And they don’t exist anyway.

It wasn’t all that long ago that Republicans were pretending they wanted the Epstein files released. Now it’s Democrats who are pretending that they want the Epstein files released.

The reality is that no one wants the Epstein files released. The Dems last of all. Promises to release the Epstein files are sucker bait, because there’s nothing to release. Anyone who starts out promising to release them or the JFK/UFO files eventually ends up having to explain why there’s nothing there.

I was writing about the Epstein case long before many of the current grifters and to state the obvious, there are no files of any significance to release. Anything truly damning is as gone as Hillary’s real emails. Only a crackhead like Hunter Biden would just dump laptops full of damning evidence where anyone could get at it. And if those hard drives had been purely in the province of the FBI, they would have wiped them the way they wiped Hillary’s drives after they had ‘finished’ their investigation.

Or the records of Epstein’s visitor logs during his first term in ‘prison’.

It’s amazing to me that people believe the government is capable of the worst kinds of crimes and yet carefully keeps damning evidence on itself just waiting for the right bureaucrat or appointee to release it. The Communists and Nazis did that kind of thing because they had absolute power and were convinced that they were going to rule the world. They didn’t think in terms of ‘cover-ups’ until much later when they realized they weren’t going to win. Government employees covering up things for powerful people well… cover them up. Sometimes clumsily, like Sandy Berger stuffing documents about Clinton’s Bin Laden policy in his socks. But there is no collection of videos of powerful people assaulting underage girls waiting to be released. If such videos still exist, then you can bet they’ve been winnowed down to protect the particularly influential. And by now everyone ought to know that an upper level Bureau man when confronted with politically explosive stuff like this will find a reason to erase it.

Calls to release the Epstein files will just lead to the release of more useless documents. Everyone in politics knows it. They’re playing a game and lying to you.

As they always do.

Daniel Greenfield, Front Page Magazine

By Andrea Widburg

Many years ago, a leftist attorney I know thought he had a trump card to play, showing how hypocritical churches were when it came to gay marriage: They never complained about abortion infringing on their constitutional rights, he said. Their constitutional complaint in the face of gay marriage showed they were homophobic.

I gently reminded him that churches don’t perform abortions, but they do perform marriages. In other words, anything that allows the government to force doctrinal changes on religious institutions and believers infringes on their First Amendment rights. Thus, the moment the Supreme Court decided its misguided Obergefell decision finding an imaginary right to same sex marriage in the Constitution, I worried about a clash between that imaginary right and the real First Amendment right to religious freedom.

I reiterated my concern when the Supreme Court issued Justice Gorsuch’s utterly misbegotten decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. That decision insisted that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents employers from discriminating against employees based on, among other things, sex, extended to sexual preference and so-called “gender identity.” Of course, by sex, Congress in 1964 clearly meant only the XX/XY binary. Homosexuality was not at issue, and “gender identity” had not yet been birthed in leftists’ fertile imaginations.

It was obvious from the moment the Bostock decision hit the streets, though, that it would set up a confrontation between people of faith, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, people of fantasy demanding that their employers and colleagues recognize their mental illness as reality. And, just to emphasize the mental illness part, here is a representative of the so-called gender identity movement:

Newsweek is reporting a perfect example of the inevitable confrontation, because it involves a library that forces “inclusive” language on its employees and a pastor who was fired for refusing to use that language. And while the library may have voluntarily created the speech code because its leftist management buys into so-called transgenderism, the reality is that the Bostock decision requires it—and all other businesses—to do so as a matter of law.

A Louisiana pastor said he was fired from his job at a local library after he refused to use a co-worker’s preferred pronouns.

Luke Ash, the lead pastor of Stevendale Baptist Church in Baton Rouge, said he was sacked from the East Baton Rouge Parish Library after a conversation on July 7.

Libraries, schools and other institutions have implemented policies to create respectful environments for all employees, including protections for those who identify as transgender or non-binary.

But some may feel that such policies may conflict with employees’ religious beliefs, resulting in disciplinary action or job loss.

According to Newsweek, what comes next is all very nuanced and requires a lot of balancing:

The outcome of this case could hinge on the interpretation of anti-discrimination and religious freedom statutes in Louisiana and may contribute to ongoing discussions about the balance between workplace inclusivity and individual convictions.

That’s true only if the Supreme Court continues to insist that Bostock was correctly decided. And keep in mind that, as happened with the Supreme Court’s 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which articulated the “separate but equal” principle, the Supreme Court can reverse itself.

However, there’s nothing nuanced here. On the one hand, we have a decision that chose to interpret a 1964 statute in a way that Congress clearly never intended, which makes the decision invalid right off the bat. On the other hand, we have a matter of pure religious speech and conscience.

It’s not even close. Bostock needs to be overruled. I hope Ash—the perfect plaintiff because he’s a man of the cloth—finds a conservative legal aid society to take up this case, and that the case makes it to the Supreme Court.

In half a year, the impossible became obvious: borders closed, recruits returned, Iran retreated, and elites were exposed—all because people finally said, “Enough.”

In less than six months, the entire world has been turned upside down. There is no longer such a thing as conventional wisdom or the status quo.

The unthinkable has become the banal.

Take illegal immigration—remember the 10,000 daily illegal entries under Biden?

Recall the only solution was supposedly “comprehensive immigration reform”—a euphemism for mass amnesties.

Now, there is no such thing as daily new illegal immigration.

It simply disappeared with common-sense enforcement of existing immigration laws—and a new president.

How about the 40,000-50,000 shortfall in military recruitment?

Remember all the causes that the generals cited for their inability to enlist soldiers: generational gangs, obesity, drugs, and stiff competition with private industry?

And now?

In just six months, recruitment targets are already met; the issue is mostly moot.

Why? The new Pentagon flipped the old, canceling its racist DEI programs and assuring the rural, middle-class Americans—especially white males—that they were not systemically racist after all.

Instead, they were reinvited to enlist as the critical combat cohort who died at twice their demographic share in Iraq and Afghanistan.

How about the “end of the NATO crisis,” supposedly brought on by a bullying U.S.?

Now the vast majority of NATO members have met their pledges to spend two percent of GDP on defense, which will soon increase to five percent.

Iconic neutrals like Sweden and Finland have become frontline NATO nations, arming to the teeth. The smiling NATO Secretary-General even called Trump the “daddy” of the alliance.

What about indomitable, all-powerful, theocratic Iran, the scourge of the Middle East for nearly fifty years?

Although it had never won a war in the last half-century, its terrorist surrogates—Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—were supposedly too dangerous to provoke.

What about indomitable, all-powerful, theocratic Iran, the scourge of the Middle East for nearly fifty years?

Although it had never won a war in the last half-century, its terrorist surrogates—Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—were supposedly too dangerous to provoke.

Victor Davis Hanson

Chinese dominance in display technologies poses a critical national security threat, demanding urgent US action to secure supply chains.

Last month, US energy experts uncovered hidden cellular radios inside Chinese-made solar inverters—critical components that link solar panels, batteries, and electric vehicle chargers to the grid. These rogue devices bypass installed firewalls, potentially giving China a clandestine “kill switch” over slices of America’s energy infrastructure.

With China now producing over 70 percent of the world’s display panels and leading in OLED (organic light-emitting diodes) output, every Chinese console and cockpit screen—from fighter-jet helmet displays to submarine sonar monitors—risks a similar back-door shutdown.

Just as Chinese firms used massive state-backed financing to flood global defense markets with cheap drones and batteries, Beijing has poured billions into subsidies, tax breaks, and low-cost loans to build the world’s largest display fabs. These investments have cornered a $182 billion industry—one forecast to double by 2034—driving panel prices so low that no US or allied competitor can viably enter the market. Today, the Pentagon spends over $300 million a year on mission-critical displays—a figure set to surpass $600 million by 2034. With virtually no non-Chinese suppliers left, global display supply chains—including those underpinning our defense systems—risk being held hostage in the future to Beijing’s strategic whims.

