College Basketball Coach Directly Calls Out Former U.S. President Barack Obama
Former President Barack Obama was publicly called out this week by one of the top coaches in college basketball.
Two days ago, Obama posted a New York Times article about the children in Gaza being impacted by this war along with this message: "While a lasting resolution to the crisis in Gaza must involve a return of all hostages and a cessation of Israel's military operations, these articles underscore the immediate need for action to be taken to prevent the travesty of innocent people dying of preventable starvation."
Clearly, that message didn't sit well with Auburn head coach Bruce Pearl. He responded to Obama's social media post, accusing the 44th U.S. president of setting this chaos into motion.
"You gave billions to Iran and Hamas creating this mess and not one word from you calling for THEM to release the hostages, surrender and end the War," Pearl wrote on X. "Tell Hamas to 1) Quit stealing and reselling aid 2) Stop attacking GHF workers who are feeding Gazans. 3) Leave and end suffering."
Pearl has been very vocal about the conflict in the Gaza Strip and Israel over the past few months.
During the NCAA men's tournament, Pearl called for the release of Edan Alexander, a 21-year-old Israeli-American soldier who was held hostage by Hamas.
"I get asked a lot how this basketball program has become so competitive over the last eight years," Pearl said. "But for me, I believe it was God's plan to give us this success, success beyond what we deserve. To give us this platform. To give us an opportunity to start this conference briefly and remind the world that Edan Alexander is still held hostage in Gaza right now. An American held hostage and not enough people in this country know his name."
Alexander reunited with his loved ones in New Jersey in June. He grew up in Tenafly before moving to Israel.
As you can tell from Pearl's recent social media post, Alexander's release hasn't stopped him from talking about the conflict in Gaza.
College Basketball Coach Directly Calls Out Former U.S. President Barack Obama first appeared on The Spun on Jul 29, 2025
This story was originally reported by The Spun on Jul 29, 2025, where it first appeared.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
14 minutes ago
- New York Post
Miss United States Lindsey Langston accuses Rep. Cory Mills of threatening to publish her nude pics, sex videos
WASHINGTON — The reigning Miss United States is accusing Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.) of threatening to make public sex videos and nude pictures of her — and 'harm any men' she went out with in the future — after she ended their relationship earlier this year upon finding out he was seeing another woman. Lindsey Langston, who was crowned in October, reported the shocking sextortion attempt by Mills, 45, to the Columbia (Fla.) County Sheriff's Office July 14, according to a document obtained by The Post. 'Since February 20th of 2025, Cory has contacted Lindsey numerous times on numerous different accounts threatening to release nude images and videos of her, to include recorded videos of her and Cory engaging in sexual acts,' the report stated. 4 Miss United States pageant winner Lindsey Langston alleged the shocking sextortion attempt by Mills, 45, to the Columbia County Sheriff's Office in Florida on July 14. Lindsey Langston / X 'The threats were made when Cory believed Lindsey to have other romantic partners in her life after the breakup.' Langston, 25, provided screenshots of text and Instagram messages from Mills that were later entered into evidence and 'forwarded to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for further review,' according to a spokesman for the sheriff's office. Anthony Sabatini, an attorney who represented Langston briefly and challenged Mills in a 2022 GOP primary, published at least three of the purported messages on X Wednesday, saying they were 'a criminal violation of Florida's sexual extortion statute 836.05—a 2nd degree felony.' 4 'The threats were made when Cory believed Lindsey to have other romantic partners in her life after the breakup,' the police report stated. Columbia County SO 'I can send him a few videos of you as well,' Mills allegedly taunted his ex in one exchange. 'Oh, I still have them.' Mills and Langston, a GOP state committeewoman, had been dating since November 2021 and sharing a house in New Smyrna Beach, Fla., since May 2024 after the congressman claimed he finalized his divorce from estranged wife Rana Al Saadi. But in February 2025, Sarah Raviani, an Iranian-American Republican activist, revealed her 'significant other for over a year' had 'grabbed her, shoved her, and pushed her out of the door' at the same location as Mills' Washington, DC, penthouse apartment, according to a police incident report reviewed by NBC Washington. Raviani — who was left with 'bruises on her arm which appeared fresh,' according to the report filed with the Metropolitan Police Department — declined to press charges and later issued a statement calling the incident 'a personal matter' and added that she was 'severely jet-lagged,' 'had been drinking' and the bruising was 'the result of medical conditions like eczema and activities from my recent trip to Dubai.' 'While the personal matter in question was emotionally charged, there was no physical altercation,' Raviani said. The incident report seen by NBC showed Raviani allowed cops to listen to a recorded phone call in which Mills 'instruct[ed] her to lie about the origin of her bruises' and that he had himself 'admitted [to officers] that the situation escalated from verbal to physical.' 4 Mills and Langston, a GOP state committeewoman, had been dating since November 2021 and sharing a house in New Smyrna Beach, Fla., since May 2024 after the congressman claimed he finalized divorce from his estranged wife. Getty Images Langston confronted Mills after seeing news reports about the dispute with Raviani, but the congressman stressed he 'was not in a romantic relationship' with another woman and argued that 'the press fabricated the story,' according to the sheriff's office report filed last month. 'Lindsey then found a social media account for the other woman and saw photos of her with Cory,' the latest police report noted. Raviani still has a picture of her and Mills posing together from mid-March posted on her Instagram account. Mills was dinged by his landlord last month at the luxury Washington, DC, apartment where the alleged February assault occurred for evading $85,000 in rent — but claimed it was the result of a faulty web payment portal. 4 The Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which didn't immediately respond to requests for further records of the incident, is now taking over the investigation into Mills' threatening texts to Langston. Lindsey Langston / X The pad, which enjoys a scenic view of the Potomac River and sits just a short walk from the National Mall, has a hefty $20,833 per month price tag, The Post was unable to locate any divorce filings for Mills or Al Saadi, who cofounded a weapons company in the 2010s that is still based in northern Virginia. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement didn't immediately respond to requests for further records of the incident or investigation. Reps for Mills' office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
New York Post
14 minutes ago
- New York Post
Back in your lane, bureaucrats: ‘Endangerment' rollback restores sense to EPA
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, climate change wasn't on anyone's mind. Yet under an Obama-era decision known as the 'Endangerment Finding,' the Environmental Protection Agency has claimed authority under the act to micromanage large parts of the American economy in the name of combating global warming. President Donald Trump's proposal to reverse the finding returns the Clean Air Act to its original purpose, marking the end of a failed effort to control the climate through executive fiat. The Endangerment Finding stemmed from a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required the EPA to determine whether carbon dioxide qualified as a dangerous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts warned that the decision 'ignores the complexities' of addressing global warming through the statute — but suggested its effects 'may be more symbolic than anything else.' He couldn't have been more wrong. In his first year in office, President Barack Obama sought to push a bipartisan climate bill through Congress — but when lawmakers failed to act on his terms, he turned to executive authority. In 2009, Obama's EPA responded to the high court's decision and declared that six greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, endanger public health and welfare — and therefore required regulation. Unfortunately, the structure of the Clean Air Act is not conducive to regulating CO2, because it's designed to regulate industry. Yet CO2 is not just emitted by factories and cars but by every human, frog, parakeet and muskrat, among other animals. The act required federal permits for any source that emitted more than 100 tons per year of an air pollutant. By this measure, some families would need permits just to maintain their households under the Endangerment Finding. Realizing that the law could sweep up hundreds of thousands of stores, apartments, hotels and other small establishments, the agency said it would regulate only sites emitting more than 100,000 tons of CO2 — a number it picked out of thin air. The EPA's attempts to use the act to regulate emissions unleashed endless litigation. In 2014, the Supreme Court overturned the 100,000-ton permit standard, which two justices called 'patently unreasonable.' In 2022, the Supreme Court said that the EPA's mandate to shut down a substantial part of the nation's coal-fired power plants and substitute them with gas and renewables also couldn't be squared with the act. One sticking point was that the Clean Air Act focused on regulating emissions through technological additions to cars and factories, such as smokestack scrubbers. But unlike other pollutants, there's no easy way to capture greenhouse gases: If you burn fossil fuels, the CO2 must go somewhere, and that generally means into the atmosphere. The only way to control most greenhouse gases is to mandate less use of fossil-fuel-derived energy. Such mandates were never the purpose or intention of the Clean Air Act. Absurd actions resulted. Cars and trucks are some of the main emitters of CO2, and they were the focus of the EPA's original finding. But no technologies exist to eliminate CO2 from gas-powered vehicles, so the EPA simply imposed stricter gas-mileage standards — even though Congress had already established a separate Transportation Department program to regulate fuel economy. The Biden administration went further, issuing rules under the finding that would require about two-thirds of new cars and trucks to be electric by 2032, an attempt to overhaul the entire American automobile fleet. The estimated costs surpassed $1 trillion, making them among the most expensive regulatory actions in history. And because the government also offered separate subsidies for electric vehicle purchases, the regulations stood to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit — again, without any congressional approval. These regulatory contortions reveal the folly of using questionable statutory language, rather than clear congressional action, to make major decisions that reshape American society. Those who view climate change as an existential threat have a duty to persuade the public of that claim. If addressing climate change truly requires making sweeping changes to how we live, then advocates must build a broad-based coalition to pass laws mandating those changes — not bypass the democratic process through executive fiat. Trump's proposal to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding, detailed in over 300 pages by the EPA last week, will put a stop to regulations that swelled the deficit, raised prices and hurt consumers. It will also restore Congress' original understanding of the Clean Air Act, stop a flood of ineffective executive mandates — and make overreaching bureaucrats get back in their lane. Judge Glock is the director of research and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Adapted from City Journal.
New York Post
14 minutes ago
- New York Post
Hey, experts — admit what you got so wrong on Trump's tariffs
Economists across the political spectrum predicted that President Donald Trump's trade negotiations would end in disaster. Now that his Aug. 1 deadline has passed without the sky falling — and with multiple advantageous deals completed — it's time to seriously reevaluate the flawed arguments the experts made against his strategy. Many, it turns out, made basic errors in economic reasoning. Advertisement On the left, Nobel laureate and Columbia professor Joseph Stiglitz declared in January that Trump's policy was 'very bad for America and for the world,' while University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers called it 'impressively destructive.' On the right, prominent free-market advocates like George Mason's Donald Boudreaux also voiced strong opposition. Advertisement Yet their arguments against tariffs revealed a fundamental misunderstanding: They decried tariffs as uniquely harmful, while ignoring that the same logic applies to all taxes. Take the common critique that tariffs, as a tax on trade, reduce trade overall. Phil Gramm and Larry Summers — one conservative, one liberal — jointly argued that tariffs 'distort domestic production' by pushing resources toward less efficient uses. They warned tariffs would slow economic growth. Advertisement That's true. But every tax, including sales taxes and income taxes, discourages trade, distorts production and reduces growth. Sales taxes lower consumption. Income taxes discourage work. Corporate taxes deter investment. All taxes distort the economy — tariffs are no exception. Advertisement Another frequent claim is that tariffs hurt consumers. Again, true — just as all taxes do. Logically, opposing tariffs simply because they raise prices and reduce growth means we should oppose all taxes. But unless we abolish government spending — which stands at $7 trillion this year — we need taxes of some kind. That's why economists usually argue for minimizing the total economic damage that all taxes cause across the board. Distortions increase as tax rates do. Before Trump's policies, the average US tariff rate stood at just 2.5% — tiny compared to the 43.4% average top personal income tax rate (including federal and state taxes) or the 27.5% average total corporate tax rate. If we understand a tariff as a tax like any other, higher tariffs could in fact reduce the overall economic burden on American individuals and companies — an outcome that Trump has often touted as his ultimate goal. Advertisement It's unclear whether a 15% tariff is optimal, but it seems apparent now that a 2.5% rate was too low. Economists also missed how negotiation tactics work. Trump began with aggressive tariff threats, horrifying many economists — but the results speak for themselves. The United States has secured deals that dramatically opened foreign markets representing 55% of global GDP. Advertisement Even critics have had to acknowledge the shift. 'To avoid worst of Trump tariffs, [the European Union] accepted a lopsided deal,' The Washington Post conceded, while the London-based Financial Times described how the EU 'succumbed to Trump's tariff steamroller.' 'Under the new deal, US goods into Vietnam will not be taxed while Vietnamese exports will face a 20% US tariff,' the South China Morning Post explained — in coverage that described Hanoi's 'optimism' regarding the agreement. So while the United States is imposing higher tariffs on many imports, other countries lowered or removed their tariffs on American goods, and dropped many of their non-tariff barriers as well. Advertisement These are significant wins that economists failed to anticipate, and that few thought remotely possible even six months ago. Experts also ignored yet another of Trump's reasons for increasing tariffs: as a means of providing for national defense and global freedom of the seas, costs that Americans have borne for a century. Ideally, other countries would help pay for these efforts — how about they just send us a check for the share of benefits they are receiving? Advertisement But since that's not about to happen, tariffs may be the only viable alternative. Trump's trade policies defied economists' dire predictions, delivering substantial gains in opening foreign markets to American exports without tanking the US economy. If tariffs can help lower more damaging taxes while advancing strategic national interests, they deserve a more honest and nuanced evaluation. At the very least, economists should have the guts to admit they were wrong — and take a hard look at their conventional wisdom. John R. Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, is an economist who has held research or teaching positions at the University of Chicago, Wharton Business School, Stanford, Yale and UCLA.
