Iran’s D-Day Has Begun

 Iran has spent months threatening the world over the Strait of Hormuz.

Don’t cross us. Don’t challenge us. Don’t ignore our rules. Don’t cooperate with the Americans.

Or else.

Well, the ships are moving.

That’s the part Tehran can’t explain away.

Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has begun recovering despite Iran’s threats, even as the regime announces new penalties for vessels that refuse to play by its rules. Some ships are using routes Iran doesn’t recognize. Others are sailing with their transponders switched off, making the precise traffic picture difficult to measure. But the larger point is becoming harder for Tehran to hide: intimidation isn’t working the way it used to.

Iran, naturally, is handling this with all the composure you’d expect.

Mohsen Rezaei, the regime’s new security chief, warned that countries cooperating with America’s economic campaign could be treated as committing an “act of war.” Tehran is also threatening retaliation against neighboring countries and economic interests if they help Washington tighten the screws.

Threats. More threats. And then some threats about the previous threats.

Here’s a thought.

Maybe they’re nervous.

Because while Tehran is busy telling everybody what terrible things it might do, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is preparing to tell the world what the United States actually will do.

Bessent calls it an “economic D-Day.” He says the administration intends to marshal America’s financial power to isolate Iran and force countries still doing business with the regime to make a choice. Keep financing Tehran, or maintain access to the world’s most important financial system.

That’s not another bomb run.

It’s potentially more painful.

Iran needs money. The regime needs oil revenue. The IRGC needs resources. Terrorist proxies don’t operate on good intentions. Missiles aren’t free. Neither are drones, weapons programs, internal repression, or the sprawling security apparatus required to keep an increasingly unhappy population under control.

Follow the money, and eventually you find the regime’s oxygen supply.

And right now somebody is stepping on the hose.

The Iranian rial opened Monday at roughly 2.02 million to the dollar on the informal market — another record low.

Two million.

Let that number sit there for a second.

China remains Iran’s most important oil customer, and that’s where this gets especially interesting. Reuters reports Iranian exports to China fell to an estimated 534,000 barrels per day in August, down from 823,000 in July. Washington has already targeted smaller Chinese refiners and is increasingly forcing the question Beijing would rather avoid: how much economic pain is China prepared to absorb for the privilege of keeping Tehran afloat?

That’s the ballgame.

Not another speech at the United Nations. Not another European diplomat announcing that everyone had a very productive meeting. Not another Iranian official threatening Armageddon before lunch and asking for negotiations after dinner.

Money.

Take away enough of it and eventually the regime has to choose what it can still afford.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has acknowledged the economic pressure his country faces even as other regime officials insist the new American campaign is an act of desperation.

Both things can’t really be true.

If America’s economic pressure is meaningless, why threaten countries that cooperate with it?

Why warn Gulf neighbors?

Why rage against sanctions that supposedly won’t work?

Why all the noise?

Because Tehran understands what’s coming.

None of this means Iran suddenly becomes harmless. Quite the opposite. A wounded regime with the IRGC still at its disposal can be exceptionally dangerous. Iran has spent decades using terrorism, proxies, and regional intimidation as instruments of state power. Nobody should expect the men running that system to discover humility because their currency is collapsing.

Desperate regimes do desperate things.

So watch them.

But don’t rescue them.

That’s the mistake Washington has made too many times: apply pressure, watch it begin to work, become frightened by the consequences of success, and then offer Tehran an escape hatch before the pressure finishes the job.

Not this time.

Bessent is promising the toughest economic isolation campaign yet, aimed not merely at Iran but at the foreign buyers, banks and commercial networks that allow the regime to keep functioning.

Good.

Iran’s leaders have spent years telling the world that they control the Strait of Hormuz.

The world believed them because they could make shipping companies afraid.

Now the ships are beginning to move again.

The rial is collapsing.

Oil revenue is under attack.

And Iran’s leaders are threatening practically everybody within shouting distance.

Funny thing about power.

When you actually have it, you usually don’t have to spend this much time telling everyone you do.

Iran wanted the world to believe it owned the Strait of Hormuz.

This week, the ships themselves started saying otherwise.

Why There Aren’t More Prosecutions

 

ll day long on my X feed, I hear people angrily complaining why there aren’t more prosecutions of corrupt leftists, especially in the area of election wrongdoing. Well, as a former Maricopa County prosecutor and the Maricopa County Elections attorney, let me explain. 

From what I’ve learned over the years, the main reason prosecutors don’t bring charges against corrupt Democrats is because of the fear of retaliation by Democratic prosecutors — either from state prosecutors (think former Fulton County D.A. Fani Wills) or from DOJ prosecutors after Democrats take back the White House. 

We’ve all seen how horrible the retaliation is. It’s not just prosecution. The prosecutors will also lose their law licenses. They’ll be doxxed and receive death threats. Their reputations will be destroyed and it will be difficult to find jobs, even outside of the law. Most of them don’t have any other skills; they’ve spent their entire careers in the law. One of my friends who was wrongly disbarred by the corrupt State Bar of Arizona after a lengthy career in prosecution now works as a lower paid paralegal.

I always say I’m ironically lucky the left destroyed my law license, because if I’d gone to work for the DOJ under President Donald Trump, as soon as a Democrat gets back into the White House, I’d be one of their juiciest targets for disbarment and prosecution. I fear for all of Trump’s top DOJ attorneys. 

The next main reason prosecutors don’t bring charges is because they know all the bogus requirements left-leaning or sold out/blackmailed judges will insist on in order to allow a conviction. The standard for overthrowing elections used to be if the actions cast doubt on the results of the election — so even minor problems like waiting in a long line to vote or encountering problems with the voting machines that caused an hour's delay or so were enough to overturn elections. Now, judges insist that prosecutors prove the legal definition of “election fraud,” which is an extremely high bar. One honest judge, Iowa District Court Judge Ian Thornhill, said fraud wasn’t the standard, since “From a practical perspective, once fraud has occurred it will already likely be too late…”

If no judge will rule that there was election fraud, then it’s impossible to prosecute any official since there wasn’t any “wrongdoing.” 

So far, the only prosecutions of election wrongdoing are where the cases reach this newer high standard. In Maricopa County, former temporary Maricopa County Elections worker Walter Ringfield Jr., a Democrat activist, was sent to jail for several months after getting caught on surveillance video stealing a key FOB that was capable of reprogramming all of the county’s voting machine tabulators on Election Day.

Although Trump has appointed numerous Republican judges, Democratic appointees still retain a significant lead. There are 496 Democratic appointees on the federal bench to 405 Republican appointees. And many of the Republican appointees are compromised due to blackmail or “follow the money.” Evidence is finally coming out regarding this with elected Republican officials. No one ever understands why RINOs vote the way they do, but it’s really this simple — it’s not “principles” as they claim. 

Prosecution is also dominated by the left. Years ago, there was a perception that prosecution attracted more Republicans. Now, in large part due to leftist billionaire George Soros funneling money into prosecutorial races, the left dominates. A 2025 study in the Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics found that Democrats make up 41 percent of prosecutors and Republicans make up 39 percent. 

This doesn’t even account for the fact that the prosecutors with all the power are in the big cities, which are run by the left or at best RINOs. Conservative prosecutors dominate rural areas or are line attorneys where they have no power over high-profile cases. 

So when people complain about former Attorney General Pam Bondi or Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, not aggressively prosecuting enough corrupt actors, I don’t think they understand the full situation. 

We’ve seen the playbook too many times since 2020. Trump’s former DOJ attorney Jeffrey Clark merely drafted a letter — that was never even sent — from the DOJ to be sent to Georgia elected officials, advising them on how to handle the election anomalies. The D.C. Bar is now trying to disbar him, and Willis charged him with crimes. Fortunately, Willis’ prosecution of Clark, Trump and others went nowhere since her own corruption was so vast.

We saw how the left put Trump’s associates behind bars — Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon, George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and Allen Weisselberg. General Michael Flynn and Roger Stone were prosecuted but escaped incarceration.

The left is already gearing up to hold hearings in Congress over Trump’s appointees; they are gloating about it if they retake the House of Representatives this fall. 

Republican prosecutors play a juggling act when they go after Democratic corruption. It’s not IF the left will come after them afterwards, it’s WHEN. Even if Democrats don’t take over the House this fall, plenty of rogue Democratic state and county prosecutors will target them. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes is still prosecuting Arizona’s 2020 alternate electors for Trump and their associates, despite the fact Arizona courts have thrown out her indictments. 

Local prosecutors won’t do anything about it here — the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office is controlled by RINO Rachel Mitchell. Mitchell represented the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors asking for sanctions twice against Kari Lake and her attorneys over her election lawsuits. She also represented them again recently in their litigation with election integrity champion Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap. The supervisors took away parts of Heap’s office from him, until the Arizona Supreme Court finally stopped the steal. Mitchell could have recused herself from these cases but didn’t.

It’s easy for us in our armchairs to demand prosecutions and berate Trump’s prosecutors for not putting more corrupt Democrats behind bars. But the situation is far more complex. What Republican prosecutor wants to go to prison?

Biden’s Afghanistan Withdrawal Destroyed American Deterrence

 

person 2: It is five years since, I don’t know if it’s today or yesterday or the last few days, five years ago, roughly around now, that Joe Biden commenced the bugout of Afghanistan. I don’t remember any of the generals at the time, or any military leaders, saying, “I’m resigning because this is just going to be a horrific outcome for the United States and for the world.”

But Biden did what he did. He praised it. “This was great. Look what we did.”

And your thoughts five years out?

person 1: Well, it was the greatest military humiliation, and I think as great or greater than the 1975 flight from the American Embassy in Vietnam of the last few American advisors, troops, and Vietnamese, and the boat people that followed. We had been there 20 years.

Joe Biden reportedly, allegedly, wanted to get out by 9/11 because he was going to broadcast that he was the first president to end the misadventure, he thought, in Afghanistan.

And we should remember at the time that Donald Trump had negotiated a withdrawal down to about 3,500 troops, and he was going to take the $300 million remodeled Bagram Air Force Base, which was defensible, I think 60 or 70 miles from Kabul, and basically control the airspace of all those critical nexus of power, whether it’s Pakistan, India, China, Russia. You had this huge recently remodeled base.

In addition to that, we had just put a billion dollars into the American Embassy. A billion dollars. And [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman] Mark Milley spent the summer, along with [Secretary of Defense] Lloyd Austin, misinforming, in Fauci style, to us that, and they assured us that the, what, 350,000-person Afghan Army was viable. “Don’t worry, it’s viable.” And it wasn’t.

So once they heard that we wanted to get out and get out quickly with no conditions, and we weren’t going to do it from Bagram, which they couldn’t touch because they would have had to go out in the country and surround that place, and there was no way they could have entered and disrupted the flights.

But once they heard it was gonna be in Kabul, and once they knew that we were gonna run away, and once they saw that there was multi… The figure is controversial. The top figure I’ve seen is fifty billion, the lowest is seven billion. But it depends on the cost of transporting those weapons over there, maintaining them, and replacing them, etc., and the maintenance personnel involved in storing them.

But whatever it was, a multibillion-dollar gift of some of the latest weaponry, from small arms to machine guns to rockets to helicopters to heavy trucks to armored vehicles, and we gave it to the worst terrorists in the world.

And they opened a terrorist mart, so to speak, and those weapons have been showing up everywhere, that they’re selling to their fellow Islamist terrorists.

And it could have all been avoided. It could have all been avoided, and they lied to us repeatedly.

And that one incident, coupled with DEI, at the same time they were doing that, they were testifying at Congress—the head of naval operations, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Army chief of staff—they were all telling us that they were reading Professor [Ibram X.] Kendi. He’s in the news again, audience.

They were reading his books, and there was systematic racism in the wake of the George Floyd riot, and they were gonna ferret it out, and they could assure Congress that they had fully implemented diversity, equity, inclusion.

And the result of that humiliation and no contrition about it and the DEI new protocols that would, what, privilege race and gender and sexual orientation over merit in terms of recruitment, promotion, advancement, etc. All of that led to a 40,000- to 50,000-person shortfall.

And as soon as we got a confident military again, and as soon as we dropped the DEI racial prejudice and sexual prejudice and gender prejudice, as soon as we did that, guess what? We more than met all of our recruitment goals.

But there was one other footnote to this, Jack. That was the point of August 2021 that Joe Biden had a honeymoon. He had been kept away during the campaign. Nobody had seen the level of cognitive decline. They were just starting to see it. He was in carefully-scripted Jen Psaki press conferences. “I’ll circle back on that. I’ll circle back on that question.” Stonewalling.

But after that, he never got over 50% again. People just… And then they started reading what we were doing. We had a $80 million gender studies program at the University of Kabul in a traditional Islamic society. We were like British colonialists trying to, you know, not bring the rule of law and the end of suttee in India, but crazy stuff.

And then there were George Floyd posters we saw on the streets of Kabul that we had sponsored artists. And then, I think, he went to the website. I guess it was superimposed, a Pride flag on, I don’t know if it actually flew, but you could go to the website and see it on the U.S. Embassy in an Islamic country from left-wing, our left-wing people who lecture us on cultural sensitivity.

And so it was a misadventure, and he wanted to get credit for taking it out at the expense of the safety of our troops and the interest of our national security. And 13 people died.

And then in our retaliation, Mark Milley and the hierarchy lied and said it was collateral damage. It was not. There were civilians killed. There were.

And the low point for me is when that plane took off again, and people were hanging from the wheels and grabbing, trying, you know, falling off on the tarmac. And then a spokesman for the Army came on CNN. I was watching. He said, “And I want to assure you that when they’re in the air and when they land, they’re going to have culturally-appropriate food. We’re going to have Mediterranean Afghanistan gourmet meals for them.”

And one of the reporters, I don’t know who it was, said, “Have they been vetted? Do you know?”

“Well, I mean, yes. They’re contractors, assistants, or they were trained.”

They weren’t. They weren’t vetted at all. In fact, there were American contractors and pro-American Afghans that were left behind. A lot of those pro-American Afghans got murdered because they couldn’t get out. And we took some people who had terrorist ties on the plane. It was just a typical Biden border operation. You know what I mean? Just like the border. Just a joke.

person 2: Bum rush. Bum rush America.

person 1: Yeah. And it was really humiliating. That was the nadir of that.

They tried to lie about it. They said everything went well. It was planned, da-da-da. But they couldn’t hide that from the American people. He never regained 50%.

They tried to say, “Well, Trump was the one that ordered us out in his last few…”

No, Trump had told the Taliban, “I know where you live. We have satellite imagery of all of you. If you break this deal and try to go after Bagram, etc., we’re going to kill you.”

And there hadn’t been a problem.

Maybe some of our listeners will say, and it’s legitimate, “Well, Victor, we have no business over there anyway. You can’t create constitutional government out of a medieval tribal society. And one American life is not worth it. Not even one. Losing one American life is not worth all the billions.”

And there’s a point. But it could have been scaled back carefully, not the way it happened. And it really hurt our deterrence because everybody should remember who was watching this. Vladimir Putin was.

And so Vladimir Putin, in his little notebook, said, “Biden, disgraceful, humiliating withdrawal from… Unlike our withdrawal from Afghanistan, which was measured, they couldn’t even do this. Oh, and number two, Biden also said for me to knock off hacking of American institutions. If I were to do it, at least stop hacking nonprofits, not stop it at all, at all costs, just the nonprofits and the humanitarian targets.”

Oh, and Putin’s little book said, “Oh, he put a hold on offensive weapons that Trump had approved to Ukraine. Oh, here’s another thing I’m looking at,” Putin thought. “He said that he would react accordingly whether it was a minor or major invasion. So we’ll just invade and say it’s minor and he won’t do anything.”

So he destroyed American deterrence, and it started with Afghanistan. It was no accident that in February, just a few months later, this was in mid-August, right where we are now, 2021, on Feb.24, about six months later, he went into Ukraine.

Republicans Can’t Just Trash the Left—They Need a Plan to Win

The anticipation of the November midterms is mounting every day, and the polls show that, typically, in midterm elections, the in-party in the White House, i.e., the Republicans and Donald Trump, are going to lose seats.

And because the House is so close anyway, with a five- or six-seat Republican margin, it might be even easier. And so, the Democrats are ecstatic. They look at the statistics and historical context and say 39 out of the last 41 midterm elections, the in-party lost seats in the midterms.

And this will be no exception because Donald Trump is polling around 40%, and the Democratic generic poll is 5% to 6% ahead of the Republicans.

The Republicans counter, “Well, maybe it’ll be different. Who can predict what Donald Trump will do or say? Who can predict what’ll happen in Iran in the next 60 days? There might be a revolution. Gas prices could drop.”

There are seats that will accrue to the Republicans because of the Supreme Court ruling on racial gerrymandering and the preponderance of red states. Maybe five or six more red states will gerrymander than blue states.

And, of course, the Republicans were given a gift by this radical Democratic Socialists of America takeover of the Democratic Party and the crazy things that these candidates up for election in the midterms have said in their past.

And then finally, the Republicans say, “Well, we have more money, at least in the PACs and the Trump funds.”

But I think they’re missing something because we haven’t heard from the Republicans any strategy, and the time is getting close.

What do I mean by that?

It seems to me that it doesn’t work just to trash the socialists. They should be trashed, but there has to be more than that.

So, I would start first with a Contract With America and say, “We are going to do this, accomplish this in the White House and in the Congress over the next two years.”

And I would say:

We are going to complete the work at the border, and we’re going to continue to deport people who are not here legally, especially criminals. And then we are going to hold the bureaucracy and the university accountable for the racial prejudice and bias that’s intrinsic to DEI.

We’ve already said to countries that receive massive U.S. remittances, sent from people here, often illegally and subsidized by the federal government, that they will have a tax on them. We’ve started with 1%, and that may climb.

We’re now pumping the most natural gas and oil in the history of any nation since the onset of fossil fuels. We’re going to continue and increase that.

One thing we are going to do that no one has really done for the last 30 years, we are going to address the debt. We are going to put a hold on federal spending, and we’re going to take a look at entitlements because we are now not just $31 trillion to $32 trillion in debt, but the debt is increasing geometrically, not arithmetically. And we can envision that if something is not done, it will be up to $40 trillion. Already, the interest is over $1 billion a day, and it’s larger per annum than the defense budget.

A second thing that we’re going to do, it’s not just that we’re going to have a Contract With America, we’re going to tell you what we’ve done.

And first of all, crime has dropped 70%. It is at a historic low. Washington, D.C., the political capital of the world, was not safe. Its monuments were decrepit. The streets were dirty. We sent in federal troops working with local police, and we can say now that Washington, believe it or not, is one of the safest large cities in America, given crime statistics. And its monuments are in the process of being refurbished, cleansed, and are sparkling. And we have even bigger projects at the White House and the Reflecting Pool to make people proud of their national capital.

We all talk about affordability, but we forget something. Even with the war in Iran, and even with a temporary spike in oil prices, this administration has an annual inflation rate during its first term of 1.9%. It’s about 2.5%, and it may climb to 3%. But we are still way below the average 5% to 5.1% each year on average of the prior administration.

We talk about affordability in terms of housing. Typically in America, 62% to 67% of the population owns their own home. It’s 65% right now. The problem is not that people cannot buy homes. The problem is they can’t buy homes in blue states and urban environments. We’re going to work on that, but let’s be clear. There has not been a sudden drop in homeownership.

The border is closed. It’s not just closed. Illegal immigration has ceased to exist. Ninety-nine percent of the border crossings are legal. There is no illegal immigration. We are controversially but lawfully and humanely sending back people from that influx, 10 million to 12 million, that came in under Joe Biden without any audit, without vaccinations, and without any knowledge of who they were, at a time when we would never allow American citizens to do so.

We were, after all, expelling 8,500 service members, some of them combat veterans, from our military by the Biden decrees that they had to have a COVID-19 vaccination and mRNA experimental vaccinations, where we didn’t even require that of the people who fled from countries across the border into the United States.

We should also say that South America, Latin America, and the Caribbean are not going communist. There’s not a pink tide. During the Obama administration, about 75% of those countries were heading left. John Kerry, the secretary of state under Barack Obama, said that there is no more Monroe Doctrine.

There is a Monroe Doctrine now, and almost all of South America, Latin America, and the Caribbean is pro-American and conservative except three or four countries.

And the Chinese are not controlling the entries and exits of the Panama Canal, and there’s not a communist client state doing the work of China and also Russia in Venezuela, exporting terror and drugs to North America.

Finally, they need to say something about the dangers of socialism. It’s not just that we have a Contract With America of what we’re going to do that brings normality back to the country, and it’s not just that we can tell you what we have done that has improved lives.

We’re also going to tell you about this socialism.

Start off with the idea that there really isn’t a socialist system that is democratic and liberal. The USSR during the Cold War was called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Nazi Germany, the Nazi term was an acronym for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. So socialism is a euphemism for totalitarianism.

Every time a socialist is elected, the first thing that happens is they bump into resistance, and when they bump into resistance, they become authoritarian.

One last thing to remember about our opponents: They are not the party of workers. They’re the party of the downwardly mobile, college-educated, formerly upper-middle class, and a new phenomenon of first- and second-generation immigrants coming from failed states, mostly because of socialism, that upon arrival are attacking the United States.

And finally, Hasan Piker, Zohran Mamdani, Ro Khanna, Ilhan Omar, Dr. [Abdul] El-Sayed in Michigan, they’re not poor, they’re not middle class. They’re very, very wealthy, just like all socialist architects throughout history.

Mamdani comes from the 1% in Uganda as an immigrant. Hasan Piker is a multimillionaire who drives a Porsche. Ro Khanna’s children have trust funds with ownership of golf courses in their names. They drive a $200,000 Range Rover. Ilhan Omar says she’s worth $30 million.

This is an elite group of people who are using us as their lab rats.

Again, if the Republicans can talk about what they did, what they plan to do, and what the alternatives are, they can still win.

When Normal Becomes Strange

 

Normal is harder to find every day.

There is a great deal of mental illness in the U.S.. One sees people losing their minds over the removal of people who have illegally entered the United States. A few died when attacking legal officers of the government whose job is to remove people who are in the country against the duly-passed laws of the same. Entire cities and states threaten not to let ICE do its work because it likes illegal aliens. Is it any surprise that such places also have high levels of other crimes, when the laws are like desert, you can have it or just take a pass?

It’s getting harder to know what “normal” is in the United States and Western Europe. And while any system has its definitions of normal behavior, there seems to be a shift towards lunacy by much of the public. It’s always a tricky thing to compare behaviors. For Jews, even not very religious ones, there is Yom Kippur once a year and most Jews fast. So fasting at least one day a year is quite a normal thing for Jews. For someone who has no reason or interest in fasting, refraining from food for even just one day seems like some type of extreme behavior. So how do we know what is normal? And without that definition, how can we say, in the words of Igor in Young Frankenstein, what is “Abby-Normal”?

Let’s first take a look at some behavior that for most normative people would be considered nuts.

1. A young mother murdered her children by strangling them with athletic bands. The event itself would seem tragic. Three lives snuffed out by their very mother, the one who brought them into this world. Yet, here we are at the time of her trial and several hundred (mostly) women show up near the courthouse to show their support for the murderer. Their argument would apparently be that Lindsay Clancy was not responsible for her actions. The accused has pleaded insanity due to post-partum psychosis. The court will do its job but let’s say that Ms. Clancy had shot a black man who had entered her house to rob her. There would be nobody outside the court supporting her innocence. Let’s say that her kids had been made “trans” before she killed them. The ones screaming in her favor would be demanding the death penalty instead. As I have written before, one can’t say today if he is in favor of a protest or violence until he figures out if those involved are on his team.
   
2. Many Westerners have marched in favor of Hamas. It’s one thing to hate Jews and dress up this hatred as anti-Israel or anti-Zionism. Many people try to make that distinction with very little success. When Jews are harassed in the West, nobody bothers to give them a questionnaire on their support for Israel, possible IDF service, views of Hamas and Bibi Netanyahu and other relevant topics. No, they simply start screaming at them that they are baby killers and accomplices in genocide. But Hamas? They filmed much of their activities, and witnesses and terrorist confessions have provided additional details. How can one be in favor of groups that raped dead women? Cut off parts of their bodies? Killed young adults attending a music festival? When one dons a keffiyeh and demands the end of Israel via slogans “from the river to the sea” and “intifada revolution”, he is endorsing a group that murdered the Bibas mother and children in Gazan captivity. One can hate Jews. It’s a free country. But does one have to run into the arms of people who have murdered many of their fellow Palestinians for not toeing the Sharia or Hamas line? Can’t they take a stand: “I am opposed to the actions of Israel and the IDF, but I will not support the actions of Hamas terrorists and rapists. I want a fair outcome for Palestinians but not at the price of murder of innocent civilians”? Okay, stop laughing. It’s not funny.
3. We have seen the deification of people who deserve little to no praise. I was not happy to learn of Jason Arday taking his life, but he was not Cambridge professorial material. Those who have come to his defense completely ignore the stories he invented, such as running 30 marathons in 35 days, partly with a broken leg. He was a fraud and just as I would not want to learn at 36,000 feet that my pilot was just pretending, Cambridge had no business putting him into a professorial position without the accomplishments required for such an august position. George Floyd, who once held a knife to the stomach of a pregnant woman, was made the subject of endless posters and murals. Michael Brown tried to take a cop’s gun but became the patron saint of “Hands up, don’t shoot.” Luigi Mangione killed Brian Thompson in cold blood. He didn’t even shoot him from the front! Yet, he is being praised by the left for murdering a father and husband. They think that United Healthcare doesn’t have a deep enough bench to replace him? Did his murder change anything in the health insurance space? Many on the left have glorified criminals and even murderers, if their targets are the right kind of people.
4. The left is once again into political violence. The murder of Charlie Kirk and the attempted murder of Donald Trump brought out support from various individuals. James Comey playing dumb on “8647” does not remove the fact that there are many people on the left who do not see physical violence as being unacceptable to advance political goals. The murder of Charlie Kirk changed TPUSA and the course of the conservative movement. Nobody has the clarity of thought, force of conviction, and gift of argument that the young husband and father had. Remember the loons burning Tesla dealerships? Since when is setting fire to environmentally-friendly cars a good idea for battling “climate change”? Violence to get rid of perceived enemies is kosher if it makes their side stronger. And the supposed leaders of the Democrats refuse to condemn it because they too benefit.
5. Since we touched on “climate change”, we see massive numbers of lefties who believe in everything east of the tooth fairy. The climate is not changing in any way that merits radical changes in the way we live. Wind and sun do not offer the reliability and availability of coal and oil. “Trans” is also rubbish. A person has 30 trillion cells. Declaring that one is of the opposite sex, and even taking drugs and/or undergoing surgeries will not change the reality of boys being boys and girls being girls. Look at the demand for destruction of bringing babies into the world. From Massachusetts allowing abortion until birth to many states encouraging and supporting sterilization of children in the name of trans mania, the goal seems to be not bringing new lives into the world. Collapsing Western birth rates support the success of such efforts.

It seems so quaint to think about the 1970s when I grew up. Democrats and Republicans argued about tax rates, how to deal with the Soviets, and whether to support more welfare. We didn’t seem to have people like Ilhan Omar who says that her fealty is to Somalia over the country whose Congress pays her salary. We didn’t have people who supported terrorists like Rashida Tlaib. We didn’t have entire movements dedicated to chemically and surgically harming children because their teachers or parents concluded that they were “born in the wrong body”. Normal values generally come from religion; without it, abnormal becomes the rule.

What the Hell Is Wrong With Women?

 

Perhaps we should shut down womanhood until we find out just what the hell is going on here. The last couple of weeks have been more insane than usual, and everything has been insane for the last couple of decades, but this insanity has been mostly about the crazy things that crazy women do. And most of the ladies involved are women of pallor from the middle to upper-middle class. From bizarre social media imbroglios, like a mom demanding all the other moms stop sending Oreos to school because her kid isn’t allowed to have Oreos so no kid can have Oreos, to the hideous and morally bankrupt embrace of a psychotic killer who strangled her three little kids, there’s clearly something wrong in Chicksville. And it’s about time we say so.

