Virginia voters will head to the polls this week to decide whether to make their Commonwealth the laughingstock of the nation when it comes to clumsy partisan gerrymanders. The Old Dominion should loudly reject Democrats’ attempt to carve the face of the mother of presidents out of mere spite for the persistence of Donald Trump. For months, Virginia voters have been subjected to a deluge of television ads and direct mail flak backed by national Democrats who hew to an established narrative: the gerrymander, while it may seem extreme, is a necessary, temporary response to Republican agitation across the country to hold the House of Representatives despite the will of the people. It casts the gerrymander as not an obviously unrepresentative scrawl of a map, turning a competitive purple state into a hard blue stone, but as a desperate move motivated by GOP extremism. In this story, they are the heroes defending Democracy. It’s an audacious claim for a map that allows five members representing the bulk of Virginia’s population to live within easy driving distance of lunch at the Army Navy Country Club. But one trait of Democrats in the Trump era has been to adopt every argument while doing the polar opposite. You can only stop Trump’s disrespect of the Constitution by packing the Supreme Court; bureaucrats are justified in ignoring orders to block Trump’s anti-government policies; and it is Trump Republicans who have no respect for law and order, which is why we should identify and harass members of ICE and their families. By now, you know the drill. One of the most recent mailers promoting the gerrymander — Virginians by now have received enough to fill the back of a Karen’s Subaru — emphasized that democracy can only be defended if you vote for the measure. The message that you can only defend democracy by wrecking it is an instant classic for today’s national Democrats, and one they are more than happy to embrace in the interests of partisan gain. The map itself is notably not included in any of the mailers, nor in any of the television ads, nor is it even displayed in polling places at the behest of Virginia’s board of elections. That should be enough to indicate how much it resembles the scrawls of an irate toddler. It is even too extreme in the mind of the Commonwealth’s viciously partisan and historically unpopular governor, Abigail Spanberger, who thought a 9-2 map would at least allow a modicum of self-respect. She was overruled by Richmond Democrats, who insisted that only a 10-1 majority Democrat redraw would do, in a state which Kamala Harris won with less than 52% of the vote. Perhaps the greatest lie advanced by Barack Obama, who has personally endorsed the move, and other Democratic influencers and fundraisers is that this new arrangement will be “temporary”. Should Virginia upend its current representation — which is still majority Democrat, mind you — it will do so thanks to the backing of well-moneyed national interests who seek a permanent advantage in the narrowly divided House, a cheat code for getting a leg up on their GOP opponents in future elections. No one on the Democratic side of the aisle will ever want to give that up. If Virginia voters decide to endorse this unrepresentative move under the false belief that it will be adjusted in the future, they just don’t know how politics works. These maps were drawn specifically to include the home addresses of aspiring Democratic candidates. There’s no bottom to this well. There is another path. If Virginians reject this offensive gerrymander, even after a metric ton of flyers and ads backed by a shockingly large amount of out of state cash, they will send a very different message, one that respects order and rejects extreme partisanship — one that national Democrats will be forced, all too reluctantly, to learn from. The Virginia Way used to mean something. It can mean something again. Vote against this partisan Democrat gerrymander.

New York City has paid almost $100 million to rent empty preschool classrooms, according to a shocking new report. The New York Post reported Monday that the city has paid $99.3 million over the last five years for rent and utilities on 28 buildings for preschool classrooms acquired through part of former Mayor Bill de Blasio’s “universal” preschool push. The spending on the empty classrooms has both former officials and NYC residents upset about the Big Apple’s latest use of taxpayer dollars. “I don’t think it’s corruption. It’s incompetence,” a former city Department of Education official told the Post. The official added that despite “such a significant need for pre-K seats,” many of the classrooms were empty because they were made available in areas without verifying demand. Meanwhile, other parts of the city have long wait lists for preschool seats. The Post reported that de Blasio’s push for the“3-K For All” program, which provides full-day early childhood education for 3-year-olds, led to a mad dash for renting buildings that have yet to be used. De Blasio blamed the empty classrooms on his successor, former Mayor Eric Adams, saying that “during my administration, we never had a problem filling Pre-K and 3-K seats because we did lots of parent-friendly outreach.” “Sadly, the Adams administration ended those efforts and took a step backwards on early childhood education,” he told the Post. For his part, Adams said that he “inherited a system with thousands of empty early childhood seats,” and he focused on “stabilizing providers and increasing enrollment, rather than simply expanding capacity.” Six of the vacant sites are expected to be opened up in the fall by Mayor Zohran Mamdani. New York City’s Department of Education said that it was “continuously evaluating all vacant sites for the most responsible use based on site readiness and community need” and that “all plans will be shared publicly once timelines and approvals are confirmed.” One of the empty sites is at Union Turnpike in Queens and has cost the city $10.8 million, according to the report. “They realized [afterward that] it wasn’t a good location. … If they didn’t think the need was there, why did they pick the site in the first place?” the former Education Department official said. Nearby business owner Larry Mottola told the Post that it was troubling that the government would waste money on unused buildings. “They had beautiful classrooms, a stainless steel kitchen [and] there’s a beautiful playground around back,” he said. “It’s bothersome, [that] they would waste that kind of money for four years.” Another parent said that it was frustrating that the government selected sites where there was no demand. “It feels like a real misstep that we’re not even utilizing the space that’s being paid for,” said Jessica Setton. “De Blasio had good intention, terrible execution.”

'The Marines rappelled onto the Iranian-flagged vessel'

For most people, Wake Atoll will remind them of a battle, not an island. Well now, 81 years later, another battle has been fought—and won—on Wake: against invasive rats damaging the island ecosystem. Wake Atoll is today an unincorporated territory of the United States, and it’s experiencing a cascade of positive ecological, infrastructural, and human […] The post US Again Wins Battle on Wake Atoll–Against Invasive Rats Depleting the Seabird Populations appeared first on Good News Network.

Imagine dedicating your life to serving vulnerable pregnant and parenting women in your community. Imagine rallying friends and neighbors to join in your mission to offer them critically needed resources and support. Imagine watching the news about the more than 95 charities just like yours that were attacked and vandalized. But you serve anyway. You keep going because vulnerable women and their children are depending on you for material resources, emotional support, and the tangible reassurance that they aren’t alone. Then, imagine a representative from the state attorney general’s office shows up at your office demanding constitutionally protected records and donor information without legal cause.  For First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, in New Jersey, this was exactly what happened in November 2023. The state’s then Attorney General Matthew Platkin demanded First Choice hand over ten years’ worth of internal documents and private donor records simply because the organization offered life-affirming support to vulnerable women.  In December 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers Inc, v. Platkin. The outcome of the case will determine whether nonprofits can continue their life-changing care without politically motivated interference. In short, the case is a fishing expedition by a state official so focused on promoting abortion that he’s willing to sideline real care for women—the care that pregnancy centers like First Choice in New Jersey and the nearly 3,000 centers nationwide provide. Pregnancy centers are under attack now, but any other charity could be next.  In this politically charged era of American history, it is tempting to assume the attorney general was simply doing his job, perhaps investigating complaints of mismanagement or illegal activity. But that is not the case. Even Platkin’s counsel admitted he hadn’t had any complaints about First Choice. If Platkin gets away with targeting First Choice simply for providing care for women, any charity any Attorney General disagrees with becomes fair game.  For over half a century, pregnancy resource centers (PRCs), maternity homes, and other life-affirming charities have offered women an alternative to abortion: real support. Data shows that women want this kind of support. Sixty-seven percent of women said their abortions were inconsistent with their own values and preferences. Through counseling, material assistance, and long-term support, these organizations help thousands of women navigate pregnancy while building healthy and stable futures for their families.  The national network of nearly 3,000 PRCs has offered a lifeline to pregnant women who want to choose life but lack adequate resources or support. PRCs have cumulatively donated hundreds of millions of dollars towards this goal, including $452M in 2024 alone, with most offering medical, material, educational, and other resources completely free of charge. The broader pro-life safety net of local charities offers additional material, financial, and medical support, empowering vulnerable women to thrive as mothers. Dozens of women have come forward to testify that PRCs like First Choice enabled them to continue their pregnancies and become confident and competent mothers. Many of these women also attest that PRCs gave them long-term and wrap-around support, helping them overcome drug addictions, homelessness, poverty, domestic abuse, and more.  Whether you contribute to an addiction recovery program, run a food pantry, or raise funds for cancer research, this case should give you pause. There is a reason we respect the privacy of people who give generously to private charities: charities bring love, hope, and support to those in need. Groups across the political spectrum have filed amicus briefs in defense of First Choice Women’s Resource Center. They recognize what a threat this case will hold if it is wrongly decided. (Even the American Civil Liberties Union agrees this case is outrageous.) From the beginning, it was obvious that Platkin’s subpoena, which demanded First Choice’s donor records and other private information, was a politically motivated investigation. Within weeks of the Dobbs decision, he launched a “Reproductive Rights Strike Force” and later joined a group of extreme state attorneys general in a joint letter criticizing PRCs. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that he burdened the women running First Choice with a time-consuming and costly court case. Americans across the political spectrum are rightly concerned by this overt display of government power against a nonprofit charity. If First Choice loses the case, any non-profit in America could be entangled in politically motivated, unwarranted investigations that drastically impede their ability to provide care in their communities. The pro-life safety net’s work is far from finished, but its dedicated, faithful service to moms and their babies shouldn’t be controversial. Organizations like Her PLAN, of which I serve as executive director, are strengthening and extending the pro-life safety net in states across the country to meet growing need. America’s legacy of neighbors helping neighbors through nonprofit organizations hinges on the decision in the First Choice case.  If the Supreme Court hands the attorney general’s office a victory, charities nationwide, the women and families who depend on them, and the donors who sustain them will face the same political targeting.  Pregnancy centers and the entire charitable community anxiously await the Supreme Court’s decision, hoping and praying it will protect donor privacy and nonprofit independence from political retribution. For the sake of vulnerable women, their children, and the selfless individuals who serve them each day with steadfast resolve, it’s my greatest hope that it does. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post How Will SCOTUS Respond to NJ Tightening Its Hold on Nonprofits? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Iran's Last Chance To Avoid Finding Out What's Behind Door Number B-2

Spain Has Become Ground Zero for the #Resistance

The ideas in this particularly juicy conspiracy theory were considered impossible when it was first proposed, but they are broad enough that they get new life on the internet every now and then.

Collaboration that made precise measurement of the g-2 value honored with $3 million from the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics.