The severe winter weather sweeping across the Northeast pushed New York’s homeless death toll to nineteen on Thursday. New York City mayoral candidate and long time New Yorker, Curtis Sliwa, attributes the crisis to the city’s status as a “sanctuary” jurisdiction for illegal aliens — and says he’s “never seen it worse.”  The massive influx of illegals during former President Joe Biden’s term — a fair number of whom were transported to sanctuary cities — put a strain on the already limited resources available to house the city’s homeless population, and Sliwa argued that has brought the crisis to a breaking point. “I’m watching emotionally disturbed persons and homeless people exhibit Darwinian traits. Survival of the fittest,” Sliwa said. He described encountering a homeless man with no shoes who was missing half of his foot. The man told Sliwa that both his shoes, including the one specially made for his disability, had been stolen by the “stronger” homeless. Sliwa told the Daily Wire he and his nonprofit the Guardian Angels have encountered many grim scenarios while attempting to help the homeless through the winter spell.   Sliwa said the crisis did not begin with the election of New York’s democratic socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani, but with the previous administration under Democrat Eric Adams. “A lot of this is the result of Eric Adams’ failures as mayor, in which he housed a lot of the migrants, at the expense of our own homeless,” he said. “They spent $7 billion housing migrants that we didn’t even know in hotels, motels, giving them lodging, food, clothing. Okay. But we weren’t doing likewise with our own homeless and more importantly, the emotionally disturbed who should have been brought to mental health care hospitals because they clearly are a danger to themselves and everyone else.”  In fiscal years 2024 and 2025, New York city spent $6.77 billion on funding for people seeking asylum in the United States. Financial support ranged from housing in shelters and New York hotels, prepaid debit cards to families in hotel-based, non-congregate shelters for food, legal and medical services, and relocation assistance.  Sliwa says it’s New York’s homeless who end up paying the price. “Now we’re beginning to pay the price that our own homeless, who are out on their own for many months, many years as a result of the priority being the migrants.” However, Sliwa did not entirely excuse Mamdani.  “I don’t see any of the homeless outreach workers that the mayor keeps talking about,” he said.  Mamdani’s critics however argue  the newly appointed mayor’s end to end encampment sweeps has contributed to the rising death toll. Brian Stettin, a senior adviser in the Adams’ administration, told the New York Post, “When a person is in imminent danger, there is no debate. Whatever ideological divides we should not have any impact on these policies during a ‘Code Blue.’”  Sliwa added that his organization’s hands are tied. “We’re just citizens,” he said, noting the Guardian Angels cannot carry out involuntary removals to bring people indoors. “That has to be done by the city, the police department, and other agencies—but they’re just not doing that.”

The following is an edited transcript excerpt from The Michael Knowles Show. * * * Zohran Mamdani is very, very upset because the federal government has reportedly removed the rainbow gay pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument. Here’s what Mamdani had to say: I am outraged by the removal of the Rainbow Pride Flag from Stonewall National Monument. New York is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement, and no act of erasure will ever change, or silence, that history. Our city has a duty not just to honor this legacy, but to… — Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@NYCMayor) February 10, 2026 Credit: NYCMayor/X.com First of all, this is a bit of vindication for me because when everyone was saying that Mamdani was going to establish Sharia law in New York — saying he’s some kind of Islamist terrorist — I said, you know, would that it were so simple. In some ways it would be preferable if he were a serious Muslim; you can kind of talk to a Muslim. I think it’s worse. I think he’s not just a far-leftist but a millennial leftist who plays up the Muslim thing because of identity politics. He knows it will help win over some immigrants. There’s also a radical Left and Muslim alliance because they have a common enemy, which is America and the Church and the white man or whatever — you know, the usual enemies of the Left. And so, I said that’s true. But if push comes to shove, he’s going to side with leftism over Islam. Just like when push comes to shove, Joe Biden says he’s Catholic and he’s liberal. But when there’s a conflict between the two, he always picks liberalism. He never picks Catholicism. So his real faith is liberalism. And that was my argument with Mamdani. And I think I’m totally vindicated in that.  