Authored by Jonathan Turley via jonathanturley.org,

I have previously written about the “radical chic” in higher education of faculty members who espouse extremist views in departments purged of conservative, libertarian, or moderate voices. While it is virtually impossible to get departments to seriously consider a mainstream conservative or libertarian, schools like Princeton eagerly hire professors such as Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, who recently delighted a Chicago audience with an unhinged rant against the United States and the concept of a nation-state.

Bill Ayers and Princeton’s Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor appeared at a July 4th event and denounced the country and its anniversary.

Taylor thrilled the crowd by recounting her disgust that a woman gave her child an American flag at the airport. She credited herself by not instantly burning it, but went on to denounce the country and credited the audience for its “F**k the U.S.” attitude.

Notably, Taylor suggested that only fools rally behind the flag or the notion of a nation-state. She clearly believes not just in open borders but rejects the very concept of borders. She repeatedly declared that “borders kill” and suggested that patriotic people are simply dupes.

Bill Ayers is a former professor and one of the founders of the domestic terrorist organization, the Weather Underground. His wife, Bernardine Dohrn, was also a member of the group, and both were fugitives for several years. Dohrn is also a professor who has taught at Northwestern University School of Law.

Taylor is a Professor in the Department of African-American Studies at Princeton University. She writes for the New Yorker.

In the Chicago event, Taylor called on others to reject “the idea of loving a nation state, which is what patriotism is.” She repeatedly returned to the theme that borders are “deadly” and “borders kill people.” She explained that we have to erase any borders because they are “a tool of death and destruction.”

Furthermore, she emphasized that the very concept of a nation-state should be the “object of political struggle.”

This reflects the level of intellectual rigor in departments like the one at Princeton. Her writings have been honored by the Marguerite Casey Foundation and Group Health Foundation, the Organization of American Historians, and the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation (which gave her a fellowship).

On one level, the erasure of borders could be viewed as the “withering away of the state” espoused by Friedrich Engels and later by Vladimir Lenin. However, it reads more like the jargonistic narrative common in higher education, where radicals espouse such views without serious challenge from their colleagues.

Even European states that once allowed expanded undocumented migration are now struggling to reverse course due to the high social and security costs. However, academics such as Taylor tell students that we can eradicate any nation-states and live without borders. While most people would expect such views to be espoused by raving lunatics on the subway, Princeton made her a chair professor as the Hughes-Rogers Professor of African American Studies.

Her writings are celebrated for her combination of socialism and identity politics. The gushing articles even include praise for her use of emojis. (“All those cry-laughing yellow orbs betrayed a critic with a sense of humor.”).

Few colleagues or critics feel comfortable noting that views like the eradication of the nation-state or erasure of borders are little more than unsupported, jargon-saturated tripe. There is no effort to push her on what happens to an economy without borders where the country (or whatever will replace the nation-state) is responsible for supporting millions of immigrants.

When you hear young socialists in the Mamdani Administration (including Mamdani himself) speaking of “seizing the means of production,” it is the result of college classes taught by figures like Taylor, who offer little more than shallow sound bites and slogans. They have been told that socialism is a successful economic model despite its utter failure historically. It is a fable told by the uninformed to the unquestioning: unicorn economics, eagerly embraced like a bedtime story.

The alternative is what I have called the “liberty-enhancing economy” that the Framers embraced. The combination of political and economic freedom made this republic the greatest engine of prosperity and human rights in history. That does not mean that we do not have difficult economic and social problems. However, the suggestion that we should embrace socialism and erase borders is properly viewed as perfectly bonkers … outside of higher education.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

Authored by Kaif Shaikh via Interesting Engineering,

Intercepting a missile sounds straightforward. Launch another missile at it before it reaches its target. In reality, it is one of the most technically demanding challenges of defense.

Unlike offensive missiles, interceptor missiles must detect, track, calculate, and collide with a target that may be traveling several times the speed of sound, often within a matter of minutes. Some even destroy their targets without carrying an explosive warhead, relying instead on the sheer force of impact. Here’s how interceptor missiles work.

It Starts With Detection

An interceptor missile is only as effective as the network supporting it. Long before an interceptor launches, satellites equipped with infrared sensors detect the intense heat generated by a missile launch. Ground- and sea-based radars then begin tracking the missile’s trajectory, calculating where it is likely to travel and, more importantly, where it can be intercepted.

This information is continuously shared across a command-and-control network that decides whether an engagement is necessary, selects the most suitable interceptor, and determines the optimal launch time.

Predicting Where A Missile Will Be

One of the biggest misconceptions is that interceptor missiles simply “chase” incoming threats. Instead, fire-control computers predict the future position of the target based on its speed, altitude, direction, and expected flight path. The interceptor is launched toward that predicted intercept point rather than directly at the missile’s current location.

As both missiles continue moving, onboard guidance systems receive updated tracking data and constantly adjust the interceptor’s course until it reaches the target. The entire process, from detection to interception, may take only a few minutes for short-range ballistic missiles.

Three Opportunities To Intercept

Ballistic missiles travel through three distinct flight phases, each offering different interception opportunities. The boost phase begins immediately after launch while the rocket motors are still burning. During this stage, the missile is highly visible due to its intense infrared signature, but interception is extremely difficult because defensive systems must already be positioned near the launch site.

The midcourse phase is the longest portion of flight, when the warhead travels through space after booster separation. Systems such as the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense using SM-3 interceptors and the U.S. Ground-based Midcourse Defense are designed to engage threats during this stage.

Finally comes the terminal phase, when the warhead re-enters the atmosphere and descends toward its target. Systems such as THAAD and Patriot PAC-3 operate in this phase, providing the final opportunity to stop an incoming missile before impact.

Hit-To-Kill Versus Explosive Interception

Not every interceptor destroys its target in the same way. Many older interceptor missiles use blast-fragmentation warheads, detonating near the incoming missile and destroying it with high-speed metal fragments.

Modern systems increasingly rely on hit-to-kill technology. Rather than exploding nearby, these interceptors collide directly with the incoming missile at extremely high speed. The enormous kinetic energy generated by the impact is sufficient to destroy or disable the target without carrying a large explosive payload. Systems including THAAD, SM-3, and Patriot PAC-3 employ hit-to-kill interception for many ballistic missile defense missions.

Why Is Interception So Difficult?

Intercepting a missile is often compared to “hitting a bullet with another bullet,” but the reality is even more challenging. Incoming ballistic missiles can travel at several kilometers per second, leaving defenders with only a narrow engagement window. Modern missiles may also deploy decoys, maneuver during flight, or fly at lower altitudes to complicate tracking.

Weather, electronic warfare, radar coverage, and terrain can further reduce the time available to detect and engage a threat. For this reason, countries increasingly rely on layered missile defense, where multiple interceptor systems operate at different ranges and altitudes. If one layer fails, another still has an opportunity to intercept the incoming missile.

Examples Of Interceptor Missiles

Different interceptor missiles are optimized for different threats. The Patriot PAC-3 focuses on defending military bases and cities against ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and aircraft during the terminal phase.

THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) intercepts short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles at much higher altitudes, including outside Earth’s atmosphere. The naval SM-3 interceptor protects ships and allied territories by engaging ballistic missiles during their midcourse phase, while SM-6 provides additional terminal defense against aircraft, cruise missiles, and some ballistic threats.

Other countries operate systems such as Israel’s Arrow-3, David’s Sling, and Iron Dome, each designed for different ranges and threat types.

The Future Of Missile Interception

As hypersonic glide vehicles and maneuverable ballistic missiles become more common, traditional interception methods are becoming increasingly challenging. Future systems are expected to combine more capable sensors, artificial intelligence-assisted tracking, and new interceptors, such as the Glide Phase Interceptor (GPI), currently under development, to engage hypersonic threats before they begin their final descent.

While no missile defense system offers perfect protection, modern layered architectures have significantly improved the ability to detect, track, and intercept increasingly sophisticated threats. Success ultimately depends not on a single interceptor missile but on the seamless integration of satellites, radars, command networks, and multiple defensive layers that work together within seconds.

Update: Just when you thought the media couldn’t try harder to force Graham Platner out of the race for Senator from Maine, WaPo is out with a new one: that ‘sneaky’ oysterman was secretly shucking his condoms off during sex – or so an ex-girlfriend told the deep state’s favorite paper of record. 

“He would pull condoms off,” claims Lyndsey Fifield, who says she dated Platner from 2013-2015 in Washington DC – and previously accused him of physical abuse. “He would do it in a sneaky way. He wouldn’t tell me.”

And just like how the NY Times withheld key details until the dam broke thanks to Politico (read below), WaPo knew about this accusation since June 20.

Fifield initially told The Post about the alleged condom removal during a June 20 interview that was off the record. She said she decided to speak publicly about it Tuesday in part because, she said, she wanted to show that Racicot was not alone in experiencing issues with Platner involving sexual consent. -WaPo

In other words, this was ‘off the record’ until she ‘decided to speak publicly about it Tuesday’ in order to support a fellow accuser. WaPo then writes:

“Removing a condom during sex without consent, known as “stealthing,” is classified as a form of sexual assault in several countries, including Britain, Canada and parts of Australia. In the United States, Maine, California and Washington state have laws that address the nonconsensual removal of condoms during sex.”

…

She estimated that Platner removed condoms without her consent at least six times when they had sex at both of their residences in D.C. during their two-year, on-and-off relationship. She said she told him that she was upset about it but that he would make light of the situation.

So – he stealthed Fifield an alleged six times – and she continued letting him inside of her vagina after said stealthing was an established maneuver, your honor. 

“I confronted him both during and after [sex] because he knew that I was not on birth control and how dangerous that was,” she told the Post, which waited until now to tell the world. “He would act like cute about it, like ‘Oh sneaky me.’“

Sneaky indeud. But not sneaky enough to save his 2026 run for Senate a decade later, it would seem. 

Platner’s campaign has denied Fifield’s allegation, calling her claim “categorically false and politically motivated.”

Now it’s over…

Q: How much more gross can P-Hustle get before the end?

A: pic.twitter.com/nt7rrvvYB5

— U.S. Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) July 7, 2026

* * * BEFORE YOU GO – If you want amazing meat, pick up some of this BMS 7+ Wagyu from veteran-owned KC Cattle Co. Salt & pepper, pan sear / oven finish, and it needs nothing else. NO stringy meat, each bite is seriously packed with flavor, and the fat just melts as you chew. This happened not 6 days ago at house Durden. And yes the dogs got some too.

Earlier: Graham Platner’s Senate campaign is imploding after Politico published a detailed account on Monday from Jenny Racicot, a 41-year-old Democrat from Maine, who accuses the progressive darling of rape. Donors are heading for the exits, Democrats are withdrawing endorsements, and calling for Platner to drop out.

But there’s another scandal hiding in plain sight, and it involves the New York Times, which published an exposé last month featuring three women who dated Platner, who had each accused him of domestic abuse.

Racicot also appeared in the New York Times‘ story on Platner last month. The paper interviewed her and spoke with another anonymous woman as well. Yet when the Times published its June report, it omitted the sexual assault allegations from Racicot and the anonymous Democratic woman who had dated Platner. Instead, the story centered on another accuser, Lyndsey Fifield, a Republican operative whose partisan resume became a central focus of the article.

“After the story went up, I began to ask them… wait, where are the stories from the other women? Where are their accusations of sexual assault? Why am I the focus? Why are there 11 paragraphs dedicated to detailing my work history (more than has been published about Graham’s by far)?” Fifield asked after the story was published.

According to Fifield, reporters contacted her in early April and pressured her past her initial refusal. They told her there were other women and they needed to “band together.” They also promised to protect her. She eventually relented. “I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists,” she wrote on X, turning down other outlets and sitting quiet through weeks of delays.

Then she handed them everything a reporter could want: five friends who could corroborate her story, former roommates who watched Platner stalk her row house from five doors away, screenshots, landlord emails documenting the lease she broke to escape him, and time-stamped diary entries. Reporters called just the two friends who could confirm the relationship timeline rather than the abuse, and told her they saw no need to contact the ex-fiance she confided in during pre-marital counseling since the diary covered it.

The published story claimed nobody could corroborate her account. “Why does it say ‘nobody could corroborate’ when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate?” Fifield asked. Friends had confirmed to the Times that she disclosed the abuse years before Platner announced a run for anything. That corroboration never made print.

Three women who had never met, Fifield, Racicot, and the third anonymous accuser, described the same cycle of intimate partner violence, coercive control, and love-bombing. The Times had all of it but gave readers mostly a deep dive on the Republican woman’s employment record instead. “It dawned on me that this really was a set up all along,” Fifield wrote. “The journalists I trusted who convinced me to share a story I never wanted to tell methodically delayed and twisted this into a gift to the Platner campaign. Violating the trust of his victims. Shattering the trust I placed in them with the most vulnerable story of my life.”

I bucked all advice from my friends (and resisted my conservative bias) and decided to fully trust the Times journalists. As they left my home they asked that I not talk to any other outlets and I insisted then and repeatedly over the following weeks that I would keep my word and only share this story with them.

— Lyndsey Fifield (@lyndseyfifield) June 5, 2026

Politico’s Adam Wren appeared on MSNOW’s “Morning Joe” to walk Mika Brzezinski through the vetting of Racicot’s story. Brzezinski noted the absence of any police report and asked, “Given the very high standards Politico has before they write something like this and publish it, what aspects of this story brought it to the level of publishable?” Wren explained how Racicot “had confided into a number of people, including her therapist, in almost real time.” The corroboration consisted of “email exchanges between she and her therapist” and conversations with people she confided in during the months that followed.

When Brzezinski pressed Wren on what tied Platner to the act itself, he cited an Instagram message Racicot sent the next day, as well as messages to others afterward. Therapist emails and secondhand descriptions of unrecovered messages cleared Politico’s bar, but eyewitness roommates, screenshots, landlord emails, timestamped diaries, and friends confirming contemporaneous disclosures fell short at the New York Times, which lied to America by claiming nobody could corroborate Fifield’s story, and completely omitting Racicot’s claims of sexual assault.

