What do you think?

They did it. They finally did it. Those maniacs. They blew it up. As New Yorkers walk dazed through the streets of the world’s greatest city, seeking perhaps the half-buried Statue of Liberty lying beneath the silent sands of a deserted beach in the Forbidden Zone, one thing has become clear: The young revolutionaries of the Democratic Party are ready to take control of their party’s future. And there’s hardly anyone left to stop them. On Tuesday, Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old Ugandan-born trust fund baby—the scion of a Columbia University post-colonialism professor and an Oscar-nominated Hollywood director—won a stunning Democrat primary victory over disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Mamdani immediately declared that he would be running against “billionaires” in order to preserve “democracy.” In Socialist-speak, this means that he will propose massive rent freeze regulations, city-owned grocery stores, and a bevy of free goods that would make a child running for fifth-grade president blush. Meanwhile, Mamdani regularly hits the highlights of the so-called left-wing omnicause: He’s a radical antisemite who calls for the disestablishment of the State of Israel as a Jewish state while vowing to arrest the prime minister; he’s sympathetic to a bevy of terrorists throughout the Middle East, so long as they oppose Israel; he vows to spend millions of dollars subsidizing the transgender hormonal and surgical mutilation of minors. He’s a walking meme, a Columbia University student a decade too old for school … and now the front-runner to become New York’s next mayor. It serves the Democratic Party right. For years, they’ve strung along the hopes and aspirations of the Bernie Sanders wing, and now they’re paying the price: After Sanders narrowly lost the 2016 Democrat nomination for president to Hillary Clinton and then was deprived of the 2020 Democrat nomination by Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., and other more traditional Democrats, young Democrats have rallied to Sanders’ cause. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who campaigns with Sanders to “fight oligopoly,” is currently the Democrat front-runner for the 2028 nomination, despite the machinations of more typical Democrats like California Gov. Gavin Newsom or Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. And those typical Democrats don’t know what to do. They’re stuck between praising the supposed ardor and sincerity of the Bernie socialists, and condemning them for their radicalism. Do the former, and they may continue to lose steam with normal Americans who aren’t eager to build Moscow on the Hudson; do the latter, and they may lose the white, college-educated base they’ve cultivated; do the latter. They’re stuck. And they deserve to be stuck. But that doesn’t mean they can’t win. And herein lies the problem for America. Americans should want two major parties that at least live within earshot of reality. That’s because, effectively, we’re a two-party system, which means that any major party nominee has at least a 40% chance of becoming president—no matter how insane. It’s why Republicans should have wanted Joe Biden to stop Bernie Sanders in 2020, even if it meant a higher likelihood of President Donald Trump being defeated—because a Sanders presidency would have been exponentially more dangerous than a Biden presidency. Republicans shouldn’t root for Democrats to fly off the cliffs of reality like Thelma and Louise. Because they might just take America with them. Mamdani’s victory shows that Democrats seem to be careening toward those cliffs at full speed. We should all hope and pray that rational Americans reject the Sanders revolution and all of its acolytes, before it’s too late. 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 The Zohran Mamdani Revolution appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A group of millennial entrepreneurs from across the country tried to draw attention to the debt-increasing aspects of the “One Big, Beautiful Bill” currently making its way through Congress by giving away free pork sandwiches on Thursday. The slogan for the event was: “Tell Congress to lead—and leave the pork to us.” William Glass, policy director for the Millennial Debt Foundation, the sponsor of the event, explained that the pork giveaway was a light-hearted joke to encourage Congress “to handle tax breaks responsibly” and to push for improvements in the One Big, Beautiful Bill. The legislation is President Donald Trump’s reconciliation budget plan. If passed, it would put into law many of the president’s campaign promises, like funding for border security, maintaining the tax cuts enacted during his first administration, and new tax cuts such as “No Taxes On Tips.” The foundation’s website critiques some of the One Big, Beautiful Bill’s inclusions, however, such as the State and Local Tax Exemption (SALT), tax exemptions for the Virgin Islands, and the elimination of taxes on firearm silencers. “There is pork all over this bill,” Glass remarked. He said he fully supported the bill, aware of what receiving tax breaks could mean for all Americans after what he called “the largest tax increase in the history of the country” under the previous administration. During the Biden administration, the top marginal income tax rate increased from 37% to 39.6%, currently the highest rate in recent decades.However, Glass’ main concern centered on some of the bill’s provisions that could potentially add to the already exorbitant national debt: “We want this tax break to be paid for—to go to things that everyone could benefit from and that will help grow the economy. Things that will make businesses bigger. Things that will help people get jobs and improve everyone’s lives. And not to give away arbitrary carveouts to special interests, particular lobbies, or any member of Congress.”Glass explained that the risk that could arise from the bill’s current language is a mass tax exemption for certain businesses but not for others, which could create further economic imbalance. “Yes, we need to pass this bill. It’s growth-oriented, and we want to make sure that its policies can help the economy grow for everyone,” he concluded. The post Entrepreneurs Push to Cut Waste From ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ With Pork Sandwich Giveaway appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Supreme Court: Families Can Opt Their Kids Out of LGBTQ Readings

During the COVID outbreak, the Chinese Communist Party-backed World “Health” Organization tried to convince us the virus' origins were unknown, saying it may have come from food contaminated with bat guano. Any information that questioned their pro-Wuhan PR campaign was deemed an “infodemic,” and therefore, grounds for censorship. Now, that same organization has re-written the definition of “healthcare” to include murdering pre-born babies.  Related: Supreme Court: States Can Deny Planned Parenthood Medicaid Funding Re-defining reality to mean its opposite is what our self-appointed intergovernmental overlords do best, after all. They’re still banking on the idea that appointing themselves as a global governing force grants WHO’s council of foreign regimes, including America’s adversaries, to make Americans adopt their speech codes. Follow MRCTV on X! MRC's @Justine_Brooke & @Schneider_DC break down his testimony before Congress, where he exposed Big Tech & the legacy media for their raging antisemitism. pic.twitter.com/b0uUCXzEOZ — MRCTV (@mrctv) June 25, 2025

On Thursday, CBS showed some admirable news judgment on CBS Mornings and the CBS Evening News by choosing to inform viewers about a ticking fiscal bomb many fiscal hawks have been warning about for decades, which is Social Security essentially going broke in the next decade. Even though it’s being talked about as a Republican is in the White House, it’s still worth giving them credit for acknowledging it as an albatross around the country’s fiscal neck. “In today’s Money Watch, we’re talking about a scary prediction about the Social Security System. Analysts now say it could run dry within the next decade, by 2033 despite millions paying into it for decades,” CBS Mornings featured co-host Vladimir Duthiers began.     Duthiers posed to CBS Money Watch’s Jill “Dollar, Dollar, Jill” Schlesinger the (false) mindset Americans probably have about Social Security: “[S]o, explain this to me. I’ve been paying, along with millions of other Americans, into Social Security for almost my entire working life through payroll deductions. And now what? It’s not going to be here for me?” Schlesinger replied Social Security is actually set up by having those “pay in right now for people who are already retired,” not putting money away for our individual selves to use later. She then explained the real issue, which is the retirement of Baby Boomers while subsequent generations are smaller in size, thus unable to keep up in terms of those able to pay into Social Security: So, when all of those baby boomers were working their entire lives, there was more money coming into the system than was getting paid out. That extra money created a surplus. That’s the Social Security Trust Fund then things flipped. Baby Boomers, 11,000 are turning 65 every day. They’re now needing their retirement benefits, but there aren’t enough people working, so all of that money that built up, that trust fund, it’s being depleted and over time, by 2033 according to the Social Security Board of Trustees, there will no longer be a trust fund, and there won’t be enough people working. And what that means is the system will only be able to pay out about three-quarters of benefits that have been promised. That’s the math behind this. Barring congressional action, Schlesinger said the consequences would be drastic with a 23 percent cut, meaning an average check of $2,000 would tumble to $1,540 and thus a huge problem as many retirees “rely on Social Security as their main form of retirement income.”     Co-host Tony Dokoupil closed with a question about to whom do Americans address this issue to. Unfortunately, Schlesinger was most averse to arguably the most sensible solution of raising the retirement age a few years for those still working (click “expand”): I think that everybody needs to really understand that the system is not going broke. We are talking about a reduction in benefits, and there are actual fixes to the system, unlike Medicare, which is a very difficult system to solve, to actually get it solvent. When you look at Social Security, there are three main ways to fix the system. Congress could. They could say, hey, let’s raise the amount of money on which Social Security taxes are levied. We could just push that cap up. The other thing they could do is they could say, let’s raise the amount of the actual Social Security rate. So we pay 6.2 percent on our wages. Our bosses pay 6.2. What if it were 6.35? Let’s do that and the third one that you hear a lot about, which I’m going to pour a lot of cold water on, is people will say, raise the retirement age, because we all live longer. You know what stinks about that, if you have a physical job, you’re going to tell someone, oh, you know what, just keep doing construction till you’re 78 because you’re going to live longer. It also presumes that you are able to hold on to your job and we know a lot of people in their late 50s and early 60s who can’t. Get involved. Use your voice. This is something where, if you talk to your congressman, this is something they’ll hear. The CBS Evening News eventually arrived at the topic of Social Security, but co-anchor Maurice DuBois first provided some table-setters about the birthrate and the country growing older with Census data showing “older adults outnumbered children in 11 states” versus “only three states” in 2020 with current birthrates far below the Baby Boom (click “expand”): DUBOIS: New data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows the number of Americans 65 and older climbed by more than 3 percent last year and, for the first time ever, older adults outnumbered children in 11 states. In 2020, that was the case in only three states. This change has been in the making for more than 60 years. WALTER CRONKITE: Good evening from our CBS Newsroom in New York. DUBOIS: When Walter Cronkite debuted as the anchor of the CBS Evening News in 1962, the U.S. census showed youngest and oldest age groups had grown five times faster than middle-age groups in the decade before. As the population aged, the number of people relying on Social Security benefits increased. In 1970, more than 25 million people received benefits, a 4000 percent increase from when the program was signed into law in 1935. [MARY TYLER MOORE THEME SONG] In 1977, the same year the popular Mary Tyler Moore Show bid farewell, President Carter signed a bill that lowered the amount of money Social Security beneficiaries received....Americans 65 and older steadily increased from 12.4 percent in 2004 to 18 percent in 2024, while children declined from 25 percent to 21.5 percent. It was after all those numbers he stated the fact that “[o]lder Americans continu[ing] to outpace working-age adults...could negatively impact the economy and the ability to keep those Social Security checks coming.”     Schlesinger’s Money Watch colleague Kelly O’Grady took the PM hit and explained Social Security works with current working people “paying into a fund that then gets distributed to folks that have already retired,” which “work[ed] really well when the Baby Boomers were working, because there were more people paying into this fund than there were people drawing on that fund.” “Now, though, those folks are retiring and there are more people that are drawing on that fund than there are paying into that fund. This is called the Social Security trust. That surplus, it’s being depleted. And the projection is, 2033, that’s going to go away...It just means those checks are going to get smaller,” she added. With less time to discuss this, O’Grady closed with the simple reality that there’s no genuine appetite to talk about either solution: “Either you and I pay more of our income into Social Security now or we raise the retirement age, neither of which people love.” To see the relevant CBS transcripts from June 26, click here and here.

Comedy Central’s The Daily Show may have had the week off, but its podcast, The Weekly Show, did not. On Wednesday, Jon Stewart claimed that the Trump Administration reacted angrily to assessments that suggest the B-2 strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities weren’t as successful as advertised not because they were wrong or had obvious problems, but because “they demand 100 percent fealty.” Stewart lamented, “Just the shallowness, sometimes, of their—that you know JD Vance, people are saying, ‘We're concerned about intervention in the Middle East and how these things can have unforeseen consequences and instability throughout,’ and JD Vance says, ‘Yes, no, we understand that's something the American people are afraid of, but you know the American people never had a smart person before. Now we have a smart person,’ a smart person that thinks anybody that might possibly look into whether or not it was actually obliterated is a scumbag.”     Looking into the matter doesn’t make you a scumbag. However, publishing a report about a leaked assessment suggesting a lack of success but not mentioning that it was “low confidence” while insisting you did might. However, Stewart wasn’t interested in that and instead rolled on, “Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt comes out and she, they ask her, ‘Was it obliterated?’ And she says, ‘Everybody knows what happens when you drop bunk—everybody knows,’ is what she said. Everybody knows what happens when you have a precision strike with these kinds of weapons. These weapons have never been used before in the history of the planet, but everybody knows what happened.  Leavitt’s comments were perfectly reasonable. For example, centrifuges are extremely sensitive, so the idea put forth in CNN’s article that they were left “intact” after being on the receiving end of 360,000 pounds of bombs was always hard to believe. Now, the UN agrees that Fordo’s centrifuges were taken out.  Nevertheless, Stewart continued his tale of woe, “It's just beyond the silliness, and if anybody pushes back—they demand 100 percent fealty. Anything beyond that sets off anger and frustration because of the fragility.”  It is certainly not the intelligence community’s job to tell the president what he wants to hear. It should offer him their dispassionate opinion, but it should also not be leaking reports to various media outlets to embarrass him, and those media outlets should report on the whole assessment and point out that some of their conclusions are simply hard to believe, not because the White House demands “100 percent fealty,” but because of common sense. Here is a transcript for the June 26 show: Comedy Central The Weekly Show 6/26/2025 2 Minutes, 19 Seconds JON STEWART: Just the shallowness, sometimes, of their—that you know JD Vance, people are saying, “We're concerned about intervention in the Middle East and how these things can have unforeseen consequences and instability throughout,” and JD Vance says, “Yes, no, we understand that's something the American people are afraid of, but you know the American people never had a smart person before. Now we have a smart person,” a smart person that thinks anybody that might possibly look into whether or not it was actually obliterated is a scumbag. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt comes out and she, they ask her, “Was it obliterated?” And she says, “Everybody knows what happens when you drop bunk—everybody knows,” is what she said. Everybody knows what happens when you have a precision strike with these kinds of weapons. These weapons have never been used before in the history of the planet, but everybody knows what happened. It's just beyond the silliness, and if anybody pushes back—they demand 100 percent fealty. Anything beyond that sets off anger and frustration because of the fragility.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Parental Rights Versus LGBTQ+ Indoctrination in Schools (LAWSPLAINING)

David Hogg and Other Lefties LOSE IT After SCOTUS Rules Against Activist Judges and FOR Parental Rights

Because of COURSE: How Barack Obama FINALLY Broke His Silence After Iranian Strikes Is Just SOOOO Him