Author: admin

Florida Politician (Anthony F. Sabatini) Faulted for AI Hallucinations in Briefs

From Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., decided yesterday by the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Britt Grant, joined by Judge Robin Rosenbaum and Embry Kidd:

A group of plaintiffs, employees in the commercial aviation business, personally reject their companies’ pandemic-era policies on masks, testing, and vaccination. The district court dismissed the third amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and we affirm.

The claims in this case are remarkably weak, at least as pleaded. We are more candid than usual in this assessment because the plaintiffs’ counsel Anthony F. Sabatini has not been candid with us. Sabatini filed multiple briefs replete with fake and hallucinated citations. Even after being warned. “Always a bad idea.” Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., 2023 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, at 6 (2023). By outsourcing his legal work to an AI algorithm, Sabatini violated his ethical duties to both his clients and this Court….

Though the filings in this case were substandard in a variety of ways [I excerpt some of the substantive analysis below -EV], we have saved the worst for last. The plaintiffs’ counsel Anthony F. Sabatini’s filings are riddled with citations to nonexistent, “hallucinated” cases. His opening brief relies on at least eight such cases, including one purportedly decided by this Court.

After the defendants identified this problem, Sabatini acknowledged in his (untimely) proposed reply brief that those citations were “erroneous or unverifiable,” and sought to withdraw his reliance on eight listed cases. At this point, things go from bad to worse: the eight cases Sabatini “withdrew” did not match a single one of the eight hallucinated cases in his opening brief. And not only were they not the right cases—all eight were also hallucinated.

We are far from the first court to see lawyers uncritically rely on artificial intelligence software and submit briefs citing nonexistent cases. The typical response when this kind of violation is identified is some version of an apology from the attorney, often with sanctions to follow. It is rare to see the kind of blatant and repeated misconduct that Sabatini has committed in this case.

The first rule of our profession is that a lawyer “shall provide competent representation to a client”—”competent” in the sense that it requires “legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation.” It goes without saying that completely outsourcing one’s legal work to artificial intelligence software is not competent. Doing so is a dramatic violation of the client’s interests.

But it does not stop there, because lawyers are also officers of the Court. We expect that when lawyers submit briefs, they give us their best view of what the law is, and how that law supports their clients. We read those briefs carefully—not just because they are the product of counsel’s time, effort, and skill, but because they help us as we try to reach the right answer. All that is lost if a lawyer decides that it is not worthwhile to do the work to persuade us—if he is willing to sign his name on whatever a machine churns out without so much as checking it for accuracy. We cannot do our job the same way unless lawyers do theirs.

Whatever the merits of artificial intelligence, it is no substitute for actual intelligence. Any “use of AI requires caution and humility.” When lawyers rely on AI tools, there is no way to get around the obligation to verify that the software got it right, and that what it got wrong will not end up in court filings.

{AI algorithms are notorious for producing “outputs that echo users’ opinions and beliefs, even when those views are incorrect.” This tendency presents a particular danger in legal filings, as one of a lawyer’s chief duties is to give his clients a clear-eyed view of whether the law says what the client wants it to say.}

By signing his name on briefs filled with hallucinated citations—not once but twice—Sabatini violated his professional obligations, both to his clients and to this Court. If he thinks these claims are not worth the effort, he should either tell his clients they fall short or advise them to hire another lawyer—not file obviously insufficient pleadings and briefs generated by AI tools. In a separate order, this Court, through the Chief Judge, will refer the matter to the Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct.

Orlando Sentinel (Annie Martin) reports that Sabatini is an elected County Commissioner for Lake County, Florida, and a former state representative:

The 37-year-old has made headlines for years for his controversial and often insulting social media posts and was warned by Republican leaders in Tallahassee to tone down his remarks even before he even attended his first legislative session in 2019.

In the past, he has tweeted a picture of an AR-15 targeted at George Floyd protesters, called for ending gay marriage and, when he ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. House of Representatives four years ago, posted on X, “I’m running for Congress to imprison as many Democrats as possible.”

And a few excerpts related to the substance:

Atlas Air is a commercial airline, and Flight Services International hires contractors to staff Atlas Air’s flights. During the Covid-19 pandemic, both companies required employees to vaccinate against Covid-19, unless they obtained a religious or medical exemption—in which case, they had to undergo periodic testing and wear a mask on the job.

The plaintiffs say they object on religious grounds to what they perceive as “a dangerous social and medical experiment.” They explain that, among other things, their “conscience prohibits them from being inoculated with any experimental foreign substance,” and that their religious rights were violated as a result of “the Biden Administration’s goal of achieving universal vaccination and to unlawfully acquire [their] personal, genetic information.” And in their view, the companies’ accommodations for religious objectors to the vaccination requirement were unreasonable: monthly testing imposed “substantial burdens,” and masks were “functionally useless” “symbols” that accomplished “nothing more than political advertising.” Some plaintiffs say that they “succumbed to the pressure” and took the vaccine; others begrudgingly wore masks and tested. The complaint does not allege that anyone lost their job, but does allege that some plaintiffs were assigned to less desirable, lower-paying flights.

The plaintiffs assert that their employers’ Covid-19 protocols led to a hostile work environment under Title VII; a Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act violation; a federal constitutional deprivation; a tortious invasion of privacy; a negligent disclosure of private medical information; and an infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed all claims against Flight Services International and some claims against Atlas Air for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the remaining claims against Atlas Air for failure to state a claim….

Exercising personal jurisdiction over Flight Services International in this lawsuit would violate due process because neither general nor specific jurisdiction is available in Florida for this company….

The plaintiffs first allege that Atlas Air created a work environment hostile to their religious beliefs, in violation of Title VII. They say that Atlas Air’s “repeated attempts to coerce” them into getting vaccinated constituted “unwelcomed harassment.”

