Elon Musk Claims Ukraine Is a Money Laundering Scheme for US Politicians

Elon Musk Claims Ukraine Is a Money Laundering Scheme for US Politicians.

In early 2025, after President Trump took over, Ukraine’s Zelensky claimed that he was unable to locate $100 billion Ukraine received from the US.

UKRAINE: What if 58% of the U.S. taxpayer dollars sent to Zelensky never even reached Ukraine? Where did it go? Did the CIA skim a cut? Did Ukrainian officials and generals pocket their share? Did The Big Guy get his usual slice? If Zelensky’s claim is true—that he only received $75 billion of the $177+ billion Washington sent—what happens next? Do we shrug and move on, or do we finally demand answers and accountability?

This is no surprise.

When FTX’s CEO Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) was arrested after the cryptocurrency trading vehicle FTX went bankrupt, we reported that FTX was used as a money laundering vehicle in Ukraine.  Next thing that happened the DOJ threw SBF in jail and ignored any relationship between FTX and money laundering.

Keep reading

Former Conservative MP breaks silence on her own vaccine injury: ‘It’s just so cruel’

It has been five years since Canadians were told to trust the experts and that the science was settled. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, still live with the aftermath of that sloganeering — including a former Member of Parliament who is now using what’s left of her platform to say the quiet part out loud.

Former Conservative MP Nelly Shin represented Port Moody–Coquitlam in British Columbia through the peak of the pandemic. She took the shots so she could keep showing up for her constituents in Ottawa, then later stepped away from public life because of debilitating symptoms she describes as long COVID.

Shin attended the Allison Inquiry hearings on Parliament Hill from September 8–11, where Canadians reporting vaccine-related injuries testified about lost careers, crushed finances and doctors who would not put the words “vaccine injury” in a chart.

After listening, she went home and wrote a Substack piece titled A Call for Canada to Support the Vaccine Injured and Move Together Toward Closure from a Pandemic We All Want to Forget. In it, she argues the same government that enforced lockdowns and mandates “in the name of saving lives” has turned a blind eye to the people still suffering as a result of their unprecedented measures.

“No injury, no sickness or illness is a controversial issue, but circumstances right now have made it a controversial issue and people don’t want to touch it,” Shin told me. “What we’re dealing with is people who are sick, who need treatment, but there’s so little out there that the government and the health officials in Canada are willing to discuss.”

Shin was candid about her own case — four trips to the ER after a severe bout of pneumonia, breathing problems, brain fog and exhaustion triggered by any level of exertion. “Nothing shows up [on the labs],” she said. “So that’s the frustrating part.”

She was an MP when the shots rolled out under emergency authorization, and she had doubts about taking the novel injection. “I wasn’t sure how much time and robust research had gone in in terms of the after effects, the long-term effects,” she said. Her decision came in what she calls a “panic of survival,” with death counts broadcast daily which kept the public fearful and submissive. “To keep saying that this is a perfect, infallible vaccine and keep promoting it to the degree that the government did, I think it was a huge risk.”

That risk is one Ottawa still refuses to revisit. The federal Vaccine Injury Support Program — now rebranded — has become a case study in lost files, high rejection rates and administrative costs that dwarf the help actually delivered. Shin doesn’t see a one-off glitch, but a pattern: “There’s just a lack of will or interest. Nobody wants to talk about COVID now.”

Her first demand is simple acknowledgement, so the professional chill on doctors can lift and physicians can openly discuss treatments — including the alternative protocols that get mocked. “You can’t just tell someone to go to the corner and figure it out on their own and just wilt,” she said. “What are they left with? It’s just so cruel.”

Asked what single commitment she’d put to sitting MPs and Health Canada, Shin didn’t hesitate: “Be careful not to over control or over manage a situation… You can’t so confidently, with such grandiosity, force people to take something that hasn’t been properly tested.”

Canadians who are still sick don’t need another communications exercise. They need the chill lifted, the files found, and doctors free to treat the patient in front of them instead of protecting the narrative.

Keep reading

Talafreakout: Should There Be a Mental-Health Requirement for Lawmakers?

Since the Second World War, the left has done its very best to pathologize being right-wing: not just explicit identification with parties of the right, but also the basic attitudes, beliefs, and stances associated with being of a conservative temperament. The goal of that endeavor is to discourage and even punish right-wing affiliation, to the social and electoral benefit of the left.

Theodor Adorno, of the Frankfurt School, landed some heavy early blows with his 1950 book, The Authoritarian Personality. Rooted in Freudian ideas of repression and the Oedipus complex, the book argued for the existence of a specific personality structure that predisposes people to undemocratic and fascist beliefs. The book produced a special tool called the F-Scale—literally, the “Fascism Scale”—that measured nine key components of the authoritarian personality. These included “conventionalism” (rigid adherence to middle-class values), “anti-intraception” (opposition to the subjective, imaginative, and sentimental), and “authoritarian submission” (uncritical acceptance of authority figures within the in-group).

Critics pointed out that The Authoritarian Personality had nothing to say about the traits shared by, say, Stalinists. Didn’t they also worship power, persecute dissent, believe hysterical conspiracies about their enemies, and lapse into terrifying pogroms and bouts of mass murder? The historian Christopher Lasch, author of The Culture of Narcissism and The Revolt of the Elites, said the book effectively made leftism the sole bastion of true mental health and risked defining large swathes of American society as a kind of open-air “insane asylum.”

But these criticisms are moot, really: Adorno wanted to obfuscate leftist terror, and he hated the average American and his entire way of life.

That pathologization, inspired by Adorno and others, continues. A couple of weeks ago, for example, I saw a new scientific study that claims “people who favor group-based inequality”—read: conservatives—have lower levels of gray matter in a region of the brain linked to empathy. Literally: if you’re a conservative, you have a shrunken empathy center in your brain. The other way of framing it, of course, would be to say liberals have an enlarged empathy center, too big perhaps, since it makes them believe countries are just lines on a map and goat herders from the Middle East and tribesmen from Papua New Guinea have an equal moral claim on their time and resources as their own children. But the default—the idea of the conservative as mentally, morally, even physically defective—is now powerfully enshrined, and so we naturally think of things that way. Or many of us do.

The funny thing is, though, there’s a considerable body of credible work in the social sciences that tells the opposite story. It’s leftism that’s a pathology. Or, rather, leftists tend to be more mentally ill, unhappier, more neurotic, and emotionally unstable than right-wingers. Narcissism and psychopathy have also been associated with “anti-hierarchical aggression”—the desire to destroy society—and Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy predict “virtuous victimhood signalling,” the claims to moral superiority that accrue to the persecuted in today’s leftist worldview. Whether, a fortiori, that means leftism itself is a mental disease, we can leave to some other time. I certainly know what I believe, and I elaborate on this theme at length in my new book The Last Men: Liberalism and the Death of Masculinity.

Which brings me to the real subject of this missive: James Talarico. Or, as President Trump likes to call him, James Talafreako. Talarico, a Democrat, is currently running in the U.S. Senate race in Texas. If you’ve been following the news, you’ll know he’s been mysteriously absent from the campaign trail—nine days in total. He appeared virtually at a campaign event on September 30 and told supporters he was feeling unwell. He didn’t reappear until last Friday. So conspicuous was his absence that his opponent, state attorney general Ken Paxton, demanded “proof of life,” which is the kind of thing you do during hostage negotiations with Hezbollah or FARC (there was a bad Russell Crowe film with that very title and premise). Talarico said he’d “had the flu.” Then, on Sunday, came a stunning revelation. Talarico had, in fact, been in a mental institution in Ohio. On X, independent journalist Nick Sortor posted a short clip of a conversation in which a female employee at the Lindner Center of Hope said Talarico had “just been discharged this evening.”

“While I sympathize with those dealing with mental health crises, this man is CLEARLY not suited to become a U.S. Senator representing over 30 MILLION TEXANS,” Sortor wrote.

“The job doesn’t get easier after being elected—it only gets MORE stressful. And Talarico clearly can’t handle it. I pray he gets the help he needs, but Texans need a real representative they can rely on.”

The speculation that Talarico was actually in a padded room rather than “in bed and, you know, drinking lots of liquids” (his words) had begun well before Sortor posted the clip on X. Given the kind of ridiculous stuff Talarico regularly says in public—there are six biological sexes, “God is non-binary,” it’s “abusive” to deny a child’s gender identity, “White skin gives me and every white American immunity from the virus [of racism]”—it seemed only natural that an unexplained absence would lead to such speculation. I mean, where else would he go? The beach?

Needless to say, the Talafreakout story went mega-viral. Elon Musk boosted it on X, and President Trump even alluded to it. “I don’t think it was the flu,” he told reporters.

The Lindner Center of Hope has since issued a denial. A longer clip of the conversation with the employee was obtained by The Bulwark and reveals the woman actually denied Talarico had ever stayed there, full stop. The short clip posted by Sortor was taken out of context. There’s also a chronological clash. Sortor claimed Talarico had been discharged the day before—the Saturday evening—but he was at a Katy Musgraves concert in Dallas that day, as his social media confirms.

Talarico has called the claim “a lie designed to promote a pathetic conspiracy theory” and attempted to turn things around by accusing Paxton of being the one with a medical condition.

Keep reading

House GOP crafts nuclear option for sanctuary cities, letting victims sue local officials

ouse Republicans are pushing ahead with sweeping legislation to obliterate sanctuary cities, setting up a post-election vote that would empower victims of illegal immigrants’ crimes to sue the local officials who released them from custody.

The Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act passed through the House Judiciary Committee with little fanfare last month, creating a path for GOP lawmakers to impose the toughest crackdown yet on states and cities that refuse to turn over illegal immigrants under federal detainers or outright release migrants in their custody.

The bill’s most poignant weapon creates a right of private action for victims and families of victims to sue the municipalities and officials who released violent offenders, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told Just the News.

“We got a good deal that we worked long and hard on”: Jordan

The provision would strip some of the civil immunity that state and local officials enjoy. Currently, in some jurisdictions, those officials enjoy “absolute immunity,” which is the broadest form of the doctrine. 

“It allows people who’ve been harmed, where local political leaders tell the local law enforcement they can’t work with federal law enforcement, detainers aren’t honored … to go take that city, take that state to court, and say, ‘look, this was ridiculous. What happened and was so wrong, so tragic,'” Jordan explained.

“So we got a good deal that we worked long and hard on. We just got to try to get it passed in the lame duck [period],” he added.

In addition to the lawsuit provision, the bill also:

  • Reasserts federal supremacy over state and local laws that restrict cooperation with immigration enforcement with the Department of Homeland Security.
  • Requires state and local authorities to honor DHS detainers for illegal immigrants arrested for criminal or motor vehicle offenses who are subject to deportation.
  • Withholds some federal funding from sanctuary states and municipalities who don’t comply and reallocate the monies to compliant  jurisdictions.
Illegal immigrant involvement in felonies said to be still growing

The push by Jordan and his allies comes as it’s claimed that the number of cases of released aliens causing harm or death continues to grow. The data is conflicting, but individual cases putting a human face on the issue raises public interest.

Just last month, Homeland Security decried a case where an illegal immigrant from India who was released during the Biden years stalked and killed a woman in California.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confirmed last month that Rohit Rohit, the man accused of stalking 38-year-old Shalini Thakur for months before executing her in a Panera Bread parking lot in Sacramento, was in the country illegally. 

“Sanctuary politicians must put an end to reckless policies that play Russian roulette with American lives,” the DHS said.

Keep reading

Jury Convicts Blogger After Ohio Senator Reports Crude Political Joke

An Ohio jury has found a blogger guilty of sending a crude, but clearly political joke to a state senator who had just dropped out of a Senate president race – and who chose to call the police instead of simply blocking the number.

All it took was for Senator Jerry Cirino to personally call the police chief in his hometown of Kirtland and ask that charges be filed against D.J. Byrnes, who writes under the pen name “The Rooster.”

The image that was sent to the senator depicted the cartoon ogre Shrek holding his genitals, and the accompanying text was a joke at the politician’s expense.

The judge who signed the arrest warrant had received campaign contributions from Cirino and had been endorsed by him.

Cirino also emailed the local police chief, saying he was “officially filing a complaint” and asking the police to “take appropriate actions” – and to make sure the “harassment” stops.

The Shrek image sent by Byrnes was described in the arrest affidavit as “fully nude with an exposed and erect humanlike penis engaged in an act of masturbation.”

Byrnes’ attorneys argued that the image, accompanied by a text that called Cirino “Young Mussolini,” was simply a political statement.

“The image made the exact same point he texted. Cirino had exposed himself,” said defense attorney William Livingston.

“One message and a meme and one reply, all about a single subject: the Senate race that Cirino had just lost,” Livingston said.

Another attorney, J. Michael Murray, told the court that the image of Shrek was meant to show that Cirino was “exposing himself, as he couldn’t win the presidency.”

Murray said that Byrnes, who was arrested in public at the Statehouse in June and held for 23 hours, “spent a night in jail because he offended a powerful politician.”

Prosecutor Matthew Lallo asked the jury: “Tell me how that is not a harassing message.”

Byrnes was found guilty and ordered to pay $200 in fines and court costs. His attorneys plan to appeal.

Cirino, meanwhile, maintained that he was not trying to stifle free speech, saying, “This was about protecting my rights as an individual.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) said in June that the government “generally cannot punish people for saying things to or about public officials, even if some find the speech offensive, insulting or vulgar.”

FIRE also rejected the notion that the image of Shrek was obscene, saying it was “protected political mockery, not obscenity.”

FIRE’s advice to Cirino at the time was: “Block the number.”

The real punishment was the arrest, the night in jail, and the trial, all courtesy of a powerful politician who chose to “pursue” a critic instead of blocking them on his phone.

Keep reading

President Trump Calls for Mandatory Prison Sentences for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security Fraudsters – Says Crooked Politicians Who Cover It Up Must Face Real Consequences

President Donald Trump is calling on Congress to finally put real teeth behind the government’s war on fraud, mandatory prison sentences for criminals caught stealing from Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

In a video released Saturday, Trump demanded legislation establishing mandatory minimum sentences for fraudsters who loot the federal programs millions of Americans depend on.

Under Trump’s proposal, probation would no longer be an option for covered fraud offenses.

“Today, I’m calling on Congress to pass legislation to address fraud in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security programs,” Trump said.

“First, Congress must impose mandatory minimum sentences on fraudsters who steal from critical benefit programs designed to take care of the sick, feed the hungry, care for our children, and protect our senior citizens’ retirements.”

“Under our proposal, probation is no longer an option for the fraudsters. If you steal from the American people, you will go to prison and for a long period of time. And the more you steal, the longer you’ll stay in that prison,” he said. “If you’re a convicted fraudster who gets caught stealing from the American people a second time, your sentence will be doubled.”

Then he went after the politicians.

“Second, Congress must make sure that crooked and corrupt politicians who willfully turn a blind eye to fraud finally face real consequences,” Trump said.

“Under our proposal, if a state or local politician knows about fraud and has the ability to stop it, but does nothing about it, they can be personally liable for the full loss of the American taxpayers’ money that they should have stopped and they should have saved.”

The White House published the president’s announcement Saturday under the title “Minimum Sentences on Fraudsters.”

Keep reading

Illinois Taxpayers Appear to Be Footing the Bill for Billionaire Pritzker’s Weight Loss Drug

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker revealed to “CBS Mornings” that for the last two years he has been using a GLP-1 medication to lose weight.

In a CBS News interview broadcast Monday, Pritzker said he’s lost 80 pounds so far and he feels “a whole lot different and a whole lot better.”

“I’ve been overweight most of my life, really, since I was probably 7 or 8 years old,” Pritzker said.

Pritzker told the network a diabetes diagnosis two years ago pushed the change. A doctor recommended a GLP-1 and warned he might need treatment for life. Pritzker said he injects weekly, walks about four miles most mornings, and is off insulin.

Keep reading

NDP-turned-Liberal MP Lori Idlout broke ethics rules by billing taxpayers for purchases from family businesses

Nunavut Liberal MP Lori Idlout violated parliamentary conflict-of-interest rules after claiming taxpayer-funded reimbursements for purchases made from businesses owned by herself and her spouse, Canada’s ethics commissioner has found.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein released his findings Wednesday following an investigation under the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.

According to the commissioner, Idlout used her parliamentary office budget to seek reimbursement for purchases made at a business she owns and another owned by her spouse.

The transactions increased or preserved the value of the couple’s assets, thereby furthering their private interests while Idlout was performing her parliamentary duties.

Section 8 of the ethics code prohibits MPs from using their public positions to advance their own private interests, those of family members or the interests of another person or organization.

Despite finding that Idlout broke the rules, von Finckenstein recommended no sanction.

The commissioner accepted Idlout’s explanation that the purchases were “errors of judgement made in good faith” and noted that she repaid the House of Commons after the violations were brought to her attention.

“She did not realize that making purchases from two businesses would further her or her spouse’s private interests,” von Finckenstein said. “She also repaid the House of Commons as soon as the errors were brought to her attention.”

Idlout was elected as a New Democrat before crossing the floor to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s governing Liberals in March 2026. Her defection helped move the Liberal government closer to a parliamentary majority.

The commissioner’s report was submitted to the Speaker of the House of Commons and will be tabled when Parliament next sits.

Keep reading

Regulation: Protecting Incumbents And Suppressing Competition

A previous article attributed widespread airline service failures not to individual carriers but to government interventions sold as consumer protections. Through a web of intricate regulations and controls, the state restricts entry, grants shared monopoly privileges to approved carriers, and creates what Rothbard calls a state-enforced cartel. The result is an illusion of competition that allows poor service to persist without attracting better alternatives. This article examines how the same pattern protects incumbents and suppresses competition across other industries.

The banking system provides perhaps the clearest example. Entry requires a charter, regulatory approval, access to payment networks, compliance with extensive federal and state laws, and deposit insurance. The Federal Reserve supplies bank reserves, emergency credit, and the benchmark underlying prime rates, while the FDIC protects depositors from losses and reduces their incentive to distinguish between prudent and imprudent banks. Together with the discount window, this protection creates moral hazard by socializing risk and encouraging loans banks might not otherwise make. The result is an illusion of competition within a protected system that shifts the consequences of risky banking onto taxpayers and the broader economy.

Credit card pricing reveals the consequences. Banks appear to compete through branding, rewards, introductory offers, fees, and expanded credit access, yet interest rates remain remarkably high relative to the prime rate. The CFPB found that the ten largest issuers controlled 83 percent of outstanding balances and generally charged higher rates than smaller banks and credit unions. Perks and easier access create an illusion of competition that conceals the monopoly rates paid by customers who carry balances.

This restriction of competition becomes even more explicit in health care. Certificate-of-need laws allow incumbents to exercise a competitor’s veto by opposing applications to build facilities, acquire equipment, add beds, or offer new services as unnecessary. Rather than letting patients determine whether another provider is needed, the state allows existing providers to declare the market adequately served. These restrictions help explain why many communities entered the pandemic with so few ICU beds. North Carolina eye surgeon Dr. Jay Singleton, for example, remains barred from offering lower-cost surgery at his own facility while his constitutional challenge proceeds. The outrage would be deafening if the state allowed McDonald’s to veto a Burger King opening across the street by claiming that Whoppers were duplicative. Yet health care incumbents exercise precisely this power, putting Rothbard’s monopoly privilege into practice by asking the state to block entrepreneurs they might otherwise have to outperform.

Montana’s waste-removal rules extend the same competitor’s veto from hospitals to dumpsters. Parker Noland discovered that construction companies were dissatisfied with existing debris-removal services. After borrowing money to buy dumpsters and a specialized truck, he began advertising but soon received a cease-and-desist order from the Montana Public Service Commission. Continuing required a certificate of public convenience and necessity through a process that allowed existing waste companies to oppose his entry without explanation. Republic Services and Waste Connections protested his application, while other certificate holders demanded his tax returns, revenues, financial statements, and other business records. Unable to match their legal and financial resources, Noland withdrew. Rather than merely enforcing safety standards, the state empowered his prospective competitors to deny dissatisfied customers an alternative.

Professional licensing extends the same exclusionary power to entire occupations by allowing organized interests to control entry in the name of quality and public safety. Through its influence over medical education, accreditation, licensing, and professional membership, the American Medical Association helped determine who could become a physician and often applied these restrictions discriminatorily. Black physicians were excluded from many state and local medical societies, limiting their access to the national association, hospitals, and professional opportunities. Following a three-year investigation, the AMA formally apologized in 2008 for the harm inflicted on black physicians, their families, and their patients.

The AMA’s review shows that this discrimination extended beyond black physicians. Women accounted for only 2.9 percent of medical-school graduates in 1915 and remained a small minority for decades. Jewish applicants also faced blatant discrimination. In 1939, JAMA editor Morris Fishbein acknowledged that they were rejected “simply because they were Jewish” but defended the practice because Jewish physicians already represented a substantial share of the profession. Although the AMA’s apology focused on black physicians, the broader record demonstrates the danger of allowing professional organizations and incumbents to control entry. Presented as patient protections, licensing and accreditation helped create a state-enforced medical cartel that restricted the supply of physicians, raised prices, and reduced patient choice.

Control over entry and consumer choice also shapes public education, where the government acts as both financier and provider. Families must fund the system through taxes whether they use it or not, while licensing restricts who may teach, accreditation limits which institutions may compete, and political authorities determine curricula, funding, and operating standards. Parents are largely limited to their assigned public school, permitted charter schools, nearby private schools they must pay for separately, or moving to another district. Even these alternatives remain subject to state approval and regulation, while compulsory-attendance laws leave children no option to reject their poorly performing schools. Unlike a restaurant that loses revenue and eventually closes after repeatedly failing its customers, a failing public school may receive additional funding because the state restricts entry, compels attendance, and supplies it with captive customers.

Keep reading

Accuser Tells House Ethics Panel Democrat Rep. Jimmy Gomez Assaulted Her

Attorneys for an unnamed woman told the House Committee on Ethics that Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-CA) sexually harassed and assaulted her, disputing the California Democrat’s claim that his conduct was “consensual in nature.”

The statement, released Wednesday by attorneys Lisa J. Banks and Sarah E. Nesbitt, escalates a probe the committee announced Monday into whether Gomez engaged in “inappropriate sexual contact with a House staffer.”

The attorneys said their client sat for an interview with the panel and directly contradicted the congressman’s account of his own behavior.

“We represent one of the women who was interviewed by the House Committee on Ethics about her experience of sexual harassment and assault by Representative Jimmy Gomez,” Banks and Nesbitt wrote. “Contrary to Representative Gomez’s assertion in his statement, his actions were not ‘consensual in nature’ with respect to our client. We fully expect that the House Committee on Ethics will come to the same conclusion in its investigation.”

Keep reading