Display Failures Could Cripple US Combat Readiness

The problem is that in modern warfare, displays are as vital as ammunition. Naval combat information centers, international air traffic control towers, field-deployable command posts, and trauma-center ICU monitors all depend on display panels, many of which are Chinese-made or sourced. Displays also form the backbone of next-generation night-vision goggles, helmet-mounted displays, and handheld mission planners, potentially putting individual operators at risk of a sudden blackout if we rely on Chinese-produced panels for our most critical systems.

It may be hard to imagine how far Beijing could take this, but Washington must plan for the worst. In a crisis or period of heightened tension, China could push over-the-air malicious firmware updates that brick internet-connected displays, freeze cockpit screens mid-flight, or disable mission-critical monitors in combat zones. Even sporadic failures could erode commanders’ trust in these systems, potentially deterring decisive action at critical moments. The same could be done to displays that are used to monitor and control our key critical infrastructures like power grids, water systems, rail systems, and airports. Though extreme, these scenarios underscore why display security cannot remain a secondary concern.

China’s Grip on Display Inputs Is a National Security Risk

Even absent backdoors, Beijing’s grip on the display market and its supply chains is a national security vulnerability. Chinese state-backed and controlled firms like BOE, CSOT, and HKC control display panel fabrication, and China dominates critical display inputs—from specialty glass and indium tin oxide to rare-earth phosphors and specialty gases. Beijing has weaponized similar dependencies before. In 2010, it abruptly cut exports of rare earths to Japan, sending global prices soaring and triggering a diplomatic crisis. This April, amidst its escalating trade war with Washington, Beijing announced export curbs on neodymium magnets—vital for America’s auto and other defense sectors, forcing US production lines to idle. In March, they prohibited gallium sales to the US, a mineral critical to the radars that track hypersonic missiles.

Lawmakers Urge Action on Chinese Display Risks

Some members of Congress have already been sounding the alarm. Last fall, Rep. John Moolenaar (R-MI), Chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, wrote to then-Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin warning that Chinese domination of the global display industry poses a clear national-security risk. Moolenaar urged the Defense Department to investigate China’s leading panel makers for potential ties to the People’s Liberation Army and to consider designating them as “Chinese military companies” on the Pentagon’s 1260H list, which bars the Department from contracting with those firms. The new Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, should take overdue action on this letter.

Treat Displays as Strategic Assets, Not Consumer Commodities

More can be done. The Commerce Department should assess China’s top panel makers for placement on its Entity List, cutting off critical US technology transfers and equipment sales. At the same time, the US Trade Representative could launch a Section 301 unfair-trade practices probe—or Commerce could trigger a Section 232 national-security investigation—into Chinese display panels and parts, paving the way for targeted tariffs. These combined whole-of-government steps would send a clear message that the United States will no longer tolerate strategic dependencies masked as “cheap” consumer goods and would create vital breathing room for trusted defense suppliers.

Looking farther ahead, the United States must jump-start domestic and allied panel production to reclaim hardened defense supply chains. That means creating a level playing field. Congress can do this by extending targeted tax credits and other incentives to reindustrialize display manufacturing on US soil. It also requires mandating friend-shoring for defense and critical infrastructure screens, steering purchases to trusted partners whose industries have been undercut by Beijing’s state-backed practices. Done right, these steps would foster a resilient, diversified display ecosystem that outpaces China.

All told, in the era of great-power competition, it’s time to treat displays not as commodities but as strategic assets—because when the screens go dark, the fight may already be lost.

Mark Montgomery and Craig Singleton

U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina: “We didn’t just break barriers at The Citadel, we shattered them. First woman to graduate. Still holding the line.”

Not only was she the first woman to graduate from the Citadel.

She has the courage to state that a man is not a woman; a woman is not a man; that you cannot be BOTH and NEITHER at the same time.

In a culture gone mad, it takes the courage and strength of a Citadel graduate to say the truth.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

By Monica Showalter

In the annals of bad judgment, Elon Musk’s picked fight with President Trump over federal spending stands out as a beaut.

