Authored by Todd Hayen via Off-Guardian.org,

Can I be so bold as to say I may have figured something out? It is probably something all of you already know, as I can be a bit slow on the uptake. I keep hearing from the sheep-types that they really don’t care if we lose all of our freedoms. They don’t care about losing privacy because they don’t have anything to hide, they don’t care about losing free speech because people should be punished for saying bad and/or dangerous things (and they have nothing to say that would be considered bad and/or dangerous).

They have no fear of the government getting too much control because there will never be a reason the government would want or need to control them.

They don’t fear communism or fascism primarily because they don’t know what those two ideologies clearly mean, and besides, that would never happen in a free society—which they are ready to give up anyway.

Of course, to all of us shrew-types, we practically lose our cookies thinking about living in a society where basic freedoms have been stripped away, or where the government, or any other authority, has power over our movements, our money, and our fundamental existence.

When we hear someone say, “I don’t care how much control the authorities have, I have nothing to hide, and I do nothing wrong, therefore it is not something to worry about for me,” we blow a gasket.

Don’t they know?

Don’t they know that when the control over the masses surely does take effect it won’t matter a tinker’s damn if they “have nothing to hide” or “don’t do anything bad.” Oppression comes in many flavours, and its primary purpose is not to punish wrongdoing, but rather to keep people, in a very general way, compliant and under control.

Control sets the tone of the behaviour of a society. A good example of this came about during the Canadian Trucker’s Convoy. People who donated to that cause ran the risk of having their bank accounts frozen. (I was one that this happened to.) Was donating to a “cause” such as the Trucker’s Convoy a “bad thing”—was it against the law, was it criminal? In a free society, protesting (peacefully) and standing up against any sort of injustice an individual finds abhorrent is one of our fundamental rights as citizens of a free country.

However, punishing people who do something the government does not approve of sets a bar that indicates what is acceptable and what is not. People seeing friends and family being punished for contributing to a cause such as the truckers convoy, will categorize their activity as the activity of “a bad person”—whereas before the punishment was laid upon them (the freezing of their bank accounts) these same people would have had no trouble wearing a pussy hat and marching against Donald Trump.

They find what the government did (freezing accounts) as “reasonable” and they tell themselves that whoever contributed was a “bad person” and deserves to be reprimanded.

There is no better word for this than indoctrination: people are being taught what is right and wrong, and being taught what the punishment is for being wrong. It is much like training a dog, but not with positive reinforcement (although there is a lot of that going on as well) but with negative reinforcement.

Needless to say this negative punishment starts out mildly. And this is the thing I figured out—people don’t know yet what the real punishment is going to be for wrongdoing, and for straying away from the desires of the agenda. They have never experienced real suffering at the hands of their captives, so they don’t know what is in store for them. None of them have lived in North Korea, or Soviet Russia, or Nazi Germany, or Mao’s China. None of them know what it means to live a life in any of these environments where you don’t have to be a criminal to be seriously persecuted and physically punished for just being.

Well, neither have the shrews (more than likely anyone reading this is a shrew). So, what gives? This is the part I have not yet figured out. I have a few theories, but most of them are rather lame. One theory is that shrews are more aware of history and world events than their sheep brethren. I can’t imagine that this is as true as it would need to be to have any sort of impact. But I have noticed that the shrews I have met are very well informed about totalitarian regimes—current ones and past ones. Shrews seem to be more well-read than the sheep-types—history (as mentioned), philosophy, psychology, biography, classic literature, etc. Maybe there are a few Nora Roberts romances in there, but not many.

I am sure there are lots of shrews who haven’t read a book since High School, but that doesn’t seem to be the truth. It isn’t book reading altogether either, it is just information, awareness, and understanding that seems to be prevalent. Combine that with common sense and critical thinking, and you may have a viable formula there for shrew-ness.

Like I said, I don’t think I have that one figured out yet. But I do think there is some viability to the idea that the sheeple don’t really know what they are handing over to the agenda. They don’t know what politically inflicted pain feels like. And they are rather certain that this sort of pain is not down the pike.

Of course, there are always strange anomalies to these theories.

Why are the same people obsessed and terrified that Trump is going to make this oppressive, fascist, totalitarian world for them, where they will all, if they are lucky, writhe in pain on the streets, deprived of food, water, and any sort of decency in life?

This is strange, for sure, as it makes no sense that if they are so terrified of this happening with Trump, they can’t see it with Carney in Canada, Merz in Germany, Macron in France, Xi Jinping in China, and Starmer in the UK. Of course, they have no problem seeing it in Putin of Russia. But Zelenskyy of Ukraine is the hero of all time. Go figure.

So, I guess I was wrong. I haven’t figured this out at all. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Todd’s new book The View of the Shrew launches later this month, and is available for pre-order, or you can enter a draw to win a free copy by signing up to his mailing list here.

Retirement costs can vary dramatically depending on where you live in the United States.

While some states offer an affordable path to a comfortable retirement, others demand six-figure annual budgets. This infographic, via Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu, maps the annual cost of retirement across all 50 U.S. states, revealing the most and least expensive places for retirees.

Data and Methodology

The data for this visualization comes from GOBankingRates.

They analyzed the following expenditures of Americans aged 65 and older, based on data sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) most recent Consumer Expenditure Survey release for the full year of 2023:

• 🍎 Annual spending on groceries, defined as “food at home”
• 🏠 Annual spending on housing, defined as “shelter”
• 🚗 Annual spending on transportation, defined as “gasoline, other fuels and motor oil” AND “other vehicle expenses”
• 💊 Annual spending on healthcare
• 💡 Annual spending on utilities, defined as “utilities, fuels, and public services”
• 📊 Overall average annual expenditures

Spending estimates were adjusted to the state level by multiplying each cost category by its corresponding cost of living index score in each state, sourced from the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center’s 2024 Q2 cost of living index data.

After calculating total consumption expenditures, an additional (7) savings buffer was calculated by assuming that total expenditures consume 80% of ones budget (50% for necessities and 30% for discretionary spending), with 20% left over for savings.

GOBankingRates then combined factors (6) and (7) and factored it out by 20 (assuming 20 years of retirement) to give (8) retirement savings needed to live comfortably. All data was collected on and up to date as of Oct. 1, 2024.

🌴 Hawaii Tops the List

Hawaii ranks as the most expensive state to retire, with average annual expenditures reaching $129,296. This high cost is largely driven by steep prices for housing, groceries, and healthcare.

According to U.S. News & World Report, Hawaii consistently ranks near the top for quality of life—but retirees must be prepared for a financial commitment nearly double that of more affordable states.

🏡 Affordable Living in the Midwest and South

Retirees on a budget often find the best value in West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Kansas, where average annual retirement costs remain around $50,000 annually.

These states benefit from significantly lower housing prices, modest property taxes, and minimal day-to-day expenses.

🌆 High Costs in the Northeast and West Coast

Retiring in Massachusetts, California, and New York comes at a premium—residents in these states will spend over $70,000 per year to maintain a comfortable lifestyle. In a similar analysis by GOBankingRates, this could work out to around $1.3 to $1.6 million in total savings needed.

These states combine high housing costs, elevated healthcare expenses, and often steeper taxes. In fact, New York has the highest tax burden of any state.

Want to retire outside of the U.S.? Check out The Best Countries to Retire In on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Submitted by Gun Owners of America, 

On Monday, the Senate Finance Committee released the current text for the Reconciliation Bill, also known as the “Big Beautiful Bill.”

In the text, Republican Senators have removed Short Barreled Rifles, Short Barreled Shotguns and “Any Other Weapons” (a catch-all term used to restrict other types of firearms not originally covered by the NFA) from the taxation, and therefore the entire tax scheme of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

🚨BREAKING🚨

The @SenFinance Cmte. has improved the One Big Beautiful Bill to FULLY REPEAL the National Firearms Act excise taxes on:

✅Suppressors
✅Short-Barreled Rifles
✅Short-Barreled Shotguns
✅Any other Weapons

This is a massive victory for the Second Amendment!

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) June 16, 2025

Previously, House Republicans added similar GOA-backed language to the reconciliation bill that removed suppressors from the taxation and registration outlined in the 1934 NFA. 

🚨BREAKING🚨⁰⁰The House of Representatives passes GOA-backed language 215-214 to ELIMINATE the unconstitutional taxation & registration of suppressors under the NFA.⁰⁰The bill heads to the Senate, where GOA will fight to include protections for short-barreled firearms too. pic.twitter.com/4cRqgi4LHl

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) May 22, 2025

Now, the next step for the bill is to pass the Senate’s infamous “Byrd Rule.” A process where provisions in a bill are tested to see if they are primarily tax-focused or policy-focused.

If a provision is primarily policy-focused, it fails the test, and the provision is stripped from the bill.

Thankfully, the proposed changes to the NFA should pass the Byrd rule process with flying colors—as long as the Senate Parliamentarian is honest and unbiased in her ruling.

That’s because the NFA is primarily a tax. 

🚨UPDATE🚨

Next, the One Big Beautiful Bill will undergo the “Byrd Bath”—a process by which Senators can raise issues to strike any non-budget policy provisions.

Fortunately for gun owners, the National Firearms Act of 1934 is primarily a $200 excise tax! https://t.co/0VOUXfcjVc

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) June 16, 2025

However, like anything else in Washington, D.C., we shouldn’t celebrate until the bill is signed with these provisions included.

Make sure to keep up the pressure on your elected officials by calling (202) 224-3121 and reminding them that you want to keep the removal of the tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms in the Big Beautiful Bill. 

Pressure from grassroots gun owners calling their congress members got us this far, and that same pressure will keep these provisions in the bill when it heads to President Trump’s desk for signing into law.

This is a HUGE step in GOA’s fight to restore your Second Amendment rights and strikes a major blow to the draconian NFA!

But as you know, the job is not finished yet. Keep calling your senators!

☎️202-224-3121 https://t.co/n1sqlj1ehR

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) June 17, 2025

 .    .    .  

Iron ore, widely seen as a real-time barometer of China’s economic pulse, is flashing fresh warning signs. Prices slid for a fourth straight session in Singapore, dropping below $93 a ton and hitting their lowest level in nine months.

China, the world’s largest consumer of iron ore, imports more than 70% of globally traded volumes. That gives iron ore prices an outsized role as a proxy for Chinese economic momentum, and the latest trade data suggests the world’s second-largest economy is still struggling to gain momentum, remaining mired in deflation.

At the start of the week, figures from China showed that nationwide steel output in May declined on a daily basis compared to April. Output was down about 7% from a year ago, marking the weakest May since 2018.

“Steel demand in China is likely to remain weak over the coming months over the upcoming seasonal lull,” Citigroup analysts wrote in a note, slashing iron ore forecasts.

They noted that China’s property market weakness has yet to show a meaningful turnaround while manufacturing continues to face headwinds. As a result, their three-month price forecast was lowered to $90 a ton from $100, and the six-to-twelve-month target was revised down to $85 from $90.

In a separate note, Goldman analyst James McGeoch provided a gloomy outlook for iron ore by ratcheting down price targets…

Not taking a lot of lead, notable that China has been a very very quiet tape, waiting, watching….. clearly Iron ore at $93.00 stands out, when I talk to trading they suggest the most convincing trade is further curve flattening out on back of mounted physical selling pressure in front months and continuous consumer hedging in the back end of the curve, Both miners and phys traders are selling tonnes aggressively, yes there is a flat price call that you can play the $90-95 range, however it’s a downward sloping trend. Recall start o year we kind of liked this $100-110 range (china infra seen as supportive and property policy creating a trough), that became $95-105, which became $90-100 (as infra in particular didn’t see the post winter pickup we expected) and its now $90-95 range.

McGeoch pointed to sliding steel prices in China. 

China’s steel exports remain elevated. 

The key takeaway is that China’s subdued iron ore market reflects the broader economic downturn, with persistent weakness in the property sector and no meaningful signs of recovery.

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

Kraft Heinz said on Tuesday that it will not launch any new products with artificial colors in the United States and will remove the additives from its existing product portfolio by the end of 2027.

The company added that, by net sales, nearly 90 percent of its U.S. products are already free of food, drug, and cosmetic (FD&C) colors.

For the remaining products, the company will remove colors “not critical to the consumer experience,” replace them with natural alternatives, or create new colors and shades when alternatives are not available.

The company’s June 17 announcement follows a call by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), along with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to phase out all petroleum-based synthetic dyes from the nation’s food supply.

“For too long, some food producers have been feeding Americans petroleum-based chemicals without their knowledge or consent,” HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in an April 22 statement.

Kennedy said that the “poisonous compounds” offered no nutritional benefits and adversely impacted children’s health and development. He said the department was working with the industry to get rid of the “toxic dyes” from the food supply.

FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said that the agency asked food companies to substitute artificial colors with “natural ingredients for American children as they already do in Europe and Canada,” citing an epidemic of childhood diabetes, obesity, depression, and ADHD.

In Tuesday’s statement, Heinz said the company had used FD&C colors since it had a “longstanding history of approval” from the FDA.

Kraft Heinz North America President Pedro Navio said that most of his company’s products use natural or no colors.

“In fact, we removed artificial colors, preservatives, and flavors from our beloved Kraft Mac & Cheese back in 2016,” Navio said. “Our iconic Heinz Tomato Ketchup has never had artificial dyes – the red color comes simply from the world’s best tomatoes. Above all, we are focused on providing nutritious, affordable, and great-tasting food for Americans and this is a privilege we don’t take lightly.”

Companies, including cereal manufacturer WK Kellogg, meatpacker Tyson Foods, and Walmart’s Sam’s Club, have announced plans to remove artificial food dyes from their product lines following the HHS announcement.

Dye Ban Opposition

The Consumer Brands Association, which represents manufacturers, said food colors have been widely used in the supply chain because they were deemed safe.

“The ingredients used in America’s food supply have been rigorously studied following an objective science and risk-based evaluation process and have been demonstrated to be safe,” the association said in an April 22 statement in response to the HHS decision to ban food dyes. “As we increase the use of alternative ingredients, food and beverage companies will not sacrifice science or the safety of our products.”

The association also asked the HHS and FDA to develop a coordinated set of rules when setting food regulations.

“A state patchwork of differing laws creates confusion for consumers, limits access to everyday goods, deters innovation, and increases costs at the grocery store,” it said.

The International Association of Color Manufacturers (IACM), representing the interests of the color additives industry, said in a statement that “despite common misconceptions, synthetic (FD&C) colors are approved and continue to be used worldwide, including in Europe.”

The IACM’s website lists Fast Green No. 3 as approved for use in the United States but not authorized for food use in the European Union or the UK.

FD&C Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Quinoline Yellow, Azorubine (Carmoisine), and Ponceau 4R (Cochineal Red A) are listed as being subject to a warning on European labels.

Proposing reformulation within 2026 “ignores scientific evidence and underestimates the complexity of food production. This process is neither simple nor immediate, and the resulting supply disruptions will limit access to familiar, affordable grocery items. IACM and its members remain committed to science-based dialogue on color additives,” the IACM said.

According to the HHS, authorization for two synthetic food colorings—Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B—will be revoked within the coming months.

Six dyes—FD&C Green No. 3, FD&C Red No. 40, FD&C Yellow No. 5, FD&C Yellow No. 6, FD&C Blue No. 1, and FD&C Blue No. 2—will be eliminated from the food supply by the end of next year. FD&C Red No. 3 will also be removed.

Four new natural color additives will be authorized soon, and the agency has partnered with the National Institutes of Health to conduct comprehensive research on how food additives impact children’s health and development.

Health officials said the administration had not yet made a formal deal with corporations on food dyes.

“There are a lot of tools at our disposal,” Makary said. “Let’s start in a friendly way.”

Fort Hood is back, soon after the Trump administration vowed to restore military bases which had name changes under the Biden administration due to Confederate linkages. 

What was briefly formerly called Fort Cavazos has been officially renamed Fort Hood, and even the gate signs have been quickly changed and updated. 

Unlike its previous Confederate association, the new Fort Hood honors Col. Robert B. Hood, a World War I hero awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for bravery in battle, and not the Confederate General John Bell Hood.

The Army is fast updating digital platforms and physical signage to reflect the large Killeen Army base in the heart of Texas reverting back to Ft. Hood. An official renaming ceremony will follow.

There’s a bit of twist behind the renaming which gets around WW2 era law preventing the US government ever issuing new names to bases inspired by Confederate soldiers, hence the ‘new’ Ft. Hood honoring Col. Robert B. Hood.

This is certainly a creative way to bring the name back, and the same was done for iconic Fort Bragg back in February.

That was when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced he signed the order restoring the name of the storied special operations forces base in North Carolina back to Fort Bragg. Hegseth had announced: “That’s right. Bragg is back!” 

And just like that… “The Great Place” is named Fort Hood in our system again.

(This post is not meant as a political post – and aggressive comments will not be tolerated) pic.twitter.com/yvJ6PN87BM

— Josh Johns (@JoshJohnsWx) June 17, 2025

The Biden administration had changed the name to Fort Liberty in 2023 as part of a national policy of ditching names for military bases named after Confederate leaders. Several other bases were impacted in the sweeping change.

And for people in central Texas who still had not gotten used to saying or referencing Fort Cavazos – a bit of a mouth full – google maps can make sense again.

Fort Cavazos has been redesignated as Fort Hood to honor WWI hero Col. Robert B. Hood, an official renaming ceremony will be held at a later time. https://t.co/xqIYOsynJb

— KCENNews (@6NewsCTX) June 17, 2025

Locals in and around Killeen, the city outside of which the sprawling base is located, really never stopped referencing ‘Hood’. Even enlisted troops kept the old name in daily conversation, but with officers in official briefings expected to comply. Soldiers and civilians alike can now drop the confusion and revert back to the old days.

Not only is China starting to dominate the auto market throughout the world, now they’re seeking to do it using exclusively home-grown chips, according to a new report from Nikkei.

Chinese automakers, including SAIC, Changan, BYD, Geely, Li Auto, and Great Wall, are planning to launch models using only domestically made chips, with at least two aiming for mass production as early as 2026, according to Nikkei Asia. These efforts are part of Beijing’s push for semiconductor self-reliance amid growing U.S.-China tech tensions.

The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) is leading the initiative, urging automakers—especially state-owned ones—to assess and increase their domestic chip usage. The latest policy goal is for all automotive chips to be 100% locally developed and manufactured by 2027. “The 100% target is not mandatory,” sources said, but companies are expected to show strong efforts toward meeting it.

Nikkei writes that most Chinese automakers still rely on U.S. and foreign chips, particularly for high-end features like autonomous driving. Nvidia’s and Qualcomm’s solutions remain common in smart cockpits and AI-driven systems. “Rapidly shifting to 100% domestic supplies would be challenging,” several suppliers said.

However, domestic momentum is building. Automakers like GAC Group are working with foundries such as SMIC and CanSemi to verify homegrown chip alternatives. “Some of [our] carmaking customers such as Geely have told them they would prioritize using locally developed chips if those options existed,” said an executive with a Chinese chip developer.

Supply chain localization is accelerating across the board. One display maker said, “We are required to replace not only driver ICs with China-made chips, but also some components and materials, such as optical films… We have to switch them to Chinese suppliers by next year at the earliest.” Another noted that “it only takes six to nine months for testing and qualification for Chinese automobile makers,” compared to three to five years for European clients.

China’s EV manufacturers are also becoming more flexible by using consumer-grade chips for noncritical functions like infotainment systems. This shift reflects both localization goals and cost pressure, especially as global chipmakers like STMicroelectronics, NXP, and Infineon increase partnerships with Chinese foundries to localize production. “Chinese clients were asking the chipmaker to localize production of chips for their home market,” Infineon CEO Jochen Hanebeck told Nikkei.

The chip landscape in cars is rapidly evolving. Traditionally dominated by microcontrollers and analog chips for basic functions, modern EVs now require far more components for computing, battery management, cameras, and displays. Fortunately, many of these chips can be made with mature-node technology, which China is aggressively expanding.

“Specifically, the analog market and a large portion of the microcontroller units (MCUs) market have endured a few years of soft market growth due in part to pricing pressures on these devices that are built mostly on mature process nodes,” said TechInsights analyst Brian Matas. Still, “China has a long way to go.” In 2025, only about 17.5% of China’s $185 billion IC market will be met by local production, according to TechInsights.

