After learning that their beloved high school custodian did not have a car of his own, a girls volleyball team started fundraising so they could provide one—and the surprise moment captured on video couldn’t have been more wholesome. For years, Abel Rodriguez has been a huge supporter of the athletic programs at Community High School […] The post Girls Volleyball Team Buys Beloved Custodian a Car to Repay Him for All He’s Done–Watch the Texas-Sized Surprise appeared first on Good News Network.

Zohran Mamdani is the future of the Democratic Party and there is little the Democrat establishment can do to stop it. Most Americans are undoubtedly tired of hearing about New York and the socialist currently leading the city’s mayoral race, but what happens in the Big Apple may unfortunately affect the whole country. New York held its first debate Thursday night between three leading candidates: Andrew Cuomo, Curtis Sliwa, and Mamdani. You can read my night-of analysis here. But I have one additional takeaway from the debate and race as a whole. The reason Mamdani, who is a state assemblyman and is backed by the Democratic Socialists of America, has captured so much attention from the media is that he very much represents the zeitgeist of the evolving Democrat base. What has struck me about Mamdani from the beginning is not simply his radicalism, but his open radicalism. Sure, he’s modulated some of his positions from the heady, revolutionary days of 2020. He no longer publicly says that the NYPD is a threat to public safety or puts photos of himself on social media flipping off Christopher Columbus statues. He’s wiggled his way out of talking about the issues that he and virtually everyone on the Left supports when in power. But his policy positions remain very much to the Left of what the Democratic Party would admit it supports. And it couldn’t be clearer that he’s a true believer. Mamdani’s radicalism is hiding in plain sight. Government-run grocery stores? Mamdani’s all for it. I’m sure he’ll have a slick video for the first grand opening on social media. Free city bus rides? Don’t worry, the “rich” will pay and it will cause crime to go down. After all, fare evasion isn’t a crime if the bus is free, right? Don’t call it defunding the police, call it funding social workers who will surely make the crime issue on the subway go away. All these terrible ideas have been tried—some even have been tried in New York—but Mamdani’s young base likely doesn’t know or care about that. Make no mistake, Mamdani is woke on all the cultural issues too. His most dedicated staffers and supporters are DSA members looking to seize power by any means necessary. It would be a mistake to think their only goals are seizing the means of production and giving handouts to their constituents. Most importantly of all in terms of what Mamdani represents, the Democrat base wants someone who will “resist” President Donald Trump no matter what. If you want to understand the Democrat shutdown strategy, look no further than Mamdani. It was not too long ago that the assemblyman started making a name for himself by screaming belligerently at Trump’s Border Czar Tom Homan over the arrest of Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil. Khalil, a Palestinian refugee has become a martyr of sorts for the Left despite or more likely because of his support for Hamas. Mamdani leads a Green-Red coalition that more openly embraces socialists and Islamists than the previous Democratic Party iterations would have acknowledged. And this very much works in the modern age given the collapse of the Democratic Party establishment. The Democrat base doesn’t want moderation, they want confrontation, they want theatrics. They don’t want “abundance” for all, they want to soak their enemies to give to their friends. They want blood, in most cases rhetorical, in some cases literal. Mamdani gives the base what they want, even if his policies ultimately differ very little from the supposedly “moderate” Democrat establishment. Think of it this way. The tussles on college campuses between protesters and university leadership are very much like the battles taking place within the Democratic Party. The activists and the base make a ruckus, and the leaders shift a little to the Left to appease them. This tug leftward continues over and over again until the “establishment” of today is like the anti-establishment Left of yesterday. Mamdani represents a triumph of the activist Left over a tired Democrat establishment that can no longer justify itself. In a practical political sense, the current establishment has proven to be a loser. The country is no longer looking for Biden-ism or Cuomo-ism. The American people saw through the fraud. So instead of putting forth a “moderate” candidate and trying to slip in the radicalism once in power, they are going for a more strident form of leftism. Bernie Sander-ism, but in a younger, slicker, Millennial package. Whether this works outside the bluest cities and states is an open question. But it does represent a serious change in American politics, and potentially a very dangerous one. At the very least the old Democrat establishment would “evolve” a bit when in danger of losing support and getting mugged by reality, or more precisely, angry voters. The new upstarts aren’t phased by reality. They will adopt the most leftwing position and stick with it, no matter the results or repercussions. Once in power, are they likely to let it go? Mamdani represents an uncompromising, ruthless version of the Left that won’t be deterred by reality, political or otherwise. If he wins, this will become a model used elsewhere. That Mamdani may become the next mayor of New York is a threat not just to New Yorkers, but the whole country. The post Mamdani Represents the Zeitgeist of the Militant Democrat Base. He’s a Dangerous Man. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Three national labor unions, the American Federation of Teachers, the Communications Workers of America, and the United Auto Workers, have joined forces under the representation of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to sue the Trump administration.  They argue that a government-run social media monitoring program violates the First Amendment rights of visa holders in the United States. Filed in federal court in New York, the lawsuit demands that the administration halt what it calls “viewpoint-based investigation and surveillance” and erase all records collected through the initiative.  We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here. The plaintiffs say the policy targets lawful residents and visitors based on their online opinions, punishing dissent and discouraging political speech. The case stems from directives introduced earlier this year. President Donald Trump’s January executive order called for closer scrutiny of noncitizens who “bear hostile attitudes” or pose “threats to our national security.” The Department of Homeland Security later confirmed that officials were reviewing social media posts to identify individuals expressing antisemitic or anti-American views. EFF and the unions argue that the program’s reach extends far beyond violent or extremist speech.  The unions allege their members now hesitate to express opinions online, fearing immigration penalties for statements the government may find objectionable. Lisa Femia, a staff attorney with EFF, said the administration’s use of artificial intelligence heightens concerns about free expression. “They’re deploying a variety of automated and AI tools to scan and review speech online, at a mass scale that wouldn’t be possible with human review alone,” she explained.  “This sweeps in a lot of speech. A lot of this is core political speech that is absolutely protected by the First Amendment.” More: US Visa Applicants’ Online Speech Surveillance Puts US Citizens’ Speech and Data at Risk The complaint describes the surveillance as a joint effort between the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security designed to “detect disfavored viewpoints” and “coerce silence.”  It argues that the program violates both the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, which sets limits on how federal agencies operate. State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott defended the policy, saying, “The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that aliens do not have the same First Amendment rights as American citizens.  “The United States is under no obligation to allow foreign aliens to come to our country, commit acts of anti-American, pro-terrorist, and antisemitic hate, or incite violence. We will continue to revoke the visas of those who put the safety of our citizens at risk.” *** Several court rulings over the past century have indicated that the First Amendment restrains the federal government from imposing any burden on free speech, and so protections are not limited to US citizens but also extend to foreign nationals who are physically present in the country.  One of the earliest and most influential cases is Bridges v. Wixon (1945). In that case, the Supreme Court overturned the deportation of an Australian-born labor activist accused of communist sympathies.  The Court ruled that the government could not remove a noncitizen for engaging in speech or association protected by the First Amendment, emphasizing that constitutional guarantees apply to “all persons within the territory of the United States,” not only to citizens. Subsequent cases reinforced that principle. In Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding (1953), the Court held that a lawful permanent resident returning from a brief trip abroad retained constitutional protections, including due process and free expression rights.  The justices made clear that once an individual is inside US borders under lawful status, the government cannot arbitrarily strip away their constitutional safeguards. Later, in Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), the Court addressed whether the government could deny entry to a foreign scholar invited to speak at American universities because of his political views.  While the Court ultimately upheld the denial on narrow grounds of executive discretion over entry, it did not dispute that noncitizens already inside the country enjoy First Amendment protections.  The decision also reaffirmed that US citizens have a constitutional interest in hearing and engaging with foreign speakers. Regardless of the issue of free speech, there’s a privacy element to such mass speech scanning that was also used by the Biden administration. His administration quietly preserved much of the same social media monitoring infrastructure that had been introduced during the previous years. In many ways, Biden expanded it, not for immigration enforcement but his own agendas. The lawsuit frames the case as a major test of how far federal agencies can go in scanning and analyzing online speech. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Unions Sue Trump Administration Over AI-Driven Social Media Surveillance appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

The Glamour of Sin: Sunday Reflection

Hillary Faceplants Over Her Own RAGE Shrieking About Trump's Latest AI-Generated MASTERPIECE and WAAANH

ELEVENTY BILLION PEOPLE! X Has HELLA FUN at the Left's Expense Mocking No Kings Rally Size With Pics

For users of OpenAI's ChatGPT Plus technology, there's a straightforward way to determine if you can save 50% on your monthly subscription cost.

After President Donald Trump rebuked "RINO" Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., for voting with Democrats to keep the government shut down and for working to obstruct Trump's use of military force on drug boats in the Caribbean, Paul attempted to make peace Sunday.

U.S. forces attacked a drug-smuggling vessel on Friday and killed three people, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said on Sunday, alleging that the boat was affiliated to a Colombian guerrilla group."The vessel was known by our intelligence to be involved in illicit narcotics...

A new photonics chip that generates multicolored laser beams could supercharge data center technology and ease the strain of AI's surging data demands.