Author name: LifeZette

News

Seattle’s Starbucks, Microsoft, and Costco Demand Action After Getting What They Voted For [WATCH]

Dozens of prominent Seattle area business leaders are demanding that Mayor Katie Wilson and the City Council move quickly on a sweeping public safety overhaul.

Their proposal calls for a 100 day action plan, restored surveillance cameras, stronger police staffing, and measurable standards for emergency response times.

The coalition includes executives from Microsoft, Starbucks, Costco, Nordstrom, Alaska Air Group, the Seattle Mariners, T Mobile, Zillow Group, Puget Sound Energy, F5, Weyerhaeuser, and other major employers. In total, 38 leaders signed the sharply worded letter sent to Wilson and council members.

Microsoft Vice Chair and President Brad Smith, Starbucks Chairman and CEO Brian Niccol, Costco CEO Ron Vachris, and Nordstrom chief executive Erik Nordstrom were among the leading signatories.

They argued that Seattle residents are tired of vague promises and want City Hall to produce visible, measurable results.

“The clearest message” from an August survey, the coalition wrote, is that voters expect the city “to act with urgency, fund the actions needed to improve safety, and provide a clear plan for measuring progress.”

The Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, Challenge Seattle, and the Washington Roundtable organized the effort.

Their push was not triggered by one isolated incident, but by years of mounting concern about crime, disorder, drug markets, police shortages, and slow responses from city government.

“There’s not there’s not been a single event sort of a straw that broke the camel’s back,” Rachel Smith of the Washington Roundtable told KOMO News.

“It’s really been watching things deteriorate a little bit over time in terms of what we’re seeing from a public safety perspective, and wanting to be a partner in getting getting that addressed and moving in a different trajectory.”

An August public opinion poll found that only 34 percent of Seattle voters were confident the city had an effective public safety plan.

That dismal figure helps explain why major employers are no longer content to watch City Hall shuffle reports while residents and businesses deal with the consequences.

The proposed 100 day plan would establish concrete goals and require monthly public progress reports.

More than 86 percent of respondents supported such a plan, suggesting voters want accountability rather than another round of bureaucratic talking points.

The coalition also wants CCTV cameras reactivated in Pioneer Square, the Stadium District, and other areas that host large events.

Leaders say cameras can discourage criminal activity, identify suspects, protect the public, and give investigators valuable evidence after violent incidents.

“The bottom line is cameras need to be used to protect people and to solve crime full stop,” Smith said.

“We also need things like foot patrols, diversion programs, and closing down open air drug markets.”

Regular foot and bicycle patrols would be expanded in areas struggling with persistent safety problems, including Little Saigon.

The letter says 90 percent of survey respondents supported more visible patrols, a remarkably clear signal that residents would prefer officers on the street instead of excuses from City Hall.

The plan also calls for a renewed commitment to Seattle’s seven minute standard for 911 responses.

Officials would be required to publicly report when that target is missed, making it harder for the city to bury poor performance behind carefully polished press releases.

Nordstrom’s downtown flagship store reported receiving an officer response to only 29 percent of its 911 calls.

By comparison, Nordstrom stores in Southcenter and Bellevue reportedly received an officer response to every 911 call, exposing a staggering gap in basic police service.

Business leaders additionally want treatment and shelter offered first to people involved in drug offenses.

Those who repeatedly reject help would face arrest and prosecution, while Seattle police and the city attorney would be directed to prioritize shutting down open air drug markets.

The proposal seeks a ban on camping within 250 feet of schools, parks, and playgrounds.

Encampments found in those protected areas would be cleared within 72 hours, giving families a firm standard instead of the endless ambiguity that has defined Seattle policy.

Police staffing remains another major concern. Seattle has approximately 1.31 sworn officers for every 1,000 residents, about 40 percent below Denver, 43 percent below San Francisco, and 58 percent below Boston.

Former Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, now CEO of Challenge Seattle, said the time for delay has passed. “We need action,” she said.

“We’ve got a crisis on our hands right now, and we need action on public safety.”

WATCH:

Wilson responded that many requested measures are already moving forward, including added foot and bicycle patrols, expanded crisis responder hours, safety improvements in troubled neighborhoods, police recruiting, and a gun violence reduction strategy.

Her office also said shootings and homicides are at their lowest levels in a decade.

Yet the coalition insists that public safety funding must be protected and increased during the budget process.

Seattle voters and employers are plainly asking for the same thing: a city where police answer calls, drug markets are dismantled, public spaces are usable, and City Hall measures results instead of managing decline.

News

Abdul El-Sayed’s Family Ties to Islamic Terror-Financing Organizations Put in National Spotlight [WATCH]

Michigan Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers used the second night of the Republican National Committee midterm convention to deliver a blistering warning about his Democratic opponent, Abdul El Sayed.

Rogers accused El Sayed of associating with radicals and accepting campaign support tied to extremist organizations.

The convention marked the first national midterm gathering of its kind for the Republican Party, giving candidates a platform to present their case directly to voters.

Vice President JD Vance and President Donald Trump were scheduled to close the event with remarks focused on the Republican agenda.

For Republicans, the convention offered a chance to bypass a legacy press establishment that routinely filters conservative achievements through a hostile political lens.

Party leaders clearly believe they must take their record straight to Americans before voting begins and media spin hardens into the usual Democrat talking points.

Rogers, a former member of the United States House, centered his speech on national security and the threat of radical Islamic terrorism.

Drawing on his experience confronting security threats, he argued that political leaders must identify dangerous ideologies without surrendering to fashionable language policing.

“Radical Islamic terrorism,” Rogers declared before reminding the audience that he had devoted much of his life to confronting that enemy.

“I know what they’re capable of. And I know what happens when America becomes afraid to call evil by its name.”

Rogers then turned his fire toward El Sayed and commentator Hasan Piker, whom Rogers portrayed as openly hostile to the United States.

“That’s why I never imagined that 25 years after 9/11, I would be running against somebody that campaigns with Hasan Piker, who thinks America deserved it.”

Piker has faced intense criticism from conservatives over past comments concerning the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Rogers argued that El Sayed’s political relationship with Piker should alarm Michigan voters who expect a United States senator to defend America rather than treat the country as the source of every global problem.

According to Rogers, El Sayed has effectively embraced Piker as a political partner while tolerating rhetoric that attacks American institutions and excuses extremism.

“Together, they attack America. They excuse extremism,” Rogers said, leaving little doubt about the stakes he sees in the contest.

The sharpest allegation concerned campaign funding and purported links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Rogers told the convention, “They treat our country like it’s the villain. And it doesn’t stop there. Abdul is funding his campaign with money from terrorist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.”

The supplied remarks did not include documentation detailing the specific donations or organizations behind Rogers’ allegation.

Still, the charge places immediate pressure on El Sayed to identify his donors, explain any organizational connections, and answer directly rather than hiding behind campaign consultants or friendly media gatekeepers.

Rogers drove the point home with a cutting line about the familiar Democratic demand to remove money from elections.

“Abdul says he wants money out of politics unless that money comes from recognized terrorist organizations.”

That accusation is certain to become a major issue in the Michigan Senate race, particularly among voters concerned about foreign influence, extremist networks, and national security.

If Rogers can substantiate the financial connections he described, El Sayed will have far more to explain than the usual progressive collection of radical slogans.

Rogers framed the election as something larger than a routine battle for one Senate seat.

“Folks, this is not just another Senate race. This election is about the soul of our country. It’s about America values, our ability to work hard, to raise a family, worship freely, speak your mind, build something of your own, and leave your kids a better America than the one you inherited.”

WATCH:

That message reflects the broader Republican argument heading into the midterms.

Voters face a choice between traditional American freedoms and a radical political movement that too often sneers at the country, excuses extremism, and expects the press to clean up the mess afterward.

Rogers’ convention appearance ensured that El Sayed’s associations and funding will receive national attention whether Democrats like it or not.

Michigan voters now deserve complete transparency, clear answers, and a serious examination of every dollar flowing into a campaign seeking power in the United States Senate.

News

Karoline Leavitt Electrifies RNC Midterm Convention and Brings Patriots to Their Feet [WATCH]

Former White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt received a thunderous welcome Thursday evening as she stepped before the Republican National Committee Midterm Convention in Dallas, Texas.

Her return to a public podium quickly became one of the gathering’s biggest crowd pleasing moments.

The RNC gathered for a two day convention focused on energizing Republican voters ahead of the midterm elections.

With President Donald Trump headlining the event, the atmosphere looked far more like a patriotic rally than the dreary political seminars favored by Washington consultants.

Trump delivered a speech Wednesday and was scheduled to address the convention again Thursday night.

His presence helped turn the Dallas gathering into a major showcase for the Republican agenda and the party’s coming battle for control of Congress.

