By now, almost everyone has read about Atlanta U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross, who received an inconsequential private reprimand after a law clerk complained about her loud sexual trysts in her chambers with a police officer over a two-year period.

The Judicial Conference of the U.S. told Ross to write a letter of apology to her clerks.

But few have heard about Linda Crawford, a tenured Spanish professor at Salve Regina University in Rhode Island who taught from 2004 to 2022, when she was fired after assigning students to read an article that identified transgender men as “transvestites.”

“Transvestite” is the term that was historically used for men who dress as women, and is still used today in many countries in Latin America.

During a class discussion, Crawford said LGBTQ+ rights “have not evolved to the level such rights have evolved to in the United States.” A student (identified as Student D) objected to the reference to transvestites in the article. Student D rallied a group of fellow students to meet with Modern Languages Department Chair James G. Mitchell to complain. Mitchell encouraged them to submit written statements to the university criticizing Crawford. She was subsequently fired.

Share

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Crawford alleging hostile work environment and discrimination based on gender, race, sexual orientation, age, and religion. Crawford also alleged Mitchell coordinated and inflated the student complaints to retaliate against her for supporting a teacher who had filed a grievance against Mitchell.

The absurdity of Crawford’s situation is obvious.

Many Latin American countries are far less tolerant of LGBTQ+ people than the West. The reading assignment was evidence of this. Crawford teaches about Spanish culture.

‘Ignorant Cis Woman’

Nevertheless, “Student D” wrote a lengthy letter to the Provost “explaining his view that the reading’s use of the word ‘transvestite’ was ‘inappropriate.’” He wrote that “he told Crawford ‘he was a ‘transgender gay man,’ and that because she’s a white straight cis woman,’ she cannot tell him what he finds offensive.’” He also called Prof. Crawford “ignorant.”

Read more

Was the 2024 election stolen?

What caused the World Trade Center Building 7 to collapse on 9/11? It was not struck by an airplane.

Who killed U.S. Pres. John F. Kennedy in 1963 and why?

Ultimately, these and many other conspiracy theories are fueled by a growing lack of trust in the U.S. government and the media.

A Pew Research Center poll in 2024 found that only 17% of Americans trust the government to do the right thing, a record low since the question was first asked in 1958. A Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics poll this spring found just 15% of 18 to 29 year olds trust the federal government “all or most of the time.” (Only 33% trust that the 2026 election will be conducted fairly, while 43% do not and 21% are unsure.)

What eroded the trust Americans once had in the government?

One only has to look at the assault on the USS Liberty by America’s “closest ally” in 1967.

On Monday, U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-KY, delivered a speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to mark the 59th anniversary of the 1967 attack of the USS Liberty, a Navy intelligence gathering ship in international waters in the Mediterranean. Thirty-four sailors lost their lives that day, and 173 were injured, out of a total of 294 crew members.

Share

As shocking as the attack was the U.S.’s response to that attack.

Israel had jammed the ship’s communications gear but a Liberty crew member managed to Jerry-rig an antenna and send out a distress signal. Two U.S. naval ships dispatched planes to help. But the planes were recalled and the military sent no help for 17 hours.

According to Massie: “Something happened that never happened before to a ship under attack… the planes were recalled.” He said the USS Liberty “sat there for 17 hours,” while survivors worked to prevent the listing vessel from sinking.

A 1967 naval report quotes the only doctor on the ship as stating the commanding officer, William L. McGonagle, who died in 1999, was “grievously wounded” and suffering from a loss of blood. Still, he remained on deck, in command, throughout the night, giving the men confidence that “we’re going to live.”

Massie called for a new investigation of the attack to bring justice to the survivors, about a dozen of whom sat in the House gallery.

It was the first time a member of Congress openly questioned the official story of the attack on the USS Liberty. Massie called the attack an “intentional murder” and aid Israel meant to kill every U.S. sailor onboard. He said it was either a false flag operation to blame Egypt, or an attempt to hide Israel’s activities.

Of course, the national media ignored Massie’s presentation.

Subscribe now

The Official Story

The American and Israeli governments concluded the Liberty was attacked during the Six-Day War after being mistaken for an Egyptian supply vessel. That explanation has not held up well.

Over the years, intercepted radio transmissions show that Israel recognized the USS Liberty was an American ship. Also, Israel knew U.S. codes that were necessary to jam the USS Liberty’s communication devices.

Nevertheless, Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson successfully smothered any questions about the nature of the attack, possibly so as not to embarrass Israel and alienate potential Jewish donors in his upcoming campaign.

Over the years, survivors attempted to tell what they saw and experienced in 1967. Many claimed it was inconceivable that Israel did not recognize the USS Liberty was an American ship, recalling inspections of the ship that were so close that they waved to pilots flying overhead. But their concerns were dismissed or ignored.

A U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry issued a report in 1967 that determined the USS Liberty suffered “821 separate hits on [its] hull and superstructure.” Jets strafed the ship and Napalm was dumped on its decks. Torpedo boats blasted a hole in the Liberty’s hull that measured 39 feet across. Firefighters were killed, while lifeboats were shot to render them unusable.

In an appendix, the report cites reasons why it would be unlikely the USS Liberty would be mistaken for an Egyptian supply boat, noting its much larger size, elaborate antenna array, and distinctive hull markings.

Massie called it “maybe one of the biggest honors of his life” to recognize the survivors of the USS Liberty, and those who gave their lives on the ship.

After describing the attack, Massie said: “There was no intent to take prisoners … It was harrowing.”

In addition to a new investigation of the attack on the USS Liberty, Massie asked the House to pass a resolution to honor the survivors of the USS Liberty and those who lost their lives. “It’s long overdue,” he said.

“Quit ignoring that they exist … Support them and, while they are still alive … let’s give them closure,” he said.

Continued Secrecy

One reason Americans don’t know what happened to the USS Liberty is that many documents remain secret after almost 60 years, but efforts are underway to change this.

In 2019, journalist Michelle J. Kinnucan began filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for secret documents, including a 1967 report produced by a House Appropriations Committee subcommittee that examined intelligence and communications issues surrounding the attack.

After the National Security Agency, CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency failed to provide a single document, Kinnucan filed a federal lawsuit. A federal judge ruled the report is a congressional record that is not subject to FOIA.

Why are official records related to the attack still secret after almost 60 years?

Kinnucan appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held arguments earlier this year. Kinnucan argues the report should be considered an agency record and disclosed under the FOIA.

Of course, the real issue may be that after almost 60 years, politicians still don’t want to offend America’s “closest ally” — Israel — and various administrations are loath to chance campaign support from Israel’s allies in the United States.

Since the report is under congressional control, there is no reason that it could not be released at any time.

In a troubling decision, two judges on a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit based in San Francisco have rejected a woman’s plea to avoid deportation to protect her from rapists in her home country of El Salvador

The immigrant, Fatima Guadalupe Monjaras-Segovia, testified that she fled El Salvador after she was raped b…

Read more

Who is at fault?

It’s easy to blame a dog for biting someone.

But the dog owner also bears responsibility, especially if the owner ignores aggressive behavior or allows the dog to roam free.

This “fault” scenario is playing out in the U.S. Court system, which has declined precipitously in recent years in the court of public opinion.

Bloomberg reports that Senior Judge Paul Friedman, a semi-retired judge in the District of Columbia, said GOP President Donald J. Trump’s personal, “vitriolic” attacks on judges have led to rising judicial threats. Friedman, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, made the remarks at the annual meeting of the Academy of Court-Appointed Neutrals in Berkeley, California.

There might be something to that. However, Friedman does not acknowledge the judicial system’s role in its own fraught situation.

The Abrego Garcia Case

In the internet age, it is obvious to many that Democratic nominated federal judges have issued a stream of highly politicized decisions.

Just last week, U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw in Nashville, Tennessee — a nominee of former Democratic President Barack Obama — dismissed human smuggling/conspiracy charges against Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia. He ruled the prosecution was vindictive because it was brought in retaliation for Garcia’s successful legal challenge to his wrongful March 2025 deportation to El Salvador. Crenshaw dismissed the charges.

Share

The dismissal was the culmination of years of costly and questionable litigation on Garcia’s behalf.

The high point was in April 2025 when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador in March 2025 was illegal because he was subject to an earlier federal court withholding order that forbid his removal to El Salvador. The Court ordered the government to facilitate Garcia’s return, and directed the case to proceed “as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.”

Eventually Garcia’s case ended up before U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis of Maryland, who is also an Obama nominee. She ruled that the government lacked any authority whatsoever for Garcia’s arrest and deportation and called the government’s actions “grievous error that shocks the conscience.”

Subscribe now

In response, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) secured a criminal indictment of Garcia from an independent federal grand jury in Tennessee. The indictment charged him with conspiracy to transport aliens and unlawful transportation of undocumented aliens. It is that indictment that Crenshaw has now dismissed.

There is ample evidence in the García case.

Read more

Lost in all the hoopla was the importance of the trial to history.

