California Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed what he calls “historic legislation” to reform CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act. The San Francisco Democrat hailed “a belief in abundance over scarcity,” that will build more housing, faster, and which “will be felt for generations to come.” That leaves Californians with plenty to ponder. CEQA “requires volumes of paperwork and reviews for virtually every proposed construction project,” writes Steven Greenhut, and “allows basically any ‘stakeholder’ to file or threaten a lawsuit over CEQA compliance, which delays projects, adds costs to them, and kills many others.” So “it’s hard to argue that it actually helps the environment.” Supporters of CEQA, who claim to stand for the environment, are more accurately described as exclusionists. (RELATED: Why, Yes, Regulatory Reform Is Possible) In a variant of apartheid, this movement seeks to wall off human beings from the natural creation. Human beings are “guests in this landscape,” contends Marissa Christiansen, executive director of the Climate and Wildfire Institute in Los Angeles. In a variant of apartheid, this movement seeks to wall off human beings from the natural creation. California Senate Bill 337 designates a full 30 percent of the state’s land area off-limits to development, notes Edward Ring, director of water and energy policy at the California Policy Center in Sacramento. As Ring observes, “publicly managed land is far worse off ecologically in California than privately managed land,” but there’s more to it. The Golden State is only five percent urbanized, and that is where 94 percent of the state’s population lives. In the wake of the devastating fires in Los Angeles, the exclusionists want to make it denser, which they call “smart cities.” What is needed in Los Angeles County, Ring contends, is “more development into the ridges and canyons surrounding the existing city, not less.” The exclusionists won’t have it, and California has institutionalized the restrictions. For example, the unelected California Coastal Commission (CCC) seeks to preserve the state’s coastal region in as “natural” a state as possible. To that end, the CCC blocks development and has made the coast a millionaires’ enclave. The CCC also rides roughshod over property rights and looks askance at the clearing of vegetation, which can contribute to wildfires. The CCC made some effort to suspend permits for victims of the LA fires. They have a right to wonder why they needed a CCC permit in the first place, but as it stands, there’s not much they can do about it. The CCC overrides scores of elected city and local governments and works against the people in other ways. In 2022, for example, Commissioner Dayna Bochco, a television producer, proclaimed that “the ocean is under attack from climate change already.” On the basis of that superstition, the CCC rejected the Poseidon Water desalination plant in Orange County, which would have provided 50 million gallons of fresh water a day. An unelected body thus excludes Californians from the full benefit of their greatest natural resource, the Pacific Ocean. All told, it’s hard to argue that the CCC actually benefits the environment, and Katy Grimes of the California Globe has doubts about Newsom’s reforms. “California’s absurdly strict environmental guidelines and restrictions prevent most large-scale projects from ever taking place without legislative intervention,” Grimes explains. “Instead, the California Legislature makes annual noise about the need for CEQA reforms, but always kills any sincere attempts at real reform.” Steven Greenhut finds a preview of how the reforms would work in practice. Newsom has already exempted reconstruction projects from CEQA and the Coastal Commission, but as of July 2, only one building permit had been approved in Pacific Palisades and only 46 in the Eaton unincorporated area. More than five months after the fires ended, “there’s little to show for it in terms of actual rebuilding.” Meanwhile, Newsom’s “abundance” rhetoric also needs clarification. “Abundance liberalism” is the hot new idea making waves and provoking fierce internal debate among the progressive intelligentsia recently,” explains Steven F. Hayward of Pepperdine University. “The thesis, in short, is that excessive government regulation — especially in blue states — has badly hampered economic growth [who knew?], and that progressives should embrace a pro-growth agenda that involves reducing overregulation and endless process.” Professor Hayward is not surprised that California’s CEQA reforms have drawn fire from “environmental fundamentalists.” Calling them exclusionists will clarify the debate from coast to coast. READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley: Thomas Sowell: The Nation’s Greatest Living Economist Opt Out of Gender Propaganda WHO’s Out First? Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif.

