In a first since 2012, an American flag has been raised over the long shuttered US embassy in Damascus, Syria.

The US ambassador to Turkey, Tom Barrack – along with some US Marines – were on hand for the flag raising ceremony for the re-opening of the ambassador’s residence, which marks another huge milestone in the wake of Bashar al-Assad’s December 8 overthrow as Al-Qaeda linked Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) took over the country.

With regime change accomplished, Saudi and other Gulf and American money is quickly pouring in, and in the wake of President Trump having lifted the long in place sanctions during his Gulf tour this month.

Ambassador Barrack “met with Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa and attended the signing of an agreement for a consortium of Qatari, Turkish and U.S. companies for development of a 5,000-megawatt energy project to revitalize much of Syria’s war-battered electricity grid.”

WaPo details further, “Under the deal signed Thursday, a consortium led by Qatar’s UCC Concession Investments — along with Power International USA and Turkey’s Kalyon GES Enerji Yatirimlari, Cengiz Enerji — will develop four combined-cycle gas turbines with a total generating capacity estimated at approximately 4,000 megawatts and a 1,000-megawatt solar power plant.”

The US-led sanctions ultimately served the punish the Syrian population, even as Western officials feigned humanitarian concern for the suffering of the masses. But all along the Western and Gulf capitals poured billions in arms, munitions, and training into hardened jihadi groups – including HTS – led by one-time ISIS emissary Abu Mohammad al-Jolani (President Sharaa), which helped fragment and burn the country.

Syrian-Armenian Christian and geopolitical analyst Kevork Almassian explores an interesting theory and reporting of what happened in the immediate lead-up to Assad fleeing the country on a Russia-bound plane in early December:

THREAD: The speed at which the Syrian Army disintegrated raised eyebrows even among its most ardent opponents. Many knew a military operation was underway, but few understood the invisible war happening behind the frontlines.

Now, we may do. 🧵 pic.twitter.com/UBVmylLhEj

— Kevork Almassian (@KevorkAlmassian) May 28, 2025

The US Embassy closed up all operations in Damascus in protest of the Assad government in 2012, as the proxy war ramped up. The embassy still kept up its online presence and operations from neighboring Jordan, and also often referred people to consult the US Embassy in Beirut.

At the time US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford had actually traveled to various cities in Syria, fomenting street protests and ‘revolution’ against Assad – and all the while the CIA was pumping weapons into the insurgency, and many of these Islamist fighters had ironically just come from Iraq, where they had spent years been blowing up Americans and Iraqi civilians.

Meanwhile, the jihadis now in control of the Syrian state have been engaged in ethno-religious cleansing ‘score settling’ especially in coastal areas near Tartus and Latakia. This has involved mass killings targeting Alawites, Christians, and Druze – and sectarian fighting which has at times entered the environs of Damascus.

Middle East Christian lobby groups which work on Capitol Hill have meanwhile complained that President Trump should have more firmly linked the lifting of sanctions with firm demonstration that the HTS government would protect Christians and other Syrian ‘minority’ communities. The country has been rife with foreign jihadist fighters ever since the height of the US/Gulf backed proxy war for regime change, and the blood-letting of innocents is likely to continue. Washington has largely been silent.

Authored by William Barclay via RealClearPolitics,

When FBI director Kash Patel condemned Canada allowing Islamic terrorists to gain a foothold in North America, Canadian politicians and pundits, including new Prime Minister Mark Carney, dismissed Patel’s assertions as baseless fearmongering.

Unfortunately, it is clear that the Trump administration is correct: Radical Islamic ideology has become endemic in Canada over the past decade.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service itself has confirmed that, since 2015, radical Islamic ideology has become commonplace throughout Canadian society, as a result of the porous borders and the Liberal government’s unwillingness to effectively regulate the influx of international migration into Canada. Numerous terrorist leaders and those with intimate connections to terrorist organizations such as Samidoun and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine have been permitted to migrate within the Canadian state and promote their own nihilistic ideology over the past decade.

Islamic schools in Canada are not compelled to abide by a standardized curriculum and, consequently, covertly promote radical Islamic ideology and extremism to vulnerable children in Canada. At one prominent Islamic school in Canada, the East End Madrassah, administrators were recently pressured to issue a public apology after it was exposed for “… teaching children that treacherous Jews conspired to kill the Islamic Prophet Mohammed.”

Since 2015, explicit Islamic terrorist acts have become increasingly prevalent in Canada.

According to data from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, “[N]early a dozen terrorism-related incidents [have occurred] in Canada or abroad involving Canadians” since Oct. 7, 2023, alone. In addition), “The number of terrorism charges laid in Canada jumped 488% last year” and “Canadian police have foiled six terrorist plots in the last 12 months alone, with arrests spanning from Edmonton to Ottawa to Toronto.” The Liberal government recently publicly downplayed a report from the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth, & Development Office that a “terror attack attempt in Canada is very likely.”

The globally renowned Counter Extremism Project has recently reported that “within the past few decades, several hundred Canadian civilians have been killed or injured in incidents related to violent extremism,” and that, in spite of the glib posturing and “apparent policy shifts in the Trudeau government, Canada has historically viewed violent Islamist extremism as one of the leading threats to its national security.”

In addition, the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre recently warned the Canadian government that Canada will likely “experience a lone-wolf terror attack soon … and antisemitism is overwhelmingly the motivating factor.”

And to Kash Patel’s point, over the past decade Canada’s porous borders and the Liberal government’s tolerance of Islamic extremism have functioned in concert to enable various terrorists to transgress from Canada into America to commit crimes and even mass murder.

In 2024, Muhammad Shahzeb Khan, a longtime resident of Canada, attempted to carry out a mass shooting in support of ISIS in New York City, and Shamsud-Din Jabbar, the ISIS terrorist who committed the horrific “Bourbon Street Attack” in New Orleans, was also previously permitted to travel freely between Canada and the U.S. Furthermore, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service itself has long recognized Canada’s modern transformation into an exporter of Islamic terrorism and for years has attempted to “monitor and respond to the threat of Canadian extremist travellers (CETs).”

According to Director Patel and the FBI, “over 300 known or suspected terrorists crossed into this country last year illegally … 85% of them came through [Canada and] the northern border,” and “This year, 100 known or suspected terrorists have crossed into this country illegally, 64 or so from the north.” Even Justin Trudeau, Canada’s previous prime minister, was recently forced to admit that “bad actors … have been exploiting [Canada’s] immigration system for their own interests.”

Despite all this, the Canadian political establishment and the media have stubbornly denied any suggestion that Islamic extremism has successfully entrenched itself within Canada.

More importantly, it is readily apparent that until the Liberal government starts to earnestly secure Canada’s borders and begins to excise Islamic extremism from within Canadian society, Canada will continue to serve as a womb for Islamic extremism in North America and a constant source of terrorism in the U.S.

William Barclay is a political theorist and private consultant, as well as a Contributor for Young Voices. William’s work has been published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Palgrave-Macmillan, The Hill Times, and the Journal of Liberty and International Affairs, among others. Follow William on Twitter/X @WillBarclayBBC.

China’s overarching central planning model, meant to keep the economy from keeling over, has become so tangled up it is next to impossible to keep track of fake supply and even faker demand. It is also starting to dangerously resemble late stage USSR, when supply-side economics covered up the rot in the economy until the absolute end.

According to Reuters, with its economy slowing, if not contracting, China is pressing its coal-fired power plants to stockpile more of the fuel and import less in an effort to shore up domestic prices, but traders are skeptical the measures will help to stop the slide.

The coal industry in China faces rising coal stockpiles after a massive expansion of output following shortages and blackouts in 2021 is churning out more coal than even the world’s largest thermal power fleet can consume.

To support money-losing miners whose profits are under growing pressure, the state planner has asked power plants to prioritize domestic coal and increase thermal coal stockpiles by 10%, setting an overall target of 215 million metric tons by June 10, the sources said. However, with inventories piling up along the supply chain, the guidelines would be unlikely to spur much buying or support prices.

Mine stockpiles are up 42% from a year ago, while northern Bohai area port inventories are up 25% annually, the state-run China Energy Daily has said. Buyers are also being asked to procure coal from northern ports to chip away at high port stockpiles, three Reuters sources said.

The NDRC’s moves follow months of calls from industry groups and companies to curb coal imports and output. Chinese coal prices have marched steadily downwards, however. Prices for medium-grade coal with a heat value of 5,500 kilocalories per kilogram stood at 620 yuan ($86) per metric ton on Tuesday, the lowest since March 2021.

Prices have fallen so far that some buyers have tried to wiggle out of long-term contracts in favor of spot sales.

China imported a record 542.7 million tons of coal in 2024, but the total is expected to fall this year. Coal imports slid 16% in April on the year.

Chinese mine production continues to grow despite the collapse in prices, with a government haunted by the shortages and blackouts of 2021 and 2022 unlikely to consider output cuts.

“I think they’re very mindful to avoid a repeat of that,” said LSEG lead coal analyst Toby Hassall. “They will tolerate a period where some domestic production is really struggling.”

China’s coal production rose 6.6% on the year during the period from January to April, to stand at 1.58 billion tons.  At the same time, industry profits fell 48.9% year-on-year for the same period, official data showed on Tuesday.

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Sixteen states are suing the National Science Foundation (NSF) over the agency’s recent actions against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, accused NSF of taking actions jeopardizing “America’s longstanding global leadership in STEM.”

“First, NSF announced that it would no longer abide by Congress’s longstanding policy to promote a robust STEM workforce that draws in underrepresented populations,” the states said in the May 28 filing.

On April 18, NSF announced updated priorities for its funding programs. It clarified that efforts aimed at broadening STEM participation “should not preference some groups at the expense of others, or directly/indirectly exclude individuals or groups.”

“Research projects with more narrow impact limited to subgroups of people based on protected class or characteristics do not effectuate NSF priorities,” it said, noting that projects relying on “DEI frameworks or advocacy do not effectuate NSF priorities.”

According to the complaint, on the same day that NSF published its updated priorities, the agency started issuing termination notices for several projects, many of which are in the plaintiffs’ states.

Affected projects include those seeking to “increase STEM participation by women, minorities, and people with disabilities; that study misinformation; and that address environmental justice,” according to the filing.

The second NSF policy challenged in the lawsuit is the agency’s May 2 announcement that it would cap indirect costs on research projects at 15 percent. Such costs include expenses related to lab space, facility operations, and security for sensitive research.

This rate cap is “far below the rates” that higher education institutions have negotiated with the federal government, according to the complaint.

In a May 28 statement, New York Attorney General Letitia James, who co-led the lawsuit, said the “administration’s attacks on basic science and essential efforts to ensure diversity in STEM” will weaken the economy and national security.

“Putting politics over science will only set our country back, and I will continue to fight to protect critical scientific research and education,” James said.

According to her office, NSF’s April 18 directive has resulted in the cancellation of funding for 18 programs worth $11 million within the City University of New York that specifically sought to “promote participation in STEM fields by women, minorities, and people with disabilities.”

The lawsuit asked the court to issue an order declaring the NSF’s new policies illegal and blocking their implementation.

The Epoch Times reached out to the NSF for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Terminating DEI Grants

The NSF is an independent federal agency that supports science and engineering fields by issuing research grants. Its investments make up about 25 percent of the federal support received by U.S. colleges and universities for basic research.

NSF has been under the scanner of Republicans over its DEI policies. In February, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) released a database of more than 3,400 NSF grants issued under the Biden administration worth more than $2.05 billion, according to a Feb. 11 statement from the lawmaker’s office.

The funding was used for pushing “neo-Marxist class warfare propaganda” or “questionable projects” promoting DEI, it reads.

One of the awards was a $401,744 grant issued to San José State University in 2022 to train students and teachers to be “climate justice action researchers and change agents.” A $1 million grant given to Northwestern University in 2023 sought to reimagine STEM education through the framework of “racial equity.”

“DEI initiatives have poisoned research efforts, eroded confidence in the scientific community, and fueled division among Americans,” Cruz said at the time.

Under the Trump administration, NSF has undergone a radical change.

The agency’s updated priorities now state, “Awards that are not aligned with program goals or agency priorities have been terminated, including but not limited to those on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), environmental justice, and misinformation/disinformation.”

According to a May 21 update, NSF has terminated more than 1,750 research grants worth more than $1.36 billion. Affected institutions include Harvard University, Cornell University, Purdue University, the University of Iowa, Columbia University, and Vanderbilt University.

“NSF continues to examine awards to ensure they align to agency priorities,” the agency said.

When ZeroHedge asked leading voices in the MAHA Ag Movement how the Trump administration could partner with America’s farmers and ranchers – an industry that rarely agrees on anything – unanimously agreed that restoring Country Of Origin Labeling (COOL) is a top priority. 

In the years leading up to 2015, the USDA was trusted by consumers and ranchers to fairly grade and label meat – giving only the most prime “product of the U.S.A.” its stamp of approval. 

“Throughout 2013 and 2014, beef and cattle prices rose to the highest nominal levels in history, and cattle producers were finally recovering a profit from the marketplace itself,” said Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA.

Advocates point to these profit increases as evidence that consumers prefer to buy meat raised in the United States when given product transparency. However, it wasn’t long before the “Big 4” corporate meat Packers convinced Mexico and Canada to file a trade barrier complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO). 

Starting in 2015, Congress capitulated to the demands of the Big 4 and the WTO, sullying consumer confidence in the USDA’s stamp with cheap imports.

In 2022, some progress was made with the American Beef Labeling Act, introduced by then-Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD). However, the legislation still allows a sizable caveat for the Big 4 corporate meatpackers who own 85% of the livestock marketplace—and growing. 

In 2009 It became mandatory to know what country our beef came from via the MCOOL (Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling) policy overseen by the USDA

In 2015, under the Obama administration it was removed supposedly over concerns from the WTO ( World Trade Organization)

As we…

— Dr Shawn Baker 🥩 (@SBakerMD) May 10, 2025

“Products materially altered or transformed within the borders of the United States,” are still allowed to be stamped and approved by the USDA as a “Product of the U.S.A.” This includes frozen meat imports, or live animals that have been raised in another country,  so long as they’re processed or packaged in the United States.   

The result of this form of plagiarism has been catastrophic for American farmers and ranchers, with domestic cattle volumes at a 70-year low and the United States losing farms at the rapid rate of 77 per hour. 

With recent promises from the Trump administration, and talks of partnerships to Make America Healthy Again, COOL became the central focus during a press conference with the new Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture.

During the presser, Chairman John Boozman (R-AK) – a former optometrist – signaled that he might not be seeing eye-to-eye with America’s farmers.  

“No, you know,  that’s a, that’s such a, it’s a controversial issue,” Boozman responded to the question of restoring COOL in the Farm Bill.

“So that’s another issue we need to look at in the Farm Bill,  and work through, just to see what the ramifications are. So many times you do things and then they have unintended consequences. So, in order to make a decision, and times change, uh, thinking changes. Sometimes you do need to change the direction you’re going in. But, you need to do that, or something like that with, you know, by having hearings and really understanding exactly what the ramifications would be one way or another.” 

The MAHA report, outlining solutions, is expected to be released by August. Policy outlines will be considered as the bicameral Agricultural Committees draft their new versions of the Farm Bill—expected sometime in September. 

Restore transparency on supermarket shelves—otherwise, consumers will lose trust and turn to cleaner beef alternatives.

Authored by Pat Fidopastis via The Brownstone Institute,

In March 2020, the phrase “Fifteen days to slow the spread” was transmitting faster than SARS-CoV-2. At the time, it seemed reasonable to want to buy our health care workers a few weeks to prepare. Contemporaneously, Dr. Anthony Fauci reasonably summarized decades of research in his 60 Minutes interview by saying that masks are not an effective way to block respiratory viruses. 

In a Snapchat interview, Dr. Fauci reasonably interpreted timely data on Covid-19 outcomes to conclude that young people could decide for themselves if they wanted to meet strangers on a dating app during the pandemic. As Dr. Fauci put it: “Because that’s what’s called relative risk.” 

Even the authors of the “proximal origin” opinion piece in Nature Medicine made reasonable points in support of a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 (despite revealing their cards by calling “lab leak” implausible): “..it is likely that SARS-CoV-2-like viruses with partial or full polybasic cleavage sites will be discovered in other species” and “More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another.” 

Five years later, thousands of animals have been sampled, millions of genomic sequences have been analyzed, and still there is nothing remotely close to a non-human adapted, animal version of SARS-CoV-2; back in 2003, using “stone tools” compared to today’s technology, they found the animal version of that SARS virus in a few months. 

Unfortunately, the honeymoon of reason was brief. Overwhelming evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was not natural became a “destructive conspiracy,” and if you spoke about it, you were somehow racist. 

Surgeon General Jerome Adams instructed us on how to make a life-saving mask from an old t-shirt. Dr. Fauci used the bizarre excuse that he lied in his 60 Minutes interview to explain why he abruptly reversed himself and began promoting the epidemiological theater of wearing several masks at once. 

Not to be outdone, Dr. Deborah Birx summed up the futility of her leadership with this pearl: “We know that there are ways that you can even play tennis with marked balls so you’re not touching each other’s balls.” This sounded more like a punchline than worthwhile public health advice. Perhaps most egregious of all, we learned that “Two weeks to slow the spread” was not meant to be taken literally. 

For me, a professor of microbiology for nearly 25 years, the moment of reason ended when I stepped into an elevator on my campus and saw a floor sticker telling me where to stand (Fig. 1). I simply could not keep quiet and pretend that this was sound public health advice. 

Fig. 1

Before long, businesses were inundated with pandemic rules. I was hired by one of the lucky ones deemed “essential,” and therefore allowed to open, to assist with “safe” operation plans. 

When I arrived to conduct my inspection, the business looked more like an Ebola field hospital than a furniture store (Fig. 2). Masked customers were herded in the parking lot by ropes and signs. One by one, they were greeted by an attendant, grateful to still have a job, standing behind Plexiglas, wearing a mask and face shield. 

The friendly attendant was instructed to ask uncomfortable questions about symptoms like diarrhea. If a customer responded “yes” to any of the symptoms or refused to answer, they could not shop for furniture. If “no,” then their temperature was measured. 

It was nearly 100 degrees that day so almost everyone had to be scanned multiple times. Inside the store was a maze of one-way arrows, warning signs, Plexiglas, hand sanitizer stations, and boxes of masks and disposable couch covers. They even had a video monitor reporting the number of customers per 400 square feet of store. Sadly, the epidemiological version of “over-medicating the patient” did not stop with onerous business rules.  

Fig. 2

Drunk with power, public health officials in California felt ordained to protect the unwashed masses from Thanksgiving dinner. Unsurprisingly, these farcical dining rules did not apply to everyone. 

Who actually believed “singing, chanting, shouting, and physical exertion” at a family dinner was too risky? Who decided that we needed to bulldoze a skate park to prevent kids from congregating? Why was it necessary to arrest a lone paddleboarder in Santa Monica Bay for “flouting coronavirus closures?” 

In the LA Times article on the paddler’s arrest, a professor from the prestigious Scripps Institute of Oceanography opined, “SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, could enter coastal waters and transfer back into the air along the coast. I wouldn’t go in the water if you paid me $1 million right now.”   

I tried laughing off the ridiculous, unenforceable Thanksgiving rules, those stickers in the elevators, and other nonsense that at the time was happening somewhere else. But I could not get past the frightening reality that so many of my highly educated peers actually believed nonsense like SARS-CoV-2 was leaping out of the ocean. 

Anyone paying attention could compile government data on Covid-19 outcomes and assess risk for themselves (Table 1). The message was always the same – the vast majority of deaths attributed to Covid-19 were people over 65 years old with severe comorbidities, especially obesity.   

Table 1

By signing the Great Barrington Declaration and discussing its premise of “focused protection” in my advanced microbiology courses, I received an avalanche of vitriol. 

Among the most shocking responses were accusations of “ageism” and “fat-shaming” for discussing hard facts about the pandemic. 

Just like that, the “Science doesn’t care about your feelings” crowd started prioritizing their feelings. The university newspaper asked for an interview. I was warned not to accept, but I wanted to start a bigger conversation. I regret my decision because the article they wrote did not represent the views I articulated. 

Instead, I was accused of promoting a “power imbalance” by supposedly forcing my “junk science” views on students. I used to think the cries of “fake news” were just a lazy argument by people that could not support their position, until I read that article about me. 

Ironically, these same people who attacked me had completely accepted the made-up “six-feet rule,” which was the root of so much collateral damage. Heavily biased news sources like NPR defended this unscientific rule by stating, “distance still protects you.” However, if the cure is not even remotely feasible, despite the best efforts of authoritarians, then it’s not really a cure.                

Apparently I crossed the line when I discussed in class how politicized the pandemic had become. How is it that President Trump’s rallies were spreading “coronavirus and death” but BLM protests had no effect on coronavirus cases? The sampling bias was baked in, given that contact tracers were being told not to ask people if they had been to a protest. 

Why was it acceptable for CNN to use phrases such as “Wuhan virus” and “Chinese coronavirus,” but when President Trump did it, he was called “racist?” Was it actually “racist” to discuss the obvious signs of genetic manipulation in the SARS-CoV-2 genome with my students in an Emerging Infectious Diseases class? 

My campus newspaper and many of my colleagues thought so, as did an Asian American and Pacific Islander group calling for my resignation.  When the admonitions about masks became aggressive (Fig. 3), and draconian, unscientific outdoor mask fines were being implemented, I analyzed some data and conducted a few experiments to find out for myself if masks were worth all the anger.

Fig. 3

I looked at “cases” in places like New York City and pointed out when the mask mandate and fines were applied (Fig. 4). Notably, the NYC mandate was instituted after cases had already begun to fall, and coercive fines did not prevent the second wave, which was longer and reached a higher peak than the first wave.

Fig. 4

I had my allergy-prone daughter sneeze onto petri-plates with and without the CDC-approved masks we wore to enter locations that enforced the mask mandate (Fig. 5). The saliva spray patterns, illustrated by microbial growth on the plates, were virtually indistinguishable.

Fig. 5

In the 60 Minutes interview, Dr. Fauci stated that “…often there are unintended consequences…people keep fiddling with the mask and touching their face…” implying that germs collect on masks, making them a source of contagion rather than a barrier. 

Indeed, after the sneeze experiment, I stamped the outside of my daughter’s mask onto a petri-plate. The resulting dense microbial growth supported Dr. Fauci’s argument against mask wearing – “fiddling with the mask” probably does spread microbes (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6

At the time, I stated in the campus newspaper that “the science on masks was mixed at best.” However, the third-year journalism student apparently knew better and decided I was pushing “junk science.” Was I naïve to expect an apology after “the science” started catching up to what I was saying?   

During the pandemic, my lab was responsible for measuring SARS-CoV-2 levels in wastewater (Fig. 7) to use this information as a means of tracking community transmission. We learned two important lessons from this approach. 

First, peak levels of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater (orange line) provided a few weeks’ lead to when we could expect to see peak levels of people testing positive for the virus (i.e., “cases;” blue line). Second, we learned that the mask mandate (red line) did not stop the virus from doing what it wanted. Despite the mask mandate, transmission of SARS-CoV-2 reached unprecedented highs.

Fig. 7

Taken together, my findings were supported by decades of research showing that masks are not effective against respiratory viruses, regardless of the quality. Still, the counterargument persisted that wearing an N95 mask suctioned to your face, and constantly replacing it, would have stopped the pandemic. 

Again, if the cure is not feasible, then it’s not really a cure, is it? The reality is that there are no convincing data supporting mask mandates, none that even remotely support children being forced to wear saliva-soaked masks, and especially none that would justify people being choked and beaten for opposing them. 

The “follow the science” crowd was honing their authoritarian skills in preparation for mandatory vaccinations. The motivation for these mandates was summed up perfectly: “During the Sars crisis in 2003 pharma companies answered the WHO’s call for vaccine research. They invested hundreds of millions of dollars, but then — when the outbreak died away — governments and charities lost interest.” According to epidemiologist Dr. Osterholm “The companies were left holding the bag.” 

How could Big Pharma avoid “holding the bag” on a vaccine they hoped would stop a virus that had repeatedly ripped through the world’s population? Not surprisingly, their first order of business was to drop the concept of “natural immunity” into the memory hole, centuries of science be damned. The subtext was if regular people knew that natural immunity was real, they probably would not want the vaccine, especially if they already had Covid-19 a few times. 

Leading up to the vaccine rollout, I tested myself regularly using PCR, antibody, and antigen assays. I eventually tested positive and had mild flu-like symptoms. While well-educated friends of mine had gone to such lengths as to move out of their homes to distance themselves from their children and wait for the vaccines, my family chose a different tack. Instead, we huddled, got mild infections (except for my wife, who seemed to be immune), shared some level of natural immunity to the latest version of the virus, and tracked our infections (Table 2).

Table 2

When I shared the “herd immunity” story with my small social media following, most appreciated hearing something other than doom and gloom. However, others showed a level of vindictiveness that should not have surprised me, given how acceptable it became to wish death on the unvaccinated. 

A colleague attempted to shame me in the campus newspaper, while others wondered out loud whether Child Protective Services should be notified. How dare you give your children the sniffles! How dare you use this time of ridiculous “virtual learning” mandates to provide your children with some hands-on experience performing quantitative PCR! 

Predictably, my SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels were extremely high after over two weeks of PCR-positivity. While still overflowing with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, I was scheduled to receive mandatory shots in order to return to campus. 

If the world had actually followed the science, my recent PCR positivity and elevated antibody titers should have been a reasonable exemption. Unfortunately, there was no such exemption. Having seen the terrible treatment of my colleague Dr. Kheriaty, I decided we would play the role of guinea pigs and take what would be an all-risk-and-no-reward shot, especially for my kids. That is, there was nothing in it for us except a few days of high fever and injection site swelling, but definite financial reward for everyone in the vaccine supply chain. 

As a member of the “laptop class,” the “lockdowns” made my life easier in many ways. While small business owners struggled, I was getting full pay to upload instructional videos to my university students, and occasionally engage with them online. My wastewater epidemiology work was deemed “essential,” so I was permitted to go to my lab to perform those duties for additional compensation. 

However, the ad hominem attacks and threats caused me to disengage from further attempts to start a discussion on pandemic policy, which no doubt was their goal. While the world was fighting over toilet paper and shaming each other for “killing grandma,” we tuned out for a while (Fig. 8). 

Fig. 8

I was surrounded by so much anger that I truly believed I was alone in my heretical views on pandemic policy. However, I officially tuned back in when Dr. Scott Atlas invited me to join a small group called The Academy for Science and Freedom. 

Our meeting at the Hillsdale College Kirby Center in Washington, D.C. was the first time I had hope since the pandemic started. We were professors, medical doctors, publishers, and journalists, all united by a common belief that the people in charge abandoned a basic tenet of public health: voluntary instead of coercive measures would protect public trust and induce cooperation. 

Despite all the great minds in the room, it was hard to imagine we would ever get to where we are right now. But here we are. Many of the people responsible for lockdowns, forced vaccinations, and covering up the unnatural origin of SARS-CoV-2 are gone. 

In their place, are Academy members such as Dr. Tracy Beth Høeg, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Matt Memoli, Dr. Vinay Prasad, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, and Dr. Marty Makary. All of whom were treated far worse than me. The overwhelming rejection of “The Fauci School” of public health policy is vindicating. However, recent headlines suggest there are holdouts refusing to accept that they were fooled: Dr. Høeg is a “vaccine skeptic,”  Dr. Memoli “is known for questioning vaccine mandates,” and Dr. Prasad is an “anti-science MAHA extremist.” 

The people I trusted probably fooled me on a lot of things I voted for, like the benefits of a 20,000-page health care policy. Who has time to actually read that stuff? However, they were never going to succeed at fooling me about the science of the pandemic. 

Their lies and hubris caused an awakening, reminiscent of the scene in The Matrix when Neo emerged from the virtual world to a brutal reality. I just hope the people I trust who are now running the major institutions will allocate all resources to programs that will actually improve human health. In doing so, they should have no problem convincing those holdouts not only that they had been fooled, but who fooled them.    

The California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the grid operator for most of the state, is increasingly curtailing solar- and wind-powered electricity generation as it balances supply and demand amidst rapid renewables capacity growth, EIA reports.

Grid operators must balance supply and demand to maintain a stable electric system. The output of wind and solar generators is reduced either through price signals or, rarely, through an order to reduce output during periods of:

• Congestion, when power lines don’t have enough capacity to deliver available energy
• Oversupply, when generation exceeds customer electricity demand

In 2024, CAISO curtailed 3.4 million megawatthours (MWh) of utility-scale wind and solar output, a 29% increase from the amount of electricity curtailed in 2023.

Solar accounted for 93% of all the energy curtailed in CAISO in 2024. CAISO curtailed the most solar in the spring, when solar output was relatively high and electricity demand was relatively low, because moderate spring temperatures meant less demand for space heating or air conditioning.

In 2014, a combined 9.7 gigawatts (GW) of wind and solar photovoltaic capacity had been built in California. By the end of 2024, that number had grown to 28.2 GW.

CAISO also curtails solar generation to leave room for natural gas generation. A certain amount of natural gas generation must stay online throughout the day to comply with North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) reliability standards and to have generation online in time to ramp up in the evening hours.

Solar energy supplies almost half of CAISO’s electricity demand between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., but demand increases in the later evening hours when people come home from work and turn up air conditioners or electric heaters and turn on lights, ovens, computers, and televisions. This need is especially apparent on hot summer evenings after the sun has set and no longer produces solar power overnight.

CAISO is trying to reduce curtailments in several ways:

• Trading with neighboring balancing authorities to try to sell excess solar and wind power
• Incorporating battery storage into ancillary services, energy, and capacity markets
• Including curtailment reduction in transmission planning

In addition, starting this year, companies are planning to use excess renewable energy to make hydrogen, some of which will be stored and mixed with natural gas for summer generation at the Intermountain Power Project’s new facility scheduled to come online in July.

The Western Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM) is a real-time market that allows participants outside of CAISO to buy and sell energy to balance demand and supply. In 2024, more than 274,000 MWh of curtailments were avoided by trading within the WEIM, equivalent to about 8% of the electricity curtailed that year. The Extended Day-Ahead Market (EDAM) is expected to be operational by May 2026 and will allow CAISO another outlet to sell solar energy.

To further reduce renewable curtailments and increase the stability of the grid, CAISO is promoting the addition of flexible resources that can quickly respond to sudden increases and decreases in demand. Battery storage, recently the key flexible resource to come online, allows some renewable energy to be stored and used 4-8 hours later in the day. Batteries can charge using excess solar power at midday and then discharge that energy when the sun is going down, providing electricity during hours when it is most needed. Battery capacity in CAISO increased by 45% in 2024, from 8.0 GW in 2023 to 11.6 GW in 2024 according to our survey of recent and planned capacity changes. However, in the spring, more solar energy than can be used within a day is often produced. Without more transmission capacity or a long-term storage solution, high curtailments during this time of year can still occur.

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

A few Democrat officeholders, activists, and pundits are finally coming to their senses that their brand is toxic to a majority of the American people.

The Biden administration killed what was left of it in a number of ways.

First, it serially lied to Americans about the cognitive decline and cancerous condition of President Joe Biden, both while in and after office.

Only when caught did the complicit media fess up that the Biden inner circle serially misled the American people about Biden’s inability to fulfill the duties of the presidency.

Second, left-wing politicos used Biden as a waxen effigy. His job was to pose as a “moderate” cover to push through the most radical and unpopular agenda in the last half century.

Only that way could “Old Joe Biden from Scranton” and his backroom handlers ram down the throat of the American people unpopular policies that nearly wrecked the country: hyperinflation and $7 trillion in new debt, weaponization of the government, and partisan lawfare, an open border and 12 million illegal aliens, a racialist DEI commissariat, a crackpot Green New Deal, defunding the police, biological men competing in girls’ sports, and two theater-wide wars abroad.

Third, without either a functional president or viable initiatives, the new hard-left Democrats sought to brand Donald Trump as “Hitler” and half the country who supported him as “fascists.”

For nearly nine years, the Democrats launched one failed hoax after another on the American people: “Russian collusion,” “laptop disinformation,” and the lying so-called “51 intelligence authorities.” They proved quite willing to undermine the rule of law by manipulating the court system in efforts to destroy their bogeyman, Donald Trump.

Never had the American people seen a political party engineer 93 bogus indictments of a rival candidate and ex-president. Two dozen states tried to take Trump off their presidential ballots. And the Biden Department of Justice sicced an FBI SWAT team to barge into Trump’s home.

The people finally got tired of all the potty-mouthed Democrat videos, the congressional stunts and meltdowns, the pampered rich kids rioting on elite campuses, the knee-jerk obsessions with racial slurs, the firebombing of Tesla dealerships, the romanticization of left-wing political murderers—and always the adolescent tantrums over Donald Trump.

The Democrats had mostly given up on democracy some 13 years ago.

That was the last time they transparently and democratically nominated Barack Obama a second time as their presidential candidate.

Ever since, their nominations have been rigged.

In 2020, party insiders—terrified of the left-wing crazy primary field—forced out all the leading contenders.

Then they coronated the debilitated but still supposedly useful moderate Joe Biden as their COVID-era candidate. Biden then bragged that he would pick his vice president on the basis of race and gender.

What followed was the most bizarre campaign in history.

Biden stayed put in his basement and outsourced his candidacy to the partisan media.

Party activists changed long-standing voting laws in the key swing states. For the first time in American history, 70 percent of Americans did not vote in person on Election Day—the majority of them by design Democrats.

Next, in 2024, they forced the now no longer useful Biden off the ticket, nullifying his 14 million primary voters.

Then, without a vote, they rammed in inept Vice President Kamala Harris as the nominee. As a failed candidate in 2020, she had never won a single delegate.

Some in the party now concede it must roust out its radicals.

But Democrats will not.

AOC and her Squad, the unhinged Jasmine Crockets of the party, and the ossified socialist Bernie Bros would demonize any Democrat who offered a sane reboot.

A few fossils in the party may think they know how to save it. But they are terrified that the medicine would be considered far worse than the illness that prompted it.

Would Democrats consider embracing measured and legal-only immigration?

No—the crazy base would scream “xenophobe!”

A return to meritocracy and the Martin Luther King notion of race as incidental, not essential, to who we are?

Again, that would be called “racist!”

Maybe reforms to fix failed schools with vouchers, school choice, and charter schools?

Again, “racist!”

How about developing gas and oil reserves and nuclear power to lower energy costs for the struggling middle class?

That would be condemned as “destroying the planet!”

Restore police forces, end critical race and legal theory, and deter criminals with tough sentencing?

Again, “racist!”

How about ceasing the whiny fixations with “white privilege” and “white rage?” Or quit seeing a “white supremacist” under every bed?

Again, “racist!”

The left created DEI—the use of race to adjudicate every political issue.

And like any addictive, toxic drug, they now can neither survive with DEI—nor without it.

Update(1655ET): A warning from the US at the United Nations in New York on Thursday:

‘Deal on offer now is Russia’s best possible outcome’ – US at UN Security Council

Some of the lines from Acting US Alternate Representative to the UN John Kelley:

“If Russia makes the wrong decision to continue this catastrophic war, the United States will have to consider stepping back from our negotiation efforts to end this conflict. To be clear, in doing so, we would not be “abandoning” our principles or our friends. Rather, we would be recognizing Russia’s refusal to work with us toward a desirable outcome.”

“As President Trump has made clear, we want to work with Russia, including on this peace initiative and an economic package. There is no military solution to this conflict. The deal on offer now is Russia’s best possible outcome. President Putin should take the deal.”

He also made clear that more sanctions are on the table as an option. “Additional sanctions on Russia are still on the table. President Trump has emphasized from the beginning that this war was a strategic mistake and should never have happened; time is not on the side of any who would prolong it,” Kelly said.

‘Deal on offer now is Russia’s BEST possible outcome’ – US at UN Security Council

US and Ukraine want deal to start with an immediate ceasefire – exactly what Zelensky needs to rearm

Should Putin accept? pic.twitter.com/hUZd2OBNAc

— RT (@RT_com) May 29, 2025

Russia has been precisely ramping up its military response of late: “Russian forces have carried out precision strikes on a facility used by Ukrainian special operations forces, the Defense Ministry in Moscow announced Thursday.

‘Command HQs’ are now clearly being targeted in Ukraine, at a moment Germany has said it has lifted all restrictions on long-range weapons for Kiev.

* * *

“Of course, it is within the realms of possibility,” the new German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, told TV channel ZDF when asked if Germany would supply long-range weapons for Ukrainian troops. This is after he claimed that leading allies such as the US, UK, German, and France have lifted “absolutely” all restrictions on arms limits – something which Washington has yet to confirm or deny.

Merz hinted that Berlin might transfer its long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine this year, but which would take a many months-long training program for Ukrainian military operators. This is also as he promised new military aid worth €5 billion (£4.2 billion), upon hosting President Zelensky in Germany on Wednesday.

“Ukraine will be able to fully defend itself, including against military targets outside its own territory,” said Merz. While leaving the question of Taurus transfer open, the German leader did promise to bankroll Ukrainian domestic development of long-range missile capability.

“We want to talk about production and we will not publicly discuss details,” Merz affirmed. And BBC added in the wake of the Zelensky-Merz meeting:

Germany’s defense ministry said in a statement that Berlin would finance the production of long-range weapons systems in Ukraine and that the “first of these systems could be deployed in the Ukrainian armed forces in just a few weeks”.

As expected the reaction from the Kremlin was immediate, given Merz is certainly testing Moscow’s red lines: “The Russian Federation will respond ‘harshly, asymmetrically, and decisively’ if Germany proceeds with supplying Taurus missiles to the Kiev regime,” a statement from the State Duma Defense Committee said.

Already over the last several days running Russia’s military has struck Kiev, and has long threatened to ramp up attacks on ‘command centers’ – including places where foreign troops and Western advisers might be located.

Russian state media has been more blunt in reaction to Merz’s comments, warning that Moscow could simply directly strike Berlin if German-made missiles begin raining down on Russian cities…

Word in Moscow is if Merz uses German weapons to strike Moscow – and we all know that Kiev has no independent capacity to operate Tauruses or other long-range missiles – then Russia will have no choice but to strike Berlin directly.

Simple enough. pic.twitter.com/8jYMr0zpUe

— Margarita Simonyan (@M_Simonyan) May 28, 2025

These threats were not made officially, but this is often how the Kremlin indirectly communicates its most dire warnings – either through a mid-level official or something like the outspoken editor-in-chief of RT.

President Trump has said this week that Putin is “playing with fire” with the continual aerial attacks on Kiev and other locations in Ukraine. But Russia has pointed to the literally thousands of drones launched on its territory from Ukraine this month, which have even reached Moscow, disrupting flights at several international airports.

On Wednesday FM Lavrov announced that the next round of peace talks are set for June 2 in Istanbul – but will the warring sides even make it to the negotiating table? The jingoist war of words and threats are ramping up hotter than ever, with the Kremlin warning that further delays (on key conditions like territorial concessions) mean “peace tomorrow will be even more painful”.

The corporate media industrial complex—effectively serving as PR arms for major corporations, governments, NGOs, and billionaires—has endured a brutal decade of structural decline. Trust in legacy media has collapsed to historic lows, while audience fragmentation continues to accelerate. Despite already aggressive consolidation, the world of journalism remains locked in a prolonged contraction with no clear bottom in sight. In contrast, alternative media outlets, X platform, and podcasters are gaining tremendous market share, driven by a growing demand for decentralized, unfiltered journalism grounded in authenticity and transparency.

Axios reported the latest wave of media layoffs Thursday morning—this time at Business Insider. Sara Fischer shared an internal memo from BI CEO Barbara Peng, announcing cuts that will affect approximately 21% of the staff across all departments. The layoffs are part of a broader transformation strategy aimed at building a leaner, more focused, and AI-driven newsroom.

“As we shared during our April All-Hands, we are going all-in on AI — and we’re off to a strong start,” Fischer told stafff, adding, “Over 70% of Business Insider employees are already using Enterprise ChatGPT regularly (our goal is 100%), and we’re building prompt libraries and sharing everyday use cases that help us work faster, smarter, and better.”

Peng’s key points for the restructuring:

• Sharpening Editorial Focus: BI is aligning coverage around business, tech, and innovation journalism that delivers lasting value and drives loyal readership. Underperforming content areas are being cut.

• Reducing Traffic Sensitivity: With 70% of BI’s business still dependent on web traffic, the company is downsizing to become more resilient to volatile digital traffic trends. The Commerce division is being mostly shut down.

• Doubling Down on AI: BI is going “all-in” on AI, citing over 70% employee adoption of ChatGPT tools. They’re launching AI-powered products like an onsite search engine and AI paywall, while optimizing operations using automation.

What are the immediate changes? 

• Layoffs are effective immediately, with impacted employees receiving communication from HR.

• Changes also affect the UK team (with a separate process).

• New ventures like BI Live (live journalism events) are launching as part of the pivot.

News: @BusinessInsider is laying off 21% of staff, according to a staff memo from CEO Barbara Peng.
— The company is reducing traffic-sensitive businesses (commerce) and instead will be investing more in events (BI Live). pic.twitter.com/AcDA2i2WWr

— Sara Fischer (@sarafischer) May 29, 2025

German media conglomerate Axel Springer SE owns BI. It acquired a majority stake in 2015 for $343 million and increased its holdings in 2018 to bring ownership to a complete 100%.

Axel Springer’s portfolio includes other outlets such as Politico, Bild, Die Welt, and other media brands. 

The timing of the BI’s restructuring is very suspicious, given that the DOGE team has canceled Politico’s USAID funding. 

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 White House confirms USAID funded Politico with over $8,000,000 in US taxpayer dollars.

“The DOGE team is working on canceling those payments now.” pic.twitter.com/iiMhJ3SEdQ

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) February 5, 2025

Elon Musk has previously stated, “I don’t think Business Insider is a real publication.” 

ELON: “I don’t think Business Insider is a real publication, so let’s move on to the next question.” 😂 pic.twitter.com/bTi7viNoSU

— Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) May 23, 2024

Remember BI’s hit piece on Dave Portnoy’s “rough sex” …