'Assisting foreign illegal aliens'

A new national survey reveals the widespread appeal of President Trump’s law-and-order approach to immigration enforcement. Americans reject street violence and insist that only legal, vetted migration be permitted into our homeland. Perhaps most tellingly, Americans overwhelmingly believe that those who use violence and interfere with law enforcement deportation operations must face criminal charges. When […]

'Will not make meaningful changes, in my opinion'

President Donald J. Trump is right. Too many pharmaceuticals are too damn high, especially compared to the flea-market prices that foreign patients pay for the same drugs. Dr. Wayne Winegarden, a senior fellow with the Pacific Research Institute, estimated last month that a 30-day supply of the weight-loss drug Ozempic costs $418.98 in the USA. But it’s a mere $95.30 in the UK—a 77.25% discount. Jardiance, for cardiovascular diseases $256.66 per month here. In Canada: $57.65. That’s roughly 77.5% off.  Trump’s new Most Favored Nation policy aims to bring U.S. drug bills closer to those overseas. Simply put, this initiative demands that these manufacturers sell “all brand products” at their lowest prices among major Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. This illusionary bargain would karate chop the revenues of American drug companies. They typically spend $2.9 billion to bring each new drug to market. These firms also try to recoup losses fueled by the countless once-promising potential therapies that die anonymously in their test tubes. Most Favored Nation is like telling Hewlett-Packard that its $1,500 laptops must sell for just $200— the price that MS-13 quotes for such a freshly stolen computer.  Great Britain’s National Health Service, Health Canada, France’s l’Assurance Maladie, Germany’s Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung, and similar socialized medical systems are more dapper, less tattooed versions of this notorious Salvadoran prison gang. Rather than pay what Pfizer or Gilead ask for their drugs, bureaucrats at these government-run medical monopolies dictate take-it-or-leave-it prices to these companies. To avoid total exclusion from these markets, U.S. laboratories say: “Thank you, sir. I’ll have another!” These labs then? charge U.S. patients and insurers higher prices to compensate for the artificially low prices extorted by these rip-off countries. Lower revenues—due to foreign drug thieves and Most Favored Nation’s attempt to undo their economic distortions—will discourage U.S. pharmaceutical companies from creating costly new treatments and cures.  In 2018, per the National Academies Press, “Two-thirds of new drugs in the past decade and more than 80% of the drugs in the world’s biopharmaceutical pipeline today emerge from the United States.” Tragically, Earth’s entitled free riders will not step up if the American miracle-drug machine sputters, wheezes, and dies. For starters, Trump should call British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Canadian PM Mark Carney, and French President Emmanuel Macron. He should tell them: “Stop robbing American drug companies. U.S. drugs sell for U.S. prices.”  What should be done here at home, to make drug prices more reasonable? Aside from the teachers unions, Pharmacy Benefit Managers are the biggest parasites in America. Leeches feasting on lampreys have nothing on these value-destroying middlemen. Imagine ordering a New York Strip at your favorite steakhouse. Suddenly, a Meat Benefits Manager steps forth and plants himself among you, your waiter, the chef, and the butcher. After mind-numbing discussions and a tornado of paperwork, your $58 steak now costs $100. And the Meat Benefits Manager pockets the difference, via the higher tab that he finagled. Tomorrow night, you think a percentage of the higher tab that he finagled. Tomorrow night, you think, “Why not Campbell’s Soup?” Invading the personal space of patients, employers, insurers, and druggists, ?America’s Pharmacy Benefit Manager cabal raked in $557.5 billion in 2024, IBISWorld estimates. That might be admirable if these companies merely offered advice or just looked handsome. Instead, they collect a share of the drug prices that they oversee. Naturally, they hike these expenses, so they can drain more blood from their increasingly anemic hosts. “PBM operations are opaque, their revenues streams complex and perhaps most importantly, their operations obscure the actual market price for medicines,” Winegarden wrote on May 22. “Due to these flaws, prices for innovative medicines in the U.S. are inflated.” Trump could help pry Pharmacy Benefit Manager fangs out of the drug industry’s collective neck by insisting on pharmaceutical price transparency. Citing a September 2023 Nephron Research study, Winegarden reported that “$0.42 of every $1 spent on brand medicines for commercially insured patients in the U.S. goes straight to these companies.” Consumers should see drugstore receipts along these lines: “Drug X: $58 + Pharmacy Benefit Manager fees: $42 = $100.” Such transparency would let the sunshine disinfect the Pharmacy Benefit Managers right out of drug prices.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Pharmacy Benefit Manager Parasites Drive Drug Costs Ever Higher appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. At Oxford University’s Brazil Forum UK 2025, Brazil’s Supreme Court President Luís Roberto Barroso renewed his call for tighter control over online content, advocating for judicial involvement in shaping digital speech regulations in Brazil. Speaking to an audience brought together by Brazilian students in the UK, Barroso argued that the spread of what he labeled as “misinformation” demands urgent regulatory responses, including punitive action against digital platforms. More: US Warns Brazil’s Justice de Moraes Over Rumble Censorship Orders Targeting Americans Barroso’s key message revolved around the perceived dangers of unchecked online discourse, framing his position around the idea that “it’s important to make lying wrong again.” However, this stance has raised serious concerns among free expression advocates, who warn that equating misinformation with criminal behavior could set a dangerous precedent for censorship and governmental overreach. With the Supreme Federal Court poised to revisit Brazil’s Internet Bill of Rights, Barroso defended the judiciary’s growing role in content regulation, saying, “We waited quite a while to see if Congress would legislate, but the legislation never came.” He maintained that the court is simply “ruling on specific cases,” yet his broader comments signal a push for the courts to fill in where elected lawmakers have so far declined to act. Barroso pressed for holding tech companies accountable for user-generated content, citing the failure of Congress to pass comprehensive digital regulation. His argument positions judicial intervention not as a last resort, but as a necessary corrective, despite the risk this poses to long-standing protections for open online discourse. The forum also addressed artificial intelligence regulation in a panel featuring Google Brazil’s legal director, Daniel Arbix, and data scientist Kizzy Terra. Barroso took aim at the engagement-driven algorithms powering today’s platforms, declaring, “It’s a human condition: insults, offenses, and lies generate more engagement than moderate speech.” Yet, blaming platform design risks overlooking users’ agency and may pave the way for sweeping restrictions on lawful speech. Under the current legal structure, Brazil’s Internet Bill of Rights limits the liability of platforms unless they refuse a court order to remove content deemed harmful. Exceptions exist for cases such as copyright violations and non-consensual nudity. Nonetheless, Barroso and like-minded justices are pushing for a more aggressive “duty of care” model inspired by European regulations, which would compel platforms to act on flagged content or face legal repercussions. This proposal, if implemented, would drastically alter the country’s digital legal landscape and potentially undermine the principles enshrined in Article 19, whose constitutionality remains staunchly defended by Justice André Mendonça. In an even more extreme direction, Justices Dias Toffoli and Luiz Fux have proposed penalizing platforms that fail to remove harmful content, even in the absence of judicial orders or user complaints, raising alarms about unchecked regulatory authority. Barroso did acknowledge the delicate balance between civil liberties and regulatory aims. “Freedom of expression is essential for democracy,” he stated, while contending that it must be “balanced” against so-called threats like “disinformation, hate speech, and conspiracy theories.” His insistence on moderation came with a warning about the internet becoming “a pit of incivility,” but free speech defenders remain wary of any move that empowers the state to determine the boundaries of acceptable dialogue. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Brazil Supreme Court Chief Barroso Advocates Stricter Online Speech Regulation appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Duffy Tells Blue City Mayors, 'You Let Them Break It? You Bought It'

NEW: Vance Warns Trump May 'Take Further Action To End Iranian Enrichment'

The indignity of being chundered to death.

A study of different calcium atoms suggests we are missing something.

It doesn't even live in saltwater.