Tag: politics

Is This the Scandal That Dooms Josh Shapiro’s Presidential Ambitions?

Josh Shapiro has spent years polishing his image, positioning himself as a potential presidential candidate. He hasn’t quite figured out that his party will never nominate a Jew for president, so you would think he’d still try to keep up appearances and pretend to be a decent human being before he starts his presidential campaign next year.

Instead, he’s making headlines for something extremely unflattering: a backyard land grab that truly destroys his statesman image and makes him out to be more like a corrupt governor abusing his position to get what he wants.

“Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s neighbors are suing the Democrat, accusing him of stealing a slice of their land to erect an eight-foot-high security fence around his private residence in an ‘outrageous abuse of power,’” reports the New York Post. “The neighbors, Jeremy and Simone Mock, are currently duking it out with the governor in court over a 2,900 square foot parcel of land located between their two homes in Abington, Montgomery County, court papers show.”

It gets worse. Shapiro is essentially claiming squatter’s rights on the land.

The Mocks alleged in a lawsuit filed last month that Shapiro and his wife, Lori, unlawfully seized the stretch of land after initial negotiations to buy it from them went up in flames.

Shapiro claimed in a countersuit that he owns the disputed land due, citing an “adverse possession” loophole that makes it his because he has maintained the sliver of property for decades.

The land-grab tit-for-tat kicked off last year when the Shapiros first sought to erect the huge fence and upgrade security following an arson attack on the governor’s official residence in Harrisburg while they were all sleeping inside on April 13.

“This is a case of squatters’ rights, which is the colloquial term for the legal doctrine known as adverse possession,” attorney Chad Cummings told Realtor.com. “Where a person continuously maintains possession of another’s property openly, visibly, and notoriously for a set period of time, which varies by state, the squatter can file a court action to ask the court to recognize the squatter—the ‘adverse possessor’—as the legal owner through a quiet title action.”

Think it can’t get worse? Well, it does.

Keep reading

New Bill Puts U.S. State Department in Charge of Organizing Foreign Governments for Next Pandemic Vaccines and Drugs: H.R. 7879

A new bill introduced earlier this week in Congress would require the United States Department of State to organize foreign governments and international institutions behind the development and commercialization of medical countermeasures for future pandemics.

Pandemic preparedness is normally managed by domestic health agencies, not the State Department, meaning the bill would place the United States Department of State at the center of organizing foreign governments around vaccines, drugs, and other countermeasures for the next pandemic.

The current Secretary of State is Marco Rubio, a former republican senator from Florida (funding).

The Secretary would have the highest level of authority over the international coordination described in the bill.

The new federal legislation, H.R. 7879, was introduced March 9 by California Representatives Mike Levin (D) (funding) and David G. Valadao (R) (funding) and referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Officials within the U.S. government are constructing the worldwide system for distributing pandemic vaccines and treatments before the next pandemic has even begun.

You can contact Levin here and Valadao here, as well as the rest of the representatives here, to express your opposition to pandemic orchestration and to oppose granting the State Department the authority to organize future pandemic responses with foreign governments and unelected global institutions.

Keep reading

CA gov. candidate Eric Swalwell rents a room in a family of three’s home to claim he lives in California: report

California Democratic gubernatorial candidate Eric Swalwell reportedly rents a single room in a home occupied by a family of three in the eastern Bay Area — and one of his Democratic opponents says it’s just so the congressman can claim he lives in the Golden state.

The alleged discovery of Swalwell’s Livermore rental came from the congressman’s top Democratic opponent, billionaire Tom Steyer. Steyer says Swalwell appears to “live in California on paper only” as the governor race heats up, “making him unlikely to meet the basic residency requirements to run for Governor.”

In a letter from Ryan Hughes, Steyer’s attorney, he called on the Secretary of State Shirley Weber to “enforce a dormant residency requirement in the governor’s race” and encouraged Weber to “allow for robust legal proceedings as to whether Swalwell is eligible to serve as Governor,” preventing any future action by the Trump administration.

“If elected, questions of legitimacy would hang over Swalwell, allowing the Trump Administration to sow doubt, exploit the ambiguity, and advance its perverse agendas,” Hughes wrote in the letter. “The Trump Administration could question Swalwell’s legitimacy as Governor and, therefore, imperil California’s receipt of federal funds, the state’s ability to deploy the California National Guard, and act in emergencies.”

Hughes pointed out that Swalwell purchased a home in Washington D.C. which is listed on a 2022 deed of trust and that deed records did not indicate he has any ownership in the Livermore home.

In the letter, Steyer’s attorney claimed the Livermore address home is “owned by Nicolas and Kristina Mrzywka. Kristina Mrzywka (formerly Kristina Pinto) is the sister of Stephanie Sbranti (formerly Stephanie Pinto), who is married to Tim Sbranti. Swalwell’s former deputy chief of staff/district director(2015–2018) and a longtime mentor who helped introduce him to politics.”

In an interview, Sbranti said he suggested Swalwell rent a room in the Livermore home “as a way to maintain an affordable base in an expensive district, ” the Sacramento Bee reported.

Keep reading

Gavin Newsom Has a ‘Hillary Clinton Problem’

The destroyer of California, Gov. Gavin Newsom, wants very, very much to be president of the United States, and if he ever attains his goal, he will do to the entire country what he has done to California. That’s why all reasonable Americans who value the nation as a relatively economically stable and free society should be deeply alarmed at the prospect of a Newsom presidency. Newsom is such a bad candidate that even some leftists are alarmed, albeit not for the same reasons that patriots are. On the left, the concern is that Gavin has a “Hillary Clinton problem.”

The term “Hillary Clinton problem” could refer to so very many difficulties and categories of difficulties that it veritably boggles the mind. Did Newsom use a private email server to conceal government business from watchdogs? Did he abandon our people to jihadis at Benghazi and then lie about it? Does Newsom intend, after losing (as all patriots hope) the 2028 presidential election, to frame his victorious opponent for collusion with Russia? Does Newsom have reputation for lamp-throwing temper tantrums? Do Newsom’s enemies have strange suicidal tendencies?

In this case, the “Hillary Clinton problem” phrase comes from MS NOW host Chris Hayes, who said: “I think Newsom has the Hillary Clinton problem, which is that Hillary Clinton was perceived outside of the Democratic Party and Democratic coalition as the ultimate lib, the libiest lib who ever lived, and was never actually like that much of a lib. It was like — and also had a record that was fairly centrist, particularly as a U.S. senator.”

Oh, good grief. Hayes is trying to sell Newsom – and Hillary Clinton — as centrists? They may be centrists if Chairman Mao is at one end of the spectrum and Uncle Joe Stalin at the other end, but that’s about it. Newsom has presided over California’s first-ever population decline. Luminaries including Elon Musk and Steven Spielberg have fled the state to avoid Newsom’s ever-growing tower of taxes and regulations. All Newsom promises for the nation if he moves into the White House on Jan. 20, 2029 is an open border, spiraling crime, and a federal government that bleeds the taxpayer even more than his California state government does now. What is centrist about all that?

Hayes added: “And that’s like the worst uncanny valley for a Democratic politician to be in, where the base doesn’t trust you because you don’t have a kind of organic relationship with the left parts of the party. And then the swing voter just thinks like, that’s a lib.” Right. Because the swing voter is still marginally sane, while the “left parts of the party” think that men can become women, that Old Joe Biden was a competent president, and that ever-expanding government control over every aspect of Americans’ daily lives is a positive development.

Whether the Democrats run Newsom in 2028 or some other nutbar, it is virtually certain that no one will be able to secure the nomination without appealing to the party’s socialist, anti-American, pro-Islamic Republic of Iran, pro-Hamas base. Hayes says that the “Democrats needed someone who had an authentic relationship with the party’s left-wing base, but also ‘communicates broadly’ and is viewed as nonpartisan.” This is like saying that V. I. Lenin has a chance to be elected if he “communicates broadly” with anti-Communists and is viewed as nonpartisan: it isn’t going to happen.

Hayes, however, thinks Newsom can do it: “I just think right now — and this could change — Newsom has the opposite set of factors. He has made very clear attempts to show that he’s bipartisan, centrist, independent.” How on earth has Gavin Newsom ever attempted to be “bipartisan”? This is the man who has sponsored a gerrymandering scheme that will totally disenfranchise the millions of Californians who are still Republicans.

Keep reading

The App Store Accountability Act Is A Privacy Nightmare Disguised As Child Protection

Washington has discovered a familiar political trick: wrap a flawed policy in the language of protecting children and hope nobody reads the fine print. The latest example is the App Store Accountability Act, a bill championed by lawmakers who appear eager to regulate the internet without understanding how it actually works.

Supporters insist the legislation will protect kids online. In reality, it risks undermining privacy, violating constitutional protections, and creating a cybersecurity disaster in the process.

And remarkably, Congress is pushing forward with this even though federal courts have already signaled that this exact regulatory model is unconstitutional.

The App Store Accountability Act would require app stores to verify the ages of every user and share age information with app developers. On paper, that sounds straightforward. In practice, it would force companies to collect massive amounts of sensitive personal data simply to download everyday apps.

Want to download a weather app? Verify your age.

Want to install a calculator? Verify your age.

Want to read the news? Verify your age.

The practical result is obvious: app stores would be compelled to gather highly sensitive identity data on tens of millions of Americans and then distribute that information to countless third-party developers.

This could be one of the largest digital identity honeypots ever conceived.

Security experts have been warning about this for months. In fact, 419 cybersecurity and privacy academics from 30 countries recently signed an open letter warning that large-scale age verification systems are “dangerous and socially unacceptable” because they create enormous new attack surfaces for hackers and data thieves.

The logic is simple. If every app download requires age verification, that means sensitive identity data must be stored, transmitted, and accessed across thousands of services. Instead of limiting the spread of personal information, the bill effectively multiplies it.

For cybercriminals, it would be a dream target.

Keep reading

And the Next President of Venezuela Will Be…

On Monday, after hosting the historic first Shield of the Americas Summit in Doral, Fla., Donald Trump stopped by a Venezuelan restaurant, El Arepazo, on his way to the airport to fly back to Washington, D.C. He was greeted with cheers and applause and chants of “Trump!” and “USA!” The crowd loved him, as they often do during these types of appearances, but this one was, potentially, a bit more meaningful.

Sometimes referred to as “Dorazuela,” the city of Doral has one of the largest Venezuelan diaspora communities in the United States. The president owns a hotel here — it’s where the summit, which was focused largely on rallying like-minded Latin American leaders to come together in the name of regional security and combating the cartels that plague every country in the Western Hemisphere, took place just days before. 

At the restaurant, Trump shook hands, chatted with staff and patrons, and even took some Venezuelan food back on the plane for his staff. Those who were there said it was one of the warmest political appearances they’ve ever seen, which doesn’t surprise me. Whether they live in Doral or Caracas or somewhere else in the world, the Venezuelan people love Donald Trump. On January 3, he did more for that country than almost anyone else probably ever has.  

But the language he uses leaves many wary and understandably so. The constant praise of Delcy Rodríguez and saying she’s doing a good job is tough to hear when you know that she’s just as bad and every bit as much as corrupt as Nicolás Maduro was. She’s a communist by birth and was radicalized even further when her Marxist father died in police custody after being arrested for kidnapping a business executive from the United States. After his death, she vowed to go into politics as her own form of personal vengeance.  

“Delcy Rodríguez knows how to present herself as a ‘moderate,'” Venezuelan opposition-aligned lawyer Estrella Infante told me earlier this year. “That is why she has always handled international negotiations. She has extensive global connections, and many actors prefer her continuity because it protects their interests. That is her power.” (For what it’s worth, those global connections are largely our adversaries — Iran, China, Russia, Cuba, etc.)  

The thing is, Delcy has a little help with maintaining her “moderate” reputation, and it comes from the United States. If it’s not the New York Times literally calling her a “moderate” and writing a glowing review of what a great leader she’d be, it’s what Venezuelan lawyer and writer Emmanuel Rincón calls the “hidden lobby war against Venezuela’s democratic transition.”   

In a recent op-ed in the Washington Times, Rincón asserts, “Alongside the brave men and women who genuinely fight to end the socialist dictatorship, there has emerged a growing ecosystem of false opposition figures, fake activists, opportunistic lobbyists and self-proclaimed ‘conservatives’ who have found a way to profit from Venezuela’s tragedy.”  

Keep reading

New analysis shows ideology, not science, drove the global prohibition of psychedelics

A recent study published in Contemporary Drug Problems argues that the strict global prohibition of psychedelic drugs was driven more by political ideology and media panic than by scientific evidence of medical harm. The historical analysis reveals that the 1971 United Nations decision to heavily restrict these substances relied on cultural anxieties rather than genuine public health risks. These findings suggest that current international drug laws may need to be reevaluated to remove unnecessary barriers to modern medical research.

Psychedelics are a diverse class of substances that alter a person’s perception, mood, and cognitive processes. This category includes naturally occurring compounds found in certain plants and mushrooms, like psilocybin and mescaline, as well as synthetic drugs like lysergic acid diethylamide, commonly known as LSD. Medical professionals generally consider these substances to be physiologically safe, and they tend to have a very low risk of causing addiction.

The United Nations is an international organization founded to maintain global peace, security, and cooperation, which includes creating treaties to regulate the global trade of various drugs. In 1971, the United Nations adopted the Convention on Psychotropic Substances. This international treaty classified psychedelics under the strictest possible level of legal control, lumping them together with highly addictive substances.

A psychotropic substance is simply any chemical that alters how the brain functions, causing changes in mood or awareness. In recent years, medical interest in psychedelics has returned. Early research suggests they could help treat severe mental health conditions.

However, the strict international laws established in 1971 continue to make modern medical research very difficult. The scientists conducted this study to understand exactly how international diplomats originally decided to place psychedelics under such extreme restrictions. They wanted to uncover the historical and political forces that shaped these long-standing global drug policies.

“My legal background, an interest in history, and involvement in an organisation that promotes research into the risks and potential benefits of psychedelic compounds coalesced into my wanting to conduct this research,” explained study author Måns Bergkvist of Uppsala University.

To reconstruct the history of UN drug policy, the researchers examined primary historical documents spanning from 1963 to 1971. They gathered archival records from three specific locations: the United Nations Archives, the Swedish National Archives, and the United States National Archives. The scientists analyzed a vast collection of meeting minutes, official negotiation records, internal reports, and diplomatic resolutions.

Keep reading

Zohran Mamdami Refuses to Condemn ISIS Inspired Terrorists, Blames White Supremacy Instead

Two men from Pennsylvania have been arrested after police say improvised explosive devices were thrown near protesters outside Gracie Mansion in Manhattan during a demonstration Saturday.

The suspects, identified as Ibraham Kayumi, 19, and Emir Balat, 18, were taken into custody following the incident. Authorities said the devices were later determined to be improvised explosive devices capable of causing serious harm.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani addressed the incident Monday during a press conference outside Gracie Mansion, appearing alongside NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch.

“They are suspected of coming here to commit an act of terrorism,” Mamdani said during the briefing.

He also referenced video footage that investigators say captured the incident.

“There’s video of these two individuals throwing two devices towards the protest. The police department has determined that these were improvised explosive devices made to injure, maim, or worse.”

Mamdani added that anyone attempting to bring violence into the city would face legal consequences.

Keep reading

Why Are All AI Models Left Wing?

Ask ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, or Llama about immigration, climate policy, welfare, gender ideology, or censorship, and the answers may differ in tone, but the underlying ideology is always the same. Multiple studies now find that leading language models lean left on contested political questions, often favouring progressive social assumptions and more interventionist economic positions. Researchers in Germany found strong alignment with left-wing parties across major models. Another study found instruction-tuned models were generally more left-leaning. A third concluded that larger models often become more politically skewed, not less. That is a serious problem for a technology sold as an impartial guide to information. If the tools increasingly used to explain the world already tilt in one direction, the question is no longer whether bias exists, but how far it shapes what millions of users come to regard as neutral truth.

It’s Not Just a Theory Anymore

For years, concerns about political bias in AI were brushed aside as anecdotal. That argument has weakened sharply. A 2025 study examining AI-based voting advice tools and large language models ahead of Germany’s federal election found that the models showed strong alignment, averaging more than 75 per cent, with left-wing parties, while their alignment with centre-right parties was below 50 per cent and with right-wing parties around 30 per cent. The authors warned that systems presented as neutral informational tools were in fact producing substantially biased outputs.

Another 2025 paper testing popular models against Germany’s Wahl-O-Mat framework reached a similar conclusion. It found a bias towards left-leaning parties and reported that this tendency was most dominant in larger models. The study’s title was blunt enough on its own: Large Means Left.

A separate theory-grounded analysis based on 88,110 responses across 11 commercial and open models found that political bias measures can vary by prompt, but that instruction-tuned systems were generally more left-leaning. The important point is not that every model behaves identically. It is that the overall pattern keeps recurring across methods, datasets, and research teams.

Keep reading

BOOM! Jesse Jackson’s Democrat Son CALLS OUT Obama, Biden, and Clinton for Politicizing His Father’s Funeral: They ‘Do Not Know Jesse Jackson’

Jesse Jackson Jr., son of the late Rev. Jesse Jackson, has come out swinging against the Democrats who shamelessly turned his father’s funeral into a hate-filled anti-Trump spectacle.

Jackson, who has largely stayed out of the spotlight during this mourning period, issued a fiery statement blasting the political opportunists who hijacked the solemn event to push their divisive agenda during the homegoing service for his father at the Rainbow PUSH Coalition headquarters in Chicago on Saturday.

On February 18, Jonathan Jackson Jr. pleaded during a press conference for people not to bring politics into his father’s funeral services.

“Dad believed that funerals were not for the dearly departed. He believed funerals were for the living. He believed they were great gathering meetings.

No two lives in human history will have the same number of people attending their funerals, nor will the same people be at their funerals. Your friends aren’t my friends, and my friends aren’t your friends. We don’t know the same people. You don’t know the same people that I know.

Do not bring your politics, out of respect to Reverend Jesse Jackson and the life that he lived, to these homegoing services. Come respectfully, and come to say thank you.

But these homegoing services are welcome to all — Democrat, Republican, liberal, and conservative; right-wing, left-wing — because his life is broad enough to cover the full spectrum of what it means to be an American.

We only ask people to come and be respectful in the context of the extraordinary life that he lived. Dad would have wanted us to have a great meeting to discuss our differences, to find ways of moving forward and moving together.”

Keep reading