Morning Joe spends 5 minutes grilling Politico’s @adamwren for running a story on Platner’s ex accusing him of rape. “Given the very high standards Politico has before they write something like this and publish it, what aspects of this story brought it to the level of… pic.twitter.com/JgLW17ZF4y

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) July 7, 2026

Platner’s campaign will likely die in the coming days, but the New York Times’ credibility went first.

At least 19 people died of suspected heat-related deaths in New Jersey over the 4th of July holiday weekend, after a nasty heat wave blanked parts of the central and eastern United States. 

In a statement to reporters, New Jersey Health Commissioner Dr. Raynard Washington said that people started dying as early as July 2, with most reported in the central and northern areas of the state – many of whom were found in homes without air conditioning. 

“A few were outside their residences, some on the street, and some even in parked cars,” Washington said, adding that most of the dead were elderly people and young adults. 

“It’s also important to note that these are just suspected and are being investigated. These numbers won’t be final until after medical examiners have had a chance to complete their investigations.”

New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill said at the press briefing that temperatures across the state reached 90 degrees to 100 degrees Fahrenheit on July 4, with the heat index nearing 110 degrees because of the humidity.

As the Epoch Times notes further, the governor described the hot weather as “the hottest stretch … in over 14 years.”

“The heat’s hitting all of us, not just seniors, not just those with underlying health conditions, people of all ages,” Sherrill said at a press briefing.

While the heat wave began to ease in New Jersey on July 5, hot and humid conditions were expected to persist. Sherrill said that showers and thunderstorms could occur through July 6.

The National Weather Service issued a warning on X about considerable flooding across portions of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast from July 5 through July 6.

“Numerous showers and thunderstorms are expected to impact the Ohio Valley, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast today and Monday,” it stated. “Very high levels of atmospheric moisture will support heavy rainfall rates that could result in locally significant flash flooding.”

Central and northern New Jersey remain under a flood watch, as rainfall rates are expected to exceed 2 inches per hour in those areas, according to the governor.

“Some storms may bring heavy downpours, frequent lightning, and damaging wind gusts. Localized flooding is possible, especially in low-lying and poor drainage areas,” Sherrill said in a post on X.

“Never drive through flooded roadways, and head indoors if you hear thunder. Stay informed, stay cool, and stay hydrated. Limit time outdoors during the hottest part of the day.“

Flash flood warnings and flood watches were in effect across New York on July 5. The state division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services warned that storms capable of producing torrential rain were moving into the Mid-Hudson region, which could trigger flash flooding in southeastern New York.

More than 95,000 households were left without power on July 5 because of the storms, primarily concentrated in the Mid-Hudson and Long Island regions, according to the division.

“Last night’s storms brought down trees and knocked out power across parts of the Hudson Valley and Long Island,” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said in an update on X.

“We’re tracking an estimated 82,000 outages statewide and working with utility companies to restore power as quickly and safely as possible.”

The weather service added in an overnight update that heat advisories were in force through to the evening of July 6 for parts of Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

Meanwhile, hot, dry, and windy conditions in the west has contributed to fire restrictions in states such as Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

The super El Niño weather phenomenon this year will significantly boost India’s demand for coal-fired power generation over the next 12 months, as a generation gap could occur with higher temperatures, the Finland-based think tank Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) said in a report on Monday.

The El Niño, the recurrent weather pattern driving global temperatures higher, would affect most energy systems globally, but none would be as affected as India’s, according to CREA.

The El Niño, typically associated with lower wind speeds and less rainfall, could reduce India’s power generation from wind and hydropower. This will open a gap in generation, CREA warns, adding that the gap will be mostly bridged by a surge in coal power generation.

“Combine the lost output from renewables and the increased demand for power, and India could face a generation gap of nearly 18 TWh,” CREA’s analysts said in the report.

“Super El Niño Could Trigger Major Coal Boom In India, which would release an estimated 17 million tonnes of CO2.”

India, the world’s second-biggest coal importer and user after China, continues to rely on coal despite a booming renewable energy sector. The Super El Niño could vindicate India’s approach not to give up on coal.

Overall, coal-fired power generation and capacity installations in India continue to rise, and coal remains a key pillar of India’s electricity mix, with about a 60% share of total power output.

Despite booming renewable capacity additions, India continues to rely on coal to meet most of its power demand as authorities also look to avoid blackouts in cases of severe heat waves.

Coal will still be a key part of India’s power system for the next two decades, Rajnath Ram, adviser for energy at the government policy think tank, NITI Aayog, said at the end of last year.

“We cannot be subjective about coal. The question is how sustainably we can use it,” the official noted.