Two Drugs In One
39 minutes ago
Thursday, July 30, 2026
Finally, a president is stopping EU looting of US companies!
Finally, a president is stopping EU looting of US companies!
The EU just fined Google another billion dollars. Trump is sick of it.
President Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission (E.C.), the administrative arm of the European Union, just fined Google an additional $1 billion on top of the $12 billion that it had already fined Google. Google’s crimes include such infamies as ranking its own (free!) flight search services above similar competitors on its search pages.
In response, on July 24, President Trump tweeted on Truth Social:
The European Union is at it again and, as usual, taking direct aim at GREAT American Companies! ... [W]e have just been informed that Google, a truly advanced and amazing group, has been fined yet another 1 Billion Dollars. ... [W]e will immediately initiate a 301 Investigation into the practice of “ROBBING” American Companies and, in turn, the American Taxpayer ...
Next, the office of U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer will determine, under Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974, whether the European Union is acting in a way that “is unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce.”
As shown in the chart below, of the 15 companies that have been fined the most by the E.C., 6 are headquartered in the European Union. Four American companies have been fined $2.5 billion or more by the E.C., which is actually more than twice the highest total amount that it has leveled against any European company.
The E.C.’s looting of American companies has continued ever since President Obama did nothing after the E.C. looted Intel in 2009. From 1978 until 2008, Intel had been the most dynamic computer chip company in the world, doubling desktop computer speed about every two years. After fining Intel $1.2 billion, the E.U.’s antitrust chief Neelie Kroesmade her motivation clear. She bragged:
I would like to draw your attention to Intel’s latest global advertising campaign which proposes Intel as the sponsors of tomorrow. Well, now they are sponsors of the European taxpayers of today.
Since then, Intel has had to devote much of its attention to avoiding future government looting. It has become a shadow of the dynamic company that it was back then. In 2025, its revenues were less than its 2011 revenues.
When Are Antitrust Prosecutions Legitimate?
Some antitrust prosecutions are economically legitimate. When Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, some American deal-makers were combining all of the large competing companies in an industry so they could gain the monopoly power needed to raise the prices of their products. Breaking up such trusts was economically justified in order to reduce prices for the consumer.
But there is no economic justification for looting technological leaders in order to prevent them from profiting from the monopolies that their leadership earned. These companies make enormous profits, and they invest a large part of those profits into the research that drives economic growth, according to economist J.A. Schumpeter, whose work led to the Endogenous Growth Theory, the dominant modern theory of long-term economic growth.
Companies with technological leads invest enormous amounts of money into research in order to stay ahead of their competition while expanding markets for their products. Google spent $91.4 billion on capital expenditures in 2025, almost a quarter of its total revenue.
Schumpeter’s favorite example was the Aluminum Corporation of America. Even though its patent protection expired in 1909, it continued to engage in “cost-reducing research, in the economic development of the productive apparatus, [and] in teaching new uses for the product” (note 20, pp. 101–102). It maintained its near monopoly for decades while it simultaneously reduced aluminum prices and expanded aluminum output.
Schumpeter wrote about ALCOA way back in 1943. The intervening years have shown again and again that he was correct. Since World War II, companies that have had technological monopolies have continued to propel economic growth through their research. These innovative companies have included AT&T, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, Apple, and Google. As the winners of the 2025 Nobel Prize in Economics reaffirmed, “innovation provides the impetus” for sustained economic growth.
Harm to the U.S. Economic Future
The E.C. has been bleeding American technological leaders of the profits that they could otherwise have devoted to innovation. By doing so, it is suppressing future U.S. and global economic growth and is making future Americans less rich than they would otherwise be.
It has also begun to use its fining power to suppress U.S. free speech. On December 4, 2025, it announced that it had fined X $136 million for three trivial reasons:
- “X’s use of the ‘blue checkmark’ for ‘verified accounts’ deceives users.”
- “X’s advertisement repository fails to meet ... transparency and accessibility requirements.”
