Abby Zwerner Wins $10 Million Verdict

One big word worth learning is “schadenfreude.” Schadenfreude is “pleasure derived by someone from another person’s misfortune.” Nothing better captures the perverse pleasure that Democrats are deriving from the pain inflicted on our country caused by the government shutdown. Democrats precipitated this shutdown to force Republicans to back off efforts to turn around our suicidal growth of government spending and debt. House Republicans passed a continuing resolution ready for the president’s signature to fund the government, but Democrats said no. They refuse to get rid of $450 billion over 10 years in Obamacare premium subsidies that were enacted as temporary assistance during COVID-19. Now, the more Americans squirm in discomfort from the shutdown, the more the Democrats love it. They want Republicans to cave. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food assistance to almost 42 million Americans, is now forced to suspend payments, which will be partially covered with emergency funding. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told the press, “Republicans are willing to starve hungry children in this country and take away SNAP benefits.” Just several days prior, Jeffries endorsed Zohran Mamdani, the declared democratic socialist running as a Democrat for mayor of New York City. SNAP is another government program going back to the 1960s, in which inefficient government largesse was sold as compassion. In 1970, there were 6 million Americans receiving the benefit. Today, it is nearly 42 million. SNAP spending just six years ago was $63.5 billion. Today, it is nearly $100 billion. Per the American Enterprise Institute, “Less than half of able-bodied working-age SNAP recipients work, and many recipients receive benefits for years.” According to AEI, SNAP is “one of more than 80 means-tested safety-net programs in the U.S. designed to alleviate hardship among low-income households.” In 2023, spending on these programs, per former Sen. Phil Gramm, now a senior fellow at AEI, totaled $1.6 trillion, consuming “72.6% of unobligated general revenue.” Gramm compared that with defense spending, which fell to 37.2 percent of unobligated revenue in 2023 from 68 percent in 1967. Welfare payments, per Gramm, going to “average work-age” households in the lowest fifth of income recipients, have increased inflation-adjusted 780 percent since 1967. And “the portion of prime work-age persons” in the bottom fifth who work has fallen from 68 percent to 36 percent. Clearly, the country’s cultural and social problems and our fiscal problems go hand in hand. Various proposals have been put forth for reforming SNAP. These include moving federal funds to states as block grants and giving states more responsibility in their management and disbursement. This was key to the successful welfare reform of 1996 that created Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. But most critical is reform of the underlying welfare culture that has so destructively rooted into our country. Making government largesse more efficient is critical. But we must rebuild a culture in which individuals, in all income classes, feel personally responsible for their lives. Some 16 years ago, Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill at the Brookings Institution published their research pointing to the “success sequence.” Per Haskins, for those who followed these rules — finish high school, get a full-time job, get married before having children – about 2 percent wound up in poverty and 75 percent wound up in the middle class. We launched a program at CURE, the institute I founded in Washington, D.C., to publicize the “success sequence” in targeted low-income neighborhoods around the country. We bought billboard space that advertised the “success sequence” for getting out of poverty. In two major cities where we posted the billboards, Minneapolis and Philadelphia, Black Lives Matter went to the billboard company and insisted they take it down -- which they did. Know that the country’s Left, today represented by the Democratic Party, hates the idea of personal responsibility, which is the cornerstone of personal freedom. Democrats are taking us to cultural and fiscal bankruptcy. This is what Republicans want to change. Star Parker is the founder of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Her recent book, “What Is the CURE for America?” is available now.

During Wednesday’s jubilations for Democratic victories across the board the night prior, MSNBC’s Katy Tur claimed New York City’s wealthiest won’t leave because of the immense amount of culture on offer. Her guests also supported the idea that electing Zohran Mamdani (D) won’t scare off the one percent and subsequently bankrupt the city. When asked if it was insane for a socialist to be placed in charge of the “capitalist capital of the world,” former Biden adviser Jared Bernstein defended the mayor-elect: Look, there is a long and mistaken view that what's good for Main Street, or should I say what's good for Elmhurst or Brooklyn Heights, is bad for Wall Street. […] So, this idea that making New York City more affordable somehow it makes it a tougher place for the very wealthy to get by, I think is just fundamentally wrong. Other than the fact that Mamdani has clearly stated his intention to extract wealth from the upper class, then yeah, totally.     Tur then openly wondered “if the exodus out of New York is overblown or if it might happen,” citing an open letter from The Florida Council of 100 to New York business leaders. Pretending that the ongoing relocation won’t continue to be a trend, Tur mentioned how plenty of rich folk (like herself) stuck around: “There was a move for many hedge funders and bankers to move to Palm Beach during the pandemic. But still, I mean, the city has a lot of billionaires, has a lot of millionaires, has a lot of big companies based here.” We’ll see how long her contract lasts under MSNOW. Tur’s main source of proof for why the rest of New York’s elite will stay? That’s right, the “culture”: We offer a whole lot more than Florida or Texas or anyone else has in terms of culture and opportunity and dining and plays. I mean, it is the cultural — one of the cultural capitals of the world, and you can't really — you can't copy it in other places, you can't find a lot of this in other places. As if two of the largest, most populated and growing states in the nation can’t compete? Even Governor Greg Abbott (R) knows what’s coming! Sure, NYC was the world’s quintessential melting pot, but “c’mon man.” Veda Partners co-founder Henrietta Treyz oddly pointed to recent developments from the federal government as evidence for why Mamdani won’t scare off New York businessmen: This year alone, they've adapted to $3.5 trillion in deficit increases; $4 trillion worth of tariffs; the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner; the attempted firing of a Federal Reserve board member; and the government's been shut down for 35 days, and they've got no data to work with. They can adapt to all of this, and they can definitely adapt to Mamdani as mayor, particularly when you consider that they can elect somebody else for governor just in a couple months. Mamdani’s policies would have a more direct impact on New Yorkers who live and work in the city. What exactly would tariffs and the Federal Reserve have to do with that? They’ll have to face those anywhere they go. Just more idiocy from your favorite liberal network… Hello? Anyone still watching? The transcript is below. Click "expand" read: MSNBC’s Katy Tur Reports November 5, 2025 3:32:07 p.m. EST (…) KATY TUR: So, Jared, is it insane that a socialist mayor was elected here in the capitalist capital of the world? JARED BERNSTEIN: It's not insane, and, in fact, it happened. And it happened by a pretty wide margin. Look, there is a long and mistaken view that what's good for Main Street, or should I say what's good for Elmhurst or Brooklyn Heights, is bad for Wall Street. If this mayor-elect, Mamdani, is able to chip away at the affordability problem, if he's able to make childcare affordable for many more New Yorkers, that's going to be good for the New York City economy. And that's not just me engaging in wishful thinking. There's a great deal of research that shows if people can afford to go to work, your labor force increases and you have positive productivity impacts. So, this idea that making New York City more affordable somehow it makes it a tougher place for the very wealthy to get by, I think is just fundamentally wrong. Another thing to recognize is that the affordability agenda is not the same as the anti-inequality agenda. Yes, Mamdani would like to raise more funds, but he can also support something like a childcare program out of the budget as it exists. So, I think there's a lot of room here for the city to improve on affordability grounds and the rich to be okay. TUR: I wonder if the exodus out of New York is overblown or if it might happen. And, Henrietta, I'll ask you about this. There is an open letter to New York business leaders from Florida saying, ‘Come here, it's great down here.’ There was a move for many hedge funders and bankers to move to Palm Beach during the pandemic. But still, I mean, the city has a lot of billionaires, has a lot of millionaires, has a lot of big companies based here. We offer a whole lot more than Florida or Texas or anyone else has in terms of culture and opportunity and dining and plays. I mean, it is the cultural — one of the cultural capitals of the world, and you can't really — you can't copy it in other places, you can't find a lot of this in other places. So, when these millionaires and billionaires are talking about fleeing New York if Zohran Mamdani wins, do you see that as hyperbole or potentially — HENRIETTA TREYZ: No, I mean — TUR: — something that could happen? TREYZ: — I'm biased. I'm a new Yorker, so you don't need to convince me. I've already bought into that Kool-Aid. But I would say that a lot of these guys are my clients, and I've been working with them for 15, almost 20 years now. And the one thing that I admire most about hedge fund investors, investors generally, is that they can adapt to anything. This year alone, they've adapted to $3.5 trillion in deficit increases; $4 trillion worth of tariffs; the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner; the attempted firing of a Federal Reserve board member; and the government's been shut down for 35 days, and they've got no data to work with. They can adapt to all of this, and they can definitely adapt to Mamdani as mayor, particularly when you consider that they can elect somebody else for governor just in a couple months. (…)

Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes was supposed to be explosive. It wasn’t.Far from normalizing Fuentes or advancing his strange brand of “right-wing” politics, the two-hour conversation exposed him as a shallow, aggrieved figure without the intellect or maturity to lead anything. Carlson didn’t destroy Fuentes with debate. He did something worse: He made him boring.Fuentes built his notoriety as a young “influencer” who mixes nationalism with online provocation. He’s outspokenly racist, anti-Semitic, and obsessed with pushing the limits of shock. And he’s managed to attract a following among disaffected young men — the “Groypers.”Fuentes’ interview marks his peak — and his decline. Once the outrage fades, he’ll return to obscurity.In recent years, Fuentes has tried to rebrand himself as something somewhat more serious. He talks about immigration breaking working families, foreign wars enriching elites, and a culture that mocks masculinity. Those themes resonate because they tap real frustrations that many Americans share.But Fuentes offers no coherent moral or political vision. Others — better read, more disciplined, and far less toxic — make similar arguments with insight and integrity. The late Charlie Kirk, for example, famously wanted nothing to do with Fuentes and his followers for precisely that reason.The grudge-filled pathCarlson’s interview focused less on ideas than on Fuentes’ grievances. He recounted his early days as a libertarian campaigning for Ted Cruz in 2015, his shift to Trumpism, and his viral rise after a debate with a leftist opponent. Soon he was clashing with prominent conservatives, especially the Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro.According to Fuentes, Shapiro and his allies sabotaged his career and drove him into exile on the “dark web.” At no point does Fuentes wonder whether Shapiro recognized instability and immaturity in him — or simply concluded that he wasn’t worth the investment.Like many in his Gen Z cohort, Fuentes mistakes online engagement for substance. Without outrage, he has nothing. He’s poorly educated, reads little, and shrugs off legitimate criticism. The result is a young man trapped in perpetual adolescence, angry that the world won’t take him seriously.Carlson’s indulgenceCarlson tries to humanize Fuentes, appealing to Christian charity and the value of learning from failure. But Fuentes clings to his score-settling. His list of enemies includes not just Shapiro but Charlie Kirk, Joe Kent, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) — and even Carlson himself, though he gets a temporary reprieve for offering the platform.Carlson also attempts to rationalize Fuentes’ anti-Semitism, giving him space to “clarify.” Fuentes insists he doesn’t hate Jews personally — he just opposes Judaism as a “force against Western civilization.” He repeats conspiracy theories about Jewish control of institutions and denies the Holocaust.Carlson pushes back, but only mildly. Both men protest that they “don’t hate Jews” and have Jewish friends, as if that were exculpatory. It isn’t. The exchange casts neither in a good light.Empty provocateursThe rest of the interview dissolves into incoherence. Fuentes casually praises Joseph Stalin, of all people, before the conversation fizzles. Carlson’s attempt to recast Fuentes as a misunderstood outsider backfires. The result is a portrait of a man whose only real claim to relevance is being disliked — and even that feels undeserved.Carlson’s indulgence of fringe figures is becoming a pattern. Andrew Tate. Darryl Cooper. Now Fuentes. Each enjoys a sizeable online following built on provocation and grievance. And each, when pressed, collapses into self-pity and incoherence. These men are charlatans and grifters who don’t challenge the establishment; they merely rehearse falsehoods and conspiracy theories to raise their profiles among mostly lonely, disaffected young men.RELATED: Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, and the war for the conservative soul Photo by NurPhoto via Getty ImagesThe decline of two brandsFuentes’ interview marks his peak — and his decline. Once the outrage fades, he’ll return to obscurity, remembered mostly as a cautionary tale about what happens when empty charisma meets unearned confidence.Carlson, meanwhile, risks following him down that path. His willingness to platform attention-seekers may boost short-term clicks, but it erodes long-term credibility. Each indulgence costs him a little more trust.The tragedy isn’t just Fuentes’ wasted potential. It’s the spectacle of one of the right’s most talented communicators lending his megaphone to a man who long ago proved himself unworthy of it.

The mayor of a Kansas town who won re-election on Tuesday has been accused of election fraud for allegedly voting despite being a noncitizen.Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach (R) announced the charges against Jose "Joe" Ceballos, the mayor of Coldwater, on Wednesday. The 54-year-old is a permanent resident of the U.S. but not a citizen, according to Kobach, and is a citizen of Mexico.'In large part, our system right now is based on trust. ... In this case, we allege that Mr. Ceballos violated that trust.'"Joe Ceballos, who garnered nearly 83% of the vote Tuesday for a second term as Coldwater mayor, was charged with three counts of voting without being qualified and three counts of election perjury," Kobach said. "Both are felony offenses.""In Kansas, it is against the law to vote if you are not a U.S. citizen. We allege that Mr. Ceballos did it multiple times," Kobach added.If found guilty, Ceballos could face nearly five years in prison and a $200,000 fine."In large part, our system right now is based on trust," Kobach said. "Trust that when the person signed the registration or signs the pollbooks saying that he’s a qualified elector or that he is a United States citizen, that the person is telling the truth. In this case, we allege that Mr. Ceballos violated that trust."The president of the Coldwater City Council released a statement before Kobach's press conference on Facebook."While the recent allegations involving the mayor are understandably concerning, we will allow the proper legal process to take its course before making any further comments," Britt Lenertz said. "It’s important that we respect both due process and the integrity of our local government."Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab said during the press conference that new resources provided by President Donald Trump allowed the administration to check voters' citizenship status."They could be a legal resident, but they're not a citizen, and we want to make sure that gets clarified," said Schwab said. "If they voted, then it's a crime. And we have run that system; we're currently verifying. We don’t want any false positives, but, Attorney General, be prepared to be busy."RELATED: Online outrage erupts over video of illegal alien's arrest in DC — then the horrific charges against him are revealed The city attorney for Coldwater said that Ceballos raised some red flags after seeking citizenship status in February."He’s been a registered voter since 1990. He applied for citizenship in February of this year and, through that, raised the issue of whether he was a legal citizen," said Skip Herd.Ceballos was first elected mayor in 2021 and ran unopposed for re-election in 2025. The city attorney will determine whether he will be eligible to continue as mayor."As a mayor, he’s done a wonderful job," continued Lenertz. "As a city councilmember, he’s done a wonderful job. He’s always put our community first in everything he does."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Zohran Mamdani is the first Muslim mayor of New York City, and while BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock is not happy, he’s also not surprised.“He gets to say whatever he believes. He gets to come off as authentic. He gets to describe in detail, ‘If I’m the mayor, here’s what I want to do; here’s how I want your lives to change; here are the things that I think will improve New York City,” Whitlock says.“But if you’re on the conservative side, if you’re on the biblical conservative side, they have framed up the conversation that if you say what you think should happen, you’re racist. If you say, ‘Man, we’ve got too many Muslims over here. Man, how did 80,000 people from Somalia end up in Minnesota? How did Ilhan Omar rise to power? Why are there people, lawmakers of ours, that have dual citizenship? How come we can’t execute an America First agenda?’” he continues.“If you ask those questions, you’re intolerant, you’re racist, you’re anti-Semitic, and most of these people don’t want to deal with the consequences,” he adds.And because most on the right fear being called these names, they don’t stand behind their true beliefs — and they’re less likely to win elections.“The left gets to proudly, boldly, speak their worldview. The right has been trained that if you speak your worldview too boldly, we’ll do you the same way we did Trump. Here’s Donald Trump. He’s friends with every black rapper and celebrity and athlete for years, but we framed him up as a racist,” Whitlock says.“Here’s Charlie Kirk, a devout Christian. We framed him up as racist. We can do it to you. And there’s been bullets fired at Donald Trump. There’s been attempts to incarcerate the man. And Charlie Kirk was shot in broad daylight in front of basically all of America and all the world,” he continues.“And most people don’t want to pay that price. They don’t. They want to carry the cross only so far,” he adds.Want more from Jason Whitlock?To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Sergeant Derek Rogers, a 22-year veteran of the Canadian military who played trombone for the Canadian Central Command Band, took his wife of 20 years on a trip to Maine in 2002. It was the last trip they would take together because a pair of siblings of Sioux descent savagely beat Rogers to death while he was taking a stroll on the beach near the cottage his family rented.On Tuesday, radicals in Bangor, Maine, elected one of Rogers' killers, Angela Walker, to city council.'That's my past.'The 2,231 voters who cast ballots for Walker and the leftist group that endorsed her, Food and Medicine, were evidently willing to give her a pass for her history of violence and deception.After all, it's public record that Walker killed Rogers — a soldier known for his charity and devotion to the Salvation Army — participating in his bludgeoning and lethal force-feeding by sand, according to investigators. It's also a matter of public record that she attempted to blame the killing on an innocent woman named Aimee Pelletier, who investigators later determined had not been at the scene.Walker and her brother, Benjamin Humphrey, were originally charged with murder following the discovery of Rogers' body by a fisherman on July 31, 2002.When Humphrey pleaded guilty to manslaughter the following year, the victim's sister, Lorna Simard, said, "I don't feel that any plea bargain is justice," reported the Associated Press.Simard was ultimately denied the full measure of justice twice as Walker also managed to strike a plea deal.RELATED: Candidate arrested for allegedly breaking into GOP rival's Ohio home — just days before Election Day Staff photo by Gregory Rec/Portland Press Herald via Getty ImagesWalker pleaded guilty in 2003 to perjury as well as to killing Rogers in exchange for a reduced charge of manslaughter.Robert Crowley, then-justice of the Maine Superior Court, reportedly sentenced Walker to 10 years in prison and gave her a five-year suspended sentence for committing perjury.While Walker claimed that Rogers prompted her violent reaction by allegedly calling her a "squaw" — a claim Rogers' family suggested was utter nonsense — Crowley emphasized the victim's innocence, noting, "He didn't do anything to contribute to his death, yet he lost his life."During her successful political campaign, Walker told the Bangor Daily News, "One of the big reasons that I want to run is because I feel like, with my lived experience and the work that I’ve done in a few different agencies in the area, that I can bring concerns of community members to City Council."The same perjurer who apparently helped stuff sand down a soldier's throat until he died added that she hopes to "be the voice for people that can’t speak up or don’t speak up."As for Rogers' horrific slaying, Walker said, "That's my past. I don't live there anymore, and I'm a different person."Former Bangor City Council chairwoman Sarah Nichols was among those who endorsed Walker, claiming "Angela has achieved positive results in her own recovery and has played a key role in projects that connect many people to crucial resources, supporting their recovery success."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

GHOUL Aaron Rupar DOGWALKED for Lying About RFK Jr. Running Away After Man Fainted During Trump Presser

Karoline Leavitt Points Out What the WH Is Up Against When It Comes to the Propaganda Press

Half a Million Pounds of Drugs Foiled: USCG Crushes Cartels with 2025 Haul