that you have never heard of Bradbury, CA—largely because the wealthy and very secretive people who live there prize their privacy above all else, helping to turn the tony enclave into a veritable sanctuary for high net-worth individuals who want to hide their lives from prying eyes.

According to the Census Bureau‘s 2023 statistics, 39.5% of households in the community, which is bordered by Monrovia and Duarte and is located just a 20-minute drive east of Los Angeles, earn more than $200,000.

Keep reading

Cave discovery could rewrite 1,000 years of Mediterranean history

Evidence discovered in a cave on Malta indicates hunter-gatherers visited the picturesque Mediterranean island long before they began farming on mainland Europe. If true, the 8,500-year-old archeological site appears to contradict commonly held assumptions about societal development among the continent’s last Mesolithic communities. Researchers published their findings on April 9 in Nature, and argue that as much as a millennium’s worth of Maltese prehistory may warrant reevaluation.

The trajectory of paleohistorical societies often goes something like this: first farming, then the open ocean. That’s because, generally speaking, the tools and techniques needed to craft seafaring technology such as sails only arrived after the invention of farming tools. Because of this, most archeologists long believed Mediterranean islands like Malta were some of the last wildernesses to encounter humans.

However, a cave site known as Latnija in Malta’s northern Mellieħa region is forcing experts to consider alternative historical narratives. There, researchers from the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology and the University of Malta have uncovered evidence indicating a human presence on the island at least 8,500 years ago—roughly 1,000 years before the first known farmers arrived. More specifically, Latnija contained stone tools and hearth fragments, as well as cooked food waste. Some of this food even came from animals believed to have already died out on the island.

Keep reading

House votes to overturn Biden-era rule limiting bank overdraft fees to $5, sends to Trump to sign

The House voted Wednesday to overturn a rule that would have limited bank overdraft fees to $5, following the Senate in moving to dismantle the regulation that the Biden administration had estimated would save consumers billions of dollars.

The resolution killing the rule, which passed the House 217-211, will now head to the White House for President Donald Trump’s signature. Republicans argued that the “disastrous” regulation issued in the final days of President Joe Biden’s term would have forced banks to stop offering overdraft protection altogether and made it harder for Americans to access credit.

“Competition and innovation, not government-mandated price caps, remain the best way to ensure consumers have access to affordable financial products and services,” said Arkansas Rep. French Hill, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

Currently, the nation’s biggest banks take in roughly $8 billion in the charges every year, according to data from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and bank public records. Right now, there is no cap on the overdraft fees that banks can legally charge.

Banks and banking groups had previously sued over the rule, arguing that it would have led to consumers leaning on worse, less-regulated services. Republicans voted to undo the regulation under the Congressional Review Act, a 1996 law that allows Congress to reverse recently adopted rules.

Keep reading

Startling Truths about Chemotherapy (Part One)

Over the years, I have repeatedly found that all medical recommendations are best treated with a large dose of scepticism.  Nowhere is this more true than in the treatment of cancer.

Patients who are diagnosed with cancer find themselves in a state of shock. And yet, while in a state of shock, they find themselves needing to make a number of vital decisions very quickly.

One of the big questions is often this one: “Should I have chemotherapy?”

Chemotherapy (or “systemic anticancer treatment”) might improve a patient’s chances of survival by three to five per cent, though that modest figure is usually over generous. For example, the evidence suggests that chemotherapy offers breast cancer patients an uplift in survival of little more than 2.5%.

When you consider that chemotherapy can kill and does terrible damage to healthy cells, and to the immune system, it is difficult to see the value of taking chemotherapy.

I don’t think it is any exaggeration to suggest that much of the hype around chemotherapy has taken the treatment into the area of fraud – far more fraudulent indeed than treatments which are dismissed as irrelevant or harmful by the establishment.

Chemotherapy is a cull, designed by the conspirators and the medical establishment to cut the cost of caring for cancer patients.

The chances are that the doctors looking after you – especially the specialist oncologists in hospital – will recommend chemotherapy. They may push hard to accept their recommendation. They may even be cross or dismissive or assume you are ignorant or afraid if you decide you don’t want it. Cancer charities often shout excitedly about chemotherapy. But they are also often closely linked to the drug companies which make money out of chemotherapy – which, in my view, makes them part of the large and thriving “cancer industry.” It is important to remember that drug companies exist to make money and they will do whatever is necessary to further this aim. They lie and they cheat with scary regularity and they have no interest in helping patients or saving lives. Remember that: the sole purpose of drug companies is to make money, whatever the human cost might be. They will happily suppress potentially life-saving information if doing so increases their profits. It is my belief that by allying themselves with drug companies, cancer charities have become corrupt.

Little or no advice is given to patients about how they themselves might reduce the risk of their cancer returning. The implication is that it’s chemotherapy or nothing. So, for example, doctors are unlikely to tell breast cancer patients that they should avoid dairy foods, though the evidence that they should is very strong.

The one certainty is that it is extremely unlikely that anyone you see will tell you all the truths about chemotherapy. The sad truth is that the statistics about chemotherapy are, of course, fiddled to boost the drug company sales and, therefore, drug company profits. And the deaths caused by chemotherapy are often misreported or underestimated. So, for example, if a patient who has been taking chemotherapy dies of a sudden heart attack, their death will probably be put down as a heart attack – rather than as a result of the cancer or the chemotherapy. There may be some mealy-mouthed suggestion that the death was treatment related but the drug will probably not be named and shamed. Neither the chemotherapy nor the cancer will be deemed responsible. What this means in practice is that the survival statistics for chemotherapy are considerably worse than the figures which are made available – considerably worse, indeed, than whatever positive effect might be provided by a harmless placebo.

Here’s another thing: patients who have chemotherapy and survive five years are counted as having been cured by chemotherapy. And patients who have chemotherapy and then die five and a bit years after their diagnosis don’t count as cancer-related deaths. And they certainly don’t count as chemotherapy deaths.

A 2016 academic study looked at five-year survival rates and concluded that in 90% of patients (including the commonest breast cancer tumours), chemotherapy increased five-year survival by less than 2.5%. Only a very small number of cancers (such as testicular cancer and Hodgkin’s disease) were treated effectively by chemotherapy.

Keep reading

WHOA! DOGE Makes Three Major Findings Regarding Unemployment Benefits Fraud, Including One Discovery That Left Elon Musk Shocked: “So Crazy I Had to Read It Several Times”

The fraud within the United States government is so rampant that it is leaving Elon Musk shocked.

On Wednesday, The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) announced its findings from an initial survey of unemployment insurance claims since 2020 and uncovered three stunning discoveries regarding unemployment fraud.

There is one that even the Babylon Bee would find far-fetched.

What they found will leave you livid:

24,500 people over 115 years old claimed $59 million in benefits.

28,000 people under the age of five claimed $254 million in benefits.

9,700 people with birth dates over 15 years in the future claimed $69 million in benefits. In one case, a person with a birthday in 2154 who claimed $41,000 in benefits.

All told, there was $382M worth of employment benefits fraud.

Keep reading