Hurricanes Helene and Milton may be gone, but they won’t be forgotten, certainly not by the hard-hit residents and businesses of the Southeast. The immense economic devastation and loss of life wrought by those hurricanes—and, in the case of Milton, the tornadoes it spawned—will be felt for years to come in Florida and western North Carolina. The hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of residents whose homes and lives were shattered by Helene and Milton will never be the same, but they will rebuild them as best they can. That is, after all, the indomitable American spirit. Meanwhile, nonprofits and religious charities, such as the Red Cross and evangelist Franklin Graham’s Samaritan’s Purse, are on the front lines of recovery efforts as partisan political battles rage over the allocation of federal disaster relief aid. The Biden-Harris administration disputes Republicans’ assertions that hundreds of millions of dollars of Federal Emergency Management Agency funds it has spent on the care and feeding of the millions of illegal immigrants it has waved into the country was misspent and is money that could have—and rightly should have—gone instead to American citizens who lost their homes, and in some cases, all of their earthly possessions to the hurricanes. Many remain without electricity to this day. Adding insult to injury, this comes amid a tone-deaf Biden-Harris administration announcing on Oct. 4 that it was shoveling $157 million in humanitarian assistance to Lebanon, which is caught in the crossfire of Israel–Hezbollah fighting. According to NBC News, that $157 million “brings the total humanitarian assistance provided to support vulnerable populations in Lebanon and Syria to nearly $386 million as of fiscal year 2024.” The announcement came just one day before Milton intensified from a tropical disturbance into a hurricane. “This funding will address new and existing needs of internally displaced persons and refugee populations inside Lebanon and the communities that host them. The assistance will also support those fleeing to neighboring Syria,” the State Department said. All those millions of dollars would be much better spent helping “internally displaced” North Carolinians and Floridians who fled Helene and Milton to rebuild their lives and livelihoods. According to Business Insider, preliminary estimates by the Fitch Ratings credit rating service say Milton caused between $30 billion and $50 billion in damage. As of Oct. 12, its death toll stood at 23. The comparable figures for Helene were 250 deaths and $40 billion in damage. The newest federal largesse for Lebanon amid back-to-back U.S. hurricanes called to mind a spoken-word recording that dominated radio airwaves and the Top 40 charts half a century ago. In late 1973 and early 1974, two separate recordings of Toronto CFRB radio broadcaster Gordon Sinclair’s editorial “The Americans (A Canadian’s Opinion)” lauded U.S. generosity in sending disaster-recovery aid overseas. The first version was released on record by Byron MacGregor, a news anchor of a different radio station, CKLW in Windsor, Ontario, near Detroit, recited over a recording of “America the Beautiful” by the Detroit Symphony Orchestra. It reportedly sold 3.5 million copies and reached No. 1 on the trade publication Cashbox’s bestseller chart and No. 4 on rival Billboard’s chart. MacGregor donated all proceeds to the Red Cross. Subsequently released on record by Sinclair himself in early 1974 with “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” playing in the background, “The Americans” again made the Top 40, though it reached only No. 24 on the Billboard chart. A third version, narrated by country music singer Tex Ritter and released posthumously, topped out at No. 35 on the country chart. In the original editorial that thrice became a 45-rpm recording, Sinclair, then 73, recounted how, as a youngster six decades earlier, he had read of floods on the Yellow and Yangtze rivers in China in the early 20th century. “Who rushed in with men and money to help? The Americans did, that’s who. They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Ganges and the Niger,” he said on his June 5, 1973, broadcast. “Today, the rich bottom land of the Mississippi is underwater, and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help.” That was a reference to the Mississippi River flood that occurred between March and May of that year. Spawned by torrential rain, it inundated more than 17 million acres and damaged more than 30,000 homes. It caused nearly $170 million in damage in the Mississippi River Delta. (According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ inflation calculator, that’s the equivalent of $1.22 billion today.) Sinclair noted the seeming ingratitude of some foreign recipients of U.S. financial and material assistance and lamented the lack of reciprocity when the U.S. itself was stricken by natural disasters. “When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it’s the United States that hurries in to help. Managua, Nicaragua, is one of the most recent examples,” Sinclair’s editorial said. “So far this spring, 59 American communities have been flattened by tornadoes—nobody has helped. “I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name to me even one time when someone raced to the help of Americans in trouble?” he said. No, I can’t, but now would be a good time for them to start. Originally published at WashingtonTimes.com The post Hurricane Relief vs. Money for Migrants, Largesse for Lebanon appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Vice President Kamala Harris has a problem with veterans. They overwhelmingly support her opponent—favoring former President Donald Trump by a lopsided 61%-37%, according to the latest Pew Research Center survey. For years, civilians have been sold a narrative that just isn’t true. Democrats and liberals in the media invested heavily in trying to portray Trump as a leader at odds with America’s men and women in uniform. But veterans themselves never bought the story. They’ve been one of the Republicans’ most steadfast constituencies. Trump won about six out of 10 veterans in each of the past two presidential elections, and he’s on track to match that performance this year. Veterans like JD Vance better than Tim Walz, too. Both vice presidential contenders are veterans themselves, though Harris’ running mate has been criticized by men who served alongside him in the National Guard who say Walz lied about his rank and exited the service just in time to avoid being sent to war in Iraq. While Walz does well with civilians, Pew’s poll of veterans finds they prefer the ex-Marine on Trump’s ticket: 53% of vets view Vance favorably, while only 34% have a positive impression of Walz. The Pew study suggests veteran discontent with Harris isn’t simply the result of a partisan tilt toward the GOP among vets. Overall, less than a quarter of those polled—23%—say Harris would make things better for veterans if she became president, compared with 55% who say Trump would do so. Even among veterans who support Harris, 33% say she won’t make much difference either way if she wins the White House, and 5% say she’d actually make things worse. Trump’s supporters, on the other hand, have little doubt: 83% of those backing him say he’d make things better for vets. Whenever a high-profile general disparages Trump, as former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley recently did in Bob Woodward’s book “War,” his opinion makes headlines. The sentiments of ordinary soldiers, and veterans, get much less attention. There’s a cultural gulf between these sides. Politically vocal generals and the national security officials who sign their names to open letters supporting Harris for president are Washington insiders—creatures of “the Swamp.” Their perspectives and interests aren’t those of the regular service member or vet. When Milley, now retired, trashes Trump using standard Democratic campaign rhetoric—”now I realize he’s a total fascist,” he told Woodward—he’s speaking the language of his clique. It’s also the language of his bank account. Since leaving the Army, Milley has been making a mint as a consultant and a lecturer on the high-end circuit: “He is represented by the same high-powered speakers’ agency as Hillary Clinton,” notes Ken Klippenstein in The Intercept. Klippenstein was recently suspended from X—the social media site formerly known as Twitter—or sharing hacked information about the Republican ticket. He can’t be suspected of any sympathy for Trump when he exposes Milley’s “cashing in.” The kind of institutions that pay top-dollar for Hillary Rodham Clinton don’t expect to hear anything different from a speaker like Milley, and he knows it. If veterans are a bedrock of Trump’s support, swamp creatures like Milley are a core constituency for Harris. Trump is running against them as much as against her, and veterans are well aware of it—yet they’re with Trump, not the Swamp. The top brass long misled America about the war in Afghanistan, which they insisted we were winning, and it was the troops who paid the price. The fact that Harris has the backing of Washington’s foreign policy establishment is for many voters a compelling reason to reject her. Voters across the swing states trust Trump over Harris in matters of war and peace. Fully 50% of those voters say Trump is better suited to handle the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, with only 39% expressing more confidence in Harris, according to polling by The Wall Street Journal. Trump holds an even bigger lead when it comes to which candidate that battleground voters trust to handle the Israel-Hamas war: 48% say Trump, just 33% say Harris. Every year, the Biden-Harris administration has delivered a foreign policy disaster—the lethally botched withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Hamas massacre of more than 1,000 Israelis on Oct. 7, 2023, and the extension of the conflicts in Europe and the Middle East throughout 2024. No wonder voters in the states most likely to decide the election want Trump’s foreign policy, not more of what President Joe Biden and Harris have given us these past nearly four years. Veterans, in particular, know the cost of failed leadership. They’ve paid it before, and if Harris wins, their brothers and sisters in arms will pay it again. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Why Veterans Are Voting for Trump appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. European digital rights network EDRi is warning that the EU is rushing the rollout of its digital identification system in an increasingly undemocratic way, without properly addressing the issues of privacy, security, and safety, as the bloc is “chasing an unrealistic deadline.” eID Wallet, regulated by the Electronic Identification, Authentication and Trust Services (eIDAS) rules, is close to getting implemented, but the EU is accused of choosing to move forward too quickly, without first ensuring that proper protections are in place. EDRi member epicenter.works has been making these warnings for several years now, noting that eIDAS itself, adopted in April, mandates the main privacy and security protections, something the EU is nonetheless avoiding. According to the organization, the safeguards that should be built into the Wallet won’t be there as the system is implemented, amid what seems like typical EU confusion, purposeful or otherwise. Namely, the EU Commission is said to be ignoring some eIDAS provisions adopted this year, choosing instead to stick to the version it proposed in 2021, and doing this over the heads of both the EU Parliament and the Council. What makes something of this kind possible is a host of technical implementing acts, and it is in these acts that the Commission has been able to get its original regulation proposal to “reflect,” the digital rights group believes. One of the implementing acts set for adoption on November 17 regards key safeguards “against the risk of over-identification and over-sharing of personal information – that is, the regulation of who may ask which information from users.” But, a number of acts will have to be reopened within a year, making tax money another “victim” of the EU’s almost inexplicable rush to get eID Wallet up and running. Money will be wasted on a large scale, EDRi is warning. “This essentially means tax money will be spent on a large-scale software project in the middle of which fundamental requirements are going to change (for example, for interoperability of the Wallet between member-states),” the network says. The way to address the problems, according to EDRi, is for the EU to decide on a major change of course, i.e., give up on the fast implementation and instead opt to include all the personal data and other key protections in a way that will not “trade people’s safety and security for an unrealistically fast implementation of a tech tool that threatens our fundamental rights.” Otherwise, EU member countries should “reject the draft implementing acts in their upcoming meeting in mid-October,” EDRi states. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post EU’s Digital ID Push Sparks Fears Over Privacy and Rushed Rollout appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Third Trump Assassination Suspect 'Hiding in Fear For His Life'

Less than 200 years ago, the self-proclaimed brother of Jesus Christ sparked a devastating war in China.

These findings may help explain the link between weed and psychosis.

From the moment we first looked up at the stars and wondered about our place in the cosmos, to the revolutionary advances of modern physics and biology, scientific inquiry has unraveled many mysteries that once seemed beyond our grasp. We’ve mapped the human genome, explored the quantum realm, and even captured the first image of a black hole. Yet, even in this golden age of discovery, there remain questions that linger, untouched by the reach of our most sophisticated theories and tools. These mysteries are not just abstract philosophical musings; they are at the heart of the most advanced fields of cosmology, physics, and neuroscience today. And with every new discovery comes the sobering realization that the more we learn, the more we uncover questions that seem impossible to answer. The Big Bang is a physical theory that describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature. The Mystery of What Came Before the Big Bang For over a century, the Big Bang has been the leading theory of the universe’s origins. According to this model, the universe began as a singularity—a point of infinite density and temperature—around 13.8 billion years ago. From this singularity, space and time itself expanded, leading to the formation of galaxies, stars, and eventually, life. But one question remains unanswered: What came before the Big Bang? “There is no ‘before’ the Big Bang in a classical sense because time itself was created at the Big Bang,” explains Dr. Katie Mack, a theoretical astrophysicist at North Carolina State University. Mack’s point reflects a core challenge in cosmology: the limits of our understanding are bound by the laws of physics, which break down in the singularity. Some physicists have proposed that the universe could be part of a cyclical process—a series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches—where the universe expands and contracts infinitely. Others speculate about the existence of a multiverse, with our universe being just one of many. However, the truth remains elusive. Current theories like loop quantum cosmology, which suggests the universe underwent a “bounce” before the Big Bang, offer a speculative glimpse into what might have happened. But without observational evidence or a way to test these hypotheses, they remain largely theoretical. As cosmologist Sean Carroll of the California Institute of Technology points out, “We are probably always going to have to confront the reality that there are certain things, especially involving the origin of the universe, that we may never be able to test or prove.” The End of the Universe: Heat Death or a New Beginning? While the birth of the universe is shrouded in mystery, its eventual fate is equally confusing. According to current cosmological models, the universe is not only expanding but doing so at an accelerating rate. If the current rate of expansion continues unchecked, it will lead to what scientists call the “heat death” of the universe. In this scenario, galaxies, stars, and eventually atoms will drift so far apart that no meaningful interactions will occur. The universe will become a cold, dark, and empty expanse—a state known as maximum entropy. This theory, widely supported by observational data, suggests that all energy in the universe will be evenly distributed, making all processes, including life, impossible. However, there are other possible fates. Some physicists propose the “Big Rip,” where the expansion of the universe accelerates to the point that it tears galaxies, stars, and even atoms apart. Another theory is the “Big Crunch,” where the universe’s expansion could reverse, leading to a collapse back into a singularity—possibly setting the stage for another Big Bang. Yet, despite advanced models and measurements, no one can predict with certainty how the universe will end. As Dr. Robert Caldwell, a theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College, notes, “The ultimate fate of the universe is still a moving target. Our understanding of dark energy is still in its infancy, and what we think we know now could be dramatically overturned in the future.” The Meaning of Life: Beyond Science’s Reach The question of life’s meaning transcends the boundaries of science and enters the realm of philosophy, religion, and consciousness. While biology can explain the mechanisms of life—how DNA replicates or how neurons fire—it has yet to explain why life exists at all. For centuries, thinkers have grappled with the purpose of human existence, and in recent years, science has tried to weigh in. One of the most promising avenues of inquiry has been the study of consciousness. Neuroscientists have made significant strides in understanding how the brain generates subjective experiences, but the “hard problem” of consciousness—the question of how and why these experiences occur—remains unsolved. “The hard problem of consciousness is unlike any other scientific question,” says Dr. David Chalmers, a cognitive scientist at New York University. “We can describe brain processes in terms of electrical activity, but we can’t explain why these processes give rise to the feeling of being aware.” This gap in understanding has led some researchers to propose that consciousness is fundamental to the universe, much like space and time. Known as panpsychism, this theory suggests that even the simplest particles have some form of consciousness. While this idea remains controversial, it points to the limitations of materialism in explaining the full spectrum of human experience. The deeper issue, however, is whether science is equipped to answer questions about meaning at all. As evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has argued, life may have no inherent purpose beyond survival and reproduction. Yet many find this answer unsatisfying. In the words of philosopher Thomas Nagel, “There are many questions—about life, morality, and the nature of the universe—that may be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. To dismiss them as irrelevant because they can’t be tested is to ignore a central aspect of the human condition.” The Limits of Science The Big Bang, the fate of the universe, and the meaning of life are three monumental questions that touch on the very nature of existence. Despite incredible advancements in physics, cosmology, and neuroscience, these mysteries remain unsolved and, perhaps, unsolvable. Theoretical models offer glimpses of possible answers, but they are, at best, approximations of a deeper truth that may forever lie beyond our grasp. As Dr. Sean Carroll suggests, “There are profound aspects of the universe that we can study scientifically, but we shouldn’t be surprised if we bump up against some boundaries of knowledge.” The post Three Secrets of the Universe That Science Will Never Uncover appeared first on Anomalien.com.

The University of Nevada said its female volleyball players did not consult with the school or its athletic department when they voted to forfeit a match against San Jose State University — which features a male on its women's team — and that the match will go forward "as scheduled." Blaze News has chronicled the ongoing controversy surrounding SJSU and its male athlete, who goes by the name Blaire Fleming, born Brayden. 'No players will be subject to any team disciplinary action for their decision not to participate in the match.' At 6'1'', Fleming's inclusion on the women's volleyball team has resulted in four opposing teams forfeiting matches against SJSU: Boise State, Southern Utah, Utah State, and Wyoming. Nevada appeared to be the next team to throw in the towel after the ladies from the Wolfpack released a statement announcing their refusal to participate in a match that would jeopardize their safety. "We, the University of Nevada Reno women's volleyball team, forfeit against San Jose State University and stand united in solidarity with the volleyball teams of Southern Utah, Boise State University, the University of Wyoming, and Utah State University," the statement read, according to OutKick's Dan Zaksheske. The statement added that "we demand that our right to safety and fair competition on the court be upheld. We refuse to participate in any match that advances injustice against female athletes." An outspoken SJSU player, Brooke Slusser, praised Nevada for its forfeit decision. "Round of applause to the girls of the Nevada Wolfpack volleyball team. Deciding to go against what the school was forcing on you as young women and taking a stand for what you believe takes courage! Another great step in the right direction for women’s sports!" Slusser wrote on X. — (@) However, after the Nevada women issued their notice to forfeit, school officials responded with a statement of their own, denying the validity of the team's decision. "On Oct. 13, 2024, the majority of members of the University of Nevada, Reno, women's volleyball team sent a statement to the University advising the institution that they were forfeiting its scheduled match with San Jose State University on Oct. 26, 2024," the statement read. "The players' decision and statement were made independently, and without consultation with the University or the athletic department. The players’ decision also does not represent the position of the University," the school continued. School representatives then cited state law, federal law, and NCAA regulations as the basis for their decision: "The University and its athletic programs are governed by the Nevada Constitution and Nevada law, which strictly protect equality of rights under the law, and that equality of rights shall not be denied or abridged by this state or any of its subdivisions on account of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry or national origin. The University is also governed by federal law as well as the rules and regulations of the NCAA and the Mountain West Conference, which include providing competition in an inclusive and supportive environment."School officials added that "the university intends to move forward with the match as scheduled, and the players may choose not to participate in the match on the day of the contest. No players will be subject to any team disciplinary action for their decision not to participate in the match."It was suspected in recent weeks that the Nevada women's volleyball team was considering its forfeit after the mother of player Carissa Chainey gave an interview to the Daily Signal in which she remarked that she is "scared for every single player" who plays against Fleming due to a heightened injury risk. SJSU has avoided addressing its competition advantage with a male player and has simply listed the forfeits as "no contest" on its schedule. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

On Monday, America celebrated Columbus Day. Or if you’re a virtue-signaling lefty, the country observed “Indigenous Peoples' Day.” To those progressives, Liz Wheeler says, “You’re a loser.” Columbus Day “triggers the left. They think that Christopher Columbus was an evil person; they claim he's a mass murderer who engaged in genocide, slavery – all different kinds of accusations against imperialism, accusations of personal bad character – and I just want to spend today … debunking these lies,” she says. The accusations directed toward Christopher Columbus, according to Liz, are just part of the left’s agenda to “demonize white men and America.” Democrats want to “tear down our country, tear down our rule of law, tear down our government,” which is why they defame the white men who built our country, she says. In regard to the left’s claims that Columbus is guilty of genocide, Liz says, “It’s a historically ignorant claim.” “According to historians, the population of North America in 1492, the year that Columbus landed, was approximately 20 million people. Within two centuries … approximately 95% of that 20 million people were dead,” she explains. However, the astronomical decline in population had nothing to do with Columbus. The 95% of people who died were killed “almost entirely by disease,” specifically by the smallpox virus. As for the claims that Columbus engaged in slavery, Liz says that yes, that claim is true. “Yes, he did [engage in slavery], and that's wrong and there's no excuse for that,” she says, adding that “almost everybody took part in slavery” in that time period, regardless of skin color. “Doesn't make it morally right,” but it does offer an “explanation,” she says, adding that the natives the left loves to paint as victims also “warred against each other and took each other as slaves and killed each other and raped each other.” “Doesn't make it right, but it does change the context of how the left tries to portray Christopher Columbus,” says Liz. To hear her debunk the left’s claims that Christopher Columbus was an imperialist and a man of poor character, watch the clip above. Want more from Liz Wheeler?To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Border Patrol agents warned that many law enforcement officers manning the southern border will decide to walk off the job if Vice President Kamala Harris secures the November presidential election.Several officers told the New York Post that a Harris victory would likely result in a Customs and Border Protection staffing crisis, stating that many agents are fed up with the current administration’s open-border policies.'Only the drug cartels and Democrats want an open border.'One Border Patrol officer described the last four years under Biden-Harris as “hell.”“I’m not doing this s*** again,” the agent told the Post.A second officer stated, “Lots of guys who can retire will go. If [Donald] Trump wins, they’ll stay.”Another agent told the news outlet, “We will have another exodus just because we will have a bunch of 20-year agents saying peace out.”The agent stated that he is “absolutely sure” that he would exit the Border Patrol if Harris secured the presidency.“Under this administration, they’ve done everything they could to make our job as inefficient as possible. They can’t outwardly tell us not to do our job, but when you’re watching criminals come in and get released, it sucks,” an officer told the Post.Morale within the federal agency has been tanking under the current administration, and suicide rates have increased.Former Yuma Sector Chief Patrol Agent Chris Clem previously told the Post that Harris’ campaign advertisements claiming to be “pro-border security” have only poured “salt on an already gaping wound for the morale of Border Patrol agents and law enforcement.”Earlier this month, the National Border Patrol Council announced its endorsement of former President Donald Trump.The union stated that it wants Trump to secure the presidency “so that the border can be secured without compromise.”“Only the drug cartels and Democrats want an open border — that’s what Border Czar Harris has given them and will continue to do in the future,” the union added.On Tuesday, Trump acknowledged that reversing the damage caused by the Biden-Harris administration’s open-border policies will be a “very tough thing” to accomplish.During his rally in Atlanta, Trump told supporters that he predicts that if he is elected, the Democrats will launch a propaganda campaign to dredge up criticism for his deportation efforts.He vowed to execute “the largest deportation program in America” on the first day of his presidency.“We’re going to fix it because we have no choice,” Trump declared.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!