Well, that was quick. The S&P 500 on Friday notched its first new high since February, capping a dizzying 24% rally from the depths of April’s tariff-induced selloff. The wild 89 trading days in between records marked the swiftest-ever recovery back to a closing high after a decline of at least 15%, according to Dow Jones Market Data...

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation to El Salvador became a flashpoint in President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, is back in the U.S. and being held in jail as he awaits trial on federal human smuggling charges. His attorneys want him to be released from jail in Tennessee while he awaits his trial. And so does a federal magistrate judge, who said she will let Abrego Garcia out of jail with conditions.

U.S. stocks climbed to new all-time highs Friday as investors reacted to a trifecta of favorable developments: inflation continuing to cool despite tariffs, the end of the Iran-Israel war, and growing signs that President Trump’s tax legislation is advancing in Congress. The S&P 500 rose 0.52 percent to finish at a record 6,173.07. The Nasdaq Composite and Dow Jones Industrial Average also closed at historic highs, powered by gains in technology, energy, and industrial shares. Markets...

All charges have been dropped against Mario Guevara, a well-known Spanish-language journalist who was arrested earlier this month while covering an anti-ICE protest in DeKalb County.

A video of Naser being detained outside a San Diego immigration courtroom went viral, wracking up millions of views on social media, playing out on television and catching the attention of congressmembers. In the video, Naser tells the officers handcuffing him that he aided U.S. troops in Afghanistan. NBC 7 has reviewed documents that support Naser's claims and has spoken to experts who say they are credible. However, the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement, "There...

There is no such thing as the "perfect parent." Since people aren't perfect, their parenting can't be either. In fact, there are a number of things that can cause parents to unintentionally hurt their kids--from generational trauma to stress and frustration. Sometimes the most loving parents can spew out toxic words and phrases to their kids.Not only can this lead to further behavioral issues, but it can instill in them toxic messages they will carry into future relationships--and as parents themselves one day. Being aware of toxic parenting phrases before they are used is a positive first step, followed by understanding why and how they can impact kids. These are eight of the most common toxic phrases parents should avoid saying to their kids, according to parenting experts.1. Never say: 'You look terrible.'Sure, it may be coming from an honest place, but parents who use this phrase may be unknowingly image shaming their kids, causing insecurities to "skyrocket," according to the experts at Psych2Go. It could also possibly lead to body issues in the future.2. Never say: 'You're a freak.'By saying this to your child, you may be imprinting the message that they are "ill-fitting to the world," and also implying "there is something wrong with them as a person," notes Pysch2Go. - YouTube www.youtube.com 3. Never say: 'You know better than that.'According to parenting coach Reem Raouda, parents should say instead: "Something's getting in the way of your best self right now. Let's talk about it." She explains that this avoids shaming your child, and reframes the scenario from punishment to partnership. "It assumes the best in your child and encourages self-reflection instead of defensiveness. It sends the message: 'I believe in you, and I'm here to help'," says Raouda.4. Never say: 'You're so immature.'Emotions like disgust, ridicule, and shame may be triggered if you say this to your child, notes Psych2Go. See on Instagram 5. Never say: 'Because I said so.'Raouda shares that saying this to your child not only shuts down communication, but it also teaches blind obedience. Instead, you can try saying: "I know you don't like this decision. I'll explain, and then we're moving forward." "You're not debating or negotiating—you're modeling respectful leadership. This phrasing acknowledges their feelings and reinforces that you're in charge in a calm, grounded way," she says.6. Never say: 'This is your fault.'This phrase is manipulative, according to Psych2Go. "A parent placing blame on their child and acting victimized causes the child to feel like a burden or even a curse. This can lead to them going to great lengths to avoid being a so-called problem, maybe even enslaving themselves to maintain acceptance." See on Instagram 7. Never say: 'Show me some respect.'Of course, respect should be given when it is properly due. But parents who command this of their kids can not only be confusing, but also stunt your child's critical thinking and questioning, shares Psych2Go.8. Never say: 'Do what I say or else.'Saying this to your child is "an outright threat," which totally dismisses your child's needs and desires. In turn, this can lead to your child feeling unworthy of anything but your whims as a parent, says Psych2Go.

Cats vs. dogs, a duel as old as time. The truth is it’s perfectly okay to love both furry four-legged creatures, as they each bring their own quirky, lovable eccentricities to this world. (It’s like having to choose between cake or pie. Delicious either way, so choose both!) Dogs’ and cats’ personalities and traits vary by breed, of course, and no two animals are alike. But our love for them and who we’re drawn to can often say a lot about us. A cat and dog cuddle on the floor. Photo by Louis-Philippe Poitras on Unsplash As a dog person, I’ve always been curious as to what traits “dog moms” often have. Many over the years have concluded that the pet you love having in your home tends to fit who you are. Dogs are usually loyal, eager, and like structure, just like their people. Cats, the conventional wisdom goes, are more independent, mysterious, and introverted—often like cat owners. (Of course this is a broad assessment, and plenty of dog owners want to be left alone, while cat peeps dance on tabletops. At least one!)But more interestingly, a recent article suggests that the animal you pick can say a lot about your attachment style. To understand the context, Attachment Theory was coined by psychiatrist John Bowlby, who noted that our early caregivers often shape how we attach to each other throughout our lives. The bond between ourselves and our primary caregiver (often our moms) in the first two years of life can deeply affect how we interact and develop social bonds as adults.Psychologist Mary Ainsworth took this research even further. In what’s called the Strange Situation, she actually studied children and their interaction with their caregivers and noted the difference between secure and insecure attachment styles. - Mary Ainsworth's Strange Situation experiment. www.youtube.com Though many researchers studied the concept, years later, psychiatrist Amir Levine and his colleague, psychologist Rachel Heller, helped build the popular notion that our attachment styles greatly affect our romantic relationships in adulthood. In their book Attached: The New Science of Adult Attachment and How it Can Help You Find—and Keep Love , they explore this theory thoroughly. Columbia Psychiatry states, “The authors popularized attachment theory—the idea that early emotional bonds with our caregivers impacts our future relationships—exploring three distinct attachment styles that affect the way we deal with relationship conflicts, our feelings toward sex, and our expectations of romantic intimacy.”They go on to explain, in short, “People with anxious attachment styles tend to be insecure about their relationships, fear abandonment, and often seek validation. Those with avoidant styles have a prevailing need to feel loved but are largely emotionally unavailable in their relationships. And a securely attached person is comfortable giving and receiving love, can trust others and be trusted, and gets close to others with relative ease.” - Animated video about attachment theory www.youtube.com Which brings us back to cats. In the article “Are You a Cat Person or a Dog Person? Here’s What Psychology Has to Say” for VeryWell Mind by journalist Wendy Rose Gould, she notes that “rather than our fave pet simply mirroring our personality, these preferences and relationships can give us insight into who we are, how we operate, and how we interact with the world. For example, it might tell us something about our attachment styles, whether we’re outgoing or introverted, or even how we handle independence and companionship.”She cites psychologist Michael Kane, PsyD, who shares, “Cat enthusiasts [may] appreciate the less demanding and more autonomous companionship offered by cats. Feline indulgers enjoy the companionship of cats as they prefer connections that are meaningful but not as demanding.” (Dog lovers, on the other hand, [may] enjoy close and reciprocal relationships with dogs as they resemble secure, dependent bonds that provide emotional comfort, stability, and security.) A bored cat files its nails. Giphy (To put this in Attachment Theory terms, cat people might lean avoidant, while dog people a tad more anxious in their relationship styles.)Gould goes on to describe two other cat people "tells." One is their (possible) preference for introversion, which is really just how we give and receive energy. Again quoting Dr. Kane, “Cat people have shown to be more open to experience and scored higher on introversion, which suggests that they appreciate more solitude and less social interaction.”Lastly, Gould shares that cat owners tend to be more spontaneous than their structured dog-loving counterparts. “Cat owners may be more adaptable and comfortable with a looser, go-with-the-flow approach, as felines tend to be more independent and require less regimented care. This could reflect a person’s comfort level with spontaneity, flexibility, and self-guided motivation in their daily life.”Best to let this Reddit comment from the thread "What is the difference between a cat person and a dog person?" sum it up: " Dog people wish their dogs were people. Cat people wish they were cats."

Count me all in for the mayoral candidacy of Zohran Mamdani in New York City. Mamdani is a literal democratic socialist — a member of the inane Democratic Socialists of America, a group I’ve detailed for years at The American Spectator. The DSA bills itself as the “largest socialist organization in the United States,” with over 80,000 members (described by the DSA as “comrades”) and with chapters in every state and on hundreds of college campuses. The DSA has given us some of Congress’s worst crazies, from Congressgirl Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to the terrible Ilhan Omar to the bawling, hysterical Rashida Tlaib, among others. They were the core of the “Squad.” Congress’s most radical members just happen to be DSA members. Gee, who would have imagined that? I’ve reported on the DSA strategy of working with the likes of the Justice Democrats and Cenk Uygur to target traditional Democrats in overwhelmingly liberal-Democrat districts during Democratic Party primaries. These DSA candidates, by and large, were not members of the Democratic Party until they sought public office. The Democratic Party is their Trojan horse to power. (READ MORE from Paul Kengor: More Democratic Socialists in Congress) As Cenk Uygur has said, if they can elect “dozens” of AOCs and Ilhan Omars, “people will freak the hell out.” Their goal is to hijack the Democratic Party and push it to the far left. And they’re doing a damned good job of that, which brings me back to Mamdani. Zohran Mamdani won the New York City Democratic primary on Tuesday as a far-left socialist running against the traditional party candidate, who happened to be Andrew Cuomo. As I’ve detailed here, Cuomo is known around Albany as the “Kissing Bandit.” His media mafia did its best to cover up for the notorious Luv Gov, but eventually, even his liberal sycophants turned on him. Andrew blamed his groping of female co-workers on his Italian upbringing, where hugging and kissing were part of the family culture. For this claim, I called Andrew a “chooch” — borrowing a term from our mutual Italian family ancestry. It’s a word that derives from the Italian ciuccio, which means “jackass” but more directly translates into “baby-pacifier.” (READ MORE from Paul Kengor: Andrew Cuomo’s Media Mafia and The Cuomo Mafia Strikes Again) As for Mamdani, he benefited from a surge of support from dopey young people who understandably don’t like the corrupt Cuomo but who also think they like socialism because they don’t understand socialism. Mamdani won the primary by promising them everything from rent control to a $30 per hour minimum wage. The democratic socialist’s proposals are predictably idiotic. And yet, Mamdani spoon-feeds his nostrums with a smile — what the Manhattan intelligentsia calls “charisma.” But in truth, anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of economics and of, well, common sense, laughs out loud while listening to Mamdani excitedly blather his first-grader’s interpretation of the world. That brings me to my personal favorite of Mamdani’s goofy proposals. It is so howlingly outrageous that just for kicks — and to kick every wokester who voted for him in the pants — I would like to see it become a reality on the streets of New York. I’m talking about his plan for “government stores.” Yes, Government Stores! Heretofore, Americans have associated government stores with places like, oh, the old Soviet Union, Bulgaria, East Germany, Venezuela, Havana, Pyongyang. Needless to say, in those places, such stores were infamous for a lack of everything, as drab, depressed denizens of Marxism queued up for their monthly rations. But like a true socialist, Mamdani learned no lesson from that. In fact, as a product of American schools, he probably never had a single lesson on it. (RELATED: The Fourth Era Comes to the Big Rotten Apple) At Bowdoin College, Mamdani majored in something called “Africana Studies,” and worse, his father is a professor at the dread Columbia University (also in African studies), all of which means that he would have learned nothing about the rot of socialism. He actually hails from Uganda, and Mamdani seems to be prescribing Ugandan economic policies for the Big Apple, though one wonders if even Idi Amin (another big fan of socialism) would have chuckled at any attempt to bring government stores to NYC. But as a faithful socialist, Mamdani knows that the dream never dies. Utopia is always within reach, if only the right people can seize power and your tax dollars. And thus, the wide-eyed socialist is calling for five huge city-owned grocery stores, one in each borough, neatly centrally planned, which he says would magically lower the cost of food. He speaks of these marvels in a wondrous, AOC-like, school-girlish way, gushing at the horizon of possibilities that your government could bring. To that end, as I said, I would really love to see Mamdani’s dream enacted for a little while as a wake-up call to the hopelessly woke. When I walk around the streets of New York, I’m always awestruck at the spectacle of liberals thronging restaurants, cafes, pubs, and untold numbers of high-end shops that stand as incredible testimony to the extraordinary productive power of free markets, which happens to be the very thing these “progressives” vote against. Their intellectual disconnect from the realities abounding around them is a sight to behold. They sit in coffee shops with laptops adorned with stickers proclaiming “Resist Capitalism” or “Support Socialism,” oblivious to the fact that everything they’re enjoying daily is a product not of socialism but capitalism. It never ceases to amaze me. As for the stores teeming around them, these left-wingers pack into monuments to free markets such as, say, the impressive Trader Joe’s on the Upper West Side (replete with escalators) down the street from Columbus Circle, with no awareness that free markets have given them such vast choices. Well, alas, under Zohran Mamdani’s proposal, their beloved Trader Joe’s and every other store would be forced to compete with government-created stores. Such entities, being owned and run by the government, will be nowhere near as successful. However, they’ll have a massive advantage, namely: an unlimited largesse of tax money to suckle from. The government stores will be unmitigated failures kept from completely failing because they’ll be backed and bailed out by the government — by tax dollars taken from citizens’ paychecks. When private-sector stores suffer from inflation and competition, they struggle and sometimes go out of business. Government, however, faces no such threat. So long as Big Brother backs the public-sector entity, the entity never dies. If your private-sector operation goes bankrupt, you exit the marketplace. When the government goes bankrupt, it gets reelected and gets more money. It’s quite the “competitive” advantage. Of course, over time, Mamdani’s giant government stores would inevitably degenerate into empty, cavernous boondoggles — massive eyesores for all to see as testimonies to the moral-financial decrepitude of “democratic socialism.” It would be deliciously amusing to watch young liberal New Yorkers slowly see the stupidity of what they voted for. It might even eventually dawn on them that this is dumb because democratic socialism is dumb. Well, maybe. Let the spectacle of Zohran Mamdani’s government stories begin! READ MORE from Paul Kengor: Jimmy Carter’s Iran Pope Leo Removes Vatican ‘Rape Art’ Mel Gibson’s Excellent American-Italian Idea The post Government Stores in NYC? Yes! appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics. The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has spent years cultivating an image of the progressive West Coast alternative to Donald Trump. But beyond his glitzy hair, smug smirks, and polished soundbites, Newsom is starting to look less like Trump’s resistance rival and more like his political impersonator. On Friday, the California governor “[took] a page right out of Donald Trump’s media playbook,” according to Politico. Newsom announced that he will be suing Fox News for $787 million over primetime host Jesse Watters’s coverage of his Los Angeles anti-ICE riots phone call with Trump. The lawsuit argues that Fox’s program deceptively edited video of Trump to support the claim that “Gavin Lied About Trump’s Call,” which was written on-screen as the chyron. Not only did Newsom raise the stakes by asking for the same amount Fox once paid Dominion Voting Systems in their 2023 defamation settlement, but he also mimicked Trump’s strategy of wielding legal battles to fight the fake news. In several cases, Trump has successfully sued mainstream media outlets. In December 2024, ABC agreed to pay Trump $15 million to settle a defamation case over George Stephanopoulos’s false claim that Trump had been found liable for rape. The president is also still dealing with a lawsuit against CBS, which allegedly misleadingly edited their pre-election 60 Minutes interview with failed 2024 Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. (RELATED: The Brilliance of Trump’s New Campaign Suing Fake News) The California governor may kick sand at Trump in MSNBC interviews, but he’s closely following in his footsteps. Now, it appears Newsom has taken notes. Despite branding himself as Trump’s cultural and moral opposite, Newsom has shown a deep admiration for the president’s political tactics — especially when it comes to the media. The core of Newsom’s case is that Trump said on June 10 that he called him “a day ago.” Immediately in an X post and preceding his complaint, Newsom claimed there was “no call” between himself and the present — “Not even a voicemail.” According to call logs shared by Trump, Newsom was technically correct that there was “no call” exactly one day ago, which would have been June 9. Trump called Newsom for 16 minutes on June 7, according to the call log. But out of context, the calculated Californian spun the narrative that Trump was the dishonest one in the exchange. If Trump could have been clearer in his remarks rather than speaking so casually, perhaps Newsom would have trouble parceling words the slick way he did. The lawsuit alleges that Fox’s claim that Newsom lied was “calculated to provoke outrage and cause Governor Newsom significant harm,” but perhaps Newsom’s careful verbiage was a similar attempt to mislead the public and damage an American president. Much like how White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt demanded CNN retract its false reporting that Trump did not brief Democrats on his Iran nuclear facility strikes — another phone call hoax where Trump actually did call both Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — Newsom said he would drop his lawsuit if Fox News issue a retraction of Watters’s commentary. But beyond lawsuits and media theatrics, Newsom has gone further, publicly daring the Trump administration to arrest him. In a spectacle clearly designed for the cameras, Newsom hopped on the Democratic Party trend of attempting to engineer one’s own martyrdom. “Arrest me. Let’s go,” he dared border czar Tom Homan on MSNBC, competing with the likes of California Senator Alex Padilla, who nearly pounced on Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a press conference days later. Democrats desperately want to make their own mugshot moment, imitating one of the pivotal factors that got Trump elected to a second term. But the difference is, it was the left who weaponized the judicial branch to try to force Trump out of the 2024 race — a move widely seen as an overreach that fueled his populist appeal. And ironically, the Supreme Court’s Friday ruling against activist judges thwarting Trump’s agenda overshadowed any chance that Newsom’s theatrics would capture the national spotlight. Gavin Newsom’s desperate attempt to mimic Trump’s combative style reveals a troubling truth: he’s less a bold, progressive leader and more a political copycat chasing headlines and courtroom battles. Instead of focusing on California’s real problems, of which there are many, he’s too busy plotting his 2028 presidential campaign. And if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Newsom isn’t resisting Trump — he’s rehearsing to replace him. READ MORE from Julianna Frieman: The Cuomo Comeback Is Dead — And So Might Be the Old Democratic Party Democrats Denounce Trump’s Iran Strike Why Democrats Are Dodging the Iran Debate Julianna Frieman is a writer based in North Carolina. She received her bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. She is pursuing her master’s degree in Communications (Digital Strategy) at the University of Florida. Her work has been published by the Daily Caller, The American Spectator, and The Federalist. Follow her on X at @juliannafrieman. The post Gavin Newsom Wants To Be Donald Trump So Badly appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics. The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

They call it broken heart syndrome. The clinical term is takotsubo cardiomyopathy, a name that sounds like something plucked from a Japanese horror film. But the horror is very real — and very Western. It mimics a heart attack. Your chest tightens, your breath shortens, and your heart — quite literally — starts to fail. Most people think of it as a woman’s affliction. But the truth is far darker: when it hits men, it kills. A recent study looked at 200,000 cases of broken heart syndrome in the United States. Women made up 83 percent of cases. But men were more than twice as likely to die from it. That’s not a coincidence. It speaks to something deeper — something cultural, psychological, and biological. Women may suffer more frequently, but men suffer more fatally. Men don’t break often. But when they do, they don’t bend — they shatter. And what’s left doesn’t always go back together. We like to pretend that men are emotionally inert. Stoic. Unbothered. But that’s projection. It’s not that men don’t feel deeply. It’s that they’ve been trained — by culture, by history, by women themselves — not to show it. To take it on the chin. To go to work. To pay the mortgage. To carry the coffin. They are conditioned to endure, not express. To absorb pain like pavement absorbs rain — quietly, without complaint. And so they love in silence. They lose in silence. And sometimes, they die in silence Men love more unconditionally than women. This is the uncomfortable truth modern culture tiptoes around — because admitting it would upend too many narratives: men love more unconditionally than women. Not because they’re better, but because when they love, they do so with every ounce of their being. They don’t keep score, strategize, or ration affection like it’s a currency that might run out. When a man loves — I mean, truly loves — he hands over the deed. No insurance, no fallback, no emotional exit route. He doesn’t have a group chat dissecting every word. He’s not bookmarking potential replacements or building a public archive of the relationship to turn the story into a performance later. He’s not loving for validation; he loves because it’s real. And when he commits, it’s total — not out of duty, not out of fear, but because that’s how men love when they mean it. That’s precisely why it wrecks them when it ends. They didn’t just invest time; they invested themselves. They put something eternal into something fragile, and when it breaks, there’s no parachute. It’s not that men love better. It’s that they love harder — and with fewer safety nets. So when it all falls apart, there’s nothing left to catch them. When that love is lost — through betrayal, death, divorce — he doesn’t rebound with brunches and girl groups and TikTok therapy. He bottles it. He builds a wall around the crater and keeps going. Until one day, the wall cracks. And the heart does, too. There’s only so long you can white-knuckle grief before it starts chewing through the bone. Ask any man who’s been left after years of loyalty. Ask the widower who hasn’t taken off his wedding ring. Ask the father alienated from his children. Their grief doesn’t announce itself. It settles deep, like pressure beneath the earth, invisible but relentless. It changes their posture. Their sleep. Their appetite for life. Not all at once, but slowly, over time. It doesn’t wail — it waits. It doesn’t erupt — it erodes. This doesn’t mean women don’t feel pain. Of course they do. But culturally, structurally, socially, they’re permitted to process it. They’re encouraged to speak, to cry, to be supported. The system protects them. It gives them language. It validates their sadness. The culture hands them a script. Men are handed a shovel. We see it in the numbers. Men are three to four times more likely to kill themselves after a divorce. They’re far more likely to develop addictions post-breakup. And now we know they’re more likely to die of grief. Not metaphorical heartbreak, but actual cardiac failure. And yet the myth persists: that men are the colder sex. That they detach. That they move on. That they don’t feel as deeply. What a convenient lie. The reality is that men love with a desperation that is rarely noticed until it’s too late. It’s the kind of love that doesn’t ask for applause. It’s shown in the ugly, ordinary things — fixing the car, working the job he hates, waking up before sunrise, staying, sacrificing, and never asking for credit. And when it ends, they don’t get support. They get silence. Shame. And sometimes, they get a hospital bed, wondering why their chest feels like it’s caving in — because it is. We’ve feminized love, made it seem like an arena where women are the natural experts and men fumble through. But the data says otherwise. And any honest woman who’s broken a good man’s heart knows otherwise. So maybe it’s time we retire the falsehood. Maybe it’s time we admit that a man’s love, when real, isn’t just deep — sometimes, it’s fatal. He won’t write poems about it. He won’t post about it. But he’ll carry it. Until it kills him. No fanfare. No second chance. Just a name on a stone and a warning no one heeded. READ MORE from John Mac Ghlionn: The Masculinization of the Modern Woman AI Won’t Terminate Us. It Will Just Render Us Irrelevant. Loneliness Is the New Oil The post He Loved You More Than Life Itself — And It Killed Him appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics. The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.