CMR is the leading provider
of funding and management
support for small to
medium-sized businesses and
entrepreneurs
Established 1984 C MR
is the leading venture
capital, management
support and business
services provider for
small to medium-sized
businesses - linking
excellent management
skills with the
substantial financial
resources of a global bank
of private investors.
CMR has over 450 senior
executives, operating
in the UK, USA, Europe, Asia,
Australasia and
globally,
providing both funding and
specialist help for
entrepreneurial
businesses .
For Businesses
CMR provides excellent
resources:
CMR FundEX Business Exchange - gives all companies & entrepreneurs direct access to CMR's global investor base.
CMR Catalyst Group
Programme -
transform
profitability through
merging.
CMR Company Sales Division helps owners to exit
at the best price.
CMR Corporate Recovery
Division -
experts in rescue and
turnaround.
CMR Technology Licensing
Division -
commercialising
innovation.
CMR Executive
Professionals - management support
and consultancy.
CMR Executives-on-Demandâ„¢ Fully experienced
senior executives
available quickly and
cost effectively.
We always welcome
contact with new
business clients- please get in touch
- we will do our
best to match
your needs and exceed
your expectations.
For Investors
Preferential access to new opportunities for investment and/or acquisition
P re-vets
propositions and
provides a
personalised service
to our investors
Syndication service
enabling investors to
link together as desired
Executive and
management support for
investments as needed
CMR's services to
our investors are not
only fast & efficient
but also free
W e
always appreciate new
members- you are welcome
to join as an investor
or as a CMR Executive.
When you
join us as a Senior
Executive:
CMR's strength is in the
skills and experience of
our executive members -
all senior, director level
people with years of
successfully running and
managing companies.
Because the demand for
CMR's support and services
is ever-increasing,
especially as we enter
recessionary times, we
have a growing need for
more high calibre
executives to join us from
every industry and
discipline.
You will be using your
considerable experience to
help smaller businesses
and entrepreneurs to grow
profitably.
We offer full training
and mentoring support to
help maximise potential.
We are
always keen to find more
high calibre senior
executives in all areas-
skills and location.
Make contact with us today
and maximise your
opportunities.
HEAD
OFFICE
124 City Road
London EC1 2NX
Tel: +44 (0)207-636-1744
Fax:+44 (0)207-636-5639
Email: cmr@cmruk.com
Registered Office:
124 City Road ,
London EC1 2NX
Also Glasgow,
Dublin, Switzerland, Europe, USA/Canada
Privacy Statement: CMR only
retains personal details
supplied directly by executives
joining CMR themselves either as
Full Executive Members or
Interim Management Members or
Investors. Those details are
only used within CMR and not
disclosed to any third parties
without that person’s
agreement. We will keep that
data until requested by the
person to be removed – at that
point it will be deleted.
Personal data is never sold or
used for purposes outside of
CMR’s normal operations. Any
correspondence should be
directed to the Managing
Director, CMR,
Kemp House,
152-160 City Road, London EC1V
2N
Senior Executives
CMR is a worldwide network of senior executives. Join us to expand your career and business horizons.
Business Entrepreneurs
CMR has a complete range of resources & services provided by experts to help all businesses to grow and prosper.
Investors & Venturers
CMR has a continuous stream of business and funding propositions, which are matched to investor preferences. Join us - it's FREE!
FundEX
FundEX is CMR's worldwide stock market for small to medium sized companies and entrepreneurs to raise new capital.
Interim & Permanent Management
Many of CMR's executives can be recruited on an interim, permanent or NED basis.
Login
Main CMR Intranet members only
Regional Intranets
Mon, 25 May 2026 03:20:00 +0000 Shurk: Prominent Democrats Must Go To Prison
Shurk: Prominent Democrats Must Go To Prison
Shurk: Prominent Democrats Must Go To Prison
Authored by J.B. Shurk via American Thinker ,
Until then, it’s open season on all of us...
Reports last week confirmed that former special counsel Jack Smith “secretly arranged” to preserve evidence in his criminal cases against President Trump in order to maintain the threat of future prosecution once the president leaves office. This is not a big surprise.
Democrats have thrown every civic norm out the window in their ruthless efforts to target Trump’s businesses and send him to prison for life.
In his quest to imprison an American president, Jack Smith accused Trump of engaging in a conspiracy to “overthrow” the 2020 election, as well as retaining possession of classified documents after leaving the White House. Both allegations are ridiculous, and Smith’s own words make him sound like a lawfare hitman and anti-MAGA zealot. He told members of Congress in January, “Our investigation revealed that Donald Trump is the person who caused Jan. 6, it was foreseeable to him, and that he sought to exploit the violence.”
Smith stated emphatically that Trump committed “serious crimes.”
Serious crimes? You mean like using the FBI to spy on all the Republican presidential primary candidates in 2015 and 2016? Oh right, that was President Obama. Or fabricating intelligence in order to justify a counterintelligence operation against candidate Trump? Oh, that was Obama’s corrupt CIA director, John Brennan . Or paying British Intelligence operatives to manufacture a fake “Russia collusion” dossier implicating Trump? Oh, that was Hillary Clinton . Or using the FBI and CIA to frame President Trump as a Russian spy? Oh, that was Obama and Clinton , too. Or sabotaging President Trump’s administration by using a Democrat spy on the National Intelligence Council to construct a false story about an innocuous phone call in order to trigger a bogus impeachment ? Oh, that was Intelligence Community Democrats attempting to hide Joe Biden’s corruption in Ukraine by, again, framing President Trump for a quid-pro-quo “crime” he never committed. Or submitting fraudulent documents to the FISA Court in order to maintain spying operations against President Trump? Oh, that was corrupt James Comey , corrupt Robert Mueller , corrupt Andrew Weissmann , corrupt Norm Eisen , corrupt Mary McCord , and their Democrat accomplices in the FBI and DOJ who covered up Obama’s illegal spying operations while framing President Trump as a criminal, spy, and traitor.
