Posted on August 3, 2026 by John Hinderaker in Academic left, Education, Great Britain, Race

Academia: How Corrupt Can It Get? More corrupt, I suspect, than we can imagine. This is a big topic, but for now let’s take the case of Cambridge University professor Jason Arday. Arday’s story, as related by himself, is almost miraculous. And, it turns out, almost entirely false. Greeted as a hero just a few years ago–Cambridge’s youngest black professor!–his career is now on the rocks.

The story can be told in a chronological series of London Times articles:

February 2023: Jason Arday becomes Cambridge University’s youngest black professor.

An autistic sociologist who could not read or write until he was 18 has become Cambridge University’s youngest black professor.

Wait, what? Did this not strike anyone in academia as improbable?

Jason Arday, 37, was diagnosed with global development delay as well as autism spectrum disorder at the age of three and did not learn to speak until he was 11.

Less than eight years ago he was working in Sainsbury’s after therapists and career advisers predicted he would spend his adult life in assisted living and need lifelong support.

Arday, from Clapham, south London, has told how he defied the difficulties he faced and worked his way up in academia to land his dream role at Cambridge.

He couldn’t speak until he was 11, couldn’t read or write until he was 18? And now is a professor at Cambridge? It is notable that Arday’s parents, who presumably know something about his ability to speak and read, have never given an interview to any news outlet.

You may wonder, in what field of study has Arday so distinguished himself that, after such a slow start, he is now a Cambridge professor? No, you probably don’t need to wonder:

Bhaskar Vira, pro-vice-chancellor for education at the University of Cambridge, said: “Jason Arday is an exceptional scholar of race, inequality and education. He will contribute significantly to Cambridge’s research in this area and to addressing the under-representation of people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, especially those from black, Asian, and other minority ethnic communities.

“His experiences highlight the barriers faced by many under-represented groups across higher education and especially at leading universities.

Posted on August 3, 2026 by John Hinderaker in Academic left, Education, Great Britain, Race

Academia: How Corrupt Can It Get? More corrupt, I suspect, than we can imagine. This is a big topic, but for now let’s take the case of Cambridge University professor Jason Arday. Arday’s story, as related by himself, is almost miraculous. And, it turns out, almost entirely false. Greeted as a hero just a few years ago–Cambridge’s youngest black professor!–his career is now on the rocks.

The story can be told in a chronological series of London Times articles:

February 2023: Jason Arday becomes Cambridge University’s youngest black professor.

An autistic sociologist who could not read or write until he was 18 has become Cambridge University’s youngest black professor.

Wait, what? Did this not strike anyone in academia as improbable?

Jason Arday, 37, was diagnosed with global development delay as well as autism spectrum disorder at the age of three and did not learn to speak until he was 11.

Less than eight years ago he was working in Sainsbury’s after therapists and career advisers predicted he would spend his adult life in assisted living and need lifelong support.

Arday, from Clapham, south London, has told how he defied the difficulties he faced and worked his way up in academia to land his dream role at Cambridge.

He couldn’t speak until he was 11, couldn’t read or write until he was 18? And now is a professor at Cambridge? It is notable that Arday’s parents, who presumably know something about his ability to speak and read, have never given an interview to any news outlet.

You may wonder, in what field of study has Arday so distinguished himself that, after such a slow start, he is now a Cambridge professor? No, you probably don’t need to wonder:

Bhaskar Vira, pro-vice-chancellor for education at the University of Cambridge, said: “Jason Arday is an exceptional scholar of race, inequality and education. He will contribute significantly to Cambridge’s research in this area and to addressing the under-representation of people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, especially those from black, Asian, and other minority ethnic communities.

“His experiences highlight the barriers faced by many under-represented groups across higher education and especially at leading universities.

Next: July 2026: Cambridge University pioneer Jason Arday in plagiarism row.

The youngest black professor ever ­appointed at Cambridge University has been accused of plagiarising the work of other academics, a month before the release of his memoir, which details his “improbable triumphs and heart-breaking setbacks”.

Concerns about Jason Arday’s work have circulated within academic circles since 2023, the year he was made ­professor of sociology at the age of 37.

They were aired publicly this week in an article published on the blog of a former Cambridge academic, who presented a side-by-side comparison of ­Arday’s PhD dissertation with the thesis of another student.

This Times article takes a neutral stance on the plagiarism question, and devotes equal time to undermining the person who raised the issue. It also repeats, uncritically, Arday’s origin story:

Arday’s achievement in becoming a professor at such a young age was even more impressive for the fact that he was unable to read or write until he was 18. Diagnosed at age three with autism spectrum disorder, he was non-verbal until the age of 11 and left school with two GCSEs, in PE and textiles.

But Arday’s fantastic claims now began to draw scrutiny.

July 2026: Cambridge University professor faces scrutiny over fundraising claims.

A Cambridge professor accused of plagiarism is facing fresh questions about claims he made of long distance running feats and charity fundraising.

Jason Arday, who at 37 became the youngest black professor ever ­appointed at the University of Cambridge, has repeatedly spoken about extraordinary endurance running challenges, which he said raised vast sums of money for charity.

Experts in ultra-distance running have now cast doubt on some of his claims, some of which have been removed from the internet or the references changed. *** Arday has spoken often of undertaking endurance running challenges to raise money for charity. He told the Greenbelt Festival in 2024: “When I was 25, I ran 30 marathons in 35 days. And then I did a series of challenges after that and then I ran 300 miles in 3 days on the treadmill. And then the final challenge when I was 30, I ran 600 miles in 6 days. And I was fortunate that I got to that target of a million pounds before I turned 30.”

Extraordinary claims. But at this point, both the London Times and Cambridge University were on Arday’s side:

On Friday June 24, Cambridge defended Arday, ­saying that the allegations of plagiarism against him were unfounded and part of “a vile campaign to undermine his credibility”. Liverpool John Moores University said it had investigated the allegations and cleared Arday of any wrongdoing.

August 2026: ‘Plagiarist’ professor Jason Arday faces scrutiny over pig’s head claim.

A Cambridge academic at the centre of a plagiarism row is facing further scrutiny over claims that police investigated a pig’s head he said was sent to his parents.

Jason Arday was fêted as the youngest black professor at the university, but has become embroiled in a plagiarism scandal after he was alleged to have used the work of other academics in his dissertation.

In an interview with The Times last week, he acknowledged a series of errors in his work but denied he was “a liar”.

He has now faced further scrutiny over claims he has made about his personal life, including the level of abuse he is alleged to have suffered. In an interview with The Guardian, published on Saturday, he claimed a severed pig’s head was delivered to his parents’ home in south London.

However, the Metropolitan Police told The Times they could find “no record of any allegation involving a pig’s head and no record of any of the subsequent claims about officers visiting butchers [as Arday alleged]”.

The Times article also describes Arday’s claim, obviously false, that he was featured in a television series that aired before he was born.

The Times article also describes Arday’s claim, obviously false, that he was featured in a television series that aired before he was born.

August 3, 2026: Cambridge academic loses backing over plagiarism claims.

The president of a Cambridge college has withdrawn her support for the Cambridge professor Jason Arday after he appeared to admit plagiarising parts of his PhD thesis.

Professor Dame Ijeoma Uchegbu, a nanoscientist and the head of Wolfson College, had previously signed an open letter in support of Arday that was circulated by the Good Law Project.

Arday, who was the youngest black professor to be appointed by the university, has been accused of plagiarism and making exaggerated claims about his sporting and fundraising achievements.

This is notable:

Significant parts of his PhD thesis appear to have been copied verbatim from another researcher, Paula Zwozdiak-Myers, who wrote a PhD thesis on the same topic several years earlier.

When LJMU investigated the case, Arday did not dispute the specific allegations of plagiarism but said the misconduct panel should consider the political context of a “war on critical race theory” and the weaponisation of plagiarism allegations against black researchers.

So, a guilty plea. But the “political context” makes it OK. We are all on the same side, aren’t we?

Posted on August 3, 2026 by John Hinderaker in Academic left, Education, Great Britain, Race

Academia: How Corrupt Can It Get? More corrupt, I suspect, than we can imagine. This is a big topic, but for now let’s take the case of Cambridge University professor Jason Arday. Arday’s story, as related by himself, is almost miraculous. And, it turns out, almost entirely false. Greeted as a hero just a few years ago–Cambridge’s youngest black professor!–his career is now on the rocks.

The story can be told in a chronological series of London Times articles:

February 2023: Jason Arday becomes Cambridge University’s youngest black professor.

An autistic sociologist who could not read or write until he was 18 has become Cambridge University’s youngest black professor.

Wait, what? Did this not strike anyone in academia as improbable?

Jason Arday, 37, was diagnosed with global development delay as well as autism spectrum disorder at the age of three and did not learn to speak until he was 11.

Less than eight years ago he was working in Sainsbury’s after therapists and career advisers predicted he would spend his adult life in assisted living and need lifelong support.

Arday, from Clapham, south London, has told how he defied the difficulties he faced and worked his way up in academia to land his dream role at Cambridge.

He couldn’t speak until he was 11, couldn’t read or write until he was 18? And now is a professor at Cambridge? It is notable that Arday’s parents, who presumably know something about his ability to speak and read, have never given an interview to any news outlet.

You may wonder, in what field of study has Arday so distinguished himself that, after such a slow start, he is now a Cambridge professor? No, you probably don’t need to wonder:

Bhaskar Vira, pro-vice-chancellor for education at the University of Cambridge, said: “Jason Arday is an exceptional scholar of race, inequality and education. He will contribute significantly to Cambridge’s research in this area and to addressing the under-representation of people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, especially those from black, Asian, and other minority ethnic communities.

“His experiences highlight the barriers faced by many under-represented groups across higher education and especially at leading universities.

Next: July 2026: Cambridge University pioneer Jason Arday in plagiarism row.

The youngest black professor ever ­appointed at Cambridge University has been accused of plagiarising the work of other academics, a month before the release of his memoir, which details his “improbable triumphs and heart-breaking setbacks”.

Concerns about Jason Arday’s work have circulated within academic circles since 2023, the year he was made ­professor of sociology at the age of 37.

They were aired publicly this week in an article published on the blog of a former Cambridge academic, who presented a side-by-side comparison of ­Arday’s PhD dissertation with the thesis of another student.

This Times article takes a neutral stance on the plagiarism question, and devotes equal time to undermining the person who raised the issue. It also repeats, uncritically, Arday’s origin story:

Arday’s achievement in becoming a professor at such a young age was even more impressive for the fact that he was unable to read or write until he was 18. Diagnosed at age three with autism spectrum disorder, he was non-verbal until the age of 11 and left school with two GCSEs, in PE and textiles.

But Arday’s fantastic claims now began to draw scrutiny.

July 2026: Cambridge University professor faces scrutiny over fundraising claims.

A Cambridge professor accused of plagiarism is facing fresh questions about claims he made of long distance running feats and charity fundraising.

Jason Arday, who at 37 became the youngest black professor ever ­appointed at the University of Cambridge, has repeatedly spoken about extraordinary endurance running challenges, which he said raised vast sums of money for charity.

Experts in ultra-distance running have now cast doubt on some of his claims, some of which have been removed from the internet or the references changed. *** Arday has spoken often of undertaking endurance running challenges to raise money for charity. He told the Greenbelt Festival in 2024: “When I was 25, I ran 30 marathons in 35 days. And then I did a series of challenges after that and then I ran 300 miles in 3 days on the treadmill. And then the final challenge when I was 30, I ran 600 miles in 6 days. And I was fortunate that I got to that target of a million pounds before I turned 30.”

Extraordinary claims. But at this point, both the London Times and Cambridge University were on Arday’s side:

On Friday June 24, Cambridge defended Arday, ­saying that the allegations of plagiarism against him were unfounded and part of “a vile campaign to undermine his credibility”. Liverpool John Moores University said it had investigated the allegations and cleared Arday of any wrongdoing.

August 2026: ‘Plagiarist’ professor Jason Arday faces scrutiny over pig’s head claim.

A Cambridge academic at the centre of a plagiarism row is facing further scrutiny over claims that police investigated a pig’s head he said was sent to his parents.

Jason Arday was fêted as the youngest black professor at the university, but has become embroiled in a plagiarism scandal after he was alleged to have used the work of other academics in his dissertation.

In an interview with The Times last week, he acknowledged a series of errors in his work but denied he was “a liar”.

He has now faced further scrutiny over claims he has made about his personal life, including the level of abuse he is alleged to have suffered. In an interview with The Guardian, published on Saturday, he claimed a severed pig’s head was delivered to his parents’ home in south London.

However, the Metropolitan Police told The Times they could find “no record of any allegation involving a pig’s head and no record of any of the subsequent claims about officers visiting butchers [as Arday alleged]”.

The Times article also describes Arday’s claim, obviously false, that he was featured in a television series that aired before he was born.

August 3, 2026: Cambridge academic loses backing over plagiarism claims.

The president of a Cambridge college has withdrawn her support for the Cambridge professor Jason Arday after he appeared to admit plagiarising parts of his PhD thesis.

Professor Dame Ijeoma Uchegbu, a nanoscientist and the head of Wolfson College, had previously signed an open letter in support of Arday that was circulated by the Good Law Project.

Arday, who was the youngest black professor to be appointed by the university, has been accused of plagiarism and making exaggerated claims about his sporting and fundraising achievements.

This is notable:

Significant parts of his PhD thesis appear to have been copied verbatim from another researcher, Paula Zwozdiak-Myers, who wrote a PhD thesis on the same topic several years earlier.

When LJMU investigated the case, Arday did not dispute the specific allegations of plagiarism but said the misconduct panel should consider the political context of a “war on critical race theory” and the weaponisation of plagiarism allegations against black researchers.

So, a guilty plea. But the “political context” makes it OK. We are all on the same side, aren’t we?

It seems clear that Jason Arday’s entire story is a lie. Academia is most sensitive to the plagiarism issue, but that is perhaps the least of it.

On X, we have The Great Unchecked Fairy Tale of Jason Arday:

Arday has said he was diagnosed with autism and global developmental delay at three. Non-verbal until eleven. Couldn’t read or write until eighteen. He claimed three hours of speech therapy every day, six or seven days a week, from the age of three. In a later video he upped it to four to five hours every day from the age of three. He has also said his mother “holds five degrees” and that he comes from “a family of nurses.”

His parents have never given a public interview. Not once. No clinic named. No therapist. No school records from Wandsworth, Southfields or Merton confirming any of this. The five-degrees claim for his mother only appeared recently. Earlier profiles just called her a mental health nurse. Daily private therapy on that scale for eight years would have cost a fortune. No one has ever produced a single independent source for any of it.

Developing normal speech after being non-verbal until eleven is medically improbable. He left school with GCSEs in PE and Textiles — tests that require literacy and are normally taken at 15 or 16. His forthcoming memoir now softens it to “left secondary school with two GCSEs… still barely able to read or write.” The story moves when it needs to.

He has also claimed to be deaf in one ear. This claim appeared only recently and has never been independently verified.

His parents have never given a single public interview, never confirmed the diagnoses, never confirmed the speech therapy, never confirmed the five degrees, and never spoken in support of any part of the early-life story.

There is much, much more at the link. To be fair, though, there is one aspect of Arday’s story that is actually documented: at one time in his life, he was a physical education teacher. From P.E. teacher to Cambridge professor! It took chutzpah, if nothing else. And it shows the utter corruption of academia, desperate as always for “an exceptional scholar of race, inequality and education.”

John Hinderaker

What I’ve learned from speaking with Iranian officials and analysts.

Last week, I was invited to join a program hosted by an independent Iranian media platform called Azad, which specializes in facilitating debates between policy experts in Iran and further abroad. My debate was with Majid Shakeri, who gained prominence as a foreign policy advisor to Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf (the current speaker of the country’s parliament) during Ghalibaf’s most recent presidential campaign. Shakeri was also part of the negotiating team that went to Islamabad earlier this year to hammer out the (now-moribund) MOU with the United States.

These days, when you listen to Shakeri’s interviews, you will hear him insist that he holds no official position. But he remains influential. His worldview, which brings together—not always convincingly—the principles of a son of the revolution with the pragmatism of an academic economist, is ascendant in Tehran. It is a reflection of Iran’s intellectual environment, which retains significant space for public discussion of political, economic, and social issues, that I would be invited on to talk with Shakeri. It was also characteristically Iranian that the discussion lasted three hours.

Our debate, at its core, was about how much pessimism is warranted on the war. Shakeri, like other Iranian analysts and officials I have spoken to in recent weeks, simply does not believe a deal with the Trump administration is possible. As a result, his prescriptions for Iranian policy are not focused on maximizing the potential for a diplomatic breakthrough. Instead, he is calling for proactive management of an ongoing U.S. threat.

Interestingly, we were not miles apart in our understanding of the causes of the U.S.–Iran war or the nature of the crisis now unfolding in the Strait of Hormuz. For many years, the divergence between Western and Iranian policy analysis reflected fundamental differences in worldview. But recently those differences in perspective have become less pronounced. Policy analysis in Iran has been fully professionalized, with think tanks, research institutes, and media platforms adopting the same kinds of methodologies and modalities as their Western counterparts. Moreover, the crises at hand have become more legible. Whereas analysis during the War on Terror leant itself to a significant degree of esotericism about ideologies and their impacts, the crisis unfolding in the Persian Gulf is a question of material realities, including stockpiles of missile interceptors and inventories of crude oil. It is easier for analysts to be objective when all they must do is count.

And when it comes to diplomacy with the United States, Iranian analysts are often counting. They are counting the times the Trump administration has violated agreements, or interrupted negotiations with military attacks. They are counting the reasons a comprehensive agreement seems impossible to reach with this White House.

First, at a technical level, the Trump administration was unable to execute even the most basic confidence-building measures of the MOU. After it was signed, no Iranian assets were released; while a waiver was initially issued to permit Iranian oil exports, it was never fully implemented and ended up being rescinded. Iranian leaders are also looking to other contexts. In Venezuela, where the administration has used its complete political control to make a full-court press for economic engagement with the U.S., reports indicate that American oil companies are struggling to make headway, even as Trump touts his big investment targets.

Second, in the domain of politics, Iranian policy experts discern a growing rift between the Rubio and Vance camps and are concluding that the administration is inherently dysfunctional. As NBC recently reported, the president is “exasperated” because “there is no unity” among his top aides. During the Biden years, the issue was whether the president could defend his deal from political rivals in Congress. Now, the rivals are within the cabinet itself.

Finally, at an individual level, there is a growing sense that Trump is too erratic to stick by his own deals. Even Saudi Arabia, the Mideast country with perhaps the greatest influence in the White House after Israel, could not protect its own recent nuclear deal from the President’s inconstancy.

Facing the perceived inexperience and irrationality in Washington, policymakers in Tehran are struggling to find a way out of this crisis. Advocates for diplomacy have been forced to acknowledge that talks have a low chance of success, even as they insist that Iran cannot afford to sustain this war for much longer. For more hawkish figures like Shakeri, there is no strong, positive case for diplomatic engagement. They believe that Washington’s dysfunction will continue to manifest in the form of economic pressure and kinetic action against Iran—and it is therefore necessary to “win” the war before any discussion of new diplomatic understandings, whether with regional neighbors or the United States.

Stuck between the U.S. and Iran are the regional countries, which have borne a huge cost during the last six months of fighting. But the war arguably would have been much worse were it not for the strength of regional diplomacy. As I insisted to Shakeri, Iran’s shift towards a more constructive “neighborhood policy,” a move that began seven years ago in response to Trump’s withdrawal from JCPOA and imposition of “maximum pressure” sanctions, prevented the outbreak of a full regional war. While Iran struck its Arab neighbors in retaliation for the American and Israeli attacks, regional countries have been able to forestall further escalation through direct dialogue with Tehran. In other words, the region has been trying to compensate for Washington’s strategic errors for the better part of a decade, and it is this compensatory approach that offers the best chance to bring the war to a close and restore security and stability in the Persian Gulf.

Amid growing pessimism about what Washington can do to resolve this war diplomatically, perhaps there should be optimism that Trump can be convinced to step away from the crisis altogether. If he tries to do less, the negotiations underway between Iran and its regional neighbors will provide an opening for the United States to reduce its military and economic interventionism in the region. The Trump administration should rely on regional allies—especially Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates—to advance their own interests in a manner that also addresses American concerns over potential Iranian hegemony.

Shakeri insisted that Iran would not allow the Strait of Hormuz to reopen until it saw a definitive change in U.S. strategy—not just a shift in tactics. We might hope that he is wrong in that assessment, but I too am skeptical the crisis can be resolved in any other way.

About The Author

Esfandyar Batmanghelidj

Esfandyar Batmanghelidj is the Founder and CEO of Bourse & Bazaar Foundation.

The American Conservative

MADRID — The Spanish government proudly announced that after a recent demographic change, the city of Ceuta is now the fastest-growing city on the planet.

Spain stated that Ceuta has become something of an overnight sensation, with tens of thousands moving into the city over the course of mere hours.

“It has become the hot destination, especially for young men,” said Spanish government spokesman Alejandro Via. “There are so many people pouring into the city, we literally cannot stop them. The population growth is explosive and unprecedented, a true reflection of the amazing work the Spanish government has done in making Spain such a desired destination. Move over, Texas and Florida. Cueta is now the fastest-growing place in the world!”

According to local reports, the population of Ceuta, previously 85,000, increased by 75% over the course of just two hours last week. “What a testament to how wonderful Spain is,” said local man Carlos Pineda. “People are actually killing each other by the dozens just to get here. There are a bunch of people sleeping on my lawn because there are simply no beds left in the city. It is a proud accomplishment for all of Spain.”

At publishing time, thousands of the new arrivals had returned to Morocco, prompting the Spanish Tourism Board to announce that Ceuta had quickly rebranded itself the top tourist destination on the planet.

Babylon Bee

The news this past week has been filled by Rand Paul’s Senate hearings exposing the extent of the scientific fraud perpetrated by ex-NIAID Director Anthony Fauci in the matter of Covid-19. First Paul released Fauci’s “diaries,” otherwise known as personal musings recorded in various places on the government’s servers. Then Fauci was compelled to testify, whereupon he invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege more than 100 times and never provided a word of substantive testimony.

However, the diaries on their face revealed numerous instances where Fauci’s public statements were blatant deceptions. As just one example, on January 20, 2020, Fauci wrote “Now we know the market was not the source [of the virus], it was the amplifier.” But even as he admitted that in private, he was going to extraordinary lengths in public to cover up that conclusion, apparently in order to deflect blame from himself for having funded the research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that actually unleashed the pandemic. Among other things, Fauci induced the writing of papers to promote the theory that the virus arose in the Wuhan wet market — a theory he knew was wrong. From Matt Ridley, writing in Spiked on July 31:

[A] week [after his January 20, 2020 entry, Fauci] convened a group of 12 scientists, most of whom thought it possible, perhaps even probable, that the virus had been engineered in a laboratory, to discuss their concerns. He then tasked four of the fairly junior ones in the meeting (a fifth author joined later), some of whom depended on grants from his agency, to write a paper, ‘The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2’. This paper outright dismissed the possibility of a lab leak as the origin of Covid. He and Jeremy Farrar, the then director of the Wellcome Trust, edited and promoted the publication of that paper. Fauci then disguised his own role in doing so. . . .

Similar levels of deception characterized everything about Fauci’s Covid-19 regime, from the promotion of lockdowns, to masking, to mandatory vaccination, and more. Dissenters were silenced and ostracized. The overall cost of the deceptions reaches easily into the multiple trillions of dollars. As the level of blatant deceptions has been revealed, millions of people have realized that official government “science” cannot be trusted to any degree. As likely as not, it is no more than a convenient cover story to justify protecting or enriching the politically powerful interests of the moment. As the amount of government funding backing a particular “scientific” narrative rises, and reaches into the hundreds of billions and even trillions of dollars, the likelihood that that narrative can be trusted declines until it approaches zero.

So therefore keep in mind that the Covid-19 “science” narrative is not the only recent narrative cloaked with the mantle of “science” that has been showered with government funding into the multi-trillions of dollars. There is a second. That second narrative is the “climate” scare — that is, the claim that human use of hydrocarbon fuels and release of CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere is leading to some kind of existential climate crisis.

Is there any reason to believe that the still ongoing climate scare narrative is any more trustworthy than the Covid-scare narrative has proven to have been? Both have been backed by a vast research apparatus, almost entirely government funded, which looks to lose most of its funding and associated careers and promotions and prestige if there really is no underlying existential crisis.

Fauci’s disgrace came from a world of perverse incentives. His goal as a public servant should have been to get the public through the pandemic with the least possible death, costs and inconveniences. But his personal fame, funding and wealth could be maximized by exaggerating the danger of the virus, deflecting away from himself the blame for the origins of the problem, and demanding sacrifices from the public in the form of lockdowns, masking or the like.

Very comparable perverse incentives bear on the “climate scientists” who continually proclaim a climate crisis and demand sacrifices from the public. Without a manufactured crisis, there is no need at all for 95% of them. In my recent post on the litigation concerning the Endangerment Finding, check out the list of some of the dozens of organizations trying to preserve this underlying basis for hundreds of billions of dollars of government funding, supposedly to “solve” the climate crisis.

In fact, we’ve known at least since the Climategate emails were released from the University of East Anglia way back in 2009 that the whole climate scare has been characterized by data manipulation, orthodoxy enforcement and suppression of dissent. Fauci’s embarrassment from his conduct as to Covid-19 serves as a timely reminder to remain skeptical at all times about government-funded science, and even more so when the money involved reaches into the trillions.

Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian

 

David Spector

The streets of Iran are near a breaking point over public executions, economic collapse and a war that’s been raging on for more than five months, anti-regime figures in Tehran told The Post.

“A revolution can happen any day now — people want revenge,” a protest leader said, referring to the regime’s brutal January crackdown that President Trump said killed 52,000 people.

An independent journalist active in the Iranian underground said that preparations are already being made for the next uprising, and that activists from all walks of life are determined to make a final, decisive blow against the regime.

Both Iranians spoke with The Post through a translator by cellphone after signing on to a VPN.

“We’re studying the protests from January, determining what tactics worked and which didn’t; we’re analyzing maps to determine the safest and most dangerous areas to congregate,” the journalist said.

He claimed that the Iranian resistance has hidden crude weaponry and tools throughout the country — bricks, rocks, wooden clubs, chairs and tires used to block roads — waiting for the day that people once again take to the streets.

Small groups are working clandestinely to procure firearms to distribute to demonstrators — utilizing guns stored in certain private homes and smuggled from abroad, the protest leader claimed. They did not specify who would be providing these weapons.

“When we went out in January, we were like lambs to the slaughter; the Basij forces were using firepower that you couldn’t believe; the streets were like a graveyard, corpses everywhere, the streets ran red with blood,” she said, unable to contain her rage and grief.

She warned regime forces: “Next time we come out, we’re coming out armed.”

The trauma from the January protests where thousands of unarmed demonstrators were mowed down by the regime is the primary reason a popular uprising hasn’t sprung up yet, both Iranians claimed.

“Everyone has lost somebody,” the protest leader said.

Also keeping a revolution at bay are foreign mercenaries the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has brought in from countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“They pull people out of their cars when they’re driving and search them and search their vehicles,” the independent journalist said.

“They gallivant around our country as if they’re the locals and we’re the foreign invaders, instead of defending our skies, the regime has decided to go to war with its own citizens,” the protest leader said.

The journalist also claimed that the regime has resorted to arming teenagers — some as young as 13 or 14 — to patrol neighborhoods.

This is a tragedy waiting to happen,” he said.

The war has also created uncertainty in the region, with activists unsure of how far the US will ultimately go in its strikes against the regime and its assets — though President Trump on Saturday night said he halted the latest planned attack as peace talks appeared to be heading in the right direction.

Cracks in the tyrannical regime are already starting to show, with up to 2,000 demonstrators coming out in Isfahan to protest the public hangings of anti-regime protesters Abolfazl Sepahi Badjani and Amir Hossein Safari Hosseinabadi, according to the journalist.

This is a tragedy waiting to happen,” he said.

The war has also created uncertainty in the region, with activists unsure of how far the US will ultimately go in its strikes against the regime and its assets — though President Trump on Saturday night said he halted the latest planned attack as peace talks appeared to be heading in the right direction.

Cracks in the tyrannical regime are already starting to show, with up to 2,000 demonstrators coming out in Isfahan to protest the public hangings of anti-regime protesters Abolfazl Sepahi Badjani and Amir Hossein Safari Hosseinabadi, according to the journalist.

Sky-high inflation, as well as electricity and water shortages in the country’s southern regions, are also fueling public anger at the mullahs, the journalist said.

Even middle-class people are skipping one or two meals a day, there’s food on the shelves at grocery stores, but nobody can afford it,” he said.

Neither Iranians could say exactly when a widespread uprising would come, but they said that if the executions and repression continue and the economy doesn’t improve, any single incident could be the spark.

“We know the stakes, either the regime goes, or we do,” the protest leader said.

David Spector, New York Post

Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned Saturday that communist Cuba has spent decades burrowing agents into the highest levels of the U.S. government, calling the island nation an unmatched threat to American security despite its tiny size and crumbling economy.

“A failed state 90 miles from our shores that happens to be aligned with adversaries to the United States is a national security threat to our country,” Rubio told “My View with Lara Trump” on Fox News.

Rubio’s remarks came days after the State Department released a 100-page report accusing Havana of running influence operations across American universities, activist groups and protest movements, including ties to Antifa. The report described Cuba as the capital of 21st-century communism.

“They actually are an influence and espionage superpower,” Rubio said. “If you look at the history of espionage in the United States, Cuba is the only country that consistently has implanted and embedded spies in our system without even paying them.”

Rubio pointed to Manuel Rocha, a former U.S. ambassador and national security official who pleaded guilty to acting as a secret Cuban agent for decades and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. He also cited Ana Belen Montes, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst convicted of feeding American secrets to Havana, calling her penetration one of the worst intelligence failures in U.S. history. “We’ve had them penetrate the highest levels of Defense Intelligence Agency,” Rubio said.

The secretary went further, tying recent pro-Hamas, anti-ICE and pro-Maduro demonstrations to a common Cuban-backed protest apparatus designed to pressure lawmakers in Washington.

“There’s nothing organic about it. It is funded, it is organized and Cuba is a part of that network and in some cases a critical part of the network,” Rubio said. “And it’s a network they will weaponize against us. And they talk about it openly, about how they will use that network to pressure American policymakers.”

Rubio also blamed Cuba for decades of leftist unrest across Latin America, saying nearly every communist insurgency that has destabilized governments in the region traces back to Havana. “Every single one of them over the last 40, 50 years has found its support, its help, in many cases, its birth, from a Cuban influence operation,” he said.

Some critics have dismissed the State Department report as an attempt to manufacture a pretext for U.S. military action against Cuba. Rubio did not address that criticism directly Saturday, but he took aim at American academics and journalists who he said continue to defend the Diaz-Canel regime.

“I know there are plenty of people in American academia and, frankly, in American press that sympathize with the Cuban regime and have for a very long time,” Rubio said. “Part of it is motivated by their anti-Americanism and part of it motivated by ideological affinity.”

“But it doesn’t mean we can ignore this threat,” he warned.

American Greatness News Staff

I have a question, and I promise I’m asking it in good faith, with a smile on my face and my hands raised in the universal gesture of “I genuinely just want to understand.” Here it is: why does defining the word “woman” appear to be the single hardest pop quiz in professional sports right now?

Because this week, not one, not two, but three WNBA head coaches were asked some version of the same basic question—should biological males compete in women’s sports—and all three responded like I’d asked them to derive the Riemann hypothesis on a napkin.

Indiana Fever coach Stephanie White led off. “I don’t know that I would say I’m educated enough from a scientific standpoint,” she said, before noting she’s not “educated enough at the different levels” to weigh in further. Fair enough, except that Stephanie White coaches in a league whose name has the letter W built directly into it. Not a hidden W. Not a silent W. The very first letter. It’s right there on the jerseys.

Portland Fire coach Alex Sarama went next, an hour earlier, actually, so if anything he had a head start. His answer: “To be completely honest, I don’t think I’ve ever had to think about that.” A basketball coach in a women’s professional league had never once had occasion to think about what makes his league a women’s league. I don’t know whether to call that refreshing honesty or the setup to a very expensive joke.

Then, the next day, Minnesota Lynx coach Cheryl Reeve stepped up to the mic and—credit where it’s due—actually said a sentence with content in it. Reeve said it’s “not the case” that biological men are in girls’ locker rooms, calling the framing “problematic” and full of “innuendo.” Which is a real position! I disagree with it, but at least it’s a position, built out of actual words that mean actual things, unlike her colleagues’ interpretive dance around the subject.

So now we’ve got a nice little sampler platter: one coach who isn’t “educated enough,” one coach who’s “never had to think about it,” and one coach who has thought about it and landed on an answer a great many biologists, endocrinologists, and frankly common-sense grandmothers across America would dispute. Three different answers. Zero consistency. And somehow all three still manage to avoid using the word “biology,” almost like it’s a name you don’t say out loud in a horror movie.

Here’s my favorite part of this whole circus, though: it’s not actually that hard a question. A fifth grader can define “woman.” A dictionary can define “woman.” Even a Supreme Court confirmation hearing tried to define “woman” a few years back, and famously ran into a Justice who told the Senate Judiciary Committee she couldn’t answer because she wasn’t a biologist. I mean, if a sitting Supreme Court nominee can’t get it right under oath, maybe we shouldn’t be shocked when a basketball coach can’t either. But somewhere between the Senate hearing room and the WNBA locker room, “I’m not a biologist” went from an awkward dodge to an entire institutional talking point.

Which brings me to the part that isn’t funny anymore, even though I’ve enjoyed making fun of it for six paragraphs. These coaches are not confused. Nobody who has spent a career recruiting rosters, negotiating scholarships, and building game plans around the specific athletic realities of women’s basketball is secretly baffled by biological sex. This isn’t a “can’t.” It’s a “won’t.” And there’s a difference between a person who genuinely doesn’t know something and a person who knows exactly what they’d have to say next if they answered honestly—and would rather stand at a podium and simply not say it.

There’s also a delicious irony sitting under all of this that nobody in that press room seems to want to touch: every single one of these coaches has an entire career, salary, and professional identity built on the premise that the WNBA is a women’s league. The W is not decorative. It’s the business model. Somebody, somewhere, had to know what a woman was in order to found a whole league around protecting a space for them to compete. Ask these same coaches to explain what makes their league distinct from the NBA, and I promise you the answer arrives instantly, no hedging, no science degree required.

So here’s where I’ll land, gently, because this isn’t really about mockery. If the people running women’s sports won’t stand up for what “women’s sports” means, then it falls to the rest of us—fathers, brothers, coaches, fans, anyone who actually loves the women in their lives—to do it for them. Protecting a safe, fair space for women and girls to compete isn’t a scientific mystery. It’s a promise—and promises don’t require a biology degree. 

Kevin McCullough, Townhall

James Carville has been a Democrat activist for his entire adult life. He is now threatening to leave the party if Hasan Piker is a force in the party. He has already suggested he’d leave over any of the communists. He sounds like Bill Maher, who doesn’t want to be in a communist party.

“I am NOT going to be in the same party as Hasan Piker! I can tell you that right now!” Carville said during an interview on Fox.

“If he becomes a force within the Democratic Party, I’m out of here! I have no intention of ever being in the same political party with that guy!”

“One thing I can tell you for certain, Hasan Piker and James Carville are not going to be in the same political party. One of us is going to leave — it might even be me!”

“This idea that we’re going to ‘seize the means of production’ – just look at the DSA platform,” Carville argued. “You don’t have to look any further than that.”

Piker campaigned in New York City with communists; one is also an Islamist, and they won. He’s campaigning with El-Sayed, a communist Islamist in Michigan. Piker supports Zohran Mamdani in New York City.

Recently, he interviewed Francesca Hong and boosted her profile, so now she’s leading in the polls. Hong is mentally ill and a communist who claims she is not a communist. He is a force, and an anti-semite, anti-American anchor baby from Turkey who is here to destroy our country.

Carville has spoken out too late, as have most of the normal Democrats. It is too late. They have won over many, including many of the youth. According to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, one-third of Democrats identify as Democratic Socialists, who are communists. They must hate this country, but we can’t do much about it unless they denaturalize and deport Piker. Like I say, it’s probably too late.

Here is the Democrat base:

* Tend to be younger (59% are younger than 45, compared to 46% of non-democratic socialists aligned with the Democratic Party) and are more likely to be White (57% to 49%)

* Are less likely to have a college degree (66% to 54%) and more likely to earn less than $100,000 a year (76% to 65%)

* Are more likely to say they are extremely motivated to vote this year (66% of those who are registered voters say so, compared to 57% for non-democratic socialists), though both groups overwhelmingly support Democratic congressional candidates (99% of democratic socialists and 94% of non-democratic socialists)

* Are more positive toward the Democratic Party. They are more likely to hold favorable views of the Democratic Party (68% to 60%) and its congressional leaders, and more likely to have negative views of the Republican Party and its congressional leaders

The one thing they are leaving out is that Democrats worked hard to fill up their big tent with every radical left identity group imaginable. The makeup of the Democrat party now includes radical Islamists, people who think they’re cats, felons, communists, anarchists, and other ne’er-do-wells.

M. Dowling, independent Sentinel

The EU is an oligarchy governed by a small self-perpetuating ruling class that sees “the people” as impediments to its technocratic program.

A long, long time ago—27 years, to be exact—my boss (the inimitable Mark Melcher) and I predicted that the European Monetary Union would be the death of the EU. The Euro, we wrote for our clients at a now-defunct big brokerage house, would be a disaster and would destroy everything that the post-war Europeans had spent the previous several decades working to build. Specifically, we wrote:

Psst! You wanna know a secret? The Euro, and the mess it represents, is going to be a social, economic and political catastrophe. Indeed, we think it is probable that the adoption of the Euro will be to 21st century Europe, what the killing of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was to 20th century Europe; i.e., that point in time when history will record that the unraveling began in earnest.

Exaggeration? Hyperbole? Well, maybe. But maybe not. You see, the problem isn’t, as most critics claim, simply that the “policy makers” from the various “regions,” will fight over economic and monetary policy, and that the economic ignoramuses might win. The problem is that economic ignoramuses are likely to be the only ones at the table. . . .

Starting in about 2010 and running for the next decade or so, every January, in my annual foreign-policy forecast piece, I would lead with a reiteration of that prediction. The collapse of the Euro, I would write, was inevitable. It didn’t matter if it actually happened this year or next year or a decade down the road. It would all eventually crumble, largely because the ignoramuses simply couldn’t help themselves and couldn’t stop doing economically foolish things.

Sometime over the last few years, I quit making that prediction every year for a couple of reasons. First, I quit writing annual forecast pieces as my business model and focus changed. Second, and more to the point, it became unnecessary. The EU had already made itself economically irrelevant. Between its jealously fueled outrage at American tech companies, its obsession with carbon emissions, and its conscious decision to strangle its capital markets through the imposition of overtly political investing mandates, the EU guaranteed that it would become the first modern civilization in history to regress developmentally. It knowingly chose to deindustrialize and to build an economic future that was far bleaker than even its remote economic past. The Euro, I concluded, was pointless.

That’s not to say that I gave up believing that the EU would inevitably collapse. I just gave up wasting my readers’ time by prattling on about it.

Looking back at all of this now, it’s possible I may have been mistaken. No, I wasn’t wrong about the economic stuff. Not only are the ignoramuses in charge, but no one else is even in the discussion. Italy’s Giorgia Meloni is the only Eurozone leader who questions the Union’s climate policies, for example, rightly warning that they will lead to “industrial desertification.” Still, even she officially supports the EU’s position on climate change and carbon emissions more generally, as well as its agreement to the Paris Climate Accords. It’s ignoramuses all the way down.

Nevertheless, it’s probably the case that I was wrong that the economic ignoramuses would be the ones who would precipitate the official end of the EU. Or, more accurately, I suppose, I was wrong that their economically illiterate policies would be the proximate cause of the EU’s collapse. It’s the same ignoramuses, just different policies.

As you likely know, this past week, tens of thousands of “migrants” from Morocco invaded the Spanish city of Ceuta, which is along the coast in North Africa. The images from the enclave were grim: hordes of people, mostly young men, pushing, racing, and fighting to get out of Africa and into Europe (geographical technicalities, be damned). The conditions on the ground were grimmer still: as of yesterday, some 70-plus deaths had been confirmed, while more than a thousand people required medical attention. The whole thing was shocking—or at least it would have been if it hadn’t also been utterly predictable.

For most of the last forty years, Spain has been a hub of primarily North African and Middle Eastern immigration to Europe. Since the 1980s, Spain has had six major extraordinary regularizations for its migrant populations. Although different in name and details, these “extraordinary regularizations” are essentially broad general amnesties, grants of legal immigration status to those who entered the country illegally. In 2005, under the former Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (a socialist), Spain granted amnesty to more than half a million illegal immigrants. Earlier this year, under current Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez (also a socialist . . . or worse), the country began the process of yet another regularization, the total size of which is unknown at present but is estimated to be between 500,000 and over 800,000.

Additionally, earlier this summer, the Spanish Supreme Court issued a ruling limiting the ability of the government to return immigrants who arrived in Ceuta and its sister city, Melilla, by sea rather than by land (over a technical “border”). All things considered, Spain has done everything in its power to encourage as much immigration as possible, and its government has openly conceded this fact, arguing that demographic and workforce realities make mass immigration an absolute necessity. Unsurprisingly, given all of this, the country’s foreign-born population jumped significantly in less than two years, from approximately 18.2% of the total population in 2024 to 20.3% today.

In light of Spain’s immigration policies and in the wake of the Ceuta disaster, over the weekend, several EU nations called for a suspension of Spain’s privileges under the Schengen Agreement, which allows borderless travel within the Schengen region: no passport control, a unified set of regulations, etc. Predictably, Meloni’s Italy was the first to speak up. Deputy PMs Antonio Tajani and Matteo Salvini announced a formal one-month suspension of Italy’s Schengen relations with Spain, closing Italy’s maritime and air entry points to Spain and introducing “targeted and selective” checks on non-EU travelers arriving from that country. France followed suit, reintroducing checks at its land border crossings with Spain. Finland began preparing to reimpose border controls along its own Schengen borders, and its interior minister, Mari Rantanen, offered the sharpest public statement by a government official to date: “Spain’s outer border is also our outer border, and. . . they have failed in their efforts to prevent this incursion, this invasion.” Denmark and Czechia both demanded Spain’s suspension from Schengen, but neither has taken unilateral action on its own.

In response, Pedro Sánchez complained that everyone, everywhere, was overreacting, stating that the rest of Europe was being “selfish, polarising, and unlawful.”

Taken as a whole, this entire episode—starting with Spain’s admitted desire to import as many immigrants as possible and continuing through this weekend’s demands for Spain’s suspension from Schengen—helps clarify some of the broader issues facing the EU.

First, in the age of mass immigration, Schengen shows clearly that the EU itself was a half-baked idea. Interestingly, Schengen did not start as an EU enterprise. It started as a side agreement between a handful of member states: Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. It was only in 1999, via the Amsterdam Treaty’s Schengen Protocol, that the “Schengen acquis” (the whole body of Schengen rules and agreements) was formally absorbed into EU law. In 2004, the EU—as opposed to its member states, a key distinction—tried to push a European constitution on its members, including provisions formally mandating Schengen compliance, making the EU “an area without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured. . . .” The following year, French and Dutch voters explicitly rejected the constitution via referenda, which should, by all rights, have been the end of it. The EU being the EU, it decided that it wouldn’t take no for an answer and scaled the constitution back marginally and re-presented it as the Lisbon Treaty, which, among many foolish things, formalized and mandated participation in the Schengen migration policies.

Second, the Euro, the immigration mess, and the EU’s unwillingness to accept the will of the people as definitive confirm Robert Michels’ Iron Law of Oligarchy and show that the EU’s pretensions to “democracy” are rather laughable. Michels was a student of Max Weber, the founder of modern sociology, who sought to deepen his appreciation of socialism by studying the German Social Democratic Party (SPD), the most avowedly democratic, mass-participatory political organization in Europe at the time. He presumed that he would find a functional, egalitarian organization that confirmed all his fantastical priors. Instead, what he discovered was the opposite. He concluded, based on his study, that even organizations explicitly founded on democratic principles—universal participation, elected leadership, accountability to the membership—invariably develop into oligarchies, ruled by a small, self-perpetuating leadership class. It is simply the nature of large organizations. This, then, is Michels’ Iron Law of Oligarchy: “It is organisation that gives birth to the domination of the elected over the electors, of the mandataries over the mandators, of the delegates over the delegators. Who says organisation, says oligarchy.”

The EU is an oligarchy in Michelsian terms. It is governed by a small self-perpetuating ruling class that sees “the people” as impediments to its technocratic program and will do whatever is necessary to advance its agenda, regardless of the will of those people.

Finally, the EU will crumble. All Utopian enterprises eventually do. They must. They can’t help but do so. And while it may not be the monetary union that brings it down, something will. Maybe it will be Schengen and immigration. Maybe it will be something else. Who knows? Whatever the case, it will, eventually, collapse. The real, painful part of Michels’ Iron Law is the inability of oligarchies to reform themselves. They are incapable. What this suggests is that the EU’s response to the Ceuta incident and to Spain’s immigration unilateralism more generally will be to add more layers of centralizing regulation to the already oligarchical system, thereby making a bad problem even worse.

The EU won’t reform because it can’t reform. And so, it will collapse instead.

Stephen Soukup, American Greatness

The invasion of Ceuta, Spain, by Moroccans was a state-on-state conflict. In America, the enemy is within.

The invasion last week of the Spanish city of Ceuta by some 60,000 Moroccans, mostly young military-age men, was a useful demonstration of how mass migration and indeed entire populations can be weaponized and deployed in what amounts to hybrid warfare against sovereign nations.

In this particular case, the reason for the deployment likely has to do with the Moroccan state’s longstanding irredentist claims in North Africa, which include the coastal enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla—the plazas de soberanía along the North African coast that have belonged to Spain for more than four centuries but which Morocco has claimed since its independence in 1956.

My friend Joshua Treviño has a useful recap of the relevant history of this simmering conflict over at National Review, but the upshot is that “the Moroccan political project has from the start been focused on what it perceives to be the completion of its full territorial control over Africa’s northwestern corner.”

Whatever the eventual outcome of the invasion—and to be clear, what happened in Ceuta should be understood in those terms—Rabat’s motivations are at least comprehensible in classical geopolitical terms. The Moroccan state believes those territories belong to Morocco, and is willing to deploy coercive, if irregular, force to reclaim them. Spanish authorities have responded in kind, deploying the military and declaring that all 60,000 migrant invaders will be removed.

Insofar as the conflict here is fundamentally one of state versus state—over territorial claims, no less—the crisis in Ceuta has a decidedly 20th-century character about it. But the use of migrants as an invasion force gives it a pointed relevance, both to our century and our situation in America, where migrant invasions along our southern border are not primarily the work of a hostile foreign state, but of the Democrat Party.

The shocking reality is that the party responsible for orchestrating and encouraging the illegal border-crossing of some 12 million foreign nationals into the United States during the Biden administration was not the Mexican state, nor even the cartels that function as proxies for Mexico’s ruling Morena party. Yes, the cartels and their smuggling networks profited greatly from illegal immigration from 2021 to 2025. And yes, Mexican officialdom was scandalously complicit in the mass human trafficking operation that ensued during that period.

But the primary responsible party came from within our country, not outside it. If what we suffered was an invasion (and it was), then it was an invasion that relied for its success on treachery. The gates were not battered down, they were opened from the inside. The first day he was in office, President Biden rescinded via executive order nearly every border policy the first Trump administration had put in place. Those policies had reduced illegal border crossing to near-historic lows, as they have again done in Trump’s second term.

What ensued is now well-known. Incentivized by explicit, official promises from the Biden administration that there would be no real enforcement of our immigration laws, record numbers of foreigners from every corner of the globe rushed over our border. In some cases, the rush created the potential for a humanitarian crisis. In September 2021, for example, some 15,000 Haitians crossed the Rio Grande and set up a massive encampment under a bridge near Del Rio, Texas. The shocking images of the encampment captured by news media forced the Biden White House to take swift action to break up the camp. But that was merely to control the PR narrative, not to stem the steady onrush of migrants over the border.

It’s important to understand that these were not policy blunders by the Democrats. It’s not as if they didn’t know what would happen if they loosened or removed entirely Trump’s border controls. They knew full well, and did it on purpose. If what Morocco did in Ceuta could rightly be considered an act of war against Spain, the same could be said for what the Biden administration did to the American people from 2021 to 2025.

What makes it more disturbing than what happened last week in Ceuta is that the Democrats, unlike Rabat, were pursuing irredentist claims not on behalf of the their own people but on behalf of the global south. They effectively launched a foreign invasion of the United States, the ultimate object of which was to wrest control of the country from its native inhabitants by overwhelming the country with illegal immigrants.

And they are going to do it again just as soon as they have the chance. As my colleague Brianna Lyman noted last week, the invasion of Ceuta is a preview and a warning: “If Democrats (and yes, that includes the socialists) regain control of Congress in November or the White House in 2028, they will not need four full years to reopen the border and flood our country with Third World migrants. Ceuta should serve as a warning about how quickly things can be destroyed.”

But it should also serve as another kind of warning: that in America, the real danger comes not from foreign powers or cartels or nefarious nongovernmental organizations that profit off mass illegal immigration, but from the Democrat Party itself. Morocco wants to expel Spain from Ceuta and the North African coast. Democrats want something far more sinister: they want to dislodge and replace their own people with other peoples, an invading force of foreigners who, they believe, will be more amenable to Democrat control than us stubborn Americans.

John Daniel Davidson, The Federalist