Even after 40 years of doing stand-up comedy, “You never really knew [Jerry Seinfeld’s] political beliefs,” says Dave Rubin. However, that has since changed. After Hamas’ brutal attack on Israel last October, Jerry, who’s Jewish himself, traveled to Israel and “basically said ‘Jews have a right to defend themselves’” — a statement that has made him “public enemy number one for all these pro-Hamas people.” At a show in Sydney, Australia, last weekend, the comedian utterly destroyed a protester who started chanting, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” “We have a genius, ladies and gentlemen. He’s solved the Middle East. ... It’s the Jewish comedians. That’s who we have to get!” he quipped. The demonstrator continued his chant as security escorted him out, but Seinfeld wasn’t quite finished. “They're going to start punching you in about three seconds, so I would try and get all of your genius out so we can all learn from you. It’s a comedy show you moron. Get out of here.” When the chants didn’t stop, Seinfeld added, “You’re really influencing everyone here. We’re all on your side now because you’ve made your point so well. ... You’ve come to the right place for a political conversation.” “Tomorrow we will read in the paper, ‘Middle East 100% solved thanks to man at the Qudos Arena stopping Jew comedian’ ... and everyone in the Middle East went, ‘Oh my God, let’s just get along.”’ “You have to go 20,000 miles from the problem and screw up a comedian – that is how you solve world issues,” he jested. Dave, who’s long loved Jerry’s brilliance, applauds his willingness to call out the lunacy. “Why are you going to a Jerry Seinfeld stand-up concert and doing that?” he asks rhetorically, adding that the woke protesters “are trying to ruin everything” because “they think they own everything.” To see Jerry Seinfeld put a pro-Palestine protester to absolute shame, watch the clip below. Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A chemical once commonplace in baby bottles was singled out for concern and investigations in the mid-2000s after it was linked to possible health risks. Selective bans and restrictions on the chemical Bisphenol A soon followed in a number of Western nations. The perception that sufficient action was ultimately taken largely put the controversy over BPA to bed, although scientists continued looking into BPA's effects on animals — as well as into the impact of its all-too-similar alternatives. Studies conducted at home and abroad in the years since have highlighted various links between BPA and infertility, obesity, cancer, poor fetal development, early onset puberty, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and other ailments. While there are outstanding concerns about BPA and its relatives, which are still used in rigid plastic consumer products, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration maintains — to the great chagrin of some scientists — that the chemical is safe "at current levels occurring in foods." Echoing American scientists ostensibly ignored by their regulator, a European health agency recently sounded the alarm, revealing that exposure is too high and that contrary to the suggestion of the FDA, BPA does pose a danger. Blaze News recently reached out to the European Food Safety Authority, the FDA, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for insights into the current state of scientific knowledge about BPA, the selective reduction in the recommended tolerable daily intake, and possible outstanding risks to the general public. What is BPA? BPA is an industrial chemical that has been produced in massive quantities since the 1960s. An estimated 22 billion pounds of BPA are produced a year. BPA is frequently used as a structural component in clear plastic consumer products, including eye wear, cosmetics, clothing, tableware, thermal paper receipts, water bottles, water pipes, and in the epoxy resins used to line the insides of metal food cans. The BPA market reportedly accounted for $22.69 billion in 2022 and $23.52 billion last year. Concerns mounted earlier this century over the likelihood that when BPA leached into the food and drink it was supposed to help contain, it would adversely impact human beings' health, especially that of unborn babies and newborns. In addition to exposure via food, humans can also absorb BPA through the skin. BPA is a known endocrine disruptor, meaning that it can alter hormone activity thereby adversely impacting various biological processes regulated by the endocrine system, including those related to reproduction — at a time when fertility problems are on the rise. In its 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicated there were detectable levels of the chemical — which mimics the effects of estrogen in the body — in 93% of over 2,500 urine samples from people over the age of six. Later studies highlighted the presence of BPA in the blood and tissues of adults and children alike, and in breast milk, amniotic fluid, and placental tissue. Protecting kids Around the mid-2000s, the controversy around BPA largely centered on its use in baby-related food delivery