>
World's largest eVTOL just proved it can play nice with other flyers
Shockingly low sale price of flagship Portland office building that shows woke city is still far...
What will NASA's moon base look like? As the US space agency reveals plans to build...
Cars Are Fast Becoming Dystopian Prison Pods...
Our Emergency Water Plan Wasn't Good Enough - So We Built This
Sodium Ion Batteries Can Reach 100 Gigawatt Per Hour Per Year Scale in 2027
Juiced Bikes proves capable electric motorcycles don't have to cost a lot
Headlight projectors turn your car into a drive-in theater
US To Develop Small Modular Nuclear Reactors For Commercial Shipping
New York Mandates Kill Switch and Surveillance Software in Your 3D Printer ...
Cameco Sees As Many As 20 AP1000 Nuclear Reactors On The Horizon
His grandparents had heart disease.
At 11, Laurent Simons decided he wanted to fight aging.
Mayo Clinic's AI Can Detect Pancreatic Cancer up to 3 Years Before Diagnosis–When Treatment...

Everything this nation once stood for is being turned on its head.
We are being asked—no, told—to believe that the greatest threat to America today is not government overreach, endless war, corruption, surveillance, or the steady erosion of constitutional rights.
No, the real threat, it seems, is speech.
Dangerous speech. Hateful speech. Critical speech. Speech that dares to challenge power.
In the wake of the reported assassination attempt on President Trump, the Trump administration has wasted no time advancing a dangerous narrative: that criticism of the president—especially criticism labeling him authoritarian or fascist—is not just wrong, but responsible for violence.
The implication is as chilling as it is unconstitutional: if you criticize the government too harshly, you may be to blame for what happens next.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the government's argument is this: criticism fuels anger, and anger leads to violence against the Trump administration.
Which means the solution, in the government's eyes, is simple: silence the criticism—but only when it is leveled at the Trump administration.
When White House officials suggest that calling a president a fascist may constitute libel or slander, they are not merely defending reputations—they are laying the groundwork for criminalizing dissent.
This is how it begins.
This is how republics become regimes.
First, criticism is labeled dangerous. Then it is labeled harmful. Then it is labeled illegal. And before long, it is gone.
Beware of those who want to monitor, muzzle, catalogue and censor speech—especially when the justification is "safety." Because every time the government claims it must limit freedom to protect the public, what it is really doing is expanding its own power.
The irony is almost too glaring to ignore.
By the standards now being floated by those in power, America's founders themselves would be considered extremists.
Seditionists. Radicals. Domestic threats.
Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Marquis De Lafayette, and John Adams would certainly have been placed on an anti-government watch list for suggesting that Americans should not only take up arms but be prepared to protect their liberties and defend themselves against the government should it violate their rights.
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms," declared Jefferson. He also concluded that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."