U.S. Cripples Cuba, Then Offers Help

You’d think a Fourth of July celebration would focus on America’s founding. Not in Democrat-run San Diego County, where officials have turned the America 250 event into a showcase for DEI initiatives. Instead of celebrating the founding of the United States, attendees will sit through a tribal blessing, a land acknowledgment, performances of both the National Anthem and the Black National Anthem, followed by nearly two hours devoted to stories from tribal, Latino, Pacific Islander, African American, and LGBTQIA+ communities. Then… the fireworks. As David McIntosh, president of Club for Growth, put it: “The official government July 4th itinerary of San Diego reads like the opening ceremony of the Democratic Socialists of America convention.” Meanwhile, Bill Wells, the mayor of El Cajon, who released the minutes from the SD County Board of Supervisors meeting, said he had alternative plans: Acknowledge America and its greatness. Celebrate with fireworks and the American National Anthem. On

One of the most controversial provisions in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act just took another step toward becoming law, and Congress didn’t even allow lawmakers to vote on removing it. The provision, now listed as Section 219 (formerly Section 224), would require the Pentagon to appoint an official responsible for coordinating U.S.-Israel defense technology cooperation, including research, weapons development, testing, integration, and industrial collaboration. According to supporters, the provision simply strengthens a long-standing alliance. But doesn’t an alliance suggest both sides benefit? It does. But that doesn’t seem to be the case here. It’s always been a one-sided relationship in which the U.S. keeps giving while Israel keeps taking. An effort led by Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna sought to strike Section 219 from the defense bill before it reached the House floor. But the House Rules Committee refused to make the amendment eligible for debate. In other

The Supreme Court has rejected President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, ruling 6-3 that children born in the United States to illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders remain U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment. Justice Clarence Thomas, who disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision, argued that the Court got the history wrong. He wrote that the 14th Amendment was intended to secure citizenship for freed slaves, “not… the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens.” He also said the amendment “has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.” Thomas’s view was that because much of the application of Trump’s Day 1 executive order was “consistent with the original public meaning” of the clause in the 14th Amendment, it should have been upheld. If Thomas is right about the amendment’s original purpose, then this ruling isn’t preserving the Constitution but instead redefining it. President Trump called the ruling “Too

For those of us who thought the COVID-19 pandemic was over years ago, we were wrong. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced yesterday that Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has signed determinations terminating the COVID-19 Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) declarations. The move came after HHS determined that the circumstances justifying those emergency authorizations no longer exist. This change won’t go into effect until next year, though, because those who were profiting from these EUAs need to wind down their operations. Here’s how RFK Jr. explained the decision: “Americans deserve a regulatory system that is transparent, accountable, and rooted in the rule of law. By ending these COVID-19 Emergency Use Authorization declarations, we’re reinforcing public confidence that emergency authorities are temporary and targeted.” Public confidence? It’s a little too late for that. Why? Because over a million unreported deaths and injuries were caused by

President Trump is demanding that gas companies lower prices immediately. The problem is that gas prices aren’t set by presidential decree. They are driven primarily by global crude oil prices, refining capacity, inventories, taxes, and competition. This is reminiscent of President Biden blaming grocery stores and retailers for inflation. When prices are politically inconvenient, the temptation is always to blame the companies at the end of the supply chain. Oil prices have fallen sharply over the past week, nearly erasing the “war premium” that followed the U.S.-Iran conflict. But that drop appears to be driven more by market sentiment than by a meaningful improvement in supply. Commodity strategists warned Monday that traders may be pricing in an overly optimistic outlook while underestimating the remaining supply risks. During the conflict, the United States authorized the release of 172 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help stabilize markets.

Should a defense contractor get to enrich shareholders with stock buybacks while it’s behind schedule on taxpayer-funded government contracts? The House will debate exactly that question this week as lawmakers consider an amendment to the annual defense bill that would prohibit certain Pentagon contractors from buying back their own stock if they are failing to meet production and delivery requirements. The idea is simple: if taxpayers are paying you to build missiles, ships, and fighter jets, maybe build the missiles, ships, and fighter jets before rewarding Wall Street. Enter the lobbyists. America’s weapons makers have deployed their most powerful weapon yet: their lobbyists, sent to kill the bill before it can reach the battlefield. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, and major defense industry groups are urging lawmakers to kill the proposal, arguing that it amounts to the federal government dictating how private companies allocate