ALL SMALL BUSINESSES ARE CRIMINALS ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT!

Get this, our nasty Senators and Congressmen have now activated a LAW that considers all businesses with less than $5 million in revenue and 20 employees or less to be FIRST considered as financial criminals.

LUCKILY PRESIDENT TRUMP STOPPED THIS FARCE!

On March 21, 2025, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announced that, consistent with the Department of the Treasury’s March 2, 2025, announcement it was issuing an interim final rule that removes the requirement for U.S. companies and U.S. persons to report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act. FinCEN published this interim final rule on March 26, 2025.

In the interim final rule, FinCEN revises the regulatory definition of “reporting company” to mean only those entities that are formed under the law of a foreign country and that have registered to do business in any U.S. State or Tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office (formerly known as “foreign reporting companies”). FinCEN also exempts entities previously known as “domestic reporting companies” from BOI reporting requirements. Thus, through this interim final rule, all entities created in the United States — including those previously known as “domestic reporting companies” — and their beneficial owners will be exempt from the requirement to report BOI to FinCEN.

The law now mandates reporting of the BENEFICIAL OWNERS of ALL companies and businesses operating in the USA FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK (FInCEN) or face fines and JAIL!

AS SMALL BUSINESS YOU ARE ALL SUSPECTED CRIMINALS1

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a final rule implementing the bipartisan Corporate Transparency Act’s (CTA) beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting provisions. The rule will enhance the ability of FinCEN and other agencies to protect U.S. national security and the U.S. financial system from illicit use and provide essential information to national security, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies; state, local, and Tribal officials; and financial institutions to help prevent drug traffickers, fraudsters, corrupt actors such as oligarchs, and proliferators from laundering or hiding money and other assets in the United States.

Illicit actors frequently use corporate structures such as shell and front companies to obfuscate their identities and launder their ill-gotten gains through the United States. Not only do such acts undermine U.S. national security, they also threaten U.S. economic prosperity: shell and front companies can shield beneficial owners’ identities and allow criminals to illegally access and transact in the U.S. economy, while disadvantaging small U.S. businesses who are playing by the rules. This rule will strengthen the integrity of the U.S. financial system by making it harder for illicit actors to use shell companies to launder their money or hide assets.

Recent geopolitical events have reinforced the point that abuse of corporate entities, including shell or front companies, by illicit actors and corrupt officials presents a direct threat to the U.S. national security and the U.S. and international financial systems. For example, Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 further underscored that Russian elites, state-owned enterprises, and organized crime, as well as Russian government proxies have attempted to use U.S. and non-U.S. shell companies to evade sanctions imposed on Russia. This rule will enhance U.S national security by making it more difficult for criminals to exploit opaque legal structures to launder money, traffic humans and drugs, and commit serious tax fraud and other crimes that harm the American taxpayer.

At the same time, the rule aims to minimize burdens on small businesses and other reporting companies. Millions of businesses are formed in the United States each year. These businesses play an essential and important economic role. In particular, small businesses are a backbone of the U.S. economy, accounting for a large share of U.S. economic activity and driving U.S. innovation and competitiveness. U.S. small businesses also generate millions of jobs, and in 2021, created jobs at the highest rate on record. It is anticipated that it will cost reporting companies with simple management and ownership structures—which FinCEN expects to be the majority of reporting companies—approximately $85 apiece to prepare and submit an initial BOI report. In comparison, the state formation fee for creating a limited liability company (LLC) can cost between $40 and $500, depending on the state.

Beyond the direct benefits to law enforcement and other authorized users, the collection of BOI will help to shed light on criminals who evade taxes, hide their illicit wealth, and defraud employees and customers and hurt honest U.S. businesses through their misuse of shell companies.

The rule describes who must file a BOI report, what information must be reported, and when a report is due. Specifically, the rule requires reporting companies to file reports with FinCEN that identify two categories of individuals: (1) the beneficial owners of the entity; and (2) the company applicants of the entity.

The final rule reflects FinCEN’s careful consideration of detailed public comments received in response to its December 8, 2021 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the same topic, and extensive interagency consultations. FinCEN received comments from a broad array of individuals and organizations, including Members of Congress, government officials, groups representing small business interests, corporate transparency advocacy groups, the financial industry and trade associations representing its members, law enforcement representatives, and other interested groups and individuals.

Balancing both benefits and burden, the following are the key elements of the BOI reporting rule:

Reporting Companies

The rule identifies two types of reporting companies: domestic and foreign. A domestic reporting company is a corporation, limited liability company (LLC), or any entity created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office under the law of a state or Indian tribe. A foreign reporting company is a corporation, LLC, or other entity formed under the law of a foreign country that is registered to do business in any state or tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office. Under the rule, and in keeping with the CTA, twenty-three types of entities are exempt from the definition of “reporting company.”
FinCEN expects that these definitions mean that reporting companies will include (subject to the applicability of specific exemptions) limited liability partnerships, limited liability limited partnerships, business trusts, and most limited partnerships, in addition to corporations and LLCs, because such entities are generally created by a filing with a secretary of state or similar office.
Other types of legal entities, including certain trusts, are excluded from the definitions to the extent that they are not created by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office. FinCEN recognizes that in many states the creation of most trusts typically does not involve the filing of such a formation document.

Beneficial Owners

Under the rule, a beneficial owner includes any individual who, directly or indirectly, either (1) exercises substantial control over a reporting company, or (2) owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of a reporting company. The rule defines the terms “substantial control” and “ownership interest.” In keeping with the CTA, the rule exempts five types of individuals from the definition of “beneficial owner.”
In defining the contours of who has substantial control, the rule sets forth a range of activities that could constitute substantial control of a reporting company. This list captures anyone who is able to make important decisions on behalf of the entity. FinCEN’s approach is designed to close loopholes that allow corporate structuring that obscures owners or decision-makers. This is crucial to unmasking anonymous shell companies.
The rule provides standards and mechanisms for determining whether an individual owns or controls 25 percent of the ownership interests of a reporting company. Among other things, these standards and mechanisms address how a reporting company should handle a situation in which ownership interests are held in trust.
These definitions have been drafted to account for the various ownership or control structures reporting companies may adopt. However, for reporting companies that have simple organizational structures it should be a straightforward process to identify and report their beneficial owners. FinCEN expects the majority of reporting companies will have simple ownership structures.

Company Applicants

The rule defines a company applicant to be only two persons:
1. the individual who directly files the document that creates the entity, or in the case of a foreign reporting company, the document that first registers the entity to do business in the United States.
2. the individual who is primarily responsible for directing or controlling the filing of the relevant document by another.
The rule, however, does not require reporting companies existing or registered at the time of the effective date of the rule to identify and report on their company applicants. In addition, reporting companies formed or registered after the effective date of the rule also do not need to update company applicant information.

Beneficial Ownership Information Reports

When filing BOI reports with FinCEN, the rule requires a reporting company to identify itself and report four pieces of information about each of its beneficial owners: name, birthdate, address, and a unique identifying number and issuing jurisdiction from an acceptable identification document (and the image of such document). Additionally, the rule requires that reporting companies created after January 1, 2024, provide the four pieces of information and document image for company applicants.
If an individual provides their four pieces of information to FinCEN directly, the individual may obtain a “FinCEN identifier,” which can then be provided to FinCEN on a BOI report in lieu of the required information about the individual.

Timing

The effective date for the rule is January 1, 2024.
Reporting companies created or registered before January 1, 2024 will have one year (until January 1, 2025) to file their initial reports, while reporting companies created or registered after January 1, 2024, will have 30 days after receiving notice of their creation or registration to file their initial reports.
Reporting companies have 30 days to report changes to the information in their previously filed reports and must correct inaccurate information in previously filed reports within 30 days of when the reporting company becomes aware or has reason to know of the inaccuracy of information in earlier reports.

Next Steps

The BOI reporting rule is one of three rulemakings planned to implement the CTA. FinCEN will engage in additional rulemakings to (1) establish rules for who may access BOI, for what purposes, and what safeguards will be required to ensure that the information is secured and protected; and (2) revise FinCEN’s customer due diligence rule following the promulgation of the BOI reporting final rule.
In addition, FinCEN continues to develop the infrastructure to administer these requirements in accordance with the strict security and confidentiality requirements of the CTA, including the information technology system that will be used to store beneficial ownership information: the Beneficial Ownership Secure System (BOSS).
Consistent with its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act, FinCEN will publish in the Federal Register for public comment the reporting forms that persons will use to comply with their obligations under the BOI reporting rule. FinCEN will publish these forms well in advance of the effective date of the BOI reporting rule.
FinCEN will develop compliance and guidance documents to assist reporting companies in complying with this rule. Some of these materials will be aimed directly at, and made available to, reporting companies themselves. FinCEN will issue a Small Entity Compliance Guide, pursuant to section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, in order to inform small entities about their responsibilities under the rule. Other materials will be aimed at a wide range of stakeholders that are likely to receive questions about the rule, such as secretaries of state and similar offices. FinCEN also intends to conduct extensive outreach to all stakeholders, including industry associations as well as secretaries of state and similar offices to ensure the effective implementation of the rule.
THIS RULE HAS BEEN STAYED FOR NOW:

jansen@sterlingcooper.us sent you this article.

Comment:

Benficial owmersip rul

Monday, January 13, 2025

The law aims to curtail the use of anonymous shells and track illicit money.

Ownership-Reporting Law’s Return Sought

Supreme Court is asked to stay an injunction pausing its implementation

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on the national injunction issued by a lower court that paused the implementation of the Corporate Transparency Act, a law requiring companies to disclose their true ownership.

The Justice Department, on behalf of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, in an application filed on New Year’s Eve asked the Supreme Court to stay the injunction issued by a Texas district judge in early December.

The attorneys representing FinCEN said the government is likely to succeed in defending the constitutionality of the law and that the district court’s injunction was “vastly overbroad,” according to the filing.

The lawyers said the Supreme Court, at a minimum, should narrow the injunction to the plaintiffs in the case.

NEW YORK DUMBO MUSLIM MAYOR’S CRAZY GROCERY STORES IDEAS ARE CRAZY!

Here’s More Proof That Mamdani’s Government-Run Grocery Stores Are a Disaster Waiting to Happen

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani rolled out his plans to open government-run grocery stores in his city, a plan that has been repeatedly tried elsewhere and failed. Bodega owners and other stores are warning that the plan, which would see the government-run stores subsidize groceries at 30 percent less than private stores, would doom their businesses and that when the government stores go belly-up, New Yorkers will be left with no options for food.Bread lines, of course, will be next.

But here’s more proof that the entire plan is a disaster and so complex, contradictory, and confusing that the whole project may crash on the launch pad. Why? This is just the Request for Proposals (RFP) from operators who would run the government stores.

I downloaded and reviewed NYC’s grocery store RFP… as someone who has built biz’s and bought a lot of food… wow.

Forget for a moment whether or not the govt should own a grocery store. Let’s review the doc instead.

Here you go… /1

— nick kokonas (@nickkokonas) August 3, 2026

According to Kokonas, NYC prefers one operator who will commit to running all five stores. Unfortunately, three of the sites haven’t been identified yet. Despite that, bidders are told to estimate the cost of stores in unknown neighborhoods and just assume the store is “about 15,000 sq ft.”—something Kokonas calls “absurd.”

The idea behind operating all five stores is likely that scale will lower costs (when has government ever cared about that?) but Kokonas notes that NYC may not award all five stores to the same bidder.

Bidders get preference for operating all 5 stores, presumably b/c scale lowers costs. But NYC awards each store separately, so an all-5 bidder may win only 1. They want scale pricing while refusing to award scale.

— nick kokonas (@nickkokonas) August 3, 2026

“They want scale pricing while refusing to award scale,” he wrote.

That sounds about right for government.

But there’s more. Remember how Mamdani admitted the stores wouldn’t carry certain things like meat or a hot deli? Well, the RFPs must both carry a “limited SKU” model and carry full grocery departments plus household goods, ethnic foods, vegan products, Kosher products, and other things.

“Pick one,” Kokonas noted.

The stores must use a “limited SKU” model. They must also carry full grocery departments, household goods, culturally specific products, plus kosher, halal, vegan, gluten-free, dairy-free and diabetic options. Pick one.

— nick kokonas (@nickkokonas) August 3, 2026

This is going great.

The RFP also says the stores won’t have deli counters or on-site food prep, but that they will also have chicken salad, egg salad, and other deli items for sale. That means they’ll be shipped in daily.

The RFP says stores won’t have deli counters or on-site food prep. Then its Core Basket includes chicken salad, egg salad, potato salad, fruit salad and other deli-prepared foods. So, a deli w/o a deli.

Oh… you’re going to ship them in every day prepared. Gotcha…

— nick kokonas (@nickkokonas) August 3, 2026

It’s going to cost the operators a pretty penny, too. Why? NYC picks the design, equipment, fit-out and refrigeration of the stores. The operators pay for everything else, including maintenance and security.

NYC chooses and pays for the design, equipment, refrigeration and fitout. The operator pays utilities, maintenance, cleaning and security. So NYC makes the capital decisions while someone else pays for the consequences.

That’s how they control the goalposts.

— nick kokonas (@nickkokonas) August 3, 2026

So that’ll put the thumb on the scales against the operators. Security, especially given how NYC doesn’t prosecute criminals, will be costly.

And the math doesn’t work, either. NYC wants the “best” bid to offer those aforementioned 30 percent discounts, but also good wages and benefits, full-time jobs, and a slew of other woke demands.

On top of that, 20 percent of the RFP score will go to the bidder who needs the lowest subsidy.

The “best” bid promises 30% discounts, best-in-class wages/benefits, local sourcing, sustainability, community programs and full-time jobs. Then 20% of the score goes to whoever claims they need the least subsidy. Lowballing is the strategy…. and then cost overruns are guar.

— nick kokonas (@nickkokonas) August 3, 2026

Once again, pick one. You get a 30 percent discount and “best-in-class wages/benefits” or you get the lowest necessary subsidy.

That 30 percent discount must also be the actual price of the item, not a sale or promotion, and to unlock those discounts, the stores have to create a membership program. Mamdani already said IDs would be required to access the stores … which are also reportedly available to all.

Core Basket discounts must be universal “sticker prices,” not promotions. Then the operator must create a membership card to “implement the discount program.” Which is it? Universal shelf price or an ID card system — btw, also says it’s available to all people…

— nick kokonas (@nickkokonas) August 3, 2026

Which one is it?

Kokonas also shared a page from the RFP asking bidders to estimate affordability payments.

Perhaps my favorite page that I did not include in my original thread is just, chef’s kiss, amazing.

How could you possibly estimate such a thing? And such a level of detail requested !! (you might want additional spreadsheets…) pic.twitter.com/0sRQ0hYrWe

— nick kokonas (@nickkokonas) August 3, 2026

RUSSIA CAN NOT RECRUIT SOLDIERS; NOW SWEEPS THEM OFF THE STREET

A billboard advertising contract military service in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Russia is strong-arming more fighting-age men into military service to boost the flagging ranks of its army as voluntary recruitment stalls and Moscow’s initiative on the front line in Ukraine falters.

In Russia’s smaller towns and cities, some military recruiters have resorted to detaining men on the street, outside their places of work or under the pretext of routine document checks, say lawyers, rights activists and eyewitnesses. Once in a military recruitment office, men may be threatened or beaten until they sign up for the war, they say.

The pressure campaign carries echoes of the partial mobilization Russian President Vladimir Putin instituted in the fall of 2022 when Russia’s front-line positions were buckling due to a lack of manpower. It has also caused speculation among Russian analysts and the country’s political class over whether it preludes another draft.

Russian authorities have offered life-changing sums of money—often more than an entire year’s salary—to those ready to sign up and fight. But recruitment has become more difficult following tales of abuse inside the Russian military and Ukraine’s increasingly lethal capabilities, which have shortened the average soldier’s lifespan on the front to a matter of minutes, days or weeks.

“Authorities have switched to a method of violence, when they catch men and send them off,” said Artyom Klyga, a lawyer who tries to help those who have been forced into service.

The measures offer a counterpoint to the forced enlistment Ukraine has carried out in the face of its own manpower shortage.

Russia is struggling to replace the soldiers it is losing in Ukraine.© Sergei Karpukhin/TASS/ZUMA Press

While Russia’s recruitment is still officially voluntary, law-enforcement officials are at times working with military recruiters to set a trap for the men and use violence or threats of arrest if they don’t yield to the pressure, the people say.

In the southwestern region of Penza, where recruiters have more aggressively pursued their aims, local resident Vladislav Leonidov said he found an acquaintance at a military recruitment office after the man went missing for several hours in May.

The man had been called into the local police station on the pretext of checking his personal data. When he arrived, two military recruiters were waiting for him and carried him off to the recruitment office where he was beaten on the liver and kidneys, Leonidov said. He was able to intervene and force the man’s release only as he was being transferred to a medical exam.

“If we had come two hours later, he would have already been taken away,” he said. “They move very quickly.”

Raids in Penza by law-enforcement officials or recruiters have caught the attention of locals who have posted videos online in protest of the practice.

One video outside a military recruitment office shows men in civilian clothes sitting inside a military van barricaded by crying women.

“They beat you, they forced you!” one of the women says between tears.

Russian authorities, who for years had gleefully pointed out Ukraine’s forced enlistment, have played down the incidents and threatened a crackdown on those circulating videos of them.

A Russian serviceman prepares a drone in this image released by Russia’s government.© Russian Defense Ministry Press Service/EPA/Shutterstock

The head of Penza’s recruitment office, Andrey Surkov, told a government briefing that any raids in the region were targeting those avoiding service. The Penza branch of the Interior Ministry has denied that raids are sending men to the front and has threatened legal consequences for those who post or publicize them.

“These video publications have no relation to sending people to the zone of the Special Military Operation,” a ministry statement said, using the official euphemism for the war in Ukraine. “Those spreading false information will face legal consequences in keeping with the laws of the Russian Federation.”

Blogger Stanislav Morozov, who has worked to bring attention to the issue in a documentary, said he is the subject of an investigation by Russia’s feared Federal Security Service. “They haven’t forbidden me from continuing, but they’ve made it clear it’s in my best interests not to,” he said.

Of the dozens of relatives he’s spoken to, he said, most agreed to sign a contract when law-enforcement officials threatened to plant drugs on them and arrest them on the spot.

Part of the pressure stems from regional programs in different parts of Russia that offer third parties cash, in most cases 100,000 rubles, around $1,300, to bring someone to the recruitment office.

Morozov said advertisements hang in residential buildings across Penza promising: “Bring a friend to the recruitment center and get 100,000 rubles,”

Similar campaigns exist elsewhere, such as Tatarstan, where Russia produces the bulk of its drones, as well as in the Amur and Yaroslavl regions, and in cities such as Kaluga, Voronezh and Arkhangelsk. The number of cases of forced recruitment has also risen, said Klyga and rights workers.

Analysts say the measures have likely been blessed by the Kremlin and Defense Ministry but are implemented to varying degrees by region.

The tactics are largely tied to accelerating Russian losses on the front, which now reach an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 killed and wounded each month, according to military analysts.

“Just as many people have to somehow be brought into service, and the fewer there are who are ready to sign a contract the more pressure they have to use,” said Grigory Sverdlin, founder of Get Lost, an antiwar nongovernmental organization that helps Russians avoid service.

U.S. officials say the efforts have likely added some numbers at the front though likely not enough to make any major breakthroughs. Instead, they say, the Kremlin is still weighing the possibility of calling another round of forced mobilization, which could bring another several thousand soldiers to the front. Such a measure, they say, would likely come after Russian parliamentary elections, slated for Sept. 20.

Any new mobilization would carry political risks for Russian President Vladimir Putin.© Alexander Zemlianichenko/POOL/AFP/Getty Images

Russia’s economic problems and Ukraine’s growing capabilities have added urgency to the question of mobilization. If Putin chooses to stick to his demands to take all of Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region, “he may have no other choice than to call a mobilization,” said Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Center for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, a Moscow-based defense think tank.

While the first round of mobilization was meant to round up reservists and men with military experience, another round would likely bring men with little experience or will to fight to the front.

The political risks involved with such a move could outweigh the military benefits at the front. Some Russians say they would resist such a move with violence.

“As soon as I’m given a weapon, I will shoot those who mobilized me,” said Dmitry Rogin, a 53-year-old Russian reserve officer who is among those who could potentially be called up.

CHINA’S HUMANOID WORKFORCE IS GOING TO OVERTAKE EVERYTHING HUMANS DO!!!!

Donald Trump has banned Chinese robots from being imported into the US – Xiao Benxiang/VCG via Getty Images

Unitree, China’s top robotics company, mesmerised the world earlier this year with its concert-hall display of humanoid robots doing martial arts.

As they flipped and kicked, a sci-fi future seemed suddenly present, wiping away the familiar old world of stumbling, fumbling mechanoids.

But Unitree has already moved on. In the company’s latest videos, a prototype robot is shown performing tasks that are easier than martial arts for humans, but far more difficult for robots.

UnifoLM-OminiA-0.3, nicknamed “Benben”, responds to voice commands. It picks up dirty laundry. It opens a bedside drawer and pulls out the correct box of pills.

Unitree, and China in general, are fast-forwarding to a future in which humanoid robots don’t just work in factories or warehouses. Instead they will also work in shops, cafes, hospitals, nursing homes, and even in people’s houses.

For the Chinese, this fixes the problems of a labour shortage and an ageing society. It puts menial work in the hands of sleepless machines that don’t mind it, and that will never claim sick leave or unemployment benefits.

That might seem harmless, or even beneficial. But not to Donald Trump.

When he, and many other US politicians, look at Benben, they see a different future: an army of imported Chinese robots in every American hospital, police station and home, ready at the flick of a switch to become hostile spies or even soldiers.

“The Chinese Communist Party is the biggest threat we face … We cannot allow these robots to become predominant in our country,” John Moolenaar, a Republican congressman, said this week.

With support from the Democrats, he has drafted a new law that would force the Pentagon to look at banning Chinese robots. But Trump hasn’t waited for Congress to finish debating it.

The Federal Communications Commission announced a ban on imported robots on Wednesday. It said the robots “collect data that could be leveraged by malign actors to surveil Americans, enhance the capabilities of foreign intelligence services, or to remotely commandeer the robots”.

The ban opens a new front in the US-China struggle for tech supremacy, with the two sides already sparring over magnets, semiconductors and AI.

A Unitree robot on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange last year. They are now banned from the US – Michael Nagle/Bloomberg

The Chinese foreign ministry reacted with outrage. It accused Washington of a “hegemonic mindset” and threatened to retaliate with “all necessary measures”.

But the Global Times newspaper, a Communist Party mouthpiece, was more condescending. Its post on X simply said: “If you can’t beat them, ban them.”

Can the US beat China? It is certainly no straggler in humanoid robotics.

America still leads the race in AI tech, without which any robot lacks a brain and will be a non-starter. And Elon Musk is hell-bent on starting production of Tesla’s Optimus robot later this year.

But China is way out in front: its legion of start-ups churned out 16,000 humanoid robots last year.

Officials said earlier this month that China is on track to produce 100,000 next year – enough to populate a mid-sized English town.

Wang Xingxing, the boss of Unitree, told Time magazine this month that Chinese humanoid robotics was anything from two to 10 years away from a “ChatGPT moment”.

“Once the technology surpasses this … inflection point, robots can gradually be rolled out for large-scale commercial use,” he said.

Globally, Bank of America has forecast that 10 million humanoid robots could be cohabiting the planet with us by 2035 – a population the size of Switzerland – soaring to three billion by 2060.

At that point, humanoid robots would replace one fifth of industrial workers, and half the workforce in the services sector.

Beijing can hardly wait. Its population could shrink by 60 million in the next decade – the equivalent of losing the whole of France – and the Chinese are ageing fast.

With no desire to pursue a policy of mass immigration, Beijing needs humanoid robots not just to replace missing workers in factories, but also to service a greying population.

This Chinese robot can direct traffic, detect violations and give verbal reminders – VCG

The decades of the one-child policy mean many older people, who already make up a quarter of the population, have little family support. Their care will have to come from the state and the market.

Companies are frantically trying to speed up the evolution of humanoid robots towards an electronic homo sapiens: one that can service complex needs and make reasoned decisions, rather than just stack boxes.

Unitree’s robots still look, well, robotic.

But Shenzhen-based UBtech is already experimenting with silicon skin and responsive facial expressions, which would better suit nursing homes or hotel reception desks.

This crosses what Masahiro Mori, the Japanese robotics guru, once called the “uncanny valley”.

Mori observed that we humans tend to warm to robots as long as they look like the ones we’ve seen dancing on stage this year.

But once they look more and more like us, we get a bit creeped out by them, and we might push back.

Chinese robots are becoming more and more lifelike – VCG

Beijing is betting that the Chinese will happily ride through the uncanny valley. It has allocated 1tn yuan (£110bn) to funding robotics, hoping to spur local governments and entrepreneurs to jump on the opportunity.

This was the template that built China’s world-beating electric-vehicle (EV) industry.

There are now about 150 companies focused on humanoids, with a much larger hinterland of industrial robot makers behind that.

EV makers are also expected to join the rush, with XPeng, an electric car company, the first to move. More patents for humanoid robot technology are being filed in China than in the rest of the world put together.

Nobody expects all these start-ups to survive. Some may end up as specialists, or will focus on smaller slices of the supply chain.

But the largest of them are already inking deals with industrial and tech companies in the US and Europe. About 90pc of the humanoid robots sold worldwide last year were Chinese-made.

“European firms could easily find themselves facing a repeat of the race for EVs, outpaced by China’s blend of industrial capacity and state support,” the Berlin-based think tank Merics warned this month.

“As the sector evolves, Chinese firms may also find solutions to the high-end components they currently rely on Western and Japanese firms to provide.”

China may be ahead in the race, but the starter’s gun has only just gone off. There are daunting technical hurdles to training and perfecting robots that can deal both adequately and safely with the unpredictable vagaries of the human world.

Clearing those obstacles will depend on AI, where the US is still in front. China’s advantages are scale, subsidies, and a huge industrial base.

“China has almost every element of the robotics supply chain, and can put all them together much quicker and at cheaper, lower cost,” says Pavlo Zvenyhorodskyi, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The US ban will be a setback. Unitree, ahead of a partial float in Shanghai next month, told would-be investors that sales in America, which are now at risk, represent up to one-fifth of its revenue.

But Zvenyhorodskyi believes China still has the momentum. “With the pace and the trajectory that China is moving at, it’s very likely that in several years the gap with the US, Europe and Japan will be much smaller. Or China will in fact overtake them.”

From Star Wars and Blade Runner to Terminator and Robocop, the US has long led the world in telling stories about the world’s robotic future.

But it is only just waking up to the newer, and truer challenge: to lead the world in turning all that sci-fi into reality.

DINOSAURS WERE KILLED BY HEAT BY ASTEROID HIT????

Dinosaurs were roasted to death by asteroid dust cloud

Researchers say ejected dust acted like lid on a pot, trapping heat and ‘charbroiling’ anything that could not reach safety

Picture of a raptor dinosaur observing asteroid crashing to earth — Dinosaurs that survived the asteroid crash were ‘baked or fried’ by the heat trapped underneath the resultant dust cloud Credit: mikdam/iStockphoto

d 28 July 2026 4:52pm BST

Dinosaurs roasted to death in a hellish “oven” created by superheated dust when an asteroid hit Earth 66m years ago, scientists believe.

When the Everest-sized space rock hit the planet at 45,000mph, it vaporised anything in its path and ignited landscapes within a 900-mile radius.

But planetary scientists at Purdue University, in the United States, believe some dinosaurs may have survived had it not been for a suffocating cloud of ejected dust, which sat like a lid over Earth and prevented the blast heat from escaping into space.

Dr Alexandria Johnson, an expert in atmospheric sciences, said: “Anything that couldn’t shelter itself somehow – underground or underwater – would have got baked or fried.”

The Chicxulub asteroid sent more than 240 cubic miles of material into the atmosphere, some of which condensed into droplets of rock – spherules – which fell back to Earth, heating the air further.

Prof Brandon Johnson, of the department of Earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences at Purdue, said: “With the dust cloud trapping thermal radiation, it was like the surface and everything on it was being charbroiled – and that’s what killed the dinosaurs and all the other animals.

“It’s not the blast wave from the impact or the fireball – those don’t go very far. It’s the global ejection of this vapour plume material that makes this a global extinction event.

“Without the dust cloud, it would have been bad. It would have killed a lot of creatures, but it wouldn’t have been a planetary catastrophe.”

The Chicxulub impact near the Yucatán Peninsula is believed to have killed about three-quarters of all living species, including most of the dinosaurs. Only the avian dinosaurs survived.

Previously, experts believed the asteroid triggered giant tsunamis and created a cloud that blocked the sun for years, causing plummeting temperatures and killing plants that starved dinosaurs that ate vegetation. When the plant-eaters died, the meat-eaters also died.

But the new study suggests that, for most animals, the apocalypse probably occurred much more quickly.

The Chicxulub asteroid near the Yucatan Peninsula is believed have killed about three-quarters of all living species Credit: Roger Harris/Science Photo Library

Researchers calculated that the heat trapped by the fine dust meant the dinosaurs received a dose of thermal radiation 17 times more than the amount that would be lethal to humans.

The intense heat was enough to ignite grass, pine needles, lichen and maybe even wood, causing widespread wildfires and turning Earth into a fiery oven from which only burrowing animals, and those in the sea, could escape.

“It probably looked more like hell,” said Prof Johnson. “The clouds would have blocked daylight so to any animal, like humans, that don’t see far into the infrared, the surface would have probably looked dark.”

Scientists knew that the impact had melted rocks and sent detritus showering down to Earth because spherules have been found in the gills of paddlefish, which probably died on the day the asteroid hit.

The spherules, about half the size of a grain of sugar, were made up of material of terrestrial origin – not from the asteroid itself, but almost certainly the deadly cloud that it created.

Dr Johnson looked at the physical properties of these particles and the dust cloud as a whole to determine how it would have handled heat.

She found the cloud layer was so impermeable that it trapped almost all of the heat from near the surface of the planet, the dust essentially acting like a lid on a pot, cooking Earth’s inhabitants on the surface.

The dust could have taken years, or even decades, to settle, and the particles themselves could have caused ongoing health problems for survivors.

The study was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences.

THE UK HAS FRICKING GONE NUTS OVER MUSLIMS..THI IS AN AWARD FOR A TOTALLY COVERED WOMAN EMPOWERING WOMEN!!!???

Muslim woman in full body covering wins “British Citizen Award For Empowering Young Women”

Here’s the UK’s best example of a woman who empowers women:

I’m serious: She actually got this award.

Yes, Britain has found its newest champion of “women’s empowerment”: A devout Muslim woman who showed up to collect her award at the Palace of Westminster fully covered in a niqab.

Khadija Patel, founder of the KRIMMZ Girls Youth Club, was one of 28 recipients of the prestigious British Citizen Award for her tireless work getting hundreds of young girls — many from Muslim backgrounds — into sports like cricket, soccer, cycling, netball, and more. She builds confidence, promotes teamwork, breaks down “cultural barriers,” and all that good stuff.

Truly commendable community service! Watch out AMERICA…..

CALIFORNIA VOTES REJECT LIBERAL NEWSOM’S BAN ON SELLING NEW GAS POWERED CARS-HOW STUPID IS THAT SOON TO BE GONE GOVERNOR’S ORDER???

Californians Crush Newsom’s Gas Car Ban in Massive Poll Reversal

Gavin Newsom just got the message loud and clear from the people who actually have to live under his rules. Nearly two-thirds of Californians want nothing to do with his 2035 ban on new gas-powered cars.

According to the latest Public Policy Institute of California survey, 66 percent of adults and 65 percent of likely voters oppose the governor’s executive order that would outlaw the sale of new gasoline vehicles. Only 34 percent still back it. That is a 17-point jump in opposition since 2021, when the state was split down the middle.

Republicans reject it by a staggering 91 percent. Independents sit at 69 percent against. Even Democrats have collapsed into a near-even split. The climate cult is losing its own base.

This is not some abstract preference poll. Californians are staring at their utility bills and gas pumps and deciding the green dream is not worth the cost. Sixty-three percent now call energy costs a big problem in their part of the state. The same share says current gasoline prices are a major problem. Both numbers have climbed sharply in just one year.

Electricity in California already runs nearly twice the national average. Residential rates hover around 35 cents per kilowatt-hour, the highest among the contiguous states. Newsom’s answer? Force everyone into electric cars that cost more upfront, take longer to “refuel,” and depend on a grid that struggles to keep the lights on during heat waves.

The same poll shows only one in five Californians is extremely or very confident the state will build enough charging stations. Nearly half say they have little or no confidence at all. People are not stupid. They know what happens when politicians promise infrastructure they never deliver.

Scripture has a word for this kind of planning. “For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?” (Luke 14:28).

Newsom never counted the cost for ordinary families. He counted the applause from coastal elites and climate NGOs.

The governor and lawmakers just threw another $135 million at EV rebates. First-time buyers of cheaper new electric cars can get $3,500. Used ones get half that. Automakers are supposed to split the bill. Anyone who believes those costs will not land on consumers has never watched how California works.

Meanwhile, the federal $7,500 EV tax credit expired under President Trump and a Republican Congress. California is left holding the bag for a transition its own residents increasingly reject. The state still leads the nation in EV registrations, with about 1.3 million on the road.

That has not stopped the backlash. People who already own them are one thing. Mandating the rest of the population into them is another.

Californians still say they support broad climate goals. Nearly two-thirds back the net-zero emissions target by 2045. Majorities favor carbon taxes on corporations and renewable electricity requirements. The difference is simple. Abstract targets cost nothing today. Forcing working families out of reliable, affordable cars does.

This is what happens when ideology collides with the grocery bill. Newsom’s marquee climate policy has become a political liability in the bluest big state in the country. The people who have to pay for it are done pretending.

The New York Post called it a gut punch. That is polite. It is a rejection of the entire top-down climate regime that treats citizens as subjects to be managed rather than free people who count costs for themselves.

Newsom is term-limited. His successor will inherit this mess. The question is whether California’s political class finally learns that reality has a way of interrupting the sermon.

ANTHONY FAUCI EXPOSED AS A MEDIA HOG AND MORE

Fauci Diary Exposes Cozy Media Ties, Trump Tensions and Celebrity Fixation [WATCH]

Newly released diary entries from Dr. Anthony Fauci are giving Americans a rare look behind the curtain at the man who became the government face of the COVID 19 era, complete with media chatter, celebrity encounters and internal White House drama.

The records were released by Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rand Paul, R Ky., just days before Fauci is set to testify before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee after being subpoenaed by Paul.

The diary details Fauci’s daily role during the pandemic through meetings, calls and personal notes, showing how quickly public health policy turned into a mix of politics, television management and celebrity culture.

For Americans who remember the lockdown years, the entries add another layer to a familiar story.

The experts lectured the country about sacrifice while Washington insiders and media favorites appeared to orbit one another quite comfortably.

Early entries show Fauci describing a warmer relationship with President Donald Trump than many might expect.

Fauci wrote that Trump repeatedly sent questions his way during White House meetings and called him “the smartest person in the world.”

Trump also told Fauci, “We are counting on you,” according to the diary.

Fauci later wrote that Trump appeared “enamored” with him as his national profile exploded during the pandemic.

That relationship did not stay smooth as the pandemic dragged on.

Fuci’s notes describe mounting friction inside the White House, especially with then White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

Fauci wrote that Meadows threatened to keep him off television and pushed him to soften his public messaging.

In one entry, Fauci described Meadows as “screaming” over comments Fauci had made in public.

The diary paints then White House communications director Alyssa Farah in a much more favorable light from Fauci’s perspective.

In a May 2020 entry, Fauci said Farah admitted White House staff had been “holding me back” and that the situation had “gotten out of hand.”

According to Fauci, Farah promised to begin approving his television requests again.

In Washington, access to a camera can apparently become its own form of oxygen.

Other communications figures did not fare as well in Fauci’s private notes.

Fauci took sharp aim at then HHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Michael Caputo, accusing him in crude terms of publicly backing his media appearances while privately blocking them.

The diary also shows how deeply television journalists figured into Fauci’s pandemic world.

CNN anchor Jake Tapper appears repeatedly in the entries through calls, texts and even dinners at Tapper’s Washington home.

Fauci wrote that Tapper privately checked whether a CNN interview had caused trouble for him with the White House.

When The Atlantic’s Peter Nicholas suggested Fauci had been “humiliated” over a canceled Tapper interview,

Fauci responded with a blunt and vulgar dismissal in his notes.

CNN’s Dana Bash also appears in the diary after Fauci’s heated exchange with Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio.

Fauci wrote that Bash texted him that he was “a better man” and relayed that Wolf Blitzer joked nobody would have blamed him for telling Jordan off.

The next day, Fauci said Bash texted him again, this time pointing him to a Vanity Fair headline mocking Jordan’s performance at the hearing.

The cozy media club always seems to know when to send flowers and when to sharpen knives.

The entries also include billionaire Oracle co founder Larry Ellison, who became part of White House discussions about using Oracle technology during the pandemic. Fauci described Ellison as “a bit of a loose cannon.”

Then there is the celebrity parade. Julia Roberts hosted Fauci on Instagram Live, sent him flowers and later presented him with an award, while Anna Wintour, Trevor Noah, Steph Curry, Sean Penn, Matt Damon and Lil Wayne all show up in the broader Fauci orbit.

The diary reads at moments less like a public health record and more like a guest list for the political class during crisis mode.

Americans were told to stay home, stay quiet and trust the science, while the science was apparently fielding celebrity messages.

The final notable cameo comes from the 2022 Kennedy Center Honors.

Fauci wrote that he hugged Hunter Biden, who joked the internet “would explode” if someone photographed them together because they were both “being attacked by the far right GOP.”

Paul’s release lands as Fauci prepares for another round of scrutiny on Capitol Hill.

For many conservatives, the diary will only fuel questions about whether pandemic leadership was driven by sober public health judgment, political instincts or a taste for fame.

The country is still living with the consequences of decisions made during those years.

Fauci’s own words now offer a revealing glimpse into the power circles, media friendships and celebrity fascination surrounding one of the most controversial government figures of the pandemic.

he Real MOU: What Trump’s Iran Agreement Actually Says – Truth Thursday | EP 677

CREEPY LOOKING JACK SMITH WAS A LIAR…ALWAYS..

Jack Smith Hit With Criminal Referral for Lying to Congress About Spying on Lawmakers

The special counsel who spent years trying to put Donald Trump in prison just got referred for criminal investigation himself. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan dropped the hammer Wednesday, accusing Jack Smith of willfully lying under oath about how deep his team dug into private text messages from members of Congress.

This is not some technical dispute over paperwork. This is about a prosecutor who told Congress one story under oath, then got caught by documents showing something else entirely.

During his closed-door deposition on December 17, 2025, Smith was asked whether he sought a search warrant for the content of any text messages from members of Congress. His answer: “No, I don’t recall that.” He insisted his team only pulled toll records—the kind that show when a message was sent, not what it said.

Jordan’s referral letter to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche lays it out plainly. Those answers “gave the impression that neither Mr. Smith nor his team had access to the content of Members’ privileged text messages.” Then the records landed.

“We now know this to be false,” Jordan wrote.

Newly released Justice Department material handed over to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley shows Smith’s investigators directly accessed the actual content of text messages involving more than 40 members of Congress. The messages ran between lawmakers and White House staff from October 2020 through January 20, 2021. The list included both Republicans and Democrats. Jordan himself was on it. So was Grassley. So were Steve Scalise, the late Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, and even Cory Booker.

Worse, Smith’s team bypassed its own Filter Team—the internal safeguard designed to keep investigators from reading privileged or constitutionally protected communications. They went around the gatekeepers and looked anyway.

Jordan’s letter calls this “strong evidence” of false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. He argues Smith’s testimony was not a fuzzy memory problem. It was an intentional effort to obstruct congressional oversight.

“His conduct can only be understood as an effort to thwart the Committee’s inquiry by intentionally making false statements and representations before Congress.”

Democrats, predictably, are howling. Ranking Member Jamie Raskin called the referral “laughably weak and vindictive,” claiming Republicans are upset that Smith did not volunteer information they failed to ask for. That defense requires believing that a seasoned prosecutor somehow forgot his own team had read dozens of lawmakers’ private messages while investigating a former president. It also requires ignoring the constitutional Speech or Debate Clause protections that cover official legislative communications.

This is the same Jack Smith who treated the Justice Department like a personal weapon against the leading political opponent of the Biden administration. He obtained phone records of Republican lawmakers. He chased theories about 2020 that collapsed under scrutiny. Now the documents show his team was reading the actual words elected officials were sending to the White House—and then he told Congress he never sought the content.

Scripture is not silent on this kind of deception. “Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.” That is Ephesians 4:25. Public officials who swear an oath and then shade the truth to protect their own power are not serving the public. They are serving themselves.

The Justice Department under the current administration has confirmed receipt of the referral and stated it “will investigate all evidence of criminal conduct.” Whether that investigation produces an actual indictment remains to be seen. But the pattern is hard to miss. The man who spent years demanding accountability from one side of the political aisle is now being forced to answer for his own statements under oath.

Americans were told for years that Jack Smith was the impartial guardian of the rule of law. The records say otherwise. So does the criminal referral now sitting on the Acting Attorney General’s desk.

AI IS TRANSFORMING HEALTHCARE-IT MAY SAVE YOUR LIFE!

Amid the broader debate over artificial intelligence’s economic disruptions, the healthcare sector is quietly demonstrating some of the technology’s most concrete applications. Rather than the job losses feared in other industries, hospitals report AI augmenting physicians, streamlining routine tasks and accelerating innovation in ways that could improve outcomes while controlling costs.

At the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, roughly 150 AI models are now in use. A tool called Record Time helps internists distill hundreds of pages of external medical records into searchable summaries, saving five to 30 minutes per patient, according to CNN.

