Aggregator

The trend has a clear origin point.

A shock internal poll for scandal-scarred Maine Senate hopeful Graham Platner seemingly indicates that he may be losing ground in his quest to beat incumbent Sen. Susan Collins.

There may be a homeless epidemic, but New York City’s lefty mayor is leaving Midtown East without any drop-in centers. 

A new Rams policy will help fans who recently bought Jared Verse jerseys get out of a pickle.

The senior was getting off a bus at East 16th Street and Union Square East around 12:25 p.m. Monday when a much-younger woman – later identified as Paris Valentine, 29 – “aggressively” knocked her to the pavement, according to a criminal complaint. 

California's 'Wealth' Tax Is Coming For Everyone

Authored by Edward Ring via American Greatness,

If you own property in California, you're not safe. A new ballot measure will empower the state to confiscate a percentage of the assets of any resident, even though its initial provisions don't communicate that intent. California's "One-Time Wealth Tax for State-Funded Healthcare, Education, and Food Assistance Programs Initiative," which has already qualified for the November ballot, is even worse than it appears.

It's not as if appearances aren't bad enough. The explicit intent of the initiative already chased at least six billionaires out of the state in 2025. Moved to Florida are Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, along with PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel. Nevada is now home to billionaire Don Hankey, and Texas has welcomed former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick. Famed director Steven Spielberg has moved to New York, apparently concluding even that deep blue state is a safer bet than California. Just the departure of these six men has lowered the potential take from the wealth tax by an estimated $27 billion.

A Hoover Institution study claims that another 20 California billionaires have already made departure plans and will leave immediately if the initiative is approved by voters. One of the initiative's many diabolical provisions is that it will apply retroactively to anyone living in the state after January 1, 2026, but unlike the six who got out in 2025, this next tranche of would-be exiles have been advised by their attorneys that the initiative's retroactivity will not survive a constitutional challenge.

Other details of this initiative are likely to survive court challenges, and they reveal a stunning level of aggression toward wealth. If you live in California, and this bill is approved by voters, you will have to pay a "one-time" tax of 5 percent of your "covered assets" valued over $1 billion. "Covered assets" include unrealized gains in the value of stock owned by employees of private companies. It is unlikely the framers of this initiative didn't understand the implications of this provision. Valuations of private companies are subjective, volatile, and illiquid. An employee with stock options valued at a few billion in the last private equity round could be assessed tens of millions of dollars in wealth tax on money they don't actually have access to, based on a value that could plummet at any moment.

It gets worse. The language of the wealth act provides for what amounts to unrestricted escalation of its reach, something that will surely become necessary when high earners are driven away, taking their taxable assets with them. Built into the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act is the right of the state legislature to amend its provisions with a two-thirds vote. That would include lowering the $1 billion threshold, replacing "one-time" with an annual assessment, and eliminating the exemptions currently present for real estate and retirement accounts. The wording of this initiative is purposely designed to give the state legislature the authority to override the property tax protections afforded by Proposition 13, passed by voters in 1978 and one of the only obstacles left that prevents the state from stripping the state's middle class of assets they've earned and stewarded over generations.

It is ridiculous to think California's state legislature cannot muster a two-thirds vote, anytime they wish, in order to extend the reach of the "Billionaire Tax Act" down to "millionaires," which, in California, is almost anyone who has owned their own home for more than a decade. In both houses of California's state legislature, 75 percent of the seats are held by Democrats. The overwhelming percentage of Democrats in California, and, for that matter, a sizable portion of the state's dwindling contingent of Republicans, are controlled by the state's powerful public sector unions. And more than anything else, these unions have one guiding principle: grow government, because bigger government means more membership, and more membership means more dues revenue. That's the reason that the top 10, if not the top 50, largest contributors to winning campaigns for seats in the state legislature are all public sector unions.

To grow support for more government, you must grow dependency on government, and to that end, California's state legislature has engineered a perfect storm. Every decade, more regulations buried small emerging competitive businesses, allowing the biggest and most politically compliant businesses to gain captive markets. And in complying with the state's overregulation, lacking competition, these politically favored businesses passed the increased costs of regulatory compliance on to their customers. Voila, California's energy, water, transportation, higher education, housing, and all government services became increasingly unaffordable. And as households, by the millions, could no longer afford to survive economically, government aid stepped in to fill the gap.

The numbers support this assessment. Between 2010 and 2025, when the state's total population only increased incrementally by about 1.5 million people, the number of participants in California's taxpayer-funded food aid benefits soared from 3.7 million to 5.5 million, and the state's Medi-Cal enrollment exploded from 7 million to 15 million, over one-third of the population.

Everything California's state government has done over the past 15 years has exploded commensurately. The state General Fund in 2010 was $87 billion. In 2025 it was $228 billion. Even adjusting for inflation, spending more than doubled when the total population barely budged. And what of this population?

Over the period from 2010 to 2025, nearly 10 million people moved from California to other states. The people moving into California and the people choosing to remain in California are increasingly characterized as either high-income residents who can withstand the high cost of living or low-income residents who depend on government assistance. California's Gini Coefficient, at 0.49, puts it in a virtual tie with New York and Connecticut as the states with the worst income inequality in the nation. To claim this is the fault of billionaires is a convenient lie, promulgated by the very politicians whose own policies were the true cause.

It ought to be clear to anyone who has spent any time in sunny California, a place blessed with literally every scenic amenity imaginable from alpine peaks to sandy beaches, the best wine on earth and spectacular coastal cities, that the only thing that could possibly induce them to not want to live here permanently would be an overtly hostile government. And that's exactly what has happened. Every major challenge California faces is the product of a government that has decided to serve itself instead of the people.

The model of "democracy" that California has perfected can be summed up in one sentence: overregulate an economy to make life unaffordable without government handouts, then win elections by promising more government handouts to people who can't live without them. It is unsustainable, because as the old cliche goes, pretty soon you run out of other people's money. The exodus of California's wealthiest residents is the latest iteration of this doom loop.

Far removed from idealistic fantasies sold to voters, this is the reality of progressive politics in California. Given half a chance, it will be exported to the rest of the nation.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/03/2026 - 17:00

Jeremy Clarkson comes into Season 5 of Clarkson’s Farm with health scares, the usual bold talk, and a host of new challenges down on his farm.

Angel Studios enjoyed a nice theatrical hit with this metaphorical rock slung at the noggins of bigger animation houses.

The restaurant surprised her with a cake that was decorated with several photos of her milestones.

The restaurant surprised her with a cake that was decorated with several photos of her milestones.

The recall affects 165,000 dresser units.

Gold Dethrones The King: ECB Confirms Barbarous Relic Has Overtaken Treasuries As Top Global Reserve Asset

In what can only be described as the latest humiliating blow to the crumbling Pax Americana, gold has officially overtaken US government bonds as the world's top reserve asset.

The FT reports that, according to a fresh report from the European Central Bank released Tuesday, bullion now accounts for 27% of global central bank reserves at the end of 2025 - up sharply from 20% the prior year.

US Treasuries, once the untouchable king of the reserve world, have been knocked down to 22% from 25%. The euro's share remained flat at 15%.

This isn't some organic portfolio rebalancing. It's a full-scale de-dollarization revolt years in the making, turbocharged by Washington's own weaponization of the dollar.

“Geopolitical tensions continue to drive strong central bank demand for gold,” wrote ECB President Christine Lagarde in the report - in the driest possible bureaucrat speak while watching the system she helped build slowly circle the drain.

Central banks are now sitting on more than 36,000 tonnes of gold — nearly matching the peak hoarding levels seen during the final days of the Bretton Woods system (38,000 tonnes). You know, back when money was still somewhat tethered to reality.

The message from the periphery is crystal clear: trust in the US dollar as the ultimate reserve currency is eroding fast.

The catalyst? The same one we have been screaming about for years - the reckless weaponization of SWIFT and dollar reserves.

After Washington froze Russia's FX reserves following the 2022 Ukraine invasion, every finance minister from Brasília to Beijing got the memo: Never let them do this to us.

The numbers tell the story of quiet desperation.

China, Poland, Turkey, and India have been the most aggressive gold stackers since 2022.

Even Tether, the stablecoin giant, became the single largest buyer in 2025, slurping up over 100 tonnes.

Because nothing says "we believe in the system" like parking your balance sheet in physical gold while issuing dollar-pegged liabilities.

Of course, there are cracks in the narrative.

Turkey - after aggressively buying 220 tonnes post-2022 - executed one of the largest reserve drawdowns in recent memory in early 2026, selling or lending out 130 tonnes amid the fallout from the Iran war.

Even gold bugs sometimes need liquidity when things get spicy.

Still, the broader trend is unmistakable.

While dollar-denominated assets still make up 42% of reserves overall, the trajectory is brutally obvious to anyone not drinking the mainstream financial media Kool-Aid.

Gold's surge wasn't just about central bank buying (which slowed modestly to 850 tonnes in 2025 after multiple 1,000+ tonne years). It was supercharged by the metal's explosive rally, smashing through $5,500 per ounce earlier this year.

Meanwhile, the ECB couldn't resist patting itself on the back, noting the euro's "gradual but steady" gains in international usage, with euro-denominated debt issuance hitting record highs and massive capital inflows into euro assets.

Translation: At least someone still wants our funny money... for now.

The bond market's loss is gold's gain - and history suggests this kind of shift rarely ends with a whimper. When central banks themselves start treating Treasuries like a fading brand and gold like the ultimate insurance policy, the writing is on the wall for the dollar's exorbitant privilege.

The only question left is how much longer the music can keep playing.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/03/2026 - 16:40

Never Let Politicians Decide What Is True

Authored by J.B. Shurk via American Thinker,

We are living through an age that has abandoned the dedicated pursuit of truth. Our politicians and news personalities talk about "the narrative." Our academies teach young minds to accept "expert opinion." Our philosophers argue that truth is "subjective." Social theorists argue that truth is an "illusion" that powerful people use to control others.

Whenever I hear Democrat Senator Cory Booker all riled up on television, he's talking about "her truth," "his truth," or even "their truth" - as if a hundred conflicting descriptions of the same event could all be truthful.

During Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings, Democrats called Dr. Christine Blasey Ford to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ford claimed that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in 1982 when both were in high school. Kavanaugh vehemently denied the allegation and argued that many parts of Ford's story didn't add up. When Kavanaugh told the senators that the whole thing was a political spectacle being used as a weapon to derail his confirmation, Senator Booker shouted, "Are you calling her some kind of political operative?" Kavanaugh calmly pointed out, "The witnesses who were there [the party at which Blasey Ford claimed the alleged assault occurred] say it didn't happen." Kavanaugh then stated that, although Blasey Ford's allegations were false and harmful, his "family has no ill will toward her."

This is how Booker responded to Justice Kavanaugh's total denial of the allegation against him: "She came forward. She sat here. She told her truth." Her truth. Not the truth. The "truth" that was most likely to help Democrats "Bork" Kavanaugh's nomination - just as then-Senator Joe Biden and fellow Democrats tried to do during Justice Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings back in '91 when they brought in a witness who claimed that Thomas had made "unwelcome sexual comments" when the two worked together, a charge Thomas similarly and furiously denied.

What was revealing about Booker's made-for-TV moment was his disregard for whether Kavanaugh had actually done anything untoward forty years earlier in his life. He didn't care. The lack of any evidence that could credibly support Blasey Ford's allegation didn't matter. Nor did it matter that Kavanaugh flatly denied the allegation. For Booker, the only "fact" that mattered was that Blasey Ford was willing to testify to something that might sink Kavanaugh's nomination. "Her truth," even if false, made it compelling.

Booker's flippant disregard for the truth was reminiscent of President Bill Clinton's rationalization to a grand jury that he never lied about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky when he told his staff, "There's nothing going on between us," and Jim Lehrer of PBS, "There is no improper relationship." As everyone who recalls Lewinsky's stained blue dress knows, Clinton's statements were lies. But when Clinton testified before members of a grand jury, this was his truth:

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the - if he - if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not - that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.…Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said 'no.' And it would have been completely true."

At that moment, President Clinton proved to Americans that he had no interest in truth. He did not care if he lied. He cared only whether the American people might catch him in a lie. Whether Clinton had "plausible deniability" mattered. Whether he could confuse enough jurors over the meaning of "is" mattered. But the truth? Well, the truth is for rubes and suckers. Clinton's dissembling and Booker's disregard for what actually happened in 1982 are symptoms of the same disease: our dishonest age's abandonment of - and even hostility toward - what is true.

Politicians lie. That's hardly breaking news. What is newsworthy, though, is that our society does not even pretend to pursue truth anymore.

During COVID, we were forced to follow government mandates that made absolutely no sense. Why was it safe for Walmart to remain open when small businesses were forced to close? How could paper masks, arrows painted on the floor, plexiglass walls, or six feet of space save us from microorganisms that don't care about such things? Why should schools be closed when the virus posed the least threat to young people? Why should healthy people who had already acquired natural immunity be forced to take an experimental injection? The public was right to ask so many valid questions. Yet our government-run health organizations responded with juvenile insouciance: We're working at the speed of science! That was the "scientific" equivalent of, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

We're fifteen years into this gender-bender madness during which "experts" (including too many with M.D.s) claim that biological sex is not real and that what we perceive as male or female is nothing more than a self-imposed social construct. People who have refused to play this delusional game have been fired from jobs. People looking for jobs tell obvious lies.

During Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation hearings, Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn asked, "Can you provide a definition for the word 'woman'?" The newest member of the Supreme Court replied, "No, I can't." "You can't?" Blackburn asked incredulously. The jurist who holds one of the most powerful offices in the United States claimed, "Not in this context. I'm not a biologist." This is where we are now. A judge with two Harvard degrees can't tell the American people whether she is actually a woman.

A few days ago, reporter and columnist John Stossel noted that twenty years have passed since former Vice President Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth was released in theaters. Along with a short five-minute video that includes research scientists from the Heartland Institute debunking the pseudoscience behind "climate change" fearmongering, Stossel summed up Gore's lies thusly: "NONE of his scary predictions have come true. Mt. Kilimanjaro still has snow and Glacier National Park still has glaciers." Yet included in that short video is a litany of celebrity "experts" and Democrat politicians all parroting the same lie: We have only twelve years left to live.

The "global warming" liars spent the last twenty years scaring children all over the world by telling them that they would die before being old enough to drive. Now some of those scared kids have children of their own, and the "climate change" con is still going. Prominent Democrats such as Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, and Richard Blumenthal have even supported legislation that would prohibit funds to federal agencies that "challenge the scientific consensus on climate change." In other words, Democrat politicians wish to outlaw the Scientific Method.

Our society does not doggedly pursue truth. It pursues ideological compliance.

Truth does not require President Joe Biden's Disinformation Governance Board to arbitrate reality for the public. Science is never "settled," as President Barack Obama claimed in his 2014 State of the Union Address. People without PhDs are quite capable of defining a "woman" and deciding for themselves whether to wear paper masks. To pretend otherwise is just another lie.

Here's the real problem, though: When our politicians, scientists, educators, and philosophers spread the lie that there is no objective truth, they transform our existence into gooey meaninglessness. Because if everything is "true," then nothing is true. And if nothing is true, then politicians will decide what is "true" for us.

Pursuing truth does not mean that we ever obtain it. It is the vigilant pursuit of truth, though, that gives us sufficient wisdom to recognize the lies and liars among us. In an age when liars rule, question everything.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/03/2026 - 16:20

Pratt said he will spend the next five months working to win over Bass supporters by making the case that he is the right person for the job, emphasizing that he is running for the city rather than along party lines.

Turturro revealed she had been experiencing "chest pains" for some time before she saw a doctor.

Turturro revealed she had been experiencing "chest pains" for some time before she saw a doctor.

Myles Garrett wanted a Super Bowl shot, and he will now be forced to sacrifice a small fortune to do so.

The White House slammed a Wednesday report by Bloomberg that claimed Iran was a greater risk of obtaining a nuclear weapon than it was before the 2025 strikes destroyed Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure.

An antisemitic Charlie Kirk conspiracy theorist scored a ridiculous amount of votes on Tuesday in the California governor race despite widespread condemnation.

Anthony Joshua was just following orders.