(Akiit.com) It’s been a busy week news-wise. Here are a few of my observations (not likely to be popular) on some of the most notable headlines.

1. The U.S. men’s soccer team should have declined the red card reversal. During the World Cup game between the USA and Bosnia-Herzegovina, star scorer Folarin Balogun got a “red card” for “serious foul play” from a referee after a collision with B-H player Tarik Muharemovic, resulting in a one-game suspension. This call was widely criticized, both because a red card typically requires intentional conduct (Balogun wasn’t even facing Muharemovic, whose ankle he stepped on) and because the red card was issued after a slow-motion review, contrary to FIFA play protocol.

However, the day before the U.S. was to play Belgium in the round of 16, it was announced that FIFA had withdrawn the red card — the first time such an action had been taken in more than 60 years. We were also told that President Donald Trump had called FIFA president Gianni Infantino. Trump insisted that he only asked for a review but put no pressure on FIFA. Even assuming that’s true, it was a bad look.

The team should have declined the penalty reversal.

As a host of this year’s World Cup, and given Trump’s global power, it made the team look like sour grapes — an accusation the men didn’t deserve. Belgium filed an appeal, which was denied, so they came into the game loaded for bear and soundly defeated the USA 4-1. The U.S. team did not play their best, and it’s reasonable to wonder whether the brouhaha and bad press affected their performance. (The nasty social media post by the Belgian team after their victory — “Overturn this” — only served to reinforce the point.)

There’s no question that Balogun’s absence would have put the team at a disadvantage against Belgium. In addition, if the red card was a bad call, as many claimed, that disadvantage would have been unfair. But the U.S. men would have walked into the game as underdogs with broad public support; that kind of “fire in the belly” wins close games. If they’d lost under those circumstances, few would have faulted them, and if they’d won, it would be an even greater triumph.

As it was, the U.S. team lost even with Balogun, which left everyone — except perhaps Belgium — with a bad taste in their mouths.

2. If Graham Platner stays in the race, it’s possible he’ll win. Maine Democrats selected Graham Platner to be their candidate for the U.S. Senate to run against Republican incumbent Susan Collins. Platner has a nasty backstory, including a Nazi tattoo, a history of vulgar and sexist social media posts, and allegations of sexual assault and violence. Even so, many leading lefty lights — Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Ro Khanna, Ruben Gallego — sang Platner’s praises, and the media predictably ran cover for him. The New York Times further shredded their dwindling credibility by ignoring the abundant evidence Lyndsey Fifield (a conservative woman) had provided them about her disturbing experiences with Platner.

Then, Jenny Racicot, a Democrat, accused Platner of rape. That, apparently, was a bridge too far. Pretending not to have known about Platner’s character deficits, Democrats are now calling for Platner to step down. In what has become something of a pattern for the Democrat Party (Barack Obama chosen over Hillary Clinton in 2008, Hillary using her “superdelegates” to oust Bernie Sanders in 2016, former Vice President Kamala Harris thrust in to replace former President Joe Biden at the last minute in 2024), they apparently intend to substitute a candidate that their voters didn’t select.

At this writing, Platner hasn’t stepped down and is insisting he won’t unless he gets to choose his successor, a demand the party is — thus far — rejecting.

What if he refuses to step aside? Might Platner think he can still beat Collins?

That’s not as farfetched as people assume. In Virginia’s 2024 elections, Democrat Jay Jones ran for state attorney general. When texts emerged in which Jones said that he would like to shoot Republican (then-Virginia House Speaker) Todd Gilbert in the head, that his children should be murdered because they were “little fascists” and that Gilbert’s wife should be holding her children in her arms as they died, Jones didn’t step down. He apologized and stayed in the race.

He won.

3. Trump needs to figure out that Iran isn’t going to abide by any deal. Here we are again, with another breach in the “ceasefire” agreement between Iran and the United States, and more attacks by Iran on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump announced on Wednesday that the ceasefire established by a Memorandum of Understanding in June was “over,” that the U.S. had hit Iran Tuesday night in retaliation for the Hormuz attacks, and that more airstrikes would be forthcoming on Wednesday. Iran is, of course, insisting that ships will only pass through the strait on their terms.

The volatility has sent oil prices higher again, which affects not only the price of gas here in the States but energy, groceries, transportation and much else. How long are Americans supposed to put up with these financial pressures?

Other than keeping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capacity – which Trump assures us is already the case — what’s the objective here? Is it just the free flow of oil through Hormuz? The destruction of the regime? Something else?

4. Socialists must be taken more seriously. Author and undercover journalist Karlyn Borysenko released video earlier this week that she secretly recorded during a recent training session held by the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Two of the speakers openly advocated for armed revolution, the overthrow of our government, destruction of the American capitalist economic system, the abolition of private property and the writing of a new constitution that will give all rights — political and economic — to “workers.”

This is Borysenko’s area of expertise, but despite the in-depth information (often obtained at great personal risk) that she puts into her books and podcasts, too few appreciate just how serious this risk really is.

Americans had better wake up, and fast. One of the speakers Borysenko recorded is a teacher and an officer in the National Education Association teachers union. I guarantee she is not alone.

These people are instructing your children.

What’s frightening listening to socialists is how appallingly ignorant they are, ardor notwithstanding. Every reference to “capitalism” is synonymous with “big business.” But most business in the United States is small business; there are more than 36 million businesses in the U.S. with fewer than 500 employees each; fully 80% of all firms with employees have fewer than 20.

America’s capitalism is entrepreneurial. Entrepreneurship is responsible for virtually every innovation we enjoy, for most employment, and for the creation and growth of the middle class. Anyone can become an entrepreneur, and millions of immigrants have. The prosperity we have as a nation is because of entrepreneurial capitalism.

Socialists want to destroy it all. And they are gaining ground.

Columnist: Laura Hollis

Official website; http://law.nd.edu/directory/laura-hollis/

(Akiit.com) Reuters published a photograph taken during the weekend of America’s 250th birthday celebration. It depicted a young black woman seated by herself on a packed D.C. Metro train. Standing and sitting around her were white men wearing white masks. They belong to a white nationalist organization called Patriot Front, a group involved in the violent 2017 Charlottesville, Virginia, rally that resulted in the death of a woman. The intimidating-looking men reportedly said nothing to the woman and never threatened her, and she remained composed.

The photo quickly went viral and was hailed by many journalists and commentators as a microcosm of America in this era of President Donald Trump. Euronews wrote this headline: “Defining image of the era of American history” — and wrote, “Many have called for the Reuters photo to receive the Pulitzer Prize.” A headline in a publication called The 19th News said: “The Black woman on the train did not look away. How much longer will we?” Word in Black wrote this headline: “A Metro Car Photo Became a Portrait of Trump’s America — A Black woman on a Metro train crowded with masked white nationalists offered a chilling reminder that America’s racial history is never far behind.”

The message is clear: Anti-black racism remains a potent force in America — and how much longer can we “look away”?

Patriot Front, described as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, does not publicly disclose its membership numbers. But the probable number is about 600, 400 of whom came to D.C. that weekend,. As a percentage of America’s population of 320 million, this comes to 0.0001875 percent — or about 1.9 people per 1 million Americans, less than two ten-thousandths of one percent of the population. This does not excuse this pathetic racist group, but perspective matters.

As to the photo providing “a chilling reminder that America’s racial history is never far behind,” consider the rise and decline of the Ku Klux Klan. At its peak in the mid-1920s, KKK membership ranged from 4 million to 6 million. Now? Ten years ago, the Anti-Defamation League wrote: “Just a decade ago, Klan groups such as the White Camelia Knights, the Mississippi White Knights, and the Church of the National Knights exhibited consistent activity. Today, all three are mere shadows of their former selves.” In the 10 years since then, little has changed.

If anti-black racism remains a dominant social force, one would expect Americans to avoid interracial friendships, workplaces and hiring. The opposite is true.

In February 2026, the Brookings Institution and Gallup published “Interracial Cooperation in the United States,” a survey of 5,000 adults. Its principal findings: 83 percent of Americans say race is not important when choosing friends; 72 percent have either a close or a casual friend of a different race; 87 percent say race is not important in business decisions; 80 percent of workers report having coworkers of a different race; 85 percent made race-neutral hiring decisions, with 10 percent showing a preference for a black applicant and five percent showing a preference for a white applicant; and 48 percent report having a boss or supervisor of a different race.

Meanwhile, New York congressional Democrat primary winner Darializa Avila Chevalier, a black member of the Democratic Socialists of America, posted on X about her objection to interracial relationships. She denounced “Black men and Arab men fetishizing ugly colonizer women.” She called white women “ugly colonizer women” and boasted about slamming the door on an “old white lady.”

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who endorsed Chevalier and for whom she once worked, vowed to “shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.”

When U.S. Republican Rep. Byron Donalds (FL-19) said black families were more intact during Jim Crow than they are today, U.S. Democrat Rep. Jasmine Crockett (TX-30) said, “Is this because you don’t understand history? Or literally it’s because you married a white woman and so you think that whitewashed you?”

Patriot Front will never elect members to Congress. None of its members will become mayor of America’s largest city. So, yes, there is a race problem in America, and it’s the blatant racism of prominent figures on the left. This is the real defining image of this era of American history.

To paraphrase: How much longer will we look away?

Columnist; Larry Elder

Official website; https://twitter.com/larryelder

(Akiit.com) The Democratic Party has come a long way since Bill Clinton was president — and not in a good way.

In 1993, the first year of the Clinton presidency, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) introduced legislation to end automatic birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens; today, Democrats routinely call to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement and advocate for illegal alien suffrage. Clinton famously called for abortion to be “safe and legal but rare”; today, Democrats prefer to “shout your abortion” as a perverse badge of honor. On marriage, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act to define the union under federal law as one man and one woman; today, Democrats struggle to even tell us what a woman is, and polyamory now lurks as the next frontier in social experimentation.

But of all the issues where the Democratic Party has moved sharply to the left since the Clinton era, perhaps none is more notable than economic policy. During his 1996 State of the Union address, Clinton famously declared that “the era of big government is over.” And he acted on that impulse too: Clinton signed the most transformative welfare reform law in a generation, deregulated Wall Street, slashed taxes on capital gains, and ended his presidency by presiding over consecutive balanced federal budgets. Clinton was greatly assisted by the dot-com boom and a fiscally conservative Congress, but facts are still facts.

When it comes to economic policy, today’s Democratic Party looks absolutely nothing like its more moderate 1990s-era forebear.

What began as an incipient Barack Obama-era trend toward big government has now, during the post-Joe Biden era, emerged as a strong majority sentiment. A Gallup poll last September found that 42% of Democrats have a positive view of capitalism, while a whopping 66% hold a positive view of socialism. Leading kingmakers in today’s Democratic Party are (literal) Soviet Union-honeymooning communists, like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), or leaders of the Democratic Socialists of America, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). And the singular party top dog right now is New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who is fond of quoting Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto,” speaks of the “warmth of collectivism,” and is now implementing city-owned grocery stores across the Big Apple.

That is some serious intellectual whiplash.

