Commentary Culture Investigations

Stephen Fowler, NPR An NPR investigation finds the public database of Epstein files is missing dozens of pages related to sexual abuse accusations against President Trump.

On Tuesday, a New Mexico jury found social media giant Meta violated state consumer protection laws and purposefully misled users about the safety of its platforms for minors. The verdict includes a total civil penalty of $375 million based on the maximum penalty allowed under New Mexico law of $5,000 per violation. 
After a nearly seven-week trial, the jury agreed with New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez’s argument that Meta, which owns Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp, “knew their products harmed children, disregarded warnings from their own employees, and lied to the public about what they knew.”
The original lawsuit was filed in 2023 in New Mexico, accusing Meta of violating the state’s Unfair Practices Act by engaging in “unconscionable trade practices” that exploited its minor users. According to Torrez’s initial complaint, Meta knowingly failed to “identify and report” child sexual abuse material while “creating and sending harmful notifications that encourage addictive use of its platforms.” 
Torrez plainly states that Meta’s algorithms are focused on finding and disseminating “sexually exploitative and explicit materials” for the purpose of creating its own “social network of users looking to buy and sell the images,” adding that it’s “the children who are its casualties and its currency.”
To prove that Meta’s algorithm deliberately steered children toward exploitative material and potential traffickers, State of New Mexico investigators “created numerous accounts for minors” on Facebook and Instagram. Investigators then documented each allegation of sexual solicitation and Meta’s response regarding the claim.
In one instance, investigators created a fictional pairing, Cereceres and her 13-year-old daughter Issa Bee. Cereceres’ profile included signs and symbols connected to human trafficking, and her posts included language that suggested an interest in trafficking Issa. 
Three days after investigators established the profile, Cereceres’ account reached Facebook’s maximum limit of 5,000 friends, with over 3,000 followers. Meanwhile, Issa’s account included posts that alleged physical and sexual assault, mental health issues, and physical abuse. She also suggested friends and relatives had trafficked her. 
According to New Mexico authorities, Facebook never alerted the account. Still, its algorithm did take notice of Issa’s content to push ads and notifications for mental health treatment and law firms representing victims of human trafficking. 
Attorneys for Meta argue its apps are for connection, not predators. The company has invested heavily in safety, disclosing risks and working to weed out harmful content posted on its platforms.
In its 2025 Community Standards Enforcement Report, Meta states that it finds over 98 percent of the child nudity and sexual exploitation content it acts on before users report it, with less than 1 percent of the material restored after investigation. 
While Meta reportedly took action on over 9.9 million pieces of child sexual exploitation content on Facebook and Instagram, New Mexico’s investigation identified thousands of users and content that Meta took no action to remove, despite being clear violations of the company’s policies.
Prosecutors were able to get around the First Amendment protections of Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act by arguing that Meta’s algorithm is responsible for pushing out harmful content to minors. 
Social media use disorder is not recognized as an official disorder by any major diagnostic system, including the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. That hasn’t stopped state prosecutors across the country from using novel legal theories to pursue claims of social media addiction and harm caused by the algorithms of tech companies like YouTube, Google, and Meta.
On Wednesday, a California jury found Meta and YouTube purposely created addictive design features that caused a young user’s mental health distress. With prosecutors citing design features such as infinite scroll and for-you recommendations as evidence of intent to harm, the decisions in New Mexico and California set legal precedent for thousands of similar ongoing lawsuits in over 40 states. 
At least 16 states have passed legislation to restrict minors’ access to social media over concerns of “addictive behaviors, mental health problems, and other harmful effects,” according to the Harvard Law Review.
Next is a bench trial scheduled to begin in New Mexico on May 4. Torrez has stated he will “seek injunctive relief that requires Meta to pay additional damages and make specific changes to its platforms and company operations.”
Meta is appealing the New Mexico ruling while evaluating its legal options for the decision in California, according to the New York Times.
READ MORE by Tosin Akintola:
Supreme Court Hears Arguments to Overturn Mississippi Law Allowing Late-Arriving Mail-In Ballots
Pentagon and Intelligence Officials Update Nation on Iran War
Partial Government Shutdown Pushes Airport Security to Its Limits

