93.5 F
Chicago
Monday, June 29, 2026
Home Blog Page 94

How A 24 Mile Fence Once Divided California’s North Coast And Sparked A Four Year Political Fight

How A 24 Mile Fence Once Divided California’s North Coast And Sparked A Four Year Political Fight

For two weeks in 1976, a white nylon fence ran across the hills of Sonoma and Marin counties and disappeared into the Pacific Ocean, according to SF Gate

Called “Running Fence,” the installation stretched 24 miles and stood 18 feet high, supported by more than 2,000 steel poles. It was created by artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude after four years of planning, permitting and construction.

The fence crossed private ranchland, coastal hills and highways before ending near Bodega Bay. Though temporary, the project required a large logistical effort: hundreds of workers, a lengthy environmental review and approvals from multiple county and state agencies. The artists negotiated individually with ranchers along the route, eventually securing permission from nearly all the landowners involved.

The article notes that public reaction to the project was sharply divided. Some residents saw the fence as disruptive or unnecessary, while others viewed it as an unusual experiment that would draw attention to the region.

Public hearings stretched on for years as lawsuits, permit appeals and environmental objections delayed construction. Christo later described the debates themselves as part of the artwork.

Construction moved quickly once final approvals were secured. Workers installed steel posts across the rolling landscape and attached long panels of white nylon fabric that shifted constantly in the coastal wind.

As the fence neared completion, officials raised concerns that the final section entering the Pacific Ocean had not received proper coastal approval, briefly threatening to halt the project.

The installation was ultimately completed without interruption.

When the fence opened, visitors arrived from across California and abroad to see it. Traffic backed up along rural roads, and spectators viewed the installation from hillsides, highways and small aircraft overhead.

Depending on the time of day, the fabric appeared bright white, silver or pink in the changing light.

After 14 days, the entire structure was dismantled and removed. Little physical trace of the project remained beyond photographs, sketches and preserved fragments of fabric.

Yet “Running Fence” became one of the most recognized temporary artworks in California history, remembered as much for the landscape it crossed as for the years of negotiations and public debate that surrounded it.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 23:00

Biden’s Weaponized DOJ Ruined Tate Adamiak’s Life. Top Gun Rights Group Calls On Trump To Pardon

Biden’s Weaponized DOJ Ruined Tate Adamiak’s Life. Top Gun Rights Group Calls On Trump To Pardon

Via Gun Owners of America,

In 2022 during the Biden Administration, federal agents arrested Patrick “Tate” Adamiak, a U.S. Navy sailor with no violent history or criminal record.

Tate’s crime? He was a firearms enthusiast.

If that sounds like an exaggeration, it’s not. Biden’s weaponized DOJ charged Tate with violations of the National Firearms Act for having collectible firearm parts at home. Importantly, NONE of these items was an actual “firearm” under the NFA – at least, not until ATF agents tampered with evidence before trial, leading to one of the most unjust convictions we at Gun Owners of America have ever seen.

United States v. Adamiak is a case that everyone should be talking about.

That’s because, right now, Tate is languishing in federal prison, serving a ridiculous 20-year sentence that is longer than sentences received by most violent criminals.

And to make matters worse, the U.S. Supreme Court has just declined to hear his case.

That means if DOJ doesn’t ask that Tate’s sentence be reduced at an upcoming hearing, then a presidential pardon is Tate’s last shot at freedom.

We’re calling on the Trump Administration to do the right thing and reverse this Biden-era miscarriage of justice.

The story of Patrick “Tate” Adamiak begins well before his 2022 prosecution, and it’s worth telling here.

From an early age, Tate was fascinated with firearms, and he was as patriotic as they come. At the age of 17, Tate enlisted in the U.S. Navy, and eventually became a Master-at-Arms – the Navy’s equivalent to military police. And, by the time he was 27 years old, Tate had been accepted to BUD/S – the selective training program to become a Navy SEAL.

Throughout his young adult years, Tate began amassing a collection of firearms and historic military memorabilia. At the height of his collection, Tate owned around 150 firearms, and his goal was to one day open a military-themed museum.

Unsurprisingly, Tate easily turned his hobby into a side hustle during his time in the Navy. He formed an LLC – Black Dog Arsenal – and soon became a top-500 seller of collectible firearm parts on GunBroker.

His specialty was inert, nonfunctioning military arms and replicas, including what are known as “demilitarized” or “demilled” parts kits.

Nothing Tate possessed was an actual, working machinegun.

To the extent Tate had any firearm parts, they were frames or receivers in a destroyed, cut-up state – significantly and permanently modified not to function as firearms, appealing only to collectors.

In other words, Tate sold nonfunctioning gun parts, which federal law does not regulate.

But that didn’t stop Biden’s anti-gunners from trying to ruin Tate’s life. And during the Biden years, they found their opportunity.

In 2021, ATF paid a 20-time felon $8,000 to act as a confidential informant and help secure a conviction against Tate. This informant was cooperating with authorities in an effort to reduce punishment for his own firearm felonies.

Apparently, Tate’s business success had caught ATF’s eye, and they wanted to charge him with something – anything. This wasn’t a one-off prosecution. In fact, it sounds eerily familiar.

We’ve seen precisely this sort of anti-business weaponization by Biden’s ATF before.

GOA has previously covered the story of Tim Durkin, a successful entrepreneur and GOA member who the Biden ATF targeted, all for helping rural gun dealers stay afloat during COVID.

But back to Tate’s case.

