Ranked-choice voting’s losing streak gets longer



It has been a dismal year for ranked-choice voting.

RCV allows voters to rank candidates instead of choosing one. It then runs multiple rounds of counting, adjusts rankings, and discards “exhausted” ballots to determine a winner.

Lawmakers, courts, cities, and voters are increasingly rejecting a system that makes elections harder to understand and easier to distrust.

Two states have already banned it. One state’s pilot program was phased out. A statewide ballot proposal failed to qualify. Several city councils rejected it. A state supreme court struck down an expansion bill. And the year still has months to go.

The states that banned RCV this year were Indiana and Ohio. The Ohio legislature first introduced a ban in 2023. It passed the Senate but not the House. This year, lawmakers passed it through both chambers on the second attempt, with Sens. Theresa Gavarone (R) and Bill DeMora (D) leading the effort. Republican Gov. Mike DeWine signed the bipartisan bill into law in February.

Indiana acted even faster. Lawmakers introduced a similar ban and enacted it two months later. The legislation reflected growing concern that RCV makes elections less transparent and harder for voters to trust.

“It is important to ensure Indiana’s voting system is secure and accurate for Hoosier voters. Having to rank each candidate could end up being a vote against the voter’s intended candidate, creating confusion and frustration, which is why we need this law in place,” said state Sen. Blake Doriot (R), the bill’s sponsor.

RCV supporters also suffered a setback in Utah, where the pilot program ended this year. Before the program closed, more than 20 cities tried it, but supporters never moved the state toward broader adoption. Multiple cities dropped out before the program ended.

In Michigan, Rank MI Vote’s RCV ballot proposal fell 200,000 signatures short of qualifying. RCV donors can find one consolation: At least they will not have to spend millions on another failed ballot measure, as they did in six states in 2024.

RELATED: Trump’s endorsement power keeps saving the wrong Republicans

KC McGinnis/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Albuquerque, New Mexico, also rejected RCV. The city council voted it down 6-3. The bill’s sponsor claimed switching from the current runoff system would save money, but the proposal failed because of concerns over system upgrades, staff training, and a long public education campaign. Similar proposals also failed in Vista, California, and Appleton, Wisconsin.

The District of Columbia offers another warning. Voters approved RCV, but the city has struggled to prepare for implementation. District residents will use the system for the first time in June, and a recent Opportunity D.C. survey found that 43% of voters remain unaware of the change. To address the confusion, the Board of Elections is spending $50,000 to educate voters.

D.C. Councilmember Wendell Felder introduced emergency legislation to delay implementation until 2027. The bill failed, so voters and election workers will have little time to prepare.

Finally, an effort to expand RCV in Maine was struck down in March when the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled the bill unconstitutional. Because the Maine Constitution requires a plurality for state elections, RCV remains limited to federal elections.

Every year, ranked-choice voting’s backers promise simplicity, fairness, and reform. This year showed the opposite. Lawmakers, courts, cities, and voters are increasingly rejecting a system that makes elections harder to understand and easier to distrust.

'Deleted from society': Tommy Robinson sounds alarm on UK free speech crackdown as Keir Starmer escalates surveillance push



As Britain cracks down on free speech and heightens surveillance measures, it’s becoming a cautionary tale for the rest of the Western world — one that Tommy Robinson has experienced firsthand.

“They wanted us isolated, they wanted us alone, wanted total control, which they had. Total control. I was invisible,” Robinson tells Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck, explaining that the media in the U.K. has branded him as one of the “far-right, racist, extremist agitators who are intent on violence.”

“You couldn’t even mention my name ... deleted from society for daring to show — and what was I showing? The problems of mass open-border immigration,” Robinson says.

“Why do they want to hide it?” he asks. “Because it lays at their feet.”


And U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s latest ad is only proving Robinson right.

“This is our country with a majority who share those values. A majority who may not always be as loud but must always define who we are. So my government will not stand in the way of peaceful protest,” Starmer said, adding, “But we will act decisively against hatred.”

“We will use the full force of the law when that hatred manifests as violence. And we will ban those coming into the U.K. who seek to stir it up as we have done already because this country belong to all of us, and I will not tolerate anyone who seeks to stand in the way of that,” Starmer finished.

Robinson notes that Starmer has already made his last few points in the video crystal clear.

“After the 2024 riots ... he politicized the judiciary, weaponized the media, and he sent mothers to jail for 31 months for tweets. He sent Peter Lynch, a grandfather, to jail, who has died in jail. He sent innocent people to jail,” he explained, noting that Starmer did it to “instill fear in the British public.”

“The problem he’s got is he didn’t instill fear. It lit a fire in the heart of us. ... This is a battle for the soul of this nation, and it’s a battle he’s going to lose. He’s losing,” he continues, adding, “They’re losing. We’re winning the hearts and minds of the public whether he likes it or not.”

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

DOJ sues Denver over its ongoing war against the 2nd Amendment — and local Democrats aren't pleased



Denver has for decades impinged upon the Second Amendment rights of its residents.

Since 1989, the city has had a so-called "assault weapons" law on the books that now prohibits the carriage, storage, possession, manufacture, and sale of "any semiautomatic pistol or centerfire rifle, either of which have a fixed or detachable magazine with a capacity of more than fifteen rounds" and "any semiautomatic shotgun with a folding stock or a magazine capacity of more than six rounds."

'The Constitution is not a suggestion.'

According to Denver's Code of Ordinances, the city council that initially advanced the ban determined that the use of "assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety and security of all citizens" in the city and that restrictions on law-abiding Americans' access to such firearms were both "reasonable and necessary."

The Trump Justice Department demanded in a letter last week that the city repeal the ban, underscoring that it is unconstitutional. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division said that failure to comply would likely trigger a lawsuit.

On Monday, the city's attorney, Miko Brown, wrote back to Dhillon, calling the request "baseless, irresponsible, and a clear overreach of the federal government's power."

RELATED: Why the Supreme Court nuked Colorado’s 'Must Stay Gay' law (and what to expect next)

Minh Connors/Washington Post/Getty Images

Democrat Denver Mayor Mike Johnston chimed in, characterizing the DOJ's effort to restore Denverites' rights as intimidation and claiming that the ban "has stood for 37 years because it works, it saves lives, and it reflects the values of our community."

Democrat Councilwoman Serena Gonzales-Gutierrez joined the chorus of fearmongerers, stating both that the Trump administration was trying to deprive students and families of critical "protections" and that "assault weapons take lives — that's what they're made for."

On Tuesday, the DOJ filed a lawsuit with the stated intention of vindicating "the rights of Denver citizens whose rights have been — and are continuing to be — violated."

"The Constitution is not a suggestion and the Second Amendment is not a second-class right," acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement. "Denver's ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles directly violates the right to bear arms."

Citing the standard for applying the Second Amendment outlined in the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the government's complaint asserts that the "Ordinance is presumptively unconstitutional" and that the City of Denver "will not be able to rebut this presumption."

After noting that the Second Amendment protects firearms "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes that are in 'common use' today" — a protection affirmed by the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller — the complaint explains that there are at least 28 million AR-style semiautomatic rifles presently in circulation and tens of millions of law-abiding AR-style-rifle owners in the country.

In addition to the numerousness and common use of such weapons, the DOJ's complaint shreds the notion that AR-15-type rifles are the go-to choice for criminals.

When making this point, the DOJ highlighted FBI data showing that whereas there were 364 homicides known to have been committed with rifles of any type in 2019, 6,368 homicides were committed with handguns, 1,476 were committed with knives or other cutting instruments, 600 were committed with hands and feet, and 397 were committed with blunt objects.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division stated, "Law-abiding Americans, regardless of what city or state they reside in, should not have to live under threat of criminal sanction just for exercising their Second Amendment right to possess arms which are owned by tens of millions of their fellow citizens."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The federal machine-gun ban rests on a dangerous constitutional theory



Think back to fourth-grade American history. We learned why the Articles of Confederation failed and why the Constitution replaced them. One major problem was that states struggled to trade with one another and often tried to protect local interests by taxing or restricting goods from other states.

