South African jurist Navi Pillay, who accused Israel of genocide in Gaza, wins the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize; The Nobel Committee declines to comment on the Gaza allegations, while Israel’s Foreign Ministry denounces the award.

The Nobel Peace Prize will be awarded to Navi Pillay, a South African jurist who served as the fifth United Nations high commissioner for human rights, the selection committee announced Friday in Oslo. Pillay also served as president of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and as a judge on the International Criminal Court. She is known for her harsh criticism of Israel, which she has accused, among other things, of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Following the announcement, Pillay was greeted with cheers and applause. She responded jokingly, “If you clap a little bit more I may share this prize with Trump.” According to the committee, Pillay was honored for her exceptional courage and integrity in advancing a more comprehensive international legal order. The committee also credited her with helping ensure the prosecution of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

Pillay recently chaired the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the “Occupied Palestinian Territory.” In September 2025, the commission issued a report concluding that “Israel is responsible for the commission of genocide in Gaza.” The 72-page report said there were “reasonable grounds” to conclude that Israel had committed four of the five acts listed under the Genocide Convention since the start of the Gaza war: killing members of a group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately imposing conditions intended to bring about the group’s destruction and imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

The commission also concluded that President Isaac Herzog, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant had “incited the commission of genocide.”

Pillay accused senior Israeli officials of seeking to establish permanent military control over Gaza and alter its demographic composition. She warned that the objectives of ethnic cleansing and establishing settlements in Gaza remained in place.

She also condemned Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s plan to annex 82% of the West Bank and Netanyahu’s approval of the E1 settlement expansion, describing the plans as “abhorrent” and saying they “must be condemned widely.”

Israel’s Foreign Ministry condemned the decision to award Pillay the Nobel Peace Prize.

“If there were an award for lies, hatred, and blood libels, Navi Pillay wouldn’t just be a contender. She’d be a frontrunner,” the ministry wrote on X. “Her role in the relentless, politically motivated demonization of Israel and promotion of the genoLIE speaks volumes.”

“Awarding Pillay the Nobel Peace Prize isn’t a recognition of justice. It’s the grotesque weaponization of an award to legitimize anti-Israel hatred and prejudice,” the ministry added. “Now that the Nobel commission has rewarded the biggest lie of the 21st century, Joseph Goebbels is certainly applauding from hell.

The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded since 1901 under the terms of the will of Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite. Unlike the other categories of the prestigious Nobel Prizes, whose winners are selected by Swedish committees, the Peace Prize is awarded by a separate committee whose members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, as Nobel stipulated in his will.Recipients are selected according to the criteria set out in Nobel’s 1895 will, which states that the prize should go to the person who has done “the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” This year’s prize is worth 12 million Swedish kronor, approximately $1.2 million.

Thousands of people are eligible to submit nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize, including government officials, lawmakers, current heads of state, university professors in fields such as history, social sciences, law and philosophy and previous Nobel Peace Prize winners. This year, 287 candidates were nominated, but their identities will remain confidential for 50 years.

As in the previous year, President Donald Trump was among the nominees, although this time he did not exert as much pressure in his bid to win the prize as he did last year. “I don’t know what their decision is going to be,” he said Wednesday. “They have a ​reputation for maybe not giving it to people like me.”

Last year’s prize went to Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado for her struggle to promote democracy in her country. Later, after the United States captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, she presented Trump with her Nobel medal. The gesture did not help her, however, as the American president subsequently chose to back Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, who now serves as president and is cooperating with his administration. Machado remains unable to return to her country.

Both individuals and organizations are eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize. Recent recipients include a Japanese organization campaigning for global nuclear disarmament, imprisoned Iranian women’s rights activist Narges Mohammadi and human rights activists from Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.

The most recent sitting head of government to receive the prize was Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who won in 2019 for his efforts to reconcile with Eritrea. His country subsequently descended into a bloody internal conflict.

Nobel Prize week began Monday with the announcement of the winners in medicine: Prof. Karl Deisseroth of the United States and professors Peter Hegemann and Georg Nagel of Germany, who were honored for their research into the “switch” that turns nerve cells in the brain on and off using flashes of light.

On Tuesday, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to American scientist Francis Louis Halzen, who discovered a new way to detect one of the most elusive particles, the neutrino, using a detector built in Antarctica. On Wednesday, Henri Boris Kagan of France and Kenso Soai of Japan were announced as the winners of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

On Thursday, Canadian poet and essayist Anne Carson won the Nobel Prize in Literature.

The winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics will be announced Monday.

YNET

Socialism means the end of choice. Everything is run by the government. Sure, everything’s free. Well, someone else is forced to pay for it. But you lose your choices. The government says, quite logically, “Hey, we’re paying for it. It’s your only option. So get over it.” The spoiled brats demanding “socialist democracy” don’t get it. They feel it’s an imposition to have to pay for anything. They assume they can retain all the diverse and delicious choices, the ever present innovation and always expanding free market economy, while still enjoying the power of choice. But he who pays for your free life chooses — not you. You are no longer a customer or consumer. You’re just … a body. At best.

You cannot explain this to the growing number of socialist enthusiasts. It’s not just that they don’t want to hear it. They just don’t hear it. They are brainwashed to believe you are “racist” or something similarly awful to point any of this out to them.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

The Iranians shout “Death to America.” The Democratic Party will bring death to America. They are the same.

Obliterating individual rights in favor of collective will via government edicts? That’s what the Democrats seek to do.

Ignoring or repealing the First and Second Amendments? That’s what the Democrats seek to do.

Transferring the means of profit and production entirely from the private sector to the public sector? That’s what the Democrats seek to do.

Eradicating the ability of police to arrest and prosecute violent offenders like murdererss and rapists? That’s what Democrats already do. Changing the role of police from that of law and order to prosecuting critics of the government? That’s what all dictators do. Democrats started this during the Obama and Biden regimes; next time, you can be certain they’ll finish the job.

Yes, I know Republicans are full of contradictions, errors and evasions. Republicans are, in many ways, like the Democrats of 10 or 20 years ago. But this doesn’t change the fact that the Democratic Party — now thoroughly dominated by openly radical totalitarians, no different than the Nazis, fascists and Communists of earlier eras — is the real thing.

Vote your conscience. But more importantly — speak up, while you still can. This isn’t your granddaddy’s (nor even your daddy’s) America.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Who can doubt that wherever communism has risen, war follows?

Fay Voshell | October 10, 2026

Who can doubt that wherever communism has risen, war follows?

The carnage it has caused in this and the last century is beyond dispute. The staggering numbers of people executed, imprisoned, poisoned, starved, and exiled to gulags are almost beyond belief, as the authors of The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression have meticulously documented. The authors are all European. All were and are deeply acquainted with communist ideology and its fruits. One, Stephane Courtois, was a committed Maoist during the 1960s.

The book documents the death toll: 25 million in the former Soviet Union, 65 million in China, 1.7 million in Cambodia. Wherever Communism took root, it immediately led to criminality, terrorist tactics, and suppression of opposition.

But what does communism war against?

The answer to that question is best answered by former true believers who assiduously worked to advance Communism, but who eventually rejected Communism and exposed it for the horrors it produces within any society in which it roots itself.

In America, that question was answered by Whittaker Chambers.

For Chambers, who was a member of the American Communist underground for 13 years and who decisively rejected communist ideology by 1938, the struggles of the West were a war between two irreconcilable faiths — Communism and Christianity. He wrote:

“The 20th century… is the first century since life began when a decisive part of the most articulate section of mankind has not merely ceased to believe in God, but has deliberately rejected God… The most conspicuously menacing form of the rejection is Communism.”

Chambers, who became a committed Christian in the Quaker tradition, wrote of his experience of Communism and of his eventual rejection and exposure of its influence in America’s political and academic elite in his book Witness,  published in May 1952 at the height of the Cold War. Much of the book focused on the 1948 House Committee on Un-American Activities’ Alger Hiss probe. Chambers was a witness against Hiss, who was an active member of the American Communist underground. He was also highly placed in FDR’s administration, including a position as advisor to the president at the calamitous Yalta Conference, which, despite Churchill’s opposition, legitimized the Soviet Union’s occupation and subsequent oppression of Eastern Europe — including the Christian churches.

Today, it is still important to remember what Chambers wrote in the early fifties, a time during which the Cold War was at its height. Throughout the 799 pages of his book, Chambers points out the core belief system driving the communist ideologues who began infiltrating America’s institutions, including academia, which he saw as beginning to lean left by 1929.

Other institutions were infiltrated, including political entities.

Chambers relates that many Communists were well placed during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The New Deal and the subsequent establishment of a left-leaning, anti-Christian bureaucracy is a prime example of parasitic communist infiltration. “All the New Dealers I had known were Communists or near-Communists. None of them took the New Deal seriously as an end in itself. They regarded it as an instrument for gaining their own revolutionary ends.”

The New Deal wound up being a pink version of the red Soviet Five-Year Plans. More importantly, the bureaucracy founded in FDR’s tenure accelerated, eventually becoming a foundation of the enormous left-leaning Deep State apparatus that acts as an alternate governance that has been vitiating the American republic for decades. Until the advent of the Trump administration, it remained virtually untouched, encountering only sporadic resistance.

The deep infiltration of American institutions was not confined to national boundaries. As Chambers noted, communist influence was global: “There is an invisible chain of command that laces the world.” That invisible command was (and is) characterized by terrorism: “The communist party, despite occasional pious statements to the contrary, is a terrorist organization… It respects only force. Only terror terrifies it.”

He added that since Communism is globalist in nature and characterized by warfare, it inevitably comes into conflict with Christianity, the foundational belief system of the West and a supranational world view found in almost every corner of the globe. Christianity’s claims of a transcendent God who is the Creator of the universe and a supernatural order that influences the destinies of mankind and its institutions comes into direct confrontation with the Communist belief system, which believes only in the power of the human being and the almighty state. As Chambers noted, the communist worldview is “An attempt to imitate the escape of national and institutional boundaries as the Christian church did, but with the view of disrupting and destroying rather than reform.” (Italics mine.)

Chambers understood the Communist mentality because he lived within that worldview for many years. But as he witnessed the carnage that system of thought perpetrated, he understood that he must break from it. As he put it, “The Communist breaks because he must choose at last between irreconcilable opposites — God or Man, Soul or Mind, Freedom or Communism.”

A realist, he believed the only answer to the terrors of Communism was probably the least likely choice. As Daniel J. Mahoney points out in his essay “Whittaker Chambers and the Crisis of the Modern Soul,” that option was that “The West must either ‘develop or recover’ those spiritual and moral resources that constituted its superiority over communism or risk irrevocably losing its soul.”

The option will only be realized with the rise of Christian opposition to a worldview that elevates man over God.

At this time, much of the Christian church is partially paralyzed into submission by the absorption of the leftist dogma that insists Christianity has no place in any sphere other than the church buildings. The retreat into a subculture has led to lack of discernment and a refusal to confront Communism — as most Christians once failed to confront anti-Jewish and anti-Christian fascism.

The steady retreat from the secularized world stage is partly due to a vague and amorphous ecumenism that regards all faiths as equal and above judgment. The result is that many have failed to see communism regards the elimination of the Church as necessary in order the world it wishes to construct after the ruination of the West may rise.

But instead of recognizing and confronting the threat, the church generally has accepted faith as a merely private matter; or, as seems to suggest, the doctrines of faith become determined by group (synodal) consensus rather than by supernatural revelation.

Churches’ refusal or inability to acknowledge the applicability of the transcendent, supernatural Christian faith to all spheres of Western civilization has allowed the witless absorption of the leftist mentality–sometimes unconsciously, but often quite deliberately, as in the case of many Main Line denominations. Witness the capitulation of the Presbyterian Church USA to communist-inspired liberation theology.

But resistance by the Christian church to the corrosive effects of the communist faith now often allied with terrorist organizations, must happen if the West is to survive. The Church must confront the relentless anti-civilizational attacks presently ravaging Europe and now threatening America as well.

Resistance is possible.

But resistance can only begin by understanding, articulating, and confronting what Chambers saw as the “irreconcilable moralities” of Communism and Christianity.

Christian thought leaders can begin by recognizing what Chambers, immersed as he once was in the Communist faith, eventually discerned: “There are two great camps of men — those who reject and those who worship God.”

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her the prize for excellence in systematic theology. Her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com

American Thinker

From prosecuting comedians to backing the Digital Services Act, Paris has widened its censorship reach for decades.

French President Emmanuel Macron went full Orwell recently. While long the darling of Western media, Macron has been one of the most anti-free-speech leaders in the world. On Sept. 29, he declared that “The so-called American ‘free speech’ today, which some people have promoted, is the opposite of free speech.” Having Emmanuel Macron holding forth on free speech is akin to Joey Chestnut proselytizing on veganism.

France has been in a headlong plunge into censorship and speech criminalization. These laws criminalize speech under vague standards referring to “inciting” or “intimidating” others based on race or religion.

For example, fashion designer John Galliano was found guilty in a French court on charges of making antisemitic comments in a Paris bar in 2010 and 2011.

Many of us were disgusted recently when Macron celebrated Brigitte Bardot’s life as someone who “embodied a life of freedom.” As I discussed, the French government repeatedly prosecuted Bardot for speaking about her views.

FRANCE BECOMES FIRST EU NATION TO BAN SOCIAL MEDIA FOR CHILDREN UNDER 15

Macron’s praise for Bardot’s “life of freedom” is reminiscent of the reaction of French officials to the massacre of editors at Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine. After hounding the victims for years with criminal investigations, the French government organized a march for free speech. As predicted, it then used the killing by Islamic extremists to further crack down on free speech.

In my book “The Indispensable Right,” I discuss how France has careened down the slippery slope of censorship for decades, and the desire to silence others has now become an insatiable appetite.

Jonathan Turley, Fox News

The evidence that personal freedom and free markets lead to most prosperity and human flourishing is undeniable. Everywhere you look today and in history, the freest countries are and have been the most prosperous, making flourishing for their people possible. Singapore, Switzerland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Estonia (since being liberated from the Soviet oppression), America (especially in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries), and England after the Industrial Revolution make a striking contrast to the autocratic regimes from North Korea to Cuba to Mao’s China and various African dictatorships where people starve or live in utter poverty.

Despite elements of capitalism in the freest countries, none of them have achieved full, laissez-faire capitalism where all property is privately owned and the government’s only role is to protect individual rights. Why?

Voters generally prefer a mixed economy that combines elements of capitalism and the socialist welfare state because they don’t like the inequality of capitalism. (Autocrats prefer socialism for the state ownership of property and the opportunities for kleptocracy it provides). Indeed, prosperity in capitalism is unequal: the most productive get rewarded the most. But this is not a flaw but a benefit because everybody prospers more in capitalism than in any other system.

The fundamental reason for not having full capitalism is its conflict with the prevailing moral code, altruism, that motivates voters’ preferences. Altruism imposes a duty to place others’ interests first and sacrifice our own, whereas capitalism protects freedom to pursue self-interest and trade voluntarily with others. Since altruism is widely considered the only (acceptable) moral code, many people are adverse to acknowledging self-interest as moral (as manifested, for example, in my discussions with business students over many years of teaching).

But altruism is an anti-life morality that – if followed consistently as a moral code – makes everyone a loser. Those who sacrifice their own life and interests lose, but so do the recipients of sacrifice who claim greater needs and a “have-not” status to receive benefits paid by the more productive, the “haves.” The recipients of sacrifice become dependents without a productive purpose and eventually exhaust the producers who become “have-nots” themselves unless they escape. Witness the flight of producers from the more oppressive welfare states to freer countries, or the equal misery of everybody (save the ruling elites and their proteges) in autocracies.

Capitalism is a social system that makes everyone a winner – capitalists, workers, and consumers alike, because it is based on the recognition of the primary requirement of a successful human life: the use of reason for survival and flourishing.

Capitalism incentivizes using reason and creates the conditions that make it possible. The government under capitalism protects everyone’s freedom to think and act against those who initiate physical force, whether common criminals, terrorists or foreign invaders and retaliates on your behalf. The only means to deal with others capitalism permits is persuasion. If others don’t want to help or trade with you, coercion is not an option. You need to seek out others that do. There are no duties in capitalism except the obligation to respect the equal freedom of others and abstain from using physical force.

Altruism and capitalism are inherently in conflict because altruism curtails freedom and enslaves individuals to serve others and sacrifice their own interests. According to prominent altruist philosophers, such as John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer, we must cut spending on personal enjoyment and dedicate the savings to helping others, until we have only the basic necessities to keep on giving.

Why is altruism the dominant moral code, despite being anti-self-interest? Regardless professions of altruism, most of us don’t engage in self-sacrifice – if we did, we could not survive and flourish – but pursue our interests and happiness daily. We work to have a productive purpose and to support ourselves and our families; we buy food, shelter, clothing, and other goods; we look after our health; we engage in social relationships. We do all this, not to maintain ourselves for the purpose of self-sacrifice but to survive, thrive, and enjoy life.

Yet, many embrace altruism as the unquestioned moral code, because that is what we have been taught, thanks to religion and philosophy that have shaped today’s culture. In this teaching, whether at home, church, or school, altruism is often camouflaged as generosity, kindness, and benevolence that facilitate harmonious co-existence. This is more palatable than the explicit duty to self-sacrifice for the “common good” that altruism actually prescribes. Self-sacrifice is required in socialism and the mixed economy where the needs of the “have-nots” are met through the productive efforts of the “haves.” Taxes and other private property confiscations are not voluntary or optional.

To achieve capitalism, we need a different moral code that aligns with the human requirements of reason and freedom from physical force. That code is rational self-interest, or egoism, whose moral guidance is based on the recognition of these factual requirements. Egoism was developed by Ayn Rand on the Aristotelean foundation, as part of her philosophy of Objectivism that she called “a philosophy for living on earth.” It entails living in harmony with others, dealing with them by voluntary consent only as traders of values for mutual benefit – which no other social system but capitalism sanctions and protects.

We will not achieve capitalism unless or until we accept and embrace the fact-based, pro-human-life morality of egoism. Therein lies the challenge, given the millennia of religious and philosophic teaching and continued cultural dominance of altruism. But the factual requirements of human life and happiness are aligned with egoism and capitalism, which is observable to all who want to see it and think for themselves.

Jaana Woiceshyn

by Jaana Woiceshyn | Oct 5, 2026

As Ayn Rand observed, “In order to justify it, the statists have to rouse people to a hysterical fear of some malevolent enemy who threatens them with constant, unpredictable dangers.”

Statism – government control of the economy and people’s lives – is on the rise and freedom in decline, as developments around the world show. In Canada, the federal government directs infrastructure projects, including oil and gas pipelines, foreign trade, housing development, and AI, among other things. It has also established a sovereign wealth fund that gives the state an increased stake in capital markets and as financier of government-favored projects. In the United States, the federal government is using tariffs and ownership stakes in companies to direct the economy. Similar observations can be made in the EU, Asia, and elsewhere.

Governments assume that through their votes, voters sign away their individual rights – their freedom – and let the government decide what is best of them. Elitist government leaders presume that they are naturally equipped to make better decisions than people trading in free markets and are therefore justified limiting their freedom, based on the leaders’ political philosophy of collectivism. Collectivism, according to Ayn Rand, “ … is based on a view of man as a congenital incompetent, a helpless mindless creature who must be fooled and ruled by a special elite with some unspecified claim to superior wisdom and a lust for power.”

Often, governments use some perceived threat as a justification for increasing their control. As Ayn Rand observed, “In order to justify it, the statists have to rouse people to a hysterical fear of some malevolent enemy who threatens them with constant, unpredictable dangers.” In the recent past, those malevolent enemies have been capitalists whose profit-seeking industrial activity has allegedly caused a “climate emergency,” the pandemic-causing corona virus leaked from a Chinese research lab, and now, President Trump and his unpredictable tariffs disrupting international trade.

Why do government leaders succumb to the hubris that they know what’s best for everyone? These are some plausible reasons:

• They are true believers in collectivism and have therefore adopted statism as their political ideology.
• They evade the importance of freedom to human flourishing and the government’s role in protecting it because that contradicts their philosophy of collectivism and statism.
• Like everyone else, they have a psychological need for self-esteem but instead of gaining it from their own productive efforts, they seek if from power over others  that inflates their view of their own abilities.

On the other side of rising statism is its acceptance by those who repeatedly vote statist governments into power. Such voters share their political leaders’ ideology and want to be taken care of and looked after by the government. They want the state to ensure equal shares for all in the common pie that it has baked with their tax money.

The hazard of “the government knows best”

To challenge statism and “the government knows best” thinking, we need to point out statism’s flaws and identify an alternative.

The problem with statism is that by attempting to direct and control the economy, the government diminishes human flourishing – which, ironically, it claims to protect by arguably meeting basic economic needs and ensuring equity for all. In Canada, despite the government’s efforts to direct the economy through industrial policies, the sovereign wealth fund, and taxation, growth is stagnant, capital is fleeing the country, productivity is sluggish, inflation is persistent, and almost a third of Canadians lives paycheck to paycheck. In the U.S., where greater freedom still exists, these problems have been largely avoided.

But human flourishing does not mean bare economic survival and equal struggle for all. The condition of flourishing is that people are able to depend on their basic tool of survival, reason. They must be free to think, engage in any productive activity, and trade with others of their choosing, to survive and enjoy life. Thinking, producing, and trading requires freedom to choose one’s work, to keep the proceedings from it and to prosper accordingly.

By limiting or abolishing that freedom – through confiscation of property and “redistributing” it to others, trough taxation, welfare programs, and foreign aid,  or through restricting trade through regulations – a statist government undermines individuals’ freedom to pursue their values and thereby their flourishing.

The alternative to statism is a free society where the government plays a limited but crucial role and  flourishing can be maximized.

Instead of controlling the economy and restricting individual choices, the government in such a society protects freedom by upholding individual rights to life, liberty, and property. Because those rights can only be violated by force, whether physical coercion or fraud, the government upholds them by deterring and punishing those who initiate force. This is the government’s only legitimate role and limits its functions to policing to protect citizens against common criminals, maintaining the military against foreign invaders, and operating the law courts to protect contracts and help resolve disputes.

In a free society, there is no role for the government in the economic and social realms. It doesn’t collect taxes and fund industrial or social policies, hand out subsidies, or bail out businesses. It leaves the citizens free to live, produce and trade, as long as they respect the freedom of others to do the same, which makes flourishing possible for all.

The gap between today’s statism and a free society is wide, but if we want to maximize human flourishing, we must strive to narrow it. One way to begin is to challenge those who hold the “the government knows best” premise by simply asking them “why?”.

Jaana Woiceshyn taught business ethics and competitive strategy for over 30 years at the Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Canada, where she is now an emerita professor.

My sources are telling me Talarico is in a mental health facility. His campaign has stopped actively planning events in the vital homestretch of the campaign.

If this is true, this is actually a time to pray for Talarico. We should, of course, savagely mock his smug, awful campaign advisors, by all means…and while yes, of course, this would be disqualifying for Talarico’s aspirations to be a Texas Senator, we must hold empathy for anyone undergoing crisis. Campaigns are brutal, and not everybody is cut out for it. You need very thick skin. As much as I don’t want Talarico anywhere near government, I also don’t want wish him harm, and no political office is worth having a breakdown. His awful advisors are at fault for this. They pushed him to be something he isn’t, and it didn’t work.

I’m praying that this isn’t true, and he’s OK. You want to win these fights on the battlefield of ideas, not the minefield of poor health.

Spencer Pratt, X

AUSTIN, TX — Senate candidate James Talarico suddenly disappeared from the campaign trail last week after Democratic strategists realized that he is James Talarico.

With Democrats holding a shocking lead in statewide Texas races, political operatives pulled Talarico off the campaign, hoping to hide the fact that he is James Talarico.

“The one thing that could sink this campaign is Texans meeting James Talarico,” said Democratic strategist Kelly Hutchins. “He is so friggin’ weird. Have you heard the stuff that comes out of that guy’s mouth? Completely insane, even for us. We believe the winning strategy is to simply keep James Talarico from ever campaigning for James Talarico.”

Mystery surrounded Talarico’s sudden absence during the final month of the campaign, but surveys showed that the strategy was working. “It’s pretty simple. People will vote for James as long as they don’t know who he is,” said pollster Graham Kitchens. “The campaign just has to hide who he is and everything he’s ever said and done. He really is just the worst. But as long as he stays out of view, they’ve got a great shot.”

At publishing time, Talarico had asked his political handlers if the giant padlock on the door of the basement he was being kept in was really necessary.

Babylon Bee

I wonder whether Zohran Mamdani has ever read Shakespeare or sticks mainly to Karl Marx.

If he has ever dabbled in the Bard, he may know the idiom “hoist with his own petard.” In Hamlet, a petard was a crude medieval explosive used to blow open castle gates, and the unlucky engineer was the one launched skyward. That is precisely where this tard finds himself today, lifted by the very cause he weaponized, which now seeks to destroy him.

After the Marxist, maleficent, Muslim mayor of New York City ostentatiously attended an October 7 vigil mourning the Israelis slaughtered that day and the Palestinians killed in the war in Gaza that followed, he was berated, screamed at, and swarmed by his own supporters.

It was a richly delicious irony.

Fully masked Islamist men chased and threatened Hizzoner, essentially branding him a Zionist after loudly protesting the memorial in its entirety.

Honestly, where do these people find the time? If I have a rare evening off, I’m not spending it in New York’s chilly, grimy, nauseatingly loud streets, yelling at strangers through a scarf. But then again, I’m normal.

It didn’t matter to these deranged, daddy-issue-riddled delinquents that Mr. Mamdani looked as though he wanted to attach a suicide vest to himself throughout the ceremony. Nor did it matter that he was the sole invitee to decline a New York screening of the October 7 massacre footage Wednesday evening, opting instead for dinner at the only Palestinian restaurant on the Upper West Side after the vigil. By donating one hour of his life to a semi-Jewish-appearing cause and one sentence to the victims in an otherwise lengthy and pro-Hamas X statement, he earned himself the title of traitor.

There is zero room for error in the pro-Palestine movement. Deviate once from its nefarious expectations, and you’re branded a Zionist. And you’re out.

You can’t sit here anymore, Heather!

All the cool kids agree, starting with the queen bee of the Democratic Socialists of America, Hasan Piker, who complains that Mamdani didn’t offer enough “material concessions to the anti-zionist groups he made promises to while running,” and that the mayor has instead made concessions to Zionists. Ugh! I hate when this couple fights. I hope they can move past this relationship roadblock. Inshallah.

And their youthful useful idiots, who follow these baboons blindly into Babylon, are now parroting the same line.

This keffiyeh kid protester says there’s been a “shift against him in activist spaces.” I love when they say “spaces.” They have a million of them, each one simultaneously safe and aggrieved. P.S. If I ever proclaim I’m a member of a “space,” seek medical attention for me immediately.

The mini socialist, with the charming cleavage tattoo, goes on to say that the shift away from Mamdani is because the spaces have realized he is underperforming on Palestine, the NYPD, surveillance, and the overall protection that he was supposed to deliver to his dutiful cadre. It’s a shame. I, too, thought he would have jihaded the NYPD by now. Total letdown, amirite?

It’s gotta be difficult for this mayor, who has enjoyed the privilege of playing protester in his infinite free time for most of his young adult life, to face the real world, where you can’t simply scream into a microphone all day about the NYPD’s boot being laced by the IDF, or about a genocide that was apparently underway before Hamas ever invaded Israel. Instead, he has to pretend to be mayor for “all” New Yorkers, which means slipping on the “I don’t hate Jews” mask for five minutes. Even that was enough to poke the bear. It doesn’t matter how much he’s fed the bear. The bear will eat him.

He failed the litmus test he helped create, and now he will face the consequences. These people are binary: You’re with them, or you’re against them. And as far as they’re concerned, Mamdani just did the equivalent of donning a yarmulke and chanting from the Torah. He’s officially an establishment Dem. Old news. Washed up on the Democratic death beaches alongside House Minority Leader Hakeem (D-NY) Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Mamdani? Who even is that? Lost to obscurity, practically a footnote. Is he a Republican now? I forget. Scoot over, Mamdani, the DSA wants a REAL leader, someone like Piker! He flaunts the iconography of communist dictators who killed millions, forgives rapes against those he disagrees with, and would love to see capitalist blood run in the streets. A commie girl’s dream boy.

Mamdanimobster, you built this petard. You planted it at the gate. And now it will end you. Just as the Bolsheviks devoured the liberals, Mensheviks, and Socialist Revolutionaries who cleared their path in 1917, Stalin devoured the Old Bolsheviks who had made him. Just as the Jacobins devoured the Girondins who helped topple the monarchy, the Terror devoured Danton, and finally Robespierre himself. Just as Khomeini’s Islamists devoured the leftists and Mojahedin who had marched beside them against the Shah.

The revolution does not do coalitions. It does purges. You’re no exception.

Chloe Trapanotto, Daily Wire