Only 5% voted for Mamdani. The rest stayed home. The post Most New Yorkers Didn’t Vote for Mamdani appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

The idea that the government should alleviate all human suffering took hold in the late 19th century. The post When the Democrats Became God appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

This is who the Democrats are. The post Dem Congressman Tells Jewish Stephen Miller to Go Back to ’30s Germany appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

It may be the Jihadists we support… The post Who Really Bombed a Damascus Church? appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

President Trump threatened to prosecute Democrats on Thursday after he accused them of leaking information about the U.S. strike on Iranian facilities. We don’t know if he has evidence. He didn’t say, but who would be surprised after all the leaks from people like Adam Schiff. President Trump will now limit the sharing of confidential information. The media is […] The post President Trump Announces Democrats Leaked the Info on Nuke Sites appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

President Donald Trump accused Democrats on Thursday of disclosing intelligence about the U.S. strike over the weekend, claiming the bombings on Iranian nuclear facilities did not fully destroy the sites after he declared they were “obliterated.” In a post on Truth Social, Trump went so far as to suggest the culprits should face prosecution, although he did not name anyone in particular. “The Democrats are the ones who leaked the information on the PERFECT FLIGHT to the Nuclear Sites in Iran. They should be prosecuted!” Trump said. A probe is already underway after CNN, as well as The New York Times, reported on early intelligence claiming the bombings did not completely destroy the sites and set back Tehran’s nuclear program only by a few months. “We’re doing a leak investigation with the FBI right now, because this information is for internal purposes, battle-damage assessments,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Wednesday. “And CNN and others are trying to spin it to make the president look bad when this is an overwhelming success.” The CIA and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard contend that further analysis indicates the facilities were in fact destroyed by the strike, which the Trump administration says was necessary to keep Iran from achieving nuclear weapons. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) claimed after a briefing on the Iran strike that it was clear the Trump administration lacked a “coherent strategy” and “no plan” for keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. He also pushed for a war powers vote and more answers. Earlier in the day, Trump assailed the journalists from CNN and The New York Times who reported on the early intelligence, relying on unnamed sources. “FAKE NEWS REPORTERS FROM CNN & THE NEW YORK TIMES SHOULD BE FIRED, IMMEDIATELY!!! BAD PEOPLE WITH EVIL INTENTIONS!!!” he exclaimed in all capital letters on Truth Social. Trump also threatened a defamation lawsuit against the news outlets, demanding they retract the stories and offer apologies for them, but CNN and The New York Times are defending their reporting. “No retraction is needed. No apology will be forthcoming. We told the truth to the best of our ability. We will continue to do so,” said New York Times lead newsroom attorney David McCraw. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt shot down another CNN report over the weekend that claimed the Trump administration did not provide advanced notice of the strike to Democrat leaders in Congress, which led to a correction.

'His reward is full vindication'

Justin Tucker has been hit with a 10-week suspension

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. We’re now in the aftermath of the Saturday night, June 21st American strike to take out the three enrichment plants that were necessary for Iran’s acquisition of a bomb. And we’ve had now four or five days of reaction to it. And it’s kind of been mixed. And I’d like to review, very quickly, the validity of the criticisms of the strike and what the strike was really about. There’s a lot of people on the American Left, in the media—there was a leak from the Pentagon as well—saying that this strike really didn’t achieve its aim of destroying, entirely, these three enrichment facilities. But of course, we don’t know that. We wouldn’t trust the Iranians, who say that it didn’t harm them. Of course, they’re gonna say that. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency that watches this says that it was very successful. I agree with it. The military says it was very successful. And the point being is it doesn’t really matter to what degree—it’s 90% destroyed, 80% destroyed, 100% destroyed—it’s been severely damaged. And it doesn’t really matter for this reason: Iran will have to rebuild them. There’s been all sorts of rebuilding costs out there in the public domain: $100 billion, $200 billion, $400 billion, $500 billion, to go down 500 feet, 300 feet, 200 feet in a new mountain cavern. And remember, they would be reacting to a B-2 strike. And they would look at the damage and they said, “We’d have to go even lower, which means we’re gonna have to spend more money.” But here’s the interesting equation. Add the money that Iran, still subject to oil embargoes, with an economy that its gross domestic product has collapsed by 45% over the last two or three years, is going to come up with a wherewithal and make that argument to the people: “Hey, everybody, you’re going to miss now not just one paycheck, but two paychecks every three months because we have to rebuild the nuclear facilities that were completely demolished. And we have to spend more money.” The Iranian in the street would say: “And then what? They’re gonna be destroyed again. How can you stop them? You have no air defenses. The Russians don’t want to give us air defenses. The Chinese will not give us air defenses. Why would they want to give us air defenses? They go up in smoke. They only humiliate their own equipment. It’s you—you, the military; you, the theocracy—that’s the problem.” And so, if you boil that down, ask yourself, in a cost-to-benefit analysis, is it more—is it cheaper for Iran to go back and start from scratch and build these mountainous subterranean facilities or is it cheaper for the United States to send another seven or 10 or 12 B-2 bombers and send them into airspace for about 35 minutes and take them out? That’s what they can do. But there is a caveat. There is a warning here. There’s only one limit on our ability to take out the next generation, should it appear, of uranium enrichment. And that problem is not in Iran. It’s not in Hezbollah. It’s not with Hamas. It’s with Washington and Tel Aviv. Will the United States government have the courage and have the competency and understand the geostrategic complications and implications and dangers of Iran having another bomb? And what I mean by that is, if you have another Obama administration or if you have another Biden administration, will they act when they see another uranium facility being developed? Will you have another Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel? So, what am I getting at? The only worry that we all have in the West is that Iran, at some future date, will look at the political composition in Washington and Tel Aviv and say, “We’ve seen this bunch before. So, pedal to the metal. Let’s hurry up and enrich because they will not stop it.” But even then it will take a huge investment, a huge investment that has to be sold to a population that has been deprived of trillions of dollars of internal development, that has been diverted to Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, the Assads that are all up in smoke, and then they will have to hear an argument to re-arm all of those people for terrorist deterrence, and then rebuild everything for nuclear deterrence, and hope there’s somebody not like Netanyahu and President Donald Trump in Washington. And for now, those are pretty good odds that the strike is successful and will be in the near future. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post It Doesn’t Matter If Iran Can Build a Bomb. It Matters If America Has the Guts to Bomb It, Again. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On Saturday, the U.S. Senate parliamentarian cleared a proposed measure discouraging states from placing safeguards on artificial intelligence and Big Tech for the next decade. It could be included in the reconciliation package which the Senate is expected to consider as early as this week.  To overcome the Senate’s arcane rules, the Commerce Committee rewrote a House-passed version of the measure to condition $500 million for AI projects on states’ compliance with the moratorium.   But the measure goes further by creating triggers that would enable the Department of Commerce to “deobligate” additional broadband dollars already promised to states if they don’t stand-down.   Branded a 10-year “temporary pause” on state AI rules, this approach remains deeply flawed. Not only would it fail to rein-in California’s woke AI overreach and jeopardize broadband funds for conservative states and rural communities—it also poses concerns for state sovereignty.  Once a state is subject to the moratorium, they risk losing the ability to enforce laws related to everything from kids’ online safety and data privacy to safeguards on mental health chatbots.   Under the measure, if even one dollar of Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment—or BEAD—funding is “obligated” to a state or locality on or after enactment, it becomes subject to the moratorium per subsection (q).   Here’s the kicker. Once a state triggers subsection (q), it cannot enforce any law that even arguably violates the moratorium without running the risk of losing all BEAD funding—much of the $42.5 billion provisionally approved.   That’s because Commerce can claw back BEAD funding previously obligated under subsection (g)(3)(B)(iii) of the measure, which authorizes them to “deobligate grant funds awarded to an eligible entity that” is not in compliance with subsection (q).   According to researchers at the Institute for Law and AI, “[t]his deobligation provision clearly and unambiguously applies to all $42.45 billion in previously obligated BEAD funding, in addition to the new $500 million.”  Proponents stress that the conditions only apply if states opt to draw from the new $500 million dollar pool.   But it’s more complicated.   As the Institute for Law and AI points out, Commerce could deobligate previously obligated funds for reasons such as “an insufficient level of performance, or wasteful or fraudulent spending.” But then “re-obligation of the clawed-back funds would require compliance with the moratorium.”  Since Commerce changed the Biden-era guidance for BEAD grantees and is prompting states to request amendments to their award agreements, it seems at least conceivable that much of the $42.5 billion could technically be re-obligated.   At that point, states have a choice. Risk potentially forfeiting BEAD dollars already promised, or stop enforcing laws on AI and Big Tech.  Smaller conservative states with limited budgets and large rural populations need these funds. But wealthy progressive states like California and New York can afford to take a pass and just keep enforcing their tech laws.  That’s a fatal flaw.  Proponents of the moratorium have largely staked their case on preventing California and New York from imposing European-style AI regulation on the rest of the country. That’s a laudable goal, but this measure almost certainly wouldn’t achieve it.  Relative to their budgets and economic footprint, the BEAD awards allocated to those two states are fairly minor.  California’s BEAD award is $1.9 billion and New York’s is only $664.6 million. By contrast, California’s annual budget is around $327 billion, and New York’s is roughly $254 billion. Both states can easily afford to simply pass on the BEAD funds altogether and ignore the moratorium.   Even if every other state took the BEAD funds and did away with enforcement—California and New York could eat the costs and move forward with enforcing European-style tech laws with ripple effects for the whole country.   Worse still, linking BEAD funding to the moratorium risks discouraging innovative states like Utah, Florida, and Tennessee from checking the woke policies of California and New York.   Rather than unleashing “permissionless innovation,” the moratorium could instead lead to rule-by-Sacramento and Albany—a scenario that should put fear in the heart of even the most ardent techno-libertarian.   BEAD has already been plagued by delays and red tape. This just adds one more layer of uncertainty.   It also leaves California and New York unimpeded while holding broadband funds for small conservative states and rural communities hostage.  Stepping back to consider the matter in broader terms, the proposed moratorium takes a profoundly wrongheaded attitude towards American federalism. Proponents of the moratorium see state regulations purely as impediments to heroic innovation.   But the advent of AI technologies presents a situation that as much as any calls to mind Justice Louis Brandeis’ dictum that the states are the laboratories of American democracy. New technologies, along with their benefits, have always created serious, destabilizing consequences.    Why not allow states to experiment with different means of addressing or mitigating the collateral costs that innovators would impose on society? Must we wait 10 years while these evils manifest before administering a remedy?   State regulation can be a necessary spur to innovators, forcing them to consider values outside of technical functionality and profitability. Some state regulations will be bad both in terms of their efficacy and in terms of the values they encode. Still, states should not be precluded from acting on behalf of their citizens, especially when Congress has no plan of its own.    Moreover, what Congress proposes to do by jeopardizing funding that states have received and relied on poses questions about the lawfulness of the moratorium. As the Supreme Court said just today, spending legislation like this takes the form of a “contract” with the states, not a “command.”    Federally funded programs like BEAD are agreements “between two sovereignties,” and when Congress offers states these or any other federal funds, what it is purchasing is a portion of the states’ sovereignty. Thus, the terms on which the money is offered must be clear, and the state’s consent truly voluntary.    If Congress is allowing funds to be de-obligated at the discretion of the Commerce Department and then subjecting their release to new, onerous terms, one might question whether the states’ consent to the new moratorium is truly voluntary.        At bottom, the moratorium would fail to achieve its primary goal of freeing AI from the clutches of large progressive states while also posing legal and constitutional challenges.  It’s time for Congress to see the light.  The post Senate’s Rebranded AI Moratorium is Fatally Flawed appeared first on The Daily Signal.