Oil prices have rocketed up to a high of $112 per barrel amid the ongoing war in Iran, though not as high as the spikes under President Biden, which saw Brent crude hit $127 in March of 2022. This again shows that U.S. energy independence is essential to national security and stability.
I’m not going to completely defend President Trump’s actions in Iran. I believe one can reasonably make arguments for or against the attack, and I have intelligent friends who fall on both sides of the debate. What I can do is provide some insight as to how America can harden itself for the future. So, dealing with things as they are, and not how we wish they were, why on Earth are we so tied to Middle East oil? Don’t we have enough here?
We do have “enough,” especially when Canada factors into the equation (and, perhaps, Venezuela). But still, it is genuinely in our interest to maintain peace in the Middle East. (RELATED: Venezuelan Oil May Not Come Easy)
Putting it simply without getting into the history: The U.S. dollar is the premier currency in which oil is traded all around the world, but particularly in the Middle East. Thus, stability in the region keeps the dollar in demand. We want the dollar to be in demand globally because when countries like Saudi Arabia receive dollars for their oil, they often reinvest those dollars into U.S. Treasury bonds and other markets that go towards funding some of the U.S. federal deficit.
I am going to assume that the petrodollar system will not change any time soon, which may upset some readers. But this is the most likely reality for the near future. (RELATED: The Price of Gas and the November Elections)
With that being the case, how can we protect Americans from future energy shocks when the Middle East is in turmoil, and the Strait of Hormuz is closed? (RELATED: Five Quick Things: Hormuz)
Some suggest that green energy, specifically wind and solar, is the solution. On the surface, if you know nothing at all about wind and solar except that they make electricity and appear to be “oil-free,” this might sound like a good idea.
But if you’re worried about being dependent on hostile, untrustworthy foreign powers for our energy, further handcuffing us to the largest producer of green tech, China, will not help America over the long term. China funds environmental activist groups here in the United States to wage war on fossil fuels while promoting wind and solar subsidies.
Green energy means Chinese prosperity.
China refines around 91 percent of all rare earth minerals, and nearly all the graphite vital for battery production. The Chinese Communist Party dominates the solar panel industry and produces nearly all the magnets necessary for electric cars and wind turbines.
Green energy means Chinese prosperity.
Nuclear power is genuinely great to add to the grid, particularly as what we call baseload power. We should expand America’s nuclear power footprint. However, it is not a magic bullet. Most nuclear power cannot react to fluctuations in short-term power demand as nimbly as natural gas or coal, though this may change with new technology. The drumbeat I constantly hear is: “Do not plan infrastructure today based on technology that does not exist and can’t be deployed at economic scale yet.”
This is the trap we find ourselves in with the supposed battery revolution that is perpetually “just around the corner.”
President Trump has already expressed support for some practical solutions: we need to cut a lot of red tape in energy and manufacturing industries, build out our refinery and domestic mining capacity, and carefully decouple from China in vital industries. (RELATED: Trump’s Mineral Revolution Secures Our National Sovereignty)
Right now, domestic oil production is limited by refining, transportation, and export bottlenecks. The United States cannot extract giant amounts of oil if there is nowhere to send it. For the first time in 50 years, a new refinery is being built on American soil due to the Trump administration’s energy dominance philosophy. This is a great step in the right direction, but it’s just a step. These efforts need to be made permanent, or a future administration could slam the brakes on Trump’s progress. (RELATED: Electricity Affordability — Trump’s Achilles’ Heel?)
Oil and natural gas are vital to the world, not just for energy but for all plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, dyes, treated materials, and other petrochemical products. Americans use things made from the byproducts of oil refining every hour of every day. There is no getting away from the fact that modern society depends on fossil fuels.
In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith said it was vitally important that countries protect domestic industries that are essential to national defense. Energy, I would argue, falls under this category.
The Trump administration needs support for these aims because access to affordable and reliable energy is paramount to U.S. interests for the foreseeable future.
Linnea Lueken (llueken@heartland.org) is a research fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute. X: @LinneaLueken 

In the weeks after Charlie Kirk was assassinated on Sep. 10, 2025, a poisonous conspiracy theory began circulating in certain corners of the right: “Israel did it.” Some claimed the Mossad orchestrated the sniper attack because Kirk had supposedly “noticed” Jewish influence, turned critical of Israel, or stood in the way of a larger agenda.
Even a few public figures treated the idea as a legitimate “data point” worth investigating.
This narrative is not just false — it is a deliberate distraction that shields the actual forces responsible for his death and betrays everything Charlie stood for.
As the author of For Christ and Country: The Martyrdom of Charlie Kirk, I reject this lie outright. My book, written in the immediate aftermath of his murder, does not entertain foreign plots, Mossad involvement, or antisemitic tropes.
Instead, it names the real culprit: years of domestic left-wing radicalization, demonization, and a culture that treated disagreement as violence and conservatives as legitimate targets.
The facts are straightforward and inconvenient for the conspiracy peddlers. The shooter, Tyler Robinson, was a 22-year-old who had drifted sharply leftward from his conservative Mormon upbringing. He lived with a transgender partner who openly despised conservatives and Christians.
Investigators recovered evidence showing ideological motivation — including bullet casings engraved with anti-fascist slogans and leftist memes. Family and friends reported that Robinson had repeatedly criticized Kirk for “spreading hate,” particularly on issues like gender ideology.
It was the logical endpoint of a domestic ecosystem that spent years branding Kirk a bigot, a threat, and someone whose words justified rage.
Utah Governor Spencer Cox confirmed the shooter’s ideology was “very different” from his family’s and pointed to online radicalization. This was not a foreign intelligence operation. It was the logical endpoint of a domestic ecosystem that spent years branding Kirk a bigot, a threat, and someone whose words justified rage.
My book lays this out in detail across multiple chapters. In “9/10 Is the New 9/11” and “The Left Killed Charlie,” I document how left-wing media, activists, and politicians created the permission structure for violence by dehumanizing Kirk and his supporters.
I contrast the peaceful, prayerful response of conservatives after his death with the mockery and justification that poured from parts of the left.
The shooter did not need orders from Tel Aviv. He had a steady American-made diet of grievance, identity politics, and the lie that conservative speech equals existential harm.
Pushing the “Israel killed Charlie” theory isn’t harmless speculation. It is recycled antisemitism dressed up as contrarianism.
It echoes blood libels and “Jewish control” conspiracies that have justified violence for centuries.
After Kirk’s assassination, thousands of posts explicitly or implicitly blamed “the Jews” or Israel, often tying it to Kirk’s pro-Israel stance or claims he had begun “noticing.” This narrative does exactly what antisemitic conspiracies always do: it redirects legitimate anger away from the real ideological driver — radical left-wing activism and cultural Marxism — and toward a scapegoat.
Worse, it lets the actual culprits off the hook.
The left spent years calling Kirk a “hate merchant,” a “racist,” and a danger to marginalized communities simply because he defended biological reality, traditional marriage, and free speech.
Commentators suggested he had it coming. Activists framed disagreement as violence. That toxic climate did not require a foreign handler to produce a killer — it only required one radicalized young man to believe the propaganda. My book shows how that propaganda worked, from campus hostility to media smears to the normalization of rage as “resistance.”
Blaming Israel also dishonors Kirk’s actual legacy.
Charlie was a consistent defender of Western civilization, including America’s alliance with Israel as a frontline state against radical Islam and terrorism. He did not traffic in antisemitic conspiracies. He confronted them. Turning his death into fuel for Jew-hatred betrays the man who lived and died proclaiming truth over narrative, faith over ideology, and courage over cowardice.
The “Israel did it” lie is attractive to some because it offers a tidy, external villain. It lets people avoid confronting the harder domestic reality: that left-wing rhetoric has real-world consequences, including political assassination. But conspiracies cannot explain what the evidence already does. Robinson’s background, messages, and actions point to domestic radicalization, not Tel Aviv.
We owe Charlie Kirk — and the truth — better than this. My book was written to bear witness to what actually happened: a young Christian leader was gunned down because he refused to bow to the lies of our age. It calls readers to respond not with distraction or division, but with renewed conviction, stronger families, bolder faith, and unapologetic defense of the principles that made America possible.
The left wants us chasing shadows while they continue rewriting reality. Do not fall for it. Read the real story. Reject the conspiracies that divide us and dishonor Charlie’s sacrifice. The fight he waged is now ours. Let us wage it with clarity, courage, and fidelity to the truth he lived and died for.
READ MORE from Drew Allen:
An Open Letter to Europe
Who Gets Canonized — And Who Gets Condemned?
Drew Thomas Allen is a columnist for The Daily Signal, a conservative author, and publicist who hosts The Drew Allen Show. 

