The Insider Report from The New American

California Voters Victorious in Measure B Dispute

Voters in Shasta County, California, are celebrating a big win in the fight for election integrity.

“The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District today denied the State of California’s petition to invalidate Shasta County’s voter-approved election integrity measure, Measure B,” reads a June 25 press release from the Lex Rex Institute (LRI), which is representing proponents in the ongoing case.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta had asked the Court of Appeal to quickly step in and strike down the measure without a full trial. The court said no, at least not right now. Instead, they told the state to first try getting fast action in the regular local trial court. The appeal court’s rejection was “without prejudice,” meaning the state can come back to them later if the trial court doesn’t handle the request in a timely manner.

Shasta County voters approved Measure B on June 2 with approximately 56 percent support. The measure, a charter amendment, seeks to enhance “election transparency and security” by requiring government-issued photo ID to vote; mandating in-person, single-day elections with limited absentee ballots; requiring hand-counting of ballots at the precinct level with observer visibility; and maintaining a separate, offline county voter registration system disconnected from the state database.

Prior to the June 2 victory, Shasta County had sued to keep the measure off the ballot. When that failed, a private party also lost its bid to block the amendment. “This is the third time Measure B’s opponents have dragged us into court to stop Measure B — and the third time they have failed,” said lead counsel Alexander H. Haberbush.

The state alleges conflicts with California law on voter registration, mail-in voting, and centralized systems. The ACLU Northern California and League of Women Voters argue that Measure B undermines voter access by restricting mail-in options. Attorney General Bonta stated it is “legally indefensible” and threatens orderly elections.

Regardless, last week’s ruling did not determine merit in the case, but simply directed the litigants back to the appropriate court.

“Rather than file in the Shasta County Superior Court — the court closest to the dispute and to the community it affects — Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber ran straight to an appellate court in Sacramento, demanding that the voters’ measure be struck down on an expedited schedule of the State’s own choosing, without a trial and without full briefing,” explained Haberbush. “The Court of Appeal refused and pointed the State to the very forum it had tried to skip — and it did so even though the County, which would ordinarily defend such a suit, had filed a statement of non-opposition to the writ.”

Supporters celebrate the ruling as defending voter will and local control. On X, @MichaelGatesESQ called it a win against “INCOMPETENT Rob Bonta,” and @ShastaNews4U described it as “a procedural setback for the State — a win for voters.” — Rebecca Terrell

Supreme Court Wraps Up 2025 Term. Did It Uphold the Constitution?

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its 2025 term, which began in October of last year, releasing all its opinions on merits cases. In total, the Court released 67 opinions on a wide array of cases, on issues including immigration, elections, the administrative state, gun control, and transgenderism.

But how faithfully did the Supreme Court abide by the U.S. Constitution this term? An analysis of the Court’s released opinions indicates that although it has upheld the Constitution in certain high-profile cases, its decisions on multiple other cases are entrenching an expansive, unconstitutional view of federal power at the expense of individual freedom and state sovereignty.

First, let’s look at what the Supreme Court got right this term:

• In Wolford v. Lopez, the Court struck down a Hawaii gun-control law for violating the Second and 14th Amendments, upholding the individual, God-given right to keep and bear arms.

• In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court ruled that the U.S. president may remove commissioners of “independent” federal agencies — a major victory for the separation of powers under the Constitution — and overruled the 1935 decision Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.

• In Chiles v. Salazar, the Court ruled in favor of a Colorado therapist who challenged a state law that bans so-called conversion therapy for violating her First Amendment-protected right to free speech.

• In National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the Court struck down the Federal Election Campaign Act’s restrictions on campaign spending by political parties, a victory for the First Amendment. Although the three leftist justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — argued that the ruling would compromise “our democracy’s integrity,” they failed to note that massive campaign spending is merely a symptom of an enormously powerful, overreaching federal government.

• The Court issued multiple positive immigration-related rulings, including Mullin v. Doe, in which the Court ruled that the president can lawfully revoke the Temporary Protected Status designation for Syrian and Haitian migrants.

The Court, however, also issued multiple rulings that — despite often having a positive outcome — upheld federal usurpations and other unconstitutional laws. Here is a partial list of examples:

• In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Court correctly struck down tariffs that President Donald Trump imposed using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, but it upheld and even defended both the law itself and Congress’ underlying, decades-long, and unconstitutional delegation of power to the executive branch.

• In United States v. Hemani, the Court correctly struck down the federal prosecution of an individual for owning firearms because he occasionally used marijuana, on the basis that the prosecution violated the Second Amendment. However, the Court did not strike down the underlying federal law for exceeding Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause.

• In Louisiana v. Callais, the Court correctly struck down racial gerrymandering, which Democrats had used to artificially expand their representation in Congress, but it refused to strike down the underlying, unconstitutional Voting Rights Act.

• In Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, the Court correctly dismissed an attempt to use the Constitution’s Spending Clause to force states to follow federally mandated policies, but it refused to strike down the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act for exceeding Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause.

• In West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, the Court correctly ruled that the 14th Amendment and Title IX do not prohibit states from separating women’s and men’s sports teams by biological sex, pushing back against judicial activism and leftist social engineering. However, the Court did not challenge the constitutionality of Title IX.

• In Chatrie v. United States, the Court ruled that a “geofence warrant” is covered under the Fourth Amendment. But, as Justice Neil Gorsuch noted in his concurring opinion, the Court used convoluted reasoning not fully aligned with the Fourth Amendment’s original meaning.

Notably, in several of these and other decisions, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote concurring opinions in which he pointed out the unconstitutionality of the underlying federal statutes. Unfortunately, Thomas was the only justice to voice a constitutional, strict-constructionist stance on Article I, Section 8 broadly, and the Commerce Clause specifically.

Finally, the Supreme Court issued multiple rulings that flagrantly violated the Constitution, in both their outcome and reasoning:

• In Trump v. Cook, the Court effectively carved out an exception to its decision in Trump v. Slaughter, ruling that the president cannot remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, unconstitutionally violating the Constitution’s separation of powers and upholding the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System.

• In Trump v. Barbara, the Court unconstitutionally ruled in favor of birthright citizenship.

• In Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc., the Court unconstitutionally ruled that the FCC did not violate the Seventh Amendment by issuing forfeiture orders without a trial by jury.

• In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the Court ruled that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act shields Monsanto from state-level lawsuits. Despite siding with the majority, Thomas wrote a concurring opinion challenging the federal law’s constitutionality.

Although the Supreme Court has issued multiple rulings upholding the Constitution — to a greater degree than it did even a decade ago — it continues to entrench federal usurpations that exceed Congress’ enumerated powers under Article I, Section 8. Achieving a “conservative” majority has not deterred the Court from this dangerous path.

These decisions demonstrate that we cannot rely on the Supreme Court to promote adherence to the U.S. Constitution. Instead, we must focus on “making America states again,” including by urging state legislators to nullify unconstitutional federal acts (including court rulings), reject all federal funding, and restore a state government structure consistent with America’s founding principles. Finally, we must educate our fellow citizens and influential community members about a proper understanding of the Constitution and America’s founding principles, including the concept of enumerated powers. — Peter Rykowski

Supreme Court Upholds Constitution’s Separation of Powers — But Carves Out Exception for Federal Reserve

In two major rulings issued on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution by ruling that the U.S. president may remove commissioners of “independent” federal agencies, but it carved out a major exception for members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

The cases, Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook, originated when President Donald Trump attempted to remove Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, respectively. The two officials contested their removal, and the cases eventually ended up before the Supreme Court.

In Trump v. Slaughter, the court ruled 6-3 in favor of Trump’s action, striking down a federal law prohibiting the president from removing FTC commissioners except for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “such protection from removal is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.”

The FTC, Roberts explained, “unquestionably exercises executive power, and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested. It follows, then, that Slaughter served as the President’s subordinate at the FTC — and that the President was entitled to cut her tenure short.” The court overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 decision that upheld the concept of “independent” federal agencies.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that although the court took “a notable step back toward the Constitution,” this was not “enough on its own,” since “independent” agencies wield “enormous legislative and judicial powers.” He asserted that “the only sure path is to finish the journey we start today and restore legislative and judicial powers to where they belong: in Congress and the courts.”

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor claimed that the decision “reshapes our Government. Dozens of independent commissions are now likely to become purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the President’s hands.” Importantly, she omitted the fact that many of these “independent commissions” — and the duties they handle — are unconstitutional to begin with.

The court, however, effectively created an exception to this ruling in Trump v. Cook, when it issued a 5-4 decision allowing Cook to remain on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Although the court did not rule directly on the case’s merits, it found that Trump was not “likely to prevail” on the merits, since his attempted removal of Cook violated “our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference.”

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas asserted that “the Court’s decision is incorrect,” and that it “makes many policy arguments for an ‘independent’ banking agency that exercises executive power free from accountability.”

Trump v. Slaughter builds upon Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) and Collins v. Yellen (2021), in which the court already limited the “independence” of federal agencies. It also effectively upholds an executive order that Trump signed in February 2025, titled “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies,” which requires “all executive departments and agencies, including so-called independent agencies, [to] submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions” to the White House. (Notably, that order included an exemption for the Federal Reserve.) Since his order, Trump has worked to assert presidential control over those agencies.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution declares that “the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Additionally, James Madison, writing in The Federalist, No. 47, noted that the president wields “the whole executive power.” This leaves no place for “independent” federal agencies that are not accountable to the chief executive. Accordingly, Trump v. Slaughter correctly — albeit partially — restored the president’s authority over the executive branch.

However, both cases failed to address the fact that the vast majority of federal agencies are inherently unconstitutional, exceeding the “few and defined” powers delegated to the federal government under the Constitution. And in addition to upholding the unconstitutional Federal Reserve, the court kept it unaccountable to the president.

The rulings in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook demonstrate that, although the Supreme Court is ruling correctly in certain instances, its constitutional fidelity is limited and half-hearted. The Supreme Court won’t save us — but an informed, activated, and moral electorate will. — Peter Rykowski

Vatican Excommunicates Traditionalist Group for Schism

The Vatican has pronounced a decree of excommunication against adherents of a traditionalist group, the members of which adhere to the Latin Mass and other practices that were common to the Church prior to modernizing changes introduced in the 1960s.

The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (SSPX) was founded as a missionary order by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1970, with full approval of the Vatican. However, on July 1, the order consecrated four new bishops without papal mandate, a schismatic act in the opinion of Pope Leo XIV and others of the Roman Curia. Two days prior, Leo wrote to SSPX Superior General Father Davide Pagliarani, urging his group to abandon its plans. Pagliarani countered with a June 30 letter explaining that the consecrations stem from fidelity to time-honored Catholic tradition that often contradicts the teachings and practices of the modern, mainstream Church.

In the pope’s letter he acknowledged the fraternity’s “devotion to liturgical life, commitment to priestly formation, apostolic zeal and desire for fidelity to Tradition.” However, the Holy Father pleaded: “Please turn back!” He warned that a “schismatic act” of unauthorized episcopal consecrations would deprive faithful attached to the SSPX of “licit and, in some cases, even valid reception of the Sacraments.” The letter emphasized the gravity of tearing “the seamless garment of Christ” and called for discussion, stating the Church remains “open to a path of dialogue and understanding that the Holy Spirit can make possible.”

Pagliarani framed his response respectfully, stating: “Far be it from us to separate ourselves from the Roman Church.” The SSPX, he said, believes “it to be our very duty to do everything possible to mend Christ’s seamless garment, torn by forces and pressures incompatible with a truly Catholic spirit.” He then recalled the fraternity’s episcopal consecrations of 1988, when it was also accused of schism “for reasons and in circumstances entirely analogous to those of today.” Regardless, Pagliarani noted, “after so many years, we are speaking together as a father and his son. Your Holiness is paternally urging me to avoid a schism which, theoretically, has already taken place.”

He asked the pope not to pronounce any censures on his fraternity but instead to consider the support that the SSPX has received from various prelates of the Church, including some of Leo’s predecessors, as well as “the thousands of souls who have rediscovered the Catholic faith and the practice of religion through the apostolate of the Society.”

The SSPX announced plans for the July 1 consecrations this past February. The announcement explained that, since August 2025, Pagliarani had been attempting to discuss the need for new SSPX bishops with the Vatican. (Bishops ordain priests, so without them, the fraternity would eventually fold as today’s priests age and die. There are only two surviving SSPX bishops of the four consecrated in 1988, ages 68 and 69 respectively.)

In January, the Vatican responded to the SSPX with “a letter which [did] not in any way respond to our requests,” according to the statement. Pagliarani and his advisors unanimously decided to carry on without Vatican approval, citing an “objective state of grave necessity.”

Within days, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández met with Pagliarani, offering to resume dialogue on the condition that the SSPX postpone the consecrations. Upon his return to the General House of the SSPX in Écône, Switzerland, Pagliarani penned a letter to Fernández, stating, “We both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council.” (The reference is to Vatican II, a council that took place between 1962 and 1965 for the purpose of modernizing the Catholic Church.)

Underscoring intent to proceed, the SSPX announced the names of its four future bishops in May. Fernández fired a warning shot, threatening excommunication.

Then, on June 24, the SSPX dropped a bombshell. Its “Open Letter to His Holiness Pope Leo XIV and to the Cardinals,” signed by five SSPX prelates, was accompanied by a 28-page “Profession of Catholic Faith of the Society of Saint Pius X to enlighten souls in the face of modern errors.” The documents present a comprehensive restatement of core Catholic doctrines and include the following:

I acknowledge in particular that modern errors represent a dreadful threat to the whole of the Catholic order, and that their penetration into the life of the Church, under the influence of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar reforms, has provoked a crisis of exceptional gravity: agnosticism attacks the knowledge of God; naturalism attacks the necessity of grace; subjectivism attacks the supernatural motive of faith; relativism attacks the immutability of dogma; situation ethics attacks the divine law; liberalism attacks the Social Kingship of Christ; false ecumenism attacks the uniqueness of the Church; collegiality and synodality attack the divine constitution of the Church in her hierarchy; liturgical anthropocentrism attacks the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

In response, on June 26 and 27, the Vatican held an extraordinary consistory to respond to these SSPX pronouncements. Cardinal Gerhard Müller rejected the “scandalous accusation” that Rome has departed from the faith and argued that defiance of the pope crosses into schism. He invoked historical precedents and proposed a pastoral commission for return to full communion. Others criticized the SSPX’s actions and accusations as undermining papal authority and Church unity, prioritizing private judgment over obedience to the successor of Peter.

So their argument boils down to this: The Vatican stresses unconditional obedience to the pope; the SSPX emphasizes doctrinal fidelity to “eternal Rome” and the Deposit of Faith.

Some 16,000 attended the consecration ceremony in Écône. In a booklet distributed there, SSPX specified that its new bishops will not be assigned to diocesan sees, an act which would “usurp the jurisdiction of the Sovereign Pontiff.” They were consecrated exclusively to enable them to ordain future priests.

The Vatican does not agree, and Vatican News summarized the decree of excommunication as follows:

The excommunication newly separates the bishops and priests of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X from the Church of Rome. As for the lay faithful, those who formally adhere to the Fraternity are to be considered excommunicated.

— Rebecca Terrell

Venezuelan Earthquakes and the Hidden Cost of Socialism

While Venezuela isn’t as earthquake-prone as Japan, Chile, or many other countries on the “Ring of Fire,” it has been known to have severe quakes at long intervals. The double quake that struck northern Venezuela on the evening of June 24 was extraordinary, but not unprecedented in severity. The second quake, a magnitude 7.5, was the second strongest in recorded Venezuelan history, and the first, which struck 39 seconds earlier with a strength of 7.2, was Venezuela’s fourth strongest. The two temblors rocked the La Guaira region of Venezuela’s northern coast, as well as the capital, Caracas, causing apocalyptic damage, the full scale of which is still being sorted out. Hundreds of apartment buildings collapsed entirely, and hundreds more collapsed partly or suffered damage severe enough to render them unusable. The official death toll as of this writing has already surpassed 1,700, and is likely to rise well into five figures, with as many as 70,000 people missing. The sheer devastation of entire stretches of cities and high-rise apartment blocks is probably the worst since the great Haitian earthquake more than a decade ago. One sprawling apartment complex for lower income residents, the Hugo Chávez apartment complex, consisted of 193 buildings prior to the quakes; only three are left standing.

Adding to the chaos is the limited ability of Venezuelan authorities to help with the rescue efforts. Professional rescue teams from many countries, including the United States, Argentina, and El Salvador, have poured into the stricken country to help do what the Venezuelan government cannot: dig through the rubble and rescue the many buried survivors.

Videos from rescue teams examining the ruined buildings also reveal troubling features of Venezuelan construction standards. One is the near-absence of reinforced steel, a necessary component of earthquake-proofing buildings in countries with such standards, like Chile, Japan, and (for more modern buildings) the United States. Another is the proliferation of expanded polystyrene (EPS), a Styrofoam-like polymer used for insulation, whose utility in tropical coastal cities is dubious, and which may have been placed in lieu of sturdier substances for reinforcement. It appears that the massive destruction from these two earthquakes may stem from decades of corrupt socialist rule in Venezuela, where private enterprise has been stifled and public graft in awarding building contracts has been the order of the day. The damage from the Venezuelan earthquakes is yet another reminder of the hidden costs of socialism, beyond the gulags and the firing squads: the inability of a centrally planned economy and socialist state to hedge against natural disasters, and to respond to them when they do occur. — Steve Bonta

Trump Blows Up Midterm Strategy Over Failed Election Bill

Two stories converged recently to highlight one of the most important constitutional questions heading into November: Who controls American elections? (The Constitution’s answer is unambiguous: the states.)

On June 25, a federal judge in Boston blocked the Trump administration from enforcing key portions of its executive order imposing new requirements on mail-in voting, preventing implementation of directives requiring federal agencies to compile voter citizenship lists and directing the U.S. Postal Service to limit which mail-in ballots get delivered.

The ruling was not surprising. The Elections Clause gives state legislatures, not the president, primary authority over federal election administration. A president unilaterally directing the Postal Service to override state-administered ballot systems is not a legitimate exercise of executive power, the court opined.

Ironically, such measures of election-integrity protection are now threatening to cost Republicans their congressional majorities.

President Trump this week abruptly canceled the planned signing of a bipartisan housing bill — which passed the Senate 85-5 — declaring he would only sign it after Congress passed the SAVE Ameri c a Act.

Republican senators were openly bewildered. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) called the move “inexplicable.” Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) said it “makes no sense.” Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) was more direct: “I don’t know why you’re holding a bill that’s ready for signature hostage over a bill that will never pass this Congress.”

Republicans have 51 votes for the SAVE America Act, but need 60 to overcome a filibuster. Democrats are unanimously opposed. The bill has already failed on the Senate floor.

The SAVE America Act’s supposed objective — verifying citizenship before voter registration — has a superficially appealing logic, but it amounts to an unconstitutional power grab. Nevertheless, Trump has doubled down, repeatedly insisting that “a state is an agent for the federal government in elections” — a claim that is constitutionally upside-down. States are not federal agents in elections. They are sovereign entities exercising authority the Founders explicitly reserved to them.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) acknowledged the obvious: “The reason people want to vote for Republicans in the midterms is obviously going to be about the economy.” Yet the party is spending its remaining pre-midterm capital on a conflict in Iran that is precipitating inflation and hurting average Americans (with critics claiming that it is risking a global depression to advance the interests of a foreign country). Trump tried to redirect attention to election integrity, but courts are striking down his executive orders.

Pundits note that, without support from his own party and with the courts solidly allied against the administration, Trump is squandering political capital and may be handing Democrats what they need in November. — Rebecca Terrell

John Bolton Pleads Guilty to Mishandling Documents

On June 26, former National Security Advisor John Bolton pleaded guilty to unlawfully retaining national security information. Under his plea agreement with the Department of Justice, Bolton will pay a $2.25 million fine, faces up to five years in prison, and must forfeit his pension.

His case stems from retaining and sharing sensitive diary-like notes containing classified information with family members while preparing his memoir critical of President Donald Trump’s administration.

A leading neoconservative voice advocating an interventionist foreign policy, Bolton had long positioned himself as a hawk on national security breaches. His critics view the plea as accountability for hypocrisy, especially given his vocal demands for prosecuting others while engaging in similar conduct for personal gain via book deals. The $2.25 million fine roughly mirrors earnings from his memoir.

Journalist Glenn Greenwald highlighted the irony: “Watching John Bolton not only plead guilty to a felony but the specific felony he spent decades depicting as the most egregious — calling for life imprisonment or execution for it — is a level of karmic justice I didn’t know existed.” Bolton had previously labeled similar actions by others, including Trump, as career-ending crimes deserving the harshest penalties.

When President Trump was accused of mishandling documents, Bolton said, “I speak here as an alumnus of the Justice Department myself…. It should be the end of Donald Trump’s political career.” The irony now lands with a thud, as Bolton himself faces an ignominious end to his own career.

Bolton joins a club of Washington elites. Sandy Berger, President Bill Clinton’s national security advisor, removed classified documents from the National Archives in 2003 and 2004, concealed them in his clothing, hid them, and destroyed some. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in 2005, receiving only a $50,000 fine, probation, community service, and temporary loss of clearance. He served no prison time. Likewise, David Petraeus faced relatively mild consequences for the unauthorized retention and sharing of information with his biographer and mistress. — Rebecca Terrell

CCP vs. Lionel Messi

As the 2026 World Cup continues to unfold, the biggest story in the West has been the positivity toward the United States by many foreign fans and social-media influencers. But the World Cup is being politicized in other countries, too, and nowhere more than in communist China. Chinese dictator Xi Jinping is a rabid soccer fan, but despite all of his and the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) efforts, China’s national team was unable to qualify for the World Cup, losing to Japan by an embarrassingly large margin (7-0). Then, right before the World Cup group stage games began, the word came down from on high that China Central Television (CCTV) was prohibited from mentioning the name of Lionel Messi, soccer’s greatest living player and arguably the world’s most popular sports figure. As a result, every time Messi has scored a goal for the Argentine squad, the Chinese announcers have said “an Argentine player just scored a goal,” and generally have minimized showing Messi. The reasons for this epic, ongoing snub are illustrative of the vindictive pettiness that is a prominent characteristic of the CCP, and of Xi Jinping in particular (think “wolf warrior” diplomacy, for example). It turns out that Messi — who is, be it noted, a fan favorite in part because he has never used his talent and fame to advance political agendas — unintentionally offended the Chinese government twice in the last few years, causing massive loss of face for the CCP.

The first breach of oriental etiquette occurred in 2023, when Messi arrived at the airport in Beijing carrying his Spanish passport (Messi is both a Spanish and an Argentine citizen). Spanish citizens can travel to Taiwan without a visa, and Messi naïvely assumed that the same was true for mainland China. When he was detained by airport authorities for not having the right visa, Messi asked, in genuine bewilderment, “Is Taiwan not China?” This, of course, was interpreted as a tongue-in-cheek jibe against the CCP’s “One China Policy,” and enraged sensitivities among Chinese communists for Messi’s exposure of the absurdity of China’s claim.

The following year, a friendly match staged in Hong Kong turned out to be anything but, as Messi, nursing an injury, did not play. China’s rabid CCP “wolf warriors” claimed that Messi was faking an injury to insult China’s honor, forcing Messi to defend himself online. Adding fuel to the fire, Messi, who had been subjected to boos and other uncouth behavior throughout the game, quietly declined to join the line of players shaking the hand of Hong Kong’s quisling leader John Lee, the pro-Beijing official who has presided over Hong Kong’s crackdown on political dissent. The handshaking ceremony was intended to be a photo op showcasing Beijing’s position, and Messi’s quiet intransigence blew up the entire event. An enraged CCP immediately cancelled additional friendlies with Messi scheduled on the Chinese mainland. For his part, the unflappable Messi proceeded to play at a friendly match in Japan a few days later, yet another affront that did not pass unnoticed.

So China is now blocking Messi’s tens of millions of Chinese fans from enjoying their favorite athlete. It’s certainly not industrial-grade oppression like the Cultural Revolution or Tiananmen Square, but it is quaintly illustrative of the mindset of Chinese communists — never forget, and never, ever forgive. — Steve Bonta

AI Companies Face Mounting Headwinds

The artificial intelligence (AI) sector is confronting significant challenges such as slowing demand indicators and mounting investor skepticism, indicating that the era of unchecked hype and easy funding may be waning.

In June, reports surfaced that SoftBank, a major investor, attempted to borrow $6 billion against its roughly 13-percent stake in OpenAI to continue funding the company. Banks declined, questioning OpenAI’s $852 billion valuation. AI critic Gary Marcus highlighted this on X, calling it potentially “the beginning of the end” and referencing his earlier warnings about generative AI’s problematic economics. Marcus has long predicted price wars, lack of competitive advantage, and limited profitability for LLM (Large Language Model)-focused companies.

Frontier AI development requires enormous computer resources, leading to staggering losses. For example, OpenAI has projected substantial ongoing deficits. Estimates in early 2026 suggested potential $14 billion losses for the year, despite revenue growth. Similar pressures affect peers such as Anthropic. Hyperscalers and AI firms are collectively eyeing hundreds of billions in capital expenditure for data centers and processing units this year, yet returns remain uncertain.

Companies are also discovering that humans still outwit AI, at a cheaper price. “Ford says it has hired back some human engineers after AI failed to match their skills and expertise,” reports the BBC. Nvidia vice president Bryan Catanzaro admitted that for his team, “the cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees.” Uber reportedly exhausted its full 2026 AI budget in just four months due to high token and inference expenses. Studies, including an MIT analysis, indicate AI is economically viable in only about 23 percent of jobs — meaning humans remain cheaper in roughly 77 percent.

Companies are therefore tightening AI budgets to prioritize return on investment, potentially slowing growth. This has contributed to speculation that firms will go public before private funding tightens. Though revenue for top players has climbed, forecasts predict unsustainable profits, and AI-related stocks have shown volatility. Supply bottlenecks for chips and power add to the list of obstacles.

The fact that the U.S. government was looking to the AI industry to be the dominant growth sector in our economy doesn’t bode well for America’s gross domestic product prospects. — Rebecca Terrell

Why Is the Deep State Prepping the World for Alien Invasion? Brannon Howse Explains

The aliens are coming?! All of the institutions of power want you to think so.

Hollywood is making propaganda movies about UFO/UAP (unidentified anomalous phenomena) “disclosures” and invasion; President Trump says there is “something there” in the newly released UFO files; and Vice President JD Vance says the alleged extraterrestrials are “demons.”