Artificial intelligence could have been developed to benefit mankind, rather than to line the pockets of assorted Silicon Valley hustlers.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk alleged in a lawsuit that Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, and Altman’s long-time associat…

Read more

It’s undoubtedly more efficient and cheaper for employers to have a non-diverse workforce where everyone is young and healthy.

However, when employers prevent broad swaths of qualified workers from participating in the workforce, it harms society as a whole. Employment discrimination limits commerce, reduces productivity, wastes talent, deters innovation, and raises health and social service costs. It also destroys social cohesion, causing workers on the “outside” to resent the favored class.

For that reason, the U.S. Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, race, religion, color, and national origin. Additional federal laws were later passed to prohibit discrimination against older, pregnant, or disabled workers as well as veterans.

Share

Today, tens of thousands of workers are being replaced by artificial intelligence. The vast majority of these workers are simply cast out, without any consideration of their plight.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the primary enforcer of federal civil rights laws, states it is illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or employee because of the person’s “protected characteristic” (sex, race, etc.). Perhaps, then, being human should be a protected characteristic?

Should human workers be a new protected class?

Subscribe now

Many workers who lose their jobs to AI are subjected to treatment by employers that might be deemed actionable if they were members of a class of workers protected by federal discrimination laws.

Reuters recently reported that Meta, which operates Facebook, has installed tracking software on U.S.-based employees’ computers to capture employee mouse movements and keystrokes for AI training data. The no-opt-out tool also takes occasional snapshots of the content on employees’ screens. Reuters wrote that the program is part of a broad initiative at Meta to build AI agents that can perform work tasks autonomously.

It is easy to jump to the conclusion that Meta is effectively making workers train their replacements. This is reminiscent of employers that require older workers to train younger replacements, which potentially violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

Read more

This time the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which advocates for privacy and anonymity on the internet, is leading the charge against the proposed GUARD Act, which was approved recently by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.…

Read more

The latest outrage from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a ruling Wednesday by a three judge panel —all appointed by Democratic presidents — that a state doesn’t have to disclose its voter list.

The U.S. Department of Justice is currently engaged in a nationwide effort to ensure voter integrity on a st…

Read more

The notice in my mailbox this week from a local warehouse for a national retail distributor advertised jobs that pay $25 an hour, plus $5 a week health insurance.

That’s great, but how long before those jobs disappear?

It’s only a question of time before warehouses are run by a few workers behind a computer screen using Artificial Intelligence (AI), and the actual work is done by robots.

Thousands of local workers who now earn a decent wage and have access to cheap health insurance, will be laid off. It’s not like they can go to another warehouse, which also will be run by AI and staffed by robots.

AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler, whose federation of 65 unions represents 15 million workers, said Tuesday that AI poses the “single biggest threat to working people of our lifetime.” She said no worker will be untouched and that “every job is now a technology job.”

Share

White Collar

It’s not just the jobs of warehouse workers that are vulnerable.

A recent Goldman Sachs report found that AI could potentially automate tasks that now account for 25% of all work hours and that it could displace about seven percent of U.S. workers within ten years.

Tech entrepreneur Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, told the Financial Times recently that “AI could eliminate about 50% of all entry-level white-collar jobs within five years, causing unemployment to surge… We should not deny that the disruption is going to happen.”

On Tuesday, Anthropic, which calls itself a public benefit corporation, released a report showing that the workers at risk for displacement include lawyers, financial analysts, market researchers and software developers. The report states that workers in the most “exposed professions” are more likely to be older, female, highly educated, and to earn 47% more than average.

Subscribe now

Anthropic estimates that AI can handle 94% of computer and math worker tasks. It is currently handling 33%.

Anthropic reports that computer programmers have the “highest observed AI exposure,” which means they are most vulnerable to job loss from AI, followed by customer service representatives, data entry keyers, medical record specialists, market research analysts and marketing specialists.

The job situation is not all bad news.

Anthropic says 30% of workers are not threatened by job loss caused by AI, including cooks, mechanics, bartenders and dishwashers.

Congress Yawns

Despite the warnings, there is little urgency in Washington to meet the challenges ahead.

Read more

An epic battle is underway in Montana, where citizens are working to provide an off-ramp to the oppressive corporate domination of American elections.

A nonprofit group called the Transparent Election Initiative (TEI) hopes to place a first-of-its-kind initiative on Montana’s ballot this year to alter the definition of a “corporation” in the state and bar corporate spending in state and local elections.

The initiative, known as the Montana Plan, would circumvent the pitfalls posed by the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. There, a narrow 5-4 majority held that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) could not limit independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions, or other collective entities because doing so constitutes a prior restraint on free speech under the First Amendment.

OpenSecrets, a non-profit group that keeps track of money in American politics, reports that independent expenditures by outside groups skyrocketed by more than 28-fold after the Citizens United ruling — from $144 million in 2008 to $4.2 billion in 2024. Much of the money is spent on advertising by PACs with innocuous-sounding names.

The problem is obvious: since the funders are anonymous, voters have no way of knowing exactly who is sponsoring the ad and why.

Share

For its part, it is not clear where TEI is getting its money to wage the initiative campaign, and TEI founder Jeff Mangan failed to return requests for comment.

Reports filed with Montana’s Campaign Electronic Reporting System do not list individual donors. However, they do list debts exceeding $10,000 owed to the Cochenour Law Office in Helena, MT.

Attorney Matt Cochenour submitted the original TEI ballot initiative last August. He formerly served as Montana’s Acting Solicitor General, spent 13 years as Assistant Attorney General, and worked as a Senior Tax Counsel at the Montana Dept. of Revenue.

Creatures Of The State

The premise of the Montana Plan is that corporations are creatures of the state, which holds the power to define their form, limits, and privileges. TEI essentially wants to alter the legal contract that permits corporations to do business in Montana.

Subscribe now

Specifically, the initiative bars “artificial persons” — including corporations, non-profits, trusts, and trade associations — from “contributing anything of value to candidate elections, supporting or opposing political parties, or supporting or opposing state or local ballot issues.” A violation would be punished by “forfeiting all privileges to do business in Montana.”

TEI won a victory earlier this month when the Montana Supreme Court unanimously dismissed — as premature — a challenge to the initiative brought by a battalion of industry lobbyists, including the Montana Chamber of Commerce, the Montana Mining Association and the Montana Petroleum Association.

A National Strategy

The Montana Plan has garnered national attention as a possible way to end the infusion of corporate “dark money” into local, state, and federal elections.

The Center for American Progress, a left-leaning public policy research organization, is calling upon all states to perform a “corporate power reset.” The Center argues that the states, and only the states, have the power to define what constitutes a corporation. It argues that states can “drain corporate and dark money from American politics” without overturning Citizens United.

More Money Than People

It’s no coincidence that this battle is taking place in Montana.

Read more

*On 5/13/26, U.S. District Judge Thomas Ludington was placed on six months probation and ordered to pay fines/costs totaling more than $1,000. The court also ordered 93 days in jail, with credit for two days served, but the remaining 91 days are held in abeyance, meaning he will not serve that time unless he violates probation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is investigating a misconduct complaint filed against Ludington to determine whether disciplinary measures are warranted. Ludington’s hired an ethics lawyer. The Detroit News quoted the director of FixTheCourt, a supposed court reform group, as stating that Ludington should not be impeached for a one-time offense. Meanwhile, there was no word on whether Ludington has a history of drunk driving, or why there was a spent cartridge from a bullet found on the floor of Ludington’s car. Oh, and did Ludington hide his arrest for several months and continue to preside over cases, or did his superiors know about it? Do taxpayers who pay his $249,000 salary have a right to know?

The steaming hypocrisy of the U.S. court system was evident yet again last week when a federal judge in Michigan was allowed to accept a plea deal that could permit him to return to work after a notorious drunk driving incident.

Instead of being held to a higher standard, it appears that U.S. District Judge Thomas Ludington, 72, was held to a lower standard.

Share

Ludington faced 180 days in jail and a one-year license suspension under Michigan’s ”Super Drunk” statute after his black Cadillac crashed into several street signs near his $2.7 million lakefront vacation home on Oct. 3. His blood alcohol content was 0.27 percent.

According to police body camera footage, Ludington denied having anything to drink. When asked to recite part of the alphabet, he said, “A, B, C, D, E, F, U.” When asked to pick a number between 19 and 21, he picked 15. He could not track the officer’s finger movements and had urinated in his pants. He had no memory of the car airbags deploying, or striking the signs. He refused to blow into the breath analyzer.

Despite informing officers that he is a federal judge, Michigan police arrested Ludington.

Last week, Ludington’s attorney, Jonathan Steffy, revealed for the first time that police found a shell casing from a Luger gun on the front floor of Ludington’s car. Steffy offered no explanation, claiming Ludington doesn’t own a gun. Steffy did not explain why Ludington told police, at the scene, that he had lots of weapons in the car.

Subscribe now

The DUI charge was not publicly disclosed for four months, and Ludington returned to work as if nothing happened.

