President Trump’s U.N. speech covered a variety of topics, ranging from his peacemaking accomplishments in seven different wars, his prevention of bioweapons development, the U.N.’s support of illegal immigration, his efforts to stop drug trafficking, to exposing the most persecuted religion on the planet, which he said, is Christianity.  The range of topics also included climate change.

After quoting many of the massively failed predictions of climate alarmists, President Trump stated,

It’s the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, in my opinion. Climate change, no matter what happens, you’re involved in that. No more global warming, no more global cooling. All of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons, were wrong. … If you don’t get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.

On the other hand, former president Joe Biden told the world a 1.5-degree earth temperature increase, is “the most existential threat to the planet,” even greater than nuclear war.

The first problem with Biden’s statement is that a 1.5-degree change in the earth’s temperature is impossible to measure.

How do you measure the average temperature of the earth?  Do you measure at the North Pole, or the South Pole?  How about the equator?  Do you measure in the morning, at noon, or at night?  Do you measure in spring, summer, fall, or winter?  

Through the 1940s, the temperature of Earth was measured by dragging a thermometer containing bucket behind a boat in the ocean. Scientifically, this seems to only measure the temperature of water in a bucket being dragged behind a boat, yet somehow, climate alarmists say this accurately measured Earth’s temperature.

Examining temperatures of the earth with all 32,000 weather stations all over the world, adding their minute-by-minute temperature measurements made from the North Pole to the South Pole and all points in between, they provide an average global temperature and compare it to the average temperature from last year.

What do you imagine the range of temperatures would be surrounding these averages?  The range would be something like, -50 degrees to +150 degrees.  The range is huge, considering the temperatures are taken all over the earth.  Yet, alarmists want to tell us that they can measure a 1.5-degree change in the earth’s temperature.  That’s mathematically impossible.

Today 32,000 land weather stations, weather balloons, radar, ships, buoys, satellites, and volunteer weather watchers take measurements all over the world to yield an average temperature of the earth. Next, they put all the averages of these old bucket data and these new hodgepodge data on the same graph, not revealing that they were measured with numerous questionable techniques. With these data they claim to have accurate results saying the earth is warming by 1.5 degrees.  What could possibly be wrong with this?

Examining just two 24-hour periods of hourly measurements made by NOAA weather on August 20th and 21st of 2024 show that on the 20th, the average temperature was 71 degrees and on the 21st, the average temperature was 68 degrees.  So, the average temperature decreased by 2 degrees.  Does this show global cooling?  Twenty-four measurements were used to calculate the averages in each case, which allow calculation of what is called the standard deviation of the numbers.  For the 20th, the average and standard deviation was 71+/-6 degrees and for the 21st, the average and standard deviation was 68+/-7 degrees.  This shows the average temperature measurements came from a range of temperatures.  When the standard deviations of two numbers overlap, that means the two numbers are mathematically indistinguishable and thus, are mathematically the same.  So, the proper conclusion comparing the average temperatures of August 20th to August 21st is not global cooling, but that the average temperature on the two days—was not distinguishable.  The temperature was the same.

Examining temperatures of the earth with all 32,000 weather stations all over the world, adding their minute-by-minute temperature measurements made from the North Pole to the South Pole and all points in between, they provide an average global temperature and compare it to the average temperature from last year.

What do you imagine the range of temperatures would be surrounding these averages?  The range would be something like, -50 degrees to +150 degrees.  The range is huge, considering the temperatures are taken all over the earth.  Yet, alarmists want to tell us that they can measure a 1.5-degree change in the earth’s temperature.  That’s mathematically impossible.

Now let’s talk about “the carbon footprint” (ominous music should play).  President Trump stated, “The carbon footprint is a hoax, made up by people with evil intentions, and they’re heading down a path of total destruction.” 

Why would President Trump say such a thing?

It is because he is in agreement with “over 1,600 scientists from around the world” who signed the World Climate Declaration (WCD) stating, “that claims of a ‘climate emergency’ threatening the Earth are a hoax.”  The declaration states “carbon dioxide is beneficial to Earth, …there is no climate emergency, [and] …climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific.”  “The coalition points out that Earth’s climate has varied as long as it has existed, [and] …they stress that there is ‘no statistical evidence’ to support [climate alarmist] claims.”  Thus, “there is no climate emergency, …no cause for panic and alarm.”

Another interesting thing is that CO2 is not even a “greenhouse gas.”  Several recently published peer-reviewed scientific articles (2022, 2020) show “current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are around 418 parts per million (ppm) [0.04%], but the scientists state that past 400 ppm, ‘the CO2 concentration can no longer cause any increase in temperature’” due to the insulation effect.  Therefore, “it simply isn’t possible for increases in carbon dioxide to cause temperatures to rise.” Note, “levels of gas have been up to 20 times higher in the past without any sign of runaway ‘global warming.’”

“In 2022, German Physics Professor Dieter Schildknecht set the saturation limit of CO2 at just 300 ppm and concluded that beyond this, further increases cannot affect the Earth’s climate.”

Emeritus professor William Happer of Princeton believes the CO2 saturation hypothesis and stated that the current “science” enforcing the “Net Zero” agenda for carbon emissions by 2050 — is a “hoax,” but he preferred the word, “scam.”

Dr. John Clauser, 2022 Nobel Physics laureate, stated, “I assert there is no connection whatsoever between climate change and CO2 – it’s all a crock of crap, in my opinion.”

Why did anyone ever think CO2 was a greenhouse gas?  In 1859, Irish physicist John Tyndall discovered carbon dioxide mixed with water vapor absorbed heat and radiated heat. He was credited for “the physical basis of the greenhouse effect.”  This was propagated by groups like National Geographic expressing that “greenhouse gases allow the sun’s light to shine onto Earth’s surface … [and] trap the heat that reflects back from the surface …like the glass walls of a greenhouse.”

The problem is, Tyndall was mistaken.  In the 1940s, the first infrared (IR) spectrometer was built, followed by low-cost instruments in 1957 and in 1969, making FTIR instruments available for labs.  Using FTIR instrumentation, the energy absorption of CO2 can be measured, and data show its absorbance is very narrow with the energy of absorbance being in a region of very minimal radiant solar energy. “Carbon dioxide traps heat only within [very] narrow bands of the infrared spectrum,” states an article entitled, “Top Study: Carbon Emissions CANNOT Cause ‘Global Warming’.”  Water vapor, part of the hydrolytic cycle, caused the heat absorption in Tyndall’s experiment.

So, climate alarmists are bad scientists, bad mathematicians, both, or fraudsters with an agenda.

Just keep wearing the hat that says, “Trump was right about everything.” At the U.N. Trump said, “[It’s] the best-selling hat.”

More articles by Richard Blakley can be found at Blakley on the Write.

Kazi, Adobe Stock Images

Anti-Discrimination Advocates’ New Weapon

The Trump administration’s admissions-data order will make it harder for universities to cheat.

Sep 24, 2025 Russell T. Warne

LinkedInXFacebook

EmailPrint

The 2023 Supreme Court decision Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard was an earthquake for college admissions. After nearly 50 years, the affirmative-action regime that governed most universities’ admissions processes was declared unconstitutional.

Racial preferences in college admissions have never been popular among Americans. A 2023 Pew Research Center poll taken a few months before the Students for Fair Admissions decision was released found that only 33 percent of adults approved of affirmative action in college admissions. In California, affirmative action in education has lost at the ballot box twice, most recently in 2020. Even when the cultural and political milieu is predisposed to increase support for the policy, most Americans still don’t like affirmative action in college admissions.

No selective university has chosen to subject its admissions process to scrutiny.Yet, the opposite is true among university administrators. Harvard and the University of North Carolina fought vigorously in the courts for years to keep their discriminatory admissions policies in place. In the 21st century, public universities in Texas and Michigan also took the fight for race-conscious admissions to the Supreme Court. Among university administrators (who lean heavily to the political left), it is a given that a diverse student body is beneficial and that admissions personnel should take deliberate steps to admit as many “underrepresented” students as possible.

Disaggregation of admissions statistics will permit analyses that show whether students from any demographic group have an advantage.This is why the reaction to Students for Fair Admissions from many universities was negative. The presidents of Brown University, Stanford University, and Northwestern University all issued official statements that they were “deeply disappointed” by the Supreme Court’s decision. They and many other university presidents affirmed their commitment to diversity while still stating that they would follow the law. (For people who claim to be free thinkers, these presidents used eerily similar language in many of these statements.)

The mismatch between public opinion about affirmative action in admissions and university practices always meant that the admissions process was often a highly secretive “black box,” even at public universities. Even after the Students for Fair Admissions decision, no selective university has chosen to subject its admissions process to scrutiny.

Opening the Black Box

That is about to change. On August 7, 2025, the Department of Education issued a new directive stating that universities must report data on their applicants, admitted students, and enrolled students. The data on these groups must be disaggregated by race and sex. That disaggregation will permit statistical analyses that will easily determine whether students from any demographic group have an advantage over other students who have the same academic qualifications. The data must be reported to the government’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS) database, which already collects some data from universities.

The new directive makes enforcing the Students for Fair Admissions decision much easier. Previously, disaggregated data about applicants and admitted students could be obtained only during a lawsuit. (Even open-records requests often do not produce this information.) Now, the Department of Education has made reporting these statistics a condition for receiving access to federal research funds or student loans. By making the data transparent, the Trump administration makes it easy for the government to identify universities that have admissions practices that result in de facto discrimination. And all of the necessary data will be delivered each year to the government and the public, without requiring any lawsuits, investigations, or open-records requests. You might as well tie a bow on it.

How did universities react to this development? They … didn’t. University officials have not expressed “disappointment” in the directive or protested the new requirements, even though the directive explicitly says its goal is to make enforcing the Supreme Court’s ruling easier. Even the New York Times acknowledged that the government has “wide latitude” about what data to collect for IPEDS, and almost no one is questioning the legality of the new directive (although some outside experts have expressed skepticism about its feasibility).

If universities acknowledge they will comply with the Supreme Court ruling, and they do not protest reporting data to make it easy to catch violations of the law, it is legitimate to ask whether increased enforcement is necessary. The answer is yes. Even after Students for Fair Admissions made discrimination illegal in college admissions, leaked data from a hacker showed that Columbia University and NYU are both still discriminating in their admissions. Other universities have seen suspiciously little change in their student demographics since the Supreme Court ruling.

Almost no one is questioning the legality of the Trump administration’s new directive.For example, Princeton University’s Class of 2027 and Class of 2028 have almost the exact same percentages of Hispanic and black students. The same pattern occurred in Yale University’s Classes of 2027 and 2028. At both universities, the percentage of Asian students decreased in the latter cohort, even though all observers expected that the end of affirmative action would result in an increase in admitted Asian students. Both universities signed an amicus brief in the Students for Fair Admissions case stating that eliminating affirmative action would make it impossible to have a diverse student body. Either Princeton and Yale were lying to the Supreme Court, or both are still discriminating against Asian applicants.

When universities are forced to report disaggregated data, it will be much harder to use holistic review to lessen the impact of objective admissions standards.Many universities continue to discriminate under the guise of “holistic review,” which is a time-tested strategy to smuggle subjectivity into the admissions process. But when universities are forced to report disaggregated data on their applicants and students, it will be much harder to use holistic review to lessen the impact of objective admissions standards. The public nature of IPEDS makes discrimination especially risky for universities, because anyone will be able to compare the academic qualifications of applicants and admitted students from different groups. Data sleuths who find a large discrepancy can file a civil-rights complaint with the Department of Education and trigger an investigation.

Students for Fair Admissions was an important victory against institutional racism in America. But history teaches that the fight is not over yet. After Brown v. Board of Education banned segregation in 1954, local officials in the South tried to ignore or undermine the Supreme Court’s ruling. It took nearly 20 years of lawsuits, state action, and even the use of the military to stamp out segregation. The IPEDS changes are an important component of enforcing the Supreme Court’s decision, because they will make lawbreaking harder to hide. Universities that continue to discriminate will soon be easy targets for the Trump administration’s eager enforcement staff. It will take time, but this modern-day discrimination practice will eventually die out.

Russell T. Warne is a former associate professor of psychology in the Department of Behavioral Science at Utah Valley University

y Lisa Hornung

Russia will train and equip Chinese paratroopers to invade Taiwan, according to leaked documents.

The 800-page cache of documents said that China will buy dozens of military vehicles and parachute systems for its paratroopers, and Russia will provide training to troops on how to operate them.

The documents’ details were verified by the Royal United Services Institute, a British think tank. They appear to show a strengthening alliance between the two countries. They said the deal would give China “expanded air maneuver capability” and “offensive options against Taiwan, the Philippines and other island states in the region.”

“Chinese President Xi Jinping has directed the People’s Liberation Army to be ready to militarily seize Taiwan by 2027,” RUSI said. “A large-scale amphibious operation is highly risky, with the sites suitable for landing craft to deliver troops and equipment ashore constrained by the gradient and load bearing capacity of the beaches. Seizing airfields could allow troops to flow in by air, but as Russia discovered during its invasion of Ukraine, runways can be quickly denied. The PLA is therefore eager to identify ways of diversifying both the methods and locations at which it can move units onto Taiwan.”

“It is a very good example of how the Russians have become an enabler for the Chinese,” making the two countries’ militaries almost impossible to separate, said Jack Watling, senior research fellow for Land Warfare at RUSI, who also wrote the analysis, along with Oleksandr V. Danylyuk.

Russia’s oil and gas, along with its large defense industry, could become a “strategic backup for China,” Watling added.

Taiwan is a self-governing island that China claims as its own. Taiwan also is a U.S. ally.

The leaked documents were found by a hacktivist group, Black Moon. They show Russia agreeing in October 2024 to sell 37 BMD-4M light amphibious vehicles, 11 Sprut-SDM1 self-propelled anti-tank guns, 11 BTR-MDM airborne armored personnel carriers to the People’s Liberation Army Air Force.

