The crux of socialism is that central government planners believe they know better than individual people how to allocate resources across an economy. That is why the newly elected New York City mayor, self-proclaimed Democrat socialist Zohran Mamdani, believes the wealthiest people should pay more than half of what they earn to the government. While defending his proposed 54% top marginal income tax rate in a recent Fox News interview, Mamdani said: “My point is this. If you are making $1 million in New York City, or more than that, you can afford to pay 2% more, and the reasons you can afford to do so is because that money will be used to better your quality of life as well.” In other words, would-be central planner Mamdani believes that he can improve overall societal well-being through redistribution and that he can improve individual people’s lives by taking more of their money and spending it better than they could. That notion flies in the face of Milton Friedman’s commonsense observation, “Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own.” It’s also a particularly audacious claim considering that Mamdani is talking about some of the most capable and innovative people who have demonstrated their productivity by earning more than $1 million annually. Mamdani can’t know how thousands of wealthy New Yorkers would have spent the extra taxes he wants to take from them. Suppose one high-income earner would have used that money to expand her business and create 10 new jobs, and another would have given all his newly taxed earnings to a city charity that helps lift people out of cycles of poverty. Or yet another who would have invested in a biotech startup developing gene therapies to extend human lifespans? Can Mamdani make every one of them, or even society as a whole, better off through more rent controls, government-subsidized child care and government-run grocery stores? Mamdani’s popularity rests on his promises of “free” government handouts for far more people than he plans to tax, but that promise is a pipe dream. Mamdani’s vision of a supersized European welfare state would require supersized European taxes. Already, middle-class Europeans pay tax rates comparable to what Mamdani wants to impose on the millionaires of the Big Apple. They also pay almost twice as much in taxes, $12,000 more per year, than the same middle-class Americans. European families also pay roughly 50% higher taxes than American families. Inevitably, attempts to soak the rich also sink the middle class.                                                                                                                 That’s particularly true when talking about a single city that constitutes just 2.5% of the U.S. population and less than 0.1% of America’s land mass. Those who are charged with paying for all of Mamdani’s “free” handouts can just leave the city or the state. New York City already leads the nation in out-migration, having lost hundreds of thousands of residents and tens of billions of dollars in tax revenue over the past 12 years as people have fled to states such as Florida, which offer sunnier skies and zero income tax. Although the freedom to flee New York City is welcome relief for those who foresee the folly of Mamdani’s promises, it will be of little recompense to those whose dreams of a socialist utopia instead come at the expense of their freedom, opportunity and material well-being. What Ronald Reagan said four decades ago rings true today: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you’ve got.” Originally published by The Washington Times. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Does Mamdani Know Best? New York City Is About to Find Out appeared first on The Daily Signal.

MS Now host Jonathan Capehart did not appreciate the idea that certain Democratic politicians making a video urging the military to disobey President Trump was a problem. During PBS News Hour’s Friday weekly news recap, Capehart condemned the American Enterprise Institute’s Matthew Continetti for declaring that “both sides” disgraced themselves with the video because, in his mind, only President Trump’s reaction to it was worth discussing. Host Amna Nawaz began with Continetti, “I want to ask for your response to the video, but also to put to you that Senator Slotkin, who's in that video, said she and other members of the video have gotten close to 1,000 threats since it was posted. Congressman Crow posted some of the threats he's been receiving calling for his family to be killed. It's chilling stuff. But how dangerous is the president's rhetoric on this?”     Continetti condemned everyone involved, “I think a lot of the rhetoric has been very dangerous. I think both sides here have been not covering themselves in glory. On the one hand you're calling the president a fascist, a dictator in training, someone who's going to issue unlawful orders, even though they can't name a single unlawful order that the president has given. And then, of course, you have the president himself calling this sedition, treason, punishable by death.” He further added, “If we want to lower the temperature, it will take responsibility on every party. But what has struck me about this is how it's a partisan split screen. Both parties are playing to their bases here. The Democrats are rallying behind these congressmen, and the Republicans almost uniformly are rallying behind President Trump. So, I don't think that this is going to have a long-term effect politically on the president.” Nawaz then turned to Capehart but refused to ask him about the idea that Democrats are urging the military to disobey illegal orders while not providing any examples of those illegal orders, “Jonathan, you want to respond?” Capehart began by huffing, “I sort of bristle at the idea that this is a both sides thing. What we have here in terms of the threats, particularly against these members of Congress, it's that you have the president of the United States retweeting, or whatever you want to call it, threats against members of Congress. He is the one who in language and in — if you want to go back to January 6, in deeds who is fanning, fomenting the nastiness that is out there.” For Capehart, the avoidance of inflammatory political rhetoric isn’t a matter of personal responsibility, but rather, something that starts with Trump, “If we want to lower the temperature, if we want to change the way we do politics in the country, it has to start with the chief executive. It has to start with the president. And he has shown an unwillingness to do that.” Viewing that as an excuse, Continetti rebutted, “And it also has to be followed through by all of us, including people who are betraying him — portraying him as an authoritarian who poses an existential threat to this country.” A displeased Capehart replied, “There's lots of evidence that it's not unwarranted.” The last time Continetti subbed for New York Times columnist David Brooks, he did a good job getting Capehart to show that his concern about presidential abuse of power revolves not around the means, but the ends. Now, Capehart has shown his concern about political rhetoric operates in the same way. Here is a transcript for the November 21 show: PBS News Hour 11/21/2025 7:39 PM ET AMNA NAWAZ: I want to ask for your response to the video, but also to put to you that Senator Slotkin, who's in that video, said she and other members of the video have gotten close to 1,000 threats since it was posted. Congressman Crow posted some of the threats he's been receiving calling for his family to be killed. It's chilling stuff. But how dangerous is the president's rhetoric on this? MATTHEW CONTINETTI: I think a lot of the rhetoric has been very dangerous. I think both sides here have been not covering themselves in glory. On the one hand you're calling the president a fascist, a dictator in training, someone who's going to issue unlawful orders, even though they can't name a single unlawful order that the president has given. And then, of course, you have the president himself calling this sedition, treason, punishable by death. If we want to lower the temperature, it will take responsibility on every party. But what has struck me about this is how it's a partisan split screen. Both parties are playing to their bases here. The Democrats are rallying behind these congressmen, and the Republicans almost uniformly are rallying behind President Trump. So, I don't think that this is going to have a long-term effect politically on the president. NAWAZ: Jonathan, you want to respond? JONATHAN CAPEHART: I sort of bristle at the idea that this is a both sides thing. What we have here in terms of the threats, particularly against these members of Congress, it's that you have the president of the United States retweeting, or whatever you want to call it, threats against members of Congress. He is the one who in language and in — if you want to go back to January 6, in deeds who is fanning, fomenting the nastiness that is out there. If we want to lower the temperature, if we want to change the way we do politics in the country, it has to start with the chief executive. It has to start with the president. And he has shown an unwillingness to do that. CONTINETTI: And it also has to be followed through by all of us, including people who are betraying him — portraying him as an authoritarian who poses an existential threat to this country. CAPEHART: There's lots of evidence that it's not unwarranted.

