ANOTHER MAJOR BLOW TO THE RADICAL GREEN AGENDA!

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday delivered another stinging rebuke to the Biden-era Department of Energy’s war on American appliances, setting aside energy efficiency standards for stoves and cooktops.

The court ruled on Tuesday that the Department of Energy (DOE) acted completely illegally when it refused to withdraw a controversial “Direct Final Rule” after multiple red states raised damning objections.

The radical green zealots in Washington have been waging a non-stop war on everyday household appliances. From dishwashers to ceiling fans, bureaucrats inside the Biden regime spent years pushing stringent rules designed to make basic home appliances more expensive, less efficient, and far less reliable.

When CPSC Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. let the cat out of the bag in 2023 by suggesting a total federal ban on gas stoves, the public pushback was immediate and fierce.

Unable to pass their radical climate tyranny through normal transparent channels, DOE bureaucrats tried an illegal end-run around the American public.

Rather than facing the public in standard notice-and-comment rulemaking, the DOE tried to quietly lock in new efficiency standards using a backdoor mechanism known as a “Direct Final Rule” (DFR).

In a decision written by Judge Andrew Oldham and joined by Judges Catharina Haynes and James Ho, the panel granted the petition for review filed by Mississippi, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah.

“The Biden Administration proposed numerous regulations to make home appliances more expensive and less useful… Rather than confront that controversy, the previous Administration attempted to dodge it,” Judge Oldham wrote.

The judges held that the Biden DOE improperly used a streamlined “Direct Final Rule” process to impose new standards on consumer conventional cooking products without giving the public meaningful advance notice or a real opportunity to comment.

“The Biden Administration promulgated a rule without giving the public advance notice or the opportunity to comment on it,” the court stated.

The Fifth Circuit completely dismantled every single excuse offered by the Department of Justice lawyers.

• State Sovereignty Ignored: The court called out the DOE for claiming it had “consensus” by handpicking three far-left states (California, Massachusetts, and New York) while excluding conservative states that opposed the mandate. Judge Oldham noted that holding up three left-wing states as “fair representation” of the entire country was “the understatement of the day”.

• Flawed Green Tech Mandates: The court highlighted that forcing manufacturers to abandon linear power supplies in favor of complex switching power supplies would shorten the lifespan of kitchen stoves, leading to more repairs, higher costs, and more waste.

• Illegal Lawmaking: The panel firmly rejected the DOE’s absurd claim that citizens lose their right to challenge a rule if they wait for the official comment period to end.

Judge Oldham slammed the agency’s scheme to weaponize procedural loopholes:

“What the Department could not do was gloss over public outcry, allow the public to file after-the-fact comments, and then ignore those comments in violation of Congress’s plain dictates.”

Previously at The Gateway Pundit:

February 25, 2023 – “Biden Regime’s New ‘Efficiency’ Rule Would Ban Half of Gas Stove Models” (coverage of the earlier 2023 proposal, not the 2024 direct final rule).

January 10, 2024 – “Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Joe Biden’s Attempt to Regulate Dishwashers and Washing Machines” (related Fifth Circuit appliance litigation involving a different DOE action).

The post MASSIVE VICTORY AGAINST THE CLIMATE CULT! Fifth Circuit SHUTS DOWN Illegal Biden-Era Energy Efficiency Standards for Stoves and Cooktops – Slams DOE for Trying to Bypass the Law! appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire

By Frank Miele

It seems as though only one thing motivates Congress to act – the threat of elections.

That’s why both the House and Senate have moved to pass a continuing resolution to keep funding the government until December. Originally funding was going to run out on Oct. 1, the date that was decided during the last shutdown crisis.

But with virtually every member of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate up for election in November, almost no one in Congress wanted to call attention to their own inaction by letting a new shutdown occur.

It’s the political version of Pavlov’s dogs. You know, the famous experiment by the Russian scientist Ivan Pavlov who trained canines to salivate at the sound of a bell because they associated the bell with the expectation of food being served.

The same thing happens with members of Congress when they hear that an election is scheduled within the next three months. Suddenly they want to be productive.

A representative can ignore constituents for 22 months and then suddenly rediscover them during the last two. And senators can become unresponsive to their voters for most of their six-year term, enjoying junkets and the other fruits of power while being under no obligation to get anything done.

Makes you almost sympathize with the Democratic Socialists of America, who have made abolition of the Senate one of their top priorities. Six-year terms have their virtues, but they also make senators especially prone to forgetting who they work for.

But maybe we could salvage the Senate if we could adapt Pavlov’s experiment in a way that would hopefully train senators to do their job on the regular instead of just once in a blue moon.

Call this my modest proposal. Like Jonathan Swift’s famous satirical essay proposing that poor Irish parents sell their infants as food, it isn’t intended as a serious legislative recommendation. It’s meant to expose an absurdity – in this case, a Congress that suddenly remembers how to govern only when voters are about to fire it.

Sadly, the proposal has little likelihood of being put into effect by those senators whom it would put on notice. Yet if its argument is accurate, then we can at least all agree that senators – and yes, all members of Congress – are little more than trained monkeys. If only we could train them well, perhaps they would do their job more consistently.

No doubt you are wondering how we could possibly accomplish such a remarkable goal. It’s a relatively simple mechanism, akin to the bell that Pavlov taught dogs to associate with food.

Namely, the Senate can institute a rule that once a month, the citizen constituents of each state will be able to vote electronically on whether they wish to retain or dismiss their senator.

Now, before you worry about constitutional entanglements and the risk of meddling in the results of such digital ballots, understand that the votes will not be binding. Instead they will simply keep senators on their toes, just as the threat of real elections does today. The results will be widely publicized, and any senator who consistently fails to win majority support from his state’s voters will be publicly humiliated.

But if it were taken seriously, it could have a much wider impact. Political parties could guarantee additional campaign support to senators who consistently earned the confidence of their state’s voters. And the opposite would be true as well. Suppose a senator has only a 30% retention rate from the citizens of his or her state. Donors would flee. Challengers would emerge. Even the most complacent senators might begin to reconsider their inaction.

The genius of elections is not that they remove bad politicians. It’s that the possibility of removal changes behavior long before Election Day. Congress doesn’t need more elections. It simply needs to remember every month that one is coming. Perhaps Pavlov’s bell could do the trick.

And then, instead of Congress passing a continuing resolution to fund the government for a month or two, we could return to regular order and watch appropriations bills passed for an entire year. What a revolutionary concept!

The post A Modest Proposal: Performance Reviews for Senators appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Michigan’s far-left Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed is facing fresh scrutiny after a video resurfaced showing the progressive candidate taking aim at one of America’s most beloved sports.

“Football is very much associated with a particularly masculine and, oftentimes, toxically masculine culture. And so much of it was about—you wanted to be able to get back up and play for your team, and you really aren’t allowed to show pain or vulnerability. That’s part of the sport,” El-Sayed declared in a February 2023 podcast released shortly before the Super Bowl, according to The Washington Times.

The Democrat seeking to represent football-crazed Michigan in the United States Senate apparently believes the culture surrounding the game is infected by “toxic masculinity.”

Abdul El-Sayed on football: “Football is very much associated with a particularly masculine and oftentimes toxically masculine culture.” pic.twitter.com/UqPxID8yD4

— Bobby LaValley (@Bobby_LaVallley) August 10, 2026

El-Sayed did not stop there.

He proceeded to invoke American wars, Manifest Destiny, the destruction of Native Americans and the transatlantic slave trade—arguing that their underlying narratives are echoed in football’s ethos.

El-Sayed said:

“You think about all the wars that we fight abroad, all of the sordid history of oppressing other people in the name of this American idea, right? Whether it was, quote, Manifest Destiny and destroying Native Americans, or it was the transatlantic slave trade where, you know, folks who, quote, founded this country on the backs of Native folks that they destroyed, then captured people, enslaved them, and had them work their fields because they thought it was their right. Right. And all of this, like a lot of these narratives, you kind of see echoed in the ethos of football.”

Abdul El-Sayed said the “sordid history” of Manifest Destiny, destroying Native Americans, and the transatlantic slave trade is “echoed in the ethos of football.”

h/t @KFILE pic.twitter.com/LSJn4cUazi

— Bobby LaValley (@Bobby_LaVallley) August 11, 2026

In a 2021 essay published by the Detroit Metro Times, El-Sayed argued that “toxic masculinity” sits at the heart of America’s most popular sport.

El-Sayed also described the locker room culture he experienced as a player: “Racism, misogyny, and homophobia were lingua franca.” On the field he felt free, he claimed. On the sidelines and in the locker room? “I was fed a hefty dose of the worst kinds of racist taunting.” A particular “bro” culture, he said, has been replicated in football for decades.

His essay reads, in part:

“The toxic masculinity at the heart of America’s most popular sport — and men’s sports culture more generally — is way deeper than a few emails or a Jay-Z turnaround.

Growing up, sports were my lifeline. As a brown kid with a funny name that most people couldn’t pronounce (my full first name is Abdulrahman), sports were a safe haven. On the football field, I felt free. And yet on the sidelines and in the locker room, I was fed a hefty dose of the worst kinds of racist taunting. After all, it’s where a particular kind of “bro” culture has been inculcated and replicated for decades. Racism, misogyny, and homophobia were lingua franca. And while coaches would call out the most egregious forms, there was rarely a concerted effort to uproot the culture that drove it. Indeed, too often, coaches were raised in the same culture. So while I remain grateful to all of my coaches for many of the lessons they taught me, I can’t help, in the spirit of coaching itself, to ask how we can improve.”

The post Michigan’s Radical Democrat Senate Nominee Abdul El-Sayed: Football Is “Toxically Masculine” Culture Full of Racism, Misogyny and Homophobia appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Warren Smith, a high school teacher and YouTuber renowned for his channel dedicated to critical thinking, recently spoke to a woke reporter who argued that “you can’t be racist against White people.”

Smith shared the encounter that left the reporter frazzled while she delivered an endless word salad before she ultimately bailed on the debate.

Reporter: I’m just gonna say this, and you can debate it. You can’t be racist against White people. You can be prejudiced against white people. Racism implies a power imbalance.

Smith: Where’d you learn that?

Reporter: That’s just how it is.

Smith: There’s no way to arrive to that. You just say, “It’s just how it is.” That is.

Reporter: I’m sorry.

Smith: So would people say, “Well, black people have to use separate water fountains because that’s just how it is. I’m sorry.”

Reporter: If that’s how you want to take it, that’s how you want to take it.

Smith: You don’t think you can advance any more on that?

Reporter: I really don’t want to.

Smith breaks from the interview to add, “I wanted to get this out quickly because this is one of the most important interactions I’ve ever caught on camera. I was at a student summit speaking to students. A reporter sat down who was covering the event.

Smith: When people are talking about DEI, they’re specifically talking about trying to achieve specific outcomes.

Reporter: Yes.

Smith: So you said, I don’t think it logically works.

Reporter: Okay.

Smith cut back in, “I tried to point out to her that DEI inevitably is racist. Logically. Lhere’s no way around it.”

Smith: Because I think it’s the only example of systemic racism anyone’s been able to provide to me.

Reporter: It’s not systemic racism against you.

Smith: How?

Reporter: Everyone deserves a chance to speak and a chance to kind of be out there. We are only as good as representing everyone in our nation. It’s not just White men. It’s not just rich people. We need every single voice there.

Smith: So it’d be equal opportunity, right?

Reporter: Yes.

Smith: Okay, but equity is equal outcome.

Reporter: Yes.

Smith: So it’s a different word. That’s why we have a different—

Reporter: Yes, but we should be focusing on— we should be fighting for equality and equity. Okay, it’s both sides of the coin.

Smith: But if equity is— am I misunderstanding equity?

Reporter: I don’t think you are. I think equity is leveling the playing field so then everyone can reach an equal opportunity.

Smith: Okay, so let’s run through an example. Like, how do we level the playing field? Um, I’m a firefighter, volunteer firefighter, so let’s use as an example. If there’s not enough of a specific skin color in the fire department, how do we fix that without being racist?

Reporter: It’s also just reaching out to demographics who don’t—

Smith: That’s advertising.

Reporter:  It’s advertising, yes, it’s making sure those people that feel comfortable joining a group like firefighters.

Smith: So we’ll put— we have, because mentally we have this column of advertising, we’re trying to put that aside and understand equity though, because you’re advocating for DEI, right?

Reporter: Yes.

Smith: Okay, so, so can you get into the DEI portion of it beyond advertising?

Reporter: Just that like everyone is equal of a— I don’t really understand what you’re asking.

The debate went back and forth with the reporter clearly not actually understanding the DEI concepts she advocates for.

Later in the interview, Smith pushed her on the specifics of DEI.

Smith: So, do you think DEI, now we look at it through this lens, do you think pushing for equal outcomes might be a flawed process?

Reporter: I still don’t think so.

Smith cut in, “Equity means equality of outcome. No one can explain to me how you’re going to achieve that without being, by definition, racist. The only response she can offer is to change the very definition of racism.”

Reporter: I think you can debate the language and you can confuse people with how you debate the language. I just think fighting for everyone to have equal rights, equal opportunities, making sure that playing field is— equality and equity go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other.

Smith: Okay, so the words mean specific things, and we have two different words because they mean different— it’s not like a word game, right? Can we agree on that?

Reporter: Yes.

Smith:  Okay, so if they go hand in hand, but what’s— can you explain what’s the difference between equity versus equality?

Reporter: Equity is making sure that, um, so let’s say equality is just kind of giving everyone the same opportunity. Equity is everyone has the same opportunity, but you might not have access to that opportunity because of obstacles in your way. So everyone has access to apply to a job. Not everyone can— let’s take colleges. Everyone has access to apply to colleges. Not everyone can afford the application fee. Not everyone can afford a college counselor to make sure they get in. Not everyone can afford tuition, loans, etc., etc.

Smith: Socioeconomic— yes, equity is not applied on race, your socioeconomic status.

Smith notes, “You can see her face change as soon as I say ‘not applied on race.’ She’s like, ‘wait, hold up.’ To her, the important component is skin color. You can’t take that out of the equation. And this is where she starts to get upset.”

Smith: So like my students— I used to be a teacher— my students taught students that came from like nothing. And the problem with equity is that it’s only applying that socioeconomic advantage based on skin color because they’re saying this group, this ‘Cause there are groups that don’t feel represented.

Reporter: I disagree. As someone who just graduated and went through scholarship opportunities, there’s opportunities, specific scholarships for people of color, for Italians, which I am, which I don’t consider myself an oppressed class. There’s scholarships for low-income people. Every single demographic, there is a way to give a boost up for.

Smith: So I guess I’m just curi— I don’t understand why we break people down into groups based on race.

Reporter: We shouldn’t. We shouldn’t. But that’s where we always have been. The whole point of, I guess, is to level that. It’s to make it so we get to a point where that those groups don’t matter. But right now, for bad people, they matter. So we have to overcorrect it to make it an even playing field to then eventually down the year, down the line, everyone is exactly equal. No one needs an extra boost because they haven’t been disenfranchised.

Smith: This is where I run into it. And I appreciate you having this conversation. Conversation. I mean this honestly, because you just admitted that it’s a bad thing what we’re doing.

Reporter: It’s a bad thing what we were doing. I mean, previously when people weren’t hired because of their race, because of their gender, because of their sexual orientation.

Smith: I agree racism is bad, but I don’t think implementing racism to get over racism is logical.

The two continue to debate, but the reporter seemed too flustered by facing the failures of her ‘logic’ to continue.

When asked whether she could advance her arguments further, she replied, “I really don’t want to,” before ending the interview.

Smith concluded, “Keep in mind, this is an event that is designed for students to come together to have difficult conversations and disagree. If this— if I’m being too insensitive in this interaction, then what’s the point of the event?”

Watch:

Woke reporter SHUTS DOWN my Interview when I expose her as a racist.

She says it is not possible to be racist toward white people. When I show her that simple logic disproves everything she is saying, she is forced to get up & end the conversation. pic.twitter.com/MC3CaCRhzf

— Warren Smith (@WTSmith17) August 10, 2026

The post Masterclass: Watch Woke Reporter Get Exposed After Being Unable to Defend Her Word Salad Support of DEI (Video) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Ohio State Troopers investigated a bomb threat at a McDonald’s near SPIRE Academy ahead of President Trump’s scheduled visit on Tuesday.

President Trump is set to visit Harpersfield Township on Tuesday evening for the final day of the Freedom 250 Patriot Games, according to the White House.

Ohio law enforcement on Tuesday confirmed that was an incident at the McDonald’s across the street from the SPIRE Academy.

Police shut down the highway to investigate a bomb threat.

“According to a McDonald’s supervisor, law enforcement officials entered the restaurant and told everyone to evacuate,” WOIO reported.

“The bomb squad was called to the scene and checked the restaurant and also a white van that was parked in the parking lot,” the outlet reported.

Ohio State trooper confirms there’s a law enforcement situation at the McDonald’s across from the Spire Academy in Geneva where the President is scheduled to visit later today for the Patriot Games competition. Traffic being turned around for now pic.twitter.com/BpmysBepzC

— Natalie Brand (@NatalieABrand) August 11, 2026

The Secret Service later told CBS News that there is no actual bomb threat to the area.

Law enforcement made contact with an individual acting suspiciously.

Secret Service tells @CBSNews NO actual bomb threat or threat to the area. Though law enforcement did make contact with an individual acting suspiciously. It was enough to shut down traffic heading to the venue late this morning https://t.co/nYEkRzhIAV

— Natalie Brand (@NatalieABrand) August 11, 2026

CBS posted photos of the Secret Service checkpoint to get onto SPIRE campus.

Tight security/Secret Service checkpoint to get onto SPIRE campus ahead of President’s visit later today. Law enforcement checking all cars entering the property. With @emmacnicholson on the ground in Geneva, Ohio. pic.twitter.com/NlDzGuBCuy

— Natalie Brand (@NatalieABrand) August 11, 2026

The post Ohio Troopers Investigate Bomb Threat as Law Enforcement Make Contact with Suspicious Individual Near President Trump’s Scheduled Visit appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

North Carolina authorities have arrested the individual responsible for an incredibly wicked and stunning attack on a hard-working mom of three earlier this month.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, Jacksonville DoorDash driver Christen Phillips suffered life-threatening injuries earlier this month following one of the worst possible attacks of road rage imaginable.

The 34-year-old Phillips was on her way to deliver an order in Onslow County at 1:19 a.m. Saturday, when she came up to a green traffic light. But the car in front of her, a Range Rover, refused to move.

She began honking her horn. The driver allowed Phillips to pass, but then followed her all the way to her stop.

Once Phillips got out of the car and delivered the order, the Range Rover driver assaulted her with a wooden bat just as she was about to enter her vehicle to drive back home.

Phillips was left with multiple skull fractures and brain bleeds. Blood and cerebral fluid were draining from her left ear for hours, and her cheekbone on her left side was also fractured.

On Monday, police arrested 44-year-old Stanley Shockley for the horrific crime. He has been charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury.

Per WCTI, detectives executed a search warrant on Monday at a home at 637 Shamrock Drive as part of the investigation.

This led them to determine that Shockley, who was an occupant of the residence, was responsible for the vicious attack.

In the process of their investigation, authorities also discovered that Shockley wiped his Ring doorbell camera clean after the attack in an attempt to cover up his actions.

The Onslow County Sheriff’s Office released the following statement following Shockley’s arrest:

We understand the public does not see what goes into every investigation, and a case like this can make citizens uneasy. We appreciate the number of tips and leads the public provided us.

Our detectives follow every lead, carefully work through the evidence, and continue to pursue answers even when the investigation presents challenges.

WBTV reported that Shockley was taken to the Onslow County jail following his arrest.

Records obtained by the outlet showed he was denied bond during an Aug. 11 court appearance.

The post North Carolina Man Arrested and Charged After Savagely Beating Female DoorDash Driver in Shocking Road Rage Incident, Leaving Her with Devastating Brain Injuries appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.