But some of us on the conservative side warn that we shouldn’t say so. Why, we’re going to turn women against us if we criticize women, and we’re going to turn them into leftists. But you know what? It’s vital that we criticize women. Women are half of people, and there are a lot of stupid people out there. We need to shine the spotlight of clarity and truth on the idiots and watch them scramble like cockroaches under our scrutiny. Yes, we should criticize women. When women are a group that does stupid and evil things, we should say that they are doing stupid and evil things and that they should stop doing stupid and evil things.

Obviously, we should do the same for men, and there’s no shortage of critiques of men. No one ever hesitates to point out obnoxious behavior on the part of men that is unique to men. There’s even a name for it—“toxic masculinity.” And there are uniquely bad qualities to men, ways that men are bad that women are not. Because here’s the thing: men and women are different. And how they suck is sometimes different, too.

But we’re not supposed to say that about women. We’re not supposed to point out when women are uniquely bad, only when they’re uniquely good. We’re told that women are special. Girl power! We’ve all seen the pro-gal propaganda, the stuff that’s helped turn men into about 40 percent of college students. Women are praised for uniquely positive qualities associated with being women. But you know, diversity is not all awesome. If you have uniquely positive qualities, you’re also going to have uniquely negative qualities. And, as every single human being who’s ever met a woman knows, women can be bad in ways that men generally aren’t.

Recommended

Oh no, now I’m being sexist. Well, what’s wrong with being sexy?

But if being sexist means realizing that men and women are different, OK. Sign me up. Because men and women are different. They are physically different. They are mentally different. And they take on different roles in society. I know I’m doing something that drives stupid and disingenuous people crazy, which is generalizing. Generalizing is a useful tool, and it drives people who want to hide the obvious up the wall. For example, there are probably women who are better athletes than me. They’re just not a lot of them. And it’s not because I’m a great athlete. It’s because I have an X and a Y chromosome. I’m physically bigger, my muscles are designed differently, and I have different hormones, and on and on. This is true of men in general. So is the way men generally tend to see things — more objectively, more Manichean, with less emotion and less concern for feelings than females. But there are some men who are as bitchy and catty as women tend to be. Men and women are jerks in different ways. That’s a generalization. You know who uses generalizations? People who aren’t stupid.

Some of the manifestations of the current crisis in womanhood are amusing. For instance, there’s the social media meme of women demanding that their potential mate must be over 6 feet making six figures with a six-pack. Good luck with that, ladies; statistics are another weapon of the patriarchy. And then there was the social media uproar over some lady who wouldn’t allow her daughter to have Oreos and demanded that the other kindergarten moms not let their kids have Oreos in their school lunches either because it would make her deprived kid sad. This debate went on forever — for some reason, women can’t be brief when they’re angry and have to go on and on endlessly, another uniquely female thing. Men just punch each other. It finally got to the point where the mom decided she was going to search kids’ lunchboxes for the forbidden foods. What is wrong with these people? What would ever possess you to demand that other people conform to your bizarre and freakish lunch Luddite demands? And where would you imagine you derive the authority to go inspect other people’s kids’ packages to ensure they were conforming with your commands? It’s bizarre.

And sometimes it’s horrifying. Right now, Lindsay Clancy is on trial for murdering her three little children. She and her creepy coterie of pink-clad supporters — almost all salty-looking white women with a smattering of hen-pecked femboy allies — blame postpartum depression, her husband, and the patriarchy. The rest of us — almost all men and many morally literate women — blame the woman who strangled her little children to death after plotting to send her husband away so he wouldn’t be there to stop her. 

By the way, a little law about murder and insanity: the common law test is called the M’Naghten Rule, which basically says that if you know what you’re doing is wrong, you’re not insane. Well, she knew it was wrong to kill her kids because she knew her husband would stop her, so she sent him away. She’s not insane. She’s a murderer, and in a civilized society, she’d hang. But they want to create a woman exception, and who cares if some kids die?

This is sick.

The feminist ideology behind this prioritizes the feelings of women over what God and nature (to the extent they differ) make their proper priority, their kids. From pro-birth abortion to the post-birth version, this grotesque perspective excuses the killing of inconvenient kids as long as the executioner is a gal with a sad story. They’ve collected a million bucks for her and post sympathetic videos with their own kids.

Again, this is sick.

Women are broken — and save your distinctly female distraction maneuver about how men are broken because we’re talking about females now — and women need to fix themselves. Men can’t do it. We’re not capable of doing it, and the women wouldn’t listen to us anyway. It’s going to be up to women to get their collective heads on straight. As men, we should support the women who know what’s what. There are a lot of them. But when females create the problem — and it isn’t the patriarchy that is out there excusing butchering those children — females have to fix it. If you want to fight misogyny, don’t be the kind of people who should be disliked and disrespected. Certainly, don’t date them.

People who plunder little kids’ lunch bags and who rationalize child murder should be disliked and disrespected. It’s our moral obligation to stand against moral bankruptcy.

But there’s a practical cost to holding the moral high ground. It may cost us votes. Even some conservative women warn us that we should not say this stuff because it’s going to offend women, and if it offends women, we Republicans are going to do to young women what Democrats have done to young men. And what Democrats have done to young men is a disaster for their party. The Democrats have driven real men away. The only men they like are ones who have had their genitals sliced off so that they can satisfy their Munchausen mommies’ delusions about having a very special child who’s transgender. This mutilation fetish is akin to the murder fetish. The whole transgender thing is primarily driven by women, specifically dysfunctional and largely affluent white mommies who yearn to have interesting lives and don’t care if they carve up their kids to do it. And only women can fix this, because it’s women who allow it. If women collectively rose up and said to fake men, “Hell no, you’re not coming in our locker room or dominating our track and field events,” the whole trans idiocy would end overnight.

It’s not an obnoxious attack on women in general to point out that a lot of women are being stupid and morally bankrupt and that they should stop being stupid and morally bankrupt. It’s an observation that a problem is manifesting in a unique way in the female community. And it’s not going to drive young women out of the Republican Party because the young women who buy into this nonsense are already out of the Republican Party. If the price of admission for getting them back is for us to agree with bizarre nanny-state confection impulses and giving them a free pass for offing their children, well then count us out. I don’t want to be in a party dominated by the kind of people who feel they can tell other people not to put Ding Dongs in their kids’ lunches, and I don’t want to be in a party dominated by the kind of people who come up with excuses for strangling little kids.

I don’t want to be a Democrat, and we normals will not allow our party to morph into the Democrat Party II in order to win over people who are naturally Democrats. Nor would shedding our values work. You never win over people over the long run by sucking up to them and tossing away your values for short-term gain. You just make yourself as terrible as your opponents.

So, women, step up your game against those women who would rummage through your kids’ lunchboxes seeking sweets and who want to normalize mutilating and killing children to make them feel better about themselves. We men can’t do it for you, but we’re ready to back you up. And if it costs us votes, so be it.

The WNBA’s Obsession With ‘White Privilege’

 here’d be no real reason to talk about it any longer, but these incidents keep popping up. In the past, the sensational star Caitlin Clark was attacked by Alyssa Thomas.

That was that vicious fist to her neck when she was on the ground that caused an uproar and had racial and sexual overtones, and then reflected on the status itself of the Women’s National Basketball Association. Now we’ve got a kind of replay, but with different actors. We have Sophie Cunningham, who’s on the same Indiana team as Caitlin Clark, and she was recently dribbling with a clear, easy layup at the basket, and she was being chased by DiJonai Carrington from the opposite team.

And instead of just fouling her to prevent an easy layup by maybe pushing her hips, as often happens, she chose to clothesline her. She took her entire arm and hit her neck and flattened her. Flagrant foul. She was kicked out of the game, and then she almost immediately racialized the episode by texting or posting on social media, “White privilege.”

I thought that was kind of ironic for an African American young woman to complain about white people when she’s wearing a blond wig, and according to the DEI parlance, she’s culturally appropriating the appearance of a different race, and we’re not supposed to do that. I know that if Sophie Cunningham had been dribbling and she had dreadlocks, people would be very critical of her.

So, it was kind of a weird thing, and it got even weirder because it exposed the problem of the Women’s National Basketball Association. Again, because nobody really stuck up for Sophie Cunningham. In fact, some members faulted her for previously remarking in an interview that she thought transgender women should not be allowed to, if they were biological males, to play in female sports where their height and weight and muscular advantage, i.e., their DNA, gave them enormous advantages that could hurt women, and the same would be true of hurting women that were underage in high school or junior high who were showering and dressing with biological men.

So, that commentary by Sophie Cunningham may have been the subtext of this attack on her because we’ve had coaches in the Women’s National Basketball Association wear jackets promoting the trans issue. We had a co-owner of the Seattle team harass two young girl fans, and all they had were signs to the effect of “Support Sophie,” and the co-owner went over and swore at them and abused them and was given a suspension herself.

We’ve had referees who’ve obviously ignored flagrant fouls against both Sophie Cunningham and Caitlin Clark. And so, this is an ongoing angry league. And now with the trans issue, they really stepped into it because they have been on record–they being the commissioner and the owners–that they cannot define what a male is or a woman is.

That, in other words, if you say that you’re a transgender female and somebody says, well, you’re not because your muscular, skeletal DNA suggests otherwise, and you have the sexual characteristics of a male, but you say you’re female, that doesn’t work. You can’t just declare what your gender is.

And they kind of brushed that off. And now two former NBA players who retired, they have pensions, but of course, given Caitlin Clark has enriched this league and brought in, according to some economists, a billion dollars in aggregate new revenue, whether defined by increased fan attendance, which has soared, or media contracts, which have soared, lucrative contracts, or merchandising opportunities, which have soared.

A once near-bankrupt, subsidized, very isolated, and unknown league is now on everybody’s imagination, and there are people who want to get in on it. So, two men think, well, if they’re paying suddenly $500,000 a year, I can just say that I’m a woman. I’ll put on a wig or something, and then maybe I’ll wear a dress that day. And because you can now create your own gender and the league is on record that they don’t have a definition of what actually a transgender person is vis-a-vis a biological male or female, they have no right to tell me I can’t play. And of course, they won’t believe that I can dominate the league, and they won’t stop me from showering with some very attractive women.

And so, now the league is in a dilemma because their own politically correct DEI rhetoric has put them on the horns of a dilemma. Do they sound like Sophie Cunningham and say, “No, you men, you cannot play because you can’t declare your sexuality contrary to your biological DNA nature”? You can’t do that. Or do they stick to their guns and destroy the league by inviting biological males, as Sophie Cunningham has warned they would destroy the league with their greater advantages in size and strength and endurance?

But what’s behind all this? Why do we even talk about this? Nobody cared about the Women’s National Basketball Association. I don’t mean to denigrate it, but nobody knew it existed. If you asked the average American to name two teams, they could not name them prior to 2024.

So, from 1997 to 2024, nobody knew what this league was about. It was perpetually losing money, somewhere around $20 million to $40 million a year, that had to be either subsidized by the owners themselves, who maybe believed in women’s basketball, or they believed that they wanted a different demographic. Who knows what they believed, but they were willing to lose money because they never made any money for 20 years.

And then the National Basketball Association thought it was a good PR outreach to have a women’s version, a female version, and they were willing to subsidize that $20 million, $30 million, $40 million loss. Then Caitlin Clark comes along. As I said, she brings in a billion dollars of revenue. All of a sudden, there’s all of this drama about Caitlin Clark, her people trying to hurt her, Sophie Cunningham trying to protect her, people going after Sophie Cunningham, and people know about the WNBA.

And the result is the players are flying private to their practices and games. They’re paid $500,000 on average. Many of them are making several million dollars, $5 million, $10 million a year in merchandising and media appearances, etc., etc. In other words, Caitlin Clark single-handedly put the WNBA on the map, and that’s what the problem is, because the WNBA was sort of a little unknown league that was 65% black.

People had suggested it was 35% to 40% gay, and they sort of had their own little atmosphere, their own culture, and they weren’t really being rewarded, but they controlled the ownership, the coaches, the referees, the players, all were on this DEI left-wing page. And suddenly, the great benefactors of all of them happened to be white heterosexuals like Caitlin Clark and Sophie Cunningham, and they didn’t want that.

In other words, they were willing to commit violence against them, and the league was either going to condone it or plead ignorance rather than all benefit. And there was one subtext that no one talks about, but it’s right there staring us in the face: that Caitlin Clark is probably the best player, and that’s not supposed to happen in a predominantly gay, black female league.

Doesn’t mean that other players are not nearly as good, but we haven’t seen anybody like her in women’s national basketball. And in the case of Sophie Cunningham, she’s tall, she’s beautiful, she’s blond, she’s white, and people resent that as well. You put those two figures together, they create all this controversy and hostility, and they remind America that something is definitely wrong with this league.

It encourages racism, it encourages sexual prejudice, it encourages violence, and nobody wants to touch it. And if it continues, maybe they’ll lose Sophie Cunningham, and they would lose Caitlin Clark, and if they lost both of them, they would go back to their preferred obscurity and poverty.

Don’t Listen to the Psy-Op War: Now Is the Time for Iran’s Total Defeat

 

In matters of war and peace, it is vital to think and act in the context of time, place, and history. The U.S. conduct of war with Iran must be thought of this way.

In fact, there are fundamental similarities between the war against the Shia Mullah regime in Iran and the War against Nazi Germany that started World War II. Both Nazi Germany and today’s Shia mullah regime in Iran were and are evil regimes, with no respect for human life, and worse, an all-consuming hatred and commitment to annihilation of the Jewish people. If we say we would have stopped Nazi Germany if only we had known they would undertake a holocaust, then we had better wake up and defeat the Mullah-terrorist-IRGC regime in Iran now.

Let’s revisit what happened before the holocaust. By the mid-1930s, Adolf Hitler had already begun dismantling the post-World War I treaty provisions: rearming Germany in violation of the Treaty of Versailles (1935), remilitarizing the Rhineland (1936), and annexing Austria in the Anschluss (March 1938) — all without serious Western resistance. Each step convinced Hitler that Britain and France lacked the will to stop him.

Today, the Iranian regime may assess U.S. vacillation in a similar way that Hitler viewed the lack of resolve in Britain and France at that time.

In the summer of 1938, Hitler turned to annexing Czechoslovakia, piecemeal starting with the area known as Sudetenland — a border region with a large ethnic German population. Backed by the Sudeten German Party, Hitler succeeded in whipping up claims of Czech persecution of ethnic Germans and demanded the region be ceded to Germany.

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain made three personal flights to Germany to negotiate directly with Hitler, culminating in a four-power conference in Munich led by Chamberlain, French Premier Édouard Daladier, Hitler, and Italy's Benito Mussolini. Mussolini was the key actor in brokering the final terms, and would go on to become an ally of Hitler. It is noteworthy that Pakistan, which Iran has supported in several territorial disputes, has been brokering the failed peace negotiations between Iran and the United States.

Recommended

The Death of Academic Fraud Jason Arday Won’t Shut Us Up Kurt Schlichter Guess Who David Crowley Blames for Milwaukee County's High Taxes and Fiscal Mess Amy Curtis

The September 1938 Munich Agreement ceded the Sudetenland to Germany, and Chamberlain returned to Britain waving the joint declaration and famously declared it brought "peace for our time." While bringing temporary relief in Britain and France, the Munich Agreement was hollow. Hitler was emboldened by perceived weakness, and six months later, in March of 1939, he violated that agreement and marched troops into Czechoslovakia to take over the remainder of the country.

Six months later, in September 1939, Hitler invaded Poland, starting World War II.

While France joined Great Britain in declaring war on Germany, within six weeks of Hitler’s invasion of France, Belgium, and Holland on May 10, 1940, France’s military defense position collapsed, and Paris fell. On June 22, 1940, the French government signed an Armistice with Hitler.

The U.S. Operation Epic Fury against Iran has cycled through roughly six rounds of escalation → threaten major strikes → pull back for talks → sign a partial agreement → watch it collapse over enforcement disputes (mainly the Strait of Hormuz and Iran's nuclear program) → escalate again. As of today, it's in another one of these fragile pause-for-negotiation windows, with no comprehensive settlement yet reached.

We see these cycles of on again — off again as failed negotiations, but Iran sees them as a successful way to stop U.S. bombing, buy time to get rearmed from China and Russia by land through Pakistan, and move the conflict agenda closer to the U.S. midterm elections. Maybe it is time that the Trump administration wakes up to being played for fools.

There are several big picture takeaways for the United States to think about and incorporate in dealing with Iran from what happened with Hitler’s Germany, France and Great Britain in the early years of World War II:

• First, recognize that evil regimes cannot be trusted to negotiate in good faith and they cannot be appeased. They must be defeated, and preferably defeated early, which can save millions of lives.
• Second, weak countries are easily compromised and conquered by powerful evil regimes.

Iran sees U.S. hesitancy at this stage as their victory. It’s also important to remember that right after the first few days of Operation Epic Fury’s massive bombings, the Iran regime launched missile and drone strikes on Sunni neighbors: the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain.

So now, these neighbors of Iran, having been massively struck by Iran, are likely confounded and demoralized by the U.S. on-again-off-again hesitancy.

Very recently, Oman has entered into its own negotiations with Iran over control of the Straits of Hormuz, perhaps because cutting a deal with the devil they know was perceived as a better option than trusting the United States, which they may remember as being inept in Iraq and utterly incompetent in carrying out Trump 45’s Doha Agreement to withdraw from Afghanistan, which was disgracefully and unbelievably botched by the Biden Administration.

Our Sunni Arab allies are aware of the fickle nature of the American electoral political system. But all of them, having felt the pain of missile and drone attacks early in the Operation Epic Fury campaign, may not entirely trust Trump’s staying power in the face of an uncertain mid-term election. They may also throw in the towel on the Abraham Accords because of this questionable durability and inconsistency of American foreign policy.

Trump should turn all this around to the advantage not only of the United States, but also to the advantage of the Sunni states that have put up with the Shia Mullah regime in their neighborhood for the last 47 years, with a recent painful reminder of Iran’s wrath and wickedness.

The U.S. has about 400 fighter aircraft positioned in and around the Straits of Hormuz, while the neighboring Sunni nations collectively have 600 advanced fighter aircraft (that have been purchased mainly from the United States). The Kurds, who are largely Sunni Muslims, and with whom the U.S. has good relations, already have boots on the ground in Iran.

Strong, quiet leadership by the Trump team at this juncture could bring together a U.S.-Sunni, or a U.S.-Israeli-Sunni coalition with overwhelming force and capabilities to get this job done. After all, this is their neighborhood, not ours. 

Iran is already a militarily defeated nation. To allow this evil, suicidal regime to rebuild and reconstitute itself would be a tragic missed opportunity to liberate the vast majority of Iranian people who want to live as free people under some form of democracy. And fundamentally, it would be a dereliction of duty to the greater Middle East. Defeating this regime also puts the nail in the coffin for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, all of which dramatically improves the prospects for peace in the region.

If there was a time to get this done and bring the Iran regime to its knees in total defeat, that moment is now.

Is This What Cost Francesca Hong the Election in Wisconsin?

 

Francesca Hong is likely recovering from the Wisconsin gubernatorial campaign, where the far-left candidate seemed like a lock to win. She fell short by 3,211 votes to David Crowley, who Wisconsin voters didn’t want but came out on top after Republicans ran a blitz on Hong’s past remarks about a host of things, including, bizarrely enough, Thanksgiving. These attacks could’ve been saved, as Hong is, at least on paper, viewed as the weaker candidate. Yet she also didn’t counterattack well, being more willing to soak up the abuse. It obviously didn’t work, but one expenditure was absent from her campaign: broadcast ads. And some are saying that it cost her the campaign (via Notus):

Francesca Hong’s Wisconsin gubernatorial campaign embraced the new era of campaigning for progressive candidates, from a social media-dominated bid to her democratic socialist-influenced policy platform.

But part of her razor-thin loss to David Crowley on Tuesday could be explained by the traditional, or a lack thereof: broadcast TV ad spending.

Despite leading the Democratic field by double-digit margins before the primary, Hong was the only active candidate to seek the governorship without running broadcast TV ads, according to ad-tracking service AdImpact.

Some strategists think the Hong campaign’s decision to focus on digital platform advertising ultimately led to its demise, costing her key parts of the electorate.

“In a primary, voters are more persuadable,” Democratic strategist Jared Leopold told NOTUS. “Especially in a smaller primary, it’s a mistake to try to narrow cast too much because you actually do need to hit a wider swath of a primary electorate, because more people are likely to change their votes at the end than in a general election.”

[…]

Exit polls show Hong won several counties helmed by colleges and certain cities like Green Bay, while Crowley swept the majority of Wisconsin’s rural districts, as well as Milwaukee County and its suburbs. Hong, however, appeared to overperform in rural counties in the state’s northwest — including St. Croix and Douglas — which also happen to sit in Minnesota media markets that saw fewer political ads on linear broadcast channels.

Even so, Hong’s lack of broadcast ads likely cost her blocs like older voters who can drive turnout, strategists say.

“It’s a mistake to not communicate with a part of the electorate,” Leopold said. “There’s still a lot of people, particularly older people, who watch a lot of TV.”

Crying About the Kids’ Failures Doesn’t Help Them Succeed

We have all seen the video of the frustrated teacher crying for his senior class on Instagram and on X. The New York Post filled in the details, teaching us more about this depressed academic.

Here’s a key entry from the Post:

    A Texas high school teacher was reduced to tears and broke down in front of his class when he realized the seniors he was teaching couldn’t complete a writing exercise.

    Darius Williams, a teacher for Houston Independent School District’s Wheatley High School, said he couldn’t get through the first class of the second day of school before his students’ poor literacy skills were too much for him.

    “I just finished a three-hour class, and I literally broke down in the middle of class,” Williams said in an Instagram video during his lunch break on Tuesday.

Mr. Williams should be furious. His kids have not been learning, yet he’s expected to give them the last comprehensive review of English literature. Students usually learn about American Lit their junior year, and by the senior year, they’re taking English literature, from Beowulf to the Bloomsbury Group.

These failures within Houston ISD have been festering for a long time.

In 2015, Texas State Rep. Harold Dutton (D-Houston) pushed through a bill allowing the Texas Education Agency to take over Houston ISD. In fact, Rep. Dutton shared in his 2015 interview with The Defender Network that he noticed Houston’s failures as far back as 2003.

Houston ISD was performing so poorly that a Democrat lawmaker wanted Texas to take over the district. He knew he faced political backlash from his own party for standing up to teachers’ unions and putting the needs of children first, but he could not look away and ignore the chronic academic failure of his home district.

Dutton’s bill passed over 10 years ago. Eleven years later, the teacher featured above, who teaches at Rep. Dutton’s alma mater no less, has broken down and cried on camera in his classroom because the students can’t write four words.

This failure is systemic and generational. This is institutional collapse of the highest — or lowest — order, and all guilty parties should not slide.

Who allowed these students to advance from grade to grade without any competence? Don’t the standardized tests mean anything? Where were the teachers beforehand? How far back does this culture of failure stretch? I remember talking with fellow teachers in South Gate, CA, and we were all working at a brand-new school on the west side of town. One English teacher confided to me that he had sought out the transcripts of his current students in his English classes. Throughout their middle school years, the students just advanced, even if they were earning straight Fs. Where’s the accountability? Where are the resources to hold students back who do not master basic skills or content in order to face the next grade level?

And think about the students! They have to endure grade after grade, falling further behind, even though the district pushes them forward unearned. I remember teaching an eighth grader during my student teaching. He literally looked at the book, the assignment, then me, and admitted: "I can't do this."

Horrible!

Some school districts require students to retake courses they failed, or they direct students to remedial or alternative education. Those continuation schools pose different problems for the kids. The environment becomes a malaise of students who refuse to work, who often go to class only half the day, working on basic contracts outlining all the work they must do to graduate. All of this does not ensure that kids will learn anything.

Will they recover their credits? Will they graduate? Many school districts simply dump these failing kids into remedial education just to maintain higher test scores for the regular schools. Unethical, to say the least.

Regarding the standardized tests, sure, they matter. They provide a broad indication of how well or badly things are progressing in the district.

And this time, time itself is another problem.

The reform efforts started more than 20 years ago, when a politician recognized that the local school district was failing the students. He introduced legislation over ten years later to fix the problem. More than a decade after that, the school district is still failing the students.

This is beyond outrageous. The bureaucracy wins again. Moving the ship of state is hard enough, but should children suffer the whole time? More parents are fighting back, realizing that their children don’t have 10 or 20 years to make up for the lack of education in their public schools.

And how many parents are taking the lead to do what is best for their kids? Go to any school board meeting across the country. Aside from the national outrage over mask mandates and obscenity in the libraries, most parents have nonchalantly checked out of their children’s education. It took COVID-19 and the massive lockdowns to force parents to pay attention!

How many generations get harmed by the institutional setback of a bad education? How many families struggle because the children graduate from high school with some expectation that they can start a job, grow a career, build a family, and make a life for themselves … only to run into the relentless reality that they possess no competence to accomplish anything?

This is too much to bear. No wonder teachers are so overwhelmed.

I wanted to cry when listening to Darius Williams’ fraught frustration.

Which invites another set of tough questions …

What has Mr. Williams done to turn the tide on this tragedy of failed education? Or better yet, what can he do? One great teacher can’t make all the difference on his own. Teaching English to seniors depends on the effectiveness of all the teachers in freshman, sophomore, and junior years. You might work your heart out, and the kids come out smarter than the students at the local community college, but will the next teachers carry on your legacy of success?

I don’t understand why so many teachers remain in these failing schools, aside from a sense of last-ditch hope that they can turn things around. If the system in the school district is failing that much, the best thing that a teacher can do is to flee.

Lo and behold, that’s precisely what is happening.

Good teachers need to get out of bad schools, because they cannot turn them around, and they should not enable or take the blame for their collapse. Look at the celebrated case of Jaime Escalante at Garfield High School in South Los Angeles. He challenged the kids, trained up enough of them to take the AP Calculus exam, and many of them passed. Despite the ETS suspicions that they had cheated — due to the students making the same mistakes — the students retook the exams and showed the world that students in a failing school district could succeed.

The ridiculous union rules, the feckless demands of administration, and the pushback from jealous faculty frustrated Escalante, and he eventually found a more welcoming school. Mr. Williams should consider Escalante’s course. He should either find a better district or just give up on public education entirely. 

The Media Strategy to Turn Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Into Taylor Swift

 The country is currently being dragged along on one famous woman’s interpersonal drama surrounding her most recent breakup, and inviting us all in so she can document her most intimate thoughts and decisions regarding breakups, relationships, and motherhood.

No, I’m not talking about the past 'round-the-clock media obsession with pop singer Taylor Swift — this time it’s a member of Congress. House Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The question is why? Why is a member of Congress hauling us all along in a series of personal social media videos on Instagram (IG), where she discusses and lectures about inner strength, taking back her life (from whom or what is unclear), and more Girl Boss clichés, all while treating the camera like it’s a friend she should need instead of an Instagram following?

Ocasio-Cortez, 36 years old, announced that she would be freezing her eggs, and demonstrated the process by sticking syringes into her abdomen while joking to the camera and her viewers to “not be weird.” I will leave the questions about egg freezing to fertility experts and women who have had the lived experience, but my questions involve the timing and the reasoning.

This past week, Ocasio-Cortez’s IG videos were the main topics of crossover TMZ and political social media, and she’s just getting started.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is going to run for president in 2028. Sure, there’s a chance Democrats recapture the Senate and Chuck Schumer either steps down as leader or retires, leaving a prime open Senate seat for her to capture, but here’s the thing about Ocasio-Cortez: she hates her job.

She hates being stuck in Congress and all the administrative nonsense that comes with it. She would much rather be out in the streets with her fellow comrades tearing down October 7 hostage posters. The presidency has always been on her horizon, and Bernie Sanders, who turns 164 years old this year, likely doesn’t have another populist run in him, but his most valuable and visual disciple does.

What we are seeing, and why Ocasio-Cortez is attempting it, is the (ironically) gestation period of remaking her image to the country — leaning hard into the working-girl-boss image that dominates much of the media coverage of young, working millennials these days. The decision to open her bedroom to her most personal decisions on fertility is a calculated image action to reshape herself as a celebrity.

This is where the media comes in. TMZ, the notoriously influential celebrity paparazzi outfit, recently opened a D.C. bureau to cover politics and politicians as only it can, stalking down members of Congress in quick ambush-style hits to get their thoughts on the Yankees, Taylor and Travis’s wedding, or any other sort of cultural nonsense it can think of.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her dating life are about to become a singular media obsession, just a full year from likely announcing a presidential run. Maybe the newly single “AOC” goes a boring route, and her next relationship or spouse is just some boring policy wonk from the New York Democratic Socialists of America chapter. But that won’t generate buzz, and it won’t make her the main character in the country, a position that has been held by Donald Trump and Taylor Swift now for roughly a decade.

The TMZification of our media will seize on the opportunity to make Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s personal love life the center of cultural curiosity of the presidential race. Who she is seen out on the town with, who she is having dinner with, who she just broke up with, or who she is engaged to. They see this as an opportunity to do the impossible — to finally rescue control from Donald Trump, who has had a stranglehold on media attention for the past decade.

We know this because she’s already opened the door and let the media and her audience into her home.

Get ready for it. Get ready for “AOC 24/7” — who she’s dating (an athlete or musician or actor, maybe?), “AOC spotted court-side,” “AOC spotted on the red carpet,” “AOC spotted backstage” — and the press to create a media and political phenomenon that cannot be countered by other Democrats in a presidential primary.

Just as Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce tie the knot and exit into the background of American pop culture, the ground is ripe for someone to take Taylor’s place, and it appears as though someone already has.

If Democrats Win, Trump Will Be Impeached Again

 Recent primary elections show the Democrat Party is split between the socialists and the establishment. This is a battle between the left and the far left.

Among leaders in today’s Democrat Party, moderates do not exist, except for Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA). The old pro-capitalism and pro-middle-class Democrat Party leaders, represented by former Presidents Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton, have vanished.  

After Clinton supported welfare reform, an illegal immigration crackdown, capital gains tax cuts, and budget discipline and delivered four years of surpluses, the next Democratic President, Barack Obama, gave the country racial division, pro-transgender policies, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and the disastrous Affordable Care Act.

After Obama, Democrats never looked back and kept moving to the left. The next Democrat President, Joe Biden, was more of a radical leftist than Obama. If, heaven forbid, a Democrat wins the White House in 2028, it will be another super-progressive President.

Amazingly, the members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) believe the establishment Democrat Party is too conservative. For them, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are not progressive enough.

It will be interesting to see which faction of the Democrat Party prevails over the next two years. The DSA candidates have expressed support for abolishing the Electoral College, the U.S. Senate, prisons, police departments, borders, and the capitalist economic system. Establishment Democrats are horrified that these plans are being publicly discussed, for they know this agenda is appalling to average Americans.  

Republicans will be spending heavily between now and November 3rd to educate Americans on the dangers of the DSA policies. They will remind voters that socialism is a failed economic system that has delivered nothing but misery, death, and destruction worldwide.  

This may be enough for Republicans, aided by a net gain of seats from redistricting in several states, to maintain control of Congress in the midterm elections. However, if the economic situation, the war in Iran, or the massive media bias against Republicans helps the Democrats win control of Congress, get ready for one agenda item to unite these two intra-party factions: a third impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Almost all congressional Democrats suffer from a severe case of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” While they do not agree on the radical elements of the DSA agenda, Trump hatred unites Democrats.

For example, in an interview on Saturday on MS NOW, Democrat Rep. Robert Garcia (CA-42) discussed his concerns with Attorney General Todd Blanche’s “expansion of executive privilege.” According to Garcia, this move was designed “to essentially shield the president from really any conversations that he’s having with really anyone that he views as an advisor. And some are then claiming this executive privilege so that the public can’t get access to important government documents, conversations, memos.”

When asked by host Jacob Soboroff if “impeachment was on the table,” Garcia replied that “impeachment” is “always…on the table. But I think we should be clear that Donald Trump does commit impeachable offenses weekly.”

If Democrats could impeach Trump for a “perfect phone call” to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky or a speech to supporters calling for them to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices” heard at the U.S. Capitol, then anything he does can lead to impeachment.  

In April 2026, Democrat Rep. John Larson (CT-1) filed 13 articles of impeachment against President Trump. He joined 70 other Democrats who had either called for Trump’s impeachment or for the 25th Amendment to be invoked. Despite his anti-Trump agenda, Larson lost his Democrat primary and will not return to Congress for a 15th term next year.

President Trump knows what will happen if Democrats take control of Congress. In a speech to Republican members of Congress in January 2026, the President said, “If we don’t win the midterms…they’ll find a reason to impeach me.”

Sharing the President’s viewpoint is Emma Doyle, the former Chief of Staff for the Office of Management and Budget in his first term. She said that Trump is “almost certainly going to be impeached” if Democrats take control of Congress.

If that occurs, the scenario will resemble what happened in Trump’s first term. First, there will be hearings, investigations, and harassment of the Trump White House.

Democrat Rep. Ted Lieu (CA-36), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, outlined the Democrat game plan. If they take control after the midterms, Democrats will investigate “ICE operations,” “potential stock trades by his family, and his use of the Justice Department against political opponents.”

He continued, “Impeachment is an indictment, and you…gather evidence and do hearings and interview witnesses, get documents. Part of what we’re doing separate from impeachment is (investigating) the massive corruption in the Trump administration.”

Democrat House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY-8) claims that Democrats have not “ruled anything out in terms of accountability,” including impeachment. However, U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) predicts a rough next two years for President Trump. “He’s going to have the most miserable two years of his life in the last two years of his term…because I think November is going to be a disaster,” he said.

Cornyn is not alone, as the latest odds on the Kalshi prediction market for the President to be impeached before January 1, 2028, are 55 percent.

Of course, impeachment will not lead to a conviction because Democrats will not have the two-thirds Senate majority required. Thus, this impeachment talk is political theater designed to motivate a divided Democrat Party base.

Impeaching Trump does not improve the economy or make life more affordable for Americans. Democrats have no viable ideas to enhance the economy, and they don’t care about improving the lives of Americans. They just want power and are talking about impeachment to help them retake control of Congress.

Republicans should take advantage of this Democrat Party weakness and spend the next few weeks listening to Americans and promising to deliver real legislation that will address real problems. This is what Americans want, not another impeachment of Donald Trump. 

The Democratic Party’s Socialist Divide

person 1: All right. So, we had primaries. Speaking of lots of money spent, and I think in Michigan they had the largest amount spent on a primary ever, and that was about $80 million. And that primary was between Haley Stevens and Abdul El-Sayed. Apparently, Haley Stevens spent up to $70 million, and she lost.

It seems to—well, I was wondering your thoughts on that primary in particular. It seems to me it’s a bellwether for the problems in the Democratic Party, because they really split, the Democratic Party split over those two candidates.

person 2: If you look at the number of Michigan voters—Republican, independent, Democratic—those who voted for El-Sayed, it’s a very small number, relatively.

But they got organized for the midterms.

And it’s very funny because if you are a socialist-communist—and I’m not using that as a pejorative term, as when [New York City Mayor Zohran] Mamdani says that he wants to seize the means of production or take property from people if he finds they’re poor landlords, etc., etc. And the agenda of the Democratic Socialists of America is take over utilities, break up corporate agriculture, seize people’s property. So, it’s not a slur.

But the thing about all these people is, if you’re an activist like Hasan Piker or these other democratic socialists, then they come across as communist. However, if you’re running for office, you come off not even as a socialist. So, he was renouncing a lot of the things he was going to do. Oh, they’re just, I’m just gonna do this. And then when they take office, they are not even socialist—they’re communist.

And so, he will be, if he’s the elected senator, he will have a communist agenda.

The other thing is, we think these people are so charismatic and young. I listened today to [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], and they had clips of her on YouTube. When she went over to the Security Council, she was like a deer in the headlights. She couldn’t even explain U.S. foreign policy. She just says, well, and, uh, yes. She couldn’t talk.

And she’s not well-spoken. She’s not well-educated. She doesn’t have a lot of experience. I don’t see her as dynamic. I see her more like a Kamala Harris candidate.

And then everybody said Hasan Piker is the podcaster of the Left, and he’s brilliant, and he’s tough. And I watched seven or eight appearances where he’s not behind this microphone. And what he does is he takes his phone, his cellphone, and he just looks at it, and then he looks at the crowd, and he says, like, it’s like, you know. He looks like, like, and you know, he looks like, you know. And he like, he looks at, like, the phone, like, you know, talking. You know what I mean? Like, like.

And that’s what he does. He has a vocabulary of maybe 800 words, maybe 300 more than Kamala Harris. But I was just stunned at how poor he comes across when he’s not reading a script, and he can’t talk extemporaneously. He has to get his talking points.

And so, these are not a formidable group of people. They keep saying they’re so talented.

And when you saw the head of the democratic socialists with Shannon Bream, I felt sorry for her. Shannon Bream just said, these are basically communist positions. And you thought that she would try to, yep, yep, we’re with that. Yep, yep.

And there’s the other thing about them. They’re so arrogant. Here we are in—going to be the 238th year of the republic, and these people come over to this country, not as immigrants of the past who came legally. They were gracious. They wanted to assimilate, acculturate, integrate. They loved the system. They wanted to adapt to it.

Hasan Piker and El-Sayed and Mamdani and [Darializa Avila] Chevalier and [Melat] Kiros—they come over here either in the first or second generation, and then they start telling America what’s wrong with their system. We don’t like the Electoral College. We don’t like the nine-person court. We want two more states. We want to get rid of the Senate. We want to get rid of the presidency. This is a terrible system.

Why did you come over if it was so terrible? And why is it so wealthy? And Hasan, how did you get a $3 million home in West Hollywood? Why are you driving a Porsche? Mamdani, why did you leave your settler-colonial elitism as the 1% that controlled the money in Uganda and you come over here as a child? If it was such a terrible system, how did your parents get so much money in the United States? Ph.D.s? Come on.

And Ro Khanna now is doing the same thing. How did your father-in-law get $200 million? Why is your wife driving a $200,000 automobile?

So, my point is, they do very well, and they show nothing but ingratitude. And then they start lecturing Americans—and they’re Americans—what’s wrong with their country.

And it doesn’t go down well. It doesn’t. People—and they’re not formidable. They’re not educated. They’re arrogant, but they don’t know much about the country.

And I just don’t think they’re going to do well in a national election when independents—who poll about 20% in favor of socialism. Most of the independents are disaffected conservatives that bolted from the Republican Party, to tell you the truth. And they are not going to vote for a socialist, if they are honest that they’re socialists. But, you know, they may be like Joe Biden and just be a waxen effigy and then run as good old Joe Biden from Scranton and then outsource his whole agenda to socialists that destroyed the border and all that stuff they did.

person 1: Yes. And can I add something? They’re also violent. Like El-Sayed saying they’re only going to listen when the ogre’s head is on a pike. Or, I can’t say anything because these people might be worried about the ayatollah, who was a violent person.

person 2: I mean, yeah, he loved him. One of the reasons that he said that he wasn’t going to rejoice in his death, he admired somebody who killed 40,000 people.

It’s going to be very funny. I think everybody realizes, or should realize, what Marxists are. They like violence. They say they’re for the people and they want to empty—oh, we don’t, we’re going to abolish the prisons.

If you’re a homeless person and you go into one of Mamdani’s stores, and it’s 30% off, and you do what you do to a capitalist owner—you get your little trench coat and you open it and you start putting steaks in there—they’re going to go after you and they’re going to prosecute you.

And it’s not going to be, well, it’s less than $950, shoplifting. No, that’s a felony against the people. That’s how they’re going to look at it. You watch that.

They’re capitalists, is what I’m saying, that masquerade as communists. I only say that because they live like capitalists. They’re wealthy people. You know, you see Jane Fonda from her mansion today deploring poor people and homeless people in Los Angeles. They’re not, open up your mansion.

You know, when Stanford University and all these universities during [President Donald] Trump’s first term were saying Trump has cages and these people are coming across the border and they have nowhere to stay and he’s putting them in–those were the Obama detention cells that they used for a while.

And then you thought, well, wait a minute. There are a million and a half students—more than that—that are not in school right now in the summer. And Stanford and Harvard and Princeton, I bet they could house 20,000 people. And so, you should tell the undocumented or the homeless, your champions want you at the university. Then you could have internships during the summer. You could say, you know what? We have Stanford Law School. We have a lot of interns. Now, we chased out a federal judge and yelled that his daughter might be raped. We kind of messed up his hair a little bit, but we’re here to give you legal counsel.

Then the head of the medical school says, oh, don’t leave us out. We have a lot of residents, and they’re woke, and we’re going to come in and give you cradle-to-grave health care, at least that kind of health care, while you’re on our campus. And then we’re going to have the professors, well, since you’re here and you’re illegal, now you’ve got a room and you’ve got food and you’ve got health care and legal advice, we’re going to tutor you so you can take free classes.

They never do that. 

Is ‘Communist’ No Longer a Slur?

 It is not difficult, these days, to see the neo-communist flipside of “democratic socialists”—once they find power.

Indeed, the more the ossified Democratic Party claims that its growing cadre of socialist renegades are not really socialists, the more they act like—and even appear comfortable being called—communists.

With every new policy they propose, the socialists have been dropping the pretense that they are not Marxists.

How about declaring capitalism a failure?

All the socialists now do that—and even Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom has also started agreeing that “capitalism as we know it doesn’t work either.” Oddly, Newsom himself, a multimillionaire and a beneficiary of arch-capitalist Gordon Getty’s largesse, seems to have done quite well under capitalism.

Confiscating private property?

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani claims he will do just that if New York’s landlords, in his opinion, are poor custodians of their own property.

Dismantling the U.S. Constitution?

Almost all Democrats have long called for destroying the 238-year-old Electoral College. And now the socialists openly brag that, when they take over the Democratic Party and then the nation, they will, as good Bolsheviks, go much further: destroying the Senate, destroying the Pentagon, destroying prisons, destroying the police, and destroying our borders.

And they want to take over utilities, break up or absorb corporate agriculture, and own major industries. Apparently, socialists believe that with a snap of their fingers they can destroy key elements of the U.S. constitutional order. Would these “socialists” even resent their agenda being called “communist”?

They also seem to have taken their cue for such radical change from “mainstream” Democrats—for example, Kamala Harris. Now in her third vain bid for the presidency, she has adopted the doctrine of “if you can’t beat them, join them.” So Harris now promises that if she is elected, she will pack the court, admit two new blue states (to snag four liberal senators), end the filibuster, and junk the Electoral College. How she plans to amend the Constitution to that effect she never tells us.

Like all good Marxists, these “ends justify the means” leftists show an utter lack of principle: If two new red states wished to join the U.S., they would lecture us on the sanctity of a 50-state union. If they were a permanent Senate minority, they would, as in the past, honor the filibuster. If they had lost the popular vote in two recent elections but won the Electoral College, they would praise the wisdom of the Founders. If they had their Earl Warren-era majority again, they would laud the continuity of the 157-year-old nine-justice Supreme Court.

How about making “enemies of the people” lists and forcing sales of private property?

Mamdani just sent out a public list of nearly one million New York homeowners. He sent official warnings to 17,000 of these property owners that, if within four weeks they cannot prove that they have lived full-time in their own properties, the city will levy a huge surtax on them to drive home the point that no one should own an additional high-value home. Are show trials next for those who decline to reply?

In other words, Mamdani has flipped the American tradition of “innocent until proven guilty.” Instead, almost 20,000 New Yorkers are now automatically presumed guilty of being house-hoarding, capitalist leeches who owe the exploited classes tens of thousands of dollars a year in reparations, unless they—the newly presumed guilty—can prove themselves innocent.

Welcome to Mamdani’s revolutionary court.

Mamdani’s new surtax could add from $40,000 to $350,000 a year to tens of thousands of homeowners’ taxes—in addition to already-existing steep property taxes that often range from $5,000 to $150,000.

Most owners will do the math and see that the new aggregate tax payouts in just a few years could be more than the value of the home itself.

Why is Mamdani doing this?

The socialist mayor’s aim here seems twofold:

First, he wants to flush out and dox anyone owning two homes as a purported enemy of the people.

And so, Mamdani created a list of his targets, including their addresses, and published it. To the extent that many properties really were second homes, Mamdani has now made sure that all New Yorkers, including envious rubberneckers, would-be squatters, and hardened criminals, know exactly where they might target a sometimes-vacant home.

Second, he wants to force a massive fire sale of second homes that would crash home values in general and so redistribute now “affordable” houses to those whom Mamdani considers, as victims of capitalism, to be more deserving of these properties.

Recently, on cable news, the national co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, Megan Romer, was asked a series of questions about her group’s published agenda. Far from denying its communist radicalism, she gleefully confirmed it all—from destroying the border to ending prisons, the military, and the police.

But it is in Spain, and Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s corrupt and unpopular regime, where we see what one-eyed-jack socialists can do when they are finally in power, especially when they are hated and on their way out.

Sanchez has given amnesty to 600,000 illegal aliens. One result was that 60,000 Muslim men from North Africa in a single day recently swarmed Spain’s colonial outpost on the Moroccan coast at Ceuta, demanding amnesties and free subsidized passes into European Spain—while looting and vandalizing businesses and attacking Spaniards.

So, why do European socialists and American leftists, once elected, destroy borders, create conditions of mass chaos, and welcome in millions of illegal aliens—poor, often angry, and unassimilated—from the Third World?

Aside from their belief that the capitalists and their bourgeois hirelings deserve chaos, violence, and upheaval, they hate the fact that capitalism is too class-fluid to furnish a permanent exploited proletarian underclass.

And so they import a huge victim class, and virtue signal their purported moral superiority. Then they spend lavish social largesse upon the influx, and, in quid pro quo fashion, thus bind their imported underclass with their welfare-state assurances.

Mail-in and early ballots, no-ID voting, same-day registration, ballot harvesting and curing, and no final verdicts on Election Day were all leftist projects, all designed to enroll as many illegal voters as possible.

The Left has also learned from experience that the time between immigrant parents fleeing third-world hellholes to find safety, freedom, and prosperity in the U.S. and their children hating the very generous host that welcomed them—and demanding that America be radically transformed to resemble the catastrophe from which they or their parents fled—is often only about 20 years.

So if one enjoys watching the careers of Reps. Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or Mamdani, then one should certainly vote socialist to ensure that they are the new model for American elected officials.

It is the paradox of our age that anyone can flee Somalia, the West Bank, Puerto Rico, or Uganda and then win the global lottery by being accepted into America’s constitutional society and free-market economy—only to do their best to repay the generosity of their host by turning their new country into something unrecognizable to the prior 10 generations of Americans.

But then again, America might become quite similar to the mess they abandoned.

So far, the model holds true: Socialist candidates (as opposed to registered socialist activists) hide their communist-adjacent agendas during elections. But once in office and drunk with power, they find socialism too wishy-washy and go full communist. So, they destroy borders, institutions, names, dates, statues, norms, customs, and traditions to replicate the illiberalism and concomitant failures of a new Haiti, a West Bank, or a Morocco in the West.

In sum, to make a new socialist America, you must first destroy everything that made Americans and all that they hold dear.