'Like Jesus, he is moved with great compassion'

Big Oil, baby

Not so fast

'Deliver'

Even a year later, it’s hard to wrap your head around the upside-down world of the Biden administration: The White House celebrated transgender ideology on Easter Sunday, your tax dollars funded the settlement of immigrants who broke the law to come here, and authorities turned to an Antifa-linked group whose “hate map” inspired an act of terror for advice on combatting domestic terrorism. I want to dwell on that last point, because I am testifying in Congress about it Tuesday, and I think it highlights the threats conservatives still face from an organization too many Democrats continue to trust. Among the many left-wing NGOs that called the shots in the Biden administration, the Southern Poverty Law Center stands out. This organization claims to monitor “hate” yet fosters animus against conservative Christians. It claims to support “inclusive education,” but demonizes moms and dads who want a say in what their children learn. It claims to oppose “extremism” yet refuses to condemn Antifa, even though agitators loosely connected with that movement caused the most destructive riots in U.S. history in 2020, riots that led to the deaths of at least 26 Americans. The SPLC sued Ku Klux Klan groups into bankruptcy but today, it puts mainstream conservative and Christian nonprofits on a “hate map” with Klan chapters, claiming to reveal the “infrastructure upholding white supremacy.” The SPLC uses the “hate map” for two goals: to scare donors into ponying up cash and to demonize its political opponents, narrowing the parameters of socially acceptable debate. If you oppose the SPLC’s agenda, you might just find yourself on the map. Do you support the enforcement of immigration law? You might be an “anti-immigrant hate group,” even if you have legal immigrants on your board. Do you oppose the grotesque medical interventions euphemistically described as “gender-affirming care?” You might be an “anti-LGBTQ hate group,” even if your organization consists of doctors. Do you oppose “drag queen story hour?” You might just be an “anti-LGBTQ hate group,” even if your membership is gay and lesbian. Inspiring… Well, Terrorism Of course, not everyone who sees the “hate map” knows it’s a fundraising ploy or a political weapon. In 2012, an LGBTQ activist saw the conservative Christian organization Family Research Council on the “hate map,” and decided he’d shoot everyone in the building. The building manager foiled his plan, and he’s now a convicted terrorist serving 25 years in prison. Earlier this year, the SPLC added Turning Point USA—the largest conservative youth grassroots organization in the country—to the “hate map.” The assassination of TPUSA Founder Charlie Kirk followed months later. The SPLC condemned both attacks—but has yet to remove either group from the “hate map.” Antifa While the SPLC’s former president condemned Antifa once in 2017, the group has repeatedly carried water for the violent movement. The “hate map,” for instance, includes the parental rights group Moms For Liberty as an “antigovernment extremist group,” but fails to include Antifa agitators, who have hurled Molotov cocktails at government buildings. The SPLC has minimized Antifa violence as “skirmishes and property crimes.” In 2023, authorities arrested an SPLC lawyer, charging him with domestic terrorism for his alleged role in an Antifa riot. The SPLC also hired a woman who had been described as “antifa’s secret weapon against far-right extremists.” According to researcher Jennica Pounds, better known as Data Republican, an internal Antifa document praises the SPLC as a “great resource” for tracking “fascists.” Domestic Terrorism Advice Yet when President Joe Biden took office, federal agencies reached out to the SPLC “to solicit” expertise “to help shape the policies” to “counter the domestic terrorism threat,” then-SPLC President Margaret Huang said in a 2021 donor meeting. The Biden White House hosted SPLC leaders and staff at least 18 times. The FBI cited the SPLC in its notorious memo on “radical-traditional Catholics.” Biden nominated SPLC attorney Nancy Abudu to a federal judgeship, and the White House touted the SPLC in its strategy to combat antisemitism. SPLC leaders also had close ties with the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, taking part in “quarterly meetings.” An SPLC staffer even spoke at a symposium for prosecutors, briefing them on the “anti-LGBTQ movement.” An Abiding Threat Conservatives often scoff at the SPLC, and a recent YouGov survey shows that the center has a negative 19% favorability rating among self-identified Republicans. Yet that same survey finds that 39% of Democrats view the group favorably, and the SPLC enjoys 8% favorability among U.S. adults. In other words, Biden is no longer president, and the Trump administration is excising the SPLC’s influence, but that doesn’t mean a future left-leaning administration won’t go right back to using the SPLC. The fact that our own government worked with a group that compares mainstream conservatives to the Klan just for the sin of disagreeing with the SPLC’s agenda, and that seems happy to look the other way on leftist street violence, should send a shiver down our spines. This group is contributing to the distrust and polarization of America, and it should be radioactive to both conservatives and liberals alike. The post UPSIDE-DOWN WORLD: Biden Admin Sought Domestic Terrorism Guidance From Leftist Group Linked to Antifa appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Irony: To Read 'The Free Press' in the UK, You Need to Submit ID to 'Protect Children'

On Friday’s Amanpour & Co. on PBS, simulcast on CNN International, alleged feminist and host Christiane Amanpour condemned a UK women’s group fighting for the rights of women to be safe in their own country from migrants who come from Islamic cultures where women are often not treated with respect. She claimed the “cheerful branding” of the Pink Ladies concealed a “much harsher message.” Amanpour skipped the problems of migrant rape in Europe, most notoriously the “grooming gang” scandal -- the underage sex trafficking scandals involving men of Pakistani origin in the United Kingdom. Mentioning that is "harsh"? CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: From the United States to France to the U.K., there's no denying this is a time of rising tensions over the issue of immigration. And here in England, one anti-migrant group seems to be building a base. It's called the Pink Ladies. But behind the cheerful branding is a much harsher message. Correspondent Jomana Karadsheh went to one of their rallies…. JOMANA KARADSHEH: Meet the Pink Ladies, a new face of Britain's growing anti-immigration movement. We went to one of their Pink protests just outside London to try and understand what this is all about. ORLA MINIHANE, ORGANIZER, THE PINK LADIES: We've got our own scumbags, our own predators and our own sex pests. We do not need to bring in more every day. Men from cultures that do not think like we do. Who treat women like third class citizens. And who think it's acceptable to marry eight- and nine-year-old girls. When there are no reasonable arguments to offer, the press can always try guilt by association with the “far right” to intimidate opponents into silence. KARADSHEH: This is not racism, they say. And they're not the far-right. But a lot of what we heard sounded an awful lot like the far-right's narrative. Does that label automatically disqualify their argument? Karadsheh seems to hope so. She also apparently had a quota to abuse the “far-right” epithet, employing it five times in the sub-four-minute segment, plus one “right-wing.” In contrast, the words "Muslim" or "Islamic" were absent. Their opponents were unlabeled "advocacy groups." KARADSHEH: Advocacy groups say exploiting the issue of violence against women and genuine safety concerns is a common far-right tactic. The Pink Ladies say they're grassroots. Women concerned about mass migration and what it means for their safety and the future of their country. Putting out catchy tunes like this one that market their agenda. This so far small group emerged a few months ago. At a time of rising tensions over migration, with the far-right seizing on that. KARADSHEH: A lot of people looking at what's happening in the U.K. from the outside. They might say that a lot of the things that you are saying are the talking points of the far-right. MINIHANE: What is far-right? Far-right is extremists. Far-left is extremism. How am I extremist? I'm just a mom who's worked her whole life. Who's bringing up three children. Who lives in suburbia. I don't want my daughter to be sexually assaulted by men that have come over to this country that we've got no background checks on. If that makes me a far-right, then there's something very concerning with the rhetoric, right? KARADSHEH (voice-over): That's Orla Minihane. She's a local candidate for the right-wing populist party Reform U.K. Amid this show of pink solidarity.... After letting the Pink Ladies have their say -- to a point -- Karadsheh unleashed one of the most pathetic media “gotchas” in recent memory, a level of flyspecking scrutiny that journalists would never apply to even the most audacious left-wing claims but which she called "twisted facts that go unchecked." KARADSHEH: The government doesn't publish detailed figures on crimes committed by asylum seekers, but there have been some high-profile cases that have put women and girls on edge. On top of that, there are the twisted facts that go unchecked. MINIHANE: These five women have died. Have been murdered at the hands of an illegal migrant catastrophe that this government is letting happen -- KARADSHEH: Except two of the suspects in these five horrific murder cases are British nationals. But for Laura and others what they heard here was enough for them to make up their minds. Those two "British nationals" were left unidentified, so their actual immigration background and status remains unknown. In any case, what a perverse terrain on which to defend the innocence of migrants. According to her CNN bio, Karadsheh grew up in Amman, Jordan and studied at the Lebanese American University in Beirut.

The left-wing dark money behemoth Arabella Advisors may have just dissolved, but that hasn’t stopped outlets from spewing its anti-Trump propaganda whenever they get the chance. Take this headline: Tis the Season for Price Hikes: Popular Holiday Gifts Climb 26 Percent Under Trump Of course, the study was laced with cherry-picked figures to bolster its narrative, but don’t expect the media to be forthcoming about it or its explicit left-wing bias. Politico, the New York Post and NPR-affiliate Buffalo Toronto Public Media (BTPM) were like bees buzzing around honey over the supposed findings of a study spearheaded by Groundwork Collaborative, a leftist policy group fiscally-sponsored by the George Soros-financed New Venture Fund, which was until November 2025 managed by Arabella Advisors, before the latter’s rebrand to Sunflower Services. The group is notoriously anti-Trump. The terms “Arabella Advisors” and “New Venture Fund” were never disclosed within any of the aforementioned outlets’ reporting on Groundwork’s so-called “analysis.” The Soros empire has poured at least $88,704,062 into New Venture Fund’s coffers between 2016 and 2024, further emphasizing the blatant bias that undergirds the network in which Groundwork operates. Another of Arabella’s Soros-funded nonprofits, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, spent $410 million to defeat former President Donald Trump in the 2020 election. And one of the Sixteen Thirty Fund’s radical pet projects, Fix Our Senate, was behind a push to kill the Senate filibuster. Seems like important context, doesn’t it? Apparently not for the media that mindlessly regurgitated Groundwork’s talking points.  Post reporter Lisa Fickenscher proclaimed December 10 that “Holiday gifts are 26% more expensive this year thanks to tariffs — these presents will hit your wallet the most.” Fickenscher snarked in her lede sentence, “Prices for holiday gifts are going through the roof this year — and it’s thanks to President Trump’s tariffs, according to a report.” Fickenscher mentioned nothing about Groundwork’s left-wing bias or that it is part of the insidious Arabella network. Politico also shoe-horned Groundwork’s findings into its December 11 Playbook roundup as if it was an established fact: “The latest report from Groundwork Collaborative out today has prices up 26 percent this holiday season.” BTPM also wielded Groundwork’s propaganda to fear-monger that the findings would lead “to tough decisions for people in the checkout line.” Once again, neither Arabella nor the New Venture Fund were mentioned. Groundwork based its entire thesis on just 70 gift recommendations from New York magazine’s "Strategist" guide based on prices taken from Amazon listings for each item to claim overall holiday prices increased 26 percent from 2024 under President Donald Trump’s tariff agenda. Here are some of the glaring issues: First, Amazon uses a dynamic pricing algorithm which “continuously changes prices” based on a number of factors outside underlying costs, according to the Sellbery blog. In fact, Sellbery noted that “the tags on the [Amazon] products may alter up to 20% a few times a day.” This doesn’t really do much for maintaining reliable data, especially if the goal was to screech how prices were just generally rising under Trump. Secondly, the Strategist guide Groundwork wielded is not necessarily reflective of the broader holiday economy. For example, Groundwork claimed that apparel and footwear are seeing major price hikes as a result of Trump’s tariffs. But according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the latest data on record (September) shows that apparel prices have in fact decreased -0.1 percent year-over-year. So take your pick: official BLS data or some random sample of volatile Amazon prices between November 2024 and November 2025? Heartland Institute Vice president Justin Haskins even noted in a November 19 Hill op-ed that “So far, Trump’s tariffs are not driving inflation. In fact, some goods that are affected by tariffs have actually become more affordable.” He continued, “That doesn’t mean tariffs won’t cause higher prices in the months or years ahead. But right now, that’s not what’s happening.”  Unsurprisingly, Groundwork’s analysis doesn’t even tell the whole story about the holiday economy, and why would it? Groundwork claimed based on polling from left-wing organization Data for Progress, another Soros grantee, that 41 percent of Americans were buying fewer gifts this year to soften the blow from the price hikes. But as The National Retail Foundation projected in November (figures) that retail sales would explode 3.7 percent to 4.2 percent in the final two months of the year over 2024. In fact, the NRF estimated, “That translates to total spending between $1.01 trillion and $1.02 trillion. By comparison, last year’s holiday sales rose 4.3% over 2023 to reach $976.1 billion.” NRF President Matthew Shay praised how American consumers “remain fundamentally strong and continue to drive U.S. economic activity.” Though NRF Chief Economist Mark Mathews claimed tariffs “induced an uptick in consumer prices,” he caveated that by arguing that “retailers have tried to hold the line on prices given the uncertainty about trade policies.” The NRF’s survey for the projected average consumer spending on holiday gifts, food, decorations and other seasonal items per person was $890.49. “The amount is the second highest in the survey’s 23-year history,” NRF concluded. Oof. Apparently media outlets forgot what the meaning of a “reliable source” is. 

In covering this weekend’s deadly anti-Semitic terror attack in Australia, ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today engaged in a throwback of sorts on Monday to past terror attacks in Europe by refusing to refer to the attack as having been committed by two Islamists who may have been followers of the Islamic State (ISIS). Instead, they insisted the attack was “targeted...terrorism” by two men “motivated by extremist ideology” though authorities “have not yet revealed a motive.” Starting with ABC’s Good Morning America, co-host Robin Roberts teased coverage of “[t]error on the first night of Hanukkah” with 15 dead in an attack by “two shooters...targeting the Jewish community[.]” Atlanta-based correspondent Faith Abubey was sent to cover this one and ensure radical Islam was nowhere to be found on the airwaves. She started by saying there’s “[h]orror and heartbreak here in Australia” following “the worst mass shooting in the country in nearly 30 years and...a targeted act of terrorism on the Jewish community” and only partway through did she vaguely mention the perpetrators were “a 50-year-old father and 24-year-old son.” The last 30 seconds was the only mention of motive, which she insisted was still unknown as per Australian law enforcement: ABC's Faith Abubey, on Monday's 'Good Morning America,' in Sydney, Australia: "As for the suspect, authorities say one of the them was a licensed gun owner with six firearms, but they have not yet revealed a motive." Robin Roberts: "We will find it out ahead." pic.twitter.com/02CTMayfAq — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 15, 2025   If only there’s a particular ideology that explicitly states its goal is to eradicate Jews and filled with widespread Holocaust denial. The second-half hour yielded a Sydney-adjacent story with chief investigative correspondent Aaron Katersky also declining to speculate on the kinds of people who were why security was being beefed up around New York City Hanukkah celebrations: Incredible. 15 minutes after saying the motive in the Australia Hanukkah shooting was unknown, ABC's 'Good Morning America' has a report about added security for Hanukkah celebrations in New York City b/c NYPD Commissioner Tisch said what happened was "part of a wider assault on… pic.twitter.com/krR84oBeaT — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 15, 2025   NBC’s Today wasn’t any better. Down in Sydney, former correspondent Sara James — who lives in Australia and serves as the head of the Fulbright scholarships there — started her report with this remarkably bad open: NBC’s ‘Today’ says the Bondi Beach shooting at a Hanukkah celebration was done by a father and son “motivated by extremist ideology” but “there’s no evidence of any wider collusion” even though one “had come up in a previous investigation in 2019” pic.twitter.com/hWDG683B5j — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 15, 2025   James ended by touting Australia’s desire to enact more gun control as a response with only “a prominent Jewish leader” instead emphasizing the need for more protection of Jews: NBC correspondent Sara James in Australia, reporting on the Hanukkah massacre: “Some here asking how the alleged gunman amassed an arsenal in a country famous for strict gun control. Australia’s prime minister today says laws may need to be even tougher and that more will need… pic.twitter.com/eQaMtSl6jK — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 15, 2025   CBS Mornings, in contrast, provided both extensive coverage (nine minutes and 35 seconds) but also moral clarity. Hong Kong-based correspondent Anna Coren made the trip south and, in her first report, she emphasized the bravery of bystander Ahmed al-Ahmed fighting back against one of the gunmen and stealing his gun. Her other point was the motive as Coren correctly laid bare the Jewish community’s belief an incident such as their was inevitable given the state of Albanese’s government: Moral clarity on ‘CBS Mornings’ in covering the anti-Semitic terror attack in Australia. Correspondent Anna Coren said “many in the Jewish community feared it was only a matter of time, with synagogues fire bombed and vandalized since the October 7 attacks” and are “extremely… pic.twitter.com/VFxsEStAyG — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 15, 2025   In the second half-hour, the co-hosts interviewed survivors Wayne and Vanessa Miller, who were briefly separated from their three-year-old daughter during the melee. Co-host Tony Dokoupil asked them about the fact that Vanessa reportedly wondered as they were arriving at Bondi Beach if such a public celebration of Hanukkah was safe and especially because, as Vanessa told Dokoupil, “there were only two policemen there” for an event that drew hundreds. Dokoupil pulled on that string: “I think Jews in many communities around the world understand exactly what you mean for that question, but for people outside the community, why does that kind of concern come to mind?” The Miller’s unloaded on Albanese and the Australian government: Powerful moment on Monday’s ‘CBS Mornings’ when incoming ‘Evening News’ anchor @TonyDokoupil asked two survivors of the Bondi Beach anti-Semitic terror attack about why Jews so often worry about their security. Wayne and Vanessa Miller replied that, in Australia, it’s because of… pic.twitter.com/wwQaMiYte7 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 15, 2025   Dokoupil had the lead-in for a Coren report in the second hour, stating the simple fact that the gunmen “picked this site deliberately because they were targeting Jews.” Coren rehashed her piece from the first hour, reiterating the al-Ahmed’s bravery as “an act of heroism that undoubted[ly] saved lives” and the disgust from Australia’s Jewish community at their own government for playing footsie with anti-Semitism. To see the relevant transcripts from December 15, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

Our world stands at a civilizational crossroads. Again. Nations must decide whether they intend to live in the 21st century or the seventh century. That choice may sound melodramatic, but anyone watching events in the Middle East, across Europe, and increasingly inside the United States understands the stakes.On the eve of Thanksgiving in Washington, D.C., two National Guard troops were shot by a Muslim jihadist shouting “Allahu Akbar.” One of the soldiers, a young woman from West Virginia, later died. The other survived but has a long road of recovery ahead. Americans once again asked how such an attack could occur in the nation’s capital.The choice is not between peace and war. It is between confronting an ideology that sanctifies domination or allowing it to advance unchecked under the cover of pluralism.The answer begins with ideology.Jihadist doctrine divides the world into two irreconcilable spheres: Dar al-Islam, the “House of Islam,” and Dar al-Harb, the “House of War.” The House of Islam consists of territories governed by Islamic law. The House of War includes every land not under Sharia. That category encompasses Israel, Europe, the United States, and vast portions of Africa and Asia.For jihadists, this division is not theoretical. The ultimate objective is global submission to Islamic rule. The methods vary. Demographics, migration, political participation, and violence all qualify as legitimate tools of jihad, depending on circumstances.Modern Sunni jihadist ideology draws heavily from Sayyid Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood theorist whose book “Milestones” remains foundational. Qutb argued that Muslims should adapt their strategy based on their position within a society. When weak or outnumbered, they should emulate Muhammad’s early period in Mecca, focusing on persuasion and coalition-building. As power grows, they should advance to the next stage, asserting political authority and preparing for dominance.That framework explains why jihadist movements operate differently across regions. We see the political phase at work in Western cities and institutions, including London, New York City, and Dearborn, Michigan. We see the violent phase in Israel, Nigeria, Europe, and parts of the Middle East.Qutb held that the Quran justifies violence against non-Islamic governments. That claim draws on classical Islamic jurisprudence and has been codified in influential texts. Sunni and Shia jihadist groups alike act on this logic.Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran’s Islamic regime wage war against Israel under its banner. Jihadist violence devastates Christian communities in Nigeria. Terror attacks across Europe and the United States follow the same ideological thread.The question is not whether this ideology exists. The question is how nations respond.Governments and citizens must decide whether they will confront a violent, medieval worldview or accommodate it in the name of tolerance and stability. That choice applies both abroad and at home.Some regimes have already chosen regression. Iran’s rulers prioritize hatred of Israel over the welfare of their own people. The country’s severe water crisis stems not from natural scarcity but from ideological fixation and mismanagement driven by revolutionary dogma.In Gaza, support for Hamas continues to rise. In Judea and Samaria, Hamas cells plot new attacks. Hezbollah smuggles weapons through Syria while Lebanon’s leaders face a stark decision: Embrace modern statehood or remain trapped in perpetual conflict.American policy toward the region often sends mixed signals. The proposed sale of F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and its elevation to major non-NATO ally status were promoted as diplomatic successes. Yet the real measure will come in actions, not assurances. Will Saudi Arabia confront jihadist networks within its borders? Will it normalize relations with Israel? Or will it offer symbolic gestures while tolerating extremism?Qatar presents an even sharper test. Through Al Jazeera, it shapes anti-Western narratives across the region. It has funded or enabled radical activism abroad and provided safe haven to Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood leaders. Any serious strategy against jihadist ideology must address Qatar’s role directly.President Trump took a step in that direction by issuing an executive order calling for the designation of Muslim Brotherhood chapters as “foreign terrorist organizations.” That order, however, excluded the International Union of Muslim Brotherhood, based in Qatar, and U.S.-based Brotherhood-linked organizations, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations.RELATED: Political Islam is playing the long game — America isn’t even playing Photo by John Moore/Getty ImagesFlorida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) went farther last week by designating CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood as foreign terrorist organizations under state authority. That move reflects a growing recognition that ideological warfare does not stop at America’s borders.The West must choose whether it will dismantle Muslim Brotherhood networks domestically and demand that its allies do the same. It must decide whether it will confront Iran, which remains the central destabilizing force in the region. Five months after a U.S. strike on Iranian targets, the regime continues to threaten Israel, the Gulf states, and Western interests.These decisions carry consequences beyond diplomacy. They shape the world our children inherit.The choice is not between peace and war. It is between confronting an ideology that sanctifies domination and violence or allowing it to advance unchecked under the cover of pluralism. The path forward demands clarity, resolve, and an honest reckoning with reality.The century we choose will determine whether the future belongs to modernity and peace or to ancient grievances enforced by terror.