Alcohol may have done more than just fuel celebrations in ancient societies. A study led by Václav Hrnčíř from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology suggests that indigenous fermented drinks helped ancient societies grow in size and complexity.

The study, published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, draws a link between alcohol and the rise of structured governance.

Researchers analyzed data from 186 traditional societies worldwide. They found that communities producing their own alcoholic drinks, like fruit wines or cereal beers, often showed higher levels of political organization.

The team focused on societies that existed before industrialization and widespread colonial influence, ensuring that the alcohol used was locally made and not introduced by outside cultures.

Fermented drinks linked to complex political structures

The link between alcohol and political complexity held up even when researchers accounted for other possible explanations, such as farming, environment, and shared ancestry. While the effect was modest, it was consistent.

Grecian Delight supports Greece

Societies with native alcohol traditions were more likely to have layered political systems, meaning they had organized leadership beyond simple village groups.

The researchers tested the so-called “drunk” hypothesis, which argues that alcohol helped people cooperate on a large scale. Drinking lowered social barriers and boosted group bonding, especially during communal feasts.

These gatherings weren’t just about pleasure. They helped form alliances, mobilize labor, and reinforce social roles. Leaders often used alcohol to reward loyalty and strengthen their power.

New dataset focuses on pre-industrial societies

To test this idea, Hrnčíř and his team built a new dataset. Since existing cross-cultural databases lacked detailed information on alcohol, the researchers reviewed ethnographic sources to document where indigenous drinks were present.

They focused on non-distilled fermented beverages, which have a lower alcohol content and fewer harmful effects than modern liquors.

Using Bayesian statistical models, the team measured how much alcohol influenced political development. In the simplest models, the presence of alcohol showed a strong link to higher political organization.

But when they included other variables—especially agriculture—the alcohol effect became smaller. Farming clearly played a larger role in shaping early societies, but alcohol still appeared to give cooperation a social boost.

Agriculture played a stronger role, but alcohol still mattered

The study’s findings suggest that alcohol helped make early state formation easier, though it wasn’t the sole driver. It offered a social “glue” that made it easier for people to live and work together in bigger groups. In some places, the need for alcohol may have even encouraged the first efforts at farming.

But alcohol had its limits. The effects were weaker in models that considered farming and the environment. Still, researchers found that fermented drinks were more common in complex societies than in simpler ones. Alcohol, then, may have been one of several tools—along with agriculture, religion, and trade—that supported the growth of civilization.

Despite the positive group effects, the study notes that alcohol could also spark conflict. In some societies, drinking parties often ended in arguments. Yet in well-integrated cultures, social drinking usually took place during rituals, feasts, or after work. It wasn’t seen as a problem unless drinking became solitary or excessive.

Abdul Moeed, Greek Reporter

Matt Margolis 

In the latest episode of the “IMO” podcast — the same one where Barack Obama appeared alongside Michelle to help shut down rumors of a looming divorce — the former first couple shifted the conversation to the topic of boys and fatherhood. 

But what started as a seemingly harmless discussion quickly veered into unsettling territory. What was framed as a conversation about raising well-rounded young men ended up sounding more like a rejection of traditional family and fatherhood, as well as a subtle push for ideological reprogramming. Obama didn’t just downplay the importance of fathers; he openly advocated for embedding young boys to be groomed by members of the LGBTQ community.

The message was that traditional masculinity isn’t enough, and boys need to be groomed — ideologically, emotionally, and socially — by progressive role models.

“That’s one of the things that I think a lot of times boys need,” Obama said, “not just exposure to one guy—”

“One dad,” Michelle interjected.

“One dad,” Barack agreed. “No matter how good the dad is.” 

Michelle echoed the point: “He can’t be everything.”

What exactly are boys supposed to be missing out on from their fathers? According to Obama, it’s the leftist worldview delivered through the kinds of adult relationships that sound more like social reengineering than genuine mentorship.

“One of the most valuable things I learned as a guy was, I had a gay professor in college,” Obama recalled. “Who became one of my favorite professors and was a great guy, and would call me out when I started saying stuff that was ignorant.”

“You need that,” he insisted. “To show empathy and kindness.”

That might sound benign on the surface, but it was only the beginning. Obama then spelled out what he really meant: the normalization of LGBTQ ideology in young boys’ lives, even before they’ve figured out who they are. “You need that person in your friend group so that if you then have a boy who is, who’s gay or non-binary or what have you, they have somebody that they can go, ‘Okay, I’m not alone in this.’”

The implication here is disturbing. Obama is essentially suggesting that fathers aren’t enough, that young boys need LGBTQ adults embedded in their personal circles — not just to offer “perspective” but to steer them ideologically. 