That helps explain why the Constitutional Convention gave Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce in Article I.

The challenge to the machine-gun ban asks more than whether one statute survives. It asks whether the Constitution’s architecture still restrains power at all.

In grade school, the principle sounded straightforward enough. Two centuries of litigation have made it anything but. A basic question still hangs over the Commerce Clause: How much power does it actually give Congress?

Can Congress force you to buy health insurance? Can it stop you from growing wheat in your own garden to bake your own bread? Can it ban you from possessing a firearm?

Not buying a firearm, which plainly involves commerce. Not using one. Just possessing one.

And does the answer change if that firearm happens to be a machine gun?

In 1986, Congress made it illegal “for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun,” with narrow exceptions for military use and for machine guns lawfully possessed before the statute took effect. For everyone else, the ban is absolute.

One might expect Congress to have debated whether the Commerce Clause, or any other constitutional provision, gave legislators the power to ban mere possession of a machine gun. It did not. The only real justification for banning post-1986 machine guns came in a single House floor statement from Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.), the amendment’s sponsor: “I do not know why anyone would object to the banning of machine guns.”

Hughes did not offer a constitutional justification. He simply assumed Congress had the power and never bothered to prove it.

In reality, Congress does not possess a general police power. It cannot create a comprehensive national criminal code simply because it wants to. That authority belongs chiefly to the states. Congress may enact criminal laws only when they rest on one of its few enumerated powers.

That’s the essence of federalism.

RELATED: Want a machine gun? These states might soon make buying one easier

JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP/Getty Images

So the real question remains: Does Congress have the power to prohibit mere possession of a machine gun, or does that authority remain with the states and the people?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has confronted the question before, but it has never answered it.

In 1997, the full court, sitting en banc, split evenly in United States v. Kirk. Sixteen of the 17 judges participated, and the court divided straight down the middle. Half concluded that the machine-gun ban exceeded Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. Half disagreed. Because no majority emerged, the district court’s judgment was affirmed by default, and the written opinions carried no precedential force.

Three months later, the court faced the issue again in United States v. Knutson. This time, the panel included three judges who believed Congress did have the power to ban machine guns. They upheld the law. The full court stayed silent, and Knutson remains binding precedent.

Two months ago, Judge Don Willett raised the issue again in a nonbinding concurrence in United States v. Wilson. Willett expressed serious doubt that Congress has constitutional authority to prohibit mere possession of a firearm. He walked through the Supreme Court’s three recognized categories of Commerce Clause authority: the channels of interstate commerce, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Mere possession of a firearm, he concluded, “fits uneasily within any of these categories.”

Willett’s observation gets to the heart of the problem.

If mere possession counts as interstate commerce, or as something Congress may regulate under the Commerce Clause, then federal power no longer has a meaningful limiting principle. Congress can regulate nearly anything, so long as some lawyer can imagine a downstream economic effect.

That is not constitutional government. It is federal power without a boundary.

Now, nearly three decades after Knutson, the Texas Public Policy Foundation and Temple Gun Club are prepared to press the issue again. Temple Gun Club is made up of law-abiding citizens who want machine-gun ownership made lawful for their members. The organization is not talking about weapons bought on some national market. It is talking about firearms the members would build themselves by converting guns they already lawfully own, firearms that never entered the stream of interstate commerce.

This case is about more than just machine guns. It is about whether the Commerce Clause still has limits. If Congress may ban possession of an item that was never bought, never sold, never exchanged across state lines, and has no substantial effect on interstate commerce, then Congress can regulate virtually every aspect of human life.

RELATED: When good guys carry, killers lose — and the media looks away

Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/Denver Post/Getty Images

Willett made the point well in Wilson:

Far from viewing this sort of incremental, frog-boiling expansion of federal power as legitimate, the Founding generation saw it as the more insidious threat — a quiet, gradual erosion of liberty rather than a sudden seizure of it.

That’s right. The courts should return to first principles. They should revisit the machine-gun ban and ask the question Congress ducked in 1986: Does “regulate commerce” still mean something limited and intelligible, or has the phrase become a blank check for federal control?

The challenge to the machine-gun ban asks more than whether one statute survives. It asks whether the Constitution’s architecture still restrains power at all — or whether the 10th Amendment has been reduced to a historical footnote.

Australia BANS key social media apps for kids under 16 — and platforms must enforce the rule



Australia will put the onus on social media platforms to limit access to children under 16 years old.

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 amended Australia's reigning online safety measures and gave social media companies time to age‐restrict their platforms and "take reasonable steps to prevent Australian under 16s from having account[s]."

'No Australian will be compelled to use government identification.'

Officially taking effect on December 10, the ban includes Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, X, and YouTube's general platform; YouTube Kids and WhatsApp do not meet the criteria for the ban.

Australia introduced its social media minimum-age framework that included a list of criteria that would result in a platform being banned for those under 16. This included if a platform's sole purpose, or "significant purpose," is to "enable online social interaction between two or more end‐users."

Or if the service "allows end‐users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end‐users" and "allows end‐users to post material on the service" and "meets such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules," it will not be available for younger Australians.

The legislation can also specify certain platforms, or classes, to not include in the ban.

Social media platforms will be responsible for enforcement, and neither children nor their parents will face punishment should they gain access. Companies face fines of up to $32 million USD or just under $50 million in Australian dollars.

RELATED: How Texas slammed the gate on Big Tech’s censorship stampede

Photo by DAVID GRAY/AFP via Getty Images

The government further defined the requirements placed upon the platforms, adding that they must "take reasonable steps to prevent" those under 16 from having accounts.

The legislation also specified that "no Australian will be compelled to use government identification (including Digital ID) to prove their age online" and that platforms must offer reasonable alternatives to its users.

According to the BBC, other countries are hot on Australia's tail in terms of implementing their own similar bans. This includes the French government, which has begun a parliamentary inquiry into banning children under 15 years old from social media, while also implementing a "digital curfew" for those between 15 and 18.

The Spanish government has also drafted a law that would require parental consent for children under 16 to access social media.

RELATED: Conservative influencers promote Qatar as a desert paradise — but are they lying?

Photo by DAVID GRAY/AFP via Getty Images

Ruling left-wing Labour Party official Anika Wells, who serves as Australia's communications minister (and minister of sport), said that the ban is not "perfect" and is going to "look a bit untidy on the way through."

"Big reforms always do," she added.

Australians under 16 will still be able to access content that is available on a website without being logged in or being a member, as there is virtually no way to prevent that without restricting access to the internet entirely.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Settling Afghans here puts America last



I have a longtime friend — I’ll omit his name because he is somewhat politically prominent — who has been very involved in the extraction of Afghans who allegedly helped us from Afghanistan and resettlement of them in the United States. My friend already has a demanding job, but he has often worked through the night, forgoing sleep to help with this task.

I have several strong political disagreements with him, but I would never question his patriotism. He voluntarily served as a soldier in Afghanistan after overcoming great obstacles to be accepted into the military. But I would strongly question his political judgment and the judgment of anyone who thinks we should be settling Afghan refugees in America.

'The second the US military backed out, their men folded and refused to fight for what we gave them. We don’t owe them, they owe us.'

Unfortunately, a number of our former soldiers, no matter how sincere their beliefs, seem to sympathize more with people in a foreign country whom they believed, rightly or wrongly, to be allies rather than with the interests of the only country to which they owe their allegiance.

Joe Kent, an Afghanistan combat veteran and director of the National Counterterrorism Center, argued on social media for the deportation of all of our “Afghan allies.”

“Vetting a foreigner in a war zone to determine if he will fight a common enemy is vastly different than vetting a foreigner to see if he is suitable to live in our country,” Kent wrote.

As journalist Daniel Greenfield notes, the targeted attack on two National Guardsmen by an Afghan national in Washington, D.C., the day before Thanksgiving was not a one-off. It’s part of an extensive series of assaults by Afghans whom we have foolishly allowed to resettle in the United States.

Unbridgeable inequalities

Having lived briefly in a third-world country and having traveled for many years in various countries of that description, I have quickly learned to be wary of “friendships.” It is not that people in these countries are inherently bad or incapable of genuine friendship in principle. It is that the gap between you (a well-off American) and them (a third-world citizen who, even if relatively affluent, is often at a huge disadvantage versus an American) is astronomical.

