Authored by Edward Ring via American Greatness,

The litany of reasons California is broken is well documented. The highest cost of living and the highest taxes. The highest percentages of homeless people and people living in poverty. Unaffordable homes and unaffordable rent. High crime and failing schools. A hostile business climate and record migration out of state as people and businesses flee.

But not often enough are we reminded of the countless small things that have gone wrong. Small things that add up to a big problem: a state legislature that is out of touch with the people it represents; a state legislature that, for all practical purposes, holds its constituents in contempt; a state legislature that is doing everything in its power to make life difficult.

Just a few days ago, the latest in this long train of abuses arrived. No more plastic bags. Although 2026 is still a few weeks away, this grocery store has already converted to paper only—heavy, fragile paper bags with handles that tear off under the slightest stress. Everything was double-bagged just to lower the probability of catastrophic failure of the handles.

The problems with this are more than the inconvenience of having to pay 20 cents for every double-bagged bag full of groceries. With plastic bags, you could loop their handles around your fingers and carry several of them securely in one hand. Try that with a paper bag. And there are no uses after the first use for a paper bag. Shall we use paper bags for cat litter? Trash can liners? Maybe, but they won’t work very well. And storing them uses up space fast.

So what’s the advantage? Are we saving oil? Certainly not much. And if savings are what we’re after, why did they ever force us in 2014 to stop using ultra-thin plastic bags in favor of “reusable” bags that nobody reuses for groceries, yet have 10-15 times as much plastic in them per bag? Funny how the plastic industry rolled over on that one. “Please don’t regulate us” morphed into “Never mind, we’ll split with the state that dime we’re charging now per bag.” Corporation wins. State wins. Misanthropic regulations abuse the rest of us.

Now the plastic bags are gone. But the dime per paper bag? That stays.

Does this law reduce the “footprint” of plastic? Yes. Marginally. Meanwhile, it increases the footprint of paper bags, which are actually worse for the environment. And maybe that’s the biggest problem here: California’s corporate special interests, their lobbyists, and their fanatic green marionettes are all too ready to force “solutions” onto the public before the technology has caught up.

Are there bags that look like plastic bags and work like plastic bags—convenient to use and durable—but aren’t made of plastic? That’s certainly possible, but could we wait? No, of course not. We had to let the special interests consolidate their power and profit, while the usual crowd of useful fanatics beat their chests and crow about how they’re saving the planet. What would we do without them to rescue us all?

When taken to such extremes, these laws have little to do with the environment. It’s about control. It’s about money. It’s a shakedown.

Last weekend I had to refill the gas tank in my rototiller. Could I just uncap my gasoline can and fill it up? That would be too easy. The State of California mandates “automatic sealing nozzles” on five-gallon gasoline cans. Have you ever tried to fill the tank of a small engine tool with gasoline out of one of these overdesigned, utterly dysfunctional cans? To save time, you’re better off removing the entire nozzle assembly, as if you’re at the gas station refilling your can from the pump, and then pouring from the nearly two-inch diameter opening in your partially disassembled gasoline can into a funnel you have inserted in the tank of, in this case, a rototiller. It’s messy and time-consuming. And that’s just another example of the idiocy our supposed representatives force us to endure.

Do you want to install new windows on your house? Not cutting a new window where there once was a wall. No. Just replace an existing old window with a new one. Guess what: you need a permit. You have to submit plans to the city or county bureaucracy. Are you kidding?

Read this summary of the steps you have to take to get a window replaced in a California home:

Step-by-step procedure for replacing old windows with new ones without changing the opening size (most common, fewer forms).
Gather the required documents and use the online portal to submit the application.
Plans: Drawings showing window location, size, and framing (if structural changes).
Window Specs: Manufacturer cut sheets, energy efficiency ratings.
Title 24 Compliance: Documentation showing energy efficiency.
Contractor Info: License details if using a contractor.
Lead Paint Info: If your home was built before 1978, be prepared for lead-safe work requirements and paperwork.
Create an online account with the county and submit your application and documents electronically.
Plan Review: County staff will review for code compliance (Structural, Life Safety, Energy, etc.). You’ll be notified of any needed corrections.
Permit Issuance & Inspection: Once approved, pay fees and get your permit. Schedule required inspections through the portal as work progresses.

The same goes for all of these and more: ceiling fans, patio covers, carports, water heaters, retaining walls, landscape irrigation, and shower or tub replacements. What percent of people doing these jobs get these permits? How many? I’m waiting. How many? Who was that Russian who said, “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime”? Welcome to California.

Let’s be clear. The time it takes to fulfill all these steps is often greater than the amount of time that it takes to do the actual work. In many cases, the expense for the excessive designs and disclosures and fees also adds up to more than the actual labor and materials.

This petty tyranny extends to almost everything in California. Do you have a pool? Better put a permanent fence around the entire pool and alarms on any doors that open into that enclosure, or you have not complied. Do you have a gate into your pool enclosure? It has to be “self-closing,” or you did not comply. Make sure the enclosure’s fencing is at least 60 inches high (60 inches! five feet!). Is there a latch on your self-closing gate? Better make sure it is at least 54 inches off the ground, and no plants are allowed, not even in planters, within five feet of the enclosure. New pools even have to have “an approved cover.” Because that’s safe! I’ll never forget the time I saw a grown man, overwhelmed with grief, carrying his soaking wet dead dog into the waiting room at a local veterinary hospital. The poor animal got trapped under their pool cover.

It’s not just bags and buildings where the long arm of California’s regulatory state interferes with your life and induces honest citizens to reluctantly become petty criminals. It also tempts honest contractors who just want to do good work for a fair price, instead of charging three times as much, to spend more than half their time on “compliance.” We aren’t talking about new homes or major remodels, where obviously some regulations are called for, although nothing like what the California legislature has done to basically kill the home building industry. We’re talking about windows. Who do you trust more? The guy with good references who will just replace your window with no fuss? Or the guy who wants to charge you triple and jump through every regulatory hoop? And why should any of us—vendor or customer—have to be put in such a tough position? Get it done efficiently and be a crook, or take three times as long and pay three times as much and be a sucker?

Consider the new law governing kitchen waste. Residents are now required to save their kitchen waste—oops, their “organics”—and discard it in their green waste containers, along with grass cuttings and leaves. Don’t bag it up and put it in the trash, because that increases the quantity of methane that comes out of landfills. Never mind that landfills are still going to emit methane, with or without kitchen scraps, or that methane rapidly degrades in the atmosphere, or that its alleged impact on the global climate is based on theories still wide open to debate, or that even if you are desperately concerned about methane emissions, there are far more cost-effective and less intrusive ways to capture it.

Some of these laws are literally unbelievable, but they’re all too real. According to a thoroughly house-broken reporter for the Sacramento Bee, the potential fine of up to $5,000—five thousand dollars—for someone who, say, repeatedly fails to put their empty pizza box in the right container, “speaks to the seriousness of the matter.” This is pure corruption, meant to enrich public sector unions who get to staff up to implement these laws, and sold to brainwashed “environmentalist” advocates, many of them masquerading as objective journalists who actually think they’re helping the good guys.

California’s intrusive laws are far too numerous to catalog. They are selectively enforced, for the simple reason that the quantity of violations in this supposedly enlightened state numbers in the hundreds of millions. And if you have a business open to the public? Then you may expect the intrusive government regulations to multiply by orders of magnitude. No wonder so many people are leaving, heartbroken that they and their children live in a place where the government is doing everything it can to drive them out. A government that has made the state they love a state they can’t stand to live in anymore.

California’s policymakers aren’t technically criminals—or at least not all of them are. But what they’re doing to the people who live here is a crime. A crime that is split into so many thousands of petty offenses that it is sometimes hard for us to realize how truly monstrous it has become.

On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump promised to end federal taxes on tips and overtime. Democrats dismissed it as an election-year ploy to win votes, but Trump delivered on that promise when he signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 4, which eliminated taxes on tips and overtime for service and hospitality workers.

However, blue-state Democrats like New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis are, in the words of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, “deliberately blocking their own residents” from accessing the “historic benefits” promised under the law.

“President Trump’s tax cuts bill is the most pro-worker, pro-family legislation in a generation,” Bessent said. “It puts more money directly into the pockets of hardworking Americans through No Tax on Tips for dedicated service industry staff, No Tax on Overtime for linemen and factory workers, and a new tax deduction for seniors who depend on Social Security.”

 Bessent continued, “This partisan stonewalling is a direct assault on the very families and workers liberal politicians claim to champion. By denying their residents access to these important tax cuts, these governors and legislators are forcing hardworking Americans to shoulder higher state tax burdens, robbing them of the relief they deserve and exacerbating the financial squeeze on low- and middle-income households.”

Bessent demands that these holdouts conform immediately and quit punishing citizens for political spite. 

“President Trump’s vision is clear: real relief for the forgotten men and women of America, certainty for businesses, and momentum for growth,” Bessent added. “The American people voted for bold change, not bureaucratic roadblocks.”

Bessent also hinted that there would be consequences for states that refuse to comply with the law.

“Treasury stands ready to work with any state committed to delivering on that promise, but we will not stand idly by as this obstructionism drags down the national recovery,” he said. “This is about fairness. This is about opportunity. And this is about putting America first, starting with the families and workers who make our economy the envy of the world.”

Bessent doubled down in a post on X, and compared Govs. Hochul, Pritzker, and Polis to the Dr. Seuss character, the Grinch.

“Courtesy of their Scrooge-like tendencies, America’s seniors, along with all workers who would benefit from No Tax on Tips and No Tax on Overtime, will be robbed of the tax relief they deserve,” he wrote. “The Christmas season should be a time of great cheer. But due to the Trump Derangement Syndrome of these Governors and other radical leftists, too many low- and middle-income households will receive nothing but coal in their state tax stockings.”

Thanks to @POTUS, ‘tis the season to be jolly – unless you’re a taxpayer in New York, Colorado, Illinois, or the District of Columbia.

For millions of hardworking Americans, @GovKathyHochul, @GovofCO @jaredpolis, and @GovPritzker are The Grinches Who Stole Christmas.

Courtesy… pic.twitter.com/eVtKYcHc4w

— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) December 10, 2025

Ironically, Trump wasn’t the only one who wanted to relieve service and hospitality workers of paying taxes on tips and overtime. Two months after he proposed his No Tax on Tips plan, Kamala Harris pitched her own version of the idea at a rally in Las Vegas in August 202. She pledged, “It is my promise to everyone here when I am president, we will continue our fighting for working families of America including to raise the minimum wage and eliminate taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers.” 

While many Democrats were already on the record opposing Trump’s plan, Harris’s proposal had the backing of both of Nevada’s Democratic U.S. Senators, Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto. Former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre even said that if such a proposal to eliminate taxes on tips had passed Congress, Joe Biden would have signed it.

Trump, however, called Harris out immediately for stealing his proposal.

“Kamala Harris, whose ‘Honeymoon’ period is ENDING, and is starting to get hammered in the Polls, just copied my NO TAXES ON TIPS Policy,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social at the time. The difference is, she won’t do it, she just wants it for Political Purposes! This was a TRUMP idea – She has no ideas, she can only steal from me. Remember, Kamala has proposed the LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY – It won’t happen. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”

The Trump administration sees the new law as a straightforward win for workers, yet this standoff with blue states ensures the debate is far from over.

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The national press was overtaken with hullabaloo following the recent meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This is a committee that serves under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), providing a check of outside expertise on what would otherwise be a bureaucratic edict.

It brings together outside experts from academia and medicine to provide guidance on how the CDC should advise doctors and parents on vaccines. As part of the new committee formed by Health and Human Services director Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., there are strict rules against conflict of interest.

The new committee has voted to make a small, common-sense change in the childhood vaccination schedule. It is seen as hugely significant because it has taken issue with a particular shot that has been on the schedule since 1991.

The shot concerns Hepatitis B. Instead of a universal recommendation, the committee suggested that it should not pertain in the first months of life provided the birthing mother has tested negative for the disease. After that time, the shot should only be given when there is informed consent.

Stated that way, it does not seem even slightly controversial. Indeed, one wonders why the shot was ever on the schedule, especially given the paltry data on effectiveness and safety. On March 1, 1991, the New York Times reported on its addition to the childhood schedule: “If adults won’t go for the shots, then give them to babies.”

As part of the childhood schedule, they are automatically granted immunity from liability, as legislated in 1986 on fear that lawsuits could bankrupt the whole industry. With such a shield in place, there was a gold rush to move shots from targeting adults to being given to children. Most kids in the United States since those days have taken the shot, even those at no risk of the disease in question.

That it should be removed from the schedule for mothers testing negative would seem entirely non-controversial. It certainly does not warrant panic that the entire schedule is being shredded or that the industry will collapse. The response of the industry is entirely disproportionate to the threat. In addition, the committee had open public debate for two full days. It was hardly ill-considered.

The committee had invited a variety of perspectives. One was from a schedule skeptic, attorney Aaron Siri, who is a lawyer and author who has testified widely on the topic. To balance that out, ACIP invited Paul Offit, of the Vaccine Education Center in Philadelphia, and Peter Hotez of Texas Children’s Hospital. Both are famous for their uncritical attitude.

The trouble is that Drs. Offit and Hotez refused the invitation. That is strange. They were invited to speak for up to 45 minutes without interruption to the entire world because the meeting was livestreamed. This was the perfect opportunity for them to make their case to the committee, to the CDC, and to the world. They said, each in his own way, that they did not want to legitimize the committee by honoring it with their testimony.

This is taking place even as a coalition of coastal states have pushed a secessionist measure to impose their own vaccine schedule against the efforts of the HHS, CDC, and ACIP to pare back some recommendations to pre-1986 levels.

Donald Trump has meanwhile weighed in on the controversies.

“Today, the CDC Vaccine Committee made a very good decision to END their Hepatitis B Vaccine Recommendation for babies, the vast majority of whom are at NO RISK of Hepatitis B, a disease that is mostly transmitted sexually, or through dirty needles. The American Childhood Vaccine Schedule long required 72 ‘jabs,’ for perfectly healthy babies, far more than any other Country in the World, and far more than is necessary. In fact, it is ridiculous! Many parents and scientists have been questioning the efficacy of this ‘schedule,’ as have I! That is why I have just signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the Department of Health and Human Services to ‘FAST TRACK’ a comprehensive evaluation of Vaccine Schedules from other Countries around the World, and better align the U.S. Vaccine Schedule, so it is finally rooted in the Gold Standard of Science and COMMON SENSE! I am fully confident Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and the CDC, will get this done, quickly and correctly, for our Nation’s Children.”

Thus can we see that Trump himself wants to go much further.

We are confronted with a fascinating historical paradox here. Trump has said many times that he is very proud of Operation Warp Speed that brought a shot for COVID to market in record time. Many of his supporters, however, do not agree with this opinion. And to be sure, the effectiveness and safety of this injection has not scored high marks on anyone’s scale.

That said, Trump is now leading the charge for a full rethinking of the place of vaccines and shot mandates in national life. His own Food and Drug Administration has sounded the alarm on the COVID shots for kids, which were never necessary in the first place. They were often mandated for school attendance. It turns out that there were at least 10 deaths definitively traceable to this shot and probably many more. People are understandably scandalized.

Beneath all this debate, there is a much broader meta-narrative at work. Vaccines had long expanded in use without too much public debate. It was the COVID response and the mandates for millions to accept an untested technology (modified mRNA) else lose their jobs. This was a bridge too far. To top it off, the shot did not stop transmission or infection and has revealed a poor safety profile.

As a result, many aspects of the entire system of public health have come into question. What’s on trial here is not just one shot or the childhood schedule or even vaccines only. What’s come into question is the credibility of the expert class of medicine men who shepherded this entire regime into operational legitimacy. If anyone believes that there would be a return to the status quo ante following all of this, that person is woefully naive about the relationship between the public mind and structures of governance.

What is unfolding right now is the consequence of a loss of trust. That does not mean that everything government has said is thus rejected. What this does mean is a dramatic shift in the burden of proof. The Hepatitis B shot needed to prove that it was necessary, safe, and effective for all newborn children, even those of mothers who have tested negative. Under that standard, the shot simply could not survive.

As we look at the entire schedule, it is true that there are other formulas and diseases that will be subjected to what is called shared decision-making between parents and medical doctors. Which is to say: We are watching the emergence of choice and volunteerism to primacy of place where they should have been all along.

New York Attorney General Letitia James has dodged yet another bullet from the Trump DOJ, after a second federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia declined to indict her on mortgage fraud charges for the second time in a week, after their first case against James was dismissed because a federal judge ruled that Halligan’s appointment as interim US attorney was invalid under federal law because she took office after the statutory 120-day interim appointment period had expired. 

Apparently “any good prosecutor” cannot get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Or we’re not dealing with “any” good prosecutors – as a decision like this from a grand jury is rare due to the fact that only prosecutors appear before them and defendants do not get to offer evidence to rebut the charges. 

“For the second time in seven days, the Department of Justice has failed in its clear attempt to fulfill President Trump’s political vendetta against Attorney General James. This unprecedented rejection makes even clearer that this case should never have seen the light of day,” said Abbe Lowell, a lawyer representing James. “This case already has been a stain on this Department’s reputation and raises troubling questions about its integrity. Any further attempt to revive these discredited charges would be a mockery of our system of justice.”

James was charged with one count of bank fraud and one count of making a false statement in 2020 connected to a home in Norfolk, Virginia. She is accused of indicating on mortgage paperwork that the purchase would be her second home – except she then rented it out and/or let her niece live in it. James denies wrongdoing. 

The initial case was prosecuted by Lindsey Halligan, who Trump installed as the acting US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia. While Halligan was able to get a grand jury to indict James, a federal judge dismissed the case – ruling that she was improperly appointed to the post. The effect of the ruling also resulted in the dismissal of the criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey. 

Nothing is stopping the DOJ from taking another bite at the apple and refiling the case against James. 

Authored by José Niño via Headline USA (emphasis ours),

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer just forced Republicans into an uncomfortable corner over antisemitism, and the silence from the GOP side of the aisle speaks volumes. On Monday, Schumer introduced a resolution condemning nationalist influencer Nick Fuentes over ‘antisemitism’ and Tucker Carlson for platforming him. 

All 47 Senate Democrats signed on as co-sponsors. However, no Republicans have signed on to the resolution. 

For gun rights advocates and Second Amendment supporters who value constitutional principles and limited government, this political theater reveals something far more troubling than a debate over offensive speech. It exposes how establishment politicians weaponize accusations of extremism to marginalize voices that challenge the bipartisan foreign policy consensus and question unlimited military commitments abroad.

The controversy erupted after Carlson’s October 2025 interview with Fuentes on his podcast. The two hour conversation sparked fierce debate within conservative circles, as Headline USA previously reported, particularly among pro-Israel voices on the right who condemned Carlson for failing to challenge Fuentes on his views. The discussion included references to “organized Jewry in America” and criticism of Christians who support Israel, whom they characterized as having a “brain virus.”

Fuentes, a 27-year-old nationalist, advocates for immigration restriction and a more restrained foreign policy. These positions, particularly skepticism toward endless foreign interventions and nation building projects, align closely with views held by many in the gun rights community who recognize that expansive government power abroad inevitably threatens constitutional liberties at home.

[ZH: Fuentes later went on to call Carlson ‘two-faced’ for allegedly denouncing Fuentes as an antisemite in subsequent interviews]

“He’s still a nice guy, but he’s two-faced.”

Nick Fuentes discusses his falling out with Tucker Carlson pic.twitter.com/q1TroI8mN9

— Fuentes Updates (@FuentesUpdates) December 8, 2025

*  *  *

The resolution Schumer introduced formally demands that the Senate strongly reject “the views of and platforming of Nick Fuentes” and condemn “the effort by Tucker Carlson to platform and mainstream Nick Fuentes.” It calls on all elected officials and community leaders to reject white supremacy and antisemitism whenever they occur.

But the resolution goes further, targeting Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts for defending Carlson and releasing a video attacking critics of the interview. Democrats accuse Roberts of using “antisemitic dog whistles” in his defense. The resolution also highlights Trump administration official Paul Ingrassia, who said in an unearthed group chat that he has a “Nazi streak in me from time to time,” as Headline USA previously demonstrated.

The partisan divide could not be starker. Schumer reportedly sought Republican backing for his condemnation resolution, but not a single GOP senator joined.

Multiple Jewish organizations rushed to support the Democratic resolution, including the Jewish Democratic Council of America, Democratic Majority for Israel, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and Jewish Women International. JDCA CEO Halie Soifer attacked Republicans for their absence, telling Jewish Insider that “this issue should not be partisan, yet not one Republican has joined this resolution, and the President of the United States has refused to condemn Fuentes, Tucker Carlson’s platforming of Fuentes, and the hate they’ve espoused.”

José Niño is the deputy editor of Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/JoseAlNino 

[ZH: Will Schumer now denounce Piers Morgan?]

‘What a CROCK of S !’ Piers Morgan vs Nick Fuentes Full interview

Piers Morgan asks him about his most controversial past comments, on race, religion, women, Hitler, the Holocaust and his real thoughts on his conservative peers, from Tucker Carlson, to Candace Owens to the… pic.twitter.com/rUEuKljJqe

— bigedko (@big_edko) December 8, 2025

NATO chief Mark Rutte on Thursday gave a major address in Berlin wherein he pleaded with members of the alliance to drastically step up joint defense efforts, in order to face down a coming conflict with Russia that could be “on the scale of war our grandparents and great-grandparents endured.”

It in the “keynote speech” he chastized those alliance partners who don’t feel the urgency of the ‘Russian threat’ to Europe.  “We are Russia’s next target. I fear that too many are quietly complacent,” he said. “Too many don’t feel the urgency. And too many believe that time is on our side. It is not. The time for action is now.”

“Conflict is at our door. Russia has brought war back to Europe. And we must be prepared,” he added while warning of the next world war.

He further asserted that Russia could be ready to use military force against NATO within five years, at a moment the Ukraine war shows no signs of stopping. Rutte argued that more than just higher spending thresholds should be implemented, and he urged that alliance members must shift to a “wartime mindset”.

“This is not the time for self-congratulation,” Rutte continued. “I fear that too many are quietly complacent. Too many don’t feel the urgency. And too many believe that time is on our side. It is not. The time for action is now.”

NOW – NATO Chief Rutte warns: “We need to be ready… Russia has brought war back to Europe, and we must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents and great-grandparents endured.” pic.twitter.com/STEvo8y3Zr

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) December 11, 2025

“Putin is paying for his pride with the blood of his own people,” Rutte elsewhere stated. “And if he is prepared to sacrifice ordinary Russians in this way, what is he prepared to do to us?”

Of course, none of this acknowledged what from Moscow’s point of view are the root causes of the war, especially the issue of constant NATO expansion.

Rutte is also hyping a coming ‘world war’ even while European leaders by and large have rejected the Trump-proposed peace plan, given they find the prospect of territorial concessions in Donbas and Crimea to be intolerable. It seems the hawks are still in control of Europe.

Another interesting moment was the NATO chief placing a lot of blame on China. He alleged that Moscow would not be able to execute the war without help from Beijing.

“China is Russia’s lifeline,” he alleged. “Without China’s support, Russia could not continue to wage this war. About 80 percent of critical electronic components in Russian drones and other systems are made in China. So, when civilians die in Kyiv or Kharkiv, Chinese technology is often inside the weapons that kill them.”

But ironically the same could be said of many Western military systems, even ones deployed by the Pentagon. Chinese tech is basically everywhere and this is no secret.

* * *

One commentator had this astute observation on the sad state of affairs in Europe:

Frenzied, desperate Boomers passing laws to ban young people from free speech, home ownership, or stable employment, while also berating them uhh this is just like WWII, so we are reintroducing military conscription too.

Dropping out, lying flat, giving up—are rational choices.

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigaions,

Topline: A new program that gives unlimited free phone calls to Massachusetts prisoners cost taxpayers $12.5 million in fiscal year 2025, according to the Boston Herald. 

Key facts: The program was meant to allow inmates to stay connected to their family members and other outside support systems, helping the rehabilitative process. It has not always had its intended effect.

Bristol County Sheriff Paul Heroux told the Herald that inmates at the jail he oversees are using the free phone calls to “plan criminal activity.” He claimed he has seen an increase in witness intimidation and violations of restraining orders since the so-called “No-Cost Communication” program began in late 2023.

Some inmates, according to Heroux, talk on the phone so much that they have stopped attending prison programming. 

Captain Eric Cardoso of Bristol County told NBC10 his unit needed to hire new investigators because inmates were using their phone calls to smuggle drugs into prisons.

Some jails had too few phones to accommodate the increased demand for calls, leading to fights among prisoners, according to Prison Legal News. The state solved that problem by giving prisoners tablets with a phone app installed.

Democratic State Rep. Adam Scanlon told the Herald the no-cost call program “has created unsustainable costs for county sheriffs and taxpayers.” He and Heroux are writing a bill that would keep inmates’ calls free, but limit them to 15 to 60 minutes per day.

Before the new law went into effect, people who received phone calls from inmates had to pay 12 to 14 cents per minute. 

Connecticut, Minnesota, Colorado and California are the only other states that offer free calls for inmates.

Search all federal, state and local salaries and vendor spending with the world’s largest government spending database at OpenTheBooks.com. xs

Summary: Prisoners should not be restricted from calling their families, but Massachusetts’ taxpayer-funded program must be reformed so it does not promote illegal activity.

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com

Democrat meme and congresswoman Jasmine Crockett is running for the US Senate in the deep red state of Texas, and Republicans are cheering.  Notorious for providing some of the worst political takes of the past year, Crockett is widely considered to be the embodiment of leftist DEI – A low intelligence person artificially elevated into law and politics because of her minority status.  Her presence on the national stage has produced endless comedy gold, but it’s about to get better.  

Crockett’s last minute announcement is causing confusion within the Democrat Party and concerns that her radical Trump Derangement Syndrome is a “gift” for Republican opponents entering the race.  In a state where Democrats have not won a single statewide election since 1994 (longest active drought in the nation), Crockett seems to be operating on the assumption that there is a “progressive base” hidden among the non-voting population.

However, other controversial Democrats have tried to conquer Texas under similar notions that the state is “secretly purple.”  Crockett cites Beto O’Rourke’s gubernatorial run in 2022 as evidence, but she overlooks the fact that the election took place at the height of the pandemic hysteria and an unprecedented propaganda onslaught by the establishment against conservatives.  O’Rourke still lost the race to Greg Abbott by double digits.

No gubernatorial election involving O’Rourke has occurred since, and as of December 2025, he has not announced plans to run again in 2026.  The likelihood of Crockett doing any better in a run for Senate is next to zero.  The reasons why should be obvious, but her first ad for her 2026 campaign explains everything.  The advertisement features nothing about her accomplishments, only Donald Trump calling her low IQ on repeat. 

Jasmine Crockett’s Senate campaign launch video is just her not saying a word while audio of Trump calling her a “low IQ person” plays on repeat in the background

😂😂😂 pic.twitter.com/geGyVQinah

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) December 8, 2025

Indeed, Crockett’s entire career revolves around Donald Trump even though she’s not running against Trump and Trump will, ostensibly, retire after the 2028 elections.  Crockett argues:  

“There are a lot of people that said, ‘You got to stay in the House. We need our voice. We need you there.’ And I understand, but what we need is for me to have a bigger voice… I’m done watching the American dream on life support while Trump tries to pull the plug. The gloves have been off, and now I’m jumping into the ring.”

The problem is that Crockett perceives her national exposure as a good thing, despite the fact that she is most famous for being, as Trump says, one of the lowest IQ people in US politics.  Crockett’s bizarre behavior includes changing her accent to “black voice” to appeal to progressive voters.  She defended the existence of USAID and Sesame Street in Iraq in order to propagandize foreign enemies to stop hating America.  She also released a list of Republicans who supposedly took money from Jeffery Epstein, except it was the wrong Epstein. 

Rep. Jasmine Crockett responds to Lee Zeldin saying he never took donations from that Jeffrey Epstein — but instead a physician who is also named Jeffrey Epstein — following her comments on the floor. pic.twitter.com/ReN4IbTW6K

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) November 20, 2025

When confronted on the fraudulent list, Crockett argued that she never specified “which Epstein” she was referring to.  Federal campaign finance records show that the actual Epstein donated primarily to Democrats, including two current sitting members of Congress, Delegate Stacy Plaskett (D-V.I) and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both of whom have retained the donations, despite scrutiny.  

These kinds of blunders have become a feature of Crockett’s career and there’s little doubt that she will provide ample laughs during her Senate race.    

Oil prices are lower this morning despite a less-hawkish-than-feared Fed cut and a double-whammy of relative optimism from OPEC and the IEA…

IEA Trims Oil Glut Forecast as Supply Surge Halts

OilPrice.com’s Tsvetana Paraskova reports that the oil market still faces record oversupply next year, according to the monthly report by the International Energy Agency (IEA), but the glut estimate is now trimmed by about 230,000 barrels per day compared to the November forecast. 

The market is headed to as much as 3.84 million barrels per day (bpd) of supply exceeding demand in 2026, the IEA said on Thursday in its closely-watched report for December.  

While this still is a considerable glut, it’s lower than the 4.09 million bpd implied oversupply expected in the November report. 

In today’s report, the IEA said that the projected global oil surplus in the fourth quarter of 2025 has narrowed since last month’s report, “as the relentless surge in global oil supply came to an abrupt halt.” 

Total global oil supply dipped by 610,000 bpd in November compared to October and by a whopping 1.5 million bpd from September’s all-time high, the IEA noted. 

OPEC+ accounted for 80% of the decline over October and November, reflecting significant unplanned outages in Kuwait and Kazakhstan, while oil output from sanctions-hit Russia and Venezuela plunged. 

Russia’s total oil exports are estimated to have plummeted by about 400,000 bpd in November to 6.9 million bpd, as buyers assessed the implications and risks associated with more stringent sanctions. 

Buyers, especially in Russia’s second-biggest crude oil customer, India, are steering clear of any Rosneft and Lukoil-related cargoes, for fear of running afoul of the U.S. Administration while India and the United States are still locked in difficult trade negotiations. 

The IEA noted in its report the apparent disconnect between the current global oil surplus and inventories near decade lows at key pricing hubs. 

Despite record volumes of oil piling up on water, benchmark crude oil prices eased only marginally in November, because “in stark contrast to the broader picture, crude and refined product stocks in key pricing hubs have seen only marginal builds,” the agency said. 

OPEC Holds Firm on Bullish Oil Demand Outlook for 2026

As Charles Kennedy reports at OilPrice.com, global oil demand will rise by about 1.4 million barrels per day (bpd) next year, supported by solid economic growth, OPEC said in its monthly report ton Thursday, keeping its demand forecasts unchanged from last month. 

Unlike other forecasters, investment banks, and analysts, OPEC continues to expect robust demand growth in 2026 that will be higher than the estimated increase for 2025 of about 1.3 million bpd, forecasts in the cartel’s Monthly Oil Market Report (MOMR) showed on Thursday. 

Figures about the balance of supply and demand in OPEC’s report also suggest that the cartel expects a balanced market next year.

Demand for crude from the OPEC+ producers is expected at 43.0 million bpd in 2026, up by 60,000 bpd compared to the projection for 2025, OPEC said.  

At the same time, crude oil production by the countries in the OPEC+ pact averaged 43.06 million bpd in November, a rise by 43,000 bpd from October, compared to the available secondary sources in OPEC’s report. 

After December, OPEC+ producers will be pausing their targeted monthly production increases during the first quarter of 2026. 

OPEC expects rival non-OPEC+ oil supply to grow by about 600,000 bpd next year, versus growth of some 1 million bpd expected for 2025. 

The rise in non-OPEC+ output is expected to be driven by offshore start-ups across Latin America and the Gulf of Mexico, increased NGLs production in the U.S., Argentina’s tight oil production, and the scaling of oil sands projects in Canada. Latin America is projected to lead non-OPEC+ growth, accounting for about two-thirds of the total, followed by Canada and the U.S.

This projection, while not new for OPEC, reiterates the cartel’s view that U.S. oil production growth will slow down next year.   

Signals have started to emerge in the shale patch and from industry executives that WTI crude prices below the $60 per barrel mark will put the brakes on America’s shale growth. 

“I am definitely in favor of elections,” Ukraine’s President Zelensky said Thursday. “The most important thing is that they are held legitimately.” He’s presenting a position of willingness to compromise amid the increasing pressure from Trump. Is this but a ruse to buy time? 

President Trump is meanwhile pressing European leaders to force Zelensky to accept the US peace plan which hinges on major territorial concessions and a cap on Ukraine’s armed forces. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the US president held a tense call with his German, French and British counterparts, where he conveyed his frustrations with Zelensky for not seriously engaging with the US proposal.

The Ukrainian government has submitted a response to Washington, but “big gaps” remain, WSJ says. This back-and-forth over what Europe-Ukraine vs. Washington finds an acceptable compromise is nothing new.

But the truly new proposal from the Ukrainian side is that it is now floating the possibility of a popular referendum on the matter.

“Territory and security guarantees remain the primary sticking points for Ukraine. Zelensky maintains that Ukraine has no legal or moral rights to cede land to Russia,” WSJ lays out by way of context. “Moscow has demanded Ukrainian withdrawal from the eastern province of Donetsk, which Russia hasn’t been able to take fully by force.”

Ceding territory by vote? WSJ continues…

Zelensky has long said that as president he can’t unilaterally decide the fate of Ukrainian territories, which must be approved by the Ukrainian people.

In early fall, 54% Ukrainians opposed ceding land, even if it meant continuing the war and risked the country’s independence, compared with 38% who were open to some territorial concessions, in a poll conducted by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology.

But at this point there may actually be more willingness to take such a step on the part of the Ukrainian masses. After all, there’s greater awareness at this point of how poorly the army is faring along the front lines. 

There’s also a power crisis ahead of what promises to be a harsh winter. Ukraine simply can’t get the parts to repair its energy grid fast enough, amid unrelenting Russian drone and missile strikes.

Zelensky has emphasized a big caveat to the possibility of elections – whether a vote for the presidency or on the issue of giving up land: his international backers must help guarantee a safe and fair vote.

This means Russia might have to agree to a temporary ceasefire while any potential election proceeds, according to Kiev’s thinking. Such could prove a tall order – and maybe for Zelensky this exactly the point.