Hamas-Linked CAIR Study Guide Blames 9/11 on Israel, Recommends Reading Osama

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

Really, what did you expect? Besides hating and plotting to murder infidels, there is something else that Islamic jihadis and their allies and enablers do with furious consistency: They never, ever take responsibility for their actions. Every jihad massacre, if they admit it happened at all and don’t stick to the claim that the whole incident is a media invention, is someone else’s fault. And of course they have a favorite group that they love to blame above all others for all the atrocities that they and their brethren in the faith commit. Yeah, you guessed it.

After all, the Qur’an says: “You will find the Jews and the idolaters the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe” (5:82), so it’s only natural that Muslims would blame Jews for virtually everything. If they’re “the most vehement of mankind in hostility” to the Muslims, they must be trying to disrupt and destroy the lives of Muslims whenever and however they can, and the Qur’an and Islamic tradition are full of passages that reflect this view. So why wouldn’t they have staged 9/11 in order to bring down the full weight of “Islamophobia” upon Muslims?

The Jerusalem Post reported Sunday that the New Jersey chapter of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), to which the Post naively refers as “the US’s largest Muslim charity,” has advocated “teaching students that the 9/11 terror attacks were due to ‘America’s support of Israel’ and said, ‘terrorism is defined differently by different groups of people.’” Of course. Anything but admitting that the hijackers were Islamic jihadis acting in line with Islamic texts and teachings, killing unbelievers in accord with Allah’s command to “kill them wherever you find them” (Qur’an 2:191, 4:89, 4:91, cf. 9:5) in service of the overall objective of destabilizing and destroying the United States, the world’s foremost infidel polity.

The guide also “contains advice for Muslim students regarding their religious rights in schools, a section on ‘Discussing Palestine in the classroom,’ and a page on ‘Muslim Studies: 9/11.’ The page reads: ‘The catastrophic events of 9/11 catapulted the Global War on Terror, marking an aggressive shift in US domestic and foreign policy and an erosion of civil liberties through the Patriot Act, which practically targeted Muslims. The 9/11 attacks also marked a renewed and egregious ‘othering’ of Muslims and those who may appear to be Muslim, which has been evident in mainstream media, on campaign trails, in literature and advertising, and even in the classroom.”

In other words, “Muslims murder nearly 3,000 people, and Muslims are the real victims.” There was nothing, of course, in Hamas-linked CAIR’s guide about Islam’s jihad imperative, or the increasingly common boasts from Muslims in the U.S. about their imminent takeover. Nothing about law enforcement and intelligence officials actually dealing with a genuine threat. Instead, it seems as if CAIR wants students to assume that 9/11 had nothing to do with the hijackers’ Muslim identity, and that Muslims were cruelly scapegoated as a result. CAIR also, of course, is silent about how the Muslim population of the U.S. more than doubled during the period of the “egregious ‘othering’ of Muslims.”

And so this is how the guide described what happened on September 11, 2001: “A group self-identifying as al-Qaeda hailing from the mountains of Afghanistan launched separate plane hijackings that ended up in different cities, causing the death of almost 3,000 people, and the resulting debris from the fallen towers caused lasting health issues in first responders.” So we apparently can’t even be sure that they were really al-Qaeda.

The Post states that the guide “then cites the 9/11 Commission Report as saying that al-Qaeda ‘launched the attacks in response to America’s support of Israel, their involvement in the Persian Gulf War, and the vast presence of the US military in the Middle East.’ It is important to note that while page 362 of the report does identify US support for Israel and American military presence in the Middle East as among the grievances that helped fuel al-Qaeda’s extremism, it at no point says 9/11 was in response to these things.”

Indeed, because it wasn’t. In his 1996 Declaration of Jihad against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holiest Sites, Osama bin Laden said that “the worst catastrophe that was inflicted upon the Moslems since the death of the Prophet” was “the occupation of the land of the two holiest sites, Islam’s own grounds, the cradle of Islam, source of the Prophet’s mission, site of the Ka’bah.” Osama was primarily enraged because U.S. troops had entered Saudi Arabia in order to fight Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

The guide “also suggests students read the full text of Bin Laden’s ‘Letter to America,’ which is hard to find online now after it became a TikTok craze in 2023 and the Guardian removed it from its website. But in that letter, Osama wrote: “What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you? The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam…. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah’s Word and religion reign Supreme.”

“Allah Word and religion” may only “reign Supreme” in this view when the fullness of Islamic law is imposed and enforced in society. That would requirement the replacement of the U.S. Constitution with Sharia.

After this guide brought unwanted attention to the unsavory gang of pro-jihad thugs who produced it, CAIR hastily revised it, and added this note: “An earlier version of the document did not go through proper vetting and included a link to a primary source document that was removed in November 2025.” Yeah, sure, CAIR, you’ve changed all your views now. Pull my other leg.

AUTHOR

Robert Spencer

RELATED ARTICLES:

Abdul El-Sayed’s Pedophilia Problem

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

RELATED VIDEO: Years of reports on 9/11

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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 Hewitt – Fox 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

Pamela Geller

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

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

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.

