We view dealings with Iran from one election to another, whereas Iran views its wars as a global matter that affects everything and runs on a cosmic timetable.

Allan J. Feifer | June 26, 2026

We view dealings with Iran from one election to another, whereas Iran views its wars as a global matter that affects everything and runs on a cosmic timetable.

Recently, I watched the 1966 epic Khartoum, with Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier. Khartoum dramatizes the struggle between British General Charles Gordon and the Sudanese religious leader Muhammad Ahmad (the Mahdi) during the 1880s siege of Khartoum. In the film, the Mahdi informs General Gordon that Allah has commanded him to pray at every major mosque in the world and kill all who refuse to submit to him.

Whether entirely accurate or not, the scene captures a challenge secular governments have faced throughout history: confronting movements that view political objectives not as interests to be negotiated, but as divine commands to be fulfilled. How little has changed.

If the West wants to understand Iran, it must begin with a simple but uncomfortable truth: Iran does not see its proxies as separate entities. It sees them as extensions of Iran itself—armed, funded, trained, and ideologically fused to the Islamic Republic. Attack a proxy, and in Iran’s eyes, you have attacked Iran and, by extension, its divine destiny. This is not a metaphor. It is Iran’s fundamental doctrine.

Western analysts routinely miss this. They treat Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, and an entire constellation of Iraqi and Syrian militias as independent actors with local agendas. Iran does not. Iran sees its roughly 20–30 proxy and partner militias as the instruments through which it intends to shape—and ultimately dominate—the regional order.

These groups operate not only across the Middle East, but in Asia, Africa, Europe, and even North America, where Iranian operatives and proxy-linked networks have carried out surveillance and assassination plots for decades.

What matters, though, at least to Iran, is that to challenge Hezbollah is, in effect, to challenge Iran itself. That is the point that must be understood if we are to prevail, hopefully through negotiation, but if necessary, through war.

This misunderstanding of Iran’s proxy system bleeds directly into the debate over the U.S.–Iran MOU and the broader question of how to negotiate with Tehran. Much commentary on the subject is earnest but lacking a good grounding in Iranian geopolitics and history.

To understand why Iran behaves this way, one must understand what Iran believes itself to be. Iran is not merely a state. It is a revolutionary theocracy, and that identity is not a rhetorical flourish. It is the regime’s raison d’être.

The Islamic Republic’s constitution embeds Ayatollah Khomeini’s doctrine of velayat-e faqih—guardianship of the jurist—which asserts that Islamic clerics must rule the state so that God’s law can be implemented. This is not merely a domestic principle. The revolution was conceived as a universal one, intended to spread beyond Iran’s borders and challenge political systems the regime regards as illegitimate, which includes many other Muslim countries.

This is not a secret, intra-Iran concept. Iran’s leaders have said all this repeatedly. The revolution, they insist, is not simply Iranian; it is global in aspiration. It is meant to awaken the oppressed, topple un-Islamic governments, and export the Islamic Republic’s model wherever possible.

The Supreme Leader is not merely a political figure but the interpreter of God’s will. The IRGC is not merely a military force but the instrument charged with protecting and exporting the revolution. Support for proxies is not framed as a strategy but as obedience to God—a religious duty to defend the oppressed and wage jihad against injustice.

Once this worldview is understood, Iran’s behavior becomes far more predictable. The regime consistently overreaches because it believes three things with absolute conviction:

·      Allah is on its side.

·      America is weak, impatient, and unwilling to sustain casualties.

·      The Iranian people are instruments of divine will, and their suffering is acceptable—even necessary—in service to the revolution.

Iran’s worldview is not unique in history; other regimes have fused divine purpose with national destiny. Imperial Japan’s wartime application of Bushido is one example.

When governments become convinced that history, destiny, or God is on their side, they can absorb levels of pain that would break more conventional regimes. That is why sanctions, domestic unrest, and military pressure often fail to produce the outcomes Western policymakers expect. The regime has demonstrated repeatedly that it is willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of its own citizens rather than deviate from what it views as its revolutionary mission.

This ideological rigidity shapes every negotiation. The Obama administration spent more than two years securing the JCPOA, and Iran is likely to use the same playbook now: delay, stall, and wait out the American political calendar. Iran has no comparable calendar. It does not need to appease voters. It believes time is on its side because God is. All it must do is survive the current American administration, whatever its posture.

The United States, by contrast, is often impatient—eager for closure, eager for de-escalation, eager for a “solution” that Iran may view merely as a temporary expedient that can be “agreed to” for whatever time is useful.

This is the asymmetry that defines U.S.–Iran relations. It is not merely a matter of tactics but of worldview. If we fail to understand the Iranian theocracy’s ethos, we misinterpret everything we see. We negotiate from a position of weakness despite overwhelming strength. We allow Iran to dictate the terms of engagement because we misunderstand the nature of the adversary. This is not a knock on our president; what the public sees and hears is not necessarily what is occurring behind closed doors.

Iran’s proxies are not bargaining chips. They are the mechanism through which the Islamic Republic advances what it believes to be the Will of Allah. Until Western policymakers grasp this fully, every negotiation risks being lost before it begins, Iran will continue to outwait, outmaneuver, and outlast us, not because it is stronger, but because it is more patient, more ruthless, and more ideologically committed.

This is the nature of the beast.

God Bless America!

Human nature did not suddenly become flawed when Europeans arrived.

George P. Brooks | June 26, 2026

Today, the word colonialism is treated almost like a curse word. Mention it in a classroom, on social media, or in many political circles, and you’ll immediately hear words like exploitation, racism, oppression, genocide, and theft. For many people—especially younger generations—colonialism has become history’s ultimate villain, the so-called “original sin” from which nearly every modern problem supposedly springs.

As a conservative, I’ve always thought this view was far too simplistic.

Now, before anyone starts sharpening their pitchforks, let me be clear: colonial powers absolutely committed injustices. Wars were fought. Peoples were conquered. Resources were taken. Some populations were devastated. These are historical facts, and serious people should acknowledge them honestly.

But history is rarely a Disney movie with obvious heroes and villains.

The uncomfortable truth is that conquest, expansion, and empire are as old as humanity itself. Long before Europeans sailed across oceans, empires were rising and falling all over the world. African kingdoms conquered neighboring tribes. Arab empires expanded across North Africa and the Middle East. The Mongols swept across Asia and Europe. The Aztecs ruled over subject peoples through military force and tribute. The Romans practically turned conquest into an art form.

Human beings have always expanded when they had the power to do so.

What makes Western colonialism different is not simply that it conquered territory. What makes it unique is that the very civilization responsible for much of modern colonialism also produced the ideas that eventually challenged and condemned it: individual rights, constitutional government, abolitionism, freedom of speech, and the belief that all people possess inherent dignity.

That irony is almost never discussed.

In modern culture, colonialism is often presented as though it produced nothing except suffering. But history is more complicated than that. Alongside exploitation came institutions and systems that still shape much of the modern world.

Railroads. Modern medicine. Universities. Scientific advancement. Written legal codes. Representative government. Modern banking systems. International trade networks. Infrastructure. Public sanitation. Advances in engineering and agriculture.

None of this means colonialism was wholly good. It wasn’t. But neither was it wholly evil.

Here’s a question that almost nobody asks: What would the world look like if colonialism had never happened?

Would globalization exist in its present form? Probably not.

Would international trade be as extensive? Almost certainly not.

Would many of the technologies, institutions, and political systems that billions of people depend upon today have spread as rapidly? Again, probably not.

Entire continents might have remained isolated from one another for much longer. Scientific discoveries would have traveled more slowly. Modern medicine might not have spread as quickly. International commerce, for all its flaws, would likely be far less developed.

The modern world as we know it—our interconnected global economy, worldwide communication networks, international legal norms, and shared scientific knowledge—was shaped in significant ways by centuries of exploration, trade, migration, conquest, and yes, colonialism.

History doesn’t offer us the luxury of running controlled experiments. We cannot rewind time and discover what a world without colonialism would have looked like. But we should at least acknowledge that many things people take for granted today emerged from that complicated historical process.

So why has colonialism become such a dirty word?

Part of the reason is understandable. During the twentieth century, scholars and activists rightly highlighted abuses and atrocities that had often been ignored or minimized. This correction was necessary.

But somewhere along the way, nuance disappeared.

Increasingly, colonialism became not simply something that happened in history, but a catch-all explanation for virtually every modern inequality and social problem. In some circles, it has become an all-purpose moral framework: if something is wrong in the world, colonialism is assumed to be the root cause.

That narrative is emotionally satisfying because it clearly identifies victims and oppressors. But it can also oversimplify history and unintentionally strip people of agency.

A society that constantly teaches people that all of their problems originated generations ago risks creating a culture of grievance rather than one of responsibility and self-determination.

As conservatives, many of us believe that while history matters, personal responsibility matters too. Nations, communities, and individuals cannot remain forever imprisoned by the failures and injustices of previous generations.

Another problem with modern anti-colonial thinking is that it often romanticizes the societies that existed beforehand, as though pre-colonial civilizations were peaceful utopias living in perfect harmony.

They weren’t.

Like all human societies, they were capable of extraordinary achievements and extraordinary cruelty. They waged wars. Practiced slavery. Conquered rivals. Established hierarchies. Expanded territory.

Human nature did not suddenly become flawed when Europeans arrived.

None of this excuses wrongdoing. It simply reminds us that history is messy because people are messy.

The real lesson of colonialism is not that one civilization was uniquely evil. It is that power has always shaped history. Every civilization, given sufficient strength, expands its influence politically, economically, culturally, or militarily.

The question for us today is not whether colonialism was entirely good or entirely bad. It was neither.

The better question is this: Can we study history honestly—recognizing both the suffering and the achievements—without reducing the entire human story to a simplistic morality play?

I believe we can.

And we should.

10:54:20 AM by Angelino97

California is a blue state, and one of the manifestations of its political orientation has been a tolerance for one of the nation’s highest levels of taxation.

The state’s tax rates on retail sales and personal and corporate incomes are among the highest of any state. Although tax rates on real estate are relatively moderate, high property values still translate into high bills for their owners.

Specific taxes, such as those on fuel, utilities, cigarettes, liquor, medical care, gambling, guns and ammunition, contribute even more. Overall, state and local governments and school districts collect around $400 billion in taxes every year, more than $10,000 per Californian, according to the Tax Foundation. That’s the fifth-highest per capita burden nationwide.

The state budget now being hammered out behind closed doors contains a raft of relatively minor taxes, such as a new one on managed health care services, and another on software.

Meanwhile, dozens of local governments are seeking voter approval of new sales and parcel taxes. The November ballot could contain several tax-related measures, some that would increase levies, and some that would curb tax hikes.

Collectively, they test the appetite of California voters for raising the state’s tax burden, and there’s some evidence that their tolerance is waning.

In May, the Public Policy Institute of California asked a sample of the state’s voters how they would address the state’s chronic budget deficits and was told that 55% of them they “want to pay lower taxes and have a state government that provides fewer services,” as researcher Dean Bonner put it. Even among Democrats, solving the state’s deficits mostly through taxes drew only 10% support.

A couple of weeks after the poll was taken, California had a primary election that included 92 local measures that would either increase taxes directly or approve bond issues that would automatically increase local property taxes to repay them. Only 57.5% of them were approved, the California Taxpayers Association calculated, a sharp drop from the 70% increase level of other recent elections.

Interestingly — and perhaps importantly — voters’ sourer attitude about taxes was even evident in notoriously progressive San Francisco. Its voters rejected Proposition D, which would have increased the city’s tax on large corporations whose executives are paid 100 times or more of rank-and-file employees, and Proposition C, which would have boosted the city’s gross receipts tax on businesses.

Tax increases in two other Democratic regions also bit the dust: a new tax on vacant residential properties in San Diego and a sales tax hike in Contra Costa County. Voters in Los Angeles County passed a sales tax increase for healthcare, but only by a paper-thin margin.

So what’s behind what appears to be a shift among California’s voters, who are overwhelmingly Democrats? It’s probably a reaction to the state’s ever-increasing costs of living.

The same revelatory PPIC poll about taxes also found that Californians are worried about inflation.

“More than four in ten Californians (44%) identified the cost of living and the economy as the most important issue facing the state; the second most commonly chosen issue was housing costs and availability (14%),” the pollsters revealed. “Economic anxiety has continued to grow in recent years; today, three in four Californians expect difficult economic times ahead for the state. About seven in ten or more across parties, regions, and demographic groups are pessimistic.”

Pessimistic voters tend to reject measures that would increase their living costs. We’ll find out much they dislike taxes in November.

J.B. Shurk | June 26, 2026

Politicians, government bureaucrats, central bankers, spy agencies, and mainstream news outlets lie to us every day.  For some people, the previous sentence is patently obvious.  For others, that sentence represents “fringe” thinking.  For certain law enforcement agencies in North America and Europe, that sentence reveals potentially dangerous “extremism.”  

“Extremism” is such a morally squishy word.  It means nothing.  It suggests that the average beliefs of the average person in the average part of an average town are, on average, correct.  Should a person’s beliefs move too far away from the “average,” then that person will eventually fall into the “extremist” abyss.  Of course, the average person long believed that the sun and planets revolved around the Earth.  The average person long believed that bloodletting cured disease. The average person long believed in magic.  Relativity, microbiology, atomic physics, and quantum mechanics belonged to the “extremists.” 

Defining “extremism” depends upon which populations are included when calculating an “average.”  To the average American, Islamic terrorism is religious extremism.  To the average jihadi in the Middle East, terrorism is part of the Islamic faith.  One man’s “extremist” is another man’s “religious cleric.”  Unsurprisingly, as more jihadists migrate to America, the more supportive of Islamic terrorism the Democrat Party becomes.  We now have several Hamas-supporting members of Congress who define Americans opposed to Islamic conquest as “extremists.”  For a decade, Americans were told to be on the lookout for Islamic terrorism: “If you see something, say something.”  Now, if you see something and say something, you will most likely be denounced as an “Islamophobic bigot.”  If the definition of “extremism” can shift 180 degrees since the Islamic terror attacks on September 11, 2001, then “extremism” is a nebulous political label.

In the United States, citizens overwhelmingly support federal legislation that would require photo ID, proof of citizenship, and other safeguards to ensure that elections across the country are free, fair, lawful, constitutional, and secure.  Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans in Congress prefer to maintain the current “on your honor” system that can be gamed to permit large-scale vote fraud and rigged elections.  By any polling measure, Congress’s point of view is far from that of the average American.  Members of Congress, in other words, are the extremists!  If you listen to the extremists in Congress, however, our elections have never been more secure.

In fact, when you look at some of the most important policy issues today, it becomes quite clear that Congress is ground zero for extremism.  Most Americans want Congress to stop spending more money than it receives in taxes; Congress has put us forty trillion dollars in debt.  Most Americans want secure borders and an end to illegal immigration; Congress has enabled an evil human trafficking system to exist for over fifty years that rewards criminals and has flooded the country with somewhere between fifty and a hundred million (nobody knows for sure!) illegal aliens.  Most Americans are concerned about lowering fuel and food prices; Congress has wasted trillions of dollars on “Green New Deal” scams that raise the household costs for fuel and food.  Most Americans believe that college admissions and job hiring should be based on a person’s merit, skill, character, knowledge, and hard work; Congress continues to divide Americans by the color of their skin and their sexual eccentricities.  Most Americans believe that men and women are biologically distinct; Congress pretends that biological sex is an imaginary social construct.  Most Americans believe that a dollar saved today should maintain the same value ten, fifty, or even a hundred years from now; Congress thinks printing and spending dollars, depreciating the U.S. currency, and artificially spiking the dollar-denominated valuation of stocks, homes, and other assets is the best way to fake a constantly “improving” economy.  Most Americans believe that we should refrain from military engagements overseas whenever possible; Congress can’t ever get enough of forever-wars.  Most Americans want their representatives to work for American citizens; Congress believes it should work on behalf of non-Americans all over the world.  Most Americans view their country as a nation; Congress views the United States as both a global empire and a home for every person on the planet.

On the most important issues, Congress is filled to the brim with extremists.  They should be put on official security lists and monitored whenever they travel more than fifty feet from their taxpayer-financed homes.  Instead, in the United States and throughout the West, the extremists run things.

That would explain why Christians are targeted for their beliefs.  That would explain why the governments of Europe and North America have flooded their countries with unassimilable malcontents from the third world.  That would explain why men are allowed into women’s restrooms and why pedophiles are accorded more respect than heterosexual married couples.  That would explain why Western governments have declared war on “climate change” when most people don’t care about elites’ obsession with the weather.  That would explain why so many European and North American politicians are willing to risk a nuclear war with the Russian Federation, while ordinary citizens have never been less willing to fight for the defense of their respective countries.

Perhaps the more that ordinary Westerners realize that it is the people running their governments, universities, and bureaucratic institutions who are most extreme, the less willing they become to do what those extremists say.  Six years ago, the extremists locked down the world because of COVID.  They closed churches, bankrupted businesses, disrupted childhood education, prevented family members from being together, and killed a lot of people with fake “vaccines.”  If public health extremists tried to pull another COVID today, would ordinary Westerners do what the politicians and bureaucrats say?  Or would Western citizens conclude that extremist governments endanger both their lives and liberties?

Two can certainly play the “extremist” game.  Two-hundred-fifty years ago, the British Empire believed the patriots of America’s thirteen colonies to be extremists.  The patriots disagreed.  They considered it extreme for members of Parliament to make decisions on their behalf while residing 3,500 miles away.  The two sets of “extremists” fought it out, and we American “extremists” now celebrate July 4 as Independence Day. 

My question is this: How much longer can the governments of Europe and North America continue to ignore the wishes of their national populations before we find ourselves in a situation where there is an explosion of public declarations of independence from the political and bureaucratic extremists who have ruined people’s lives?  For, as much as Western governments appear to be betting on mass surveillance, central bank digital currencies, censorship, propaganda, and technocratic oppression as weapons of control to help maintain power well into the future, there’s nothing so unpredictable as a fed-up populace ready for a little revolution.  When enough people recognize themselves as average representatives of the public will and their government officials as extremists representing only their own interests, things get interesting.  Being labeled an “extremist” by government extremists means nothing.

One might even ask: Isn’t globalism tantamount to extremism when a politician puts other nations’ interests ahead of his own?  Surely, when a government official undermines the nation he serves by championing open borders policies or wasting taxpayer dollars on “climate change” boondoggles at the U.N., that official deserves to be labeled an “extremist.”  Globalists certainly don’t represent the average North American or European citizen.  But they do represent the average cosmopolitan bureaucrat who sees no country as home.  

In a world of nations whose populations require different things, globalism is extremist.  In a world of varying cultures and competing beliefs, forced multiculturalism is extremist.  In a world where some people wish to be free, international government is extremist.  

Fighting for liberty is not extremist.  It is government tyranny that is extreme.

Because the religion’s clearly stated rules are hostile to Western norms and our Constitution, Western governments fail their citizens by refusing to address it.

Shari Goodman | June 25, 2026

Since Islam’s arrival upon the world stage 1,400 years ago, when an illiterate Arab by the name of Mohammad, born in Mecca, claimed to be a messenger sent by God (whom he called “Allah”) to spread Allah’s word, approximately 270 million human beings have been slaughtered in Islam’s and Allah’s name, according to the Center for the Study of Political Islam. (Approximately 120 million Africans, 80 million Hindus, 60 million Christians, and 10 million Buddhists.)

Until fairly recently, Westerners were unfamiliar with Islam or its practitioners. However, since Congress enacted America’s Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, our doors have been flung wide open to a Third World, non-Western population whose values and norms are the antithesis of the Judeo-Christian principles that form the basis for our national foundation as outlined in our Constitution.

Unlike any other designated religion, Islam commands its followers not only to spread Islam throughout the globe but, in addition, to create a global Islamic Caliphate where no other religion but Islam reigns supreme. It explicitly commands adherents to “slay the unbelievers until all of dominion is for Allah” (Quran: Sura 9.5).

Muslims, when confronted with the above verse, will beg to differ and reply that the above verse is referenced only when in battle. However, while some genuinely believe that, it’s equally likely that they will proceed to use taqiyya (the right to lie when used to advance Islam).

From the pages of Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 – 8.2), we learn that, while speaking the truth is appropriate when it achieves its purpose, lying is equally appropriate when the truth is unavailable:

Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N: i.e., when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression…

Furthermore, Muslims fail to inform the public that Islam is dualistic. Islam divides the world into Dar Al Islam (the house of Islam, where all Muslims reside) and Dar Al Harb (the House of War, where all non-Muslims reside).

The laws of Sharia (Islamic law) do not apply to non-believers in the House of War. So yes, while Islam forbids the murder of Muslims, it does not forbid the murder of non-Muslims. Furthermore, Islam is in a perpetual war with Dar Al Harb until there is no other God but Allah, and all other religions are required to be erased from the face of the earth. (“Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.” (Ishaq: 324))

Since Mohammad attracted few followers in Mecca, he fled to Medina, where he became a warlord by pillaging nearby villages, raping the women, and enslaving the people he captured, rather than being put to death. While there, he married a six-year-old girl named Aisha and consummated the marriage when she was only nine. In this way, pedophilia and child marriages are practices found and encouraged throughout Islamic countries where Mohammad is considered the “perfect man.”

To entice his followers, Mohammed declared that all captured female slaves are spoils of war to be at their mercy and to be used as their captor sees fit. This means that, within Sharia law, it’s legal, not criminal, to rape non-Muslim women. Sexual exploitation is a right accorded to Muslims in Mohammad’s teachings and the Quran.

This is precisely why a quarter of a million British girls and women have been identified as rape victims by Muslim grooming gangs since the importation of Muslims onto the shores of Great Britain:

When confronted by British law enforcement, they will often claim ignorance of British laws and reiterate that the rape of non-Muslims is permitted under Sharia law:

To up the ante, Mohammad promised those who die as martyrs (a designation bestowed upon those who die in the name of Islam) will be welcomed to a paradise in which 72 beautiful young virgins will fulfill their every pleasure and desire. To die in the name of Islam is to reach the highest honor, and it is precisely why every act of terrorism is preceded by the battle cry “Allahu Akbar!” (Our God is greater!)

Few Americans have read the Quran or the translation of Sharia Law as outlined in The Reliance of the Traveler, a sanctified English version of Sharia by the leading Sunni university, Al-Azhar, in Cairo, Egypt. However, since the exponential influx of large numbers of Muslims onto our shores after 9/11, the increase in mosques now numbering over 3,000 littering our cityscapes, and the Islamic call to prayer heard five times throughout the day in some American cities, Americans are becoming aware of the danger Islam poses not only to our Constitutional Republic but to our very security and safety.

Clearly, the Quran, unlike any other religious doctrine, affords Muslims the license to kill, maim, rape, and steal from non-Muslims. The question every American must ask is why Islam has not been designated as a foreign political movement that poses a threat to each one of us. Those who are given a license to kill by following a text that permits and encourages them to kill in the name of Islam pose an existential threat from within and a much greater threat than those from without.

Every nation’s duty and priority must be to safeguard the security and safety of its citizens. Thus, it is imperative for the Trump administration to address this threat by redesignating Islam as a foreign terrorist organization, closing all mosques, and designating the Muslim Brotherhood and its many front groups, such as CAIR, as terrorist organizations to be outlawed within the United States.

Our Republic and our very lives depend on it!

In 1976, Margaret Thatcher said during a television interview, “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.”

Over the years, that quote has been whittled down to the renowned proverb: The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.

This is a powerful argument against socialism. Even better, it has been validated time and time again, most notably when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics collapsed in 1991. The Soviet Union was an economic basket case, and the whole world witnessed its demise.

But socialism has an even bigger problem: it is immoral.

Even if it did somehow work efficiently and effectively at an economic level, it would still be immoral.

A broad definition of “moral” is “conforming to a standard of behavior that is considered right and good by most people.” Morality is synonymous with truth, honor, honesty, fairness, righteousness, and virtue.

Immorality is the antithesis of morality. It is synonymous with wickedness, callousness, evil, sin, vileness, viciousness, darkness, and ruthlessness.

Socialism, in its depraved but effective way, appeals to people’s worst instincts and impulses. It presents the world as a zero-sum game in which there are winners and losers. It pits groups of people against each other based on arbitrary measures. For the narrow-minded, it makes sense.

It embodies most of the seven deadly sins.

Pride: Socialists have zero humility because they reject the fallibility of humanity. They can micromanage an entire society. They can create a centralized, one-size-fits-all, command-and-control utopia. They know all and know best.

Envy: Taking one’s property because they have too much to give to others who have less is not noble; it is theft. Stealing with state-sanctioned approval is unjust. The sheer resentment that some have more, better, or bigger material possessions is the driving force of socialist ideology.

Pride: Socialists have zero humility because they reject the fallibility of humanity. They can micromanage an entire society. They can create a centralized, one-size-fits-all, command-and-control utopia. They know all and know best.

Envy: Taking one’s property because they have too much to give to others who have less is not noble; it is theft. Stealing with state-sanctioned approval is unjust. The sheer resentment that some have more, better, or bigger material possessions is the driving force of socialist ideology.

Wrath: Socialist doctrine fuels anger, rage, violence, and a desire for vengeance against the so-called oppressors. Instead of mimicking the successful, the people turn their ire toward them.

Sloth: Because socialism is about passing the buck and the blame, it excuses idleness and promotes laziness. It allows one to shirk personal duties and retards personal growth.

The above is far from a comprehensive list of socialism flaws or features, depending on where one sits on the moral relativity scale.

For those who outright reject moral relativism, deconstructionism, postmodernism, and critical theory in favor of universal truth, reason, logic, and fairness, socialism is obviously not up your alley.

Alas, for millions of Americans, especially Americans born after the Cold War, socialism has been branded very differently. Socialism has been presented to them with a smile. For America’s youth, socialism is like a happy meal because it brings nothing but joy.

I know this from first-hand experience in several public schools over the years. It is no big secret that the K-12 education system leans left.

However, it is a well-kept secret that young Americans have been, and are being, indoctrinated that socialism is just, fair, and good in public schools. In the meantime, they are being purposely miseducated about American history, especially the nation’s founding.

Such is why young Americans are champing at the bit to vote for socialists.

The left’s long march through the institutions has created a culture that champions socialism under the misguided assumption that it is moral.

This is incredibly dangerous because these young minds are also unaware that socialism, as Thatcher said, leads to bankruptcy.

If socialism can be rebranded as morally wholesome despite its undisputed track record of mass murder, misery, and poverty, it can rise from the ashes in the United States.

It would be tragic if the United States, which fought on the side of freedom throughout the Cold War, succumbed to socialism in the end. I worry the rising tide of suicidal empathy, coupled with a lack of knowledge about socialism’s history and sheer immorality, could bring a socialist revolution to the United States. I hope I am wrong.

Chris Talgo (ctalgo@heartland.org) is editorial director at The Heartland Institute.

Yesterday was primary election day in New York. I previewed it in my prior post, “Socialism: On The March, Or Not So Much?” There were no Republican primaries in New York City, and very few statewide. This was almost entirely a day for intramural contests among the Democrats. It was the Far Left versus the Crazy Insane Left. In almost every race, Crazy Insane prevailed.

The most important races involved federal congressional seats within the City — Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. Mayor Zohran Mamdani and the Democratic Socialists of America had endorsed candidates in three of the races: Brad Lander over incumbent Dan Goldman in NY-10 (my district), Darializa Avila Chevalier over incumbent Adriano Espaillat in NY-13 (uptown Manhattan and West Bronx), and Claire Valdez over Antonio Reynoso for an open seat in NY-7 (Northern Brooklyn and Southwest Queens). The Mamdani/DSA candidate prevailed in all three races. All these are deep blue seats with little prospect of a successful Republican challenge in November — so these people are highly likely to become members of Congress come January.

Here is a picture of (l to r) Valdez, Lander, Mamdani and Avila Chevalier at a campaign rally in Brooklyn a few days ago.

Less well publicized were primaries for various races for the State Assembly and Senate. The DSA endorsed candidates in ten races, either challenging incumbents or vying for open seats. Of those, eight won, one lost, and one race remains too close to call (but the DSA candidate is ahead). New York Focus has a roundup:

In New York City, Senate candidate Aber Kawas and Assembly contenders Christian Celeste Tate, David Orkin, Eon Huntley, Illapa Sairitupac, Samantha Kattan all defeated their opponents by double digits. In Buffalo, Assembly candidate Adam Bojak appears likely to become dsa’s first legislator from Western New York. And in Syracuse, Maurice Brown’s challenge against a 28-year incumbent Assemblymember was too close to call on Tuesday night.

The sole incumbent Assemblyman to beat back a DSA challenger was Conrad Blackburn of Harlem.

In the New York Focus piece, they quote a guy named Jeff Leb, who has been running a super PAC supporting incumbents against DSA challengers: “DSA has momentum, they’re running their largest slate in New York, and they think they’ve figured out the playbook.”

So what kind of positions and policies do these people stand for? John Fund, writing in the American Spectator today, has a run-down on some of the craziness. Consider Avila Chevalier:

[Avila Chevalier] has called for abolishing police, prisons, and borders. As recently as last week, she refused to back down on those views when given an opportunity: “All deportations are wrong,” she says, even for those convicted of a crime. She co-founded Columbia University Apartheid Divest, the militant student group behind the violent 2024 occupation of Columbia after the Hamas attacks in Gaza the year before. CUAD is explicitly anti-Enlightenment: “We are Westerners fighting for the eradication of Western Civilization. We stand in full solidarity with every movement for liberation in the Global South. Our intifada is an Internationalist one…” Chevalier called the United States “a f—— disgrace,” and referred to the US as “occupied” Native American land. She’s written favorably about communism and seizing “all properties from landlords.” She has criticized Bernie Sanders and AOC for being too pro-Israel, and is known as a key leader in the “left of AOC” faction of Democratic Socialists of America.

Avila Chevalier’s incumbent opponent, Adriano Espaillat, is the Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and a reliable left-wing member. He has, however, generally been at least a lukewarm supporter of Israel (for example, he has come out in favor of the so-called “two-state solution”).

And here are a couple of quotes (via Fund) from Aber Kawas, who won the primary for an open State Senate seat in Queens:

Aber Kawas [is] a Muslim activist, who won the Democratic nomination to represent 317,000 people in Queens as a state senator. She has bitterly criticized the US “system of capitalism, racism, white supremacy and Islamophobia” because it expects apologies for “a terror attack that a couple people did when there is no apology or reparations for genocide and for slavery etc.” She finds that “kind of reprehensible.”

A unifying theme of all the DSA candidates was hatred of Israel and of Jews in general. I watched some of the victory speeches of Lander and of Avila Chevalier, and both featured repeated chants from the crowd of “Free, Free Palestine!”

Here is an interesting chart taken from the New York Times, analyzing the results of the Espaillat/Avila Chevalier race.

This was a relatively close race overall, with Avila Chevalier prevailing by about 4 points (49-45). The district is centered on Harlem and the South Bronx, but contains substantial upscale and gentrified areas. Note that Avila Chevalier won by significant margins in the precincts dominated by the young, the college educated, and the higher income, while Espaillat ran ahead (by smaller margins) among the poor, the black and the Hispanic. Jeff Maurer, writing at his Substack, comments:

[A]s always, there is strong evidence that this so-called workers’ revolution is mostly a movement of rich, white college kids.

So what kind of omen are these results with respect to the upcoming midterm elections? Even though the Democratic Party leadership backed all the losing candidates, I entirely expect that they will get behind all of the DSA crazies, and not say a negative word about any of them for the general election. The Republican should have near limitless amounts of material for their advertising. I’d like to think that moderate Democrats would be horrified by what their party is becoming, and would flee from being associated with this kind of insanity. But reasonable people disagree about this.

Maurer (himself a Democrat) thinks that these results will prove to be a negative for his team:

These three — especially Chevalier — are a glorious gift to Republican flaks. What Michael Jordan was to Nike, Chevalier is to anyone whose job is to portray Democrats as radical, anti-America lunatics. And that is because she is a radical, anti-America lunatic; I hope normie Democrats loudly denounce her bullshit instead of trying to sanewash it. I would also remind Democrats that considerations about party unity and maintaining a big tent don’t really apply when the core thesis of the person you’re dealing with is that you, personally, are a corrupt monster who is abetting genocide.

I hope he is right. However, I never cease to be amazed at the ability of Democrats to forgive absolutely anything from the far left in the quest to destroy Trump.

Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian

The crisis we face today is existential. Too many Americans, both native-born and naturalized, have been taught to despise their country.

If it sometimes seems like the American cultural mainstream is ignorant of the role of Christianity in the founding of the United States, or even hostile towards it, that’s because it is.

The story told about America’s founding by the corporate media, book publishers, libraries and other institutions is one in which the Christian faith, so central to our history and founding, is almost wholly absent.

I don’t mean that anecdotally. A recent report by conservative book publisher Brave Books analyzed more than 300 books across 25 reading lists curated by children’s publishers, public libraries, and other institutions for our country’s upcoming 250th anniversary. The report found that these lists contain zero titles that directly addressed religious liberty, faith, or the role of Christianity in the founding of the United States.

Instead, the books on these reading lists included titles like Ibram X. Kendi’s Stamped for Kids and Nikole Hannah-Jones’ Born on the Water, a picture book that’s part of the discredited and ahistorical 1619 Project. According to Brave Books, the central themes of these reading lists were the American Revolution, minority perspectives, Black history, civil rights and women’s history. But nothing about the Christian faith — or even about religious freedom, which is enshrined in our First Amendment.

In other words, the lists are nothing more than left-wing propaganda designed to erode patriotism and reframe American history as a catalogue of crimes rather than a noble endeavor in republican self-government. Their purpose is to destroy patriotism in the hearts and minds of young Americans and inculcate hatred and contempt for our history, our founders, and our people.

I mention this not because it will be news to anyone who has been paying attention to the drift of American culture over the past half-century, but because it illustrates what a fraught thing our 250^th anniversary has become. Celebrating this milestone as a nation, together, is no longer possible because, practically speaking, we are no longer a single nation.

The simple yet shocking reality is that generations of Americans have been taught since early childhood to hate their country and despise their heritage. How can you celebrate a nation you have been taught is morally corrupt, hypocritical, and responsible for a legacy of oppression and violence? You can’t, which is why so many Americans are greeting our semiquincentennial with a shrug or an apology.

And that points to a deeper problem with the state of America in 2026, a problem that won’t be solved with better reading lists or institutional reform or a GOP victory in 2026 or 2028. The problem is this: too many people in this country either despise America or are completely indifferent to it.

Among these are the tens of millions of foreigners now living in the United States who don’t just reject the natural law principles upon which our form of government rests, but also have no intention of adopting American culture or an American way of life. Many of them have made little or no effort even to learn the English language. They are here, essentially, to make money, and have no real vested interest in America as such.

Many others are not just indifferent but actively hostile toward their adopted country. This tendency seems especially pronounced among the adult children of immigrants, who grew up in the United States but were taught by liberal public schools and the mainstream culture to despise their country and resent it. They essentially revived the Third World politics of their parents’ home countries and adopted the anti-colonialist mentality of their leftist teachers and professors.

This wasn’t supposed to happen. For a long time, open-borders advocates in academia and the media argued that the Third World politics of immigrants would get washed out through assimilation, and by the time second- and third-generation immigrant families gained real political power, they would have shed their Third World sensibilities. But what we have found out is that under conditions of mass immigration, that simply isn’t how it works. Instead of shedding their third-worldism, immigrants and their children are assimilated into an American mainstream that itself has been captured by Third World politics.

The predictable result is a growing category of Americans, both immigrant and native-born, who are not merely indifferent toward their country but actively despise it. Such people now account for something like half our population, including both the native-born and recent immigrants and the children of recent immigrants. These are the people who reliably vote Democrat, for candidates and agendas bent on remaking the U.S. into something other than what our founders created and intended. They follow Nikole Hannah-Jones and Ibram X. Kendi, placing the “true” American founding in 1619 because to them, America was founded on exploitation and violence — a legacy that continues to the present day.

Consider the cadre of candidates connected to the Democrats Socialists of America that are finding electoral success in deep-blue areas. In New York, self-described democratic socialist Aber Kwas, an American-born daughter of Palestinian refugees, just won the Democratic primary for State Senate in District 12 (Queens). Kwas has said publicly that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were America’s fault, brought on by our supposed “system of capitalism, racism, white supremacy and Islamophobia.”

As the DSA continues its takeover of the Democratic Party establishment, this kind of anti-American rhetoric hardly stands out anymore. It is regularly espoused by New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Reps. Rashida Tlaib, AOC, and others. And those who hold such views appear to be ascendent within the party. All three of the New York candidates Mamdani endorsed won their primaries this week; all three of them are avowed socialists with virulently anti-American views. One of them, Darializa Avila Chevalier, was a founder of was a founder of Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), an anti-American, antisemitic organization with the stated goal to “undermine and eradicate America,” and achieve “the total eradication of Western civilization” through the use of violence.

Such people cannot celebrate 250 years of American history because they are ashamed of that history and they are opposed to the very existence of America as it is today. And it’s not just radical socialist candidates in New York. Just last week an Economist/YouGov survey found that 38 percent of Democrats admitted they are ashamed to be Americans. Another recent survey found less than half of Democrats agreed with the statement, “I am proud to be an American.” And a new NBC News poll found that overall, 56 percent of Americans are proud of their country, but only 29 of Democrats.

The message, injected into our cultural mainstream for decades now, that America is fundamentally imperialistic and exploitative, has gotten through. We now have large numbers of Americans that might at times pay lip service to things like free speech, separation of powers, and civil rights, but they don’t really believe in these things because they don’t really believe in America. They will gladly cheat in elections, for example, if they can get away with it, or pack the courts if the judiciary impedes their agenda. They don’t really believe in equal treatment under the law, and have no real interest in preserving the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They think these things were just cynical ploys to oppress women and blacks, or to expand American empire, and they hope to amass enough raw political power to stage a revolution, jettison all of it, and institute a new form of government that treats citizens differently based on which group they belong to.

This is an existential crisis for our country. The conditions for the crisis were created by both Democrats and Republicans over the course of decades. Both parties supported open borders and multiculturalism, and demonized anyone who objected that radically changing the ethnic makeup of the country through mass immigration would imperil the republic. But those who objected were right. Mass immigration and multiculturalism are a fatal combination, and here on the eve of our 250^th anniversary, they have brought forth their poisoned fruit.

What can be done about it? One immediate step that could be taken, if the Trump administration and the GOP had the political will (which they don’t seem to right now) would be mass deportations coupled with mass denaturalization. Get the people who have come here only to make money, or stage a revolution, out of the country. Mobilize the National Guard, if that’s what it takes. If American cities riot, as they did in Minneapolis, send the National Guard into those places and declare martial law. If Democrat mayors and governors impede these operations, arrest them.

If that were accomplished, the native-born Americans who hate our country could probably be managed and contained. Removing illegal immigrants and anti-American naturalized citizens would deprive them of a crucial voting bloc and support. It is still the case, even at this late hour, that most Americans love their country and don’t want to see it fundamentally transformed. But time is running out, and if patriotic leaders don’t act decisively, there’s a good chance America as we know it today won’t be around to celebrate the 275^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

The Federalist, John Daniel Davidson

This video, created by William Reports News, scrutinizes the financial history and political branding of Senator Bernie Sanders. The central argument is that while Sanders built his career on advocating for the working class and railing against the influence of the wealthy, his own family’s financial dealings—and those of his political network—contradict this narrative.

Key areas of scrutiny discussed:

Levi Sanders’ Nonprofit Compensation: The video highlights that Levi Sanders, the Senator’s stepson, received approximately $800,000 in compensation from a progressive nonprofit organization (3:49 – 4:24, 12:24 – 12:53).

The creator argues that this nonprofit operates within the same ecosystem of donors and political credibility that Bernie Sanders cultivated, suggesting a conflict of interest that was not transparent to the small-dollar donors who supported him (13:32 – 14:49).

The Burlington College Collapse: The video revisits the financial collapse of Burlington College during the time Jane Sanders served as president, specifically noting a disputed $10 million bank loan (7:25 – 8:10). While a federal investigation into the matter was closed without charges in 2018, the video presents this as part of a recurring pattern of financial controversy surrounding the family (8:11 – 8:46, 10:43 – 10:57).

Personal Wealth and Rhetoric: The video notes that as Bernie Sanders’ own net worth increased through book deals, he gradually stopped using the term “millionaires” in his stump speeches, narrowing his focus to “billionaires” (9:50 – 10:20, 17:48 – 17:57).

Institutional Accountability: The creator asserts that criticism of Sanders is often dismissed by his team as politically motivated attacks from the right. However, the video emphasizes that this specific report is significant because it is grounded in IRS Form 990 disclosures and has been addressed by left-leaning outlets, making it more difficult to dismiss (15:23 – 16:57).

Conclusion: The narrative concludes that Bernie Sanders built his political brand on the promise of holding the wealthy accountable, but the video argues that these standards have not been applied to his own family or the progressive nonprofit machine that relies on his credibility (18:06 – 19:44).

Senator Chuck Schumer took to the floor of the U.S. Senate and spewed a treasonous speech that was intended to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

By aiding and abetting the enemy the Senator expressed his disdain for the President, the Senate and for America.

Although the speech is nine minutes in length, the Senators sins are expressed in the first minutes.

Everyone who bought Trump’s book the Art of the Deal ought to ask him for a refund because what Trump has done in Iran is the art of the disaster.

The U.S. is worse off because of Trump’s incompetence, his ego, and his inability to listen to facts. Iran took Trump to the cleaners with this so-called “understanding.” Iran doesn’t have to cut off support for its terrorist proxies. Iran doesn’t have to give up ballistic missile production. Iran doesn’t have to make any hard commitments on its nuclear program now, and there’s no guarantee they make any in sixty days. But Iran does get to rake in billions of dollars in oil sales, hundreds of billions of dollars in reconstruction aid, and God knows how much more in potential fees Trump may let it impose on ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Not to mention the benefits Iran will get from the sanctions relief that Trump has promised with no idea of what he’ll get in return.

Again: Iran took Trump to the cleaners. In Iran, the “Art of the Deal” turned into the art of disaster.

If Trump wants to send hundreds of billions of dollars to Iran – then he’ll need to do so with Republican votes, because I’ll tell you, Democrats certainly won’t be helping Trump send $300 billion to Iran. Are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle prepared to send Iran $300 billion when economic needs are so severe here at home? That’s what Trump wants them to do.

Now, back in 2015, Trump said that America’s “deal with Iran will go down as one of the most incompetent ever made. The U.S. lost on virtually every point. We just don’t win anymore.” Trump is eating those words on a silver platter served up by Iran.

Again: in 2015 he says the “deal with Iran will go down as one of the most incompetent ever made. The U.S. lost on virtually every point. We just don’t win anymore.” He’s eating those words now because those apply so aptly to the deal he just announced, the so-called understanding with Iran. He’s eating those words on a silver platter served up by Iran. Even members of the Trump administration seem to be trying to put some distance between themselves and this so-called “understanding,” telling the public not to read too far into the text and saying that there are secret deals in the works.

Well, I’ll tell you right now Trump needs to reveal any secret deals to Congress and the public immediately. He’s got to do it right away. If the secret deals are anywhere near as bad as the “understanding” we have seen, we need to know about them. Americans need to know how Trump plans to do it.

Crucially, Americans are wondering what they got out of this war because Trump’s blunder has left our country worse off by every measure. 13 Americans have been killed, hundreds more wounded. The Iranian regime is richer and more radical than before Trump’s war. Iran has greater control over the Strait of Hormuz than before the war. Gas prices are still much higher than before the war, with families having paid hundreds of dollars extra to fill up their tanks these past few months. The cost of everything from groceries to basic household necessities are higher than before the war as well.

Trump’s so-called “understanding” is the culmination and representation of his ruinous strategy in Iran since day one – and his inability to govern in general.

In Iran and in so much else he does, Trump leads by whim, by ego, by greed. His strategy doesn’t work in the time of peace, and it certainly doesn’t work in the time of war. He’s about the most incompetent president we have ever seen. In Iran, as in everything, the American people pay the price for Trump’s incompetence.

So, as I’ve been saying for months, it’s long past time that Trump end this war, which never should have started in the first place.