Questions arise. Did Ludington notify his employer — the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan — of the DUI charge? Did the Court cover it up? Did police cover it up?

The Detroit News found out about DUI in January, prompting the Court to announce that Ludington would be “voluntarily” taking a paid leave of absence “pending resolution of the state legal matter.” Except for a whistleblower, the incident would likely still be secret.

‘No Contest’

Michigan state court Judge Angela Lasher last week allowed Ludington to enter a plea agreement reducing the charge to a lower level misdemeanor — the same offense that is imposed on standard DUI offenses where the driver has a blood alcohol content from 0.08% to 0.17%.

Ludington pled “no contest” to the lower misdemeanor charge, refusing to acknowledge guilt.

Unless a pre-sentence investigation reveals prior DUI offenses, Ludington faces a maximum sentence of up to 93 days in jail, a $100 to $500 fine, 360 hours of community service, and a 6-month license suspension when he is sentenced on May 13.

Lasher also ordered Ludington to undergo a substance abuse assessment.

After the hearing, Steffy insisted this was Ludington’s first offense and issued the following statement: “Judge Ludington looks forward to continuing to serve the federal court at the highest level and focus on his work, along with his wife and family."

Reservations?

According to published reports, the prosecutor went along with the deal despite expressing a reservation about it at the hearing.

"The recommendation in this case from (Ludington’s attorney) was to, I think, educate himself on alcohol,” said Michael Schuitema, Emmet County prosecutor. “I've never quite seen that recommendation before. It seems inadequate given the BAC and the offense in this case."

Schuitema did not respond to a request for comment Monday about why he agreed to the plea agreement.

Ironically, Schuitema was arrested for an alleged DUI-related offense in 2020 and pled guilty to leaving the scene of a property damage accident. He hit a parked car and left the scene. He then got into a second accident when his car hit some trees. Police called him that night and reported that he slurred his words, claimed he did not know who had his vehicle, and hung up. He didn’t turn himself in until the next day, when he presumably sobered up.

Good Behavior

Article III of the U.S. Constitution states that federal judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." But what constitutes good behavior? Unfortunately, that term is not defined.

Conveniently, federal judges have interpreted the U.S. Constitution to grant them lifetime tenure, barring impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives followed by conviction by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. This has proven to be an ironclad job guarantee.

Throughout U.S. history, only eight federal judges have been convicted by the Senate and removed. Interestingly, the first to be removed was John Pickering in 1804. He was charged with intoxication on the bench and making unlawful rulings.

The reality is that federal judges are effectively unaccountable to the public, even for serious, costly and disruptive misbehaviors. Most are allowed to retire with a full pension, which may be the likely scenario in Ludington’s case.

Judges have gotten away with this state of affairs for years because the system is highly decentralized, without a strong governing body, and courts traditionally are highly secretive. In the past, judges were held in high esteem, though this is changing.

The bottom line is that federal judges are responsible for according equal justice to everyone but, apparently, not to themselves.

Lobbyists have successfully lobbied the governing body of the federal judiciary to withdraw a rule that would have required them to identify who they represent when they file amicus curiae or “friend of the court” briefs in a case.

It’s not like on Capitol Hill, where lobbyists buy Congress members a meal at a fancy restaurant to press their clients’ position with the promise of a campaign donation — or the threatened loss of support — during dessert.

In the federal court system, “non-party” groups and organizations submit written amicus curiae briefs to the court with the understanding that these documents present important information or data about issues relevant to the case.

In reality, much of the time these briefs are underwritten by judicial lobbyists.

The problem is that no one really knows who is behind these briefs. Did one of the parties to the lawsuit pay a third party to submit the brief to persuade the court under the guise of an independent third-party? Does one of the parties, or its counsel, have an ownership stake in the legal entity that submitted the brief?

For several years, U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, (D-RI), and Ron Johnson, (R-WI), have demanded the governing body of the federal judiciary, the Judicial Conference of the United States, adopt a rule requiring the identification of those who contribute to the preparation and submission of an amicus curiae brief.

A standing committee of the Judicial Conference, which operates the nation’s federal courts, studied the issue and proposed an amendment to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The amendment to Rule 29 was approved by the Conference on July 25. It was scheduled to be transmitted to the U.S. Congress for approval by May 1 and, upon approval, to take effect on December 1.

But the rule change was quashed when it was abruptly withdrawn by a Conference committee on March 26. Why? Because lobbyists objected.

Share

Read more

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman of Washington D.C., a semi-retired appointee of former Democratic President Bill Clinton, ruled on April 9, 2026, the Department of War’s new press policy violated his earlier order. Friedman blocked the prohibition against reporters roaming unescorted in the Pentagon, and the relocation of the press room to an annex.

Did it ever make sense for journalists from around the world — who lack security clearances — to be wandering around the Pentagon, which is the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Defense, the nerve center for U.S. military planning, strategy, and operations?

I suspect that most Americans would agree that it did not.

After the second Trump administration took office last year, the Defense Department, which it infamously renamed Department of War (DoW), adopted new rules for the Pentagon press corps.

The DoW restricted unescorted movement inside the Pentagon.

But the DoW didn’t stop there. It also announced a new policy that discouraged journalists from asking Pentagon staff to violate laws and policies by disclosing non-public information, including classified material. Members of the Pentagon press corps were told they must sign an acknowledgement of the policy or lose their permanent press credentials and workspaces.

“The ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon — the people do. The press is no longer allowed to roam the halls of a secure facility. Wear a badge and follow the rules — or go home,” said DoW Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The New York Times filed a lawsuit that on Monday seemed to have devolved into a test of power between the executive and judicial branches of government.

Subscribe now

New Media Interlopers

More than two dozen journalists from legacy media outlets refused to sign the new restrictive policy last fall, and lost their Pentagon credentials.

Meanwhile, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell announced on social media that “over 60 journalists, representing a broad spectrum of new media outlets and independent journalists, have signed the Pentagon’s media access policy and will be joining the new Pentagon Press Corps.” The newcomers include The Gateway Pundit, Tim Pool’s “Timcast”, LindellTV (founded by My Pillow CEO and election denier Mike Lindell), and Turning Point USA’s Frontlines.

The worst insult to the legacy media may have been the Pentagon’s decision to credential conservative activist and Trump loyalist Laura Loomer, who was given a desk that previously belonged to a Washington Post reporter.

Share

Parnell rubbed salt in the wound, stating, “Americans have largely abandoned digesting their news through the lens of activists who masquerade as journalists in the mainstream media.”

U.S. Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minnesota, immediately labeled the new contingent “The Pentagon Propaganda Corps.” Others called the new media representatives “far right sycophants,” “illegit,” and “conspiracy theorists.”

Ruling

The New York Times filed a lawsuit that resulted in a ruling by U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman of Washington, D.C, a semi-retired appointee of former Democratic President Bill Clinton.

On March 20, Friedman vacated the part of the Pentagon policy relating to credential revocation based on newsgathering activities. He said the policy violated journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process. He ordered the Pentagon to immediately reinstate the press credentials of New York Times reporters.

Judge Friedman described the Pentagon policy as so vague that it makes “any newsgathering and reporting not blessed by the Department a potential basis for the denial, suspension, or revocation of a journalist’s [credential].” He said that even soliciting classified information can constitute legitimate newsgathering.

Friedman said the Pentagon policy also constituted viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment because its intent was to replace “disfavored journalists” with “new entities” that are “willing to serve” the Pentagon.

Here’s the problem

Friedman works for the federal judiciary, which is governed by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The press is excluded from Conference meetings— which are secret— and the Conference rarely holds a press conference. It typically issues after-the-fact press releases announcing rule changes.

Moreover, the chair of the Conference is U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., who works at the Supreme Court, where judicial chambers are off-limits to reporters without an explicit invitation or escort.

Who is Judge Friedman to tell the executive branch that it must comply with security policies the judicial branch itself does not follow for its own operations?

The Pentagon says it will appeal.

Checkmate?

On Monday, the New York Times returned to court, claiming the Pentagon was flouting Friedman’s order with a new “interim policy” that removes the Pentagon press workspace to an annex facility outside the Pentagon that can only be reached via shuttle bus or a corridor with restricted access.

The Times accused the Pentagon of defying Friedman’s order “in letter and spirit.”

The new interim policy appears to have the effect of the original policy. It prevents reporters from wandering the halls of the Pentagon to solicit information that has not been publicly disclosed — including classified material — from DoW staffers. Does the U.S. Constitution prohibit the Pentagon from establishing a press workplace in an outside annex when Friedman’s boss, the Judicial Conference, doesn’t even have a press workplace.

Why can’t the Pentagon simply stop providing any access to the press, like the Judicial Conference?

Judge Friedman did not rule from the bench.

Data from the Pew Research Center shows that 86% of U.S. adults now get their news from digital devises, including smartphones, social media and websites. Top sources include Facebook, YouTube, news apps, search engines and podcasts. Of course, legacy media outlets now maintain a digital presence.

Almost three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, ruled that affirmative action in college admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That bowling ball has traveled down the lane. It is now hitting the deeply entrenched institutional policies adopted decades ago, when there was serious and pervasive employment discrimination against women and minorities.

Share

The Wall Street Journal reported this week that the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits M.D.-granting institutions in the U.S. and Canada, has quietly removed DEI protocols from its official guidance. The WSJ welcomed the move, stating that some of the worst excesses of DEI occurred in medical schools.

Research has shown that medical schools were applying different standards by race, with one study showing that black applicants were more than seven times as likely as similarly situated white applicants to gain admission and more than nine times as likely to be admitted as similarly situated Asians.

Subscribe now

A report by the James G. Martin Center, a think-tank based in North Carolina, found DEI was “embedded” in medical school coursework, “often displacing core scientific content,” and that new faculty members were required to sign “loyalty” oaths to implement DEI. The report encouraged eliminating all DEI policies in medical schools, and advocated mandating the use of “objective” admissions criteria.

Meanwhile, the American Bar Association in May 2025 suspended Standard 206 — which required law schools to demonstrate a commitment to diversity and inclusion - through August 31.

The ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar advanced a proposal last month to repeal Standard 206, noting other professional accreditors have revoked or indefinitely suspended diversity rules.

Read more

Trust in the federal judiciary has plunged in recent years as Americans have come to realize that justice is often tainted by self-interest and partisan politics.

In a talk Tuesday at Houston’s Rice University, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. was asked to name the leading misconceptions about the courts. He dismissed the idea that…

Read more

It’s an epic misstep so, predictably, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco is doubling down.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 in May that traditional Korean spas in Washington that feature communal baths for girls and women — who are nude — must admit men who say they “identify” as women but did not undergo gender confirmation surgery to remove their male genitalia.

This week, the appeals court announced that it would not require the panel to rehear the case, and vetoed a request for an “en banc” hearing by all the active judges of the Ninth Circuit.

So the ruling - arguably the “most clueless” of 2025 - stands.

Subscribe now

Not only must preoperative “trans women” (a.k.a., intact men) be admitted to traditional all-female Korean baths, but female spa attendants must give them the same service as if they were women, including deep tissue massages, even if it makes them feel “uncomfortable.”

Smoke and Mirrors

In a written order, Senior Judge M. Margaret McKeown attempts to characterize the Ninth Circuit as powerless to do the right thing because the plaintiffs didn’t argue the case a different way.

Share

At the same time, McKeown, 74, and Judge Ronald M. Gould, 79, who remains an active judge, the two panel members who ordered the spas to admit fully intact men, voted to deny the appellant’s petition for a rehearing by the panel, so the parties could address the relevant legal issues. Both McKeown and Gould are nominees of former Democratic President Bill Clinton.

McKeown, complains the plaintiffs failed to attack the constitutionality of the state law in Washington that prohibits public facilities from discriminating on the basis of gender identity.

Instead, she said, the plaintiffs sued state officials on First Amendment grounds, claiming the way they enforced the law violated the spa’s First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, religion and association.

It might seem to be a difference without a distinction, but McKeown insists it is not. “The Spa simply did not challenge the statute itself, and it is not our role to rewrite the statute,” she writes.

McKeown argues, in effect, that the court has no choice but to require enforcement of Washington law that potentially (obviously?) violates the U.S. Constitution.

It’s all smoke and mirrors, of course.

If the plaintiff’s attorneys didn’t address the relevant legal issues in their complaint, the lower court judge / panel simply could have directed them to do so. Often this is done by dismissing the original complaint with the expectation that a new complaint will be filed. Or the panel could have simply raised the issue, and ordered the parties to respond to and brief its concerns.

Moreover, the full circuit court could have considered the case “en banc” - with all the active judges on the circuit weighing in. McKeown writes that a judge requested a hearing by the full circuit, but it failed to receive a “a majority of votes of the nonrecused active judges.” McKeown cast a “no” vote.

Ultimately, the case turned on McKeown and Gould’s apparent belief that men who say the magic words — that they identify as women — are entitled to the full legal rights of women, including entry to a female-only spa. Everything else is verbiage.

The majority split mostly along partisan lines, with Democratic nominated judges supporting McKeown and Gould.

Dissents

Judge Kenneth K. Lee, a Korean American who dissented from the original panel decision, writes, in dissent of the panel’s refusal to reconsider the matter, that Korean spas are steeped in centuries old tradition and require patrons to be fully naked in communal saunas and undergo deep-tissue scrubbing of their entire bodies.

“Now, under edict from the state, women — and even girls as young as 13 years old — must be nude alongside patrons with exposed male genitalia as they receive treatment. And female spa employees must provide full-body massages to naked pre-operative transgender women with intact male sexual organs,” writes Lee, who was nominated by GOP President Donald J. Trump.

He argued the Washington law does not include transgender status as a protected class, adding, “transgender status is different from sexual orientation.” He said the spa allows lesbians and bisexuals who are biologically female.

Wild Man

Another dissent was filed by the “wild card” of the federal judiciary, Lawrence Van Dyke, a Trump nominee.

“This is a case about swinging dicks,” writes Van Dyke. “The Christian owners of Olympus Spa — a traditional Korean, women-only, nude spa — understandably don’t want them in their spa.”

He continued: “Woke regulators and complicit judges seem entirely willing, even eager, to ignore the consequences that their Frankenstein social experiments impose on real women and young girls.”

Van Dyke writes that the complainant in the case is Haven Wilvich, “a man who identified as female, has twice been married to women, and remains sexually attracted to women.” Wilvich never actually visited the spa but “called ahead of a friend’s visit.”

Van Dyke writes that the Washington law redefines “sex” in a manner that “undermines the legal protections granted to women as a class and generates an irreconcilable conflict with criminal laws against voyeurism and indecent exposure. We should have reheard this case en banc and reversed this perversion.”

(As they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.)

Van Dyke’s observations provoked condemnation from the majority, including Judges Danielle J. Forrest (also nominated by Trump) and John B. Owens (nominated by former Democratic President Barack Obama), who wrote “We are better than this.”

A phalanx of mostly Democratic judges, led by Chief Judge Mary Murguia, objected to Van Dykes tone, stating that federal courts are “not a place for vulgar barroom talk.” They blamed Van Dyke for demeaning the court (apparently oblivious to their role).

(But Murguia does not think it’s vulgar to allow a strange nude man to sit in a pool beside a nude 13-year-old girl, or to force a reluctant female spa employee to give him a deep tissue massage. This is the Ninth Circuit, full frontal.)

The case is Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, No. 23-4031 (9th Cir., Mar 12, 2026).

In Addition to Gould and McKeown, the majority dissent included Clinton nominees Senior Judges Michael Daly Hawkins, William A. Fletcher and Richard A. Paez. Also joining the dissent was Anna Isabel de Alba, who was nominated by former Democratic President Joseph Biden, and Milan D. Smith, Jr., an independent who was nominated by GOP President George W. Bush.

Thomas Jefferson said, “The true basis of a republic is the equal right of every citizen to have an equal voice in the government’s direction.”

Today, a few hundred mega-donors use super PACs that arguably control U.S. domestic and foreign policy, flooding out the voices of ordinary citizens.

Share

The U.S. would not be bombing Iran if Israel had not exploite…

Read more

There may be no job as thankless and unappreciated as that of the wife of a politician.

But Casey DeSantis, wife of Florida governor Ron DeSantis, has become the rare political wife to break the mold by spearheading a Florida food safety campaign that is having a national impact.

In January, she announced the results of independent heavy metal testing of infant formula products by the Florida Department of Health as part of a new Healthy Florida First initiative with Governor DeSantis and Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo.

Share

The testing revealed that 16 out of 24 infant formula products tested contained at least one heavy metal in excess of the maximum daily limit compared to health-based screening benchmarks set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The testing screened for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury.

Since then, the Florida initiative has released the results of additional testing for toxins in bread and candy and published the results at its web page, exposingfoodtoxins.com.

Casey DeSantis said parents and consumers “should have confidence that products sold in grocery stores are safe and free from poison.”

Subscribe now

She expressed hope that more states will serve as a “force multiplier” to support U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, which has targeted ultra-processed food and removed certain food dyes from grocery products.

Consumer Reports

Casey DeSantis is not the first to notice that popular baby formulas are tainted with toxins.

Consumer Reports magazine tested baby foods in 2018 and followed up in 2023. CR reported that “the overall risk hasn’t changed much” in five years. CR’s latest study said that half of 41 powdered infant formulas analyzed still contain at least one contaminant.

Read more

There is something amiss when members of a major U.S. political party refuse to prioritize American citizens over illegal immigrants.

At his State of the Union address, Trump challenged every lawmaker to stand who agreed with the statement: “The first duty of the American government is to protect Am…

Read more

No member of the Sackler family, which owned and controlled Purdue Pharma, has been criminally prosecuted for promoting OxyContin, the opioid that contributed to hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths in the U.S. over the past two decades..

Contrast this with street level d…

Read more