Blog

Starmer’s Social Media Ban, the Reinvention of the Surveillance State

Here is a fun fact to keep in your back pocket the next time a politician appears on the morning TV sofas to explain that the government’s new face-scanning and digital ID regime is really, deep down, about protecting your children.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, spent the first half of his career as a human rights lawyer and the second half running the Crown Prosecution Service.

He has argued for the individual against the state and he has aimed the full weight of the state at the individual. He has, in other words, seen this particular movie from both seats.

So when he tells you he has stumbled, blinking and innocent, into the most comprehensive surveillance apparatus in British peacetime history, do not extend him the courtesy of believing it. He spent twenty years learning precisely what these powers do to a person. He is not building this in his sleep.

And what he is building is a country in which you must ask permission to exist online. Not ask the platform. Ask the state. Before you read, post, store a photo, or send a message, you are expected to step up to the booth, show your papers, and prove you are a citizen the government has pre-approved.

The default setting of a free society, that you are left alone until you give the state a reason, is being flipped on its head. The new arrangement is that you are a suspect with a phone until you prove otherwise, and you prove it constantly, because proving it has been welded onto the act of going online and speaking at all.

That is the whole game. Everything else is set dressing.

Monday’s headline was a ban on under-16s using social media which, to some, sounds about as sinister as a wholesome ribbon-cutting until you ask the obvious question nobody in Downing Street wants asked aloud: how, precisely, do you stop a fourteen-year-old from opening Instagram without first checking the age of the forty-year-old?

You don’t. You can’t. So everyone gets carded. Britain is lifting the system wholesale from Australia, where a computer first scans your face and guesses your age from your cheekbones, then, failing that, surveils you to death, studies your browsing habits and the hours you keep, and then, when the algorithm throws up its hands, simply demands your passport.

The face scan is sold to you as the polite option, the velvet rope. It is, in fact, the funnel and, at the bottom of the funnel, sits the national identity check that three million people already told this government, in no uncertain terms, to scrap.

Keep reading

California GOP Senator Suggests Putting Marijuana Back On The Ballot To ‘Reverse’ Legalization

A California Republican senator says it is time to have a “serious discussion” about putting a measure on the ballot to potentially “reverse” legalization of marijuana in the state—also raising concerns about President Donald Trump’s move to reschedule cannabis at the federal level.

“I think it’s time to assess the effects, the significant unintended consequences of the legalization of marijuana, which has not just happened in California, but in other states too,” Sen. Roger Niello (R) said at a hearing of the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee last week.

“Now we can’t change it without going back to the people, but I think we should have a serious discussion, a serious analysis of the obvious…unintended negative consequences I don’t think that the writers of the proposition cared about,” he said as first reported by State Affairs, referring to the cannabis legalization ballot initiative that California voters approved in 2016. “I think these could have been predicted. They just wanted recreational use to be legalized.”

Niello raised concerns that “we’re even seeing our current president now advocating that by downplaying the classification of marijuana at the federal level.”

“We have seen significant negative consequences of this legalization, both here as well as in other states,” the senator, who was speaking at a hearing at which lawmakers approved a bill to legalize marijuana dispensary drive-thru windows in California, said. “I think it’s time for us to have a serious analysis of that, and whether or not we want to develop a proposition to go back to the voters and either reverse it or somehow reform it so that we don’t continually deal with the problems that we do.”

“I oppose the legalization of marijuana,” he said, citing data about cannabis use by young people and an alleged link to mental health problems and claiming that the 2016 reform was “written to please everybody” which resulted in a “dysfunctional policy that is bound for unintended consequences.”

Elsewhere in the U.S., marijuana legalization opponents are currently collecting signatures to put measures to roll back the reform in Maine and Massachusetts—though those anti-cannabis campaigns have faced accusations of misleading petitioning tactics.

A separate anti-marijuana effort in Arizona for a similar measure was dropped after its lead organizer said his initial concerns about the legal cannabis industry were misplaced.

