As self-proclaimed democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani heads for the general election in the race for New York City mayor, he’s seeking to foster relationships with national Democrats in Washington.   Mamdani, a Democrat in the New York state Assembly who won his party’s primary for mayor on June 24, has garnered the support of some national Democrats, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.  Ocasio-Cortez hosted a breakfast for him Wednesday in Washington so that other leaders on the Left could “get to know him,” she told reporters. While some Democrats in Washington have been eager to give Mamdani their stamp of approval, others are not hitching their wagons to him just yet.  Mamdani’s base of Democrat support in Washington continues to grow:  Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. Sanders first endorsed Mamdani on June 17, a week before the mayoral primary election. Another self-avowed democratic socialist, Sanders has posted multiple times on X campaigning for Mamdani, saying, “We must do everything we can to get him elected.”    Mamdani called Sanders “the single most influential political figure” in his lifetime in a June post on the social media platform X.   Rep. Nydia Velasquez, D-N.Y.  “Great meeting!” were the first words Velasquez said as she stepped out of the breakfast. The Democrat New Yorker told reporters, “It’s just beautiful to have someone who is so authentic. … Money cannot buy that.”  Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y. Nadler gave brief remarks after the breakfast, saying that the meeting “went well” as he departed. When asked by reporters whether he thought Mamdani “won anyone over,” Nadler replied, “Yes.”  Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif. Takano appeared so won over by the breakfast that he told reporters Mamdani wasn’t a socialist. “The overall impression on me was, this guy is not a communist, he’s not a socialist—he’s an advocate for ‘small-c’ capitalism. … He really is fighting for the little business guy that’s trying to eke out a living in New York. … I thought that was a tremendous message.”  Takano appeared hopeful about the success of the breakfast: “There were a lot of other senior members of Congress in that room who I think are very curious about [Mamdani]. … They’ve seen a lot of social media and think it is really quite penetrating and brilliant.”  Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash. Jayapal also spoke to reporters after the breakfast, giving Mamdani glowing reviews: “Anybody that’s staying out at this point instead of endorsing this incredible, dynamic leader is missing an opportunity. … I think it’s hard not to be won over, because it’s the combination of his authenticity, his smart[s], and his commitment to lifting up working people and making life better for real folks that is really inspiring and not always easy to find.”  Jayapal had endorsed Mamdani before the Democrat primary election.  Other Democrats have hesitated to fully embrace Mamdani—and many of them are fellow New Yorkers:   Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. Schumer’s potential endorsement of Mamdani has been on the line for some weeks. When asked by reporters during a press briefing if he would endorse the socialist, the Senate minority leader gave a noncommittal response: “I’ll be meeting with him, but had a good conversation. He’s run a good campaign. I’ll be meeting with him.”  Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. The House minority leader has publicly expressed his hesitation about Mamdani’s initial refusal to condemn the phrase “Globalize the Intifada.” Jeffries told ABC News during an interview, “‘Globalizing the Intifada,’ by way of example, is not an acceptable phrase, and he’s going to have to clarify his position on that as he moves forward.”   Jeffries represents many Jewish people in his New York district and mentioned that as a specific concern. “I think our nominee is going to have to convince folks that he is prepared to aggressively address the rise in antisemitism in the city of New York, which has been an unacceptable development,” he said.  Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Four years ago, when Eric Adams won the Democrat mayoral primary for New York City, Pelosi invited him to Washington to speak before the House Democratic Caucus and welcomed him to President Joe Biden’s White House, according to CNN. The San Francisco congresswoman had no social media post congratulating Mamdani on his victory, as Schumer did, and has been conspicuously silent on any form of endorsement of him. Adams will be running as an independent against Mamdani in the general election.  Rep. Laura Gillen, D-N.Y. Another concerned New Yorker, Gillen has been vocal about her objections to Mamdani, calling him “too extreme to lead New York City” and the “absolute wrong choice for New York,” according to Newsweek.  Gillen told Newsweek she was also concerned about Mamdani’s reputed antisemitism: “Mr. Mamdani has called to defund the police and has demonstrated a deeply disturbing pattern of unacceptable antisemitic comments, which stoke hate at a time when antisemitism is skyrocketing.”  Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y. Suozzi voiced his alarm about the socialist mayoral candidate immediately after the Democrat primary. He wrote on X: “I had serious concerns about Assemblyman Mamdani before yesterday, and that is one of the reasons I endorsed his opponent. Those concerns remain.”  The post Democrat Division Over Mamdani Remains After AOC’s Promotional Breakfast appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Gas prices often increase in the summer as more motorists hit the road, but this year’s pump prices have dropped to match the summer of 2021, the last time seasonal gas prices were this low. The national average is down about 3 cents per gallon from last week, returning to the price from a month ago, $3.16. One year ago, gas prices were at $3.574. Gas prices were also at a four-year low on Independence Day. The White House is attributing the phenomenon to President Donald Trump’s energy agenda, which Energy Secretary Chris Wright told The Daily Signal can be summarized as making it “easier to build energy-production capacity and stop subsidizing stuff that’s not been helpful.” “Prices at the pump keep dropping, thanks to President Trump unleashing American energy,” White House assistant press secretary Taylor Rogers told The Daily Signal. “President Trump ended Joe Biden’s reckless war on American energy, and he’s making life more affordable for families as a result.” Trump signed an executive order on Day One in office to speed up the completion of energy projects through emergency measures. The order read in part that “agencies shall identify and use all lawful emergency or other authorities available to them to facilitate the supply, refining, and transportation of energy in and through the West Coast of the United States, Northeast of the United States, and Alaska.” He also signed an order encouraging energy exploration and production on federal lands and waters, including on the outer continental shelf. The post Trump Admin Hails Summer Gas Prices Dropping to 4-Year Low appeared first on The Daily Signal.

European Farmers Are Sharpening the Pitchfork Tines Again

Despite the fact that their political correspondents were consumed by suddenly being concerned with a president’s health and their gleeful Epstein coverage, one would have thought ABC, CBS, and NBC could have still found time to go full Chicken Little about the House’s final passage of the $9 billion rescissions package that included a $1 billion clawback of funding to far-left PBS and NPR. But, alas, they more or less whistled past the graveyard and moved on, spending only a combined one minute and 48 seconds on the vote to defund PBS and NPR, a battle the left had won for nearly 60 years while we at the Media Research Center emerged as the victor in this multi-generational war. As we’ll see, however, the real number was more like 94 seconds.     Usually the ones to be the most hysterical, ABC’s Good Morning America was the most sedate. Co-host George Stephanopoulos had the only tease across the three networks: “New overnight, the $9 billion package passed by Congress that cuts funding to foreign aid and public broadcasting.” Stephanopoulos was even more vague in going to congressional correspondent Jay O’Brien, alluding to both the rescission as well as one about cryptocurrency. Minus the five-second lead-in, this was the 28 seconds O’Brien had on the former (vs. 48 seconds on the crypto bill): In a major win for President Trump, the House overnight narrowly passing this White House request to claw back $9 billion in funds Congress already approved and, in some cases, DOGE then cut, including billions in foreign aid and slashing $1 billion from public broadcasters like NPR and PBS. President Trump celebrating in a post this morning. And, after this bill also cleared the Senate, it's now heading to his desk to be signed just before today's deadline, George. Shifting to CBS Mornings, the rescissions package’s final passaged fetched its own news brief, tallying 25 seconds. Unfortunately, only 16 seconds of that was on the rescissions package itself with the rest focused on Epstein. Here was co-host Tony Dokoupil: On Capitol Hill overnight, House Republicans approved $9 billion in budget cuts for foreign and – foreign aid and public broadcasting that the Senate okayed on Wednesday. President Trump demanded the cuts. They were originally identified by Elon Musk's DOGE task force. The House did not vote, we should mention, on a resolution attached to the budget package that calls on the Justice Department to release more information from the Epstein files. NBC’s Today followed the same script as ABC as the PBS and NPR mention was tacked on as a partial segment for a total of 50 seconds. “Ryan, while we have you here, let's talk about another headline out of Washington overnight. The House passing those major spending cuts for foreign aid and public media. What more can you tell us about that,” asked co-host Craig Melvin to Capital Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles. Nobles replied the passage came “past night” with “[t]he House approving a package to roll back $8 billion in already approved funding for foreign aid programs and then an additional $1.1 billion to cuts to public media.” He added that “while Republicans are selling this as a slash to wasteful spending, Democrats are slamming the cuts as cruel” and “NPR also responding that millions of Americans, particularly in rural areas who rely on local public radio and TV, will be impacted.” To his credit, he admitted this is something that’s “been 40 years in the making.” To see the relevant transcripts from July 18, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

I was recently asked a question by a conference participant about whether education faces an AI apocalypse. “I'm on staff at a college in Washington state, and in my work, I interface with our curriculum,” the concerned educator said.“Our instructors tell us they're no longer really teaching because about 90% of assignments they get back are AI-generated,” they went on. “When you take the students away from the AI, they're functionally illiterate. Getting together is nice, as long as there's some commonality. But if AI destroys our ability to transmit culture meaningfully from person to person, the connections between humans will eventually fail, because there will be no commonality of learning, culture, or understanding.”I have a pretty straightforward take on this — extremely basic, really.We ask education to be way too many things: It's a rite of passage, a day care, a credential factory, a gatekeeper, and so on.In my day job at Symbolic AI, I'm always trying to get state-of-the-art language models to produce text artifacts reflective of human steering, human insight, and human intelligence. You input your notes and your thoughts, and it's supposed to become, say, a news article or something. But even the latest models are very brittle. LLMs are fragile.When you color outside the lines, the whole thing starts to collapse and fall apart. If this brittle, janky prototype technology has destroyed higher education as we know it — really? I'm trying to imagine Professor Tolkien's seminar back in the day, where you show up to read some medieval history and you bring this ChatGPT output. Why would you even do that?In seminars I was in, reading Plutarch or whatever, there would have been no room for this. Maybe AI is a bit like a wildfire in the ecosystem that burns away some of the dead wood, fertilizes the ground, and allows something better — and perhaps older, closer to what it once was — to grow back.If someone genuinely wants to learn, grow intellectually, and become educated, and you tell him clearly, “Using AI in these ways will help you toward that goal, and using it in these other ways will hinder you,” then he'll generally choose the right path and avoid misusing the tools.It's kind of like physical exercise. Imagine someone wants to build muscle. You could have a machine lift the weights for you — which would obviously be pointless, even though, sure, the weights got lifted — or you could use the machine to provide resistance and actually get stronger.But if someone is just trying to check a box, gain status, or please his parents or peers with the appearance of being educated, he'll do whatever he has to do — AI shortcuts included. My honest feeling about those folks is that I'd rather not waste educational resources on them.RELATED: Supreme Court grants massive victory to Trump administration on cutting down Department of Education Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesEducation should mainly be for those who truly want to learn. Right now, though, we ask education to be way too many things: It's a rite of passage, a day care, a credential factory, a gatekeeper, and so on.My view here is grounded in my experience raising my own girls. I’ve found that when they genuinely want to learn something — whether it's painting, Iceland (my oldest is obsessed ... no clue why), algebra, pop-music lore — they naturally dive in with enthusiasm.But if they have to do something just to check a box, we talk about whether there's actually any value in it. If we agree it's beneficial enough, they'll do it — but usually at around 70% effort, which is good enough. And if we decide it's pointless, we scheme up a shortcut to minimize their wasted effort so they can spend their time on something better.My big question in these cases is always: What are you doing with the time you saved by taking that shortcut? Did you waste it, or did you put it to good use and end up ahead?This exact question is going to apply to newsrooms adopting AI tools like mine. Once you gain back some of your time, what are you doing with it? Are you just churning out more content slop, or are you investing in better, deeper stories?By the way: I don't assume that everyone's going to default to producing slop — the returns on that are diminishing anyway. In fact, there's a real chance we'll see better reporting emerge, because ultimately that's what audiences value and will pay for.A version of this article was published at jonstokes.com.

After media members accused President Trump of writing a friendly letter to Jeffrey Epstein and even drawing him a picture for his 50th birthday, the president decided late Thursday that more files related to Epstein should be released.Trump had increasingly voiced his disdain for Democrat and media pressure, saying leftists were pushing more hoaxes like the "fully discredited" Russia dossier and former first son Hunter Biden's "Laptop from Hell."It seems the president was finally pushed too far after the Wall Street Journal published a piece about his relationship with Epstein, which Trump vehemently denied, even telling the outlet he would sue."I'm gonna sue the Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else," Trump said.Then, just after 9 p.m. ET on Thursday, the president took to Truth Social to let the world know he had had enough.'President Trump — we are ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the grand jury transcripts.'While voicing his displeasure with the Epstein saga, Trump expressed a desire to put the story to rest through more transparency."Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval," the president wrote. "This SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now!"Bondi immediately responded to the president online, with a post seen by over 10 million people on X alone."President Trump — we are ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the grand jury transcripts."RELATED: Trump doubles down on 'bulls**t' Epstein files: 'I don't want their support anymore!' — (@) Conservatives had rallied behind Trump after he was accused of writing a creative but imaginary dialogue between himself and Epstein, accompanied by a drawing of a naked woman.Vice President JD Vance immediately called the alleged letter "bulls**t" and asked why it had not been published nor shown to the administration for comment."Does anyone honestly believe this sounds like Donald Trump?”Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk similarly said on X, “This is not how Trump talks at all. I don’t believe it.”Despite the president's insistence that the Epstein files contained a combination of nothing-burgers and made-up information, the issue has continued to be hammered in the media in an apparent attempt to fracture his support.RELATED: Conservatives rally to Trump’s defense White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images On Monday, Trump supporters were shocked to find out that a GOP-majority House Rules Committee shut down a possible vote in the House to release more documents related to the Epstein files. Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) put forward an amendment from fellow Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna (Calif.) that, if passed, would have sent a vote to the House on whether to force Bondi to "preserve and release any records related to Jeffrey Epstein."However, Republicans voted down the motion, defeating it 7-5 with one GOP member voting alongside Democrats.With Trump stepping in to order the release, it seems the GOP faithful can get what they were asking for directly from the pen of the president.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democrats have dragged anti-law enforcement violence into the political mainstream. We’ve never seen this level of shameless rhetoric — let alone open justification of violence — from a major American political party in our history.During a House Homeland Security Committee hearing Wednesday, I opened my testimony by reading direct quotes from Democrats calling for violence. I also cited the 830% spike in assaults against Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. I even pleaded with Democrats to stop encouraging threats against law enforcement.Democrats’ goal was obvious: Slow the hearing down, bore the public, and turn a losing argument into a sleepy C-SPAN rerun.That’s when Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) lost it.After just one minute's worth of testimony, Thompson interrupted me mid-statement and demanded a vote to strike my remarks from the record. He failed. I reclaimed my time and continued.A quick reminder: Thompson chaired the January 6th Select Committee — the entire purpose of which was to blame President Trump for a riot he didn’t cause. Trump explicitly told supporters to remain peaceful and go home. But when I confronted Thompson and his colleagues with their own words — when I showed that they had actually called for violence—he tried to shut me up.We already knew he was a hypocrite. He just confirmed it.What triggered him exactly? Maybe it was me quoting a Democrat who told Axios, “There needs to be blood to grab the attention of the press and the public.” Or the one who said, “Civility isn’t working,” and told activists to prepare for “violence.”Maybe it was when I reminded the room that Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) had been indicted for interfering with federal officers at an ICE facility. Or when I listed attacks on the Department of Homeland Security personnel in Alvarado, McAllen, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Linda Vista.I didn’t even get into the stack of quotes from Democrats calling DHS officers “Nazis,” “terrorists,” or “the Gestapo.” I had pages of them. But with only five minutes to testify, I picked the highlights.Later in the hearing, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) — who showed up late and left early — picked up where his colleagues left off. He said ICE was “terrorizing” illegal immigrants. He accused ICE of jailing a child with his parents instead of separating the family, apparently unaware that he was criticizing the very policy he demands.The rest of the hearing dragged on for seven hours.Democrats used procedural games to stall for time, forcing vote after vote on irrelevant subpoenas. Their goal was obvious: Slow the hearing down, bore the public, and turn a losing argument into a sleepy C-SPAN rerun. Not a single Democrat asked a question of any Republican witness until the very last minute.I was barely paying attention by then.When Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) said my name, I thought she was a staffer. I didn’t recognize her. I assumed she might be a delegate from one of the territories Americans forget they own.She shuffled between reading from her Trapper Keeper and trying to deliver rhetorical questions that might eventually lead to something substantive. Then came her big moment.She asked if I agreed with her description of a detention facility incident.RELATED: ‘Democrats clearly weren't prepared’: Blaze News contributor schools libs on border crisis in fiery hearing Homeland Security CommitteeI told her flatly that I wasn’t going to take her word for it — and yes, I support detaining illegal aliens during removal proceedings. That’s the law. Her response was dramatic. She looked like someone had slammed on the brakes while she was mid-sentence. Head thrown back. Eyes wide. Total shock.She tried to recover, flipped back to her notes, and asked if I agreed that Democrats have the authority to just walk into ICE facilities and call it “oversight.”I reminded her I’ve written about this extensively — including right here at Blaze News — and that no, Democrats can’t just show up at a federal detention center and expect to play dress-up as immigration watchdogs. I told her I was doing my best to keep them out of jail. — (@) Then, of course, she brought up Jeffrey Epstein.At first, I considered thanking her for finally connecting mass illegal immigration to the topic of sex trafficking — but the exchange went in a different direction. She claimed I had reversed my position on the Epstein investigation to match the Trump administration’s narrative.False.Since Axios published its memo announcing the case closure, I’ve criticized that decision every single day — on air, in print, on social media, and in private. I haven’t backed off an inch. I called her a liar because she was lying. That clip went viral, and I’m glad it did.If Ansari had taken the time to read my previous commentary — especially at Blaze News — she might’ve avoided the embarrassment. Maybe it’s time she got a subscription.

Chip and Joanna Gaines built a brand on faith and family values — but after featuring a gay couple with two children born via surrogate on their new reality show — that’s now being called into question.And now, comments the couple has made in the past are starting to make a lot more sense.“Sometimes I’m like, ‘Can I just make a statement?’ The accusations that get thrown at you, like you’re a racist or you don’t like people in the LGBTQ community, that’s the stuff that really eats my lunch — because it’s so far from who we really are. That’s the stuff that keeps me up,” Joanna said in an interview with the Hollywood reporter in 2021.“Of course, no Christian wants to be seen as hateful. I understand why that bothers them. But what I am saying is that they really care what the world thinks about them in this way. At least according to their own words, they seem to care about that,” BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey explains on “Relatable.”The couple has also publicly come out in support of Billy Jack Brawner, a man they have close personal and professional ties with who dragged his wife into a polyamory arrangement with another man — before coming out as gay with the man.“He was married to a woman, has several children with her, and now he has come out as gay and is in love with a man, and he has a caption on Instagram from 2021 explaining this,” Stuckey explains.“I was a gay little boy who grew up absolutely hating myself; and I’m a gay man who is learning to absolutely love myself. I am so good. I’m raising babies who are so good with my best friend on the planet who is so good (understatement). I’m in love with a man who is so good. My life is so good,” he wrote in an Instagram post.Joanna commented on the post, “Yes, you are so good. We love you.”“That’s probably a good indicator of where their heart is and where their mind is when it comes to the LGBTQ issue,” Stuckey says, noting that they’ve chosen the path of least resistance when it comes to being successful as an influencer.“There is a lot of money there. You will get the accolades. You will get the mainstream support. And you might even tell yourself if you’re a Christian, the more mainstream you are, the more opportunity you have to share the gospel with people,” she continues.“And you might even see that God is giving you these partnerships with all of these entities and giving you money and giving you fame because He is approving of what you do, and He is approving of the choices you make. And that is a very, very dangerous place to be,” she adds.Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The two-tier discrepancies are visible at every level of the legal system.

Joe 'Best Version of Biden Ever' Scarborough Now Wants a Transparency Law for Presidential Health