And that gap is not just financial and legal, but also based on traditions and customs. Relationships that may feel like genuine friendship for a time usually come with future requests or pleas for assistance. Again, I don’t necessarily blame these people — I might do the same in their shoes — and of course genuine friendships in such situations are possible, but they are far rarer than idealists might wish them to be.

What applies in basically peaceful third-world countries applies a thousandfold in an impoverished, war-torn, and primitive country like Afghanistan. It is monstrously arrogant to think the American political class understands deeply the inner workings of these countries and the motivations of the people there, given that we spent almost $1 trillion to occupy Afghanistan, only to see all of our efforts collapse within a week after we removed our military as a threat of force.

Wade Miller, the executive director of Citizens for Renewing America and a U.S. Marine combat veteran, responded to the claim that resettling Afghans was the moral thing to do since they “fought alongside our own” soldiers, rightly calling it a “BS metric.” As he noted, “1. Many played both sides. 2. Many only did it to make money. 3. Many were plants. 4. Many had long-standing tribal grudges against the Taliban.”

And none of them necessarily has a long-term loyalty to America, which is the first step to assess before even beginning to consider a claim of residency.

All of this would be obvious to anyone who does not let suicidal empathy overwhelm good sense. But unfortunately, we have lost that common sense, even among many of our supposedly hardened fighting forces.

‘We don’t owe them’

Miller punctures the lie that we owe these Afghans for “doing America a favor,” pointing out that we did them a favor by expending American lives and treasure to help them govern themselves without the Taliban. But “the second the U.S. military backed out, their men folded and refused to fight for what we gave them. We don’t owe them, they owe us.”

This is a harsh assessment, but in the aggregate, it is not unfair.

Or consider what Mark Lucas, an Afghanistan veteran and founder of the Article III Project, has written: “Afghans were untrustworthy allies who sold their children to pedophiles, ritually raped little boys, and beat their women.” He notes that without male soldiers guarding them, countless local Afghans made clear that they would have raped the women who were attached to their detachment.

RELATED: Trump makes America dangerous again — to our enemies

Jim Watson/Getty Images

Lucas points out that even asking simple questions of potential Afghan asylum-seekers, such as whether they support putting apostates to death, child marriage, Sharia for non-Muslims, defense of suicide bombings, polygamy, and honor killings, would quickly disqualify them. The vast majority of Afghans, he says, support one or more of these views — none of which are compatible with the American way of life.

One of the few Afghan refugees who resettled in my own state of Montana promptly raped a Montanan shortly after his arrival. Unsurprisingly, the crime and its implications were shamefully underreported by local media.

Toward a more sober policy

Even assuming we have an obligation to those we believed helped us in Afghanistan, it would mean we were obligated to get them to safety — not get them to America. If we had made it clear at the outset that relocating to America was not on offer, we would have see a drastic reduction in the number of “refugees.” We can and should resettle them in other countries. Making arrangements to do that is a worthy use of American soft power.

The notion that resettling Afghans in America is a moral duty reflects Joe Biden’s poor political leadership. His administration and previous ones before it had become arrogant about their ability to control events and remake complex societies and peoples far different from our own. In reality, their policies promoted cultural arrogance under the guise of friendship. They abandoned our own in favor of those from distant cultures and lands.

Let us hope that President Trump’s promise to refuse all new Afghan visas and to remove postwar arrivals and resettle them elsewhere is the start of a more sober, realistic, and serious refugee policy that will put the interests of America and its citizens first.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

Sex offenders can’t adopt. But they can buy a baby?



Last week, a gay couple — Logan Riley and Brandon Mitchell — went viral for posting photos of the baby boy they acquired through surrogacy. What began as a celebration quickly unraveled after it emerged that one of the men is a convicted sex offender.

Social media users raised obvious concerns. Was this arrangement in the best interest of the child? What risks come with separating a baby from his mother and placing him with unrelated adult males, one of whom has a record of sex crimes? Critics asked these questions and were met, as usual, with accusations of bigotry from gay activists. But once the facts surfaced, the activists who rushed to defend the couple fell silent.

Children are not accessories. Women are not rental space. And no one should be allowed to buy a baby — least of all someone who wouldn’t be permitted to adopt one.

The pattern is familiar. Critics of surrogacy are smeared until reality breaks through the narrative. By then, the damage is done — and the child is the one who suffers.

From fallback to moral imperative

The original case for gay adoption was flimsy. It presented same-sex couples as a last resort, a solution for children who would otherwise languish in the foster system. Even its advocates admitted that two men raising a child could not replicate the contributions of a mother and father. The goal was to offer love and stability in the absence of better alternatives.

That framing has since disappeared. As the LGBTQ movement moved from acceptance to dominance, the rhetoric shifted. Gay adoption was no longer a concession. It was equal to heterosexual couples adopting, then it was superior. Religious adoption agencies that prioritized married mothers and fathers were accused of discrimination and extremism. State governments and national organizations began steering children toward same-sex households, now presented as the cultural ideal.

Once equality became unquestionable dogma, the conversation shifted again. Adoption was no longer enough. Activists turned to surrogacy — not to rescue unwanted children, but to commission biologically related ones. The moral justification evaporated. This wasn’t about saving lives so much as satisfying adult desires.

Adoption and surrogacy are not the same

Surrogacy is sometimes described as a form of adoption. That’s misleading. Adoption involves accepting responsibility for a life that already exists, often in difficult circumstances. Surrogacy deliberately creates a child to be separated from his mother and sold to strangers.

The physical and emotional toll on the mother is severe. Surrogates are often poor, vulnerable, and pressured into contracts they don’t fully understand. Children are ordered like designer fashion accessories. There are cases of forced abortions, abandoned babies, and severe trauma — all downstream from the commodification of life.

This is not a rare byproduct. It is built into the practice.

The risk to children is real

Children raised by unrelated adults face increased risks of abuse. One study found that preschool-aged children are 40 times more likely to be abused in a household with a stepparent than in one with both biological parents. The data is not absolute, but the trend is clear: Adults, especially men, are far more likely to abuse children to whom they are not biologically related.

This should alarm anyone watching the rise of surrogacy arrangements, particularly those involving male couples. These are homes where the child has no biological connection to either adult. And in some cases, as with Riley and Mitchell, one of the men has a criminal record that would disqualify him from adopting under state law.

RELATED: Trump moves to defund hospitals mutilating kids for money

chrupka via iStock/Getty Images

In Pennsylvania, sex offenders are barred from adopting. But surrogacy remains unrestricted. The child in this case remains in the custody of a man the law has deemed unfit to parent.

This is not some oversight. It is a structural and legal failure.

The moral inversion is complete

We are told that the buying and selling of human beings was one of history’s greatest evils. Our education system and popular culture treat slavery as the ultimate moral horror. Yet, in the name of equality and inclusion, we now celebrate the legal sale of children — so long as it occurs under the banner of LGBTQ rights.

And so we have elevated identity above accountability. In any other context, a convicted sex offender taking custody of a newborn would be a national scandal. But when the arrangement involves a same-sex couple, basic standards are suspended. The child becomes secondary to the cultural narrative.

Enough of this

Surrogacy did not enter the mainstream through a national debate or democratic vote. It arrived through the back door, marketed as compassionate and modern. Most people didn’t understand the process. They didn’t consider the ethical costs. That time has passed. Ignorance no longer justifies our complacence.

We now see surrogacy for what it is: a commercial industry that exploits vulnerable women and treats children as consumer goods. The law must catch up with the reality.

This is not just a problem for gay couples. Surrogacy as a practice should be banned for everyone. No adult has a right to manufacture a child for personal fulfillment. No amount of wealth, influence, or legal maneuvering justifies the creation of human life as a transaction.

Children are not accessories. Women are not rental space. And no one should be allowed to buy a baby — least of all someone who wouldn’t be permitted to adopt one.

Establishment Bureaucrats Move Forward With Plan To Repress Popular German Right-Wing Party

Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) officially launched an effort seeking to ban the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, according to The Berliner on Monday. SPD delegates voted unanimously on Sunday to establish a “federal working group” commissioned to collect and present evidence of AfD’s extremism—“evidence they say is already ‘overwhelming,’” The Berliner reported. The resolution, adopted […]

Global elites think you’re too stupid for soda and beer



The latest wheeze from global public health elites? Jack up taxes on tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks, and processed food by 50% to raise $3.7 trillion in new revenue. They call it “health policy.” In plain English, it’s government-sanctioned theft.

This isn’t about curing disease. It’s about expanding state power. These so-called health taxes, pushed by academic ideologues and international bureaucrats, are little more than economic punishment disguised as progress. They won’t meaningfully reduce illness, but they’ll absolutely hit working people the hardest.

Sin taxes don’t foster well-being — they weaponize economic pain against the people who can least afford it.

The new push for massive taxes on soda, smokes, beer, and snacks is social engineering with a hefty price tag. The goal isn’t better health so much as behavioral compliance. And who pays for it? Not corporations. Not policymakers. Regular people. Especially those already stretched thin.

The promise of $3.7 trillion in new revenue tells you everything you need to know. This is about cash, not caring. You’re not going to fix the obesity crisis by making a Coke cost $4. You’re just making life worse for the guy who wants a cold drink after work.

These aren’t just products. They’re small pleasures — a beer at dinner, a smoke on break, a soda on a hot afternoon. Legal, affordable, familiar. Stripping them from people’s lives in the name of “health” doesn’t uplift anyone. It makes life more miserable.

And this plan doesn’t educate or empower. It punishes. It uses taxes to bludgeon people into compliance. That’s not public health — that’s moral authoritarianism.

Proponents claim that higher prices discourage consumption, especially among young people. But that’s not smart policy — it’s an admission that the entire strategy relies on pricing people out of their own choices.

That’s not a sign of sound policy; it’s a confession that the aim is to price people out of their own choices. It’s hard not to see this as profoundly elitist. A worldview in which an ignorant public must be nudged, coerced, and taxed into making decisions deemed acceptable by a distant class of arrogant policymakers.

Sin taxes don’t foster well-being — they weaponize economic pain against the people who can least afford it. The more someone spends on a drink or a cigarette, the less they can spend on rent, groceries, or gas. In the U.K., economists found that sin taxes cost low-income families up to 10 times more than they cost the wealthy. That holds true in the United States as well. These are regressive by design.

History offers a warning. Prohibition didn’t end drinking — it empowered criminals. Today, in places like Australia, black markets for vapes and other restricted products are booming. When governments overregulate, people continue to consume. They just go underground, and quality, safety, and accountability go with them.

Public health bureaucrats love to talk about the “commercial determinants of health,” blaming industry for every social ill. But they ignore the personal determinants that matter even more: freedom, dignity, and the right to make informed decisions.

RELATED: Cigarettes and beer: The heady perfume that transports me to my childhood

guruXOOX via iStock/Getty Images

People already know the risks of smoking, drinking, and sugar consumption. They’ve seen the labels and heard the warnings for years. They don’t need lectures from bureaucrats, government ministers, or international agencies. What they need is respect — and the freedom to live as they choose.

These new tax schemes don’t offer support or alternatives. They rely on coercion, not persuasion. The state becomes the enforcer, not the helper. It’s a government model that punishes pleasure and equates restriction with virtue.

The sinister core of this health tax agenda lies in its relentless condescension. It assumes people are too stupid, too reckless, or too addicted to choose what’s best for themselves, and so government must intervene forcefully and repeatedly.

This is control, not compassionate governance.

A better path exists — one rooted in harm reduction, not prohibition. Encourage low-sugar drink options. Expand access to safer nicotine alternatives. Support moderate alcohol consumption. Respect the people you’re trying to help.

If public health advocates truly want to improve outcomes, they should abandon these regressive, punitive proposals. They should promote innovation, not punishment. Education, not enforcement.

Because real public health doesn’t treat people like problems to be managed. It treats them like citizens — free to live, choose, and thrive.