Earlier this month, President Donald Trump and Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s Climate Working Group completed its work, and quietly achieved something few expected: they reset the national conversation on climate policy. For years, Washington’s climate agenda has been dominated by alarmism, junk science, and a revolving cast of “experts” whose warnings are backed not by empirical evidence but the billions of dollars flowing from dark money climate advocacy groups and left-wing billionaires more focused on concentrating power than global temperatures. The federal government has relied heavily on so-called “climate attribution” studies, which claim to link every hurricane, wildfire, and heatwave to carbon emissions. These studies are widely criticized, even within the scientific community, for flawed methodology and confirmation bias. Yet policymakers have treated them as gospel, driving expensive and economically damaging regulations. Craven politicians have used them to attempt to condition the American people to believe every storm is the result of energy producers, and the only answer is multi-trillion-dollar energy transitions. The Climate Working Group ripped that narrative apart. Its report exposed the flimsy assumptions, the overreliance on discredited models, and the tendency to inflate worst-case scenarios while ignoring economic realities. The group didn’t simply question climate orthodoxy; it demanded that science, logic, and reality guide policy — rather than ideology and grant-driven research agendas. Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout! Predictably, the backlash was immediate and loud. Dark-money-funded climate groups with questionable credibility, like the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Environmental Defense Fund, and self-styled “scientists” who have been discredited within peer-reviewed circles, launched predictable attacks, dismissing the report as reckless or even dangerous. They sued to prevent the report from even seeing the light of day. The rapid, even frantic mobilization to shut this report down told us everything we need to know. Because this report poked holes and raised questions about the “climate consensus,” it served as an existential threat to an entire constellation of dark money interests, NGO’s, political candidates and groups, and non-profits that rely on Americans believing that every raindrop and gust of wind they experience is actually the fault of the oil and gas companies. The truth is simple: the group accomplished exactly what it was supposed to do. It recentered the debate on facts, not fear, and reminded policymakers that exaggerated claims of catastrophe do not replace rigorous analysis. And that those with genuine scientific curiosity should not kowtow to a politically driven “consensus” that shuts down questions and intellectual challenge. Events at Climate Week in New York highlighted just how important this shift has been. Secretary Wright joined David Gelles of The New York Times for a discussion on Energy in the Trump administration. Gelles asked questions using the Left’s normal framing about extreme weather and climate change, and Secretary Wright pushed back forcefully, saying, “These crazy convoluted links … making weather more extreme, more hurricanes, more intense hurricanes. That’s not what’s in the IPCC reports, it’s not what’s in the data. It’s what the media says, it’s what activists say, it’s what politicians say. It’s not in the data.” Gelles pushed back: “There’s a ton of attribution science, though. Are you saying that the studies that are showing attribution science that do the actual scientific work to link global temperature rise to specific weather events are not to be trusted?” “Attribution science is not science,” Wright responded. “You can’t draw a long-term slow trend to a weather event, tornadoes, hurricanes, extremely complicated phenomena. Attribution science is someone reaching for something.” Thanks to the Climate Working Group, discussions about climate policy can no longer ignore economic costs, energy realities, or the limits of current science. For the first time in years, the debate has been pulled back from ideological extremes and into the light of scrutiny. Mission accomplished. And if the critics are howling, that’s just proof the Working Group hit the mark. The Honorable Jason Isaac is the Founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute, a trade organization that unapologetically champions free markets and American energy. Previously, he served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

America is grappling with the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—not just from the violence itself, but from the painful moral crossroads faced by the suspect’s own parents, who chose justice over blood ties and helped bring their son to account. The Tragic Loss of a Conservative Leader On a Wednesday that will not be forgotten, Charlie Kirk—a prominent conservative activist and co-founder of Turning Point USA—was shot and killed during a public event at Utah Valley University. Kirk’s influence extended far beyond campus, making him a frequent target of political hostility. The attack’s public nature and Kirk’s stature amplified its impact, leaving conservatives across the nation mourning and inflaming concerns about escalating violence against those defending constitutional and traditional values. Investigators quickly released images of the suspected shooter, later identified as 22-year-old Tyler Robinson. What set this case apart was not only the shocking act itself but the critical role played by the suspect’s parents, Matt and Amber Robinson. Recognizing their son in the released images, and guided by Matt’s background as a retired law enforcement officer, the Robinsons faced an agonizing choice between family allegiance and civic duty. In the end, they acted decisively, convincing Tyler to surrender and providing key evidence to authorities—actions that prevented a potentially deadly standoff and ensured the rule of law was upheld. Parental Courage and Moral Dilemma The Robinsons’ decision did not come easily. According to reports, Tyler’s mother had previously noticed troubling signs of political radicalization in her son, which she shared with investigators. When the moment of truth arrived, the family, with the help of a retired investigator friend, prioritized justice and public safety over personal pain. Their cooperation not only led to Tyler’s swift arrest near the family’s home in Washington County, Utah, just 33 hours after the shooting, but it also set a powerful example of integrity under the harshest circumstances. Law enforcement and public officials, including President Trump, commended the Robinsons for their fortitude and commitment to justice, underscoring that personal responsibility and the rule of law remain cornerstones of a free society. Beyond the immediate family, the Robinsons’ actions shifted the entire trajectory of the investigation. By stepping forward, they prevented further violence and community unrest, demonstrating how individual choices can have profound ripple effects in times of crisis. Their conduct stands in stark contrast to the erosion of accountability and personal responsibility too often seen under leftist policies, which many conservatives blame for growing chaos and social division. Social Media Chaos and Misinformation Threat In the aftermath of the shooting, social media erupted with speculation. Tragically, misidentification of the suspect’s father led to death threats against unrelated individuals, including a Nebraska sheriff who bore no connection to the case. Law enforcement was forced to clarify details and protect innocent people caught in the digital crossfire. This episode lays bare the dangers of online mobs and the need for accuracy and restraint in public discourse—a lesson especially critical as political polarization fuels reckless accusations and undermines civil society. Broader Impact and Lessons for the Future The consequences of this event extend far beyond a single tragedy. The Kirk family, the Turning Point USA community, and conservatives nationwide are left to grieve, but also to reflect on the importance of family, justice, and moral clarity. The Robinsons’ willingness to do the right thing—even at immense personal cost—serves as a rare example of virtue in a culture often hostile to traditional values. Meanwhile, the incident has prompted law enforcement to review campus security protocols and highlighted the potential for family involvement to resolve violent crises peacefully. As debates over crime, political violence, and the defense of core American principles continue, this story stands as a powerful reminder that defending constitutional values sometimes requires difficult choices and unwavering courage. The Parents Of Charlie Kirk’s Assassin Faced Darkness But Chose Justice — What this family confronted deserves to be noticed, praised, and modeled. Our country was given clarity in real time. https://t.co/SfVvYq3zzD — kam (@pjkate) October 9, 2025 Ultimately, the Robinsons’ actions have been publicly recognized as exemplary, even as they endure public scrutiny and personal anguish. Their story is a testament to the enduring strength of conscience, the rule of law, and the conservative belief that justice—no matter how painful—must be served for the greater good of the nation. As America confronts threats to its foundational principles, the resolve shown by one family in Utah offers a glimmer of hope for those who still cherish truth, justice, and the American way. Sources: Tyler Robinson, 22, arrested after Charlie Kirk assassination at Utah Valley University Nebraska sheriff receives death threats after being misidentified as dad of Charlie Kirk’s shooter

Renewable energy sources like solar and wind produced more electricity during the first half of the year than any other energy resource, including coal. To bullet another massive accomplishment in the clean energy transition, of the cumulative demand for new power worldwide, renewables met 100% of it. Coal has been the world’s most-consumed energy resource […] The post Renewables Overtake Coal as World’s Biggest Source of Electricity appeared first on Good News Network.

Happy October Listeners! We’re hitting #SpookySZN off hitting you all in the feels, as we venture back in time and reminisce about 10 forgotten and discontinued snacks of yesteryear! It’s an episode that’ll leave you CONTINUE READING... The post The Retro Resurgence Podcast – Episode 26 | The Retro Snacks We Miss appeared first on The Retro Network.

Long before cinematic universes became the norm, Universal Pictures created a world of monsters that terrified and thrilled audiences across generations. From the fog-drenched castles of Dracula to the stitched-together tragedy of Frankenstein, these films CONTINUE READING... The post Fascinating Facts About the Universal Monster Movies appeared first on The Retro Network.

Every election season, mayors and governors step before cameras to boast that crime is down. Charts are waved, statistics are cited, and carefully crafted talking points are deployed to assure anxious citizens that their streets are safer than ever. Yet when you leave the press conference and walk the sidewalks of Baltimore, Chicago, or Los Angeles, the reality feels far different. The gap between official numbers and lived experience is wide enough to swallow public trust whole. The reason for this disconnect is simple: Most crime never gets reported in the first place. The Baltimore Sun recently highlighted what criminologists have known for decades—about half of all crime in America isn’t captured in police data. Burglaries are only reported 45% of the time. Simple assaults, 37%. Sexual assaults, a shameful 21%. Think about that for a moment: Nearly 4 out of 5 sexual assaults never reach the official record. Yet politicians still spin a story that safety is improving. Why aren’t Americans calling the cops? For many, it’s because they believe the system won’t deliver justice. Victims of property crimes often assume police won’t recover stolen items. Domestic violence survivors fear financial ruin if their abuser is arrested. Immigrants worry that calling 911 might lead to a knock on the door from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In cities like Baltimore, there is a deeply rooted stigma against “snitching” that makes reporting crimes socially dangerous. And for those who simply distrust the police, staying silent feels safer than engaging. Here’s the political problem: Declining reported crime becomes the official narrative, but citizens’ fear of crime continues to climb. Gallup recently noted Americans are near record highs in expressing concern about violent crime. This is not paranoia—it’s the rational conclusion of people who judge their safety not by government reports but by what they see in their neighborhoods, what they hear from friends, and what they experience personally. The anecdote of Julian and Kristen Mack, attacked in Baltimore by a group of teenagers, is telling. They never called police because they feared the children might be shot. Another former Homeland Security Department official recounted being assaulted in a D.C. coffee shop but choosing not to report it because he believed nothing meaningful would happen to the mentally ill attacker. When even former law enforcement officers don’t bother reporting crime, the legitimacy of the system is in question. So, what happens next? Officials trumpet lower homicides or robberies as proof of progress. They cut ribbons on new community initiatives and point to “data-driven policing” as evidence of reform. But residents quietly arm themselves, avoid walking alone at night, and lose faith in institutions meant to protect them. A society where people stop trusting the guardians of order is a society drifting toward vigilantism. This is not just a policing issue—it’s a governance issue. A political class eager to tout success selectively leans on crime statistics that do not represent reality. Meanwhile, communities drowning in fear feel gaslit. That disconnect breeds cynicism, disengagement, and eventually rage. It is one reason why “law and order” rhetoric resonates so powerfully in American politics. People know something is wrong, even if official numbers deny it. Rebuilding trust requires a cultural and institutional shift. First, public safety leaders must stop treating crime statistics as political props. Transparency demands acknowledging the limits of reported data and the reasons victims stay silent. Second, cities must address why people don’t report crime—fear of retaliation, distrust of police, and inefficiencies in prosecution. This means deeper community policing, stronger witness protections, and reforms in how cases are handled. Politicians must stop assuming that fear of crime is just an irrational voter quirk. Fear is a rational response to disorder. If a mother refuses to let her children play outside because drug dealers loiter on the corner, it does not matter if homicides are technically down 12%. Her world is not safe, and no statistic will convince her otherwise. The lesson here is timeless: Statistics do not govern—trust does. Crime numbers can be massaged, but fear cannot. If Americans no longer believe in the story their leaders are telling them, they will write their own—and it will not be a story kind to those in charge. COPYRIGHT 2025 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 The Myth of Falling Crime: Why Americans Don’t Trust the Numbers appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. YouTube is opening a narrow door to some of the creators it previously purged, but many will find it locked. On Thursday, the platform rolled out a program it’s calling “Second Chance,” aimed at selectively allowing certain banned users to return, provided they meet updated criteria. The policy change follows Google’s confirmation that it acted under direct pressure from the Biden administration to suppress lawful content during the pandemic and election cycles, even when that material didn’t violate YouTube’s own stated rules. The new reinstatement process is now live, following Google’s prior announcement of the plan. Users who lost their channels under now-abandoned policies, including those targeting election and COVID-19 narratives, will be able to submit requests to rejoin. “We know many terminated creators deserve a second chance,” YouTube stated in a blog post. “YouTube has evolved and changed over the past 20 years, and we’ve had our share of second chances to get things right with our community too.” The initiative is limited in scope. Anyone banned for copyright reasons or for violating YouTube’s broad “Creator Responsibility” rules, a category that includes undefined acts of “cruelty,” “deceptive behavior,” or anything judged to “cause malicious harm,” will remain locked out. Creators who deleted their channels or associated Google accounts are also excluded. Applicants must wait a full year after termination before becoming eligible to apply for a new channel. Those who do qualify will gradually see a new option appear when logging into YouTube Studio via desktop, allowing them to request a channel restart. If approved, they can upload content again, including old videos that fit current guidelines, and attempt to rebuild their following. “You can build back your community through your new channel,” the company said, pitching the program as a reset. “You can also re-upload any of your prior videos that are within our Community Guidelines.” YouTube claims it will weigh several elements when deciding who gets through the gate, such as whether someone committed “particularly severe or persistent violations” or whether their content is believed to have caused ongoing harm. It also emphasized that appeals to reverse a ban still exist. “If your appeal is successful, your old channel will be reinstated. If your appeal is unsuccessful, you now have the option to apply for a new channel one year after your channel was terminated,” the blog read. The timing of this program is no coincidence. The company’s recent admission that federal officials urged them to take action against content that didn’t break the rules has reignited concerns about the scale of political interference in online speech. Google, in a letter released under congressional investigation, revealed that White House figures “conducted repeated and sustained outreach to Alphabet and pressed the Company regarding certain user-generated content related to the COVID-19 pandemic that did not violate its policies.” The letter made it clear that the company now sees this pressure as unacceptable. “This pressure was – and remains – unacceptable and wrong.” Google also noted that the political climate during the pandemic made it difficult to function independently, with mounting demands to censor narratives inconvenient to those in power. In direct response to this period of government-fueled censorship, Google says YouTube will now offer reentry to creators previously expelled under COVID-19 and election-related policies that are no longer enforced. “Reflecting the Company’s commitment to free expression, YouTube will provide an opportunity for all creators to rejoin the platform if the company terminated their channels for repeated violations of COVID-19 and elections integrity policies that are no longer in effect,” the letter confirmed. The company also clarified its content moderation strategy, distancing itself from outsourced information control. “YouTube does not use third-party fact checkers to determine whether content should be removed or labeled.” As for claims of ideological bias, Google insisted that it values political diversity. “YouTube values conservative voices on its platform. These creators have extensive reach and play an important role in civic discourse.” The letter concluded with a clear stance on government involvement in online speech. “The federal government should not play a role in pressuring private companies to take action on lawful speech.” These revelations were unearthed during a wider investigation by the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who issued a subpoena and led efforts to uncover the depth of government influence over content moderation decisions at Google and YouTube. The findings detail a pattern of suppression aligned with official narratives, often targeting speech that was legal but politically inconvenient. Legal challenges have echoed similar concerns. Although the Supreme Court ultimately threw out the case on procedural grounds, the fundamental questions about state-driven censorship of lawful speech remain unresolved. With the “Second Chance” rollout, YouTube appears to be making a quiet course correction. But it’s a calculated one. While the platform seeks to reposition itself as more open to dissenting viewpoints, it continues to set the terms of speech, offering redemption only to those who fit within boundaries it alone defines. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post YouTube Offers Limited Reinstatement to Banned Creators appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Is the reign of fossil fuels coming to an end?

It’s time to dust off those jazz shoes, bring out that cookbook, or get that musical instrument down from the attic.

These types of objects are usually so reliable they are compared to atomic clocks, so an extreme exception needs to be explained.