The main equipment provision contract had a value of $584 million before it was finalized, The Washington Post reported. It also included several command and observation vehicles and parachute systems designed to airdrop heavy loads from high altitudes.

Other documents in the cache show several rounds of negotiations. There was a meeting in Beijing in April 2024 where the Chinese requested Moscow speed up the delivery timeline for certain vehicles. They also asked Russia to include complete technical documentation and adapt the weaponry to make it compatible with Chinese software, electronic, radio and navigation systems. Russia will also set up a repair-and-maintenance hub in China.

Military cooperation between China and Russia goes far beyond what has been publicly acknowledged,” a Taiwanese security official commenting on the Russia-China deals told the Washington Post.

Xi and Russian President Vladimir Putin have attended each other’s military parades in the past year. Their two militaries held 14 joint exercises in 2024, which is nearly double what they did 10 years ago, The Post reported.

Last week, Chinese military representatives attended Russia and Belarus’s Zapad-2025 war games where Russia demonstrated the high-altitude airdrops of heavy equipment that China wants to use, according to the documents.

Slovakia passed an amendment to its constitution that recognizes only two genders, along with other measures, through its parliament on Friday.
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in Oxon Hill, Md., on Feb. 21, 2025. Jose Luis Magana/AP Photo

The amendment, drafted by Prime Minister Robert Fico’s government, required a three-fifths majority to pass, and moved through the National Council with 90 of the 150 members backing it.

It states that Slovakia only recognizes two genders, male and female, and that Bratislava retains its sovereignty in matters of “national identity,” especially in “fundamental cultural-ethical questions.”

It also bans surrogacy and places tighter restrictions on who is eligible to adopt a child, heavily favoring married couples.

Slovakia’s constitution already defined marriage as “a unique union between a man and a woman.”

Parental consent will also now be needed before children can be taught sexual education, and it enshrines equal pay for men and women in the constitution.

Speaking at a press conference on Friday, Fico thanked all the MPs who supported the changes, and said it was not just a victory for his Direction-Social Democracy party, commonly known as Smer, but a victory for Slovakia.

“This is a shield that we have created. It can serve as an example for other countries. Liberalism and progressivism are destroying Europe. Let us be proud of what we’ve achieved,” he said, according to local news outlet News Now.

“This is Slovakia’s victory, not a victory for Smer. Slovakia has shown Europe and the world that we are here, just as we were centuries ago, and that we can say that we won’t let Brussels tell us that there is a third, fourth, or fifth gender.”

Campaign group Amnesty International criticized the amendment, saying that its passage was “devastating news.”

“Instead of taking concrete steps to protect the rights of LGBT people, children, and women, the Slovakian parliament voted to pass these amendments, which put the constitution in direct contradiction with international law,” said Rado Sloboda, director of Amnesty International Slovakia.

“Today is another dark day for Slovakia, which is already facing a series of cascading attacks on human rights and the rule of law.

“Instead of attacking human rights, the authorities should address the lack of legal protection for all families, marriage equality, and the rights of transgender and non-binary people, including access to health care and legal gender recognition.”

He said that Slovakia had opted to follow the lead of Hungary.

Hungary effectively outlawed Gay Pride parades and also passed a similar constitutional amendment recognizing only two genders earlier this year.

Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Michael O’Flaherty had urged Slovakian MPs not to approve the changes earlier this year, arguing they deny “the realities of trans and intersex people and may impact on human rights guarantees such as access to legal gender recognition.”

“Seeking to disapply specific rights because they touch upon ‘national identity’ would be fundamentally incompatible with the Slovak Republic’s international obligations,” he said.

Guy Birchall, Epoch Times

American culture there is one persistent villain portrayed as the enemy of humanity, the perpetrator of deception, and the agent for social corruption and human harm: the businessman.

Whether in news commentaries or on the movie screen, the businessman is presented as a heartless, greedy manipulator so concerned with squeezing the last possible dollar out of anything he does, that he is willing to destroy the planet, kill his competitors, poison little children, and sell his own mother “down the river” if it will serve his material and financial purposes.

The only thing that saves us from the end of the world at the hands of these criminal private enterprisers is either some righteous individual who refuses to “take it any more” or the virtuous hand of a government agent dedicated to protecting mankind from those who, clearly, care nothing for the common good of humanity.

Critics of Capitalism Want to Abolish or Regulate It

This imagery of the businessman’s way of gaining profits has been extended by many intellectuals, academics, and public policy pundits into a general criticism and, indeed, condemnation of capitalism.

