The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is waging a war against faith, a war that it could win if we don’t wake up and start fighting. With everything we have. And this is a war that China must lose. Because what China is doing — what we are permitting China to do — brings back chilling memories of the Holocaust. The campaign was fought for many years on the local level. Now it is coordinated at the very top of the Chinese government and with the kind of technology that should make all of us terrified. Not just on a moral level. Because we care about the Chinese believers who are the victims of horrifying persecution today. We should be terrified because China’s war on faith can come here. To the United States. I can make the case that it already has. The Chinese have taken the war to authoritarian countries like Iran and Nicaragua, where surveillance technology enables the persecution of Muslims who object to Islamist repression of women and Catholic priests who offer a creed different from Marxism. The CCP is also winning here, in free capitalist America, where two huge businesses, Hollywood and the National Basketball Association, have become willing enforcers of Chinese censorship. Censorship that has shielded China’s crimes against humanity — the internment of hundreds of thousands, forced abortion and sterilization, organ harvesting from living victims — from international notice and protest. The movie industry is in bed with the Chinese because it often relies on the Asian market to make a profit. The NBA’s star players sell shoes in China. How hypocritical it was several years ago when these incredibly well-paid athletes never uttered a negative word about what was going on in China, while often condemning our own society. Only one player has called out the Chinese Communists — Enes Kanter Freedom, the third overall pick in the 2011 NBA Draft, whose story I tell in this book. He no longer plays in the league, and that’s because he had the audacity to speak out against China’s oppression. Yes, Black Lives Matter, but what about Chinese lives? Don’t they matter, too? Look, I’m as fervent a believer in the capitalist system as the next guy, siding with big business throughout my years as a congressman, senator, and governor. That does not mean, however, that we should be doing business with everyone. Certainly not with a regime that is waging a war against religion and conducting genocide against the Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, the members of Falun Gong, and the Buddhists in Tibet — and persecuting Christians who refuse to put the CCP above the Bible. With their relentless pursuit of the almighty dollar and cheap products, a number of American businesses are acting as accomplices. U.S. companies’ investment in China, as of 2025, totaled $127 billion. That’s billion with a B. Those companies include Apple, BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase, and Tesla. Here’s a quote attributed to Karl Marx: “We will hang the capitalists with the rope they sell us.” China has been waging this war — in one form or another, against one religion or another — for nearly eighty years, since 1949, when Mao Zedong defeated the Nationalist forces, and Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan. Today, the war on faith is being fought more aggressively than ever by a government led by a Mao-like dictator, Xi Jinping. Let me share with you a few examples of what China has been doing: Pressuring Christians to replace pictures of Jesus with posters of Xi Jinping Arresting priests who do not acknowledge the Chinese Communist Party as the ultimate authority. Catholic bishops in China are in prison or have disappeared, or live under house arrest or surveillance Detaining Uyghurs, a mostly Muslim, Turkic-speaking ethnic group who live in the northwestern province of Xinjiang, in concentration camps — at least one with a crematorium attached, as Ethan Gutmann, a senior fellow at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, reported to Congress in 2022 Harvesting organs from prisoners who are still alive — both Uyghurs and practitioners of Falun Gong — to support the country’s billion-dollar organ export industry Subjecting Uyghurs to pregnancy tests, forced intrauterine devices, and forced abortions Demolishing sacred religious sites. Chinese authorities destroyed five thousand mosques over a single three-month period, and 97% of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and nunneries are now gone Forcing teachers to give up Christian beliefs and practices Time is not on our side. Every day, innocent people in China are being imprisoned, tortured, raped. Killed. These people of faith are similar to the Jewish refuseniks of the 1970s and ’80s (so named because the Soviet Union refused their request to emigrate to Israel), incredibly brave souls such as Natan Sharansky, who spent nine years in a Siberian prison. While small in number, they challenged the legitimacy of the Russian Communist regime and helped crush the Soviet Union. Or, as President Ronald Reagan rightly put it, “the Evil Empire.” Some of these men and women have suffered for years behind bars, others enduring physical torture. They lost family members and friends and were subjected to unimaginable assaults on their privacy and their personal integrity. Every story demonstrates the cruelty of the regime that poses the greatest threat to freedom in our lifetime. Even greater than the Soviet Union during the Cold War, something I never thought was possible. But none of this horrific persecution deterred them from fighting for their right, and the rights of others, to practice their faith. The war is being conducted by the CCP, not by the Chinese people themselves, whom I have admired since my first visit in 1985 (my wife Mary and I are blessed to have a brilliant daughter adopted from China), and led by Xi Jinping, the president of China since 2013 and general secretary of the Communist Party since 2012. It reminds me of the Soviet Union at its worst and even of the Holocaust. In fact, the CCP has killed more of its own people than any regime in history — more than Adolf Hitler’s Germany or Joseph Stalin’s Russia. By far. Let that sink in for a little bit. For the longest time, I could not understand how so much of the civilized world, armed with overwhelming evidence from eyewitnesses, could be silent while Hitler’s Third Reich carried out the Final Solution against the Jews of Europe. Now I understand. I understand too well. Because it is happening again, before our very eyes — in the twenty-first century, no less, in a world where everyone has a smartphone, with access to the facts and the pictures at their fingertips. Facts and pictures from three genocides that China has perpetrated: Uyghurs with shaved heads loaded on trains to concentration camps, Tibetan Buddhist monks in chains, the face of a thirty-seven-year-old woman burned with electric batons for practicing Falun Gong. The consequences for freedom everywhere — and that includes the United States of America — will be dire if we fail to act. I pray that it is not already too late. Adapted from: China’s War on Faith by Sam Brownback (Author), Michael Arkush. Republic Book Publishers.

Somebody needs to remind former Vice President Kamala Harris of her own wisdom: “Do you think you just fell out of a coconut tree? You exist in the context in which you are in.” Because it seems she has forgotten that context entirely. Harris may have lost both the Electoral College and the popular vote, performed horrendously in every swing state, and campaigned with all the intellectual rigor of a drunken stupor — but a woman of her talents refuses to sit idle. She’s already back at it, hosting “bad ideas only brainstorms” on the “Win With Black Women” podcast. Not to be confused with their adversarial counterpart, “Losing With Annoying Women,” otherwise known as The View. On Thursday’s episode, Harris literally hosted, in her own words, a “no bad ideas brainstorm,” in which every single idea was a steaming pile of constitutional malpractice designed to rig the system, because her party cannot win fair and square. Her three “novel” proposals, which have been trotted out by every radical Democrat in the country already, were to abolish the Electoral College, expand the Supreme Court, and grant statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, all to “fight fire with fire” and “neutralize these red states from cheating.” I laughed, but the frightening reality is that many people think this sounds not just fine, but necessary. A righteous effort to wrest power from the evil, fascist, bigoted, racist Republicans. It is not normal. It is dangerous and historically illiterate. The Electoral College was clearly not covered properly in grade school or at university, because many self-described “educated Democrats” — including Minnesota Governor Tim Walz — don’t seem to understand the purpose of it at all. The Founders established it to protect smaller states from being dominated by high-population urban centers. By having electors meet in their respective states to vote on behalf of their people, the mechanism ensures the president is elected by a coalition of states, keeping this a federalist republic. We are a republic, not a pure democracy, precisely so California and New York cannot steamroll Wyoming and North Dakota every four years. Without it, tyrannical majorities and wannabe presidents like Harris and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would barnstorm Los Angeles, Chicago, and the Acela Corridor while ignoring the rest of the map. Clinton thought she didn’t have to campaign in Wisconsin. She lost 10 electoral votes because of it. Harris thought she could win Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin with a coastal, big-city progressive playbook and lost every single one of them because of it. The problem is not the system. The problem is they cannot sell their agenda to enough states. Then Harris confirmed her IQ is somewhere south of room temperature when she expressed her desire to expand the Supreme Court — aka: Court-packing. A similar authoritarian power grab was attempted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, and even his own party rejected the banana-republic scheme. Can you imagine if President Donald Trump said he would abolish the Electoral College? The media moguls would have shaved their heads in anti-authoritarian solidarity within minutes. The Court has nine justices because Congress set it that way in 1869, to establish independence, stability, and protection from the kind of naked partisan manipulation that had turned it into a political football for decades prior. Harris and her cadre of angry partisans have been seething since Dobbs and continue to get struck down by the current Supreme Court because they continue doing illegal things. Instead of campaigning on popular policy, delivering results, and appointing justices when vacancies arise, their solution is to bypass those pesky checks and balances entirely. Stuffing the bench with 13 or 15 partisan hacks to rubber-stamp their agenda the minute they have the chance. The Democratic Machine team is openly admitting they will turn our independent judiciary into a Democratic super-legislature. This “genius” politicking would backfire, as every other partisan power grab has, and the next Republican wave would pack it right back, to 17 or 19 justices, and so on and so forth, destroying the Court’s legitimacy. As James Madison warned in Federalist 47: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Politics is a game. Instead of playing to win, Democrats are simply trying to break the referee. They’re also trying to add more players to their side of the field. The game is roughly even right now, but Harris and her fellow coconuts don’t like it even. That’s why they’re seriously pushing statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico, all in an effort, per Harris, to “neutralize these red states from cheating.” You know what would prevent cheating? Ceasing mail-in ballots, requiring voter-ID, not lying about the “freeness” and “fairness” of your elections via gerrymandering 50% of voters out of existence. But they hate that idea! Cheating would be subverting our Founders’ wishes by granting statehood to D.C., which was deliberately designed as a federal district, not a state, precisely to avoid creating a permanent swamp of congressional power brokers beholden to one party. It’s already 90% Democrat. Granting it statehood would hand Democrats two more senators and a House seat overnight. That’s not democracy. That’s pure power consolidation. Puerto Rico, the homeland of South America’s baddest bunny, is a welfare magnet propped up by federal transfers, with English as a non-dominant language, and their own referendums on statehood have been dismal with low turnout and mixed results. Forcing it to become America’s 51st state wouldn’t expand the map; it would expand the entitlement tab and deliver a couple more reliable electoral votes to the Left. So much democracy. Which, if you haven’t already heard, is a newer concept created and perfected “by black Americans.” But red states simply existing and growing in population because of low taxes, limited government, and deregulation? That’s cheating. The Left has tried impeaching, imprisoning, and indicting President Donald Trump. They have weaponized the IRS and DOJ against Christians and conservatives, control Hollywood, the corporate media, and universities, censor conservative voices through Big Tech, and have imposed top-down government control everywhere they can reach. Brainstorming how to abolish the Electoral College, pack the Supreme Court, lower the voting age, import millions of illegal aliens, and add two new Democratic states is not brainstorming. It is a coordinated effort to end the republic. As Benjamin Franklin warned, we can only keep it “if we can keep it.” The Left is telling us exactly what they will do the moment they have the chance. This is why they have spent years dehumanizing, delegitimizing, and degrading their opponents, so that when the unconstitutional seizure comes, they can call it necessary. Protective. A heroic effort to save Americans from evil Republicans. President Barack Obama claims he wished conservatives respected the rule of law. Meanwhile, Democrats chip away at every constitutional guardrail, day after day. The silver lining: while the Republican bench stacks up with Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Democrats are giving us a preview of their 2028 primary. If Harris, fresh off her latest word salad, is the best they’ve got? Americans can expect to keep their constitutional republic a little while longer.

“I’ve been to jail. I’ve been judged. And I’ve gotten back up.” That’s not the opening line of a reality show. It’s part of a congressional campaign bio. Michigan Democrat Shelby Campbell is going viral online after videos showing her twerking on a kitchen counter exploded across social media just months before the state’s August primary election. And depending on who you ask, she’s either the future of “authentic” politics or a flashing warning sign of what happens when TikTok culture collides headfirst with Congress. For conservatives online, the clips immediately became a symbol of what they say modern Democrat politics increasingly rewards: viral attention, internet celebrity, and “authenticity” over professionalism, seriousness, or basic decorum. The 32-year-old single mother and law student is running to represent Michigan’s 13th Congressional District, and she’s making it very clear she has zero interest in looking like a polished, traditional politician. “I’m not here to pretend I’m perfect,” Campbell says directly on her campaign website. That much is obvious. The videos sparked immediate backlash and endless memes online, with conservative accounts roasting the clips as others rushed to defend her. Social media quickly turned the race into a full-blown internet spectacle, with critics mocking the campaign as influencer culture dressed up as public service. But Campbell doesn’t seem interested in hiding from any of it. In fact, her entire campaign appears built around leaning into her past and presenting herself as unfiltered. Her website also features four mugshots alongside her biography. She talks about previously working as a bartender, server, certified nursing assistant, and autoworker. She says she sold her car, rides a scooter, and uses public transportation. She also highlights being a first-generation college graduate who attended Wayne State University and studies law at Detroit Mercy. And then there’s this line: “I’m not a regular politician, I’m an honest politician.” To critics watching the videos circulate online, the pitch sounded less like honesty and more like an attempt to turn personal chaos into political branding. Still, the message is clearly aimed at voters tired of perfectly scripted politicians pretending they’ve never made mistakes. Others argued the campaign reflects a deeper cultural shift where going viral now matters more than appearing qualified to hold public office, and where internet clout can generate more attention than policy positions ever could. Campbell argues she understands everyday struggles because she’s lived them herself. Her district, she notes, is heavily working class, with many residents employed in retail, healthcare, automotive, and service industries. Welcome to 2026 politics. One candidate is talking about inflation, crime, and border security. Another just became internet-famous from a kitchen counter, and somehow that’s now part of the congressional conversation.

At least 272 times. That’s how often Doctors Without Borders accused Israel of “genocide” in social media posts following the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023. Beyond the obviously disproportionate emphasis, the NGO, known in French as MSF (Médecins Sans Frontières), added its considerable voice to a political campaign in which the label genocide is reinterpreted uniquely for Israel, and in which the evidence is cynically manipulated. As this and many other activities demonstrated, MSF has abandoned its mission of medical neutrality in joining virulent anti-Israel campaigns and abdicated its credibility, as a new detailed research report from NGO Monitor documents. MSF repeated the false genocide accusation obsessively in press briefings, via actions by regional branches, and across social accounts. At least 272 times. It did not apply the label to Russia’s war in Ukraine nor to massive and indiscriminate regime bombing in Syria. Its focus cannot even be attributed to the centrality of Israel and Gaza in Western media; MSF all but ignored Hamas’ taking of Israeli hostages, referencing them as primary subjects in only three posts across all its international feeds – less than 1.1% of its “genocide” accusations. To further anti-Israel narratives, MSF egregiously violated its claims of “strict adherence to humanitarian principles, independence, and medical ethics” following the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023. This would be concerning on its own, but it is especially horrific coming from a long-respected medical aid group. “Genocide” is a consequential term. Coined by Jewish scholar Raphael Lemkin in the shadow of the Holocaust to denote its unprecedented evil, the label has rightly been sparingly employed, necessitating thresholds of mass carnage and, according to Lemkin, the “intent to destroy.” In the Gaza conflict, there is clearly no intent on the part of Israel, other than to prevent Hamas from perpetrating another October 7-like calamity. Nevertheless, from the earliest moments of the Israeli response, MSF advanced increasingly defamatory labels for Israeli actions while consistently whitewashing Hamas’ crimes. MSF’s first social media post hours into the Hamas invasion – as hundreds of terrorists were still rampaging across southern Israel, murdering civilians, carrying out sexual atrocities, and taking hostages – was an unverified accusation that Israel had caused the death of a nurse and an ambulance driver, dryly referencing a backdrop of “escalation between Israel and Gaza.” Its press release on October 8 attempted to focus attention on Israeli aggression and Gazan victimhood – again, as Hamas terrorists were still present in Israel. The statement included a casualty count provided by the Hamas-controlled Gaza Ministry of Health, and only briefly mentioned the Israeli death toll, without addressing the Hamas assault. MSF’s role as a primary source of misinformation came to an early head on October 17, when a large explosion occurred in the vicinity of Gaza’s Al-Ahli hospital. Within a very short time, the NGO issued and intensely promoted a press release quoting Dr. Ghassan Abu Sittah, an MSF doctor who called the event “a massacre,” and who was paraded across Western media as an expert eyewitness to this ostensible example of “Israeli brutality.” In further MSF-arranged interviews, he used the event to accuse Israel of “systematically destroying Gaza’s health infrastructure,” and called it the moment he decided that Israel’s military campaign “stopped being a war, and became a genocide.” But subsequent government analyses by the United States, Canada, and France, as well as an investigation by the New York Times, concluded that the damage to the hospital was minimal and had been caused by a misfired Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket. Yet MSF never retracted or amended its claims, so that anyone using its reports and posts would continue to conclude that Israel was to be blamed for a “massacre.” This trend of knee-jerk Israel demonization mounted as the war continued. In an open letter to the UN Security Council on December 4, 2023, MSF International President Christos Christou accused Israel of “incessant and indiscriminate warfare,” and argued that “subjecting an entire population to collective punishment is a war crime under International Humanitarian Law” – assertions far beyond the purview of this ostensibly medical NGO. In October 2024, MSF accused Israel of “unmitigated slaughter” without acknowledging Hamas’ exploitation of medical facilities (documented in depth by NGO Monitor). And in December 2024, MSF graduated to “genocide.” The NGO published a report entitled “Life in a Death Trap,” framing