Daily Caller
Kamala Harris Would Be A Total Disaster For American Energy

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Carla Sands
President Dwight Eisenhower once declared that “pessimism never won any battle.” Yet, many Americans are understandably pessimistic these days.
Families are worried about how to put gas in the tank and food on the table. Most Americans feel that the American Dream is out of reach. As our nation faces mounting challenges, our leaders need to offer a positive vision for our future that Americans can believe in.
The United States is blessed with vast energy resources that can power our economy with affordable, reliable energy. Getting the government out of the way is a good place to start unleashing American energy in a way that will reverberate throughout the economy. This is key to bringing the American Dream back within reach.
Unfortunately, today’s reality is that the Left’s apocalyptic vision of a climate crisis is the kind of pessimism that loses battles. The Biden-Harris administration’s whole-of-government war on energy perpetuates a very bleak vision of our nation’s future.
As the United States regulates hydrocarbon production out of business, our manufacturing jobs move abroad and we become reliant on foreign sources of energy. This not only harms our economic and national security, but these foreign sources also fail to meet our stringent environmental standards for production at home.
Instead of producing abundant American energy, we look to OPEC+ for hydrocarbons and increase our dependence on China for needed critical mineral production. Meanwhile, China emits more greenhouse gasses than all developed nations combined.
The Paris Agreement, which President Joe Biden rejoined, has the United States pay Beijing, even as they continue to increase emissions. At home, American standards of living move backward; the government limits everything from what kind of car we can drive to what kind of stove we can cook on. Air-conditioning and air travel become accessible only to the rich.
This is a far cry from delivering the American Dream and is unpopular with voters. As a result, Vice President Kamala Harris has recently pursued an energy messaging strategy that Reuters has kindly termed “strategically ambiguous” and The Washington Post has deemed “climate silence.”
To those paying attention, the Democrat nominee’s “climate silence” is a deafening contrast to her unambiguous record of commitment to radical climate policies throughout her career.
As a senator, Harris advanced a $10 trillion Green New Deal and even supported removing the filibuster to pass it. As a 2020 presidential candidate, she proudly declared her opposition to fracking. Her current campaign disavowed this position but has failed to explain this shift. When asked in her one sit-down interview, Vice President Harris continued her strategic ambiguity, noting only that her “values haven’t changed.”
And despite public flip-flopping, her record as vice president bolsters the conclusion that her anti-energy bent is consistent. As vice president, she holds a critical role in this administration’s whole-of-government war on energy. She was the tie-breaking vote on the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which supercharged inflation to give “green” handouts to corporations and pet projects. Yet her nomination acceptance speech failed to mention energy at all and mentioned climate only once in passing. This is a telling omission from the Democrat nominee.
There is a clear logic to hiding the ball as she seeks to appeal to both energy voters in Pennsylvania and her radical climate base. Further, as the Washington Post observed, Vice President Harris’s climate policies contrast with the desire “to paint a rosy picture of the future.”
The Post is correct in calling this pessimistic vision a “lose-lose” messaging issue.
This is because, at its heart, this is a lose-lose policy proposition.
Fortunately, there is a win-win policy that offers both prosperity and environmental protection. We must unleash American energy and allow all energy sources to compete on a level playing field. We must remove burdensome government barriers and allow American ingenuity and free-market principles to drive innovation.
This is positive policy with a proven track record.
In 2019, building on the incredible innovations of the shale revolution and the pro-energy policies of the Trump administration, the United States became a net energy exporter for the first time in nearly 70 years. At the same time, this country had the largest net reduction of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the world. Throughout the Trump administration, the United States also reduced air pollution by 7%.
American energy means we can liberate ourselves and our allies from depending on nations like Russia and China. We can protect the environment and improve the lives of Americans.
Put simply, an America First approach to energy means we can embrace the spirit of the American Dream.
This is a realistic policy vision that also paints a brighter picture of our future. Americans deserve clarity, not ambiguity. They deserve the opportunity to achieve the American Dream, starting with energy freedom.
Carla Sands is a former U.S. ambassador to Denmark. She currently serves as vice chair of the Center for Energy & Environment at the America First Policy Institute.
Crime
‘We’re Going To Lose’: Steve Bannon Warns Withholding Epstein Files Would Doom GOP

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Jason Cohen
Former White House adviser Steve Bannon warned on Friday that Republicans would suffer major losses if President Donald Trump’s administration does not move to release documents related to deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes and associations.
Axios reported on Sunday that a two-page memo showed the Department Of Justice (DOJ) and FBI found no evidence Epstein kept a “client list” or was murdered, but public doubts have continued. Bannon said on “Bannon’s War Room” that failure to release information would lead to the dissipation of one-tenth of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement and significant losses for the Republican Party in the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
“It’s not about just a pedophile ring and all that, it’s about who governs us, right? And that’s why it’s not going to go away … For this to go away, you’re going to lose 10% of the MAGA movement,” Bannon said. “If we lose 10% of the MAGA movement right now, we’re going to lose 40 seats in ’26, we’re going to lose the [presidency]. They don’t even have to steal it, which they’re going to try to do in ’28, because they’re going to sit there and they go, ‘They’ve disheartened the hardest-core populist nationalists’ — that’s always been who governs us.”
Bannon also demanded the publication of all the Epstein documents on “Bannon’s War Room” Thursday. He called on the DOJ to go to court and push for the release of the documents or for Trump to appoint a special counsel to manage the publication.
Epstein was arrested in 2019 and charged with sex trafficking. Shortly after, he was found dead in his New York Metropolitan Correctional Center cell shortly after. Officials asserted that he hanged himself in his cell.
However, Epstein’s death has sparked years of theories because of the malfunctioning of prison cameras, along with guards admitting to falsifying documents about checking on the then-inmate. The DOJ inspector general later confirmed that multiple surveillance cameras outside of his cell were inoperable, while others captured the common area outside his door.
Both Bannon and Daily Caller News Foundation co-founder Tucker Carlson have speculated that Epstein had connections to intelligence agencies.
Former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta allegedly indicated that Epstein was tied to intelligence, according to Vicky Ward in The Daily Beast.
Business
UN’s ‘Plastics Treaty’ Sports A Junk Science Wrapper

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Craig Rucker
According to a study in Science Advances, over 90% of ocean plastic comes from just 10 rivers, eight of which are in Asia. The United States, by contrast, contributes less than 1%. Yet Pew treats all nations as equally responsible, promoting one-size-fits-all policies that fail to address the real source of the issue.
Just as people were beginning to breathe a sigh of relief thanks to the Trump administration’s rollback of onerous climate policies, the United Nations is set to finalize a legally binding Global Plastics Treaty by the end of the year that will impose new regulations, and, ultimately higher costs, on one of the world’s most widely used products.
Plastics – derived from petroleum – are found in everything from water bottles, tea bags, and food packaging to syringes, IV tubes, prosthetics, and underground water pipes. In justifying the goal of its treaty to regulate “the entire life cycle of plastic – from upstream production to downstream waste,” the U.N. has put a bull’s eye on plastic waste. “An estimated 18 to 20 percent of global plastic waste ends up in the ocean,” the UN says.
As delegates from over 170 countries prepare for the final round of negotiations in Geneva next month, debate is intensifying over the future of plastic production, regulation, and innovation. With proposals ranging from sweeping bans on single-use plastics to caps on virgin plastic output, policymakers are increasingly citing the 2020 Pew Charitable Trusts report, Breaking the Plastic Wave, as one of the primary justifications.
But many of the dire warnings made in this report, if scrutinized, ring as hollow as an empty PET soda bottle. Indeed, a closer look reveals Pew’s report is less a roadmap to progress than a glossy piece of junk science propaganda—built on false assumptions and misguided solutions.
Pew’s core claim is dire: without urgent global action, plastic entering the oceans will triple by 2040. But this alarmist forecast glosses over a fundamental fact—plastic pollution is not a global problem in equal measure. According to a study in Science Advances, over 90% of ocean plastic comes from just 10 rivers, eight of which are in Asia. The United States, by contrast, contributes less than 1%. Yet Pew treats all nations as equally responsible, promoting one-size-fits-all policies that fail to address the real source of the issue.
This blind spot has serious consequences. Pew’s solutions—cutting plastic production, phasing out single-use items, and implementing rigid global regulations—miss the mark entirely. Banning straws in the U.S. or taxing packaging in Europe won’t stop waste from being dumped into rivers in countries with little or no waste infrastructure. Policies targeting Western consumption don’t solve the problem—they simply shift it or, worse, stifle useful innovation.
The real tragedy isn’t plastic itself, but the mismanagement of plastic waste—and the regulatory stranglehold that blocks better solutions. In many countries, recycling is a government-run monopoly with little incentive to innovate. Meanwhile, private-sector entrepreneurs working on advanced recycling, biodegradable materials, and AI-powered sorting systems face burdensome red tape and market distortion.
Pew pays lip service to innovation but ultimately favors centralized planning and control. That’s a mistake. Time and again, it’s been technology—not top-down mandates—that has delivered environmental breakthroughs.
What the world needs is not another top-down, bureaucratic report like Pew’s, but an open dialogue among experts, entrepreneurs, and the public where new ideas can flourish. Imagine small-scale pyrolysis units that convert waste into fuel in remote villages, or decentralized recycling centers that empower informal waste collectors. These ideas are already in development—but they’re being sidelined by policymakers fixated on bans and quotas.
Worse still, efforts to demonize plastic often ignore its benefits. Plastic is lightweight, durable, and often more environmentally efficient than alternatives like glass or aluminum. The problem isn’t the material—it’s how it has been managed after its use. That’s a “systems” failure, not a material flaw.
Breaking the Plastic Wave champions a top-down, bureaucratic vision that limits choice, discourages private innovation, and rewards entrenched interests under the guise of environmentalism. Many of the groups calling for bans are also lobbying for subsidies and regulatory frameworks that benefit their own agendas—while pushing out disruptive newcomers.
With the UN expected to finalize the treaty by early 2026, nations will have to face the question of ratification. Even if the Trump White House refuses to sign the treaty – which is likely – ordinary Americans could still feel the sting of this ill-advised scheme. Manufacturers of life-saving plastic medical devices, for example, are part of a network of global suppliers. Companies located in countries that ratify the treaty will have no choice but to pass the higher costs along, and Americans will not be spared.
Ultimately, the marketplace of ideas—not the offices of policy NGOs—will deliver the solutions we need. It’s time to break the wave of junk science—not ride it.
Craig Rucker is president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org).
-
Business1 day ago
Carney government should apply lessons from 1990s in spending review
-
Business1 day ago
Trump to impose 30% tariff on EU, Mexico
-
illegal immigration2 days ago
ICE raids California pot farm, uncovers illegal aliens and child labor
-
Entertainment1 day ago
Study finds 99% of late-night TV guests in 2025 have been liberal
-
Energy1 day ago
LNG Export Marks Beginning Of Canadian Energy Independence
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy14 hours ago
Canada’s New Border Bill Spies On You, Not The Bad Guys
-
Uncategorized14 hours ago
CNN’s Shock Climate Polling Data Reinforces Trump’s Energy Agenda
-
Opinion6 hours ago
Preston Manning: Three Wise Men from the East, Again