Hundreds of requests have poured into the watchdog group StopAntisemitism after it offered last week to help New York City residents relocate over the potential rise of Zohran Mamdani to mayor. Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for mayor, leads former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, making an independent bid after losing to Mamdani in the primary, and Republican Curtis Sliwa by double-digits in polls. Mamdani calls himself a Democratic Socialist and has been accused by critics of courting antisemites if not trafficking in Jew-hatred himself. “New Yorkers – looking to relocate if Mamdani wins the NYC mayoral race? We’d love to connect you to realtors in FL, TX, CT, etc. You deserve to live in a city not run by an antisemite,” an October 16 X post from StopAntisemitism says. “If Mamdani is elected, we will make it our mission to remove as much of his tax base as possible. Antisemites understand one thing – consequences,” a follow-up post says. More than 300 people have expressed interest in StopAntisemitism’s offer since the post went up, group founder Liora Rez told The Daily Wire. In addition, real estate agents from across the United States have contacted Rez’s group to offer their services for anyone wishing to relocate out of The Big Apple. Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to DailyWire.com/Subscribe to join now. “I think the vast, vast majority of Jews in New York City are extremely frightened of what will happen if this man takes the mayoral seat. He will put Jewish safety on the back burner,” Rez told The Daily Wire. “I, personally, am deeply afraid that what we are witnessing in London right now – and overall what’s happening in the UK, whether it’s Manchester, so on and so forth – this is a precursor to what we will see in New York City in the next two to three years, if not sooner.” Rez’s anecdotal experience – receiving a flood of interest from StopAntisemitism’s campaign – is supported by polling data. A survey released on Friday from Victory Insights has found that as much as a quarter of New York City residents would consider fleeing the city if Mamdani wins the election, according to the New York Post. Concerns about antisemitism have swirled around Mamdani’s campaign. His opponents in the mayoral race have hit him repeatedly for refusing to condemn the phrase, “globalize the intifada,” a call for violence against Israel and Jews. Concerns about Mamdani have been raised by Jewish leaders across the country, with hundreds of rabbis, including dozens in New York City, expressing concern about Mamdani’s positions, rhetoric, and affiliations in an open letter. Mamdani is a close associate of Linda Sarsour, having joined Sarsour’s Muslim Democratic Club of New York in 2015. The club was co-founded by Sarsour in 2013 as a vehicle to elect like-minded Muslims to political office. In 2018, Sarsour placed Mamdani on the board of the Muslim Democratic Club. Sarsour has long been dogged by accusations of antisemitism. She is a vocal supporter of the antisemitic Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement targeting Israel. She left her leadership position in the leftist activist organization Women’s March in 2018 as she and other leaders were accused of antisemitism and mismanagement. Mamdani and Sarsour have another connection as well: Imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Wahhaj, who has been linked to other terrorist activity, has received praise from both Sarsour and Mamdani. From Mamdani, the praise came as recently as last week. On October 17, Mamdani posted a photo online of him and Wahhaj, calling the terror-linked Imam a “pillar of the Bed-Stuy community for nearly half a century.”

The U.S. Department of War has confirmed that it has accepted an anonymous donation of $130 million to help keep U.S. troops paid during the government shutdown. President Donald Trump said on Thursday that a close friend of his, whom he described as “patriotic,” gave the money to keep our military paid during what he’s called the “Schumer Shutdown,” referencing Senate Democrat Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). The anonymous donor is reportedly Timothy Mellon, a billionaire railroad magnate and heir to the prominent banking and political Mellon family. Mellon has not confirmed the donation came from him. During the 2024 campaign, Mellon donated $100 million to groups backing Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who now serves as Health and Human Services secretary in the Trump administration. The government has been shut down since October 1, after Democrats refused a funding resolution without certain health care subsidies. Republicans have charged that Democrats want illegal immigrants to receive health care paid for by the American people. “He called us the other day and said, ‘I’d like to contribute any shortfall you have because of the Democrat shutdown … because I love the military and I love the country,'” Trump said. The Department of War has since confirmed the donation. “On October 23, 2025, the Department of War accepted an anonymous donation of $130 million under its general gift acceptance authority,” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement. “The donation was made on the condition that it be used to offset the cost of Service members’ salaries and benefits. We are grateful for this donor’s assistance after Democrats opted to withhold pay from troops.” Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to DailyWire.com/Subscribe to join now. Trump made clear last week that he would find a way to pay troops despite the ongoing shutdown. He signed an executive order directing the Pentagon to repurpose unused funds to cover salaries in the interim. “Chuck Schumer recently said, ‘Every day gets better’ during their Radical Left Shutdown. I DISAGREE!” Trump posted to Truth Social last week, as highlighted by The Daily Wire. “If nothing is done, because of ‘Leader’ Chuck Schumer and the Democrats, our Brave Troops will miss the paychecks they are rightfully due on October 15th,” he continued. “That is why I am using my authority, as Commander in Chief, to direct our Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to use all available funds to get our Troops PAID on October 15th.” “I will not allow the Democrats to hold our Military, and the entire Security of our Nation, HOSTAGE, with their dangerous Government Shutdown,” the president added. The funds donated by the anonymous individual might need to first receive authorization by Congress, Fox News notes. Related: ‘Get Our Troops Paid’: Trump Says He Won’t Let Military Suffer Due To Dem Shutdown

Is it “Islamophobic” to wonder if New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has a soft spot for Islamic terrorists? Hardly. “God forbid, another 9/11—can you imagine Mamdani in the seat?” New York mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo told WABC’s “Sid and Friends in the Morning” this week. “He’d be cheering,” host Sid Rosenberg replied. “That’s another problem,” Cuomo added. To this, Mamdani and his allies exploded in feigned outrage. Why? We already know Mamdani has allied with those who want to bring the “Intifada” against Jewish Americans in New York and elsewhere. We know that Mamdani is comfortable associating and allying with those who cheer and excuse the murder of infidels. Last week, he “had the pleasure of meeting” Siraj Wahhaj, one of the “foremost Muslim leaders and a pillar of the Bed-Stuy community for nearly half a century.” Wahhaj, born Jeffrey Kearse, is a champion of Islamic supremacism. And not the brand of trendy, socialist, Hamas-cheering supremacism that Mamdani and his friends engage in. Wahhaj supports overturning the system (“I pray one day Allah will bless us to raise an army”) and installing medieval Muslim doctrine (“Islam is better than democracy … Islam prevails over every kind of system, and you know what? It will happen.”) The Imam of the Muslim Alliance in North America, who often hosted the infamous Blind Sheikh and other conspirators in 1993 World Trade Center bombing, says he would be honored to die for Jihad, and admits his politics are just a “weapon in the cause of Islam.” Indeed, Wahhaj defended the 1993 World Trade Center bombers while attacking law enforcement as the real enemy. It makes sense since Wahhaj believes the U.S. is “filthy” and “sick.” And perhaps Mamdani’s fans agree with that observation. When Mamdani was called out for praising Wahhaj, he didn’t concede that the imam’s positions were abhorrent. Instead, he whined about how other politicians had also met Wahhaj. None of those politicians has a mentor and father in Mahmood Mamdani, who argued three years after 9/11 that suicide bombings should not be “stigmatized as a mark of barbarism.” None of them wrote and performed a rap song that glorified Hamas financiers. None of them appeared with popular podcaster Hasan Piker, who explicitly said that the U.S. deserved the 9/11 attacks. On political grounds, it’s nearly incomprehensible to think that any politician could get away with this kind of association less than 25 years after the greatest terror attack against the United States. Piker not only believes that the U.S. got what was coming to it on 9/11 but that “it doesn’t matter if rapes f—-ing happened on Oct. 7.” Where was the outrage from the Left? It’s true that this kind of talk has been destigmatized on social media, but Piker is no different, morally speaking, from a white supremacist. Imagine the stories we’d be reading about Cuomo if he had an amiable conversation with a racist alt-right podcaster. It took until very recently, and only when pressed by Cuomo during a live televised debate, for Mamdani to distance himself from Piker’s 9/11 comments. You’ll excuse me if I find his condemnation disingenuous. Of course, Mamdani’s defenders accused Cuomo of being “Islamophobic.” What else is new? This vacuous term is meant to chill speech, and nothing more. There are, of course, bigots in this country. But “Islamophobia” is cynical manipulation of language. Islam is not a race or a set of people. It’s a set of beliefs. The woke Left might view everyone in racial terms, but people with critical thinking skills have every right to question extremism within any faith or ideology. “Democratic” socialism is an accelerant for Islamic extremism. Now, obviously, Manhattan isn’t going to turn into a caliphate any time soon. Big cities often elect absurd mayors. But if you don’t believe the red-green alliance is worth concerning yourself over, you haven’t been paying attention to the disaster unfolding in Western Europe, where the Left allows the sensibilities and traditions of unassimilated Islamic newcomers to trump basic liberal freedoms. Would Zohran Mamdani celebrate 9/11? I don’t know. But the candidate has proven a little problematic associating with theocrats and rationalizing violent rhetoric. New Yorkers have every right to be suspicious of how he would react. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post It’s Not ‘Islamophobic’ To Wonder How Mamdani Would React to 9/11 appeared first on The Daily Signal.

I write from a quiet, mountainous part of Central Europe. The scenery is idyllic, and the fall air is crisp. But much as the case has been in my other recent trips to the European continent, the sights I see and the conversations I hear are all underscored by a similar haunting concern: Will there even be a Europe, in any cognizable sense of the term, a century from now? All across the continent, fertility rates have plummeted, and the Christianity that defined the civilization for two millennia is viewed as a quaint relic of a bygone era. The combination of modern European Union political and economic integration on the one hand, combined with imposed mass immigration from foreign (namely, Islamic) cultures on the other hand, has led to a place where sense of home and hearth is diminished—and along with it, community, meaning and purpose. In Britain, two Jews were killed following a synagogue attack by a Syrian immigrant on the holiest day on the Jewish calendar. In Germany—yes, Germany—Jews have already been advised for years against wearing a kippah head covering in public. More generally, Europeans’ personal happiness levels have seemingly gravitated away from church and children, the traditional sources of meaning, and toward a discomfiting positive correlation with the size of a nation’s welfare state. The stunning Louvre museum heist earlier this week in Paris offers an uncanny encapsulation of the broader society-wide phenomenon. On Sunday, thieves disguised as construction workers stole, during broad daylight, eight pieces of the French crown jewels estimated to be worth roughly $100 million. And perhaps the most astonishing aspect of this real-life caper is this: As of this writing, the thieves have not been caught. The utterly humiliating inability of French authorities to either prevent the theft of the literal crown jewels or promptly arrest the perpetrators after the fact is the most poetic possible way to demonstrate a point that has come up in so many of my conversations this week: At best, European political and cultural elites have no interest in protecting and preserving their culture; and at worst, they have an interest in seeing that culture replaced root and branch. Back home in the United States, the situation is in some ways not so different. It was concern about decades of reckless American immigration policy and elite-driven cultural decadence, above all, that first propelled Donald Trump to the White House in 2016. The chief difference in this respect between the United States and Europe, besides America’s more robust (if still declining) church, is thus primarily a political one. Trump is now a two-term president, whereas the only major European country to have a right-of-center leader today is Italy. Viktor Orban of Hungary cannot do it all by himself. Amidst the prevailing transatlantic cultural currents of nihilism, childlessness and general dissatisfaction, it has never been more important that political leaders offer a robust defense of their respective homelands and a compelling vision for those homelands’ future. Sincerity of religious conviction and the utilitarian value of religious community are both time-tested ways of offering meaning and stability in a person’s life, but there is a role to be played by an anodyne nationalism as well. Following religious conviction, pride in one’s homeland and confidence in its future is the sentiment that very well might induce the most people to get married and have children. If one hates his country and thinks it is evil, or even if he merely thinks the future of his country looks positively dire, he might well be less inclined to make the tremendous investment of bringing new life into the world. What is the point, one might well conclude, of raising children in a hellish, dystopian future? Trump’s political success is partially due to his keen understanding of this very phenomenon. One can always quibble on the merits or demerits of a certain policy approach, but Trump’s signature “Make America Great Again” tagline grasps at an ineluctable truth: America, for various reasons, had been in decline, but the man in charge now understands that and plans to turn things around. Across Europe, there is much that can be learned from the Trump example. But that begins with evincing a simple desire to defend the existence and perpetuity of one’s culture. It begins with a meaningful determination to prolong the lifespan of a particular nation, in Edmund Burke’s famous sense of the term, as a social compact between the dead, the living and the yet unborn. In Paris, perhaps it begins by defending the nation’s literal crown jewels. Surely that isn’t too much to ask for, is it? COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Louvre Heist Encapsulates a Western Culture That Will Not Defend Itself appeared first on The Daily Signal.

There’s no link between antidepressant use and mass shootings, at least not according to a new study published in the journal Psychiatry Research.Certainly good news for the pharmaceutical industry — but does one study really mean case closed?The FDA’s own adverse event reporting system shows a consistent link between SSRIs and violence among adults.It’s a controversial topic that has only become more so in recent years, especially now that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the secretary of health and human services under President Trump.Deplorable questions?Kennedy has long maintained that antidepressants are causing mass shootings. In an interview with Elon Musk in 2023, for example, Kennedy said, “Prior to the introduction of Prozac [a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor], we had none of these events [mass shootings].”In his confirmation hearings in February, he told the Senate that the link “should be studied, along with other possible culprits.”He was asked to clarify his views about antidepressants and mass shootings by his Democrat interrogators, because they were intended to be discrediting just by being uttered aloud — just like his views on water fluoridation, vaccination, and the origins of COVID-19. A whole basket of deplorable ideas.In short, we’re talking about yet another partisan political issue, even though, surely, we can all agree that mass shootings are terrible and we need to do everything we can to stop them.Guns, not drugs?And that includes, obviously, understanding what motivates the shooters.The new study looked at over 800 mass-shooting incidents that took place between 1990 and 2023. The researchers used publicly available data — news reports, court records, and police statements — to see whether the perpetrators had any history of antidepressant or psychotropic drug use and whether there was a link between suicidality and mass shootings. Previous research had suggested there was such a link.The researchers found evidence of lifetime antidepressant use in just 34 out of 852 cases and evidence of psychotropic drug use more broadly in 56 cases — just 6.6%. There was no unusual association between suicidality and mass shootings either. Suicide attempts were slightly more common among those with a history of medication use, but the difference was not statistically meaningful.Population-level data also indicated that antidepressant use among mass shooters was lower than among the general public. If antidepressants were causing mass shootings, we’d expect levels of antidepressant use to be higher, not lower.QED — or so the researchers believe.“The vast majority of mass shootings have nothing to do with mental illness,” Ragy R. Girgis, one of the study authors, told medical news website PsyPost.“The primary modifiable population-level risk factor for mass shootings is firearm availability.”Prevent people from getting their hands on guns, prevent mass shootings. It’s that simple.Or is it?RELATED: Groomed for violence? The dark world of furries and transgenderism in America's classrooms Blaze Media illustrationPremature conclusionsThere’s a glaring problem: The data simply isn't good enough to allow any kind of firm conclusion to be reached. The writers at "PsyPost" do at least acknowledge there’s a serious problem, although it doesn’t stop them from trumpeting “new study finds no evidence” in their headline.Here’s what "PsyPost" says about the reliability of the evidence on offer.Data were collected from publicly available sources, such as news articles and online records. This approach may miss cases where medication use was not reported or was kept confidential. The study also could not determine whether medications were being taken as prescribed during the attack or whether the person had recently stopped taking them.Data is often kept confidential, even in the most high-profile cases. Take the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. At the time of the massacre, which claimed the lives of 14 people and left another 20 wounded, it was widely reported that Harris had been on the powerful new SSRI Luvox, generic name fluvoxamine. The New York Times claimed Harris had been rejected by Marine recruiters just five days before the attack for taking the drug.There were suggestions that he had tried to go cold turkey as a result and that this might have affected his actions on that dreadful, bloody day. The Times noted that “patients taking Luvox are warned that if combined with other drugs, including alcohol, the drug can cause extreme agitation progressing to delirium, coma and death. The package also carries a warning about suicide.”While officials said neither shooter had drugs or alcohol in his system at time of death, the coroner refused to say whether they had been tested for antidepressants, including Luvox.And so we still don’t know, 26 years later, whether antidepressants played a role in the Columbine killings.Mandatory screeningsThankfully, there are now some attempts to provide answers. Unsurprisingly, they’re coming from Republican politicians and red states.Tennessee has become the first state in the U.S. to introduce mandatory screening for psychotropic drugs in mass killings, defined as incidents in which four or more people are killed. In every mass killing that takes place in Tennessee, a detailed toxicology report will be produced and made available to the public. Investigators will study drug interactions in the killer’s body — because drugs have different effects when used in combination, a fact that is poorly understood — and they’ll also consult with providers of mental health services if the killer was receiving treatment.Here’s something we do know for sure. A clear, well-established link exists between SSRIs and all forms of violent behavior. A huge Swedish study from 2020 that looked at 250,000 people revealed a significant association between SSRI use and violent crime, especially among 15- to 24-year-olds and 25- to 35-year-olds. The study also showed that risk of violence remained elevated up to 12 weeks after discontinuation of the drugs. The FDA’s own adverse event reporting system shows a consistent link between SSRIs and violence among adults.A tall orderInstead of dismissing the possibility of a link between antidepressant use and mass shootings, we actually need to do some proper research. Gather data and interpret it objectively — meaning dispassionately, without imposing an ideological agenda that fixes the conclusions in advance.I know that’s a tall order, given how emotional a subject mass murder is — especially mass murder of children — and how unwilling we all are to talk across the growing political divide, but that’s the scientific ideal, and that’s the only way we’re ever going to get to the truth.As every first-year history undergraduate knows — and I was one, once upon a time — absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Let’s not get twisted. Lives are at stake.

Meet Lydia and Heath Marvin.The Marvins are Christian parents of three children. Compelled by their Christian faith, the couple have fostered eight young children since 2020. But they recently learned that they will no longer be able to provide foster children with a stable home after the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families revoked their license to foster.Their story is yet another warning to every Christian who still thinks neutrality is an option.The reason? Because they stood on their Christian values, refusing to sign the state's "gender affirming policy" and "affirm the LGBTQIA+ identity" of foster children, according to WBZ-TV.State officials officially revoked the Marvins' foster license in April."We had asked: Is there any sort of accommodation, can you waive this at all? We will absolutely love and support and care for any child in our home, but we simply can't agree to go against our Christian faith in this area. And we're ultimately told no, you must sign the form as is or else you will be de-licensed," Lydia explained.The faithful Christian couple appealed the decision — but lost.It's no shock that Massachusetts, a state controlled by Democrats, believes that compelling loving parents to affirm LGBTQ ideology is a reasonable measure to "protect" children. But the Trump administration disagrees. The administration recently sent a letter to the DCF, according to WBZ, calling the policies "deeply troubling, clearly contrary to the purpose of child welfare programs, and in direct violation of First Amendment protections."Yes and amen.But there is another aspect of this story that Christians should find alarming.RELATED: How Christians can take back what Pride Month stole A generation ago, Americans were told that embracing the LGBT movement was about tolerance, kindness, and freedom. Christians were promised that the cultural "progress" of the LGBT movement would not encroach on their own families, faith, or freedoms."All we want is the right to marry. How will my gay marriage hurt you?" we were told.But as this Massachusetts case proves yet again, that was never true. It was never about tolerance. Instead, it was always a demand for affirmation and compliance — or else.The promise — the progressive narrative that "acceptance" is not forced affirmation — was a lie.When Christian parents — who are willing to sacrifice their resources to love and support young children in dire need — can lose their foster license not for mistreating children but for refusing to affirm an ideology that violates their conscience and faith, it's clear we've moved from freedom of belief to a mandate for belief. The state is no longer neutral. Rather, it's enforcing a new moral orthodoxy that treats biblical truth and conviction as disqualifying.The result is as shocking as it is tragic: Children become victimized again.Children in foster care are already victims of unfortunate and tragic circumstances. They need stability, love, and guidance. But Massachusetts officials have decided to victimize them further, reducing them to casualties of an ideological war. The state has decided to turn away good, compassionate, Christian parents simply because those parents refuse to recite the LGBTQ creed.That's not how you protect children. It's cruelty disguised as compassion.And it's especially tragic when you consider the facts on the ground. From the Boston Globe:There are only 5,500 licensed foster families in the state for the 8,000 to 9,000 kids in the foster system. When DCF can’t find foster parents for kids, they often end up in group homes instead.The situation unfolding in Massachusetts is the result of a culture that trades truth for ideology. Once a society decides that personal identity outweighs objective reality, every person must bend the knee. Schools, businesses, institutions — and now even foster parents.The godless progressive agenda demands that all must become temples of affirmation where any hint of dissent is treated as blasphemous heresy.But Christians cannot — and must not — comply. Love does not require lying. Compassion does not require compromise. To affirm what is false is not mercy but betrayal. God bless Lydia and Heath for standing firm on the solid rock of Christ and His truth in the face of such pressure.Their story is yet another warning to every Christian who still thinks neutrality is an option. In this cultural moment, there is no third way. Certain state actors have made belief in leftist creeds and ideologies a litmus test for orthodoxy — and biblical truth is deemed heretical.Still, we should have hope. There has never been a better time to be a Christian than right now. We have always been called to stand apart from the world. We are salt and light.And no matter how dark it sometimes feels, darkness cannot overcome the light.

CNN: Pentagon Confirms Trump Is Possibly Illegally ’Funneling’ Donor’s Aid to Military

President Trump Takes Out 'Sacred' Trees for New White House Ballroom, Hysterical Media Loses Its Mind

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro said the U.S. government is forging a war against him as the world's largest warship approaches the South American country.