John Brennan, James Comey Perjured Themselves, New CIA Memo Appears To Show
'These men deserve to rot in prison'
CIA Review Reveals Obama Pushed Intel Community To Launch Trump-Russia Witch Hunt
While Brennan, Clapper, and Comey all rightly deserve condemnation, Obama launched the plot and as president he holds greater responsibility for politicizing the intelligence community against his successor.Trump Admin Should Purge IRS Of Officials Who Targeted Conservatives
If the administration wants to show they are serious about lasting reform and an end to lawfare operations, they should empower Long to drain the leftist fever swamp at the IRS.'Nothing to be proud of': State Department spits on USAID's grave following Bono, Obama eulogies
Bono, the Irish singer valued at around $700 million whose real name is Paul David Hewson, did his apparent best on the May 30 episode of "The Joe Rogan Experience" to push the narrative that the Trump administration's dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development would result in the deaths of multitudes of foreigners.
Rogan didn't buy what Bono was selling, noting, "For sure, it was a money-laundering operation. For sure, there was no oversight. For sure, billions of dollars are missing."
Just as the Irishman's fearmongering fell flat on the podcast, similar efforts by Bill Gates and other super-wealthy individuals apparently keen to keep American taxpayers running funds through their organizations and on the hook for wasteful foreign projects failed to achieve their desired effect.
'The amount of USAID dollars going to local partners increased only from 4% to 6%.'
The USAID was officially shuttered on Tuesday, just weeks after the State Department took over its foreign assistance programs.
Responding to the eulogies offered up for USAID during a video conference on Monday by former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, as well as by Bono, State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce made abundantly clear that tears shed for the agency are wasted on what was a bloated and ineffective bureaucracy.
To drive home her point, Bruce damned the former agency with some admissions from its former administrator and longtime champion, Samantha Power.
"Samantha Power, the last USAID director under the last administration at the end of 2024, complained in public statements that when she started only 7 percent of aid money that was assigned to various projects and groups made it to its intended destination, and that’s because of bureaucracy and layers of contractors," said Bruce. "And she was proud that she got it up to 10 percent."
Power noted in a 2021 speech, "In the last decade, despite numerous efforts, initiatives, and even support from Capitol Hill, the amount of USAID dollars going to local partners increased only from 4% to 6%."
She suggested that cash was instead poured into big, remote NGOs "because working with local partners, it turns out, is more difficult, time-consuming, and it's riskier," adding that local partners "often lack the internal accounting expertise our contracts require."
USAID funds are instead gobbled up by "implementing partners," such as private contractors, government agencies, NGOs, and international organizations. The Congressional Research Service noted:
Few foreign governments receive direct budget support, and some foreign assistance dollars never leave the United States at all — instead going to a U.S. business for the end benefit of a foreign population. Money goes to U.S. farmers, defense contractors, and management consultants, among others, for commodities or services provided to benefit foreign populations.
In 2021, Power set a target for the agency: By 2025, 25% of USAID funding would go directly to the intended destinations to support the efforts of locally led organizations. The Democratic former adviser to Obama failed miserably.
According to Devex, the percentage of eligible funding that went to local organizations went from 10.2% in 2022 to 9.6% the following year.
'We are not ending foreign aid. We are making it more nimble.'
"Less than 10% of our foreign assistance dollars flowing through USAID is actually reaching those communities," Walter Kerr, co-founding executive director of Unlock Aid, told PBS earlier this year. "About 98% of USAID grants pay for activities and not results."
"Forty-three percent of [the activities] failed to achieve about half of the intended results. But in spite of that, they still got paid in full almost every time and sometimes more," added Kerr.
Kerr indicated that working with local partners could prove far more effective.
"One study found that, when working with a local partner, as opposed to an international aid contractor, you could find savings upwards of 32% alone. And that's a conservative estimate," said Kerr.
RELATED: Pentagon spox responds to Blaze News reporter on Ukraine saying aid reduction will embolden Russia
Bruce noted that within the Trump administration's new foreign aid framework, bureaus will be assigned to various regions around the globe.
"That foreign assistance for that region will now sit with the bureau assigned to that region as opposed to some massive bureaucracy, not even housed in our building, dealing with countries and regions separately without dealing with the experts here who understand what those regions might need," said Bruce. "It will be more efficient. It will be more effective. We are not ending foreign aid. We are making it more nimble."
'This era of government-sanctioned inefficiency has officially come to an end.'
Obama, among those evidently happy to pretend USAID was worth its salt, said in a video excerpt obtained by the Associated Press on Monday, "Gutting USAID is a travesty, and it's a tragedy. Because it's some of the most important work happening anywhere in the world."
Bono reportedly read a poem, repeated his suggestion that millions will now die without USAID, then told agency workers, "They called you crooks. When you were the best of us."
Bruce countered in her Wednesday press conference by stating that "there is nothing to be proud of when 90%, according to Samantha Power, is not even making it to the people to whom it was promised."
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a July 1 article on his department's Substack page, "Beyond creating a globe-spanning NGO industrial complex at taxpayer expense, USAID has little to show since the end of the Cold War. Development objectives have rarely been met, instability has often worsened, and anti-American sentiment has only grown. On the global stage, the countries that benefit the most from our generosity usually fail to reciprocate."
"This era of government-sanctioned inefficiency has officially come to an end," continued Rubio. "Under the Trump Administration, we will finally have a foreign funding mission in America that prioritizes our national interests."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Our republic is sick. The Machiavelli of Mar-a-Lago has the cure.
A progressive friend said something insightful weeks ago: “Trump doesn’t feel like he’s in power unless someone is getting hurt.”
His observation came during the public “breakup” of Elon Musk and President Trump over Musk's criticism of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — but before Trump sent U.S. Marines to Los Angeles to help quell riots over immigration enforcement. And before Trump ordered airstrikes on Iranian nuclear targets. And before the right splintered over America’s role in Israel’s war.
Tucker Carlson’s ‘peace first’ politics will keep the moral high ground, but Trump’s exercise of power affirms his political legitimacy.
As a political science major, our friend owes some of his prescience to his undergraduate study of Niccolo Machiavelli.
In both “The Prince” and “Discourses,” Machiavelli grounded his theory of politics in his understanding of human nature. Because people are motivated by a capricious self-interest, he believed, people will fight with one another to realize their goals.
“This is to be asserted in general of men,” Machiavelli wrote, “that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous,” and compete incessantly for power, resources, and more. The regime whose primary goal is to placate rivals, whether internal dissidents or foreign enemies, will descend into chaos, Machiavelli believed. To prevent collapse, the strong leader must exert force — force that suppresses, punishes, or destroys the weak, force that he uses not occasionally or whenever a problem materializes, but constantly.
This is Machiavelli’s central paradigm: Politics is battle — not a battle between good and evil or right and wrong. Just a battle, ongoing and continuous, to defend the principles on which the regime operates, if not the ones upon which it was built. In “Machiavelli on Modern Leadership,” the late historian Michael Ledeen wrote that according to Machiavelli, a leader “has no other objective or thought or takes anything for his craft, except war.” Democratic and Republican presidents alike abide by this rule, both internationally and domestically. President Lyndon Johnson waged a war on poverty. Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs. Joe Biden spoke of the war on COVID-19.
Trump uses force because conflict — not consensus-building, cooperation, or governance for the common good — is the nature of political leadership.
This is a reality that pundits and commentators passionately decry, especially when their preferred party isn’t in power. It is a notion that shocks progressives still in thrall to the mellifluous voice of President Barack Obama, who promised that politics was not a battle but a journey toward a more perfect union. His musings about “bringing a gun to a knife fight” are all but forgotten. Obama the pacifist is the living memory.
“I did not set out to be a politician, but a community organizer,” he wrote in “A Promised Land.” “And what I learned in those years, and what I still believe, is that politics, at its best, is a pilgrimage — a steady, sometimes halting, often frustrating march toward greater justice and equality.” His rhetoric called for solidarity. His tone was messianic. He promised that our shared moral striving would lead to a drastically improved future, that the long pilgrimage of America would arrive someday at a profound and sacred destination.
Ironically, that destination was Trump.
From the very beginning of his campaign for president, Trump openly embraced the battle metaphors that embarrassed Obama. We are fighting against the corrupt establishment, he would say. We are fighting to win the battle against illegal immigration. We are in a battle for the soul of our country.
“If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country any more,” Trump said on January 6, 2021. In the game of politics, Trump embraced conflict and was determined to win on all counts — for himself and for the country.
His foreign policy supports this point.
RELATED: How Tucker Carlson vs. Ted Cruz exposed a critical biblical question on Israel
Speaking after the military strike on ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in late 2019, Trump was unequivocal in his statement of victory. “Last night was a great night for the United States and for the world,” Trump said. “He will never again harm another innocent man, woman, or child. He died like a dog. He died like a coward. The world is now a safer place. God bless America.”
Both hawks and doves celebrated the win. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called it a “game-changer.” Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson counted Baghdadi’s death a “victory for civilization itself.” A few months later, a fault line appeared on the right when a drone fired missiles at Qasem Soleimani, killing the Iranian Quds Force commander. Carlson criticized Trump for goading Iran into a military conflict that would weaken America.
“There are an awful lot of bad people in this world,” Carlson said on his television program in early 2020. “You can’t kill them all.”
This month, the fault line widened. As Trump prepared to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, Carlson cried out for more public decision-making. He spoke about the “real divide” on the right, a line that separates people like Carlson and Steve Bannon from the interventionists and neoconservatives in the modern conservative movement. “The real divide is between those who casually encourage violence, and those who seek to prevent it – between warmongers and peacemakers,” Carlson posted on X.
Carlson warned against foreign entanglements as distractions from the problems at home, but the violence itself seemed to offend him. In one conversation with Bannon, Carlson paraphrased a story found in all four Gospels, where the apostle Peter draws his sword against the arresting party in the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus scolds Peter, saying: "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). Carlson interpreted that passage as meaning people who espouse violence will suffer in the end.
But one biblical reference always calls to mind another.
In the Gospel of Luke, a passage about the Last Supper contains a comment from Jesus to the disciples that “the one who has no sword [should] sell his cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36). Looking about, the disciples take an inventory and tell him, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” Jesus offers a cryptic response: “It is enough” (Luke 22:38). Perhaps Jesus is chiding them for taking him too literally, as if to say, “That’s enough of this talk.” But equally possible is that Jesus was saying that two swords are enough, that physical conflict is necessary but should serve the interests of defense rather than conquest.
Though the U.S. strikes on Iran resulted in a ceasefire and perhaps negotiation of a peace deal, this outcome will not be permanent on the larger international scene. There will be more attacks, more violence, more opportunities for political leaders to practice their craft with strength and foresight. Carlson’s “peace first” politics will keep the moral high ground, but Trump’s exercise of power affirms his political legitimacy.
As Machiavelli famously wrote: “It is better to be feared than loved.”
Right now, Donald Trump is both.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearWorld and made available via RealClearWire.
Numbers Behind Trump’s Biggest Win Could Doom Dying Democratic Party
'Trump won with a voter coalition that was more racially and ethnically diverse than in 2020 or 2016,' a Pew Research analysis finds.Lawsuit Aims To Prevent IRS From Targeting Conservative Groups Ever Again
When the IRS was exposed for targeting conservatives in 2013, the policies to blame remained in place, leaving the door open to more weaponization.Zohran Mamdani Is Anti-American. But He’s An Attractive Minority So The Media Love Him.
It’s been fun watching the dying news media in recent days swoon over New York Democrat mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani as if he’s a revolutionary who just broke political party dogma. The reality is that he’s yet another version of the same type of Democrat the media have been fawning over since as far back […]Fudged figures wildly exaggerate EV efficiency
It's quasi consumer fraud on a global scale.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s electric vehicle mileage ratings are misleading millions, inflating EV efficiency and hiding the true energy cost of driving green. And it all comes down to one little number.
The EPA’s MPGe calculation violates basic physics, specifically the second law of thermodynamics, which states that no energy conversion process is 100% efficient.
It’s time to pull back the curtain on the EPA’s Miles Per Gallon equivalent figure, a metric that’s been covering the truth about EVs for years. This flawed foundation overstates efficiency while shortchanging hybrids and traditional cars. This isn’t just a technical glitch; it’s a distortion that could sway your next car purchase and sabotage the resale of your electric car.
Stick with me as we dig into the numbers, uncover the truth, and explore why this scam happened. And make sure to share this with anyone who’s ever wondered if EVs are really as green as they’re made out to be.
MPGe: A flawed metric
The Obama administration EPA introduced MPGe to help consumers compare the efficiency of electric vehicles to traditional gas-powered cars. It’s supposed to represent how far an EV can travel on the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline.
On paper, it’s a tidy way to level the playing field. For example, the EPA rated the 2011 Nissan Leaf at 99 MPGe, suggesting it’s nearly three times as efficient as a typical gas car getting 35 MPG. Sounds amazing, right? But here’s the catch: The EPA’s calculation assumes a perfect world, where gasoline is converted to electricity with no energy loss.
That’s not just optimistic — it’s physically impossible.
The EPA’s methodology takes the energy content of a gallon of gasoline (115,000 BTUs) and divides it by the energy in a kilowatt-hour of electricity (3,412 BTUs), arriving at a conversion factor of 33.7 kWh per gallon. Using this, it calculates how far an EV travels per kWh and converts it to MPGe.
The problem? This assumes 100% efficiency in turning fossil fuels into electricity at power plants, ignoring the messy reality of energy production. According to the EPA’s own data from October 2024, the average efficiency of fossil-fueled power plants in the U.S. is just 36%. That means 64% of the energy is lost as heat, friction, and other forms of energy waste before it ever reaches your EV’s battery.
RELATED: 10 reasons not to buy an electric car
The Department of Energy’s reality check
Contrast this with the Department of Energy’s approach, which accounts for real-world power plant efficiencies and the fuel mix used to generate electricity. The DOE also factors in the energy required to refine and transport gasoline for traditional cars, creating a fairer comparison.
When you apply the DOE’s methodology, the numbers tell a different story. That 99 MPGe Nissan Leaf? It drops to a much humbler 36 MPGe — still respectable but far less impressive. This is roughly equivalent to a good hybrid like the Toyota Prius or even some efficient gas cars like the Honda CR-V. Suddenly, EVs don’t look like the runaway efficiency champions they’re made out to be.
So why does this discrepancy matter? The EPA’s inflated MPGe figures create a false impression that EVs are seven times more efficient than gas-powered cars, which can mislead consumers and policymakers. It’s not just about bragging rights; these numbers influence fuel economy standards, tax incentives, and even what cars automakers prioritize. If you’re shopping for a car, you deserve the truth about what you’re getting — not a rosy picture that glosses over real-world energy costs.
A violation of physics
The EPA’s MPGe calculation violates basic physics, specifically the second law of thermodynamics, which states that no energy conversion process is 100% efficient.
Power plants, whether coal, natural gas, or oil-fired, lose significant energy as heat during electricity generation. Transmission lines and battery charging add further losses. By ignoring these, the EPA’s MPGe paints an unrealistically efficient picture of EVs.
Meanwhile, gas-powered cars and hybrids are judged strictly on their tailpipe efficiency, with no such generous assumptions. This double standard tilts the playing field, making EVs appear far superior when the reality is different.
The Biden administration’s push for EVs, including stringent emissions standards aiming for 67% of new car sales to be electric by 2032, amplifies the issue. These policies rely on MPGe to justify EV mandates, but the DOE’s more realistic calculations suggest hybrids and efficient gas vehicles could achieve similar reductions in fossil fuel use without forcing a wholesale shift to EVs. The DOE’s method shows that EVs, while efficient in their own right (using 87%-91% of battery energy for propulsion compared to 16%-25% for gas cars) don’t deliver the massive efficiency leaps MPGe suggests when you account for the full energy cycle.
'Lightning' in a bottle?
The EPA’s inflated MPGe figures aren’t just a technical oversight — they have real-world consequences. Federal fuel economy standards, like the Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules, use MPGe to determine compliance. High MPGe ratings allow automakers to offset less efficient gas-powered vehicles with fewer EVs, which sounds good but can mask the true environmental impact.
For instance, the Ford F-150 Lightning electric pickup was credited with 237.7 MPGe under old rules, but a more realistic DOE estimate drops it to 67.1 MPGe — still efficient but not a miracle worker. This inflates automakers’ fleet averages without necessarily reducing fossil fuel use as much as claimed.
Consumers feel the pinch, too. EVs are often marketed as the ultimate green choice, but the EPA’s numbers obscure the fact that most U.S. electricity (about 60% in 2024) comes from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. In regions heavy in coal production, like parts of the Midwest, charging an EV can produce as much greenhouse gas as a gas-powered hybrid. The EPA’s Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator, developed with the DOE, lets you check emissions by zip code, revealing how your local grid affects an EV’s true environmental impact. This is critical information the MPGe figure conveniently ignores.
Hybrids, which combine gas and electric power, often get shortchanged in this narrative. A hybrid like the Toyota Prius can achieve 50 MPG or more in real-world driving, rivaling the DOE’s adjusted MPGe for many EVs without relying on a charging infrastructure that’s still spotty in rural areas. Yet, the EPA’s MPGe metric makes hybrids look less impressive, potentially steering buyers away from a practical, cost-effective option.
Policy or politics?
The Biden administration’s aggressive EV agenda, including the 2024 emissions standards aiming for a 50% reduction in light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 2032, leaned heavily on MPGe to justify its goals. These rules projected that EVs could account for 35%-56% of new vehicle sales by 2030, a target that shrunk after pushback from automakers and unions worried about job losses and consumer choice. The administration also adjusted DOE’s EV mileage ratings in 2024, gradually reducing them by 65% through 2030 to better reflect real-world efficiencies, but the EPA’s MPGe figures still dominate public perception.
RELATED: Paul Brian, 1951-2024
Critics argue this focus on EVs, propped up by inflated MPGe, prioritizes political goals over practical solutions. The Trump administration’s EPA, under Administrator Lee Zeldin, has since moved to reconsider these rules, citing overreach and costs exceeding $700 billion. It argues that mandating EVs limits consumer choice and raises costs for all vehicles, as automakers offset EV losses with higher prices on gas-powered models. Recently, President Trump signed into law the removal of the EV mandate, and this is a win for consumer choice.
Transparency and choice
So is the EPA’s MPGe a deliberate scam? Not exactly, but it’s a misleading metric that overpromises EV benefits while undervaluing alternatives. And it's been tricking almost everyone for years!
The EPA’s methodology needs to be corrected. The honest numbers would let consumers compare EVs, hybrids, and gas cars on equal terms. The Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator is a step in the right direction, showing how local grids affect EV emissions, but it’s underutilized compared to the flashy MPGe sticker on new cars.
You deserve to know the true energy cost of your vehicle — whether it’s plugged in, filled up, or both. The EPA’s MPGe has skewed perceptions, making EVs seem like a silver bullet when hybrids and efficient gas cars often deliver comparable benefits without the infrastructure headaches. With the Trump administration now removing EV mandates and reducing CAFE standards, there’s a chance to reset the conversation. Policies should prioritize innovation and consumer choice, not inflated metrics that favor one technology over another.
This isn’t just about car shopping; it’s about the future of transportation and energy. It's better to tell consumers the truth and not inflate MPGe figures that can mislead you into purchasing a vehicle that doesn’t go the promised distance. Hybrids, efficient gas cars, and EVs all have a role to play, but only if we judge them fairly.
Share this article with friends who are car shopping or curious about the EV hype — it could save them thousands and spark a conversation. The EPA must ditch MPGe and give drivers the unfiltered truth about vehicle efficiency.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com