Authored by Matt Margolis via PJ Media,

Barack Obama’s long-promised presidential library is shaping up to be just as corrupt as his administration. You probably haven’t heard much about this in the media, but recent tax filings reveal that money donated to the Obama Foundation—supposedly earmarked for his sprawling “presidential center” in Chicago—is quietly being redirected to one of the left’s most notorious dark money groups: the Tides Foundation.

The numbers tell the story. In 2022 and 2023, the Obama Foundation handed over $2 million to Tides, a group best known for serving as a clearinghouse for radical left-wing causes and for shielding donor identities. It should come as no surprise that George Soros heavily backs Tides, and Tides is directly tied to groups organizing anti-Israel protests. That includes demonstrations against the Jewish state in the aftermath of the Oct. 7 Hamas atrocities. In other words, donations made in the name of funding a presidential library are now helping bankroll organizations promoting antisemitic activism under the guise of social justice.

That’s pretty on-brand for Barack Obama.

“The Tides Center played an administrative role in the program by processing grants while Cities United [a nonprofit] managed the application process,” the spokeswoman said in an email. Grants ranged from $15,000 to $30,000 each over the two summers.

Tides has also handled donations for Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, which sued the group in California Superior Court last year. It alleged “egregious mismanagement” of more than $33 million in its funds, according to court documents. That lawsuit is ongoing.

In addition to sending donations to Tides, the Obama Foundation has sent more than $3 million in 2022 and 2023 in grants to Gofundme.org for undisclosed “grassroots leaders to empower girls through education,” according to the group’s filings.

Meanwhile, the foundation admitted it has so far spent more than $615 million building the Obama Presidential Center, which is scheduled to open in spring 2026, according to its website.

The group, which received just $129,320 in donations in 2022, spent more than $27 million on salaries.

While community members struggle, insiders at the Obama Foundation are doing just fine. The foundation’s CEO, Emeka Jarrett, earned over $750,000 last year. The executive vice president, Rob Cohen, pocketed nearly $650,000, and also maintains ties to the Pritzker Realty Group. His connection to Penny Pritzker—sister to Governor J.B. Pritzker—only highlights the tangled web of Democratic powerbrokers who are thriving while the project supposedly dedicated to “the people” spirals out of control.

Meanwhile, the presidential center itself—originally sold to the public as a beacon of civic pride for Chicago’s South Side—has turned into a financial pit. Construction on the 20-acre site in Jackson Park began years ago, with a ballooning price tag that has already exceeded $615 million, far above the initial $500 million projection. The opening date has slipped again, now pushed to spring 2026. Local residents aren’t thrilled either. One lawyer described it bluntly as a “monstrosity,” pointing to rising costs, neighborhood headaches, and little actual benefit to the people forced to live around it.

This entire project reeks of the kind of carefully crafted con job only career political operators could pull off. Sell it as a beacon of unity, then funnel millions to radical, antisemitic causes, all while insiders pocket obscene salaries. It’s a true reflection of the same kind of corruption that plagued Obama’s presidency.

The Obama Presidential Center is a $615 million con, funneling money to radical causes and insider salaries. The mainstream media won’t cover this, but we will. Support our work by joining PJ Media VIP. Use promo code FIGHT for 60% off for ad-free access and sharp reporting. Support America First journalism.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Just The News is reporting that “Person 3” in the Comey indictment is not former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe but rather Columbia Professor Daniel Richman. According to the outlet, Richman is the former FBI employee in the indictment who allegedly leaked information about “Person 1,” who is believed to be Hillary Clinton. The report continues the long uncertainty over Richman’s role in these controversies. Richman has described himself as a friend, an FBI special employee, and the lawyer representing Comey at different times. He has also been a columnist and commentator, including for the site Lawfare run by Comey’s friend Ben Wittes. What Richman was doing at any given time remains strikingly uncertain. Professor Richman is not himself charged with any crime.

Richman’s fluid and changing roles are reminiscent of the debate over the role of Hunter Biden’s friend/lawyer/patron Kevin Morris. There was an evolution in the roles that Richman played over the years that left some of us confused as to his specific status at certain times.