Keep reading

Jeffries Just Told America What Democrats Will Do if They Win the House

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) had one clean chance to calm the country. He was asked whether Democrats would move to impeach President Donald Trump if they win control of the House in the midterms.

Jeffries could’ve said no, but he didn’t. His answer was careful, polished, and revealing: Democrats haven’t “ruled anything in and ruled anything out” when it comes to accountability.

Then came the softer wrapping. Jeffries talked about affordability, good jobs, housing, healthcare, education, and retirement. 

Fine words, needed words, great hand gestures.

Yet the hard word in the answer was impeachment, because he chose not to take it off the table.

The preview lines up with the record. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said after Trump’s Iran operation that Congress authorizes war and the president doesn’t. Her statement didn’t use the “I” word, but her argument fed the same Democratic claim that Trump had crossed constitutional lines. From AOC’s press release:

“The American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions. This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic.

“Just this week, Iran and the United States were negotiating key measures that could have staved off war. The President walked away from these discussions and chose war instead. President Trump flippantly acknowledged the possibility of American casualties, stating “that often happens in war.” 

“Mr. President: this was not an inevitability. This is a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach. Stop lying to the American people. 

“Violence begets violence. We learned this lesson in Iraq. We learned this lesson in Afghanistan. And we are about to learn it again in Iran. Bombs have yet to create enduring democracies in the region and this will be no different. 

“In moments of war, our Constitution is unambiguous: Congress authorizes war. The President does not. I will do my part to uphold our Constitution by voting YES on Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie’s War Powers Resolution. Every member of Congress must join us in rejecting this aimless war.” 

Other Democrats went straight to the article-writing stage. Short-timer Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) filed H. Res. 939 on Dec. 10, 2025seeking to impeach President Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors. The House voted to table it the next day, 237-140, with 47 members voting present. The party breakdown showed 140 Democrats voting against tabling the resolution and 47 voting present. Only 23 Democrats joined Republicans to stop it.

By April, Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) submitted H. Res. 1155, another impeachment resolution against Trump, and it was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) had already introduced H. Res. 353 in April 2025, with articles accusing Trump of high crimes and, you guessed it, misdemeanors.

So Jeffries’ answer wasn’t some accidental stumble on a Sunday show. He knows an outright yes would scare swing voters, and an outright no would anger the party’s loudest anti-Trump voices.

Instead, he chose the middle path, which keeps the option alive while sounding like a man focused on groceries.

Keep reading

Not Just the Dollar: Every Major Currency Has Lost Most of Its Value Since 1971

People predicting the collapse of the dollar often point to inflation and argue that the U.S. dollar has lost much of its purchasing power since 1971, when the United States went off the gold standard. That loss of purchasing power is absolutely true and quantifiable. Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI data, $100 in 1971 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $822 today, a cumulative loss of roughly 87%.

Inflation, while not good, does not necessarily mean that people are poorer. Inflation means that each dollar purchases less than it did in the past. However, people have dramatically more dollars today than they did in 1971. Nominal wages are dramatically higher today than in 1971. After adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has about the same purchasing power it did in 1978, but falls short of 1971 levels.

The decline in the dollar’s purchasing power is therefore real, but it does not by itself prove that the dollar is destined to collapse. A collapsing currency produces hyperinflation and a flight out of the currency. Zimbabwe’s inflation peaked at an estimated 89.7 sextillion percent annually in November 2008, with the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe issuing a $100 trillion note that could barely cover a bus fare. The government legalized foreign currencies, primarily the U.S. dollar, South African rand, and Botswana pula, for transactions, though successive versions of the Zimbabwean dollar continued to exist in various forms alongside them.

Venezuela’s peak annual inflation reached 1.37 million percent in 2018, according to the IMF, and the country had not recovered to anything resembling monetary stability before President Maduro was removed from office by the United States military.

The U.S. case is nowhere near this. Not only does the dollar persist, but it also remains the world’s preferred currency for trade settlement, foreign exchange reserves, and currency trading, and for good reason, because every major currency has experienced inflation and loss of purchasing power since 1971.

The British pound has lost roughly 95% of its purchasing power between 1971 and today, with £100 in 1971 equivalent to about £1,835 now, according to the Office for National Statistics’ composite price index data. Italy is even worse. The lira, which was Italy’s currency until 2002, depreciated so severely through the 1970s and 1980s oil-shock decades that prices in Italy today are roughly 20 times higher than in the late 1960s.

The euro, which replaced the lira, has itself lost purchasing power: €100 in 1997, the year the ECB’s Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices series begins, is equivalent to about €184 today, a loss of 46% in under three decades.

The ruble is the most extreme case among major economies, though a direct 1971 comparison is not possible because the Soviet ruble and the post-1992 Russian Federation ruble are effectively different currencies. From 1993 alone, the ruble lost over 99.9% of its purchasing power, per OECD and World Bank data.

In addition to the gold standard exit, U.S. debt is frequently cited as evidence of dollar decline, which is only partly valid. The underlying assumption that other countries carry little or no debt is false.

Japan’s government debt stands at 230% of GDP, making it the most indebted nation. The U.S. ranks 11th globally at 125%. China’s overall non-financial debt reached 312% of GDP in 2024, placing it among the most indebted countries in the world.

Countries with lower government debt-to-GDP ratios than the U.S. experienced similar declines in their currencies while paying substantially lower wages. This means their citizens are poorer than Americans despite their governments practicing greater fiscal austerity.

The UK’s government debt stood at 94.3% of GDP in 2025. The UNECE puts the UK’s average gross wage at roughly $57,260 annually, compared with a U.S. figure of approximately $82,900.

South Korea’s government debt was 46.8% of GDP in 2024. That is less than half the U.S. ratio. Yet the average gross wage in South Korea was $40,320, less than half the U.S. figure.

Canada’s government net debt-to-GDP ratio stood at 110% in 2024-25. Yet the Canadian dollar has lost roughly 87% of its purchasing power since 1971. Canada’s gross average wages came to roughly $60,680.

Germany is the most instructive example. Even Germany, the country most celebrated for monetary discipline and whose Bundesbank is often considered the gold standard of central banking, saw the Deutsche mark lose roughly 76% of its purchasing power between 1971 and 2002, when it was absorbed into the euro. Germany’s government debt stood at 63.5% of GDP in 2025, making it one of the least-indebted G7 economies. Despite that record, Germany still has the highest average wages among the major eurozone economies. Yet even those wages, at $69,433 annually, remain well below the U.S. figure of $82,933.

In short, while the U.S. government’s legendary debt is not good and inflation has taken a bite out of purchasing power, all countries have inflation, and all currencies have lost significant value over the past 50 years. The U.S. dollar is no closer to collapse than the euro, the pound, or any other major currency. On the contrary, the dollar remains the world’s currency of choice.

America remains the world’s largest economy by GDP and the eighth-richest country by GDP per capita, while maintaining one of the lowest inflation rates and unemployment rates among major economies.

Keep reading

Report: Obama Center Contractors Owed Millions and Safety Net to Spare Taxpayers Not Funded

Taxpayers could be left with a big tab if the Obama Presidential Center experiences financial trouble because its foundation has not yet established a promised $470 million safety net to guard against a public bailout.

That according a Fox News Digital investigation of the center’s finances as Chicago awaits its grand opening on Friday, June 19.

The outlet’s investigation, published Saturday, found that “multiple contractors and subcontractors claiming losses ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions on the project, with some alleging they remain locked in payment disputes and face financial ruin…”

In an agreement with the city of Chicago, the foundation promised to create the endowment, essentially a reserve of cash, as part of its 99-year sweetheart deal to to control the publicly owned 19.3-acre section of Jackson Park for a one-time payment of just $10.

The foundation had deposited just $1 million into the reserve fund in 2021, but the balance has largely not changed according to public filings, the outlet reported.

