There’s been a lot of talk lately about the radicalism problem on the Right. It is, indeed, a problem that exists. But is it nearly as mainstream as it is on the Left? Has it been imbibed? Has it been ingested? Has it been sucked into the great maw of the party and turned into the mainstream position on the Right? The answer, of course, is no. But on the Left, the answer is very much yes. The Democratic Party has decided to let the radicals run the show. This has become extraordinarily clear over the course of, not just of the past couple of election cycles, but the past few months, now that Zohran Mamdani has been vetted by the entire Democratic Party as the future of the party. All of the so-called moderates in the Democratic Party refuse to dissociate in any way from Mamdani, who is, in fact, a terror sympathizer; who is, in fact, a Marxist radical; who is, in fact, a complete, useless ne’er do well of a human being who has somehow managed to manipulate himself into a position to become the mayor of the financial center of planet Earth in New York City. Mamdani is a Marxist with jihadist leanings. That’s the reality. And in the modern Democratic Party, that is a feature, not a bug. There are a lot of people in the media who’ve been struggling to figure out how Mamdani was able to win a primary despite having these radical positions. I’ve been saying since he won the Democratic Party primary that his winning is not a bug; it is a feature quite popular among Democratic primary voters, because the Democratic electorate has basically split between moderates who are increasingly bleeding over into the Republican Party or into the independents, and the hardcore Democrats, who are increasingly moving ever further to the left. We are now two generations removed from the specter of communism via the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union fell 35 years ago, and that means that there are a lot of people who don’t remember the Soviet Union or the risks of communism. When they think of socialism, they actually are thinking of mixed states, capitalist states that have a significant welfare portion in places in Europe. But the solutions that they are proposing are full-scale nationalization projects, Marxist projects directly from the Soviet, Cuban, Venezuelan handbook. And they don’t even know they’re doing that — or they don’t care. What that means is that the candidate who signals the furthest to the Left in many of these areas in the primaries is actually quite likely to win. That’s how someone with Mamdani’s positions on the Middle East and terrorism and jihadism — only 24 years removed from 9/11 — can be elected mayor of New York.  New York City is likely to elect as mayor somebody who has sympathies for Al-Qaeda. I don’t mean he’s sympathetic to the actual terror attacks of 9/11, although he’s quite sympathetic to the terror group Hamas. I mean he believes that the Osama bin Laden-articulated grievances of 2001 against the West are mostly correct. There are people who’ve been trained for generations in this country to believe that Western civilization is responsible for everything bad that happens on planet Earth, that third-world countries are third-world because of exploitation by the first world. They believe that terror centers are terror centers, not because of a deeply steeped radical Islamic ideology, but instead because somehow the West has been cruel to people. That’s the kind of garbage Mamdani is preaching, and it is finding a ready audience among Democratic primary voters. Very few Democrats have had the stones to simply say, “No, this is a bridge too far. The answer here is no.” What’s amazing about that is that the risk factor in making such a statement is relatively low. Imagine that you are a mainstream Democrat, an elected official from Kansas, and somebody asks you about Mamdani. Does it cost you anything to say, “No, that guy’s too extreme. I would not vote for him. I’d vote for Andrew Cuomo.” Would that cost you anything? Let’s say that you’re a purple state Democrat. Or let’s say that you’re a blue state Democrat. You’re just not a New York City, far-Left Greenwich Village Democrat. Does it cost you anything to say, “No, that dude is too much for me. I understand the primary voters chose him, but the reality is that is not representative of America.” Angelina Katsanis/AP Photo/Bloomberg via Getty Images Instead, the Democratic Party has decided they must draft off of the Mamdani energy. And that’s why you’re seeing nationally a reflection of Mamdani politics via the Bernie Sanders wing of the party. Mamdani is a child of the Bernie Sanders revolution because Bernie obviously is not just a socialist when it comes to domestic policy. He is also a Howard Zinn, anti-American extremist when it comes to American foreign policy. Mamdani is just following in the footsteps of Bernie Sanders. But he’s adding a more diverse backstory. People think Mamdani’s radicalism about the Middle East is somehow an inhibitor to his political success. Wrong. In New York City, with its Democratic primary base, his radicalism is an aphrodisiac. The Democratic Party base wants this signaling. They want the extremism. They want the Howard Zinn-ification of American foreign policy. Israel pulls out of Gaza, and Hamas immediately starts consolidating control by literally pulling people out of their houses, lining them up, putting them on their knees, and shooting them in the head. There are videos of this happening. And Mamdani has nothing to say about this. Not only does he have nothing to say about this, he’s asked whether Hamas should disarm now and he won’t even answer a question as to whether Hamas ought to be disarmed. New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik was asked by a New York Times reporter, “I’m a reporter for the Times. I’m writing about Elise Stefanik’s comments in response to Mamdani’s Fox News interview, Mamdani’s campaign has said that her comments calling him a jihadist were Islamophobic. Please let me know if you want to respond.”  Stefanik responded publicly on X: I call Zohran Mamdani a jihadist because he is. Zohran Mamdani is a raging antisemite. Mamdani is the definition of a jihadist as he supports Hamas terrorists which he did as recently as yesterday when he refused to call for Hamas terrorists to put down their arms – the same Hamas terrorist group that slaughtered civilians including New Yorkers on October 7, 2023.  He is Kathy Hochul’s endorsed jihadist Communist who she has empowered to destroy New York City. It’s why the New York State Democrat Party Chair refuses to support him. It’s why multiple Democrat Members of Congress refuse to support him. It’s why Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have still not endorsed him. Because Zohran is a jihadist who will destroy New York. Why aren’t Democrats dissociating from him? None of them will say it because they are trying to draft off the jet fuel that is radicalism and nut-jobbery inside the Democratic Party. Bill Ackman stated on X of Mamdani: It is now abundantly clear he is completely full of it. The whole thing is an act. Just look at the identical practiced smile with which he ends each answer. After watching him recreate his fake smile, your skin will start to crawl. Mamdani exudes inauthenticity and smugness. He denies or disavows any of his previous public statements that he knows will now cost him votes. The only takeaway is that he is an extremely articulate inauthentic actor. You can’t trust one word out of his mouth. And that’s before you get to his policies which make no economic sense. This is the nature of the modern Democratic Party. And they are moving in this direction at light speed.

In a suspected cyberattack, a shadowy hacking collective has reportedly published the personal information of hundreds of U.S. federal employees, including agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the FBI. The leak, first reported by 404 Media, allegedly includes sensitive personal data such as full names, office addresses, and in some cases, home addresses. More than 680 DHS officials, 190 DOJ staff, and 170 FBI employees were affected. Some of the data was shared via encrypted messaging apps like Telegram, where hackers openly mocked their targets and even referenced bounties allegedly offered by Mexican cartels for information on federal agents. “Mexican Cartels hmu we dropping all the doxes,” one hacker posted, appearing to demand “1m” dollars in exchange for the data. Another post provocatively asked, “U guys want IRS next?” suggesting further leaks may be forthcoming. The perpetrators behind this breach are believed to be part of a larger, loosely affiliated cybercrime community referred to as “The Com.” This sprawling collective includes members of several groups, such as Scattered Spider, 0ktapus, and LAPSUS$, which have been behind major ransomware and data theft campaigns targeting companies like MGM Resorts, Coinbase, and Twilio. These groups are “some of the most infamous English-speaking hacking groups operating today,” according to Mashable. The Com has become known for recruiting minors and young adults — often English-speaking teens — and leveraging their knowledge of Western systems and social engineering tactics. This group operates in digital subcultures that glorify online crime, where members boast about scams and violent tactics, including swatting, “brickings” (hiring people to vandalize homes), and robberies. Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to DailyWire.com/Subscribe to join now. Scattered Spider, one of the arms of The Com, has reportedly collaborated with Russian ransomware gangs like ALPHV/BlackCat. These partnerships blend Western hackers’ fluency in English and social manipulation with the Russians’ technical tools and experience in laundering ransom payments. Their alliance was behind the devastating $100 million ransomware attack on MGM Resorts in 2023. According to experts, this doxing incident marks a shift from financially motivated ransomware to direct, politically charged attacks on U.S. government personnel. It also comes amid ongoing concerns from cybersecurity officials that groups like the Com represent an escalating national security threat, especially when working with foreign adversaries. Authorities have arrested several individuals connected to the Com and its subgroups, including a 17-year-old in the UK and several Americans in their early 20s. However, many remain at large, and experts warn that the decentralized nature of these groups — operating across encrypted apps and online gaming platforms — makes them exceptionally difficult to dismantle. As investigations continue, cybersecurity experts caution that this leak could lead to real-world harm against federal employees and may signal a broader trend of hackers weaponizing personal data for political, ideological, or financial gain.

Dallas Cowboys won't have Trevon Diggs for Sunday's game

more of China's money

'Foreign intelligence services like Mossad?'

Legal experts say the John Bolton classified documents case will be more difficult for President Donald Trump’s critics to dismiss as a Trump vengeance play compared to the indictments of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Bolton, a national security adviser during Trump’s first administration and frequent Trump critic after it, pleaded not guilty on Friday to charges of mishandling classified information in an investigation that began during the Biden administration.  The Biden administration’s Justice Department began investigating Bolton during a 2021 Iran hacking investigation. Some of the classified information in Bolton’s possession was allegedly obtained through the Iranian hack. Career federal prosecutors are reportedly more supportive of the Bolton prosecution than the other cases.  “John Bolton, through his extensive government experience, is very aware of laws governing classified information,” John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.  Malcolm noted that most cases of mishandling classified information only raise the possibility of the information falling into the wrong hands if not protected. “Not only does this pose the possibility of falling into the wrong hands, but it appears that representatives of the Iran government accessed it,” added Malcolm, a former federal prosecutor.  The charges against Bolton are also more serious than those levied against other Trump critics, Malcolm noted.  Comey, the former FBI director, was charged with perjury in relation to allegedly instructing someone to leak classified information. James, the New York attorney general, was charged with allegedly improperly filling out mortgage paperwork.  Further, Bolton’s indictment Thursday by a federal grand jury in Maryland is more detailed, running 26 pages with 18 counts, compared to the two-page Comey indictment and the five-page James indictment.  “It is a pretty damning indictment to be sure for transmitting classified information and a great deal more detailed than the indictments of James Comey and Letitia James,” Paul Kamenar, counsel for the watchdog group National Legal and Policy, told The Daily Signal.  Federal law enforcement says it obtained information from a foreign adversary’s spy service, including emails that allegedly show Bolton may have sent sensitive information on an unclassified system while working for the Trump White House. The information was allegedly sent to people helping him write his 2020 memoir, “The Room Where it Happened.” In part, Bolton has used the fact the probe commenced under the Biden administration as a defense.  “When my e-mail was hacked in 2021, the FBI was made fully aware. In four years of the prior [Biden] administration, after these reviews, no charges were ever filed,” Bolton said in a statement. “Then came Trump 2, who embodies what Joseph Stalin’s head of secret police once said, ‘You show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.’” However, Kamenar said if the charges are true, it could be more serious than other high-profile classified document cases.  Two of those cases ended in guilty pleas. One was that of former Obama administration CIA Director and retired Gen. David Petraeus, and the other was that of former Clinton administration National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. “Petraus and Berger got away with a slap on the wrist,” Kamanar said. “That’s unfortunate. But unlike the Bolton case, those cases showed no signs that a foreign adversary had access to the classified information.” Petraus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge in 2015 for sharing classified information with a biographer and girlfriend and was sentenced to probation. Berger was caught on video removing information from the National Archives reading room and stuffing it into his socks before his testimony to the 9/11 commission. He pleaded guilty in 2005 to a misdemeanor and paid a fine. Likewise, Kamenar said other federal investigations of high-profile figures for alleged mishandling of classified information—including Trump, former President Joe Biden, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—did not produce indictments but also had no suggestions that a foreign adversary accessed the documents.  Bolton’s legal team could allege selective prosecution, but that could be a tough case to make, said Malcolm of The Heritage Foundation.  “He can argue it’s selective prosecution or that he was targeted because he was considered an enemy of Trump,” Malcolm said. “Ultimately that’s a tough argument to make. … The seized documents are what they are.” The post Why the Bolton Case Might Be Different From Other Politically Charged DOJ Prosecutions appeared first on The Daily Signal.

It is considered impolite to say, “We told you so.” However, after the debate Thursday between Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares and his Democrat challenger, Jay Jones, the temptation to is daunting. Last week, in the wake of the “October Surprise” release of Jones’ text messages from 2022 where he fantasized about shooting then-Republican Speaker of the House of Delegates Todd Gilbert and about Gilbert’s two children dying in his wife’s arms, we published a look into the substantial punitive power that a Virginia attorney general has—power that Jones could wield if he were elected. >>> Sign up for our Virginia email newsletter The Competitive Enterprise Institute detailed some of that power several years ago in a report titled “Law Enforcement for Rent.” As one example, the report detailed efforts by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to place lawyers in various state attorneys general offices in the U.S. who his nonprofit would pay and whose mission it was to target persons and businesses that gave money to climate researchers who were debunking “green energy” propaganda. Imagine someone with the attitude of Jones—who defended his texts at the time by telling the state delegate he sent them to: “Name a time when people make actual change on public policy without feeling personal pain”—at the helm of an attorney general’s office with the vast ability to punish businesses and citizens by launching probes and announcing them to the press. Just ask New York Attorney General Letitia James how that works. During Thursday’s televised debate, after Jones reiterated how sorry he was about the whole texting scandal (though he didn’t specifically say he was sorry about thinking such a thing), he later went on to make our case for us. He said to the audience, “I will see Jason Miyares and Donald Trump in court as your next attorney general.” Then he said, “We have to hold the president accountable, go after Donald Trump and the bad actions of this administration.” Instead of “We told you so,” how about, “We rest our case.” The post Jay Jones Hints at Just What Kind of Attorney General He Might Be appeared first on The Daily Signal.

TRIUMPH: Team Trump Tramples UN Carbon Tax on Shipping

Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov warned that global censorship efforts could spell the end of the free internet as we know it unless countries actively squelch government creep. In an X post Durov stressed the urgency of fighting for online free speech, which he described as slipping away. “Our generation is running out of time to save the free Internet built for us by our fathers,” he wrote. “What was once the promise of the free exchange of information is being turned into the ultimate tool of control.” Durov  continued, “Once-free countries are introducing dystopian measures.” He singled out countries such as Australia, the EU and the UK that are working to implement age restrictions, private message monitoring and digital IDs He also called out Germany, the UK and France for resorting to persecuting, imprisoning and criminally investigating citizens and tech leaders who dare to speak out against censorship.  [The story continues on MRCFreeSpeechAmerica.org]

During Wednesday’s NBC Today airing, correspondent Morgan Radford shared the heart-warming story of a company that offers a service anyone would want: choosing which babies get to live. The “future of fertility,” eerily reminiscent of eugenics practices first employed over 100 years ago, was sugar-coated under morning program joviality with only a single short-and-sweet counter-argument brought to bear. The pre-taped story began with a family’s daughter who suffers from a rare genetic disorder as a set-up for the desire to screen fetal infants: CROWNOVER: We did all of the tests available. RADFORD: And nothing showed up? CROWNOVER: Correct. Very sad. No one would argue with that. But NBC was playing a dirty trick: lulling its audience not into apathy, but into emotional agreement with the supposed solution that was about to be presented. Radford then introduced Noor Siddiqui, the founder and CEO of Orchid Health, a company that offers an embryonic screening service: “So, what Orchid is able to do is actually read that entire genome to scan for many, many thousands more anomalies or genetic conditions that could affect a future baby.” Wait a minute. An embryo was the initial form of a human’s development in the womb. Those weren’t “future babies” — they already existed. It’s like the STEM cell controversy never happened. The NBC reporter gave the twisted innovator a platform to defend the technology under the guise of pushback: RADFORD: I mean, the idea of being able to decide which child, which embryo you put in your body, I mean, this is a generally new concept. What about people who say you're playing God? SIDDIQUI: I don't think that's — what I'd say is, you know, do we think we're playing God when, you know, we put a seatbelts or a car seat in the car? Or when we go get chemotherapy when someone is diagnosed with cancer, right? All of civilization is using the latest and greatest science and medicine to improve people's lives. Uh huh. The practice wasn’t improving anyone’s lives. It’s unnatural selection, deeming who was fit to live.     A brief clip from an interview with bioethicist Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz was played to fulfill NBC’s journalistic duty of presenting an opposing perspective on the issue: “I would say most people in the bioethics community have concerns about different aspects of this […] concerns about whether these technologies could lead to or promote eugenics thinking and practices.” The entire segment was about five minutes and 20 seconds long. Of that, only 26 seconds was allotted to a figure with an opposing position, roughly eight percent of the entire story. NBC practically hid the opposition by sandwiching it between a libertarian retort by Siddiqui: “I think that it's wrong to stigmatize this type of screening, especially when, you know, these people are — you know, they’re coming because they specifically want to minimize the chance that their child is gonna be affected by these diseases.” No one in their right mind would want their child to suffer from any sort of mutation or disease. Was picking and choosing who gets to live suddenly morally acceptable? To relieve the audience from any sour taste in the mouth, the pre-taped piece left on a hopeful note by returning to the Crownover family: RADFORD: And the embryo that you're carrying, your child, has already been genetically screened? CROWNOVER: Yes. RADFORD: How do you feel knowing that? CROWNOVER: It's actually a huge relief. I think especially where we are in the process, I think that we have a lot of hope, that we're on the right path. It would have been inappropriate to Radford to ask, but it’s a question everyone was thinking. Would the Crownovers have kept the baby had the screening come back with unfortunate results? All under the cover of light-hearted normalcy. Next up in real-life dystopia, customize your child like The Sims with CRISPR! The transcript is below. Click "expand" read: NBC’s Today October 15, 2025 8:33:41 a.m. EST (…) CRAIG MELVIN: Turning now to a medical advancement that some are calling the future of fertility. SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Yeah, it's a new type of genetic testing that allows people going through IVF to do a detailed screening on their embryos before implanting them. And NBC's Morgan Radford is here with the story. Hi, Morgan. Good morning. MORGAN RADFORD: Hey there, guys. Good morning. This is a really interesting question because this genetic screening can test for everything, from the future risk of heart disease to even psychological conditions. So it's raising this important question: if you could know more about your baby's future health, would you want to know that information? One company is not making parents wait to find out. [Cuts to video] JOY BETH CROWNOVER: Hey. RADFORD: For Joy Beth and Adam Crownover, their two-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Mia, is the center of their universe. CROWNOVER: We did all of the tests available. RADFORD: And nothing showed up? CROWNOVER: Correct. RADFORD: Standard testing during their natural pregnancy missed a rare genetic disease called lissencephaly, a brain malformation that can lead to severe and even life threatening symptoms. ADAM CROWNOVER: And she started to have seizures at eight months. And then all of her overnight hospitalizations. [Transition] And I would say the first year of life, those were four really tough months. RADFORD: So to expand their family, they decided to try a different approach: in vitro fertilization, using an embryo screened by a new kind of test offered by a company called Orchid Health. Orchid says they can sequence the entire genome, finding things other tests miss, like conditions that don't typically present until adulthood, including heart disease, schizophrenia, even the risk of adult onset cancers, and obesity. ORCHID EMPLOYEE: Available patients can decide for which embryo to be transferred. RADFORD: We saw the process at work at a fertility clinic in Charlotte. RADFORD: So, is this the actual embryo? ORCHID EMPLOYEE: Yes, that's an embryo. And right now she's going to take a few cells from the embryo to send for genetic testing. NOOR SIDDIQUI: So our first baby was actually — RADFORD: Orchid Health CEO, Noor Siddiqui, says the company has already screened thousands of embryos since they launched the technology in 2023. RADFORD: You guys said that you sequenced more than 99 percent of an embryo's genome, while other existing tests read less than 1 percent. That's a big claim. SIDDIQUI: Yeah, exactly. The testing that's available today on embryos really just looks at something called chromosomes. [Transition] So, what Orchid is able to do is actually read that entire genome to scan for many, many thousands more anomalies or genetic conditions that could affect a future baby. RADFORD: I mean, the idea of being able to decide which child, which embryo you put in your body, I mean, this is a generally new concept. What about people who say you're playing God? SIDDIQUI: I don't think that's — what I'd say is, you know, do we think we're playing God when, you know, we put a seatbelts or a car seat in the car? Or when we go get chemotherapy when someone is diagnosed with cancer, right? All of civilization is using the latest and greatest science and medicine to improve people's lives. RADFORD: The price? $2,500 per embryo, a cost the company says isn't currently covered by insurance. It's a process that's been met with controversy. GABRIEL LÁZARO-MUÑOZ: I would say most people in the bioethics community have concerns about different aspects of this, from ensuring that the patients and the individuals that are pursuing IVF, that they are aware of the limitations of these technologies. [Transition] Another aspect of this, concerns about whether these technologies could lead to or promote eugenics thinking and practices. SIDDIQUI: I think that it's wrong to stigmatize this type of screening, especially when, you know, these people are — you know, they’re coming because they specifically want to minimize the chance that their child is gonna be affected by these diseases. So I think it's each family's own personal decision about do they want to seek out this information and what they want to go do with that information. CROWNOVER: I know you’re sleepy. RADFORD: Information the Crownover family has already used to make their decision. RADFORD: Where are you in the process now? CROWNOVER: I think in the IVF community, the way that they say it is that after transfer you're pregnant until proven otherwise. RADFORD: You're pregnant now? CROWNOVER: I am pregnant right now. RADFORD: Congratulations. So is this your first transfer with Orchid? CROWNOVER: Yeah. RADFORD: And the embryo that you're carrying, your child, has already been genetically screened? CROWNOVER: Yes. RADFORD: How do you feel knowing that? CROWNOVER: It's actually a huge relief. I think especially where we are in the process, I think that we have a lot of hope, that we're on the right path. RADFORD: A path to a bigger family — CROWNOVER: You have a little brother on the way. RADFORD: — and a healthy future. [Cuts back to live] RADFORD: So, interestingly, Orchid is not the only company that's doing this kind of testing. There's actually a company called Genomic Prediction that started in New Jersey in 2017, and it tests for a lot of the same diseases using different technology. And there are even companies testing adults so that they can know the risks of passing on genetic conditions even before having children. And one thing I thought was so interesting is that they did a poll last year, and two-thirds of Americans think that genetic testing on embryos is good if you're checking for disease — MELVIN: Yes. RADFORD: — but one-third said, eyyy, you know, not so much if you're doing it for, you know, cosmetic things. CARSON DALY: Slippery slope. [Crosstalk] DALY: Eye color and sex. RADFORD: Yeah, right? It does get a little interesting there. DALY: Incredible technology, though. Amazing. MELVIN: Morgan, thank you. GUTHRIE: Thank you, Morgan.