Left-leaning Condé Nast, through Wired, appears to be running narrative cover for the protest-industrial complex, gaslighting readers over efforts to impose real penalties on chaos and disorder stemming from protests and riots.
Wired reporter Ali Winston's target is the Manhattan Institute. She appears to be upset that the Manhattan Institute is pushing for new state laws that make vandalism, blocking roadways, and trespassing during riots and protests felony offenses.
❗️ TOTAL anarchy in Los Angeles
Rioters are smashing windows, setting cars on FIRE https://t.co/ie6krxi0wk pic.twitter.com/a55XgmAwIm
"The Manhattan Institute, cofounded in 1978 by former Central Intelligence Agency director William Casey, is in the midst of a yearlong campaign to pass state-level legislation reclassifying minor crimes like vandalism, blocking a roadway, or trespassing during a protest as felonies that would carry 18-month prison sentences as punishment," Winston wrote in the article.
Denver, Colo. (March 28) — Far-left extremists riot at the “No Kings” anti-Trump rally. pic.twitter.com/ny1EESzIq2
— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) March 28, 2026That proposal comes as highly organized protest networks have repeatedly used street blockades, property destruction, vehicle burnings, and storefront attacks as pressure tactics, often under the banner of revolutionary Marxist activism and with funding channels routed through opaque NGO networks.
It boggles my mind how at ANY single moment, for ANY reason, HUNDREDS of Leftists can show up instantly with supplies and riot for WEEKS.
Normal people have to rearrange their entire day to show up anywhere…
Are these people just always on call?!!!!pic.twitter.com/OrRDGHojQ7
Can someone please explain to me HOW ON EARTH it's possible for someone in Newark NJ to riot, scream, and protest for 5 STRAIGHT DAYS????
How does one ENDLESSLY RIOT...
...and still hold down a job to feed their family?!!!!!pic.twitter.com/3Z0pgiFZLA
Jesse Arm, vice president of external affairs at the Manhattan Institute, responded to Wired's X post promoting Winston's hit piece on the institution, writing:
In America, free speech rights do not entitle you to block roads, destroy property, illegally trespass, or harass the public—all while hiding behind a mask and using resources from anti-Western funders to wage a campaign of crime designed to coerce the majority into following the whims of a radical minority.
You should be punished for such conduct. And we'll continue making that case.
If you enjoyed watching the @ManhattanInst take an absolute sledgehammer to DEI, you're going to love seeing us eviscerate civil terrorism.
In America, free speech rights do not entitle you to block roads, destroy property, illegally trespass, or harass the public—all while… https://t.co/kOFKO7I0CY pic.twitter.com/5ndQjwx6Op
Someone has to remind the Democratic Party and their NGO and activist network that the First Amendment protects peaceful speech, assembly, protest, signs, chants, marches, and petitioning the government. It does not give someone a free pass to commit ordinary crimes, which has been an ongoing issue for years with the creep of revolutionary Marxism across the nonprofit world...
Did any BLM protesters get 22 years in prison for burning down our country for months on end or is that only for Trump supporters? pic.twitter.com/wsWkn25ONJ
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 6, 2023Wired's X post was ratio'd, with commentators saying....
"...minor crimes like vandalism, blocking a roadway, or trespassing during a protest as felonies that would carry 18-month prison sentences as punishment."
So, actual crimes that have nothing to do with free speech, got it. Good for them.
Somehow engaging in protected speech becomes a protection from being arrested for committing crimes?
That sounds like leftist nonsense.
you’re basically writing @ManhattanInst’s donor impact report for them
— Neeraja Deshpande (@neerajadeshp) June 2, 2026Rioting, violent assault, and vandalism are not “protected speech”.
— Anton Marcel (@Anton__Marcel) June 2, 2026Winston noted that the Manhattan Institute's push to criminalize forms of nonviolent disobedience as "civil terrorism" comes amid a broader Trump administration effort to crack down on far-left NGOs, as well as foreign influence operations operating through the nonprofit world to sow chaos deep within the nation.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signaled last week that the crackdown on revolutionary NGOs is ongoing. We made substantial progress, and I think in the weeks and months ahead, we are going to have a lot to report."
🚨 WOW! Scott Bessent just revealed the IRS has moved to make NGOs LIABLE for violent activity committed by their grant recipients like Antifa
George Soros has been put on NOTICE.
"The IRS is now giving guidance on the Form 990, which nonprofits they have to file. We are going… pic.twitter.com/15ToheHbwa
Democrats might need to reread the First Amendment. It protects only peaceful assembly, as the Supreme Court has ruled. Blocking critical infrastructure, attacking police officers, burning cars and buildings, and using violence of any kind is not protected "speech" in the US.
Even the globalists at The Atlantic have had to admit the uncomfortable truth for Democrats...
Punish crime. End of story.
Tyler Durden Wed, 06/03/2026 - 21:20Authored by Mercura Wang via The Epoch Times,
Medically reviewed by Jimmy Almond, M.D.
Colonoscopy is the most widely used screening test for colon cancer, which is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States.
It is considered the gold standard and is more accurate than two other common screening methods - stool tests and sigmoidoscopy - because it allows doctors to see the entire colon and remove any potentially problematic polyps during the same procedure.
However, there is ongoing debate about who should undergo a colonoscopy and when. Not everyone will get colon cancer, and the procedure could lead to overdiagnosis as well as rare but serious side effects.
Illustration by The Epoch Times, Shutterstock What Does A Colonoscopy Do?The colon is the main part of the large intestine and is about 5 feet long in adults. The rectum stores stool until it passes through the anus. Together, they make up most of the large intestine, absorbing nutrients and converting liquid waste into solid stool.
During a colonoscopy, a gastroenterologist inserts a thin, flexible tube with a lighted camera (colonoscope) through the anus to examine the lining of the rectum and colon. The tube introduces air to gently inflate the colon so the doctor can see more clearly. If polyps or other abnormalities are found, they can often be removed immediately using tools such as forceps, snares, or electrocautery devices passed through the scope.
The procedure takes about 20 to 45 minutes.
Most colonoscopies in the United States are performed under sedation or anesthesia, so patients may sleep through the entire procedure. Those who choose lighter sedation - or none at all - may feel some discomfort.
The primary purpose of colonoscopy is to prevent or detect colon cancer.
Beyond cancer screening, colonoscopy can be used to both detect and treat a range of problems in the colon and rectum, including polyps, ulcerations, and diverticula (small pouches that can form in the colon wall).
It can also help determine the underlying causes of symptoms such as chronic diarrhea, rectal bleeding, and changes in bowel habits. During the procedure, doctors can identify inflamed tissue, sources of bleeding, and other abnormalities in the colon.
Who Should Have A Colonoscopy, And When?According to the current guidelines, colonoscopy is recommended for most adults starting at age 45, and repeated every 10 years if results are normal. More frequent screenings may be recommended depending on any abnormal findings.
People at higher risk are suggested to begin screening earlier - at age 40 or 10 years younger than the age at which a first-degree relative was diagnosed with colorectal cancer, whichever comes first.
In older adults, colonoscopy carries a greater risk of complications. After age 75, the decision to continue screening should be made in consultation with a doctor based on potential benefits, risks, and patient preferences.
Beyond the main guidelines, screening recommendations continue to evolve. For instance, some guidelines recommend initiating screening at age 50. In addition, emerging evidence suggests that follow-up intervals after a normal colonoscopy may be safely extended in some people. A 2024 study found that people without a family history of colorectal cancer and with an initial normal colonoscopy may be able to wait up to 15 years before repeat screening.
Some experts suggest weighing the benefits and risks. For a person with a family history of colon cancer, it may be beneficial to keep a close watch, while for someone at low risk, it may be a different story.
These differences highlight continuing uncertainty and the need for individualized clinical judgment as evidence continues to evolve.
In addition, colonoscopy may be avoided or require careful consideration in people who:
"Colonoscopy has a sensitivity of 88 percent to 98 percent for identifying advanced, precancerous polyps," Dr. Steven Lee-Kong, chief of colorectal surgery at Hackensack University Medical Center, told The Epoch Times.
The miss rate may be influenced by factors such as inadequate bowel preparation, the type of polyps being examined, and the skill of the endoscopist, noted Dr. Rucha Shah, a gastroenterologist. Small or flat polyps are harder to detect, and in some cases, the entire colon may not be fully visualized.
Colonoscopy allows doctors to remove precancerous polyps during the same procedure - something other screening tests cannot do. Removing these polyps has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of death from colorectal cancer, with one study reporting a 53 percent reduction in mortality associated with polyp removal.
However, recent studies have offered additional perspectives.
For example, colonoscopy is used much more frequently for screening in the United States than in Canada, where only about 15 percent of procedures are performed for screening, and most are diagnostic, yet colorectal cancer survival rates remain similar in both countries.
A major 2022 Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer study found a modest reduction in colorectal cancer mortality with colonoscopy screening, no significant difference in overall death rates, and a low rate of serious complications.
What Are The Risks And Complications Of Colonoscopy?Colonoscopy is generally safe, but like all medical procedures, it carries some potential risks and complications. Most are minor and resolve quickly.
Certain complications are directly related to the colonoscopy procedure itself.
Cardiopulmonary events are related to the anesthesia or sedation used during colonoscopy. They can range from temporary issues such as low blood pressure, low oxygen levels, and fainting to more serious complications, including respiratory distress, irregular heartbeat, and acute coronary events.
Contact your doctor if you:
"A successful colonoscopy hinges on a thoroughly cleansed colon, which is achieved through a standard preparation protocol involving dietary changes and a bowel-cleansing agent," Lee-Kong said.
According to Lee-Kong and Shah, some groups may need additional preparation.
Recovery is usually quick, with most people returning to normal within about one day. After the procedure, you will spend 30 to 50 minutes recovering at the clinic while the sedative wears off.
Once home, you should rest for the remainder of the day and avoid driving, operating machinery, and drinking alcohol.
You can typically return to your regular diet, but bland, low-fiber foods may be better tolerated during the first 24 hours, since you may experience mild bloating or cramping from the air used during the procedure.
If polyps were removed, you might be advised to follow a more specific diet and avoid certain medications such as blood thinners.
What Are The Alternatives To Colonoscopy?Colonoscopy isn't the only option - and it may not be your preference. According to a 2025 study, around 75 percent of adults eligible for screening prefer a noncolonoscopy option - such as stool-based or blood-based tests - as their first choice.
Several alternatives to colonoscopy are available, and they are often preferred due to lower invasiveness, patient preference, or medical contraindications, Lee-Kong said. Noninvasive stool-based tests are a primary alternative and include the following:
"While convenient, a positive result on any of these tests necessitates a follow-up colonoscopy," Lee-Kong said. A follow-up colonoscopy is generally recommended within nine months.
Other visual and imaging tests, which also require bowel preparation, include the following:
Lee-Kong noted that these alternatives may be particularly appropriate for average-risk people who decline colonoscopy and for frail older people or others for whom the risks outweigh the benefits.
Tyler Durden Wed, 06/03/2026 - 20:55Texas Republicans handed Sen. John Cornyn one of the most humiliating defeats in the state's modern political history in this year's primary runoff. A week after being clobbered by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, he is amplifying a Libertarian candidate, in an apparent attempt to siphon conservative votes from Ken Paxton in the general election in November.
In a post on X, Cornyn shared a Houston Public Media interview profiling Libertarian nominee Ted Brown, whose 2026 Senate campaign is built around courting conservatives dissatisfied with the Republican primary results.
The article itself makes it very clear that Brown has the potential to be a spoiler for Paxton. "Most polling shows Texas' U.S. Senate race between state Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Republican candidate, and Austin state Rep. James Talarico, his Democratic opponent, as extremely close," it opens. "That potentially creates an opening for a third-party candidate, Libertarian Ted Brown, to shape the outcome."
Rut roh
Libertarian Ted Brown courts disaffected conservative voters in Texas' U.S. Senate race - Houston Public Media https://t.co/wZ9ipRviE1
Brown pulled more than 267,000 votes in the 2024 Texas Senate race, a record performance for a Libertarian candidate in the state, and Cornyn just handed him a megaphone.
Cornyn had initially signaled he would fall in line behind the GOP nominee.
"I've spent most of my time in the Senate building the Republican party in Texas and in the U.S. Senate, and I've always supported the Republican ticket, and I intend to do so again in this general election," he said when he addressed his supporters last week after the election results. "I've said throughout this race that I trust the voters of Texas, and they've made their decision, and I must respect it."
Since then, however, he has been walking back that pledge.
"I stand by everything I said during the whole campaign," Cornyn told reporters on Monday, and implied that Paxton can't win the race.
"I'd prefer a Republican to somebody like James Talarico," Cornyn said. "But I'm going to concentrate most of my efforts on trying to keep the Senate by helping some of what I consider to be the more winnable races around the country."
Brown understands exactly what he is doing. He told Houston Public Media he is appealing to voters who "aren't satisfied with the primary results." When asked about playing spoiler, he pushed back with characteristic flair: "Frankly, you can't spoil something that's rotten and putrid to begin with," Brown told Houston Public Media. He is clearly hunting for precisely the kind of voter a bitter, defeated incumbent might quietly nudge his direction.
Whether Cornyn intended that outcome or simply failed to think through the signal his post sent is almost beside the point. The effect is the same. A senator who lost to Paxton's MAGA-aligned coalition is now boosting a third-party candidate whose entire pitch rests on making conservatives feel justified in abandoning the Republican nominee.
Paxton enters the general election with real structural advantages. He has won statewide elections in Texas three times already, while his Democratic opponent, James Talarico, is introducing himself to Texans statewide, giving Republicans the advantage of defining Talarico based on his controversial statements and positions on gender and other issues out of step with mainstream Texas voters.
While polls suggest a tight race, the prediction markets see what's coming. Polymarket and Kalshi both give Paxton roughly a 60% chance of winning, compared to Talarico's roughly 40%. Talarico has never led in the prediction markets. Texas remains a fundamentally red state, and the fundamentals favor Paxton.
Promoting a Libertarian candidate who openly fishes for unhappy Republicans while simultaneously calling the Republican nominee a crook sends a message to Texas conservatives that it's okay not to back the Republican candidate, effectively validating the MAGA base's concerns about Cornyn.
While Paxton is still favored, Cornyn just made this race harder without delivering any discernible benefit to the party he claims to support. Talarico isn't the only person to gain from Cornyn amplifying the Libertarian targeting conservative voters. Cornyn himself may see a Paxton defeat as validation of his primary campaign message that he was the best candidate to lead the GOP to victory.
Tyler Durden Wed, 06/03/2026 - 20:30