“AI can step in and do a lot of the tedious work that very specialized doctors or medical professionals do to speed up that process – get to more accurate diagnoses, faster so you can treat more people,” Jason Droege, CEO of Scale AI, said.

Mayo is also testing AI for early pancreatic-cancer detection, potentially years ahead of conventional diagnosis, and for identifying atrial-fibrillation risks that could prevent strokes. The clinic partners with Microsoft and other firms to train models on its vast trove of patient data.

Radiology, once predicted to be AI’s first casualty, tells a similar story of augmentation rather than obsolescence – though the most-cited evidence comes from an interested party. A report from Build American AI – a nonprofit advocacy arm of Leading the Future, the $100 million pro-AI super PAC backed by Andreessen Horowitz and OpenAI executives – finds the U.S. radiologist workforce in Medicare-affiliated practices grew 17.3% between 2014 and 2023. At Mayo itself, the group says, the number of radiologists expanded 55% since 2016. The organization does not disclose its donors and lobbies for federal preemption of state AI rules, so the figures warrant independent checking against Medicare provider data.

Utah recently became the first state to allow an AI system from Doctronic to renew prescriptions for chronic conditions such as diabetes and hypertension. In the pilot’s first five months, the AI recommended approval in 72% of cases, with physicians concurring 91% of the time; it escalated the rest when complications appeared, Forbes reports. The program targets established medications, maintains human oversight and bars controlled substances.

Tampa General Hospital estimates that an AI-enabled sepsis-detection system it built with Palantir has helped save 886 lives since August 2022, cutting early sepsis deaths by 68%. The figure is the hospital’s own assessment of a system developed with a commercial partner.

In drug development, AI’s impact may prove most transformative. A TD Cowen survey of biopharma leaders found executives expect the technology to compress preclinical costs and timelines by as much as 70%, powering in-silico modeling that simulates thousands of experiments rapidly, Axios reports. Respondents expect new drug programs to expand more than 10% in the coming years.

Yet inside the very institutions championing AI, opposition is already brewing.

Mayo Clinic’s former Director of Research Operations Traci Tamiko Eto sued the hospital earlier this month, alleging she was retaliated against for raising privacy and oversight concerns around some Mayo AI systems. Mayo Clinic spokesperson Andrea Kalmanovitz said the hospital doesn’t comment on ongoing litigation but underscored that it is “committed to the responsible development and deployment of AI, with privacy, security, transparency and compliance embedded throughout our processes.”

“Our research and clinical innovation are conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and we remain steadfast in upholding the trust patients place in us and respecting their privacy,” Kalmanovitz said in a statement.

COVID VIRUS ORIGINS COMING TO LIGHT, HOW EVERYONE WAS FOOLED!

Rand Paul Exposes Covid Scientists Who Privately Doubted Lab Origin While Publicly Denying It

The same scientists who looked America in the eye and declared a lab origin for COVID-19 “implausible” were privately assigning it a 30 percent chance. Senator Rand Paul just dropped the Slack messages that prove it.

On Tuesday, the Kentucky Republican released internal communications among the authors of the March 2020 Nature Medicine paper “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” That paper became the scientific gospel used by Anthony Fauci, the mainstream media, and every public health bureaucrat to shut down any discussion of a Wuhan lab leak.

Kristian Andersen, Robert Garry, Eddie Holmes, and Andrew Rambaut told the world the virus showed no signs of laboratory manipulation. Privately, they were not nearly so sure.

Andersen put the lab origin probability at 30 percent. Holmes started at 20 percent and later edged it down to 10 percent. Either number is a far cry from the paper’s public confidence that the idea was off the table. By June 11, 2020, Andersen was still wrestling with the gap between what they published and what the evidence actually allowed:

“The part I’m really struggling with is that, at the end of the day, we really don’t have any hard evidence one way or the other — and especially given some of the recent evidence, we also can’t rule out that somebody actually put it in there. That’s obviously not to say that somebody did, but we can’t rule it out. Our paper was pretty strong in saying ‘there’s no way,’ but I have less confidence in that statement at this stage.”

Read that again. The lead author admitted the paper overstated the case against a lab origin, then kept quiet while the world treated their work as settled science. These men received large multimillion-dollar grants from American taxpayers. Paul put it plainly: “This level of dishonesty, I think, needs to be exposed. These are people who get large, multimillion-dollar grants from our country, and we shouldn’t be giving money to people who lied to us.”

The messages also show the authors debating the furin cleavage site—the very genetic feature that has always raised the sharpest lab-leak questions. Andersen spoke of “smoking(ish) guns” that left him uncomfortable. They coordinated with NIH leadership and elements of the U.S. intelligence community while publicly defending conclusions they privately doubted.

They even turned on Ralph Baric, the prominent coronavirus researcher, suspecting him of leaking peer-review details to a journalist and labeling him their own “Deep Throat.”

This is not an isolated academic spat. It sits inside a larger pattern of institutional protection that Paul has been systematically exposing. Just a day earlier he released documents showing Customs and Border Protection agents prepared to question EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak—central figure in the Wuhan research pipeline—upon his return from the WHO origins investigation.

The FBI stepped in and told them to stand down. Fauci himself is scheduled to testify before Paul’s committee this month under subpoena. The cover-up machinery is still grinding.

Scripture is clear on the matter. “These are the things that ye shall do; Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbour; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates” (Zechariah 8:16).

When scientists paid by the public choose narrative over evidence, when they publish certainty while privately admitting doubt, they are not practicing science. They are practicing deception. And deception of this scale, on a question that determined lockdowns, school closures, vaccine mandates, and the erosion of basic liberties, is not a technical error. It is a moral failure that cost lives and shattered trust.

The Proximal Origin paper was never the dispassionate scientific consensus the media pretended. It was a political document written by men who knew the lab possibility remained open and chose to close the door anyway.

Paul’s release of these Slack messages does what the scientific establishment refused to do: it forces the truth into the light. The question now is whether the same institutions that elevated these authors will finally hold them to account, or whether the American people will once again be told to move on and forget.

We should not forget. Truth still matters. And those who buried it while cashing government checks should answer for it.