Leftists seem to share an insatiable desire to seek out the miserable in everything.

Pete Colan | June 27, 2026

Over the years, I’ve had many different social media conversations with people who are leftists. Not political conversations (I avoid open social media discussion of politics with leftists), but rather many other topics. I have found a common pattern; they seem to have a remarkable lack of self-esteem, because they often seek only sympathy or praise, and they share an insatiable desire to be miserable. There is no desire to have a conversation or intellectual debate. Although there are many examples, I will limit myself to three (chronologically widely spaced) in this article.

I should preface this with some background; I am a successful engineer who has designed and produced many different complex mechanical products (I have eight patents), whose product longevity ends up being typically longer than prior art. I credit that achievement with an innate understanding of statistical probabilities and the ability to exercise creativity in the industries where I’ve applied it. I thrive on statistics not only in my professional life but also my private life, which sometimes maddens my wife when we play board games, and I spend too much time examining probabilities.

Story #1: When COVID hysteria was headlining social media, I followed much of the hype with great interest, hoping to learn as much as I could about this “novel” virus from available data. While New York City was publicly hailed as the COVID “hot spot,” I examined available data from CDC (as skewed as it was…) and could not confirm it. But my leftist friends were apoplectic about the lack of support and sympathy for all those poor New Yorkers who were dropping dead in the streets. In some of their social media posts, I pointed out how there was an abundant lack of actual data to support that conclusion.

Over the years, I’ve had many different social media conversations with people who are leftists. Not political conversations (I avoid open social media discussion of politics with leftists), but rather many other topics. I have found a common pattern; they seem to have a remarkable lack of self-esteem, because they often seek only sympathy or praise, and they share an insatiable desire to be miserable. There is no desire to have a conversation or intellectual debate. Although there are many examples, I will limit myself to three (chronologically widely spaced) in this article.

I should preface this with some background; I am a successful engineer who has designed and produced many different complex mechanical products (I have eight patents), whose product longevity ends up being typically longer than prior art. I credit that achievement with an innate understanding of statistical probabilities and the ability to exercise creativity in the industries where I’ve applied it. I thrive on statistics not only in my professional life but also my private life, which sometimes maddens my wife when we play board games, and I spend too much time examining probabilities.

Story #1: When COVID hysteria was headlining social media, I followed much of the hype with great interest, hoping to learn as much as I could about this “novel” virus from available data. While New York City was publicly hailed as the COVID “hot spot,” I examined available data from CDC (as skewed as it was…) and could not confirm it. But my leftist friends were apoplectic about the lack of support and sympathy for all those poor New Yorkers who were dropping dead in the streets. In some of their social media posts, I pointed out how there was an abundant lack of actual data to support that conclusion. Of course, I was criticized, ridiculed, and eventually blocked. Well, a little-known truth is that Trump did come to the rescue by sending USNS Comfort in March of 2020. It had 1,000 beds and nearly 1,300 personnel on board. Andrew Cuomo welcomed it while he braced for “a tidal wave of coronavirus patients.” In the one month it was there it treated — wait for it — 179 people.

Story #2: There was a leftist candidate running for a local (small town) office post-COVID. He bragged about how he was “deployed” on a COVID mission to a small town about 2,000 miles from here. He was not a doctor and indeed had no medical credentials whatsoever. Nobody knows why he was “deployed” or who sent him when the destination he went to was far from being a “hot spot.” Frankly, it reeks of a personal vacation disguised as a mission of compassion, like so many other leftists did during the lockdowns. Anyway, in his campaign, he bragged about his high level of fatigue from stuffing body bags in the intense heat from the staggering death toll and sitting with people who died alone in hospital rooms while he held their hand and their families had to wait outside. The outpouring of sympathy regarding his claims (without question) from his friends was quite disgusting, and I couldn’t take it, so I called him out. First, why he (a non-medical person) was “deployed” from one small town to another for three months for no apparent reason didn’t make any sense; second, the death toll he claimed was many orders of magnitude higher and disproportionate than statistical average nationwide and third, the notion that he (a non-medical person), was allowed to be with people dying of COVID while family was locked outside also made zero sense. I was chastised by everyone sympathetic to his self-proclaimed heroism… and blocked.

Story #3 A social media post recently showed up from a leftist friend where he grumbled about a package that took almost a month to arrive from Carrier A (a common ground-based shipping company). He went on to grumble about how the service from Carrier A was consistently poor. His sympathetic leftist friends predictably took it from there with their usual cries of sympathy and their own exaggerations about the poor service from Carrier A. Well, I have a business manufacturing products that I ship in volume all over the world. I do about $10,000 worth of business annually, exclusively with Carrier A, and have for about 20 years. In that time and many, many thousands of packages shipped mainly within the USA, but also to every continent on planet Earth, to residents and businesses, hospitals, hotels, apartments, and many other types of facilities, exactly zero packages have shown up damaged and only two were ever lost, with Carrier A confirming that they were stolen off the back of their truck in a parking lot so the claim was immediately honored. On the other hand, I used Carrier B (the other common ground-based carrier) for several years before switching to Carrier A because damaged, misshipped, and lost packages were common; typically, once per month. And they never once honored a claim; somehow, it was always my fault. Many incoming packages are still shipped today with Carrier B, and my experiences are similar… although a much smaller volume of incoming compared to outgoing, the incidents of damaged and lost packages remain statistically too significant to ignore. I shared my experiences with Carrier A with my friend, suggesting that although it’s not impossible for a package to be mishandled, statistically, Carrier A is, overall, a stellar performer compared to other carriers because I have the receipts (in volume) to prove it. Again, since I was not entirely sympathetic in agreement with my friend, a reply demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of statistics. “It’s not about volume. If we as individuals order a package to be delivered by {Carrier A}, we deserve the same level of service as you.” I have no answer to that. I have not been blocked yet, but I’m sure that’s coming.

What Would C. S. Lewis Have Thought of AI?

June 26, 2026By Benjamin M. Osborne

Share this post?

Facebook X Truth Social

What would C. S. Lewis have thought of artificial intelligence? I doubt he would have begun with the machine. Indeed, Lewis always began with man.

He would not have asked first whether AI can write a poem, draft a law, tutor a child, or write a sermon. He would have asked, “What sort of people want a machine to do these things for them?” He would have asked, “What have we already lost when we greet such a tool not with care, but with wonder?”

That is why reading The Abolition of Man in 2026 makes the work feel more like a book written for the age of the chatbot. Lewis warned that we “make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise.” By the chest he meant the trained physical sources of love and judgment. The head thinks. The belly wants. The chest teaches a man to love what is good, hate what is evil, and submit both thought and appetite to truth.

AI has no chest. It has no loves. It does not know courage, shame, mercy, sin, or worship. It can regurgitate “writing” about these things, but it cannot live them. It can compose a prayer without praying and a sermon without fear of God. It can say “I understand,” but, in truth, there is no “I” and no understanding.

The machine is made. Man, on the other hand, is made in the image of God. Machines are tools. Men have souls. When we forget the difference, we do not raise up the machine. We lower the man.

Lewis saw this danger before AI, data centers, and servers. Modern man wants to conquer nature. But when man throws off moral law, “man’s conquest of Nature” soon becomes the rule of some men over other men. AI will not govern itself. Men will train it, tune it, censor it, sell it, and use it to govern other men. And man’s flawed idea of man will pass into how and what it trains AI to say and do.

That should trouble us. A tool trained by people who think speech is harm will teach others to fear plain speech. A tool trained by people who hate limits will teach others to hate limits. A tool trained by people who think man is only a bundle of wants will answer as if man were no more than that. No software is neutral when its makers are not.

George Orwell helped us see what is coming. In “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell wrote that bad public speech is not just clumsy. It is dishonest. It piles up long words, stale phrases, and soft names until the facts disappear. The words do not defend the act; they rename it, doing what the Prophet Isaiah condemned: calling evil good and good evil, so the honest argument never has to happen.

Orwell called this inflated style a kind of euphemism. It falls on the facts like snow. It blurs the outline. It covers the blood. The great enemy of clear language, he said, is insincerity. When a man’s real aim differs from his declared aim, he reaches for cloudy words. He does not say what he means because he does not want others to see what he means.

AI can make that habit effortless for those who want to practice it. It can turn a lie into a memo, a threat into a policy, a command into a recommendation, and a sin into a service. It can help the coward sound kind and the tyrant sound calm. It can give every evasion a pleasant voice.

We already live under this kind of speech. We are told to say “care” when we mean killing, “safety” when we mean censorship, “equity” when we mean favoritism, “misinformation” when we mean dissent, and “progress” when we mean decay. AI did not invent this perversion of language. It only gives it a faster tongue.

So the first Christian rule for AI is simple: Do not let the machine teach you to lie.

Use it, perhaps, as one uses a calculator or a plow. But do not kneel to it. Do not ask it to replace your mind, your memory, your judgment, or your conscience. Do not let it write what you have not dared to think. Do not let it soften what ought to be said plainly.

A sane people would teach children to read old books before they are encouraged to prompt new machines. It would teach them to write one honest sentence before asking software for 10 smooth ones. It would teach them that words are acts. They can bless, wound, hide, reveal, tempt, and tell the truth.

Lewis would not have feared AI as a rival soul. He would have feared the man who sees in it a mirror and likes what he sees. The machine has no chest. But does man still have his?

The explosive expansion of mail-in voting — turbocharged during COVID and conveniently never rolled back in many blue states — punched a massive hole in American election security. Conservatives raised the alarm for years. They were dismissed as paranoid. The media shrugged. Meanwhile, ballots kept flying through the postal system with zero meaningful verification that the person on the envelope was, you know, an actual eligible voter.

But something just shifted. The federal government has stumbled onto a devastatingly simple enforcement mechanism, and the states with the dirtiest voter rolls are already lawyering up. Funny how that works.

From The Post Millennial:

The US Postal Service General said Wednesday that states refusing to comply with a presidential order requiring the submission of voter information could have their mail-in ballots halted.

During a Senate hearing testimony, Postmaster General David Steiner defended the administration’s position, saying the US Postal Service was not being politicized and that compliance with the proposed requirements would determine whether ballots are processed.

Read that again slowly. The Postmaster General — under oath, in front of the United States Senate — just told every non-compliant state in America that the mail stops if they won’t verify their voters. No hedging. No bureaucratic weasel words. Just a clean, direct ultimatum.

The masterstroke

President Trump’s executive order, “Ensuring Citizen Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” is almost disarmingly straightforward. It directs federal agencies to coordinate on verifying that mail-in ballots reach only eligible American citizens. The USPS — which, let’s remember, is a federal agency — would require states to submit their absentee voter lists before processing a single ballot. Steiner called it the “manifest.”

No manifest, no mail.

The policy also ties federal funding to state compliance, which adds a second pressure point. This isn’t some novel power grab cooked up by White House lawyers at midnight. It’s the federal government directing its own agency on how to conduct its own operations. The postal service answers to the American taxpayer — not to state officials who’d prefer to keep their voter rolls buried in a filing cabinet somewhere.

The opposition tips its hand

Right on schedule, several Democratic-led states and voting rights organizations filed lawsuits. They’re calling the policy “plainly unconstitutional.” A federal judge has allowed one challenge to move forward.

But here’s the question that keeps going unanswered: if your voter rolls are accurate and your elections are squeaky clean, why burn money on attorneys to avoid a basic verification check? The resistance itself tells you everything.

Senator Gary Peters tried to corner Steiner during the hearing, pressing him on whether USPS would still deliver ballots to states that refuse to hand over their absentee voter lists. Steiner didn’t blink. “Under our proposed regulation, no,” he replied. “We would tell the state that we need the manifest.”

That’s not politicization — it’s the bare minimum of competent governance. Strange how those two concepts get confused so often in Washington.

The road to November

With the 2026 midterms on the horizon, this policy draws a bright line. States that comply signal they have nothing to conceal. States that dig in and resist? They’re essentially advertising that their voter rolls can’t survive scrutiny. Good luck explaining that one to your constituents.

For decades, the conservative movement has championed voter ID, citizenship verification, and transparent election administration. These are common-sense positions that consistently poll well — even among independents. Trump’s executive order opens an entirely new front in that fight, leveraging federal infrastructure to accomplish what blue-state legislatures have stubbornly refused to do themselves.

The legal battles will drag on. Cable news panelists will shriek about voter suppression between commercial breaks. None of it changes the core argument: before the United States Postal Service delivers a ballot, it should confirm that ballot is going to a verified American citizen.

That’s not suppression. That’s a republic acting like it actually cares about its own survival. And for the first time in a long time, the federal government is backing that principle with real teeth.

Key Takeaways

• Postmaster General Steiner confirmed USPS will withhold mail-in ballots from non-compliant states.
• Trump’s executive order leverages federal postal authority to enforce voter verification.
• States resisting basic voter-roll transparency are raising serious questions about their motives.
• Federal funding conditions add a powerful second layer of accountability for compliance.

Sources: The Post Millennial

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

Allan J. Feifer | June 26, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·      Allah is on its side.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the nature of the beast.

God Bless America!

Human nature did not suddenly become flawed when Europeans arrived.

George P. Brooks | June 26, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That irony is almost never discussed.

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

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

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

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

Would globalization exist in its present form? Probably not.

Would international trade be as extensive? Almost certainly not.

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

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

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

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

So why has colonialism become such a dirty word?

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

But somewhere along the way, nuance disappeared.

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

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

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

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

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

They weren’t.

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

Human nature did not suddenly become flawed when Europeans arrived.

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

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

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

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

I believe we can.

And we should.

10:54:20 AM by Angelino97

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J.B. Shurk | June 26, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shari Goodman | June 25, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Republic and our very lives depend on it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It embodies most of the seven deadly sins.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian