Authored by Sheramy Tsai via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Every decade has a new food enemy. First, it was fat. Then, it was sugar. Now, seed oils are under fire—blamed for causing obesity and chronic disease.

They’re almost impossible to avoid. Seed oils are in everything—from salad dressings and fast food to protein bars and even baby formula. Critics claim they’re harmful, while supporters argue they’re safe, affordable, and even good for you.

However, the truth is more nuanced. The debate is often oversimplified. Even the term “seed oil” is misleading,  lumping together oils that have been part of traditional diets for centuries with those created for large-scale food production.

At its core, the controversy isn’t just about whether seed oils are inherently good or bad—it’s about how they’re processed and consumed.

What Are Seed Oils, Really?

If you’ve been following health trends, you’ve probably heard claims that seed oils are toxic and should be avoided. What exactly are seed oils, and why do some people consider them harmful?

At their most basic, seed oils are extracted from seeds. This might seem harmless—after all, olive oil comes from olives, and coconut oil from coconuts.

But not all seed oils are the same. Some, like sesame and flaxseed oil, have been integral to traditional diets for centuries and are extracted through natural, cold-press methods that preserve their nutrients and antioxidants.

Others, however, are highly processed. Industrial seed oils—like soybean, corn, canola, sunflower, safflower, cottonseed, grapeseed, and rice bran—are mass-produced through high-heat extraction and chemical refining.

Manufacturers frequently use solvents like hexane to extract the maximum amount of oil. These oils are refined, bleached, and deodorized, earning them the label “RBD” oils. This process makes them neutral in taste and more shelf-stable, but it also removes beneficial compounds like vitamin E and antioxidants.

Many industrial seed oils were never intended for human consumption. Canola oil began as rapeseed oil, primarily used as a machine lubricant until Canadian scientists modified it in the 1970s to remove toxic compounds. The name itself—a blend of “Canada” and “oil”—was a marketing invention. “Vegetable oil” is another misleading term—it’s often a blend of industrial seed oils marketed to sound healthier than it is.

Cate Shanahan, a Cornell-trained physician-scientist specializing in dietary fats, explains that industrial seed oils were not developed with nutrition in mind.

“The crude oil from these seeds is inedible,” she told The Epoch Times. “Soy and canola weren’t bred for nutrition—they were bred for high yields and industrial durability.”

Most soy grown in the United States isn’t intended for human consumption at all. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, more than 70 percent of U.S. soybeans are used for animal feed, while another 5 percent is processed into biodiesel. What remains is primarily refined into soybean oil—a product stripped of much of the soy plant’s original nutritional value.

Additionally, more than 90 percent of American soy is genetically modified to withstand herbicides like glyphosate, allowing farmers to spray entire fields without harming crops. This high-intensity farming, combined with heavy industrial processing, results in oil far removed from its original form.

Unlike traditional oils such as olive or sesame, which retain their natural antioxidants, industrial seed oils require extensive refining to become shelf-stable. Shanahan argues that this process removes beneficial compounds, making them more prone to oxidation and degradation.

“What works for machines doesn’t always work for humans,” Shanahan said.

Are Seed Oils Good or Bad for Your Health?

Seed oils’ health effects are hotly debated. Some experts say they’re a heart-healthy alternative to butter and other animal fats, while others believe they might contribute to inflammation and disease.

The Case for Seed Oils As a Heart-Healthy Alternative 

For decades, scientists have debated the role of different fats in heart health. Research suggests that replacing saturated fats—found in butter and red meat—with polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs) from seed oils may offer cardiovascular benefits.

Advocates argue that the science is well-established.

“The research on seed oils is consistently positive,” Matthew Nagra, a naturopathic doctor, told The Epoch Times. “Numerous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that replacing saturated fat with seed oils rich in polyunsaturated fats can lower the risk of cardiovascular disease, America’s top killer, without any clear detriment.”

Large-scale studies support this claim. A 2021 study of more than 500,000 people found that those who replaced saturated fats with oils like canola, corn, and olive oil had a lower risk of heart disease and early death.

“Our findings support shifting the intake from solid fats to non-hydrogenated vegetable oils for cardiometabolic health and longevity,” the authors wrote. Examples of solid fats include butter and lard.

A 2025 JAMA Internal Medicine study reinforced these findings, showing that people who ate more plant-based oils—such as olive, soybean, and canola—lived longer and had lower heart disease and cancer rates. Meanwhile, those who ate more butter had a higher risk of early death. The researchers estimated that swapping butter for plant oils could reduce overall mortality risk by 17 percent, including a 17 percent drop in cancer-related deaths.

Because of this growing evidence, the American Heart Association (AHA) continues to recommend seed oils as part of a heart-healthy diet.

The Case Against Seed Oils: Oxidation and Inflammation

Not everyone agrees with the AHA’s endorsement of seed oils, and some experts question the research behind it.

“This study is of low quality,” Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, told The Epoch Times in an email. “It lumps extra virgin olive oil with soybean and safflower oil, which is ridiculous.” He also criticized the study’s methodology, arguing that it fails to accurately measure butter consumption and instead relies on an imprecise estimation method. “This kind of nutritional epidemiology fuels dogma rather than providing clarity,” he said.

Beyond concerns about research methods, critics argue that the real issue with seed oil is oxidation.

Refining makes seed oils more resistant to spoilage, allowing them to last longer on store shelves. However, once exposed to heat, air, or light—especially during cooking—their chemical structure begins to break down.

Unlike traditional oils such as olive or sesame, which naturally contain antioxidants that help prevent degradation, industrial seed oils lose these stabilizing compounds during processing. As a result, they are more vulnerable to oxidation, a process that creates byproducts like aldehydes and free radicals. These compounds can damage cells, promote inflammation, and contribute to chronic disease.

Heat accelerates this process. Studies show that repeatedly heating vegetable oils—such as those used in restaurant fryers—can generate oxidative byproducts linked to tissue damage and increased cholesterol levels in lab animals. Some research has also found oxidized linoleic acid, a degraded form of omega-6 fat, accumulating in human fat tissue and artery plaques, raising concerns about long-term health effects.

Not all experts agree that oxidation is a major threat.

“These processes have pros and cons,” says Christopher Gardner, a nutrition professor at Stanford. “They help prevent oils from breaking down but also strip away some beneficial components.”

A review in The Scientific World Journal found that while refining removes antioxidants like vitamin E and polyphenols (compounds that help protect cells), it also eliminates impurities, making the oils more stable and less likely to spoil.

Still, oxidation happens faster in seed oils than in other fats. Research shows that PUFAs degrade more quickly when exposed to heat, light, and air, whereas monounsaturated fats (found in olive oil) and saturated fats (found in butter and beef tallow) remain more stable.

The Processed Food Connection

If there’s one thing both critics and defenders of seed oils agree on, They’re everywhere. And that’s no accident.

Cheap, abundant, and heavily subsidized seed oils are a pillar of the modern food industry. The U.S. government pours billions into supporting crops like soybeans, corn, and cottonseed, making their oils far more affordable than alternatives like olive or avocado.

Soybeans dominate the market, accounting for about 90 percent of U.S. oilseed production. In 2016, the soybean industry alone received $1.6 billion in subsidies—helping to keep production high and costs low.

Government support doesn’t just make seed oils cheap for home cooks—it makes them the backbone of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), which now make up nearly 60 percent of the American diet. Along with refined grains and added sugars, seed oils form the foundation of modern processed foods, used to enhance texture, extend shelf life, and boost flavor at a low cost. These ingredients appear in everything from breakfast cereals to frozen dinners, making them nearly impossible to avoid in a typical supermarket.

A 32-ounce bottle of canola oil costs about $5.79, while the same amount of extra virgin olive oil can cost $13.99 or more. For food manufacturers trying to keep costs down, the choice is obvious. Because they’re inexpensive, neutral in flavor, and relatively shelf-stable, seed oils are a food manufacturer’s dream—allowing processed foods to last longer, taste better, and remain profitable.

Shanahan estimates that seed oils account for 20–30 percent of the average American’s daily calorie intake. This figure wasn’t easy to calculate, as seed oils aren’t tracked as a category. Shanahan analyzed decades of production data from crops like soybeans and canola, using government and industry reports to uncover the extent of seed oils’ presence in modern diets.

“Humans have never consumed polyunsaturates at this level before,” she warns. “Historically, diets relied mainly on animal fats, not oils rich in PUFAs. If you don’t know to avoid them, you’re eating vast quantities.”

Gardner agrees—but says the issue isn’t just seed oils. The rise in seed oil consumption isn’t because more people are making homemade salad dressings, he said. It’s because ultra-processed foods—where these oils are used heavily—now dominate the American diet.

Gardner argues that even if seed oils were removed from the food supply tomorrow, ultra-processed foods wouldn’t disappear—they’d just be reformulated.

“If the same UPFs were made with another oil like butter, beef tallow, lard, or coconut fat, those foods would not suddenly become health foods.”

At its core, the debate over seed oils is about more than just the oils themselves. It’s about the processed foods they’re in—and whether we should be eating so many of them in the first place.

So, What Should You Cook With?

Rather than fixating on eliminating seed oils altogether, experts say the bigger issue is reducing ultra-processed foods and choosing high-quality, stable fats when cooking at home.

“If you want to improve your health by cutting back on seed oils, the best way to do that is by eating fewer ultra-processed foods,” Gardner advises. “That would be a win in several ways—less sugar, less refined grain, and less sodium.”

For those looking to make better choices in their kitchens, experts recommend using stable, minimally processed oils that are less prone to oxidation:

Better Options for Cooking

• Avocado: High in monounsaturated fats, stable for high heat
• Extra virgin olive: Rich in antioxidants, ideal for drizzling or light cooking
• Butter and ghee: Naturally stable for high-heat cooking
• Coconut: High in saturated fat, making it oxidation-resistant

Oils Best Used Cold

• Flaxseed: High in omega-3s, best for dressings
• Walnut: Antioxidant-rich, flavorful in salads
• Sesame: Aromatic and moderately heat-stable

Industrially Refined Oils 

• Soybean
• Corn
• Canola
• Cottonseed
• Sunflower
• Safflower
• Grapeseed
• Rice bran

While some specialty versions exist in cold-pressed forms, they are far less common than their mass-produced, highly processed counterparts.

The Bottom Line

The debate over seed oils is far from over, but one thing is clear: How you consume them matters.

A drizzle of canola oil on a homemade salad is not the same as eating French fries fried in old restaurant oil. Relying on ultra-processed foods filled with cheap oils, sugar, and additives is where the larger problem lies.

For most people, the best way to improve their diet isn’t to worry about every drop of seed oil—it’s to eat more fresh, unprocessed foods, says Gardner.

“It seems bizarre to blame the plant oils and not the foods they’re in.”

In the ultimate act of seeking to ‘Trump-proof’ the NATO alliance, even well into the future, Europe’s largest military powers are now drawing up plans to keep the alliance strong in case of a US exit from leadership over the next five to ten years.

Informal discussions have involved the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the Nordic countries, who are envisioning a managed transfer of power and leadership reshaping the NATO bloc.

Financial Times writes that “The discussions are an attempt to avoid the chaos of a unilateral US withdrawal from Nato, a fear sparked by President Donald Trump’s repeated threats to weaken or walk away from the transatlantic alliance that has protected Europe for almost eight decades.”

Concern has grown in European quarters not only due to the White House’s Ukraine policies, but given that close Trump adviser Elon Musk had this to say earlier this month:

Billionaire Elon Musk threw his weight behind a US exit from NATO, saying on his social media platform that it “doesn’t make sense for America to pay for the defense of Europe.” 

The senior adviser to US President Donald Trump was responding to a post on X early Sunday that asserted the US should “Exit NATO *now*!” 

“We really should,” the Tesla Inc. co-founder and chief executive officer said. On March 3, Musk wrote on X he agreed with a suggestion by a conservative commentator that the US should leave both NATO and the United Nations. 

And this sentiment was quickly seconded by some Republicans in Congress. Rep. Thomas Massie said on X that “NATO is a Cold War relic that needs to be relegated to a talking kiosk at the Smithsonian.”

And Utah Rep. Mike Lee as well…

NEW: Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) has issued a statement on what would happen if U.S. withdraws from NATO.

“If the U.S. withdrew from NATO, Europe would have to fund more of its own security needs—forcing it to choose between security and socialism.”

👀 pic.twitter.com/0ySUc9f9Xg

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 7, 2025

One central irony in these new discussions among European NATO countries is that they plan to do what Trump has been pressuring them to do all along – ramp up defense spending and stop forcing Washington to shoulder most of the burden.

According to the Thursday report in FT:

The proposal would include firm commitments on increasing European defense spending and building up military capabilities, in an effort to convince Trump to agree to a gradual handover that would allow the US to focus more on Asia. The US, which spends more on defense than all other Nato allies combined, is indispensable to European security.

In addition to its nuclear deterrent, which is committed to the defense of Europe with several European air forces carrying US nuclear weapons, it provides military capabilities that continental allies do not possess, runs air, naval and troop bases and has 80,000 troops stationed in Europe.

Recently France’s Macron has floated the possibility of extending France’s nuclear deterrent over the continent. France remains the only EU country that possess nuclear weapons.

All of this also comes as Bloomberg is freshly reporting that NATO will ask Europe and Canada to boost its weapons and equipment stockpiles by 30%.

NATO sources say the aim is to adopt these dramatic increases in weapons stockpiles and defense spending commitments by early June. Without doubt, Trump’s prior days-long temporary halt in arms for Ukraine has hastened these discussions and decisions in Europe, given the ‘alarm’ caused among Kiev’s most hawkish backers.

Authored by Wilson Beaver & Anna Gustafsn via RealClearDefense,

So far, Elon Musk’s DOGE has swept through government agencies like USAID, brushing off cobwebs and uncovering skeletons as it goes. Now, DOGE is set to enter a much bigger agency whose shortfalls demand reform: the Department of Defense (DoD).

Long criticized for its budget woes, the DoD has recently faced accusations of overspending, underspending, and even simple misspending – criticisms which are all well founded. In fact, the DoD consistently mismanages its budget, a fact that’s led it to fail all of its last seven audits.

To address these issues, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently announced that he would work with DOGE to conduct a DoD-wide budget review. Already, this initiative has revealed $80 million in wasteful spending, including $1.9 million in “DEI transformation and training” and $3.5 million in “Defense HR Support for DEI.”

While the Pentagon is notoriously resistant to change, additional pressure from DOGE and the administration could finally force the reforms needed to modernize the American military, refocus on warfighting capabilities, and rid the Pentagon of absurd budget line items.

But DOGE’s mission isn’t just to slash budgets: it’s also to restore efficiency. Specifically, DOGE’s role is to ensure the federal government makes the most effective use possible of American taxpayer dollars.

Fundamentally, the DoD exists to ensure America’s warfighting capability—a task DOGE has no intention of obstructing. And even as the DoD’s mission grows more and more urgent, Pentagon dollars continue to be misused, a flaw that cries for immediate correction.

Hegseth recently announced he’d be implementing a DoD budget “cut” of 8%, or about $50 billion. Rather than simply imposing strict cuts, this plan seeks to “refocus… and reinvest… existing funds” to build a more lethal fighting force, restore “warrior ethos,” and reestablish global deterrence.

This shift is essential at a time when our arsenal is severely depleted and outdated and we lack the ships and planes to deter China from launching an attack in the Indo-Pacific. To fix this, Secretary Hegseth should prioritize reinvesting funding cuts into procurement and, specifically, into the construction of new of ships, planes, and munitions.

Hegseth should also divert dollars from personnel – a category that accounts for almost a quarter of the DoD’s budget.

Already, he and Musk have announced plans to reduce the civilian workforce by between 5% to 8%, a cut that will save the DoD between $9 and $14.5 billion. So far, he’s implemented this plan via a hiring freeze and the firing of probational employees and recent hires.

Many  have sought to villainize the Pentagon’s budget purge. Yet those in national security should recognize the need to cut defense budget waste, especially given recent developments on the international stage.

There, China continues to rapidly modernize its military to challenge U.S. dominance, while Russia persists in its aggression in Eastern Europe. North Korea still pursues its ever-growing nuclear ambitions (and strengthens its support for Russia), while Iran maintains its destabilizing influence in the Middle East.

These various actors all share one common feature: a vicious antipathy toward the United States.

The burden falls on the Pentagon and the DoD to protect the American people. DOGE represents a historic opportunity for the DoD to further this mission by rethinking how it organizes, supports, and employs its people. The goal isn’t to cut corners—it’s to reinvest in the capacity and capability of America’s warfighting force.

In a world of rising global threats, America cannot afford inefficiency. The Pentagon must embrace DOGE’s mission to break free from outdated bureaucracy and inefficient spending. Only then will the DoD be able to enhance American warfighting capability and ensure our security and prosperity.

Wilson Beaver is a Senior Policy Advisor for defense budgeting at The Heritage Foundation. 

Anna Gustafson is a member of Heritage’s Young Leaders Program.

Columbia University has agreed to meet wide-ranging conditions set by the Trump administration to restore $400 million in federal funding, according to a memo sent by the university to the federal government reported first by the Wall Street Journal.

In response to demands from the Trump administration, Columbia will implement several notable changes, including ending mask mandates on campus, granting 36 campus police officers expanded authority to arrest students, and appointing a senior vice provost with extensive oversight powers for its Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies department, as well as the Center for Palestine Studies.

Control of the Middle East department has been a central dispute in negotiations and sparks controversy across campus. Faculty at Columbia and nationwide are expressing deep reservations about letting the federal government dictate how they can operate an academic department. The new vice provost, appointed by Columbia, will review curriculum, nontenure faculty hiring and leadership “to ensure the educational offerings are comprehensive and balanced.” -WSJ

Columbia’s agreement represents a turning point in ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and some elite universities. President Trump has emphasized the need to address alleged antisemitism on campuses, particularly singling out Columbia due to recent controversies and protests regarding the Middle East conflict.

Earlier this month, Trump administration officials suspended federal grants and contracts to Columbia, alleging insufficient protections for Jewish students during pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations. Following intense negotiations, Columbia agreed to multiple demands outlined by the federal task force on antisemitism, and even committed to additional reforms promoting intellectual diversity.

“We have worked hard to address the legitimate concerns raised both from within and without our Columbia community, including by our regulators, with respect to the discrimination, harassment, and antisemitic acts our Jewish community has faced in the wake of October 7, 2023,” the university stated in the memorandum.

A senior Columbia administrator indicated that while the university considered legal action against the federal government, officials ultimately concluded that cooperation was necessary due to the federal government’s significant financial influence. Some reforms listed by the administration were already under consideration, according to the university.

Among the new policies, Columbia will prohibit disruptive protests involving the occupation of campus buildings, require protesters to identify themselves, and ensure an unbiased admissions process. The university also plans to closely investigate a recent decrease in enrollment among Jewish and African-American students.

Although Columbia stands among the country’s wealthiest universities, with an endowment of about $15 billion, it wouldn’t take long for it to cease to operate in any recognizable form without government money.

That stark reality hovers behind the school’s concessions. Columbia has agreed to curtail protests that take over buildings and disrupt classes. The school will require protesters to identify themselves and will review admissions practices to “ensure unbiased admissions processes.”

Columbia noted they have “identified a recent downturn in both Jewish and African-American enrollment, and we will closely examine those issues.”

Additionally, Columbia will adopt a specific definition of antisemitism developed by its own antisemitism task force, clarifying what constitutes antisemitic speech or behavior, including exclusion of students based on views toward Israel or the celebration of violence against Israelis or Jewish individuals.

The university emphasized steps beyond federal demands, including institutional neutrality on political issues, launching educational programming at its Tel Aviv hub, and developing a free K-12 curriculum focused on promoting open inquiry and civil discourse.

To further enhance academic diversity, Columbia announced it will hire faculty jointly affiliated with the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies and other departments such as Economics, Political Science, and the School for International and Public Affairs.

Other universities nationwide are closely observing Columbia’s concessions, as many depend on federal funds, student loans, and research grants critical to their operations. The outcome may influence negotiations at other institutions facing similar government scrutiny.

*  *  *

You can support ZeroHedge by picking up a waxed canvas hat!

Authored by Sam Antar via White Collar Fraud,

New York Attorney General Letitia James has made a name for herself prosecuting landlords and real estate fraudsters. Yet our investigation reveals troubling discrepancies in her own property filings—irregularities that would likely result in stiff penalties for most New Yorkers.

Documents from the NYC Department of Buildings show a pattern of inconsistencies about a Brooklyn property James owns—inconsistencies that mysteriously received special treatment when reported.

The Discrepancy: Official Records vs. James’ Filings

Note: Links to NYC Department of Buildings records may load slowly due to system capacity limitations. Please be patient as they connect to the city’s database.

At the heart of the issue is a contradiction between what the city officially permits and what James’ filings claim.

The Certificate of Occupancy for 296 Lafayette Avenue in Brooklyn—issued January 26, 2001—clearly states the property is a five-family dwelling regulated under NYC housing laws. James purchased this property on February 14, 2001, just two weeks after this Certificate of Occupancy was issued. This official classification has been on the books for more than two decades.

Yet James repeatedly filed permit applications identifying the same property as a four-family dwelling—a classification subject to different regulatory requirements under New York City building codes. Under NYC building code classifications, her property with five units would be classified as C2 (which applies to buildings with 5+ units), while her filings list it as C3 (which applies to 3-4 unit buildings). This fundamental contradiction between the long-established Certificate of Occupancy and her permit applications raises serious questions about regulatory compliance.

Multiple Discrepant Filings Show Pattern, Not Mistake

This wasn’t a one-time error. We uncovered multiple DOB permit applications containing identical discrepancies:

• July 2020 Application (Job #340743146): Documents show “Dwelling Units: Existing: 4” despite the Certificate of Occupancy listing five units for the past 19 years.
• September 2020 Application (Job #340768510): Another filing repeats the same inconsistent information.

The permit application details are explicit, stating: “Total Number of Dwelling Units at Location: 4” for a property documented in the Certificate of Occupancy as a five-unit building since 2001.

This discrepancy goes far beyond a simple administrative error. As noted in my previous post, mortgage documents signed by Letitia James repeatedly characterize the property as a four-unit building—a critical representation that directly contradicts the official Certificate of Occupancy, which clearly designates the structure as a five-family dwelling. This inconsistency carries significant legal and financial implications, potentially allowing James to secure more favorable lending terms or avoid stricter regulatory requirements that apply to larger multi-unit properties.

The applications to the Department of Buildings were submitted through the city’s professional certification program, under which the architect affirmed:

“I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXERCISED A PROFESSIONAL STANDARD OF CARE IN CERTIFYING THAT THE FILED APPLICATION IS COMPLETE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS… I FURTHER REALIZE THAT ANY MISREPRESENTATION OR FALSIFICATION OF FACTS MADE KNOWINGLY OR NEGLIGENTLY BY ME, MY AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES, OR BY OTHERS WITH MY KNOWLEDGE, WILL RENDER ME LIABLE FOR LEGAL AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION…”

This sworn certification underscores the seriousness of the discrepancy. It was not merely a clerical oversight, but a representation made within a process where legal and professional accountability is explicitly defined—yet seemingly unenforced in this case.

Why It Matters: Critical Regulatory Differences

The implications of this discrepancy go far beyond paperwork—it affects compliance with safety and occupancy laws that vary based on unit count. According to the NYC Administrative Code, buildings with different unit counts face materially different regulatory requirements, particularly in safety standards. The NYC Building Code mandates different fire protection protocols based on dwelling unit count, affecting everything from required safety systems to inspection frequency.

The difference between a four-unit and five-unit building is particularly significant, as five units triggers additional regulatory oversight. By listing a five-unit building as having only four units, these applications potentially circumvented proper regulatory review—an action that, if done knowingly, may constitute a violation of state and city law.

The Case of the Missing Unit

This pattern raises a disturbing question: What happened to the fifth unit? If the Certificate of Occupancy legally certifies five units since 2001 but James’ filings consistently reference only four, we face a straightforward logical conclusion: either the property currently has five units and the filings contain false information, or the property has four units and an unauthorized conversion has occurred. In the latter case, for ordinary property owners, such unauthorized alterations trigger immediate investigations, stop-work orders, and significant penalties. The NYC Department of Buildings routinely issues violations for exactly this type of undocumented change to a building’s legal occupancy configuration.

Legal Framework: False Statements in Building Documents

These discrepancies potentially implicate several New York laws:

• NYC Administrative Code §28-211.1: This section explicitly prohibits “false statements in certificates, forms, written statements, applications, reports or certificates of correction” related to building permits and compliance documents.
• NY Penal Law §175.30: This statute defines the offense of “Offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree” as “knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, [when one] offers or presents it to a public office or public servant with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office or public servant.” This offense is classified as a Class A misdemeanor.
• NY Penal Law §175.35: This elevates the offense to a Class E felony when done “with intent to defraud the state or any political subdivision, public authority or public benefit corporation of the state.”

Building code compliance is not discretionary. The NYC Administrative Code §28-202.1 establishes a framework for enforcement through both civil and criminal penalties for violations, stating “violations of this code, the 1968 building code, the zoning resolution or other laws or rules enforced by the department shall be punishable by civil penalties.”

A Double Standard in Action: DOB’s Puzzling Response

Perhaps most revealing is how the city’s Department of Buildings responded when the discrepancy was brought to its attention.

The most troubling aspect emerged when a complaint was filed about this discrepancy. The DOB’s response was surprisingly dismissive:

“MINOR ERROR, C/O 3P0010437 LIST 5 FAMILY BLDG.”

The original complaint was quite specific, stating:

“THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN BUILDNG PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY – APPLICATIONS LIST THE BUILDING AS A 4 FAMILY BUT C OF O INDICATES A 5 FAMILY DWELLING. PERMIT APPLICATIONS SIGNED BY LETITIA JAMES APPEAR TO CONTAIN FALSE INFORMATION.”

Yet instead of typical enforcement action, the agency simply labeled it a “minor error”—not even disputing the factual claim, just minimizing its significance despite the discrepancy persisting for nearly two decades.

One Rule for James, Another for Everyone Else

This lenient treatment stands in stark contrast to how the DOB typically handles similar inconsistencies. Consider this example:

In a case argued by housing attorney Jesse Gribben, when tenants discovered their building contained more units than listed on its Certificate of Occupancy, the DOB required “the presence of 24/7 fire guards as a condition of continued occupancy.” The courts supported tenants who organized a rent strike over the violation.

Under the NYC Administrative Code §28-213.1, “in addition to any penalties otherwise authorized by law pursuant to article 202 and the rules of the department, whenever any work for which a permit is required pursuant to this code has been performed without a permit, a penalty shall be imposed by the department.” For ordinary property owners, such violations can result in significant fines and mandatory remediation requirements.

Questions That Deserve Answers

Our investigation raises several troubling questions:

• Why were James’ applications approved despite containing information that contradicts the Certificate of Occupancy that has been in place since 2001?
• Why did DOB dismiss as “minor” what would typically trigger enforcement actions for ordinary property owners?
• Is there a reasonable explanation for this apparent differential treatment?
• Given the building is legally certified for five units for over 20 years but consistently described as having only four, has an unauthorized unit conversion occurred without proper permits or inspections? This would constitute a serious violation that typically results in immediate enforcement action for non-public officials.

As the state’s chief legal officer, James has a duty to explain these irregularities. If regulatory enforcement varies based on power or position, the public is owed not just answers—but accountability.

We’ll continue monitoring this situation. Stay tuned for updates.

Radical anti-capitalist organizers joined a “Tesla Takedown” teleconference earlier this week to discuss a nationwide, mostly peaceful assault on Tesla Motors, with protests expected by the end of the month. One unhinged ‘journalist’ admitted the true intent of the color revolution against Elon Musk: to crash Tesla’s stock.

Journalist Laura Loomer provided a video of the teleconference that showed one organizer, Joan Donovan, a pronoun-wielding woke professor at Boston University, explaining, “We’re Not Going To Stop Until Tesla Is Done With Elon Musk.”  

WATCH:

Meet “Professor” Joan Donovan. Her handle on X is @BostonJoan!

She was one of the speakers tonight during the @Tesla Takedown call where organizers called for 500 anti-Tesla protests to take place at @elonmusk’s Tesla Showrooms on March 29th.

She is the author of a… pic.twitter.com/Qojdbq7ULu

— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) March 20, 2025

Loomer provides more color on Donovan’s career as apparently being an expert on disinformation. Judging her, we think she can be an expert on …

EXCLUSIVE:

Professor Joan Donovan @BostonJoan, who was a speaker during the @Tesla Takedown CALL TO ACTION tonight was formerly the Research Director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media Politics and Public Policy, where she directed the Technology and… https://t.co/WTa3vCbnBc pic.twitter.com/GAZpxhTe6M

— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) March 20, 2025

Next, Loomer shared a video of Micah Lee, The Intercept’s former Director of Information Security, who described the Tesla Takedown as a protest movement focused on a “winnable strategy to bring down Elon Musk.”

“If we kill the Tesla brand” and “drive down the stock price low enough. We can force him to sell his stock to pay back the billions of dollars of debt he took on to buy Twitter. This will drive Tesla into a death spiral,” the far-left revolutionary said masquerading as a journalist.

🚨EXCLUSIVE🚨

Micah Lee, @theintercept’s former Director of Information Security, participated in the Tesla Takedown call to action tonight.

Interesting. Check this out! @ggreenwald

The former Director of Information Security for the Intercept was on the call to action for… pic.twitter.com/rQKz658JeZ

— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) March 20, 2025

Lee’s website encourages Tesla hate and destruction of property:

On social media, I’ve seen photos of Cybertrucks that are vandalized with swastikas. Please, vdon’t draw swastikas, even if you’re just trying to make a point. If you’re going to vandalize a Cybertruck, write “fuck Nazis,” or draw a penis or something. Don’t put more swastikas into the world.

Meanwhile, far-left Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) joined the teleconference and rooted against the most American auto company.

Wow

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 20, 2025

Who had a member of Congress conspiring with radical far-left groups to sabotage a publicly traded company critical to America’s retirement and pension funds on their 2025 bingo card? 

We should remind Lee and others that their cunning plan to crash Tesla’s stock through a color revolution could trigger a federal investigation into market manipulation (an SEC violation) and conspiracy to commit economic harm. It could also open the door to lawsuits from Tesla for tortious interference with business, as well as defamation or libel.

Also, the nonprofits working behind the scenes to crash Tesla’s stock violate the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status under IRS rules, prohibiting engaging in coordinated political or commercial attacks outside their stated mission. This means the federal government could strip them of their tax-exempt status.

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

“Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ ‘due process.’” 

– Buck Sexton

Impeachment would be too mild for the claque of Woke-activist federal judges attempting to nullify the executive branch with hectoring writs against any and all sorts of executive actions. If simply bounced off their benches, they could just take up new careers as NPR legal commentators or transsexual pole-dancers. Rather, what you’ve got here is an obvious seditious conspiracy, plain for all to see, orchestrated by the same legal Nosferatus as RussiaGate, the 2020 election, and the J-6 witch hunt.

The catch is, this time it is discoverable and subject to prosecution because the party running this legal insurrection no longer has its hands on the levers of power in the DOJ and the FBI as it did when they ran the aforementioned ops. And so, the mighty silence emanating from those two agencies just now should tell you something: namely, that cases are being carefully constructed to finally bring these despicable caitiffs to real and chastening law.

If you want to know one paramount reason for institutional failure in our country, look to the evil enterprise that calls itself “Lawfare.” It originated as a blog launched on September 1, 2010, founded by three key figures: Benjamin Wittes, Jack Goldsmith, and Robert Chesney. Over time it evolved into an activist operation, The Lawfare Institute, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to (cough cough) “Hard National Security Choices,” and run under the shady umbrella of the Brookings Institution.

The point of Lawfare is self-evident in its name: it is an instrument of warfare against a perceived enemy which, for the past decade, has been the political faction led by Mr. Trump, the once-and-current chief executive of the federal government. Mr. Trump is a danger to the bureaucratic arm of the federal government because he has defined it as a racketeering operation and moved decisively to end its depredations.

Lawfare is the praetorian guard of the permanent DC bureaucracy, including especially its rogue intel actors, who function as enforcers for the Democratic party that largely staffs the bureaucracy.

Norm Eisen, a Brookings senior fellow, is the chief operational strategist for the Lawfare enterprise. He has been active in all its ops, capers, and mind-fucks since Mr. Trump came on the scene in 2015 vowing to “drain the swamp” (i.e., end the racketeering). Norm Eisen holds leadership roles in two subsidiary Lawfare orgs: States United Democracy Center and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). Eisen’s broader connection stems from his history of orchestrating legal challenges against Mr. Trump — advising the Mueller investigation, drafting impeachment articles, and leading CREW’s 200-plus lawsuits in Mr. Trump’s first term.

Now, following the Biden interregnum, Norm Eisen leverages a network of nonprofits (ACLU, Public Citizen, etc.) and left-leaning judges to file hundreds of new lawsuits to thwart the MAGA clean-up effort under Elon Musk’s DOGE. Tax filings show that CREW’s funding, in part, comes from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. Item: during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, CREW received $432,000 in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans from Newtek Small Business, which evolved into a financial holding company after acquiring National Bank of New York City in January 2023, rebranded as Newtek Bank.

The money-laundering through multitudinous foundations, NGOs, and “non-profits” is the essence of the Democratic Party’s racketeering mode in league with federal bureaucracies such as USAID that dispensed billions of dollars to a vast network of activist recipients. Translation: it provides salaries (often six-figures) to party foot-soldiers whose only duties are to move the money through the organizational layers and to be available for such party tasks as ballot harvesting, vote-counting, and organizing riots.

This is the mischief that Mr. Trump seeks to put an end to, and so he must be thwarted at all costs by those whose lifeblood depends on the ongoing rackets. The so-called “Resistance” alliance between the Democratic Party and the bureaucracy seeks to prevent reform by any means necessary. Since they no longer control potent executive agencies such as the DOJ and the FBI for intimidating and punishing their enemies, their only recourse is the federal judiciary and its officers of the courts, that is, lawyers and judges practicing Lawfare.

The federal judges are political appointees, such as John J. McConnell from the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, who was a personal injury lawyer (i.e., “ambulance chaser”) and major Democratic Party donor, giving nearly $700,000 to party causes, and serving as Rhode Island Democratic State Committee treasurer. Judge McConnell issued a wide-ranging restraining order against the DOGE-advised freeze of federal funding launched in February of this year. McConnell’s daughter, Catherine, is a senior policy advisor at the U.S. Department of Education, appointed by President Joe Biden in 2022. See how that works?

Similarly, James Boasberg, a RussiaGate cast member, and as a presiding judge in the DC federal court in sixty J-6 cases. Independent journalist Laura Loomer alleges that Judge Boasberg’s daughter, Katherine, works for Partners for Justice (PFJ), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that is dedicated to defending “criminal illegal aliens and gang members,” including opposing their deportation, and that it receives significant funding from U.S. government grants, such as those from USAID. Judge Boasberg notoriously issued a restraining order last week against the deportation of Tren de Aragua gang members labeled by the DOJ as a terrorist organization. See how that works?

Now, the difference between Lawfare and the practice of law is that Lawfare trafficks lavishly in lies to do its business in the courts and actual law practice is supposed to be dedicated to ascertaining the truth in matters that come before the courts. Lawfare is grounded in dishonesty — as is its main client, the Democratic Party. That is exactly why Judge James Boasberg went along with FBI Director James Comey’s false warrant applications in the FISA court that enabled the RussiaGate operation to do its dirty business. Thus, the grand orchestrator of the Lawfare enterprise as a whole, Norm Eisen, is a sort of Father-of-Lies.

Remember beyond all this sturm and drang stands an essential principle: the truth is sturdy and untruth is fragile. 

Like you, I am standing by to see what eventually comes out of the Trump DOJ in the way of cases that might definitively settle this mighty battle between Lawfare and the law.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Hollywood “actor and activist” John Cusack has added his support to the organised attacks on Tesla facilities and vehicles, declaring that Elon Musk is a fascist who is “literally killing people.”

Cusack, who used to be likeable in the 1990s after movies such as ‘Say Anything’ and ‘Better Off Dead’, has now nailed his radical leftist colours to the mast after joining a recent online “Mass Mobilizing” ‘TeslaTakedown’ Call during which various extremists plotted a coordinated anti-Tesla action for March 29th.

Cusack claimed that Musk is a “pathological liar,” a “criminal,” a “sociopath,” and a “ghoul” who is “literally killing people.”

The actor also claimed that Elon likes to repeatedly flash Hitler salutes in public.

“These are unprecedented times of mass criminality,” declared Cusack.

He continued, “I mean those terms very precisely because who else would use his own child as a sympathy prop while literally taking starving aid from people all over the world,”

“People are going to die because of this madness. He’s a man who threw 80,000 people out of the VA indiscriminately,” Cusack further blathered.

Actor & Blue Anon spox @johncusack says @elonmusk twice made a “Sieg Heil Nazi salute” & is literally killing people by helping cut govt spending.

He says by accessing Treasury Dept. “metadata,” Musk knows everything people like Cusack are searching for on the internet.

“Musk… pic.twitter.com/pPKh1uEIkP

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) March 20, 2025

Cusack also called for people to get involved with Bernie Sanders and AOC’s “fight the Oligarchy” tour.

As we earlier highlighted, far left Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett was also part of the ‘TeslaTakedown’ discussion, expressing a desire to see Elon Musk “taken down.”

While the FBI investigates far-left terrorist attacks against Tesla service centers, showrooms, Supercharging networks, and vehicles, the radical Soros-funded non-profit Indivisible is preparing to launch the multi-city offensive against the American company in the coming days.

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

In the Thursday evening and overnight hours Russia continued to pound Ukraine’s key Black Sea port city of Odesa, which was widely described as one of the biggest single drone attacks visited on the city since the war’s start.

At least three locals were injured in the attack, and large fires resulted, importantly just as Czech President Petr Pavel was in Odesa on Thursday, after which he traveled back to Kiev.

Odesa’s regional governor Oleh Kiper said on Telegram, “Significantly, it was during our meeting that the enemy once again massively attacked the Odesa region” – in reference to meeting with President Pavel.

“The long-range drones buzzed into the city in several waves, damaging infrastructure, residential houses and commercial buildings, and causing multiple fires, the interior ministry said,” as cited in Reuters. “Around 25 cars had been set ablaze at a car repair shop.”

The Czech president is in Ukraine where he’s presenting a deal to provide over one million artillery shells for Ukraine’s war effort against Russia.

Reuters has quoted one Ukrainian source who called the attack the “most massive” assault on Odesa since Russia invaded in February 2022: “It was intimidation. Terror against the civilian population.” And Oleksii Kuleba, Deputy Prime Minister for Ukraine’s Reconstruction wrote the following on Telegram:

“I am pleased to welcome Czech President Petr Pavel to Ukraine. We met in the city of Odesa, which is terrorised by Russia every night. It was during our meeting that the Russian Federation launched three groups of Shahed drones on the city. The entire civilized world must witness Russia’s crimes against Ukraine.”

While the key southern port city has come under occasional major missile attack since the war’s start, it has thus far been sparred of full-scale military invasion. But there might be preparations as the city has now been hit several times this week alone.

One year ago (in March of 2024), Elon Musk predicted that Odessa would become the next big city Russian forces would eye after solidification of their hold over the Donbass region.

The Tesla and SpaceX CEO explained at the time that Ukraine’s position continued to weaken even as its leadership refused negotiations while pressing the West for more weapons. “Whether Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea or not is, in my view, the real remaining question,” he stressed in his commentary posted on X.

“The longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia will gain until they hit the Dnepr, which is tough to overcome. However, if the war lasts long enough, Odessa will fall too,” Musk wrote at the time.

And that’s when he concluded, “Whether Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea or not is, in my view, the real remaining question. I recommend a negotiated settlement before that happens.”

The White House now says it is busy working on that, with the next meeting between American and Russian negotiators set for Monday in Saudi Arabia.

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Union contracts are at the heart of the problem. Chicago coming up.

Full Blown Crisis

Please note L.A. city budget shortfall grows to nearly $1 billion, with layoffs ‘nearly inevitable’

L.A.’s financial problems exploded into a full-blown crisis on Wednesday, with the city’s top budget official announcing that next year’s shortfall is now just shy of $1 billion, making layoffs “nearly inevitable.”

City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo said Mayor Karen Bass’ proposed budget, which will be released April 21, will close that gap, but it will require difficult “cost-cutting decisions.” He warned that the severity of revenue declines and rising costs has created a budget gap that makes layoffs “nearly inevitable.”

Szabo, in his presentation to the council Wednesday, attributed the city’s financial woes, in part, to increased spending on legal payouts, which have ballooned over the last few years. Tax revenues have been coming in much weaker than expected — and are expected to soften further in the upcoming budget year, which starts July 1.

Pay raises for city employees that are scheduled to go into effect in the coming budget year are expected to consume an additional $250 million. On top of that, Szabo said, the city needs to put hundreds of millions into its reserve fund, which has been drained in recent months in an attempt to balance this year’s budget.

Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, who heads the budget committee, said the council will need to look at the possibility of asking unions representing city workers to defer the scheduled raises or make other concessions.

“I think everything needs to be on the table,” she said in an interview.

David Green, president and executive director of Service Employees International Union Local 721, called Szabo’s remarks “short-sighted and irresponsible.”

“There’s no question that all of us are in shock with this number,” said Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who sits on the council’s budget committee.

Blumenfield predicted that city leaders would need to seek financial concessions from the workforce.

“Eighty percent of our expenses is labor,” he said. “If we are short more than 10% of our budget, the ‘math doesn’t math’ without looking at labor costs.”

Over the last two years, Bass and the council have signed off on raises and increased benefits for an array of unions — first police officers, then civilian city workers, then firefighters.

Anyone Who Is Shocked Is Incompetent

What’s happening now has been obvious for years.

Corrupt mayors get into bed with corrupt unions leaders then use budget gimmicks to hide the results.

The city exhausted its reserve fund to make the budget look balanced.

Then the city got a reprieve as did all the corrupt blue cities by Biden giveaways, especially the third round of fiscal stimulus that temporally papered over fiscal issues while stimulating the most inflation since the 1970s.

In response to the inflation, unions demanded bigger and bigger pay hikes on top of preposterous benefits.

The Big S Has Finally Hit the Fan

And I am pleased to report Trump will not bail out these irresponsible cities.

As long as Republicans hold the Senate, the same applies regardless of who in in the White House.

Chicago On Deck

March 13, 2024: Chicago Teachers’ Union Seeks $50 Billion Despite $700 Million City Deficit

If you live in Illinois, get the hell out before unions take every penny you have.

July 2, 2024: In Chicago There’s Under a 50 Percent Chance Police Show Up If You are Shot

Good luck in Chicago getting the police to show up if you are shot, stabbed, a victim of domestic violence, or any number of other serious crimes.

August 30, 2024: The Pending Implosion of Chicago Public Unions, No City is More Deserving

Chicago has a budget deficit of nearly $1 billion. Tack on another $2.9 billion for a proposed teachers’ contract plus an unknown amount for firefighters.

December 23, 2024: The Corruption and Incompetence of Chicago’s Mayor Has No Bounds

Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson stepped to new lows when his hand-picked board fired Chicago Public Schools (CPS) CEO Pedro Martinez without cause.

It’s time for a Chicago update on union contracts and pension funding.

I am openly rooting for a big-city economic collapse because it’s the only chance at reform with these clearly corrupt mayors.

But If Trump really wants to fix this, he needs to lobby Congress to end collective bargaining for public unions.

Unfortunately, the facts show Trump also panders to unions, especially the police and dockworkers.

Addendum

Please note “L.A. spent $160 million last year to collect $100 million in parking tickets. If that isn’t the best metaphor for this town I don’t know what is. Do something everyone hates and do it poorly.”

H/T @adamcarolla