At various points in the investigation, Richman alludes to being Comey’s lawyer, as well as a former aide and a friend. Comey used Richman as a conduit to the press and admitted that he was the means by which Comey leaked the contents of a memo that Comey improperly removed from the FBI after being fired.

The respected veteran investigative reporter Catherine Herridge reported on a June 2017 memorandum that documented a phone call with Richman and the so-called “Comey memos,” which detailed his conversations with President Trump.

According to sources, five days earlier, on June 8, 2017, Comey “asked Professor Richman to disclose the content of at least one of those memoranda to the press…”

In interviews,  sources said that Richman was dismissive over the violation of federal rules stating  “something to the effect of, ‘You do things by your rules’ and ‘I do things by my rules.’” Richman seemed to claim that he was serving as counsel and allegedly insisted that “there is a substantial extent to which I would raise attorney-client issues.” The suggestion was that, after leaving his position as a Justice Department adviser to Comey, he may have assumed the role as private counsel to Comey.

Richman admitted to media contacts but reportedly said that he did not think that he confirmed classified material from Comey to New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt.

Comey designated Richman as a Special Government Employee (SGE) at the FBI and subsequently utilized him as a conduit to the media. He gave him access to top-secret information, and Richman seems to have floated between Comey and other offices, such as the FBI’s General Counsel’s office.

The FBI said that “Comey instructed the FBI to hire Richman as a Special Government Employee” in 2015 and “to grant him a Top Secret clearance with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information.” It also said its investigation “revealed Comey also hired Richman, so Comey could discuss sensitive matters, including classified information, with someone outside of the FBI’s regular leadership. Comey also used Richman as a liaison to the media.”

Comey’s use of Richman shows how obsessed he was with his image and framing news stories about his tenure as director. Richman would serve as both an unnamed source and a named source in articles.

Richman admitted to agents that he routinely communicated on behalf of Comey with Times reporter Michael Schmidt, who published some of the non-public information that was the subject of past investigations.

According to FBI memos, Richman explained that his role was “to correct stories critical of Comey, the FBI and to shape future press coverage” outside the bureau’s official press office.

The different roles eventually seemed to cause Richman to resign. He sent an email to FBI officials in early February 2017  saying that “I am resigning my SGE status, and will thus not, as of today, be formally working for the Bureau in the immediate future.” He added that “my SGE status is limiting what I can do in my extracurricular life.”

Richman later joined Wittes, who has described himself as a friend of Comey as well as figures like Peter Strzok, at Lawfare. With Wittes, Richman has written highly critical columns of the Trump Administration.

Comey admitted to being a leaker through Richman. He was accused of being a leaker in other stories through other individuals. Andrew McCabe said that he leaked information on behalf of Comey. Likewise, an FBI memo said that a prior investigation “revealed [FBI General Counsel James] Baker to be one of the two sources” in a leak and “revealed Baker disclosed USG classified information to the NYT under the belief he was ultimately instructed and authorized to do so by then FBI Director James Comey.”

Just in the News reported that a “newly-unredacted portion [of a report] added that ‘Baker indicated FBI chief of staff James Rybicki instructed him (Baker) to disclose the information to the NYT, and Baker understood Rybicki was conveying this instruction and authorization from Comey.’”

The question is what Richman was at any given time in this scandal. Ethics rules tend to reinforce clear lines in the roles played by lawyers. Richman has been described as a “friend” by Comey, but Richman has suggested that he was at times serving as his personal lawyer. During his time as an SGE, Richman also seemed to shift in his focus. Richman’s first term as an SGE ended in 2016 and then Comey brought him back to work as a “consultant” for the FBI’s Office of General Counsel. A good portion of his portfolio at times seemed to be running interference for Comey with the media and protecting his image in the press.

Richman has not been charged with any crime or accused of any ethics violation in any of these dealings or positions. Some of us, however, are concerned by the fluidity of these roles over the years as government employee, private counsel, and friend.

Comey appeared to select Richman in part for his loyalty and Richman has continued to defend Comey. Now, Richman has a new role as the main witness in a criminal prosecution against Comey. It may be the only time in this scandal that his role as been singular and clear.

Progressive late-night television is dying.  The signals could not be more clear with Stephen Colbert’s cancellation due to $40 million losses every year on productions costs.  If Colbert is failing, then nearly all late night shows a failing.  Many analysts have been speculating that Jimmy Kimmel was next on the chopping block.

During the second quarter, Jimmy Kimmel Live! averaged 1.77 million total viewers. That’s down quite a bit from 2015, when Colbert joined the late-night lineup and Nielsen says Kimmel averaged 2.4 million total viewers.  The leftist comedian has become infamous in the past five years for his political hot takes and overt hatred of conservatives, just as the majority of late night hosts have gravitated to propaganda rather than entertainment.  This has not helped their audience ratings.

Then, Kimmel threw himself into the middle of the public turmoil over the Charlie Kirk assassination.  His ABC “cancellation” was short lived and the show was back in a week.  Broadcast affiliates Sinclair and Nexstar decided to bring Kimmel back and his return garnered 6.5 million viewers.  Democrats cheered as if they had just won a political victory, but reality is not kind to the delusional.

In recent broadcasts, “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” averaged 2.3 million total viewers – A staggering 64% drop from the 6.5 million who tuned in for the much-hyped return.  Kimmel shed even more viewers in the advertiser-coveted demographic of adults aged 25-54, with Thursday’s episode hemorrhaging 73% of viewers from the critical category.  

It takes more than political controversy to save a dying show led by an unfunny comedian.  ABC lost a perfect opportunity to get rid of a dud show and they blew it.    

With disinformation talking points from social media in hand Kimmel attempted to spread the false claim that the shooting suspect, Tyler Robinson, was MAGA:

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”  

This was part of a larger spin campaign by democrats and leftist groups to deflect blame (as they always do).  The effort to lie to the public and paint Robinson as “right wing” was desperate and rabid.  To this day, a large percentage of Democrats wrongly assume that Robinson, a gay man with a trans furry boyfriend and an affinity for Antifa slogans, is MAGA.  Their trusted gatekeepers told them he is.

As more and more information was released to the public is became clear that militant woke rhetoric, incessantly repeated by Democrat politicians and late night talk show hosts over the past several years, was to blame for Charlie Kirk’s murder.  The post-shooting celebration by millions of leftists across the country left no doubt who they are as a movement and what they are willing to do to get the power they want.    

Democrats complained that Kimmel’s show being dropped was the same “cancel culture” that conservatives criticized the political left of using.  The difference, though, is that conservatives were being cancelled for telling the truth.  They are being “cancelled” for telling lies celebrating murder.  

Hollywood has been sliding into a financial abyss that the town may never recover from, so one might expect film industry moguls to back away from the woke cancer that put them on the bad side of the American public.  The problem is, many production companies have projects that began principle filming before the 2024 election when the political left still naively believed that they were the national majority. 

Now, those companies are stuck with these movies even when they know box office failure is guaranteed.  One such movie is the latest from director Paul Thomas Anderson and lead star Leonardo DiCaprio, called “One Battle After Another”. 

The movie is being hailed by the woke media as a “celebration of modern day Antifa revolutionaries”.  Hollywood In Toto says the film “casts an Antifa-style group as its heroes,” while The San Francisco Chronicle described the film, referring to the protagonists as “an allegory that involves antifa-like left wing extremists, a well-funded right wing militia group, and immigrants avoiding ICE.”  The Daily Beast called it a “gonzo Antifa rallying cry.” 

The timing for such a project could not be worse.  Woke films with leftist political messaging are already guaranteed to fail in theaters the vast majority of the time.  Add to this the fact that the film is being premiered the same month that multiple mass shootings have been committed by leftist activists (including school shootings), Antifa mob attacks on immigration officers, as well as the assassination of conservative speaker Charlie Kirk committed by a gay man with a trans furry boyfriend using Antifa slogans written on his ammo.  

There’s not a lot of public affinity for radical leftists at this time.  No one wants to see a movie glorifying them as protagonists.

This is why “One Battle After Another” is flopping hard at the box office.  The flick needs around $300 million to break even after marketing costs are included – It has only made $48.5 million globally.  Keep in mind, half of all box office revenues go to theaters, the other half goes to distributors.  And, a weak opening weekend usually portends a swift decline in ticket sales for the next few weeks after.  

Ultimately, the movie is likely to lose hundreds of millions of dollars and probably end up on streaming services in the very near term with little fanfare.  Get woke, go broke.

Paul Thomas Anderson’s otherwise excellent track record for dramatic films cannot overcome the intense gravity of the woke black hole. Few if any films escape its cold grasp.  This is why it is suicide for content producers to jump onto political bandwagons; the movements they think are popular as usually not, and biases blind the creative process.  The foolishness of chasing propaganda should be obvious, but not to the dimwits in Hollywood.    

Via The Cradle

Syria’s government has asked factions within the military to prepare for operations against the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported Monday.

According to SOHR, Turkish-aligned factions in the Syrian army were asked to “prepare for operations” against the SDF in Deir Hafer and the Tishreen Dam area. SOHR added that officials in Damascus have requested that a campaign against the SDF not take more than a week. 

The operation would aim to pressure the Kurdish group into accepting the agreement signed with Damascus in March this year. Recent days have seen a significant buildup of both Syrian army forces and SDF troops in eastern Aleppo. 

On Monday, SOHR reported escalating clashes in eastern Aleppo. More than 10 artillery shells struck areas around the Tishreen Dam following exchanges between the SDF and Turkish-backed Syrian factions. 

Earlier in the day, SOHR sources confirmed that orders were issued to deploy “show-of-force” units with heavy vehicles, tanks, and artillery to the Deir Hafer frontline in anticipation of possible SDF operations. 

There are also reports that the SDF has stationed kamikaze drones, rocket launchers, and long-range artillery near the local sugar factory.

Military reinforcements from Turkey also arrived at Kuweires Airport, while the Aleppo–Raqqa Road in Deir Hafer remained closed for a third consecutive day. Additional forces from both the SDF and Turkish-backed Syrian units have gathered around the Tishreen Dam, heightening concerns over an escalation. 

SOHR added that an SDF drone strike destroyed two positions of Turkish-backed Syrian factions in Qashla village on Sunday. 

There has been tension between the SDF and the government over a deal signed in March calling for the Kurdish group’s integration into Damascus’s forces. The two sides disagree about the deal’s implementation, particularly the SDF’s wish to remain under Kurdish command and enter the army as a bloc rather than dissolve and conscript. 

Skirmishes between the SDF and the Syrian army have broken out several times since last month. 

Ankara’s proxy, the Syrian National Army (SNA) coalition, was incorporated into Syria’s military after the fall of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s government last year. These Turkish-backed forces have been at odds with the SDF for years and are responsible for war crimes against Kurdish civilians in northern Syria. 

The SDF is made up predominantly of People’s Protection Units (YPG) forces. The YPG is the Syrian branch of Turkiye’s enemy, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). 

While Jolani basked in praise at the UNGA, his forces in Syria continued persecuting minorities and attacking the SDF.

We went SDF frontlines in Deir Ezzor and talked to Syrians about the ongoing violence under Jolani’s rule. Please watch the full video: https://t.co/2pF0OZDzFX pic.twitter.com/Yu7i7hPtHn

— Lindsey Snell (@LindseySnell) September 25, 2025

The Turkish army, which occupies Syria and has operated against the SDF in the past, may be gearing up for a new campaign, self-appointed Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa said earlier this month. Turkey “may act militarily if full integration is not achieved by December,” Sharaa warned. In late May, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned the SDF to “quit stalling” and integrate with the Syrian army. 

Turkey is currently training Syria’s new extremist-dominated military. The National reported on August 17 that Damascus is assembling a force of 50,000 to capture Deir Ezzor and Raqqa from the SDF. 

By Michael Every of Rabobank

In classic The Economist-style timing, Foreign Affairs just ran a lead ‘China Goes on Offence’ which underlined “Beijing’s Plans to Exploit American Retreat.” Subsequent developments in the Middle East underlined the complete opposite.

With wild headlines such as ‘Trump to run Gaza with Blair’, a Trump-Netanyahu joint White House press conference officially unveiled the former’s 20-point plan to end the Gaza war and move towards a resolution of that issue – which Netanyahu has signed up to alongside the Gulf Cooperation Council and a slew of leading Muslim countries.

The deal is basically this: Hamas releases all remaining hostages in 72 hours; disarms; and its members who wish to will be given safe passage to third countries; a new US and Arab-backed security force will step in as Israel pulls back in stages; Trump will act as head of a new body called the Board of Peace alongside Blair and other global technocrats; no Gazans will be forced to leave; Israel will not annex any land; and massive deradicalisation efforts will proceed in tandem with reconstruction. The issue of a Palestinian state is kicked into the long grass until the foundations are literally placed for a stable polity and economy. There will also be a US-Qatar-Israel trilateral forum to try to find ways to cooperate.

Of course, Netanyahu has his far-right government coalition parties to deal with – but he has the support of opposition parties if he needs them. That leaves Hamas. There, the crucial point is that, following an official apology to Qatar from Netanyahu for his recent strike in it, even Doha is pushing it to agree – it looks like it is feeling US pressure as much as Israel is. Indeed, if Hamas don’t agree, the US and other Muslim countries behind the deal will allow Israel to crush it and then hand over those territories it liberates to be run and rebuilt as above one by one. In short, this looks like it is going to be done, as was said, “either the easy way, or the hard way.”

If so, the implications are profound. Trump would have helped resolve a key global conflict; the Abraham Accords could rapidly expand, and even to places like Indonesia; and the Middle East would be even more clearly under the US umbrella. Where were China and Russia as this happened? Nowhere. Equally, where was Europe? Where it has been for decades now.

China is instead mentioned in foreign affairs via the Australia’s ABC, which claims classified US intelligence is warning of China’s preparation for a Taiwan invasion. That’s as the Wall Street Journal reports the Pentagon is pushing to double US missile production for a potential China conflict, where suppliers have been asked how they can hit 2.5 times higher output in just 6–24 months, with private capital and licensing options therefore on the table.

Moreover, the Nikkei Asia reports the China-focused AUKUS defence pact has apparently survived an internal Pentagon review, and the planned US nuclear submarine sale to Canberra is to proceed – but will that mean the US making even greater reforms to speed up military production and/or Australia spending 5% of GDP on defence like NATO? To say there are major market implications in these dramatic geopolitical headlines is an understatement.

Russia is mentioned as Medvedev warned Europe of the danger of nuclear danger ahead and Germany’s Chancellor Merz said Europe is “no longer at peace” with Moscow. As one global front may cool down, will another then heat up?

Which one though? Colombia’s President Petro is seeking to revise the US-Colombia trade deal following his recent expulsion from the US after his visa was withdrawn for participating in a political protest, and Venezuela’s President Maduro signed a decree granting himself additional security powers, including the ability to mobilize armed forces nationally, as well as placing public firms under military control, obviously in response to US military statecraft nearby. So, the US has Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia –and Panama and Greenland– to focus on under the Monroe Doctrine. That’s on top of Ukraine-Russia, and the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific.

In geoeconomics, we see a slew of related news. A Saudi real estate developer is to build a $1bn Trump plaza in a Red Sea port; the Saudis also acquired Electronic Arts for $55bn as part of a plan to build a gaming hub; and Riyadh is “Losing its appetite for oil”, says Bloomberg, arguing it’s becoming Solar Arabia.

The US tightened export controls on Chinese companies where subsidiaries of blacklisted firms now are too, as China’s US ambassador chided it for “closing doors” and enacting tariffs, and Huawei announced it will double its output of top AI chips. The US also put tariffs on lumber to prop up that sector.

In politics, with no deal reached, a US government shutdown seems to loom; the UK’s PM Starmer is to tell his party conference that GDP growth is the ‘antidote to division’ – as Chancellor Reeves warns against ditching the fiscal rules that don’t allow for more fiscal stimulus; and France’s socialists are threatening to topple Macron’s new PM Lecornu for his “unreasonable” deficit-reduction plans. Can you spot a pattern there?

In markets, “The US and Switzerland reconfirmed they have undertaken under the IMF Articles of Agreement to avoid manipulating exchange rates or the international monetary system to prevent effective balance of payments adjustment or to gain an unfair competitive advantage,” in a joint official statement. Ironically, here it took geopolitical pressure to get a country to say, “OK, because markets!” rather than the opposite, which is the general economic statecraft trend.

Moreover, the key Swift system pledged to build a blockchain-based ledger for banks and financial firms, literally to make it swifter, as the geopolitical, geoeconomic, and global financial architecture all goes into joint flux.

Meanwhile, Aussie building approvals -6.0% m-o-m vs. +2.6% expected and China’s manufacturing PMI at 49.8 vs. 49.6 consensus, and non-manufacturing at 50.0 vs 50.2 are the kind of market minutiae that some might want to focus on instead.

The RBA left rates on hold at 3.60%, as expected and said growth in unit labour costs was too high, there are uncertainties over the domestic economic outlook (only the domestic?), and for now it was judged as better to “remain cautious.” Growth risks to the downside and inflation risks to the upside? This wasn’t supposed to happen.

Then again, neither were all of the foreign affairs developments we now see – which seem to have surprised some experts in Foreign Affairs.

*  *  *TOP SELLERS *  *  *

IQ Male Enhancement (almost out)

IQ Testosterone Booster 

IQ Astaxanthin (extremely powerful antioxidant 6,000x more powerful than vitamin C. Good for inflammation, joints, skin, eyes, cognitive & physical performance)

Steak Lover’s Bundle

ZeroHedge Waxed Canvas Hat

SMR startup Oklo said in a release today that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has accepted for review its Principal Design Criteria (PDC) topical report under an accelerated timeline, with regulators also proposing a reduced review schedule. The move signals the NRC’s push to modernize licensing for next-generation reactors while keeping safety standards intact.

The PDC report sets the safety, reliability, and performance criteria that will guide Oklo’s future reactor designs and licensing applications. Once approved, it can be referenced across future filings, avoiding duplicate reviews and streamlining regulatory steps — a key factor for Oklo’s plan to deploy its reactors rapidly and at scale.

Oklo noted it received acceptance just 15 days after filing, compared to the standard 30–60 days. The NRC told the company it expects to issue a draft evaluation in early 2026, less than half the traditional timeline.

“This is a reflection of the work by the Oklo team, and the NRC’s commitment to timely oversight,” said co-founder and CEO Jacob DeWitte. “Recent legislation and executive orders have called for the delivery of more nuclear power for clean, reliable energy on accelerated timelines, and this is how it’s done. Modernized, non-duplicative processes are key enablers for how advanced nuclear can scale rapidly and safely.”

The NRC’s acceptance dovetails with broader federal efforts. Executive orders issued in May 2025 direct agencies to streamline licensing, while the ADVANCE Act establishes a clearer path for advanced nuclear deployment. Together, they highlight Washington’s interest in accelerating clean energy innovation.

Recall days ago, Goldman Sachs initiated coverage on Oklo with a Neutral rating and a $117 price target. Meanwhile, shares have already surged nearly 20x from when Jim Cramer dismissed the stock in the high single digits…

By Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com

Russia expects to sell natural gas to China at significantly lower prices than it charges in Europe and Turkey, according to a draft outlook from the Economy Ministry tied to the 2026 budget. The document, seen by Bloomberg, projects that Chinese deliveries will be priced at least 27 percent below European and Turkish levels over the next three years, with the gap widening to 38 percent in 2025.

The numbers lay bare the price Moscow is paying for its eastward pivot. With Europe largely off the table, Russia has funneled volumes into the Power of Siberia line and is pushing to seal the long-delayed Power of Siberia-2, a 50-billion-cubic-meter conduit into northern China. The pipelines guarantee an outlet for Siberian gas, but they also cement steep discounts compared with what Europe once paid.

Statements by Russian officials have echoed this direction. 

Gazprom chief Alexei Miller has publicly acknowledged that gas sales t China would come at lower prices than to Europe, while President Vladimir Putin described the arrangement as giving China a “competitive advantage.” Chinese commentary has used more guarded language, referring to “reasonable market prices” and “competitive terms,” but reports in outlets such as Guancha and Cnyes confirm that Russia has offered Beijing a cheaper deal than its Western customers.

The strategy reflects Beijing’s leverage as the dominant buyer willing to absorb large Russian volumes. For Moscow, it ensures long-term outlets for gas even if it means reduced revenue per unit. 

The spread between Chinese and European prices could have significant implications for Gazprom’s finances and for regional LNG dynamics, as discounted pipeline gas strengthens China’s hand in negotiating spot cargoes from other suppliers.

Authored by Peter Reagan,

Politicians celebrate GDP gains as proof of a strong economy. But if “growth” just means paying more for groceries, gas, and utilities, are we really better off? Here’s why GDP is a mirage – and why what happens to “the economy” may not apply to you…

Growing up, illusions were a wonderful thing. Watching David Copperfield fool the audience on television was amazing, even magical.

As you get older, though, you realize that there are really two different types of illusions, one magical and wonderful. The other, a sort of con game to distract us from paying attention to what really matters.

I’m not going to get political today. Instead, I’ll simply say that every presidential administration I can remember talked about our nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the top measurement that we should all use to evaluate overall economic health.

So, the higher the GDP, the better the White House says the economy is doing. Thanks to their own policies and decisions, of course.

But is that true? Today we’ll explore the concept of a GDP and I’ll let you decide for yourself how relevant this number is for you…

What is included in that GDP figure?

GDP is a measure of economic activity. It’s calculated by adding up every dollar that was spent in the U.S. (Here’s a more technical definition for the curious, but honestly you don’t need to know everything about it.)

Here’s the formula for calculating GDP:

(Consumer spending) + (Government spending) + (Investment spending) + (Exports – Imports) = GDP

Here’s the breakdown (2024 numbers):

• 68%: Consumer spending is the biggest component, like I mentioned previously. Everything you spend money on, from haircuts to homes to Hawaiian vacations, increases GDP.

• 18%: Domestic investment is a business category that includes construction, capital investment like machinery purchases and business inventory (including, for example, unsold cars on a dealer’s parking lot. This is the most important category overall, in terms of boosting overall economic productivity.

• 17%: Government spending is also a significant component. Government spending on infrastructure, defense and payroll for both federal employees and contractors.

• -3%: Net exports of goods and services is negative because the U.S. imports more than we export.

First, you can see that “consumption” is by far the biggest category – and that’s troublesome, because most consumption is not economically productive. Necessary (food and fuel for example) but not productive.

Domestic investment includes building new factories, setting up or modernizing existing assembly lines and so on. This is by far the most important category for future economic growth.

Here’s the most worrisome thing about GDP calculations though – there’s no offset for debt! None!

Debt-financed purchases like a new home or a new federal construction program add to GDP. Paying off the debt incurred does not subtract from GDP. No matter when you pay it off.

In other words, GDP only tells you how much you spent on the shopping spree – and ignores the credit card bill that follows. ‘

Now that you know what GDP really means, let’s take another look at the current GDP report.

What current GDP figures are really saying

The most recent figures tell us GDP is growing. As Reuters informs us, “The U.S. economy grew faster than expected in the second quarter.” GDP grew 3.8% (annualized).

What changed? Well, imports dropped about 9% while exports fell a lot less, about -1%.

In other words, overall we shopped less and sold less internationally – which nets out as a win for GDP!

This seems so amazingly backwards to me… How can doing less business work out as a win?

Imagine you’re running a car dealership, for example. You bought 5,000 cars from the factory. You only sold 4,500 of them.

• For you, these unsold cars are a headache and a red flag about demand

• To the GDP statisticians, they’re a sign of “production,” so they count as growth!