The shortfall is not the first chapter in matters not going as expected for the ambitious project, which also included handsome salaries for former Obama presidential aids.

As Breitbart News reported last November:

The Obama library was originally estimated to cost $300 million, before the budget was revised upward to $500 million in 2017, and then further up to $700 million in 2021. Now, in a financial disclosure form, it appears it will cost much closer to $850 million to construct the mammoth grey monolith building in the South Side of Chicago in Jackson Park.

Executives at the Obama Foundation “are among the best paid of all cultural centers in the nation, with CEO Valerie Jarrett paid $740,000 last year.” Robin Cohen, the executive vice president of the foundation, earned over $600,000 and Tina Chen, the group’s chief legal and people officer, earned $425,000.

Called a “center,” rather than a presidential library, as  Obama’s presidential records will be held by the National Archives in Maryland.

No final cost has been publicly released for the Chicago project. It reportedly has been entirely funded by private donations from individuals, corporations and other foundations.

“One of their core promises was they were supposed to create an endowment as basically an insurance policy so the taxpayers wouldn’t get stuck with the bill,” Illinois GOP Chair Robert Grogan told Fox News Digital.

He continued, “They promised hundreds of millions of dollars for it. It’s still sitting at the $1 million mark [where it stood] when they opened it up. So I don’t believe that they’ve kept that promise.”

Grogan said reports that contractors and subcontractors remain locked in payment disputes make the underfunded safety net more problematic.

The outlet’s investigation identified multiple construction firms that were claiming losses “from hundreds of thousands of dollars to tens of millions.”

Keep reading

Horrible! Two-Thirds of Colleges Require DEI Courses to Graduate

A shocking new report from Campus Reform found that 67% of colleges and universities across America require Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion courses for students to graduate.

The report, originally conducted by Speech First, “took a look at general education requirements at 248 colleges and found that 165 of them require students to take a DEI course to graduate.”

A tiny 33 percent of so-called institutes of higher learning didn’t offer DEI courses, according to the surveys.

This violates federal executive orders that sought to expunge DEI and Wokeness from schools.

Sadly, “additionally, the report found that ”students are subjected to courses advocating far-left ideological perspectives and pushing far-left political advocacy.”

“59% of the universities surveyed that have DEI course requirements are public, while 41% are private.”

This is pure leftist indoctrination, and sadly, it has not gone away despite the public having rejected Woke and DEI ideology at the polls by electing President Trump.

“Speech First Executive Director Cherise Trump told FOX Business that her organization began digging after conversations with students in college.

”We had heard about some of the trainings through freshman orientations and some of the online modules,” said Trump. “But we had not heard that you have to take full semester-long courses in order to graduate, so we wanted to look more into this, and that’s when we started digging.”

In a shocking example, Loyola Marymount University, a private Jesuit institution, offered a course titled “Bad Catholics.”

This woke garbage is in opposition to the will of the American public and is offensive to many patriots.

The content of this course is just as bad as one would expect from the title ”The goal of this course is to explore contemporary voices of loyal dissent in the catholic church,” the course description states. “The course will begin by exploring questions of teaching and authority, belief and dissent, and belonging and ”cancel culture” from theological and philosophical perspectives. We will then explore voices of dissent from Feminist theologians, Black and Latinx liberation theologians, Queer theologians, and Eco-theologians. These four areas of dissent demonstrate the plurality of discourse among contemporary Catholic theologians and the struggle over orthodox belief and right practice that takes place under asymmetrical power relations.”

Keep reading

Space: The Now Frontier And The AI Revolution

After last Friday’s extreme move (More Than Rates Moving Markets) we had a relatively tame week with the S&P and Nasdaq both gaining around 0.7%, but neither getting back to their highs of the week, set on Tuesday. Yields drifted moderately lower on the week, primarily on the back of steep declines in the price of oil (though I do feel the need to point out the Jan 2027 WTI contract, which I’ve been focusing on, is still at $76.1, barely one dollar lower than where it closed last Friday – I remain in the higher for longer camp). Credit spreads remain firm and the asset class remains “boring” which is a good thing! 

