John Klar

Kentucky's legislature and state supreme court are facing off in an epic battle over the parameters of their respective authority. This separation-of-powers turf war centers on a legislative effort to impeach a sitting judge. The Kentucky Supreme Court has ruled that only the judiciary has this power in the absence of serious impropriety. In response, the legislature voted overwhelmingly on its last day of session to censure a Supreme Court judge for his opinion in the case. The gloves are off.

On Monday, April 27, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the Monsanto Company v Durnell case, which centers on whether or not the plaintiff's cancer was due to Monsanto's failure to warn of its product's dangers. A protest called “ The People v Poison ” has been organized beginning at 9:00 a.m. to oppose granting legal immunity to chemical manufacturers like Monsanto for the harms caused by glyphosate and other chemicals.

The immigration battle between the Trump administration and activist judges will once again be brought before the nation's highest court today (April 29). The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Trump v. Miot and Mullin v. Doe , consolidated cases challenging the administration's efforts to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian and Syrian immigrants, respectively. Plaintiffs in both actions have secured stays in the lower courts against the government's nonrenewal of TPS status. The Trump administration is asking SCOTUS to lift the stay, so that deportations of Haitians and Syrians in the United States under the program can be returned to their native lands.

As the surreal ordeal of the global COVID-19 pandemic recedes further into the past, increasing criticism has been leveled at state and federal government responses to the outbreak. Faced with the threat of a potentially deadly disease, America's most powerful government institutions implemented controversial policies that were counterproductive to overall long-term health. But learning from past mistakes may help prevent them from recurring in future crises.

The world has struggled for years to accurately determine whether the COVID virus originated naturally (that is, in the open-air markets of China) or was created by human hands at the Wuhan Institute of Virology using US taxpayer funding.

An April 30, 2026, report condemns anti-Christian bias under the Biden administration. While left-leaning pundits and social justice faith groups disparage the report as itself being biased, such gaslighting does nothing to diminish the damning picture that emerges from the report. The Biden administration clearly shattered many constitutional boundaries in its toxic discrimination against conservative Christians. The allegations of this bias are widespread, well-documented, and detailed

The world has struggled for years to accurately determine whether the COVID virus originated naturally (that is, in the open-air markets of China) or was created by human hands at the Wuhan Institute of Virology using US taxpayer funding. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has long claimed that the truth has been deliberately covered up. Today (May 13), the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs (chaired by Paul) will conduct an inquiry to dig deeper into the testimony of an unnamed whistleblower.

Even out of power, the Biden administration just keeps on giving.

The MAHA movement has been driven by a push to improve health outcomes for an undeniably sickened American population. This has included scrutiny of bogus mRNA vaccine claims of efficacy and more attention to obvious vaccine injuries despite industry efforts to sweep them under the carpet. But as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long explained, the vast majority of chronic disease in the United States has arisen from lack of exercise and the consumption of unhealthy processed foods.

The widespread cultural divide among Americans was evident in a recent First Amendment case in Washington. A Christian foster family from the Evergreen State said their speech and religious liberties were violated by state policies demanding they employ gender pronouns and affirm the sexual orientation of their foster charges. The resulting settlement seeks to protect religious liberties while also supporting the self-identification of gender, orientation, etc., by minors in need of an affirming home.