With significant tariffs back in the news and the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill, advocates of free trade, free markets, and limited government continue to find Trump 2.0 quite a roller coaster ride. While the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement prioritizes economic growth through deregulation and lower taxes, it can also be antagonistic towards free markets and limited-government conservatism. Recognizing that Trump’s electoral influence and success derive primarily from cultural support rather than economic support can help us make sense of his administration. Many people (this author included) find themselves cheering the administration one day and criticizing it the next. Recognizing that Trump’s electoral influence and success derive primarily from cultural support rather than economic support can help us make sense of his administration. I have highlighted the economic contradiction between pro-growth policies of deregulation, low taxes, and cheap energy, with the anti-growth effect of tariffs. But examples could be multiplied. Small government conservatives can cheer this administration’s pro-business agenda while being dismayed at the cronyism and the market distortions created by aggressive industrial policy choices. The tension can be seen in Trump’s approach to the Middle East, where he simultaneously lifted one set of restrictions on semiconductors and then imposed a different set of cronyist terms. The tension can also be seen in how Trump has proposed “fast-tracking” regulatory approval for big investment projects in the U.S., making it easier to build and invest, supports economic growth, but granting preferential treatment raises questions of legitimacy, fairness, and corruption. Trump’s approach to tariffs further demonstrates a kind of inconsistency. On the one hand, his administration has pursued freer trade for U. S. exports. On the other hand, he wants to raise trade barriers to U. S. imports. Furthermore, his tactics eschew frameworks and rules in favor of ad hoc negotiations and bilateral deals. Although most pro-market folks have thrown their lot in with Trump, he does not seem to be driven by their concerns as much as he is driven by the concerns, even grievances, of blue-collar union workers and similar swaths of Americans who feel like they are losing their country to woke cultural and social forces; or who feel like they are “losing” to foreign economic competition. The issues energizing many activists on the right are not economic but social and cultural. As one commentator notes, “the postmodern Left went for MTV and the Boy Scouts, while the major D.C. think tanks on the Right went for issues too distant from the lives of young people, such as the deficit, taxation, and regulatory policy.” When traditional conservatives or libertarians fail to speak to those social issues clearly and forcefully, the activists gravitate towards those who do. And the political results are striking. Besides Trump, a large and influential coterie of Republican officials has tacked towards collectivism because of its cultural and social appeal. This includes figures like JD Vance, Marco Rubio, and Josh Hawley speaking favorably of labor unions. It includes those same figures criticizing free trade. And it extends to their support for antitrust criteria focused on size or market concentration rather than on consumer welfare. Capital gains rates seem less pressing than whether one’s daughter will have to compete with biological males. Finally, this shift on the Right along social and cultural lines shows up in defending the status quo when it comes to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It shows up in a shocking endorsement of raising the national minimum wage by Senator Hawley. While classical liberals may strongly dislike these policy shifts, we ought to understand their appeal. Somehow or other, the Alt-Right (which tends towards collectivism) has successfully positioned itself around some of these most hot-button and powerful issues that people care about. Capital gains rates seem less pressing than whether one’s daughter will have to compete with biological males. Comparative advantage seems abstract, while being passed over for promotions or college acceptance based on arbitrary and ideological DEI criteria feels deeply personal. Yet the free society championed by conservatives and libertarians alike in the late 20th century means far more than greater efficiency. It is the surest way to promote human flourishing. As the Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek wrote when facing similar challenges in the 1960s: “We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage.” READ MORE from Paul Mueller: Trump’s Underwhelming UK Trade Deal Tariff Delay Opportunities and Risks Presidents Are Not Economic Magicians

In 28 Years Later — the third installment in the 28 Years franchise after 2002’s 28 Days Later and 2007’s 28 Weeks Later — director Danny Boyle seeks to move beyond the clichés of the zombie genre. The film centers around the struggle of 12-year-old Spike (Alex Williams), who is raised in the isolated community of Lindisfarne, “Holy Island,” off the coast of Britain. Lindisfarne is a real place with a fitting history. British Christianity built a veritable fortress of evangelizing monks there while most Celts and Anglo-Saxons remained pagan.  In this future world, the mainland has entirely fallen to the “infected.” In spite of Britain’s downfall, Holy Island stands strong. There, no virtues are greater than patriotism and hard work. A select few make the dangerous trip to the mainland to forage for supplies and pick off the infected. The typical age for a journey to zombie-infested Britain is 14, but Spike’s father, a forager par excellence, decides to take him to the mainland at the age of 12 against his mother’s wishes. After narrowly surviving, Spike makes the fateful decision to return in an attempt to save his mother’s life.  This second journey is the centerpiece of the film. Spike runs into a Swedish sailor who, before being brutally mauled, reveals that the rest of the world is functioning as normal aside from a quarantine around Britain. Spike and his increasingly unwell mother are then saved from certain death.  Their savior turns out to be the man they were looking for: the last doctor in Britain. Contrary to rumors that he had gone insane, he is able to diagnose her with terminal cancer and console Spike through her death.  To this viewer, the film comes across as a moving portrait of Anglo-Saxon success, a ballad in honor of a resilient nation. However, most reviews praised the film as an apt skewer to the British Right amidst the rise of Nigel Farage’s Reform Party.  According to such observers as the British Independent, 28 Years Later responds to the rising tides of “nationalism, isolationism, and weaponised culture.” Upon an examination of Danny Boyle’s consistently left-wing political views, the intent to mock nationalism seems clear.  The intended subtext of an anti-nationalist critique is entirely absent if viewers do not subscribe to the director’s leftist politics. Despite directorial intent, the film’s depiction of the English identity is something of a political Rorschach test. The intended subtext of an anti-nationalist critique is entirely absent if viewers do not subscribe to the director’s leftist politics.  Viewing a scene depicting islanders celebrating beneath the English cross and a portrait of the queen, another reviewer saw “islanders little better than the infected.” Viewers of like mind to mine are more likely to see a hearty and deserved celebration of the same English spirit that carried everyday men, women, and children from the Napoleonic Wars to the Nazis’ barrage of bombs. The tone of the film is distinctly English in character. With no more advanced weaponry than bows at our heroes’ disposal, scenes often cut to Medieval archers at war with France. The English flag flies high over their island home. Spike and his mother take refuge in an Anglican chapel with a carved bust seemingly of King Arthur poised above. It seems the only people who have survived the zombie apocalypse are British patriots who love Queen Elizabeth II, the Union Jack, and folk singing. Though the director may have had other intentions, one can almost see the spirit of Lady Britannia over Spike as he evades death-by-zombie as surely as the poets would have you believe it protected the men at Plassey and Waterloo. As the journey to the mainland is made, interspliced with clips of the World War II-era patriotic film Henry V and a reading of a Rudyard Kipling poem, Spike is metaphorically crowned as an heir to the brave history of England. There is nothing sinister lurking beneath any of this, even if the director and others of his political bent might object to the shows of glory. If there was one distinct characteristic in the Anglo-Protestantism of the British Empire, it was its particular sort of missionary zeal. The British saw themselves as an empire of liberty, entering the most desolate corners of the earth to establish outposts of civilization, democracy, and development.  This ethos seems laced throughout the island community of 28 Years Later, where a (literal) island of tranquility stands firm against a murderous and dangerous mainland. One is reminded of Shakespeare’s poetic ruminations on England in Richard II as “This other Eden, demi-paradise/This fortress built by Nature for herself/Against infection and the hand of war.” In technical terms, the film’s most noticeable fault is simply that it neglects the importance of silence as the central tool of horror. Music plays where it has no need to, distracting from scenes that display genuine emotion. Yet, 28 Years Later is remarkable, in the end, as a piece about a 12-year-old begging for his mother’s life coming to terms with the reality of death.  The film ends with an entirely different tone. A set of thugs dressed as ninjas dispatch a cohort of zombies and offer to take the 12-year-old under their wing. The film then concludes as it is revealed that this group is led by “Jimmy,” the name of a child given to hoards of zombies in an otherwise standalone opening scene set 28 years ago. Their dress is laden with the soulless popular culture of modern Britain, and the name “Jimmy” is an intentional reference to Jimmy Savile, Britain’s most famous man until he was unmasked as a mass sexual abuser. If Holy Island embodies the strength of the old British spirit, the cult that the film concludes with epitomizes the vapidness of today’s post-national nation. 28 Years Later was shot alongside its upcoming sequel, The Bone Temple. Thus, we will not know the fate of our young warrior until January 2026. In the meantime, however, the zombie film is easily the best in a decade and well worth watching. Come for the living dead, stay for the moving portrait of familial love, community toil, and the British soul. Shiv Parihar is an editorial intern at The American Spectator. Follow him on X @ShivomMParihar. READ MORE from Shiv Parihar: You’re Being Lied to About the Little Bighorn What Zohran Mamdani Does Right An Afrikaner in America Laments for His Homeland

France and Saudi Arabia are co-chairing a United Nations conference on July 28-29 at U.N. Headquarters in New York to advance the two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Titled the “High-Level International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution,” it has garnered significant attention both for its ambition and its questionable purpose. Despite the diplomatic momentum and the involvement of influential nations, there are compelling reasons to believe — based on the history — that, like its many predecessors, this conference will also fail to produce meaningful results. The conference was initially planned for June 17-20, but was postponed due to Israel’s war against Iran, which began on June 13. It is not clear why this diplomatic initiative is taking place at a time when there is ongoing violence in the West Bank and Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza has not yet ended. The precarious environment, coupled with the inability of critical stakeholders such as Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to travel safely around the region, jeopardizes the conference’s ability to produce actionable outcomes. Previous U.N. resolutions and international conferences on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have often resulted in declarations that lack enforceable mechanisms. The United States, a key player in past negotiations, has expressed skepticism about the conference, with the Trump administration actively discouraging participation, arguing it undermines delicate negotiations and emboldens Hamas. This opposition from a major global power, combined with Israel’s firm rejection of unilateral moves toward Palestinian statehood, creates a significant hurdle. Israel’s government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, views the conference as bypassing its concerns and has warned of reciprocal unilateral actions if European states push forward with recognition of Palestine. (RELATED: Israel’s Man at the UN Sharpens the Message Ahead of Netanyahu’s Washington Visit) The conference’s organization seems in disorder and hastily arranged as if it is being used as just another platform for France to elbow its way into the Middle East (again). Part of the problem is that the conference suffers from a lack of clear objectives and organizational coherence, rendering it pointless from a geopolitical and even diplomatic viewpoint. It appears that the conference will devolve into a platform for symbolic gestures rather than substantive progress. The conference’s organization seems in disorder and hastily arranged as if it is being used as just another platform for France to elbow its way into the Middle East (again). The conference’s goal of promoting mutual recognition and a two-state solution faces resistance due to irreconcilable positions among key parties. Israel’s current government, dominated by far-right factions, is adamantly opposed to Palestinian statehood, viewing it as a security threat and a “reward” for Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack. On the Palestinian side, internal divisions further complicate any chance of progress. Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has pledged reforms, including elections within a year and the disarmament of Hamas. However, Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri dismissed Abbas’s authority to speak on behalf of Gaza, arguing that such pledges lack legitimacy. Furthermore, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research has conducted extensive polling in the Palestinian territories in both Gaza and the West Bank, and the results are shocking. A majority of Palestinians believe the October 7 attack was justified, and if elections were held today, they would vote for Hamas. The rift between the PA and Hamas undermines the prospect of a unified Palestinian position, which is essential for implementing any agreements reached at the conference. Compounding the problem is the fact that while France and Saudi Arabia advocate for Palestinian statehood, their motivations differ. France wants to assert its diplomatic influence and develop its relationship with Arab allies, while Saudi Arabia is interested in a broader regional strategy, including potential normalization with Israel. The conference might gain more gravitas if the United States backs it, especially since it has historically played a central role in Israeli–Palestinian negotiations, but this is unlikely in the current environment. In fact, the U.S. currently opposes the conference completely. A U.S. diplomatic cable warned against recognizing a Palestinian state at the conference, framing it as “supporting our enemies.” It is clear that the Trump administration is fully aligned with Israel on this issue — at least for now — and it will not support France’s continued push for a Palestinian state. Most other countries will not back France fully so as not to be seen as going against Trump. France has managed to rally some support from Arab nations like Jordan and Egypt — to be expected — but few other countries will participate in a serious manner. Some European Union and U.N. member states will participate, but the lack of consensus among major powers will limit the conference’s influence. Even if the conference manages to produce a roadmap of sorts, numerous insurmountable practical challenges will prevent its implementation. Hamas’s refusal to cede control in Gaza, combined with the PA’s limited legitimacy and governance challenges, makes achieving any goals difficult. The conference could be viewed as well-intentioned, but it is in fact just another opportunity for France to pretend it has any major influence in the Middle East and to kick Israel while it is busy fighting an existential war. This conference is a failure before it has even taken place. READ MORE: Palestinian Support for Hamas Remains High Hamas, Not Israel, Has Caused Gaza Suffering

Fixer Upper stars and Magnolia executives Chip and Joanna Gaines have come under fire from their evangelical fanbase for including a homosexual couple on their new HBO show, Back to the Frontier. Chip has defended his family’s position repeatedly on X, to the confusion and disappointment of many fans and pastors. Chip and Joanna settled into a pattern of success in 2013–2015, when they started their HGTV show Fixer Upper and opened Magnolia Market in Waco, Texas. After Magnolia Market launched, there were numerous other successful Magnolia ventures taken by the couple, and their business empire was successfully established. The couple has not hesitated to share their Christian testimony with their consumers throughout their business journey. Because of the transparency surrounding the Gaines’s faith, a large portion of their fan base consists of evangelical Christians who are attracted to the couple’s personal journeys as much as their products. Though sometimes lauded as an ideal Southern Christian family, the Gaineses have demonstrated an aptitude for progressivism before. During the heat of the Black Lives Matter movement, Joanna posted a black square to her social media account, promising to “listen and learn.” During the Target boycott, the couple was severely scrutinized for their partnership with the company, which remained unchanged despite Target’s promotion of pride propaganda and products. With the launch of their new show, Back to the Frontier, affiliations with the LGBTQ+ movement have landed the celebrity couple in hot water once again. Jason Hanna and Joe Riggs were one of three couples chosen to lead the series. The couple was inspired to apply for the show after seeing a gay couple included in the flyer. Hanna and Riggs are not just a gay couple; the two men are famous on social media for their “family” content and are notorious activists. The couple was provided with two boys through surrogacy, and participated in a legal battle to have both of their names placed on the boys’ birth certificates. (RELATED: The Spectator P.M. Ep. 155: Gay Couple With Surrogate-Born Children Appears on Chip and Joanna Gaines’ New Show) “It was this great, amazing opportunity to normalize same-sex couples and same-sex families,” praised the men. Notoriously progressive, HBO may have had a hand in casting the show. However, as executive directors, the Gaineses had the final say and ability to prevent the couple from joining the series. Given the Gaines’s Christian testimony juxtaposed to Riggs and Hanna’s clear mission to promote disordered marriages, the casting took the Fixer Upper fan base by surprise.   “When you decide money and fame are more important than the gospel,” wrote one X user, “that speaks louder than anything else you might say about Jesus.” “People aren’t overreacting when they comment on how evil it is,” commented another, “you’re just desensitized to how sexual degeneracy has polluted God’s design.” Many users highlight Bible passages and Christian principles, attempting to call the Gaines’s attention to their supposed roots as Christians. Other commenters focus on the boys that the two men have effectively purchased through surrogacy: “Two men engaging in a homosexual relationship while custom ordering two young boys is not a family,” said one commentator. Countless dissenting comments fill Chip’s X platform, which speaks to the high concentration of Christian fans who supported Magnolia in the past. Readers are hard-pressed to find positive comments regarding the company’s newest stunt.    In response, Chip claimed that the modern church is quick to judge and takes no time to understand. He chastised Christians and pastors in the comments, asserting that those who disagree with his unbiblical stance are spreading  “hate [and] vitriol.” Many began to respond with longer posts, gently calling out the hypocrisy of the casting decision, and their concern that the influential couple has the power to lead people down a bad ideological path. In an op-ed, fan Lindsay Whitlow wrote: “You are trend-setters… you captured the hearts and imaginations of countless women, and many of them are ready and willing to follow you in any direction,” she said. “Kindness is not kind at all if it’s telling a lie.” Whitlow went on to beseech the couple to reconsider what their support of the couple signals to the public.  Similarly, Owen Strachan wrote to the couple on Substack, highlighting that Back to the Frontier is going against much of the messaging they worked so hard to portray in Fixer Upper. “As Christians,” said Strachan, using Riggs and Hanna’s own language, “we cannot play any part… in normalizing sin.” Many fans will likely take a step back from Magnolia because of the great draw the Gaines’s faith had been to large swaths of their audience. READ MORE from Madison Fossa: Alligator Alcatraz Under Attack After Welcoming Lawmakers What Are the Consequences of Destigmatizing Abortion? Elon Is Far From the First to Pioneer a Third Party and Attempt to Change the Political Landscape

Washington and Jerusalem have kept a watchful eye on Damascus ever since the overthrow of the Bashar al-Assad regime by Sunni Muslim rebels in December. Of greatest concern has been the level of solidarity the new Syrian government maintains with ISIS — the terrorist organization that Syrian interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa had previously pledged his allegiance to — and the new government’s level of tolerance to Syrian minorities, particularly the Alawites and Druze. Talks of diplomatic normalization have surfaced in recent weeks after U.S. President Donald Trump met Ahmed al-Sharaa in Riyadh in May and outlined the stipulations under which Damascus could be embraced by Washington, which included joining the Abraham Accords with Israel. (RELATED: Despite Recent Wins, Durable Syria–Israel Peace Faces Long Odds) Following Israel’s 12-day war with Iran last June, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar noted that Iran’s severely weakened hegemony in the region could open the door to new normalizations with Arab neighbors. “We have an interest in adding countries such as Syria and Lebanon, our neighbors, to the circle of peace and normalization, while safeguarding Israel’s essential and security interests,” Saar stated during a June 30 press conference. Recent escalations in southern Syria since the weekend, however, not only cast serious doubt on the hope of diplomatic relations between Israel and Syria, but could widen the gulf of trust between Jerusalem and the new regime in Damascus and reopen significant military conflict between the two countries. Armed clashes broke out over the weekend in the southern Syrian governorate of Suwayda after a young Druze vegetable seller was kidnapped at a Bedouin checkpoint over tribal disputes related to theft. Tit-for-tat skirmishes and retaliatory kidnappings quickly erupted into armed ethnic conflict as the Suwayda governorate has long been a hotbed of tribal conflicts between the Sunni Bedouin and the Druze community, an esoteric religion that split from Shia Islam. Druze militia fighters encircled the Bedouin neighborhood of al-Maqwas in the Druze-majority city of Sweida, where the initial kidnapping occurred, which triggered other Bedouin tribes to begin shelling nearby Druze towns and carrying out ground assaults on Druze villages. On Monday, July 14, the Syrian government deployed forces to the governorate to contain the situation, marking the first time that the new regime deployed troops to Suwayda since they assumed political and military power in December. By the afternoon, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based monitor organization, reported that Monday’s escalation had taken roughly 100 lives. According to reports, the Syrian forces were dispatched to aid the Bedouin militias with mortar and rocket support against Druze neighborhoods in Sweida. The new Syrian regime and the Bedouins are both Sunni Muslim and have allied in the recent past to carry out attacks on Druze communities. By Monday evening, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) stepped in after surveillance detected a convoy of Syrian tanks, armored personnel carriers, and multiple-rocket launch vehicles (MLRS) headed toward the Suwayda region. IAF drones fired on the convoy in a preemptive action to stop them from reaching Sweida, about 25 miles from Israel. “The presence of such assets in southern Syria may pose a threat to Israel,” the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) stated, reiterating that “the IDF will not allow the establishment of a military threat in southern Syria and will act to prevent it.” Embedded within Druze culture is a willingness to seek good relations with governing authorities. According to the Syrian interior ministry, government forces were deployed to Sweida to restore order among “outlawed armed groups.” “Clashes are fundamentally not sectarian in nature,” ministry spokesman Noureddine al-Baba stated. “The real conflict is between the state and bandits and criminals, not between the state and any Syrian community,” in rebuttal to the allegation that the Syrian army was assisting the Bedouins. Al-Baba went on to say that “the state views the Druze community in Sweida as a partner in advancing the national unity project.” From one aspect, al-Baba is right. Many of the Druze leaders have shown a willingness to cooperate with the new Syrian regime as they did with Assad’s former government. Embedded within Druze culture is a willingness to seek good relations with governing authorities. By Monday night, the Druze leaders in the Suwayda governorate were calling for a ceasefire and urging their militias to let government forces enter Sweida. One Druze leader in particular, Sheik Hikmat al-Hijri, has been a hindrance to this unity project by calling out the potential danger that lies waiting once the new regime in Damascus stabilizes. On Monday, al-Hijri issued a call for “urgent international protection” in the rejection of Syrian forces active in Druze areas. After an emergency cabinet meeting in Jerusalem on Monday night, Israel Defense Minister Israel Katz stated on X that the IAF attack on the Syrian convoy was meant as “a clear warning to the Syrian regime — we will not allow harm to the Druze in Syria. Israel will not stand idly by.” By Tuesday morning, July 15, Syria’s defense minister announced a ceasefire in Sweida on the claim that leaders of the tribal warring factions had reached an agreement to allow security forces to enter the city. Hours later, however, the conflict continued to escalate, and Katz kept his word not to stand idly by. Later that afternoon, IAF fighter jets bombed government forces and weapons caches that had entered Sweida. In the Golan Heights, near the Israeli Druze city of Majdal Shams, the IDF opened the Quneitra border crossing and facilitated the movement of dozens of armed Israeli Druze into Syria to support the embattled Druze community in Suwayda. (RELATED: ‘Operation Good Neighbor’ Leader Reflects on Israel’s Humanitarian Efforts in Syria) While Israel has been targeting strategic Syrian military infrastructure and arms since the outbreak of war in Syria, this unprecedented attack on ground forces reiterates Israel’s policy in the region to ensure the safety of the Druze communities and maintain a demilitarized buffer in southern Syria. Jerusalem issued a statement that the IDF was instructed to bomb the ground forces “following the attack on the Druze” and after giving warning shots to stop the convoy the previous day. “Israel is committed to preventing harm to the Druze in Syria due to the deep brotherly alliance with our Druze citizens in Israel… [and] acting to ensure the demilitarization of the area adjacent to our border with Syria,” a joint statement from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Katz stated. The Druze population numbers about one million, with a majority in Syria, large communities in southern Lebanon, and roughly 120,000 as Israeli citizens living in the Golan Heights and upper Galilee. Druze have a vibrant cultural and patriotic presence in northern Israel, with Druze men serving in the IDF and the youth making a strong presence in northern academic institutions in Haifa. “The Druze in Israel have forged a bond with the country and with the Jewish people. We are fighting alongside them on all fronts,” said Anwer Amer, former Israeli police officer and mayor of Hurfeish, a Druze city in Galilee. “I expect my state and the Jewish people to reciprocate for everything we’ve done for it and defend our brothers in Syria.” Jerusalem’s policy presents both a red line for diplomatic normalization with Damascus and reveals a strategic alliance with the Druze to ensure Israel’s national security, so that an “October 7th” is not repeated on Israel’s northern border. According to Sarit Zehavi, founder of the security research center Alma Center in the Galilee, “Building relationships with the Druze of Syria that are living a few tens of kilometers from the border could help ensure the Islamist monster is not growing next to our border.” READ MORE from Bennett Tucker: Sheltering in Israel’s Underground from the Iranian Blitz Israeli Air Strikes and Iranian Missile Barrages Are Far From Over Gideon’s Chariots Opens New Gaza Offensive With Aid Concessions

A proposed federal moratorium on state artificial intelligence (AI) laws was a surprising and significant sticking point in discussions of the recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act (BBB). The moratorium was ultimately left out of the final bill, but it raised a pivotal question of who should be regulating AI. It is a policy imperative to prevent state officials from enacting a patchwork of reckless rules that place America at a competitive disadvantage. Defenders of the moratorium had correctly identified this as falling within the legal umbrella of interstate commerce, enabling Congress to create a federal framework. Congress preempting state AI regulations is far more than a narrow constitutional question. It is a policy imperative to prevent state officials from enacting a patchwork of reckless rules that place America at a competitive disadvantage. With BBB in the rearview mirror, Congress can and must pass the regulatory moratorium into law. As experienced in the privacy and telecommunications policy processes, negotiations in Congress have largely been sabotaged by the passage of state-level statutes. These bills typically grant one side excessive leverage by establishing a “regulatory floor” through passing a law in a friendly jurisdiction that grants them most of their demands. At that point, getting a compromise solution that incorporates the other side’s demands becomes practically impossible. Comprehensive nationwide regulatory frameworks take time to craft and refine. Policymakers need to account for the multiple uses a technology could have and all the potential tradeoffs, especially with emerging technologies like AI. As these negotiations take place and policymakers search for the correct balance of regulation, backers of state-level rules usually claim that Congress is taking “too long” and push for a patchwork approach. This status quo creates a perverse incentive for Congress: either rush to pass any sort of federal framework and risk it being a massive blunder, or forfeit any realistic expectation of passing a national law. The recently-discussed AI moratorium tried to tackle both of those issues. Seeing the massive sprawl of state-level AI-related regulations and the nightmarish compliance standards these rules were creating, the moratorium sought to provide Congress with a blank canvas once again by establishing a sweeping pause on most state bills. By erasing any unfavorable advantage that any particular group can gain by essentially forum-shopping legislation, the pause made a compromise, an agreeable solution more likely. A multi-year pause would give Congress a window to appropriately address necessary nuances and let AI technology mature. The AI hype cycle has led to significant overestimation of both benefits and risks, which do not always materialize. Any serious attempt at a national AI framework needs time to develop, and a moratorium needs to account for that reality. If the blank canvas that makes these negotiations possible is gone after a year or two, then the pause will either have little to no practical effect or will force Congress to pass a rushed and potentially industry-crushing law. (RELATED: The Thinking Machines That Weren’t) Supporters of a federal AI moratorium have already ably articulated the economic, legal, and practical benefits of the proposal. But most importantly, passing a moratorium would be a strategic win for Congress. Allowing states to take the lead in regulating tech products and accepting harmful regulatory spill-over effects is granting any individual state the power to set a de facto national standard that will render any federal negotiation virtually impossible. That approach has been lamented by both sides of the aisle, as it fails to give consumers and companies clarity over their rights and responsibilities. If Congress wants to pass any sort of comprehensive AI law, it unequivocally needs to pass a state-level moratorium first. (RELATED: The Big Beautiful Bill’s Moratorium on AI Regulation Is Dangerous) Ordinarily, states play a key role in implementing policies, and it’s generally important for the federal government to enable experimentation with different approaches. However, for truly borderless technologies such as the internet and AI, restrictive regulations in one state stifle — not enable — rival approaches in other jurisdictions. This limiting factor of federalism makes a national approach important in the digital domain. The removal of the moratorium from the reconciliation bill could actually prove helpful. Congress now has the opportunity to bring back the moratorium without the complicated constraints of the reconciliation process and pass a more straightforward and cleaner bill. However, members of Congress need to act quickly and decisively to make this opportunity a reality. To ensure America’s global competitiveness, lawmakers must pave the way for a national light-touch regulatory framework for AI. READ MORE from Juan Londoño: Removing Export Rules on AI Should Be a Priority for the Trump Administration US Permitting Regime is Hampering America’s Potential Don’t Regulate Data Centers Out of Existence Juan Londoño is the Chief Regulatory Analyst at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.

Extreme sports are just that — extreme. At my age, every sport feels like an extreme sport, except maybe chess or racing to the bar before everyone else. When someone with gray hair decides to try a new sport, they risk looking exactly like what they are: someone trying a new sport. When a young person does it, it’s charming, and everyone empathizes with their efforts, overlooking their failures. But when an adult does it, everyone assumes they just got divorced and traded a 50-year-old spouse for two 25-year-olds. These tips will help you avoid making a complete fool of yourself and, with some luck, keep your clients from ditching you over your new sports hobby. Why? The big questions the ancient philosophers asked still matter. After 40, when your body suddenly urges you to learn surfing, canyoneering, or to buy a mountain bike and hurl yourself off a rocky cliff, you need to stare at yourself in the mirror and ask one simple question: Why? I don’t know how many years you have left, but if you’ve made it 40 years without surfing, you might survive another 40 without it. However, if you start surfing, canyoneering, and mountain biking around 50, I can tell you how many years you have left — and “years” might be generous. Cover Yourself Around 50, no matter what extreme sport you’re trying or how far you escape civilization to practice in private, the moment you start learning, you’ll flash your butt within the first 15 minutes. And in 99 percent of cases, that accidental exposure will happen right when your best client spots you, asking their group, “Isn’t that Jim?” It’s happened to me. Twice. Once, while getting on a surfboard on a “deserted” beach that wasn’t so deserted. The second time was worse — learning to do poolside acrobatics. With the majestic enthusiasm of my first leap, my swimsuit stayed put while I soared, landing buck-naked in the pool with my trunks tangled around one foot. “Nice dive,” I heard from behind, the voice of a well-known businessman I was advising on corporate communications. “Nice gear!” his stunning wife added. The Sports Outfit One reason young people learning paddleboarding don’t raise eyebrows, but a 50-something does, is the outfit. When you take up new sports as an adult, you have the cash to buy top-notch gear, thinking it’ll preserve your dignity. Wrong. The difference between a newlywed family man and a freshly divorced guy trying a water sport is that the former looks like a happy seal having fun, while the latter looks like a Hollywood star obsessed with their image, unable to enjoy themselves, and trying to impress the Botoxed blonde tanning on the shore. To blend in while you repeatedly fall off your board, wear a 1980s-style swimsuit, some retro Adidas-logo flip-flops, and a freebie T-shirt from a now-defunct whisky brand. Injuries Prepare a list of alternative explanations for every possible injury before it happens. For sprains or twisted ankles, blame a stumble on the office stairs. For fingers or limbs lost to a shark bite, pin it on a paper shredder safety failure, and say your lawyers are handling it. For visible cuts on your face, hands, or legs, Halloween-style makeup in reverse works well. For serious breakages requiring a wheelchair, claim you swerved off the road while rushing to a meeting with your international partners. Never, under any circumstances, return to work saying you broke your leg learning to paddleboard. In companies with a certain code of values, that’s grounds for instant firing. Social Media Lastly, I confess that most of my friends who take up extreme sports late in life do it just to post about it on social media. It might take 5 or 6 months to learn something Instagram-reel-worthy, like riding a tiny wave, emerging from a dive with an octopus in hand, or scaling a climbing wall in seconds. Resist the urge to post a video on day one, when you’re clawing at the board like a cat, falling into the water — butt exposed — in under two seconds, with the board smacking your head. You might be an idiot (I am, too, probably more than you), but there’s no need to make it so easy for your enemies by broadcasting it. Follow me for more toxic masculinity tips. READ MORE from Itxu Díaz: A Global Scientific Scandal Is Brewing: What If Scientific Research Is No Longer Trustworthy? Reagan Left When No One Wanted Him To Vacations: Ready, Upset, Go!

from Birch Gold Group: What do a $2,500 gold “crash,” Trump’s Fort Knox questions and Ray Dalio’s civil war warning have in common? They all underscore the same point: If you have the gold, you make… Your News to Know rounds up the most important stories about precious metals and the overall economy. This week, […]

by Independent media alliance, Activist Post: Comcast, US internet giant and service provider rolled out a “WiFi motion” feature to millions of customer routers. Once customers enable it, they’ll be able to detect motion in their homes and get notifications. WATCH THIS CLIP ON SUBSTACK This WiFi motion works by measuring a WiFi signal strength […]