Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s present role – serving as the Lee to Graham Platner’s Grant at the conclusion of the Democratic Party’s civil war – is a sad, but richly deserved fate.
And make no mistake, by endorsing Platner’s campaign for the Senate, Schumer has indeed surrendered his longtime political vessel to the socialist third-worldists who have spent the last decade staging a slow-rolling, yet largely uncontested takeover of it. Schumer had recruited Janet Mills, the relatively popular governor of Maine, to run against incumbent Republican Susan Collins. “We think that Janet Mills is the best candidate to retire Susan Collins,” declared Schumer at a press conference last fall.
Nobody cared. By February, Platner had left Mills in his polling dust by a nearly 40-point margin. And while Schumer remained insistent that the more moderate Mills would prevail, he proved reluctant to close the financial gap between their campaigns.
Mills suspended her campaign on Thursday. Schumer and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chairwoman Kirsten Gillibrand wasted no time in throwing their weight behind Platner, who urged Americans last November to call their senators, “and tell them that Chuck Schumer can no longer be leader.”
“Democrats are dedicated to fighting back against the chaos of the Trump administration by defeating the Republicans who enable his harmful agenda and that includes Susan Collins,” declared the New York lawmakers in a joint statement. “Senator Collins has never been more vulnerable and we will work with the presumptive Democratic nominee Graham Platner to defeat her.”
“Our North Star is winning a Democratic Senate majority,” they explained.
Regardless of who that majority is composed of, evidently.
Until a few months ago, Platner roamed the Pine Tree State with an SS Totenkopf stamped across his chest. In February, he retweeted Holocaust math enthusiast and “Jewish lobby” obsessive Stew Peters. Platner pleaded ignorance in both cases.
That explanation went from implausible to insulting after it was revealed that a month earlier, he had told another antisemitic conspiracy theorist (this one has blamed Israel for the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Charlie Kirk) that he was a “longtime fan.” Take it from he without “any patriotism” in his heart for the United States, 9/11 cheerleader Hasan Piker: “He [Platner] was pro-Hamas, okay? He was giving Hamas credit in 2014. Okay, what more do you f*cking want?”
Democratic primary voters no longer make any bones about what it is they want: revanchist, pugilistic anti-Westernism in its angriest, most resentful form – the kind that blinds its adherents so completely as to delude them into identifying America and its greatest ally as the loci of evil in the world.
And they’re willing to make any and every unsavory compromise necessary to get it. It’s public knowledge that when Platner isn’t nodding along to lunatic grifters’ latest thoughts about the Jews, he’s taking to Reddit to advise women worried about sexual assault to “take some responsibility for themselves and not get so f*cked up they wind up having sex with someone they don’t mean to?”
The former is just more than enough to make up for the latter.
Schumer himself stands to be a victim of his party’s leftward drift, then backward. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who opposes any military aid – including for defensive systems like Iron Dome – to Israel, would be an overwhelming favorite against Schumer in the Empire State should she choose to challenge him rather than mount a presidential campaign in 2028. One survey from last spring suggested that the far-Left congresswoman would begin a primary battle between them with a 21-point lead.
Schumer had better hope she has her heart set on the White House, because liberal New Yorkers have their hearts set on the woman who has accused her own country of enabling genocide for standing by the Israelis after the events of October 7, 2023.
It would be quite the way to go out for a self-styled shomer or “guardian” of the Jewish people.
Of course, Schumer himself bears plenty of blame for his plight. For years he watched as his peers radicalized. And instead of yelling, “Stop!”, he moved with them. Of course immigration enforcement is unjust; of course a border wall is racist; of course Maduro and Khamenei are Donald Trump’s victims; of course the Supreme Court is corrupt if it rules against Democrats’ interests – and what is a woman, anyway? The leftist appetite is such that there is no final destination, no righteous endpoint or irrefutable truths to be preserved. There is only capital-P Progress, an ever-shifting goalpost propelled by ego and self-righteousness, not principle or actual righteousness.
Schumer not only allowed such lies to take root, but he also parrotted them out of self-interest and ostracized those with the courage to be voices of reason. Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, a liberal who has been villainized by the far-Left over his support for Israel and 2000s-Democrat era views on border security, burst out laughing on Wednesday after being asked about his relationship with other members of his caucus.
“I’m not necessarily the popular guy,” he conceded.
All this time, it never occurred to Schumer that he was feeding a monster sure to swallow him eventually. Perhaps his humiliation in Maine has, at long last, clued him in.
Now, he has no choice but to wave the white flag and profess to welcome his new, bat-guano crazy overlords.
It’s Graham Platner’s party; and despite his efforts at appeasement, Chuck Schumer isn’t even on the guest list.
***
Isaac Schorr is a staff writer at Mediaite and a 2023–2024 Robert Novak Journalism Fellow at the Fund for American Studies.

Maine Democrat Graham Platner Is Winning Voters All ‘Pissed At The Same Thing’

Bye-Bye Chuck; The Democrats Are Graham Platner’s Radical Party Now

Chuck Schumer

Democrats

DW Opinion

graham platner

Leftists

For decades, Americans have viewed their primary adversaries as foreign nationals or international terrorist organizations. Yet this perspective has proven dangerously naive. Over the past 60 years, socialist and Marxist ideologies have taken root within our own borders, often hiding in plain sight. This internal threat operates not from distant shores but from within.
Recent events only underscore this concern. The arrest of a would-be assassin at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner — reportedly a former “Teacher of the Year” — is deeply disturbing. It raises a critical question: how have individuals entrusted with educating our children become radicalized to such extremes? And more importantly — where is the line when freedom of speech ends and subversion begins?
<h3>Quietly Reshaping Society From the Inside Out</h3>
This enemy is not a shadowy cabal of spies but a network of socialist and Marxist-influenced elites who have methodically gained influence over key pillars of American life: universities, the legal system, media, political parties, and even religious organizations. Operating under the banners of progress, equity, and social justice, they have advanced while many citizens focused on daily responsibilities. The outcome has been a slow erosion of foundational American values and a deliberate division of people along lines of ethnicity, religion, and sexual identity and even splits amongst once close family members. The result is the gradual weakening of the nation’s core institutions and social fabric.
<h3>The Decimation of the Nuclear Family</h3>
One of the most striking impacts appears in the decline of the nuclear family. This trend began prominently in the black community. In the 1960s, roughly 80% of black children lived in two-parent homes. Today, that figure is reversed with 77% of black children born to <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/693212/77-black-births-to-single-moms-49-for-hispanic-immigrants/">single mothers</a>. The problem has since spread nationwide. Pew Research Center <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/12/12/u-s-children-more-likely-than-children-in-other-countries-to-live-with-just-one-parent/">data</a> show the United States has the highest rate of children living in single-parent households among developed nations — 23% of U.S. children under 18 live in fatherless homes, more than three times the global average.
Marriage rates have also hit historic lows, undermining the stable family structures historically linked to prosperity, child well-being, and social mobility. A prosperous country cannot long thrive without strong families as its foundation.
<h3>Academic Excellence Subverted into a Marxist Trojan Horse</h3>
Nowhere is the transformation more evident than in education. In public schools, social justice curricula emphasizing systemic racism, gender ideology, and equity have often displaced core academics. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores — the Nation’s Report Card — reveal reading and math proficiency at historic lows, with declines affecting students across demographic groups. Resources flow into DEI initiatives and “restorative justice” programs that prioritize emotional outcomes over measurable skills.
The human cost is profound: <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/most-us-would-fail-u-s-citizenship-test-survey-finds-n918961">surveys indicate</a> only about 19% of Americans under age 45 can pass the U.S. Citizenship Test, with many unable to name the three branches of government or explain the Bill of Rights. Older Americans pass at much higher rates (around 74% in some studies), underscoring that this reflects educational shifts rather than inherent generational differences. 
Teachers’ unions have sometimes embraced ideological language. During the 2022 Minneapolis strike, a union leader framed the effort as a fight against “the patriarchy” and “capitalism.”
Universities, once centers of free inquiry, now exhibit stark ideological imbalance. Faculty ratios have shifted dramatically, with liberal-to-conservative balances moving from roughly 2:1 in the mid-1990s to far wider margins today — often 10:1 or higher in many studies, with even greater disparities in humanities and education departments. In the national survey, Departments of Education faculty self-identify as Radical, Activist, Socialist or Marxist. This is especially concerning because they instruct the next generation of public-school teachers.
<h3>Propaganda Masquerading as Journalism and Advocacy</h3>
This academic capture influences media, law, and advocacy. Organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) have faced scrutiny, including allegations in legal contexts of questionable practices while labeling mainstream groups. Media outlets often amplify such frameworks, shaping narratives through selective coverage. In politics, socialist ideas have moved from the fringes to mainstream Democratic platforms.
In November 2025, New York City elected Zohran Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, as mayor — the first Muslim and South Asian mayor of America’s largest city. His administration prioritizes expansive government and redistribution. Similar dynamics appear in Minnesota: Minneapolis City Council includes self-declared Democratic Socialists of America members advancing related priorities amid ongoing challenges with crime and services. The 2020 unrest in Minneapolis, involving organized elements, accelerated “defund the police” experiments rooted in these ideologies.
<h3>Undermining Service to Citizens</h3>
Elected officials advancing such agendas can weaken state capacity and national cohesion. When civic education falters, informed citizenship declines — an outcome aligned with views that see the Constitution as an outdated instrument of oppression.
Religious institutions have also been affected. Some mainline Protestant and Catholic circles have incorporated critiques of “systemic sin,” shifting emphasis toward social justice over personal redemption. Sermons increasingly echo academic and media talking points on privilege and reparations.
<h3>Pattern Recognition and the Path Forward</h3>
This is not paranoia but observable pattern recognition. Socialist and Marxist influences advanced not through overt revolution but via tenure committees, HR departments, grants, and activist networks. They reframed compassion-based concepts like diversity, inclusion, and equity into tools against dissent.
Evidence surrounds us: politicized campuses stifling debate, advocacy groups facing credibility questions, socialist elected officials, schools prioritizing socialist ideology, unions opposing capitalism, coordinated protests and riots, and churches emphasizing liberal politics.
Americans must awaken to this reality. The adversary lectures from podiums, edits content, drafts laws, grades papers, and serves on councils — seldom wearing foreign uniforms. Reclaiming institutions require vigilance: restoring academic excellence and viewpoint diversity in universities, demanding transparency from nonprofits and unions, electing leaders focused on merit and results, and ensuring schools prioritize fundamentals — reading, writing, history, and civics — over grievance.
The republic was not lost overnight but inch by inch. The time to push back is now. Our children’s future and the nation’s character depend on it.
* * *
Kendall Qualls is an Army veteran, business leader, and the leading Republican gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota. TakeCharge is a national nonprofit organization led by Kendall and Sheila Qualls focused on restoring strong families as the foundation for opportunity, dignity, and upward mobility.

Former President Obama Joins NYC Mayor Mamdani On A Visit To Child Care Center

The Quiet Campaign Weaponizing America’s Youth

Education

Family Values

Gen Z

Legacy Media

Minnesota

Propaganda

Teenagers

Donald Trump attempted assassins

Trump Has Faced Six Assassination Attempts. After Him, They’re Coming For You.

assassination attempt

Conservatives

Donald Trump

Matt Walsh

White Supremacists March with Torches in Charlottesville

Is This The Worst Political Psy-Op In Modern History?

Charlottesville

Ku Klux Klan (KKK)

Racism

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

Apparently, one of the most powerful leftist charities in the world has been donating money to groups like the Ku Klux Klan.
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a left-wing agitprop organization that raises roughly $100 million every year, has been handing money to white supremacists.
Why in the world would they do that? What the hell is going on?
Let&#8217;s begin with this premise. The demand for white supremacy on the Left outstrips the supply.
What do I mean by this?
I mean that people on the Left think, broadly speaking, that Americans are horrible racists. Then they look around at the world, and it turns out that Americans are some of the least racist people in history.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ben-shapiro-ep-2411?elementPosition=4&amp;row=5&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
Americans basically rank dead last in racism on the planet right now. If you go to any other country on planet Earth, you will notice significantly more racism than there is in the United States.
If you go to Japan, there’s a fair bit of racism, as in South Korea, as in India.
But when you come to the United States, the polls suggest that the vast majority of Americans are fine with living next to people of different races and fine with intermarrying with people of other races. We have very high rates of ethnic intermarriage in America. We are an extraordinarily tolerant and diverse people.
But for the Left to make its play for a communitarian, centralized government, they have to constantly suggest that the government must be there to ram decency and goodness down the throats of those evil racists.
And the only way that you can sell that proposition is to create a false supply of racism, which brings us to the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is one of the most powerful left-wing groups in America. It&#8217;s a supposedly civil rights nonprofit originally founded in 1971, in Montgomery, Alabama. It built a reputation on using litigation and “research” — pretty shoddy “research” — to combat what they have called white supremacists and other domestic extremist groups while advocating for marginalized communities as their stated purpose. Over time, that turned into monitoring so-called extremist movements. They published a <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/">hate group list</a>, a <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map/">hate map</a>, and they pushed programs on bias and intolerance.
This was used to mainline their intel into everything from media to education to law enforcement. The FBI, up until October 2025, was using inputs from the SPLC to determine the kinds of people to monitor.
Even in the private sector, SPLC data was being used. Amazon, under Jeff Bezos, said that it used SPLC data to decide whom to exclude from its Amazon Smile charity programs.
How prominent has the SPLC been? Since 2010, a search of The New York Times pulls up 711 instances where the SPLC is cited as an authority on hate or discrimination statistics.
They are the go-to. The New York Times sees a Jussie Smollett story, and they call up somebody from the SPLC to talk about it. There&#8217;s a Nick Fuentes story; they call the SPLC to talk about it. There&#8217;s a Charlie Kirk story, and they call the SPLC to talk about it. 
The New York Times repeatedly quoted the SPLC data in its coverage of the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where the media routinely claimed that President Trump said there were &#8220;fine people on both sides,” which was not what he actually said. They lied about that, but the “Unite the Right” rally has been the calling card for entire swaths of the Left for a very, very long time. The New York Times even quoted the SPLC leadership to provide historical context for the rise of the alt-right.
In fact, a Google Gemini search of The New York Times, Washington Post, and USA Today shows that 20 to 25% of all analytical pieces on the “Unite the Right” rally referenced data or quoted directly from the SPLC.
Why is this relevant? 
It turns out that the SPLC provided some of the funding for the “Unite the Right” rally. Yesterday, the acting attorney general, Todd Blanch, announced criminal charges for the Southern Poverty Law Center. 
He said:
<blockquote>Today, a few minutes ago, in the Middle District of Alabama, a grand jury returned an 11 count indictment charging the Southern Poverty Law Center with six counts of wire fraud, four counts of bank fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. According to the charges in the indictment, the SPLC is a nonprofit entity that purports to fight white supremacy and racial hatred by reporting on extremist groups and conducting research to inform law enforcement groups with the goal of dismantling these groups. As the indictment describes, the SPLC was not dismantling these groups. It was instead manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred.</blockquote>
