From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Harold Hutchison

The person in charge of the security detail for Turning Point USA (TPUSA) founder Charlie Kirk says he warned Utah Valley University (UVU) police about access to a rooftop days before Kirk’s assassination, shocking podcaster Shawn Ryan on Monday.

Kirk was assassinated during a TPUSA event at UVU on Sept. 10, during which he was debating attendees. Brian Harpole of Integrity Security Solutions read Ryan texts during the episode of “The Shawn Ryan Show” of him allegedly flagging for UVU’s police chief the rooftop used by Kirk’s alleged assassin on Sept. 8, two days before the assassination.

WATCH:

“We have some correspondence with the chief of the school uh on that day, on Monday, before Charlie was killed and why this hadn’t come out and why he won’t stand up like a man and admit this, I don’t know, but he’s watching a bunch of men lose their careers and he’s okay with it,” Harpole told Ryan. “On Monday before, this correspondence went to Chief Long. ‘Hello, Chief Long. We received this message today from the student group. ‘There is a student roof access pretty close to where CK will be set up at the Utah Valley. (The Sorenson Center has a couple of staircases that go up to walkways on the roofs.)’”

“He comes back and the so, for edification, the Sorenson Center was the building in front of the Losee Center and so, he comes back he says you want uh access to the roof and came back and said I was told students have access above us,” Harpole continued. “If this is true it would be nice to either have it controlled access or allow one of my guys to be there as well if possible. He comes back and his last correspondence was, ‘I got you covered.’ What else am I to do when a command level person from an accredited police department says, ‘I’ve got this area.’?”

Text exchange between Brian Harpole and UVU police official. (Screenshot/YouTube/Shawn Ryan Show)

“That was the chief of police for the UVU Police Department. We’ve called him. He’s never called us back,” Harpole added as Shawn Ryan responded by saying “Holy shit.”

UVU did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Video released of the immediate aftermath of the assassination of Kirk shows the alleged gunman making his escape by dropping off the roof and fleeing. Authorities arrested Tyler Robinson, 22, early on Sept. 12, accusing him of fatally shooting Kirk.

“Probably literally all they had to do is post anybody at that stairwell,” Harpole said.

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Samuel Peterson

Unelected regulators and bureaucrats from the United Nations have pushed for crushing the global economy in the name of saving the planet.

In October, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialized agency within the U.N., proposed a carbon tax in order to slash the emissions of shipping vessels. This comes after the IMO’s April 2025 decision to adopt net-zero standards for global shipping.

Had the IMO agreed to the regulation, it would have been the first global tax on greenhouse gas emissions. Thankfully, the United States was able to effectively shut down those proposals; however, while these regulations have been temporarily halted, the erroneous ideas behind them continue to grow in support.

Proponents of carbon taxes generally argue that since climate change is an existential threat to human existence, drastic measures must be taken in all aspects of our lives to address the projected costs. People should eat less meat and use public transportation more often. In the political arena, they should vote out so-called “climate deniers.” In the economic sphere, carbon taxes are offered as a technocratic quick fix to carbon emissions. Is any of this worth it? Or are the benefits greater than the costs? In the case of climate change, the answer is no.

Carbon taxes are not a matter of scientific fact. As with all models, the assumptions drive the analysis. In the case of carbon taxes, the time horizon selected plays a major role in the outcome. So, too, does the discount rate and the specific integrated assessment models.

In other words, “Two economists can give vastly different estimates of the social cost of carbon, even if they agree on the objective facts underlying the analysis.” If the assumptions are subjective, as they are in carbon taxes, then they are not scientific facts. As I’ve pointed out, “carbon pricing models are as much political constructs as they are economic tools.” One must also ask whether carbon taxes will remain unchanged or gradually increase over time to advance other political agendas. In this proposal, the answer is that it increases over time.

Additionally, since these models are driven by assumptions, one would be right in asking who gets to impose these taxes? Of course, those would be the unelected bureaucrats at the IMO. No American who would be subject to these taxes ever voted for the people attempting to create the “world’s first global carbon tax.” It brings to mind the phrase “no taxation without representation.”

In an ironic twist, imposing carbon taxes on global shipping might actually be one of the worst ways to slash emissions, given the enormous gains from trade. Simply put, trade makes the world grow rich. Not just wealthy nations like those in the West, but every nation, even the most poor, grows richer. In wealthy countries, trade can help address climate change by enabling adaptation and innovation. For poorer countries, material gains from trade can help prevent their populations from starving and also help them advance along the environmental Kuznets curve.

In other words, the advantages of trade can, over time, make a country go from being so poor that a high level of air pollution is necessary for its survival to being rich enough to afford reducing or eliminating pollution. Carbon taxes, if sufficiently high, can prevent or significantly delay these processes, thereby undermining their supposed purpose. Not to mention, as of today, maritime shipping accounts for only about 3% of total global emissions.

The same ingenuity that brought us modern shipping will continue to power the global economy and fund growth and innovation, if we let it. The world does not need a layer of global bureaucracy for the sake of virtue signaling. What it needs is an understanding of both economics and human progress.

History shows that prosperity, innovation, and free trade are what make societies cleaner, healthier, and richer. Our choice is not between saving the planet and saving the economy; it is between free societies and free markets or surrendering responsibility to unelected international regulators and busybodies. The former has lifted billions out of poverty, and the latter threatens to drag us all backwards.

Samuel Peterson is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Energy Research.