CartoonDems

 

Iran Threatens Gulf Retaliation Over Fresh US Strikes

Iran has warned its Gulf neighbors of retaliation if the United States launches fresh strikes against it, raising the stakes of any military action by threatening Washington's closest regional allies.

The warning was delivered through high-level diplomatic contacts after President Donald Trump threatened last week to strike Iran's energy network and infrastructure.

The Times of Israel reported Thursday that the message was conveyed through senior diplomatic channels, citing two senior Iranian officials, two Gulf sources and a senior regional diplomat familiar with the discussions.

Trump canceled the planned strike, which he said would have been the largest military operation since World War II, in hopes of reaching a deal over Iran's nuclear program and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

The strait, through which about one-fifth of global oil shipments pass, has seen commercial shipping largely halted by Iranian attacks on vessels.

The five sources told the Times that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi spoke with his Saudi, Turkish and Qatari counterparts, as well as Pakistan's army chief.

The senior diplomat said Araghchi urged Washington's regional allies to use their influence with Trump to dissuade him from launching renewed strikes, warning that any attack on Iran would prompt retaliation against U.S. assets and energy facilities across the Gulf.

The diplomat said Araghchi's message was consistent in every conversation: "We're ready to retaliate, but finding a diplomatic solution is the best way to avoid wider escalation and destruction across the region."

"The Iranian warning was unequivocal: if America targeted Iran's infrastructure, they would retaliate by striking Gulf energy facilities and other regional targets," a Gulf source told the Times.

One Iranian official told the Times that Tehran's warning made clear that any new U.S. strike would be met with attacks on energy facilities, refineries, electricity grids, water infrastructure, transportation networks, and oil fields across the Gulf.

"The enemy continues to threaten Iranian infrastructure. If Iran suffers damage, it will inflict far greater damage in return," the official said.

"They still remember Saudi Arabia's Aramco," he added, referring to the September 2019 drone and missile attacks on the Abqaiq and Khurais facilities that temporarily knocked out more than half of the kingdom's crude oil production and exposed the vulnerability of the Gulf's energy infrastructure.

The diplomatic maneuvering illustrates Iran's effort to use the threat of a wider regional conflict as leverage against further U.S. strikes, putting Gulf states that host U.S. military bases and rely on energy exports in a difficult position between Washington and Tehran.

Meanwhile, the Tasnim News Agency, affiliated with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, reported Wednesday that U.S. interference and threats by Trump are the main reasons for a delay in reaching an agreement between Iran and Oman regarding the Strait of Hormuz.

"As long as U.S. interference and threats of military action against Iran continue, the agreement will remain delayed," a source told Sepah News, according to Tasnim.

The source emphasized that Iran would not conclude an agreement under the threat of military action.

Esmaeil Baqaei, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, has said negotiations with Oman are focused on establishing secure shipping routes while safeguarding the sovereign rights and security interests of both countries.

Sources familiar with the talks told Tasnim the proposed arrangement would allow Iran to oversee inbound maritime traffic through an Iranian-controlled shipping lane while maintaining visibility over outbound traffic.

Iran also would retain the authority to intervene when necessary to protect security and navigation.

Under the reported framework, vessels departing the Persian Gulf would transit through a lane jointly managed with Oman, with final exit clearance issued by Omani authorities after notifying Tehran.

Reports also have indicated that the negotiations include plans to establish a new "middle corridor" in the Strait of Hormuz to replace the existing northern and southern shipping lanes.

The proposed mechanism also would include security and environmental service fees and would be linked to the removal of U.S. restrictions targeting Iranian ports.

Michael Katz ✉

Michael Katz is a Newsmax reporter with more than 30 years of experience reporting and editing on news, culture, and politics.

© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

 

Media Tries to Show Deportations Are Costly, Accidentally Proves Trump Is Saving Americans Thousands

A new report from Axios highlighted the projected cost of President Trump’s deportation efforts, putting the figure at roughly $2,358 per American taxpayer.

The number is meant to scare off families looking to make ends meet in a tight economy. It is presented as evidence that the removals represent a heavy burden on the public. 

 

Even better, the report suggests that the savings could be better served, not in the pockets of the American people, but rather by filtering it back into welfare programs such as food assistance, healthcare, or housing. 

