Overseas investors have offloaded a net $11.7 billion of local shares through March 25, according to Bloomberg-compiled data. That puts equities on course for their steepest monthly exodus ever, with total outflows this year exceeding $13 billion and nearing levels seen a year ago.
by Andrea Widburg
One of the most shameful things in America today is how the American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”), the largest pediatric association in America, with around 67,000 members, has embraced transgender madness. Back in 2019, I wrote a post about the fact that the AAP, although it completely embraced so-called transgenderism, could not point to a single scientific work establishing that “transgenderism” is anything more than a mental illness, akin to anorexia or other forms of body dysphoria. (See Section III of the post.)
That post is still current, and the AAP is still pretending that children can magically change their biological existence through wishing, followed by profitable doctor’s visits, hormone treatments, and surgery. In thrall to this debased, delusional ideology, the AAP has released a video purporting to guide young pediatricians through the maze of discovering what sexually active teens are actually doing.
The line “well, I use my vagina, and Mary uses her penis,” pretty much spells out the biggest problem with this whole approach:
So, we’ve raised a generation of children who think they’re lesbians if they’re having sex with a man who thinks he’s a woman. Maybe it’s just me, but I think it’s incredibly dehumanizing to reduce sex to plug-and-play body parts. No wonder children think that they’re not spiritual beings who are greater than the sum of their parts but are, instead, just Lego pieces.
The weird thing for me about watching the video is that I’ve heard this song before, only not in a training video, but in real life. Back in the late 1970s or early 1980s, I knew a woman who had, at best, a distant relationship with her parents. However, after her mom died, she made the effort to visit her father, who greeted her at the front door, dressed in full drag. He explained to the woman that he’d always known he was a woman, but during her mother’s life, he hid that fact. Now, he was ready to go all the way and get his genitals chopped off. Oh.
A year later, the woman visited her father again, only to have him answer the door dressed in regular dad clothes: jeans and a flannel shirt. When asked to explain, he told her this: “I realized that I’m not just a woman, I’m a lesbian. I also learned that I have a better chance of having lesbian sex if they think I’m a man.”
That is an absolutely true story. But here’s the difference between 2026 and that long-ago time. Back then, everyone who heard the story dissolved into helpless laughter, while assuring the woman that they were sorry that her father was so troubled. (She said she didn’t care because, again, they weren’t close.) Everyone understood that her father was neither a woman nor a disguised lesbian. He was, instead, a mentally ill man with a really weird sexual fetish. (Now, we know he was autogynephilic, which applies to men who are sexually aroused by imagining themselves as women.)
Now, America’s preeminent pediatric association pretends this whole narrative is completely normal. It pretends that it’s okay for a young woman to throw herself into the arms of a cross-dressing man. (And yes, that’s real, too. Word got around very quickly when a troubled 15-year-old at my kids’ high school attended a Pride parade in San Francisco and went home with a “trans” woman—that is, a man—for sex. He was a perverted pedophile preying on a vulnerable child.)
Watching the AAP bring debased delusions to its treatment of children elicited appropriate responses from the social media crowd:
Americans are falling out of love with the whole transgender thing, but our hard-left academic institutions, including medical schools and the doctors they produce, are not. Unless this madness gets turned around quickly, American society will not fare well.
by Allan J. Feifer
A form of torture I endure for my research is reading the New York Times morning emails. The phrase “alternate universe” aptly describes its sly, misleading story titles, which demonstrate a built-in bias even before the report itself begins. A good example was a heading marked “Territorial Adventurism” used the other day in reference to Trump’s geopolitical strategy in Iran and elsewhere.
Adventurism is defined as “Involvement in risky enterprises, especially in foreign affairs, while disregarding established principles or adverse consequences.” How rich is it when one of the most liberal newspapers in the entire world delivers the news, as opinions, in a manner designed to predispose readers’ views of stories in a negative context? What hubris that pundits, and that is what they are, deign to tell you how and what to think!
