Leftist Democrats are not against tyranny. They are against the loss of their own power to rule over others. They do not want individual rights; they want despotism where THEY control schools, media, culture and the outcome of elections. They want one-Party rule–their Party. Notice how their protests do not call for a Constitutional Bill of Rights. They do not call for private property, free markets, low taxes, free speech, freedom of worship, the right to bear arms or freedom of choice in health care and education. They call for complete control over every single area of our lives. Worse than most kings, leftists demand totalitarian dictatorship. They falsely portray President Trump as a monarch while offering us a fusion of Hitler, Sharia Law and Stalin as their alternative. It’s a spectacular display of ignorance and arrogance to watch these fools scream for freedom while (whenever in power) practicing its complete annihilation.

How pitiful to be so lacking in principles, ideology, any kind of practical program (other than Communism), or lacking any inspirational idea, slogan or leader that all you can come up with is: “No Kings.” Of course, if an entire multi-billion dollar industry we still reverently label “journalism” drools and fawns over you like you’re the greatest geniuses in the history of the galaxy, I suppose you might think you’re on to something big.

Poor ignorant little totalitarians. They think they are so enlightened, sophisticated and smart–and they desperately hope everyone watching them thinks so, too. They are the architects of their own destruction–and our own, if we don’t keep fighting their petty little emotions which they mistake for principles.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Did you hear that we marched against “kings” this weekend? Yes, who knows how many reminded us that they hate kings, dictators, authoritarians, and anything that rhymes with Trump. Yes, anything that rhymes with Trump.

At the same time, please forgive some of us if we think that this bunch of marchers is just a little crazy, as Sasha Stone told us:

“If the rule you are following has led you to this, of what use was the rule?”

“Do you have any idea how crazy you are?”

“You mean the nature of this conversation?”

“I mean the nature of you.”

So goes an exchange in No Country for Old Men, but it’s a conversation the Democrats might have with themselves as they gather for yet another protest after ten years of them. If the rule you are following has led you to this, of what use was the rule?”

Protests are meant to be the voices of the unheard. Yet these protests are the voices of those who never shut up. Not for one minute, not for ten years, and all of us have had to endure them like being trapped inside Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory with hundreds of thousands of Veruca Salts.

What are their No Kings protests anyway? What have they been since 2016? What are they trying to say? Is it like the ex who smashes all the dishes in the kitchen when her husband tries to leave? I won’t be ignored, DONALD.

What’s the point of it? To what end now? Of what use was the rule?

The voices of the unheard? More like the side that had everything. All the media, all the institutions, all the culture, and for a time, all of the government. The people had only Trump.

They had him and elected him. The other side lost the election and lost it badly. The man they claim to be a king, or dictator, or whatever other word you speak of, was the one who won the popular vote, carried 40 states, and 80-something percent of counties. Did I tell you that he got the US Senate and House?

What’s the point of marching against a king that we don’t have? Well, there is no point in these marches other than that we hate Trump and we hate him more than ever.

So, the marches will pass until the next time we march again. The media will tell us that millions marched and that this is some kind of movement. The real movement is the people going on with their normal lives and watching their kids play high school football or cheer Ohtani hitting three home runs.

Silvio Canto, Jr., American Thinker

By John D. Guandolo

People living in the West need to understand the Muslim mindset.

At a time when America finds itself dealing with pro-terrorist rallies on college campuses, the U.S. government providing military arms and equipment to Islamic countries, and Americans deeply concerned about impending terrorist threats and Islamic law (sharia) being imposed and adjudicated in local communities, how does the average person come to understand these issues? How can an effective solution be reached when few really seem to know what is going on?

Knowing Sharia Matters

It is helpful to begin with the understanding that the Islamic world sees everything through the same lens. That lens is sharia.

In Islam, sharia — “Allah’s divine law” — is the blueprint for how to live. It is what Islam seeks to impose on the Earth.

At the geopolitical level, every Muslim nation on earth is a party to the OIC — the Organization for Islamic Cooperation. The OIC is made up of every Islamic nation on earth (56) plus the “State of Palestine.” The OIC is the largest voting bloc in the United Nations.

In 1990, the OIC approved and in 1993 officially served to the United Nations “The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.” In it, every Muslim nation on Earth at the head of state and king level declared to the world that its only understanding of “human rights” is sharia.

In fact, the last article in the Cairo Declaration states, “The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.”

In its doctrine, publications, public statements, videos, and other pronouncements, the leaders of the Islamic State (formerly ISIS), al-Qaeda, Hezb’allah, Hamas, and the other military jihadi organizations on the planet state that they exist to impose Islam.

Sayfullo Saipov, the jihadi who plowed a truck over people on a New York City bike path in October 2017, killing eight people and wounding over a dozen others, stated in open court, “I care about Allah and the holy war being waged by the Islamic State. … The Islamic State is not fighting for land, like some say, or, like some say, for oil.  They have one purpose, and they’re fighting to impose sharia on Earth.”

In 2013, Terry Lee Loewen, a convert to Islam, attempted to blow up a commercial airliner at the Wichita (Kansas) airport.  In response to questioning as to the motive, Loewen stated, “I have been studying subjects like jihad, martyrdom operations, and sharia law.  I don’t understand how you can read the Quran and the Sunnah of the prophet and not understand that jihad and the implementation of sharia is absolutely demanded of all the Muslim ummah [the global Muslim community].”

The most widely used text book to teach 7th-grade Muslim children about Islam in U.S. Islamic schools is titled What Islam is All About.  The children are taught that jihad is a duty for all Muslims and must be waged to establish an Islamic state under sharia.  Specifically, this book states, “Islam is not merely a religion, however, but a complete way of life. … The basis of the legal and political system is the sharia of Allah. … The law of the land is the sharia of Allah. … The duty of Muslim citizens is to be loyal to the Islamic State. … If anyone dies in jihad they are promised Paradise.”

Translating English to English through Sharia

Islam allows Muslim leaders to speak to an audience of Muslims and non-Muslims and have two different messages sent simultaneously.  This is possible because most non-Muslims have not taken the time to actually understand sharia, despite the fact it is the blueprint for how Islam lives, behaves, and wages war, and sharia is what Islam seeks to impose on the Earth for all Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Knowing terminology as defined by sharia drastically changes the understanding of reality on the ground by non-Muslim audiences.

As noted previously, Islam officially defines “human rights” as the imposition of sharia.

“Peace” in Islam is the state that exists when the entire world is under the control of sharia under a caliphate.

“Innocent” — only muslims are considered innocent in Islam.

“Terrorism” is killing a Muslim without the right to do so under sharia.  Sharia allows Muslims to be killed for specific reasons — apostasy, adultery, etc.  Anyone who kills Muslims outside sharia-prescribed reasons is a terrorist.

Therefore, when muslim leaders speak on television, or to any mixed audience of Muslims and non-Muslims, and make a statement such as “We call for an end to all terrorism, for the protection of all innocents and human rights to be protect across the world, because we want peace,” it means something very different to the non-Muslim audience from what it means to the Muslims.

As the current administration works toward “peace treaties” with Islamic nations, provides them with military weaponry, and continues using terms like “violent extremists” instead of “Muslims” or “jihadis” they may want to consider reading what sharia has to say about truces, treaties, and showing weakness.

American leaders may discover that we are losing a war while most of them do not seem to have any idea we are even in one.

Sayfullo Saipov, the jihadi who plowed a truck over people on a New York City bike path in October 2017, killing eight people and wounding over a dozen others, stated in open court, “I care about Allah and the holy war being waged by the Islamic State. … The Islamic State is not fighting for land, like some say, or, like some say, for oil.  They have one purpose, and they’re fighting to impose sharia on Earth.”

In 2013, Terry Lee Loewen, a convert to Islam, attempted to blow up a commercial airliner at the Wichita (Kansas) airport.  In response to questioning as to the motive, Loewen stated, “I have been studying subjects like jihad, martyrdom operations, and sharia law.  I don’t understand how you can read the Quran and the Sunnah of the prophet and not understand that jihad and the implementation of sharia is absolutely demanded of all the Muslim ummah [the global Muslim community].”

The most widely used text book to teach 7th-grade Muslim children about Islam in U.S. Islamic schools is titled What Islam is All About.  The children are taught that jihad is a duty for all Muslims and must be waged to establish an Islamic state under sharia.  Specifically, this book states, “Islam is not merely a religion, however, but a complete way of life. … The basis of the legal and political system is the sharia of Allah. … The law of the land is the sharia of Allah. … The duty of Muslim citizens is to be loyal to the Islamic State. … If anyone dies in jihad they are promised Paradise.”

Translating English to English through Sharia

Islam allows Muslim leaders to speak to an audience of Muslims and non-Muslims and have two different messages sent simultaneously.  This is possible because most non-Muslims have not taken the time to actually understand sharia, despite the fact it is the blueprint for how Islam lives, behaves, and wages war, and sharia is what Islam seeks to impose on the Earth for all Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Knowing terminology as defined by sharia drastically changes the understanding of reality on the ground by non-Muslim audiences.

As noted previously, Islam officially defines “human rights” as the imposition of sharia.

“Peace” in Islam is the state that exists when the entire world is under the control of sharia under a caliphate.

“Innocent” — only muslims are considered innocent in Islam.

“Terrorism” is killing a Muslim without the right to do so under sharia.  Sharia allows Muslims to be killed for specific reasons — apostasy, adultery, etc.  Anyone who kills Muslims outside sharia-prescribed reasons is a terrorist.

Therefore, when muslim leaders speak on television, or to any mixed audience of Muslims and non-Muslims, and make a statement such as “We call for an end to all terrorism, for the protection of all innocents and human rights to be protect across the world, because we want peace,” it means something very different to the non-Muslim audience from what it means to the Muslims.

As the current administration works toward “peace treaties” with Islamic nations, provides them with military weaponry, and continues using terms like “violent extremists” instead of “Muslims” or “jihadis” they may want to consider reading what sharia has to say about truces, treaties, and showing weakness.

American leaders may discover that we are losing a war while most of them do not seem to have any idea we are even in one.

By John D. Guandolo

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt really got under Democrats’ reptilian skin last week when she correctly noted, “The Democrat party’s main constituency is made up of Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals.”   Botoxed and unnaturally preserved devil-worshipers from Nancy Pelosi’s generation haven’t been this worked up since President Lincoln freed their slaves.  House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries did his best Greta Thunberg impression by sinisterly glaring at television cameras and slinging “How dare you?” insults in Leavitt’s direction.  There’s nothing that Democrats despise more than a person willing to tell the truth. 

It will be interesting to see whether Democrats’ main constituent groups — illegal aliens, violent criminals, Antifa terrorists, rabid communists, and Islamic jihadists — show up for the vaunted “No Kings” protests being staged around the country on October 18.  Previous iterations of this loony leftist “primal scream” have mainly attracted geriatric women reliving their “free love” hippie days and cuckolded manservants carrying their wives’ purses.  

It’s strange seeing so many old white people gathered in one place as if they were part of some wandering nursing home whose handlers (the same ones who fill out residents’ mail-in ballots) replaced patients’ daily pill cups with adrenaline shots and spiked the early-dine pudding rations with geezer rage.  An impartial observer could be forgiven for assuming that the gates to these Potemkin protests include an exclusionary post: “To enter, you must have fond memories of President Roosevelt (Theodore or Franklin) and have skin so pasty-white that you are easily confused for a corpse.”  After two decades during which the Democrat party has run on an explicitly racist platform — We hate white people, and we are entitled to steal everything they have — I suppose it makes sense that Democrats still retain so much support from those old enough to remember the Confederacy.

The October 18 “No Kings” extravaganza has been billed as the Democrats’ glitziest event of the year.  Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer — who is reportedly desperate to stave off a primary challenge from the hammer and sickle brigades running his party — has refused to fund the federal government until Democrats’ cosplaying “revolutionaries” can partake in at least one id-fest that permits their assorted criminals to burn down businesses and trash city streets. 

However, there’s only so much mayhem the Matlock and Murder, She Wrote contingents can unleash when so many drooling participants must nap between protest chants and visits to the restroom.  Previous “No Kings” performances have had all the pizzazz of a last-minute casting call for zombie extras in The Walking Dead.  

If Chuck and Hakeem really want to make a statement, they’ll let the tens of millions of criminal illegal aliens go wild on the streets of America and ask New York City mayor-to-be Zohran Mamdani to release his jihadi hordes.  Nothing says, “We love America” and “We should run the government” like a bunch of foreigners and anarchists screaming, “We hate America!” and “We must burn America to the ground!”  Leave it to the Democrats to habitually take sides with America’s enemies.  

In anticipation of the Democrat party’s latest day of rage,  Los Angeles County has declared a “state of emergency” over Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in the area, so that Democrat politicians can give illegal aliens “free” money.  That’s right, Democrat officials in California and other pro-crime death traps steal money from American citizens in the form of taxes so that they can pay illegal aliens to violate U.S. immigration laws.  

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt really got under Democrats’ reptilian skin last week when she correctly noted, “The Democrat party’s main constituency is made up of Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals.”   Botoxed and unnaturally preserved devil-worshipers from Nancy Pelosi’s generation haven’t been this worked up since President Lincoln freed their slaves.  House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries did his best Greta Thunberg impression by sinisterly glaring at television cameras and slinging “How dare you?” insults in Leavitt’s direction.  There’s nothing that Democrats despise more than a person willing to tell the truth. 

It will be interesting to see whether Democrats’ main constituent groups — illegal aliens, violent criminals, Antifa terrorists, rabid communists, and Islamic jihadists — show up for the vaunted “No Kings” protests being staged around the country on October 18.  Previous iterations of this loony leftist “primal scream” have mainly attracted geriatric women reliving their “free love” hippie days and cuckolded manservants carrying their wives’ purses.  

It’s strange seeing so many old white people gathered in one place as if they were part of some wandering nursing home whose handlers (the same ones who fill out residents’ mail-in ballots) replaced patients’ daily pill cups with adrenaline shots and spiked the early-dine pudding rations with geezer rage.  An impartial observer could be forgiven for assuming that the gates to these Potemkin protests include an exclusionary post: “To enter, you must have fond memories of President Roosevelt (Theodore or Franklin) and have skin so pasty-white that you are easily confused for a corpse.”  After two decades during which the Democrat party has run on an explicitly racist platform — We hate white people, and we are entitled to steal everything they have — I suppose it makes sense that Democrats still retain so much support from those old enough to remember the Confederacy.

The October 18 “No Kings” extravaganza has been billed as the Democrats’ glitziest event of the year.  Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer — who is reportedly desperate to stave off a primary challenge from the hammer and sickle brigades running his party — has refused to fund the federal government until Democrats’ cosplaying “revolutionaries” can partake in at least one id-fest that permits their assorted criminals to burn down businesses and trash city streets. 

However, there’s only so much mayhem the Matlock and Murder, She Wrote contingents can unleash when so many drooling participants must nap between protest chants and visits to the restroom.  Previous “No Kings” performances have had all the pizzazz of a last-minute casting call for zombie extras in The Walking Dead.  

If Chuck and Hakeem really want to make a statement, they’ll let the tens of millions of criminal illegal aliens go wild on the streets of America and ask New York City mayor-to-be Zohran Mamdani to release his jihadi hordes.  Nothing says, “We love America” and “We should run the government” like a bunch of foreigners and anarchists screaming, “We hate America!” and “We must burn America to the ground!”  Leave it to the Democrats to habitually take sides with America’s enemies.  

In anticipation of the Democrat party’s latest day of rage,  Los Angeles County has declared a “state of emergency” over Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in the area, so that Democrat politicians can give illegal aliens “free” money.  That’s right, Democrat officials in California and other pro-crime death traps steal money from American citizens in the form of taxes so that they can pay illegal aliens to violate U.S. immigration laws.  

Ironically, the same Democrats who refuse to call the arrival of tens of millions of foreign nationals an “invasion” have no problem smearing federal law enforcement officers with that label.  Illinois governor “Jabba the Pritzker” (hat tip to James Howard Kunstler for that gem) has repeatedly complained that President Trump’s mobilization of National Guard troops to protect federal property and the lives of federal agents constitutes an “invasion.”  Jabba the Pritzker also insists that President Trump is Adolf Hitler reincarnated and that ICE agents are acting as his Nazi Gestapo.  

This is how far down the demented rabbit hole Democrats have dragged us.  A prominent Democrat politician seeking his party’s 2028 presidential nomination has no problem with rapists, murderers, narco-terrorists, human-smugglers, or sex-traffickers taking advantage of Democrats’ open borders policies to spread death and destruction across the United States.  All those vile creatures are welcome in Illinois, California, Oregon, Massachusetts, New York, and wherever else Democrat politicians turn human misery into political power and personal profit.  But if the president of the United States faithfully executes the duties of his office by preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution and safeguarding the lives and properties of the citizens of the United States, then Democrats will accuse him of being a “Nazi” and “invading” their lawless states.

J. B. Shurk, American Thinker

Wall Street Apes @WallStreetApes White House confirms Democrats have been lying, Illegals are on Medicaid

Dr. Oz, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CONFIRMS “We have proven that there’s been over a billion dollars — paid by U.S. taxpayers for illegal immigrants in about half a dozen states.”

“We’re just getting started. So it’s going to be significantly more money than that.”

Can you imagine what it was like to be one of the hostages held by Hamas for more than two years? Can you imagine the fear, the sense of having no control, the humiliation, the deprivation? Can you imagine living underground day after day, month after month, cut off from family and friends, knowing that this living hell could go on for years?

Very few of us have experienced anything remotely close to what these hostages experienced, which makes their resilience and courage all the more amazing. What can they teach us about life? What lessons can we learn from them?

Without question, most of them face a long road to recovery before life can be fully normal again. And sometimes internal wounds heal much more slowly than external wounds. Yet even now, their stories are inspiring courage and strength among others, as their very release has invigorated a nation that has lived in collective trauma since October 7, 2023.

Eli Sharabi endured 491 days in captivity before his release, determined to survive his ordeal for his wife and two teenage daughters, from whom he was separated on October 7 when Hamas took over Kibbutz Be’eri.

He assured them he would be back as the terrorists dragged him away, feeling confident that not even Hamas would take women and children hostage, also hoping that their British passports would save their lives. He also wanted to be strong for his older brother Yossi, who lived in the same Kibbutz and worked for years side by side with Eli.

Eli has now shared his story in the gripping book titled Hostage. (If you enjoy audiobooks, the reading of Sharabi’s story by Geoffrey Cantor is incredibly moving.)

What was one of the keys to Sharabi’s survival? He said to himself, as well as to the other hostages with whom he was imprisoned at times, “There is always a choice. You always have a choice.”

It was true that they had no choice in terms of being prisoners of Hamas. They were captured against their wills, kept shackled against their wills, dragged into dungeons against their wills, stripped and humiliated against their wills, separated from their loved ones against their wills, and deprived of adequate food against their wills.

Yet even as lowly hostages, they had a choice: Will I cave in emotionally and let fear win? Will I give way to despair and lose all hope? Will I throw a pity party for myself? Will I believe the negative reports being shared by the captors, reports that Israel had forgotten about the hostages, that the nation had lost its will to fight, that it was suffering terrible losses to Hezbollah and to Iran?

Some of the hostages were given the choice of getting adequate food if they would convert to Islam. Would they let hunger override their moral and religious convictions?

Some of the hostages were people of faith, others much more secular. Yet each of them made choices every day, choices to survive, choices that said to Hamas, “Even though you have power over our bodies, you do not have power over our minds and souls. That is why, we will make it to the end.”

Eli Sharabi’s story was especially cruel, as, just days before his release, he learned from a Hamas captor that his brother Yossi had been murdered on October 7. Yossi was gone!

Then, on his way to meet his family with his IDF escorts, he was told, “Your mother and sister are waiting for you.”

His mother and sister? What about his wife and daughters? What about them? He was told that his mother and sister would explain.

It was only then that he learned that the light of his eyes and the joy of his life, his precious wife and daughters, had been slaughtered by the terrorists right there in the kibbutz. He would never see them again.

Remarkably, as unspeakably agonizing as this news was, he had already gone through every possibility in his mind during his long months in captivity, considering the possibility of this horrific news too. In that sense, as devastating as the loss was, he had already braced himself. Such was his resolve. (I must confess that I broke down weeping during this part of the story as I listened to the audio book, even though I already knew it was coming.)

What then, can we learn from these heroes?

First, like them, we always have a choice – in the midst of sickness, in the midst of loss, in the midst of pain, in the midst of betrayal, in the midst of deprivation, in the midst of whatever cruelties life brings. (A psychologist might object here, saying that in cases like clinical depression, people sometimes cannot choose to get out of the depression. For the record then, rather than play psychologist, I’m speaking to all of us who do have the ability to control our thoughts.)

We can choose to capitulate, to cease living, to throw in the towel for good. Or we can choose to get out of bed, to function (even if we feel like robots), to say, “I will survive!” And with God’s help, we can and we will.

Eli and his fellow-hostages determined to find something for which they could be thankful every day. That is a choice we too can make.

Second, we must remember that in many ways, these Israelis were already battle-tested, having faced rocket bombardments for years, having taken refuge in bomb shelters and safe rooms countless times, having served in the IDF, and having understood what it is to be hated by one’s surrounding neighbors.

And so, as no strangers to adversity, they understood that what did not kill them only made them stronger.

This reminds me of the words of Paul, who wrote that, we not only boast in our hope of the glory of God, “but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.” (Romans 5:3-4)

And it was Paul, whose sufferings for righteousness were almost beyond description (see 2 Corinthians 11:23-33), who wrote to his young disciple Timothy, saying, “Take your share of suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 2:3)

There are lessons here for us!

Dr. Michael Brown

On Thursday, Senate Democrats voted for the 10th time to prolong the federal government shutdown. They also voted against funding the military, thereby necessitating that the Pentagon initiate some innovative accounting in order to ensure service members are paid on time.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) defended his caucus’s latest vote, opining, “It’s always been unacceptable to Democrats to do the defense bill without other bills that have so many things that are important to the American people in terms of health care, in terms of housing, in terms of safety.” But to most Americans, such tendentious bloviating falls on deaf ears. Most commonsense Americans understand that there is no reason paying America’s warriors should be held hostage to arcane debates over housing policy.

As Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), one of three Senate Democrats who joined Republicans on Thursday in support of the defense appropriations bill, put it earlier this week: “You know, if you’re thinking about winning the election, now, that’s all going to come down to seven or eight states. … And a lot of the things, the extremism that people turned their back in ’24, and that’s how we kind of came up short.”

It’s wise advice. But Fetterman is likely to pay for being such a rare voice of (relative) reason within the party with an impending bruising Senate primary contest.

Why exactly are Democrats, who control neither chamber of Congress nor the presidency, continuing to insist on a protracted shutdown battle? It’s a more complex question than it ought to be. But the basic disagreement amounts to one over expiring Obamacare subsidies and the scope of Medicaid coverage — pertaining, to no small extent, to illegal aliens.

In short, then, air traffic control operations are suffering from a potentially dangerous shortage, America’s beautiful national parks are understaffed, and service members could go without pay — all, seemingly, because Democrats think more taxpayer dollars should go toward subsidizing the health care of illegal aliens.

This is an astonishingly weak negotiating position. Minority parties completely out of power typically do not get what they want during high-profile Beltway budgetary standoffs or shutdown fights, and there is very little reason to expect Republicans to cave. As the shutdown goes on, moreover, the polling on which side is more to blame seems to be gradually shifting toward Democrats as the more blameworthy side.

It is far from obvious what exactly Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) expect to accomplish as the shutdown barrels ahead toward its third week. They are not going to prevail — and the longer it goes on, the worse political shape they will find themselves in.

Democrats seem to be unable to avoid tripping all over themselves.

On the issue of illegal immigration, the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to their agenda. A Harvard/Harris poll earlier this month revealed that 56% of registered voters support deporting all illegal aliens, and 78% support deporting criminal illegal aliens. On the question of taxpayer subsidization of the genital mutilation and chemical castration procedures often euphemistically referred to as “gender-affirming care,” another culture war sticking point, another recent poll showed that 66% of Americans are in opposition. The polling on biological male participation in women’s sports is even starker.

Illegal immigration and gender radicalism are perhaps the two least popular issues right now for Democrats. Yet they are arguably the two issues most at the forefront of the current Beltway standoff — or at least the debate over the scope of taxpayer funding is.

Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military strategist, famously taught that a battle is won before it is fought by choosing the terrain on which it is fought. President Donald Trump, the decadeslong branding and marketing genius, already has a keen knack for framing issues in such a way — the art of the 80-20 issue, as this column has called it. And Democrats seem all too eager to make his job easier by choosing the side whose loss is a foregone conclusion.

What gives?

A rational political party interested in self-preservation and electoral success would certainly take a different approach. Such a party would ditch the post-2008 obsession with identity politics and wokeism and revert to the Clinton-era message of economic growth and cultural centrism.

That Democratic leadership is so woefully incapable of doing this, even following Trump’s resounding triumph last November across all the major swing states, indicates that the party is not currently guided by rational calculations. Democrats today are guided not by sober empiricism but by fanciful ideology.

The biggest reason that Trump prevailed in the contentious 2016 Republican presidential primary and has won so much popular support since is that he had little use for abstract ideology. He saw the American people as they are, and he sought to serve them.

Democrats would be wise to follow suit.

Josh Hammer, Real Clear Politics

By Ariel Zeldin

NBC News veteran Andrea Mitchell was scorched online after she appeared to credit the Biden administration for the Gaza peace deal brokered by President Trump.

The 78-year-old host thanked former Secretary of State Antony Blinken for his work “creating the basis for the agreement once the two sides were finally prepared to compromise — we hope!” — a message that many read as giving the Biden team credit for Trump’s breakthrough.

“Thank you for spending two years working toward this moment,” Mitchell wrote Monday on X in a reply to a post by Blinken.

Trump announced the cease-fire last week, calling it the start of a broader push to end the years-long conflict between Israel and Hamas.

The truce led to the release of the last 20 living Israeli hostages and marked the first phase of his 20-point peace plan.

Critics across social media accused Mitchell of twisting credit away from Trump and rewriting the origins of the agreement.

“That time Andrea Mitchell thanks Blinken and Biden over [current Secretary of State Marco] Rubio and Trump for the peace deal in Gaza. Just incredible,” journalist Joe Concha wrote on X.

Another X user wrote: “Sad, sad state of journalism. You’re embarrassing yourself, Andrea. Go home.”

Mitchell had yet to respond publicly to the backlash as of Tuesday afternoon. The Post has sought comment from NBC News.

Trump, visiting Egypt and Israel in recent days for a “Summit for Peace,” signed the formal cease-fire accord Monday alongside leaders from Egypt, Qatar and Turkey.

The president hailed the deal as “an end of an age of terror and death,” promising the agreement would deliver relief to civilians on both sides.

Libloather

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., stood by Virginia’s embattled Democratic attorney general candidate Jay Jones who sent text messages fantasizing about putting “two bullets” in his Republican rival’s head and also suggested his ‘fascist’ children should die as well.

As Jones faces mounting calls to drop out of his race because of the text scandal, with his GOP opponent going so far as saying he should disqualify himself at a Thursday night debate, Jeffries suggested that Jones already did the right thing by apologizing.

“The attorney general candidate has appropriately apologized for his remarks, and I know his remarks have been condemned across the board by Democrats in the commonwealth [of] Virginia and beyond,” said Jeffries, adding, “And that’s the right thing to do.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the office of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to ask whether he also stood by Jones but did not receive a response.

The Virginia attorney general’s race was rocked by resurfaced text messages sent by Jones to a colleague when he was serving as a state delegate. Jones texted Del. Carrie Coyner, R-Hopewell, in 2022, imagining a scenario where he would choose to kill then-House Speaker Todd Gilbert’s over Pol Pot or Adolf Hitler.

Jones wrote, “Three people, two bullets. Gilbert, Hitler and Pol Pot. Gilbert gets two bullets to the head.” He then added in a subsequent text, “Spoiler: put Gilbert in the crew with the two worst people you know and he receives both bullets every time.”

New York City braces for wealth flight with Mamdani’s political rise

Zohran Mamdani’s primary win in New York City’s mayoral race and proposal to raise taxes on millionaires have touched off fears of a new wave of wealth flight from the city. Yet so far, there is little evidence of a slowdown in high-end real estate or real wealth losses in New York.

Florida real estate brokers say they’ve seen a surge in inquiries from the New York wealthy looking to move to Miami or Palm Beach. Business owners are threatening to leave the city or close. And New York developers, caught in the crosshairs of Mamdani’s rent control platform, have banded together to fund Mamdani’s opponents in the November general election.

At the center of the economic concern is Mamdani’s so-called “millionaire tax.” He’s proposed an additional 2% tax on New Yorkers earning more than $1 million a year. Added to the city’s current top rate of 3.876%, the tax would bring the combined New York City and state tax to 16.776%, by far the highest in the country. The combined federal, state and city rate would be 53.776%.

And New York’s high earners won’t have to go to Florida to avoid the tax. They can simply move to neighboring Long Island or Westchester County or even New Jersey. Unlike New York state, New York City can’t tax people who work in the city but have their primary residence elsewhere.

“New York City can only tax its own residents,” said Jared Walczak, vice president of state projects at the Tax Foundation. “A high earner doesn’t need to give up the convenience of the city, they just need to move outside the five boroughs. Migration across city lines is the easiest.”

At the center of the economic concern is Mamdani’s so-called “millionaire tax.” He’s proposed an additional 2% tax on New Yorkers earning more than $1 million a year. Added to the city’s current top rate of 3.876%, the tax would bring the combined New York City and state tax to 16.776%, by far the highest in the country. The combined federal, state and city rate would be 53.776%.

And New York’s high earners won’t have to go to Florida to avoid the tax. They can simply move to neighboring Long Island or Westchester County or even New Jersey. Unlike New York state, New York City can’t tax people who work in the city but have their primary residence elsewhere.

“New York City can only tax its own residents,” said Jared Walczak, vice president of state projects at the Tax Foundation. “A high earner doesn’t need to give up the convenience of the city, they just need to move outside the five boroughs. Migration across city lines is the easiest.”

Importantly, Mamdani wouldn’t be able to raise income taxes. The city’s income tax rates are set by Albany, where Gov. Kathy Hochul has said she will block any tax hike. “I don’t want to lose any more people to Palm Beach,” Hochul told the New York Post.

Critics also fear Mamdani’s policies toward the police and public safety could make the city even more dangerous, becoming the final straw for many business owners and top earners who were already considering leaving. The top 1% of New Yorkers pay over 40% of the income taxes, so losing even a small number of high earners would set off a downward spiral of lower revenue and lower services and more out-migration.

New York state had a net loss of $14 billion in net adjusted income due to taxpayers leaving between 2021 and 2022, according to the Tax Foundation and IRS data. The city’s revenue from personal income taxes declined between 2022 and 2024, from $16.7 billion in 2022 to $14 billion last year — although they’re still above the pre-Covid levels of $13.4 billion in 2019, according to data from the New York City comptroller.

At the same time, however, there are signs that New York’s powerful wealth machine is constantly replenishing the ranks of millionaires and billionaires, more than making up for the rich who move out. The number of millionaires in New York City has more than doubled over the past decade — despite the Covid losses — to over 2.4 million, according to Altrata. There are now over 33,000 New Yorkers worth $30 million or more, nearly double that of Miami, according to Altrata. Whether it’s measuring millionaires, multi-millionaires or billionaires, New York City has maintained its dominance as the richest wealth hub in the world.

New York remains a powerful magnet for the wealthy, offering a blend of luxury consumption, vibrant culture, high-quality education and lifestyle cachet, with the borough of Manhattan the epicenter of ultra-prime real estate,” said a report from Altrata and REALM.

Demand for pricey luxury apartments in New York also shows no signs of slowing, even after Mamdani’s win in the June 24 primary. There were 64 contracts signed between June 23 and July 13 for apartments priced over $4 million, up 13% over last year, with a sales total of more more than $555 million in sales, according to Olshan Realty. Among the signed contracts was a $35 million, three-bedroom spread on Fifth Avenue that was first listed in December.

“The luxury market is on pace for one of its best years,” said Donna Olshan, of Olshan Realty, who also cautioned that any potential Mamdani-related weakness could show up in the Fall.

Not only did New York’s millionaire and billionaire population rebound quickly after Covid, but high earners also bounced back. While the city lost a net 5,000 households earning $1 million or more during the pandemic, their ranks have grown from 30,400 in 2019 to 34,127 in 2022, the latest period available, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute.

Nathan Gusdorf, executive director of the Fiscal Policy Institute, said the narrative of wealth flight from New York is fed in part by the media, which highlights a small number of high-profile billionaires who move from New York to Florida. Stories about billionaires like Josh Harris, Carl Icahn and Daniel Och decamping to Florida ignores the broader ebb and flow of wealth in New York. New York’s powerful economy, fueled by the financial services industry, continues to produce more new millionaires than it loses.

“We do not have a fixed population of millionaires that just declines whenever one of them leaves,” Gusdorf said. “The city regenerates that lost millionaire population.”

Even if Mamdani were to win the mayorship in November and raise taxes, the direct impact on wealth flight may be more limited than many expect. According to the Fiscal Policy Center’s latest research, the top 1% of New Yorkers by income (those making more than $800,000 a year) leave the city at one quarter the rate of all other income groups. When the New York wealthy do move, they have most often oved to other high-tax states like New Jersey, Connecticut or California – suggesting lifestyle rather than taxes are the driver.  

“There is a strong indication that higher tax rates at the state level imposed on the top earners are not having real behavioral effects,” Gusdorf said.

Others, however, say taxes have outsized importance for the wealthy, proven by the sweeping population moves in recent years from high-tax to low- or no-tax states like Florida and Texas.

A study by the California Center for Jobs and the Economy described a “taxodus,” or net loss of $5.3 billion in personal income tax, from high earners who left after a 2016 extension of higher taxes on the wealthy.

“High tax rates do lead to outmigration and lower income growth,” Walczak said.

Robert Frank, CNBC Inside Wealth