Hold aside that communism is the single deadliest ideology in the history of mankind — responsible, historians estimate, for nearly 100 million deaths. Hold aside, as well, that socialism and communism have resulted in horrific resource scarcity and immeasurable immiseration everywhere they have been attempted. At the most basic level, socialism is simply contrary to human nature. Men have a natural right to the fruits of their labor, provided those fruits do not undermine the common good. And it is natural, contrary to the basic tenets of socialism, to value the flourishing of one’s family and tribe over that of the polity — let alone the whole world. As Dennis Prager has often noted, socialism violates two of the 10 Commandments: do not steal, and do not covet.

Republicans are presently confused about what exactly they should run on, as they begin to make their case to the American people before this fall’s midterm elections. Inflation, while dramatically reduced from its catastrophic Biden-era peak, is still stubbornly higher than it ought to be. The Trump administration is, at least for now, unwilling to finish the campaign it launched against Iran. Republicans have a great story to tell on the issue of crime, but they seem uninterested in telling it. The administration has had tremendous success on stanching illegal immigration, but the GOP’s consultant class frets that a focus on immigration would hemorrhage the gains the party has made with Latino voters.

The solution, and the best path the GOP has to defy historical trends and retain both houses of Congress next January, comes in the form of a concerted socialism-centric campaign.

In previous cycles, Republicans might have credibly been accused of fearmongering in running against a “socialist” bogeyman. That is simply not the case anymore — not in a world where third-worldist DSA radicals like Darializa Avila Chevalier and Melat Kiros are knocking off longstanding incumbents in Democratic congressional primaries, and where a vociferous foe of capitalism is the mayor of the nation’s commercial center. The threat is here, and the threat is real. Perhaps even more to the point: Latino voters who fled failed socialist hellholes in places like Havana and Caracas don’t want that. Middle-class suburban moms concerned about dim job prospects for their children don’t want that. And according to Gallup, independents don’t want that either.

In an April speech in Austin, Texas, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argued that progressivism and American constitutionalism are fundamentally incompatible. He’s right. It’s also true that socialism — real, genuine socialism — is incompatible with the American way of life as it’s been experienced for two and a half centuries. That’s a fact — and it’s a powerful argument to make in this milestone 250th American birthday year, in particular. Republicans should make that argument passionately and with alacrity.

Written by Josh Hammer

Official website; https://x.com/josh_hammer

(Akiit.com) Multi-dose vials are common for a reason. They’re more cost-effective than a single-dose package, cut down on waste, and are a better option when patients need to be dosed over a longer period of time. However, when it comes to ensuring their safety, these practices are not just recommendations. They are the difference between a vial that stays sterile and one that silently transmits pathogens between patients.

Know The Difference Between Vial Types Before Anything Else

All vials are not created the same, and mixing them up is one of the most common mistakes in both clinical and laboratory environments.

Multi-dose vials (MDVs) contain antimicrobial preservatives – typically benzyl alcohol – which actively hinder bacterial growth between applications. This preservative facilitates repeated access. Single-dose vials lack this protective feature. Once they have been opened, they must be utilized and then disposed of. If a single-dose vial is re-used, even with the same patient, the protective guard against microbial contamination is no longer available.

The same concept would also be applicable for diluents. Sterile water with no preservatives is to be used once. Bacteriostatic water incorporates benzyl alcohol in order for bacterial growth to be minimized with repetitive entries, hence making it suitable for reconstitution with multiple entries – in contrast to sterile water which should be thrown away immediately post entry.

Your team must categorize each product as to which classification it is prior to drawing a single dose. This should be done upon stocking the product; it should not have to be determined at the time of use.

One Needle, One Syringe, One Time – No Exceptions

As simple as it may sound, this is a rule that is still occasionally broken.

Somehow, there’s still a belief in the medical community that changing the needle on a previously used syringe will make the syringe safe for a second, third, or fourth entry into a shared vial of medication. Unfortunately, changing the needle just before re-entry doesn’t change the fact that the plunger mechanism creates backflow. Blood or biological fluid from a previous patient’s draw can be pushed back into the vial with the new, clean needle. Once it gets in the vial, it’s in every subsequent dose, too. Outbreak investigations have traced bloodborne pathogens, most notably Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C, to just this scenario.

Follow the One Needle, One Syringe, One Time, One Patient maxim absolutely and without exception. New syringe for every access to a multi-use vial. Post this policy in medication preparation areas. Include it on your orientation checklist. Enforce it as a non-negotiable.

Septum Disinfection Isn’t Optional – and Drying Matters

Before inserting your needle into that multi-dose vial, you first must wipe the rubber septum with an isopropyl alcohol prep pad. And details matter – more than you might think, and more than most people give it credit for.

A 70% isopropyl alcohol prep pad should be used for this purpose and is to be rubbed in a circular motion over the rubber diaphragm for at least 10 to 15 seconds. Using the same prep pad over multiple rubber septa is another skip that can compromise the sterility of the vial’s contents.

Then wait for the alcohol to dry completely before puncturing the vial. Moist alcohol can be pushed into the vial by the needle, and some delicate formulations are particularly sensitive to this kind of contamination. More pragmatically, the antiseptic germ-killing action of isopropyl alcohol is proven to require sufficient wetting to be effective.

Label Every Vial The Moment It’s First Opened

A vial with no open date on the label is a liability for your organization.

CDC and USP General Chapter  guidelines are clear on this: multi-dose vials have to be thrown out 28 days after first puncture unless the manufacturer tells you otherwise. That 28-day discard rule isn’t arbitrary; the effectiveness of preservatives wanes over time. Benzyl alcohol operates as a fungistatic agent by inhibiting multiplication over a window of time, not a magic wand that suddenly poofs away all microbial life.

Make double-date labeling a non-negotiable expectation. The moment a vial is first punctured you write two dates directly onto the label: the date of opening and the calculated discard date. Don’t trust the pharmacy to do it for you or do math in your head at the point of care.

This applies not only in the clinic but in laboratory contexts as well. Multi-dose reagents, controls, and standards in the lab need the same level of diligence with open dating and expiration tracking.

Store and Access Vials Away From Treatment Areas

The location where vials are handled is equally important as how they are handled.

Preparation of medications from vials should take place in a preparation room or clean bench – removed from the patient environment. Treatment rooms, bedside carts, and procedure areas present a higher risk of contamination from particulates in the air, patient contact, and general clinical traffic.

Cross-contamination is not solely the result of a shared needle. Environmental co-exposure such as a sneeze, an open wound in close proximity, hands that touched a surface prior to a vial’s septum, can compromise a vial septum before the needle ever touches it.

Strictly forbid multi-use vials from ever being taken into an uncontrolled patient care environment. Rule: they remain in the preparation/clean room. If taken into a patient room, they can never return to shared storage; they must be discarded. From that moment on, any vial taken into a patient care area is “patient specific.”

The Compliance Case Is Also The Clinical Case

Adhering to these five best practices is pertinent in implementing a safe medication workflow. Failure at just one of these steps can lead to dire consequences for patients. Similarly, optimal infection prevention in healthcare can only be effective when these important best practices are simply part of how the work is done.

Train to these standards. Audit against them. Make the protocols visible where the work happens.

Staff Writer; Sasha Love

(Akiit.com) Last week ExxonMobil shareholders voted overwhelmingly to “redomicile,” or relocate, the company’s legal headquarters to Texas. The decision marks an undeniable rebuke of the proxy adviser cartel and New Jersey’s corporate tax scheme, the highest in the U.S. at 11.5%.

To be sure, the move is a smart, financially responsible decision for Exxon and its investors. The company has maintained its operational headquarters in the Lone Star State for nearly 40 years. About three-quarters of its employees live and work there, including its executive leadership.

Then, of course, there is Texas’ business-friendly climate. Unlike New Jersey, where officials try to shake down companies for every penny they can, Texas has put out a welcome mat. It is no wonder the state has been voted the most pro-business state in the nation for over 20 years or that companies and workers are flocking there in droves.

Darren Woods, Exxon’s chairman and CEO, put it well: “Texas has made a noticeable effort to embrace the business community” and built “a policy and regulatory environment” that will allow the company to maximize shareholder value.

That Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services — the proxy adviser duopoly that control 97% of the market — recommended against the move speaks volumes. Institutional investors hold approximately 70% of the outstanding shares of U.S. publicly traded companies and often outsource corporate proxy decisions to the foreign-owned duopoly.

These proxy advisers engage in a purposely opaque process with a powerful result. A recent study found that Glass Lewis and ISS recommendations can swing a shareholder vote by as much as 30%. Another study found that 175 asset managers controlling over $5 trillion in value voted with ISS more than 95% of the time.

These proxy advisers use their extraordinary power to peddle left-wing dogma. In the Exxon shareholder vote, the devious duopoly supported a high-tax state over investors’ interests.

A company’s top priority should be to maximize shareholders’ returns, not to push kumbaya policies that come at the expense of hardworking families.

Unlike corporations, which have a fiduciary obligation to investors, the proxy adviser cartel operates in a regulatory Wild West. They provide “consulting services” to coach companies on how to sell the policies they concoct to shareholders. In other words, they spoon-feed businesses progressive policies and then direct them on how to spin it to investors.

What’s more, proxy advisers are not required to disclose conflicts of interest. They may be selling snake oil that’s good for their political agenda, even though it’s bad for investors.

During President Donald Trump’s first term, his Securities and Exchange Commission introduced new regulations that would have required more transparency from proxy advisers. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce called the Trump administration’s “middle-ground” approach a “step in the right direction.”

Yet the Biden administration gutted the rules, allowing proxy advisers to continue to run amok. And why not? These supposedly objective advisers hocked the left’s ideology and bullied businesses into adopting Democrats’ socialist agenda. Of course they were allowed to run amok.

It’s time the Trump administration and Congress finally rein in proxy advisers. Bills like the Protecting Americans’ Retirement Savings from Politics Act, which was introduced by Congressman Bryan Steil in April, would impose the kind of oversight that’s needed. This commonsense legislation should receive support from individual investors and institutional investors alike.

But the president shouldn’t wait for a legislative fix, which Democrats will undoubtedly fight tooth and nail. His SEC should revisit the regulatory framework introduced during Trump 1.0 to shine a light on this murky industry.

Exxon’s shrug-off of these proxy bullies’ recommendations is not only a prudent business decision, it’s proof that Trump’s end to his predecessor’s culture wars is working. Companies are bailing off the sinking ship of wokeism and getting back to the business of doing business. And they are putting proxy advisers’ directives where they belong: in the trash bin.

Like New Jersy politicians and their liberal allies — who tried to block Exxon’s move over phony claims it would reduce shareholder rights — the Glass Lewis-ISS proxy duopoly does not care about individuals and families who invest hard-earned money with companies to see it grow. They only care about promoting the left’s progressive ideology, even if it costs ordinary people.

Exxon’s courage to do right for its shareholders is a major indicator that the proxy advisers’ power is cracking. We should all hope that it shatters entirely.

Written by Ken Buck 

Official website; https://x.com/RepKenBuck

(Akiit.com) Nearly everyone who is a college sports fan, myself included, knows the state of affairs in the NCAA is one fine mess. Especially regarding football and men’s basketball, the two major money-making sports, things have changed massively in the last few years – and mostly not in a good way.

Elite and even above-average athletes have effectively become free agents, selling their services each year to the highest bidders. Every year, the school rosters are different, so there’s almost no team or university loyalty. It’s rent-a-player, and the big college teams are now effectively professionals playing in professional leagues. In some cases, players can be paid professionally and retain their “amateur” status. The NCAA actually and stupidly discriminates against American kids to the advantage of older foreigners.

I went to the University of Illinois, and this year our hoops team, loaded with Europeans, made it to the Final Four. Our joke was that we were the University of Serbia.

Yet the games on the field and the court are as popular as ever, and I, for one, believe it is proper and correct that “student athletes” be paid for making tens of millions of dollars for the university.

I’m not sure how to fix things, but I do know who won’t: Congress. A new bill making its way through the Senate is the Cantwell-Cruz “Protect College Sports Act.” It’s pitched as a compromise to save college athletics. But it’s filled with federal rules, regulations, and edicts, some of which make sense, while others are intrusive, unworkable, and potentially ruinous to the games.

It uses the threat of antiquated antitrust statutes as the hammer to force the leagues like the Big Ten, the Southeastern Conference, and the Atlantic Coast Conference to comply.

The bill does not formally create a government agency to negotiate college sports media rights, but it puts a figurative Mafia gun to their head to say that if they don’t comply, bad things will happen.

They must accept more than 150 pages of Byzantine rules governing media negotiations, revenue sharing, local broadcast access, conference transactions, and even the college football calendar. Believe it or not, Congress would tell schools who they must play each year, and that “traditional rivalries” must be maintained! Is this what Congress should be working on in Washington?

On pages 100-101, the bill requires certain schools to play at least two traditional rivalry games every four years and at least one annual game against an out-of-conference opponent that ranks among the school’s top five historic football opponents.

The bill dictates when college and professional football games can be played. For example, it rewrites the Sports Broadcasting Act window by extending the restriction affecting professional football telecasts from the second Friday in September through the second Saturday in December to the first Friday in September through the third Saturday in December.

The bill orders what games can be shown on which TV networks at what time. It restricts what schools can be added or deleted from certain conferences. It is meant to stifle the growth and money-making capabilities of the Big Ten and the SEC.

But it’s in the interest of the NCAA itself to make sure that the games are competitive and the same schools don’t dominate year after year. This past year, Indiana University, typically a losing team in college football, won the championship – partly by going into the portal and cherry-picking underrated and underpaid players.

Much of this has to do with the multibillion-dollar-plus broadcast contracts as college sports become ever more popular.

But for the students, spectators, and athletes, the current sports broadcasting system works well, thank you. Nearly every major football game is broadcast on some cable outlet, so fans can pick and choose from dozens of games every Saturday, and college basketball is on several stations nearly every night of the week.

In short, the Protect College Sports Act would make college athletics a fully regulated utility and risks ruining the joy, pageantry, and competitiveness of college sports. Do we really want Sen. Bernie Sanders deciding who Ohio State should put on their football schedule?

Reform is needed to stop treating universities as “nonprofit” educational institutions when it comes to athletics. The salaries, revenues, and administrative costs should all be taxed like a professional sports team. Then the NCAA and the major conferences – not professional politicians, lawyers, and lobbyists in Washington – should decide what’s in the best interest of the game and the schools.

Columnist; Stephen Moore

Official website; http://twitter.com/stephenmoore

(Akiit.com)

“Therefore, the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy’s will to be imposed on him.” — Sun Tzu, “The Art of War”

“War – an act of violence whose object is to constrain the enemy, to accomplish our will.” — George Washington, General of the Continental Army

First, I want to say, Honor Memorial Day to everyone. This is not a day of happiness, but a day to reflect upon the sacrifices of those who made the “last full measure of devotion” for our nation.

I came on active duty as a U.S. Army Field Artillery Second Lieutenant on 1 November 1983. I arrived at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma, for my Field Artillery Officers Basic Course on 30 October. That was one week after the 23 October Beirut barracks bombing, which killed 241 Marines, Sailors, and a Soldier. The Islamic terrorist attack was executed via a truck bomb by Hezbollah, the proxy terrorist army of the Islamic Republic of Iran. While attending the University of Tennessee, I became very aware of Iran due to the Islamic revolution, which ushered in the tyrannical regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini, and the seizing of our U.S. Embassy and taking American hostages for over 400 days. For those who would quip that we have embarked upon a “war of choice,” that is an absurd assertion. Iran has been at war with the United States since our Bicentennial in 1976, for almost 50 years. And the recent battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in thousands of American troops being killed and maimed by Iranian-made explosive force penetrators (EFPs), a very lethal IED (improvised explosive device). If there was any justification for entering into combat operations, Iran has provided plenty.

However, in prosecuting this combat operation, we have failed to comprehend the premise of Sun Tzu, the imposition of our will. The “Art of War” was mandatory reading for us new Lieutenants, and we had to submit a report on it as one of our graduation requirements. One does not make deals with a maniacal, tyrannical theocratic enemy. You simply overwhelm them with focused combat power and leverage the other elements of national power (the D-I-M-E theory): diplomatic, informational, military, and economic.

Wars are fought at three levels: strategic, operational, and tactical, with each having its respective tasks and purposes. The key element is that there must be mutual support, which we call in the military “nesting” of these objectives with each other. The strategic level would assess what the global goals, objectives, and tasks would be. When it comes to Iran, it is imperative to undermine the regime leadership by way of kinetic action, but also delegitimization, along with targeted economic actions. Also, from the strategic level, how can Iran be isolated from external support? This is what I call the 21st-century axis of evil: China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Islamic jihadists, and transnational narco-criminal terrorist organizations (TNCOs). I would refer to this as peeling back the layers of the onion, a major strategic task. We have started against the TNCOs and Venezuela, having success, and it would appear that Cuba is teetering as they have lost vital support. Iran is another layer of that axis that we can affect.

At the operational level, which is the theater of operations, the Middle East, we must endeavor to neutralize and eventually eliminate the means by which Iran holds the region hostage. A key part of this is to negate any Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz. Back in the late 90s, I was the 18th Field Artillery Brigade (Airborne) operations officer. It was the largest and most diverse artillery unit in the Army. We supported the XVIIIth Airborne Corps, but we were given a mission to support the 82d Airborne Division in a contingency operation simulation exercise to seize the Iranian city of Bandar Abbas, at the Strait of Hormuz. LTG(R) Keith Kellogg was the Commanding General of the 82d Abn Div at that time. He would be a great advisor on this critical operational mission. Allowing Iran to hold the region, as well as the world, hostage by way of the flow of energy resources is unacceptable. A critical operational objective would be U.S. control of the Strait of Hormuz and adjacent islands, such as Qeshm, and also seizing Kharg Island to separate Iran from its major source of revenue. And, we should isolate Iran from external arms support, such as the rail line enabling such from China.

Then, the tasks and objectives at the tactical level are clear: destroy Iran’s military capability and capacity, and support the strategic and operational goals. One thing that is vital at the tactical level is what we call OPTEMPO, meaning operational tempo, momentum. Unfortunately, with all the so-called negotiations and deal-making exploits, we risk losing such. Tactically, to impose your will upon the enemy means you stay on offense, strike him incessantly, and be relentless, giving them no breathing space or opportunity to rearm and refit. If you do not believe in the importance of such, read the maneuvers of Gen. George Patton in World War II. There was a reason why the Germans feared him.

Combat operations are conducted in phases with respect to the varying levels: strategic, operational, and tactical. Each phase has its tasks and purpose, with a designated end state. The end state is determined by what is called MOE, measures of effectiveness. For example, the operation planners are constantly reviewing and assessing the phase objectives, and when a certain level is met, let’s say 85 percent, then they can recommend a transition to the next phase. Right now, we are clearly operating under a “fog of war,” being told the war is over, it is not over, we are waiting for a deal, or we are one hour from restarting combat operations. There has to be clarity, and my assessment is that it is missing.

Another key aspect of prosecuting a combat operation at the various levels of warfare is to understand the enemy’s center of gravity. It is that which, if effectively engaged, will cause their defeat. The mad mullahs, crazed clerics, and delusional tyrants, in uniform and out, in Iran, do not care about their people. Therefore, threats against their bridges and power plants mean little. But if we start cutting them off from their source of revenue and freezing their personal international accounts, along with those of their relatives residing outside of Iran, that is a critical center of gravity. As well, we have to enable the Iranian people to rise up. Sadly, we see what happens when a populace is disarmed, similar to the desire of the American Marxist left. From the standpoint of informational warfare, we should seek to create a divide between theIranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), their version of the Roman Praetorian Guard, and the regular Army. I would like to see us go back to the old-school leaflet drops, after all, we do have aerial dominance over Iran.

Prussian General and military strategist Carl von Clausewitz, whose book On War was another mandatory read, spoke of the paradoxical trinity: the tendencies of the people, the commander and his army, and the government. He advocated that a successful war or combat operation cannot be accomplished without the alignment of the three. I would offer that we do not have that alignment, and it comes back to effective messaging, strategic, operational, and tactical synchronization, and clarity of mission. And please, enough about the War Powers Act. Barack Obama outsourced our military to Islamic jihadists for seven months in Libya.

We must defeat Iran. It is the next layer in defeating the 21st-century axis of evil. But, we cannot do so, thinking that military policy is done by social media. We must have an effective plan and stick to it in order to impose our will on the Islamic regime of Iran. This ain’t about making a deal. Deals are transactional.

War is hell, and it is about fighting, and fighting does mean killing. Two opposing generals from the Civil War gave us those maxims.

Columnist; Allen West

Official website; https://x.com/AllenWest

(Akiit.com) On Monday, two teenagers killed three men at the San Diego Islamic Center, then killed themselves. What a pointless spasm of violence it was. It took a few days for The New York Times to flex their rhetorical muscles and blame conservatives.

On the top left of Thursday’s front page, the headline read: “Islamophobia Spreads Fast, As Does Fear: Mosque Attack Reflects Rise in Overt Hatred.”

The second paragraph from reporters Shaila Dewan and Jill Cowan was blunt: “To some, the killings seemed like an inevitable result of a swell of Islamophobia in the United States and around the globe. Anti-Muslim rhetoric on the right has become louder,” spurring “a new phase of overt discrimination and fears of violence.”

The words “inevitable result” do a lot of work. Conservative rhetoric will “inevitably” be blamed, but no one has to prove a causal connection. This kind of sloppy smear caused Sarah Palin to sue the Times over their suggestion that her placement of targets on congressional districts in a pamphlet somehow led to the shooting of then-Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) by an apolitical nihilist.

The Times reporters quickly turned to assigning blame to President Donald Trump, Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) and Trump ally Laura Loomer, who used the term “invasive species” for Muslims. Most Americans believe in our history of religious liberty and tolerance. That is different from being critical of Islam in general — Muslim countries often don’t allow any religious freedom — or Islamic extremists in particular. Criticism of Islam is not automatically “Islamophobia.”

The rise of radical Muslim Democrats in office, from New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), causes the Times to worry about “increased vitriol against them.” No one at the paper worried in print about “increased vitriol” against Trump leading to “fears of violence,” despite the three assassination attempts.

This very same newspaper recently celebrated Islamic extremist Hasan Piker on one of its podcasts, as he spoke in warm terms of the man who was filmed assassinating a health insurance CEO on the street, because he was guilty of “social murder,” so he had it coming. “Fears of violence” seem to only flow in one direction. Some violence is apparently socially acceptable.

Likewise, the Times turned to the Council for Islamic-American Relations as their source of data on Islamophobia. CAIR “received more civil rights complaints last year than it had recorded in any year since 1996.” CAIR leader Nihad Awad was quoted as calling on public figures not to fuel “hatred and division that inevitably inspires acts of violence.”

They did not recall what their reporter Peter Baker noted in 2023, after the Oct. 7 massacre of 1,200 Israelis by Hamas. Awad celebrated the mass murder: “The people of Gaza only decided to break the siege, the walls of the concentration camp, on Oct. 7.” This group should be no journalist’s idea of an “anti-hate” or “anti-discrimination” or anti-violence group.

“PBS News Hour” also turned to a CAIR official, deputy director Edward Ahmed Mitchell, who proclaimed without challenge, “Anti-Muslim bigotry in the United States is completely out of control.” Anchor Geoff Bennett also acted unaware of CAIR’s record of cheering mass murder, asking Mitchell, “What’s it going to take to really lower the temperature?”

If these liberal journalists seriously wanted to lower the temperature, they’d stop linking violence to nonviolent speech, and they could try harder to notice when their designated leftist “hate” experts are engaged in vicious hate themselves.

Columnist: Tim Graham

Official website; http://www.efayewilliams.com/

(Akiit.com) Growing up in the South, food meant everything. You could walk into somebody’s house and know exactly what kind of mood lived there by the smell coming from the kitchen. Fried chicken snapping in hot grease. Pots of greens bubbling low on the stove for hours. Candied yams sitting beside baked macaroni so thick and rich it barely held together on the spoon. Folks laughed louder around those meals. Problems got pushed aside for a little while. Family members who argued all year could still sit together once the plates came out. That is why soul food became such a powerful part of life inside the Black community. It carried comfort during times when comfort was hard to find anywhere else.

But truth has a way of showing itself whether people want to face it or not. A lot of families now look around and realize too many loved ones are getting sick younger than they should. Somebody always talking about blood pressure medicine. Somebody else checking sugar levels before eating dessert. Another person breathing hard after walking a short distance. Many Black men reach middle age already carrying health problems that slowly wear them down year after year. Plenty of Black women spend so much time taking care of everybody else that their own health gets ignored until doctors finally force serious conversations.

Older folks used to say certain meals “put strength on your bones.” Back then life demanded physical labor almost every single day. Men worked outside in brutal heat, lifted heavy equipment, spent long hours in factories, or handled jobs that burned energy nonstop. Women stayed moving too. Cooking, cleaning, raising children, washing clothes, gardening, and managing households kept people active from morning until nighttime. Heavy meals matched the lifestyle. Today things are different. Most people spend hours sitting down. Cars replaced walking. Screens replaced movement. But eating habits barely changed at all.

That mismatch creates problems over time. A body can only take so much grease, salt, sugar, processed meat, and oversized portions before warning signs start showing themselves. Maybe somebody notices swollen feet. Maybe energy disappears quicker than before. Maybe headaches become regular. Some ignore symptoms for years because the damage happens slowly. Nobody wakes up unhealthy overnight. It builds little by little while people keep saying, “I’m alright.”

Food also became emotional comfort for many people. Tough day at work? Grab fried food. Feeling stressed? Eat something sweet. Feeling lonely or drained? Go back for another plate. A lot of folks are not even eating because they feel hungry anymore. They are eating because certain meals remind them of safety, childhood, family reunions, or moments when life felt lighter. That emotional connection runs deep across Southern households.

Modern grocery stores made things worse too. Earlier generations often cooked with fresh ingredients straight from gardens or local markets. Now everything comes loaded with preservatives, chemicals, sodium, and artificial flavoring. Fast food became normal because people are tired, busy, and trying to survive. Quick meals slowly replaced balanced cooking. Soda replaced water in many households years ago. Snack foods became everyday habits instead of occasional treats.

Pride sometimes blocks honest discussion. Tell somebody their food contains too much sodium and feelings get hurt immediately. Suggest healthier cooking methods and suddenly folks think tradition is under attack. But wanting Black men and Black women to live longer should never sound disrespectful. There is nothing wrong with trying to protect your body before serious illness arrives.

Most people can think of somebody whose health declined because habits never changed. Maybe it was a grandfather who ignored every doctor warning until his heart finally gave out. Maybe it was an aunt who lost mobility after years of unhealthy eating. Maybe it was a father who kept saying he would “start next month” but never actually changed anything. These stories repeat themselves constantly because too many people normalize suffering instead of prevention.

Children pay attention to all of this too. They watch what adults eat. They notice how meals are prepared. If every family gathering turns into overeating, young people grow up believing excess is normal. If vegetables only appear drowned in grease and salt, healthier choices start looking impossible before kids even reach adulthood. Habits pass down quietly from one generation to the next.

Nobody is saying soul food should disappear. That would never happen anyway. The history connected to those meals runs too deep. The real issue is balance. Greens can still taste incredible without enough sodium to raise blood pressure through the roof. Chicken can be grilled or baked and still carry flavor. Water can replace some sugary drinks. Portion sizes can shrink without people feeling deprived. Small changes matter more than dramatic diets most people abandon after two weeks.

Exercise matters too. Earlier generations stayed active naturally because life demanded movement. Today staying healthy requires more intention. Walking around the neighborhood, stretching, lifting weights, or simply spending less time sitting can improve health tremendously over time. Too many Black men carry stress, exhaustion, poor eating habits, and lack of movement all at once. Eventually the body starts fighting back.

Money becomes another issue once health problems pile up. Prescription medication costs keep rising. Hospital visits create pressure on entire families. Some hardworking people spend retirement years inside clinics instead of traveling, relaxing, or enjoying life peacefully. Watching loved ones struggle through surgeries, dialysis, or mobility problems changes the way a person thinks about food forever.

The difficult part is that many health conditions connected to diet develop slowly enough for people to ignore them. One fried meal will not destroy somebody. The danger comes from years of imbalance without enough movement, hydration, rest, or moderation to offset the damage. Too much sugar. Too much grease. Too much sodium. Not enough fresh food. Eventually the body reaches a breaking point.

Many younger people already understand this but feel uncomfortable challenging family traditions openly. Nobody wants tension during holidays or cookouts. Nobody wants older relatives making jokes because somebody picked grilled fish over fried pork chops. Still, protecting your health sometimes means accepting temporary criticism from people who may not understand your decisions yet.

Healthy eating does not mean bland eating either. Fresh garlic, onions, herbs, peppers, smoked seasoning, and natural spices can create amazing flavor without overwhelming dishes with grease and sodium. Air fryers help. Grilling helps. Fresh ingredients matter. A healthier approach does not erase Southern culture. It simply updates old habits using better knowledge.

There also needs to be more honest conversation inside the Black community about prevention before tragedy happens. Churches, beauty salons, barbershops, gyms, and family gatherings should include real talk about nutrition and long term wellness. Too often people wait until somebody lands in a hospital bed before taking health seriously.

Life eventually teaches everybody the same lesson. Strength alone cannot outrun poor habits forever. A person may feel unstoppable while younger, but time changes things. Energy shifts. Recovery slows down. Blood pressure rises. Weight becomes harder to manage. Earlier choices begin revealing themselves physically whether somebody likes it or not.

Soul food will always hold emotional value throughout the South. Those meals carried families through difficult periods in American history. They brought comfort during painful moments and joy during celebrations. That history deserves respect. But real love also means evolving when necessary. A healthier future does not require abandoning tradition completely. It simply requires caring enough about Black men, Black women, and future generations to make wiser choices before more lives disappear too soon.

(Akiit.com) Socialism will always find an audience because it appeals to base envy and resentment. Ginning up a mob to be mad at “oligarchs,” “Wall Street barons,” “kulaks” or “billionaires” is cheap and easy.

So, it was refreshing to hear Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, the fourth richest man on the planet, offer unadulterated praise of the moral and economic superiority of capitalism in his recent interview with CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin.

You could practically hear progressives gasping when Bezos claimed that “the value to society and civilization from my for-profit companies will be much, much larger than the good that I do with my charitable giving.”

As we’ve seen, billionaires are far better at dispensing capital to productive sectors of society than charity or government. The United States is better off when Bezos keeps his wealth away from Congress or Zohran Mamdani. Amazon and other similar mega-corporations create more jobs, save people more money and foster more self-reliance than any government program.

The profit motive is much more effective at improving people’s lives than good intentions. This is not a moral judgment, merely reality. Bezos hatched a great idea at the right time, then parlayed and scaled that idea into a massive success. He’s probably created somewhere around $11 trillion in wealth for society since he started his company. He broke no laws doing it. If you don’t like it, don’t use or work for Amazon.

We don’t have the same luxury when it comes to the state. Leftists are convinced that bilking billionaires holds the key to solving all society’s tribulations. But if I said that confiscating all of Bezos’ wealth wouldn’t even be enough to keep the government going for a week, it would be an understatement. Confiscating all the wealth from every billionaire in the country would only fund the federal government for around a month, probably less.

Which is why, as history has aggressively demonstrated, sooner or later, the socialist definition of “the wealthy” will include you.

“They think there’s a fixed pie. One pizza and seven people, who’s going to get two slices? That is not how economies work,” Bezos told Sorkin. “It isn’t a fixed pie. It grows.” And by “they,” he means people like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, double Bachelor of Arts degree earner in international relations and economics cum laude from Boston University, whose entire economic agenda is predicated on juvenile zero-sum fallacy.

Though Bezos had many excellent things to say about the morality of free markets and wealth creation, he also proposed a well-intentioned but corrosive policy idea that’s gotten most of the media attention: zeroing out taxes for the bottom half of earners.

“Why is a nurse in Queens who makes $75,000 a year paying more than $1,000 a month in taxes, when the best way to put money in someone’s pocket is to not take it out in the first place?” Bezos asks, adding that while bottom earners only contribute around 3% of total revenue, keeping that money is “very meaningful” to an individual.

No doubt.

The contention that the wealthy don’t pay their “fair share” is probably the biggest myth in American politics. The United States has the most progressive tax system in the developed world. The top 1% taxpayers pay around 45% of all federal income taxes, while the top 10% pay around 75%. Whether you think the rich can afford it or not, it’s unhealthy and unstable for a country to rely on a sliver of people to prop up the government. That doesn’t sound like the workings of a healthy “democracy.”

The problem, though, with zeroing out taxes for around 70 million Americans isn’t only about balance sheets. It’s about feeding an existing moral hazard that reinforces the perception Bezos was decrying. We can’t tap the wealthy to foot the bill for everything.

We are already charging much of our spending to future generations through debt. But voters, need it be said, would be even more likely to support profligate spending knowing they didn’t have any federal tax bill.

Even in those Scandinavian welfare states that Sen. Bernie Sanders and other socialists mythologize and fantasize about, everyone pays. Virtually every Danish family, for instance, is on the hook for over 50% of their income in taxes — and that’s not even counting a 25% sales tax on everything they purchase. Do you want a welfare state? Fine. Pay for it.

If we flattened taxes so that everyone was compelled to cough up a “fair share,” we’d have revolution on our hands. It’s going to be virtually impossible to fix our progressive tax code. At the very least, we shouldn’t exacerbate the problem by detaching more citizens from the cost and scope of their government.

Columnist; David Harsanyi

Official website; http://twitter.com/davidharsanyi