The Nature and Development of Jihad

Jihad is at the core of the “religion of peace.” Jihad occupies most of Islam’s theology and concerns. Jihad is addressed in 9% of the Mecca Quran; 24% of the Median Quran; and in 67% of the Sira. True to form, Muslims claim that the emphasis on jihad is about the individual battling his own faults and flaws, the so-called “greater jihad,” and not that of battling others, the “lesser jihad.”

As a matter of fact, only 2% of the jihad of the Hadith refers to the greater jihad, while the other 98% is about the lesser jihad, or the jihad of the sword.

The Menace of Jihadism

Bewildered by what fanatic Muslims do, some conclude that they must be brainwashed. Otherwise, how can their totally irrational belief system and often self-destructive actions be explained? But the notion of “brainwashing” that is bandied about is the stuff of science fiction and Hollywood movies such as The Manchurian Candidate.

The human person arrives in this world with his brains already washed, in the sense of being what John Locke called the tabula rasa, blank slate — ready for experience to imprint its script on it. John Locke was only partially correct. The brain also arrives with numerous predispositions already in place. It is a combination of life’s influences and a person’s own decisions that determine which of these dispositions develop and which ones fail. It is through this process that a unique human being is formed.

Many animals come with already in-place programs that automatically run much of their lives. Birds’ migration, mating courtship and thousands of other complex behaviors are instances of this type of specific programming. A catchword for this type of behavior is “instinct.” As a rule, the higher the organism the less is its rigid pre-programing and the greater its latitude to exercise choices.

Making choices depend on what there is to choose from and to what extent a given choice appeals to that person. And the human newborn enters the arena of life without the means of being other than a passive recipient of “things” already chosen for him.

It is like the old joke by Henry Ford, who reportedly told his customers that they could have their choice of color for their new car as long as it was black. Things are almost as bleak for the new arrival. The newborn does not have any say in choosing his parents, his socioeconomic condition, his environment of birth and much more. All are already in place and he is to start in life from the context of his birth.

The development of a newborn in any family is importantly influenced by many factors, among them how hands-on the parents are; how religious they are, how severely they micromanage him in their efforts to make him not only a good person but also a person better than themselves.

Parents tend to live vicariously through their children by programming them, the best they can, so that children become or achieve much of what they themselves failed to become or to accomplish. This attitude covers all areas of life such as giving the child the education they didn’t have, helping him with fame and fortune, nurturing him to become a topnotch athlete and so forth.

It is a fact that early influences play a cardinal role in shaping the person. For this reason, for instance, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are born into Muslim families, Catholics into Catholic families, Hindus into Hindu families and so on. It is also a fact that the degree of religiosity ranges from mild to strong, with most people falling somewhere in between the two extremes.

Interestingly, two siblings raised by the same set of parents under the same influences may end up at the opposite extremes in their religious views and practices. It is here that the human dynamic of freedom of choice comes into play and steers one to one extreme and the other to the other extreme. Occasional extreme deviations notwithstanding, the great majority of siblings of a given family end up with various degrees of that family’s overall religious perceptions and other values. The same general principle of subscribing to a set of common values exists in all human groupings, in some cases with broad flexibility and inclusiveness while in others with rigidity and exclusivity.

In order to enjoy the privileges of belonging to a group, the person must also pay his membership dues.

The very young human faces, beginning the minute he can make some sense of the world, a bewildering array of mysteries, challenges, and enticements. There are questions at every step, fears, and hopes entangled with the need to survive and the hope to thrive.

Who am I? What is this world all about? What’s the purpose? What am I supposed to do and how? Where am I headed? People die. Where do they go? Endless questions with few clear and solid answers. The information booths available to him in the fairground of life provide him with answers that may help relieve his innate existential anxiety. And it is here that religion plays its critical role and holds great appeal. Religion provides a surefire answer to those who are willing to take it on faith.

And Islam is a powerful magnet for the masses that are unable to deal with the uncertainties of life and death on their own. It is from this population, many already thoroughly indoctrinated from birth, that most diehard jihadists emerge.

It is the bargain the jihadist makes. He surrenders totally to the religion of surrender in exchange for a blanket security. Islam gives him all the answers he really seeks for dealing with this world and promises him a most lush and eternal paradise of Allah once he leaves it—all of course contingent on being a male. And leaving this world in perfect submission as the foot-soldier of the paradise’s creator gives the faithful unimaginably glorious sensual eternal reward in his next life, he is promised. It’s a bargain that some buy in whole, some in part, some refuse and seek other means of dealing with their questions and the unrelenting existential anxiety.

The great majority of jihadists emanate from the ranks of those born into the religion of Islam, simply because they are the ones who are most thoroughly indoctrinated and influenced by Islamic dogma in their most receptive early years. Yet there are few others who embrace Islam in adulthood, on their own, and enlist themselves as devoted jihadists for the same rewards that Islam offers them.

Islam has a great advantage of the first call on the new arrival. It is an omnipresent system with masses of believers, mosques and madrasahs, and a host of other social and economic organizations that overpower the person and steer him into the same fold; it is a sea of people who seem to know what they are all about, what life and death are all about, and what one must also do.

Within this sea of surging humanity composed of some 1.5 billion Muslims, each individual believer — a drop — through a combination of choice and forces beyond his control, ends up in one of its many waves. It is the jihadist wave that is highly attractive to the thoroughly indoctrinated and poorly adjusted in dealing rationally and independently with life. Here he finds the ironclad perfect solution to his anxieties and perplexities.

To a jihadist, death is nothing more than the casting off a shell of the worthless earthly existence and donning the suit for winging joyously to the life of bliss promised by none other than Allah’s beloved final emissary, Muhammad.

Eradication of jihadism is a daunting task. Massive education efforts, combined with resolute confrontation of all sources and people that support and promote this deadly philosophy, hold the best promise of dealing effectively with this affliction of humanity.

In addition to the family, places such as mosques and madrasahs, Islamic associations and charitable organizations, prisons, and the like are incubators of jihadists. Massive efforts are required, on the one hand, to drain the breeding swamps of the Islamic virus, while on the other hand helping Muslims adopt an alternative perspective of life that addresses their perplexities and offers a degree of comfort that religions dispense without pitting one segment of humanity against another.

In the monumental task of dealing with jihadism, every individual, group and government must combine their resources and energies to prevail.

The destiny of civilized life hangs in the balance. It is an unpardonable act of shirking responsibility for anyone to adopt the attitude of “let Trump do it.” Trump, is you. Trump is I. Trump is every enlightened human being and organization who values human liberty and dignity.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Years of reports on 9/11

Victor Davis Hanson: America Looks Nothing Like She Did 5 Years Ago—And That’s a Good Thing

Victor Davis Hanson: President Trump Has Completely Changed America For the Better

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.

We’re nine weeks from the midterm election, and we’re starting to see a lot of anxiety, frustration on the part of the Republicans. They fear the historical precedent will be the same in November, that the in-party loses seats in the House and Senate, and maybe both of them, and the Left is very triumphant.

And we’re getting a picture that I think is inaccurate. But one way to test whether that suggestion is accurate or inaccurate is just take a deep breath and look at the world, let’s say, at the beginning of the Biden administration compared to now.

Let’s just start with Canada. Canada is very angry. We’re in a trade dispute. Is Canada now making a serious effort? Does it promise that it will meet its NATO commitments? It hasn’t yet, or it barely has, but it’s making progress. It better do it. Is it trying to address, in a haphazard fashion, the idea that it can just dump product, or it can have these high tariffs and run $50 billion to $80 billion tariffs with impunity, as Mexico did? No.

Our relationship with Canada is changing for the better for us. It’s changing for the better for Mexico. Do they like it? No. Why don’t they like it? Because they had a pretty good deal at our expense.

Is the border closed? Yes. Is illegal immigration plaguing us at 10,000 a day? No.

How about Venezuela? Is it importing terrorism and narcotics to North America? No. We just signed a deal that will essentially allow the United States, for 100 years, to have access to 65 billion barrels of high-sulfur, thick, but very valuable Venezuelan oil. They get $19, no matter what, without spending a dime, off every barrel that the oil companies try to extract.

And if you do the math, the cost in Venezuela is not Saudi Arabia, not the United States. It’s not light sweet crude. It’s not easy. It’s a politically difficult place. It’s a geographically and climate-challenged place, and it will cost those oil companies anywhere from $30 to $40 to $50. And if oil goes below $65, it’s going to be hard to see how they make a profit.

It’s good for Venezuela. That’s why they agreed to it.

But more importantly, all of South America and all of the Caribbean and all of Central America is unrecognizable from five years ago when Joe Biden entered office. There is no problem now with the Panama Canal. Cuba is on the ropes. There’s only five governments in Latin America that are anti-American. The vast majority are capitalist, democratic, pro-American.

Go to the Middle East. One of the biggest problems we’ve had the last 50 years in the Middle East, one of the biggest, the biggest, is Iran. But not just Iran, its proxies: the Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah. There was no Lebanon. It was kidnapped by Hezbollah.

You heard the Lebanese prime minister the other day. He said, for the first chance, there’s real opportunity in Lebanon. Why? Because Hezbollah has been defanged by Israel, but more importantly, it has no money. Why? Because we have the strictest sanctions, embargoes, that we’ve ever seen on Iran.

And as Iran, as we hear, is winning the war, they’re just about kaput. They’re strangled. We talked about an Anaconda program. Their military has been degraded by about 90%, but more importantly, they have no oil. No oil is getting in. They even have gas lines in their own country. Their currency is worthless. They’re the pariah of the world.

I heard not long ago a prominent political scientist say everybody was rooting for Iran and not for us. They may have said that, but they’re going to be delighted to see that country implode, which it will.

It’s not that the war is going bad or going good. It’s that the war is irrelevant. In other words, our life goes on and Iran’s doesn’t, and time is on our side. Maybe it’s going to be six weeks. Maybe it’s going to be six months. But it cannot survive the economic sanctions that are now in place.

And the entire Middle East is starting to wake up and see that there’s a really good chance to go to a normal regional atmosphere without that pernicious, toxic government.

The Strait of Hormuz is going to be irrelevant in two or three years. Pipelines are already in progress that will bypass the Strait of Hormuz.

And when you look at the oil situation in the world, everybody says, “Well, China has got the largest storage capacity of oil and it’s full.” Yes, but it’s finite. They’re not producing it. They’re storing it.

And in fact, they’re helping us out in an indirect way because the price of oil has not gone up because China is not on the market now, because it can’t get its hands on Venezuelan and Iranian oil.

But when Iran is out of the question, oil prices will not just drop, I think they’ll crash. And who’s going to control most of the oil in the world? The United States, because it’s got this good deal with Venezuela, and it’s already the largest producer of natural gas.

If you look at Russia, Russia’s a shadow of its former self. If you look at NATO, it’s rearming in a way that no one had thought would ever be possible.

You add it all up, and the EU model, if you look at the EU model of open borders, low fertility, 1.3%, radical green ideology trumping the use of fossil fuels, disarmament, it’s been thoroughly repudiated.

You’re going to see governments not just in Italy and Eastern Europe, but you’re going to see soon in France and probably in the U.K., governments that are going to look a lot more like the conservative government of the United States than they do their past liberal traditions.

In other words, the socialist model has failed all over the world, and it’s starting to implode. And it’s not gaining ground in the United States. It’s a last gasp of a frustrated urban elite and partly due to radical immigration.

Add it all up, and the United States is in a preeminent position. And the world today has nothing in common with the world just five years ago. That could be very bad.

But when you look systematically in a disinterested, rational fashion, and you look at the power of China vis-à-vis the United States, you look at Russia vis-à-vis the United States, you look at Latin America vis-à-vis the United States, you look at the Middle East vis-à-vis the United States, you look at Europe vis-à-vis the United States, you come up with either two conclusions, and they’re not incompatible.

No. 1, the United States is much stronger and in a much better position than those countries and regions I just mentioned.

And No. 2, whether they like us or not, they’re moving toward the United States, not because they want to necessarily, but because our system is producing spectacular growth economically, militarily, socially, culturally, and, more importantly, in the technologies to come in the future: AI, software, space exploration, satellites, bioengineering. We’re preeminent.

So, do not listen before these midterms that we’re in crisis, the loss of war. We’re in a world that is completely unrecognizable to the one five years ago. And the fact that we haven’t been able to appreciate it is largely because we’re right in the middle of the storm. We’re in the eye of the hurricane.

But the storm is passing, and it’s going to be very advantageous for the United States in the next decade.

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:

192 Democrats Vote Against Resolution Condemning Socialism, Supporting Constitution and Secure Elections

Dems Call Birthright Citizenship Hearing a ‘Bigoted’ Effort From Chip Roy

Democrats Vote to Pack the Supreme Court

EXCLUSIVE: Trump Admin Moves To Revoke Tax Exempt Status For Racially Discriminatory Schools

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

Democrats Vote to Pack the Supreme Court

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

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.

The Value and Virtues of Capitalism

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’

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.

Charlie Kirk Speaks from the Grave

Just in time for the one-year anniversary of the murder of evangelist and Christian activist Charlie Kirk, one of the left’s leading influencers mocked him.

Islamist and socialist influencer Hasan Piker recently made fun of Kirk and his death in front of an international audience, drawing “cheers and laughter from his audience.” Piker has the ear of DSA senatorial candidate for Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed.

These are cynical days. As we all remember, Charlie Kirk was murdered in cold blood on a college campus in Utah before the watching world on September 10, 2025.

About a year before his murder, I was privileged to interview him for Christian radio. We were discussing his anti-Woke book, entitled, Right Wing Revolution: How to Beat the Woke and Save the West. The purpose of this piece, a year after his death, is to let Charlie speak from the grave.

In that interview, Charlie warned us about some of the dangerous forces in our society that threaten our very existence, if they continue to rise.

I asked Charlie, “Why should the woke control our lives, limit our destiny, and deny us our God-given liberties?”

He responded, “Well, they shouldn’t, and that’s what the book is all about. It’s about trying to reclaim our position in this country and to restore self-government. The woke, I believe, is the demonic. I believe it comes from a very dark place. The woke is a mixture of postmodernism, of nihilism, of deconstructionism all mixed together. The woke have taken control over almost every single major institution in this country.”

Kirk went on, “And it’s going to require an effort of people of all different sorts of backgrounds, but especially people of faith to rise up, to understand the enemy, and to fight for liberty, and to fight for righteousness….We need to fight in every way we possibly can, and this book lays out the path forward.”

I asked him if he wanted to define woke further than what he had just said. Charlie responded, “Well, the best way I could define it is it’s a group and an ideology that complains until they control. So they complain about certain injustices, inequities, inequalities until they control institutions.”

I asked him to contrast the views of the founding fathers—who said our rights come from God—with today’s woke crowd.

Charlie said, “The idea of inalienable rights is totally at odds with the woke. You see, they don’t believe in a God. They don’t believe in the eternal and transcendent purpose now. Instead, they believe that there is no purpose. There is no meaning. And again, the woke is just a filler term for what we have been fighting on the spiritual domain for the last couple-thousands of years. And the enemy comes to lie, steal, cheat, and destroy. But Jesus has come to give life and life more abundantly, as it says in John 10:10.”

Question. Have things gotten better or worse since Charlie said the following in our interview? “And if pastors and Christians start to rise up and speak out more, we can be ultimately successful. But right now it seems the church is largely indifferent towards the rise of Marxism in the West” [emphasis mine].

He added, “I call on Christians to start to really rise up and to start to understand the stakes in front of us. It’s easy to just issue forth negative criticism or complaints. It’s going to be the question of whether or not we do something constructive and whether or not we combine our forces together to fight for goodness, truth, and beauty.”

Charlie also addressed the source of our liberty—God. He said, “Liberty is not man’s idea. It is God’s idea. And that is a very important thing, that God wants us to be free. In the first statement of the Ten Commandments, God says, ‘I’m the Lord your God, who delivered you out of the house of bondage in Egypt’ [Exodus 20:2]. ‘Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty’[2 Corinthians 3:17]. In Leviticus 25:10, the Lord says—and it’s on the Liberty Bell: ‘Proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof.’ And so it is God’s heart for us to be free. The woke do not want us to be free. They want us to be controlled and afraid. And so we need to get the message out.”

I’m confident that if Charlie were alive today, he would warn us that much more about the rise of the woke Marxists in America and radical Islamists today, like those who mocked the anniversary of his murder. Thankfully, his widow, Ericka, assistant Andrew Kolvet, and others are continuing the vital work he started at Turning Point USA.

©2026 All rights reserved.

When Confronted with Progressive Anti–Semitism, Jewish Liberals Blame Trump

Many Jewish democrat liberals would probably only feel rain if spat upon by antisemitic progressives. 

The undeniable rise of vulgar antisemitism on the left and in the Democratic Party is a reality that has caused many liberal American Jews to finally take notice, though some go to great lengths to rationalize it as a reaction to President Trump and ignore the foundational influence of Jew-hatred in progressive ideology. Self-delusion is a powerful tool for maintaining political dogmas.

Unlike Jewish members of the British Labour Party who staged a protest exodus when antisemitism roiled their ranks under leader Jeremy Corbyn, Jewish Democrats cannot seem to muster the same resolve to chastise their own establishment, despite its embrace of radicals and socialists whose ideologies are steeped in hatred of Jews and Israel. Indeed, some even justify supporting radical candidates for the sake of party unity, as did those national Democratic leaders who endorsed Abdul El-Sayed — an anti-Israel Senatorial candidate — after he won the Michigan primary.

Only Alan Dershowitz seemed to get it right when he resigned his membership and described the Democrats as “the most anti-Israel, most anti-Semitic, most pro-terrorist, most anti-American party in modern American history.” He was so alienated over the Democrats’ embrace of radicalism that he registered Republican for the first time in his life.

In contrast, many Jewish liberals would probably only feel rain if spat upon by antisemitic progressives.

This point was underscored in a recent discussion with a friend who was outraged at the increase in Jew-hatred across the American political, cultural, and academic landscape, but felt compelled to blame Trump. While she conceded that neither Trump nor conservatives hold any sway over the academic establishment, Democratic party, or legacy media, she theorized that they are emboldened in their Jew-hatred because of Trump’s supposed antisemitism.

I pointed out the logical disconnect between statement and fact by challenging her to provide specific examples. She could not. And when I mentioned the Trump family’s decades-long charitable relationships with assorted Jewish institutions, she argued they were politically motivated – although these associations long predated Trump’s entry into politics.

Trump’s father, Fred, for example, donated land and funds for construction of the orthodox Beach Haven Jewish Center. He also contributed to Long Island Jewish Medical Center and numerous Jewish charities and was a longtime booster for Israel Bonds. Given the father’s longstanding support for Jewish causes and the State of Israel, it should not be surprising that the son would continue the family tradition, supporting among other institutions Beit El Yeshiva in Israel, the Museum of Jewish Heritage, Jewish National Fund, and some Chabad centers in the United States.

I then subtly goaded my friend by asking whether, despite these connections, prejudice could be inferred from earlier associations with bigoted organizations and personalities, to which she replied “of course.” Thinking I had thrown her a lifeline, she asserted that relationships with antisemitic churches or anti-Israel zealots could clearly indicate Jew-hatred. I then informed her that Trump had no such associations, but Barack Obama did – for example, his twenty-year membership in the church of Jeremiah Wright (a well-known radical pastor criticized for antisemitic rhetoric and falsely accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing) and his validation of Israel-haters like Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, in whom he expressed personal pride.

If those criteria are suggestive of antisemitism, I asked, how could she justify voting for Obama twice, especially given his tendency to downplay hostility against Jews or falsely equate it with “Islamophobia,” and his failure to acknowledge the Jew-hatred that permeated his progressive base (and perhaps correlated with the more than seven-thousand antisemitic incidents and hate-crimes reported during his presidency)?

My friend had no comeback, so she declared our debate a stalemate — though such can only occur when neither side has a winning argument. Our colloquy ended, however, simply because she was confounded by facts she did not like but could not refute. That’s not a stalemate. I told her she is free to dislike Donald Trump for any reason or none at all – he certainly can be polarizing and is given to dramatic hyperbole. But faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, she could not justify her dislike based on nonexistent antisemitism. Neither could she prove her thesis that liberal antisemitism is stimulated by Trump’s supposed hatred of Jews, considering his multigenerational history of philosemitism and support for the Jewish state.

Part of her problem — and in fact the problem of many on both left and right — is the inability to define Jew-hatred or recognize its uniqueness. Antisemitism is referred to as the “world’s oldest hatred” because of its breadth, scope, and antiquity; and though not exclusive to right or left, religious or secular, its meaning is shaped by multifarious ideological orientations.

Indeed, doctrinal antisemitism can be found in the scriptures of other so-called Abrahamic religions because of their foundational need to delegitimize the people and faith they claim to supersede. Jews are demonized throughout Christian scripture, for example, which depicts them as deceitful spawn of the devil (e.g., John 8:44-47), bloodthirsty murderers of Jesus and the Prophets (e.g., Matthew 23:31-33; 1 Thessalonians 2), bearers of hereditary blood guilt (e.g., Matthew 27:25), and denizens of “the synagogue of Satan.” (Revelation, 2:9; 3:9.)

And despite liberal claims of Muslim tolerance, Jews are likewise villainized in the Quran, which accuses the Jews of perverting their own scripture (e.g., Sura 3:71; 4:46), and Hadith, which contains eschatological passages foretelling the Jews’ end-times annihilation (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 56, No. 791). Muslim scripture also contains multiple references concerning the use of hudnas (false treaties) to facilitate belligerent conquest over non-Muslims.

Though progressives may be familiar with anti-Jewish themes throughout Christian literature, they tend to describe Islam as “a religion of peace.” However, they do so not because they understand the Quran (most have not read it) or the lengthy history of anti-Jewish persecution under Islam. Rather, progressives feel political kinship, particularly with Islamists who share their rejection of western values — even though their endorsement of feminism, gay rights, and trans advocacy would subject them to discrimination or death under Sharia law.

Jewish conservatives often downplay Christian hatred or ambivalence regarding Jews to avoid scuttling political alliances, particularly “friendship evangelism,” which uses affinity for Jews and Israel as subterfuge to proselytize. While evangelicals claim they do so out of love, they are guided by the belief that Jews are spiritually doomed unless “saved” by Christian doctrines that, in truth, are pagan in origin and opposed by Torah law. Moreover, their actions reflect profound ignorance of Tanakh and disrespect for the Jewish spirit. Yet, some conservatives turn a blind eye to preserve Gentile support for Israel, which may be an important policy, but should be judged with open eyes.

This can lead to uncomfortable situations, however, like one that occurred during a recent Christian Zionist conference featuring multiple speakers, including a “messianic Jewish” influencer whose presence offended Jewish guests and prompted some to walk out. When a rabbi explained to the organizers that “messianic Judaism” is not Judaism at all, but rather a deceptive Christian movement created by missionaries to evangelize Jews through the dissimulative use of misappropriated cultural symbols and customs, they could not satisfactorily explain the motivation for inviting this presenter in the first place.

Clearly, anti-Judaism is not always physically violent; sometimes it presents surreptitiously as goodwill to seduce Jews away from the faith of their ancestors.

Whereas doctrinal Jew-hatred can be expressed both physically and spiritually, the root cause is not always religion. It can arise from ethnic and economic stereotypes and tensions, folk myth, racial presumptions, or xenophobia, as well as secular intellectualism. Quite famously, Voltaire attacked the Jews’ religion and culture, Immanuel Kant depicted them as a “nation of cheaters,” Schopenhauer derided their moral values, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain demonized them as racial parasites (well before Hitler).

Hatred of Jews is so widespread and disparate that it would seem to be supernatural. And in fact, this is what Biblical prophecy suggests, as stated in the Torah: “The Lord will scatter you among all the nations, from one end of the earth to the other…and among those nations, you will not be calm, nor will your foot find rest. There, the Lord will give you a trembling heart, dashed hopes, and a depressed soul.” (Sefer Devarim, 28:64-65.) However, the Tanakh in Nevi’im also prophesies the Jews’ collective redemption and integral role as a “light to the nations” during the messianic era. (Sefer Yeshayahu, 49:6.)

Perhaps what Jewish liberals fail to understand is the paradigmatic diffuseness of antisemitism and that no ideology or culture is singularly responsible for it or immune to it. Before they blame their political opponents for spewing hatred, they should hold a mirror to their own worldview and acknowledge that moral impurity knows no partisan bounds; and then they should rediscover the beauty and relevance of Tanakh.

©2026 All rights reserved.

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

Whom Do Democratic Socialists of America Politicians Represent?

The Democratic Socialists of America has made no secret of how it views elected office. The remarkable thing is that almost no one seems to have noticed.

At its 2025 national convention, the DSA passed a package of electoral measures drafted by members of the organization’s National Electoral Commission. One of those measures, called “Focused National Endorsements,” established new criteria governing which candidates can receive the DSA’s national endorsement and support.

And one requirement in particular is striking.

Candidates are expected to “view themselves as socialist organizers first, and legislators second.”

Read that again: organizers first, legislators second.

This raises a question that every voter should be asking when a nationally endorsed DSA candidate appears on the ballot: If elected, whom does that person actually represent—his constituents or the socialist movement?

The DSA’s other requirements help answer that question. Candidates are expected to encourage people to join the organization, help grow their local DSA chapter, and develop DSA leaders through their campaigns.

For the DSA, then, electoral success serves a purpose beyond winning office or passing legislation. It is also meant to help build the DSA itself.

That stands in sharp contrast to the traditional American understanding of representative government.

James Madison, writing in Federalist Paper No. 57, described republican government as a system intended to select rulers possessing the “wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society.” He also stressed the importance of representatives maintaining “fidelity and sympathy with the great mass of the people.”

John Adams made a related point in “Thoughts on Government,” written in 1776 as the colonies were creating new political institutions. A representative assembly, he argued, “should be in miniature, an exact portrait of the people at large. It should think, feel, reason, and act like them.”

Adams’ emphasis was on whom a representative assembly ultimately belongs to: the people.

Madison, meanwhile, also warned about the danger of factions in Federalist Paper No. 10. He feared that groups driven by a common passion or interest could sacrifice “the public good and the rights of other citizens” to their own objectives. The constitutional system was designed in part to prevent precisely that kind of narrow interest from overwhelming the broader good.

Seen in that light, the DSA’s choice of words is especially revealing.

To be sure, an elected official will inevitably have political convictions. He may belong to a party, campaign on a platform, and make promises about the policies he intends to pursue. But once in office, he represents an entire constituency, including people who opposed him at the ballot box.

Serving that broader constituency requires judgment. As circumstances change, unforeseen issues arise, and competing interests have to be weighed. An elected official remains accountable to the voters, but accountability is not the same thing as obedience to a political organization.

Of course, political parties expect their candidates to support their programs.

But there is an important difference between sharing a group’s principles and declaring that one’s main role after election is to remain an organizer for that group.

Members of Congress do not take an oath to the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or the Democratic Socialists of America. They swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Public office is a public trust rooted in our constitutional system, not a franchise granted by a political movement.

The DSA has attracted plenty of attention in recent years for its radical positions on capitalism, policing, Israel, and other issues. Those policies deserve scrutiny. But Americans should also scrutinize the assumptions the organization brings to elected office itself.

The DSA says its candidates are socialist organizers first. Voters should remember that before making them legislators.

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

AUTHOR

Michael Freund

Michael Freund served as Deputy Communications Director under Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A veteran Jerusalem Post columnist, Freund is currently a Visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Follow on X @msfreund.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hakeem Jeffries Seethes as 2 House Dems Help Republicans in Big Way

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

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

Proud Nazi Hasan Piker Is Now the Face of the Democratic Party

Piker Is Now the Face of the Democratic Party and the party’s cowardly efforts to distance themselves from the Maoist—without even naming him—are not going to help matters.

Hugh HewittFox News: Piker has now gone so “supernova radical” that some Democratic leaders and elected officials have had to rebuke him without naming him — including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Sen. Elissa Slotkin — and others, like New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, have slapped Piker down by name…. There is a quality of frenzy about Piker that repels moderate Americans who love the country and who exist in both parties and as independents. Piker’s Maoist rants and his long list of transgressive assaults on norms are having a cumulative impact on Democrats because Piker, like the DSA as a whole, is understood to be the future of the Democratic Party, not a fringe figure who can’t break onto stages with candidates…. Most voters want a better life for themselves and their families. They don’t want the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution or Mao’s or Castro’s murderous reigns of terror.

Lensman: Yes: Hasan Piker really hates America (language warning).

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

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

Breaking: Mass Shooting in Downtown Minneapolis, Multiple Casualties

FBI Swarms Former Rep. Eric Swalwell at San Francisco Airport

Whom Do Democratic Socialists of America Politicians Represent?

TISH BOMBSHELL: Letitia James Prosecutor Says AG’s Office Ordered Political Hit Job on Trump and His Allies

THE COWARD’S JIHAD: They Terrorize Jews Because Confronting Muslims Could Get Them Killed

SENATE SABOTEURS: How The GOP Swamp Strangles Trump’s America First Agenda

BOMBSHELL: Judge Who Tossed 9/11 Mastermind’s Confession Blamed ‘Conservative Tendencies’ for Rising Extremism

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

Obama Judge Orders Postal Service To Defy Trump’s Mail-In Ballot Executive Order

An Obama-appointed judge once again temporarily barred the U.S. Postal Service from carrying out President Donald Trump’s restrictions on mail-in ballots in a Thursday ruling.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani lifted a preliminary injunction Wednesday after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that some of Trump’s limits could remain in place. The judge issued a new ruling reversing the previous decision, arguing that USPS overstepped its legal mandate, which once again blocked Trump’s rule.

Trump signed an executive order on March 31 titled, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” which established certain rules for the USPS regarding mail-in and absentee ballots. Section 3 of the executive order required all outgoing election mail to be marked as “Official Election Mail,” including a unique Intelligent Mail barcode and be pre-approved by the USPS for design and barcode placement.

“Where a state or local election official does not obtain envelope and return envelope design approval, or does not upload voter information, or does not include unique intelligent mail bar codes on ballot envelopes, the U.S.P.S. will not mail ballots to voters,” the ruling stated. Talwani argued that Congress did not delegate authority to the USPS to regulate election mail. She argued the rules would prevent citizens from voting by mail unless the USPS approved the ballots in a timely manner.

The judge further argued that imposing these rules on the states is unconstitutional. She placed a fourteen-day stay on the “implementation or enforcement” of the rules, which prevents USPS from taking these steps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. “The court finds Plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that (1) the USPS lacked authority to issue the Final Rule; (2) the Final Rule is unconstitutional in imposing these requirements on the States; and (3) the Final Rule is unconstitutional in prohibiting non-compliant State and local officials from using the United States Postal Service to mail ballots,” the judge said.

A court in California issued a similar injunction, which reached the Supreme Court in the case, Trump v. California. The high court stayed the injunction, allowing the administration to move forward with the executive order.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

SENATE SABOTEURS: How The GOP Swamp Strangles Trump’s America First Agenda

The recent showdown on Capitol Hill over multi-billion-dollar funding legislation has once again laid bare the deep, toxic disconnect between the America First movement and the entrenched establishment of the Republican Party. When the Senate effectively sidelined key executive priorities — most notably gutting provisions for the much-debated justice and administrative initiatives alongside grand architectural plans like the White House ballroom funding — it sent a clear signal to the grassroots.

For years, the uniparty swamp in Washington has mastered the art of co-opting conservative momentum while quietly preserving its own institutional power. The latest budget maneuvering proves that when push comes to shove, establishment figures on the hill are more than willing to clip the executive branch’s wings if it threatens their worldview or makes their upcoming re-election cycles uncomfortable.

To understand why this happens, you have to look at the anatomy of a Senate that often operates as a retirement home for legacy politicians who care more about committee chairs and cocktail circuits than fulfilling a populist mandate. When major funding packages meant to secure the border and back robust enforcement mechanisms are dragged down by internal beltway bickering over executive oversight, the real casualty isn’t just a line item – it’s the entire agenda voted for by tens of millions of Americans.

The establishment’s resistance typically centers around a familiar playbook: pearl-clutching over institutional norms, leveraging procedural bottlenecks, and leaning on acting agency heads to voluntarily water down proposals before they even hit the floor. We saw this script play out with intense wrangling over specialized funds intended to push back against administrative overreach and the weaponization of federal agencies. While grassroots patriots view these mechanisms as essential self-defense against a weaponized deep state, swamp-dwellers view them as a threat to the comfortable status quo.

WATCH: RINO Republicans just locked the President out of his own power

We see this exact defensive posture in how legacy senators handle critical funding and personnel maneuvers, often aligning with the opposition to strip out vital accountability tools. When major stopgap measures move through the chamber, provisions targeting bureaucratic overreach, election integrity checks, or emergency security priorities are systematically scrubbed to appease a uniparty consensus.

Worse still, outgoing or primary-defeated establishment figures — a cohort sometimes described as political “wounded bears” with nothing left to lose electorally – frequently leverage their positions to blunt executive momentum. Whether they are watering down anti-weaponization funds, stalling critical intelligence overhauls, or clearing path-of-least-resistance deals with the other side, these institutionalists treat the populist mandate as an inconvenience to be managed rather than a directive to be obeyed.

What happens when a voting base demands systemic disruption, but the legislative branch is staffed by politicians with nothing left to lose – or conversely, everything to protect in a primary fight? You get endless friction. Senators facing tough electoral maps or nursing long-standing grudges will routinely fold under moderate pressure, trading away core executive priorities for a temporary sigh of relief from corporate media pressure.

This dynamic exposes the structural flaw of relying on a legislative body that fundamentally fears change. Funding bills are supposed to be the ultimate leverage tool to force policy compliance and execute a mandate. Instead, the upper chamber routinely turns them into Swiss cheese, carving out the sharpest teeth of any reform package until nothing is left but hollow compromises.

The legislative theater surrounding stopgap funding measures and policy riders reveals a much deeper, systemic crisis within the federal budget process. When stopgap spending bills clear the upper chamber stripped of vital executive objectives — such as targeted voting security mandates and critical emergency allocations — it signals a calculated abdication by legacy lawmakers. For the America First grassroots, this legislative friction exposes how the beltway apparatus routinely uses fiscal deadlines to suffocate populist reforms.

The breakdown is exacerbated by fractured relationships within the caucus itself. With leadership pushing through bipartisan compromises to avert fiscal shutdowns ahead of midterm elections, dissenting members find themselves alienated. Escalating tensions over executive nominations, surveillance authorities, and agency oversight have turned routine appropriations into proxy wars. When establishment figures prioritize procedural comfort over structural overhaul, they validate the exact frustrations driving the populist base’s demand for total institutional disruption.

For the MAGA base, this is an infuriating reminder that winning the White House is only half the battle. The administrative state and its legislative enablers operate as a dual-engine machine designed to absorb, dilute, and ultimately neutralize any genuine attempt at structural transformation. Until accountability reaches the legislative branch, the swamp will continue to clip the wings of any leader trying to put America first.

This video provides an overview of the recent Senate maneuvering on stopgap funding legislation heading into the winter months.

Senate passes bill that would fund government into December, sending it to House next

©2026 . All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: RINO Senator Lisa Murkowski faces mass calls to be PRIMARIED and REPLACED

Lifetime Taxes, by State

I was sent this interesting graphic from this article. It said:

This visualization maps the estimated lifetime tax bill for a single filer in every U.S. state, including federal and state income taxes, as well as salesproperty, and vehicle taxes.

The data for this visualization comes from Self Financial, with estimates as of June 2026.

The analysis assumes a 45-year working life with constant earnings and tax rates, a life expectancy of 79.6 yearshomeownership beginning at age 40, and ownership of five vehicles over a lifetime.

I had a firsthand experience when we moved our primary home from New York State to North Carolina. For example, the property taxes on our NY home were 5± TIMES the property taxes on our new NC home — and they were both valued almost identically… Gas prices are almost always 40±¢/gal lower in NC… Cost of electricity in NC (per KWH) is less than half the per KWH cost in NY. Etc., etc.

One obvious observation is that the highest tax states (those more reddish) are almost all Democrat run.

Those who now complaining about the cost of gas should look more closely at all the other taxes they are paying in their State.

©2026 All rigts reserved.


Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I urge all readers to subscribe to AlterAI — IMO the absolute best AI option for subjective questions.

I will consider posting reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.

My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2026 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time!)

PROFITS SKYROCKET at America’s Biggest Companies While Blue States Suffer Record-High Living Costs Under Mamdani-Style Democrat Policies

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that profits are soaring at America’s biggest companies—and their leaders say that likely won’t change soon. From Target and J.M. Smucker to farm-equipment maker Deere, companies spanning the breadth of the U.S. economy are ringing up heftier sales and earnings. Many have raised financial outlooks for the year. Chalk the good times up to a confluence of fortunate events: red-hot AI spending, federal spending and the windfall companies are getting in the form of refunds of some of their past tariff payments. Plus, a booming stock market and high home values are helping many shoppers keep spending, even as plenty of others struggle to absorb rising prices. What are they buying? New appliances, toys and clothing.

The Democrat media narrative and reality have never been more at odds.

Trump economy soars as Democrats like Mamdani’s socialist ‘affordability’ agenda drives New York housing costs to record highs.

As the American economy surges and corporate profits soar, Democrat moochers and looters are dragging their cities in the opposite direction. The irony is staggering: Zohran Mamdani campaigns on “affordability,” yet his rent-control crusade and war on landlords have achieved the polar opposite—choking off housing, driving owners from the market and pushing New York’s rents and housing costs to unprecedented levels. Democrats create scarcity, call the resulting catastrophe “capitalism,” and then demand even more power to intensify the policies that caused it.

Corporate America’s Profits Are Booming—and Signal More Good Times Ahead

By: Sarah Nassauer and Theo Francis, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 30, 2026:

Profits are booming at America’s biggest companies—and their leaders say that likely won’t change soon.

From Target and J.M. Smucker to farm-equipment maker Deere, companies spanning the breadth of the U.S. economy are ringing up heftier sales and earnings. In recent days, many have raised financial outlooks for the year, citing robust sales as just one of the reasons.

Chalk the good times up to a confluence of fortunate events: red-hot artificial-intelligence spending, federal spending and the windfall companies are getting in the form of refunds of some of their past tariff payments. Plus, a booming stock market and high home values are helping many shoppers keep spending, even as plenty of others struggle to absorb rising prices.

At Abercrombie & Fitch, consumers kept buying even after the fashion retailer pared back discounts in the most recent quarter, executives told investors on a conference call last week. That, plus around $120 million in expected tariff refunds, led the retailer to raise its full-year financial estimates.

“The underlying business performed above our expectations,” Chief Financial Officer Robert Ball said on the conference call.

Across S&P 500 companies, per-share earnings soared 53% in the second quarter from a year earlier, while sales rose nearly 16%, according to data from LSEG. Investment gains from tech giants Amazon.com and Alphabet added fuel to the big earnings surge.

Even without those gains, S&P 500 earnings rose the most since fall 2021. Quarterly sales also climbed more than they have in years. By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, more companies raised their profit guidance for the current quarter than lowered it—a turnaround from a year ago, when more were lowering their outlooks.

Tariff refunds are providing a big, temporary tailwind. They are likely to account for more than 4% of third-quarter economic growth—or add about 0.2 percentage point to the Atlanta Fed’s growth forecast of between 4% and 5%—according to a mid-August estimate from Apollo Global Management.

Improved full-year financial estimates came from a diverse set of companies, including healthcare companies McKesson and Charles River Laboratories International and jelly giant Smucker. At many of them, the refunds flowed primarily to the bottom line, rather than into lower prices for shoppers.

At fitness-watch maker Garmin, $21 million in tariff refunds boosted profit margins in the quarter that ended in late July, executives told investors late last month. Strong demand for its fitness products helped, too, leading the company to raise its full-year financial guidance.

Even without the refund, “our gross margin performance was impressive by any historical comparison,” Chief Executive Clifton Pemble told investors.

Retailers generally reported strong quarterly sales figures in recent weeks, noting that consumers are spending on new appliances, toys and clothing even as they navigate higher fuel prices and long-term inflation.

Dollar General, known for drawing cash-strapped shoppers to its mostly rural stores, posted a fifth consecutive quarter of higher traffic and a 3.5% increase in comparable sales. Electronics retailer Best Buy said its shoppers were buying up computers, TVs and AI-enabled glasses, lifting its most recent quarterly sales and profit. Target also reported higher sales, profit and a benefit from tariff refunds in the most recent quarter, noting shoppers pushed up sales of toys, food and beauty products.

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Manhattan rents reach all-time high of $6,655/month amid Mamdani’s rent freeze and pied-a-terre tax threat

Pre-IPO Shopping Spree — Why the Giants are Buying Everything

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

Here Are The 20 Biggest Donors In The 2026 Midterm Election Cycle So Far

The 20 biggest donors in the 2026 midterm elections poured $1.2 billion into House and Senate races in the 2026 election cycle so far.

The tech industry, sports betting groups, billionaires and special interest groups poured tons of cash into the races ahead of November, according to The New York Times. The donors included Elon Musk, George and Alex Soros and Coinbase, a cryptocurrency exchange.

Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, the founders of the Silicon Valley firm Andreessen Horowitz, donated $115.3 million, including $50 million to Leading the Future, a major super PAC supporting artificial intelligence (AI), according to the Times. They also donated $46.8 million to crypto super PAC Fairshake and $12 million to MAGA Inc., a super PAC supporting President Donald Trump.

George and Alex Soros, a father-and-son pair, gave $103.7 million to super PACs supporting Democrats, according to the Times. The Soros pair donated $102 million to Democracy PAC, which transfers money to other Democratic super PACs, $500,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and $300,000 to Fair Fight, a voting rights-focused super PAC.

Hedge fund investor Jeff Yass gave $93.8 million to super PACs supporting Republicans, such as MAGA Inc. and the School Freedom Fund, according to the Times.

Musk, the world’s first trillionaire, donated $90.5 million to help Republicans. He gave $50.3 million to America PAC, a super PAC focused on Republican voter turnout and $10 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund, the main super PAC backing House Republicans, according to the Times. Musk also donated $10 million to Fight Kentucky, a super PAC that backed Republican Kentucky Senate candidate Nate Morris and another $10 million to the Senate Leadership Fund.

Morris lost to Republican Kentucky Rep. Andy Barr in the May 19 primary. Barr is running to replace Republican Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, who announced he would not seek reelection.

OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman and his wife, Anna, donated $50 million, saying they are motivated solely by American competitiveness in AI, according to the Times. The couple gave $25 million each to Leading the Future, a major super PAC supporting AI development, and MAGA Inc.

The cryptocurrency industry poured nearly $200 million into candidates backing the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, the industry’s biggest legislative priority. Coinbase, the largest cryptocurrency exchange based in the U.S., donated $55.2 million in the race to super PACs supporting Democrat and Republican candidates, according to the Times.

Ripple Labs and its co-founder, Chris Larsen, donated $65.7 million, according to the Times. Coinbase and Ripple Labs each gave $48 million to Fairshake, a super PAC supporting the crypto industry.

DraftKings, a sports-betting site, donated $34.8 million to super PACs supporting both sides of the aisle, according to the Times. The special interest group gave most of its donations to Win for America, a super PAC for the sports betting industry, while it gave smaller donations to the Senate Leadership Fund and the New Leadership PAC.

Three other major donors included Miriam Adelson, who gave a total of $67.6 million to super PACs supporting House and Senate Republicans, according to the Times. Republican fundraiser Paul Singer donated $52.5 million to the STW PAC Inc., the Senate Leadership Fund and the Congressional Leadership Fund.

Adelson and Singer are staunch supporters of Israel and fund the pro-Israel lobby. MAGA Kentucky, a pro-Trump super PAC, spent over $7 million in independent expenditures in an attempt to oust Republican Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie after receiving $750,000 from the Preserve America PAC that is tied to Adelson.

Majority Forward, a nonprofit arm of the Senate Majority PAC, donated $63 million to the Senate Majority PAC to support Senate Democratic candidates, according to the Times. The American Action Network, Koch Inc., the American Prosperity Alliance and One Nation were also among the top donors.

AUTHOR

Nicole Silverio

Capitol Hill Reporter

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘100% False… They Just Lie’: Hegseth Blasts NBC News Over Rumored 2028 Presidential Campaign

Crypto Industry Raining Millions On Candidates That Back Its Favorite Bill

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

Trump Says U.S. Is Taking Partial Control of Venezuela’s Vast Oil Reserves

(Reuters) — President Donald Trump on Friday announced an unprecedented U.S. push to take control of a fifth of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, betting that American companies can revive the OPEC nation’s battered energy industry while delivering a new source of crude to help bring down U.S. fuel prices.

Trump provided few details about the agreement, saying only that the U.S. had secured majority control of more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuela’s proven oil reserves through a partnership with private business.

The South American nation’s leader welcomed the agreement, saying it would boost the economy and government revenue.

The new deal would represent a dramatic expansion of the U.S. role in Venezuela’s oil industry as the Trump administration seeks to revive the country’s production and secure more crude for U.S. refineries. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves but produces only about 1.25 million barrels per day, far below its potential after years of underinvestment, mismanagement and sanctions.

Rubio Calls Deal a Win-Win

“At my direction, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, working closely with Highly Respected Interim President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez, and, through a partnership with private business, have secured majority U.S. control of more than 65 BILLION BARRELS of proven Oil Reserves in Venezuela, at no cost to the American Taxpayer,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

The announcement followed weeks of U.S.-Venezuelan negotiations over a deal that would give American companies long-term access to a group of Venezuelan oilfields and guarantee the resulting crude supply to the United States.

Venezuelan officials are preparing to sign agreements next week granting new oil exploration and production rights to a number of companies, particularly U.S. firms.

Sources have told Reuters that a lease model was under consideration, with fields potentially auctioned to U.S. producers, but the arrangement could face legal and constitutional challenges in Venezuela, where the state retains control over core oil industry activities.

Trump did not disclose the structure of the agreement, the fields or companies involved or how the United States would exercise majority control over the reserves. A list seen by Reuters shows the fields are in the Orinoco Belt and Lake Maracaibo regions.

Rubio described the agreement as a win for both countries, saying on X that it would secure stable, low-cost oil for the United States and help lower gasoline prices.

For Venezuela, Rubio said the deal would bring nearly $100 billion in private investment, support thousands of high-paying jobs and help rebuild the country’s economy.

Rodriguez, who became interim leader after the U.S. seized President Nicolas Maduro in January, said late on Friday that the agreement would allow for a significant increase in production through the development of 17 strategic fields and result in tax revenue for the country totaling $209 billion.

“These investments will contribute not only to the recovery and modernization of our industry, but also to our country’s economic growth, the energy security of our hemisphere, and greater balance in international markets,” she said in a statement.

Legal Basis, Financial Structure Unclear

Analysts said they needed to see more details on the agreement’s legal and financial structure before assessing whether it could attract significant investment.

Also unclear is whether the deal will lower gasoline prices in the short term, as developing the infrastructure needed to produce, transport and refine Venezuela’s heavy crude could take years.

David Goldwyn, president of Goldwyn Global Strategies, said it was unclear whether a U.S. government lease would have a legal basis under Venezuela’s constitution and its new hydrocarbons law, adding that there is “no precedent for having the U.S. government enter into a lease to operate oil fields.”

Goldwyn also questioned whether the plan would address the obstacles that have deterred investment in Venezuela for years. “It is hard to see how this kind of arrangement would accelerate investment at any material scale,” he said, citing political uncertainty, an inadequate power grid, limited export capacity and government discretion over the industry.

Since removing Maduro, Washington has been trying to secure a stable flow of Venezuelan crude for U.S. refineries while promoting American investment in the country’s oil industry.

The Trump administration is under pressure ahead of midterm elections in November to mollify consumer concerns over rising gasoline prices. Cheaper oil supplies and expanded output could help.

The U.S. also has been looking for solutions to replenish its Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the nation’s oil stockpile, including the possibility of crude ?swaps with U.S. producers.

Venezuela nationalized its oil industry in the 1970s, putting state-run PDVSA at its center. Under then-President Hugo Chavez, the government tightened control, forcing foreign producers into state-led joint ventures and later expropriating assets, including projects operated by ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips.

Under Maduro’s rule Venezuela’s production fell sharply.

(Reporting by Jarrett Renshaw, Costas Pitas, Christian Martinez, Marianna Parraga, Timothy Gardner and Vivian Sequera; Editing by Jasper Ward, Caitlin Webber, Rosalba O’Brien, Nathan Crooks, Cynthia Osterman and William Mallard)

AUTHOR

Reuters

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.