Listening to Jack Smith call President Trump a “serious” criminal sounds ridiculous when serious criminals Obama, Clinton, Brennan, Comey, and legions of their Democrat colleagues, subordinates, and co-conspirators in the DOJ, FBI, CIA, D.C. courts, and FISA Court (see Judge James Boasberg’s impeachable offenses ) have never been properly investigated or punished for undermining President Trump’s election, sabotaging his administration, and framing him for treason. The most powerful Democrats in the country organized a coup d’état in broad daylight and dragged the country through a barbed-wire field of partisan propaganda for the last ten years, and Jack Smith wants Americans to be upset that President Trump retained documents that he was entitled to possess? It’s just such lunacy. The constant gaslighting from D.C. operatives is equally infuriating and exhausting.
Glossing over the Democrats’ monstrous Russia Collusion Hoax, their relentless efforts to subvert the Trump-led government, and their continuing obsession with tossing the president in prison for imaginary crimes is bad enough , but Jack Smith does what all Democrats do: He pretends that the January 6, 2021, protest for election integrity was an attempt by Trump and his supporters to overthrow the government. This lie is so brazen that it’s astonishing how Democrats can keep telling it with straight faces.
The people who showed up at the Capitol that day had one objective: to express their strong belief that mail-in-ballot fraud, violations of multiple states’ electoral statutes, and numerous voting discrepancies had tainted the 2020 election. Several senators intended to make these very arguments before the certification of the election’s results. The people who gathered outside the Capitol were exercising their First Amendment right to assemble peaceably. They were unarmed. Most had no criminal records. A large number had served their country in various capacities. Most who entered the Capitol walked around as tourists, took pictures, interacted in a friendly manner with Capitol Police, and posed no threat to anyone.
Only after law enforcement officers chose to fire flash-bang grenades on the assembled crowd did a section of the protest turn into something that could be described as a riot. Trump supporters — not police officers — died on January 6. Ordinary Americans exercising their constitutional rights were thrown into a state of fear of being hurt or killed.
Nevertheless, Smith continues to propagate the lie that the three-hour event at the Capitol was somehow the greatest threat to the country since 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the Civil War (real comparisons that Democrat propagandists continue to make). Smith and his fellow Democrats desperately wish for Americans to believe that a hot-chocolate-drinking gathering of grandparents, revelers, and veterans was somehow going to topple the government of the United States. If a crowd of retirees is capable of overrunning Washington, what’s the point of a trillion-dollar military budget?
Smith’s perpetuation of the Democrats’ J6 propaganda is bad enough, but the fact that he treats that day as equivalent to the Civil War is all the more preposterous given that Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and their fellow Democrats openly encouraged Black Lives Matter domestic terrorists to burn down neighborhoods, loot businesses, and murder civilians throughout the summer of 2020. If President Trump “caused Jan. 6” and the events of that day were “foreseeable” to him, then the violence and mayhem of 2020’s so-called “summer of love” were certainly foreseeable to Democrats. The BLM riots of 2020 were the most costly in American history, and Vice President Harris encouraged Democrats to donate money to a bail fund that put arsonists, rapists, and murderers back on the street.
Were the Democrat-organized riots of 2020 “foreseeable”?
Of course.
Did prominent Democrats “exploit the violence,” as Smith accuses Trump of doing with January 6?
They absolutely did.
Biden and Harris ran for the White House on the message that the violence would end once they were elected.
Will preening, self-righteous Jack Smith investigate, harass, arrest, or prosecute any of these Democrats? Of course not. Will Democrat rioters be tossed into pre-trial solitary confinement and refused bail by partisan prosecutors and judges? Definitely not. To this day, Democrats celebrate BLM and Antifa domestic terrorists as champions for civil rights. When Democrats burn cities to the ground, the arsonists get statues. When MAGA Americans protest for free and fair voting, they are condemned for crimes they never committed.
Unfortunately, this is how leftists all over the world now operate.
Brazil’s communist President Lula has imprisoned his predecessor, President Bolsonaro, for supposedly trying to overthrow the government. French President Macron has permitted his political opposition, Marine Le Pen, to be prosecuted and convicted for similarly bogus “embezzlement” crimes. Germany has flirted with designating the popular anti-immigration party, Alternative for Germany , a “terrorist” organization and banning its candidates from running for office. When the “wrong” candidate won Romania’s presidential election eighteen months ago, the country’s Constitutional Court annulled the outcome by blaming “Russian interference.”
If President Trump hadn’t possessed the financial resources and sheer grit to face down the onslaught of malicious and meritless prosecutions against him, he would likely be in a courtroom or a prison today . If he hadn’t been re-elected a third time, January 6 defendants would still be awaiting trial or serving time in prison for an imaginary “insurrection.”
Screw Jack Smith. He’s no lawman, and he has no principles. He’s nothing but a corrupt propagandist, partisan hack, and lawfare assassin.
Nothing will change until prominent Democrats are prosecuted and convicted for their crimes. Until then, it’s open season on all of us.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 05/24/2026 - 23:20 Close
Mon, 25 May 2026 02:45:00 +0000 Which US States Gained The Most Residents In 2025
Which US States Gained The Most Residents In 2025
Nearly 15 million Americans moved in 2025, with many relocating across state lines in search of lower costs, job opportunities, and warmer climates.
This map
Read more.....
Which US States Gained The Most Residents In 2025
Nearly 15 million Americans moved in 2025, with many relocating across state lines in search of lower costs, job opportunities, and warmer climates.
This map, via Visual Capitalist's Gabriel Cohen, shows net migration per 10,000 residents across all 50 states in 2025, revealing where population inflows were strongest and which states saw the biggest outflows.
The data comes from HireAHelper .
Southern and Mountain West states dominated the rankings for inbound migration, while several high-cost coastal states continued to lose residents.
The data reflects large-scale shifts happening in the country’s population distribution, both from the Eastern half to the Western half, as well as shifts away from more expensive states to cheaper, often inland ones.
The Mountain West Over the West Coast
In 2025, the Western half of the U.S. saw a continuation of post-COVID trends as people left behind coastal states like Washington (-10.7 ) and Oregon (-9.0 ) in favor of more inland Mountain West states like Wyoming (+26.0 ), Utah (+7.3 ), and especially Idaho (+63.2 ).
The data table below highlights the net migration loss/gain per 10,000 inhabitants in 2025:
The more populous coastal states, which have long been hubs for key economic sectors like tech and aviation, have seen a number of moves in recent years owing to jobs either relocating or shifting to remote work.
Nowhere on the West Coast saw a bigger drop than California, which saw a net migration loss of -25.1 , as nearly 100,000 residents left behind the increasingly unaffordable state in favor of cheaper neighboring states like Nevada, which lacks a state income tax .
The Cost of Living Factor
California is not alone in losing people over affordability issues. If net migration trends are any indication, other high cost of living states such as New York (-28.2 ) and Massachusetts (-37.9 ) also increasingly shed residents.
A majority of the Northeast fared similarly, with all states but Delaware, Maine, and New Hampshire seeing more people leave than arrive in 2025.
And in the immediate region surrounding the nation’s capital, the states of Maryland (-27.4 ) and Virginia (-13.7 ) also saw negative net migration, likely reflecting in part the large reduction in the federal workforce seen over the course of the year.
The Rise of the Sunbelt
If one region is seeing across-the-board growth, it’s the South, led by states like South Carolina (+79.7 ), Tennessee (+43.6 ), and Alabama (+36.6 ).
Long one of the more economically depressed regions of the country, a combination of lower costs of living and nicer weather has led to rapid growth for southern “Sun Belt” states such as Arkansas and Oklahoma, to say nothing of massive favorites like Texas and the Sunshine State of Florida.
If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The Decline of Housing Affordability in the U.S. on Voronoi , the new app from Visual Capitalist.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 05/24/2026 - 22:45 Close
Mon, 25 May 2026 02:10:00 +0000 The Inherited IRA 10-Year Rule Is Fully Enforced In 2026 - What Beneficiaries Need To Do Now
The Inherited IRA 10-Year Rule Is Fully Enforced In 2026 - What Beneficiaries Need To Do Now
The Inherited IRA 10-Year Rule Is Fully Enforced In 2026 - What Beneficiaries Need To Do Now
Authored by Adam H. Douglas via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
If you inherited a traditional IRA from someone who was already taking required minimum distributions (RMDs), you may have to take annual withdrawals for the next decade, and the account must be empty by the end of the tenth year.
Many inherited IRA beneficiaries must now take annual RMDs. Vitalii Vodolazskyi/Shutterstock
The Internal Revenue Service waived penalties for missed withdrawals from 2021 through 2024 while the rules were being finalized. That grace period is over. Starting with the 2025 tax year, the rules are fully enforced. If you missed a 2025 RMD, a 25 percent penalty applies unless you take corrective action now.
Who Does The 10-Year Rule Apply To?
The SECURE Act, passed in 2019, eliminated the "stretch IRA" for most non-spouse beneficiaries. Under the old rules, you had an option to spread withdrawals across your own lifetime. That option is gone for most people who inherit today.
If you are a non-eligible designated beneficiary (NEDB), which covers most adult children and other non-spouse heirs, the 10-year rule is probably going to apply to you. In general, you are exempt if you fall into one of these categories:
The surviving spouse of the deceased
A minor child of the deceased, though the 10-year rule applies once you reach adulthood
A beneficiary who is chronically ill or disabled
A beneficiary who is not more than 10 years younger than the original owner
What if none of those apply to you? Then the 10-year rule is likely to be your framework.
When Do Annual Withdrawals Have To Start?
The answer depends on whether the original IRA owner died before or after their required beginning date (RBD), generally April 1 of the year following the year they turned 73.
If the original owner died before their RBD and was not yet taking RMDs: No annual withdrawals are required, and the account must be emptied by end of year 10.
If the original owner died on or after their RBD and was already taking RMDs: The general rule is that annual withdrawals are required every year, and the account must be emptied by end of year 10.
If your parent was already taking RMDs when they passed, you must take a distribution every year from year one through year 10 - you cannot skip years and take everything in year 10.
The 10-year clock starts the year after the original owner's death. If you inherited the IRA in 2022, your deadline to fully empty the account is Dec. 31, 2032.
How Much Has To Come Out Each Year?
There is no fixed percentage. Your annual RMD is calculated using two inputs:
The account's balance as of Dec. 31 of the prior year
Your life expectancy factor from the IRS Single Life Expectancy Table in IRS Publication 590-B
The calculation:
Prior year-end balance ÷ life expectancy factor = Your RMD for the year
Your life expectancy factor is based on your age as of Dec. 31 of the current distribution year. Look up that number in the IRS table each year; it changes as you age. You recalculate annually using the updated factor and the prior year's Dec. 31 balance.
Your IRA custodian can often provide this calculation directly. A tax professional can verify it, which is worth doing in your first distribution year.
What Happens If You Missed Your 2025 RMD?
The penalty for a missed RMD is 25 percent of the amount you should have withdrawn. The IRS reduces that to 10 percent if you take the corrective distribution and file Form 5329 within the two-year correction window.
Here is what to do if you missed a 2025 distribution:
Take the missed distribution now. Withdraw the full amount you should have taken in 2025 as soon as possible.
File Form 5329. This IRS form reports additional taxes on qualified retirement plans. You will attach it to your tax return or file it as a standalone form.
Request penalty abatement, if applicable. If this is your first missed RMD and you have a reasonable explanation, the penalty might be waived by the IRS. Attach a written explanation to Form 5329 when you file.
Rather than risk it not being waived, act now. The two-year window for the reduced 10 percent penalty is already running.
FAQs About The Inherited IRA 10-Year Rule
What Is The Difference Between An Eligible Designated Beneficiary And A Non-Eligible Designated Beneficiary?
An eligible designated beneficiary includes surviving spouses, minor children of the deceased, disabled or chronically ill individuals, and beneficiaries not more than 10 years younger than the original owner. These individuals can spread withdrawals over their lifetime instead of following the 10-year rule. Everyone else is a non-eligible designated beneficiary subject to the 10-year rule. Most adult children who inherit a parent's traditional IRA fall into the NEDB category.
Can I Wait Until Year 10 And Take Everything Out At Once?
It depends on when the original owner died. If they died before their required beginning date and had not yet started RMDs, you are not required to take annual distributions and may take the full balance in year ten. If they had already started RMDs, annual withdrawals are required throughout the 10-year period. Taking everything in year ten in that case does not avoid penalties for missed annual distributions in earlier years.
How Do I Find My Life Expectancy Factor For The RMD Calculation?
Your life expectancy factor comes from the Single Life Expectancy Table in IRS Publication 590-B, available at irs.gov. Find your age as of Dec. 31 of the current distribution year and read the corresponding factor. Divide the account's prior December 31 balance by that factor to get your RMD amount. Your IRA custodian may also calculate this for you. Verifying it independently is advisable, particularly in the first year of distributions.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 05/24/2026 - 22:10 Close
Mon, 25 May 2026 01:35:00 +0000 $150 Humanoid Robot House Cleaning Service Threatens To Undercut Maid Services
$150 Humanoid Robot House Cleaning Service Threatens To Undercut Maid Services
It's no secret that some humanoid robotics companies are training their machines for work on factory floors, while others are positioning their bots to e
Read more.....
$150 Humanoid Robot House Cleaning Service Threatens To Undercut Maid Services
It's no secret that some humanoid robotics companies are training their machines for work on factory floors, while others are positioning their bots to enter homes in the coming years.
One of the first real signs of humanoids entering homes today is a new cleaning service in San Francisco that uses what appear to be Unitree humanoid robots trained to clean everything from floors and countertops to stovetops, mirrors, and nearly any surface in the house.
Called "Gatsby," the new service deploys humanoid robots to homes for a flat service charge of $150.
"We just made U.S. history. Today, Gatsby ran the first-ever consumer cleaning by a humanoid robot in the United States," Gatsby wrote in a press release earlier this month.
The company noted, "We picked someone random off our SF waitlist, they booked a cleaning, we delivered the robot, and it cleaned their entire apartment on its own. No humans inside. This is the first of its kind in the U.S., and we're proud to be the pioneers writing this line in the history books today."
For the average deep clean of a typical U.S. home, the price ranges between $200 and $400, and for much larger homes, $500 or more, according to Angi List. This means the robotic cleaning service can even undercut an independent cleaner or a professional cleaning company, which often employs migrant workers.
News of Gatsby's cleaning service comes as shipments of humanoid robots are expected to ramp up this year and accelerate by the end of the decade, according to a recent UBS note .
The goal of tech firms is very clear: deploy these bots first on factory floors, in warehouses, and at logistics hubs, then move into consumer markets once the machines become reliable enough for home use.
Once these bots enter the consumer market, they will begin to chip away at demand for migrant labor and drive down household costs for services such as cleaning, cooking, laundry, and other chores, which have traditionally required human labor and can cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars per month.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 05/24/2026 - 21:35 Close
Mon, 25 May 2026 01:00:00 +0000 Trump Indicates He'll Sign Bill Making Daylight Saving Time Permanent
Trump Indicates He'll Sign Bill Making Daylight Saving Time Permanent
Trump Indicates He'll Sign Bill Making Daylight Saving Time Permanent
Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
President Donald Trump has indicated he would sign a bill to make daylight saving time permanent as a House of Representatives committee advanced a measure that would codify the change.
U.S. President Donald Trump returns to the White House in Washington on May 15, 2026. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
"Big Vote today (48-1!) in the Energy and Commerce Committee on a Bill including The Sunshine Protection Act, which will be making Daylight Saving Time Permanent! This is so important in that Hundreds of Millions of Dollars are spent every year by people, Cities, and States, being forced to change their Clocks. Many of these Clocks are located in Towers, and the cost of renting, or using, Heavy Equipment to do this twice a year is prohibitive!" Trump wrote on Thursday in a Truth Social post.