So far, more than 100 federal court judges have ruled against the Trump administration in hundreds of lawsuits filed by states, unions, nonprofit organizations, and individuals.While some of these rulings are fairly grounded in the Constitution, federal law, and precedent, many are expressions of primal rage from judges offended by the administration and moving at breakneck speed to stop it. Trump sometimes exceeds his authority. Activist judges substitute ‘frequently’ for ‘sometimes.’ The Constitution and the Supreme Court disagree.According to a Politico analysis, 87 of 114 federal judges who ruled against the administration were appointed by Democratic presidents, and 27 by Republicans. Most of the lawsuits were filed in just a few districts, with repeat activist judges leading the opposition.Lawsuits against the administration may be filed in the District of Columbia and, often, also in other districts. Initially cases are randomly assigned. Plaintiffs focus on districts with predominantly activist, progressive judges. Because related cases are usually assigned to the same judge, later plaintiffs file in districts in which related cases were assigned to friendly activists.Conservative judges generally believe they should interpret the law and avoid ruling on political questions, while liberals tend to see themselves as protectors of their values. After 60 years of domination by activist liberals, the Supreme Court and conservative appeals court judges are finally demanding that district court judges respect the Constitution. The Supreme Court is also re-evaluating precedents established by far-left justices who substituted their values for the words and intentions embodied in the Constitution.To date, the Supreme Court has reversed or stayed about 30 lower court injunctions blocking the administration, and appeals courts have reversed or stayed another dozen. Even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson imposed an administrative stay on a district court decision requiring the immediate resumption of SNAP payments.Federal judges who oppose Trump’s agenda are openly opposing the Supreme Court. In April, D.C. Chief Federal Judge James Boasberg sought to hold administration officials in criminal contempt for violating an order the court had vacated. In May, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Ho criticized the court’s demand that district courts act promptly on administration requests. In a September ruling, Boston Federal Judge Allison Burroughs challenged the court for expecting lower courts to treat its emergency orders as binding legal precedent.Ten of 12 federal judges interviewed by NBC News in September, and 47 of 65 federal judges responding to a New York Times survey in October, thought the court was mishandling its emergency docket. They described orders as “incredibly demoralizing and troubling” and “a slap in the face to the district courts.”Deservedly so. Though the Supreme Court and appeals courts judges have rebuked district court judges for ignoring higher courts and abusing their authority, they continue to do so with rulings focused on identity politics and a progressive lens on the woes of immigrants, minorities, women, and workers. They likely expect to be reversed on appeal, but they secure wins by causing delay and creating fodder for progressive activists to rally their supporters.There is little that can be done about these judges. Removal requires a majority vote in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate. With Democrats supporting these judges, those votes are unrealistic.RELATED: Who checks the judges? No one — and that’s the problem. Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty ImagesJust a few of the dozens of examples of politicized judicial decisions:In May, Myong Joun, a Biden appointee in Boston, enjoined layoffs at the Department of Education in a decision featuring an encomium to its anti-discrimination mission. The Supreme Court stayed his injunction.Despite this precedent, Susan Illston, a Clinton appointee in San Francisco, issued a nationwide injunction barring the administration from firing union employees during or because of the government shutdown. Ignoring settled law, she bemoaned the “trauma” of workers who had been under “stress” ever since Trump’s election. Illston gambled correctly that the shutdown would end before her order could be reversed.Indira Talwani, a federal district court judge in Boston, went further. Declaiming her fear that defunding Planned Parenthood would deprive women of access to abortions, she elided Article I of the Constitution, which requires all federal spending to be approved by Congress, nullifying a duly enacted statute that suspended funding of large abortion providers for a year. By the time she is reversed, the suspension will have expired.In June, after San Francisco Federal Judge Charles Breyer enjoined Trump from federalizing the California National Guard, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit unanimously stayed his order, explaining that on military matters, the president’s judgment stands unless it is dishonest. Nonetheless, Oregon Federal Judge Karin Immergut subsequently blocked deployments in Portland, substituting her assessment of the situation for the president’s.An Obama-appointed judge recently interviewed by NBC explained, “Trump derangement syndrome is a real issue. As a result, judges are mad at what Trump is doing or the manner he is going about things; they are sometimes forgetting to stay in their lane.”Trump sometimes exceeds his authority. Activist judges, who self-reverentially believe progressive technocrats and judges are democracy’s guardians, substitute “frequently” for “sometimes.” The Constitution and the Supreme Court disagree.

There are many goosebump-inducing scenes in Elvis, the sensational 2022 biopic. One such chapter is his 1968 comeback TV special, and its culminating moment. The post Elvis Presley’s Inspiring ‘If I Can Dream’: Behind the Song appeared first on Best Classic Bands.

Miranda Devine Points Out Who Endorsed Sen. Elissa Slotkin (the Seditious Video Makes More Sense Now)

Whoa: Major Foreign Propagandists Utterly Exposed After X Glitch Reveals Account Locations

Trump Rips Away Protected Status for Somalis in MN and Vows to ‘Send Them Back’, Ilhan Omar Fires Back

If you have just gotten a new laptop and want to get the most out of it, here are some of the most essential apps you must install right away.

The Trump administration is working on fallback options in case the Supreme Court strikes down any of his major tariff decisions, with the aim of replacing the levies as quickly as possible, Bloomberg News reported Saturday, citing people familiar with the matter.

Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered the preemptive arrest of former President Jair Bolsonaro on Saturday, with a judge claiming he was intent on escaping just days before he was set to begin his 27-year prison sentence for leading a coup attempt.