As Senate Republicans hold its fate in their hands, PBS’s Amanpour and Company thought it was a good idea to welcome former Clinton Treasury Secretary and Obama economic advisor Lawrence Summers to double and triple down on his previous claim that Republicans’ Big Beautiful Bill will kill over 100,000 people. Anchor Walter Isaacson reduced himself to simply putting the ball on the tee, “You know, you wrote last week after President Trump signed what he called the Big Beautiful Bill on July 4th, you said, ‘I don't remember any past July 4th being so ashamed of any action my country had taken.’ That was in a New York Times op-ed. What do you mean by that?     Summers decried, “I mean that this was a shocking thing in its brutality. We've had budgets all the time. We've had changes in policy. The United States has never cut back its social safety net nearly as much in any action, not in Ronald Reagan's cuts in 1981, not in the budget—in the welfare reform bill that was passed in the mid-1990s, not in the aftermath of the financial crisis, never have we had as large a cutback in the social safety net measured relative to the size of the economy as we did here.” That makes no sense. Summers appears to be arguing that the number of people who will die is proportional to the severity of the reforms, so under his own logic he was responsible for people dying in the 90s. More importantly, Medicaid spending will still go up next year despite the work requirements and other reforms. When Summers and his media colleagues talk about “cuts,” they are talking about reductions in the rate of increase. Precise wording aside, Summers rolled on, “And the academic evidence, the studies of what happens when people are kicked off of Medicaid, is very clear: they become a bit more likely to die. And over 10 years, this is likely to kill more than 100,000 people. So, there's a kind of casual brutality about this that's not even being widely discussed that is just on a different scale than anything our country has done before in all the various budgets that we've had.” Later, alluding to an appearance Summers had on ABC’s This Week, Isaacson again put the ball on the tee, “You just said that the Medicaid cut would cause 100,000 deaths over the next decade, and you said that long ago on a TV show, ‘That's 2,000 days of death like we've seen in Texas this weekend.’ You are referring to the Texas Floods. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said your comments turned a human tragedy into a political cudgel, looked deeply offensive, and he called on you to apologize. What are you saying?” Summers replied by essentially telling Bessent to shut up, “Secretary Bessent can be offended by whatever he wants to be offended. I think what's callous, what's a political cudgel, is the policies that he and his administration are legislating that will, according to objective experts in both parties, kill people.     He then conflated criticism with censorship and admitted he had no idea if budget cuts had anything to do with the Texas floods but insisted that a proper administration would spend more time in self-reflection than attacking him: And I don't apologize for making vivid that large a number by pointing out how he dwarfs the terrible, terrible tragedy that took place in Texas. I think Secretary Bessent, rather than attacking ex-officials who are using their free speech rights to make comments, would be better off asking the question whether perhaps it was such a great idea to slash the budget of the Weather Bureau, whether it was such a great idea to be in strong opposition to FEMA in light of what happened. I don't have any basis for knowing. I really don't. But after a tragedy of unprecedented scale that has taken place in the immediate aftermath of efforts to cut the protective mechanisms, that seems to me to be the question that a thoughtful, conscientious government would engage in. A proper show, public or private, would’ve had Bessent or some other competent opposing voice to argue with Summers’s inflammatory assertions. Instead, Isaacson summarized some tweets and then asked Summers to repeat himself. Here is a transcript for the July 15 show: PBS Amanpour and Company 7/15/2025 WALTER ISAACSON: You know, you wrote last week after President Trump signed what he called the Big Beautiful Bill on July 4th, you said, “I don't remember any past July 4th being so ashamed of any action my country had taken.” That was in a New York Times op-ed. What do you mean by that? LAWRENCE SUMMERS: I mean that this was a shocking thing in its brutality. We've had budgets all the time. We've had changes in policy. The United States has never cut back its social safety net nearly as much in any action, not in Ronald Reagan's cuts in 1981, not in the budget — in the welfare reform bill that was passed in the mid-1990s, not in the aftermath of the financial crisis, never have we had as large a cutback in the social safety net measured relative to the size of the economy as we did here. And the academic evidence, the studies of what happens when people are kicked off of Medicaid, is very clear: they become a bit more likely to die. And over 10 years, this is likely to kill more than 100,000 people. So, there's a kind of casual brutality about this that's not even being widely discussed that is just on a different scale than anything our country has done before in all the various budgets that we've had. And then you ask, we're doing this to save money, and for what? So, that people who now can tax exempt past $30 million to their kids will be able to tax exempt past $32 million to their kids, so that corporations will be able to continue to have tax rates that are lower than the ones they asked for at the time of the original Trump legislation? I just think this is our country getting its values altogether wrong. … ISAACSON: You just said that the Medicaid cut would cause 100,000 deaths over the next decade, and you said that long ago on a TV show, “That's 2,000 days of death like we've seen in Texas this weekend.” You are referring to the Texas Floods. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said your comments turned a human tragedy into a political cudgel, looked deeply offensive and he called on you to apologize. What are you saying? SUMMERS: Secretary Bessent can be offended by whatever he wants to be offended. I think what's callous, what's a political cudgel is the policies that he and his administration are legislating, that will, according to objective experts in both parties, kill people. And I don't apologize for making vivid that large a number by pointing out how he dwarfs the terrible, terrible tragedy that took place in Texas. I think Secretary Bessent, rather than attacking ex-officials who are using their free speech rights to make comments, would be better off asking the question whether perhaps it was such a great idea to slash the budget of the Weather Bureau, whether it was such a great idea to be in strong opposition to FEMA in light of what happened. I don't have any basis for knowing. I really don't. But after a tragedy of unprecedented scale that has taken place in the immediate aftermath of efforts to cut the protective mechanisms, that seems to me to be the question that a thoughtful, conscientious government would engage in.

With $1 billion in taxpayer funding on the line as part of a rescission package the Senate could vote on late Wednesday, PBS and NPR have teamed with their liberal media allies to throw the proverbial kitchen sink at trying to maintain the farce of non-partisan, robust, and unique local programming that saves lives. That was the message Wednesday morning from NPR CEO Katherine Maher on CNN’s Situation Room. Co-host Wolf Blitzer and Pamela Brown were more than happy to help Maher, openly rooting for NPR and, amid their softball questions, letting her spew lies about NPR’s biases, funding, and then vile smears about rural Americans. Brown greased the skids in a fretful tease: “And just ahead, Wolf, PBS and NPR stations could soon lose the federal funding that’s helped keep them on the air for decades. We’re going to speak to the head of NPR up next.” After a break, Blitzer cued up Maher by lamenting “NPR faces a fight for survival,” but cheered Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) arguing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — which oversees the entire public media cabal — shouldn’t be “gut[ted].” Brown had the first question concerning their lobbying efforts: Blitzer followed up by wondering if they’re focusing on any senator in particular. This triggered a putrid answer, steaming with coastal elitism and a venomous insult to rural Americans, viewing them like they’re pioneers stuck on the Oregon Trail: Fact-check: 96 percent of Americans have regular internet access with adults 30-49 and 50-64 having 87 and 82 percent broadband use, respectively. This led into an exchange in which Maher’s answer was riddled with bunker-buster-bomb-sized lies: First, the claim about funding to local stations. Here’s what our Tim Graham wrote in February: Public broadcasters claim the vast majority of their funding has nothing to do with government. Defenders of NPR claim the network only receives two percent of its money from Washington. That’s simply untrue. The vast majority of NPR stations receive “community service grants” from CPB, and then turn around and send money back to D.C. for “programming costs” for the nationally distributed shows. If only two percent of the budget came from taxpayers, then logically, it would be easy to replace with private contributions.  But CPB’s own chart of revenues for both TV and radio asserts that in Fiscal Year 2022 federal, state, and local “tax-based” funding added up to 36.6 percent. According to CPB’s math, federal funding in 2022 made up about $535 million (16.9 percent) and state and local funding was $589 million (18.7 percent). Next, she said “it doesn’t help anyone.” Pew’s own polling showed only 20 percent of Americans listed PBS or NPR as a news source. And, as our buddy from the Ruthless Variety Progrum Leigh Wolf pointed out, the term “news desert” is a problematic term. Then came a laugher: “As far as the accusations that we’re biased, I would stand up and say, please show me a story that concerns you, because we want to know and we want to bring that conversation back to our newsroom.” Aside from checking out the public broadcasting tag at NewsBusters, consider facts such as June 2024 study that found “pro-Hamas” label was never used on PBS, a December 2024 study showing only 162 far-right labels vs. just six for the far-left on PBS, or a study last week showing 36 liberal guests on NPR’s Fresh Air vs. zero conservatives. Those examples don’t even delve into the day-to-day bias on PBS and NPR. Blitzer went then to the fear and loathing side of the equation with Maher claiming “as many as 80 stations” would close and that NPR “would probably start by letting go of local journalists,” worsening “a crisis in local news in this country” since NPR “covers 99.7 percent”: With NPR alone, our tally showed they have 1,085 stations with multiple stations in a market (e.g. Boston) whereas the largest private radio syndicate in the U.S. — iHeart — has 868 stations. Behind iHeart, competitors Audacy and Cumulus have roughly 230 and 404, respectively. And, as we point out in the above video post from X, less than six percent of daily programming in rural states are local and we estimate nationally it’s been 90 and 100 percent either produced by NPR’s national team or major affiliates in Boston, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. Speaking of those, Blitzer’s final question concerned the future of those large markets. Maher again gave a laughable answer: WAMU being the only place to find out about changes in Washington’s metro system? Pants on fire. That’s all but saying The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Washington City Paper, ARLnow (Arlington County, Virginia), FFXnow (Fairfax County, Virginia), and local TV stations WDCW (CW), WJLA (ABC), WRC (NBC), WTTG (Fox), WUSA (CBS) to name a few don’t exist and cover the subway. In fact, in a few cases, they have their own transportation reporter. The interview closed with Blitzer openly making his position clear, personally arguing for NPR to remain funded: At least Maher did not use the Texas Hill Country floods as an excuse. To see the relevant CNN transcript from July 16, click here.

President Donald Trump continues to deliver on campaign promises and to surmount obstacles thrown before him by radical Democrats and activist judges. His accomplishments in recent weeks, however, while impactful, have been overshadowed by his Justice Department's conclusion that child sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein did not have a client list that could implicate deep-pocketed elites.Amid mounting criticism over the lack of substantial insights from the DOJ, Turning Point USA founder and President Charlie Kirk — whom Trump reportedly called on Saturday to express support for Attorney General Pam Bondi — noted on his show Monday, "I'm going to trust my friends in the government to do what needs to be done, solve it; ball's in their hands."'Anything that's credible, I would say, let them have it.'Kirk subsequently outlined "10 immediate credible action items" Bondi could take that might satisfy Americans' hunger for answers and help the president move on to other matters with the reinvigorated support of his base.Backlash, persistent curiosityThe backlash over the DOJ's conclusion was particularly severe in part because of Trump's campaign promise that he would "be inclined" to release Epstein's list of clients, saying, "I'd have no problem with it."It certainly did not help that after telling cable news on Feb. 21 that the Epstein client list was "sitting on [her] desk right now," Bondi handed out to Trump-supporting podcasters binders titled "Epstein Files: Phase 1," loaded with publicly available information and documents devoid of significant revelations. She then failed to deliver the promised second phase of possibly substantial documents.It also didn't help that the FBI's Epstein prison video is reportedly missing nearly three minutes of footage from one of two stitched-together clips.Trump appears keen for the scandal "over a guy who never dies" to blow over."Why are we giving publicity to Files written by Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the Losers and Criminals of the Biden Administration, who conned the World with the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, 51 'Intelligence' Agents, 'THE LAPTOP FROM HELL,' and more?" Trump noted in a Truth Social post on Saturday. "They created the Epstein Files, just like they created the FAKE Hillary Clinton/Christopher Steele Dossier that they used on me, and now my so-called 'friends' are playing right into their hands."RELATED: The White House will need to do plenty more to get past Epstein Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty ImagesRecent polling indicates that public interest in the alleged Epstein list isn't going anywhere.A Rasmussen Reports poll revealed on Tuesday that only 21% of likely U.S. voters believe the FBI and the DOJ are telling the truth about Epstein; 56% don't think they're telling the truth; and 23% aren't sure. Sixty-eight percent of Democrats, 66% of Republicans, and 69% of unaffiliated voters reject the idea that the Epstein case is closed "and instead believe that there are dozens of powerful and wealthy offenders who need to face justice," reported Rasmussen.10 action items"I don't understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody," Trump told reporters at Joint Base Andrews on Tuesday."I think really only pretty bad people, including fake news, want to keep something like that going. But credible information? Let them give it. Anything that's credible, I would say, let them have it."Responding to Trump's remarks, Charlie Kirk identified 10 immediate action items that could result in the production of "credible" information for the American public. Here are the 10 items in his list, summarized.Release the DOJ's 2020 Office of Professional Responsibility report that evaluated Epstein's 2008 plea deal.Unseal all of Ghislaine Maxwell's grand jury testimony.Press Alexander Acosta about what he knew about Epstein working for foreign intelligence. Acosta was the secretary of labor during Trump's first term and oversaw Epstein's 2008 plea agreement.Release underlying facts concerning Epstein's indictment in 2019, except