State Department: Chinese Communist Party Is Committing Genocide

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The U.S. Department of State is unambiguously stating that the Chinese Communist Party is committing genocide.

On Aug. 27, this writer sent some questions to the State Department Office of Press Operations through its online portal for media inquiries. One of these questions was: “Has the State Department concluded that China is continuing to engage in genocide in 2026?”

On Sept. 1, a State Department spokesperson provided a written answer via email: “The United States determined the CCP is committing genocide and crimes against humanity against Uyghurs and members of other ethnic and religious groups in Xinjiang.”

On Jan. 19, 2021, the last full day of President Donald Trump’s first term, then-Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, as this column has noted before, issued a written statement that was headlined “Determination of the Secretary of State on Atrocities in Xinjiang.”

“The United States of America has led the world in holding the perpetrators of the most heinous human rights abuses accountable,” Pompeo said in this statement.

“We do so because it is right,” he said.

“[A]fter careful examination of the available facts,” said Pompeo, “I have determined that the PRC [People’s Republic of China], under the direction and control of the CCP, has committed genocide against the predominantly Muslim Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang. I believe this genocide is ongoing, and that we are witnessing the systematic attempt to destroy Uyghurs by the Chinese party-state.”

In this statement—issued more than five years ago—Pompeo called for this to stop.

“The United States,” he said, “calls upon the PRC immediately to release all arbitrarily detained persons and abolish its system of internment, detention camps, house arrest and forced labor; cease coercive population control measures, including forced sterilizations, forced abortion, forced birth control, and the removal of children from their families; end all torture and abuse in places of detention; end the persecution of Uyghurs and other members of religious and ethnic minority groups in Xinjiang and elsewhere in China, and afford Uyghurs and other persecuted minorities the freedom to travel and emigrate.”

Since Pompeo made this statement, each of the State Department’s five annual reports on human rights practices in China (covering calendar years 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024) has stated that China is committing genocide.

“Genocide and crimes against humanity occurred during the year in China against predominantly Muslim Uyghurs and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang,” said the first sentence of the 2024 report.

The State Department has not yet released its human rights report on China that will cover calendar year 2025. “The Department is actively working on the Human Rights Report covering global conditions in 2025 and expects to publish it later this year,” a State Department spokesperson informed this writer.

The department’s report covering 2024 described the CCP’s actions in Xinjiang.

“Government targeting of ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang with intensified coercive population control measures resulted in plummeting birth rates in Xinjiang after 2018 when authorities increased coercive population control measures, including forced abortions, forced sterilizations, involuntary intrauterine device insertions, and pregnancy checks occurring at detention centers in the region and targeting minority groups, primarily Uyghurs and ethnic Kazakhs,” said the report.

The report also said that “[s]ignificant human rights issues” in China included “credible reports of: arbitrary or unlawful killings; disappearances; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; involuntary or coercive medical or psychological practices; arbitrary arrest and detention by the government including, since 2017, of more than one million Uyghurs and members of other predominantly Muslim minority groups in extrajudicial internment camps [and] prisons.”

Former President Joe Biden, as this column has noted before, met with CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping three times during his four-year term. But there is no evidence that Biden ever confronted Xi on the genocide that Xi’s regime has been perpetrating—and that Biden’s State Department cited in its annual human rights reports.

Trump, thus far, has had seven meetings with Xi. The latest was in May, when he traveled to Beijing accompanied by a number of major American business leaders, as this column has noted before. These included, among others, then-Apple CEO Tim Cook, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg, Citi CEO Jane Fraser, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, Meta President Dina Powell McCormick, and Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

The genocide being perpetrated by Xi’s regime was not an issue at this summit. In a Truth Social posting made as the group departed for Beijing, Trump said, “I will be asking President Xi, a Leader of extraordinary distinction, to ‘open up’ China so that these brilliant people can work their magic, and help bring the People’s Republic to an even higher level! In fact, I promise, that when we are together, which will be in a matter of hours, I will make that my very first request.”

Xi is now scheduled to meet with Trump at the White House on Sept. 24. The first thing Trump should tell Xi at that meeting is that if China does not immediately cease engaging in genocide, the United States will cease engaging in trade with China.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

AUTHOR

Terence Jeffrey

Terence P. Jeffrey is investigative editor for the Daily Caller News Foundation. Follow on X TerryJeffrey.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Cosplaying As Extras In Succession’: DSA Reportedly Shelling Out $22,000 A Month For Two New Luxury Offices

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America is trading its worn-down headquarters for two upscale offices that will run $22,000 a month.

The socialist group is abandoning its Lower East Side base in favor of new spaces in Midtown and Bed-Stuy, according to the New York Post. Co-chair Grace Mausser laid out the plan for members at a recent meeting while walking them through the chapter’s budget.

The Manhattan location sits inside a 14-story building on West 35th Street and comes with a doorman, round-the-clock security and a furnished rooftop, the Post reported. That office alone will cost $15,000 monthly, making it the chapter’s biggest recurring bill behind leadership pay.

The timing lands weeks after the chapter agreed to start cutting six-figure paychecks to its top two officers. Members approved annual salaries of $95,000 plus benefits for Mausser and co-chair Gustavo Gordillo, who had both served as unpaid volunteers, according to City & State New York. The Citywide Leadership Committee cleared the resolution by a 51-10 vote. Those salaries and benefits will total roughly $20,000 a month against monthly revenue of about $84,700.

The chapter routinely attacks landlords, yet its new Manhattan home belongs to the Chetrit family, one of the city’s largest developers, which has drawn class-action complaints from Brooklyn tenants over alleged violations of rent-stabilization rules, according to the Post.

“Nothing says ‘we hate capitalism’ like sitting in a high-rise Midtown boardroom cosplaying as extras in Succession,” former NYC Council minority leader Joe Borelli told the Post.

The Brooklyn addition gives the group its first outpost in the borough at another $7,000 a month. The two-story Bed-Stuy space carries central air and what its listing calls the feel of a high-end artist loft. DSA leadership set a goal of raising $20,000 in monthly donations to renovate and sustain offices across the city, according to the organization’s fundraising page. The chapter later lifted its overall target to $100,000 and has pulled in more than $68,000 so far, according to the Post.

The upgrade replaces a cramped Jefferson Street room with red-painted walls that cost $5,200 a month. The chapter scrapped a meeting there last week over a leak.

AUTHOR

Mark Tanos

RELATED ARTICLES:

Abdul El-Sayed’s Pedophilia Problem

Kathy Hochul Was a Trailblazer: Now Leftist Frenchwomen Are Donning Hijabs

Abdul El-Sayed says he broke a vodka bottle inside a store after being challenged for not being Sharia-compliant

‘DSA Is Our MAGA’: The Democratic Establishment Faces A Reckoning

‘Most Of Us Will Be Very Upset’: Many 9/11 Families Not Too Thrilled About Mamdani Attendance At Memorial Ceremony

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Eighteen Years Ago

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

I am quite sure y’all are looking at the title to this missive and asking, what is the ol’ Colonel talking about? Well, bear with me, please.

We can recall the maxim of Chinese communist leader Mao Tse-Tung alluding to the “long slow march” towards communism. We know that this insidious and murderous ideology was first introduced to the world by one Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their book, “The Communist Manifesto.”

Here in America, communists introduced themselves into our country with the clever marketing rebranding of “progressive.” They at one point even went so far as to abscond with the misappropriated label of “liberals.”

Of course, the Father of Classical Liberalism, John Locke, would be utterly appalled to know that Marxists had kidnapped his philosophy, well, just the title, but none of his principles.

Marxists believe that they should have complete power, control, and domination of the life, liberty, and property of the individual. Matter of fact, they have vehement disregard and disdain for the individual, as Mamdani said, “We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”

How did we get to this point?

Ahh, here is where the reasoning behind the title of this piece is to be revealed.

It was just a short eighteen years ago when an unaccomplished U.S. Senator, Barack Hussein Obama, a clear Marxist, gave his famed quote, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” in Columbia, Missouri, right before the November 2008 presidential election.

There should be no surprise that Obama would say such a thing; all the indicators and warnings were there, especially his emanating from Chicago, just like Saul Alinsky.

But what was highly disconcerting was the response of the mindless lemmings, useful idiots, and, truthfully, an entire nation that did not stop and ask a simple question: “Transforming America to what?”

I remember the response from the Marxist leftist media that chided anyone who dared challenge Obama’s assertion as racist. Nothing new there.

See, the leftists had selected the perfect vessel to fully introduce Marxism into America, a skilled black rhetorician whom we certainly knew nothing about. We were not allowed to say anything, and some Republicans were simply too cowardly to speak out.

And so this deadly cancer was fully injected into our nation, and reelected, even after Obama disrespected the indomitable American entrepreneurial spirit, telling them that “If you own a business, you didn’t build that.”

How funny, Obama, a person with a razor-thin resume, an empty suit, would chastise American business owners, including small business owners, the backbone of this country.

We, this Republic, reelected him. Not to mention the fact that Obama, in 2012, was running against an American businessman, Mitt Romney, who could not capitalize on that statement.

Therefore, it is no surprise to me that eighteen years later we have Marxists running for elected office under the banner of the political party that introduced us to a Marxist presidential candidate.

That cancer that was injected into our Republic has fully metastasized and, if not treated immediately, will bring about the death of this nation in its 250th year of celebrating its independence.

These emboldened Marxists, who cleverly refer to themselves as Democratic Socialists, and who embrace all ten planks of Marxism, are telling us their intent in fundamentally transforming our Republic.

DSA leader Cliff Connolly, who is a member of their National Steering Committee, admitted that he and his organization have a burning hatred of the U.S. Constitution.

They view our rule of law as an “obstacle” that must be overcome by a socialist (Marxist) revolution.

Let’s unpack this for a moment.

These fine young cannibals, well, Bernie Sanders ain’t young, are openly advocating sedition and treason.

We all know that their so-called platform calls for the abolishment of Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches). They want to replace it with a pure democratic unicameral House of Representatives.

In essence, they want to undo what our Founding Fathers established: a representative democracy, designed to preclude the tyranny of a pure, majority-rule democracy.

See, America is a Constitutional Republic, as articulated in Article IV, Section 4.

What Comrade Connolly is saying is that our very system of governance inhibits the Marxists from executing, and they mean literally, as history has proven, their fundamental transformation of these United States of America.

Think about it. It is not just about restructuring our federal, and probably state, governments. This means that the individual Bill of Rights is also an “obstacle” that must be overcome by a Marxist revolution.

That means you will not have freedom of religion, speech, expression, peaceable assembly, or to petition your government for redress of grievances.

You will certainly not have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It was Edward Abbey who stated, “A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” It is kinda hard to do that when you have been disarmed, which is why April 19, 1775, is such an important day in our history and is known as Patriots’ Day.

However, to the Marxists, patriotism is defined as paying your “fair share” in their scheme called progressive taxation, which is one of Karl Marx’s ten planks.

If the Constitution is an “obstacle” to these Marxists, how can we expect them to take an oath as elected officials to the Constitution?

Talk about a constitutional crisis.

To me, it is simple: they are illegitimate political candidates and should be disqualified from holding elected office in our Constitutional Republic.

They obviously do not embrace any of this Republic’s fundamental governing principles, like individual rights, freedoms, and liberties.

And history has certainly proven everything I am stating as correct when it comes to Marxist rule. I mean, shall the day come when my writing a missive such as this gives cause for the new Brownshirts, Antifa, to show up at my door?

And if I am disarmed, well, I can easily end up just like those who protest against the totalitarian, tyrannical regime in Iran. Ever notice how these Marxists are not strongly supporting our efforts to end the terrorist regime in Iran? They would love to have that type of power, control, and domination.

Connolly expressed his view of our Constitution as “a few useless pieces of parchment.”

He stated, “Of the DSA caucuses that believe in democracy (America is a Republic) as an end goal, MUG (Marxist Unity Group) is the only one that sees revolution as a necessity to get there. And of the caucuses in DSA which see the necessity of revolution, we’re the only ones that see democracy as the end goal.”

Let me translate what Comrade Connolly is saying, which we first heard from Vladimir Lenin: “The end goal of socialism is communism.”

He and his Marxist choom gang can try and manipulate language, but what they are talking about is the economic model of socialism enabling the fundamental societal transformation of America to communism.

And that, folks, all got started eighteen years ago with Obama’s rant.

America is, no, it has entered into a Second Civil War.

It started as two competing ideologies, but we now have the open declaration of kinetic means to an end. There have been warning shots fired, federal officers attacked, assassination attempts on a president, and the assassination of a young man in an open free-speech forum.

We can choose to dismiss this, as we did eighteen years ago with Obama, or take it doggone seriously.

I choose to take it seriously. Matter of fact, I did back in 2012 at a town hall forum in Jensen Beach, Florida, when I stated that there were some 75-80 communists in Congress. It was, and is, called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The leftists went apoplectic, and Republicans ran and hid. Maybe that is why I only served one term in Congress.

You can’t have a strong constitutional conservative combat veteran calling out Marxists when there is a Black Marxist in the White House.

Leadership is about being prescient, visionary, and, as Sun Tzu would say, winning the battle before it has even begun.

Here’s what I have to say to Comrade Connolly.

There are many of us who took the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. And we take that oath seriously and do not believe that it has a statute of limitations.

Don’t go asking for something, writing a check, that your ass cannot back up. If you are calling for a revolution to overthrow our Constitutional Republic, which you are, you and your ilk will meet a terrible fate.

No, Comrade, that is not a threat. It is a promise, one from an American Soldier. And there are many of us, as well as Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen, who will stand before you and your “goal.”

The Constitution of the United States of America is not an obstacle; it is the embodiment of the American people, a restraining document on the powers of the federal government, and our rule of law.

Neither you nor anyone else is going to replace or abolish it.

Steadfast and Loyal.

First published on ACRU

AUTHOR

Lt. Col. Allen West, USA ret

Executive Director of the American Constitutional Rights Union and STARRS Board of Advisor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

BOOK REVIEW “Revolution: The Birth of the Greatest Nation in the History of the World”

Don’t Schedule A Meeting Without An Ask

The Media Lies About The Pentagon – COL Rob Maness

©2026 . All rights reserved.

Piker & El-Sayed: Comedy Gold

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Hasan Piker & Abdul El-Sayed have become the greatest comedy duo since Abbott & Costello.

Bud Abbott and Lou Costello thrived from 1935 to 1957 in burlesque, radio, motion pictures, and TV—from their beloved “Who’s on First?” routine to their “7 x 13 = 28” sketch. Abbott & Costello intended to be funny. They worked hard at it and became legends.

Piker and El-Sayed are comedy naturals. They effortlessly earn laughs, especially when they are unintentionally hilarious.

Their latest schtick is called “Hasan who?” While running as the Islamo-Socialist Democrat nominee for U.S. Senate in Michigan, El-Sayed pretends not to know Piker and forgets the über-divisive, hard-left podcaster’s initial, affectionate, and touching words:

“Abdul El-Sayed is my guy, right? He’s a Rhodes Scholar. He’s a doctor. He’s a stud, too,” Piker swooned on “The Breakfast Club” on June 16. “He can do three plates on the bench press. And, I mean, that’s beside the point, but, you know, I like that personally.”

As for wooing voters with El-Sayed, Piker gushed, “He reached out to me. He said, ‘Oh, let’s go. Let’s do a campaign rally together.’ And I had already done stuff with him. I traveled to Dearborn. We worked out, played basketball—all this stuff.”

Piker and El-Sayed did even more stuff. Seemingly inseparable, they appeared jointly at campaign events, lifted weights together, and chuckled about men’s fashion at a pool party the day before the Aug. 4 Democrat primary.

Piker cheered at El-Sayed’s election night celebration.

But, ironically, El-Sayed’s victory intensified scrutiny of his relationship with Piker. Americans learned that Piker outrageously said, “America deserved 9/11,” “I would vote for Hamas over Israel every single time,” and much more.

Suddenly, El-Sayed was not that into Piker. El-Sayed told NBC’s Kristen Welker on the August 9 “Meet the Press”: “I’m less concerned now with who I’m campaigning with and a lot more concerned about who I’m campaigning to.”

Signaling that he and Piker had grown apart, El-Sayed told Semafor’s Nicholas Wu on Aug. 26 that he had “no plans” to campaign again with Piker and ridiculed their defunct partnership: “The effort to make this race about a streamer in LA is actually kind of laughable.”

Since then, Piker has scored big laughs as a jilted-boyfriend type who ignores El-Sayed’s ghosting, listens to the silence of his non-phone calls, and yet dreams that the two never have been closer.

“He asked me to stump for him,” Piker recalled Aug. 28, also via Semafor. “I’ve already had the guy on, like, a hundred times on the broadcast. You know, I’ve fundraised for him. I like him a lot.”

El-Sayed dissed Piker anew on Aug. 29.

“I don’t want to have a conversation about a Twitch streamer in California,” El-Sayed told journalists in Lansing, Michigan. “That’s just not a serious conversation.”

The towering Piker soon chased down the fire-plug-like El-Sayed, and threw his long, loving arms around him. Piker then rebuked critics who, he claims, have mischaracterized his and El-Sayed’s previous comments. “ … At the same time they were doing it to me, and they did it to Abdul,” Piker told Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti on their Sept. 1 “Breaking Points” podcast.

Piker also applauded El-Sayed’s apologies for some of his earlier, provocative remarks: “I hope that people see that as humility and grace and understand that he’s not this like scary Islamist, jihadist guy that he’s being presented as.”

Audiences are roaring, from Denver to Detroit and from Manhattan Island to Mackinac Island. (As it happens, El-Sayed slammed the Northern Michigan vacation spot in a hot-mic knee-slapper: “I hate Mackinac SO much,” he said in 2020. “Every time I’ve ever come here, I’ve hated it. Why am I here?”)

Piker & El-Sayed are expected to dominate the airwaves through Tuesday, Nov. 3. After that, they either will be picked up for six years or canceled and soon forgotten.

Now that’s comedy.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

AUTHOR

Deroy Murdock

Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a contributing editor with The American Spectator.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Nick Shirley SUES California Over ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

California’s New Law Could Silence Journalists Exposing Fraud

Nick Shirley announced today on X that he is suing the state of California over the controversial bill signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom that critics have dubbed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.”

AB 2624 restricts the publication of certain identifying information about workers at organizations that provide immigration-related services when a worker submits a written request that the information not be published.

Critics of the law, including Shirley, argue the restrictions could interfere with journalists and others investigating those organizations.

“Now in a world where we all want more transparency and not less, it is more critical than ever that we do not just sit back and do nothing. That is why I’m filing this lawsuit against the state of California,” Shirley said in his post.

In making his case against the law, Shirley went on to describe who authored it, why he believes it was created, how he says it affects journalists, and the timeline that he argues shows the law was targeted at him.

That timeline began on Jan. 31, when Shirley announced he was in California investigating alleged fraud. Days later, Newsom said the San Diego Somali community felt “under siege” amid the arrival of what he described as “right-wing provocateurs,” a comment Shirley suggested was directed at him.

Shirley then pointed to a Feb. 5 news conference held by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who pushed back against allegations of widespread fraud in the state, describing the claims as “reckless, false, outrageous, and ridiculous.”

Over two weeks later, on Feb. 20, Assemblywoman Mia Bonta, who is married to the attorney general, introduced AB 2624, known among critics as the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.”

Shirley argues the timing was no coincidence.

“They needed the Stop Nick Shirley Act, AB 2624, to protect the fraud and stop people from exposing these locations inside of immigration support providers.”

Shirley is now taking that argument to federal court, claiming the statute violates the First Amendment. The journalist also stressed that he is not seeking monetary damages from the lawsuit, but instead is challenging the law to protect what he says are his and others’ First Amendment rights.

“It’s time for We the People to do something. This law never had anything to do with the Right or Left. It had to do with your dollars being defrauded, and now they want to prevent people like me from going out and searching for the truth about where our tax dollars are going,” Shirley said.

The Daily Signal reached out to the offices of Newsom and Bonta for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

AUTHOR

Angelina Delfin

Angelina Delfin is California correspondent for the Daily Signal. Follow on X angelina_talks.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Comer Targets Biden-Era DEA Policy That Allowed Fentanyl Loads to Move Unimpeded

Piker & El-Sayed: Comedy Gold

RELATED VIDEO: The Media Lies About The Pentagon — COL Rob Maness

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Philadelphia Public Schools Bring in Convicted Felon to Teach Seventh Graders ‘Liberation’ — Torched a Cop Car and Praised Hamas

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Child abuse. The Democrat Socialist school boards are taking your children hostage and indoctrinating them in poison. Get your kids out of public schools.

Philadelphia Public Schools Host Prison Abolition Workshops With Convicted Felon Who Helped Torch Cop Car and Said Jews Control the Media

By: Washington Free Beacon, September 4, 2026:

Philadelphia public schools brought in a convicted felon to teach “liberation” “workshops” for students as young as seventh grade. Anthony Smith has praised Hamas’s “freedom fighters,” argued that Jews control the media, and helped torch a police car, our Aaron Sibarium and Zach Kessel report.

Smith facilitated workshops for more than 150 students through a partnership between the school district and the W.E.B. Du Bois Movement School for Abolition and Reconstruction, which bills itself as a “political education program for aspiring revolutionaries,” offering sessions like “Imagining A World Without Prisons.” Other facilitators included a University of Pennsylvania student who participated in the school’s “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” and a Penn lecturer who was pushed out of Drexel University after tweeting, “All I want for Christmas is white genocide.”

Students were required to attend the symposia, though they could choose among the workshops. The group says its goal is to establish a “revolutionary pipeline” for K-12 students and tells prospective participants that “young people are the key to … resisting capitalist imperialism.”

“Hosted at the Workshop School—where zero percent of students are proficient in math, according to state test scores—the sessions show how self-proclaimed radicals have influenced the curriculum of Pennsylvania’s largest school district, which is facing a $300 million deficit and where just 18 percent of eighth-graders read at grade level,” Sibarium and Kessel write. “The workshops came amid an ongoing congressional probe into reports of antisemitism in the district, including statements from Jimenez, the social studies director, who has praised the convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur and argued that ‘every child should walk into a classroom and feel the revolution stirring in the air.’”

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Admin Announces Intent to Remove Tax-Exempt Status from Woke Private Colleges

A Son Converts to Islam, and a Year Later Murders His Father

MEDIA SILENCE: Muslim Gunman With LGBTQ Target List Kills Two Outside Tucson Gay Bar

As 9/11 Anniversary Approaches, Jihad Candidate Abdulrahman Mohamed El Sayed to Headline Terror-Tied Islamic Convention

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The New York Times Said He ‘Wanted Peace,’ He Said He Wanted to ‘Annihilate the Jews’

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

‘Why Jews Must Support Man Who Said “I like to kill Jews.”

When it comes to some areas, the media has gone so far in on political advocacy that it filters out, rejects and suppresses any contradictory facts and no amount of appeals to truth or decency will change the lines that it insists on telling.

One such area was the endorsement of pro-Hamas campus activism after Oct 7 where, despite ample evidence that the ‘activists’ supported Hamas and wanted to kill Jews, the media along with leftists and even most Democrats decided to falsely claim that these were “non-violent student activists” facing a “crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech” and turned foreign Islamic activists calling for terrorism and the murder of Jews into ‘martyrs’ who had to be protected from deportation.

Take Mohsen Mahdawi who had allegedly…

told a gun shop owner “that he had considerable firearm experience” and used guns to “kill Jews while he was in Palestine.”

Another member of the community recalled Mahdawi stating “I like to kill Jews.”

In a police report, a concerned individual reported that Mahdawi requested to purchase a sniper rifle and a machine gun. He also claimed that he said he used to make guns for Hezbollah

Mahdawi told 60 Minutes that he could empathize with the Hamas atrocities of Oct 7. He also wrote a poem celebrating a terrorist that contained the words, “I will breathe home… / And fill my shame / And clean my gun / And collect my packages, my bombs / And embrace my gun…”

.. J Street rallied for him. So did many Democrats and the media which featured stories like these about him

He Wanted Peace in the Middle East. ICE Wants to Deport Him – NY Times

Why Jews must support Mohsen Mahdawi – The Forward

‘This is a light of hope’: Mohsen Mahdawi says release shows democracy is functioning – PBS

There’s a new report authored by David Collier with more information about Mahdawi’s peacefulness…

It is 2010 – his patience is wearing thin – and he promises that “soon, very soon, we will annihilate the Jews”

Mahdawi is now on U.S soil, but that does not stop him. Mahdawi explicitly praises the armed wings of Hamas and Islamic Jihad – calling them lions and describing those pursuing resistance abroad as “mere dwarves.”

Is this going to change anything?

Sadly no, the media is in full on Goebbels mode and will keep on repeating its Big Lie. Democrat politicians will rally for Mahdawi and their judges will protect him. The pro-Hamas movement is now part of the ‘resistance’ and nothing it does, no matter how evil, will meet with anything other than support and glamorization from the media and the liberal groups which have embraced the message, “very soon, we shall annihilate the Jews” as a message of peace.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

US Ambassador To Israel Calls Settler Violence In West Bank ‘Act of Terror’

Democrat Candidate Deleted Hundreds Of Posts Calling The Nuclear Family ‘Violent’ And Calling For ‘Overhaul’ Of Constitution

Arizona: ‘Practicing Muslim’ Migrant Murders Two Outside Tucson Gay Bar

1 in 5 College Students Support Hamas

Canadian government reportedly granted former Iran vice president’s son millions in contracts

Hamas-Linked CAIR Forces Maryland School Board Member to Submit to Islamic Blasphemy Rules

The Muslim Who Supplied the Knife to Kill Samuel Paty Enjoys a Day at Parc Astérix

Ohio: Muslim massage therapist charged with rape, sexual battery and kidnapping

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Victor Davis Hanson: The Left Is Dragging America Back to the Dark Ages

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Modern Midieval Society

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal senior contributor Victor Davis Hanson.Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos.

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for the Daily Signal.

The more you look around us today, I think a good description of 2026, culturally, economically, socially, politically, is that we are in a modern medieval world.

Maybe we’re progressive regressives, and I don’t mean that just in the sense that progressives are regressive, and they are, but that one part of our society is advancing at lightning speed to the future and progressing. But the other part is regressing, and regressing at a phenomenal pace back to what I would call the medieval period.

Remember, the medieval period was roughly that area in time after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, roughly AD 500 to around AD 1300 to 1400, the beginning of the Italian Renaissance. In medievalism, we often talk about primitivism after the destruction of the classical world during the Dark Ages, the early medieval period, and it’s characterized by epidemics, bubonic plague, typhus, typhoid, smallpox, terrible sanitation in urban centers. They had forgotten the Roman use of sewage and aqueducts.

There were open borders. National states popped up that couldn’t defend themselves, so you saw castles and walls pop up all over the European countryside in a way you had not during the Roman period. In cities, they were walled, towns even, and the gates closed at dusk to prevent gratuitous crime.

But at the same time that this was happening, you had some of the greatest works of literature in the Western world. You had Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales,” Dante’s “Inferno,” St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica.” And if you look at the architectural expertise and scientific knowledge of architecture, it was progressing at a geometric rate when you look at the huge cathedrals at Seville or Cologne.

I should remind everybody that around 536, Santa Sofia was created, the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople. It would be the largest church in Christendom for a thousand years. And everything from the mass production of crossbows to eyeglasses was a product of the medieval period, even if, as I said, the daily lives of most people were wretched.

Now let’s switch to the modern period. All of us now can call anywhere in the world in seconds on our iPhones. Anything you want to know, past, present, future, you can just get on a cheap computer and ask an artificial intelligence program from the many free platforms. You can watch movies, you can watch entertainment on satellites. Anything you want is at your fingertips.

The nation itself is exploring space. We’re getting close to conquering cancer. I can attest to that. Computers allow you to write without even speaking. You can, unfortunately, compose a whole term paper or a book with AI. You can make a movie with AI.

Yet at the same time that’s happening, look at what’s going on in Berkeley here in California or Los Angeles. We’re seeing outbreaks of medieval diseases that we thought had been conquered years ago, given our sophisticated knowledge of sewage and water treatment. We had a typhus breakout in Los Angeles. We had leptospirosis, a rat disease, in Berkeley.

You look at the homeless camps all over our major cities. People are just out in the open fornicating, urinating, defecating, injecting drugs. There’s tons of feces that has to be removed, and it’s so strange in this modern medievalism.

We have sophisticated researchers who go into a hospital in Chicago or go to a cancer center in San Francisco and have to check the bottoms of their shoes to make sure they don’t have feces as they go into their space-age laboratories.

It’s really funny. In the medieval period, public hangings and beheadings were sort of public events that people flocked out to see. Is that any different than our glorification of murderers?

And there is a difference. Luigi Mangione, they named an opera after him in California. The killer of Charlie Kirk brought people jubilation. I won’t even get into Lindsay Clancy, who strangled her three children and became every woman to the feminist left.

At least in the medieval period, they knew that the murderer had done something wrong and was being punished. In the post-medieval period, we are glorifying that murderer, and that’s really striking.

And so, what I’m getting at is we are the most regulated, the most advanced, the most modern, the most scientific society in history, even as we can’t solve problems that were solvable, and the medieval period would have died to know the solutions that we have in our hands to make sure we have clean water, to make sure there is no crime, to make sure there is no disease, to make sure that people don’t defecate on the street. But we don’t do it. We willingly don’t do it.

Now, the question to finish is why?

We have an elite that has embraced a very toxic ideology throughout history, and that is mandated, government-sanctioned equality of result. And they have divided, therefore, to further that ideology, the world into victims and victimizers, an arbitrary classification, sometimes based on class, but increasingly on race.

And once they identify someone as a victim who’s not responsible for his plight, then it’s the duty of the society to allow him to express himself. If you have a lot of teenagers who want to loot a jewelry store, then you say they were hungry and they needed food.

If you see homeless people living on the street, then it was because of something the majority culture did to them.

And the result of that is when people engage in very dangerous antisocial behavior, an elite will tell the rest of us that they’re not subject to law enforcement or they’re not subject to the laws that apply to the rest of us.

But there are two really pernicious addenda here.

No. 1, the people who do this on the left, who believe in this mandated equality and a binary of victim and victimizer, are never subject to the consequences of their own ideology. Nancy Pelosi‘s home is not surrounded by homeless people. Jane Fonda doesn’t have to trip over people injecting drugs when she walks outside her door. The Hollywood stars in Malibu who champion the homeless have very clear security. You can’t get near their homes.

In other words, we, the lab rats, are those upon whom they experiment.

And there’s another reason as well. It’s not just that they experiment on us. and this ideology is not applicable to itself, but more importantly, they believe that they are morally superior because most of them are agnostics or atheists. They have lost their God, but they have found it in a post-Enlightenment caring, abstract though it may be, for victims.

And when you put this religious element to it, because it makes no sense to allow medieval diseases and medievalism to dominate your cities in crime, filth and homelessness, but they do it. They feel morally superior, and it gives them meaning in their life in a way that we, the majority, find not morally superior, but morally repugnant.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

AUTHOR

Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is a Daily Signal senior contributor, hosting a podcast, producing video commentaries, and writing a weekly column. He is the author of “The Counterrevolution The Fall and Rise of Donald Trump and the MAGA Movement.” Follow on X VDHanson.

RELATED ARTICLES:

These Two Words Used to Win Every Argument with Liberal – Until They Crossed Into Insanity

Trump Says Talarico Poses Existential Threat to America If Elected to Senate

Trump Administration Targets Race-Based Discrimination With New IRS Crackdown on Private Schools

‘I Reject Your Sympathy’: Father Confronts Democrats After Illegal Immigrant Truck Crash Disabled Daughter

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

New York City Mayor Mamdani Releases 400-Page Blueprint for Government-Enforced Racial Favoritism

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

New York City Mayor Mamdani Releases 400-Page Racial Equity Plan

The initial framework for the plan was released in April. This week: Mayor Mamdani’s office released the full 400-page plan. The plan is the product of the city’s radical Chief Equity Officer Afua Atta-Mensah, who said: “ The release of the final plan is the beginning of implementation, not the end of planning,” said Atta-Mensah, who is commissioner of the Mayor’s Office of Equity and Racial Justice. “Agencies now have to take these commitments and put them into practice” (Gothamist). From the city: this is what it looks like to govern with equity in mind (NYC).

Harmeet Dhillon with the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has not been bashful to take action on legislation and policy unequally applied based on race. She spoke up when the initial framework was released.

New York Post: The Trump administration is reviewing a “racial equity” plan released by Mayor Zohran Mamdani — with a top Department of Justice official calling the city’s proposal “fishy.” The assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, in a statement to The Post, threatened to “bring enforcement actions if necessary” over the long-delayed report unveiled by Mamdani on Monday. The “preliminary citywide racial equity plan”  aims to get dozens of local agencies involved to “solve decades of neglect and discrimination” against black and Hispanic and Latino New Yorkers — including through mandated “anti-racism” training and pay equity for city workers.

New York City Mayor Mamdani Releases 400-Page Blueprint for Government-Enforced Racial Favoritism

Assistant AG Harmeet Dhillon claimed Tuesday the plan “appears to be another example of divisive, race-based policymaking that the United States Supreme Court has routinely held to be unlawful.”

“Racist and illegal DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] has no place in our society,” she said in a statement.

“The Civil Rights Division is reviewing the plan and will bring enforcement actions if necessary.”

The report was legally mandated under a 2022 voter referendum and was released by City Hall at the same time as a separate study on the “True Cost of Living” in New York City.

The preliminary racial equity plan involved 45 agencies and more than 200 city workers in an effort to “build a more equitable, inclusive and just city,” following the intense protests over the police killing of George Floyd in Minnesota in 2020, said Mamdani’s Chief Equity Officer Afua Atta-Mensah on Monday.

Mamdani had promised to make the plan public within his first 100 days in office, after his predecessor Mayor Eric Adams repeatedly pushed back the release of the report, with his administration even being sued for failing to meet the 2024 deadline.

It comes as President Trump’s admin targets diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in liberal havens like New York.

The document, which explicitly does not use the controversial acronym DEI, includes the following policy suggestions:

–Increasing the number of city teachers who “receive professional learning in implicit bias and culturally relevant pedagogy.”

–Calls for a public school curriculum that reflects “the diversity of the families and communities.”

–Demanding “anti-racism training for City government staff” to help workers “combat racial discrimination in the workplace.”

–Requiring the Department of Housing Preservation and Development to “ensure racial equity is considered in evaluating 100 percent of new proposals” for construction projects.

“New York’s history has been one of colonization, exploitation, and racial oppression,” the plan states.

The report quickly sparked blowback from conservatives online, with Dhillon sounding the alarm.

“Sounds fishy/illegal. Will review!” she wrote on X Monday.

Councilwoman Joann Ariola (R-Queens) said she was looking forward to the results of the DOJ’s review.

“The mayor made it clear that he was going to go after white communities during his campaign, and this seems like his first step toward making that goal a reality,” she told The Post.

Mamdani, during his campaign, pledged to shift the property tax burden from outer borough homeowners to ‘more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.”

Councilman David Carr (R-Staten Island) called the equity report a waste of time and money.

Read more.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

As 9/11 Anniversary Approaches, Jihad Candidate Abdulrahman Mohamed El Sayed to Headline Terror-Tied Islamic Convention

TEXAS BLOWS THE LID OFF SHARIA FINANCE: Texas Exposes Foreign Islamic Financial Pipeline Operating in America’s Heartland

DEMORATS VOTE TO PACK THE SUPREME COURT

CHINA’S PROSTITUTE-SPY PIPELINE: CCP-Tied Nonprofit That Planted Fang Fang in Swalwell’s Orbit Is STILL Funnel­ing Interns Into U.S. Political Offices

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is Republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Ancient Persia or Ohio? Local Officials Ban Jewish Man’s Home Prayer Meeting

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

A Jewish man named Daniel hosted a prayer meeting in his house, but local authorities didn’t like it. They forbade the prayer meeting from happening. They sent police to watch his house. His neighbors didn’t like his Jewish beliefs either, so they joined the authorities in snooping on him. This may sound like the persecution of the Old Testament prophet, who nearly became lion food under a draconian law in the ancient dictatorship of the Persian Empire. But it actually describes the experience of Daniel Grand, a Jewish resident in post-COVID Ohio.

