Former Vice President Kamala Harris made a recent appearance on ABC’s The View, where she stated that the 2024 presidential race was “the closest presidential race in the 21st century in terms of the outcome,” a comment that led to a rousing round of applause from the audience. It also prompted co-host Ana Navarro to say, “You know, say that again because he likes to say over and over again that he got a mandate.”

In response to Navarro, Harris said, “Well, and that’s part of why I wrote the book, because history will talk about this race. It is part of American history. And it was important to me that when history is written, that my voice be present.” The only problem with Harris’ statement is that, as usual, it isn’t true. President Donald Trump won the popular vote by 2 million votes. He also won the Electoral College vote by 86 points.

In fact, according to a report published by Fox News, the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore was far closer than the Trump and Harris race, both in terms of the popular vote and Electoral College vote. This fact was pointed out by a user on social media platform X, who shared a clip from the episode.

According to Fox, Harris, who was on the program to promote her new book, “107 Days,” which is a rehash of her failed presidential campaign, in which she also said the biggest reason she lost to Trump was due to not having enough time to campaign. “There are many factors I think that played into the outcome of that election, but I think probably one of the biggest in my mind is, we just didn’t have enough time,” she stated.

Navarro prompted Harris’ answer, stating she believed that the former vice president had the whole race sewn up going into election night, but was shocked that Trump still defeated her. “I felt so good going into Election Day, and then I read in the book that you did too. I went into Election Day thinking you were going to win,” the co-host said.

“So did you,” Navarro said, to which Harris replied, “Yeah. I did.” Navarro chimed back in, saying, “So — I mean, it was a very tight race — but, ultimately, if you have to pin it down to one thing, what was the primary reason, do you think, that you lost?” Harris then blamed her loss on only having four months to campaign after stepping in to replace former President Joe Biden.

Biden opted to step down as the Democratic Party nominee after a horrifically bad debate performance against Trump in June. Harris then told the co-hosts of the show that the whole situation was unprecedented. “And, you know, I mean, one of the reasons I wrote the book is this is unprecedented. Think about this, that there is a race for President of the United States,” she said.

“The current sitting president is running for re-election. Three-and-a-half months from the election, he decides not to run,” the former vice president continued. “The sitting vice president then takes the mantle, running against a former president of the United States who had been running for ten years — with 107 days until the election.”

The award-winning actress, who has long been an LGBTQ+ ally, returns to her iconic role of Miranda Priestly in the upcoming ‘The Devil Wears Prada 2’.

Acting royalty Meryl Streep is returning as sharp-tongued fashion editor Miranda Priestly in the upcoming The Devil Wears Prada 2, which hits cinemas worldwide next week.

During the press tour for the sequel to the 2006 film, Streep commented on the popularity of The Devil Wears Prada with the LGBTQ+ community.

“It makes me so happy! Would we have fashion without gay people?” she told Out magazine. “Forgive me, would we have anything? I wouldn’t know how to put together anything. It’s a joy to have made it with [the LGBTQ+] community in mind. Top of mind.”

She added that the new film has been well received by people from a wide variety of backgrounds, saying: “It’s cross culture. We’ve just been around the world with this. The reaction is the same in Mexico City as Tokyo, as Seoul, as Shanghai… I honestly was surprised. I really was surprised by the universality of the response and from so many different kinds of people.”

The Devil Wears Prada 2 sees Streep joined by returning cast members, including Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci.

Streep said of her cast members: “I feel so lucky to be able to come back to something we did 20 years ago. Who gets to do that? We’ve had a whole lifetime. Look at Stanley Tucci! He’s blossomed! [Emily Blunt] blossomed at birth.”

Streep has long been an LGBTQ+ ally, expressing support for the queer community on numerous occasions.

In 2004, during her Golden Globes acceptance speech for Angels in America, she spoke out in support of marriage equality, condemning then-president George W. Bush for his anti-gay marriage stance.

In 2017, the Human Rights Campaign honoured her with its Ally for Equality Award, saying she had used her voice throughout her career to support LGBTQ+ people. In her speech, she took aim at anyone threatening to disrupt the progress women, people of colour and the accomplishments of the LGBTQ+ community.

“We should not be surprised that fundamentalists, of every stripe, are exercised and fuming,” she said. “We should not be surprised that these profound changes come at a steeper cost than we originally thought. We should not be surprised that not everyone is actually cool with it.”

Streep also memorably ended her speech by saying: “There is a prohibition against the establishment of a state religion in our Constitution, and we have the right to choose with whom we live, whom we love and who and what gets to interfere with our bodies. As Americans, men, women, people, gay, straight, L, G, B, T, Q, all of us have the human right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And if you think people got mad when they thought the government was coming after their guns, wait till they come and try to take away our happiness!”

Fox News contributor Mark Thiessen joined anchor John Roberts on Thursday to discuss the latest developments in President Donald Trump’s negotiations to end the conflict in Iran, which Thiessen warned risked putting the U.S. in a weaker position.

Roberts introduced Thiessen and noted, “He’s got a new column out today in the Washington Post titled ‘Trump Risks Snatching Defeat From the Jaws of Victory.’” Roberts continued:

You’re offering the president some advice here, including on X, where you said: “Here’s what Iran sees after being warned not to. They hit UAE and fired on a U.S. ship, and we didn’t respond. Instead, we suspended the Strait of Hormuz mission. They take that as weakness. They don’t think Trump is willing to bomb them again. They think they have leverage. He needs to prove them wrong.” What would you tell him if you had the honor?

“Exactly right. So look, first of all, let’s stipulate that Donald Trump’s decision to do this operation is one of the most courageous things an American president has done in my lifetime,” Thiessen replied. Notably, the U.S. did bomb Iran shortly after the segment aired on Fox. Thiessen continued:

No other president—four presidents said Iran can’t have a bomb—Donald Trump is the only one who did anything about it. But how you start a war and how you finish a war is as important as how you started it. And right now the Iranians are not seeing that Donald Trump has all the cards. They think they have the cards. He started Project Freedom.

Said if you fire on a U.S. ship or fire on U.S. allies, I’m gonna blow you off the face of the earth. And they did exactly that—they fired at a U.S. destroyer. They fired at our allies in the UAE. And we didn’t do anything. And then Marco Rubio announced that we’re ending Operation Epic Fury, and we’re now into Project Freedom. And then the next day we suspended Project Freedom. So what the Iranians see, if you’re looking at that from an Iranian perspective, you see weakness.

You see that the president seems to not want to enforce this blockade. That you’ve got this threat of attacking Gulf oil that is stopping him, not only from restarting the war, but also from opening the Strait of Hormuz. And you think that you’ve got all the cards. Now, they don’t have all the cards because Donald Trump can start the campaign again.

We’ve got double the firepower that we had at the start of the war, and he has that cocked and ready to go. They should have none of the cards. They should know that they have no cards. But they think they have cards because we’re sending signals to them that they have cards.

“So there’s this idea of a memorandum of understanding that might lead to some sort of peace deal. Here’s what Hugh Hewitt wrote about that on X. He said, ‘This would be a terrible deal. I hope the terms of any deal would be significantly stricter. No enrichment ever. Highly enriched uranium to us, stat. No more proxies. Turn on the internet. President Trump never gives up leverage. Why would he start now with Iran on the ropes?’ And then this from Ari Fleischer: ‘This is a far cry from unconditional surrender.’ You know, there’s a certain zigzag quality to where we are in terms of decision-making,” Roberts followed up.

“So Trump is trying to get a deal, and I understand that. But the fact is, the Iranians are not going to give him a deal when they’re emboldened. They think that they are dictating the pace of play. And so he needs a reset in order to show them who’s really in charge. What I would do if I were him is I would finish what he started,” Thiessen replied, adding:

Reopen Project Freedom, open up the Strait of Hormuz, and tell the Iranians that if you fire on our Gulf allies and try to target their oil infrastructure, we’re gonna destroy your oil infrastructure. We’re gonna blow up Karg Island—which is 96% of their oil—goes through Karg Island.

If we blow up Karg Island, their economy is destroyed. And then you unleash Israel to start the combat operations again. We take care of the Strait of Hormuz operation. Israel starts targeting their leadership, their energy infrastructure, their military bases. And you finish the job. And then if they’re not willing to capitulate at that point, then you say, “Okay, we’ve accomplished our military mission, and now we’re going to have a covert op to send arms to the Iranians.”

President Trump said this week: if the Iranians get guns, they’re going to overthrow the regime. So give them the guns. Let them overthrow the regime. The problem that he faces is that all of the accomplishments that he’s had in terms of taking down their nuclear capabilities and their military capabilities are necessarily temporary if this regime remains in power. Because even if he gets a deal, as soon as he’s gone, they’re gonna break it. The only way you guarantee that these stay is if the regime is gone.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) presents itself as an innocuous Muslim civil rights group—a reputation it reinforces with litigation and claims of anti-Muslim bigotry. But the group finds itself under increasing scrutiny for alleged connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoot, Hamas. Last November, Texas Governor Greg Abbott designated CAIR a terrorist organization. The following month, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis followed suit, citing CAIR’s being listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terrorism financing case.

But as other states move to sideline CAIR, California is embracing this alleged terror front. CAIR-CA, the organization’s largest statewide affiliate, is flush with taxpayer cash. In the last five years, the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) has rubberstamped at least $41 million in funding to the group. The vast majority of that money, it turns out, comes from the federal government. These federal dollars are flowing into CAIR-CA’s coffers even after it was the target of a recent Department of Justice investigation.

This City Journal report—based on a trove of documents provided to us by the Intelligent Advocacy Network (IAN), a California-based nonprofit—reveals good reason for the DOJ to be digging into CAIR-CA. It also raises serious questions about why Gavin Newsom’s government is funding a chapter of an organization with alleged terrorist ties.

CAIR was founded in 1994 with the ostensible aim of advancing Muslim-American civil rights. The organization claims that it “is not and never has been an agent” or affiliate of “any militant group.” But the historical record offers justification to question that characterization.

CAIR’s co-founders, Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad, were leading members of the U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee. That committee “effectively became the US-based Hamas infrastructure,” according to a George Washington University Program on Extremism report. In an October 1993 meeting planned by the Palestine Committee—secretly monitored by the FBI—participants discussed how to support Hamas’s efforts as well as how to help derail the Oslo Accords.

A year later, CAIR was born, with Ahmad and Awad assuming leading roles. For 11 years, Ahmad served as CAIR’s national chairman. Awad remains CAIR’s national executive director.

Some of this information came to light during the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial, which saw five of that sham charity’s leaders convicted for collectively funneling more than $12 million to Hamas. The investigation uncovered a network of Hamas-linked organizations. While CAIR was not prosecuted, the court found “ample evidence to establish” that it was associated with the Palestinian terror group. An FBI Special Agent reportedly testified at trial that CAIR was a “front group for Hamas.”

Lara Burns served as an FBI Special Agent for more than two decades and was the lead investigator on the Holy Land Foundation case. She currently serves as the head of terrorism research at George Washington University’s Program on Extremism.

“You can’t look at what CAIR is doing today in isolation,” Burns said. “The government established the fact [during the trial] that a conspiracy existed among these organizations, including CAIR, to support Hamas, and that acts were taken in furtherance of that conspiracy. . . . CAIR’s role was to operate an entity out of Washington, D.C. that would serve to defend the interests of the rest of the network—against scrutiny from the media, against scrutiny from law enforcement. . . . In my opinion, the executive director, Nihad Awad, and other components of CAIR that were a part of this original infrastructure, are still operating CAIR in furtherance of an agenda to support Hamas.”

CAIR-CA leaders have also effectively endorsed Hamas’s perspective on the Middle East. On October 7, 2023, the day of Hamas’s terror attack on Israel, Zahra Billoo, executive director of CAIR’s San Francisco office, posted to social media: “We are witnessing decolonization.” On July 31, 2024, following the killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, Billoo again took to social media, where she declared him a martyr. On November 12, 2023, Hussam Ayloush, the CEO of CAIR-CA, likened Israel to Nazi Germany and said, given the Jewish state’s “occupation” of Palestine, that “Israel should be attacked.”

One would think that CAIR’s ties to an Islamist terror group would make government agencies pause before providing it with public funds. But under Governor Gavin Newsom, California’s state government has seemingly never met a “marginalized group” it did not want to shower with other people’s money. CAIR-CA is rolling in tax dollars.

In 2022, CDSS awarded CAIR-CA $7.2 million in federal funds via a state program to provide immigration-related legal assistance. For its part, CAIR-CA pledged to serve approximately 1,800 people through September 2024, and earlier this year, claimed to have fulfilled that promise “across . . . various subgrantees.” According to IAN, a public records request submitted to the CDSS did not confirm how many legal cases have been handled as part of the grant; in its most recent annual report, CAIR-CA said that it had helped “dozens of Afghan families” through the project. In September 2025, CDSS rubberstamped an additional $23 million in federal funds for CAIR-CA.

In 2024, CAIR-CA’s IRS filings revealed that it had distributed more than $4 million in subgrants to 39 organizations. Among these sub-grantees were various groups with Islamist ties. For example, CAIR-CA sub-granted roughly $185,000 to California chapters of the Muslim American Society (MAS). GWU’s Program on Extremism identifies MAS as an open “Brotherhood legacy group” in the U.S. In 2004, a top MAS official estimated that nearly half of the organization’s activists were Muslim Brotherhood members. (MAS, which did not respond to our request for comment, claims to have “no affiliation” with the Muslim Brotherhood.)

CAIR-CA also sub-granted $30,000 to the Islamic Society of Orange County, which has ties to an individual connected to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In 1992, ISOC’s director invited Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as the “Blind Sheikh,” to deliver a lecture, during which he reportedly “dismissed” nonviolent interpretations of jihad. A year later, Rahman was charged with seditious conspiracy for his connection to the attack. (ISOC did not respond to our request for comment.)

In 2024, CAIR-CA sub-granted $117,000 to California “relief” chapters of the Islamic Circle of North America. ICNA was originally established as a U.S. affiliate of the Jamaat-e-Islami movement, whose founder’s ideology influenced the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In addition, in 2000, a former ICNA president penned an article that seemingly endorsed the establishment of an Islamic caliphate in the U.S. (ICNA did not respond to our request for comment.)

CAIR-CA has claimed, however implausibly, that it has no control over the selection of its sub-grantees. In January 2026, the director of CAIR-CA, Hussam Ayloush, wrote to a congressional subcommittee claiming that his organization “had no input or role” in determining the sub-grantees. Instead, he suggested that CDSS had selected them.

While CDSS told IAN that it “reviews and authorizes all . . . subgrantees,” the department did not release records showing that it approved or authorized the CAIR-CA sub-grants. Additionally, Alyoush’s signature appears on the sub-grant contracts, which, according to IAN, suggests that CAIR-CA exercised significant discretion over millions in federal tax dollars.

“Ayloush personally signed every one of these ALSP [Afghan Legal Services Project] grants as executive director of CAIR-LA,” a spokesman for the Network Contagion Research Institute and IAN told the New York Post. “[A]n entity contractually charged with administering funds and subgranting services necessarily plays a role in identifying subgrantees and their performance under the grant.”

In response to our request for comment, a CAIR-CA spokesman called allegations against the organization “baseless” and “part of a broader defamation campaign.” “All contributions and grants that CAIR California receives are fully reported, accounted for, and used strictly for their intended purposes,” he said, “subject to rigorous internal and external auditing and reporting. This transparency is why both private and public funders have worked with us and continue to do so.”

In March 2025, IAN requested that the Department of Justice launch an investigation into CAIR-CA, stating that a “forensic audit” was needed to determine the scope of the organization’s “financial misconduct, compliance [breaches], and support for terrorism.” Three months later, the DOJ confirmed that an investigation was underway.

Given California’s track record under Newsom—on whose watch the state has lost billions of dollars to fraud—taxpayers should not hold their breath that state agencies will hold CAIR-CA accountable. Nor should they expect California to come to its senses anytime soon and stop turning over buckets of tax dollars to a chapter of a “civil rights” group with alleged ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

But the failures of California state government present an opportunity for the Trump administration. If the Department of Justice were officially and permanently to revoke CAIR-CA’s accreditation with the Executive Office for Immigration Review—a status that the group relies on to receive federal immigration funds—then tax dollars currently flowing into its coffers would be halted. In other words, the solution is simple: turn off the taps.

Yes, the United States effectively inherited the existing institution of slavery in the territory acquired through the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 from France (which had briefly reacquired it from Spain in 1800). The U.S. did not introduce slavery there as a new practice; it was already well-established under prior colonial rule, and the transfer preserved the property rights of slaveholders.

Historical Context of Slavery in the Louisiana Territory

* French origins: France introduced chattel slavery to the Louisiana colony starting in the early 1700s, importing enslaved Africans (beginning around 1710) to support plantation agriculture, alongside some raids on Native American groups for labor. The Code Noir (1685) regulated slavery in French colonies, outlining rules for treatment, manumission, and rights of free people of color.

* Spanish period (1762–1800): Spain continued and expanded the transatlantic slave trade in the territory. By the time of the Purchase, there was a significant population of enslaved Africans, especially in the lower Mississippi Valley (present-day Louisiana), along with free people of color. Spain had banned enslavement of Native Americans in 1769, but some mixed-descent individuals remained in bondage.

* Brief French return (1800–1803): Napoleon reacquired Louisiana from Spain via the secret Treaty of San Ildefonso but never fully reimposed control on a large scale. His broader plans for a New World empire (including using Louisiana to supply Saint-Domingue/Haiti) collapsed due to the successful Haitian Revolution (a massive slave rebellion that led to Haiti’s independence in 1804) and disease among French troops. Napoleon restored slavery in other French colonies in 1802 but sold Louisiana before deeply reasserting it there.

At the time of the Purchase, slavery was a functioning economic and social institution in parts of the territory, particularly around New Orleans and agricultural areas. The Purchase doubled the size of the U.S. and brought in a diverse population that included thousands of enslaved people.

The Louisiana Purchase Treaty and Its Provisions

The 1803 treaty (signed April 30, 1803) made no direct mention of slavery or its abolition. Key relevant language came in Article III:

“The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible according to the principles of the federal Constitution to the enjoyment of all these rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the Religion which they profess.”

In the legal and social context of the era, enslaved people were treated as property under colonial (and later U.S.) law. Protecting “property” rights thus meant the U.S. recognized and upheld existing claims to enslaved individuals. President Thomas Jefferson and Congress had no intention of ending slavery in the acquired lands; they focused on governance, citizenship for free inhabitants (including free people of color in some cases), and eventual statehood.

Early U.S. actions included:

* Temporary restrictions on importing new slaves into the Orleans Territory (except those brought by migrating owners), but these were quickly weakened or removed due to local opposition.

* The territory (later split into the Orleans and Louisiana Districts) adopted laws similar to those in southern U.S. states while incorporating some French/Spanish precedents. Slavery expanded significantly post-Purchase, fueled by the cotton gin, sugar plantations, and the domestic slave trade. New Orleans became a major slave-trading hub.

Broader Impacts

The Purchase did not “create” slavery in the region but integrated an existing slave society into the U.S., exacerbating sectional tensions over whether new states carved from the territory would allow slavery. This contributed to debates leading to the Missouri Compromise (1820), the expansion of the domestic slave trade, and ultimately tensions culminating in the American Civil War. Parts of the territory (e.g., future Missouri) already had some slaveholders; lower Louisiana had many more.

In short: The U.S. acquired a territory where slavery was a longstanding colonial practice under France (and Spain). By guaranteeing property rights and incorporating the inhabitants without disrupting the institution, the U.S. inherited and then expanded slavery there under American law and governance. The Haitian Revolution indirectly enabled the sale by derailing Napoleon’s plans, creating an ironic link between the end of slavery in one former French colony and its reinforcement in another.

Today’s Democratic Party has abandoned its traditional working-class, patriotic roots and embraced a radical Jacobin ideology built on division, coercion, and political extremism.

By Victor Davis Hanson

May 7, 2026

Today’s Democratic Party has abandoned its traditional working-class, patriotic roots and embraced a radical Jacobin ideology built on division, coercion, and political extremism.

For the past century, the agendas of the Democratic Party were predictable. They professed concern for working Americans and supported blue-collar unions.

Unemployment insurance, a 40-hour work week, disability insurance, and Social Security were their trademarks—often rapidly achieved by growing government bureaucracies and continually raising taxes. Still, many Democrats were socially conservative.

By the 1970s, Democrats still deplored antisemitism. Party officials had rejected their own segregationists to champion civil rights.

Presidents like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy all supported strong defense and military deterrence.

All that is now passé.

The only vestigial Democrat left in Congress is Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, himself roundly despised by Democrat leaders.

Today, supporting Israel and calling for campuses to stop their institutionalized antisemitism is Democratic political suicide.

Forty years ago, any Democrat with a Nazi tattoo was political toast; today, he can become the party’s nominee for the Maine Senate race.

So, the current Democrat Party is no longer truly democratic at all. Its new spirit and methods resemble the radical Jacobin Party of the French Revolution. Today, Democrats claim that if any opponent gives a Roman salute, he is a Nazi—while insisting that one of their own with a Nazi tattoo is not.

Jacobinism rejects Martin Luther King Jr.’s emphasis on the “content of . . . character.” It instead prefers fixating on “the color of . . . skin.”

It aims to divide the nation arbitrarily between the noble oppressed and the toxic oppressors.

So these new Jacobins have institutionalized racially separate college dorms and graduation ceremonies, along with hiring and promoting on the basis of race.

The new Jacobins destroyed the southern border and welcomed in 10–12 million illegal aliens, seen as a future proletariat constituency. Today’s Jacobins would now ridicule Bill Clinton’s 1990s calls for secure borders and an end to illegal immigration as “fascist” and “racist.”

The most recent nihilist developments in American society can be attributed to these Jacobin “Democrats”: biological men competing in women’s sports; critical legal theory that normalizes cashless bail; race-based reparations; violent felons arrested and back on the street hours later; radical abortion on demand until birth; attacks on the concept of the cultural “melting pot”; and opposition to organized Christianity.

These agendas lack broad majority support. So street theater and violence focus on Tesla dealerships, ICE officers, conservative campus speakers, and, at times, any journalists covering the unrest.

Jacobins make excuses for pro-Hamas campus violence, which often targets Jewish students. The often violent and corrupt Black Lives Matter movement was a Jacobin ancillary.

Free speech is labeled “disinformation” and “misinformation”—synonyms for not toeing the Jacobin Party line. Until recent pushbacks, near-religious radical green agendas warred against fossil fuels and cost the working classes billions of dollars for sky-high fuel and electricity costs.

Like the Robespierre brothers of old, the most radical Jacobins are so often to be found among the wealthiest and most privileged Americans. Radical New York mayor Zohran Mamdani grew up as a rich Ugandan. Radical, self-described communist Maine senatorial candidate Graham Platner attended one of the most elite and expensive prep schools in the United States.

When avowed socialists Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders barnstormed the country, they did so via private jets.

Radical “Squad” member Rep. Ilhan Omar cannot decide whether she is worth $30 million or nothing. Hard-left California billionaire, gubernatorial candidate, and radical environmentalist Tom Steyer is a billionaire who jump-started his fortune by investing in coal plants overseas and offshoring profits to avoid taxes.

At least 10 states are drafting laws to tax the net worth, as well as the income, of “billionaires and millionaires,” apparently for their “social” crimes. Mayor Mamdani taps on the window of philanthropist Ken Griffin as a warning to get out of town. The mayor of Seattle scoffs at the rich leaving her state with their billions due to new punitive taxes, offering a sarcastic “bye.”

In the old days, Democrats were embarrassed by their radicals and distanced themselves from the Weather Underground, Students for a Democratic Society, and the Black Panthers. Today, left-wing bomb throwers are the Democrat Party.

Hasan Piker, another multimillionaire, $200,000 Porsche-driving communist, has openly supported “social murder.”

So Piker praised Luigi Mangione’s targeted murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

Meanwhile, Jacobins on social media expressed disappointment that all three assassination attempts on Donald Trump failed. The arsonist who burned down Pacific Palisades was a Mangione acolyte and saw his destruction as a revolutionary act, perhaps a form of mass “social murder.”

Jacobin politicians call for Trump to be “eliminated,” label him as a “fascist,” and call for “any means necessary” to end his presidency. The aim is to lower the social and psychological barrier to violence.

The Jacobin Democrats of today are systematically destroying the legacy of the Democratic Party. And why not?

Their model is not the American Founding, but the radical mandated equality—and violence—of the French Revolution.

Victor Davis Hanson

Speaking in an interview that followed his primary election defeat in Texas, where MAGA voters ousted him and replaced him with the far better Steve Toth, longtime anti-Trump RINO Dan Crenshaw went on an angry and conspiratorial rant in which he claimed that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), of all people, had stirred up anti-RINO sentiment against him.

In the interview, Crenshaw began his angry and conspiratorial rambling about why he lost with commentary about how it is mean that conservatives don’t like him, saying, “There’s nothing, especially conservatives, there’s nothing they love more than to tear down their own and figure out a reason why, even if they have to make it up, and it’s sort of part of the culture, right? It’s like, ‘Let’s Go RINO hunting.’”

Contrasting that with the left and blaming Ted Cruz, thought by many in MAGA to be something of a RINO, for it, Crenshaw said, “You know, the Democrats don’t have a term like that, but the Republicans do. That’s been going on for years and years and years, and it’s been…I think the source of a lot of it is Ted, Senator Cruz.”

Crenshaw continued, the journalist agreeing with him, by keeping up the ridiculous and conspiratorial attacks on Sen. Cruz, saying, “Yeah, that’s been obvious to me for years, years and years and years. That’s been obvious to me. He just finally pulled his mask off. Maybe he’ll look better now.”

The journalist then laughed at his joke about Cruz looking better, and Crenshaw awkwardly went back and forth with her on it in a semi-flirtateous way, saying, “Why did you laugh that was so mean? Are you saying he doesn’t. Anyway, you laughed. I didn’t laugh. You laughed. And hold it together.”

Returning somewhat to his point, Crenshaw entertainingly claimed that he was a big primary threat to Cruz, who attacked him for that reason, saying, “There’s no beef. He just, he’s just, I don’t know if Cruz has any friends, you know. I mean, like, the only, the only obvious reasoning is like, he, you know, he always viewed me as a threat, like a primary threat…”

Then, when asked if he had a “weird tension” with Sen. Cruz, the ousted RINO responded, “Enough so we’re like, back in early 2021, I felt the need to talk to him and say, ‘Senator, I will never primary you. Just so you know, never going to do it.’”

Crenshaw then claimed to face continual betrayal from Cruz’s staff, saying, “There was always somebody close to him, just just oddly, just just betraying me for no reason, you know, like Michael Berry, a radio host who’s just this drunken, like, cheating loser, who like, but he did get me elected in my first term, you know, and so, but he’s, you know, and then he got mad at me because I wasn’t paying enough ad money on his radio station back in the election in 2020. Sure enough, you know. Right after that, he starts going crazy on me. And so it’s all money with these guys.”

Continuing, Crenshaw then rambled about various online political figures and “MAGA influencers” he doesn’t like, and concluded by insisting, “These losers . . . just start this cottage industry of slandering me online, just making crap up if they have to, it didn’t matter what it was. And so you know that, again, the ties to Cruz are very, are very obvious.”

When we speak to people about communism, especially young people, they often insist that although communism has failed everywhere it’s been tried, the U.S. will be successful in adopting it.

They clearly have not learned the lessons of human nature and depravity. And they might be surprised to learn that those attributes exist abundantly in this country.

We only need to study Cambodia, one of the most extreme applications of communism ever imposed, to get a hint of what might show up here. Young people in this country have a hard time relating to the Killing Fields, because the main message generally communicated is that millions of people were killed at the hands of one man: Pol Pot. But what is lost in relating the gruesome story is that Pol Pot was a communist.

During the last days of the Vietnam War in April 1975, Cambodia’s pro-American government was overthrown by the Communist Party of Kampuchea under the leadership of Pol Pot. His ideology deeply rooted in Marxist-Leninist thought, Pol Pot rallied his Khmer Rouge army in support of his vision of a self-sufficient agrarian society, founded on the principles of Mao’s Cultural Revolution in China and free of foreign influence.

In order to meet that goal, urbanites needed to be evacuated from the cities. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, monks, and other professionals were sent to labor in the fields, being forced to work well beyond their strength. If you even looked like an intellectual, which could include wearing glasses, you were an enemy of the state.

The atrocities that were committed during Pol Pot’s reign are difficult to fathom. Torture and executions were common; imprisonment was standard. Eventually, Pol Pot was defeated by the Vietnamese army.

Following Pol Pot’s reign, a glass memorial was constructed in the shape of a Buddhist stupa, with 5,000 skulls displayed. If you look closely at the skulls, you may see signs of trauma embedded in them before they died. The Cambodians are committed to ensuring that their people never forget what happened to them with these kinds of memorials.

As a side note, I visited Cambodia and saw the skulls. Our tour guide explained to us that they were unable to calculate with any accuracy the number of people who had died; entire villages were wiped out so that there would be no witnesses to the genocide. To this day, the numbers range widely, from 1.3 million to 3 million, which was one-fifth to one-fourth of the country’s population.

That’s a grisly story about communism in Cambodia. But what does it have to do with the United States? There have certainly been many conversations on the incursion of socialism and communism into this country, but there is no reason to think that our practice of those two ideologies would lead to violence.

Is there?

People fail to notice that the seeds of violence have already been sown regarding communism. One of the culprits: Black Lives Matter. 

Alicia Garza, one of the main BLM founders, made her goals clear in Maine in 2019, when she told a group of eager New England leftists:

We’re talking about changing how we’ve organized this country, so that we actually can achieve the justice that we are fighting for. I believe we all have work to do to keep dismantling the organizing principle of this society, which creates inequities for everyone, even white people.

You may ask, however, what do her aims have to do with communism? Only the fact that Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi, the three main Founders of BLM, have been forthright about their training in, and commitment to, Marxism. Garza made the point in one interview that social movements everywhere have used Marx and Lenin to disturb the existing systems, in order to prepare for the revolution.

In addition, their vice-chair made an ominous statement about the future:

Black Lives Matter is administered by an organization whose vice chair, Susan Rosenberg, is a convicted communist terrorist who served 16 years of a 58-year sentence which was commuted by Bill Clinton.

Rosenberg was a member of the May 19th Communist Organization (M19CO) which ‘openly advocate[d] the overthrow of the U.S. Government through armed struggle and the use of violence.’

Let’s not forget that BLM was at the forefront of the riots and protests of the summer of 2020. To underscore BLM’s involvement, their activists were involved in 95% of the 633 incidents. The Insurance Information Institute documented that it was the costliest civil disorder in U.S. history. 

And the Left applauded the riots:

President Joe Biden praised the efforts of Black Lives Matter demonstrators during the summer of 2020 as a ‘historic movement for justice’ while speaking at a campaign event Monday.

[snip]

The summer of 2020 featured several violent protests and riots, including the siege of the Portland, Ore. federal courthouse and shootings that killed law enforcement officers in St. Louis and Oakland.

Kamala Harris also got into the act by promoting the bail fund for rioters in Minneapolis:

That endorsement helped the Minnesota Freedom Fund raise $40million, cash it soon used to release accused murderers, rapists, and thieves.

The lessons are obvious and treacherous for our future. We have a naïve group of citizens who can’t see beyond their greed for goodies that a communist regime will provide, at least temporarily. They are too deluded to recognize that they are already witnessing the destructive elements of communism in our own country in riots and protests. They refuse to believe that the violence and depravity that we have seen in other countries has already begun to happen here.

We must overcome our arrogance and naivete regarding communism in this country and face the reality of a communist conversion.

The latest man charged with trying to assassinate President Donald Trump received an apology from the judge in his court appearance Monday.

Attorneys for Cole Allen claimed in filings revealed during the hearing that the suspect had been wrongfully placed on suicide watch and denied access to a Bible.

Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui gave the government until the next day to update the court on where Allen would be held at the Washington, D.C., jail.

“Whatever you’ve been through, I apologize for the prior week,” the judge said to Allen, according to USA Today.

“I’m sorry,” the judge said at another point.

Faruqui also compared Allen’s treatment in jail to that of the defendants in the Jan. 6 melee at the U.S. Capitol, saying he had been treated worse.

“This is not the jail’s first go-around with people engaged in alleged political violence,” the judge added.

Allen’s attorneys said in a filing to the court that Allen had been cleared of being a suicide risk but was assigned to the restrictions anyway. The prisoner was refused phone calls, non-legal visits, dimmed lights, tablets, and other personal items under the suicide risk designation, they claimed.

“Mr. Allen is forced to be escorted to the shower, strip searched when entering and exiting his cell, and wear a padded vest while inside,” according to Allen’s public defender and two court-appointed attorneys.

“These conditions are excessive restrictions on his liberty that serve no justifiable purpose and deprive Mr. Allen of dignity while incarcerated,” they added in the filing.

The lawyers said Sunday that Allen has since been taken off suicide watch.

Allen was charged with attempted assassination of the president and two other charges after he allegedly fired a shotgun at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner that President Donald Trump was attending. The suspect was captured on security video rushing through a security checkpoint with the gun before he was tackled to the ground and arrested.

Allen left a large digital footprint full of left-wing criticism against the president, as well as other evidence that suggested the shooting may have been politically motivated.

He could be sentenced to life in prison if convicted of the charges. He has not yet entered a plea to the court.

Iranians need access to weapons to challenge their rulers, President Donald Trump said on Monday, arguing that protesters would fight effectively if armed but are currently outmatched by government forces.

“They have to have guns. And I think they’re getting some guns. As soon as they have guns, they’ll fight like, as good as anybody there is,” Trump said in an interview with The Hugh Hewitt Show.

Trump also suggested that US military pressure had already significantly weakened Iran and that further action could be completed within a short timeframe.

Trump:

The Iranian people have to have guns and I think they’re getting some guns.

As soon as they have guns, they’ll fight like as good as anybody there is. pic.twitter.com/84BBqeZCPy

— Clash Report (@clashreport) May 5, 2026 “We’ve taken out much of what we’d have to do, probably another two weeks, two weeks, maybe three weeks,” he said.

Trump said large numbers of Iranians would struggle to confront armed forces without access to weapons.

“You can’t have an unarmed population against people with AK-47s,” he said, adding that even hundreds of thousands of protesters would struggle against a smaller armed force.

He said previous protests had been met with heavy force, citing the deaths of tens of thousands of demonstrators, and suggested this had made him cautious about encouraging renewed unrest.

“I’m very torn on it, because they lost 42,000 people in the first two weeks. I don’t really want to see that,” Trump said.

Past weapons transfers

Trump said during a phone interview with Fox Sunday in early April that his administration had previously attempted to send firearms to Iranian protesters but that the effort did not reach its intended recipients.

“We sent guns to the protesters, a lot of them. We sent them through the Kurds. And I think the Kurds took the guns,” he said.

He repeated similar complaints, saying he was “very upset with a certain group of people” and warning they would “pay a big price.”

Several Kurdish groups have denied receiving such shipments.

Calls in Washington to arm Iranians

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has also urged the administration to pursue a policy of directly arming Iranian civilians.

“If I were President Trump and I were Israel, I would load the Iranian people up with weapons so they can go to the streets armed and turn the tide of battle inside Iran,” Graham said in an interview with Fox News on Monday.

“We don’t need American boots on the ground. We’ve got millions of boots on the ground in Iran. They just don’t have any weapons,” he added.

Graham described the idea as “a Second Amendment solution,” suggesting that arming civilians could help bring down the government without direct foreign military involvement.

He also called for alternative channels to deliver weapons, urging the administration not to rely on Kurdish intermediaries.

Military pressure and internal divisions

Trump framed his comments within a broader assessment that Iran’s military and economic capacity had been significantly weakened.

“They have no navy. They have no air force. They have no anti-aircraft,” he told The Hugh Hewitt Show.

Trump added that financial pressure may have affected the government’s ability to pay its forces.

“We don’t think they’re paying their soldiers and their Guard anymore,” he said.

He also suggested divisions within Iran’s security structure, drawing a distinction between the regular army and other forces.

“We purposefully have not gone after them too much, because we think that they’re much more moderate,” Trump said.

At the same time, he said the United States was not seeking to dismantle the country’s military institutions entirely.

“We’re not looking to decimate the army,” he said, referring to past regional experiences.

“You know, when they did Iraq… and the worst thing was they got rid of the all the leaders, so nobody knew who the leader was. And then all of a sudden, you had ISIS. We don’t want to do that.”

Nuclear focus remains central.

Despite discussing internal unrest, Trump said that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons remains the central objective of US policy.

“The one thing I will say is they will never have a nuclear weapon,” he said.

Trump said any potential agreement would require the return of highly enriched uranium and limits on missile development, though he stressed that nuclear restrictions remain the priority.