Capital Research Center recently published a report worth everyone’s attention: “Enemies of Energy: The Myths, the Movement, and the Money.” Its findings deserve a wider audience because they run counter to nearly everything Americans are told about energy today.

For much of the last century, America understood a simple truth. Abundant, affordable, reliable energy formed the foundation for every other national success.

Our economic strength, manufacturing base, technological leadership, and rising quality of life all rest on the same footing: energy we can count on. It powers our factories, heats our homes, keeps commerce moving, and fuels our prosperity.

Somewhere along the way, parts of the environmental movement lost sight of that.

Conservation was once about protecting America’s natural treasures while embracing human ingenuity. The early Sierra Club fought to save the landscapes and creatures people cherished, helping to give us our national parks and foster the return of the bald eagle. Today, too many influential activist organizations have adopted a different mission. They oppose nearly every major source of reliable energy that powers modern life.

The report puts hard numbers to that shift. It profiles the 15 largest anti-energy nonprofits in America, whose combined annual revenue tops $2 billion.

That works out to an average of $5.4 million per day spent making energy scarcer. Their largest donors include some of the wealthiest people on Earth, several of whom cross oceans on mega-yachts that burn more fuel in a single year than hundreds of middle-class people do.

That shift carries real consequences because energy touches everything.

The price a family pays to heat a home. Whether a manufacturer builds a factory here or overseas. The cost of groceries. The competitiveness of American business. The reliability of the grid we all depend on.

Energy is not just another political issue. It is the foundation beneath nearly every other one.

Much of today’s debate is driven less by curiosity than by certainty. Americans are told the country must rapidly abandon oil, natural gas, and coal, and increasingly even nuclear power, in favor of systems that depend on the weather, heavy subsidies, and technologies still wrestling with storage and transmission.

Meanwhile, China continues to expand conventional energy at a staggering pace. By 2024, it was burning nearly 12 times as much coal as the United States and accounting for nearly a third of the world’s industrial carbon emissions, even as some of the same American groups praised it as a responsible climate leader.

That should trouble anyone who cares about both prosperity and honesty.

Consider nuclear power, which the report singles out for a special defense.

It is America’s largest source of emissions-free electricity and one of the safest sources of any kind. Across nearly 70 years and more than 20,000 reactor-years of operation worldwide, nuclear accidents have caused fewer than 30 radiation deaths. Yet all 15 of the anti-energy groups profiled in the report oppose nuclear power, either outright or by amplifying fears about safety and waste.

If we were serious about cutting emissions, we would be building reactors at scale. Instead, the nuclear industry’s own tally does not credit the U.S. with a single full-scale power reactor under construction, and total American nuclear capacity has been flat for more than two decades; only a few small demonstration reactors have recently broken ground.

This is not an argument against protecting the environment. Just the opposite. Americans want clean air, clean water, healthy forests, and thriving wildlife. Those goals should unite us. The real question is whether we pursue them through innovation and human ingenuity or through policies that make energy pricier and less reliable.

There is a meaningful difference between conservation and opposition.

Conservation seeks balance and recognizes that a growing economy and a protected environment can strengthen each other.

Opposition seeks elimination and often measures success by how much reliable energy production it can shut down, whatever the cost.

America deserves better than false choices.

We do not have to choose between a strong economy and a healthy environment, or between reliable electricity and cleaner technology.

The U.S. has repeatedly reduced emissions through innovation while remaining the world’s leading energy producer.

Our per-person carbon emissions are now lower than they were in 1940.

Advances in natural gas, cleaner industrial processes, and next-generation nuclear all show that progress comes from unleashing human ingenuity, not restricting it.

What we need is an energy strategy rooted in realism rather than ideology. Produce oil and natural gas responsibly. Expand safe nuclear power. Invest in new technologies where they make economic sense. And keep American families, not activist organizations, at the center of our energy policy.

Reliable energy should never be a partisan issue. It is the lifeblood of a modern economy.

The nations that lead this century will not be the ones that deliberately make energy scarce. They will be the ones who produce it abundantly, efficiently, and responsibly. America has every opportunity to remain that nation. The question is whether we still have the confidence to remember the lesson that built our prosperity in the first place. Energy abundance is not something to apologize for. It is something to protect.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Former special counsel Jack Smith’s team in 2023 bypassed certain procedures to obtain and review text messages from 44 members of Congress in an investigation of President Donald Trump, according to Justice Department documents released by senators Tuesday.

The Justice Department must follow a filter review process when obtaining documents or communications related to members of Congress, under the principle of separation of powers and to prevent privileged materials from being swept up in a criminal prosecution. Communications from members of Congress about their official legislative duties are generally protected from criminal prosecution under the Constitution’s speech or debate clause.

A letter from Assistant Attorney General Patrick Davis to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., stated that “the special counsel’s Investigative Team apparently bypassed the Filter Team and directly accessed these text messages.” The Justice Department attached documents to the letter outlining the Filter Team’s review process.

Grassley noted the matter Wednesday morning in his opening remarks at the confirmation hearing for Todd Blanche to be attorney general.

“Based on the information provided to the committee, Smith’s operation cut corners and blew through constitutional stop signs, instead of respecting them, and has been advised about the constitutional problems,” Grassley said during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

“Even if Smith’s team had been instructed to look for congressional or other privileged information, it wouldn’t matter. Because in this example, it appears the filter routine was entirely bypassed.”

Smith investigated Trump’s challenge to the outcome of his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden, as well as Trump’s retention of government documents at his home in Mar-a-Lago. The text messages obtained by Smith’s team appear to be related to the election probe.

“This is yet another grotesque example of the Biden administration’s weaponization of the Justice Department,” Johnson said in a public statement Tuesday. “Jack Smith’s team acted with impunity as they disregarded their own protocols to obtain and access White House text messages, including messages to and from 44 members of Congress. At this point, no one should be shocked by Jack Smith’s recklessness and blatant abuse of power, but they should be outraged.”

Of the 44 lawmakers whose records were obtained by Smith’s team, 40 were Republicans, including Grassley and Johnson. The records also involved four Democrats: Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey; Reps. Adam Smith of Washington and Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey; and then-Rep. Karen Bass of California, now the mayor of Los Angeles.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member, defended Smith.

“Perhaps six months ago, maybe longer, he volunteered to appear before this committee under oath and testify about what he did as special counsel, and to answer the questions of the committee,” Durbin said. “For reasons I cannot explain, the Republican majority does not want to bring Jack Smith before this committee and having testified under oath. They continue on a regular basis to take exception to things that he said or did or allegedly did.”

According to the Justice Department documents, of the texts obtained, 20 were from senators, and the rest were from House members. Not all Republicans involved in the probe were entirely pro-Trump. For example, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky have frequently voted against Trump’s policies, but their texts were nevertheless swept up in the investigation.

In June 2023, the special counsel’s office subpoenaed the National Archives and Records Administration to provide all text messages from October 2020 through Jan. 20, 2021, from phones associated with White House staff during Trump’s first term, including Trump himself; former Vice President Mike Pence; former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows; senior administration officials and Trump associates Dan Scavino, Ivanka Trump, Stephen Miller, Peter Navarro, John Ratcliffe, Kash Patel, Rudy Giuliani, and Kellyanne Conway.

The Daily Signal reached out to Smith’s current law firm, Heaphy, Smith, Harbach & Windom, for comment. Smith or a spokesperson did not respond by publication time.

America has made a sacred promise—some might call it a contract—to our veterans. That contract should never be broken. But does upholding it mean that Congress must maintain every veterans’ program exactly the way it is today? Or could keeping that promise mean having the courage to evaluate whether veterans’ programs are still effective at accomplishing their intended missions?

Those are questions missing from the debate around the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act. What we’ve heard instead is a genuine policy debate reduced to a bumper sticker: “Republican bill strips veterans’ benefits. Honor the contract!”

