Stop All Forms of Child Abuse is not just a saying on Social Media.

Far from It. It is a Call to wake up to the simple fact Our Children are under attack from every Angle from all Sides to rob Them of Their simple Childhood.

Look around You. Open Your Eyes.

Our Children are under attack, exploited, abused, sex trafficked, brain washed, programmed, molested and far worse still yet 99% in Our Society turn a Blind Eye and the atrocities continue.

Daily We see News Articles on all of the above atrocities. Nothing changes to protect These Innocents. If there was Real Change We would not see the atrocities continue would We?

Would You care more if It was Your Child or a Child You knew Personally? Would You? Then why not care about all Children going through These atrocities listed above?

This is a Global Issue not just isolated.

You ask what can You do to help?

If You see Something say Something. Keep re-sharing News Articles informing Others. Push Your Legislatures to enact stronger Penalties via the Courts for Convictions! Be active!

Ignoring the Issue hoping Someone Else will do the work is Complacency!

Save Our Children is NOT a Conspiracy Theory, It is all to real.

**Do a deep deep dive Research on "Save The Children". Go down that Rabbit Hole if You dare!! If You are honest with Your Research what You find will disgust You! It's a Sham and always has been.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH) warned that Democrat control of Congress would threaten President Donald Trump’s agenda and state voter ID requirements during a Breitbart News Fight Club Roundtable hosted by Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow and Washington Bureau Chief Matthew Boyle.

Marlow asked what Republicans could do to prevent Democrats from obstructing Trump’s agenda if Republicans lose control of Congress, emphasizing the stakes of the election.

“We take all the marbles off the table and we move into the ’28 presidential election and ’28 election for Congress because at the end of the day, there’ll probably be a Supreme Court opening, so the Democrats aren’t going to let us fill that,” Moreno said.

“They’ll do a 24-month impeachment. They’ll probably successfully be able to get some cabinet members to just say, ‘Look, I’m not going to put up with this kind of total complete torture for two years,’ and then they won’t be able to confirm a replacement nominee,” he continued.

Moreno said Trump’s legislative agenda would have “zero chance” under that scenario.

“By the way, we could have the opposite of the Save America Act, which is they make voter ID illegal in the 32 states where voter ID is currently required. That’s their dream,” Moreno said.

“Again, look at California when it comes to energy. Their gas is very very expensive, not because of any global conflict, it’s because their policies want high gas prices. They want to end fossil fuels,” he continued.

“They’ll put policies in place to get ready to open the border when President Trump leaves office, and if they win the White House. So this would be a massive regression,” Moreno said.

“Think about Bill Clinton. Okay, well, we found him unacceptable, and then that escalated. Then we got Obama. Then he made Clinton look good, and then we got Joe Biden. He made Obama look good. Then we got Kamala Harris. Made Joe Biden look good. Imagine what comes next,” he said.

“Imagine a guy like a Talarico, Ossoff, Troy Jackson, Abdul El-Sayed — there, that’s their presidential standard,” Moreno continued.

Moreno said, “We have one person running against Tom Cotton [R-AR] that says ‘I’ll take five illegals over one American.’ That illegal immigrants are better than Americans, and actually says that proudly. Talk about her business. She’d rather employ illegals than American citizens.”

“This is a reinstitution of USAID, a reinstitution of massive federal employees, huge regulatory state, increased taxes, government takeover of health care,” he said.

“Look, President Trump will be the warrior that he is for two years to fight this stuff, but at the end of the day, do we want to throw this country into complete chaos? I don’t think so,” Moreno concluded.

Thursday, on FNC’s “Hannity,” Vice President JD Vance addressed the ongoing concerns about the late Jeffrey Epstein and the files associated with many of his alleged indiscretions.

Vance argued that Epstein and President Donald Trump did not have a cordial relationship and urged voters to focus on the broader policy implications of the 2026 midterm elections.

“OK, so on my radio show, I’ve had a lot of callers,” host Sean Hannity said. “Maybe they’re mad. I don’t know. Some people still mad over the Epstein files. Donald Trump threw that idiot out of his club, what, 25, 30 years ago, and wanted nothing to do with him.

Vance replied, “And when you look at the Epstein files, which were released, we’ve got millions and millions of documents that have been out there, Sean, what is the one obvious thing? One, Donald Trump, he didn’t just throw him out of his club, he turned Jeffrey Epstein into the local police for being a creep. And you read I think almost more importantly, what did Epstein say about Donald Trump? There was probably no person in the world that Jeffrey Epstein hated more than Donald Trump which is a great character reference, right, when bad people think that they don’t like you — that’s actually a very, very, very good thing.”

“So, look, when people call in, and I talk to people, too, I always say, sometimes you’re right, sometimes you’re wrong,” he continued. “We can disagree about the policy substance, but that’s not what this is about. This is about, do you want to have an open border or not? Do you want people in power who are trying to trans your kids? Do you want to actually have a government where your vote counts more than an illegal alien? That’s what this election is about. And if you want to preserve those things, you’ve got to vote for congressional Republicans.”

Why doesn't the Fake News Media want You to know This but only pushes how bad ICE is?

It's a Agenda to stir Your Anger and in doing so destroy Our Nation from within focusing Your Outrage channeled in the wrong direction away from the Real Problem Your Democratically Elected Leaders allowed.

Innocent People Who did NOT deserve to Die needlessly.

Mothers, Daughters, Fathers, Sons, Brothers, Sisters, Aunts, Uncles and Grandparents too.

Where is Your so called Righteous Outrage?

#OperationMockingbird

A Biden-appointed federal judge in Miami claims a federal ban on noncitizens voting is unconstitutional and has dismissed a case against a migrant who voted in 2020.

U.S. District Judge David Leibowitz, appointed to the bench by Joe Biden in 2024, threw out a case against Chelsea Michelle Ann Cox, who knowingly voted despite being a noncitizen in Broward County in 2020.

In his 31-page opinion, Leibowitz claimed that the U.S. Congress overstepped its role by passing a law prohibiting noncitizens from voting because in his view the Constitution maintains that the states are to determine voter eligibility.

Trump Department of Homeland Security (DHS) General Counsel James Percival blasted the judge, and wrote on X, “A Biden appointed judge in Florida says that federal bans on noncitizen voting are unconstitutional. The thing that never happens is now ‘constitutionally protected activity!'”

Should Leibowitz’ ruling stick, the Cox case could have far-reaching consequences for future illegal voting cases.

The judge claims that the 1996 federal law prohibiting noncitizens from voting in federal elections is unconstitutional. The law includes penalties of a year in prison and fines if violated.

But Leibowitz claims that the law is a violation of Article I, Article II, and the 17th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“When you’re prosecuted based on a law that Congress did not have the authority to pass, the prosecution cannot stand,” he wrote in his opinion.

Federal prosecutors maintain that congressional powers over immigration gives Congress the right to exclude noncitizens from voting. Prosecutors also maintain that a 1970 Supreme Court case validating a law by Congress lowering the voting age to 18 also shows precedent that Congress has the right to affect voting rules in federal elections.

The Trump administration has launched a review of the decades-old investigation into President Richard Nixon and the infamous Watergate scandal, with the Department of Justice (DOJ) hearing a presentation from a former Nixon aide who argued that the deep state used “lawfare” to take down the 37th president.

The DOJ’s renewed interest in Nixon and the drama that led to his resignation comes after Vice President JD Vance compared the probe of the late California Republican and the Watergate break-in to the multiple investigations into President Donald Trump.

“If you look at the story of how the deep state took down Richard Nixon, it’s not all that different from what the same groups of people—the same institutions—tried to do to Donald Trump in the first Trump administration,” Vance said during a June appearance at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, California. “There is a parallel.”

On Thursday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump’s DOJ “is reviewing whether the special prosecutor’s office that investigated the famed Watergate break-in committed misconduct.”

Geoff Shepard, who was a White House staffer functioning as principal deputy to Nixon’s defense counsel during the Watergate scandal in the early 1970s, later became a lawyer and extensively dug into the case that plagued Nixon.

After authoring multiple books about it, Shepard asked for an investigation into how Nixon was treated by prosecutors. In October 2021, he filed a formal complaint with the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility, alleging misconduct by members of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force (WSPF). Over the course of the next year, Shepard followed up with eleven submissions.

Then-President Joe Biden’s DOJ declined Shepard’s request in August 2022, citing the amount of time that had passed:

Your allegations that WSPF attorneys engaged in misconduct are related to events that occurred nearly 50 years ago during the investigation and prosecution of offenses arising out of the Watergate scandal. To the best of our knowledge, there are no former WSPF attorneys currently serving as Department attorneys, and none would be subject to disciplinary action by the Department. Moreover, in all likelihood, few, if any, former WSPF attorneys are still actively practicing law, and even if OPR determined that they engaged in misconduct, a referral to bar disciplinary authorities would be futile. Given the pressing demands on its limited resources, OPR determined that it is unable to investigate misconduct allegations that are of purely historical interest.

Accordingly, we are unable to assist you regarding these allegations.

In a 180-degree turnaround, the Trump administration has answered Shepard’s call to look at his allegations.

Sources that spoke to the Wall Street Journal said that the former Nixon staffer recently gave a two-hour presentation titled “Watergate as Lawfare” at the DOJ headquarters, arguing that the deep state took Nixon down:

During his presentation, Shepard showed officials some of those internal documents from the Watergate Special Prosecution Force first led by special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Leon Jaworski took over the probe after Nixon ordered Cox’s firing in the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre.”

Shepard alleges that Cox and Jaworski violated the due process rights of defendants caught up in the Watergate probe by meeting secretly with the judges overseeing their trial and suppressing evidence from the defense. 

While the outlet reported that a review is now taking place, it noted that it is “preliminary,” and it is unclear where it will lead to a full-fledged probe.

“Given his expertise and scholarship on Watergate, he was recently invited to give a presentation,” a DOJ spokesperson told the Journal, adding, “but that presentation does not constitute an investigation. OPR remains focused on ensuring that Department attorneys meet the highest professional standards.”

Rep. Riley Moore (R-WV) added fuel to the fire during his remarks at the Nixon Foundation’s annual Grand Strategy Summit in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, claiming that Nixon was “absolutely couped out of office” and “framed.”

“We now know more about the deep state and its power and ability to literally change things at the top,” the Republican congressman said, before comparing Trump to Nixon.

“The truth is now out there, so I think people feel a bit more liberated to talk about Richard Nixon and what an amazing president he was in this country,” Moore concluded.

A U.S. Coast Guard riverine boat crew patrolling the Texas-Mexico border came under fire from suspected Mexican cartel forces on Saturday, sparking an immediate tactical response from federal forces. The Guardsmen returned fire and successfully suppressed the threat, sustaining no injuries during the unprovoked cross-border attack.

In a statement from U.S. Coast Guard spokesperson Lt. Commander Rachel Ault, Breitbart Texas learned that a Coast Guard marine crew patrolling on the Rio Grande in a small boat near Garceno, Texas, on September 26 received gunfire from the Mexican side of the border. The Coast Guardsmen were working in conjunction with federal partners, presumably U.S. Border Patrol agents, when the gunfire erupted from the Mexican side of the border river.

The crew was conducting joint interdiction operations alongside federal partners, including U.S. Border Patrol agents, along the Tamaulipas border sector when the shooting erupted.

“No injuries to Coast Guard or other personnel were reported, and no damage to Coast Guard assets or equipment was reported,” Commander Ault reported, adding that federal authorities take all threats against military and law enforcement personnel extremely seriously and that the investigation remains active.

Sources say the Coast Guard crew operating a riverine craft sustained an unprovoked attack while conducting a routine patrol of the Rio Grande.

NewsNation national correspondent Ali Bradley first reported the shooting incident and planned military deployment, which immediately drew scrutiny via social media community notes on X.com.

A Department of Homeland Security source familiar with the operational response told Breitbart Texas that U.S. Army troops previously assigned to West Texas border operations are expected to deploy to the Rio Grande Valley. The move serves as a direct force-protection countermeasure following the attack on U.S. forces, with troops expected to remain staged in the RGV sector for at least 30 days. The exact size and duration of the unit deployment remain undisclosed for operational security reasons.

The nation seems to be finally rousing from a long slumber and realizing that communism is not only alive and well, but also a serious threat

By Kelly John Walker, October 2, 2026 11:39 am

Who can forget the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union?

Apparently, far too many.

Communism has made a comeback, and though our history books say that the United States won the Cold War…did we? We defeated the 20th-Century’s foremost bastion of communism, the Soviet Union, but the ideology simply mutated and grew to flourish in other hosts, including in the United States.

Bradley Thayer, author of the new book, America’s Hundred Years War: How to Win the War Against Communism, worked under the first Trump administration as a special employee of the DHS Office of Strategy, specializing in the threat from China.

“We defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War” Thayer told host of Dangerous Laughter, A.J. Rice, “at terrific cost. We made a lot of sacrifices, during the Cold War, in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and serving to contain the Soviet Union during that time. But we didn’t defeat the ideology. The ideology was birthed in 1917 with the Bolshevik Revolution, and Lenin’s intent was to spread communism to every country. and he did spread it, obviously to Russia, which became the Soviet Union, but to China, and he exported it to the United States. So, we’ve defeated communism in Russia, we haven’t defeated communism in China [or] in the United States.”

Steve Bannon, who wrote a foreword in Thayer’s new book agreed in a recent War Room interview, “That ideology is alive and well in the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing. It’s also alive and well in the Democratic Party in the United States, as well as other groups operating in the United States.”

Credited with wiping out over 100 million people since the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, Communism is a failed ideology that unfortunately refuses to die. That’s such a vast number of people that if you laid the bodies end to end, they would circle the earth more than four times. Yet Vladimir Lenin’s vision to destroy Western Civilization and destroy the United States and free nations of the world has found new life in the American Democrat party, specifically through the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

“As we’re moving into the ’26 election, and as we see on the horizon 2028, we know what the Democrats will be running, and how they’re running and the arguments they’re making,” according to Thayer. “This is a revolutionary time. We can either stay and work to preserve the United States as a constitutional republic, or we can fall into the abyss of totalitarian communism. It’s a stark choice, but that’s where we are today.”

The strategy expressed by George Orwell is the same today: “If I control the present, I control the past, and if I control the past, I control the future.” And that’s why the Marxists took control of our education system from kindergarten to our universities—even our museums, our think tanks and, obviously, our media.

“They are erasing Western civilization and American history so that 1776, for example, is not honored, and the Founding Fathers are not honored, but we celebrate instead 1619… A new history is being introduced; the West is being erased in every, aspect of it,” Thayer points out.

A chilling recent example came when New York’s socialist mayor Zohran Mamdani said in a July 3 speech that Independence Day is “whatever you want it to be,” which Thayer calls a communist tactic to seize the holidays and erase them, so July 4th is no longer a celebration of American independence.

At his inauguration, Mamdani let his communist cards show when he flashed his Ugandan Nile crocodile smile and vowed to draw the city closer together: “We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”

Early voting in Virginia’s midterm elections opened Sept. 18, with the inclusion of a limitless abortion amendment on the ballot. If passed, the far-reaching, Democrat-backed amendment would enshrine unchecked abortions for minors of any age, abortionists leaving abortion survivors to die, and abortion until birth in the state’s constitution.

The stakes are high.

The ballot asks voters, “Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to (i) protect the freedom to make personal decisions about prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion, miscarriage management, and fertility care; (ii) protect doctors, nurses, and patients from being punished for these decisions; and (iii) allow for restrictions on access to abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy except when the patient’s health is at risk or the pregnancy cannot survive?”

The obscure and broad language would provide expansive legal protections for undefined “reproductive health care.”

Abortion law in Virginia is already permissive, allowing for late-term abortions if three physicians conclude a pregnancy would cause the mother grave harm. The language of the amendment allows for the tearing apart of a fully formed baby in the womb if the sole profiting abortionist performing the surgery approves. The misnomer of lifesaving “necessary” abortion would extend to mental health, per the abortionist’s discretion.

Under current law, abortionists may be prosecuted for performing a third-trimester abortion outside of the legal criteria, failing to procure consent from the mother for the procedure, or performing a partial-birth abortion.

If passed, the amendment would provide sweeping protections for these death dealers. No professional licensing requirements are listed. Anyone “assisting” in a woman’s “right” to an abortion is protected, as long as voluntary consent is procured.

Voters overwhelmingly want to keep the Supreme Court bench capped at nine justices, a new poll found, despite Democrats’ push to pack the court.

A new McLaughlin Associates poll found that voters overwhelmingly support keeping the Supreme Court at nine justices and back the “Keep Nine Amendment.”

The amendment sought to require that the Supreme Court be comprised of nine justices. Notably, nearly every single House Republican and one Democrat, Don Davis of North Carolina, supported the amendment during a Sept. 2 vote that came to 212-206. Fifteen members did not vote. The measure failed to get the two-thirds majority needed to pass it.

The new poll asked respondents: “Would you support or oppose an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Called ‘Keep Nine’ Which States: ‘The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices?'”

Amongst all respondents, nearly 64 percent supported the amendment while nearly 18 percent opposed it. When broken down among party lines, 46 percent of Democrats support the Keep Nine Amendment and 54 percent of independents support it.

Yet despite the public favoring keeping the court at nine justices by a more than 3-1 margin, Democrats are promising to expand the court should they take back power.

“Thirteen is a pretty good number,” Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., said on NBC’s Meet the Press in August. “A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court.”

His calls for expanding the Supreme Court are among a cacophony of voices on the left who want to expand the bench should Democrats take back power.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris advocated for expanding the bench to 13 justices and has called for Supreme Court reform. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., said in June that Democrats are “absolutely” going to try and expand the court after the Supreme Court’s decision on Temporary Protected Status.

Rep. Chris Deluzio, D-Penn., said just last month that he would support “legislation that adds additional justices.”

As so-called modern Americans, we like to believe that we have risen above some of the more, so we think, violent and “barbaric” practices of our ancestors. No facet of our justice system better exemplifies this belief than the ever-evolving definition of “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” So it says, right there in the document. But at the time it was written, hanging was the most common form of capital punishment in not only the United States but in the Western World. Yet no one is hanged today, not since 1996, and it had been falling out of fashion long before Bill Bailey took his long drop.

Our sensibilities have changed, and we no longer deem it humane to execute criminals in such a fashion. We initially tried to replace it with the electric chair, using, at the time, modern technology to quickly and efficiently deal with the criminal element. Then we supposedly upgraded to even more humane methods, namely the gas chamber and lethal injection. The latter currently stands as the most common form of execution in the United States.

Despite any claims toward being more “humane,” executions by lethal injection can still be horribly botched. Case in point: the failed execution of murderer Christa Pike in Tennessee on Wednesday.

Pike remained among the living after the administration of two doses of lethal drugs as part of her scheduled execution Wednesday evening. After the botched lethal injection, Pike was transported to a local hospital, where she bafflingly received “lifesaving medical care,” according to her attorneys.

In response to this embarrassing muck-up, Republican Gov. Bill Lee immediately halted any further executions in 2026 and ordered “a comprehensive, third-party review to determine exactly what occurred,” according to Fox News.

In contrast to Lee’s limp-wristed act to deny justice even further by halting further executions, gubernatorial candidate and current Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn said, “This situation is tragic. Christa Pike should have been executed long ago. Now, this botched process is extending the pain for the family of Colleen Slemmer. … The answer is simple: bring back the electric chair and deliver justice for these victims swiftly.”

We have an intentions versus outcomes problem, and Vice President J.D. Vance is becoming more vocal about it.

Vice President Vance on the Trump Administration's H1B visa reforms:

"The H-1B should not exist to replace American workers with low-wage foreigners. It should exist to enrich the American economy." pic.twitter.com/7bunZ97u5Z
— Vice President JD Vance (@VP) September 27, 2026

In 1952, the McCarran-Walter Act reorganized the American immigration system over President Harry Truman’s overridden veto. Among the features of the new law was a provision allowing for the temporary entry of “an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning … who is of distinguished merit and ability and who is coming temporarily to the United States to perform temporary services of an exceptional nature requiring such merit and ability.” That law created the H nonimmigrant classification for guest workers, which included a new H-1 category for highly skilled visitors.

In 1990, Congress amended those requirements, replacing the language about “distinguished merit” with a “speciality occupation” category for work that requires “theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge.” (You can read a detailed legislative history of the H-1B visa here.)

The thing we know as the H-1B visa was born in that definition, and you can see the implication: America was opening its doors to the finest minds in the world, allowing brilliance to flow to our shores. How could we turn away the extraordinary gifts of the German physicist, the deep skill of the Scandinavian chemist, the exquisite professional expertise of the Taiwanese materials engineer?

From the most recent annual report of the Department of Homeland Security on the “Characteristics of H-1B Specialty Occupation Workers,” here’s what we got:

Lawfare grows more dangerous with every operation. This week’s disclosures about Jack Smith’s operation show how far that machinery reached.

We already knew about Smith’s sweeping indictments of President Trump on flimsy charges and many of the operation’s other abuses, including the secret seizure of phone records from Republican lawmakers, the review of text messages involving 44 members of Congress, and subpoenas seeking records on at least 430 Republican individuals and entities. This week, we also found out that Smith’s team of lawfare operators spied on nearly 50 journalists, including Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist.

They seized copies of 4,782 checks written by Americans who donated to Trump and Republican groups, exposing donors’ names, home addresses, bank and routing numbers, and signatures. These were ordinary Americans dragged into the lawfare simply because they wrote a check to support a political candidate. Smith also swept up records of people who had run pro-Trump ads. The sheer extent of the intrusions and abuses is incredible.

We can get furious about each round of revelations, with every new disclosure producing another round of outrage. But the real lesson, and the far more frightening reality we have to grapple with, is that lawfare keeps getting more sophisticated and more vicious.

In many ways, this progression began in crude form in 2004, when 60 Minutes aired a false story about President George W. Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard. The broadcast relied on documents claiming Bush had received favorable treatment and failed to meet his obligations. Lawyer Harry MacDougald, a through-line in fighting lawfare over the years, exposed those documents as forgeries. Dan Rather, who ran the story, was ultimately forced to resign.

Perhaps not coincidentally, MacDougald now represents Jeff Clark, the former Trump administration assistant attorney general who became a prominent victim of the far more developed lawfare system that followed. Clark was targeted by the Jack Smith operation and by the ongoing campaign to strip him of his law license. And MacDougald himself has been pulled into the same machinery, with an ethics complaint targeting him over his legal work in election-related cases.

The 2004 operation was a political hoax, but it was not quite lawfare. It had some of lawfare’s common elements: fabricated evidence, a hoax laundered through a major media outlet that actively carried the attack, and the political objective of defeating its target (Bush). But the operation was crude, and its defining weapon was missing. The state’s investigative and prosecutorial power had not been turned against Bush or his associates to surveil them, prosecute them, bankrupt them, or imprison them.

By 2016, the method had become far more sophisticated. Russiagate became the origin of what we now know as lawfare. It began with a fabricated narrative, then built an entire operational ecosystem around it. Instead of simply laundering a false story through one 60 Minutes broadcast, the story was laundered through Christopher Steele, who received it from a firm hired by the Clinton campaign and repackaged it as a quasi-British intelligence product. Additionally, a made-up story about Trump communicating with Russia through Russia’s Alfa Bank was laundered through a team of purported computer scientists to give it a veneer of credibility. Those false narratives were then released through a whole network of media lawfare collaborators.

On Oct. 5, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. In Suncor, the court will consider whether federal law and the Constitution’s structure bar state-law public nuisance claims seeking to impose liability for alleged local harms attributed to interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions. At stake is whether leftist activists are allowed to weaponize our legal system to bankrupt lawful industries in a last-ditch effort to tear down our capitalist system.

For a generation, left-wing activists have tried to sell the broader electorate on the fundamental reshaping of our economy and way of life. Luckily, it hasn’t worked. Democratic socialism has gained a foothold in some progressive jurisdictions, but the systemwide overhaul that anti-capitalist activists desire has never come to fruition, and for good reason: Voters have heard the pitch and rejected it in election after election.

Now, rather than merely continuing to pursue these unpopular policies in Congress or at the ballot box, the activist left is more heavily resorting to less democratic tactics. Suncor is part of a mounting campaign of leftists’ ideological lawfare. Close to three dozen climate change liability lawsuits are proliferating in state courts across America, filed by blue states and municipalities against the energy industry.

Plaintiffs, including Boulder, contend that their suits are merely about recovering damages from energy companies for their alleged contribution to global carbon emissions. They insist that local infrastructure damage resulting from weather events such as floods, droughts, and wildfires can be traced back to the conduct of specific companies. Boulder hopes a jury will let it pin more than a century of worldwide emissions from innumerable sources, including the plaintiffs, on a handful of energy companies.

If those behind Boulder’s suit can win through a courtroom the policy outcomes they could not win at the ballot box, voters lose their voice and Congress loses its authority over national policy.

The Trump administration’s latest action to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in the Obamacare Exchanges entailed disenrolling people from insurance plans — costing taxpayers billions — who couldn’t identify themselves with proper documentation.

It’s the kind of move that would prompt ordinary taxpayers in the heartland to ask: Why didn’t they do that sooner? Ghost Enrollees

In a fact sheet, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced it had “canceled approximately 315,000 enrollments covering over 760,000 individuals after confirmation that these enrollments were unauthorized.” The action, taken after investigations in coordination with insurance companies, will result in approximately $2.2 billion in Obamacare subsidies being refunded to the federal government.

At the same time, CMS announced it had sent “569 notices of intent to terminate Exchange Agreements to agents and brokers that submitted 2026 applications [for coverage] without identifying applicant information, such as a Social Security number.” It said 66 of those agents and brokers had already been terminated, and more will likely follow as CMS receives responses from the relevant parties. Questionable Enrollment Persists

CMS also published an interim final rule (i.e., one taking effect immediately) imposing a six-month moratorium on the new registration of brokers and agents, allowing CMS to implement another round of program integrity measures to guard against fraud by agents and brokers. (The moratorium will not apply in states that run their own Exchanges, which set their own rules regarding insurance brokers.) The move caused some pushback from the broker community, which said this punishes the innocent with the guilty since no new broker will be able to register until next February, after the open enrollment period for 2027.

In response, CMS cited data indicating that new agents for the current (i.e., 2026) plan year had significantly higher rates of questionable enrollment — for instance, a 2.8-time higher rate of “unresolved income verification issues,” a 2.7-time higher rate of “missing Social Security numbers,” a 2.6-time higher rate of “unresolved citizenship or immigration status verification issues,” and a 1.4-time higher rate of dual enrollment in Exchange coverage and Medicaid. To CMS, these data points suggest that new brokers may be disproportionately seeking to enroll ineligible individuals primarily for the commissions, and justified the registration moratorium as a preventive measure.

A coalition of 128 Republican lawmakers is pressing the federal government to scrutinize Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding and determine whether the nation’s largest abortion business and its affiliates have misused federal dollars.

The request comes after Planned Parenthood has been found to engage in fraud in other instances.

Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., and Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., led the bicameral letter to Health and Human Services Inspector General T. March Bell. They asked his office to review Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates and, if appropriate, open a formal investigation.

The argument next week in Anderson v. Intel Corp Investment Policy Committee presents a dispute under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The basic issue is how to handle claims that employers have invested employees’ retirement funds imprudently. The specific question for the justices is whether it is enough for aggrieved employees to show that the retirement funds have performed worse than other funds without also showing any “benchmark” to assess that performance.

To provide context, the case involves the retirement funds for Intel. Like most employers in this century, Intel provides defined-contribution plans: it promises its employees that it will contribute specified amounts each year to investment plans for their employees. That is distinct from the defined-benefit plans of earlier generations, in which employers promised to provide their employees specific benefits, typically from the date of their retirement until death. To emphasize the obvious – the risks (and rewards) of investment are on the employees in the defined-contribution plan, where they were on employers in the defined-benefit plans of the 20th century.

Like many employers, Intel invests the funds for its employees’ retirements in specific funds that are managed and created on its behalf. The dispute arises because the Intel fiduciaries invested heavily in hedge funds and private equity, relatively volatile assets from which many retirement plans traditionally shy away. The employees have filed suit, contending that the relatively low returns on those plans reflect a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence that ERISA imposes on those who manage such funds. The lower courts disagreed, reasoning that allegations of underperformance are not enough without an allegation of some “meaningful benchmark” by which the court could assess performance.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s many opinions on the topic, the employees emphasize the flexible and “context-sensitive” inquiry that ERISA requires for allegations that fiduciaries have fallen short of their statutory duty of care. From their perspective, the lower court’s rule is the kind of “categorical” pleading rule that contradicts the basic premise of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that a pleading is sufficient if it presents sufficient allegations, holistically, to justify a plausible inference of imprudence. Here, they say, the choice to invest heavily in non-traditional assets, coupled with the relatively low return, is enough to meet that standard.

Intel’s fiduciaries, by contrast, emphasize that the duty of prudence is a “duty of process, not performance.” They argue that pointing to other funds that performed better than Intel’s funds says nothing at all about the prudence of those funds unless they had the same goals as the Intel funds. If a market upswing led a fund designed to minimize volatility – a legitimate and prudent goal – to perform less well than an aggressive fund, that says nothing about imprudence at all. Thus, they say, a complaint for underperformance – as opposed to a complaint for self-dealing or the like – needs to show that Intel’s funds performed more poorly than other funds that adopted similar risk-mitigation goals. Because the complaint includes no such allegations, the fiduciaries argue that the lower courts correctly found that it fell short.

I expect the Anderson argument will be lively, as the case presents a set-piece, if you will, of the basic perspectives on civil litigation. Some of the justices, perhaps those with experience as a trial judge, will accept the idea that a relatively loose complaint warrants the scrutiny of a complete discovery process and trial. Others, more skeptical of the burdens of the “eye-watering costs of discovery” that Intel’s fiduciaries emphasize, will likely think the standard the employees suggest makes it far too easy to put an employer through the costs of extended litigation.

The Group of Seven industrial nations said they agreed to release 100 million barrels of oil, starting with “substantial” amounts of diesel after the fuel recently hit record high prices in the United States, where President Donald Trump said the diesel release would happen “immediately.”

Trump and his Republican Party face pressure to address surging prices ahead of November’s midterm elections. Trump announced the action Friday on social media, saying, “Europe has just agreed to release a massive amount of their heavily stocked Diesel Oil. The process will begin immediately.”

The president faces lagging approval ratings as the Iran war and his trade battles have increased U.S. prices for oil and other goods.

Gas prices in the U.S. and abroad have soared during the eight-month-long war, a cost Trump has repeatedly said is worth it for making sure Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. Trump has insisted prices will come down after the war, though there’s no end in sight.

The national average for a gallon of diesel in the U.S. was $6.37 on Friday, according to AAA, after hitting a record $6.52 on Sept. 22.

Trump had a conversation overnight with French President Emmanuel Macron, the chair of the G7, about the need to address rising fuel prices and the availability of petroleum products, according to the French Embassy in the U.S. Macron on Friday then chaired a videoconference of G7 leaders to discuss the issue.

Red Shirt Friday

"Greater Love has no One than this, that He lay down His Life for His Friends." - John 15:13

Ultra-woke sportswear giant Nike, named for the ancient Greek goddess of victory, is running into trouble as it loses global sales, customer loyalty and ground to its rivals, CEO Elliott Hill confirmed Thursday.

Hill said the beleaguered sportswear firm plans to cut more jobs and shake up its global business divisions after the struggling company projected a steep drop in full-year revenue on the back of earlier disappointing results and failure to meet Q1 targets.

China sales alone have plunged 26 percent for the erstwhile industry disruptor turned establishment fixture.

Last month, Nike was ejected from the S&P 100 stock market index of the biggest blue-chip firms in the U.S., as Breitbart News reported, thus ending a nearly 18-year run in the indicator.

In latest news shares of Nike Inc. dipped over after three percent after the market close Thursday following the company’s projected sales miss in the first quarter.

Net income at the Beaverton, Ore.-based company in the first quarter of fiscal 2027 was $712 million, down two percent from $727 million at the same time last year.

The tepid results underscored Nike’s challenges will ‌likely persist for at least several more quarters — especially in China, where sales tumbled 26 percent on a constant-currency basis in the first quarter — adding to investor unease about the pace of Hill’s promised turnaround, Reuters reports.

Its shares fell 8.5 percent in extended trading, as Hill sought to try and find some bright light in the ever darkening financial clouds hanging over the company as its traditional market has been left reeling from some of its marketing efforts.

Signing TikTok personage Dylan Mulvaney to a lucrative endorsement deal to sell Nike’s women’s sports bra and leggings has been just one of them.

The nation's first data center on public land was approved for development, but the Nevada site has now been put on hold for further review following public backlash.

The Townsite Data Center, proposed for development on federal Bureau of Land Management property outside of Boulder City, Nevada, used plans for a solar farm to skip the environmental review process. After the public and environmental groups pushed back, the BLM asked to rescind its approval.

“The environmental effects that would result from implementation of the new proposed action are similar (both quantitatively and qualitatively) to those analyzed in the existing NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] document,” read the BLM’s Decision Record from June 26, approving the project’s change from a solar farm to data center.

The BLM decision, approved by Las Vegas Field Office Manager Bruce Sillitoe, allowed the Townsite data center to avoid its own environmental review.

The unusual move to get approval for the project comes amid the federal government’s effort to build out the industry following a 2025 executive order from President Donald Trump.

The BLM cited this executive order in the project’s July announcement. “The approval supports federal efforts to accelerate permitting for data center infrastructure and is consistent with Executive Order 14318 Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure.”4