The Wall Street Journal last week ran a column headlined, “The Congressional Pension Racket.” That got me thinking about how Congressional pensions aren’t such a big grift around here, because none of our Congressional hacks ever retire.

Why should they? The entire six-state region is 100 percent gerrymandered – 21 seats, 21 Democrats, even though about 40 percent of the New England electorate voted for Donald Trump in 2024.

That’s why the Democrats are so mad about the gerrymandering this year. They’ve already gerrymandered everywhere they could, in spades. Their gerrymandering is a mature industry. The Republicans had a lot of ground to make up, and now they have.

As for the Congressional pension racket, it’s tough to come up with the actual numbers. The feds don’t have to easy-to-access website, like we do for tracking our greed-crazed hacks here in Massachusetts.

But after doing some checking, it’s clear that our shiftless, corrupt local hacks are stuffing their pockets with a lot more cash than almost all of the Congressional layabouts.

The info in the WSJ column came from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTFU), and some of it is outrageous.

For instance, Dementia Joe Biden, the worst president in US history. After a lifetime at the public trough, he now collects $413,000 a year.

More than the president makes – if Trump were taking a salary, that is.

I called the NTUF and asked them to run some local hack numbers for me. As I said, though, the numbers are vague, and there aren’t that many. You see, here in New England, as Thomas Jefferson said of the federal bureaucracy, vacancies by death are few, and by resignation never.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen is retiring at the end of the year after two terms. The NTUF says she should be getting $50,610 a year.

One of those running to replace her is the guy she beat back in 2014, John Sununu. He’s still only 61, but when he turns 62, he’d be eligible to grab $32,515 a year. A call to his Senate campaign about his pension plans was not returned.

Then there’s ex-Rep. Barney Frank. He announced way back when that he wouldn’t take a hack pension. Was he telling the truth? Hot Bottom’s heart throb was not available for comment from hospice.

Nikki Tsongas was a Congresswoman in Massachusetts for a few forgettable terms. At age 80 she’s out now, and the NTUF estimates her annual take at $33,218. She’s also the widow of ex-Sen. Paul Tsongas – another kiss in the mail, for which we do not have the numbers.

Tsongas succeeded Marty Meehan, who seen his opportunities and took ‘em, parachuting into the ZooMass hackerama with a salary last year of $889,453.66, behind which comes the 80 percent pension.

But wait, there’s more. Marty is 69, and according to Congressional pension rules, since turning 62 he’s been eligible to collect even more public money — between $39,000 and $41,000 a year.

These are decent if not exorbitant pensions, especially when consider that it’s only undoubtedly only one of several stipends most of these tax-fattened hyenas are grabbing.

But it’s still short money compared to what Massachusetts hacks are making on the back nine.

Just to cite one example, there’s Cong. Bill Keating. Before he was elected to Congress, he was the district attorney of Norfolk County.

His predecessor, both as DA and as Congressman, was Bill Delahunt. After getting elected to Congress, in a very Joe Biden-like election, if you get my drift, Delahunt then connived himself a deal at the State House to shift the pension status of all DA’s into Group 4 – cops.

That means full retirement benefits available at age 55, 10 years earlier. Guess how old Delahunt was when he was first elected to Congress.

Suddenly Delahunt was eligible for a full-boat state pension – in addition to his full Congressional salary, on which he hardly paid any federal income tax because his legal domicile was more than 50 miles from D.C.

After 83 glorious years of uninterrupted slurping at the trough, Delahunt died in 2024. In addition to his Congressional pension, he’d been double-dipping with a state pension of $64,003 a year.

But his double successor Bill “the Invisible Man” Keating is the one who’s really stuffed his pockets full under the Delahunt dispensation.

Keating, who doesn’t even go to the bathroom without a hall pass from either Nancy Pelosi or Hakeem Jeffries, pockets $174,000 a year as a rubber-stamp Democrat Congressman.

And he now collects both his full Congressional salary of $174,000 – again, minus most federal income taxes – and a state pension from Massachusetts that is now up to $116,269 a year.

This is Keating’s 16th year double-dipping. Just from the state pension alone, he’s stuffed his pockets with $1.7 million.

A very long time ago, Keating was his own man. He was in the state Senate, and he actually ran for the presidency of the body against Billy Bulger. This was back in the day when Billy’s serial-killing brother Whitey was still around, so it took some stones to go head-to-head with the Corrupt Midget.

Keating could have allowed himself to be bought off a state judgeship. But he hung in for the big bucks, and it’s worked out for him more than somewhat. Cueball Keating is laughing all the way to the bank.

For the record, Billy Bulger crushed him in that fight for the presidency of the state Senate.

But who really won? In hack terms, only one thing counts – the money, the kiss in the mail for doing nothing.

So here are the final results:

Billy Bulger, pension of $274,539 a year. Since 2004, he’s collected almost $5 million — $200,000 a year until 2020, when his wife died, after which he started grabbing the extra $75K.

Bill Keating: $174,000 Congressional salary and $116,269 a year pension. There’s a saying:

Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. That old saw obviously doesn’t apply in the hackerama, but here’s one that does.

Two kisses in the mail is better than one kiss in the mail.

This is why I say, don’t worry about the Congressional pension racket. The real scandal is the Double-Dip Pension Racket.

It’s one thing for all these hacks to be feeding at the trough. But why do they have lick the plate?

Howie Carr

China doubles down on its path to economic doom, and Trump has all the leverage.

Texas Hughes | May 20, 2026

Trump understands finance and economics. Trump knows that China is doubling down on their path to economic doom. I’ve come to believe that he is humoring the Chinese to get good trade deals for America, knowing that China is struggling to stave off their coming financial crash.

We have read about China building, and sustaining, its rapidly growing economy with huge spending on government financed projects. These projects are often large infrastructure and urban housing projects. 

All governments do this. China’s mistake is doing it on a gigantic scale by continuing to print money it doesn’t have. This creates a vast public debt that becomes progressively more dangerous. This is perhaps an inevitable mistake made by leaders of socialist economies. Russia is doing the same thing to keep paying for its failing Ukraine gambit.

Socialists avoid the natural controls of capitalist economies that let businesses fail, rather than continue to cover their failure to make a profit. This leads to ever more government debt to avoid economic collapse, thus making the problem ever larger, and making the inevitable collapse ever worse. 

This article from the Financial Times describes it well. 

How China enables American domination

Normally after an empire gains economic might, its currency takes an increasing share of reserves held by central banks. With a 17 per cent share of global GDP, but only 2 per cent of central bank reserves, China is trailing 30 to 40 years behind previous superpowers at a similar stage of their ascents.

Britain at its peak accounted for 40 per cent of trade, but 60 per cent of trade payments were in sterling. China by contrast has a leading 15 per cent share of global trade, but only 2 per cent of trade bills are invoiced in renminbi.

The dollar’s omnipresence lets America run the show in more than one way. High demand for dollars lowers US borrowing costs and allows it to run persistently large twin deficits.

China’s] money supply has multiplied sixfold since 1980 to 230 per cent of GDP, among the highest in the world. This liquidity sloshes around inside the walled economy, much of it in the domestic debt market, battered lately by a property bust. Beijing is wary of easing controls, lest it unleash capital flight.

So, China does have the world’s second largest economy. It does have a large external trade volume. It does have decently impressive technological capabilities.

But, it is built upon huge government financed internal debt from funding socialistic style projects. Its currency is shunned by the world’s financial markets, and used mostly when China can pressure other nations into accepting their crappy currency.

Trump needn’t do anything to pressure China. He can easily smile, nod, and flatter them to get deals good for America. He knows China’s economy is due to collapse. He knows it will take years for them to recover. He knows the present communist government may well collapse. He knows the USA will effectively win the economic struggle, and, that China will need a few decades to recover.

At worst, China’s leaders may attempt to capture Taiwan in the desperation of their failure. But, given what’s going to happen to China, negotiating anything about Taiwan now is useless.

Remember the old adage, “the Emperor has no clothes”?

In China’s case, the Emperor has no currency.

Global oil supply in 2025 is shaped by a tug-of-war between OPEC+ restraint and vigorous non-OPEC growth. Based on reputable outlooks (EIA, IEA, OPEC) as compiled by Trading Economics, output continues to edge higher versus 2024. Below is a clear, country-by-country look at the leaders and what is driving their barrels this year. Figures refer to crude oil production only (excluding condensates, NGLs and other liquids).

In 2025, worldwide crude production is hovering around the mid-104 to 105 million b/d range, up roughly 1.6–1.9 million b/d year over year. The bulk of new supply is coming from non-OPEC+—especially the United States, Brazil, Canada and Guyana—while OPEC+ extends voluntary cuts that curb growth from key members. Macro headwinds include softer price expectations (Brent trading in a roughly $58–$70/bbl band in several forecasts), uneven demand growth, and ongoing geopolitics from sanctions to regional conflicts. Project ramp-ups in deepwater (Brazil), shale (U.S.), and oil sands (Canada) underpin the expansion. Meanwhile, several producers face infrastructure, investment, or above-ground risks that will continue to shape their 2025 trajectories.

Top 10 countries by 2025 production

1.  United States — 13,642 kb/d

The United States remains the world’s largest oil producer in 2025 with an average of about 13.6 million b/d (13,642 kb/d). Growth is led by the Permian Basin, where productivity and infrastructure expansions keep setting new benchmarks. Pipeline debottlenecking and disciplined efficiency gains support high sustained output despite price volatility. U.S. shale remains the swing engine of non-OPEC+ supply growth this year. Service costs and decline rates are watched closely, but momentum remains firmly positive.

2.  Russia — 9,818 kb/d

Russia maintains substantial output near 9.8 million b/d (9,818 kb/d) despite sanctions and the OPEC+ framework. Redirected crude flows and discounted barrels have sustained production levels into alternative markets. The policy path within OPEC+ and the durability of export logistics remain key variables for 2025. Investment and technology access are ongoing constraints, yet operational resilience has been notable. Market watchers track compliance and export routing for signals on the year’s balance.

3.  Saudi Arabia — 9,722 kb/d

Saudi Arabia averages roughly 9.7 million b/d (9,722 kb/d) as extended OPEC+ cuts temper its near-term volumes. With spare capacity around 12 million b/d, the Kingdom retains unmatched ability to adjust supply if policy shifts. 2025 strategy prioritizes market stability over maximizing barrels. Domestic upstream capability and megaproject readiness keep optionality strong. Price signals and OPEC+ cohesion will guide any change in Saudi output cadence.

4.  Canada — 4,420 kb/d

Canada’s production advances to about 4.42 million b/d (4,420 kb/d), up roughly 0.3 million b/d year over year. Oil sands expansions and incremental optimization are the main drivers. New takeaway capacity improves netbacks and supports higher sustained runs. Environmental policy and ESG standards remain core to project pacing and capital allocation. Overall, 2025 marks another year of steady, infrastructure-enabled growth.

5.  China — 4,350 kb/d

China’s domestic crude output holds near 4.35 million b/d (4,350 kb/d), reflecting steady redevelopment of mature basins. Enhanced recovery and targeted investment cushion declines. While China remains a major crude importer, stable local production is strategically important. Policy support and national oil company plans aim to sustain plateau levels. 2025 thus looks broadly flat with limited upside risk.

6.  Iraq — 3,742 kb/d

Iraq averages around 3.74 million b/d (3,742 kb/d) under the OPEC+ umbrella. Field performance at super-giant reservoirs remains robust, though export coordination and policy factors shape realized flows. Infrastructure reliability at southern terminals is a perennial watchpoint. Investment timelines and contractor activity influence incremental growth. For 2025, volumes are largely policy-constrained rather than geology-limited.

7.  Brazil — 3,679 kb/d

Brazil climbs to roughly 3.68 million b/d (3,679 kb/d) as pre-salt projects add barrels. Deepwater ramp-ups deliver some of the strongest non-OPEC+ gains in 2025. High productivity wells and reliable FPSO deployments underpin continued momentum. Logistics and maintenance schedules are the main swing factors for monthly prints. Overall, Brazil is a cornerstone of global supply growth this year.

8.  United Arab Emirates — 3,240 kb/d

The UAE posts about 3.24 million b/d (3,240 kb/d) while remaining aligned with OPEC+ objectives. ADNOC’s capacity expansion program preserves medium-term upside once policy settings allow. 2025 strategy balances market stewardship with investment in spare capacity. Efficiency and low upstream carbon intensity strengthen its competitive position. Any relaxation of cuts could surface meaningful incremental barrels.

9.  Iran — 3,218 kb/d

Iran’s output is estimated near 3.22 million b/d (3,218 kb/d), higher than in prior years despite sanctions. Alternative trade channels and domestic offtake support sustained production. Policy dynamics and enforcement intensity remain the key uncertainties. Reservoir management and maintenance have stabilized declines at legacy fields. In 2025, Iran is a notable swing factor for balances and differentials.

10.  Kuwait — 2,489 kb/d

Kuwait averages roughly 2.49 million b/d (2,489 kb/d) within the OPEC+ framework. Mature field management and steady brownfield work sustain core volumes. Neutral Zone developments offer medium-term potential depending on project cadence. Investment discipline and reliability remain hallmarks of its upstream. For 2025, policy rather than geology is the chief limiter.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson went after all eight of her judicial colleagues Monday over the Voting Rights Act case of Louisiana v. Callais. 

She suggested that the court acted politically by speeding up the case’s final ruling so that Louisiana would have time to craft a new map for the upcoming midterm elections.

“It can so easily be perceived that the court is doing something political,” the Biden appointee said while speaking at the American Law Institute, according to ABC News.

“In my view, we have to be really, really careful in this environment when we’re dealing with issues that have a political overlay,” she added.

“We have to be scrupulous about sticking to the principles and the rules that we apply in every case and not look as though we’re doing something different in this kind of context.”

The original case struck down part of the Voting Rights Act in a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito. Her comments, however, seem to refer to the court’s 8-1 decision to certify the case faster than it normally would.

The decision to move faster was essential, given the current timetable, Alito stated.

The dissent [from Jackson] would require that the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana be held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional,” he wrote.

Standard practice is to wait 32 days before a SCOTUS decision is certified, to allow other parties more time to consider asking for a rehearing. There are historical exceptions, however.

Jackson’s lone dissent stated that the court’s decision “has spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana.”

Alito was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch in writing a concurring opinion that said Jackson’s sentiment “lacks restraint,” SCOTUS Blog reported.

He also called Jackson’s reasoning “baseless and insulting.”

the court had waited, Alito wrote, that, too, could have been seen as a politically partisan act, because it would favor supporters of the old map.

Alito added that Jackson’s accusation is a “groundless and utterly irresponsible charge.”

As a result of the Callais decision, other southern GOP states have gone back to the drawing board to change their maps.

Republicans are currently poised to have a potential 10- to 12-seat advantage in the congressional redistricting fights taking place around the country.

Some states have redrawn their lines early to favor the GOP, while others, like Alabama and South Carolina, plan to use the SCOTUS Voting Rights Act decision to pad their totals, in hopes of maintaining a congressional majority.

Nick Givas

Peace through strength deters war, appeasement invites war, and letting an enemy build up unmolested makes wars longer, costs higher, and risks greater.

William R. Hawkins | May 19, 2026

i Jinping holds the titles of General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Chairman of the Central Military Commission, President of China, and Core Leader of the CCP. President Donald Trump used the title “President” when meeting with Xi last week, but in reality, his CCP tittles are what matter. Xi’s title as Core Leader elevates him to dictatorial power on a scale held previously only by Mao Zedong.

The pomp and circumstance shown to President Trump was an obvious play to the American’s ego, but also a display of Great Power status on a par with, if not better than, the United States. Chinese state media, academics, and officials have long promoted narratives declaring the “rise of the East and decline of the West” and that “the Chinese model is more effective, more competitive, and superior to the American model.” Xi, in a not very subtle way, asked Trump if he had read Harvard professor Graham Allison’s 2017 book Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides Trap? This was widely reported as an effort by Xi to promote peaceful relations, but such a view is not supported by the contents of the book and why Xi likes it.

Allison’s argument is that too many wars, starting with the conflict between Athens and Sparta described by the ancient historian Thucydides, have been the result of an established power (like America today) trying to resist a rising power like China. The status quo power is cast as the aggressor. So, it is better to accommodate the challenger to keep the peace. This will take “huge, painful adjustments in attitudes and actions” writes Allison, including accepting that America is doomed to fall to second place behind China. It is better to lose without a fight is his decadent advice.

The passage that Xi most likes is when Allison argues that resisting China’s rise is not even possible anyway because “China has already passed the United States” in economic strength and military potential.

Yet, Allison’s own historical examples show just the opposite of his preconceived conclusion if you instead start with the record. In each of his twelve examples of modern war between a “ruling” power and a rising power, it is the rising power that starts the war with acts of aggression. In none of the cases does the ruling power act in a pre-emptive manner to push its rival down before it feels strong enough to attempt an outright seizure of power. That was their mistake. Even Allison’s core example of Sparta reacting to Athens’ rise notes that the two Greek city-states had a 30-year peace treaty during which, as Thucydides writes, Sparta did little until “the better part of Greece was already in their [Athenian] hands.” This means that the ruling powers behaved exactly as Allison wants the U.S. to do; they did nothing to protect their position. But instead of the peaceful outcome Allison desires, war was the result as inaction invited continued aggression. The rising power saw no limits. The real lesson is obvious to anyone not blinded by Allison’s leftist ideology that embraces American decline. Peace through strength deters war, appeasement invites war, and letting an enemy build up unmolested makes wars longer, costs higher, and risks greater.

China’s leaders are happy to welcome scholars like Allison for visits where they can reinforce beliefs which favor their advance. During Trump’s first term, Allison visited China and stated, “For four decades, Republican and Democratic administrations alike saw China as a ‘partner’ or ‘strategic partner.’ But the Trump administration now publicly calls China a ‘strategic rival’ or ‘adversary.’ Obama, Bush, and Clinton pursued a strategy of engaging China and welcoming its integration into the global economic and security order the United States has led for seventy years.” If read in its proper way, this statement confirms that past presidents practiced appeasement. They did not just allow but encouraged the massive transfer of capital and technology across the Pacific to empower the Beijing regime. An epic blunder in grand strategy.

Trade is at the heart of the appeasement narrative. Economic interdependence was the core of the post-Cold War euphoria; the way to keep even militant regimes like the PRC in hand. This idea comes from the classical economists of the early 19th century who tried to proclaim a similar new world order after the decades of war sparked by the French Revolution and Napoleon. Foremost among these liberal philosophers was Richard Cobden. His most famous claim was that commerce was “the grand panacea” that would remove “the motive for large and mighty empires, for gigantic armies and great fleets would die away.” It is Cobden’s naïveté that sets the real “trap” that national leaders should avoid but have too often fallen for from the advice of academic and business factions. The French economist Frederic Bastiat added that “Free trade means harmony of interests and peace between nations.” Actual history shows the contrary as control of productive assets and resources is what fuels ambition.

It is this “Cobden Trap” that should be the center of study. The thirty or more business executives President Trump took with him to China has raised concerns that a “transactional” President may forget the essentials of grand strategy which require that the U.S. back away from economic interdependence with a China that uses its control of critical minerals and industrial supply-chains as leverage to shift the balance of power in its favor, and enhances its control by stealing technology on a massive scale.

A Chinese attack on Taiwan would be the last step in a march of aggression leading to a major war. Global Times, the CCP’s main propaganda outlet, hailed Trump’s post-Xi interview with Fox News where he supposedly weakened U.S. support for Taiwan saying he doesn’t want “the U.S. to travel 9500 miles to fight a war.” But the way to prevent such a war is by deterrence, not appeasement. I have visited Taiwan several times. It is a magnificent island filled with great people who have earned their freedom. Thucydides argued that interests override morality in human nature leading to the horrors of war. But in the case of Taiwan, the strategic interests of the U.S. and its Asian allies (especially Japan) are reinforced by the moral case for Taiwan’s continued independence which it has had on a de facto basis for three generations.

The National Security Strategy, issued last November, should keep us on track. It states, “We want the world’s most robust industrial base. American national power depends on a strong industrial sector capable of meeting both peacetime and wartime production demands. That requires not only direct defense industrial production capacity but also defense-related production capacity. Cultivating American industrial strength must become the highest priority of national economic policy… We want to remain the world’s most scientifically and technologically advanced and innovative country, and to build on these strengths. And we want to protect our intellectual property from foreign theft.” These objectives cannot be met unless we break the Chinese economic grip and translate our economic strength into military power to counter Beijing’s buildup.

The good news from Allison’s work is that in most cases, the “ruling” power has been able to turn back challengers by drawing on its deeper reserves of strength. This is also true in those cases which did not result in war. Allison counts the Cold War as a success because it did not turn hot. Yet, appeasement had nothing to do with its outcome. U.S. strategy was based on containing the Soviet Union to hobble its economic development. Controls blocked technology transfers. There were “hot spots” where covert actions, proxy wars, shows of force, arms races and the support of dissidents and insurgents were used. In the end, the stronger power won. The Soviets collapsed both at home and abroad when President Ronald Reagan gave them a push.

Vladimir Putin pursues a revanchist policy, his smaller Russia is even more underdeveloped, inferior not only to the U.S. but to the EU. Indeed, the U.S.-led global alliance system unites over half of the world economy under the western banner. The challengers, whether in Beijing, Moscow or Tehran, do not have the power to prevail against such a strong coalition of advanced nations — unless Western leaders listen to defeatists like Allison. Which is why Xi wants to promote his views.

William R. Hawkins is a former economics professor who has worked for several Washington think tanks and on the staff of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee. He has written widely on international economics and national security issues for both professional and popular publications including for the Army War College, the U.S. Naval Institute, and the National Defense University, among others. 

California’s aggressive push for a $20 fast-food minimum wage was sold as a moral victory for workers, a bold stand against corporate greed that would lift families without consequence. Yet the reality unfolding at Carl’s Jr. locations across the state tells a different story—one of shuttered opportunities, fleeing staff, and franchise operators driven to bankruptcy. What began as political virtue-signaling has delivered economic pain that no amount of union rhetoric can disguise.

Friendly Franchisees Corporation, a major operator running dozens of Carl’s Jr. restaurants, filed for Chapter 11 protection last month, citing the wage mandate as a primary driver of its financial collapse. The chain has already trimmed its California presence from 613 stores in 2023 to 588 in 2025. Sales are down, labor costs are soaring, and workers report fearing for their safety amid rising violence.

This is not progress. It is the predictable fallout of ignoring basic economics in favor of feel-good policy.

The Wage Hike That Was Never About Workers Alone

California lawmakers and union allies celebrated the 2024 $20 minimum wage for fast-food workers as a necessary response to the state’s crushing cost of living. Yet even as some employees saw higher paychecks, the policy’s hidden costs mounted. Franchise operators like Harshad Dharod, CEO of the affected entity, stated plainly in court filings that the wage increase “materially increased operating expenses.” Despite millions in revenue, the math no longer worked.

Rising prices at the counter have deterred customers already tightening belts amid inflation. National data showed a 4 percent drop in Carl’s Jr. consumer spending in 2025. Competition intensified while corporate marketing faltered.

The result? Locations struggling to stay open, hours cut, and innovation stalled. Government cannot simply decree higher wages and expect businesses to absorb the blow without consequences for jobs, service, and viability.

Violence in the Workplace Compounds the Crisis

Labor costs form only part of the story. Workers at Carl’s Jr. have walked out, organized by the California Fast Food Workers Union, citing chronic understaffing, inadequate supplies, and rampant safety threats. Union statements describe daily aggression—customers yelling, throwing food, and worse. One alleged incident involved a man threatening an employee with a frying basket before punching her. Another reported cash stolen directly from a worker’s hand.

“We live in fear just walking to work from the parking lot,” the union declared. “Nearly every day we’re subjected to aggressive and violent behavior.”

These are not abstract complaints. Employees describe humiliating conditions, broken equipment, and retaliation for speaking up. The very policy meant to empower workers has coincided with environments that drive them away. When businesses operate on thinner margins, corners get cut—security, training, staffing—and the human cost lands hardest on those at the front counter.

Policy by Wishful Thinking Meets Fiscal Reality

Supporters of the wage mandate point to studies claiming limited job losses and modest price increases. Yet the Carl’s Jr. case, alongside similar strains across the sector, exposes the fragility. Thin-margin operators in high-crime areas face a perfect storm.

Reduced marketing, executive churn, and lack of franchisor innovation compound state-imposed burdens. Jonathan Turley captured the dynamic sharply: “California’s war on basic economics continues to rack up losses.”

Rhetorical questions abound for policymakers in Sacramento. If higher mandated wages truly help workers, why are franchisees declaring bankruptcy while pleading for cash to meet payroll? Why do employees report fearing shifts more than ever?

The state’s experiment ignored incentives: businesses respond to costs by raising prices, cutting hours, automating, or exiting. California’s reputation as hostile to enterprise grows, pushing opportunity elsewhere.

When Good Intentions Destroy Livelihoods

This saga exposes a deeper truth about governance that elevates compassion signaling over sustainable outcomes. Families relying on these jobs watch as locations shrink and instability rises.

The biblical warning in James 5:4 rings with fresh relevance amid withheld wages and broken promises in the workplace: “Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.”

California’s leaders chose coercion over cooperation. The result is fewer restaurants, anxious workers, and struggling operators. True compassion requires policies that recognize human nature, economic limits, and the dignity of honest work—not mandates that erode the enterprises providing it.

Carl’s Jr.’s struggles should serve as a cautionary tale for every state tempted to follow California’s lead. Ignoring supply and demand does not elevate the working class. It burdens them with scarcity, fear, and fewer doors of opportunity. Until leaders acknowledge this, more iconic chains and hardworking Americans will pay the price.

Europe is the ‘jungle’ now. No garden left to speak of.

J.B. Shurk | May 20, 2026

Josep Borrell is a Spanish socialist who held several high-ranking positions in the European Union.  Until 2024, he was a vice-president of the European Commission and the high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy.  In that capacity, he ran Europe’s External Action Service, which is the diplomatic body that executes Europe’s foreign policy decisions around the world.  He remains a man with a great deal of influence over European perspectives.

In 2022, Borrell created a bit of an international incident when he described Europe as a “garden” and the rest of the world as a “jungle.”  “We have built a garden,” he told aspiring European diplomats in Bruges, Belgium.  “Most of the rest of the world is a jungle.  The jungle could invade the garden.  The gardeners should take care of it.”  

As the head of the European Defense Agency, Borrell’s comments made strategic sense.  As he said in that same speech, “The jungle has a strong growth capacity…Walls will never be high enough to protect the garden.  The gardeners have to go to the jungle, Europeans have to be much more engaged with the rest of the world.  Otherwise, the rest of the world will invade us, by different ways and means.”  

Borrell’s speech came seven years after German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to open her country’s borders to millions of Islamic immigrants.  Originally touted as a humanitarian policy designed to temporarily shelter refugees from war-torn Syria, Germany’s generous welfare programs quickly became a magnet for young men across the Middle East and North Africa.  When Merkel declared on August 31, 2015, “We can do this,” she initiated an all-of-society “welcome culture” that quickly produced a full-blown migrant crisis for the whole continent.  Over ten years later, the influx of millions of Muslims into Europe has transformed school demographics and local politics, unleashed an explosion in sex crimes and anti-European violence, strained Europe’s hospital services and social safety nets, and exacerbated government debt.  

Speaking after the “jungle” had already successfully invaded Europe’s “garden,” Borrell knew there was no way to put the genie back in the bottle.  Merkel’s fateful decision to “welcome” Middle Easterners to Europe transformed cities and towns across Europe into the Middle East.  Borrell also knew that the European Union’s patchwork defense agency did not have the requisite military and espionage assets to effectively protect the continent.  So he tried to fashion his corps of young diplomats into a network of information and persuasion agents who could do Europe’s bidding around the world. 

Borrell’s message got lost in the ensuing international kerfuffle over his “garden” / “jungle” division of the world.  From Russia to Canada, Africa to Southeast Asia, every self-described “foreign policy expert” took umbrage at Borrell’s bluntness.  Perpetually offended virtue-signalers hadn’t gotten so worked-up since President Trump had called Haiti a “shithole country” four years earlier.  Just as Conan O’Brien felt compelled to white-knight for Haiti’s dystopian, cannibal gangland by visiting a heavily guarded resort in the Caribbean country and recklessly encouraging vacationers to join him, legions of politically correct snobs from around the planet recorded social media videos from their country estates in which they turned tsk-tsk-ing into a veritable lingua franca for the vicariously aggrieved. 

All the “very best people” denounced Borrell for promoting a scarcely disguised restoration of European imperialism, colonialism, fascism, and genocide.  Young international students enjoying university scholarships and living in Europe for free made sure to remind Borrell that “diversity is our strength.”  Borrell’s socialist comrades beat him over the head with Europe’s prime directive: multiculturalism über alles.  Mohammadbagher Forough, a random research fellow at the German Institute for Global and Area Studies, publicly reprimanded Europe’s foreign minister thusly: “This kind of comment puts a serious dent in the enterprise of European strategic autonomy.  It upsets, at the most profound level, countries in the rest of the world, because of the history of colonialism.”  

In other words, Europe’s “ruling class” and auxiliary straphangers condemned Borrell for daring to defend the beneficiaries of Western civilization.  He was encouraged by threat of high-culture social banishment to follow Chancellor Merkel’s example in supplicating before the migrant hordes.  The message was clear: Europe’s minister of defense cannot properly “defend” Europe unless he allows non-Europeans to take over the continent.  It was further proof that Europe is irreparably lost.

Since his departure from the European Union’s foreign policy perch at the end of 2024, Borrell has spent most of his time in public lambasting President Trump’s global leadership.  A staunch supporter of Ukraine who once threatened to “annihilate” the Russian army, Borrell has frequently defended the honor of Volodymyr Zelenskyy by claiming that Ukraine’s holdover president is leading “the resistance” and “deserves respect.”  After President Trump described Zelenskyy as a “dictator without elections,” Borrell called the “accusation” the “height of dishonesty.”  When President Trump and Vice President Vance took offense to Zelenskyy’s sense of entitlement and disregard for American taxpayers who have paid the salaries and pensions of Ukraine’s government workforce, Borrell screamed on X, “Trump and Vance have put on a disgraceful show.  I am ashamed of that behavior.”  

In response to Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference last year during which the vice president excoriated Europe’s crackdown on free speech and political dissent, Borrell lectured his erstwhile colleagues: “This is a declaration of political war against the European Union.”  Going further, Europe’s former defense minister declared, “Europe must stop pretending that Trump is not an adversary and assert its technological, security, and political sovereignty with clarity and strength.”

As much as I find Borrell’s socialist-globalist politics abhorrent, I respect his impulse to defend his fellow Europeans.  The problem is that the European Union is a governmental monstrosity — bureaucratically lethargic, ideologically suffocating, foolishly regulatory, unmoored from its stated principles, opposed to public debate, enamored with its empires’ past glories, and increasingly oppressive.  Eurocrats such as Borrell believed they could reconstitute European centrality in the world by constructing a “rules-based international order” and forcing every other nation in the world to bend to Europe’s will.  Brussels has long desired to rule the world through rule-making. 

It turns out that depending on the United States for security, the Russian Federation for energy, and communist China for critical imports is not a blueprint for European strength.  To his credit, Borrell understands Europe’s dilemma.  He knows that the European Union “was not designed for the world in which we live today.”  Forced to watch President Trump remake the world without showing any deference to Europe’s globalist prerogatives, Borrell openly laments, “We are not very relevant to international politics.”  

Can you imagine how difficult of an admission that is for Borrell to make?  He has been weaned on the notion of European superiority all his life.  Even as parts of the European continent careen toward civil war, Borrell still believes that Europe is the world’s idyllic “garden” and everywhere else remains wild “jungle.”  From Borrell’s perspective, not only is Haiti a “shithole country” but also the United States is, too.  

Borrell finally realizes, however, that Europe survives only because the rest of the world permits it to endure.  When you depend upon the United States, Japan, India, China, Russia, and the Middle East to produce everything that Europe’s dying empire needs, then you have no leverage or real power in the world.  European imperialism is dead because Europe has no armies or navies to enforce its “rules-based” edicts.  European imperialism is dead because sane nations refuse to impoverish themselves in the name of carbon credit tyranny.  European imperialism is dead because Europe opened its doors to an Islamic invasion. 

Europe is the “jungle.”  The “garden” is gone.  European hubris sealed its fate.

American Thinker

Climate hysteria, which was always about power and money, finally seems to have peaked, and President Trump helped lead the way.

H. Sterling Burnett | May 19, 2026

There has been a huge shift within the public and private sectors on climate change as it has dawned on governments and companies that the United States, under President Donald Trump, will no longer be a patsy to a cabal of international elites who seek to impose costly climate restrictions upon American businesses and international climate boondoggles upon nations.

Trump’s actions are draining the climate swamp of resources, supporters, spirit, and momentum. These include defunding climate boondoggles across federal agencies, pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, withdrawing the United States from dozens of climate-monitoring and wealth-transfer organizations (most importantly the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), and rescinding the greenhouse gas endangerment finding.

With America no longer playing the fool, public and private entities are withdrawing from or reducing their climate commitments and reembracing fossil fuels. Of course, this would not happen if they really believed the hype that the world faces a pending climate catastrophe that can be stopped exclusively by eschewing fossil fuels. They are tacitly admitting Trump is right and climate change is a scam/hoax.

Examples of the rapid decline of the climate alarmism narrative are all around us. For example, the UN IPCC recently held its 64th meeting of the science committee, at which it failed to set a date for the production of the next IPCC Assessment report. It’s not just that they can’t agree on who will write the report or what its scope will be, they can’t even decide on a deadline for when to produce and publish it.

At an international meeting in Colombia this April, 60 countries agreed on the need to phase out fossil fuels — sounds like a big move forward until one realizes that is less than a third of the countries (more than 200) that had previously agreed to timelines for emission reductions in the Paris climate agreement. Importantly, none of the world’s top emitters signed on. China, the United States, India, Russia, and 140 other countries didn’t bother joining Colombia’s anti-fossil fuel crusade. That’s a step backward, not forward, as the media tried to portray it.

In another blow to the climate scam, researchers warned in an article in The Lancet, one of the preeminent medical journals, that the European Union was truncating the reach and scope of its emission-reporting requirements. The proposed regulatory change would exempt an estimated 80 percent of organizations previously bound by law to report emissions and work toward reductions from doing so.

Then there is the case of Germany, where grim electoral prospects seem to be forcing the government to end its enforced adoption of certain green technologies and fuels.

“In a shock move, the German government will allow citizens to use oil and gas to heat their homes again, even though this might increase global temperatures by a thousandth of a degree in 80 years time,” reports Jo Nova. “The government or rather, the taxpayers, will still be forced to subsidize 30 to 70% of the cost of a new heat pump, but won’t actually fine anyone or put them in jail if they buy an oil or gas heater.”

Moving on to the private sector, industries are quickly abandoning their emission-reduction targets. Shortly after Trump was elected but before he took office, 

hundreds of banks and other companies began abandoning various UN-sanctioned or -endorsed climate groups, which set reporting requirements for carbon dioxide emissions and goals for emission reductions. By early in 2025, big tech companies, fearing a lack of energy for their AI data centers, began to embrace nuclear power, natural gas, and to a lesser extent even coal in some locations. They want whatever is needed to power the burgeoning AI industry and their tech reliably, climate concerns be damned.

More recently, 18 major automobile manufacturers, including major brands like Ford, Honda, Nissan, and Volkswagen, dramatically scaled back their electric vehicle goals, in some cases abandoning entire lines of electric vehicles and programs entirely. Demand for electric vehicles flattened in 2025, only to take “a dive off a cliff after federal tax credits phased out at the end of September,” as Autoblog reports.

And it’s not just car companies. Bloomberg NEF reports that oil companies, which never should have jumped on the suicidal climate-alarmism bandwagon in the first place, are also reducing their emission-reduction goals, with the world’s largest oil and gas companies cutting spending on low-carbon technologies by more than a third over the past year, to $25.7 billion from more than $38 billion in 2024. It’s the first time in eight years their spending on climate change has decreased.

The power sector is not immune to the gravitational pull of Trump’s common sense climate agenda, either. Environment America has reported that as of March, 8.1 GW of coal capacity, consisting of 33 fossil fuel generating units across 15 power plants, that had been scheduled for closure by the end 2025, have been kept online to maintain grid reliability and power AI expansion. Most recently, the two largest coal power plants in Pennsylvania agreed to stay in operation through 2032, four years beyond their planned retirement date, specifically to ensure grid stability in the face of growing AI data center demand. Even Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, approved the plan to keep the plants open.

Climate change just isn’t the political or economic draw it once was, which is a good thing. Now the world’s companies and governments can get back to their real jobs of protecting individual rights and advancing economic prosperity for the poor and rich alike. Thank you, President Trump!

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. (hsburnett@heartland.org) is director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization based in Illinois.

In my last post, I evaluated the tradition that the apostle Thomas ministered in India. While the evidence for Thomas in India is not as strong as for Peter and Paul in Rome, it is at least probable that he founded the church in India. But did Thomas die as a martyr?

THE ACTS OF THOMAS

The Acts of Thomas (c. AD 200-220) is the earliest literary account of the martyrdom of Thomas in India. It begins with the apostles in Jerusalem dividing up the world for missions. According to lot, Thomas was assigned to go to India, but he reluctantly objected, even though Jesus appears to him at night. Shortly thereafter a merchant named Abban came from India looking for a carpenter to work for king Gondophares. Jesus offers to sell him Thomas as a slave, and this time Thomas enthusiastically agrees. Once he arrives in the city, Gondophares assigns Thomas to build him a palace outside the city gates. Thomas agrees, but instead of using the money to build the palace, he gives it away to the poor and afflicted. Gondophares, furious when he heard how Thomas used the money, casts him in prison, contemplating how he would kill him. That very night the king’s brother Gad died and was taken by an angel to see the palace Thomas had built in heaven. Gad was allowed to return to life the next day and tell his brother all he had seen. As a result, both Gondophares and Gad sought the forgiveness of Thomas, and decide also to follow the Lord. Thomas travels to another land, and after preaching, casting out demons, and performing miracles, he is eventually thrown in prison by king Misdaeus (Mizdai). Thomas prays as he is escorted to his death by four guards who kill him with spears.

Scholars either consider this account entirely fictional, or believe that there is a historical core beneath the legendary embellishment. Western scholars tend to assume its legendary nature rather than argue for it.

Nevertheless, it would be premature—simply because it was written in the early third century, at least two to three generations removed from the events—to dismiss the Acts of Thomas as lacking any historical value. While earlier sources are certainly preferred, later sources often provide valuable historical information. A helpful example comes from comparing the Acts of Thomas with the writings of Plutarch. In his Lives, Plutarch wrote over sixty biographies, fifty of which have survived. For several subjects in the Lives, Plutarch is treated as seriously as with earlier sources. He is the main source for a number of ancient figures, many of whom lived hundreds of years before his writing (e.g., Pelopidas, Timoleon, Dion, Eumenes, Agis, Cleomenes).

THE GENRE OF THE ACTS OF THOMAS

Understanding the genre of the Acts is important in determining its historicity. Christine Thomas has suggested that the various Acts of this period, and other similar novels, are best categorized as historical fiction.[1] The mere fact that the Acts of Thomas contains known historical figures such as Thomas, Gondophares, Gad, and possibly even Habban and Xanthippe, Mazdai, and the city of Andrapolis, indicates that it is not entirely divorced from a historical memory. Rather than inventing a narrative for the apostle, the authors of the Acts would elaborate upon a known historical tradition.

Kurikilamkatt asks an important question: “If the story did not have a historical background and if the readers of the book knew Thomas had gone to some places other than those mentioned in the Ath [Acts of Thomas], how could the author of the Ath believe that any credibility would be given to his story?”[2] Later tradition, as well as the lack of any competing tradition for his journeys and fate, helps confirm this conclusion.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONFIRMATION

The most significant find convincing many scholars of the historical core of Acts of Thomas was the discovery in 1834 of a collection of ancient coins in the Kabul Valley of Afghanistan. Ancient coins often provide similar information as modern coins, including the names of various rulers and kings. Among the many forgotten kings whose images christened these coins, was the name “Gondophares” in a variety of spellings including “Gundaphar,” “Gundaphara,” “Gondophernes” and “Gondapharasa.” Many other coins were soon found in different regions confirming the existence of Gondophares and his family as well. Additionally, ruins have been discovered that many consider his former palace. Some other clues have been found that lend some credibility to the possibility of a historical core behind the Acts of Thomas.[3]

Subsequent research dated the coins to the first century AD. More specific dating became possible with the discovery of a stone tablet among the ruins of a Buddhist city near Peshawar that contained six lines of text in an Indo-Bactrian language. Moffett concludes, “Deciphered, the inscription not only named King Gundaphar, it dated him squarely in the early first century A.D., making him a contemporary of the apostle Thomas just as the maligned Acts of Thomas had described him.”[4]

In addition to the written tradition of the death of Thomas in The Acts of Thomas, there is an oral tradition found among the St. Thomas Christians.

ST. THOMAS CHRISTIANS

Perhaps the most accurate rendition of the tradition surrounding Thomas in southern India is told by The St. Thomas Christian Encyclopaedia of India:

According to Indian tradition, St. Thomas came by sea, and first landed at Cranganore about the year 52 A.D.; converted high case Hindu families in Cranganore, Palayur, Quilon and some other places; visited the Coromandel coast, making conversions; crossed over to China and preached the Gospel; returned to India and organized the Christians of Malabar under some guides (priests) from among the leading families he had converted, and erected a few public places of worship. Then he moved to the Coromandel, and suffered martyrdom on or near the Little Mount. His body was brought to the town of Mylapore and was buried in a holy shrine he had built. Christians, goes the tradition, from Malabar, the Near East and even from China used to go on pilgrimage to Mylapore and venerate the tomb.[5]

Rather than being preserved in written text, the tradition of the St. Thomas Christians has been transmitted through songs, stories, legends, customs, and celebrations of the people. These various forms of oral tradition were how Indians at this time recorded their history. The St. Thomas Christians are utterly convinced that their heritage traces back to the apostle Thomas himself, including introduction of the Syriac or Chaldaic (East Syriac) language. The community has preserved many ancient antiquities that testify to their traditions. Some of the names of the converts of Thomas have been preserved as part of this tradition and are still remembered today in Kerala. When the Portuguese landed in Malabar around 1500, they found an indigenous community of Christians who had already held for centuries that Thomas was their founder. Like the tradition contained in the Acts of Thomas, the southern tradition contains numerous legends, exaggerations, and conflicting episodes. But the core of the tradition remains: that Thomas travelled to southern India, preached to the people, established a community, and was martyred and buried at Mylapore.

Indian scholar Benedict Vadakkekara provides five supporting reasons for the credibility of the St. Thomas tradition.[6] First, the mere existence of a community claiming apostolic roots speaks to the genuineness of the tradition. There must have been some significant reason, says Vadakkekara, for why the Indian Christians chose Thomas. Second, the St. Thomas Christians are unique in claiming Thomas as their founding apostle. The lack of competing traditions is a sign of the reliability of the St. Thomas tradition. Third, the community has passed down the tradition with consistency. Marco Polo notes (1288- 1298) the pilgrimages that Christians were making to the tomb of the apostle Thomas at Mylapore. Fourth, the tradition has been unanimous amongst both Christians and non- Christians sources. There have been some denominational splits among the St. Thomas Christians, but they unanimously share the conviction that their community has apostolic roots. Fifth, while there are undeniable embellishments, the tradition has retained its pristine simplicity.

CONCLUSION

Issues surrounding the travels and fate of Thomas go far beyond the scope of this article. If you want to analyze further factors in detail, and even consider some important objections, check out my book The Fate of the Apostles.

The evidence for the martyrdom of Thomas is certainly not as strong as for Peter, Paul, and both James. But when all the facts are considered, my research and analysis brings me to the conclusions that the martyrdom of Thomas in India seems at least more probable than not.

Regardless, we do know that Thomas (like the other apostles) willingly suffered for his faith, which shows the depth of his convictions. Thomas was not a liar. He really believed Jesus rose from the grave and was willing to suffer and die for that conviction.

Sean McDowell

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries stood in front of a progressive conference on Tuesday and said exactly what Democrats think about the tens of millions of Americans who voted for President Trump.

He wants to break them.

VIDEO AT LINK……………..

He said Democrats had to beat them at the ballot box, then break their spirit.

The remarks came during the 2026 CAP IDEAS Conference, hosted by the Center for American Progress and streamed online via Zoom.

Jeffries, who would become Speaker of the House if Democrats retake the majority in November, used his session to frame the midterm election as an existential fight between his party and the Americans he labels “MAGA extremists.”

Fox News reported on the remarks and the swift backlash they generated.

While speaking at a progressive conference on Tuesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., called for Democrats to defeat “MAGA extremists” electorally and also “break their spirit.”

Jeffries, who stands to gain the House speaker’s gavel if Democrats take the majority in the midterm election, said that “part of how we as House Democrats view this moment, either MAGA extremists are going to break the country, or we’re going to break them, and our goal is to break them.”

During the panel, Jeffries assured, “As a guarantee, we are taking back control of the United States House of Representatives in November.”

“We will defeat them,” he continued. “We have to beat them electorally, and then we have to break their spirit, because of the extremism that’s being unleashed on the American people, that’s completely and totally unacceptable.”

The backlash moved fast. Edgar Barrios, a spokesperson for House Speaker Mike Johnson, said Jeffries wanted to “BREAK the spirit” of 77 million Americans and described it as the way Democrats talk about people who disagree with them.

RNC Chairman Joe Gruters added that the majority of Americans voted for President Trump in 2024 and said Democrats want to break those who did.

Senator Mike Lee posted that Jeffries wants to “break” Trump voters and asked what the remark even means.

Fox News Digital reached out to Jeffries for comment.

Read those words again carefully.

He said defeat them, then break their spirit. That is a man describing how he wants to crush the political will of 77 million Americans who exercised their right to vote.

The Center for American Progress billed the conference as its signature annual gathering of center-left leaders and policy figures.

The Center for American Progress listed the May 19 gathering as the 2026 CAP IDEAS Conference, describing it as the organization’s signature event and saying it convenes “the big thinkers and doers on the center-left” for a day of policy discussion.

The agenda placed House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries in a session titled “A Look Ahead at the 120th Congress” from 10:43 AM to 11:05 AM EDT.

CAP described the session this way: “House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries will lay out what a new majority would do on day one and beyond. Moderated by John Podesta.”

The same agenda listed other Democratic and center-left figures, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, Gov. Abigail Spanberger, Sen. Cory Booker, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Raphael Warnock, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, and several MS NOW hosts or contributors serving as moderators.

MS NOW was listed by CAP as the official media partner for the event.

This was a prepared appearance by the House Democratic Leader, sitting on a panel moderated by John Podesta, at the progressive establishment’s premier policy conference.

Jeffries used that stage to lay out the party’s mission against MAGA.

Republicans responded immediately.

Edgar Barrios, a spokesperson for House Speaker Mike Johnson, wrote on X: “Hakeem Jeffries says he wants to ‘BREAK the spirit’ of 77 million AMERICANS. This is how Democrats talk about people who don’t agree with them: violently.”

RNC Chairman Joe Gruters said: “The majority of Americans voted for President Trump in 2024. Democrats want to break those who did.”

Senator Mike Lee posted the clip and asked the obvious question.

What does it mean? It means exactly what it sounds like.

It means lawfare, investigations, social media censorship, corporate pressure campaigns, and every other tool Democrats have deployed against Trump supporters since 2016. It means making it so painful to support the MAGA agenda that regular Americans give up and stop fighting.

Grabien posted the clip and confirmed the full context of the remarks.

Grabien posted a clip page dated May 19, 2026, identifying the source as the Center for American Progress and the original recording as the Center for American Progress IDEAS Conference.

The page headline summarized the moment this way: “Hakeem Jeffries: ‘Either MAGA Extremists Are Going to Break the Country, or We Are Going to Break Them, and Our Goal Is to Break Them.’”

The visible transcript on the page includes Jeffries saying that House Democrats view the moment as one where MAGA extremists are going to break the country or Democrats are going to break them.

It also includes the follow-up line that Democrats have to beat them electorally and then break their spirit because of what Jeffries called extremism being unleashed on the American people.

The clip page ties the remarks back to the same CAP IDEAS Conference session where Jeffries was asked to describe how House Democrats view the political moment.

Fox News Digital reached out to Jeffries for comment. As of publication, there was no response.

This is how the Democratic Party’s top House leader talks about you when he thinks his audience is friendly.

He does not see political opponents. He sees a spirit that needs to be broken.

Voters who support President Trump should take Jeffries at his word and answer the only way that counts: at the ballot box in November.