In a meeting with foreign journalists, the PM blasted the international media’s malicious caricature of Israel as a cruel, warmongering Jewish state.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks at a press conference for the foreign media in Jerusalem on August 10, 2025. Photo by Haim Zach/GPO.

Fiamma Nirenstein

Dr. Fiamma Nirenstein is an Italian-Israeli journalist, author, and senior research fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. An adviser on antisemitism to Israel’s foreign minister, she previously served in the Italian Parliament (2008–2013) as Vice President of the Foreign Affairs Committee. A founding member of the Friends of Israel Initiative, she has written 13 books, including Israel Is Us (2009), and is a leading voice on Israeli affairs, Middle Eastern politics, and the fight against antisemitism.

(Aug. 11, 2025 / JNS)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not known for seeking out journalists, especially not the foreign press corps that has, for years, attacked him personally and politically while accusing Israel of the worst imaginable crimes. But on August 10, he broke form.

In flawless English and with his trademark communicative vigor, Netanyahu met face-to-face in Jerusalem with representatives of the very media outlets that have turned Gaza into a theater of blood libels and the IDF into their chief villain.

The reason? To take the fight directly to the “eighth front” of the war—the avalanche of disinformation that has become as dangerous as rockets or tunnels. Since Israel announced its expanded operations in Gaza, anti-Israel activists and complicit journalists have gleefully called it an “occupation,” reviving the same tired propaganda Hamas has relied on for decades.

Palestinian leaders openly admit this is their greatest weapon. Fatah’s Jibril Rajoub called Oct. 7, 2023, “the Palestinian Holocaust—our winning card.” Hamas leader Ghazi Hamad boasted, “The whole world is now against Israel, accused of genocide and ethnic cleansing.”

Netanyahu knows the stakes. As he spoke, he faced a storm at home: Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich threatening to quit, hostage families calling for a nationwide strike, and critics accusing him—yet again—of political opportunism, corruption, even “fascism.”

Most Popular

Fury after Western Wall defaced with ‘Holocaust in Gaza’ graffitiAug. 11, 2025

IDF kills Hamas terror cell leader posing as ‘Al Jazeera’ journalistAug. 11, 2025

Australia to recognize ‘Palestine’ at UN in SeptemberAug. 11, 2025

Yet he pressed forward with a single message while blasting the international media’s malicious caricature of Israel as a cruel, warmongering Jewish state: Israel will dismantle Hamas and rescue its hostages.

He forcefully rejected the lies that Israel uses hunger as a weapon of war, seeks to destroy an entire people or wages battle out of some “perfidious” national instinct. On the contrary, he reminded the press that Israel has allowed in two million tons of food into Gaza—aid Hamas seized and the United Nations failed to distribute.

He stressed that Israel’s goal is not occupation but security—handing civil power in Gaza to trustworthy Arab partners, not to the corrupt Palestinian Authority or genocidal Hamas.

“Contrary to false claims, this is the best way to end the war and the best way to end it speedily,”  he insisted. Seventy-five percent of Gaza is already under IDF control, with Hamas holding only Gaza City and the central refugee camps. Israel is pushing civilians to safe zones before final operations.

And he made one thing clear: The Palestinians have never wanted a state of their own that we offered since 1948—they only seek Israel’s destruction.”The Palestinians were offered a state many times, including in the partition resolution and they turned it down,” he said. “They were offered statehood by my predecessors, with lavish, lavish concessions. They turned it down.”

Netanyahu’s analogy was stark: You would not have left the Nazis in Berlin in 1945; neither will Israel leave Hamas in Gaza in 2025. His strategic vision extends beyond Gaza, toward the defeat of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian regime—with the backing of the United States.

Despite political fractures at home and the anguish of hostage families, Netanyahu is betting on a larger transformation—a postwar Middle East in which Israel survives not by begging for sympathy but by winning decisive victories. The foreign press may not want to hear it, but for Israel, victory is not optional.

Protestant Bible scholar and author Jeremiah Johnston explained in detail why the famous Shroud of Turin was Jesus Christ’s actual burial cloth.

Tucker Carlson interviewed a Bible scholar who highlights the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, proving Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

In a recent interview with Carlson, Protestant Bible scholar and author Jeremiah Johnston explained in detail why the famous Shroud of Turin was Jesus Christ’s actual burial cloth and how it proves the resurrection.

Johnston said that the shroud, which has been extensively studied, shows “pre-mortem and post-mortem blood all over the shroud.”

“ This tells us that someone died a torturous death,” he continued. “He was flogged. We see scourges. There are hashes all over the front and back images.”

The blood type, AB, is the same type that has consistently been found in scientific analyses of Eucharistic miracles, such as Lanciano (eighth century), Buenos Aires (1996), Tixtla (2006), and others.

”Between rib five and six, (we see) a gash in the side,” Johnston told Carlson. “Jesus, we know from John’s gospel, he is penetrated through rib five and six by a spear and that spear, John says, blood and water come out.”

“That’s post-mortem blood. We know that that blood, it differs from the other pre-mortem blood on the shroud.”

He noted that the crucifixion wounds can clearly be seen on the palms, forearms, and feet of the image.

Since all the wounds and other characteristics of the shroud fit the description of Jesus’ passion in the gospels perfectly, mathematician Bruno Barberis stated that “ there is a one in 200 billion chance it’s anyone other than Jesus of Nazareth” depicted on the shroud.

Johnston said that the interest in the shroud spiked after it was first photographed in 1898 by Italian amateur photographer Secondo Pia. The photo revealed a positive image of a man and a face that strongly resembled the early depictions of Jesus, and that was not visible with the naked eye on the shroud itself. This photograph revealed for the first time that the shroud showed a perfect negative image of a man.

Even more remarkably, the image is only burned into the very top layer of the linen cloth, something that, as Johnston explained, is impossible to replicate as forgery even with today’s technology.

“The image is only two microns thick,” the Bible scholar said. “It does not absorb all the way through. So, if this was a hoax, if this was a work of art, if there was pigment, if there was dye, if there was paint, it would absorb fully.”

“But if we took a razor to the actual shroud, we could shave off the image because it’s that thin, and this is what the best scientists in the world cannot replicate.”

”That’s what’s fascinating about the shroud … there’s no paint, there’s no dye, there’s no ink. The image is actually something that chemically has happened, and we believe it happened at the moment of resurrection,” he concluded.

Johnston said that physicist Paulo de Lazo, who spent five years examining the shroud, concluded that it would take “34,000 billion watts of energy in on 40^th of a billionth of a second” to create such an image in the linen cloth.

As additional proof that the shroud is authentic, researchers have found pollen on the artifact that can only be found in spring in the Jerusalem area, which would fit perfectly with the timing of Jesus’ passion.

Moreover, Johnston explained that there is “ Limestone and clay soil that is native only to Jerusalem, and it’s on three parts of the crucified man in the shroud.”

The limestone and clay can be found on the feet, the knees, and the tip of the nose of the man depicted in the shroud, fitting in with the fact that Jesus collapsed under the weight of his cross that he had to carry, his knees and face hitting the ground.

Johnston said that if we ever doubt God’s love for us, we only need to contemplate on his immense sufferings for our sins in his passion.

According to the scholar, the image shows “over 200 wounds” on the back and 172 on the front of the body, many likely inflicted by the scourging.

”There is not an area of Jesus’ body that has not been tortured, including the pelvic region,” Johnston stated.

He said that the image also makes it look as though his right eye was blinded, likely as a result of the scourging.

Johnston showed Carlson a re-creation of the crown of thorns, which, according to the 50 puncture marks found on the shroud, looked more like a helmet than a wreath.

Binary thinking won’t promote progress

This piece is the first in a series exploring the foundational players in the U.S. healthcare system: payers, providers, policymakers, and the pharmaceutical industry.

Ever since Bill and Hillary Clinton advanced healthcare reform in the first term of the Clinton administration, the debate about how to improve access and affordability has been politically fraught and full of pejoratives. Everyone comes to the table with opinions and preconceived notions, many of which go unchallenged.

In my classroom, I encourage my business school students to look beyond headlines, rhetoric, and reductive soundbites. Tropes like “All that insurance companies care about is profits” and “Doctors don’t understand business” are simplistic and do a disservice to patients trying to navigate a profoundly complex system while maintaining their health, dignity, and humanity.

In my nearly 30 years in healthcare — as a physician, executive, educator, and founder — I have worked in almost every corner of the system. Here is what I have found: most people who work in the healthcare industry, from the well-compensated insurance exec to the pharma salesperson, are mission-oriented. They want to positively affect people’s lives; they care deeply about finding and facilitating cures, and they certainly do not want to keep patients from accessing preventive or life-saving care.

It is the system in which these individuals operate that is flawed, not the people themselves.

In this editorial and those that follow in the series, I will look at the four p’s — providers, payers, policymakers, and pharma – and their place within the system. My goal is to uncover solutions that will improve the U.S. healthcare marketplace for all the players in it, especially for that fifth “p”: patients.

Let’s start with the pharmaceutical industry.

Fact: The U.S. Pharma Industry Is a Global Engine of Innovation

“Pharma is evil.”

Have you heard this trope? I cannot tell you how many times I have heard it. And, I will admit that when reading stories about the cost of insulinopens in a new tab or window or other drugs, there have been times when I thought it as well.

But here is the truth: the U.S. leads the world in clinical researchopens in a new tab or window and healthcare innovation. This outcome is not an accident. It is because these companies work hard to advance cures.

According to a study released last yearopens in a new tab or window by Amitabh Chandra, PhD, a professor at Harvard Business School and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, global biopharma research and development (R&D) investment totaled $276 billion in 2021, including a significant portion from the U.S. Over time, these investments have yielded transformative therapies, from immunotherapies in cancer to mRNA vaccines for COVID-19, to cures for hepatitis C, to groundbreaking treatments for rare genetic diseases. They have turned once-fatal diagnoses into manageable chronic conditions and extended, even saved, millions of lives.

For example, in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, we witnessed the industry’s capacity for rapid innovation in the U.S. Vaccines that would traditionally take a decade to develop were researched, tested, and distributed within a year due to unprecedented partnerships between industry, government, and academia. This example illustrates the best of what pharma can offer: coordinated action, rigorous science, and life-saving solutions.

Beyond innovation, the pharmaceutical industry also makes a substantial economic contribution. It supports more than 4 million U.S. jobs opens in a new tab or windowand contributes hundreds of billions to the national GDP. Entire communities depend on it — not just for medication, but for employment, research opportunities, and economic stability.

Given their work and ingenuity, Chandra emphasizes that pharma companies are, by and large, not exactly raking in the dough. In a webinar mentioned by R&D Insightopens in a new tab or window, Chandra argued, “This is not some super-profitable industry,” and pointed out that net income margins are around 15%, comparable to public utilities.

The Darker Side: Cost, Complexity, and Mistrust

I believe the pharma industry, and the vast majority of players in it, are not evil. But criticisms of the industry also are not baseless.

In the U.S., drug prices are much higher than in other countries. Essential medications, from the aforementioned insulin to asthma inhalers, are unaffordable for many Americans, leading to skipped doses, delayed treatments, or worse.

If that outcome is not due, as Chandra says, to exorbitant profits, why is it?

The complexity of the system is to blame. Pharmaceutical companies set the initial list price of their drugs, but then a byzantine system of rebates, discounts, pharmacy benefit managers, wholesalers, and insurers kicks in. Most of these policies are set by entities operating behind closed doors. This opacity makes it nearly impossible to understand the true cost of a drug, much less who is responsible for it. Pharma is often the easiest-to-explain scapegoat.

That said, the pharma industry engages in some questionable practices of its own that, while legally permissible, do raise ethical concerns. “Evergreeningopens in a new tab or window” strategies — making small, incremental changes to existing drugs in order to extend patent life — can delay the introduction of cheaper generics. “Pay-for-delayopens in a new tab or window” deals, in which brand-name companies pay generic manufacturers to postpone launching a competitor drug, do prioritize profits over patient access.

And of course, the role of certain companies in fueling the opioid crisis cannot be overlooked. Aggressive marketing tactics, suppression of addiction risk data, and relentless sales targets contributed to a public health emergency that we are still trying to contain. These practices erode public trust and obscure the very real and positive contributions of the industry.

Toward a More Balanced Future

So, is pharma the problem or the solution? The answer, as with most things in healthcare, is both.

The U.S. pharmaceutical industry is part of the problem in that it contributes to unsustainable drug pricing, exploits regulatory loopholes, and sometimes prioritizes shareholder value over public health. But it is also an essential part of the solution, leading the world in life-saving innovation and powering the next generation of therapeutics. Binary thinking — pharma is evil or pharma is our savior — prevents policymakers from addressing real issues: a fragmented payment system, regulatory lag, lack of transparency, and misaligned incentives across the ecosystem.

Innovation should be rewarded, but not at the expense of access. And profit motives can drive breakthroughs but should be balanced with public accountability.

What does a more balanced future look like?

*Transparency in pricing: Patients, providers, and policymakers should be able to understand how drug prices are set and where the money goes.

*Regulatory reform: Closing loopholes that delay generic drugs and revisiting patent laws would help improve access while preserving innovation.

*Value-based pricing models: Paying for drugs based on outcomes, rather than volume or exclusivity, could better align incentives.

*Continued investment in neglected areas: Antibiotics, maternal health drugs, and global health medications are hungry for attention and funding, even if the profit margins are lower. Pharma companies could go a long way in repairing mistrust by investing in underserved areas.

*Better public-private partnerships: COVID-19 showed us what is possible when government and industry collaborate with urgency and purpose.

*When it comes to solving the problem of high drug prices, we need to elevate the conversation. If we reduce entire sectors of healthcare to villains, we stop looking for solutions.

And we all suffer.

N. Adam Brown, MD, MBA

While Democrats are claiming that President Donald Trump unveiled a comprehensive plan to “liberate” Washington, D.C. is a distraction from the Jeffrey Epstein case, an unlikely source is pouring cold water on their plans.

On CNN, pollster Harry Enten reported that “Google searches for Epstein are down 89% from just 3 weeks ago,” “Trump’s approval rating is holding steady & much higher than term 1 at this point in his presidency,” and “less than 1% say it’s the nation’s top issue.”

“The Epstein saga,” Enten noted, “is becoming a political dud & nothingburger.”

CNN’s findings confirm what many across America have maintained; that Democratic attempts to tie Trump to the disgraced convicted sex offender are amounting to nothing.

Trump, his allies note, is unlikely to be implicated in any way in Epstein’s crimes; Democrats had full control of the government for years in which they weaponized the Department of Justice (DOJ) against him and his allies, and no evidence surfaced of a connection between the president and Epstein’s crimes.

Nevertheless, Democrats like Rep. Ted Lieu (D., Calif.) insist that “Trump is engaged in another political stunt.”

“He’s now taking over the local police and deploying the National Guard in DC. (Remember when he delayed deployment on January 6?),” Lieu continued. “He’s doing everything he can to distract from the Epstein files, and nothing to lower prices.”

Watch the full CNN segment here.

The Epstein saga is becoming a political dud & nothingburger.

-Google searches for Epstein are down 89% from just 3 weeks ago.
-Trump's approval rating is holding steady & much higher than term 1 at this point in his presidency
-Less than 1% say it's the nation's top issue pic.twitter.com/rnp2M8qzdf

— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) August 11, 2025

* A recent European study found that all tested breads – including organic – contained trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), a PFAS compound linked to reproductive and developmental harm. TFA levels were up to 400 times higher than in drinking water.

* TFA is spreading through air, rain and water – affecting even farms that haven’t used herbicides or pesticides in decades. These chemicals accumulate in wheat and cannot be filtered out by baking or washing.

* Most commercial bread is made using the Chorleywood Bread Process, a high-speed, additive-heavy method that sacrifices nutrition and health for shelf life. softness and cost-efficiency.

* Many ingredients – like GMO-based emulsifiers, preservatives. processing enzymes and other additives – are not listed on food labels. Some are allergens or linked to gut issues, thyroid disruption and more.

=========================================================================

It looks innocent enough on the plate. A soft sandwich. A slice of toast. Maybe a warm dinner roll. But that comforting crust hides a disturbing reality: Your bread isn’t what it used to be – and it hasn’t been for decades.

Today’s commercially baked bread is a far cry from the four- or five-ingredient staple your grandparents knew. Instead of just flour, salt, water and yeast, modern bread often contains a cocktail of chemicals, processing agents and synthetic additives – many of which you’ll never find on the label. And some, like trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), a newly identified “forever chemical,” may be putting your health at serious risk.

TFA in every slice: A new chemical culprit

You’ve probably never heard of TFA, but it may be in your daily bread, your morning cereal or the pasta on your dinner plate.

TFA is a highly potent acid widely used in chemical laboratories – especially in the making of pharmaceuticals and proteins. But what most people don’t know is that TFA is also a persistent environmental contaminant – not because you add it to food, but because it forms when fluorinated chemicals break down in the environment. Once it’s there, it stays. TFA doesn’t biodegrade. It is highly water-soluble and mobile – meaning it can travel long distances through rain and runoff, settling into groundwater, rivers and cropland.

In a new study, researchers found TFA in every wheat-based food tested – from bread to breakfast cereal to pasta. Even long-organic farms weren’t spared. Because TFA behaves like other PFAS or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances – often referred to as “forever chemicals” – it accumulates quietly in food and the body, raising concerns among health experts and environmental scientists alike. (Related: Austrian study warns: “Forever chemicals” found in all tested cereal products, including organic brands.)