This is grooming, plain and simple. It may not be grooming in the criminal sense (I hope) but in the broader cultural one — planting seeds, breaking down traditional roles, and promoting identity confusion as a form of development.

This isn’t about preparing kids for the real world. It’s about reshaping them into foot soldiers for the left’s gender ideology. The nuclear family? Insufficient. A strong father? Too narrow-minded. Instead, a curated circle of leftists who are ready to “correct” their thinking and guide them toward gender and sexual identity exploration should mold young boys, whether they’re asking for it or not.

This kind of rhetoric would’ve been unimaginable from a former president just a few years ago. Yet here we are — Barack, with Michelle nodding along, telling America that fathers aren’t enough and that boys need gay men to help define who they are. Wrapped in buzzwords like “inclusion” and “empathy,” this isn’t parenting advice; it’s a blatant attempt to inject identity politics into the most personal parts of a child’s development.

This is grooming dressed up as mentorship. It’s a calculated push to erode the role of the traditional family and replace it with a leftist ideology that treats children as blank slates for activists to mold. Obama isn’t talking about tolerance; he’s advocating for ideological exposure at a vulnerable age, and that should set off alarm bells for every parent in America.

This isn’t guidance; it’s indoctrination. 

If that segment made your blood boil, you’re exactly who PJ Media VIP was made for. In a world where legacy media cheer this dangerous narrative, we bring you relentless facts and fearless opinions. You deserve the full truth. Unlock our best columns, podcasts, and lively comment sections — use the code FIGHT for 60% off. Protect your rights. Support journalism that refuses to back down and isn’t afraid to call out the groomers.

“He’s a great columnist. I think he’s terrific.”  – Mark Levin

Matt Margolis is a conservative commentator and columnist. His work has been cited on Fox News and national conservative talk radio, including The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Mark Levin Show, and The Dan Bongino Show. Matt is the author of several books and has appeared on Newsmax, OANN, Real America’s Voice News, Salem News Channel, and even CNN.

---

Seniors With Under $3,298/Mo Social Security Get Benefits

Helping Veterans

11 “Hidden Benefits & Discounts” for Veterans

CARFAX

Shop with Carfax

Wellness Guide

Doctors Shocked: This Tea Slims Waist from 36 To 22

Carfax

Shop Now with Carfax

Peace of Mind Cars

Recommended

BREAKING: Trump Diagnosed With ‘Benign and Common’ ConditionPaula Bolyard

I Can’t Believe The New York Times Thought It Would Get Away With ThisMatt Margolis

The Democratic Civil War Has Begun — and Obama Pulled the TriggerMatt Margolis

Trump Ends Boondoggle on RailsDavid Manney

Energy Independence: New Nuclear Reactors in the WorksCatherine Salgado

California Democrats (Looking at You, Gavin Newsom) Pull a Bait and Switch on Palisades Fire VictimsVictoria Taft

Trending on PJ Media Videos

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending

• BREAKING: Trump Diagnosed With ‘Benign and Common’ Condition
• I Can’t Believe The New York Times Thought It Would Get Away With This
• The Democratic Civil War Has Begun — and Obama Pulled the Trigger

Editor’s Choice

Belmont Club: The Red Sea Sharks

Why Hasn’t Steve Bannon Released HIS Epstein Tapes?

They Played the Game Right. The Hall of Fame Got It Wrong.

Copyright PJMedia.com/Salem Media. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you.

Contact UsNewslettersAbout UsCareersAdvertise With UsTerms & ConditionsPrivacy PolicyCalifornia – Do Not Sell My Personal InformationCalifornia – CCPA Noticehttps://i.liadm.com/sync-container?duid=b6cf93c4c36b–01jknytgnbjs7efphg3q2vwttk&appId=b-0165&euns=0&s=Cg8KBgj1ARCiGwoFCAoQohsSJw15R-shEiAKBgj0ARCgGwoGCJQBEKAbCgYI_gEQohsKBgiTARCgGxIPDSzkuWASCAoGCJMBEKAb&version=v3.13.0&cd=.pjmedia.com&pv=a5f10054-6dc1-451c-a9d3-71dbba641b4d

null

Right-wing activist Laura Loomer warned that President Donald Trump’s handling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein threatens to “consume his presidency” in an interview on Wednesday, a dramatic rebuke from a presidential confidante that illustrates the growing rupture in the MAGA coalition.

She likened it to the intense media interest in ties between Trump’s first White House campaign and Russia, saying “I don’t want it to consume his presidency.”

Obviously, this is not a complete hoax given the fact that Ghislaine Maxwell is currently serving 20 years in prison in Florida for her crimes and activities with Jeffrey Epstein, who we know is a convicted sexual predator,” Loomer told POLITICO. “This is why I said, and I’ll reiterate it again, the best thing that the president can do is appoint a special counsel to handle the Epstein files investigation.”

The debacle over a new government review of evidence relating to Epstein, the notorious sex offender, has blown up in recent days, causing a schism within Trump’s MAGA movement over his administration’s approach to the case.

Trump has sought to move on from the Epstein saga, defending Attorney General Pam Bondi as she faced attacks over the report and going so far as to blast his own “past supporters” on Wednesday, calling the entire thing a “hoax.”

Senior Trump administration officials had previously built up significant fanfare around the release of a supposed Epstein “client list,” which has long been a focal point for conspiracy theories as many right-wing media personalities posited that the billionaire convict was murdered in prison as part of a cover-up of a sprawling government conspiracy.

After hyping the promised release, a joint FBI and Department of Justice report last week said they had found no evidence of a list — or that Epstein, who died by suicide in his prison cell in 2019, had been murdered — prompting outcry from within MAGA circles.

Still, Loomer — the onetime Trump whisperer — wasn’t prepared to split entirely with the president over the case.

“I’m not going to dogpile the president,” she said, adding “he can’t allow for all of his focus and attention to be on the Jeffrey Epstein files. Do I think this has been handled poorly? Absolutely.”

And in a post-interview post on X, Loomer reiterated that “that it is a distraction from the incredible work President Trump is doing to Make America Great Again” and she “fully support[s] Trump.”

As Bondi faces heightened scrutiny for her repeated attempts to dodge questions about the Epstein files, Loomer also teased that “there are people in the White House who agree with me that Pam [Bondi] spent too much time on Fox News and her statements were inconsistent and undermined what messaging is today about the Epstein files.”

Other prominent MAGA-aligned supporters of the president have also warned that Trump could see significant damage to his standing among his base if he does not change course.

Sixty-three percent of voters in a Quinnipiac University national poll released Wednesday said that they disapproved of Trump’s handling of the files. Republicans were also nearly split. Just 40 percent said they support how he’s handled the files, with 36 percent disapproving and another 20 percent not offering an opinion.

Mike Flynn — who briefly served as Trump’s national security adviser in his first term — wrote in a lengthy X post on Wednesday that Trump needed to “gather your team and figure out a way to move past this.”

“The roll out of this was terrible, no way around that,” Flynn wrote. “Americans want America to be successful, therefore, WE NEED YOU TO BE SUCCESSFUL.”

Obviously, this is not a complete hoax given the fact that Ghislaine Maxwell is currently serving 20 years in prison in Florida for her crimes and activities with Jeffrey Epstein, who we know is a convicted sexual predator,” Loomer told POLITICO. “This is why I said, and I’ll reiterate it again, the best thing that the president can do is appoint a special counsel to handle the Epstein files investigation.”

The debacle over a new government review of evidence relating to Epstein, the notorious sex offender, has blown up in recent days, causing a schism within Trump’s MAGA movement over his administration’s approach to the case.

Trump has sought to move on from the Epstein saga, defending Attorney General Pam Bondi as she faced attacks over the report and going so far as to blast his own “past supporters” on Wednesday, calling the entire thing a “hoax.”

Senior Trump administration officials had previously built up significant fanfare around the release of a supposed Epstein “client list,” which has long been a focal point for conspiracy theories as many right-wing media personalities posited that the billionaire convict was murdered in prison as part of a cover-up of a sprawling government conspiracy.

After hyping the promised release, a joint FBI and Department of Justice report last week said they had found no evidence of a list — or that Epstein, who died by suicide in his prison cell in 2019, had been murdered — prompting outcry from within MAGA circles.

Still, Loomer — the onetime Trump whisperer — wasn’t prepared to split entirely with the president over the case.

“I’m not going to dogpile the president,” she said, adding “he can’t allow for all of his focus and attention to be on the Jeffrey Epstein files. Do I think this has been handled poorly? Absolutely.”

And in a post-interview post on X, Loomer reiterated that “that it is a distraction from the incredible work President Trump is doing to Make America Great Again” and she “fully support[s] Trump.”

As Bondi faces heightened scrutiny for her repeated attempts to dodge questions about the Epstein files, Loomer also teased that “there are people in the White House who agree with me that Pam [Bondi] spent too much time on Fox News and her statements were inconsistent and undermined what messaging is today about the Epstein files.”

Other prominent MAGA-aligned supporters of the president have also warned that Trump could see significant damage to his standing among his base if he does not change course.

Sixty-three percent of voters in a Quinnipiac University national poll released Wednesday said that they disapproved of Trump’s handling of the files. Republicans were also nearly split. Just 40 percent said they support how he’s handled the files, with 36 percent disapproving and another 20 percent not offering an opinion.

And former Trump adviser Elon Musk — with whom the president had a blowup fight last month in which Musk accused Trump of being named in the Epstein files — criticized his former boss for trying to paint the whole situation as a hoax.

“He should just release the files and point out which part is the hoax,” Musk wrote on X Wednesday.

The MAGA meltdown over Epstein “could be his Afghanistan going into the fall,” Mark Mitchell, head of polling and operations at Rasmussen Reports, told Steve Bannon Tuesday on his “War Room” podcast.

“People are trying to say this isn’t a big deal,” Mitchell said. “People are trying to say nobody wants this Epstein information out. It’s an absolute misdirection. This is horrifying. And if it isn’t corrected, it threatens derailing Trump’s agenda, getting rid of his political capital.”

“This is not about a guy who died in 2019, this is about a representation of two-tier justice and about unaccountable government,” Mitchell told Bannon.

On Wednesday, conservative political commentator John Solomon told Bannon that he had interviewed the president, and that Trump supported the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate elements of the Epstein case as part of a broader look into a supposed deep state conspiracy to punish the Republican Party.

“I think he’s frustrated by all the social media chatter by people who don’t really know what’s in the Epstein files,” Solomon said. “He was very pointed about that, let’s stay focused on the things that matter to the American people. ‘I want the answers to Epstein like everyone’, he said, so let the prosecutor do that.”

The Epstein fiasco also prompted Speaker Mike Johnson to split with Trump on Tuesday, calling for the Department of Justice to release all the information it has on the sex offender in the name of “transparency.”

“It’s a very delicate subject, but you should put everything out there, let the people decide it,” Johnson told conservative commentator Benny Johnson, adding that Bondi should explain her previous claims of having the elusive Epstein “client list.”

Just a day prior, the Louisiana Republican had defended Bondi, choosing to defer to the Trump administration instead of criticizing the attorney general.

But Trump appears to remain unmoved despite growing rebellion within his MAGA cohort.

In the Oval Office on Wednesday, Trump repeated his claims that the whole ordeal was a “hoax” peddled by Democrats and once again defended Bondi’s handling of the case.

“She’s done very good. She says ‘I gave you all the credible information,’ and if she finds any more credible information, she’ll give that too. What more can she do than that?” Trump said, adding that he had “lost a lot of faith in certain people” over their outcry on the administration’s approach to the issue.

Politico

The Senate early Thursday approved President Donald Trump’s plan for billions of dollars in cuts to funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting, handing the Republican president another victory.

The Senate voted 51-48 in favor of Trump’s request to cut $9 billion in spending already approved by Congress.

Two of the Senate’s 53 Republicans – Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine – joined Democrats in voting against the legislation. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had voted Tuesday against proceeding to the bill, forcing a Vice President JD Vance tiebreaking vote, but ultimately voted for the package Thursday morning.

Most of the cuts are to programs to assist foreign countries suffering from disease, war and natural disasters, but the plan also eliminates all $1.1 billion the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was due to receive over the next two years.

Trump and many of his fellow Republicans argue that spending on public broadcasting is an unnecessary expense and reject its news coverage as suffering from anti-right bias.

Standalone rescissions packages have not passed in decades, with lawmakers reluctant to cede their constitutionally mandated control of spending. 

The $9 billion at stake is extremely small in the context of the $6.8 trillion federal budget, and represents only a tiny portion of all the funds approved by Congress that the Trump administration has held up while it has pursued sweeping cuts, many ordered by billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

As of mid-June, Trump was blocking $425 billion in funding that had already been appropriated and previously approved by Congress, according to Democratic lawmakers tracking frozen funding.

However, Trump and his supporters have promised more of the “rescission” requests to eliminate previously approved spending in what they say is an effort to pare back the federal government.

The House of Representatives passed the rescissions legislation without altering Trump’s request by 214-212 last month. Four Republicans joined 208 Democrats in voting no.

But after a handful of Republican senators balked at the extent of the cuts to global health programs, Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said on Tuesday that PEPFAR, a global program to fight HIV/AIDS launched in 2003 by then-President George W. Bush, was being exempted.

The change brought the size of the package of cuts to $9 billion from $9.4 billion, requiring another House vote before the measure can be sent to the White House for Trump to sign into law.

The rescissions must pass by Friday. Otherwise, the request would expire and the White House will be required to adhere to spending plans passed by Congress.

Republican ‘No’ Votes

Murkowski and Collins joined Democrats in voting against the legislation.

“You don’t need to gut the entire Corporation for Public Broadcasting,” Murkowski said in a Senate speech.

She said the Trump administration also had not provided assurances that battles against diseases such as malaria and polio worldwide would be maintained. Most of all, Murkowski said, Congress must assert its role in deciding how federal funds were spent.

Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., called Trump’s request a “small, but important step toward fiscal sanity.”

Democrats scoffed at that, noting that congressional Republicans earlier this month passed a massive package of tax and spending cuts that nonpartisan analysts estimated would add more than $3 trillion to the nation’s $36.2 trillion debt.

Democrats charged Republicans with giving up Congress’ constitutionally mandated control of federal spending.

“Today, Senate Republicans turn this chamber into a subservient rubber stamp for the executive, at the behest of Donald Trump,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said.

“Republicans embrace the credo of cut, cut, cut now, and ask questions later,” Schumer said.

The cuts would overturn bipartisan spending agreements most recently passed in a full-year stopgap funding bill in March. Democrats warn a partisan cut now could make it more difficult to negotiate government funding bills that must pass with bipartisan agreement by September 30 to avoid a shutdown.

Appropriations bills require 60 votes to move ahead in the Senate, but the rescissions package needs just 51, meaning Republicans can pass it without Democrat support.

Newsmax

Hunter: Dems Lost Due to Not Staying ‘Loyal’ to My Dad

Democrats lost in the past November election because it broke from former President Joe Biden and “did not remain loyal to the leader of the party,” according to Hunter Biden.

“You know what, we are going to fight amongst ourselves for the next three years until there’s a nominee,” Hunter Biden told former DNC Chair Jaime Harrison’s podcast, The Hill reported Wednesday. “And then with the nominee, we better as hell get behind that nominee.”

“And I will tell you why we lost the last election. We lost the election because we did not remain loyal to the leader of the party. That’s my position,” said Hunter Biden.

Democrats “melted down” by not respecting then-President Biden and the power of incumbency, he added.

“We had the advantage of incumbency, we had advantage of an incredibly successful administration, and the Democratic Party literally melted down,” he said.

Hunter Biden’s remarks come as his pardon has come into question over use of the autopen, but Biden was “consciously aware” of the autopen pardons, and The New York Times reported that the son’s pardon was the lone lame-duck period pardon to be signed by the president’s own hand.

The remarks also come just days after the one-year anniversary of the shooting of then-candidate Donald Trump that ultimately forced Biden out of the presidential race, handing the Democrat nomination to then-Vice President Kamala Harris without winning a single primary elector in the constitution’s democratic process.

Biden did personally sign his letter stepping out of the race nearly one year to this day, and he would ultimately endorse Harris being crowned his successor as the DNC nominee — along with handing over the hundreds of millions of campaign financing.

But, as opposed to the Hunter Biden position of having abandon the democratically elected nominee, Democrats still argue Joe Biden should have stepped out of the race sooner. Harris was stuck with just a couple of months to put together a campaign to remain in the White House, albeit at the reported cost of more than $2 billion.

It was the most ever spent on a presidential campaign, including Trump’s winning campaign, and it was in just 15 weeks and not 15 months.

Eric Mack ✉

Eric Mack has been a writer and editor at Newsmax since 2016. He is a 1998 Syracuse University journalism graduate and a New York Press Association award-winning writer.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday embraced the FBI’s decision to open a conspiracy probe into a decade of alleged intelligence abuses and weaponized law enforcement, suggesting it could be led by a special prosecutor and even delve into “credible evidence” in the Jeffrey Epstein case in order to give Americans a greater dose of transparency and accountability.

He also vowed to declassify two highly sensitive pieces of intelligence to help further the prosecutor’s efforts.

“Well, I’m happy that they did that,” Trump said during a wide-ranging interview with the Just the News, No Noise television show when asked about the FBI’s decision a few weeks ago to open a probe that examines abuses from 2016 to 2024 by Democrats and government officials as a continuing criminal conspiracy. “I don’t know much about it, but it deserves to be done.”

It was a disgrace what happened, what happened in 2016 and what happened in 2020. It’s a disgraceful situation,” he said. “And our voting has to be straightened out. I always say if you don’t have borders, if you don’t have fair and free voting, you don’t have a country.”

Unprompted, Trump then volunteered on his own that a special prosecutor – if one is appointed by Justice – to look at weaponization could also delve into “anything credible” on Jeffrey Epstein and his files to make sure Americans have a full accounting.

“I think they could look at all of it. It’s all the same scam. They could look at this Jeffrey Epstein hoax also, because that’s the same stuff that’s all put out by Democrats,” Trump said, when asked what he’d most like to see the FBI investigate.

When pressed whether he was comfortable with a special prosecutor on weaponization also looking at Epstein, he answered, “They’ve already looked at it, and they are looking at it, and I think all they have to do is put out anything credible.”

The Trump administration vowed to release all remaining evidence in the now-deceased financier’s sex scandal and prosecutions, but its early efforts were hampered by missteps by Attorney General Pam Bondi, which created distrust in the MAGA base.

Trump has defended Bondi in the face of heavy criticism but it hasn’t silenced the outcry. In fact, when the FBI and DOJ sent out a memo concluding Epstein did commit suicide in prison and did not leave behind a ledger/client list of the people whom he entertained with young female escorts, many prominent conservatives openly cast doubt and derision on the findings. Now Democrats have joined the chorus.

While Trump opened the door for Bondi to appoint the prosecutor and include Epstein in the scope, Trump also blasted MAGA conservatives who have obsessed about Epstein for weeks with speculation on social media, saying it only gave oxygen to Democrats to distract from the administration’s priorities. 

“You know, some of the naive Republicans fall right into line, like they always do. They just don’t have the sustainability. … There’s something they don’t have, that stick to it like glue,” he said. “The Democrats, you know, they have bad policy, they have bad candidates, they have bad everything, but they stick together. The Republicans don’t do that.”

“But they ought to look into the Jeffrey Epstein hoax too, because that’s another hoax that’s frankly, put out by the Democrats pushing, pushing the Republicans, and put out by the Democrats,” he added.

Trump said he fears prior officials inside the FBI and intelligence agencies may have doctored files about Epstein to either protect Democrats or harm Republicans.

 “I can imagine what they put into files, just like they did with the others. I mean, the Steele dossier was a total fake, right? It took two years to figure that out,” he said. “So I would imagine if they were run by (former FBI director) Chris Wray and they were run by (former FBI director James) Comey, and because it was actually even before that administration, they’ve been running these files, and so much of the things that we found were fake.”

He finished by assuring the MAGA base that he has no desire to prevent further investigation or transparency and hopes the idea of a special prosecutor who can look at both weaponization and Epstein satisfies Americans’ concerns. “So frankly, you know, I think I love that they’re looking at all this stuff. If they are, I hope they are.”

Trump also flatly stated he would declassify two long-secret intelligence files to help the prosecution. The first is a classified annex to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report into the FBI’s mishandling of the Hillary Clinton email scandal. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has been pressing for the release of that evidence, saying it will show U.S. intelligence received new evidence of possible criminal wrongdoing before then-FBI director James Comey cleared Clinton and the bureau never investigated it.

“I would do that. Absolutely. I think it should be looked at,” he answered. “The whole thing was a scam, yeah. And I would do that gladly.”

The second piece of evidence is a classified annex to Russiagate Special Prosecutor John Durham’s final report called the “Clinton Plan intelligence,” which was a U.S. intelligence intercept suggesting Hillary Clinton had personally approved a plan to concoct a Russia collusion scandal against Trump. That intercept was captured before the FBI opened up its Russia probe, and lawmakers and Durham have suggested it would provide damning evidence to any prosecutor.

“I will absolutely declassify it,” he said when asked about the annex.

Just the News

And they don’t exist anyway.

It wasn’t all that long ago that Republicans were pretending they wanted the Epstein files released. Now it’s Democrats who are pretending that they want the Epstein files released.

The reality is that no one wants the Epstein files released. The Dems last of all. Promises to release the Epstein files are sucker bait, because there’s nothing to release. Anyone who starts out promising to release them or the JFK/UFO files eventually ends up having to explain why there’s nothing there.

I was writing about the Epstein case long before many of the current grifters and to state the obvious, there are no files of any significance to release. Anything truly damning is as gone as Hillary’s real emails. Only a crackhead like Hunter Biden would just dump laptops full of damning evidence where anyone could get at it. And if those hard drives had been purely in the province of the FBI, they would have wiped them the way they wiped Hillary’s drives after they had ‘finished’ their investigation.

Or the records of Epstein’s visitor logs during his first term in ‘prison’.

It’s amazing to me that people believe the government is capable of the worst kinds of crimes and yet carefully keeps damning evidence on itself just waiting for the right bureaucrat or appointee to release it. The Communists and Nazis did that kind of thing because they had absolute power and were convinced that they were going to rule the world. They didn’t think in terms of ‘cover-ups’ until much later when they realized they weren’t going to win. Government employees covering up things for powerful people well… cover them up. Sometimes clumsily, like Sandy Berger stuffing documents about Clinton’s Bin Laden policy in his socks. But there is no collection of videos of powerful people assaulting underage girls waiting to be released. If such videos still exist, then you can bet they’ve been winnowed down to protect the particularly influential. And by now everyone ought to know that an upper level Bureau man when confronted with politically explosive stuff like this will find a reason to erase it.

Calls to release the Epstein files will just lead to the release of more useless documents. Everyone in politics knows it. They’re playing a game and lying to you.

As they always do.

Daniel Greenfield, Front Page Magazine

By Andrea Widburg

Many years ago, a leftist attorney I know thought he had a trump card to play, showing how hypocritical churches were when it came to gay marriage: They never complained about abortion infringing on their constitutional rights, he said. Their constitutional complaint in the face of gay marriage showed they were homophobic.

I gently reminded him that churches don’t perform abortions, but they do perform marriages. In other words, anything that allows the government to force doctrinal changes on religious institutions and believers infringes on their First Amendment rights. Thus, the moment the Supreme Court decided its misguided Obergefell decision finding an imaginary right to same sex marriage in the Constitution, I worried about a clash between that imaginary right and the real First Amendment right to religious freedom.

I reiterated my concern when the Supreme Court issued Justice Gorsuch’s utterly misbegotten decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. That decision insisted that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents employers from discriminating against employees based on, among other things, sex, extended to sexual preference and so-called “gender identity.” Of course, by sex, Congress in 1964 clearly meant only the XX/XY binary. Homosexuality was not at issue, and “gender identity” had not yet been birthed in leftists’ fertile imaginations.

It was obvious from the moment the Bostock decision hit the streets, though, that it would set up a confrontation between people of faith, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, people of fantasy demanding that their employers and colleagues recognize their mental illness as reality. And, just to emphasize the mental illness part, here is a representative of the so-called gender identity movement:

Newsweek is reporting a perfect example of the inevitable confrontation, because it involves a library that forces “inclusive” language on its employees and a pastor who was fired for refusing to use that language. And while the library may have voluntarily created the speech code because its leftist management buys into so-called transgenderism, the reality is that the Bostock decision requires it—and all other businesses—to do so as a matter of law.

A Louisiana pastor said he was fired from his job at a local library after he refused to use a co-worker’s preferred pronouns.

Luke Ash, the lead pastor of Stevendale Baptist Church in Baton Rouge, said he was sacked from the East Baton Rouge Parish Library after a conversation on July 7.

Libraries, schools and other institutions have implemented policies to create respectful environments for all employees, including protections for those who identify as transgender or non-binary.

But some may feel that such policies may conflict with employees’ religious beliefs, resulting in disciplinary action or job loss.

According to Newsweek, what comes next is all very nuanced and requires a lot of balancing:

The outcome of this case could hinge on the interpretation of anti-discrimination and religious freedom statutes in Louisiana and may contribute to ongoing discussions about the balance between workplace inclusivity and individual convictions.

That’s true only if the Supreme Court continues to insist that Bostock was correctly decided. And keep in mind that, as happened with the Supreme Court’s 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which articulated the “separate but equal” principle, the Supreme Court can reverse itself.

However, there’s nothing nuanced here. On the one hand, we have a decision that chose to interpret a 1964 statute in a way that Congress clearly never intended, which makes the decision invalid right off the bat. On the other hand, we have a matter of pure religious speech and conscience.

It’s not even close. Bostock needs to be overruled. I hope Ash—the perfect plaintiff because he’s a man of the cloth—finds a conservative legal aid society to take up this case, and that the case makes it to the Supreme Court.

In half a year, the impossible became obvious: borders closed, recruits returned, Iran retreated, and elites were exposed—all because people finally said, “Enough.”

In less than six months, the entire world has been turned upside down. There is no longer such a thing as conventional wisdom or the status quo.

The unthinkable has become the banal.

Take illegal immigration—remember the 10,000 daily illegal entries under Biden?

Recall the only solution was supposedly “comprehensive immigration reform”—a euphemism for mass amnesties.

Now, there is no such thing as daily new illegal immigration.

It simply disappeared with common-sense enforcement of existing immigration laws—and a new president.

How about the 40,000-50,000 shortfall in military recruitment?

Remember all the causes that the generals cited for their inability to enlist soldiers: generational gangs, obesity, drugs, and stiff competition with private industry?

And now?

In just six months, recruitment targets are already met; the issue is mostly moot.

Why? The new Pentagon flipped the old, canceling its racist DEI programs and assuring the rural, middle-class Americans—especially white males—that they were not systemically racist after all.

Instead, they were reinvited to enlist as the critical combat cohort who died at twice their demographic share in Iraq and Afghanistan.

How about the “end of the NATO crisis,” supposedly brought on by a bullying U.S.?

Now the vast majority of NATO members have met their pledges to spend two percent of GDP on defense, which will soon increase to five percent.

Iconic neutrals like Sweden and Finland have become frontline NATO nations, arming to the teeth. The smiling NATO Secretary-General even called Trump the “daddy” of the alliance.

What about indomitable, all-powerful, theocratic Iran, the scourge of the Middle East for nearly fifty years?

Although it had never won a war in the last half-century, its terrorist surrogates—Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—were supposedly too dangerous to provoke.

What about indomitable, all-powerful, theocratic Iran, the scourge of the Middle East for nearly fifty years?

Although it had never won a war in the last half-century, its terrorist surrogates—Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—were supposedly too dangerous to provoke.