While it’s true that the recently passed congressional budget, a.k.a., the “Big Beautiful Bill” involved a small rise in spending in the bid to get it through, which was Musk’s beef, a beef so strong he ended his relationship with President Trump, it also contained critical tax cuts which usually yield more in tax revenue than congressional estimates. as the economy booms. But there’s an even bigger story out there that the press isn’t reporting: Trump is already cutting the deficit — and on his watch, inflation is going down, too.

The last two days, as highlighted by Wall Street economist Brian Wesbury, shows the big picture:

Why does Wesbury suggest we look at just the last three months instead of the whole federal fiscal year (which begins in October) up until this point on inflation?

Because those are the months Trump, and only Trump, was in office.

He suggests the same for the deficit, but can go back five months. During Trump’s time in office, the federal deficit slid to $498 billion from $741 billion in the same time period a year earlier, when Joe Biden was in office. That’s about a third lower between the amount paid out and the amount paid in, meaning, the federal government is no longer spending like it used to.

Why is the press missing this story? Well, because they are counting it from the fiscal year’s beginning, not from the Trump administration’s second term beginning, which is a far more useful indicator. Trump is slashing the deficit and only the smarter guys on Wall Street, like Brian Wesbury, can see it. The rest are reading reports like these and saying the deficit is up, unable to see that they are lumping Joe Biden’s bad figures in with President Trump’s figures, creating a doo-doo in the punchbowl kind of distortion

That was the crux of Elon’s beef with Trump, the one he made such a stink about, hurling insane, ad hominem insults and vowing to found a third party that he estranged himself from Trump, despite holding a very privileged position of trust.

Was it worth it, Elon? Trump in fact is doing exactly what you wanted all along. You’re a code and numbers guy, how could you miss that? 

Some things we can’t understand.

American Thinker

A U.S. Senate hearing to examine deaths and cognitive delays caused by vaccines revealed a shared belief between Democrats and Republicans that the pharmaceutical industry lacks adequate oversight.

Families of children and teenagers who were injured after receiving the influenza, HPV and MMR vaccines shared their stories in front of a congressional panel Tuesday. Top committee members on both sides of the aisle expressed concerns of how the witnesses’ testimonies demonstrated an “immunity from legal responsibility” within big pharma.

Chairman Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., criticized the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers on TV. Johnson said drug companies spent an estimated $10 billion on consumer advertising in 2024, making up almost 25% of evening ad minutes.

Johnson argued that the massive amount of money garnered from this advertising allows the industry to “control the narrative and suppress stories of drug and vaccine injuries.”

The panel’s top Democrat Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., shared Johnson’s concerns of big pharma and pledged to co-sponsor a bill banning pharmaceutical advertisements on TV. Blumenthal questioned whether the U.S. government holds the pharmaceutical industry to the same standards as other industries.

“I am extremely suspicious as a lawyer of immunity that is granted in any blanket way across the board to any manufacturer,” Blumenthal said.

Committee members conveyed interest in reforming the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a program which provides legal immunity to pharmaceutical manufacturers, according to the panel. One witness said the program provided no relief to his family over 16 years to support his son who requires around-the-clock care.

“If there are reforms in the law that could come of [this hearing] to improve the law, I would explore them,” Blumenthal told The Center Square.

Caroline Boda

Westinghouse’s HiVE and bertha AI platforms, paired with Google Cloud tools, aim to speed up nuclear construction.

In a first-of-its-kind move, Westinghouse Electric Company and Google Cloud have teamed up to leverage artificial intelligence for streamlining nuclear reactor construction.

Their AI-powered tools autonomously generate and optimize modular work packages for advanced reactors.

The collaboration pairs Westinghouse’s proprietary HiVE™ and bertha™ nuclear AI solutions with Google Cloud technologies such as Vertex AI, Gemini, and BigQuery.

Vertex AI is Google’s platform for building and deploying machine learning models, Gemini is its most advanced generative AI model, and BigQuery is a scalable, serverless data warehouse.

When AI meets atoms Used together, these tools can analyze large volumes of data, power generative AI applications, and help automate complex engineering workflows, such as those involved in modular nuclear reactor construction.

According to the companies, this combination will not only accelerate the deployment of Westinghouse’s AP1000® modular reactors but also enhance operations across existing nuclear power plants using data-driven insights.

“As the only fully licensed, construction-ready modular reactor available today, our AP1000 technology is the quickest way to add new sources of affordable and abundant nuclear energy to the U.S. grid,” said Dan Sumner, Westinghouse Interim Chief Executive Officer.

“By partnering with Google Cloud to enhance our HiVE and bertha technology, and backed by 75 years of our proprietary nuclear data, we can accelerate the deployment of new AP1000 units while implementing powerful AI technologies that will optimize the construction and operations of nuclear power plants.”

The two companies have already completed a successful proof of concept using Westinghouse’s WNEXUS digital plant design platform alongside HiVE AI and Google Cloud’s tools.

This proof of concept demonstrated the autonomous generation and optimization of construction work packages specifically for AP1000 modular reactors, an effort aimed at turning what is typically a complex, labor-intensive process into a streamlined, repeatable workflow.

“This partnership with Westinghouse combines Google Cloud’s AI technologies and expertise with Westinghouse’s century-long expertise in nuclear innovation to chart a new path towards a smarter and safer future,” said Kyle Jessen, Managing Director, Commercial Industries, Google Cloud.

“Artificial intelligence is not merely a tool; it can give companies a critical competitive advantage. Westinghouse is demonstrating what’s possible.”

From code to core

Westinghouse’s HiVE and bertha platforms underpin this AI-driven approach. First introduced in September 2024, HiVE is a nuclear-specific generative AI system built on more than seven decades of proprietary industry data.

Bertha—a large language model named after Bertha Lamme, Westinghouse’s first female engineer—is tailored for reactor lifecycle tasks such as maintenance planning, inspections, and digital workflows

Together, the AI platforms are supported by dedicated nuclear engineers and are positioned to help plant operators deliver more reliable, cost-effective electricity to homes and businesses, whether through new AP1000 units, AP300™ small modular reactors, or eVinci® microreactor technologies.

The U.S. nuclear sector has seen decades of limited growth, but rising electricity demand from data centers, electrification, and manufacturing is driving renewed interest.

While Westinghouse and Google Cloud aim to streamline new reactor construction, the companies have not disclosed deployment timelines for these AI-powered capabilities.

Neetika Walter, Interesting Engineerimg

The Pravda Media is, despite the evidence before our eyes that they should have the credibility of a Soviet Commissar at best and Baghdad Bob in most cases, still has the power to create illusions that large numbers of people take at face value.

It seems odd that anybody still believes them, but time and again we are reminded that a good chunk of the population will take anything written in The New York Times, The Atlantic, or Scientific American as gospel.

For years the public was inundated with propaganda insisting that Donald Trump stole the 2016 election–ah, the good ol’ days when “election denial” was patriotic and not insurrection-y–colluding with Vladimir Putin to steal the election from the rightful Queen of the American people, Hillary Clinton.

The New York Times and Washington Post received the once-prestigious Pulitzer Prize for covering the Russia Collusion story, which was nothing more than a Clinton Campaign hoax about which Barack Obama had been briefed.

The hoax was exposed in 2019, when the Mueller Report debunked it all.

That doesn’t matter, though. Most Democrats still believe it, six years after the accusations were proven to be false.

A new Rasmussen poll to be published Monday morning shows a majority of Democrats still believe the Russia collusion hoax, even though it has been debunked repeatedly.

Astonishingly, 60% of Democratic voters still think “the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to win the 2016 election”, according to the poll of 1,014 Likely Voters conducted on July 6-7.

A whopping 69 percent of liberal voters still cling to the Russia collusion hoax, compared to 27 percent of conservatives, and 45 percent of moderates. Among all voters, more believe it unlikely (49 percent) than likely (42 percent).

The fact that liberals and Democrats still believe in the hoax is likely a reflection of their preferred media outlets, such as the New York Times, which refuses to hand back its ill-gotten Pulitzers, and MSNBC, which pays discredited plotters such as former CIA director John Brennan and former Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissman to act out their Trump derangement on air.

Media malfeasance is nothing new. In fact, Pravda has perfected the technique over the decades. And if it weren’t for the explosion of sources enabled by the internet, it wouldn’t just be 70% of liberal voters still believing the Russia hoax, but closer to 90% of all voters. Anybody who believed the truth would be a “conspiracy theorist.”

As much as we think that the media is self-discrediting, the fact is that it takes years for people to realize that they are being lied to all the time. And for the people who consider themselves “informed” because they read what Pravda pumps out on a daily basis, it is almost impossible to dislodge their belief that they are getting the straight scoop.

This is poisonous for our public discourse. Liberals live in a different reality than the rest of us–a Truman Show created by content producers. The January 6th Committee was, quite literally, a TV production run by an ABC producer. It wasn’t a Congressional hearing–it was a show trial. Here’s how PBS described the setup:

KELLY: All right. What kind of spectacle are we going to see tomorrow night?

FOLKENFLIK: Well, it’ll – seems as though it’ll start pretty conventionally. You’ll have the chairman, Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, and Congresswoman Liz Cheney, Republican from Wyoming, give their opening statements. And then we’re going to see unfold what is supposed to be kind of a television spectacle. You’ll have two witnesses, a guard and a documentary filmmaker, there that day. And we’re supposed to see a narrative being presented with something of a narrative storytelling arc – think of “20/20,” “Dateline” NBC – with not just moments, but a story that has dramatic tension building up with revelations along the way using real footage, using real documents, using apparently previously undisclosed White House official photographs from that day to piece together a narrative of what the chairman has said he believes was an attempt to essentially thwart democracy.

KELLY: What’s the thinking behind presenting it this way?

FOLKENFLIK: Well, there’s a desire to make sure this punches through, that it’s compelling on TV. There’s a worry that it will be politicized, as it has already been dismissed by House Republicans and allies of former President Donald Trump, or simply ignored. And they want it to burst through.

Conservatives are more likely to notice that the “news” is just highly produced propaganda because we see how misrepresented we are. We have direct experience that contradicts what they are saying about us. Liberals, because they are flattered and portrayed as good people on the news, eat it all up.

Everybody likes to be told that they are the good guys and people they disagree with are the bad guys, and it works.

Much of the division in our society can be traced to the media’s emphasis on a narrative of good versus evil.

Lying media folks are much more dangerous and destructive than lying politicians. We all expect politicians to spin things and not be above spinning a tale or two. But many people still believe that the media plays it straight down the middle.

The result? Things like this–7 out of 10 liberals still believe a hoax.

They are Blue-Anon.

David Strom, hotair.com

Who else could have protected Epstein across three states and shut down a federal investigation?

July 15, 2025 by Daniel Greenfield

I was writing about Jeffrey Epstein long before the current pack of grifters fastened on to the story and well before his arrest, when the Democrats suddenly decided to care about Epstein, largely to undermine Trump’s nomination of Alex Acosta who had overseen the federal case against him. Before that, I reported on Epstein as part of a long list of sex predators tied to the Clintons.

That arrest lifted Epstein’s magical curtain of immunity and led directly to his death in federal custody.

When Epstein died, I predicted that the truth would never be known. Throughout the years, after all the promises that were made to finally reveal the truth, I predicted it would never happen.

And I was right.

There will be no client list. No explanation for Epstein’s death beyond the one we already got from AG Barr. No final answer.

The Epstein story passed long ago out of the realm of crime reporting and into the realm of grifters pushing conspiracy theories and weaponizing it for their own agendas. Currently Tucker Carlson, who has developed close ties to Muslim terrorist states, including Qatar, has been exploiting it for anti-Israel propaganda. Democrats are cheering him on and then using the Epstein story to target Trump.

What is really revealing is that both slants decouple Epstein from the Clintons who were the only ones who could have protected him across three states, including New York and Florida, shut down a federal investigation of him, and managed to reach into a federal prison.

Politically, the Clintons are old news and the grifters have moved on to fresh angles. And the truth will never be known.