Israel’s campaign to return its hostages and eliminate the Hamas threat as “crushing an entire population under bombs and rubble,” “ethnic cleansing,” and attempting “to unravel the very fabric of society in Gaza.” MSF did acknowledge that it “do[es not] have legal authority to establish intentionality,” a core requirement for any finding of genocide. No matter, MSF decided: “our firsthand observations…are consistent with the descriptions provided by an increasing number of legal experts and organizations concluding that genocide is taking place in Gaza.” The only legal body MSF referenced, though, was the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – and MSF’s version markedly misrepresents the ICJ’s provisional ruling, which did not actually make any determination on whether genocide had occurred. MSF was founded in order to provide medical assistance to those most in need. Its recent behavior, however, has undermined that goal, stripping away the organization’s benevolent facade. Humanitarians do not ignore the actions of terrorist organizations. And humanitarians do not spread heinous allegations of “genocide” against the victims of hardened and unrepentant terrorist groups. ___ Prof. Gerald M. Steinberg is founder and president of the NGO Monitor research institute.

Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger is reportedly “fuming” this week after the state failed to get a single justice on the Supreme Court to support her after she violated the state constitution in her attempted gerrymandering of the state. However, Spanberger may have just guaranteed another trip to the Supreme Court when she said the quiet part out loud about the new state gun ban. After the Democrats took power recently, they went on a frenzy of tax and liberal legislative measures. The sharp move to the far left is out of sync with a purple state that remains roughly evenly divided. While Spanberger (who ran on being a moderate) has pushed forward many of these measures, she sought to moderate one bill banning so-called “assault firearms.” Spanberger released the following statement: I am signing this bill into law because firearms designed to inflict maximum casualties do not belong on our streets. We are taking this step to protect families and support the law enforcement officers who work every day to keep our communities safe. While the General Assembly chose not to adopt my amendment that specifically carves out certain firearms frequently used for hunting, I will work with the patrons to clarify this language. [Emphasis added] The governor’s acknowledgment that the law covers common hunting models will likely be cited in Second Amendment challenges. If the law is not amended, she could prove the main witness against her own signed legislation. Even with such an amendment, the bill is problematic. I have previously written about my skepticism over bans on AR-15s and other so-called “assault weapons,” though some courts have upheld such bans. We have a Second Amendment protection of gun ownership, with over 490 million guns in private hands, as of 2022. In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. The Supreme Court further strengthened the right in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. The AR-15 is the most popular gun in America and the number of these guns in private hands is continuing to rise rapidly, with one AR-15 purchased in every five new firearms sales. There are an estimated 32 million currently in private hands in the United States, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. AR-15s are purchased for home protection as well as target shooting and hunting. Many gun owners like the AR-15 because it is modular; depending on the model, you can swap out barrels, bolts and high-capacity magazines, or add a variety of accessories. While it does more damage than a typical handgun, it is not the most powerful gun sold in terms of caliber; many guns have equal or greater caliber. Not only are they commonly used for hunting, but they remain statistically uncommon choices in homicides. Rifles are used in only about 3% of such cases, according to experts. Again, lower courts are divided on both the bans on semiautomatic weapons and the magazine bans. Eventually, the Supreme Court will have to resolve the question. If the Virginia law remains unchanged, Spanberger may find that her signing statement will feature greatly in the appeal. *** This is republished with permission from the author. The original can be found at JonathanTurley.org. Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He is a New York Times best-selling author of The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage and Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.