Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can’t help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime: the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity. ― Robert Heinlein

Violence and the Left’s Five-Part Strategy

President Trump’s designation of Antifa as a “major terrorist organization” is a major step in dealing with the epidemic of left-wing violence that has gripped the country.  For the first time, we have a president who understands that riots with pallets of bricks that show up at just the right time and place, attacks on law enforcement and on passing motorists, physical attacks on opponents and even assassination do not just arise organically but instead are all part of a larger subversive strategy that enables and supports the left’s violence.

Just prosecuting a violent leftist here and there without countering that subversive strategy is like swatting a mosquito or two while leaving in place the pool of stagnant water that breeds them. Consequently, the president’s executive order recognizes that any effort to stop left-wing violence has to address the larger ideological, organizational, and financial feeder system that breeds and incites that violence.

Now comes the challenge for mainstream Americans.  The radical left knows that the political will to carry out President Trump’s directive will depend on continuing support from mainstream America, and so the left will mount a counter-offensive to wear away public support for any attempt to counter the left’s subversion.  If you think leftists get unhinged when someone simply disagrees with them, wait until you see their reaction when their support network is investigated, their funding is threatened, and they feel exposed and cornered. The left-wing media and elected Democrats who supported the weaponization of government against peaceful opponents during the Obama and Biden administrations have already started a propaganda campaign with cries of “fascism” and “dictatorship” at the prospect of leftists being held accountable for inciting and committing political violence.

To hold fast in the face of the left’s counter-offensive, mainstream Americans need to see how the pieces of the left’s strategy work together to demoralize and destabilize our system of government. In his must-read book, The Memo: Twenty Years Inside the Deep State Fighting for America First, Rich Higgins describes in detail the pattern of subversion that he encountered within America’s security apparatus and his attempt to warn President Trump about it. In addition to a shocking account of delay and subversion from within the deep state, Higgins also reveals in this book and in his other work how leftist violence is only one of five lines of effort in the Maoist approach to political warfare. Expanding on his work, we see the outlines of the left’s five-part strategy:

(1) Forming alliances of grievance groups:  Socialists, radical feminists, minorities, gender identity groups, climate extremists, Islamists, and other grievance groups are pulled together toward a common aim, the destruction of the Judeo-Christian foundations of America and the West.  Supported by a complex web of foreign and domestic funding, conflicting interests such as those of the LGBT movement and those promoting sharia law are tempered—at least for now—by that shared aim.

(2) Non-violent action: Many of the left’s tactics are non-violent in themselves but promote a dangerous climate for anyone who disagrees with their authoritarian agenda. Condemnatory terms such as “homophobic,” “Islamophobic,” “transphobic,” or “fascist” and characterizing opposing opinions as driven by hate are all intended to intimidate and silence any viewpoints deemed politically incorrect by the radical left. Boycotts of companies that don’t toe the party line as well as deplatforming and debanking of opponents create a climate of fear and send a clear message that you will pay if you cross the left.

(3) Violent action and intimidation: The above tactics provide propaganda air cover for looting, riots, attacks on people who disagree, and even assassination as supposedly legitimate means of bringing down “fascists” and the hateful and oppressive system they support. As was the case with the paramilitary Red Guard in China, we see that young people are particularly enticed to join in the destruction of the existing cultural and political order.

(4)  Sanctuary:  Subversive actors need safe spaces where they can be encouraged and protected from the consequences of their actions, and so speech codes and leftist indoctrination in our education system make it clear that only left-wing opinions are permissible and that open exploration of ideas should not be tolerated.  Left-wing DAs who view criminals as victims and victims as oppressors release dangerous offenders on the street, undermining public trust in government protection.

(5) Direct political action: The above tactics then enable the election of radical leftists who use the formal power of government to attack and undermine our constitutional system. You don’t’ have to search long to see a number of public officials who already spout the Marxist line under the cover of “progressive” or “democratic socialist” labels.

When we see the full extent of the left’s multi-front campaign of subversion, it becomes clear that only a multi-front response such as that in President Trump’s directive has any hope of protecting public safety and restoring our ability to have civil discussion of differences without threats of violence from the left.  When you hear the left bemoaning “weaponization” of government, remember that an age-old tactic of the left is to accuse their opponents of what the left actually does.

Dr. Tim Daughtry is co-author of Waking the Sleeping Giant: How Mainstream Americans Can Beat Liberals at Their Own Game.  F

Trump on the Verge of Ending the Israel-Hamas War, and the Left Is Furious About It.

It’s one of the strangest spectacles in modern politics — watching left-wing pundits struggle to process the possibility that President Donald Trump could be on the verge of ending the Israel–Hamas war.

Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shocked the world with a bold peace plan to end the Israel–Hamas war and stabilize Gaza. On Friday, Trump gave Hamas a deadline — accept the deal by Sunday at 6 p.m. Eastern or face consequences. Hamas quickly responded, agreeing to give up control of Gaza and release all remaining hostages, while saying some details still required consultation with other Palestinian factions. Trump’s firm deadline and direct approach have already accomplished what years of empty diplomacy never could — real progress toward peace.

But, rather than celebrate the prospect of peace, some commentators seem triggered by the idea that Trump, of all people, might succeed where countless global leaders have failed.

On the latest edition of CNN’s Newsnight, foreign affairs analyst Reena Nina laid out the complex diplomatic environment surrounding the ongoing negotiations. “This is a moment where you’ve got so many of the right things lined up,” she said, noting that regional pressure on Hamas has intensified. “In the Arab world, there’s a — I’m hearing a great deal of pressure from countries like, you know, Turkey and Qatar, saying to Hamas, you’ve got to do this and take this deal.”

Nina added that Hamas “realizes there aren’t a lot of windows of opportunity for this,” referencing the earlier Gilad Shalit prisoner swap. “You’re waiting for 20 hostages that are living, that we believe are still alive and possibly as many as 30 bodies,” she explained. Then she made a striking admission: “I do believe this window of opportunity is real… because I really believe President Trump. I really believe he will unleash hell and fury if they don’t follow through with this.”

Even CNN host Abby Phillip couldn’t deny the implications if this pans out. “If President Trump is able to do this, this is a major—it’s a major victory for him,” she said, before quickly pivoting to suggest Trump’s motives might not be purely humanitarian. “He wants the war to end for a lot of reasons. Some of them are personal reasons. He wants that Nobel Peace Prize,” Phillip said. But even she conceded that Trump “does not like the idea of all the death and destruction.”

That’s when the tone shifted from analysis to thinly veiled resentment. Liberal commentator Alencia Johnson admitted it was “challenging to actually hear that piece of, you know, Trump being—potentially being the one to get the ceasefire deal.” Her discomfort was palpable. “I would be interested to understand President Trump’s interest in this,” she said, suggesting skepticism about his motives. “He has said some things that are very harmful to the Palestinian people. I don’t know, you know, what his motivations are.”

Imagine being so consumed with Trump Derangement Syndrome that you’d actually lament the prospect of peace simply because it might make Trump look good. Alencia Johnson’s comments captured this perfectly — the left’s reflexive inability to acknowledge any Trump success, even one that could save lives. Ending a brutal war and bringing home hostages should be something everyone celebrates, yet Trump’s critics sound almost offended that he might be the one to accomplish it.

CNN’s Scott Jennings was having none of it. “This is not a political issue,” he said bluntly. “Look, President Trump has been clear from the beginning he wants the hostages back.” Jennings reminded viewers that Trump “had an initial deal to get some hostages” soon after taking office in January, but that “Hamas reneged on that deal.”

“He’s been clear from the beginning,” Jennings said. “I just want these people back. The people who are alive, we pray that they’re still alive, the remains that exist — it all needs to happen and it needs to happen quickly.”

He didn’t mince words about Hamas either: “I don’t want to be strung along by these terrorists. I want the hostages. That’s what the President wants. And I don’t want him to give them very much time because they don’t deserve it and these people need to come home. We’re almost two years into this.”


Even CNN’s own analysts couldn’t deny the magnitude of the moment, yet the left’s sheer disgust at the possibility of Trump succeeding was unmistakable. You could practically hear the resentment in their voices — not because peace might finally be within reach, but because Trump might get the credit. That’s the sickness at the heart of modern leftism: they would rather see war drag on, hostages remain in tunnels, and innocent people suffer than admit that President Trump’s leadership is delivering results they could only dream of. It’s petty, it’s ideological, and it’s downright shameful.

10 US Code Chapter §252  (the Insurrection Act)

“Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.”

Women don’t need gun control activists telling them how to defend themselves
Proper training addresses mindset, marksmanship, and decision-making under stress. It’s not about checking boxes or reciting slogans — it’s about preparing women for the real-world challenges they face.

It may surprise some, but women and minorities are now the fastest-growing segment of new gun owners. Since 2019, nearly half of first-time gun buyers, about 3.5 million, have been women. Their reasons are simple and deeply personal: they want to feel safe, protect their families, and take responsibility for their own security in an uncertain world.

That growth is something gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action can’t ignore. After years of demonizing gun owners and lobbying to restrict our rights, they now see they’re losing ground. Instead of rethinking their position on Second Amendment Rights, they’re trying a new tactic: launching firearms “training” programs and repackaging their political agenda as education to sway public perception.

Think about the irony. These are the same groups that claim the Second Amendment is obsolete, insist no one “needs” a gun, and argue that firearms make families less safe. Now they want to be seen as trusted sources for firearms instruction? It’s as backwards as letting burglars write your home security manual or foxes guard the henhouse.

This isn’t a genuine change of heart — it’s a calculated strategy. They know that if new gun owners connect with trusted, pro-Second Amendment communities, they’ll lose their influence for good. So, they’re attempting to insert themselves into the training space to control the message from within. These gun control groups don’t support your constitutional rights, but they are masquerading as a trusted resource because they want to shape how you exercise them and dilute your empowerment.

Continue reading “”

How many Americans could pass the new citizenship exam?

  1. Name two important ideas from the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution

  2. Why is the Electoral College important?

  3. The Nation’s first motto was “E Pluribus Unum.” What does that mean?

  4. Why did the United States enter the Persian Gulf War?

  5. Why do U.S. representatives serve shorter terms than U.S. senators

Would-be U.S. citizens will face a much harder exam on civics and history, reports Ariana Baio in The Independent.

Until now, applicants had to answer six of 10 questions correctly from a test bank of 100 questions before the exam. For example, they might be asked to name one First Amendment right, know that the Constitution is “the supreme law of the land,” pick November as the month of presidential elections, identify George Washington as the first president or name one Indian tribe.

Now they’ll have to get 12 of 20 questions correct out of a test bank of 128 questions. There are fewer one-word answers.

The old version included: Who did the U.S. fight in World War II?

The new version: Why did the U.S. fight in World War II?

The new exam resembles a more challenging version released late in 2020, just before Trump’s first term ended. The Biden administration scrapped that test, saying it created too high a barrier for citizenship.

I wonder how the average American would do on the new exam. In fact, I’m not sure most Americans could pass the old one.

Possible answers to the questions above:

  1. Equality. Liberty. Social contract. Natural rights. Limited government. Self-government.

  2. It decides who is elected president. It provides a compromise between the popular election of the president and congressional selection

  3. Out of many, one. We all become one

  4. To force the Iraqi military from Kuwait.

  5. To more closely follow public opinion.

Citizenship should require more than memorizing facts and slogans, argues Santiago Vidal Calvo in City Journal. The higher standards should start with “higher expectations — expanding basic civics and English requirements for permanent residency and certain work visas that have a path to citizenship,” he writes.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is also “changing how it evaluates the “good moral character” requirement for green-card applicants, he writes. As in the Canadian and Australian points-based systems, U.S. immigration officers can now “prioritize applicants with in-demand skill sets, advanced education, English proficiency, and a clear commitment to American civic values.”
“We should encourage newcomers to embrace an American identity,” Calvo writes. “This might include a brief course on U.S. history and civic responsibilities as an application requirement for green cards. We might ask naturalization applicants to write a short essay explaining what America means to them.”

He notes that “three-quarters of naturalized U.S. citizens say they are very proud to be American, compared with 69 percent of native-born Americans.”

Tyler Cowen makes a pitch for admitting high-ability immigrants from China, India and Russia. They’re eager to be Americans — and very good in math.

Well it sure took them long enough……

Kash Patel’s FBI Cuts All Ties to Southern Poverty Law Center

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—The FBI has confirmed that it severed all ties to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a far-left activist group that puts conservatives and Christians on a “hate map” along with Ku Klux Klan chapters. The “hate map” has inspired at least one terrorist attack against a conservative organization.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center long ago abandoned civil rights work and turned into a partisan smear machine,” FBI Director Kash Patel told The Daily Signal in a statement Friday. “Their so-called hate map has been used to defame mainstream Americans and even inspired violence.”

“That disgraceful record makes them unfit for any FBI partnership,” Patel added.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

The FBI confirmed that it has no intelligence products from the SPLC and does not engage in contact or information sharing with the SPLC.

The statement comes days after Patel told Fox News Digital that the FBI had severed ties with the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish nonprofit that opposes antisemitism but also leans left and condemns critics of transgender ideology.

Continue reading “”