Leavitt drew an immediate roar from the audience as she approached the lectern.

The reception made clear that Republican voters have not forgotten the young spokeswoman who routinely challenged a hostile White House press corps without flinching.

“It feels good to be back behind a podium!” Karoline Leavitt said to a roaring crowd.

The line brought an enthusiastic response from attendees who had watched her regularly spar with reporters during her time representing the Trump administration.

Leavitt then delivered a sharper jab at the political media establishment.

“And let me just say, let me just say, feels much better speaking to a stadium full of patriots than a briefing room full of journalists!” she said.

That remark landed squarely with an audience deeply skeptical of a media class that spent years attacking Trump and his supporters.

Leavitt’s comparison also captured why she became such a popular figure among grassroots conservatives during her tenure at the White House.

Her convention appearance was not limited to jokes at the expense of Washington reporters.

Leavitt also honored conservative activist Charlie Kirk on the one year anniversary of his death, bringing a solemn note to an otherwise celebratory evening.

Leavitt used the speech to press Republicans on the importance of turning out for the midterm elections.

She warned that political enthusiasm means little if conservative voters fail to show up when congressional control and the Trump agenda are on the ballot.

She also tore into Democrats over their open borders policies, an issue that remains central to Republican campaigns across the country.

WATCH:

Voters have watched the consequences of lax enforcement, overwhelmed communities, and years of excuses from politicians who treated national sovereignty like an inconvenience.

The speech showed that Leavitt remains an effective messenger for Trump even after leaving the White House briefing room.

Her delivery blended campaign urgency, conservative humor, and direct attacks on the institutions that Republican voters have learned not to trust.

Trump announced last month that Leavitt would depart her position as White House Press Secretary so she could spend more time with her young children.

Rather than disappearing from the political arena, she is moving into a new role as one of Trump’s leading outside advisors.

Leavitt made history as the youngest person ever to serve as White House Press Secretary.

She was only 27 years old when she took the position last year, yet she handled the pressure of the briefing room with more command than many veteran Washington operatives.

Her departure also followed a major change in her family.

Leavitt has two young children and gave birth to her second child, a daughter, in May, making her decision to step away from the daily demands of the White House understandable.

Judging by the reaction in Dallas, Leavitt will remain a formidable voice in Republican politics.

Her convention speech gave the party exactly what it needed, a forceful reminder to vote, a defense of Trump’s agenda, and a well earned swipe at the press corps.

News

George W. Bush’s 9/11 Message Sparks Fresh Debate Over Islamist Terrorism [WATCH]

Former President George W. Bush returned to the public discussion surrounding the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as the nation marked the 25th anniversary of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil.

Appearing at his presidential center with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Bush returned to a message he delivered following the 2001 attacks, arguing that the terrorists responsible had distorted Islam rather than represented the religion.

“I also made it clear that Islam was a religion of peace, not a religion of war, and that these people subverted their religion,” Bush claimed.

WATCH:

The remarks renewed a debate that has continued since 9/11 over Islam, Islamism, terrorism, and how the United States should approach immigration and national security.

The Muslim population in the United States was around two million at the time of the attacks and has since grown to 5.5 million.

During the same period, Americans have lived with security measures implemented in the aftermath of 9/11, including airport screening requirements through the Transportation Security Administration and government surveillance authorized under the Patriot Act.

The changing demographics have also coincided with the rise of Muslim politicians in Democratic politics. New York City is now led by Mayor Mamdani, while Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have become prominent members of the “Squad.”

Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed has also emerged as another political figure in the debate over Islam and American politics.

Critics have pointed to Mamdani’s relationships with Islamist extremists and accused Omar and Tlaib of repeatedly attacking the United States.

El-Sayed has praised sharia law and has a relationship with Hasan Piker, who has been criticized for his statements about America and 9/11.

Those developments have shifted the debate from arguments over accusations of “Islamophobia” to questions about immigration, assimilation and whether people entering the United States support the country’s constitutional system.

The issue also extends to human rights. Muslim-majority countries have faced criticism over the treatment of women, religious minorities and LGBTQ people, creating a conflict between the practices in some of those countries and positions traditionally associated with American liberals.

Terrorism remains another central part of the argument.

The Global Terrorism Index 2026 recorded 5,582 terrorism deaths and 2,944 attacks worldwide during the previous year.

According to the figures cited in the report, the four deadliest organizations were Islamist groups: Islamic State and its affiliates, JNIM, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan and al-Shabaab.

Together, those organizations accounted for 3,869 deaths, representing 70 percent of terrorism deaths worldwide.

Islamist terrorist attacks also have higher odds of causing fatalities than attacks classified as left-wing or right-wing.

The numbers have fueled continued debate about whether Islamism itself contributes to political violence or whether terrorist movements represent distortions of the broader religion, as Bush argued following 9/11 and again during the anniversary discussion.

That dispute also reaches deeper into history, including disagreements over the Crusades and whether they should primarily be understood as aggression or reaction.

Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria have also experienced major upheaval connected to the growth of Islamic extremism from the 20th century through the present.

Critics of the “religion of peace” characterization argue that Islamic history includes both peaceful religious practice and conquest.

At the same time, the argument does not claim that all Muslims are terrorists.

Instead, it focuses on whether Islam has produced significant levels of political violence and whether that relationship should be openly examined.

Bush’s position places responsibility on extremists who, in his view, subvert their religion rather than on Islam itself.

That distinction has remained part of the American political debate for a quarter-century.

Critics contend that treating violent Islamists solely as people who have misunderstood or hijacked their religion can prevent a direct examination of the ideological motivations behind terrorism.

The issue carries particular weight on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, when nearly 3,000 people were killed.

Twenty-five years later, the argument over what motivated the terrorists, how Islamism should be understood and how the United States should protect itself from another attack remains unresolved.

News

AOC Claims God is Powering the Progressive Political Machine [WATCH]

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told the National Baptist Convention this week that she is “amazed watching how God works” while discussing the advance of progressive politics.

The New York Democrat presented left-wing organizing in heavily Republican states as evidence of something greater than ordinary campaigning.

Speaking in Orlando, Florida, Ocasio-Cortez connected recent electoral developments to faith-based activism during her 2024 rally tour with Sen. Bernie Sanders. She portrayed states dismissed by political pundits as unlikely proving grounds where religious faith and progressive organizing supposedly joined forces.

“Why would you go to Idaho? Why would you go to Montana? Why would you go to Utah?” Ocasio-Cortez asked the audience. “I felt very called.”

According to the congresswoman, that calling was eventually followed by a political “miracle” in Utah.

Her sweeping version of events, however, gave the progressive rally circuit a remarkably generous share of credit for a legal dispute that began years earlier.

“We said we must have the faith of a mustard seed. We must organize anyway,” she said.

“One year later, out of nowhere, a judge strikes down Utah’s map and they are ordered to redraw. And it is only because of the organizing that we did in faith when there was no evidence.”

The Utah ruling did not spring from the Ocasio Cortez and Sanders tour.

It grew out of a 2018 anti gerrymandering ballot measure, a rather significant detail for anyone interested in the earthly paperwork behind this supposed political miracle.

Judge Dianna Gibson struck down the Republican drawn congressional map in August 2025.

She later adopted a Democrat leaning Salt Lake City district, giving Democrats an opportunity to capture another seat in the U.S. House.

That ruling may certainly benefit the left, but claiming it happened only because progressives organized in faith is a much larger assertion.

Courts, ballot initiatives, lawsuits, and years of political maneuvering apparently received supporting roles in Ocasio Cortez’s theological campaign narrative.

The congresswoman also highlighted Montana, claiming that a rally in Missoula attracted “something like 20,000 people.”

Available reporting placed attendance at the 2025 event somewhere between roughly 7,500 and 9,000, which is sizable but nowhere close to the figure she offered.

Her May 2026 rally for congressional candidate Sam Forstag reportedly drew about 800 people.

That inconvenient number did not make the story sound quite as miraculous, so the larger and far more dramatic estimate naturally took center stage.

Ocasio Cortez argued that the turmoil of the Trump era created an opening for progressives to reconstruct American politics according to their own vision.

“You’ve got someone coming in making a mess of everything and that allows us to rebuild it all from scratch,” she said.

That remark offered a clearer picture of the progressive project than all the religious language surrounding it.

The goal is not merely to compete within existing institutions, but to use disruption as permission to tear down established structures and replace them with a left wing political order.

Ocasio Cortez concluded by predicting that Angie Nixon could win a Florida Senate race.

WATCH:

Nixon, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, trailed Trump backed Sen. Ashley Moody by eight points in one poll cited in the report.

A statewide Florida victory under those conditions would require more than an enthusiastic church speech and optimistic organizing rhetoric.

Yet Ocasio Cortez appeared ready to place another political prediction in the miracle column before voters had delivered their judgment.

Her appearance followed comments from Texas Democrat James Talarico, who said black churches possess a “deeper and more accurate” understanding of Jesus than white churches.

Together, the remarks reflect a growing effort by progressive Democrats to wrap a deeply ideological agenda in religious language while assigning divine significance to ordinary partisan victories.

Faith has always shaped American public life, and politicians across the spectrum regularly discuss it.

But when courtroom redistricting decisions, inflated crowd claims, and socialist candidates are presented as evidence of God advancing progressivism, voters are entitled to notice the campaign spin hiding beneath the sermon.

News

Holdout Juror Revelation in Lindsay Clancy Case Leaves Liberal Media Host Visibly Stunned [WATCH]

The mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case has fueled intense public debate, particularly after several jurors began speaking publicly about the deliberations.

Eleven jurors reportedly favored finding Clancy not guilty by reason of insanity, while one juror refused to join them.

Viewers have now heard from three women on camera, one male juror, and the youngest woman on the panel.

The lone holdout, however, has remained silent and out of public view while others discuss what happened behind the jury room door.

That privacy matters because passions surrounding the case have reached alarming levels.

With some observers furious about the mistrial, identifying details about the holdout could expose him to harassment, threats, or pressure simply because he reached a different conclusion.

Fresh information about the juror emerged during a CBS interview featuring juror Paula Devlin and Gayle King.

King asked Devlin about the makeup of the panel, including the ages, sexes, family backgrounds, and racial identities of those who heard the evidence.

King noted that the jury consisted of nine women and three men.

Devlin said their ages ranged from 22 through the 70s, many were parents, and only one juror was described as a “person of color.”

King then asked whether that person was a man or a woman.

After Devlin said the juror was a man, King asked whether the holdout was a black man, and Devlin confirmed that he was.

King responded with a remark that immediately attracted attention across social media and political circles.

“Wow, I have to sit with that a moment,” King replied.

WATCH:

That reaction raised an obvious question about why the juror’s race required a moment of contemplation.

A criminal jury is supposed to evaluate testimony, evidence, credibility, and legal instructions, not satisfy a television host’s expectations about how people of a particular race should think.

There is also a serious concern about revealing information concerning a juror who has not chosen to become a public figure.

Other panel members may volunteer for interviews, but their decision does not grant them permission to gradually expose someone who plainly prefers privacy.

The holdout juror did not call a press conference, seek television attention, or offer his story to the public.

Yet viewers now know his sex, race, approximate age range, and place as the lone dissenting voice, which narrows the field more than responsible journalists should find comfortable.

King’s surprise also exposes the liberal media habit of filtering nearly every event through racial categories.


Perhaps the juror did not fit a preconceived narrative about who would resist an insanity acquittal, and that mismatch appeared to stop the interview cold.

The juror’s responsibility was not to represent a racial group or validate the assumptions of television personalities.

His duty was to determine guilt or innocence according to his understanding of the evidence and the legal standard explained by the court.

Eleven people reaching one conclusion does not automatically make the twelfth juror dishonest, unreasonable, or malicious.

The jury system requires unanimity in cases like this precisely because every juror retains an individual obligation to follow his own judgment rather than surrender to pressure.

Accounts from other jurors suggest the holdout stood firm as the majority pushed for a different outcome.

Whether people agree with him or not, refusing to abandon a sincerely held conclusion is not misconduct merely because it frustrates a preferred result.

The revelation spread rapidly because King’s response seemed to say more than she likely intended.

Americans noticed the pause, the astonishment, and the implication that a black man’s independent judgment presented some sort of ideological puzzle for the media class.

The central issue remains the evidence in the Clancy case, not the racial identity of one juror.

If liberal commentators change their treatment of the mistrial after learning the holdout was black, they will reveal that their narrative mattered more than their claimed respect for justice.

News

Viral AI Doom Warning Reeks of a Setup as Musk Calls Out Suspicious Spectacle

A former Anthropic researcher’s apocalyptic warning about artificial intelligence exploded across X, gathering more than 165 million views and immediate suspicion that the spectacle was too polished to be organic.

Elon Musk and several prominent technology figures openly questioned whether the viral panic was staged.

Jacob Coxon worked at Anthropic for only four months and departed two months before his stock options would have vested.

On Tuesday, he accused Anthropic and OpenAI of recklessly racing toward superintelligence while putting humanity at risk.

His messages drew more than 23 million views during the first day alone.

The original post later soared to 165 million views and continued climbing, an extraordinary level of attention for an account with little previous activity.

Coxon previously worked as a training researcher at OpenAI and still owns equity in that company.

He claimed that experience gave him insight into how both powerful artificial intelligence laboratories privately discuss the potential dangers of their work.

According to Coxon, OpenAI employees have “deeply internalized the civilizational stakes” surrounding advanced artificial intelligence.

He argued that Anthropic also understands the danger but remains “locked in a race to get there first” because its leaders believe competing laboratories cannot be trusted to behave responsibly.

His bleakest allegation was that artificial intelligence could “kill us all by the end of the decade.”

WATCH:

Coxon denied that his sudden media eruption was a “marketing stunt” and insisted that his warning reflected his genuine beliefs.

Evan Hubinger, Anthropic’s Alignment Science Lead, helped amplify the claims by sharing Coxon’s messages.

Hubinger said he personally believes there is more than a 10 percent chance that artificial intelligence will kill every human within the next decade.

That is when the skepticism arrived, and it did not come quietly.

Musk responded Wednesday evening to a post highlighting Coxon’s short employment at Anthropic with the blunt assessment, “Seems like a setup.”

Musk also noted that he could not recall a new account with almost no earlier activity ever receiving such massive exposure.

Considering the carefully timed outrage, enormous reach, and immediate support from industry insiders, his suspicion was hardly pulled from thin air.

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney described the episode and the reaction surrounding it as “choreographed.”

Musk agreed and said the campaign appeared to be a “psy op (for lack of a better term)” constructed upon earlier “groundwork.”

Billionaire investor Bill Ackman joined the discussion with a pointed one word response, “Interesting.”

He shared a post alleging that the viral warning could represent the beginning of a sophisticated public relations campaign designed to build support for Democrats seeking crushing artificial intelligence regulations.

David Sacks, who served as President Donald Trump’s crypto and artificial intelligence adviser until March, turned the spotlight toward Anthropic’s planned public offering.

“Surely Anthropic’s IPO must be paused until the claims of this ‘whistleblower’ can be investigated,” Sacks wrote.

Sacks has previously accused Anthropic of “running a sophisticated regulatory capture strategy” fueled by public fear.

That concern cuts directly to the political heart of the controversy, since companies can benefit handsomely when Washington writes complicated rules that smaller competitors cannot afford to navigate.

Jason Calacanis, who appears with Sacks on the All In podcast, also questioned whether the uproar represented “some kind of regulatory capture playbook” or genuine alarm among Anthropic employees.

His question captured the central mystery surrounding the sudden doom campaign.

Coxon answered Musk directly and insisted, “I’m real and these are my real beliefs.”

He then took a personal swipe at Musk, adding, “You could ask your xAI researchers about me if you hadn’t fired them.”

In another message, Coxon challenged Musk to act on the risks he has previously discussed.

“You’ve talked a lot about how you feel forced into this race, and the dangers of advanced AI,” Coxon wrote.

The spectacle reveals a familiar contradiction in Silicon Valley.

The same artificial intelligence giants releasing increasingly powerful systems regularly demand government regulation, often while warning that their own products could wipe out civilization.

Conservatives have good reason to examine both the technology and the political campaign surrounding it.

America cannot surrender control to Silicon Valley leftists through fear driven regulation, but it also cannot ignore the threat posed by China in the global race for artificial intelligence.

News

Marco Rubio Destroys the ‘Trump is Exploiting Venezuela’ with the Oil Deal Narrative [WATCH]

Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended U.S. involvement in Venezuela’s energy sector, arguing that a partnership with the United States would put the country’s oil resources to more productive use while generating revenue that could ultimately benefit the Venezuelan people.

Rubio addressed concerns about the United States playing a larger role in energy development across the Western Hemisphere by pointing to the previous involvement of China, Russia and Iran in Venezuelan oil fields.

“No. Well, what I would say to anyone who’s concerned that the US is doing something negative towards the Western Hemisphere as regards to energy is those oil fields were once dominated by China and Russia,” Rubio said.

“And Iran, by the way, Iran also had some concessions, and they’re no longer there.”

Rubio presented the choice as one between working with the United States and relying on countries he described as American and Venezuelan adversaries.

He argued that Venezuela stands to gain economically from closer cooperation with the United States.

“So I think they’re much better off partnering with the United States, they will benefit greatly from it,” Rubio said.