SEMI projects that by 2027, China will account for nearly 40% of global mature-node chip production capacity—up from 31% in 2023—while the U.S. will account for just 5%.

Authored by J.T. Young via RealClearPolitics,

In his first term, Trump chased Democrats’ laser pointer; now, they’re chasing his. No issue illustrates this like immigration; it’s become the Democrats’ red dot. Whenever, wherever, and however Trump moves it, Democrats can’t help pouncing. 

In his first term, Trump reacted to everything Democrats and the establishment media did. He couldn’t help himself, as though always compensating for having lost the 2016 popular vote. Forever taking their bait, his tweets poured forth. His frequently abrupt policy and political changes cost him on Obamacare – and popular support, too: Throughout his first term, Trump never had a favorable job approval rating in the RealClearPolitics Average of national polls.  

In his second term, circumstances have markedly reversed. Democrats have been reacting to Trump since before he took office – if not since before he won it. 

Even before his inauguration, Democratic leaders ran to microphones to announce their defiance. As they did, they picked politically questionable issues. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker proclaimed he was opening his state to more transgender surgeries; California Gov. Newsom proclaimed support for electric vehicle credits.  

When Trump talked about a third term, even with the Constitution clearly blocking it, Democrats and the establishment media were apoplectic. Once in office, they were opposed to DOGE with equal vehemence.

In short, if Trump proposed it, Democrats opposed it. They couldn’t help taking the bait. However, of all the things Trump has pursued, nothing has exorcised Democrats like his crackdown on illegal immigration.

New Jersey’s governor, boldly proclaiming he was harboring an illegal immigrant, dared ICE to come…until ICE said they intended to. Democratic officials stormed a New Jersey ICE holding center. When a Milwaukee judge was arrested for helping an illegal immigrant avoid ICE capture, Democrats rallied around her, despite a judge’s job being one of impartiality on cases before the bench. 

When Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported from Maryland, the accused MS-13 gang member became a Democratic cause célèbre.  Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) went to El Salvador to have cocktails with Garcia; other Democratic members of Congress followed. Nationwide, Democrats have prominently counseled illegal immigrants on evading ICE. 

Still, the Los Angeles uprising over the last several days took Democratic efforts (or lack thereof when it comes to enforcement) to another level. Mayor Karen Bass (who already had bungled wildfires that caused enormous damage) and Gov. Gavin Newsom stood by as the city descended into anarchic chaos from protests over ICE doing its job. 

Trump called in the National Guard. Next, the Marines. Newsom called press conferences. And sued. He sought to cast himself as a political paladin, a knight-errant in defense of not enforcing immigration law.

The better term for Newsom and the rest of the Democrats rallying to the cause of blocking the deportation of immigrants in the country illegally would be “knights-in-error.” More accurate in terms of immigration and law enforcement policy, it would be more accurate still in terms of politics.

Having already given Trump a winning issue, they are now gift-wrapping it in images: attacking law enforcement, rioters, outside agitators, destruction, looting, burned-out vehicles, a city aflame. Each picture a winner for Trump, each one a loser for Democrats.

To understand how big a loser these visuals are for Democrats, just look at the polling numbers. 

RCP’s final average for President Biden’s job approval on crime was 38% approval and 59% disapproval – a negative 21 percentage-point margin. On immigration, Biden’s final job approval average was 33.5% approval and 64.8% disapproval – a negative 31.3 percentage-point margin. 

With negatives like these, why do Democrats insist on fighting on this terrain? Why Trump does is clear: His job approval on immigration is 51.5% approval versus 47% disapproval – a positive 4.5 percentage points. 

The figures on reduced illegal immigration and overall crime since he took office only burnish the law-and-order credentials Democrats are thrusting on him.

Even in California, increased law enforcement is a winner. California’s ballot measure that increased penalties for shoplifting and drug possession – and undid an earlier ballot measure relaxing these – passed overwhelmingly last November. 

Non-deluded Democrats have also voiced their concerns with picking this losing fight. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) and Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) have both had the temerity to swim against Democrats’ lemming tide. 

Immigration has become a laser pointer for Trump to use on Democrats. With every flash of the red dot, Democrats instinctively respond, each time believing one more pat of the paw, one more snap of the jaw, and they will have seized what is forever a pounce away.

It is not true that Democrats do not have an agenda; they do: Trump’s. Or rather, Trump’s agenda has them. And on immigration, it has Democrats right where Trump wants them.

J.T. Young is the author of the recent book, Unprecedented Assault: How Big Government Unleashed America’s Socialist Left from RealClear Publishing and has over three decades’ experience working in Congress, the Department of Treasury, the Office of Management, and Budget, and representing a Fortune 20 company.

It’s only fitting that corruption pays off in a town that was bankrolled by the mob…

Atlantic City Mayor Marty Small is, to put it gently, in legal hot water. Facing criminal charges related to child abuse and witness tampering, Small is heading toward a July 2025 trial in a courtroom rather than a campaign trail.

And yet, none of that seemed to matter to Democratic primary voters in Atlantic City, according to WPUR.

In what might be the most on-brand moment for Atlantic City politics, Small not only won his primary — he cruised.

The report says that he beat challenger Bob McDevitt by over 1,000 votes (2,683 to 1,580 at last count), Small proved that being under indictment is apparently not a dealbreaker in local elections. If anything, it might just be a résumé booster.

Even more impressive (or bewildering), he dragged his entire slate of council-at-large candidates to victory with him, making it a clean sweep in the primary.

So what’s next for the embattled mayor? A general election date with Republican nominee Naeem Khan on November 4, 2025 — and, oh right, that little thing called a felony trial.

Small and his wife, La’Quetta Small, are both facing serious charges, and he’s also been hit with a separate indictment for allegedly tampering with witnesses. They’re trying to split their cases to delay the trial, which is currently set for July.

It’s not every day that a sitting mayor campaigns while preparing to defend himself in court. But then again, this is Atlantic City — a place where political drama and casino odds have always gone hand in hand.

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he will likely extend the deadline once again for TikTok to divest from its China-based parent company ByteDance.

Previous two extensions in January and April stalled a ban on TikTok by 75 days, temporarily saving the popular video-sharing app from a ban in the United States.

When asked whether he would give a third extension after the upcoming June 19 deadline, the president said, “Probably, yeah.”

He expressed optimism about a potential deal that would involve ByteDance selling U.S. assets of TikTok to a non-Chinese buyer.

“We probably have to get China approval. I think we’ll get it,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One, as he traveled back from the G7 Summit in Canada.

“I think [Chinese leader] Xi [Jinping] will ultimately approve it,” he added.

When asked by reporters if he has the legal basis to extend the deadline again, Trump said, “Yeah, we do.”

The future of TikTok in the United States has remained uncertain because of persistent national security concerns, particularly those focusing on the Chinese communist regime’s ability to force ByteDance to hand over the massive amount of data it collects on its American users or manipulate the platform’s sophisticated algorithm to sway public opinion. These concerns stem in part from China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law, which obligates Chinese companies to cooperate with state intelligence operations.

In response, bipartisan legislation was passed to prohibit U.S. app stores from hosting TikTok unless ByteDance divests itself of the platform. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the measure, ruling that the divest-or-ban law does not violate the First Amendment.

After taking office, Trump gave TikTok an initial 75-day reprieve from the ban, extending the deadline to April 5. He signed an executive order on April 4, delaying the ban again and allowing more time for a potential deal to be finalized.

Over the past months, Trump has hinted that he was nearing an agreement with China regarding the app’s sale. He has also suggested that the tariffs are playing a role as leverage to pressure Beijing into approving the transaction.

“We had a deal pretty much for TikTok—not a deal but pretty close—and then China changed the deal because of the tariffs,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on April 6, a day after raising tariffs on China to 54 percent.

“If I gave a little cut in tariffs, they’d approve that deal in 15 minutes, which shows you the power of tariffs.”

A trade deal recently struck in London takes total tariffs on Beijing to 55 percent.

Among the companies and individuals reportedly interested in acquiring TikTok are online retail giant Amazon and Tim Stokely, the British entrepreneur who founded OnlyFans. ByteDance has not publicly confirmed any negotiations with potential buyers, nor has it officially indicated a willingness to sell the platform.