- “X fails ... to provide researchers with access to the platform’s public data.”
Elon Musk responded in a tweet:
The European Commission offered X an illegal secret deal: if we quietly censored speech without telling anyone, they would not fine us. The other platforms accepted that deal. X did not.
Fortunately, President Trump is going to stop the E.C. At the end of his tweet, he wrote,
The European Union will pay a very big price for this illegal and highly unethical conduct, which I have consistently warned them about. The penalties will be entirely reversed and, we anticipate, a substantial TARIFF to be placed on them at the earliest possible moment. Stay tuned!
The European Union’s economy is only growing at a 0.8% rate this year, as compared to the 2.1% rate in the United States. The E.U. and U.S. economies were the same size in 2010, but the U.S. economy is currently about ten trillion dollars larger. Having failed to produce European growth through excessive regulation, the E.C. is now trying to make money for the European taxpayer at the expense of U.S. economic growth.
Yes on the AM Radio in Every Vehicle Act
Yes on the AM Radio in Every Vehicle Act
Star Parker
https://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2026/07/29/yes-on-the-am-radio-in-every-vehicle-act-n2680295
https://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2026/07/29/yes-on-the-am-radio-in-every-vehicle-act-n2680295
It is rare for me to support anything inserting more government into our lives.
However, I'm now looking at one of these exceptions.
It's the AM Radio in Every Vehicle Act.The legislation pushes back against automobile manufacturers moving to no longer include AM radio as standard equipment in new cars.
The bill mandates a Department of Transportation rule requiring that all new vehicles manufactured in the U.S. or imported come equipped with an AM radio and the ability to receive AM radio broadcasts.
At first glance, I felt, as I most always do, that what business is it of government to tell manufacturers what they should produce? These companies stay in business because they are the experts in how best to serve their customers.
In the name of disclosure, I am on the board of the National Religious Broadcasters, and NRB supports this legislation for various reasons, one being that AM radio is an important platform for Christian broadcasting.
However, despite my great zeal that all Americans hear the Gospel, I would not support this legislation for that reason. Again, we are talking about suppliers and consumers, and in my view, markets should operate freely and privately, and particular interest groups should not get government involved to protect and mandate what they want.
Given my first reaction to the bill, I was surprised to see the very wide (317 co-sponsors in the House) and very bipartisan support that it has.
I also noted senators—such as Ted Cruz, Rick Scott, and the late Lindsey Graham—whom I consider strong conservatives—who are on board as co-sponsors.The point is that even the free-est of free market thinking economists, even the late, great professor Milton Friedman, recognize there are incidents when government needs to get involved in private transactions.
Generally, economists call these "externalities."
Externalities are costs incurred, often public costs, as a result of the transaction that are not reflected in the transaction that takes place between the private parties.
One of the best-known examples is pollution. A refinery produces gasoline for consumers, but in doing so emits noxious gases into the atmosphere. Government gets involved to deal with this problem.
So, what's the "externality" with AM radio?
I am persuaded in what I read as the national emergency benefits of AM broadcasting.
Here's what my ChatGPT search tells me: "AM signals can travel hundreds of miles, especially at night, allowing one station to cover large regions; High power AM stations often have back-up generators and hardened transmission facilities, allowing them to continue broadcasting when cellular networks, internet service, or local FM stations fail; Many AM stations are designated as Primary Entry Point (PEP) stations. These stations are part of the national communications infrastructure and can broadcast presidential alerts and other emergency information during major disasters."
Another ChatGPT search tells me that Americans are in their cars an average of one and a half to two hours per day.Per the analysis, at any given moment, there are 25 million to 35 million Americans in their car.
Fortunately, national emergencies are rare. Soon we will be remembering the horror of Sept. 11, 2001.
With the well-focused emphasis in our country on private life, it is vital to not lose sight of public concerns: attacks, natural disasters, etc.
Though these moments are rare, they are not nonexistent, and when they happen the costs are very, very high. It is vital that every American always has access to emergency information.
Car manufacturers—in particular, those manufacturing electric vehicles—argue that emissions from electric circuitry interfere with the AM signal and it is very costly to insulate against this. Given that most listeners today are getting their signals from sources other than AM, their conclusion is: Just get rid of the AM hardware.
The argument is strong. But the argument for backup and readiness for major emergencies that do occur is, I think, stronger.
Every government program is riddled with fraud and abuse
BREAKING: Massive Fraud Bombshell: Smoke Shops and Bodegas Caught Processing EBT Cards for Drugs and Alcohol Across New York City (VIDEO)
Socialism is built on greed, envy and vindictiveness...Mamdani is NYC's own Mullah
'Welcome to Socialism': A Clinton Hand's Stark Warning About Mamdani
Wednesday, July 29, 2026
They're homeless because they are drug addicts...and a perfect vector multiple diseases
Homeless encampments are threats to public safety — and we need real action
In 2025, the city of Los Angeles Fire Department admitted that a full 54% of its calls for service were related to homeless encampments. In essence, first responders, both police and fire, are continuously devoting an ever-growing share of their calls for service to mental health disturbances in homeless housing developments and encampments that represent a threat to public safety.
He's losing his license because he's a tax cheat not because he's an anti Trump fool
Published July 28, 2026 2:57pm EDT
The Sentinel reported that state regulators pursued revoking Bangstad's alcohol licenseafter authorities seized canned beer from his company in June, alleging it had been transported from Illinois without the required permits and taxes. The newspaper also reported that Bangstad criticized the proposed action as an excessive response, arguing the alleged tax violations did not warrant shutting down his business.
Hamas finds allies among the anti Semites
A 'Respected' Medical Journal's War Against Doctors
[T]he pro-Hamas lobby is circulating a mass petition calling for the expulsion of the Israeli Medical Association from the World Medical Association.
The petition – which blames the Israeli doctors for alleged bias and omits any mention of Hamas' war crimes – was amplified in June by once-respected UK medical journal The Lancet, clearly crossing the line between professional medical publication and blatant propaganda.
Far from providing medical evidence or reflecting professional ethics, the petition, as echoed by The Lancet, recycles political slogans and ancient blood libels, accusing Israel of "genocide" and the destruction of Gaza's health system. Of course, there is no mention of the overwhelming evidence of Hamas's systematic militarization of hospitals and other civilian medical facilities – all actual war crimes.
In promoting this campaign, The Lancet copied the accusations of fringe activist NGOs including the People's Health Movement (PHM), Doctors for Gaza (Artsen voor Gaza), and the "Health Advisory Council" of the so-called Jewish Voice for Peace. Even a cursory review makes clear that the petition touted by this ostensible medical journal is not remotely about medical ethics.
By parroting these NGOs and violating fundamental requirements for a scientific journal, The Lancet does not make even a minimal attempt to examine their credibility and embrace of terror.
Unsurprisingly, this isn't the first time journal editor Richard Horton has used The Lancet to publish anti-Israel propaganda. From 2001 to 2014, a majority of the publication's output regarding Israeli and Palestinian issues – 58.3% of its 264 items – took the form of political commentary rather than medical research.
The Lancet dismisses any mention of Hamas' responsibility for Gaza's medical plight as mere Israeli claims, despite extensive documentation.
Additionally, neither this medical journal nor the NGOs leading the petition have ever asked any other civilian medical associations to condemn their home states' military operations. The list includes Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Sudan, and other actual violators of human rights and international law.
With Horton and The Lancet again at the forefront of a hate directed at Israeli doctors, and under the thin facade of scientific publishing, an effective response is necessary that will get the attention of the journal's Dutch publisher, Elsevier.
Among the many orchestrated campaigns to demonize Israel, the targeting of Israeli doctors and medical professionals under the false flag of "human rights" is one of the most transparently cynical. Specifically, the pro-Hamas lobby is circulating a mass petition calling for the expulsion of the Israeli Medical Association from the World Medical Association.
The petition – which blames the Israeli doctors for alleged bias and omits any mention of Hamas' war crimes – was amplified in June by once-respected UK medical journal The Lancet, clearly crossing the line between professional medical publication and blatant propaganda.
Far from providing medical evidence or reflecting professional ethics, the petition, as echoed by The Lancet, recycles political slogans and ancient blood libels, accusing Israel of "genocide" and the destruction of Gaza's health system. Of course, there is no mention of the overwhelming evidence of Hamas's systematic militarization of hospitals and other civilian medical facilities – all actual war crimes.
In promoting this campaign, The Lancet copied the accusations of fringe activist NGOs including the People's Health Movement (PHM), Doctors for Gaza (Artsen voor Gaza), and the "Health Advisory Council" of the so-called Jewish Voice for Peace. Even a cursory review makes clear that the petition touted by this ostensible medical journal is not remotely about medical ethics. Instead, it's one more part of the heinous effort to isolate and delegitimize Israeli institutions in the wake of Hamas's October 7 massacre. In essence, this is another front of Hamas's war against the people and institutions of the Jewish state.
By parroting these NGOs and violating fundamental requirements for a scientific journal, The Lancet does not make even a minimal attempt to examine their credibility and embrace of terror. For example, PHM's newly-appointed global coordinator, Aziz Rhali, publicly celebrated October 7 as "Victory Day," and participated in mob violence supporting "Palestinian resistance" immediately afterward. He has also expressed support for Hezbollah, and its late leader, arch-terrorist Hassan Nasrallah.
Unsurprisingly, this isn't the first time journal editor Richard Horton has used The Lancet to publish anti-Israel propaganda. From 2001 to 2014, a majority of the publication's output regarding Israeli and Palestinian issues – 58.3% of its 264 items – took the form of political commentary rather than medical research. This culminated in the 2014 publication of a notorious "Open Letter for the People of Gaza," a propaganda screed whose hate-filled co-authors (doctors) had emailed colleagues a message entitled "CNN Goldman Sachs & the Zio Matrix" that promoted a video featuring white supremacist Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke among other antisemitic materials.
After calls for Horton's removal gained high visibility, he embarked on an Israel apology tour and vowed change. He even published a special edition on Israeli medical advances. But following Hamas' October 7 atrocities, he regressed to his old poisonous ways, culminating in last month's NGO-led boycott petition. The articles repeating accusations of "war crimes" including "genocide" have no legal or factual basis, and were obviously fabricated to divert attention from Hamas's mass slaughter. Doing its part in this theater of the absurd, The Lancet dismisses any mention of Hamas's responsibility for Gaza's medical plight as mere Israeli claims, despite extensive documentation.
Additionally, neither this medical journal nor the NGOs leading the petition have ever asked any other civilian medical associations to condemn their home states' military operations. The list includes Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Sudan, and other actual violators of human rights and international law. The petition's premise is thus a glaring double standard.
The consequences of this trajectory extend well beyond Israel. As politics increasingly overtakes scientific institutions, physicians and researchers are pressured to conform to ideological and immoral litmus tests unrelated to medicine. As a result, academic journals, professional associations, and humanitarian organizations risk becoming seen by serious medical professionals as simply another form of mass manipulation.
With Horton and The Lancet again at the forefront of a hate directed at Israeli doctors, and under the thin facade of scientific publishing, an effective response is necessary that will get the attention of the journal's Dutch publisher, Elsevier. At its core, The Lancet is a business like any other, and when readers stop reading, subscribers pull their subscriptions, top researchers stop submitting articles, and advertisers go elsewhere, the leadership change will follow.
Prof. Gerald Steinberg is founder and president of the NGO Monitor research institute, and professor emeritus of political science at Bar Ilan University.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
