Today’s edition of NBC’s Meet the Depressed saw Kevin Hassett, Director of the White House National Economic Council, berated by host Kristen Welker, who repeatedly demanded Hassett provide “hard evidence” to justify the recent dismissal of the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Watch as Hassett calmly handles Welker’s demands for “evidence” (click “expand” to view transcript):  KRISTEN WELKER: And joining me now is the director of the White House National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett. Mr. Hassett, welcome to Meet the Press. KEVIN HASSETT: It's great to be here. Thank you. WELKER: It's great to have you here. Let's start with President Trump's decision to fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erika McEntarfer, who he accused of manipulating job numbers. Mr. Hassett, what evidence does the administration have that she manipulated the jobs numbers? HASSETT: Right. Well, what we've seen over the last few years is massive revisions to the jobs numbers. In fact they were extremely reliable, the kind of numbers that you want to guide policy decisions and markets through Covid. And then when Covid happened because response rates went down a lot, then revision rates skyrocketed. So the typical monthly revision often was bigger than the number itself. And now we had a number that just came out, the actual number for the month wasn't so bad. But the two months before were revised down by more than it ever happened since 1968. And in 2015, Alan Greenspan and I were asked to attend a conference at BLS where we were asked to give advice about how to modernize the data. And we warned that if they didn't try to let the data collection and calculation keep up with the data that was happening in the economy that we would have problems like this. And, finally, in the U.K. they had a very similar problem. And in 2023, they had to for a while shut down the data agency of the U.K. for the same kinds of problems. WELKER: But just to be very clear, do you have – does the administration have any evidence that it was “rigged,” as the president said? And will you be presenting that to the American public? HASSETT: Well, the evidence is that there have been a bunch of revisions that could -- WELKER: But hard evidence? HASSETT: Well, I mean, the revisions are hard evidence. There- for example, there was an 800,000 re- an 18- 818,000 revision making the Joe Biden job record a lot worse that came out after he withdrew from the presidential campaign. There have been a bunch of patterns that could make people wonder. And I think the most important thing for people to know is that it's the president's highest priority that the data be trusted and that people get to the bottom of why these revisions are so unreliable. What more evidence did Welker want, besides the constant revisions of jobs data under two presidential administrations? It is unclear, but she continued to press Hassett for it as if he were sitting on a trove akin to the White House tapes. This is the same media, mind you, that pretends that the massive trove of evidence of wrongdoing in the Russia Hoax Document Drop doesn’t exist. It is almost as if there is a (D)ifference when it comes to the evidentiary standard the media demands before accepting something as factual. It should also be noted that these outlets didn’t ask any questions when all those revisions were published. The interview would eventually move on to issues such as tariffs, inflation, and interest rates, but not before Welker proceeded to pepper Hassett with 11 different questions from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Biden Regime may be out of power, but its media is alive and well. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned segment as aired on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, August 3rd, 2025: KRISTEN WELKER: And joining me now is the director of the White House National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett. Mr. Hassett, welcome to Meet the Press. KEVIN HASSETT: It's great to be here. Thank you. WELKER: It's great to have you here. Let's start with President Trump's decision to fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erika McEntarfer, who he accused of manipulating job numbers. Mr. Hassett, what evidence does the administration have that she manipulated the jobs numbers? HASSETT: Right. Well, what we've seen over the last few years is massive revisions to the jobs numbers. In fact they were extremely reliable, the kind of numbers that you want to guide policy decisions and markets through Covid. And then when Covid happened because response rates went down a lot, then revision rates skyrocketed. So the typical monthly revision often was bigger than the number itself. And now we had a number that just came out, the actual number for the month wasn't so bad. But the two months before were revised down by more than it ever happened since 1968. And in 2015, Alan Greenspan and I were asked to attend a conference at BLS where we were asked to give advice about how to modernize the data. And we warned that if they didn't try to let the data collection and calculation keep up with the data that was happening in the economy that we would have problems like this. And, finally, in the U.K. they had a very similar problem. And in 2023, they had to for a while shut down the data agency of the U.K. for the same kinds of problems. WELKER: But just to be very clear, do you have – does the administration have any evidence that it was “rigged,” as the president said? And will you be presenting that to the American public? HASSETT: Well, the evidence is that there have been a bunch of revisions that could -- WELKER: But hard evidence? HASSETT: Well, I mean, the revisions are hard evidence. There- for example, there was an 800,000 re- an 18- 818,000 revision making the Joe Biden job record a lot worse that came out after he withdrew from the presidential campaign. There have been a bunch of patterns that could make people wonder. And I think the most important thing for people to know is that it's the president's highest priority that the data be trusted and that people get to the bottom of why these revisions are so unreliable. WELKER: Well, let me ask you about what William Beach, he was the last commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. He was appointed by President Trump. He was sharply critical of this decision to get rid of his successor. I want to read you what he wrote. He says, quote, "These numbers are constructed by hundreds of people. They're finalized by about 40 people. These 40 people are very professional people who've served under Republicans and Democrats. And the commissioner does not see these numbers until the Wednesday prior to the release on Friday. By that time, the numbers are completely set into the IT system. They've been programmed. They are simply reported to the commissioner so the commissioner can on Thursday brief the president's economic team. The commissioner doesn't have any hand or any influence or any way of even knowing the data until they are completely done." Isn't this the very definition of shooting the messenger? HASSETT: No, absolutely not. I mean, the bottom line is that there were people involved in creating these numbers. And if I were running the BLS and I had a number that was a huge politically important revision, the biggest since 1968, actually revisions should be smaller, right? Because computers are better and so on. Then I would have a really long report explaining exactly what happened. And we didn't get that. We didn't get that. And so right now people, you know, Goldman Sachs, people on Wall Street are wondering, "Where did these revisions come from? And why do they keep happening?" And what we need is a fresh set of eyes over the BLS. And there are great career staffers. One of the top BLS staffers is actually working in the White House to help us understand the jobs numbers. When I saw the jobs revisions, I literally called up that person and said, "I think there's a typo." Because I've been following these numbers all the way back when I worked with Alan Greenspan for something like 40 years. And I've never seen revisions like this. WELKER: But just to be very clear, I mean, 40 people put these numbers together. Is the president planning to fire all 40 people involved in putting these numbers together? HASSETT: We're going to try to get the numbers so that they're transparent and reliable. KRISTEN WELKER: President Trump himself was happy to accept the jobs numbers issued under McEntarfer's leadership when the numbers were good. Take a listen to what he said in the past. [BEGIN TAPE] DONALD TRUMP: The numbers were much better as you know than projected by the media. In three months we have created 350,000 jobs. Think of that. TRUMP: A lot of jobs are being created. That's what – that’s what happened this morning. [END VIDEO] WELKER: So is the president prepared to fire anyone who reports data that he disagrees with? HASSETT: No, absolutely not. The president wants his own people there so that when we see the numbers, they're more transparent and more reliable. And if there are big changes and big revisions – we expect more big revisions for the jobs data in September, for example – then we want to know why. We want people to explain it to us. WELKER: All right. But bottom line, were the numbers wrong? Do you have any hard evidence that you can present to the American public that these numbers, these revisions that were reported, and there were plenty of revisions under former President Biden including right before the election. Do you have any hard evidence that these numbers were wrong? HASSETT: Yes. There is very hard evidence that we're looking at the biggest revision since -- WELKER: Are you going to present those? HASSETT: – 1968. WELKER: Are you going to present the evidence -- HASSETT: No, if you look at the number itself, it is the evidence. WELKER: But just saying it's an outlier is not evidence, Mr. Hassett. HASSETT: It's a historically important outlier. It's something that’s unprecedented -- WELKER: Still doesn't -- HASSETT: So unprecedented that -- WELKER: It's still not evidence though -- HASSETT: – I've been looking at it for 40 years. And I'm like, "It must be a typo." WELKER: Okay. All right. Let's move on to tariffs, the other big news of this week. Are the tariff rates locked in? Or are they still up for negotiation? HASSETT: I think these – we have eight deals that cover about 55% of world GDP with our biggest trading partners, the E.U., Japan, Korea, and so on. And I expect that those matters are more or less locked in. Although there'll have to be some, you know, dancing around the edges about exactly what we mean when we do this or that. For the deals that aren't ready yet, they're going to get the reciprocal rates, you know, soon. And then we would expect that there might continue to be negotiations with those countries. WELKER: But for those eight deals that you say are deals that are announced, you're saying “more or less.” Are they locked in? HASSETT: Yes. I mean, the president will decide what the president decides. But the president likes those deals. The Europeans like those deals. And they're absolutely historically wonderful deals. Think about it. We've got Europe agreeing to open their markets to our products so our farmers, our small businessmen can sell stuff in Europe like they never could before. And they're letting us charge a 50% tariff, which is going to raise maybe about $100 million a year. WELKER: And I think people are curious because they remember that back in April when President Trump first announced these tariffs, he then backtracked when the bond market was spooked. Could a market reaction prompt President Trump to change these tariff rates again? HASSETT: The markets have seen what we're doing and celebrated it. And so I don't see how that would happen. WELKER: Okay, but not ruling it out. HASSETT: No, I would rule it out. Because these are the final deals. WELKER: All right. Let's talk about prices now. New inflation data released this week shows higher prices on products like household furniture, clothing. You have companies like Adidas, Procter & Gamble, Black and Decker all saying they will increase prices. They cite the tariffs. Prices are already up on some of Amazon's products. As you know, President Trump campaigned on a promise to bring prices down. What is your message to Americans who feel like the president's breaking that promise? HASSETT: Well, he's not. In fact every measure of inflation, if you aggregate it, if you look at the top-line numbers, is lower than it's been in five months. And we just had the GDP released this week, which was a healthy 3%. And the most important GDP inflation number said it was 2.1%. And so inflation has come down a lot. That number by the way, the 2.1% was 3.7%. That's the number that President Trump inherited. And so inflation has come down. And inflation has come down for a lot of reasons. But I think the main reason is that we're no longer printing money and sending it to people like the Bidens did. That's a recipe for inflation. WELKER: Okay. Let me ask you about this talk of tariff rebates. The president consistently arguing that consumers don't pay tariffs. If that is the case, Mr. Hassett, why would you issue a rebate? HASSETT: Well, what's going to happen, right, is the CBO has estimated that we're going to get $3 trillion more in revenue. And so what Congress is going to do when they see all the revenue is they're going to decide, "What are we going to do with it?" They could use it all to reduce the debt. Or they could give some of it back to consumers. And the president looks forward to working with Congress in the second half of the year to decide on what the best way to use that money is. In fact, we think the CBO estimate of $3 trillion is now pretty low, given the new deals that we've had. WELKER: What do you think Congress should do? Rebates or work to pay down the debt? Because you have, for example, some Republican senators, Senator Rick Scott, "We ought to do everything we can to give money back to the American public. But we've got to first balance our budget." HASSETT: Well, I think that there are a lot of people that think that balancing the budget is the top priority for the economy right now. But we're also mindful of the fact that there's a legislative process where people dicker over the details. And so I'm not sure. I can't predict right now which way it's going to end up. WELKER: There's been a lot of focus on Fed chair Jerome Powell, obviously President Trump really pressuring him to lower interest rates, which he did not do. So the question becomes, "Who will replace him once his term ends?" If President Trump taps you to be the next Fed chair, will you accept? Do you want to be? HASSETT: You know, I've been working with the president for about eight years. And, you know, as one of his closest economic advisors, of course, we've talked about the Federal Reserve. Right now he's set up an active search with Secretary Bessent. And they're going to go through a list of names. And I'm sure the president will pick the best available person. WELKER: Well, if that's you, will you say yes? HASSETT: We'll have to see if he chooses me. But I think that I have the best job in the world. And I – really well placed at the National Economic Council -- WELKER: In general, should a Fed chair take direction from the Oval Office, or from the economic conditions? HASSETT: I think that a Fed chair should listen to all the voices, especially their critics, to try to think about, "What am I getting right? What am I getting wrong?" The Fed chair also has a transparency responsibility, which I think that Jay has fallen down on a little bit. That if you're going to come out and say, for example, that you think that tariffs are going to cause inflation, then for goodness sake, you should put out a model that explains how much inflation and why you think that way. Because there are others that disagree. Have a lively academic debate, and if you go to actually put your finger on the scale of “tariffs cause inflation,” then you need to explain why. I don't think that the Fed or the BLS should be a black box. I think it should be transparent. WELKER: All right. Before I let you go, President Trump has now been in office for more than six months. Is this now the Trump economy? HASSETT: I mean, there is definitely a lot of policy yet to happen. We've just passed the Big, Beautiful Bill. It's going into effect in July. And it's going to have massive impact on the economy. There are residual problems that we've inherited, in part, the runaway spending from the previous term. And so whose economy is it is more of a political question than an economist question. WELKER: Well, but you just touted all the benefits that you see at this point -- HASSETT: With the eye on the horizon.  WELKER: Does the president own the economy at this point? He's been in office for six months. HASSETT: With the eye on the horizon, the economic outlook is huge. It's great. We've got the Big, Beautiful Bill. We've got AI increasing productivity. We've got everything. And we've got all the tariff revenue coming in. So we have every confidence that the economy is headed way, way up from here. WELKER: All right. Kevin Hassett, thank you so much -- HASSETT: Thank you. WELKER: – for being here. HASSETT: It's great to be here. WELKER: And we really appreciate it.  

One way that you know Washington Post "Fact Checker" Glenn Kessler was a liberal anti-Trump warrior is how National Public Radio was so sad to see him leave the paper. On Thursday's All Things Considered, no one considered a counterpoint, that Kessler was extremely biased in his target selection. Our Alex Christy just pointed out that Kessler's ratio this year was 105 checks "correcting" Republicans, and just four for Democrats. The Post created a database of 30,000 "false and misleading claims" for Trump, and then announced they would do no such counting thing for Biden. NPR anchor Mary Louise Kelly sounded like she was hoisting a cocktail to celebrate Kessler's titled oeuvre:  KELLY: "In an era where false claims are the norm, it's much easier to ignore the fact-checkers." Those are the final words of the final column of Glenn Kessler, who has been the fact-checker at The Washington Post these last 14 years. Kessler is one of many journalists making high-profile exits from The Post, some of whom cite the new direction the paper's leadership is taking.   As usual, NPR was concerned that Jeff Bezos was watering down the left-wing hackery, which they refused to do at NPR, even as their taxpaper money spigot was turned off. Kelly tossed a softball: KELLY: As you thought through on what note you wanted to leave, what you wanted to be your parting thought, walk me through the process and how difficult or not that was. KESSLER: Well, so I have been running the fact-checker now for 14 1/2 years. And what struck me was how when I reviewed the 3,000 or so fact-checks I had written or edited... KELLY: Three thousand, wow. KESSLER: ...(Laughter) Yes. There was a very clear dividing line in the period, which was June 2015. And that's when Donald Trump took the escalator down and announced he was running for president. Before that moment, politicians paid attention to fact-checks. They would, you know, be shamed by the Pinocchios that I would award. And they tried to keep their claims tethered to the truth as much as you would expect a politician to do. But Trump really changed the dynamic, and he said many things that were false. And even though he was fact-checked as false, he would simply double down or triple down and keep saying them. Kessler wanted to have power, that presidents and presidential candidates would wither at his gaze, and genuflect at his rulings. Kelly wasn't going to ask about where his facts or his bias was challenged, like how he "evolved" on the theory that Covid emerged from a Chinese lab leak, or how Hunter Biden's laptop exposed real corrupt dealings with foreign businessmen. A longer version aired on their Consider This podcast, which included this exchange:  KELLY: So where does that leave you, feeling like the exercise of fact-checking was still worthwhile, still worth doing, even if it didn't alter the behavior of the politicians who you were tracking? KESSLER: Right. The fact-checking business, so to speak, is still very valuable and important. I didn't really fact-check claims to change the behavior of politicians. [!] They're going to do what they're going to do. The fact checks are intended to make people better informed about complex policies. The more complex a issue is, the more apt a politician is going to try to mislead it. The main thing is that with the rise of Trump and the rise of social media, there are just so many false claims that it's kind of hard for people to sort out what's true or not. When liberals start complaining about "the rise of social media," part of that complaint is that Democrat scandals or Republican arguments about Democrat failures can gain traction, and the liberal media doesn't like losing control of the "public conversation." Counterpoints and contrary narratives should not be considered.

Texas House Democrats fled the Lone Star State for the District of Columbia in July 2021, denying Republicans a quorum — the Texas Constitution requires two-thirds of the state House to be present to conduct legislative business — and thereby temporarily preventing the passage of legislation that would improve election integrity.This strategic play, celebrated by then-Vice President Kamala Harris and other radicals, was not the first time state Democrats had abdicated their duties in order to thwart the execution of the people's will. Texas Democrats also fled to New Mexico in 2003 in order to prevent a vote on redrawing congressional districts in Republicans' favor.Republican Governor Greg Abbott suggested in response to the 2021 holdout, which lasted 38 days, that Democrats could be arrested. Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan signed 52 arrest warrants for the absentee lawmakers, but no one was ultimately held to account.'Democrats in the Texas House who try and run away like cowards should be found, arrested, and brought back to the Capitol immediately.'Years after confirming that they could torpedo the democratic process without consequence, Texas House Democrats have once again fled the state — this time to prevent their GOP colleagues from advancing new congressional maps that would give Republicans five more pickup opportunities ahead of the midterm elections.Abbott indicated on Sunday that unless the "derelict Democrat House members" return to Texas and show up when the House reconvenes at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, they will be removed from office."Real Texans do not run from a fight. But that's exactly what most of the Texas House Democrats just did," wrote Abbott. "Rather than doing their job and voting on urgent legislation affecting the lives of all Texas, they have fled Texas to deprive the House of the quorum necessary to meet and conduct business."RELATED: Democrat offers bizarre spin on imploding support for his party — and he's getting amazing backlash Texas House Democrats abandoning their posts on Sunday. Photo by Scott Olson/Getty ImagesThe governor indicated that the exodus amounts to "an abandonment or forfeiture of an elected state office.""This truancy ends now," said Abbott.The governor indicated that he will invoke Texas Attorney General Opinion No. KP-0382.The opinion, released by Attorney General Ken Paxton on Aug. 24, 2021, states that "whether a specific legislator abandoned his or her office such that a vacancy occurred will be a fact question for a court" and that "through a quo warranto action, a district court may determine that a legislator has forfeited his or her office due to abandonment and can remove the legislator from office, thereby creating a vacancy."In addition to potentially risking their offices, Abbott said that Texas House Democrats may have also committed felonies, as many of the absentee lawmakers "are soliciting funds to evade the fines they will incur under House rules," which might be in violation of the Lone Star State's bribery laws.The governor was referring to the $500-per-day fine that Republicans implemented in 2023 to deal with legislators who intentionally broke quorum."It seems to me that the only way some of the fleeing Democrats can avoid bribery charges is not to break quorum," Abbott tweeted. "It seems that would eliminate any potential quid pro quo connected to any payment they received to deny a quorum and skip a vote."Paxton minced no words, writing, "Democrats in the Texas House who try and run away like cowards should be found, arrested, and brought back to the Capitol immediately.""We should use every tool at our disposal to hunt down those who think they are above the law," added the Texas attorney general.RELATED: Gov. Gavin Newsom threatens to redistrict California after Texas GOP drops new district map proposal Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Photo by Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post via Getty ImagesThe Texas Supreme Court ruled in August 2021 that Texas House Democrats who intentionally break quorum can be arrested and dragged into the state legislature.Meanwhile, radicals farther afield have celebrated the Democrats' anti-democratic gambit.'The DNC is proud to support these legislators in standing up and showing real leadership.'U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), whose approval rating a recent YouGov poll indicated was 25%, expressed support for the Texas Democrats over the weekend, stating, "It's an all-hands-on-deck moment."California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) suggested that the absentee lawmakers' efforts to undermine the democratic process "is what fighting for our democracy looks like."Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin said in a statement that "the DNC is proud to support these legislators in standing up and showing real leadership. We will fight alongside them to stop this anti-democratic assault."State Rep. James Talarico (D), fresh off suggesting that there was no "historical, theological, biblical basis" for Christians to oppose abortion, said the purpose of the Democratic exodus was to "stop Trump's redistricting power grab."Talarico's fellow obstructionists suggested their departure was in the interest of democracy. State Rep. Mary Ann Perez, for instance, said that "by breaking quorum, we are standing up for democratic values."Dozens of absentee lawmakers gathered in Chicago, where they were celebrated by Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker. Others traveled to Massachusetts and New York."Texas Democrats are once again neglecting their responsibility to serve the people of the Lone Star State by engaging in absurd theatrics intended to mislead the public into believing they are upholding their values," Mason Di Palma, communications director for the Republican State Leadership Committee, said in a statement to Blaze News. "By traveling to Illinois and New York, two of the most partisanly gerrymandered Democrat-controlled states in the country, these stunts are rooted in nonsense and illustrate how disconnected today's Democratic Party is from the needs of the American people.""Texas Democrats need to return home immediately, stop wasting taxpayer money on their media tour, and work collaboratively with Republicans in Austin to advance the future of Texas," added Di Palma.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Five years after a firestorm of media attention, a mountain of legal troubles, and a run for office, Mark McCloskey has finally collected.In 2020, McCloskey and his wife, Patricia, went viral in the media after Mark wielded an AR-15 on his porch alongside his pistol-packing wife as a large group of Black Lives Matter protesters demonstrated down their private street.The protesters broke down an iron gate leading into the McCloskeys' neighborhood, leading the couple to say they were "in fear of [their] lives" at the time. 'You have to let them know that you will never back down, you'll never give up.'Mr. McCloskey eventually surrendered the couple's guns as part of an agreement in which he pleaded guilty to fourth-degree assault and his wife pleaded guilty to second-degree harassment, both misdemeanors, after being originally charged with felonies.Former Missouri Gov. Mike Parson (R) pardoned all of the McCloskeys' charges in the summer of 2021. Now, some of their property has finally been returned."It only took 3 lawsuits, 2 trips to the Court of Appeals and 1,847 days, but I got my AR15 back!" McCloskey wrote on X. The home owner compared 2020 photos of him and his wife brandishing their guns alongside a new photo of himself with the AR-15 in front of his house."We defended our home, were persecuted by the left, smeared by the press, and threatened with death, but we never backed down," he continued. "What's missing — Patty and the Bryco (soon)," he added, referring to the Bryco .380-caliber pistol his wife was holding in 2020.RELATED: 'It's time for the city to cough up my guns': Mark McCloskey throws down after judge expunges convictions against him, wife Mark McCloskey, a Republican candidate for US Senate in Missouri, and his wife, Patricia McCloskey (Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images) McCloskey also posted a video of himself picking up the AR-15 from a police property room on Friday afternoon."That gun may have only been worth $1,500 or something, and it cost me a lot of time and a lot of effort to get it back, but you have to do that," McCloskey told Fox News. "You have to let them know that you will never back down, you'll never give up."The personal injury attorney also expressed that each American has a "personal responsibility" to defend freedom and added that "if you've been wronged, if you've been overreached by the leftist government — you can't give up. You can't let them get an inch."McCloskey parlayed his legal and moral fight into a 2022 Senate run in the Missouri Republican Party.RELATED: Missouri governor pardons McCloskeys of all charges related to BLM protest incident ST. JOSEPH, MISSOURI - MAY 7, 2022: Missouri Senate hopeful Mark McCloskey's campaign vehicle parked outside in St. Joseph, Missouri. (Photo by Dominick Williams for The Washington Post via Getty Images) One of McCloskey's stances was a firm belief that abortion was not justifiable, even in cases of rape or incest of young teens.McCloskey eventually lost the primary to Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt.He told Fox News that he expects to get the Bryco pistol within the next week.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Womp Womp Womp WOMP: Don't Look NOW, but 'Big Letitia James' Just Lost Again and It's YUGE This Time

Julián Castro Accidentally Exposes Who IS Really 'Drunk With Power' Dunking on Greg Abbott Over TX Dems

WOOF! Even This CNN Journo Asks If TX Dems Realize How BAD It Looks for Them to Flee to Gerrymandered IL

USB sockets are a great way to charge smartphones, tablets, and smartwatches, but without a traditional on off switch, do they always draw power?

USB sockets are a great way to charge smartphones, tablets, and smartwatches, but without a traditional on off switch, do they always draw power?

Revolutionary 3D facial reconstructions have brought to life two Neolithic sisters who endured brutal lives in a 6,000-year-old mining settlement in the Czech Republic. The hyper realistic recreations reveal not only their striking physical features but also provide compelling evidence of ancient social inequality and labor exploitation that may have targeted society's most vulnerable members. The sisters were discovered over 15 years ago in the Krumlov Forest of South Moravia, buried within the very mining shaft where they likely spent their final days extracting chert (flint). Their remains tell a harrowing story of physical hardship, malnourishment, and possible ritual sacrifice that challenges our understanding of Neolithic society, finds the report published in Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences. Read moreSection: NewsEvolution & Human OriginsHuman OriginsScienceRead Later