Donald Trump’s recent floated proposal to deploy the National Guard to crime-overrun blue cities like Chicago and Baltimore has been met with howls of outrage from the usual suspects. For many liberal talking heads and Democratic officials, this is simply the latest evidence of Trump’s “authoritarianism.” But such specious analysis and manufactured hysteria distract from what all parties ought to properly focus on: the well-being of the people who actually live in such crime-addled jurisdictions. Trump is once again baiting his political opponents into defending the indefensible. What’s remarkable is not just the specific policy suggestion itself — after all, federal force has been called in to assist state-level law enforcement plenty of times — but rather how Trump is once again baiting his political opponents into defending the indefensible. He has a singular talent for making the Left clutch onto wildly unpopular positions and take the wrong side of clear 80-20 issues. It’s political jiu-jitsu at its finest. Crime in cities like Chicago and Baltimore isn’t a right-wing fever dream. It’s a persistent, documented crisis that continues to destroy communities and ruin lives. Chicago saw nearly 600 homicides in 2024 alone, “earning” it the dubious title of America’s homicide capital for the 13th consecutive year. In Baltimore, despite a recent downtick, violent crime remains exponentially higher than national averages. Sustained, decades-long Democratic leadership in both cities has failed, time and again, to secure even a minimum baseline level of safety for its residents — many of whom are Black and working-class, the very communities Democrats purport to champion. (RELATED: The Eisenhower Precedent: Is Trump Justified in Deploying the National Guard to Chicago?) Trump sees that leadership and quality-of-life vacuum. And he’s filling it with a popular message of law and order. Trump’s proposal to deploy the National Guard — if local leadership continues to abdicate their most basic governance duties — isn’t the flight of fancy of a would-be strongman. It’s federalism functioning as the Founders intended: The federal government must step in, per Article IV of the Constitution, when local governance breaks down so catastrophically that the feds are needed to “guarantee … a republican form of government.” Even more specifically, the Insurrection Act of 1807 has long been available as a congressionally authorized tool for presidents to restore order when state unrest reaches truly intolerable levels. Presidents from Jefferson to Eisenhower to Bush 41 have invoked it. Trump’s critics would rather not have a conversation about bloody cities like Chicago — or the long history of presidents deploying the National Guard when local circumstances require it. They’d rather scream “fascism” than explain why a grandmother in Englewood should have to dodge gang bullets on her way to church. They’d rather chant slogans about “abolishing the police” than face the hard fact that the communities most devastated by crime consistently clamor for more law enforcement — not less. (RELATED: ‘Fascist’ Is the Dumbest Political Insult in the World Today) This is where Trump’s political instincts shine. He doesn’t try to “win” the crime debate by splitting the difference with progressives. He doesn’t offer a milquetoast promise to fund “violence interrupters” or expand toothless social programs. He goes right at the issue, knowing full well that the American people are with him. Because they are. The public has consistently ranked crime and safety among its top concerns; last November, it was usually a top-five issue in general election exit polling. And polling consistently shows that overwhelming majorities — often in the 70-80 percent range — support more police funding and oppose the Left’s radical decarceration agenda. Democrats, ever in thrall to their activist far-left flank, are stuck defending policies with rhetoric that most voters correctly identify as both dangerous and absurd. Trump knows that when he floats these proposals, Democrats and their corporate media allies won’t respond with nuance. They’ll respond with knee-jerk outrage — just as they did in 2020, when Trump sent federal agents to Portland to stop violent anarchists from torching courthouses. The media framed it as martial law; sane Oregonians saw it as basic governance. This dynamic plays out again and again. When Trump highlights the border crisis and the need to deport unsavory figures like Mahmoud Khalil and Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Democrats defend open borders. When Trump attacks gender ideology indoctrination in schools, Democrats double down on letting teachers hide children’s “transitions” from their parents. When Trump condemns pro-Hamas rioters in American cities, Democrats can’t bring themselves to say a word of support for Israel’s war against a U.S. State Department-recognized foreign terrorist organization. When Trump signs an executive order seeking to partially recriminalize flag burning, Democrats defend flag burning. On and on it goes. By now, it’s a well-established pattern. And it’s politically devastating for the Left. Moreover, the relevant history is on Trump’s side. This sort of federal corrective goes back all the way to the republic’s origins; those now freaking out might want to read up on George Washington’s efforts to quash the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. Call it the art of the 80-20 issue. Along with his sheer sense of humor, Trump’s instinctual knack for picking such winning battles is one of his greatest political assets. And this time, the winner won’t just be Trump himself — it will be Chicagoans and Baltimoreans as well. READ MORE from Josh Hammer: Yes, President Trump Has the Authority to Fire Lisa Cook The Art of the Deal, Russia–Ukraine Style It’s Past Time to Designate the Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Organization To find out more about Josh Hammer and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM

New technology often sparks fear — whether about its economic impact or malicious misuse. Each generation of tech has seen this pattern, from the printing press and transistor radio to cellphones and social media. Today, the target of skepticism is artificial intelligence (AI), particularly “deepfake” images, videos, and audio. Deepfakes use AI to mimic someone’s appearance or voice, misrepresenting their actions or words. People fear they can be used for fraud, misinformation, nonconsensual explicit content, and foreign interference in American politics — concerns that led to the passage of the TAKE IT DOWN Act, which created the legal framework for having non-consensual intimate imagery taken off websites and social media. Now, attention has shifted to another bill: the NO FAKES Act. This legislation aims to give individuals greater control over their likeness, preventing unauthorized digital replications of their image or voice. (RELATED: Britain’s Online Safety Act Might Come to America) In practice, its broad wording has sparked concerns about unintended consequences, from excessive legal liability to conflicts with free speech rights. The goal is straightforward and well-intentioned — to protect people from exploitation in movies, music, advertising, and online content. But in practice, its broad wording has sparked concerns about unintended consequences, from excessive legal liability to conflicts with free speech rights. (RELATED: The Big Beautiful Bill’s Moratorium on AI Regulation Is Dangerous) One especially overlooked risk is its potential application to video game avatars and customizable characters. In its current form, the bill would make gaming platforms legally responsible every time a user customizes a character to look like a celebrity, even if it’s playful or satirical. Fortnite skins, Minecraft mods, and customizable Sims are not the same as deepfake videos circulating on social media. Gaming platforms operate differently from search engines. Giving a character blonde hair and a tan like President Trump is not equivalent to an AI-generated video showing him fleeing police. Yet the broad language of the NO FAKES Act fails to distinguish between the two. That threatens the ability of gaming companies — and the wider entertainment industry — to keep building interactive, customizable experiences. The bill will affect an industry that generates hundreds of thousands of jobs and tens of billions of dollars in GDP, not to mention the millions of gamers who’ll just have to wait to see how it impacts their favorite games. Americans have been personalizing virtual characters for decades. The Sims introduced the idea to Gen X long before AI. Millennials and Gen Z grew up with Wii Miis and Minecraft skins. Who knows what Gen Alpha will get up to later. Playing make-believe with your friends on a video game is nothing like spreading AI-driven misinformation campaigns on Instagram or X. Gaming is harmless, and gaming communities pose no real threat of spreading false news. The act should be amended before we find Super Mario at the center of court battles over AI. That helps no one. Americans deserve real focus on these issues — not distractions. READ MORE by Sam Raus: Steelmanning Tariffs Stop Slamming the Brakes on Driverless Cars Sam Raus is the David Boaz Resident Writing Fellow at Young Voices, a political analyst and public relations professional. Follow him on X: @SamRaus1. 

from Mark Dice: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Matt Agorist, The Free Thought Project: (Future of Freedom Foundation) President Trump’s relentless attacks on the independence of the Federal Reserve help remind us why the Constitution established a totally different monetary system than the one under which we have all been born and raised. The reason that the Federal Reserve — or central bank […]

Joe Biden has undergone surgery to remove new skin cancer lesions, his office confirmed

Ben Shapiro destroys corporate media types who pushed Trump death hoax

For Jonathane Ricci, the real measure of legal strategy isn’t just about winning cases – it’s about withstanding scrutiny long after the verdict is issued. As an international wealth management adviser with over 25 years of experience in cross-border law, Ricci has built a practice around structuring assets, defending legacy, and protecting clients from reputational […]

'Does seem to run against the grain'