Shameless. The post Gov. Tim Walz Hopes to Regain Popularity by Exploiting Church Massacre appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

Ric can say whatever the hell he wants

This week, Axios ran a fascinating piece about the supposed “redefinition” of Americanism under President Donald Trump. Titled “Inside Trump’s American identity project,” Axios posited that “President Trump is wielding government power to enforce a more rigid, exclusionary definition of what it means to be American.” What would this new definition entail? “In MAGA’s telling, America is the heir to ancient European civilizations, built on a Judeo-Christian foundation of white identity, meritocracy, traditional gender roles and the nuclear family,” says Axios. “These tenets are cast as universal truths — and mantras such as ‘America is an idea’ or ‘diversity is our strength’ are dismissed as liberal fictions.” First off, America is heir to ancient European civilizations — particularly with reference to private property, the common law system, traditions of free speech and freedom of religion, among others. Second, America is built on a Judeo-Christian foundation. Third, America is built on the meritocracy, which argues that the best and most productive ought to succeed in a free system. America is built on traditional gender roles and the nuclear family, as is every successful society in history. While America is an idea — or a set of ideas — those ideas must be reified in institutions and human behavior. And the notion that any nation can be built on a completely specious phrase like “diversity is our strength” is counterintuitive at best. So, what is Axios attempting to do? Axios is attempting to link actual traditional definitions of Americanism with white supremacy. Never mind that all the ideas Axios cites as “traditional” fundamentally reject ethnic identitarianism: equality before law, for example, presumes racial indifference; Judeo-Christian religion rejects racial classification; the meritocracy is definitionally opposed to racial preferences; and traditional gender roles and the nuclear family are institutions held in common by people of all races. The goal is simple: a forced choice between “racism” and a left-wing definition of Americanism that bears zero weight. This, presumably, is the real drive behind the left’s opposition to much of Trump’s policy. The same Axios piece posits that the Trump administration’s decision to screen incoming immigrants for “anti-American” ideology ought to be seen as an outgrowth of nativism rather than common sense; that opposition to radical sexual politics in our nation’s military is a manifestation of bigotry rather than reason; that restoration of classicism in architecture represents a return to racial exclusivity rather than taste. As the authors write, “MAGA’s utopia looks a lot like America in the 1950s — before the sexual revolution, mass immigration, the Civil Rights Act and expanded LGBTQ rights reshaped the country’s culture and demographics.” Well, actually, MAGA’s utopia looks mostly like what most Americans think of as the American dream: upward mobility, solid family structure, safety in the streets, decent education, and a vibrant social fabric complete with community and church. The fact that so many on the left — and in the media — find this vision to be irredeemably “racist” demonstrates their utter disconnect with most Americans. And it’s why Trump is president for the second time. Ben Shapiro is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” and co-founder of Daily Wire+. He is a three-time New York Times bestselling author. To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Cooler cars at better prices? America's new trade deal with the EU could mean just that. Traditionally, manufacturers have had to produce two different versions of the same vehicle to meet U.S. and European requirements. Even small differences in pedestrian safety regulations, emissions rules, or lighting standards have required costly redesigns, duplicate testing, and extensive certification processes. These expenses are ultimately passed down to consumers.Billions of dollars in development, certification, and testing costs could be avoided, allowing automakers to focus on innovation, quality, and design. But in July 2025, the United States and the European Union unveiled a landmark trade framework that could reshape how vehicles are manufactured, certified, and sold on both continents. Meeting halfwayAt the heart of the agreement is mutual recognition of vehicle safety and emissions standards, a policy shift that promises to simplify cross-Atlantic auto sales and significantly cut costs for manufacturers. For drivers and car enthusiasts, the deal has the potential to expand choices and lower prices for the EU and the U.S. Yet behind the exciting headlines lie complex questions about market dynamics, regulatory oversight, and the long-term implications for American automakers.By aligning standards, the agreement allows a vehicle certified in Europe to be sold in the U.S. without additional modification, and vice versa. The economic potential of this alignment is substantial, offering billions in savings across the auto industry.Tariff reliefHere's why this could be a game changer. Tariffs were a significant factor in the negotiation with the EU. The U.S. had previously threatened duties of up to 30% on European vehicles, which could have dramatically increased costs for consumers and disrupted supply chains. The framework caps tariffs at 15%, contingent upon reciprocal reductions on U.S. exports. In addition, Europe has agreed to expand energy imports from the United States, including LNG and oil, while committing to purchase U.S.-made AI chips and other strategic products. These provisions illustrate that the deal is as much about geopolitical and industrial strategy as it is about cars.RELATED: Tariffs vs. free trade: Which is BETTER for the American auto industry? NurPhoto/Getty ImagesMonster trucks in Paris?Consumers could see tangible benefits quickly. European models, which were previously unavailable or expensive due to regulatory barriers, could enter U.S. showrooms at more competitive prices. Conversely, American trucks and SUVs could gain greater access to European markets, potentially increasing competition and variety. Automakers are poised to save significant amounts on development and testing costs, which could also be passed on to buyers.Different safety standards have been a major issue for decades. European critics initially raised concerns that this "mutual recognition" could end up lowering European safety standards, which tend to be stricter. However, a joint U.S.-EU statement pledges that the agreement requires the alignment of standards rather than a lowering of them — and that both parties "intend to accept and provide mutual recognition to each other's standards."Cars sold in Europe must meet U.S. safety rules, and vehicles sold in the U.S. must comply with EU requirements. In practice, this likely means that more advanced safety technologies, such as automated emergency braking, intelligent speed assistance, laser headlights, and pedestrian detection systems, could become more widely available in the U.S.Where there's smogEnvironmental standards are another issue to be sorted out. Europe has long pursued stricter emissions regulations, including the Euro 7 standards targeting exhaust emissions and particulate matter from brakes and tires. The U.S. enforces its own rigorous emissions frameworks, though they differ from European rules in focus and measurement. Mutual recognition does not lower environmental standards. This needs to be sorted out. Automakers will need to maintain compliance with both U.S. and EU protocols, which could encourage innovation in cleaner technologies and more efficient designs. This is concerning to me because it could increase costs for all vehicles.Unintended consequencesDespite these assurances, the deal is not without potential challenges. American automakers must remain competitive while meeting both sets of regulations, and smaller manufacturers could struggle to adapt to a more integrated market. Consumers could also see unintended consequences if automakers prioritize efficiency and cost savings over other vehicle features or options. The political landscape adds another layer of complexity, as both regions must maintain regulatory cooperation while navigating domestic pressures. This could potentially end the deal if they can't come to an agreement.From an economic perspective, the deal offers a rare opportunity to reduce redundancy in the global automotive market. Billions of dollars in development, certification, and testing costs could be avoided, allowing automakers to focus on innovation, quality, and design. A win for consumersFor consumers, this means more models to choose from, potentially lower prices, and access to vehicles equipped with the latest safety and emissions technologies. The competitive environment may shift as European manufacturers expand into U.S. markets and American companies seek to gain market share in Europe.The historical context is important. Past trade initiatives, such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, often stalled over regulatory disputes. This agreement, by contrast, represents a concrete framework with enforceable mutual recognition of standards, making it a landmark step in global automotive trade. Industry observers and consumer advocates will likely scrutinize compliance, safety, and environmental outcomes.More than carsUltimately, this deal is about far more than cars. It is a test case for whether two major economic powers can harmonize regulations in a way that benefits manufacturers, consumers, and the broader economy without compromising safety, environmental integrity, or market sovereignty. Drivers may enjoy greater freedom and lower prices at the dealership, but the long-term implications for regulatory alignment, labor markets, and competitive dynamics remain significant.As this agreement moves from framework to full implementation, the stakes for automakers, policymakers, and consumers are high. Its success will be measured not just in economic efficiency but in the ability to maintain rigorous standards for safety and emissions while navigating a more integrated transatlantic market. For Americans and Europeans alike, the coming years will reveal whether this deal truly delivers on its promise of choice, affordability, and innovation — or whether it introduces unforeseen challenges in one of the world's most critical industries.

Obscene Scene: DOJ Employee Who Shot Middle Finger at National Guard Troops Fired by AG Pam Bondi

Fewer Student Visas, Cheaper Rent, More College Spots for Americans: Democrats Weep for Boston Landlords

LOS ANGELES—Former Vice President Kamala Harris has replaced her lapsed Secret Service detail with a private security team armed solely with Nerf guns, doubling down on her anti-gun stance with what aides call “a foam-based revolution.” The decision comes after Harris lost her government-provided protection, a standard protocol for ex-VPs who fail to secure the presidency. Now leading a civilian life, Harris has assembled the “Foam Force,” a squad of operatives trained to wield Nerf blasters with surgical precision, firing foam darts at a blistering 70 feet per second. “This is about consistency,” an aide said, clutching a Nerf N-Strike Elite Disruptor. “Kamala’s anti-gun principles don’t end with her term. They’re locked and loaded—figuratively, of course.” The move has sparked a firestorm of reactions. Second Amendment advocates have called it “delusional,” with one commentator snarking, “What’s next? Defending her with a Super Soaker?” Meanwhile, progressive diehards are eating it up, one claiming, “Kamala’s out here redefining security with foam darts. Iconic.” The Foam Force has reportedly undergone intense training, mastering scenarios from close-quarters Nerf skirmishes to rapid reloading under pressure. Their arsenal includes the Nerf Rival Nemesis and the Vortex Praxis, selected for their “non-threatening yet assertive vibe.” But skeptics question their efficacy, especially after a leaked report revealed a team member fumbled a Nerf Ultra One during a simulated threat, scattering foam darts across Harris’s backyard. Harris, undeterred, addressed critics at a recent speaking engagement, twirling a Nerf dart like a seasoned gunslinger. “If we’re serious about ending gun violence, we start with ourselves,” she declared, playfully firing a suction-cup dart at a nearby podium. “These are the weapons of progress. Plus, they’re a blast.” Logistical snags have already surfaced. During a recent fundraiser, a Foam Force member accidentally tagged a donor with a stray dart, leading to an awkward pause and a profuse apology delivered with a Nerf-themed goodie bag. As Harris eyes a potential 2028 run, analysts are split on whether the Nerf gambit will galvanize her base or paint her as out of touch. “It’s a risky play,” one strategist noted. “Voters might admire the symbolism, but they’ll want to know she’s safe from more than a foam dart ambush.” For now, the Foam Force patrols Harris’s perimeter, their plastic blasters primed with ideological zeal. Whether they can fend off anything tougher than a neighborhood Nerf war remains an open question. The post Kamala Harris’s New Security Team to Use Only Nerf Guns appeared first on Genesius Times.

The 10th NTD International Chinese Vocal Competition—a celebration of traditional vocal artistry—is underway. Eleven finalists are moving on to Sunday’s finals. From Puccini to Chinese art songs,…

Friday night, a relative sent me a text. That wasn’t unusual. He’s recently discovered texting as a vehicle to rant, and specifically, to rant at me. The context also wasn’t unusual. It was a rant…