Monday was a festive day, with the whole world seemingly celebrating the dawn of peace in the Middle East and hailing President Trump for bringing it about. The president himself, while speaking about the release of the hostages in his speech to the Knesset, promised a bright new world unencumbered by past hatred and animosities: “After two harrowing years in darkness and captivity, 20 courageous hostages are returning to the glorious embrace of their families. Twenty-eight more precious loved ones are coming home at last to rest in this sacred soil for all of time. And after so many years of unceasing war and endless danger, today the skies are calm, the guns are silent, the sirens are still, and the sun rises on a Holy Land that is finally at peace.”

Trump proclaimed not just the end of the present war between Israel and Hamas, but of an entire era of war: “This is not only the end of a war. This is the end of an age of terror and death, the beginning of the age of faith and hope and of God.” He said that the cessation of hostilities heralded ” a very exciting time for Israel and for the entire Middle East,” and added that “the forces of chaos, terror and ruin that have plagued the region for decades now stand weakened, isolated, and totally defeated.”

Swept up in the excitement of the occasion, Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana said: “You, President Trump, are a colossus who will be enshrined in the pantheon of history. Thousands of years from now the Jewish people will remember you. We are a nation that remembers.”

It is likely that President Trump will indeed be remembered thousands of years from now, for he is a transformative figure who has reshaped national and international politics. Whether he will be remembered, however, as the man who brought about “the end of an age of terror and death” and “the beginning of the age of faith and hope and of God,” however, is another question altogether.

During his Knesset speech, Trump touted his ability to make deals, and he has certainly demonstrated that ability in bringing about the current ceasefire. But the best dealmaker in world history would not be able to make a deal that would end the Islamic jihad imperative.

Imagine some bizarro alternative where some future president of the United States was pro-murder, pro-theft, and pro-adultery, and desired accordingly to stamp out the Ten Commandments. Even if this rogue president were able to find Jewish and Christian leaders who would sign his agreement banning the Ten Commandments, other Jewish and Christian believers would continue to hold them and act upon them.

This imperative will remain, no matter what Hamas has agreed to with President Trump. The bellicosity coming out of Gaza as they celebrate what they claim is a victory over the last few days is clear enough evidence of that. Even if Hamas ceases to exist as an organized group, another jihad group, or a multiplicity of them, will take its place.

The requirement to wage jihad against unbelievers and bring them under the hegemony of Islamic law, which ensures that Islam will dominate and not be dominated, has just that status among Muslims: it comes from the supreme being. It is neither to be questioned nor negotiated away. Those who grant this point but insist that jihad is primarily, if not solely, the spiritual struggle within the soul of the believer to conform his life to the will of Allah are credulously accepting the apologetic half-truths and distortions that Islamic spokesmen have propagated in the West in order to foster complacency and cast resistance to jihad as “bigotry” and “Islamophobia.”

The reality is that jihad in the Qur’an is clearly martial, with repeated exhortations to kill those who do not believe (2:191; 4:89; 4:91; 9:5; 47:4) and the stipulation that the Muslim warrior must give a fifth of his war booty to the messenger of Allah (8:41). In an interior spiritual struggle, there are no spoils of war.

This is not to say that Trump should not have acted to rescue the hostages, although the price — the freeing of 250 jihad terrorists, many of whom will certainly go back to work — was extremely high. Maybe the relief of their families after two years of heartache, and of the hostages themselves after two years of torment, is worth any price. But amid the euphoria, let’s not get carried away. The jihad is not over. This is no time to deceive ourselves into thinking that it is, and let our guard down accordingly.

Robert Spencer, Front Page Magazine

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As Americans across the country continued to carry on their day-to-day lives without any significant changes, Democrats vowed to keep the federal government shut down until someone notices.

Sources on Capitol Hill said that, though congressional Democrats had grown frustrated by the fact that the country seemed to keep existing and flourishing despite the lack of involvement from the federal government, they remained committed to keeping the shutdown in effect until someone acknowledged it.

“Sooner or later, it’s bound to have some type of effect,” House Minority Leader and government shutdown architect Hakeem Jeffries said. “I know it’s disappointing that everyone seems to just be going about their business and living their lives without us interfering in anything, but eventually somebody will surely notice that the government is shut down. Right? We just need to be patient.”

When reached for comment, one American citizen was surprised to hear that the government was shut down. “Is it? Oh, I had no idea,” said factory worker James Hartford. “I’ve had a great last couple of weeks. Maybe that’s why?”

Democratic leaders were adamant that they would not budge until their shutdown was noticed by someone. “We know the federal government has to have more impact than it seems now,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. “They’ll notice that we’re not doing anything at some point, I think. The day will come when America simply won’t be able to function without… wherever it is we do.”

At publishing time, the vast majority of Americans in all parts of the nation remained blissfully unaware of and unaffected by the government shutdown.

Babylon Bee

Georgetown Law professors William Treanor and Amy Uelmen have crafted a remarkably dishonest defense of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, disguising radical left-wing ideology as Catholic tradition. Their recent essay in America magazine represents not scholarly analysis but pure propaganda, a cynical attempt to baptize secular progressivism with holy water while hoping no one notices the fundamental contradiction.

The audacity of their argument is staggering. These professors claim that opposition to DEI constitutes an attack on religious freedom. In fact, they themselves have already surrendered Georgetown’s Catholic identity to the altar of woke orthodoxy. They invoke papal encyclicals and Jesuit tradition to justify programs that would be utterly foreign to any Catholic thinker before the cultural revolution of the 1960s. This is intellectual dishonesty masquerading as theological sophistication.

Consider the manipulation in their core argument. They quote Pope Francis on including those on the “periphery” to defend bureaucratic systems that sort students and faculty by skin color and sexual orientation. They cite Pope John Paul II’s call for solidarity to justify dividing the human family into oppressor and victim classes. This is not interpretation but perversion. They take sacred texts and twist them to serve an agenda their original authors would have condemned in a heartbeat.

The authors know full well that Catholic social teaching has never endorsed the racial preferences or identity-based hiring that define today’s DEI programs. They know the Church’s concern for the poor and marginalized has always rested on universal human dignity and not group grievance. Yet they present these modern inventions as if they flowed naturally from centuries of Catholic wisdom.

Their treatment of Jesuit history proves equally disingenuous. They invoke the order’s missionary zeal and cultural adaptation to justify contemporary identity politics. They conveniently ignore that those early Jesuits subordinated every earthly concern to the salvation of souls and the glory of God. St. Ignatius of Loyola founded his order to combat Protestant heresy and defend Catholic orthodoxy—not to advance secular social justice causes that reduce human beings to demographic categories. The idea that these spiritual warriors would recognize their successors in today’s diversity administrators would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.

The professors’ defense of their curriculum exposes the depths of their intellectual corruption. Pressed by federal prosecutors over their DEI agenda, they hid behind the First Amendment and invoked religious liberty. They claimed the right to teach in accordance with their Catholic mission. But what mission is that? The mission to split students by skin color? The mission to trade merit and moral fidelity for quotas and fashionable ideology? That is not religious freedom. If anything, it’s religious fraud.

The professors compound their dishonesty by portraying critics of DEI as enemies of inclusion and justice. But the truth is precisely the opposite. To oppose DEI is not to oppose inclusion; it is to defend an older and deeper vision of human dignity. 

Catholic teaching has always proclaimed something far more radical than the bureaucratic jargon of today’s progressives: that every single person, without exception, is created in the image of God, infinitely precious, and worthy of respect that transcends race, sex, or social standing. The Church affirmed this long before “inclusion” became a trendy hashtag. What DEI calls diversity is shallow bookkeeping; what Catholicism calls human dignity is an ontological truth. 

Perhaps most galling is the way these professors borrow the language of martyrdom. They pose as guardians of faith under siege, claiming to stand courageously against government persecution. Again, one might smirk if it weren’t so sickening. This comes from faculty at an institution that has spent decades draining its Catholic lifeblood, steadily removing the Church from its classrooms, elevating professors openly hostile to her teaching, and fostering an atmosphere where faithful Catholics feel despised rather than defended. 

To watch such people cast themselves as martyrs is a farce. They long ago gave to Caesar what was meant for God. They abandoned the Cross for the campus creed, and now they expect praise for betraying the very mission they were supposed to serve.

The truth is that Georgetown Law, like so many once-Catholic universities, stopped being authentically faithful decades ago. The name and the symbols remain, but the substance is gone. The professors’ essay only confirms what has long been obvious: these institutions serve progressive politics first and Catholic teaching not at all. Their appeal to Jesuit tradition is not reverence but grave robbery—digging up the bones of saints to dress their ideology in stolen vestments.

A truly Catholic response to this crisis would begin with honesty about what the Church teaches. It would demand courage to live by those teachings no matter the social cost. It would remember that Catholic education is meant to form students in wisdom and virtue—not groom them for political activism. It would trust that hearts transformed by grace will work for justice in ways that honor human dignity rather than weaponize it.

The professors may fool themselves, and they may fool their progressive allies, but they cannot fool history. History will mark their generation as the one that sold its Catholic birthright for a mess of ideological pottage. The tragedy is not that they face scrutiny from the state but that they have earned it by betraying the very mission they pretend to defend.

John Mac Ghlionn, Crisis Magazine

The administrative state likes this arrangement.  Permanent government bureaucrats prefer to limit the president of the United States to theatrical performances that include signing ceremonies and kissing babies.  For everything else, they insist, Americans should leave it to the experts.  Let the prosecutors decide whom to indict.  Let the generals and admirals decide whom to attack.  Let the central bankers decide the value of American currency.  Let the spies wage covert wars at home and across the globe.  “Trust the vast bureaucracy,” the bureaucrats say, “because the administrative state is made up of impartial, incorruptible, competent, and well-meaning experts.”

Except there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about a Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service, or Environmental Protection Agency.  These armies of unelected bureaucrats wield power as if they were a separate and unrivaled branch of government.  To the extent that these oversized monsters are remotely constitutional, however, it is only because they exercise delegated powers belonging exclusively to the president of the United States.  

The buck stops with the president, not with the bureaucrats.  Corporate news publications that insist it should be the other way around have no interest in protecting the Constitution.  They seek to undermine it.

Disgraced and fired former FBI director Jim Comey is finally facing his day in court for having lied while under oath.  Unethical New York Attorney General Letitia James has been indicted on bank fraud charges.  Warmonger and former national security advisor John Bolton might soon be indicted for illegally retaining classified documents.  Russia Collusion Hoax co-conspirator, anti-American communist, and former director of the CIA John Brennan might similarly find himself in the dock.  Notoriously dumb “yes-man,” Russia Collusion Hoax co-conspirator, and former director of national intelligence James Clapper is under criminal investigation.  Former FBI director Chris Wray has been accused of lying to Congress regarding the number of plainclothes agents operating during the January 6, 2021, protest for fair elections.  Other well-known names are being scrutinized for criminal prosecution. 

As each shoe drops, the corporate news media shriek about President Trump going after his “political enemies” and directly involving himself in Department of Justice charging decisions.  A reasonable journalist might wonder how former chiefs within the Intelligence Community could be considered “political enemies” if they weren’t performing their duties in a political manner.  But such an obvious follow-up question is never asked, and instead Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Wray, and other former, powerful officers within the administrative state are described as if they acted, at all times, selflessly and for the good of the country.  

The propaganda press is very concerned about portraying members of the permanent government as being above politics because if the American people understood them to be just as political as members of Congress, then voters might start to wonder why such a vast, unelected administrative state is allowed to exist.  The financial and media elites who control the mainstream press constantly convey to the public the unconstitutional idea that the heads of important departments and agencies act unilaterally and independently.  They pretend that the director of the FBI and the attorney general of the United States do not answer to the president.  They pretend that the CIA and U.S. military operate autonomously from the White House.  Mainstream media “reporters” desperately work to convince Americans that unelected bureaucrats are entitled to wield tremendous power all on their own.  They are not.

Article II of the Constitution lays the foundations for the Executive Branch, and the first sentence of the first section is specific and clear: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”  The first sentence of the second section defines the president’s authority over the military: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”  When it comes to executive authority, all power resides with the president.  Likewise, every Executive employee — from cabinet secretary to parking attendant — acts as a delegated beneficiary of the president’s Executive power.  

It is the president of the United States — not the attorney general — who is the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government.  If President Trump decided to exercise his vested prosecutorial powers, he could try cases in federal courts.  When federal prosecutors enforce the law in courtrooms across the country, they are empowered to do so only because they are acting on the president’s behalf.  When corporate news publications pretend that federal prosecutors are entitled to act independently from the White House, they are willfully disregarding the U.S. Constitution and foisting an illegitimate form of government upon the American people.  

As a simple thought experiment, consider what it would mean if senior officials in the Department of Justice were exclusively empowered to decide how to enforce the law.  It would mean that an unethical attorney such as Andrew Weissmann would be in a position to tell the president of the United States what he can and cannot do.  It would give government lawyers — whose Executive authority comes directly from the Office of the President — more authority than the president.  It would effectively rewrite the first sentence of the first section of Article II of the Constitution into some variant of this: The executive Power shall be vested in Andrew Weissmann or other unethical attorneys who have weaseled their way into becoming career bureaucrats within the Department of Justice.

We saw this illegitimate form of government play out in President Trump’s first term.  During the run-up to the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had conspired with Intelligence Community officers and White House officials to frame candidate Trump as a Russian spy.  Even though then-FBI director Jim Comey knew these allegations were false, the corrupt law enforcement officer used this frame-up job as leverage against President Trump the following year.  

Conniving career bureaucrats in the Justice Department convinced Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from all investigations involving the manufactured Russia Collusion Hoax.  President Trump eventually fired serial-liar Comey, and career bureaucrat and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (in his capacity as acting attorney general) appointed former FBI director Robert Mueller as a special counsel responsible for investigating the Democrat-constructed Russia Collusion Hoax.  

Unbeknownst to the American people, Special Counsel Mueller was suffering from some form of dementia, so unethical government prosecutor Andrew Weissmann effectively ran a two-year harassment campaign whose ultimate purpose was to impeach President Trump and remove him from office.  During this time, dishonorable lawyer Andrew Weissmann effectively held more power than the president of the United States.

any time, President Trump could have put an end to this nonsense.  He could have fired his attorney general and deputy attorney general.  He could have fired Mueller and Weissmann.  He could have concluded the whole affair and moved on.  But the pressure from Congress (Republicans included) and the propaganda press for President Trump to comply with the special counsel charade was intense.  Paul Ryan and other congressional RINOs even suggested that Trump would be impeached if he did not permit the manufactured investigation into the Democrat-constructed Russia Collusion Hoax to proceed.  In an effort to keep the peace, President Trump essentially gave corrupt lawyer and staunch Democrat Andrew Weissmann control over the presidency. 

The Weissmann presidency was absurd.  When corrupt lawyers are empowered to tell the president of the United States what he may legally do, the Constitution has been entirely shredded.  Instead of an elected president exclusively vested with Executive power, we end up with an unelected legal bureaucracy that enigmatically delegates a handful of incidental powers to the sitting president.  

The administrative state likes this arrangement.  Permanent government bureaucrats prefer to limit the president of the United States to theatrical performances that include signing ceremonies and kissing babies.  For everything else, they insist, Americans should leave it to the experts.  Let the prosecutors decide whom to indict.  Let the generals and admirals decide whom to attack.  Let the central bankers decide the value of American currency.  Let the spies wage covert wars at home and across the globe.  “Trust the vast bureaucracy,” the bureaucrats say, “because the administrative state is made up of impartial, incorruptible, competent, and well-meaning experts.”

Except there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about a Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service, or Environmental Protection Agency.  These armies of unelected bureaucrats wield power as if they were a separate and unrivaled branch of government.  To the extent that these oversized monsters are remotely constitutional, however, it is only because they exercise delegated powers belonging exclusively to the president of the United States.  

The buck stops with the president, not with the bureaucrats.  Corporate news publications that insist it should be the other way around have no interest in protecting the Constitution.  They seek to undermine it.

J. B. Shurk, American Thinker

A woman in a Transformers shirt stands outside Smith College, screaming at a group of middle-aged women holding a banner that reads, “Women are adult human females.” She flails, rages, and hurls profanity like holy water against demons, as though declaring reality itself were an act of hate.

I don’t really want to put the video in here, as it is so full of foul language, so visit the link at your own risk.

Source: Twitter – https://x.com/WDI_USA/status/1923776056349061189

There’s irony is that a “Transformer” is defending the delusion that you can transform what God has already defined. It’s almost poetic—sin wrapped in satire, rage wrapped in rebellion.

And yet, this is where the modern world has landed. Truth is now a threat. Biology is now bigotry. And those who still speak reality out loud are, of course, “fascists.” Do these clowns even know what fascism is?

The tragedy isn’t that people don’t know better—it’s that they do. Every human being lives in God’s world and breathes His air. They know that women are women and men are men. They know that chromosomes don’t repent and hormones don’t save. But Romans 1 says they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

They bury the truth beneath slogans, surgeries, and manufactured rage. They make idols of their feelings, carve their identity from chaos, and bow down to the mirror as their god.

This is what happens when man dethrones God and enthrones himself. When the Creator’s authority is denied, creation becomes a canvas for delusion. Subjectivism isn’t neutral—it’s a declaration of war on the objective God. And every fist shaking at heaven is proof that deep down, they know He’s there.

This woman in the Transformers shirt isn’t just angry at those women on the sidewalk. She’s angry at the God who made her. Her fury isn’t about signs—it’s about sovereignty. It’s the echo of Eden: “You shall be as gods.”

But there is only one God. And He is not mocked.

The world can scream “love is love” all it wants, but its version of love is nothing more than the proliferation of lies. Real love tells the truth, even when it costs you. Real love warns sinners of impending doom and the looming reality of Hell. Real love calls men and women what God calls them—not because it’s hateful, but because anything less is hateful.

The rainbow that once pointed to God’s mercy now waves as a banner of rebellion. The very colors of His promise have been hijacked to celebrate defiance against Him. And yet, Christ remains unmoved—unchanged, unbending, unyielding.

The world may rage against reality, but it cannot rewrite it. Truth doesn’t bend, but it breaks those who try to.

One day, every tongue that cursed Him will confess Him. Every knee that mocked His order will bow to His throne. And every “transformer”—spiritual or literal—will face the One who never changes.

Until then, let’s keep preaching what is true. Even if it makes the world scream.

By Victor Davis Hanson

Trump’s unorthodox mix of pressure, power, and pragmatism shattered old diplomatic molds—delivering a rare moment of calm to the world’s most combustible region.

What did Donald Trump do differently to obtain at least temporary calm in the Middle East compared to the failed efforts of past administrations, foreign powers, and the United Nations? Let us count ten different approaches.

1. Trump curtailed a considerable amount of Iranian oil income and its dispersal. He stopped, for the near future, the Iranian effort to build a bomb. Trump also allowed Israel to destroy Tehran’s air defenses, humiliate it militarily, and eliminate many of its top military officers and nuclear physicists. Thus, Israel’s half-century-long worries about Iranian nukes were addressed. At the same time, its stature as a military power soared to an all-time high—even if it became more isolated politically. Israel became more confident but also more sensitive to past, current, and future American military and political support—or pressure.

2. Trump allowed Netanyahu to destroy Hamas, cripple Hezbollah, and retaliate at will against the Houthis. That liberation led to general dejection among Israel’s enemies and a resurgence in Netanyahu’s own political fortunes. And that rise of Israel and the collapse of the Iranian terrorist network—the “ring of fire”— explain the greater chances for a ceasefire and possibly a peace. Trump allowed no daylight between Israel and the U.S., which, under the Biden administration, may have sent the wrong signals to Hamas prior to October 7.

So there is now no terrorist Palestinian leader, such as a Yasser Arafat or an all-powerful Hamas killer, to sandbag negotiations. Instead, Trump involved a number of self-interested surrogate Arab officials who have the money and influence to rebuild Gaza and restore calm on their own terms. Trump and Israel are not just negotiating from positions of historic strength, but they have also empowered the reasonable Arab nations to have honor and clout in Middle East negotiations in an unprecedented fashion.

3. Trump also leveraged all his benefactions to Israel by pressuring it to agree to a ceasefire. Even the optics of a strong Israeli leader conceding to Trump that there would be no annexation of the West Bank gave the U.S. credibility in the Arab world as an honest broker and yet paradoxically helped Israel’s global reputation—as well as Netanyahu’s—as a more flexible negotiator.

4. Trump used the Abraham Accords and his much-maligned tariffs, along with expanding or curtailing commercial access into U.S. markets, to pressure—or persuade—the Gulf and moderate Arab states to ensure funding for Gaza reconstruction and the continued political weakening of Hamas. There is a sense in the Middle East, as elsewhere, that when it comes to new technologies such as AI, robotics, genetic engineering, and cryptocurrencies, the U.S. will remain the global leader, and thus a nation to court and please.

5. Trump, in carrot-and-stick fashion, promised a defense protection pact with Qatar—the proverbial untrusted wild card of the Middle East. But his new quid pro quo “protectorate” also implied reining in Qatar if it should resume its customary double-dealing that so infuriates its neighbors and increasingly enrages the West. The Israeli attack on Hamas leadership in Qatar, and the signal Israel could strike again at will, terrified Qatar and drove it to seek protection in—new dependency on—the U.S.

6. Trump dealt with enemies, allies, and neutrals from a position of strength, comparative advantage, and national ascendance, unlike the appeasing and anemic Biden years or the apologetics of Obama. The successful complex bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities and the past elimination of terrorist Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and ISIS founder and thug Bakr al-Baghdadi ensured Trump was seen as more serious than either Obama or Biden ever were.

The Arab world and Israel also understood that there are no alternatives to Trump. Russia’s Syrian outpost is gone. Moscow is bogged down in a forever war in Ukraine and under sanctions. It is no longer a force in the Middle East.

Trump has confronted China and exposed its economic vulnerabilities, ensuring that the Arabs saw no outside power comparable to the U.S.

Chinese and Russian allies, like the Iranian theocracy and the former Assad dynasty in Syria, were also shown over the last year to be shrill, impotent, losing clients. At home, restoring the U.S. border, strengthening NATO, rebooting the U.S. military, fast-tracking energy development, and cracking down on crime fed the impression of an American renaissance rather than the continued Obama-Biden-managed decline.

7. Trump was entirely transactional. Unlike the Biden administration, he did not libel the Saudis, or demonize Netanyahu, or take seriously any of the past proverbial empty “peace plans” of a corrupt UN or of terrified Europeans. He had no sooner destroyed Iran’s nuclear capability than he allowed a ceremonial but innocuous “hit” on a U.S. base in Qatar and then declared he wanted to “make Iran great again.” For someone who is supposedly mercurial, holds grudges, and is reckless, Trump was careful to treat all the major parties with deference and a clean slate and offered them trade and military deals rather than diplomatese and platitudes.

8. Europe went from sandbagging Trump in 2017 to 2021 to calling him “daddy” once they realized that only Trump could save Ukraine and, by extension, Europe from Putin. The result was not an anti-American Europe trying to intrude into the Middle East negotiations or ankle-biting the U.S. To the degree that Europeans save face, it is by symbolically recognizing a Palestinian state, but not materially altering realities on the ground in Gaza. For the most part, there is now a calmer Europe, relieved that Iran was denuclearized and the Palestinian terrorists in the Middle East might no longer trigger unrest among Europe’s own restive and unassimilated Muslim populations.

9. At this 11th hour, Hamas was reminded that it has no real alternatives—as the rubble of Gaza attests. Trump signaled to Israel that it could and can still go medieval on Hamas and its remnants should they resume terrorism. Otherwise, Gaza remains a bombed-out wreck. Qatar will be pressured to kick out its conniving Hamas billionaires. The result is a stark choice: any Hamas attempt to rebuild its terrorist networks will ensure that it—and everything around it—will be moonscaped. Trump made it clear there are now no more sacred cows in the Middle East, no more safe spaces, and no more off-limits targets—juxtaposed to numerous win-win incentives that can lead to prosperity and security.

10. The Middle East was not seen as a one-off U.S. peace effort—as is usually the case. Instead, it was envisioned as a continuation of a series of prior successful Trump-led ceasefires between Rwanda and Congo, Armenia and Azerbaijan, India and Pakistan, Kosovo and Serbia, Cambodia and Thailand, and Egypt and Ethiopia. The Israelis and the Palestinians saw Trump’s success elsewhere and may have felt from such momentum that the same might be possible in Gaza.

And if the ceasefire holds, or at least reduces the violence, global attention will next turn to Ukraine. Expectations in and outside the Middle East will rise that if there can be quiet in war-torn Gaza, then that momentum might lead to progress toward peace on the Ukrainian border as well.

10. The Middle East was not seen as a one-off U.S. peace effort—as is usually the case. Instead, it was envisioned as a continuation of a series of prior successful Trump-led ceasefires between Rwanda and Congo, Armenia and Azerbaijan, India and Pakistan, Kosovo and Serbia, Cambodia and Thailand, and Egypt and Ethiopia. The Israelis and the Palestinians saw Trump’s success elsewhere and may have felt from such momentum that the same might be possible in Gaza.

About Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness and the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is an American military historian, columnist, a former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004, and is the 2023 Giles O’Malley Distinguished Visiting Professor at the School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush, and the Bradley Prize in 2008. Hanson is also a farmer (growing almonds on a family farm in Selma, California) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism. He is the author of the just released New York Times best seller, The End of Everything: How Wars Descend into Annihilation, published by Basic Books on May 7, 2024, as well as the recent  The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won, The Case for Trump, and The Dying Citizen

When one thinks of the Democratic Party in 2025, most don’t think of compassion or relatability. Instead, anger is the first word that usually comes to mind. 

Here are ten examples of anger on display during Trump’s second term: 

“This dude [Ted Cruz] has to be knocked over the head, like, hard, right? Like, there is no niceties with him, like, at all!” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX). 

“[Trump senior advisor] Stephen Miller needs to be THUMPED! That guy’s a freaking worm. I would be willing to go to jail for – I mean, how much [time] would I get for just cracking him a couple of times?” said North Carolina congressional candidate Richard Ojeda (D). 

“Three people, two bullets. Gilbert, Hitler and Pol Pot. Gilbert gets two bullets to the head. Spoiler – put [Republican Todd] Gilbert in the crew with the two worst people you know and he receives both bullets every time,” said Jay Jones (D), Attorney General candidate in Virginia, who also wished death upon Gilbert’s wife and two young children in text messages released this month by a Republican colleague. Jones also referred to the children as “little fascists.” 

“Let your rage fuel you!” Virginia gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger (D) said to supporters at a rally in June. Spanberger has refused to call on Jones to drop out of the race. 

“I’m like, ‘You know what? I’m not the one. Don’t come for me unless I send for you.’ And I did not send for this malignant clown,” said House Speaker Hakeem Jeffries, commenting on a confrontation he had with Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) during which he told Lawler to “keep your mouth shut.” 

“The visceral response from people across the country who feel cheated, ripped off, and threatened by the vile practices of their insurance companies should be a warning to everyone in the healthcare system,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said after Luigi Mangione murdered United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson by shooting him in the back in the middle of Manhattan. 

“Violence is never the answer,” Warren added. “But people can only be pushed so far.”

“But…”

“There is no legacy to honor. It was a legacy filled with bigotry, hatred, and white supremacy,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) said in a podcast interview after Charlie Kirk was assassinated without citing any specific quotes to back up her farcical claim. “And as a black woman and as a Muslim in this country, I refuse to join the chorus that changes the history of what is on the record from this man.”

We’re going to punch these sons of bitches in the mouth,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said on his podcast, talking about Republicans. 

“Get out of my f****** shot!” exclaimed California gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter to a staffer during a taped interview. The staffer tried to explain to Porter that her argument was wrong on electric vehicles, but Porter was livid despite the interview not being live.

“You also were in my shot before that. Stay out of my sho t,” Porter reiterated. 

The clip has since gone viral to the tune of millions of views. But Porter will benefit from “news” shows like The View, which somehow falls under ABC’s news department. 

Here is co-host Whoopi Goldberg somehow defending Porter with the “everybody-treats-their-staff-this-way” argument.

“I have done this, I have been rude to people…” Goldberg began. 

“But you’re not running for elected official,” co-host Sara Haines injected. 

“No, but I’ve been rude and that’s my point,” Goldberg continued. 

“And I understand, but I would expect something differently from her,” Haines replied. 

“No, she’s just another human being,” Goldberg shot back, as if this is normal behavior on display from Porter in any ordinary workplace that would get other people fired. 

This wasn’t a one-off with Porter, either. Just a day before the video of her berating a staffer made it into the mainstream, she walked out of an interview with a Sacramento CBS affiliate because the reporter, Julie Watts, actually asked follow-up questions around winning over moderate and conservative voters in her gubernatorial race. 

“I don’t want to keep doing this. I’m going to call it,” Porter said in attempting to end the interview over perfectly reasonable questions. 

“I want to have a pleasant, positive conversation. … If every question you’re going to make up a follow-up question, then we’re never going to get there and we are just going to circle around.”

The anger management issue threatens to turn the California governor’s race into an unexpectedly competitive one. According to betting site Kalshi, Porter’s chances of being governor were 40% just one week ago, before the CBS interview and the staffer scolding video emerged. It’s now at just 16%. Actions have consequences, especially in a social media environment. 

Democrats keep telling us that they simply need to fight President Donald Trump and Republicans harder while amping up the rhetoric. 

“We’re going to bring a knife fight to a knife fight,” declared DNC Chairman Ken Martin. 

But the party continues to plummet in the polls. A CNN poll, for example, shows that just 16% of American adults say the party has strong leaders, while just 19% say it’s a party that can get things done. Those are the lowest numbers we’ve seen for any party in polling history. 

Meanwhile, on the Republican side and especially as it pertains to Trump, the once stuffy party of country club rich guys is now the fun party. The 2024 campaign said it all: While Trump was being compared to Hitler and a fascist even after two assassination attempts, he worked a drive-through at McDonald’s, smiling and chatting up customers. And when President Joe Biden angrily referred to all Trump supporters as garbage, Trump’s team quickly secured a garbage truck in Wisconsin while the candidate dressed up as a garbage man and loved every minute of it. 

Both moments went viral in places that typical campaigns and all the TV ad buys in the world could not reach. So while Kamala Harris was doing forgetful interviews on CNN or MSNBC, Trump cast himself as the happy warrior while mocking Democrats in the process. That remains true to this day regarding the posture of both parties.  

Aristotle once said: “Anybody can become angry — that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way — that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy.” 

By being in desperate need of anger management, Democrats clearly need to heed this advice.

Joe Concha, Washington Examiner

Jay Jones’s vile texts expose more than personal depravity—they reveal the left’s deeper creed: that pain, not principle, is the true engine of political change.

Over the last week or so, observers—mostly on the right—have made a great deal of noise about the musings of Jay Jones, the Democratic nominee for Attorney General in Virginia. Jones, as I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you, openly and enthusiastically discussed killing a political opponent—the former Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates—and, more disturbingly, hoped this opponent’s children would die so that he could watch their mother suffer as she held them in her arms.

Understandably, most of the commentary on Jones and his ghoulish desires has focused on his crass exhortation to violence and the ghastly cruelty of his repeatedly expressed desire to watch children die while relishing their mother’s pain. Jones is, almost inarguably, a twisted man with a moral compass that points straight downward. That he remains his party’s nominee and that no high-profile members of that party have withdrawn their endorsement of him tells you all you need to know about the moral condition of the nation’s ruling class.

All of that said, for me, the most interesting part of Jones’s exposed texts is the justification he gives for wanting Todd and Jennifer Gilbert to suffer as they hold their dying children. When confronted about that statement, he replies, “Yes, I’ve told you this before. Only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy.”

Everything else in Jones’s rant can be dismissed as the overheated rhetoric of a disturbed man, the bizarre fantasies of someone unfit to mingle with normal people in civil society, much less serve them as their chief law enforcement official. It is, as I said, twisted.

By contrast, Jones’ explanation that only pain can create the necessary changes in perceptions that affect policy prescriptions is different. It is, in a sense, rational. It is an expression of purpose. Moreover, it is an expression of purpose that is so clear and so lucid that it belies the idea that the rest of his tirade is merely an emotional outburst. In other words, it demonstrates that his embrace of violence and cruelty is intentional, deliberate, and calculated. Jay Jones knew what he was saying, knew what it meant, and connected it all to a broader political philosophy: Only pain can create change among the enemy; therefore, creating pain is good, and inflicting it on one’s enemy is the sole means of achieving progress.

What’s most disturbing about this is that Jones is hardly the only person who thinks this way. He may be the only one stupid enough to put it in print (or 1s and 0s, as the case may be), but he’s not alone in believing that the application of pain to political opponents is both good and productive. Indeed, this is—and always has been—the defining motivational principle of the political left.

Now, to be clear, I think that, historically, “the left” has been largely absent from American politics. With a few exceptions (the Progressives and the radical New Dealers), even most Democrats in this country have, traditionally, been anti-leftist. The economics of Marxism never caught on here the way it did in Europe, and, for the most part, Republicans and Democrats have a shared disdain for collectivism.

At the same time, however, as I have noted repeatedly (here and elsewhere), in the West, economic Marxism largely died after World War I and collapsed completely in the 1960s. And what replaced it—cultural Marxism, the cultural left—has made far greater inroads among this nation’s governing elites. Whereas most Democrats would, even today, deny any affinity for leftist economics, many of them—perhaps a majority of them, especially among the ruling class—share the cultural left’s beliefs about current and historical social conditions and the “inequity” they embody. They are cultural Marxists and, thus, inheritors of the left’s pain-and-envy-based approach to change.

The left today is, in many ways, perfectly Nietzschean. That’s not to say that it embraces his vision or shares his beliefs (although it does both to some extent, in some cases). Rather, the left exemplifies much of what Nietzsche found loathsome and self-destructive in Western civilization.

Nietzsche disliked the left. “Socialism,” he wrote in Human, All Too Human, “is the visionary younger brother of an almost decrepit despotism, whose heir it wants to be.” He continued:

Thus, its efforts are reactionary in the deepest sense… it secretly prepares for reigns of terror, and drives the word “justice” like a nail into the heads of the semieducated masses, to rob them completely of their reason (after this reason has already suffered a great deal from its semieducation), and to give them a good conscience for the evil game that they are supposed to play.

In this sense—and especially in his dismissal of the left’s false notion of “justice”—Nietzsche is equating socialism with religion and comparing its morality to the “slave morality” that he saw as the defining characteristic of the Western religious tradition. In short, Nietzsche viewed slave morality as the result of ressentiment, the deep-seated emotional response to powerlessness that blames an external “enemy” for all suffering and manifests as envy, jealousy, and revenge. Whereas Aristotle defined “anger” in largely heroic terms, encapsulating man’s desire to seek retribution for legitimate reasons and in response to “belittlement that is undeserved,” Nietzsche defined ressentiment as a weak emotion, the response of life’s losers to their self-inflicted suffering and the transference of their self-loathing to an external actor, a scapegoat.

For Christians, it is possible to dismiss Nietzsche’s critique of their supposed slave morality by pointing to the victory of the Resurrection and to note that the fulfillment of their conception of justice is other-worldly and, therefore, does not require the temporal moral inversion Nietzsche condemns. As an atheist, he just doesn’t “get it.” He can’t possibly get it without belief in the afterlife.

For leftists—whom Nietzsche (and countless others) saw as heretical, Millenarian Christians—such a dismissal is not so easy. His depiction of their ressentiment is largely undeniable. It is painfully accurate.

Ressentiment can, on occasion, be acted upon. In most cases, however, “slaves”—those who are noble neither by birth nor temperament—are unable to act. They wallow in their frustration and their hatred, often creating imaginary incidents of revenge and the infliction of pain. They threaten. They bluster. They try to cause small-scale suffering and infliction of pain in the hope that that pain will undermine the moral codes and empower them. In short, they believe that “only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy.”

The left is, in this sense, quite small and petty, angry but impotent, and willing to undertake vain acts of vengeance instead of real acts of justice, of which it is incapable. Nevertheless, it redefines justice to serve its purposes, to enhance its self-perception, and to justify its ressentiment

Stephen Soukup, American Greatness

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Friday the Department of Defense is forming a new counternarcotics joint task force in order to “crush” drug cartels in the Caribbean Sea. 

Hegseth said the new task force, established at the direction of President Trump, will operate in the U.S. Southern Command (Southcom) area of responsibility. 

“At the President’s direction, the Department of War is establishing a new counter-narcotics Joint Task Force in the @SOUTHCOM area of responsibility to crush the cartels, stop the poison and keep America safe,” Hegseth said in a post on the social platform X. 

“The message is clear: if you traffic drugs toward our shores, we will stop you cold,” he added. 

The Pentagon referred The Hill to SOUTHCOM when reached for comment. The Hill has contacted SOUTHCOM for additional information. 

The formation of the task force comes as the Trump administration has launched four strikes against alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean Sea in recent weeks. The strikes have killed 21 in total, according to the administration. 

The most recent strike, which occurred earlier this month, blew up the vessel — purportedly carrying narcotics in international waters — and killed four people, Hegseth said at the time. 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Friday the Department of Defense is forming a new counternarcotics joint task force in order to “crush” drug cartels in the Caribbean Sea. 

Hegseth said the new task force, established at the direction of President Trump, will operate in the U.S. Southern Command (Southcom) area of responsibility. 

“At the President’s direction, the Department of War is establishing a new counter-narcotics Joint Task Force in the @SOUTHCOM area of responsibility to crush the cartels, stop the poison and keep America safe,” Hegseth said in a post on the social platform X. 

“The message is clear: if you traffic drugs toward our shores, we will stop you cold,” he added. 

The Pentagon referred The Hill to SOUTHCOM when reached for comment. The Hill has contacted SOUTHCOM for additional information. 

The formation of the task force comes as the Trump administration has launched four strikes against alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean Sea in recent weeks. The strikes have killed 21 in total, according to the administration. 

The most recent strike, which occurred earlier this month, blew up the vessel — purportedly carrying narcotics in international waters — and killed four people, Hegseth said at the time.

By signing up, I agree to the Terms of Use, have reviewed the Privacy Policy, and to receive personalized offers and communications via email, on-site notifications, and targeted advertising using my email address from The Hill, Nexstar Media Inc., and its affiliates

Trump has railed against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, accusing the leader of overseeing a massive influx of illegal drugs into the U.S. 

The president notified Congress last week that the U.S. is now at war with drug cartels that the administration has designated as terrorist organizations, offering legal rationale for strikes against vessels in the Caribbean off the coast of Venezuela. The first strike took place in early September. Democrats have hammered the administration over the strikes, deeming them illegal. 

On Wednesday, Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro claimed the latest strike in the Caribbean Sea struck hit a vessel that was Colombian and had Colombian citizens on board. 

The White House rebuked the leader, saying it hopes the Colombian president will publicly retract his “baseless and reprehensible” statement.

“As a Member of the Armed Services Committee, representing JIATF-SOUTH & @Southcom
this is a major win for our community & will make our nation safer!” Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-Fla.) wrote in a post on X, referring to the joint task force. “Thank you @POTUS & @SecWar!”

By Lars Møller

The United Kingdom is facing a confluence of challenges that strike at the very heart of its democratic legitimacy, national sovereignty, and social cohesion. At issue are, not only institutional convolutions but also growing public disillusionment with how justice is administered, how power is exercised, and how British identity is being reshaped — without the explicit consent of the people.

Pressing concerns are the erosion of “parliamentary sovereignty”, the rise of unaccountable judicial and bureaucratic influence, the consequences of unchecked immigration, the double standards in law enforcement, and the cultural tensions born from demographic and ideological shifts. As much as these developments threaten abstract principles, they offend the ordinary citizen’s basic sense of justice, fairness, and national belonging.

At the core of British democracy lies the principle of parliamentary sovereignty — the belief that the elected representatives of the people should hold ultimate authority over national policy. Yet in practice, this principle has been eroded. Increasingly, decision-making is outsourced to civil servants, regulatory bodies, expert panels, and judicial institutions that operate with limited democratic oversight. This “rule by experts” may be justified by the complexity of modern governance, but it severs the link between the electorate and those who wield power.

The result is a creeping “technocracy” in which policy is shaped behind closed doors by unelected elites. Public health mandates, immigration decisions, and regulatory changes are imposed without meaningful debate in Parliament or consideration of public opinion. Citizens rightly question: if decisions that shape our lives are made without our input, who, exactly, governs us?

The power of judges — both domestic and foreign — to overrule elected governments has become a flashpoint in this democratic disconnect. British courts, and particularly supranational bodies like the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), increasingly intervene in areas that should be the preserve of Parliament — especially immigration, deportation, and national security.

It is difficult for many to accept that foreign judges in Strasbourg can block the deportation of convicted criminals or illegal migrants from the UK, invoking vague interpretations of “human rights”. These rulings override the expressed will of Parliament and offend the basic public expectation that dangerous or unlawful individuals should be removed from the country. Such decisions feel unjust and undemocratic — a violation of national self-determination and the public’s instinctive sense of fairness.

This judicial overreach also undermines the government’s ability to enforce immigration controls and border security, further feeding the belief that Britain has lost control of who resides within its borders — and who decides.

Among the most corrosive developments in recent years is the emergence of a “two-tier policing” system — one where the law is not applied equally, but selectively, based on political ideology, social status, or identity group.

At the grassroots level, ordinary citizens increasingly feel that the police no longer serve or protect them. Across the country, crimes such as burglary, knife violence, drug trafficking, and anti-social behavior go uninvestigated. Victims are routinely told that there are no officers available, or that the crime is “low priority”. In countless cases, CCTV evidence is ignored, suspects are not interviewed, and communities are left to fend for themselves. The message to ordinary law-abiding people is clear: you are on your own.

At the same time, however, police resources appear to be readily available for other kinds of enforcement — especially when it comes to political speech, online comments, or protests that do not conform to mainstream progressive causes. Officers attend complaints about social media posts, misgendering incidents, or vaguely defined “hate incidents”, even when no crime has been committed. In some cases, citizens have been arrested or interrogated for simply expressing opinions that were once considered mainstream.

This disparity has fostered a widespread belief that there is now one set of rules for the politically favored, and another for everybody else. Consider the contrast in how protests are policed. Demonstrations aligned with fashionable or state-sanctioned causes often receive soft-handed treatment and even cooperation from law enforcement. Meanwhile, those associated with traditionalist, nationalist, or conservative causes are met with a heavier hand, surveillance, and legal barriers. The right to protest — a cornerstone of democratic freedom — appears increasingly conditional.

There is also concern over selective enforcement of hate crime laws. Offenses committed against certain minority groups are swiftly acted upon and highly publicized, while similar abuses against majority communities, such as white working-class Britons or Christians, receive less attention or are not recorded as hate crimes at all. This perception of institutional bias is beyond the anecdotal; it is reinforced by public statements from senior police officials who openly prioritize some categories of harm over others.

Such double standards damage the very legitimacy of law enforcement. The police are meant to be neutral enforcers of the law, not instruments of ideological enforcement. When enforcement becomes politicized, when justice becomes uneven, people lose faith in the rule of law itself. This loss of trust is not theoretical — it has real consequences. Citizens become less likely to cooperate with police, less willing to report crimes, and more inclined to seek justice outside the legal system.

In the long run, two-tier policing does not protect vulnerable groups — it endangers everybody. It breaks the covenant between the public and the state. It tells the citizenry that fairness is no longer guaranteed, and that your safety depends, not on your rights but on whether your views align with those in power.

Mass immigration continues to transform the social and cultural fabric of the UK. The scale and speed of recent demographic changes have raised serious concerns, not only about infrastructure and public services but also about democratic legitimacy.

Many feel that immigration policy has not been debated openly or decided democratically. Judicial interventions and bureaucratic discretion shape immigration outcomes rather than parliamentary debate or public consent. Moreover, when individuals with criminal records are allowed to remain in the UK due to court rulings, the question becomes not simply one of law, but of national security and moral clarity.

The British public has repeatedly expressed a desire for controlled, sustainable immigration. Yet time and again, that will is overridden — by courts, by quangos, or by successive governments that refuse to act decisively. The result is a population that feels ignored, powerless, and betrayed. 

Britain rightly prides itself on being a tolerant and pluralistic society. However, the balance between granting minority privileges and respecting the interests of the majority has become dangerously skewed. When institutions and political discourse prioritize minority grievances to the point of excluding or vilifying majority concerns, social cohesion is undermined.

Ordinary people — particularly in working-class communities — feel ridiculed, labeled as “backward” or “bigoted” for expressing concerns about immigration, cultural change, or the loss of traditional values. This moral condescension fuels resentment and creates a cultural hierarchy where certain identities are protected, while others are mocked or dismissed.

This dynamic is socially divisive — and politically explosive. A democracy cannot function when large segments of the population feel demonized or silenced for holding mainstream views.

The unraveling of British civil society — especially in neglected and economically struggling areas — is perhaps the most visible sign of national decay. Rising crime, collapsing community institutions, and a sense of cultural drift all signal deeper structural failures. Without strong communities, shared values, and a functioning rule of law, democracy cannot flourish. 

What many now see is not a nation growing stronger through diversity and progress, but one fragmenting under pressure — from imported ideologies, from governmental incoherence, and from elites indifferent to the everyday realities of British life. The erosion of a common culture — one born of British history, traditions, and moral clarity — leaves a vacuum that no amount of technocratic governance can fill.

The cumulative effect of judicial overreach, weak and politicized policing, unaccountable governance, and cultural disintegration is more than political instability — it is a civilizational reckoning. As it is, laws are enforced selectively, borders are porous, and many feel like strangers in their own country.

Democracy is not just about voting; it is about power residing with the people — a shared understanding of justice, national identity, and cultural continuity. When judges abroad decide who may live in the UK, when police investigate tweets but ignore theft, when violent offenders walk free while citizens are silenced, the moral foundations of the nation begin to crack.

Britain should reclaim its sovereignty and basic sense of justice — justice that is seen to be fair, proportional, and rooted in the values of its people. Without this restoration, the essence of British civilization is tragically gone.

Related Topics: Justice, United Kingdom