‘Mornings with Maria’ panel discusses Actor Jared Gilman taking his social media account private after fantasizing about President Donald Trump's assassination.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6397423914112
CLIP
Sunday, June 7, 2026
Israel orders Lebanon evacuations as strike looms
The Israel Defense Forces' Arabic-language spokesperson Avichay Adraee issued an evacuation warning on Sunday for residents of the southern Lebanese city of Tyre and nearby areas, signaling a new Israeli strike.
In a post on social media, Adraee said the Israeli military was preparing to act against Hezbollah after accusing the group of violating the ceasefire agreement, which Israel has likewise been accuse of breaking. He urged residents of Tyre, the Al-Bass refugee camp and surrounding neighborhoods to leave their homes immediately and move north of the Zahrani River.
The warning said people located near Hezbollah members, facilities, or military assets were putting their lives at risk. Israel has repeatedly issued similar evacuation notices ahead of operations targeting Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon.
https://breakingthenews.net/Article/Israel-orders-Lebanon-evacuations-as-strike-looms/66454788
Europe 2.0, Beyond Brussels: The End Of The European Union As We Know It
by Frank-Christian Hansel via American Greatness,
Europe has reached the end of an era. Not the end of its history, but the end of its false form. For decades, the European Union served as the great substitute project of a continent that no longer dared to think politically. It promised peace without power, order without a people, unity without roots, and prosperity without cost. That was its founding lie, and it was a lie from the very beginning.
Political order does not grow out of procedural routines, commission papers, or moral self-incantation. It grows out of peoples, interests, borders, loyalties, and the willingness to defend what is one’s own. Legitimate authority rests on a people and its consent, not on an apparatus and its expertise. That older idea—that government draws its life from the governed rather than from the competence of its administrators—is precisely what Brussels has spent two generations trying to administer away.
That is why today’s EU is not the high point of European history but its bureaucratic state of exhaustion. It is too centralized to be free and too artificial to be binding. It commands an immense body of rules and possesses no sustaining political soul. It has institutions, but not the kind of historically grown legitimacy that holds a community together across generations.
And so it answers every crisis with the same reflex: more centralization, more redistribution, more standardization, more discipline. What is sold as the solution is only the problem enlarged.
Europe is not failing because there is too little Brussels. Europe is failing because there is too much Brussels. It is failing because of a political class that no longer sees the continent as a historical space but as an object of administration. It is failing because of an ideology that treats every organically grown difference as a defect and therefore regards peoples, traditions, and national particularities as raw material to be processed. And it is failing because of a functional elite that has learned to disguise power as morality and to pass off its own interests as universal values.
There is a name for this kind of governance: the administrative state—the permanent, unelected layer that survives every election, answers to no voter, and grows whether the public wants it to or not. Brussels is that layer raised to the continental power and freed from even the inconvenience of a national electorate. There is no European demos to vote the managers out. That is not a flaw in the design. It is the design.
The real scandal of Europe today is not even its material mismanagement but its intellectual arrogance. The Union behaves as though it could suspend history—as though cultures could be harmonized like technical standards, as though political loyalty could be decreed the way one issues a packaging regulation. As though a continent of radically different historical experiences, economic structures, demographic trajectories, and security realities could be pressed into one standardized form without damage. Yet the damage is already visible. The EU is not unifying Europe. It is wearing it down.
To see why, it helps to return to a text that saw the whole thing coming. In 2011, long before today’s disruptions, the German social scientist Gunnar Heinsohn published an essay whose title I have borrowed and broadened here: “Europa 2.0: Neuzuschnitt der Alten Welt” (Europe 2.0: Recutting the Old World). It was written in the first panic of the euro rescues, and it has aged with uncomfortable precision.
Heinsohn’s argument was not, in the first place, a complaint about Brussels. It was an argument about arithmetic. He began with the chain of liabilities that the productive European middle class—the net taxpayers, the people who put in more than they take out—had quietly been made to guarantee. First, the bank rescues of 2008. Then the Greek bailout and the great euro backstops of 2010, which shielded bondholders and the comfortable classes of the periphery at the expense of taxpayers who were never asked. Then the implicit guarantees extended to the aging, shrinking states of the European East. And beneath all of it, an ever-growing domestic population to be supported for life. The decisive point was simple and merciless: when all these promises—upward, downward, and outward—come due at once, no one will be left to bail out the people who were made to do the bailing.
The mechanism is general. A government that collectivizes debt, anonymizes liability, and blurs responsibility will always end by taxing the people who never agreed to the bad decisions of others. Heinsohn merely showed that the European Union had written this principle into its very constitution. Any order that treats difference primarily as a financing problem must degenerate into a transfer machine. And a transfer machine is, sooner or later, politically hated—because it morally expropriates the productive and politically infantilizes the weak, rewarding neither virtue nor reform but only dependency. What it produces in the end is not solidarity but resentment: a bureaucratically managed exhaustion of the common good.
But Heinsohn’s deeper move was to set this fiscal machine on top of a demographic one—and here the argument becomes genuinely radical. The transfers are not merely unjust; they are mathematically doomed, because the population expected to honor them is collapsing. Across much of Europe, and most severely in the East, birth rates have run far below replacement for two generations. The productive base shrinks while the dependent base grows and ages. You cannot underwrite an expanding empire of guarantees with a contracting nation of guarantors. The numbers do not forgive ideology.
From this, Heinsohn drew a conclusion that polite Europe still refuses to say aloud: not all human capital is equal, and a civilization that loses its capacity to attract and cultivate talent does not stay rich for long. Innovation is decided at the top of the distribution, by the density of the highly capable, not by raising the average.
Importing large numbers of low-skill dependents, he argued, costs billions and replaces not a single first-rate mind, while a society that selects for ability—as the Swiss and the Danes already do—renews itself. Strip away the provocation and a plainer proposition remains: a serious country runs immigration in its own interest, as a selective system, choosing the people it needs rather than absorbing whoever happens to arrive. A civilization unwilling to reproduce itself has, in any case, already mortgaged its own future. Whatever one makes of these claims, Heinsohn’s 2011 essay reads today less like a period piece than like a forecast.
What, then, is the alternative? Heinsohn’s answer was not “more Europe,” and it was not “back to the nation-states of 1914.” It was a recutting—a deliberate sorting of the continent into political spaces that can actually function, each organized around two hard criteria: a currency that is genuinely sound and a society genuinely attractive to the talent it needs.
His model for both was not an abstraction. It was a sort of Switzerland.
Consider what Heinsohn admired in it. Its central bank does not monetize the debt of badly run governments; it will not take their paper as collateral and will not buy it—which is exactly why a country of fewer than nine million can hold a reserve-grade currency. Sound money, enforced by the refusal to bail anyone out. Its cantons do not subsidize one another into permanent dependency; there is no grand equalization scheme shuffling money from the competent to the connected. Instead, the cantons compete—for innovative firms, for capable workers, for investment—and grow their revenue by winning that competition rather than by lobbying for a larger share of someone else’s. Tax competition, fiscal discipline, and federalism as a sport rather than a shakedown. And immigration authority sits at the local level: it is the communes, not a distant central ministry, that decide who settles where—which is why the children of Swiss immigrants tend to perform like Swiss children rather than like a permanent underclass parked wherever a bureaucrat finds room.
The list of features is easy to state: sound money, decentralized authority, local control over who settles where, tax competition in place of redistribution, and a central government that coordinates only the few things that genuinely must be coordinated and leaves the rest to the level closest to the decision. The European word for this is subsidiarity. Heinsohn’s quiet provocation was to note where it actually survives—not in the European Union, but in the small, stubborn confederation that the Union spent two decades trying to fine, pressure, and squeeze into compliance.
Heinsohn then took the principle to its conclusion and asked what Europe would look like if it were organized by those criteria rather than by inherited borders. The criteria themselves are the point, and they are worth stating plainly, because they describe a direction rather than a destination:
A viable space, in his account, is one that can secure its own sound currency without monetizing anyone’s debt; one attractive enough to draw and keep the talent it needs rather than merely the dependents it acquires; one governed closely enough to its people that consent is real and not merely assumed; and one freed from open-ended liability for the failures of others. Spaces that can meet those tests cohere on their own. Spaces that cannot have to be held together by transfers and decree—which is the very condition that Europe is now exhausting itself trying to maintain.
From this, he sketched a deliberately provocative map—not a forecast and not a plan, but a way of making the criteria concrete. He imagined the continent re-associating into a handful of post-national economic and cultural spaces, sorted by affinity and by their capacity to meet those tests:
A northern federation gathering the Scandinavian countries with the prosperous German north. An Alpine federation built around the Swiss core, drawing in the wealthy regions of southern Germany, Austria, and northern Italy that already share its economic temperament. A revived commonwealth across the old Polish-Lithuanian space to the east. A Mediterranean union with its own southern currency and its own vocation, reaching from the Iberian Atlantic to the eastern shore of the sea. And where the old centers of the postwar order remained, a residual western bloc around Berlin, Paris, and London. He even allowed himself the heresy of supposing that productive regions might one day choose, politically, which space to belong to—that belonging itself might follow function rather than inheritance.
I set this out as Heinsohn set it out: as a thought experiment offered to clarify a direction—not as anyone’s program, and certainly not as mine. Its value lies not in the borders it draws but in the question it forces. Political belonging is not a law of nature fixed forever by the cartographers of 1815, and spaces that generate neither real sovereignty nor genuine loyalty have no claim to permanence simply because they happen to exist. Heinsohn noted, dryly, that his redrawn map was the conservative, earthbound option—far more grounded than the libertarian dream of seasteading, of escaping onto artificial islands beyond the reach of any government at all. When the sober alternative is a recut continent, and the radical one is floating cities in international waters, you have a fair measure of how exhausted the inherited order has become.
The usable core of all this is not the map, but the principle, and the principle is what I want to carry forward. Europe should no longer be conceived as a project of uniformity but as a system of differentiated political spaces. This is not a regression into petty-state fragmentation. It is the overdue recognition of European reality. The continent has always been most productive when it combined diversity with form—when its political units stayed manageable, legitimate, and capable of acting, and broader cooperation happened only where it genuinely made sense. It grew weak whenever it manufactured institutions that produced neither real sovereignty nor genuine belonging.
A new Europe would therefore begin with a ruthless disentangling. Everything that does not absolutely require continental regulation goes back to sovereign states—not out of nostalgia, but out of reason. Border protection, major infrastructure corridors, selected security cooperation, raw-material and energy security, and certain trade questions: these may need joint coordination. But cultural policy, social policy, identity questions, vast stretches of economic and regulatory law, and above all the question of democratic self-government do not belong to a supranational apparatus. Wherever politics becomes existential, the decision must move back toward the people and the state.
This is also where the deepest and most delicate point lies, the one that separates a serious continental order from a managed bloc. Europe can think as a continent only if it stops organizing itself around a permanent architecture of enemies. An order built primarily against Russia is, in the long run, not a European order at all;
it is the strategic extension of outside interests carried out on European soil. A viable continental order would have to find a way to include Russia rather than excommunicate it forever.
This is not sentimental Russophilia, and it is not a denial that real conflicts exist. It is the recognition of a basic fact of geopolitics: a continent that permanently writes its largest eastern power off the map turns itself into the forefield of others. Peace does not come from moral outrage. It comes from a durable order of power, interests, and space—balanced security interests, limited spheres of influence, and reorganized economic interdependence. Whoever defines Russia out of Europe defines Europe as a geopolitically incomplete space, dependent for its security on decisions made elsewhere. And a continent that will not defend, fund, or even define itself can hardly be surprised when its allies begin to ask why they should keep doing so on its behalf.
And here Heinsohn’s monetary intuition returns one last time. He imagined that even the names of currencies could keep a European feeling alive—a Nordic crown, an Alpine franc, and an eastern and a western and a Mediterranean euro, competing for international trust. Strip away the specifics, and the principle is straightforward: competition disciplines money as it disciplines everything else. A single currency imposed on radically unequal economies is not a symbol of unity. It is a mechanism for converting other people’s indiscipline into your own inflation.
What follows from all this is a single European principle: cooperation without fusion. Proximity without centralism. Continentality without empire. Europe would no longer be a union of ideological conformity but a confederation of historic peoples and political spaces—able to breathe again because not everything would have to be forced to the same institutional, economic, and moral temperature. In place of harmonization at any price: the freedom to shape one’s own order. In place of integration as an end in itself: cooperation grounded in shared interests. In place of a normative superstate: a Europe of different speeds, forms, and focal points.
And that, precisely, is the only road to genuine European sovereignty. Europe will not become sovereign because Brussels accumulates more powers. It will become sovereign only when its states and peoples recover real political substance and form alliances on that basis. Sovereignty requires capabilities, not rhetoric—industrial, military, technological, and cultural self-assertion. A Europe that obsesses over censorship and regulation at home while failing to secure its borders, its energy, and its strategic infrastructure abroad is not sovereign. It is a normative colossus on geopolitical clay feet.
This is where the mask of European moralism finally falls away. The Union speaks of democracy while narrowing the range of permissible opinion. It speaks of diversity while pursuing cultural conformity. It speaks of peace while manufacturing new lines of confrontation through ideological bloc logic. It speaks of openness while losing control of its borders. It speaks of resilience while making itself dependent. None of this is an accident. It is the logical result of a project that replaced political reality with normative self-staging.
The alternative is not a naive nationalism but a European realism, a realism that understands that peoples do not vanish because elites find them embarrassing; that spaces do not lose their meaning because technocrats redefine them as functional zones; that history does not end because a bureaucracy tries to regulate it away; and that order endures only where freedom, belonging, and responsibility are brought back together.
Europe therefore does not need a cosmetic correction of its institutions. It needs a change of political form: away from a morally charged administrative union and toward an order of the continent; away from abstract universal ideology and toward a concrete civilizational politics; and away from the permanent effort to define the European against the very conditions that made Europe possible. Europe must stop trying to emancipate itself from its own inheritance and learn again to draw strength from it.
Only then could today’s zone of crisis become a historical space once more: a Europe no longer under the guardianship of its own apparatus; a Europe that does not treat every internal difference as a threat or every external border as a moral failing; a Europe that takes itself seriously as a continent—plural in its forms, clear in its borders, sober in its interests, and resolved to defend itself.
The time of the Union as we know it is running out. The only question is whether Europe will shape this transition itself—or whether it will be torn apart by the contradictions of its own artificial construction and have its place in the world decided by others.
The alternative is clearer than many care to admit:
Either Europe becomes political again - or it remains an apparatus until other powers decide its place in the world.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/europe-20-beyond-brussels-end-european-union-we-know-it
'A New Shortcut To Quantum Entanglement'
by University of Chicago via ScienceDaily,
Many of the most promising quantum technologies, including advanced sensors and future quantum computers, depend on a phenomenon known as entanglement, where particles become deeply connected and influence one another in ways that cannot be explained by classical physics. Creating the complex entangled states needed for these technologies has traditionally required sophisticated equipment and carefully designed experimental systems.
Researchers at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering have now proposed a much simpler approach. Their new theoretical method can generate and control a wide range of entangled quantum states using tools that are already common in many quantum physics laboratories.
The work, published in Physical Review X, could help advance ultra precise quantum sensing and open new opportunities for exploring fundamental physics.
"We wanted to take simple ingredients that you find in a lot of physical platforms and put these together in a minimal way to get something interesting, complex and powerful," said Aashish Clerk, professor of molecular engineering at UChicago PME and senior author of the new study.
The research was supported by Q-NEXT, a U.S. Department of Energy National Quantum Information Science Research Center led by DOE's Argonne National Laboratory.
Rethinking Cavity QED Systems
The team's approach is based on cavity quantum electrodynamics, commonly known as cavity QED. In these experiments, atoms or other particles are placed inside an optical cavity, which consists of two mirrors that trap light between them. The particles then interact with the confined light inside the cavity.
A limitation of many cavity QED systems is that all of the atoms interact with the light in exactly the same way. Because the atoms are effectively indistinguishable, the range of quantum states that can be produced is restricted.
"The challenge has always been that these systems have too much symmetry. All the atoms are talking to light in the same way," Clerk said. "That really restricts what kind of entangled states you get."
In a typical cavity QED setup, each atom has a ground state and an excited state separated by a specific energy difference.
The researchers found a straightforward way to reduce the system's symmetry. While all atoms continue to be driven by the same laser, additional lasers or magnetic fields are used to shift the excited state energies of different groups of atoms. The atoms are arranged so that each one is paired with another atom that has an equal but opposite energy offset.
This simple modification allows atoms to behave differently from one another while preserving enough structure for the system to remain controllable and predictable. By changing which atoms receive particular energy shifts, scientists can tune the system to produce a variety of entangled states without altering the physical hardware.
"You turn these lasers on and wait, and at some point the system stabilizes into an interesting, highly entangled quantum state," said Anjun Chu, a postdoctoral researcher in the Clerk group and first author of the new work. "By simply adjusting the lasers, we can access kinds of entangled states that no one had thought about before."
Building Better Quantum Sensors
One of the most promising uses for the new approach is quantum sensing.
In theory, entangled quantum states can detect extremely small differences in magnetic fields or gravitational fields between separate locations. However, developing states that are both highly sensitive and resistant to noise has remained a major challenge.
The researchers demonstrated that a version of their proposed system containing two groups of atoms could be used to measure field gradients. When the two atomic ensembles are placed in different locations, the resulting quantum state reflects the difference between the local magnetic or gravitational fields. At the same time, it naturally rejects background noise that affects both locations equally.
"You're able to do two things that are normally not compatible with one another: Use entanglement to build an exquisitely sensitive sensor but also have robustness to arbitrarily large amounts of noise," Clerk said. "Normally, entanglement is very fragile. This approach has some amazing resilience."
Another advantage is that the information stored in these quantum states can be extracted using standard Ramsey measurement techniques, eliminating the need for specialized or exotic measurement methods.
Applications Beyond Sensing
The researchers also showed that the same platform can generate unusual quantum states that have long attracted interest from physicists.
One example is the AKLT state, a well known many body entangled state first introduced in the 1980s to describe unusual magnetic materials. The team found that their relatively simple setup can stabilize this state. In addition to helping scientists study complex magnetic systems, the AKLT state may also have applications in quantum computing.
Next Steps For The Research
The work remains theoretical for now, but the researchers are already discussing possible experimental tests with other groups.
They are also investigating more sophisticated ways to arrange atoms within the system and exploring the full range of quantum states that their method may be capable of producing.
"The fact that such simple ingredients can generate such complex and useful quantum states gives us hope that even before we reach the dream of a general all-purpose quantum computer, we can already generate quantum states that let us do things we couldn't do in a purely classical world," Clerk said.
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science National Quantum Information Science Research Centers as part of the Q-NEXT center.
Journal Reference: Anjun Chu, Mikhail Mamaev, Martin Koppenhofer, Ming Yuan, Aashish A. Clerk. "Reconfigurable Dissipative Entanglement between Many Spin Ensembles: From Robust Quantum Sensing to Many-Body State Engineering." Physical Review X, 2026; 16 (2). DOI: 10.1103/qdh9-2pc7
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/new-shortcut-quantum-entanglement
Protesters Target NV Energy At Utility Conference As Anger Over Soaring Electricity Prices Boils
By Herman Trabish of UtilityDive
Protesters shouting affordability complaints and chanting slogans interrupted a speech by NV Energy President and CEO Brandon Barkhuff on Wednesday. Barkhuff was speaking to some 1,000 utility executives and electricity industry stakeholders during the Edison Electric Institute 2026 conference at the Fontainebleau Las Vegas.
After being escorted out by security, the protesters spoke to the media outside the hotel to demand the cancellation of a daily demand charge for NV Energy customers slated to take effect Jan. 1, 2027, as well as to demand action on clean energy and high electricity bills.
The confrontation shows the extent to which energy costs have stoked public anger, raising pressure on utilities and their regulators.
Utilities have made affordability a cornerstone of their public messaging as they prepare to spend over $1 trillion over the next five years to meet a surge in demand, much of it driven by large-load data centers.
In Nevada, The Public Utility Commission in September unanimously approved a demand charge and new rate design for NV Energy customers in the southern portion of the state. It also approved changing the utility’s net metering design in ways that solar advocates said would weaken customer protections and set back Nevada’s clean energy goals.
“In Las Vegas, one of the fastest-warming cities in the country, you cannot live without electricity,” said protest organizer Leslie Vega. Vega, a climate equity policy fellow at the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, said she’s lost loved ones to heatstroke and sees the demand charge as air conditioning rationing.
“We’re not just asking for lower rates. We’re asking for survival,” she said.
NV Energy issued a statement following the protest citing “misinformation and confusion” about the daily demand charge.
“Daily demand [charges] will lower bills for the majority of our southern Nevada customers,” it said. “We understand that energy costs are an important issue for our customers, and that’s exactly why daily demand [charges are] critical in stopping subsidies that shift costs to other customers.”
Demand charges are tied to a customer’s peak electricity use, and NV Energy’s daily demand charge is based on the energy a customer consumes during a 15-minute period of peak usage each day. The utility expects the demand charge to add about 49 cents/day to a typical customer’s bill, but says most southern Nevada customers will see monthly bills that are similar to or slightly lower under the new structure.
Regulators and the utility have said that consumers who are concerned about potential spikes on their bill from the charge can shift their electricity use, but advocates say that’s not realistic, especially for cooling. Las Vegas temperatures on Wednesday reached 103 degrees as the city experiences its longest 100-degree streak of the year, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
“It’s impossible” not to run air conditioning during peak hours, said Vega. She was joined outside the hotel by several dozen other protesters with the United Ratepayers coalition.
The coalition is demanding cancellation of the demand charge, which Vega called a “financial threat” against Nevadans who don’t know how it will affect their bills and can’t manage it, as well as other changes.
“What we ask is lower rates for our lower-income community, an increase in solar energy and green energy and getting away from fossil fuels,” she said. “We might not be economists and engineers, but I would like to remind our Public Utility Commission that approved Nevada Energy’s daily demand charge that their own staff economists and engineers advised them against the daily demand charge.”
Vega said the coalition will continue to lobby elected officials.
A spokesperson for the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities and organized the conference where Barkhuff was speaking, said in a statement that EEI understands “people are frustrated about their energy bills” and shares those concerns.
“That’s why we’re here — working to do everything we can to lower customers’ bills and serve communities,” they said.
Hello, Hunter Biden
Hello Mr. Hunter Biden,
You're getting six-digit likes on every post lately. I don't have any hope to ratio you or whatever through traditional "Hello" means.
But for those uninitiated, those who are captivated by your fake-humble persona obviously PR-engineered to capture unsuspecting disaffected Republicans:
You are not some humility, witty guy turning over a new leaf. You are the ultimate proof of nepotism, everything that the so-called "Epstein Class" is supposed to represent.
Let me explain - off the top of my head.
You were a board member of USGLC. U.S. Global Leadership Coalition. The most powerful NGO that nobody's ever heard of. Last year, I documented in several threads, how Liz Schrayer, USGLC lead, took credit for ramming through a 90 billion dollar bill for Ukraine in 2024, even as demonstrated that Western North Carolina got zero help in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene because FEMA threw up their hands and said they ran out of funds.
USGLC, arguably, is the most powerful NGO that nobody has ever heard of. It includes a bunch of corporations, a bunch of nonprofit leads, and ... for some magical reason, I documented, extensively, linked, that Liz Schrayer started pursuing you in 2012. During the Obama years, when you were Biden's son. Are you a former Secretary of State? No. Are you a CEO of a Fortune 500 company? No. That puts you below the average USGLC board member, by a good tier.
So what DID get you on USGLC? The only reason: that you were the son of a sitting Vice President known for corruption, and you yourself were known for corruption.
You are not "folksy." You are the worst of the worst of the elite. Most of the elite, at least, get their credentials through Georgetown/George Washington/Harvard Kennedy. You got yours purely on nepotism. Any photographs you have of yourself at motels is proof that you are so incompetent that you waste all your money, not that you come from humble beginnings. Because others like have thoroughly documented that you benefited a great deal from your nepotism.
You even tried to bait those in with saying you prefer to keep immigration "legal" - but we all know the trap that keeps illegal immgrants here: outlaw deportations, and make every immigrant case "asylum", and magically, everyone who might've been here illegally a few years ago is legal.
You may get 175K likes on your semi-subverting, PR-designed photographs. But those of us who know, know you're fake.
x.com/DataRepublican
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)