Victor Davis Hanson

Chinese dominance in display technologies poses a critical national security threat, demanding urgent US action to secure supply chains.

Last month, US energy experts uncovered hidden cellular radios inside Chinese-made solar inverters—critical components that link solar panels, batteries, and electric vehicle chargers to the grid. These rogue devices bypass installed firewalls, potentially giving China a clandestine “kill switch” over slices of America’s energy infrastructure.

With China now producing over 70 percent of the world’s display panels and leading in OLED (organic light-emitting diodes) output, every Chinese console and cockpit screen—from fighter-jet helmet displays to submarine sonar monitors—risks a similar back-door shutdown.

Just as Chinese firms used massive state-backed financing to flood global defense markets with cheap drones and batteries, Beijing has poured billions into subsidies, tax breaks, and low-cost loans to build the world’s largest display fabs. These investments have cornered a $182 billion industry—one forecast to double by 2034—driving panel prices so low that no US or allied competitor can viably enter the market. Today, the Pentagon spends over $300 million a year on mission-critical displays—a figure set to surpass $600 million by 2034. With virtually no non-Chinese suppliers left, global display supply chains—including those underpinning our defense systems—risk being held hostage in the future to Beijing’s strategic whims.

Display Failures Could Cripple US Combat Readiness

The problem is that in modern warfare, displays are as vital as ammunition. Naval combat information centers, international air traffic control towers, field-deployable command posts, and trauma-center ICU monitors all depend on display panels, many of which are Chinese-made or sourced. Displays also form the backbone of next-generation night-vision goggles, helmet-mounted displays, and handheld mission planners, potentially putting individual operators at risk of a sudden blackout if we rely on Chinese-produced panels for our most critical systems.

It may be hard to imagine how far Beijing could take this, but Washington must plan for the worst. In a crisis or period of heightened tension, China could push over-the-air malicious firmware updates that brick internet-connected displays, freeze cockpit screens mid-flight, or disable mission-critical monitors in combat zones. Even sporadic failures could erode commanders’ trust in these systems, potentially deterring decisive action at critical moments. The same could be done to displays that are used to monitor and control our key critical infrastructures like power grids, water systems, rail systems, and airports. Though extreme, these scenarios underscore why display security cannot remain a secondary concern.

China’s Grip on Display Inputs Is a National Security Risk

Even absent backdoors, Beijing’s grip on the display market and its supply chains is a national security vulnerability. Chinese state-backed and controlled firms like BOE, CSOT, and HKC control display panel fabrication, and China dominates critical display inputs—from specialty glass and indium tin oxide to rare-earth phosphors and specialty gases. Beijing has weaponized similar dependencies before. In 2010, it abruptly cut exports of rare earths to Japan, sending global prices soaring and triggering a diplomatic crisis. This April, amidst its escalating trade war with Washington, Beijing announced export curbs on neodymium magnets—vital for America’s auto and other defense sectors, forcing US production lines to idle. In March, they prohibited gallium sales to the US, a mineral critical to the radars that track hypersonic missiles.

Lawmakers Urge Action on Chinese Display Risks

Some members of Congress have already been sounding the alarm. Last fall, Rep. John Moolenaar (R-MI), Chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, wrote to then-Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin warning that Chinese domination of the global display industry poses a clear national-security risk. Moolenaar urged the Defense Department to investigate China’s leading panel makers for potential ties to the People’s Liberation Army and to consider designating them as “Chinese military companies” on the Pentagon’s 1260H list, which bars the Department from contracting with those firms. The new Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, should take overdue action on this letter.

Treat Displays as Strategic Assets, Not Consumer Commodities

More can be done. The Commerce Department should assess China’s top panel makers for placement on its Entity List, cutting off critical US technology transfers and equipment sales. At the same time, the US Trade Representative could launch a Section 301 unfair-trade practices probe—or Commerce could trigger a Section 232 national-security investigation—into Chinese display panels and parts, paving the way for targeted tariffs. These combined whole-of-government steps would send a clear message that the United States will no longer tolerate strategic dependencies masked as “cheap” consumer goods and would create vital breathing room for trusted defense suppliers.

Looking farther ahead, the United States must jump-start domestic and allied panel production to reclaim hardened defense supply chains. That means creating a level playing field. Congress can do this by extending targeted tax credits and other incentives to reindustrialize display manufacturing on US soil. It also requires mandating friend-shoring for defense and critical infrastructure screens, steering purchases to trusted partners whose industries have been undercut by Beijing’s state-backed practices. Done right, these steps would foster a resilient, diversified display ecosystem that outpaces China.

All told, in the era of great-power competition, it’s time to treat displays not as commodities but as strategic assets—because when the screens go dark, the fight may already be lost.

Mark Montgomery and Craig Singleton