child sexual abuse material.Release a full report concerning the "butchered" Bush-era federal investigation into Epstein."Green-light Maxwell to speak freely and learn what she knows."Establish how exactly Epstein made his money and source relevant "bank records and financial statements."Overrule privacy rules and release the names of prisoners on the floor of the Metropolitan Correctional Center on the night Epstein died."Get the missing minutes of the prison footage."Hold a press conference as soon as possible to remedy any remaining confusion. — (@) Action items one and three are related, as they both center largely on the insights of Acosta, who, while serving as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, approved the plea deal that enabled Epstein to plead guilty to a single charge of solicitation in exchange for a non-prosecution agreement — what the Miami Herald called the "deal of a lifetime."'He'd cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein's attorneys because he had "been told" to back off.'The deal that Acosta arranged reportedly scuttled the federal probe into a possible international sex-trafficking operation and prevented both the victims and the judge from knowing how many girls Epstein may have sexually abused between 2001 and 2005.RELATED: Why MAGA wants the Epstein list — and won’t settle for less Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty ImagesBradley Edwards, a former state prosecutor who represented some of Epstein's victims, told the Miami Herald, "How in the world do you, the U.S. attorney, engage in a negotiation with a criminal defendant, basically allowing that criminal defendant to write up the agreement?"Mike Benz, the founder of the Foundation for Freedom Online, recently told Kirk, "In the process of that [DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility] investigation, they interviewed everyone at Justice who was involved in that 2008 plea deal and sought to put the story to bed by collecting transcribed interviews, audio, and basically reams of files."Benz indicated that the OPR report referred to an interview with Acosta in which he apparently discussed Epstein's intelligence ties.The Daily Beast reported in 2019 that when being interviewed for the job of labor secretary in the first Trump administration, Acosta was allegedly asked whether the Epstein case was going to cause a problem for his confirmation hearings.RELATED: The Epstein files may be Trump’s biggest liability yet Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell (Photo by Joe Schildhorn/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images)According to the Daily Beast, "Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he'd had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He'd cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein's attorneys because he had 'been told' to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade."Acosta allegedly told his interviewers, "I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone."'No one from the government has ever asked her to share what she knows.'While evidence of an intelligence link might not get the American public any closer to a client list, it could help explain why such a list may have been developed over time and was then suppressed.As for action item six, Maxwell — whose father the Telegraph indicated was a newspaper baron who had "known links with MI6, the KGB, and the Israeli intelligence service Mossad" — might be able to shed some light on the operations she ran with her former lover and boss.Maxwell was sentenced in 2022 to 20 years in prison for her role in a scheme to sexually exploit and abuse minor girls as young as 14 with Epstein, going all the way back to the early 1990s.A source close to Maxwell recently told the Daily Mail that the convicted groomer "would be more than happy to sit before Congress and tell her story.""No one from the government has ever asked her to share what she knows," said the unnamed source. "She remains the only person to be jailed in connection to Epstein, and she would welcome the chance to tell the American public the truth."When asked about Maxwell possibly testifying, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters, "I'm for transparency. We're intellectually consistent in this," reported CBS News.The steps outlined by Kirk might help Bondi satisfy the American people's desire for truth about the "guy who never dies" and possibly also his clients.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

While Operation Midnight Hammer coupled with Israel’s own military strikes successfully crippled Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons, the threat of the Iranian regime remains. Its vitriol toward the West can never be eliminated.“Their mindsets don’t change. They’re in a forever war against us,” says Mark Levin.On July 4, this was proven when Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami delivered a prayer sermon in Tehran, during which he explicitly called for the execution of President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu under Sharia law, framing it as a religious obligation.Levin plays a video of Khatami’s sermon, which was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, commonly called MEMRI. “The ruling regarding Trump and Netanyahu, according to the Sharia, is that the pair of them should be executed,” Khatami said to a crowd that roared back, “Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Khamenei is the leader! Death to those who oppose the rule of the jurisprudent! Death to America! Death to England! Death to the hypocrites and the infidels! Death to Israel!”“They deserve the death penalty according to three articles of the Sharia. First, they have murdered: 55,000 people have been killed in Gaza, and you killed our martyr Qasem Soleimani. You are murderers, and you need to be punished. Second, you are oppressors, and third, you are sowing corruption upon the land, and you are fighting God and His messenger,” Khatami added.“So death to England, death to America, death to Israel, death to anybody who doesn't agree with them,” sighs Levin.“We've never heard that before, have we?” he asks sarcastically.As for the claim that 55,000 have been killed in Gaza, Levin calls it a baldfaced lie.“Of course, 55,000 have not been killed in Gaza, and those who have been killed, you have a significant percentage of them who are terrorists, and then most of the rest have been killed because of what Hamas has done,” he corrects. “And of course, if [Hamas] hadn't started a war in the first place, nobody would be dead.”Even though Iran is poised to negotiate with the United States about restricting its nuclear program, Levin warns that we need to be prepared for what is essentially inevitable: They will try to rebuild because while their nuclear power can be quelled, their hatred for the West cannot.“We can't be static about this,” he says. “We can't stand still if they're going to try and do the same thing.”President Trump’s partnering with Netanyahu in this conflict isn’t just about protecting Israel; it’s also about protecting the United States.Trump took “direct military action in order to protect [Americans], too,” says Levin. “We should be having a ticker-tape parade over this.”To hear more of his analysis, watch the clip above.Want more from Mark Levin?To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

President Donald Trump has consistently raised concerns over election integrity, and as the 2026 midterm elections loom, his team is taking action. His administration is reaching out to several states to shore up election security, and officials from both sides of the aisle are up in arms. The Washington Post reported that the Trump administration has begun a multifaceted campaign in several states to inspect voting equipment and gather voter data. The Justice Department has taken what the Post called the 'unusual step' of asking at least nine states for copies of their voter rolls.The Washington Post claimed that the "most unusual activity" was occurring in Colorado, where an alleged federal consultant working with the White House has asked county clerks if they would allow the federal government to physically examine the voting equipment. Election laws strictly limit physical examinations by federal agencies, though they can offer technical assistance and advice to state and local election officials. RELATED: 'Election interference': FBI silenced internal discussion of Hunter Biden laptop prior to 2020 election Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images"That's a hard stop for me," Carly Koppes, a Republican clerk in Weld County, Colorado, told the Post. "Nobody gets access to my voting equipment, for security reasons." A White House spokesperson declined to comment on whether the agent who was asking the clerks for this voting information, identified as Jeff Small, is connected to the White House. However, the White House official did reiterate the president's commitment to ensuring the citizenship status of all voters on the voter rolls. Still, this recent move has been met with bipartisan pushback.“President Trump and his allies are trying to lay the groundwork to interfere with a free and fair election in 2026,” Samantha Tarazi, CEO of the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab, told the Washington Post.In a separate case, the Justice Department has taken what the Post called the "unusual step" of asking at least nine states for copies of their voter rolls. At least two states have complied with this request. While the Constitution largely limits the federal government's power over election proceedings in favor of the states, the events of the last two presidential elections have raised widespread concern over election security. Trump himself has been a vocal advocate for stronger election integrity. In a long Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump reiterated his administration's continued focus on investigating election fraud: "Kash Patel, and the FBI, must be focused on investigating Voter Fraud, Political Corruption, ActBlue, The Rigged and Stolen Election of 2020."In the same post, Trump added, "The 2020 Election was Rigged and Stolen, and they tried to do the same thing in 2024 — That’s what [Pam Bondi] is looking into as AG, and much more."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The album, featuring a new band of distinguished players, breathes fresh life into a collection of century-old music. The post Robert Plant Reveals ‘Saving Grace’ Album, Tour appeared first on Best Classic Bands.

AG Pam Bondi shouldn’t have hyped the release of materials in the past, but despite the natural questions about his hideous crimes, the wild theories aren’t justified.

Reality Checks About What the Left's Violent Rhetoric Has Caused Makes Dem Heads Explode at Hearing

Chuck Schumer Hauls NPR and PBS Into the Dems' 'People Will Die' Talking Points Clown Car

The Latest Fractured Media Nominations: Climate Insomnia, Clown Punditry, Kardashian Laxatives, and More!