This is particularly rich when considering federal authorities have repeatedly charged illegal aliens with fraud schemes involving stolen identities to illegally claim SNAP, Medicaid, and other benefits.

 

"In almost every place in the country, there (are) a lot of people who are struggling to not be hungry, to have affordable housing, 

 kids are in overcrowded classrooms, people don't have health insurance, and those are the things that matter most," Gordon Lafer, a professor at the University of Oregon's Labor Education and Research Center, tells Axios.

"Instead, we're spending an unbelievable amount of money, chasing down, detaining, deporting people," he added. "It costs money that is desperately needed for other things in almost every community in the country."

Yet, when set against long-standing data on the annual fiscal impact of illegal immigration, a different picture emerges. Axios is referencing a one-time charge for a deportation, essentially.

Studies compiled by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) show illegal-immigrant households impose net costs of about $1,156 per taxpayer every year. Other estimates place the yearly burden even higher when benefits, education, and emergency services are included. 

“Illegal immigration costs each American taxpayer $1,156 per year ($957 after factoring in taxes paid by illegal aliens)," AEI writes. "Each illegal alien or U.S.-born child of illegal aliens costs the U.S. $8,776 annually.”

Over a decade, those recurring expenses would far exceed the one-time deportation cost cited by Axios. In effect, their attempt to quantify the price of removals accidentally highlights the long-term savings that result from them. Amazing work. Accidental journalism, even.

The numbers don’t lie. A one-time cost of a couple thousand dollars per taxpayer to remove people who were never supposed to be in this country in the first place is a veritable bargain next to the endless annual drain of benefits, education, and emergency services.

Keep moving forward with these deportations, President Trump. You're doing exactly what leaders are supposed to do — protecting the wallets of hardworking Americans instead of indefinitely subsidizing illegal immigration. 

The savings will compound year after year, and ordinary taxpayers will be the ones who finally catch a break.

 

AOC Gets All Stompy Feet With AIPAC Over Michigan Senate Race, and They Let Her Have It

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has become persona non grata for an increasing number of Democrat public figures and wacktivists, primarily for having the audacity to oppose candidates who are anti-Israel and/or otherwise work against the safety and security interests of the millions of Jewish people who call America home.

The bad blood between Democrats and AIPAC has gotten so intense that even some Israel-supporting Democrats, including Jewish Dems, have actively worked to distance themselves from AIPAC in the course of their political campaigns. This is something we saw, for instance, in a mid-April announcement from failed Michigan Senate candidate Mallory McMorrow (D), a state senator whose husband is Jewish.

 

Later that same month, McMorrow would learn the hard way that her coddling did not pay off, revealing that her husband and their young daughter, who they are raising in the Jewish faith, faced antisemitic slurs at the Michigan Democrat endorsement convention. McMorrow, by the way, is now campaigning for Michigan's Democrat Senate nominee, Abdul El-Sayed.

---

SEE ALSO: 'Poetica' Justice: What a Woke NYC Coffee Shop Told a Jewish Congressman Just Got the DOJ's Attention

---

Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), like many other Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) members, is also not an AIPAC fan, nor did she support Israel's right to defend itself after the Hamas terrorist attacks on 10/7/23, a position that earned her a membership in the notorious House Hamas Caucus.

On Wednesday, it was reported that AIPAC was hinting that it was preparing to boost the candidacy of Trump-backed GOP Michigan Senate nominee Mike Rogers, 

 

an Army veteran and former congressman, in a bid to thwart the DSA-backed El-Sayed, the Democrats' anti-America, anti-Israel choice for Senate.

This did not sit well with AOC, who got all stompy feet:

Keep in mind that the press release from AIPAC shared by Solender contained the names of numerous Democrats whom AIPAC congratulated on their primary victories, Democrats whom they had supported, while expressing disappointment that Rep. Haley Stevens (MI-11) - who they backed - did not win the primary against El-Sayed.

But AOC seemed to be anointing herself as the gatekeeper for which American voices should and should not have a seat at the table, with Jews needing to be left out of the equation, in her view. No Jewish voices allowed. Gosh, it sure does sound so sickeningly familiar, doesn't it?

AIPAC let her have it in their response, noting it was Democrats like her, not them, who were undermining democracy:

Congresswoman: Trying to score political points by demonizing pro-Israel Americans – including millions of Democrats who are AIPAC members – is outrageous, transparent, and pathetic. Your obsession with singling out our members and their rights to participate in the political process undermines democracy.

Yes, AIPAC members have serious policy and political disagreements with you. Our members fight to help elect leaders who share their values – including scores of Democrats and members of the Progressive Caucus; while you fight for the Democratic Party tent to be big enough to include those who say America deserved 9/11, but small enough to exclude those who want America to stand with our democratic ally.

AIPAC members advocate for strengthening a U.S.-Israel relationship that makes Americans safer, stronger, and more prosperous; while you advocate to weaken America and an alliance that advances our interests.

AIPAC members back elected leaders who support a partnership that helps protect our troops and homeland, creates American jobs, and provides us with innovations that improve Americans' healthcare and access to cleaner water and safer food; while you want to break off the bilateral programs that benefit America and individual citizens in every state and district – including your own.

AIPAC members support elected leaders who promote an alliance built on shared values of democracy, women's rights, free speech, equality, and opportunity for all its citizens no matter their faith, race, or background; while you want America to distance itself from the only stable and diverse democracy in a region where most will never have the chance to cast a vote.

AIPAC members support elected leaders who stand with a partner who is painfully confronting terrorists who pride themselves on killing as many Israelis – and Americans – as possible; while you want to prevent our military from working together with an ally that can help keep us safe in an increasingly dangerous and ever-changing world.

AIPAC members support elected leaders who work together with Israel to bring peace and coexistence to a region that has known far too much war and death; while you want to spread dangerous lies about Israel and isolate it from the world.

AIPAC members are proud Americans who will continue to fully participate in our democracy, whether you like it or not.

Keep in mind, too, that as a card-carrying member of the DSA, AOC is by the very definition undermining democracy and American values, because the DSA wants to, among other things, abolish the Senate, the Supreme Court, our borders, all admittedly in the name of advancing communism.

Don't believe me? They said it themselves:

And yet this woman has the nerve to lecture anyone about "undermining democracy"??

Tell ya what, AOC. You keep doing your thing by trying to appease radical candidates, elected officials, and groups who would love nothing more than to see you wearing a hijab every day while giving speeches defending Islam in front of groups of men in places women aren't allowed, while the men behind you talk over you as if you weren't even there:

Don't go away mad, AOC. Just go away, and take your Useful Idiocy along with you, please.

Editor's Note: President Trump is leading America into the "Golden Age" as Democrats try desperately to stop it.  

 

Mamdani Sent Scurrying Off Stage As NYPD Night Out Crowd Boos, Forces Him to Flee

Guess it's not just people at the 9/11 memorial who don't want to see this grinning snake. 

New York City Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (Communist) received a hostile reception Tuesday night at Staten Island’s annual National Night Out Against Crime celebration. So hostile that his time on stage had to be measured in seconds, not minutes.

The 43rd annual NYPD National Night Out Against Crime drew more than 3,500 residents and families to Midland Beach. But one individual was clearly not welcome.

Mamdani arrived late in the evening and began making his way toward the stage. Sections of the crowd immediately erupted in loud boos, jeers, and shouts for him to leave, with some using profanities. Because, why not? This is Staten Island after all.

His remarks were brief, but Zohran kept his trademark vapid smile throughout.

“Happy Night Out Against Crime," he said. "It’s amazing to be here for the Staten Island community."

So amazing, he promptly fled the stage.

"Mayor Zohran Mamdani received a decidedly chilly reception from some Staten Islanders Tuesday night, drawing loud boos, jeers and profanities ... As the mayor made his way to the stage, sections of the crowd erupted in boos, with some attendees shouting for him to leave," Staten Island Live reported.

The New York Post added, "The carefully polished Mamdani — who is known for soaking up the public spotlight and delivering bloated speeches — embarrassingly spoke for less than a minute."

With this reaction, concerns about Mamdani's presence at the 25th anniversary ceremony commemorating the 9/11 terror attacks are only going to be amplified. A group of 9/11 families has insisted that the Muslim mayor has no place at the event.

Families behind the effort say they’re alarmed by Mayor Mamdani’s track record — especially the praise he’s given Imam Siraj Wahhaj, who was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing — along with prior comments blaming the United States for radicalizing al-Qaeda propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki, his appointment of a chief counsel who previously defended an al-Qaeda terrorist, and his endorsement of candidates who have minimized 9/11.

If people have this kind of reaction at an NYPD event, what might happen at Ground Zero?

A petition launched by the families has already gathered more than 77,000 verified signatures.

Mamdani was recently snubbed from speaking at the funeral of a Queens soldier killed in an Iranian attack, as well. Now, he's being chased out of relatively benign public events.

The visceral sustained booing and rapid exit from the stage at a major public event in Staten Island reveal that Mamdani’s support is far narrower than the glowing media coverage often suggests. There are some parts of the city that reject this terror-adjacent, communist.

Editor’s Note: New York City is now facing the consequences of Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s socialist takeover.

 

Nate Silver's Thoughts on the Michigan Primary...and the Last One Is a Bit Lofty

It was a long night for some folks watching the Michigan primary. Abdul El-Sayed won, narrowly defeating Rep. Haley Stevens. In the end, AES came out ahead by less than a point. It was a far cry from the Battle of Hattin-like slaughter pollsters and pro-AES folks were chirping about in the waning days of the campaign. The entire slate of polls was not good, which Nate Silver pointed out with his 11 observations. 

He did note that this is a significant win for the far left, regardless of everything, considering that AES’s most recent move into public life was a 22-point defeat at the hands of Gretchen Whitmer. There shouldn’t be any talk of Stevens being a poor candidate; she was elected to four terms from her district with strong margins. Unfortunately, she needed to boost her support in her home county of Oakland but faced a problem: wealthy white suburbanites developing a case of neo-Trotsky fever. 

This faction within the Democrat Party is increasingly shifting to the left and becoming more unhinged. Polling the anti-El-Sayed vote will be difficult since it mostly consists of black working-class and rural voters. Silver mentioned that while progressives are gaining strength, Democrats are not yet in ‘bend the knee’ territory; for example, Cori Bush lost her bid for a political comeback in Missouri. That last point may be a bit optimistic [emphasis mine]:

• We should start by acknowledging that an El-Sayed win by any margin is a significant accomplishment. It’s not exactly surprising, given the success of more progressive candidates elsewhere and that he’s been ahead in the polls for a couple of months now. But this is a guy whose only previous attempt at elected office resulted in a 22-point loss to Gretchen Whitmer in the 2018 Michigan gubernatorial primary. Michigan, where I’m from, isn’t New York City or some super liberal district in Colorado. This is a big W for progressives in a purple state.
• With that said, I think AES and some of his supporters are guilty of managing expectations very poorly. Some of the polls I mentioned were from firms affiliated with El-Sayed’s campaign. I don’t understand the utility of publishing internal polls showing yourself ahead by double digits — personally, if I ran a campaign, I’d make it a strict policy to never release internal polls, which are often highly misleading. And if you’re going to do that, you probably ought to come closer than within ~10 points of the actual result. El-Sayed has also predicted a big win for himself against Mike Rogers, who won the Republican nomination uncontested tonight, but who is a relatively moderate Republican for the Trump Era. As someone who can be a little trollish himself, and is sometimes accused of being cocky, I’ve kind of vibed with AES’s confidence on some level, but I’m also not running for office and would be a terrible candidate if I did.1
• […]
• Instead, a very narrow AES win is in the sweet spot of the “second-guessing zone” for the Democratic establishment. Instead of accepting that they have a lot of problems, they’re going to ask what they might have done differently. Mallory McMorrow actually got 4 percent of the vote despite dropping out (so El-Sayed isn’t likely to hit 50 percent). What if she had endorsed Stevens? Or what if she had been the nominee? With some very notable exceptions such as Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a lot of the Democratic establishment, including Michigan incumbent Sen. Elissa Slotkin, stayed on the sidelines in the race.2 I don’t necessarily know that their endorsements would have helped Stevens, especially since a lot of El-Sayed’s rhetoric was about how the Democratic establishment, AIPAC and wealthy donors had been putting a heavy finger on the scale.3 But the establishment might regard this as a game in which they took the starters out at halftime, and almost won anyway, rather than one they were destined to lose the whole time.
• It’s clear that progressives are rising in the Democratic Party overall. But it’s also clear that there’s a fair amount of race-by-race variance. Just tonight, in Missouri’s 1st congressional district, former Squad member Cori Bush lost to a moderate Democrat by 22 points in a comeback bid, while one of the most moderate Democrats in the House, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, easily advanced to the general election in Washington’s 3rd district. Roy Cooper is the Democratic nominee in North Carolina, and that hasn’t been particularly contentious. The media likes simple narratives, and “progressives rising” is by no means wrong, but nobody should be bending the knee at this point.
• With that said, there’s a fair amount of cope in establishment circles too. Stevens loses? Well, a lot of establishment types will just assert that she was a bad candidate. Andrew Cuomo? Bad candidate. Janet Mills? Bad candidate. These things are rarely so obvious in advance, though. Stevens won election to the House four times in a suburban Detroit district with perfectly normal margins, for instance.
• […]
• Further, the whole trajectory of polling in this race was weird. At one point, the McMorrow campaign successfully pressured a small news outlet into quashing a poll that showed them way behind. At another point, El-Sayed falsely accused a different pollster that had Stevens narrowly ahead of having been funded by AIPAC. Many of the pollsters in this race have mediocre pollster ratings, aren’t rated at all because they’re new, or aren’t used by Silver Bulletin because they don’t meet our standards for professional polling firms. There can sometimes be cases of the blind leading the blind in polling, producing a lot of herding toward a sometimes very wrong consensus. The constant, frankly often very amateurish “discourse” about polling on Twitter and elsewhere on social media doesn’t help matters either. There are fewer and fewer pollsters I trust to do their own thing, instead of being influenced by “the narrative”.
• With that said, Congressional primaries are hard to poll, and Michigan is a particularly hard state to poll for various reasons. Among them: a) Stevens’s best groups were probably rural white voters and working-class Black voters, two groups that are notoriously hard to reach in surveys; b) AES was counting on big turnout from younger voters, but they often don’t turn out in big numbers in primaries; c) I think it’s pretty clear that AES had the more enthusiastic supporters, but this is a mixed indicator because of non-response bias: more enthusiastic voters might be more likely to vote, but may also be proportionately even more likely to participate in surveys when what you might call “Shy Stevens” voters don’t; d) Michigan has a reasonably large Arab-American population, but not large enough to yield a reliable crosstab in (say) a 600-person survey, so instead Arab-Americans routinely fall between the cracks in opinion research.
• Tonight is probably bearish for Democrats in the general election, but I wouldn’t overstate that. I’ve always thought people are too eager to derive implications about general election strength from primary results. Part of the reason that Democratic voters are moving to the left is that moderate voters are leaving the party, and AES will need to win them in the general election. If you’re a Silver Bulletin reader who happens to be a Democrat, one positive would be if El-Sayed takes tonight’s results as a signal that he needs to be more conciliatory between now and November.

Yeah, I don’t think he’s going to moderate, Nate. I know that’s the logical play, but this operation is fraught with well, folks who are not that. 

 

That Time Things Got Heated Between Bill Maher and This Pro-Palestinian Activist

It’s an old clip, but it’s still relevant, as radical Islamic terrorism is still a threat, and we’re seeing an uptick in antisemitism, pro-Hamas, and all-around whack job candidacies emerge from within the Democrat Party. 

In 2014, Bill Maher and pro-Palestinian Rula Jebreal had a heated exchange about Islam. Maher has always been outspoken against radical Islam, was upset that Mohammed was among the top names for newborns in England, and refuses to bow to political correctness on the issue. He has been expressing his opinions on this for over a generation. At that time, he was disinvited from delivering a commencement speech at UC Berkeley because of his views on Islam, although the administration overruled the students. It’s when Jebreal issued a thinly-veiled remark that Maher’s points were bigoted that things got going. Also, sorry, she said you could be gay in Gaza — lady, that’s patently false:

“Bill Maher and Rula Jebreal's Debate on Islam Took a Heated Turn Live on Air.”

Rula Jebreal: Would you accept an openly anti-Semitic person to give a commencement speech to Jewish students? I actually would not.

