Marjorie Taylor Greene was on 60 minutes on Sunday with host Lesley Stahl. She made a number of statements that people might find interesting. Mostly, Greene repeated things we’ve heard before: that the GOP has many members who don’t like the president but won’t take him on for any reason because they’re afraid of him. […] The post MTG Interviewed with the “Accusatory” “Toxic” Lesley Stahl appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Commercial property values are cratering in Boston and they aren’t getting a proportional decrease in taxes. John Gately, who hosts a real estate show, asked about that and the spokesperson, the Boston City Council President Ruthzee Louijeune offered a confusing word salad in response. The questions should have had simple answers. He wanted to know […] The post RuthZee’s Indiscernible Explanation of Boston’s High Taxes After Values Cratered appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

The Trump administration has located 62,000 missing migrant children who crossed the border alone after the Biden administration lost track of roughly 320,000 of them, Border Czar Tom Homan revealed Sunday. The Biden administration faced a record wave of migrant children crossing the border, bringing in roughly 500,000 of them. Federal authorities released many of them to poorly vetted sponsors, according to an inspector general’s report released last year. Several federal whistleblowers also came forward to raise the alarms about knowingly releasing children to “sponsors” they believed were trafficking the children. Some were reportedly known gang members and criminals. Now, the Trump administration is searching for the missing children and has made massive strides in its effort, Homan told Fox News. “President Trump saved over 62,000 children’s lives. Some of these children were in sex trafficking we found them, some were in forced labor, some were being mistreated … I can’t even discuss some of the mistreatment we found out about. President Trump again proves why he’s the greatest president in my lifetime. Over 62,000 children rescued by President Trump … children that were ignored and weren’t being looked for under President Biden,” Homan said. 50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at DailyWire.com/cyberweek. “The Democrats want to attack President Trump every day… they’re attacking President Trump, they’re complicit for four years this has happened. Sex trafficking historic highs, children crossing the border historic highs, migrant deaths crossing the border historic highs, quarter of a million Americans dead from fentanyl under Joe Biden because of that open border. Like or love President Trump, you’ve gotta admit this man has shown every day he’s saving America,” he added. 291,000 migrant children crossed the border without adults and were never given future court dates, last year’s inspector general’s report found. Another 32,000 migrant children who were released into the United States with scheduled hearings never appeared for their court dates, according to the report, which tracked cases from October 2018 to September 2023. When children cross the border alone, Border Patrol hands them over to the Department of Health and Human Services, which helps connect them with a sponsor in the United States. But under the Biden administration, officials were instructed to work quickly to release children, which resulted in a compromised vetting system.

A new report by the civil rights watchdog StopAntisemitism finds that antisemitism has become widespread and deeply entrenched across American college campuses, with many Jewish students reporting fear, harassment, and inadequate institutional protection. Based on a survey and incident data from 90 colleges, the group’s annual “report cards” show that 39% of Jewish students have concealed their identities on campus, while 62% say they have been directly blamed for Israel’s actions in Gaza. Fifty-eight percent report experiencing antisemitism personally, and nearly two-thirds feel unwelcome in parts of campus amid escalating anti-Israel protests. Fourteen colleges received failing grades, including Columbia University, the New School, Harvard, Yale, Brown, Penn, MIT, Northwestern, and UC Berkeley. According to the report, these institutions allowed a “pervasive” and sometimes violent environment to develop, one marked by harassment, property vandalism, hateful communications, and protest disruptions. Columbia and the New School were specifically cited for federal findings of “deliberate indifference” toward Jewish students. StopAntisemitism founder Liora Rez argued that the worst-performing schools have become “ground zero” for antisemitism in higher education. Some institutions improved. Cornell rose from an F to a C for more responsive administrative action, while Vassar increased from a D to a B. Fifteen schools earned A ratings — including Baylor, Clemson, Elon, and Colorado State — highlighted as examples of campuses that consistently enforce standards and act proactively against antisemitism. The fallout has extended to federal intervention. In July, the Trump administration reached a high-profile settlement with Columbia, requiring the school to pay $200 million to the federal government and $20 million to Jewish employees, in exchange for lifting freezes on federal funding and ending several investigations. Columbia also agreed to eliminate race-based DEI initiatives, ensure merit-based admissions and hiring, provide compliance data, and take steps to better support Jewish students. University leadership emphasized that while they disputed wrongdoing, they recognized the need to address harmful incidents. Harvard likewise faced a federal civil rights finding in June. A letter from the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that Harvard violated Title VI by failing to stop discrimination, threats, and physical intimidation against Jewish and Israeli students. Investigators cited assaults, hate imagery, rule-breaking demonstrations, and lenient discipline of offenders. The administration warned Harvard could lose federal funding without swift reforms. Harvard disputed the findings but acknowledged antisemitism as a serious problem and said it was committed to improving campus safety and inclusion. Overall, only 62% of surveyed Jewish students would recommend their schools to other Jews. StopAntisemitism urged universities nationwide to emulate the highly rated institutions by condemning antisemitism unequivocally, enforcing clear policies, and ensuring transparent investigations into hate-based incidents.

For most of its existence, Wikipedia has been hailed as a marvel of the digital age: a sprawling, collaborative encyclopedia written by anyone and corrected by everyone. An open marketplace of knowledge. A monument to the democratization of information. But democracies — political or epistemic — rarely collapse in an instant. They erode from within. And what my team at the Media Research Center (MRC) has uncovered about how Wikipedia operates, and how carefully it conceals that machinery, should alarm anyone who believes a self-governing society depends on an open, honest information sphere. Our recent investigation shows that Wikipedia and its educational partner, Wiki Education, have developed a vast, little-known system for shaping, and increasingly weaponizing, the content millions of Americans rely on every day. What we found is not simply concerning; it reveals the quiet architecture of an ideological project. It is also possible that, in attempting to hide its operations, Wikipedia has crossed legal lines that could carry serious consequences. Wikipedia’s co-founder, Larry Sanger, has said openly that the platform no longer reflects its original mission of neutrality. It has become a curator of political narrative, amplifying the messaging of the left rather than serving as an impartial arbiter of knowledge. The Blacklist(s) Wikipedia is transparent about one thing: it blacklists right-leaning news outlets and conservative non-profits. But even this admission obscures more than it reveals. In reality, Wikipedia maintains three tiers of blacklists — Blacklisted, Deprecated, and Generally Unreliable — each designed to exclude certain publishers from the encyclopedia’s information ecosystem. The “Blacklisted” category is the most severe. Sources here are blocked entirely; links cannot even be submitted for review. This is Wikipedia’s “do not pass go” list. It includes outlets such as the Heritage Foundation, Breitbart News, and the Washington Examiner. Content from these organizations is not debated or fact-checked, it is simply turned away at the gate. The second level, “Deprecated,” involves sources that are “generally prohibited.” Users attempting to cite to these sources receive warnings, before Wikipedia’s editors almost always reject the suggestions. LifeSiteNews, Newsmax, The Daily Caller, and Blaze Media fall here. The effect is the same as the first list, exclusion, just with a thin procedural layer. The third category, “Generally Unreliable,” is essentially a blacklist with a tiny escape hatch. Wikipedia discourages use of these sources and directs contributors to “more reliable” outlets. The Daily Wire is stuck in this purgatory: technically citable, but heavily disfavored. The disparities this system produces are staggering. The Daily Wire has been cited only 445 times across Wikipedia. The New York Times, by contrast, appears in more than 1.6 million citations — meaning Wikipedia cites the Times nearly 4,000 times for every single Daily Wire reference. Similar gaps exist with Newsweek, Politico, and The Washington Post, which are cited hundreds of times more frequently than their far more reliable conservative counterparts. More broadly, MRC research shows that Wikipedia cites to left-leaning outlets almost 20 times more often than to right-leaning outlets. Trust in the media is at an all-time low, specifically because of the bias injected into news stories. Wikipedia intentionally magnifies that bias, resulting in gross distortions of reality. We have documented Wikipedia’s smears against many political figures, including President Donald Trump, Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Charlie Kirk.  When gatekeepers designate half the country’s media ecosystem — representing tens of millions of readers — as inherently “unreliable,” the result is not a pursuit of truth. It is a systematic silencing of outlets disfavored by the ideological left. The encyclopedia built on openness now thrives on exclusion. skynesher. Getty Images. The Student Army Yet the core of the MRC’s latest findings lies not in the blacklist itself, but in the machinery feeding content into Wikipedia: Wiki Education, a California nonprofit created as a spin-off of the Wikimedia Foundation, operating with its funding, personnel, and blessing. Wiki Education recruits college professors to assign Wikipedia editing as coursework. Since 2010, more than 145,000 students have participated, generating over 120 million words of content. On the surface, this could be a civic success story — young people helping build a shared public resource. But the reality, based on the courses Wiki Education recruits and supports, is far more ideological. Classes such as Queering Religion, Critical Race Feminisms, Queer of Color Critique, Gender and Identity in STEM, and similarly activist-oriented seminars are not fringe exceptions; they are typical of the curriculum Wiki Education promotes. These disciplines are not merely academic; they are frameworks for political activism. And the content they generate — guided by ideology rather than neutrality — flows directly into Wikipedia. The encyclopedia becomes the final destination for arguments crafted within contemporary left-wing academic theory. The Taxpayer Foots The Bill Even more astonishing is that this ideological pipeline is largely underwritten by taxpayers. Because Wiki Education embeds itself in public universities, it leverages state-funded faculty, classrooms, and infrastructure to funnel student labor into Wikipedia. Students believe they are learning digital literacy; in practice, many are producing politicized content for a global platform. The pattern extends to Wiki Education’s leadership. Every traceable political donation from its senior staff and board flows to Democratic candidates, progressive PACs, and left-aligned advocacy groups. While not illegal, it reveals the institutional alignment shaping the organization’s priorities. A Potential Legal Problem This coordinated system — Wikipedia funding Wiki Education, Wiki Education training student editors, students supplying content that reinforces Wikipedia’s ideological filters — creates not only an informational problem but potentially a legal one. When Wikipedia spun off Wiki Education in 2013, the structural ties between the two organizations remained unusually close. Yet Wikipedia has insisted in court filings, sworn under penalty of perjury, that it is merely an “interactive computer service,” not a “publisher.” It did so to seek the liability protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. If Wikipedia effectively controls Wiki Education as an alter ego — training, directing, and financing its editorial labor — then it may have misrepresented its true operations under oath. Filing false statements in court is a crime under state and federal law. Attorneys general in jurisdictions where Wikipedia has invoked Section 230, like the state of Florida, may have ample reason to investigate those claims. And while the U.S. Department of Justice has its hands full unwinding the malfeasance committed during the Biden administration, Attorney General Pam Bondi might be interested in this, too. Why It Matters Wikipedia is not just a reference site. It is infrastructure. It consistently dominates Google search results — Google itself being a company that aggressively manipulates search results to push its own ideology. And modern AI systems, including chatbots, draw heavily from Wikipedia’s content pipelines. When Wikipedia’s entries tilt, so does the entire information ecosystem. Its blacklist system also has downstream economic effects. Being labeled “unreliable” reduces an outlet’s visibility, decreases traffic, and predictably harms ad revenue. The encyclopedia’s judgments ripple outward into media markets and public perception. Given these stakes, Congress should investigate. So should the Federal Trade Commission. And attorneys general, especially in cases where Wikipedia has defended its corporate structure under oath, should scrutinize whether the organization misrepresented how it operates. Wikipedia has every right to express ideological preferences. But it does not have the right to cloak them behind false claims of neutrality to donors, to engage in deceptive or anticompetitive practices, or to misrepresent its structure in legal proceedings. Transparency requires accountability. And it is long past time for the public to understand what Wikipedia has become. * * * Dan Schneider is Vice President for Free Speech at the Media Research Center. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Paramount announced on Monday that it was challenging Netflix with a hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros.  The announcement comes just days after Netflix said it had reached a deal to acquire the entertainment company in a massive $82.7 billion deal. “We believe our offer will create a stronger Hollywood. It is in the best interests of the creative community, consumers and the movie theater industry,” Paramount Chairman and CEO David Ellison said in a statement. “We believe they will benefit from the enhanced competition, higher content spend and theatrical release output, and a greater number of movies in theaters as a result of our proposed transaction.” Ellison announced an all-cash tender offer, which the company said “provides superior value, and a more certain and quicker path to completion” to shareholders. Paramount’s proposed deal was also expected to close in 12 months, compared with Netflix’s 18 months. The Paramount offer includes purchasing Warner Bros. cable television assets, which Paramount said are worth about $18 billion more than the Netflix bid. The company had previously made six offers to Warner Bros., only to be rejected each time. The press release noted that Warner Bros. “never engag[ed] meaningfully” with those offers. This news comes not long after President Trump remarked on the Netflix deal, saying it “could be a problem” from an antitrust standpoint. The president also mentioned being “involved” in reviewing the deal. Paramount CEO David Ellison is the son of Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, who is a friend of President Trump and a major donor. The proposed merger has had bipartisan pushback from skeptics who warn it could turn into a “nightmare” for consumers and creatives, as The Daily Wire previously reported.  “Netflix built a great service, but increasing Netflix’s dominance this way would mean the end of the Golden Age of streaming for content creators and consumers,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) wrote in a post on X. “We’re highly confident in the regulatory process. This deal is pro-consumer, pro-innovation, pro-worker, it’s pro-creator, it’s pro-growth,” Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos said after the deal was announced.

WASHINGTON—Vice President JD Vance weighed in Monday on those who use “heartbreaking” stories of miscarriage to fear-monger women into supporting a pro-abortion agenda. The vice president shared an X thread from a woman who revealed that she miscarried her baby while living in Texas, where pro-abortion activists have falsely argued that women will be jailed or prosecuted if they miscarry a baby due to the state’s pro-life laws. “I live in Texas,” wrote the woman, who identified herself on X as “Sky.” “I’ve lost a child. The miscarriage lies they tell you are bull.” She explained: “In February of 2023 I found out that my baby didn’t have a heartbeat. When my hysterical sobs subsided in the sonogram room, my OBGYN kindly (and with much grace) gave me my options: I could let nature take its course, I could jump-start the process with medication, or I could opt for a D&C. At no point was I blamed or questioned. It wasn’t my fault.” “I was a grieving mother… I am still a grieving mother… who lost her child,” Sky wrote. “The medical system and the people within it, did what they could for me throughout the entire process. My story is not an outlier. It’s the norm. We do not live in a dystopian novel. Shit happens. Awful shit happens. But don’t you DARE scare women who are out there just trying to build a family for your own political gain. Monsters. Every one of you who push this narrative that women will be imprisoned for a miscarriage.” The vice president quoted the post, calling it a “very heartbreaking testimony.” “Losing a baby is terrible and heartbreaking, especially for the mom, and we shouldn’t use political lies to capitalize on that,” the vice president wrote. Vance’s attention to the issue is notable, particularly given how politically problematic abortion has become for Republicans. Trump, who helmed the most pro-life administration in United States history and continues to support the pro-life cause, notably does not currently discuss abortion except to note that Democrats support a radical abortion vision that allows for abortions until birth. Particularly during the 2024 election, as Democrats sought to portray Vance and President Donald Trump as extremists on abortion. Abortion advocates hyped the notion that pro-life laws endangered women. One of these heavily promoted false notions suggested that women who miscarried their babies would be targeted by local officials, akin to something out of a dystopian novel such as “The Handmaid’s Tale.” As the 2024 election came to a head, multiple outlets published viral stories seeking to suggest that a Trump presidency would imperil women. One such story was that of Amari Marsh, a then-22-year-old woman who gave birth to a living baby girl on March 1, 2023, according to police reports obtained by The Daily Wire. Marsh’s story, written by KFF Health News and republished on CNN, was complicated, upsetting, and missing details. What was apparent, however, was the narrative that KFF’s story pushed: that an innocent woman faced jail time for a miscarriage.  According to the police reports obtained by The Daily Wire, police said that Marsh told them she gave birth to her baby in the toilet after visiting Planned Parenthood to obtain abortion drugs. Though officers repeatedly tried to get her to remove the baby from the toilet while speaking to her on the phone, she did not. When the officers arrived on the scene, they found Marsh’s baby still alive, but covered in toilet paper, lying in the toilet water. The officers “began life saving measures” while transporting the baby to RMC (Regional Medical Center of Orangeburg and Calhoun Counties), where the baby was ultimately pronounced dead. An arrest warrant obtained by The Daily Wire, dated May 2, 2023, states that Marsh waited 10 minutes to call 911 after her baby was born alive (Marsh alleged to KFF that she was freaking out and said, “I couldn’t even keep myself together”). It also states that she would not remove her baby from the toilet even when officers told her to. “She refused to remove the baby from the water in the toilet at the urging of the dispatcher, which was ultimately a proximate cause of her daughter’s death,” the arrest warrant states. “The cause of death was ruled respiratory complications due to prematurity due to preterm premature rupture of membranes with chorioamnionitis due to maternal chlamydia infection. These are treatable diagnoses in a NICU.”  She was charged with murder/homicide by child abuse. A South Carolina grand jury declined in August to indict her. Pro-abortion activist Laura Klime Coates embraces her daughter, Charlize, 9, as they pose outside the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on March 26, 2024. (Photo by Shuran Huang for The Washington Post via Getty Images) In the incident report, dated March 1, 2023, Marsh allegedly told officers that she knew she was pregnant in November 2022, made an appointment with Planned Parenthood two months later, intending to “take the Plan-C pill, which would possibly cause an abortion to occur.” She also said she “was supposed to have a follow-up appointment to make sure the pill worked but never went back.” In October 2024, she would claim that she didn’t even know she was pregnant at the time of her baby’s birth.  But she told police in March that on February 28, 2023, she began experiencing abdominal pain and went to the hospital, where she was told “she was pregnant and a heartbeat was located.” Marsh told officers that “the energy in the room was off” and she felt uncomfortable, so she went home, where she gave birth to her baby in the toilet. She told officers that she did not take her child out of the toilet because “she did not know what to do.” KFF’s story paints a different picture. It refers to the baby only as a “pregnancy loss,” never mentions that the baby was likely around 20 weeks old, and suggests that Marsh’s case raises “questions about the state of reproductive rights in this country, disparities in health care, and pregnancy criminalization, especially for Black women like Marsh,” specifically noting that Marsh’s case “highlights what’s at stake in November.”  The story also says that Marsh denied to KFF that she went to Planned Parenthood or took abortion drugs (though the police report says she told them she went to Planned Parenthood in January 2023). KFF also argues that the police report “doesn’t specify whether she took — or even obtained — the drug,” and the publication does not mention Marsh’s assertion to police that “she was supposed to have a follow-up appointment to make sure the pill worked but never went back.”  The publication did not respond to requests for comment.

At a gala in Washington, D.C., the Association and Club of Foreign Press Correspondents USA managed a feat only today’s media establishment could pull off: honoring veteran NBC journalist Andrea Mitchell on the same night it elevated terrorists posing as “journalists.” The organization, joined by event co-sponsor Al Jazeera, even handed the Qatari state outlet its own “press freedom grant.” The evening veered into moral fog when organizers held a moment of silence for 10 Al Jazeera “reporters” killed in Gaza. Their photos were displayed on a memorial table deliberately echoing the empty-seat tributes to Israelis kidnapped by Hamas — a grotesque appropriation of genuine suffering. Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst, accepting an award, used his speech to commend “fearless Palestinian journalists” and criticize Israel’s restrictions on Gaza reporting — without noting that Hamas routinely censors, intimidates, and murders reporters who deviate from its propaganda line. Instead, Yingst praised “fearless and tenacious Palestinian journalists” who supposedly “don’t have the luxury to leave.” Those “journalists,” conveniently unnamed, include operatives whose résumés read like counterterrorism dossiers, as Honest Reporting noted: Anas Al-Sharif — not a reporter but the head of a Hamas rocket cell, photographed with senior leaders and praising October 7 murderers “roaming the country killing and capturing.” Ismail Al-Ghoul — a member of Hamas’ Nukhba forces who trained operatives to film terror attacks. Hossam Shabat — a Hamas sniper involved in attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians, who also fronted Al Jazeera’s false gang-rape allegation at Shifa Hospital. Hamza Al Dahdouh — a Palestinian Islamic Jihad officer operating a hostile drone when killed. Mustafa Thuria — a Hamas deputy squad commander killed alongside Al Dahdouh during military activity. Mohammed Salama — an October 7 infiltrator who filmed the massacre while chanting “Allahu Akbar.” By memorializing operatives who used cameras as camouflage for jihad, the Foreign Press Correspondents Association turned a celebration of journalism into a moral collapse. This wasn’t solidarity with the press. It was the whitewashing and elevation of militants masquerading as reporters — an abdication of integrity dressed up as virtue. Rather than elevating truth-tellers, the group effectively legitimized terrorists posing as reporters.

A long-buried January 6 mystery just took a stunning turn as a 30-year-old Virginian reportedly confessed to planting the infamous D.C. pipe bombs outside both party headquarters. Confession Revives Long-Standing Questions About January 6 Pipe Bombs Law enforcement sources now say a 30-year-old man from Virginia, identified as Brian Cole, was arrested on a Wednesday and confessed the next day to planting two pipe bombs outside the Republican National Committee and Democrat National Committee headquarters on the evening before the January 6, 2021, protests. His reported admission breathes new life into one of the most unsettling unanswered questions from that week and reopens debate about how authorities handled the threat. According to the account now emerging, Cole allegedly placed the devices near both party offices in Washington, D.C., timing the act just hours before massive crowds arrived in the capital to object to the 2020 election certification. For years, images of a masked suspect captured on security cameras circulated with no arrest. The gap between the incident and this confession fuels deep concern among conservatives about investigative priorities and transparency within the federal security apparatus. INESCAPABLE FACT!WHOEVER THE J6 PIPE BOMBER WAS, THEY WAVED AT CAPITOL POLICE. Brian Cole of Virginia is now the ALLEGED J6 pipe bomb suspect.Note: ALLEGED Regardless of suspect, the important fact here is that it WAS an inside job.Attached, are family photos. pic.twitter.com/pxNIav6yAL — Patrick Sharp PolitiClips (@ginsengdrumming) December 4, 2025 Impact on Conservatives and the January 6 Narrative When the pipe bombs were first discovered, federal agencies quickly used the scare to justify sweeping security responses around the Capitol, bolstering the argument that January 6 represented a broad domestic extremism crisis. Many conservatives viewed that framing as an attempt to lump peaceful Trump supporters together with any criminal actors present. The revelation that a single 30-year-old suspect now reportedly admits responsibility highlights how that fear was channeled into narratives that painted millions of law-abiding Americans with the same brush. Constitutionally minded citizens have long warned that conflating targeted criminal acts with peaceful protest opens the door to crackdowns on legitimate speech and assembly. The pipe bomb threat was repeatedly cited to expand surveillance powers and deepen cooperation between federal agencies and tech companies under the banner of combating extremism. With a named suspect now allegedly confessing, many on the right are demanding a full accounting of how that threat was leveraged, and whether policies enacted in its wake still trample First and Fourth Amendment protections for ordinary Americans. Alleged Jan. 6 pipe bomber Brian Cole Jr. has APPEARED in federal court, facing up to 20 YEARS in prison Is this the "white man" CNN was talking about? Cole is charged with transporting an explosive device, and attempted malicious destruction by means of explosive materials.… pic.twitter.com/QJWHdLwh6e — Trumpusa1 (@Trumpusa1A1) December 8, 2025 Federal Response, Delayed Arrest, and Trust in Institutions Conservatives are now asking why it took years after January 6 to identify and arrest a man who reportedly confessed within a day of being taken into custody. The long delay raises questions about investigative priorities during the previous administration, which poured immense resources into tracking down hundreds of defendants linked to protests. At the same time, the pipe bomb case lingered unresolved. For many on the right, that imbalance feeds a perception that federal law enforcement has been more focused on punishing political opposition than resolving a serious bipartisan security threat. That perception matters because trust in institutions forms the backbone of a free republic. When Americans see high-profile, dangerous cases sit unresolved while comparatively minor protest offenses are pursued aggressively, they reasonably wonder whether impartial justice has given way to selective enforcement. The reported confession by Cole should therefore be more than a footnote; it should be a catalyst for a thorough review of how the case was handled, what leads were missed, and whether political considerations influenced the tempo or direction of the investigation. Balancing Security, Civil Liberties, and Equal Justice Under Trump Under the current Trump administration, many conservatives expect a sharp course correction from the prior years of broad-brush “domestic extremism” rhetoric. The Cole confession presents an opportunity to distinguish clearly between those who commit actual violence or plant devices and the vast majority of Americans who exercise their rights peacefully. A transparent, narrowly targeted prosecution focused squarely on the alleged bomber, rather than on political symbolism, would signal a renewed commitment to equal justice and limited government power. Going forward, patriots will be watching closely to see whether this case prompts a rollback of surveillance expansions and political profiling that grew out of January 6. A free people demand real accountability for anyone who plants bombs, but they also insist that no administration exploit such crimes to smear dissent or erode constitutional protections. The handling of Brian Cole’s reported confession will test whether Washington has learned that crucial lesson, or whether old habits of overreach remain deeply entrenched.

I literally laughed out loud when I saw this story