In January 2021, while much of the country still groaned under ineffectual mask mandates, Grand, an orthodox Jew, tried to start a Sabbath prayer meeting in his home in affluent University Heights, a Cleveland suburb. The local authorities responded with a cease-and-desist letter, followed by police cruisers patrolling his street to ensure the order was followed.

The mayor even encouraged neighbors to watch the Grand home to see whether Jews were gathering inside, and one obliged by aiming a surveillance camera at his house. “City officials demanded architectural drawings of his home, issued property citations, withheld his certificate of occupancy, and, at times, refused to collect his trash,” summarized American Enterprise Institute fellow Edward Blum and Mattathias Project cofounder Rabbi Cary Kozberg.

At a commission meeting, one neighbor indiscreetly revealed the true reason for opposing Grand’s prayer meeting, saying, “I am not Jewish, and I do not want our neighborhood labeled as Jewish.”

Why would the prayer meeting make the neighborhood seem Jewish? Because orthodox Jews don’t drive on Saturday, all the attendees would walk to Grand’s house. But this fact simply makes it less of a nuisance; the gathering would feature no additional traffic, parking, or noise to disturb the residential repose of the neighborhood.

It’s hard to ignore the overt parallels between the experiences of Daniel Grand and Daniel the prophet. In the reign of Darius, Persian officials who were jealous at Daniel’s success “sought to find a ground for complaint against Daniel” but concluded, “We shall not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God” (Daniel 6:4-5). So, they contrived a law banning prayer (6:7) and conspired to find Daniel in the act of praying (6:11) in his own house (6:10)! Those officials famously threw Daniel to the lions (6:16), but God protected him (6:22).

Fortunately, the city of University Heights has no lion’s den for insubordinate Jews. Under the Eighth Amendment, anti-Semitic local officials may only pursue their vendettas with pettiness. (Refusing to collect his trash, really?)

Furthermore, in America, victims like Daniel Grand may challenge unjust actions against them in a court of law, whereas there was no appeal from the law of the Medes and Persians (Daniel 6:12). “Grand’s complaint alleges that the city has enforced its permit requirement against home gatherings of Orthodox Jews and no one else — poker and bridge games, book clubs, game nights, and sorority and fraternity gatherings were never targeted for enforcement,” write Blum and Kozberg. “And treating religious activities worse than secular activities is something that the Constitution does not tolerate.”

However, Grand already lost twice, both at the district level and before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Sixth Circuit ruled that Grand’s case was not “ripe” because the city had not issued a final administrative ruling against him.

Grand appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear the case (Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio) in its upcoming term. Specifically, the court will decide whether “a credible government threat that deters the exercise of fundamental rights … is displaced by” the administrative “finality requirement.” In other words, in cases with clear evidence of government hostility to religion, must a person wait until receiving a final “no” from that governmental entity before bringing a federal lawsuit?

If the court decides that a finality agreement is required, the danger is that local governments could simply drown residents in delays and red tape, so that their religious discrimination complaints can never receive a court hearing.

“A right that cannot be vindicated until the government that violated it finishes its paperwork is mere toleration (if not intolerance), not liberty,” Blum and Kozberg argue.

But the U.S. Constitution is (or should be) better than that, as President George Washington declared in an August 1790 letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island. “The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation,” Washington wrote. “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.”

“The Government of the United States,” Washington continued, “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance,” and it “requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens.”

Peaceable assembly in a private home for purposes of prayer is practically the best possible behavior for a citizen, and University Heights, Ohio allegedly tried to punish Daniel Grand for trying it. Then again, Daniel the prophet was also a model subject, and he was thrown to the lions.

Thus, the Jews in exile have always been persecuted. God sent an angel to close the lions’ mouths, and Daniel’s opponents faced the fate they hoped to inflict on him. In the case of Daniel Grand, God may use the Supreme Court to play the same protective, reversing role.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Voter Registration Battle Taking Place in Ohio Ahead of Midterms

Red or Purple State: Will the Midterms Determine Ohio’s Status?

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserve. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Biden Judge Rules Trump Admin CANNOT Deport Foreigners Who Express Support for Terrorist Groups

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Judicial tyranny must be crushed. Eradicated. Some leftist moron does not have more pwoer than the President.

Federal judge says US cannot deport noncitizen students who criticize Israel

By Molly Parks, Washington Examiner, August 29, 2026:

A federal judge in the Northern District of California has ruled against the Trump administration’s policy of deportation when it comes to revoking the visas of and deporting non-citizens who protest Israel in support of Gaza.

Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Noel Wise agreed with the Stanford Daily newspaper in its lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s policy of seeking to revoke the visas of and deport student protestors it deemed as pro-Hamas. The newspaper challenged the administration in court in August 2025 after it said its opinion writers have “self-censored because of their rational concern about the ongoing danger of deportation for expression” of what the administration could deem “anti-Israel” viewpoints.

Wise ruled that the administration’s policy of using the Immigration and Nationality Act to deport non-citizens and revoke their visas based on protected speech violated the First and Fifth Amendments. She wrote in her 90-page opinion that the freedom of speech, “including the freedom to criticize the government and its leaders,” is “evidence of [democracy’s] strength.”

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

TikToker Recently Converted to Islam Livestreams Stabbing Three in Amsterdam

CHINA’S PROSTITUTE-SPY PIPELINE: CCP-Tied Nonprofit That Planted Fang Fang in Swalwell’s Orbit Is STILL Funnel­ing Interns Into U.S. Political Offices

UK Defeated: First it Was the Mass Rape of Women and Girls, Now You Can’t Fly The British Flag For Fear It Offends Muslims

Taryn Thomas Was Deeply Anti-Israel, and Then She Began to Think

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Tells Staff Not to Call 9/11 ‘Terrorist Attacks’

POST ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Democrats Vote to Pack the Supreme Court

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

205 Democrats just voted against keeping the Supreme Court at nine justices. When Democrats don’t get their way, they don’t accept the outcome. They move to dismantle the Constitution, abolish the Electoral College, corrupt the voting system, and rewrite the law to rig the rules in their favor.

In case you didn’t think that they are going to try to pack the court if they take back power, they just gave us our answer.

When the Democrats can’t win the legitimate way, they rip up the Constitution and rewrite it.

The US House has failed to secure the votes needed to pass a Constitutional Amendment capping the number of Supreme Court justices at 9

Democrats just made crystal clear they intend to PACK THE COURT when they take power.

That’ll be the END of our republic.

Final vote tally: 212-206 (Two-third majority needed).

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden Judge Rules Trump Admin CANNOT Deport Foreigners Who Express Support for Terrorist Groups

How BerlinRosen Is Normalizing Mamdani’s Communist Congressional Takeover

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Leftist pleads guilty to smashing, vandalizing JD Vance’s home

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The hammer-wielding madman accused of smashing windows at Vice President JD Vance’s Cincinnati home during an early January rampage formally pleaded guilty to multiple crimes. William DeFoor, 26, pleaded guilty to causing willful injury or depredation and carrying out physical violence against government officials during a Tuesday court hearing. DeFoor, who has a schizophrenia diagnosis, is staring down 30 years in prison for allegedly smashing glass windows in front of Vance’s residence and hitting security assets with a hammer.

The vandal is reportedly the son of a prominent Ohio millionaire family — and appears to have been going by “Julia” on social media. “Acts of violence directed against our political leaders, their families, or property, have no place in our society and will not be tolerated,” US attorney Dominick Gerace II said about the guilty plea. “Our elected leaders, at all levels of government, must be permitted to carry out their duties free from threats, vandalism, and other forms of violence,” Gerace added. “Perpetrators like DeFoor, who put that freedom at risk, particularly through violent, destructive actions, will, like here, be vigorously prosecuted.”

DeFoor’s father, named William, is a successful Harvard University graduate, a pediatric urologist in Cincinnati and professor at the University of Cincinnati’s College of Medicine.

The elder DeFoor donated thousands to Kamala Harris’ failed presidential campaign in 2024 and lives in a $1.3 million house in the tony Hyde Park neighborhood. His mother, Catherine, stressed that DeFoor suffered from mental illness. “Mental illness is a terrible thing. It is a struggle which can take over the life of a beautiful person,” she said in a statement. “Unfortunately, for our child, it has taken over his life in a way that we never could have imagined.”

In the wee night hours on Jan. 5, DeFoor was caught by Secret Service agents breaching the property line at Vance’s residence and smashing the window of an unmarked law enforcement vehicle, according to prosecutors. Authorities told DeFoor to drop his hammer and stop, but he ignored them and instead began busting “historic glass windows” on Vance’s property, per the feds. Ultimately, he attempted to flee on foot but was nabbed by the Secret Service.

The damage done to the windows totaled an estimated $28,000, according to the Justice Department. The Vances were not at the house at the time of the attack. After President Trump’s victory in 2024, the Vances moved into the vice president’s official residence at the Naval Observatory in DC, which is about 2.5 miles away from the White House.

DeFoor has a rap sheet, which includes a two-year mandatory health treatment sentence for vandalism at an interior design company. He was also hit with charges for trespassing at the UC Health psychiatric and emergency services.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

The Value and Virtues of Capitalism

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Socialism is on the rise, and capitalism is on its back foot. The implications span all parts of our society but certainly include corporate governance. As is often the case, the corporate governance issue boils down to who makes decisions and to what end those decisions are — and should be — aimed.

Should corporations strive solely to maximize shareholder value? If the answer is “yes” — whether for reasons of law, economics, or philosophy — is it even possible to maximize shareholder value based solely on expected value and return-on-investment calculations? Or must other considerations inform the relevant decision-making?

And if one concludes that other factors are necessarily relevant, does that mean only a hypocrite could oppose “stakeholder capitalism,” or the use of “environmental, social, and governance” factors, or the pursuit of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” agendas?

To attempt to thread this needle, such that one might advocate for a combination of free market capitalism, shareholder wealth maximization, and principles like The Heritage Foundation’s “Four Cornerstones” as an effective basis for corporate governance, while at the same time rejecting ESG, DEI, and “stakeholder” capitalism, is sure to generate much debate.

However, for purposes of this op-ed, I am going to posit precisely that under the banner of “free enterprise.” Obviously, space limitations will necessitate merely flagging some relevant issues. But these debates are critical right now, and just marking the outlines of parts of the relevant landscape matters.

Focusing on free market capitalism generally (and shareholder wealth maximization specifically), a complaint one often hears is that it supposedly prioritizes shareholder wealth maximization at the expense of the environment, workers, consumers, and other stakeholders. However, several points should be considered before accepting that characterization.

First, the reason that free market capitalism has been so successful, including bringing us to the cusp of eliminating poverty, is that it incentivizes business owners to provide potential consumers with products and services that improve the purchaser’s life sufficiently to warrant the cost of obtaining that product or service.

In other words, rather than incentivizing exploitative behavior, free market capitalism promotes precisely the opposite, which is to say it promotes improving the lives of consumers, employees, and other stakeholders in order to be the most attractive seller possible.

Second, the minute that one imposes other goals on entrepreneurs beside profit maximization, one runs into the “many masters” problem. If your North Star is constantly found in a new place, you are essentially rudderless. One day you are maximizing shareholder value; the next you are setting that value on fire in pursuit of net-zero goals.

And this assumes the decision-maker is acting in good faith. Allowing the well-being of myriad stakeholders to serve as rotating justifications for corporate decision-making provides great cover for self-dealing insiders who are then able to brush off underperformance by claiming it was all to “save the trees.”

On top of that, the argument that one can’t avoid the “many masters” problem — because shareholders themselves have varying time horizons and interests — is foolish. Shareholders who want something other than profit can deploy their money accordingly via charities or public benefit corporations, and expected value calculations account for time differences.

Third, while adding ESG screens and pursuing DEI sounds admirable, what has been repeatedly demonstrated is that these initiatives seemingly can’t avoid being captured and weaponized by leftists who proceed to promote neo-Marxist and neo-racist ends.

Corporate managers using other people’s money for pet projects has long been a problem, but the problem becomes particularly acute when those projects include things like divisive racial quotas and utopian climate agendas that undermine national security and increase energy prices.

To see the truth about ESG, DEI, and stakeholder capitalism, one must look past the pleasant-sounding words and examine the substance of those regimes. Behind the newspeak lurks neo-racist and neo-Marxist leftism in myriad forms, whether promoted by radical true believers, opportunists, useful idiots, or cowards.

Fourth, while limited government is the best government, we still need some government. Accordingly, in assessing this debate, we should keep in mind that external regulation is available to protect society against exploitative externalities created by the pursuit of profit maximization.

If truly needed, this is far better than killing the goose that lays the golden eggs by distorting the signaling function of profit-seeking with myriad commitments to stakeholders. However, we must remain vigilant against the fabrication of externalities to support the market-distorting and value-destroying promotion of ESG via inefficient subsidies and otherwise.

Finally, it is important to note that defending free market capitalism against socialism does not undermine the importance of purpose and virtue. In fact, the “value” in “expected value” is arguably impossible to calculate optimally if one ignores the purpose of the product or service and whether the seller will be trusted as a virtuous actor or not.

At least two points are critical to differentiating the work we do from leftist ESG, DEI, and stakeholder capitalism.

First, lumping all arguments based on virtue or related concepts together constitutes a false equivalency. Merely because both left and right may point to implications and consequences that are difficult to distill into expected value calculations does not make conservatives guilty of hypocrisy for merely promoting “right-wing ESG.” Part of promoting free market capitalism includes defending the marketplace of ideas as capable of distinguishing truth from falsity and good ideas from bad ideas.

There may be a superficial equivalence between pushing corporations to adopt transgenderism or pushing them to defend biological reality. However, people can properly discern that if you are making corporate decisions based on the belief that a child can be born in the wrong body, then you are making a delusional rather than fully informed decision. This becomes particularly obvious when you are incapable of defining “woman” by anything other than a circular, non-falsifiable “self-identification” definition. A similar analysis applies to making corporate decisions based on the neo-racism of DEI or the utopianism of net-zero commitments.

Second, and arguably more importantly, we leverage the duties of care and candor within the shareholder wealth maximization regime rather than advocating for an overthrow of that regime. As just one example, we have asked whether the decision to adopt commitments to be a net-zero company by 2030 are fully informed on the basis of expected value and ROI calculations as opposed to demanding that net zero be accomplished regardless of the impact on firm value. A similar analysis applies to the use of related arguments rooted in federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws.

This debate has a long history, but like many such debates, the need to go once more into the breach reappears with every new generation — if not every other administration.

And to the extent some conservatives might be tempted to argue that those of us defending free market capitalism against that assault of stakeholder capitalism, ESG, and DEI have won, I submit that we have achieved the equivalent of landing on Normandy Beach. We’ve achieved victories worth celebrating, but if the Allies had packed up and gone home after taking that beach all would have been lost.

What we have ahead is our own long march — not to Berlin but back to neutral for corporations that have been ideologically captured by the enemies of valuable and virtuous free markets.

This article originally appeared in The Daily Signal.

AUTHOR

Stefan Padfield

Stefan Padfield is a principal for the Free Enterprise Initiative and senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

RELATED VIDEO: Proud Nazi Hasan Piker Is Now the Face of the Democratic Party

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Radical Socialists Rock the Democratic Party: ‘I Do Not Think They Can Push Back’

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The Year of the Democratic Socialists took another twist Tuesday when the House went on the offensive to paint Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’s (D-N.Y.) party as a dangerous force of anti-Americanism. While the New Yorker has desperately tried to put some distance between Democrats and the DSA (somewhat unsuccessfully, others would add), the party’s drift toward mind-boggling radicalism is putting the entire country on edge.

The four-page resolution at the center of the House’s return to Washington this week “condemns and denounces socialism in all its forms, including the Democratic Socialists of America and opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States.” The brainchild of Rep. Jeff Crank (R-Colo.) spells out the wild ideas of the DSA, including abolishing prisons, ICE, the U.S. Senate, the Supreme Court, the Electoral College, and the presidency as we know it. Yet, despite those blaring red sirens, Jeffries’s rank-and-file are trying to dismiss the GOP’s concerns as “silly season.”

“Let’s scare people with yet another boogeyman and not do anything about it. Not really solve problems,” Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.) argued. But others, like Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-N.Y.), were quick to push back, reminding her that this is no hypothetical. “I’ve seen firsthand the alarming rise of socialism,” he said. “… Families in western New York have watched one-party rule in Albany pile on more taxes, more mandates, more government control, while hardworking taxpayers are left to foot the bill,” Langworthy warned. “And now downstate, we’ve watched the socialist left move more from the activist fringe into positions of real, serious political power. And anyone [who] thinks that these ideas are going to stay confined in New York City is sadly mistaken.”

While Jeffries’s lieutenants speak out of both sides of their mouths about the creeping communist agenda — “Democratic Socialists aren’t part of the Democratic Party,” but “we’re a broad caucus” — conservatives are making it clear that the party has already been ideologically captured.

“[S]cores of these candidates coming up through the system at the state level and congressional level,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) emphasized on Saturday’s “This Week on Capitol Hill” with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “Almost 40 of them now have prevailed and gone through these primary processes, because … the energy, the excitement, the grassroots, the money is on the side of the insurgent Left, sadly, in the Democratic Party. They’re taking the party over. And this is not a game,” he said somberly. “It’s not a flash in the pan. This isn’t a New York City thing. It’s happened in Oklahoma. It happened in Florida. It’s happening in red states, and it’s something that we must take into account.”

And this extreme makeover of Democrats is happening at warp speed, Johnson underscored. “… [A] few years ago, Republicans and Democrats in Congress [were] arguing over marginal tax rates and shades of regulation. We are now quite literally locked into a contest to determine whether we’re going to keep our republic — to keep the country as it is, or to break this thing down to the foundation and go [down] an entirely different road and set of principles towards communism. That’s the balance.”

The speaker, who’s been crisscrossing the country with this urgent message, pointed to a new website that Republicans put together called ContrastForAmerica.com that lays out the grim history of communism and socialism. “It always — every single time — has led to human suffering, misery, famine, even to death and the murder of tens of millions of innocent people in the 20th century alone. We can’t do it. It’s anti-American, and everybody needs to wake up right now. That is what is on the ballot almost 65 days from today.”

Johnson pointed to some of the shocking platforms embraced by candidates vying for some of the highest offices in Congress. There’s Abdul El-Sayed, running for Michigan’s Senate seat, who won’t disavow streamer Hasan Piker for blaming America for 9/11 or for calling Jews “bloodthirsty pig dogs.” The radical Muslim, whose own anti-Semitism has earned him the scorn of even far-Left Democrats like Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), is frantically trying to make inroads to the state’s Jewish population despite more baggage than a Boeing 737.

Yet if he wins, El-Sayed will be one of the most powerful voices in Washington. These are people, the speaker cautioned, “who are so determined to rip the Constitution in half.” And when some of these candidates get elected, “and they will in some of these blue districts,” he concedes, “you’re going to have a number of effectively communists elected to Congress under the Constitution.” So what happens? “Will they disavow what they say if they raise their hand and they take an oath to uphold the Constitution? Someone would have to prove that they’re lying. It’s a very subjective determination. I mean, it’s a fascinating, untested, unprecedented question. Those are the times in which we live.”

At the end of the day, “They’re delusional,” the speaker shook his head. “They do not understand history. They do not understand how dangerous this is. And the idea that anyone who is currently sitting in Congress or the Senate, like [Senator] Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.] or any of them … would align themselves with this madness is crazy. … And I’m sad to tell you,” the Louisianan lamented, “I say this with great sadness, I think it’s too late for the Democrat[ic] Party. I do not think they can push back.”

Conservatives will continue to, despite allegations from the Left that anti-socialism resolutions like the one the House is pursuing this week are unnecessary. Yes, FRC’s Quena González acknowledges, some of this is political strategy. But that’s not to say the threat isn’t real.

“Republicans voting for a resolution condemning socialism less than two months before the midterms is a classic election-year maneuver to find the lowest of low-hanging fruit. It’s a clever ploy,” he notes, “because Democrats in Congress are watching members of the Democratic Socialists of America win primaries and can’t afford to condemn them without risking their chance of retaking the House majority.”

Obviously, González acknowledges, “It would be easy for Christians to throw up their hands, discouraged by the electioneering and paralysis in D.C. But thinking biblically means that we do not have the luxury of giving in to cynicism and despair. We are called to be salt and light, to act for the good of our neighbors, and to pray for our rulers. And in America,” he urged, “praying for our rulers included praying for wisdom for our fellow citizens. Americans choose our leaders, but less than half of eligible voters vote in midterm elections. Bible-believing Christians have an out-sized impact when they vote wisely.”

Speaker Johnson is also banking on reason and common sense to prevail. “You can trust the American people when they are given the facts. And [if] they’re informed, they will do the right thing. We’re still a center-right country,” he insists. “We’re still one nation under God — no matter [what] these crazy, radical, leftist, anti-God, anti-Semitic, pro-terrorism [people] say. This is still America. And I believe God’s not done with America yet. And people are going to rise up, do the right thing, elect the right people who love their country, and want to preserve it and continue to make it better. That is the challenge. That is the choice. That’s the election before us.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Value and Virtues of Capitalism

JD Vance Says Abdul El-Sayed Represents an Evil Plaguing America

RELATED VIDEO: Proud Nazi Hasan Piker Is Now the Face of the Democratic Party

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.