Yesterday, we told you about the massive fraud happening in Minnesota. The Somali population is fleecing Minnesota taxpayers of billions and sending it back to Somalia. Today, President Trump announced…

The post Tiktoker Who Celebrated Charlie Kirk’s Assassination is Crashing Out appeared first on SALTY.

Young's age and background – things that might seem like disadvantages when it comes to more established industries – have become his secret weapons. When he walks into a room of executives twice or three times his age, he says, there's initial skepticism. "Who the hell is this young guy and how does he know what he's talking about?"

Scandalous. The post Which artists have had their Grammys revoked? first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Barack Obama and Donald Trump sat together in a cozy section of the Oval Office to discuss the transition of power between them. In a familiar ritual meant to reassure the nation, the two men shook hands, smiled for the cameras, and chatted amiably. Meanwhile, Michelle sipped tea with Melania before a tour of the White House.  Left unmentioned were the details of Crossfire Hurricane, an ongoing FBI investigation into the top members of the Trump team for Russian collusion, a souped-up charge backed up with gruel-thin evidence. Obama had greenlit the investigation months earlier during the campaign. Also unmentioned was the expulsion of Russian diplomats by Obama, allegedly for interference in the recent election in favor of Trump, a charge that Obama knew to be false. The expulsion created an international incident and cast doubt on the legitimacy of Trump’s electoral victory. The Russia Hoax would undermine the Trump administration for four years and ultimately lead to his first impeachment. (RELATED: A Cliff Note Guide to Russiagate: The Hillary Coverup) In a spirit of cordiality, Obama alerted Trump to the most dangerous people who kept him up at night: North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung and Michael Flynn, top intelligence advisor to Trump. But this meeting was all sunshine and rainbows. In a spirit of cordiality, Obama alerted Trump to the most dangerous people who kept him up at night: North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung and Michael Flynn, top intelligence advisor to Trump. Michael Flynn? The decorated three-star general, who served three years in Afghanistan, appointed by Obama to lead intelligence at the Defense Department, confirmed twice by the Senate, who had received a top security clearance only ten months earlier under the Obama administration? That Michael Flynn? If he were the most serious threat to the nation, the entire American project was in jeopardy. (RELATED: John Brennan’s ‘Intelligence Bombshell’ That Likely Never Was) What had Flynn done to earn the enmity of his Commander in Chief, who had once elevated him to the highest levels of U.S. intelligence? Quite a bit, it turns out. Flynn had witnessed a generation of American intelligence failures: fake body counts in Vietnam, the unexpected collapse of the Soviet Union, 9/11, imaginary weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Flynn spotted a major weakness in the flow of data through the War Department: local information wound its way through the bureaucracy where it was parsed, edited, and returned to the field, far too late to be of any use. By then, the terrorists had moved on. Flynn shortened the lines of communication and shared the results quickly with in-country commanders. Qualitative knowledge about the culture, the tribes, the personalities outweighed quantitative data about troops, movements, body counts, and Pentagon spin. The results were extraordinary and pleased the troops on the ground. The spreadsheet jockeys in three-letter agencies? Not so much. The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam, Michael Flynn. But that was not Flynn’s biggest offense. Based on his tour in Afghanistan, Flynn felt that the United States was losing the war and could do much, much better. He said so publicly in Congressional testimony. Obama thought the war was going well enough to banish the words “Islamic terror” from the language. Obama took exception to Flynn’s testimony and fired him.  In civilian life, Flynn ramped up his criticism of Obama’s Middle East policies, particularly the overtures to Iran. By the time he joined the Trump campaign, Flynn presented a credible (if alien) alternative to Obama’s happy narrative that all was well in the region. Of more immediate concern, Flynn would, as a senior intelligence officer of the Trump administration, be in a perfect position to expose the embarrassing details of the Russia Hoax orchestrated by Hillary Clinton and Obama himself. The two had plotted with impunity back in the days when few gave Trump a chance to win and even fewer worried about getting caught. Flynn absolutely had to go; the sooner the better.  Here’s how they got him. July 2016. James Comey, FBI Director, opens the Crossfire Razor operation to investigate Flynn, largely based on his 2015 speaking engagement in Moscow, where Putin shook his hand for 10 seconds and then left the room. (Note that Flynn, who owned his own consulting company at the time, followed protocols and immediately debriefed the intel community about his trip.) (RELATED: The Police State of James Comey) November 2016. Ignoring Obama’s advice, Trump appointed Flynn as his National Security Advisor, the top intelligence official in his administration. December 2016. Obama created an international incident by throwing Russian diplomats out of the country, supposedly for their interference in the 2016 election. This charge was later proven false, leaving some (including me) to speculate that Obama expelled the Russians to cast doubt on the validity of the Trump victory at the polls and undermine his administration before it even started. December 2016. As designated NSA Director, Flynn arranged many calls with Trump and world leaders, who were anxious to open up a line of communication with Trump, a common practice in every presidential transition. In one call, Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S., conveyed the anger in Moscow over the expulsion of the diplomats: Kislyak:  understand what you’re saying, but you know, you appreciate the sentiments that are raging now in Moscow . Flynn: I know , I — believe me, do appreciate it, I very much appreciate it. But I really don’t want us to get into a situation where we’re going, you know, where we do this and then you do something bigger, and then you know, everybody’s to go back and forth and everybody’s got to be the tough guy here, you know? We don’t need to, we don’t need that right now, we need to cool heads to prevail, and uh, and we need to be very steady about what we’re going to do because we have absolutely a common uh, threat in the Middle East right now Kislyak: We agree. Transcripts of call between Flynn and Kislyak released by CIA Director John Ratcliffe to Senator Charles Grassley, May 29, 2020. December 2016–January 2017. As part of Crossfire Razor, the FBI monitored the conversations of Flynn and Kislyak.  January 2017. Comey asked Peter Strzok (a well-documented Trump hater, who personally initiated Crossfire Hurricane) to interview Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak. Since Strzok already knew the content of these calls from the wiretap, the interview was clearly a perjury trap, an attempt to catch Flynn in a lie. This was confirmed by notes taken by the FBI before the interview: “What is our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”  Strzok explored the use of the Logan Act, a law enacted in 1799 to prevent private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. Only two people have ever been indicted (none convicted) due to the questionable constitutionality of the law. As the designated NSA director (not a private citizen), the Logan Act clearly did not apply to Flynn. Nevertheless, in an internal meeting, the FBI raised the possible use of the Logan Act against Flynn.   “If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ + have them decide.” January 2017. Strzok’s assistant documented the interview with Flynn in an FBI Form 302, where he reported that Flynn did not lie to him. Comey admitted this later in Congressional testimony. The FBI decided to close out Crossfire Razor because there was no evidence of Russian collusion. January–February 2017. Strzok overrode the field decision to shut down Crossfire Razor.  Strzok edited the original Form 302 with the “assistance” of senior FBI management. This revised document became the critical evidence used to charge Flynn with lying to the FBI. The original Form 302 has never been found. February 2017. Flynn briefed Vice President Pence on various intelligence matters and was heavily criticized for not being entirely forthcoming, as if the nation’s top spy should always be honest and open about national security affairs. February 2017. Transitional Attorney General (and Obama appointee) Sally Yates advised Trump that Flynn is a national security threat because the Russians might blackmail him, a highly improbable charge that assumed anyone would believe anything that the Russians might have to say on the matter. Comey himself later said in Congressional testimony that blackmail was “a bit of a reach.”  February 2017. Nevertheless, Flynn, caught in the resulting media storm, resigned his position as National Security Advisor. May 2017. Crossfire Razor rolled into the Mueller investigation. Special investigators pressured Flynn with the archaic Logan Act and their old standby — lying to the FBI. Mueller applied further pressure by threatening Flynn and his son with failure to register as foreign agents during the time that Flynn ran his consulting business. Note that Flynn’s son only handled low-level administrative tasks at the firm. December 2017. Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI, largely to protect his son. All other potential charges were dropped. January 2018–May 2019. Department of Justice reneges on the plea agreement and pushes for serious jail time. The two sides battled over the terms of Flynn’s plea deal for 17 months. June 2019. Flynn fired his counsel, Covington and Burling, and hired Sydney Powell, who demanded to see the underlying evidence used by the FBI to charge Flynn. The FBI files reveal exculpatory evidence that was illegally withheld from Flynn’s counsel, including the FBI plan to entrap Flynn as noted above. (Fun fact: Eric Holder and three of his associates from Covington and Burling ran the Obama Justice Department.) January 2020. In light of the new evidence, Flynn withdrew his guilty plea. Presiding judge and Obama appointee Emmet Sullivan refused to accept the plea change. May 2020. Attorney General William Barr ordered an independent investigation of the Flynn case, including the predication of Crossfire Razor. After reviewing the results, Barr orders the Department of Justice to dismiss the case against Flynn because there never was any reason to investigate Flynn in the first place, the same conclusion reached by the FBI before Strzok altered the Form 302 way back in January 2017. May 2020. Sullivan refused to accept the dismissal ordered by the attorney general of the United States. With no prosecutor in sight, Sullivan appointed his own and became, in effect, both judge and prosecutor. In a highly unusual legal maneuver, Sullivan sued to defend his dual role. After a three-judge panel ruled against Sullivan, he successfully petitioned the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear his case. Sullivan’s recalcitrance is difficult to justify on legal grounds. It is, perhaps, easier to understand from a political viewpoint: he wanted the case to drag on through the election. November 2020. Trump lost the election and pardoned Flynn. November 2020. Sullivan refused to recognize the presidential pardon and waited another 13 days to dismiss the case.  December 2020. After four torturous years of FBI investigation, false charges, questionable counsel, unrelenting political, judicial, and media pressure, a financially bankrupt Flynn is finally freed. What to make of this? Flynn was a successful general who served his country loyally and competently for 33 years. But he exposed the fallacy that all was well in the Middle East, that the mullahs of Iran were really the good guys, that Obama, the world-striding statesman, had achieved a lasting peace in the region. As we now know, none of this was true. Iran reignited the Middle East on October 7 with a three-pronged assault on Israel from the north, west, and south. The mullahs stepped up their efforts to develop a nuclear bomb. Iran threw in with China and Russia to revive the axis of evil. Obama got taken. Flynn was the first to see it and call it out. He paid a steep price for his courage. But the persecution of Michael Flynn cannot just be attributed to another thin-skinned ex-president, overly agitated about his legacy. Flynn threatened the core of the military-industrial-surveillance complex. He argued against forever wars. He proved that smaller dedicated teams of intelligence professionals could run circles around larger, slow-witted, and politically compromised bureaucracies. That was his true crime. This was never about lying to the FBI, or the Logan Act, or failure to register as a foreign agent. It was always about crushing a truthful man who stood up to the Deep State. READ MORE from Kevin Brady: The Police State of James Comey A Cliff Note Guide to Russiagate: The Hillary Coverup

The cornerstone of the American project is the principle of justice administered under the Rule of Law. Our civic allegiance is not to a monarch, a tribal leader, a church canon, or any specific religious doctrine, but to the Constitution and the rich legal system that flows from the Western tradition. This essential truth has been under threat from an abhorrent and highly destructive development, which has been exacerbated in recent decades by the challenges of mass migration and failed assimilation policies: the proliferation of private religious arbitration centers, most commonly known as Sharia Councils. We must call these councils what they are: centers that host a parallel legal system operating simultaneously with federal and state law within the sovereign jurisdiction of the United States. Proponents and apologists for these centers shield them from scrutiny by claiming the religious protections guaranteed by the First Amendment. This is a dangerous and, quite frankly, idiotic conflation of categories that commingles mosque and state. We must call these councils what they are: centers that host a parallel legal system operating simultaneously with federal and state law within the sovereign jurisdiction of the United States. Sharia Councils seek to adjudicate matters of civil and family law — including domestic disputes, divorce, custody, financial obligations, and contracts. To defend the Rule of Law and the rights of every citizen (especially the vulnerable women and children these systems often abuse), these quasi-judicial centers must be prohibited. Legal Usurpation This is not a theoretical problem; the operation of these councils results in documented injustice across Western jurisdictions. In the United States, my home of North Texas became host to the nation’s very first formal Islamic tribunal in 2015, established to handle cases involving divorce and business disputes. (RELATED: A Texas City’s Quiet Claim to Islamic Territory) Investigative reporting and evidence presented to Parliament in the U.K. revealed instances of Sharia councils pressuring Muslim women to return to, or stay in, abusive marriages by attempting to mediate domestic violence cases, sweeping criminal matters under the rug, and failing to inform victims of their rights to police protection. Moreover, studies show that Sharia arbitration tribunals handle proportionally far more domestic violence cases than civil courts, indicating they are positioned as a substitute for national legal protection. (RELATED: Western Nations Are Ceding Sovereignty to Sharia Councils) Moreover, Former Home Secretary Theresa May cited evidence of women being “divorced” under Sharia law without civil recognition, leaving them deprived of their rightful assets, child custody, and more. In specific inheritance arbitration cases, councils applied Sharia principles, resulting in men receiving double the financial share of their sisters, a practice directly contradictory to the fundamental principle of gender equality under Western law. (RELATED: It’s Past Time to Designate the Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Organization) These outcomes prove that the system is not merely one of spiritual guidance, but a mechanism for institutionalizing inequality. (RELATED: You Get (and Deserve) What You Tolerate. That Isn’t Good News for the UK.) Arbitration Is a Legal Exercise, Not a Religious One The core argument for outlawing these councils rests on a simple distinction. The First Amendment protects a citizen’s right to worship, to gather, to preach, and to live according to the dictates of conscience. This is the free exercise of religion. (RELATED: Trivializing Religion Left Us Unprepared for Political Islam) This protection covers who you associate with, how you pray, which creed you profess, and what spiritual counsel you receive regarding your personal life. However, once spiritual counsel devolves into a formal “arbitration” process, it shifts entirely from the religious sphere into the legal sphere.  “Arbitration” is a legal term, defining a method of dispute resolution outside of civil litigation. This process often results in an agreement that a civil court may be asked to uphold or enforce. Marriage, divorce, and child custody are not merely spiritual concepts; they are legal statuses, defined and recognized by the sovereign state. Therefore, when a religious council makes a determination on the validity of a marriage, or dictates the terms of a divorce settlement or custody arrangement, it is not engaging in worship. It is instead engaging in a legal exercise that blatantly usurps state power and its God-given authority. If religious tribunals are allowed to rule on federal rights, subject to minimal judicial review, a virtually unreviewable religious body can have the final say on a citizen’s fundamental rights. This is one reason why Islamic religious arbitration centers stand in stark contrast to the Christian practice of church discipline. Church discipline involves spiritual accountability, access to sacraments, and the fencing of Christian fellowship. Its “jurisdiction” is the eternal soul and the great visible communio sanctorum. It does not (and cannot) claim jurisdiction to determine the legal validity of a marriage, mandate child support payments, or award property based on a religious code. Following Augustine’s distinction between the earthly city and the heavenly city, and Pope Gelasius’s “Two Swords” doctrine, the Christian model operates solely in the ecclesiastical realm. Religious arbitration centers trespass into the legal realm, and this boundary must be strictly enforced. As legal scholars Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld and Frank J. Costa, Jr. argue, when secular courts uphold the arbitration decisions of tribunals that apply religious principles to disputes legislated by the state, they commit an act of unconstitutional “reverse-entanglement.” If religious tribunals are allowed to rule on federal rights, subject to minimal judicial review, a virtually unreviewable religious body can have the final say on a citizen’s fundamental rights. Codifying Subordination: The Inherent Inequality The second (and most important and pressing) reason for prohibition is the inherent conflict between the laws applied by these councils and the American principle of legal equality. This is particularly true in the case of women. (RELATED: ICC Fails Afghan Women. Filmmakers Step In.) Arbitration centers rooted in traditional interpretations of Islamic law often apply principles that codify the subordinate status of women in matters of family and contract. As the late Christian scholar Norman L. Geisler observed, the Qur’an affords a “lower status to women” and grants men a “degree of advantage over them” in matters like divorce. (RELATED: A Review of Robert Spencer’s Muhammad: A Critical Biography) While a man can unilaterally divorce his wife, a woman seeking divorce (khul’ or faskh) often requires the consent of the council and may be forced to forfeit the mandatory bridal gift from her husband (mahr). The same texts permit forms of marital discipline that are wholly incompatible with American law and constitute illegal actions. Sura 4:34, addressing perceived rebellion (nushūz), outlines a three-step method for men, culminating in the right to “scourge” or “strike” them. This provision for physical discipline of a wife by a husband constitutes domestic violence under U.S. law, regardless of religious motivation. Furthermore, in the realm of contracts, “Two women must bear witness in civil contracts as opposed to one man.” When principles drawn from these disturbing texts are translated into the binding determinations of a religious arbitration panel, they legalize inequality. They subject Muslim women, who are guaranteed equal protection under the law, to outcomes that are inherently discriminatory based on their gender. This is not a matter of private theological belief. It is a matter of state sovereignty and American ideals of justice drawn from the riches of Western antiquity and the sacred texts of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Hebrew Bible scholar Christopher Wright notes that even when customs like polygamy and divorce were tolerated in ancient Israel, the law immediately stepped in to regulate them and limit their exploitative effects on women. These historical precedents, rooted in Judeo-Christian values, stand in stark contrast to ad-hoc bodies staffed by clerics whose interpretations leave their coerced victims with no recourse. The claim of “consent” or “voluntary entry” into these Sharia arbitration agreements is disingenuous; these decisions are often made under intense familial and community duress. Preserving Sovereignty The very existence of these bodies creates a dire situation ripe for coercion, injustice, and intrusion on national sovereignty. When the state permits these institutions to exist, it validates a perversion of justice and undermines its own authority. The path forward is clear. In 2005, the Canadian province of Ontario banned religious arbitration in all family law matters. They mandated that all family arbitration must be conducted exclusively in accordance with the law of the land. This approach is the correct one. It does not interfere with personal faith or spiritual counseling, but it affirms the exclusive right of the sovereign state to administer justice. To uphold the Rule of Law, to guarantee equal protection to all, and to ensure that no citizen is subjected to a system that codifies their inherent subordination, we must outlaw and close these centers. American law and Judeo-Christian values cannot coexist with Sharia. Justice for All is non-negotiable. David Bumgardner is a Christian, minister, and author who is a former fellow for Baptist News Global. David’s work includes theological reflections, book reviews, opinion editorials, and featured news and analysis pieces. READ MORE: Trivializing Religion Left Us Unprepared for Political Islam The West Learned From Defeat. So Must Islamic Civilization.

WASHINGTON — Last month, a group of journalists and I sat down with Larry Summers before a speech he delivered in Washington, D.C., at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. It was an opportunity to hear what the former Harvard University president and professor had to say about academia and free speech. After the House release of Summers’s emails with the late registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, probably nobody will care what Summers has to say about academic freedom ever again. And he’s not going to be teaching at Harvard anytime soon. Since the House Oversight Committee released the exchanges, Summers likely will be known mainly for his fawning friendship with the grifter financier who used and abused teenage girls. (RELATED: Epstein Files Law Passed During Week of JFK Assassination Anniversary Seems Like a Sign) As Summers’s emails with Epstein made clear, the former Harvard president wasn’t so bothered about Epstein’s sexual assault of underage females that he cut ties with him. As Summers’s emails with Epstein made clear, the former Harvard president wasn’t so bothered about Epstein’s sexual assault of underage females that he cut ties with him. To the contrary, the then-married Summers turned to Epstein for dating advice. Harvard had known for years that the two alpha males were buddies, but with the emails popping up all over America’s screens, their ties were just too embarrassing for the country’s oldest institution of higher learning. So while Summers first tried to limit the damage to his career by ending some of his roles, the Crimson is poised to leave him behind. Summers also no longer is with the progressive Center for American Progress. It is pleasantly ironic to observe that in the left’s zeal to impeach President Donald Trump’s reputation by mentioning Trump’s long-ago friendship with Epstein, their efforts instead finished off Summers, who served as treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton. Trump ended his friendship with Epstein in the mid-2000s, before Epstein pleaded guilty to solicitation of prostitution and to solicitation of prostitution with a minor under the age of 18 in 2008. He served 13 months behind bars. (RELATED: Democrats’ Latest Epstein Play Falls Apart) Still, Summers and Epstein remained friends until Epstein’s second arrest in 2019, the year he was found dead in a New York jail cell. Here’s the statement Summers released after he was caught and before he had to face the reality of his exile from academia: I am deeply ashamed of my actions and recognize the pain they have caused. I take full responsibility for my misguided decision to continue communicating with Mr. Epstein. While continuing to fulfill my teaching obligations, I will be stepping back from public commitments as one part of my broader effort to rebuild trust and repair relationships with the people closest to me. Methinks Summers is ashamed he got caught. He was in this rarefied orbit of powerful Democrats moving the chess pieces because they were the players. As Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre wrote in her posthumously released memoir, Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, Epstein “relentlessly sought sexual contact with young girls who were strangers to him — some who lived rough, terrible lives outside his gated compound — and he never wore a condom.” While Giuffre absolved Trump of cheap-shot accusation, she sagely chalked up Epstein’s behavior to “arrogance.” We’ve all met guys like this. They think they are, as novelist Tom Wolfe wrote in The Bonfire of the Vanities, “masters of the universe.” Yes, they were so smart, so brilliant, so above the women and girls they abused that they left a paper trail for the House Oversight Committee Republicans. Another black mark for Harvard. READ MORE from Debra J. Saunders: Burisma, Meet Your Brother Binance Democrats’ Latest Epstein Play Falls Apart Shutdown Over, Trump Saves Thanksgiving Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS

Editor’s Note: This speech was originally delivered by the author at “The Catholic Bill Buckley Conference,” hosted by the Portsmith Institute at Portsmith Abbey School on June 6, 2009. At this conference, we have talked about Bill Buckley as a man of faith, a man of letters, a man of creativity.  That creativity included founding National Review magazine, becoming the central figure in a new kind of debate television with Firing Line, authoring thousands of columns and articles, dozens of books, founding the New York Conservative Party and the American conservative movement. But let me suggest that his greatest creative act — at least his greatest act of creative intellect — was the introduction of a Catholic sensibility into the main currents of American political thought. Yes, Catholics had been major players in American politics since the 1840s, as the Irish and later the Italians, still later other Catholic ethnic groups, transformed the new nation’s urban governance. But these Catholics acted as what academics like to call practitioners. Catholic political thinking was largely on the left and not at all consequential, even in the development of America’s major left-leaning political movements. The Progressives of the early 20th Century were mainly Protestants and of the managerial mindset that gripped so many Protestant reformers of the time. The authors of the New Deal were also primarily Protestant — heirs of the Progressives, with large measures of British and German socialism thrown in. Left-oriented Catholics were tagalongs. Bill introduced a Catholic perspective into the American discourse at the same moment that the old Protestant establishment’s confidence in the American experiment and America’s place in the world was wavering.  And through that Catholic sensibility, he brought clarity to the great issues of his time. Clarity about the moral nature of the struggle with communism. Clarity about the moral superiority of free markets to collectivism. Clarity about the essential link between a traditional moral order and the long-term prospects for democracy and freedom. Clarity about communism was a central theme of God and Man at Yale. The Cold War was not just about strategic tensions, a standoff with another nuclear power.  Though much of the Yale faculty had forgotten it, Bill argued, the Cold War was at its root a moral struggle — about the nature of man and society, of freedom, and of free will. We have heard at this conference McGeorge Bundy’s odious putdown of the book — a not-so-veiled anti-Catholic sneer. But one thing Bundy got right was that Bill’s understanding of the communist challenge was informed by his Catholicism, reflecting a quality of moral insight almost entirely lost on the Protestant establishment of the day. Similarly, in Up from Liberalism, the contempt Bill displayed for Eleanor Roosevelt and William Sloane Coffin derived not just from their New Deal collectivism but also from their lack of clarity about communism. And years later in Let Us Speak of Many Things, a compilation of his speeches, Bill included the text of debate remarks in which he takes apart an earlier Norman Mailer speech — one that reflected too much of the literary and political establishment’s thinking of the 1960s and 70s — noting with disdain Mailer’s callousness towards communist butchery and his utter lack of a moral sense about communism. Bill had that sense — and restored it to American thought just as others were losing it. Bill brought similar clarity to the role of the market in our national life. He showed the acuity of his technical understanding of finance in The Unmaking of a Mayor. The appendix collects the position papers he wrote for his candidacy, including one on New York’s fiscal situation. In 1975, when New York went bankrupt, politicians and journalists alike — including, for example, the much-celebrated Ken Aulleta, chronicler of the bankruptcy — insisted that no one could have predicted the crisis. They conveniently forgot — if they had ever bothered to know — that Bill Buckley had diagnosed its causes and forecast its coming a decade earlier. Bill had read Hayek, von Mises, and Friedman. Their writings influenced his commentaries long before they were widely known within the American intelligentsia. To them, Bill added a moral understanding of markets. He argued that the free market was best for achieving social justice. He challenged the notion — popular again today — that government provides a wider and fairer distribution of wealth and a more humane material standard of living. He noted that market-oriented countries did much better on all these scales than socialist ones and that the freer a country’s markets, the more socially just its economy. He elucidated numerous, often surprising, examples of the market’s morality. Sometime in the 1970s, for example, in New York City, local liberals got themselves into a rage about the financial distress of a certain classical music radio station. It was a sign of the market’s callousness, they fumed. These liberal champions of the people argued, in essence, that market responses to the people’s tastes demonstrated the market’s ethical inadequacy. Bill replied that, in fact, the marketplace of New York radio advertising was not neglecting but favoring the city’s classical music stations. It was allocating a larger share of revenues to those stations than their share of the radio listening audience alone would have justified. Instead of ignoring classical music, he said, the market was delivering it a subsidy. This was an economic and moral sophistication far beyond the capacity of the liberal elites of the era. You may recall the story of New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev during Khrushchev’s visit to New York. Rockefeller told Khrushchev that immigrants had come to America for freedom. Khrushchev snorted, No, they didn’t. They came for jobs. I was almost one of them, he added. Rockefeller had no response. Bill Buckley knew that all those jobs and the better lives and social justice they enabled were the fruits of freedom. After Khrushchev’s shoe-pounding performance at the United Nations, he rented Carnegie Hall for a rally and a reply, finishing his speech calling out a vow directed to the Soviet leader: “We will bury YOU.” For me, one photo captured the gulf in acuity between Bill and the American Establishment of the mid-1960s. It appears in The Unmaking of a Mayor. It was taken during one of the televised debates pitting Bill against Republican nominee John Lindsay and Democratic candidate Abraham Beame. Beame is making what looks in the photo to be — and knowing Beame, almost certainly was — an earnest but utterly banal point. Lindsay’s furrowed brow bespeaks his struggle to comprehend. Next to him, chin on one hand, fingers of the other tapping in boredom the turned-off microphone, Bill stares out with heavy eyelids that announce just how far ahead of the rest of the class his now wandering mind is. Bill’s clarity about the essential link of morality and democracy, and freedom, was told in the pages of National Review innumerable times throughout the decades. Here I want to take issue with something E. J. Dionne said last night. E.J. is a fine man and a graceful writer, but perhaps he has become too caught up in the early Bradford Oakes novels. He referred to Bill as a kind of monarchist, or at least one whose thought betrayed monarchical tendencies. It is a strange conclusion to draw about the founder of one of the few enduringly successful third parties in the nation’s history, a party created to challenge all the political aristocracies of the day… one who ran for political office to begin the unseating of those aristocracies… who helped his brother become a U.S. senator on a platform of challenging those aristocracies… who was instrumental in the election of the 20th Century president least linked to any of the then reigning American political establishments of either political party: Ronald Reagan. Bill was as determined and shrewd a practitioner of American politics as any of the Irish or Italian pols of the great urban machines of yesteryear. But unlike them and so many others, he used politics as a platform for clarifying the moral underpinnings of popular government and markets and the great global struggle, in sum, of an enduringly free society. Where would we be today without his clarity? Where would America be? Where would the world be? Unlike many who have spoken here, Bill was not a large factor in my career. I’ve written in recent years for National Review Online, but not for National Review magazine. He never edited my copy. He didn’t help me get a job. As a high school student, I watched him debate during his run for mayor, and those televised debates began my turn to conservatism. A year later, friends and I drove to New Haven to see him face off against Tom Hayden in an auditorium at Yale. But I did not truly come to know him until after my years as a White House speechwriter. Bill influenced me mostly through his writing, editing, and public speaking. And in that I am like those who have come to this conference through a Portsmouth Abbey School connection rather than the Bill Buckley connection… and like most of the millions of young people he reached throughout his career. We know him not as an intimate, not as a colleague, but as a teacher — a teacher for us all. Through the application of Catholic moral sensibility and Catholic styles of discourse, his teaching clarified during pivotal decades the political thought of the United States — and, I believe, will continue to clarify that thought for as long as there is a United States. READ MORE: NR Turns 70: A Different Perspective Buckley at 100

Virginia Tech made headlines by hiring James Franklin as its next football coach because nothing screams “fresh start” like picking up a guy who was fired just over a month ago. Soon after the announcement came, Franklin addressed the press in Blacksburg, Virginia, to explain why this is such a great idea. The Virginia Tech signing was a significant financial windfall for Penn State, as the university will avoid paying approximately $40 million that was originally tied to James Franklin’s buyout clause, which was one of the largest in college football history. (RELATED: A Defining Search: Penn State’s Hunt for a New Coach) After a lackluster 3-3 start, Franklin was sent packing and ended his 12-year tenure in Happy Valley, a period that saw consistent competitiveness but ultimately fell short of delivering the elusive national championship. The move underscores both the urgency and the high stakes of modern college football, where performance expectations and financial realities collide in dramatic fashion. (RELATED: Fourth and Funded: College Football’s Fiscal Fumble) Initially, Franklin’s buyout was a jaw-dropping $49.7 million because nothing says “job security” like a golden parachute big enough to fund a small country.  After negotiations, the two sides agreed to slash that cosmic sum of $49.7 million to a mere $9 million. Yes, nine. What a bargain, right? Such a figure is a clearance-rack buy in the world of collegiate football coaches’ buyouts. And as if that wasn’t generous enough, the settlement also torched the offset clause that would have forced Penn State to keep cutting checks if Franklin’s next gig didn’t match his old salary. In other words, Penn State basically paid him handsomely to pack his bags and roll.  As for Franklin’s new gig at Virginia Tech, the financial details are still locked up tighter than the game plan before kickoff. However, when your last paycheck at Penn State was a cool $8.5 million, you are not exactly clipping coupons or eating at bargain buffets.  Meanwhile, Virginia Tech is currently limping along with a 3-7 record, which makes this hire feel less like a strategic masterstroke and more like a desperate Hail Mary from deep your own endzone. The Hokies have been under the temporary stewardship of Philip Montgomery since September, after Brent Pry was shown the door for starting 0-3.  Pry’s buyout? A modest $6 million because apparently, in Blacksburg, Virginia, firing coaches is less of a last resort and more about taking part in the national trend of cutting checks to make coaches go away. Virginia Tech just approved $229 million in new athletic funding over the next four years. Because if you are going to hire a coach fresh off a firing, why not throw a quarter-billion dollars at the program to make it look intentional? This is college football economics at its finest: hemorrhage cash, pray for wins, and call it “building a culture.” The absurdity is staggering.  Penn State paid Franklin $9 million to pack up and leave Penn State, while Virginia Tech is backing up the Brinks truck to welcome him with open arms. It is the kind of financial football theater that makes the U.S. federal government look frugal.  In the end, the only real winners are the coaches because in this game, mediocrity pays, and loyalty is just a line item on a contract. And here is the subplot no one asked for: Virginia Tech is a Nike school, while Penn State is ditching Nike for Adidas in 2026. Cue the conspiracy theorists whispering that Adidas wanted Franklin gone.  Totally unconfirmed, but this is college football, where rumors are a sport of their own. Franklin’s arrival in Blacksburg isn’t the finale; it is the opening act in what promises to be the most chaotic hiring season in years. Big-name vacancies are still looming at LSU, Florida, and Penn State. So, buckle up, because the coaching carousel isn’t just spinning; it’s doing 360s at warp speed while boosters continue to toss around cash like confetti. READ MORE from Greg Maresca: Habits May Fade, the Marine Remains A Defining Search: Penn State’s Hunt for a New Coach The Faulty Idealism of the Anti-Wealth Brigade

As New York Republicans eye the 2026 gubernatorial race, the party faces a familiar dilemma: how to reclaim the governor’s mansion in Albany after two decades in the wilderness. Yet, the GOP’s path to victory hinges on fielding a candidate who can appeal beyond the base — bridging Trump loyalists with independents and moderate Democrats in a deeply blue state. Incumbent Democrat Kathy Hochul, who narrowly won in 2022 amid low turnout and GOP infighting, remains vulnerable amid persistent concerns over crime, housing costs, and economic stagnation. Yet, the GOP’s path to victory hinges on fielding a candidate who can appeal beyond the base — bridging Trump loyalists with independents and moderate Democrats in a deeply blue state. (RELATED: The Democrats Choose the World Over America) While House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik has emerged as the frontrunner, her staunch positions may prove a liability. Instead, Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, fresh off a commanding reelection in a purple stronghold, offers a more pragmatic blueprint for success — not just in New York, but as a national model for Republicans navigating polarized terrain. Stefanik, representing New York’s rural 21st Congressional District, has risen rapidly in GOP ranks, earning praise for her loyalty to former President Donald Trump and her role in flipping the House in 2022. She’s a formidable fundraiser and a sharp communicator, qualities that could energize the base. However, her unyielding pro-life stance on abortion could doom her statewide ambitions in a state where reproductive rights are sacrosanct. Stefanik has consistently earned high marks from pro-life groups, voting against federal protections for abortion access and championing the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. In New York, where 63 percent of voters support abortion rights in all or most cases, according to recent polls, this position alienates the independents and crossover Democrats essential for victory. Hochul’s 2022 win relied heavily on suburban women and moderates mobilized by fears of GOP restrictions on reproductive freedoms. Stefanik’s rhetoric, including her calls for Republicans to “lean in” on the issue, risks replaying the 2022 midterm playbook, where abortion backlash cost Republicans dearly nationwide.  In a state that hasn’t elected a Republican governor since George Pataki in 2002, Stefanik’s cultural conservatism could cap her appeal in key battlegrounds like Long Island, Westchester, and the Hudson Valley, where voters prioritize pragmatism over ideology. (RELATED: The Sanctuary State Confederacy) Enter Bruce Blakeman, whose recent reelection in Nassau County underscores a winning formula tailored to New York’s political realities. Blakeman cruised to victory over his Democratic challenger, securing another term as county executive with a double-digit margin. This triumph stands in stark contrast to Republican setbacks elsewhere in New York and across the country. Democrats flipped long-held GOP seats in upstate counties, elected a socialist mayor in New York City, and swept key local races, prompting party soul-searching and finger-pointing at everything from economic messaging to the lingering shadow of Trump’s influence. Nationally, this past off-year elections saw GOP candidates falter in swing districts, amplifying concerns about the party’s viability in purple areas.  Nassau County, with its mix of affluent suburbs and diverse communities, is a microcosm of New York’s electoral map — a “purple” bellwether where Democrats outnumber Republicans and independents often decide outcomes. Blakeman’s win, coupled with GOP retention of the district attorney and town supervisor positions, demonstrates his ability to build coalitions in a challenging environment. Unlike Stefanik, whose district is solidly red and rural, Blakeman governs a county that mirrors the state’s suburban swing voters. His reelection bucked the anti-GOP tide, positioning him as a resilient figure who can deliver results where others falter. At the heart of Blakeman’s appeal is his deft navigation of Trumpism and “common-sense” governance. A vocal Trump supporter, he endorsed the former president early and hosted rallies, yet he’s avoided the MAGA excesses that alienate moderates. Instead, Blakeman has focused on kitchen-table issues like public safety, tax relief, and infrastructure, while staking out principled stands on cultural flashpoints without veering into extremism. His most prominent initiative: an executive order and subsequent legislation banning transgender athletes from competing in girls’ and women’s sports at county facilities. Framed as protecting fairness and safety for female athletes — “keeping boys off girls’ teams” — this policy resonated with parents across party lines, drawing support from independents and even some Democrats wary of progressive overreach. This stance taps into widespread concerns about equity in sports, polling well in suburbs where voters seek balanced approaches. Blakeman’s model — loyal to Trump but laser-focused on pragmatic, populist issues — could propel a Republican back to Albany for the first time in over 20 years. New York’s electorate, weary of one-party Democratic rule amid rising crime and migrant crises, craves a governor who can unite rather than divide. Blakeman’s track record in Nassau shows he can thread that needle: cutting property taxes, bolstering law enforcement, and addressing quality-of-life concerns without the baggage of national culture wars. Unlike Stefanik, whose pro-life absolutism could suppress turnout among moderates, Blakeman’s positions align with New York’s libertarian streak—fiscally conservative, socially moderate, and tough on crime. Nationally, Blakeman’s success offers Republicans a roadmap in an era of Trump dominance. As the party grapples with losses in purple districts, his approach — embracing the base while courting swing voters on “common-sense” reforms — could inspire candidates in battleground districts and states. By prioritizing wins over purity tests, Blakeman proves that Republicans can compete and govern effectively, even in hostile territory. The stakes are high — not just for Albany, but for the GOP’s future. Blakeman isn’t just a stronger challenger; he’s the template for revival. READ MORE from Bob Capano: Trump’s Right: Nuke the Filibuster Linda McMahon Body-Slams Woke Classrooms Mamdani’s Radical Platform Shakes Up Midterm Stakes Capano held senior-level positions with two New York Republican Members of Congress and has been an adjunct political science professor for over two decades. Follow on X: @bobcapano