Researchers found TFA levels up to 400 times higher than those in drinking water, even in products labeled “organic.” Farms that hadn’t used herbicides or pesticides in 25 years were still contaminated. Why? Because TFA travels through air and rain, settling onto crops and into the soil across the planet.

Worse still, TFA levels in food have tripled in less than a decade. Experts now warn it may pose a global reproductive and developmental health threat. Children, who eat more bread and cereal than most adults, are especially at risk – consuming four times the so-called “safe” limit, according to European health authorities.

The hidden technology behind your bread

While TFA grabs headlines, another culprit has been hiding in plain sight for over 60 years: the Chorleywood Bread Process (CBP).

Developed in the 1960s in the U.K., this industrial method revolutionized bread-making – not for better nutrition, but for speed, volume, softness and shelf life. CBP relies on high-speed mixing, low-quality flour and a battery of chemical additives to create that fluffy, squishy texture now associated with mass-produced bread.

Here’s the kicker:

Over 80 percent of all U.K bread (and much of what’s sold worldwide) is made this way. You won’t see “Chorleywood” on the label. But if your bread stays soft and edible for two weeks or more and sticks to the roof of your mouth, you’ve likely eaten it.

Here’s a break down of the ingredients – and non-ingredients – you might be chewing on:

Undeclared enzymes

Many commercial bakers use enzymes to make dough rise faster and stay soft longer. Some are genetically engineered, while others are derived from fungi, mold or animal byproducts. Because they’re classified as “processing aids,” they don’t have to be listed on the label, even though they can cause allergic reactions and may remain active in the final loaf.

One enzyme, transglutaminase, is suspected of making wheat more toxic to people with gluten sensitivity.

Dough conditioners and additives

To withstand factory machinery, commercial dough gets a chemical makeover.

* Azodicarbonamide (ADA) – A chemical also used in foam yoga mats, ADA is banned in many countries and is linked to asthma and respiratory issues.

* L-cysteine (E920) – Used to relax dough, it is often derived from animal hair or feathers.

* Potassium bromate – A suspected carcinogen that’s banned in California and Europe, it is still allowed in many U.S. breads. It strengthens the dough but disrupts thyroid function.

Emulsifiers and preservatives

Soft bread that never molds? Here’s why:

* Calcium propionate – A preservative that inhibits mold but is linked in some studies to behavioral changes in children.

* Mono- and diglycerides, DATEM, sodium lactylate – These additives help create soft, pliable loaves but are often made from genetically modified soy or corn oils.

Bleaching and whitening agents

Want bright white flour fast? Here are the chemicals that make them just that:

* Chlorine dioxide – A bleaching gas used to “whiten” flour, it is not permitted in the European Union but is still allowed in the United States.

* Soya flour – Often genetically modified, it also bleaches and softens dough.

Hidden sugars

Bread shouldn’t taste like cake, but many commercial loaves do. Manufacturers sneak in cane sugar, corn syrup, dextrose and maltose under different names. Even “light” and “healthy” breads often have three to five teaspoons of added sugar per loaf.

GMOs and pesticides

Most conventional breads contain GMO-derived ingredients like corn starch, soy flour or soybean oil. These crops are typically drenched in glyphosate, a herbicide the World Health Organization (WHO) classified as a “probable carcinogen.” Some GMO crops are engineered to produce their own pesticides internally – the same trait that makes insect stomachs explode may not be something you want in your sandwich.

Health risks that can’t be ignored: Why it matters

The hidden ingredients and shortcuts in industrial baking have been linked to a range of health concerns:

* Allergic reactions and asthma from allergens, enzymes and preservatives

* Gut inflammation, gluten intolerance and autoimmune reactions

* Hormone disruption and thyroid issues from bromate and PFAS

* Obesity, diabetes and metabolic issues from added sugars and refined grains

* Possible developmental and reproductive harm from PFAS like TFA

In a world where even “organic” bread may carry invisible toxins, the answer isn’t fear – it is knowledge and action. You deserve to know what’s in your food. You deserve better bread. And now you know where to start.

Olivia Cook Noah, 100 % Fed Up

Adam Schiff has always had that smug “I know something you don’t know” smirk. Turns out what he allegedly knew was how to weaponize classified information for political gain—and then act shocked anyone would call it illegal.

