Aggregator

President Donald Trump may be preparing to toss a political grenade into Los Angeles’ mayoral race, by backing reality TV firebrand Spencer Pratt.

President Donald Trump is raring for a fight.

America's Medicine Supply Chain Is A National Security Vulnerability

Authored by Will Coggin via RealClearDefense,

The Chinese government is tightening the screws on American investment in its artificial intelligence sector. The core purpose is to keep U.S. capital out of technologies it deems “strategically sensitive” to national security. The protective action is a reminder that Washington also needs to prioritize insulating our own critical sectors from foreign adversaries.

Few industries are more important to our national security than healthcare. More than 131 million people - nearly two-thirds of all U.S. adults - use prescription medications. Yet the United States has allowed its pharmaceutical supply chains to become dangerously dependent on foreign rivals - particularly China. 

That vulnerability became strikingly clear during the pandemic, when U.S. leaders scrambled to secure masks, gloves, and other protective equipment from overseas. But our overreliance on China runs far deeper than just rubber and fabric. 

Today, China produces an outsized portion of the world’s Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs). These are the chemical backbone of most medicines, from insulin to antibiotics to asthma treatments. In a crisis—whether military confrontation, sanctions escalation, or a broader trade disagreement—Beijing would have us by the pills. 

It’s not theoretical. China has already demonstrated its willingness to weaponize supply chains. During recent trade disputes, Beijing leveraged its control over rare earth minerals—critical inputs for everything from aerospace systems to consumer electronics—to strengthen its negotiating position against the United States.

This kind of market dominance is by design. Every five years, leaders from across China congregate to decide a new national development plan. Because of the country’s highly-centralized structure, the government systematically targets strategic industries. 

In 2020, that five-year plan focused on electric vehicles and semiconductors. Now, Beijing is expanding its ambitions into biotechnology and “frontier science.” China is positioning itself not just as a pharmaceutical inputs supplier, but as a potential gatekeeper of future medical breakthroughs. 

Washington cannot let that happen. Fortunately, the U.S. has a powerful tool that our chief competitor across the Pacific doesn’t. Free market capitalism—as opposed to a top down, state-directed economy—is America’s competitive edge against China. Congress just needs to provide the right incentives so we can maximize on that advantage. 

Recent tax reforms that allow manufacturers to immediately expense some of the costs associated with research and development are a strong start. These legislative changes are providing businesses with greater certainty to invest in domestic production and expand “Made in America” pharmaceutical capacity.

President Trump is adding fuel to that momentum through his pro-business agenda. A 2025 order that streamlines approvals for companies looking to onshore drug production is a prime example. But executive action is fragile. America’s next leader could reverse that progress with the stroke of a pen. As the Trump administration continues to hack away at layers of red tape, lawmakers should codify these reforms.

America already has a strong foundation to build from. Indiana, North Carolina, and the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, among other areas, anchor a significant share of existing American pharmaceutical production. By encouraging more innovation in our own backyard, these hubs can be strengthened to secure supply chains and reduce our dependence on China. 

Recent investments—including $300 million committed to Puerto Rico to expand domestic drug manufacturing capacity—are proof of concept. 

U.S. Congressman Nathaniel Moran (R-TX) recently said it best when he warned “America’s medicine cabinet runs through Beijing.” As China tightens its grip, securing America’s healthcare supply chains against foreign disruption is not just sound economic policy—it is a national security imperative.

Will Coggin is the managing director of the American Security Institute.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/16/2026 - 22:10

Paging Luis Castillo.

California’s tech oligarchs are portraying themselves as victims, as the left clamors to tax their wealth away. Perhaps they should take some responsibility. Once widely admired as feisty disrupters, these super-rich moguls now define the establishment in California, a state with more billionaires than any other. California’s tech oligarchs are portraying themselves as victims, as...

Talk about a lounge lizard.

Buckle up. Sunday’s PGA Championship final round at Aronimink is guaranteed to be a wild ride. Seat belts required.

"After telling her to 'kill the baby,' and when she refused, he turned his anger on her, threatening her numerous times. He even went so far to choke her at our house."

The WHO Drums Up Fear With Ebola After Hantavirus Scare Fails

One of the biggest mistakes globalists made in their bid for perpetual medical authoritarianism during the Covid pandemic was reveling a bit too much.  Numerous high level officials from the WEF, WHO, the Imperial College of London and an army of politicians were giddy with excitement and bragged publicly about all the power they were going to grab as the masses huddled in fear of a virus with a 99.8% average survival rate.

This arrogance cost them, triggering an awakening of millions of former skeptics who are now avid "conspiracy theorists".  Today, the ability of the elitist class to sucker the populace into a new pandemic theater is greatly reduced.

No one believes them anymore.  And even if there was a legitimate biological threat, no one is going to trust an corrupt organization like the WHO to solve the problem.  

We have see the consequences of the covid farce with the recent Hantavirus scare, which has failed to inspire any noticeable reaction from the public.  As we noted a few days ago, the WHO has been exposed as a perpetrator of pandemic disinformation and is no longer trusted by the public. 

🇺🇳 | AHORA - El Tedros de la OMS dice que "espera más casos" de Hantavirus que se anuncien, debido a la brecha entre el primer caso y el momento en que se identificó el virus, ya que los pasajeros estaban interactuando en el barco durante este tiempo. pic.twitter.com/uVxOlMHkL4

— Alerta News 24 (@AlertaNews24) May 12, 2026

The US under the Trump Administration has exited the organization on these grounds, and as a result the WHO has lost at least 20% of its total funding.  It is now facing dire financial conditions.  In response, the UN and the establishment media have been running a spin campaign to present the WHO as indispensable.

Viruses do not respect borders.

I thank Prime Minister @sanchezcastejon not only for meeting #Spain’s legal duty under international law, but also for exercising his moral duty to show solidarity with, and compassion and kindness for, the passengers on MV Hondius cruise ship.… pic.twitter.com/yq3lM2yv88

— Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (@DrTedros) May 12, 2026

For Hantavirus, the spread from human to human is rare and only occurs with the South American (or Andes) strain.  Contraction is difficult, with the virus passing from one person to another through "prolonged contact" often involving bodily fluids". 

The hysteria over Hantavirus has not materialized and the story is quickly fizzling out.  In response the WHO and Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus are taking to the media again to announce a new "Ebola threat" in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Tedros is calling for "global solidarity" (and more funding) in response to the outbreak which has allegedly infected 13 people so far.  It should be noted that the DRC has had at least 17 Ebola outbreaks since the 1970s and none of them have led to a global pandemic threat.  The rhetoric of "global unity" is familiar, with much of the same language used during the covid pandemic.  

The last time the US had a "close call" with Ebola was in 2014 when the CDC identified over a dozen carriers in the US, and two deaths.  The end result?  Nothing happened, despite a media firestorm asserting that a deadly plague was just around the corner.

This is not to say that dangerous outbreaks are never going to happen, but it is rather convenient that the WHO is losing substantial funding and sway in geopolitics, and suddenly, common outbreaks are being treated like looming disasters in the media.  

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/16/2026 - 21:35

The controversy-filled meet drew roughly 2,000 spectators, many of whom voiced outrage over Hernandez competing in the girls division.

There’s a new leader of the Giants’ college scouting department.

Norway’s Kristoffer Reitan, the winner of last week’s Truist Championship, changed putters mid-tournament at the PGA Championship.

Animal rights activists could soon get their way if officials in San Francisco decide to vote to ban pet stores, following the cities like West Hollywood to do similar.

When it comes to UCLA softball’s pitching depth, it’s Taylor Tinsley and worry immensely. The Bruins ace has started every postseason game and pitched more than half her team’s innings over the season. UCLA pitcher Taylor Tinsley delivered Saturday against South Carolina. So it was no surprise that less than 24 hours after she walked...

He glided his way through graduation. 

The Trans Delusion: A Philosophical Nail In Its Coffin

Authored by Chris Milton via The Daily Sceptic

The arguments in philosopher Thomas Nagel’s seminal 1974 essay ‘What is it Like to be Bat?‘ can help us answer the question of whether a human born with XY chromosomes and a male body can be, can become or can know what it’s like to be a woman, or can know what inhabiting the world is like for a woman. Nagel - who randomly chose bats from the list of mammals - began from the premise that if an organism has consciousness then there is something that it is like to be that organism, and his question was whether we could know “what is like for a bat to be a bat”.

Nagel’s essay argues for the wholly subjective character of experience, and how this subjectivity is dictated by differences in the physicality of beings. A creature shapes its Umwelt, or lifeworld, through its interactions with the world, and those interactions are determined by that creature’s body. Men and women inhabit similar yet profoundly different Umwelts. The qualia of sensation — meaning the instances of subjective experience, such as what it’s like to perceive a colour, to taste an apple or hear a baby cry — are different for each individual human. But these differences are also sexed. The last is a good example, as the female body — and therefore mind — responds to a baby’s cry in a radically different way to a man’s. But there are also large differences in the way they experience running for five hundred metres, the colour red, having a nipple touched, and innumerable other things (almost everything, in fact). There are qualia that each sex experiences that the other will never be able experience at all, but which help form their consciousnesses. A woman will never get an erection, and a man will never have a clitoral or vaginal orgasm, menstruate or give birth.

All of these ways of experiencing the world physically, along with our anticipations and memories of them, form a human being’s consciousness, its personality, its very being (or soul, if you like), who he or she is. If one, or even half a dozen of the physical particularities of a woman could be miraculously reproduced in a man (which they can’t), such as giving him the same muscle mass and bone density as a woman, a uterus, a clitoris or a brain that reacts in the same way to temperature or noise, he still wouldn’t be a woman physically, or anywhere near being one. Consciousness is a complex feature of evolutionarily determined biological systems, the latter radically different for men and women, such that even their spatial and temporal perspectives for experiencing the world are different.

For a man to become a woman everything, every molecule, would have to be changed, and a lifetime of memories implanted. Each moment-to-moment sequence of experience from the womb onwards grows coherently out of those that preceded it and determines those that follow it. Surgery is merely an in-real-life filter, advanced dressing up, and transitions someone towards nothing that meaningfully resembles a woman. To give one of hundreds of examples: men have no Cooper’s Ligament, which means that after HRT their breasts – which in any case are functionless – will be tubular and spaced very widely apart. Even the cells of men and women are biochemically different and determine, from before birth, many things, including how each sex fights particular diseases. Objective, unchangeable, sexed physical states partially determine subjective states; lopping off this or that part of the body or appending a functionless simulacrum of another will in no wise change the quality of those subjective states.

Every cell in our body has your male or femaleness inscribed within it. Even if it were possible to change your hormonal sex completely (which it isn’t) that would still leave your unalterable chromasomal sex, and your genetic sex, intact. There are many male and female brain circuits that behave very differently, sex-recognition is hard-wired into our brains, and the neurons have been identified that allow us ‘instinctively’ to discern a member of the opposite sex, however heavily disguised: this is why no trans people ever really ‘pass’.

So, a man can never become a woman physically, and thus cannot logically be or ‘identify as’ a woman, as you can only know what it feels like to be a thing if you are that thing. To argue otherwise, that there is another, ‘real’ self within us distinct from the bodily self, and that the mind and body are separate?, is philosophically centuries out of date – Locke’s empiricism first put pay to Cartesian dualism almost 350 years ago. “Mental states,” Nagel adds, “are states of the body, and mental events are physical events”: the ghost is the machine, the machine is the ghost. The hormonal impregnation of the foetus has a direct effect on neural circuits, creating a masculine brain and a feminine brain, which can be distinguished from each other anatomically and biochemically, and cannot be housed in the body of the other sex, it being determined by the sexed body. Let’s look at a passage of Nagel and replace ‘bats’ with ‘women’:

Even if [men] could transform over time into [women] their brains would not have worked as [women’s] brains from birth, and could therefore never have the mindset of a [woman]. … It is doubtful that any meaning could be attached to the supposition that I should possess the internal neuropsychological constitution of a [woman]. … Even if I could by gradual degrees be transformed into a [woman], nothing in my present condition enables me to imagine what the experience of such a future stage of myself thus metamorphosed would be like.

and,

To the extent that I could look and behave like a [woman] without changing my fundamental structure, my experiences would [still] not be anything like the experiences of [women].

It is then, the much vaunted ‘lived experience’ that militates against the possibility of transgenderism. Nagel goes on to give the example of trying to attain knowledge of what it is like to be blind or deaf (he could just as easily have substituted disabled, or schizophrenic), concluding that “the subjective experiences of a person deaf or blind from birth are not accessible to me… we cannot form more than a schematic notion of what it would be like”.

Nagel says that “the more different from oneself the other experiencer is, the less success you can expect in your guesswork”. So, men can come close to guessing what it is like to be woman. Men and women both experience hunger, sexual desire, boredom and aesthetic pleasure, but the way they experience those things is qualitatively different, and unalterably so. Nagel writes that “there are facts that do not consist in the truth of propositions expressible in human language”, and that “to deny the reality or logical significance of what we can never describe or understand is the crudest form of logical dissonance”. In other words, the subjectivity of other beings is ultimately ineffable and irreducible to language, and so the subjective experiences of men and women will always be unknowable for each other.

The idea that someone, by adopting the outward and trivial indicators of femininity, can suddenly thereby have access to that knowledge is preposterous. Men can only guess, and approach knowledge through empathy, imagination and the testimonies of women themselves. “Nobody has yet devised,” Nagel writes, “an objective phenomenology not dependent on empathy and imagination — that could describe, at least in part, the subjective character of experiences in a form comprehensible to a being incapable of having those experiences.”

Men and women are restricted by the resources of their own sexed minds, their consciousnesses made sexed by their sexed bodies. To deny that they are sexed is not only contra accepted biology, as well as common sense, it would also completely undermine the discipline of evolutionary biology.

The belief that ‘trans women are women’ makes a belief in magic seem sophisticated, because belief in magic or miracles explained effects for which causes could not (yet) be identified, but there was at least an observable effect to be explained. Likewise, when people believed erroneously that the world was flat, they did so because the world looked flat. With trans women, there is no such observable effect. What you have before you after saying the magic formula ‘trans women are women’ is visibly still a man. At best, after the surgical removal of his genitalia, a man will have a crude cavity, its position and its condition of being a hole with a surgically fashioned ‘clitoris’ being the only things it has in common with a woman’s vagina, and yet it is the only part of a woman’s reproductive system that it’s even possible to crudely mimic. This is why the word ‘trans’ itself is inadmissible, as there isn’t a transition towards or into anything.

The feeling inside that one is male or female is biologically determined, the idea of ‘being in the wrong body’ has no concrete, observable, provable basis: ‘male’ and ‘female’ are ‘assigned’ at birth, or rather conception, but by Nature, not by a doctor or midwife. One cannot move from the fixed point of being male or female and back again, so the idea of gender fluidity, of being non-binary is illogical, impossible, mad. A big difference between men and women lies in their reproductive organs, in their potential reproductive roles, and in the reproductive apparatus that produces sperm or eggs, so that ultimately many social determinations regarding gender are biologically determined. This is why, until very recently, sex and gender were used interchangeably: for there to be a third gender, there would need to be a new, third reproductive function, and new organs to go with it. Arguments that sexual dimorphism can be overcome or does not exist are pure Lysenkoism, and matters of ideology, not science. Gender theorists wanted to separate sex and gender, but it simply can’t be done.

To have given this matter philosophical consideration is to have given it way more than its due, and to have accorded the adherents of trans ideology more respect than they are due, and has necessitated the bracketing of matters such as the data showing that it is in part a social contagion, that its are roots in pornography and autogynephilia, that it’s funded by a small group of trans billionaires, that it’s a multi-billion dollar business, and that its explosion amongst the young is closely tied to social media, beginning with MySpace and Tumblr, then via Instagram, YouTube and TikTok.

The one thing that trans ideology has done more than anything else, that will outlast it, is to have made a nonsense of the idea of human progress, other than technological-scientific progress. It is perhaps the most profound manifestation of human credulousness and stupidity in history, outdoing even the witch craze of the 17th century. It is more egregious than any previous superstition or mass insanity because it is has come well after the end of the age of superstition and the advent of Enlightenment. The ‘truths’ of science have always been subject to suspicion and revision, but trans ideology has never had its Hegelian ‘moment’ of temporary truth that was later abandoned as more information came to light. Quite the opposite: it is wholly retrogressive, an attempt to replace biological knowledge with magical thinking, a regression to something lower even than pseudoscience.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/16/2026 - 21:00

Theodore Pellerin is a fanboy and Archie Madekwe is the pop star in this unsettling almost-thriller.

Firefighters and rescue crews were dispatched as flames engulfed the ​public bus and nearby vehicles close to the Airport Rail Link's ​Makkasan station, officials said.

Dodgers pitcher Blake Snell is set to undergo surgery next Tuesday to remove loose bodies from his elbow, according to manager Dave Roberts, but there is optimism he could return sooner than the 2-3 months such procedures typically require. While the exact nature of the operation Snell will have next week is still being determined,...

"They don’t get it. They never think it is them," one Sussex insider reportedly revealed.