Almost by definition, someone who tells you, “Here’s an important subject and how to think about it,” is likely a bad actor. We are overrun by too many of those bad actors in our country, and they play a starring role in our current crisis of conscience. Yet, there seems to be no way to get rid of these people who, like ticks and fleas, burrow into our collective conscience, leaving us sick, confused, and angry; many have lost hope for a better tomorrow.
When it comes to the written word, here’s our dirty dozen purveyors of yellow journalism:
And again, that’s just the written word. Across the broader media landscape, progressive and left-leaning voices are distributed through an ecosystem—from legacy national newspapers and public broadcasters to high-traffic digital influencers, nonprofit investigative newsrooms, and starkly activist platforms—giving the left multiple redundant and mutually supportive channels to reach audiences with different news-consumption preferences. Often, the reports are coordinated.
Meanwhile, conservatism’s reach is concentrated in smaller outlets. Fox stands out as the single dominant right-of-center broadcast brand, although NewsMax has a growing audience. This means the left often achieves broad cumulative reach through many specialized outlets that together are self-referencing and mutually supportive.
These tactics from progressives, socialists, and communists have evolved over the decades. Still, they would be starkly visible, understandable, and familiar to the likes of Ayn Rand and George Orwell as nothing more than old tricks dressed up as modern trickery for weak, low-information audiences.
Ayn Rand would frame contemporary media slant primarily as a moral and epistemic failure rooted in collectivist values, institutional incentives, and the abandonment of objective standards. She would argue that many outlets prioritize coordinated agendas, identity or policy advocacy, and moral signaling over the pursuit of facts and individual judgment, producing journalism that reads as persuasion dressed up as reporting rather than as disinterested inquiry. Rand’s Objectivist critique emphasizes the primacy of reason, individual responsibility, and the danger of subordinating truth to political ends, anathema to progressives.
George Orwell would approach the same landscape through the lens of propaganda mechanics and language control. He would point to practices that echo his warnings about repetitive slogans, historical revisionism, selective omission, and “doublethink“—techniques that make contradictory narratives seem reasonable and acceptable, while allowing institutions to rewrite or obscure inconvenient facts. Orwell’s concern would be about how concentrated power (state or corporate) and media ecosystems can manufacture consent by shaping the vocabulary and frameworks through which people think.
Taken together, their readings converge on a diagnosis that modern media slant is both market-and-power driven: Rand would stress how ideological group incentives and audience-targeting reward advocacy, while Orwell would stress how repetition, framing, and institutional control turn advocacy into quasi-official reality; driving strong but false commitments to unclear standards of evidence, selective sourcing, and linguistic repetition to support spin over truth, which is de rigueur today.
Recently, Code Pink sent a battalion of influencers and their acolytes on a luxury trip to Cuba. They had several objectives. First, to attack Trump, second, to advance progressive ideals, and finally, to demonstrate that America itself is complicit in suppressing other nations, in this case, Cuba’s prosperity and peace. (If they could have, Code Pink would have flown to Iran to deliver much the same messaging.)
Specifically, Code Pink and allied organizers protested U.S. sanctions, showed solidarity with the Cuban government (not its people), and publicized a “humanitarian” aid mission, minus the humanitarian aid! This trip combined political messaging with influencer outreach. It drew sharp criticism because participants stayed in high-end hotels with air conditioning, internet, and electricity while Cubans experienced island-wide blackouts and privations like access to clean water.
But as Paul Harvey used to say, here’s the rest of the story:
Code Pink was founded in 2002 by activists including Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans, who is married to Neville Singham, a U.S.-born, multi-multimillionaire tech entrepreneur based in Shanghai, China. Its stated focus is to support anti-war and social justice campaigns.
In recent years, the organization has also received sizable funding that investigators and some news outlets trace to donor networks associated with Singham. Reporting and congressional memoranda have shown that $278 million in Singham-linked funds flowed through various nonprofits to groups such as Code Pink, prompting questions about whether those funds are intended to destabilize U.S. policy and influence popular opinion in China’s favor.
At another time, when most Americans were patriotic and were engaged, we’d understand the necessity to confront an anti-American front organization that is a cabal of bad actors. The current social and political environment celebrates divergent views, supposedly as a strength. The visible reality of what is but one of many assaults by bad actors against the American people is ongoing and essentially unopposed.
It is a question of not if, but when the cumulative damage to our social, political, and economic systems will become obvious to the majority of citizens, leading millions of Americans to flood the streets demanding an end.
That time can come none too soon.
by Monica Showalter
After paying for water and not getting any to put out the Eaton fire, Los Angeles residents burned out by that 2025 wildfire are still not getting any water, but once again are being asked to pay for it.
According to local radio station KFI:
Eaton Fire survivors in Altadena are pushing back against their water company after receiving bills for service on properties that have sat empty — and dry — for more than a year since the devastating blaze.
Ricky Parish is one of several frustrated residents who contacted ABC7 On Your Side Investigates after receiving an unexpected bill this month. Parish says the water meter on his lot was destroyed in the fire, and his property is now little more than bare dirt. He says he has used zero water on the lot since the Eaton Fire tore through the community.
"Absolutely none, there's no pipes," Parish said.
Parish received a bill for $37.85. Most of the charge is listed as a "water service charge," with a small portion going toward a "catastrophic loss fund." He was stunned.
"I thought, 'This is ridiculous. How can they charge us for something that we don't have?'" Parish said. "We haven't used water in over a year."
Altadena, remember, is the black area that never got the evacuation orders when the big Eaton fire broke out and destroyed their subdivision, causing around 20 deaths as a result.
The KFI report says that the sudden billing from unreceived services comes from the area's private water contractor, called the Lincoln Avenue Water Company, which defending its billing practices to thousands of residents who haven't seen water in more than a year, because, well, they haven't been issued permits to rebuild:
"Revenue from these charges directly supports fixed operational costs, maintenance, repairs, and system improvements, particularly in the wake of ongoing recovery efforts," LAWC said. "This is not a new fee... With the loss of 58% of our customers, continuing to waive this charge is not sustainable."
But of course, they haven't made any repairs or maintenance on the residents they are billing for these non-existent 'services' let alone delivering the water that their cash is supposed to pay for. They're just operating on a money-for-nuthin' model, spreading the cost around but delivering the service solely to the lucky whose homes survived the fire. Everyone else pays for nothing.
What are they going to do, shut off the non-existent water to those who refuse to pay? It makes me wonder if some residents will pay those bills in Monopoly money, on the old Soviet 'we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us' model.
The company may well have high maintenance costs but it's outrageous of them to try to balance their books on the backs of those who have lost their homes. They can raise the rates of those who still get water (which they have done, by $15, perhaps it will have to be more), or better yet, demand that the city give them the money, based on its failure to deliver rebuilding permits to its clients.
It's amazing how infrastructure seems to be optional in the brave new world of blue cities but bureaucracy never breaks down. And it's always the little guy who gets stuck with it, isn't it? It's the same with the City of Los Angeles demanding property tax on burned-out residents, and its even crummier refusal to waive building permit fees, which can run upwards of $20,000.
Yet this is a golden opportunity for the private water company to take a stand against the city and its failure to issue permits to rebuild in any timely manner. With an eight-year waiting period for permits by some estimates, these residents are going to be paying for non-existent water for nearly a decade before they can get so much as a drop of it to flush their toilets and wash their dishes.
Combine that with the city's failure to keep its fire hydrants filled with water that they did pay for and the insult to injury here is amazing.
by Andrea Widburg
One of the most useful aspects of the Trump presidency is that Democrats are no longer hiding their cards. Whether because Trump has driven them mad or because they truly believe Trump is the last gasp of Americanism and that they are on the verge of total control (there’s a scary thought), they’re being very open about their goals.