To prevail on this claim, “the plaintiff is required to prove that the defendant had a discriminatory intent or motive.” But the plaintiffs do not allege any facts indicating that Atlas Air intended to discriminate against their religious beliefs. In fact, the allegations suggest the opposite. Under its policy, Atlas Air exempted from its vaccine requirement employees who professed a sincere religious objection to the Covid-19 vaccine. Instead, they had to wear a mask at work and test once a month.

The plaintiffs now seem to assert that these accommodations are also hostile to their religion. The problem with this argument is that there is nothing to back it up in the pleadings. The plaintiffs do not allege any religious objections to masks or tests—only political and logistical ones. Masks, they say, are “functionally useless” “political symbols” that “serve no other purpose than identifying ‘dissident’ employees.” And the plaintiffs offer no real problem with testing, other than a generalized complaint that it entails “substantial burdens.” What those burdens are, and whether they are religious in nature, the plaintiffs do not say. Nor do they allege that employees who received religious exemptions were treated any worse than those who received medical exemptions.

Whatever one makes of the plaintiffs’ dislike of masks and tests, they have alleged no facts signaling animosity from Atlas Air toward their religious beliefs. The allegation that Atlas Air harbored a discriminatory motive is not only conclusory, but “wildly implausible.” …

The plaintiffs also bring claims under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, alleging that Atlas Air unlawfully required its employees to take medical products authorized for emergency use. But they cannot sue to enforce such claims; only the federal government can bring enforcement actions under that statute….

The plaintiffs also allege several state tort claims. The first is that Atlas Air tortiously invaded their privacy by disclosing private medical information—namely, vaccination status—to company administrators in charge of enforcing Covid-19 protocols. “In Florida, except in cases of physical invasion, the tort of invasion of privacy must be accompanied by publication to the public in general or to a large number of persons.” And publicity “requires that a matter be made public, by communicating it to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge.” The plaintiffs do not allege sufficient facts on this score….

We also reject the plaintiffs’ intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Those would require showing that Atlas Air intentionally or recklessly caused “severe emotional distress” through “extreme and outrageous conduct.” The challenged conduct must “go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”

Like many other employers at the time, Atlas Air required certain precautions designed to prevent the spread of Covid-19. But the fact that the plaintiffs disagree with the steps Atlas Air took does not put the airline’s actions beyond all possible bounds of decency. The district court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs’ intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.

The post Florida Politician (Anthony F. Sabatini) Faulted for AI Hallucinations in Briefs appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/ycRXOwb
via IFTTT

Florida Politician (Anthony F. Sabatini) Faulted for AI Hallucinations in Briefs

From Akerlund v. Atlas Air, Inc., decided yesterday by the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Britt Grant, joined by Judge Robin Rosenbaum and Embry Kidd:

A group of plaintiffs, employees in the commercial aviation business, personally reject their companies’ pandemic-era policies on masks, testing, and vaccination. The district court dismissed the third amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and we affirm.

The claims in this case are remarkably weak, at least as pleaded. We are more candid than usual in this assessment because the plaintiffs’ counsel Anthony F. Sabatini has not been candid with us. Sabatini filed multiple briefs replete with fake and hallucinated citations. Even after being warned. “Always a bad idea.” Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., 2023 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, at 6 (2023). By outsourcing his legal work to an AI algorithm, Sabatini violated his ethical duties to both his clients and this Court….

Though the filings in this case were substandard in a variety of ways [I excerpt some of the substantive analysis below -EV], we have saved the worst for last. The plaintiffs’ counsel Anthony F. Sabatini’s filings are riddled with citations to nonexistent, “hallucinated” cases. His opening brief relies on at least eight such cases, including one purportedly decided by this Court.

After the defendants identified this problem, Sabatini acknowledged in his (untimely) proposed reply brief that those citations were “erroneous or unverifiable,” and sought to withdraw his reliance on eight listed cases. At this point, things go from bad to worse: the eight cases Sabatini “withdrew” did not match a single one of the eight hallucinated cases in his opening brief. And not only were they not the right cases—all eight were also hallucinated.

We are far from the first court to see lawyers uncritically rely on artificial intelligence software and submit briefs citing nonexistent cases. The typical response when this kind of violation is identified is some version of an apology from the attorney, often with sanctions to follow. It is rare to see the kind of blatant and repeated misconduct that Sabatini has committed in this case.

The first rule of our profession is that a lawyer “shall provide competent representation to a client”—”competent” in the sense that it requires “legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation.” It goes without saying that completely outsourcing one’s legal work to artificial intelligence software is not competent. Doing so is a dramatic violation of the client’s interests.

But it does not stop there, because lawyers are also officers of the Court. We expect that when lawyers submit briefs, they give us their best view of what the law is, and how that law supports their clients. We read those briefs carefully—not just because they are the product of counsel’s time, effort, and skill, but because they help us as we try to reach the right answer. All that is lost if a lawyer decides that it is not worthwhile to do the work to persuade us—if he is willing to sign his name on whatever a machine churns out without so much as checking it for accuracy. We cannot do our job the same way unless lawyers do theirs.

Whatever the merits of artificial intelligence, it is no substitute for actual intelligence. Any “use of AI requires caution and humility.” When lawyers rely on AI tools, there is no way to get around the obligation to verify that the software got it right, and that what it got wrong will not end up in court filings.

{AI algorithms are notorious for producing “outputs that echo users’ opinions and beliefs, even when those views are incorrect.” This tendency presents a particular danger in legal filings, as one of a lawyer’s chief duties is to give his clients a clear-eyed view of whether the law says what the client wants it to say.}

By signing his name on briefs filled with hallucinated citations—not once but twice—Sabatini violated his professional obligations, both to his clients and to this Court. If he thinks these claims are not worth the effort, he should either tell his clients they fall short or advise them to hire another lawyer—not file obviously insufficient pleadings and briefs generated by AI tools. In a separate order, this Court, through the Chief Judge, will refer the matter to the Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct.

Orlando Sentinel (Annie Martin) reports that Sabatini is an elected County Commissioner for Lake County, Florida, and a former state representative:

The 37-year-old has made headlines for years for his controversial and often insulting social media posts and was warned by Republican leaders in Tallahassee to tone down his remarks even before he even attended his first legislative session in 2019.

In the past, he has tweeted a picture of an AR-15 targeted at George Floyd protesters, called for ending gay marriage and, when he ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. House of Representatives four years ago, posted on X, “I’m running for Congress to imprison as many Democrats as possible.”

And a few excerpts related to the substance:

Atlas Air is a commercial airline, and Flight Services International hires contractors to staff Atlas Air’s flights. During the Covid-19 pandemic, both companies required employees to vaccinate against Covid-19, unless they obtained a religious or medical exemption—in which case, they had to undergo periodic testing and wear a mask on the job.

The plaintiffs say they object on religious grounds to what they perceive as “a dangerous social and medical experiment.” They explain that, among other things, their “conscience prohibits them from being inoculated with any experimental foreign substance,” and that their religious rights were violated as a result of “the Biden Administration’s goal of achieving universal vaccination and to unlawfully acquire [their] personal, genetic information.” And in their view, the companies’ accommodations for religious objectors to the vaccination requirement were unreasonable: monthly testing imposed “substantial burdens,” and masks were “functionally useless” “symbols” that accomplished “nothing more than political advertising.” Some plaintiffs say that they “succumbed to the pressure” and took the vaccine; others begrudgingly wore masks and tested. The complaint does not allege that anyone lost their job, but does allege that some plaintiffs were assigned to less desirable, lower-paying flights.

The plaintiffs assert that their employers’ Covid-19 protocols led to a hostile work environment under Title VII; a Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act violation; a federal constitutional deprivation; a tortious invasion of privacy; a negligent disclosure of private medical information; and an infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed all claims against Flight Services International and some claims against Atlas Air for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the remaining claims against Atlas Air for failure to state a claim….

Exercising personal jurisdiction over Flight Services International in this lawsuit would violate due process because neither general nor specific jurisdiction is available in Florida for this company….

The plaintiffs first allege that Atlas Air created a work environment hostile to their religious beliefs, in violation of Title VII. They say that Atlas Air’s “repeated attempts to coerce” them into getting vaccinated constituted “unwelcomed harassment.”

To prevail on this claim, “the plaintiff is required to prove that the defendant had a discriminatory intent or motive.” But the plaintiffs do not allege any facts indicating that Atlas Air intended to discriminate against their religious beliefs. In fact, the allegations suggest the opposite. Under its policy, Atlas Air exempted from its vaccine requirement employees who professed a sincere religious objection to the Covid-19 vaccine. Instead, they had to wear a mask at work and test once a month.

The plaintiffs now seem to assert that these accommodations are also hostile to their religion. The problem with this argument is that there is nothing to back it up in the pleadings. The plaintiffs do not allege any religious objections to masks or tests—only political and logistical ones. Masks, they say, are “functionally useless” “political symbols” that “serve no other purpose than identifying ‘dissident’ employees.” And the plaintiffs offer no real problem with testing, other than a generalized complaint that it entails “substantial burdens.” What those burdens are, and whether they are religious in nature, the plaintiffs do not say. Nor do they allege that employees who received religious exemptions were treated any worse than those who received medical exemptions.

Whatever one makes of the plaintiffs’ dislike of masks and tests, they have alleged no facts signaling animosity from Atlas Air toward their religious beliefs. The allegation that Atlas Air harbored a discriminatory motive is not only conclusory, but “wildly implausible.” …

The plaintiffs also bring claims under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, alleging that Atlas Air unlawfully required its employees to take medical products authorized for emergency use. But they cannot sue to enforce such claims; only the federal government can bring enforcement actions under that statute….

The plaintiffs also allege several state tort claims. The first is that Atlas Air tortiously invaded their privacy by disclosing private medical information—namely, vaccination status—to company administrators in charge of enforcing Covid-19 protocols. “In Florida, except in cases of physical invasion, the tort of invasion of privacy must be accompanied by publication to the public in general or to a large number of persons.” And publicity “requires that a matter be made public, by communicating it to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge.” The plaintiffs do not allege sufficient facts on this score….

We also reject the plaintiffs’ intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Those would require showing that Atlas Air intentionally or recklessly caused “severe emotional distress” through “extreme and outrageous conduct.” The challenged conduct must “go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”

Like many other employers at the time, Atlas Air required certain precautions designed to prevent the spread of Covid-19. But the fact that the plaintiffs disagree with the steps Atlas Air took does not put the airline’s actions beyond all possible bounds of decency. The district court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs’ intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.

The post Florida Politician (Anthony F. Sabatini) Faulted for AI Hallucinations in Briefs appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/ycRXOwb
via IFTTT

Small Business Chapter 11 Filings Increase 50% Year Over Year

Small Business Chapter 11 Filings Increase 50% Year Over Year

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

Small business Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings jumped 50 percent in the first half of 2026 from the same period last year, signaling pressure on business owners.

Chapter 11 is a type of bankruptcy filing that reorganizes a company’s debt to keep it afloat and allow the entity to become solvent. Subchapter V of Chapter 11 relates to small business filings. In the first half of this year, a total of 1,663 Subchapter V bankruptcy filings were made, up from 1,107 filings in the first half of 2025, the American Bankruptcy Institute (ABI) said in a July 8 statement.

Overall commercial Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings also increased, with 4,589 filings in the first half, up by 28 percent annually.

“The increase in bankruptcy filings over the past year, particularly among small businesses, reflects ongoing financial pressures facing households and employers,” ABI Executive Director Amy Quackenboss said in a statement.

“Higher borrowing costs, increasing expenses, and geopolitical volatility are leading more debtors to turn to the bankruptcy system to restructure obligations and pursue a financial fresh start.”

Optimistic sentiment among small businesses has dipped. In a June 9 statement, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) said that its Small Business Optimism Index declined in May. The index is based on surveys of NFIB members.

Eighteen percent of respondents cited inflation as the single most important business problem they face, the highest level since December 2024.

A net 36 percent of respondents in the survey raised their average selling prices, the highest since March 2023. A net 34 percent said they planned to raise prices.

The NFIB had called on Congress to advance small business priorities this year, according to a Jan. 6 statement from the organization.

Top priorities include lowering healthcare costs for small business owners, reducing fuel and electricity costs, passing regulatory reforms, minimizing labor mandates, and granting the right to repair cars, smartphones, and tractors.

“2025 was an eventful year for small businesses, highlighted by the permanent extension of the 20 percent Small Business Deduction, which stopped a massive tax hike on more than 33 million small business owners nationwide,” NFIB Senior Vice President for Advocacy Adam Temple said in a statement.

A tax relief provision that allowed small businesses to deduct up to 20 percent of their qualified business income was set to expire after 2025, but was made permanent under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Donald Trump last year.

Congress should now “pass legislation that will allow the small business economy to flourish and make life more affordable for consumers,” Temple added.

Supporting Small Businesses

In May, the Small Business Administration announced a new $50 million grant to support the Made in America manufacturing initiative.

The fund aims to ensure small domestic manufacturers receive the necessary technical assistance and training.

During March 30 remarks at a business conference, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act led to a reduction in taxes for roughly 12 million small business owners by almost $7,000 on average.

President Donald Trump, joined by Republican lawmakers, signs the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law during an Independence Day military family picnic on the South Lawn of the White House on July 4, 2025. Samuel Corum/Getty Images

“Across the country, households and businesses are already seeing the benefits of this legislation, with millions of Americans keeping more of what they earn and watching their paychecks go further,” Bessent said at the time.

The unemployment situation has also improved, with fewer Americans applying for unemployment benefits in the week ending July 4 than in the previous week. At 215,000 claims, the figure was also below economists’ expectations of 218,000 claims.

This was a reversal from a rising trend over the previous two months, which economists attribute to the trend of non-teaching staff from educational institutions applying for unemployment benefits during the summer holiday.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce called for maintaining the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) deal in a June 29 statement, citing benefits for American businesses.

The Chamber said that more than 13 million U.S. jobs in agriculture, manufacturing, energy, and service sectors are dependent on North American trade.

Streamlined trade facilitation measures and preferential treatment enabled by the USMCA allowed small businesses to compete in international markets, the Chamber said.

On July 1, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said that the United States opted not to renew the USMCA deal in its current form.

Washington will discuss with partners to “address the Agreement’s shortcomings and our trade deficits with these countries,” he said. The deal has not been canceled and remains in force pending the resolution of disagreements or until it expires.

Lawmakers have criticized USMCA for offshoring manufacturing jobs from the United States and causing a depression in domestic wages.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/11/2026 – 09:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/bedvkNV Tyler Durden

Cuba Plunges Into Second Island-Wide Blackout As Communist System Unravels

Cuba Plunges Into Second Island-Wide Blackout As Communist System Unravels

Cuba suffered its second nationwide blackout in a matter of days late Friday, another sign that the communist-controlled island is sliding deeper into economic collapse amid tightening US sanctions and renewed pressure from the Trump administration.

Havana blames US “gunboat diplomacy” and the financial sanctions for its economic demise, but the roots of the crisis are decades of communist rule, chronic underinvestment, widespread economic mismanagement and a crumbling power grid.

Yet America’s Democratic Party is increasingly embracing socialism and communist ideology, a deeply misguided political messaging campaign at a time when Cuba is offering a real-world case study in how such systems repeatedly fail, leaving economic ruin, institutional decay and human suffering in their aftermath.

The latest islandwide blackout came as four US lawmakers urged the Trump administration to sanction Cuba’s state-run overseas medical-services operator, arguing it exploits healthcare workers and generates revenue for the communist regime.

As we’ve described, the Feds are in the process of dismantling the command and control structure of a Cuba/China foreign subversion network with alleged links to left-wing NGOs and Democratic Party socialists:

Even top Democrats are calling for investigations:

Back to the blackout. Just before the first nationwide outage earlier this week, Raúl Castro’s grandson, Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, told USA Today that he was prepared to negotiate with President Trump.

The timing is notable. The Trump administration is intensifying pressure on Havana as Cuba’s communist regime continues to implode, and at some point, will eventually force the regime toward market reforms and a greater role for capitalism.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/11/2026 – 08:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/PZCqUvS Tyler Durden

Leftists Celebrate Murder Of Conservative British Politician

Leftists Celebrate Murder Of Conservative British Politician

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

The savage killing of 78-year-old Reform UK spokeswoman Ann Widdecombe has unleashed a torrent of vile celebration from left-wing activists, revealing the depths of ideological hatred among the left in the UK.

Widdecombe, the outspoken former Conservative MP and prisons minister, was found dead with serious injuries at her Dartmoor home, prompting an immediate murder investigation by Devon and Cornwall Police.

Police keenly informed the public that a 26-year-old white British man has been arrested on suspicion of the crime. The incident is not being treated as terrorism, but the public reaction – particularly from leftist corners – has shocked many and exposed a chilling tolerance for violence against political opponents.

Detective Chief Inspector Ilona Rosson emphasized the tragedy: “This is an extremely tragic incident and our thoughts are very much with the family and friends of Ann Widdecombe at this difficult time. Our murder enquiry is in its early stages but moving at a significant pace.” The force urged against speculation while deploying resources for house-to-house inquiries.

What followed was a mask-off moment. Rather than universal condemnation, platforms like Bluesky – often touted as a “kinder” alternative – filled with jubilation, with users openly celebrating the death of the elderly conservative.

The stream of derogatory and celebratory posts include accusations that Widdecombe was a “racist old bitch” and a comment that “Science produced an answer to Ann Widdecombe,” referencing her past comments on gender ideology.

Users shared cartoons, GIFs, and barbs that treat her violent end as punchline or progress.

Widdecombe served as MP for Maidstone for many years and held roles including Minister of State for Prisons and Shadow Home Secretary. A staunch Eurosceptic, she backed Brexit and later joined Reform UK. Her socially conservative views – opposition to abortion, support for traditional marriage, and criticism of leftist policies – made her a lightning rod. Yet she commanded respect for consistency and wit, appearing on entertainment shows while maintaining principles.

Leftist celebrations aren’t anomalies; they stem from years of framing conservatives as villains. Terms like “bigot” or “racist” dehumanize, paving the way for glee at misfortune. This echoes reactions to other figures, revealing a worldview where ideological purity trumps basic humanity. Platforms shielding such content while censoring dissent exacerbate division.

Critics rightly note two-tier dynamics. Emphasis on the suspect’s description here contrasts with vagueness elsewhere, fueling skepticism. Broader failures – open borders straining cohesion, cultural erosion, elite dismissal of native concerns – create fertile ground for extremism. Widdecombe warned against these trends. Her death amplifies those warnings.

Reform UK figures now face heightened risks. Leader Nigel Farage’s security needs underscore the stakes. Media and activist demonization of “the right” as fascistic contributes to a climate where violence seems justifiable to some.

Widdecombe’s passing, tragic as it is, spotlights the stakes. A principled voice silenced violently amid cheers reveals civilizational fragility. Defenders of freedom – pro-sovereignty, anti-woke, pro-debate – must push back. The alternative is descent into the very barbarism celebrated by the unhinged.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/11/2026 – 08:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/yKUe7YV Tyler Durden

Visualizing Europe’s Soaring Youth Unemployment

Visualizing Europe’s Soaring Youth Unemployment

Breaking into the workforce looks very different depending on where you live in Europe. While some countries have relatively smooth transitions from education into employment, others continue to struggle with stubbornly high youth unemployment.

This visualization, created by DataPulse Research via Visual Capitalist, uses Eurostat data alongside additional analysis from DataPulse Research to compare unemployment rates among 15- to 24-year-olds across the EU in June 2025. Under Eurostat’s methodology, unemployed young people are those actively seeking work and available to start within two weeks.

Europe’s Youth Employment Divide

The table below ranks youth unemployment rates across EU member states in June 2025.

The spread is striking. Estonia’s 26.9% rate is more than four times Malta’s 6.2%, highlighting how dramatically employment prospects can differ across the bloc even as the EU-wide average remained steady at 14.8%.

Southern European countries continue to feature many of the highest rates of youth unemployment, with Spain (24.0%), Italy (20.1%), Portugal (18.9%), and Greece (18.8%) all posting elevated numbers. France also remained above the EU average at 18.7%, while Nordic economies presented a mixed picture, with Finland and Sweden ranking among the highest despite generally strong labor markets.

Why Are the Gaps So Large?

Youth unemployment reflects more than the health of an economy. Structural factors such as education-to-work transitions, labor market regulations, skills mismatches, and regional economic differences all influence how easily young people secure their first job. Research has long shown that these structural differences help explain why some European countries consistently experience higher unemployment than others.

Spain illustrates this complexity. Although the country continues to record one of Europe’s fastest-growing economies, youth unemployment remains among the continent’s highest, partly due to skill mismatches and regional labor market frictions.

At the same time, Spain has expanded pathways for international workers through new visa programs aimed at attracting talent in sectors facing labor shortages. Similar initiatives are appearing elsewhere in Europe as governments attempt to address demographic pressures and reduce hiring bottlenecks.

Why Some Countries Perform Better Than Others

Countries such as Germany (6.3%), Malta (6.2%), and the Netherlands (8.7%) have benefited from tighter labor markets, strong vocational training systems, and robust employer demand for apprentices and skilled workers. These economies have generally been more successful at connecting education with employment, reducing the time many young people spend searching for their first job.

The uneven outlook also helps explain broader migration trends across Europe, as workers often relocate in search of stronger employment opportunities, contributing to Europe’s shifting talent landscape.

To explore more global demographic and migration trends, check out Ranked: Countries With the Fastest Immigration Growth (2019–2024) on the Voronoi app.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/11/2026 – 07:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Jn8doAK Tyler Durden

Afghan Asylum Seeker Walks Free After Sexually Assaulting Multiple Young Girls At German Pool

Afghan Asylum Seeker Walks Free After Sexually Assaulting Multiple Young Girls At German Pool

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

A 21-year-old Afghan asylum seeker stands accused of sexually assaulting at least four girls between the ages of 12 and 14 at the Bud Spencer outdoor pool in Schwäbisch Gmünd, southwestern Germany.

According to police accounts detailed in German media coverage, the suspect touched the victims on their buttocks or thighs and attempted to pull down their bikini bottoms. In one instance he reportedly tried to penetrate a girl’s intimate area with his fingers. The girls resisted and fought him off before he stopped.

Police reports confirm the attacks occurred in the adventure pool area, yet an arrest warrant was suspended under limited conditions that do little to shield the public from further risk.

Authorities have indicated they do not rule out additional victims and continue to seek witnesses. The suspect was arrested, but a judge suspended the arrest warrant subject to conditions, including a ban on entering public swimming pools. Incredibly he has walked free pending the outcome of the investigation.

This case fits a recurring pattern of sexual violence and harassment targeting women and children in German public swimming facilities.

Prior investigations have laid bare the scale of the problem through official statistics and internal assessments that reveal stark disparities in perpetrator backgrounds.

Research established that 65 percent of sexual assault suspects in swimming pools were foreigners.

Separate analysis showed foreigners vastly overrepresented in sexual assaults as well as other crimes committed at these locations.

Another examination concluded that German authorities have not been fully honest about the identities of those assaulting children at swimming pools, with patterns of omission in official and media descriptions.

Coverage of the Schwäbisch Gmünd incident itself drew attention to selective reporting practices. Some German outlets described the suspect only as a 21-year-old man without noting his Afghan nationality, consistent with earlier criticisms of incomplete disclosure around perpetrator backgrounds in similar cases.

An internal assessment cited in reporting on the broader trend confirmed a surge in sex crimes at bathing establishments. It stated particular concern over rape and the sexual abuse of children, noting that the perpetrators are for the most part immigrants.

The president of the Federal Association of German Swimming Champions previously warned that he could no longer recommend families visit outdoor pools on weekends, adding that he would be acting irresponsibly if he took his own three grandchildren.

These documented realities have prompted concrete policy adjustments at some facilities.

Certain German swimming pools have begun barring visitors who cannot speak German, citing safety concerns tied to communication failures and behavioral patterns that complicate supervision and intervention in shared spaces.

The conditions imposed in the current case – a pool ban while the suspect otherwise remains free – illustrate the narrow tools available under current practices.

A targeted restriction does nothing to address potential risks in other public settings or to deter future incidents involving the same individual.

Girls who fought off the attacker at the adventure pool now rely on the hope that he complies with the limited order while the investigation proceeds.

Recurring episodes at pools, schools, and other everyday venues have exposed the downstream effects of rapid demographic change without corresponding integration or enforcement standards.

Cultural and language barriers frequently surface in official descriptions of incidents, yet public discourse often treats acknowledgment of these factors as off-limits. The result is a cycle where statistics accumulate, incidents repeat, and responses remain incremental.

Families seeking ordinary recreation at public pools encounter an environment shaped by these accumulated failures. The statistical overrepresentation, the documented reluctance to identify patterns clearly, and the narrow conditions placed on released suspects combine to shift the burden of vigilance onto parents and children themselves.

Official appeals for witnesses after each new case underscore how many incidents may go unreported or unresolved.

The Schwäbisch Gmünd events add to a ledger of cases stretching back years, where similar profiles of suspects and similar gaps in transparency have appeared repeatedly.

Germany’s experience with these issues at swimming pools offers a clear window into the practical limits of policies that prioritize volume of migration over selection, vetting, and assimilation.

The pattern of incidents, the data on disparities, and the incremental restrictions now appearing at some pools all point to the same conclusion: current approaches have produced measurable costs in security and social cohesion that continue to mount.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/11/2026 – 07:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Zb6jqyh Tyler Durden

John Fetterman Says He’s ‘Very Libertarian in a Lot of Ways’


John Fetterman | Photo: Shuran Huang

John Fetterman: ‘I’m a Very Pro-Capitalist Democrat’

Over a decade ago, Sen. John Fetterman (D–Pa.) looked like the future of Bernie Sanders–style populism, championing higher minimum wages, criminal justice reform, and social welfare spending. After 13 years as mayor of deeply impoverished Braddock, Pennsylvania, and then a term as the state’s lieutenant governor, he won his Senate seat in 2022.

Since coming to Washington, Fetterman has charted a unique path. He routinely criticizes his own party for “catering to the fringe and agitated parts of our base,” accuses fellow Democrats of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and praises capitalism as the one system that has consistently improved living standards.

In May, Fetterman joined The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie to argue that the socialist politics of such Democrats as Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani are alienating moderates and spell long-term doom for the party. He denounced former President Joe Biden’s failure to control the southern border and President Donald Trump’s antipathy toward legal immigration, called the national debt a “ticking bomb,” and advocated legalizing marijuana and psychedelics.

Reason: You recently wrote in The Washington Post that you’re not going to be changing parties. Yet you also have critical words for your own party. You told Fox News that the Democratic Party is turning into “an orgy of socialism.” And in your Post piece, you said that Democrats are “catering to the fringe and agitated parts of our base.” What do you think is driving that?

Fetterman: Extremism is driving it, without a doubt. Look at the primaries all across in the Senate and in the House, and look at the kinds of people that have already been elected.

For example, the mayor in Seattle, she’s an absolute socialist, if not more. And now people [say], “Hey, I’m leaving,” and she’s like, “Bye.” And then, of course, New York, that’s its own situation too. I thought [Florida Republican Gov. Ron] DeSantis had a great line saying, “Mamdani is my favorite real estate agent now.” It’s driving people away. People can move, and they can vote with their feet. That explains why Florida continues to flourish. But a lot of these states like New York and other blue states, we’ve read that $2 trillion have migrated out of these states too.

The Democratic Party is the problem, except they love the billionaires that fund those kinds of causes and those kinds of organizations that are actually driving a part, a lot, of the protesting. That’s where that energy is as well. Look at some of the views now that people are espousing. It’s moving more and more in socialism and communism.

In Maine, for example, [Democratic Senate candidate] Graham Platner: avowed communist. He described himself as a communist. “Antifa”—that’s not a slur from me. That’s his own words, how he described that.

What about your own personal evolution? In 2016, you endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) in the presidential primaries for the Democratic Party. He’s an avowed democratic socialist. What is it that rubbed you the wrong way about socialists or communists since then?

In 2016, it was much more about the minimum wage and some other very basic kinds of things. Now that’s just turned into much more standing with Cuba, standing with Venezuela, standing with the Iranian regime, and turn that into becoming more increasingly anti-American.

My views really haven’t changed that much, things that I supported. I was very supportive about gay rights. Back in 2013, I was officializing a gay marriage when that was illegal. I was happy to get arrested on that. My views really haven’t changed; what’s really changed is the party. In 2024, I was campaigning for Kamala Harris as a Democrat. It was very clear we were going to lose, and a lot of the excesses that we’ve had in 2020 came back to revisit, and that really, I think, cost us that election in 2024. The excess of the party back then summoned the second term of the Trump administration.

You’ve said that the Democratic Party has become anti-men. What forms does that take? What’s driving the lurch to the far left, both in terms of economic policy and identity politics?

If you make someone feel uncomfortable or unwelcome, they will leave. They’ve done that. Back in 2016, I witnessed that. I lived directly across the street from a steel mill and the union hall. I was doing an event for Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton at that time. I was asking the union president, “Where’s your people on that?” And he’s like, “At least half, half if not more, are [for] Trump.” And just coincidentally, a guy in a big truck drove by and he honked, “Ha ha ha, go Trump, go Trump.” He had truck nuts on the trailer and had a Trump sticker. Clearly that’s what’s already well underway. I think we effectively can count that a lot of those traditional union members have already left the Democratic Party. That’s where we are. It’s been a serious realignment of parts of our base. And that’s driving some of the more extreme things of our party now too.

You have said Trump is plainspoken. That’s a charitable way of saying it. When he announced he was running for president, he launched into a diatribe against Mexicans being rapists and drug dealers.

He uses and engages in things that I would never engage on that. Just a couple of hours before this conversation, he put an image of Democrats in sewage in the reflecting pool here in Washington, D.C. I don’t do those kinds of things. I don’t support those things. But I also think it’s ridiculous to heckle him over $13 million to rehab that. That’s just kind of small ball, for me.

But let’s talk about immigration. We absolutely, the Democratic Party, became an open-border party. That used to be a GOP slur. But then you realize those numbers. It really was—you had 300,000 people showing up at our border every month. That’s the size of Pittsburgh, [near] where I live. I try to describe that to my party. This is a serious problem. People are angry. All of our blue cities have become overwhelmed. New York, Chicago, Denver, Boston: All those were overwhelmed with migrants. I was a Democrat being very, very pro-immigration, as I remain that. But we have to secure our border and deport all the criminals.

This draws a distinction not just between Trump and the Democrats but between you and many Democrats. Biden, in his last year, basically secured the southern border. Trump has cut legal immigration. He is exceptionally anti-immigrant. What is a better policy, once we presume that the border is secure?

Not a single Democrat could identify what’s the solution. What do you do with 300,000 people showing up at the border every month? People were living at the airport in Boston. New York City spent $8 [billion], $9 billion to house and take care of those people and secure the border. The Biden administration finally made some changes. They should have already had them in place. Why not secure the border? Because I think they were afraid of the party, and that would be anti-immigration or racist for those other kinds of things. We think what’s appropriate: secure the border, deport all the criminals. I was the Democratic lead for the Laken Riley bill. I grieve for Renée Good or Alex Pretti, but I also grieve for Laken Riley or Miles Young and other people that were victimized by people that should have never been here or already should have been deported after they broke the law.

It’s easy to say that someone here illegally who commits a violent crime should be deported or imprisoned. But communities like western Pennsylvania need new people moving in. What would a good, viable legal immigration system look like, one that will help American communities, businesses, and the economy thrive?

We have the most generous and the largest immigration program of any country in the world already. People and immigrants are coming to Pennsylvania. In parts of Pennsylvania, like in Reading and the Lehigh Valley, across our state, the immigrant community is actually driving a lot of those economies. Agriculture is our top industry in Pennsylvania. Targeting and going after these workers is absolutely wrong. I’ve spoken out against that. Don’t harass and target otherwise lawful people that are just working hard. I agree with that. We should protect our Dreamers too. My wife was a Dreamer. You reference what’s easy. No, that’s common sense; it’s not easy. We betrayed those basic kinds of standards as a party. And now the Republicans, Trump has betrayed those same commonsense standards, and you have the kind of calamity in Minneapolis.

I became the only Democrat that voted for Markwayne Mullin for the next secretary [of the Department of Homeland Security]. [Kristi] Noem was a disaster. I called for her to go. I’m working with Markwayne. Markwayne promised, “I’m not going to be the guy in the headlines.” There aren’t any headlines.

What do you say to Republicans, including senators like Eric Schmitt from Missouri, who talk about how the real Americans are the people who can trace their heritage here back to sometime before the Civil War? Is that any way to build a viable nation?

We all have our own different views for that. For me, my family is a product of immigration, illegal immigration. My views on that haven’t changed ever. That’s why we have to find a way forward. Twenty-seven years ago, I had Alan Simpson as a professor at [Harvard Kennedy School]. He said you are never going to have any meaningful immigration legalization, because both sides use it and they weaponize it. That was absolutely true. So finding a way forward, it’s too valuable for the extremists to blame the immigrants or to say that we could just open up our border. It’s necessary to find a commonsense approach and reject the extreme things.

Do you support a path to citizenship for people who enter the country illegally but have been living here and have not been arrested for any kind of serious crime?

Yeah. I think that was part of a deal years ago, and that was derailed too. Right now, the base in our respective parties punish people that want to have a serious conversation about that. That’s where we constantly are now. I absolutely knew we were going to get rolled for the bipartisan border deal back in ’23 and ’24, because there’s no way you’re going to provide that—it was too valuable on both sides. That’s what happened about immigration. And here we are. That’s where we are right now. Thankfully, they are coming back and they’re taking more reasonable advice.

In your recent Washington Post piece you said you remain strongly pro-choice and pro-weed. Are you going to introduce legislation, or is there any federal movement to legalize marijuana or change drug laws so states can experiment more freely?

I am very, very libertarian in a lot of ways and for those circumstances. If you check my record, I’ve been for legal weed for forever. Politically, that was toxic or certainly not popular. And also psychedelics too. Back then too, when I was [lieutenant governor]. Pennsylvania, that’s the mushroom king in the world. That is the fact. I said, “My goodness, why? Couldn’t this be a really a great opportunity for agriculture and helping people feeling better about that?” Thankfully, I think we could all agree [with] everything that President Trump has done about liberalizing marijuana and psychedelics. As a libertarian, I don’t judge or knock anyone for whatever they [use to] knock their edge off to just make it through in this world.

I absolutely support Zyn and those things as long as it’s safe. I think that’s important. That’s a choice that every American of legal age deserves to have and to participate in a way that doesn’t turn them into a criminal, or for those things make it as safe as possible. I think that’s sacred too. Whatever that is, a glass of wine or scotch or a little weed, sitting in front of the firepit in your backyard, whatever that is. Your path for wellness, psychedelics, whatever, I think it all should be legal without judgment and without punishment or a criminal record. I’ve been very consistent about that and sharing those things. I do hope it continues to liberalize overall.

Tell me what you dislike about Trump. What is it about Trump that most gets you mad? What are the Republicans doing most wrong, as far as you’re concerned?

He invited me to have dinner and sat down with him in January of 2025. He just came back from the most remarkable political comeback in American history, as far as I’m aware of. He was sitting, his power was peak, and he could have done a lot of big, big important things. He got a second chance in every kind of way. My God, he was shot in the head. Half an inch over, that could have turned that into a Zapruder tape. Thank God.

I don’t know why he chose some of these choices when he could have done so much more. Technically, he did make [it] about revenge and those things. The strongest of these small petty kinds of cases, the strongest one I can cite is the guy that threw the sandwich at the [Customs and Border Protection agent]. I don’t know why you engage in that. There’s no upside for those things. Those cases never go anywhere. But I absolutely support, I was proud. I stand with Israel, and that’s why I follow him now too.

Last year, federal spending was the equivalent of 23 percent of gross domestic product, while tax revenue, overall revenue was 17 percent. We had a $1.78 trillion deficit last year. The national debt is bigger than the annual economy. You are a proponent of spending lots of money or having the government be very robust and muscular and helping people. Is the national debt or federal annual deficits a problem? How do we close that gap?

Without a doubt, the national debt is a ticking bomb. Without a doubt, we are going to have to address that. We are going to have to deal with entitlements. We have to do all these kinds of honest conversations. That’s going to require bipartisanship. That’s going to demand that we remember we’re all Americans. We have to find solutions here. Unfortunately, here in this town right now, we are doing just dumb, pointless things. Shutting down our government. I was the only Democrat that said that’s dumb and terrible. Why would you shut down our entire government because we aren’t able to win enough elections to make the kind of changes that we all want to?

Do you support ending the Senate filibuster? Trump wants to get rid of it, and I believe you have spoken positively about getting rid of the filibuster.

We Democrats, we were so wrong about eliminating the filibuster. I was wrong too. I’ll be the first person to say we were so wrong. Thank God people prevailed. I think history vindicated someone like [former Sens. Kyrsten] Sinema [I–Ariz.] and [Joe] Manchin [I–W.Va.] to stand for that. If the Senate becomes a smaller version of the House, that would have profound changes that are going to damage our nation.

So we need the filibuster? The filibuster should stay in place?

Absolutely, 100 percent. Same Democrats—we seem to forget we all wanted to get rid of it. But now we love that shit. We love the filibuster. Thank God, the filibuster. I’m not surprised that the president is going to come for the filibuster, because that’s the one thing that stands in the way before they lose the majority. Without a doubt, the House is going to change. The Senate’s possible, perhaps—I don’t know. But the backlash, the chaos, and without a doubt, there is going to be a lot of churn.

Social Security and Medicare are the main drivers of the national debt and annual budget deficits. Should these programs be cut back to function more as a safety net, or should taxes be raised to fund them? What is your preferred solution to entitlement reform?

When I was at grad school, they had a comprehensive, two-week node to study Social Security. It was solvent through 2037. Way, way back in 1998, that felt like we’d be living on the moon and other things. Now that’s starting to approach. It just required very small, small actuarial kinds of changes for that. Insolvent does not mean broke; it just means at that point you could pay 75 percent of current benefit levels. Just agreeing as a Democrat, Republican, I’m not going to weaponize this conversation against one another, and we’re not going to scare the elderly Americans. Congress has to be the adult in the room. We refuse to do that. People are running right now—”Fuck Trump, fuck Trump,” that is their campaign. They are producing these kinds of videos to do that thing. It’s both sides. Congress, we have to be the adult in the room and solve these serious problems. I’m here to be in that conversation as a Democrat that’s been isolated in my party for some of these views, and the same guy that doesn’t engage in some of the extreme AI slop in social media things from the other side too. That’s where I’m at: having conversations with the left, the right, and here with you too. I’m all thrilled to just have a real conversation about where we are.

Braddock, Pennsylvania, is a town of about 1,500 or 1,700 people. You were its mayor. You told me in 2011 that you were administering palliative care, that the town probably wasn’t coming back. Can you bring us up to date? What is Braddock like now? What policies would actually help people there live with dignity and give their children and grandchildren thriving lives?

When you and I met all those years ago [on Real Time With Bill Maher], I still lived there. I have three children, and they live there. They were all born in Braddock. And we [were] working—both the Biden administration and the Trump administration—to save the American steel way of life here. We were able to save a lot of the buildings in town too. We created some more affordable housing.

It’s not a renaissance. When I arrived, 90 percent of all that stuff was gone already. During my time as mayor, I was very proud to address gun violence, and we were successful in achieving those things too. Giving a shit about these kinds of abandoned places, that really became my argument. It was never about money, power. No one ever showed up in a place like Braddock trying to help kids get GEDs. I never thought I would be ending up here in the United States Senate, for now, but that’s where I am.

That’s still my home. I could have moved. I could’ve moved at any point, but I live there and things are better than they were when I arrived. Significantly. But it’s never going to be a gentrification. It’s abandonment, and that remains a significant problem.

I think you would consider yourself a “big government liberal.” Do you think government should be heavily involved in people’s lives and provide money and opportunities?

No. I would never describe myself in that way. There are important problems that a government is necessary to address. Government is not the solution for all things. I’m a capitalist. I absolutely revere the market and how it’s able to correct and redirect these kinds of resources. I think things continue to get better and better despite the churn and a lot of the chaos.

Is there a tension between protectionism and the creative destruction that is always happening? The industries that you were born into are not going to exist forever. How do you minimize the disruption without blocking the changes necessary to renew towns, regions, and whole countries?

That’s a complicated answer. But for me, I’m a very pro-capitalist Democrat. I refuse to engage in the extreme rhetoric and support the kinds of extremism and throw around those stupid terms like end-stage capitalism. Without a doubt in human history, capitalism has been the only system that has proven to raise the quality of life across the globe. That’s a fact. And now, thankfully, we were able to prevail here in our nation.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity.

The post John Fetterman Says He's 'Very Libertarian in a Lot of Ways' appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/6FfwVg0
via IFTTT