'Killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military.'

'a meaningless epithet to be invoked promiscuously'

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 Democrat 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. 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, decadeslong Democrat 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. 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 Thomas Jefferson to Dwight 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. 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 their 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% 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. 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 Trump’s National Guard Deployment and the Art of the 80-20 Issue appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Hollywood press downplays stories that don’t fit “the narrative.” Example? Stephen Colbert gets canned for costing CBS a reported $40 million a year. Media outlets decried the decision, suggesting President Donald Trump got the far-Left host fired … without evidence. Trump is Hitler 2.0, or so The Narrative goes. Michael Rapaport gets canceled for being a pro-Israeli Jewish artist. Mostly crickets from the Legacy Media. The pro-Palestinian Left must be protected, so the story got little coverage. This time, the outrage proved too big to cover up.   The UK has arrested a COMEDIAN now for @X posts that the British government found to be criminally offensive to transgenders. Here’s Graham Linehan on his arrest. The UK has no free speech. The feelings of transgenders & migrants come before the rights of everyone else. pic.twitter.com/vkK4OAQ0Zk — Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) September 2, 2025   British comic Graham Linehan’s arrest this week over allegedly anti-trans social media posts proved so shocking even Hollywood press outlets covered it. They didn’t wait a day or two until the story calmed down, either. Both Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter shared the news mere hours after it exploded on social media. And this is far from an isolated incident. Free speech is under furious attack in England.   Wow. You gotta listen to this. “It really is 1984, we are living it now” In the UK, they are looking to curb speech in Pubs by “banning customers from discussing controversial topics” in case the conversation you are talking about offends someone. This is absolutely mad. ?… pic.twitter.com/LP4OshDHB0 — Kosher? (@koshercockney) January 14, 2025   It’s a massive story, part of free speech’s shocking decline in the U.K. And, it should go without saying, the story has ramifications for Western culture, the arts and freedom in general. So where is Hollywood? The stars have been raging against President Trump for months, calling him a dictator who will snuff out free speech. Certainly, they’ll rise up en masse to decry Linehan’s arrest. No? Call it unlikely at best. Celebrities have mostly stood down as woke bylaws and Cancel Culture scolds pummeled speech over the past decade. Why? It’s partly due to fear. They also saw mostly conservatives being censored and didn’t feel compelled to rally to their side. Is there another explanation? Need examples? Stars decried against so-called book bans but ignored sensitivity readers erasing passages from Ian Fleming, Agatha Christie and Roald Dahl.  They said nothing as artists self-censored to avoid professional blowback. Some even memory-holed their own work rather than defend free expression. British stars should be speaking up the loudest right now, right? But are they? One Brit is doing just that. J.K. Rowling is an old-school liberal who holds free speech dear. And she’s not staying silent about the current crisis. (apologies for the adult language)   What the fuck has the UK become? This is totalitarianism. Utterly deplorable. https://t.co/CRl2n9rorh — J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) September 2, 2025   British comedian Ricky Gervais, a free speech warrior, posted this message on Monday but hasn’t addressed the matter directly on his X account (yet).   If you don’t believe in free speech for people who you disagree with, and even hate for what they stand for, then you don’t believe in free speech. pic.twitter.com/wMZoQbHZxj — Ricky Gervais (@rickygervais) September 1, 2025   Ex-Mumford and Sons musician Winston Marshall is aghast at Linehan’s arrest, too.   Comedian Graham Linehan @Glinner arrested by 5 armed police officers upon arrival at London Heathrow airport on account of 3 recent posts on X. Link ?? — Winston Marshall (@MrWinMarshall) September 2, 2025   Will their left-leaning peers join the fight or stay on the sidelines, hoping that the censors will come for them last?

New York City's Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has soared to stardom within his party, championing socialist policies and promising affordability. Now, President Donald Trump may be attempting to tip the scales.Trump has reportedly tried to trim down the playing field to weaken Mamdani's chances of winning the general election. Although Mamdani has enjoyed a comfortable lead over the star-studded cast of candidates, consolidating the race would toughen the chances for the 33-year-old socialist.'Are we a party that rallies behind our nominee or not?'Mamdani's main challengers include current NYC Mayor Eric Adams and former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, both of whom boast lengthy political careers. Despite this, Adams has trailed significantly behind both Cuomo and Mamdani, sometimes polling in single digits. Notably, polls show that Cuomo's odds improve against Mamdani if Adams is taken out of the equation. RELATED: Jasmine Crockett's jaw-dropping defense of criminals: 'They literally are trying to survive' Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty ImagesIn light of this disparity, some reports claimed the White House was weighing offering Adams a position in the administration if he stepped out of the race. One such position included nominating Adams to be ambassador to Saudi Arabia, according to the New York Post. Despite the cushy offer, Adams doubled down on staying in the race and running as an independent."Andrew Cuomo is a snake and a liar, I am in this race, and I am the only one that can beat Mamdani," Adams said Friday. RELATED: Exclusive: Tom Emmer torches Tim Walz's 'failed' leadership, says he should 'have his head examined' Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesEven with the probability of Adams as a spoiler, high-ranking Democrats have refrained from making any formal endorsements in the race. As of this writing, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have all withheld from endorsing the Democratic nominee.“We have a Democratic nominee,” Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York told reporters. “Are we a party that rallies behind our nominee or not?”Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

We all remember the famous Food Guide Pyramid developed in the 1990s that supposedly captures what a healthy diet looks like. The base of the model is made up of grains, followed by vegetables, fruits, dairy, proteins, and topped by a small section for fats and sweets.It was a helpful tool that guided Americans in cultivating a healthy lifestyle for themselves and their families.Except it wasn’t, because the model is fundamentally flawed.On a recent episode of “Blaze News: The Mandate,” Blaze Media editor in chief Matthew Peterson sat down with Claremont Institute Salvatori Research Fellow Glenn Ellmers to dive into the lies behind the government’s “health” advice. “Around the middle of the 20th century, we started to see what were called diseases of civilization. ... We started seeing obesity and diabetes and coronary heart disease and all the things that go with the modern lifestyle,” Ellmers says. “The problem was, our scientific experts identified the wrong culprit. They thought that the problem was the foods that people had been eating for thousands of years.”This led to foods like eggs, butter, and meat being vilified, hence their small category on the food pyramid. Instead, “experts” pushed for making carbohydrates — especially highly processed ones like breads, pastas, and cereals — the largest staple in people’s diets.The idea that foods refined by man are superior to foods from the earth is rooted in the prideful assumption that science supersedes, and even controls, nature, Ellmers explains.Even though the USDA has abandoned the food pyramid for a new graphic called MyPlate, which emphasizes balanced meals with roughly equal portions of vegetables, fruits, grains, and proteins, plus a small dairy portion, “it still hasn’t fixed the problem,” Ellmers says.Sadly, this obsession with science over nature impacts more than just what food is elevated. It also heavily influences other lifestyle factors.Instead of sunshine, exercise, and whole foods, “experts” push medications to “fix” people’s problems.“I have friends on the right who try to eat healthy, get out, exercise, work out, get sunshine, run around on the grass barefoot. Then, I know a lot of friends who are deeply unhappy, on all kinds of prescribed medication, not physically fit, and they think that science can solve their problems,” Ellmers says.“Has modern society really made people happy? ... We have loneliness. We have drug addiction. We have people taking all kinds of medications to solve their problems. People are still too sedentary. People are in their homes ordering fast food, addicted to video games and internet porn,” he adds.“In my experience, the people who can unplug, detach themselves from the screen, go out and run on the beach, eat a steak and an orange are actually a lot happier. So I’m not at all persuaded that the promise of science, that the conquest of nature, will lead to our happiness and our liberation.”To hear more, watch the full interview above.Want more from ‘Blaze News: The Mandate’?To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Zohran Mamdani's CNN Interview Was So Moronic That Even Abby Phillip Couldn't Let It Slide

From computers to televisions, USB ports can be found everywhere these days, but you may not know the meaning behind their colored plastic tabs.

From computers to televisions, USB ports can be found everywhere these days, but you may not know the meaning behind their colored plastic tabs.

Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich described Chicago as a "war zone" during a weekend television appearance on Newsmax, citing rising crime and criticizing state and city leaders for rejecting federal help offered by President Donald Trump.