Currently, their overriding goal is to replace the American population, which is too white and too independent for their tastes. This project started in the 1960s, with Teddy Kennedy’s bill ending immigration based on quotas that favored immigrants from countries with values similar to America’s and who could vouch (or have someone vouch on their behalf) that they would not become a burden to the American taxpayer.
Instead, the new goals were family reunification and workers with needed skills. The former goal quickly outstripped the latter.
That change to the law reshaped America’s demographics. Suddenly, immigrants poured in from Latin America, Asia, Africa, India, and other regions. In the early days, most of these immigrants assimilated because assimilation was still part of the American educational and institutional ethos.
However, as Democrats reclassified assimilation as racism, and our education systems from kindergarten to graduate school taught that America is an evil nation, subsequent generations of illegal immigrants and their children not only did not assimilate but became actively hostile to their new home. You could say that Ilhan Omar is Exhibit A for this mindset.
Moreover, while many immigrant parents may still have been alive to the wonders of America compared to the third world, often totalitarian nations they fled, their children, products of leftist education, had nothing but disdain for this country. This was the case for the people I grew up with. The parents appreciated America. Their children (my former classmates), all of whom graduated from college, do not. As many proudly post on Facebook, they’ve been out on the streets screaming about “No Kings,” “Abolish ICE,” and “Reparations.”
The shift was about more than numbers and demographics. It was also about the answer to that famous Latin question: “Cui bono?” (Who benefits?) Is it America or the immigrants?
After the Civil War, as America was becoming an industrial powerhouse, Congress began passing immigration laws. Some were openly racist in nature, with the most obvious example being the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which explicitly targeted Chinese immigrants. Others, as noted, were intended to benefit European immigrants over others. Most importantly, though, the immigration laws were intended to keep America safe. That is why they used places like Ellis Island to try to keep out people with dangerous infectious diseases.
The laws’ goals were also to benefit America, not just by keeping out what were then believed to be bad apples, but by bringing in something America, with its exploding industrial base, desperately needed: Labor. It didn’t have to be skilled labor. It just needed muscle to run the factories and build the infrastructure for a country growing both internally and through immigration. Congress also needed more farmers, because more people made more food a necessity.
The whole system was highly symbiotic: economic growth required labor, which in turn spurred further growth, etc. One thing, though, was always clear: This wasn’t meant to benefit the immigrants, no matter what was written on the Statue of Liberty. It was meant to benefit America.
Up until the 1960s, everyone understood that assimilation benefited America. The Melting Pot was the thing. Embrace American values, and you will be an American. You can be proud of your heritage, but the melting pot is what counts. (Even Hollywood got in on the act.) And it really was a melting pot when you had Jimmy Cagney showing off his Yiddish (which he spoke fluently).
It’s different now. Democrats are done with Americans—and, more than that, they’re not bothering to hide it anymore. As far as they’re concerned, immigration isn’t about making our country better, stronger, wealthier, and safer.
And we certainly don’t need the muscle, thanks to Democrat and Chamber of Commerce policies that saw so much of our industrial base go to the same countries from which the illegal immigrants now come. Instead, for Democrats, immigration is solely about making life better for illegal aliens, and ensuring that as many come as possible, regardless of their ability to work and stay off of welfare. The salt in the wound is that those who do work, by accepting much lower wages, take jobs from Americans.
Nor is the new immigrants’ criminal or disease status a matter of concern. The man accused of killing Sheridan Gorman is here illegally, was a criminal, has tuberculosis, might have killed her as a gang initiation, and is either completely illiterate or, arguably, mentally retarded—but Loyola University, Gorman’s school, apologized for calling him an illegal immigrant.
Please note, too, that this is no longer about helping people escape from genocide. It’s just about getting them out of their economically backward, often crime-ridden countries, so they can bring those values here.
And again, Democrats are not apologetic; they’re proud. A couple of years ago, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CN) explained that the people whom Democrats care most about are illegal aliens:
A couple of days ago, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), herself an immigrant from India, stated plainly that she wants illegal aliens given reparations for the trauma of ICE enforcement:
And of course, the Democrats have been blowing apart American security in a time of war, and making air travel a nightmare, for one purpose only: to make it impossible for ICE to deport illegal aliens.
The useful idiots are all on board with this. They hate America and dream of a nation that has the distinct vibe of the worst parts of the third world (maybe Haiti) combined with downtown San Francisco, Los Angeles, or Chicago. But the rest of America had better wise up and vote Republican, or else the Democrats’ dream will become all of our nightmares.
Sixty-three healthcare companies were featured on the 2026 list of the “World’s Most Innovative Companies” published by Fast Company on March 24.
More than four dozen Fast Company editors and writers evaluated businesses across industries and regions, judging companies based on innovation, impact, timeliness and relevance. Overall, 720 companies were recognized. Only the top 50 organizations were ranked; the rest were recognized within their respective industries.
Each winner was selected after several rounds of judging and conversations in a monthslong process. Learn more about the methodology here.
Three healthcare organizations ranked in the top 50 across all industries: Foster City, Calif.-based Gilead Sciences at No. 11; San Francisco-based Abridge at No. 19; and New York City-based Cresilon at No. 46.
Only one health system — Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia — was featured on the full list.
Here are the other most innovative healthcare companies, according to Fast Company, ranked in their respective categories, along with where they are based:
Healthcare (healthcare and medical)
1. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
2. Axmed (Basel, Switzerland)
3. Lantern (Dallas)
4. Overjet (San Mateo, Calif.)
5. myLaurel (New York City)
6. Clarium (New York City)
7. Maven Clinic (New York City)
8. Regard (New York City)
9. Merck & Co. (Rahway, N.J.)
10. Vheda Health (Columbia, Md.)
11. Alice (Sao Paulo)
12. Inspiren (New York City)
13. Theator (Palo Alto, Calif.)
14. SamaCare (San Francisco)
15. First Stop Health (Chicago)
16. RatingsMD (Atlanta)
17. Lyric (Newtown Square, Pa.)
18. Form Health (Boston)
19. Bunkerhill Health (San Francisco)
20. LucyRx (Bethesda, Md.)
Biotech (healthcare and medical)
2. Exact Sciences (Madison, Wis.)
3. Insilico Medicine (Cambridge, Mass.)
6. Replicate Bioscience (San Diego)
7. Strand Therapeutics (Boston)
10. Orca Bio (Menlo Park, Calif.)
12. Vivodyne (Brisbane, Calif.)
14. Gilgamesh Pharma (New York City)
16. Argo Biopharma (Shanghai)
17. Absci (Vancouver, Wash.)
18. Thermo Fisher Scientific (Waltham, Mass.)
20. Manifold Bio (Boston)
Medicines, therapeutics, and pharmaceuticals (healthcare and medical)
1. Gilead Sciences (Foster City, Calif.)
2. Vertex Pharmaceuticals (Boston)
3. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals (Cambridge, Mass.)
4. Neurotech Pharmaceuticals (Cumberland, R.I.)
5. On Target Laboratories (West Lafayette, Ind.)
6. Sanofi (Paris)
7. Kedrion Biopharma (Castelvecchio Pascoli, Italy)
8. Boehringer Ingelheim (Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany)
9. Nuvation Bio (New York City)
10. Bayer (Leverkusen, Germany)
Medical devices (healthcare and medical)
1. Cresilon (New York City)
2. Element Science (San Francisco)
4. Cionic (San Francisco)
5. Insightec (Tirat Carmel, Israel)
6. Uresta (Moncton, Canada)
7. Medtronic (Minneapolis)
9. Anumana (Cambridge, Mass.)
10. RenovoRx (Mountain View, Calif.)
201-999 employees (healthcare and medical)
2. Hello Heart (Menlo Park, Calif.)
5. Rad AI (San Francisco)
Fewer than 50 employees (healthcare and medical)
6. EpiBone (New York City)
10. Acorn Biolabs (Toronto)
Artificial intelligence (healthcare and medical)
3. Abridge (San Francisco)
Data science (healthcare and medical)
2. Basil Systems (Boston)
Asia-Pacific (healthcare and medical)
7. Elehear (Minneapolis)
Human resources (healthcare and medical)
8. Laudio (Boston)
North America (healthcare and medical)
14. OnMed (White Plains, N.Y.)
Education (healthcare and medical)
5. Patient Ready (Winston-Salem, N.C.)
Workplace (healthcare and medical)
10. Wellthy (New York City)
Wellness and personal care (healthcare and medical)
6. Willow Innovations (Mountain View, Calif.)
Augmented and virtual reality (healthcare and medical)
3. XRHealth (Needham, Mass.)
Europe, Middle East, and Africa (healthcare and medical)
8. Ovasave
by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,
New York City, already reeling from crime under years of radical leftist rule, now faces a proposal that sounds ripped straight from a communist energy-rationing handbook: mandatory blackouts every night.
Manhattan Assemblywoman Deborah Glick is sponsoring the “Dark Skies Protection Act,” which would require businesses and residents to turn off non-essential lighting between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m.
Critics are blasting it as a criminal’s dream come true in a city that already struggles with safety after dark.
The bill itself spells out its goals in the legislation: “preserve and enhance the state’s dark sky while promoting safety for people, birds and other wildlife, conserving energy and reducing our carbon footprint, and preserving the aesthetic qualities of the night sky.”
It adds: “Our ancestors were able to experience a night sky full of stars, but now 80% of Americans can no longer see the Milky Way and experience its profound beauty.”
The full pitch on light pollution reads: “Light pollution has many negative impacts, including the disruption of the natural patterns of wildlife, wasted energy and increased output of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases, interruption of human sleep and other adverse health impacts, and the loss of the aesthetic qualities and cultural significance of the night sky.”
On birds, it states: “70% of bird species migrate each year. And of those birds, 80% migrate at night, using the night sky to help them navigate to and from their breeding grounds. However, as they pass over big cities on their way, they can become disoriented by bright artificial lights, often causing them to collide with buildings or windows.”
That’s all well and good, but there is an ongoing rampant crime epidemic in New York City. Is the safety of birds more important in than the safety of people?
Lights used for travel would be exempt, but the bill is already drawing fire.
One observer on X put it bluntly: “Criminal gangs approve this message.”
Another wrote sarcastically: “Good then criminals can maraud the populace under cover of darkness as intended!”
“What could go wrong?” a third asked.
A fourth added: “I’m all for seeing the stars but New York is not exactly a safe place.”
NYS Conservative Party chairman Gerard Kassar summed it up: “I guess Glick wants to push one last ridiculous idea before she retires.”
The idiotic cherry on top of this maniac idea comes with Times Square getting spared while the rest of the city is plunged into darkness.
This isn’t environmentalism. It’s control dressed up as virtue. In a city where crime already spikes at night and leftist policies have made streets less secure, mandating a nightly blackout is an open invitation for chaos.
This is the exact kind of thing you’d expect to see in a communist hellhole, the inevitable result of that ideology—failing grids, forced darkness, and everyday people paying the price while the system pretends it’s for the greater good.
The same pattern played out in Cuba, where communist mismanagement triggered repeated total grid collapses, leaving millions without power for days and exposing the rot at the core of that system.
New Yorkers wouldn’t be getting safer skies or saved birds—they’d be experiencing rationed freedom while the real problems go unaddressed.
This bill may not pass, but the mindset behind it reveals everything about who’s steering the ship in blue-city America.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/what-you-get-when-commies-are-running-nyc