The DOJ is saying that the Southern Poverty Law Center was basically paying all sorts of white supremacists and extremists to generate more white supremacy so that they could continue fundraising.
Here&#8217;s what’s true virtually everywhere in the nonprofit world — they exist, theoretically, to solve problems. You give money to a nonprofit to solve a problem. If the problem goes away, you no longer give to that nonprofit.
Let&#8217;s say that you are the leader of a nonprofit or your leadership class of a nonprofit, and it turns out the thing you&#8217;re trying to solve has been pretty much solved in the United States — such as the “racism of the American population.”
When you launched in 1971, racism was a very, very real and ever-present part of American life. But today, racism is not even a blip on most Americans’ radar.
But you&#8217;re the Southern Poverty Law Center, and you need to raise some money.
So what do you do? You create a fake supply of white supremacy so you can go back to your donors and say, “The problem is worse than ever.”
The Southern Poverty Law Center is accused of using donor money to pay actual white supremacists.
It&#8217;s totally insane.
According to the <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-grand-jury-charges-southern-poverty-law-center-wire-fraud-false-statements-and">press release</a> from the Justice Department, “Between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC secretly funneled more than $3 million and donated funds to individuals were associated with various violent extremist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, National Socialist Party of America, the American Nazi Party, and Unite the Right.”
Unite the Right happens to be one that leaps off the page because the SPLC and the Left made bank off the “Unite the Right” rally for years and years and years. It was the key example they used over and over and over again to prove that the Right happened to be racist, even though the Right did not associate with the “Unite the Right” rally.
Blanche said on the Laura Ingraham Show on Tuesday that the Biden administration opened the investigation and then closed the investigation.
I wonder why.
“How did they get away with this for so long?” Ingraham asked.
“It&#8217;s a great question. I said today during the press conference that we know that this investigation was opened during the Biden administration and then mysteriously closed,” Blanche answered. “I really don&#8217;t have any information about why it was closed. And then we started again last year, the FBI did, working with the U.S. attorney in Alabama. And it&#8217;s extraordinarily egregious. You just talked about it. But imagine a donor to the SPLC, if they were told, ‘By the way, we&#8217;re going to give the money you&#8217;re giving us to the Ku Klux Klan &#8230; in some cases over $1 million.’ I mean, it&#8217;s incredible.”
We should remember the SPLC’s game was to label anyone remotely conservative an extremist.
This is the game. It does lend itself to the idea that much of what we consume in the media, on social media, and in politics is just not true. As for the “hatred” that a lot of Americans feel for other Americans, a lot of it is ginned up by groups like the SPLC.
The fakery here is quite real, and people make money off of it because the algorithm favors it. The algorithm favors amygdala-friendly responses.
The amygdala is the emotional center of your brain. It’s what responds to fear signals. The prefrontal cortex is the reasoning center of your brain, which says that the fear is not what you should be worried about. It&#8217;s not real.
The internet and virality are designed to appeal to your amygdala.
Thus, if you&#8217;re the SPLC, you say, “White supremacy is a threat to you and your family; it&#8217;s virulent, it&#8217;s violent, and it&#8217;s racist.” The whole pitch goes directly to the amygdala, because at no point does the prefrontal cortex kick in and say, “Wait, hold on, I know none of my neighbors are racist. They don&#8217;t like racism. They think it&#8217;s bad.”
But because the amygdala has kicked in, you now think worse of your neighbors, even though you have never really thought about the issue using the reasoning part of your brain.
The same is true in the algorithmic space online. There are a lot of accounts that go extremely viral because they use extraordinarily charged language, which tends to feature second-person pronouns. If I speak directly to you, the minute I say “you,” it&#8217;s probably firing up the centers in your brain that are more emotionally resonant. If I use words like “evil” or “wicked” or “soulless,” those are words that are much more likely to fire up the emotional centers of your brain than to appeal to your prefrontal cortex.
It&#8217;s a shortcut for politicians and influencers — and for groups like the SPLC. 
The more that you can use emotionally charged language that is second-person directed, the better you will do.
That&#8217;s why we all seem to be living in a world that is totally different from reality these days. The more time you spend online, the more you see this sort of stuff that is routinely retweeted and reposted, and is always deeply emotionally charged stuff.
That shtick is the entire game. And that&#8217;s why you feel alienated.
It&#8217;s why I&#8217;ve said a thousand times, and I will say it a thousand times more, that you ought to talk to your neighbors in person, because when you talk with your neighbors, your prefrontal cortex will kick in as opposed to your fear center in the amygdala.
And you might learn that the neighbor with whom you disagree about tax rates actually is not a racist.