He is the author of America’s Last Stand, For Christ and Country: The Martyrdom of Charlie Kirk, and his latest book, Clinton Hoax Obama Coup: the Declassified Story of the Trump-Russia Delusion.

Image licensed under Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic.

Here she comes!
That would be one Stacy Garrity.
Currently the popular state treasurer of Pennsylvania, Stacy is to be the Republican nominee for governor, officially anointed in the May primary.
And as she campaigns for the state’s top job, the job currently held by Democrat Governor Josh Shapiro — who is a wannabe 2028 Democratic presidential candidate — Treasurer Garrity can lay claim to her own election record.
Running for re-election in 2024, she defeated her Democrat opponent with a mind-bending 3.5 million votes. She is noted by Wikipedia as receiving “the most cast for any statewide candidate in Pennsylvania history.”
To say the least, she has a considerable record behind her. Graduating from Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania with a degree in finance and economics, she went on to serve in the U.S. Army Reserve, eventually earning the rank of colonel. During the Iraq War, she was stationed in southern Iraq and was deployed three times, earning two Bronze Stars and the Legion of Merit.
From the military, she entered the world of private business, becoming a vice president at Global Tungsten & Powders Group, the company producing tungsten and metallurgical goods.
Having done well in both the military and business, she next turned to politics. A first outing had her losing a special election for a Pennsylvania congressional seat. The second time around, she scored big, winning the election as Pennsylvania state treasurer. Notably, she stood out for having the state purchase $20 million in Israel Bonds, raising the state’s investment in those bonds to some $56 million. And as noted, running for re-election, Garrity won more than 3.5 million votes, making history as the candidate winning the most votes cast for any statewide candidate in all of Pennsylvania history.
One of the weird facts of American political history is that so-called “off-year elections,” i.e., elections that do not have candidates running for president? That would be that these elections frequently produce a party’s rising stars. History is filled with examples.
In 1962, the decidedly well-known former Vice President Richard Nixon was the GOP nominee for governor of California. Amazing, the pundits of the day said the GOP lost, but four years later, in 1966, movie actor Ronald Reagan came out of the closet and was, in fact, elected governor of California, launching what became a seriously historic political career. Across the country, four years later, Georgia Democrats nominated former State Senator Jimmy Carter for governor. And through the decades, early and later, these off-year elections have produced serious stars for both parties. Young Richard Nixon won his congressional seat in the 1946 GOP post-World War II tidal wave, repeating the feat four years later in the 1950 congressional elections as he rose to capture a California U.S. Senate seat.
The list of “rising stars” elected in these “off-year” elections also includes future president Franklin Roosevelt, winning his first election as a state senator in the 1910 off-year election in New York. Another future Democrat president, John F. Kennedy, won his first race for Congress in the 1946 off-year elections. JFK’s vice president, Lyndon Johnson, won his elective start with a 1937 special election victory. And that 1966 election also produced the election of a young Houston businessman, George H.W. Bush, as a U.S. congressman.
There are endless examples out there, all of which illustrate one thing. Once unknown aspiring politicians can start down the political path and can, in fact, win. With a win that launches them on a political path leading to serious prominence and major service as a governor, U.S. senator, cabinet secretary, and, in a number of cases, as a president.
Which brings us back to Pennsylvania’s Stacy Garrity. A seriously popular state treasurer, she is now running a decidedly serious campaign for governor.
And against a Democrat opponent, Governor Shapiro, whom she cites for really running now for governor to run for president in 2028.
And as always happens in politics, one of two things will happen. She will either win or lose. And here’s where an interesting aspect of Pennsylvania politics kicks in. Because of its size and the money needed to get elected, it sometimes takes more than one election race to win. In relatively recent decades, Republican Arlen Specter lost races for mayor of Philadelphia, governor, and senator of Pennsylvania before winning what would become his then-long-held U.S. Senate seat. And holding it for a record five terms. So too did Pennsylvania Democrat Bob Casey Sr. lose statewide races repeatedly, finally winning a governor race on his fourth try.
Pennsylvania is not Vermont. Which is to say it’s a big state, and it costs real money and time to win a statewide election. Garrity has seriously proven her ability to win a state election, having done so twice.
Now comes the 2026 election.
Somewhere out there in the country are the names of soon-to-be rising stars of both parties. They are running for the House, the Senate, and some — like Pennsylvania’s Stacy Garrity — are running for governor of their states.
Suffice to say, Pennsylvania in 2026 is privileged to have a rising star on its ballot.
And that would be state treasurer and gubernatorial candidate Stacy Garrity.
READ MORE from Jeffrey Lord:
The Price of Gas and the November Elections
Joe Kent vs. Iran’s Imminent Threat
If FDR Had Killed Hitler?

Jennifer Siebel Newsom, Gavin Newsom’s wife, is a feminist of the absolutely rabid variety. She sees everything through the lens that women are greatly oppressed. Her solution to this is twofold. One, abortion must be greatly exalted as the key to women’s freedom and prosperity. Two, all gender roles and stereotypes must be abolished. In essence, she wants women to kill their children to achieve ascendence in society, and she wants to flatten women into neutered nothingness.
A series of clips that have gone viral in recent weeks has shown the extent of Siebel Newsom’s rabid feminism. Simply put, they make her look like a crazy person. She spouts insanity after insanity, making the mistake of thinking that normal women ever think anything like this.
In a 2022 interview, Siebel Newsom claimed that there is “so much to learn from same-sex couples” because they have learned to operate in a relationship devoid of one person from either of the sexes. In this way, same-sex couples present the ideal of a relationship: Men and women no longer operate according to their strengths and weaknesses as men and women, but instead they operate as flat, neutered people who do everything with identical sameness.
There’s so much to learn from same-sex couples, Siebel Newsom said, “who have learned to communicate and who are also like, look, you know, someone’s got to do the care work in a same-sex male couple, someone’s got to do that, so I’m just going to do it, and this is like, and not be afraid or ashamed because it’s part of being human.”
In this statement, Siebel Newsom casts aside motherhood and fatherhood and condenses them simply into “care work” that can be done identically by all. It is no concern if a child is denied his or her mother. All that matters is that we act as though men and women are exactly the same and can interchange with one another for “care work.”
But she goes further than this. According to Siebel Newsom, there is really no such thing as men or women.
“We’re all on a spectrum, right, it’s just how society kind of pushes us and pressures us into these limiting gender roles,” she said.
How on earth could anyone who has met both men and women come to such a conclusion? Men and women are so obviously distinct that anyone who espouses this is lying for ideological purposes, brainwashed into radical feminism, or maybe just dumb.
Siebel Newsom, however, thinks the biggest problem in society is that people haven’t woken up to the reality, as she has, that gender is a spectrum.
“But again the folks on the far right, they’re missing is just this, they’re living in this silo, this evangelical, conservative silo that ultimately is, it’s just pulling us back as a country to a time and a place where we don’t deserve to be and we’re not going to be because honestly young women and fathers of daughters are awake now and they’re woke and they’re not going to let us go back,” she said.
Jennifer Siebel Newsom is very proud of herself for seeking to combat conservatives’ beliefs that men and women are distinct and have separate roles. Apart from her “gender justice” advocacy, she has done so by taking on the moniker of “first partner.” In taking this title on, she has declared that her gender is irrelevant to who she is as a person and plays no role in how she conducts herself in her position.
Back in 2019, she explained her title of “first partner” to Ms. Magazine. The title, she said, “is a statement of Gavin’s and my shared values. It’s a demonstration of our commitment to gender equity and inclusivity — values that go to the heart of our 21st century partnership and who we are as a state.”
She went on to say that the title “advances a new vision for what leadership could look like if we dismantled limiting gender stereotypes that hold women and other marginalized communities back.”
Again, take note that, for Jennifer Siebel Newsom, gender equality requires gender nonexistence.
“The overwhelming majority of people around the country are ready and fighting for gender equality in their homes, places of work, and government,” she further told Ms. Magazine. “It is absolutely my hope that this title is adopted widely — it has already caught on in California with the spouse of our lieutenant governor.”
In a further 2023 interview that has resurfaced over the past week and become viral, Siebel Newsom said that she hopes the title of “first partner” will signal to people, “whether it’s a man, a woman, you know, gender-nonconforming individual, that they’re critical to that person’s success and that they’re part of the other life.” Essentially, the role is performed no differently whether someone is a man, a woman, or a supposedly “gender-nonconforming individual.”
In that same interview, Siebel Newsom appeared to say that previous first ladies in the White House in recent decades did not have freedom in their roles because of how women are treated.
After lauding their work as first ladies, she said, “I’m not saying that actually Secretary Clinton or Michelle Obama or even Jill have that much freedom, because I know there are a lot of constraints on just women generally in leadership but especially a first lady.”
Apparently, Siebel Newsom is so much of a radical feminist that she thinks Michelle Obama was discriminated against and victimized to the point of having her freedom restricted while she was in the White House, simply because of being a woman.
For Jennifer Siebel Newsom, her feminism culminates in her absolute support for abortion. We saw this last month in her feminist meltdown over the fact that reporters weren’t asking, in her opinion, enough questions about abortion. (READ MORE: Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s Feminist Meltdown)
At a press conference announcing an additional $90 million in funding for Planned Parenthood to kill more babies, she said it was “incredulous” that “the majority of the questions — all of these questions — have really been about other issues.”
Siebel Newsom went on to say that the journalists didn’t “seem to care” about abortion. “You wonder why we have such a horrific war on women in this country and that these guys are getting away with it because you don’t seem to care,” she said, adding, “So I just offer that, with love.”
The consistent pattern with Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s feminism — whether it’s espousing support for abortion, trying to flatten women into neutered versions of themselves, or advocating against sexual abuse — is that she always seems to end up dissing women.
In the case of abortion, half the children she wants to kill are girls. Plus, she thinks women can only succeed if they can kill their children. In the case of dismantling gender roles, she wants to tear down the meaning and value of being a woman, a wife, and a mother. Then there is also the fact that Siebel Newsom is going around claiming that even women in positions of power are victims and have no freedom because they are supposedly oppressed.
There is also her history of tearing down women who accuse powerful men of sexually assaulting them. When it came out, for instance, that Newsom had an affair with his secretary, Siebel Newsom responded by saying, “I am a girls’ girl and I’ll always be one… i just wish as women that some of us had more respect for ourselves and didn’t always throw ourselves at the men.” (RELATED: The Women Who Will Haunt Gavin Newsom’s Presidential Campaign)
She also said of Newsom’s affair, “[Newsom has] been so hurt by this all — personally and professionally — and it was a few nothing incidents when she showed up passed out outside of his door. come on guys, have a heart. I have tried to see Ruby’s side of the story but unfortunately everyone near to her has stories and says she is bad news.”
Siebel Newsom has also been accused by Harvey Weinstein accuser Rose McGowan of trying to buy her silence on Weinstein’s abuse.
This is most definitely not a “girls’ girl.” This is a crazed woman whose “feminism” only serves to hurt women.
READ MORE:
Gavin Newsom Is Getting Desperate Over California’s ‘Image Problem’
Gavin Newsom’s Cowardly Foreign Policy
Newsom’s Ticking Time Bomb: Dana Williamson

While more than 90 percent of Iranian missiles and drones have been intercepted by the United States, Israel, and allied forces, experts are reportedly warning that the cost of defense is quietly draining allied stockpiles across the region.
The post Experts Warn of Growing Stockpile Vulnerability Among U.S. Allies, Despite over 90% Iranian Missiles Intercepted appeared first on Breitbart.

The House Ethics Committee held their scheduled adjudicatory hearing, more commonly referred to as a “trial”, against Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL). Sadly, none of the main broadcast network newscasts saw fit to carry the story. 

PBS NewsHour did run that report. Here it is, as aired on Thursday, March 26th, 2026:

Zero seconds on ABC, CBS, or NBC for the House Ethics Committee “trial” of Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL). Only PBS picked up the story for NewsHour, and omitted the details of the charges against her. Coverage for Cherfilus-McCormick is significantly (D)ifferent than it… pic.twitter.com/JXtKs94ciw
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) March 27, 2026

JOHN YANG: Florida Democrat Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, who has been indicted for allegedly stealing millions in taxpayer money, faced a rare public Ethics Committee hearing in Congress today. The bipartisan panel, which hasn’t held a public hearing against a sitting member of the House in more than 15 years, began this investigation in 2023. Members questioned why they should delay their conclusion as she requests.

MARK DESAULNIER: And the American people are entitled to demand accountability of all of us when their- if their elected representatives are without integrity. 

YANG: Cherfilus-McCormick’s lawyer joined the case less than three weeks ago. The congresswoman has denied any wrongdoing and has pleaded Not Guilty to the federal charges against her. The result of the ethics process could bring political consequences including possibly getting expelled from the House.

The networks continue their ongoing blackout of this story. Not a second of it aired on ABC, CBS or ABC’s evening newscasts. This major omission joins their omission of the IOC’s ban on “trans women” during the 2028 Games and onward thereafter.

The PBS item is not perfect, though. Viewers never once heard any detail of the egregious charges filed against Cherfilus-McCormick. Per the indictment: 

The indictment alleges that the defendants conspired to steal that $5 million and routed it through multiple accounts to disguise its source. Prosecutors allege that a substantial portion of the misappropriated funds was used as candidate contributions to Cherfilus-McCormick’s 2021 congressional campaign and for the personal benefit of the defendants.

The indictment further alleges that Cherfilus-McCormick and Nadege Leblanc, 46, of Miramar, arranged additional contributions using straw donors, funneling other monies from the FEMA-funded Covid-19 contract to friends and relatives who then donated to the campaign as if using their own money.

The congresswoman is also alleged to have purchased a $100,000 diamond ring. Had a Republican been accused of doing any of this, it would dominate news coverage nonstop until the person is no longer in Congress. We know this because this is exactly what happened with George Santos. The media drove the story until Santos was expelled from Congress.

With Cherfilus-Mccormick, we get the contrary. Suppression in service of not letting the story get out into the public. If it weren’t for double standards, there would be none at all.

 

In 2029, the year the telecast moves from ABC to YouTube, the ceremony itself will move from its longtime home at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood to downtown Los Angeles and the Peacock Theater, 9 miles (14.5 kilometers) away. The Academy announced Thursday that it has reached a 10-year agreement with AEG, which operates the L.A. Live complex where the Peacock Theater sits.
The post The Oscars Are Leaving Hollywood appeared first on Breitbart.

Step aside, cocaine bears, and make way for the cocaine sharks — creatures emerging in the Bahamas due to partygoers discarding drugs, including painkillers and caffeine, into the ocean.
The post Researchers Discover ‘Cocaine Sharks’ in the Bahamas appeared first on Breitbart.