A lesbian minister at James Talarico’s longtime church doubts Jesus ever existed, rejects the virgin birth, and believes Christ “didn’t die to save our sins,” according to undercover footage obtained by The Daily Wire.

Rev. Babs Miller, minister to the parish at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, flatly rejected core tenets of the Christian faith, even as fellow congregant James Talarico, the Democratic Senate nominee, routinely invokes his fringe view of the Gospel to appeal to voters in the Bible Belt’s largest state.

Speaking to an undercover journalist, Miller was caught saying she believes the virgin birth was made up while describing her approach to religion as similar to a 12-step program: “Take what you want and leave the rest.”

“Mary and the Virgin Birth comes out of the pagan belief that the gods came down and impregnated people,” Miller told the undercover journalist. “We have no way of knowing if Jesus really existed any more than we have of knowing that the original Buddha ever existed. And whether or not Jesus existed doesn’t really matter to me.”

But among mainstream historians, there is near-universal agreement that Jesus of Nazareth existed and was a historical figure, regardless of whether those scholars are Christian, Jewish, agnostic, atheist, or otherwise. Within decades of His lifetime, Jewish and Roman historians mentioned Jesus, providing independent evidence for aspects of the New Testament’s account of His life and crucifixion, according to history.com.

“It could have all been made up, for all I know,” Miller said in the footage. “The God in the Old Testament is not a loving God; it’s a vengeful, killing-people kind of God. This is a lot of mythology.”

Historians almost universally agree that Jesus was a real person who walked the earth around 2,000 years ago. Eric Meyers, an archaeologist and emeritus professor of Judaic studies at Duke University, said: “I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus.”

“The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure,” Meyers told National Geographic.

Miller’s church bio says she has been part of the St. Andrew’s community since the mid-1990s and was ordained there in 2014 as an “out” lesbian chaplain. She retired shortly before the COVID pandemic but returned in 2022.

Biblical teachings, archaeological evidence, and scholarly accounts aren’t enough for the leftist minister, who cloaks herself in the faith while also dismissing the central New Testament teaching that Jesus died on the cross to save humanity from sin, telling the undercover journalist: “He didn’t die to save our sins.”

“Jesus was political. Jesus was put on that cross not to save us. Jesus was put on that cross because Rome hated him and they thought he was a threat to their domination of that area. So they killed him. He didn’t die to save our sins,” she argued, framing Jesus as a social justice martyr rather than the biblical teaching of Him being the “Savior of the world.”

“That makes a whole lot more sense to me than to say that some God would kill his son for us. That doesn’t make sense. How does that make up for all the things I can do? No, it doesn’t.”

Talarico has been part of the Austin religious community since he was a toddler. The congregation’s longtime pastor, Rev. Jim Rigby, baptized Talarico, who has called Rigby “one of the biggest influences on me as a Christian, as a human being.” In a Christmas Day Facebook post from 2015, Rigby suggested that Jesus’ resurrection could actually be understood as “a poem about the whole life process.”

“Apparently, because I don’t believe in a literal resurrection, I’m not really Christian. This unfortunately also means I won’t be going to heaven with many of you,” he said.

St. Andrew’s is part of the Presbyterian Church (USA), a denomination known for its liberal positions on gender and sexuality. There, the Texas Democrat has delivered controversial sermons, declaring that “God is not a Christian” and that “our trans community needs abortion care too.”

Miller’s comments come as scrutiny grows over the theological views of Talarico’s home church and their potential impact on his campaign in a state where evangelicals, who polls show are most opposed to Talarico, make up the largest religious group. Last week, The Daily Wire revealed Miller saying Talarico’s shift toward the political center was merely for show, predicting the Democrat — who is racing to moderate his positions on transgender issues and walk back his declaration that “God is non-binary” — would return to his previous rhetoric once elected.

“He’s getting some advice that I don’t think he should be following,” Miller said in the viral clip. “I can guarantee you that once he gets elected, he’ll change his tune back to where he was.”

The Daily Wire reached out to Talarico’s campaign and St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Jacob Wheeler, Daily Wire

Former Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday slipped on the stairs outside of the upper chamber, after confirming Scott Turner to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

McConnell, who led the Republican conference in the upper chamber from 2007 to 2025, appeared to fall as he was headed to a GOP lunch meeting in the Mansfield Room. Some senators told The Hill that he also fell during the lunch.

The latest incident comes after the 82-year-old Kentucky senator fell in December, following a lunch meeting held by Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso.

McConnell has not publicly commented on the incident so far. But he was escorted to his old Capitol Building office by his aides and security after the meeting, and was later spotted being pushed through the Capitol in a wheelchair, per The Hill.

Misty Severi, Just the News

At the conference, a CCP official urged America to drop the “enemy narrative” about China.

DNC Chairman Emeritus Howard Dean delivered the American welcome address at a China dialogue involving the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, a think tank identified in congressional commission testimony as “run by Chinese intelligence.”

The Chinese People’s Association for Peace and Disarmament, which co-organized the event⁠, has an equally explicit allegiance. Its charter⁠ says it:

“upholds the comprehensive leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.”According to the American organizer’s account⁠, Dean delivered his welcome virtually on June 23, 2026. The meeting took place in Wenzhou, China. Lu Kang, a vice minister of the CCP’s International Department, delivered the keynote.

Dean, a former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, was named DNC chairman emeritus in 2009⁠.

The think tank at the dialogue, known as CICIR, was specifically named by China intelligence specialist Peter Mattis in 2016 testimony to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission⁠. He described it among:

“think tanks run by Chinese intelligence.”

The peace association, known as CPAPD, says it jointly organized the event with the American Arsenault Family Foundation.

The association’s commitment to CCP leadership is written into its governing rules. Its charter requires it to establish a Communist Party organization, conduct Party activities, and provide the conditions necessary for those activities.

Dean, a former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, was named DNC chairman emeritus in 2009⁠.

The think tank at the dialogue, known as CICIR, was specifically named by China intelligence specialist Peter Mattis in 2016 testimony to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission⁠. He described it among:

“think tanks run by Chinese intelligence.”

The peace association, known as CPAPD, says it jointly organized the event with the American Arsenault Family Foundation.

The association’s commitment to CCP leadership is written into its governing rules. Its charter requires it to establish a Communist Party organization, conduct Party activities, and provide the conditions necessary for those activities.

Dean, a former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, was named DNC chairman emeritus in 2009⁠.

The think tank at the dialogue, known as CICIR, was specifically named by China intelligence specialist Peter Mattis in 2016 testimony to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission⁠. He described it among:

“think tanks run by Chinese intelligence.”

The peace association, known as CPAPD, says it jointly organized the event with the American Arsenault Family Foundation.

The association’s commitment to CCP leadership is written into its governing rules. Its charter requires it to establish a Communist Party organization, conduct Party activities, and provide the conditions necessary for those activities.

And the Party official speaking at Dean’s event had a message for the Americans.

According to the CCP International Department’s readout⁠, Lu urged participants to:

“move beyond the ‘enemy narrative’”

He also called on them to:

“foster a correct strategic perception”

The CCP then portrayed American participants as ready to translate the strategic-stability framework announced after the Trump-Xi summit into:

“practical and feasible policy measures”

The following day brought another forum organized by the same Chinese association. The American delegation’s opening speakers included⁠ Center for American Progress senior fellow David Rank and foundation leader Marcel Arsenault, who spoke by video.

Lu again made public perceptions a priority. He blamed “cognitive biases and groundless suspicions” for obstructing relations and urged exchanges that would:

“guide the peoples of both countries to objectively view each other’s development achievements”

Natalie Winters

At noon on September 22, a small ceremony will take place at the foot of a bronze statue in Manhattan’s City Hall Park. A color guard will stand at attention, a wreath will be laid and most New Yorkers walking by probably will not notice.

They should.

The statue is of Nathan Hale, one of America’s first spies. Two hundred and fifty years ago, the British hanged him. He was 21 years old.

Hale hardly seemed destined for spy work. He was a Yale graduate, class of 1773, and a schoolteacher from Coventry, Connecticut – tall, fair and, by contemporary accounts, somewhat guileless.

After the battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775, Hale joined a Connecticut regiment. In the summer of 1776, he served with Knowlton’s Rangers, an elite reconnaissance unit organized under George Washington after the American defeat on Long Island.

Washington desperately needed intelligence about British troop strength and positions in New York. He asked for a volunteer to go behind enemy lines.

Hale was the only one to step forward. Friends tried to dissuade him, but he insisted on going. In mid-September 1776, disguised as a schoolmaster, he crossed Long Island Sound and entered British-held territory. He gathered information about troop deployments and fortifications, but within days his mission unraveled.

According to one account, British Maj. Robert Rogers, commander of the Queen’s Rangers, became suspicious of Hale, pretended to share his Patriot sympathies and induced him to reveal himself. Hale was arrested and brought before British Gen. William Howe.

There was no trial; A spy caught behind enemy lines and out of uniform faced execution.

The following morning, September 22, Hale was taken to the British artillery park, believed to have been near what is now Third Avenue and East 66th Street. He asked for a Bible and a clergyman. Both requests were denied.

British officer Frederick Mackenzie later recorded that Hale “behaved with great composure and resolution,” saying that he believed it was the duty of every good officer to obey the orders of his commander-in-chief and urging those around him to be prepared to meet death whenever it came.

The British orderly book was more clinical: “A spy from the enemy (by his own full confession) apprehended last night, was this day executed at 11 o’clock in front of the Artillery Park.” Far better known are the words generations of Americans have associated with Hale: “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”

Whether that was his final utterance is uncertain. The sentiment closely resembles a passage from Joseph Addison’s “Cato,” a play Hale and many of his generation knew well, and the famous formulation was recorded later rather than at the scene.

Whatever his precise words, Hale went to the gallows with remarkable calm and courage. Accounts say his body was left hanging as a warning before being buried in an unmarked grave whose location remains unknown.

When he went to the gallows, American independence was barely two months old. Washington’s army had been driven from Long Island, New York had fallen to the British and there was no guarantee that the new nation would survive. Hale gave his life not for a victorious country, but for the possibility of one.

Hale did not command an army or draft a founding document. His intelligence mission failed. But the Revolution depended on more than the famous men whose portraits now hang in museums and government buildings.

It depended on thousands of Americans – soldiers, farmers, sailors, tradesmen and, in Hale’s case, a young schoolteacher – who were willing to risk everything to secure the independence their leaders had declared.

As America marks 250 years of independence, it is worth remembering that the words of the Declaration meant little unless Americans were willing to fight and die for them.

More than a century after Hale’s death, the Sons of the Revolution gave New York the statue that now stands in City Hall Park. Its location is fitting. The young Connecticut schoolteacher faces City Hall in a town that was once under British military occupation, a reminder that the freedom New Yorkers take for granted came at a heavy price.

Nathan Hale had only one life. At 21, with his country’s future hanging in the balance, he was willing to give it. Two hundred and fifty years later, America should honor and remember that.

Michael Freund is a Visiting Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a columnist for The Daily Signal.

People write in and ask me: “How can it be liberating to identify your contradictions? It’s painful!”

In all honesty, this is the same as asking: “Why is it better to face reality? I’d rather live outside of reality, because reality can be unpleasant.”

This makes no sense at all. Not if reality is what it is, independent of what you think, assume, want, wish or desire. The way I look at it, reality is going to be what it is no matter what your mind says. Rather than fighting or ignoring the truth, it’s better to face the truth … and then work within that context. That’s what I mean by “liberating.” If you’re constantly fighting reality, then you’re unable to focus on what’s actually possible and feasible. Instead, you’re trying to do the impossible, wasting precious time and energy that could be spent on pursuing the possible instead.

Notice how psychological coping implies a particular metaphysical view of existence. You either accept the philosophical premise that reality is what it is, or you don’t. My psychological recommendations would be very different if I held a different philosophical view. If my philosophical view was that reality can be whatever your consciousness constructs it to be, then I wouldn’t be advising you the way that I am.

None of this is to discourage innovation or creativity, either. But even innovation or creativity has to be rational. I call this “working within the system.” The “system” here refers to any facts you cannot change, at least not at this point in time. You have to separate what you can change from what you cannot, and focus only on what you can change — assuming that interests you, and that it’s connected to some particular goal or purpose you have.

Wishful thinking is a means of escaping reality. This leads to emotional problems commonly known as depression or anxiety. Depression or anxiety are false beliefs, based on faulty premises — one of which is almost always the false belief that wishing can make it so. Trying to control what you cannot control will lead to a sense of futility or “learned helplessness” in some people — the definition of depression. In other people, it will lead to a sense of danger or foreboding — the definition of anxiety. People take pills and pursue therapy for these things, but that will only be a band aid at best until or unless the underlying view is identified and corrected: One’s underlying philosophical view.

Psychology is thought to be theory-neutral, or philosophy-neutral. This isn’t possible. By definition, a therapist is helping a person based upon a certain point-of-view. One therapist will say, “Whatever you feel is right.” Another therapist will say, “I know what’s right — just listen to me.” Still another will say, “Let’s examine the facts. The facts prove that this is the right course of action, the one that will bring you what you want. Do you see any other facts to contradict this?” This last is the method of reason and logic. It’s this method from which so many are trying to escape. A good therapist challenges you, but in a supportive way. “Let’s figure out what the truth is, together.”

When you try to escape from logic and thinking, you’re trying to escape your nature as a rational creature. To say man is a “rational creature” is not to imply that he will inevitably do rational things. It implies that man must reason and think if he’s going to survive, flourish, and be happy. Attempts to escape your nature are attempts to escape your humanity. Most will claim that the essence of humanity are your emotions. But what are emotions? Emotions are the product of thought. And thoughts can be wonderful or downright rotten, logical or completely off base. Hatred, hostility and bitterness are emotions. Do these emotions imply mental health? I don’t think so. It’s the content of your emotions that’s relevant, and the content of your emotions are the thoughts and ideas implied by them. To understand your emotions, you must understand what you think.

Embrace reality, and all the good or bad that goes with it. It’s the only liberation and freedom there is.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

I’ve written before about how aging parents can sometimes become manipulative; appearing to be more “helpless” than they actually are. Interestingly, reader responses were 100% in agreement, but many questioned how to tactfully approach the issue.

Well, sometimes it’s all in how you say it. For example, “Why are you sitting there all day? You can get around! Take a walk and do something for yourself!” As opposed to, “You say you want to be more social. Why not spend a little time at the Cheer Center and meet some new people? It might be fun.” The first one sounds kind of insulting. The second one? Not quite so bad.

When you bluntly tell somebody what to do, you’re implying that they don’t have a mind of their own. This not only applies to adults, but also to kids — especially teenagers. Lecturing or ordering a teenager around isn’t going to work. You have to invoke facts and explain the consequences if he doesn’t do what you ask. If those consequences are important enough to him, you’ll usually get his cooperation.

Interestingly, research from the Department of Psychology at the University of Memphis suggests that lecturing to students in large classroom settings is not the most effective method of instruction. Findings indicate that whenever students are actively engaged in their learning, i.e., experiencing the consequences first-hand, they learn better and faster. This makes sense, because people don’t learn unless they are applying their minds to the facts.

Lecturing has its place for a motivated audience, but it’s not the way to approach personal or business relationships. Of course there are exceptions: When you hire an expert to fix your car, build your house, or perform surgery, you want someone who’s in charge and knows what he/she is doing. But even then, it’s valuable to have things explained to you. In fact, one of the biggest complaints that I hear about some doctors is that they don’t take the time to explain what they’re doing. Even an expert should have a method of reasoning that a non-expert can understand. No matter how accomplished they may be, no one is above showing respect and consideration.

There will always be those who have a need to tell others what to do. These authoritarian personalities have an inflated sense of their own importance and the role they play in the lives of others. Sadly, more than a few of these types end up in positions of power, but many more show up in the personal lives of everyday individuals. The authoritarian is more than just a “control freak.” Control freaks are driven by an anxiety to get things done “right” – for better or worse. The authoritarian, however, believes that people are incompetent, and that he or she must take over for them. When a compulsive authoritarian and a depressed, dependent person find one other, the resulting combination can be sicker than either of the two alone.

None of us knows everything, but we’re all able to think. Needing to be told what to do stems from a mistrust in your ability to think things out. When you’re confident in that ability, you recognize your capacity to investigate and form responsible conclusions on your own. You can then make your own decisions based on your best judgment. All the talk of self-esteem really boils down to this: A belief in your ability to figure out what’s going on around you and to take responsibility for making judgments about it.

Healthy people look around the world and form conclusions carefully and objectively. As a result, they have no desire to tell others what to do. They know that it just doesn’t work.

Michael J. Hurd, Life’s a Beach

They say anxiety is a disorder.

Yet we’re simultaneously told that we must care what others think.

“Which others? And why?” Those questions are not permitted, nor considered.

Young people come of age in a society with their psyches firmly fixed in these contradictions. “Don’t be afraid of being who you are. But be sure not to upset anyone. Be all you can be. But make sure you fit in.”

Fit — into what, and why? That question is never considered, nor permitted.

And we wonder why anxiety paralyzes millions, tempting them into addiction, possible depression, even suicide. We have done this to ourselves, and to each other. Because of the way we think.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

If tolerance means the end of Western civilization, then we cannot be tolerant.” (Elon Musk)

If you tolerate people who seek to annihilate you, then you’re self-destructive — if not suicidal.

The first principle of life for an individual — or a culture — is survival.

Today’s self-anointed intellectual, political and cultural “influencers” are openly committed to anything or anyone who seeks to destroy Western civilization and the original American Constitution generated by that civilization.

It’s as simple as that.

If you tolerate your destroyers, then you’re destroying yourself.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Socialism is more fashionable today than at any time since the Soviet Union collapsed. It’s back, and its major rival isn’t an ideology of unfettered free markets but right-wing populism. Theodore Roosevelt is a greater inspiration than Ronald Reagan to today’s young Republicans. The man most likely to be the next GOP presidential nominee, J.D. Vance, is more enthusiastic about Huey Long than Milton Friedman. Even the alternative “NeverVance” candidate insiders in Washington prefer – Secretary of State Marco Rubio – has made a point of saying capitalism must be “common-good capitalism.”

Libertarians have disappeared, just as the national debt has blown past $40 trillion. Arguably the most libertarian member of the US House of Representatives, Thomas Massie, lost his primary in May after investing all his political capital in anti-Zionism and the Epstein files. The most libertarian senator, Rand Paul, has not succumbed to the same obsessions but finds himself marginalized in Donald Trump’s second term. He and Rubio were first elected to the Senate the same year; their divergent fortunes tell a tale.

Bold thinking rather than ballot-box popularity had always been libertarianism’s strength – but today the ideas seem exhausted, and there’s no libertarian who provokes or inspires to anything like the degree Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek or Murray Rothbard once did.

Libertarian think tanks and magazines are running on fumes; they’re richly endowed but irrelevant. One need not agree or even sympathize with libertarian philosophy to find all this surprising. Free markets had triumphed by the end of the 20th century, with even Democrats such as Bill Clinton and British Labour party leaders such as Tony Blair adopting pro-market attitudes, if not policies that satisfied libertarians. What had long been radical libertarian views on gay rights, recreational drug use, pornography and vices such as gambling have now become law throughout the western world. Free trade was a bipartisan orthodoxy for decades, and for more than 30 years Americans and Europeans got to reap the benefits – as libertarians believe them to be – of mass migration.

Strangest of all, even as the public’s faith in the institutions of government has plummeted this century, the popularity of anti-government ideology hasn’t risen. Instead, populists and socialists have reaped the harvest of discontent.

Why? The puzzle contains its own solution: libertarianism has lost its raison d’être.

There are two halves to libertarian thought, although libertarians perceive them as logically identical. Anti-statism – the anti-government reflex – is one component. Absolute faith in the market economy, meaning voluntary exchange of goods and services of any and every kind, is the other. In theological terms, the state is satanic, and the market is the closest thing on earth to God.

The market is effectively omniscient; no one can second-guess its wisdom. It is benevolent even when it teaches us hard lessons, which are only for our own good. It is omnipotent and all-provident, supplying everything humanity needs. The coldness that libertarian economists exhibit toward ordinary human concerns about neighborhood or nation, and the fanaticism they display when defending free trade – as if tariffs are morally abominable, not just suboptimal according to their utilitarian math – are the marks of a faith that disdains worldly folly (natural loyalties) and finds salvation in a perfected system, from which the slightest deviation is a grave sin.

What made libertarianism so exciting, if never broadly popular, in its 20th-century heyday was that it was a reformist faith. It went against the grain at a time when most people believed that government was very nearly God. Armed with the best social science, there was nothing the mid-20th-century state could not achieve – the American public didn’t get into a “war on poverty” or “war on drugs” assuming they would be endless and unwinnable, just as they didn’t think the architects of the Great Society at home could fail to win the Vietnam War abroad.

The question was only which kind of big government the country should have: Republican or Democrat? Or, for those who considered more radical alternatives, as academics often did, whether western-style liberal democracy and social democracy could and should prevail, or whether the communist version of all-provident government was better – in principle, whether or not the Soviet Union embodied it perfectly in practice.

For Cold Warriors, the only way to thwart the Soviet superstate was with an American superstate, harnessing capitalism in the service of a growing government that would itself keep capitalism safe. There was no contradiction: that was a virtuous circle. (Though President Eisenhower, for one, had his doubts – he warned about the “military-industrial complex” in his farewell address because he believed America would bankrupt itself trying to fight a ceaseless series of conflicts like the Korean War.)

Libertarianism was shocking in this context – it was positively electrifying. The likes of Friedman, Hayek and Rothbard dared to argue government didn’t work, it couldn’t work, no matter how sophisticated the social science its bureaucrats wielded. Nor were ever-more military spending, the draft and wars like those in Korea and Vietnam necessary to keep Americans free and safe. On the contrary, freedom was really being lost in the name of fighting for freedom.

And freedom could mean much more than the average American realized. It didn’t just mean a choice of automobiles or soft drinks, a choice of churches or hairstyles for your wife. You didn’t have to smoke cigarettes or drink beer – you could smoke marijuana or, if you pleased, snort cocaine. You didn’t have to have a wife: you could have sex with anyone who consented, man or woman, and as many at a time as you like. Freedom didn’t demand that you do any of this but it required that it should be possible. This went beyond what even Hugh Hefner was offering midcentury Americans, though the Playboy impresario was thrilled by the implications and made much of the libertarian philosophy his own.

These were wild, bracing ideas for millions of Americans, and for others who had already begun to experiment with “alternative lifestyles” or countercultural rebellion, libertarianism offered a principled, coherent philosophical defense. But the ideology’s strongest selling point wasn’t its then almost unthinkable cultural openness, but its advocacy of something else that was usually called a vice: the profit motive, which, if unleashed, could bring unlimited consumer prosperity to ordinary people and would reward those strivers who dared to start new businesses.

As government proved unable to solve the nation’s problems, from stagflation to urban poverty and crime, the case for giving markets a chance grew more persuasive – enough to get free-market, libertarian-inspired conservatives like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher elected on both sides of the Atlantic.

Then came the internet, which seemed like the fulfillment of libertarianism’s promise. Yes, there was money to be made, and in the early days it felt like any risk-taker could make it. But the internet was more than just another proof of market principle. It was a demonstration of how freedom itself worked: a decentralized parallel world in which free speech was absolute and individuals could form new communities around any interest, no matter how obscure – or nerdy. The first wave of internet-based media, including the blogs of the early 2000s, had a libertarian flavor: the big-name bloggers might not be strict dogmatic libertarians, but they almost all took the gist of libertarianism for granted. Yet all these successes were libertarianism’s downfall.

In a world where government is widely understood to be paralytic or incompetent at best, libertarian skepticism doesn’t stand out. And instead of amusing a public secure in its faith in big government, the way a shocking new film or rock band might entertain a public with basically middle-class morals, libertarian anti-government ideology now only demoralizes Americans who don’t feel like they need any more disillusionment. This is why it’s not such a paradox that socialism and varieties of conservatism with a more positive view of government are enjoying a resurgence. They offer hope where there’s otherwise only despair.

To hear libertarians go on about how government is only going to keep failing is like listening to a hypochondriac constantly telling you your organs are getting nothing but older and will sooner or later give out completely, with the grave lying in wait for us all.

That isn’t news to anyone, and however true it might be, dwelling on it hardly makes anything better. Libertarians may have trouble understanding this for the same reason some true believers lose the ability to relate to people who don’t welcome death despite believing in an afterlife. The psychology of hope or despair plays a greater role in human happiness than whether a redistribution program or some other government totem “works” or not.

And where the market has worked – as it resoundingly has, in many contexts – giving consumers what they want has often come at a high cost in a currency other than dollars. What was most attractive about the libertarian vision of freer markets wasn’t the possibility of getting rich or enjoying material abundance, as important as those things certainly were. It was the dream that such wealth would bring out the best in us all, creating a fundamentally more agreeable society. We have the wealth, but we don’t have the joy it was supposed to lead to.

The libertarian response to this disappointment is to prescribe more of the same medicine that didn’t cure the patient, yet whatever good the treatment could achieve has already mostly been realized. A friend notes that cutting taxes, for example, doesn’t have the political punch it used to because federal income tax rates are already much lower than they were before Reagan. Lower still might be better – I certainly believe so – but the public simply doesn’t feel the burden as heavily as it once did, and so doesn’t feel as much relief when it’s lightened further.

Something similar is true, to an even greater extent, with libertarian cultural victories. Once Americans got over their initial astonishment at what libertarians were saying about sex, drugs and consensual vice, many of them gradually began to entertain hopes that more liberal attitudes could indeed change everything for the better.

Weren’t too many black men being sent to prison because of the drug war? Didn’t homosexuals just want the same rights as everyone else? And was pornography or gambling really such a big deal? Today cannabis has been legalized or “decriminalized” to the point where it’s unavoidable in our cities: there are pot shops, dispensing the drug itself or selling paraphernalia, on almost every block, it seems – they’re some of the last brick-and-mortar establishments remaining, often lit up like Pachinko parlors with blinding LEDs. Potheads use their intoxicant everywhere, without regard for whether children are around.

Gay marriage is the law of the land, but that hasn’t stopped sexual revolutionaries from demanding more: if a man can replace a woman in marriage, or a woman replace a man, then it hardly makes sense to keep insisting on sex differences: men are women, and vice versa. People are just meat with different garnish. Pornography and sports betting, meanwhile, are freedoms that have made millions feel like slaves. Nothing remains of the optimistic marketing for the laissez-faire approach to vice; now there’s just the sordid reality.

And the internet? That decentralized free-for-all has given way to a manor system. Even Elon Musk doesn’t make it easy for anyone to wander off the X reservation by following a link. Social media now penalizes the very thing the World Wide Web was built upon: linking to other sites. “The internet” now means a handful of tech companies that determine the limits of speech. The libertarian promise of the early web is a fading memory – for Generation Z, not even that – yet libertarians are ill-prepared to offer a deep critique of censorship imposed by private companies. You can leave the baron’s estate by going offline. That too is true, yet doesn’t offer anyone the freedom they’re seeking.

Libertarians helped make the world in which we live today – which is why nobody looks to them to lead us to tomorrow.

The Spectator, Daniel McCarthy

We aren’t simply wasting money on Ukraine. The return on investment has been overwhelmingly negative.

Conventional wisdom is that “high gas prices” are the result of the war in Iran, that they’re going to result in heavy losses for the Republicans in the midterms, and that the cost of living is going to remain high for the foreseeable future.

This consensus view, while not entirely wrong, is actually a simplistic and very optimistic version of events. The truth is actually worse than what conventional wisdom says. The truth is that we are now careening towards a potentially historic energy crisis — and solving it won’t be easy because it’s a physics problem, not simply an economic one.

There are a lot of theories about where this potential energy crisis is coming from. We just spoke to a White House official who posited one theory, which we’ll discuss in a moment.

Before we do, we need to establish that, as hysterical as it may sound, a full-blown catastrophic energy crisis could be on the horizon. In fact, that has actually become something of a mainstream opinion if you know where to look.

According to analysts at major financial institutions, including JPMorgan, we could soon realistically hit the operational floor for the global energy system. In the worst-case scenario, this could lead to the point where pipelines lose pressure, refineries have to shut down to protect their equipment, and gas stations run out of fuel to sell. No one ever talks about this, but as it turns out, fuel infrastructure requires a certain minimum amount of fuel to function. Think of it like your body — it requires a certain amount of blood running through the veins, or it will shut down completely.

When it comes to our oil infrastructure, that buffer is now in danger of failing. And it’s not entirely because of the war in Iran — which becomes clear when you realize that the vast majority of oil exports from the Middle East are sent to Asia, not the Americas.

But there is a supply shock, and we need to discuss it because the magnitude of the risk cannot be overstated. Every civilization requires energy to function. Without energy, we revert to the Stone Age. Look at what’s been happening in Europe.

Just a few years ago, Germany — the biggest economy in Europe — got rid of all its nuclear power plants. They shut them all down in favor of “renewables,” and they laughed at anyone — including Donald Trump — who said they were making a fatal mistake. Around the same time, Germany ran out of firewood — completely. The price shot up 100%, and then no one could buy it anymore.

Loggers put GPS trackers on their firewood because theft became so rampant. People began using wood chips in desperation. In neighboring Poland, instead of lining up outside the Apple Store for the latest iPhone, people began queuing for days outside of coal mines, hoping for some fuel.

This statistic sounds too insane to be true, but it’s real: Every year in Europe, more than 360,000 people die from “cold-related excess mortality,” otherwise known as cold temperatures (That includes many elderly people living in their homes, which don’t have adequate heating). That’s more than 8 times the number of Europeans who die from heat-related causes, which is pretty inconvenient if you’re a believer in “global warming.”

In the United States, by contrast, we only have around 1,000 hypothermia deaths per year — mostly drunk people who get lost in the woods during the winter. Even by the most liberal estimates, only around 40,000 Americans die annually for a reason that can be linked, in some tangential way, to cold temperatures.

Here’s another way to measure the distinction: in America, around 44,000 people die from gun violence every year, including mass shootings and suicides. That’s a whopping 12% of the total number of people who die in Europe every year from cold weather. So anytime you hear Europeans claiming that America is dangerous because of all the “gun violence,” tell them that Europe is dangerous because people freeze to death all the time.

These are numbers that are unthinkable in the United States. But if we continue on this trajectory, they won’t be unthinkable anymore. We’ve taken our energy production for granted. And that could be a fatal mistake, in a very literal sense.

Before I go into detail about how exactly we might see a failure of global energy infrastructure, I want to start with this communication we just received from a former White House official. I don’t normally share communications with Washington insiders, for the simple reason that I don’t know any Washington insiders. Nor do I have any interest in knowing any Washington insiders. Most people in conservative media go to great lengths to cultivate relationships in Washington. My approach is essentially the opposite. But this former White House official got in touch with one of my producers over the weekend, while talking about high gas prices. And I thought this statement was interesting, so I’ll pass along what the official said.

“It’s Zelensky. It’s literal Western civilization suicide. Europe and the United States are funding their own energy crisis.”

At first, when I heard that, it sounded like typical White House messaging to me. Obviously, they want to distract attention from the war in Iran and blame Ukraine for high gas prices. But let’s take the claim seriously for a second. This is footage of President Trump speaking at a golf tournament one week ago:

One day after these comments, Trump posted the following message on Truth Social:

“Ukraine has agreed not to hit Russian Energy targets. Russia has agreed to do, likewise!”

We have no reason to think Trump was lying about this. It would certainly be a strange thing to make up. Indeed, if true, it would be a major breakthrough. Ukraine has been bombing Russia’s fuel infrastructure — their fuel depots, storage tanks, pumps, and so on — for a very long time now. They’ve reportedly taken out roughly 1/3 of Russia’s refining capacity, which has led Russia to ban the foreign sale of its diesel — which is no small thing, since Russia is (or was) the second-largest diesel exporter in the world. This is why diesel is now more expensive than it’s ever been in recorded history, at more than $6 a gallon. Yes, diesel is more expensive than ever before.

How does this affect you? Well, two ways. First of all, pretty much everything you buy was transported on a semi-truck, a cargo ship, or a freight train at some point — all of which run on diesel. When diesel supply goes down, prices go up, and costs are passed along to you when you buy things at the grocery store, Amazon, or anywhere else.

Secondly, refineries outside of Russia are now “yield switching” to diesel to maximize their profits, meaning they’re refining less regular gasoline as a result (which drives up the price of regular gasoline). Remember, diesel and regular gas come from the same barrel, but many refineries are capable of switching their output to some degree.

According to Goldman Sachs, the price difference between diesel and gasoline in the United States is now over $60 per barrel, when it was just $3 a barrel one year ago. So there’s much, much more money to be made by refining diesel right now. And because refineries are already operating at full capacity, any effort to refine more diesel means that less gasoline will be refined.

That’s why global exports of gasoline have dropped 24% in the past year. Everyone’s switching to diesel if they can swing it. From March to August of this year, diesel yields in the United States are well above their historical averages, while gasoline yields have been cut. Meanwhile, demand for gasoline hasn’t gone down. In fact, it’s gone up, especially in Russia, since many of their oil refineries have been blown up.

So if Ukraine agreed to stop bombing Russian refineries, and allowed the world’s number-two diesel exporter to get back to refining diesel, that would be great news for the American consumer — unequivocally. That’s what Trump said was happening last Monday. But that night, Zelensky spoke to reporters and contradicted the president. He stated, “There is now a strong U.S. proposal for a mutual halt to strikes on critical infrastructure.” Zelensky added that “Ukraine is ready to support de-escalation,” but only if Russia would agree, in turn, to stop bombing Ukraine’s infrastructure.

Fast forward six more days, and Zelensky has clearly given up on the whole plan. He posted footage of burning Russian refineries, demonstrating quite clearly that Ukraine has actually doubled down on its strategy of destroying Russia’s fuel infrastructure. On social media, Zelensky then bragged about what he had done.

Our long-range responses had a very significant impact in the Moscow region last night. One of Russia’s key oil industry facilities and the aggressor’s logistics facility were hit. These are billions of dollars that sustain the war machine. … I thank our warriors for their accuracy: the Security Service of Ukraine together with the Unmanned Systems Forces, the Special Operations Forces, the Defense Intelligence of Ukraine, and the Foreign Intelligence Service. …I thank everyone who is strengthening Ukraine’s long-range capabilities. I am grateful to everyone who complements our long-range responses with responses through sanctions. Glory to Ukraine!

Remember when we were supposedly arming Ukraine with “defensive weapons,” and gave them explicit instructions not to escalate the war by bombing Russian infrastructure? Shortly before the Biden administration left power, they rescinded those restrictions. Apparently, under the Trump administration, Zelensky is happy to say one thing and do another. No one is stopping him. Now he is openly celebrating a military campaign that, in addition to raising the possibility of World War III in a very direct way, is also making day-to-day life much more miserable for millions of Americans. So why would he do that? Why in a million years would he dream of doing such a thing?

Let’s go through the numbers to provide some historical context. By some estimates, this year we’ve seen the largest surge in gas prices (in percentage terms) from January to the summer peak of any midterm election year in the past century. It’s not even close. Gas has now reached $4.48 a gallon on average, which is roughly $1.20 more than last year. The typical sedan is now around $20 more expensive to fill up compared with 2025. If you drive an SUV or a truck, you’re easily paying $30 or $40 more than you used to. You’re paying around 52% more for gas at the moment, compared to January.

The previous record in a midterm election year was dramatically lower — just a 27% increase in the price of gas all the way back in 2002. So we’ve doubled the previous record when it comes to the increase in the price of gas. This is uncharted territory in the modern history of this country. Don’t take my word for it — CNN brought out the nerd with the totally unnecessary smart board to tell you the same thing.

Matt Walsh, Daily Wire