By Kenin M. Spivak
July 27, 2026

FR159797 AP

They’re baaack. “They” being communists, or for the academics, Marxists.

Hairsplitting.

Communism is the implementation of the ideology Karl Marx advanced in his 1848 thesis, “The Communist Manifesto.”

The resurgence started with intersectionality, cultural demands, and the redefinition of words like racism, gender, and homeless. Aided by funding from the Chinese Communist Party, and the growth of organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America, the far left added violence and dismantling capitalism. Today, radical leftists pursue the full communist agenda, fused with antisemitism and radical Islam.

Turn up your nose at the Red Menace, but during the 20^th century, communists killed more than 90 million of their fellow countrypersons and instigated mass famines, incarceration, and economic hardships. Though the Red Scare of the 1950s has been derided by the intelligencia, decryption of Soviet-era documents obtained in the Venona Project confirms that the substantial majority of those accused of spying for the Soviet Union during this period were indeed guilty. The Soviet Union infiltrated American unions, media, and politics.

More recently, China has taken the lead in penetrating American institutions, co-opting universities and research facilities, and supporting radical left opposition to ICE, data centers, police, fossil fuels, America’s involvement in the Middle East, and other American social and political structures. According to the last U.S. Annual Threat Assessment, China has “increased [its] capabilities to conduct covert influence operations” and will “continue to expand its coercive and subversive malign influence activities to weaken the United States.”

The FBI under both Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump agreed that “The counterintelligence and economic espionage efforts emanating from the government of China and the Chinese Communist Party are a grave threat to the economic well-being and democratic values of the United States. Confronting this threat is the FBI’s top counterintelligence priority.”

In the last month, Trump has invoked communism nearly 100 times during speeches, campaign appearances, and social media posts. He described some of the Democratic primary winners as “hardcore, godless communists” and, during July 4 celebrations, compared communism to a disease that has to be eliminated.

The mainstream media ridiculed the president, in particular denying that the DSA, a rapidly growing vortex of policy and candidates within the Democratic party, is socialist, let alone communist. DSA members include senators, representatives, mayors and soon, possibly a governor. In the 1950s, the American Communist Party had 50,000 members. The DSA is soaring past 120,000 members.

Liberals describe themselves as caring protectors of the weak. For the radical left, particularly self-proclaimed communists (and Marxists), this decalogue rings hollow. In the “Communist Manifesto,” Marx wrote:

Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. … They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.

To Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, liberating Cambodia meant subjecting Cambodians to forced labor, starvation, persecution, and 1.7 million deaths between 1975 and 1979. For Stalin, ensuring workers’ rights meant forced displacements, imprisonment in labor camps, manufactured famines, torture, and brutal purges that killed 20 million. According to the authoritative “Black Book of Communism,” 65 million Chinese died as a result of Mao’s merciless campaign to create a new “socialist” China.

The left was responsible for every major U.S. demonstration over the last 30 years, except January 6. The radical left added a violent element.

Based on extensive polling, the nonpartisan Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers University concluded last year that there is “widespread justification for lethal violence—including assassination—among younger, highly online, and ideologically left-aligned users,” and that these “attitudes are not fringe—they reflect an emergent assassination culture, grounded in far-left authoritarianism and increasingly normalized in digital discourse.” In a recent YouGov poll, 25% of those who identified as very liberal said that violence is acceptable to achieve political goals.

According to a new Cato poll, which asked separately about socialism and communism, 21% of adult Americans have a favorable view of communism, with 55% holding an unfavorable view, while among those 14 to 29 (Gen Z), 37% hold a favorable view, and just 38% unfavorable. Support for communism jumps to 43% among students.

Communists believe that the state determines each individual’s opportunities based on the party’s goals and needs, such as DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), which allocates university admissions, jobs, medical treatment, and government benefits by rank on a scale of putative oppression. They believe that the state owns children – it, not parents, decides what children learn, their pronouns, how they dress, or whether they should be surgically mutilated. They suppress religion – deciding when to override religious beliefs, prohibit prayer at home or in public, or send FBI agents to infiltrate Catholic churches.

The canard that democratic socialism is not Marxism is wearing thin. Marx advocated abolishing private property, globalism, a workers’ dictatorship, reliance on experts, forced relocation of the population, that children are wards of the state, and that religion is the “opium of the people.”

The latest DSA platform similarly calls for public ownership of large corporations and essential industries; breaking down borders and ending enforcement of immigration laws and funding for the Pentagon; a worker’s “democracy” by abolishing the Senate, Supreme Court, presidency, and Electoral College; free housing and health care; abolishing most prisons; and support for Iran and Palestinians.

Daniel Greenfield, CEO of the David Horowitz Freedom Center explains that 16 of 27 seats on DSA’s National Political Committee are held by self-avowed Marxists. Both co-chairs of the DSA identify as Marxists, and self-identified Marxist movements control 62% of the DSA’s national leadership. David Jenkins, a DSA director representing the Libertarian Socialist caucus, admits, “Our goal is communism.”

Horowitz observes that there are numerous communist groups within the New York City DSA Leadership Committee, including Emerge, which draws inspiration from how “Communist parties operated in the Russian, Chinese and Cuban revolutions”; and the Socialist Majority Caucus which endorses Marx’s call for a “socialist revolution” using “state power” to replace capitalism, and aligns itself with the Communist Caucus. Most DSA members advising New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani belong to the SMC.

Megan Romer, one of DSA’s co-chairs, supports Hamas, promotes hatred of America and the police, praises America’s enemies, and celebrates communist leaders including Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, and Che Guevara.

Red Star, which holds two DSA board seats, proclaims that “our primary goal … is to abolish capitalism and, ultimately, to achieve communism.”

The Communist Control Act of 1954 outlawed the Communist Party USA and membership in, or support for, “communist-action organizations,” which it defines as an “organization having for one of its purposes or objectives the establishment, control, conduct, seizure, or overthrow of the Government of the United States, or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof, by the use of force or violence.”

Though the CCA sounds quaintly paranoid, the reality is that domestic extremists influenced and supported by our enemies have weaponized America’s open society, disguise their intentions behind smiles and designer suits, and increasingly turn to violence. Overcoming the left’s whataboutism and snarky dismissal of resurgent communism requires inner strength, but it is essential that those who believe in America promote truth, win elections, and prosecute criminals.  The alternative is that communism will continue to gain traction, and that would be a disaster.

Kenin M. Spivak is founder and chairman of SMI Group LLC, an international consulting firm and investment bank. He is the author of fiction and non-fiction books and a frequent speaker and contributor to media, including RealClearPolitics, The American Mind, National Review, television, radio, and podcasts.

Only one person received jail time, and only 10 days of it.

By Julian Balsley

July 26, 2026 1:06PM PDT

Forty-three percent of the people Portland police arrested at protests against immigration enforcement have had their cases dismissed or dropped with no complaint or they’ve been acquitted, a WW analysis has found.

Of the eight defendants who went to trial, five were acquitted, and those convicted received only short probations. That suggests juries have largely found that the charges don’t pass muster.“When arrests are made, they’re based on probable cause that a crime was committed by the person. When a public order situation is becoming dangerous, there are times where arrests are made based on probable cause to prevent a situation from further escalating,” says Sgt. Kevin Allen, a Portland Police Bureau spokesman. In response to questions about the high number of dismissals, dropped charges and acquittals, Allen writes, “There are a variety of reasons that cases may not ultimately lead to prosecution.”

Only one person got any jail time—and just 10 days of it—after pleading guilty to second-degree arson. The other 26 people who signed plea deals largely received short probations and community service.

That trend closely matches federal cases of protesters charged with assaulting federal officers. Most of those began as felonies and ended in misdemeanor pleas with short probations (“Petering Out,” WW, July 8).

Twenty-six of them were dropped with no complaint, 11 were dismissed and five were acquitted in jury trials. Those make up 43% of all cases.

“There are many reasons a case will get one of those codes,” says Pat Dooris, a spokesman for the district attorney, of charges being dropped with no complaint. He adds that “charges can still be filed later as long as the statute of limitations has not run out.” At least seven cases that were previously dismissed have been refiled.

Twenty-eight people signed plea deals with the district attorney, the majority of whom got between three and 18 months of probation. Many also received a term of community service. Four received only small fines between $50 and $115.

WW’s analysis shows that the local cases had a poorer success rate than federal prosecutions.

WW found that of the 37 people arrested by the feds during ICE protests, 23 walked free with only short probations or supervised release. Only five were dismissed or diverted, compared to 37 local cases that were dismissed or dropped with no complaint.

One key difference between the federal and local prosecutions: The feds more commonly charged people with felonies. Twenty-four of the federal defendants were charged with assaulting an officer; 17 faced felony charges. But the wheels quickly came off once the cases entered the justice system: Only four ultimately got felony dispositions.

By contrast, only 20 of the local cases began with felony charges; only two ended with felony dispositions. (Twenty cases are ongoing as of publication.)

But court records also reveal a second front of the battle that raged outside the ICE office. It was fought not between protesters and law enforcement, either federal or local, but instead between those who had come to protest ICE, and the counterprotesters and right-wing livestreamers who had come to support it.

One way to view that difference is that the federal government was trying to paint a picture of its officers facing grave danger from protesters, as Lewis & Clark Law School professor Tung Yin previously told WW. Portland police, by contrast, rarely claimed they had been victims of assault.

Only 18% of local cases stemmed from people allegedly harming law enforcement. Thirteen were charged with assaulting or interfering with a PPB officer, often for trying to stop officers from arresting another protester. Two others were charged with blocking PPB vehicles, and three with harming federal officers.

Thirteen more stemmed from people damaging or attempting to damage the building itself.

(The dispositions in these cases follow the general pattern: mostly guilty pleas in exchange for short probations, with a smattering of dismissals and acquittals.)

arrested 23 protesters, counterprotesters and livestreamers for fighting with one another. This peacekeeping is the role PPB has most publicly billed itself as filling during the protests. In almost every press release it issued about the protests, the bureau wrote, “PPB will continue to monitor protest activity. While PPB’s role is public safety and supporting constitutionally protected activity, part of our role is to address criminal acts.”

Affidavits by police officers and lawyers in the district attorney’s office document many spats between anti-ICE protesters and right-wing livestreamers. Livestreamers would walk up to people, recording or insulting them, and protesters would smack their tripods or phones out of their hands, or strike the streamer themself.

Some livestreamers appear again and again in the records. It seems that once protesters came to recognize them, they would try to stop the streamer’s antics before they got started—the insults, the getting in people’s faces, maybe even the fact that the streamers sometimes appeared on the ICE building’s roof alongside federal agents. That usually meant bringing the fight to the streamer.

Livestreamers and counterprotesters also initiated physical fights with protesters. One counterprotester punched a protester in the head; the protester was knocked unconscious when his head hit the pavement. Another dragged a protester into the street after they refused to apologize for calling the counterprotester a pedophile. A third pepper-sprayed a protester who he said was holding a knife, making him feel unsafe.

Protesters, counterprotesters and livestreamers who fought one another have all faced similar results in the court system. The majority on all sides pleaded guilty or no contest to misdemeanors and received probation. A few on both sides were dismissed. Two protesters were acquitted.

Julian Balsley

Julian Balsley mostly covers City Hall and immigration. He is also a Senior Editor at The Miscellany News, Vassar College’s student paper.

Willamette Week’s 

By Jeff Crouere • Jul. 27, 2026

From its founding in 1996 until today, the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) has been known as a “progressive” league. The WNBA has decried “police brutality,” “racism in all its forms,” and the “systematic oppression of Black Lives in America.” The WNBA has also been at the “forefront” of “initiatives” to “support” a variety of left-wing issues such as “gun control,” “#MeToo,” and “#BlackLivesMatter,” among others.

With such a history, it is not surprising that the WNBA refused to allow players at their All-Star game to wear “USA 250” patches on their uniforms. According to Warner Todd Hutson of Breitbart News, the WNBA is “the only major American pro sport to reject the patch.” The patches were worn by all players on both teams in the Super Bowl and throughout the National Basketball Association (NBA) Finals.

By rejecting the patch, the WNBA is rejecting the country where it was founded. It is rejecting the Americans who watch the games on television or in person and the sponsors who commercially support a league that has a history of financial losses.

Trending: Meltdown? The Real Reason Why the Media Hates Elon Musk

In 2018, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver admitted that the WNBA had lost an average of $10 million annually since its inception. Silver was aware of the league’s financial status because the NBA created the WNBA and subsidizes the league every year. For example, in 2024, the New York Post reported that the WNBA would lose $40 million that season and that “NBA investors” were “growing impatient.”

Despite its troubled financial past, the WNBA is enjoying more support than ever due to superstars Caitlyn Clark and Sophie Cunningham of the Indiana Fever, one of the 15 teams currently operating in the league, which is expanding to 18 teams in 2030. This newfound popularity has allowed the league to negotiate a variety of lucrative media deals valued at $3.1 billion over 10 years.

This success would grow even more if the WNBA stopped embracing left-wing politics and showed more support for the United States of America, the country where basketball was invented.

***Support The Liberty Daily and Mike Lindell — use code TLD at MyPillow.com and get up to 66% off!***

Unfortunately, the league’s leadership has adopted an anti-American attitude. The Treasurer of the WNBA Players Association, Brianna Turner, opposed the league authorizing “USA 250” uniform patches for the All-Star game. She posted on social media, “No WNBA players would have been free 250 years ago. The majority wouldn’t even have their freedom 100 years ago.”

In another post, Turner, who was pictured wearing a t-shirt with the slogan “Protect Trans Lives,” continued to trash her country by stating, “We are some of the most elite female athletes. 250 years ago, we would have been breeders or in the fields working all day.”

So, Ms. Turner, what country allowed women “equal” rights 250 years ago? There is no country that has done more for women than the United States of America. The existence of the WNBA highlights the advantages that women enjoy here.

If Turner is so concerned about “freedom,” then she should condemn the slavery that exists today. In Africa, 7 million people live in slavery, and in Asia and the Pacific Region, 29.3 million people are enslaved, primarily in countries such as North Korea, China, Afghanistan, India, and Myanmar.

While Turner and her fellow WNBA players focus on supposed injustice in America, they are silent about the abuse of women throughout the world. In 77 economies worldwide, “women are legally barred from certain jobs and industries,” and in 19 economies husbands are allowed “to prevent their wives from working.”

In Afghanistan today, under the rule of the barbaric Taliban regime, no women are allowed to participate in sports. In Egypt, 87.2% of “women and girls aged 15-49” are subjected to female genital mutilation. In Niger, only 17% of women and girls aged 15-24 are literate.

In contrast, the United States is a bastion of “freedom.” Turner should be celebrating all the “freedom” and advantages that women enjoy in America. Instead, she decided to focus on the distant past, ignoring the incredible progress that minorities and women have achieved in recent decades.

Turner could have used her platform to denounce countries that allow real discrimination against women to occur today but decided it was better to condemn the country that has given her such tremendous opportunities.

Sadly, the WNBA was influenced by Turner and other critics. Initially, the league had committed to wearing the patches for the All-Star game but ultimately decided against it. It is unclear exactly what happened, but it seems several WNBA players objected to the patch, and it was rejected.

The WNBA should not have supported such America-bashing, but it did. The problem is that President Donald Trump is in the White House. If their favorite President, Barack Obama, was still residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, there would have been a different decision.

Obama was invited to address the All-Star players on Friday, before the game. Caitlyn Clark said it was “super cool” to talk to the former President. It is hard to imagine Trump being invited to address the players or receiving such a positive reaction.

The best way for the league to experience additional growth and obtain financial freedom from the NBA is to attract support from across the political spectrum and show appreciation for the country that allows their league to exist, the United States of America.

The WNBA has clearly chosen political sides, and it is unfortunate. In fact, the only political party advocating for player safety in the league is the Republicans.

After Clark was subjected to multiple instances of physical mistreatment from fellow players, 11 congressional Republicans sent WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert a letter demanding “accountability” for “multiple attacks” against her.

The Republicans claimed that Clark received “unnecessary physical hostility and violence.” They suggested that the “attacks against Clark may be racially motivated.” Clark is White, while 70% of WNBA players are African Americans.

Hopefully, the attacks against Clark will end, and the WNBA will refrain from creating further ideological division and acting in an un-American manner.

Jeff Crouere is a native New Orleanian, and his award-winning program, “Ringside Politics,” airs Saturdays from 1-2 p.m. CT nationally on Real America’s Voice TV Network & AmericasVoice.News and weekdays from 7-9 a.m. & 6-7 p.m. CT on WGSO 990-AM & Wgso.com. He is the President and General Manager of WGSO Radio, a political columnist, the author of America’s Last Chance, and provides regular commentaries on the Jeff Crouere YouTube channel and at Crouere.net. For more information, email him at jcrouere@gmail.com.

Matt Margolis 

It’s been coming for a while, but this week, the once-conservative firebrand Tucker Carlson has doubled down on a version of reality that would make Iran’s mullahs blush. Carlson used an appearance on the East Meets West with Olga and Tara podcast to unload on a provision in the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act that would expand defense-technology cooperation between the United States and Israel. His verdict? Lawmakers who back the measure are acting against America’s own interests, effectively merging our nations’ militaries.

Carlson didn’t stop at policy disagreement. He accused the Republican Party of handing the country’s sovereignty to a foreign government, sparing only two members from his contempt.

“The Republican Party has decided that the interest of Israel is more important than the interest of the United States,” Carlson said on the podcast. “There are a couple of exceptions Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie, and they were driven out of the Republican Party. So it tells you what the priority is. The priority is serving Israel.”

Coming from a man who has spent years cozying up to authoritarian regimes and excusing Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, that’s rich. But consistency has never been Carlson’s strong suit.

He then accused Israel’s Mossad of feeding American policymakers fabricated intelligence for decades.

“Mossad has fed, repeatedly, disinformation lies to American policymakers over decades, including the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction,” Carlson said. “That fundamentally came from Israel. There’s no dispute about that.”

There’s plenty of dispute about that, because it’s false.

British intelligence, French intelligence, German intelligence, and Spanish intelligence all concluded Iraq likely possessed chemical and biological weapons and was in defiance of the United Nations.

From there, Carlson’s rhetoric went from conspiratorial to unhinged. He called the defense-technology partnership a “generational disaster” and framed it as proof Americans no longer control their own country.

“It’s the definition of treason,” Carlson said. “This is treason. This is acting against your own nation, on behalf of a foreign nation.”

Then came the real bombshell. Carlson wants President Donald Trump and the Republicans who support the NDAA provision put on trial for it.

“The idea that the Republican Party would support merging U.S. and Israeli intelligence, IDF and Pentagon is so deranged that you have to root for treason trials, for Nurnberg trials at some point,” Carlson said. “And the president could veto it; he won’t because he’s a slave to Israel.”

Let’s be honest here. Comparing a defense-cooperation bill to the crimes of Nazi Germany while demanding war-crimes-style tribunals against your own president isn’t principled dissent. This is full-on loony talk here. He sounds no different than the socialist candidates running for Congress nationwide… and, let’s be honest, some Democrats in Congress today.

Carlson closed out his rant by accusing anyone who defends Israel of defending genocide.

“We’re against genocide, we’re against book burning, that’s what we learned from the Nazi period,” Carlson said. “And all of a sudden you wake up and we’re like, ‘No, no, genocide’s totally fine, as long as Israel’s doing it.’ In fact, if you call it genocide, you’re the bad person.”

From there, Carlson’s rhetoric went from conspiratorial to unhinged. He called the defense-technology partnership a “generational disaster” and framed it as proof Americans no longer control their own country.

“It’s the definition of treason,” Carlson said. “This is treason. This is acting against your own nation, on behalf of a foreign nation.”

Then came the real bombshell. Carlson wants President Donald Trump and the Republicans who support the NDAA provision put on trial for it.

“The idea that the Republican Party would support merging U.S. and Israeli intelligence, IDF and Pentagon is so deranged that you have to root for treason trials, for Nurnberg trials at some point,” Carlson said. “And the president could veto it; he won’t because he’s a slave to Israel.”

Let’s be honest here. Comparing a defense-cooperation bill to the crimes of Nazi Germany while demanding war-crimes-style tribunals against your own president isn’t principled dissent. This is full-on loony talk here. He sounds no different than the socialist candidates running for Congress nationwide… and, let’s be honest, some Democrats in Congress today.

Carlson closed out his rant by accusing anyone who defends Israel of defending genocide.

“We’re against genocide, we’re against book burning, that’s what we learned from the Nazi period,” Carlson said. “And all of a sudden you wake up and we’re like, ‘No, no, genocide’s totally fine, as long as Israel’s doing it.’ In fact, if you call it genocide, you’re the bad person.”

I don’t know what happened to Tucker. I remember being excited when he started his show on X, but now, he’s become indistinguishable from far-left crazies. Calling for treason trials against a sitting president over a defense bill is the sign of an absolute meltdown.

A possible workaround would be vehicles that use CNG, but self-service would then probably go out the window unless we developed a fill interface that requires no human intervention.

My problem with CNG vehicles is not the physical science, but the political science. Not too long ago the Dims were promoting using “clean burning natural gas” to save us from our carbon sins. And we saw CNG/LNG vehicles like busses and utility trucks appear. The same with Obama’s EPA forcing my power company to shutter a nearby coal plant (admittedly it was 100 years old and probably a pollution nightmare) and replace it with power produced by “clean burning natural gas” fueled power plants, not newer and cleaner coal plants. Our power bills shot up to pay for that.

Only for Biden in his first week to issue multiple EO’s to make it harder to drill for natural gas and oil. Why? Because the Dims’ narrative had changed in a few years and they hated on natural gas like it was killing us all.

That taught me that there’s no pleasing the Dims and their global warming doomsday cult policies. So I installed decentralized solar on the home in May 2021 to play with it for a year to see first hand its strengths and weaknesses, relative to both my climate and my power consumption habits. The next year I converted my two natural gas appliances to electric, upgraded the solar, and replaced my wife’s old gas crossover with an EV one.

I agree with fellow conservatives on the physical science of hydrocarbons being better than most alternative sources (save perhaps hydropower). (Note that I call it “alternative” energy, not “green” energy because I don’t see anything eco-friendly about my solar or EV.) But I promise you, if it’s feasible and practical for your situation, there’s great reward in removing the POLITICAL SCIENCE from most of your energy consumption. And that happens only with the word DECENTRALIZED in front of my solar (the EV extends that homemade power use out onto the road too, at least for local driving). When 80% of all the power we consume in our now all-electric home comes from homemade power, pulling only 20% from the grid, the politicians’ energy policies and/or trade policies don’t have much direct impact on my budget. Again, that’s not a “green” energy vs hydrocarbons argument. That’s my push for anything we as individual Americans (or families) can do to be more self-sustaining so that the political class has regulatory power over us.

Surprisingly, New York City’s Marxist Muslim Mayor Zohran Mamdani admitted that the man who stabbed two people on the Upper West Side on Thursday “yelled ‘Allahu Akbar’ during both attacks.” This was not, however, an indication that the mayor was ready to acknowledge the reality of Islamic jihad terrorism. Almost immediately after noting that the perpetrator screamed the jihadi war cry, Mamdani added: “The NYPD’s initial investigation suggests that mental health may have been a factor.”

Ah, of course. Claiming that obvious Islamic jihadis are mentally ill is the common practice of authorities in Europe, and we have seen it in the U.S. as well. Officials don’t want to acknowledge the reality of Islamic jihad, as that would raise uncomfortable questions about why they’re doing so little (if anything) to stop the jihadis, and so they pretend that each and every violent Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” is mentally ill.

This may exonerate Islam for the crimes done in its name and in accord with its teachings, but it creates new problems of its own: Why do only Muslims seem to contract this particular mental illness? Why does it so often result in their being violent toward non-Muslims, rather than toward their fellow Muslims? With jihadis filling up mental hospitals, are the genuinely mentally ill people safe there?

And in this particular case, it raises more problems for Zohran Mamdani himself, for the attacker has not one, but two belief systems in common with the boy mayor. Is Mamdani mentally ill, too? The mind reels.

The New York Post revealed Saturday that “the madman who screamed ‘Allahu Akbar’ while stabbing an Asian and Jewish man in separate harrowing hate attacks on the Upper West Side was a fan of Karl Marx, with police finding one of the communist author’s books inside his apartment.” Cops searching the apartment of Raul Morales found Marx’s writings, along with “two Qurans, a Jehovah’s Witness Bible, and a book on Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara.”

The Jehovah’s Witness Bible aside, the Qur’ans and the Commie writings make it sound as if the police got lost, and ended up searching Gracie Mansion instead of Raul Morales’ place. For despite his denials, Mamdani is most certainly a Marxist. In late Feb. 2021, Mamdani was a featured speaker at the online Winter Outreach Conference of the Young Democratic Socialists of America, and reminded his audience of “the end goal of seizing the means of production.” That is a quintessential Marxist imperative; Mamdani, amid all his claims that he is not actually a communist, has never retracted this statement, or addressed it at all.

Then there are the Qur’ans. What sect Raul Morales belongs to has not been revealed, but Mamdani is a Twelver Shi’ite, an adherent of the official religion of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Islamic Republic has for 47 years now made no secret of its intention to make its oft-repeated chant of “Death to Israel” a reality, and the Qur’an that both Mamdani and Morales revere as the perfect and eternal word of Allah states: “You will find the Jews and the idolaters the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe.” (5:82)

Related: Mamdani’s Rhetoric Gets Results: Muslim Screaming ‘Allahu Akbar’ Stabs Two, Including a Jewish Man

Of course, not every Marxist or every Muslim is mentally ill, and sane and insane people can hold the same beliefs. Nevertheless, if the shoe were on the other foot, the media would be slavering to destroy Mamdani’s political career. Skeptical? Don’t be. Imagine if Mamdani and Raul Morales were both Christians and registered Republicans, and Morales had screamed “Jesus is Lord!” while stabbing people. Don’t you think the media would be spending all its days since that attack demanding that Mamdani condemn the attack in stronger terms and explain what he plans to do in order to stop Christian and Republican violence?

To ask such a question is to answer it. Yet in the present case, no journalist, not one, will dare to ask Mamdani if he is going to call on the mosques in New York City to start teaching against antisemitism and violent jihad. The very idea would be “Islamophobic,” and hence inconceivable. For the media, Morales’ alleged mental illness ipso facto means that Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with his screaming “Allahu akbar” while stabbing a Jewish man who was coming out of Jewish services. So what if he and Mamdani have the same beliefs? That doesn’t mean that Mamdani is insane, too.

Of course it doesn’t. And most likely, Morales isn’t, either.

Robert Spencer

Yeah, that old chestnut

Hello Philippa! How does a person get a purpose in life, is my basic question? Especially as I’m approaching mid 60s (mind blowing number!) I never married, didn’t want children. Still ok with that decision. Big but. I didn’t really replace family life for career either. I had a few jobs, various socially responsible things and took early retirement a few years ago, in order to spend time volunteering and going to the cinema/art galleries as is my wont. I’m bored with my unadventurous lifestyle but scared to jump in any direction. Covid was horrific and glorious and I really learned how to be alone, and I’m alone a fair amount of time. Something is definitely missing. Catching up with old friends, I have nothing to update them on! I’d like to travel more and deal with the anxiety that engenders. But apart from that, and being fitter so I can age well, I’m a blank page. How do I work out which direction to go in? Thanks a million.

My Reply

I wonder whether one of the difficulties with purpose is that we often imagine it as something we discover rather than something we make. We speak about “finding our purpose” as though there is a folded piece of paper hidden somewhere in the back of a drawer with the answer written on it and our job is to find it.

Perhaps you are waiting for certainty before taking action? Meaning grows in the opposite direction. We become interested in something, commit ourselves to something, become involved with people or places or ideas and only later realise that a sense of purpose has gathered around those experiences. So start something, anything rather than waiting for a sense of purpose.

There may be another difficulty too, which is that for much of our lives purpose arrives already attached to our circumstances. Education gives us goals to work towards and problems to solve; jobs make demands on our time and energy; children, if we have them, require our care and attention; parents often grow older and need us in turn. We may complain about these obligations whilst we are carrying them, but they spare us from another question entirely, namely: what shall I do with my freedom?

Perhaps this is one reason why retirement can feel so disorientating. Freedom is usually presented as an uncomplicated blessing, but philosophers have often regarded it with more suspicion than that. Jean-Paul Sartre described us as being “condemned to be free”. By this he meant that once external structures fall away, we become responsible for deciding what sort of life we are going to lead and that responsibility can feel remarkably similar to anxiety.

Are you are suffering less from a lack of purpose than from an excess of freedom? Nobody is telling you what comes next. There is no obvious script left to follow and nobody handing out instructions. There is a loneliness in that, but there is possibility too, although possibility has a habit of disguising itself as emptiness.

Erich Fromm wrote Escape from Freedom, in which he argued that people often imagine they want freedom until they possess it. Once we are free we discover that freedom comes with uncertainty and responsibility and many of us immediately begin searching for somebody or something to tell us how to live. Reading your letter, I wonder whether part of you is waiting to be assigned a purpose rather than risking the anxiety involved in creating one.

You mention catching up with old friends and feeling you have nothing to tell them. It sounded as though you may have picked up the idea that conversation is a report on achievements and activities, that we must have done something before we are entitled to have something to say. Yet some of the richest conversations are not about what we have done at all. They are about questions we are living with, books we have read, ideas we are wrestling with, fears we are carrying, changes we notice in ourselves, or whether life requires a purpose in the first place.

There are perhaps different ways of being alive and I wondered whether you may have become rather stranded in doing. What should I do next? What should I take up? Where should I travel? What project should I have? Thinking and feeling can be sources of meaning too, there’s more to being than just doing. Might put that on a t shirt.

There is nothing like philosophy when we are searching for meaning. Viktor Frankl survived the concentration camps and emerged with the idea that life asks something of us rather than the other way around. Meaning, he believed, often emerges through creating something, through loving someone or something outside ourselves, or through the attitude we bring to experiences we cannot avoid. Reading your letter, I wondered whether your volunteering, your interest in art and film and your wish to travel may already contain more meaning than you currently give them credit for.

Aristotle was less interested in purpose than in flourishing. He asked what sort of habits, relationships and activities allow a person to live well. His answer was not fame, success or excitement but participation, friendship, curiosity and contribution to the community around us. Modern studies back him up!

I think it was Marcus Aurelius who first implied that we have little control over outcomes but some influence over what we choose to do next. Reading your letter, I wondered whether anxiety may have persuaded you that you need to know where a road leads before stepping onto it. Marcus Aurelius would probably suggest that most roads reveal themselves by walking them.

For a more modern companion, I would suggest Irvin Yalom’s Staring at the Sun and perhaps also his Existential Psychotherapy. Yalom writes about ageing, mortality and purpose without pretending there are easy answers. He understands that becoming aware that time is finite can bring questions to the surface that were easier to ignore at forty.

Maybe the book to start with could be Alain de Botton’s The Consolations of Philosophy, which introduces thinkers not as historical figures but as people trying to solve recognisable problems such as disappointment, inadequacy, frustration and uncertainty about how to live.

You describe yourself as a blank page and I was not entirely convinced. I could already see someone interested in art, cinema, ideas, travel, volunteering and ageing well. That sounds less like an absence of material and more like somebody standing in front of several doors whilst wishing someone else would tell her which one to open.

Perhaps purpose is less like destiny and more like a conversation that develops over time.

If I were prescribing anything, it might be curiosity rather than purpose. Curiosity asks less of us. It just asks us to spend time with something that interests us to see what happens next.

Phillipa Perry

Does Donovan Richards finally realize he’s only a “useful idiot” for the DSA? Welcome to the real world, Donovan. What are you going to do about it?

Are some of them finally waking up to the truth? Truth that many of us have known for decades, truth that history has been clearly teaching for 100 years, but truth that is ignored because it has been suppressed by…hate.

What is the “truth” I’m talking about here? Read on.

Queens Borough President Donovan Richards is a black Democrat who has spent over a decade in city politics, and has, of course, toed the Democratic Party line as all such politicians do. But recently, he criticized the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) after a New York Times article finally laid out what a lot of minority leaders have been suspicious of for quite some time now: the socialist Stormtroopers who have been invading black and Hispanic neighborhoods care more about their ideology than the people they are supposedly trying to help.

Do tell. Duh.

This isn’t news to anybody who understands communism’s beliefs and history. 

You don’t murder hundreds of millions of people whom you are supposedly trying to bring “utopia” to. I hope Donovan Richards, and many other black leaders, will finally open their eyes and see what socialism/communism actually is—an ideology of hate that cares only about power for itself, and will use, or trample on, anyone who obstructs their road to the summit.

To think that the DSA leadership, or any Democratic Party leader, truly cares about the welfare of blacks is absolutely ridiculous. Blacks and “minorities” are nothing more than tools the DSA is using to get where it wants to be: on top, with totalitarian power and control over…everybody. And, as proven in every communist hellhole on earth in the past 100 years, they don’t care how many people they murder, torture, or impoverish to reach their goal. Is there anybody dumb enough to think that Joseph Stalin really cared about the people of the USSR? “Oh, I love you so much!” Blam!

Yes, Mr. Richards, the DSA is far more concerned with ideology than they will ever be about you.

How do communists get away with what they do? Well, they talk a good game—“utopia”—to people who have lost religious faith. Their deceptive lies have persuaded billions, but once they gain control, their ideology proves such a disaster that they must resort to whatever method necessary to hold power. That means mass murder, torture, and oppression. But hate, as a substitute for Christian love, is taught as a vital part of their “religion”—for such it is. And they practice such hate—religiously.

Space permits only a few quotes from Vladimir Lenin:

“We must hate—hatred is the basis of communism. Children must be taught to hate their parents if they are not communists.”

“Hatred is truly the beginning of all wisdom.”

“We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.”

I suspect that 99 percent of the people who vote for Democrats have never read one, single word Vladimir Lenin wrote. But people will do what they are taught; they will imitate those whom they admire or think are leading them to “utopia.” Sheep follow their shepherd; that’s true of all sheep, not just leftists. That is why virtuous leadership, and especially education, is so vital. If people are taught error, if they are taught hatred—by word or example—they will practice error and hatred. If they are taught hate, they will hate in every circumstance they think it is necessary. Can you say, “Trump Derangement Syndrome”?

Most Democrats haven’t read Lenin, but since they’ve been indoctrinated in Leninist, leftist ideals by the Leftist masters they admire, they practice what they have been taught—hatred.

Notice how deep the hatred in Leninism runs: “children must be taught to hate their parents if they are not communists.” This is horrific, of course, but since “hatred is the beginning of wisdom” (a play on Solomon’s “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”), then there exists, in communism (DSA, radical Leftism), a higher calling than even family. Communism is the “god,” literally; it is their religion, for which there can be no higher allegiance. You get on board, or you get silenced—because they hate you if you don’t acquiesce. Their lust for power is simply irrepressible, and they will do—have done—anything to obtain and keep it.

Power is a strange thing; those of us who have never had any of it can’t really understand its attraction, lust, and temptation. But just look at, well, both parties in Washington, D.C. The Uniparty. How many of those people are well past “retirement age,” many of them septuagenarians and octogenarians, who simply cannot give up power.

They are addicted to it like any other drug. Many of them will, like 71-year-old Lindsey Graham, leave office in a pine box. Power is all they live for.

And because of that, they are very, very dangerous people. And especially if their ideology, their religion, teaches them to hate. Too many people yearning for power are just evil, and giving power to Evil is the most terrifying thing that can be done. The histories of the USSR, Communist China, and other communist tyrannies of the past 100 years are full evidence of that. And that hatred in the Democratic Party/communist leadership has filtered down to their followers. It insidiously, remorselessly seeps into human hearts that are unaware of its rising influence over them. These people, mindlessly, unwittingly, become the new Stormtroopers. And then, one day, the call goes out—”hate, kill, destroy XYZ.” And controlled now only by hatred, every one of them wants XYZ dead or destroyed.

And if they show any hesitation, they become the enemy, too.

Does Donovan Richards finally realize he’s only a “useful idiot” for the DSA? Welcome to the real world, Donovan. What are you going to do about it?

Amy Curtis

Back in April, we learned that former Rep. and failed California gubernatorial candidate Eric Swalwell faced complaints that he used campaign funds to pay a live-in nanny, and it wasn’t the first time Swalwell tried to use campaign funds for childcare. Four years ago, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) told Swalwell he couldn’t use campaign funds to pay for childcare while he traveled overseas.

Tipsheet

From Swalwell to Gallego to Gray: Democrats’ Slush Fund Scandal Spreads

Amy Curtis https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/follow_button.1227a5674072e080ffb1ba14ac0c1079.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&screen_name=RantyAmyCurtis&show_count=false&show_screen_name=false&size=m&time=1785084950232 | July 21, 2026 4:45 PM

Advertisement

null

AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

Back in April, we learned that former Rep. and failed California gubernatorial candidate Eric Swalwell faced complaints that he used campaign funds to pay a live-in nanny, and it wasn’t the first time Swalwell tried to use campaign funds for childcare. Four years ago, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) told Swalwell he couldn’t use campaign funds to pay for childcare while he traveled overseas.

Swalwell’s close friend, Sen. Ruben Gallego, also came under fire last month for using a joint campaign account with Swalwell to fund travel to Miami, Chicago, and both Disneyland and Disney World. Gallego also reportedly used the fund to pay $18,000 in reimbursements for childcare and to attend the Super Bowl.

Now another person with close ties to Swalwell appears to be using his campaign account like a personal slush fund. That’s Adam Gray, who was co-chair of Swalwell’s failed gubernatorial campaign. 

Gray, who was once a member of the California Assembly, had a reputation in the state legislature for taking charter flights and staying at luxury resorts. When he was elected to Congress, he reportedly kept living large, running up campaign expenses for limousine services, Uber rides, and more than $16,000 on Major League Baseball (MLB) tickets.

FEC documents show that Gray’s campaign spent more than $5,000 on limousine services through a luxury chauffeur service based on Fresno. That company advertises “premier black car and chauffeur services.”

After entering Congress, Gray has amassed almost $37,000 in Uber expenses, making him possibly the most Ubered congressman in America. Campaign filings show a long list of charges, many of them generating triple-digit bills and one that was more than $650.

Between May 2025 and May of this year, Gray’s campaign also spent $16,464.40 on baseball tickets at multiple MLB stadiums.

None of this is new, of course. Back in 2014, Gray was already facing scrutiny over his expensive travel and other taxpayer-funded perks like the aforementioned chartered flights and luxury resort stays. According to CalWatchdog, during his time in the California Legislature, Gray’s campaign spent $21,740 in gifts at Rossini’s Menswear, $14,563 at Vista Ranch & Cellars, and $2,383 at Stevensons Ranch Golf Club. Those expenses were classified as related to fundraising events. Gray’s campaign rang up $7,604 at the Ritz-Carlton, $3,334 at Sheraton Hotels, $1,125 at the Hyatt Regency Indian Wells Resort and Spa, and $347 at the oceanfront Terranea Resort. He also took junkets to Maui and Cuba.

All of this comes as Democrats argue that wealthy Americans like Elon Musk need to pay their “fair share” and California is poised to enact a five percent wealth tax on billionaires in the state as normal Californians struggle with the state’s high cost of living. Meanwhile, Democrats talk about making things more affordable for Americans but offer no real plans while politicians like Swalwell, Gallego, and Adam Gray live a luxury lifestyle paid for by their campaign funds.

You can take the corrupt politician out of Sacramento, but you can’t take the Sacramento luxury lifestyle out of Adam Gray,” said NRCC Spokesman Christian Martinez. “While Californians struggle to afford groceries and gas, Gray is living it up like a Silicon Valley executive. Gray is the same out-of-touch politician he’s always been: putting himself first, keeping donors close, and treating campaign funds like his own personal slush fund.”

Editor’s Note: The 2026 Midterms will determine the fate of President Trump’s America First agenda. Republicans must maintain control of both chambers of Congress.

Help Townhall continue to report on the Democrats’ radicalism and inform voters as our nation faces a crossroads. Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.

They are asking simple questions, Margaret. Why in God’s name are we only the major country on Earth not to guarantee health care to all people as a human right?!”

More like…. simple-minded questions.

The only thing Canada guarantees that is real is the right to abortions and to assisted suicide so the medical ghouls can cash in on harvesting human organs. It’s a typical leftist death cult nation.

“Pretty simple question. Canada does it, Europe does it. Somehow we can’t do it.”

Pretty obvious answer. Guaranteeing crappy quality health care… ie “free stuff”… is easy to do. It’s what leftists do all over… everywhere, every time. The reality is… somebody has to pay for all that “free stuff” and it is always, ALWAYS the over-taxed, hard-working middle class, which results in the destruction of that middle class, which is the backbone of every nation.

“Why do we have an economy one man, Mr. Musk, owns more wealth than the bottom half of American society?”

Why do leftists never have a problem with wealthy fat cats like Soros and Singham. Oh, right. Because they donate to and support DemocRats. At least Musk creates actual jobs for patriotic Americans, whereas Soros/Singham only funds jobs for activists, protestors, propagandists and anarchists working against America.

“Why do the economists tell us the richest country in the history of the world our kids will likely have a lower standard of living than their parents?”

The economists won’t dare mention that the real reason that America might have a lower standard of living is because it’s a blatant lie. Why else would illegals flock to America and try to get into America… because the standard of living they’re escaping from is so much worse than the most poverty-stricken in America. But… if it was true, it would be because of the (deliberate) destruction that Democrats have already done TO America via open borders, socialism and corruption by the Democrats in positions of power. Leftists/Democrats are the destroyers of economies everywhere they are in power.

“The American people are tired of a rigged economy, a corrupt campaign finance system. They want real change.”

The American people proved last November that they are tired of rigged elections and Democrat corruption (See: Minnesota Somali fraud). They voted for and GOT “real change” and moved America away from the leftist corruption and insanity leadership by OBiden by overwhelmingly electing Donald Trump. Since last November’s election, the exposure of the Democrat corruption and destruction has been eye-opening, proving what most patriots already suspected. It is very likely that the next presidential election will again reflect the mood of most LEGAL American citizens that will, by then, know about even more Democrat corruption and sedition. Suck on that fact and reality, Bernie.