Spain has continued to be a leading EU nation in ramping up the diplomatic pressure on Israel, and seeking to isolate it. It’s government this week has moved to prohibit US military planes and ships from using its territory to transfer weapons and equipment to Israel.

As reported by leading newspaper El País on Monday, the new decision applies specifically to the Rota naval base and the Morón air base, both located in the southwestern part of the country – long used as key Mediterranean region transfer hubs.

There has long existed routine coordination between Spanish and American military officials, however, the relationship is becoming increasingly tense, given the move reflects a serious political divergence amid the ongoing war in Gaza.

The Rota base, near Cádiz on the Atlantic coast, is under Spanish control but heavily utilized by American forces. Also, the Morón air base, which is near Seville, is a key hub for US military operations, with American forces long operating with a broad degree of freedom there.

Madrid is defending its decision as rooted in Spain’s sovereignty and terms outlined in a 1988 bilateral defense agreement, amid growing European scrutiny of Israeli military action against Palestinians, which currently is largely focused on the complete military takeover of Gaza City.

According to more details via The Telegraph:

Citing sources familiar with the Spanish-American committee that manages the bases in Seville and Cadiz, El Pais reported that Spain has banned supplies going directly to Israel and those with a stopover as their final destination.

“Rota and Morón are not a sieve,” sources told El Pais, which first reported the ban.

“They are Spanish sovereign bases, under the command of a Spanish military officer, and everything that happens there must be authorized by the Spanish authorities.”

These reports have made clear that as of yet Spain does not typically inspect US transport planes or ships that stop at Spanish bases – but if arms smuggling to Israel is uncovered during the ban, this could prove highly embarrassing and damaging to Madrid-Washington relations and cooperation.

Meanwhile, Spain is pressing its case against both Israel and the US through other avenues as well, with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez calling for Israel to be excluded from international sports competitions over human rights abuses and war crimes against Palestinians.

🇪🇸 Spain has extended its ban on U.S. weapons shipments to Israel, blocking planes and ships from using the Rota naval base in Cádiz and the Morón air base in Seville, El País reports. Madrid reinforced its arms embargo with a royal decree prohibiting the transit of military… pic.twitter.com/QqQr78ZZAp

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) September 30, 2025

“Israel cannot continue to use any international platform to whitewash its image,” he told officials of his Socialist Workers’ Party earlier this month, describing that Israel should have the same pariah status and isolation as Russia in the wake of the Ukraine invasion.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

These are the 2020 Lublin Triangle (Ukraine, Poland, and Lithuania), the 2022 de facto alliance between Ukraine, Poland, and the UK, and early August’s Odessa Triangle with Romania and Moldova.

Russia has in recent years consistently accused the West of turning Ukraine into an “anti-Russia” for containment purposes, in response to which Putin authorized the ongoing special operation. A year and a half before it began, Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine formed the “Lublin Triangle”, which involves military cooperation and continues to lurch along five years after its creation. Exactly one week before the special operation started, the UK, Poland, and Ukraine then formed a de facto alliance.

These two triangles facilitated the UK’s efforts to sabotage spring 2022’s peace talks, for which Poland deserves equal blame as explained here, thus perpetuating the conflict till now. Right after the news broke that Putin and Trump would hold their first in-person meeting since the latter’s return to office, which later took place in Anchorage, Ukraine announced the formation of another triangle with Romania and Moldova. Their “Odessa Triangle” is thus the third one centered on Ukraine for containing Russia.

These three interlocking triangles are expected to play significant roles in the post-conflict future.

• The first one, the Lublin Triangle, includes Lithuania, which now hosts Germany’s first permanent base abroad.

• As for the second, it importantly involves the UK, which has always worked to divide-and-rule Europe.

• And lastly, France has a base in Romania and a security pact with Moldova, which could lead to Paris exploiting them as launchpads for strengthening its newly reported secret presence in Odessa.

Ukraine’s seven associated partners (five of which are formal while the other two – Germany and France – are informal) could therefore either continue funneling arms into the country for prolonging the conflict or continuing Ukraine’s militarization afterwards and/or prepare to deploy there one day. Poland, the UK, France, and Germany also clinched security pacts with Ukraine all across last year, which this analysis here argues already amount to a form of Article 5-like guarantees.

As was written, “[Article 5] obligates members to assist those of their allies that come under attack, albeit as each of them ‘deems necessary’. Although the use of armed force is mentioned, it’s ultimately left to individual members to decide whether to employ this option. Ukraine has arguably enjoyed the benefits of this principle for the past three years despite not being a NATO member since it’s received everything other than troops from the alliance”.

It’s therefore moot whether Ukraine ever formally joins NATO since that wouldn’t guarantee that its allies would dispatch troops in its support should another conflict erupt. More realistically, they’d likely only resume and then ramp up the aid that they’re already providing in order to avoid a potentially apocalyptic conflict with Russia. The EU’s rapid militarization coupled with progress on the “military Schengen” for facilitating related logistics could create enduring post-conflict threats to Russia’s security.

From Poland and Romania, Ukraine’s other five partners could therefore station a large number of troops, store lots of military equipment, and possibly continue funneling arms and ammo across the border for either prolonging the conflict or continuing Ukraine’s militarization afterwards. Russia will certainly take these credible threats into consideration when deciding upon the best way to end the conflict in accordance with its national interests as they’ve evolved 3,5 years into the special operation.

Authored by Catherine Yang via The Epoch Times,

Philadelphia raised the flag of communist China at City Hall on Sept. 30 despite criticism and protests from human rights activists and legislators.

The event, co-organized by a group with ties to the Chinese regime, is meant to commemorate the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) National Day.

Oct. 1 marks the day the CCP declared its rule after a viciously fought civil war. Over the next few decades, the regime would become responsible for more deaths than both World Wars combined.

The Tibetan Association of Philadelphia organized a protest at the event, calling on the mayor to remove the flag immediately.

“The red flag of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is not a symbol of culture; it is the emblem of a brutal, totalitarian regime,” Tsering Jurme, president of the local association, said in a statement provided to The Epoch Times.

“This regime is responsible for the persecution and murder of millions, the destruction of thousands of monasteries, and the ongoing cultural genocide of my people in Tibet and the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. To fly their flag here in our Philadelphia city hall is to legitimize terror and betray the dissidents who seek freedom.”

The Campaign for Uyghurs had also written to Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker on Sept. 26 to urge the city to cancel the event.

“The red flag of Communist China is not a symbol of culture or unity. It is the banner of a totalitarian regime that the U.S. government and numerous parliaments have determined is committing genocide,” said Campaign for Uyghurs founder Rushan Abbas, whose sister and aunt were arrested by the CCP in retaliation for Abbas’s advocacy.

Abbas’s sister, Gulshan Abbas, a retired doctor, was charged with so-called terrorism and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

“Under this flag, the CCP has built an extensive system of mass surveillance, separated millions of children from their families, sterilized women, erased religion, and targeted ethnic and faith communities, including Uyghurs, Christians, Tibetans, Hong Kongers, and practitioners of Falun Gong. It imprisons innocent people like my sister, fuels a fentanyl crisis that has killed millions of Americans, and spends billions spreading propaganda and infiltrating civic institutions abroad,” Rushan Abbas said in a statement.

Members of the Overseas Chinese Association at the flag-raising event commemorating the founding of communist China in front of City Hall in Philadelphia on Sept. 30, 2025. The Epoch Times

This is not the first time Philadelphia, where the U.S. Constitution was signed, has raised the five-star flag of communist China. It held a similar event in 2019, as did Boston and San Francisco. New York City raised the flag in 2023.

A CCP-linked group had also done so in 2005 in Los Angeles to support “reunifying” China and Taiwan, and editorials in local publications noted that the last time this flag was raised was 20 years ago, when it was torn down immediately by anti-CCP onlookers.

The Philadelphia event drew criticism from state and federal lawmakers when it was announced.

Pennsylvania state Sen. Doug Mastriano said it was a “terrible” idea to raise a flag that represents the CCP.

“Raising a red flag over Philadelphia with a star in the corner is meaningless, forgetting the Cultural Revolution and then almost 100 million people killed in the various persecutions over the years when the communists took over, when [President of the Republic of China] Chiang Kai-shek fled [to Taiwan] in 1949,” Mastriano previously told The Epoch Times.

Philadelphia United Chinese Coalition, an association that has hosted CCP United Front groups in Philadelphia, at the flag-raising event in front of City Hall on Sept. 30, 2025. The Epoch Times

Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-N.C.) said on social media that the decision was “shameful.”

“The cradle of liberty flying the banner of tyranny,” he wrote on Instagram. “This is the regime that jails dissidents, censors speech, and wages genocide against its own people. And now its flag will wave over the birthplace of American independence?”

Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), who chairs the House Select Committee on the CCP, had written to the mayor to urge reversal of the decision.

“The Five-Star Red Flag, embodying the totalitarian government led by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), represents a regime that is persecuting spiritual people of all faiths, including the genocide of Uyghur Muslims,” the letter reads.

“It is a government that actively subsidizes the precursor chemicals used to manufacture fentanyl, which has killed or harmed millions of Americans. It is a Communist Party-State that is diametrically opposed to American values and working to undermine our interests worldwide.”

Moolenaar also highlighted other concerning ties between Philadelphia and the CCP.

Philadelphia is currently in a sister cities partnership with the city of Tianjin in China. While these partnerships purport to support cultural exchange, lawmakers at the state and federal levels have determined that the Chinese regime has made use of these partnerships to advance the CCP’s strategic goals and views.

The city is also home to the Pennsylvania United Chinese Coalition (PUCC) and Greater Philadelphia Fujian Hometown Association, one of the co-organizers of the flag-raising event.

Chinese “hometown” organizations originated as associations of immigrants from the same region, but they are now officially part of the CCP’s United Front network. The United Front is the regime’s global effort to influence overseas opinions on the regime, and these groups are often seen to be actively promoting the CCP’s agenda and participating in transnational repression.

PUCC has also hosted United Front groups and spoken openly about advancing CCP interests, Moolenaar warned the mayor.

The mayor’s office did not respond to an inquiry from The Epoch Times by publication time.

At a moment the Pentagon is busy rearranging its defense priorities toward readiness for a potential future conflict with China, Beijing itself is wasting no time in preparing for just such a scenario, particularly related to the Taiwan question.

“A classified US military intelligence report seen by the ABC says China is rapidly building up the country’s commercial ferry fleet to prepare for an invasion of Taiwan,” the Australian publication writes of a document said to be from earlier this year, prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

This is nothing too new or much of a huge revelation, given Western intelligence – including the so-called Five Eyes which includes Australia – has for years been monitoring a trend where the PLA upgrades commercial ferries to become troop and tank carriers, for use in prior military exercises with an eye toward Taiwan.

Back in 2022, it was understood that China had over two dozen such modified ferries, but the ABC report cites that “China is building more than 70 of the large vessels by the end of 2026” – based on US intelligence forecasts.

Taiwan’s Ambassador to Tiawan, Douglas Hsu, has described that “Civilian vessels or other dual-use facilities in the maritime domain are also part of China’s strategy” for a future potential assault on the self-ruled island.

The ‘Classified’ DIA report contains some alarming information, including that the Pentagon would consider Chinese ferries ‘fair game’ for attack given their military ‘dual use’ purpose:

Satellite intelligence of the ferries from earlier this year shows them being used alongside a series of new landing docks off China’s coastline, as well as deploying amphibious forces in military exercises.