Americans, especially Christians, should prepare for a “massive global spiritual deception,” explains Christian broadcaster, author, and founder of Worldview Weekend Broadcast Network Brannon Howse. The “aliens” are not green little Martians, Howse argues, but demonic spiritual entities that will attempt to convince humanity that there is no God. Click here to view this important interview. — Alex Newman

World Bank “Retires” Climate-finance Target After U.S. Pressure

The World Bank announced on Monday that it will abandon its climate-finance target following pressure from the United States to do so.

In a press release, the bank announced that although it would “extend the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP),” it would “retire the 45% climate co-benefits target and the 35% target in the CCAP.”

Under the World Bank’s “climate co-benefits target,” it was required to direct at least 45 percent of its financing to support projects with “climate co-benefits.” In fiscal 2025, 48 percent of the bank’s actual financing, or $39.2 billion, went toward such projects. The bank’s CCAP, first adopted in 2016, requires renewal every five years.

The World Bank’s decision came amid heavy pressure from the United States to drop the target. The Financial Times reports:

The decision came after months of negotiations. European shareholder nations, alongside many developing client countries, had argued for retaining the target and saving the climate action plan, while the US — which holds effective veto power and the largest controlling vote at the World Bank — pushed for their demise.

In an internal memo to staff, World Bank president Ajay Banga said the development lender’s “work on climate is and will remain firmly client-driven, supporting them in delivering on their own ambitions”.

But an official close to the talks said “the optics are terrible”, adding that countries were forced “to find a way to accommodate the voodoo science of the United States”.

Despite the World Bank’s announcement, it noted in its press release that it would “continue to track and report on … net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and … beneficiaries with enhanced resilience to climate risks,” as well as “report to the Board on progress, including on climate co-benefits.”

In an April 2026 speech, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called for “jettisoning the World Bank Group’s 45% climate finance target that breeds inefficiency, distorts economic decision making, and moves the Bank away from its core mission.” He also asserted that the Trump administration would push both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to “effectively [fulfill] their core mandates” rather than pursue various forms of social activism.

Despite the Trump administration’s pressure on both the World Bank and IMF, it has directly ruled out exiting the global bodies. In an April 2025 speech, for example, Bessent called for “deeper collaboration” and “expand[ing] U.S. leadership in international institutions like the IMF and World Bank.”

Although the administration should be commended for pushing back against the World Bank’s and IMF’s climate activism, it ought to withdraw the United States entirely from those and other international financial organizations. — Peter Rykowski

New Push to Repeal the 17th Amendment

There is growing Republican interest in repealing the 17th Amendment, which would restore constitutional design by returning the selection of U.S. senators to state legislatures rather than through direct popular vote. On June 25th, Representative Keith Self (R-Texas) introduced a joint resolution to repeal the 17th Amendment. Co-sponsors (all Republicans) include Eric Burlison of Missouri, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Paul Gosar of Arizona, Andy Harris of Maryland, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Clay Higgins of Louisiana, Sheri Biggs of South Carolina, and Michael Cloud of Texas.

The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, was touted as a victory for “democracy.” Its track record reveals erosion of our original constitutional system by making senators more responsive to special interests than to the well-being of their respective states.

In 1861, John Stuart Mill singled out the original method of selecting U.S. senators for praise in his book Considerations on Representative Government. He viewed the Senate as the best-functioning element of the American system precisely because it was insulated from direct popular election. State legislatures, composed of more deliberative and locally accountable figures, were more likely to select individuals of superior talent, experience, and statesmanship. In Mill’s analysis, the Senate’s design protected state powers and elevated the overall caliber of politicians. He contrasted this favorably with more purely popular assemblies prone to short-term passions and shallow men operating according to smaller time-horizons.

Under the original constitutional design, U.S. senators were positioned somewhat above the daily fray of partisan politics, akin to Supreme Court justices, who are appointed rather than elected and insulated from electoral pressures to prioritize long-term constitutional fidelity. Senators owed their positions to state institutions, creating a strong incentive to represent state interests and deliberate with a view toward their sovereignty and welfare.

John F. Kennedy, in Profiles in Courage, noted how this earlier system differed markedly from its modern re-invention. He noted the chamber’s deeper original involvement with the executive branch, where early Cabinets were composed of senators, not appointees installed by the president. This enmeshing of the senate with the White House granted states immense power in the executive branch.

Kennedy also lamented the shift in senatorial caliber. Before the Civil War, senators were often constitutional scholars and philosophers deeply engaged with foundational principles. Later, they became increasingly identified not as representatives of their states, but as proxies for powerful economic interests such as railroads, banking, big oil, etc. As William Allen White wrote, “One Senator, for instance, represented the Union Pacific Railroad System, another the New York Central, still another the insurance interests…. Coal and iron owned a coterie … cotton had half a dozen Senators. And so it went…. It was a plutocratic feudalism.”

This came about because in a popular-election system, senators require substantial cash flows for advertising, organization, and voter outreach. They became increasingly dependent on wealthy donors, corporations, and organized interest groups capable of funding such efforts. Instead of being primarily responsive and accountable to state legislatures, which could deliberate on a senator’s performance and alignment with state needs, senators became beholden to the monied interests that could sustain their reelection machines. This perversion has turned the Senate into a body more attuned to national donor classes than to the varied sovereign interests of the states, weakening the balance the Framers intended. In the words of resolution co-sponsor Clay Higgins, “big money” used the 17th Amendment to twist senate races into “a circus act.” — Rebecca Terrell

The 250th Anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence

July 4, 2026, marks a banner year in the history of our country: the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. This pivotal document declares that rights come from God, not from government. Based on Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, it signaled the Colonists’ bold stand for self-rule.

To commemorate this momentous anniversary, we include below an excerpt from The John Birch Society’s Family Heritage Series, The Declaration of Independence (Volume I, Lesson 15), written by Mildred Tenney Handy. It was first published in 1973 by the Movement To Restore Decency, a project of The John Birch Society. You can access copies of this and other lessons for homeschool use or personal study here.

THE FIVE-MAN COMMITTEE appointed to prepare the Declaration of Independence asked Thomas Jefferson of Virginia to do the writing. The tall, freckled, sandy-haired Jefferson was known for his mastery of the language. A speaker he was not — in fact, he hadn’t attempted a single speech during his year in Congress — but with pen and paper, he had few equals.

For three weeks the Virginian worked diligently on the Declaration, using a portable writing desk he had invented. His lodgings were simple, a second-floor parlor and bedroom in the house of a Philadelphia bricklayer. While Jefferson searched for the exact words to set the idea of God-given rights before the world, the speech-makers and debaters — persuasive men like John Adams and his cousin Samuel — hammered home the logic of independence to undecided and unwilling delegates — particularly from Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and New York.

Since each colony had a single vote, determined by the majority of its delegates, the task was not to convince every delegate but a majority of each colonial delegation. By July 1, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and even New York, where British sentiment was strongest, looked favorable. The only delegation still in doubt was Delaware which had three representatives — Thomas McKean and Caesar Rodney who were for independence and George Read who felt the move was premature and would vote “no.”

But Rodney was not in Philadelphia. He had been called home to squelch a pro-British uprising. To make the eighty-mile ride to Pennsylvania in time for the July 2 vote was a great deal to expect of anyone, particularly a man in Rodney’s condition. The forty-eight-year-old bachelor suffered almost constant pain from a cancer that had spread over half his face. Physicians had advised him to seek treatment in Europe, but he refused to leave the colonies in their crisis.

On the evening of July 1, Rodney was riding toward Philadelphia through a blinding thunderstorm, stopping only long enough to change horses at the homes of friends. On the morning of July 2, only a few minutes before John Hancock, President of the Congress, called the session to order, Rodney arrived at the meeting room, weary and mud-splattered, still shod in boots and spurs.

THE ROLL CALL vote began. Two Pennsylvanians who couldn’t bring themselves to vote “yes” had stayed away from the State House, enabling their delegation to vote for independence. New York declined to vote either way; South Carolina gave in for the sake of unanimity. When Delaware was called, Caesar Rodney pulled himself to his feet to say, “As I believe the voice of my constituents and of all sensible and honest men is in favor of Independence, and my judgment concurs, I vote for Independence!”

The issue was decided. Twelve colonies had voted unanimously for nationhood and separation from England; New York, the colony the British had counted on to vote against independence, had remained silent.

As soon as Lee’s resolution was adopted, Congress took up debate on the Declaration of Independence which Jefferson had finished and Adams, Franklin, Sherman, and Livingston approved.

Now the arguments began over the specific words and phrases that Jefferson had penned. From July 2 to the evening of July 4, the debate went on until the document met the approval of all.

Let’s look at the final product — the freedom declaration that brought shouts of approval and the ringing of the Liberty Bell in July, 1776. There are three main parts — first, the reason for the Declaration being written; second, the heart of the argument, which was the idea of God-given rights instead of King-granted or government-given liberties; and finally, a list of specific charges against King George.

Here’s the opening paragraph: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”