That framing ignores both the merits of the bill and the larger question Congress and veterans service organizations should be debating: Will Congress fulfill its Article I duty to review and reform federal programs or will politically sensitive reforms become impossible to change when special interests mobilize against them?

The Take Care of America’s Veterans Act incorporates several significant benefits expansions, including the Major Richard Star Act and provisions from the Love Lives On Act, as well as potential changes to elements of the Department of Veterans Affairs disability rating schedule.

That is why some veterans service organizations reducing the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act to “stripping away veterans’ benefits” is so deeply misleading. Illustrations of government bureaucrats aiming rifles at veterans standing in a firing line may generate outrage and sell T-shirts. Still, they do little to explain the policy’s actual merits.

The deeper issue is that veterans’ policy risks becoming a one-way ratchet. Expand eligibility, create a new presumption, add a benefit, or increase compensation, and Congress is keeping the promise. Reexamine an existing method of establishing a rating, and Congress is breaking that promise.

A system in which Congress may only add but is never allowed to evaluate, refine, or modernize is one in which Congress abdicates its Article I responsibility. The Constitution requires Congress to assess whether federal programs remain medically credible, are fiscally responsible, and are true to their statutory purpose.

The Take Care of America’s Veterans Act addresses concurrent receipt rules affecting combat-injured medical retirees through the Major Richard Star Act. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the proposal would increase direct spending by approximately $78 billion over 10 years.

For years, veterans service organizations have urged Congress to address concurrent receipt rules for retirees to allow eligible retirees to receive military retired pay and Department of Veterans Affairs disability compensation simultaneously.

The Take Care of America’s Veterans Act also expands survivor benefits through the Love Lives On Act, which the CBO estimates would increase spending by about $2 billion over 10 years.

Together, these two bills demonstrate that the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act expands benefits while also proposing reforms and medically credible modernization to portions of the disability rating system.

The package has divided the veteran community. Of note, no veterans service organization represents all veterans. Veterans service organizations advocate. Congress governs. Veterans deserve a debate grounded in facts rather than slogans.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars and Disabled American Veterans argue the legislation fails to “honor the contract” with future veterans. Their central concern is Section 108 and the proposed changes to disability rating criteria for obstructive sleep apnea and tinnitus. VA estimates that the changes could reduce future disability compensation by approximately $57 billion over 10 years and impact up to 1.5 million future veterans.

Those are large figures and warrant examination. But before we declare that Congress has defaulted on its promise to veterans, we should understand what is actually going on. The funds are intended to compensate for disability caused by service-connected injury or disease, not simply the presence of a diagnosis.

The proposed changes would not reduce disability compensation already in effect. Instead, they would change how certain claims filed after enactment are evaluated. Future claimants could receive a different—and in some cases lower—rating than they might under today’s schedule.

Which brings us back to the central unspoken question at the core of the controversy. Is it ever possible for Congress to modernize the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, or is every potential improvement doomed to be labeled as somehow betraying America’s veterans?

Congress is not doing something unprecedented simply by legislating in this area, nor is it doing it in a vacuum.

The VA is hard at work updating the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities to reflect advances in medicine, language, and evaluation criteria that are more closely aligned with modern clinical practice. Congress routinely evaluates recommendations developed by executive agencies and determines whether they should become law.

If the methodology reflected in Section 108 is consistent with VA’s own disability-rating modernization work, then Congress is not inventing a new framework. It is exercising its constitutional responsibility to decide whether those recommendations should be codified into statute. That is not an abdication of Article I authority; rather, it is an exercise of it.

Obstructive sleep apnea provides a good example of the policy rationale. Treatment for sleep apnea does not always result in the same level of disability. However, under the current schedule, veterans prescribed a CPAP generally receive the same disability rating no matter how disabled they are after treatment. Section 108 seeks to rectify that by focusing more on residual disability rather than prescribed treatment. 

