Authored by Jonathan Turley via jonathanturley.org,

In Mary Shelley’s famous work, Dr. Frankenstein is asked, “Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust?”

This week, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D. Calif.), the leading Democratic candidate for California governor, may wish he could ask that of former Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.). After sexual assault allegations were raised by former staff members, Pelosi, Sen. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), and even his close friend (and former campaign chair) Sen. Ruben Gallego (D., Ariz.) have withdrawn their endorsements.

The fact, however, is that (regardless of the merits of these latest allegations), Swalwell was always a notorious figure in Washington who was constructed by Pelosi and others to serve their interests.

As Pelosi and his other allies now seek to destroy him, they cannot escape their hand in his creation.

Multiple women came forward this week to allege sexual assault and other potentially criminal acts by Swalwell. The first allegations came from a former staffer who said that she was raped twice by Swalwell, who had sex with her when she was too drunk to consent. Swalwell is denying the allegations.

Four women spoke to the Chronicle; one former staffer alleged that she tried to fight off Swalwell who left her bruised and bleeding after a rape. Even CNN, which eagerly featured Swalwell on programs as he attacked the Trump Administration, ran detailed accounts of another alleged assault in a hotel room. One of these accounts is from February of this year.

The accounts, if true, suggest that Swalwell is not just a sexual harasser but a sexual predator operating in plain view. One woman, Ally Sammarco, alleged that she (like other women) received nude photos of Swalwell as well as inappropriate social media messages.

Swalwell’s scandal is about as surprising in Washington as the return of the cicadas.

Swalwell was infamously accused of having an affair with an alleged Chinese spy named Fang Fang. His patron in Congress, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, immediately moved to protect him, declaring, “I don’t have any concern about Mr. Swalwell.”

Pelosi even blocked efforts to remove him from the House Intelligence Committee despite obvious concerns that he was susceptible to blackmail over his sexual trysts.  She lashed out at those calling for his removal in the interests of national security, declaring “I do think that it is unfortunate that Mr. McCarthy is trying to make an issue of this.”

After sexual assault allegations were raised by former staff members, Pelosi, Sen. Adam Schiff and even his close friend (and former campaign chair) Sen. Ruben Gallego have withdrawn their endorsements.

What these women are describing is a politician who felt that he had a license to prey on female staffers. I wonder who gave him that impression?

For years, the Democratic establishment and the media ignored any rumors surrounding Swalwell because he was their useful monster, someone who was an attack dog always straining at the leash.

Swalwell was always the first to a mob. Indeed, he now hopes that voters will not apply the same standard he applied to figures like Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In his confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh faced an allegation of attempted rape from high school, and Swalwell had little patience for those of us arguing for a modicum of due process.

Swalwell said that Kavanaugh’s guilt was self-evident: “More and more cases that are separate and independent, that look the same, pretty soon a prosecutor starts to say to a jury … that the arrows are pointing in the same direction.”

On the Epstein matter, Swalwell demanded full disclosure and called legal concerns “bulls****” in a screaming match with FBI Director Kash Patel.

Recently, Swalwell took a different view on the release of his own FBI files from the Chinese spy scandal. In a cease and desist letter to prevent public disclosure, attorneys Norm Eisen and Sean Hecker warned Patel, “Your actions threaten to expose you, others at the FBI, and the FBI itself to significant legal liability.”

It is now a pile-on as Swalwell’s former enablers run for cover: even Gallego, who posed with Swalwell bare-chested on camels in Qatar. Notably, no one seemed concerned that the trade group US-Qatar Business Council spent more than $84,000 to fly Swalwell, Gallego, and their loved ones to Qatar for the luxurious trip.

The most obvious beneficiary of the scandal, Katie Porter, has denied any involvement with the woman who organized the disclosures against Swalwell. The irony is that Swalwell’s scandal will remove a candidate who has allegedly physically assaulted staffers in favor of a candidate who has verbally assaulted staffers.

The implosion of Eric Swalwell is raising questions about how so many close associates and friends could not have known about the rumors of his misconduct. Now, suddenly, Swalwell has no friends or allies after years of being praised by Pelosi and many in the media.

Mary Shelley made the point most vividly in Frankenstein that there is little difference between the creators and the monsters in such moments: “It is true, we shall be monsters, cut off from all the world; but on that account we shall be more attached to one another.”

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

On Friday the Ron Paul Institute (RPI) has highlighted an important and fresh interview touching on the Republican Rep’s political future: Governor Thomas Massie? – RPI’s Adam Dick asks.

“A run for governor may be in the future for Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), but only if he first wins his May 19 Republican primary contest — the next step in his race for reelection to the United States House of Representatives,” the RPI report says.

But, “If Massie loses next month, the seven-term representative says he expects he will call it quits on working in government, stating he would consider the loss as “a sign from God or the people or both that I should go back to the farm.”

Getty Images

President Trump has on more than once occasion personally called out the Libertarian firebrand for vocally opposing the White House on various key issues, and especially most recently on the Iran war.

Massie has been one of the very view GOP members to join Dems in trying to force a Congressional vote to impose limits on Trump’s military actions in Iran. As a reminder:

Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) brought a war powers resolution on Iran to the House floor less than a week after Trump joined Israeli leaders in launching massive strikes against Iran in late February. It failed by a vote of 212-219, with four Democrats bucking their party to oppose it: Reps. Greg Landsman (Ohio), Jared Golden (Maine), Henry Cuellar (Texas) and Juan Vargas (Calif.). 

He remains one of the few outspoken ‘non-interventionist’ Republican members of the House. On the Senate side, Rand Paul, also of Kentucky, is Libertarian-leaning and condemns foreign adventurism and ‘wars of choice’.

As for a potential future run for Governor of Kentucky, Massie hinted at it here.

If U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie loses his upcoming primary against a Republican opponent backed by President Donald Trump, you’ll see a whole lot less of him.

“If I lose on May 19, I am not doing any more government ever,” he told University of Louisville students April 6 at an event on campus. “… It’s a sign from God or the people or both that I should go back to the farm.”

But if he wins, Frankfort could be on the mind of the longtime congressman from Northern Kentucky, who’s emerged during Trump’s second term as one of Congress’ most consequential members.

During a question-and-answer portion of his forum, hosted by the school’s College Republicans group, an attendee asked Massie if he would ever consider running for governor. Gov. Andy Beshear is ineligible to run for a third time as he eyes a presidential campaign, leaving the seat open at the end of 2027.

And then came this:

Massie wouldn’t run for a U.S. Senate seat — “it’s the same circus with different clowns, and also they don’t have a discharge petition, which is kind of a neat thing to do” — but he sees the appeal of the governor’s mansion.

“If I do win (the upcoming primary), I would consider it,” responded Massie, who would be up for reelection in 2028 if he wins the 2026 race. He pointed to an old friend he’d served with in Congress for three terms as an example.

“His name was Ron DeSantis,” Massie said. “What I’ve seen him achieve in Florida is inspiring and a lot of people want to move to that state, so I do believe that you could make a difference.”

Grant County GOP put on a great Lincoln Day Dinner last night.

It was great to be among so many friends, including State Representative @SavannahLMaddox, in such a beautiful venue. pic.twitter.com/cb9gmSO4JR

— Thomas Massie for Congress (@MassieforKY) April 11, 2026

Massie would have a real shot, given he remains quite popular in Kentucky – but he has an uphill battle in terms of reelection to Congress given Trump’s political machine has turned against him.

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury proposed regulations on Friday regarding the new excise tax, established under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, on certain remittances made abroad.

The Internal Revenue Service in Washington on March 10, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

“Beginning Jan. 1, 2026, a 1 percent remittance transfer tax applies to remittances sent from the United States to recipients in foreign countries when the sender provides cash, a money order, a cashier’s check, or other similar physical instrument to the remittance transfer provider,” the IRS said in an April 10 statement.

“The sender is liable for the tax, and remittance transfer providers are required to collect the remittance transfer tax from certain senders, make semimonthly deposits, and file quarterly returns with the IRS. If the remittance transfer provider does not collect the tax from the sender, the tax becomes a liability of the remittance transfer provider.”

The proposed regulations clarify how the remittance transfer tax would be applied.

According to the notice of the proposed rule, the remittance tax is applicable to all eligible transfers irrespective of whether the amount is actually disbursed to the designated recipient.

In case a remittance transfer expires or is canceled and the remittance transfer provider refunds the amount to the sender, the sender can recoup the tax by filing a claim for refund with the IRS.

The tax does not apply to any remittance transfer in which the funds come from a credit or debit card issued in the United States. It is also inapplicable if the funds being sent are withdrawn from an account held in a financial institution.

Any amount that is ultimately transferred to a designated recipient will be taxed, the notice clarified.

The rules affect remittance transfer providers, such as credit unions, banks, and money services businesses, as well as their agents.

There are roughly 600 money services businesses licensed as money transmitters in the United States, out of which more than 200 operate through around 500,000 authorized agents, the IRS said, citing data from the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System.

Between 2019 and 2024, money transfers to domestic and foreign destinations via money services businesses increased from $1.3 to $4 trillion.

“Money transmitted to foreign destinations (remittance transfers) accounted for 9 to 25 percent of the total money transmissions, equaling $236 billion in 2019, growing to almost $1 trillion in 2021 and 2022, but decreasing to $365 billion in 2024,” the notice said.

“Over 2019–2024, annual remittance transfers to foreign destinations through [money service businesses] averaged $520 billion. The average individual money transfer size ranged from $290 to $740 over the same time period.”

The IRS said in its statement that remittance transfer providers must report the new remittance transfer tax via Form 720.

In an Oct. 7 statement, the IRS said that limited penalty relief will be available for remittance transfer providers who fail to deposit the collected remittance taxes in the first three quarters of this year.

“Treasury and the IRS understand there might be challenges implementing the new law and have determined it is in the interest of sound tax administration to provide limited penalty relief related to remittance transfer tax deposits,” the agency said.

Tax Impacts

In a July 1 report, the Center for Global Development said that even at 1 percent, the remittance tax would hit poor countries “hard.” The new tax not only raises costs by 1 percent but can also lead to a dip in remittances.

Mexico stands to lose the most due to the tax imposition, with the loss being more than $1.5 billion per year, the report said. Other nations majorly affected by the tax include India, China, Vietnam, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, and El Salvador.

“Central American countries are projected to suffer the greatest loss relative to their gross national income (GNI), with El Salvador—a close ally of the Trump administration—projected to lose the equivalent of 0.6 percent of GNI,” the report said.

“Where the effects of the tax are significant relative to GNI, countries could experience lower household incomes, weaker consumer demand, and increased exchange rate pressures.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform blamed remittances for causing the United States’ economy to lose at least $200 billion per year, according to a July 22 report.

This amount is more than enough to run the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department combined. It is also four times the amount spent on the Department of Justice.

“Remittances represent a substantial loss to the U.S. economy. The money that is sent out of the United States is money that is not spent on goods and services in the United States,” the report said.

“The loss of money remitted also means no benefits from the sales, excise, and restaurant taxes, etc. attached to those goods and services. Indeed, remittances carry a significant opportunity cost.”

Authored by Javier Simon via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

If done the right way, a mega backdoor Roth can allow investors to save in a workplace retirement plan such as a 401(k) beyond the typical contribution limits.

High earners can use a mega backdoor Roth to save beyond normal retirement contribution limits. Vyaseleva Elena/Shutterstock

It also can allow investors to save in a Roth account when they otherwise would not have been able to do so because of certain restrictions.

So let’s take a closer look at this complex, but potentially beneficial strategy for high earners.

What Is a Mega Backdoor Roth?

The mega backdoor Roth is a strategy that involves making after-tax contributions to a 401(k) and then making a conversion of those contributions into either a Roth IRA or Roth 401(k).

Many people take the mega backdoor Roth approach because they can’t contribute to a Roth IRA due to income limits, or they’ve already maxed out their traditional 401(k) via salary deferrals and want to make additional contributions.

In 2026, you can’t contribute to a Roth IRA at all if your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) is $168,000 as a single filer or $252,000 if married and filing jointly.

How Does a Mega Backdoor Roth Work?

If your plan administrator allows it, you can make after-tax contributions to your traditional 401(k) and then convert those contributions to a Roth IRA via an in-service distribution. Or, if the plan allows it, you can convert those after-tax contributions into a Roth 401(k) portion of the plan.

The key here is after-tax contributions.

After-tax 401(k) contributions are different from Roth 401(k) contributions and pretax contributions, which are associated with traditional 401(k)s.

But after-tax contributions may allow you to contribute to a workplace retirement plan like a 401(k) beyond the annual contribution limits for pretax and Roth contributions.

So let’s take a close look at these contribution limits for 2026.

You can contribute up to $24,500 in pretax and/or Roth contributions to your 401(k) if you’re under the age of 50.

Because of catch-up contributions, those aged 50 or older can contribute up to $32,500.

If your plan allows for super catch-up contributions, those between the ages of 60 and 63 can contribute up to $35,750.

But by factoring in after-tax contributions, those below age 50 may be able to save up to $72,000. Those between the ages of 50 to 59 or 64-plus can save up to $80,000. And those between the ages of 60 to 63 can save up to $83,250 if the plan allows super catch-up contributions.

But any employer contributions would count toward these limits.

Drawbacks to the Mega Backdoor Roth

Taking the mega backdoor Roth route can leave you with a hefty tax bill. This is because when you make qualified withdrawals in retirement, any investment earnings would be taxed as ordinary income.

And the earnings portion of the conversion into a Roth IRA would be subject to taxation at the time of the conversion.

In addition, your capacity to make after-tax contributions could be restricted by IRS nondiscrimination rules that affect highly compensated employees. These rules may limit how much highly compensated employees can contribute compared to non-highly compensated employees.

For 2026, you’re a highly-compensated employee if you made $160,000 or more in 2025 compensation, or if you owned more than 5 percent of the company at any time during the current or previous year.

And some plans don’t allow after-tax contributions to be eligible for employer matches.

And that brings us to one of the biggest downsides. Your plan administrator simply may not allow you to engage in the mega backdoor Roth strategy. Some employers won’t let you move money from the 401(k) and into a Roth IRA while you’re still employed by them. Or they may not allow you to transfer money from the after-tax portion of your plan into a Roth 401(k) part of the plan.

So you need to contact your plan administrator or human resources department to learn what their rules are.

The Bottom Line

Many high earners face some barriers when it comes to contributing to a Roth account. But this is when the mega backdoor Roth can come into play. This is a strategy involving making after-tax contributions to a traditional 401(k) and converting those contributions into a Roth IRA or a Roth 401(k) within the plan. But there are a few obstacles; not all companies let you take these steps within their 401(k) or other type of workplace retirement plan. There also may be some important tax implications, and the overall process could be highly complex. That’s why you need to be interested enough to brush up on your plan’s rules and take the backdoor route approach the right way. So it’s highly recommended you engage in this strategy with the guidance of a qualified tax professional.

The Epoch Times copyright © 2026. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors. They are meant for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation. The Epoch Times does not provide investment, tax, legal, financial planning, estate planning, or any other personal finance advice. The Epoch Times holds no liability for the accuracy or timeliness of the information provided.

Before the ‘official’ futures markets opened, the risk-off tone (due to the failed peace talks and Trump’s threat to blockade Iranian vessels) was very evident in FX and crypto markets.

Even given the usual caveats about thin liquidity, AUD/USD is down around 1%, a classic growth-sensitive barometer flashing warning signs, while EUR/USD is weaker by roughly 0.5%.

The moves point to a softer tone for risk assets and sure enough bitcoin is down notably, but still up from pre-ceasefire levels…

All eyes are of course on the oil markets where hyperliquid perps were signaling a major jump higher as traders react to peace talks falling apart over the weekend, and the US moving to blockade the Strait of Hormuz in response.

WTI opened up over 8% surging back above $100 (topping $105)…

European gas futures also surged more than 10% as the trading day for the product expanded to 21 hours, from 10 hours, on Monday.

The timeline for the start of efforts to unwind the extreme supply shocks created by the war looks to be getting longer and longer. 

And of course, as goes oil, so goes stocks etc…

Since the war started, markets have increasingly taken their cues from crude prices given their far-reaching consequences. Surging energy costs have driven both the pullback in risk appetite as an immediate reaction to the conflict, as well as investors’ longer-term anticipation for a pickup in inflation and slowdown in consumption. 

The extent of the divergence (between oil and stocks) has now surpassed levels seen in 2022. 

But, even as the bond-stock-oil correlations started to creak on Friday…

…they are back in sync on this thin Sunday evening with S&P futures down over 1% for now…

Treasury futures prices are down notably (implying around a 5bps jump in 10Y Yields)…

The stronger dollar has pushed gold back down below $4700…

Obviously, investors will continue to monitor Middle East tensions in the coming week, while monthly reports from OPEC and the IEA will add some insight into how the Iran war is affecting the oil market.

Several major US banks are due to report earnings, where any commentary on the impact from the conflict will also be closely watched.

US data releases include producer prices, industrial production and existing home sales, while the Fed’s Beige Book will offer additional color on the health of the economy.

China is also due to report first-quarter GDP plus retail sales and industrial production data for March.

As Morgan Stanley’ Michael Wilson warned: The final phase of a correction is rarely easy and could require another re-test for markets, particularly if rates or bond volatility push higher again.

It may be about to get more difficult again.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

“Create a crisis.”

That call is made in a new campaign sponsored by the American Association of University Professors to force “colleges to drop their contracts with ICE’s key corporate enablers.”

Despite years of criticism over the purging of faculty ranks of conservatives and libertarians, university professors continue to double down on far-left ideology that is now an orthodoxy in higher education.

I previously wrote about the AAUP’s ideological shift in my book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage. After that book, the AAUP then selected Todd Wolfson, a far-left activist, as its new president.

Wolfson ran on the pledge to make AAUP a “fighting organization” for social change.

After his selection, Wolfson has called Trump supporters “fascists” and demanded boycotts of Israel.

Given that history, it was little surprise to see the AAUP’s sponsorship of this campaign, as reported by the College Fix.

The campaign is also funded by  Coefficient Giving, associated with liberal billionaire Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna. They have been criticized for reportedly funding groups pushing defund police and other radical agendas.

AAUP joined this campaign with Young Democratic Socialists of America, Sunrise Movement, and the Workplace Justice Lab at Rutgers University. It includes a toolkit instructing students to “create a crisis for university admin through an escalating campaign.”

The campaign seeks to organize to combat the “Trump regime” and its “terrorism”: “When students and workers join together in action, we can force our schools to stop funding and normalizing ICE collaborators and take down the whole regime.”

They are targeting companies such as Enterprise, Flock, ICE Air Carriers, Hilton, and Target.

The campaign states further that “ICE, and the Trump regime generally, cannot function without the consent and collaboration of the business world. Breaking companies from ICE is the central axis for generating enough leverage to stop the regime’s terrorization campaign.”

So university professors are funding a campaign that actively seeks to create a crisis on campuses. It takes a position as an organization that immigration enforcement is a form of terrorism. The silence among faculty is deafening. Rather than objecting that the AAUP should focus on issues related to academic freedom and protections for its members, there have been virtually no objections to the organization’s ideological agenda.

It is evidence of the new orthodoxy in higher education and the refusal of administrators and faculty to make any meaningful change in their intolerance for opposing views.

Many departments no longer have a single Republican faculty member in this academic echo chamber.

A Georgetown study found that only 9% of law school professors at the top 50 law schools identify as conservative — almost identical to the percentage of Trump voters in the new poll.

There is little evidence that faculty members are interested in changing this culture or creating greater diversity at schools.  In places like North Carolina State University, a study found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans 20 to 1.

Yale University has finally achieved the academic version of Nirvana, a state of perfect peace and enlightenment. A recent study found that the faculty had finally purged every Republican donor from its ranks.

According to a recent report from the Buckley Institute, there is now not a single Republican found across 27 of 43 departments at Yale University. In a nation roughly evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats (with a slight advantage to the GOP), only 3 percent are Republicans across all Yale departments.

The hostility to opposing views is impacting our students. A new study offers additional data on this problem, showing that almost 90% of students misrepresent their views in class and on assignments to satisfy faculty by adopting more liberal views.

In the meantime, the small number of dissenting faculty have no real voice, particularly among legal academics. I have previously written about the similar liberal agenda of the American Bar Association despite plunging membership among lawyers. The ABA now represents just 17 percent of the bar.

The AAUP currently has only 44,000 to 45,00 members. There are an estimated 1.5 million university and college professors in the United States. Both the ABA and AAUP have become captive to the most ideological elements of their membership. That agenda has overwhelmed the original apolitical mission of these groups.

This orthodoxy will continue until donors refuse to support universities that do not take meaningful action to restore diversity in the faculty ranks. The AAUP’s radical agenda is only the latest example of how higher education remains a hardened ideological silo. These faculty members have shown again and again that they are unwilling to change this culture.

Only donors can force reform by cutting off their contributions or directing them to schools with a proven commitment to intellectual diversity.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Massachusetts lawmakers are barreling ahead with a bill that would force the state to slash the total miles residents drive, all under the banner of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The proposal, Senate Bill S.2246, doesn’t slap a hard cap on your daily commute… yet – but it orders the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to set binding goals for reducing statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT). It also creates a new government council tasked with pushing people onto public transit whether they like it or not.

WOW 🚨 Massachusetts Democrats preparing to limit how much you can drive your car

Instead of driving your car, a new council will be established to make sure residents use more public transportation

“The bill proposed in Massachusetts would limit how far you can drive in your… pic.twitter.com/D8goGLwqzo

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) April 12, 2026

A local Boston report highlights the move:

“The bill proposed in Massachusetts would limit how far you can drive in your own car. So lawmakers say it would help reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. Now, while no specific mileage limit was listed, the bill would require MassDOT to set goals to reduce the number of statewide driving miles. It would also establish a new council to find ways to make public transportation more accessible for residents. Now, critics say A cap on personal vehicle miles would directly impact those in rural parts of the state.”

The committee gave it a favorable 4-1 vote and shipped it to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, keeping the radical plan alive on Beacon Hill.

This isn’t some fringe idea cooked up in isolation. It’s part of a broader push to ration mobility under the twin excuses of “climate” and “equity.” Similar thinking powers the 15-minute city concept – the urban planning fad sold as “convenience” but designed to make driving anywhere outside your little neighborhood a bureaucratic nightmare.

Need to visit family across town or haul supplies for a business? Too bad. The goal is fewer cars, fewer miles, and more dependence on government-run transit that’s already unreliable and crime-ridden in blue cities.

Europe is already testing the waters with energy rationing talk amid ongoing crises. Officials have floated work-from-home mandates, driving restrictions, and even limits on flying or heating homes to meet net-zero targets.

Massachusetts Democrats are importing that same top-down control in America, where rural families, tradespeople, and anyone not lucky enough to live in a walkable Boston enclave get punished hardest.

Supporters dress it up as “aligning transportation plans with emissions goals.” The bill’s own text demands the state develop a “reasonable pathway” to cut VMT through everything from denser development to parking restrictions and tech-enabled tracking. Critics rightly call it what it is: a precursor to surveillance, fees, or outright limits on how far your personal vehicle can go.

This is the same crowd that cheered COVID lockdowns while elites jetted off to climate conferences. Now they’re eyeing your car as the next target. Rural Massachusetts residents already face long drives for work, groceries, and medical care. Forcing them onto broken public buses or trains isn’t “progress” – it’s punishment for not living the approved urban lifestyle.

This creeping surveillance state is an affront to freedom, including the personal freedom to drive where you want, when you want, in the vehicle you choose.

Massachusetts Democrats just proved again why voters are fleeing blue strongholds for red states that still respect individual liberty. If this passes, expect more families packing up and heading to places where the government doesn’t treat your car like public property. The fight against these soft tyrannies is on.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

A smart new approach to fixing road issues is taking shape in San Francisco—and honestly, it’s finally a good idea. 

Waymo, known for putting driverless cars on city streets, is now teaming up with Waze to help identify potholes. Using data from its self-driving vehicles, Waymo can detect rough road conditions and automatically flag them in the Waze app, according to a new report from NBC. 

Drivers using Waze can already see these reported potholes, but the bigger impact comes from Waze’s “Waze for Cities” program. Thousands of cities use it to collect real-time road hazard data, giving local agencies a clearer picture of where repairs are needed.

The report notes that San Francisco officials say this won’t replace existing systems like 311 reports, but it adds another valuable layer of information. Crews still aim to fix major issues within a few days, while also making sure all neighborhoods—not just high-traffic areas—get equal attention.

This kind of tech-driven system actually makes a lot of sense. Bringing something like this to places like New Jersey or New York could seriously improve how quickly and fairly road repairs get handled.

Before partnering with Waymo, Waze had already developed a crowd-sourced approach to identifying road hazards like potholes. Drivers using the app could manually report issues in real time, tagging exact GPS locations of potholes, debris, or rough road conditions, which were then shared with other users to improve routing and safety.

Over time, Waze also leveraged passive data—such as repeated sudden decelerations or erratic vehicle movement patterns—to infer the presence of road irregularities without explicit reports. This combination of active user input and behavioral data allowed Waze to build a dynamic, continuously updated map of road quality, laying the groundwork for more automated detection methods later explored in collaborations with autonomous driving systems.

In a stunning collapse that ends 16 years of uninterrupted rule, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has conceded defeat in Sunday’s parliamentary elections, according to statements from opposition leader Péter Magyar.

With early results showing the Tisza Party on track for 128 seats in the 199-seat National Assembly and Fidesz collapsing to just 62 seats (based on more than 21% of votes counted), Orbán’s long-dominant alliance has suffered a decisive repudiation. Four years after securing a supermajority of 135 seats, Fidesz is projected to fall well short of even a simple majority.

Hungary Election Update (21:12 CET)

Official NVI count (21.54% processed):

🔹 Tisza (Magyar): 56.4% (128 seats)
🔸 Fidesz (Orbán): 37.8% (62 seats)
📈 Turnout: Record 77.8%

Magyar holding a steady lead as counting continues. 🇭🇺 #HungaryElection #Magyar #Orbán

— Mandolin Rain (@Mandolin__Rain) April 12, 2026

The concession, delivered as vote tallies continued to roll in with record 77.8% turnout, marks the first time in the post-communist era that Orbán’s Fidesz has lost control of parliament. It validates the dire warning Orbán himself issued just days ago in his final campaign rally: “We could now lose everything.”

Péter Magyar, the 43-year-old former Fidesz insider who rocketed Tisza from fringe movement to projected governing force in under two years, hailed the moment as a turning point for Hungary.

“Today the Hungarian people have chosen change,” Magyar told supporters in Budapest. “Orbán has conceded. A new era begins.”

The scale of the upset is seismic. Tisza appears headed not only for a simple majority (requiring 100 seats) but potentially the two-thirds supermajority (133 seats) needed to rewrite cardinal laws and amend the constitution — the very tools Orbán used to entrench his “illiberal democracy” model.

What the Numbers Mean

Tisza: ~128 seats (and climbing as more precincts report)
Fidesz: ~62 seats
Previous election (2022): Fidesz 135 seats

Urban centers, younger voters, and economically frustrated middle-class families drove the surge, while Fidesz held rural strongholds. The opposition’s consolidation under Magyar — a center-right, pro-EU, anti-corruption platform — proved decisive after years of fragmented resistance.

Immediate Geopolitical Shockwaves

The result upends the European political landscape:

Brussels truce: Frozen EU funds (over €20 billion) are now expected to flow again. Hungary’s systematic vetoes on Ukraine aid, migration policy, and rule-of-law mechanisms are likely to end.
Ukraine/Russia pivot: Orbán’s pro-peace, Russia-friendly stance – including delays on sanctions and energy deals – will almost certainly be reversed.
Populist right in freefall: The defeat delivers a body blow to Europe’s nationalist movements. Marine Le Pen, Matteo Salvini, and Germany’s AfD lose their strongest Central European anchor. Donald Trump’s recent endorsement of Orbán as a “strong leader” and JD Vance’s pre-election Budapest visit now look like backing the wrong horse.
Markets react: Early trading signals suggest a stronger forint and narrowing sovereign spreads as investors price in EU reconciliation and policy normalization.

Orbán, 62, has not yet issued a personal statement, but sources close to Fidesz say he will address the nation later today. The party retains pockets of deep loyalty, particularly among older voters and in the countryside, but the scale of the urban and youth revolt proved overwhelming.

Official final results are still days away (including overseas and mail-in ballots), but with Orbán’s concession the political reality is already set: Hungary’s voters have delivered a verdict that will reverberate across Europe and the global populist movement for years.

This is a breaking story. ZeroHedge will update as Orbán speaks and final tallies come in.

Authored by Tim O’Brien via PJ Media,

One of the most common talking points from the left is that if you don’t rush confused kids into the gender reassignment pipeline, they will kill themselves. The left tells us that “transgenderism” is not a mental health problem, while at the same time telling us that people, especially minors, will kill themselves at greater rates if steps aren’t quickly taken to get those kids on puberty blockers, and on track to have their bodies permanently mutilated to change their sex. 

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

More to the point, the narrative goes like this: “Trans kids” are at higher risk of suicide if they don’t receive greater acceptance, supportive environments, and “access” to “gender-affirming care.” 

Did it ever occur to the left that the suicide in these cases may be connected to the increased likelihood that gender-confused children have severe mental health instability? Did it ever occur to the left that a pre-existing mental health issue, not the gender issue, is what may contribute to the risk of suicide? 

I’ve looked at a bunch of studies the left uses to justify this narrative, and one thing goes overlooked, which is the difference between correlation and causation. In other words, if someone doesn’t call a teenager by her trans name, is that the cause of her later suicide? Or was it something else, and the “misgendering” was just a convenient scapegoat? 

And so, when researchers studied the relationship “between chosen name use, as a proxy for youths’ gender affirmation in various contexts, and mental health among transgender youth,” did they just assume that the trigger for later “health risks” was due to how they were addressed by name, or were all possible causes considered? 

Kids who are confused about their gender are likely confused about a lot of things, and it could be that it’s this state of confusion and a general struggle with reality that is the more fundamental problem. But if researchers only key in on how those boys and girls are addressed, they can come to any conclusions that suit them.

Destroying a common myth

Don’t take my word for it. Researchers in Finland published a groundbreaking study in the peer-reviewed pediatric journal Acta Paediatrica, which pretty much destroyed the notion that “gender reassignment” surgeries and treatments help gender-confused kids. 

According to the study, the surgeries and treatments may, in fact, be making things worse. 

“In some individuals, medical GR [gender reassignment] appears to be linked to deterioration in mental health,” the study found. “Subsequent to medical GR, psychiatric treatment needs appear to increase.” 

In other words, the surgeries and puberty blockers may be hurting the children they purport to help, and even then, the kids’ needs for psychiatric treatment for mental health problems only increase. 

Let’s dig deeper: “Among adolescents who underwent medical gender reassignment, psychiatric morbidity increased markedly during follow-up,” the study found. If that euphemism is sufficiently confusing to you, “psychiatric morbidity” in this context is suicide, eating disorders, depression, and other serious mental health problems.  

The title of the study is “Psychiatric Morbidity Among Adolescents and Young Adults Who Contacted Specialised Gender Identity Services in Finland in 1996–2019,” which itself emphasizes that this is an analysis of real-world data, not just some carefully constructed sample to study. And the time period for the study spanned 25 years. You would think that if you take a deep dive into 25 years of real-world data, you might get a clear picture of the issues at play and what’s really happening. 

During that period, the percentage of males wanting to become female jumped from 9.8% in 1996 to 60.7% in 2019. This stat alone kills the “born this way” assumption. As Finland’s culture has shifted aggressively leftward, more boys want to be girls. This suggests that the “trans kids” dynamic is a social contagion. 

On the female side, the number of girls wanting to become boys from 1996 to 2019 jumped from 21.6% to 54.5%. 

Here’s a look under the hood of the data. The study authors analyzed data from “a total of 2,083 individuals under the age of 23, who received ‘specialized gender identity services’” at hospitals over time. 

Finland has a nationalized, centralized health care system, which means that this data is pretty comprehensive and a reflection of what is actually happening in that country.  

The big news coming out of this research is that adolescents who were referred to specialist transgender services “showed significantly higher psychiatric morbidity than controls,” with 45.7% having mental health issues before referral, compared to 15.0% among the control population. This means the mental health problems were a pre-existing condition. 

Two years or more after referral to the system for “gender affirmation,” 61.7% of the gender dysphoric population had mental health issues, compared to only 14.6% of the control population.

At the same time, the data revealed that the proportion of teenagers with mental health problems also rose by 35% after receiving a referral to specialist transgender services. If I’m reading this right, it would seem that any kid in Finland who turned to the healthcare community for help with gender dysphoria issues likely found that his or her mental health problems got worse as a result. 

Here’s the kicker. Because not every kid who entered the system went through with the whole program, the researchers were able to measure how many kids who opted out of puberty blockers and sex change surgeries fared psychologically as a result.  

The study found that teens who decided not to receive hormonal or surgical treatments enjoyed better mental health outcomes. The rate of mental health challenges increased by a much lesser amount. That puts the kibosh on the whole rationale for transing the kids. 

If a kid is confused over his or her gender, and you don’t give them puberty blockers, and you don’t push surgeries on them, you’re more likely to have a kid with better mental health in the end.  

But if you do put them on the hormonal treatment track and the surgery track, the chances of the child having compounded mental health problems increase. 

Common sense wins

The bottom line is that common sense wins every time. Tragically, there are still hospitals, mental health professionals, school counselors, and parents who want to irreversibly change a child’s mental and physical make-up to solve what amounts to a very treatable mental health problem at a key stage of their adolescent growth and maturation process. 

The left likes to lecture the right to “follow the science,” but this science will be buried if the left has anything to do with it. The left wants gender-confused children. The left wants to “trans kids.”

Speaking of “trans kids,” how did that even become a thing? How does a child know he or she is, in fact, the opposite sex in the wrong body? That can only come as part of a very sophisticated, manipulative process that certain segments of society are foisting on the kids to corrupt them. 

It’s time to put an end to this. The more irrefutable data we have that cannot be suppressed, the more likely we’ll be able to look after the most vulnerable among us and protect them from “gender affirming” destruction.