Many of the actions of the late Pope Francis, no matter their intention, caused division, confusion, and pain amongst Catholics, especially those most immersed in the traditional teachings and customs of the Catholic Church. One of the most glaring examples of this division, confusion, and pain came in the form of Traditionis custodes. In 2021, Pope Francis issued a motu proprio heavily restricting the celebration of the vetus ordo — the form of the Mass celebrated prior to the Second Vatican Council, often referred to as the Tridentine Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass, or the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Catholics may simply never know why Pope Francis chose to so heavily and suddenly restrict the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. At the time, Pope Francis cited division as a chief problem stemming from the celebration of the Tridentine Mass, accusing traditionalist Catholics of “exploit[ing]” Pope Benedict XVI’s 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, which liberalized the celebration of the Tridentine Mass, in order “to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.” Pope Francis alleged a “close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the ‘true Church.’” In other words, the celebration of the Tridentine Mass was a catalyst for division, schism, and the rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church and Her Pontiff. What led Pope Francis to this conclusion? He explained in 2021 that he had sent a “questionnaire” to Catholic bishops across the globe, requesting their insight into the implementation of Summorum Pontificum and the celebration of the Tridentine Mass in their dioceses. “The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene,” Pope Francis wrote in his letter accompanying and justifying Traditionis custodes. In the motu proprio itself, restricting the celebration of the Tridentine Mass, he wrote, “At this time, having considered the wishes expressed by the episcopate and having heard the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I now desire, with this Apostolic Letter, to press on ever more in the constant search for ecclesial communion.” While many traditionalist Catholics quietly and respectfully questioned the basis for issuing Traditionis custodes and wondered if such widespread division and schism really did exist in the parishes, apostolates, and communities devoted to the Tridentine Mass, a new report is revealing that no such division was widespread, if it even existed at all. Instead, it was a handful of bishops who pushed for the restriction of the Tridentine Mass. Veteran Catholic reporter Diane Montagna obtained a report that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) compiled based on bishops’ responses to the Summorum Pontificum questionnaire. “Where liturgical peace is lacking, the report shows it stems more from a level of nescience, prejudice, and resistance of a minority of bishops to Summorum Pontificum than from any problems originating from those drawn to the traditional Roman liturgy,” Montagna wrote. The majority of Italian bishops and bishops in Spanish-speaking regions refused to implement Summorum Pontificum, according to the report, even when asked to by Catholics. Other bishops erroneously claimed that Summorum Pontificum was intended to bring the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) into full communion with Rome and, having not achieved that goal, ought to be done away with. Some bishops also shared that they would like to have greater control over who can and cannot celebrate the Tridentine Mass in their dioceses. These positions from a handful of bishops is contrasted against the reporting from the bishops who did implement Summorum Pontificum. The latter group of bishops “ultimately express satisfaction with” the celebration of the Tridentine Mass in their jurisdictions. In fact, the report noted, “The majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire state that making legislative changes to the MP Summorum Pontificum would cause more harm than good.” In analyzing the results of the questionnaire, the CDF advised that “weakening or suppressing Summorum Pontificum would seriously damage the life of the Church, as it would recreate the tensions that the document had helped to resolve.” The CDF warned Pope Francis that if he were to follow through on his plans for Traditionis custodes, he would more than likely reignite the contentious “liturgy wars,” damage the faithful’s trust in Rome, push would-be faithful Catholics into the arms of groups like the SSPX, and even potentially bring about “a new schism.” Far from falling into stereotypes, many traditionalist Catholics have urged charity in response to news of the report, urging fellow Catholics not to vilify the late Pope Francis but to fault his advisors where fault is evident. Unfortunately, Montagna’s reporting also observes that Pope Francis himself saw this report — he impatiently snatched it from then-CDF prefect Cardinal Luis Ladaria shortly before issuing Traditionis custodes. Catholics may simply never know why Pope Francis chose to so heavily and suddenly restrict the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. Perhaps he really did believe traditionalist Catholics to be “rigid” and sought to “break” them and bring them in line. Perhaps he suspected or even had reason to believe that traditionalists were rejecting the authority of the Church at a higher rate than the report — or any other survey or study — suggested. Perhaps he genuinely believed that the novus ordo was of such importance that declaring it the “unique expression of the lex orandi” was worth risking schism over. No matter what Pope Francis’s intentions — even had they been the purest and noblest of intentions — the fact remains that Traditionis custodes was less-than-honest, at best, and outright deceptive, at worst. Its provisions deprived millions of Catholics around the globe of one of the most beautiful and ancient of the treasures of the Catholic Church, the form of the Mass celebrated for centuries throughout the world, the form of the Mass for which countless saints — both named and unnamed — had given their lives. Already, the Tridentine Mass was an uncommon gem by the first half of 2021, with many driving an hour or more each way to attend. Without basis, without charity, Pope Francis and his advisors stripped that venerable gem away from Catholics almost entirely. Upon his death, many cautious commentators in the Catholic world anticipated that Pope Francis’s would be a mixed legacy in which confusion predominated, but with moments of joy, clarity, or courage. The more pessimistic among us predicted that the division, confusion, and pain caused by the Francis pontificate would far outweigh and overshadow those few positive moments. Unfortunately, it appears that we were probably right. READ MORE from S.A. McCarthy: Ketanji Fatigue The Sacred Heart Is the Remedy to Pride   The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

Toni at Random: The Iconic Writer’s Legendary Editorship By Dana A. Williams Amistad | 368 pages | $21 Some brief tales of scholarly success:    Angela Davis, a member of the Communist Party USA and of the Black Panthers, was tried in 1971 for supplying weapons for a courtroom takeover that ended in a bloodbath. After beating the rap, she won the Lenin Peace Prize and spent decades on the faculties of UC Santa Cruz, Rutgers, Vassar, and UCLA. Amiri Baraka (formerly LeRoi Jones), the Maoist revolutionary who was called “the primary theorist of the Black Arts Movement” – one of his theories being that “most American white men are trained to be fags” and that white women therefore secretly want to be raped by black men” — became Poet Laureate of New Jersey and a tenured professor at Stony Brook.  Maulana Karenga (a.k.a. Ron Karenga), who invented Kwanzaa and co-founded the violent Black Nationalist group US Organization, was sent to a California prison in 1971 for felony assault, torture, and forced imprisonment. Now 83, he is the chairman of the Africana Studies Department at Cal State Long Beach.  These are, of course, only three of many black radicals who, after the ferment of the late 1960s and early 1970s, took their activism from the streets to the campus, where they were selected over infinitely more qualified competitors for academic perches from which they inculcated students in anti-American revolutionary thought while leading exceedingly comfortable American lives.  One more story, this one a little longer.  Toni Morrison (born Chloe Ardelia Wofford), whose novels, published between 1970 and 2015, would eventually win her the Nobel Prize, taught English at Texas Southern University and at Howard University between 1955 and 1964. But while Davis, Baraka, and Karenga spent their middle and later years preaching revolution from the front of a classroom, Morrison, during the years 1967-83, was taking on the white man from behind a desk at Random House, where she worked as a fiction editor — an aspect of Morrison’s life that is the subject of Dana A. Williams’s new book Toni at Random: The Iconic Writer’s Legendary Editorship.  For all the charm she could project in TV interviews … she was … every bit as much of a radical ideologue as the likes of Huey Newton, Angela Davis, Amiri Baraka, and Maulana Karenga. By juxtaposing Morrison’s career with those of Davis, Baraka, and Karenga, am I suggesting that she was, like them, a revolutionary? Consider the evidence. On the one hand, so far as I know, Morrison (who died in 2019 at 88) was never a card-carrying Communist or Black Panther and never spent time in the slammer. In some ways, indeed, she ran against the grain of the black activism of the day. For instance, when the NAACP slammed Amos ‘n’ Andy as racist caricature, she retorted that “the program did not deal in stereotypes as much as in genuinely funny characters.” On the other hand, Morrison was a writer who practiced, and preached, the value of depicting characters not as individuals whose stories transcend racial categories and reflect universal human truths but as black (or black female) prototypes. In her book Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination (1992), she declared that to deny the centrality of racial identity to American literature was to “[p]our … rhetorical