With the ongoing government shutdown grinding to a close, it is clear that some in the Elitist Media wanted it to go on, perhaps indefinitely. ABC is exceptionally frustrated, and it showed throughout their coverage of the shutdown. Watch as World News Tonight anchor David Muir delivers yet another over-the-top editorial masquerading as an introduction to Rachel Scott’s report: DAVID MUIR: Tonight, with the shutdown ongoing, members of the House have been told to return to Washington tomorrow after 53 days of recess. Those members of Congress did get paid during the shutdown. The key vote tomorrow on what the Senate has passed. Tonight, some Democrats are furious about the eight Democratic senators who gave in with no deal on extending subsidies to keep health insurance premiums from skyrocketing for millions. Tonight, hear the heated town halls- some Americans asking what was his shutdown for, if there was no movement on tackling healthcare? Here’s Rachel Scott. Muir nakedly echoes Democrats’ frustrations with the shutdown potentially ending the way it did: with the left having nothing to show for putting large chunks of the American population into a hurt locker. Scott picks up from there, and focuses on telling victims’ stories. There is the Wisconsin congressman riding through cold and snow in order to make the vote. There was the teacher’s family which may face Obamacare premium increases. But the one victim Scott doesn’t mention? The American People. The second part of her report seeks to cast blame on Speaker Mike Johnson and the rest of the Republican Congress, for not allowing themselves to be sucked into it. The report closes out with some SNAP scaremongering. If it weren’t for double standards, there'd be none at all. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on ABC World News Tonight on Tuesday, November 11th, 2025: DAVID MUIR: Tonight, with the shutdown ongoing, members of the House have been told to return to Washington tomorrow after 53 days of recess. Those members of Congress did get paid during the shutdown. The key vote tomorrow on what the Senate has passed. Tonight, some Democrats are furious about the eight Democratic senators who gave in with no deal on extending subsidies to keep health insurance premiums from skyrocketing for millions. Tonight, hear the heated town halls- some Americans asking what was his shutdown for, if there was no movement on tackling healthcare? Here’s Rachel Scott. SCOTT: Tonight, with the longest government shutdown in U.S. history set to come to an end, President Trump declaring victory. DONALD TRUMP: The House is going to vote. And I think they’re going to vote positively. I think most people want to see it open. SCOTT: After a late-hight vote in the Senate, ERIC SCHMITT: On this vote, the ayes are 60. The nays are 40. The bill, as amended, is passed. SCOTT: Tonight, lawmakers in the House scrambling to get back for a vote tomorrow. They've been paid throughout the shutdown. With flight cancellations and delays, Rep haven’t had to report to Washington for 53 days and have been paid throughout this shutdown. With flight cancellations and delays across the country, Republicans Rick Crawford and Trent Kelley carpooling to the Capitol, making a quick rest stop in Tennessee, writing on social media, “eight more hours to go.” If all members make it back to Washington on time, Republicans can only afford to lose two votes. Republican congressman Derrick Van Orden riding his motorcycle all the way from Wisconsin. If the bill passes,it will take time for the government to fully reopen. Agencies will have to call hundreds of thousands of federal workers who have gone without pay back to work. The deal funds the government until the end of January. Includes months of funding for SNAP and calls to rehire the thousands of federal workers the president fired during the shutdown. But what it doesn't do is extend health care subsidies, a key demand from Democrats to keep premiums from rising for more than 20 million Americans. In Seaside California, teacher Brianna Vasquez, a mother of two, pays a $282 monthly insurance premium. That number of her premium is skyrocketing to more than $1,000. BRIANNA VASQUEZ: We're planning on nothing happening. I think that's just in our best interest, plan as if they aren't going to pass anything. SCOTT: And at a town hall in Iowa, Republican congresswoman Marianette Miller Meeks was asked what the Republican plan is for health care. MARIANETTE MILLER MEEKS: So we need to bring the costs of healthcare down. Unfortunately, in 2010 when the Affordable Care Act was passed -- CONSTITUENT: What's the new plan? CONSTITUENT: We need a better plan. CONSTITUENT: Shut up and she'll tell you! SCOTT: Senate Republicans have promised a future vote on health care but it's highly unlikely it will pass, and Speaker Johnson won't commit to holding a vote on health care at all. MIKE JOHNSON: I’m not committing to it or not committing to it. What I’m saying is that we do a deliberative process. That’s the way this always works and we have to have time to do that. SCOTT: And late tonight, Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries calling on Republicans to make a deal.  HAKEEM JEFFRIES: You now have an opportunity to actually take some action in an area of this health care crisis by working with Democrats. SCOTT: And David, millions of Americans who rely on the federal food assistance program SNAP had been hanging in. The Supreme Court weighing in as this shutdown is ending, extending an order that allows the tTump administration not to fully or immediately pay out those SNAP benefits for the month of November. But once Congress passes this bill and reopens the government, those benefits will start flowing  again to Americans, David. MUIR: Rachel Scott on The Hill. Rachel, thank you.  