Now let’s address two bigger picture issues that have been taking up a lot of time during recent client calls and visits. Space and AI. 

Space: The Now Frontier 

Space: The Final Frontier still gives me the chills! The excitement of exploration! The IPO of SpaceX and all the discussion it has created has brought back that feeling. 

A colony of 1 million people on Mars! I love the concept! I have 0 opinion on whether the number of shares that Musk gets for achieving that target is the right number, but I love having that concept out there. 

Think big:! This concept floating around, and now documented into Wall Street, excites me. On the back of Artemis II and the planned lunar landings, there is a lot of potential for new discoveries. 

On a more practical (or near-term outlook) it can lead to AI and Data Centers in space. New sources of energy and potentially other materials. 

But there are also important National Security elements that are gaining more attention. 

Many members of Academy’s Geopolitical Intelligence Group lament that we have been “soft” on space. That we have ignored the real dangers to national security by not focusing on space as much as we need to. While the Space Force was a step in the right direction, many argue that we are behind (some might argue woefully behind) where we should be in terms of ensuring that space is safe and our interests are protected! 

At the simple and on the not controversial end of the spectrum, is “space junk.” The debris in orbit is increasing. While not currently posing a risk, it is something that should be addressed better than it has been. 

What about GPS and communications? I’m not sure that I could walk to the corner store without using some map app. The working assumption that “no one is interested in disrupting GPS” may be naïve? While at least 95% of communication remains “terrestrial” (fiber optic cables, undersea cables, cell towers, etc.) space will become increasingly important to communications. While it might not be “mission critical” to protect the communications equipment in space today, it could be.

Who will control discoveries? 

Let’s say we find some vital resources on the moon (seems the most likely “surprise” that could occur in the near future). Who will control that material? 

  • At best, the discoverer and those with the capabilities to take advantage of such material.  
  • At worst, might is right

We expect this administration, and future administrations, will spend more on space to support National Security. This is a bipartisan issue as we think about the myriad of possibilities for space. Not just the good and altruistic possibilities, but also about the risk that some other country doesn’t share such a cooperative spirit about the future of space. 

This is by no means, “closing the barn door after the horses have run out,” but it is something that deserves more serious attention and money going forward.  

The national security elements are in addition to the commercial opportunities that will be funded as corporations rush to harness the potential! 

If waking up to a $2.1 trillion market cap (and the first trillionaire) doesn’t motivate entrepreneurial and capitalistic spirits, then I should just give up this job, because it would go against everything I understand about capitalism! 

Space may be the “final frontier” but it is also the “now” frontier, which is incredibly exciting! 

Keep reading

Barack Obama Trashes Trump’s Iran Deal, Says He Doubts New US-Iran Agreement is Different From His Disastrous 2015 Nuclear Deal (

Former President Barack Obama trashed President Trump’s deal with Iran during an interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts.

The full interview will air on Wednesday on Good Morning America.

President Trump on Saturday confirmed that the Iran deal will be signed on Sunday.

Trump said the Strait of Hormuz will be opened and no money will change hands as he trashed Barack Obama’s disastrous Iran Nuke Deal (JCPOA).

“Barack Hussein Obama’s Deal with Iran, the JCPOA, was an easy, beautiful, smooth road to a Nuclear Weapon, which Iran would have had six years ago, and would have used long before now,” Trump said in a Truth Social post.

“My Agreement with Iran is the exact opposite, A WALL TO NO NUCLEAR WEAPON! In fact, they no longer want a Nuclear Weapon, nor will they have one, either through purchase, development, or any other form of procurement,” Trump said.

“Unlike Obama’s Hundreds of Billions of Dollars in payments to them, including 1.7 Billion Dollars in green, cold cash, no money will exchange hands,” Trump said, savaging the former president.

Bitter Obama trashed Trump just hours before the deal was set to be signed.

“You spent a lot of time wrestling with a nuclear Iran. How do you think things are being handled right now?” Robin Roberts asked Obama.

“It is doubtful that any agreement that arises is going to be significantly different or a significant improvement from the deal that we had in the first place, and had worked for a long stretch of time before we–the United States pulled out,” Obama said.

“I’m hopeful that the bombing stops and ordinary people are no longer suffering as a consequence of the war,” Obama added.

Obama trashed Trump for “bombing” his way to a solution.

Keep reading

Gonorrhea Rates Are Soaring In NYC: Mamdani Rushes Free Chocolate Condoms To Citizens Of Big Apple!

So what’s the priority of New York City’s Mamdani administration these days?

FrontPage Magazine reported:

Gonorrhea rates in New York City have more than doubled in a decade and syphilis is ‘surging’ statewide. Mamdani’s Department of Health has responded to this crisis by rushing a free supply of lubricant and chocolate flavored condoms.

Beam me up, Scotty.

FPM quoted NYC Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services Helen Arteaga as stating,

“Providing high-quality sexual and reproductive healthcare services is a priority for the Mamdani Administration. Making safer sex products more accessible to the most affected and vulnerable communities is a critical public health need.”

Well, it’s good to have priorities. But are chocolate-flavored condoms safer than regular old garden-variety ones? I’m guessing not, but I couldn’t tell you from experience.

FPM again:

Councilwoman Pierina Sanchez, a Mamdani ally, explained that the free chocolate flavored condoms were necessary because “inequities persist among women, low-income households, and Black and Latino New Yorkers.

Women, low-income households, and black and Latino New Yorkers are adversely and disproportionately affected by a relative dearth of chocolate-flavored condoms? Is New York a den of iniquity inequity?

Unfortunately for virtue-signaling do-gooders, the free chocolaty condoms are coming from Karex, a Malaysian company that is apparently the largest manufacturer of condoms on Earth.

Why is this unfortunate?

According to The Telegraph, some Karex workers said they are put up in cramped and undignified conditions, with as many as a dozen housed in damp and unhygienic dormitories.

Workers at one site are allegedly granted just half of a steel bunkbed, with no mattress — and only have access to a filthy, broken toilet. And for these “amenities,” about 12 dollars a month is deducted from their wages. The Telegraph reported that one Karex employee said “sometimes poisonous snakes come in” to the dorms.

Not sure if that’s a blessing or a curse.

“Forget the crime! Forget the fact that the city is broke! Chocolate condoms for everybody!” does not seem like a winning slogan for Mamdani … but what do I know?

Ask not what you can do for the city, ask what Mayor Mamdani can do to — I mean for — you!”

I’m sure someone in the Mamdani administration will tout the mayor’s actions thusly: “These delectable prophylactics will be generously distributed, free of cost, to all genders with a penis … and to all those that love them! Mayor Mamdani is hard at work to make your lives better!”

Considering the shape the city is in, this may be the biggest cover up in the history of the Big Apple.

Keep reading

Graham Platner Mocked Teen’s Unsuccessful Suicide Attempt in Resurfaced Reddit Post

Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner is under fresh scrutiny after a resurfaced Reddit post appeared to show him mocking a teenage girl’s suicide attempt.

The post from May 2012, obtained by The New York Post, featured a photograph of a teenage girl hanging from an upper-story window while several students attempted to pull her to safety.

“A girl at my old highschool [sic] tried jumping from a window because her cousin died the day before,” the caption read. “These students saved her. I have hope.”

According to screenshots circulating online, an account identified as “P-Hustle” responded with the comment: “Someone clearly isn’t trying hard enough.”

The resurfaced post is the latest in a growing series of controversies surrounding the Maine Democrat, who recently won his primary election.

Other archived Reddit comments attributed to Platner have drawn criticism in recent weeks.

These have included posts in which he allegedly mocked a wounded Purple Heart recipient, praised a Hamas attack on Israeli soldiers and made graphic comments about his personal behavior.

Keep reading