Trump Admin Links Jane’s Revenge to Foreign Network Supporting Antifa Violence

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

An Italy-based organization provided key infrastructure for violent leftist movements in the U.S., including Antifa and Jane’s Revenge, the Trump administration announced this week.

The State Department and the Treasury Department exposed how Autistici/Inventati, also referred to as the A/I Collective, provided key online services for Rose City Antifa in Portland, the Stop Cop City movement in Atlanta, and the pro-abortion agitators who targeted pro-life pregnancy centers and called themselves “Jane’s Revenge.” This move highlights the administration’s focus on dismantling the networks enabling leftist terrorism.

The State Department stated that Jane’s Revenge, which claimed responsibility for firebombing pregnancy centers after the leak of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization opinion, relied on A/I Collective tools and services “to publish official communiqués and claims of responsibility for violent and criminal acts to incite copycat attacks.”

While federal officials previously prosecuted individuals connected to some Jane’s Revenge attacks, the State Department’s designation publicly places the group within a broader international network and identifies a foreign platform that allegedly helped disseminate its message.

What Is the A/I Collective?

The State Department describes the A/I Collective as an Italian extremist group that “builds and operates the digital infrastructure for violent Antifa cells and other far-left militants across the world.” The collective’s hackers and tech developers provide “encrypted chats and email, web hosting, secure video conferencing and streaming, anonymity shields, and a suite of other technological tools,” aiming to “support the operations of far-left terrorist networks.”

“The group has become a key node in a transnational campaign by violent and criminal far-left networks to destabilize the United States and its partners across Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and beyond,” the department notes.

The A/I Collective claims to host roughly 16,000 mailboxes, 1,500 websites, 5,500 mailing lists, and 10,000 blogs on its platform.

Empowering Antifa and Leftist Agitators in the US

The State Department claims the A/I Collective provided tools for anarchists who sabotaged rail systems across France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands this year, along with the anarchist cell that took responsibility for sabotaging the Transalpine Pipeline in March, halting crude oil flows to Austria, Germany, and the Czech Republic. The latter anarchist cell reportedly used the platform to disseminate a manifesto calling for further attacks on infrastructure, referring users to a platform with maps of vulnerable critical infrastructure across North America.

Rose City Antifa in Portland, Oregon, relied on the collective’s tools and services “to organize and incite violent and criminal acts domestically, including an attack on Customs and Border Protection helicopters that led to a federal indictment.” The State Department also accused Rose City Antifa of using the collective’s tools to reveal the personal information of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

The anarchist cell that aimed to prevent the construction of a law enforcement training center in Atlanta, Georgia—a movement calling itself “Stop Cop City”—also reportedly relied on the collective’s tools when claiming responsibility for violent attacks on law enforcement officers. The State Department warns that the cell remains active and is still using the tools “to incite violent and criminal acts against government officials, law enforcement, and critical infrastructure.”

The leftist agitators who targeted Catholic churches and pro-life pregnancy centers in firebombings after the leak of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health draft opinion in 2022 also used the collective, the report states. The agitators called themselves “Jane’s Revenge.”

The State Department lists other foreign terrorist organizations that used the collective’s tools, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hamas, Hizballah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The Broader Context

The State Department designation and sanctions block A/I property subject to U.S. jurisdiction and expose those who transact with the group to potential penalties. The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control also sanctioned the A/I Collective, applying similar penalties.

These actions align with the administration’s focus on combating leftist political violence after President Donald Trump issued National Security Presidential Memorandum-7.

“Far-left extremists, their fronts, and their enablers should be on notice: We will bring the full weight of our economic tools to bear,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned in a statement Wednesday. “Political terrorism has no place in our society, and we will continue to cut the financial lifelines of these groups until they are eliminated.”

The State Department’s findings represent one of the clearest public statements yet linking Jane’s Revenge to a broader international extremist infrastructure.

AUTHOR

Tyler O’Neil

Tyler O’Neil is senior investigative reporter at the Daily Signal and the author of two books, “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center” and “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government.” Follow on X Tyler2ONeil.

RELATED ARTICLES:

DOJ Battles Columbus Over ICE Courthouse Arrest Rule

2 Virginia Ballot Measures Threaten Parental Rights

Heritage Action Joins Letter Urging AI Protections Against China

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

TERROR CRACKDOWN: Trump Admin Set to Target George Soros ‘Nonprofit’, Southern Poverty Law Center and CAIR in Major Tax Crackdown

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

Enemies of the state. The prayers of the victims of these radical terror groups have been answered.

Trump admin set to target George Soros nonprofit, Southern Poverty Law Center and CAIR in major tax crackdown: sources

By James Franey, NY post, Aug. 27, 2026:

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and the IRS could revoke the tax-free status of left-wing nonprofits such as George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, three sources familiar with the matter have told The Post.

It is part of a Trump-backed crackdown on “bogus” charities, and Treasury officials are drawing up a sweeping audit of outfits deemed to be using and abusing Uncle Sam’s tax code, the three people briefed on the Treasury Department’s internal policy deliberations said.

Bessent’s inner circle is drafting a blueprint that could ultimately strip non-compliant organizations of their 501(c)(3) status, according to two of the people familiar with the plans. The reviews could result in massive back payments and civil penalties, the same sources said.

The initiative leans in part on a 2025 executive order signed by President Donald Trump targeting nonprofits operating with a “substantial illegal purpose,” paving the way for the IRS to issue fines or even strip the tax-exempt status of charities allegedly tied to political violence, protests or radical ideologies.

Officials have also scrutinized a number of anti-corporate and labor-aligned advocacy groups that could end up on the blacklist, including the Private Equity Stakeholder Project, the anti-Amazon Athena Coalition, left-leaning watchdog MediaJustice, and the Strategic Organizing Center alongside its parent union, the SEIU, according to the three insiders briefed on the matter.

One of the sources warned that Treasury Department officials were “like a dog with a bone” and reckoned that many of the groups and their donors could be “on borrowed time.”

“There’s a lot of internal pressure to get it done, but some people are still moving too slowly at the IRS,” the source said. “That is expected to change very soon.”

The aggressive crackdown is already facing fierce legal blowback. Left-leaning legal powerhouse Protect Democracy sued Treasury and the IRS earlier this year, accusing the administration of illegally weaponizing the tax code against its political opponents.

While there is intense internal pressure from some administration officials to get “a good chunk of the crackdown” over the line before the midterms, others have argued for delaying formal enforcement until later in the term to avoid triggering massive, protracted legal battles, the three sources said.

There is a fear that adding high-profile domestic political targets like the SPLC and Soros’ network will trigger a wave of lawsuits, potentially stalling any momentum against foreign terror-linked groups like CAIR, these people told The Post.

The Treasury Department declined multiple requests to comment, but Bessent confirmed last October on the “Charlie Kirk Show” that work on compiling the hit list had begun.

To help with the review of nonprofits, Bessent enlisted Tony Saffier, a former special operations veteran and AI executive recently tapped to spearhead the interagency task force.

Penalties under consideration range from corrective fines to the ultimate regulatory sanction: full revocation of tax-exempt status, which would force the nonprofits to pay the standard 21% federal corporate tax rate.

A Post analysis of the latest IRS filings for all three organizations shows they would have owed about $165 million in federal income tax for 2024 if taxed at that 21% rate.

Almost all of it comes from a single source: the Soros network accounts for $163.6 million of the total. The SPLC would owe roughly $354,000, and 17 CAIR chapters would owe about $860,000 between them. That combined total amounts to a mere rounding error for the US government’s coffers.

Alex Soros sits on celebrity row during the fourth quarter of the Detroit Pistons vs. New York Knicks game at Madison Square Garden.

The targets face unique controversies that the administration is leveraging to justify the crackdown.

Now chaired by George Soros’ 40-year-old son, Alexander, the Open Society Foundations funnels billions to NGOs pushing diversity initiatives, bankrolling climate-change lawsuits, and supporting undocumented migrants.

A spokesperson for the Soros nonprofit told The Post: “Threatening any nonprofit’s tax status for political reasons would be nothing more than an illegal attempt to target and stifle work that the administration disagrees with.”

Bessent is eyeing Soros’ charity despite famously spearheading global currency bets for the Hungarian-born billionaire—including a wildly lucrative wager against the British pound.

When Bessent stepped down as chief investment officer for Soros Fund Management in 2015, Soros staked his new firm with a cool $2 billion.

OSF’s beneficiaries include Black Lives Matter, the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, and United We Dream Action, a group that actively works to frustrate the deportation of illegal migrants.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is reeling from the recent federal indictment of its former intelligence director. While OSF and SPLC are being scrutinized under the president’s domestic executive order, the administration is treating CAIR strictly as a national security target.

Prosecutors allege the self-described anti-racism outfit secretly funneled donor funds to extremist informants, including an operative who allegedly helped organize the violent 2017 Charlottesville rally.

Meanwhile, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has long faced scrutiny over alleged foreign entanglements.

Federal prosecutors named the group as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial. CAIR adamantly denies any ties to illicit foreign funding or terror organizations.

Continue reading

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Allies Allege Foreign Interference As Host At Israeli-Funded Media Outlet Repeatedly Targets Vance

President Trump: “I Would Absolutely Prohibit Sharia Law!”

THE ISLAMIC TAKEOVER IS HERE: Turning US Cities Into ‘Beachheads’ for Islam

ABSOLUTE SUBMISSION: Canada’s CBC Orders Reporters, Don’t Call 9/11 a Terrorist Attack

Murderer-Mourning Mamdani Grieves for Meat-Cleaver Killer

The Beast Descends On Texas

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

Portland Antifa linked to Hamas, Hizballah, and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps

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

They all hate the Judeo-Christian West and want to destroy it. They’re all authoritarian internationalists with a thirst for violence. So of course they would work together.

“EXCLUSIVE: State Dept reveals Portland Antifa connection to Hamas, Iran’s IRGC in sweeping terror action,” by Peter D’Abrosca, Fox News, August 26, 2026:

EXCLUSIVE: A State Department memo reveals that an international technology collective, now under a U.S. global terrorism designation, provided services to overseas terrorist groups and violent far-left agitators causing chaos in American cities, according to a copy obtained by Fox News Digital.

“Far-left terrorism poses a profound threat to the United States and the broader West,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “Today, the United States sanctioned Autistici/Inventati – a major far-left tech collective whose services are used by the most active and violent Antifa cells in the United States and across the world.”

Autistici/Inventati, called the A/I Collective by the State Department, is an Italy-based group that builds highly sophisticated digital infrastructure used by violent left-wing organizations in the United States and Europe, along with Islamic terrorists, according to the State Department. The collective’s services include encrypted chats and email, web hosting, secure video conferencing and streaming and anonymity shields, according to the memo.

“These tools are specifically designed to support the operations of far-left terrorist networks, built to enable them to organize, recruit, communicate, disseminate propaganda, share target information and tactics, and carry out violent attacks – all while remaining anonymous, untraceable, and beyond the reach of the law,” says the State Department’s memo.

A/I Collective has officially been deemed a Specially Designated Global Terrorist. The designation bars Americans and U.S. financial institutions from doing business with the group and freezes any assets it has under U.S. jurisdiction. Violators can face civil or criminal penalties.

The memo identifies Portland-based Rose City Antifa, known for its violent rioting and destruction, as one of the U.S. groups that relied on A/I Collective tools and services.

Rose City Antifa is listed in the memo alongside a media organization that the State Department says uses A/I Collective tools to disseminate information to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), which is proliferating inside the United States, Hamas, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hezbollah and others….

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

THE ISLAMIC TAKEOVER IS HERE: Turning US Cities Into ‘Beachheads’ for Islam

Murderer-Mourning Mamdani Grieves for Meat-Cleaver Killer

The Beast Descends On Texas

ABSOLUTE SUBMISSION: Canada’s CBC Orders Reporters, Don’t Call 9/11 a Terrorist Attack

TERROR CRACKDOWN: Trump Admin Set to Target George Soros ‘Nonprofit”, Southern Poverty Law Center and CAIR in Major Tax Crackdown

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

Of Democracies and Dynasties

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

The Iranian regime is offering a $10 million bounty for the death of Barron Trump, according to a three-minute segment that aired this weekend on Iranian state television. The explicit threat is also a tacit admission. Apparently, the President of the United States is too secure a target for Iranian assassins. So, how about his college-enrolled son?

The monstrous offer shows in stark contrast the difference between Iran’s Islamist regime and the United States of America. In America, government officials only provide large monetary rewards for information leading to the capture of heinous criminals — terrorists, traffickers, serial killers, and the like. Iran, meanwhile, is offering a monetary reward for an innocent college student whose only imaginable offense is being related to his father. Oh, and the reward is not for his capture, but for his death. What monstrous barbarism!

But the Trump family are not the only ones who must worry about Iranian assassins. On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shared in a radio interview that “Iran tried to murder one of my sons.”

Why is Iran so fixated with the children of its enemies? Perhaps it knows that men like Trump deeply care about their families and will go to great lengths to protect them. By striking at Barron, Iran believes it can create another point of leverage to manipulate President Trump’s decisions.

More likely, however, Iran is simply treating the leaders of other nations as it treats its own. Technically speaking, the U.S., Israel, and Iran are all republics or democracies of one brand or another, not hereditary monarchies. But, when Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was killed at the outset of fighting on February 28, Iran’s remaining leaders selected his son, Mojtaba Khamenei to replace him.

Mojtaba was a strange pick to lead the battered regime through war, as he was already underqualified for the position and gravely wounded to boot. Thus, his appointment can only be described as a bit of dynastic loyalty bleeding through, even though the Islamic Republic of Iran technically has no dynasty.

Thus, by striking at the sons of President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu, the Iranian regime was simply treating the families of those leaders as it treated its own — as an elected dynasty of sorts.

Such elected dynasties were never the intention of America’s Founders. The authors of the Federalist Papers defended the Constitution’s sparse qualifications for federal elected office on the grounds that it would result in candidates being selected for their merit. Thus, the office of representative was “open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith” (Federalist 52). Those would become senators “whose merits and talents may claim a share in the public confidence” (Federalist 62). And the office of president “will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications” (Federalist 68). Alas, even the Founders could guess wrong sometimes.

At first, the fledgling nation inched along the prescribed path. In his prize-winning biography, historian Ron Chernow suggests of George Washington that the general’s path to the presidency was helped by the fact that he had no biological children. In an age of kings, Washington could never become a king, at least not a hereditary kingdom. Thus, power was considered safe in his hands.

That changed quickly. The nation’s second president was John Adams; his son, John Quincy Adams, became the sixth president. Adams once wrote to his wife, “I must study Politics and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematics and Philosophy.” As it turned out, at least one son studied politics, too. Politics quickly turned into a family business.

