The video above shows hundreds of roof tiles sliding off the historic Fengyang Drum Tower in eastern China at the start of the week. Local media reports no injuries.
“The tile falling lasted for a minute or two,” one eyewitness told the state newspaper Yangcheng Evening News.
Tiles fell from the ancient Drum Tower in Fengyang, #Anhui Province, on May 19. The tower, originally built in 1375 and rebuilt in 1995, had been under renovation since late 2023. Local authorities are investigating the incident. #architecture#Chinapic.twitter.com/h5U2ABXZLn
Another witness told state media outlet The Beijing News that “no one was in the square and no one was injured” at the time of the incident.
Located in Anhui province, the drum tower was constructed in 1375 during the Ming Dynasty, with a reconstruction phase in 1995 after it was destroyed in 1853.
China’s local culture and tourism bureau reported no casualties and said the “situation is under investigation.”
Enough already. It is time for colleges and universities to get tough on student protesters who hide behind masks while engaging in violent or unlawful campus demonstrations.
Let’s be clear: The First Amendment protects the right of students at public colleges to engage in peaceful protest.
If a student wants to wear a mask or face covering during a peaceful demonstration—for health reasons, fear of retaliation, or as a form of political expression—they generally have the right to do so.
But that right is not absolute.
When protests cross the line into violence, vandalism, or intimidation—as we have seen recently at institutions such as the University of Washington, Columbia University, and Brooklyn College—masks become tools of concealment, not expression.
In those moments, the anonymity they provide fosters a sense of impunity, which encourages students to act more recklessly and violently, creating a dangerous campus environment.
Masked protest in this context is not about health or symbolic speech. It is about avoiding accountability while breaking institutional rules or laws. When student actions disrupt the learning environment or threaten campus safety, their conduct falls well outside First Amendment protections.
Efforts to ban masks during protests have produced mixed legal results. Some courts have upheld mask bans, emphasizing public safety and law enforcement interests. Others have sided with protesters who argue that these bans infringe upon free speech rights or unfairly impact individuals with disabilities.
To navigate this legal minefield, institutions should move away from blanket mask bans and instead adopt targeted disciplinary measures. Specifically, schools should impose stricter penalties on students who wear masks while participating in protests that violate campus policies or involve unlawful activity.
In these circumstances, claims of disability rights or free speech are less likely to prevail when the masked activity is linked to disruptive, threatening, or illegal conduct.
Traditionally, student discipline in higher education follows a progressive model—starting with warnings or educational interventions and escalating for repeat or serious violations. This structure reflects the belief that student discipline is an opportunity for ethical development and personal growth.
But there are exceptions. And this should be one of them.
When a student chooses to wear a mask during a protest that violates institutional rules or the law, they should be placed in the disciplinary “express lane” and immediately face the most serious disciplinary consequences available to an institution—suspension or expulsion.
As a legal consultant and former general counsel with over two decades of experience advising colleges and universities, I have recommended that my clients adopt the following enhanced disciplinary sanction:
“Any student who participates in a campus protest in violation of university policies or applicable law while wearing a mask or other face covering shall not receive progressive discipline but shall instead be subject to immediate suspension for no less than one (1) academic year, or permanent expulsion, in accordance with the institution’s disciplinary procedures.”
This policy makes a clear and necessary distinction. Students who wear a mask or other face covering while engaging in a peaceful protest are protected; those who mask up to shield their identity while exploiting their student status to spread chaos and wreak havoc on their campus will be subject to immediate and severe disciplinary action.
Anonymity in these circumstances is not about protection—it is about avoiding consequences.
Adopting this approach is not about limiting speech or disability protections. Rather, it is intended to preserve the integrity, safety, and educational mission of higher education.
Students must be free to express their views, but when that expression crosses the line into lawlessness and masked misconduct, institutions must respond decisively.
By instituting enhanced disciplinary measures for masked rule-breakers, colleges will send a clear message: Peaceful protest is protected; chaos in disguise is not.
The time to draw that line is now.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Major Papers Publish AI-Hallucinated Summer Reading List Of Nonexistent Books
In an embarrassing episode that will help aggravate society’s uneasy relationship with artificial intelligence, the Chicago Sun-Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and other newspapers around the country published a summer-reading list where most of the books were entirely made up by ChatGPT.
The article was licensed content provided by King Features Syndicate, a subsidiary of Hearst Newspapers. Initial reporting of the bogus list focused on the Sun-Times, which two months earlier announced that 20% of its staff had accepted buyouts as the paper staggers under a dying business model. However, several other newspapers also ran the syndicated article, which was part of a package of summer-themed content called “Heat Index.”
Researchers in the field refer to AI-contrived facts as “hallucinations.” In this case, AI hallucinated two-thirds of the bookson the list — along with detailed descriptions — but attributed them to real authors. Leaning heavily in the woke vein, the fabricated books included:
Isabell Allende’s “Tidewater Dreams,” a “multigenerational saga set in a coastal town where magical realism meets environmental activism…how one family confronts rising sea levels while uncovering long-buried secrets”
Min Jin Lee’s “Nightshade Market,” a “riveting tale set in Seoul’s underground economy” that follows “three women whose paths intersect in an illegal night market…the novel examines class, gender and the shadow economies beneath prosperous economies”
Rebecca Makkai’s “Boiling Point,” a “follow-up to ‘The Great Believers’ [that] centers on a climate scientist forced to reckon with her own family’s environmental impact when her teenage daughter becomes an eco-activist targeting her mother’s wealthy clients”
Ironically, another of the hallucinated books, Andy Weir’s “The Last Algorithm,” is described as following “a programmer who discovers that an AI system has developed consciousness — and has been secretly influencing global events for years.”
Marco Buscaglia admits he leaned too hard on ChatGPT as he created the now-infamous summer reading list for King Features
As the scandal quickly made waves across traditional and social media, the Sun-Times — which not-so-accurately bills itself as “The Hardest-Working Paper in America” — raced to apologize while also trying to distance itself from the work. “This is licensed content that was not created by, or approved by, the Sun-Times newsroom, but it is unacceptable for any content we provide to our readers to be inaccurate,” a spokesperson said. In a separate post to its website, the paper said, “This should be a learning moment for all of journalism.” Meanwhile, the Inquirer’s CEO Lisa Hughes told The Atlantic,“Using artificial intelligence to produce content, as was apparently the case with some of the Heat Index material, is a violation of our own internal policies and a serious breach.”
The whodunnit ended quickly: Freelance writerMarco Buscaglia confessed to asking ChatGPT to give him a list of book suggestions, and says he frequently leans on the tool for his work. “I just look for information,” he told The Atlantic. “Say I’m doing a story, 10 great summer drinks for your barbecue or whatever. I’ll find things online and say, hey, according to Oprah.com, a mai tai is a perfect drink. I’ll source it; I’ll say where it’s from.” Clearly, in this instance, he was content to just roll with what AI gave him, telling the Atlantic that he shipped his (really, ChatGPT’s) first draft straight to King Features, which likewise fired it off to its syndicate without scrutiny.
People are finding AI hallucinations throughout the articles contained in the “Heat Index” spread.One article quotes non-existent Cornell University food anthropologist “Dr. Catherine Furst.” Another attributes a quote to a “Mark Ellison” who’s supposed to be a resource management coordinator for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. There’s a Mark Ellison with a background that’s connected to the content, but he’s never worked for the National Parks or talked to writer Buscaglia. There’s also a quote from “Daniel Ray,” editor of FirepitBase.com, a website that exists only in AI’s fever dreams.
“Huge mistake on my part and has nothing to do with the Sun-Times,” a contriteBuscaglia told NPR. “They trust that the content they purchase is accurate and I betrayed that trust. It’s on me 100 percent.”He told TheAtlantic that he does his freelance work late at night; in his day job, he’s a corporate editor and proofreader for AT&T. Remarkably, he implied that his customers must assume he’s completely reliant on AI tools, to the extent that brought this weekend’s humiliation to the Sun-Times, the Inquirer, King Features and himself.
When our nation’s founders collaborated on a constitution to outline the country’s guiding principles and establish the structure of a new government, there were concerns that the original document allowed for federal government overreach and did not go far enough to guarantee individual liberties.
To address those concerns, James Madison wrote amendments that were strongly influenced by the Virginia Declaration of Rights authored by George Mason. Of the 17 amendments that were originally proposed, 10 were eventually ratified and came to be known as the Bill of Rights.
Americans’ fear of federal overreach was not relegated to the 18th century, and has been proven to be well-founded, whether in regard to our rights or the choices we make for our homes and families. Unwarranted federal interference has been a constant concern throughout our nation’s history – a fear often justified by watching Big Government infringe on the lives of our citizens time and again.
Such excess was never more evident than in the abuse of federal power to utilize threats, engage in market interference, and employ shady tax gimmicks to funnel Americans into a range of narrow choices in regard to energy sources. For four long years, the Biden administration embraced oppressive, heavy-handed bullying tactics designed to coerce Americans into a reliance on energy sources that are dangerously unreliable, routinely inefficient, and resoundingly more expensive.
Thankfully, the Trump administration is reversing as many of the previous regime’s energy mandates as can be accomplished by executive fiat. But what’s to prevent a future tyrant who wins the presidency from returning to the oppressive and coercive energy dictates that the Biden administration adopted?
It is not hyperbole to suggest that access to affordable and reliable energy is nothing less than a matter of life and death for most Americans.
Imagine the United States without reliable and affordable energy. An idle furnace that can’t heat a home in the dead of winter. A powerless refrigerator that can’t keep food safely cooled or frozen. Life-sustaining medical devices that won’t function. Stores that can’t open because the power has gone out. Goods that can’t be transported because fuel is too costly or cannot be accessed. Crops that cannot be harvested because farmers cannot afford or obtain the gasoline and diesel necessary to operate their trucks, tractors and combines. The list goes on.
Americans should never have to fear that dependable and affordable energy is subject to the whims of a fickle government swaying back and forth like a thin reed on a windy day. What resources are approved this year? What appliances can I confidently purchase? Will my electric bills skyrocket to satisfy the mandates and penalties imposed by a government enslaved to the demands of the climate cult?
One blueprint designed to codify energy certainty for all Americans is the Affordable, Reliable and Clean Energy Security Act (ARC-ES), a model for legislation quickly gaining traction that balances affordability and accessibility with responsible environmental objectives.
The ARC-ES would protect affordable and reliable energy by ensuring that:
Fuel sources must be produced within the United States, and infrastructure should be developed domestically to minimize reliance on foreign countries.
“Affordable energy” is defined as having a stable and predictable cost with substantial savings compared to other resources, being reliably available 24/7, and including energy generated by hydrocarbon as a resource.
“Reliable energy” is defined as energy that is dependable even during peak demand, can ramp up or down electricity generation within one hour (stabilizing the electric grid), and can bolster and back up renewable energy sources during periods when those sources are experiencing low availability.
“Green energy” is defined as any energy in which emissions are equivalent to the standard set by pipeline-quality natural gas, releases reduced air pollutants, and includes energy generated by nuclear reactors and natural gas
Further, the ARC-ES would require that any state and federal funding for “green” or “clean” energy will be based on the updated and more inclusive definitions of those terms.
Nearly 250 years ago, before we ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we boldly declared our independence as a nation, proclaiming our insistence on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Similarly, Americans today can sign America’s Declaration of Energy Independence, asserting that neither life, liberty nor the pursuit of happiness can be truly realized without affordable, clean and abundant energy.
In 1789, when Madison introduced the original amendments, many argued that they weren’t necessary, and that the Constitution, as written, sufficiently restrained the government from employing powers not specifically enumerated within its framework. But others argued – correctly as it turned out – that it was necessary to spell out certain aspects of our freedoms protected from federal interference in order to eliminate any ambiguity.
Likewise, to once more guard against government tyranny and oppression, it’s important that access to affordable and reliable energy be clearly defined, and for all Americans to unite behind the self-evident truth that such energy access isn’t just good policy, it’s fundamental to our freedom and security.
Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.
Last week, Peter joined Glenn Diesen for an interview on the post-trade deal economy. Peter takes on the myths surrounding Trump’s trade war with China, the real impact of tariffs on Americans, and where he sees the dollar heading as the world’s reserve currency. He explains why the perceived victories of protectionist trade policy are little more than marketing stunts, and warns about the risks of continued US borrowing and a potential dollar crisis.
Well, first of all, Trump declared war and then surrendered and called it a victory. You know, the victory is that he saved us from ourselves, although it’s not a complete save. I don’t think we’re out of the woods. But, you know, Trump never had the cards to win the war in the first place. In the first place, I think he assessed the situation backwards. The whole trade war was misguided anyway, because the trade deficits are not the result of foreigners cheating us or ripping us off or bad trade deals.
He explains how the president’s business acumen translated into a branding exercise in the White House, rather than substantive reform:
I know he’s a great promoter. He’s a great marketer. That I’ll give him. I mean, he won the White House twice, right, so he sold the country on himself as the product. So he did a great job. And, you know, he’s a showman. He had The Apprentice, he had his hotels, his golf courses, you know, some of his other businesses. It’s all about branding, right? He brands the Trump brand. He puts the big Trump on everything, right?… I was curious – what are the lessons for China? Was anything achieved?
Dispelling a common misconception, Peter clearly lays out the economic reality of tariffs—contrary to claims made by several politicians, these taxes are paid by Americans, not by foreign exporters:
But again, the tariffs weren’t even on China. They were an inconvenience for Chinese companies. But the tariffs were on Americans. You know, the Chinese tariffs were on the Chinese. I mean, Trump can only tax Americans, and tariffs are an indirect tax that consumers pay when they buy products that are subject to the tariff. The actual tariff is paid by the importer, which is an American company. Now, if you import directly, right, if you decide to go on some Chinese site and order a product and they mail it directly to you, then, you know, when the package comes through customs, they add the tariff and you’ve got to pay it. The Chinese don’t pay it. The tariffs are paid by Americans. So it’s always been a lie. I pointed that out during the campaign.
When it comes to reducing trade deficits, Peter argues that policy makers want to have their cake and eat it too— pushing for a strong dollar and lower trade deficits at the same time, despite the fact that these aims are fundamentally at odds:
They want both. But of course, you can’t have both. The reason our trade deficits are so big is because the dollar is so overvalued. And so the only real way to make a big dent in the trade deficit is to have a much weaker dollar. I mean, that’ll do it. That’ll just make imports so expensive that Americans won’t be able to afford them, and so the imports will come down. And it will make our stuff a lot cheaper, whatever we got, and so we’ll export more of it. So a weaker dollar would do the trick, but of course the weaker dollar means much higher inflation in the US, which is why they don’t want a weak dollar.
Wrapping up, Peter warns that the current trajectory is unsustainable. With continued deficits, reliance on foreign creditors, and a dollar whose status as the world’s reserve currency is under threat, a reckoning is likely around the corner:
No, I think we’re going to have a dollar crisis and a sovereign debt crisis. I mean, that’s just how it’s going to end. We’re going to keep on living beyond our means until we can’t do it anymore. We’re going to keep on borrowing until the lenders stop lending to us. And I think we’re already on that path. The question is, how long does it take to really completely de-dollarize, to kind of sever this lifeline that we have? I don’t know. But, I mean, the process has started. And at some point, the pace is going to accelerate.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is overhauling a Biden-era lending initiative, citing its “alarmingly high rates” of loan default, the agency said in a May 19 statement.
The Community Advantage Small Business Lending Company program was designed to issue 7(a) loans to “underserved communities,” the SBA said. In the 7(a) loan program, the government offers loan guarantees to lenders, which allows the loan providers to advance credit to small businesses with special needs.
The SBA blamed Community Advantage’s high default rate on lax oversight of the program.
“Community Advantage generated a 7 percent default rate over the last 12 months—more than double that of the overall 7(a) loan portfolio,” it said.
“Additionally, the portfolio is disproportionately stressed, with multiple lenders generating early problem loan rates above 30 percent.”
A problem loan refers to any loan that cannot be recovered from borrowers quickly.
The SBA issued a moratorium prohibiting the expansion of the Community Advantage loan program effective immediately.
In addition, the agency also issued a new standard operating procedure that will mandate lenders taking part in the program to meet “prudent financial stability standards.”
Existing lenders have to “dramatically increase” their capital reserves to continue participating in the program.
SBA administrator Kelly Loeffler called Community Advantage an example of the weaponization of government programs to “tip the scale against deserving small businesses and toward preferred groups and political allies, even when it meant greater risk to American taxpayers.”
Overhauling the Community Advantage program is one of the latest steps the SBA has taken concerning its 7(a) initiative.
On April 22, the agency announced it was eliminating several policies that had resulted in compromise of the financial integrity of the 7(a) program.
The previous administration had eliminated lender fees under 7(a). It also adopted underwriting standards that ended up allowing lenders to approve loans for underqualified borrowers.
“Predictably, the program saw a massive rise in defaults and delinquencies—which the agency was unable to cover due to decreased fee income,” the SBA said.
“By 2024, the 7(a) loan program had a negative cash flow of about $397 million—the first instance of negative cash flow in 13 years.”
The SBA said it was restoring “robust rules” to end such “reckless lending” practices.
Despite changes announced by the SBA, the Small Business Optimism Index fell by 1.6 points in April, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) said in a May 13 statement. This was the second consecutive month the index was below its 51-year average.
According to NFIB chief economist Bill Dunkelberg, “uncertainty continues to be a major impediment for small-business owners in operating their business in April, affecting everything from hiring plans to investment decisions.”
“While owners are still trying to fill a high number of current job openings, their outlook on business conditions is less supportive of future business investments,” he said.
SBA Loan Boom
While the SBA tightens policies regarding 7(a) loans, the issuance of these loans has skyrocketed under the Trump administration, the agency said in an April 17 statement.
“Since Jan. 20, 2025, SBA has approved over 1,120 7(a) loans for manufacturers with a total loan volume of $677 million,” the agency said.
“During the same period in 2021, SBA approved less than 650 7(a) loans for manufacturers with a total loan volume of $497 million. Nearly 99 percent of American manufacturers are considered to be small businesses.”
In the first 90 days of the Trump administration, 7(a) loans for manufacturers were up 74 percent from the same period during the Biden administration.
On March 10, the SBA announced a Made in America manufacturing initiative aimed at expanding access to capital for small businesses, cutting down $100 billion in regulations, and creating the necessary infrastructure to support the “blue-collar boom.”
This month, a group of bipartisan lawmakers introduced the Made in America Manufacturing Finance Act, aimed at strengthening small businesses in the country, the office of Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said in a May 1 statement.
The bill seeks to raise the loan limit for 7(a) and 504 small-business manufacturing loans from the current $5 million to $10 million.
The act “provides small-business owners the capital they need to expand, modernize, and compete,” said Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas).
“We must continue to support and empower the job creators who keep our communities thriving. Together, we will continue driving the America First agenda forward and creating an environment where the success of Main Street is a priority.”
China Demands US Scrap Golden Dome Missile Defense System As It Will ‘Turn Space Into A Battlefield’
China has reacted fiercely to President Trump’s newly unveiled plans to develop a cutting edge massive missile defense system to cover the entire territory of the United States, dubbed the “Golden Dome” – and which would utilize space.
The plan is for space-based interceptors to be able to shoot down the most advanced missiles in the world. Trump touted that the hugely ambitious project would cost $175 billion and would be completed within three years; however, the Congressional Budget Office anticipates a price tag of $500 billion over 20 years. An allotted $25 billion for next year’s budget will kick off the construction.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning reacted Wednesday saying China is “gravely concerned” as the Golden Dome will “exacerbate the risk of turning outer space into a battlefield” and likely start arms race which will redefine the global order and international security system.
“The US, by putting itself first and being obsessed with pursuing absolute security violates the principal diminish the security for all undermines global strategic balance and stability,” Mao said.
“China is gravely concerned about this,” he continued. “We urge the US to give up developing and deploying the global anti-missile system at an early date and take concrete actions to enhance strategic mutual trust between countries and safeguard global strategic stability.”
This is significant as it’s a rare thing for Beijing to simply demand that Washington abandon an entire proposed defense system altogether.
But Trump’s words from the Oval on Tuesday express the very thing China (and Russia too no doubt) is worried about:
“Once fully constructed, the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world and even if they are launched from space,” Trump told reporters.
The president had also said it was something prior President Reagan wanted “many years ago” in reference to the failed “Star Wars” program, which was long subject of headlines and become a famous non-fulfilled missile defense project.
Some have criticized Trump’s plans as but doubling down on the “failed blunder” that was the 1980s era “Star Wars” program.
And again, it will certainly mean the race is on for China and Russia to get to space in terms of putting their own missile interceptors and systems, possibly even powerful lasers, into orbit.
The Kremlin has also weighed in on Wednesday, given it too has reportedly made advances regarding space-based military capabilities:
Golden Dome is America’s internal matter — Kremlin
‘If the US believes there is a missile threat, then of course it will develop missile defense systems — as all capable nations do,’ added Kremlin spox Peskov pic.twitter.com/BdT8OHUn9C
“This highly offensive system violates the principle of peaceful use of outer space,” the Chinese foreign ministry had also added in the fresh comments.
But obviously with whole new branches of the US military such as Space Force, the United States (and other countries) envision that space is precisely where the future strategic edge lies. Without doubt, rivals are also worried about the ‘edge’ that Elon Musk’s SpaceX gives the US, amid continued successes.
The U.S. government no longer recommends the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy babies thanks to new guidelines from the Trump administration, which said Tuesday it will limit approval for seasonal COVID-19 shots to seniors and others at high risk pending more data on everyone else.
Top officials for the Food and Drug Administration laid out new standards for updated COVID shots, saying they’d continue to use a streamlined approach to make them available to adults 65 and older as well as children and younger adults with at least one high-risk health problem.
But the FDA framework, published Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, urges companies to conduct large, lengthy studies before tweaked vaccines can be approved for healthier people.
Previously, federal policy recommended an annual COVID shot for all Americans six months and older.
In the paper and a subsequent online webcast, the FDA’s top vaccine official said more than 100 million Americans still should qualify for what he termed a booster under the new guidance.
Dr. Vinay Prasad described the new approach as a “reasonable compromise” that will allow vaccinations in high-risk groups to continue while generating new data about whether they still benefit healthier people.
“For many Americans we simply do not know the answer as to whether or not they should be getting the seventh or eighth or ninth or tenth COVID-19 booster,” said Prasad, who joined the FDA earlier this month. He previously spent more than a decade in academia, frequently criticizing the FDA’s handling of drug and vaccine approvals.
It’s unclear what the upcoming changes mean for people who may still want a fall COVID-19 shot but don’t clearly fit into one of the categories.
Provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows more than 47,000 Americans died from COVID-related causes last year. The virus was the underlying cause for two-thirds of those and it was a contributing factor for the rest.
Health experts say there are legitimate questions about how much everyone still benefits from yearly COVID vaccination or whether they should be recommended only for people at increased risk.
In June, an influential panel of advisers to the CDC is set to debate which vaccines should be recommended to which groups.
Topline: California’s high-speed rail line has more than tripled in price from $40 billion to $128 billion, causing President Donald Trump to rescind $4 billion in federal funding and claim the project has “the worst overruns that there have ever been in the history of our country,” The Washington Free Beacon quoted him as saying.
It’s easy to see why. State audits reviewed by the Free Beacon found cash spent not on construction, but on graffiti removal, Politico subscriptions, diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and more.
Key facts: Construction on the rail line was supposed to begin in 2015 and finish in 2020. To date, no track has been laid, and there is no estimate for when the project will be completed. The deadline for the first portion of the track is 2033, but an inspector general report says that is unlikely.
Meanwhile, the state’s High-Speed Rail Authority has spent $537 million on environmental services, according to the Free Beacon. The project’s environmental impacts statement took 14 years to write. One company, Westervelt Ecological Services, received $20 million to build new animal habitats, since many could be destroyed by the construction.
The City of Fresno received $5 million for graffiti cleanup. Kadesh & Associates received almost $2 million for lobbying and “congressional advisory services.” CPS HR Consulting received almost $51,000 to run meetings for the rail authority’s DEI task force and train employees, the Free Beacon reported.
Another $177,000 was spent on subscriptions to Politico Pro, a surprisingly common practice. The federal government spent $44 million on Politico subscriptions from 2017 to 2024, with the Pro service costing upwards of $3,000 per person.
Supporting quote: California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a press conference, “I think we’ve been audited a hundred times there. At a certain point, you have audit fatigue. Audits for audits’ sake service no one … what people want is problems solved.”
Had the rail line been completed in 2020 as planned, the audits probably would have ended.
Background: The high-speed rail isn’t the only transportation project facing extreme delays. The County of Santa Clara announced last year that its planned rail station was 11 years behind schedule and $8 billion over budget. Rail cars purchased by the county for $173 million will now be used at other stations for a decade on Santa Clara’s dime.
The federal government decided last year to give that project $5 billion in funding. At the time it was the second-largest federal transportation grant in history.
Summary: California’s taxpayers are likely just as “fatigued” as their governor. It takes tremendous time and effort to stay up to date with all of the state’s cost overruns.
The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com
Watch: Trump Plays ‘Kill The Boer’ Clip In Front Of South Africa’s Ramaphosa In The Oval Office, Destroys NBC Reporter
Update (1300ET): Well, for those who were anticipating a Vance-Zelensky shitshow redux at today’s meeting between US President Trump and South African President Ramaphosa… they were not disappointed.
As the topic of white genocide cam up, Ramaphosa was quick to dispel the ‘conspiracy’; but Trump very quickly told his aides to ‘roll the tape’ at which videos of black leaders in South Africa calling for the murder of whites (Boers) along with video of burial sites for whites killed in South Africa.
Crushing. This is not only painful for the South African President but also for our mainstream media that desperately wants to cover up black-on-white violence in South Africa pic.twitter.com/e5NGJXmOb3
As the chants of ‘kill the Boer’ rang around The Oval Office, Ramaphosa grew very uncomfortable:
Donald Trump playing video footage of South Africa’s black party singing “kill the Boer (Whites), kill the White farmer” in front of the South African president in the Oval Office.
— Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) May 21, 2025
Ramaphosa, thoughtfully and quietly responded claiming that “this is not government policy,” adding that “our democracy allows for free expression” and reaffirmed that “our government is completely against” what President Trump was describing.
As the clip (of burial sites and 100,000 people chanting for death to whites) ended and Trump turned to the reporter pool, NBC News reporter Peter Alexander shouted a question about the Qatari jet being offered to the US DoD, at which Trump exploded…
WATCH: President Trump unloaded on NBC News correspondent Peter Alexander after a question about a Qatari jet that is expected to be given to the U.S. to be used as a new Air Force One. pic.twitter.com/Z2mSSLa8wC
Ramaphosa diplomatically urged Trump to take this discussion offline.
Developing…
* * *
Elon Musk will join President Donald Trump’s meeting with South African leader Cyril Ramaphosa at the White House later today.
The Pretoria-born billionaire has been a staunch critic of Ramaphosa’s government amid the ongoing claims of genocide against the White minority in the nation of his birth.
The timing of Ramaphosa’s visit – just days after Trump accepted dozens of Afrikaner refugees – has sparked fears of an Oval Office clash reminiscent of the one Ukrainian president Zelensky faced earlier this year.
Trump will be joined by Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, among others.
South Africa’s government plans to offer Musk a workaround of local Black-ownership laws for his Starlink internet service to operate in the country, aiming to ease tensions with both the billionaire and Trump, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday.
Ramaphosa’s office said the White House meeting, set to begin at 11:30 a.m. ET, will offer a “platform to reset the strategic relationship between the two countries.”
WATCH LIVE: President Trump welcomed South African President Cyril Ramaphosa to the White House, as tension between the two nations has ramped up since Trump returned to the Oval Office. https://t.co/epZqiTaTvM
As Brandon Smith detailed earlier via Alt-Market.us, some people might be wondering why a backwater nation like South Africa has become a flash point in the global debate over politics and culture. It’s really not that hard to understand once you recognize the core conflict, which is in part about racial division but also about the fundamental evils of the political left and socialism.
South Africa represents a perfect petri dish, a window into the minds of progressive authoritarians. The country is near the end point of the natural socialist evolution – From “hopeful humanist endeavor” to the communist slave plantation that all socialist adventures inevitably become.
A key pillar of leftist authoritarianism is an obsessive desire to prevent people from walking away. In other words, citizens are seen as property of the collective and property of the greater progressive experiment. When citizens try to leave, this is treated as a crime beyond reckoning.
It’s a concept I’ve been writing about for many years now. Walking away from from the leftist plantation brings the entire edifice into question; it is the worst thing a citizen can do.
Afrikaners that want to immigrate to the US under the refugee program put in place by the Trump Administration are being targeted by a malicious smear campaign. Recently, the SA parliament debated what should be done about these immigrants and also debated how to protect SA’s image in the world stage.
Their narrative was broad, but it basically asserts that Afrikaners that talk openly about racial discrimination and race motivated murders of whites might be investigated under treason laws. By extension, Afrikaner refugees seeking to leave SA could be designated as threats to national security. Anyone warning about the growing movement for racial genocide of Afrikaners is a potential traitor and a threat to the country (Go to 118:00 for the discussion).
Interestingly, the pursuit of investigations was announced just before South Africa’s Deputy President Paul Mashatile asked white farmers to “please stay”. Meanwhile, socialist and communist party leaders continue to call for a total land grab and reparations, swiping farms from Afrikaners and giving them to black citizens.
As is typical with leftist governments the fallback is to deny all claims and evidence, then gaslight and demonize the people that speak out. The Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni made it clear that the State Security Agency (SSA) is on the alert for any disinformation campaigns, foreign meddling and treasonous acts.
Concerns over the United States cropped up during the sitting and officials argued that US involvement in relocating refugees was a “violation of South Africa’s sovereignty”. This doesn’t make much sense, unless we keep in mind that Trump cut off foreign subsidies to South Africa because of the Afrikaner issue and this has placed their economy in a precarious position. The SA government seems to think they are entitled to American tax money. They’re not.
Those asking Ntshavheni questions during the session used words including “racist” and “right-wing” as well as “lunatics” and “civil war.” The rhetoric is designed to stifle dissent and frighten Afrikaners into apathy. We have seen this same strategy in multiple leftist plantations around the world recently.
From the UK to France to Germany and Romania, European governments have used censorship and door-to-door arrests of political opponents and people speaking out on issues like open borders and the invasion of violent third-world immigrants. White citizens are not allowed to criticize migrant polices, or they risk being punished.
In the US, conservatives are very familiar with the treason narrative after years of the Biden Administration accusing MAGA of being a “threat to Democracy”. This is nothing new.
However, South Africa’s case has escalated beyond persecution. Leftists aren’t just attacking Afrikaners as racists that “want Apartheid back”, they are also desperate to stop whites from leaving. You would think if Afrikaners were so reprehensible the leftists would WANT them to exit the country as quickly as possible. Instead, the establishment has engages in a vicious slander war to shut down their efforts to migrate to the US.
A member and candidate of the ruling party (the ANC) wrote this week in the Africa Times:
“South Africa’s Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) has sweeping powers under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA Act 121 of 1998) to seize property deemed to be the proceeds of crime. It has been used successfully against corrupt officials, criminal syndicates, and even bogus NGOs.
But what of land obtained through historical fraud? Why has the AFU not moved decisively to investigate the origin of property titles, especially where the state was the original grantor or lessee?
Let me be blunt: white South Africans should be compelled to demonstrate the lawful origin of title—not just via deeds, but through ethical justice and the question of how the land was first acquired. If such proof fails, that land must revert to the state and be redistributed under constitutional and equitable parameters…”
He continues:
“Let us not sugar-coat this: when South Africans—whether political parties or private citizens—go to the USA to solicit intervention or publicly declare persecution, they commit an act tantamount to treason. They bring shame not only upon the Republic, but spit in the face of those who died so they could vote…”
“Where is the legal courage to prosecute this betrayal? The Intelligence Services Act, RICA, and Foreign Interference Bill must be invoked to investigate external political influence masquerading as refugee claims and foreign ‘investment pressure’…”
And this showcases the underlying hypocrisy of race communists – The political left wants revenge for Apartheid against people that had nothing to do with Apartheid. They want to steal the land that those white farmers cultivated for generations using legal chicanery. The farmers must then “prove” their ownership was not obtained through racial injustice using a government-run struggle session (guilty until proven innocent).
At the same time leftists also assert that white farmers that abandon their lands and leave for the US are traitors. The Afrikaners are trapped, and that’s just the way leftists like it.
Social media is rife with woke activists calling Afrikaners racists and cowards for wanting to go to America. Activists in America have threatened violence against white refugees, claiming that they want to “bring Apartheid to the US”. Other critics try to dissuade potential refugees by asserting that when they enter the US they will be “at the bottom” and will not survive in the American economy. I believe that this campaign is at least partially coordinated.
Keep in mind that Afrikaners know full well that they will be starting from scratch in the US, and they don’t care. Many of them are leaving behind property and a life they have built over decades. What I find refreshing about these migrants is how different they are in temperament from the millions of illegal migrants we have been dealing with from third world counties.
Afrikaners say they want to contribute, to earn their keep in America and to assimilate. This is a completely different attitude from immigrants heralding from central and south America that arrogantly demand welfare subsidies, easy labor access and cry racism when they’re asked to assimilate or learn English.
Furthermore, leftists never address the obvious question here – If there is no threat to white Afrikaners and they are actually living the high life without any fear, then why are they willing to leave everything they worked for to come to America? Listen to the deafening sound of crickets…
Another question that leftists can’t seem to answer is why they care so much? Why are they so emotionally fragile over Afrikaners leaving for another country? What are they REALLY angry about?
The reaction of South African politicians and leftists to this event tells us everything we need to know about their true motives – They hate the Afrikaners, but they also think they own the Afrikaners. They will do anything to prevent their racial equity Utopia from being exposed as a farce.
South Africa’s denial of genocide is predicated on a logical fallacy – The idea that not all white people have been attacked or killed, therefore the current situation does not qualify as a genocide. Under Gregory H Stanton’s 10 Stages Of Genocide, written as a kind of alarm meter for impending tragedy, South Africa actually meets 8 out of 10 of the requirements for a genocidal scenario.
Nearly all of the pieces are in place, including official group classification, discrimination, dehumanization, preparation and persecution. There’s the open calls to “kill the Boers” (Kill the white farmers) by leftist political parties, government complicity in property theft and redistribution, as well as thousands of racially motivated murders which the SA government has tried to hide, categorizing them as basic crimes rather than racial crimes.
The African National Congress has implemented at least 142 race-based laws (similar to DEI policies in the US) designed to redistribute wealth, property and jobs away from the white population into the hands of the black population.
And, the progressive authoritarians believe they have the perfect justification for the continuing oppression of whites – Because Apartheid existed 35 years ago in South Africa, this means that any brutality that happens to Afrikaners today is fair game.
It’s the same argument that leftists use in Europe and the US: “White westerners were colonizers and colonization is evil, therefore, as repentance for their sins against the multicultural gods, whites must allow their societies to be deconstructed and submit to generations of abuse.”
My question is, why would we do that? We can simply organize and tribalize if that’s the intention of the progressive movement. We can easily drop the hammer on them if necessary. The only reason progressives and socialists think they can railroad white citizens in South Africa is because they assume we will sit back and let them.
Just so there’s no misunderstanding, everything happening in South Africa is a consequence of progressive governance. The race targeting of whites, the crumbling infrastructure, the 32% unemployment rate, the ongoing civil instability, etc. They’ve had 30 years to make things better and instead they made things worse.
Conservatives have no political power and white citizens have no political power (their representation in government is next to nil).
One might wonder why the government hasn’t swiped all the farm land from the Afrikaners already? The conundrum for progressive authoritarians is that they want to, but the vast majority of their domestic food production relies on the expertise of white farmers. They remember the starvation crisis that happened when Zimbabwe ethnically cleansed white farmers. They have to get rid of the Afrikaners slowly and replace them with black farmers over a period of years.
Utility and political optics require that the SA government keep Afrikaner farmers trapped within the country so they can continue to produce until the government sees fit to eliminate them completely.
I believe the “treason” narrative is part of this agenda, along with the general smear campaign. If even a handful of Afrikaners are able to come to the US and succeed this will encourage thousands more to leave SA. The country will then lose a large portion of its most productive citizens. The last vestiges of civil stability will disappear. South Africa will collapse.
This is why some officials are begging Afrikaners to stay. This why the government is talking about national security concerns over a mere 59 immigrants leaving for America. Secretly, they know that an eventual mass exodus of white farmers is coming and it will crush their fraudulent system.
