Darline Graham vs. Ralph Norman? In the GOP primary to replace Lindsey Graham for U.S. Senate in South Carolina?

It seems like a no-brainer.

Lindsey Graham’s sister may be a nice enough lady, but you can’t run for U S. Senate based on an endorsement from President Trump and literally nothing else. The country is in a free fall, not because of President Trump but because of all the damage (past and present) coming from a corporate, media and educational elite overwhelmingly dominated by leftist psychopaths.

Ralph Norman appears to understand this based on his answers, and his pro-liberty voting record is one of the best in Congress. If Darline wins the runoff, the Communist Democrats (who endorse her over Norman) are licking their chops at seating a child predator/genital mutilating, woke, gun-banning totalitarian pediatrician (Annie Andrews) in South Carolina’s Senate seat.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

“Any alleged ‘right’ of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.” (Ayn Rand)

It seems so obvious. It really seemed obvious back in the 1960s, when Rand wrote it. Part of her brilliance and foresight was her understanding that it needed to be said even back then — and much more now.

Everything that AOC, Mamdani and the rest of the now fully radicalized Democratic Party claim as a “right” actually belongs to another — not to them. The under-40 snowflakes who will never grow up, the biggest group cheering on socialism, are morally untenable, although they fancy themselves as morally superior.

All socialism is theft.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Globalism has already failed” and the crisis of predominantly Muslim migration is leading to a point of “no return”, Bishop Marian Eleganti has declared.  

The former auxiliary bishop of the Diocese of Chur is one of a handful of prelates who publicly denounces Islam and the concept of modern migration into the West, and has regularly linked the demographic crisis in the West to the crisis of immigration simultaneously affecting Europe.  

Interviewed recently by La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana, Eleganti warned that the Catholic Church “should not take an idealistic approach on this issue”, outlining that this meant the Church should avoid preaching “a moralism detached from reality, which ignores the concretely existing social problems linked to unlimited immigration and which can only be solved with political common sense.”  

“The ecclesial project of universal brotherhood does not combine truth and love,” he said.  

Eleganti has issued such a commentary before, as he previously criticized the style of fraternity born out of Pope Francis’ 2020 encyclical Fratelli Tutti as being “unrealistic”. “What kind of brotherhood is there, for example, between Christianity and Islam, which persecutes or suppresses the Christian faith in most countries where it prevails?,” he wrote last year.

For Eleganti, focussing on such a programme has harmed the Church, which in his assessment now pays “too much attention to the world.”  

“Under the pontificate of Pope Francis this alliance with the political world was taken to the extreme,” he told La Bussola. The bishop opined that the entire process of globalism has “already failed today with respect to people’s needs” since it only serves the “financial elite”, namely those who “determine the policy”.

Due to the current style of pro-immigration rhetoric which has emerged from the Vatican over the past number of years, Eleganti argued that the Church – or the Vatican – “does not want to see things as they are”.

Charity and love for neighbours must “manifest itself in a reasonable way”, he noted. “A father who wants to help orphaned children and already has two of his own must consider whether he can afford to adopt another child.”

Eleganti’s reference to the Ordo Amoris, or the priority of charity, will not be lost on Vatican analysts. It was in response to U.S. Vice President JD Vance’s comments on the same topic that Pope Francis issued a letter to the U.S. episcopate critiquing Vance and President Trump’s immigration policy. Francis decried the equating of the “illegal status of some migrants with criminality” in comments that garnered strong criticism from the Trump administration.

But in Eleganti’s assessment, the West is too readily accepting high levels of Muslim immigration due to a low birth rate. Western nations are compensating their lack of children “with immigrants to survive as a society”, he said.

“The danger is very serious,” Eleganti warned. “Hatred and arrogance, the thirst for power and violence, in other words: submission, are clearly demonic phenomena.”

He further argued that unless swift action is taken to counter the rising spread of Islam in the West then “the point of no return will be reached, at least in some regions of the Western world. Riots like those occurring in England are omens of this.”

Islam is not alone in posing a threat to Western civilisation, in Eleganti’s assessment. It is also joined in that regard by neo-Enlightenment modernism. “What they have in common is an anti-Christian spearhead,” he said.

Urging prayer also as a recourse against this double-pronged attack, Eleganti related that the crisis affecting the West is “something supernatural: on the one hand, the Incarnation of God and the revelation of the truth; on the other, the constant and ever-new Luciferian inventions that seduce men.”

He also rejected the repeated drafting of new texts as a proposed solution to the various problems affecting Western society. The Church, Eleganti said, does “not need ever-new documents on this” since “the Gospel contains all the answers. At the end of the day, things are simple. An excess of words and complexity is not an indication of a divine solution. Our solution is Jesus.”

Eleganti was among the few bishops who publicly condemned the Vatican’s accommodating of Muslims in the Vatican Library last year, when news spread about a small room with a carpet which had been made available to Muslim scholars at their request.

Interviewed by this correspondent last year, Eleganti expressed his doubts about fruitful dialogue between Catholicism and Islam. “I think even in its foundation Islam is expressed as an anti-Christian religion,” he said. “It says the contrary. It says that Jesus is not the son of God and that He is just a prophet, a human being, and it denies the Holy Trinity, of course.”

Though one of a small number to make such strident comments, Eleganti is not alone. The Chaldean Patriarch of Baghdad also issued similar words to the West about Islam, shortly after the ISIS attacks on the Christian population in his native Nineveh Plains. “You need to rethink our reality in the Middle East because you are welcoming an ever-increasing number of Muslims into your countries. You, too, are at risk,” warned then Archeparch Nona.

He continued: “You must make strong and courageous decisions, even if it means contradicting your own principles. You think that all people are equal, but that’s not true. Islam does not say that all people are equal. Your values are not their values. If you don’t understand this in time, you will become victims of the enemy you have welcomed into your own homes.”

Michael Haynes, The Catholic Herald

Bond yields climbed Thursday, erasing most of the pullback they saw the previous day after the Treasury Department announced an intervention aimed at easing pressure on longer-dated government debt.

The yield on the 30-year U.S. Treasury bond — the primary focus of the accelerated buyback — was up more than 4 basis points at 5.236%.

Yields on 10-year U.S. Treasurys — the main benchmark for mortgages, auto loans and credit card debt — moved more than 4 basis points higher to 4.696%.

The 10- and 30-year yield levels were right around the level they held before the 8:30 a.m. announcement Wednesday that Treasury would be stepping up its bond buyback program.

The yield on the 2-year Treasury note , which more closely follows short-term Federal Reserve rate decisions, was last seen up more than 2 basis points at 4.20%.

One basis point equals 0.01%, or 1/100th of 1%, and yields and prices move inversely to one another.

The moves underscored the difficulty of market interventions, particularly at a time when U.S. debt faces a slew of factors that have been pressuring yields higher.

In a move announced Wednesday morning, the Treasury Department, led by Secretary Scott Bessent, announced it would at least double the size of its government debt buybacks, starting Sept. 9 and running through Nov. 4.

Yields tumbled following the announcement, with the 30-year down about 10 basis points after previously hitting its highest in about 19 years, predating the global financial crisis in 2008.

However, the trade quickly unwound, with yields higher Thursday as the market digested the move, as well as the longer-term structural problems facing the fixed income market.

The interventions “belie the underlying structural challenges and do nothing to address them,” Maia Crook, senior research analyst at JPMorgan Chase, said in a client note. “While [Wednesday’s] action forced some decline in longer-dated yields, the more lasting impact is the potential for higher risk premia reflecting a Treasury Department that is intervening in the market and moving away from its ‘regular and predictable’ tenet.”

The announcement came the same day that Treasury updated the national debt total, which pushed past the $40 trillion mark. At the same time, the market has faced stiff competition from record corporate debt issuance tied to the artificial intelligence buildout, all of which has contributed to rising term premiums, or the extra yield investors demand to hold U.S. government paper.

Traders were also digesting the latest Federal Open Market Committee minutes from July, released Wednesday. Officials at the meeting indicated that higher interest rates likely would be needed if there isn’t more progress on inflation. Economic data released since the meeting have shown modest monthly price increases, though inflation remains above the Fed’s 2% target.

On Thursday, the Philadelphia Fed’s manufacturing index posted its highest reading since April 2021.

CNBC

I am a Portland mother of three. My oldest son, now 26, attended Lewis Elementary and had such a positive experience there that my husband and I built our home only blocks from Lewis so we could send our two younger children there as well. Lewis wasn’t just our neighborhood school. It was the school our family already knew and trusted.

I’ve lived my entire life in Portland, Oregon. I am also a Christian, and I believe parents have the right and the responsibility to know what their children are being taught. I never imagined that asking would get me banned from my children’s school.

It began when my 11-year-old brought home an “identity flower” assignment requiring him to identify his gender and share his answer with his class. I had received no advance notice and no opportunity to excuse him from an exercise that conflicted with my beliefs.

So, I did what parents do when they don’t understand something happening in their child’s classroom: I asked.

When I requested a meeting with the principal, I arrived to find three additional staff members waiting for me, including both of my children’s teachers and a school counselor. My questions were hardly revolutionary: What did “gender” mean in this assignment? What had the children been taught? Why hadn’t parents been informed?

At one point, my son’s teacher raised her voice and demanded, “Why do you need to know?”

Because he is my child.

It remains astonishing to me that this required an explanation.

The materials I eventually obtained only raised more questions. They instructed children to consider what gender “feels right” to them that day and suggested that the answer might later change.

People can disagree about whether that belongs in an elementary-school classroom. What should not be controversial is a parent’s right to know it is happening.

I joined the PTA in part so I could raise these concerns there, but when I asked to speak, I was prohibited from doing so. With that avenue closed, I wrote an open letter to other parents and distributed it peacefully from a public sidewalk outside the school.

Then came an argument with another parent during pickup. His wife and I had been speaking respectfully when he interrupted us, repeatedly shouting, “White people are disgusting!” within earshot of children. I called his comments racist, used language I regret, and walked away. I did not threaten him. I did not assault him. I was not arrested.

The next morning, police officers came to my home.

In front of my neighbors, they handed me an order barring me from my children’s school for one full calendar year for allegedly harmful and threatening behavior.

The man who raised his voice at me, to my knowledge, received no trespass order.

The principal then emailed the school community, accusing me of “harassment, intimidation, and threatening behavior” and referring to my views as “hate speech.” Parents were told to report me if they saw me on campus.

I appealed. Portland Public Schools (PPS) gave me a 30-minute Zoom “hearing” conducted by a panel consisting of two janitors and a basketball coach. One panelist emptied garbage cans while I spoke. No witnesses were called, and no meaningful evidence was presented.

They upheld the order, and because they did, I missed my son’s fifth-grade graduation.

Children get one fifth-grade graduation, and parents get one chance to be there for it. Other children looked at their mothers when they crossed that stage. My son looked for me and saw an empty chair.

PPS wasn’t finished.

When I later objected publicly to how I had been treated, the district threatened something far more consequential: it threatened to bar me permanently from every PPS property.

My daughter still has years left at this elementary school, and my son is beginning middle school. The message was difficult to misunderstand. Continue speaking, and you will be excluded from their schools forever.

So, I stopped.

That is the part of this story that should concern people regardless of what they think about gender, politics, or me.

Government doesn’t have to duct tape someone’s mouth shut to silence her. It merely has to make the price of speaking high enough. For me, that price was the possibility of losing access to my children’s schools forever. And for a while, it worked.

But parents do not need the government’s permission to ask what public employees are teaching their children. We do not surrender our right to criticize public officials when we enroll our children in public schools. Disagreement does not become “harassment” simply because officials find the speaker difficult or her opinions unwelcome.

That is why I am suing PPS.

I’m not asking a court to agree with my opinions. I’m asking the court to affirm that government officials cannot punish parents for questioning them, and that access to our children’s education cannot depend upon saying only what those officials want to hear.

I cannot get my son’s graduation back. That day is gone. But I can refuse to let fear silence me.

Allison Roberts, Christian Post

Quote of the day by George Augustus Moore, ‘A man travels the world over in search of what he needs and returns home to find it’ offers life advice on inner peace, family, relationship, friendship, companionship, happiness, human connection.

The U.S. national debt has surpassed $40 trillion for the first time, marking a historic milestone in a borrowing buildup that has accumulated over generations, through wars, recessions, tax changes, and the expansion of major federal benefit programs under presidents of both parties.

The Treasury Department reported that total public debt outstanding reached about $40.047 trillion Tuesday, according to The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.

The number is striking, but the more significant measure for economists is debt held by the public — money the federal government owes to investors and other entities outside the federal government.

That figure is approaching the size of the entire U.S. economy, with publicly held debt already exceeding 100% of gross domestic product, according to the Journal.

The $40 trillion figure represents the cumulative result of decades of federal borrowing rather than the policies of any single administration.

The United States has carried debt since its founding, when the young nation borrowed heavily to finance the Revolutionary War.

For much of American history, however, federal debt remained relatively modest compared with the size of the economy and often rose sharply during wars or economic emergencies before declining during periods of peace and economic growth.

That pattern changed substantially during the 20th century as the federal government took on broader responsibilities.

Social Security became a permanent part of the federal budget, Medicare was established in the 1960s, and the government’s role in healthcare, retirement benefits, national defense, and other areas continued to expand.

Major national emergencies produced additional surges.

Debt rose dramatically during World War II, and borrowing again accelerated during the financial crisis of 2008 and the COVID-19 pandemic, when Congress approved trillions of dollars in emergency spending and economic assistance.

Doctor: Discover the 7 Surprising Signs of Liver Damage… See More Here

The Journal noted that the federal government has run an annual deficit every year since 2001, meaning it has consistently spent more than it has collected in revenue and has had to borrow to cover the difference.

The result is that borrowing that once was heavily associated with wars and economic crises has become a persistent feature of the federal budget.

The New York Times reported Wednesday that the government is on track to borrow more than $2 trillion this year.

A growing share of that borrowing reflects the cost of servicing debt accumulated in previous years.

Interest payments have become one of the largest expenses in the federal budget, with the cost rising as the government carries more debt and refinances older obligations at higher rates.

The fiscal pressures are increasingly visible in the bond market.

The yield on the 30-year Treasury recently reached roughly 5.3%, its highest level in nearly two decades, according to the Journal and Reuters.

Higher Treasury yields increase the government’s cost of issuing and refinancing debt and can also influence borrowing costs for households and businesses.

Still, investors continue to regard Treasury securities as among the world’s most important and liquid financial assets.

The United States also retains a major advantage from the dollar’s role as the world’s dominant reserve currency, which helps sustain demand for Treasury debt even as the government’s borrowing needs grow.

The long-term outlook, however, is becoming more challenging.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that if current laws remain in place, publicly held debt could rise to about 120% of GDP within a decade and roughly 175% within 30 years, according to the Journal.

Much of that projected increase is tied to the growing cost of Social Security, Medicare and other programs, as well as rising interest expenses.

The Trump administration is confronting those longstanding pressures while pursuing its own economic and fiscal priorities.

President Donald Trump has made reducing government waste, encouraging economic growth and strengthening federal finances among the administration’s goals.

The administration’s Department of Government Efficiency effort sought significant reductions in federal spending, while the administration has also pursued increased revenue through tariffs.

The New York Times reported that the administration has claimed more than $200 billion in DOGE-related savings, although the Government Accountability Office has raised questions about the reliability and transparency of some of those estimates.

Tariff policy has also produced substantial revenue, although the administration has faced legal challenges to some of the tariffs and the government is now issuing refunds to companies following court rulings.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has set a goal of reducing the federal deficit to 3% of GDP by 2028.

Bessent has also argued that some current fiscal pressures reflect circumstances that could change, while policies encouraging business investment could strengthen economic growth and eventually produce additional tax revenue.

In an interview with Newsmax cited by The New York Times, Bessent pointed to spending associated with the war in Iran and tariff refunds as factors affecting this year’s deficit.

Alert: Prepare for Any Emergency. Get This Radio Now, Before You Need It! See Here

He also defended provisions allowing businesses to immediately deduct certain investments in factories and equipment, arguing that the policy could encourage investment and expand the economy’s productive capacity.

“That is a hit now to the deficit, but we are creating productive assets for future growth which will be paying taxes down the line,” Bessent said, according to The New York Times.

The administration’s fiscal policies are therefore being implemented against a debt burden that was already enormous before Trump returned to office.

Republican and Democrat administrations have contributed to the accumulation through different combinations of tax policy, military spending, domestic programs, economic stimulus, and emergency measures.

The biggest challenge for lawmakers is that the largest components of federal spending are difficult to change quickly.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, national defense, and interest on the debt account for substantial portions of federal expenditures, while lawmakers from both parties have generally been reluctant to make sweeping changes to popular benefit programs or enact tax increases large enough to eliminate the deficit.

The aging U.S. population is expected to put additional pressure on Social Security and Medicare in coming decades.

At the same time, interest costs can continue rising even without new spending because the government must continually refinance existing debt.

For now, the size and liquidity of the Treasury market and the dollar’s global role continue to give the United States considerable financial advantages.

But the $40 trillion milestone illustrates the scale of the challenge confronting Washington.

The debt has been built over decades and across administrations of both parties.

Reducing its growth will ultimately require decisions about spending, taxes, economic growth and the government’s major benefit programs that extend well beyond any single presidency.

© 2026 Newsmax Finance. All rights reserved.

While far-left Twitch millionaire Hasan Piker built an enormous following attacking the United States, praising communist dictators, and declaring that America “deserved 9/11,” his younger brother was reportedly working on some of the nation’s most sensitive military aircraft.

Murat Piker, Hasan’s younger brother and frequent livestream companion, spent more than a decade working as an aerospace engineer at Boeing, according to a bombshell report from the Washington Free Beacon.

His projects reportedly included the new Air Force One, the E-6B Mercury nuclear command aircraft, airborne surveillance systems, military drones, satellites, and Boeing spacecraft.

According to Murat’s public LinkedIn profile, he worked for Boeing Defense & Space and helped lead the mechanical design and integration of next-generation satellite structures.

“I hold a Master’s in Aerospace Engineering from UCLA and possess active Security Clearances,” his profile states.

A person familiar with Murat’s employment history told the Free Beacon that he held a “top secret” security clearance.

That would have placed the brother of one of America’s loudest anti-American socialist influencers inside the heavily vetted world of classified defense contracting.

Murat also admitted during a recent interview with Rolling Stone that he performed some work on Boeing’s VC-25B program—the official designation for the next generation of Air Force One.

“I actually worked on VC-25B a little bit,” Murat said. Hasan quickly undercut him: “Yeah… on the toilet. Don’t let him act like he did anything cool.”

How do I know Hasan Piker’s brother worked on Air Force One? — Because Murat Piker bragged about it in an interview with Rolling Stone (which I know understandably very few people read)https://t.co/z8BWgoUaVO pic.twitter.com/2HmlgKQcTW

Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit

A video of the national anthem being played ahead of the Indiana Fever‘s recent meeting with the Atlanta Dream has been going viral this week.

The Fever came away with the win, but the on-field action has not really been the main topic of discussion in the days since.

Instead, a lot of it has centred around Sophie Cunningham being the only player to put her hand on her heart as the national anthem was playing.

Sophie Cunningham praised after national anthem video shared

In the clip which has been shared by multiple accounts on X/Twitter, Cunningham is standing slightly away from the rest of her teammates, none of whom have their hands raised.

Meanwhile, the Atlanta Dream squad are not believed to have taken to the court while the anthem was ongoing.

This has led to Cunningham receiving praise, while the WNBA has faced backlash.

One fan asked: “Why is the other team not on the court? What is wrong with the WNBA??”

A second fan tweeted: “Sophie Cunningham is the only good thing about the WNBA. Will support her but done with everything else.”

“God Bless her. No excuse for the others. Disgusting,” added another.

A fourth commented: “Sophie stood alone with hand on heart. That quiet move speaks loud.”

Another suggested: “Totally disrespectful. Let them go live over in Europe or anywhere else and let’s see how they feel then.”

“She’s Americas Sweetheart!! We stand behind you,” added a sixth while tagging Cunningham on X.

A seventh wrote: “Why won’t these people just leave the country for the one they respect? Shame on @WNBA.”

Josh Barker, Yahoo Sports