Since then, America has seen other family “dynasties,” as it were, who remain politically powerful across generations. President Benjamin Harrison was the grandson of President William H. Harrison. Presidents Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt were cousins. Just in the past half-century, two generations of Bushes sat in the oval office (and another tried), Hillary Clinton nearly succeeded her husband Bill (16 years later), and people named “Kennedy” somehow keep popping up in positions of power.

The last two presidents were surrounded by a constellation of people named “Biden” or “Trump” who had murky official status but nevertheless sometimes played a role in policymaking (most significantly, Jared Kushner, husband of Ivanka Trump, negotiated the Abraham Accords).

That such family coincidences are merely the result of merit is too preposterous to believe. It turns out that politics, especially in a party system, is more about connections and popularity than merit. In fact, when individuals of true talent do rise to the top, it almost seems to be by accident.

So then, how should we understand this phenomenon? Is it merely a subconscious reversion to monarchy? Some zealous defenders of liberty might say so, but that seems too uncharitable. It overlooks the natural human instincts to make provision for one’s children, and to raise children in the footsteps of their parents. A business owner might hope that his son will one day take over the family business; when the “family business” is politics, it becomes a “dynasty” of sorts.

In a system of popular government like America, such passing of the governmental baton between relatives also requires cooperation from the voters. This week, South Carolina Republicans elected Darline Graham, younger sister of the late Senator Lindsey Graham to be their candidate in November’s election. Does Ms. Graham have the same foreign policy bona fides that characterized Lindsey’s tenure? In the senatorial debate, she admitted that she does not. But voters gave her the chance to succeed her brother anyways because they believe she wants to carry on her brother’s legacy.

It also seems to be the case that some voters simply like to keep the same name in office. South Carolinians replaced Graham with Graham. When Luke Letlow (R-La.) suddenly died after winning election to Congress, his wife Julia ran for the empty seat and won. Kentuckians have now been governed by two generations of Beshears. Alaska Democrats tried to sow confusion by recruiting a man named Dan Sullivan to run for the seat held by Senator Dan Sullivan.

Yet, although America has seen many well-connected families, it has not seen total family dominance. In a recent primary in New York City, voters rejected Jack Schlossberg, a grandson of President John F. Kennedy, because there weren’t really any reasons to vote for him, besides his family legacy.

Although cases of nepotism arise from time to time, America remains fundamentally a republic, not a hereditary system. Voters can choose candidates based on their name association with a beloved candidate. But they can also choose candidates for their merits and reject candidates who have none, despite a famous name. For now, America seems to be riding something of a wave of family connections in politics. But that will likely fade as the old guard must hand over the standard to a new generation. As always, in America, the people decide.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

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.

First Afghan Congresswoman Urges Relationship with Taliban

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

“We should be exercising diplomacy and having a relationship”

In the vicious cycle of politics, bad politicians get replaced by worse politicians and worse politicians get replaced by unimaginably horrible politicians. And so Rep. Eric Swalwell is set to be replaced in a special election by Aisha Wahab, a leftist Afghan Muslim who was run through a special election so that she would be able to sneak through without significant voter turnout.

Now after defeating a Latino candidate, after Aisha’s father reportedly urged deporting her, Aisha Wahab is showing her true colors by calling for a relationship with the Taliban.

Aisha Wahab conducted an interview with Democracy Now headlined, “In Defeat for AIPAC, Aisha Wahab Wins House Seat, Becoming First Afghan American in Congress.”

After bashing Hindus and Jews, Democracy Now and Wahab waste no time in showing if AIPAC lost, who won.

ANJALI KAMAT: Aisha Wahab, you’re the first Muslim and first Afghan American woman in the state Senate, and you’d be the first Afghan American in Congress. We’re now, you know, coming up on 25 years since the invasion of Afghanistan and five years since the Taliban took power. Your thoughts on, you know, the significance of your trajectory and what is happening in Afghanistan?

REP.-ELECT AISHA WAHAB: Yeah, you know, I’m an American through and through, born in New York, raised by Uncle Sam in the foster care system. And as an Afghan American, someone who is proud of my culture and heritage, it’s disappointing to see what is happening in Afghanistan, where they are blocking women and children from going to school, really living their lives. I think that that’s going to be a disaster to come for Afghanistan, let alone the fact that the United States needs to practice diplomacy. And regardless of which group is in power, we should be exercising diplomacy and having a relationship, hopefully even kind of steering them in the right direction when it comes to human rights, women’s rights and just civil rights across the board.

AIPAC lost and the Taliban won.

Somehow being “American through and through” turns into being a proud Afghan and urging that we have a relationship with the Taliban.

You know, maybe Aisha Wahab is wasted in Congress. Ideally, let’s send her back home to steer the Taliban in the right direction instead of trying to steer us in the Taliban direction.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

In Germany, a School Whose Students Are 90% Immigrants Is ‘the Most Dangerous in the Country’

NPR Reports Glowingly on ‘American Doctor’

Greece warns Turkey against violating its sovereign rights, vows response from ‘position of strength’

Palestinian jihadist who murdered Israeli minister fathers twins from sperm smuggled out of jail

UK: Organized Muslim prison gangs forcing native Britons to convert to Islam in jails

Reality Has Now Mugged Many Europeans

Hamas discovered to be storing weapons in mosques

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

Trump Slashes Foreign Aid as the Obama-Biden’s Abuses, Fraud and Terror Funding Keep Piling Up

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

The Democrats have cursed this nation—the wreckage they leave behind is generational.

While Trump sharply cuts foreign aid, past abuses from the Obama-Biden era keep piling up

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer says Democrats have a pecuniary interest in keeping foreign aid going because nonprofit recipients of federal largesse are big Democrat donors.

By John Solomon, Just The News,August 23, 2026:

A half billion dollar fraud and bribery scheme conducted by a USAID contract officer and three conspirators that went undetected for a decade. American-bought equipment stolen by a terror group. Millions of dollars in food that spoiled in warehouses. These are but a few of the wasteful — if not corrupt ways — millions of USAID dollars have been lost.

While President Donald Trump has sharply cut foreign aid from the auspices of USAID and shifted what remains to the State Department, the massive abuse of America’s generosity to foreign countries over a decade of Obama-Biden governance is coming into clearer focus.

A Just the News review of audits and investigations of the USAID and State Department inspectors general over the last year chronicles billions of dollars lost, stolen, defrauded, or wasted because of mismanagement or years of neglect.

In many cases, tax money was given away without regard to whether the recipients could responsibly spend it or could keep it out of the hands of terrorists or other enemies, the audits show.

For instance, the USAID inspector general recently revealed that the federal government kept funding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) despite evidence that 101 of its employees or associates had ties to terror groups like Hamas, including:

  • A deputy school principal serving as an al-Qassam deputy company commander in the Ain Gallout/5th infantry battalion.
  • A deputy school principal serving as squad leader for the Khan Younis Brigade/2nd infantry battalion.
  • A teacher serving as squad leader in Hamas’ military security department/intelligence unit who tracked assignment of explosive devices.
  • A teacher serving as a platoon commander of the Central Brigade/Al Quds 2nd Battalion.
  • A math & computer teacher with ties to an al-Qassam intelligence squad.
  • A teacher with expertise as a sniper for Hamas.
  • A teacher and Hamas soldier with orders to bring two anti-tank missiles to a prescribed location during the October 7 terror attacks
  • A school principal who served as an operative of the Hamas East Jabaliya Battalion, and coordinated communications with other suspected Hamas members during the October 7, 2023 atrocities committed against Israel

Similarly, the same USAID watchdog revealed that the Yemen-based terror Ansar Allah — also known as the Houthis—walked away with about $122,000 worth of U.S. government-funded equipment from a USAID-funded aid organization.

$17 million of the $21 million of food aid stored in warehouses was not distributed to emergency food providers. Some good-intentioned aid also was wasted by bad management and logistics, the audits show.

For instance, about $17 million of the $21 million of food aid stored in Djibouti warehouses was not distributed to emergency food providers.

That included $10 million of goods at risk of reaching its best-used-by date prior to arriving at its intended destination. About $2.9 million of food aid had already spoiled due to significant packaging defects by the vendor, investigators reported.

To make matters worse, taxpayers incurred at least nearly $500,000 in storage costs for spoiled, unusable food. And another $1.5 million in food became infested because USAID “did not enforce temperature control requirements,” eventually requiring additional fumigation costs, the memos stated.

U.S. food aid in Ethiopia ended up being sold for pennies on the dollar

Some U.S. food aid in Ethiopia also ended up being sold for pennies on the dollar in online stores instead of reaching people in need, one report revealed.

“The investigation identified indicators of potential vulnerabilities across multiple stages of the supply chain that could allow for diversion,” USAID’s inspector general said.

Lack of common sense was cited at USAID’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance when it provided food and healthcare plus

Continue reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

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

ActBlue Pleads the Fifth

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

ActBlue co-founder Matt DeBergalis clammed up and pleaded the Fifth during a congressional grilling over allegations that the Democrats’ fundraising behemoth opened the door to fraudulent and  illegal foreign donations.

ActBlue Co-Founder Invokes the Fifth Amendment As House Fraud Probe ...

ActBlue co-founder Matt DeBergalis

Illegal foreign donations were rampant in the Obama campaign — a story I broke back in 2008 — but nothing was ever done so of course it proliferated and became an illegal million dollar fundraisng scam for Democrats.

ActBlue has been the cash cow for Democrats.

In the 2024 cycle alone, the super PAC processed nearly $4 billion for Dems. The sources of those funds have long been sus.

His closed-door testimony lasted barely 25 minutes before he walked out without answers. ActBlue only began requiring basic credit-card security codes after investigators exposed the glaring loophole. Pleading the Fifth is not proof of guilt—but when the man who helped build the Democrats’ money machine refuses to answer questions about who funded it, the stench only grows.

Fox News: ActBlue co-founder Matt DeBergalis pleaded the Fifth Amendment during his closed-door deposition before three key House committees, sources familiar with the matter told Fox News Digital. The Committee on House Administration, House Oversight Committee, and House Judiciary Committee are conducting a joint investigation into ActBlue, a massive fundraising platform for Democrats, over allegations that lax fraud prevention standards may have allowed foreign donations to seep into U.S. campaigns. DeBergalis’ deposition, which was scheduled for Thursday morning, lasted less than half an hour. Fox News saw DeBergalis entering and exiting the committee room within roughly 25 minutes.

ActBlue co-founder pleads Fifth Amendment in closed-door House GOP grilling

The closed-door session before three key committees lasted less than half an hour

By Elizabeth Elkind, Kelly Phares, Fox News, August 20, 2026:

Rep Jim Jordan: If I worked for ActBlue, I’d plead the Fifth too

FIRST ON FOX: ActBlue co-founder Matt DeBergalis pleaded the Fifth Amendment during his closed-door deposition before three key House committees, sources familiar with the matter told Fox News Digital.

The Committee on House Administration, House Oversight Committee, and House Judiciary Committee are conducting a joint investigation into ActBlue, a massive fundraising platform for Democrats, over allegations that lax fraud prevention standards may have allowed foreign donations to seep into U.S. campaigns.

DeBergalis’ deposition, which was scheduled for Thursday morning, lasted less than half an hour. Fox News saw DeBergalis entering and exiting the committee room within roughly 25 minutes.

Fox News Digital reached out to ActBlue for comment. Fox News Digital also reached out to the majority and minority of each of the three committees.

ActBlue is prolific across Democratic campaigns, being used by the likes of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Michigan Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed, among others.

Pleading the Fifth Amendment is not evidence of wrongdoing. ActBlue has repeatedly denied running afoul of the law during the course of Republicans’ probe.

The Committee on House Administration, which has jurisdiction over U.S. election laws, first opened a probe into ActBlue in 2023. Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., accused the group of potentially accepting foreign or fraudulent donations for not requiring a credit card CVV number for contributions.

ActBlue has since updated its donation requirements with a CVV mandate.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

CALIFORNIA ENSHRINES FRAUD: Democrats Criminalize the Exposure, Protect the Crime and Pass ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’

Iran’s Enemies Within: The Regime, Its Terror Proxies and the Foreign Powers Devouring a Nation

Muslim Arrested in Plot to Bomb New York Capitol Building To Kill All The Senators During Legislative Session, “Praise Be to Allah for September 11th.”

“A Sick, Sick West — And An Even Sicker Middle East.”

Unpacking the Intelligence Probe: Chinese Espionage, Political Targeting, and the Case of Eric Swalwell

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

4 Outrageous Moments from Angie Nixon’s Highlight Reel

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

In Florida’s Democratic primary on Tuesday, voters chose Florida state Rep. Angie Nixon over the establishment favorite, Alexander Vindman (famous for his testimony in the Trump impeachment trial). Nixon is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a radical organization that openly seeks to hijack the Democratic Party as a means to undermine American power. More than a member, Nixon is a DSA darling, who already has years of standout performances to her name. Below are four of the most astonishing moments from the Angie Nixon highlight reel.

1. Nixon took her own kids to a drag show, which she defended as “wholesome entertainment.”

Nine days before the primary, Nixon gave an interview on “Legal AF,” a podcast produced by the anti-Trump group Meidas Touch. In the course of the August 9 interview, she declared, “There’s no sexualization at a drag show. It’s just people dressing up and singing and performing. I’ve taken my children to drag shows. And it’s fun. It’s entertaining. It’s wholesome entertainment. And it’s nothing wrong.”

The remarks criticized Florida’s 2023 “Protection of Children Act” (SB 1438), which was widely understood to ban drag queen story hours and other drag performances where children could be present.

Specifically, the law prohibited “exposing children to an adult live performance,” which the law defined as a live performance that “depicts or simulates nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or specific sexual activities … lewd conduct, or the lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts.”

2. Nixon praised a convicted cop killer in church and quoted her paraphrase of “The Communist Manifesto.”

At a June 11, 2026 campaign stop at Greater Bethel AME Church, Nixon wrapped up her stump speech, “I’m gonna leave y’all with these words of a famous freedom fighter, before we open it up, Assata Shakur: ‘It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love and protect one another. We have nothing to lose but our chains.’”

Shakur was the preferred name of Joanne Chesimard, “an active, prominent member of the Black Panther Party and later the Black Liberation Army” in the 1970s. During a routine traffic stop on May 2, 1973, Chesimard and two comrades opened fire on two New Jersey state troopers, shooting one officer dead and wounding the other. One of the three was mortally wounded in the firefight and found dead by police, while Chesimard and the other were caught, charged with murder, and sentenced. Chesimard received a life sentence for first-degree murder in 1977.

Two years later, in 1979, Chesimard escaped from prison when BLA members executed an armed assault on the secure facility in which she was held. She fled to Cuba in 1984, “where she attends government functions and her standard of living is higher than most Cubans,” the FBI noted.

In 2013, under President Barack Obama, the FBI added Chesimard to the Most Wanted Terrorists list on the 40th anniversary of her crime, offering a $1 million reward “for information leading to the capture and return of Chesimard.”

In September 2025, Cuban authorities said that Chesimard had died at age 78 from health complications and advanced age. Her victim, New Jersey State Trooper William Foerster, died at age 34, leaving behind a wife and a young son.

Yet this sordid history did not deter Angie Nixon from quoting the words that Chesimard (or “Shakur”) wrote while in prison for murder. “It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains.” Chesimard later added these lines to her autobiography.

The last sentence is an allusion to the famous conclusion of “The Communist Manifesto,” “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite!” And it was this last sentence to which Nixon devoted special attention:

“Our chains are attacks on the Voting Rights Act. Our chains are them closing down our neighborhood schools. Our chains are them spending a billion dollars on a ballroom you will never get to dance in — never ever get to dance in. Our chains are them kidnapping our immigrant neighbors and locking them up. Our chains are them not arresting corrupt cops that shoot black unarmed men in the streets. Our chains are the attacks on women’s rights. Our chains are them emboldening racists to come into my district and shoot three black people in the Dollar General and only say that person was a little off and didn’t even want to say that he was a racist.”

Repetition is a powerful rhetorical technique used to great effect by political speakers ranging from Ronald Reagan to Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nixon showed herself quite adept at using it too.

Nixon’s final words returned to the Chesimard quote, “It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love and protect one another” — and here she placed threefold emphasis on its allusion to “The Communist Manifesto” — “We have nothing to lose. We have nothing to lose. We have absolutely nothing to lose but our chains.”

3. Nixon attempted to disrupt an April vote with a bullhorn, earning a formal reprimand.

On April 29, 2026, the chairman of the Florida House of Representatives called the special session of the legislature to a vote on legislation to redraw the congressional maps. At that moment, Rep. Nixon pulled out a hot-pink megaphone she had smuggled onto the floor and approached the well, attempting to shout down the speaker. “What y’all are doing is illegal!” Nixon yelled, marching up and down the central aisle. “I will not allow you to destroy our democracy!”

The Florida legislature carried on its democratic business over Nixon’s attempted disruption, and the new map passed by an overwhelming margin. Reportedly, Nixon’s disruption even led to two Democrats accidentally voting in favor of the new map.

Weeks later, on May 14, the Florida House Rules and Ethics Committee issued Nixon a formal reprimand for the stunt after a half-hour of deliberations. The reprimand puts Nixon on probation, so that breaking House rules again could subject her to stiffer punishment.

In the Florida legislature, a formal reprimand is an exceedingly rare punishment. It last occurred in 2005, when Democratic Senator Mandy Dawson allegedly solicited lobbyist money for an overseas vacation. The last reprimand (and censure) in the Florida House came in 2002 against Democratic Rep. Willie Logan for allegedly misusing state funds.

“I don’t care if I get a reprimand,” Nixon responded defiantly. “I don’t even care if they expel me, because I’m standing up for my elders. Stop doing illegal things, and I won’t call you out with a pink microphone.”

Nixon, who has served in the Florida state House since 2020, led a similar protest during Florida’s redistricting vote in 2022. Near the end of debate on April 21, 2022, five black Democratic members — later joined by others — occupied the House well and refused the speaker’s instruction to leave. They chanted, “Stop the Black attack,” and sang, “We Shall Overcome.” The situation reached such an impasse that the House was obliged to call a recess for around an hour.

After the brief recess, the House returned to order and passed the three bills, including the redistricting plan, without further debate. This business was conducted over the chants of Nixon and state Rep. Travaris McCurdy (D), who remained seated on the floor in the well while the House did business above their heads.

4. Nixon was arrested for refusing to leave Governor Ron DeSantis’s office and faces a jury trial in September.

The day after being reprimanded by the Florida House for her bullhorn stunt, Nixon staged a sit-in protest outside Governor Ron DeSantis’s office on the afternoon of Friday, May 15. She started her sit-in around noon and continued it for about five hours (or around 5 p.m.).

Capitol Police were notified by reports of individuals loudly chanting and disrupting office operations. Officers told Nixon to leave several times, and she refused. Eventually, the officers escorted Nixon to the Capitol Police office, where she was arrested.

Nixon faces charges of trespassing and resisting an officer (without violence). She will receive a jury trial beginning the week of September 21.

One noteworthy pattern in these Angie Nixon highlights is that the most dramatic moments are all recent. Some candidates whose comments are featured in The Washington Stand made their noteworthy remarks years ago. By contrast, all four highlighted moments in Nixon’s reel have occurred since April of this year. Not only does the recency of these moments suggest that they capture her current character, but all of these moments occurred while Nixon was running for Senate — and thus constitute part of the brand she has crafted to appeal to voters.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

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.