What can be praiseworthy, ethical or just in a social and economic system that fosters people to focus only on their self-centered personal interest in the pursuit of material gain with little or no thought to the betterment and improvement of mankind?

The conclusion that many of these critics have reached over the years and decades is that the entire capitalist system must be done away with and replaced with an alternative social and economic system such as socialism; or, at a minimum, business enterprise has to be placed under the detailed supervision and regulatory hand of government bureaucrats presumed to be concerned with and devoted to the general welfare of the country as a whole instead of individual private interest.

I beg to differ from this interpretation of businessmen and the free enterprise system in general. Instead, I would argue that a truly free enterprise, competitive capitalism is the most moral and humanely beneficial way for people to live together that has ever been stumbled upon by mankind.

Capitalism’s Premise: Individual Rights and Liberty

There are basically two way human beings can interact and associate with each other: through the threat or use of force or by mutual agreement and voluntary consent.

When have you ever walked into a shoe store looked around and, maybe, tried on a pair of shoes, but when you decided to leave without buying anything a gruff and intimidating character with a club or a gun said, “The boss says you ain’t leaving without buying something”? I doubt it any of us have had any such experience.

Why? Because the philosophical and moral premise underlying transactions in the marketplace is that each participant has the right to say, “Yes” or “No” to an offer and an exchange.

Why does every person have this implied right to “Yes” or “No” without attempted physical intimidation or use of force to make him act against his will? This is due to the fact that the foundational American principle is that every one of us has an inviolable individual right to their life, liberty, and honestly acquired property.

Virtually every other philosophical and political system throughout human history has been based on some version of the opposite. That is, that you do not own yourself; your life and property are at the disposal of the primitive tribe or the medieval king, or the social, national, or racial group or “democratic” community to which you’ve been designated as belonging.

That is the premise of all forms of political and economic collectivism. You work for the group, you obey the group, and you live and die for the group. The political authority claiming to speak and act for the group presumes to have the right to compel your acquiescence and obedience to the asserted needs and desires of that collective group.

Only liberal, free market capitalism as it developed in parts of the Western world, and especially in the United States, broke free of this age-old collectivist conception of the relationship between the individual and others in society.

The modern ideas of individual liberty and free enterprise that began to develop and be argued for about 350 years ago transformed the way men lived and earned a living, and the ethical premises underlying human association in society.

A new morality emerged under which human relationships became based on mutual consent and voluntary agreement. Men could attempt to persuade each other to associate and trade, but they could not be compelled and plundered so one person could get what he wanted from another without their consent.

For Americans, it is heralded as the fundamental principle under which our country was based: It is held to be a self-evident truth that all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights among which are their individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Capitalism Fosters Honesty and Good Manners

As a consequence of this principle of liberty, in the marketplace of the free society individuals learn and practice the etiquette and manners of respect, politeness, honesty and tolerance. This naturally follows from the fact that if violence is ethically and legally abolished, or at least minimized, in all human relationships, then the only way any of us can get others to do things we would like them to do for us is through reason, argument, and persuasion.

The reason why the shoe salesman is motivated to act with courtesy and deference toward us when we are in his store is precisely because he cannot force on us to buy a pair of the shoes he wants to sell. We can walk down the mall corridor and buy those shoes from another seller interested in winning our business, or we can just go home without buying anything that day.

The clichés of “serve with a smile,” or “the customer is always right,” in fact are inescapable resulting manifestations of the voluntarist principle at the basis of all market transactions.

No businessman is likely to keep his market share or even stay in business in the long run if he earns a reputation for rudeness, deception and dishonesty in his dealings with either other businesses or his consumer customers.

The famous Scottish economist of the 18^th century, Adam Smith, long ago explained that the motivation for respectful, polite, honest and deferential behavior on the part of any businessman is his own self-interest. If he does not, he may not long remain in business, as every private enterpriser knows who had learned to appreciate the importance of gaining and maintaining his brand-name and personal reputation in the eyes of all those with whom he has dealings.

Such polite, courteous, honest and deferential behavior may start out as the self-interested conscious and intentional attempt to merely succeed in the market pursuit of profits, when voluntary and free market dealings and transactions become the common and everyday way in which people associate.

But, over time, such rules of “good behavior” become habituated, a part of the routine of regular day-in and day-out interactions, until, finally, they are transformed into the customs and traditions expected in any and all human encounters, whether in the marketplace or not.

Thus, the practice of self-interested good manners and respectful tolerance fostered first in commercial buying and selling become embedded and reinforced as the general societal rules and ways of civilized and “polite society.” And, thus, capitalist conduct makes its contribution to a more cultured and humane civilization.