Whether Congress has the right balance is worth debating. But determining how disabled a veteran remains after treatment is a legitimate policy question. It’s not a dereliction of America’s promise to its veterans. Rating residual impairment and the effectiveness of treatment does not question whether sleep apnea is real. It asks how disabling the condition remains after treatment.

Criteria for disability rating must be based on medical findings, not fiscal convenience. Tying compensation more closely to residual disability is not a betrayal of America’s promise to our veterans. It reflects Congress’ constitutional responsibility to ensure disability compensation continues to measure disability as medicine evolves. It is also good stewardship and sound public policy.

Veterans service organizations are here to advocate. Congress has a constitutional mandate. Lawmakers must weigh advocacy with medical advancements, stewardship, equity, and sustainability.

Valid criticism of the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act can focus on why the rating criteria aren’t ideal, dispute the underlying medical conclusions, or disagree with how it’s funded. That’s legitimate policy debate.

Our veterans deserve better than slogans, sound bites, and political talking points. They deserve a disability compensation system that’s medically credible, equitable, and can honor America’s promise to future generations of heroes.

The nation’s promise to our veterans is sacred. The policies we use to keep that promise are not. They should be measured, tested, and refined to ensure they accomplish their mission.

That is not breaking the promise. That is how we keep it.

Information published by the Washington Post indicated that the man shot and killed by ICE Monday morning in Biddeford, Maine, was a Colombian citizen.

The post Man Killed by ICE Monday in Maine Was Colombian Citizen appeared first on Breitbart.

CAIRO/DUBAI, July 15 (Reuters)—The U.S. said it had begun a new wave of strikes against Iran on Wednesday after reimposing a naval blockade of Iranian ports, while Iran threatened to shut off more regional energy exports. 

The strikes mark the latest escalation of attacks and counterattacks launched by the two sides as they vie for control of the Strait of Hormuz, which carried about a fifth of global oil and gas shipments before the war.  

“At 6 a.m. ET today, U.S. Central Command forces began launching a wave of strikes against Iran,” the U.S. military said.

“The strikes are designed to further degrade military capabilities Iranian forces have used to attack commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.” 

The U.S. statement gave no further details and there were no immediate reports of attacks in Iranian media. 

Late on Tuesday, the U.S. military said it had hit dozens of military targets near the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian coastal areas in strikes lasting seven hours.

In response, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said on Wednesday it had struck U.S. military targets in the region, including in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Jordan.

It also threatened on Wednesday to shut off more regional energy exports, saying the U.S. “must brace for the closure of all other export corridors that benefit the U.S. and its allies”.       

The U.S. has said Iran had attacked seven commercial ships over the last week, leading to nearly a dozen crew members being killed, missing, or injured.             

The war, which began with U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iran on Feb. 28, triggered Iranian attacks on Gulf states that host U.S. bases and caused major disruption to global energy supplies, raising fears of a surge in inflation.

Oil prices extended gains by about 1% on Wednesday, after settling on Tuesday on a new one-month high.

An interim ceasefire deal in the conflict signed last month was meant to lead to further negotiations and a permanent truce, but a return to talks has faltered.   

(Additional reporting by Reuters bureaus; Writing by Aidan Lewis; Editing by Alexandra Hudson)

President Donald Trump is ordering the Department of Homeland Security to restart its tactic of arresting migrants in their cars and vans, following two episodes in which ICE officers shot migrants.

The post Trump Restarts Traffic Stops After Two Migrants Were Shot appeared first on Breitbart.

When it comes to broadcast news, our country could do with a little less Hollywood and a little more local reporting from communities across the country. The FCC’s plan to switch from a national ownership cap to a case-by-case review allows exactly that.

The post Exclusive—FCC Chairman Brendan Carr: Restoring Balance to the Broadcast Airwaves appeared first on Breitbart.

A federal judge has denied the DOJ's request for an emergency order blocking California's Glock ban, allowing the law to remain in effect while the broader lawsuit proceeds.

The post Federal Judge Blocks DOJ Motion To Halt California Glock Ban As Challenge Proceeds appeared first on The Truth About Guns.