Blog

EU Veterans Rally to Recast the Digital Services Act as Accountability Not Control

It’s not every day that a collection of retired European grandees emerges from Brussels’ revolving doors to tell everyone how misunderstood the European Union is.

Yet here we are, with Bertrand Badré, Margrethe Vestager, Mariya Gabriel, Nicolas Schmit, and Guillaume Klossa linking arms to pen a sentimental defense of the bloc’s new digital commandments.

Their essay, “The Truth About Europe’s Regulation of Digital Platforms,” aims to assure us that Europe’s online rulebook, the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), does not constitute censorship. It is “accountability,” they say.

In their telling, the DSA is less a blunt legal instrument than a moral document, a kind of digital Magna Carta designed to civilize Silicon Valley’s chaotic playground.

“There is no content regulation at the EU level,” they wrote, invoking the phrase like a magic spell meant to ward off skeptics.

The laws, they explained, simply make big tech companies “evaluate and mitigate systemic risks” and “act against illegal content.” Nothing to see here, just a little transparency, a dash of democracy protection, and the occasional removal of whatever a member state happens to call “illegal.”

It is the sort of language that can only come from officials who have spent decades describing regulation as liberation.

The letter was a response to a growing chorus of critics, including former US officials, who say Europe’s digital regime gives bureaucrats indirect control over what billions of people can see or say online.

Under the DSA, platforms must scan for “harmful or misleading” content, report their mitigation efforts, and warn users when something gets zapped.

Free speech groups have pointed out that when the law tells companies to “evaluate risks to democracy,” those companies tend to err on the side of deleting anything remotely controversial.

To them, “mitigation” often means mass deletion.

Badré and company brushed this off. “When we require platforms to be transparent about their algorithms, to assess risks to democracy and mental health, to remove clearly illegal content while notifying those affected, we are not censoring,” they wrote.

“We are insisting that companies with unprecedented power over public discourse operate with some measure of public accountability.”

When Europe does it, it is not censorship, it is civic hygiene.

Keep reading

Germany’s “Transparency Act” Lets Regulators Search Media Offices and Platforms Without Warrants

The German government has discovered a clever way to expand its surveillance powers: call it “transparency.” The federal cabinet has approved a bill that would let state agents enter media offices and digital platforms without needing a judge’s permission.

The official justification, ensuring honesty in political advertising, sounds harmless enough until you read the fine print and realize it’s about as transparent as a brick wall.

The “Political Advertising Transparency Act” is described as an effort to align with new EU rules on political ad disclosure.

What it actually does is grant the Bundesnetzagentur, a telecom regulator, search powers usually reserved for criminal investigators.

If the agency suspects a company has failed to file the right paperwork, it could send its people to “inspect” offices without a court order, provided they claim there’s an “imminent danger.”

“Imminent danger” is one of those magic bureaucratic phrases that can mean anything from “credible bomb threat” to “somebody forgot to upload a PDF.”

Once that phrase appears in law, the limits become a matter of interpretation.

Legal experts have warned that the law tramples Germany’s Basic Law, which guarantees the inviolability of the home. For journalists, the stakes are higher.

Confidential sources, ongoing investigations, and protected data could all be exposed to inspection because a regulator feels “concerned” about compliance.

In plain language: this opens the door to state intrusion under the banner of good governance.

Keep reading

Rising psychedelic use has not led to a corresponding surge in hospital admissions

A new analysis suggests that while the use of psychedelic substances appears to be increasing in the United States, this trend has not resulted in a corresponding surge in emergency room visits or hospitalizations. The findings indicate that severe adverse events requiring hospital care for hallucinogens remain comparatively rare when measured against other substances like alcohol and opioids. This research was published in JAMA Network Open.

The cultural landscape regarding psychedelics is shifting rapidly in the United States. Changes in state and local laws regarding decriminalization are occurring alongside increased media attention on the potential therapeutic benefits of drugs like psilocybin and MDMA. Government agencies have granted breakthrough therapy designations to some of these substances, acknowledging their potential medical utility.

This changing landscape raises important safety questions for public health officials. It is necessary to understand whether increased availability and reduced stigma are leading to more adverse health outcomes in the general population. Jacob Steinle, a psychiatry resident, and Kevin Xu, an assistant professor at Washington University in St. Louis, led an investigation to address this gap.

“Hallucinogen use is increasing in recreational settings, and legislation around clinical use is evolving,” explained Steinle. “Prior to the study, relatively little was known about the safety of these substances in real-world settings beyond small clinical trials or theoretical risk assessments. We wanted to investigate the prevalence of hospitalizations associated with hallucinogens to address this knowledge gap.”

To address this, the research team designed a retrospective cohort study using large-scale administrative data. They utilized records from the Merative MarketScan Commercial and Multi-State Medicaid databases.

These databases provide a comprehensive view of healthcare claims from a diverse population across the country. The study period spanned seven years, covering data from 2016 through 2023. The investigators specifically focused on individuals between the ages of 16 and 64 years.

This age range captures the demographic groups most likely to engage in substance use. The researchers focused on identifying specific medical codes associated with hallucinogen-related disorders. They used the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, known as ICD-10.

Specifically, they looked for the code F16, which denotes hallucinogen-related issues in medical records. The team calculated the monthly rate of these admissions to track changes over time. They expressed this rate as a proportion of all substance-related emergency or hospital admissions.

Keep reading

Trump: Venezuela to Turn over 30-50 Million Barrels of Oil to U.S.

President Donald Trump announced that the “interim authorities” in charge of Venezuela would be giving between 30 and 50 million “Barrels of High Quality, Sanctioned Oil” to the United States.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump explained that the oil would “be sold at its Market Price,” and that Trump would ensure the money from the sales would be “used to benefit the people of Venezuela” and the U.S.

“I am pleased to announce that the Interim Authorities in Venezuela will be turning over between 30 and 50 MILLION Barrels of High Quality, Sanctioned Oil, to the United States of America,” Trump said. “This Oil will be sold at its Market Price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States!”

Keep reading

George W. Bush Missed the Chance for Peace With Russia

Vladimir Putin:… Of course certain differences exist between us. We know about them, but it’s important to cement the positive achievements. This is the way to go…

It is clear that withdrawing from any kind of controls on nuclear warheads is a dangerous thing to do.

George W. Bush: We need to work on that. I’m concerned about transparency on what looks like a nuclear launch and everyone panics. We need to work this out. Let me just say I understand your concerns.

Putin:… A missile launch from a submarine in Northern Europe will only take six minutes to reach Moscow

Bush: I understand.

Putin: And we have established a set of response measures – there’s nothing good about it. Within a few minutes our entire nuclear response capability will be in the sky.

Bush: I know.

Thus began the final meeting between Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin in Sochi, Russia on April 6, 2008.

Last week, the National Security Archive at George Washington University published newly declassified verbatim transcripts of three conversations between Presidents George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin and their top national security advisers in 2001, 2005, and 2008. The transcripts contain a number of surprises and have significant historical implications, particularly for the rather tarnished reputation of George W. Bush, who emerges as both surprisingly well-informed and well-intentioned (Bush also seemed keenly aware of the danger a John McCain or Hillary Clinton administration would have posed to US-Russia relations, remarking in April 2008, that, “What I’m concerned about is US-Russia relations won’t get any better than what you and I have. History will show it’s very good. I’m not sure about the next group – not Medvedev, but who follows me.”)

For his part, Putin repeatedly expressed his willingness to cooperate with Bush on issues ranging from nuclear weapons, China, North Korea and Iran. It is clear that the current shape of world politics, in which Russia is now strongly aligned with both China and Iran, was in no way inevitable. One example: In order to pressure the hardline Iranian government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from pursuing a nuclear weapons program, Putin put on hold a sale of S-300 missiles to Tehran. Bush expressed his appreciation, and Putin went on to note that with regard to the sale, “We have a contract with them signed four years ago but not being implemented.”

Keep reading

Questions Grow as Lt. Michael Byrd, Who Shot Ashli Babbitt on Jan. 6, Operates a Taxpayer-Funded Home Daycare as $190 Million in Federal Child Care Funds Flow to Maryland

In one of his autopen’s last acts before Joe Biden left office was to pardon Capt. Mike Byrd, the DC officer who shot and killed January 6 protester Ashli Babbitt in cold blood during the protests on Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021.

As TGP’s Brian Lupo noted, video evidence captured Byrd shooting an unarmed Babbitt without warning as she attempted to climb through a narrow window near a barricaded entryway to the Speaker of the House’s office area in the U.S. Capitol.

Following an investigation, Byrd was cleared of any wrongdoing, although questions remain about the escalation to lethal force without attempts to subdue or detain Babbitt.

In the video, other armed law enforcement officers are visible in the background, appearing available to provide backup if needed.

In addition to Byrd leaving his Glock 22 service weapon in a Visitor’s Center bathroom in February 2019, Byrd also had his police powers revoked on several occasions for failing to meet semi-annual firearms qualifications standards.

Byrd expressed defiance after being pressed about killing Babbitt during an NBC interview months following the killing. He claimed that he saved “countless lives” by killing Babbitt.

He also whined that he has been getting death threats since killing the Air Force veteran. The officer said that it was “disheartening” and that he was simply “doing my job.”

Keep reading

U.S. Arms Sales to Taiwan Risk Accelerating China’s Timeline for Unification

President Donald Trump’s administration has announced a massive package of arms sales to Taiwan valued at more than $11 billion that cover eight items, including 420 Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and 82 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS). If completed, it would be one of Washington’s biggest-ever military sales to Taiwan.

The long-standing policy of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, intended to maintain the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, is having a dangerously counterproductive effect. 11 days after the US announced $11.1 billion in arms sales to Taiwan, China holds the “Justice Mission 2025” exercise, demonstrating its dual focus on deterring Taiwan independence and countering external interference. The drills showcased A2/AD capabilities with a reach potentially extending to Okinawa and Guam.

Analysts increasingly suggest that these arms transfers are not deterring conflict but may instead be compelling China to consider more aggressive options for unification. This dynamic creates a perilous cycle: each new weapons package prompts greater Chinese military pressure, which in turn is used to justify further arms sales. The situation risks spiraling toward a direct military confrontation that neither Washington nor Beijing may be able to control.

1. Arms Sales as a Catalyst for Provocation and Miscalculation

The steady flow of advanced U.S. weaponry to Taiwan risks emboldening Taipei’s leadership, fostering a false sense of security that could lead to reckless provocations against China. Latest arms sale shows Washington has continued to assist Taipei in “rapidly building robust deterrence capabilities”, Taiwan’s defense ministry said in a statement. Weapons transfers are perceived in Taipei as tangible proof of Washington’s security commitment, a perception that may encourage riskier behavior.

This concern is echoed by regional security experts. Lyle Goldstein, director of the Asia Program at Defense Priorities, has warned the U.S. to be wary of a “reckless leader” in Taipei who might miscalculate. William Lai has lurched toward formal independence with a succession of speeches making the case for Taiwanese nationhood.

2. The Erosion of U.S. Credibility and China’s Countermeasures

Washington has long relied on a policy called “strategic ambiguity” to maintain the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. However, this policy is now facing an increasingly severe “credibility” crisis. The paradox lies in the fact that actions aimed at deterring both sides of the Strait are, in turn, eroding the foundation of its own “One China” policy.

This perceived “duplicity” has triggered a determined and multifaceted response from Beijing. China has introduced economic, diplomatic, and military countermeasures. If the U.S. continues to escalate ties with Taiwan through expanded arms sales or official exchanges – for instance, by supporting the renewal of formal Honduras-Taiwan relations – China may take additional steps, potentially including a full ban on rare earth exports. Recent Chinese sanctions against U.S. defense contractors highlight the resolve behind this stance.

3. From Military Deterrence to the Specter of Actual Combat

In response to what it views as escalating collusion between the U.S. and Taiwan, China is not merely stepping up military deterrence – it is actively preparing for the possibility of turning it into actual combat. The scale and complexity of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) exercises around Taiwan have been systematically upgraded from simple shows of force to integrated rehearsals for invasion scenarios.

The Pentagon’s 2025 report to Congress provides a sobering assessment of Beijing’s evolving calculus. It shows that China expects to be able to fight and win a war on Taiwan by the end of 2027. It outlines a spectrum of military options China is refining, from coercive blockades and precision strikes to the most decisive and risky option: a full-scale joint island landing campaign (JILC), or amphibious invasion. This preparation makes the risk of accidental escalation or miscalculated fire during routine exercises or standoffs a constant danger.

“A conflict would be disastrous for all sides. The US would have to project power several thousand miles away, no mean feat, especially since allied support is not guaranteed, ” Former Reagan White House Official and Expert Doug Bandow writes in his new analysis.

Keep reading

Trump Rules Out Elections in Venezuela, Anticipates Sending Troops to Occupy Venezuela

President Donald Trump said the US had no plans to hold elections in Venezuela. He said elections are currently impossible, and the country must first be helped by the US. 

“We have to fix the country first. You can’t have an election. There’s no way the people could even vote,” Trump said about the possibility of a vote in the next month. “No, it’s going to take a period of time. We have — we have to nurse the country back to health.”

The President explained that the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, and White House adviser Stephen Miller would be responsible for running Venezuela. 

While Trump is laying out a massive nation-building project, he insisted that the US was not at war with Venezuela. “No, we’re not [at war],” Trump said. “We’re at war with people that sell drugs. We’re at war with people that empty their prisons into our country and empty their drug addicts and empty their mental institutions into our country.”

Since returning to office, Trump has ordered extensive sanctions on Venezuela, the seizure of two oil tankers carrying Venezuelan oil, strikes on Caracas, and the kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro, all acts of war. 

The President went on to say that he is anticipating sending US troops to occupy Venezuela and enforce his will on the country. The US continues to conduct surveillance flights near Venezuela. 

Trump believes the rebuilding of Venezuela will take about 18 months and come at a massive cost to US energy firms. “It’ll be a lot of money.” The President continued,  “A tremendous amount of money will have to be spent, and the oil companies will spend it, and then they’ll get reimbursed by us or through revenue.”

Venezuela’s heavily contaminated crude oil is difficult to reach and expensive to refine. Oil prices need to exceed $100 per barrel to make for companies to see profits. Crude oil is currently under $58 per barrel. 

Keep reading

CMS Chief Dr. Oz Confirms SNAP and Medicaid Are Being Weaponized for Massive Voter Fraud in Blue States — Illegal Aliens Get Ballot Access, Stealing Elections!

In a bombshell interview with Laura Ingraham, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz laid bare a systemic, government-enabled pipeline in Democrat-run states that links taxpayer-funded welfare enrollment to voter registration.

According to Dr. Oz, federal laws tying voter registration to welfare programs like Medicaid and SNAP are being exploited to register illegal aliens or non-citizens, effectively stealing elections by building partisan voter bases.

Dr. Oz specifically pointed to Minnesota as a prime example of how the system is being exploited, accusing state officials of making it ‘easy for fraudsters to make out like bandits.’

According to Oz, lax oversight has allowed massive abuse of Medicaid dollars, money that should be reserved for the disabled, children with autism, and families genuinely in need.

Under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) frameworks, enrolling migrants into expansive welfare programs in sanctuary-style states also triggers voter registration mechanisms.

Enacted in 1993, the NVRA was designed to expand voter registration access by mandating that various state offices serve as voter registration agencies.

Section 7 requires states to offer voter registration opportunities at all offices that provide public assistance, including those administering programs such as Medicaid, SNAP, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). 

Under Section 7, state agencies are federally mandated to provide a voter registration application with each application for assistance, as well as during every recertification, renewal, or change of address.

This creates a welfare-to-ballot pipeline, effectively allowing left-wing political machines to harvest votes while draining federal resources.

Keep reading

Somali fraud scam mastermind’s humiliating fall from grace as judge orders Porsche and millions seized

A ringleader of the $250 million Minnesota welfare fraud scandal has been ordered to forfeit her Porsche, diamond jewelry, Louis Vuitton bags and millions of dollars in bank accounts.

An order from a judge just before New Year’s Eve was the latest ignominy for Aimee Bock, 44, who prosecutors declared was behind one of the biggest fraud schemes of the pandemic era.

The vast majority of the more than 57 people so far convicted in the case are part of Minnesota’s Somali community – Bock is not – and the case has exploded onto the national stage.

On Monday, Minnesota governor Tim Walz announced he would not run for a third term after it happened ‘on my watch’ and admitted ‘the buck does stop with me.’

In a preliminary court order, reviewed by the Daily Mail, Bock was ordered to forfeit $3,506,066 seized from a Bank of America account in the name of her nonprofit Feeding Our Future, along with $179,455 in a personal account.

She was also ordered to give up her Porsche Panamera, around 60 laptops, iPads and iPhones found at three addresses, along with a diamond necklace, bracelet, earrings and her Louis Vuitton purse and backpack.

Bock was found guilty in March after a six-week trial on charges of wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, bribery, and conspiracy to commit federal program bribery.

She is being held in Sherburne County Jail in Minnesota, awaiting sentence.

Keep reading