Ahead of the Democratic Party’s government shutdown, the billionaire-funded, far-left activist group Indivisible – the nonprofit partially responsible for color-revolution-style operations aimed at derailing President Trump and the America First agenda at every turn – posted a frantic call to action on its website, urging its white liberal boomer supporters to pressure Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democratic senators to hold the line and not cave to President Trump.

After the record-breaking 43-day government shutdown, Democrats embarrassingly caved to President Trump, and the government reopened on Wednesday. 

Shortly after the Democrats caved, the unhinged millennial founder of Indivisible, Ezra Levin, joined leftist white boomer journalist Jennifer Rubin in a video conversation to express his profound frustration and “incandescent rage” over the Democratic Party’s capitulation to Trump.

Levin described it as a complete surrender that caused unnecessary pain without gaining meaningful concessions. 

To note: Democrats tried to divert attention from their shutdown failure by releasing Epstein emails on the same day President Trump reopened the government. The email dump backfired on the party of far-left radicals.

The millennial activist expressed to Rubin about the urgent need for strong party reforms through primaries (particularly targeting Chuck Schumer). 

This is nutjob Jennifer Rubin talking with one of the Indivisible idiots about the democrat’s caving to open the government.

I knew the progressive wingnuts were behind the shutdown because they threatened Schumer in March.

Now they are working to totally rid the Democratic… pic.twitter.com/xXuy5R2FLp

— The Researcher (@listen_2learn) November 14, 2025

The overall tone of the conversation, highly critical of Democratic capitulation, highlights how the woke party is absolutely rudderless.

New leadership? 

AOC attempts to explain that Mamdani supporters aren’t crazy: “We are sane!” pic.twitter.com/0Q9NowpIvK

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) October 27, 2025

Only the people who insist they’re “not crazy” tend to be the crazy ones.

The United States successfully carried out a test of the B61-12 tactical thermonuclear bomb – but using a non-nuclear, inert version – back in August, according to a newly released statement from Sandia National Laboratories under the US Department of Energy.

The tests took place in Nevada from August 19 to 21, which involved F-35 fighter jets deploying and releasing dummy versions of the bomb. The effort was conducted in partnership with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).

The tests were deemed successful as they demonstrated that inert B61-12 gravity bombs could be transported and released by an F-35, seen as an important step in assessing the weapon system’s capabilities.

The press release notes another milestone, as for the first time a joint test assembly underwent thermal preconditioning specifically for F-35 carriage before release, important for confirming that the B61-12 meets its environmental performance requirements under combined real-world conditions.

This latest testing comes soon after the NNSA completed a program to extend the service life of the aerial bombs by 20 years in late 2024. Defense News writes:

The B61 family of nuclear gravity bombs are deployed from U.S. Air Force and NATO bases and have been in the U.S. arsenal in one form or another for more than 50 years.

The test predates President Trump’s late October statements announcing the resumption of US nuclear testing. He had written on Truth Social at the time, “Because of other countries’ testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis,” the president stated. “That process will begin immediately.”

This had apparently been in response to President Putin touting new nuclear tests, but the Kremlin has made clear these were not detonations, but simply nuclear-powered weapons systems which are capable of delivering nuclear warheads.

🇺🇸 The United States has completed a series of B61-12 nuclear bomb flight tests using an F-35 at the Tonopah Test Range in Nevada.

The trials, conducted from 19 to 21 August, involved the safe carriage and release of inert B61-12 units and confirmed overall system reliability.… pic.twitter.com/wqUET7RSS5

— Defence Index (@Defence_Index) November 15, 2025

As for whether Trump actually plans to carry through with atomic explosions, which the United States has not done since 1992, his precise intentions remain ambiguous.

Also there have been recent reports that administration officials are urging him not to do this, as Russia would likely respond with its own mirror tests, upping the nuclear ante among superpower rivals.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has mocked the German government’s pleas to Ukraine to keep its fighting-age young men from flooding Germany and the rest of Europe.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Thursday acknowledged the pressing problem in televised remarks discussing Ukraine’s manpower woes with President Zelensky, pleading with him to “ensure that young men in particular from Ukraine do not come to Germany in large numbers.”

Ukrainians should remain to “serve in their own country,” Merz had said. “They are needed there,” the chancellor added.

As of October 2025, over 1.2 million Ukrainian refugees have been recorded in Germany – which is the highest number among all EU countries.

Responding to all of this awkward dialogue between Berlin and Kiev, Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova posted on Friday a sarcastic reenactment of the exchange, also featured in Russian media:

“Merz: Herr Zelensky, take Ukrainians back from Germany. Zelensky: Herr Merz, I lack the tools to get them killed in large quantities. If you send more weapons and money, we will close borders and further lower the conscription age. Otherwise, expect a greater influx.”

The Zelensky government has long come under severe criticism, even from allied Western backers, over the country’s recruitment as well as border policies related to age.

His administration recently relaxed exit rules related to martial law, just months ago for the first time of the war letting Ukrainian men aged 18 to 22 leave the country. Ukrainian citizens can’t even be drafted until they are 25, under current law.

Meanwhile, intense trolling from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been consistent from nearly the start of the war:

💬 #Zakharova: We advise the current generation of Ukrainian neo-Nazis who slavishly follow their fascist idols of the Third Reich to reread the publicly available archival materials with the statements of the leaders of Nazi Germany about Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/5SSvCSDAUo

— MFA Russia 🇷🇺 (@mfa_russia) May 3, 2024

Kyiv Post has documented the natural result as follows:

Germany said that young Ukrainian men began arriving in large numbers after Kyiv eased travel rules for those aged between 18 and 22 in August.

As a result, the number of Ukrainian men in this age group registering in Germany went from 100 a week to almost 1,000, according to the German Interior Ministry.

…Around 490,000 Ukrainians of working age staying in Germany are receiving unemployment benefits, a point of criticism from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.

American officials have also criticized Ukraine’s policy, given in most militaries in the world, eighteen makes one eligible to be recruited.

Authored by Mark Stricherz via The Center Square,

The U.S. House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol cost almost twice as much as previously reported, including spending taxpayer funds for TV news producers and documentary filmmakers to create videos dramatizing its case against President Donald Trump, an investigation by The Center Square found. 

The Washington Post reported that the panel had a projected budget of $9.3 million in September 2022. According to a review of U.S. House disbursements, the select committee spent $17.4 million.

U.S. Rep. Troy Nehls, a Texas Republican who is on a new committee appointed by House Speaker Mike Johnson to investigate security failures on Jan. 6, said the original committee didn’t spend taxpayer money properly after The Center Square told him about the final costs of the panel’s investigation. 

“They wasted it, wasted it,” he said walking into his House office Wednesday before referring to two former GOP members of the panel.

“That was a sham committee. (Liz) Cheney. (Adam) Kinzinger. It was a joke.” 

Dan Savickas, president of policy and government affairs at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, a non-partisan nonprofit, said more than doubling of the budget was not appropriate.

“The median budget for a House committee is $6 million a year, so for the Jan. 6 committee to spend $17.4 million is excessive,” he told The Center Square in an interview.

“And anytime a committee is grandstanding, specifically Jan. 6, to fit a narrative instead of holding people accountable and getting the story is bad. That’s why they hired documentary filmmakers.”

Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat and chair of the committee, declined an interview request.

“The work of the committee speaks for itself, and the chairman continues to stand by it,” Yasmine Brown, a press secretary and communications director, wrote in an email to The Center Square. 

An undetermined amount was spent on three dozen contractors and consultants. Many worked for a few months or less than a year, rather than all 18 months like full-time staff. They are listed in the committee’s report but do not show up in a list of expenditures the U.S. House posted online disclosing its spending.

Among them were the former president of ABC News, a longtime producer for ABC’s Nightline, an Emmy-award winning daily TV news producer, and a former documentarian for the Oprah Winfrey Network.  

“I was part of the first ever team of former television journalists brought in by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol to produce the historic live hearings laying out the committee’s evidence to the country,” Melinda Arons, a former Nightline senior producer, wrote on her LinkedIn page.  

Brian Sasser, an Emmy-award winning daily TV news producer, noted on his LinkedIn page that his job was to “(m)anage constantly evolving rundown and scripts for live hearings” of the select committee and to “(c)oordinate with various U.S. House staffers and Committee investigators to ensure accuracy of all scripting.” 

James Goldston worked for ABC News for 17 years, including more than one year as the senior executive producer for Good Morning America and seven years as its president, according to his LinkedIn page. Ryan Mayers said on his LinkedIn page that he has been a freelance filmmaker for seven years and edited the documentary and interview series Oprah’s Next Chapter for the Oprah Winfrey Network. 

Hyatt Mamoun described herself on LinkedIn as an award-winning filmmaker with a focus on environmental design. “With a passion for conservation through education, I believe that through educating as many people as possible through the entertainment of film, we can change our future,” she wrote.

Jan. 6 different from other committees

Previous committees and commissions examined the Watergate scandal in the early-to-mid 1970s, the Jonestown massacre of 1978, and the Islamic terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. They hired or used only congressional staff, lawyers, and investigators.  

By contrast, the Jan. 6 committee hired more than congressional staff, lawyers, and investigators. They also hired freelancers with backgrounds in producing and editing graphics as well as video and audio footage – prominent features of the committee’s 10 nationally televised hearings from June to December 2022.

The committee’s records do not disclose the amount the panel paid for each freelancer. 

Among the contracting companies was Innovative Driven Inc., an Arlington, Virginia-based firm that specializes in forensics, electronic data discovery and project management. The privately held company received $2.4 million. A company spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. 

Another recipient was Polar Solutions Inc., a Gaithersburg, Maryland-based investigative firm of money laundering and cryptocurrency crimes. The company received $2.7 million. Polar Solutions’ president, Arthur Ahrens, declined to comment when called by The Center Square. 

Full-time committee staffers received more money in personal and other compensation than regular members of Congress, a tradition in line with recent history. While rank-and-file members earn $174,000 a year, Timothy J. Heaphy, the committee’s chief investigative counsel, was paid almost $190,00 in personal and other compensation in 12 months.

Election results challenged

The committee was formed after former Vice President Joe Biden, a Democrat, defeated President Donald Trump, a Republican, in the 2020 election. With 44,000 votes separating the candidates in Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin, Trump contested the results. 

He claimed voting fraud and irregularities were responsible for his margin, but 62 of his 63 legal challenges failed in court. On Jan. 2, Trump called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger to help him “find 11,780 votes” so he could be declared the winner in the Peach State. 

On January 6, 2021, the day Congress gathered at the Capitol to certify Biden the winner, Trump led a “Stop the Steal” rally at the Ellipse in Washington at which more than 28,000 people passed through security. 

More than 2,000 broke into the Capitol, including Ashli Babbitt, who was shot to death by a Capitol Police officer while attempting to break into the House floor. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick collapsed and died one day after the attack, while four other police officers at the Capitol that day died of suicide half a year later. 

The violence represented a break with tradition in which presidents transfer power to their successor peacefully. On Jan. 7, 2021, Trump conceded he would not serve a consecutive second term. 

That June, the House of Representatives voted to create a select committee, to be composed of 11 members “to investigate and report on the causes, circumstances, and causes” of the violent attack.”

The panel was controversial from the start. 

Previous select committees had members selected by leaders from both parties. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Republican, nominated five House Republicans. In a break with tradition, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, rejected two of the members. 

Instead of suggesting alternatives, McCarthy declined to cooperate. Pelosi, then, chose two Republicans as replacements, Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois. Both were outspoken critics of Trump for his conduct on Jan. 6.  

The other seven members of the nine-member panel were Democrats. The committee hired more than 60 full-time staff members, many with backgrounds in intelligence and investigations, and conducted more than 1,000 interviews in 18 months. 

Among the committee’s findings was that White House lawyers and senior Department of Justice officials told Trump early on that his claims of election fraud were baseless.

“From the beginning, Donald Trump’s fraud allegations were concocted nonsense, designed to prey upon the patriotism of millions of men and women who love our country,” the report concluded.

In addition, the committee found that Trump’s effort to overturn the election was multi-layered. He worked with a “handful of others” to prepare Trump slates of Trump electors in seven states that Biden won. He raised roughly $250 million between the election and Jan. 6 to support his claims. And as the attack on the Capitol unfolded, Trump watched the violence on television and did not tell his supporters to desist for 187 minutes.

Police without “sufficient assets”

At the same time, the Jan. 6 select committee was different from the Senate Watergate Committee of 1973 and 1974 and the 9-11 Commission, and not just because the panel hired contractors and consultants with backgrounds in television.

The panel also examined only one part of that day and the events leading up to it – the role of Trump, his administration, and supporters. In its report, the panel concluded Trump was “the central cause” of an attempted insurrection. 

In addition, the committee referred four criminal charges against Trump to the Department of Justice. While the Justice Department convicted more than 900 people for their actions on Jan. 6, special counsel Jack Smith was unable to prosecute Trump after Trump won the presidential election last year, bowing to longstanding department custom to not prosecute a sitting president. 

Further, the Jan. 6 committee devoted less attention to the role of federal, state, and local law enforcement in failing to deter or stop the attack. 

“Capitol police leadership did not have sufficient assets in place to address the violent and lawless crowd,” the report concluded.  

The committee’s conclusion has come into question.  

In an op-ed for Politico in January 2023, Georgetown Professor Donell Harvin, who oversaw the District of Columbia’s assessment of threat intelligence, wrote that “(t)he events of Jan. 6 represented the most telegraphed and predictable attack on the homeland in history.” Further, Harvin noted that the committee devoted only 44 pages in the annexes to the security and intelligence issues, roughly 5% of the 845-page report. 

In 2022, Denver L. Riggleman, a former GOP U.S. representative with a background in military intelligence, wrote in Esquire magazine that the committee group in charge of investigating law enforcement’s response, known as the “Blue team,” occupied a lower place in the panel’s pecking order. 

“The sensitivity of their investigation and the multiple moving parts – House leadership, the National Guard, DC and Capitol police, and the Pentagon – created a politically explosive finger-pointing extravaganza,” Riggleman wrote.

“Several witnesses they tried to interview remained elusive, and the committee gave Blue no means to compel testimony.” 

Riggleman received at least $97,047 in personal and other compensation as a senior technical advisor to the committee for 10 months, House spending data shows. 

A February 2023 study from the General Accountability Office concluded that the attack on the Capitol cost taxpayers $2.7 billion. Most of the costs were for Capitol police and other law enforcement.  

In September, House Speaker Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, named eight members – five Republicans, three Democrats – to a select subcommittee under the authority of the House Judiciary Committee to “conduct a thorough review of the security failures that occurred on Jan. 6.”

The subcommittee’s chairman, U.S. Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Georgia Republican, declined comment. Kinzinger, Cheney and other members of the committee did not respond to The Center Square’s requests for comment.

Readers were given an epic breakdown on Wednesday detailing the true scale of funding needed for the AI data-center boom, one that would require an estimated $5 trillion in investment, with Washington on the hook for at least $1 trillion of it. In a separate note, we highlighted an inconvenient truth for this cycle: the U.S. is short 44 nuclear power plants.

Power is the obvious bottleneck that could derail the entire AI boom cycle. We now turn to Goldman analysts led by Carly Davenport for deeper insight into what electric companies are saying about the grid’s current structure, data center demand, load growth, the power-bill crisis, and other critical topics discussed at the EEI Financial Conference in Hollywood, Florida, earlier this week.

Davenport told clients that sentiment across the utilities sector was broadly constructive, driven by optimism about accelerating load growth, expanding capital spending plans, and a stronger earnings outlook heading into 2026. She noted investors are increasingly focused on identifying which utilities have downside protection tied to data-center growth and which are proactively addressing labor, supply-chain, and affordability constraints.

Conversations during the meetings highlighted growing bullishness toward NextEra Energy and Sempra, while near-term political and regulatory developments remain key issues for Public Service Enterprise Group, Southern Company, and PG&E Corp.

Here’s a breakdown of the top ten takeaways Davenport had from EEI:

1. Focus on inflections in regulatory backdrops. Several utilities are experiencing significant state-level policy shifts and ongoing rate case activities. In New Jersey, the upcoming transition to Governor-elect Sherrill’s administration and anticipated changes within the BPU are topical. PEG is preparing to leverage mechanisms such as utilizing ZECs to help alleviate customer bills, aligning with the new administration’s focus. EXC expects its NJ rate case at ACE to be on track for year-end 2025, and FE noted that clarity on BPU composition will be key ahead of upcoming rate case filings at JCP&L. Elsewhere, ES is focused on securing regulatory approvals for its Aquarion sale and storm cost securitization in CT from a newly composed PURA. Sentiment is growing more constructive on a positive shift in balanced collaboration between utilities and regulators in the state. Finally, SO noted 2026 could be noisy from a state-wide elections standpoint, but with a relatively quiet regulatory calendar, the company plans to actively engage with newly elected commissioners on utility economics and affordability.

2. Still room for positive capex revisions into 4Q earnings, with focus on financing options. SRE anticipates significant capital plan upside at Oncor, highlighting opportunities around an incremental ~$12 bn on top of the preliminary 30% increase to the current five-year plan, driven by accelerated Permian transmission projects and substantial data center load growth, with a definitive update pending the ongoing rate case outcome. DUK has previewed a robust $95-105 bn capital plan, with an expected update next quarter, and sees the $10 bn upside range driven by LNG solutions and transmission investments, while exploring numerous options around financing, including private credit for specific projects. XEL targets a 9% EPS CAGR through 2030, and has identified significant upside around both generation and transmission, with resource plans pointing to a potential $16-20 bn (though XEL targets 50% ownership of assets) and over $10 bn for transmission projects. FE benefits from the PJM open window, with three identified projects on the RTEP short list totaling approximately $3 bn in potential capital expenditures, in addition to growth opportunities in West Virginia from data centers, with current generation addition plans estimated at $2.2-2.5 bn of capital. Finally, SO mentioned potential capex upside, driven by significant demand growth particularly from large industrial and data center loads in Georgia, in addition to FERC natural gas pipelines.

3. Potential for greater state involvement to reform PJM. Utilities are increasingly advocating for greater state involvement in reforming the PJM market, driven by perceived market inadequacies and the need for enhanced resource adequacy. EXC advocates for states to take more control over generation procurement through processes like Maryland’s dispatchable generation procurement and Illinois’s IRP, while also pushing for expedited interconnection and extended price collars within PJM. PEG emphasizes the necessity for New Jersey to implement a comprehensive IRP to define reliability standards, emissions targets, and affordability metrics, suggesting that state-led solutions, potentially including utility-owned storage, gas or nuclear generation, are crucial, and advocating for competitive processes that allow rate-base solutions. FE highlights West Virginia’s proactive approach, where the governor is focused on generation, transmission, and energy security, allowing for new generation filings outside of standard IRP cycles to meet rapid load growth, and notes a desire for continued capacity pricing caps in PJM with less traction for longer-duration auctions. This collective sentiment points towards a growing trend where states are stepping in to ensure resource adequacy and guide generation development.

4. Affordability and bill transparency remain top of mind. As utilities strive to meet rising power demand, affordability remained a key discussion point in our meetings with management. ED’s management highlighted that property taxes, which constitute a sizable portion (~20%) of customer bills, will potentially be displayed separately to consumers as part of its joint proposal for its CECONY rate cases, aiming to promote transparency. During our meeting with PEG, management discussed the possibility of refunding ZECs to customers, which could reduce rates by 2%. However, this was viewed as a short-term solution, given that bill inflation in PEG’s service territories rose 17-20% year-over-year, largely due to supply cost increases rather than distribution costs for which PEG is directly responsible. Collectively, utilities emphasized that affordability is paramount, with customers and regulators seeking greater clarity, hence the focus on bill inflation targets (e.g., DUK aiming to keep bills below inflation).

5. EPC relationships matter for capital plan execution. Several utilities are emphasizing the strategic importance of long-term Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) relationships and partnerships to ensure efficient capital plan execution and manage labor and equipment supply. AEP highlighted that its partnership with Quanta will be key to secure labor and transformers/breakers for grid project execution, while its agreements with Kiewit, allowed for proactively locking in turbine slots. Similarly, DUK underscored its partnerships with EPCs like Zachry and Kiewit to standardize operations and ensure a consistent labor force across multiple sites, while XEL has pivoted from project-by-project RFPs to partnering with key tier-1 EPCs for a multi-year book of business. WEC also highlighted its long-standing relationships with EPCs/developers such as Burns & McDonnell and Invenergy to line up labor and manage project delivery. This positioning is crucial for mitigating supply chain constraints, standardizing equipment, and ensuring a stable, skilled labor force to manage the scale and complexity of current capital plans.

6. Phase 2 of wildfire policy reform underway, but investors still in wait and see mode. Phase 2 of the California’s wildfire policy reform is actively progressing, with Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) like PCG, EIX, and SRE collaboratively engaging in the process. Over 30 diverse stakeholders have submitted abstracts, with IOUs filing together to present a unified front on problem identification and solution principles, aiming for a whole society approach to reduce wildfire risk and ensure predictable claims recovery. Key next steps include the submission of detailed white papers by December 12, with comprehensive reports anticipated by January 30 and a final recommendation on April 1, outlining necessary legislative changes and reforms in areas touching insurance, liability, and community hardening. According to PCG and EIX, credit rating agencies are closely monitoring phase 2 developments, with some mainly seeking tangible progress in Phase 2, while others are awaiting the final legislative outcomes before fully assessing the benefits.

7. Focus on identifying high confidence load from overall pipelines. Investors are increasingly focused on rigorously identifying high-confidence load within utility pipelines, moving beyond speculative inquiries to secure firm commitments. There is a higher degree of focus on signed ESAs, and more concern from investors that LOAs do not have the staying power that they have had previously. Companies are working to cull the speculative inquiries by requiring upfront deposits to conduct load/engineering studies, including FE, WEC, DUK, EXC and AEP. For example, AEP and EXC employ measures such as upfront deposits, take-or-pay contracts, and TSAs or LOAs that can convert to ESAs to identify high confidence load. AEP sees 80% of its LOAs converted to ESAs in PJM, though that share is lower in Texas/SPP. SO also has ESAs for its 2 GW of demand, with customers already funding engineering and site studies.

8. Customer and financial protections for data center deals are key: Across meetings, minimum take provisions, 12-18 year contract lengths, and termination fees emerged as key considerations, reflecting the push to ensure predictable cash flows amid unprecedented data center led power demand surge. WEC’s filed tariff for very large customers includes robust protections: hyperscalers must cover all incremental infrastructure costs, agree to 20-year contracts if seeking renewable generation, and pay for all requested capacity even if not fully utilized. Under the terms of WEC’s proposed contract for large load customers, they must pay the net book value if WEC cannot re-purpose assets upon early contract termination, providing downside protection for WEC and its other customers. Overall, managements remained confident that a collapse of the tech driven data center build-out is less of a concern for in flight projects, given the amount of capital tech companies are investing in the facilities. The tone of our meetings remained optimistic, with data centers driving a large portion of power demand in the U.S., but with utilities prioritizing contract discipline and balance sheet protection over headline megawatt wins.

9. Investors still highly focused on revisions to EPS growth CAGRs. Investors are seeking proof that increased power demand is translating into earnings growth for utilities. Companies that have successfully raised their EPS CAGRs are viewed more favorably on the back of this theme. For instance, XEL, targeting a 9% EPS CAGR through 2030, received positive feedback from attendees. NEE’s upcoming investor day is anticipated to bring potential earnings revisions, aligning closer to its historical EPS CAGR of approximately 10%, especially since its current CAGR is lower at 6%-8%. AEP’s recent guidance revision to a 7%-9% CAGR, with expectations of achieving 9% actual earnings growth, was also well-received. Some investors have queried if there is upside to DUK’s current 5%-7% earnings CAGR over time, given its projected annual rate base growth of approximately 8.5% (at the lower end of its new capital plan) and management’s expectation to comfortably reach the top end of the current range by 2028. For SO, growth is projected to be in the 5%-7% range, with 2027 and 2028 likely above the top end, after which the company would re-base off 2028, which was viewed as mixed by investors.

10. All the above generation technologies needed to meet demand. Renewables remain topical for utilities with investors focused on projects that are safe harbored. NEE also talked about how 8-hour batteries are becoming increasingly cost-competitive, though there are still technology evolutions needed for longer duration options. Nuclear has also been topical where PEG had talked about its opportunity for new nuclear development where it would leverage its existing early site permit but established that it will not direct capex into new nuclear generation to avoid development risk. In meetings, our overall impression was that bridge solutions are not viewed as cannibalization risk due to the amount of demand needing to be met, and that utilities including NEE and AEP are also considering those options to provide better time to power for customers.

ZeroHedge Pro subscribers can read the complete note (here) with additional color from the EEI conference about data centers colliding with the grids. 

Via American Greatness,

The CEO of Crowds On Demand is urging members of Congress to pass a Transparency In Political Demonstration Act (TPDA) that would require greater transparency in groups that hire demonstrators for events around the country.

Adam Swart wrote a letter to Congress on November 11, calling for more transparency in who is hiring protestors in order to “protect free speech while ensuring accountability and safety.”

Paid protest CEO urges Congress to pass law exposing who funds demonstrations

https://t.co/ZMqj8VDMeP

— Brent Cutburth (@brentcutburth) November 12, 2025

According to Swart, the TPDA is needed to ensure that the American people have full knowledge of who is funding and facilitating political demonstrations.

Swart expressed concern that “in recent years, we’ve seen the line between authentic civic expression and paid political manipulation blur beyond recognition.”

In his letter, Swart told Congress, “Across the country, peaceful activism has too often been replaced by coordinated influence campaigns. Most concerningly, many of these campaigns result either intentionally or unintentionally in violence, property destruction, and the mass disruption of American cities through unpermitted road closures.”

He added, “While these demonstrations are branded as ‘grassroots,’ evidence increasingly shows large-scale organization and financing behind them, often routed through opaque nonprofit networks designed to conceal true funders—some of whom may be foreign entities with nefarious intentions.”

The TPDA would require disclosure of funding sources behind demonstrations that exceed a defined number of participants as well as establish a “public accountability portal” where the sponsors or subcontractors involved in planning or logistics of large scale protests must be disclosed.

According to The Hill, the proposed bill would also seek to ensure that foreign entities and intermediaries cannot covertly fund or coordinate demonstrations intended to destabilize domestic institutions.

The TPDA would also hold funders and organizers to a strict nonviolence standard and would disqualify those who promote or tolerate violence from nonprofit protections or certain federal benefits.

Swart told Newsnation that he’s making his proposal to Congress because peaceful protest is supposed to be protected speech, saying, “This isn’t about stopping protest; it’s about protecting it. The First Amendment only works when Americans know who’s paying.”

Authored by Jenna McCarthy via Jenna’s Side Substack,

“Sure, we misquoted him. But now he’s weaponizing our mistake!”

Remember that fateful January day when the sitting President of the United States ordered all his angry, disappointed supporters to rush down to the Capitol—where they were busy certifying his opponent’s stolen Electoral College victory—and fight like hell? I mean, that was bold. Crazy, even. It almost sounded as if he was inciting violence.

Except—tiny plot twist—he didn’t say that. I know, you saw it all over the news and everything, but what he actually said was, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

Slightly different ring, no?

But let’s be honest; “Go, Congress!” makes a lousy lead-in to a Trump Spurs an Insurrection story. So when the BBC was putting together a little pre-election documentary about the famed day, they decided to rewrite the script. They grabbed that “walk down to the Capitol” line, snatched a completely different quote from nearly an hour later in his speech (notably, “We fight, we fight like hell”), and then chopped out everything in between—including peacefully and patriotically, in case anyone’s keeping track.

The result? Oh, just a bunch of mostly benign words being rearranged into a call to arms. No big deal.

@flufrstf #BBC #Jan6 #Trump ♬ original sound – FlufferstuffTheBlameless

It’s bad enough that a once respected media outlet was so blatant in their bias. It’s humiliating that they were busted, hilarious that they think anyone will believe it was accidental, and egregious that their journalistic PR-wrangling cronies are actually trying to defend them. But the fact that, even after the BBC issued an apology and an admission of guilt, the rest of the media mafia is trying to spin this into Orange Man Attacks Journalists is almost too much to take.

THE BBC, BASICALLY: “Look, editing is hard. Who among us hasn’t unknowingly rearranged someone’s words to mean the exact opposite of what they actually said? It’s called craft. You wouldn’t understand.”

But, you see, Trump is the bad guy here, because he didn’t just notice; he said something. Actually, he didn’t just say something, he filed a lawsuit. A big-with-a-B (as in billion-dollar) lawsuit.

“They actually changed my January 6 speech, which was a beautiful speech, which was a very calming speech, and they made it sound radical,” Trump said.

“I think I have an obligation to [proceed with legal action], because you can’t allow people to do that.”

And even though the BBC admitted they were in the wrong, even though two of their top executives promptly escorted themselves out of the building in the wake of the editing scandal, and even though the “documentary” has now been confirmed to be about as honest as a reality TV reunion… the true crime, according to the press, is, well, Trump.

Whatever you say, Guardian.

“There’s a political context to this attack—and it is an attack—it’s a concerted full-frontal assault on the BBC for what was absolutely an editorial mistake,” said broadcaster Steven Barnett. “It’s the kind of mistake that is easily accounted for, easily apologized for… and once you see that program, you will realize that that edit made absolutely no difference to the overall impartiality of that biography of Donald Trump leading up to the 2024 presidential election.”

So, just so we’re clear: “news” outlets are now accusing politicians of “weaponizing editing errors”—as if asking journalists and editors not to remix speeches like a bad rap track is some unreasonable, dictator-level request and not basic kindergarten fairness. It would be like your teenager admitting they were texting when they wrecked the car—then accusing you of “holding it against them” when you won’t pay for the repairs.

The subtext of the coverage is basically: How dare the peasants expect accuracy?

From StopTrump.org.uk, because of course.

And the BBC saga is only one chapter in the Media Bias scrapbook. CBS had to quietly settle a $16 million lawsuit because 60 Minutes edited Kamala Harris’ answers so creatively that she actually appeared intelligent. Kristi Noem accused Face the Nation of “whitewashing the truth” by selectively chopping out entire chunks of her replies, to which the network sheepishly responded by announcing they’d now only air full, unedited interviews. Apparently they realize their editing bay is a lawless frontier where any sentence might wake up missing an organ.

Regardless, every headline still finds a way to imply Trump is the problem. The BBC admitted it Frankensteined his speech. Editors resigned. The entire world noticed. But the narrative is, “Editing decisions were once behind the scenes—now Trump is turning them into weapons.”

No, kids. The weapon was forged when newsrooms decided that “shortening clips for time” included playing God with context. Trump is merely the first person with the resources (and the pettiness… and the cojones) to fire back.

Poor, tortured journalists lament that they’re being scrutinized “more than ever.” Yes. Yes, you are. Because it turns out when people discover you’ve been editing interviews like they’re Hollywood trailers instead of news broadcasts, they realize you’re not journalists—you’re screenwriters.

“I would call this a big screw-up, a big journalistic screw-up, but in a very small, narrow way, because it was one small part of a long documentary, and most importantly, because nobody seemed to notice it at the time,” said CNN’s Brian Stelter.

Oh, well, nobody noticed it at the time? I guess we’re good.

One editor quoted by the AP complains that every cut is now “under a microscope.” Good. If you can stitch together two unrelated fragments of a presidential speech like a Build-A-Bear, you deserve a microscope, a spotlight, and possibly a babysitter.

My favorite part is the quiet panic underlying all these articles: the realization that normal people, armed with transcripts and internet access, can now compare what aired to what was actually said. In 1992, that would’ve required a team of interns and a sacrifice to the gods of VHS. Today, it’s a Tuesday morning for any bored guy on Reddit.

The media in a meme.

No wonder the press is stressed. The era of “trust us, it’s fine, this is totally what they said—er, meant” is over. When you make a living off deception, that’s bad news. But sure, mainstream media. Tell us more about how you’re the real victims here.

Under US pressure to bolster its armed forces so as to deter supposed Russian aspirations to invade NATO countries, Germany is moving toward reinstating military conscription, with the initial steps centering questionnaires and medical exams that will feed a database detailing each young man’s fitness, aptitude and willingness to serve. The plan was agreed upon by Germany’s coalition government on Thursday, and now goes to parliament, where the ruling coalition has a slim majority of 12 seats out of a 630 total.   

If Germany reinstates conscription, holding a German passport means possibly fighting in a foreign war, while not holding a German passport means access to the welfare state.

The German government pays foreigners while contemplating sacrificing what is left of its native youth. pic.twitter.com/a1NZ1gfd7y

— Ralph Schoellhammer (@Raphfel) August 19, 2025

Today, the German armed forces — the Bundeswehr — has about 180,000 service members. The government said it was laying out a plan to have 260,000 people on active-duty service, with another 200,000 reservists, which is triple the current reserve force. In the first step, to be taken in 2026, the government will send questionnaires to every 18-year-old in the country. Men will be legally obliged to complete it; for women, it will be optional. The questionnaires will gauge respondents’ inclination and willingness to serve. Then, starting in July 2027, men will be required to report for a medical examination.

Germany drafted men for military service from 1956 until 2011, when the country adopted the US model of a professional, voluntary force. Rather than abolishing conscription — which would have required a constitutional amendment — it was merely suspended that year. Reinstating it would only require a simple majority of the parliament. However, unless the constitution is changed, women will remain exempt. 

For now, conscription will not be put to a vote, as the government hopes to achieve its enormous military expansion — 44% growth in active-duty ranks — via recruitment of willing volunteers.  “We will make voluntary service more attractive,” said Jens Spahn, parliamentary leader of the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) party. “We want to win over as many young people as possible for the service for the fatherland.” If that fails, however, “we’ll need to make it obligatory,” he added. Without providing details, the government has said a lottery system would be employed. The Bundeswehr will report on its recruitment efforts every six months, ready to request the reinstatement of conscription to make up any shortfalls.

A recent poll for Stern magazine found that a slim majority of Germans favored reinstating the draft. However, 63% of Germans between 18 and 29 years old opposed it.  

German defense minister Boris Pistorius told Germans there was “no cause for concern…no reason for fear…The more capable of deterrence and defense our armed forces are, through armament through training and through personnel, the less likely it is that we will become a party to a conflict at all.” Pistorius and Chancellor Friedrich Merz have set a goal for having Europe’s largest military and to be “war-ready” by 2029. Doing its part to promote German militarism, the Wall Street Journal’s report on the conscription plan credulously cited unnamed “military analysts [who] think Russia may be able and willing to attack NATO” by that year. 

PA Media via The Epoch Times,

A new fleet of facial recognition vans are to be rolled out by seven police forces across the UK in an expanded pilot programme.

The Metropolitan Police, South Wales Police and Essex Police have been using the facial recognition vans for some time to mixed receptions.

The software enables officers to use cameras mounted on top of their vans to locate people on their watchlists by filming the surrounding area.

Home Office funding has been provided for new facial recognition vans in Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Bedfordshire, Surrey, Sussex, Thames Valley and Hampshire.

The Met released a report last month which said that from September 2024 to September 2025 the software had a false alert rate of 0.0003 percent from more than three million scans.

Civil liberties and anti-racism groups criticised the software for having a “well-documented history of inaccurate outcomes and racial bias” ahead of the Notting Hill Carnival this year.

In response, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley acknowledged that the software was “limited” when it was used at the Carnival in 2016 and 2017 but has made “considerable progress” since then.

Ahead of the new rollout, Chief Inspector Andy Hill, of Surrey Police, was asked if he still harboured concerns about false readings from the technology.

He said: “There’s been a lot of development with the software, a lot of national testing to give us confidence in the software and, at the last Notting Hill Carnival this year, their positive alerts were much higher.”

The police watchlists uploaded to the van are bespoke and will include details and photos of wanted people and people subject to court orders like sex offenders.

If their faces are scanned by the van’s cameras it will alert the officer to the match, and they can verify whether the comparison is correct and take action.

“It’s a positive step in terms of using the latest technology available to us, and it’s about pursuing criminals, it’s about investigating crime thoroughly and also reassuring the public that we are out and about and we are visible and we’re doing our job,” Mr Hill said.

Across the seven new centres, 10 new vans are to be deployed including one in Surrey and another in Sussex which will at times be used in tandem.

The police have said that images of people walking past the van which do not set off an alert will be deleted in less than a second.

Mr Hill said: “We want to be as open and transparent about our deployments, we publish them on our website at least seven days in advance, and we’ll publish the results afterwards as well,

“And during the deployment, we’ve got signage up to inform people that they’re entering a zone of live facial recognition with information on that, and also they can talk to any of our officers at any time about the technology.”

Surrey Police will be deploying a Live Facial Recognition van in Redhill on November 13.