'It is absolutely terrorizing people'

'Big, Beautiful Bill'

While governments, corporations, and policymakers have the technology and ability to reduce carbon emissions to avoid further climate change, they choose not to implement them. They continue to chase money while denying the impact the carbon emissions have on Earth. So if government and corporations won’t switch over to renewable energy, what can be done?... The post New Study Says Cutting Down On Meat-Eating Is Crucial If Humans Want To Survive On Planet appeared first on Shareably.

Ya sea que estés cenando en tu casa o afuera, hay algunas cosas que necesita saber sobre tu comida. Es importante mantenerte al día con las precauciones de seguridad alimentaria. No hay nada peor que comer algo y sentirse enfermo después. ¿Sabías que no deberías comer pescado en un restaurante un día lunes? También debes... The post 15 Consejos Sobre Seguridad Alimentaria Que Todos Deberían Conocer appeared first on Shareably.

Statistics show that close to three trillion fish are killed each and every year! And while many people enjoy the taste of fish and plenty of communities around the world rely on fishing to survive, more and more people are starting to think about the ethics of animal slaughter. We’re seeing more individuals choose to... The post Chef shares humane way to kill a fish – the method also makes the fish taste better appeared first on Shareably.

Innovative food and health hacks are always welcome. Recently, Mandy Klentz (Tik Tok user @raising_krazies) shared a “newfound” method of stripping chicken breasts of unwanted sections. “Okay so I’m starting to cook dinner. I learned something recently that I thought was so cool and I wanted to share.” Get ready to change the way you... The post Woman shares clever hack for easily removing white bits from chicken breasts appeared first on Shareably.

