At least 145 women across France were targeted in syringe attacks at the Festival of Music 2025 (Fête de la Musique), which offers free concerts in cities across the country.
[snip]
French authorities have not yet indicated what, if any substances, were involved in these specific attacks.
Before I even knew what kind of individuals perpetrated these needle attacks, I already knew—we probably all do—and it wasn’t the few white Frenchmen left but…Muslim migrants. While most of the creeps are still on the lam, a Bangladeshi suspect has been arrested as well as another man who shouted at his victim in Arabic, claiming to be a doctor.
They kept telling us that the waves of third world migrants they were bringing into the West would be tomorrow’s “doctors” and “engineers” so…well-played.
Some of the cities where needle attacks occurred at the highest rates were Chambéry, Metz, Paris, Montpellier, and Grenoble—and, since many of the women did not experience cognitive issues after being injected, the date-rape drug (GHB), which is typically used, was ruled out. What was in those needles? Semen? HIV?
But the risk of being stabbed with a syringe and injected with an unknown material wasn’t the only violence brought by the migrants during the concerts: there were stabbings, “battles with police,” sexual assault, gang activity, and around 50 cars were lit on fire:
And, here’s a man kicking a young woman on the ground in the head:
While he and his buddies (who fail to intervene) may have French citizenship, they’re certainly not French.
Like I said, we don’t have to live like this—but leftist “progressives” are condemning us to this future—they truly are the biggest blight to ever afflict humanity.
What promised to be a ghastly church massacre in Michigan on Sunday was prevented by the speedy reactions of a church deacon and two staff members-- with the deacon unleashing the first blow with his truck before a security guard and another staff member polished off the assailant with gunfire. The drama played out at CrossPointe Community Churchin Wayne, Michigan, a western Detroit suburb. Police identified the dead shooter asBrian Anthony Browning, a 31-year-old white male with no known connection to the church.
Browning arrived at the church in Nissan truck shortly after 11 a.m., as a special vacation bible school service was underway, teeming with children and 150 congregants in all. Police say he was wearing a tactical vest and carrying both a handgun and a "long gun" (a pointlessly-vague police term that could describe either a rifle or shotgun). After gaining the attention of staff members by driving recklessly outside the building, Browning exited his vehicle and opened fire on the church.
That's when he was met with a swift and decisive one-two punch. When a deacon saw the shooter moving toward the church, he immediately turned his Ford F-150 pickup truck into a two-ton weapon, hitting the gas and running Browning over as the fiend fired multiple rounds at him. ["The Ford works in mysterious ways," observes ZeroHedge reader Rattus in an instant-classic comment below.] That bought time for staff members to engage him with gunfire."At least two staff members shot the gunman, causing fatal wounds,"said Wayne Police Chief Ryan Strong. One staffer suffered a gunshot wound to the leg, but is expected to fully recover after undergoing surgery. Though Browning was stopped "quite close" to the church, several of the rounds he fired entered it.
Live-streamed video of the service captured the congregation's multistage reaction to the attack, which proceeded from distraction to confusion and then fearful retreat, with one of the leaders of the service beckoning everyone to move to the back of the building:
Churchgoer Doug Blair told Fox 2 Detroit that he first mistook the sound of gunfire for construction noises. After hearing someone announce an "active shooter," he ran to a door, propped it open and carefully took a look outside:
"There was the shooter … on the ground. His weapon, I think he was still firing away, it was on the ground… right before I got to the door, you could hear it was going BAM, BAM, BAM. That's all you heard. When I opened the door, one of our security people was in front of him and one was on the other side of him. They were just both emptying their clips."
Chief Strong praised the swift and effective response. “We are grateful for the quick actions of the church’s staff members, who undoubtedly saved many lives and prevented a large-scale mass shooting,” he said. “I would add that the church parishioners and staff members were trained in responding to emergency situations, which also saved lives.”
The pastor and police say Browning didnot appear to have ever been a member of the church, which is located about five miles away from his home in Romulus, Michigan. There's no word yet about a motive."It appears he was suffering from a mental health crisis," Strong told reporters, an assertion based on interviews already conducted. Police say he had no criminal record, and little biographical information has surfaced thus far, with no reports about his work history. Photos are circulating on social media that purport to show Browning, but there are disputes about their authenticity.
Chalk up another win for good guys with guns -- and a Ford F-150.
The past year has been a true test of the effectiveness of local leadership. City leaders have had to deal with economic difficulties like highinflation, as well as other issues such asmass shootingswith over 500 reported in 2024, keeping gun crime in the political spotlight.
Even during less difficult times, running a city is a tall order. The larger the city, the more complex it becomes to manage. In addition to representing the residents, local leaders must balance the public’s diverse interests with the city’s limited resources. That often means not everyone’s needs can or will be met. Leaders must carefully consider which services are most essential, which agencies’ budgets to cut or boost, and whether and how much to raise taxes, among other decisions.
But how do we measure the effectiveness of local leadership? One way is by determining a city’s operating efficiency. In other words, we can learn how well city officials manage and spend public funds by comparing the quality of the services residents receive against the city’s total budget.
Using that approach, WalletHub compared the operating efficiency of 148 of the largest U.S. cities to reveal which among them are managed best. We constructed a “Quality of Services” score made up of 36 metrics grouped into six service categories, which we then measured against the city’s per-capita budget.
Are patients being prescribed more medications not for their health, but to generate profit? A new economic study published in The Journal of Health Economics reveals that cancer patients treated by physicians participating in the 340B Program receive more medications—including those outside clinical guidelines—without improvements in survival.
The federal program, named after Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act, was created by Congress in 1992 to support hospitals and clinics serving low-income communities. It allows eligible entities to purchase outpatient drugs at steep discounts and receive full reimbursement, retaining the difference. The Affordable Care Act expanded eligibility criteria, accelerating the program’s growth.
Since 2012, the number of 340B-eligible entities has tripled to more than 60,000. Between 2013 and 2023, discounted drug purchases under the program rose from $8 billion to $66 billion, largely driven by eligible hospitals and their affiliated outpatient facilities. Today, nearly 60% of U.S. pharmacies serve as contract pharmacies, dispensing drugs for 340B-eligible entities. This rapid growth reflects the lucrative “buy-low, sell-high” opportunities created by the program.
Dr. Danea Horn at the University of California, San Francisco, studied the prescribing behavior of physicians treating breast cancer patients before and after their practices began participating in the 340B Program. Her findings are striking: the likelihood of prescribing outpatient drugs per patient increased by over 25%, and the intensity of drug treatment rose by 40%, including medications not aligned with clinical recommendations.
Despite increased medication use, the study found no evidence of improved patient survival—consistent with research indicating that 340B participation does not enhance hospitals’ inpatient care quality. As Dr. Horn concluded, the 340B Program is fundamentally a “cash transfer program” that distorts healthcare markets by inflating drug profit margins, an incentive to which providers actively respond.
Recent research found that 340B-eligible hospitals secured substantial profit margins on outpatient drugs and that the program discouraged biosimilar adoption, favoring expensive brand-name drugs with higher 340B profit margins. Additionally, hospitals strategically manage their patient mix to game the 340B eligibility criteria and expand into wealthier neighborhoods to capture lucrative outpatient drug margins.
In effect, the 340B Program gives eligible entities a substantial financial advantage, creating a deep moat that fends off competitors. Independent physician practices and for-profit hospitals, regardless of their patient mix, are ineligible for the program but must compete with eligible nonprofit hospitals.
This uneven playing field has driven vertical integration, prompting hospitals to acquire physician practices and expand clinics to increase drug revenue. These actions raise commercial prices and worsen the financial burden on patients, directly contradicting the 340B Program’s original intent.
It’s tempting to blame hospital greed for their relentless expansion of 340B-driven operations. However, hospitals—like all other players in healthcare—respond to the incentive structure around them. Why should they be expected to leave easy 340B money on the table? Bad rules ruin the game, often in ways unforeseeable to well-intentioned rulemakers.
Reforming the 340B Program is politically challenging, as it has evolved into an indispensable cash cow for eligible entities, creating entrenched financial and political interests committed to sustaining and expanding it. However, as the public becomes increasingly aware of the nature and implications of this rapidly growing program, a tipping point may emerge for reforms that prioritize and directly empower patients rather than the healthcare entities serving them.
One of the biggest questions surrounding Senate Republicans' version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act concerns the fate of Medicare. Earlier this month, GOP lawmakers were reportedly considering reforms aimed at reducing waste, fraud and abuse in the entitlement as a way to deliver savings for taxpayers.
But as the bill has taken shape in the last few days, Senate Republicans appear to have lost their appetite for tightening the federal purse strings for Medicare.
The conventional wisdom is that any changes to the program would come at too high a political cost for Republicans. But improper payments have been rampant in Medicare for too long.
If Republicans don't take action to eliminate such costly inefficiencies, then taxpayers will continue to watch helplessly as their hard-earned dollars are wasted.
There is no shortage of waste Republicans can target.
Consider how insurers have been abusing Medicare Advantage, the component of the entitlement that allows beneficiaries to purchase federally subsidized private coverage. Over the past few years, insurers have gotten good at gaming the program's rules to extract overpayments from the federal government.
One way they do so is through a strategy known as "upcoding," wherein an insurer goes out of its way to ascribe multiple medical diagnoses to a particular patient. Since MA pays insurers more money for covering higher-risk patients, making a person look sicker than they may actually be is a direct way to increase revenues.
Another technique MA plans employ is "favorable selection" — a process designed to ensure that healthier seniors are overrepresented in MA plans compared to less healthy seniors.
Padding their rolls with healthier patients — and pretending they're sicker than they are — has proven lucrative for insurers. It has also come at a staggering cost to taxpayers.
According to an analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, these two techniques will lead to$1.2 trillion in overpayment to MA plans between 2025 and 2034.
A crackdown on gamesmanship by insurers isn't the only way the GOP can make Medicare more cost-effective. They could also address a glaring inefficiency in how healthcare providers are reimbursed.
At present, Medicare pays about twice as much for routine ambulatory services delivered in a hospital as it does for the same services when delivered in a doctor's office, according to research from the Paragon Health Institute.
That's not just irrational and irresponsible.It incentivizes hospitals to acquire physician practices, change the sign on the door, and start billing Medicare at higher rates. The upshot is a more consolidated, less competitive market for medical care — and higher costs for everyone.
Correcting this payment discrepancy — and transitioning to a "site-neutral" reimbursement framework — could save the federal government as much as $100 billion over the next decade. What's more, it's an approach that garners bipartisansupport.
The notion that rooting out waste and abuse in Medicare would inspire a dangerous political backlash for Republicans is mistaken. The GOP needs to find ways to cut federal spending.
Eliminating overpayments to MAplans and ending perverse reimbursement schemes in Medicare are straightforward, commonsense ways to do so.
Sally C. Pipes is President, CEO, and Thomas W. Smith Fellow in Health Care Policy at the Pacific Research Institute. Her latest book is "The World's Medicine Chest: How America Achieved Pharmaceutical Supremacy — and How to Keep It" (Encounter 2025).
TuHURA Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:HURA) ("TuHURA" or the "Company"), a Phase 3 immune-oncology company developing novel technologies to overcome resistance to cancer immunotherapy, today announced with Kineta, Inc. (OTC Pink:KANT) ("Kineta"), a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on the development of novel immunotherapies in oncology that address cancer immune resistance, that TuHURA stockholders approved all of the proposals set forth at the Company's Special Meeting of Stockholders held today,June 23, 2025(the "TuHURA Special Meeting"). The proposals included an increase of the Company's authorized shares to 200 million shares and a proposal to reincorporate the Company inDelaware.
Additionally, Kineta stockholders approved the proposed merger (the "Merger") with TuHURA at Kineta's Special Meeting of Stockholders held today, June 23, 2025 (the "Kineta Special Meeting"). The parties anticipate that the Merger will close as soon as possible following the satisfaction or waiver of any remaining closing conditions.
The final voting results of the TuHURA Special Meeting and the Kineta Special Meeting will be reported in Current Reports on Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Billionaire Dem donors including Barry Diller and Michael Bloomberg are refusing to fork over more cash for now to the party’s main fundraising committee because there’s now a “broad consensus” it’s “ineffectual,’’ sources said.
The Democratic National Committee has been plagued by infighting and defections as the party remains virtually leaderless since President Trump’s victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election — prompting some once-reliable and deep-pocketed donors to yank funding for the time being.
“For a variety of reasons, I have no intention of donating to the DNC,” media mogul Diller told The Post last week.
Billionaire Democratic donors aren’t forking over any more cash to the party’s main fundraising committee because there is now “broad consensus” that it’s been “ineffectual,” sources said.Tamara Beckwith/NY Post
Diller, chairman of such holdings as the Internet and media behemoth IAC, seethed in his just-released memoir “Who Knew” that former President Joe Biden and his administration used a bait-and-switch tactic when it came to his promise of restoring the “soul of the nation.”
“I think the biggest crime of the Biden administration is that it came in with a pledge to restore a more civilized, selfless, and uplifting manner of governance and instead let us all down with its progressive elitism, personal ego, and cynical behavior. Such a shame,” Diller wrote
Sources close to Bloomberg, a news tech titan and New York City’s former mayor, said he also is wary of giving to the DNC again, while others have expressed skepticism that hedge-fund manager Marc Lasry is in a hurry to make up the funding.
During the 2023-24 election cycle, Bloomberg gave $413,000 to the DNC; Diller donated $330,400; and Lasry contributed $133,400.
Lasry hinted that ultimately he will give again to the DNC — but didn’t specify when. A rep for Bloomberg declined to comment.
“For a variety of reasons, I have no intention of donating to the DNC,” media mogul Barry Diller told The Post last week.Getty Images
“There is just a broad consensus that the DNC is ineffectual and not where we should be giving money,” said a longtime former donor.
“But it’s not surprising,” the source said. “‘I don’t belong to an organized party, I’m a Democrat’ is a longtime joke for a reason.
“We’re so decentralized,” the source added. “The DNC has always been a joke. If you are a megadonor looking to shape the direction of the party, don’t give to the DNC. At this point, the shape of the DNC is just embarrassing.”
A DNC rep said that many long-time donors have already contributed to the DNC this year as part of a record-breaking donation drive in the first four months under Martin.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is another billionaire who has opted not to support the fundraising committee at the moment, sources said.AP
But another donor who told The Post his wallet is now closed to the committee said Martin may have his head in the sand.
“People are too embarrassed to admit this,” the source said. “I’m a lifelong Dem who raised a ton of money, and I won’t give them a nickel — and I’m not alone.
“I’m not even a Democrat anymore. The Dems should kidnap Elizabeth Warren and take her to Mexico,” the source said of the lefty Massachusetts senator. “This is how Trump got [his win] — not because Trump is loved but because his ideas are popular.”
Other sources pointed out that recent Democratic fundraising has been largely channeled into New York City’s mayoral race, with party leaders increasingly concerned about the prospect of self-described socialist Zohran Mamdani overtaking ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the primary contest.
The drop-off in fundraising has left some party bosses questioning whether the committee will have to take out loans, though DNC Chairman Ken Martin has expressed doubt that will have to happen.AP
The DNC’s most recent financial filings, released last week, revealed that it bled nearly $3 million alone from its already dwindling reserves during the month of May, with the committee’s pot of gold now standing at a precarious $15 million.
Should Mamdani win, that could further erode support for the DNC from big donors who are concerned their money will simply go to socialists, sources noted.
For its part, the DNC has denied that donor support is wavering. In a statement released Friday, it touted what it called “record fundraising” and the “highest in DNC history under any chair’s first four months” for Martin.
Hedge fund manager Marc Lasry isn’t in a hurry to help the DNC right its balance sheet, either, sources said.Sportico via Getty Images
The DNC told Axios that the nearly $40 million it garnered between February and May of 2025 “surpasses the $37 million raised under Jaime Harrison’s leadership in those same months in 2021.”
“In the early and mid 2010’s, some big-money donors already tried not funding the DNC and state parties, instead funding groups outside of the Party, which hollowed out the critical work that the Party does while putting us behind the eight-ball when it came to critical coordination during the 2016 presidential election,” warned one Democratic strategist.
“We all know how that story ended — Donald Trump won the Presidency and the Democratic Party fell to an all-time low at every level of government. The Democratic Party needs a fully-funded Party to fight Donald Trump.”
Former President Joe Biden and his administration are under fire for vowing to restore the “soul of the nation” — then allegedly going so progressive that they only widened rifts.AP The Republican National Committee, on the other hand, had a net-positive cash flow for May. It added more than $5 million to its treasure trove, bringing its total funds to more than $72 million.
These new numbers put the RNC’s cash stash at almost five times the size of the DNC’s. And it’s welcome news for Republicans.
Home Depot founder Ken Langone, a longtime GOP donor, was thrilled by the accounting and said to friends, “We don’t have to worry as the GOP party because the Dem positions are so stupid they’ll never raise money again,” sources said.
