It’s not often that I find myself feeling sorry for Hakeem Jeffries. The embattled Democrat met with Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump‘s son-in-law, and now his ascent to the House speakership appears to be in jeopardy. Simply talking is a bridge too far for today’s left-wing Democrat revolutionaries. What was the offense? Kushner asked for a meeting. Jeffries took it. Look Who’s Talking The two discussed housing, immigration and the cost of living, according to The New York Times, which broke the story Sunday. Kushner suggested Jeffries also meet with White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. That’s the scandal: a conversation about housing costs and grocery bills, the very issues Democrats say will help them retake the House in November. Jeffries and Kushner are not strangers, having previously worked together on criminal justice reform during Trump’s first term. These kinds of relationships used to be considered an asset for a congressional leader. Apparently not anymore, especially if that someone is connected to Trump. Hakeem Jeffries Tries to Explain In the days since the Times revealed the meeting, Democrats have not been kind to their leader. Jeffries, responding to the growing backlash, released a video that had the unmistakable feel of a political damage-control exercise. No one from the Trump Cartel is getting a pass. pic.twitter.com/QA0yxs0mTO— Hakeem Jeffries (@RepJeffries) August 25, 2026 “I want to give y’all a little real talk on this Jared Kushner situation,” Jeffries said “He asked for a meeting, and I took it to discuss the affordability crisis that exists. That is not a hoax.” The explanation didn’t satisfy his critics, who were already at odds with Jeffries over his failure to fully embrace the far Left’s policy agenda. Democrats Turn on Their Leader Justice Democrats spokesman Usamah Andrabi told Axios that “opposing Medicare for All and having secret meetings with Donald Trump’s son-in-law sounds more like the leadership of the Republican Party than the fighters Democratic voters are demanding in Congress.” Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, added that the meeting “reinforces the worry from our base that Jeffries’ instinct is to negotiate with the Trump power structure rather than draw lines and fight it.” Tommy Vietor, the former Obama aide who co-hosts “Pod Save America,” argued the only appropriate way to engage Kushner is through demands for documents and subpoenas. Jared Kushner has no actual government job he just uses his family connections to get money from gulf autocrats and fund corrupt deals. The only way @RepJeffries should work with him is with demands for documents and subpoenas. https://t.co/5dBHVHW0CT— Tommy Vietor (@TVietor08) August 23, 2026 Mehdi Hasan, CEO of Zeteo, wrote that the only meeting Jeffries should take with Kushner is one where he informs him he’ll be subpoenaed by a Democratic-controlled House. Hasan called it “pathetic stuff from the House Dem leader.” Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he’s fine with people meeting whomever they want—before adding a caveat that “it’s one thing to have a meeting. It’s another thing to see something real come out of that.” House Democrats speaking anonymously to Axios were even more revealing. “Of all the people he could meet with, this strikes me as odd,” one lawmaker said. Others noted that Jeffries has offered no explanation to his fellow House Democrats. One aide, quoted by Semafor, dismissed the whole thing with a two-word profanity. What Did Jeffries Do Wrong? The striking thing about the backlash is not that Democrats disagreed with Jeffries. It’s that so few seemed willing to say outright that talking to political opponents is a normal part of governing. In the video posted Monday night, Jeffries did his best to strike a balance between defending his actions and presenting a tough-guy image. “No one is going to get a pass,” he said. “We’re going to hold every single member of the Trump cartel accountable, beginning on day one.” He ran through the scalps Democrats claim to have already taken—Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem—and promised more. A day later, Jeffries turned to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer to explain his thinking. “The American people want us in Washington to solve problems,” he said. “And I’m not simply here to make a point, but I’m also here to make a difference.” .@danturrentine and @seanspicer break down @RepJeffries interview on CNN, neither think it was a win for him. pic.twitter.com/y32Bf20crp— The Huddle (@theDChuddle) August 26, 2026 The man who hopes to wield the speaker’s gavel in January took a single meeting about the cost of living and spent the past 48 hours explaining why. Brent Buchanan, founder and CEO of Cygnal, believes the backlash speaks to a deeper political problem for Democrats. “Republicans should make sure every Democratic voter, especially in vulnerable districts, knows Jeffries sat down with Kushner to look for common ground,” Buchanan told the Daily Signal. “Democrats’ moderate wing is no longer voting for something; it is voting against Donald Trump. But when their own House leader negotiates with Trump’s son-in-law, he punctures the ’emergency’ they have spent two years inflating to midterm voters. Without that emergency, the anger that drives turnout fades and so does their motivation.” The Far Left Doesn’t Want Common Ground The reaction to Jeffries illustrates a broader problem on the modern Left: treating engagement itself as a form of compromise. Victor Davis Hanson discussed the stark contrast in his most recent Daily Signal video. In Hanson’s view, the activist Left increasingly sees political opponents as wrong, illegitimate, and dangerous enemies. The radical Left, Hanson argued, operates on a logic that defies American traditions. Its adherents believe their ends are “morally and intellectually superior to those on the conservative side,” and therefore, Hanson explained, “we’re allowed to use any means necessary.” That logic has no off switch. It does not distinguish between political adversaries and insufficiently zealous allies, which is why a movement that spends its days attacking Trump turned on Jeffries. Hanson warned of the consequences for America, noting “a huge chasm between what the Democratic Socialists are advocating and what traditional conservatives are trying to maintain.” No Room for Negotiation For the Left, there is no tolerance for civility or negotiation, because that would concede the other side has something legitimate to offer. The Jeffries episode is just one data point. But it’s a clarifying one. Jeffries shouldn’t have had to defend himself for taking the Kushner meeting. Yet within hours of its disclosure, he was effectively forced to do exactly that. Whether he can repair his standing on the Left is a question that won’t be answered until after November. What we already know is that his own coalition treated a conversation with Kushner as a betrayal. Whatever they discussed behind closed doors, the reaction tells us something important about today’s Democrat coalition: for many activists, talking to the other side is becoming its own offense.

Rep. Chip Roy has sent a letter to several high-ranking federal officials to voice his concerns about a planned Islamic development being built near a U.S. military training base in San Antonio.  Roy, a Republican from Texas, is requesting that members of Trump’s Cabinet look into the Islamic center’s planned community and “examine whether any criminal, civil, financial, or immigration statutes have been violated in its effort to fulfill its campus expansion project.” The letter, obtained by the Daily Signal, was sent to U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent.   Roy learned of the San Antonio development after the RAIR Foundation released a report two weeks ago warning that the Northside Islamic Center of San Antonio is nearing completion of a 7.25-acre campus less than 20 miles from Camp Bullis Military Training Reservation in Bexar County.  According to the RAIR Foundation report, the development will include a mosque, housing developments, K-12 educational institutions, businesses, and Sharia-compliant separate prayer areas for men, women, and children.  Notably, the report alleges that NICSA Islamic leaders have partnered with Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations to raise funds for the Islamic center’s expansion project and solicited donations from unknown international sources that some say could be potential bad actors or organizations.  Roy’s letter also cites videos included in the RAIR Foundation’s report.  In one video posted by the RAIR Foundation, NICSA’s main imam, AbdulRahman Kattab, an Egyptian national who is suspected to be in the U.S. on a visa, discussed the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks in Israel.  Kattab described the attacks, which killed nearly 1,200 people, as “a day of remembrance” for Muslims and said the attackers had revived the Ummah by demonstrating the teachings of the Quran. RAIR also reported that Kattab concluded his sermon by praying for their victory.   In another clip from the same video, Kattab can allegedly be heard referring to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as “the Persians.”  Roy’s letter states that the views expressed in the videos could be interpreted as “showing sympathy toward the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran’s military force,” after the IRGC agreed to join the Iranian Memorandum of Understanding aimed at ending the armed conflict in Iran.  NICSA’s constitution and bylaws state that “terrorism is not a religious identity, rather it is a horrific behavior often justified by misapplied religious dogma.”  The documents also state that the center condemns acts of terrorism.  However, Roy says Kattab’s statements conflict with the Islamic center’s constitution and bylaws.  Roy also raised concerns about the implementation of Sharia-compliant sections of the development. Sharia law is a system of Islamic religious law that guides personal behavior and civil and criminal justice.  He claims Sharia law subjugates women, children, and non-Muslims to second-class citizenship and includes varying punishments and penalties for those who oppose Islam.  “Under no circumstances should Sharia, or any foreign legal code, be practiced on U.S. soil, including community developments,” Roy’s letter reads. “As a congressional representative who has the privilege of representing those who honorably serve in our armed forces and fulfill their duties at Camp Bullis, I have an obligation to ensure their safety and the safety of my constituents in the surrounding area.”  The Daily Signal contacted the Northside Islamic Center of San Antonio for comment from the organization and Kattab but did not receive a response before publication.

PA Measles Outbreak Sparking Predictable Virulent Outbreak of TDS

Wild horses are coming home after decades of struggle.

Those at high latitudes can expect aurorae galore at the end of the week as a coronal mass ejection meets Earth.

MRC Watchdogs churn out breaking news on a daily basis. Don't miss Today's Highlights, where you can keep up with the top MRC content, whether it's the latest study on media bias, a glaring omission from the elitist media, or how the Big Tech companies are serving up the same leftist spin as the media. Top Stories:MRC Details How Elitist Media Praises El-Sayed for Dodging Questions on Fox NewsMRC Exposes Elitist Media Gushing Over Rosie O’Donnell’s Guest-Hosting StintMRC Highlights Polling Showing Democrats Significantly More Pessimistic Than Republicans   MRC Details How Elitist Media Praises El-Sayed for Dodging Questions on Fox NewsCNN analyst Brian Stelter and other elitist media commentators gushed over Democrat Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed for supposedly navigating Fox News successfully.The elitist media praised El-Sayed for steering the conversation away from hard issues like transgender procedures and sports when pressed on those topics.Instead of giving clear answers on radical gender policies, El-Sayed resorted to personal deflection and changing the subject to economic issues.Elitist media outlets routinely spin left-wing political dodging as tactical skill while ignoring a candidate's refusal to state positions on key voter concerns. MRC Exposes Elitist Media Gushing Over Rosie O’Donnell’s Guest-Hosting StintEntertainment reviewers framed O’Donnell as a potential savior and future force for late-night television despite her hyper-partisan record."A form of TV that seems close to dying could use a jolt of energy, and O’Donnell, with her built-in fan base and her ability to connect with, and provoke, audiences, might just be late night’s future."  Variety TV critic Daniel D'Addario The glowing media coverage overlooks how divisive political comedy continues to alienate large segments of the viewing audience.Elitist media outlets consistently celebrate left-wing Hollywood personalities while ignoring their obvious political bias. MRC Highlights Polling Showing Democrats Significantly More Pessimistic Than RepublicansA national poll reveals adult Democrats express far higher levels of pessimism than Republicans regarding the economy, government, and future quality of life.Only one in four Democrats feel optimistic about their overall personal future, compared to nearly sixty percent of Republicans.On the topic of the American system of government, a vast majority of Democrats express doubt while most Republicans remain optimistic.Democrats also report much lower optimism than Republicans when looking at prospects for the next generation.

Caregiving has taught me to ask a simple question before making a consequential decision: “Is this healthy?” Will this solve today’s problem by consuming what we may need tomorrow? Does it respect the resources entrusted to me?After 40 years as a caregiver, I have learned that money, time, strength, and even goodwill are finite. Wanting something does not make it wise, and good intentions do not eliminate consequences. A caregiver who confuses desire with capacity can hurt the very person he is trying to help.We are financing today’s promises with tomorrow’s labor, then congratulating ourselves for our generosity.Caring describes an intention. Stewardship requires an accounting. By that standard, Washington has failed spectacularly.The United States has now crossed $40 trillion in national debt. The figure barely communicates anything. Forty trillion sounds like something a third-grader says when trying to name the biggest number in the world.The national debt is what Washington has accumulated through borrowing. The annual deficit is how much more it spends than it collects each year. The debt is the hole. The deficit is how much deeper we dig it.The Congressional Budget Office projects a $1.9 trillion federal deficit for fiscal year 2026. Congress has looked into a $40 trillion hole and concluded that what it needs is more digging.Democrats invoke compassion to justify spending money the government does not have. Republicans campaign on fiscal restraint, win office, and then discover that their preferred spending somehow does not count. One party calls it caring. The other calls it necessary. Both send the bill to our children.Each party points furiously at the other while passing the national credit card back and forth. Both help start the fire, then pass the collection plate while arguing over who bought the gasoline.Now we enter election season, when, as Lloyd Christmas might say, the promises flow like the salmon of Capistrano. Candidates will tell us how deeply they care about families, seniors, veterans, national defense, and taxpayers. They will demonstrate their concern for one group by promising it money borrowed from all the others. A politician can always appear compassionate by promising benefits with other people’s money.RELATED: It took 200 years to reach $1 trillion in national debt. 2026 said, ‘Hold my beer.’ Mandel NGAN/AFP/Getty ImagesStewardship asks harder questions: How much will this cost? Who will pay for it? What has the existing program accomplished? What happens if your projections are wrong? If this is worth doing, why must we borrow the money?Those are not cruel questions. They are the responsible ones.Government cannot create resources by attaching the word “federal” to them. There is no government money. Government either collects money from today’s citizens or borrows against tomorrow’s taxpayers.We are financing today’s promises with tomorrow’s labor, then congratulating ourselves for our generosity. There is nothing generous about giving away the money of someone not yet born. That is taxation without representation on a generational scale.Stewardship does not require government to spend nothing or never incur debt. Families and nations face genuine emergencies. Caregivers understand that. Medical catastrophes rarely consult the household budget before arriving.But caregivers often do without. Congress seems far more comfortable assigning sacrifice than accepting any. I have also learned that an emergency cannot become a permanent governing philosophy.At my kitchen table, I cannot promise everything, spend without limit, blame someone else when the bills arrive, and then congratulate myself for caring. Yet Washington does just that.RELATED: Scott Bessent is the secret weapon for Trump’s economic plan Ludovic MARIN/AFP/Getty ImagesOver the next few months, commercials filled with flags, farms, hard hats, classrooms, and concerned expressions will flood the airwaves. Recorded voices will warn that civilization depends upon our response before midnight.As the onslaught escalates, keep asking one question: Is this candidate a good steward? Not only of public money, but of public trust, constitutional authority, and the extraordinary inheritance of self-government.To our national shame, we may not be able to answer yes about many of them. That does not excuse us from voting. It makes our responsibility more sobering.Ronald Reagan popularized “trust, but verify” when dealing with the Soviet Union. Washington has now given us $40 trillion reasons to apply it to our own government. We must choose the better steward and then hold that person accountable.Campaign season is when politicians sell. Election Day is when we buy. Tax Day reminds us what we paid. Better hang on to the receipt.After April 15, we begin to learn whether they can manage what they were so eager to sell.Around my kitchen table, math eventually gets the final vote. At $40 trillion in debt, one wonders whether math even applies in the halls of Congress.

It's going to be harder for parents to say no to and even differentiate between AI and real life when it comes to entertaining their children.Toddlers and kindergarteners are unlikely to hop onto an AI chatbot and ask about the weather or for the latest sports scores, but they are now more likely than ever to be driven into interactions with AI-driven content.AI can enable 'more continuous interaction between fans and brands.'Thanks to a new entertainment-meets-tech deal, the slow walk to AI teaching the West's children has quickened its pace.WildBrain, the Canadian company known for having possibly the largest library of children's television programming, has bought a tech company specializing in creating AI personalities.That means that some of the most famous characters kids know and love will now be interacting with children in ways previously unimaginable. WildBrain, formerly DHX Media, bought the rights to "Teletubbies" back in 2013. It also owns characters like Strawberry Shortcake, Inspector Gadget, and the show "In the Night Garden."Personality AI is just a year-old company and focuses on creating interactive characters using generative AI and has already developed content for Amazon.Under Amazon in 2025, Personality AI created "Hey Peppa Pig," an interactive voice experience for kids that allowed them to speak with the character on Amazon's Fire Kids Tablets, the Hollywood Reporter noted.RELATED: Federal agents wanted to search his phone — now they say the trick he used to stop them is a crime John Keeble/Getty Images WildBrain and Personality AI will reportedly create interactive experiences with toys, apps, and different platforms using licensing agreements with different intellectual property owners.In an attempt to address concerns over child interactions with artificial intelligence, Personality AI told the Hollywood Reporter that its AI products are not open-ended platforms and are tested to ensure safe interactions.The deal itself is lucrative, with WildBrain paying roughly $11 million in cash along with one million shares, Variety reported.There are also further incentives that can push the deal to upwards of almost $70 million.RELATED: The $1 trillion social media addiction trial has begun — is the disorder real? BEN STANSALL/AFP/Getty Images Personality AI will receive $2 million on the first anniversary of the deal's closing and up to $56 million in cash based on meeting performance markers in the first three years of the deal, up to 2029.WildBrain's CEO Josh Scherba said that Personality AI can enable "more continuous interaction between fans and brands," which would strengthen the company's ability to "deliver end-to-end franchise solutions to partners."WildBrain did have a 41% stake in the "Peanuts" franchise but sold it in December 2025 to Sony Pictures Entertainment and Sony Music Entertainment Japan for $460 million.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A group of Los Angeles residents are taking a stand against the latest effort in California to erase Christianity from public spaces.A nearly century-old, hand-carved 10-foot cross stands within a stone's throw of the birthplace of Los Angeles. While every year, over 2 million visitors pass the historic cross in El Pueblo, a self-identified "freedom of expression activist" unilaterally decided that the sight of the Christian symbol was too much to bear.'Los Angeles shouldn’t have to erase its own history every time someone takes offense.'Jack Gerritsen — a resident of Bell, California, who was convicted decades ago for interfering with police radio transmissions — sued the city last year, claiming that the cross and the nativity traditionally displayed in the Old Plaza during the Christmas season violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Gerritsen said that the nativity "offends [him] and makes [him] feel excluded as a non-believer," and the cross constitutes a "Christian endorsement on public land."Offended by the religious nature of the displays, Gerritsen — who appears to be behind a Facebook account that has demeaned Christianity, idolized the anti-Christian Marxist-Leninist Che Guvera, and made excuses for terrorists — joined Henry Frederick Ramey Jr., with whom he previously sued multiple regional authorities, in asking a federal court to order the removal of the cross and prohibit the city from ever again putting up the nativity. The two are also seeking $5 million in damages.The district court rejected their request.Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the lower court noted that because the cross was erected nearly a century ago, it met the "presumption of constitutionality" as "established" and "longstanding." The court also noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the cross was "maintained with discriminatory intent" or that it conveys deliberate disrespect on the basis of religion.While the court did not find that the nativity display was similarly "established," it recognized it as "part of a broader national tradition," "a central piece of a longstanding local cultural practice," and "consistent with this country's history." Therefore, the court determined, it does not violate the Establishment Clause.RELATED: The anti-Christian myth of First Amendment 'neutrality' Courtesy of Becket Fund for Religious LibertyThe plaintiffs kept the legal battle alive by appealing the ruling. Gerritsen did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Monday to permit a group of local merchants to join the case and defend the historic displays."For generations, the merchants of Olvera Street have kept the neighborhood‘s rich Mexican-American heritage alive," Andrea Butler, counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the merchants, said in a statement. "Now one observer wants to take down the parts of that heritage that include religion.""Thankfully, the First Amendment doesn’t include a third-party veto over history and culture merely because it acknowledges religion," added Butler.The Olvera Street Merchants Association Foundation is a nonprofit organization formed to protect and promote the traditional, historical, and cultural events in the area, whose members have a "significant protectable interest in the historical and cultural preservation of Olvera Street," Becket said in its motion. For starters, the foundation's board of directors "comprises merchants whose families have been part of the Olvera Street merchant community since its inception in 1930."Becket noted in its proposed intervenor-defendant's brief that "El Pueblo has been preserved as a State Historic Park and a National Historic District specifically to protect its historic and cultural heritage, dating back to the founding of Los Angeles itself. ... The displays at issue here are a key part of that heritage.""Los Angeles shouldn’t have to erase its own history every time someone takes offense," stated Butler. "The cross and nativity are woven into the fabric of El Pueblo. Nothing in the Constitution requires those traditions to be torn away. The city should be free to keep its full history, including the parts that happen to be religious."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The WNBA's Chicago Sky is taking Enes Kanter Freedom to task while once again avoiding the actual issue on everyone's mind.Freedom wore a T-shirt that read "WOMAN noun. adult human female" to the Chicago Sky vs. Indiana Fever game on Sunday, causing a stir that seemingly agitated one of the Sky players.'Most importantly, he took a step towards the court.'After a whistle in the third quarter, 34-year-old point guard Natasha Cloud began yelling at Freedom, who stood up and raised his arms in the air while taking a step toward the court. Cloud was irate as teammates ushered her away from the area, while Freedom was surrounded by security and subsequently ejected from the building.According to Sky principal owner Michael Alter, Freedom's presence near the court wasn't just a form of protest; it was tantamount to a threat."[Kanter Freedom] has demonstrated to us unequivocally that he has the potential to be a threat," Alter said while speaking to local Chicago media. "That he is not able to control himself to the extent where we can be comfortable that he may [not] step towards the court again and towards the players."Alter continued, saying the team has decided to ban him from Wintrust Arena in Chicago indefinitely."So that is the basis for which we will not permit him into the building until such time as he can prove otherwise."RELATED: WNBA star has mid-game meltdown at former NBA player wearing pro-women shirt: 'I think it triggered her' Michael Reaves/Getty Images The 6'-10" former NBA player had told Fox News that the he had exchanged text messages with Chicago general manager Jeff Pagliocca before the game to give him a heads-up that he planned to attend.Freedom said he told the GM he had no plans to disrupt the event and received the reply, "Enjoy the game."Alter called Freedom's framing of that exchange into question, ESPN reported, telling media members that Pagliocca only said, "Appreciate the text," and did not tell Freedom to enjoy the game or otherwise insinuate that the team was happy to have him."It was pretty clear to us that his purpose of coming here was trying to be provocative and just see how much attention he could get and stir up," Alter said.Alter went on to repeatedly suggest that Freedom is a potential security threat that was quelled by security."That all changed when he made a decision to stand up from his seat again, on the court, put his arms out, point a finger at the player on the court, Natasha Cloud," the owner said. "And most importantly, he took a step towards the court. That changed everything, and he went from being a fan ... to being a potential threat. And that is why the security acted as quickly and swiftly, very smoothly, as they did."RELATED: Former congressman sends warning to WNBA over blocking male player: Get ready for court Michael Reaves/Getty Images Alter, a commercial real estate developer, rejected Freedom's recent assertion that because he "did not step over the baseline," he was not breaking any rules.As if "that's some magical threshold," Alter said. "One reason he didn't cross the baseline was because he was prevented from doing so. But regardless of that, the security people's job is not to wait until a threat intensifies. It's to avoid the threat from happening when [a] perceived threat occurs, and that's exactly what they did."The owner further boasted that security "didn't wait" to see how far Freedom got.Freedom has not made public comment since the ban was announced on Tuesday night.Freedom and the Chicago Sky did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!