services and packaging. The U.S. was among the countries that responded to the outrage with investigations and partial bans. Minnesota passed the first selective state ban on BPA in 2009. Connecticut was reportedly next up, then a dozen more states adopted policies regulating the use of the chemical in consumer products. Lawmakers and consumer groups across the country leaned on companies to stop manufacturing baby bottles and toddler cups using the chemical ingredient. Companies like Playtex and Gerber obliged them in short order. Despite the FDA noting in an August 2008 draft report that BPA remained safe in food contact materials — a stance it maintains to this day — it was met with a citizen petition months later from the Natural Resources Defense Council requesting that the Commissioner of Food and Drugs issue a rule barring the use of BPA in human food and packaging and revoking regulations permitting the use of any food additive that might lead to BPA food contamination. The FDA effectively told the concerned citizens to pound sand and reiterated its commitment to continuing its investigations into the chemical's health effects. In an apparent act of appeasement, the FDA did, however, amend its food additive regulations, effective 2012, to no longer "provide for the use of polycarbonate (PC) resins in infant feeding bottles (baby bottles) and spill-proof cups ... because these uses have been abandoned [by manufacturers]" — not because of safety concerns. Responding to a petition from Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), the FDA amended its regulations in 2013 to no longer provide for the use of BPA-based epoxy resins in packaging for baby formula. During the uproar over BPA, other Western nations similarly took precautions even though the science was unsettled. Canada, for instance, which had been the first country to declare BPA a "dangerous substance," determined that while most citizens had low to very low exposure levels of BPA that ostensibly did not pose a health risk, "There was a potential concern for infants, which led to added protective measures." The northern nation ultimately made it illegal to manufacture, import, advertise, or sell polycarbonate baby bottles that contain BPA. In 2011, the European Union banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and toddler cups. Rat problems The European Chemicals Agency's Member State Committee unanimously agreed in 2017 that BPA-A is a "substance of very high concern because of its endocrine disrupting properties which cause probably serious effects to human health." In recent years, other agencies at home and abroad have similarly expressed concern about persisting threats posed by the profitable chemical. The FDA, however, maintains that "BPA is safe at the current levels occurring in foods," having apparently been unswayed by various recent damning studies, including those which revealed: Exposure to BPA and its alternatives can impair female rats' fertility and disrupts male rats' sperm production as well as the DNA in their spermatozoa. Bisephenol-exposed mice suffered accelerated mammary gland development during early puberty, which persisted into adulthood. BPA not only interferes with ovarian development but incurs ovarian dysfunction in mice. Additionally, "BPA at 5 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg, 20 mg/kg and 40 mg/kg significantly increased the abortion rate of the pregnant mice, and each dose of BPA significantly reduced the survival rate of the pups." BPA exposure in utero decreased testosterone concentration in male pups. BPA can "significantly increase the risk of both hormone-dependent and hormone-independent cancers," breast cancer in particular, which both the National Cancer Institute and the Institute of Medicine have recognized. In the face of continued disagreements stateside about BPA, the FDA, the NIEHS' National Toxicology Program, and other agencies collaborated on a multi-year rat model-based BPA research program called the "Consortium Linking Academic and Regulatory Insights on Bisphenol A Toxicity," or CLARITY-BPA. This multi-agency initiative published its draft core report in 2018 and then a compendium of findings in October 2021. Blaze News reached out to Dr. Brandy Beverly, a health scientist with the Office of Health Assessment credited with helping design and draft the final BPA report, for comment. A NIEHS spokesman responded and highlighted some interesting takeaways: "The core study showed no changes in brain tissue in rats. University researchers found some structural changes, and they observed alterations in the expression of estrogen and androgen receptors. They also discovered changes in the expression of genes involved in sexual differentiation and neuroendocrine function in the hypothalamus, hippocampus, and amygdala, and limited sex-specific effects on learning and memory, among other results." "Cancer rates in female rats increased following administration of the lowest BPA dose in the core study, but authors of that study concluded that was not due to the chemical because effects were not seen at higher doses. University scientists found that low-level exposure in rodents caused changes in mammary gland development that may contribute to increased cancer risk, whereas higher doses did not cause those changes." "Neither the core study nor the investigative research reported cancerous lesions in rodents following exposure to BPA. However, BPA did increase cancer following a later-life estrogen exposure simulating the aging human male, with the greatest effects observed at the per-day dose of 2.5 micrograms BPA per kilogram body weight. Also, evaluation of the developing male prostate and urethra showed a smaller urethra following exposure to low doses of BPA or ethinylestradiol, a synthetic estrogen." The spokesman noted that despite the "illuminating" collected findings, the authors of the multi-agency report "did not reach a consensus." While the FDA subsequently declared BPA "safe for the currently authorized uses in food containers and packaging," there was apparently a great deal of resistance to the regulator's framing. 'Their decisions rely on 4 incorrect assumptions.' According to a peer-reviewed 2020 review published in the journal Endocrinology, "A majority of the academic scientists that participated in the CLARITY-BPA study disagreed with the FDA's published conclusions." In the CLARITY-BPA's draft core study report, a "wide range of adverse effects was reported in both the toxicity and the mechanistic endpoints at the lowest dose tested (2.5 micrograms/kg/day), leading independent experts to call for the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) to be dropped 20 000-fold from the current outdated LOAEL of 50 000 micrograms/kg/day," said the review. "Despite criticism by members of the Endocrine Society that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s assumptions violate basic principles of endocrinology, the FDA rejected all low-dose data as not biologically plausible," said the 2020 study. 'The harmful effects from BPA can occur at minuscule levels.' Instead, the FDA doubled down on its longstanding position. "Their decisions rely on 4 incorrect assumptions: dose responses must be monotonic, there exists a threshold below which there are no effects, both sexes must respond similarly, and only toxicological guideline studies are valid," added the review. The review did not mince words, concluding that the "FDA has abrogated its responsibility to ensure the safety of food and food/beverage packaging in the US, and the FDA continues to allow industry to declare chemicals such as BPA to be safe." Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former director at NIEHS and NTP, said in a 2022 statement when petitioning the FDA to reconsider the safety of BPA in food packaging, "The scientific evidence is now more than enough to require strict limits on the use of BPA in packaging and plastics that come in contact with our food." Too much BPA The European Food Safety Authority, which admittedly applies different methods for quantifying risk in humans than some other major agencies, alternatively concluded last year that BPA is a health concern — not just for unborn babies and newborns, as long suspected — but for all age groups. It also lowered its estimated tolerable daily intake for BPA 20,000-fold — a decision celebrated by some scientists and criticized by others. Dr. Claude Lambré, chair of EFSA's Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids, indicated that upon reviewing over 800 BPA studies published since 2013, the panel "observed an increase in the percentage of a type of white blood cell, called T helper, in the spleen. They play a key role in our cellular immune mechanisms and an increase of this kind could lead to the development of allergic lung inflammation and autoimmune disorders." The potential for autoimmune disorders extra to possible consequences for the reproductive, developmental, and metabolic systems prompted the EFSA to greatly reduce the tolerable daily intake from the figure they set in 2015 and concluded that consumers with "both average and high exposure to BPA in all age groups exceeded the new TDI, indicating health concerns." "Based on all the new scientific evidence assessed, EFSA's experts established a TDI of 0.2 nanograms (0.2ng or 0.2 billionths of a gram) per kilogram of body weight per day (kg/bw/day), replacing the previous temporary level of 4 micrograms [4,000 nanograms] per kilogram of body weight per day," said the agency. A 2014 FDA hazard assessment indicated that the estimated dietary intake of BPA was 1.1 micrograms per kilogram of body weight a day for children under the age of 2 and 0.5 micrograms for those 2 and older. An EFSA spokesman clarified to Blaze News that the new TDI represents the amount "that can be ingested daily over a lifetime without presenting an appreciable health risk." "Exceedance of the Tolerable Daily Intake does not mean consumers face immediate harmful effects," said the spokesman. "Even in the cases where the exposure exceeds the TDI, not all individuals will necessarily develop adverse reactions over time, as is generally true for any chemical exposure. The probability that harmful effects on the immune system would develop over time can be influenced by several factors, including other stressors, genetics and nutrition.” The EFSA apparently takes "conservative exposure scenarios" to maximize protections for even the most sensitive and vulnerable consumers. 'Studies show BPA can be absorbed into skin in minutes.' While the EFSA now maintains the BPA is a health concern for people of all age groups, the spokesman informed Blaze News that the "population groups most exceeding the TDI are those with the lowest body weights, so they include infants, toddlers, and children." When asked whether the FDA should change its position on BPA, the spokesman underscored that while the two health agencies were in regular dialogue, they simply drew different conclusions. "Different scientists can have different views on methodologies and approaches," said the spokesman. "This is a normal part of the scientific process. This is how science moves forward and develops. Approaches may also differ according to the scope and objectives of different assessments. It is part of a broader conversation within the scientific community on how findings from intermediate endpoints in animals can be integrated into safety assessments in humans." Blaze News reached out to the FDA about its markedly different view but did not receive comment by deadline. Protections and protectors BPA is omnipresent, but there are both groups who continue to flag its presence in various consumer products and ways for people to reduce exposure. The Center for Environmental Health, a nonprofit watchdog that seeks to protect kids and families from toxic chemicals, is among the groups campaigning against the use of BPA in various products. In recent years, the CEH has noted the presence of high levels of BPA in various articles of polyester-based clothing with spandex, including socks, sports bras, and athletic shirts. The watchdog went a step further, sending legal notices to various companies, including Patagonia, Sketchers, Nike, Reebok, New Balance, and Activ Pro, noting that their clothing "could expose individuals up to 40 times the safe limit" of BPA, according to California law. On May 31, the CEH successfully struck a legally binding agreement with 30 companies including Hanes, Victoria's Secret & Co., Asics, and Dollar General, which will apparently reformulate their products accordingly. "Studies show BPA can be absorbed into skin in minutes. Bisphenols have no place in socks made for adults, children, or babies, whose body systems are only just developing," Shakoora Azimi-Gaylon, senior director of toxic exposure and pollution prevention at the CEH, said in a statement. The NIEHS has noted some ways to prevent or reduce exposure to BPA: Don't microwave polycarbonate plastic food containers, which can break down over time and at high temperatures. Reduce use of canned foods. When possible, opt for non-plastic containers (e.g., glass, porcelain, or steel), especially for hot foods. Check packaging to indicate it is BPA free. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Scientific American, a 178-year-old science magazine published by the German-British Springer Nature Group, has prioritized ideology over science in recent years, having made clear its commitment to "advancing social justice" and to promoting progressive leftist perspectives absent counterpoint on various issues. The publication, which broke with nearly two centuries of convention in 2020 and endorsed Joe Biden for president, has pushed social constructivists' pseudoscientific claims about gender; suggested Western science invented the sex binary; advanced the suggestion that the science informing legislation against sex change mutilations is "disinformation"; and championed the use of irreversible and dangerous puberty blockers, which were long used to sterilize sex offenders. Extra to arguing that the deep state isn't real, denying the possibility that wealthy elites profited from the pandemic, stressing the COVID-19 vaccine was safe, and declaring the lab-leak theory regarding COVID-19 "false," Scientific American has also wasted ink, time, and money on multiple articles claiming that math, the NFL, and fighting obesity are racist. Scientific American recently directed its activistic energies to concern-mongering about homeschooling. In its Monday "Today in Science" newsletter, Scientific American reiterated claims from an article published in the June issue of the magazine entitled, "Homeschooling Needs More Uniform Oversight," by "The Editors." 'Federal mandates for reporting and assessment to protect children don't need to be onerous.' The magazine's editor in chief is Laura Helmuth, a University of California, Berkeley, graduate who was called out by a peer-reviewed medical journal, the BMJ, last month for ignoring science that undermined her preferred crumbling narrative on gender. Steven Pinker, a cognitive scientist at Harvard University, recently called Helmuth a "woke fanatic." Jeanna Bryner, the managing editor at the magazine, appears to be an ideologue of similar stripes. The editors suggested that the Biden administration "must develop basic standards for safety and quality of education in homeschooling across the country." "It is clear that home­school­ing will continue to lack accountability for outcomes or even basic safety in most states," wrote the editors. "But federal mandates for reporting and assessment to protect children don't need to be onerous." Scientific American suggested that in order to teach one's own children, parents "could be required to pass an initial background check, as every state requires for all K–12 teachers." In addition to securing approval from Washington, D.C., to do what their forebears otherwise did freely, the editors suggested that parents "could be required to submit documents every year to their local school district or to a state agency to show that their children are learning." While the editors sounded the alarm about the potential for abuse of students at home in the absence of federal regulation — despite the rampant abuse in the otherwise regulated public school system — they appeared more concerned about curricular content and the prospect some students may not be subjected to the orthodoxies of the day. "Many parents are attracted to homeschooling because they want to have more say in what their child learns and what they do not," they wrote. "Nearly 60 percent of home­school parents who responded to the 2019 NCES survey said that religious instruction was a motivation in their ­decision to educate at home. Some Christian home­school­ing curricula teach Young Earth Creationism instead of evolution." "Most states don't require home­schooled kids to be assessed on specific topics the way their classroom-based peers are," continued the editors. "This practice enables educational neglect that can have long-lasting consequences for a child's development." It's unclear how productive the proposed changes would be granted the standards set by the government for the public education system appear to accomplish very little. The Hill noted earlier this year that in 44 Chicago public schools, not a single student was performing at grade level in math. In 24 schools in Chicago, not a single student was reading at grade level. In 40% of Baltimore's city high schools, not a single student was satisfying standards in math. Blaze News noted last year that the National Assessment of Educational Progress' 2022 assessment revealed that grade 8 students' history scores last year were the lowest they had been since the NAEP began monitoring in 1994. Significant declines in academic ability were also observed amongst public grade-schoolers in reading and mathematics as well as in other subjects. In fact, the poor quality of the public education system is one of the reasons why homeschooling is so popular today. The National Center for Education Statistics revealed in a September 2023 publication that the top reasons parents gave in a 2019 survey for homeschooling were: concerns about the school environment; to provide moral instruction; to emphasize family life together; dissatisfaction with schools' academic instruction; to provide religious instruction; to provide a nontraditional approach to education; and/or to help with their child's special needs. In the years since, ruinous school closures, sporadic teachers' union strikes, and the politicization of the classroom likely also had a substantial impact. The Washington Post revealed late last year that the number of home-schooled students jumped by 51% over the previous six years while public school enrollment dropped by 4%. The Post found that for every 10 students in public schools during the 2021-2022 academic year across 390 districts, there was one home-schooled child. By October 2023, there was an estimated 1.9 million to 2.7 million home-schooled students in the country. Writer and home-school mom Heather Hunter responded to the Scientific American article, stressing it "selectively picked extreme examples from every anti-homeschooling argument." "'Horrific abuse'? Many parents are taking their kids out of school because their child is getting abused/bullying and schools are doing nothing," wrote Hunter. "There have been numerous examples in just the past year of students ending up in critical condition in the hospital because of other students beating them so severely. People forget that there is also negative socialization. The vast majority of homeschool parents are loving and going above and beyond in their child's education. "'Poor education'?" continued Hunter. "My daughter will be a second grader this fall (but now doing third grade curriculum in language arts) and can count to 100 in French, is learning about ancient civilizations, Latin, math, playing soccer, socializing with her friends at the homeschool co-op while doing art projects and learning science hands on in field trips and in nature." Corey DeAngelis, senior fellow at the American Federation for Children and executive director at the Educational Freedom Institute, said of the proposed regulations, "Hell no." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Another Biden Video Is Making the Rounds (Do Your Stuff, MSM/Dem 'Cheap Fake' Gaslighters!)

Dear God, No: Colbert Asks Guest Anthony Fauci If He'd Consider Running for President

Magazine Calls for Federal Regulations of Homeschoolers - Otherwise Known As a Conservative Database

WATCH: Josh Hawley Grills Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun

If you are on one of AT&T's older unlimited data plans, the price of your bill is about to increase. This week, AT&T announced on its website that starting in August, customers subscribed to any of the 10 retired plans will see the price hike reflected on their bills. Anyone with a single line of service on their plan will see a $10 increase in the monthly charge, while those with multiple lines will pay $20 more (in total, not per line). In return, AT&T is letting these customers keep their current plans and upgrading them with additional high-speed data and hotspot data. So keep your plan and pay more, or upgrade and pay more. Here are all of AT&T's retired unlimited plans that will be impacted by the price hike: AT&T Unlimited Choice AT&T Unlimited Choice II AT&T Unlimited Choice Enhanced AT&T Unlimited &More AT&T Unlimited Value AT&T Unlimited Plus AT&T Unlimited Plus Enhanced AT&T Unlimited &More Premium AT&T Unlimited AT&T Unlimited (with TV) As noted above, the silver lining is that anyone who decides to stick with any of these plans will get some additional benefits. According to the carrier: "AT&T Unlimited Choice, Choice II, Choice Enhanced, Unlimited &More, and Unlimited Value plans will now include 75GB of high-speed data and 30GB of hotspot data. AT&T Unlimited Plus, Plus Enhanced, Unlimited &More Premium, and AT&T Unlimited (with TV) plans will now include 100GB of high-speed data and 60GB of hotspot data." Following this price hike, AT&T's latest unlimited offerings might actually be cheaper than some of these old plans. AT&T Unlimited Starter SL starts at $65.99 for one line, while AT&T Unlimited Extra EL costs $75.99, and AT&T Unlimited Premium PL costs $85.99. Be sure to do the math before August and decide which plan is best for you. If you'd rather just cancel your service altogether, call AT&T at 800-331-0500. Don't Miss: 73 million AT&T accounts were hacked – here’s what you should do about it The post AT&T is raising prices: 10 unlimited plans are up to $20 more expensive appeared first on BGR. Today's Top Deals Today’s deals: $714 Apple Watch Ultra 2, $30 Thermacell mosquito repeller, $130 Instant Pot Duo Plus, more Best Fire TV Stick deals for June 2024 Father’s Day deals: $20 Amazon credit, ASUS gaming laptops, Braun shavers, $160 off DJI Mini 3 drone, more Today’s deals: $299 Apple Watch S9, $30 Fire TV Stick 4K, $259 stationary bike, $20 Blink Mini cam, more

The fragility of the human mind has always been subject to fascination. Ancient societies attempted to understand and remedy emotional pain and suffering by looking to the gods, oracles, or through spells and rituals. The Greeks took this perplexity and made it a topic of intense study. Although they continued to incorporate the supernatural, they allowed themselves to theorize, capturing mental health in a way that was influential and revolutionary for its time.  Thus, great poets and tragedians, like Homer, Sophocles, and Euripides were able to create timeless works of art that made even the most deranged experiences relatable and entertaining. Now more than ever, modern scholars are equipped with the tools and opportunity to explore the intricate psyches of these unique characters and their traumas, providing an insightful glance at mental illness in the Greek imagination.  Read moreSection: NewsGeneralMyths & LegendsEuropePremiumPreviewRead Later 

Russia is making "egregious efforts" to interfere in elections worldwide, with Russia's next "big test" to be over the next two weeks in the United Kingdom's upcoming general election, according to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner."