Who Watches the Watchers? (American Thinker)

Trust is important. Verification is essential.

More than 2,000 years ago, the Roman poet Juvenal posed a timeless question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? — “Who will guard the guards themselves?” or “Who watches the watchers?”

The Romans could never have imagined artificial intelligence, facial recognition, or nationwide networks of automated license-plate readers. Yet their question may be even more relevant today than it was three millennia ago.

Recent debate over Flock Safety cameras illustrates why.

The cameras have become an invaluable law enforcement tool. A stolen vehicle that crosses several jurisdictions can now be identified in minutes rather than days. An abducted child can sometimes be located before the child reaches another state.

Investigators can reconstruct a suspect’s movements at speeds unimaginable only a generation ago. These advances are remarkable and save lives and solve crimes.

Few Americans would willingly return to the days when solving a crime depended solely on eyewitness accounts or grainy surveillance footage from convenience stores.

Yet reports have surfaced that individual officers allegedly used these systems to monitor former spouses, girlfriends, or acquaintances for purely personal reasons. If true, those actions are not an indictment of the technology or of law enforcement as a whole. They are a reminder of a far older truth: every concentration of power invites the possibility of abuse.

Technology doesn’t change human nature.

It amplifies it.

Throughout history, every transformative invention has brought both promise and peril.

Luddites Are Winning the Data Center Debate

When New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a one-year moratorium on new large-scale data centers via executive order, it became the nation’s first statewide ban.

It will likely be popular. Polls find widespread opposition to data centers, and the objections seem to be growing. Around 70% oppose the construction of a new artificial intelligence data center in their area, with 48% strongly opposed. Only 27% favor it.

Even in Texas, the energy-rich state with the most data centers, Gov. Greg Abbott has called for a ban on new developments in rural areas.

The panic surrounding data centers is highly reminiscent of the panic surrounding hydraulic fracturing. Like the fracking ban in New York, also based on junk science and scaremongering — not to mention, initially a “moratorium” — the policy will backfire.

The economic case for data centers is indisputable. A single hyperscale facility brings in billions in capital investment, creates a slew of high-paying jobs from construction to engineering and ensures local governments are flush with tax revenue.

Big Tech bogeymen such as Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Meta upgrade local infrastructure and create secondary economies, often in struggling areas. Long term, these companies offer self-sustaining economic activity that the magical “green” industry never did or could.

In Loudoun County, Virginia, home of the largest concentration of data centers in the country, studies found revenue from AI infrastructure accounted for 95% of the county’s operating budget. That revenue has funded a $100 million plan for new schools in the county of 455,000 residents.

Because energy price spikes have coincided with the data center debate, one of the major concerns you hear from people is that their utility bills will go up. The data doesn’t bear this out.

States with fast-growing electricity rates, such as California, have few data centers, while states such as Virginia, which lead the country in data center energy consumption, have seen electricity prices increase at the national average.

There’s considerable evidence that data centers have eased electricity rate hikes over the past decade, as companies took on a growing share of the utility costs, reducing the demand on residents.

AI infrastructure requires massive amounts of continuous power. Data centers are driving a rapid expansion in power generation. The solution to high energy demand isn’t to build fewer data centers. It’s to generate more energy.

Trepidation over AI also surely plays a role in concern over data centers. That’s a perfectly legitimate and important debate for society to have. The most emotional and effective attacks on data centers revolve around environmental concerns.

The other day, popular WNBA player Sophie Cunningham asked: “So how do we save our farm land and stop all these dumb data centers?”

Save farmland? Data centers are predicted to use around 1,400 square miles of land by 2028. Farmland already uses 1.4 million square miles. There’s more than enough land for farms and data centers.

If anything, data centers might save farming communities. A large, self-perpetuating data center project in Farmville in rural Prince Edward County, Virginia, for instance, will optimize the land mass used by a small farm to the tune of a $5 billion investment into that community.

Data centers consume somewhere around 2% to 4% of total freshwater withdrawals, a tiny fraction compared to agriculture or manufacturing, mining or basically any other major industry. Nationally, data centers consume significantly less water than golf courses.

Not long ago, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) produced two jars with brown water at a congressional hearing, alleging that it was what “drinking water” looked like in Morgan County, Georgia, where a Meta data center project was underway. Scary stuff.

Except, earlier reports found only four households in the country had been stuck with sediment-clogged, brown or dry taps.

Brown drinking water was not widespread, as Ocasio-Cortez had claimed. More importantly, construction projects that burst wells on occasion aren’t unique to data centers but rather to construction of all types.

In a major solar project in upstate New York, crews accidentally struck an aquifer while drilling not long ago. Does Ocasio-Cortez believe we should put a moratorium on solar panel projects?

If you care about the environment, you should also note that data centers facilitate considerable efficiencies elsewhere, such as remote work that reduces commuting emissions, better supply chain organization that cuts waste, and cloud computing that’s far more efficient than having everyone running their own servers.

The effective voices against data centers, after all, are the same Luddites who’ve spread environmental apocalypticism to stop modernization projects such as pipelines and power plants and fracking. Most of their arguments don’t hold water. That doesn’t mean they’re not winning.

David Harsanyi, Washington Examiner

Marco Rubio Gets It

Marco Rubio understands what Ayn Rand did–that Leftism is based on hatred of the good for being the good:

[Leftist violence] is a revolt of the worst against the best, a revolt of the weak and the cowardly against the strong and the good. It is perpetrated by those who cannot build, who cannot create, who cannot achieve great things and take their revenge upon the world for their own inadequacy by seeking to destroy those who can.

And this is what radical leftism is. It may wear various different slogans and ideologies across place and time.

They can call themselves anti-capitalist or anti-imperialists or communists or anarchists or Marxists…

But the fundamental character is always the same. It’s always the same. It is a poisonous resentment cloaked in the language of equality and justice and liberation and overwhelming need to tear down what greater men have built, to wreck what is beautiful and what is right on behalf of people who are only filled with ugliness and have nothing else to offer the world.

Through violence and through terror, they once again seek to impose their ugliness on all of us. The old dogma was wrong. The old dogma was wrong. None of this is driven by idealism. It is not utopian.

*******

Election fraud, as the Democratic Party elites and Uniparty Establishment defines it:

If Republicans win, it’s fraud. Immediately reverse the results.

If Democrats win, it’s valid. If you raise a single objection, question or concern, you’re an “enemy of democracy” and must immediately be censored and possibly convicted of a crime.

Got it? And we don’t need the SAVE America Act. Mail-in voting elects not just Democrats, but socialist Communist Democrats, everywhere it’s used.

*******

New York City socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani is facing criticism online over a news conference where a local housing advocate claimed evictions are a form of “violence” as the mayor stood behind her.

That’s Communism for you. Breaking a contract results in logical consequences. If you sign a lease and stop paying your rent, you get evicted. That’s not violence. That’s reason, and responsibility. Communism is the opposite of justice and civilization. And it’s now the creed of the Democratic Party.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

What if People Don’t Care About the Truth?

Posted on July 18, 2026

Thanks to President Trump, “the truth is coming out,” says Eric Trump.

I love the sentiment and I will forever appreciate the bravery of the Trump family. But I have known too many leftists and I have come to understand they don’t want the truth. They just want their way. Millions are not like this, but millions are. I don’t see our differences as reconcilable.

Time will tell.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

A 86-year-old NC man got so bored 2 months into retirement that he went to back to work at Chick-fil-A and he is still working there at age 92

Mr. Gil is 92 years old, and works at the Chick-fil-A on Oleander Drive in Wilmington, NC.

He spent decades working in the natural gas industry and when he retired, he greeted people at Sam’s Club for 12 MORE years, until they eliminated his position.

Most people would call that a sign to finally rest, but not Mr. Gil!

Two months into retirement, he got bored… so he walked into Chick-fil-A and put in an application.

He was 86 years old at the time.

He’s been there ever since.

Not one or two shifts a week either. Monday through Friday.

He says the full schedule gives him more chances to be there for people who need him.

His official job is dining host. Clean tables. Clean floors.

But Mr Gil doesn’t see it that way… as he describes it, his real job is:

“I get a lot of people that are coming in, just been to the doctor, and got bad news… I’m able to be an encourager; the Lord gave me that.”

A 92-year-old man who could be resting at home… chooses to stand in a dining room five days a week… so strangers on the worst day of their lives don’t have to be alone.

And Wilmington noticed.

When Mr. Gil caught a cold and missed a couple of days, the owner said he was FLOODED with HUNDREDS of customers who were panicked about him.

Mr. Gil has zero plans to retire.

He says if you ever see him working, come say hi.

“I don’t know what 92 is supposed to feel like, but I feel great. Serving others has always brought me joy because I believe that a smile and a kind word can make someone’s day a little brighter.”

We need more of this in the world!!!!

X

Carrot and Stick

Persian kings did not build empires by being naive about deception; they practically invented the genre.” —Jesus Enrique Rosas.

Where do the enemies of our country — including the ones inside our country — get the idea that Iran is winning this war? They wish it into existence. The wishing is necessary to put across the talking points that President Trump and his advisors don’t have a plan, don’t know what they are doing, that the USA is persecuting and oppressing Iran for no good reason.

We pounded Iran over the weekend for a very good reason: Iran needs to learn the hard way that there are consequences for breaking agreements. For instance, at around 7:15p.m. local time, Iran fired a projectile at the Cyprus-flagged container ship GFS Galaxy, managed by Dubai-based Global Feeder Shipping, in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran claimed it was “a warning shot,” but it was a direct hit on the ship’s engine room, disabling the vessel. The crew had to abandon ship in lifeboats — and were soon rescued by a combination of other commercial ships and Omani navy vessels. One crew member went missing.

Hours after the attack, Iran declared the Strait of Hormuz closed. And soon after that, President Trump asserted that the Strait was open to commercial traffic, with US forces positioned to ensure freedom of navigation, contradicting Iran’s announcement of closure “until further notice.”

It’s not the President and his advisors who are confused, it’s the situation, and for a good reason: Iran’s leadership is confused. It’s as if Mr. Trump has to stand between Abbott & Costello doing their Who’s on First routine. All the while the IRGC fulminates and fires what remains of its ordnance at ships and other countries in the region, Iran’s putative civilian leadership, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Foreign Minister Seyyed Abbas Araghchi, and Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, are talking desperately on the phone to mediators in Qatar and Pakistan about how to implement “technical issues” in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

All of this indicates that Iran’s leadership is badly split between its civil government and the IRGC (Revolutionary Guard) forces that operate as a competing Mafia-style command structure with an attached military of its own, separate from Iran’s regular army. The major discord between the two entities is that the civil government would apparently like the conflict with America to resolve in a way that will allow their country to salvage its economy and return to normal relations with the rest of the world, while the IRGC remains obdurately bent on jihad, no matter what it means for their country and its people.

The problem with jihad is that it must be waged against all infidels, meaning the people of Western Civ — a major part of the rest of the world — and now even many states around the Persian Gulf region who have joined President Trump’s Board of Peace — Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan — that might qualify as targets of jihad, too. Why? Because Israel was one of the initial signatories, making the Board of Peace a creature of The Great Satan (the USA) and Little Satan (Israel).

Of course, a key precept in jihad is taqiyya, which prescribes lying and deception in the service of jihad, which further suggests that, for the jihadist IRGC, there can be no real understanding in the Memorandum of Understanding that Iran’s civil government signed. Taqiyya requires the IRGC to lie, which it has demonstrated it is determined to do. . . like, firing missiles at commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz after it promised not to. How can such conduct possibly produce mutual understanding?

And so, if you picture the negotiations as a carrot-and-stick type process, you see that Iran’s IRGC is oblivious to carrots. Only the stick might avail, and Mr. Trump is obliging them with it. By the way, rumors circulated the past twenty-four hours that the IRGC’s newest commander, Ahmad Vahidi, was killed in his bunker by an American bomb over the weekend. True? Dunno. We’ll probably learn soon enough. Vahidi became the IRGC Commander in March of this year after his predecessor, Mohammad Pakpour, was successfully blown up. Who’s available to step-up into the job now? I guess we’ll find that out soon enough, too.

Speaking of targets, we also learned that President Trump was targeted for assassination by Iran (surprise surprise) upon leaving last week’s NATO confab in Turkey — Israeli intel informed him — necessitating that switcheroo between the new Air Force One gifted by Qatar, and the good old baby-blue Air Force One just recently retired from service going all the way back to Bush One. The old plane had better defensive weaponry aboard, our officials explained.

If I were president of our country, at this point in the quarrel with Iran, I’d consider just dropping Graham Platner over Tehran. And if that fails to get their minds right, follow-up with Rosie O’Donnell and Ana Navarro.

James Howard Kunstler

Is Economic Illiteracy Fueling the Rise of Socialism?

Over the past several years, polling agencies and pundits have documented a disturbing trend: Increasingly, many Americans – especially young Americans – are struggling to comprehend the most foundational principles of economics. This growing economic illiteracy could have a potentially devastating effect on not only the country’s economic future, but its political identity and American democracy itself.

In 2022, the Cato Institute found that voters “displayed a depressing lack of understanding of basic economics,” especially when it came to the issue of inflation. This problem was particularly pronounced among young voters. In an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute Samuel J. Abrams wrote that “large shares of young adults [are] unable to define inflation, explain supply constraints, or predict the effects of price controls.”

This decline in economic literacy has coincided with a dramatic rise in support for collectivist ideals – more specifically, socialist and communist policies. Polling by the organization Victims of Communism conducted in 2020 found that around 40 percent of Americans viewed socialism favorably.

Additionally, in 2025, a Cato/YouGov poll found that around 62 percent of people under the age of 30 held a favorable view of socialism with 34 percent having a favorable view of communism – the ideology responsible for roughly 100 million deaths in the 20th century alone. Poll after poll shows that Americans are embracing the false promise of the “warmth of collectivism” at an alarming rate, and that the shift toward socialism is being driven by profound ignorance about basic economic realities and the universal historical record of failure of socialist regimes.

Yet there is still hope. The antidote to fallacy, confusion, and collectivist temptation is knowledge and education – specifically about economics, a discipline that was once a major part of American civic life. Anyone can learn the basics of economics, or further his or her understanding.

But before making the case as to why one should study economics, it is important to begin by briefly taking a step back to answer another important question: What is economics? The word “economics” is derived from the Greek word oikonomia, meaning “household management.” To the ancient Greeks, particularly the thinkers Aristotle and Xenophon, the idea of oikonomia was centered on people’s stewardship of resources such that they could flourish and live a good life.

Today, economics has evolved far beyond its ancient roots. It’s also a social science, concerned not with abstract equations or sterile statistics, but with human beings and the choices they make. As the late Austrian economist Percy L. Greaves, Jr. once said, “Economics is not a dry subject. It is not a dismal subject. It is not about statistics.”

As Greaves points out, economics “is about human life. It is about the ideas that motivate human beings. It is about how men act from birth until death. It is about the most important and interesting drama of all — human action.” Economics is concerned with people, their interactions with others, and how those interpersonal relationships affect the ability of a society to produce, deliver, and consume goods and services.

More specifically, economics studies how people interact, cooperate, and respond to incentives. As a field of study, it is concerned with revealing the truth and principles that allow people to find answers to problems through business and commerce.

The study of economics does not teach what the “right” policy decisions are. The “right” tax rate or interest rate is ultimately a subjective judgment. Rather, as Shawn Ritenour, a professor of economics at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, puts it, “The object of economics is to discover economic principles that are true, so that policies developed in light of those principles will be suitable for achieving our goals.”

Learning economics helps us understand ourselves and the world around us. These principles are not academic abstractions. They explain the world as it is. Nobel laureate Gary Becker once said, “[Economics] will be judged on how well it helps us understand the world – and how it helps us improve it.”

The basic principles of economics go a long way toward illuminating why things are the way they are in our world. Take, for example, the famous law of supply and demand, which explains why prices rise and fall. When there is a low supply of a good and demand is high, the price of that good increases. When supply increases, the price falls.

This lesson is probably one that most Americans remember from Econ 101 – although certain members of Congress could probably use a refresher. But most Americans likely don’t know much about the law of scarcity, which outlines concepts like opportunity cost, incentives, and the margin, or the law of marginal utility, which reveals why we’re more satisfied with the first unit of a good we consume than the sixth.

These and various other economic principles can help us understand why certain individual actions and government policies have the effect that they do – and in turn make us more informed citizens and voters.

Increasing our society’s understanding of economics also helps people better detect economic fallacies and understand their damaging impact. As the economist Henry Hazlitt wrote, “Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident.”

Hazlitt hits the mark when looking at today’s situation. Socialist politicians make their case by appealing to economic fallacies – such as the idea that the government can provide anything for “free” – so they can present themselves as self-anointed saviors that can solve all of society’s problems. These fallacies are built on ideas that conflict with reality and are easily recognizable to anyone with a basic understanding of economics.

The study of economics also reveals an important truth: economic freedom and political freedom are inseparable from one another. Milton Friedman saw this when he authored his book Capitalism and Freedom.

“Economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society,” Friedman wrote. “On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.”

Free market societies recognize individuals as self-governing in their capacity to make decisions through voluntary cooperation, not through the threat of coercion. Hazlitt made this point when he wrote Man vs The Welfare State. “The solution to our problems is not more paternalism, laws, decrees, and controls,” Hazlitt argued, “but the restoration of liberty and free enterprise.”

From the Soviet Union to Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, the historical record of collectivism is grim indeed. Even China, now the world’s second-largest economy, has only been able to succeed insofar as it has introduced market-oriented reforms to its socialist system. Still, U.S. per capita GDP remains roughly 6.5 times greater than China’s.

Economic freedom isn’t simply a policy preference. As Friedman said, it is a “necessary condition” for a free society, paving the way for human flourishing. A society that is economically literate understands that liberty cannot survive on economic myths. It survives on citizens who understand the principles that make freedom possible.

AMAC Newsline, Hunter Oswald

Strange Things Are Happening

On one hand, we are winning the war with Iran. On the other hand, the Vice President seems to be at odds with the administration.

On one hand, we are winning the war with Iran. This week, bombings greatly accelerated and are not likely to end without real capitulation and surrender. On the other hand, the Vice President seems to be at odds with the administration, unhappy that we are in a (winning) war and casting blame for the failure of his peace effort, which is really only Iran’s fault.

On one hand, the President has declassified documents credibly showing foreign influence and interference with our elections. On the other hand, major news outlets seem determined to keep their viewers from knowing this. If viewers did know how insecure our elections are, they might support remediation measures — like SAVE — to the detriment of the media’s darlings, the Democrats, whose decades-long election cheating is manifest.

Donald J. Trump • O

@realDonaldTrump I know why Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, and Alex Jones have all been fighting me for years, especially by the fact that they think it is wonderful for Iran, the Number One State Sponsor of Terror, to have a Nuclear Weapon — Because they have one thing in common, Low IQs. They’re stupid people, they know it, their families know it, and everyone else knows it, too! Look at their past, look at their record. They don’t have what it takes, and they never did!

The president has made clear that he regards what are known as the groypers as stupid and not worth paying attention to:

Yet, this week Vice President Vance, who has yet to distance himself from Tucker Carlson, had a lengthy three-hour interview with Joe Rogan in which he blamed Israel for the war in Iran and, by inference, suggested the President is a tool of Israel.

Vice President JD Vance needs to get his head out of the conspiratorial “rabbit holes” he says he loves to explore and drop the bizarro line he just pitched to Joe Rogan that the Israelis blew up the Iran peace deal because they want “to keep the war going on indefinitely.”

It was Iran that broke the 60-day “comprehensive cease-fire” established by the Memorandum of Understanding by attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz, period: No Jews involved.

Before the ink was dry on the MOU, which guaranteed open passage through the Strait of Hormuz, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard asserted Tehran’s control and ownership of the waterway and warned that merchant ships must obtain its OK to transit; then it started firing on vessels that didn’t comply.

It was Iran that broke the 60-day “comprehensive cease-fire” established by the Memorandum of Understanding by attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz, period: No Jews involved.

Before the ink was dry on the MOU, which guaranteed open passage through the Strait of Hormuz, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard asserted Tehran’s control and ownership of the waterway and warned that merchant ships must obtain its OK to transit; then it started firing on vessels that didn’t comply.

My own view, for what little it may be worth, is that Trump and Rubio never thought it possible to negotiate peace on our terms with Iran. Vance insisted we could, and Trump allowed him to try it, letting him give it his best shot. The result was a meaningless Memorandum of Understanding which Iran immediately violated. While Vance was negotiating, however, Plan B was further developed — strategies to force Iran to do what we wanted — opening the Strait to shipping and foregoing nuclear capability forever. The Vance negotiations allowed Trump more time to work with Iran’s neighbors to encourage them to join us and offer them protection from anticipated Iranian aggression while setting in play steps to keep oil flowing to prevent a worldwide economic catastrophe. Vance willingly but naively believed in his mission. No one else in the Administration did, although they did nothing to undercut him. If he succeeded, it was good. If he failed — and he certainly did because the task was futile from the outset — he bore the brunt of it. Now, because of his own naivete, he’s exposed as unfit to handle defense matters, which is, after all, the most important role of a chief executive.

To the shame of ABC, NBC and CNN, none of these outlets carried the President’s address this week. Clayton Wood spells out the networks’ failings:

This is not a network declining to air a stump speech or a policy pitch dressed up as news. Obama’s 2014 immigration address was Obama telling the country what he intended to do next. Biden’s 2022 speech was Biden characterizing his political opponents as a threat to the republic. Both of those were arguments. Tonight was a president presenting documents, ordering federal agencies to investigate them, and inviting the public to read the underlying material for themselves at a public website. No network has ever before declined to carry a president’s own documentary disclosure live. They have only ever declined to carry his rhetoric.

Strip away the spin and look at what that decision actually communicated. Three of the six major networks decided, on their own authority, that the American people should not see their own president lay out evidence in his own words, live, unfiltered, and unedited. They decided the public was better served by a curated summary after the fact, written by the same institutions that had already decided what to think about it before a single document was reviewed. That is not neutral journalism protecting the public from misinformation. That is a handful of executives deciding the public cannot be trusted to watch and think for themselves.

If you want the details of the President’s address, they can be found here: The President declassified documents that show China’s alleged election meddling, detail our election infrastructure vulnerabilities, provide evidence of fraud and non-citizen voting, and allege the perfidy of members of the intelligence community in deliberately hiding from the president evidence of Chinese influence and interference in our elections. Among the revelations are these:

China purchased and hacked – mostly illicitly acquired – 220 million voter files, including addresses, Social Security numbers, birth dates, and phone numbers.

 China was alleged to compile intelligence to force resignations or block reelection in order to disrupt the 2019 midterms and the 2020 election.

”Electronic voting and vote counting machines are unreliable and hackable, and… officials knew it, naming Russia, North Korea and China as capable actors…Venezuela’s government used voting machines to digitally manipulate the 2020 count [in their country] in a way immune to audit detection.”

There is substantial evidence of Michigan voter registration fraud. 278,000 non-citizens are registered to vote, and because Democrat-led states are withholding information, the actual count is probably higher.

I am certain more revelations are to come with the seizure of Georgia’s voting records, the ongoing grand juries in Florida, and the likelihood of Maduro and his former aides talking to federal investigators. Maybe our largest news organizations will find it fit to actually report them. If not, the alternate media certainly will.

Move Over, Wall Street — Here Come the Texas Longhorns

The New York Stock Exchange opened its doors over 230 years ago. It has been one of the iconic symbols of America’s economic might for more than two centuries.

But for how much longer?

Now the challenge for supremacy isn’t coming from London or Tokyo or Hong Kong or Beijing. It’s coming from Texas.

The Wall Street Journal reported in recent days that the Texas Stock Exchange is now officially open for business, and trading is expected to start soon. Everything is big in Texas, as the saying goes, so New Yorkers should take this rival stock exchange seriously.

In some ways, the idea that Dallas could become the new financial center makes sense. Texas has no income tax. New York City has the highest income tax, capital gains tax and dividend tax. Mayor Zohran Mamdani is threatening even higher “soak the rich” tax increases as part of his goal of making NYC a socialist mecca. Housing will be free, groceries will be free, health care will be free, buses will be free.

This isn’t Democratic socialism. This is unmitigated socialism.

New York was already losing to Texas before any of this happened. Over the past decade, nearly 2 million residents of New York state have fled. Many of them are now in Texas. New York has lost almost $1 trillion of income cumulatively over the past 12 years.

How has Texas surpassed New York so quickly as a business haven? Almost 300 business headquarters have moved into Texas over the past decade.

First, Texas lured businesses out of New York with much lower taxes and business-friendly rules.

Second, it adopted legal structures making Texas a strategic state to incorporate in. It kept the trial lawyers at arm’s length to avoid costly and even crippling lawsuits.

And now comes the TXSE with the aim of dethroning Wall Street as the financial trading capital of the world.

I’ve warned the pols in New York many times that Wall Street can’t survive as the financial capital when Manhattan imposes the most punitive taxes in the nation on capital investment. This would be like Nebraska and Iowa putting hefty taxes on corn production. If you tax something, you get less of it.

Wall Street today pales in comparison to the bustling center of financial trading that it once was. Dallas already has as many financial service jobs as Manhattan. When New Yorkers voted for a socialist to run the city, it was as if they were signing a death sentence for the famous Wall Street bull. It isn’t just rich people who will be hurt if Wall Street continues to hemorrhage jobs. Right now, more than 150,000 New Yorkers’ jobs are tied to the stock exchange and financial trading. Thousands more lower-income service workers are dependent on Wall Street’s success.

The socialists think this is all unfair given the high Wall Street salaries.

So the socialist parasites are now killing the host.

The mystery is why this exodus from Wall Street has taken so long. Why do companies keep paying the New York income tax bills when they and their workers can pay zero income tax deep in the heart of Texas?

Sadly, over two centuries after the birth of the NYSE, Wall Street could become a ghost town. No jumping out of the windows as during the October 1929 crash, but by 2029, there may not be much of a Wall Street left.

Meanwhile, all the Ivy League professors at Columbia University still assure the Mamdanis of the world that taxes don’t matter and socialism is a viable form of economic governance. New Yorkers will learn the hard way just how wrong the socialist intellectuals are.

Stephen Moore, Hotair

Appeals Court Lifts USPS Mail-In Ballot Block, in Win for Trump

A federal appeals court on Friday cleared the way for the U.S. Postal Service to continue developing a Trump-backed rule that could sharply limit mail-in voting, temporarily staying a nationwide block issued weeks earlier by a district judge who found the proposal breached a 2021 settlement with the NAACP.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the Postal Service’s motion to pause a July 1 injunction from U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, a Clinton nominee.

Sullivan had concluded the proposed rule violated the settlement’s requirement that the Postal Service take “extraordinary measures” to deliver election mail through 2028.

The panel found USPS likely to succeed on two grounds, ruling the NAACP’s challenge is “likely neither constitutionally nor prudentially ripe for review” because the rule has not been finalized, and that the proposal likely would not breach the settlement even if adopted.

It also credited the government’s warning that leaving the injunction in place would prevent USPS from issuing a final rule before the November election, Democracy Docket reported.

The proposed rule flows from President Donald Trump’s March 31 executive order, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.”

It directs the Department of Homeland Security, working with the Social Security Administration, to build state-by-state lists of verified U.S. citizens eligible to vote, and directs USPS to withhold mail-in and absentee ballots from voters not on those lists.

Under the USPS proposal published June 2, state and local officials would upload voter data through a federal portal, and every ballot envelope would carry a unique barcode tied to a specific voter.

Postmaster General David Steiner told a Senate panel last month the agency would refuse to carry ballots for states that decline to share voter rolls.