Blog

STUNNING NEW EVIDENCE Reveals 68 Cities Where Dem-Funded GBI Strategies Sent Over 104 Packages Filled With MI Voter Registrations…Muskegon Was Only Where They Were Caught

Top Michigan media outlets, like the Detroit News and Free Press have done a grave injustice to the country by enabling Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s efforts to bury one of the most thoroughly documented investigations into organized election fraud in recent American history. Not only did members of the media downplay the statewide probe into GBI Strategies—launched just one month before the November 2020 election in Michigan—but they made no serious effort to examine or expose the full scope of the scheme or the number of cities and municipalities whose elections may have been compromised by the injection of an unknown volume of fraudulent registrations onto Michigan’s voter rolls.

Prior to the 2020 election, Michigan clerks were furious with Jocelyn Benson for telling them to IGNORE signature matching on absentee envelopes, in violation of election law.  Not only was Jocelyn Benson breaking the law with her “guidance” to the clerks, but at the same time, she was hiding the largest investigation into voter registration fraud in the state’s history from the clerks tasked with ensuring the integrity of the election.

Although the report shows Ann Meisch contacted the Muskegon Police Department on October 16, 2020, we have evidence she appears to have known about the fraudulent voter registratons as early as October 5, when she shared an image on a private Michigan Clerk’s Facebook page we were given access to following our exclusive report on the GBI Strategies/Empower Michigan bombshell investigation.

Keep reading

The Vanishing Art of Presence

Medicine is always changing. In my career, I have seen intensive care units go from simple rooms with oxygen, monitors, and clinical intuition to places where artificial intelligence can predict problems before we notice them, bedside ultrasound helps us avoid guessing, and robotic systems help surgeons work with great precision. Telemedicine now lets specialists care for patients who are far away. These advances have saved lives, made care more accessible, improved efficiency, and helped doctors reach patients who might not have seen a specialist otherwise.

Many studies show how valuable telemedicine is, especially in underserved areas and critical care settings where specialists are scarce (1). I welcome these innovations and use many of them daily. I am convinced that artificial intelligence (AI) will become one of the most important tools doctors have ever had. Recent reviews also suggest that AI will help doctors make decisions, not replace them (2). Still, no matter how advanced our tools get, they should help us do our jobs better, not change what our jobs are about.

A recent lawsuit about the death of a very sick young man has sparked a lot of talk in the medical community (3). Reports say that one question is whether the doctor in charge ever actually examined the patient in person. The courts will figure out what really happened, so I won’t guess or assign blame. What worries me is not the lawsuit itself, but the bigger question it raises. Are we starting to think that because technology lets us care for patients from a distance, being there in person is no longer necessary?

When I started practicing medicine, this question would have seemed impossible. We took blood pressure by hand, read chest X-rays on lighted boxes, and depended on physical exams because we had no other choice. We were always close to our patients. We shook hands, sat with families during hard times, and listened not just to heartbeats and breaths, but also to the pauses, the worry in a spouse’s voice, the fear behind hopeful words, and the small signs that told us more than any lab test. Sometimes I think those moments taught us as much as any textbook.

Today, we have abilities my mentors never dreamed of. We can look at scans from across the world in seconds. A neurologist can check on a stroke patient from far away. An intensive care doctor can watch over several ICUs at once from a central location. Algorithms constantly review patient data and spot patterns we might miss. These advances are real progress, and many people are alive today because doctors were willing to try new technology. Ignoring these innovations would not just be unwise—it would be wrong.

Keep reading

Socialist Pennsylvania Congressional Candidate Chris Rabb Collapses When Pressed on His Radical DSA Agenda – Compares Police to KKK

Democratic Socialist Pennsylvania Congressional Candidate Chris Rabb sat for a heated interview on Fox News this week, where he was asked to defend his policies but repeatedly dodged questions on radical stances like abolishing the Senate, defunding the police, and abolishing immigration laws. 

Rabb, a 5-term Pennsylvania state representative, won his primary for US Congress in May. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) highlighted his win in a press release, writing, “There’s a new DSA member in Congress!”

“Now Congressman Rabb will continue the fight to abolish ICE, free Palestine, and win Medicare for All in the U.S. House of Representatives!”

Rabb, who is endorsed by Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and other “Squad” members, has the same radical DSA policy agenda.

He joined Fox News’s Sean Hannity on Wednesday night to defend his platform.

Hilariously, the interview began with Rabb calling Sean Hannity “Scott.” Hannity responded, “My name is not Scott. My name is Sean, but that’s okay.”

Rabb went on to dodge questions about the Democratic Socialists of America’s insane policies, like abolishing the Senate.

Keep reading

From Burger King to the Governor’s Office – The Curious Rise of Katie Hobbs

SECTION 1 — THE COLD OPEN

Katie Hobbs says she wants the “Pay-to-Play” investigation over.

There is only one complication: according to Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, the Governor still has not agreed to sit down and answer investigators’ questions.

The inquiry concerns a politically connected foster-care provider, substantial campaign-related contributions, and a state decision that sharply increased the amount paid to that company only, for housing foster children. Hobbs insists she did not influence the agency’s decision. Mayes says her investigators still have questions.

And Mayes — herself a Democrat — was not subtle:

“You cannot blow off the Attorney General’s Office. Full stop. No one can.”

Hobbs says she looks forward to the investigation’s conclusion. Mayes says the investigation will move forward — with or without the Governor’s cooperation.1

An elected official wanting an inquiry finished while declining to promise an interview may not prove wrongdoing.  But it does produce one irresistible question:

How did a political career that began behind a Burger King counter arrive at a moment when Arizona’s own Attorney General publicly warned the Governor that no one is above answering questions?

To understand that, we must follow the ladder — from its first rung to the Governor’s Office — and examine what climbed alongside Katie Hobbs ascent.

SECTION 2 — WE ARE GETTING AHEAD OF OURSELVES

Before the campaign contributions, state contracts, investigators, and uncomfortable questions, there was a Burger King counter in Tempe.².

ADVERTISEMENT

Katie Hobbs also worked at Pizza Hut while pursuing her education — a familiar American story of long hours, modest pay, and determination.² It is relatable, memorable, and politically nearly perfect.

The message writes itself: Hobbs understood working families because she had struggled, she knew low-wage workers because she had been one, and she understood vulnerable people because she later chose social work as her profession.³

None of that should be mocked. Honest work is honest work, whether performed behind a desk, inside a shelter, or beside a deep fryer.

But a working-class beginning does not explain a political ascent.

This is not a campaign biography. It is a documented examination of how Katie Hobbs rose, how she exercised power, and what the public record reveals along the way.

Keep reading

History-Making Miss North Carolina USA Stripped of Title After Alleged Racially Insensitive Posts Resurface

A Miss North Carolina USA has lost her title after alleged racist posts from one of her supposed old accounts resurfaced.

Last month, 27-year-old Brittany Boltinhouse of Beulaville won the title of Miss North Carolina USA in Spartanburg, S.C. In the process, she made history as the first person of Honduran descent to win the title.

But now Myla Hadley, who finished as runner-up to Boltinhouse, will take her crown instead.

This news comes as posts allegedly from Boltinhouse resurfaced  from 2017 to 2019.

The NC Beat was the first outlet to obtain these posts, which they say came from a Sosa the Stallion X account owned by Boltinhouse.

In another post, in December 2019, Boltinhouse allegedly bragged about her ‘toxicity.’


Keep reading

Why The Trump Administration Was Right To End The Medicare Part D Insurer Bailout

he Trump administration’s recent decision to end a temporary Part D subsidy program in 2027 attracted much press attention, and some criticism. The California Democratic Party claimed on  X that “25 million people, mainly seniors, count on Medicare Part D to afford their prescriptions. Donald Trump is putting their health on the line by ending the program.”

This is  absurd—and false. The Trump administration is not  ending the Part D program (established by Congress in 2003) and couldn’t do so even if it wanted to. However, it is ending a temporary and extralegal bailout program that provided billions of dollars in subsidies to insurers. That’s because Democrats made changes to the program that have cost far more than they claimed.

The Bailout, Explained

In summer 2024, the Biden administration announced a unilateral  “premium stabilization demonstration.” The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) noted the new program would start at the2025 plan year. This was just in time for premium announcements to land in seniors’ mailboxes just prior to the November 2024 election.

The program came into effect largely due to Democrats’ Inflation (Reduction) Act. That law shifted and restructured costs Part D insurers had to pay. It also reduced seniors’ out-of-pocket expenses on prescription drugs. The latter change will, all else equal, result in higher spending, because seniors will consume more and more costly drugs if they  have to pay for fewer or none of their own costs.

The IRA already included one “stabilization” mechanism in a statute running through 2029, intending to minimize any premium increases. But, after seeing preliminary plan bids for 2025, CMS effectively admitted this lone bailout would be insufficient to prevent large spikes in premiums or insurer exits. 

So it conjured a second, unilateral bailout to minimize any potential disruptions. Of course, as I noted at the time, this also amounted to using taxpayer funds to prevent Kamala Harris from suffering a big political controversy in the days leading up to the presidential election.

Unsustainable Costs

As the Washington Post wrote in a recent editorial, these “subsidies have helped keep premiums down but simply by shifting more of the cost on to the federal government,” rather than lowering costs. Indeed, while seniors traditionally paid 25.5 percent  of Part D benefit costs via premiums, this year seniors are paying only about half that amount, or 13 percent.  Taxpayers foot the bill for roughly seven in eight dollars of program spending (87 percent).

The IRA bailouts resulted in $40 billion in additional taxpayer spending in 2025 and 2026, and the costs will add up even more in coming years. I noted recently that this year’s Medicare trustees report increased the long-term cost of the Part D program by roughly one-third, or $5 trillion, compared to the 2025 trustees report.

Justifiable Action

Given these skyrocketing costs, it makes perfect sense to end the Biden administration’s unilateral bailout. Because the IRA’s major changes took effect in January 2025, insurers now have enough actuarial information (i.e., plan claims) to price their products without uncertainty leading to major variations in premiums. 

Eliminating one bailout—remember, the statutory bailout remains in effect through 2029—may increase Part D premiums slightly. But CMS noted that the majority of enrollees will either face no change or a decline in premiums (25 percent), or an increase of under $10 per month (30 percent). Given that taxpayers will still pay a greater share of Part D costs than before the IRA and premiums have fallen by more than one-third in inflation-adjusted terms over the past 15 years, Part D still represents a good value for seniors.

By ending the Biden administration’s unilateral insurer bailout, the Trump administration served as a smart steward of scarce taxpayer dollars, while restoring more of a competitive balance to Part D. False scaremongering by the left aside, the action will help to preserve a Medicare program that faces significant solvency concerns.

Keep reading

Feds Arrest Suspect in Juneteenth Arson of 173-Year-Old Brooklyn Church

The feds on Wednesday arrested a suspect in the arson of a historic Brooklyn church.

A historic church built around 1860 on Bushwick Avenue in Brooklyn, New York, was engulfed in flames on June 19 – also known as ‘Juneteenth.’

The community was devastated after the landmark South Bushwick Church was destroyed by a three-alarm fire.

The steeple collapsed as firefighters worked to extinguish the blaze.

24-year-old John Jones was taken into custody as he tried to steal a sandwich and donuts from a store on Broadway, according to The New York Post.

Jones was caught on video on the side of the church using a lighter to ignite the blaze.

According to The Post, Jones was arrested in late June on criminal mischief charges for smashing a tv at a restaurant and causing $900 in damages.

Keep reading

Documents confirm FBI’s own ‘memo’ goof, as bureau treated SPLC as ‘government agency’

A few years back, during Joe Biden’s tenure in the White House when Catholics and other Christians seemed often to be in the bull’s-eye of his pro-abortion, pro-transgender, pro-leftist ideologies, the FBI’s Richmond office came up with a memo.

It identified “radical traditionalist Catholics” as potential domestic violent extremists. Terrorists, in fact.

The disastrous claims triggered a congressional investigation, a review by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General and widespread comments about the religious profiling active under Biden’s regiome.

It was “withdrawn,” officials confirmed, for not meeting bureau “standards.”

But now the full truth of the matter is being revealed. It seems that the FBI’s claims were based on sourcing from the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center, which agents at the time apparently were treating as a government agency.

The SPLC now, in fact, is under indictment for a number of counts for allegedly boasting to supporters about working to exterminate extremists, and then using donors’ funding to hand out cash to those very extremists.

At the time, the SPLC had claimed “radical traditionalist Catholics” are part of the people in America who “may make up the largest single group of serious anti-Semites in America.”

Now a report posted by the American Center for Law and Justice confirms at the time the scandal developed, a lawyer with the FBI’s Office of General Counsel, warned, “It seems that some of our folks may be equating a third-party organization with another government organization, and perhaps we need to remind the workforce about non-governmental organizations.”

The ACLJ explained, “That statement in and of itself is a remarkably dangerous implication of the Deep State.”

The ACLJ said it found the comment in a cache of internal FBI emails it obtained through a Freedom of Information Act litigation.

“The records reveal that the FBI’s own intelligence leadership quickly identified the fatal flaw in the now-infamous Richmond memorandum: The Bureau relied on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) subjective ‘hate group’ labels without first determining how the SPLC made those designations or whether its standards even aligned with the FBI’s own definitions,” the ACLJ said.

In fact, the SPLC routinely labels as a “hate group” any organization that does not comply with its own political, social and ideological agendas, including promoting transgenderism and abortion.

That leaves pro-family organizations like the Family Research Council, which was targeted in an attempted mass killing by a follower of SPLC ideologies, labeled as “hate.”

Keep reading

Four Kids “Safety” Bills, Supporting Online Digital ID Agenda, Hit Senate Floor

The CHATBOT Act says that nothing in it shall be construed to require a company to “implement an age gating or age verification” system, or to “affirmatively collect any personal data with respect to the age of any individual that the covered entity is not already collecting in the normal course” of its business. The Kids Online Safety Act carries a version of the same promise, ruling out “the affirmative collection of any personal data with respect to the age of users” that a platform doesn’t already gather.

But now read the rest of the same bills…

Yesterday, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee sent four children’s online safety bills to the Senate floor, with parents who attribute the harm of their children to social media sitting right there in the room. KOSA went through on a unanimous voice vote. This obviously wasn’t a place for a debate. The Youth AI Privacy Act from Senator Ed Markey advanced. So did the CHATBOT Act from Senator Ted Cruz, with Senators Schatz, Curtis and Schiff as co-sponsors. Senator Tammy Duckworth’s bill makes four, and it orders the FTC and the Consumer Product Safety Commission to study AI-enabled toys, which turns on nothing a company has to know about a user. A fifth, the SCREEN Act, got a tally and no result, which we’ll come back to.

KOSA passed the Senate in 2024 by 91 to 3, but the House never took it up. KOSA’s “duty of care” is the provision that gets the attention. It requires platforms to “exercise reasonable care” in design features to prevent and mitigate a listed set of harms to minors, with the FTC enforcing, and the harms run from conditions with “clinically diagnosable symptoms” through patterns of use “that indicate compulsive” behavior to sexual exploitation. The House stripped it out. The Senate sponsors called that version dead on arrival.

Keep reading

Little-Known Bureaucratic Procedure Pushed Medical Insurance To Be More Pro-Trans

Cultural shifts sometimes happen in ways you can’t help but notice, like the sudden growth of transgender themes on television. But there are also a bunch of quiet maneuvers you don’t see, producing change through obscure bureaucratic procedures.

To begin your introduction to one of those little-noticed avenues of change, take a moment to read the Independent Medical Review (IMR) obtained by California health care regulators in 2025 on behalf of a biological male (in the record, a “transgender female”) who wanted his health insurance company to buy him a prosthetic “vagina”.

The transgender patient had a history of depression, “with possible psychotic features,” and was taking anti-psychotic medication when his insurer denied coverage for a surgically created artificial vagina. (Surgical neo-vaginas are created by penile inversion, or less frequently by cutting out a piece of the patient’s bowels and sewing it into a surgical hole between his legs.)

Appealing that decision, the potentially psychotic patient asked the California Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC), which regulates health insurance plans, to conduct a review in which an independent medical expert would decide if his surgery was medically necessary.

A finding on an IMR is binding. Insurers must cover procedures an “independent expert” finds “medically necessary.” As the state’s IMR request form says: “Health plans must follow the IMR decision and promptly provide the service.”

In this case, a psychiatrist reviewed the patient’s surgical request, with no review by a surgeon. The psychiatrist overturned the insurer’s refusal to pay. A male on anti-psychotic medications got a surgically implanted fake vagina, in a procedure covered by insurance, because a psychiatrist found the surgery to be medically necessary.

Keep reading