Bill Maher: Even Reza Aslan says I'm not a bigot, so I resent the… pic.twitter.com/X8VpnXqTiR

— Jeff (@_Jeffery0) August 1, 2026

Rula Jebreal: Would you accept an openly anti-Semitic person to give a commencement speech to Jewish students? I actually would not.

Bill Maher: Even Reza Aslan says I'm not a bigot, so I resent the idea that I'm comparable to an anti-Semite. All I've ever done is read facts.

Rula Jebreal: What facts? You never invited... I'm sorry, Bill.

You're comparing Jihadists, Salafists, Sunnis... You don't know the difference. You're putting all Muslims into one bucket, including secular Muslims. And when you talk about them that way, Bill, it's offensive.

Bill Maher: But it's okay to be offensive.

Sen. Angus King: That's what free speech is all about. If free speech is only speech you like, it's not free speech.

Rula Jebreal: He was invited to give a commencement speech, not a debate. If you want a debate, I'll gladly join you anywhere.

Sen. Angus. King: He was invited to be a commencement speaker, and then people didn't like what he said.

Bill Maher: Can you be gay in Gaza? And live?

Rula Jebreal: Yes, you can. Absolutely. You're comparing the majority of Muslim countries to places like Saudi Arabia.

Bill Maher: Is there a gay bar in Gaza?

Rula Jebreal: I travel the Middle East. This is what I do for a living. You're comparing all Muslim societies as if they're the same.

Gen. Wesley Clark: I think this is really about whether someone can be invited to give a speech. People may agree or disagree, but that's the American system. People should be allowed to speak.

Rula Jebreal: The Muslim community in this country is being treated like a fifth column, and they're not. 

They feel threatened, they're underrepresented in the media and politics, and you never invite them here to discuss these issues.

Bill Maher: Never invite them? You're here. Reza is here. They're here all the time.

Rula Jebreal: On these issues.

Bill Maher: Every time I say something you don't like, suddenly it's not a serious conversation or I'm a bigot. That doesn't work for me.

Rula Jebreal: I don't want a war on Islam. I want to win the war on terror. 

But when you repeat the same things Al-Qaeda used to say—that this is a war on Islam—you're doing their work for them.

My father was Muslim. He was Sufi. You don't even know the difference between Sufi, Sunni Shafi'i, or Sunni Hanbali.

Bill Maher: Yeah, I do.

Rula Jebreal: For you, we're all Jihadists.

Bill Maher: I know that in many places around the world, if you left your religion, there would be consequences.

Would it be okay for someone to say, "You know what? I'm a Presbyterian today?"

You can’t have a serious conversation when this exchange was anything but, and I’m not talking about Bill. 

Dear Lord. 

Bill Maher: Can you be gay in Gaza? And live?

Rula Jebreal: Yes, you can. Absolutely. You're comparing the majority of Muslim countries to places like Saudi Arabia.

Bill Maher: Is there a gay bar in Gaza? https://t.co/XKGY3rcJuZ pic.twitter.com/6RkS8lWeMW

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) August 2, 2026

 

Mo. Primary: Ex-'Squad' member Cori Bush defeated again by Rep. Wesley Bell

Former U.S. Representative Cori Bush, a prominent progressive and former “Squad” member, lost her primary rematch to incumbent Democrat Rep. Wesley Bell in Missouri’s 1^st Congressional District. 

According to Associated Press (AP) race calls, Bell secured the Democrat nomination by more than 20% points.

“I am honored and grateful that the people of Missouri’s First Congressional District have continued to put their trust in me to represent them in Congress,” Wesley posted to X on Tuesday.

“St. Louis is up against a president that is coming after our healthcare, our due process, and the paychecks of working families…The St. Louis region is a sleeping giant that is poised to become a major metropolitan area once again, a destination for families to live, work, and start a business,” he continued.

The result mirrors their 2024 matchup, when Bell defeated Bush to end her bid for a third term. Bell now advances to the November general election against Republican nominee Paul Berry III, whose platform centers on opposition to Democratic socialism.

“The City of St. Louis has become infected with socialist politicians and public policy responsible for DESTROYING Eastern Missouri,” the site said. “Paul Berry III is THE MAVERICK taking on corrupt elected officials and failed government in the St. Louis region.”