acid on the fingers of a black hand.” We now learn from Dana A. Williams, who is a professor at Howard University, that Morrison’s primary goal as editor was not to discover and promote literary excellence but to abet “a revolution, one book at a time” — to serve up within hard covers the same toxic stew of racial grievance and radical ideology that Davis, Baraka, and Karenga pushed from the front of a classroom. The objective was there from the start. The third book Morrison edited at Random House was To Die for the People (1972) by Black Panthers founder Huey P. Newton, who in 1967 served six months for assault with a deadly weapon and in 1968 was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter — although two retrials ended in hung juries, allowing him to travel in 1971 to China, where, at the height of the Cultural Revolution, he hobnobbed with Zhou Enlai and Madame Mao.  Newton’s agitprop required heavy editing. But the mediocrity of his prose was a minimal concern: what mattered was that, as Morrison explained in an in-house document, his book powerfully challenged “the institutions, values, and systems that undergird the American Empire.” Upon its publication, she wrote to Newton thanking him for having illuminated “the many facets and strengths of the [Black Panther] party.” Another Black Panther who became one of Morrison’s authors — and, indeed, a chum — was the aforementioned Angela Davis. After the latter’s notorious acquittal, Morrison arranged a lunch at which they agreed to collaborate on an autobiography, whereupon Davis flew to Cuba (where else?) to produce a 700-page first draft. The two women honed the final version at Morrison’s home in Spring Valley, New York, where Davis lived for several months, commuting every day with Morrison to the latter’s office in Manhattan.  None of her Random House authors, it appears, became as close to Morrison as Davis did. They shared “intellectual camaraderie.” And Morrison became Davis’s ardent defender: reviewing the 1972 biography Who Is Angela Davis? for the New York Times, she dismissed its author, Regina Nadelson, as a “simpatico white girl who felt she was privy to the secret of how black revolutionaries got that way.”  Remarkably, Morrison also edited a number of poets. Even back then, to get a book of poetry published by a major New York house was a huge coup. Consistently, Morrison bestowed this honor on black female mediocrities. The most ungrateful was June Jordan, who tirelessly complained that Random House was mistreating her because she was black and female — when in fact this colossal no-talent would never have become a Random House author (as well as the director of Stony Brook’s Poetry Center) if she hadn’t been black and female.   Among the other books Morrison edited were Boris Bittker’s The Case for Black Reparations (1973); Quincy Troupe and Rainer Schulte’s Giant Talk (1975), an anthology of writings by Third World revolutionaries; and Ivan van Sertima’s They Came before Columbus (1976), a breathtakingly irresponsible pseudohistory claiming that Africans had visited the New World before Columbus. The fiction writers in her stable, including Toni Cade Bambara, Gayl Jones, and Leon Forrest, tended to be black activists whose stories — like Morrison’s own — were intense, overripe, sometimes violent takes on the “black American experience.”   How, in the end, does Toni at Random affect our view of Toni Morrison? Quite simply, it dispels any doubt about her politics. For all the charm she could project in TV interviews, and for all the pleasure she patently took from her fame, wealth, prestige, and cultural authority, she was, at least throughout her years at Random House, every bit as much of a radical ideologue as the likes of Huey Newton, Angela Davis, Amiri Baraka, and Maulana Karenga. Morrison was a tireless packager and canny booster of the truly menacing ideas that motivated these radicals, and a fierce, if not entirely frank, adversary of the free, capitalist, and Caucasian-dominated civilization that not only lifted her to the very apex of the publishing business but also rewarded her with the Western world’s ultimate accolade for literary greatness. READ MORE from Bruce Bawer: Fry vs. Rowling ¡Babalú! The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

Pope Francis established a strong reputation as a workaholic, a tendency that he followed to the point of working from his hospital room earlier this year while deathly ill. But this July, Pope Leo XIV will be drawing attention to the merits of leisure. On Sunday, the pope will head to the town of Castel Gandolfo to begin a two-week-long vacation, staying at the centuries-old Vatican estate that is situated on the slopes of Lake Albano, a crater lake. He will not stay in the main papal palace but rather will stay in the smaller Villa Barberini. The palace will remain open to tourists during his vacation; Pope Francis opened the palace to the public in 2014. Reports have been swirling for weeks about updates to the property that the pope has ordered in preparation for his stay. For instance, the building that will house the Swiss Guard has been renovated. But also, there is talk of preparations that are being made for the 69-year-old pope’s recreational activities. Italian media outlets reported seeing the construction of a padel court at the Castel Gandolfo estate. Padel is a racket sport increasingly popular in Europe that is played on an enclosed court smaller than that which is used in tennis. The Vatican, however, explained that the construction project was instead the building of a tennis court. The Roman pontiff has frequently expressed a love for tennis. He told the Order of Saint Augustine when he took on his role of prefect for the Dicastery of Bishops that he considers himself to be an amateur player and that he was looking forward to playing more frequently on Rome’s courts. In addition to the reports of the construction of the tennis court, there have also been rumors in the Italian media that preparations are underway for horses to be brought to Castel Gandolfo for the pope to ride. The Vatican neither confirmed nor denied those reports. Past popes have also engaged in recreational pursuits and stressed the importance of vacations. Pope John Paul II installed a swimming pool at Castel Gandolfo and was in fact photographed during a swim. He went on to go skiing more than 100 times during his papacy. “Through the recreation and leisure made possible by travel,” Pope John Paul II said, “people are restored and renewed, body and spirit. They return home to family and work with a new perspective and enthusiasm for life.” Pope Benedict also spoke at length on the spiritual merits of vacation. He spoke once of his wish for summer vacations to provide those who enjoy them with a strengthened mind and body. “For many,” Pope Benedict said, “vacation time becomes a profitable occasion for cultural contacts, for prolonged moments of prayer and of contemplation in contact with nature or in monasteries and religious structures. Having more free time, one can dedicate oneself more easily to conversation with God, meditation on Sacred Scripture, and reading some useful, formative book. Those who experience this spiritual repose know how useful it is not to reduce vacations to mere relaxation and amusement.” Pope Leo has recounted that his other favored recreational pursuits include taking long walks and spending time in nature. READ MORE from Ellie Gardey Holmes: 36,000 Preschools Shut Down in China in Sign of Total Doom Supreme Court Saves Religious Parents From Radical LGBTQ Indoctrination of Their Children Jen Psaki Fawns Over Zohran Mamdani The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

July 1, 2025, marked the 104th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), now claiming over 100 million members — one in 10 Chinese adults and roughly one in 63 people aged 18 and above worldwide. Western media often frame this milestone with a casual lens, as seen in a June 30, 2025, Wall Street Journal article titled “China’s Communist Party Now Has 100 Million Members. Many Are in It for the Paycheck.” Such coverage paints a misleading picture, suggesting the CCP is a mere bureaucratic club where Chinese citizens join for personal gain, and communism is fading. This dangerously underestimates the CCP’s true nature: it is not a political party as understood in democracies but a secretive, mafia-like organization with global ambitions that threaten the free world. They swear an oath to sacrifice their lives for the party, a pledge enforced with ruthless consequences. Unlike democratic political parties, where affiliation is informal and fluid, the CCP operates as a tightly controlled secret society with a formal card-carrying membership, literally. Joining is no casual decision. Applicants undergo years of scrutiny, ideological vetting, and loyalty tests before being inducted as probationary members. They swear an oath to sacrifice their lives for the party, a pledge enforced with ruthless consequences. Leaving is not an option — defection often leads to public humiliation, expulsion, or imprisonment. The CCP routinely punishes a large number of members, from senior ministers to low-level members, for disloyalty, including asset seizures, social ostracism, and lengthy sentences. While some join for career perks — access to better jobs, networks, or resources — once enlisted, they are bound to the party’s will. Refusal to obey orders, whether spying abroad or suppressing dissent at home, invites dire repercussions. China’s Global Threat The CCP’s structure and ideology make it a unique global threat. Unbound by laws, it operates like a criminal syndicate, prioritizing power over ethics. Karl Marx’s doctrine, which the CCP still venerates, insists communism cannot triumph in one nation but must dominate globally. This drives the CCP’s aggressive actions: bribing foreign elites, weaponizing trade, and infiltrating institutions. Numerous reports detailed how the CCP’s United Front Work Department co-opts overseas academics, politicians, and business leaders, creating networks of influence in democratic nations. The party’s role in obscuring COVID’s origins — silencing whistleblowers and delaying global response — cost countless lives. Meanwhile, the CCP’s Belt and Road Initiative traps developing nations in debt, securing strategic assets like ports and mines, as seen in Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port handover in 2017. Intellectual property theft is another weapon. A 2019 U.S. Trade Representative report estimated that Chinese theft costs American companies $225–$600 billion annually. The CCP’s state subsidies and predatory pricing have decimated industries like solar panels, EV batteries, and high-speed rail, with Western firms unable to compete against Beijing’s large-scale state support and artificial market distortions. Propaganda, amplified through platforms like TikTok and state-controlled media, shapes narratives abroad, while the party’s 2024 cybersecurity laws mandate data access for surveillance, compromising global tech users. With 100 million members, the CCP commands a vast, disciplined network. Its growth reflects not just opportunism but ideological commitment among many. To bolster the ideological indoctrination of its members, the CCP created a “copying out the Party’s Constitution” movement, featuring people voluntarily copying out the Party’s Constitution on their wedding nights. This also shows that many are drawn to Xi Jinping’s nationalist vision. This is not a fading ideology but a resurgent one, backed by a $30 trillion economy and a military rivaling America’s. Xi’s numerous speeches reaffirmed “Marxism-Leninism” as the CCP’s guiding force, dismissing Western assumptions of reform. The free world must wake up to the CCP’s nature. It is not a political party but a totalitarian machine bent on global dominance, undermining the rule of law, human rights, and democracy. Democracies must counter its influence through stronger alliances, economic decoupling, and exposing its tactics. Ignoring the CCP’s true character risks ceding the future to a regime that thrives on coercion, not consent. *  *  * READ MORE from Shaomin Li: Bernie Sanders and AOC Go Hunting for Oligarchs Shut Down the Voice of America — It’s a Relic We Don’t Need Tariffs Hurt, But They Are the Best Tool We’ve Got Shaomin Li is a professor of international business at Old Dominion University. The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

“Marriage is a business deal, and it always has been,” Lucy, a professional matchmaker, tells her clients in the film Materialists. Inspired by director Celine Song’s six-month stint as a Manhattan-based matchmaker, the film acknowledges the transactional nature of romantic relationships but also poses the perennial question of whether true love is still achievable in a world where we increasingly pre-select potential partners based on their financial assets and physical attractiveness.  When we first meet Lucy (Dakota Johnson), she is attending the marriage of one of her clients. We soon learn that Lucy is the proverbial shoemaker whose children have no shoes. While she has arranged nine matches which have resulted in marriage, her own romantic life is non-existent, and she is convinced that she will “die alone.” Who is the better partner, the person who checks all the boxes or the one who tugs at your heartstrings? Seated at the singles table, she meets Harry, the groom’s brother (Pedro Pascal), an attractive, well-to-do hedge fund manager. Although Lucy sees Harry as a potential client, he sees her as a potential date. Interestingly enough, while Lucy and Harry are getting to know each other, she runs into her former boyfriend John (Chris Evans), an actor who is currently working the wedding as a waiter. Lucy broke up with John because of his financial instability. The audience quickly realizes that we have entered into not only Lucy’s personal romantic triangle but also the film’s essential question. Who is the better partner, the person who checks all the boxes or the one who tugs at your heartstrings? Materialists is an interesting film in that it blends the genres of social commentary, romantic comedy, and cautionary tale. Song provides an intimate look at the dynamics of Manhattan’s high-end matchmaking industry, where men and women are willing to pay matchmakers like Lucy and her boss, Violet (Marin Ireland), large commissions to find a match who is the perfect mix of physical attractiveness, wealth, education, and political alignment. The film includes several authentic scenes where the clients discuss their expectations for their match. Not surprisingly, the men depicted tend to be hyper-focused on the woman’s age and fitness, with men in their late 40s declaring a 39-year-old woman too old. Although the women portrayed are more forgiving of a man’s appearance, they are less willing to compromise on the man’s income. Dakota Johnson’s sweet voice and deadpan manner further enhance the verisimilitude of these conversations, such as when she bluntly tells a female client who presented her with a detailed wish list that she isn’t Dr. Frankenstein and consequently cannot build a man for her. The film functions as a romantic comedy because we witness Lucy’s blossoming relationship with Harry. We also experience through contemporary dialogue and flashbacks the passionate connection that she still has with John. And as we watch her interacting with them both, we recognize that she is having difficulty deciding which man is her soul mate. What makes the film even more realistic is that when Lucy becomes embroiled in her own romantic situation, she loses her ability to provide her clients with objective, clear-headed advice.  Song examines the match-making industry with a critical but sympathetic lens. After all, the practice and business of brokering marriage arrangements have been in existence for centuries. Many happy couples were introduced through a common acquaintance, a professional matchmaker, or a match-making application. Unfortunately, all of these scenarios, even the common acquaintance, still carry risks, as it is difficult to fully vet anyone’s character or predict their behavior in intimate circumstances. While Materialists celebrates matchmaking as a vehicle for finding a partner, it also reinforces the importance of practicing personal safety. The casting of Dakota Johnson was an inspired choice. At 35, the daughter of Don Johnson (Miami Vice) and Melanie Griffith (Working Girl ), and the granddaughter of Tippi Hedren ( The Birds), has truly come into her own as an actress. She infuses Lucy with a mélange of reserve, vulnerability, and hopefulness. Materialists is her best on-screen performance to date. Her physical beauty has also evolved. Her quiet elegance, which is reminiscent of the models of the 1960s, is a departure from the patrician beauty of her grandmother and the sexy baby-voiced prettiness of her mother. The other members of the cast, including Pascal, Evans, Ireland, and Zoe Winters, also deliver first-rate performances. Materialists is a well-conceived, entertaining exploration of the contemporary matchmaking industry and the age-old question of what constitutes the right mix of love, security, and companionship. Moreover, it is also a reminder that although social mores may have changed and the forums for personal introductions may have expanded, the desire for a perfect match remains ubiquitous. READ MORE from Leonora Cravotta: Beware the Gravitational Pull of Sirens Your Friends and Neighbors: The Elites and Their Money The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

The outcome of the 2025 New York City Democratic mayoral primary is a defining moment for Jewish Americans and the country. The Democratic Party has officially elevated a candidate, Zohran Mamdani, who has built his political career on an explicit record of anti-Israel statements, refusal to condemn terrorism, and support for policies that endanger the Jewish community. His victory is a clear demonstration that antisemitic sentiment is no longer confined to the radical fringe of the Democratic Party. Instead, it has become an institutional belief. The Democratic Party has… elevated voices who undermine the basic rights of Jewish Americans. Following the October 7, 2023, massacre perpetrated by Hamas, in which over 1,200 Israelis were murdered — including the documented rape of women and the burning alive of children — Mamdani chose not to issue a direct condemnation of the terrorist group. During public appearances and interviews in the weeks following the attack, he repeatedly shifted attention away from Hamas’s war crimes and instead accused Israel of maintaining an “apartheid regime.” Mamdani is free to reject solidarity with the Jewish state, of course, but he also refused to recognize any of the atrocities committed and refused to condemn the perpetrators. Such moral evasion in the face of documented crimes against humanity is indefensible — and now rewarded within the Democratic Party. This normalization of antisemitism within the Democratic Party is not limited to Mamdani. In December 2024, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer declined to allow the Antisemitism Awareness Act to proceed to a floor vote. The bill, which would have mandated the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism by federal agencies, was neither controversial nor radical. The IHRA definition has been adopted by over 40 democratic nations and provides the most widely accepted framework for identifying contemporary antisemitism, including cases where anti-Zionist rhetoric crosses into the delegitimization of Israel’s right to exist. Schumer’s refusal to advance the legislation was a signal to the party’s base: protecting Jewish students, institutions, and communities from organized harassment is not a Democratic priority. Despite Schumer’s personal identity as the highest-ranking Jewish elected official in American history, he made a political calculation. That calculation — whether motivated by fear of intra-party backlash or ideological realignment — has placed the Jewish community at risk. I recently conducted an interview with Dakarai Larriett, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Alabama. Larriett is not an extremist. He is earnest, thoughtful, and, by all appearances, genuinely concerned with justice. He spoke at length about the experiences of his grandparents during the civil rights era and emphasized the importance of building bridges between the black and Jewish communities. His empathy was authentic. But even in that context, the divide between the Jewish community and the Democratic Party became undeniable. When asked directly about the alarming rise in antisemitism nationwide — including campus protests promoting “Intifada,” assaults against Jewish students, and violent threats against Israel supporters — Larriett admitted he had “more to learn.” His responses consisted of abstractions. Larriett discussed the importance of visibility and culture, but failed to reference any concrete events, policies, or federal investigations. He made no mention of the Department of Education’s ongoing Title VI investigations into universities such as CUNY and UCLA, where Jewish students have been systematically harassed for supporting Israel. He offered no policy solutions, no support for the IHRA definition, and no criticism of the Democratic leaders who have stalled legislation on these issues. Even more troubling, Larriett declined to condemn Senator Schumer’s obstruction of the Antisemitism Awareness Act. Instead, he cited Schumer as a model of Jewish representation within the Democratic Party. The contradiction could not have been more stark. If the party’s leading Jewish figure actively prevents the government from adopting basic protections for Jewish Americans, and rising candidates choose to defend him, then what does that say about the values of the party? When I asked Larriett whether his views on Israel aligned more closely with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, he hesitated. He described Israel as “spiritually important” and mentioned a past visit to Jerusalem, but ultimately stated that he was still “forming a position on Israel.” In 2025, no serious federal candidate should be uncertain about Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign nation. The challenge Jewish Americans face is not limited to rhetorical ambiguity. In June 2024, Representative Rashida Tlaib introduced a House resolution accusing Israel of committing genocide — despite overwhelming evidence documenting Hamas’s use of human shields, underground tunnels in civilian neighborhoods, and intentional targeting of noncombatants. Meanwhile, over 100 Democratic members of the House of Representatives refused to support a resolution condemning a May 2025 terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, in which one Jewish American was killed and three others were badly burned while participating in a peaceful Israel solidarity rally. Mamdani’s — and the Democrats’ — Other Issues Mamdani’s legislative record is equally alarming and extends far beyond antisemitism. In 2023, he co-sponsored Assembly Bill A05478, which mandates that correctional facilities in New York house inmates based solely on self-declared gender identity, regardless of biological sex and without medical documentation. A similar law in California led to 300 transfer requests from biological males to women’s prisons within the first year. By mid-2023, at least four pregnancies had been confirmed in California women’s correctional facilities as a direct result of these policies. In matters of immigration, Mamdani supported Assembly Bill A03506, which prohibits law enforcement officers from inquiring about a suspect’s immigration status — even during felony investigations. Such policies mirror sanctuary city laws that contributed to high-profile tragedies, including the 2015 murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by an undocumented immigrant with five prior deportations and multiple outstanding detainers. Mamdani endorsed Assembly Bill A01749, which imposes burdensome packaging mandates on businesses. A similar policy adopted in Maine increased annual compliance costs for small businesses by $7,000 to $50,000. According to estimates from the National Federation of Independent Business, New York retailers could lose up to 7 percent in annual revenue if the state implements comparable packaging regulations. These losses will hit small, family-owned enterprises the hardest. The Dems and the Jews The evidence is overwhelming. The Democratic Party has abandoned its former commitment to Jewish safety, a Jewish national homeland, and democratic solidarity with the State of Israel. It has allowed anti-Jewish sentiment to flourish within its ranks, refused to advance legislation combating antisemitism, and elevated voices who undermine the basic rights of Jewish Americans. This is no longer a matter of ideological disagreement. It is a matter of moral disintegration. This moment must be met with moral clarity. Whether or not one resides in New York City, the consequences of Mamdani’s rise — and the broader radicalization of the Democratic Party — will be felt across the country. Policies that embolden terrorists, dismantle public safety, and penalize small businesses affect every American. The Democratic Party, once a political home for Jewish Americans, has now become a party that excuses, enables, and empowers antisemitism. Jewish Americans committed to their faith, safety, and democratic values must recognize that political loyalty cannot be unconditional. The time for denial has passed. READ MORE from Gregory Lyakhov: Trump’s Iran Strikes Have Important Ramifications Is It About the Jet, or Just About Trump? The post %POSTLINK% appeared first on %BLOGLINK%.

from The Jimmy Dore Show: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Cassandra MacDonald, The Gateway Pundit: Tech billionaire Elon Musk spent his Independence Day doubling down on his threat to form a new political party, dubbed the “America Party.” The Tesla and SpaceX CEO, who picked a fight with President Donald Trump over the One Big Beautiful Bill, is claiming he wants to disrupt the […]

An Oklahoma pediatrician faces accusations of murdering her 4-year-old daughter while on vacation in Florida and staging the death as a drowning. “According to investigators, uniform officers from the Village of El Portal Police Department responded to reports of a drowning child in a residential pool. Miami-Dade Fire Rescue responded and transported the child to an area hospital, where medical staff pronounced her deceased,” the Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office stated. Dr. Neha Gupta, 36, was arrested in Oklahoma City and is expected to be extradited to Florida. “Through investigative means and consultation with the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office, detectives obtained an arrest warrant for Dr. Neha Gupta and traveled to Oklahoma City.  With the assistance of the Oklahoma City Police Department’s Homicide Unit and the United States Marshals Service, they were able to locate and take her into custody,” the Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office said. “She will be charged with Murder in the 1st Degree,” it added. Oklahoma pediatrician accused of killing 4-year-old daughter, staging death to look like drowning in Florida pool: cops https://t.co/g8bfEdap16 pic.twitter.com/NtuJZ8Nw1b — New York Post (@nypost) July 3, 2025 ABC News provided further details: The 4-year-old received CPR and was taken to a local hospital but “despite all life-saving measures,” she was pronounced deceased at 4:28 a.m., officials said. Gupta, who shares custody of her daughter with her ex-husband, told authorities that the two traveled from Edmond, Oklahoma, to Miami and rented a short term rental home through AirBnB — which is where the 4-year-old was found dead. Gupta’s ex-husband, Dr. Saurabh Talathi, said he was unaware the child had left the state of Oklahoma and that the two parents were in an “ongoing custody battle,” the affidavit said. Prior to the incident, the mother and daughter arrived at the rental property on June 26 between the hours of 7 p.m. and 8 p.m. and the child was “tired after a full day of riding jet skis along with spending the day at the beach and was asleep,” she told authorities. Gupta told officials she carried her daughter into the residence and woke her for dinner at approximately 9 p.m. The child fell asleep at around 12:30 a.m. and the two “co-slept on a bed located within the master bedroom,” the affidavit said. Then, at approximately 3:20 a.m., Gupta claimed she was awakened by an “unidentified noise,” realized her daughter was not in the bed and that the glass sliding door leading to the patio was open, the affidavit said. Watch video coverage below: OMFG an Oklahoma pediatrician traveled to Miami to kill her own young daughter at an ABNB. As if Miami CSI would not know the difference between a drowning and strangulation. Absolutely disgusting. RIP little one pic.twitter.com/il2lfdF6hx — PhotographicFloridian (@JackLinFLL) July 2, 2025 NBC News noted: During an autopsy Sunday, a pathologist with the Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner Department found that the girl’s lungs and stomach were “dry” and that cuts in her mouth and bruising in her cheeks were “not consistent” with the first responders’ lifesaving efforts, according to the affidavit. The pathologist concluded that the girl was dead before she was put in the pool, the affidavit says. While the cause and manner of death are pending, the pathologist’s preliminary findings indicate that the girl’s injuries are consistent with asphyxiation by smothering, the affidavit says. The autopsy also showed that the girl’s stomach was empty, contrary to what Gupta told authorities about having fed her at 9 p.m., the affidavit says. Gupta “attempted to conceal the killing of the ‘deceased victim’ by staging an accidental drowning within the swimming pool of a rental property,” it says. The affidavit does not identify a possible motive.

More than 100 BBC employees have accused their employer of paying them to broadcast pro-Israel propaganda and fake news, claiming the corporation’s coverage of Gaza violates its own standards of fairness, accuracy, and impartiality. In [...] The post Hundreds of BBC Staff Admit They’re Forced To Broadcast Fake News and Propaganda For Israel appeared first on The People's Voice.