The U.S. is poised to return to the moon this coming April as part of a reenergized manned space program that is emboldened rather than deterred by the risks and challenges irrevocably attached to the mission.   By pressing ahead, NASA and its many public and private sector partners are allowing scientific evidence rather than speculation to guide their decisions. They are also making a clean break with a concept known as the “precautionary principle” that has deep roots in the United Nations climate conferences that date back to the early 1990s.  As I explain in my new book “Climate Porn: How and Why Anti-Population Zealots Fabricate Science, while Targeting American Capitalism, Freedom, and Independence,” the precautionary principle as it is defined by climate activists is antithetical to what makes America tick.   The basic idea behind the concept is that when an activity is viewed as being potentially harmful to human health or the environment then precautionary steps should be taken even if the cause-and-effect relationship between the activity and theorized harmful results are not scientifically established. In other words, there should not even be a risk of a risk. Under this scenario, hysteria, fear, and misinformation could grind all meaningful human activity to a halt.   Imagine how different American history would have been if the precautionary principle had held sway with policymakers when the nation first attempted venturing into space. Alan Shephard’s famous line “Why don’t you fix your little problem and light this candle?” would not have found a receptive audience back in mission control during his 1961 spaceflight.  President John F. Kennedy’s patriotic march to the moon would not have materialized either. His comment, “We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,” would not have expression in a world where fear of failure trumped exploratory efforts.   In fact, there may not have been a free United States of America at all. George Washington would not have crossed the Delaware River on Christmas night in 1776 to launch a surprise attack on the Hessians in Trenton, New Jersey since the effort was risky and—and, well, it might not have worked at all.   The four astronauts (three Americans and one Canadian) who are part of the Artemis II crew will travel further into space than any human has ever traveled before and glimpse a side of the moon that has never been seen before, before splashing down in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California.   It takes a special kind of courage to be part of the upcoming 10-day mission, as it does with any human spaceflight. From the time of the launch at Cape Canaveral to the splashdown in the Pacific, there are risks that can never be completely eradicated. But they can be curtailed.   Like Apollo before it, Artemis is relying upon vigorous testing and scientific observations rather than mere modeling exercises that became a dominant part of what passes for “climate science.”   But times are changing and the wheel is turning. During a May 2025 energy symposium at The Heritage Foundation, scientists and economists dissected the numerous false assumptions behind climate models that have given rise to burdensome regulations.  Former NASA engineers, who are part of a group called The Right Climate Stuff have also taken a hatchet to what some call a “garbage in, garbage out” approach to modeling designed to produce desired policy outcomes.   “Climate Porn” goes into some detail about the climate movement’s assault on the scientific method and the corrective actions now underway. Independent, privately funded outfits like the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) are providing climate realists with valuable platforms to take a hard look at what really drives warming and cooling trends on Planet Earth.   During the Heritage energy symposium, CERES scientists called attention to solar influences on climate, which the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has persistently neglected to account for in its reports. In a new study, the CERES team concludes that “total solar irradiance” estimates the U.N. omits strongly suggests most of the warming since the 19th Century could be natural.   The climate is always changing, and those changes could present challenges to humanity particularly if the planet moves back into a cooling phase. But humanity will be in a stronger position to adapt and adjust to those changes if it is richer, wealthier, and more industrialized. A reinvigorated space program is a big part of that equation.  That means taking chances and accepting risks, but that’s the American way.   We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post How the Upcoming Moon Mission Transcends Anti-Scientific Climate Activism   appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Iran Was Not an Imminent Threat? What Kind of Standard Is That?

NEW: Israel Takes Out Iranian Intel Chief

Republicans didn’t win the Senate so their leaders could manage expectations. They won it to deliver results. Will Republican leaders actually deliver? We are about to find out with the SAVE America Act.The legislation requires proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections. That is not a fringe idea. It’s the law of the land in nearly every nation in the world — and is one of the most widely supported election reforms in the United States.Republicans campaigned on restoring integrity to elections. Passing the SAVE America Act should be treated as a blood oath, not a messaging exercise.A February Harvard CAPS/Harris poll found that 85% of voters say only U.S. citizens should vote in American elections. The same survey found that 71% support the SAVE America Act itself, 81% support voter ID, and 75% support proof-of-citizenship requirements. Perhaps most striking: Roughly 70% of Democrat voters support voter ID. That’s a consensus. When an issue has that level of support, failure usually isn’t about policy. It’s about will.Yet Senate Republicans still appear poised to treat the SAVE America Act like a messaging exercise: Debate it for a bit, eventually set up the opportunity for Democrats to kill it rather than having to vote on the bill, shrug, and move on.That may satisfy the Senate’s procedural instincts, but it won’t satisfy voters. It certainly isn’t how Donald Trump gets a deal done. In “The Art of the Deal,” Trump laid out a strategy he has followed again and again with demonstrable success: seeking leverage, wearing down your opponent, fighting back hard and never folding, exerting time to your advantage, and applying psychological pressure.Past Senate leaders have understood this method and have used it themselves. In December 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wanted the Affordable Care Act passed before Christmas. Several Democrat senators were balking.RELATED: ‘Allows ICE to kick tens of billions’ off voter rolls? Schumer’s SAVE Act claims keep getting worse. Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesReid’s solution was blunt: No one goes home until the votes are there. The Senate stayed in session nearly a month and passed Obamacare on Christmas Eve. Senators whose votes hadn’t been there suddenly discovered ways to support it. Amazing what happens when missing Christmas becomes the alternative.Senate leaders routinely use endurance and inconvenience as leverage — especially in budget fights. They keep the floor open overnight, run endless amendment votes, and threaten to blow through recess until the holdouts crack.That kind of determination to change the dynamic when “the votes aren’t there” should not be reserved just for spending bills. The SAVE America Act is exactly the kind of legislation where pressure works and why Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) wants to restore the standing filibuster for this bill to maximize pressure.The recess threat isn’t just about challenging Democrats’ ideological commitment to unverified voting processes. It’s about the human cost of being physically trapped in Washington while your family, your staff, your donors, your fundraisers, and your district events — as well as your junkets and vacations — are elsewhere. That applies to every senator regardless of how committed they are to blocking the bill.And over 80% public support for common-sense voter ID creates an entirely different kind of psychological pressure: the daily political exposure of defending an unpopular position.This would be the application of Trump’s doctrine, which isn’t just about wearing down a monolithic opponent — it’s about identifying and applying pressure to the weakest link.Remember, Democrats are politically exposed. Democrats must defend two Senate seats this year — including Georgia, where Jon Ossoff faces re-election in a state Trump carried, and Michigan, where Gary Peters’ retirement has created a competitive open seat.Other Democrat incumbents — from Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire to Mark Warner in Virginia — represent states where elections are often decided at the margins. Picture what a real floor fight would look like if Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) were serious about getting the SAVE America Act passed.RELATED: The SAVE Act is the hill voters will die on Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty ImagesThe SAVE America Act stays on the Senate floor. No artificial deadline. No prearranged surrender through cloture vote. Republican leadership simply says: We are staying here until this bill passes — even if that means canceling spring recess.Senators like Jon Ossoff — or any Democrat in a competitive state — would be faced with a brutal choice: Keep blocking a bill their own voters support overwhelmingly, while missing weeks of campaigning, or break ranks.That’s exactly the kind of leverage Trump talks about. Find the pressure points. Apply force where the incentives are weakest. Keep the fight going until the opposition starts looking for the exit. Republicans don’t need to break the entire Democratic caucus. They need seven votes — really six if you think John Fetterman (D-Pa.) is smart and sensible.Now add one more piece of leverage: Restore the standing filibuster so that obstruction actually carries a cost. The Senate survived that rule for most of its history, and its absence has helped turn the Senate from the world’s greatest deliberative body into the place where legislation dies in darkness.If Democrats want to block the SAVE America Act, let them talk all night if necessary. Let them explain repeatedly why they oppose proof of citizenship to vote. Go on record with their condescending view that married females are too dim-witted to get new IDs (thank you, Mazie Hirono) and their racist smears that minorities will struggle to get ID (thank you, Chuck Schumer).The modern “silent filibuster” protects obstruction from accountability. A talking filibuster does the opposite — it puts obstruction on display.Republicans campaigned on restoring integrity to elections. Passing the SAVE America Act should be treated as a blood oath, not a messaging exercise. Trump would understand that instinctively. The question is whether Senate leadership does, because right now the country isn’t looking for performative politics. It’s looking for resolve and results. A “hybrid talking filibuster” is a good step, but ultimately what counts is delivering results, and Donald Trump, the dealmaster, shows how to get it done.Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Permanently Broken: Canada Lights Up CN Tower For ... 'Long COVID Awareness Day'?

Dallas PD Releases Security Officer Standoff Footage - Crockett Deflects

To Stay 'Aligned,' U.S. Campus in Qatar Stayed Mum on Oct. 7

The AirPods Pro are great earbuds out of the box, but adjusting settings on your Apple device and music app can enhance their audio quality.

China won't help the United States reopen the Strait of Hormuz as requested by President Donald Trump, but it is probably welcoming the delay in Trump's highly anticipated trip to Beijing as the U.S. risks getting bogged down in the Middle East, analysts say.

About 90 ships including oil tankers have crossed the Strait of Hormuz since the outset of the war with Iran and it is still exporting millions of barrels of oil at a time when the waterway has been effectively closed, according to maritime and trade data platforms.