People around DSA Mayor Zohran Mamdani have been talking about a coordinated pressure campaign on the CEOs of the city’s largest employers. Sources told the New York Post the plan is a run of targeted posts meant to isolate certain business leaders while City Hall pushes a larger tax package into early fall.

The September 28 exclusive said the “bullpen,” Mamdani’s inner circle, is preparing coordinated smears against top New York CEOs. The vehicle is his 200-strong “influencer army,” described as a taxpayer-funded digital operation, a troll farm in all but name. The aim is to bash those executives and sell the public on his tax-and-spend agenda.

Two aides were named as leading the digital side: Tascha Van Auken, 50, director of the Office of Mass Engagement and a veteran DSA organizer who ran Mamdani’s campaign ground operation, and Emilia Rowland, director of new media and cultural communications and a former DNC press secretary.

Mamdani aides and DSA organizers, coordinating in Signal chats, planned a campaign against Partnership CEOs and board members.

A Daily Wire / Manhattan Institute review of accounts in City Hall’s Signal chat orbit found posts backing police and prison abolition, dismantling ICE, and attacking Israel. Christina Brown, @missxtinab, celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination, writing “violence was an answer,” said ICE agents should be poisoned, and wrote that she hates America and wants it to fall. Megan Klink of Pretty Informed Girls called ICE “a f*ing Gestapo.” Cassie Willson, who has filmed with the mayor, posted: “Free Palestine, f*ck Donald Trump . . . billionaires shouldn’t exist . . . no war but class war.” Matt Bernstein framed a Hezbollah-inspired synagogue attack as “violence begets violence.” City Hall has released no full roster. Rowland said the office “engage[s] broadly and in good faith, including with people who may disagree.” The posts are the record.

Their first institutional target is the Partnership for New York City. Kathryn Wylde is out. Steve Fulop, the former Jersey City mayor, took over in January. One source said the plan was to “blindside” Fulop because he is new. “They want to punch Fulop in the face,” the source said. “Kathy Wylde knew the ropes. Fulop is new, so there’s never been a better opportunity to go at CEOs.”

More attacks on the Partnership board are planned through year’s end. Names already floated included Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, over drug prices, and Related Companies CEO Jeff Blau, tied to a $2 billion Hudson Yards expansion. “Anybody is fair game as long as you’ve got money,” one person briefed on the plans said. “There is a menu of options that is presented to the mayor.”

The calendar is the point. Mamdani wanted the tax-the-rich agenda out in early fall to lock in state money at the start of 2027. He is seeking a two-percentage-point hike on incomes over $1 million and a rise in the top corporate rate from 7.25% to 11.5%. Combined with existing city and state levies, the top marginal rate on the city’s wealthiest would reach 16.8%, the highest in the country.  

The Citizens Budget Commission has projected a $13.2 billion gap by fiscal year 2028. One Democratic insider doubted the tactic would move its targets. “Do they seriously think Jamie Dimon, who is responsible for overseeing $5 trillion in assets, is going to buckle because a few teenagers are pressuring him on TikTok?”

The timing is also a headache for Gov. Kathy Hochul as she faces a Republican challenge from Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman. Pfizer chairman and CEO Albert Bourla donated to her first campaign for governor, and Pfizer’s PAC has given more than $36,000 to state Democratic groups. Ryan Adams of Actum said Wall Street still treats Hochul as the adult in the room, “until somebody makes her choose.”

City Hall denied it. Spokesperson Dora Pekec said: “This is categorically false. The New York Post is publishing a complete lie.” She refused to identify any specific inaccuracies. The Partnership was approached for comment before publication.

Griffin later called the stunt “creepy and weird,” said it endangered his safety, and raised pulling a $6 billion Park Avenue project. Citadel also has a headquarters in Miami.

After a closed-door meeting with the mayor in May, Dimon said he has seen mayors “fail abysmally because they can’t administer themselves out of a paper bag, or ideology blinds them to practical, realistic, real-world policy.” In his April shareholder letter he wrote, “Individuals vote with their feet,” and described “a fairly large exodus of people and jobs out of some states with high taxes and high expenses.” He has pointed to that shift toward lower-tax states, including Texas, where JPMorgan has grown its headcount while cutting jobs in New York City.

That is the bet City Hall is making in a city that still lives off the jobs and tax base of these companies and residents. A DSA mayor, a taxpayer-funded influencer army, and a plan to isolate the people who write the largest paychecks. DSA politics wants the money and treats the people who produce it in New York City as props for its unsustainable agenda.

The traditional tort system is well equipped to solve twenty-first century issues.

Many artificial intelligence experts believe our society faces only one serious political question: How will we prevent AI from destroying humanity? Such fears were deepened by the recent report of a “swarm” of OpenAI agents hacking into the company Hugging Face on their own initiative. Those concerns have led to calls for new bureaucracies to oversee frontier AI labs and monitor new model releases.

But there is a better approach to AI safety, one that runs through the old-fashioned legal system. Torts, or legal claims for damages against a company, may provide the best mechanism to prevent the dangers of AI while preserving its advantages.

Whenever a new technology emerges, society debates whether to regulate it through the market, through lawsuits, or through bureaucracies. The competitive play of the market forces companies to treat their customers well. So long as most of the “dangers” of a new product fall on the paying users themselves, the market should keep companies honest, especially when paired with general consumer-protection laws against fraud or negligence.

If a product creates dangers to non-customers or outsiders—what are known as “externalities”—society needs some other mechanism to make business pay. Throughout much of English and American history, lawsuits under the common law served that purpose. Those injured by a business could make a tort claim against the business and collect damages that were supposed to make the injured party whole. The damages awarded were meant to be commensurate with the costs imposed, providing the right level of incentive for the business to avoid them. If courts had concerns about a business causing damages that could not be detected or extended beyond the suing party, they could award “punitive” damages to make sure the business paid extra attention.

Thanks to the rise of the regulatory state, however, Americans have tended to forget the benefits of regulation through tort lawsuits. But there are reasons to believe that AI is well-suited to tort litigation, as long as we focus on real harms to outsiders and not on speculative ones to customers.

Outside of copyright cases, most litigation against AI companies today involves people suing AI labs for giving out bad advice or encouraging bad behavior. These are little different from lawsuits against Facebook or YouTube for being addictive and ostensibly harming their users by forcing them to use the product too much. In general, such lawsuits demonstrate the worst of our tort system: they encourage consumers to avoid personal responsibility and allow trial lawyers to get massive payouts vastly disproportionate to any plausible harms. The idea that we should treat Big Tech, including AI companies, like we treated Big Tobacco, is exactly the wrong idea. Instead, we should focus AI tort liabilities on harms that companies cause to noncustomers.

Potential tort liability has the benefit of putting the onus on companies themselves to game out dangerous scenarios and prevent them. As Joel Wertheimer and Jerusalem Demsas have pointed out, torts should require the “cheapest cost avoider” to suffer the consequences of bad behavior. Since AI frontier labs can engineer around harms caused by their models much easier than outside individuals can predict or avoid them, they should be assigned liability for any damages.

By contrast, a bureaucratic model of AI control requires outside experts to predict where and when damages might occur and try to prevent them by fiat. That approach forces AI companies to follow bureaucratic rules and procedures rather than try to figure out themselves what sort of harms might cause the most damage. However well-meaning and intelligent such experts are, they will never have the insight into the dangers of AI that the frontier labs themselves possess. They also will not have the same incentive to prevent harms as the labs would if faced with tort claims.

Some worry that regulation by tort fails when defendants don’t have enough money to pay for the damages. In many industries, fly-by-night operators can put out dangerous products and disappear with the profits before liability hits. Industries like car dealerships or freight brokers are required to post bonds to ensure they have enough cash for potential liabilities. Even in established industries, the harms may be so great that no company could bear them, which is why the nuclear industry requires a separate government backstop in case of a meltdown.

Yet frontier AI labs are already some of the most valuable companies in the world. Both Anthropic and OpenAI have valuations approaching $1 trillion. That value would be under imminent threat in a situation where their AI swarms broke out and caused real damage. If some start-up or open-source companies create AI models advanced enough that they pose real threats, it might be reasonable to require bonding or insurance against tort claims to ensure injured parties can be made whole. But for now, the frontier labs’ own value should provide enough of a “hostage” to encourage good behavior.

Some may argue that there is no way to create liability for existential risk to humanity because there won’t be courts or even humans left to sue. But that misunderstands how AI risks will develop. AI will not putter along causing no damages for years before it suddenly wakes up and decides to destroy humanity. The actual dangers of AI will manifest gradually.

The Hugging Face incident, for all the kerfuffle, did not cause major disruptions for the company. There will doubtless be another AI incident that does cause significant damages. Perhaps an AI swarm shuts down a power plant, causing billions of dollars of harm to a city. Or perhaps AI breaks into banks and scrambles a bunch of accounts, wiping out hundreds of billions in value. Events like these, if they occur, would happen long before humanity faces more devastating risks.

The benefit of the tort system is that it forces those companies to avoid such harms in their own self-interest and mitigate them step by step. The constant pressure of liability will help ensure the “alignment” of AI models with those of the general public before a big catastrophic event occurs. Indeed, some of the recent delays in AI model releases might be as much about liability concerns as any altruistic attempt to prevent harm to the public.

There are many open questions about how to shape tort law for AI. University of Houston law professor Gabriel Weil argues for a “strict liability” system, whereby any harms caused by AI automatically create liability, which can be combined with punitive damages for some particularly dangerous activities. Yale Law School professor Ketan Ramakrishnan argues that requiring plaintiffs to prove the negligence of AI companies would be a better model (though he also supports a bureaucratic regulator). Others suggest we should require criminal liability for harms caused by AI, as we do for food and pharmaceuticals manufacturers. In general, American lawmakers and courts need to clarify the potential tort claims against AI now to ensure better behavior in the future.

AI safety mavens want to make sure the technology is aligned with the wishes of humans instead of following its own, potentially destructive, ends. The best way to do that is to harmonize the incentives of the companies making AI with those of the public. A new bureaucratic morass would just orient the companies to the demands of a small, unrepresentative group. The traditional American solution of allowing the market to reward good products sold to customers while having lawsuits punish bad behavior will be the best path to true alignment.

By City Journal – https://www.city-journal.org/article/ai-safety-lawsuits-tort-legal-claims

Senator Rand Paul released additional diary pages and mail from the desk of American Mengele, Dr. Anthony Fauci. In 2015, under a NIAID task order, USAMRIID at Fort Detrick exposed vaccinated monkeys to aerosolized Ebola engineered to drive the virus deep into the lungs.

Eighty percent of the vaccinated animals needlessly died horrible painful deaths with ruined tissue over the abominable experimentations. Unvaccinated controls in the operation, on the other hand, lived. On March 7, 2016, Fauci wrote that the USAMRIID people were idiots and that the experiment should have been classified.

Two days later he was still stunned that Defense had sent the data to the FDA and circulated it as a notice to embassies in West Africa on the eve of a larger vaccine trial.

NIAID’s biodefense director talked about damage control. Cliff Lane flagged dual use. Peter Jahrling warned that treating aerosol challenge as dual-use research of concern would gut medical-countermeasure work, then said he would keep the rest off email. With Ebola paused, he added, they would queue the coronavirus study for when the lights turned green. This is the nature of the “public health” priesthood in its own handwriting.

Gain-of-function arguments were never abstract. An aerosol Ebola challenge on vaccinated primates, funded by the institute Fauci ran, was the norm. He failed to bury his crimes on this occasion. Just imagine how much more there is to uncover. Fauci may turn out to be one of the most evil, treacherous and soulless demons ever to wear a skin suit.

A study by Cameron Ellis of Iowa and Lars Powell of Alabama, using itemized FEC records, estimates that biased spam filtering from Google cost Republicans 142,126 expected first-time WinRed donations, or about $117 million, and functioned as an in-kind lift for ActBlue.

From June 30 to September 15, 2025, Google’s use of a SURBL blacklist that improperly flagged WinRed links cut first-time WinRed donations 75 percent across Gmail, Outlook, and Yahoo. A separate Outlook-only stretch from February through April 2025 cut them 83 percent.

Placement tests pointed at the WinRed URL. After Google dropped SURBL on September 15, the flow normalized once again, and the censorship apparatus dissipated. But the damage was already done. Combined RNC, NRCC, and NRSC fundraising in 2025 ultimately amounted to $377 million.

This is a reminder that Big Tech firms cannot be trusted. They may be playing nice now but it is due to their instincts of self-preservation, not because they have seen the light. A filter that eats the other party’s first-time donors is a campaign finance event the FEC would notice if a super PAC did it with a check. Google’s new verified-sender program is arriving now.

This could be more of the same. Or perhaps it will be fair. At least to start, it might be. Until they think they can get away with it again. First-time donors are the hardest money in politics. A blacklist that erases three-quarters of them for ten weeks is a thumb on the scale no Senate hearing should treat as a glitch, no matter how much Google is donating to their campaign coffers.

CISA Is Preparing Americans for Another Stolen Election in 2026.

During the 2020 Election, Chris Krebs from the CISA said that the election was the most secure election ever. It was a lie, and the MSM pushed it over and over again.

The systems were not secure. The election was broken in every way imaginable. This was documented in the three books on the stolen 2020 election – “The Steal“.

The CISA is playing Americans for fools again. The most important election ever is set for a total steal, with CISA again leading the way.

The CISA released an election security manual yesterday, on September 24, and it is a sham. That entire department is ignoring the real issues and pretending to care about the rest. Here is what is said.

The problem is that The STEAL is more advanced than ever before.

As noted in The Steal books above, new technology used in the 2020 election is still in place. It is not covered by the work noted above because it is not classified as an election system. This is from the third book on The Steal:

In 2025, KNOWiNK purchased Dominion Voting Systems and renamed the company “Liberty Vote”.

If nothing really changes, nothing changes.

By Joe Hoft – https://joehoft.com/exclusive-cisa-is-preparing-americans-another-stolen-election/

The Trump administration closed the week with two election-integrity wins heading into November 3.

First, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to temporarily revive the expanded SAVE program, so states can again use federal records to check whether people on the voter rolls are U.S. citizens. A day earlier, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency released its first public election-security plan of this term: treat voting systems as a year-round target, use paper ballots, run post-election manual audits, and lock down the machines.

That is the week the White House wanted heading into the midterms. Two moves, one job: confirm that the people on the list are citizens, and keep the machines on a short leash.

Common sense says checking U.S. citizenship at the point of registration and voting should be the first step, not a lawsuit.

The Court: Congress authorized the data, and the justices respected the 90-day rule

President Trump’s March 2025 order directed Homeland Security to let election officials verify citizenship. DHS rebuilt SAVE around Social Security numbers and other identifiers, adding bulk search and SSN lookup so clerks could flag ineligible names.

The League of Women Voters sued. Judge Sparkle Sooknanan blocked the system in June. An appeals court left the freeze in place.

On Friday the Supreme Court paused that order. The majority said Congress authorized DHS to pull citizenship data from other agencies, including Social Security, and that Washington must answer states that ask whether a voter is a citizen. The injunction, the justices wrote, “prevents the Federal Government from using the program it believes is best suited to the task.”

They also respected existing law. The National Voter Registration Act still bars systematic purges inside 90 days of a federal election. The Court said that moratorium “limits the potential impact” this close to November 3. What is back now: individualized citizenship checks before Election Day, and broader list maintenance after.

The stay is not a final ruling. Before the freeze, the administration told the Court more than 65 million voters across 26 states had already been checked, with about 28,635 flagged as possible noncitizens. The legal point the majority locked in is basic: when a state asks if the person on the list is a citizen, Washington is supposed to answer.

Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., called it a “massive win.” Checking citizenship, she said, “should be the bare minimum.”

CISA: paper, audits, lock the doors

A day earlier CISA issued the 13-page Securing the Next 250 plan, the first public election-security blueprint of the term after last year’s freeze. Secretary Markwayne Mullin ordered it in July.

It is voluntary and no-cost. It tells offices the systems are a year-round target. The recommendations are old-school: paper ballots, post-election manual audits, multi-factor authentication, tighter access, and a year of logs. CISA will offer a no-cost information-sharing platform and assign regional directors as advisers.

What it means before November

SAVE is back for citizenship checks. The Court respected the 90-day bar on systematic purges and still restored individualized verification before November 3. CISA is back on the record for paper and audits. Neither move ends the lawsuits or rewrites state codes. Both put tools back with the people who run elections: a way to ask if a registrant is a citizen, and a federal playbook that keeps the machines on a short leash instead of trusting them on faith.