He Was Driven Off MIT Campus Because He Was Jewish--And He Is Suing

If you watched CNN This Morning on July 2nd, you might think President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill was about to strip millions of struggling Americans of life-saving healthcare, dooming millions of our elderly, disabled individuals, and single pregnant mothers to certain demise. But what you actually witnessed was yet another shameless disinformation campaign, a desperate attempt to frame a targeted and fiscally responsible reform as just another instance of President Trump’s alleged bent to authoritarianism. Among the drama of the segment– which was literally opened by a Tiktok video of a doctor lecturing Republican Senators with sad music in the background– CNN failed to mention that this bill did not cut healthcare, it actually saves money for healthcare by denying it to people who are abusing the system and taking from those who need it.      Host Audie Cornish and Kaiser Family Foundation’s Julie Rovner tried to paint a picture of dying patients and collapsing hospitals that will certainly ensue because of the “paperwork” involved with the modest work requirement for able-bodied, childless adults on Medicaid which most states already require (click "expand"): CORNISH: So I want to talk about this work requirement. The idea of work requirements is not new. States have done it for a while. Can you talk about what's distinct about how it's done in this bill? ROVNER: Yeah, most people on Medicaid already meet these requirements. They either work or they go school or they care for someone at home. The problem isn't the work requirement itself. The problem is the paperwork that's involved with the work requirement. What we found in states that have tried to do this is that people have difficulty reporting these activities or proving that they've done these things. They have trouble uploading documents. Someone described it as like having to file your income taxes every month. That's how eligible people end up losing coverage. This bill didn’t affect children, seniors, the disabled, or single mothers. It simply asked that those who can work, do work, or volunteer, or attend school for just 80 hours a month to receive taxpayer-funded Medicaid. That’s around 20 hours a week. Less than part-time. This was very similar to what Democratic President Bill Clinton signed into law in the 90s. Yet CNN chose to amplify a TikTok doctor’s emotional plea about chemotherapy and insulin rationing as if the GOP were yanking IVs out of the arms of cancer patients. The One Big Beautiful Bill aimed to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse from being siphoned out of the Medicaid system over the next decade. It doesn’t slash a dime from anyone who actually qualifies and complies with the rules. In fact, the fake news being spread about the legislation is so prominent that The White House website has an entire page dedicated to providing facts to combat the most common left talking points.  But CNN opted for Rovner’s bureaucratic lament that people might struggle with “paperwork” as if filing a basic form monthly was too cruel a burden for someone receiving free healthcare funded by working Americans. It’s worth noting that most people on Medicaid already meet these requirements, by Rovner’s own admission. The issue wasn’t the policy, it was the political theater. Another talking point from the segment was that hospitals will go under if patients are removed from Medicaid. This assumes those removed were rightfully on Medicaid in the first place. What the bill prevents was taxpayers subsidizing hospitals to treat people who weren’t eligible either due to misreporting, failure to meet work rules, or outright fraud. CNN’s logic was backwards: it assumed more government dependency equals better care. But in reality, sustainable healthcare means targeting resources where they’re most needed, not creating an endless entitlement with no accountability. Much like the increases in education spending was yielding better results. Cornish and Rovner tried to play semantic gymnastics over whether this reform is a “cut.” Rovner admits Medicaid spending will actually increase under the bill, but because it won’t grow at the same breakneck pace Democrats want, they label it a “cut” (click "expand"): CORNISH: And finally, the math– I don't know if it's semantics about whether these are cuts or changes or increases. Help me understand the talking points. ROVNER: Yeah, this goes back years and years and years to when Congress used to try to cut Medicare, and there were arguments that we’re not really cutting it. It's true that Medicaid spending will continue to grow, but if it doesn't keep up with the cost of healthcare or the number– the numbers who are eligible, then there will be less money. There will– for these hospitals, for these people. So yes, in the aggregate, Medicaid spending will go up. But that doesn't mean that people won't lose their coverage and hospitals won't be hurt by the fact that they're going to have to treat patients who don't have any insurance. If your salary goes up two percent instead of 10 percent, it’s not a pay cut, it’s just not a fantasy raise. CNN’s July 2nd segment was leftist activism framed as news, wrapped in emotion and scare tactics, divorced from the facts of the bill itself. The One Big Beautiful Bill doesn’t take away healthcare, it protects the healthcare safety net from being drained by people who were ripping off the system, making it more sustainable for those who truly need it. The complete transcript is below. Click "expand" to read.  CNN This Morning July 2nd, 2025 6:47:20 AM EST [TEASER VIA TIKTOK VIDEO]: I wish every Senator who voted for this had to shadow a doctor like me for just one day. They'd see the patients that they had to talk to about affording their chemotherapy, mothers rationing their kid’s insulin because they can't afford it, and people dying too young. Not because medicine failed them, but because finances did. [CUTS TO LIVE] AUDIE CORNISH: Okay, so Medicaid may in fact end up looking very different if the President's spending bill passes, and now Republicans seek to add a new work requirement that could impact millions. It's part of an effort to rein in the nation's safety net program with up to $1 trillion in cuts. While the bill would cap and reduce taxes states impose on hospitals, it would also require most adults to work, volunteer or study 80 hours a month to qualify for enrollment. So what does that mean for the millions of people who rely on the program? Well, we're joined now by Julie Rovner, Chief Washington correspondent for Kaiser Family Foundation Health News. Julie, good morning. JULIE ROVNER: Good morning. CORNISH: So I want to talk about this work requirement. The idea of work requirements is not new. States have done it for a while. Can you talk about what's distinct about how it's done in this bill? ROVNER: Yeah, most people on Medicaid already meet these requirements. They either work or they go school or they care for someone at home. The problem isn't the work requirement itself. The problem is the paperwork that's involved with the work requirement. What we found in states that have tried to do this is that people have difficulty reporting these activities or proving that they've done these things. They have trouble uploading documents. Someone described it as like having to file your income taxes every month. That's how eligible people end up losing coverage. And indeed, the Congressional Budget Office says that perhaps as many as 12 million people could lose coverage if this bill becomes law. CORNISH: I also want to talk about the effect on hospitals, because I don't always understand hospital math, right?. How do changes to Medicaid affect everybody else? What does it mean for that industry? ROVNER: Well, people get sick regardless of whether they have insurance. So, if they have Medicaid and they get sick and they come to the hospital, the hospitals get paid, they don't necessarily get paid as much as they would if the people had private insurance or Medicare, but they do get paid something. If these people lose their insurance, they're still going to come to the hospital, the hospital is still going to treat them, but now they won't get paid. This is a huge problem for hospitals that have large populations of Medicaid patients. That includes inner city urban hospitals, but also rural hospitals where a lot of people are on Medicaid. So if these people become uninsured, the hospitals could well go under. CORNISH: And finally, the math– I don't know if it's semantics about whether these are cuts or changes or increases. Help me understand the talking points. ROVNER: Yeah, this goes back years and years and years to when Congress used to try to cut Medicare, and there were arguments that we’re not really cutting it. It's true that Medicaid spending will continue to grow, but if it doesn't keep up with the cost of healthcare or the number– the numbers who are eligible, then there will be less money. There will– for these hospitals, for these people. So yes, in the aggregate, Medicaid spending will go up. But that doesn't mean that people won't lose their coverage and hospitals won't be hurt by the fact that they're going to have to treat patients who don't have any insurance. CORNISH: Julie Rovner is Chief Washington Correspondent for Kaiser Family Foundation Health News. Thank you, Julie. ROVNER: Thank you.

The Washington Post once again proved why its journalists know as much about good economics as they do about “austere religious scholar(s)” by arguing President Donald Trump’s illegal immigration crackdown would somehow cause inflation to skyrocket. Just try unraveling that oxymoron. Post writers Andrew Ackerman and Lauren Kaori Gurley bemoaned in a June 15, 2025, pro-illegal immigrant advocacy screed that “U.S. could lose more immigrants than it gains for [the] first time in 50 years.” The propagandists railed against Trump for daring to finally do something about America’s illegal immigration crisis, stoking fear among readers that “[n]et migration could turn negative, some economists warn, weighing on economic growth and fueling inflation.” This is coming from the same rag that treated the Bidenomics disaster that instigated the 40-year high inflation crisis in the first place as some kind of stroke of genius. Somebody make it make sense, please. Ackerman and Gurley warned that border control would hurt the economy:  A net outflow of migrants could stoke inflation, a risk economists already expect from Trump’s tariff policies. It also could renew the type of labor shortages the country experienced during the pandemic. Longer term, it could even have implications for fiscal policy, with fewer immigrants paying taxes and supporting entitlement programs such as Social Security, said one of the economists, Wendy Edelberg. Of course, Ackerman and Gurley didn’t bother mentioning the word “illegal,” and only used the term “undocumented” once. Telling, isn’t it?  Of course, nowhere did the writers even mention the already extraordinary economic cost that the approximately 13.7 million unauthorized people in the U.S. as of February 2025 already posed to America’s economic health. As Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) Director of Research Steven Camarota stated during a House Budget Committee hearing in January 2024, “While illegal immigrants often receive other services for their U.S.-born children, even when we estimate the net fiscal impact of just the illegal immigrants themselves, excluding their U.S.-born children, we still find they create a lifetime net fiscal drain of $68,000 on average (taxes paid minus benefits received).”  In fact, Camarota further estimated that the taxes that undocumented immigrants do pay the federal government get canceled out by their consumption of public services. Another analysis by the Manhattan Institute found that the “the border crisis is expected to cost $1.15 trillion over the lifetime of the new immigrants who entered the country unlawfully, overstayed a visa, or were paroled.” But did any of that matter to Ackerman and Gurley? Nope. Instead, the writers were adamant about pushing their out-of-context agitprop that “[a]ny lasting immigration slowdown could limit economic growth, because fewer workers leads to a weaker economic output.” In other words, don’t do anything about illegal immigration because the economy needs it!  It's the same kind of common sense butchering that occurred when Post columnist Catherine Rampell put out a nutty piece in 2022 declaring that then-President Joe Biden should let more illegal immigrants come over the border to — *checks notes*— solve the inflation crisis. No, you didn't misread that.  But like Rampell, Ackerman and Gurley behaved like they were completely oblivious to the catastrophic economic consequences of unchecked illegal immigration. Even the graphic they used as the featured photo for their propaganda was just peak cringe.   (Illustration by José L. Soto/The Washington Post; iStock) The Federation for American Immigration Reform pointed out in a study that “[a]t the start of 2023, the net cost of illegal immigration for the United States – at the federal, state, and local levels – was at least $150.7 billion.” This dwarfs the nearly $90 billion that illegal immigrants reportedly paid in taxes that year. Here’s our professional advice to The Post: deport Ackerman and Gurley’s pathetic excuse of a spin job straight into the paper shredder. 

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling limiting nationwide injunctions has been hailed as a massive win for common sense after 40 such orders — 62% against Donald Trump.And no one’s happier about it than the president himself.“It took the court system out of the presidency to a large extent. The courts were almost like being the president, and you can’t have it. It was such a big decision. This is one of the biggest decisions, where you would have a local federal judge who was radical left determining the policy for the whole nation,” Trump said in an interview on Fox News, adding, “And now they can’t do that.”“There’s been a weird reading of what an injunction is able to do that we’ve been witness to for the first Trump administration and now the beginning of the second where a lawyer can represent all people, not just the plaintiff, not just the aggrieved,” Blaze Media D.C. correspondent Christopher Bedford tells Blaze TV hosts Jill Savage and Matthew Peterson on “Blaze News: The Mandate.”“We had a judge in Hawaii who was deciding what federal immigration policy was,” he continues. “And that is, thankfully, over.”“Of course, there will be more tactics that are used, but that is a really essential one,” he adds, noting that one of his favorite things about the ruling was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s baseless dissent.“Ketanji Brown Jackson — the judge who wrote the dissenting opinion for the Democrats, the one who wore a voodoo necklace to the State of the Union, just an interesting character all around — basically cited legal law that didn’t exist,” Bedford explains.“[She] tried to say that this is a dictatorship. Just sounded much more like a Democratic activist who hadn’t actually done all of the necessary research or the readings,” he adds.Want more from 'Blaze News: The Mandate'?To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.