The world’s richest man has had enough of anti-Israel fake news peddler and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof for continuing to spew sewage on the internet with impunity. Kristof attempted to play gotcha! against SpaceX CEO Elon Musk by making a post-hoc argument to illustrate how the first trillionaire supposedly “killed” people by taking a blowtorch to the massive government waste replete throughout federal agencies. “Elon, I can give you many, many names of people who have died because of your aid cuts,” Kristof snorted in a June 28 X post. He then cherry picked a few random names and then arbitrarily shoe-horned Musk's DOGE cuts as being the culprit behind their deaths: “Yamah Freeman was a 23-year-old woman who died in childbirth because you stopped paying for the diesel for ambulances in her part of Liberia. I talked to her parents and sister in their village.” As NewsBusters Media Editor Bill D’Agostino suggested in retort, this is as idiotic as saying Musk could be blamed for a kid dying in Tajikistan from toxoplasmosis because he stopped paying for his Mucinex. Musk had a one-line response to Kristof’s nonsense: “You’re an utter piece of shit and a liar.”  Manhattan Institute senior fellow Christopher Rufo piled on the mockery: “The moral calculus here is insane. According to Kristof, the USA is responsible for every poor nation in the entire world. If an ambulance runs out of fuel in rural Liberia, that is our fault. The liberal has a pathological tension between the feelings of omnipotence and guilt.” Using Kristof’s logic, the Trump administration putting a freeze on $8 million for the African Elephant Conservation Fund means he would be liable if the world’s largest pachyderms eventually experience a thinning of the population.  You’re an utter piece of shit and a liar — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 30, 2026 What made it worse for Kristof was that he tried doubling down on his argument a day later, making himself look even more foolish in the process and teeing him up to get swatted down by Musk: No, I don't think we are responsible for all poor nations. But we were saving 1 life every 10 seconds with USAID, and we cut that off abruptly with no time for countries to adjust. So kids died unnecessarily. And I do think that it's bad when kids die unnecessarily, don't you? Of course, there’s absolutely zero way for Kristof to know if we were in fact saving “1 life every 10 seconds with USAID,” given the litany of chain of custody issues and lack of oversight that has become damningly commonplace with foreign aid. As South Africa’s Mail & Guardian newspaper reported January 30, despite the U.S. giving $200 billion in foreign assistance to Africa since 1991, “African countries lose an estimated $88 billion each year through tax evasion, money laundering and corruption.” The USAID Inspector General Adam Kaplan even admitted in a March 17 statement to the House House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Intelligence that “Foreign assistance programs, no matter which agency administers them, are targets for fraud, corruption, and diversion to terrorist organizations.”  Musk addressing these significant issues is apparently tantamount to killing people, according to Kristof. Kristof clearly didn’t think this correlation vs. causation argument through at all. But what more can you expect from the same moron who actually tried convincing the world through garbage journalism that the Israeli Defense Forces were teaching dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners? Here’s a suggestion for Kristof: Just because you have a social media account doesn’t mean you have to post every lowbrow thing that pops into your brain. 

With the exception of increasingly dour Democrats, adult Americans’ pride in their country is holding steady as the nation nears the 250th anniversary of its founding, results of a new Gallup poll reveal. In a national survey of U.S. adults (18+), conducted June 1-15, 93% of Republicans and 51% of Independents said they were either “extremely” or “very” proud to be an American, on par with the 92% of Republicans and 53% of Independents who voiced such pride in June of last year. Among Democrats, however, those expressing similar pride in being American fell to 27%, down from 36% last year – when it plummeted 26 percentage points from 2024, as Gallup noted in its 2025 report: “Democrats are mostly responsible for the drop in U.S. pride this year (2025), with 36% saying they are extremely or very proud, down from 62% a year ago. This is only the second time Democrats’ pride has fallen below the majority level, along with a 42% reading in 2020, the last year of the first Trump administration. That poll was conducted during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and shortly after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers.” Overall in 2026, 58% of U.S. adults reported they were either extremely or very proud to be an America, down from 53% in 2025, as the decline in those with “extreme” pride (from 41% to 33%) was partially offset by an increase in adults who said they were “very” proud (from 17% to 20%). Among Independents, those who said they were very proud inched up from 21% to 23%, but those who said they were extremely proud Americans fell more, from 32% to 28%. This year’s 56-point gap between the 70% of Republicans who said they were “extremely” proud to be American and the 14% of Democrats who felt the same rivals the record 57-point difference in 2025. Republicans (69%) are also far more likely than Democrats (26%) to express national pride by displaying the American flag outside their homes on national holidays or other days during the year, Gallup found. Among Independents, 42% reported that they fly the American flag. Both Republicans and Independents are more likely to fly the flag today than they were 40 years ago, while Democrats are less inclined to do so, Gallup notes. In 1986, 50% of Republicans, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Independents said they flew the flag outside their homes.

Ooops! What we predicted about higher gas prices a couple of months ago... Never mind!  On April 28, Politico White House reporter Scott Waldman along with his sidekick, Eli Stokols, were confidently citing experts who predicted a big surge in gasoline prices due to the Iran war as you can see in "‘There’s a day of reckoning coming’: Energy experts expect another spike at the pump." Energy experts say another oil price spike is coming — and it may be made worse by the president’s social media posts. President Donald Trump has repeatedly spurred temporary dips in oil prices by claiming on Truth Social that the Iran war is near an end and that U.S. oil production would ensure sky high gas prices would soon retreat. The jawboning has mostly worked. Even as the global price of oil has crept up over $100 per barrel on the futures market, it is significantly less than the $140 per barrel spot price, or what it would take to buy a barrel today. But the president’s promises can only work for so long. Supply of oil — especially in Europe and Asia — is dwindling and a price shock is coming, said Dan Pickering, chief investment officer at Pickering Energy Partners. He said that when the summer driving season begins there will be another gas price shock that “hits people in the face.” “There’s a day of reckoning coming,” he said. “It will be painful because I can tell you that the stock market’s ignoring this.” Well, two months later and it appears that the "day of reckoning" is fading away as petroleum and gasoline prices continue declining.. From a high in April of $112 per barrel of crude oil that price has plunged over $40 to the current price of just over $70 per barrel with the price of gasoline also declining and expected to lower even more. To Waldman's credit, he acknowledged the erroneous predictions of April on Tuesday in "Energy experts said gas prices would stay high. Why were they wrong?" Gasoline prices have fallen precipitously since the U.S. and Iran began their fragile truce, defying expert predictions of a long summer slog with sky-high prices. Instead of spiraling upward, the average price at the pump has plummeted 70 cents per gallon in a month from a peak of $4.56. A little over a week since the memorandum of understanding was signed between the countries, a barrel of oil costs just a little more than it did before the U.S. and Israel bombed Iran in late February. It wasn’t supposed to work this way, according to energy experts whose predictions of $150 barrel of oil, $5 gasoline and summer recessions were widely quoted in the media, including POLITICO. Unsurprisingly, since this is Politico after all, Waldman seemed a bit bummed out that the lower than expected gas prices at the pump could improve the GOP election prospects in the midterm elections. The falling prices are a huge win for the president and his party, helping to blunt an easy Democratic attack line ahead of the upcoming midterms in which voters say they are hyperfocused on the cost-of-living. While voters may never forgive the spike, many political prognosticators thought it was going to be much worse. If the current prices hold, the midterms may not be quite as catastrophic for Trump and Republicans in November, said Frank Luntz, the veteran Republican pollster. But he said the deadline for easing voter anxiety over affordability is essentially now. That’s because voter attitudes are locked in by August, which means that further price drops in September and October are likely less meaningful. Hmmm... So does that mean Scott Waldman and much of the rest of the Politico staff will be furiously rubbing their worry beads in August while gazing fixatedly at the prices on the gas pumps?

On Sunday's Connect show, MS NOW host Jacob Soboroff devoted a segment to left-wing country singer Bryan Andrews, played a clip of him ranting against ICE, and allowed him to use his time on air to excoriate conservative Christians for supporting ICE. Early on in the interview, Soboroff set up the clip: "I want to play, if it's okay, a little bit of one of your videos about ICE's immigration crackdown -- something that I cover a lot for for our network. This went viral. Let's let's listen to that real quick." Then came a soundbite of Andrews shouting: Soboroff Plugs Lefty Singer Who Trashes Conservative Christians pic.twitter.com/WzahjpULbO — Brad Wilmouth (@bradwilmouth) June 29, 2026 I got to sit here and listen to you all call yourselves Christians! Bulls***! You don't get to call yourself a Christian and then advocate and laugh when families are torn apart outside of courthouses, of people trying to come here the right ways! You don't get to call yourself a Christian and then think it's okay that the highest court in the f***ing land just gave a green light to ICE agents to be able to f***ing target people because they are brown or speaking Spanish! No fact checks were performed. The MS NOW host then hinted at his guest being a left-wing Christian as he followed up: SOBOROFF: You're a deeply faithful person. ANDREWS: Yeah. SOBOROFF: How do you -- how do you navigate these kind of conversations when you're talking to neighbors who -- who go to the exact same church that you do on Sunday morning, but vote for the policies that you are railing against there? The liberal singer then admitted that he no longer thinks of himself as a Christian. So much for that "deeply faithful person" stuff: ANDREWS: Yeah. I mean, to be honest with you, I haven't been to church in a long time because of that. You know what I'm saying? Like that's the, but I -- I think that that's where, for me, maybe I've stopped calling myself a Christian because, I mean -- SOBOROFF: Wow. ANDREWS: -- I don't -- I don't support that. And I will never -- I will never, ever understand how somebody can look and read a Bible about a man who was so loving and treated people with respect and love and dignity, no matter where they came from or who they are or what they look like, condoning this stuff because I'm just -- I'm sorry. Andrews added: Look, in the Texas state board of education case that we've just seen, you know, where they just said that now we're going to, in the state of Texas, make it mandatory curriculum for students to read the Bible or parts of the Bible. If you have to force-feed Christianity to children, it was never, ever about you wanting kids to find Jesus or to find their faith or anything like that. It was always about control. And if your Jesus condones that, that's not my Jesus. Transcript follows: JACOB SOBOROFF: I want to play, if it's okay, a little bit of one of your videos about ICE's immigration crackdown -- something that I cover a lot for for our network. This went viral. Let's let's listen to that real quick. BRYAN ANDREWS, COUNTRY SINGER: Yeah. ANDREWS (shouting in a recording): I got to sit here and listen to you all call yourselves Christians! Bulls***! You don't get to call yourself a Christian and then advocate and laugh when families are torn apart outside of courthouses, of people trying to come here the right ways! You don't get to call yourself a Christian and then think it's okay that the highest court in the f***ing land just gave a green light to ICE agents to be able to f***ing target people because they are brown or speaking Spanish! SOBOROFF: You're a deeply faithful person. ANDREWS: Yeah. SOBOROFF: How do you -- how do you navigate these kind of conversations when you're talking to neighbors who -- who go to the exact same church that you do on Sunday morning, but vote for the policies that you are railing against there? ANDREWS: Yeah. I mean, to be honest with you, I haven't been to church in a long time because of that. You know what I'm saying? Like that's the, but I -- I think that that's where, for me, maybe I've stopped calling myself a Christian because, I mean -- SOBOROFF: Wow. ANDREWS: -- I don't -- I don't support that. And I will never -- I will never, ever understand how somebody can look and read a Bible about a man who was so loving and treated people with respect and love and dignity, no matter where they came from or who they are or what they look like, condoning this stuff because I'm just -- I'm sorry. I hate to -- I mean, we watch it -- look, in the Texas state board of education case that we've just seen, you know, where they just said that now we're going to, in the state of Texas, make it mandatory curriculum for students to read the Bible or parts of the Bible. If you have to force feed Christianity to children, it was never, ever about you wanting kids to find Jesus or to find their faith or anything like that. It was always about control. And if your Jesus condones that, that's not my Jesus.

MS NOW host Jen Psaki welcomed NAACP general counsel Kristen Clarke to Tuesday’s edition of The Briefing to help her make sense of the day’s Supreme Court rulings. When it came to the ruling that upheld state laws prohibiting males from competing in women’s sports, Clarke not-so subtly suggested the ruling would contribute to “high rates of suicide and depression.” Psaki led Clarke by wondering if there was some darker and more sinister plot at work in the Court’s ruling, “Do you—one of the things I've seen out there from some legal experts, but I'm interested in your view, is that this is a—it's not just about this, that this is a slippery slope to potentially go after, you know, something more expansive, the ability, you know, against discrimination of any kind based on gender. What do you think? Is this a slippery slope to a larger objective and goal? What should we be clear-eyed about here?”   Jen Psaki asks NAACP legal counsel Kristen Clarke about the Supreme Court's transgender sports ruling,"What do you think? Is this a slippery slope to a larger objective and goal? What should we be clear-eyed about here?" Clarke claims the ruling was a "awfully, terribly, a… pic.twitter.com/kwsMItnJgZ — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) July 1, 2026   Clarke responded by trying to guilt-trip the Court’s conservatives and presumably anyone else who does not want males in female sports, “I mean, what a great ruling on birthright citizenship, but no doubt the transgender sports question that went before the Court came out awfully, terribly, a tremendous setback for the LGTBQ movement in our country, and I think about transgender children who suffer from high rates of suicide and depression and simply want the ability to participate like all other kids.” Switching topics, Clarke added, “I do think that civil—our civil rights statue and the architecture of our Civil Rights Movement is unraveling quickly. This Trump administration has, you know, turned the clock back when it comes to enforcement of our federal civil rights. I used to lead the Civil Rights Division, which is nothing more than a shadow of its former self. And we have a Court now that is expressing tremendous hostility to civil rights, especially when it comes to voting rights, right?” She also claimed, “The Calais decision is one of the most consequential and devastating decisions of this Supreme Court term. So, I think it's important that we be vigilant in terms of the work that lies ahead. It's why I think that as we have this conversation, we need to also be talking about the need for Supreme Court reform, the need to figure out how we restore independence and fairness to the Court.” Despite just praising the birthright citizenship case as a “great ruling,” Clarke claimed “we” need to talk about reforming the Court because it just isn’t neutral, “We need to be talking about term limits, a ban on the shadow docket, and a way to ensure that the Supreme Court is once again a neutral place, so that when these questions about constitutional interpretation and about our civil rights laws and how they should be interpreted and applied go before those nine justices, we can have confidence that we're getting a fair, a fair outcome.” By "neutral," Clarke really means “a Supreme Court that agrees with me.” Outcomes she agrees with are “great,” but are to be quickly forgotten as outcomes she doesn’t like are supposedly leading to suicide and depression. Here is a transcript for the June 30 show: MS NOW The Briefing with Jen Psaki 6/30/2026 9:16 PM ET JEN PSAKI: Do you—one of the things I've seen out there from some legal experts, but I'm interested in your view, is that this is a—it's not just about this, that this is a slippery slope to potentially go after, you know, something more expansive, the ability, you know, against discrimination of any kind based on gender. What do you think? Is this a slippery slope to a larger objective and goal? What should we be clear-eyed about here? KRISTEN CLARKE: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, what a great ruling on birthright citizenship, but no doubt the transgender sports question that went before the Court came out awfully, terribly, a tremendous setback for the LGTBQ movement in our country, and I think about transgender children who suffer from high rates of suicide and depression and simply want the ability to participate like all other kids. I do think that civil—our civil rights statue and the architecture of our Civil Rights Movement is unraveling quickly. This Trump administration has, you know, turned the clock back when it comes to enforcement of our federal civil rights. I used to lead the Civil Rights Division, which is nothing more than a shadow of its former self. And we have a Court now that is expressing tremendous hostility to civil rights, especially when it comes to voting rights, right? The Calais decision is one of the most consequential and devastating decisions of this Supreme Court term. So, I think it's important that we be vigilant in terms of the work that lies ahead. It's why I think that as we have this conversation, we need to also be talking about the need for Supreme Court reform, the need to figure out how we restore independence and fairness to the Court. We need to be talking about term limits, a ban on the shadow docket, and a way to ensure that the Supreme Court is once again a neutral place, so that when these questions about constitutional interpretation and about our civil rights laws and how they should be interpreted and applied go before those nine justices, we can have confidence that we're getting a fair, a fair outcome.