Capitalism Creates a Spirit of Humility, Not Political Arrogance

Finally, I would suggest that free market capitalism also inculcates a spirit and attitude of humility. In the open and competitive marketplace, anyone who has an idea or a dream is free, in principle, to try to bring it into reality. No private person or political power has the right or authority to prevent him from entering the field of enterprise and trade to discover if his idea or dream can profitability be brought to fruition.

The capitalist “rule of the game” is that anyone is at liberty to enter the arena of enterprise if he has the will, determination and drive to attempt to make that new product, that better product, that less expensive product. This implicitly takes for granted as an underlying assumption that no one, not any of us, has the knowledge, wisdom and ability to know beforehand whose ideas and efforts can turn out to be a success rather than a failure.

The Austrian economist and Nobel Prize-winner, F. A. Hayek, once referred to competition as a “discovery procedure.” If we knew ahead of time who in a marathon, for example, would come in first, second, third and so forth, as well as the actual relative times of the runners, what would be the purpose of running the foot race?

Even when we have the track record of previous marathons, and think we know something about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the competitors looking ahead to a future race, the fact is we do not know how the race will actually play out, until the runners finish the course.

The humility of the marketplace, no matter how strongly confident the individual businessmen may be in their own ideas and abilities, is that no one – neither an private individual nor even the most well-informed government bureaucrat – has sufficient knowledge and forethought to successfully “pick winners” and “avoid losers” for the good of society as a whole.

This can only be found out through the competitive rivalry of the private enterprisers who are each trying to make the product or supply the service that will gain the business of customers, as found out from whose products or services the buying public actually decide are the ones that best fulfill their existing or discovered needs, desires and wants.

Capitalism’s Moral and Virtuous Watchwords

The watchwords of capitalist free market morality, therefore, are liberty, honesty and humility. The freedom of each individual to live and choose for himself; the ethics of fair dealing – that is, human relationships on the basis of force and fraud are banned in all their forms; and the modesty to admit and accept that none of us is wise enough to arrogantly claim the right to plan and coercively direct others in society.

Not only would it be morally wrong to presume to tell others how best to live by reducing them to the status of commanded followers of our own ideas and desires, it would limit what all mankind can accomplish to what the government central planner or regulator can imagine and know within the limits of his own mind’s possibilities for understanding all that there is to know.

How much better, both for the individual and all the rest of us, to leave everyone at liberty to think, imagine, and act as they consider most profitably best for themselves, so all in society can, also, benefit from what a human mind can creatively conceive that others may not.

We live at a time in which real-world capitalism is hampered and stymied in almost every direction by the heavy hand of government regulation, control, restriction, prohibition and taxation. It is politically managed and manipulated capitalism, and very far, therefore, from the truly free market capitalism that I have outlined in terms of its moral premises and social virtues.

It is certainly not the twisted conception of “capitalism” that is presented in the media and the movies. Real free market capitalism, by recognizing and respecting the right of the individual to his own life and liberty and honestly acquired property, is that economic system that offers humanity the most moral system of human association imaginable by and for man.

Free market capitalism is the ethical highroad to human dignity and mutual prosperity – if only we are willing to fully establish and consistently practice it.

James Ebeling, Epic Times

High teacher turnover is driven by a combination of inadequate compensation, excessive workloads, lack of administrative support, and poor working conditions, particularly in schools with high concentrations of students of color and low-income students. The constant need to adapt to reforms, alongside demanding student behaviors and the stress exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, contributes to teacher burnout and a significant desire to leave the profession. 

Key Factors Contributing to High Turnover

• Compensation and Financial Concerns: Low salaries are a major factor, making teaching an unfulfilling and financially unsustainable career for many. 
• Workload and Stress: Teachers often face excessive workloads, high demands from students with challenging behaviors, and the pressure of adapting to constant policy changes, leading to burnout. 
• Lack of Support: Insufficient administrative support and a lack of feeling appreciated or connected within the school environment are significant reasons for teachers to leave their jobs. 
• Working Conditions: Less-desirable working conditions are often found in schools serving higher numbers of students of color and low-income students, contributing to higher turnover rates in these schools. 
• Alternative Certification Programs: Teachers who enter the profession through alternative certification programs are more likely to leave their schools, which can affect the stability of the teaching workforce. 
• Lack of Advancement Opportunities: Many teachers feel stuck in their positions and seek roles with greater opportunities for growth and professional development. 
• Stress from the Pandemic: The COVID-19 pandemic added unique stressors, such as having to cover for more absent colleagues and struggling to provide personalized instruction. 

Consequences of High Turnover

• Impact on Student Performance: High turnover impedes student academic performance, as inexperienced teachers are often placed in classrooms. 
• Financial Strain on Districts: Schools must spend more on recruiting, hiring, and training new teachers, diverting funds from other crucial student programs and resources. 
• Cycle of Instability: The resulting instability in staffing creates challenges for remaining teachers and can diminish the overall effectiveness of the education system. 
• The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily shared by the editor.  A/D

The new memoir by the former vice president will include a revolutionary new feature, as publishers announced that Kamala Harris’s audiobook lets you pick which accent you want to hear for each chapter.

The innovative new format for the audiobook version of 107 Days will allow listeners to choose from among a wide range of accents used by the former vice president over the years, including “Black,” “Very Black,” “Hispanic,” “Vaguely Indian,” “Southern,” “Jamaican,” and “Klingon.”

“This audiobook provides a fully customizable Kamala experience,” said Simon & Schuster President and CEO Jonathan Karp. “Vice President Harris has such a unique way of altering her accent to fit her audience, and we wanted to be able to bring that same variable speech spectrum to the people who listen to the audiobook version of her memoir. Which Kamala do you want to hear for the chapter about her debate against Donald Trump? You get to decide.”

One listener who received an advance copy of the audiobook said that the accent option added a whole new level of realism. “You can change the way she talks from one chapter to the next, just like in real life,” the review said. “One chapter you can have her sounding like she’s from the ‘hood, and the next chapter she sounds like a white suburban housewife. It’s a lot of fun. There’s even a Chinese option, which was unexpected, but you know she’s got it up her sleeve for when she talks to a crowd of Chinamen.”

At publishing time, Simon & Schuster announced that expansions of the 107 Days audiobook would be made available to account for whatever new accents Harris unveils in the future.

Babylon Bee

Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy said on Thursday that his party should continue condemning Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) even after a deadly shooting at a facility in Dallas, Texas.

Murphy said on “Morning Joe” that accusing ICE agents of “rounding up” illegal immigrants in a “deeply inhumane and immoral way” is not an incitement of violence, continuing that Democrats should keep using this type of rhetoric. He claimed that President Donald Trump’s administration is exploiting the recent acts of violence in the U.S. for its own political gain.

“This president, this vice president has had a chance now since the assassination of Charlie Kirk to bring the country together, to try and stamp out all sorts of violence, including political violence, and they refuse to do that,” Murphy said. “What they are trying to do is exploit these murders , these shootings, in order to silence only dissent and political opposition on the left. No, criticizing the way that ICE is rounding up people in this country in a deeply inhumane and immoral way is not an incitement to violence. There is a moment where you cross the line, but what they are trying to do is to destroy the ability for people who oppose their policies to legitimately engage in political debate.”

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director Kash Patel confirmed on Thursday that the alleged shooter, Joshua Jahn, downloaded a document that contained a list of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) facilities, searched multiple ballistics and the video of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk getting shot and looked up apps that track ICE agents. Authorities also discovered a handwritten note which stated, “Hopefully this will give ICE agents real terror, to think, ‘is there a sniper with AP rounds on that roof?’”

Patel released a photograph of the bullet casings on Wednesday, which had been engraved with the phrase, “ANTI-ICE.” More evidence released on Thursday morning suggested the suspect searched apps that tracked ICE agents and left a note suggesting he intended to attack agents.

Democrats have compared ICE to the Nazi regime and have accused the agency of being authoritarian. Democratic Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett said on Friday that ICE agents are akin to “slave patrols” during an MSNBC interview. Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz notably labeled ICE as the “modern-day Gestapo” during a commencement speech in May.

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in May that ICE is a “rogue agency that should not exist.” Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar has also repeatedly called for ICE to be abolished and even pushed a debunked story published by NBC News, which alleged that ICE detained a 5-year-old autistic girl.

ICE facilities have faced a substantial increase in attacks since Trump began cracking down on illegal immigration on Jan. 20. Agents have endured a 1000% increase in assaults against them and the doxxing of themselves and their families, according to DHS.

Authorities have charged at least 11 individuals in connection with an ambush on an ICE facility in Alvarado, Texas, in July, which led to the injury of a police officer who was shot in the neck. An active shooter also shot at Border Patrol agents at a facility in McAllen, Texas, in July.

Nicole Silverio, Daily Caller

“They don’t kill you because you’re a Nazi.  They call you a Nazi so they can kill you.”

Whether Ted Cruz wrote this or not — it’s absolutely right on the money.

*******

President Donald Trump says Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud told him he does not want Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) back in Somalia.

Put her in a rocket and shoot her into outer space.

*******

Hillary Clinton: “Sadly, right here in the United States, democracy is under seige.”

Translation: “My right to unlimited, unrestrained government power with billions in it for me has been challenged, and I am REALLY REALLY MAD.”

Go to hell, fascist.

*******

Former FBI director, who orchestrated the fake “Russia campaign” against President Trump in his first term, likely with Obama’s knowledge, is getting indicted. It’s a start.

Show us what you’ve got, Pam Bondi, Kash Patel and President Trump.

And Comey needs to be the first of many.

Ted Cruz, talking about the escalating hate speech from the Left, re-Tweeted:

“They don’t kill you because you’re a Nazi.

They call you a Nazi so they can kill you.”

Whether Ted Cruz wrote this or not — it’s absolutely right on the money.

*******

President Donald Trump says Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud told him he does not want Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) back in Somalia.

Put her in a rocket and shoot her into outer space.

*******

Hillary Clinton: “Sadly, right here in the United States, democracy is under seige.”

Translation: “My right to unlimited, unrestrained government power with billions in it for me has been challenged, and I am REALLY REALLY MAD.”

Go to hell, fascist.

*******

Former FBI director, who orchestrated the fake “Russia campaign” against President Trump in his first term, likely with Obama’s knowledge, is getting indicted. It’s a start.

Show us what you’ve got, Pam Bondi, Kash Patel and President Trump.

And Comey needs to be the first of many.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Former FBI Director Chris Wray lied to Congress and the American people when he said under oath that there were no FBI agents undercover on January 6. – Congressional video.

It appears that James Comey could have a familiar cellmate when he is finally sent to prison for lying under oath to Congress and the American people.

Former FBI Director Chris Wray lied and lectured House Republicans for accusing the FBI of planting informants/operatives/agents inside the massive crowd of Trump supporters on January 6, 2021.

In a bold statement that directly contradicts multiple official sources, FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before Congress in July 2023 that he “does not believe” undercover FBI agents were present at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Wray’s statement came during a tense exchange with Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ), who specifically asked about the number of undercover agents in the Capitol vicinity on the infamous day.

Wray stated that he could not provide such a figure and even expressed doubt about the presence of undercover agents at all.

“I’m not sure there were undercover agents on scene,” Wray responded to Biggs. “As I sit here right now, I do not believe there were undercover agents on.”

Biggs wrote on Twitter that “Wray will be held accountable for this lie.”

“FBI Director Wray just told me he “does not believe” there were any undercover FBI agents in or around the U.S. Capitol on January 6. This claim has been already debunked—including by the former U.S. Capitol Police Chief,” Biggs added.

The Director’s statement is in stark contrast to facts previously revealed by the Washington D.C. FBI Field Office. According to their confirmed reports, a number of undercover officers, confidential informants, and FBI assets were indeed present at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th.

On Thursday night, the FBI finally acknowledged it had 275 plainclothes agents in the massive crowds on Jan. 6, 2021. This was hundreds more than was previously reported.

The Blaze reported:

A senior congressional source said the number is not necessarily a surprise, since the FBI often embeds countersurveillance personnel at large events.

But given the FBI’s until-now steadfast refusal to disclose the level of its presence at the Capitol, the figure might still be viewed with skepticism in some quarters.

The news comes in the wake of claims by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Inspector General that the FBI had no undercover personnel in the Jan. 6 crowds.

“We found no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6,” the DOJ OIG said in an 88-page report released in December 2024.

As the Gateway Pundit as previously reported — Dozens if not hundreds of government operatives infiltrated the protests at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The Gateway Pundit previously identified 20 different confirmed incidents and operations involving federal, state, and local government operatives who infiltrated the massive Trump crowds on January 6, 2021.

Each one of these incidents has been confirmed by the far-left press or the government in court documents.

**You can read more here: 20 CONFIRMED INCIDENTS AND OPERATIONS: The DOZENS of Feds, FBI Agents and State Operatives Who Infiltrated the Trump Crowds on January 6th at the US Capitol and Led the Protests

We currently have no idea how many federal, state and local government operatives were working undercover on January 6 but it looks like it is close to 100 operatives leading the charge on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Recent court documents reveal the Biden Department of Justice admitting to at least 40 undercover operatives with the Proud Boys on January 6.

In September 2022, TGP learned the FBI was running operatives inside The Oath Keepers on January 6th. The DOJ sprung this on the Oath Keepers members before their trial in Washington DC before a Kangaroo Court. The US government finally admitted in this letter they sent out before the trial that they were running Confidential Human Sources (CHS) inside the Oath Keepers organization on January 6.

In November 2022, the FBI finally admitted they had 8 informants inside the Proud Boys organization on January 6 and likely more.

The DOJ admitted to 40 government CHS agents were undercover on January 6th.

Proud Boys defendant Dominic Pezzola recently reported this admission.

And the number keeps growing – to 50 or more that they are admitting to.

As public discourse around these events continues to unfold, Wray’s claims stand in stark opposition to confirmed facts. It remains to be seen how these contradictions will be addressed and what consequences they will have for Director Wray and the FBI as a whole.

Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit