Aggregator

There’s one element of modern baseball Mookie Betts doesn’t like.

Bill Belichick is confident in the direction of North Carolina's football program.

The owners of West Hollywood’s Dialog Cafe have vowed “we’ll be back,” though it could take months, after their influencer hotspot was flooded by the Sunset Strip water main break.

You’ve probably seen the videos by now. Both of them. One more damning than the other. 

Ammie Sekhon goes behind the scenes of WWE to see the tech that supports the show.

The doomed family memorial boat that sunk near Alcatraz has been found lying 130 feet beneath San Francisco Bay, but the wreck is so deep that crews are still deciding whether it can safely be brought back to the surface. The San Francisco Police Department announced Friday that its Marine Unit tracked down the sunken...

Fake Records May Have Put Untrained Drivers On America's Roads

Authored by David Manney via PJMedia.com,

Fake training records can move an unprepared driver one step closer to a commercial license.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin are now investigating about 75 entry-level driver training schools suspected of doing exactly that.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has identified approximately 75 entry-level driving training schools suspected of fraudulent activities, including using improper driver certifications, falsifying training records, and failing to properly train drivers applying for CDLs, among other violations. USDOT will engage DHS’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in its investigations of these schools.

“USDOT has spent the last year rooting out bad actors from our trucking industry,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy. “We've knocked over 24,000 drivers off our roads for failing to speak English, forced states to cancel over 28,000 licenses illegally issued to foreign drivers, and purged over 9,500 unqualified training schools from our FMCSA registry. DHS will be a force multiplier of our efforts to clean up America's roads. President Trump is using every lever at his disposal to ensure the safety of American families.”

“Too many American lives have been lost in completely avoidable accidents because illegal aliens have been granted commercial driver’s licenses to drive trucks and 18-wheelers on America’s roadways,” said DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin. “DHS law enforcement is partnering with the Department of Transportation to eliminate CDL fraud, strengthen the integrity of the CDL system, and investigate commercial driver’s license schools throughout the country. This is a whole of government approach, to keep America’s roads safe.”

This is part of the administration's ongoing efforts to root out fraud from American trucking and restore integrity to the industry.

Federal officials say the schools may have used improper certifications, falsified training records, or failed to train CDL applicants properly. Homeland Security Investigations will work with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to determine whether poor instruction crossed into criminal fraud.

The licensing system gives training schools enormous power. Federal rules require many first-time applicants to complete approved instruction before taking a CDL skills test.

Registered schools then submit completion records electronically, and state licensing agencies use those records to decide whether an applicant may test.

Providers also self-certify that they meet federal standards when joining the registry. A dishonest school damages the first major checkpoint before an applicant ever sits for the road test. Fraud at that stage reaches far beyond paperwork.

Duffy's department had already found deep problems. In February, more than 300 investigators conducted 1,426 on-site inspections across all 50 states. They issued 448 proposed removal notices, while 109 providers removed themselves after learning investigators were coming. Another 97 remained under investigation.

The violations were not harmless technical errors. Investigators found instructors without the proper licenses, schools using the wrong vehicles, incomplete student assessments, and providers that failed to meet their state requirements. One school had even trained bus drivers.

Nearly 10,000 training locations have now been removed from the federal registry. The department also says more than 24,000 drivers were taken out of service for failing English proficiency requirements, while states canceled more than 28,000 licenses illegally issued to foreign drivers.

Those numbers expose a system that went too long without firm inspection. The new joint probe adds criminal investigators who can follow records, payments, identities, and possible coordination between schools and applicants.

Legitimate driving schools and qualified immigrant drivers should welcome the cleanup. Fraudulent operators cheapen the work of every instructor who teaches the rules and every driver who earns a CDL lawfully. They also leave responsible trucking companies exposed when a bad credential slips through.

A commercial license is permission to operate some of the largest vehicles on American roads. Families traveling beside them can't inspect a driver's school records or verify who provided the training. The government carries that duty before the license is issued.

Duffy and Mullin are finally treating driver training as part of highway safety rather than an administrative formality. The 75 schools remain under investigation, and officials still must establish what each one did. Every false record should be traced to the driver, licensing office, and person who profited from it because a forged certificate should never become a license to endanger everyone else.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/17/2026 - 20:55

The baby was alert and conscious when first responders arrived, according to the FDNY.

New allegations charge Carvalho with violating laws that may have required the leader of the $20.6 billion school district to disclose extra income.

$100 Billion & Climbing: Iran War Price Tag Believed Far Higher Than WH Estimates

While the Pentagon publicly clings to a $30 billion price tag for its war against Iran, internal Defense Department assessments (unsurprisingly) paint a far more staggering picture: the true cost is rapidly closing in on the $80 billion to $100 billion range, according to NBC News.

The Pentagon's Office of Management and Budget told Congress on June 30 that US military operations against Iran so far is $30 billion: "We’ve spent about $30 billion," OMB Director Russel Vought told the House Appropriations Committee. 

NBC's new assessment bluntly states the following, however: "The cost of the war with Iran could be more than triple the most recent estimate of roughly $30 billion, according to three U.S. officials and three people familiar with the internal cost estimates."

The lower figure was reportedly initially floated based a classic Washington accounting trick which only evaluates the cost of expended missiles and munitions while conveniently ignoring the charred remnants of American hardware and damaged bases littering the Gulf states after Iranian retaliatory attacks, the report explains.

The estimate featured in the NBC report accounts for actually rebuilding those installations previously attacked by Iran. Judging by how things are going this week - after five consecutive days of renewed fighting - the final bill from damage will only keep pushing up from here.

It has been well documented that while American troops at Gulf bases across the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf were by and large pulled back from near 'front lines' - large US military assets like refueling tankers were in some cases left behind, resulting in scenes like the following:

The Telegraph: In a picture verified by AFP, the mangled airframe of the US air force jet stands on the runway of Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia.

"Five U.S. Air Force refueling planes were struck and damaged on the ground at Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia, according to two U.S. officials," The Wall Street Journal reported in mid-March. Each one costs hundreds of millions.

"The tankers were hit during an Iranian missile strike on the Saudi base in recent days, the officials said," WSJ detailed at the time. "U.S. Central Command declined to comment. The tankers were damaged but not fully destroyed and are being repaired, one of the officials said. No one was killed in the strikes."

And in Bahrain, home of the US Navy's Fifth Fleet, damage to military facilities is already estimated at $1 billion. Heavily fortified installations in Kuwait have also taken a severe beating, with both these tiny Arab Gulf states being favored targets of IRGC projectiles of late.

In the meantime, with a $1.5 trillion budget battle looming this autumn, the Pentagon is currently urging Congress to approve $68 billion supplemental funding package just to keep the lights on, but as the Iran war drags on with few clear objectives outlining an endgame, defense officials are hitting a wall of bipartisan skepticism among lawmakers.

One D.C. watchdog group, Public Citizen, has stated this week: "The American people are fed up with spending more on bombs and less on basic needs. And they are furious with a pointless, deadly, illegal, unconstitutional and protracted war that is costing lives and driving up gas prices."

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/17/2026 - 20:30

The complain alleges Kern County Child Protective Services repeatedly failed to intervene despite numerous reports that Genesis and her siblings were being abused.

Robert Kraft has opened up about Mike Vrabel's eventful offseason.

Piling insult upon insult, Columbia anti-Israel agitator Mahmoud Khalil last week reminded everyone that he still hasn’t been deported — by filing a lawsuit that basically says the drive to send him home is . . . a Jewish conspiracy.

It’s been more than six months since George Kittle tore his Achilles during a wild-card matchup against the Eagles in January, but he is already starting to show good signs for the 49ers. A video emerged of Kittle working out with strength and conditioning coach Josh Cuthbert. He was seen ripping open a pack of...

The Mets were among the teams found to have exploited a loophole regarding the use of artificial intelligence for in-game decisions.

These tax-eaters have lived in the bubble world of municipal government for so long they have lost all sense of perspective.

The Ravens are bolstering their offensive line.

Why Washington Is Challenging The International Criminal Court

Authored by William Brooks via The Epoch Times,

Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s recent announcement of a “whole-of-government” campaign to challenge the International Criminal Court (ICC) has generated predictable discourse worldwide.

The Trump administration is applying diplomatic pressure on allied governments to reconsider their support for the Court. Washington is calling for expanded sanctions against ICC officials, visa restrictions, and renewed insistence that the Court has no lawful authority over citizens of sovereign nations.

For the usual globalist critics, this is just another example of Trumpian unilateralism. But for sensible Americans, it reflects the president’s determination to place “America First” ahead of international institutions.

In fact, the issue deserves thoughtful examination that goes beyond ideological rhetoric. At its heart lies one of the oldest questions in constitutional government: Who has the ultimate authority to judge the citizens of a sovereign nation—its own national institutions, or an international tribunal whose judges are beyond the reach of that nation’s electorate?

The answer explains why every American administration since the ICC’s creation has refused to recognize the Court’s jurisdiction over American servicemen and government officials.

The International Criminal Court was established under the Rome Statute in 1998 and formally began operations in 2002. It was created with an admirable purpose: to prosecute individuals responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and, more recently, the crime of aggression when national courts either cannot or will not act.

The horrors of Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia convinced many that the “international order” needed a permanent institution capable of bringing the world’s worst criminals to justice. Few people disputed that objective.

Since World War II, the United States has played a significant role in shaping modern international criminal law. From the Nuremberg trials to the creation of temporary tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, successive American governments have supported the prosecution of genuine war criminals.

What Washington has never accepted is the proposition that an international court may exercise criminal jurisdiction over American citizens without the United States’ consent.

Global Overreach

Bill Clinton authorized the signing of the Rome Statute during the final days of his administration, but he deliberately declined to submit it to the Senate for ratification, acknowledging significant constitutional concerns.

George W. Bush later informed the United Nations that the United States did not intend to become a party to the treaty. Congress reinforced that position through the American Service-Members’ Protection Act of 2002, declaring that American military personnel should never be surrendered to the ICC without U.S. consent.

Subsequent administrations differed in tone but not in principle. Barack Obama cooperated with the Court in certain cases involving foreign atrocities while continuing to reject its jurisdiction over Americans.

Joe Biden lifted some sanctions imposed during Donald Trump’s first term but tacitly maintained that the ICC possessed no lawful authority over U.S. personnel. The American constitutional objection has remained remarkably consistent across the partisan divide.

The present controversy over the court’s power arose from the ICC’s contention that if an alleged offense occurs within the territory of a country that has ratified the Rome Statute, the Court may prosecute even citizens of countries that have never accepted its jurisdiction.

The Court’s reasoning formed the basis for investigations involving American personnel in Afghanistan and has also underpinned recent proceedings involving Israeli leaders. Sovereign nations are right to see this as global overreach.

America in Opposition

History offers good reasons for American concern. International organizations, such as the United Nations, are not immune from politicization. Their legitimacy depends not only upon noble aspirations but also upon public confidence that they exercise their authority impartially and within clearly defined legal limits.

Whenever global institutions expand their jurisdiction beyond what states originally contemplated, they inevitably invite resistance.

This concern echoes an argument made 50 years ago by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In his influential 1975 book “A Dangerous Place” and in articles and speeches during his tenure as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Moynihan argued that the United States had entered an era of permanent “opposition” within international institutions.

He believed that organizations originally established to foster cooperation had increasingly become grievance forums for a multinational majority of former European colonies that were determined to disparage the United States and its longstanding allies.

Moynihan did not reject international cooperation; quite the opposite. He believed that international institutions were valuable—but only when they respected truth, legal restraint, and the sovereign equality of nations. When those institutions exceeded their proper authority or became instruments of political activism, he believed democratic governments had both the right and the obligation to resist.

Half a century later, Moynihan’s warning is remarkably relevant. The present dispute is not just about whether war crimes should be prosecuted. Every civilized nation supports bringing genuine perpetrators of genocide and crimes against humanity to justice.

The real question is whether or not an international court has an independent right to define the limits of its own authority.

Washington Rejects the ICC’s Jurisdiction

American constitutional tradition holds that treaties bind only those nations that freely consent to them. The Senate never ratified the Rome Statute. Consequently, successive administrations have maintained that no international body can acquire criminal jurisdiction over Americans through the unilateral decisions of other governments.

This is not merely a legal technicality. It goes to the heart of democratic accountability. American judges answer to constitutional procedures established by the American people. Congress writes the laws. Presidents appoint judges under constitutional safeguards. Elections provide ultimate political accountability.

The judges of the International Criminal Court answer to no American electorate. American citizens cannot vote them out of office, alter their mandate, or amend the Rome Statute under which they operate. This exempts the Court from democratic accountability and permits it to exercise extraordinary powers over individuals who never consented to its authority. Within this order of things, Americans are as inclined to trust the impartiality of international judges as they are to trust the neutrality of international soccer referees.

Washington’s position is not unique. Other major democracies, including India, have also declined to join the Court. The objections vary, but many share the concern that international institutions should not gradually acquire powers that sovereign governments never delegated. Dismissing concerns about sovereignty as ultra-America-first nationalism diminishes the importance of an issue that has occupied constitutional scholars for decades.

That is a profound constitutional issue. In spite of the usual virtue signaling and anti-American theater, there is a principle at stake that has united every U.S. administration for more than a quarter century. The United States never consented to place its citizens under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

Whether one agrees with Rubio’s assertion or not, it is hardly an extremist position. It reflects a long-standing understanding of constitutional government—that the legitimacy of law rests ultimately upon the consent of the governed. This is not just another battle in the culture wars or more evidence of presidential brinkmanship—it’s an issue that deserves to be taken seriously.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Fri, 07/17/2026 - 20:05

The “Son of Southport” is in position to win his dream British Open in his hometown.

There’s not a lot more you could have asked for from a British Open entering the weekend than what the 154th has delivered through two rounds.