Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The United States is seeking to develop small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) for commercial vessels that would potentially bring down shipping costs, the Department of Transportation (DOT) said in a May 7 statement.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy speaks at a press conference at LaGuardia Airport in New York City on Oct. 28, 2025. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

The initiative, launched by DOT Secretary Sean P. Duffy and the Maritime Administration (MARAD), has issued a Request for Information (RFI) for this purpose. An RFI is a formal document to gather preliminary information regarding a good or service from suppliers. In this specific case, the purpose of the RFI is to investigate whether the advancements in SMR technology and other developments are “usable, scalable, and can be made commercially viable,” according to the RFI published in the Federal Register on May 7.

SMRs have a power generation capacity of up to 300 megawatts, which is roughly a third of the traditionally larger nuclear power reactors. While the big reactors are typically custom-designed for a specific location, SMRs can be manufactured as pre-fabricated units and then transported and installed at any location.

MARAD is calling on industry stakeholders and innovators to help in the development of an SMR model that would revitalize the U.S. shipping industry, cut down transportation costs, and secure energy dominance, the DOT statement said.

“To successfully introduce SMRs, we must view this through a system-transition lens rather than just as a technology demonstration,” MARAD Administrator Stephen M. Carmel said.

“We are seeking critical insights on how the government can help reduce systemic uncertainty, align regulatory structures, and enable the market conditions necessary for private capital and operators to scale these groundbreaking technologies.”

The federal government is seeking inputs from the industry to advance the development of SMRs that would mostly eliminate fuel costs and minimize maintenance requirements, identify streamlined methods to deploy nuclear power across the nation’s fleets and logistical networks, integrate SMR production into American shipyards, and set up liability, inspection, and insurance frameworks on this matter.

MARAD is collaborating with the DOT, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the U.S. Coast Guard to support the development of SMRs.

According to the DOT, the SMR initiative advances two of President Donald Trump’s executive orders—Unleashing American Energy issued on Jan. 20, 2025, and Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance issued on April 9, 2025.

The Jan. 20 order instructed the heads of all agencies to review regulations, policies, and orders that impose “undue burden” on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy resources, including nuclear power.

The April 9 order said it is the policy of the United States to rebuild and revitalize America’s maritime industries and workforce to ensure economic prosperity and safeguard national security.

Commenting on the SMR initiative, Duffy said that “under President Trump’s leadership, the U.S. is reclaiming its rightful place as a global sea power.”

“To secure this future for America’s shipbuilding industry, we need to innovate. By partnering with industry experts and outside-the-box thinkers to develop a strong SMR model, we will deliver a state-of-the-art energy source that cuts costs and bolsters national security—all at the Speed of Trump,” the DOT secretary said.

SMR Concerns

Despite the potential of SMRs, there are concerns about deploying the technology.

A December 2025 study published in the Energy Research and Social Science journal highlighted that the high upfront costs of deploying SMRs could require injecting public subsidies into such programs.

“Diverting public investment into new small-scale nuclear projects may deprive communities of funding for other urgent priorities such as healthcare, education, and renewable energy alternatives,” the study said.

As for employment opportunities, “although construction and initial operation phases generate employment, these opportunities diminish over time as SMR plants typically require fewer personnel for ongoing maintenance and operation. This raises questions about whether the socio-economic benefits such projects are purported to bring are equitably distributed,” it said.

Meanwhile, big tech companies, such as Amazon and Google, have announced plans regarding the construction of SMRs or buying nuclear power from such facilities.

The U.S. military is looking at deploying microreactors, a subset of SMRs that can typically generate 20 megawatts or less of electricity, according to an April 27 statement from the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

For instance, the Army launched the Janus Program in October 2025, aimed at building microreactors, and has already selected nine potential bases to house them.

The Air Force is planning to set up its first microreactor at Alaska’s Eielson Air Force Base, while the Navy is soliciting offers to power its installations with SMRs and microreactors, the EIA said.

India’s Prime Minister called on the nation to work from home, travel less, and conserve fuel to help the government save foreign exchange, OilPrice reported.

“In the current situation, we must place great emphasis on saving foreign exchange,” Narendra Modi said, as quoted by Reuters. The prime minister also urged Indians to stop buying gold, again to conserve foreign exchange. Modi also called on farmers to reduce their fertilizer use by as much as 50%.

CNBC recalls that India spent $174.9 billion on crude oil and refined product imports in the financial year that ended on March 31, as its import bill swelled amid the oil price jump prompted by the war in the Middle East. Another $72 billion was spent on gold imports over the period.

Since then, oil prices have risen further, with Brent crude topping $105 per barrel again earlier today, after President Donal Trump rejected Iran’s response to a peace plan he proposed last week. Trump called Iran’s version of the peace deal “totally unacceptable”, dampening hopes of a swift resolution of the war. West Texas Intermediate was trading at $100 per barrel at the time of writing.

More than 40 India-bound vessels, nearly half of which carry energy products, are still trapped in the Persian Gulf, unable to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, officials told India last week. The ships are laden with crude oil, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), and LNG, as well as fertilizer and other products. A total of 13 ships flagged to India are still stuck west of the Strait of Hormuz, according to the Indian government.

India relies on the Middle East for as much as 50% of its crude oil imports and 60% of its liquefied natural gas imports.

Dependence is the heaviest in liquefied petroleum gas, however, which Indians use for cooking. In LPG, India is almost entirely dependent on the Middle East.

Authored by Peter Earle via the American Institute for Economic Research,

The notion that artificial intelligence (AI) at full bloom might eliminate the need for money reflects a deep confusion about what money is and does. Money is not merely a barter-avoiding convenience layered onto an otherwise frictionless world. It is a solution to fundamental problems of exchange, profound difficulties in coordination, and comparison of alternatives under scarcity. Even in a hypothetical future defined by extraordinary productivity gains and broadly collapsing prices, those underlying problems do not disappear. Instead, they change form, and for as long as scarcity, tradeoffs, and uncertainty persist in any domain, so too will the need for money.

To begin with, the most basic point: Scarcity is not abolished by abundance. It is displaced. AI may dramatically reduce the cost of producing many goods and services, particularly those that are digital or easily replicable. But large swaths of economic life remain governed by constraints vastly beyond the power of computation. Land is fixed. Location is inherently scarce. Prime real estate in places like New York City or Tokyo will not become abundant simply because construction costs fall precipitously. The same holds for proximity to infrastructure, culture, or social networks. These are rival, excludable goods, and in such conditions, exchange requires a mechanism for allocating access. Money remains the most efficient one yet developed.

Time is another irreducible constraint. Human attention, especially in its highest-value forms, cannot and will not scale infinitely. The time of a skilled surgeon, an experienced trial lawyer, or a sought-after performer remains finite, tentative, and rivalrous. Even if AI were to augment a person’s capabilities, it does not eliminate the fact that the person’s attention must be allocated among competing uses. The same applies to live experiences: concerts, events, one-on-one advisory relationships, and so on, where presence itself is scarce. In such contexts, prices are not a relic—they are a reflection of incontrovertible limitations.

In fact, abundance often amplifies the importance of scarcity. As mass-produced goods become ever cheaper, a premium will shift toward what cannot be easily replicated. Consider status goods, fixed positional assets, and signals of taste. Luxury brands, rare collectibles, and authenticated works derive value precisely from their limited supply and provenance. If AI floods the world with high-quality substitutes, the value of the original or source item may increase, not decrease. Money, in this sense, becomes a way of expressing relative preference over increasingly differentiated manifestations of scarcity.

Physical systems themselves impose limits. Energy, for example, may become cheaper on average, but it inexorably faces capacity constraints, especially during peak demand periods. The same is true of certain materials, bandwidth, and computational resources in periods of congestion. Even highly advanced systems must allocate finite capacity across competing uses, and money prices remain an extraordinarily efficient, indeed elegant way of doing so. Without them, the hallmarks of rationing—queues, quotas, and administrative fiat—appear, none of which eliminate, but rather contend with and obscure, scarcity.

The unavoidable force of uncertainty is perhaps the most decisive argument against the obsolescence of money. Risk does not vanish amid colossal gains in productivity and output; if anything, complex, tightly coupled systems generate new forms of it. An explosion of goods and services will tax resources, time, and human capital, which will in turn generate new forms of insurance, hedging, and credit to transfer and price risk. Those functions require not just a medium of exchange but a unit of account to operate effectively. The idea that AI could eliminate uncertainty is as implausible as the idea that it could eliminate time.

Institutional realities reinforce the former point. Anywhere one finds government or governance, excludability inevitably follows. Property rights, regulatory approvals, access to bespoke networks, and enforcement mechanisms all create domains in which access is controlled. Money is readily suited to become (or, in fact, continue to be) the means by which access is negotiated, transferred, or prioritized. In a world inundated by output, trust and verification become more valuable. Certification, auditing, and reputation systems all rely on mechanisms of exchange that presuppose some form of monetary unit.

Money also plays a central role in coordinating urgency and priority. When resources are scarce in time versus in quantity (faster service, guaranteed delivery, and dedicated capacity), money allows individuals to signal how much they value immediacy relative to others. Absent money, such decisions do not disappear; they are made through other, often less transparent means.

An AI-driven deflationary boom would likely compress the prices of many goods and services. Perhaps dramatically so. But that would not—and could not—eliminate the need for money. It would shift the domain in which prices and calculations operate toward the nonreplicable, capacity-limited, and institutionally governed.

Money does not disappear in the face of abundance; it instead follows scarcity wherever it emerges.

Wesley Edens, billionaire investor and co-owner of the Milwaukee Bucks, replied to a 2022 LinkedIn message from Changli Sophia Luo, a China-born founder of a small Manhattan nonprofit that produced interview videos. Their exchanges turned personal; by June 2023 they met at her apartment and had sex, according to the Wall Street Journal, citing prosectuors.  

What followed, authorities say, became an extortion case. Luo was indicted for allegedly trying to extract over $1 billion by threatening to release explicit images and videos. Prosecutors claim she repeatedly contacted Edens’s relatives, warned she would approach investors, and vowed to ruin him. She faces four charges, including blackmail and evidence destruction, and has pleaded not guilty. Released on $500,000 bond, she awaits trial.

Edens was not initially named, but a spokesman confirmed he is “Victim-1.” He reported the matter over safety concerns and is expected to testify. His side declined further comment: “Mr. Edens will be making no comment on the case as the indictment speaks for itself with respect to the charges against the defendant.”

The WSJ writes that Luo’s attorneys argue she sought accountability for what they describe as “an inappropriate and aggressive sexual encounter,” asking the court to dismiss the case. Federal prosecutors have not commented.

The dispute highlights reputational risks when personal relationships involving high-profile figures unravel. Victims often hesitate to involve authorities, partly because cases can expose private details.

“Extortion victims usually don’t want to cooperate, and don’t want to go to the government—for the very reasons that extortion or blackmail work,” said defense lawyer Scott R. Wilson.

Investigators began looking into Luo in early 2025 after Edens’s lawyer contacted the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office. After their encounter, Luo sent Edens a message: “I never told you I love you, and tonight I want to tell you that, I have been restraining my feeling for you, as I do love you from the bottom of my heart!” He didn’t reply.

Months later, prosecutors say her tone shifted. She allegedly contacted Edens’s then-girlfriend (now wife), his ex-wife, and claimed the encounter was nonconsensual due to mental incapacity. She warned him: “I am sure your family and business partners will learn about you and your misdeeds from these interviews and will provide exposure that will taint your record forever.”

Seeking to stop further contact and avoid publicity, Edens agreed to mediation. Luo negotiated with his lawyers and, according to her side, a $6.5 million settlement was reached, with $1 million upfront. Later, she said she had contracted HPV-16 and sought far more money—prosecutors say up to $1.215 billion.

After hiring attorney Tyrone Blackburn, she allegedly escalated threats, including releasing images and “destroying” Edens. Defense lawyer Arthur Aidala argued those statements were aggressive negotiation, not extortion, and said prior counsel should have warned her.

Blackburn denied encouraging any threats: “To ever say that I in any way encouraged her to engage in acts of extortion…that is a baldfaced lie.”

In May, the FBI searched Luo’s apartment and found hidden phones, including one containing manipulated explicit material featuring Edens, prosecutors said. She was arrested June 14 at JFK Airport while attempting to fly to China.

Authored by Guy Birchall via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on May 10 that he hopes to wean Israel off U.S. military support within a decade.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, Israel, on March 19, 2026. Ronen Zvulun/Reuters

In 2016, under the Obama administration, the United States agreed to give Israel $38 billion in military assistance. The memorandum of understanding covered U.S. fiscal years 2019–2028.

“I want to draw down to zero the American financial support, the financial component of the military cooperation that we have,” Netanyahu told CBS News’ 60 Minutes on Sunday.

He said that it is “absolutely” the right time to reset the U.S.–Israeli financial relationship, adding that he doesn’t “want to wait for the next Congress,” but wants to “start now.”

The state of Israel has long enjoyed support from both Republicans and Democrats in the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, particularly on the topic of military aid.

Since the outbreak of war in Gaza, in response to the attack by the Hamas-led terrorists against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, that left about 1,200 Israelis dead, support from both politicians and the U.S. public has waned.

A Pew Research poll published in March found that some 60 percent of American adults now view Israel unfavorably, with 59 percent saying they had little or no confidence that Netanyahu would do the right thing regarding world affairs.

Both those percentages had risen by seven percentage points from a year earlier.

Netanyahu told 60 Minutes that the deterioration in support for his nation amongst U.S. citizens “correlates almost 100 percent with the geometric rise of social media.”

He said that several countries have “basically manipulated” social media in a way that “hurt us badly,” but added that he did not support censorship.

Netanyahu said these nations used “bot farms with fake addresses” to break American sympathy toward Israel, and rupture the alliance between Washington and Jerusalem, “because they think it’s in their interest.”

“And they do it in a clever way,” he said, offering an example. “You know, it’s like you hear a text message, ‘I’m a, you know, red-blooded Texan. I always supported Israel. But I can’t stand what they’re doing. I’m turning against Israel.’ And then you trace the address to some basement in Pakistan, you know.”

Defending Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon, Netanyahu said that the Jewish state had “gone to unbelievable lengths” to prevent civilian casualties.

Damage in the Ain el Mreisseh neighborhood of Beirut, Lebanon, on April 8, 2026, after an Israeli strike. Nael Chahine/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

“We text message millions of text messages to them. Make millions of phone calls to them, pamphlets, leaflets, you name it, okay? And whereas, Hamas and Hezbollah go out of their way to keep their own people in harm’s way, they shoot them,” he said.

Netanyahu added that though there had been civilian casualties in the course of Israel’s actions, “the proportion of civilian casualties, noncombatants to combatants is one of the lowest in the history of modern urban warfare.”

Though the Israeli leader declined to discuss his nation’s future military plans or a timetable for ending the war against Iran, which Israel is prosecuting in conjunction with the United States, he did say that it was only after conflict had broken out that Israeli planners recognized Iran’s ability to close the Strait of Hormuz.

“It took a while for them to understand how big that risk is, which they understand now,” Netanyahu said.

He said that if the current Iranian regime was weakened or ousted, he believed it would be “the end of Hezbollah, it’s the end of Hamas, it’s probably the end of the Houthis, because the whole scaffolding of the terrorist proxy network that Iran built collapses.”

When asked whether it was possible to topple the Iranian regime, he said: “Is it possible? Yes. Is it guaranteed? No.”

The former White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator who helped shape the 6-foot rule, extended lockdowns, school closures, and “15 Days to Slow the Spread” (that somehow became much longer) is once again on television recommending widespread PCR testing – this time for hantavirus.

In recent appearances on mainstream outlets, Dr. Deborah Birx discussed a hantavirus situation linked to a cruise ship. She suggested offering PCR tests to passengers who had already disembarked and were scattered around the globe, calling it “21st-century technology” and arguing it would catch early or asymptomatic cases. She referenced lessons from COVID, noting that “we’re not testing populations… we don’t really know whether there are subclinical cases” and that “it’s never good to track viruses through symptoms; we should be tracking viruses through blood tests like PCR, we learned that with Covid.”

Dr. Deborah Birx starts to laugh and suggests that we need to begin testing the population for hantavirus with PCR testing, similar to what was done during the COVID-19 pandemic.

She says there could be more human-to-human transmission occurring and that they should be tracking… pic.twitter.com/lkZbilTpcF

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) May 10, 2026

She also pointed out that many universities and schools were able to stay open during the pandemic because of weekly testing. The clip, which has circulated widely, shows her laughing while making the case for broader availability of such testing.

This, of course, is the same Dr. Birx who, in her 2022 book Silent Invasion, described how the initial two-week shutdown was never really meant to be just two weeks. She wrote that she didn’t have the numbers yet to justify extending it but had two weeks to get them – aka she pulled it out of her ass. 

The 6-foot distancing rule, school closures, and other measures she defended have faced years of scrutiny. Former Trump administration health official Dr. Paul Alexander has stated publicly that certain CDC guidelines, including aspects of social distancing, were essentially “made up” with little to no science behind them at the time. Congressional testimony and reporting later revealed internal debates and evolving rationales for lockdowns and mitigation steps that went well beyond the original “flatten the curve” pitch.

Now, with a hantavirus outbreak tied to one cruise ship – a virus that has existed for decades, spreads primarily through rodent droppings, and has limited human-to-human transmission – Birx is reaching for the familiar tools: more PCR testing, population-level tracking, and references to what “worked” during COVID for schools and beyond.

Hantavirus is serious in the rare cases it occurs, but it is not a novel respiratory pathogen racing through communities the way SARS-CoV-2 did. The current context is narrow and specific. Yet the language echoes 2020: test more people, track more aggressively, make it widely available, because that’s what we learned last time.

No visible course correction. No reflection on the documented limitations of PCR testing at high cycle thresholds, the collateral damage from prolonged restrictions, or the fact that many of the original rules were adjusted or walked back as more data emerged. Just the same public-health reflex applied to the next virus that makes headlines.

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

The Earth Moves Just a Bit

“Operation Epic Fury was the loud one. Operation Economic Fury is the quiet one. . . . While the carriers were on television, Treasury was doing the actual demolition.”

– Jesús Enrique Rosas on X

Expect a consequential week.

The Persian Gulf remains closed and colossal oil slicks leak out of Kharg Island while Iran blusters and stomps its feet. No one can even try to buy its oil anymore, not even China. The sanctions are too onerous. Iran’s wells must be shut in now. Imagine how the production chiefs out in the oil fields are howling at their insane IRGC overseers.

Iran has no economy left operating. Iran’s domestic security force, the Basij (Sâzmân-e Basij-e Mostaz’afin, or “Mobilization of the Oppressed”) is strangling anyone who expresses discontent in the streets, not a good look for a regime that can’t survive without the pretense of popular support.

Late Sunday, the US President rejected the Tehran’s latest conditions for peace out of hand.

They are trying to jerk the whole world around, even while they whirl around the drain. Despite what you read in The New York Times — Iran’s US-based chief cheerleader — it is probably a matter of days now before capitulation. The ball is in America’s court this morning, a real hanging lob shot. The return is apt to be hard. Of course, whatever official utterances come out of Iran, you must discount by about 99.9-percent. For now, there is nothing but the morning fog of suspense.

But strange doings are a’foot elsewhere.

You might have noticed that the UK’s labor government got drubbed in local elections, losing nearly 1,500 council seats, a humiliating repudiation. It’s a matter of days before PM Keir Starmer will have to hang it up. His possible replacements are utterly unknown to Americans — Angela Rayner, a former Deputy PM, Energy Secretary Ed Milliband, Health Sec’y Wes Streeting — and any of them is just a place-holder for the election’s main winner Nigel Farage of the Reform Party, which exists wholly outside the age-old British political transect of Labour / Tories.

The Labour Party, you see, is lately as loathsome in the altogether to British voters as its current avatar, Sir Keir (Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath, KCB), whose latest act was to extend social welfare benefits to the additional wives of poly-marital Muslims. Way to go! Why not just travel the island empire from town-to-town and slap every indigenous Briton in the face? And the Tories (putative Conservatives), well, just fuggeddabowdem. Sir Keir’s Tory predecessor as PM, Rishi Sunak, screwed the pooch for his party into the next twenty years allowing net Third World migration to hit record highs while the kingdom crumbled.

The way it works over there, Sir Keir or whoever takes over from him, asks King Charles to dissolve Parliament, and you get a sudden national election short of Parliament’s regular five-year term. And so, sometime in the months ahead, Nigel Farage will become Prime Minister and things will change-up bigly in Britain. Mr. Farage will have to contend, among other things, with Donald Trump’s dismantling of whatever was left of Britain’s stealth neo-colonial command of global finance through the British banking system. The question really is: can Farage arrest his country’s sickening slide into becoming an Islamic caliphate, with all the Third World bells and whistles? Can he possibly even start shipping the most recent arrivals back to where they came from? Can he do what Mr. Trump is attempting in the USA and turn the UK back to an economy based on the actual production of goods rather than financial finaglery?

Oddly, as the old Mother Country rejects the Globalist tool, Keir Starmer, Canadian PM Mark Carney attempts to highjack the Globalist baton for the rest of Anglosphere remnant of the old empire. And also, in case you didn’t notice just days ago, King Charles’s attempt to kiss up to Mr. Trump, despite all the mutual flattery and gala ceremony, was a failure for the King of England. That is to say, he did not succeed in getting Mr. Trump to back off even a little bit from reducing the Crown’s imperious control over world affairs.

Former President Obama tries shadow foreign policy with Canadian PM Carney

And so, in the background, you see former president Barack Obama skulk into Ottawa to plot around all those developments with Canadian PM Carney, who is positioning himself to operate as the British Empire’s shadow PM-in-absentia — like the Pope in Avignon during the tumultuous 1300s.

That is, Carney, former head of the Bank of England, is electing himself to oppose Nigel Farage, with the stealth assistance of America’s shadow leader of the Democratic Party, Mr. Obama, who actually represents the Islamic-Marxist chimeric alliance that Globalism has become.

Why is Barack Obama not subject to violation of the Logan Act for this?

Alas for that shifty operation, the Democratic Party in America is now way back on its heels after the double punch of flubbing its Virginia redistricting gambit and then the SCOTUS decision against racial gerrymandering that will cull dozens of racially-engineered Democratic districts out of the US House of Representatives.

Out the window is the Democrats’ scheme to impeach both Mr. Trump and Veep Vance in 2027 so as to install Hakeem Jeffries in the White House.

Yeah, really.

That was their plan. . . suddenly up in a vapor.

And the DOJ’s prosecutions of the Party’s multitudinous grifters and color revolutionists has barely even begun. My Gawd, they are sinking really fast now.

And mid-week, it’s off to China for Mr. Trump to meet Uncle Xi.

How badly do they want their oil supplies switched back on? And what are they prepared to do, to make that happen?

Buckle up for a wild week.

Authored by J.B. Shurk via American Thinker,

He’s a judicial pimp who pragmatically defends the Establishment’s bottom line.

I do not like Chief Justice John Roberts.  I think his loyalties lie more with defending the entrenched powers of the political Establishment than with defending the Constitution of the United States.  I find his jurisprudence squishy.  Although his decisions could be described as advancing, more often than not, conservative viewpoints, Roberts does not seem to have a consistent philosophy guiding his opinions.

Roberts is a pragmatist.  He surveys the mood of the country and considers how the rest of the members of the Court will vote on any case, and he chooses a position that he feels will best preserve the institutional longevity of the Judicial Branch.  Roberts is, in other words, more interested in maintaining the power of the branch that he embodies than in making tough, but correct, decisions.

None of Roberts’ rulings better exemplifies this pragmatic, amoral approach to jurisprudence than his 2012 decision to save Obamacare by redefining the individual insurance mandate as a tax, rather than as a penalty.  During oral arguments, the Obama administration barely addressed the possibility that the mandate could be seen as a tax.  Democrats did not want to admit that nationalizing health insurance would increase costs for Americans, and the word “tax” certainly implies that prices will rise (which they did).

President Obama had been haranguing the Court for over a year that should it strike down his signature welfare legislation putting the federal government in control of American medicine, the decision would be disastrous for the American people and render the Court illegitimate.  Roberts lives in the D.C. bubble.  All his friends live in the D.C. bubble.  The Democrat-controlled corporate news media reflect the prevailing opinions of those who live within the D.C. bubble.  So Chief Justice Roberts chose to avoid leftist backlash (and to protect the Establishment’s sizable financial investments in government-controlled, socialized medicine) by aligning himself with Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Obama celebrated Roberts’ valuable assist: “The highest court in the land has now spoken,” the president gloated.  It is worth noting that similarly squishy jurist Justice Anthony Kennedy (a man whom Democrats succeeded in elevating to the Court after scuttling President Reagan’s original nomination of Robert Bork and then his replacement nomination of Douglas Ginsburg) actually joined the conservative members of the Court in a dissent that would have invalidated Obamacare in its entirety.  Because Roberts joined the four leftist members of the Court in protecting Obama’s government takeover of the medical profession, healthcare is substantially more expensive and provides substantially worse treatment today.

Roberts’ constitutionally illiterate and philosophically unsound Obamacare opinion permitted a nefarious government-corporate power axis to take hold that has killed private practices across the country, made every medical doctor a de facto government employee, replaced medical science with government-regulated treatments, and inserted a government bureaucrat inside every examination room.  But Roberts did preserve his standing in the D.C. bubble, maximize the profits of large insurance companies, bankrupt rural hospitals, increase the investment portfolio-generated wealth of insider-trading members of Congress, eliminate small practices that prioritized patient care, and let labor unions off the hook for healthcare obligations that they owed to their members.  Furthermore, an entire generation of young leftists — too ignorant to know that President Obama and his fellow Democrats are responsible for the horrible state of healthcare in the United States today — openly celebrate the assassination of health insurance company executives walking down the street.

When the issue of Obamacare’s unconstitutionality came before the Roberts Court, the chief justice could have saved the country from all the harm that has come from forcing another illegitimate government power grab upon the American people.  But that would have taken guts, wisdom, and principle.  Roberts has none of those virtues.  He’s a judicial pimp who pragmatically defends the Establishment’s bottom line.  The medical profession in America is worse off and American patients are poorer and less healthy because of Roberts’ cowardice.

What I find particularly galling about the chief justice, however, is that he demands to be respected as some kind of impartial and inherently righteous judicial priest.  If he could admit that he lacks a jurisprudential backbone and primarily represents the interests of the Establishment Blob in D.C., I would grant him some small measure of respect for being self-aware enough to understand that he is little more than a swampy, Leviathan-controlled, gelatinous judge whose opinions can be molded into whatever D.C.’s “elites” need.  But Roberts is not honest enough to do that.  Instead, he pretends to be above venal politics and struts around in his priestly robes as if he represents a branch of government too holy to be tainted by the inherently corrupting influence of power.

Although Roberts never said anything when Obama and his Democrat goons were threatening the Court before its damaging Obamacare decision, the chief justice jumped into action in 2018 to reprimand President Trump during his first term.  Trump had publicly excoriated a 9th Circuit judge for usurping constitutional powers vested to the president of the United States.  In doing so, Trump called the judicial tyrant “an Obama judge.”  Well, that rather anodyne remark threw Chief Justice Roberts into a “Why, I never” tizzy, and the Judicial Branch’s limp caretaker found his way to a member of the Democrat-controlled press in order to correct the president’s errant thinking: “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.  What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

Uhhh…sure, Chief Justice Gumby.  Why would a grown man feel compelled to tell such a blatant lie?  The whole country knows that judges come with certain ideological proclivities that influence their decisions on the bench.  While Republican presidents have repeatedly stumbled into nominating raging leftists (among them, Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice David Souter) to the Supreme Court, nobody has any doubt that federal judges are chosen for their perceived philosophical bent.

This problem exists only because federal judges have proved incapable of performing their jobs with self-restraint.  In the past, Roberts has correctly defined the Judiciary’s obligations: “Our role is very clear.  We are to interpret the Constitution and laws of the United States and ensure that the political branches act within them.”  But that’s not how most judges act!  Instead of interpreting the Constitution, federal judges rewrite the Constitution.  Instead of interpreting laws written by Congress, federal judges rewrite those laws into laws of their own.  For Roberts to pretend that federal judges have not spent the last century imposing their will upon the American people makes him richly deserving of Queen Gertrude’s quip: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

Eight years later, Lady Roberts is still protesting!  In a speech last week in Hershey, Pennsylvania, the chief justice claimed that judges are not “political actors.”  (Tell that to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, whose opinions sound as if they were written by teenaged Marxists with dog-eared copies of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals!)  Roberts lamented how too many Americans “think we’re making policy decisions.”  (Perhaps that’s because too many judges are, in fact, making policy decisions!)  The chief justice also insisted that it is “not appropriate” for Americans to criticize individual judges.

Well, perhaps Chief Justice Roberts should convince his federal judges to stop behaving as partisan hacks!  Rather than permitting, through his silence, individual judges to usurp the powers of the president of the United States, perhaps Roberts should call those tyrannical judges out by name.  If he wants the Judicial Branch to be perceived as “independent” and “nonpartisan,” then he should insist that judges exercise constitutional self-restraint!

But he won’t do that.  Because Roberts has opinions but no spine.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Local media in Tulsa, Oklahoma, report that the HF Sinclair refinery, which has a crude-processing capacity of 125,000 barrels per day, has suffered a fire. This comes just days after another refinery fire in the New Orleans area.

Fox 23 News reports that the Tulsa Fire Department is currently on the scene after a fire broke out at the refinery in West Tulsa earlier today.

The refinery is critical because it primarily processes sweet crude, can handle some sour Canadian crude, and markets refined products to the Mid-Continent states. Its products include gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, renewable diesel, lubricants, specialty chemicals, and asphalt.

Neither the outlet nor local authorities have released information about what caused the fire or whether any components at the refinery were damaged.

BREAKING: Massive flames and thick smoke were seen rising from the HF Sinclair refinery in west Tulsa, Oklahoma. pic.twitter.com/rX9WQMe99z

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) May 11, 2026

Any prolonged outage at the HF Sinclair refinery in Tulsa could affect regional supplies of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel across Oklahoma and the nearby Plains/Mid-Continent states.

HF Sinclair is a top independent refiner that operates seven facilities with a total crude-processing capacity of about 678,000 barrels per day.

On Friday, PBF Energy’s 190,000-barrel-per-day Chalmette refinery outside New Orleans suffered a major fire.

There has been a notable uptick in “refinery fire” news stories, according to Bloomberg data, whether those stories are from Eastern Europe, the Middle East, or the U.S.

Latest on refinery fires:

Moscow Targeted By Over 50 Drones, Country’s 2nd Largest Refinery On Fire
Fire Erupts At Major Australian Refinery, Amplifying Fuel Shock As “Green” Killed Refining Buffer
Mexico’s “Energy Sovereignty” Dos Bocas Oil Refinery Hit By Major Fire
Oil Jumps After Explosion And Massive Fire At One Of The Largest US Oil Refineries
“Doesn’t Look Good”: Explosion Rocks Major New Orleans-Area Refinery As Fuel Markets Tighten

A series of refinery fires is an unwelcome development at a time when refined product inventories remain tight worldwide and the Hormuz chokepoint remains heavily disrupted.

Via American Greatness,

Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) voiced concerns Sunday about the state of US weapons stockpiles following the recent conflict involving Iran, describing the extent of depleted munitions reserves as “shocking” during an appearance on CBS News’s Face the Nation.

“I think it’s fair to say it’s shocking how deep we have gone into these magazines,” Kelly said, arguing that the United States had exhausted significant amounts of military hardware without a clearly defined strategy.

“Because of that, we’ve expended a lot of munitions, and that means the American people are less safe.”

Kelly also warned that diminished stockpiles could affect America’s ability to respond to future conflicts, including a potential confrontation involving China in the Pacific region.

The comments drew a heated response from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who accused Kelly of publicly discussing information from a classified Pentagon briefing.

“‘Captain’ Mark Kelly strikes again. Now he’s blabbing on TV (falsely & dumbly) about a CLASSIFIED Pentagon briefing he received. Did he violate his oath…again?” Hegseth wrote on social media. He added that Pentagon legal counsel would review the matter.

“Captain” Mark Kelly strikes again.

Now he’s blabbing on TV (falsely & dumbly) about a *CLASSIFIED* Pentagon briefing he received.

Did he violate his oath…again? @DeptofWar legal counsel will review. https://t.co/mPBZHxZqpr

— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) May 10, 2026

Kelly rejected the criticism and argued that his remarks referenced information Hegseth himself had already discussed publicly during congressional testimony.

“We had this conversation in a public hearing a week ago and you said it would take ‘years’ to replenish some of these stockpiles,” Kelly wrote in response. “That’s not classified, it’s a quote from you.”

Kelly also criticized the administration’s handling of the conflict, saying officials had failed to clearly explain the mission’s goals and timeline to the American public.

The exchange is the latest clash between Kelly and the Trump administration.

Kelly previously drew criticism from administration officials after participating in a video urging military personnel not to follow unlawful orders, a message some Republicans characterized as encouraging insubordination.

No formal investigation has been publicly announced, though Hegseth said Pentagon attorneys would examine Kelly’s remarks.