During the Biden administration, I attended a small dinner with Iranian dissidents living in the United States. As they spoke, quietly, intensely, of a free Iran, I asked what they wanted most from American leadership. Their answer was simple. “We do not want you to fight for us. We just want to know you will not abandon us when the time comes.” “We do not want you to fight for us. We just want to know you will not abandon us when the time comes.” Earlier this year, tens of thousands poured into the streets across Iran in the most profound protest movement since the Iranian revolution in 1979. Many were women. (RELATED: Iran Is Not That Simple) The courage required is difficult to comprehend from a distance. Iranian women and girls stepped into public squares under a regime that has never concealed its capacity for cruelty toward them. For decades, they have lived with midnight arrests, endless interrogations, murder carried out by morality police, and prisons that swallow dissent without a trace. Still, they chose to stand openly. (RELATED: Time to Stand With the People of Iran) What followed ranks among the most grotesque displays of state violence in recent memory. Accounts from detainees, families, and medical personnel describe women raped in custody, mutilated, and returned to their loved ones in conditions that defy comprehension. There are credible reports of uteruses removed, scalps taken, and bodies so desecrated that families were denied the chance to see or bury their dead. Some never received remains at all. In a system long accustomed to repression, these acts are meant to extinguish resistance and memory. Such brutality is not incidental. It reflects a regime that understands the role women have played in Iran’s movement for freedom. Women at the front of protests do more than challenge a policy. They expose the moral fragility of a government that depends on their submission and call into question the legitimacy of power sustained by humiliation and force. Their presence in the streets carried a symbolism that the regime cannot contain. The images that spread across the world like wildfire were those of women burning images of the Ayatollah with their own flames. Warnings were issued to Tehran not to execute protesters. Statements of solidarity were broadcast to the Iranian people, to continue protesting and encouraging the takeover of institutions. For individuals deciding whether to step into the open against a government known for torture and execution, those words mattered profoundly. They suggested that America would not avert its gaze once the cost of defiance became clear. The evidence now before us forces a reckoning with the meaning of those words. The mutilation and murder of women who sought basic dignity cannot be absorbed into the routine calculations of diplomacy. It speaks directly to the character of the regime and to the credibility of those who claim to oppose such brutality. A government that wages violence against its own daughters with calculated savagery reveals a regime whose conduct should temper any illusion that negotiation alone can secure lasting stability. For the United States to avert its gaze now would carry consequences. It would signal to dissidents that courage may be met with distance rather than support, reassure authoritarian regimes that even barbaric acts can pass without meaningful cost, and erode the credibility of those who speak of freedom while hesitating to stand with those who risk everything for it. The U.S. now faces a test that is both moral and strategic. Words spoken in support of the Iranian people created an expectation that brutality on this scale would not be met with indifference. The preservation of American credibility, and of the principles long associated with it, requires resolve. Unarmed women in Iran met a violent regime with astonishing strength. Their courage casts an unforgiving light on any hint of timidity from American leadership. The world’s most powerful democracy cannot afford to appear less resolute than the women who marched unarmed into danger. Any deal the United States makes must result in the complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program: zero domestic uranium enrichment, the destruction of highly enriched uranium and advanced centrifuges, and direct constraints on Iran’s missile programs and support for terrorism. For America’s safety and security, a bad deal is worse than no deal. If a bad deal is the only option left on the table, the use of force may ultimately be required. As the president has said repeatedly, peace is achieved through strength. Strength, in this case, is not only a matter of deterrence but of credibility. The dissidents I met asked for only one thing: not to be abandoned when the time came. That time has clearly come, and in this moment, protecting America’s security and standing with those who resist the regime are not competing aims but the same test of resolve. Meaghan Mobbs, Ph.D., is the director of the Center for American Safety and Security at Independent Women and president of the R.T. Weatherman Foundation. She also serves as a presidential appointee to the United States Military Academy Board of Visitors. READ MORE: Why Iranians Have Unified Around Reza Pahlavi Time to Stand With the People of Iran If We Want to Help the Iranians, We Should Disrupt the IRGC

A few weeks ago, several beach houses on Hatteras Island in North Carolina were destroyed by encroaching ocean waters. As reported by the Washington Post, “It happened again. And again. And again. Three more homes along North Carolina’s Outer Banks collapsed into the sea overnight Sunday and into Monday morning, bringing the total to four since a winter storm over the weekend battered the barrier islands with snow, high winds and roiling surf.” Dating back to September 2025, when a couple of offshore hurricanes passed by, nineteen homes on the Outer Banks have been lost to the surf. While the immediate cause in all cases was tidal surge related to storms, the underlying cause is the shifting sands of an island in motion. What is not happening is “rising sea levels,” nor anything related to climate change. But you would never know it from the media’s reporting. (RELATED: The Welcome Demise of Climate Change Catastrophism) The legacy media, which habitually twists weather-related news into climate catastrophism, has been extraordinarily dishonest in its coverage of these lost beach houses, repeatedly stating that they were consumed by rising sea levels, when that is completely untrue. The houses were lost due to the impermanent sand upon which they were built. (RELATED: EPA Retires Its Crystal Ball, Lets America Exhale (Carbon Included)) Here are a few examples of the dishonest reporting: From the Associated Press, dated Oct. 1, 2025: “Six homes collapse into the Outer Banks surf as Atlantic hurricanes swirl far offshore.” Six unoccupied houses along North Carolina’s Outer Banks have collapsed into the ocean as Hurricanes Humberto and Imelda rumble in the Atlantic, the latest private beachfront structures to fall as sea levels rise due to global warming. The AP piece also included this untruth: North Carolina’s coast is made up almost entirely of narrow, low-lying barrier islands that have been eroding for years as rising seas swallow the land. Eighteen privately owned houses have now collapsed on Seashore beaches since 2020, the park service said. From NBC, also on October 1: “Six homes collapse into Atlantic Ocean in Outer Banks.” Six homes have crumbled into the ocean, after they were lashed by waves and wind from Hurricanes Humberto and Imelda. 18 homes have collapsed into the ocean in the Outer Banks since 2020 due to storms, erosion and rising sea levels. What is even worse about this erroneous reporting is that these scientifically illiterate journalists undoubtedly believe they are reporting the truth. Their reporting repeats the propaganda of climate catastrophists, who have supplanted actual science with the pseudo-science of global warming. (RELATED: Two Retractions Raise the Question: Is Climate Science Really Settled?) Barrier islands are deposits of sand that are constantly reshaped due to tides, winds, and storms. The simple truth is that the Outer Banks are barrier islands, which are effectively sandbars that separate the mainland from the open ocean. Barrier islands are deposits of sand that are constantly reshaped due to tides, winds, and storms. The news accounts make it seem like the Outer Banks are the crest of a permanent land mass being consumed by the rising sea, but that is simply not true. There is a term for the natural force that causes barrier islands to constantly reshape and move parallel to the mainland – that term is “longshore drift.”    From NOAA’s website, “Longshore drift may also create or destroy entire barrier islands along a shoreline. A barrier island is a long offshore deposit of sand situated parallel to the coast. As longshore drifts deposit, remove, and redeposit sand, barrier islands constantly change.” The constant pounding of waves upon a barrier island does not occur in a manner that is perpendicular to the beach. Instead, waves hit the beach at an angle, driven ashore by the direction of prevailing winds. As the waves come ashore, they wash up sand and sediment. But as the water recedes back to the ocean, it is now depleted of its wind-borne energy. The water, along with the sediment it brought with it, returns to the sea by gravity at a perpendicular angle. The result is that with each wave, a little bit of sediment is moved downwind, slowly reshaping the island, expanding it in one direction, and eroding it in another. Although jetties and seawalls can be built to stabilize certain portions of barrier islands, these do not tame the sea. Instead, they just redirect currents such that certain areas on the island are eroded while others receive sand deposits.  An example of how dramatically longshore drift can move barrier islands is the lighthouse that once served as a navigation beacon to the Aransas Pass, near Corpus Christi, TX. The Lydia Ann Lighthouse, also known as the Aransas Pass Light Station, is a beautiful, restored lighthouse that originally went into service in 1857. It is a popular destination for those who enjoy outdoor activities such as fishing and birding, but many a visitor has also wondered why there is a lighthouse here, about a mile north of the actual Aransas Pass. The reason is that the natural pass migrated south. When the lighthouse was built, its purpose was to guide ships from the Gulf of Mexico into the pass between Mustang Island (Port Aransas) to the south and San Jose Island to the north. An inbound ship could follow the beacon light right into the Aransas Pass. Due to longshore drift, both San Jose Island and Mustang Island crept southward, with the pass moving south with them. The aerial map view below shows the lighthouse, which has remained in place, in relation to the Aransas Pass. Map data © 2026 Google, Lydia Ann Lighthouse, and the Aransas Pass, retrieved Feb. 24, 2026 Media reports regarding houses in the Outer Banks being lost to “rising sea levels” are absolutely, scientifically false. It is worth remembering that if the media has such a cavalier indifference to the truth as it pushes climate propaganda with this story, the media deserves no respect or credibility for any other climate scare it promotes. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. READ MORE from Buck Throckmorton: Blue States Are Moving Legislation Forward to Restrict How Much You Can Drive Left-Wing Activists Ran Off the Normal People Who Knew How to Do Their Jobs While Canada Cozies Up to China, Mexico Imposes Harsh Tariffs Due to Chinese Auto Dumping

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Roughly translated, this means “Who guards the guardians?” While many attribute the phrase to the Roman poet Juvenal, I first heard it in an episode of Justice League Unlimited, a kids’ cartoon about the adventures of Superman, Batman, and their assorted costumed friends. It’s an apt phrase for contextualizing the recent news concerning the FBI and its use of assessments to surveil and investigate Americans at whim.  Nearly four years after an initial request from Reps. Jamie Raskin (D‑MD) and Nancy Mace (R‑SC), the Government Accountability Office (GAO) finally released a “For Official Use Only” report on the bureau’s use of assessments from 2018 to 2024. The findings raise serious questions about the oversight of an agency with a long track record of constitutional abuses. Assessments are an investigative authority created by the Office of the Attorney General to aid the agency in domestic FBI operations. The power lacks statutory or legal authority. Instead of an independent review, the FBI relies on its staff to report instances of “noncompliance” with its assessment policy. Instead of an independent review, the FBI relies on its staff to report instances of “noncompliance” with its assessment policy. Of course, when violations are self-reported, they’re also likely to be underreported, as the agencies’ own Legal Compliance and Enterprise Risk Unit concluded.  When the Department of Justice made recommendations for corrective action, the FBI largely ignored them. Bizarrely, the FBI states it is “unaware of other methods besides self-reporting to identify noncompliance,” despite the agency having never attempted to find another method.  The report states, “FBI officials have not assessed whether using self-reported instances of noncompliance is an effective tool to identify noncompliance or what other tools may exist besides inspections and review.” The bureau shows no interest in determining whether the authority is working or whether any potential abuses have occurred as a result of it, stating that it believes it is neither “feasible nor necessary” for the agency to audit every program. Yet the FBI headquarters failed to track or implement recommendations from the Department of Justice National Security Reviews. To date, the agency has not shared relevant information from these reviews with other field offices. With cases like Operation “Arctic Frost,” in which the bureau violated federal policies to initiate investigations into President Donald Trump, then-Vice President Mike Pence, and other high-profile figures, can the FBI be trusted to police itself? (RELATED: Arctic Frost and the Constitutional Risks of Secret Subpoenas Against Lawmakers) Under the FBI’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, assessments don’t require a “particular factual predication,” meaning they require no specific facts about a crime or threat. From 2018 through 2024, the FBI opened “about 127,000 assessments,” of which over 1,000 involved government employees, politicians, religious organizations, and media institutions.  There are five types of assessments, any of which can be initiated by multiple FBI divisions, though they are primarily opened and conducted by field offices. Once opened, an FBI supervisor must determine whether to close the assessment with no further action or transition it to one of three formal investigation types: preliminary, full, or enterprise.  Since assessments allow the FBI to obtain and retain information on targets, there’s reason to question whether they violate the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Here’s an example of what it takes to initiate an assessment, according to the report.  If a marina owner contacts a local FBI office with a tip that five Middle Eastern males just rented a boat for 3 days, asked for marine charts, and asked the owner to circle military installations and nuclear power plants on them, the FBI can conduct an assessment. According to department policy, this would constitute potential for “criminal activity” or a “threat” to national security, thereby providing an “authorized purpose.” Patrick Eddington, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, describes assessments as a “de facto end-run around the Fourth Amendment.” “The Bureau shouldn’t be collecting and storing data on Americans unless they’re wanted for a federal crime, but assessments allow them to do exactly that,” he adds. “It’s clear from GAO’s report that the Bureau as an institution does not take potential or known assessment-related abuses seriously.” In response to questions from The American Spectator, the GAO declined to comment, calling the report “law enforcement sensitive,” adding it should “not be public.”  The impetus to close ranks appears to be at odds with the GAO’s mission, which describes itself as a “Congressional Watchdog,” a supposedly independent body working for the representatives of the American people.  The Department of Justice, members of the Senate Select Intelligence and Judiciary Committee, Reps. Raskin and Mace, and the FBI did not respond to questions from The American Spectator.  Like Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, programs meant to keep Americans safe can just as easily be misused. Section 702 led to the unconstitutional collection of “incidental” data on Americans, the scope of which is still undetermined since the FBI failed to follow federal reporting procedures. Eddington says we need a “new Church Committee” to identify federal law enforcement practices that violate the Constitution, urging Congress to “take legislative action to end them.” Tosin Akintola is an editorial intern at The American Spectator. READ MORE by Tosin Akintola: Mamdani Attempts Sleight of Hand With Rental Ripoff Hearings San Francisco Teachers Put Salary Before Students Targeting Food Stamp Fraud Is Good Politics and Policy

The question? Are Democrats secretly on the Trump payroll? The question occurs after watching the performance of Democrat party leaders and their multiple “responses” — aka clown shows — before, during, and after President Trump’s State of the Union. (RELATED: SOTU 2026: Now There Are Truly Two Americas) If one is of a certain age (ahem!), there is a distinct memory of what the proper response of the opposition party to a president’s State of the Union address once was. Here’s a sample as listed from a U.S. Senate site titled: “Opposition Responses to the State of the Union Address (1966-Present).” The first official, televised opposition response to a president’s annual message came in 1966, when Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) and House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford (R-MI) offered a critique of President Lyndon Johnson’s annual message. The practice continued sporadically over the next decade and varied in format. Since 1982, members of the opposition party have provided a response to the annual message, usually in a televised format, that directly follows the president’s speech. 1968: On January 23, from the auditorium of the New Senate Office Building (Dirksen Building), eight Republican senators and nine Republican representatives responded to President Lyndon Johnson’s State of the Union address (which had taken place on January 17) in a televised program. 1970: On February 8 Democratic members of Congress responded to President Richard Nixon’s State of the Union address (which had taken place on January 22) with a 45-minute televised program that included comments from Senators William Proxmire (D-WI), Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D-WA), Edmund Muskie (D-ME), Albert Gore (D-TN), Ralph Yarborough (D-TX), and Philip Hart (D-MI), and Representatives Donald Fraser (D-MN), Patsy Mink (D-HI), Carl Albert (D-OK), and John McCormack (D-MA), and informal discussions by senators and representatives with voters in various sections of the country. 1975: Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) and Representative Carl Albert (D-OK) responded to President Gerald R. Ford’s State of the Union address (which took place on January 15) in two separate televised speeches. Albert’s speech aired on Monday, January 20, and Tuesday, January 21, and Humphrey’s speech aired Wednesday, January 22. 1978: On January 26 Senate Minority Leader Howard Baker Jr. , (R-TN) and House Minority Leader John Rhodes (R-AZ) responded to President Jimmy Carter’s State of the Union address (which took place on January 19) in a televised 30-minute question-and-answer program. 1982: On January 26 Democrats responded to President Ronald Reagan’s State of the Union address with a 28-minute prerecorded, documentary-style program, televised on major networks following President Reagan’s address, offering a Democratic review of the speech and man-on-the-street interviews. Participants included California governor Jerry Brown, Senators Donald Riegle (D-MI), James Sasser (D-TN), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Gary Hart (D-CO), Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA), and Alan Cranston (D-CA); Speaker of the House Thomas P. O’Neill (D-MA); and Representative Albert Gore, Jr., (D-TN). Notice anything? These are but a handful of similar examples. In those bygone days, the party out-of-power simply selected one or a handful of elected officials to have a very organized, dignified, televised response to the president-of-the-moment’s State of the Union. There was one exception. In 2009, as President Obama was addressing Congress, the GOP South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson yelled out, “You lie!” As a result, Wilson was officially reprimanded by the House. There was no circus, let alone multiple circuses, in these responses. Other than that incident with Wilson, heartily condemned by Democrats, there were no members screaming at the president of the moment like fools in the House chamber the other night. And most certainly, there was no one like the lefty Rep. Rashida Tlaib wearing a button that read “F*** Ice.” (This being a family publication, I won’t type in the actual curse word Tlaib had on her distinctly visible button.) (RELATED: President Trump Outs Dems: ‘These People Are Crazy’) One could go on and on with listings like these of once-upon-a-time State of the Union addresses. But notice anything? There is no mention that, other than the one incident with Congressman Wilson yelling at Obama, angry opposition Members made a point of yelling at the president of the moment, as was true this week of Democrat Representatives Ilhan Omar, who yelled “You’re killing Americans!” at the president, or (again!) Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who chanted “KKK” during Trump’s speech. And also note? Unlike Wilson, who was officially reprimanded, neither Tlaib nor Omar has met a similar reprimand. And there was this. The New York Post headlined: “Dozens of Dems plan to skip Trump’s State of the Union as party can’t decide on rival programming.” (RELATED: Who Cares If Democrats Boycott Trump’s SOTU?) Which is to say, there was a presidential election and House and Senate elections in 2024. Republicans won. The American people, in a free election, voted for them. Be that as it may, these sore-loser Democrats are making a point of ostentatiously giving the middle finger to the voters by their State of the Union conduct. Talk about sore losers! Lost in all this chaotic nonsense was the person Democrats had selected to actually give the Democrat response. That would be Virginia’s Democrat Governor Abigail Spanberger. Spanberger did what once was seen as the normal way to deliver the opposition party response, which is to say, take the podium, look the television camera in the eye, and give your response. (RELATED: The Abigail Spanberger Bait-and-Switch) But alas, there was more to the Democrat State of the Union response than Spanberger. Instead, the other night was a circus of Democrats yelling at the president, waving signs, and acting like a pack of privileged, self-indulgent brats. Clowns. And that was if — if! — they made a point of also showing up for one of the oldest ceremonies in American government to showcase, vividly, their contempt for the president and his supporters. News reports said some 70 Democrats refused to attend: “Shamed of the Union Address; Long list of things Democrats refused to take a stand for.” Among other things, one can wonder if the Democrats’ response was actually paid for by Trump and the Republicans. Who doubtless were laughing up their sleeves at just how stupid Democrats were, quite voluntarily making themselves look silly in full view of the entire nation. Some people never learn. Clearly, the Democrats — the clowns — playing games with this State of the Union have not learned. The 2026 election is on the horizon. And these Democrat refuseniks have given the nation a close-up look at just how irresponsible and immature they can be. President Trump could not ask for better help in winning in 2026 and exemplifying exactly why Democrats should not be allowed anywhere near having voting control of the House and Senate. It’s almost as if Democrats have a secret wish to do as much damage to their own credibility as possible. Shocking. Not. READ MORE from Jeffrey Lord: Susan Rice Goes Full Fascist Trump’s Legacy: Global Peace GOP Congressman Bacon Opposes President’s Constitutional Pardon Power

from Revolver News: For most of American history, marriage was treated like a lifelong commitment with some very serious legal, cultural, and moral weight behind it. Sure, divorce was possible, but it was made to be intentionally difficult. You had to prove real fault. We’re talking adultery, abuse, and desertion; it had to be something […]

from The National Pulse: WHAT HAPPENED: The State Department is launching a new app, Freedom.gov, to provide global access to content censored in locations like Europe, China, and Iran.

For years now, leadership in Minnesota has insisted everything is under control. Meanwhile, watchdog reports pile up, federal indictments roll in, and taxpayers are left wondering how millions of dollars could slip through the cracks on the state’s watch. At some point, “unexpected oversight gaps” stops being an excuse and...