Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is promoting a significant expansion of federal estate taxes that would dramatically increase the government’s claim on family wealth passed between generations, raising constitutional concerns about property rights and the impact on family-owned businesses. The Estate Tax Proposal Speaking at the Martin Luther King Jr. Day event in Columbia, South Carolina on January 21, Sanders outlined his vision for higher estate taxes targeting wealthy Americans. The Vermont senator argued against allowing families to transfer substantial wealth to their children, characterizing inherited wealth as unjustified regardless of how it was earned. His proposal represents one of the most aggressive estate tax expansions discussed by presidential candidates, fundamentally challenging the American principle that parents should determine how their life’s work benefits their children. Constitutional and Economic Concerns The proposal raises serious questions about property rights guaranteed under the Constitution. American families have traditionally enjoyed the freedom to pass wealth to their children without excessive government interference. Estate taxes already claim up to forty percent of assets above certain thresholds, forcing many family farms and small businesses to sell assets just to pay tax bills. Sanders’s plan would expand this burden significantly, potentially destroying multigenerational family enterprises that represent decades of hard work, risk-taking, and sacrifice by parents hoping to provide for their children’s futures. The Broader Implications This proposal reflects a fundamental disagreement about American values. Conservative principles hold that families, not government bureaucrats, should decide how to use wealth they have legally earned and already paid taxes on during their lifetimes. The characterization of inheritance as illegitimate ignores the reality that most wealthy families created their success through innovation, hard work, and job creation. Double-taxing estates discourages savings and investment while expanding government power over private family decisions. Americans who believe in limited government and individual liberty should carefully consider whether empowering Washington to confiscate family wealth aligns with constitutional principles of property rights and economic freedom that built this nation’s prosperity. Sources Jacobin: Bernie Against the Billionaires

Chicago’s Loop district descended into chaos as social media-fueled teen mobs overwhelmed police, leaving one dead and exposing how liberal officials’ soft-on-crime rhetoric has emboldened lawless youth takeovers that terrorize law-abiding residents and businesses. Social Media Fuels Downtown Disorder Hundreds of teenagers converged on Chicago’s Roosevelt and Canal intersection Saturday evening, March 23, 2024, after social media posts promoted an unsupervised gathering. The crowd overwhelmed the South Loop area near transit hubs, banks, and retail establishments around 7 p.m. What began as a meetup rapidly escalated into violence when gunfire erupted at approximately 8:06 p.m. in a BMO Harris Bank parking lot. A 17-year-old boy was fatally shot in the chest and neck, while a 15-year-old sustained leg wounds. Police immediately detained the gunman and recovered the firearm as chaos unfolded across multiple blocks. Mass Arrests Follow Deadly Shooting Commander David Harris of the Central/1st District ordered mass detentions via radio, announcing “Anybody that’s on the street, they’re going to jail.” Dozens of juveniles were arrested, with formal charges filed against 12 individuals—eight juveniles and one adult. Charges included disorderly conduct for teens aged 14-17, assault, and reckless conduct. Adult Sybrina Collins, 18, faced resisting arrest charges. Three additional juveniles received curfew citations. The aggressive enforcement marked a shift from previous lenient approaches that critics argue allowed these gatherings to proliferate. This incident mirrored a July 30, 2023 takeover at the same location where 400 youths looted stores, resulting in 40 arrests and three firearms seized. Political Enablement of Youth Violence Mayor Brandon Johnson previously criticized use of the term “mob action” to describe similar teen takeovers, downplaying the severity of coordinated youth violence. This soft rhetoric stands in stark contrast to the reality facing South Loop residents and business owners who endure repeated disruptions. Alderman Brian Hopkins reported another incident on November 22, 2025, near the State and Randolph intersection following a Christmas tree lighting, claiming 300 juveniles rioted with five shot and officers injured by mace and stun guns. Police did not confirm Hopkins’ casualty figures, highlighting the disconnect between political narratives and street-level chaos. The pattern reveals how liberal city leadership prioritizes optics over public safety, refusing to acknowledge the organized nature of these social media-driven attacks. Eroding Safety and Economic Stability These recurring teen takeovers impose substantial costs on Chicago’s downtown corridor. Businesses face temporary closures, property damage, and lost revenue while policing expenses skyrocket. The South Loop’s high-traffic location near transit makes it vulnerable to flash mob gatherings that can materialize within hours of social media posts. Security firms like Titan Security now monitor and predict these events, reflecting the normalization of chaos that should outrage every taxpayer. Tourism and economic development suffer as the Loop’s reputation deteriorates. Families of victims bear the ultimate cost—a 17-year-old lost his life while city officials debate terminology rather than implementing effective deterrents that protect constitutional rights to public safety and commerce. Pattern of Failed Progressive Policies Chicago’s inability to prevent these takeovers stems from years of progressive policies that prioritize social narratives over law enforcement. The post-COVID era saw flash mobs and youth unrest evolve into organized disruptions, yet city leadership resists labeling them appropriately or implementing meaningful consequences. Proactive youth programs and outreach workers prove ineffective when overwhelmed by hundreds of unsupervised teens emboldened by prior leniency. The February 2024 “Trend Teen Meetup” at 150 West Roosevelt and subsequent incidents demonstrate a predictable cycle: social media promotion, mass gatherings, violence, minimal accountability, and repetition. Law-abiding Chicagoans deserve leadership that prioritizes their safety over political correctness, enforces existing laws without apology, and holds perpetrators accountable regardless of age when they commit violent crimes that destroy communities. Sources: Chicago: Large teen gathering in South Loop, arrests, two shot – CWB Chicago Chicago police swarm downtown after reported shooting following tree lighting – Fox 32 Chicago

Iranian mobile users across the country received government-distributed text messages promoting an “international campaign to reward the assassination of Trump,” marking a disturbing shift from isolated threats to mass public incitement. From State Television to Personal Devices The Iranian regime crossed a dangerous threshold when screenshots emerged showing mass text messages promoting assassination rewards sent directly to citizens’ mobile phones. This represents a quantum leap from previous threats broadcast on state television or whispered through intelligence channels. The regime now uses telecommunications infrastructure to distribute calls for political murder, transforming every mobile phone into a potential propaganda delivery system. Screenshots shared with Iran International confirm the campaign’s existence, though the full scope remains unclear regarding how many Iranians received these disturbing messages or their geographic distribution across the country. A mass text message sent to mobile users in Iran promoted what it described as an “international campaign to reward the assassination of Trump,” according to screenshots of the message shared with Iran International. The message urges recipients to register their support through… pic.twitter.com/jPhfqoczrt — Iran International English (@IranIntl_En) March 25, 2026 The Shadow of Soleimani Looms Large Trump became Iran’s primary target in January 2020 when he authorized the drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force. That decision fundamentally reshaped U.S.-Iran relations and established Trump as the focus of Iranian retaliation efforts. The regime has never forgiven or forgotten, viewing Trump’s continued survival as unfinished business. Federal prosecutors have documented this vendetta through multiple criminal cases, including charges unsealed in November 2024 regarding an IRGC plot to assassinate Trump before the presidential election. An operative named Asif Merchant allegedly attempted to hire assassins for five thousand dollars upfront, demonstrating Iran’s willingness to invest resources in eliminating Trump. A Pattern of Escalating Threats The text message campaign represents the latest chapter in an evolving threat landscape. In January 2026, Iranian state television IRINN broadcast footage showing a mourner at a ceremony holding a placard featuring Trump’s image from the Butler, Pennsylvania rally where he was shot in the ear. The Farsi text read “this time it will not miss the target,” a chilling reference to the July 2024 assassination attempt by Thomas Crooks, which U.S. authorities determined was unrelated to Iran. This public taunting demonstrated the regime’s confidence in making explicit threats without immediate consequences. The progression from isolated plots to state television broadcasts to mass text distribution reveals a deliberate strategy of normalization and escalation. : Iranian media shares an image of a missile that reads: “This is the gift that Trump said, "Open your arms and receive it!" The promise is true.” pic.twitter.com/e5P67uyWbj — Ryan Rozbiani (@RyanRozbiani) March 25, 2026 Protests, Pressure, and Propaganda The assassination campaign unfolds against a backdrop of widespread anti-government protests in Iran, where thousands have been killed or detained. Trump repeatedly threatened military strikes if the regime continued its violent crackdown, warning “we are locked and loaded and ready to go.” This rhetoric provides Iran’s leadership with a dual motivation for the text campaign: rallying domestic support by redirecting public anger toward an external enemy while simultaneously warning the United States against military intervention. Trump has claimed the “killing has stopped in Iran” and that violent unrest is beginning to quell, though the situation remains highly volatile with unresolved tensions on both sides. The Credibility Question Should Americans take these threats seriously? The documented history argues yes. U.S. federal courts have examined undercover video evidence and testimony regarding Iran-linked assassination plots. The Department of Justice has unsealed criminal charges detailing IRGC operations. Intelligence agencies maintain heightened threat assessments regarding Trump’s security. However, the public nature of the mass text campaign suggests a propaganda dimension alongside operational intent. Regimes serious about assassination typically operate in shadows, not through mass public messaging. The campaign may serve primarily to mobilize domestic support and project strength during a period of internal instability, while simultaneously maintaining pressure on U.S. decision-making regarding military intervention. Dangerous Precedents and Future Implications The use of mass communication infrastructure to promote political assassination establishes a troubling precedent. State control over telecommunications networks, combined with willingness to use them for incitement, creates a model other authoritarian regimes might emulate. Trump faces an institutionalized, ongoing threat that extends beyond his current presidency, as Iranian leadership has invested substantial political capital in maintaining Soleimani’s memory and demanding retribution. The broader implications affect regional stability, U.S. allies who could become targets of Iranian retaliation, and global energy markets vulnerable to disruption from military conflict. The international community watches nervously as rhetoric escalates without clear diplomatic off-ramps, raising the specter of miscalculation or unintended military confrontation between nuclear-threshold adversaries. Sources: Fox News: Iranian protestors hold Trump assassination attempt photo, chant ‘death to America,’ state media shows Times of India: ‘This time bullet won’t miss target’: Iran issues chilling warning to Donald Trump, airs clip of 2024 assassination attempt WPDE: Iran taunts President Donald Trump with assassination threat, shares chilling image from Butler Pennsylvania rally Jerusalem Post: Iran taunts Trump with chilling image from assassination attempt Iran International: Mass text message in Iran promotes ‘international campaign to reward assassination of Trump’

Washington State’s new abuse-reporting mandate is forcing a constitutional showdown: can government compel Catholic priests to break the seal of confession? Washington’s “no-confession-exception” reporting law sparks federal scrutiny Washington’s newly signed child-abuse reporting law requires priests to report suspected abuse even if the only source is sacramental confession, removing a carve-out many states maintain for clergy-penitent privilege. Federal authorities have taken notice, and coverage describes a widening conflict between state enforcement and the Church’s stated inability to violate the confessional seal. The result is a high-stakes collision of child-safety policy and First Amendment protections. Two Catholic priests were accused of abusing women they were counseling. Their defense? Prosecuting them violates their *religious freedom* (Yes, really.) https://t.co/2kxW42Vrdz — Hemant Mehta (@hemantmehta) March 24, 2026 For conservatives who already distrust expanding bureaucratic power, this is the kind of precedent that doesn’t stay confined to one “good cause.” Legislatures can label almost any priority as an emergency, then demand compliance from institutions that disagree. The central question is not whether child abuse must be stopped—it must—but whether the state can redefine a religious sacrament by statute and punish clergy for adhering to doctrine. How the mandate tests the First Amendment—and due process Reporting on the law highlights that the Church views the seal of confession as absolute, meaning compliance would require priests to betray penitents and effectively alter the sacrament. That puts the state on a path toward deciding what religious practice must look like in Washington, an entanglement the Constitution was designed to prevent. If government can compel speech from clergy inside a sacred rite, the precedent could be cited later against other faiths or practices. Practical enforcement raises additional concerns. Confession is typically anonymous or tightly protected; extracting “actionable” detail can be difficult without turning priests into interrogators. Critics argue that creates pressure for clergy to probe for identifying information, shifting confession away from repentance and toward evidence gathering. Supporters counter that mandatory reporting removes a potential hiding place for abusers. What remains unclear in coverage is how officials expect reliable, verifiable reporting when the sacrament’s structure resists documentation. Why this fight resonates beyond Catholicism Even Americans who are not Catholic should see the broader civil-liberties stakes. The issue is a direct test of whether the state can override long-recognized confidentiality norms by framing them as obstacles to enforcement. Many conservatives remember how “temporary” expansions of authority—whether in education, public health, or surveillance—rarely shrink back. If the state can dictate what must be disclosed inside confession, other private relationships could be next. Central Minnesota Priests Claim Charging Them With Sexual Abuse Violates Their Religious Freedomhttps://t.co/sJKMpzjyC2 — Complicit Clergy (@complicitclergy) March 25, 2026 Public trust, accountability, and the Church’s internal credibility challenge The controversy also lands at a time of public skepticism toward church institutions. Separate reporting shows Catholic leadership addressing concerns about money and religious services, warning that sacraments are “not for sale” and criticizing the idea of charging for baptisms, weddings, or funerals. While that story is distinct from Washington’s law, it underscores why this fight is so combustible: state officials claim moral urgency, and critics point to past failures that weakened the Church’s public standing. What happens next: compliance pressure versus constitutional limits Coverage indicates the dispute is already pulling in federal attention, suggesting the conflict could move from political debate to courtroom review. If litigation follows, judges will likely have to weigh the state’s child-protection rationale against the burden imposed on religious exercise and any constitutional protections for confidential clergy communications. What’s missing from the available research is a clear roadmap for implementation, penalties, and enforcement guidelines—details that will determine whether this becomes selective prosecution or a sweeping new compliance regime. For a conservative audience, the takeaway is straightforward: protecting children is non-negotiable, but so is preventing government from rewriting religious practice by force of law. If lawmakers want stronger reporting, they should pursue measures that improve investigations and protect victims without setting a precedent that the state may compel clergy speech inside a sacrament. With limited research available beyond the cited reporting, key legal arguments and enforcement specifics should be monitored closely as they emerge. Sources: Sacraments not for sale, bishop warns Washington state Catholic church feds child abuse reporting law priests Washington governor signs abuse bill requiring priests to break seal of confession

Veteran ESPN anchor Sage Steele has filed a lawsuit against ESPN and its parent company Disney, alleging the media giant violated her constitutional free speech rights and breached her employment contract after she criticized the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on a podcast. The Podcast Comments That Sparked Controversy In September 2021, Steele appeared on former NFL quarterback Jay Cutler’s podcast where she discussed Disney’s corporate vaccine mandate. While explaining she had complied with the requirement, Steele stated that mandating vaccination was “sick” and “scary” to her. She emphasized her respect for individual choice while acknowledging her need to keep her job. The anchor also addressed her biracial identity, expressing fascination that former President Barack Obama identified solely as Black despite being raised by his white mother and grandmother. Days after the podcast aired on September 29, 2021, Steele tested positive for COVID-19 and was removed from the air on October 4. According to court filings, ESPN forced her to issue a public apology and kept her off broadcasts until October 14. Her attorney, Bryan Freedman, claims ESPN retaliated against Steele for expressing personal opinions outside of work, despite her compliance with company policies. ESPN’s Response and Legal Claims ESPN disputes the suspension claim, stating in a response that Steele “was never suspended” and remains a valued contributor on high-profile content including Masters telecasts and SportsCenter. However, Steele’s legal team argues the network benefited from public perception that she was punished for her remarks. The lawsuit alleges ESPN operated under a double standard by condemning Steele while ignoring political and controversial statements from other employees. Constitutional and Contract Violations Alleged Steele’s legal team is seeking damages for alleged First Amendment violations and breaches of Connecticut law, which prohibits employers from disciplining employees for exercising free speech rights. Freedman stated that Steele was punished simply because her personal opinions didn’t align with Disney’s corporate philosophy. The lawsuit also accuses ESPN of contract breach and intentionally inflicting emotional distress. The case represents a broader challenge to corporate America’s treatment of employee speech rights outside the workplace. Sources Npr: Anchor Sage Steele is suing ESPN over free speech claims : NPR