TOPSHOT-US-RACISM-POLICE-SOCIAL

The Left Funds The KKK?

Ben Shapiro

Opinion

Amazon Germany Services GmbH

The Return Of Wokeness? Amazon Banning Books Is Just The Start

Amazon

Books

Censorship

Illegal Immigration

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist darling, trotted out the old Tupac line that he’d obviously rehearsed dozens of times: 
<blockquote>I wish the words of Tupac from the 90’s weren’t still prescient, but they continue to be true for too many which is that we always have money for war and not to feed the poor.</blockquote>
He&#8217;s pointing at the war in Iran, claiming the federal government has blown &#8220;upwards of 28 billion dollars killing thousands of people&#8221; while American families scrape by. It&#8217;s a tidy little sermon. It&#8217;s also a complete lie. Never mind that this same crowd spent the Biden years printing money and throwing it around like confetti, igniting the inflation that actually hammered grocery bills and gas prices.
Mamdani’s claim isn’t just wrong, it’s a deliberate con designed to make you feel guilty for wanting a strong country.
According to the latest breakdowns of total U.S. government spending (federal plus state and local, roughly $11 trillion for FY 2025), we are not a nation that “always has money for war.” National defense clocks in at a measly eight percent. Meanwhile, social welfare programs and education gobble up a combined 66 percent when you include veterans’ benefits. Two-thirds of the entire pie goes to the very “feed the poor bucket” that the left pretends is starved.
Yet here we are, being told by the most useless political class on the planet that the military is eating the budget alive. It isn&#8217;t. Actually, we&#8217;d be far better off prioritizing national defense over the welfare apparatus that has spent trillions since <a href="https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/poverty-and-welfare-the-american-founding">LBJ&#8217;s Great Society</a>, which somehow managed to entrench dependence rather than eradicating poverty.
Decades of data show us that <a href="https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/commentary/assessing-the-great-society">massive spending correlates with higher single motherhood,</a> lower workforce participation among the able-bodied poor, and generational traps. Material hardship has eased thanks to the checks themselves, but the behavioral poverty — the broken families, the work disincentives, the “welfare cliffs” where earning a few extra bucks costs you benefits — has proven stubbornly immune to spending. Trillions of dollars later, and the Left’s solution is always more. Shocking.
This isn&#8217;t an argument against helping people in genuine need. It&#8217;s an argument against pretending we haven&#8217;t been trying, and it&#8217;s absolutely an argument for why national defense cannot be the scapegoat.
Funding the military isn’t just defensible, it’s non-negotiable. National Defense exists to keep the lights on, the borders secure, and the homeland from turning into a playground for our enemies. A strong military is not optional in a world full of revisionist powers like China, Russia, and Iran. It deters wars, not just fights them.
On Israel specifically, the one Mamdani loves to demagogue, U.S. aid is no blank check to “kill thousands.” It&#8217;s a strategic bargain. <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/09/14/fact-sheet-memorandum-understanding-reached-israel">Annual baseline support r</a>uns about $3.8 billion, almost all of it spent on American-made weapons that flow back into U.S. factories and jobs. That&#8217;s roughly .34% of America&#8217;s total defense and intelligence budget. Israel spends around 6% of its own GDP fighting our shared enemies, extending American reach without us stationing endless troops there. That&#8217;s not charity. That&#8217;s leverage through intelligence sharing, missile defense technology, and a stable democratic outpost in a hellscape region. The alternative is ceding the Middle East to the mullahs and their proxies while we pretend isolationism works. It doesn&#8217;t.
If we&#8217;re going to talk about who actually mishandles money like a drunk sailor on shore leave, that&#8217;s the Democrats. The Joe Biden years proved it in living color. <a href="https://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/data/consumerpriceindexhistorical_us_table.htm">Cumulative inflation hit 21.5%</a> from 2021 to 2025. Groceries and gas skyrocketed — <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm">gasoline alone up 31%</a> — while real inflation-adjusted weekly earnings for private sector workers fell about 4%. Median household income, after inflation, barely budged or dipped in key areas. The &#8220;vibecession&#8221; wasn&#8217;t a vibe. It was working families watching their paychecks evaporate while the administration bragged about &#8220;record job creation&#8221; that included millions of people simply re-entering the workforce after COVID lockdowns they prolonged.
Yet Democrats keep floating a utopian wishlist like it&#8217;s free: paid family leave, free community college, universal healthcare. They sound like middle schoolers running for class president — and frankly, there isn&#8217;t much difference. They lecture Republicans about fiscal responsibility while their own policies ballooned the debt, fueled inflation, and left more Americans financially strained than at any point in recent memory.
The hypocrisy is Olympic-level. They want America naked and vulnerable so the scavengers — China, Iran, cartels, Leftists — can feast. Weakness is the point. A strong military requires priorities, and our military deserves the best because they are the best. However, the left’s vision requires an endless spigot of other people&#8217;s money and a populace too distracted by bread and circuses to notice the empire of debt rising around them.
No one is saying we should cut every social program tomorrow or ignore the genuinely needy. But pretending the military is the budget villain while two-thirds of spending flows into programs that have failed to break the cycle of poverty is gaslighting on an industrial scale.
The left doesn&#8217;t want to feed the poor. They want to buy votes and erode self-reliance. They don&#8217;t want a robust defense. They want a paper tiger that easily folds to third-worldism.
If this country takes its governing cues from a failed rapper turned big-city mayor whose deepest policy insight comes from a 1990s rap lyric, we&#8217;re going to need that military a lot sooner than we think.

Candidates Participate In The New York City Democratic Mayoral Primary Debate

Mamdani Quotes Tupac Shakur To Justify Socialism And Cut Defense Spending

National Budget

National Defense

Social Welfare

Zohran Mamdani

around the table

Meet The Billionaires Who Are Secretly Sabotaging The Country

Billionaire

Chicago

Florida

Greg Abbott

Rahm Emanuel

Republicans

Texas

The First Lady is meant to embody unity, home, and family. She is the right hand of the president and, in her own way, a mother to the nation. Melania Trump has taken that charge seriously — focusing her platform on children’s well-being, online safety, and opioid abuse prevention, placing service above self and motherhood above politics.
So as 2028 rumors gather and the question of our next president looms, it’s worth considering who would stand beside him and what she would do with the platform.
If California Governor Gavin Newsom becomes our next president, ask yourself how detrimental it would be for our nation if his First “Partner,” Jennifer Siebel Newsom, assumes greater power. Not First Lady — First Partner. The title she bestows on herself tells you everything you need to know, and the damage would follow accordingly.
Siebel Newsom wouldn’t be the mother of our nation. She’d be the caregiver, the parent, whatever gender-neutral term doesn’t upset the acolytes of the far Left who propelled the couple to power.  She wouldn’t reserve that terminology for herself alone; she would conscript the rest of us into it as well.
We need not wonder how she would parent the country. She’s already told us by how she parents her kids.
I recently wrote about how she’s taken her children on what amounts to a Racism Safari through Red State America — hunting for “misogyny, racism, and bullying, oh my!” But a newly resurfaced video reveals the indoctrination began far earlier.
Siebel Newsom told an interviewer that she gives her boys dolls &#8220;to learn that caregiving is not just an activity reserved for women.&#8221; She added that when reading a book with a male protagonist, she simply &#8220;changes the he to a she&#8221; so her sons can see that &#8220;women can be at the center of a story. That women matter. That women are interesting.&#8221; You have to rewrite literature to teach your children that women are interesting? Isn’t this something they should be able to observe at home, or is that a problem in the Newsom household?
Then she went further. We are all, she said, &#8220;recognizing what it is to ultimately deconstruct all of these gender roles and ultimately be human.&#8221; She will &#8220;continue to do her work to try and deconstruct these limiting narratives about what it means to be human.&#8221;
Read that again. In order for the Newsom family to be fully human, they must first dismantle what it means to be a man or woman. I can’t imagine what their dinnertime conversations sound like, but it seems as if the Newsoms are engaging in a war against the imago Dei — the truth that every person is made in God’s image, with an unchangeable, sexed soul.
When elites like Newsom use their platform to rewrite children’s books, hand boys dolls as ideological instruments, and treat biology as a social construct to be dismantled, they don’t make us more human. They make us less. They tell boys that the natural drive to protect and provide is toxic. They tell girls that the capacity to nurture is something to be questioned.
The result? Confused children, skyrocketing rates of anxiety, depression, and identity disorders, and a culture that treats objective reality as bigotry.
The leftist upper echelon calls this harmless. It isn&#8217;t. It is state-adjacent indoctrination with a smile and a reading circle.
True humanity is not found in endless deconstruction. It is found in accepting the Creator’s blueprint, in living out complementarity, and in rejecting the nihilism that insists man can redefine what God has made.
If the Newsoms become our nation’s next parents, we can be sure that their form of “progress” will aggressively erode that very humanity they openly vow to deconstruct — in the form of gender clinics in schools, pronouns in kindergarten, and a generation that no longer knows what a mother is.

California Governor Gavin Newsom Meets With Campaign Staff And Volunteer On Day Of Recall Election Vote

The Newsoms Are Parenting From Another Planet And They Want To Be America’s Parents, Too

Elections

First Lady

Gavin Newsom

gender ideology

Parenting

Sarah Trone Garriott has a Harvard Divinity degree, a Lutheran ordination, and a history of calling Christianity a threat. Now she wants to be your Congresswoman.
Garriott, who is currently serving in the Iowa State Senate and running to flip Iowa’s Third Congressional District blue, made remarks in 2023 that should follow her to every campaign stop, debate stage, and Iowa church pew between now and November. Speaking about religious conservatives, she described them as &#8220;uncomfortable&#8221; — as something that “feels very threatening” — and linked Christianity itself to “political violence.” Not radical Islam. Not jihadist ideology. Christianity. 

She said this as an ordained minister of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
Three years later, with Holy Week upon us and a string of Islamic terror attacks fresh in the national memory, Garriott’s remarks deserve to be exhumed, examined, and explained. Not because they were gaffes — they weren’t. They deserve attention because they are a window into exactly what the modern religious Left believes: that the greatest threat to civil society is not the ideology responsible for over 60,800 terror attacks in the last half-century, but the people filling church pews on Palm Sunday.
During Holy Week, as Christian communities are still burying their dead from coordinated massacres in Nigeria, this inversion of morality is morally obscene.
Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world, so it was unfortunately not a complete shock that on Palm Sunday, while progressive politicians were busy casting aspersions on churchgoing Christians, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/30/world/africa/palm-sunday-attack-nigeria-dead.html">coordinated attacks</a> devastated Christian communities across central and northern Nigeria in what survivors are calling the Palm Sunday Massacres. Entire congregations were targeted. Families were slaughtered on one of the holiest days of the liturgical calendar. Christianity is not causing violence, Reverend Garriott; it is absorbing it. 
This is not an anomaly. It is an escalating pattern that cowardly politicians refuse to name. In March of 2026 alone, there were four confirmed Islamist terror attacks on Western soil, with at least four additional major plots thwarted before they reached fruition. As we approach the 25th anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks, the trend driving mass-casualty violence is not Christian nationalism — it’s the jihadist radicalism that’s been methodically seeping into this country for decades: Over 60,800 Islamic terror attacks were carried out globally in the last fifty years. The comparable figure for attacks attributed to Christian or Jewish extremism amounts to a few hundred. These are not remotely equivalent threats, and any elected official who pretends otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest. 
So what, precisely, does threaten these power-hungry clerics? It is not the Sermon on the Mount. It is not the notion that He is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). What threatens them is the downstream consequence of a populace that actually lives by those words. Christians grounded in Scripture are harder to manipulate, less dependent on the government as their provider, and far less likely to hand power to pseudo-believers whose lives represent the antithesis of everything Christ commands. This dynamic was on full display just this week when Daily Wire host <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/daily-wire-host-fires-back-after-the-view-melts-down-over-her-support-for-young-families">Isabel Brown</a> was publicly castigated for the radical act of suggesting marriage and children are worth pursuing — a principle so foundational it runs from Genesis through the Pauline epistles. Garriott herself has voted against protecting women’s sports from biological males and against banning gender-transition procedures for minors. That is the true threat they fear — not violence, not extremism, but a people too grounded in faith to go along with these cultural lies. 
 
Certainly, there are wolves in the pulpit. There are leaders who have abandoned orthodoxy, twisted Scripture for popularity and applause, and led congregations into confusion rather than conviction. That apostasy is real and genuinely threatening to the Church and her faithful. But the solution to bad theology is not to hand political power to the theologians perpetrating it. In a world where America is still called the “Great Satan” by those who mean it literally, and where our cultural foundations are being eroded daily, authentic Christians are not the problem. They are the last best hope of restoring the Christian values upon which this republic was built.
Sarah Trone Garriott is a wolf in pearls — ordained, Harvard-educated, interfaith-credentialed, and deeply hostile to the faith she claims to represent. A minister who thinks Christianity is an imminent threat is not a pastor; she is a politician in a collar. Don’t let her do to Iowa’s Third District what Judas did in the garden — betray it with a kiss, wearing the vestments of a friend.

Midterm Fight Over Trump Bill, Tariffs Starts Early At Iowa Fair

She Said Christianity Feels ‘Threatening.’ Now She Wants Your Vote.

She Said Christianity Feels 'Threatening.' Now She Wants Your Vote.

Congress

Iowa

Politics

Radical Islam

Religion

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-DEMONSTRATION

The ‘No Kings’ Protests Released New Levels Of Absurd

China

Democratic Socialism

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Minneapolis

New York City

For years, Britain has prided itself on avoiding America’s bitter abortion wars. That pride came from a “settled” law that the public took as a “pragmatic compromise.” But a recent vote in Parliament has shattered that illusion, generating the first national debate in the United Kingdom on the issue in almost 60 years.
Since 1967, abortion has been permitted in Britain for any reason up to 24 weeks (almost 6 months) — already far later than in most of Europe — with complete allowance up to birth in cases involving serious risk to the mother’s life or health, or fetal disability.
But last week, Britain’s House of Lords backed a change that decriminalizes abortion outside the existing legal framework. In plain terms, while abortions carried out through the NHS will still operate within a regulated general 24-week limit, no laws will exist to deter women from ending their pregnancies outside that system — including at full term, for any reason whatsoever.
This isn’t hypothetical. It has already happened.
In 2010, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-19621675">Sarah Catt,</a> 35, from North Yorkshire, aborted her baby at 39 weeks — days before her due date. She didn’t carry out this abortion because of any medical crisis. She and her baby were perfectly healthy. Rather, she had the abortion because she was having an affair, and didn’t want her partner to find out.
Sarah was prosecuted under the law for killing her viable, late-term baby, but the changes pushed through by politicians means she will be fully pardoned — as if her actions were never immoral.
These cases are rare. But they matter, because they expose the very boundary the law once enforced — and what can happen when that boundary disappears.
The activism in support of the recent vote to change the law gained momentum in the past few years due to a small increase in the number of women investigated for potentially illegal abortions, following the introduction of pills-by-mail or &#8220;pills-by-post.&#8221; This Covid-era scheme enabled women under ten weeks pregnant to order abortion pills by phone, and take them with no in-person examination or medical supervision.
Following the pandemic, the government made the scheme permanent — despite evidence that it opened women’s health up to far greater risk. Around 20 women <a href="https://righttolife.org.uk/news/over-10000-women-needed-hospital-treatment-after-using-abortion-pills">per day</a> in 2020 had to be admitted to the hospital after taking the pills alone at home. Ambulance dispatches and emergency calls responding to abortion pill concerns <a href="https://www.gbnews.com/news/ambulance-dispatches-and-999-calls-responding-to-abortion-pill-concerns-have-risen-by-64-since-2019-gb-news-investigation/359311">rose by 64%</a> following the scheme’s introduction.
Without scans or examinations, ectopic pregnancies requiring urgent medical care are missed; and crucially, gestational ages are not confirmed. Relying on women to self-report how far along their pregnancy carries a minefield of risks.
The court case of Carla Foster exposed the danger of this approach. Carla, 44, obtained abortion pills after telling a provider she was less than ten weeks pregnant. In reality, she was around 34 weeks along. She took the pills at home to end the life of her fully-developed baby in utero, went into labour, and delivered a stillborn daughter, whom she later named &#8220;Lily.&#8221;
Lily was viable, healthy and pain-capable. She could have survived if simply allowed to be delivered alive. Foster later described being “haunted” by the experience. Nobody wants to see women go through this trauma; nobody wants to see developed babies, capable of survival, being killed at this late stage. The pills-by-post scheme should have been scrapped to prevent this happening again. Instead, parliamentarians removed the legal deterrents that prevent more women from following in Carla’s footsteps.
Across most of the continent, abortion on general grounds is limited to the first trimester — typically between 12 and 15 weeks. Britain’s 24-week limit is already by far one of the most permissive. Stripping away the legal enforcement of that limit is not a minor adjustment, but a radical departure.
Perhaps most striking is how out of step this is with public opinion. While most Britons support legal abortion in some circumstances, <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2183929/abortion-birth-voted-lords-legalised-infanticide">less than</a> 1% support abortion up to birth for any reason. 
In other words, this is not the result of overwhelming democratic demand. It is a top-down redefinition of moral boundaries — one that the public has barely begun to grapple with.
Even in Britain’s typically muted political landscape, alarm bells are starting to ring. Senior figures, from Reform MP Suella Braverman to Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservative Party, have broken the long-standing bipartisan reluctance to engage on this issue, warning that removing legal guardrails up to birth goes too far. In a country that has spent decades avoiding this debate, that shift alone is telling.
The British parliament has sent a signal that no abortion, no matter the reason, can ever be judged as immoral. The British public will now have to decide if they agree — or if it’s time to finally reopen the conversation, and look into how our laws can be better structured to support both mothers and their babies to thrive.
* * *
Lois McLatchie Miller (@LoisMcLatch) is a writer and commentator from Great Britain.

Menu