Venezuela has long maintained substantial state control over its petroleum industry, with foreign companies participating through arrangements involving the country’s energy sector.

China and Russia have also had significant financial and energy relationships with Venezuela over the years.

Rubio said some of the oil fields previously held by Chinese and Russian companies had failed to produce meaningful results.

Under a different arrangement, he said, those assets could begin producing oil and generating income.

“These fields were, in many cases, non-productive,” Rubio said.

“In essence, the the Chinese and Russian companies held these fields, but never turned them into anything.”

The secretary said increased production would create royalties and other revenue connected to Venezuela’s resources.

He argued that the goal should be for those proceeds to reach Venezuelans rather than government officials or foreign adversaries.

“These fields are going to be productive, and they’re going to generate royalties and revenues for the Venezuelan people, eventually through a democratically elected government, hopefully sooner rather than later,” Rubio said.

The question of foreign participation in Venezuela’s oil industry has been tied to the country’s political and economic situation for years.

The United States previously imposed extensive sanctions affecting Venezuela’s petroleum sector, while earlier U.S. policy also connected sanctions relief to steps toward competitive elections.

Rubio’s comments focused on what he sees as the potential economic benefit of replacing the influence of China, Russia and Iran with American cooperation.

Rather than leaving fields undeveloped, he argued, increased production could turn those resources into a source of income for Venezuela.

His argument also centered on who ultimately receives the financial benefits generated by the country’s oil.

Rubio said the revenue should reach the Venezuelan population through a future democratically elected government instead of being diverted elsewhere.

The secretary concluded by contrasting that outcome with a system in which Venezuela’s resource wealth could benefit corrupt officials or governments hostile to both the United States and Venezuela.

The objective, Rubio said, is for the revenue to “directly benefit the people of Venezuela as opposed to going into the pocket of some you know, corrupt government official or in the hands of American and Venezuelan adversaries, really.”

WATCH:

News

RNC – Trump Rally at the Dallas Convention

It’s unconventional. Then again, so is Donald Trump. There has never been a political party convention of delegates in American history for a midterm election. That is what is happening in Dallas this week. Donald Trump made the call to convene. The question is whether they will answer, and whether it will make a difference in November.

If you pay attention to polls — and I’m not sure we should — Republicans are behind by 6 to 8 points on the generic ballot. The Cook Political Report currently has House races at 184 solid Democratic seats and 182 solid Republican seats. To hold the majority, either party must reach 218. House control usually comes down to about 20 to 25 races. Some of those races come down to only a few hundred votes.

That same report lists 37 races as undecided, including 21 toss-ups. Of those 21 toss-ups, 16 are currently held by Republicans, and each faces a tough test in November. Cook rates nine races as leaning Democratic and seven as leaning Republican. Betting and prediction markets have favored Democrats taking the House all year.

The Fox News poll, which many pollsters regard as one of the more accurate surveys, paints a similar picture. Fox has 184 solid Democratic seats and 208 solid Republican seats, with only 16 toss-ups. Of those toss-ups, 12 are currently held by Republicans. History is against the GOP as well. A midterm is typically treated as a referendum on the party that holds the White House.

When you stack the history on top of the ratings, the odds clearly favor Democrats. I prefer to look at the election day turnout rather than polls, because turnout tells a story. Republican turnout since last November has been weak. Democrats are energized. And, that is a huge problem for Republicans.

What better way to energize the MAGA base than a rally? Some of MAGA is upset with Trump’s handling of Iran. Some have been upset over the Epstein files. Others have grown weary that no one has been held accountable for the 2020 election, January 6, COVID, and a list that could go on. Trump’s rally and convention in Dallas this week is about energizing that base, bringing them together.

The rally will focus on accomplishments many thought impossible only two years ago: a southern border that has been effectively closed, violent crime and murder at historic lows. This week, speakers will make sure the MAGA base remembers the Big Beautiful Bill that made permanent the tax cuts from Trump’s first administration. Without that bill, Americans would have faced the largest tax increase in history. There is no tax on tips, a break for Social Security recipients, and no tax on overtime. Will it be enough? No one can answer that question now.

Trump has had his back against the wall many times. He has been knocked down, but he has risen every time. His resilience, even at his age, cannot be questioned. He always gets back up and says, “Fight, Fight, Fight.”

Failure to vote by his MAGA base would almost certainly mean two years of investigations and impeachments, until enough Republican senators turn on Trump as 2028 draws closer and he is removed from office. You don’t think so? Then you are not watching the same U.S. Senate I have been watching the last 18 months.

Most Americans will not see the Dallas convention. The networks will not broadcast it. Major publications, when they bother with stories, will not be glowing. Fox News, NewsNation, OAN, and Newsmax will give it extensive coverage, and that is just fine. This rally in Dallas is not about the masses. It is about Trump’s base, because there are enough votes there to swing House races that are sometimes decided by only a few hundred ballots.

I would never bet against Trump or the MAGA base. Trump has more than $400 million available in his PAC. The Democratic Party has $17 million cash on hand. Trump has said he will concentrate on those toss-ups — about 25 or 30 races. The strategy will be clear after this week. And, the question November will answer is whether Trump and MAGA can defy history again.

News

Trump’s Deep Federal Cuts Put Government Bureaucracy on Notice: Higbie [WATCH]

Newsmax host Carl Higbie pointed to the shrinking federal workforce under President Donald Trump while arguing that reductions in government employment could produce substantial long-term savings for taxpayers.

“The federal government is actually at its lowest number of employees since 1966,” Higbie said while displaying a chart tracking federal employment.

The Trump administration has also said the federal workforce has fallen to its lowest level since 1966.

Higbie contrasted the decline under Trump with federal hiring during former President Joe Biden’s administration.

He said the government added tens of thousands of positions before Trump returned to office and began reducing the workforce.

“But we’ve had various ups and downs, but we’ve never seen a rapid decline like we did over the last 2 years in Donald Trump’s second term,” Higbie said.

Higbie identified the Treasury Department, Social Security Administration, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Health and Human Services as areas where reductions have occurred.

He questioned the need for existing staffing levels at some agencies and specifically criticized the administration of Social Security.

“Social Security is one of the worst-managed things out there,” Higbie said.

He also argued that automation has reduced the number of employees needed to administer the program, pointing to changes in how benefits are distributed and how Americans interact with the agency.

“The administration of Social Security, of this program, is largely automated at this point,” Higbie said.

“They’re not like mailing out physical checks to almost anyone anymore. It’s it’s not like you can get somebody on the phone there, either. So like what are they doing? Good question. Easy cut.”

Higbie then played a clip of Rep. Debbie Dingell objecting to federal workforce actions and describing them as an attack on federal workers and organized labor.

“This action is clear retaliation and union busting, plain and simple, and it’s a threat to organized labor and workers everywhere,” Dingell said.

“Federal employees are absolutely essential to keeping our country running.”

Higbie rejected Dingell’s characterization and framed the disagreement as a fundamental dispute over the relationship between government workers and taxpayers.

“Not really,” Higbie responded.

“This is the lens and, honestly, the actual divide between producers and consumers. Producers are taxpayers. Consumers are the government employees, in this case.”

He argued that federal employment should depend on whether positions are necessary and whether employees are effectively serving the public.

“Government employees and their advocates believe that they’re somehow entitled to that job by like some divine right, regardless of their output, or the need of the people like us that they’re there to serve that they often don’t serve very well,” Higbie said.

Higbie also focused on federal compensation, saying the average federal employee earns $112,000 annually before benefits and retirement packages.

He contrasted that figure with what he described as average private-sector earnings of between $64,000 and $67,000.

“The average federal employee salary is $112,000 a year,” Higbie said.

“That includes lavish. That does not include, I should say, lavish benefits and retirement packages.”

He also discussed federal pensions, arguing that retirement obligations increase the long-term cost of government employment beyond annual salaries.

“You know what the average American in the private sector makes? 64 to 67,000, half of what a government employee makes, and they’re actually producing stuff,” Higbie said.

Higbie concluded by estimating the savings associated with the administration’s workforce reductions.

He said Trump had cut approximately 270,000 employees and argued that eliminating those positions rather than eventually refilling them would produce savings extending well beyond the immediate federal payroll.

“So by Trump cutting 270,000 jobs or employees or whatever, and eliminating most of their positions, by the way, so they can’t come back to them, with the average salary at $112,000 a year, that saves you $30 billion a year as a country,” Higbie said.

He extended that calculation over employees’ potential careers and retirement periods, arguing that the ultimate savings could reach into the trillions.

“Annualize that even further,” Higbie said.

“Go to the course of I don’t know, let’s say they work for 20 years. You take that $30 billion a year, 20 years, up to 50 years in pension as well, don’t forget about that, that’s going to save you $2 trillion for we the people.”

WATCH:


Scroll to Top