ATF’s confidential informant tried to purchase a machinegun from Tate, repeatedly asking him to break the law. And each time, Tate refused, explaining that he did not have a Federal Firearms License, and so he could only sell parts.

Unfortunately, Tate’s interactions with ATF’s confidential informant did not end there.

It didn’t matter that Tate had refused to break the law. ATF decided that Tate was a criminal; ATF just had to make him one. Ultimately, Tate ended up selling the informant some cut-up receivers of firearms that once had been machineguns.

Of course, these saw- or torch-cut items could not accept parts to fire fully automatically – they couldn’t fire at all. They were just inert collector’s pieces.

But that was good enough for the ATF.

In an affidavit later filed in court, one of the ATF agents on Tate’s case claimed that each of these cut-up receivers was in fact an unregistered machinegun under the National Firearms Act.

ATF’s theory? Even though the receivers had been destroyed, they hadn’t been destroyed enough.

That’s right – even though the receivers had been sawn apart with a “single cut through them,” ATF claimed “each could be readily made/restored into an operational machinegun,” and so each receiver legally was still a machinegun.

But there’s just one problem with ATF’s legal theory. It’s found nowhere in the statute that Congress enacted.

Let’s take a look.

The National Firearms Act defines “machinegun” as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).

So, the statute covers not only functioning machineguns but also weapons that “can be readily restored” to fire fully automatically.

But the statute does NOT say that a weapon with a “single cut” through its receiver is readily restorable. In fact, the statute says nothing about how many cuts a receiver must have before it no longer qualifies as a “machinegun.”

Even so, ATF has provided its opinion – not the law – on what constitutes “destroying” a firearm. In its publicly accessible NFA Handbook, ATF states that:

“The preferred method for destroying a machinegun receiver is to completely sever the receiver in specified locations by means of a cutting torch that displaces at least one-quarter inch of material at each cut location. ATF has published rulings concerning the preferred destruction of specific machineguns.”

For many machineguns, this “preferred method” includes three or four receiver cuts. But again, this is just ATF’s “preference” – it’s not the law.

Yet under Biden’s anti-gun administration, it would seem that violating even the arbitrary preferences of bureaucrats is enough to land you in prison.

Amazingly, it didn’t even matter that Tate wasn’t the one who cut the receivers in the first place – he bought them like that, from reputable military surplus wholesalers.

Those well-intentioned wholesalers never thought there was a problem, and neither did Tate.

But under ATF’s approach – “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” – there was no avoiding ATF’s vindictive prosecution.

Ultimately, based on ATF’s subjective, entirely made-up reading of the statute, the Biden DOJ executed a search warrant at Tate’s house in April 2022.

There, they found Tate’s firearm collection and business inventory, including legally imported, deactivated WW2 relics, surplus military parts kits, and replica collectibles. ATF even seized Tate’s money and antique currency collection, claiming it was the proceeds of illegal activity.

This is a common tactic by the feds – seize all your assets so that you can’t hire a lawyer to defend yourself, or even pay living expenses while you await trial.

But even more important is what ATF did NOT find during its search.

ATF found no illegal machineguns at all.

So, in order to make DOJ’s charges against Tate stick, Biden’s slimy swamp critters at ATF took Tate’s inert parts, slithered back under their rock in Martinsburg, West Virginia, and concocted actual machineguns.

That’s right – ATF shipped Tate’s inert firearm parts to its Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division, or “FATD.” There, ATF employees tampered with the evidence, rebuilding and reconstructing Tate’s inert items into functioning NFA firearms using government-owned components.

Take ATF’s tampering with Tate’s toy STEN gun, for example.

ATF took a nonfiring, $75 toy, and converted it into a machinegun using additional parts ATF acquired. That included forcibly inserting a bolt from a real STEN gun into the toy, swapping out the toy barrel for a real one, and manually loading and firing a single round as proof of concept.

But even after this malicious fabrication of evidence – creating a gun out of a toy – ATF still couldn’t get the STEN to shoot more than once. How that qualified it as a “machinegun” – which must shoot “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading” – is anyone’s guess.

In fact, as one anonymous former ATF official commented:

“It is egregious to assert that this STEN replica is a machine gun when it cannot accept a magazine. Without a magazine, it can only hold one cartridge at a time, making it impossible to ‘shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger, and therefore, impossible to be a machine gun.'”

But the absence of logic didn’t stop ATF from using evidence of this so-called “machinegun” in court.

It’s like the government searching your house, seizing your car and gun, using all those items to rob a bank, and then charging you with the robbery!

ATF also tampered with Tate’s two inert RPG-7s. Not only were these decorative launchers completely missing their fire control groups, but they also had holes cut into their sides to render them permanently unusable.

Yet just like with the toy STEN gun, ATF converted one of these launchers into an alleged NFA-regulated firearm – this time, a so-called destructive device.

But in order to do so, ATF patched the hole that had been cut into the side of the tube, and then installed a new trigger group.

In other words, ATF simply undid all the steps that had been taken to render the item inert in the first place.

Of course, if this is the standard for something to be a firearm then, given enough time and effort by ATF, every “inert” firearm could be reconstructed, meaning the only way to “destroy” one would be to melt it into a pool of liquified metal or plastic.

Even after reconstructing Tate’s RPG-7, ATF didn’t attempt to actually fire it.

First of all, it’s not like anyone can buy rocket-propelled grenades at a local hardware store. And even if you could, no ATF employee would want to be the guinea pig who drew the short straw and had to fire a grenade out of a launcher with a Band-Aid on the side.

So, rather than fire the actual round the RPG-7 was designed to fire, ATF decided to try something else entirely.

ATF inserted a bolt-action rifle training simulator, designed to fire a 7.62 round through the RPG.

In other words, ATF put its own gun into Tate’s inert device, and then claimed that the RPG itself was a “firearm.”

You’d think this was a joke if ATF hadn’t actually done this in real life. Crawling inside a drainage culvert and firing off a .22 does not make the drain pipe a firearm. The same goes for Tate’s demilled RPG-7.

Of course, gun owners should expect nothing less from an agency that has claimed that a sliver of metal is a machinegun, and that an ordinary metal water bottle might in fact be a firearm or even a machinegun.

The same agency that manhandled a barrel until the extension snapped off, and then claimed the firearm was ineligible for import.

Even worse was how Tate’s criminal trial eventually proceeded.

After the trial judge allowed ATF’s tampered evidence to be presented, a jury convicted Tate on all counts. Then, in 2023, the Biden DOJ triumphantly announced that Tate had been sentenced to serve 20 years in federal prison – all for inherently nonviolent conduct.

The appellate courts were no help.

The famously anti-gun U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected Tate’s appeal, dispensing with his Second Amendment argument in just one sentence. And on May 18, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Tate’s petition for certiorari without even asking the government to respond.

We couldn’t think up a more unjust prosecution, conviction, and sentence if we tried.

But it speaks volumes about the sorts of people and organizations that have come to Tate’s aid.

For example, throughout this ordeal, the U.S. Navy stood with Tate, declining to prosecute him under the UCMJ.

In fact, the Navy never even demoted Tate, and instead allowed him to use personal leave time while in jail, paying him all the way. And once Tate ran out of leave, the Navy gave him an honorable discharge.

Ex-ATF agent Dan O’Kelly, Tate’s expert witness on firearms, candidly expressed in a recent interview that:

The ATF needs numbers to justify its existence. Each agent has to produce cases in order to justify their existence. Their training is ridiculous. They’re only taught about 60 percent of what they need to know: make, model, and serial number. If you get into NFA stuff, the agents have no idea what they’re looking at….

“The federal prosecutor was shown the law. Any FEO [Firearm Enforcement Officer] who testifies to something different than that commits a willful falsehood. They are the gun experts of the gun police. They ought to be charged with perjury and jailed, not to mention being fired. This case was the worst.”

Adamiak was following a legal process and did everything he needed to do. He didn’t try to “bend” the rules; he was following the law. The ATF put him in prison anyway.

And as of the filming of this video, Tate remains in federal custody. He has now exhausted his appeals, and the Supreme Court apparently had no appetite to right this wrong.

But here’s where you come in.

We, as a community, need to help Tate.

That’s why we at Gun Owners of America are calling on the DOJ to seek a reduction in sentence in Tate’s case. Tate has an upcoming hearing where DOJ could do just that.

We also call on President Trump to grant Tate Adamiak a Presidential Pardon. After all, under this administration, ATF has entered a “new era of reform,” pledging to clarify regulations and end weaponization.

There is no better place to start than to set Tate free.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 22:35

Repeat Speeders In Washington Could Soon Have Cars Electronically Restricted

Repeat Speeders In Washington Could Soon Have Cars Electronically Restricted

Washington state has approved a new law targeting drivers with serious speeding violations by requiring them to use speed-limiting technology before regaining limited driving privileges, according to Slashgear

The measure, House Bill 1596 — also called the BEAM Act — was created in response to a fatal 2024 crash that killed Boyd Buster Brown, Eloise Wilcoxson, Andrea Smith Hudson, and Matilda Wilcoxson.

Beginning in January 2029, drivers whose licenses were suspended for reckless driving or excessive speeding will need to install an “intelligent speed assistance” device in their vehicles to qualify for a restricted license. Using GPS tracking, the system monitors a vehicle’s speed and prevents drivers from exceeding a programmed limit. The law allows only three manual overrides each month.

The bill classifies excessive speeding as driving at least 10 mph over the limit in areas posted at 40 mph or below, or 20 mph over the limit on faster roads. Washington is one of several states moving toward stricter enforcement measures for repeat dangerous drivers, following similar efforts in places like New York.

The article notes that the law also carries financial obligations. Unless a driver qualifies for assistance, they must pay for the installation, removal, and leasing of the device, along with a $21 monthly fee. That money will help fund a state program designed to assist lower-income drivers with the costs.

Tampering with the device is treated as a serious offense. Anyone caught removing, disabling, or altering the system without a legitimate repair or safety reason could face a gross misdemeanor charge, which may include up to one year in jail and fines reaching $5,000.

As more states experiment with new traffic enforcement strategies — including variable speed limits and automated monitoring systems — Washington’s approach reflects a growing push to reduce dangerous speeding through technology rather than traditional enforcement alone.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 22:10

Iranian Opposition News Outlet Got $800 Million In Debt Relief: Report

Iranian Opposition News Outlet Got $800 Million In Debt Relief: Report

Via Middle East Eye

An $870m debt-relief deal suggests that Iran International, an Iranian opposition outlet, has ties to Saudi Arabian investors, according to a Financial Times report on Thursday. The links stem from documents related to a debt-for-equity swap that Iran International conducted in December to shore up its finances. Iran International has spent hundreds of millions of dollars since its founding in 2017 by British-Saudi investors, the FT reported.

According to the report, Iran International’s parent company, Volant Media UK, has lost more than $550m over the past five years, and it owes related entities about $645m. Those numbers came from documents that the FT reported as covering the financial year ending December 2024.

via AFP

Iran International says it is the “most popular Persian speaking foreign based news channel in Iran”.It employs 700 people and broadcasts into Iran from London via satellite, radio and social media outlets.

Iran International has been accused by critics of promoting “regime change” in Iran and advancing the position of the former shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, for a return to power. The outlet has long denied links to Israel or Saudi Arabia.

Iran International reported heavily on protests that struck Iran at the beginning of this year, sparked by a cost-of-living crisis brought on, in part, by US sanctions.

In January 2025, the news site reported that more than 36,500 people were killed in a crackdown on protests. Those numbers were significantly higher than those estimated by the US and other western-based human rights groups.

US President Donald Trump cited casualty numbers similar to those reported by Iran International days before launching a war on Iran on February 28, but did not disclose where he had gotten the death toll number.

Links

A New York Times report from April said that Israel also lobbied Trump to intervene in Iran, citing the protests that engulfed the country. Israel told the US that Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, could assist in “fomenting” further riots and rebellions to collapse the Islamic Republic.

According to the FT, Volant Media issued an allotment of 648 million shares, valued at about $870m, on December 13.

On that day, all of Volant’s original 50,000 shares were transferred from British-Saudi film executive Adel Abdulkarim Alabdulkarim, who is Volant’s company director and secretary, to Info-Cast Cayman Limited, an offshore company, the FT reported.

Alabdulkarim has “significant control” of Volant, the FT reported, citing his ability to appoint or remove the majority of the company’s board of directors. But Info-Cast Cayman was listed as the immediate parent company at year-end 2024.

Saleh Hussain Aldowais is the sole director of Info-Cast Cayman, the FT reported, citing Cayman corporate records. A person with that name is the chief operations officer at the Saudi Arabian state-backed Saudi Research and Media Group (SRMG).

SRMG is a publicly traded company in Saudi Arabia that operates over 30 media companies and news outlets, including ASharq Al-Awsat, Arab News and Asharq News, which has a partnership with Bloomberg.

A spokesperson for Iran International told the FT that no new funds were injected into the company as part of the debt-for-equity deal.

They said the network “has never received funding from any government or state entity – including Saudi Arabia or Israel – whether directly or indirectly”.

“Where individuals associated with the business hold other external commercial roles, those interests are entirely separate… held in a personal capacity and have no bearing on the editorial, operational or financial independence of the network,” the person added.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 21:45

Meet America’s Largest Doomsday Bunker Community

Meet America’s Largest Doomsday Bunker Community

Vivos xPoint, a survivalist bunker community built on a former military munitions depot in South Dakota, was created as a refuge for people preparing for disasters such as nuclear war, pandemics, or societal collapse, according to a new report by the Wall Street Journal.

Marketed as “The Largest Survival Community on Earth,” the development offers long-term leases on converted concrete bunkers and promises a secure, self-sufficient lifestyle far from major population centers. While some residents use their bunkers as vacation homes or emergency shelters, the project has attracted significant controversy.

The Journal writes that instead of uniting residents around a common goal of preparedness, the community has become mired in disputes over property management and quality-of-life issues. Complaints have included malfunctioning septic systems, rising fees, property taxes, loose dogs, and an expanding list of community rules. Several residents have accused management of intimidation and unfair treatment, while the company maintains that only a small number of dissatisfied tenants are responsible for the conflicts.

Tensions have occasionally escalated into serious confrontations. In one highly publicized incident, resident David Streeter became involved in a dispute with a contractor that ended in a shooting after an alleged physical altercation. Streeter claimed self-defense, and a grand jury declined to indict him. Other residents have also faced eviction proceedings following disputes involving firearms or violations of rules that some argue were added after they signed their leases. These incidents have fueled ongoing legal battles between residents and Vivos.

A major source of frustration has been the gap between the community’s marketing and reality. Vivos promoted plans for shared amenities such as a restaurant, gym, store, medical clinic, community center, and other facilities. However, many of these projects have not been completed, leading residents to accuse the company of misrepresentation. A class-action lawsuit seeks refunds for tenants and alleges that Vivos failed to provide the livable conditions and amenities it promised.

Despite the disputes, some residents continue to value the location’s isolation, security, and peaceful environment. Supporters argue that the bunker complex still offers a unique option for those concerned about future disasters. Critics, however, contend that ongoing litigation, management conflicts, and unmet expectations have overshadowed the original vision, turning what was meant to be a haven from catastrophe into a community struggling with its own internal challenges.

Ultimately, the story of Vivos xPoint highlights a central irony of survivalist communities: preparing for external threats does not eliminate internal challenges. While the bunker complex was designed to protect residents from worst-case scenarios such as war, pandemics, or societal collapse, many of its biggest problems have stemmed from ordinary human conflicts over rules, property, and expectations.

Whether Vivos ultimately fulfills its promises remains to be seen, but its experience demonstrates that building a resilient community requires more than just a physical shelter…

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 21:20

Maryland’s Glock Ban Aims At The Gun, Not The Criminal

Maryland’s Glock Ban Aims At The Gun, Not The Criminal

Authored by David Manney via PJ Media,

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed SB 334 into law Tuesday, putting the state on a collision course with gun owners, firearm dealers, and 2nd Amendment groups.

The law targets “machine gun convertible pistols,” mainly Glock-style semiauto handguns that use a cruciform trigger bar. Maryland lawmakers argue criminals can convert those firearms into fully auto with illegal devices called Glock switches.

The question remains: Why is Maryland banning future sales of common handguns because criminals already break the law with illegal conversion devices?

SB 334 bars manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, purchasing, receiving, or transferring covered pistols after January 1, 2027. Current owners won’t have to surrender their firearms, and like hell they should. Active and retired law enforcement officers receive exemptions, and the law also allows immediate family transfers, inheritances, and certain gunsmith repairs.

State Sen. Sara Love (D-Montgomery County) sponsored SB 334. Del. Nicole Williams (D-Prince George’s County) sponsored HB 557, the companion bill in the House of Delegates. The Senate passed SB 334 by a 28-16 vote on March 19. The House passed it 91-40 on April 9 before Moore approved the bill as Chapter 771.

Supporters frame the law as a public safety measure. Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, and other officials have also pursued Glock through litigation, arguing Glock pistols can be converted too easily with auto sears.

Police officials have warned about converted weapons appearing in crimes and threatening officers. A fully automatic weapon in criminal hands can turn a street dispute into a massacre in seconds.

Yet the constitutional problem remains. Glock switches are already illegal under federal law and Maryland law. The new law burdens future lawful buyers because criminals misuse illegal parts. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearm industry trade association, warned the measure would prohibit an entire class of lawfully made and lawfully sold handguns. The NRA also prepared a legal challenge after Moore approved the law. From the NSSF:

“To borrow on a line from James Carville, whom Democrats revere, ‘it’s the criminal, stupid,'” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President & General Counsel. “These bills, and similar laws passed in other states, punish law-abiding citizens by infringing on their Second Amendment rights to legally obtain the firearms they choose to protect themselves and their families against criminals who, by definition, have no respect for life or law. Instead of enforcing the law and holding these criminals accountable, Maryland’s lawmakers pander to gun control donors and antigun special interests to ban an entire class of firearms, which the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller decision clearly holds violates the U.S. Constitution. Should Governor Moore sign these bills into law, NSSF intends to have Maryland’s Attorney General Anthony Brown explain in court why Maryland willfully violates the rights of her citizens and ignores its responsibility to hold criminals accountable.”

Mark Pennak, president of Maryland Shall Issue, has called the bill unconstitutional and signaled a lawsuit. Maryland House Republicans also urged Moore to veto the bill, arguing the law bans the most popular handgun in the state because of conduct already forbidden by law.

The United States Supreme Court has said the 2nd Amendment protects weapons “in common use” for lawful purposes, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen requires modern gun laws to fit the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Maryland didn’t solve the Glock switch problem by signing SB 334; it shifted pressure from criminals with illegal conversion devices to lawful buyers who want ordinary self-defense handguns.

Courts will decide whether the state can make that leap. Until then, Moore has given Maryland a gun law with a messy constitutional foundation and a lawsuit almost certain to follow.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 20:55

‘We Outright Grabbed The Wallets’: Bessent Boasts $1BN In Iran State Crypto Seized To Date

‘We Outright Grabbed The Wallets’: Bessent Boasts $1BN In Iran State Crypto Seized To Date

Washington’s economic war on Iran and its ‘shadow’ banking network continues, as on Friday Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the US has seized $1 billion in Iranian cryptocurrency assets as part of the economic component of President Trump’s Operation Epic Fury.

The billion dollar figure represents the running total seized to date, building on prior milestones in the conflict, particularly a recent major April 2026 freeze of $344 million in USDT on the Tron blockchain. By close of April, $500 million total had been seized.

And so clearly with the addition since then of some half-billion dollars more in seized digital assets, the US Treasury program has only greatly accelerated in the last several weeks.

During his Friday speech before the Reagan National Economic Forum, Bessent stated:

“Just outright grabbed the wallets. Some of them may be typing in right now and might not realize their wallet had been grabbed.”

Assets are held “on behalf of the Iranian people” – he described, while framing that the Iranian government had ‘stolen’ the money from the Iranian populace.

Bessent is signaling further relentless waves of OFAC wallet designations and aggressive asset forfeitures coming in the next months, as highly sanctioned Iran continues to seek alternative means of conducting financial transactions.

As we’ve featured before, for ordinary Iranians – roughly one in six of the population – crypto served as a vital lifeline. Facing relentless rial depreciation (down nearly 90 percent since 2018), chronic inflation of 40 to 50 percent, and frequent power blackouts or internet shutdowns during protests, citizens turned to Bitcoin and stablecoins like U.S. dollar-pegged stablecoins (USDT) on the Tron network to hedge savings, facilitate remittances, and move value when traditional banking failed. Spikes in Bitcoin withdrawals to personal wallets often coincided with domestic unrest and regional conflicts.

Yet this parallel financial system has also become a powerful tool for the state. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) steadily tightened its grip on Iran’s crypto flows. IRGC-linked addresses received more than $3 billion in 2025—up from over $2 billion in 2024—with their share rising to more than 50 percent of total Iranian crypto inflows by the end of 2025. These figures represent conservative lower bounds based only on identified and sanctioned wallets.

Washington in the meantime is still entertaining dreams of sparking some kind of anti-regime uprising based on applying the economic squeeze to the Iranian system, but apart from unrest back in January, this has utterly failed to materialize. 

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 20:30

Why Stable Systems Fail: The Illusion Of Institutional Control

Why Stable Systems Fail: The Illusion Of Institutional Control

Authored by Luc Lelièvre via The Mises Institute,

There is a persistent belief in modern political life that systems fail because they become fragile. Institutions, it is assumed, weaken under pressure and eventually break down. This intuition is not just incomplete—it is backward.

Systems do not fail when they become fragile; they become fragile because they have already lost contact with the realities they claim to govern. What appears as stability is not strength, but the final illusion of a structure that can no longer correct itself. This is not a matter of conspiracy or intent, it is structural. 

When institutions become more responsive to their own internal logic than to the world they were created to manage, this dynamic begins to unfold. As James C. Scott observed in Seeing Like a State, modern administrative systems must simplify in order to function. They translate complex, local, and context-dependent realities into legible categories, procedures, and metrics. This makes governance at scale possible—but it also creates systematic blind spots.

At first, the displacement of reality is subtle. Signals are filtered, anomalies are treated as exceptions, friction is absorbed. From within the system, nothing appears fundamentally wrong: Processes continue, reports are generated, decisions are made. This is the phase most observers mistake for stability.

In reality, the system becomes less responsive—not because it lacks information, but because it can no longer recognize what falls outside its categories. It does not consciously ignore reality; it simply ceases to register parts of it. As its categories harden, the system becomes more coherent, outputs are more consistent, procedures are more standardized. Language is more uniform, however, this coherence is achieved by exclusion, not mastery.

Rigidity is not strength, it is the loss of adjustment. At this point, fragility appears to emerge under pressure. However, this is misleading. A system becomes fragile because it must prevent itself from recognizing its own failure. Any signal requiring fundamental revision threatens not just a policy, but the system’s internal logic. The cost of recognition becomes prohibitive.

This is the knowledge problem identified by Friedrich Hayek: knowledge in society is dispersed, tacit, and often inarticulable. No centralized system can fully integrate it. As argued in The Fatal Conceit, attempts to do so inevitably distort or suppress what cannot be processed.

A contemporary illustration is the bureaucratic handling of the covid pandemic in Canada and Quebec. Centralized directives frequently overrode local realities and visible human costs. Once the framework was fixed, admitting significant errors became too costly. Criticism was absorbed through procedure rather than leading to meaningful revision—an instance of administrative rigidity that sustained the appearance of control.

At this point, the problem is no longer ignorance but overreach. Systems do not merely fail to process dispersed knowledge; they restructure reality so that corrective feedback no longer enters. What replaces it is not coordination, but representation. Under these conditions, power does not respond, it absorbs.

Demands are acknowledged but redirected. Critiques are translated into procedural adjustments. Pressure accumulates without producing structural change. It is dispersed, reformulated, or deferred. This creates a second illusion: that pressure leads to correction; it does not.

Pressure can be absorbed indefinitely—so long as it does not align. Fragmented demands rarely threaten a system. Even widespread dissatisfaction can coexist with institutional continuity if it lacks coordination and timing. Saturation is not mobilization.

As Mancur Olson argued in The Rise and Decline of Nations, mature systems accumulate organized interests that resist adaptation. Over time, this produces rigidity while preserving the appearance of order. What appears to be stability is closer to inertia than to equilibrium. Feedback loops become captured. Signals are no longer responses to reality, but to negotiated representations of it. The system ceases to adjust and begins to persist.

History repeatedly illustrates this pattern.

Late-stage regimes often display surface stability. Their structures remain intact, their procedures continue. Their authority is formally unchallenged. However, beneath this lies a growing disconnect between institutional representation and lived reality. The system persists—but as a closed loop.

When change occurs, it is rarely gradual. It emerges when multiple conditions converge—economic strain, political disillusionment, social fragmentation. Only then does accumulated pressure become transformative. Until that point, stability can appear indefinite.

This is why a crisis is often misread as the beginning of failure. By the time fragility becomes visible, it has long been present; what changes is not instability itself, but its expression. The real danger is not that systems fail, but that they continue to function after losing the capacity for correction.

As Ludwig von Mises emphasized in Bureaucracy, administrative systems can operate according to rules even when those rules no longer achieve their intended ends. The mechanism continues—but without effective steering.

Markets, by contrast, reveal what bureaucracies suppress. Price signals communicate information about scarcity, preference, and misallocation that no centralized structure can replicate. Coordination emerges not from design, but from dispersed knowledge. Correction rarely comes from within closed systems.

Stability, in this sense, is not evidence of health, it is often the final stage of a system that has lost the ability to adapt. Modern systems do not fail when they become fragile. They become fragile because they have already failed—structurally and long before that failure becomes visible.

The more decision-making is centralized, the more lived knowledge is replaced by abstract representations detached from reality. What follows is not reform, but substitution. At that point, the system no longer responds in any meaningful sense, it simulates a response.

Its stability is an illusion produced by abstraction, rigidity, and the suppression of signals it cannot process. It endures not because it is strong, but because it no longer registers what would force it to change.

The question is not when the system will fail, it is how long it can continue after failure has already occurred. History suggests the answer is uncomfortable: Systems do not collapse when they finally become unstable; they appear stable until the moment their failure can no longer be ignored.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 20:05

The Loophole That Put Drunk Truckers Back On The Road

The Loophole That Put Drunk Truckers Back On The Road

Authored by Jacob Burg via The Epoch Times,

A federal database built to flag and remove drunk and drugged truckers from U.S. highways used the equivalent of an “honor system” as its last line of defense between a family in a minivan and a substance addict steering an 80,000-pound mass of steel.

Trucks fuel up at the Love’s Truck Stop in Springville, Utah, on Dec. 1, 2021. George Frey/AFP via Getty Images

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) launched its Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse in early 2020 to improve road safety by providing employers, law enforcement, and state agencies with real-time information on substance-use violations by commercial drivers.

Truckers caught driving while under the influence, or violating the Transportation Department’s alcohol and substance regulations, are flagged in the system with a “prohibited” status and must complete a return-to-duty process to reinstate their commercial driver’s licenses.

But what if a current alcoholic or drug addict could immediately get back behind the wheel by paying a third party to simply check off a box inside the database, rather than complete and pass follow-up drug or alcohol testing?

That’s how Brandon Blackburn, 34, was able to get back on the road, he told The Epoch Times. Blackburn was arrested last year on charges of driving while impaired in a construction zone with cocaine in his possession, according to the Prentiss County Sheriff’s Department.

Blackburn said his “prohibited” status was cleared by another man who simultaneously runs a trucking company and advertises his “substance abuse professional” services across a network of trucking-related Facebook groups.

According to Blackburn and evidence reviewed by The Epoch Times, Blackburn and others appear to operate within a network of actors who have been exploiting loopholes in federal rules to illegitimately clear “prohibited” commercial drivers in the federal Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse.

This was revealed by evidence presented in a multiseries investigation by Rob Carpenter of FreightWaves, a news outlet focused on the global supply chain. The Epoch Times reviewed the evidence collected by FreightWaves, independently verified each facet of the story, and interviewed Blackburn, who confirmed that the scheme worked for him and others.

Blackburn admitted to The Epoch Times that he cleared drivers who had been flagged with drug or alcohol violations even though he didn’t have the necessary certification to do so. He claimed some of the people he helped had their licenses incorrectly flagged in the system, and said he was trying to help truckers and veterans in need.

Blackburn describes himself as a small player across a network of actors that operates like a multilevel marketing scheme. He claimed that several others are much more prolific and are still operating.

“We’ve never seen anything like this before. It sent shockwaves through our industry,” Jo McGuire, executive director of the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association, told The Epoch Times.

The implications are not just grave for road safety, but also for employers who rely on the clearinghouse to avoid hiring drivers who may be at a higher risk of bringing on a multimillion-dollar court settlement in the event of a serious highway accident.

This is how the scheme proliferated in plain sight, and why, despite new and upcoming rule changes to the certification process in the clearinghouse, employers may be unaware they’re hiring a potentially dangerous driver.

The Scheme Explained

Once a driver is caught driving under the influence, or is flagged after testing positive for drugs or alcohol, his or her license receives a “prohibited” status from the clearinghouse.

Examples of drug and alcohol violations include having a blood alcohol level of 0.04 or greater while on duty for “safety-sensitive” operations and using any prohibited drugs.

Even driving with sealed alcohol containers in the cab, as long as they are not part of the driver’s shipment, counts as an alcohol violation.

In late 2024, the FMCSA updated the clearinghouse to immediately downgrade a commercial driver’s license once the driver received a “prohibited” flag, forcing him to start the return-to-duty process to get back on the road.

As part of the return-to-duty process, a driver typically works with his employer to select a substance abuse professional who provides an initial assessment and offers education and treatment recommendations. The process involves six steps, with the driver needing to pass a drug or alcohol test on step five before completing a follow-up testing plan in step six.

The way the federal agency designed the database was critical for how the scheme unfolded. Step five only requires a testing date, rather than a copy of a negative drug or alcohol test. The driver’s employer is responsible for verifying the results and entering the date of the negative test.

However, drivers without current or prospective employers may register accounts in the clearinghouse as owner-operators and can designate third-party administrators to complete that part of the process.

This is how the scheme proliferated, based on the evidence reviewed by The Epoch Times. Employers, substance abuse professionals, and third-party administrators were only required to self-certify in the clearinghouse database. No identity verification was involved in the process.

By law, a substance abuse professional must be a licensed physician, social worker, psychologist, certified employee assistance professional, certified drug and alcohol counselor, or state-licensed or certified marriage and family therapist.

But since the clearinghouse allowed users to self-certify, anyone could check the box without having the credentials. The same was true for third-party administrators.

Based on evidence reviewed by The Epoch Times, Blackburn and others appear to have been operating in the clearinghouse with multirole accounts, including as substance abuse professionals, third-party administrators, and employers.

Some Facebook users who publicly advertised Blackburn’s services mentioned being out of work when they began the return-to-duty process, meaning they would have had to use a third-party administrator to verify and submit the date for a negative test result.

Several online databases exist for legitimate substance abuse professionals who work with the Transportation Department, including NAADAC’s directory and SAPList.com. Blackburn could not be found on either database.

Blackburn said it’s easy to circumvent the prescribed clearinghouse process from a basic Google search. He told The Epoch Times that he got involved after seeing the scheme persist from the moment the clearinghouse was launched.

It operates like a multilevel marketing, or “pyramid,” scheme, Blackburn said. If you see a user in one of several related Facebook groups advertise helping drivers with the return-to-duty process, and they mention a particular person they worked with, that person is taking a cut.

Multiple users advertising return-to-duty services mentioned Blackburn and others based on hundreds of public Facebook comments that were reviewed for this story.

Blackburn insists he has stopped, but claims the others have not. He said he was struggling with a drug problem, relapsed last year, and that was the reason for his arrest.

Scale

Blackburn said he charged around $100 for his services and never more than $150. The entire return-to-duty program with a legitimate substance abuse professional can cost between $1,000 and $3,000 when evaluations, education, treatment, and tests are included.

A total of 368,984 violations have been reported to the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse since its launch, according to its most recent monthly summary report.

That tally includes 360,107 drug violations and 8,877 alcohol violations. The drug violations include the use of marijuana (206,394), cocaine (57,075), methamphetamine (29,017), and a long list of synthetic opioids.

As of Jan. 2, 328,431 drivers had been reported to the database with at least one drug or alcohol violation. Of those, 202,345 remain in “prohibited” status with their licenses still downgraded.

Trucks drive away from the Port of Long Beach, Calif., on May 15, 2026. Under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse, truckers flagged as “prohibited” after impaired driving must complete a return-to-duty process to regain their commercial licenses, but some can reportedly get back behind the wheel by paying a third party to check a box in the database. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 19:15

662 Billion Reasons To Worry: Moody’s Raises AI Data-Center Funding Fears As Apollo Shops Huge Anthropic Debt Deal

662 Billion Reasons To Worry: Moody’s Raises AI Data-Center Funding Fears As Apollo Shops Huge Anthropic Debt Deal

Unless you have lived under a rock for the last year (or month), you will know that the explosive growth of artificial intelligence is fueling a massive infrastructure buildout.

In a chart book published nearly simultaneously with Moody’s report, Apollo Global Management chief economist Torsten Slok worked to put the enormity of data center spending into perspective.

With total capital expenditure on data centers estimated at roughly $646 billion, or about 2% of U.S. GDP, Slok noted that is roughly equivalent to the GDP for Singapore, Sweden, and Argentina. Defense spending in 2025, meanwhile, was around $917 billion.

However, as Moody’s warned this week, the aggressive financing structures supporting this explosive growth are creating significant systemic risks that could ripple across global credit markets and the broader economy.

The most recent example of this buildout – and its coincident debt-funding – is the $36 billion debt financing package currently being shopped by Apollo Global Management and Blackstone to enable Anthropic’s large-scale acquisition of Google’s custom TPU chips.

As Bloomberg reports, this complex, high-leverage deal – partially backed by Broadcom – underscores how private equity and specialized financiers are channeling enormous capital into AI hardware and data centers through layered debt instruments.

The move would mark one of the largest-ever private credit deals and also the biggest chip-financing debt transaction.

It aims to tap Broadcom’s credit quality to provide computing-power access to Anthropic, which just eclipsed rival OpenAI in valuation (and its ecosystem has been dramatically outperforming)…

While such deals accelerate AI capacity, they also concentrate risk.

More concerning is the scale of hidden liabilities across the industry.

According to Moody’s Ratings, the five major U.S. hyperscalers (Amazon, Meta, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Oracle) have accumulated approximately $662 billion in future data center lease commitments that have not yet commenced.

Combined with other commitments, the total undiscounted future lease exposure reaches $969 billion.

To put the scale of this hidden obligation into perspective, Moody’s accounting analysts David Gonzales and Alastair Drake calculated that the unrecorded $662 billion is equivalent to 113% of these five hyperscalers’ most recent adjusted debt.

These obligations remain entirely off-balance-sheet under current accounting rules, despite representing binding long-term liabilities.

But as Gonzales told Fortune in a statement that it’s “not as if [these hyperscalers] have have avoided a liability through structuring,” characterizing the $662 billion at issue as “yet to be on the balance sheet,” rather than missing.

“More accurately,” he added, “they have not yet received the services to trigger this liability as of this time, but they will.”

This accounting deferral masks the true leverage in the system.

As these leases activate over the next decade, they will migrate onto balance sheets, potentially weakening credit profiles, elevating leverage ratios, and increasing refinancing pressures.

While the AI infrastructure boom promises transformative productivity gains, Moody’s is basically highlighting that the current funding model – reliant on massive off-balance-sheet debt and complex private financing – builds hidden vulnerabilities into the financial system.

Regulators, investors, and policymakers should closely monitor these exposures.

Heightened Systemic Concerns

  • Contagion Risk: Heavy interdependence among hyperscalers, private credit funds, and infrastructure investors means distress at a few large players could rapidly spread through debt markets and counterparty exposures.

  • Concentration & Interconnectedness: A small group of tech giants and a limited pool of specialized financiers dominate this financing. Any material setback in AI monetization or power availability could create correlated losses across the sector.

  • Broader Market Impact: The $662 billion in off-balance-sheet exposure represents a delayed but massive claim on capital markets. In an economic downturn, forced deleveraging or asset fire sales could amplify volatility, tighten credit conditions, and affect investor confidence well beyond technology.

  • External Amplifiers: Power grid constraints, regulatory hurdles, and geopolitical supply chain risks further compound the fragility of these highly leveraged bets.

In a stressed scenario – such as slower-than-expected AI revenue growth (the end of tokenmaxxing), rising energy costs, or higher interest rates – the simultaneous activation of these liabilities could trigger widespread credit rating downgrades and liquidity strains.

Specifically, Moody’s warned that these opaque accounting practices mask the true economic risk facing the tech industry. While leasing reduces upfront capital investments, carrying such massive future commitments severely limits a company’s financial and operating flexibility, especially if AI industry conditions change rapidly.

Because these liabilities are hidden, Moody’s concluded, in its own jargony way, that it is considering new ways to look at this issue.

“The accounting liability is unlikely to reflect certain plausible future scenarios … With this in mind, we will continue to assess cash exposures and debt-like adjustments as time progresses and the dates of new leases draw nearer. We may make a nonstandard adjustment to Moody’s adjusted debt based on our expectation of likely cash outflows.”

Without greater transparency and more resilient capital structures, the race for AI supremacy risks generating systemic stress that could undermine broader economic stability.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 18:50