How does this make any sense at all?

As confusing as it is, it helps you understand the difference between GDP reports and our personal experience with the economy…

What does this GDP surprise look like to American families?

What GDP isn’t telling you, though, is how the higher GDP is affecting the average family. See, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the price of ground beef increased by nearly 65% over the last five years.

Other necessities, like electricity, only went up 36% since 2020.

Here’s the astonishing thing: As your cost of living increases, GDP increases too! That’s right – higher bills means “increased economic activity” which is often interpreted as a booming economy. 

Do you feel wealthier at the grocery store, when your trip costs you 25% more than it would’ve in 2020?

I seriously doubt it. (I know I sure don’t!)

Here’s the reality: Higher GDP has nearly no correlation to prosperity. When you look at real-world changes in cost of living, we simply aren’t more prosperous than we were five years ago.

Period.

(No matter how much GDP increased over those years.)

The GDP illusion

Now do you understand how GDP is as much a measure of higher costs of living as it is a measure of real economic activity? 

Every time an elected official says, “The economy is doing great,” that’s not the whole story.

Again, I’m not trying to be political here. I understand that all politicians, the best and the worst of them, need to paint a rosy picture of how great the economy is doing. And, frankly, “the economy” is an abstract concept. “The economy” doesn’t really exist! That’s just the word we use to describe the one billion transactions that happen across the nation every single day. 

Obviously it’s completely impossible to say anything meaningful about a billion separate transactions. So lumping them all together and calling them “the economy” is a useful metaphor.

But metaphors aren’t reality. And when official GDP reports are contradicted by our actual experience in the real world?

It’s like my grandpa used to say: “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

The closer you look at abstractions like “the economy” or “GDP,” the less useful they are. 

This is why it’s a mistake to take these numbers at face value.

Economists tell a nerdy joke about this: “An economic downturn is when your neighbor loses his job. A recession is when you lose yours.”

So what does this mean for you? Simply this: No matter how well (or poorly) “the economy” is doing, your experience is what matters. Your personal economic success is far more relevant than the second quarter’s GDP report.

Everyday Americans who’ve figured this out, who understand that their experience just isn’t accurately reflected by GDP reports or CPI updates – those are usually the folks who reach out to Birch Gold Group. When you understand that official numbers don’t always translate into stability or financial security for your family, you start looking for stability.

That’s where physical precious metals come in. Why precious metals? They aren’t an abstraction or a metaphor or a statistic. They’re real, tangible assets you can hold in your hand. And for thousands of different families all across the nation, physical gold and silver have become an anchor in uncertain times.

By Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com

Pacific Gas and Electric has unveiled a $73-billion spending program through 2030 to overhaul California’s grid as electricity demand from artificial intelligence and cloud infrastructure explodes, Reuters reported on Monday. The utility said the plan will support as much as 10 gigawatts of new load from data centers slated for development in its service territory over the next decade.

Brent crude and copper traders aren’t the only ones recalibrating supply-demand curves. U.S. utilities are now staring down a structural load shock driven by AI. PG&E’s multibillion-dollar commitment indicates that AI has shifted from a niche workload to a dominant driver of electricity consumption. The scale is staggering, with a single hyperscale AI campus capable of drawing as much power as a small city, overwhelming systems already balancing renewable intermittency and wildfire risks.

California’s grid operator, CAISO, projects peak demand climbing from about 46,094 megawatts in 2025 to nearly 52,940 MW by 2030, which represents a 15% increase before counting speculative AI loads. Its 2025 assessment shows only 2,163 MW of new capacity coming online by mid-year, mostly batteries (1,654 MW) and solar (354 MW). That buildout won’t keep pace if AI data centers scale at current trajectories. 

California’s regulators estimate the state will need more than $30 billion in transmission and distribution upgrades over the next two decades just to stay level.

PG&E’s plan folds wildfire-hardening and undergrounding projects into a broader grid expansion blueprint, but the headline number is being read as a direct response to the “energy monster AI is creating.” Utilities from Virginia to Texas are reporting similar strains, and California’s tight reserve margins leave less room to maneuver.