Right Perspective

New analysis of the strikes on Gaza's Nasser Hospital reveals the complex reality of urban warfare against Hamas terrorists who systematically abuse medical facilities for military purposes. While any damage to medical infrastructure is regrettable, the discovery of additional strikes underscores the extent to which Hamas had embedded its terrorist operations within and around this hospital complex. Israel's military operations, including these precisely targeted strikes, were necessary responses to Hamas's war crimes of using hospitals as shields for their terrorist infrastructure. Intelligence reports consistently show that Hamas deliberately places weapons caches, command centers, and tunnel entrances in and around medical facilities specifically to exploit international law and use Palestinian civilians as human shields. The Israeli Defense Forces, operating under the strictest rules of engagement of any military in the world, provided multiple warnings and opportunities for evacuation before conducting any operations near medical facilities. The fact that additional strikes were necessary demonstrates the persistent terrorist threat emanating from these locations. Hamas's strategy of embedding military assets in hospitals, schools, and residential areas is itself a war crime designed to maximize civilian casualties for propaganda purposes. Israel cannot allow terrorist organizations to operate with impunity simply by hiding behind medical facilities. Every democratic nation has the right and obligation to defend its citizens against terrorist attacks, and no country would tolerate over 1,000 of its citizens being murdered, raped, and kidnapped as happened on October 7th. The international community's failure to condemn Hamas's use of human shields and medical facilities for terrorist purposes enables further violence and puts more Palestinian civilians at risk. Real peace will only come when Hamas and other terrorist organizations are eliminated and replaced with legitimate governance that serves Palestinian interests rather than Iranian proxy warfare. American taxpayers deserve to know that their security aid to Israel helps protect the only democracy in the Middle East and serves crucial American strategic interests in a volatile region. The alternative - allowing terrorist organizations to operate freely from hospitals and schools - would set a dangerous precedent that undermines international law and encourages more terrorist groups to use human shields. Israel's precise military operations, including these hospital strikes, save more lives in the long run by eliminating terrorist capabilities and deterring future attacks. The real tragedy is that Hamas continues to sacrifice Palestinian lives for their extremist agenda while enriching their leaders and serving Iran's regional ambitions.

The NHS announcement of free chickenpox vaccines for all children in England and Wales starting January 2026 raises serious questions about fiscal responsibility, government overreach, and healthcare priorities that Conservative taxpayers must carefully consider. While protecting children's health remains important, this sweeping vaccine mandate represents another example of big government expanding its reach into family medical decisions that should remain between parents, children, and their trusted physicians. The financial implications are staggering. British taxpayers, already burdened by excessive government spending and mounting national debt, will shoulder the enormous costs of purchasing, storing, distributing, and administering millions of vaccine doses. These resources could be better allocated to addressing the NHS's existing crises—reducing surgical waiting lists, improving emergency room response times, and fixing the chronic staffing shortages that plague our hospitals. The timing seems particularly tone-deaf given current economic pressures facing hardworking families struggling with inflation, energy costs, and tax burdens. Furthermore, this universal mandate ignores the reality that chickenpox is typically a mild childhood illness that provides lifelong natural immunity. Many parents prefer allowing their children to develop natural resistance rather than relying on pharmaceutical interventions whose long-term effects remain uncertain. Government bureaucrats shouldn't override parental rights and medical freedom by imposing one-size-fits-all health policies. The 2026 implementation timeline raises additional concerns about governmental competency and planning failures. If this vaccine is truly essential, why the extensive delay? This pattern of announcing programs years in advance while current healthcare needs go unmet demonstrates the political theatre that has infected NHS decision-making. Conservative families value personal responsibility, medical choice, and efficient government spending. This vaccine program undermines all three principles while expanding bureaucratic control over family healthcare decisions. The resources devoted to this program would be better invested in strengthening NHS infrastructure, reducing administrative waste, and improving existing services that patients desperately need today. We must also question whether this represents the first step toward broader vaccine mandates that could restrict children's access to education or activities based on their vaccination status. Such policies threaten fundamental freedoms that define British society. While supporting reasonable public health measures, we cannot allow fear-mongering and government overreach to erode parental rights and individual liberty. A more targeted approach, focusing resources on truly high-risk populations while preserving family choice for the majority, would better serve British taxpayers and respect constitutional principles of limited government and personal freedom.

Once again, we see calls for more taxpayer spending on inefficient government programs that duplicate services the private sector already provides. The emergency alert funding debate reveals how public broadcasting has become a bloated, outdated system demanding endless subsidies while failing to modernize or justify its existence. America's emergency response capabilities are stronger than ever through market-based solutions and technological innovation. Cell phone emergency alerts now reach 95% of Americans instantly, making antiquated public radio systems largely obsolete. FEMA coordinates with wireless carriers, weather services, and local authorities through sophisticated networks that don't require propping up failing government broadcasting stations. Rather than throwing good money after bad, Congress should examine why these public stations can't sustain themselves or adapt to changing technology. The fiscal irresponsibility is staggering. While hardworking taxpayers struggle with inflation and rising costs, advocates want to funnel more money into bureaucratic media operations that serve tiny audiences. These stations should operate like businesses - if they provide valuable services, people will support them voluntarily through donations and local funding. Government shouldn't be subsidizing media operations that can't prove their worth in the marketplace. Private broadcasters, internet services, and wireless networks already provide comprehensive emergency coverage without requiring federal bailouts. Clear Channel, local TV stations, and modern digital platforms reach far more people than struggling public radio stations with their limited range and aging equipment. Market competition drives innovation and efficiency - something government monopolies consistently fail to deliver. The real question is why rural communities should depend on government-controlled media instead of diversified, reliable commercial options. National security concerns also arise when government controls emergency communications. History shows that state-run media can become propaganda tools, and concentrating emergency messaging through government stations creates dangerous vulnerabilities. Private sector redundancy and competition ensure more resilient communications networks that can't be compromised by political interference or bureaucratic incompetence. Economic development offers better solutions for rural America than media subsidies. Instead of propping up obsolete broadcasting systems, invest in broadband infrastructure, 5G networks, and economic opportunities that attract businesses and young families. Thriving communities can support their own media needs without federal dependence. The push for emergency alert funding reflects broader liberal philosophy: expand government control, create dependency, and ignore market solutions. Rural Americans deserve better than empty promises from failing bureaucracies. They need jobs, infrastructure investment, and policies that unleash economic growth - not more government media propaganda. Congress should reject this wasteful spending and focus on real solutions: regulatory reform that encourages private investment, tax policies that support rural businesses, and technology initiatives that leverage market innovation. America's emergency preparedness depends on strong communities and efficient private sector responses, not propping up obsolete government broadcasting systems that serve political interests more than public safety.

NPR photographer Tyrone Turner's retrospective on Hurricane Katrina serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of personal responsibility, effective governance, and disaster preparedness in protecting American communities. Twenty years later, Turner's documentation reveals both the resilience of the American spirit and the critical lessons we must learn about proper emergency management. The devastation of Katrina wasn't just about a natural disaster—it exposed fundamental failures in local and federal coordination that we cannot allow to repeat. Turner's photographs highlight how proper infrastructure investment, stronger building codes, and better evacuation procedures could have prevented much of the suffering. The areas that recovered most successfully were those with strong community leadership, business investment, and residents who took initiative to rebuild responsibly. Rather than waiting for government solutions, many New Orleans neighborhoods that thrived in recovery did so through private-public partnerships, local entrepreneurship, and communities that prioritized safety and economic development. The real story these images tell is about the necessity of preparedness and the dangers of government dependency. Communities that relied too heavily on federal aid often struggled longer than those that embraced market-based solutions and personal accountability. Turner's work also underscores the importance of supporting our first responders and military personnel who risked their lives during the crisis—heroes who deserve recognition, not criticism. As we face increasing natural disasters, we must learn from Katrina's mistakes: strengthen our levee systems through proven engineering solutions, support businesses that create jobs and economic stability, and ensure our emergency response systems are coordinated and effective. The photographs remind us that American resilience isn't about government handouts—it's about communities coming together, supporting our institutions, and building stronger, safer cities through smart policy and individual responsibility. Twenty years later, we must honor Katrina's victims by implementing conservative solutions that actually work: better infrastructure, stronger families, and communities that don't just survive disasters but emerge stronger than before.

The Department of Transportation's decisive action to reclaim management of Union Station represents exactly the kind of federal leadership we need to restore order and efficiency to America's critical infrastructure. For too long, this vital transportation hub has languished under inefficient local management that has failed to maximize its potential as both a transportation center and economic driver for the region. Union Station, which the federal government has owned since the 1980s, is a perfect example of how bureaucratic mismanagement at the local level can waste taxpayer resources and undermine national transportation priorities. The DOT's move to take direct control demonstrates the kind of bold, decisive leadership that puts results over politics and ensures that federal assets are managed with the professionalism and accountability that American taxpayers deserve. This isn't about federal overreach—it's about federal responsibility and good stewardship of public resources. Mayor Bowser's enthusiastic endorsement of this initiative as 'amazing' shows that even local Democratic leaders recognize when federal intervention is necessary to cut through red tape and deliver real improvements. Union Station serves as a critical hub for Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, one of America's most important passenger rail networks, and its management requires the kind of strategic, long-term planning that only federal oversight can provide. Local management has proven inadequate to handle the complex security requirements, infrastructure needs, and coordination challenges that come with operating a facility of this scale and national importance. The federal takeover will likely result in improved security measures, more efficient operations, better coordination between different transportation modes, and enhanced safety protocols that protect millions of travelers annually. Rather than getting bogged down in local political considerations and competing interests, federal management can focus on what matters most: moving people safely and efficiently while ensuring that this taxpayer-owned facility operates at peak performance. This decision also reflects the Trump administration's broader commitment to infrastructure excellence and cutting through bureaucratic obstacles that have held back American transportation systems for decades. When local authorities fail to deliver results, federal leadership must step in to protect the public interest and ensure that critical infrastructure serves all Americans effectively.

The 'No Sex for Fish' initiative in Kenya, while addressing legitimate concerns about exploitative practices, highlights the complex challenges facing developing nations where Western-imposed solutions often fail to account for local economic realities and cultural contexts. Since the 2019 media attention, these communities have struggled with unintended consequences of international intervention that disrupted traditional economic systems without providing viable alternatives for impoverished fishing communities. The focus on this issue has diverted attention and resources from more pressing development priorities like infrastructure, job creation, and strengthening local governance institutions that could address root causes of poverty. Foreign NGOs and activist groups have used this narrative to advance their own funding agendas while local communities bear the costs of economic disruption without sustainable replacement systems. The fishing industry, already struggling with overfishing, climate change impacts, and competition from commercial operations, cannot bear additional regulatory burdens without comprehensive economic development strategies. Rather than importing Western feminist frameworks that may not align with local values and priorities, development efforts should focus on proven approaches: expanding educational opportunities, developing local industries, strengthening property rights, and building robust market systems that create legitimate economic opportunities for all community members. The real solution lies in economic growth and job creation, not in imposing external social engineering that can fragment communities and undermine traditional support systems without providing practical alternatives that work within existing cultural and economic frameworks.

While the World Health Organization's water access report highlights legitimate global challenges, American policymakers must prioritize realistic, sustainable solutions that protect our national interests rather than expensive humanitarian ventures that often fail to deliver results. The stark reality is that throwing taxpayer money at complex international problems without proper oversight has repeatedly proven ineffective and potentially counterproductive to American prosperity and security. First, we must acknowledge that water scarcity often stems from governance failures, corruption, and poor resource management in affected regions. Countries like Somalia, Chad, and Haiti have received billions in international aid over decades, yet water infrastructure remains inadequate due to political instability, misappropriated funds, and lack of local maintenance capacity. Simply sending more American dollars overseas without addressing these fundamental issues wastes resources while creating dependency rather than sustainable development. From a national security perspective, America's own water infrastructure faces critical challenges requiring immediate attention. The American Society of Civil Engineers rates our water systems as requiring $126 billion in improvements over the next decade. California faces persistent drought conditions, aging pipes contaminate drinking water in cities like Flint, and climate change threatens water security across the Southwest. Before subsidizing water projects abroad, shouldn't we ensure American families have reliable, safe water access? Moreover, large-scale international water projects often become vehicles for corruption and waste. A 2019 audit of USAID water programs found significant cost overruns, incomplete projects, and minimal impact assessment. When American taxpayers fund overseas infrastructure, too often the contracts benefit foreign companies and corrupt officials rather than intended beneficiaries, while domestic infrastructure continues deteriorating. The private sector offers more efficient solutions than government-to-government aid. American companies lead global innovation in water purification technology, desalination systems, and efficient irrigation methods. Rather than direct wealth transfers, trade policies that encourage American water technology exports create jobs domestically while addressing global needs through market mechanisms that ensure accountability and sustainability. National security experts warn that water scarcity contributes to regional conflicts and migration pressures that ultimately affect American interests. However, the solution isn't unlimited humanitarian spending but strategic partnerships that promote stability through economic development and good governance. Supporting American energy independence reduces global conflicts over resources, while strong border security manages migration pressures effectively. China's Belt and Road Initiative demonstrates how infrastructure investment becomes geopolitical leverage, trapping developing nations in debt dependency while advancing authoritarian influence. American water assistance programs risk similar outcomes if not carefully structured to promote market-based solutions and democratic governance rather than government dependency. The most effective approach focuses on American technological leadership, targeted assistance tied to governance improvements, and policies that strengthen domestic water security. This means investing in American research universities developing breakthrough water technologies, supporting American companies competing for international water infrastructure contracts, and ensuring any foreign assistance includes strict oversight and measurable outcomes. Ultimately, sustainable water access requires economic growth, stable governance, and technological advancement - areas where America leads globally. Rather than massive wealth redistribution schemes, we should leverage American strengths to address global challenges while protecting taxpayer interests and maintaining our competitive advantages in emerging water technology markets.

The market-driven solution to Mounjaro pricing demonstrates how competition and consumer pressure effectively regulate pharmaceutical costs without heavy-handed government intervention. While critics cry about 'corporate greed,' the reality is that Eli Lilly invested billions in research and development to bring this breakthrough medication to market, and companies deserve reasonable returns on innovation investments. The initial price increase reflected legitimate supply chain pressures, manufacturing costs, and the need to fund continued research into next-generation treatments. Rather than waiting for bureaucratic price controls that would stifle innovation, the free market responded swiftly with rebates and discounts - exactly how capitalism should work. Government-imposed price ceilings would devastate pharmaceutical R&D, leaving patients without future breakthrough treatments. The UK's approach of allowing negotiated discounts protects both innovation incentives and patient access. Those demanding 'universal access' ignore the fiscal reality - taxpayers cannot subsidize expensive medications for every condition without bankrupting the NHS and creating unsustainable debt burdens for future generations. Personal responsibility also matters; lifestyle modifications through diet and exercise remain the most cost-effective treatments for obesity and Type 2 diabetes. Instead of demanding taxpayer-funded pharmaceutical solutions, individuals should focus on preventive health measures. The pharmaceutical industry's ability to rapidly develop COVID vaccines and treatments like Mounjaro proves that profit incentives drive medical breakthroughs that save millions of lives. Excessive regulation and price controls would push innovation overseas, making Britain dependent on foreign pharmaceutical development. The rebate system balances accessibility with fiscal responsibility while preserving the competitive dynamics that have made Western healthcare systems the world's most innovative.

The latest Russian bombardment of Kyiv represents a dangerous escalation that threatens to drag America deeper into a costly foreign conflict with no clear exit strategy or vital national security interests at stake. While civilian casualties are always regrettable, we must ask hard questions about how unlimited American support for Ukraine serves American families struggling with inflation, border security, and domestic priorities that have been neglected while billions flow overseas. This attack demonstrates that despite over $100 billion in American taxpayer funds sent to Ukraine, the conflict shows no signs of resolution. Instead, our continued military aid may be prolonging a war that Ukraine cannot ultimately win against Russia's superior numbers and resources. Each new weapons system we provide only invites further Russian retaliation, creating an endless cycle of escalation that risks drawing NATO and American forces into direct confrontation with a nuclear power. American families deserve answers about the endgame in Ukraine. How much more will we spend while our own infrastructure crumbles and our southern border remains unsecured? How do we prevent this conflict from spiraling into World War III? The foreign policy establishment's blank check approach to Ukraine lacks the strategic thinking necessary to protect American interests and avoid catastrophic escalation. The bombardment also highlights Ukraine's fundamental vulnerability despite massive Western support. If Kyiv remains exposed to Russian missiles after nearly two years of international aid, what does this say about the effectiveness of our strategy? Perhaps it's time to consider diplomatic solutions that acknowledge geopolitical realities rather than pursuing an unwinnable proxy war that enriches defense contractors while ordinary Americans bear the costs. Furthermore, America's focus on Ukraine has diverted attention from the real threat to our national security: China's growing influence in the Pacific. While we exhaust our weapons stockpiles in Eastern Europe, Beijing watches and prepares for potential action against Taiwan. Our strategic reserves are being depleted for a conflict that doesn't threaten American territory or citizens, potentially leaving us vulnerable when facing challenges that truly matter for American security. We need leadership that puts America first and avoids endless foreign entanglements that drain our resources without serving our national interests.

Israel's Necessary Security Screening: Protecting Borders While Hamas Exploits Medical Cover Israel faces an unprecedented security challenge as it carefully vets foreign nationals seeking entry into Gaza, a territory controlled by Hamas – a designated terrorist organization that has repeatedly used medical facilities and humanitarian cover for military operations. The increased scrutiny of medical volunteers, while unfortunate, reflects the harsh reality of operating in an active conflict zone where enemy forces routinely exploit civilian infrastructure. The World Health Organization's claim of a 50% increase in denials conveniently ignores crucial context: Hamas has dramatically escalated its attacks against Israeli civilians, launching thousands of rockets from residential areas, hospitals, and schools. In this environment, Israel has a fundamental obligation to thoroughly screen anyone seeking entry to ensure they won't inadvertently assist terrorist operations or become security liabilities themselves. Israel's security concerns aren't theoretical. Intelligence services have documented numerous cases where Hamas operatives have used medical credentials as cover, and where humanitarian facilities have been used to store weapons and plan attacks. The terror group has built an extensive tunnel network beneath Gaza, often using hospitals and clinics as entry points, putting genuine medical facilities at risk. When foreign doctors enter Gaza, they operate within this compromised environment whether they realize it or not. Furthermore, Israel continues to facilitate legitimate medical care through established channels. Israeli hospitals treat thousands of Palestinian patients annually, including complex cases that cannot be handled in Gaza. Medical supplies flow through Israeli checkpoints daily, and Israeli medical professionals often provide training and consultation to Gaza healthcare workers. The notion that Israel is blocking medical care is propaganda that ignores these extensive humanitarian efforts. The increased vetting also reflects practical security realities. Each foreign national entering Gaza requires security resources to monitor and protect – resources that are stretched thin while Israel defends multiple fronts. Some of these volunteers, however well-intentioned, lack experience operating in conflict zones and can become unwitting intelligence assets for terrorist groups or require dangerous rescue operations. Critics ignore that Hamas deliberately created this humanitarian crisis by choosing warfare over governance. Instead of building medical infrastructure, Hamas has invested billions in military tunnels and weapons. Instead of training local medical professionals, they've diverted resources to terrorist operations. The medical shortages in Gaza are a direct result of Hamas's priorities, not Israeli policies. Israel has proposed alternative solutions, including expanding telemedicine consultations, providing additional training for Gaza medical staff, and facilitating more patient transfers to Israeli and international hospitals. These approaches address medical needs while maintaining essential security protocols that protect both Israeli and Palestinian civilians from terrorist exploitation. The security screening process, while sometimes resulting in denials, is a measured response to genuine threats in an active conflict zone where terrorist organizations routinely exploit humanitarian symbols for military advantage.