The landing docks are a new class of vessel that allows the ferries to deploy cargo and people onto a beach.

The US Department of Defense intelligence report assessed the commercial ferries as possible military targets in a conflict scenario with China. This means the ferries could be targeted and sunk by US forces in the event of a Taiwan crisis, even with civilian crews on board.

US intelligence has voiced that it believes Chinese President Xi Jinping to be ready to be capable of a full-scale invasion of Taiwan by the year 2027 if called upon.

It remains that these type of somewhat hyped threat assessments seem to be a regular thing issued from Western intel agencies about every year or so.

However, China’s official position remains that it wants reunification of Taiwan by peaceful means – though over the last years its military has ramped up ‘encircling exercises’ around Taiwan, provoking the condemnation of Washington.

China watcher and regional analyst Professor Hu Bo told ABC, “It’s common sense that China is preparing for a Taiwan crisis. This does not mean China will do something quickly in the future. Preparation is not the same as intention.”

So both the US and Chinese sides appear to be in a phase of long-terms preparation, hopefully for a war which will never be fought. Both will also seek to develop ‘deterrence’ capabilities in the Pacific region.

* * *

The PLA continues is shows of force and strength, aimed no doubt at Taiwan’s number one backer the United States…

NEW – China’s PLA successfully conducts ICBM test, reports. pic.twitter.com/8CktmQwRQ7

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) September 29, 2025

Authored by Lau Vegys via Doug Casey’s International Man,

The American Dream has become prohibitively expensive, with home affordability at historic lows and the traditional middle-class lifestyle now out of reach for most ordinary people.

But no demographic has taken it more on the chin than young Americans.

You can see it in stark terms in this week’s chart below. Since the postwar era, the share of 30-year-olds in America with both a family and a home has plummeted—from about 52% in 1950 to just 13% in 2025. That’s a staggering 75% decline over 75 years.

Let that sink in. In 1950, more than half of 30-year-olds had achieved what most would consider the basic markers of adult stability: marriage and homeownership. Today, it’s barely one in eight.

If you look closer, the graph shows two distinct phases of decline. From 1950 to 1990, there was a steady but manageable erosion—the share of 30-year-olds with both a family and a home dropped from 52% to about 43% over those 40 years.

That represented the gradual social changes we’re all familiar with: more women entering the workforce, people marrying later, changing cultural attitudes toward marriage.

Then something dramatic happened around 2000. The decline went into freefall. Between 1990 and 2025, the rate collapsed from 43% to 13%—a 70% drop in just over three decades.

What explains it?

We could, of course, blame this on changing cultural preferences—young people choosing career over family, prioritizing experiences over stability. That’s certainly part of the story. Young people today do have very different priorities than those more than half a century ago.

But there’s another side to this: the economics of young adulthood have become impossible. Keep in mind, today’s families would need the combined income of three households just to match the home affordability levels of a single family in 1959.

The situation gets worse when you factor in the debt burden crushing young adults. The very institution supposedly preparing young people for economic success—college—has become a wealth destroyer. Average student debt more than doubled from $17,297 to $37,850 between 2006 and 2024 alone (with total outstanding student debt exploding from $500 billion to $1.8 trillion).

Think about the brutal math facing today’s 30-year-olds.

They graduate with an average of $38,000 in student debt—though plenty are actually walking away with $60,000, $80,000, or even six-figure debt loads. They need $130,000+ in annual income to afford the average home, and compete in a job market where wages haven’t kept pace with housing costs.

In other words, they’re entering their peak family-formation years already financially crippled.

No wonder marriage and homeownership rates have collapsed.

The cruel irony is that we—scratch that, America’s political class—has created a system where the very credentials supposedly required for middle-class success have priced young people out of middle-class life.

Editor’s Note: If you have young people in your life wondering what the future holds in this broken system, Doug Casey and Matt Smith’s “The Preparation” offers a radical break from the usual path.

Instead of piling on debt for credentials of questionable value, the book lays out a blueprint for building real competence and independence outside traditional institutions. For those willing to think differently about their future, it may be the most valuable roadmap available. Click here to learn more now.

In yet another development which will certainly complicate current Trump administration efforts to find peace in Gaza, the National Security Committee in the Israeli Knesset is advancing a bill to impose the death penalty on Palestinian prisoners detained for killing Israelis.

Killings which are deemed motivated by “racism or hostility to the public” or aimed at harming the “State of Israel” or seeking to thwart the “revival of the Jewish people” would be a capital offensive, according to the legislation. Interestingly, the wording highlights Jewish citizens of Israel are the priority – and not for example Christian, Muslim, or Druze citizens.

It has unleashed immediate controversy both within and outside of Israel. For starters, some Israeli officials as well as families of Oct.7 victims fear that this puts the remaining hostages in Gaza at immediate risk. Notably, the bill does not apply the opposite direction – that is, it would not apply to Israelis who kill Palestinians.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s coordinator for negotiations on the captives, Gal Hirsch, has gone on record as vehemently opposing the bill.

“It’s not for nothing that we are asking not to hold this discussion. I completely disagree with your assessment of the situation, Minister [Itamar] Ben Gvir,” he said in a communication protesting the initiative. “Especially when we are engaged in a combined military and diplomatic effort to bring back the hostages, this discussion does not help us.”

An initial Sunday Knesset committee vote was 4-1 in favor, while more of rounds of votes needed for the bill to become law, according to protocol. 

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has been leading the charge, resisting calls to postpone the vote due to the precariousness of the hostage situation. 

One Palestinian rights group had this to say:

The Israeli bill was denounced by the Palestinian Commission for Detainees’ Affairs and the Palestinian Prisoner Society as an “unprecedented savagery,” warning that it would entrench what they described as “systematic crimes” against detainees through legislation.

Increasingly, there have been shootings and terroristic attacks by Palestinians in places like Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, related to ongoing events in Gaza and the West Bank.

Harsh confines at Israeli prison where Palestinians are kept:

A video report aired by Israel’s Channel 13 shows Israeli soldiers and guards mocking Palestinian detainees held at the Ketziot Prison in the Negev desert. Recent figures from the Palestinian Prisoners’ Society state that at least 9,300 Palestinians are currently being held… pic.twitter.com/4CoemUDs8a

— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) June 12, 2024

At times, Palestinian encounters with Jewish settlers in the West Bank has also resulted in shootings and killings. This legislation would have a further chilling effect on Palestinian villagers and farmers when settlers show up to take their land, given that if they fight back, they could be facing the death penalty. 

Authored by Matt Margolis via PJ Media,

Barack Obama’s long-promised presidential library is shaping up to be just as corrupt as his administration. You probably haven’t heard much about this in the media, but recent tax filings reveal that money donated to the Obama Foundation—supposedly earmarked for his sprawling “presidential center” in Chicago—is quietly being redirected to one of the left’s most notorious dark money groups: the Tides Foundation.

The numbers tell the story. In 2022 and 2023, the Obama Foundation handed over $2 million to Tides, a group best known for serving as a clearinghouse for radical left-wing causes and for shielding donor identities. It should come as no surprise that George Soros heavily backs Tides, and Tides is directly tied to groups organizing anti-Israel protests. That includes demonstrations against the Jewish state in the aftermath of the Oct. 7 Hamas atrocities. In other words, donations made in the name of funding a presidential library are now helping bankroll organizations promoting antisemitic activism under the guise of social justice.

That’s pretty on-brand for Barack Obama.

“The Tides Center played an administrative role in the program by processing grants while Cities United [a nonprofit] managed the application process,” the spokeswoman said in an email. Grants ranged from $15,000 to $30,000 each over the two summers.

Tides has also handled donations for Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, which sued the group in California Superior Court last year. It alleged “egregious mismanagement” of more than $33 million in its funds, according to court documents. That lawsuit is ongoing.

In addition to sending donations to Tides, the Obama Foundation has sent more than $3 million in 2022 and 2023 in grants to Gofundme.org for undisclosed “grassroots leaders to empower girls through education,” according to the group’s filings.

Meanwhile, the foundation admitted it has so far spent more than $615 million building the Obama Presidential Center, which is scheduled to open in spring 2026, according to its website.

The group, which received just $129,320 in donations in 2022, spent more than $27 million on salaries.

While community members struggle, insiders at the Obama Foundation are doing just fine. The foundation’s CEO, Emeka Jarrett, earned over $750,000 last year. The executive vice president, Rob Cohen, pocketed nearly $650,000, and also maintains ties to the Pritzker Realty Group. His connection to Penny Pritzker—sister to Governor J.B. Pritzker—only highlights the tangled web of Democratic powerbrokers who are thriving while the project supposedly dedicated to “the people” spirals out of control.

Meanwhile, the presidential center itself—originally sold to the public as a beacon of civic pride for Chicago’s South Side—has turned into a financial pit. Construction on the 20-acre site in Jackson Park began years ago, with a ballooning price tag that has already exceeded $615 million, far above the initial $500 million projection. The opening date has slipped again, now pushed to spring 2026. Local residents aren’t thrilled either. One lawyer described it bluntly as a “monstrosity,” pointing to rising costs, neighborhood headaches, and little actual benefit to the people forced to live around it.

This entire project reeks of the kind of carefully crafted con job only career political operators could pull off. Sell it as a beacon of unity, then funnel millions to radical, antisemitic causes, all while insiders pocket obscene salaries. It’s a true reflection of the same kind of corruption that plagued Obama’s presidency.

The Obama Presidential Center is a $615 million con, funneling money to radical causes and insider salaries. The mainstream media won’t cover this, but we will. Support our work by joining PJ Media VIP. Use promo code FIGHT for 60% off for ad-free access and sharp reporting. Support America First journalism.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Just The News is reporting that “Person 3” in the Comey indictment is not former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe but rather Columbia Professor Daniel Richman. According to the outlet, Richman is the former FBI employee in the indictment who allegedly leaked information about “Person 1,” who is believed to be Hillary Clinton. The report continues the long uncertainty over Richman’s role in these controversies. Richman has described himself as a friend, an FBI special employee, and the lawyer representing Comey at different times. He has also been a columnist and commentator, including for the site Lawfare run by Comey’s friend Ben Wittes. What Richman was doing at any given time remains strikingly uncertain. Professor Richman is not himself charged with any crime.

Richman’s fluid and changing roles are reminiscent of the debate over the role of Hunter Biden’s friend/lawyer/patron Kevin Morris. There was an evolution in the roles that Richman played over the years that left some of us confused as to his specific status at certain times.

At various points in the investigation, Richman alludes to being Comey’s lawyer, as well as a former aide and a friend. Comey used Richman as a conduit to the press and admitted that he was the means by which Comey leaked the contents of a memo that Comey improperly removed from the FBI after being fired.

The respected veteran investigative reporter Catherine Herridge reported on a June 2017 memorandum that documented a phone call with Richman and the so-called “Comey memos,” which detailed his conversations with President Trump.

According to sources, five days earlier, on June 8, 2017, Comey “asked Professor Richman to disclose the content of at least one of those memoranda to the press…”

In interviews,  sources said that Richman was dismissive over the violation of federal rules stating  “something to the effect of, ‘You do things by your rules’ and ‘I do things by my rules.’” Richman seemed to claim that he was serving as counsel and allegedly insisted that “there is a substantial extent to which I would raise attorney-client issues.” The suggestion was that, after leaving his position as a Justice Department adviser to Comey, he may have assumed the role as private counsel to Comey.

Richman admitted to media contacts but reportedly said that he did not think that he confirmed classified material from Comey to New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt.

Comey designated Richman as a Special Government Employee (SGE) at the FBI and subsequently utilized him as a conduit to the media. He gave him access to top-secret information, and Richman seems to have floated between Comey and other offices, such as the FBI’s General Counsel’s office.

The FBI said that “Comey instructed the FBI to hire Richman as a Special Government Employee” in 2015 and “to grant him a Top Secret clearance with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information.” It also said its investigation “revealed Comey also hired Richman, so Comey could discuss sensitive matters, including classified information, with someone outside of the FBI’s regular leadership. Comey also used Richman as a liaison to the media.”

Comey’s use of Richman shows how obsessed he was with his image and framing news stories about his tenure as director. Richman would serve as both an unnamed source and a named source in articles.

Richman admitted to agents that he routinely communicated on behalf of Comey with Times reporter Michael Schmidt, who published some of the non-public information that was the subject of past investigations.

According to FBI memos, Richman explained that his role was “to correct stories critical of Comey, the FBI and to shape future press coverage” outside the bureau’s official press office.

The different roles eventually seemed to cause Richman to resign. He sent an email to FBI officials in early February 2017  saying that “I am resigning my SGE status, and will thus not, as of today, be formally working for the Bureau in the immediate future.” He added that “my SGE status is limiting what I can do in my extracurricular life.”

Richman later joined Wittes, who has described himself as a friend of Comey as well as figures like Peter Strzok, at Lawfare. With Wittes, Richman has written highly critical columns of the Trump Administration.

Comey admitted to being a leaker through Richman. He was accused of being a leaker in other stories through other individuals. Andrew McCabe said that he leaked information on behalf of Comey. Likewise, an FBI memo said that a prior investigation “revealed [FBI General Counsel James] Baker to be one of the two sources” in a leak and “revealed Baker disclosed USG classified information to the NYT under the belief he was ultimately instructed and authorized to do so by then FBI Director James Comey.”

Just in the News reported that a “newly-unredacted portion [of a report] added that ‘Baker indicated FBI chief of staff James Rybicki instructed him (Baker) to disclose the information to the NYT, and Baker understood Rybicki was conveying this instruction and authorization from Comey.’”

The question is what Richman was at any given time in this scandal. Ethics rules tend to reinforce clear lines in the roles played by lawyers. Richman has been described as a “friend” by Comey, but Richman has suggested that he was at times serving as his personal lawyer. During his time as an SGE, Richman also seemed to shift in his focus. Richman’s first term as an SGE ended in 2016 and then Comey brought him back to work as a “consultant” for the FBI’s Office of General Counsel. A good portion of his portfolio at times seemed to be running interference for Comey with the media and protecting his image in the press.

Richman has not been charged with any crime or accused of any ethics violation in any of these dealings or positions. Some of us, however, are concerned by the fluidity of these roles over the years as government employee, private counsel, and friend.

Comey appeared to select Richman in part for his loyalty and Richman has continued to defend Comey. Now, Richman has a new role as the main witness in a criminal prosecution against Comey. It may be the only time in this scandal that his role as been singular and clear.

Progressive late-night television is dying.  The signals could not be more clear with Stephen Colbert’s cancellation due to $40 million losses every year on productions costs.  If Colbert is failing, then nearly all late night shows a failing.  Many analysts have been speculating that Jimmy Kimmel was next on the chopping block.

During the second quarter, Jimmy Kimmel Live! averaged 1.77 million total viewers. That’s down quite a bit from 2015, when Colbert joined the late-night lineup and Nielsen says Kimmel averaged 2.4 million total viewers.  The leftist comedian has become infamous in the past five years for his political hot takes and overt hatred of conservatives, just as the majority of late night hosts have gravitated to propaganda rather than entertainment.  This has not helped their audience ratings.

Then, Kimmel threw himself into the middle of the public turmoil over the Charlie Kirk assassination.  His ABC “cancellation” was short lived and the show was back in a week.  Broadcast affiliates Sinclair and Nexstar decided to bring Kimmel back and his return garnered 6.5 million viewers.  Democrats cheered as if they had just won a political victory, but reality is not kind to the delusional.

In recent broadcasts, “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” averaged 2.3 million total viewers – A staggering 64% drop from the 6.5 million who tuned in for the much-hyped return.  Kimmel shed even more viewers in the advertiser-coveted demographic of adults aged 25-54, with Thursday’s episode hemorrhaging 73% of viewers from the critical category.  

It takes more than political controversy to save a dying show led by an unfunny comedian.  ABC lost a perfect opportunity to get rid of a dud show and they blew it.    

With disinformation talking points from social media in hand Kimmel attempted to spread the false claim that the shooting suspect, Tyler Robinson, was MAGA:

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”  

This was part of a larger spin campaign by democrats and leftist groups to deflect blame (as they always do).  The effort to lie to the public and paint Robinson as “right wing” was desperate and rabid.  To this day, a large percentage of Democrats wrongly assume that Robinson, a gay man with a trans furry boyfriend and an affinity for Antifa slogans, is MAGA.  Their trusted gatekeepers told them he is.

As more and more information was released to the public is became clear that militant woke rhetoric, incessantly repeated by Democrat politicians and late night talk show hosts over the past several years, was to blame for Charlie Kirk’s murder.  The post-shooting celebration by millions of leftists across the country left no doubt who they are as a movement and what they are willing to do to get the power they want.    

Democrats complained that Kimmel’s show being dropped was the same “cancel culture” that conservatives criticized the political left of using.  The difference, though, is that conservatives were being cancelled for telling the truth.  They are being “cancelled” for telling lies celebrating murder.  

Hollywood has been sliding into a financial abyss that the town may never recover from, so one might expect film industry moguls to back away from the woke cancer that put them on the bad side of the American public.  The problem is, many production companies have projects that began principle filming before the 2024 election when the political left still naively believed that they were the national majority. 

Now, those companies are stuck with these movies even when they know box office failure is guaranteed.  One such movie is the latest from director Paul Thomas Anderson and lead star Leonardo DiCaprio, called “One Battle After Another”. 

The movie is being hailed by the woke media as a “celebration of modern day Antifa revolutionaries”.  Hollywood In Toto says the film “casts an Antifa-style group as its heroes,” while The San Francisco Chronicle described the film, referring to the protagonists as “an allegory that involves antifa-like left wing extremists, a well-funded right wing militia group, and immigrants avoiding ICE.”  The Daily Beast called it a “gonzo Antifa rallying cry.” 

The timing for such a project could not be worse.  Woke films with leftist political messaging are already guaranteed to fail in theaters the vast majority of the time.  Add to this the fact that the film is being premiered the same month that multiple mass shootings have been committed by leftist activists (including school shootings), Antifa mob attacks on immigration officers, as well as the assassination of conservative speaker Charlie Kirk committed by a gay man with a trans furry boyfriend using Antifa slogans written on his ammo.  

There’s not a lot of public affinity for radical leftists at this time.  No one wants to see a movie glorifying them as protagonists.

This is why “One Battle After Another” is flopping hard at the box office.  The flick needs around $300 million to break even after marketing costs are included – It has only made $48.5 million globally.  Keep in mind, half of all box office revenues go to theaters, the other half goes to distributors.  And, a weak opening weekend usually portends a swift decline in ticket sales for the next few weeks after.  

Ultimately, the movie is likely to lose hundreds of millions of dollars and probably end up on streaming services in the very near term with little fanfare.  Get woke, go broke.

Paul Thomas Anderson’s otherwise excellent track record for dramatic films cannot overcome the intense gravity of the woke black hole. Few if any films escape its cold grasp.  This is why it is suicide for content producers to jump onto political bandwagons; the movements they think are popular as usually not, and biases blind the creative process.  The foolishness of chasing propaganda should be obvious, but not to the dimwits in Hollywood.