Now, Mamdani is very upset because Trump took the pride flags away from Stonewall. What is Stonewall? The Stonewall Inn was a filthy, truly degenerate, disease-ridden, Mafia-run bar. It was a hive of crime, decadence, and debauchery in New York City. And then, when the cops raided the filthy, illegal Mafia-run bar — not illegal because it was hosting gay people  — when that happened, a bunch of sexual deviants, including famously a trans-identifying guy, started chucking bricks at the cops. As a result, we now side with the gay Mafia bar attacking cops. That is the thing that we’ve exalted as a national monument. But because it’s a national monument, the federal government has a say over it. And Trump has come out and said, look, you can fly the US flag at federal properties, you can fly certain military flags like missing-in-action, prisoner-of-war flags, but that’s basically it. You know, the flag of the Army or the Navy or something where that’s appropriate, but that’s it. We’re not doing the BLM flag. We’re not doing the gay flag. We’re not doing the trans flag. We’re not doing the terrorist trans flag — I call that the terrorist gay flag. So the federal government said we’re not doing that. But it begs the question: why do we have a national monument to Stonewall in the first place? What do we have a national monument to weird sex stuff? And why is a liberal New York politician, the most prominent left-wing New York politician, why is he all of a sudden so concerned about tearing down monuments?  The left has spent ten years tearing down monuments to all of the men who built this country. Monuments to Christopher Columbus — there was a big push for that in New York — constantly defacing the Columbus monument in Columbus Circle. There were also attacks on even Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses Grant, Thomas Jefferson, and certainly on Robert E. Lee. WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show on DailyWire+. So all these guys — we’ve got to tear down all these monuments — and the only monument we have to keep up, the only monument we can’t tear down, is the weird sex flag on the weird sex place, which was actually a bar run by the Mafia.   Now, before Republicans get too high on our horse, I just want to point out what the libs are doing is destroying history and tearing down the traditions and fabric of our country, in some cases tangibly, which is bad. But we want to tear some things down too — maybe not in as blunt a way as the libs do, maybe not in as blunt a way as the Taliban does. We’re not blowing up the Buddha statues, okay? But we do want to tear things down in the way that you prune a garden, not the way you blow up a Buddha in Afghanistan, but the way you prune a garden. I do want to get rid of the Stonewall National Memorial. It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous that we have a monument to a Mafia-run gay bar best known for assaulting police officers and for spreading diseases. We should not have a monument to that. That’s degrading to our country. You can be nice to people who have some weird sexual behaviors. You can be nice to them. You can be somewhat tolerant of that without putting up a freaking monument to the Mafia gay bar. That’s insane. Not only should we be taking the pride flag away from that, we should be removing that as a national monument.  I don’t want monuments up to people like Malcolm X or Angela Davis. Even if they’re figures from American history, they represent bad stuff.  I don’t want monuments up to the Rosenbergs who were communist spies.  I don’t want a monument to someone like Alger Hiss. I don’t want them. I don’t want monuments to people who are bad for this country. Once again, I made this point in my book Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds about speech. The false dichotomy when we’re talking about free speech is between free speech and censorship, when really the real battle is between competing sets of standards, because all societies have standards. The same thing is true here. The real debate is not: Do we tear down the statues or do we leave them standing? The real question is: Who is worthy of a statue? Who’s worthy of a monument? Who’s worthy of veneration as a political matter?

Two Mexican Navy ships docked in Cuba on Thursday carrying humanitarian aid for the Caribbean island nation in the middle of a severe energy crisis. The ships carried hundreds of tons of food and supplies. The Mexican government said that one ship contained 536 tons of food – including milk, beans, sardines, and cookies – while the other contained about 277 tons of powdered milk, according to the Associated Press. The arrival of aid comes weeks after President Donald Trump increased pressure on the Cuban economy, threatening tariffs against any nation that supplies Cuba with oil. Cuba has since instituted increasingly strict rules around the use of its remaining fuel supplies. The aid delivers on a promise Mexico made to its ally to help as the United States bears down economically on the dictatorial regime in power in Havana. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum signaled said she would like to help Cuba more, but does not want to violate the U.S. blockade on oil. As soon as the ships return, “we will send more support of different kinds,” Sheinbaum said on Thursday, according to The Guardian. Sheinbaum is negotiating a delicate balance between the risk of angering Washington and aiding Mexico’s ally in the Caribbean. “The energy pressure that Trump is exerting on Cuba places Mexico in a dilemma that is very characteristic of its entire history of diplomatic relations with the United States and Cuba,” Cuban historian Rafael Rojas told The Guardian. “Mexico is yielding to the demands of the United States – and on the other hand it maintains its solidarity with the island.” Cuba’s energy crisis began after the U.S. arrest of former Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro in early January. After Maduro was extradited to New York for trial on charges related to drug trafficking, the United States took control of Venezuela’s oil exports, stopping exports to Cuba and cutting off Havana from its main supplier of fuel. Almost immediately after the arrest of Maduro, Washington turned its focus to Cuba. Top Trump officials such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio have advocated for Havana’s current regime to topple. “I don’t think it’s any mystery that we are not big fans of the Cuban regime, who, by the way, are the ones that were propping up Maduro,” Rubio said the day after Maduro’s arrest. Cuban agents were honeycombed throughout the Maduro regime and Cuban special forces served as the core of Maduro’s personal guard.

It’s been nearly six months since the brutal murder of 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska on the light rail system in Charlotte. The murder was committed by a violent, habitual felon named Decarlos Brown — a black man who, for an allegedly crazy person, chose his victim very carefully. Brown did not attack the first person he saw. He rode the light rail for several hours that day. He waited until a defenseless white woman sat in front of him. And then, after just a couple of minutes, he stabbed Zarutska several times, before walking off the train and bragging that he had just murdered a “white girl.” In a serious country, every politician who allowed Brown to commit this murder would have immediately resigned in disgrace and gone into exile. And there were many, many elected officials who were responsible for what happened. For about a thousand reasons, Brown should not have been a free man at the time of the murder. He had a record that included arrests for felony larceny, assault, shoplifting, and other crimes. He had also pleaded guilty to committing a robbery with a dangerous weapon, which sent him to prison for several years. And then, after all of these arrests, in January of 2025 — just months before murdering Iryna Zarutska — Brown repeatedly called 911 to report that he was under the control of a mysterious “man-made material” that had entered his bloodstream. After enough of these calls, officers arrested him. But a judge — a black woman named Teresa Stokes, who also happens to run a mental health treatment clinic — decided not to keep Decarlos Brown in jail.  Screenshot: X Instead, the judge allowed Brown to go free, as long as he provided a “written promise” that he’d appear in court. She permitted a violent criminal, who was committing more crimes and behaving like a raving lunatic, to live among the general public. Lawmakers gave her discretion to unleash this monster on the city of Charlotte. The judge took advantage of that discretion. And a very predictable result occurred. For the past six months, to their credit, Republicans in North Carolina have refused to allow Iryna’s killer — and his accomplices in the state government — to get away with what they’ve done. First, Republicans, with a small amount of Democrat support, passed “Iryna’s Law.” This is a law that, if it had been in place last summer, would have saved her life. It prevents magistrate judges from releasing habitual, violent felons — men like Decarlos Brown — without bail. So no more “written promises” or “cashless bail.” By itself, that provision would have kept Decarlos Brown in jail for all of 2025, since he had no money. Additionally, judges have to provide written explanations for any decision to release violent or habitual offenders. They’re also obligated to make criminals undergo mental health screening if there’s any possibility that they might be insane (which, again, was the case with Decarlos Brown). If judges fail to meet these obligations, among others, then they’ll be removed from the bench. That’s the first prong of the Republican response to Iryna Zarutska’s murder. But they’ve also been holding hearings in which they force elected officials with jurisdiction over Charlotte — the people who should’ve kept Decarlos Brown in jail — to answer questions under oath. And these hearings, in no uncertain terms, have been a train wreck for the Democrats who were responsible for Iryna’s murder. They’ve also been eye-opening as to how utterly unintelligent, incompetent and unprepared our leaders are. These hearings — and other hearings that we’ll discuss in a moment — are the best argument for mass disenfranchisement, and mass impeachments, that you will ever see. The people running major cities in the United States shouldn’t be allowed to vote, much less make life-or-death decisions that affect millions of people. We’ll start with the questioning of Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden, who is responsible for overseeing the jails in Charlotte. So he’s the guy whose agency released Decarlos Brown. Watch this line of questioning from North Carolina Republican representative Allen Chesser, if you’re able to get through it. By any measure, this is a top-10 all-time moment that’s ever taken place in a legislative hearing in this country. Watch: Credit: WCNC Charlotte/YouTube.com This is the top law enforcement official in a major county in the state, with a population of more than a million people. He’s been in law enforcement for more than 36 years. He was a “legendary homicide detective,” according to his official biography. He won a contested primary election four years ago, by nearly 10,000 votes. He won the general election unopposed, with around 200,000 votes. And despite all of this experience, and despite the position he now holds, he doesn’t have a 4th grader’s grasp of his job description. It’s not simply that he doesn’t know which branch of government his office falls under. He doesn’t even know what a branch of government is. For all he knows, there are 20 branches of government. I’m surprised that, when asked about the branches of government, he didn’t start listing the parts of a tree. That’s how hopelessly clueless he is. To be clear, this is not some dumb viral “gotcha” moment. It’s also not a “gaffe,” which is how media outlets in North Carolina are describing this video. It’s directly relevant to his ability to perform his job. And it says a lot about how we select our leaders in this country. It cannot be stated enough that an elected official, or anyone in government, not being able to list the branches of government is a shocking level of ignorance, given their job description. Imagine if you sent a contract to your lawyer, asking him to look it over and break it down for you, and then he sent you back and email saying, “Uh, sorry, what’s a contract?” That’s the level of rank stupidity we’re dealing with here. Of course, if you work for the judicial branch — which the sheriff apparently believes he does — then your job is to interpret the law. (Judges don’t do that anymore, either, but that’s supposed to be the idea). On the other hand, if you’re an Executive Branch officer, your job is quite different. Your job is to enforce the laws that are passed by the Legislative Branch. This is not a moot point. It’s clearly an issue that causes a lot of confusion for this particular sheriff. In a separate interview a few months ago, the sheriff suggested that, unless his bosses in the Judicial Branch give him permission, then he doesn’t have to follow North Carolina law. Watch: Credit: WCNC/YouTube.com So he implies that he can’t do anything to enforce immigration law unless a “federal judge or magistrate, or state judicial official” has “signed a paper.” And once again, this strongly suggests that he has no idea what his actual responsibilities are. The way immigration law works, deportation orders are mostly handled by officials and administrators within the Executive Branch — including immigration judges and other officers. These are people who work for the DOJ. They aren’t part of the Judiciary Branch, and in the vast majority of cases, they aren’t “federal judges.” Therefore, since North Carolina law requires that this sheriff cooperates with ICE, he’s actually not allowed to wait for a federal judge or magistrate in the Judiciary Branch to “sign a paper” before he does anything. And the sheriff doesn’t remotely understand any of this, which is obviously a big problem for the top law enforcement official in the county. But the really amusing part of that clip is from the beginning, when he says something like, “You will never hear a lawmaker say I’m not following the law!” But in reality, you will hear lawmakers say that. At the hearing the other day, several lawmakers took turns, one after the other, saying that. And it wasn’t exactly a tough argument to make, since the sheriff himself stated that he doesn’t follow the law, and apparently doesn’t know what the law is, or even what laws are, in general. This is another top-10 moment from that hearing. Watch: Credit: WCNC Charlotte/YouTube.com That’s the same guy who, a couple of months ago, was giving interviews saying, “You’ll never hear a single lawmaker claim I don’t follow the law!” It’s like a sketch comedy show, except for the fact that people are being slaughtered because of morons like this. At no point has this sheriff expressed even a hint of responsibility or regret for what happened to Iryna Zarutska. In fact, at every available opportunity, he’s minimized her death. This is one of the more egregious examples. It’s truly one of the worst answers he could’ve possibly given under the circumstances. Watch: Credit: WCNC/YouTube.com Let’s just stop and think about his answer here. This is how he attempts to explain away the stabbing death of a woman on a train in his jurisdiction. Although we have to allow for the possibility that he might not know what a train is, or what the word “stab” means, or what death is, or what planet he’s currently on. But the excuse he’s going with is that, yeah, Iryna was stabbed to death, but people are stabbed to death in Charlotte all the time. People are constantly getting butchered by schizophrenic hobos. His point is that he’s so bad at his job that nobody is safe. Everyone’s getting stabbed all the time. So why are we talking about this one specific case? This is his prepared response, during a televised interview, to a very straightforward question — which is, would Iryna’s law have saved her life? He could not make it any more obvious that he simply does not care. He doesn’t even want to consider the possibility that something can actually be done, in order to save the lives of innocent women on the Charlotte light rail system. He views the routine slaughter of Charlotte’s population as a badge of honor. And, to all appearances, that’s because he’s simply too stupid to understand what he’s saying, or how it sounds to people with an IQ north of room temperature. His only defense, during that Oversight Committee hearing in North Carolina, was a very predictable one. Can you guess what it was? What did the black sheriff say, when all of these Republican legislators pointed out, in a public hearing, that he was an idiot who was doing a horrible job? What do you think? I’ll give you three guesses, and the first two don’t count. Watch: Credit: WCNC Charlotte/YouTube.com Yeah, it’s just not acceptable, you guys. How could you criticize a black sheriff — and during black history month no less? You shouldn’t be asking all these racist questions. After all, he’s black. He’s the first black sheriff. He’s rare. His photo is on the bus, and black people love that. Plus he’s black? Did we mention that he’s black? Just ask him, he’ll tell you. He doesn’t know much, he doesn’t actually know anything, but he does know that he’s black. He knows that at least. So it’s totally unacceptable for you to talk about how he doesn’t understand the most basic, fundamental functions of the government, or what his job description is.  It’s totally unacceptable for you to complain about the slaughter of one white woman on public transit, since he’s black. Somehow, from this point, the hearing descended even further into the depths of total stupidity. One lawmaker wanted to know why this sheriff allows murderers to use a music studio to record rap songs while in prison — which is a pretty reasonable question, all things considered. They’re in prison for murder, after all. Watch: Credit: WCNC Charlotte/YouTube.com Now at this point, even though this man is a sheriff, an elected official, and obviously just a bad person all around, you almost feel bad making fun of how stupid he is. It feels a little bit like making fun of a baby. But then I suppose that comparison is pretty offensive to babies. I just want to quote the sheriff here. He said, and this is verbatim: “Let me put that content into better content.” Oh okay. Yes, put the content into better content. So the content of what the lawmaker asked is bad, because it’s obviously bad to let convicted murders and rapists play around in a music studio, and pretend to be rappers, when we’re supposed to be punishing them for raping and killing people. That’s bad content. But he wants to take that bad content and put it into better content. Sure, that makes sense. Let’s all just nod our heads politely. We don’t want him to call us racist again, after all. By the way, the lawmaker who asked that question is actually a Democrat. Her name is Carla Cunningham. And, totally apart from this hearing, she’s also seeking to have this sheriff removed from office. Why? Because, she says, the sheriff threatened to remove her law enforcement protection, unless she voted the way he wanted her to vote on a piece of legislation concerning ICE. Yes, the sheriff threatened a sitting lawmaker, in order to pressure her to vote against federal law enforcement.  This is from Yahoo News. Cunningham is one of five people who have filed a petition to remove [Sheriff] McFadden from office, alleging that the sheriff threatened to withhold law enforcement protection for the legislator unless she voted to sustain the governor’s veto of a bill the sheriff opposed. The sheriff told the legislator that his office could not or would not protect her from violence if she cast a legislative vote in favor of a bill that McFadden opposed,” the petition states. The legislation was designed to strengthen cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and the federal agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). So this guy, put simply, is probably one of the dumbest people in the entire state. He’s bottom 10%, easily. He doesn’t speak English very well. He threatens lawmakers. He doesn’t know what a “branch of government” is. His understanding of basic civics is far, far less advanced than what you’d find in a School House Rocks video from the 90s. He doesn’t care about horrific murders because horrific murders happen constantly. Pretty much the only thing he’s sure of is that he wants murderers to rap inside his prisons. Sheriff Garry McFadden, all things considered, may actually be the dumbest Democrat to currently hold elected office. It’s a high bar to clear, but he may have just cleared it. The reigning champion, of course, is Hank Johnson, the congressman from Georgia. Admittedly, Hank Johnson is very hard to dethrone because, as you may remember, he once asked an admiral whether the island of Guam might “capsize” if too many Marines were stationed there. Watch: Credit: Andrew’s Arcade/YouTube.com He’s been in office for nearly two decades. He goes up for re-election every two years. And every two years, he wins by more than 100,000 votes in his district, which happens to be majority-black. He thinks an island can capsize if you station a few thousand Marines on it, but his voters don’t see any problem with that. He thinks islands float on top of the water, like giant rafts. Which raises the question of how the islands stay in place. Why hasn’t Hawaii bumped into Asia at this point? Maybe Hanks thinks that teams of mermaids are under the islands, holding them in place. Who knows. And presumably, his voters also think islands can capsize if a bunch of people stand on them, and are maybe being kept in place by mermaids. At a certain point, you can’t really blame Hank Johnson. You have to start looking at the voters. And Georgia is well past that point. So is the state of New Jersey, where a lawmaker named LaMonica McIver just “axed” the Director of ICE some questions at a congressional hearing.  Watch: Rotund Black Rep. LaMonica McIver “axs” ICE Director if he believes he will go to Heaven. “Mr. Chairman, I’m just axin’ a question.” Follow @AFpost pic.twitter.com/bofFxqr0Pi — AF Post (@AFpost) February 11, 2026 Credit: @AFpost/X.com You have to keep in mind, when you watch footage like this, that women like “LaMonica McIver” are the “cream of the crop,” in a sense. She is the absolute best representative that her district — another district that would rank high on “diversity metrics,” by the way — chose to send to the U.S. Congress. They had other options. And they chose her. Like the sheriff in Charlotte, she has no idea what the purpose of a “hearing” is, or what her job description is, or how you’re supposed to act in a civilized society, nor can she speak proper English. And neither do any of her constituents. The reason dysfunctional countries in places like South America and Africa are dysfunctional, at the end of the day, is that their leaders act like this. They don’t have the intelligence or the ambition to do anything else. They don’t care about the law. They don’t understand any of your arguments. And as a result, if given enough power, they will destroy everything that the founders of this country built. That’s certainly the goal of Michigan congressman Shri Thanedar, who can barely speak English at all, even though he moved to the United States from India in the late 1970’s. But he’s sure of one thing, which is that he wants to abolish ICE. And like the sassy woman from New Jersey, he came prepared to ask the ICE director, along with the director of Customs and Border Protection, some extremely stupid questions. Watch: Rep. Shri Thanedar wants to abolish ICE but can barely speak English. It’s ironic that the man trying to erase our borders cannot even speak the language of the country he serves. We need to abolish this nonsense not our security. pic.twitter.com/5AGqPKSGXA — Chad Prather (@WatchChad) February 10, 2026 Credit: @WatchChad/X.com This isn’t even really a political monologue at this point. Even if you’re a rabid Left-winger, and you voted for Kamala Harris, this should appall you. This is just abject, pure and unfiltered raw stupidity. These are not serious people. And until the last 100 years or so, none of them would’ve been anywhere near positions of power. But now, these absolute buffoons are all over the place. From state legislatures to the U.S. Congress, you simply cannot avoid them. It’s difficult to believe now, but for most of American history, Congress was filled with high IQ men who were extremely articulate and took the job seriously. And you can say, well, society was racist and misogynistic and backwards and archaic back then. We can’t possibly go back to those dark times, you might think. But if that’s your position, I’d challenge you to find a single political debate in an American legislature from the 18th, 19th or early 20th centuries — just one debate — that was anywhere near as moronic as the clips we’ve run through today. It simply didn’t happen. Our leaders could get animated, to be sure. There was a famous incident just prior to the Civil War where a Senator was nearly beaten to death with a cane in the 1800s, after he insulted a congressman’s relative. But while things sometimes got intense, they never became truly, unambiguously retarded. That’s a matter of historical fact. America wasn’t overrun with foreigners. Voters were relatively intelligent. And that system produced intelligent leaders. You cannot argue, in any credible fashion, that it’s an improvement to have the kind of Congress, and the kind of lawmakers, that we have today. None of these people should be allowed to serve in any official capacity at all. Whatever we’ve done to allow idiots like this to become elected officials in the United States, we need to reverse those decisions, immediately. None of the founders would’ve tolerated any of this. We wouldn’t have a country if they did. So here’s my proposal: Disenfranchise, and bar from office, any politician in the bottom 30% of American IQs. You could do this in any number of ways — for example, you could have them all take an old SAT test or something similar. Overnight, a law like that would fix about 90% of our problems. And yes, I’m aware of the counterarguments. People will say, well, the IQ test can be rigged. (Although it really can’t, if you do it right — especially if you pick an old version of an SAT test). But even if you buy that argument, the fact remains that we simply have no choice at this point. We cannot continue as a country when our leaders lack the mental capacity to know what they’re supposed to be doing. And I would take it further than that. A man who can’t even name the branches of government — much less identify he one he works for — certainly should not be in any kind of leadership position in society, but he also shouldn’t have the right to vote. How many of the people who vote for guys like that, or any of the idiots we’ve played clips of today, could pass a 5th grade civics exam themselves? What if the exam consisted of precisely one question — the easiest one, the one the sheriff failed — and simply asked voters to list the branches of government? What percent of voters today would fail that quiz? It’s a lot more than 1 or 2%, as I think we all know. Our system cannot survive if the dumbest, most incompetent, most utterly clueless and befuddled among us are allowed to lead this country, or have a say over the direction of the country through the ballot box. This is a far greater threat to American “democracy” than Russia or Iran or China or anyone else. Without a doubt, the greatest threat to American democracy is that, because of Democrat rule and open borders and the general collapse of intelligence, the votes of competent Americans are effectively being canceled out. And for the sake of everyone else living here — the descendants of the people who built this country, and the people who can keep it running another 250 years — that needs to change, one way or another.

American snowboarder Chloe Kim was poised to make Olympic history this Thursday by becoming the first snowboarder to win three consecutive gold medals, despite a torn labrum in her shoulder. Kim’s reign was cut short, however, as 17-year-old Choi Gaon from Korea swooped in and beat her by two points in her Olympic debut. In an ironic twist, Kim first gained global recognition when she was the same age, when she won gold in the women’s halfpipe in the 2018 Winter Olympics. She has continued to reign in the sport as a three-time world champion, 12-time World Cup winner, and eight-time Winter X Champion. For most of the night, it seemed like the 25-year-old California native had it in the bag. Kim started off in the number one slot after a strong first run that earned her 88 points, but crashed in her second run. Gaon, however, had two rocky runs, the first of which left her sitting in the middle of the course with medical assistance for several minutes. At first, it was unclear if she’d even be able to keep competing. Then, in her last run, Gaon shocked the crowd by delivering an impressive 90.25 points and knocking Kim from her perch in first place. As the snow pummeled down in Livigno, Italy, Kim’s last chance at the new title was wiped out when she fell again, solidifying the silver medal for herself and the gold for Gaon. Regardless of the disappointment, Kim said she is happy about how far she’s come, “A month ago I wasn’t even sure I would be here … this medal means so much to me.” Though Kim could only train for two weeks leading up to the Olympics because of the previous injury to her shoulder, she wasn’t worried about competing: “I might be better at snowboarding than I am at walking,” she said Wednesday morning after landing the top score in the qualifying round. However, Kim did announce that her shoulder would require surgery. Unlike several other American Olympians, Kim has always said that she is proud to represent her country. When asked by a reporter for a response to President Donald Trump calling fellow Olympian Hunter Hess a “loser,” Kim would rather lead with love and compassion. “Obviously, my parents being immigrants, this one definitely hits pretty close to home. I think in moments like these, it is important to unite and stand up for one another, for all that’s going on.” “I’m really proud to represent the United States,” she said. “The U.S. has given my family and I so much opportunity, but I also think we are allowed to voice our opinions on what is going on, and I think we need to love and compassion. I would love to see some more of that.”