 

President Donald Trump Saves Toddler, Lands Biden Zinger

President Donald Trump turned a routine campaign stop in Las Vegas into a short, sweet lesson in instincts and optics. While touting his “no tax on tips” policy and new “Trump Accounts,” he also saved a little boy from wandering off the stage — and then landed a punchline aimed at President Joe Biden that the crowd loved. It was a small moment, but it summed up exactly how the president wants voters to see him: quick, practical, and still the showman who knows how to own a scene.

A tiny rescue, big political payoff

The rally at the Red Rock Casino 

 

was meant to highlight how Trump’s policies help everyday families. A local waitress and a police officer were brought onstage to thank the president for tax changes that left more money in their pockets. Their little boy got curious, moved toward the stage edge, and that’s when the president stepped in. He whisked the child back to safety, showed a human side, and then jabbed at President Joe Biden with a line that landed like a mic drop.

Policy pitch, punchline

This was not just theater. The visit was built around real policy wins the campaign wants to sell: no tax on tips and the so-called Trump Accounts for kids. But the moment that people remember wasn’t the bill number or the tax code — it was a man acting like a protector, then turning the moment into a political beat. The quip about President Joe Biden falling off the stage was cheeky and sharp. Some will call it low, others will call it honest politics. Either way, it worked.

Why voters notice moments like this

Voters react to personality as much as to policy. That’s been true for years, and President Donald Trump knows it better than most. A short clip of him grabbing a kid and cracking a joke spreads fast on social video platforms. It humanizes him, gives his supporters a feel-good clip, and makes the media scramble for angles. Meanwhile, Republicans should use these moments to steer the conversation back to real gains: more take-home pay and new ways to save for kids.

It’s easy to mock campaign theater. But politics is about connection, and this week’s scene in Las Vegas delivered that in thirty seconds flat. President Donald Trump walked the line between leader and entertainer, and the public liked what they saw. If Democrats want to compete, they’ll need more than policy paper and press releases — they’ll need the kind of clear, relatable wins that make voters smile and remember why they care.

 

Ninth Circuit Forces $11B Loan Forgiveness for 170K Borrowers

The Ninth Circuit just slapped down the Department of Education and cleared the way for mass student loan discharges tied to the long‑running “Sweet” borrower‑defense settlement. In plain English: federal judges refused to give the Department more time, which means tens of thousands of borrowers who say for‑profit schools cheated them will soon see balances wiped and refunds issued under the settlement’s automatic‑approval rule.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling and what it requires

The appeals court unanimously affirmed the lower court’s refusal to modify the 2022 settlement terms. The Department had asked for an 18‑month extension to keep reviewing so‑called post‑settlement borrower‑defense applications, arguing resource limits and changed circumstances. The court disagreed, noting the Department knew what it signed up for and failed to show a legal reason to rewrite the deal. Because the deadline was missed, the settlement’s automatic‑relief mechanism kicks in for the affected claims.

Who wins: borrowers — and who pays?

Plaintiffs’ lawyers and advocacy groups say the settlement now covers more than half a million borrowers and roughly $23 billion in relief. The cohort immediately affected by the court’s denial is about 170,000 borrowers; the Department has estimated that discharges and refunds tied to that group total roughly $11 billion (plus some refunds). The Education Department protested that the deadline was “unrealistic,” but it’s hard to sympathize when the agency agreed to the timeline and then missed it. Courthouse reality: agreements have teeth, and judges enforce them.

Policy problems conservatives should notice

This ruling is right as a matter of law, but it highlights a policy mess conservatives should not ignore. We should defend victims of outright fraud at for‑profit colleges — they deserve relief and restitution. But we should also demand accountability from the Education Department and the universities that caused the harm. A settlement that shifts huge, predictable costs onto taxpayers while letting bad actors avoid full responsibility is not conservative fiscal management. Congress should tighten oversight of for‑profit schools, require clearer restitution paths from institutions, and stop delegating massive education‑spending decisions to settlement lawyers and the executive branch.

Bottom line

The Ninth Circuit enforced the settlement, and automatic loan discharges will proceed unless some other court intervenes. Borrowers who won their claims will see relief; taxpayers will feel the bill. If Washington keeps solving complex policy questions with courtroom deals and vague deadlines, expect more last‑minute crises—and more judges stepping in to clean up the mess.