The chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee is urging the Justice Department to ask federal courts to dismiss with prejudice all prior criminal prosecutions against President Donald Trump, putting a permanent end to a 10-year legal assault by the Obama-Biden era FBI against the man twice elected president by the American people.

“It’s probably time that this all just ended,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Wednesday night after Just the News reported new documents it obtained revealed the FBI at the end of the Biden presidency secretly took the rare step of preserving evidence from a dismissed January 6 prosecution until 2030, raising alarm the bureau could revive its prosecution after Trump leaves office.

The agents in the controversial Arctic Frost case also wrote a new memo insisting they believed Trump violated laws, creating a fresh roadmap for prosecution after Trump’s presidential immunity from prosecution ends in 2029.

Jordan, who played a crucial role in debunking Russia collusion allegations against Trump and chronicling FBI abuses in the targeting of conservative figures since 2016, reacted to the report by saying Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche should declare “this thing is done, over with. A-B see you later.”

He said DOJ asking the courts to discard all prior prosecutions with prejudice — meaning they couldn’t be re-filed — was “the right approach.”

“When you think about what’s it now been over 10 years? I mean, remember this all started when we learned here from your good reporting and other good work, that we’ve learned that the whole thing was a hoax from the beginning when they used the (Steele) dossier that was manufactured and paid for by the Clinton campaign and all that. So, yeah, it’s probably time that this is all just ended,” he said,

FBI Director Kash Patel told Just the News the decision — before he took over the bureau — to keep evidence from the dismissed Arctic Frost prosecution was wrong, abusive and not normal FBI procedure. He noted the special FBI unit that worked on the case has been disbanded,

“The American people deserve to know how this egregious weaponization of power to target political opponents and President Trump happened inside an institution meant to protect them,” Patel said. “We shut down the weaponized CR-15 squad, and we are going to keep following the facts until there is full accountability. The FBI exists to protect the country, not to preserve political prosecutions for a future administration.”

The FBI memos and emails closing out the controversial Arctic Frost investigation – obtained by Just the News – show the bureau chose not to relinquish the evidence it gathered after Smith went to court to dismiss charges against Trump, even though that is the normal practice for agents. Instead, they created a preservation order keeping the evidence in FBI custody for two years after Trump’s second term ends, claiming it was necessary to do so because of ongoing litigation, the memos show.

FBI emails and memos obtained by Just the News dating back to early 2025 show how the FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors who had been working on the criminal prosecutions aimed at Trump and his allies worked to close the 2020 election-related case against the incoming president, while also seemingly leaving open the door for the criminal case to be revived once Trump leaves office and a Democrat again holds the reins at the Justice Department.

“The American people deserve to know how this egregious weaponization of power to target political opponents and President Trump happened inside an institution meant to protect them,” FBI Director Kash Patel told Just the News. “We shut down the weaponized CR-15 squad, and we are going to keep following the facts until there is full accountability. The FBI exists to protect the country, not to preserve political prosecutions for a future administration.”

Following Trump’s victory in November 2024 over Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, Special Counsel Jack Smith sought to dismiss his January 6 related case against Trump “without prejudice” – leaving open the possibility that the charges could be refiled in the future.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, appointed to the federal bench by President Barack Obama, pointed to the Office of Legal Counsel’s position that a sitting president could not be prosecuted by his own DOJ and granted Smith’s request to dismiss the case without prejudice.

One of the key “Case Closing” documents obtained by Just the News – originating from the FBI’s Washington Field Office’s CR-15 team – was dated a couple of weeks into Trump’s second term, on February 5, 2025, when many holdover FBI agents and leaders were still in place.

The newly-released closing document from early 2025 repeated the extensive claims of criminality against Trump, which had been pursued by Smith and the bureau, and it sought to retain all of the evidence for a half decade until at least February 2030, when Trump would be a former president once more and thus when the DOJ guidance prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting president would no longer be in force.

The document was titled “Arctic Frost – Election Law Matters – Sensitive Investigative Matter” and its synopsis was “To Document the Closing of Captioned Investigation.” The listed enclosures buttressing the document were a “Deputy Special Counsel Concurrence” and the “Retention of Evidence Approval.”

The FBI record states, “This Electronic Communication seeks approval to close the captioned full Sensitive Investigative Matter investigation” and argued that “because this was a SIM opened by a Field Office and involved a presidential candidate, the same level of approval required to open the investigation is also required to close the investigation.”

Evidence released last year showed that then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, then-Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, and then-FBI Director Christopher Wray signed off on the launch of the Arctic Frost inquiry into Trump related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

Garland also quickly said he “personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant” for the FBI’s unprecedented raid of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in 2022. The Biden White House was also directly linked to the classified documents investigation into Trump, despite its denials, previously-released records show.

“The approval roles on this closing EC match those of the opening EC and, as such, Washington Field Office is seeking approval up to and including the Director of the FBI to close this investigation,” the newly released FBI document said.

The document included a “Summary of the Results of the Investigation” into Trump, which had been pursued by Smith and the FBI, arguing that “the captioned FBI investigation was opened based on specific and articulable facts and circumstances that individuals affiliated with Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (the ‘Trump Campaign’) engaged in activity that violated federal law.”

The FBI memo alleged that “the investigation revealed that when Donald J. Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, he resorted to crimes to try to stay in office. With various co-conspirators, Trump launched a series of plans to overturn the legitimate election results in seven states that he had lost – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.”

The bureau record also alleged that “Trump and his co-conspirators used knowingly false claims of election fraud in furtherance of three conspiracies: 1) a conspiracy to interfere with the federal government function by which the nation collects and counts election results, which is set forth in the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act; 2) a conspiracy to obstruct the official proceeding in which Congress certifies the legitimate results of the presidential election; and 3) a conspiracy against the rights of millions of Americans to vote and have their votes counted.”

The section on the “Disposition of Evidence” related to Smith’s anti-Trump investigation argued that “this investigation is subject to a litigation hold and is on the freeze list; as a result, no evidence can be returned or destroyed and must be retained.”

The FBI memo said that FBI assistant special agent in charge approval “to retain all evidence notwithstanding closure” of the case was obtained “as required” by the FBI’s Field Evidence Management Policy Guide.

“The Retention EC specifies that the evidence will be retained until at least February 1, 2030, but in no case prior to the lift of the freeze and litigation hold and that the Special Counsel’s Office concurred with the retention of evidence,” the FBI memo said.

John Solomon, Just the News

by John Mac Ghlionn, opinion contributor – 01/16/26 1:00 PM ET

Exhaustion helps explain why ideas once treated as radioactive — socialism, in particular — are now discussed less as utopian fantasies and more as possible exits from a stalled national project.

For younger Americans, the appeal is less ideological romance than hunger… They face unaffordable rents, unstable work, medical debt and student loans that metastasize faster than they can be paid down…

When people can’t eat, can’t save and can’t think clearly, the abstractions of “free markets” lose their magic. Systems are judged not by theory but by outcomes. Right now, the outcomes for average Americans are brutal.

This is where figures like Zohran Mamdani come in…

To many on the right, he sounds like a revolutionary… But to many voters in New York City and beyond, he sounds less like a radical than someone asking why, in the richest country on earth, basic material security is still treated as a provocation.

Mamdani’s upset victory in New York has already begun to reverberate far beyond America’s cultural capital…His win has boosted membership in the Democratic Socialists of America and emboldened activists who see confirmation that openly socialist policies — especially on housing and affordability — can win elections…

Younger Americans are less committed to capitalism, not because they have read Marx, but because capitalism, as currently practiced, has written them out of the story…

“Drain the swamp” became a punchline, then a lie, then background noise. What was drained was not corruption but trust. Power did not disappear; it simply reorganized itself around loyalty tests and personal whim. Contracts flowed to friends. Grievance replaced governance. The market was supposed to be free. Instead, it has become selectively generous.

President Trump didn’t invent these problems, but he marked the point at which patience finally ran out. Three years remain in his term, yet many Americans barely tolerate another news cycle.

Burnout is bipartisan. Republicans are visibly trapped — beholden to his moods, his grudges, his erratic behavior. The party’s future is held hostage by one man’s appetite for attention. This bears little resemblance to the conservatism Americans have historically known. It mirrors the logic of strongman politics, privileging loyalty over institutions and performance over principle. On its current trajectory, the Trump stain will not wash out easily.

Against this backdrop, democratic socialism benefits from contrast. It does not promise perfection. Rather, it promises provision. Health care as a right. Housing as infrastructure. Food as a baseline, not a luxury. To critics, it reads as a free-for-all. To those living on the edge, it sounds like survival. When the choice is between vague warnings about inefficiency and concrete relief from daily stress, people choose the latter.

President Trump didn’t invent these problems, but he marked the point at which patience finally ran out. Three years remain in his term, yet many Americans barely tolerate another news cycle.

Dark humor creeps in here. Capitalism’s defenders warn that socialism leads to breadlines, while millions already queue at food banks under capitalism’s watch. The joke writes itself, and it’s not funny. A system that preaches incentives but can’t deliver basic security loses the right to be taken seriously, however elegant its spreadsheets.

This does not mean Americans have forgotten history. Early communal experiments in Jamestown and Plymouth collapsed under the weight of shared ownership and diluted responsibility. Private property, incentive, and reward changed the trajectory of those settlements. That lesson still matters. Democratic socialism, at least in its American form, is not proposing the abolition of markets or ownership. It is proposing guardrails — floors beneath which people should not fall, ceilings on how much public misery can be tolerated in the name of private gain.

The distinction is often lost on those who hear “socialism” and immediately reach for a familiar cautionary tale. But the word has shifted. For many young Americans, it no longer signals total state control, but the state doing something — anything — to make hard work feel like progress rather than stasis.

Whether socialism ultimately prevails is uncertain. What is clear is why it now commands attention. It feeds off frustration, yes, but also off disappointment — in a capitalism that feels captured, in a right that promised renewal and delivered repetition, with leaders who talk up a “strong economy” while wallets stay empty.

If capitalism wants to keep the franchise, it needs fewer speeches and better outcomes. Until then, socialism will look less like an ideology and more like a reaction to failure.

John Mac Ghlionn is a writer and researcher who explores culture, society and the impact of technology on daily life.

EV Pollution: Converting the World to EVs Would Be an Environmental Disaster

In 2024, President Biden said he wanted 56% of all new cars sold in the United States to be electric vehicles by 2032. California Governor Gavin Newsom similarly mandated that 35% of new 2026 model cars sold in the state be zero-emissions vehicles, rising to 68% in 2030 and 100% in 2035.

The European Union announced in 2023 that, from 2035 onward, all new cars coming onto the market could not emit any CO2. The United Kingdom similarly announced a 2030 ban on the sale of new diesel and petrol cars.

The reaction from the U.S. auto industry was blunt. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation said it “will take a miracle” for all states following California’s rules to reach 100% new zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035.

They are correct. The environmental impact would be devastating. The people claiming to save the world with electric cars could end up destroying it.

Replacing every vehicle on Earth with an EV, all 1.5 to 1.6 billion of them, would be effectively impossible. There are not enough minerals to manufacture all of the batteries required. In addition, there is not enough global processing capacity, and such a transition would require incredible amounts of labor. Many of these minerals are already being mined by children and by workers laboring under hazardous and toxic conditions that amount to modern slavery.

Across every dimension examined, the answer is the same: a simultaneous global conversion to EVs is physically impossible and would cause environmental and humanitarian damage that rivals or exceeds the problems it claims to solve.

A standard 75 kWh NMC battery pack requires approximately 9 kg of lithium, 13 kg of cobalt, 40 kg of nickel, 25 kg of manganese, and 66 kg of graphite per vehicle. Copper and aluminum are also required for the battery casing, current collectors, and wiring. Multiply those figures across 1.5 billion vehicles and the total mineral demand runs to roughly 13.5 million metric tons of lithium, 19.5 million metric tons of cobalt, 60 million metric tons of nickel, 37.5 million metric tons of manganese, and 99 million metric tons of graphite.

Cobalt is the binding constraint. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) confirmed reserves stand at roughly 11 million metric tons. A full NMC conversion would require nearly double the entire known reserve base before a single battery reaches a recycling facility. Lithium is the second pressure point: confirmed reserves of 28 million metric tons mean fleet demand alone consumes nearly half of all known lithium, before accounting for grid-scale energy storage or consumer electronics. Graphite reserves of 290 million metric tons and confirmed nickel reserves of around 130 million metric tons are less immediately catastrophic, but a global conversion would still consume a third of graphite reserves and nearly half of nickel. Only manganese, with roughly 1.5 billion metric tons of reserves, clears the demand figure with room to spare.

Battery chemistry is shifting toward lithium iron phosphate. LFP batteries grew from 19% of global market share in 2020 to 55% in 2025, eliminating cobalt and nickel from the cathode. This converts an impossible geological equation into a marginally feasible one, but does not solve the supply chain problem. It just relocates it. Over 98% of LFP cathode material and battery cells are produced in China. Trading cobalt dependence on the DRC for total battery dependence on China substitutes one crisis for another.

Before any mineral reaches a factory, it must be extracted, and the extraction burden is staggering. Production of a single NMC battery requires mining an average of 91 to 607 tonnes of rock. At the midpoint, converting 1.5 billion vehicles implies moving somewhere between 136 billion and 910 billion tonnes of earth, an excavation with no historical precedent. Lithium extraction uses approximately 500,000 gallons of water per metric ton. In Chile’s Salar de Atacama, mining has consumed 65% of the region’s water, forcing some communities to import water entirely.

In Nevada, researchers found damage to fish populations 150 miles downstream from a lithium processing operation. South America’s Lithium Triangle holds more than half the world’s lithium beneath some of the driest terrain on earth; scaling extraction to global fleet demand would accelerate desertification across ecosystems already under severe hydrological stress.

Cobalt compounds the damage with pollution and documented human rights violations. Extraction in the DRC has driven widespread deforestation and soil erosion. Toxic byproducts, arsenic, lead, cadmium, and sulfuric acid, leach into rivers and lakes. An estimated 40,000 children are involved in DRC cobalt mining, some as young as seven, working under unsafe conditions, with elevated cobalt levels in their blood and measurable DNA damage.

The U.S. Department of Labor placed cobalt ore from the DRC on its List of Goods Produced by Child Labor in 2009; the practice persists today. About 80% of industrial cobalt mines in the DRC are owned or financed by Chinese companies. A global EV conversion would multiply cobalt demand by orders of magnitude, meaning the humanitarian disaster in the DRC would have to expand in proportion.

Indonesia’s nickel boom illustrates a separate feedback loop. The rapid buildout of nickel smelting, financed and operated largely by Chinese companies, relies on coal-powered processing facilities carved through tropical rainforest. Overall coal demand for non-power uses grew in 2024, driven by coal-intensive sectors including nickel production in Indonesia. This means that manufacturing the batteries intended to reduce fossil fuel dependence is itself increasing coal combustion in the country, becoming the world’s dominant nickel supplier. The EV supply chain and the coal economy are functioning within the same system.

Manufacturing 1.5 billion battery packs is itself a massive carbon event before a single vehicle moves. An EV has roughly double the production carbon footprint of a comparable internal combustion vehicle. Producing a 75 kWh battery pack alone emits more than seven tonnes of CO2-equivalent. At the manufacturing phase, a battery electric vehicle carries slightly more than 12 tonnes of CO2-equivalent against about 8 tonnes for an ICE vehicle.

Across 1.5 billion vehicles, the manufacturing carbon debt runs to between 6 and 10.5 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent generated before a wheel turns. Global energy-sector CO2 emissions run to approximately 40.8 gigatons per year; replacing the entire global fleet front-loads the equivalent of several months of total global emissions into the manufacturing phase alone.

Proponents argue EVs recover this debt through lower operational emissions as grids decarbonize. That argument depends on the grid being substantially cleaner than combustion. In much of the world it is not. In 2025, approximately 58% of China’s electricity came from fossil fuels, with coal accounting for just under 55%. A Chinese EV running on that grid is, in energy terms, a coal-powered vehicle with added transmission losses.

The mineral and manufacturing dependencies represent a structural vulnerability with no near-term substitute. China currently accounts for almost two-thirds of global lithium processing, 75% of cobalt processing, 95% of manganese processing, and nearly all graphite processing capacity. Minerals mined in Australia, Chile, the DRC, Indonesia, and Canada largely pass through Chinese processing facilities before reaching a battery factory anywhere in the world.

Trending: Federal Appeals Court Blocks Trump’s $83 Million Payment to E Jean Carroll

CATL alone commanded roughly 36 to 38% of the global EV battery market in 2025, while BYD supplied close to 18%, giving Chinese firms a combined share exceeding 70%. South Korean firms, LG Energy Solution, SK On, and Samsung SDI, have seen their share eroded as Chinese producers undercut them on cost and scale.

The consequence is that a global EV fleet would have no redundancy. When there is an oil shock, the world draws on alternative suppliers across dozens of producing nations. A battery supply crisis offers no equivalent diversification. A deliberate Chinese export restriction on processed graphite or refined lithium, restrictions Beijing has already begun testing, or any exogenous disruption to Chinese industrial capacity, would leave Western manufacturers with no viable substitute supply chain. Investment momentum in critical mineral development weakened in 2024, with real investment growth of just 2%, meaning the alternative supply chains that would provide redundancy are not being built at the pace required.

The mineral arithmetic for cobalt alone rules out a full NMC conversion without consuming reserves that do not exist. Shifting to LFP avoids the cobalt wall but surrenders the supply chain to China. The manufacturing phase front-loads billions of tonnes of carbon emissions.

The mining required would devastate water supplies across the Andes, accelerate deforestation in Central Africa and Indonesia, and expand a child labor system the U.S. government has documented for fifteen years without resolution.

In short, the proposition of replacing every vehicle on Earth with an EV fails on every material dimension, and ironically, it would decimate the environment.

Antonio Graceffo

Dr. Antonio Graceffo, PhD, China MBA, is an economist and national security analyst with a focus on China and Russia. He is a graduate of American Military University.

Gateway Pundit

A report from the Congressional Budget Office said that space-based interceptors, which do not currently exist, would probably consume 60 percent of the total cost.

A national missile defense system like President Trump’s proposed “Golden Dome” could cost taxpayers $1.2 trillion over 20 years, according to a government report issued on Tuesday.

To protect the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii would require four separate layers of defensive assets, the analysis said, including several thousand satellites as well as a half-dozen radar and missile sites to engage intercontinental ballistic missiles and 35 new regional sites to defend against hypersonic missiles and cruise missiles.

Even if the system is built, the report concluded, an adversary like Russia or China that has a large arsenal of nuclear weapons could overwhelm it and some missiles would hit their targets.

The estimate was provided by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office using an executive order issued by Mr. Trump in January 2025 as a blueprint.

Mr. Trump has vowed to build a defense system similar to Israel’s Iron Dome, with air defense capabilities that intercept rockets and missiles. He estimated that the project would cost $175 billion.

The budget office report found that the “space-based interceptors” the president envisions — satellites armed with missiles orbiting the planet — would consume about 60 percent of the cost.

The C.B.O. assumed that countering as many as 10 enemy intercontinental ballistic missiles in space simultaneously could require a constellation of roughly 7,800 armed satellites.

To be effective, such space-based interceptors, the C.B.O. said, would need to be placed in low orbit where they would be subject to drag from the planet’s atmosphere — which over a five-year span could cause them to lose enough altitude that they would burn up and need to be replaced.

Tom Karako, a missile defense expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the C.B.O. report makes several assumptions about the project, including the number and types of space-based interceptors that would be required

“They don’t know what Golden Dome will cost, and to their credit, they say so,” he said.

No air defense system can protect the entire country all the time, Mr. Karako said, adding that the government would rank critical assets that would require the highest level of protection.

The advent of precision-guided conventional — or nonnuclear — weapons capable of hitting strategic targets inside the United States is a major part of what the Golden Dome plan is meant to address, according to Mr. Karako.

In the past, the only weapons capable of intercontinental ranges contained nuclear warheads, he said, and their use would invite a counterattack. But an attack on the United States with conventional guided weapons could achieve a similar strategic effect without necessarily triggering nuclear retaliation, a scenario the Golden Dome is designed — in part — to defeat, Mr. Karako said.

The C.B.O. report did not estimate the cost of protecting U.S. territories specifically but said the territory of Guam, a small island in the western Pacific that hosts Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy bases, was slated to receive “an extensive system of integrated defenses” outside of the Golden Dome project.

American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands in the Pacific and Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands in the Caribbean could potentially be protected by separate regional missile defense sites, the report says.

In December, the Congressional Research Service said in a report that some lawmakers had expressed concern that, if built, the Golden Dome could invite Russia and China to increase their nuclear arsenals in response.

The report noted that the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which the United States and the Soviet Union signed in 1972, and that Russia later honored, precluded the development of antimissile systems like the Golden Dome project. But President George W. Bush’s decision to exit the treaty in 2001 paved the way for such a network of defensive missiles

John Ismay,  New York Times

Suppose that you are a large U.S. state with a dynamic modern economy. Here’s an idea for a strategy for powering your electrical grid: Intentionally disinvest in your functioning fossil fuel generation plants; fail to maintain them adequately, and let them age into obsolescence. Meanwhile, encourage and even subsidize the development of solar panels as a replacement. After all, solar power is cheaper!

Those who follow the policy of New York State with respect to our electrical grid will recognize this description as covering the essential elements of our strategy. In our case, the strategy was mainly enacted into law in 2019 via the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA).

In heading down this path, have we checked around to see what other states or countries have adopted this strategy, and how it has worked out? Just asking.

Let’s start with a quick review of New York’s currently-existing strategy for its grid.

Today, the State gets something over half of its electricity from fossil fuels, almost entirely natural gas, with most of the remainder from hydro (mostly Niagara Falls) and nuclear. The CLCPA contains mandates that that shall change, and rapidly. Section 4 of the CLCPA (codified as Public Service Law § 66-p(2)) mandates that the State get “seventy percent of the state wide electric generation” from “renewable energy systems” by 2030, and that by 2040 “the statewide electrical demand system will be zero emissions.”

These mandates are then administered by state agencies, particularly the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). If you want to build a new power plant in New York, or do a major capital project on an existing plant (such as re-powering a natural gas plant with the latest combined cycle technology), you need to get a permit from DEC. Section 7 of the CLCPA gives the following direction to DEC (and other agencies) with respect to issuing permits:

[A]ll state agencies shall consider whether such decisions are inconsistent with, or will interfere with, the attainment of the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits. . . .

Back in 2021, two aging natural gas plants — the Astoria plant in Queens and the Danskammer plant along the Hudson River in Orange County — sought permits from DEC to re-power to the latest natural gas technology. DEC denied the permits, citing the CLCPA. From Politico, October 27, 2021:

Gov. Kathy Hochul’s administration has made a landmark move to deny permits for two natural gas plants seeking to repower, citing the state’s climate law. The Department of Environmental Conservation denied permits for NRG’s Astoria plant and the Danskammer plant in Orange County. Both plants were seeking to repower with more efficient natural gas units than their previous operations. The decisions were embraced by environmentalists who have been pushing for years to block the fossil fuel projects. . . . “Both [plants] would be inconsistent with New York’s nation-leading climate law, and are not justified or needed for grid reliability. We must shift to a renewable future,” wrote DEC Commissioner Basil Seggos on Twitter.

Since then, as far as I can determine, nobody has wasted the effort to try to get DEC to go along with a project to build or upgrade a fossil fuel power plant. As a result, the existing fleet has just gotten older. In its “Power Trends” Report issued in late 2025, the New York ISO described the state of New York’s aging fleet of fossil fuel power plants:

A growing number of fossil-fuel generators in New York are reaching an age at which similar units across the country have been deactivated. New York’s fleet of fossil-fuel-based generation includes more than 10,000 MW, roughly 25% of the state’s total generating capacity, that has been in operation for more than 50 years. As these fossil-fuel generators age, they are experiencing more frequent and longer outages. Greater difficulties in maintaining older equipment, combined with the impact of policies to restrict or eliminate emissions may drive aging generators to deactivate, which would exacerbate declining reliability margins.

“Declining reliability margins” is a polite way of saying “increasing frequency and duration of blackouts.”

With hydro already built out, and new nuclear taking decades to come online, that leaves wind and solar as the main plan for the future of New York’s electricity. In the case of wind, New York’s grand scheme was a vast collection of some 9 GW capacity of giant turbines off the coast of Long Island. However, that has been almost entirely scuttled by the Trump administration. And thus we are down to our last option, solar. The brain-dead cheerleading agency known as NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research & Development Agency) has this to say about solar for New York as of early 2026:

More than six gigawatts (GW) of solar energy has been installed in New York State – enough to power one million homes and businesses. This robust solar energy infrastructure enables a resilient electric grid that supports local jobs, healthier communities, and access to renewable energy for more New Yorkers. . . . By 2030, New York is expected to be home to more than 10 GW of distributed solar energy.

So by 2030, if we’re lucky, we’ll have the same fleet of natural gas plants, yet four years older than today and, as NYISO says, “experiencing more frequent and longer outages”; plus about 10 GW of solar capacity, to supply about 20 GW of average demand, and about 35 GW of peak demand that typically occurs in the evening after the sun has set.

Has any other state or country tried following the same strategy? Some big countries like Germany and the UK have started down this road. But if the key elements are forcing the thermal plants to age into obsolescence while having mostly solar as the alternative, the closest analogy I can find is Cuba.

Cuba has about 4000 MW of thermal (fossil fuel) electricity generating capacity, in their case almost all using oil rather than natural gas. The plants were almost all built from the 1960s to 1980s — the Soviet era — so they range in age from just under 40 years to over 60. Peak demand is around 3250 MW, so you would think that with the 4000 MW of capacity they have enough. But the plants are old and unreliable, and frequently down for extended maintenance and repairs.

Here’s a report from a source called Ciber Cuba on how Cuba’s electricity system is doing this very day. The headline is “The energy crisis in Cuba worsens: nearly 2,000 MW deficit during peak hours.” Excerpt:

Cuba faces one of the most critical days of its already devastated electrical crisis this Tuesday, with a projected deficit of 1,960 MW during peak nighttime hours, according to the official report from the Electric Union (UNE). The report reveals that at 06:00 hours today, the availability of the National Electric System (SEN) was only 1,250 MW against a demand of 2,884 MW, with 1,649 MW already affected since the early morning. The situation is expected to worsen as night falls. The UNE estimates a supply of 1,290 MW against a peak demand of 3,250 MW, resulting in a deficit of 1,960 MW and a projected impact of 1,990 MW during peak hours, equivalent to leaving almost two-thirds of the country without electricity.

So basically, two-thirds of the country is in forced blackout at any given time. Recent fuel shortages resulting from the U.S. embargo that began in January undoubtedly are a contributing factor to the crisis. However, Ciber Cuba points out that just as big a problem is that many of the aging power plants are out of service:

[A]ccumulated breakdowns partly explain the collapse. Units two and three of the Ernesto Guevara de la Serna Thermoelectric Power Plant (CTE), unit two of the Lidio Ramón Pérez CTE, and unit five of the Antonio Maceo CTE are out of service, while four other units are undergoing maintenance at the Mariel, Renté, and Nuevitas plants.

More availability of oil would not have helped with those outages. And the electricity situation in Cuba was nearly as bad last year, before the fuel supply from Venezuela got cut off. Here is a report from Al-Jazeera from September 2025:

Another total electricity blackout has struck Cuba, the latest in a string of grid collapses that have rocked the island of 10 million over the past year. The island-wide outage, which hit just after 9am local time on Wednesday, is believed to be linked to a malfunction at one of Cuba’s largest thermoelectric plants, the Ministry of Energy and Mines said.

But doesn’t Cuba have a big collection of solar farms? I thought that, in the words of NYSERDA, “robust solar energy infrastructure enables a resilient electric grid that supports local jobs, healthier communities, and access to renewable energy.” Why not just crank those up to fill the gaps when the fossil fuel plants break down? From the Ciber Cuba piece:

The 54 installed photovoltaic solar parks generated 3,822 MWh on Monday, with a maximum capacity of 490 MW during daylight hours; however, this source does not cover the nighttime deficit, which is when demand peaks.

You mean that all the solar generation that Cuba has built doesn’t provide any light in the nighttime? Who knew? Here from Ciber Cuba is a picture of a Havana street after sunset:

If we keep up our current energy policies for long enough, we can also get to the point where our thermal (fossil fuel) power plants are too old to be maintained reliably. And then, if we are lucky, we can hope to achieve the energy utopia that has arrived in Cuba.

Desperate and facing financial collapse, Hezbollah has developed a detailed plan to seize control of Beirut and silence internal critics of the war with Israel.

Intelligence reports emerging from the Lebanese capital suggest that Hezbollah is preparing for a domestic military takeover to shore up its crumbling authority. The terror organization has reportedly finalized a plan to occupy key sectors of Beirut in an effort to marginalize moderate political figures who have become increasingly vocal in their criticism of the group’s actions. This move comes as the Lebanese public grows weary of a war that has brought the country to the brink of total ruin.

The pressure on Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, Naim Qassem, has reached unprecedented levels. Qassem is currently being forced to split his dwindling military resources between three fronts: the active combat zones in South Lebanon, the logistical hubs in the Bekaa Valley, and the streets of Beirut. This fragmentation of his forces is a direct result of the relentless IDF campaign that has decimated the group’s infrastructure and killed a significant portion of its mid-level leadership.

A primary driver of this internal desperation is the total collapse of Hezbollah’s financial network. Israeli strikes have successfully targeted the group’s economic assets, including banks, currency exchanges, and even gas stations used to fund its operations. Compounding this crisis is the report that Iran has dramatically reduced its direct cash transfers to Lebanon, leaving the terror group unable to support the hundreds of thousands of displaced Shia civilians who traditionally form its base of support.

In the south, the situation for the terror group is even more dire. Major General Rafi Milo of the Northern Command recently presented evidence to Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir showing significant progress in dismantling Hezbollah’s “terror villages.” The IDF’s rapid destruction of tunnels and weapon depots has convinced the Hezbollah leadership that Israel is planning a permanent division of Lebanese territory, a fear that is driving Qassem to make increasingly erratic tactical decisions.

The planned “Conquest of Beirut” is seen as a way for Hezbollah to reassert its dominance and prevent a pro-Western shift in the Lebanese government. Leaders like the Lebanese President and Prime Minister have begun to distance themselves from the group, sensing its weakness. By taking the capital, Hezbollah hopes to intimidate these “pragmatic” forces and ensure that the country remains a frontline in the Iranian war against the West, regardless of the cost to the Lebanese people.

As the economic and military walls close in, the risk of a bloody internal conflict in Lebanon grows. Hezbollah’s transition from a “resistance” force to an occupying militia in its own capital marks a new, more dangerous phase of the regional war. With the Iranian cash flow drying up and the IDF advancing in the south, the terror group is fighting for its very survival, making it more unpredictable and dangerous than ever before.

For the first time in the history of the modern Middle East, Saudi Arabia has crossed a major red line by launching direct military strikes against Iranian targets on Iranian soil. According to reports from Reuters and various Western intelligence sources, the Saudi Air Force conducted a series of secret aerial operations in late March 2026. These strikes were designed as a direct response to persistent Iranian attacks that had successfully bypassed the American military defense umbrella to hit targets inside the Saudi Kingdom.

The operations, while unconfirmed by official government channels in Riyadh, represent a massive escalation in the regional war. For decades, the two powers have fought through proxies in Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq, but the current war has pushed the Saudi leadership to adopt a policy of direct kinetic retaliation. Sources indicate that the decision to strike was born out of a realization that traditional American defense systems were no longer sufficient to deter Tehran’s aggressive drone and missile program.

Before the jets crossed into Iranian airspace, Riyadh took the calculated step of informing Tehran that the strikes were imminent. This was not an attempt to coordinate, but rather a stern warning that the Kingdom would no longer tolerate violations of its sovereignty without a reciprocal price. The message was clear: Iran must halt its direct aggression or face an escalating campaign that would target the regime’s own infrastructure.

The strategic gamble appears to have yielded immediate results on the ground. Data from the region shows that weekly Iranian strikes on Saudi territory plummeted from over 105 incidents to approximately 25 following the Saudi air raids. Faced with the reality of a direct war with a well-equipped neighbor, Iran shifted its remaining attacks to Iraqi proxies to maintain a layer of plausible deniability and avoid further direct attribution and retaliation from Riyadh.

This secret military pressure paved the way for a quiet diplomatic understanding between the two regional giants. Sources report that a deal was reached in the week preceding the broader U.S.-Iran ceasefire on April 7th, 2026. This local arrangement was focused on de-escalation and ensuring that the “rules of engagement” did not lead to a full-scale regional conflagration that would devastate global energy markets.

While the Saudi government maintains a public stance of silence regarding the raids, the message to the international community is unmistakable. The Middle East is moving toward a new era where regional powers are willing to take their security into their own hands rather than relying solely on Western guarantees. As the dust settles from the March strikes, the focus now shifts to whether this fragile peace can hold as international negotiations continue.

There’s an old joke about people who do CrossFit, and it goes something like this: “How do you know when someone does CrossFit? Don’t worry, they’ll tell you!” If you’ve ever encountered an enthusiastic CrossFitter, you know why this joke is so humorous. It seems that all they can talk about is CrossFit and how it has changed their lives. And to a certain extent it has. It has allowed them to train their bodies to maximum effectiveness. The interesting part is that CrossFit’s success is less about some revolutionary training regimen and more about the positive vision it casts and the enthusiasm it generates. The enthusiasm is not simply for the payoff but also the process—as difficult and painful as that process is. As Christians, our attitude toward obedience can become like that of someone dragged to the gym by a well-meaning friend or family member—weary disdain. Instead, we need the same sort of positive vision and enthusiasm for Christlikeness as our CrossFitting friends have for a pullup. Let me therefore give you some positive principles for the pursuit of Christian obedience. Warning

However, we need a quick caveat before we begin. Christian history is littered with those who would try to generate energy for Christian obedience only to find themselves exhausted and enslaved to a relentless master. We do not endeavor after obedience to the Lord that we may be justified before Him. Paul makes this incredibly clear in Ephesians 2:8–9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Well-meaning Christians, afraid that the radically free offer of the gospel will demotivate Christian obedience, have instead placed themselves on a hopeless treadmill of works-righteousness. This path robs them not merely of their joy in obedience but ultimately of their assurance in Christ. Rejoice, Christian, your obedience does not factor into your acceptance into the kingdom. What a freeing truth that is; yet it does not free us from obedience but rather puts us in a right relationship with obedience. For Paul finishes his thought in his letter to the Ephesians with this: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10, emphasis added). Obedience Increases Our Spiritual Fitness

Many Christians have come to believe in their heart of hearts that to obey God’s commands, to kill sin and live unto righteousness, will cause them to resent the Lord and love Him less. This is one of the oldest tricks of Satan to whisper in our ears that we cannot be happy without our pet sin, that we would be miserable if we did not allow ourselves room for this or that transgression of His law. The truth of the matter is quite different. Does killing sin sting? Yes! In the moment, it quite literally feels like death because we are killing something in us. But much like those that tear down their muscles in the gym only for them to come back stronger, more able, more fit for this physical life, tearing down sin in our lives makes us happier, more peaceful, stronger, and more fit for life this side of glory. More importantly, choosing to endeavor after spiritual health now helps to build up our ability to endure under more intense trial and temptation later. Like a soldier in the midst of combat relying on his training and fitness to help him survive, when we are in the habit of obeying God’s Word, we can rely on it when we find ourselves under spiritual attack. When we obediently meditate on God’s Word day and night (Ps. 1:2) we will, like Christ in the wilderness, run to it in the moments of our spiritual affliction (Matt. 4:1–11). When we pray without ceasing (1 Thess. 5:17), we will cry out to the Lord in our darkest hours (Ps. 88). When we don’t neglect the coming together (Heb. 10:24–25), we will have our burdens borne along by one another when we are struggling (Gal. 6:2).

Obedience Increases Our Love

As image bearers, we have three facets by which we are shaped: our thoughts, our feelings, and our actions. At times our feelings lead our thoughts and actions. When they do and they are focused on righteousness, it is often the most efficient way of molding Christlike lives. For example, my heart is swept up by a convicting sermon and thus I endeavor to kill the sin in my life with vigor and enthusiasm. However, the most consistent way to shape our lives is not through affection or feelings but by action. When we act in accordance with Christ’s commands, we are making an internal declaration about our commitment and love of Christ. In one sense Christ’s exhortation in John 14:15 is “Since you love me, you will keep my commands.” And further in John 15:17, “These things I command you, so that you will love one another.” Choosing to act in a way that expresses love helps to fan embers of affection to roaring flames. Further, while our feelings are by their nature dynamic things (changing in their intensity and focus), behavior can be very static—helping to ground our affections and giving them stability. When I choose to read my Bible, pray, and act with the sort of Christian integrity God calls me to, it helps keep my affections grounded in the love God has for me and the love I have for Him. While it is easiest to obey when I feel loving toward God, the truth is I often feel loving toward God because I choose to obey. Let us not grow weary of well doing but with renewed vigor and positive vision run the good race till one day we receive our crown of glory.

Obedience Makes Us Better Witnesses

The world around us is full of folly, selfish ambition, conceit, malice, lust, gluttony, rivalry, and any other sin one can quickly call to mind. Obedience comes across as odious so often because it prevents us from giving into our sinful hearts and looking like the world. Conversely though, when we obey God’s Word (James 1:25), when we bless those who curse us (Rom. 12:14), when we pray even for our enemies (Matt. 5:44), when we go the extra mile (Matt. 5:41), treat all as neighbors (Luke 10:29–37), guard our hearts from sexual immorality (1 Cor. 6:18), put away all slander (Eph. 4:31), etc., our Christian witness shines brightly in this darkened world (Luke 8:16). Having grown up in “the Bible belt,” I found that the thing that made Christianity seem so implausible to me as a kid was not its truth claims but the fact that the people who wore the crosses, went to youth groups, and made the public professions acted no different from the world. Conversely, as an adult I’ve had the opportunity to become close friends with a number of saints who strive day by day after new obedience to the Lord and His Word, and I’ve seen how transformative that is for me, the church, and a watching world. You never know who is watching and when. For some, your obedience may be an offense, pushing them away because they want to live in darkness and not the light (John 3:19). For others your obedience will be a comfort, drawing them in like a moth to the flame (1 Peter 2:9). Either way, when we obey God’s Word, it signals to the world that “there is something different there” that opens the door for genuine gospel-centered conversations and gives the credibility to speak truth into their life. Obedience Is Always Rewarded

We may not see the results of our obedience immediately. In fact, we may not see the results of our obedience fully this side of heaven; yet obedience is always rewarded. Whereas the decisions we make about our earthly riches—whether to invest here or there; whether to take this job or that, etc.—are never guaranteed, our obedience to God and His Word is always rewarded. God promises as much in His Word, for He writes:

The rules of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward. (Ps. 19:9–11)

Christ reminds us that when we are persecuted because of His Word (in other words, when we are persecuted because we obey His Word), great will be our reward in heaven (Matt. 5:11–12). And He further enjoins us to seek that reward and store it up where nothing may destroy it or take it away (Matt. 6:19–20). In a sermon on Romans 2:10, Jonathan Edwards states: “The glory of the saints above will be in some proportion to their eminency in holiness and good works here. Christ will reward all according to their works.” He goes on to describe variation in rewards like the variation in the size of vessels in the sea—a sea of happiness—where some are the size of thimbles and others the size of tubs or more. Our obedience here prepares us to be the ocean liners in the sea of satisfaction available to us one day, and then forever, in glory. Conclusion

Obedience is hard. Make no mistake about it. Yet it need not be drudgery. We are no longer slaves but are free to live as we were created to live and when we do, we find ourselves more spiritually fit, more in love with our God, more able to witness, and more prepared for heaven than we could ever possibly imagine. Let us not grow weary of well doing (Gal. 6:9) but with renewed vigor and positive vision run the good race till one day we receive our crown of glory (1 Peter 5:4).

Sorry, Hillary. Or congrats?

It’s one of the fiercest debates in politics these days: Who is the worst American politician of the 21st century? Some say Hillary Clinton, for obvious reasons. Others insist Kamala Harris is worse, also for obvious reasons.

Correction: It was one of the fiercest debates in politics. For now, the matter has been settled. Kamala is definitely worse. Sorry, Hillary. Or congratulations.

Our analysis is based on a recent NBC News report about Harris’s ongoing flirtation with another presidential run in 2028, among other news items from the past several weeks. The NBC article contains one of the most baffling paragraphs ever written about an American politician who almost became president—not that she could ever win a national election, but because she served four years as vice president under Joe Biden, who was barely alive.

NBC notes that Harris is struggling to articulate what she actually thinks about Israel. She often struggles to express coherent thoughts, but this is different. Democrats have grown increasingly hostile to the Jewish state—for reasons that include toxic empathy, geopolitical ignorance, and antisemitism—and many fault the Biden-Harris administration for being insufficiently supportive of Palestinian terrorism.

Accordingly, a “person close to Harris” tells NBC that a “potential pivot” could be on the horizon. Harris “is signaling privately that she has more to say about the Middle East now that she is freed from the Biden White House policy, this person said, adding that she is likely to do so after the midterm elections,” the outlet reported. “That could be done from the perspective of a party elder or from the perspective of a candidate seeking votes, this person said.”

In summary: A professional politician has authorized an anonymous source to reveal that she plans to weigh in on an issue of heightened political importance roughly six months from now—pending the results of the midterm elections (and assuming those results can confirm that her thoughts on the matter are actually her thoughts).

Why does America have elected officials? If a visiting alien were introduced to the Democratic Party and asked that question, he’d surely say the purpose is to accumulate, consolidate, and hold power. This is the state of that party in 2026.

Of course, this is not a new development. The Democratic Party has been moving from a traditional political group (with a long history of proposing poor ideas) to a mob that wants to rule over the country rather than represent voters, defend the Constitution, and uphold the rule of law.

There’s no better example of this than the tantrum the party is pitching over the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling that broke their effort to gerrymander the state’s congressional districts to eliminate all but one Republican district in a state where more than 46% of the voters pulled the lever for Donald Trump in 2024.

Four of the seven justices found that the Democrats’ “legislative process employed to advance” the voter referendum that approved the new map not only violated the state constitution, but it was “wholly unprecedented in Virginia’s history.”

The headline over George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley’s New York Post op-ed says the ruling suggests the legal slapdown has left the Democrats “dangerous.” Somewhat like a cornered feral beast, we’d said.

Because they didn’t get their way, Democratic Party grandees are reportedly considering retiring the justices on the Virginia Supreme Court and replacing them with justices who will rehear the case and rubber-stamp the new congressional map.

This is outright defiance of a legitimate court ruling. But then we’ve seen how street Democrats, who serve as useful idiots for party apparatchiks, behave when elections and lawmaking don’t go their way: They resort to violence. Laws, traditions, and propriety are flouted rather than followed by the party of the left that moves harder in that direction every day.

Decent people would accept the ruling and try to win seats the honest way, with better policies and candidates that Main Street America would be comfortable with. (It seems Democrat Don Scott, speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, might be one such person — he’s said: “We respect the decision of the Supreme Court of Virginia.”)

Instead, voters are tormented by the likes of:

– James Carville, the infamous Clinton strategist who said “if the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress” after the 2028 elections, “I think on day one, they should make Puerto Rico [and] D.C. a state, and they should expand the Supreme Court to 13.” He advised Democrats to hide their intentions from voters.

– Tennessee State Rep. Antonio Parkinson, who wants Memphis to secede from Tennessee because the new congressional map eliminates the state’s only “black” district (which has been represented by a white male Democrat since 2007). “You don’t have to redraw maps when you let us out,” Parkinson said.

– A series of wannabe presidential assassins, who have acted on the rhetoric that the Democrats and their media confederates have spewed for more than a decade.

What policies do Democrats offer that make it so important for them to have complete political power that they will cheat, steal, and lie to gain full, tyrannical, nothing-outside-the-state control?

None.

The policies that the Democrats line up behind are nothing more than a way to increase the scope of, and their unyielding grip on, the government that they want to run. They yammer on about “no kings,” but that’s what they actually want: A monarchy that has the fig leaf of elections that only they can win and is entirely under their control.

Issues and Insights Editorial Board