Blog

Senate Returns To CLARITY Act Debate Amid Democratic Push For Ethics Reforms

The U.S. Senate is set to resume consideration of the Digital Asset Clarity (CLARITY) Act this week as lawmakers return from an extended Memorial Day recess, with Democrats conditioning their support on stronger provisions addressing potential conflicts of interest among elected officials.

The Republican-led bill, which passed the House of Representatives in July 2025, aims to establish a comprehensive market structure for cryptocurrencies by granting greater authority to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) over digital assets. It cleared two key Senate committees—the Agriculture Committee in January and the Banking Committee in May—before the break, but faces ongoing pushback from both the crypto industry and traditional banking sector over issues including stablecoins and tokenized equities, reported CoinTelegraph.

“This will actually be the biggest financial regulatory bill that Congress has done in quite some time, certainly since Dodd-Frank,” Coinbase Chief Policy Officer Faryar Shirzad told Fox Business on Monday.

Banking industry leaders have also voiced reservations. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon stated on Friday that the sector would not accept the bill as written, citing provisions that would allow crypto companies to pay interest on user deposits and stablecoin balances.

Bipartisan Hurdles and Ethics ConcernsLawmakers this week are expected to begin reconciling the differing versions of the legislation from the two committees, with some Senate insiders anticipating a floor vote as early as August. However, the path forward remains uncertain due to Democratic demands for ethics safeguards.

Keep reading

Why Trump May Actually Have Told Netanyahu ‘Everybody Hates You!’

“You’re fucking crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.”

According to Axios, this is what Donald Trump said to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in “an expletive-laden call” earlier today.

Trump also accused Netanyahu of ingratitude since Trump had helped keep Netanyahu out of jail. At the heart of the matter was Trump’s frustration with Netanyahu not caving to his demands to cease bombing Lebanon, as Israel’s aggression risked jeopardizing Trump’s diplomacy with Iran.

The story has understandably been met with considerable skepticism. After all, there is a long and well-documented pattern of American presidents privately expressing anger and frustration with Israeli prime ministers while publicly standing shoulder-to-shoulder with them and continuing to support their policies.

Take Joe Biden as an example. In late December 2023, Axios reported that Biden’s frustration with Benjamin Netanyahu had become so intense that he abruptly ended a phone call with the Israeli leader, reportedly concluding the exchange with the terse remark: “This conversation is over.” Yet in practice, Biden remained firmly aligned with Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza.

Two months later, NBC News reported that Biden had repeatedly referred to Netanyahu as an “asshole” in private conversations with aides and donors. But even as he vented his exasperation behind closed doors, Biden continued to arm Israel lavishly and shield it from mounting diplomatic and political pressure at the United Nations. The gap between private frustration and public policy could hardly have been more striking.

According to Bob Woodward’s 2024 book War, Biden’s frustrations became intensely personal during the Rafah dispute and Biden told an associate: “That son of a bitch, Bibi Netanyahu, he’s a bad guy. He’s a bad f***ing guy.” No policy change followed.

There are plenty of other examples.

There are, however, a few important counterexamples – particularly from Trump’s second term – that suggest the Axios story is not entirely implausible. (Indeed, the report would have been far more difficult to believe had Axios claimed that Trump told Netanyahu, “Everybody loves you.”)

Keep reading

“Dystopian” Police.AI Launches in UK Amid False Arrests

A new UK national center launches within days, promising to find suspects in minutes, except it costs £115 million ($155M) and occasionally arrests the wrong person.

Police.AI, the body charged with pushing dystopian artificial intelligence across all 43 forces in England and Wales, comes with a seductive sales pitch from its frontman. Catch your suspect in minutesTurn a weeks-long manhunt into a coffee break.

Alex Murray, National Crime Agency director and the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s first AI lead, wants facial recognition to do exactly that. The catch, and it is a fairly significant one, is that the technology keeps flagging innocent people.

Murray’s whole pitch is speed. “What took days, weeks, sometimes months can potentially take hours,” he said, describing AI tools that span CCTV analysis, searches of seized phones and the flagging of fake images.

He likes to point to a Bedfordshire fraud case where the software chewed through Romanian-language phone data from four suspects and produced guilty pleas. Notice the shape of the pattern, though. It is always a list of what the police get to do. The part where the rest of us get scanned, sorted and occasionally pulled off the street tends to fall off the slide.

Keep reading

NATO Propagandists Again Proclaim That Ukraine Is on the Verge of Winning the War

NATO partisans in both Europe and the United States are perpetual optimists about Ukraine’s prospective fortunes in its war against Russia.  Lately, there has been yet another inundation of such accounts in Western news media outlets.  Many of them emphasize that Moscow’s latest military offensive against Ukrainian ground forces has come to a halt with inconclusive results.  The lack of a decisive breakthrough, members of Ukraine’s fan club contend, means that Russian president Vladimir Putin has again failed in his quest to conquer Eastern Europe’s resilient “democratic” frontline state.  That version of recent developments contains just enough truth to gain credibility among gullible opinion shapers and political leaders in the United States and in most other NATO countries.

In fact, even if Kyiv continues to receive extensive financial and military support from Alliance members, Ukraine is no closer to defeating Russia than it was before.  Over the long run, Moscow is still likely to prevail against its weaker, less populous neighbor and Ukraine’s NATO supporters.  Moreover, Russia’s geostrategic position remains formidable.  It is especially significant that Putin’s diplomatic and military ties with China’s president, Xi Jinping, continue to be robust.

The West’s stubborn optimism about Ukraine’s victory prospects is reminiscent of the attitude of Chicago Cubs fans who spent more than a century of futility insisting that “this will be THE YEAR” their team would finally win the world series.  Their optimism did finally pay off in 2016, some 108 years after the team’s previous championship.  Unfortunately, neither Ukraine nor NATO has the luxury of waiting 108 years for their strategy to pay off.

Yet, excessive optimism has been the norm in Western capitals since the earliest weeks of Russia’s February 2022 enlarged military incursion into Ukraine.  The unexpected failure of the Kremlin’s invading forces to capture Kyiv led to widespread predictions in U.S. and European media circles and some NATO foreign ministries that Ukraine was poised to score a stunning upset victory.  Indeed, some Western analysts speculated that Kyiv would prevail in a matter of months or even weeks.

Similar flares of optimism and predictions of Ukraine’s imminent triumph have occurred on several occasions since then.  Examples include Kyiv’s initial successes in launching attacks using cheap drones against Russian targets, and the spectacular June 2025 assault deep inside Russia on the country’s strategic bomber fleet.  There were also spikes of optimism throughout NATO whenever a Ukrainian military ground offensive scored even the most limited gains or a Russian offensive bogged down.  Lost in all the hoopla on the multiple occasions, though, was mounting evidence that Russia was slowly making gains in this meat grinder of a war.  That fundamental reality has not changed despite recent developments.

Indeed, the latest events signal more of the same in terms of the conflict’s trajectory and ultimate outcome.  Russia has made new territorial advances into Ukrainian territory, but the gains are minimal.  Both sides have made larger and more lethal attacks than before with drone and missile strikes.  Despite being more destructive than previous assaults and inflicting more suffering on already traumatized civilians, however, the latest blows have not been large enough to produce a decisive military outcome.

New predictions throughout the NATO countries that Kyiv is finally poised to prevail in the war are based on little more than wishful thinking.  The expectation seems to be that because Ukraine has been able to hold out this long against a larger opponent, Moscow cannot continue to sacrifice money, armaments, and manpower at this pace much longer.  Either Putin will seek a face-saving exit that includes making major concessions to Ukraine, the optimistic scenario concludes, or Russia’s oligarchs will finally replace their country’s aging, flailing leader.

Keep reading

Unearthing Namibia’s forgotten genocide through forensic archaeology

The Namibian genocide was one of the first genocides of the 20th century. Between 1904 and 1908, tens of thousands of Ovaherero and Nama people were killed under German colonial rule.

Despite the scale of these events, the material and human legacy of this genocide remains less understood than later atrocities. Historical accounts exist, but are often incomplete or shaped by the perspectives and priorities of the colonial period in which they were produced.

The landscapes of Namibia that testify to this violence still survive, but are under increasing pressure from urban expansion, infrastructure development and environmental change. Archaeological research is playing a key role in documenting and protecting this heritage.

The Centre of Archaeology at the University of Huddersfield has, in conjunction with community representatives, the research groups Forensic Architecture and Forensis and the Swakopmund Genocide Museum, conducted fieldwork in Namibia across two seasons (2023 and 2025). Our work has focused on sites linked to German colonial concentration camps in Swakopmund and Lüderitz.

Using forensic methods, our project seeks to locate, document and protect burial sites associated with the genocide. We aim to demonstrate how archaeology can confirm historical events, provide physical evidence, support commemoration and strengthen claims for reparations.

The research combines archival study with field methods including: GIS mapping (computer-based spatial mapping and analysis of archaeological data), walkover survey (systematic on-the-ground inspection of visible archaeological features), Ground Penetrating Radar (a geophysical technique that uses radar waves to detect buried structures without excavation), GPS survey, drone imagery and targeted excavation.

Keep reading

The Firing of Scott Pelley by ’60 Minutes’ Reveals Media Elites Have No Idea How Little the Public Trusts Them

The firing of Scott Pelley by ’60 Minutes’ has angered all of the right people and exposed the fact that the liberal elites in our media have no idea how many people in America no longer trust them.

Jake Tapper of CNN invited Scott MacFarlane onto his show, a journalist who left CBS News for a far left outlet called Meidas News, along with Terry Moran, who was fired by ABC News over an indefensible anti-Trump tweet, to react to the Pelley news.

MacFarlane showed that these people are utterly clueless about their situation.

Transcript via Curtis Houck of NewsBusters:

Former CBS correspondent-turned-MeidasTouch pundit Scott MacFarlane scoffs at the notion found in polls Americans don’t trust the media…

“I would venture the bold prediction that, if Americans were surveyed about the trustworthiness of 60 Minutes, it may have more support and more trust, more credibility with Americans than the general milquetoast term “media.” What is the media at this point that they’re being polled on? Are they talking about specific programs, specific sources of information?

Are they talking about the garbage on the internet, the garbage on talk radio? Are they talking about the actual verified, bonafide source sources of journalism? The ones who actually have credibility and empirical evidence to back up their reporting. This all feels to me like apples and oranges.”

Keep reading

Democrats in New Jersey Give Primary Win to Candidate With Ties to Al-Qaeda – In District That’s Final Resting Place for the Man Who Said ‘Let’s Roll’ on 9/11

Democrats in New Jersey just handed a primary win to Adam Hamawy, a candidate with actual ties to the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda, which is credited with carrying out the attacks of 9/11.

This is in a district where Todd Beamer is buried. You may remember Todd Beamer as the airline passenger on Flight 93 who famously said “Let’s roll” as his last known words, referring to other passengers as they prepared to retake control of the plane, which crashed into a field in rural Pennsylvania instead of somewhere in DC.

This is what Democrats have come to. Utterly shameful.

The New York Post reported:

‘Squad’-backed NJ Democrat who volunteered with Al Qaeda-linked group wins primary to replace Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman

Adam Hamawy, an Egypt-born former combat surgeon who once volunteered with an Al Qaeda-linked group in Bosnia, emerged victorious Tuesday in the Democratic primary for retiring Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman’s (D-NJ) seat.

Hamawy — a staunch critic of Israel who was endorsed by “Squad” Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), as well as socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — was the top vote-getter in the crowded Democratic primary race for the Garden State’s deep-blue 12th Congressional District.

An Iraq War veteran, Hamawy has made national headlines for saving Sen. Tammy Duckworth’s (D-Ill) life after a helicopter crash as well as for his volunteer work in the Gaza Strip…

Hamawy also had a yearslong relationship with Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy in 1995 after his followers carried out the bombing of the World Trade Center two years earlier.

Guy Benson of FOX News wrote on Twitter/X:

This is Todd “Let’s Roll” Beamer, who died heroically while trying to retake United Flight 93 from Al Qaeda terrorists on 9/11. His final resting place, is in Cranbury, NJ — where he was living with his wife and children before his murder. Cranbury is located in NJ-12, where the new Democratic nominee for Congress is Adam Hamawy.

Hamawy was a close associate and translator to Omar Abdel-Rahman, aka the ‘Blind Sheikh,’ an arch terrorist convicted of masterminding multiple plots against targets in NYC — including the World Trade Center. Hamawy testified at Adbel-Rahman’s trial, as a defense witness.

It has also been reported that Hamawy traveled to Bosnia to volunteer at an organization that was later unmasked as an Al Qaeda front group.

One of Hamawy’s loudest and most high-profile supporters and endorsers has openly declared that America deserved the 9/11 attacks.

Hamawy is now the prohibitive frontrunner to represent Todd Beamer’s district in the United States Congress.

Keep reading

CT AFL-CIO President Warns AI Could Be The ‘Nail In The Coffin’ For Democrats 

Organized labor has found its next target: artificial intelligence. 

At a June 1 trade roundtable hosted by U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro in New Haven, Connecticut labor leaders warned that AI threatens workers and demands new government “guardrails.” But the discussion revealed something beyond concern: unions want a hand in writing the rules for how employers use it. 

The event, held at the Manufacturing and Technical Community Hub (MATCH), brought together DeLauro, Wisconsin Congressman Mark Pocan, Connecticut labor leaders, manufacturers, state economic development officials and Public Citizen, a progressive advocacy group. The official topic was trade policy. Before long, the conversation shifted to artificial intelligence. 

Connecticut AFL-CIO President Ed Hawthorne framed the issue in pointed terms.

“If the Democratic Party does not get out ahead of AI, it’s when the Democratic Party dies,” he said. “It’ll be the nail in the coffin, because we are the party of the workers, and if we are going to just sit back and let the tech industry and their money buy elections and not push back on that, we will no longer be the party of the workers, and that’s when we lose.”

Hawthorne also described AI as “the new NAFTA,” a warning that artificial intelligence could displace workers in ways similar to past trade disruptions. Those concerns are not baseless. AI will disrupt labor markets. Some jobs will disappear, others will change, and new occupations will emerge. Few serious observers believe the economy will be left untouched. 

But Hawthorne’s sharpest warning was political rather than economic. He was not simply saying AI could eliminate jobs. He was saying that if Democrats fail to satisfy organized labor’s demands on AI, they forfeit their claim to be the party of workers. That is a different kind of argument, and worth noting as such. 

The real question is how policymakers respond. At the roundtable, the answer increasingly centered on one word: “guardrails.” 

Participants repeatedly called for guardrails around AI and automation. In practice, that meant stronger worker input requirements, advance notice when AI is used in employment decisions, human oversight, appeal rights, bias testing and an expanded government role in governing how AI systems are introduced in the workplace. 

Some of that is defensible. Few Americans want hiring decisions or workplace discipline delegated to opaque systems with no accountability. Protections against deceptive deepfakes and discriminatory bias deserve serious consideration. But the discussion ranged well beyond basic safeguards. It sounded less like a targeted debate over genuine AI risks and more like organized labor ensuring no major workplace technology advances without union-approved conditions attached. 

Keep reading

Missing Scientist Melissa Casias Body Found ‘Skeletonized’

Missing government worker Melissa Casias has been found dead … with her body “skeletonized” and a gunshot wound to her skull, a report says.

According to New Mexico State Police, a hiker found “human remains” at McGaffey Ridge area of the Carson National Forest … who authorities have ID’ed as Melissa. They also said a gun was found “alongside the remains.”

NMSP hasn’t announced cause or manner of death, but investigator Thomas McNally — who’d been looking into the case for Melissa’s parents — told DailyMail that her body was “skeletonized,” sitting against a tree with a gunshot wound in her skull.

McNally claims Melissa was wearing “sun-bleached clothing” and her body didn’t show any signs of animal activity.

Melissa — who worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory — disappeared about a year ago, after she dropped her husband off at the lab, where he also worked.

Her case has made headlines because she’s one of at least 10 government workers and scientists who have died or gone missing since 2023.

But McNally insists Melissa’s death has “nothing to do” with those other cases, telling DailyMail … “I want to be emphatic on this point — this is in no way, shape, or form related to her job.”

He does, however, believe there’s foul play involved and says her family is filing a civil suit against NMSP … because they believe they botched the case.

Keep reading

Never Let Politicians Decide What Is True

We are living through an age that has abandoned the dedicated pursuit of truth. Our politicians and news personalities talk about “the narrative.” Our academies teach young minds to accept “expert opinion.” Our philosophers argue that truth is “subjective.” Social theorists argue that truth is an “illusion” that powerful people use to control others.

Whenever I hear Democrat Senator Cory Booker all riled up on television, he’s talking about “her truth,” “his truth,” or even “their truth” – as if a hundred conflicting descriptions of the same event could all be truthful.

During Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, Democrats called Dr. Christine Blasey Ford to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ford claimed that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in 1982 when both were in high school. Kavanaugh vehemently denied the allegation and argued that many parts of Ford’s story didn’t add up. When Kavanaugh told the senators that the whole thing was a political spectacle being used as a weapon to derail his confirmation, Senator Booker shouted, “Are you calling her some kind of political operative?” Kavanaugh calmly pointed out, “The witnesses who were there [the party at which Blasey Ford claimed the alleged assault occurred] say it didn’t happen.” Kavanaugh then stated that, although Blasey Ford’s allegations were false and harmful, his “family has no ill will toward her.”

This is how Booker responded to Justice Kavanaugh’s total denial of the allegation against him: “She came forward. She sat here. She told her truth.” Her truth. Not the truth. The “truth” that was most likely to help Democrats “Bork” Kavanaugh’s nomination – just as then-Senator Joe Biden and fellow Democrats tried to do during Justice Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearings back in ’91 when they brought in a witness who claimed that Thomas had made “unwelcome sexual comments” when the two worked together, a charge Thomas similarly and furiously denied.

What was revealing about Booker’s made-for-TV moment was his disregard for whether Kavanaugh had actually done anything untoward forty years earlier in his life. He didn’t care. The lack of any evidence that could credibly support Blasey Ford’s allegation didn’t matter. Nor did it matter that Kavanaugh flatly denied the allegation. For Booker, the only “fact” that mattered was that Blasey Ford was willing to testify to something that might sink Kavanaugh’s nomination. “Her truth,” even if false, made it compelling.

Booker’s flippant disregard for the truth was reminiscent of President Bill Clinton’s rationalization to a grand jury that he never lied about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky when he told his staff, “There’s nothing going on between us,” and Jim Lehrer of PBS, “There is no improper relationship.” As everyone who recalls Lewinsky’s stained blue dress knows, Clinton’s statements were lies. But when Clinton testified before members of a grand jury, this was his truth:

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the – if he – if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not – that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.…Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said ‘no.’ And it would have been completely true.”

At that moment, President Clinton proved to Americans that he had no interest in truth. He did not care if he lied. He cared only whether the American people might catch him in a lie. Whether Clinton had “plausible deniability” mattered. Whether he could confuse enough jurors over the meaning of “is” mattered. But the truth? Well, the truth is for rubes and suckers. Clinton’s dissembling and Booker’s disregard for what actually happened in 1982 are symptoms of the same disease: our dishonest age’s abandonment of – and even hostility toward – what is true.

Politicians lie. That’s hardly breaking news. What is newsworthy, though, is that our society does not even pretend to pursue truth anymore.

During COVID, we were forced to follow government mandates that made absolutely no sense. Why was it safe for Walmart to remain open when small businesses were forced to close? How could paper masks, arrows painted on the floor, plexiglass walls, or six feet of space save us from microorganisms that don’t care about such things? Why should schools be closed when the virus posed the least threat to young people? Why should healthy people who had already acquired natural immunity be forced to take an experimental injection? The public was right to ask so many valid questions. Yet our government-run health organizations responded with juvenile insouciance: We’re working at the speed of science! That was the “scientific” equivalent of, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

We’re fifteen years into this gender-bender madness during which “experts” (including too many with M.D.s) claim that biological sex is not real and that what we perceive as male or female is nothing more than a self-imposed social construct. People who have refused to play this delusional game have been fired from jobs. People looking for jobs tell obvious lies.

Keep reading