This week, a Democratic whistleblower—someone who worked in Schiff’s own House orbit for more than a decade—told the FBI that Schiff personally approved leaking classified material in order to smear Donald Trump. Not a rumor. Not a guess. Not an “I heard it from a guy.” The whistleblower alleges Schiff gave the order in a general staff meeting. Translation: he wanted an audience for his treachery.

The whistleblower didn’t mince words either—calling the act “treasonous,” “illegal,” and “unethical.” And frankly, that’s generous. If the allegation is true, Schiff didn’t just cross the line—he sprinted past it, torched it, and then used the flames to roast the Constitution on a stick.

But why stop at Schiff? Hillary Clinton handed him the playbook. Her campaign and the DNC paid for the Steele dossier, a steaming pile of fiction peddled as “intelligence.” They fed it into the bloodstream of our national security apparatus, and—surprise—it produced FISA warrants, political surveillance, and years of baseless headlines.

And then there’s Barack Obama—briefed on the dossier, fully aware it was unverified, but still allowing it to be used as a blunt-force weapon against a political opponent. That’s not “misjudgment.” That’s political arson with the nation’s trust as the kindling.

So here’s the unvarnished truth: Schiff, Hillary, and Obama all knew exactly what they were doing. They weren’t “mistaken.” They weren’t “misled.” They were knowingly and willfully manipulating America’s intelligence system to settle political scores. And they assumed you’d be too distracted by whatever shiny outrage the media threw at you that week to notice.

Adam Schiff in particular has made a career of looking into cameras and lying without blinking. Remember the endless “I’ve seen the evidence” routine? The man could give a masterclass in false confidence. Only now, the confidence is cracking—because if this whistleblower is telling the truth, Schiff isn’t just an overzealous partisan. He’s a security risk in a suit.

And spare me the lecture about “this is just politics.” If you or I leaked classified information, we wouldn’t be giving snarky interviews on cable news—we’d be learning the finer points of license plate stamping at a federal penitentiary. The idea that Schiff gets a pass because he has a congressional pin on his lapel should offend every honest American.

Accountability isn’t optional. If Schiff approved this leak, he belongs in the same legal jeopardy any soldier, analyst, or staffer would face for doing the same thing. Hillary’s role in laundering the Steele dossier into the FBI should get the same treatment. And Obama’s decision to weaponize intel he knew was rotten should be scrutinized without mercy.

This isn’t about “Lock her up” as a campaign chant. It’s about “Lock them up” as a statement of principle. Because until the political class learns that there is no immunity for betraying the public trust, they will keep doing it. And every leak, every fabricated “intelligence” report, every abuse of surveillance powers will erode what’s left of the republic.

So yes, I’m saying it plainly: Lock him up. Lock her up. Lock all of them up. Schiff, Clinton, Obama—if you did it, you own it. If the evidence proves it, you face the music. You don’t get a pass because you were aiming at Donald Trump. That’s not how America works—at least not the America we intend to keep.

Schiff’s problem isn’t that this whistleblower exists—it’s that the whistleblower’s story fits the pattern we’ve all watched for years. Schiff’s entire brand is smearing Trump with whatever “intel” he can find, verified or not. If classified material got caught in his partisan crossfire, it’s because he wanted it there.

And that’s why Adam Schiff, the self-anointed guardian of democracy, should be shaking in his designer shoes right now. Because if justice still means anything in this country, the next staff meeting he approves won’t be in the Rayburn Building—it’ll be in the prison library.

Kevin McCullough is a nationally syndicated columnist with Townhall.com and host of “That KEVIN Show” on Salem News Channel and Salem Radio Network. He can be followed on X at @KMCRadio.

Posted on August 11, 2025

This video: Magnificent!

She nails the psychologically masturbatory nature of leftist “moralism” and self-righteousness with regard to Palestine and Islam — and really with everything advanced by their preposterous and insane echo chamber of a movement.

Go here to watch it!  By all means, watch it.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

So President Trump uses his Constitutional powers to force the federal city of Washington D.C. to stop imposing policies which allow violent offenders to go free even after they’re convicted. Leftists shriek that Trump is going after black mayors.

Are they suggesting that the mayors of these cities are deliberately trying to destabilize and destroy their own cities by refusing to punish murderers, thieves and rapists? And that Mr. Trump won’t allow violent thugs to escape accountability?

If so, I agree. Yet another reason I voted for him 3 times.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

About eight years from now, after the reelection of President Vance, experts will agree that there was something rotten in the state of Clinton, Obama, and Biden. Always the last to know, the experts will finally “notice” that something has changed in this city on a hill.

Steve Sailer has a book on Noticing. And why not? The most important skill for a human is to notice when things have changed and then to figure out what to do next.

Anyone with half a brain noticed that something had changed back in 2016 when neophyte politician Trump ran for the presidency. And the Deep State noticed it too. That’s what Clinton and Obama and Clapper and Brennan and Uncle Tom Cobbley and our world-beating Intelligence Community were conspiring to stop before it was too late. Only they failed.

I notice, according to reports, that President Trump has just brokered his seventh peace agreement between warring states since January 20 and counting.

All of us, excepting our liberal friends, really want to know what this all means.

This is what I noticed in the last few days. There’s a Salena Zito piece on Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. I’ll just give you the high points:

Spend any time listening to Bessent talk, and it is clear he is laser-focused on one thing, something he can only accomplish in his current job: lifting America’s economy into a position where both Main Street and Wall Street are performing equally robustly.

And this:

The 79th treasury secretary also loves working with President Donald Trump… The banter, trust, and respect that went both ways between the men were tangible.

For instance, Trump recently told Bessent that he didn’t have enough muscle to work as a steelworker.

Bessent’s family “was very affluent for a couple hundred years, and then we weren’t,” so Bessent started doing part-time work at age 9. Then:

Bessent worked his way through college, holding down three jobs during summer break and at least one, if not two, jobs during the school year.

And so on. Real the whole thing. Remember the other Secretary of the Treasury that worked through his teenage years? Alexander Hamilton.

Then there is an interview with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who, I assume, had something to do with the seven peace agreements. The interview covered the persecution of Christians all over the world. Rubio stated that the Christian “church has traditionally been at its strongest when it’s the persecuted church… [and weakest when it] gets consumed by the culture.” Trump and Rubio are focused on massacres of Christians in countries like Nigeria, and they think the new Pope could help.

But now let’s get a more general world view from James Banakis writing at John Kass’s website. He notes that there are only two responses to Trump: admiration and revulsion.

There is, it seems no middle ground. Thus, it has always been with consequential figures throughout history…

The Trump enemies will hate to hear this, but he is changing the Presidency and international relations for the better, forever. The entire world is in the midst of a revolution.

And Trump is the “hero” that is making it happen. Heroes, according to Joseph Campbell, tend to die on the border between Order and Chaos. Victor Davis Hanson compares Trump to Gen. Patton, who

led the 3rd army’s full blast attack from Normandy to the Rhine.. [k]eeping the opposition confused, and in complete disarray. The leader in this case Trump is the tip of the spear. His administration follows to implement his agendas. He demonstrates every day, whether you agree with his policies or not that he was born to lead.  The press, because of Trump, is in the process of changing forever.  Newspapers and network news are becoming a thing of the past.

My point in throwing all this out is to help you — and myself — try to begin to understand what is going on here. My faith is that we are at a turning point in history, the end of the age of politics as religion, of heaven on earth, the rule of the educated elite. In other words, a revolution.

But what kind of revolution? I suggest there are three kinds of revolution. Educated class revolutions like the French, Bolshevik, and Maoist Revolutions lead straight to the abattoir. Lower-class revolutions usually fail: peasant uprisings and worker rebellions.

But the American Revolution was the most successful in history. Why was that? I suggest that it was a middle-class revolution, led by men who understood life in the real world: men ranging from landowners like Washington and Jefferson, lawyers like John Adams, and, of course My Man Alexander Hamilton, the “bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar,” who practiced business and law, and understood central banking.

Have you “noticed” that populist nationalism, all across the world, is middle-class centered? That gives me hope.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill blogs at The Commoner Manifesto and runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also get his American Manifesto and his Road to the Middle Class.

It was in July 2019 that New York State adopted its Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. Our Legislature and Governor (it was Andrew Cuomo at the time) had officially designated us as the climate “leader,” here to show the unsophisticated rubes and provincials in the rest of the country how a small application of political will could transform our electricity system from majority fossil fuels in 2019 to 70% “renewables” by 2030 and 100% “zero-carbon” by 2040.

Now six years into the eleven available to meet the 2030 mandate, we actually get less of our electricity from zero-carbon sources than we did in 2019. The reason is that the large (2 GW) Indian Point nuclear plant was forced to close under pressure from environmentalists, to be replaced by two natural gas plants of approximately the same total capacity. Meanwhile the vision of massive amounts of power from the wind and sun has barely gotten off the ground; and in particular the vision of vast offshore wind capacity has essentially died with the withdrawal of federal support by the Trump administration.

So what is the plan from here forward? The short answer is that there is no plan, or at least nothing remotely close to a credible plan.

But while we lack any semblance of a credible plan, we do not lack big reports purporting to be a plan. The last couple of months have seen the issuance of two such documents. On July 25, something called the New York State Energy Planning Board issued a document titled the Draft 2025 Energy Plan for the State. Separately, back on June 2, an agency called the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) issued its own document called 2025 Power Trends. So how can I say that there is no plan?

Well, start with that document from the Energy Planning Board. The EPB is some kind of consortium of the infinitely confusing morass of bureaucracies with their fingers in the New York energy planning pie. Here is a list of members, with some 14 hangers-on ranging from the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, to the Chancellor of the State University, to the Commissioner of the Department of Health, to the Chair of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. You would think that by this time, with only five years to go to the 2030 deadline, this highfalutin group of muckety-mucks would have, at the minimum: a detailed list of exactly what was going to be built where to meet the mandate, accompanied by an engineering-level feasibility study and detailed cost projections. Well no, no and no.

Instead we get hundreds upon hundreds of pages of fluff. The Summary for Policy Makers alone is 75 pages long. The whole thing is way too voluminous for me to give you anything more than a tiny sampling here. But an excerpt from the introductory paragraphs will give you some of the flavor:

Energy is central to New Yorkers’ lives. It powers the economy, keeps homes and workplaces comfortable, moves people and goods, and runs critical infrastructure. New York is one of the most energy-efficient states in the nation based on energy use per person and state economic output. 1. Additionally, our power grid is becoming cleaner. Roughly half of New York’s in-state electricity generation comes from zero-emission sources,2 and renewable generation projects that are in the pipeline today would double the state’s renewable generation by 2030.3 Yet, like the rest of the country, New Yorkers face volatile energy prices, intensifying extreme weather, and environmental and health impacts associated with reliance on fossil fuels and aging fossil fuel infrastructure. These shared concerns do not affect all communities equally. Low-income households and otherwise disadvantaged communities are disproportionately impacted by energy cost burdens and by community and environmental health concerns like water and air pollution.4 Disadvantaged communities also face significant barriers to accessing clean energy choices.5

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And then this from a little further down in the introduction:

The Energy Planning Board acknowledges that at the time of developing the Draft Plan, the energy sector faces significant uncertainty, stemming from economic pressures and, more recently, a shift in political priorities and policies at the federal level. These uncertainties impact long-term planning, investment decisions, and possibly the pace of transition to clean energy.

Translation: all of their fantasies about massive amounts of solar and wind power driven by federal subsidies have been wiped out, and they have no idea of what is next. So they’re going to bury you in hundreds of pages of bafflegab about things like “delivering abundant, reliable and resilient clean energy,” or “continuing progress toward de-carbonization and a clean energy economy,” or “delivering abundant energy services for economic competitiveness.” (These are examples of headings from the table of contents.)

Note that this is just the “draft” plan. A multi-month process of public comments and revisions is contemplated. The chance that that process will contribute an actual feasibility study or detailed cost projection is exactly zero.

And then there is the NYISO Power Trends report. This one is a comparatively terse 50 pages. Most is written in the same type of bureaucratese designed to conceal the lack of substance and to keep you from reading further. Example from the President’s introductory letter:

 The electric system is the backbone of our economy. It is essential to the health and safety of all New Yorkers. Since the NYISO’s inception in 1999, protecting electric system reliability and evolving competitive markets has been our top priority in the face of great change, whether it be societal, public policy, or extreme weather.

But then NYISO is the one agency here that actually has the responsibility to keep the system up and running. Deeply buried on page 14 as the last paragraph of a section headed “A diverse resource mix supports grid reliability,” we find these two sentences:

Simply put, as New York seeks to retire more fossil fuel units in the coming years it will be essential to deploy new energy resources with the same reliability attributes to maintain grid reliability. Until new, non-emitting alternatives like hydrogen or advanced nuclear generation are developed and commercialized, fossil resources are needed to fill an essential role in preserving reliable grid operations.

Well as of today grid-scale hydrogen and advanced nuclear generation have not been “commercialized.” So the only answer is to keep the fossil fuel generation going. Perhaps they should tell some of their co-bureaucrats, like NYSERDA, or the Energy Planning Board, or maybe even the Legislature or the New York City Council. But as of now NYISO’s strategy seems to be to put a warning somewhere deep in their reports just so they can say “I told you so” when the whole thing falls apart. They owe the New York citizenry much better.

Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian