When AOC first came to Washington, she was the belle of the ball. Bernie Sanders was the only open socialist, or “democratic socialist,” in town. He was hairy, old and ugly, she – buckteeth and whiny voice aside – is easier to watch…on mute, at least.

Sandy Cortez, as she was known before wrapping herself in identity politics, survived saying incredibly dumb things and a naiveté about the basics of foreign policy and American exceptionalism through a fawning press and the adulation of fanboys. She was a pin-up girl for unshowered virgins and violent ANTIFA alike.

There wasn’t a left-wing event not clamoring to get AOC to show up, or even just tweet about it. The entire left was her playground.

But, like a Hollywood “It Girl” who turned 35, she got old (metaphorically) and the adulation began to wander. After several years of no accomplishments and a series of soundbites that would embarrass anyone with a pulse, the extreme left saw her star fade.

All the fanfare, and all the money raised, hadn’t amounted to anything. What’s the point of power if you don’t use it to impose your will on a public that doesn’t want it…in the name of “democracy,” naturally?

Then along came Zohran Mamdani.

The amount of attention Mamdani got lapped AOC, even as she campaigned with him. His star out-shined hers in ways she wasn’t prepared for and hasn’t recovered from. As a Member of the House, AOC can’t do anything – one of 435, even a “famous” one, does not matter. But the Mayor of New York City, no less, can get things done.

He was the new belle of the ball, she was the old ex who still came around, trying to be friends. The tarnish was building.

Now there are three newer socialists, all acolytes of Mamdani’s (not AOC’s) heading to DC. These aren’t “squad” members looking to rock the boat, they want to blow a hole in it and sink it. AOC helped rile up the radical left, but she never advocated or excused violence, nor did she push for extreme anti-American policies. Un-American, sure, but not designed to deliberately hurt the country, or at least she didn’t think they would.

This new batch is openly seeking to “destroy Western civilization.” AOC is crazy, but in a naïve way because, well, she’s naïve and ignorant. These people know exactly what they’re pushing and why, and they are indifferent toward the harm their policies will inflict.

Under AOC, individuals harmed by policies for “the greater good” are a tragedy, for this new group they are a feature, not a bug. Individuals are expendable to the new left and they aren’t interested in what people want and don’t, they’re going to force their will on them either way.

AOC seems quaint compared to these people.

The leftist corporate media is focusing on them like they’re the cure of cancer, burning all the calories it takes to walk back their past statements and sugar coat their racism and anti-Americanism. All those calories that used to be burned defending and propping up AOC are now going elsewhere, as the revolution has passed her by.

While it’s funny, and in a couple of years it’s likely she will be a back-bench answer to a trivia question, it’s also a warning for the country. If a person who was a radical just a couple of years ago is now seen as too tame and lame for the next wave of loons, that does not bode well for the Democrat Party or the country, when they regain power (and they will, at some point, regain power).

The old leftist saying of “Lead, follow or get out of the way” has run over AOC. Laugh all you want. I will, but we all have to make sure the rest of the country isn’t next.

Written by Derek Hunter

Official website; http://twitter.com/derekahunter

Johnson said the Democratic-Socialist effort to take over the party and re-fashion it in their image is not limited to deep blue New York City, but is surfacing around the country, especially among younger people who have never had to live under these systems, mostly because they have been taught little about their cruelty and failures.

Johnson said: “Across the country, Democrats have candidates winning primaries and rising through the ranks.” He said there were many more than the few he mentioned. He cited Sacramento City Council member and former congressional candidate Mai Vang. Videos resurfaced showing Vang refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and intentionally turning her back on the American flag during municipal meetings.

Johnson also mentioned Adam Hamawy, a New Jersey Democrat seeking to succeed retiring Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman. The New York Post reported Hamawy once volunteered in Bosnia with a Chicago-based nonprofit whose offices were raided by the government in 2002 after it was determined to be a front for al-Qaeda. Hamawy was born in Egypt and was a combat surgeon in the Iraq War. He had promoted his time interning in 1994 for the now-defunct “Benevolence International Foundation” (BIF). The U.S. Treasury Department designated BIF as a financier of terrorism due to its financial and operational associations with al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the Taliban.

“(Joanne) Mendoza in Arizona wants to decriminalize trans prostitution,” Johnson said. “Apparently, that’s the thing.” Johnson added that Democrat Iowa congressional nominee and State Representative Lindsay James, “wants to apologize for being white.” Rebecca Bennett, a New Jersey Democrat running for a House seat, said she “stopped going to church” because there were too many people there who voted for Donald Trump. Johnson said State senator and U.S. House candidate Sarah Trone Garriott, who is also an ordained Lutheran minister, participated in a satanist wedding in Iowa.

Other Democrats want to erase the border, empty the prisons, abolish ICE, pack the Supreme Court, and do other things that would guarantee Democrats hold power forever. Too many are antisemitic and hate Israel.

Johnson said, “This is just a sampling” of how the Democrat Party is being hijacked by people who hate and want to destroy America. He might have also mentioned biological men playing on biological women’s teams and sharing locker rooms and bathrooms with them. Those issues were losers for Democrats in the 2024 election.

Contrast this nonsense with the Democrat Party of John F. Kennedy, who was for lower taxes and an ardent anti-communist. Labor Unions, though largely supportive of Democrats, were once strongly pro-American. Public schools once taught the real history of America, opened the day with the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America (not foreign flags), and were allowed to pray and even read from the Bible until the Supreme Court ruled prayer and Bible reading unconstitutional. How has that worked out, as anti-capitalist teaching and poor achievement in math, science, and reading are now the norm in many schools? Did I mention growing violence in especially inner-city public schools and in the streets among teens?

Andrew Jackson is often credited with founding the Democrat Party in 1820. The party’s principles then included agrarianism, states’ rights (code for slavery), limited federal government, and opposition to corporate and banking monopolies. Such were those principles until the early 20th century, when things began to change—some for the better, like the battle for civil rights and Social Security, and some not so great, such as higher taxes and bigger government.

As the saying goes: “This is not your grandparents’ Democrat Party.” It has clearly gone off the rails.

Written by Cal Thomas

Official website; https://x.com/CalThomas

In 2023 and twice in 2024, a hesitant Supreme Court declined to hear challenges by building owners to New York state’s rent regulations. Lower courts had ruled that the regulations diminished the value of rental properties, but the state had good reasons to balance the rights of owners with the need to protect tenants.

At that time, Justice Clarence Thomas said the constitutionality of New York’s rent regulations is “an important and pressing question,” and he looked forward to a case that clearly demonstrated the government was going too far to take an owner’s property.

Mamdani is giving Thomas what he’s been waiting for — on a silver platter.

Moscow Mamdani’s scheme to deny landlords any rent hikes at all reeks of the kind of expropriation of private property that occurs in Cuba, Venezuela and other socialist nations. Not in America. It is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

The Fifth Amendment bars government from imposing regulations that make a person’s property worthless.

Everyone who owns anything — a home or a business of any sort — should feel threatened by Mamdani’s Bolshevik scheme to deny building owners fair compensation, doom rental properties to rapid decay, and then literally seize their buildings. After landlords, who’s next?

Under the framework established by the New York state legislature, the Rent Guidelines Board must determine allowable rent hikes based on the specific costs landlords incur. But Mamdani’s handpicked RGB members threw the letter of the law out the window.

Fuel costs went up 11% in the last year, and insurance went up 10.5%, but Mamdani’s RGB announced Thursday that landlords will get no increases this year or the next. And, according to Mamdani’s campaign promises, not even in the years after, as long as he is mayor.

Zero rent hikes will cause buildings to rapidly fall into disrepair — just what the new mayor intends. On May 29, he announced that when landlords fail to keep buildings up to code, “we will take aggressive legal action” to “transfer ownership to responsible stewards — stewards that include community land trusts, nonprofits and even the tenants themselves.”

New York law already allows that, but only under extreme circumstances. It applied to fewer than 30 properties in 2024 and generally doesn’t result in permanent confiscation. But Mamdani’s rent freeze will turn many landlords into targets because they’ll lack the revenue to keep apartments up to code. The rent freeze deliberately creates the conditions for widespread confiscation. Building owners get zip.

Think Bolshevik Moscow in 1917, when the communists annulled private property rights, seized buildings and decreed them communal living spaces. Lefties now become the new land barons.

Last Thursday, RGB member Christina Smyth, appointed by former Mayor Eric Adams, resigned in protest just hours before the vote. She said the freeze “was decided last year on the campaign trail,” and she offered to help anyone willing to wage a legal battle. “If so, I will do everything I can to assist them in being successful,” she pledged.

Bring on the fight.

It’s worth noting that a lawsuit already filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against New York City and the RGB also has a significant shot at success.

This suit focuses on the narrow case of what the real estate industry calls “zombie” apartments that cannot be rented because a 2019 state law allows owners to recover only $50,000 for repairs, far less than what it would cost to get apartments up to code. There are currently an estimated 57,000 zombie units, according to the state’s Division of Housing and Community Renewal, that are sitting vacant and worthless to the owners.

It’s likely to take two or three years for this case or any new challenge to Mamdani’s rent freeze to reach the high court.

If the justices slap down Mamdani’s rent freeze, the confiscations or any portion of the city’s rent regulatory scheme as an unconstitutional “taking,” as they’re likely to do, Mamdani will have to comply, no matter what the throngs of leftwing tenant advocates shout in the streets.

Everyone in New York who owns anything — a home, a rental property, a diner, a bodega or another business — has a stake in this legal fight. Mamdani’s scheme to seize rental properties is a red flag that all property rights are in peril. He’s going after landlords first, but you could be next.

Written by Betsy McCaughey

Official website; https://twitter.com/Betsy_McCaughey

Temporary Protected Status is not a gift. It is a recognition of reality. It says that when a country is overwhelmed by violence, disaster, political collapse, or humanitarian emergency, deportation is not simply enforcement. It is endangerment. To strip Haitians of this protection now is to pretend that paperwork matters more than human life.

Haiti is facing one of the world’s most severe humanitarian crises. Armed groups control much of the country, violence has disrupted ordinary life, hunger is widespread, and humanitarian assistance remains far short of the need.

So what kind of country sends people back into that? What kind of country says to people who have built lives, paid taxes, raised children, staffed hospitals, opened businesses, cared for elders, cleaned rooms, cooked meals, driven trucks, and strengthened communities: your labor was welcome, but your life is disposable?

Cruelty is not an accidental byproduct of this policy. Cruelty is the point.

Haitians have long been punished for being Black, free, defiant, and inconvenient. The first Black republic in the world was born of revolt against slavery, and the nations that profited from slavery never forgave Haiti for proving that enslaved people could liberate themselves. France extracted a ruinous indemnity. The United States occupied Haiti. International lenders, foreign governments, and domestic elites have repeatedly treated Haiti as a problem to manage, not a sovereign nation to respect; a profit center, not a proud and sovereign nation. The present crisis cannot be separated from that long history of extraction, intervention, and contempt.

Now that contempt appears in the sterile language of immigration law. “Temporary” becomes the excuse. “Protected” becomes the promise broken. “Status” becomes the thin legal thread holding families together.

The Supreme Court’s ruling did not create the hatred of Haitian migrants, but it gives official permission to act on it. We have seen the ugliness before. Haitians have been accused of disease, criminality, dependency, and disorder. They have been stereotyped, detained, deported, and scapegoated. During the 2024 campaign, Springfield, Ohio became a national symbol of anti-Haitian hysteria after false claims about Haitians eating pets were amplified for political gain. That lie was not just ridiculous; it was dangerous. It turned neighbors into targets.

Springfield tells another story. Haitians came there to work. They filled jobs. They opened businesses. They joined churches. They enrolled children in schools. They helped revive a struggling city. After the Court’s ruling, many now face fear and uncertainty. Even Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican, reportedly called ending Haitian TPS a mistake, pointing to the conditions in Haiti.

That matters. Because the question is not whether Haitians belong in Springfield, or Boston, or Miami, or New York, or Washington, D.C. The question is whether the United States will acknowledge that Haitians already belong here because they are already here, already contributing, already woven into the fabric of our communities.

The numbers tell part of the story, and they are overwhelming. But they do not tell the whole story. Behind every number is a family deciding whether to pack, hide, fight, or pray. Behind every number is a child who may know no home but the United States. Behind every number is an employer wondering who will show up for work, a landlord wondering whether a tenant can stay, a congregation wondering whether its members will disappear. Behind every number is a disabled elder wondering whether the care attendant will come to bathe her, feed her, and help her live with dignity.

TPS holders are often described as if they are temporary people. They are not. They are people with temporary legal protection, many of whom have been here for years or decades because the conditions that displaced them have not been resolved. Temporary status can become a permanent limbo. It allows people to work but not fully settle, to contribute but not fully belong, to live under the shadow of a government decision that can turn a lawful worker into a deportable person.

That shadow is now darker.

We should be honest about what this is. It is not simply immigration enforcement. It is not simply administrative discretion. It is a choice to make vulnerable people more vulnerable. It is a choice to destabilize families and communities. It is a choice to ignore Haiti’s suffering while benefiting from Haitian labor. It is a choice to act as if Black migrant lives are expendable.

The United States has legal power. That has never been in doubt. The deeper question is whether it has moral sense. Haiti has been punished for its freedom, exploited for its labor, burdened by debt, occupied, stereotyped, and scapegoated. Sending Haitians back into danger continues that long, ugly pattern.

But cruelty does not have to have the last word. Congress can act. The administration can halt deportations. Communities can protect their neighbors. Churches, unions, employers, advocates, and people of conscience can refuse to let Haitian families disappear quietly into deportation machinery. At minimum, this country should extend TPS, halt deportations to Haiti, and create a path to permanence for people who have already built their lives here. The opposite of cruelty is not sentiment. It is solidarity, organized and insistent.

A humane nation would not send people back into danger. A just nation would repair some small part of the damage it has helped create. A grateful nation would recognize Haitian workers, families, caregivers, students, entrepreneurs, and neighbors as part of its own story.

Cruelty may be the point of this policy. Resistance must be the point of our response.

Written by Julianne Malveaux

Official website; https://www.juliannemalveaux.com

As America’s 250th birthday approaches, it’s not untimely to consider her message. It has not only inspired hope for uncountable people desperately in need of it, but helped shape America’s proud, even lofty self-image as a refuge for the beaten down, where those threatened by persecution might yet have a chance for a decent life. After all, virtually all of us are descendants of those given the blessed opportunity to come to this country from elsewhere. Virtually all of our ancestors were “the Other,” strangers forced to navigate poverty, and hatred, and ostracization and loneliness when they arrived.

That self-image has been the fuel for America’s greatness. In his farewell address to the nation in January 1989, former President Ronald Reagan invoked the image of America as “the shining city on a hill.” Reagan had a story in mind, that of an American sailor on the aircraft carrier Midway, patrolling the South China Sea in the 1980’s. As Reagan told it, the sailor’s crew “spied on the horizon a leaky little boat. And crammed inside were refugees from Indochina hoping to get to America. The Midway sent a small launch to bring them to the ship and safety. As the refugees made their way through the choppy seas, one spied the sailor on deck and stood up, and called out to him. He yelled, “‘Hello American sailor. Hello, freedom man’.”

Ronald Reagan would certainly be disgusted at President Donald Trump’s derisive, belittling, bullying war on Emma Lazarus’ and his own vision of America, a vision that has nurtured us since our founding. Last week featured another example.

In 1990, former President George H. W. Bush, a Republican, signed legislation creating the Temporary Protected Status program, designed to provide safe harbor here for refugees from countries deemed unsafe. Trump has set about dismantling the program, country by country.

When the administration terminated the program for the hundreds of thousands of Haitians here, litigation ensued. They argued that Haiti has long been unsafe, so the program could not be considered “temporary” as to it. The plaintiffs challenging the termination pointed out that nothing in Haiti had changed since its original designation; the administration itself has recently warned that no one should travel there due to kidnapping, terrorist activity, rampant crime and civil unrest.

A federal court sided with the plaintiffs, temporarily blocking the deportation of Haitian refugees until those challenging the government had had the opportunity to prove that racial discrimination was at least “a motivating factor in the decision to terminate the program for Haiti — which was all they were required to show to legally nullify the termination decision. The court noted statements by Trump himself that Haitians “probably have AIDS,” were eating the pets of residents in American communities, came from a “s—-hole country” which was “filthy, dirty, disgusting” and were “poisoning” American blood.

The Republican-dominated U.S. Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the plaintiffs should not even be permitted to prove their case. There was nothing in Trump’s language, they held, with any racial overtones, ruling that these statements were merely “heated.” Justice Elena Kagan saw things differently, writing that Trump’s language was “shot through with racial stereotypes and tropes.”

Here’s what’s not disputable: Team Trump simply doesn’t see America the same way Americans have traditionally seen it. “America’s doors are closed, fully, to asylum seekers,” crowed Trump advisor Stephen Miller after the Supreme Court reversal. Conservative media host Megyn Kelly spoke for those who believe they are making America great again. “We don’t want you,” proclaimed Kelly to the Haitian community after the ruling. “We don’t care if you’re offended. Get out. Go home. Go back to your f—-ing country.”

Not exactly “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Not exactly Reagan’s “shining city on a hill.” But on our 250th birthday, that is where, and who, we are.

Written by Jeff Robbins

Official website; https://x.com/jeffreysrobbins

The President’s allies on the Supreme Court have had to jump through some hoops to justify their decisions supporting his reckless and discriminatory policies. But Justice Samuel Alito’s claim not to see racism in the effort to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians defies belief.

As Justice Kagan noted in her dissent, even the President’s own lawyers avoided repeating his shocking slur against Haiti and other predominantly Black nations when he demanded, “Take them out.” But even more telling than the slur was the response in the room: ““Because if you do, it will be obvious why.”

“Obvious” to everyone but Trump’s allies on the Supreme Court, apparently.

The Trump administration did not decide to deport protected Haitian and Syrian immigrants because it determined those nations are safe. It arbitrarily determined they were “safe” so that it could deport those immigrants.  The Department of State maintains a strict “Level 4- Do Not Travel” advisory due to the risk of “crime, terrorism, kidnapping, unrest, and limited health care” in Haiti and “terrorism, unrest, kidnapping, hostage taking, crime, and armed conflict” in Syria.

Haitian and Syrian TPS holders are now expected to do what Americans are explicitly warned against.

Just as troubling as the human consequences of the Court’s ruling is its reasoning. The public record is littered with examples of the President’s animus toward Haitians. He stunningly advanced a baseless – and widely debunked – claim that Haitian immigrants were “eating the pets” of residents in Ohio. At other times, he suggested Haitian immigrants were bringing disease into the United States and accused them of “destroying” a community’s way of life.

As Kagan noted, these statements “fairly shout” that race played a role in the decision. Justice Alito and his colleagues in the majority have turned a deaf ear.

The administration has made no secret of its intent to base immigration policy on race. It has turned our refugee program into a “Whites only” pathway to the United States – even planning a welcome bag” containing racist literature.  The President has invoked Nazi terminology to dehumanize immigrants from South America, Africa, and Asia.  He’s expressed a preference for immigrants from nice countries” like Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, whose populations are more than 90 percent White.

Just as it did with its egregious Callais decision, the Court has embraced the fiction that blatant racial bias can somehow be walled off from policymaking, as long as its not explicitly written into the law itself.

When leaders repeatedly vilify a particular group and then act in ways that strip that group of legal protections it is not unreasonable to ask whether those words and actions are connected. The Court’s majority, however, demands a level of proof so narrow that it is nearly impossible to meet. In doing so, it effectively immunizes decision-making from scrutiny, even when there is clear evidence of bias in the public sphere.

The consequences of the Court’s decision are not abstract. They will be measured in families torn apart, in lives upended, and in the erosion of a principle as old as the Constitution itself: that justice must be blind to race, not blind to racism. When the highest Court in the land refuses to confront discrimination so clearly etched into the public record, it does more than misinterpret the law—it signals that some forms of prejudice can be ignored, excused, or even sanctioned. And that is a precedent far more dangerous than any single decision.

Written by Marc Morial

Official website; http://twitter.com/MARCMORIAL

Creating these environments requires long-term thinking and a commitment to investing in both people and places.

Safety Starts with Strong Communities

Some of the safest and most resilient communities are not necessarily those with the most resources. Instead, they are often communities where people know one another, look out for each other, and take pride in their neighborhoods.

For many African-American families, churches, community centers, local organizations, and neighborhood groups have historically played a vital role in creating support networks. These institutions provide mentorship, educational opportunities, and safe spaces where young people can learn, socialize, and develop positive relationships.

When residents feel connected to their communities, they are often more invested in protecting and improving them.

Investing in Young People Creates Long-Term Results

Children who have access to positive role models, safe recreational spaces, and educational opportunities are more likely to grow into confident and engaged adults.

After-school programs, sports clubs, arts initiatives, and mentorship schemes all provide valuable environments where young people can develop skills, build friendships, and explore their interests. These opportunities can also help reduce exposure to negative influences while encouraging personal growth.

Creating safer environments means recognizing that prevention is often more effective than intervention. Supporting young people today can help build stronger communities tomorrow.

The Role of Thoughtful Infrastructure

Physical environments influence how people interact with the spaces around them.

Well-maintained public areas, adequate lighting, secure facilities, and clearly defined community spaces all contribute to a stronger sense of safety and belonging. Schools, community centers, apartment complexes, and local businesses increasingly use modern security solutions to help protect visitors and staff while maintaining accessibility.

For example, many organizations now implement access control systems to help manage entry points and improve security without creating unnecessary barriers for those using the facilities. When implemented thoughtfully, these technologies can support safer environments while helping communities remain welcoming and inclusive.

Education Remains a Powerful Tool

Knowledge empowers individuals to make informed decisions and contribute positively to society.

Communities that prioritize education often see benefits that extend far beyond academic achievement. Educational opportunities can improve economic prospects, encourage civic engagement, and create pathways to leadership.

Parents, educators, and community leaders all play important roles in helping young people understand their potential and providing the support they need to pursue it.

Investing in education is one of the most effective ways to create lasting change across generations.

Creating Spaces Where Everyone Feels They Belong

Safety is not just about physical protection. It is also about feeling respected, valued, and included.

Children thrive when they see positive representations of themselves in leadership positions, educational settings, and community organizations. Inclusive environments encourage participation, foster confidence, and help individuals feel connected to the communities around them.

Whether in schools, workplaces, places of worship, or neighborhood organizations, creating a culture of belonging strengthens communities and helps people feel more secure.

The Importance of Community Leadership

Positive change rarely happens by accident.

Throughout history, African-American leaders, activists, educators, business owners, and volunteers have worked tirelessly to improve opportunities within their communities. Their efforts demonstrate the impact that dedicated leadership can have on creating safer and more supportive environments.

Future generations will continue to benefit from individuals who are willing to invest their time, knowledge, and energy into strengthening the communities around them.

Leadership does not always require holding a formal position. Small actions taken consistently by ordinary people often have an extraordinary impact over time.

Looking Ahead

Creating safer environments for future generations is not a single project or initiative. It is an ongoing commitment to building stronger communities, supporting young people, investing in education, and creating spaces where everyone has the opportunity to succeed.

While technology and infrastructure certainly play important roles, the foundation of every safe community remains the people who live there. By working together, supporting one another, and focusing on long-term progress, communities can create environments where future generations are not only protected but empowered to thrive.

Staff Writer; Carl Carter

It’s not like Espaillat’s district was dominated by the young professionals who flocked to Mamdani. His electorate is 52% Hispanic and includes such non-hipster neighborhoods as Harlem, Washington Heights and parts of the Bronx.

Nonetheless, Mamdani may have seriously misread the national mood when he said right before the primaries: “When does the race for 2028 begin? It starts now.” That was an awesome display of grandiosity for a guy who didn’t get even 50% of the vote even though he was the official Democratic candidate in a very Democratic city.

The New York primaries may indeed be kicking off the presidential contest in 2028, but not in a way Democrats would like. Look at recent history. Backlash against Donald Trump’s erratic governing style returned control of the House to the Democrats in 2018. Similar forces helped Joe Biden to take the presidency from Trump two years later.

The Democratic left sold these results as a thumbs-up for its radical agenda. But those same views — things like defunding police and obsession with transgender issues — turned off the middle America voters who gave Biden his win in 2020.

Two years later, Republicans retook the House majority by weaponizing the dumbest things left-wingers had said. Similar dynamics powered Trump’s return to the presidency in the 2024 election. It is dangerous to assume that disgust with Trump translates into a desire to stop immigration enforcement.

The recently elected Mamdani, meanwhile, is enjoying an overly long honeymoon. The reality is sure to overtake the massive publicity he attaches to the smallest of achievements. New Yorkers are noticing that there are still no free buses, as promised. The rents are not frozen. And universal childcare has not happened. Mamdani has also antagonized the financial business leaders, jeopardizing the prospects of the young grads seeking white-collar jobs, that is, much of his base.

Democrats seeking victories in the heartland should fear having the excesses of coastal socialists hanging around their neck. The veteran New York political analyst Errol Louis described the dangers New York’s far left pose to the Democrats’ future. As an anchor at Spectrum News NY1, he has interviewed them all.

“They’ve got some ideas that will not sell in Des Moines or in, you know, Cleveland,” Louis said. Their strategists tell him that they’re “gonna fight, fight, fight … get themselves arrested, introduce legislation, whether or not it has a chance of getting a hearing or ever becoming law.”

Barack Obama understands well the radicals’ lack of appeal outside choice urban corridors. He’s called out affluent progressives who think they earn halos by pushing polices deemed to help the less fortunate but end up costing Democrats at the polls. They can embrace left-liberal politics without personally paying a price, Obama said last year. “You could still make a lot of money. You could still hang out in Aspen and Milan and travel and have a house in the Hamptons and still think of yourself as a progressive.”

Democrats have fine hopes that this year’s midterms will deliver at least a House majority. The growing dislike of Trump puts wind in their sails.

Come the 2028 presidential contest, however, Trump will presumably not be running. But the Democrats’ aggravating radicals will still be at it. If the race for 2028 starts now, Democrats should be concerned.

Written by Froma Harrop

Official website; https://twitter.com/FromaHarrop

The Traditional Auditing Paradigm: BSI and SGS

For decades, traditional certification bodies have relied on a highly manual, consultant-heavy approach. This process typically begins with months of preparation, during which internal teams manually gather evidence, draft policies, and organize spreadsheets. When the audit phase arrives, external auditors from legacy firms conduct extensive on-site or remote interviews, manually reviewing hundreds of documents.

While thorough, this traditional model introduces significant friction. The back-and-forth communication over email, the risk of human error in document tracking, and the sheer administrative overhead often lead to prolonged timelines. For small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the resource drain can divert critical focus away from core business operations, making compliance feel like a burden rather than a strategic advantage.

The Rise of AI-Driven Compliance

In contrast, modern compliance platforms leverage artificial intelligence and automation to transform how audits are prepared and executed. By integrating directly with an organization’s existing cloud infrastructure, task managers, and HR systems, these platforms can continuously collect evidence and monitor compliance posture in real time.

Instead of waiting for an annual audit to discover gaps, businesses can use intelligent dashboards to identify and remediate issues instantly. This proactive approach shifts compliance from a stressful, point-in-time event to a continuous, seamless business process.

Head-to-Head: AI-Driven Platforms vs. Manual Auditing

When comparing an innovative AI-driven ISO audit platform like Stratlane against traditional manual methods, several key differences emerge:

• Audit Speed and Efficiency: Traditional audits can drag on for months due to manual scheduling, document sampling, and report writing. By automating evidence collection and pre-assessing documentation, Stratlane reduces audit times by up to 45%. This dramatic reduction in timeline allows companies to secure their certifications and unblock sales cycles much faster.
• Continuous Monitoring vs. Point-in-Time Checks: Legacy audits only assess a company’s compliance posture at a single moment in time. AI-driven platforms provide continuous visibility, ensuring that security controls and quality processes remain active and effective 365 days a year.
• Resource Allocation: Manual preparation requires hundreds of hours of internal staff time to organize folders and chase down approvals. Automation handles the heavy lifting of evidence gathering, freeing up valuable engineering and operations talent.
• Predictable Costs: Traditional auditing often involves hidden costs, including travel expenses for auditors and unexpected consultant fees. Modern platforms offer transparent, predictable pricing structures that align with business growth.

Why Modern Businesses are Choosing Stratlane

Stratlane represents the next generation of compliance. By combining advanced AI-driven audit tools with a global network of experienced auditors, Stratlane delivers a high-quality, rigorous assessment process without the administrative drag of legacy providers. The platform’s intelligent systems guide users through the exact requirements of standards like ISO 9001, ISO 27001, and ISO 42001, ensuring that preparation is complete and accurate before the formal audit even begins.

This hybrid approach—pairing cutting-edge technology with human expertise—ensures that audits are both highly efficient and fully compliant with international standards. Organizations no longer have to choose between speed and thoroughness.

Conclusion: Embracing the Digital Compliance Era

While traditional certification bodies like BSI and SGS will always hold a place in compliance history, the manual methods they rely on are increasingly out of step with the needs of modern, agile businesses. Transitioning to an AI-driven compliance model is no longer just an option for tech startups; it is a strategic necessity for any organization looking to scale efficiently. By reducing audit times by up to 45% and replacing manual chaos with automated clarity, platforms like Stratlane are redefining what it means to be certified.

Staff Writer; Brian Brown

He faced the usual Trump Derangement Syndrome from his political opponents. He faced resistance from those who oppose almost any military action abroad. He faced public frustration over rising gas prices — even though gasoline was higher under Biden and, adjusted for inflation, higher under Obama. He faced weak poll numbers and the possibility that Republicans could lose the House and perhaps even the Senate in the midterms.

Yet Trump acted.

He ordered military strikes against Iran. He attacked a regime that for decades has funded terrorism, threatened America’s allies and repeatedly vowed the destruction of Israel, America and Western civilization.

Critics insist the threat was exaggerated. Iran has long denied it was building a nuclear weapon. It claimed it needs nuclear capacity for civilian purposes.

But the evidence points in the opposite direction.

In February 2025, a confidential report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, obtained by the Associated Press, found that Iran had accumulated 274.8 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity — a level the IAEA described as only a short technical step away from weapons-grade material. The report also found that Iran’s stockpile had grown dramatically in just a few months.

Seven months later came another warning. In September 2025, the Associated Press reported on yet another confidential IAEA assessment. According to that report, Iran had increased its stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels to more than 440 kilograms before Israel launched military operations against its nuclear facilities.

The trend line was unmistakable. Iran’s negotiators reportedly told Trump’s negotiators the regime possessed enough enriched uranium to make 11 nuclear bombs. Iran was not moving away from nuclear-weapons capability. It was moving steadily toward it.

Supporters of President Barack Obama’s Iran deal often forget two important facts.

First, the agreement contained sunset provisions. Key restrictions were scheduled to expire. Even if Iran had complied fully with the deal, many of the most important limitations would by now have been approaching expiration or already gone. Second, Iran was not complying fully. For years, the IAEA raised questions about undeclared nuclear material, restricted inspections and unresolved safeguards issues. The agency repeatedly complained about a lack of cooperation from Tehran and warned about the unprecedented size of Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

Peaceful nuclear programs do not require massive quantities of uranium enriched to levels that are a short technical step from weapons-grade material. Nor do peaceful programs generate confidential reports expressing grave international concern over undeclared activities and unanswered questions.

How much longer could the United States ignore the top state sponsor of terror as it marches steadily toward building nuclear bombs while its leaders chant, “Death to America”? Critics call Trump’s action “a war of choice.” It was. He had the choice to push this existential threat onto the desk of his successor, as did other presidents.

Asked if he would give Trump credit if the not-yet-released memorandum of understanding achieved Trump’s objectives, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the leading Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, responded by defending Obama’s Iran Deal.

Iran is significantly weaker than it was three months ago. Its military prestige is in shambles. Its ability to support terror proxies is diminished. Its nuclear infrastructure sustained serious damage. Now comes the next phase. The deal’s details remain unsettled. But one thing seems certain.

Iran will cheat.

The only questions are when and to what degree. That leads to the real issue: What will Trump do when this happens?

He has demonstrated a willingness to use force. He has demonstrated a willingness to ignore popular opinion when he believes American vital interests are at stake.

If Iran violates the agreement, Trump will likely intensify pressure, military and economic, and continue squeezing its leadership until it either changes course, pays a much higher price, or until the unpopular regime collapses.

Three months ago, Iran’s nuclear ambitions appeared stronger than ever. That is clearly no longer the case. Our military remains in the region with a gun pointed at the heads of the Iranian leaders. For all the outrage and hand-wringing from much of the country and the “international community,” America and the world are better off than they were before Trump acted.

History may ultimately judge that the greatest risk was not acting. It was waiting too long.

Columnist; Larry Elder

Official website; http://www.larryelder.com