Israeli forces targeted central Gaza's Bureij camp with artillery shelling before launching tank fire on the al-Shakush area, north of Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, Al Jazeera reported, citing Palestinian media.
The strikes come as military operations continue across multiple areas.
https://breakingthenews.net/Article/Israeli-strikes-target-central-and-southern-Gaza/66883071
The reality of the Social Security system and laws is that the system design is fundamentally and fatally flawed. Unless we fix the design flaws, any other changes to the system are purely cosmetic and doomed to perpetual tinkering, temporary fixes, and eventual failure.
We will have failed our younger citizens by failing to address the flaws. The options are painfully simple. Do nothing, which our federal government has done well since the program's inception, or truly fix the system.
The crux of the problem is that the Social Security system was never structured to keep the beneficiary front and center of every investment decision. Most pension-fund fiduciaries are held to a prudent expert standard. The Social Security trustees are not in the same position because Congress has largely removed their investment discretion.
That lack of investment discretion creates an insurmountable obstacle to the system -- the sacred trust of Social Security stewardship. It is the fatal flaw.
We have done a great job of masking the reality of the failure. As a result, they are clamoring for more of the very system that failed them because our citizens have been lied to about Social Security -- the sacred trust is anything but.
To be blunt, Social Security is not a capitalist, free-market creation. It was the start of a socialist system and its systemic failure should be a warning sign of what to avoid and not a green light to make it bigger.
When Americans discuss Social Security, the conversation usually begins with financial issues -- the numbers, so to speak. How much should payroll taxes increase, should the retirement age rise, should benefits be reduced for future retirees, or should the payroll tax cap be lifted?
These are important questions, but they all assume the same premise -- that the only challenge is finding enough money to fulfill the promises that have already been made. These questions do not address the core problem and a potentially fatal flaw in the Social Security system itself.
Until we address the question of who represents the beneficiary -- those who paid into the system under duress and with the hope that the system would keep its promises, the problem will never be resolved. Only band-aid solutions will keep being proffered.
Whether a trust belongs to a family, a corporation, a charitable foundation, or a public pension system, one principle has remained remarkably consistent through generations: the trustee's first obligation is to the beneficiary. Every other responsibility is secondary.
When I was a legislative member of the PSERS pension system for teachers in Pennsylvania, our fiduciary counsel continuously reminded us that our only responsibility was to the beneficiary, and that is how it must be.
That fiduciary principle is so fundamental that it is the bedrock of any sound financial model and is the underpinning guiding principle of trustees, board members, and others charged with governance.
Social Security is different. Social Security trustees cannot currently be fiduciaries because they do not have investment decision authority. They can only invest in U. S. government securities.
When the financial crisis of 2008 required extraordinary monetary policy, the Federal Reserve pursued policies that were designed to stabilize the broader economy. Quantitative Easing was born. Congress supported those efforts because the nation faced extraordinary circumstances. Whether those decisions were right or wrong is not the same question if that decision is right or wrong for Social Security and its beneficiaries.
Who was responsible for asking whether years of exceptionally low Treasury yields would significantly reduce the long-term investment earnings of the Social Security trust fund? Who was required to ask whether the existing investment structure still served the exclusive interests of future retirees? Who spoke for the beneficiary?
The answer is less clear than it should be. Social Security governance problems existed well before 2008 and quantitative easing, but the magnitude of the Social Security funding crisis was intensified by that policy.
Every organization eventually faces competing priorities, but stewardship requires something more. It requires ensuring that the people for whom the trust exists are never lost in the translation of competing priorities. That is why fiduciary responsibility is such a powerful principle. It reminds us that someone must always remain focused on the beneficiary, even while others address broader institutional responsibilities.
Social Security deserves that same discipline. The purpose of reform is not to criticize yesterday's leaders. It is to strengthen tomorrow's stewardship.
Every trust has advocates and every beneficiary deserves one. If we begin there, we may finally find ourselves discussing not merely how to finance Social Security, but how to govern it in a manner worthy of the trust that generations of American workers have placed in it.
If the current structure doesn't ensure that the beneficiaries' interests are always represented, Congress needs to change the law, and that is the question we must answer to solve the Social Security funding crisis by allowing trustees to manage the trust funds.
Until Social Security trustees are permitted to properly and prudently manage the trust funds, Congress will be obligated to make up for the shortfall in earnings between what investments in Treasury securities earn versus what the average fund earns. The other alternative is for the fund to invest funds as any trustee would do, prudently. Guardrails would obviously be established similar to those that government employee pension fund managers have now to ensure that the federal government does not interfere with our capital markets.
Frank Ryan is a CPA, retired U.S. Marine Corps Reserve Colonel, former member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, and former Vice Chair of the Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System (PSERS).
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/08/social-security-who-represents-the-beneficiary/
by Andrea Widburg
Those of us who are worried about the growing Islamic population in America and its political power are often accused of being Islamophobic. But maybe we’re not. Maybe when people threaten to kill you, you should take them seriously.
A phobia is an irrational fear of something. Is it irrational to be worried when a group of people proclaims in public that their most fervent desires, and the prayers that they hope their God grants, all revolve around your death?
Someone has compiled footage of prayer services at various mosques across America, as well as from Imams representing Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. (Apparently included in this roster of bloodthirsty imams is one who spoke in a mosque in Dearborn, Michigan, which led the charge to make Abdul El-Sayed the Democrat party’s candidate to represent Michigan in the Senate.) Where the prayers are in Arabic, I’ve transcribed the subtitles included with the videos:
First Imam, somewhere in America: ...the word, and with the decree of yours you will annihilate them. [Arabic] Annihilated. And you destroyed the likes of [unintelligible and Arabic]. We ask Allah. Destroy them. Destroy them, Allah. Take them off the service of this earth. [Arabic]
Second Imam, location unknown: [Oh Allah!] Give us victory over the disbelieving people. O Allah! Give victory to Islam and raise the standing of the Muslims. And humiliate polytheism and the polytheists. Oh, Allah! Give victory (help) to your slaves who believe in the oneness of Allah. O the Lord of the Worlds! O Allah! Give them victory over the criminal people. O Allah! Count their number, slay them one by one and spare not one of them.
Third Imam: Oh Allah, our Lord, they are waging Jihad for Your sake. Oh Allah, oh Lord of Mankind, grant them victory. Oh Allah, oh Lord of Mankind, grant them victory over their enemies. Oh Allah, annihilate the Jews and the Christians. Oh Allah, annihilate the Jews and their helpers for they are no match for You. Oh Allah, count them, kill them one by one and do not spare a single one of them, oh Lord of Mankind.
Fourth Imam, from the Kansas City Islamic Center: Oh Allah, annihilate the Crusaders, for they are no match for You. Oh Allah, support us against them, oh Lord of the Universe. Oh Allah, support us against the infidels, as You promised us.
Fifth Imam, somewhere in America: Allah, destroy all the enemies of Islam. Allah, destroy all the enemies of Islam. Allah, destroy them completely, and show in them, show in us the great signs of Allah in their utter destruction and annihilation, humiliation.
Sixth Imam, the deputy speaker of the Hamas Parliament: Oh Allah, destroy the Americans and their supporters. Oh, Allah, count them one by one, kill them all, without leaving a single one.
Seventh Imam, a Palestinian Authority judge: O Allah, kill them one by one. Allah, count them and kill them one by one, and do not leave even one of them. O Master of the Universe!
You could traverse the world, entering every church, synagogue, or Hindu temple you stumble across, and you would not find any part of the liturgy that contains such violent, murderous imprecations. And lest someone try to contend that they’re just repeating ancient liturgies, the bit about killing Americans pretty much puts an end to that claim. These are not rote, time-worn prayers; they are heartfelt modern desires.
And again, this is Mamdani’s base. This is El-Sayed’s base. This is Ilhan Omar’s base. This is Rashida Tlaib’s base. And, in ever-increasing numbers, this is the new base of the Democrat party.
When someone not only says they want to kill you, but repeats that desire endlessly, and acts on that desire tens of thousands of times across the globe, it’s not a conspiracy theory. You’re not weaving together disconnected, random facts and creating a pattern where none exists.
Instead, you need to listen to what they say, and remember three hijacked planes and 2,753 dead in New York City (now controlled by a Muslim), 184 in D.C. (currently holding its own against Islam, thanks only to Trump), and 40 in a Pennsylvania field. Or, if your mind stumbles traveling back 25 years, think more recently, to October 7, 2023, and the hostage situation thereafter, when Muslims slaughtered 1,162 people, not just in cold blood, but with violence that would leave a Stone Age warrior grossed out.
When someone says he wants to kill you, believe him.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/08/just-a-reminder-of-what-s-going-on-in-mosques/
by Monica Showalter
Should noncitizens be deciding America's elections, and America's representation in Congress in close races?
Most people say 'no,' and the law certainly does.
Which brings us to James O'Keefe, who filmed a series of Michigan voters and election workers in the primary this week nakedly commiting and condoning election fraud.
Obviously, non-citizens who don't belong here have been voting in elections, O'Keefe pinned two Iranians who seem to have voted and who were on the voter rolls, the videos are out there, and many investigative reporters have proved similar crimes, so it probably wasn't hard.
Non-citizen voting, by illegal and legal immigrants, that thing that never happens, the experts say, actually seems pretty common. We saw it in California. We saw it in New Jersey, and Virginia. Now we see it in Michigan.
With elections as close as they are -- extremist Democrat Abdul El-Sayed won his Democrat primary for Senate by 15,697 mostly late-arriving ballots -- it's obvious that a certain number of this Michigan result's votes were illegally cast for an anti-American Islamofascist who wasn't the will of Michigan's voters.
Iranian nationals who support the mullah regime would have motive to cast their ballots for El-Sayed, given El-Sayed's positions, and based on this O'Keefe report, seem to have done so.But normal Michiganders would not, not even among the Democrats.
What's more, O'Keefe caught only a few of them. There may be thousands.
Obviously, the Justice Department will have to investigate and make arrests, and O'Keefe says they are on it.
But what of the lackadaisical attitudes of the election workers, one of whom told O'Keefe's investigators that the citizenship of the voter was of no concern of his. There seems to be a culture of corruption that he could say what he said so openly, and not fear any arrest, let alone losing his job.
In other words, arrests won't make that much difference and each can be dismissed by the left as an individual anomaly as the election worker waves them all through.
What's needed is for a judge to examine the problems and throw out Michigan's election results. That would get the attention of voters and the indifferent election officials who promote this culture of corruption, letting any old foreigner with his name on their lists to cast his ballot.
It's not that impossible to do -- many judges do it.
I did a search of Google ai and found these elections that had been thrown out based on corrupt election practices:
Judges occasionally throw out election results when concrete evidence of fraud, ballot mishandling, or major legal errors taints the outcome. In recent years, a few high-profile local and international elections have been ordered null and void: [1, 2]
- Edinburg, Texas (2023/2024 City Council Race): A state judge overturned a local city council election won by David White by just 10 votes, ruling that numerous ballots were illegally cast because voters received unlawful physical assistance inside the polling location in violation of the Texas Election Code. [1]
- Eatonville, Florida (2020 Town Council Election): More than a year and a half after a tight election decided by a single vote, a judge voided the results and ordered a candidate removed and replaced after uncovering a scheme involving illegal voter transport and fraudulent ballots. [1]
- Bridgeport, Connecticut (2023 Mayoral Primary): State Superior Court Judge William Clark threw out the results of the Democratic mayoral primary after surveillance video showed campaign workers stuffing absentee ballots into an external drop box. A new primary was ordered and rerun. [1]
I think there have been other cases, too.
With noncitizens openly voting in Michigan primaries and investigative journalists able to document the fraud, it's time a lawsuit was brought and the results thrown out.
Maybe this is what it will take for Michigan to clean up its dirty voter rolls and train its staff on who is eligible to vote and who isn't.
Election integrity is a joke in Michigan and many voters are simply not bothering to vote with such corruption getting out there.
Throw the result out and get it over with. That's what will enact change so long as the SAVE America Act languishes in Congress.
Canada and the U.S. are discussing a prospective deal in which Ottawa would agree to a long list of Trump administration trade demands in exchange for some relief on sectoral tariffs, the Globe and Mail reported on Friday, citing sources.
https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/3207539574676545063/4891133794945502512
by Matt Badiali
Here is an unpopular opinion… I think the data center buildout will fall far short of expectations. And I’m not the only skeptic.
Giant investment bank Goldman Sachs expects companies to complete only about 50% to 60% of data center capacity. That’s due to delays and cancellations.
Data centers are incredibly unpopular. Ask anybody.
According to Gallup’s March 2026 poll, 71% of Americans oppose data centers in their area. Half of those polled are strongly against them. The big reasons are:
Meanwhile, data centers get special treatment from politicians. For example, in Texas, Meta (the parent company of Facebook) spent $1.3 million on the Texas primary elections. Elon Musk put $500,000 into state senator candidates.
People smell a rat. You can’t escape the rising cost of electricity.
According to Dr. Ben Green, assistant professor at the University of Michigan School of Information and School of Public Policy, tech companies are right to be concerned about public disdain for data centers. In a recent interview with The Harvard Gazette, he laid out the worries of everyday Americans:
The public is concerned about rising electricity rates caused by data centers. They are concerned about the enormous water use that data centers require. They’re concerned about public handouts in the form of tax breaks that are going to data center developers, and they’re also aware that data centers don’t bring meaningful economic development, especially in the form of jobs.
The problem is that our power grid is old. It needs a lot of investment to bring it into good working order. It can’t handle a massive surge of demand as it stands. Data centers add massive new load to that grid. They currently use 4.4% of all electricity generated in the U.S. That will jump to 12% by 2028, according to research from Harvard Kennedy School.
However, it’s not simply the unpopularity of data centers that will get them canceled. It’s mainly the supply chain for all the stuff that they need. The biggest issue regarding supply is connection to the power grid.
Utility connection can take more than five years, according to Hanwha Data Centers. They found four factors that create the largest delays:
These problems tie back to our aging grid. It can’t handle this kind of demand growth. At the end of 2023, eleven thousand, six hundred projects waited to connect to the grid. Those projects represented 2,600 gigawatts of generation and energy storage. At the time, the U.S. grid’s entire energy generation capacity was only 1,280 gigawatts.
It’s a huge problem, but it isn’t new.
Only 13% of the new power requests submitted from 2000 to 2019 were in operation by 2024. That’s not good. Less than one in five got through. Looking ahead, that could mean even fewer data centers.
All of this is important because some folks see data centers as a lynch pin for commodity investments (particularly metals). So, I posed this question for research this week:
“What is the investment case for copper without data centers?”
Here’s the thing – it’s still great. You know I’m a copper bull. It’s my favorite metal. It’s the key that unlocks the electricity we need for the future. It’s the railroad that makes all this AI data work.
And it’s not just AI. EVs, renewable power, batteries, etc. are all incredibly copper intensive. Updating and expanding power grids all over the world, not just here in the U.S., requires billions of pounds of copper.
On the other side of the equation, we’re dealing with an aging fleet of mines that require more ore moved to produce the same amount of copper. And there is currently a lack of new copper mines coming online.
Make no mistake, data centers are not the only reason metal prices soared. And because a few won’t get built doesn’t derail the bull market case for both aluminum and copper…let alone the suite of critical minerals.
Even without data center demand, there will be a “structural deficit” of copper by the end of the decade. That’s the next few years. According to S&P Global’s recent forecast, copper mining will peak in 2030 at 27 million metric tons. That study shows current copper demand at 28 million metric tons today, rising 50% to 42 million metric tons by 2040.
We have not yet discovered enough mines to meet that demand, let alone those under construction.
Short of another massive global recession, sustained higher copper prices are inevitable. We do not have the supply we need to meet forecast demand. That’s why everyone should own copper stocks. The easiest way to do that is to buy the Global X Copper Miners ETF (NYSE: COPX).
Make no mistake, if even half of the data centers get built, it’s a massive increase in copper demand. And we need copper more than ever to continue the mass migration to an electric world. Invest accordingly!
“The video that was published of me was almost fake,” Kharrazi said in a video posted on his Instagram account.
Judiciary spokesperson Asghar Jahangir said Saturday that legal proceedings had begun over Kharrazi’s remarks and that he had been summoned to the Special Clerical Court.
In the earlier video, Kharrazi said the Islamic Republic had “reached a stage where, in this form, it simply doesn’t work anymore” and outlined plans for a 250,000-strong network that he said could surround government ministries and converge on Tehran.
Kharrazi, who heads the Hezbollah of Iran organization, also said his group had drawn up plans for replacing the current system with what he described as an “Islamic government.”
