Blog

Senate Democrats Block Congressional Stock Trading Ban

Senate Democrats blocked a House-passed congressional stock trading ban that had a voter ID requirement attached to it on Wednesday.

The “Stop Insider Trading Act,” which needed 60 votes to advance, failed in a 53-47 vote.

Every single Democrats voted to block the bill.

The bill would block members of Congress, their spouses and children from purchasing new stocks.

The Hill reported:

Senate Democrats on Wednesday blocked a bill sponsored by vulnerable GOP incumbent Pete Ricketts (Neb.) to restrict members of Congress from buying new stocks of publicly traded companies, arguing the legislation didn’t go far enough to crack down on possible corruption.

The Stop Insider Trading Act failed by a vote of 53-47. No Democrat voted in support of the measure.

It needed 60 votes to advance on the Senate floor.

Schumer called the voter ID bill a “poison pill” on Tuesday after Senate Majority Leader Thune announced the vote.

“The poison pill that will gut mail voting that has failed six times…” Schumer said.

Keep reading

Why Our “Populist Moment” Keeps Failing

Ever since Donald Trump shocked the legacy press, “expert” pollsters, and the political establishment more broadly in November of 2016, we’ve seen endless attempts to explain what was, at the time, seen as a perennial sea change in American politics.

A consensus quickly emerged that pointed to a “populist surge” on the right, driven by rural white voters who were angry about the financial crisis and the political class’s failure to “stem the tide” of illegal immigration. The establishment tried to frame this all in a way that was flattering to themselves. Trump’s popularity, we were told, came from a particularly nasty group of uneducated rural whites who were enraged about having to compete with non-white people and stupid enough to fall for Trump’s lies.

But anyone looking closely could see that that characterization was, at best, a gross and overly narrow simplification. While rural white populations provided a lot (not all) of the votes and fuel for the Trump movement, its ideological thought leaders were largely young men living in or around blue cities, connecting and interacting with each other online.

Also, at the same time, there was a significant populist surge on the left. This was a bipartisan, or even non-partisan, political phenomenon. Establishment Democrats have done a far better job than their Republican counterparts at keeping their populist wing in line—largely thanks to its political leader, Bernie Sanders, who was always willing to roll over and support the establishment candidate when the time came. That said, the success of several “post-woke” democratic socialists in this year’s primaries suggests that establishment Democrats are now also losing control.

So it’s not merely some handful of uneducated rural white voters. There has been a widespread sense, across the political spectrum, that America’s institutions are not merely failing, but are actively working against the interests of everyday Americans. And that is true.

The massive federal government built up in DC over the last century or so was never meant to serve the interests of the American people as a whole. It has always been a tool for enriching the political caste and their well-connected friends in the “private sector.” They’ve done that directly with tax-and-spend programs and indirectly by using rules and regulations that warp entire industries to benefit some well-connected firms already on top.

The political establishment has gone to great lengths to hide their expropriative activities behind deceptive propaganda and fake appeals to the common good. But especially after they’ve taken the opportunity to greatly ramp up their schemes in response to crises of their own making—like the 2008 financial crisis—it became a lot harder to stop people from noticing that, somehow, the elites are ripping them off.

The “populist anger” against the elites that resulted has enabled Trump’s dominance of the Republican Party and fueled an escalating civil war within the Democratic Party that appears to be nearing a similar establishment defeat. And this anger has been the defining feature of American politics for at least ten years now.

What, then, has this populist moment accomplished? What has been done to liberate the American people from our corrupt political class, or at least to meaningfully improve the safety and material well-being of everyday Americans?

The truth is, on nearly all fronts, the results have been abysmal.

Broadly, this populist wave was meant to end the “corruption” in DC—or to stop politicians and bureaucrats from using government to enrich themselves and their friends. It was meant to end the endless series of wars fought to benefit foreign groups and governments along with well-connected firms in the “defense” and energy sectors. And it was meant to reorient the American system from one that serves the interests of corporate giants and financial elites to one that serves small businesses and local communities.

On the right, populists also wanted to stop or reverse the demographic changes resulting from the post-1965 immigration system. And populists on the left wanted to reverse the rising levels of economic inequality.

Over the last decade, every single one of these problems has gotten worse. Why?

There are, of course, plenty of specific mistakes, shortcomings, or outright failures we could examine on all these fronts. But, at the end of the day, all come back to the same fundamental problem: the populist right grew bored with economics.

The truth is, the current wave of anti-establishment, anti-elite political sentiment did not really begin ten years ago with the election of Donald Trump. It began earlier, right in the wake of the financial crisis. There was, of course, the Occupy movement on the left, but that mostly boiled down to calls to send bailouts everywhere in the economy rather than just to the big banks, or even for a full-on socialist revolution. Economic literacy was never at home in that movement.

Keep reading

First Them, Then Us: America’s Shift from Police State to Prison State

“If Trump can disappear them, he can disappear you.”—Robert Reich

America, you got fooled. Again.

For starters, the war on illegal immigration was never just about illegal immigration.

If you fell for that, chances are you’re still falling for the government’s oldest trick: manufacture a crisis, identify an enemy, frighten the public, declare an emergency, and then use the resulting fear to justify another expansion of government power.

Terrorism. Crime. Drugs. National security. Illegal immigration.

Different threats. Same playbook.

Take a legitimate problem—or inflate it into an existential menace—and suddenly constitutional safeguards become inconveniences, extraordinary powers become necessities, and anyone who questions the government’s methods can be accused of siding with the enemy.

Immigration is a perfect example.

A highly charged issue that pushes all of the knee-jerk, polarizing buttons when it comes to deep-seated fears and prejudices, immigration has been the perfect vehicle for the Trump administration’s political fearmongering and authoritarian power grabs.

Trump has repeatedly described illegal immigration in the language of invasion, criminality and national-security emergency.

Yet a closer look suggests a far more complicated reality.

A 2026 Cato Institute analysis of Census data found that undocumented immigrants were incarcerated at a rate of 674 per 100,000 people in 2024, compared with 1,195 per 100,000 native-born Americans. Legal immigrants had an even lower incarceration rate of 303 per 100,000. Cato concluded that both legal and undocumented immigrants are less crime-prone than native-born Americans.

So, what is the government’s end game?

We’ve been so fixated on the overt cruelty, unapologetic authoritarianism, thuggish brutality, and blatantly unconstitutional abuses of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown that we missed the larger menace taking shape behind it.

While the country fights over who should be allowed in, who should be kicked out, and who can participate in a pay-to-play scheme that benefits the oligarchy, the government continues building the infrastructure of a prison state.

This is the real power grab.

The government is using its so-called war on illegal immigration to normalize something far more dangerous: a system in which due process can be bypassed, people can be detained and moved beyond easy public scrutiny, government agents can wield extraordinary enforcement powers with minimal accountability, and constitutional protections can be treated as optional whenever the government invokes security.

Immigration is the testing ground.

The precedent being established and the tactics being trotted out and normalized are the real danger. Because once the government establishes that it can suspend the Constitution’s safeguards for one disfavored group, there is nothing magical that keeps those powers confined to that group.

We are all at risk.

Keep reading

Federal judge rules NCAA can allow men on women’s teams, Riley Gaines plans appeal

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against the NCAA that had challenged its policy of allowing men who identify as women to play on women’s sports teams.

U.S. District Judge Tiffany Johnson, a 2024 Biden appointee, ruled that the collegiate sports organization is not beholden to Title IX because it is not a recipient of direct federal financial assistance, Fox News reported.

The two-year-old lawsuit, Gaines v. NCAA, had challenged the organization and the University of Georgia for allegedly violating Title IX’s provisions for equal opportunity in sports by allowing males to compete in the women’s category. The judge found that the NCAA maintained separate funding streams from participating universities.

“What this ruling means is basically the NCAA can put as many men on a women’s sporting team as they want,” said Riley Gaines, the lead plaintiff, on a video post on X on Tuesday. “We are going to appeal.”

Gaines said she feels that while the dismissal will ultimately help lead the case to the Supreme Court and ultimate victory, “this doesn’t come without a toll; it’s mentally draining, emotionally draining.”

According to the lawsuit, the NCAA authorized “naked men possessing full male genitalia to disrobe in front of non- consenting college women and creating situations in which unwilling female college athletes unwittingly or reluctantly expose their naked or partially clad bodies to males.”

The Independent Council on Women’s Sports, or ICONS, is funding this lawsuit. Gaines is a former All-American swimmer at the University of Kentucky and current advocate for women’s sports. More than a dozen additional female plaintiffs are all current or former collegiate athletes.

“We believe the district judge erred and that the Court of Appeals will find that the NCAA, which is the controlling body of college sports for more than 1,100 member schools, almost all of which are federally funded, is subject to Title IX,” said ICONS Co-Founder Kim Jones, a former NCAA All-American tennis player, in a news release.

“We will not give up our fight for women and girls’ rights in sports,” Jones said.

Keep reading

REVEALED: Inside the Plan to Build ‘Trans Schools’ and Spread Their Lessons Nationwide

ANew York education group is planning a trans middle school—and wants its approach to reach classrooms far beyond New York.

Trans Formative Schools spells out its ambition:

“Eventually, we aspire to support trans teachers to launch trans schools around the country and the world.”

Its plans extend to teachers already working in other schools. The organization proposes national educator training and free classroom materials combining conventional academic subjects with sex education and activism.

It already operates a free afterschool program welcoming students ages nine to fifteen. Its advertised activities include “Activism/Transing School.” And this September, a philanthropic fund backed by MacKenzie Scott named the organization among its latest grant recipients.

The full middle school remains a proposal. The existing afterschool, published curriculum plans and new funding reveal how the organization wants to build toward it.

A middle school built around activism

The group’s school vision calls for teaching “transformational resistance” and empowering students to challenge racism, ableism, transphobia and what it describes as “other white supremacist systems.”

Its 2026–27 afterschool program operates at NYC Heritage of Pride in Manhattan. Alongside engineering, coding, creative writing and arts activities, it advertises queer media, student activism and exploration of identity. The program is open to all students in its age range.

Keep reading

Filing Taxes Will Cost Americans $544 Billion This Year

The process of paying taxes manages to add insult to injury by making it burdensome to comply as you cough up the money the government steals from you. The time lost keeping up on tax rules, filing paperwork, and calculating our own mugging is stolen from the rewarding areas of life, and the costs are diverted from productive activities. How much do we lose in satisfying government’s demands? A new report answers that question in painful detail, just in time for the October 15 extended filing deadline.

The High Cost of Paying High Taxes

“The federal tax code imposes many costs on the US economy. The most direct costs, of course, are the roughly $5.2 trillion in federal taxes (as of fiscal year 2025) that consume 17.3 percent of US gross domestic product (GDP),” the Tax Foundation’s Alex Muresianu and Guy Cardwell wrote last week. “A less direct cost is the time taken out of our lives to comply with a Byzantine tax code that requires billions of hours to complete IRS paperwork and file tax returns.”

Drawing on data from the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Muresianu and Cardwell note that “Americans will spend almost 6.9 billion hours complying with IRS tax filing and reporting requirements in 2026. This is equal to 3.32 million full-time workers—more than the population of Chicago and nearly 35 times the workforce the IRS employed in FY 2025—doing nothing but tax return paperwork for a full year.”

That’s an enormous amount of time and energy diverted from Americans’ own priorities—like working, running businesses, and raising families—to satisfy federal paperwork requirements so we can cough up the money the government extorts from us under threats of fines and imprisonment. Few of us want to pay that money to begin with, but we have to surrender part of our lives to calculate the amount owed and satisfy tax rules.

As you might expect, all that tax-consumed time comes attached to a hefty price tag.

Keep reading

BBC removes article claiming bare nails trend perpetuates ‘White supremacist’ beauty standards

The BBC removed an article that suggested the trend of leaving fingernails unpainted could perpetuate “White supremacist” beauty standards after it drew backlash Saturday.

The original article, “How the bare nails trend became a class issue,” explored the beauty trend of women preferring clear and polished “naked” nails over the more stylish nail designs over the past few years. 

The BBC reported that while some consider this trend part of the ever-shifting standards in fashion, critics suggested the image said “something about class” and could potentially stigmatize Black, Latino and Asian communities that popularized heavily designed nails.

“That trend really promotes blankness and this kind of sameness and erasure of culture and identity that is so important to [B]lack and [B]rown communities,” beauty journalist Kristina Rodulfo told the BBC.

Keep reading

New Oklahoma City Revelations Raise More Questions

One of the enduring mysteries of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing case is the little-known but well-documented and indisputable fact that Timothy McVeigh and the “others unknown” involved in the bombing used two different Ryder trucks in the later stages of the bombing plot.

What happened to this second truck, where it was obtained (FBI documents indicate that the bureau may have believed it was purchased at auction—more on those documents in a moment), and its final purpose remain unknown today.

Dozens of witnesses in Kansas observed two distinctly different Ryder trucks between April 11 and April 18—both parked at Geary Lake and the Dreamland Motel. One of the trucks was smaller, frequently described as “faded yellow,” with either no visible Ryder logo or one that was barely visible, and with a cab-overhang on the front of the truck. This detail would also capture the attention of the FBI, who began asking witnesses whether the truck they saw had the cab-overhang and showed them a Ryder company flyer depicting several trucks, asking which type they had observed.

The other of the two trucks was described as much larger—the 20-foot model—and by witnesses as “cleaner” and “newer,” even “more aerodynamic.” This was the truck rented from Elliott’s body shop on April 17 and ultimately used to deliver the bomb.

The second truck, with a few exceptions, is generally omitted from most contemporary accounts of the bombing, yet its existence is confirmed in numerous FBI documents.

A half dozen people at the Dreamland Motel—where McVeigh stayed the week before the bombing—place McVeigh parking the smaller Ryder truck at the Dreamland Motel on Easter Sunday and Friday and Saturday—days before the larger bomb truck was rented at Elliott’s on Monday, April 17.

Consider the following account from Apache helicopter mechanic Shane Boyd, who stayed in room #28 at the Dreamland Motel for several weeks in April 1995 while working at nearby Ft. Riley. Boyd told FBI SA Mark Bouton that around 6:00 AM on Friday, April 14, he saw a Ryder truck with a steel-framed trailer pull out of the Dreamland Motel’s parking lot. Boyd also told the FBI that he is sure he saw the Ryder truck parked at the Dreamland Motel again on Saturday and on Easter Sunday.

Consider the accounts of Dreamland residents David King and his mother, Herta King. Both Kings saw the smaller Ryder truck the weekend before the bomb truck’s rental. FBI special agents Robert Knox and Leslie Gardner interviewed David King on April 27 about activities at and around the motel. David told the FBI that on Easter Sunday, his mother visited him at the Dreamland around half past noon. King stated that both he and his mother saw a yellow Ryder truck parked directly in front of his room that Sunday afternoon.

Herta King later testified at the McVeigh trial that she saw the Ryder truck parked at the Dreamland on Easter Sunday. She stated that she was friends with the motel owner, Lea McGown, and that they had discussed the truck being there on Easter Sunday. King said that Lea McGown told her, “it doesn’t make sense that a truck was there on Sunday, if McVeigh rented it on Monday.”

Indeed, it doesn’t make sense. McVeigh rented a truck on Monday, April 17, yet we have a half dozen witnesses who saw a yellow moving truck with McVeigh prior.

Keep reading

Eisenhower and Washington Both Spoke Out Against War

“God help the Nation when it has a President who doesn’t know as much about the military as I do.”
~
President Dwight D. Eisenhower speaking to his White House Staff Secretary, Gen. Andrew Goodpaster

These words are quoted in a book about Eisenhower’s foreign policy called Ike’s Bluff – President Eisenhower’s Secret Battle To Save The World by Evan Thomas.

In the same paragraph as the words above are these: “When Defense Secretary Neil McElroy warned him that further cuts would harm national security, Eisenhower acerbically replied, ‘If you go to any military installation in the world where the American flag is flying and tell the commander that Ike says he will give him an extra star for his shoulder if he cuts his budget, there’ll be such a rush to cut costs that you’ll have to get out of the way.’”

In a speech to the Canadian Club in Ottawa on Jan. 10, 1946, Eisenhower said these words: “I hate war only as a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.”

In a speech broadcast from London in 1959, Eisenhower said: “I think people want peace so much that one of these days, governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.”

Because of these and many other things he said and did, I think a very strong case can be made that Eisenhower was our most antiwar President.

Certainly his most famous remarks were given in his farewell address from the White House on Jan. 17, 1961. He talked of the “grave implications” of “an immense military establishment and a large arms industry.”

Then he added these famous words: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

I think Eisenhower would be shocked at how far we have gone down the road against which he warned, especially since the Pentagon is now wanting a one-year budget of an incomprehensible sum of more than one trillion, four hundred billion.

Less famous than his farewell address is his first major speech after his inauguration. It was given on April 16, 1953 at a meeting in Washington to the American Society of Newspaper Editors and was probably the most antiwar speech ever given by an American President.

He gave several examples of wonderful things that could be done with war money and then said: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

He added: “This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children… This is not a way of life at all… it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

This speech is quoted above Eisenhower’s grave and in a book by Brett Baker entitled Three Days In January – Dwight Eisenhower’s Final Mission.

In addition to his inspiring words, Eisenhower ended the Korean War and even went on national television shortly before the 1956 election to refuse Israel’s request (demand) to join a war against Egypt over the Suez Canal.

Mitchell Bard wrote in The Times of Israel in 2014: “Eisenhower went on television to criticize Israel’s failure to withdraw from Egypt and warned he would impose sanctions if it failed to comply. Eisenhower was prepared to cut off all economic aid, to lift the tax-exempt status of the United Jewish Appeal, and to apply sanctions on Israel.”

Israel withdrew, and war was averted.

I think it is very significant that possibly our other most antiwar President was our other most famous General, George Washington. His farewell address has been read in a ceremonial session of the Senate every year since 1862.

In that speech, he warned against “overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”

He added these very important words: “A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest… betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.” (Israel?)

Finally, in Scott Berg’s lengthy biography of Woodrow Wilson is a statement about World War 1 made by Winston Churchill to a New York newspaper editor: “America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the world war.”

Then Churchill added: “If you hadn’t entered the war the allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no break-down in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have… enthroned Nazism.” (p583)

Keep reading

CA Gov. Gavin Newsom Signs ‘No Kings Act,’ Making It Easier to Sue ICE Agents

Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed 21 bills into law on Tuesday, one of which, the “No Kings Act,” makes it easier for left-wing migrant activists and others to target Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

One of the bills attempts to impose a 25-percent tax on private detention centers, another purports to ban law enforcement from using electric shock gloves, and another has a provision that makes it easier to sue federal immigration officers for doing their job.

“Trump has put his political interests above the health, safety and livelihood of American families,” Newsom said in a statement upon signing the bills, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. “California is taking action to strengthen transparency, accountability, and oversight around immigration enforcement in our state. This is about stepping up where the federal government has failed our communities.”

“We will continue protecting our people, upholding the rule of law, and making clear that if the federal government operates in California, we will hold them accountable,” Newsom added.

Radical left-wing state Senator Scott Wiener (D), who sponsored the bill, celebrated the signing.

“ICE and Border Patrol have terrorized California communities with impunity,” Wiener claimed. “That ends today.”

He continued:

When federal agents act lawlessly, they should be held accountable the same as any other lawbreaker. But for too long, a loophole in the law has shielded them from accountability. The No Kings Act provides long overdue accountability to end the impunity powering ICE and Border Patrol’s terror campaign.

It is likely that some of the provisions in these various bills won’t pass legal muster for their attempt to interfere in federal law enforcement matters.

Other provisions include requirements to disclose 911 and emergency response records, the creation of a so-called “detainees’ bill of rights,” a ban on the use of flash-bang devices, and a ban on former ICE officers being hired by state law enforcement agencies.

The Chronicle reported in August that ICE had arrested nearly 50,000 migrants across the state, some 6,800 of them in Southern California and 11,500 in Los Angeles.

California has opposed the Trump administration’s voter-mandated efforts to institute mass deportations of illegal migrants after the state used migrants for years to pad state tax subsidies, especially where it concerned the fattening of education budgets as millions of migrant children flooded the state’s school systems.

Keep reading