Podcast appearances and mentions of Al Gore

Steve Gruber discusses news and headlines

00:09:36 – Trump's FBI Hypocrisy & January 6 DeceptionKnight exposes Trump's false claim that “Biden's FBI” orchestrated January 6—despite Trump still being president at the time—accusing him and Alex Jones of staging “Stop the Steal” as a profit scheme. 00:17:13 – California Bans the GlockCalifornia's “Responsible Gun Manufacturing Act” bans Glock handguns as “convertible machine guns.” Knight calls it a direct assault on self-defense and predicts a major constitutional showdown. 00:35:24 – Trump's Qatar Deals & Terror TiesKnight reveals Trump's reversal on Qatar—once a “terror sponsor,” now a business ally—accusing him of selling out national security for billion-dollar golf and jet contracts. 00:39:31 – Trump's Tomahawk DiplomacyTrump's plan to send Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine is framed as “peace through escalation.” Knight warns it risks world war and exposes Trump as another neocon puppet. 01:15:12 – Al Gore's AI Surveillance SchemeKnight reveals Gore's “Climate Trace” satellite network as a Trojan horse for global surveillance under the guise of climate monitoring. 01:56:49 – UN Targets HomeschoolersUNESCO's new education policy seeks global control over homeschooling, redefining parents as “state trainers.” Knight warns it's a war on family sovereignty. 02:10:00 – AI, Transhumanism & the Death of the ArtistKnight and artist Anthony Freda discuss AI's spiritual dangers, calling it “post-human sorcery” designed to replace divine creativity and enslave culture to technocratic control. 02:17:00 – Selling War for The New York TimesFreda recounts illustrating Iraq War propaganda for The New York Times and realizing how state censorship shaped media narratives—a revelation that pushed him into the liberty movement. 02:36:40 – “Jesus Park” ProjectFreda unveils his large-scale sculpture of Christ's face made from natural earth, intended as a cultural and spiritual monument against the rise of satanic and nihilistic art. Follow the show on Kick and watch live every weekday 9:00am EST – 12:00pm EST https://kick.com/davidknightshow Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHTFind out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

00:09:36 – Trump's FBI Hypocrisy & January 6 DeceptionKnight exposes Trump's false claim that “Biden's FBI” orchestrated January 6—despite Trump still being president at the time—accusing him and Alex Jones of staging “Stop the Steal” as a profit scheme. 00:17:13 – California Bans the GlockCalifornia's “Responsible Gun Manufacturing Act” bans Glock handguns as “convertible machine guns.” Knight calls it a direct assault on self-defense and predicts a major constitutional showdown. 00:35:24 – Trump's Qatar Deals & Terror TiesKnight reveals Trump's reversal on Qatar—once a “terror sponsor,” now a business ally—accusing him of selling out national security for billion-dollar golf and jet contracts. 00:39:31 – Trump's Tomahawk DiplomacyTrump's plan to send Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine is framed as “peace through escalation.” Knight warns it risks world war and exposes Trump as another neocon puppet. 01:15:12 – Al Gore's AI Surveillance SchemeKnight reveals Gore's “Climate Trace” satellite network as a Trojan horse for global surveillance under the guise of climate monitoring. 01:56:49 – UN Targets HomeschoolersUNESCO's new education policy seeks global control over homeschooling, redefining parents as “state trainers.” Knight warns it's a war on family sovereignty. 02:10:00 – AI, Transhumanism & the Death of the ArtistKnight and artist Anthony Freda discuss AI's spiritual dangers, calling it “post-human sorcery” designed to replace divine creativity and enslave culture to technocratic control. 02:17:00 – Selling War for The New York TimesFreda recounts illustrating Iraq War propaganda for The New York Times and realizing how state censorship shaped media narratives—a revelation that pushed him into the liberty movement. 02:36:40 – “Jesus Park” ProjectFreda unveils his large-scale sculpture of Christ's face made from natural earth, intended as a cultural and spiritual monument against the rise of satanic and nihilistic art. Follow the show on Kick and watch live every weekday 9:00am EST – 12:00pm EST https://kick.com/davidknightshow Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHTFind out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.

LISTEN and SUBSCRIBE on:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/watchdog-on-wall-street-with-chris-markowski/id570687608 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2PtgPvJvqc2gkpGIkNMR5i WATCH and SUBSCRIBE on:https://www.youtube.com/@WatchdogOnWallstreet/featured   Don't be fooled—the D.C. shutdown fight is pure theater. In this episode:Why the budget battle is nothing more than a fake pillow fight that makes us poorerHow Republicans are signing off on Joe Biden's spending while pretending to resistThe truth about continuing resolutions and why the real squeeze comes at ThanksgivingWhy Obamacare still ruins health insurance for everyone—and Republicans never fixed itHow Bill Clinton and Al Gore in the 90s sounded more MAGA than today's DemocratsThe shutdown isn't about cuts. It's about keeping the spending spigot open while politicians gaslight you.

Admittedly, I've been a little distracted the last couple weeks, caring for an ailing cat and being a part of a caretaking team for a dear friend. Both passed away over the weekend so I'm just diving back into some things I've missed of late, one of them being the Tom Homan sit down on "Real Time With Bill Maher."On the one hand, I'm a little baffled by Maher's recent display of anti-wokeness, and on the other, he's an aging white cynical comedian who's no different than most straight white men in that they don't get the plight of the trans community and so like most straight white men, he craps on their right to exist in any measure of equality.That being said, he brags about his ability to pull Republican guests while complaining Democrats won't come on his show. I suppose Ro Khanna, Tim Ryan, Rahm Emanuel, Jon Tester, Josh Shapiro, Tina Smith, Al Gore, Adam Schiff, Seth Moulton, John Fetterman and Jason Crow (all from just this season!!!!) don't ring a bell. So in the last three weeks, he's sat with Ben Shapiro, Nancy Mace and Tom Homan. but he's clearly not proud of his sit-down with Homan. Having listened back to it and dissected it for today's show - I can hear why.

Former Vice President Al Gore's latest project gives polluters nowhere to hide. Climate Trace, a non-profit that Gore co-founded, launched a tool Wednesday that uses AI to track fine particulate pollution from more than 660 million sources worldwide. Also, the U.K.'s National Crime Agency said on Wednesday that a man was arrested in connection to the ransomware attack that has caused delays and disruptions at several European airports since the weekend.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

25 years ago many people thought Bill Bradley was going to be our next president. Senator, NBA Hall of Famer, Olympic gold medalsit, Rhodes scholar -- but Bradley lost the Democratic nomination to Al Gore. In this interviewthat took place just months later, Bradley reflects on the race he ran.Get your copy of The Journey From Here by Bill BradleyAs an Amazon Associate, Now I've Heard Everything earns from qualifying purchases.You may also enjoy my interviews with Al Gore and Bob Dole For more vintage interviews with celebrities, leaders, and influencers, subscribe to Now I've Heard Everything on Spotify, Apple Podcasts. and now on YouTube#Politics #2000 #Democrats #LiberalCome on over to AI After 40 on YouTube

Ready to take another wild ride through the gloriously weird world of the Weekly World News? This week, we're diving into the tabloid's most outrageous stories, from “Page 5 Honey” bikinis to Elvis sightings that just won't quit (spoiler: the King ain't dead, and he loves butch). We'll unpack the world's fattest people who apparently eat their families, apocalyptic economic depressions that were “just weeks away” (still waiting), and Bible relics that might have been buried next to the Garden of Eden… in Colorado. Expect alien love affairs, presidential robot conspiracies, and of course, the legend of Bat Boy — that half-bat, half-boy creature who's done everything from space travel to endorsing Al Gore. Need I remind you to like, share and follow us. Sharing is caring. Unless it's gum. Then it's weird.Special shout out to Kevin MacLeod and space jazz, the best background music of our time. Hit us up for a free subscription to Journey to the Fringe

“In fairness, I guess if they didn't have the make-up, what would they have? A different career?”   Released March 15, 1976, DESTROYER, the “iconic and mysterious” 4th studio album by KISS, was the first studio release after their breakthrough double live album ALIVE!, which chronicled their first 3 studio albums in a live concert setting and really brought the power and spectacle of the live KISS concert experience of the mid 1970's to the masses.    Getting winded from tying your shoelaces is “the saddest thing about getting older” after coming to grips with the glaring realization that KISS just isn't quite as awesome at middle age as it was upon hearing it for the first time in early childhood. But having said that, KISS was most definitely one hell of an exciting place to start one's journey into the realm of metal.    We're going to ask that you go ahead and lower any “Great Expectations” you may have had for this episode, because only a “fly by the seat of our balls kinda podcast” such as ours would dare to take on something like this.    Get ready for a “sobering moment”, remember that “Iconic” is the word of the episode, find out which Slayer album included “Fluoride Westone”, discover “how many people it takes to make KISS sound good”, and remember that “it's nothing but 7's” when you JOIN US for some “Rock and Roll Spiderman”  as we embark on our trip through CHRONICLES II with PART I: the 4th studio album by “the hottest band in the land”, DESTROYER. Visit www.metalnerdery.com/podcast for more on this episode Help Support Metal Nerdery https://www.patreon.com/metalnerderypodcast Leave us a Voicemail to be played on a future episode: 980-666-8182 Metal Nerdery Tees and Hoodies – metalnerdery.com/merch and kindly leave us a review and/or rating on your favorite Podcast app Follow us on the Socials: Facebook - Instagram - TikTok Email: metalnerdery@gmail.com Can't be LOUD Enough Playlist on Spotify Metal Nerdery Munchies on YouTube @metalnerderypodcast Show Notes: (00:01): “I have a list of what we've done…”/ #SlayerOfTheEpisode / “For our April Fools Day episode…“Everything that sucks about R.E.M.”/ “Staaaaaaaahhhhhhhp! Shut uhhhhhhhp!”/ #REMSucksASMR / “Sobering moment…”/ #Harold / “Let's do…the things and the stuff…” / #BBQASMR / #LimpBrisket / “You've gotta let it rest for like an hour…”/ “Sleeping bag…with a “tent over it…” / “Next time I go out on a date, I'm gonna ask a girl if I can put my steak in her sleeping bag…” / #Whoops / ***WARNING: #listenerdiscretionisadvised *** / ***”This show contains mushrooms, alcohol, and retardation…”***   (05:36): ***WELCOME BACK TO THE METAL NERDERY AVERAGE DOUBLE TEAM PODCAST!!!*** / “That's the saddest thing about getting older…”/ “And frankly…tiresome.” / ***PATREON US at www.patreon.com/metalnerderypodcast ***/  #PatreonShoutout #MetalNerderyPatreon / “It's a life hack…if you need puss, you put that shirt on…” / GET YOUR MERCH AT metalnerdery.com/merch / ***VOICEMAIL US AT 980-666-8182!!!*** / #KenFromConnecticut and some comments regarding #Mastodon and #Ozzy / #WellPlayYourShittah /  “We're a fly by the seat of our balls kinda podcast…”/ The laziest tattoo choice / #Turnstile HOLIDAY / “This would have been good for the next episode…”   (14:49): “Barbecued or fried? There's a big difference…” / #PsychicSlayerOfTheEpisode / #markthetime / #Slayer AT DAWN THEY SLEEP (Hell Awaits – 1985) / “7's…it's 7's…nothing but 7's…”/ “Flouride Westone? Is it Chemical Warfare, maybe? / “To be fair…it's been about an hour…” / “We should probably go ahead and admit: this is a Chronicle event…”   (18:13): #TheDocket METAL NERDERY PODCAST PRESENTS: KISS – DESTROYER / (***NOTE: We actually did a KISS Inside The Metal on our first Chronicles episode a few years back…***) / “I remember all the cool kids at school had this…” / Released March 15, 1976 / “There must be something about producers named Bob…”/ #BobSeven /  “It's iconic looking and mysterious…this was like ‘Pre-metal'…”/ “Their show is a big part of what metal is now…”/ “When we were kids, that was probably the closest thing (to metal)…” / DETROIT ROCK CITY / “They're at the #WaffleHouse…”/ “Alive! Too, btw (NOT AliveII)” / “That's an iconic riff…”/    (29:15): “Oh yeah, it ends with a crash…”/ KING OF THE NIGHT TIME WORLD /  “I'm sorry, it's so hard not to hear Al Gore when he sings…” / GOD OF THUNDER / #KingVolumeRecords (“When the drummer brings a riff to practice…” – you can find it on #Instagram) / #TheSDRShow #GaSDigital #GeneSimmonsFromKISS #MichaelJacksonJokes / GREAT EXPECTATIONS (“Just lower ‘em…way down…”) / “See what his mouth can do (and his fingers…and his hands…) / “It's like a bad version of The Beatles…” / “You guys go on and on about how good #KISS is…” / “No, I talk about their stage show and I thought they were cool…I had the lunchbox, y'know…”   (37:30): FLAMING YOUTH / “Think about how many people LOVE this band though…”/  #ReMasked / SWEET PAIN / “It's definitely 70's…” / “In fairness, I guess if they didn't have the make-up, what would they have? A different career?” / “Yeah…”/ SHOUT IT OUT LOUD / “I think I understand now why it was only appealing to me as a 6-year-old…”/ “The next song is probably the best song they ever wrote…”/ BETH / “That's how many people it takes to make KISS sound good…” / DO YOU LOVE ME? / “This is what you wanted…I wanted the best…you got the best…” / “It's instrumental…that's why it's better…”/ “I'm sure they're WAY better live…” / “They were Rock ‘n' Roll Spiderman”/ NOTE: Beth was the B-Side to Detroit Rock City, not Shout It Out Loud / “As a kid, it worked.” / THANK YOU FOR JOINING US!!! / #untilthenext #outroreel #ChroniclesII 

"Connect with Us: Follow us for updates, bonus content, and discussions about all things South Park. On Facebook: @SouthParkPod On YouTube : @SouthParkPod On TikTok : @SouthParkPodOn X: @SouthParkPodsOn Blue Sky: @smbsouthparkreview.bsky.social On Instagram: @SouthParkPodcastSubscribe and Support: Subscribe to SMB South Park Review Crew on your favorite podcast platform to never miss an episodeContact: Got a question, suggestion, or just want to share your thoughts on South Park? Reach out to us at suckmyballspod@gmail.co or visit us at linktr.ee/southparkpod

Reposted from Still Slaying: A Buffy-verse podcast which you can find at Still Slaying: a Buffy-verse podcast | Podcastica. Fun, in-depth talk about great TV. "If you think that's enough to kill me, you really don't know what a Slayer is. Trust me when I say you're gonna find out." Penny, Becky and Steve joyfully dive into this heel turn episode, they learn that words can be hard, recall some iconic news items about The Sims and Diddy before he was Diddy, and Becky's childhood dinner with Al Gore. The discussion goes on to include Jiffy Pop, knee replacement, Yahoo Groups, queer representation through the years, Maggie Walsh's voyeurism, team dynamics, evolving gender roles, Buffy's patrolling halter, Aliens, Alien: Earth, and Willow's hairstyling talents. Also, Steve gives us some insight from his time in the military. Next time we'll be talking about “K-Pop Demon Hunters!” We'd love to hear from you on that, and we'd love to hear from your kids! After that, Buffy, Season 4, Episode 14, “Goodbye, Iowa.” Keep Slaying! News Links/Referenced Links Original Trailer/WB Promo: https://youtu.be/P1vOYLtKrjE What's On Tonight Podcast https://youtube.com/playlist —---------------------------------------- Viewing Order Buffy 4x13 - The I In Team BONUS: K-POP DEMON HUNTERS Buffy 4x14 - Goodbye Iowa Angel 1x14 - I've Got You Under My Skin Angel 1x15 - The Prodigal Buffy 4x15 - This Year's Girl (1/2) Buffy 4x16 - Who Are You? (2/2) Buffy 4x17 - Superstar Angel 1x16 - The Ring Angel 1x17 - Eternity Buffy 4x18 - Where the Wild Things Are Buffy 4x19 - New Moon Rising Angel 1x18 - Five by Five (1/2) Angel 1x19 - Sanctuary (2/2) Buffy 4x20 - The Yoko Factor (1/2) Buffy 4x21 - Primeval (2/2) Buffy 4x22 - Restless Angel 1x20 - War Zone Angel 1x21 - Blind Date Angel 1x22 - To Shanshu in LA Join the conversation! You can email or send a voice message to stillslayingfeedback@gmail.com, or join us at facebook.com/groups/podcastica and Still Slaying A Buffy-verse Podcast where we put up comment posts for each episode we cover.  Follow us on Instagram Still Slaying: a Buffyverse Podcast from Podcastica Network (@stillslayingcast) • Instagram photos and videos Join the Zedhead community - https://www.patreon.com/jasoncabassi Theme Music:℗ CC-BY 2020 Quesbe | Lucie G. MorillonGoopsy | Drum and Bass | Free CC-BY Music By Quesbe is licensed under a Creative Commons License. #smashthepatriarchy #slaythepatriarchy #femisim #patriarchy #buffythevampireslayer #btvs #buffy #buffyverse #buffyfans #vampires #nostalgia #nerds #nerdy #spike #spuffy #thebronze #stillslaying #stillslayingpodcast #stillslayingcast #podcastica #slayer #vampireslayer #buffyseason4 #sunnydale #hellmouth #TheWB  #sarahmichellegellar #anthonystewarthead #alysonhannigan #nicolasbrendan #amberbenson #jamesmarsters #marcblucas #lindsaycrouse Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Professor Jerold Mande is CEO of Nourish Science; Adjunct Professor of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Tisch College of Civic Life, Tufts University.Mr. Mande has a wealth of expertise and experience in national public health and food policy. He served in senior policymaking positions for three presidents at USDA, FDA, and OSHA helping lead landmark public health initiatives. In 2009, he was appointed by President Obama as USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, In 2011, he moved to USDA's Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, where he spent six years working to improve the health outcomes of the nation's $100 billion investment in 15 nutrition programs. During President Clinton's administration, Mr. Mande was Senior Advisor to the FDA commissioner where he helped shape national policy on nutrition, food safety, and tobacco. He also served on the White House staff as a health policy advisor and was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Occupational Health at the Department of Labor. During the George H.W. Bush administration he led the graphic design of the iconic Nutrition Facts label at FDA, for which he received the Presidential Design Award.Mr. Mande began his career as a legislative assistant for Al Gore in the U.S. House and Senate, managing Gore's health and environment agenda, and helping Gore write the nation's organ donation and transplantation laws.Mr. Mande earned a Master's of Public Health from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a Bachelor of Science in nutritional science from the University of Connecticut. Prior to his current academic appointments, he served on the faculty at the Tufts, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, and Yale School of Medicine.Links & Resources:Nourish ScienceStudy: US Diet Quality and the 86% F-grade findingDiet, Drugs and Dopamine by David KesslerThe Poison Squad by Deborah BlumThe Jungle by Upton SinclairCommissioner Kessler's citizen petition to FDA on refined carbohydratesNYT Article: what's wrong with how we test food chemicalsDiscounts Get 10% off delicious local farm-fresh food delivered to your door with my link for FarmMatch: https://farmmatch.com/jane Get 15% off high-quality Italian olive oil with code FARMTOFUTURE: https://shop.vignolifood.com/FARMTOFUTURE Get 40% the CircleDNA's Premium DNA test with code JANEZHANG: https://circledna.com/premium Connect with Jane Z. Instagram: @farm.to.future Email: jane@farmtofuture.co Website: farmtofuture.co

When you think about climate change solutions, your mind might go to renewable energy, electric vehicles, or eating less meat. These are all of course important. But even if we stopped all emissions today, we'd still have too much CO2 in the atmosphere and would need to pull a lot of our emissions out of it. That's the bold mission of Aircapture, a California-based company pioneering modular direct air capture technology. On this episode, I speak with Matt Atwood, Aircapture's founder and CEO, about how his company is not only working to reduce atmospheric CO₂, but also profitably supplying it to industries that rely on the gas today—like beverage makers, greenhouses, and more. Instead of relying on fossil fuel byproducts or ethanol fermentation for their CO₂, companies can now get a cleaner, more reliable, and often cheaper supply directly from the air. Matt explains how Aircapture's approach differs from traditional large-scale carbon capture projects by focusing on on-site, modular units that can be shipped in a container and installed within weeks. These systems already commercially operate in the U.S., Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, giving customers local CO₂ while shrinking supply chain emissions. We dig into the economics of direct air capture, the climate math of whether it truly reduces atmospheric carbon, and the criticisms that it could provide a “moral license” to keep burning fossil fuels. Matt also shares how Aircapture recently raised a $50 million Series A—during a tough climate tech funding market—and what gives investors confidence that their model will scale where others have stumbled. If you've ever wondered whether pulling CO₂ out of thin air is realistic—or just hype—this conversation will give you a fascinating inside look. Discussed in this episode Our past episode with Make Sunsets about sulfur dioxide injections into the atmosphere.  We've done other episodes on geoengineering, for example on olivine spreading (Vesta and Eion), sulfur dioxide injections (Make Sunsets), direct carbon capture (Global Thermostat). Al Gore's skepticism about direct air capture. Matt recommends reading Ministry for the Future. Paul recommends Dan Carlin's The End is Always Near. Matt reflects on his earlier work with Algae Systems and why he thinks wastewater treatment improvements are so important.  Paul suggests tackling wastewater treatment with Neurospora species, as discussed here, here, here, and elsewhere.  Get to Know Matt Atwood Matt is a technologist, chemist, entrepreneur and pioneer in the DAC space. He has over 20 years experience in renewable and climate technology development and over a decade of experience with DAC and CO2 utilization technologies. Matt developed the world's first energy-positive wastewater treatment platform as Founder & CEO of Algae Systems. He has built and commercialized technologies in CO2, water, AgTech, waste treatment, and biofuels.

"Connect with Us: Follow us for updates, bonus content, and discussions about all things South Park. On Facebook: @SouthParkPod On YouTube : @SouthParkPod On TikTok : @SouthParkPodOn X: @SouthParkPodsOn Blue Sky: @smbsouthparkreview.bsky.social On Instagram: @SouthParkPodcastSubscribe and Support: Subscribe to SMB South Park Review Crew on your favorite podcast platform to never miss an episodeContact: Got a question, suggestion, or just want to share your thoughts on South Park? Reach out to us at suckmyballspod@gmail.co or visit us at linktr.ee/southparkpod

President Trump wants to bring prayer back to U.S. schools. Zohran Mamdani tries to distance himself from his "global intifada" comments as Rev. Al Sharpton powers through. The number of children lost during the Biden administration is staggering. Supreme Court victory for the Trump administration regarding immigration raids in Los Angeles. Did Donald Trump send a birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein? What happened to underwater cables in the Red Sea? Is a cancer vaccine right around the corner? Come on, now! Even the U.K. Guardian admits that the polar ice caps are in much better shape than how it's been reporting for years. Don Lemon vs. Man on the Street. Vaccine mandates: Florida surgeon general vs. Jake Tapper. Gavin Newsom is a very strange man. Rosie O'Donnell is the ultimate conspiracy theorist. CNN's Scott Jennings explains who really runs the Democratic Party. 00:00 Pat Gray UNLEASHED! 00:51 Trump on Prayer in Schools 03:53 Trump on Murder of Iryna Zarutska 05:11 Zohran Mamdani on Defunding the NYPD 06:12 Zohran Mamdani on "Globalize the Intifada" 16:36 SCOTUS Gives Another Win to the Trump Administration 16:48 RFK Jr. on 'Where are the Illegal Immigrant Children?' 21:13 Crime Comes in Any Size! 31:58 Fat Five 51:31 Climate Science is Set 55:51 Rapid Ice Decline is Here? 58:39 Al Gore was So, So Wrong 59:53 Don Lemon gets Schooled 1:06:02 Dr. Joseph Ladapo Defends Florida's Stance on Vaccine Mandates 1:15:39 Pharmacy Won't Prescribe Ivermectin 1:25:12 Gavin Newsom Loves to Talk with his Hands 1:28:07 Rosie O'Donnell Doesn't Believe Trump 1:34:01 Scott Jennings Schools Democrats Again Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Stu exposes how green companies are scamming people out of millions of dollars, all while doing nothing to help the environment. Did the Los Angeles Clippers and owner Steve Ballmer pay someone $28 million under the table to avoid the salary cap? Pat discusses the video of the White House in which someone appears to be throwing a large black bag outside the second-story window. Is the footage AI-generated, or is there a simpler explanation for it? Leftist conspiracy theorists claimed Trump died after he did not appear in front of a camera for a couple of days. America's middle class is disappearing in Disney as “Disney adults” are taking over the theme parks. Pat and Stu discuss how the younger generations have been taught to hate capitalism and blame it for all their problems. Climate change activist Al Gore made some wild claims a few decades ago, and he has been proven wrong. In what other career can you get away with being wrong so often without losing your job? Stu and Pat discuss how climate change is the perfect scam. Leftist governors are now ignoring their own crime problems to fight back against President Trump.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

TAKEAWAYSAl Gore got out of serving in the Vietnam War by applying to divinity school, where he studied under radical environmental professorsThe climate crisis has been conjured up to be used as a political toolThe ‘Green New Scam' is nothing but an assault on the free market systemAl Gore turned to environmentalism as a political vehicle because he believed it would cross all class lines

​Rebecca Tickell is an actor, singer, writer, producer, and environmental activist. Born in Ohio in a farming community, her roots are deep in agriculture. After moving to Vermont with her mother, at nine years old she became a movie star, playing a leading role in the Christmas-classic Prancer. She was instantly famous, appearing on the Today show and the Tonight show, among others. From that early age, she knew that she wanted to be a storyteller, using films to reach the masses.After a start in Hollywood, and a role in a horror film, Rebecca knew that she wanted to focus on films that make a difference. After seeing Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, it became clear to her that she wanted to tell stories about the ravages of climate change and ways to save the Earth. Working with her husband Josh, they have produced over 20 climate-conscious films... reaching some 2 billion people.Their first films focused on oil... its devastating impacts... made crystal clear by their documentary on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. Filming the accident poisoned Rebecca and solidified her commitment to caring for the planet.Influenced by a colleague, they shifted from oil to soil, highlighting the great value of soil in carbon sequestration.  Paul Hawken's Project Drawdown influenced Rebecca. By caring for the soil through regenerative agriculture, Hawken stated that the teraton of carbon that humans have released to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution could be captured.  She and Josh then bought a farm in Ventura County to practice what they preached.Rebecca discusses the basic tenets of regenerative agriculture, and how it can not only boost production, but address the vast areas of land globally that have been desertified. Their award-winning and broadly revered films -- Kiss the Soil and Common Ground -- have been rooted in rebuilding the soil. And they highlight successes, more profitable forms of agriculture, a greater diversity of products able to withstand droughts, fires, and flood. Farmers are finding that eliminating herbicides, pesticides, insecticides, and fungicides can save them $400 an acre... helping them break out of the vicious farming cycle of loans and risk and unhealthy produce.Today, Rebecca notes that about 5% of American agriculture is based on the principles of regeneration,. But this is ten times what it was five years ago... and projections suggest that 10% of American farming will be regenerative in the next few years. This is the tipping point... when the forces of logic in agriculture become unstoppable, both domestically and worldwide.Healthy soils lead to healthy food, which leads to healthy people. Our health, Rebecca makes clear, is a reflection of the health of our soil. The health of our guts is a reflection of the health of the microorganisms in our soil. This will happen acre by acre, inch by inch. For more information and to download Rebecca's films, visit bigpictureranch.com.

In this week's episode, both of our storytellers transform into someone they admire—one quite literally, the other more figuratively.Part 1: While juggling climate science studies and a budding comedy career, Rollie Williams finds an unexpected niche impersonating his environmental hero, Al Gore.Part 2: Scott Acton longs to follow in Hemingway's footsteps, but when his English teacher squashes his writing dreams, he reluctantly accepts his role as “the computer guy.”Rollie Williams is a Brooklyn-based comedian, video editor, and guy with both student debt and a Climate Science & Policy degree from Columbia University. He is the creator and host of the digital comedy series Climate Town. In the past few years, the channel has amassed 600,000 subscribers, several millions views, and a handful of awards. Rollie is also the co-creator and co-host of podcast The Climate Denier's Playbook. Formerly, Rollie performed a monthly comedy show 'An Inconvenient Talk Show' doing sketches and comedic deep dives by pairing comedians (SNL, The Daily Show, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, etc) together with climate scientists (NASA, MIT, Harvard). When he's not doing climate stuff, Rollie plays an unhealthy amount of billiards and recently achieved his dream of commentating for the World Cup of Pool in England. Scott Acton is Professor and Chair of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Virginia. He did his undergraduate studies at Virginia Tech and graduate studies at the University of Texas at Austin. Scott's laboratory is called VIVA – Virginia Image and Video Analysis. They work on image analysis problems from imaging for Alzheimer's disease to analyzing classroom videos for improving elementary math education. Scott also recently worked for the National Science Foundation as a program director for programs in signal processing and artificial intelligence. When he's not doing research at UVA, you will find him in the mountains on his purple mountain bike.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Links to stories referenced as well as my guest, Lawrence Haas, former speechwriter ot Al Gore!  - 49 Federal Contracts With Alleged Terror-Link Organizations: https://www.meforum.org/press-... - Trump Admin Reviewing 55 million visas: https://apnews.com/article/tru... - My guest Lawrence Haas's website: https://www.larryhaasonline.co...

In this powerful episode of The Mike Litton Experience, I sit down with Tim Newell—former White House advisor to Vice President Al Gore and President Bill Clinton, and now the visionary co-founder of GreenFi, a groundbreaking climate-friendly fintech company.

Dr. Seok S. Park is a professor of Environmental Science and Engineering at Ewha Womans University in Seoul, Korea. He translated “Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn't want you to know” and “Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom” into Korean in 2021. After publishing these two translated books, he founded Korea Climate Change Truth Forum and Korea Alliance of Freedom and Environmental Groups with his colleagues.00:00 Introduction and Guest Introduction00:31 Early Support for Low Carbon Green Growth03:06 Shift in Perspective: Climate Change Denial05:16 Books and Translations on Climate Change09:09 Climate Alarmism in South Korea16:15 Renewable Energy Challenges in South Korea23:43 Climate Change Impact on the Korean Peninsula29:44 Decreasing Typhoons and Increasing Wildfires30:16 Climate Change and Media Narratives31:26 Comparing North and South Korea32:46 China's Hybrid Warfare Tactics34:14 Climate Change Activism and Socialism37:55 Proposing a Climate Energy Alliance41:01 Critique of RE100 and Renewable Energy43:03 Dreams of Liberty and Climate Realism47:01 Audience Q&A and Final ThoughtsHis Oct 2025 book, “Eco-disasters: What Happened and How to Prevent Them”:https://www.amazon.com/Eco-disasters-What-Happened-Prevent-Them/dp/9819686660About Seok Soon Park: https://co2coalition.org/teammember/seok-soon-park/Slides for this podcast, and AI summaries of all of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summaries=========My Linktree: https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1

After retiring from a career teaching physics, chemistry and biology, Lynne Balzer began organizing extensive notes from a decade-long investigation of the climate change issue. Considering all the facts and looking at the connection between the science, history and politics of this issue, Lynne reached the inevitable conclusion that “human-caused global warming” is one of the greatest hoaxes ever visited upon mankind. Working with Faraday Science Institute, a nonprofit organization, she has researched the topic of global climate change for thirteen years, sorting out fact from fiction.00:00 Introduction and Guest Introduction00:30 UN IPCC and Environmental Hijacking01:32 Failed Predictions and Real Data03:06 Historical Scientific Perspectives04:22 Acid Rain and Environmental Regulations05:54 Al Gore's Influence and Political Maneuvering07:23 Senate Hearings and Media Manipulation08:53 Roger Revelle's Skepticism and Legacy21:38 Legal Battles and Controversies31:17 Modern Misrepresentations and Media Bias42:51 Conclusion and Final ThoughtsTranscripts and summaries of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summariesExposing the Great Climate Change Lie (2023): https://a.co/d/i6iRW1yRoger Revelle 1980 speech (85 minutes): https://youtu.be/HzE4oDwoYyY?si=ZmNLFpouHOSdo_YvOther Lynne Balzer appearances on this podcast: https://www.youtube.com/@tomnelson2080/search?query=balzer=========My Linktree: https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1

We are all overdue to share some amusing celebrity impressions so witness the shitshow where Cam, Mike & James all go ballistic with their many celeb and politician impressions.   They include: Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hugh Hefner, Richard Nixon, Liam Neeson, Norm McDonald & Al Pacino!   We then (unexpectedly) conclude with an impression of Allan Sherman, George Takei & Cookie Monster starring in Cruising: The Musical.   I wish I was making that up!

For the month of August, we’re highlighting episodes from the 2024-2025 season of Energy Policy Now. We’ll be back with new content, and a new season, on September the 9th. Former Republican U.S. congressman Bob Inglis offers a conservative perspective on climate solutions in discussion with Penn climatologist Michael Mann. --- (This episode was recorded on February 13, 2025, during Penn Energy Week) Politically conservative and concerned about climate change? In this special episode of the Energy Policy Now podcast, Penn climatologist Michael Mann talks with Bob Inglis, former Republican Congressman from South Carolina and current executive director of RepublicEN.org, about bridging the partisan climate divide. In a wide-ranging conversation recorded live during Energy Week at Penn 2025 at the University of Pennsylvania, Mann and Inglis discuss a conservative view on climate change, how conservative messaging on climate has evolved over time, and how common solutions might be found in an era of partisan climate divide. Inglis also offers his view on carbon pricing and strategies to reign in carbon emissions in the U.S. The conversation is moderated by Sanya Carley, faculty director of the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy. Bob Inglis is a former U.S. representative for South Carolina’s 4th congressional district. He is the executive director of RepublicanEn.org at George Mason University. Michael Mann is director of the Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania. Sanya Carley is the Mark Alan Hughes faculty director of the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy. Important note on the conversation: Due to a technical problem, the first two minutes of Bob Inglis’ conversation are difficult to hear (from 5:40 to 7:40). We’ve transcribed those two minutes in the show notes, below, to make it easier to follow along. A full transcript of this and all Energy Policy Now podcasts is available on the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy website. Bob Inglis (5:40): Yeah, so for my first six years in Congress I said that climate change is nonsense. All I knew was that Al Gore was for it. And as much as I represented Greenville-Spartanburg South Carolina, that was the end of the inquiry. Okay, pretty ignorant. But that’s the way it was my first six years. Out of Congress six years, as you just heard, doing commercial real estate law again and then, had the opportunity to run for the same seat again before, our son had just turned 18, so he was voting for the first time, and he came to me and he said, dad, I’ll vote for you. But you’re going to clean up your act on the environment. His four sisters agreed, his mother agreed. New constituency, you know. So you got to respond to those people who can change the locks on the doors to your house, you know. So, very important to respond to these people. And so that was step one of a three step metamorphosis. Step two was going to Antarctica with the [House of Representatives] Science Committee and seeing the evidence in the iceberg drillings. Step three was another Science Committee trip and, um, really a spiritual awakening which seems improbable, right, on a godless Science Committee trip, because we all know that all scientists are godless. Right? Well, apparently not. Because this Aussie climate scientist was showing me the glories of the Great Barrier Reef. I could see he was worshipping God in what he was showing me. You know, St. Francis of Assisi supposedly said “preach the gospel at all times. If necessary use words.” So Scott Heron, this Aussie climate scientist who’s now become a very dear friend was doing that. I could see it in his eyes, it was written all over his face. It was in his excitement about what he was showing me. He was clearly worshipping God. So I knew we shared a world view. Forty words were spoken. Related Content How Identity Politics Shape U.S. Energy Policy https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/commentary/podcast/how-identity-politics-shape-u-s-energy-policy/ Climate Action in the Age of Great Power Rivalry: What Geopolitics Means for Climate https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/climate-action-in-the-age-of-great-power-rivalry-what-geopolitics-means-for-the-climate/ Energy Policy Now is produced by The Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. For all things energy policy, visit kleinmanenergy.upenn.eduSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The episode title is completely ridiculous. Thanks, ChatGPT 4.1. Also it thinks Jack is me. I'm not here to change that. Any of you people seen us in the same room? Yeah, I thought so.

Send us a textJoin Big Rich Klein in an engaging conversation with Roger Salazar, a dynamic figure in the off-road community and a member of the California Off Highway Motor Vehicle Commission. In this episode, Roger shares his journey from a small town in California to the bustling political scene of Washington, D.C., and how his love for off-roading has intertwined with his professional life.Background & Early Life: Roger talks about growing up in Lodi, California, in a blue-collar family with a passion for cars and off-roading. He reflects on his education and how he skipped third grade due to his early academic prowess.  Political Career: Roger outlines his path into politics, including his time as an intern and press secretary at the White House under President Clinton and his role in Al Gore's presidential campaign. Off-Road Passion: Roger delves into his deep-rooted love for off-roading, tracing back to his family's legacy with Jeeps. He shares stories from his adventures on the Rubicon Trail and his involvement with the Sierra Treasure Hunters Off Road Club. OHV Commission Goals: Roger discusses his ambitions for expanding off-road trails in California and his vision for a continuous trail from the Mexican to the Oregon border. He also mentions the importance of preserving access to iconic off-road areas like Oceano Dunes.Final Thoughts: Rich and Roger explore the intersection of politics and off-roading, emphasizing the need for thoughtful advocacy and community involvement to ensure future access to public lands. Roger leaves listeners with his commitment to fostering off-road opportunities and preserving the adventurous spirit of the community. Support the show

We've covered the US Agency for International Development, or USAID, pretty consistently on Statecraft, since our first interview on PEPFAR, the flagship anti-AIDS program, in 2023. When DOGE came to USAID, I was extremely critical of the cuts to lifesaving aid, and the abrupt, pointlessly harmful ways in which they were enacted. In March, I wrote, “The DOGE team has axed the most effective and efficient programs at USAID, and forced out the chief economist, who was brought in to oversee a more aggressive push toward efficiency.”Today, we're talking to that forced-out chief economist, Dean Karlan. Dean spent two and a half years at the helm of the first-ever Office of the Chief Economist at USAID. In that role, he tried to help USAID get better value from its foreign aid spending. His office shifted $1.7 billion of spending towards programs with stronger evidence of effectiveness. He explains how he achieved this, building a start-up within a massive bureaucracy. I should note that Dean is one of the titans of development economics, leading some of the most important initiatives in the field (I won't list them, but see here for details), and I think there's a plausible case he deserves a Nobel.Throughout this conversation, Dean makes a point much better than I could: the status quo at USAID needed a lot of improvement. The same political mechanisms that get foreign aid funded by Congress also created major vulnerabilities for foreign aid, vulnerabilities that DOGE seized on. Dean believes foreign aid is hugely valuable, a good thing for us to spend our time, money, and resources on. But there's a lot USAID could do differently to make its marginal dollar spent more efficient.DOGE could have made USAID much more accountable and efficient by listening to people like Dean, and reformers of foreign aid should think carefully about Dean's criticisms of USAID, and his points for how to make foreign aid not just resilient but politically popular in the long term.We discuss* What does the Chief Economist do?* Why does 170% percent of USAID funds come already earmarked by Congress?* Why is evaluating program effectiveness institutionally difficult?* Why don't we just do cash transfers for everything?* Why institutions like USAID have trouble prioritizing* Should USAID get rid of gender/environment/fairness in procurement rules?* Did it rely too much on a small group of contractors?* What's changed in development economics over the last 20 years?* Should USAID spend more on governance and less on other forms of aid? * How DOGE killed USAID — and how to bring it back better* Is depoliticizing foreign aid even possible?* Did USAID build “soft power” for the United States?This is a long conversation: you can jump to a specific section with the index above. If you just want to hear about Dean's experience with DOGE, you can click here or go to the 45-minute mark in the audio. And if you want my abbreviated summary of the conversation, see these two Twitter threads. But I think the full conversation is enlightening, especially if you want to understand the American foreign aid system. Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious edits.Our past coverage of USAIDDean, I'm curious about the limits of your authority. What can the Chief Economist of USAID do? What can they make people do?There had never been an Office of the Chief Economist before. In a sense, I was running a startup, within a 13,000-employee agency that had fairly baked-in, decentralized processes for doing things.Congress would say, "This is how much to spend on this sector and these countries." What you actually fund was decided by missions in the individual countries. It was exciting to have that purview across the world and across many areas, not just economic development, but also education, social protection, agriculture. But the reality is, we were running a consulting unit within USAID, trying to advise others on how to use evidence more effectively in order to maximize impact for every dollar spent.We were able to make some institutional changes, focused on basically a two-pronged strategy. One, what are the institutional enablers — the rules and the processes for how things get done — that are changeable? And two, let's get our hands dirty working with the budget holders who say, "I would love to use the evidence that's out there, please help guide us to be more effective with what we're doing."There were a lot of willing and eager people within USAID. We did not lack support to make that happen. We never would've achieved anything, had there not been an eager workforce who heard our mission and knocked on our door to say, "Please come help us do that."What do you mean when you say USAID has decentralized processes for doing things?Earmarks and directives come down from Congress. [Some are] about sector: $1 billion dollars to spend on primary school education to improve children's learning outcomes, for instance. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) [See our interview with former PEPFAR lead Mark Dybul] is one of the biggest earmarks to spend money specifically on specific diseases. Then there's directives that come down about how to allocate across countries.Those are two conversations I have very little engagement on, because some of that comes from Congress. It's a very complicated, intertwined set of constraints that are then adhered to and allocated to the different countries. Then what ends up happening is — this is the decentralized part — you might be a Foreign Service Officer (FSO) working in a country, your focus is education, and you're given a budget for that year from the earmark for education and told, "Go spend $80 million on a new award in education." You're working to figure out, “How should we spend that?” There might be some technical support from headquarters, but ultimately, you're responsible for making those decisions. Part of our role was to help guide those FSOs towards programs that had more evidence of effectiveness.Could you talk more about these earmarks? There's a popular perception that USAID decides what it wants to fund. But these big categories of humanitarian aid, or health, or governance, are all decided in Congress. Often it's specific congressmen or congresswomen who really want particular pet projects to be funded.That's right. And the number that I heard is that something in the ballpark of 150-170% of USAID funds were earmarked. That might sound horrible, but it's not.How is that possible?Congress double-dips, in a sense: we have two different demands. You must spend money on these two things. If the same dollar can satisfy both, that was completely legitimate. There was no hiding of that fact. It's all public record, and it all comes from congressional acts that create these earmarks. There's nothing hidden underneath the hood.Will you give me examples of double earmarking in practice? What kinds of goals could you satisfy with the same dollar?There's an earmark for Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) to do research, and an earmark for education. If DIV is going to fund an evaluation of something in the education space, there's a possibility that that can satisfy a dual earmark requirement. That's the kind of thing that would happen. One is an earmark for a process: “Do really careful, rigorous evaluations of interventions, so that we learn more about what works and what doesn't." And another is, "Here's money that has to be spent on education." That would be an example of a double dip on an earmark.And within those categories, the job of Chief Economist was to help USAID optimize the funding? If you're spending $2 billion on education, “Let's be as effective with that money as possible.”That's exactly right. We had two teams, Evidence Use and Evidence Generation. It was exactly what it sounds like. If there was an earmark for $1 billion dollars on education, the Evidence Use team worked to do systematic analysis: “What is the best evidence out there for what works for education for primary school learning outcomes?” Then, “How can we map that evidence to the kinds of things that USAID funds? What are the kinds of questions that need to be figured out?”It's not a cookie-cutter answer. A systematic review doesn't say, "Here's the intervention. Now just roll it out everywhere." We had to work with the missions — with people who know the local area — to understand, “What is the local context? How do you appropriately adapt this program in a procurement and contextualize it to that country, so that you can hire people to use that evidence?”Our Evidence Generation team was trying to identify knowledge gaps where the agency could lead in producing more knowledge about what works and what doesn't. If there was something innovative that USAID was funding, we were huge advocates of, "Great, let's contribute to the global public good of knowledge, so that we can learn more in the future about what to do, and so others can learn from us. So let's do good, careful evaluations."Being able to demonstrate what good came of an intervention also serves the purpose of accountability. But I've never been a fan of doing really rigorous evaluations just for the sake of accountability. It could discourage innovation and risk-taking, because if you fail, you'd be seen as a failure, rather than as a win for learning that an idea people thought was reasonable didn't turn out to work. It also probably leads to overspending on research, rather than doing programs. If you're doing something just for accountability purposes, you're better off with audits. "Did you actually deliver the program that you said you would deliver, or not?"Awards over $100 million dollars did go through the front office of USAID for approval. We added a process — it was actually a revamped old process — where they stopped off in my office. We were able to provide guidance on the cost-effectiveness of proposals that would then be factored into the decision on whether to proceed. When I was first trying to understand Project 2025, because we saw that as a blueprint for what changes to expect, one of the changes they proposed was actually that process. I remember thinking to myself, "We just did that. Hopefully this change that they had in mind when they wrote that was what we actually put in place." But I thought of it as a healthy process that had an impact, not just on that one award, but also in helping set an example for smaller awards of, “This is how to be more evidence-based in what you're doing.”[Further reading: Here's a position paper Karlan's office at USAID put out in 2024 on how USAID should evaluate cost-effectiveness.]You've also argued that USAID should take into account more research that has already been done on global development and humanitarian aid. Your ideal wouldn't be for USAID to do really rigorous research on every single thing it does. You can get a lot better just by incorporating things that other people have learned.That's absolutely right. I can say this as a researcher: to no one's surprise, it's more bureaucratic to work with the government as a research funder than it is to work with foundations and nimble NGOs. If I want to evaluate a particular program, and you give me a choice of who the funder should be, the only reason I would choose government is if it had a faster on-ramp to policy by being inside.The people who are setting policy should not be putting more weight on evidence that they paid for. In fact, one of the slogans that I often used at USAID is, "Evidence doesn't care who pays for it." We shouldn't be, as an agency, putting more weight on the things that we evaluated vs. things that others evaluated without us, and that we can learn from, mimic, replicate, and scale.We — and the we here is everyone, researchers and policymakers — put too much weight on individual studies, in a horrible way. The first to publish on something gets more accolades than the second, third and fourth. That's not healthy when it comes to policy. If we put too much weight on our own evidence, we end up putting too much weight on individual studies we happen to do. That's not healthy either.That was one of the big pieces of culture change that we tried to push internally at USAID. We had this one slide that we used repeatedly that showed the plethora of evidence out there in the world compared to 20 years ago. A lot more studies are now usable. You can aggregate that evidence and form much better policies.You had political support to innovate that not everybody going into government has. On the other hand, USAID is a big, bureaucratic entity. There are all kinds of cross-pressures against being super-effective per dollar spent. In doing culture change, what kinds of roadblocks did you run into internally?We had a lot of support and political cover, in the sense that the political appointees — I was not a political appointee — were huge fans. But political appointees under Republicans have also been huge fans of what we were doing. Disagreements are more about what to do and what causes to choose. But the basic idea of being effective with your dollars to push your policy agenda is something that cuts across both sides.In the days leading up to the inauguration, we were expecting to continue the work we were doing. Being more cost-effective was something some of the people who were coming in were huge advocates for. They did make progress under Trump I in pushing USAID in that direction. We saw ourselves as able to help further that goal. Obviously, that's not the way it played out, but there isn't really anything political about being more cost-effective.We'll come back to that, but I do want to talk about the 2.5 years you spent in the Biden administration. USAID is full of people with all kinds of incentives, including some folks who were fully on board and supportive. What kinds of challenges did you have in trying to change the culture to be more focused on evidence and effectiveness?There was a fairly large contingent of people who welcomed us, were eager, understood the space that we were coming from and the things that we wanted, and greeted us with open arms. There's no way we would've accomplished what we accomplished without that. We had a bean counter within the Office of the Chief Economist of moving about $1.7 billion towards programs that were more effective or had strong evaluations. That would've been $0 had there not been some individuals who were already eager and just didn't have the path for doing it.People can see economists as people who are going to come in negative and a bit dismal — the dismal science, so to speak. I got into economics for a positive reason. We tried as often as possible to show that with an economic lens, we can help people achieve their goals better, period. We would say repeatedly to people, "We're not here to actually make the difficult choices: to say whether health, education, or food security is the better use of money. We're here to accept your goal and help you achieve more of it for your dollar spent.” We always send a very disarming message: we're there simply to help people achieve their goals and to illuminate the trade-offs that naturally exist.Within USAID, you have a consensus-type organization. When you have 10 people sitting around a room trying to decide how to spend money towards a common goal, if you don't crystallize the trade-offs between the various ideas being put forward, you end up seeing a consensus built: that everybody gets a piece of the pie. Our way of trying to shift the culture is to take those moments and say, "Wait a second. All 10 might be good ideas relative to doing nothing, but they can't all be good relative to each other. We all share a common goal, so let's be clear about the trade-offs between these different programs. Let's identify the ones that are actually getting you the most bang for your buck."Can you give me an example of what those trade-offs might be in a given sector?Sure. Let's take social protection, what we would call the Humanitarian Nexus development space. It might be working in a refugee area — not dealing with the immediate crisis, but one, two, five, or ten years later — trying to help bring the refugees into a more stable environment and into economic activities. Sometimes, you would see some cash or food provided to households. The programs would all have the common goal of helping to build a sustainable livelihood for households, so that they can be more integrated into the local economy. There might be programs providing water, financial instruments like savings vehicles, and supporting vocational education. It'd be a myriad of things, all on this focused goal of income-generating activity for the households to make them more stable in the long run.Often, those kinds of programs doing 10 different things did not actually lead to an observable impact over five years. But a more focused approach has gone through evaluations: cash transfers. That's a good example where “reducing” doesn't always mean reduce your programs just to one thing, but there is this default option of starting with a base case: “What does a cash transfer generate?"And to clarify for people who don't follow development economics, the cash transfer is just, “What if we gave people money?”Sometimes it is just that. Sometimes it's thinking strategically, “Maybe we should do it as a lump sum so that it goes into investments. Maybe we should do it with a planning exercise to make those investments.” Let's just call it “cash-plus,” or “cash-with-a-little-plus,” then variations of that nature. There's a different model, maybe call it, “cash-plus-plus,” called the graduation model. That has gone through about 30 randomized trials, showing pretty striking impacts on long-run income-generating activity for households. At its core is a cash transfer, usually along with some training about income-generating activity — ideally one that is producing and exporting in some way, even a local export to the capital — and access to some form of savings. In some cases, that's an informal savings group, with a community that comes and saves together. In some cases, it's mobile money that's the core. It's a much simpler program, and it's easier to do it at scale. It has generated considerable, measured, repeatedly positive impacts, but not always. There's a lot more that needs to be learned about how to do it more effectively.[Further reading: Here's another position paper from Karlan's team at USAID on benchmarking against cash transfers.]One of your recurring refrains is, “If we're not sure that these other ideas have an impact, let's benchmark: would a cash-transfer model likely give us more bang for our buck than this panoply of other programs that we're trying to run?”The idea of having a benchmark is a great approach in general. You should always be able to beat X. X might be different in different contexts. In a lot of cases, cash is the right benchmark.Go back to education. What's your benchmark for improving learning outcomes for a primary school? Cash transfer is not the right benchmark. The evidence that cash transfers will single-handedly move the needle on learning outcomes is not that strong. On the other hand, a couple of different programs — one called Teaching at the Right Level, another called structured pedagogy — have proven repeatedly to generate very strong impacts at a fairly modest cost. In education, those should be the benchmark. If you want to innovate, great, innovate. But your goal is to beat those. If you can beat them consistently, you become the benchmark. That's a great process for the long run. It's very much part of our thinking about what the future of foreign aid should look like: to be structured around that benchmark.Let's go back to those roundtables you described, where you're trying to figure out what the intervention should be for a group of refugees in a foreign country. What were the responses when you'd say, “Look, if we're all pulling in the same direction, we have to toss out the three worst ideas”?One of the challenges is the psychology of ethics. There's probably a word for this, but one of the objections we would often get was about the scale of a program for an individual. Someone would argue, "But this won't work unless you do this one extra thing." That extra thing might be providing water to the household, along with a cash transfer for income-generating activity, financial support, and bank accounts. Another objection would be that, "You also have to provide consumption and food up to a certain level."These are things that individually might be good, relative to nothing, or maybe even relative to other water approaches or cash transfers. But if you're focused on whether to satisfy the household's food needs, or provide half of what's needed — if all you're thinking about is the trade-off between full and half — you immediately jump to this idea that, "No, we have to go full. That's what's needed to help this household." But if you go to half, you can help more people. There's an actual trade-off: 10,000 people will receive nothing because you're giving more to the people in your program.The same is true for nutritional supplements. Should you provide 2,000 calories a day, or 1,000 calories a day to more people? It's a very difficult conversation on the psychology of ethics. There's this idea that people in a program are sacrosanct, and you must do everything you can for them. But that ignores all the people who are not being reached at all.I would find myself in conversations where that's exactly the way I would try to put it. I would say, "Okay, wait, we have the 2,000,000 people that are eligible for this program in this context. Our program is only going to reach 250,000. That's the reality. Now, let's talk about how many people we're willing to leave untouched and unhelped whatsoever." That was, at least to me, the right way to frame this question. Do you go very intense for fewer people or broader support for more people?Did that help these roundtables reach consensus, or at least have a better sense of what things are trading off against each other?I definitely saw movement for some. I wouldn't say it was uniform, and these are difficult conversations. But there was a lot of appetite for this recognition that, as big as USAID was, it was still small, relative to the problems being approached. There were a lot of people in any given crisis who were being left unhelped. The minute you're able to help people focus more on those big numbers, as daunting as they are, I would see more openness to looking at the evidence to figure out how to do the most good with the resources we have?” We must recognize these inherent trade-offs, whether we like it or not.Back in 2023, you talked to Dylan Matthews at Vox — it's a great interview — about how it's hard to push people to measure cost-effectiveness, when it means adding another step to a big, complicated bureaucratic process of getting aid out the door. You said,"There are also bandwidth issues. There's a lot of competing demands. Some of these demands relate to important issues on gender environment, fairness in the procurement process. These add steps to the process that need to be adhered to. What you end up with is a lot of overworked people. And then you're saying, ‘Here's one more thing to do.'”Looking back, what do you think of those demands on, say, fairness in the procurement process?Given that we're going to be facing a new environment, there probably are some steps in the process that — hopefully, when things are put back in place in some form — someone can be thinking more carefully about. It's easier to put in a cleaner process that avoids some of these hiccups when you start with a blank slate.Having said that, it's also going to be fewer people to dole out less money. There's definitely a challenge that we're going to be facing as a country, to push out money in an effective way with many fewer people for oversight. I don't think it would be accurate to say we achieved this goal yet, but my goal was to make it so that adding cost-effectiveness was actually a negative-cost addition to the process. [We wanted] to do it in a way that successfully recognized that it wasn't a cookie-cutter solution from up top for every country. But [our goal was that] the work to contextualize in a country actually simplified the process for whoever's putting together the procurement docs and deciding what to put in them. I stand by that belief that if it's done well, we can make this a negative-cost process change.I just want to push a little bit. Would you be supportive of a USAID procurement and contracting process that stripped out a bunch of these requirements about gender, environment, or fairness in contracting? Would that make USAID a more effective institution?Some of those types of things did serve an important purpose for some areas and not others. The tricky thing is, how do you set up a process to decide when to do it, when not? There's definitely cases where you would see an environmental review of something that really had absolutely nothing to do with the environment. It was just a cog in the process, but you have to have a process for deciding the process. I don't know enough about the legislation that was put in place on each of these to say, “Was there a better way of deciding when to do them, when not to do them?” That is not something that I was involved in in a direct way. "Let's think about redoing how we introduce gender in our procurement process" was never put on the table.On gender, there's a fair amount of evidence in different contexts that says the way of dealing with a gender inequity is not to just take the same old program and say, "We're now going to do this for women." You need to understand something more about the local context. If all you do is take programs and say, "Add a gender component," you end up with a lot of false attribution, and you don't end up being effective at the very thing that the person [leading the program] cares to do.In that Vox interview, your host says, "USAID relies heavily on a small number of well-connected contractors to deliver most aid, while other groups are often deterred from even applying by the process's complexity." He goes on to say that the use of rigorous evaluation methods like randomized controlled trials is the exception, not the norm.On Statecraft, we talked to Kyle Newkirk, who ran USAID procurement in Afghanistan in the late 2000s, about the small set of well-connected contractors that took most of the contracts in Afghanistan. Often, there was very little oversight from USAID, either because it was hard to get out to those locations in a war-torn environment, or because the system of accountability wasn't built there. Did you talk to people about lessons learned from USAID operating in Afghanistan?No. I mean, only to the following extent: The lesson learned there, as I understand it, wasn't so much about the choice on what intervention to fund, it was procurement: the local politics and engagement with the governments or lack thereof. And dealing with the challenge of doing work in a context like that, where there's more risk of fraud and issues of that nature.Our emphasis was about the design of programs to say, “What are you actually going to try to fund?” Dealing with whether there's fraud in the execution would fall more under the Inspector General and other units. That's not an area that we engaged in when we would do evaluation.This actually gets to a key difference between impact evaluations and accountability. It's one of the areas where we see a lot of loosey-goosey language in the media reporting and Twitter. My office focused on impact evaluation. What changed in the world because of this intervention, that wouldn't otherwise have changed? By “change in the world,” we are making a causal statement. That's setting up things like randomized controlled trials to find out, “What was the impact of this program?” It does provide some accountability, but it really should be done to look forward, in order to know, “Does this help achieve the goals we have in mind?” If so, let's learn that, and replicate it, scale it, do it again.If you're going to deliver books to schools, medicine to health clinics, or cash to people, and you're concerned about fraud, then you need to audit that process and see, “Did the books get to the schools, the medicine to the people, the cash to the people?” You don't need to ask, "Did the medicine solve the disease?" There's been studies already. There's a reason that medicine was being prescribed. Once it's proven to be an effective drug, you don't run randomized trials for decades to learn what you already know. If it's the prescribed drug, you just prescribe the drug, and do accountability exercises to make sure that the drugs are getting into the right hands and there isn't theft or corruption along the way.I think it's a very intuitive thing. There's a confusion that often takes place in social science, in economic or education interventions. They somehow forget that once we know that a certain program generates a certain positive impact, we no longer need to track continuously to find out what happens. Instead, we just need to do accountability to make sure that the program is being delivered as it was designed, tested, and shown to work.There are all these criticisms — from the waste, fraud, and corruption perspective — of USAID working with a couple of big contractors. USAID works largely through these big development organizations like Chemonics. Would USAID dollars be more effective if it worked through a larger base of contractors?I don't think we know. There's probably a few different operating models that can deliver the same basic intervention. We need to focus on, ”What actually are we doing on the ground? What is it that we want the recipients of the program to receive, hear, or do?” and then think backwards from there: "Who's the right implementer for this?" If there's an implementer who is much more expensive for delivering the same product, let's find someone who's more cost-effective.It's helpful to break cost-effective programming into two things: the intervention itself and what benefits it accrues, and the cost for delivering that. Sometimes the improvement is not about the intervention, it's about the delivery model. Maybe that's what you're saying: “These players were too few, too large, and they had a grab on the market, so that they were able to charge too much money to deliver something that others were equally able to do at lower cost." If that's the case, that says, "We should reform our procurement process,” because the reason you would see that happen is they were really good at complying with requirements that came at USAID from Congress. You had an overworked workforce [within USAID] that had to comply with all these requirements. If you had a bid between two groups, one of which repeatedly delivered on the paperwork to get a good performance evaluation, and a new group that doesn't have that track record, who are you going to choose? That's how we ended up where we are.My understanding of the history is that it comes from a push from Republicans in the ‘80s, from [Senator] Jesse Helms, to outsource USAID efforts to contractors. So this is not a left-leaning thing. I wouldn't say it is right-leaning either. It was just a decision made decades ago. You combine that with the bureaucratic requirements of working with USAID, and you end up with a few firms and nonprofits skilled at dealing with it.It's definitely my impression that at various points in American history, different partisans are calling for insourcing or for outsourcing. But definitely, I think you're right that the NGO cluster around USAID does spring up out of a Republican push in the eighties.We talked to John Kamensky recently, who was on Al Gore's predecessor to DOGE in the ‘90s.I listened to this, yeah.I'm glad to hear it! I'm thinking of it because they also pushed to cut the workforce in the mid-90s and outsource federal functions.Earlier, you mentioned a slide that showed what we've learned in the field of development economics over the past 20 years. Will you narrate that slide for me?Let me do two slides for you. The slide that I was picturing was a count of randomized controlled trials in development that shows a fairly exponential growth. The movement started in the mid-to-late 1990s, but really took off in the 2000s. Even just in the past 10 years, it's seen a considerable increase. There's about 4-5,000 randomized controlled trials evaluating various programs of the kind USAID funds.That doesn't tell you the substance of what was learned. Here's an example of substance, which is cash transfers: probably the most studied intervention out there. We have a meta-analysis that counted 115 studies. That's where you start having a preponderance of evidence to be able to say something concrete. There's some variation: you get different results in different places; targeting and ways of doing it vary. A good systematic analysis can help tease out what we can say, not just about the effect of cash, but also how to do it and what to expect, depending on how it's done. Fifteen years ago, when we saw the first few come out, you just had, "Oh, that's interesting. But it's a couple of studies, how do you form policy around that?” With 115, we can say so much more.What else have we learned about development that USAID operators in the year 2000 would not have been able to act upon?Think about the development process in two steps. One is choosing good interventions; the other is implementing them well. The study of implementation is historically underdone. The challenge that we face — this is an area I was hoping USAID could make inroads on — was, studying a new intervention might be of high reward from an academic perspective. But it's a lot less interesting to an academic to do much more granular work to say, "That was an interesting program that created these groups [of aid recipients]; now let's do some further knock-on research to find out whether those groups should be made of four, six, or ten people.” It's going to have a lower reward for the researcher, but it's incredibly important.It's equivalent to the color of the envelope in direct marketing. You might run tests — if this were old-style direct marketing — as to whether the envelope should be blue or red. You might find that blue works better. Great, but that's not interesting to an academic. But if you run 50 of these, on a myriad of topics about how to implement better, you end up with a collection of knowledge that is moving the needle on how to achieve more impact per dollar.That collection is not just important for policy: it also helps us learn more about the development process and the bottlenecks for implementing good programs. As we're seeing more digital platforms and data being used, [refining implementation] is more possible compared to 20 years ago, where most of the research was at the intervention level: does this intervention work? That's an exciting transition. It's also a path to seeing how foreign aid can help in individual contexts, [as we] work with local governments to integrate evidence into their operations and be more efficient with their own resources.There's an argument I've seen a lot recently: we under-invest in governance relative to other foreign aid goals. If we care about economic growth and humanitarian outcomes, we should spend a lot more on supporting local governance. What do you make of that claim?I agree with it actually, but there's a big difference between recognizing the problem and seeing what the tool is to address it. It's one thing to say, “Politics matters, institutions matter.” There's lots of evidence to support that, including the recent Nobel Prize. It's another beast to say, “This particular intervention will improve institutions and governance.”The challenge is, “What do we do about this? What is working to improve this? What is resilient to the political process?” The minute you get into those kinds of questions, it's the other end of the spectrum from a cash transfer. A cash transfer has a kind of universality: Not to say you're going to get the same impact everywhere, but it's a bit easier to think about the design of a program. You have fewer parameters to decide. When you think about efforts to improve governance, you need bespoke thinking in every single place.As you point out, it's something of a meme to say “institutions matter” and to leave it at that, but the devil is in all of those details.In my younger years — I feel old saying that — I used to do a lot of work on financial inclusion, and financial literacy was always my go-to example. On a household level, it's really easy to show a correlation: people who are more financially literate make better financial decisions and have more wealth, etc. It's much harder to say, “How do you move the needle on financial literacy in a way that actually helps people make better decisions, absorb shocks better, build investment better, save better?” It's easy to show that the correlation is there. It's much harder to say this program, here, will actually move the needle. That same exact problem is much more complicated when thinking about governance and institutions.Let's talk about USAID as it stands today. You left USAID when it became clear to you that a lot of the work you were doing was not of interest to the people now running it. How did the agency end up so disconnected from a political base of support? There's still plenty of people who support USAID and would like it to be reinstated, but it was at least vulnerable enough to be tipped over by DOGE in a matter of weeks. How did that happen?I don't know that I would agree with the premise. I'm not sure that public support of foreign aid actually changed, I'd be curious to see that. I think aid has always been misunderstood. There are public opinion polls that show people thought 25% of the US budget was spent on foreign aid. One said, "What, do you think it should be?" People said 10%. The right answer is about 0.6%. You could say fine, people are bad at statistics, but those numbers are pretty dauntingly off. I don't know that that's changed. I heard numbers like that years ago.I think there was a vulnerability to an effort that doesn't create a visible impact to people's lives in America, the way that Social Security, Medicare, and roads do. Foreign aid just doesn't have that luxury. I think it's always been vulnerable. It has always had some bipartisan support, because of the understanding of the bigger picture and the soft power that's gained from it. And the recognition that we are a nation built on the idea of generosity and being good to others. That was always there, but it required Congress to step in and say, "Let's go spend this money on foreign aid." I don't think that changed. What changed was that you ended up with an administration that just did not share those values.There's this issue in foreign aid: Congress picks its priorities, but those priorities are not a ranked list of what Congress cares about. It's the combination of different interests and pressures in Congress that generates the list of things USAID is going to fund.You could say doing it that way is necessary to build buy-in from a bunch of different political interests for the work of foreign aid. On the other hand, maybe the emergent list from that process is not the things that are most important to fund. And clearly, that congressional buy-in wasn't enough to protect USAID from DOGE or from other political pressures.How should people who care about foreign aid reason about building a version of USAID that's more effective and less vulnerable at the same time?Fair question. Look, I have thoughts, but by no means do I think of myself as the most knowledgeable person to say, here's the answer in the way forward. One reality is, even if Congress did object, they didn't have a mechanism in place to actually object. They can control the power of the purse the next round, but we're probably going to be facing a constitutional crisis over the Impoundment Act, to see if the executive branch can impound money that Congress spent. We'll see how this plays out. Aside from taking that to court, all Congress could do was complain.I would like what comes back to have two things done that will help, but they don't make foreign aid immune. One is to be more evidence-based, because then attacks on being ineffective are less strong. But the reality is, some of the attacks on its “effectiveness,” and the examples used, had nothing to do with poorly-chosen interventions. There was a slipperiness of language, calling something that they don't like “fraud” and “waste” because they didn't like its purpose. That is very different than saying, “We actually agreed on the purpose of something, but then you implemented it in such a bad way that there was fraud and waste.” There were really no examples given of that second part. So I don't know that being more evidence-based will actually protect it, given that that wasn't the way it was really genuinely taken down.The second is some boundaries. There is a core set of activities that have bipartisan support. How do we structure a foreign aid that is just focused on that? We need to find a way to put the things that are more controversial — whether it's the left or right that wants it — in a separate bucket. Let the team that wins the election turn that off and on as they wish, without adulterating the core part that has bipartisan support. That's the key question: can we set up a process that partitions those, so that they don't have that vulnerability? [I wrote about this problem earlier this year.]My counter-example is PEPFAR, which had a broad base of bipartisan support. PEPFAR consistently got long-term reauthorizations from Congress, I think precisely because of the dynamic you're talking about: It was a focused, specific intervention that folks all over the political spectrum could get behind and save lives. But in government programs, if something has a big base of support, you have an incentive to stuff your pet partisan issues in there, for the same reason that “must-pass” bills get stuffed with everybody's little thing. [In 2024, before DOGE, PEPFAR's original Republican co-sponsor came out against a long-term reauthorization, on the grounds that the Biden administration was using the program to promote abortion. Congress reauthorized PEPFAR for only one year, and that reauthorization lapsed in 2025.]You want to carve out the things that are truly bipartisan. But does that idea have a timer attached? What if, on a long enough timeline, everything becomes politicized?There are economic theorems about the nature of a repeated game. You can get many different equilibria in the long run. I'd like to think there's a world in which that is the answer. But we have seen an erosion of other things, like the filibuster regarding judges. Each team makes a little move in some direction, and then you change the equilibrium. We always have that risk. The goal is, how can you establish something where that doesn't happen?It might be that what's happened is helpful, in an unintended way, to build equilibrium in the future that keeps things focused on the bipartisan aspect. Whether it's the left or the right that wants to do something that they know the other side will object to, they hold back and say, "Maybe we shouldn't do that. Because when we do, the whole thing gets blown up."Let's imagine you're back at USAID a couple of years from now, with a broader latitude to organize our foreign aid apparatus around impact and effectiveness. What other things might we want to do — beyond measuring programs and keeping trade-offs in mind — if we really wanted to focus on effectiveness? Would we do fewer interventions and do them at larger scale?I think we would do fewer things simpler and bigger, but I also think we need to recognize that even at our biggest, we were tiny compared to the budget of the local government. If we can do more to use our money to help them be more effective with their money, that's the biggest win to go for. That starts looking a lot like things Mark Green was putting in place [as administrator of USAID] under Trump I, under the Journey to Self-Reliance [a reorganization of USAID to help countries address development challenges themselves].Sometimes that's done in the context of, "Let's do that for five or ten years, and then we can stop giving aid to that country." That was the way the Millennium Challenge Corporation talked about their country selection initially. Eventually, they stopped doing that, because they realized that that was never happening. I think that's okay. As much as we might help make some changes, even if we succeed in helping the poorest country in the world use their resources better, they're still going to be poor. We're still going to be rich. There's still maybe going to be the poorest, because if we do that in the 10 poorest countries and they all move up, maybe the 11th becomes the poorest, and then we can work there. I don't think getting off of aid is necessarily the objective.But if that was clearly the right answer, that's a huge win if we've done that by helping to prove the institutions and governance of that country so that it is rolling out better policies, helping its people better, and collecting their own tax revenue. If we can have an eye on that, then that's a huge win for foreign aid in general.How are we supposed to be measuring the impact of soft power? I think that's a term that's not now much in vogue in DC.There's no one answer to how to measure soft power. It's described as the influence that we gain in the world in terms of geopolitics, everything from treaties and the United Nations to access to markets; trade policy, labor policy. The basic idea of soft power manifests itself in all those different ways.It's a more extreme version of the challenge of measuring the impact of cash transfers. You want to measure the impact of a pill that is intended to deal with disease: you measure the disease, and you have a direct measure. You want to measure the impact of cash: you have to measure a lot of different things, because you don't know how people are going to use the cash. Soft power is even further down the spectrum: you don't know exactly how aid is helping build our partnership with a country's people and leaders. How is that going to manifest itself in the future? That becomes that much harder to do.Having said that, there's academic studies that document everything from attitudes about America to votes at the United Nations that follow aid, and things of that nature. But it's not like there's one core set: that's part of what makes it a challenge.I will put my cards on the table here: I have been skeptical of the idea that USAID is a really valuable tool for American soft power, for maintaining American hegemony, etc. It seems much easier to defend USAID by simply saying that it does excellent humanitarian work, and that's valuable. The national security argument for USAID seems harder to substantiate.I think we agree on this. You have such a wide set of things to look at, it's not hard to imagine a bias from a researcher might lead to selection of outcomes, and of the context. It's not a well-defined enough concept to be able to say, "It worked 20% of the time, and it did not in these, and the net average…" Average over what? Even though there's good case studies that show various paths where it has mattered, there's case studies that show it doesn't.I also get nervous about an entire system that's built around [attempts to measure soft power]. It turns foreign aid into too much of a transactional process, instead of a relationship that is built on the Golden Rule, “There's people in this country that we can actually help.” Sure, there's this hope that it'll help further our national interests. But if they're suffering from drought and famine, and we can provide support and save some lives, or we can do longer term developments and save tomorrow's lives, we ought to do that. That is a good thing for our country to do.Yet the conversation does often come back to this question of soft power. The problem with transactional is you get exactly what you contract on: nothing more, nothing less. There's too many unknowns here, when we're dealing with country-level interactions, and engagements between countries. It needs to be about relationships, and that means supporting even if there isn't a contract that itemizes the exact quid pro quo we are getting for something.I want to talk about what you observed in the administration change and the DOGE-ing of USAID. I think plenty of observers looked at this in the beginning and thought, “It's high time that a lot of these institutions were cleaned up and that someone took a hard look at how we spend money there.”There was not really any looking at any of the impact of anything. That was never in the cards. There was a 90-day review that was supposed to be done, but there were no questions asked, there was no data being collected. There was nothing whatsoever being looked at that had anything to do with, “Was this award actually accomplishing what it set out to accomplish?” There was no process in which they made those kinds of evaluations on what's actually working.You can see this very clearly when you think about what their bean counter was at DOGE: the spending that they cut. It's like me saying, "I'm going to do something beneficial for my household by stopping all expenditures on food." But we were getting something for that. Maybe we could have bought more cheaply, switched grocery stores, made a change there that got us the same food for less money. That would be a positive change. But you can't cut all your food expenditures, call that a saving, and then not have anything to eat. That's just bad math, bad economics.But that's exactly what they were doing. Throughout the entire government, that bean counter never once said, “benefits foregone.” It was always just “lowered spending.” Some of that probably did actually have a net loss, maybe it was $100 million spent on something that only created $10 million of benefits to Americans. That's a $90 million gain. But it was recorded as $100 million. And the point is, they never once looked at what benefits were being generated from the spending. What was being asked, within USAID, had nothing to do with what was actually being accomplished by any of the money that was being spent. It was never even asked.How do you think about risky bets in a place like USAID? It would be nice for USAID to take lots of high-risk, high-reward bets, and to be willing to spend money that will be “wasted” in the pursuit of high-impact interventions. But that approach is hard for government programs, politically, because the misses are much more salient than the successes.This is a very real issue. I saw this the very first time I did any sort of briefing with Congress when I was Chief Economist. The question came at me, "Why doesn't USAID show us more failures?" I remember thinking to myself, "Are you willing to promise that when they show the failure, you won't punish them for the failure — that you'll reward them for documenting and learning from the failure and not doing it again?" That's a very difficult nut to crack.There's an important distinction to make. You can have a portfolio of evidence generation, some things work and some don't, that can collectively contribute towards knowledge and scaling of effective programs. USAID actually had something like this called Development Innovation Ventures (DIV), and was in an earmark from Congress. It was so good that they raised money from the effective altruist community to further augment their pot of money. This was strong because a lot of it was not evaluating USAID interventions. It was just funding a portfolio of evidence generation about what works, implemented by other parties. The failures aren't as devastating, because you're showing a failure of some other party: it wasn't USAID money paying for an intervention. That was a strong model for how USAID can take on some risks and do some evidence generation that is immune to the issue you just described.If you're going to do evaluations of USAID money, the issue is very real. My overly simplistic view is that a lot of what USAID does should not be getting a highly rigorous impact evaluation. USAID should be rolling out, simple and at scale, things that have already been shown elsewhere. Let the innovation take place pre-USAID, funded elsewhere, maybe by DIV. Let smaller and more nimble nonprofits be the innovators and the documenters of what works. Then, USAID can adopt the things that are more effective and be more immune to this issue.So yeah, there is a world that is not first-best where USAID does the things that have strong evidence already. When it comes to actual innovation, where we do need to take risks that things won't work, let that be done in a way that may be supported by USAID, but partitioned away.I'm looking at a chart of USAID program funding in Fiscal Year 2022: the three big buckets are humanitarian, health, and governance, all on the order of $10–12 billion. Way down at the bottom, there's $500 million for “economic growth.” What's in that bucket that USAID funds, and should that piece of the pie chart be larger?I do think that should be larger, but it depends on how you define it. I don't say that just because I'm an economist. It goes back to the comment earlier about things that we can do to help improve local governance, and how they're using their resources. The kinds of things that might be funded would be efforts to work with local government to improve their ability to collect taxes. Or to set up efficient regulations for the banking industry, so it can grow and provide access to credit and savings. These are things that can help move the needle on macroeconomic outcomes. With that, you have more resources. That helps health and education, you have these downstream impacts. As you pointed out, the earmark on that was tiny. It did not have quite the same heartstring tug. But the logical link is huge and strong: if you strengthen the local government's financial stability, the benefits very much accrue to the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Social Protection, etc.Fighting your way out of poverty through growth is unambiguously good. You can look at many countries around the world that have grown economically, and through that, reduced poverty. But it's one thing to say that growth will alleviate poverty. It's another to say, "Here's aid money that will trigger growth." If we knew how to do that, we would've done it long ago, in a snap.Last question. Let's say it's a clean slate at USAID in a couple years, and you have wide latitude to do things your way. I want the Dean Karlan vision for the future of USAID.It needs to have, at the high level, a recognition that the Golden Rule is an important principle that guides our thinking on foreign aid and that we want to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Being generous as a people is something that we pride ourselves in, our nation represents us as people, so we shouldn't be in any way shy to use foreign aid to further that aspiration of being a generous nation.The actual way of delivering aid, I would say, three things. Simpler. Let's focus on the evidence of what works, but recognize the boundaries of that evidence and how to contextualize it. There is a strong need to understand what it means to be simpler, and how to identify what that means in specific countries and contexts.The second is about leveraging local government, and working more to recognize that, as big as we may be, we're still going to be tiny relative to local government. If we can do more to improve how local government is using its resources, we've won.The third is about finding common ground. There's a lot. That's one of the reasons why I've started working on a consortium with Republicans and Democrats. The things I care about are generally non-partisan. The goal is to take the aspirations that foreign aid has — about improving health, education, economic outcomes, food security, agricultural productivity, jobs, trade, whatever the case is — and how do we use the evidence that's out there to move the needle as much as we can towards those goals? A lot of topics have common ground. How do we set up a foreign aid system that stays true to the common ground? I'd like to think it's not that hard. That's what I think would be great to see happen. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

In a first-of-its-kind decision, an AI company wins a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by authors. It's part of a larger fight that is remaking the internet. This episode was produced by Gabrielle Berbey, edited by Amina Al-Sadi, fact-checked by Rebeca Ibarra, engineered by Patrick Boyd and Andrea Kristinsdottir, and hosted by Sean Rameswaram. Listen to Today, Explained ad-free by becoming a Vox Member: vox.com/members. Transcript at vox.com/today-explained-podcast. Noted fan of the internet Al Gore with his boss at the time, President Bill Clinton. (Photo by Sharon Farmer/White House/Consolidated News Pictures/Getty Images) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Originally coined in the 1990's, the Information Superhighway was a term used to describe digital communication systems that is mostly associated with then Senator and future Vice President Al Gore. The basic idea was to be able to provide access to information to all, no matter what the level of income was. With the explosion of the World Wide Web, essentially, the Internet became the information superhighway. Other resources describe the concept as “…directly connects millions of people, each both a consumer of information and a potential provider…” or “a route or network for the high-speed transfer of information…” or “something that will link every home or office to everything else – movies and television shows, shopping services…” And it changed the world. No one saw it coming, any more than people alive in 1890 anticipated the US Freeway system. With that in mind, today's news cycle gets some context as we talk about all the headlines fit for a Wednesday! We start off with trending news, including the historical 8.8 quake in far eastern Russia. Is it one of the biggest in history as is being claimed? Then we talk about the Trump EU tariff deal and what it means for geopolitics. Tim takes on hurricanes and the frequency of those over the last couple years, and it's probably for a reason you did not expect. We look at an immigration warning for America based on the July deal signed between Starmer and Macron. Finally, AI is spiritual. Sci-Fi has told us it is forever in the future, but truly, it's here -  and we still think it's in the future. A fertile ground for massive deception. Stand Up For The Truth Videos: https://rumble.com/user/CTRNOnline & https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgQQSvKiMcglId7oGc5c46A

Originally coined in the 1990's, the Information Superhighway was a term used to describe digital communication systems that is mostly associated with then Senator and future Vice President Al Gore. The basic idea was to be able to provide access to information to all, no matter what the level of income was. With the explosion of the World Wide Web, essentially, the Internet became the information superhighway. Other resources describe the concept as “…directly connects millions of people, each both a consumer of information and a potential provider…” or “a route or network for the high-speed transfer of information…” or “something that will link every home or office to everything else – movies and television shows, shopping services…” And it changed the world. No one saw it coming, any more than people alive in 1890 anticipated the US Freeway system. With that in mind, today's news cycle gets some context as we talk about all the headlines fit for a Wednesday! We start off with trending news, including the historical 8.8 quake in far eastern Russia. Is it one of the biggest in history as is being claimed? Then we talk about the Trump EU tariff deal and what it means for geopolitics. Tim takes on hurricanes and the frequency of those over the last couple years, and it's probably for a reason you did not expect. We look at an immigration warning for America based on the July deal signed between Starmer and Macron. Finally, AI is spiritual. Sci-Fi has told us it is forever in the future, but truly, it's here -  and we still think it's in the future. A fertile ground for massive deception. Stand Up For The Truth Videos: https://rumble.com/user/CTRNOnline & https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgQQSvKiMcglId7oGc5c46A

John welcomes legendary Democratic strategist Bob Shrum to discuss Donald Trump's inability to extricate himself from the Jeffrey Epstein quagmire and the opportunity for Democrats to weave the story into a broader political narrative. The Los Angeles-based Shrum, who rose to prominence as Ted Kennedy's speechwriter and played a central role on both Al Gore's and John Kerry's presidential campaigns, also offers his take on his state's governor, Gavin Newsom; his city's mayor, Karen Bass; Texas state legislator and rising star James Talarico; and what it will take to make the Democratic Party great again. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

IN US NEWS: Trump is trying everything he can to distract you like talk about NFL and send evil variant of rogue from x-men out to the press so we don't talk about Epstein files.IN POP CULTURE: Conservatives on Jubilee. The Coldplay Kiss Cam Couple! New Reality TV shows! Scheana Shay's hook up list!

Losing the 2000 election was the best thing to happen to Al Gore. He has since become insanely wealthy and admired around the world by peddling climate alarmism. Hollywood gave him an Oscar for his fictitious documentary An Inconvenient Truth, and (like Michael Mann) he claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his environmental activism.Yet despite trillions of dollars in propaganda, there's a sign that Gore's message of doom is in big trouble: He gave a TED Talk attacking “climate realists” by name. That's BIG, folks—it shows that the truth, the data, and reality are winning.The Heartland Institute's Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, Jim Lakely, and our special guest Lois Perry, director of Heartland UK/Europe, will cover some of the breaking and crazy climate news of the week from around the world.Antarctica is gaining ice, defying the predictions of climate doomers. A BBC presenter is worried that climate scientists might be a monolithic ideological bloc. An environmental protection charity in Scotland is finally pushing back against wind power because of how it kills threatened bird species. And a “controlled burn” by our government betters turned into a raging inferno at the Grand Canyon that destroyed a historic building.Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube, Rumble, and X—we'll answer the questions you leave for our panel in the chat! In The Tank broadcasts LIVE every Thursday at 12pm CT on on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Tune in to have your comments addressed live by the In The Tank Crew. Be sure to subscribe and never miss an episode. See you there!Climate Change Roundtable is LIVE every Friday at 12pm CT on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Have a topic you want addressed? Join the live show and leave a comment for our panelists and we'll cover it during the live show!

Losing the 2000 election was the best thing to happen to Al Gore. He has since become insanely wealthy and admired around the world by peddling climate alarmism. Hollywood gave him an Oscar for his fictitious documentary An Inconvenient Truth, and (like Michael Mann) he claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his environmental activism.Yet despite trillions of dollars in propaganda, there's a sign that Gore's message of doom is in big trouble: He gave a TED Talk attacking “climate realists” by name. That's BIG, folks—it shows that the truth, the data, and reality are winning.The Heartland Institute's Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, Jim Lakely, and our special guest Lois Perry, director of Heartland UK/Europe, will cover some of the breaking and crazy climate news of the week from around the world.Antarctica is gaining ice, defying the predictions of climate doomers. A BBC presenter is worried that climate scientists might be a monolithic ideological bloc. An environmental protection charity in Scotland is finally pushing back against wind power because of how it kills threatened bird species. And a “controlled burn” by our government betters turned into a raging inferno at the Grand Canyon that destroyed a historic building.Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube, Rumble, and X—we'll answer the questions you leave for our panel in the chat! In The Tank broadcasts LIVE every Thursday at 12pm CT on on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Tune in to have your comments addressed live by the In The Tank Crew. Be sure to subscribe and never miss an episode. See you there!Climate Change Roundtable is LIVE every Friday at 12pm CT on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Have a topic you want addressed? Join the live show and leave a comment for our panelists and we'll cover it during the live show!

Glenn is shocked to see the day that the Senate passed the bill that will defund NPR and PBS, as the bill now heads to the House. Glenn and Pat further discuss the disconnect between President Trump and his base regarding the Epstein files. When did the whole Epstein files issue begin? Glenn plays a segment from Michelle Obama's podcast, in which she and her husband, Barack, address rumors that they are headed for a divorce. Was this all staged? Glenn and Pat also compare an awkward cheek peck Obama gave Michelle to other awkward kisses in the past few years, including an "icky" one from former VP Al Gore. Glenn examines the Ten Commandments and reveals how they alone can restore our republic. Glenn argues that when America removed the Ten Commandments, it didn't just remove God; it removed the blueprint for civilization. Glenn and Pat discuss the importance of striving to pursue the truth, regardless of the outcome. Our Republic President Justin Haskins joins to discuss how President Trump's tariffs are somehow not driving inflation. Was Glenn Beck wrong when it comes to tariffs? Mercury One executive director J.P. Decker joins to discuss how Mercury One is joining the fight to get the Ten Commandments back into public schools. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

--{ "News is the Most Perfected Form of Fiction"}-- Just a few things to think about regarding the floods in Texas and the Jeffrey Epstein files. Francis Bacon, New Atlantis - Magic, Spells, Change, Chemistry, Alchemy, mRNA - Novus Ordo Seclorum, An Earthly Order - Neocons Praised Obama for Continuing the Agenda They Started - Donald Trump and Iran - Tony Blair - Late 1960s British Television Episode, The News Benders, Donald Pleasance, "The news is the most perfected form of fiction" - Al Gore, An Inconvenient Spoof - The Persona of Jeffrey Epstein - Total Control Over Speech - 5G is Part of the Whole New Way of Living - Manipulation of Psyche and Emotions - Abortion, Euthanasia - Crowds are Easy to Create - The Money System - Farming - Energy, Technocracy - The Georgia Guidestones - Infertility in the West.

Jonah Goldberg and Remnant guest emeritus Chris Stirewalt are coming to you live from a necrophiliac brothel in Rangoon (more commonly referred to as the American Enterprise Institute) to school the children, pontificate on the problem with third parties and why America owes Al Gore an apology, and take a walk down Declaration of Independence lane. Show Notes:—Vintage Jonah for National Review: “Is Gore An Alien?”—Jonah's installment in The Dispatch's The Next 250 series—Chris Stirewalt on Calvin Coolidge—Calvin Coolidge, “Address at the Celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration” The Remnant is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Jonah's G-File newsletter, regular livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When Friends Flip Out: How Much Is Too Much? | Aging, Diet Myths & Climate Chaos

Aaron McIntire examines the fading grip of climate alarmism, from the 1970s global cooling fears to Al Gore's warming predictions and Greta Thunberg's emotional outbursts over "climate change." Joined by Dr. Cal Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance, they discuss why climate models fail, why human flourishing trumps catastrophic narratives, and how developing nations prioritize energy over alarmist policies. Plus, a look at the Cornwall Alliance's book, Climate and Energy: The Case for Realism.   AM Update, Aaron McIntire, climate change, global warming, Greta Thunberg, Al Gore, Cornwall Alliance, Cal Beisner, human flourishing, energy policy, climate models, CO2

In this urgent and hard-hitting talk, Nobel Laureate Al Gore thoroughly dismantles the fossil fuel industry's narrative of "climate realism," contrasting their misleading claims with the remarkable advancements in renewable energy. Drawing on data showing clear signs of progress across the world, Gore makes a powerful case that we already have everything needed to solve the climate crisis — and reminds us of what the most valuable renewable resource actually is.Want to help shape TED's shows going forward? Fill out our survey!Learn more about TED Next at ted.com/futureyouFor the Idea Search application, go to ted.com/ideasearch Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Send us a textMike Nellis is the founder of Authentic, a digital fundraising firm that's raised over $1 billion for it's clients including Kamala Harris, Adam Schiff and numerous Governors, Senators, and high profile organizations. He was also a Senior Advisor to Kamala Harris 2020 presidential campaign, the co-founder of White Dudes for Harris in the 2024 presidential campaign, and an active thinker and leader on how progressive politics has to evolve in a changing world.IN THIS EPISODEGrowing up in a conservative, middle class home in Omaha...Anti-Iraq War protests draw Mike into political activism...Mike's time as an Obama volunteer and fellow in the '07-'08 Iowa Caucus...On the campaign trail from Nebraska to North Carolina to Connecticut and more...Mike's connection to the 2016 Bernie Sanders' campaign...Mike's take on why a full primary would've helped the Kamala Harris' 24 presidential effort...Mike founds Authentic, a firm focused on online fundraising...Mike's time as a Senior Advisor to Kamala Harris 2020 presidential bid...Behind the scenes of designing the Harris' 2020 logo...Mike's recent focus as a General Consultant for campaigns...Why Democrats have become so risk-averse?Mike co-founds the White Dudes for Harris 2024 group...What Democrats must do to better appeal to younger men...The right balance of economics vs culture in Democratic campaigns...Should messaging and governance go big or go small?Where do Democrats need to move to the center?Mike's encouragement for those working in politics to stay healthy...AND...90s pro wrestling, AKAs, Avon, Brene Brown, George W. Bush, Pete Buttigieg, Carter Lake, James Carville, Bob Casey, Shirley Chisolm, Bill Clinton, John Fetterman, Flagrant, Scott Galloway, Jared Golden, Al Gore, Nikki Haley, hollowed-out banks, John Kerry, Larry King, Jane Kleeb, Scott Kleeb, Dan Malloy, Joe Manchin, Elaine Marshall, Ross Morales Rocketto, Morningside University, Elon Musk, music appreciation class, Trevor Noah, Martin O'Malley, Orange Theory, Ben Ostrower, Jordan Peterson, Ro Khanna, Chris Rock, Joe Rogan, Pat Ryan, Adam Schiff, Lis Smith, Tim Tagaris, Andrew Tate, Vampire Weekend, Theo Von, Tim Walz, Paul Wellstone, Wide Eye Creative & more!

This week on Mea Culpa, Michael finds himself at peak frustration as the Trump Train barrels this country towards oblivion. How can a nation that is built upon reason find itself in such an unreasonable position, where a two-bit, wannabe despot can work the corners of our legal system to halt the entire transition of power? With the country exhausted from the trauma of this never ending election and the looming specter of death from COVID, we all are stuck in a terrible limbo. Searching for answers and rational thought, Michael speaks with Harvard University Professor of Constitutional Law, Laurence Tribe. One of the main architects of Al Gore's recount fight from the 2000 election, Tribe has argued 35 cases in front of the Supreme Court and finds himself mired in the current mess; advising the Biden team from afar as one frivolous lawsuit after another is filed. His words provide a balm for the ever present irritation of Trump and his team of legal crows. Also, make sure to check o... This week on Mea Culpa, Michael finds himself at peak frustration as the Trump Train barrels this country towards oblivion. How can a nation that is built upon reason find itself in such an unreasonable position, where a two-bit, wannabe despot can work the corners of our legal system to halt the entire transition of power? With the country exhausted from the trauma of this never ending election and the looming specter of death from COVID, we all are stuck in a terrible limbo. Searching for answers and rational thought, Michael speaks with Harvard University Professor of Constitutional Law, Laurence Tribe. One of the main architects of Al Gore's recount fight from the 2000 election, Tribe has argued 35 cases in front of the Supreme Court and finds himself mired in the current mess; advising the Biden team from afar as one frivolous lawsuit after another is filed. His words provide a balm for the ever present irritation of Trump and his team of legal crows. Also, make sure to check out Mea Culpa: The Election Essays for the definitive political document of 2020. Fifteen chapters of raw and honest political writings on Donald Trump from the man who knows him best. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08M5VKQ6T/ For cool Mea Culpa gear, check out www.meaculpapodcast.com/merch To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Congressman Jared Moskowitz: Pro-Israel, Proudly Jewish, and Unapologetically Honest | Behind the Bima

Trump is sending a clear message: he's not going away quietly. “ If you read The Washington Post, even The Wall Street Journal, but especially The New York Times, the question is, can MAGA survive after Trump steps down? “ There's arguments on both sides whether a popular movement can survive its creators. …   Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 to succeed him. And what did Barack Obama do? He repudiated Clintonism and the Democratic Leadership Council. And he went hard to the Left. And the result of that is we got a destroyed or an irrelevant Democratic Party.” 00:00 Introduction: Is Trump a Lame Duck? 00:23 Trump's Media Trolling and Third Term Speculation 01:29 Historical Context: Movements and Their Leaders 01:52 Reaganism and Its Aftermath 02:49 Clintonism and Obama's Shift 03:28 The Future of MAGA: DeSantis and Beyond 05:46 Conclusion: The Enduring MAGA Ideology Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks about CNN's Scott Jennings sparring with Gene Rossi and Abby Phillip about FBI Director Kash Patel's announcement of the arrest of Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan for intentionally misleading ICE agents while trying to arrest an illegal immigrant after his court hearing; Axios' Alex Thompson trying to deflect blame for the mainstream media's blatant denial of Joe Biden's cognitive decline at the White House Correspondents Dinner; the EPA's Lee Zeldin fact-checking a New York Times reporter to her face by re-reading her own words back to her; Michelle Obama's brother, Craig Robinson, mocking her claim of being a regular person in front of a live crowd; Megyn Kelly's savage response to George Clooney saying she isn't a journalist; Al Gore getting a wake-up call during his “Real Time with Bill Maher” appearance where Maher gave him a reality check on what Americans are ignoring global elites like him; and much more. WATCH the MEMBER-EXCLUSIVE segment of the show here: https://rubinreport.locals.com/ Check out the NEW RUBIN REPORT MERCH here: https://daverubin.store/ ---------- Today's Sponsors: Rumble Premium - Corporate America is fighting to remove speech, Rumble is fighting to keep it. If you really believe in this fight Rumble is offering $10 off with the promo code RUBIN when you purchase an annual subscription. Go to: https://Rumble.com/premium/RUBIN and use promo code RUBIN Kalshi - The first and only legal place in the U.S. where you can trade on the outcome of real-world events. Get a free $10 credit when you trade $100! Go to https://kalshi.com/rubin and download the app Tax Network USA - If you owe back taxes or have unfiled returns, don't let the government take advantage of you. Whether you owe a few thousand or a few million, they can help you. Call 1(800)-958-1000 for a private, free consultation or Go to: https://tnusa.com/dave Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bill's guests are Al Gore, Sen. Adam Schiff, Bret Stephens (Originally aired 4/25/25) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Segment 1 • The death of the Pope signals the likely election of a liberal leader. • The papacy's doctrinal errors, based on tradition and magisterium, mislead millions about salvation. • Softened evangelical perspectives, like Russell Moore's, fail to address the papacy's eternal consequences. Segment 2 • Melito of Sardis' 2nd-century sermon contrasts with today's shallow Easter preaching. • Modern sermons are moralistic, neglecting the true gospel of Christ's sacrifice. • A return to gospel-centered, Christ-focused preaching is essential to understand Easter's real significance. Segment 3 • 90% of pastors affirm climate change, but many Christians are unsure about the issue. • Dr. Jason Lisle tackles climate change from a biblical and scientific perspective in a Fortis webinar. • The narrative of human-caused climate change is shaky, with natural cycles and past periods of warming showing no human influence. Segment 4 • Al Gore's climate predictions failed, and the sun's cycles are a bigger factor in climate changes. • Water vapor and clouds, not CO2, account for 75% of the greenhouse effect. • The human contribution to CO2 is small, and the panic surrounding it is built on weak claims. – Preorder the new book, Lies My Therapist Told Me, by Fortis Institute Fellow Dr. Greg Gifford now! https://www.harpercollins.com/pages/liesmytherapisttoldme – Thanks for listening! Wretched Radio would not be possible without the financial support of our Gospel Partners. If you would like to support Wretched Radio we would be extremely grateful. VISIT https://fortisinstitute.org/donate/ If you are already a Gospel Partner we couldn't be more thankful for you if we tried!

Pope Jeffy??? Time to pay off those student loans! Are tariff deals around the corner? China coming to the table on trade? JFK and RFK files have been released, but where are the Epstein files? Al Gore goes after the Trump administration and pulls out the Nazi comparison … of course. YouTube turns 20 years old today! Have scientists discovered a new color? China plasters solar panels all over a mountainside, but how much power is produced? Community service and diversion program for Tesla vandal in Minnesota. Introducing the Chewbacca defense in the Frisco, Texas, stabbing case. Was Joe Biden photoshopped into the Biden family Easter photo? Another male claiming to be trans in a women's locker room. 00:00 Pat Gray UNLEASHED 00:18 Pat's Mouse is Dead 00:35 Pope Jeffy Maximus 07:41 Fed Govt. to Collect Student Loan Payments 10:52 White House Updates on Tariffs Deals 13:36 China is Ready to Make a Deal with America 15:05 Trump on Epstein Files 19:47 Trump Explains China's Deal 22:13 Earth Day Celebrations in San Francisco 27:18 Al Gore Compares Trump to Hitler? 30:35 Chewing the Fat 49:56 Our Power, Our Planet Week 58:43 Update on Tesla Vandalism 1:07:38 "The Chewbacca Defense" 1:12:19 Glenn Beck with Steve Bannon 1:16:41 Joe Biden Photoshop? 1:20:08 More Food-Dyes getting Banned in the USA 1:23:09 Pat Gray BINGO! Winner 1:24:44 Another YMCA Incident in Kansas City 1:29:55 Nancy Mace "Tranny! Tranny! Tranny!" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices