Blog

63 Arrested, Crypto Millions Frozen As FBI, DOJ Team Up With Meta, Coinbase And Starlink To Bust Scammers

More than 1 million scam-related online accounts were taken down, and millions of dollars worth of cryptocurrency were frozen, as part of a crackdown on Southeast Asian scam networks.

The crackdown operations, conducted by U.S. and international agencies led by the Department of Justice (DOJ), began on May 18, when the DOJ’s Scam Center Strike Force brought together the FBI, Royal Thai Police, and law enforcement agencies from Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand to identify and disrupt criminal scam networks.

Meta, Microsoft, Starlink, and Coinbase were part of joint operations held in Washington and Bangkok, Meta said in a June 3 statement.

“More than a million online assets were disrupted as a result of the operation – including 1.4 million accounts, pages, and groups across Facebook and Instagram, 20,000 Microsoft accounts, and thousands of Starlink kits – and the Royal Thai Police has arrested 63 individuals involved in scam operations,” Meta said.

Cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase “froze more than $3 million in cryptocurrency assets tied to criminal networks.” In addition, Starlink “terminated connectivity for thousands of Starlink kits that were attributed to unlawful use,” it said.

Criminal syndicates behind the fraud have exploited millions of people globally via romance scams and investment fraud, and through utilizing forced labor. This makes coordinated disruption critical to protecting people, Meta said.

FBI Director Kash Patel thanked Meta for the company’s assistance in a June 3 post on X, and said the operation was “just the beginning!”

The DOJ said that the joint initiative interrupted malicious network connections hosted by scammers. Moreover, servers and hosting infrastructure associated with the scam networks in Southeast Asia were decommissioned.

Many scam centers are run from Laos, Cambodia, and Burma along the border with Thailand, across several industrial-scale compounds.

Keep reading

Canada’s Senate rejects amendment to Bill C-9 that would ban ‘residential school denialism’

Canadian senators voted down a recent proposed amendment to anti-Christian “hate speech” legislation, Bill C-9, which would have criminalized “residential school denialism.”

On Wednesday, senators voted 41–32 against adopting an amendment sponsored by Sen. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut), who claimed that residential school attendees such as herself faced harms, as well as other changes to the bill. There were two abstentions.

Karetak-Lindell’s amendment would have changed Canada’s Criminal Code to say that any person who willfully promotes hatred against indigenous peoples by “condoning, denying or downplaying” alleged abuses linked to Canada’s residential school system outside of a private conversation could face prosecution or even a summary conviction, which could then lead to potential jail time.

The new amendment to Bill C-9 would have needed a House of Commons ratification if the Senate passed the bill as it stands in the third reading.

The news of the Senate’s vote-down of the amendment received praised from Conservative MP Andrew Lawton.

“The Senate has REJECTED the Senate Human Rights Committee’s amendments to Bill C-9, including the criminalization of residential school ‘downplaying’,” he wrote in an X post.

It is not yet clear what this means for Bill C-9, but the recent vote likely means that the bill will be further stalled from becoming law.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Bill C-9, which is before Canada’s Senate, would criminalize religious expression and belief when quoting parts of the Bible, including passages about homosexuality and gender.

Bill C-9 has been blasted by constitutional experts as allowing empowered police and the government to go after those deemed to have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way. The bill was introduced by Justice Minister Sean Fraser last year.

Specifically, Bill C-9 would remove Section 319(3)(b) of Canada’s Criminal Code. This section provides protection to good-faith expression of a person’s religious views, which are based on religious texts such as the Holy Bible.

Bill C-9 has been blasted by some of Canada’s premiers.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith recently said that she does not want to see authorities “monitoring” church services in her province in light of Bill C-9.

Keep reading

The Left’s New Favorite Christian Politician Has a Theology Problem

There’s been a ton of talk about James Talarico, the Democrats’ nominee for the Senate seat in Texas, and how he claims that Christianity is a left-wing faith. The left so desperately wants it to be true, even as so many leftists reject Christianity.

A couple of mainstream media outlets are hyping up Talarico as a new kind of Christian politician. What they’re inadvertently doing is revealing how out of touch with true Christianity Talarico actually is.

If you want an idea of how far out of the mainstream Talarico’s theology is, check out the first few paragraphs of a profile of the candidate’s pastor in the New York Times:

On a recent Sunday morning at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas, Jim Rigby asked his congregation to share what came to mind when he mentioned the Apostle Paul, the major Christian figure to whom 13 books in the Bible are attributed. They cheerfully complied:

“Villain!”

“Homophobic!”

“He’s a jerk.”

Paul’s attributed writings include passages seen as encouraging wives to submit to their husbands and instructing them to be quiet in church, and others condemning same-sex sexual behavior as sinful.

Mr. Rigby acknowledged the trouble. But in a sermon that also cited the Bhagavad Gita and the Buddha, he nudged his congregation to reconsider the apostle, one of the most important in the early Christian church. “Aristotle and Plato, they were creeps, too, in modern times,” Mr. Rigby said. “But do we want to learn from our ancestors or not?”

That fourth paragraph gives a lot away. We expect the Times to approach everything from the left, so of course, it would judge the Apostle Paul to be on the “wrong side of history,” to use that phrase the left loves so much.

But the article tells us much more about the faith environment Talarico grew up in. His pastor:

…does not use male pronouns for God, for example, because it is a kind of “violence” to imply to a girl that her brother is more like God than she is, he said in an interview after the service. He does not use the word “Lord,” because it conjures a wealthy, European, male God, he said. For that matter, he added, he does not much care for the word “God.” He uses it on occasion, he said, but he tries to use synonyms, because “it’s going to mean something different to everybody.”

In his sermon that morning, he had referred to “the creative impulse of the universe,” which “can be called God, but it doesn’t have to be called God.”

This is the environment that shaped Talarico’s views on faith, scripture, and theology. No wonder he doesn’t sound like any mainstream Christian.

The Atlantic gives the game away with a ballsy headline: “Texans Will Decide if Jesus Was a Lefty.” In this piece, Elizabeth Bruenig repeats the lie that podcasters Joshua Haymes and Brooks Potteiger called for Talarico’s death, when, as I wrote in March (see the link below), the two men were using the biblical language of killing Talarico’s sin nature and arguing that he should be, in Paul’s words, “crucified with Christ” (Galatians 2:20).

Keep reading

Arizona Attorney General Shot Down by AZ Supreme Court in Lawfare Case Against 2020 Trump Electors – Plans to Seek New Grand Jury Indictment

The Arizona Supreme Court has denied Arizona Attorney General’s bid to revive her lawfare against 2020 electors in Arizona after an appeals court dismissed the case, saying Mayes misled and improperly improperly a grand jury. 

In April, 18 individuals, including Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, RNC attorney Christina Bobb, conservative attorney John Eastman, and Trump campaign adviser Boris Epshteyn, were indicted by Kris Mayes’ grand jury for challenging the stolen 2020 election and casting an alternative slate of electors for President Trump.

The charges include nine counts of conspiracy, fraudulent schemes and artifices, fraudulent schemes and practices, and forgery. “Defendants and unindicted coconspirators schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency to keep Unindicted Coconspirator 1 in office against the will of Arizona’s voters,” Mayes’s indictment alleged. President Trump was named “Unindicted Coconspirator 1.”

But her case fell apart after a far-left judge allowed the defendants to argue that the charges were politically motivated. The same judge later recused himself after he was busted bashing white men and making demands that other judges in Arizona support Kamala Harris against her conservative critics.

A judge later ruled that state prosecutors improperly presented the case to a grand jury and failed to inform jurors of the Electoral Count Act, which dictates the rules of electoral vote counting and exonerates the defendants. An appeals court sided with the lower court judge, refusing even to consider the case in September.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that Mayes sought to revive her case by appealing to the state’s high court last November.

Keep reading

Brooke Rollins Details How Trump Admin Is Cracking Down on Food Stamp Fraud

Agriculture Department Secretary Brooke Rollins on Thursday during a hearing explained how the Trump administration is working to combat food stamp fraud.

Rollins wrote, “@USDA has NEVER had access to State SNAP data. Not until this Administration demanded it. That’s why every figure from years past is meaningless. From the 29 states that DID share data, we’ve already identified at least $3 billion a year in fraud. Extrapolated nationwide: more than $10 billion. This isn’t ‘erroneous payments.’ This is FRAUD — and yes, @RepAngieCraig, I know the difference. Do you?”

Rollins shared a clip of her exchange with Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Angie Craig (D-MN) in which the secretary explains that much of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamp, data they receive from states such as California and Minnesota cannot be trusted.

“The lowest fraud rate of any program in America is the SNAP program. You can’t be serious when you say that,” Rollins said.

She then said, “@RepShontelBrown just said the quiet part out loud: Democrats want as many people on welfare as possible. It’s remarkable.”

Keep reading

A Regional Crisis or a Protracted International Disorder?

On May 31, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam gave a televised address in which he condemned Israel’s invasion and intensified attacks on southern Lebanon as a dangerous escalation, warning that a “scorched-earth policy” will never bring security to Tel Aviv: “Israel must understand that with its scorched-earth policy, collective punishment, and the bulldozing of villages and towns, it will gain neither security nor stability.”

As Salam said, this process is now advancing. “Israel is practicing mass displacement that amounts to collective punishment. It no longer targets only specific locations or areas, but has adopted a policy of comprehensive destruction of cities, towns, and all aspects of life within them.”

Tactical wins, strategic devastation

Israel’s Obliteration Doctrine is a lethal mix of scorched earth policy, collective punishment and civilian victimization, coupled with massive indiscriminate bombardment and systematic use of artificial intelligence (AI), as I have demonstrated in The Obliteration Doctrine (2025) and The Fall of Israel (2024).

This doctrine often goes hand in hand with ecocide, which Israel has committed in Gaza and is committing in Lebanon. The net effect is ethnic cleansing and, given continued and unhindered escalation, genocidal atrocities.

Whether Prime Minister Netanyahu, former PM Naftali Bennett or former head of the Israeli defense forces Gadi Eisenkot will win the 2026 Israeli legislative election is effectively immaterial. With or without Netanyahu, the Obliteration Doctrine will prevail.

Netanyahu brought to power the most far-right Messianic government in Israeli history. Naftali Bennett is a millionaire politician and the ex-leader of a religious Zionist far-right party. Ironically, the more “moderate” of the three is the ex-military chief Gadi Eisenkot who first tested the Obliteration Doctrine in Dahiya, a Shia enclave in Beirut in 2006.

The greatest threat to Israel’s long-term future is not external enemies alone, but the transformation of military escalation into a permanent governing principle. Once security policy becomes inseparable from territorial expansion, ethnic cleansing and perpetual warfare, the consequences extend far beyond the battlefield.

Keep reading

Pentagon Cuts the Faith-Code Maze From 200-Plus to 31

The Pentagon just cut its list of religious affiliation codes for service members from over 200 down to 31. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced the reform in March as part of a broader effort to refocus the Chaplain Corps.

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Anthony Tata later released the memo making the change official. The old system had sprawled into a giant administrative junk drawer, stuffed with codes many troops never used and chaplains didn’t need to serve the force. From Just the News:

Undersecretary of Defense Anthony Tata released the memo, stating the change will “streamline the DoW collection of religious preferences for service members to enhance the delivery of targeted religious support from the Chaplaincy,” according to Military.com.

“The new list will provide chaplains with clear, readily available information that will better enable them to anticipate the religious support needs of service members and to provide religious support activities that align with service members’ personal faith and practices,” Tata said. 

Hegseth said the previous system had grown to “well over 200 faith codes,” called it “impractical and unusable,” and noted many codes were never used at all. He also said 82% of religious service members use only six of the codes. From Religion News Service:

Hegseth has been explicit about his Christian faith. He worships at a church run by a self-described Christian nationalist and has held Christian worship services at the Pentagon. He has pushed social media messages that mix war preparations with Bible verses as well as official statements that champion a disputed, faith-focused version of U.S. history.

In 2017, during the first Trump administration, when the military expanded the number of recognized religious faiths it said it was doing so to provide “more accurate demographic data for religious groups,” to enable “better planning for religious support to the force” and to provide “a better assessment of the capabilities and requirements of each Military Service’s Chaplain Corps.”

The reform renames the old “faith and belief coding system” as “religious affiliation codes” and returns the list to a simpler purpose: providing chaplains clear information so they can support troops in line with their stated faith background and practice.

The new list keeps broad religious categories that cover the faith service members report most often. The list includes Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, agnostics, and major Christian groups such as Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, and others.

The dropped codes include atheism, Asatru, Eckankar, New Age churches, paganism, spiritualism, Troth, Unitarian Universalism, and several Wiccan groups.

It’s time to cue the usual panic choir, warming up somewhere between “theocracy” and “how dare the database stop flattering my boutique label.”

There’s an argument that the change could make smaller faith groups less visible in the military system, where Hegseth’s chaplain reforms are part of a wider Christian emphasis at the Pentagon.

Those concerns deserve a hearing, but the policy doesn’t ban any service member from worshipping, seeking accommodation, speaking with a chaplain, or holding any belief.

A code list isn’t the First Amendment.

Keep reading

Democrat Xavier Becerra Advances in California Governor’s Primary Race as Mail-in Ballots Flood In Two Days After Polls Close

Democrat Xavier Becerra, former Health and Human Services Secretary for Biden, advanced in the California governor’s primary race 48 hours after the polls closed on Thursday evening.

On Tuesday evening, Republican candidate Steve Hilton was in the lead shortly after the polls closed, and he is still holding on.

Two days later, and only 57% of the ballots have been counted in the California governor’s race.

Mail-in ballots pouring in after election night have favored Democrat Becerra and Tom Steyer.

Xavier Becerra currently has 1,468,875 votes at 26.04%

Steve Hilton still has a comfortable lead, holding on with 1,532,530 votes at 27.17%.

Democrat Tom Steyer has 1,139,578 votes at 20.18%

Keep reading

War, Arrogance, and the Unraveling of US Power

The United States is not approaching collapse because it lacks power. It is approaching collapse because it has too often mistaken power for wisdom. Its armed forces remain unmatched in reach, its financial system remains central to global commerce, and its technology sector continues to shape the future. Yet these advantages can conceal a more dangerous condition: the erosion of judgment.

A superpower begins to decay when it treats coercion as strategy, military reach as political authority, and exemption from rules as evidence of strength. The result is not immediate collapse, but a cumulative weakening of legitimacy, fiscal discipline, institutional trust, and strategic clarity.

The war on Iran is the latest expression of this disorder. Washington and Israel possess overwhelming conventional capabilities, and early assessments show that Iran has suffered serious military damage. Nevertheless, the central question is not whether the United States can strike Iran; it is whether violence can produce a stable political outcome.

The conflict has already shifted from a narrow military campaign into a test of endurance, maritime pressure, domestic patience, and bargaining leverage. Iran’s ability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz demonstrates the difference between battlefield superiority and strategic control. A weaker state need not defeat a superpower outright. It need only raise the cost of victory beyond what that superpower’s public, economy, and allies are willing to bear.

This is the recurring failure of American interventionism. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and now Iran belong to a broader tradition in which Washington enters conflicts with maximal confidence and exits them with diminished credibility. The pattern is not simply a military error. It is a conceptual error: the assumption that destroying capacity is equivalent to creating order. The post-9/11 wars revealed how quickly punitive power becomes a strategic burden. Brown University’s Costs of War project has documented the enormous human, fiscal, and social consequences of that era. Iran risks extending the same logic into a still more dangerous regional environment.

The deeper problem is imperial overstretch. Paul Kennedy’s classic argument was not that great powers fall because they become poor, but because they allow external commitments to exceed the economic and political base that sustains them. That diagnosis remains relevant. The United States carries global military obligations, subsidizes allies, maintains vast overseas deployments, and finances repeated wars while its own fiscal position deteriorates. The Congressional Budget Office projects large deficits and rising public debt through 2036, with interest costs absorbing an expanding share of national resources. A republic cannot indefinitely combine imperial commitments with domestic under-investment and expect no internal consequence.

The moral contradiction is equally corrosive. At least until recently, the United States has claimed to defend sovereignty in Ukraine, oppose coercion in Asia, and uphold international law against rivals. Yet in the Middle East, it has often shielded allies from the very standards it invokes elsewhere. U.S. support for Israel amid the Gaza catastrophe, the wider regional war, and the confrontation with Iran have deepened the perception that American legality is selective. Human rights organizations have warned that continued military support amid alleged serious abuses risks complicity and weakens the credibility of the legal order Washington has traditionally claimed to defend. A power that applies law only to adversaries does not preserve order; it converts international law into a global power hierarchy.

U.S. economic policy now displays the same arrogance. Sanctions, tariffs, export controls, investment restrictions, and financial penalties have become routine instruments of U.S. statecraft. Used carefully, they can serve legitimate security purposes. Used excessively, they teach other states that dependence on U.S.-controlled systems is a vulnerability. RAND’s recent work argues that the boundary between economic security and economic statecraft has broken down, and that U.S. policy now needs clearer tests of purpose, economic soundness, legitimacy, and sustainability. Research on financial sanctions similarly notes that the overuse of dollar power can encourage hedging against the dollar-centered system. Coercion may deliver short-term compliance, but it can also lay the groundwork for long-term exit.

Keep reading

Weingarten Blames Screens, Not Herself, For Falling Test Scores

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten is sounding the alarm about the decade-long decline in student test scores, pointing to screens and devices as a culprit. She’s calling it a “call to action.”

She left out the part about how she helped cause the problem in the first place.

For two years during the COVID pandemic, Weingarten and the AFT fought aggressively to keep schools closed. In July 2020, as the Trump administration urged schools to reopen, Weingarten called the push “reckless,” “callous,” and “cruel,” and threatened the possibility of safety strikes.

Internal emails later released by a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee showed the AFT had access to draft guidance from the federal Centers for Disease Control before it was made public, as well as proposed specific language that could trigger renewed closures.

Research published afterward confirmed what was already evident: Districts with stronger teachers unions were significantly less likely to reopen for in-person instruction, even after controlling for local COVID conditions.

So kids stayed home. They got on computer screens and stayed there for two years, cut off from teachers, friends, and anything resembling a normal childhood.

The consequences were not abstract. The National Assessment of Educational Progress recorded the largest declines in math and reading scores in its history. Reading results dropped to levels not seen since the early 1990s.

Researchers documented surging rates of anxiety, depression, and social developmental delays among children who spent critical years in isolation. The damage, experts say, will take a generation to undo.

In her book published last fall, Weingarten wrote that she “…led the AFT in developing a concrete plan to reopen schools as quickly and safely as possible.” That’s a remarkable claim given the documented record of what her union actually did.

Weingarten told Congress in 2023 there were “… things we really didn’t get right,” including the impact of prolonged closures. That acknowledgment was notable, but what followed it wasn’t accountability. It was a pivot.

Keep reading