'It's not RICO, it's FREAKO'

The U.S. Department of State announced Tuesday they are undertaking efforts of “Making Foreign Aid Great Again” by shuttering the agency responsible for dishing out foreign aid. The State Department halted the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) operations on Tuesday, according to a press release authored by Secretary Marco Rubio. Instead, the Department […]

'What should the U.S. do?'

'Enormous challenges'

What on earth are the Knicks doing

Two meteor showers are visible in the late July skies, and they happen to peak at the same evening in a rare case of perfect timing. Especially visible in the Southern Hemisphere, but also visible farther south in the Northern Hemisphere, the α-Capricornids and the Southern δ-Aquariids will light up the night of July 30th-31st […] The post Two Meteor Showers Will Peak on the Same Night in July and Be Visible in the U.S. appeared first on Good News Network.

Planned Parenthood Faces a Choice: Health Care or Abortion

Trump Warns Hamas: Take This 60-Day Temporary Pause ... or Else

During a Tuesday appearance on Monica Lewinsky’s (yes, the one you’re thinking of) podcast “Reclaiming,” NBC Today show co-host Savannah Guthrie pushed back on her critics with essentially the schoolyard ‘I’m rubber and you’re glue” defense. According to her, if someone thought that she had a political bias in her reporting, it was they who needed to check their bias at the door. Of course, she said this after claiming one side’s arguments amount to claiming the sun didn’t rise that day. “I do think you have so much integrity in your work too. And I imagine, you know, sort of, unless you're a Fox News reporter, you have to keep your political views to yourself,” Lewinsky said as they neared the end of the podcast. Ironically, Lewinsky was one the receiving end of the liberal media’s smears in the late 90s as they desperately tried to defend President Bill Clinton (D). Guthrie responded by saying she’s fine with outlets that let reporters be biased because it’s like the editorial pages of a newspaper: And then certainly as journalists, that's the job, you know, unless you work for an outlet where you're supposed to express your opinion and then fine and everybody knows what that is and that's okay, you know, that– it's like the editorial page of a newspaper. It's existed for a long time. I don't have a problem with that as long as it's transparent. NBC’s sister network MSNBC was likely on her mind with that defense.     Attempting to be self-reflective, Guthrie noted that there were “probably people listening right now, who might say, oh well, she isn't dispassionate at all.” She then argued that “bias is really in the eye of the beholder.” She claimed reporters could no longer be “down the middle” because the “situation that have” in American politics was one where one side is claiming the sun didn’t rise: GUTHRIE: You know, we used to say like it's down the middle, but it's not really, it's more nuanced than that. It's not like you, you know, you don't– LEWINSKY: There is no down the middle. GUTHRIE: It's not down the middle. It’s not like you do a story and you say, “Some say the sun came up this morning. Others say it didn't.” That would be wrong. That would be factually incorrect. And so that is, you know, more and more a situation that we have. The NBC anchor followed up by suggesting she had never tried to “hit you over the head” with her opinions and that if you had picked up on a bias coming from her it was because you were the problem: And we want that credibility that you're– we're not coming here to hit you over the head with one thing or another. You know, again, it's in the eye of the beholder, and I recognize that. What I would just challenge people to think about when they are analyzing whether you're, again, consider yourself of the left or the right or whatever you are, is when you're identifying bias and the people that you are receiving your news from, just to ponder and ask yourself whether it is your bias that is determining that the person you're receiving the news from is biased. But just days before the 2020 election, Guthrie was hosting a Trump town hall for NBC in which she got into the shouting match with President Trump. She was hitting Trump over the head for not requiring masks at his rallies. “No one that says you can't be out there, but it's just about wearing masks and having -- For example, your rallies! Your rallies don't require masks,” she shouted. “But as President, you're right, you want to be a leader, but you also are a leader and a setter of an example.” She also tried to link him to white supremacy despite him actively denouncing it in front of her (Click “expand”): TRUMP: I denounced white supremacy for years. But you always do it. You always start off with the question. You didn't ask Joe Biden whether or not he denounces Antifa. I washed him on the same basic show with Lester Holt and he was asking questions like Biden was a child. GUTHRIE: Well, this is a little bit of a dodge. TRUMP: Are you listening? I denounce white supremacy. What's your next question? GUTHRIE: Do you feel-- It feels sometimes you're hesitant to do so. Like you wait a beat. TRUMP: Here we go again. Every time. In fact, my people came, I'm sure they'll ask you the white supremacy question. I denounce white supremacy. Back with Lewinsky, Guthrie admitted that it’s hard to keep her opinions to herself when reporting, lamenting: “You know, so people sometimes say like, ‘Oh, is it hard for you to keep your personal opinions to yourself?’ I mean, maybe, sometimes, depending on what the subject is…” You don’t say, Savannah. You don’t say. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: Reclaiming With Monica Lewinsky July 1, 2025 00:39:41 – 00:45:52 (…) MONICA LEWINSKY: But talking about integrity and– and I do think you have so much integrity in your work too. And I imagine, you know, sort of, unless you're a Fox News reporter, you have to keep your political views to yourself. How have you sort of straddled– or do you feel you've had to do that? I think you've had to do that. In– in your work with your faith and religion because I feel like I don't see you talking about that a lot. But I also don’t watch it– SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Well I’m not out there to proselytize– LEWINSKY: Right. GUTHRIE: And I’ve certainly talked a lot about it in the book and– LEWINSKY: Right! Right! GUTHRIE: –we launched it on the show and so–  the show has been wonderful and supportive about that. But yes, I mean, this book is not to proselytize other than I hope it's– I hope– I hope it's appealing– LEWINKY: Right, right. GUTHRIE: You know, but that's– LEWINSKY: Yeah. GUTHRIE: –for it's– again gently appealing. And then certainly as journalists, that's the job, you know, unless you work for an outlet where you're supposed to express your opinion and then fine and everybody knows what that is and that's okay, you know, that– it's like the editorial page of a newspaper. It's existed for a long time. I don't have a problem with that as long as it's transparent. You know, it– it's– it's interesting in our world now that there will be people, probably people listening right now, who might say, oh well, she isn't dispassionate at all. She isn't, you know. So that's the interesting thing, you know, bias is really in the eye of the beholder. All I can tell you is what I try to do. Which is to be straightforward, to be accurate, to be fair, to be precise. You know, we used to say like it's down the middle, but it's not really, it's more nuanced than that. It's not like you, you know, you don't– LEWINSKY: There is no down the middle. GUTHRIE: It's not down the middle. It’s not like you do a story and you say, “Some say the sun came up this morning. Others say it didn't.” That would be wrong. That would be factually incorrect. And so that is, you know, more and more a situation that we have. Whereas in the old days when I was starting out, it might be like tax policy, and then you could, you know– everybody wants to see the tax system be more fair. Some say it should be a more progressive tax system that does X,Y,Z. Others say if you loosen regulations and you unburden business, then bubble– and you could have like a– weren't those– wasn't it adorable when we could have those sweet policy disagreements, and now it's so personal, you know, and now it's and that's really unfortunate. It makes the whole thing certainly less enjoyable to cover, but that's not the point, you know, it's not supposed to be enjoyable. But I– I try really hard. I really do, and I know our show does, and I think that Today show is a vestige of a place where we are having a pretty highly curated, certainly the first half hour, first 40, 50 minutes where, you know, it's almost like a nightly newscast, where we're selecting these few stories. And we want that credibility that you're– we're not coming here to hit you over the head with one thing or another. You know, again, it's in the eye of the beholder, and I recognize that. LEWINSKY: Yeah. GUTHRIE: What I would just challenge people to think about when they are analyzing whether you're, again, consider yourself of the left or the right or whatever you are, is when you're identifying bias and the people that you are receiving your news from, just to ponder and ask yourself whether it is your bias– LEWINSKI: Yeah. GUTHRIE: –that is determining that the person you're receiving the news from is biased. So for example, tariffs, you know, we're reporting that, you know, most economists say and most businesses and they're saying they're going to have to right– raise prices. Me reporting that does not make me biased. I'm not rooting for any particular outcome, and to the extent that there are those who have a contrary view, we include that too. But when people say, “Oh, you're so biased, you just keep hitting on this, that or the other,” maybe the bias that you're feeling is that you wish that you were watching someone who agreed with your view of the world– LEWINSKY: Right. GUTHRIE: –and that is okay. But you're hearing something different. And, you know, everybody's– LEWINSKY: I think– GUTHRIE: –we live in a time where everyone's kind of a couch media critic. LEWINSKY: Yeah. GUTHRIE: I think there's good things about that because it challenges everyone to be better, and then there's some parts about it that just really aren't on the level. And it's not an honest– honest critique. I'm here for honest critique, and we all need it and certainly journalism needs it. But you have to be honest with yourself as well about where you’re coming from. LEWINSKY: Yeah, and I– I think the sort of silos that we've created and the echo chambers make it so much harder to hold differing beliefs and to examine our own beliefs or our own bias. And- GUTHRIE: But I find that to be so interesting, you know, I actually– and maybe this is the lawyer in me– LEWINSKY: Yeah. GUTHRIE: You know, I find it very interesting to look at and array all of the different arguments that could be marshaled for or against something. I always want to know. I love having that intellectual discussion without making value judgments, that's not my job. You know, so people sometimes say like, “Oh, is it hard for you to keep your personal opinions to yourself?” I mean, maybe, sometimes, depending on what the subject is, but I also– I always say this a lot to the younger folks coming up– it's like, you know, our opinions really are not relevant whatsoever, and the job is to be able to report an issue, learn about an issue, and your opinion really should be the last consideration that you have. You should be able to– LEWINSKY: Interesting. GUTHRIE: –find out what the facts are, again, what are the arguments for and against. You may come to recognize that one argument seems to have greater strength in one way or the other, and that's fine. You're using your brain and you should, and that should be reflected in your coverage. But, who cares what our opinions are? For example, like, this is probably oversimplified, but like, if you need a heart surgery today, Monica, you wouldn't– if you're the doctor– if I'm your doctor– I don't say like, “I need to do heart surgery on Monica. I don't really like her.” LEWINSKI: Yeah. GUTHRIE: It's a professional job. LEWINSKI: Yeah. GUTHRIE: Your job is to do the job. Which is to report, investigate, deliver the facts. (...)

Picture your local leaders — the ones you elect to defend your rights and reflect your values — stripped of the power to regulate the most powerful technology ever invented. Not in some dystopian future. In Congress. Right now.Buried in the House version of Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a provision that would block every state in the country from passing any AI regulations for the next 10 years.The idea that Washington can prevent states from acting to protect their citizens from a rapidly advancing and poorly understood technology is as unconstitutional as it is unwise.An earlier Senate draft took a different route, using federal funding as a weapon: States that tried to pass their own AI laws would lose access to key resources. But the version the Senate passed on July 1 dropped that language entirely.Now House and Senate Republicans face a choice — negotiate a compromise or let the "big, beautiful bill" die.The Trump administration has supported efforts to bar states from imposing their own AI regulations. But with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act already facing a rocky path through Congress, President Trump is likely to sign it regardless of how lawmakers resolve the question.Supporters of a federal ban on state-level AI laws have made thoughtful and at times persuasive arguments. But handing Washington that much control would be a serious error.A ban would concentrate power in the hands of unelected federal bureaucrats and weaken the constitutional framework that protects individual liberty. It would ignore the clear limits the Constitution places on federal authority.Federalism isn’t a suggestionThe 10th Amendment reserves all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the states or the people. That includes the power to regulate emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence.For more than 200 years, federalism has safeguarded American freedom by allowing states to address the specific needs and values of their citizens. It lets states experiment — whether that means California mandating electric vehicles or Texas fostering energy freedom.If states can regulate oil rigs and wind farms, surely they can regulate server farms and machine learning models.A federal case for cautionDavid Sacks — tech entrepreneur and now the White House’s AI and crypto czar — has made a thoughtful case on X for a centralized federal approach to AI regulation. He warns that letting 50 states write their own rules could create a chaotic patchwork, stifle innovation, and weaken America’s position in the global AI race. — (@) Those concerns aren’t without merit. Sacks underscores the speed and scale of AI development and the need for a strategic, national response.But the answer isn’t to strip states of their constitutional authority.America’s founders built a system designed to resist such centralization. They understood that when power moves farther from the people, government becomes less accountable. The American answer to complexity isn’t uniformity imposed from above — it’s responsive governance closest to the people.Besides, complexity isn’t new. States already handle it without descending into chaos. The Uniform Commercial Code offers a clear example: It governs business law across all 50 states with remarkable consistency — without federal coercion.States also have interstate compacts (official agreements between states) on several issues, including driver’s licenses and emergency aid.AI regulation can follow a similar path. Uniformity doesn’t require surrendering state sovereignty.State regulation is necessaryThe threats posed by artificial intelligence aren’t theoretical. Mass surveillance, cultural manipulation, and weaponized censorship are already at the doorstep.In the wrong hands, AI becomes a tool of digital tyranny. And if federal leaders won’t act — or worse, block oversight entirely — then states have a duty to defend liberty while they still can.RELATED: Your job, your future, your humanity: AI just crossed the line we can never undo BlackJack3D via iStock/Getty ImagesFrom banning AI systems that impersonate government officials to regulating the collection and use of personal data, local governments are often better positioned to protect their communities. They’re closer to the people. They hear the concerns firsthand.These decisions shouldn’t be handed over to unelected federal agencies, no matter how well intentioned the bureaucracy claims to be.The real danger: Doing nothingThis is not a question of partisanship. It’s a question of sovereignty. The idea that Washington, D.C., can or should prevent states from acting to protect their citizens from a rapidly advancing and poorly understood technology is as unconstitutional as it is unwise.If Republicans in Congress are serious about defending liberty, they should reject any proposal that strips states of their constitutional right to govern themselves. Let California be California. Let Texas be Texas. That’s how America was designed to work.Artificial intelligence may change the world, but it should never be allowed to change who we are as a people. We are free citizens in a self-governing republic, not subjects of a central authority.It’s time for states to reclaim their rightful role and for Congress to remember what the Constitution actually says.