The president said that there is considerable "work and money that is spent on this ridiculous, twice yearly production," referring to the changing of the time. He also said that "it will also be a very nice WIN for the Republican Party."
"We are going with the far more popular alternative, Saving Daylight, which gives you a longer, brighter Day - And who can be against that - This is an easy one!" Trump added.
Known as the Sunshine Protection Act, the bill was proposed by Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), who released a statement saying that it would "bring us one step closer to ending the outdated and unpopular practice of changing our clocks twice a year."
"Floridians and Americans across the country are tired of the biannual time change, and the evidence is clear that permanent daylight saving time can improve public health, reduce traffic accidents, lower crime and encourage more outdoor activity," he said in the statement.
In a social media post last year, Trump urged Congress to address the issue.
"The House and Senate should push hard for more Daylight at the end of a day. Very popular and, most importantly, no more changing of the clocks, a big inconvenience and, for our government, A VERY COSTLY EVENT!!!" he wrote in April 2025.
For years, advocates have called for the United States to stop making the twice-yearly changes. Among those urging that the country stick to one time for the entire year are the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.
A poll from The Associated Press and NORC released in October 2025 also found that only 12 percent of Americans favor the current daylight saving time system. Around 47 percent are opposed to the current system and 40 percent are neutral, it also found.
The United States first started using the time shift more than a century ago, during World War I, and again during World War II. Congress passed a law in 1966 that allowed states to decide whether to participate but required their decisions to be uniform across their territories. All states except Arizona and Hawaii make the time shifts, and those two states remain on standard time year-round.
According to Buchanan's office, the Sunshine Protection Act was included in an amendment to a larger bill, the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to the Motor Vehicle Modernization Act.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 05/24/2026 - 21:00 Close
Mon, 25 May 2026 00:25:00 +0000 Colbert Blames Trump, But Massive Profit Losses Killed His Show
Colbert Blames Trump, But Massive Profit Losses Killed His Show
Progressive ideologues in entertainment are well known for avoiding responsibility for their failures at any cost, which is what makes them incredibly dangerous. Scape
Read more.....
Colbert Blames Trump, But Massive Profit Losses Killed His Show
Progressive ideologues in entertainment are well known for avoiding responsibility for their failures at any cost, which is what makes them incredibly dangerous. Scapegoats are targeted for destruction while activists elude scrutiny so that they can bungle another project or institution, and another, and another. On and on it goes; like a bacteria they travel from one organ to the next, breaking it down from the inside.
This is what people like Stephen Colbert represent.
From 2019 to 2025 The Late Show lost approximately 25% of its peak viewership. Much like Jimmy Kimmel and other midnight comedy programs obsessed with politics instead of telling jokes, Colbert lost any ability to make fun of his own side. Instead, he became a propaganda mouthpiece for the establishment and a complete disgrace as a conduit for Covid hysteria and vaccine mandates.
VIDEO
Whatever esteem he might have had as an entertainer was lost. His career was now tied to woke activism and running interference for the "elites". He likely believed that in a town like Hollywood this would cement his position and keep him safe from cancellation. However, despite their grand theatrics as "soldiers of the revolution", Hollywood executives still love money.
Colbert's show was losing around $50 million per year. His bloated production crew of 200 people and ludicrous salary of $20 million per season created an annual filming cost of over $100 million. Ad revenues for the show dropped from $121 million in 2018 to $70 million in 2024 . Keep in mind, there are thousands of creators on YouTube that do essentially what Colbert does with almost no budget, and they bring in a far larger audience.
There's no doubt that Colbert will go on to other productions well after the cancellation of his disastrous Late Show. Hollywood has pedestalized the former comedian as a martyr for the great woke cause. The corporate media has done the same, suggesting that the death of the Late Show will be looked on by historians as "Exhibit A" of Trump's "attack on democracy". But, it's still a fact that he lost his show because he was losing vast amounts of money for CBS.
VIDEO
The key to satire, and most comedy in general, is to shine a spotlight on hard truths while suppressing one's inherent bias. The ability to throw one's own sacred cows on the pyre is what makes satirists famous. One cannot be a propagandist and be a successful satirist at the same time. One cannot be a court jester and be afraid to take the risk of making fun of royalty.
The royalty in Colbert's case is not Trump, but the progressive elite and Big Pharma. Attacking Trump in Hollywood or New York presents no risk. Poking fun at the woke mafia presents incredible risk. Colbert has long been a coward in this regard. He has, though, thrown perhaps the biggest toddler fit in recent memory over the end of The Late Show in an attempt to make the event as political as possible.
Colbert will never be out of work completely. Recent announcements have him writing on the script for Peter Jackson's next Lord of the Rings spin-off film (which is shaping up to be a disaster). He also made a surprise appearance on the cable access show "Only In Monroe" with an average audience of 12 people, which is perhaps a venue more suited to his talents.
The idea that Colbert has been censored by a vengeful White House is complete fantasy. The claim that this is an "attack on democracy" is merely designed to inflame more leftist madness. No one is entitled under the Constitution to their own late night TV show, especially when they're burning $50 million a year.
Losing the respect of a large swath of the American public, though, makes it unlikely that Colbert will do well in any future project. In the end, he will fade from memory as just another establishment shill.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 05/24/2026 - 20:25 Close
Sun, 24 May 2026 23:50:00 +0000 Child Safety Groups Urge FTC To Investigate Roblox
Child Safety Groups Urge FTC To Investigate Roblox
Child Safety Groups Urge FTC To Investigate Roblox
Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Two child safety groups filed a complaint against online interactive gaming platform Roblox with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on May 20, alleging that children face sexual and financial harm on the platform.
A boy poses for a photo while holding a game pad in front of a screen displaying the logo of the children's gaming platform Roblox, in this illustration taken on Dec. 8, 2025. Ramil Sitdikov/Illustration/Reuters
Filed by nonprofits National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) and Fairplay, the complaint claims that certain Roblox features are "developmentally inappropriate for the platform's massive young user base and pose a substantial risk of harm." Such features include engagement-maximizing design features, a complex virtual currency system that can result in more user spending, and chat and communication features that expose children to sexual exploitation.
These components "capitalize on young users' developmental vulnerabilities, exploit their desire for authentic self-expression, monetize their lack of impulse control, and turn in-game purchasing power into a form of social status," the complaint states.
"As a result, young users say they feel a constant pressure to keep up with their peers on the platform, and are thereby driven to buy and spend Robux in order to enjoy Roblox's experiences.
"At the same time, the voice and text chat features that make the platform social repeatedly expose children to sexual content and harmful adults, resulting in sexual exploitation and abuse."
According to the complaint, Roblox requires users to be at least 5 years old to open an account.
Last month, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford said at a press conference that Roblox, which has roughly 151.5 million daily active users, is used by almost half of all American children under 16. Around 42 percent of the platform's users are children under the age of 13.
The nonprofits asked the FTC to investigate Roblox for violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and check whether the company is in compliance with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.
Meanwhile, Roblox's share price has crashed. On July 31, 2025, the company's share price hit its year-high of $150.59. On May 21, 2026, prices closed at $46.14, a decline of nearly 70 percent. Since Sept. 29, Roblox's market capitalization has tumbled from $98.7 billion to $32.8 billion as of May 21, a loss of almost $66 billion.
Design, Currency, Communication Issues
Regarding the platform's design and marketing features, the complaint alleged that the company leverages them to "capitalize on child users' vulnerabilities."
For instance, one tactic used by the company is making users' game inventories of virtual assets visible to each other.
"By allowing children to investigate who owns what, Roblox takes advantage of their developmental proclivity for social comparison, which involves measuring their self-worth relative to others," the complaint reads.
To take part in Roblox's in-game economy, users must navigate a wide range of virtual currencies, including the platform's primary currency, Robux, and other currencies issued by developers.
To calculate the real-world dollar costs of the items, users must perform complex calculations that greatly surpass children's mathematical skills, making them susceptible to financial harm, according to the complaint.
As for chat and communication on Roblox, the complaint raises concerns that these features could facilitate "predation and abuse by enabling adult contact with minors."
The company gives parents control over how their children can communicate on the platform. However, Roblox's webpage on parental controls clarifies that these settings "do not apply to chat features developed independently by developers."
In a statement to The Epoch Times, a Roblox spokesperson said that the company "strongly disputes" the claims made in the complaint.
"Our platform is designed to provide a positive, healthy, and enjoyable experience - we build for fun and connection, not short-term engagement. While no system can be perfect, we have a set of safeguards designed to support a safe and civil environment, and clear policies for game creators that require fair treatment of players," the spokesperson said.
"Most games on Roblox are free to play, and no one is required to purchase Robux.
"In addition, we have clear policies prohibiting both actual and simulated gambling, and a set of rules governing how game creators can use gameplay mechanics like paid random items."
Lawsuits, International Scrutiny
Roblox is facing several lawsuits from states such as Iowa, Louisiana, Texas, Kentucky, and Florida, citing child safety issues.
In December 2025, Iowa sued the company, accusing the platform of being the "perfect environment for child predators, pornographers, scammers, fraudsters, online sex rings, and inappropriate content."
Amid growing concerns about child safety, Roblox announced age-based accounts and expanded parental controls for users under 16 on April 13.
Under the policy, users aged 5 to 8 and 9 to 15 will have separate accounts subject to stricter censorship of adult content.
"All content uploaded to Roblox goes through their existing moderation systems, including AI asset scanning, ongoing user report review, and multimodal moderation that evaluates scenes in real time for potential policy violations ," the company said in a statement.
In addition to the United States, Roblox has faced bans and scrutiny in other nations.
The platform has been banned in Turkey and Iraq. Russia blocked Roblox in December 2025, accusing the platform of enabling "LGBT propaganda" and the dissemination of extremist materials.
In January, the Netherlands announced opening an investigation into the platform, citing potential risks to minors. Last month, Australia issued formal notices to major gaming platforms, including Roblox, asking the companies to describe how they prevent the radicalization and grooming of children.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 05/24/2026 - 19:50 Close
Sun, 24 May 2026 22:40:00 +0000 My Retirement Accounts Fail In The World I Actually Live In
My Retirement Accounts Fail In The World I Actually Live In
My Retirement Accounts Fail In The World I Actually Live In
Authored by Patrick Brenner via RealClearMarkets ,
I remember the first time I logged into my retirement account as a young professional . It felt like a milestone: proof that I had entered the world of adulthood, of long-term thinking, of ownership. I work in the nonprofit sector, so technically it's a 403(b), not a 401(k). The distinction is academic; the promise is the same: contribute consistently, invest wisely, and over time, build financial independence.
The longer I've contributed, the more I've realized something uncomfortable: my retirement plan isn't built for the world I actually live in.
Like many in my generation, I came of age during a period of profound economic change. Companies stay private longer. Technology, infrastructure, and energy companies increasingly raise capital outside public markets. The most dynamic growth in the economy often happens before a company ever reaches a stock exchange. When I look at my retirement options, I'm locked out of that world.
Instead, we see a familiar menu consisting of a handful of mutual funds and some index options that quietly steer me toward a standardized allocation. These are not bad investments, but they represent only a fraction of real economic growth.
For my younger peers just entering the workforce, this gap is even more consequential. The directions are thus: start early, take advantage of compounding, and think long term. If we each had a dollar for every time we got the lecture about the "time value of money," we'd all retire tomorrow. But we are also being funneled into portfolios that exclude entire categories of assets like private equity, private credit, real estate, and infrastructure that have historically delivered higher long-term returns and meaningful diversification.
Brett Arends at Market Watch incorrectly asserts that opening retirement plans to these assets would expose workers to high fees, illiquidity, and complexity. He misses a more important question: compared to what?
There's real asymmetry . Institutional investors regularly allocate 20 to 30 percent of their portfolios to private markets. They do so because these assets offer diversification, illiquidity premiums, and exposure to parts of the economy unavailable in public markets. Ordinary workers are confined to a narrower universe because litigious zealots neutered the system, compelling fiduciaries to avoid risk at all costs.
This narrowing of investment options originates in the legal environment surrounding employer-sponsored retirement plans. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), plan sponsors face an onslaught of litigation. The risk of lawsuits compels employers to increasingly default to the safest legal options rather than to the best outcomes for participants, thereby directly limiting potential returns.
Even if you set aside litigation, the deeper issue is structural. The retirement system hasn't kept pace with the evolution of capital markets.
The proposed rule from the Department of Labor deserves serious attention. At its core, the rule introduces a safe-harbor framework for evaluating "designated investment alternatives" in defined-contribution plans. The definition encompasses everything from traditional mutual funds to more complex vehicles, including those that can incorporate private assets.
The framework is asset-neutral. It outlines how fiduciaries should choose. Plan sponsors are obligated to evaluate investments using a set of common-sense factors: fees, performance, liquidity, valuation, benchmarks, and complexity. If they do so objectively and analytically, they are presumed to meet their fiduciary obligations.
The White House's Council of Economic Advisers suggests that younger participants could benefit from allocating up to 30 percent of their portfolios to private markets. Institutional investors have approached portfolio construction using private markets for decades.
Yet parts of the proposed rule undermine that very goal. A 15 percent cap on private assets, derived from SEC Rule 22e-4, would limit exposure, a particular problem for collective investment trusts, which are regulated differently and historically operated without such constraints.
Angela Antonelli offers helpful insights. Georgetown Univerisity's research from the Center for Retirement Initiatives and other CRI analysis, even relatively modest exposure to private real assets, private credit, and private equity has the potential to boost outcomes by 7% to 8%, not just for the "average" DC participant but also across a range of more real financial savings patterns that DC participants too often find themselves in over the course of their working years.
Large institutions, from university endowments to public pension funds, routinely invest in private markets and reap the benefits of diversification and higher returns. We've created two classes of retirement savers: those with access to the full spectrum of capital markets, and those without.
That divide is the difference between participating in today's economy and being stuck in a version of it that no longer exists. Retirement policy should be about equipping workers to build wealth in the modern world.
Right now, my 403(b) originated on a promise that has become so antiquated it might be unattainable. Instead of "taxing the rich," can't we just be allowed to invest like them?
Tyler Durden
Sun, 05/24/2026 - 18:40 Close
Sun, 24 May 2026 22:05:00 +0000 Newsom Declares Emergency In Orange County; EPA Head Says Chemical Tank Will "Likely Fail"
Newsom Declares Emergency In Orange County; EPA Head Says Chemical Tank Will "Likely Fail"
The head of the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) said Sunday that a chemical storage tank in Southern California that ha
Read more.....
Newsom Declares Emergency In Orange County; EPA Head Says Chemical Tank Will "Likely Fail"
The head of the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) said Sunday that a chemical storage tank in Southern California that has forced officials to declare an emergency and prompted evacuation orders for tens of thousands residents is likely to fail.
Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the EPA, told CNN’s “State of the Union” program on Sunday that the “most likely scenario” is a “low-volume release” of the tank, where officials will be able to “monitor, neutralize, and contain the threat.”
“The Orange County Fire Authority is working to keep the temperature of the tank down. That is very important,” he said on CNN, referring to the fire department in the Southern California county.
He said keeping the temperature under 85 degrees F is key.
But, as Jack Phillips reports for The Epoch Times, Zeldin warned:
“We’re being told that the tank will fail, but there are different scenarios as to what that means, the most catastrophic scenario being an explosion that results in other tanks to explode . That’s the reason why you see such a big evacuation that’s been done in the surrounding areas.”
“You have all levels of government, local, state, federal, working together. EPA has personnel on the ground, air monitors deployed in the local community,” Zeldin also said.
“We have been involved in the modeling of different scenarios.”
Drones were monitoring temperatures at 10-minute intervals to watch for any spikes and planning was underway to ensure a possible leak could quickly be prevented from spreading into waterways or the ocean, Covey said in a video released online.
“Sitting back and allowing these tanks to fail is unacceptable,” Covey said, adding there was no guarantee tanks will not breach and leak.
“Our goal is to protect your homes—no damage to them—and protect the environment.”
As of Sunday morning, Zeldin said : “This is an emergency response. This isn’t yet an environmental response, and the scale of that environmental response will be determined based off of what happens when that tank fails.”
As a result of these warnings, Phillips reports that California Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency in Orange County.
“The safety of Orange County residents is the top priority. We are mobilizing every state resource available to support local responders and make sure the community has what they need to stay safe,” Newsom said.
The malfunctioning tank holds approximately 5,000 to 7,000 gallons of methyl methacrylate, a flammable and volatile chemical used in plastics manufacturing for aerospace applications.
The tank, located at a manufacturing facility in Garden Grove, first started displaying signs of instability on Thursday.
On Friday, there were increased fears of an explosion, according to Orange County Fire Authority interim Chief TJ McGovern.
Approximately 50,000 residents were evacuated in Garden Grove, which is home to around 172,000 people and located 30 miles south of Los Angeles.
The governor’s proclamation directs all state agencies and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services to support Orange County and impacted areas, and unlocks additional emergency response resources and authorities.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 05/24/2026 - 18:05 Close
Sun, 24 May 2026 21:30:00 +0000 Bubble-Wrapped World: How Safety Culture Has Destroyed Our Sense Of Adventure
Bubble-Wrapped World: How Safety Culture Has Destroyed Our Sense Of Adventure
Bubble-Wrapped World: How Safety Culture Has Destroyed Our Sense Of Adventure
Authored by Murray Lytle via The Epoch Times,
Are Canadians less adventurous than they once were? It’s hard to argue otherwise.
Alexander Mackenzie was only 24 when the North West Company named him chief fur trader at Fort Chipewyan, in what is now Alberta. A few years later, in 1789 he travelled north along what is now known as the Mackenzie River to become the first European to reach the Arctic Ocean overland. Four years later he crossed the Rocky Mountains and was the first European to reach the Pacific Ocean, beating Americans Merriweather Lewis and William Clark by a full dozen years.
In 1898, Martha Purdy arrived in Dawson City to escape a failed marriage and make her fortune in the Klondike Gold Rush. It was while climbing the notorious Chilkoot Pass that she discovered she was pregnant with her third son. She later remarried and, as Martha Black, was the second woman to be elected to Canada’s Parliament. She was also a successful entrepreneur and a world-renowned expert on wild flowers.
Canadian history is filled with tales such as these. Explorers, soldiers, settlers, and other restless souls who endured great hardships and did great things.
There is a natural sense of awe that arises when retelling such lives filled with adventure. To our modern selves, they appear as fascinating aberrations, gifted men and women with unusual appetites for risky or dangerous undertakings. Their willingness to set out into the unknown strikes us today as thrilling, unnerving, and more than a bit foolhardy. But while their accomplishments may be striking, they lived in more adventurous times.
Today, society shrinks from adventure and the unknown.
Through a combination of practical circumstances, changing social standards, and dramatic shifts in individual risk tolerance and government behaviour, opportunities for adventure have been drastically curtailed.
How can Canadians get that sense of adventurousness back?
“An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered”, G.K. Chesterton once wrote . “An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered.” There is a case to be made that adventures are simply harder to come by these days.
There are no more blank spaces left on maps, and hence no places for modern-day Mackenzies to discover.
The omnipresence of the internet and GPS similarly makes it almost impossible to get truly lost anymore. And if you do, help is usually close at hand.
Beyond these practical limitations, however, it seems incontestable that society today is less interested in promoting, facilitating, or participating in adventurous life experiences.
No one talks of running away with the circus or joining the French Foreign Legion anymore, even in jest. According to Statistics Canada, twice as many millennials are still living at home as was the case with previous generations. And if any of these young adults do go away, it’s more than likely to be an adventureless “gap year” holiday between graduate degrees recorded in minute detail on Snapchat and Instagram.
The perpetual childhood of today’s younger generations contrasts sharply with the youthful accomplishments of past eras. William Wilberforce, for example, was elected to the British Parliament at age 21 and then proved instrumental in ending the trans-Atlantic slave trade. His friend William Pitt became Prime Minister at 24, and spent his career fighting the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, who became a general at 24. Quite a lot can be accomplished when one starts early.
Other factors that limit the availability of adventure in our post-modern era include the suffocating impact of the welfare state. When Mackenzie left his family home at 15 to become an apprentice in the fur industry, it was because he had little choice. He needed to make his way in the world as a teenager. The same urgency applied to Black when she decided to escape a failed marriage by travelling to the Yukon. With no government to hold your hand, adventure follows. Popular culture in earlier eras also did its bit as well by celebrating explorers and adventurers as celebrities in the same manner that we laud singers and athletes today.
Just as adventure was once regarded as a social virtue to be admired, society today aggressively enforces the opposite expectation—that it is our duty to avoid risk at all costs. In their 2021 book “The Coddling of the American Mind ,” social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and lawyer Greg Lukianoff take a close look at the impact of a creeping safety culture on the behaviour of younger generations.
Children, the authors observed, are now deliberately shielded from any sense of risk or uncertainty. How can anyone—young boys most of all—learn about the world around them when school principals announce at the onset of every snowfall that “all snow must stay on the ground.” The ideal of adventure and resilience has been replaced by a debilitating sense of fragility and risk-avoidance.
So is the dream of looking over an untravelled horizon that animated people like Alexander Mackenzie or Martha Black completely dead in the 21st century? Not exactly.
Adventure should properly be considered a spirit, not a place.
It is driven by a powerful mixture of curiosity, necessity, and an openness to experiencing new things. And it can be found wherever uncertainty reigns. Today, that might entail travelling to strange lands, meeting new people, or even engaging in uncomfortable discussions about whether Alberta should remain part of Canada forever.
Wherever the unknown lies, adventure can be found.
Tyler Durden
Sun, 05/24/2026 - 17:30 Close