Category: Politics

  • Is Randi Weingarten America’s most divisive woman?

    Is Randi Weingarten America’s most divisive woman?

    In the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a moment when leaders across the political spectrum should be dialing back the rhetoric and fostering unity, Randi Weingarten has charged ahead with her divisive agenda.

    As president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), she has doubled down on promoting her new book, which brands conservatives as “fascists.” This inflammatory approach comes at a time when the nation is reeling from violence, yet Weingarten shows no signs of restraint.

    Her recent appearances underscore this troubling pattern. On MSNBC, while hawking her book, Weingarten suggested the US is under “Nazi occupation,” claiming she now wears a paperclip as a symbol of resistance. She elaborated on a podcast, explaining that teachers in Norway wore paperclips “as a resistance against the Nazis.” In the very next breath, she urged protests against President Trump, demanding that people tell him: “Do not take our freedoms away. Do not take our democracy away.”

    Such casual invocation of the Holocaust and Nazi history to score political points trivializes one of history’s greatest atrocities. It equates policy disagreements with genocidal regimes, a tactic that poisons public discourse and erodes trust.

    Weingarten’s missteps extend beyond rhetoric. She deleted a social media post that pushed a false flag conspiracy theory, alleging the assassin of Charlie Kirk was a “right-winger.” This baseless claim fueled division rather than healing. Worse, the AFT under her leadership issued a statement defending teachers who celebrated Kirk’s murder, framing it as protected free speech.

    Teachers do enjoy broad freedoms of expression, but those rights come with limits in professional settings. Employers, including school districts, retain freedom of association. Unhinged individuals spewing hateful rhetoric have no inherent right to shape young minds or indoctrinate children with toxic ideologies. Schools should be places of learning, not platforms for extremists.

    Financial improprieties add another layer to the case against Weingarten. The AFT’s latest LM-2 report reveals payments totaling $171,715 to Feldman Strategies, a progressive public relations firm. That same firm recently boasted on social media about promoting Weingarten’s book. Why are teachers’ hard-earned dues funding a PR machine that advances her personal projects? Weingarten already earns over half a million dollars annually. This apparent misuse of funds raises serious questions about accountability and priorities within the union.

    Undeterred by controversy, Weingarten is pressing forward with a book event hosted by the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) on October 8. This book talk comes amid intense backlash against the CTU for glorifying a convicted cop killer who once appeared on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists List. The union’s defense of such figures alienates mainstream educators and undermines public confidence in the teaching profession. Weingarten’s involvement signals a lack of judgment and an absence of shame.

    A leaked email from Leo Casey, Weingarten’s assistant who earned $234,400 last year, exposes further cracks in the union’s leadership. Writing on an internal Democratic Socialists of America listserv, Casey expressed doubts about Zohran Mamdani’s “ability to govern,” noting his lack of experience in city government.

    Casey drew parallels to Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, whose favorability rating has plummeted to 14 percent, with 80 percent unfavorable, an all-time low. “Something has clearly gone wrong,” Casey wrote, insisting it couldn’t be blamed solely on opponents. “Winning an election does not necessarily translate into the ability to govern.” He confirmed the email’s authenticity in a response to me on X.

    This critique is particularly damning given the AFT’s and CTU’s investments in Johnson. The CTU poured $2.4 million of member dues into his campaign, while the AFT added another $2.2 million to secure his victory. Neither Weingarten nor Casey has addressed these concerns publicly, despite responding to me on X about the email. Their silence suggests an unwillingness to admit that union resources – teachers’ money – were squandered on what Casey himself described as a governance failure.

    Teachers deserve better representation. A recent union magazine, shared with me by a concerned educator, features Weingarten’s book prominently on the back cover. The teacher posed pointed questions: “How is this allowed and why are our union dues paying for this?” These sentiments reflect growing frustration among rank-and-file members who feel their contributions are being diverted to personal and political pursuits.

    Weingarten herself has acknowledged the right to dissent. On a New York City radio show, she told a caller upset about the union’s politicization: “The union can be as political as it wants as long as it’s democratic.” She advised the teacher: “You have the right to pull back on your [union] contributions if you don’t like the direction of the union.”

    Rational educators who reject Weingarten’s leadership should heed her words. They can opt out of dues and join alternatives like the Teacher Freedom Alliance, which provides personal liability insurance at no cost.

    Weingarten’s tenure has been marked by extremism, financial opacity, and a failure to prioritize teachers over ideology. She must resign in disgrace to restore integrity to the AFT. If she refuses, teachers should withdraw en masse, forcing the change the union desperately needs.

  • Why does Pope Leo think immigration is a pro-life issue?

    Why does Pope Leo think immigration is a pro-life issue?

    On Tuesday evening, the Illinois pope weighed in on Illinois politics. A reporter from the Catholic news outlet EWTN asked Pope Leo XIV about the Archdiocese of Chicago’s decision to award Senator Dick Durbin with a “lifetime achievement award” for his work advocating for immigrants coming to America. “Some people of faith are having a hard time with understanding this because [Durbin] is for legalized abortion,” the reporter said. How should Catholics feel about that?

    “I am not terribly familiar with the particular case,” the Pope conceded, speaking in English. Then he spoke more broadly, and vaguely, about what it means to be “pro-life”. “Someone who says ‘I am against abortion’ but says ‘I am in favor of the death penalty’ is not really pro-life,” he said. “Someone who says ‘I am against abortion, but I am in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States,’ – I don’t know if that’s pro-life.”

    The new Pope is proving he’s consistent. From the Catholic Church’s perspective, being pro-life means standing up for the dignity of human life from conception until natural death. And there are growing examples of undeniably disturbing, gleeful responses to deportations and family separations (one only needs to look at the Department of Homeland Security’s X account). But to characterize support for a strong border and stricter enforcement of immigration law as “[agreeing] with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States” is a caricature of the complex feelings many Americans, particularly Catholic Americans (of which there are many in the Trump administration), have about the issue.

    After the Pope’s comments (though not clearly because of them) Senator Durbin declined to accept the award for his immigration advocacy, according to a letter issued last night by Cardinal Blase Cupich, who named him the recipient of the “Keep Hope Alive” award. Last month, Cupich defended his decision by saying that he was acting in accordance with Church instructions “advising bishops to ‘reach out to and engage in dialogue with Catholic politicians within their jurisdictions… as a means of understanding the nature of their positions and their comprehension of Catholic teaching’.”

    Cupich’s interpretation of “dialogue” misses the very clear point of those instructions given in 2021 by the Vatican’s Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Luis Ladaria. They ask US bishops to attempt to change the minds of pro-abortion politicians through civil debate, and to dispel the characterization that pro-life teaching is only about abortion and euthanasia, rather than a set of teachings about respecting human dignity throughout a person’s full life.

    The decision to interpret those instructions as a directive to give politicians awards seems bizarre, even deliberately ignorant. But it’s not surprising. Many US bishops and cardinals have been vocal in their criticisms of immigration policy under the Trump administration (more vocal than they were over, say, the last administration’s stance on gender ideology or the church closures during Covid). Some have written letters to Congress to reject bills funding immigration enforcement, or have turned up at ICE hearings to show solidarity with immigrants.

    The tension between Rome and the Trump administration on immigration came to a head during the previous papacy, and it is not going to disappear anytime soon. Pope Francis criticised Trump’s mass deportations, and in a letter to US bishops made a pointed reference to J.D. Vance’s interpretation of ordo amoris – that the “hierarchy of love” gives one a moral obligation to family and community first, and then the rest of the world. It’s an argument not dissimilar from the more secular one for America First. Francis wrote in that letter that the true ordo amoris is something we discover by “meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.”

    Francis’s approach to America’s border crisis struck many Americans as distant and hectoring, ignoring the realities of illegal migration – gang violence, murder, drug and sex trafficking – and choosing to remind us of what we learned in Sunday school: that Jesus, Mary and Joseph were immigrants. Pope Leo has tried to avoid that tone so far. “They are very complex issues,” he told the EWTN reporter. “I don’t know if anyone has all the truth on them.” It’s a most honest interpretation on Christianity’s offerings: not to say that Church teaching is muddled on these issues, but that there are no precise instructions from a universal Christian faith on how, for example, to deal with a specifically American border crisis.

    The Pope ended his answer by stating that “the Church teaching on each one of those issues is very clear”. In the eyes of the Catholic Church, all human beings must be treated with dignity and respect, the state should not have the power to end a life, and abortion is a moral evil. Even if immigration is considered the most urgent pro-life issue at the moment, that should have no bearing for American bishops and cardinals on the Church’s unnegotiable stance on the right to life.

  • Can Trump turn Gaza into the ‘Riviera of the Middle East?’

    There are plenty of legitimate questions to be asked about the Trump-Blair peace plan for ending the conflict with Israel. Will Hamas ever agree to it? Will any peace deal hold? Will the wider Middle East get behind it? But there is also another question that we must ask. If this peace does hold, can Trump and Tony Blair turn Gaza into a cross between Dubai and Singapore – or is that completely deluded?

    All the immediate attention will, of course, be on whether this new deal actually ends the fighting. We will find out over the next few weeks. But assuming it does, the President and the former British prime minister have ambitious plans for the strip of land that has been fought over so fiercely.

    There will reportedly be a “Trump economic development plan to rebuild and energize Gaza” crafted by a “panel of experts who have helped birth some of the thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle East.” It will be a “special economic zone… with preferred tariff and access rates to be negotiated with participating countries.”

    It is not hard to work out what President Trump has in mind. Back in February, he declared he wanted to transform Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East” and put out an AI video of a new Gaza complete with a Trump tower, golf courses, luxury hotels, and gleaming, air-conditioned offices and apartment complexes. Meanwhile, earlier this year there were reports that staff from the Tony Blair Institute had worked on plans for a “Trump Riviera” in the region.

    It is not hard to work out what President Trump has in mind

    Could that possibly work? On the surface, of course, it sounds completely crackers. It is hard to imagine that anyone is going to want to play a leisurely round of golf over land best known for its tunnels, hostages and booby traps. Or indeed that the Palestinians want their country to be turned into a strip of casinos and condos, or a tax haven for jet-hopping expats. And, in fairness, it certainly faces plenty of obstacles. 

    And yet, this plan not entirely crazy. After all, the booming statelets of the Gulf have clearly shown that entirely new financial and business centers can be built out of a desert in a remarkably short space of time. From 2000 to 2022, the GDP of the United Arab Emirates, which includes Dubai and Qatar, grew from $157 billion to $550 billion. Work has already started on the Ras El Hekma Project, a $35 billion joint venture between Egypt and the UAE to build a new city on its Mediterranean coast, while Saudi Arabia is building new cities and business centers as well. 

    With its prime Mediterranean location and closer flying times to Europe, Gaza might well be able to do at least as well. Of course, it will take complete peace and security to have a chance of success, plenty of American and Israeli money, and tariff-free access to the US market. But low tax, entrepreneurial statelets are one of the boom industries of the 21st century. There is no necessary reason why the Trump-Blair vision of Gaza should not join them – as far-fetched as it might sound right now.

  • Who will blink first to end the government shutdown?

    Who will blink first to end the government shutdown?

    The surprising thing is not that the federal government has shut down. It would have been surprising if it did not. Each side thinks it has the cards and that it has put the other in a bad position. The result is that the budget feud could last for months, ending with a temporary armistice that satisfies no one.

    There is little incentive for either side to shut down the shutdown. Washington Post columnist Paul Kane notes that most Senators have little reason to compromise: “very few senators feel the political pressure that usually comes with calamitous events like a federal agency shutdown. Most sit in safe seats, many with reelection campaigns a distant concern.”

    Democrats are apparently reckoning that the suspension of health tax credits starting in December will cow Republican legislators into capitulating over the first shutdown since 2019. As the financier Steven Rattner points out in the New York Times, the GOP has effectively subverted ObamaCare by repealing the expensive tax breaks that prompted millions to enroll. Now some 20 million Americans face sharply higher premiums. According to Rattner, “Even upper-income Americans who buy insurance on the Affordable Care Act exchanges will be hurt by the repeal of this tax break. That’s because as coverage gets more expensive, healthier people drop their insurance first, forcing companies to raise premiums on their remaining customers to maintain profitability.” Democrats are wagering that enough Republican moderates will crack to ensure that they can reach a compromise to their liking.

    President Trump and his advisors, however, believe that they can traumatize Democrats. As Trump put it, in a shutdown “we can get rid of a lot of things we don’t want, and they would be Democrat things.” Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought has been preparing for that. This could be Vought’s finest hour, or, if you’re a fan of big government, the day of the jackal. “There are all manners of authorities to be able to keep this administration’s policy agenda moving forward,” Vought told Fox News, “and that includes reducing the size and scope of the federal government, and we will be looking for opportunities to do that.”

    Vought resembles someone who was crafted in a laboratory by the Claremont Institute to overthrow the New Deal. He’s drafted plans to terminate wide swaths of the so-called administrative state, starting with many of the federal employees who are currently on administrative leave. One such emailed me on Tuesday evening to report that they are “hearing that the Office of Personnel and Management has orders to start jettisoning the Ballastexistenzen, or ballast existences, at midnight” – a sardonic reference to the Nazi propaganda term for those deemed unfit, undesirable and unnecessary.

    The problems with the calculations of the Democrats might turn out to be twofold. The first is that Trump and his coterie exhibit little desire to keep the federal government humming. The reverse may be the case. Like a Romanov emperor, Trump wants to rule by ukase. If there are fewer federal employees around to obstruct his grand plans, so much the better. All Trump requires, so the thinking goes, is a functioning military and ICE. The rest can be cobbled together.

    The second problem that could confound Democrats is the question of whether they really can remain united as they are called upon cast vote after vote to on Republican legislation to reopen government, or whether they are the ones who will crack, as they face calls to stop behaving like an obstructionist faction. Already three members of the Democratic caucus voted for the Republican plan on Tuesday night – Senators John Fetterman, Catherine Cortez Masto and Angus King. Fetterman observed that a shutdown would be “the ideal for Project 2025”.

    Others remain undaunted. “They want us to blink first,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced on MSNBC. “We have to be the consequence.” No one should underestimate how consequential the shutdown may prove for Trump and his foes alike.

  • The ‘Great Spiritizing’ of the top brass  

    The ‘Great Spiritizing’ of the top brass  

    “Today we end the War on Warriors,” Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, author of the book The War On Warriors, tweeted this morning. Today was the day that Hegseth really became Secretary of War, addressing, along with President Trump, a full gathering of top military brass in Quantico, Virginia. 

    “This is only an esprit de corps,” the President said, as he set sail from the White House for the event. “Do you know what that is, an esprit de corps? This is only a spirit. These are our generals, our admirals, our leaders, and it’s a good thing, a thing like this has never been done before, because they came from all over the world. And there’s a little bit of expense, not much, but there’s a little expense to that. We don’t like to waste it. We’d rather spend it on bullets and rockets, frankly. But this was the one time we had to do a great spiritizing.”

    The Great Spiritizing began with remarks from Hegseth saying that he had spent his early days at the War Department rooting out “toxic ideological garbage” of DEI and diversity. “We are done with that shit,” he said. “I’ve made it my mission to uproot the obvious distractions that made us less capable and less lethal.”

    From now on, Hegseth said, all military personnel would have to pass a twice-yearly “male-level” fitness test. “Frankly, it’s tiring to look at combat formations or really any formation and see fat troops. Likewise, it’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country and the world. It’s a bad look. It is bad, and it’s not who we are.”

    Hegseth, who has either not seen or disagrees with Stanley Kubrick’s Vietnam film Full Metal Jacket, said basic training will be “scary, tough, and disciplined.” Drill sergeants can instill fear in new soldiers. “They can toss bunks, they can swear – and yes, they can put their hands on recruits.”

    Sir, yes sir!

    And now it was time to hear from the President of the United States, who doesn’t have to pass a twice-yearly military fitness test. Trump got to play good cop today, providing a warm fatherly contrast to Hegseth’s frightening telesoldier persona.

    “I’ve never walked into a room so silent before,” Trump said.

    “Just have a good time. And if you want to applaud, you applaud. And if you don’t like what I’m saying, you can leave the room. Because there goes your rank, there goes your future.”

    No one left the room. They spent most of their time sitting attentively, unemotive, ramrod-straight, as per their training. But why would you leave the show of a lifetime? Trump decided to use this moment to break the news that because he had felt a “little bit threatened” by Russia, he’d decided to deploy a nuclear submarine, “the most lethal weapon ever made”, off the coast of Russia. “I call it the ‘N-word,’” he said. “There are two ‘N-words,’ and you can’t use either of them.”

    Trump spent 72 minutes praising “the strongest military in the history of the world,” which is something, he said, his predecessor Joe Biden, “the autopen,” never said. Actually, “he never said anything,” Trump said. While addressing the Department of War – “I love the name, I think it’s gonna stop wars” – Trump also advocated for his newly-formed Board of Peace. If his Gaza peace plan works out, that would be the eighth war ended in eight months. “That’s pretty good,” he said. “Nobody’s ever done that.”

    “Will you get the Nobel Prize? Absolutely not. They’ll give it to some guy that didn’t do a damn thing. They’ll give it to a guy that wrote a book about the mind of Donald Trump… We’ll see what happens, but it would be a big insult to our country. I will tell you that. I don’t want it. I want the country to get it.” And one of the ways Trump said he’s going to win the Nobel Peace Prize is by killing foreign drug traffickers. “If you try to poison our people,” he said, “we will blow you out of existence.”

    But today wasn’t about Donald Trump, even though of course it was. It was about the Armed Forces. “Everybody wants to be in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard, and our Space Force, our beautiful Space Force. A year ago you would have thought it wouldn’t have been possible. They were talking about making it smaller. Now we’re talking about making it larger. And that’s a beautiful thing. Everybody wants to be doing what you’re doing now. What a difference a Presidential election can make.”

    This went on and on, but the real news of the speech was that Trump announced to his soon-to-be non-fat top brass that the U.S. military would soon deploy to defeat “the enemy within.” “San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, they’re very unsafe places and we’re gonna straighten them out one by one,” in a statement that will please some, infuriate others, and terrify those prone to feeling Trump-related terror.

    Thus Spiritized, America’s top military brass set forth to destroy the enemy within. They had their marching orders, to fight wars and also to not fight wars. Either way, the goal was the same. As Ricky Bobby once said, if you’re not first, you’re last.

  • Bessent’s private message reveals a Milei gamble

    Bessent’s private message reveals a Milei gamble

    The first lesson for Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is that digital photography has totally changed politics, as wiser practitioners have long since realized. You might have got away with reading private communications in public 30 years ago, but you can no longer do so. The second lesson is that if you build an administration on the promise that you will always serve the American interest, certain foreign policy decisions become difficult.

    Bessent has been caught reading a message on his phone from Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins expressing her anger at the Trump administration’s deal to establish a $20 billion loan facility with Argentina, or “the Argentine” as Rollins prefers still to call it. How did Argentina’s embattled President Milei respond to being thrown a lifeline? In the words of Rollins, they “removed the export tariffs on grains, reducing their price, and sold a bunch a soybeans to China, at a time we would normally be selling to China.”

    In fact, a “bunch” was 20 shiploads of soybeans, eagerly bought up by China as it tries to sidestep US producers in the midst of a US-China trade war.

    In vain has the White House argued that Argentina’s agricultural produce would even cheaper if the country was allowed to go bust. As far as American soy bean farmers are concerned they have been shafted. 

    That is the reality of a trade war. It might seem like a straightforward battle between one country’s producers and another’s, yet the victims of tariffs imposed by your own government are as likely to reside in your own country – and they are not going to be the least bit happy. But the incident also raises questions about the Trump administration’s support for Milei’s government. As far as Trump is concerned, Milei is a rare friend in a world which often seems mostly hostile towards him. Milei in some ways is cut from the same cloth – he is of the “move fast and break things” school of governing.  Or in his case, slice through them – he famously appeared at political rallies using a chainsaw as a prop, symbolizing what he intended to do to Argentina’s bloated state. He did not disappoint. Whole government departments were expunged in a blizzard of executive orders which possibly left even Trump in awe.

    Milei achieved his first goal of taming runaway inflation, although it is still far from healthy levels – it is down to 33 percent from over 200 percent in 2023 when Milei took office.

    Trouble is, when you start off like that you tend to make many enemies along the way. And now Milei has slipped up – he has cleared out Argentina’s currency reserves in trying to prop up the peso, hence the need for a bailout. It is natural that Trump might want to help out an ideological soul mate in need, but spending US taxpayers’ dollars doing this is not necessarily going to win him many friends at home. If you are a US soybean producer, Argentinian farmers are your rivals, not friends deserving of a bailout.

    If Milei burns through his latest lifeline, he may find himself relying on the IMF alone. The White House vaults are not likely to be opened to him again.

  • Why have Democrats mainstreamed a terrorist?

    Why have Democrats mainstreamed a terrorist?

    On September 26, the Chicago Teachers Union, representing all of the teachers in America’s second largest city, posted on X upon the death of “Assata Shakur” AKA Joanne Chesimard, that “The life and legacy of a revolutionary fighter, a fierce writer, a revered elder of Black liberation, and a leader of freedom whose spirit continues to live in our struggle.”

    That would be one way to describe Shakur.

    Another way to describe her would be as a woman convicted of the murder of New Jersey police officer Werner Foerster, a former FBI most wanted terrorist who was broken out of jail by armed comrades and eventually escaped to Communist Cuba, where she lived under the protection of the totalitarian Communist Castro regime for the remainder of her life.

    And Foerster’s murder was far from the only serious crime Shakur was charged with or accused of involvement in. In another instance, she was identified by John Powis (a politically progressive priest) as part of a group of people who robbed his church and threatened to “blow his head off” if he did not cough up $1,800 that had been earmarked for the poor from church funds.

    That one of America’s largest teachers’ unions, fattened by millions of taxpayer dollars, would choose Shakur as a figure to lionize reveals much about the modern left. While the union celebrates radicalism, the most recent test scores for Chicago Public Schools show fewer than one in three students can read at grade level. Fewer than one in five can do math at grade level. Chicago does this while spending almost $20,000 per student, almost two thirds more per student than is spent in my “affluent” school district in Montana. As is so often the case with the left, radicalism goes hand-in-hand with the collapse of basic governance and competence.

    There is no meaningful political differences on these questions between Democrat unions, political activists, the media and academia and many Democrat politicians. All heads of the same leftist hydra. The AP described Shakur as a “black liberation activist” on X – as if this was why she was punished rather than for her crimes. The Washington Post praised her “near mythical status” while USA Today noted her as a “potent political symbol, representing for some a valiant soldier in the war against an oppressive and racist police state.” At least three Democratic Congresswomen, none of them marginal figures, went online to praise her after her death.

    Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley also honored Shakur both online and on X. Pressley, whose district is just 20 percent African American, represents most of Cambridge, Massachusetts, including Harvard University, the pinnacle of the elite left-wing establishment. She could make her statement fully confident in her warm reception in the hallowed halls of academia. After all, Angela Davis, an African-American radical whose guns were used by the brother of her then boyfriend to kill a judge and several others in a courthouse (landing her on the FBI’s 10 most wanted list), was eventually fully rehabilitated by the establishment, serving for decades as a distinguished professor at UC Santa Cruz and receiving an honorary degree from Cambridge University this year, all while declining to repudiate her radical past.

    Other politicians praising Shakur included Congresswoman Yvette Clarke (head of the Congressional Black Caucus) and Summer Lee, who represents Pittsburgh in Congress. Clarke Tweeted that “If there is a single truth in the world it is that Assata died a free woman. May she rest in power and paradise for all eternity.” Clarke had no thoughts at all, of course, as to the victims of her terror campaign.

    Meanwhile, the Democratic Socialists of America announced “Rest in Power, Assata Shakur. The American state brutally oppressed Assata and her Black Panther Party Comrades,” praising the “solidarity” and “loyalty” of the totalitarian Cuban regime that kept her from justice. Zohran Mamdani, the likely next mayor of New York City, is a DSA member who declined to condemn the stance when pressed by the New York Post.

    What we see with the Chicago teachers is the normalization of radicalism on the American left, where there is increasingly no real and meaningful gap between the establishment and the extremists. All political movements have dangerous fringe figures, but the Democrat media, academia and political establishments have embraced some of their worst and most violent ones.

    There were a few honorable exceptions, of course, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy called the celebration of Shakur “shameful and depraved.” But Murphy a 68-year-old white male former investment banker, does not likely represent the future of the Democratic Party. The people celebrating Shakur do.

    And that should frighten us all.

  • J.K. Rowling’s brutal takedown of Emma Watson

    J.K. Rowling’s brutal takedown of Emma Watson

    J.K. Rowling has broken her silence on Emma Watson. And if I was Ms. Watson I would lie low for a few months. In fact I would go full hibernation and spend the rest of winter in some far-flung cottage sans internet. For Rowling’s critique of Watson and her lazy, luxury beliefs is devastating. It is one of the truest and most cutting takedowns of the blissful ignorance of moneyed moral poseurs I have ever read.

    Watson is the actress who gained fame and riches from playing Hermione in the Harry Potter films. Of late, she has become a one-woman foghorn of the luxuriant moralism that passes for virtue in celebrity circles. She fell in with the Black Lives Matter contagion, ostentatiously confessing that she had “benefited” from “white supremacy”. (Hilariously, she got flak for putting a white border around the black square she posted on Instagram for BLM’s Blackout Tuesday in June 2020. The color white? On a day for blacks? Demon!)

    She thinks Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Of course she does – the invites to cultural soirées dry up quicksmart for those who refuse to partake of the Israel-bashing that has become the moral glue of the chattering classes. And she is a faithful servant of the most lunatic luxury belief of all: that “trans women are women”. Translation: men are women. Hearty supping from the Kool-Aid of gender insanity is a must for anyone wishing to maintain their position in the starry firmament of high-status ideology.

    It was this latter wacky belief that brought Ms. Watson and the other overgrown brats of the Harry Potter franchise into conflict with the author of their fame. Because, of course, Rowling is a witch to correct-thinkers for her quaint belief that people with penises are men. Over the years, Watson and her fellow Potter alumni made sly swipes at Rowling and her heretical belief in biological fact. Rowling, being more classy, said nothing. Until now.

    Her 600-word X post about Watson is a masterwork of critical demolition. It is cool, restrained and cataclysmic. She dismisses the conciliatory remarks Watson made in an interview last week, when she said she still “treasured” her relationship with Rowling. “Adults can’t expect to cozy up to an activist movement that regularly calls for a friend’s assassination, then assert their right to the former friend’s love”, she said. Oof.

    She reveals that in 2022 Watson asked someone to pass her a handwritten note that said: “I’m so sorry for what you’re going through”. This was when “the death, rape and torture threats against me were at their peak”, says Rowling. Watson had “publicly poured more petrol on the flames” of this hatred, Rowling writes – not least in a speech she had recently given – and yet she thought a “one-line expression of concern from her would reassure me of her fundamental sympathy and kindness”.

    This is as brutal a calling out of unsisterly behavior as I have seen. In shining a light on the moral chasm between Watson’s public “petrol pouring” and her private utterance of a fleeting, paltry sympathy, Rowling exposes the failures of feminism more broadly in the post-truth era of trans. Many high-status women have giddily sacrificed solidarity with their own sex at the altar of validating the delusional identities of men in dresses. They betrayed womankind so that they might gain access to the rarefied realm of elite opinion – moral treachery masquerading as progressivism.

    But it is Rowling’s calm assault on Watson’s class privilege that hits hardest. “Like other people who’ve never experienced adult life uncushioned by wealth and fame, Emma has so little experience of real life she’s ignorant of how ignorant she is”, she writes. It’s easy, she says, for the affluent to parrot such luxury lunacy as “trans women are women” because they will never have to face the social consequences of this unhinged dismantling of the truth of sex and the rights of women.

    A virtue-hoarder like Ms. Watson can afford to be blasé about the linguistic destruction of the reality of womanhood because “she’ll never need a homeless shelter”, says Rowling. “She’s never going to be placed on a mixed sex public hospital ward.” Watson’s “public bathroom” is “single occupancy and comes with a security man standing guard outside the door”, Rowling writes. It is only – whisper it – women poorer than Ms. Watson who will find themselves on a crammed ward alongside a huge man or in a bathroom that’s seen better days in which a strange man is doing his make-up.

    Rowling has nailed it. The purveyors of luxury beliefs rarely have to live with the fallout of their cranky ideologies. Rich celebs bow to Black Lives Matter with nary a thought for the impact that BLM’s psycho cry of “Defund the police” has had on poor black communities in the United States. Britain’s bourgeois leftists luxuriously rail against “Islamophobia” and seem not to care that it was officialdom’s very fear of being called Islamophobic that abandoned so many white working-class girls to the scarce mercy of those “grooming gangs”. And pious celebs can cavalierly say “Trans women are women” because they will never be that poor girl who just wants to go swimming without being flashed at by a man putting on a bikini.

    Luxury beliefs benefit the rich but they are lethal for everyone else. Preach, Joanne.

  • Was Dr. Roberts the school board’s ‘Magical Negro’?

    Was Dr. Roberts the school board’s ‘Magical Negro’?

    When news broke that the head of Iowa’s largest school district was in ICE custody as an alleged illegal alien, the response from all quarters was disbelief. A school superintendent undergoes intense vetting, and every rung on the career ladder requires background checks. How could such a man possibly have slipped through?

    Anyone hoping the full story might provide a sensible explanation was quickly disappointed. The more you dig, the more absurd it becomes. Although we don’t yet know the full truth about his immigration status, there is already plenty in his record that raises red flags about the biographies he’s offered. Ian Andre Roberts’ life reads less like a CV than a pitch for a Hollywood script in the classic tradition of the charming conman.

    Roberts worked hard at his presentation. He cultivated a flamboyant look – tight suits in loud colors and patterns, topped with his signature cloth flower in the lapel and flashy sneakers. His social media feeds feature professional portraits, sometimes shirtless, sometimes in trousers so tight they left little to the imagination. He spoke in smooth clichés, delivered with a Caribbean accent that lent a whiff of exoticism to Iowan ears.

    And then there is his “life story” – or rather, his competing life stories. All reliable evidence points to Guyana as his birthplace, where he was schooled until the early 1990s. Yet in interviews he sometimes claimed to have been born and raised in Brooklyn, the child of a single mother. That contradicts his own statement that she immigrated only in the 2000s, by which time he was already in his 30s. Even his age shifts – legal records say 1970, while Roberts himself has variously given 1973 or 1978.

    Ironically, the most colorful elements of his tale appear to be true. A retired police commissioner in Guyana confirmed that Roberts graduated from officer training and joined the country’s police force. He was a standout runner in college in the United States and even represented Guyana in the 2000 Sydney Olympics. But once you reach other aspects of his life – degrees, awards, academic achievements – the truth grows hazier.

    On LinkedIn he lists seven universities, but curiously omits mention of any degrees. Elsewhere, he claimed several master’s degrees and a doctorate in education from Morgan State University in 2007. He began styling himself “Dr.” as early as 2012, yet records show he did not actually receive an Ed.D. until 2021, from an online institution widely regarded as a diploma mill. His official Des Moines biography boasted of being named “Principal of the Year” by George Washington University – an award the university says it has never given. And this is only a sampling of the inconsistencies.

    Why did no one bother to check before offering him a $300,000-a-year post? Why did no one even question the contradictions? The honest answer is race and ideology. In the current climate, pressing a man with a Caribbean lilt about where he was born is deemed a “microaggression.” Anyone schooled in the catechism of diversity, equity and inclusion knows better than to question the “lived experience” of someone like Roberts.

    And Roberts, to his credit as a conman, gave them exactly what they craved. He embodied the DEI narrative: a black immigrant who rose from poverty to academic brilliance, to Olympic heights, to leadership in education. In Iowa – one of the whitest states in America – the all-female school board glowed with pride when they announced his appointment in 2023.

    Spike Lee coined the phrase “Magical Negro” to mock Hollywood’s fondness for the saintly black character who redeems white protagonists. Roberts filled that role in real life. He promised not only to raise test scores but to cleanse Des Moines of its original sin of racism. He was their redemption, offered with a winning smile and a résumé that, if partially fictional, was at least inspirational.

    And now, exposed, he is still defended. Rather than express outrage at being deceived, his supporters rally. Some protests bear the fingerprints of unions and activists, but much of the outcry looks organic. People insist he was kind, inspiring, a role model. But the essence of a successful con is that people fall for the charismatic conman and cling to the illusion. Mark Twain’s old adage still holds true – it is easier to fool people than to convince them they’ve been fooled.

    The broader lesson is not merely that one smooth talker tricked his way into a prestigious office. It is that our institutions have made themselves especially easy prey. DEI ideology discourages skepticism, instructs people to rank themselves by race, and warns the “privileged” against questioning the “oppressed.” That ideology creates a golden opportunity for a resourceful grifter.

    The officials who hired Roberts failed in their basic duty to fact-check his résumé. They failed because their ideology told them not to ask questions. They preferred the fairy tale. But in the real world, when you believe in fairy tales, no wand appears at the end to make the story come true. You are left with failing schools, squandered money and the humiliation of realizing that the man hired to redeem you was simply playing the oldest role in the book – the conman who knew exactly what his audience wanted to hear.

  • Trump pitches Gaza peace plan

    Trump pitches Gaza peace plan

    Donald Trump is perhaps one of the world’s most gifted salesman. But as he was speaking at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today, even he had trouble selling his 20-point peace plan to end the war in Gaza.

    This wasn’t for a lack of trying. “Today is an historic day for peace,” Trump told the assembled press corps. Calling today “a beautiful day, potentially one of the great days ever in civilization,” Trump went on to outline in broad strokes his diplomatic initiative, which aimed to thread the needle between Netanyahu’s vocal objections to a Palestinian state and the Arab world’s demand that any plan put forth provide the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank with an opportunity to take control of their own future. Trump earned Netanyahu’s support and received buy-in from the Arab states, but the positions of those two actors will eventually clash. And that even assumes Hamas, which wasn’t given a copy of the White House’s draft agreement and is now only digesting the material, agrees to play along.

    There is some good in Trump’s 20-point plan. For instance, it stresses that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) will pull out of Gaza in a staged fashion as Palestinian police officers and their international supporters, presumably led by the Arab states, stabilize the enclave. Hamas will demilitarize and hand over its weapons, and those who renounce violence will be allowed to leave Gaza for a third-country. The hostages still in Hamas’s grasp will be released 72 hours after the accord comes into force, and humanitarian supplies will surge into the territory. Gaza, meanwhile, won’t be annexed by Israel; instead, it will be ruled by a consortium of Palestinian technocrats and international figures, where they will preside over a reconstruction and rehabilitation process until a reformed Palestinian Authority is up to the task.

    But even if Hamas agrees to such a scheme – and given the plan’s call for what is in effect Hamas’s complete and total surrender, it’s hard to picture the militant group doing so – the implementation problems will be gargantuan. The plan is loose on timelines and execution mechanisms. Although the so-called International Stabilization Force will cooperate with vetted Palestinian police officers to dismantle the tunnels and terrorist infrastructure that still exist in the enclave, the criteria for what is considered adequate demilitarization – and which party determines whether demilitarization has succeeded or failed – is a big red flag. If Netanyahu holds veto power over this decision, then the phased troop withdrawals the Israeli military signed onto will be delayed for as long as possible. We can say this with a reasonable degree of certainty because Netanyahu was very reticent to pull the Israeli military back during the January truce. The reticence has thinned out with age.

    Trump doesn’t want Israel to annex Gaza, and he made that position clear in his plan. Commentators will refer to this item as a big deal. In reality it’s the definition of low-hanging fruit. First, rejecting Israeli annexation is simply a reiteration of decades of bipartisan U.S. foreign policy on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Second, Trump has a personal interest in kicking the annexation can down the road because whatever hopes he may have of expanding the 2020 Abraham Accords will be extinguished the moment Israel goes down that path. He can kiss an Israeli-Saudi normalization agreement goodbye in such a scenario, and you can bet that somebody in the president’s orbit – perhaps his son-in-law Jared Kushner – brought this to Trump’s attention.

    Netanyahu, however, isn’t following Trump’s schedule. As important as retaining Trump’s support is, it’s not the be-all, end-all in the Israeli premier’s calculations. The people who hold this honor continue to be the hardliners, nationalists and extremists in the Israeli cabinet, including Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich and Israel Katz, who could destroy Netanyahu’s career by imploding his government. The first two men continue to harbor the dream of kicking out all of Gaza’s more than two million Palestinians, formally annexing it into the State of Israel and rebuilding – and expanding – the very Jewish settlements that were torn down back in 2005. Yes, Netanyahu accepted Trump’s plan and everything in it, but he’s a canny political operator and knows how to throw wrenches into a diplomatic process. It’s likely Netanyahu will play a similar game, as he’s done repeatedly when other Gaza peace negotiations were nearing the finish line.

    The biggest error in Trump’s scheme, however, was something that wasn’t even written into the plan. In essence, Netanyahu was gifted an escape clause. Trump stressed that Israel would have Washington’s full support for continuing the war if Hamas rejected the agreement.

    Many won’t find this comment objectionable. Yet for a guy who is supposedly a master negotiator and understands the power of leverage, Trump effectively killed whatever leverage he held over Netanyahu by giving the Israeli premier an incentive to do anything in his power to push Hamas into saying “no.” Even if Hamas accepts the deal with reservations, Netanyahu can now claim to Trump that the terrorist group is an intransigent party that can’t be reasoned with. The only alternative, the logic goes, is a resumption of the war.

    Sharing a stage with Trump in Washington, DC, Netanyahu laid it on thick and claimed that peace was just around the corner. But mark these words: once he lands back in Israel, Netanyahu will tell his coalition allies that the deal he agreed to is merely a general framework whose details are still to be negotiated. Trump will then have a decision to make: tether the United States even closer to Israel’s war in Gaza, try diplomacy again or wash his hands of the conflict.