On-Air Arrogance: CNN’s Abby Phillip Says Her Job Is to Bring ‘The Facts’ to Info-Bubble Conservatives

Artifacts connected to the cult of Asclepius have been unearthed at the Roman pool in Bahçeli, southern central Turkey. Built in the 2nd century A.D., the pool was previously believed to have been a reservoir, part of the ancient city of Tyana’s drinking water system. This year’s excavation revealed evidence that it was also a center of healing and religious devotion. According to [excavation leader Professor Osman Doganay of Aksaray University’s Archaeology Department], one of the most significant discoveries was an altar dedicated to Asklepios, recognized in antiquity as the god of medicine and therapy. The altar, decorated with snake motifs—symbolic of rejuvenation and healing in ancient medical cults—was found alongside additional sculptural fragments featuring snake imagery. These finds, coupled with the architectural remains uncovered along the pool’s eastern side, indicate the presence of a sanctuary or temple complex dedicated to Asklepios. Doganay described the site as “a place where healing rituals involving sacred water once took place,” marking it as a therapeutic destination in the ancient world. Tyana far predated Rome. The first mention of it appears in Hittite Empire texts from the 17th century B.C. After the collapse of the empire, Tyana became a capital of the Luwian Neo-Hittite polity at the turn of the 1st millennium B.C. and remained a powerful city-state even when it was absorbed into the Neo-Assyrian Empire in the 8th century B.C. and again by the Persian Achaemenid Empire in the 6th century B.C. Come the Hellenistic era, it was second most important city in the Cappadocian region, and considered the most Hellenized of them all. Cappadocia was taken over by the Roman emperor Tiberius in the 1st century, and Tyana’s Greek culture advanced its stature under the empire. It even became the capital of the Roman province of Cappadocia Secunda when Emperor Valens divided Cappadocia in two in the 4th century. The pool was built during the reigns of the Emperors Trajan (r. 98-117 A.D.) and Hadrian (r. 117-138 A.D.), but the temple complex was added later. A Greek language inscription found in the 2025 excavation records that the pool was commissioned by or dedicated to Marcus Aurelius or his son Commodus. Both names are mentioned in the inscription and the references made it possible for archaeologists to narrow down the timeline of construction. The sanctuary was built between 177 and 180 A.D. The excavations at the site in 2025 were the first in 80 years. They will continue next year, focusing on the area surrounding the pool. Archaeologists hope to uncover more artifacts connected to the cult of Asclepius and the religious aspects of the health spa. Such pools were widely frequented in antiquity, and visitors often left votive offerings in their quest for improved health, see the astonishing wonderland of bronze statuary discovered at the San Casciano baths in Tuscany, for example.

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles! A massive bridge at a hydropower station in southwest China collapsed Tuesday, sending concrete and steel plunging into a river just months after it opened,…

[View Article at Source]Mr. Republican understood that “universal” values were becoming tools of the powerful. The post Robert Taft’s Principled Stand Against Nuremberg appeared first on The…

[View Article at Source]Here’s a black pill for Republicans to swallow. The post MAGA’s ‘Multiracial Coalition’ Was a Mirage appeared first on The American Conservative.

[View Article at Source]The U.S. should defend its strategic gains in the Middle East by refusing to get involved in solving the Kingdom’s problems. The post Trump Should Welcome Saudi Pragmatism—But…

Learning your dits from your dahs.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a bid to bring down housing costs for struggling Americans trying to afford to purchase a home, President Donald Trump unveiled a plan that would normalize the utilization of eternal mortgages.

Politics Robert Taft’s Principled Stand Against Nuremberg Mr. Republican understood that “universal” values were becoming tools of the powerful. Bettmann Ohio Senator Robert A. Taft’s opposition to the Nuremberg Trials stands as one of the most politically courageous and intellectually honest positions taken by an American statesman in the immediate aftermath of World War II. At a time when the Allied victory demanded moral vindication and when public bloodlust sought retribution, Taft dared to question whether the proceedings violated fundamental principles of justice—principles that supposedly distinguished Western civilization from the tyranny it had just defeated. Taft’s critique centered on a bedrock legal principle: ex post facto law. The charges brought at Nuremberg—particularly “crimes against peace” and “conspiracy to wage aggressive war”—were not established crimes under international law when the defendants allegedly committed them. The tribunal represented victor’s justice dressed in legal robes, establishing retroactive criminality to punish the vanquished. As Taft argued in an October 1946 speech, “The trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice.” This was not, as his critics charged, sympathy for Nazis or moral equivalence. Rather, it reflected Taft’s understanding that principles matter precisely when upholding them proves difficult or unpopular. The rule of law means nothing if it applies only when convenient. If we abandon legal principles to punish our enemies, we admit those principles were never truly binding—only useful fictions to be deployed against the powerless. From a realist perspective, Taft recognized what the idealistic internationalists refused to acknowledge: Nuremberg was fundamentally a political act masquerading as legal procedure. The Allies exempted themselves from judgment for acts that, under the tribunal’s own standards, might have constituted war crimes, including the deliberate targeting of civilian populations through strategic bombing, the forced population transfers, and the Soviet Union’s own aggression and atrocities. The selective application of “universal” principles revealed them as instruments of power, not transcendent justice. Moreover, Taft understood the dangerous precedent being established. Creating international legal mechanisms that victorious powers could wield against defeated enemies would not create a more lawful world order. Instead, it would provide a veneer of legitimacy for future interventions and regime changes undertaken in the name of “international justice.” How right he was. The road from Nuremberg leads directly to the legal gymnastics used to justify military interventions from Kosovo to Iraq to Libya—all cloaked in the language of universal human rights and international law, all ultimately serving the geopolitical interests of dominant powers. The senator also grasped that genuine reconciliation and stability in post-war Europe required something beyond show trials. Germany needed to be reintegrated into the European order, not humiliated and degraded as at Versailles. While the worst Nazi criminals certainly deserved punishment, the spectacle of Allied judges prosecuting German leaders for “crimes” that Allied nations themselves had committed in some form risked breeding resentment rather than genuine reckoning. History has largely vindicated Taft’s concerns about precedent. The International Criminal Court and other mechanisms of “international justice” have indeed become tools wielded almost exclusively by powerful nations against weak ones. African leaders and Serbian officials populate the dockets while American, British, Russian, and Chinese actions remain largely beyond reach. The hypocrisy Taft identified at Nuremberg has become institutionalized in the international legal order. Taft’s opposition cost him politically. In the emotional aftermath of revelations about Nazi atrocities, his legalistic objections were easily caricatured as moral blindness or crypto-fascist sympathies. Yet his willingness to stand on principle despite the political cost exemplifies the kind of statesmanship largely absent from today’s U.S. foreign policy establishment, whose bipartisan consensus around humanitarian intervention and the export of liberal democracy has led to disaster after disaster. The deeper lesson of Taft’s stand is that genuine conservatism—skeptical of crusading idealism, respectful of sovereignty, committed to constitutional limits on power—offers a more honest and ultimately more peaceful approach to international relations than the liberal internationalism that has dominated American foreign policy for decades. Taft understood that a republic that abandons its own principles abroad will eventually lose them at home, that the arrogance of imposing “universal” values through force corrupts both the imposer and the imposed upon. In our current era of endless wars justified by humanitarian rhetoric, of regime change operations cloaked in legal language, of selective outrage about war crimes depending on who commits them, Taft’s voice from 1946 echoes with renewed relevance. His opposition to Nuremberg was not about defending the indefensible acts of Nazi Germany. It was about defending principles of justice and limits on power that apply even to—especially to—the strong and victorious. That message remains as unpopular today as it was then. And perhaps that’s precisely why it needs to be heard. The post Robert Taft’s Principled Stand Against Nuremberg appeared first on The American Conservative.